Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no Apologies for Absence.

1.         Disclosable pecuniary interests (“DPI”)

A  DPI is where a committee member or his/her spouse or partner has any kind of beneficial interest in the land under consideration at the meeting.

 2.        Non-disclosable pecuniary interests

These are interests that are pecuniary involving a  personal financial benefit or detriment but do not come within the definition of a DPI.  An example would be where a member of their family/close friend (who is not their spouse or partner) has such an interest.

3.         Non-pecuniary interests

Where the interest is not one which involves any personal financial benefit or detriment to the Councillor but arises out of a close connection with someone or some  body /association.  An example would be membership of a sports committee/ membership of another council which is involved in the matter under consideration.

Councillor David McCraith declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 7 (S/2224/16/OL - Monkfield Nutrition, High Street, Shingay-cum-Wendy). Councillor McCraith had attended meetings, as a District Councillor, at which this application had been discussed, but was considering the matter afresh.

Councillor Des O’Brien declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to Minute 4 (9S/2903/14/OL- Cambourne [Land to the West of Cambourne (Excluding Swansley Wood Farm)]. Councillor O’Brien had sought advice from legal and governance officers at South Cambridgeshire District Council. The advice given related to a written objection to this application that Councillor O’Brien had made to the Planning Department in February 2015, before he had been elected as a District Councillor, or become a member of the Planning Committee. Councillor O’Brien said that this put him, and the Council, at risk of a charge of predetermination. He hoped and expected that his fellow Councillors were comfortable with their own impartiality in order to  avoid similar accusations in the future. After addressing the Committee not as a Planning Committee member but as a District Councillor for Bourn Ward, within which this application had been made, Councillor Des O’Brien withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate, and did not vote.

Councillors Sebastian Kindersley and Deborah Roberts sought clarification about the need for Councillor O’bRien to make this declaration, as it resulted from a comment made before he became a Councillor. Preventing Councillor O’Brien from taking part in the debate was, in effect, disenfranchising both him and those he represented. In reply, the Deputy Monitoring Officer said that the decision as to whether or not to take part in the consideration of Cambourne West was one for Councillor O’Brien alone, after taking into account the implications for both South Cambridgeshire District Council and for him as an individual.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2016 as a correct record.

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2016, subject to the following:

Minute 8 – S/2148/16/OL – Foxton (Land to the rear of 7 – 37 Station Road)

Delete the reference, in Point 1 of the resolution, to “…Dovecote benches…” and insert instead the words “…benches in Dovecote meadow…”.

Development of up to 2,350 residential units including affordable housing; retail, use classes A1-A5 (up to 1.04 ha); offices/light industry, use class B1 (up to 5.66ha); community and leisure facilities, use class D1 and D2 (up to 0.92 ha); Two primary schools and one secondary school (up to 11.28 ha), use class D1; three vehicular access points including the extension and modification of Sheepfold Lane, a four arm roundabout provided on A1198/Caxton Bypass and an access point off the A1198, south of the Caxton Gibbet to serve the proposed employment uses; a network of segregated pedestrian and cycle routes; sustainable drainage system and other infrastructure; together with associated earth works, parking, open space, including equipped play, playing fields and landscaping.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the outline planning application, including parameter plan and detailed access drawings, subject to:

1.       The prior completion, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms document attached as Appendix 2 to the report from the Heads of New Communities; and

2.       The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Head of New Communities, final wording to be determined in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee before issuing the Decision Notice.

Members visited the site on 10 January 2017.

Officers gave a presentation focussing on

·        Context

·        Submission Local Plan allocation

·        Topography and existing features

·        Original submission – December 2014

·        Amendments – August 2015

·        Various Parameter plans

·        Sheepfold Lane access

·        A1198 / Caxton Bypass roundabout design

·        A1198 employment access design

·        Section 106 draft Heads of Terms

·        Viability and affordable housing

Arising from the presentation, Members raised specific concerns about the amount of affordable housing, viability, and the need to make sure that Sheepfold Lane was suitable as an access in terms of carriageway width and the amount of traffic expected to use it. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that Sheepfold Lane would not be used as a haul road.

