Agenda, decisions and minutes

In the absence of Councillor David Bard

The Committee endorsed the Chairman’s appointment of Councillor Brian Burling as Vice-Chairman of the meeting in Councillor David Bard’s absence.

Councillors David Bard and Kevin Cuffley have sent apologies for absence. Councillors Charles Nightingale and Val Barrett are their respective substitutes. To receive apologies for absence from other committee members. 

Councillors David Bard and Kevin Cuffley sent Apologies for Absence. Councillors Charles Nightingale and Val Barrett respectively attended the meeting as substitutes.

An interest was declared as follows:

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2015 as a correct record.

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2015 as a correct record.

Retrospective application for the retention of building nos. 4, 5 & 6, biomass boiler, solar panels and car park. Appendix 2 is available on the website only as it is a colour photograph. Visit www.scambs.gov.uk and follow the links from ‘Your Council’.

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

Members visited the site on 6 October 2015.

Carol Thornton-Swan (objector, supported by Ian Beard), Marcia Whitehead (applicant’s agent), Jay Derrett (Chairman of Shingay-cum-Wendy Parish Meeting), Councillor Nigel Cathcart (a local Member) and Councillor Cicely Murfitt (Member for the neighbouring ward of the Mordens, which formerly included Shingay-cum-Wendy) addressed the meeting, Councillor Murfitt doing so at the Chairman’s discretion. In addition, Councillor David McCraith (the other local Member) had voiced his concern about flood risk, and the proposal representing over-development of the site. Carol Thornton-Swan voiced concern about increased traffic movements in what she described as one of the least sustainable areas in South Cambridgeshire. She urged the Committee to manage the risk of further blight of the village by authorising enforcement action against the car park as well as Buildings 4, 5 and 6 as recommended in the report. Marcia Whitehead said the principle of the business being undertaken on the site had already been established, and that there was no evidence of intensification. In the event that enforcement was authorised, she asked for a compliance period of 12 months in order to give the business sufficient time to find a suitable alternative location from which to trade. Jay Derrett highlighted traffic intensification, and the fear of further expansion being considered by way of a retrospective planning application. Councillor Cathcart also drew attention to the scale of the development in relation to what he described as a sensitive village. Councillor Murfitt noted that the local electoral roll had expanded significantly during the last three years. She asked that restrictions be placed on the number of traffic movements and the hours between which they could take place.

In response to a question relating to the Lawful Development Certificate and, in particular, to traffic generation, the Senior Lawyer said that transport issues were a necessary consequence of the use considered lawful. In response to another question, Marcia Whitehead said that the primary purpose of Buildings 4, 5 and 6 was to enable the applicant to manage the business more effectively rather than to employ more staff.  A Member observed that refusal of this application was unlikely to reduce the number of traffic movements.

Following further discussion,

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

Guest Accommodation Block

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and additional Conditions requiring attention to land levels, physical separation between the Red Lion Public House and proposed Guest Accommodation Block, and a fence along the eastern boundary.

Members visited the site on 6 October 2015.

The Case Officer read out some comments from Susie Mountney, who had been unable to attend the meeting to object to the proposal. In essence, Ms. Mountney asked whether the Committee would consider Conditions, should it approve the application

1.         requiring a secure entry system for the residents using the accommodation block.

2.         lowering the roof

3.         moving the block away from the boundary with the Harding Way properties

4.         replacing proposed black and white rendering with materials more in-keeping with the neighbouring properties

5.         prohibiting vehicle parking on site outside the accommodation block as no new additional car parking spaces have been created.

Councillor Jo Teague (Histon & Impington Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and additional Conditions requiring attention to land levels, physical separation between the Red Lion Public House and proposed Guest Accommodation Block, and a fence along the eastern boundary.

Erection of 3 no. dwellings and formation of new highway access following demolition of existing bungalow

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

Members visited the site on 6 October 2015.

Councillor Josephine Teague (Histon & Impington Parish Council) addressed the meeting. She expressed concerns about overdevelopment and car parking.

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

Demolition of garage and construction of a single storey dwelling and garage

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

Members visited the site on 6 October 2015.

Councillor  Trevor Hall (West Wickham Parish Council) addressed the meeting. He pointed out that West Wickham was an Infill village only, and raised a concern about the proposal’s adverse impact on the occupiers of 95 High Street.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, additional Conditions requiring suitable boundary treatment and the removal of out-buildings, and an Informative requesting that the building be relocated within the site so as to be completely within the village framework.

