Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies for absence from committee members. Apologies have been received from Councillors Kevin Cuffley (substitute Councillor Charles Nightingale) and Ben Shelton.

Councillors Kevin Cuffley (substituted by Councillor Charles Nightingale), Deborah Roberts (substituted by Councillor Neil Scarr) and Ben Shelton sent Apologies for Absence.

Members made declarations as follows:

Councillor Brian Burling confirmed that, in respect of Minutes 8 and 9 in Over, he had not attended Over Parish Council meetings at which those applications had been discussed.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2014 as a correct record. The minutes are available by visiting www.scambs.gov.uk then fllowing the links from ‘Your Council’.

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2014.

The Committee deferred this application.

Gloria Fidler (objector), Rowan Haysom (applicant’s agent) and Enid Bald (Linton Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

Members noted the following comments made by public speakers:

·         Car parking concerns

·         Intrusive nature of the proposal and effect on residents’ quality of life

·         Concern about the loss of, and damage to, trees and hedges

·         There had been engagement with the community, and concern about overlooking and parking had been addressed

·         The Design Enabling Panel supported the proposal

·         Linton’s requirement was for smaller dwellings than the ones proposed

·         Drainage

·         The pressure on infrastructure

Committee members made the following points:

·         The need for further consideration about density, layout and design given the Design Enabling Panel’s conclusion that the proposal was “just acceptable” in those terms

·         Plot 9 was out-of-keeping with the rest of the development

·         Too prominent and cramped

·         Disappointment with the amount of affordable housing

·         Permitted Development Rights should be withdrawn

The Senior Lawyer said that Members should ask themselves whether, even if it was not the best that could be expected, the design was good enough for approval.

In view of its concerns, the  Committee deferred this application.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to the comments of the Environment Agency, Local Highways Authority, Cambridgeshire County Council Historic Environment Team and Ecology Officer and the Conditions and informatives set out in the Planning and New Communities Director’s report.

Members visited the site on 30 September 2014.

Clive Porter (objector) and Peter Nixon (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

Members noted the following comments made by public speakers:

·         The need to retain agricultural land for growing crops

·         The overdevelopment of solar parks in this part of South Cambridgeshire

·         Surveys showed South Cambridgeshire to be one of the best areas in the U.K. in which to live

·         Solar energy contributed significantly to U.K. renewable energy targets

·         The applicant had engaged with the community throughout the planning process

·         There were no material grounds to object to the proposal

·         Confirmation that the solar park would be managed and maintained effectively

Though not present at the meeting, Councillor Jose Hales (a local Member) had indicated his support for the proposal.

Committee members made the following points:

·         The proposal had been forced into an inadequate and inappropriate space

·         The need for instant screening

·         Concern about flooding, although the Environment Agency had withdrawn its objection

·         Concern about the cumulative effect

·         The benefit of reducing reliance on the import of energy

·         The relative arguments for building houses or a solar park on specific parcels of land

·         Proximity to existing housing

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to the comments of the Environment Agency, Local Highways Authority, Cambridgeshire County Council Historic Environment Team and Ecology Officer and the Conditions and informatives set out in the Planning and New Communities Director’s report.

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 approved the application subject the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and a further Condition that planning permission be granted for the applicant’s benefit only.

The Committee approved the application subject the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and a further Condition that planning permission be granted for the applicant’s benefit only.

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:

1.    That the application site was outside the village framework

2.    The negative impact on the countryside

3.    The negative impact on neighbours’ amenities by virtue of their reduced enjoyment of their gardens and the countryside

4.    Flooding

5.    Unsustainable development

Members visited the site on 30 September 2014.

Councillor Pippa Corney had a Declarable Pecuniary Interest in this item as the applicant was a close relative. Councillor Corney withdrew from the Chamber without addressing the Committee as local Member, took no part in the debate, and did not vote.

Martin Crisp (objector) and Geoff Twiss (Over Parish Council) addressed the Committee. With consent from the Chairman, Mr Leyshon addressed the Committee as a second objector.

Members noted the following comments made by public speakers:

·         The application site was on agricultural land outside the village framework

·         The proposal represented incremental growth beyond that framework

·         The site was unrelated to Whines Lane

·         Negative impact on amenity

·         Overlooking

·         Over-shadowing

·         Driveway adjacent to property in Whines Lane

·         Land drainage concerns

·         Vehicular access concerns

·         Hedgerow removal

·         Unsustainable development

Material to the planning application, members of the Committee regretted the fact that the report made no reference to the Memorandum of Understanding between South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council, by which the housing trajectories for the two areas should be considered together as a joint trajectory for the purposes of housing supply, including five year land supply.

Members emphasised the importance of protecting village frameworks despite the outcome of a recent Appeal Hearing in Waterbeach.

