By six votes to two, 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 a conflict with planning policies including Policy HQ/1 (Design Principles) of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 by virtue of the proposal’s design quality, height and scale making it out of keeping with the character of, and fail either to preserve or enhance, the local area and landscape. Members also agreed that final wording for the Decision Notice should be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee.
(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Heylings, Milnes, Roberts and Wright voted to refuse the application. Councillors Cahn and Fane voted to approve it. Councillors Ellington, Rippeth and Heather Williams were not present.)
Members visited the site on 6 March 2018.
Copies of the Heads of Terms had been circulated to Planning Committee members.
James Snell (applicant’s agent), Councillor Pennie Zimern (Parish Council) and Councillor Tony Orgee (local Member) addressed the meeting.
Discussion included reference to the application being outline only. One Committee member suggested that, if approved, the Reserved Matters application should be presented to Committee for determination. A Committee member suggested that the requirement for affordable housing should be pegged at 40% with a minimum of five dwellings.
The Interim Head of Development Management highlighted the impact of the five-year land supply issue and said that the setting of the nearby Listed Buildings should be seen as a material consideration.
A proposal by Councillor Deborah Roberts to defer the application was seconded by Councillor Tim Scott, voted upon, and lost.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, contrary to the primary recommendation in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development. The Committee did not consider that the impact on the setting of the Conservation Area and Listed Building would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits arising from the development, namely the provision of no fewer than five affordable dwellings, and those benefits set out in paragraph 84 of the report. Planning consent would be subject to:
1. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in line with the following Heads of Terms
|
Great Abington – Land north of Linton Road (S/3564/17/OL)
|
|
|
South Cambridgeshire District Council (Affordable Housing) |
|
|
Affordable housing |
40% or five dwellings, whichever is the higher |
|
Affordable housing tenure |
70% affordable rent and 30% Intermediate |
|
Local connection criteria |
All 5 affordable dwellings to have local connection priority.
1st Great Abington and Little Abington 2nd Babraham, Hildersham, Hinxton, Pampisford |
Section 106 payments summary:
|
Item |
Beneficiary |
Estimated sum |
|
Sports |
SCDC |
£15,000 (circa) |
|
Indoor community space |
SCDC |
£22,000 (circa) |
|
Children’s play |
SCDC |
£7,000 (circa) |
|
Household waste bins |
SCDC |
£73.50 per house and £150 per flat |
|
Healthcare |
SCDC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
£44,000 |
|
TOTAL PER DWELLING |
|
£3,384.62 |
Section 106 infrastructure summary:
|
Item |
Beneficiary |
Summary |
|
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL |
|
Ref |
CCC1 |
|
Type |
Early years |
|
Policy |
DP/4 |
|
Required |
NO |
|
Ref |
CCC2 |
|
Type |
Primary School |
|
Policy |
DP/4 |
|
Required |
NO |
|
Ref |
CCC3 |
|
Type |
Secondary school |
|
Policy |
DP/4 |
|
Required |
NO |
|
Ref |
CCC4 |
|
Type |
Libraries and lifelong learning |
|
Policy |
DP/4 |
|
Required |
NO |
|
Ref |
CCC5 |
|
Type |
Strategic waste |
|
Policy |
RECAP WMDG |
|
Required |
NO |
|
Ref |
CCC6 |
|
Type |
CCC monitoring |
|
Policy |
None |
|
Required |
NO |
|
Ref |
CCC7 |
|
Type |
Transport |
|
Policy |
TR/3 |
|
Required |
NO |
|
SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL |
|
Ref |
SCDC1 |
|
Type |
Sport |
|
Policy |
SF/10 |
|
Required |
YES |
|
Detail |
The Recreation and Open Space Study 2013, forming part of the Local Plan submission, showed that Great and Little Abington needed 2.21 ha of sports space but had 3.72 ha, i.e. a surplus of 1.51 ha.
The parishes of Great and Little Abington have shared recreation facilities. The one recreation ground is located in Great Abington and has a football pitch and separate cricket pitch and a heavily used, informal MUGA. There is also an outdoor bowling green located in Little Abington The football pitches are in very good condition and have been improved since the last report. The villages do not provide competitive junior football as many local young people play for the Aztecs Club, now based at Linton Village College. There is an adult football team, and 4 adult and 5 junior cricket teams. The Bowls club are allowed to use the ground by goodwill only as it is privately owned.
