By affirmation, the Planning Committee approved the application subject to the conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
By affirmation, the Planning Committee agreed to issue a Hedgerow Retention Notice.
By affirmation, the Planning Committee agreed not to object to the Hedgerow Removal Notice. Councillor Deborah Roberts did not take part in the debate and did not vote.
By five votes to four, the Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reason for refusal as being inappropriate development outside the village framework contrary to Policy S/7 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 (Development Framework) and Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan Policy COH/2-1 (development proposals outside the development framework will be supported where they are designed to provide facilities for rural enterprise, agriculture, forestry or leisure, or where they otherwise accord with national or local planning policies).
(Councillors John Batchelor, Cahn, Fane and Rippeth voted in favour of the application. Councillors Hawkins, Roberts. Heather Williams, Richard Williams and Wright voted against. Councillors Bradnam and Daunton were not present and did not vote.)
By eight votes to three, the Committee refused the application for Reserved Matters contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being conflict with Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 (Design Principles) and Policies COH/1-1, COH-1-5 and COH/2-2 of the Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan (Referendum Version, February 2020) (Landscape Character, Village Character and Large Site Design).
(Councillors John Batchelor, Cahn and Fane voted to approve the application. Councillors Bradnam, Daunton, Hawkins, Rippeth, Roberts, Heather Williams, Richard Williams and Wright voted for refusal.)
This item was deferred.
Members noted that this was a duplicate application to application reference S/2549/19/RM (Minute 7 of the meeting held on 12 February 2020 refers).
By way of confirmation, and by seven votes to three, the Planning Committee resolved to approve the application subject to the Conditions and informatives contained in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and, by five votes to one with three abstentions, to the addition of the following Condition:
“No development shall begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the relevant part of the
scheme (including all strategic elements which will benefit all dwellings) and that part which is particular to an individual dwelling shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before an application is made for a final certificate for building regulation purposes and no dwellings shall be occupied unless the relevant part of the said scheme has been implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be based upon the principles within the agreed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by Enzygo (ref: SHF.1132.024.HY.R.001.G dated August 2016 and shall also include: -
i) Full calculations detailing the existing surface water runoff rates for the QBAR, 3.3 % Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) (1 in 30) and 1% AEP (1 in 100) storm events.
ii) Full results of the proposed drainage system modelling in the above-referenced storm events (as well as 1% AEP plus climate change) , inclusive of all collection, conveyance, storage, flow control and disposal elements and including an allowance for urban creep, together with an assessment of system performance.
iii) Detailed drawings of the entire proposed surface water drainage system, including
levels, gradients, dimensions and pipe reference numbers.
iv) Full details of the proposed attenuation and flow control measures.
v) Site Investigation and test results to confirm infiltration rates.
vi) Details of overland flood flow routes in the event of system exceedance, with demonstration that such flows can be appropriately managed on site without increasing flood risk to occupants.
vii) Full details of the maintenance/adoption of the surface water drainage system.
viii) Measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface water.
The drainage scheme must adhere to the hierarchy of drainage options as outlined in the NPPF PPG.
(Reason - To ensure a satisfactory method of surface water drainage and to prevent the increased risk of flooding in accordance with Policy CC/8 of the adopted Local Plan 2018.)”
(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Fane, Heylings, Milnes and Rippeth voted in favour. Councillors Roberts, Heather Williams and Wright voted against)
Members visited the site on 11 February 2020.
Michael Brown (objector), John) Dudding (applicant’s agent), Councillor Frank Morris (Cottenham Parish Council) and Councillor Neigh Gough (local Member speaking on behalf of himself and Councillor Eileen Wilson, the other local Member) addressed the meeting.
The case officer updated the Committee. Late representations had already been addressed in the report. The Local Highways Authority had now changed its recommendation to approval. Ecology and Urban Design Officers were supportive of the application.
In response to Members’ concern about ongoing management and maintenance of the drainage system, the Delivery Manager (Strategic Sites) said that these matters were not in the gift of the Local Highways Authority.
Councillor Deborah
Roberts said
that this application was premature. The proposal was seconded and, following a short debate, the motion
was put to a vote on the basis of the application being against the
Village Design Statement, permeability with the adjacent site,
layout and the likelihood of the estate roads not being adopted.
