Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chair made several brief housekeeping announcements and stated that site visits had been conducted for the applications in Minutes 5 (22/05065/FUL- in advance of the previous meeting), 6 (22/00051/FUL) and 7 (23/01150/FUL).

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillors Geoff Harvey, Judith Rippeth and Heather Williams. Councillors Mark Howell and Dr Lisa Redrup were present as substitutes.

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.

With respect Minute 5, Councillor Bill Handley declared that he would withdraw from the Committee, as he did when the application was deferred at the meeting held on 14 June 2023. Councillor Peter Sandford declared that he was a local Member and had received communications from residents regarding the application but was coming to the matter afresh. Councillor Mark Howell, a local Member, declared that he knew the applicant but had not held any discussions regarding the merits of the application and was coming to the matter afresh.

With respect to Minute 6, the Chair made a general declaration that many Members may have links to the applicant (University of Cambridge) but that, unless otherwise stated, these links had no bearing on Members’ ability to make a decision on the application and that the matter would be approached afresh. Councillor Dr Richard Williams declared that, as the applicant was his employer, he would withdraw from the Committee and take no part in the debate or vote. Councillor Dr Lisa Redrup declared that she was a local Member and had been approached by residents but was coming to the matter afresh.

With respect to Minute 7, Councillor Dr Richard Williams declared that he was the local Member and the Chair of Whittlesford Parish Council, who had made representations regarding the application, and that he would withdraw from the Committee and instead speak as the local Member.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 14 July 2023 as a correct record. Minutes document to follow

By affirmation, the Committee authorised the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 June 2023 (published as a supplement) as a correct record.

Creation of a mixed-use food hub with additional parking

By 6 votes to 3, the Committee approved the application subject to the conditions, with officers delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions, and in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Councillor Bill Handley withdrew from the Committee, in line with his Declaration of Interest

The Interim Delivery Manager made comments to clarify the representation made by the Lead Cabinet Member for Economic Development when the application was deferred at the meeting held on 14 June 2023. It was clarified that the Economic Development team of South Cambridgeshire District Council were a consultee, albeit not a statutory consultee, and had made comment on the application. The written comments from the Economic Development team had been published and the Interim Development Manager confirmed that these were material considerations.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report and informed the Committee that further representations had been received, detailing concerns regarding the proposal. Members asked questions of clarity regarding the status of policy E/14 and why officers had concluded that the proposal was compliant with E/14. Officers clarified that compliance with of policy E/14 (1) was a judgement call and in the view of officers the proposal was not on the edge of the development framework and that E/14 (2) did apply but that as employment would continue to be provided on the site the proposal was compliant with E/14 (2). Context on the introduction of Class E use and how this impacted the compliance of the proposal with policy was provided by officers. Further questions were asked regarding what qualified as provision of local food and how this was defined. Members were informed that qualification as “local goods” was a judgement call but that the proposals from the applicant satisfied officers that the food to be sold on site would be sourced locally. Clarity was provided over the location of the village shop with respect to the site of the proposal.

The Committee was addressed by Richard French (resident), James Howell (treasurer, Elsworth Village Shop) and Paul Solon (resident) who objected to the application. The objectors responded to a number of questions regarding:

• Increased traffic and the subsequent impacts and harms

• Parking arrangements between the business park and school

• Impact on the village shop

• Current use of offices on the site

• Demand and need of goods in the village

The applicant, Anthony Davison, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to Member questions regarding:

• How he proposed to support the viability of the village shop

• Current and proposed employment on the site

• Impact of the proposal on traffic movements in the village

• Proposed educational initiatives

Councillor Peter Deer, Chair of Elsworth Parish Council, addressed the Committee on behalf of the Parish Council and expressed their concerns and the mitigation measures they would like to see if the Committee was to approve the application. Councillor Deer responded to questions of clarity on parking provision, pedestrian safety and support for the proposal amongst local residents.

In the debate, Members discussed a number of considerations:

• Policy E/14- Following the explanations provided by officers, Members were satisfied that the proposal was not in contravention of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Installation of a 30,457 megawatt hours (MWh) per annum solar farm and associated infrastructure on land to the east of Lords Bridge, Barton for an operational lifespan of 40 years

By 8 votes to 1, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. This was subject to the additional condition detailed by the officer in their presentation and the conditions, with officers delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions, laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, as well as confirmation from the Secretary of State as to whether they wished for the application to be called-in for determination.

