Agenda, decisions and minutes

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 February 2013 as a correct record.

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 February 2013.

 The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  In Members’ opinion, neither the scale nor design of the proposal caused significant harm to the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed Building.  In addition, they did not consider the proposal to be overbearing in relation to 5 Barons Lane.  Members concluded therefore that the proposal did not conflict with either Policies CH/4 or DP/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007.

Colin Grindley (applicant’s agent) and Peter Sutton (Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 5 March 2013.   The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  In Members’ opinion, neither the scale nor design of the proposal caused significant harm to the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed Building.  In addition, they did not consider the proposal to be overbearing in relation to 5 Barons Lane.  Members concluded therefore that the proposal did not conflict with either Policies CH/4 or DP/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application for a temporary period of five years, contrary to the three years recommended in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  The Committee also approved the permanent change of use of land to garden.  Conditions 1 and 2 in the report would be attached to the consent, subject to Condition 2 being re-worded to reflect the amendment of the temporary timescale from three years to five years for the removal of the structures on site.

Mr Flack (objector) and Brian Vincent (applicant) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 5 March 2013.  The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application for a temporary period of five years, contrary to the three years recommended in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  The Committee also approved the permanent change of use of land to garden.  Conditions 1 and 2 in the report would be attached to the consent, subject to Condition 2 being re-worded to reflect the amendment of the temporary timescale from three years to five years.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement securing financial contributions towards the provision and maintenance of public open space, provision of indoor community facilities and household waste receptacles, and payment of Section 106 monitoring and legal fees, and subject also to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Louise Newbery (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement securing financial contributions towards the provision and maintenance of public open space, provision of indoor community facilities and household waste receptacles, and payment of Section 106 monitoring and legal fees, and subject also to the Conditions 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.

Mike Mason (objector), Patricia Parkin (applicant’s agent), Max Parish (Histon & Impington Parish Council) and Councillor Neil Davies (a local Member) 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 approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Pat Nicholls (objector) addressed the meeting.  With the permission of the Chairman, and although they had not registered to speak, a Parish Council representative also addressed the meeting.

The Committee noted concerns about the adverse impact on neighbour amenity, highway safety at the junction with the A10, and the possibility of water contamination, but approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for approval as being the sustainability and educational benefits of a local facility, and gave officers delegated powers to determine appropriate safeguarding Conditions.

Amy Richardson (applicant’s agent), Steve Hawkins (Parish Council) and Councillor Surinder Soond (local Member) addressed the meeting.

Members noted that there were no local objections to the proposal, and considered the positive sustainability and educational arguments for a Play Barn at this location.  They also noted the contrary view that the proposal was not ancillary to Bury Lane Fruit Farm, and could create major traffic problems.  The Senior Lawyer reminded Members that their discretion as to what weight to give to various aspects of an application should be exercised in the context of material planning considerations.  The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reasons for approval as being the sustainability and educational benefits of a local facility, and gave officers delegated powers to determine appropriate safeguarding Conditions.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.   Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being the adverse impact on neighbours’ amenity, especially from the likely increase in heavy goods traffic, and the lack of suitable landscaping.  Should the applicant appeal the decision, and succeed in getting it overturned, the Committee instructed officers to urge the Inspector to order the creation of a local ‘Liaison Group’ facilitating communication between the applicant and local residents.  The Committee also asked officers to consider the Policy implications brought about by measures introduced by the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007.

Jonathan Coles (objector) and Derek Robinson (Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 5 March 2013.  The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.   Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being the adverse impact on neighbours’ amenity, especially from the likely increase in heavy goods traffic, and the lack of suitable landscaping.  Should the applicant appeal the decision, and succeed in getting it overturned, the Committee instructed officers to urge the Inspector to order the creation of a local ‘Liaison Group’ facilitating communication between the applicant and local residents.  The Committee also asked officers to consider the Policy implications brought about by measures introduced by the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007.

The Committee approved the application subject to Conditions 1, 2, 4 and 5 set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, Condition 3 being deleted.

Bryan Steele (objector) addressed the meeting.  With the Chairman’s consent, Vanda Galer (a second objector with concerns specific to her property) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 5 March 2013.  The Committee approved the application subject to Conditions 1, 2, 4 and 5 set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, Condition 3 being deleted.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement ensuring that the holiday let and main house remain within the same ownership, and to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

John Culbert (applicant) had registered to address the meeting but decided on the day not to do so.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement ensuring that the holiday let and main house remain within the same ownership, and to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members requested that the Reserved Matters application should be referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

Marilyn Archdeacon (objector), Claire Freeman (supporter related to the applicant), and cllr James Hockney (a local Member) addressed the meeting.  With the permission of the Chairman, Lydia Voyias (applicant’s agent) also addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 5 March 2013.  The Committee noted concerns relating to ease of vehicular access to, and traffic flow along, Rosemary Road, and potential problems surrounding refuse collection but approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members requested that the Reserved Matters application should be referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

The Committee confirmed Tree Preservation Order 02/12/SC in Oakington as modified to exclude one Sweet Chestnut tree and one Oak tree within G1 and varied to describe one of the Sycamore trees as a London Plane.

Ryan Seary (landowner objecting to confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 5 March 2013.  The Committee confirmed Tree Preservation Order 02/12/SC in Oakington as modified to exclude one Sweet Chestnut tree and one Oak tree within G1 and varied to describe one of the Sycamore trees as a London Plane.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members noted that the original planning consent for the annexe had been subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement requiring the annexe to be used or occupied only as part of the main dwelling and not as a separate dwelling.  They agreed that the reasons for refusal should be that there was no justification for dispensing with that requirement as the separated house would be out of character with the area.  Additionally, the main dwelling would be left with insufficient garden space.

Susan Clew (Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

Members visited the site on 5 March 2013.  The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members noted that the original planning consent for the annexe had been subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement requiring the annexe to be used or occupied only as part of the main dwelling and not as a separate dwelling.  They agreed that the reasons for refusal should be that there was no justification for dispensing with that requirement as the separated house would be out of character with the area.  Additionally, the main dwelling would be left with insufficient garden space.

The Committee received and noted an Update on enforcement action.

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