Agenda, decisions and minutes

For the benefit of members of the public viewing the live webcast of the meeting, the Chair introduced Committee members and officers in attendance.

He explained that this meeting of the Planning Committee was being held virtually and asked for patience bearing in mind the challenges posed by the technology in use and by the new meeting skills required.

The Chair confirmed that the Planning Committee would continue with the practice of recording votes unless a resolution could be reached by affirmation. He explained the process he would follow in a virtual meetings environment.

He confirmed that the meeting was quorate but informed members of the public that, if a Committee member was absent for any part of the presentation of or debate about an agenda item then that member would not be allowed to vote on that item.

Councillor Pippa Heylings sent Apologies for Absence. Councillor Dr. Claire Daunton was present as substitute.

In Councillor Heylings’ absence, the Committee agreed by affirmation that Councillor Peter Fane be appointed as Vice-Chair of the meeting.

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 Anna Bradnam declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 5 (S/4207/19/RM - Cottenham (Land North East of Rampton Road)) as a Cambridgeshire County Councillor, given that the applicant Company is wholly owned by Cambridgeshire County Council. Councillor Bradnam was satisfied that there was no conflict of interest and that she would be considering the matter afresh.

Councillor Dr. Martin Cahn reminded those present that he was a Ward Member for Orchard Park, and declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 6 (S/4243/19/FL  - Orchard Park (Land to the West of Neal Drive)) because, in such capacity, he had discussed this application with members of Orchard Park Community Council.

Councillor Heather Williams referred to Appendix 3 to the reported related to Minute 12 (Enforcement Report – 5 Church End, Arrington) and reminded those present that she was the Ward Member for The Mordens, which included the Parish of Arrington.

Councillor Richard Williams declared a bob-pecuniary interest in Minute 7 (20/02881/FUL - Whittlesford (Factory, 84 Duxford Road)). As a member of Whittlesford Parish Council, Councillor Williams had been involved in discussions about this application but was considering the matter afresh. He also reminded those present that he was the local District Councillor for Whittlesford.

To authorise the Chair to sign, as correct records, the Minutes of the meetings held on 22 July 2020, 26 August 2020 and 9 September 2020.

The Committee authorised the Chair to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2020.

By affirmation, the Committee authorised the Chair to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 August 2020, subject to the following correction being made (Councillor Heather Williams had not been present at that meeting and was not part -of the affirmed authorisation for the Chair to sign the Minutes):

Minute 5 - S/4191/19/FL - Orchard Park (Western Side Of Land Parcel COM4, Neal Drive)

The application was not approved by affirmation but rather by eight votes to two, with Councillors Deborah Roberts and Richard Williams voting to refuse.

The Committee authorised the Chair to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2020, subject to the following correction being made:

Minute 7 - S/4207/19/RM - Cottenham (Land North East of Rampton Road)

‘Gad’ should be ‘had’.

Approval of matters reserved for appearance landscaping layout and scale following outline planning permission S/2876/16/OL for a residential development comprising 154 dwellings including access.

By eight votes to three, the Committee refused the application for Reserved Matters contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being conflict with Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 (Design Principles) and Policies COH/1-1, COH-1-5 and COH/2-2 of the Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan (Referendum Version, February 2020) (Landscape Character, Village Character and Large Site Design).

(Councillors John Batchelor, Cahn and Fane voted to approve the application. Councillors Bradnam, Daunton, Hawkins, Rippeth, Roberts, Heather Williams, Richard Williams and Wright voted for refusal.)

Some Members had attended an unofficial site visit on 8 October 2020, organised and led by Councillor Neil Gough (a local Member).

The case officer informed the Committee that Condition 7 of the Outline planning permission granted at appeal on 10 May 2018 had not been triggered because the Reserved Matters application site excluded land that had been included at the Outline stage. He also pointed out that Appendix 2 had been incorrectly labelled ‘August 2020’ when in fact the document related to September 2020.

Michael Brown (objector), David Aplin (applicant), Councillor Frank Morris (Cottenham Parish Council), and Councillors Neil Gough and Eileen Wilson (local Members) addressed the meeting.

