Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chair made several brief housekeeping announcements.

Councillors Bill Handley, Dr Tumi Hawkins and Dr Richard Williams sent Apologies for Absence. Councillors Anna Bradnam and Dr Lisa Redrup were present as substitutes. Councillor Heather Williams sent apologies for lateness.

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 to Minute 5, Councillor Judith Rippeth declared that, whilst Deputy Leader of the Council, she attended meetings with the Leader of the Council and the applicant so she would withdraw for the item.

With respect to Minute 6, Councillor Heather Williams declared that she was a member of the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP), who had been referenced in the report, but had held no discussions regarding the application and was coming to the matter afresh.

With respect to Minutes 6 & 7, Councillor Geoff Harvey declared that he was a resident of Great Abington and thus would take part in the debate but not vote on the applications.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2023 as a correct record.

Councillor Judith Rippeth stated that, following conversations with officers, she understood that her intention to vote against the application in Minute 5 had not been captured by the electronic voting system and requested the Minutes be amended to reflect this. The Democratic Services Officer advised that the vote had not been recorded when the decision was declared and no amendment would be made to the decision, but that the Minutes would be amended to capture Councillor Rippeth’s intention to vote.

With the amendment, the Committee authorised, by affirmation, the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2023 as a correct record.

Erection of 256 No. dwellings and change of use of the existing marketing suite to a café, landscaping, car parking, substations, bin and bike store and associated works.

In accordance with the updated officer’s recommendation (updated by the case officer in the meeting), the Committee deferred the application by unanimous vote.

Councillor Judith Rippeth withdrew from the Committee, in-line with her declaration of interest

The Principal Planner (SCIP and CIP sites) informed the Committee that the officer’s recommendation had been updated to read as follows:

“To DEFER planning application reference 23/00123/FUL to enable the Local Planning Authority to fully review the additional technical information in respect of noise, vibration and electromagnetic radiation submitted by third parties and by the applicants after the publication of the Agenda.

Having regards to Policies SC/10 and SC/14 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and the requirements of Paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy framework, officers consider that the review of this technical information and officers conclusions upon issues raised in the respect of noise, vibration and electromagnetic radiation is necessary prior to a decision being taken on the application.”

Councillor Anna Bradnam, seconded by Councillor Peter Fane, proposed that the Committee move to a vote; the Committee agreed to the proposal by affirmation.

In accordance with the updated officer’s recommendation, the Committee deferred the application by unanimous vote.

Councillor Judith Rippeth rejoined the Committee

Outline application for the development of the TWI campus (including means of access) for use by TWI (comprising but not limited to a range of related uses including office and laboratory space, and ancillary facilities including conferencing and non-residential education/training uses) and/or for Research and Development purposes (Use Class E(g)(ii)), following the erection of two new buildings centred off the central service spine (B4 and B5), one building (B6) immediately to the north, and an extension to the existing engineering hall (B3) (with a combined floor area up to 31,500m2 (GEA) excluding plant), the reconfiguration and external works to the Bevan Braithwaite building, central service spine and the servicing yard, and the provision of a decked car park to the north, surface car parking and cycle parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure (following the phased demolition of a number of buildings, namely BBH, Robert Jenkins, Resonance Shed and Trevor Gooch comprising 10,185m2 (GEA)) with all other matters, namely layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved.

By 8 votes to 1, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Councillor Heather Williams joined the Committee

The Chair noted that the Committee had visited the site on 4 October 2023. The Area Team Leader presented the report and provided the following updates to the report:

• The Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly had met on 7 September 2023 and it was confirmed at the meeting that work on Cambridge South East Transport (CSET) Phase 2, referenced in paragraphs 10.133-34 of the report, had been paused. Officers noted this but as it was a “pause” and given the length of time the development was anticipated to take based on the phasing programme (circa 10+ years), it was not considered that this affected the financial contributions requested in these paragraphs.

• An inaccuracy had been identified in the Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) that was last published (Rev B), in which the AMS showed all of the trees of G50 adjacent to the B3 extension proposed as being removed. However, officers identified that two of these trees were being shown as retained on the replacement tree planting strategy and the applicant had confirmed that these two trees were to be retained. In light of this, paragraphs 3.4 and 10.87 of the report should say “removal of 23no.” rather than “25no.”.

Councillor Geoff Harvey left the meeting

In response to Member questions, officers provided clarity on the following considerations:

• Heads of Terms and CSET funding- comment was made that the wording in the Heads of Terms which referenced CSET should state “or alternatives if required” in order to secure transport funding in case the CSET proposals were not delivered.

• Impact on views from the Church of St Mary the Virgin  (Great Abington)- officers advised that the view from the Grade II* Listed Church of St Mary the Virgin had, in agreement with Conservation officers, not been included as a key view in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and the Conservation Team had not raised the proposal as having any impact on the heritage asset following their site visits and consideration of the proposal.

• Noise impact- Members made reference to the concerns over noise raised by Little Abington Parish Council (paragraph 9.64) and officers advised that a noise assessment had been submitted with the application and referred to condition 18 which addressed noise mitigation.

• Building heights- officers advised that the Outline consent would prescribe the maximum height of development above ordnance datum and that the reserved matters stage would present details of the scale of buildings. Members enquired as to if it would be possible to lower buildings through excavation and, in response, officers advised that this could be proposed at the reserved matters stage.

• Historic England- Officers advised that Historic England had made no substantial comment on the application and had advised that conservation matters should be considered by officers of the Council.

• Policy E/15(3) of the Local Plan- Officers advised that harm to the surrounding countryside had been acknowledged but that the benefits of the scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Creation of a 4 m opening to the curtilage listed wall to enable the creation of an east-west shared access which forms part of the outline application 22/05549/OUT, together with the general repair of copings and masonry to the wall.

By 8 votes to 1, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Area Team Leader presented the report. Councillor Tony Orgee of Great Abington Parish Council addressed the Committee on behalf of the Parish Council and in opposition to the application. In response to a question, Councillor Orgee detailed his understanding of the history of the site.

Officers responded to questions and provided clarity over the buttressing of the wall, the intention to keep the existing opening in use as part of the landscaping strategy for the linked outline consent and that the retaining of historic materials was secured by conditions. Some Members concurred with the Conservation Officer’s comments, stating that the harm from the proposal was minimal, whilst others felt that the benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the harm to heritage assets.

By 8 (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Peter Fane, Anna Bradnam, Ariel Cahn, Dr Lisa Redrup, Judith Rippeth, Peter Sandford and Eileen Wilson) votes to 1 (Councillor Heather Williams), the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Principal Planning Compliance Manager presented the report and provided a verbal update on the online compliance reporting system. Members requested that details of how long cases had been open be included in future reports and officers agreed to investigate how this information could best be presented and stated that an update would be provided at the next meeting. In response to Member comments, officers advised that delays at the Planning Inspectorate were impacting appeals against enforcement action taken by the Council and that updates on timelines were not being received from the Planning Inspectorate. Members also enquired as to if officers had any suggestions on how the compliance service could be improved, especially given the challenges arising from delays from the Planning Inspectorate, and officers agreed to bring a response to the next meeting of the Committee.

The Committee noted the report.

The Delivery Manager introduced the report and provided further update on impact of the delays at the Planning Inspectorate on open appeals.

The Committee noted the report.