Agenda, decisions and minutes

To authorise the Chairman to sign, as correct records, the Minutes of the meetings held on 13 May (not previously formally confirmed), 3 August and 7 September 2005.

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as correct records, the Minutes of the meetings held on 13 May 2005, 3 August 2005 and 7 September 2005.

To note the resignation of Councillors Mrs EM Heazell and D Morgan from the Development and Conservation Control Committee.

Members noted that Councillors Mrs EM Heazell and D Morgan had both resigned from the Committee due to other commitments. 

Temporary Approval for 12 months for the reasons, and subject to the Conditions, referred to in the report. 

APPROVAL for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein.

Appendices B and C are available in hard copy only.

Minded to Approve for the reasons referred to in paragraph 2 of the report, subject to the application not being called in for determination by the Secretary of State. 

Members discussed, and received legal clarification of, a range of procedural issues relating to the consideration of this application.

Councillor Mrs JM Healey (Conservation, Sustainability and Community Planning Portfolio Holder) expressed disquiet at the requirement for Members to leave the Chamber on this occasion.  She argued that the Conservation Advisory Group had simply been consulted about this application, and possessed no decision-making powers.

Councillor Mrs SA Hatton expressed her sympathy for those Members who had been prevented, through alleged prior determination, from taking part in the debate despite being “sufficiently able and honourable to put aside their prior consideration of the conservation aspects” of the application, and equally able to limit themselves to “the planning issues, all the planning issues, and nothing but the planning issues”.  She deplored “yet another example” of the apparent determination of Parliament and the courts to keep the control of local government out of democratically-elected hands.

Councillor SM Edwards pointed out the Development and Conservation Control Committee had already made a decision previously and that, in effect, all those Committee members who had voted at the April meeting and who were currently in the Chamber, should declare their predetermination.  In fact, this was not in issue, and thus underlined what Councillor Edwards referred to as the “ridiculous” nature of the argument.

The following Members were present for the entirety of this debate namely Councillors Dr Bard, Barrett, Batchelor, Bryant, Mrs Corney, Edwards, Mrs Hatton, Mrs Hunt, Martlew, Mrs Muncey, Mrs Murfitt, Nightingale, Pateman, Riley, Mrs Roberts, Scarr, Mrs H Smith, Williams, Dr Williamson and Ziaian-Gillan.  Councillor Kindersley was present at the beginning of the debate, but left the Chamber on other Council business prior to the vote.  Councillor Page entered the Chamber during the course of the debate, but did not contribute to it, did not vote, and was not present at the Conservation Advisory Group meeting on 8^th December 2004.  Although Councillor Mrs Roberts was listed as having been present at the said Conservation Advisory Group meeting, she was there by invitation for an earlier item and had left the meeting by the time Members discussed Sawston Hall.  Having sought clarification from the Head of Legal Services, Councillor Mrs CA Hunt declared that she had arrived late for the Conservation Advisory Group meeting on 8^th December 2004, and had not been present when members there had discussed Sawston Hall.  Councillor RF Bryant attended the Conservation Advisory Group meeting by invitation, and did not contribute to the debate.  Councillor Dr DR Bard was a member of Sawston Parish Council, which had considered this application on 14^th September 2004.  He produced to the Head of Legal Services a copy of the Minutes of that meeting which stated that he, as well as the other local Members (Councillor Mrs Hatton and Councillor Ziaian-Gillan) had not contributed to the debate or voted.

Councillors R Hall (who attended the Conservation Advisory Group site visit to Sawston Hall on 7^th December 2004 though not a member  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Approval as report subject to the withdrawal of Permitted Development Rights. 

APPROVAL for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein and to the withdrawal of Permitted Development Rights in respect of the construction of vehicular access to Gibralter Lane.

The appendix is available in hard copy only. 

Deferred for one month to enable the Parish Council to provide evidence of actual flood incidents referred to in paragraph 17 of the report. 

DEFERRED for one month to give the Parish Council an opportunity to provide evidence of actual flood incidents referred to in paragraph 17 of the report. 

Councillor NIC Wright took the Chair for this item.  Councillor Dr JPR Orme (local Member) remained in the room, contributed to the debate, and voted.

Delegated approval subject to reduction in height of the plant room. 

DELEGATED APPROVAL as amended by drawings date stamped 4^th October 2005 for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein, and to the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations between officers and the agent in connection with the access arrangements in light of the Local Highway Authority’s comments on the application.

Councillor NIC Wright took the Chair for this item.  Councillor Dr JPR Orme (local Member) remained in the room, contributed to the debate, and voted.

Delegated approval as report, subject to outstanding drainage issues being addressed satisfactorily. 

DELEGATED APPROVAL for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein and to outstanding drainage issues being addressed satisfactorily. 

Mr S Travers-Healy of Steeple Morden Parish Council addressed the meeting.

Refused for reasons of disturbance caused through creation of the new access, and loss of trees to make way for that access adversely affecting the character of the area. 

REFUSED contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Director of Development Services, for reasons of the length and position of the access and the resultant loss of trees along the boundary with properties in Hinton Way detracting from the character of the area and the use of the access by residents of and visitors to the proposed dwelling resulting in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties, and the occupiers of No.2 Mingle Lane in particular.  Members had visited the site on 3^rd October 2005.

Councillor CR Nightingale declared a prejudicial interest as owner of the property, withdrew from the Chamber, did not contribute to the debate and did not vote.

Councillor Mrs DP Roberts declared a prejudicial interest and withdrew from the Chamber, did not contribute to the debate and did not vote.  As the Council’s representative on the Local Government Association, Councillor Mrs Roberts leaves her car outside the property before catching the train to London.

Councillors Dr DR Bard, R Hall and R Martlew did not attend the site visit, and did not vote.

Approval as report. 