Residential Development (144 Dwellings) and Access

Following the receipt of additional and material highway information, the Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda in order that officers could consider the information in consultation with the Local Highways Authority.

Following the receipt of additional and material highway information, the Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda in order that officers could consider the information in consultation with the Local Highways Authority.

Erection of dwelling

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

Sarah Wynn (applicant) addressed the meeting. By way of clarification, the Interim Development Control Manager confirmed that South Cambridgeshire District Council was not seeking a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

Proposed replacement dwelling

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

Members visited the site on 6 October 2015.

Louise Gregory (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Roger Lemon (Shudy Camps Parish Council) addressed the meeting. Ms. Gregory said that a balance was being sought between the requirements of Policy HG/7 of the Local Development Framework 2007, and the practicalities of providing a minimum standard suitable for a modern-day lifestyle. Councillor Lemon said that the increase in volume far exceeded the 15% envisaged by adopted local policy, and therefore represented overdevelopment.

In reply to a question from the Chairman, the Principal Planner said it would not be possible to require the applicant to contribute towards restoration of the access road should it be damaged by construction traffic. The Principal Planner did add, however, that this point could be discussed with Cambridgeshire County Council as part of the requirement for a traffic management plan.

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

Erection of a three bedroomed barn-style dwelling with integral garage and associated new access and driveway

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 that the development was unacceptable in principle and would fail to preserve the setting of neighbouring listed buildings and neither preserve nor enhance the Conservation Area.  Members further authorised officers to take enforcement action to ensure that the common boundary fence with 8 Maltings Lane is removed given its harm on the setting of the listed building with a compliance period of three months.

Members visited the site on 6 October 2015.

Alan Price (objector) and Councillor Andrew Gardiner (Great and Little Chishill Parish Council addressed the meeting. Councillor Jose Hales (a local Member) had indicated his support for the Parish Council. Mr. Price described the proposal as dominant, failing to improve the character of the area. Councillor Gardiner said that the proposal neither preserved nor enhanced the Conservation Area, and was neither innovative nor in harmony with adjacent buildings.

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 that the development was unacceptable in principle and would fail to preserve the setting of neighbouring listed buildings and neither preserve nor enhance the Conservation Area.  Members further authorised officers to take enforcement action to ensure that the common boundary fence with 8 Maltings Lane is removed given its harm on the setting of the listed building with a compliance period of three months.

Installation of External Wall Insulation to dwelling

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions 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.

Erection of a dwelling

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

Ken Jenks (objector), Justin Bainton (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Amelie Grappe (Harston Parish Council) addressed the meeting. Mr Jenks said that the water control system had to be located carefully so as to be effective. The Senior Lawyer highlighted Condition (k), and the Interim Development Control Manager assured those present that Environmental Health and Building Control legislation would ensure that surface water drainage was appropriate. Councillor Grappe said that the Parish Council shared concern about drainage and, in addition, had concerns about traffic.

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

Erection of a three bedroom dwelling and associated new access and driveway

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

Members visited the site on 6 October 2015.

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

Erection of 6 dwellings, carports and associated access

The Committee approved the application subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing

·       A commuted sum for the provision of off-site affordable housing

·       financial contributions towards exercise equipment designed to improve existing public open space, and an electronic scoreboard at the cricket ground

and the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee approved the application subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing

·       A commuted sum for the provision of off-site affordable housing

·       financial contributions towards exercise equipment designed to improve existing public open space, and an electronic scoreboard at the cricket ground

and the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

Retention of 3 metre high fence

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

While there was some sympathy with the position adopted by Cambourne Parish Council, the Committee observed that the fence was mainly hidden from view.

The Senior Lawyer reminded Members that, if minded to refuse the application, they should first identify the planning harm that would ensue should the fence remain painted black.

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

The Committee received and noted an Update on enforcement action.

In respect of Hill Trees, Stapleford, Members noted that the case had next been listed for Hearing on 7 November 2015, and that the Appellant had instigated a separate action in an effort to substantiate his claim to the land in question. In addition, the Appellant’s application for Judicial Review had yet to be determined.

Led by the Chairman, and by Councillors Charles Nightingale (local Member) and Robert Turner, the Committee thanked Legal and Enforcement officers for their continuing efforts to resolve this matter.

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

Members noted that Appeal PLAENF.1,634 8 Quy Wateres, Teversham) lodged on 11 September 2015 had already started.