Agenda, decisions and minutes

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes (uploaded to the website) of the meeting held on 6 March 2013 as a correct record.

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

The Committee deferred this item to allow further discussions to take place  between the applicants, the Company seeking to bring new retail businesses to Cambourne, South Cambridgeshire District Council and its consultants Carter Jonas, and Cambourne Parish Council.  Members also indicated that consultation should take place to determine how those living in Cambourne felt about Morrisons’ planning application.

Duncan Mason (objector), Roger Hume (Cambourne Parish Council) and Councillors Clayton Hudson and Mervyn Loynes (local Members) addressed the meeting.

The Committee deferred this item to allow further discussions to take place  between the applicants, the Company seeking to bring new retail businesses to Cambourne, South Cambridgeshire District Council and its consultants Carter Jonas, and Cambourne Parish Council.  Members also indicated that consultation should take place to determine how those living in Cambourne felt about Morrisons’ planning application.

The Committee gave officers delegated power to approve the application, subject to there being no material objections, the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement requiring a financial contribution towards the Western Corridor Area Transport Plan, and the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Lucy Metchsingha (objector) and Guy Kaddish (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

Members attended a site visit on 2 April 2013.  The Committee noted concerns about impact on the Green Belt, surface water drainage, size of the development, site access and highway safety, but gave officers delegated power to approve the application, subject to there being no material objections, the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement requiring a financial contribution towards the Western Corridor Area Transport Plan, and the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee gave officer delegated powers to approve the application subject to the prior completion of a Unilateral Undertaking binding any site operator to using the A505 or internal farm tracks for deliveries, and the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members also sought to protect the historic Bran Ditch by asking officers to negotiate an alternative route for connecting the proposal to the National Grid.

James Fenwick (applicant) and Peter Smith (Heydon Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

Members attended a site visit on 2 April 2013.  The Committee noted concern about the increase in traffic, but gave officer delegated powers to approve the application subject to the prior completion of a Unilateral Undertaking binding any site operator to using the A505 or internal farm tracks for deliveries, and the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members also sought to protect the historic Bran Ditch by asking officers to negotiate an alternative route for connecting the proposal to the National Grid.

The Committee approved permanent consent for the application subject to Conditions, including those referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee approved permanent consent for the application subject to Conditions, including those referred to 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 reason for approval as being that the need for additional pitches outweighed any planning harm caused by inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  Accordingly, they did not consider there to be any overriding conflict with policies in the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007. Members did not impose a requirement for a financial contribution towards outdoor play space or community infrastructure on this occasion.

The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.  Members agreed the reason for approval as being that the need for additional pitches outweighed any planning harm caused by inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  Accordingly, they did not consider there to be any overriding conflict with policies in the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007. Members did not impose a requirement for a financial contribution towards outdoor play space or community infrastructure on this occasion.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to there being no adverse material comments from consultees and to Conditions referred to in the report and written update from the Planning and New Communities Director and additional Conditions requiring a contaminated land survey, on-site turning provision for vehicles and details of landscaping and fencing.  Members did not impose a requirement for a financial contribution towards outdoor play space on this occasion.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to there being no adverse material comments from consultees and to Conditions referred to in the report and written update from the Planning and New Communities Director and additional Conditions requiring a contaminated land survey, on-site turning provision for vehicles and details of landscaping and fencing.  Members did not impose a requirement for a financial contribution towards outdoor play space on this occasion.

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

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

The Committee approved the application, as amended by plans 16WRD1-PP-03C, 16WRD1-PP-05C and 16WRD1-PP-07, subject to any further comments received on the amended plans, and the Conditions and Informative referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Mr Willars (applicant) addressed the meeting.

Members attended a site visit on 2 April 2013.  The Committee approved the application, as amended by plans 16WRD1-PP-03C, 16WRD1-PP-05C and 16WRD1-PP-07, subject to any further comments received on the amended plans, and the Conditions and Informative referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

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 unsustainable nature of the proposal and the harm caused by it to the character of the area.

Andrew Campbell (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Simon Edwards (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

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 unsustainable nature of the proposal and the harm caused by it to the character of the area.

Ickleton Parish Council’s specific comments are included in the report attached as an Appendix.

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 design of the dwelling and its detrimental impact on the two Listed Buildings at 20 Church Street and 1 Frogge Street, the Conservation Area as a whole, and the design and layout of the dwelling and its detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbours at Nos. 20 and 28 Church Street and No. 10 Butchers Hill.

Lynn Parsons (objector), Paul Belton (applicant’s agent) and Terry Sadler (Ickleton Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

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 design of the dwelling and its detrimental impact on the two Listed Buildings at 20 Church Street and 1 Frogge Street, the Conservation Area as a whole, and the design and layout of the dwelling and its detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbours at Nos. 20 and 28 Church Street and No. 10 Butchers Hill.

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.