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 6 July 2011 as a correct record.   The minutes are available online by visiting www.scambs.gov.uk/meetings and following the relevant links.

To note the following corrections to Planning Committee minutes:

Minute 91 (3 November 2010): S/1101/10/F - Papworth Everard (Land West of Ermine Street South)

The Minute stated that Paul Hicks addressed the meeting on behalf of Papworth Everard Parish Council.  In fact he did not do so, and his name has been removed from the list of non-Committee speakers.

Minute 206 (11 May 2011): S/1689/10 – Great Shelford (36-38 Woollards Lane)

The Minute stated that Hilda Wynne (objector) addressed the meeting.  In fact she did not do so, and her name has been removed from the list of non-Committee speakers.

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2011.

The Committee noted and accepted the following minor corrections to Planning Committee minutes:

Minute 91 (3 November 2010): S/1101/10/F - Papworth Everard (Land West of Ermine Street South)

The Minute stated that Paul Hicks addressed the meeting on behalf of Papworth Everard Parish Council.  In fact he did not do so, and his name has been removed from the list of non-Committee speakers.

Minute 206 (11 May 2011): S/1689/10 – Great Shelford (36-38 Woollards Lane)

The Minute stated that Hilda Wynne (objector) addressed the meeting.  In fact she did not do so, and her name has been removed from the list of non-Committee speakers.

 Appendices 1 and 2 are attached to the electronic version of the agenda.  Appendix 2 is confidential and not for publication.

The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda. 

The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.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

Rick Bristow (objector), Candy Sheridan (representing the applicants), David Mudd (Cottenham Parish Council), and Councillor Simon Edwards (a local Member) 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 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.

Councillor Lynda Harford declared a personal interest as a member of Cottenham Parish Council.  She present at the Planning Sub-Committee meeting when this application was discussed.  However, as evidenced by the minutes, she took no part in that discussion and was not involved in formulating the Parish Council’s response. 

Councillor Deborah Roberts stated that she had neither a personal nor personal and prejudicial interest in this application, was not biased, and was not a racist.  In the interests of transparency of decision-making, she withdrew to the public gallery, took no part in the debate and did not vote.

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 adverse impact on the character of the area, and loss of an amenity area were the application to be granted consent.

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 adverse impact on the character of the area, and loss of an amenity area were the application to be granted consent.

The Committee refused both applications contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Members agreed the reason for refusal of application S/1042/11 as being that demolition could not be justified in the absence of an appropriate alternative scheme.  Members agreed the reason for refusal of application S/1020/11 as being adverse impact on highway safety and the proposal’s failure either to enhance or preserve the Conservation Area.

The Committee refused both applications contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).  Members agreed the reason for refusal of application S/1042/11 as being that demolition could not be justified in the absence of an appropriate alternative scheme.  Members agreed the reason for refusal of application S/1020/11 as being adverse impact on highway safety and the proposal’s failure either to enhance or preserve the Conservation Area.

  The Committee approved the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), subject to safeguarding Conditions including a Condition regulating the roof lights’ appearance.  Members agreed the reason for approval as being that the proposal’s benefit outweighed any planning harm that might be caused to the Grade II Listed Building known as Fullers Hill Farmhouse.   The proposal was not considered therefore to conflict with Policies CH/3 or CH/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 or with policies contained within Planning Policy Statement 5.

Iain Bailey (applicant) and Councillor Bridget Smith (a local member) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 August  2011.  The Committee approved the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), subject to safeguarding Conditions including a Condition regulating the roof lights’ appearance.  Members agreed the reason for approval as being that the proposal’s benefit outweighed any planning harm that might be caused to the Grade II Listed Building known as Fullers Hill Farmhouse.   The proposal was not considered therefore to conflict with Policies CH/3 or CH/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 or with policies contained within Planning Policy Statement 5.

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

The Committee deferred this application for a site visit. 

Mrs CV Yannoulopoulos (objector) addressed the meeting.

The Committee deferred this application for a site visit. 

The Committee approved the application (as amended by plans HCL-PL-01-RevII, HCL-PL-06, HCL-PL-07 and HCL-PL-08 date stamped 10 June 2011), subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and additional Conditions recommended by the Environment Agency intended to address flooding concerns.

Simon Ward (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

The Committee approved the application (as amended by plans HCL-PL-01-RevII, HCL-PL-06, HCL-PL-07 and HCL-PL-08 date stamped 10 June 2011), subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) and additional Conditions recommended by the Environment Agency intended to address flooding concerns.

Appendices A, B, C and D are attached to the electronic version of the agenda. 

The Committee approved the application  subject to relocation of the toilet block, the Conditions set out in Appendix D to the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) (the report to Planning Committee on 6 April 2010) and to the further Conditions set out in the Update report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Richard Buxton (objector’s agent), David Ward (applicant) and Councillor Surinder Soond (local member) addressed the meeting.

The Committee approved the application  subject to relocation of the toilet block, the Conditions set out in Appendix D to the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities) (the report to Planning Committee on 6 April 2010) and to the further Conditions set out in the Update 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), Condition 2 being amended to make additional reference to approved plan 22.  An Informative would be attached to the Decision Notice seeking to preserve access to the development site in order to maintain utility and drainage pipes serving Pembroke Court.

Mr B Reeve (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.  Councillor Hazel Smith read a statement prepared by Milton Parish Council.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 August  2011.  The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), Condition 2 being amended to make additional reference to approved plan 22.  An Informative would be attached to the Decision Notice seeking to preserve access to the development site in order to maintain utility and drainage pipes serving Pembroke Court.

Councillor Hazel Smith declared a personal interest because, as a member of Milton Parish Council’s Planning Committee, she had been present at the meeting at which this application had been discussed.  She had not expressed an opinion at that meeting and was now considering the matter afresh as a member of South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Planning Committee.

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 that the proposal was too cramped and was out of keeping with the character and design of Pearson Close. 

Jane Mynott (objector) addressed the meeting. Councillor Hazel Smith read a statement prepared by Milton Parish Council.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 August  2011.  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 that the proposal was too cramped and was out of keeping with the character and design of Pearson Close. 

Councillor Caroline Hunt declared a personal interest as one of her siblings lives in Pearson Close, Milton.  Councillor Hunt withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate and did not vote.

Councillor Hazel Smith declared a personal interest because, as a member of Milton Parish Council’s Planning Committee, she had been present at the meeting at which this application had been discussed.  She was now considering the matter afresh as a member of South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Planning Committee.

The Committee refused the application for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Simon Ward (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 August  2011.  The Committee refused the application for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Councillor Nick Wright declared a personal interest because of his acquaintance with the applicants.

The Committee refused both applications S/0537/11 and S/0539/11 for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). 

John Farquhar (applicant) and Councillor Cicely Murfitt (local member) addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 August  2011.  The Committee refused both applications S/0537/11 and S/0539/11 for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). 

The Committee approved the application, as amended by e-mail dated 7 July 2011, 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 3 August  2011.  The Committee approved the application, as amended by e-mail dated 7 July 2011, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).

Councillor Robert Turner declared a personal and prejudicial interest as owner, withdrew from the Chamber, did not take part in the debate and did not vote.

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

Mr Flack (applicant) 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).

 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 proposal was not out of character with its surroundings and would not dominate the street scene.

Helen Bradbury (applicant) and County Councillor Fiona Whelan addressed the meeting.

Prior to considering this application, the Committee viewed the site on 3 August  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 proposal was not out of character with its surroundings and would not dominate the street scene.

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

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