The vote was five in favour of deferral (Councillors Heylings,
Milnes, Rippeth, Roberts and Heather Williams) and five against
(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Fane and Wright). The
Chairman exercised his casting vote against deferral so the motion was lost.
By seven votes to three, the Planning Committee resolved to approve the application subject to the Conditions and informatives contained in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and, by five votes to one with three abstentions, to the addition of the following Condition:
“No development shall begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the relevant part of the
scheme (including all strategic elements which will benefit all dwellings) and that part which is particular to an individual dwelling shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before an application is made for a final certificate for building regulation purposes and no dwellings shall be occupied unless the relevant part of the said scheme has been implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be based upon the principles within the agreed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by Enzygo (ref: SHF.1132.024.HY.R.001.G dated August 2016 and shall also include: -
i) Full calculations detailing the existing surface water runoff rates for the QBAR, 3.3 % Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) (1 in 30) and 1% AEP (1 in 100) storm events.
ii) Full results of the proposed drainage system modelling in the above-referenced storm events (as well as 1% AEP plus climate change) , inclusive of all collection, conveyance, storage, flow control and disposal elements and including an allowance for urban creep, together with an assessment of system performance.
iii) Detailed drawings of the entire proposed surface water drainage system, including
levels, gradients, dimensions and pipe reference numbers.
iv) Full details of the proposed attenuation and flow control measures.
v) Site Investigation and test results to confirm infiltration rates.
vi) Details of overland flood flow routes in the event of system exceedance, with demonstration that such flows can be appropriately managed on site without increasing flood risk to occupants.
vii) Full details of the maintenance/adoption of the surface water drainage system.
viii) Measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface water.
The drainage scheme must adhere to the hierarchy of drainage options as outlined in the NPPF PPG.
(Reason - To ensure a satisfactory method of surface water drainage and to prevent the increased risk of flooding in accordance with Policy CC/8 of the adopted Local Plan 2018.)”
(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Fane, Heylings, Milnes and Rippeth voted in favour. Councillors Roberts, Heather Williams and Wright voted against.)
1. There being no further representations being received on material planning grounds which had not already been submitted and considered before the expiry of the consultation period following amendments to the application site red line boundary;
2. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the extinguishment of existing user rights in respect of the applicant’s existing site at High Street, Cottenham;
3. A Condition requiring the provision of fire hydrants on the site;
4. The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, with the final wording of any amendments to these to be agreed in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee prior to the issue of a Decision Notice; and
5. Referral of the application to the Secretary of State under The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 as a departure from the Development Plan.
This application was deferred.
The Committee gave delegated powers to refuse 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
· Located on the edge of the village some distance from services and facilities,
· the development would unduly encroaching into countryside and affecting setting of the green belt.
Given the extension of the period for determining the application to 31 July 2017, the possibility of Judicial Review, and the desirability of further consideration being given to additional information submitted in relation to heritage assets and, in particular, to the impact of the proposed new roundabout on those heritage assets, the Committee deferred the application
Members noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.
The Committee deferred the application to seek the submission and consideration of a heritage statement to assess the impact of the proposal and any mitigation works upon heritage assets, particularly the alms houses at the junction of Rampton Road and Oakington Road.
The Committee refused the application unanimously for the reason specified in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
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
(a) Securing affordable housing
(b) Requiring the construction of a footpath along the northern side of OPakington Road to connect with an existing footpath
(c) Requiring the widening of the existing footpath between the site and Rampton Road junction
(d) Requiring the widening of the existing footpath along the southern side of Rampton Road between its junction with Oakington Road and the B1049
(e) Securing the upgrade of bus stops
(f) Securing an education contribution
(g) Securing public open space
(h) Requiring a financial contribution towards the provision or improvement of community facilities
2. The Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director
3. The application being advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan and not being called in for determination by the Secretary of State.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to the receipt of outstanding comments from consultees, Conditions requested by them, and the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee deferred the application for further information.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the receipt of revised plans as detailed in paragraph 26 of the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and to the Conditions set out in the said report.
