Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of up to 200 residential dwellings (including up to 40% affordable housing) and up to 70 apartments with care (C2), demolition of no.117 Rampton Road, introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children's play area, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, vehicular access points from Rampton Road and associated ancillary works. All matters reserved with the exception of the main site accesses

Appendix 3 (Heads of Terms) will follow as a Supplement.

The case officer updated the report. Judicial Review of the previous application had been listed for hearing in September, but this was a new application. The Village Design Statement should be added to paragraph 18 of the report. Further letters of objection had been received. Historic England had been invited to comment on the application but had not done so. Replacement of lost open space was an issue. Anglian Water had requested Condition (q) in the report. Noise levels were not considered significant. The draft Neighbourhood Plan was not a material consideration.

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

Brian Smith referred to South Cambridgeshire District Council’s long-term vision: “…to be the best place to live, work and study in the country…[to] demonstrate impressive and sustainable economic growth…esidents will have a superb quality of life in an exceptionally beautiful, rural and green environment.” He said South Cambridgeshire was a community of 100 villages, not urban sprawl. Those living in the Alms houses were entitled to respect.

Councillor Morris referred to the significant list of harmful impacts, including on education, sport, healthcare and loss of local landscape.

Councillor Wotherspoon spoke first on behalf of Councillor Lynda Harford (another local Member). The statement noted Councillor Harford’s membership and trusteeship of the charity responsible for the Alms Houses on Rampton Road. Councillor Harford was unable to support the Parish Council’s argument’s for refusing the application. Residents’ views had been taken into account and there was no significant harm. Decent housing was needed for everyone.

Speaking for himself, 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 said that, in fact, the bus between Cottenham and Ely operated only on two days a week. In the interests of equality, the Committee should consider the social and economic impact of the proposed roundabout. There was a small number of direct benefits, but consideration should also be given to longer term benefits. The proposal was not sustainable.

During the Committee debate, Members made the following points

·       The proposal was unplanned and unsustainable

·       The size of Cottenham had already increased significantly, and that increase was continuing

·       Social infrastructure had been overwhelmed

·       Policies could be used to control development if disbenefit could be demonstrated

·       Likely impact on those residents opposite the access road

·       Neighbour amenity

·       The impact of increased traffic on the Alms Houses

·       The Parish Council should be listened to – the harm outweighs any benefit

The Senior Planning Lawyer emphasised the importance of being consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes. In response to a question from Councillor Philippa Hart, the Senior Planning Lawyer said that an approval or refusal of the current application would influence the Judicial Review of Application S/1818/15/OL, which remained ‘live’. The Development Management Project Implementation Officer reminded Members that the only difference between the current application and the previous one was the need to consider the current application in the context of the Supreme Court judgment.

The Chairman pointed out that South Cambridgeshire District Council had lost the  “cumulative impact argument”.

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 items referred to in the Heads of Terms attached as Appendix 3 to the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development; and

2.     The Conditions set out in the said report.

Councillor Charles Nightingale arrived part way through consideration of this item. Accordingly, he did not vote.