In accordance with policies SF/10 and SF/11 the applicant will be required to make a contribution towards the increase in demand for provision of outdoor sports provision to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development.
Great Abington Parish Council has said that in order to meet the needs of future resident’s sports contributions are required to:
A. Improve and enlarge the hard court area on the recreation ground (which is well used by the community and the school), making it into a Multi Use games Area (MUGA) that can be used for a wide range of activities including tennis, 5 a side football, football and cricket practice. B. A BMX Track C. A perimeter running track around the recreation ground D. Cricket Practice nets
The SPD also establishes the quantum of offsite financial contributions in the event that the full level of onsite open space is not being provided:
1 bed: £625.73 2 bed: £817.17, 3 bed: £1,130.04 4+ bed: £1,550.31 |
|
Quantum |
£15,000 (circa) |
|
Fixed / Tariff |
Tariff |
|
Trigger |
To be paid prior to the occupations of 5 dwellings |
|
Officer agreed |
YES |
|
Applicant agreed |
TBC |
|
Number Pooled obligations |
One to date (North of Pampisford Road) |
|
Ref |
SCDC2 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Type |
Children’s play space and informal open space |
|||||||||||||||
|
Policy |
SF/10 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Required |
YES |
|||||||||||||||
|
Detail |
The Recreation and Open Space Study July 2013, forming part of the Local Plan submission, showed that Great and Little Abington needed 1.11 ha of play space whereas it had 0.08 ha, i.e. a deficit of 1.03 ha.
A development of 13 dwellings is required to provide onsite open space in the form of (a) informal children’s play space and (b) informal open space.
The provision of formal children’s play space will be satisfied via an offsite contribution based on the rates set out below.
1 bed: £0 2 bed: £1,202.78 3 bed: £1,663.27 4+ bed: £2,281.84
Great Abington Parish Council has said that contributions would be spent on updating and improving the existing children’s play area at the recreation ground.
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Quantum |
£22,000 (circa) |
|||||||||||||||
|
Fixed / Tariff |
Tariff |
|||||||||||||||
|
Trigger |
To be paid prior to the occupations of 5 dwellings |
|||||||||||||||
|
Officer agreed |
YES |
|||||||||||||||
|
Applicant agreed |
YES |
|||||||||||||||
|
Number Pooled obligations |
One to date (North of Pampisford Road) |
|
Ref |
SCDC4 |
|
Type |
Offsite indoor community space |
|
Policy |
DP/4 |
|
Required |
YES |
|
Detail |
In accordance with Development Control Policy DP/4 infrastructure and new developments, all residential developments generate a need for the provision of, or improvement to, indoor community facilities. Where this impact is not mitigated through onsite provision a financial contribution towards offsite improvement works will be required.
The Council undertook an external audit and needs assessment undertaken in 2009, in respect of all primary community facilities in each village. The purpose of this audit was threefold (i) to make a recommendation as to the indoor space requirements across the District (ii) to make a recommendation on the type of indoor space based on each settlement category and (iii) make a recommendation as to the level of developer contributions that should be sought to meet both the quantity and quality space standard.
Whilst not formally adopted as an SPD, this informal approach was considered and approved at the Planning and New Communities portfolio holder’s meeting on 5th December 2009 and has been applied since.
In accordance with the assessment Great Abington has a need for 95 square metres of indoor meeting space and Little Abington has a need for 55 square metres. Both villages are served by the Abington Institute which provides 180 square metres meaning there is a surplus of 30 square metres. The Institute is described as a well maintained, good quality, recently updated facility which is well equipped with a community café and functions as a hub for community sports facilities. The hall is of a reasonable size.
Based on the likely number of people arising from the development an area of circa 4 m2 is required.
