Agenda, decisions and minutes

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2006 as a correct record.  The draft Minutes are available on the Council’s website.

Agreed. 

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2006.

To receive a short verbal update from the Planning Policy Manager on the LDF, including progress with the public examination.

Withdrawn from the agenda.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.  The Planning Policy Manager had indicated indicated that he would be preparing a briefing note for Members on the subject.

To receive a report to, and the draft Minutes of,  the Development and Conservation Control (Advisory) Committee meeting held on 20 April 2006, and to consider accepting the three recommendations made to the Development and Conservation Control Committee in respect of Orchard land at Smithy Fen, Cottenham, namely that:

1.         The Council take no direct action against the landowner;

2.         The landowner be encouraged to enforce the possession order against the occupiers of the orchard land, and that the Council work with the owner to agree a suitable way of protecting the land from future incursions; and

3.         If the landowner does not pursue a possession order by 31 December 2006, then the Council review its decision not to take direct action against the landowner.

Resolved

1.         that the Council take no direct action against the landowner;

2.         that the landowner be encouraged to enforce the possession order against the occupiers of the orchard land, and that the Council work with the owner to agree a suitable way of protecting the land from future incursions; and

3.         that, should the landowner fail to pursue a possession order by 31 December 2006, then the Council review its decision not to take direct action against the landowner.

The Committee considered a recommendation from the Development and Conservation Control (Advisory) Committee in respect of Orchard land at Smithy Fen, Cottenham.

In response to suggestions from the landowner that the report to the Advisory Committee on 20 April 2006 had contained certain factual inaccuracies, the Deputy Director of Development Services made clear his assertion that there were no grounds upon which the information in that report should be changed.  

RESOLVED

1.         that the Council take no direct action against the landowner;

2.         that the landowner be encouraged to enforce the possession order against the occupiers of the orchard land, and that the Council work with the owner to agree a suitable way of protecting the land from future incursions; and

3.         that, should the landowner fail to pursue a possession order by 31 December 2006, then the Council review its decision not to take direct action against the landowner.

Section 70(A) Of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 gives the Local Authority discretion to refuse to determine an application if the Secretary of State has determined it within the last two years or if there is an absence of new significant and relevant considerations. Officers have taken the view that the new Travellers and Gypsy Circular 1/2006 constitutes a new significant relevant consideration. In view of local concerns, Counsel’s opinion has been sought, and will be reported to Members in advance of the meeting.

Resolved not to determine the application.

The Committee considered a report, which had been circulated to Members subsequent to due Notice of the issue to be discussed having been given.  The report referred to the submission of a further application for the use of this site at Moor Drove, Histon to accommodate Travellers.

The Deputy Director of Development Services explained the circumstances in which a Local Planning Authority could, legitimately, refuse to determine a planning application in the Green Belt.  He went on to say that, in this particular case, there were a number of factors to consider relating in the main to safety issues relating to the vehicular access to the site, the adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents, and the general on-going harm being caused.  While, in theory, it would be possible to grant planning permission, without prejudice, for a temporary period, the Deputy Director of Development Services advised against such a course of action.  In the event of an appeal against a refusal in such circumstances, a Judge, among other things, would have to weigh up the harm caused thereby to the Travellers concerned against the harm caused to planning law.  The Deputy Director of Development Services expressed the view that the site in question was not a suitable one for which temporary consent should be given. 

The Assistant Solicitor advised that, while the Opinion of the Council’s Counsel should be discussed in public session, the document containing that Opinion should remain confidential.

The Deputy Director of Development Services set out the financial implications both of not considering the application and of considering it but refusing it. 

The resubmission of this application was seen as a cynical exploitation of planning law, since there had been no significant change in policy since the original application.  Other lawful sites were available, and the Council should act so as to reaffirm public confidence in the planning system.  Members argued that the application should not be considered, and that the Council would be well-placed to defeat any subsequent application for Judicial Review.  The highway safety concerns were such that a refusal to consider the application was the correct decision to take, both morally and ethically.

The Deputy Director of Development Services concluded by stating that the ongoing harm being caused by Travellers at Moor Drove, Histon was such that even temporary planning permission would not be appropriate.  A Quantative Needs Assessment would be presented to the Committee in due course.

On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman thanked the Deputy Director of Development Services for his clear and concise overview of the situation.

On the proposal of Councillor SGM Kindersley, seconded by Councillor Mrs DP Roberts, it was           

RESOLVED            not to determine the application.

