Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley declared a personal interest as an elected Member of Cambridgeshire County Council, a statutory consultee for all planning applications on the agenda.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 May 2011 as a correct record.  The minutes are attached to the electronic version of the agenda and can be accessed by following the links from www.scambs.gov.uk/meetings

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 11 May 2011, subject to the following amendments:

Minute 205 - S/0816/10/F and S/0817/10/LB - Kingston  (The Old Rectory, Rectory Lane)

Councillor Lynda Harford declared a personal and prejudicial interest rather than a personal one.  The minute should read as follows: “Councillor Lynda Harford declared a personal and prejudicial interest because the applicant is her employer.  Councillor Harford withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate, and did not vote.”

Minute 206 - S/1689/10 - Great Shelford (36-38 Woollards Lane)

Hilda Wynne was not a member of the Shelford Tesco Action Group and the Minute should begin as follows: “Richard Farndale of the Shelford Tesco Action Group, and Hilda Wynne and Peter Williams (objectors),  John Mumby (applicant’s agent),Bridget Hodge (Parish Council) and Councillor Ben Shelton (a local member) addressed the meeting…..”

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), as amended to include, among other things, a requirement for suitable boundary treatment. 

Councillor Peter Johnson (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 1 June 2011.  The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), as amended to include, among other things, a requirement for suitable boundary treatment. 

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), the suitability of the time period being agreed with the applicant at Condition 8 to allow for appropriate and desirable times of use whilst ensuring the operation of the floodlights minimises the effects of light pollution.

Judith Brear (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Peter Johnson (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), the suitability of the time period being agreed with the applicant at Condition 8 to allow for appropriate and desirable times of use whilst ensuring the operation of the floodlights minimises the effects of light pollution.

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 noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee approved the application subject to Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 1 June 2011.  The Committee approved the application subject to Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Councillor Val Barrett declared a personal and prejudicial interest because she lives in close proximity to the application site.  Councillor Barrett withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate and did not vote.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley declared a personal interest because of his acquaintance with the applicant.

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 suitability of the revised site plan and to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to the suitability of the revised site plan and 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 reason for refusal as being poor quality design, and the adverse impact by reason of bulk (particularly from Plots 12 – 15) on the amenity of neighbouring properties along Brickhills.

Don Proctor (applicant’s agent) and Ian Barrett (Willingham Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Members agreed the reason for refusal as being poor quality design, and the adverse impact by reason of bulk (particularly from Plots 12 – 15) on the amenity of neighbouring properties along Brickhills.

The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Members agreed the reason for approval as being that the dwelling would not adversely affect the character of the area or setting of the adjacent Listed Building.  Safeguarding Conditions would be attached to the consent, including a Condition that no openings be allowed above ground floor level in the elevation of the proposed dwelling facing towards no. 16 Fen End.

Don Proctor (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 1 June 2011.  The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Members agreed the reason for approval as being that the dwelling would not adversely affect the character of the area or setting of the adjacent Listed Building.  Safeguarding Conditions would be attached to the consent, including a Condition that no openings be allowed above ground floor level in the elevation of the proposed dwelling facing towards no. 16 Fen End.

 The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 1 June 2011.  The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

A report from Taylor Wimpey is attached as an Appendix to the electronic version of this agenda and can be accessed by following the links from www.scambs.gov.uk/meetings  

The Committee received and noted a report updating Members about measures being adopted to address flooding concerns in Cambourne.

The Planning Lawyer referred to a limited amount of relatively heavy rainfall in Cambourne the previous week-end and said that, at the Planning Committee meeting in July, Anglian Water would be able to reveal whether or not such rainfall had been sufficient for them to feel confident enough to determine that  the remediation works had resolved the drainage problem.  If Anglian Water were confident that the remediation works had been successful, the Committee might be asked  to lift the embargo on market housing so that the planning Consent for Cambourne 950 could be issued (on signing of the Section 106 Agreement and resolution also of Uttons Drove matters).

Alan Squirrel, Adoptions Manager representing Taylor Wimpey, addressed the meeting and summarised the action taken to date.

 The Committee received and noted a report on Appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action.