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being:
1. The adverse impact on amenity by virtue of unreasonable levels of odour and noise
2. loss of A1 retail premises detrimental to village facilities
3. Nuisance car parking through the intensification of use at certain times of the day.
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being:
1. Insufficient evidence of need
2. Harm to the Landscape that is not outweighed by the personal circumstances of the applicants
3. The application failed to make provision for infrastructure through Section 106 contributions
The Committee refused the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and noted the ongoing appeal against the Enforcement Notice issued and served in April 2014
The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, subject to
(a) the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing index-linked financial contributions
· of £849.42 towards the provision and management of public open space offsite in Cottenham in compliance with Policy SF/10 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 (LDF)
· of £513.04 towards the provision of new community facilities (or the improvement of existing ones) in compliance with Policy DP/4 of the LDF
· of £69.50 per dwelling in respect of household waste recepyacles.
(b) the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report in anticipation of approval being granted, and
(c) an additional Condition relating to the parking of construction vehicles.
Members agreed the reasons for approval as being that the impact on the Conservation Area and Listed Building was acceptable in planning terms.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in the following terms:
Within three months of the date of the Decision Notice:
· Relinquish use of the basement flat (No.3 The Lakes) with the walls and the tanking which form the dwelling to be demolished in accordance with the drawings.
· Convert the outbuilding from two dwellings to one dwelling in accordance with the drawings and schedule of works included with the application
· Secure financial contributions towards theprovision and maintenance of public open space, the off-site provision of indoor community facilities, and the provision of household waste receptacles.
and to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee authorised officers to serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the immediate cessation of the use of the outbuilding as two dwellings with a six-month compliance period.
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 following financial contributions:
· £2,244.90 (or thereabouts)(index linked) towards the provision and management of public open space off-site but still in Cottenham in compliance with Policy SF/10 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 (LDF).
· £371.00 (imdex linked) towards the provision of new facilities or the improvement of existing ones in compliance with Policy DP/4 of the LDF.
2. The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee deferred the application to allow Cambridgeshire County Council, as Local Highwats Authority, to review its consultation response in the light of clarification made at the meeting, and to allow officers to seek advice from an independent highways consultant.
The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being the unsustainable nature of the proposal and the harm caused by it to the character of the area.
The Committee approved the Application subject to finalisation of Section 106 negotiations and comments of the Landscape Design Officer on amended proposals, and to the Conditions set out in the report and written update from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members indicated a wish for the affordable housing provision to be offered first to persons with a local connection.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to refuse the application for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and including wider sustainability and affordable housing issues, subject to clarification of the proposed visibility splays on the existing hedgerow fronting Beach Road.
The Committee approved the report subjext to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee refused the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being:
1. visual harm due to the cumulative impact of development at Smithy Fen as a whole
2. the loss of an amenity area were this application to be granted consent
3. no evidence of need
4. Undermining the Council's intentions for Smithy Fen in the emerging Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document.
An Informative would be attached to the Decision Notice reflecting Members’ concern about flood risk.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) minus the condition in relation to obscure glazing, and additional conditions relating to the design of the garden, and treatment of the boundary between the application site and no.139 High Street.
The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda and would now bee determined by officers under delegated powers.
The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). In agreeing the reasons for approval, Members gave weight to the Planning Inspector’s comments during the appeal against refusal of application S/1904/09/F. They concluded that, although the application was contrary to policies set out in the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007, potential planning harm was outweighed by the setting, siting and size of plot. The application would have to be advertised as a departure from the Development Plan, and have conditions attached to it relating to materials and removing permitted development rights.
Deferred for a site visit.
The Committee refused the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Reasons: the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, particularly at 84 Rampton Road . The proposal would cause significant harm in planning terms to the character of the street scene by virtue of its design, contrary to Policy DP/2 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007.
Approval as report.
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) and referred to a future meeting of the Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee consideration of enforcement options. Reasons:
1. The continued use of the site for a chalet, touring caravan, day room and other domestic paraphernalia would further consolidate the area covered by lawful caravan sites at Setchell Drove and Water Lane, Cottenham, and have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area by eroding the openness between the two lawful sites contrary to Policies DP/1 1(p), DP/2 1(a) and DP/3 2(m) of the South Cambridgeshire LDF ‘Development Control Policies DPD 2007;
2.
