Agenda item

The Committee gave officers delegated powers 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 matters referred to in the Heads of Terms appended to the report from the  Head of Development Management;

2.     the Conditions and Informatives set out in the said report.

The Committee considered Applications S/2458/16/RM and S/2461/16/FL together. The reports considered were those published with the agenda for the meeting on 16 November, which was deferred. Members also had before them a supplementary agenda dated 14 November 2016, containing a replacement Heads of Terms schedule and a corrected site plan in respect of the Full application, and a further supplementary agenda dated 22 November 2016, containing and update report in respect of both applications. Cpoies of statements from Councillors Peter Johnson and Ingrid Tregoing (the local Members) were circulated prior to the meeting. Councillor Johnson was unable to attend the meeting.

The Case Officer summarised the current situation, and updated Members as appropriate. Application S/2458/16/RM had been listed for Appeal on 29 November 2016. The Applicants had indicated that they would consider withdrawing that Appeal, subject to the outcome of the current applications. The Case Officer read out the statement submitted by Councillor Peter Johnson. This highlighted a private legal issue that might impact on proposals for an emergency entrance to the site from the adjacent Bovis development.

Jane Williams (objector), Councillor Brian Williams (Waterbeach Parish Council) and Councillor Ingrid Tregoing (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

Jane Williams made her comments in the context of the village of Waterbeach, and the level of services and facilities available there. She queried the transparency of the Committee reaching a decision when the applicant had indicated that, were that decision to be in its favour, it would considering withdrawing the imminent Appeal. She voiced concern about the pressure on local facilities, such as the Doctors surgery, sewerage system and public transport. Mrs. Williams also referred to the potential for increased traffic congestion along village streets. The houses, including the so-called Affordable Homes, were unlikely to be affordable for local people. Jane Williams urged the Committee to consider not only the economic aspect of sustainability, but also the social and environmental elements. Committee members prompted further discussion about capacity at both the Doctors surgery and Cottenham Village College, especially in the context of the cumulative impact of development in Waterbeach.

Councillor Brian Williams encourage the Committee toconsider the two separate planning applications as if they were a single application. He said that, although Waterbeach was currently classed as a Minor Rural Centre, it hardly met the necessary criteria by virtue of the lack of realistic public transport provision, and the pressure on local facilities and services. Councillor Williams concluded that the proposal represented over-development, and urged the Committee to help deliver South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Vision of continuing to be the best place to live, work and study in the country, demonstrating impressive and sustainable economic growth, and making sure that its residents have a superb quality of life in an exceptionally beautiful, rural and green environment. Committee members prompted further discussion about drainage issues.

Councillor Ingrid Tregoing informed the Committee that the primary school had four school  places available. Councillor Tregoing sought clarification as to whether Waterbeach, as a Minor Rural Centre, was sustainable or not: South Cambridgeshire District Council maintained that it was not, whereas Appeal Inspectors said that it was. She argued that “potential for improvement” should not be interpreted as meaning “sustainable”. Councillor Tregoing called on South Cambridgeshire District Council to stand up to developers. Committee members prompted further discussion about transport, and Anglian Water’s statutory duties and responsibilities.

Public speaking having concluded, the Chairman invited Committee members to discuss the applications. In order to structure the debate, he established the following four headings:

·        Design Density

·        Drainage

·        Highways

·        Developer obligations

Design Density

The Chairman reminded Committee members that this was the only ground upon which Application S/1431/15/OL had been refused in January 2016. Members had agreed that the reason for refusal should be that the increase in density and urbanisation was inconsistent with South Cambridgeshire District Council policy allowing 40 dwellings per hectare in Waterbeach, thus rendering the proposal as out-of-keeping with the village.

Members’ discussion centred on the following points:

·        Why were the applicants submitting this application if they were confident that the Appeal against the previous refusal would be successful?

·        What material change had there been since the previous refusal in January 2016?

·        Quality of life

·        Sustainability

The Team Leader, Consultancy Unit explained how the concept of density might vary depending on circumstances and location.

Drainage

Members’ discussion centred on Anglian Water’s assessment that the drainage system had sufficient capacity to accommodate this proposal.

Highways

The Local Highways Authority had not objected to the highway proposals. There was therefore no material reason for objecting to the proposal on highway grounds.

Developer obligations

The Section 106 Officer summarised the approach taken by Cambridgeshire County Council and National Health Service when determining whether or not to seek developer obligations. A brief discussion ensued as to whether the school had the capacity to accommodate the expected increase in demand for school places.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers 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 matters referred to in the Heads of Terms appended to the report from the Head of Development Management;

2.     the Conditions and Informatives set out in the said report.