Councillors JD Batchelor, SGM Kindersley and RJ Turner reminded the Committee that each of them was a Member of Cambridgeshire County Council.  Accordingly, they wished to declare a general personal interest in all cases where the County Council had been involved, either as a statutory consultee or in some other capacity. 

Approval for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein, and to an additional Condition requiring all windows at first floor level to be non-opening.

APPROVAL for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein, and to an additional Condition requiring all windows at first floor level to be non-opening.

Councillor Mrs CA Hunt declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of owning the property in question, withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate and did not vote.

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

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

Delegated Refusal (as amended by drawing no. 04/960/PL.02 Rev.A date stamped 11 April 2006 and drawing no. 04/960/PL.01 Rev.A date stamped 18 April 2006 for Reasons 1 and 2 set out in the report from the Director of Development Services and, should the Ecology Officer be dissatisfied with the results of the ecological survey, Reason 3.  Reason 4 was deleted as the football pitch had been deleted from the application.

DELEGATED REFUSAL, as amended by drawing no. 04/960/PL.02 Rev.A date stamped 11 April 2006 and drawing no. 04/960/PL.01 Rev.A date stamped 18 April 2006 for Reasons 1 and 2 set out in the report from the Director of Development Services and, should the Ecology Officer be dissatisfied with the results of the ecological survey, Reason 3.  Reason 4 was deleted as the football pitch had been deleted from the application.

Councillor CR Nightingale had attended the Parish Council meeting at which this application had been discussed, but had not contributed to the debate and was considering it now afresh.

Councillor SGM Kindersley had not attended the site visit and did not vote.

Mr M Farrar, Chairman of stapleford Parish Council, addressed the meeting.

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

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

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

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

Delegated Approval contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Director of Development Services. Having visited the site, Members considered it to be a suitable location for the conversion of buildings and, recognising the facility’s importance as a centre of excellence, expressed satisfaction that the proposal did not conflict with Policy EM4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004.  Consent would be subject to Conditions relating to, among other things, landscaping, details of the proposed conversion, and measures to preserve the tree.  In the light of these considerations and the nature of representations, the application would not be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Development Plan.

DELEGATED APPROVAL contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Director of Development Services. Having visited the site, Members considered it to be a suitable location for the conversion of buildings and, recognising the facility’s importance as a centre of excellence, expressed satisfaction that the proposal did not conflict with Policy EM4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004.  Consent would be subject to Conditions relating to, among other things, landscaping, details of the proposed conversion, and measures to preserve the tree.  In the light of these considerations and the nature of representations, the application would not be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Development Plan.

Councillor JA Quinlan declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of having acted in a professional capacity for the neighbouring landowner.

Councillor SGM Kindersley had not attended the site visit and did not vote.

Withdrawn.

This application had been WITHDRAWN.

Delegated approval / refusal.  The application would be approved for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to parking arrangements being improved so as to have less of an impact on the occupiers of nearby flats, and to the Conditions referred to in the report.  It would be refused if parking arrangements could not be improved.

DELEGATED APPROVAL / REFUSAL.  The application would be approved for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to parking arrangements being improved so as to have less of an impact on the occupiers of nearby flats, and to the Conditions referred to in the report.  It would be refused if parking arrangements could not be improved.

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

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

Minded to Refuse, contrary to the recommendation of the Director of Development Services, on the grounds of highway safety if such ground was substantiated by an independent highways consultant.  If the independent consultant considered the application acceptable, it would be referred back to Committee for determination.

MINDED TO REFUSE, contrary to the recommendation of the Director of Development Services, on the grounds of highway safety if such ground was substantiated by an independent highways consultant.  If the independent consultant considered the application acceptable, it would be referred back to Committee for determination.

Deferred until the Committee meeting in June 2006 to allow further discussions to take place between the Local Planning Authority, developer and Cambourne Parish Council.

DEFERRED until the Committee meeting on 7 June 2006 to allow further discussions to take place between the Local Planning Authority, Local Highways Authority and the developer.

Delegated approval / refusal.  The application would be approved for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein and to the Environment Agency being satisfied with the amended plans.  Otherwise, it would be refused.

DELEGATED APPROVAL / REFUSAL.  The application would be approved for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein and to the Environment Agency being satisfied with the amended plans.  Otherwise, it would be refused.

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

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

Approval for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein and an additional Condition requiring ecological enhancement.

APPROVAL for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein and an additional Condition requiring ecological enhancement.

Refused for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, and for a third reason, namely the proximity of the proposal to the pond and the failure of the applicant to take wildlife into account.

REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, and for a third reason, namely the proximity of the proposal to the pond and the failure of the applicant to take wildlife into account.

