Agenda item

Outline Planning Application for residential development comprising 154 dwellings including matters of access with all other matters reserved

Members visited the site on 8 August 2017.

The case officer confirmed that the applicant had agreed to the Heads of Terms. She referred to an additional representation from a member of the public relating to traffic impact and the loss of views. Comments from Cottenham Parish Council were attached to the officer report.

Brian Smith (objector), Councillor Frank Morris (Cottenham Parish Council), and Councillor Tim Wotherspoon addressed the meeting.

Mr. Smith said that what was happening in Cotttenham was a “tsunami of development” that had to stop. Development was of a scale that should be directed to new communities rather than to long-established villages. Mr. Smith’s concern centred on potential traffic congestion and the adverse impact on the alms-houses, which he described as living monuments.

Councillor Morris said that local schools had suffered capacity issues in the recent past. The Parish Council was currently working on its Neighbourhood Plan, and just under 1,000 residents had made representations. Clr Morris referred to the Local Green Space forming part of this application. That area was currently leased to the Parish Council, and there was no break clause in that lease except in relation to its need for education purposes. In the Parish Council’s opinion, the loss of Local Green Space could not be justified. The site was about 1,350 metres from the village centre.

Councillor Tim Wotherspoon drew attention to his register of interests and to his responsibilities as both a South Cambridgeshire District Council Cabinet member and as a Cambridgeshire County Councillor, which were matters of public record. He emphasised the importance of weighing up the benefit and harm in this case. Councillor Wotherspoon read out a statement from Councillor Lynda Harford (another local Member). The statement was as follows:

“I am unable to speak on this item as it might be considered that I have a conflict of interests. As a County Councillor I was until its transformation into the Commercial and Investment Committee a member of the Council's Assets & Investment Committee. In that capacity, I was a participant both in debate on the site that is the subject of this application and in that Committee's decision to proceed with an application.”

During the ensuing debate, Committee members made the following comments:

·       Part of the application was on land identified as Local Green Space in the emerging Local Plan, and this raised issue of sustainability

·       The proposal was out of scale, and too car-dependent

·       The proposal was inconsistent with the sequential approach to development

·       There would be a loss of character

·       There were doubts about deliverability

·       Concern about the impact on the alms houses

·       Increased traffic would be imposed on local roads

·       Detrimental impact on village

·       Due process not followed giving rise to a possible Judicial Review

·       Road safety issue along Rampton Road

·       There was a need for housing and, in particular, affordable housing,and traffic was not a material reason for refusal

·       As an exception to policy, the application would stand a better chance if it was for 100% affordable housing

The Planning Lawyer said that a proposal on Local Green Space was not inconsistent with an outline planning application. Delivery was a material consideration.

Officers were asked to consider the material and draft the reasons for refusal.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being

(a)   the impact on the Alms-houses, local Green space, and landscape character;

(b)   that the development would be too car dependent; and

(c)   that the proposal did not meet the sequential test.