Councillor Dr Richard Williams withdrew from the Committee, in line with his Declaration of Interests for Minutes 5 & 6

The Senior Planner presented the report and informed the Committee that two additional conditions had been added to the recommendation, worded as follows:

“The inverters to be used for the development hereby permitted shall follow the specifications in accordance with the details specified within Ingecon Sun Power Dual B Series technical details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt in the context of their appearance in relation to the wider development and the requirements of Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.”

“The substations to be used for the development hereby permitted shall not be installed until details of their appearance have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt in the context of their appearance in relation to the wider development and the requirements of Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.”

Members asked questions of clarity regarding tree management and how the site would be managed once the permission expired (after 40 years) and were informed that there were conditions regarding landscape management and decommissioning. In response to a question, clarity was provided on how the applicant concluded that the site was the most appropriate available for the proposed development and what the agricultural grading of the land was. Members enquired as to how electricity would be carried off-site, to which they were informed that it was not part of the application and not part of the considered, and what was meant by “26% of the University’s electrical consumption” as stated in paragraph 8.95 of the report.

The Committee was addressed by two supporters, Professor Emily Shuckburgh and Dr Jonathan Guy of the University of Cambridge, and confirmed that a private, buried wire would carry electricity off-site. The speakers responded to a number of questions regarding:

• Type of solar panels used- it was confirmed that the proposed panels were chosen due to a variety of factors including their recyclability

• Energy storage- the speakers stated that they were exploring options available to maximise their ability to store and release energy

• 26% of the University’s electrical consumption- it was confirmed that this was the figure for the University itself and did not include electrical consumption of colleges

• Assessment of sites and consultations (Members commented that it was disappointing to see so little community engagement)- the rationale behind the selection of the site was given and the speakers informed the Committee that Covid had made public consultation challenging     

• Lack of community benefit funds provided- it was clarified that as the application was for private use of energy produced that community benefit funds were not required

In the debate, in response to Member comments, officers informed the Committee that glint and glare  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Demolition of existing buildings, creation of access road from Station Road West, and construction of a residential development of 48 No. residential units together with associated landscaping, car and cycle parking, and refuse storage (Re-submission of 22/02571/FUL)

By 6 votes to none, with 2 abstentions, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. This was subject to the conditions, with officers delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions, and the completion of a s106 agreement, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Principal Planner presented the report and informed the Committee that there was the addition of a condition to the recommendation that read:

“Prior to the installation of any electrical services, an electric vehicle charge point scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for electric vehicle charging point scheme; active charge point(s) for each house, and electric charging point scheme; active charge points for the communal flat parking. The active charge points should have a minimum power rating output of 3.5kW. All other communal flat spaces should have passive provision of the necessary infrastructure including capacity in the connection to the local electricity distribution network and electricity distribution board, as well as the provision of cabling to parking spaces for all remaining car parking spaces to facilitate and enable the future installation and activation of additional active electric vehicle charge points as required, and this should be demonstrated in the submitted detail.

The approved electric vehicle charge points shall be installed prior to first occupation of the relevant dwelling and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of encouraging more sustainable modes and forms of transport in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2021) paragraphs 107, 112, 174 and 186, policy TI/3 Of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan and the Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction SPD 2021.”

Officers responded to a number of questions of clarity and:

• Confirmed that garages were considered to provide sufficient space.

• Informed Members that the ongoing appeal for 67 units on the site had not been concluded and thus did not provide a fallback position and was not a material consideration; if the appeal was successful and the application was approved the developers would be able to choose between the approved schemes.

• Confirmed that footpaths were secured by conditioning.

• Informed the Committee that the levels of affordable housing were linked to the cost of development, notably the decontamination costs.

• Detailed some of the changes between the scheme being decided upon and other schemes for the site that had previously been seen by the Committee.

Members commented on the single aspect flats in the apartment blocks and raised concerns over light and ventilation. Officers advised that there was no policy prohibiting single aspect flats and that Part O of the Building Regulations would ensure that dwellings would not be prone to overheating.

