Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Val Barrett nominated Councillor David Bard as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee for the remainder of 2012-13.  This nomination was seconded by Councillor Raymond Matthews and, there being no other nominations, it was resolved that Councillor David Bard be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2012-13.

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 4 July 2012 as a correct record.  The Minutes are available on the Council’s website by going to www.scambs.gov.uk/meetings and following the links.

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 July  2012.

The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reason for approval as being that the benefits that would accrue to the community at large outweighed any perceived planning harm.

Dr. Jonathan Reeve (on behalf of the objectors), Duncan Annand (applicant’s agent), Bob Tulloch (on behalf of the community supporters), Mike Sherwen (Melbourn Parish Council) and Councillor Jose Hales (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 3 July 2012.  The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reason for approval as being that the benefits that would accrue to the community at large outweighed any perceived planning harm.

Councillor Val Barrett declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI)  as a member of Melbourn Parish Council, which would be a principal beneficiary of the planning application if approved.  However, Councillor Barrett informed the Committee that she had the benefit of a dispensation sought from and granted by South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Monitoring Officer on 31 July 2012 under the new standards regime. The terms of this dispensation, which was within the Monitoring Officer’s discretion, expressly allowed Councillor Val Barrett ‘to take part in the discussion of the matter, but not vote.  This impliedly meant that Councillor Barrett was able to remain in the Chamber notwithstanding her declaration of a DPI.  In any event the Monitoring Officer did not consider it likely that Councillor Barrett had a disclosable pecuniary interest but rather a non-pecuniary interest due to her Parish Council association. The Monitoring  Officer specifically consulted with the Council’s appointed Independent Person and with the Chairman of the Civic Affairs Committee when considering whether to grant the dispensation and also took into account the need to maintain public confidence, as well as the possible outcome of the vote.

Councillor Jose Hales declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI)  as a member of Melbourn Parish Council, which would be a principal beneficiary of the planning application if approved.  However, Councillor Hales informed the Committee that he had the benefit of a dispensation sought from and granted by South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Monitoring Officer on 31 July 2012 under the new standards regime. The terms of this dispensation, which was within the Monitoring Officer’s discretion, expressly allowed Councillor Jose Hales ‘to address the Committee.  Councillor Hales was not a member of the Planning Committee and therefore did not have a vote. This impliedly meant that Councillor Hales was able to remain in the Chamber notwithstanding his declaration of a DPI.  In any event the Monitoring Officer did not consider it likely that Councillor Hales had a disclosable pecuniary interest but rather a non-pecuniary interest due to his Parish Council association. The Monitoring  Officer specifically consulted with the Council’s appointed Independent Person and with the Chairman of the Civic Affairs Committee when considering whether to grant the dispensation and also took into account the need to maintain public confidence, as well as the possible outcome of the vote.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being overdevelopment of the site, negative impact on neighbouring occupiers, and poor design.

Philip Kratz (applicant’s agent) addressed the Committee.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being overdevelopment of the site, negative impact on neighbouring occupiers, and poor design.

Councillor Val Barrett declared a personal interest as a member of Melbourn Parish Council.

The Committee approved the application as amended, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement relating to the issues mentioned in paragraph 134 of the report to the Planning Committee dated 6 June 2012, varied so as to allow for a greater share of the total sum of £921,020.00 to be allocated to pre-school provision, and to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director dated 1 August 2012.

Will Lusty (applicant’s agent), and Claire Blair (Vice-Chair of Orchard Park Community Council) addressed the meeting.

The Committee approved the application as amended, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement relating to the issues mentioned in paragraph 134 of the report to the Planning Committee dated 6 June 2012, varied so as to allow for a greater share of the total sum of £921,020.00 to be allocated to pre-school provision, and to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director dated 1 August 2012.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, the word “extension” in Condition (iii) being corrected to state “dwelling”.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, the word “extension” in Condition (iii) being corrected to state “dwelling”.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being insufficient provision for car and bicycle parking, and poor design.

Brian Reeve (supporter) addressed the meeting.  Councillor Hazel Smith read out a statement from Milton Parish Council .

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being insufficient provision for car and bicycle parking, and poor design.

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

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee refused the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Martin Page (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

The Committee refused the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being highway safety issues due to the lack of hardstanding on site, and the adverse impact on neighbouring dwellings and on the cemetery by virtue of noise.  The Committee authorised officers to take appropriate enforcement action with a six-month compliance period.

Councillor Nigel Cathcart (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

The Committee refused  the application contrary to the recommendation from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being highway safety issues due to the lack of hardstanding on site, and the adverse impact on neighbouring dwellings and on the cemetery by virtue of noise.  The Committee authorised officers to take appropriate enforcement action with a six-month compliance period.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being the proposal’s location outside the village framework and the resultant incompatibility with the sustainable settlement policies

Heidi Turtill (objector and Councillors Alison Elcox and Mervyn Loynes (local Members)) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 31 July 2012.  The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being the proposal’s location outside the village framework and the resultant incompatibility with the sustainable settlement policies

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being inappropriate design in relation to form, materials and detailing and inadequate bicycle parking provision.

Alan Gibson (objector), David Mead (applicant’s agent) and Councillors Alison Elcox and Mervyn Loynes (local Members) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 31 July 2012.  The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being inappropriate design in relation to form, materials and detailing and inadequate bicycle parking provision.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to further discussion and agreement about the proposed landscaping of the site and assessment of revised lighting details.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to further discussion and agreement about the proposed landscaping of the site and assessment of revised lighting details.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Committee deferred the determination of this application until the meeting on 5 September 2012 in order to allow Committee members to be fully appraised of the technical evidence available to South Cambridgeshire District Council, and to enable the commissioning of an Independent Structural Engineer to assess the cause of the issues  being encountered by the Old Rectory.

Margaret MacQueen (agent for the objector to the Tree Preservation Order),  Adrian Penrose (Supporter), Mr Timbrell (Little Gransden Parish Council) and Councillor Bridget Smith (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 31 July 2012.  The Committee deferred the determination of this application until the meeting on 5 September 2012 in order to allow Committee members to be fully appraised of the technical evidence available to South Cambridgeshire District Council, and to enable the commissioning of an Independent Structural Engineer to assess the cause of the issues  being encountered by the Old Rectory.

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley declared a personal Interest  by virtue of having attended a number of Little Gransden Parish Council and other meetings at which this issue had been discussed, and being acquainted with a number of people involved in this matter.

The Committee resolved not to retain the Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee and to return to the parent Committee the responsibility for enforcement, thus speedi up the decision-making process and improving the effective monitoring of the progress of serious enforcement matters.

The Committee resolved not to retain the Planning Enforcement Sub-Committee and to return to the parent Committee the responsibility for enforcement, thus speedi up the decision-making process and improving the effective monitoring of the progress of serious enforcement matters.

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