During the ensuing Committee debate, Members referred to the following

·       The height and style of some of the proposed dwellings being out of keeping with others in the village

·       Density

·       Connectivity to the village centre

·       The distance between some of the properties

·       Loss of privacy

Following further discussion, and by eight votes to three, the Committee refused the application for Reserved Matters contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being conflict with Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 (Design Principles) and Policies COH/1-1, COH-1-5 and COH/2-2 of the Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan (Referendum Version, February 2020) (Landscape Character, Village Character and Large Site Design).

(Councillors John Batchelor, Cahn and Fane voted to approve the application. Councillors Bradnam, Daunton, Hawkins, Rippeth, Roberts, Heather Williams, Richard Williams and Wright voted for refusal.)

Erection of two new private residential blocks with linking central element comprising 138 student rooms and associated facilities (Resubmission of application S/3983/18/FL)

By seven votes to four, the Committee gave officers Delegated authority to approve the application subject to

1.    The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the items outlined in Appendix 2 to the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development; and

2.    The Conditions and Informatives set out in that report.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn,  Daunton, Fane, Hawkins and Rippeth voted to support the application. Councillors Roberts, Heather Williams, Richard Williams, and Wright voted against.

Daniel Fulton (objector) and Paul Watson (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

During the ensuing debate, Members referred to the following

·       the original concept of Orchard Park – as a unique community – could be undermined by what they considered to be a transient proposal

·       traffic concerns

·       a perceived North / South orientation being contrary to the aspiration for development along the northern edge of Orchard Park

·       the potential impact on neighbouring developments

·       pollution from the A14

Officers informed the Committee that, in their professional opinion, the reasons given for refusing planning application S/3983/18/FL had been addressed satisfactorily, and advised Members about the need to be consistent with decisions made by Cambridge City Council.

Following further discussion, and by seven votes to four, the Committee gave officers Delegated authority toapprove the application subject to

1.    The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the items outlined in Appendix 2 to the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development; and

2.    The Conditions and Informatives set out in that report.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn,  Daunton, Fane, Hawkins and Rippeth voted to support the application. Councillors Roberts, Heather Williams, Richard Williams, and Wright voted against.

During the following item (20/02881/FUL - Whittlesford (Factory, 84 Duxford Road)) the Committee agreed by affirmation to continue the meeting beyond four hours.

Demolition of existing factory premises and the construction of 7 No. dwellings and associated infrastructure, including access, parking, landscaping and ancillary work (Re-submission of S/0029/19/FL)

By ten votes to nil, the Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being

1.     That the proposed development site lay outside the development framework and was therefore not consistent with Policies S/7 and S/10 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018; and

2.     That the development would result in the loss of an employment site, contrary to Policy E/14 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, and there was insufficient evidence that the existing factory had been marketed in a suitable manner.

(Councillor Bradnam did not vote.)

Kath Slater (applicant’s agent), and Councillor Ken Winterbottom (Whittlesford Parish Council) addressed the meeting. Tim Smith had registered to speak as an objector but withdrew his request at the meeting.

Councillor Richard Williams addressed the meeting as local Member.

During the ensuing debate, Committee members referred to the following

·       The lack of affordable housing

·       The loss of an employment site

·       Home working opportunities

·       Conflict with Green Belt policy

·       Appropriate marketing of the site for commercial purposes

By ten votes to nil, the Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being

1.     That the proposed development site lay outside the development framework and was therefore not consistent with Policies S/7 and S/10 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018; and

2.     That the development would result in the loss of an employment site, contrary to Policy E/14 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, and there was insufficient evidence that the existing factory had been marketed in a suitable manner.

(Councillor Bradnam did not vote.)

Discharge of conditions 4 (Foul Water Drainage) and 5 (Surface Water Drainage) of planning permission S/2937/16/FL

Appendix A is attached to the online version of this agenda. Those reading a paper copy of the agenda, please type into your web browser the following case sensitive password and press enter:

https://bit.ly/34rtPkf

Then scroll down to the Longstanton item.

The Committee unanimously deferred the application to allow time for a full public consultation exercise to be carried out in respect of the Drainage Review at Fews Lane, Longstanton conducted by Stantec (Project Ref: 49304/001 | Rev: AA | Date: August 2020).