Great Abington Parish Council has said that monies would be used towards the continued improvement of facilities at the village Institute:
A. The replacement of the terrace glazed walling @ £15,000 B. Improve lighting @ £3,000 C. Additional storage @ £2,000 D. Improved flooring @ £11,000 E. New oven @ £3,500
The contribution required as per the indoor community space policy would be:
1 bed - £284.08 2 bed - £371.00 3 bed - £513.04 4+ bed - £703.84 |
|
Quantum |
£7,000 (circa) |
|
Fixed / Tariff |
Tariff |
|
Trigger |
To be paid prior to the occupations of 5 dwellings |
|
Officer agreed |
YES |
|
Applicant agreed |
TBC |
|
Number Pooled obligations |
One to date (North of Pampisford Road) |
|
Ref |
SCDC5 |
|
Type |
Household waste receptacles |
|
Policy |
RECAP WMDG |
|
Required |
YES |
|
Detail |
£73.50 per house and £150 per flat |
|
Quantum |
See above |
|
Fixed / Tariff |
Tariff |
|
Trigger |
Paid in full prior to commencement of each phase |
|
Officer agreed |
YES |
|
Applicant agreed |
YES |
|
Number Pooled obligations |
None |
|
Ref |
SCDC6 |
|
Type |
S106 Monitoring |
|
Policy |
Portfolio holder approved policy |
|
Required |
NO |
2. The suggested Conditions set out in the report in case the Committee rejected the officer recommendation to refuse, together with additional safeguarding Conditions including the requirement for a design brief to provide guidance prior to the submission of any Reserved Matters.
The Committee approved 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 the Heads of Terms attached at Appendix 1 to the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development; and
2. The draft Conditions set out in Appendix 2 to the said report.
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
(a) 40% Affordable housing on-site or, should there be no evidence of demand at the time of the Reserved Matters application, a commuted sum towards the provision of affordable housing off-site but still within South Cambridgeshire
(b) £73.50p per dwelling for Waste receptacles
(c) A monitoring fee of £500
(d) A footpath along Pampisford Road
2. The Conditions set out in the report from the Head of Development Management.
The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.
Following public speaking and Committee debate, and owing to exceptional circumstances, the Chairman deferred the application.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to
(a) The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to
(i) Affordable housing
(ii) Open space
(iii) Community facilities
(iv) Waste receptacles
(v) Monitoring
(vi) Management and maintenance of surface water drainage system
as detailed in the Heads of Terms attached to the report from the Head of Development Management; and
(b) The Conditions referred to in the said report.
The Committee deferred the application until a future meeting, preferably on 3 August 2016.
The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.
The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.
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 securing financial contributions to mitigate off-site impacts of the development on the local road network and ensure that the development supersedes rather than adds to the development previously permitted, the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and further Conditions requiring submission of new plans, and remediation of the site.
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 securing financial contributions to mitigate off-site impacts of the development on the local road network and ensure that the development supersedes rather than adds to the development previously permitted, the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and further Conditions requiring submission of new plans, and remediation of the site.
The Committee refused the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Condition set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to Conditions to be finalised, further to those set out in the Update report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), and to consequential variations to relevant Section 106 Legal Agreements.
The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Members considered the objection from the Council’s Conservation Manager and potential harm to the setting of the listed building. They concluded that the proposal’s design aspects would not cause harm and that the proposal would contribute to the economic success of the Three Tuns Public House. Appropriate Conditions would be attached to the planning consent, including a Condition requiring the weatherboarded walls to be painted black.
The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), subject to the imposition of appropriate Conditions. Reason: Members were satisfied that the property had been marketed adequately, and that there was no reason for delaying the proposal further.
Withdrawn from the agenda.
Withdrawn from the agenda.
The Committee approved the application as 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). Reason: While the application is contrary to the thrust of Policy HG/8 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007, which generally seeks to prevent the conversion of rural buildings to residential use, the former residential use and planning history of the property are material considerations which outweigh the policy presumption against such development in this case.
Approval of both applications, contrary to officer recommendation. Members considered that Policy HG/6 of the Local Development Framework Development Control Policies Document 2007 would not be compromised, that the extended dwellings would remain of a medium size and in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood and that neighbours’ amenities would not adversely be affected.
Temporary approval as report.
MINDED TO APPROVE
Approval as report to the Development and Conservation Control Committee meeting on 5 October 2005
Approval as report with Condition requiring parking f
Deferred for one month to enable the Parish Council to provide evidence of actual flood incidents referred to in paragraph 17 of the report.
Refused as report.
Delegated approval/refusal of the whole application + enforcement