Members noted that a written submission from Whittlesford Parish Council had been received and circulated. The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Lorenzo Pandolfi, who responded to a number of questions from Members. In response to questions, the agent explained that the design for the single aspect flats included projected bay windows to increase light and ventilation, and informed the Committee that photovoltaics were not included in the proposal due to the constraints of the site and massing concerns, following discussion with officers, but stated that the developer was not ruling out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Town Council have objected to the proposals; and Officers consider, having consulted with the Chair and Vice Chair, that the proposals should be reported to Committee due to the significance of the proposals, in the context of the wider development of West Cambourne

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation as laid out in the report to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. This approval was from application 22/04785/REM, subject to conditions set out in the report with delegated authority granted to undertake appropriate minor amendments to the conditions and/or informatives (and include others considered appropriate and necessary) prior to issue of the permission. The approval also approved the part discharge of the outline planning conditions 5, 8, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of S/2903/14/OL in so far as they relate to application 22/04785/REM, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Senior Planner (Strategic Sites Team) presented the report. In response to questions from the Committee, officers:

• Offered explanation regarding the proposed distribution of affordable housing and the work undertaken with the Housing Development Officer.

• Confirmed that the parking provision was considered to be acceptable and detailed why officers had formed this view.

• Provided clarity over the access to the site.

• Informed the Committee that the Cambourne West site had a sustainability strategy included as part of the Outline consent and that the proposal was compliant with the sustainability strategy for the wider development.

• Made reference to conditions to explain that an electric vehicle charge point plan was to be submitted to secure the details of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

• In response to concerns over management companies, informed the Committee that the Highways Authority was to adopt the roads, with Cambourne Town Council would adopt green space and other management responsibilities.

The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Susie Hartas, who responded to a number Member questions. The agent informed the Committee that landscaping works would be ongoing throughout the development process, confirmed the number of storeys in larger buildings and confirmed that affordable houses were M(42) compliant and the levels of provision were higher than policy requirements. Further questions were asked with regard to management companies and the agent advised that decisions regarding the use of private management companies had not been made; officers advised, in response to Member comments, that a condition regarding management companies would be inappropriate to implement at the Reserved Matters stage.

Prior to the commencement of the debate, the Interim Delivery Manager advised that the Recommendation on the front page of the report (approve 22/02785/RMA) was incorrect, and that the Recommendation as referred to in paragraph 10 was correct (approve 22/04785/REM).

In the debate, Members stated that there were no reasons for refusal and noted the work undertaken between the developers and officers to produce an acceptable proposal. Comment was made on building height appearances and the need to ensure that sustainability measures utilise the best available technology. Whilst noting that the proposed use of management companies was not relevant to the application, Members raised general concern about reliance on management companies and expressed a desire to see future Local Plans include policies to mitigate concerns about management companies.

Councillor Peter Fane, seconded by Councillor Bill Handley, proposed that the Committee move to a vote. The recommendation was clarified by the Senior Planning Lawyer.

By affirmation, the Committee agreed to the officer’s recommendation and:

(i)             Approved application 22/04785/REM subject to the planning conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, with authority delegated to officers to undertake appropriate minor amendments to the conditions and/or informatives (and include others considered appropriate and necessary) prior to issue of the permission.

(ii)            Approved the part discharge of the outline planning conditions 5, 8, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Development Manager informed the Committee that the Principal Planning Compliance Manager was unavailable to present the report and that he had advised that there were some issues with data reporting, which he would provide update on at the next meeting. Staffing updates were offered and Members were advised to contact the Principal Planning Compliance Manager with any enquiries relating to specific cases.

The Committee noted the report.

The Interim Delivery Manager introduced the report. The Committee discussed the appeals allowed and enquired as to the reasons for the Inspector allowing the appeal for application 21/00953/FUL; the Interim Delivery Manager stated that further investigation into the decision could be undertaken and that the issue would be taken away, with a summary to be presented to Members at a later date. The Interim Delivery Manager informed the Committee that future reports would also include the Planning Inspectorate’s reference numbers for cases.

The Committee noted the report.