APPROVAL, as amended by drawing nos. 4.563F and 4.564D date stamped 19^th September 2005 and drawing nos. 4.576E and 4.578E date stamped 22^nd September 2005, for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services and subject to the Conditions referred to therein.

Approval as report. 

APPROVALas clarified by letters dated 5^th and 8^th September 2005 and amended by letter dated 14^th September 2005, for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services

Approval as report. 

APPROVAL for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein. 

Approval contrary to report.  Members took the view that a flood risk assessment was not required, that there was sufficient parking, and that the proposal would not generate significantly more traffic.

APPROVAL contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Director of Development Services.  Having visited the site, Members took the view that a flood risk assessment was not required and  that there was sufficient parking and turning on site to avoid a need to widen the access bridge.

Councillor Dr DR Bard did not attend the site visit and did not vote.

Delegated approval as report, subject to the comments of the Trees and Landscape Officer. 

DELEGATED APPROVAL/REFUSAL, Approval if the proposed finished floor level of the dwelling and the roof pitch are lowered to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and provided the Trees and Landscape Officer has no objections and, failing that, Refusal.

Councillors Dr DR Bard and NJ Scarr did not vote.

Approval contrary to report.  Members felt that the window in the proposed extension was not intrusive and that there was no conflict with Policy HG12 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004. 

APPROVAL contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Director of Development Services.  Having visited the site, Members felt that the window in the side elevation of the proposed extension was not intrusive and that there was no conflict with Policy HG12 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004. 

Councillor Dr DR Bard did not attend the site visit, and did not vote.

Approval contrary to report.  Members felt that there would be no adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area.  Relocation of the panels to the rear of the cottage would not reduce their visual impact.  The Committee deemed it important to support such a contribution to renewable energy, subject to agreement being reached on the panels’ colour. 

APPROVAL contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Director of Development Services.  Members felt that there would be no adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area.  Relocation of the panels to the rear of the cottage would not reduce their visual impact, as they would then be clearly visible from an adjacent public footpath.  Additionally, the panels needed to be south facing and close to the water tank for maximum efficiency.  The Committee deemed it important to support such a contribution to renewable energy, subject to agreement being reached on the panels’ colour. 

Approval as report. 

APPROVAL for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein. 

Approval as report. 

APPROVAL for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Condition referred to therein.

Approval as report. 

APPROVAL of ReservedMatters, for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services and subject to the Conditions referred to therein.

Refused contrary to report on the grounds of siting and design. 

REFUSED contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Director of Development Services.  Having visited the site, Members considered that the siting, bulk and extent across the site conflicted with Policy P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 and Policies SE4, SE9 and HG10 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004and adversely affected the amenities of the adjoining property to the north.

Councillor Dr DR Bard did not attend the site visit and did not vote.

Dr Howard Roscoe, a member of Comberton Parish Council, addressed the meeting.

Refused as report.

REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, and for the additional reasons of the narrowness of the access and adverse impact on the Conservation Area.

Approval contrary to report, in view of the special circumstances of the case, service to the community, need to preserve customer base, sustainability, employment opportunities, and removal of an existing building. 

The Committee was MINDED TO APPROVE the application, contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to it being advertised as a departure from the Development Plan, referred to the Secretary of State, and called in for determination by him.   Members considered that,  in view of the special circumstances of the case, service to the community, need to preserve customer base, sustainability, employment opportunities, and removal of an existing building, the proposal should not be viewed as inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  Accordingly, they deemed there to be no conflict with Policies P1/2, P2/6 and P9/2a of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, or Policies GB2 and GB3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004.

Refused as report. 

REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services. 

Approval as report, subject to enforcement notices being served in respect of breach of Conditions 9, 14 and 15, and not 9, 13 and 15 as set out in paragraph 15 of the report.

RESOLVED that South Cambridgeshire District Council raises no objections to the plan for the open space at the south eastern end of the site but that further negotiations, to include the Drainage Manager and local Members, be conducted to finalise an acceptable Management Plan.

RESOLVED to authorise officers to serve Breach of Condition Notices in respect of Conditions 9, 14 (not 13 as in the report) and 15 of Planning Consent S/0691/03/RM should more than 50 dwellings be occupied.

Approval as report. 

APPROVAL, as amended by letter dated 8^th September 2005 and plan H4321 date stamped 9^th September 2005, for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services and subject to the Conditions referred to therein.

Councillor Dr DR Bard did not attend the site visit and did not vote.

Appendix 1 is available in hard copy only. 

Refused as report. 

REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services. 

Councillor SGM Kindersley informed Members that he was County Councillor for the Electoral Division of Gamlingay, which covered the Parish of Wimpole.

Mr Richard Hoole, Chairman of Wimpole Parish Council, addressed the meeting.

 Refused as report.

REFUSED for the reason set out in the report from the Director of Development Services.

Councillor Dr DR Bard did not attend the site visit and did not vote.

Deferred for further information. 

DEFERRED for further information.

The Committee NOTED the following from the report prepared by the Director of Development Services:

Members noted that no appeals had been withdrawn or postponed since the last meeting.

On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman conveyed Members’ appreciation of the professionalism and dedication of the Appeals team.

Members NOTED the Enforcement Action Progress Report dated 5^th October 2005. 

On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman conveyed Members’ appreciation of the professionalism and dedication of the Enforcement team.  He noted that Shelley Bidwell, one of the Assistant Enforcement Officers, was leaving the Council, and he conveyed to her the Committee’s good wishes for the future.

To consider making a Tree Preservation Order at Pierce Lane, Fulbourn.

Appendix 1 (site plan) is available as hard copy only.

Authority given as report. 

The Committee considered a report seeking its authority to make and serve a Tree Preservation Order in respect of land at 35 Pierce Lane, Fulbourn.