Councillor SGM Kindersley had not attended the site visit and did not vote.

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.

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

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

The following Members were present in the Chamber when this stage of the meeting was reached, and declared personal and prejudicial interests in relation to one of the applicants, namely Mr RGR Smith: Councillor Mrs SA Hatton by virtue of friendship as a former Member colleague, JA Quinlan, by virtue of having advised L G Duke (one of the applicants) in a professional capacity in the past, and Councillor Mrs DP Roberts, by virtue of friendship as a former Member colleague.  Each of these withdrew from the Chamber prior to consideration of the application, did not participate therein, and did not vote.

The following Members were present in the Chamber, and declared personal interests, by virtue of their acquaintance with Mr RGR Smith: Councillors Dr DR Bard, RE Barrett (who also declared that he had once visited Mr Smith’s farm), RF Bryant, Mrs P Corney, Mrs A Elsby, R Hall, SGM Kindersley, Mrs CAED Murfitt, Councillor CR Nightingale, Dr JPR Orme, NJ Scarr, Mrs DSK Spink, and R Turner.

Councillor NIC Wright  was present in the Chamber and declared a personal interest by virtue of his acquaintance with all of the applicants.

Councillors R Martlew and A Riley were present in the Chamber but had no declarable interests.

No other Members were present in the Chamber at this stage of the meeting.

Delegated approval / Delegated Refusal contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Director of Development Services.  Having visited the site, Members considered that, subject to some improvements being made to the visibility splay and parking layout, the expansion of a local firm outweighed the possible adverse impact on the neighbour at no. 18 Home End, and reflected the aim of Policy EM7 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004.  If the required improvements could not be achieved, the application would be refused.

DELEGATED APPROVAL / DELEGATED REFUSAL contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Director of Development Services.  Having visited the site, Members considered that, subject to some improvements being made to the visibility splay and parking layout, the expansion of a local firm outweighed the possible adverse impact on the neighbour at no. 18 Home End, and reflected the aim of Policy EM7 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004.  If the required improvements could not be achieved, the application would be refused.

Councillor SGM Kindersley had not attended the site visit and did not vote.

Councillor Mrs DP Roberts was not present in the Chamber during the first part of the debate and, accordingly, did not vote.

Delegated Approval for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to expiry of the consultation period, to a possible meeting with neighbouring residents and the Conditions referred to therein and to additional Conditions requiring ecological enhancement, diversion of the public footpath and appropriate screening from both the road and that footpath.

DELEGATED APPROVAL for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to expiry of the consultation period, to a possible meeting with neighbouring residents and the Conditions referred to therein and to additional Conditions requiring ecological enhancement, diversion of the public footpath and appropriate screening from both the road and that footpath.

Councillor SGM Kindersley declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of his acquaintance with the applicants and his position as Clerk to Hatley Parish Council, withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate and did not vote. He added that the Parish Council had not commented as all members of it had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the matter.

Councillor A Riley had not attended the site visit and did not vote.

Refused for the reasons set out in the

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

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

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

Approval for a temporary period of five years in accordance with the revised recommendation from the Director of Development Services.

APPROVAL for a temporary period of five years in accordance with the revised recommendation from the Director of Development Services.

Councillor MJ Mason declared a personal interest as a Member of the Recreation Ground’s Management Committee.

Councillor Mrs DP Roberts informed the Committee that, although the Council’s Community Development section had been involved with this matter, she had not contributed to them (despite being Community Development Portfolio Holder) and did not have a declarable interest therefore.

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

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

Councillors A Riley and Mrs DP Roberts had been approached by the applicant and, while they did not consider themselves to have declarable interests, they withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate and did not vote.

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 the prior completion of the necessary maintenance and access agreement between the Council, as Drainage Authority and Peter Stroude, as land owner, and to the payment, by Persimmon to the District Council, of the agreed maintenance sum.

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 the prior completion of the necessary maintenance and access agreement between the Council, as Drainage Authority and Peter Stroude, as land owner, and to the payment, by Persimmon to the District Council, of the agreed maintenance sum.

Councillor Mrs DSK Spink had been involved directly with this matter in her capacity as Environmental Health Portfolio Holder.  While she did not consider herself to have a declarable interest, she took no part in the debate and did not vote.

Delegated approval, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Local Planning Authority being satisfied with the revised plans.  Members considered that the proposal would enhance the area, and comply with Policies HG10, SE9 and EN30 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004.

DELEGATED APPROVAL, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Local Planning Authority being satisfied with the revised plans.  Members considered that the proposal would enhance the area, and comply with Policies HG10, SE9 and EN30 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004.