Ben Coles (representing the applicant), Councillor Janet Molloy (Caxton Parish Council), John Vickery (Clerk to, and agent for, Cambourne Parish Council) and Councillor Simon Crocker (a local Member) addressed the meeting. In addition, Councillor Des O’Brien (a local Member and member of the Planning Committee) addressed the meeting, having made the following statement:

“Following advice from legal and governance officers here at the council I will be removing myself from the committee debate and vote on agenda item 4 - Cambourne (land to the west of Cambourne). This advice relates to a written objection to this application that I made to the Planning Department in February 2015 before I was either a District Councillor, or a member of the Planning Committee. This puts me, and the council, at risk of a charge of predetermination. I hope and expect that my fellow councillors are comfortable with their own impartiality in order to avoid similar accusations in the future.”

Ben Coles described the proposal as a logical extension to the existing community of Cambourne. He indicated that the intention would be to begin delivery within 12 months of consent being granted for the first Reserved Matters application.  The aim was to ensure sustainable growth, and enhance the quality of life in a thriving and expanding community, The proposal would deliver local infrastructure, and its design would ensure good integration with the existing Cambourne villages. In response to Members’ questions of clarification, Mr. Coles said that

·        the applicant and Local Planning Authority had agreed that affordable housing should represent 30% of the total number of dwellings in this case, in view of viability constraints

·        it was too soon to give an indication as to the specific type of dwellings to be built, but that the point had been taken that Cambourne had a shifting demographic

·        subject to approval of Reserved Matters, the intention was to be on site quickly, with the aim of delivering about 250 dwellings over a five-year period

·        note had been taken of the contribution made by the Wildlife Trust in maintaining green space throughout the existing three Cambourne villages

Councillor Janet Molloy referred to the likely adverse impact on Caxton in terms of quality of life and extra traffic demands on the roads. Caxton Parish Council was concerned by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Temporary Change of Use of land for vehicular parking and erection of signage for 5 years

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informative set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development.

Michael Turner (Facilities Management Manager with South Cambridgeshire District Council) addressed the meeting. He said that, with additional tenants moving into South Cambs Hall, there was a need to find extra car parking. The proposed spaces would be available for use by anyone working in the building. Access to the parking spaces would be from the southern end and egress via Sheepfold Lane. It would be a “one-way system”.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informative set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development.

Councillor Deborah Roberts abstained from voting.

Outline planning permission for the erection of up to 99 dwellings with associated access, infrastructure and open space. All matters reserved with the exception of the means of access

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Head of Development Management. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being that

1.     The harm resulting from safety concerns relating to the proposed pedestrian access from the north eastern corner of the site, along Fen Drayton Road, was not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme; and

2. notwithstanding the proposal in the emerging Local Plan to upgrade Swavesey to a Minor Rural Centre, there were significant infrastructure capacity issues (specifically primary and secondary education, foul drainage, traffic volumes and health) due to the cumulative impact of development within the village, giving rise to concerns about sustainability.

Members visited the site on 10 January 2017.

Stuart Websdale (objector), Nicky Parsons (applicant’s agent), Councillor Will Wright (Swavesey Parish Council) and Councillor Sue Ellington (local Member) addressed the meeting. Mr. Websdale said that development must be shown to be sustainable, with a transport strategy being in place. Nicky Parsons commended the sustainable nature of the development and said it posed no negative impact. Councillor Wright said that infrastructure in the village was already at capacity. The Parish Council had concerns about traffic and drainage. Councillor Ellington said there were insufficient facilities, citing in particular pressure on the Doctors surgery and on the school.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Head of Development Management. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being that

1.     The harm resulting from safety concerns relating to the proposed pedestrian access from the north eastern corner of the site, along Fen Drayton Road, was not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme; and

2. notwithstanding the proposal in the emerging Local Plan to upgrade Swavesey to a Minor Rural Centre, there were significant infrastructure capacity issues (specifically primary and secondary education, foul drainage, traffic volumes and health) due to the cumulative impact of development within the village, giving rise to concerns about sustainability.

Outline planning Permission for the development of up to 10 dwellings all matters reserved except for access.

The Committee approved the application subject to

1. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing

2. The Conditions referred to in the report from the Head of Development Management;

3. Additional Conditions securing limits to developable area and extent of open space through compliance with the parameter plan; and

4. An Informative requesting the establishment of a liaison committee

Members visited the site on 10 January 2017.