(Councillors Bradnam and Daunton were not present and did not vote).

Daniel Fulton (objector) and Libby White (Clerk to Longstanton Parish Council) addressed the meeting. Gerry Caddoo (applicant) had registered to address the Committee but withdrew his request at the meeting.

Members recognised the sensitive nature of the proposed development site, and noted local concern at the potential for flooding were development to be permitted. Members also noted the perceived absence of any public consultation.

Upon a proposal from Councillor Heather Williams, seconded by Councillor Deborah Roberts,  the Committee unanimously deferred the application to allow time for a full public consultation exercise to be carried out in respect of the Drainage Review at Fews Lane, Longstanton conducted by Stantec (Project Ref: 49304/001 | Rev: AA | Date: August 2020).

(Councillors Bradnam and Daunton were not present and did not vote).

Two-storey side extension

By six votes to three, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Cahn, Fane, Roberts, Richard Williams, and Wright voted to support the application. Councillors Hawkins, Rippeth and Heather Williams voted against. Councillors Bradnam and Daunton were not present and did not vote.)

Sophie Mason (applicant) and Councillor Will Wright (Swavesey Parish Council) addressed the meeting. A statement from Councillor Sue Ellington (local Member) had been circulated beforehand to interested parties.

Members noted that the property subject of this application was part of a group that had been built as starter homes on an exception site. However, officers confirmed that that was not a material consideration in this instance and that policy had evolved to embrace the concept of lifetime homes.

Members’ opinions differed in relation to

·       The loss of local vistas contrary to the Village Design Guide

·       Impact on the street scene

·       The loss of a green frontage

·       The loss of access to the rear garden

·       Policy compliance

By six votes to three, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Cahn, Fane, Roberts, Richard Williams, and Wright voted to support the application. Councillors Hawkins, Rippeth and Heather Williams voted against. Councillors Bradnam and Daunton were not present and did not vote.)

Change of use of land to form part of residential curtilage and the erection of a double garage.

By five votes to four, the Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reason for refusal as being inappropriate development outside the village framework contrary to Policy S/7 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 (Development Framework) and Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan Policy COH/2-1 (development proposals outside the development framework will be supported where they are designed to provide facilities for rural enterprise, agriculture, forestry or leisure, or where they otherwise accord with national or local planning policies).

(Councillors John Batchelor, Cahn, Fane and Rippeth voted in favour of the application. Councillors Hawkins, Roberts. Heather Williams, Richard Williams and Wright voted against. Councillors Bradnam and Daunton were not present and did not vote.)

Councillor Frank Morris (Cottenham Parish Council) addressed the meeting. A written statement from Toby Rickett in support of the application had been circulated beforehand to Committee members and other interested parties.

Members considered the application in the context of policies in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan and Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan (Referendum version). They noted that the proposed new garage would be about 17.8 metres from the associated dwelling, and views differed as to whether this was a material consideration.

By five votes to four, the Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reason for refusal as being inappropriate development outside the village framework contrary to Policy S/7 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 (Development Framework) and Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan Policy COH/2-1 (development proposals outside the development framework will be supported where they are designed to provide facilities for rural enterprise, agriculture, forestry or leisure, or where they otherwise accord with national or local planning policies).

(Councillors John Batchelor, Cahn, Fane and Rippeth voted in favour of the application. Councillors Hawkins, Roberts. Heather Williams, Richard Williams, and Wright voted against. Councillors Bradnam and Daunton were not present and did not vote.)

Lawful certificate for a proposed single storey side extension to both sides of detached house

By affirmation, the Committee approved the issue of a Lawful Development Certificate for the reason specified in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

(Councillors Bradnam and Daunton were not present and were not part of the affirmation.)

The Committee considered this application from an employee of South Cambridgeshire District Council.

By affirmation, the Committee approved the issue of a Lawful Development Certificate for the reason specified in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

(Councillors Bradnam and Daunton were not present and were not part of the affirmation.)

The Committee received and noted an update on enforcement action including at land adjacent to 5 Church End, Arrington.          

Councillor Nick Wright asked officers to provide an update on Smithy Fen, Cottenham at the Planning Committee meeting on 11 November 2020.

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