Mr R Trimble, Chairman of Melbourn Parish Council, addressed the meeting.

Deferred for consideration of accurate drawings.

DEFERRED for consideration of accurate drawings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councillors Dr DR Bard and Mrs SA Hatton had both been present when Sawston Parish Council considered this application, but neither contributed to the debate there.  They were now considering the matter afresh.

Delegated approval / refusal.  The application would be approved for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Condition referred to therein and to the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations aimed at addressing Members’ concerns about the design of the lamps, their hours of use, and the issue of light pollution.

DELEGATED APPROVAL / REFUSAL.  The application would be approved for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Condition referred to therein and to the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations aimed at addressing Members’ concerns about the design of the lamps,

Councillors Dr DR Bard and Mrs SA Hatton had both been present when Sawston Parish Council considered this application, but neither contributed to the debate there.  They were now considering the matter afresh.

To consider whether a Notice should be served under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring land at 103 Caxton End, Bourn to be cleaned up.

Deferred, among other reasons, to consider the environmental health implications.

DEFERRED to consider the environmental health implications.

Councillor Mrs DSK Spink declared a personal and prejudicial interest as having previously expressed an opinion on this issue.  She withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate and did not vote.

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

·                       Decisions notified by the Secretary of State

·                      Summaries of recent decisions of interest

·                      Appeals received

·                      Local Inquiry and Informal Hearing dates scheduled before the next meeting on 7 June 2006

·                      Appeals withdrawn or postponed

·                      Advance notification of future Local Inquiry and Informal Hearing dates (subject to postponement or cancellation)

The Committee NOTED planning appeal statistics for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2006, and for the year from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006. 

Members received graphical interpretations of planning decision statistics.

This item is available in hard copy only. 

The Committee noted details of applications awaiting decisions for more than 13 weeks.

 Members noted a report on performance criteria.  They agreed that, in future, this item should appear only in the Weekly Bulletin.

Resolved that the revised scheme of delegation for determining applications be adopted with effect from the meeting of the Development and Conservation Control Committee on  7 June 2006.

The Committee considered a report on the officer delegation procedures for determining planning and other applications.

The Development Control Quality Manager drew Members’ attention to the need to address the initial comments of the Audit Commission Development Services Inspectors, that the average length of Development and Conservation Control Committee agendas was too long.  The current review was necessary in order to take account of the Major and Minor categories of applications introduced since the previous review, and to ensure that all applications were determined as effectively as possible.  He read out the comments from the Chairman of Impington Parish Council, who had expressed reservations about any further delegation, and regret at the lack of consultation with Parish Councils and CALC (Cambridgeshire Association of Local Councils).

Some Members expressed concern about the implications for parish councils, and the Chairman highlighted the important partnership role such bodies played, and would continue to play, in the planning process.

The Committee RESOLVED that the revised scheme of delegation for determining applications be adopted with effect from the meeting of the Development and Conservation Control Committee on  7 June 2006.

Approval of the amendment to the requirement for land at the village greens for recycling facilities, subject to the developers’ Consortium submitting for approval, and subsequently implementing, alternative uses for the sites already used /allocated at Great and Lower Cambourne village greens.

The Committee considered a request to remove, or not provide, some of the neighbourhood recycling facilities at Cambourne.

There was some discussion on the need to expand recycling to include, for example, batteries.  However, Councillor Mrs Spink (as Environmental Health Portfolio Holder) stated that such expansion would only become feasible once the District Council was able to service the additional collections.

The Committee RESOLVED thatthe amendment to the requirement for land at the village greens for recycling facilities, subject to the developers’ Consortium submitting for approval, and subsequently implementing, alternative uses for the sites already used /allocated at Great and Lower Cambourne village greens, be approved.

B1050 Bypass for Longstanton and Related Road Works together with Housing (21ha), Business Park 6.3ha), Extension to Village Recreation Area (2.8ha), Village green Including land for local shop and surgery, Open Space, Landscaping and Related Infrastructure  Report on Enforcement Action in relation to provision of Open Space and Landscaping on Phase 2 of the Development.

The Committee NOTED a report on pursuing enforcement action, specifically by serving a Stop Notice preventing further occupation of dwellings in Phase 2 of the residential development at Home Farm, Longstanton.

The Chairman shared the concerns of Councillor A Riley (local Member) at the lack of co-operation being shown by the developer.  The Development Control Quality Manager agreed that further action was essential, beginning perhaps with a round table meeting between all interested parties. 

Councillor A Riley had contributed to discussions on this subject at Longstanton Parish Council, but was considering it afresh.