Approval of the application (as opposed to
toleration of the existing use) would create a precedent that
planning permission should be granted for other gypsy sites at
Victoria View and elsewhere across Smithy Fen. The cumulative
impact of such developments would be seriously harmful to the
character and appearance of the surrounding landscape.
3. The Council has had due regard to the applicants’ existing personal circumstances including the availability of alternative sites, his general need for a site, and his age and health, but does not consider these are sufficient either individually or collectively to outweigh the non-compliance with the development plan. This includes granting planning permission on a temporary basis where the perceived harm would still be significant.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities), a revised location plan edged red, serving of ownership certificates and no new material planning objections being raised as a consequence that cannot be satisfied by the recommended conditions, confirmation of no further objections raised by Conservation, Trees or Landscape Officers, additional Conditions requiring: removal of the compound upon completion of the works; access to the compound to be through the College grounds only; details of construction method for pile driven foundations; and additional travel plan and cycle parking conditions set out within the 13th January Update. Members asked officers, prior to issuing a decision notice, to seek advice about drainage from the relevant Internal Drainage Board and adoption of a 20mph speed limit from the Local Highways Authority and clarification that the correct car parking standard had been applied.
The Committee refused the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities). Reason: unsustainable location for holiday homes due to the need to travel by car and absence of alternative forms of transport. The Committee authorised officers to take enforcement action, with a six month compliance period.
The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions referred to in the report and an extra Condition requiring the gable ends to be entirely cladded in boarding, with high level windows removed.
Deferred for a site visit.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application as set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities).
Resolved not to take enforcement action, subject to replacing the coping stones and adding a further three courses of bricks to the end of the wall.
Delegated approval as report.
Refused contrary to recommendation on the grounds of the continued evidence of noise in this rural location remaining detrimental to neighbours, contrary to policies in the Local Development Framework, including Policies DP/3 and NE/15.
Refused contrary to report due to the adverse impact on existing properties and residents, loss of parking, lack of amenity / play areas, and proposed Plot 2 being out of character with the area. If supported by independent consultation, additional reasons for refusal would be drainage concerns and highway safety. The Fire Authority will also be asked for their views about access for emergency vehicles and their response may form the basis of another reason for refusal.
Withdrawn from the agenda
Approval as report.
Delegated approval as report, subject to no material objections being received.
Having regard to all the relevant material considerations, including the guidance in Circular 14/91, the Committee resolved that the Local Planning Authority should exercise its power to decline to determine the application.
Minded to grant delegated approval, subject to no adverse comments being received prior to expiry of the consultation period.
Refused contrary to report on the ground of adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours, with enforcement.
Delegated approval as report, subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and extra Conditions relating to visibility splays, hours of construction using power tools, and the provision of bird boxes.
Approval as report with an additional Condition relating to working hours.
Refused as report.
REFUSED, contrary to the recommendation in the report on the grounds of the proposal’s adverse effect on the surrounding countryside, and because less obtrusive alternatives were available to the applicants. The Council would continue to process Enforcement Notice E353J.
REFUSED contrary to officers’ changed recommendation, for the reasons fthat the need for the caravan had not been established, contrary to Policy P1/2 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, and that the caravan would detract from the appearance of the countryside and openess of the Green Belt.
Refused for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, and because of the impact on the vista over Green Belt land from Oakington Road.
Approval as report with an additional Condition requiring timber doors and window frames
Refused as report. Recommendation B withdrawn as authority for enforcement action has already been given. In addition, Members authorised officers to seek an Injunction.
Recommendation A resolved as report. Recommendation B withdrawn as authority for enforcement action has already been given. Members authorised officers to seek an Injunction.
Resolved as report. In addition, Members authorised officers to seek an Injunction.
Resolved as report. In addition, Members authorised officers to seek an Injunction.
APPROVAL
REFUSED
APPROVAL
APPROVAL
Refused as report
Refused as report.
Delegated refusal, subject to the confirmation of measurements in relation to Reason 1 for refusal set out in the report.
Approved
Refusal as report
Refusal as report.
Deferred
Withdrawn from the agenda