The Senior Lawyer reminded Members that the National Planning Policy Framework required that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and was a material consideration in planning decisions. Planning policies and decisions must reflect and, where appropriate, promote relevant European Union obligations and statutory requirements.. The Committee must not take account of personal conduct.

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:

1.    That the application site was outside the village framework

2.    The negative impact on the countryside

3.    The negative impact on neighbours’ amenities by virtue of their reduced enjoyment of their gardens and the countryside

4.    Flooding

5.    Unsustainable development

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a financial contribution towards the provision of community facilities, public open space and household waste receptacles, and to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Geoff Twiss (Over Parish Council) addressed the meeting. While having no strong views, he did query the proposal’s compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1994.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a financial contribution towards the provision of community facilities, public open space and household waste receptacles, and to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a financial contribution towards the provision and management of public open space, and the provision of new community facilities or the improvement of existing ones, and the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a financial contribution towards the provision and management of public open space, and the provision of new community facilities or the improvement of existing ones, and 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 set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Myra Gaund (objector) and Councillor Peter Johnson (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

Members noted the following comments made by public speakers:

·         The site was outside the village framework

·         The proposal was more in keeping than the current temporary building

·         South Cambridgeshire District Council should be supporting small businesses

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

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a financial contribution towards the provision and management of public open space, and the provision of new community facilities or the improvement of existing ones, and the Conditions and Informatives referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Members visited the site on 30 September 2014.

Bill Clegg (objector) and Rose Darling (Coton Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

Members noted the following comments made by public speakers:

·         Would cast a shadow over neighbouring property

·         Proposal is overbearing

·         Flooding concerns

·         Adverse impact on numbers 69 and 73 The Footpath

·         Contravenes planning policy

·         Back land development opposed

·         Sewerage and surface water drainage concerns

·         Bulk

·         Privacy

Committee members made the following points:

·         The proposed building is too wide for the plot

·         Size, bulk, mass unacceptable

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a financial contribution towards the provision and management of public open space, and the provision of new community facilities or the improvement of existing ones, and the Conditions and Informatives referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a financial contribution towards the provision of community facilities, public open space and household waste receptacles,towards the payment of Section 106 Monitoring fees, and to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Keith Parslow (objector) addressed the meeting. His point related to vehicular visibility splays.

Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins read out a letter from Caldecote Parish Council.

Committee members made the following points:

·         Footings were in the wrong place

·         Poor visibility along a Safer Routes to School route

·         Drainage concerns

·         Light concerns

·         Desirability of comparing the foundations as approved with those as built

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a financial contribution towards the provision of community facilities, public open space and household waste receptacles, towards the payment of Section 106 Monitoring fees, and to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the receipt of revised plans as detailed in paragraph 26 of the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and to the Conditions set out in the said report.

Chris Dale (objector) addressed the meeting. He made the following points:

·         This was a residential area

·         The mast had been approved originally 15 years ago when the nearby housing did not exist

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the receipt of revised plans as detailed in paragraph 26 of the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and to the Conditions set out in the said report.

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:

1.    Inappropriate development in the Green Belt

2.    Other harm through visual impact that would adversely affect the residential amenity of North Farmhouse, and lead to coalescence through encroachment into land that separates the villages of Sawston and Babraham

3.    no very special circumstances have been demonstrated that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness and other harm.

Members visited the site on 30 September 2014.

John Dadge (agent for the objectors), Don Proctor (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Tony Orgee (Cambridgeshire County Councillor representing the Sawston Electoral Division) addressed the meeting.

The Case Officer read out representations Councillors David Bard and Kevin Cuffley (two of the local District Councillors) covering the following:

·         Adverse Impact on the Green Belt, and absence of any special circumstances that might permit development

·         Archaeological interest

·         Loss of agricultural land

·         Question of viability

Members noted the following comments made by public speakers:

·         Importance of the Green Belt

·         Cumulative enclosure of North Farm

·         Loss of agricultural land

·         Impact on Housing Allocation H1A

·         The possibility of reducing the proposal’s footprint

·         Community benefit

·         Acceptance by the applicant of the comments from South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Ecology Officer

·         The danger of coalescence between Sawston and Babraham

Committee members made the following points:

·         The solar panels should be moved further back into the site so as to minimise the impact on Housing Allocation H1A

·         The panels will have an adverse effect on soil quality over the lifetime of the solar park

·         Unwelcome coalescence

A motion to defer this application was voted upon and lost.

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:

1.    Inappropriate development in the Green Belt

2.    Other harm through visual impact that would adversely affect the residential amenity of North Farmhouse, and lead to coalescence through encroachment into land that separates the villages of Sawston and Babraham

3.    no very special circumstances have been demonstrated that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness and other harm.

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.