Joe Wise (applicant, accompanied by his agent, Marcia Whitehead), Chris Jennings (agent for Shingay-cum-Wendy Parish Meeting) and Councillor Nigel Cathcart addressed the meeting. Mr. Wise said that the current application represented the minimum needed to finance the relocation of the commercial operation currently on site.  He pointed out that 78% of the parish favoured a residential use for the site. Chris Jennings wondered whether the vehicular access proposed was appropriately sized. Councillor Cathcart favoured a reduction in the number of dwellings to eight, and said a Design Guide was important.

Councillor David McCraith (as the other local Member) said that redevelopment of this brownfield site would result in an improvement in quality of life for neighbouring residents.

Arising out of the Committee debate was the suggestion that a local liaison group be established.

The Committee approved the application subject to

1. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing

2. The Conditions referred to in the report from the Head of Development Management;

3. Additional Conditions securing limits to developable area and extent of open space through compliance with the parameter plan; and

4. An Informative requesting the establishment of a liaison committee

Outline application for the development of up to 50 dwellings and 20 allotments including open space (all matters reserved)

The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Outline application for the development of up to 8 dwellings including access

Following public speaking and Committee debate, and owing to exceptional circumstances, the Chairman deferred the application.

Members visited the site on 10 January 2017.

Justin Bainton (applicant’s agent), Councillor Bernie Talbot (Great Abington Parish Council) and Councillor Tony Orgee (local Member) addressed the meeting. Mr. Bainton highlighted the positive engagement that had taken place, and commended the application as sustainable, and consistent with local planning policy. Councillor Talbot pointed out that the proposal was outside the Village Framework and on land forming part of the former Land Settlement Association (LSA). The Parish Council was currently preparing a Neighbourhood Plan for the LSA, and regretted that this planning application could not have waited until the Neighbourhood Plan was in place. Councillor Orgee spoke against the application and said he was concerned by the precedent this application might set for the remainder of the former LSA.

During the ensuing Committee debate, a comment was made by Councillor Deborah Roberts to the case officer. Several other Councillors invited Councillor Roberts to apologise. Following a short adjournment, during which the case officer left the Chamber, Councillor Roberts did apologise to the Chairman and Committee, although the case officer had still not returned. Councillor Roberts said she regretted the incident, pointing out that it had been a long day, and emphasising that she had not intended any suggestion that she doubted the case officer’s professionalism or integrity.

In the absence of any certainty as to whether the case officer would return to the Chamber, the Planning Lawyer advised the Chairman that he, the Chairman, should consider the possibility of deferral. With the inferred consent of the Committee, the application was deferred, and the applicant and his agent left the Chamber. The case officer re-joined the meeting, and Councillor Roberts repeated the apology that she had made earlier. The question was raised whether the item could continue in such circumstances. Members were told that this would not be possible as the applicant and agent had already left the Chamber.

Demolition of the existing pavilion and development of a new sports pavilion, two fenced and flood lit artificial turf pitches, additional acoustic fencing, car, coach and cycle parking and associated landscaping and access improvements

The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Reserved matters for 36 dwellings

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Head of Development Management.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Head of Development Management.

Variation of Planning Obligation (Affordable housing tenure mix

The Committee gave officers  delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (dated 13 November 2015) being modified to require an affordable housing tenure mix of 50% affordable rented and 50% intermediate / shared ownership.

The Affordable Housing Officer reiterated that the approved scheme, comprising 40% affordable housing with a tenure mix of 70% social rented and 30% intermediate/shared ownership, was no longer viable because of affordable rent reductions. This submitted alternative scheme of 40% affordable housing with a tenure mix of 50% social rented and 50% intermediate/shared ownership was viable. The trigger point in the Section 106 Agreement was approaching. The Planning Lawyer reminded Members that the Section 106 Agreement, as originally drafted, referred to a 70 / 30 split “…or as otherwise agreed…”.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (dated 13 November 2015) being modified to require an affordable housing tenure mix of 50% affordable rented and 50% intermediate / shared ownership.

Outline planning application for erection of a single dwelling following demolition of garages.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Head of Development Management.

There was some concern about the stability of the bank of the ditch should the trees to the south of the site be removed. The Case Officer reported that those trees were outside the development site, and would remain the responsibility of South Cambridgeshire District Council, which already had responsibility for maintaining the ditch.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Head of Development Management.

The Committee received and noted an Update on enforcement action.    

The Committee received and noted a report on Appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action.