Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor John Batchelor has sent apologies, and Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer is substituting for him. To receive apologies for absence from any other committee members. 

Councillors John Batchelor and David McCraith sent Apologies for Absence. Councillors Aidan Van de Weyer and Charles Nightingale were their respective substitutes.

1.         Disclosable pecuniary interests (“DPI”)

A  DPI is where a committee member or his/her spouse or partner has any kind of beneficial interest in the land under consideration at the meeting.

 2.        Non-disclosable pecuniary interests

These are interests that are pecuniary involving a  personal financial benefit or detriment but do not come within the definition of a DPI.  An example would be where a member of their family/close friend (who is not their spouse or partner) has such an interest.

3.         Non-pecuniary interests

Where the interest is not one which involves any personal financial benefit or detriment to the Councillor but arises out of a close connection with someone or some  body /association.  An example would be membership of a sports committee/ membership of another council which is involved in the matter under consideration.

Councillor Tim Scott declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Minute 7 (S/1136/16/FL in Comberton) because he was the landowner. Councillor Scott withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate and did not vote.

Councillor Robert Turner declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 5 (S/0851/16/FL in Bar Hill). Councillor Turner had visited the site privately last year, but offered no comment about it. He informed a Planning Officer about the visit, and was considering the matter afresh.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2016 as a correct record.

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2016.

Residential development of 64 units estate road, open space and associated works

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to

1.     The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing

a.     Enhancements of nearby bus shelters and the footpath link between the development and local facilities

b.     Financial contributions intended to address capacity issues at the doctors surgery and primary school

c.      The provision of 40% affordable housing (100% of which will be for those with a local connection with Willingham and then subject to the standard cascade provision)

d.     Public open space and equipped areas of play

e.     A financial contribution towards off-site community facilities

as detailed in the Heads of Terms attached as Appendix 1 to the report from the Head of Development Management; and

2.     The Conditions and Informatives referred to in the said report.

Members visited the site on 2 August 2016.

Sinead Turnbull (applicant’s agent) attended the meeting to answer any questions. There were no questions.

Committee members made the following points

·        It should be a requirement that 50% to 100% of the affordable housing should be offered, in the first instance, to those with a connection with Willingham, and then cascaded out

·        Concern about the cumulative effect of development in the village

·        The lack of meaningful sustainability

·        Disappointment at the absence of footpath links between adjoining developments

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to

1.     The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing

a.     Enhancements of nearby bus shelters and the footpath link between the development and local facilities

b.     Financial contributions intended to address capacity issues at the doctors surgery and primary school

c.      The provision of 40% affordable housing (100% of which will be for those with a local connection with Willingham and then subject to the standard cascade provision)

d.     Public open space and equipped areas of play

e.     A financial contribution towards off-site community facilities

as detailed in the Heads of Terms attached as Appendix 1 to the report from the Head of Development Management; and

2.     The Conditions and Informatives referred to in the said report.

Development of 40 residential dwellings across two sites comprising: 6, two storey houses and 27 apartments in 3 and 4 storey blocks, 47 car parking spaces and associated landscaping including the retention of part of the bund and provision of a play area on part of the hotel car park and other surplus space (Site 1) and 7, two storey houses served by 14 car parking spaces and associated

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Head of Development Management. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being

1.     That the proposal, by virtue of its bulk, height, massing and overbearing nature, was out of character with the local area, and that the overall design was contrary to Policy DP/2 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007; and

2.     the need for affordable housing in this location is considered to outweigh the benefits of a high specification design.

Members visited the site on 2 August 2016.

Matthew Roe (applicant’s agent), and Councillors Roger Hall and Bunty Waters (local Members) addressed the meeting. Matthew Roe highlighted the proposal’s holistic approach, and its high quality nature. He said that the proposal would protect Bar Hill’s character, and provide traffic calming along the sole route into the village. In reply to a question, Mr Roe was unwilling to commit his client to an uplift clause, but said that, should the development remain unbuilt in three years time, there would be a good argument for revisiting the question of viability. Councillor Hall referred to the unique character of Bar Hill, claiming that the proposal was unsustainable. He expressed concern that the existing bund was not being retained in its entirety. The proposed traffic crossing might be perceived as unsafe, and therefore have the effect of increasing traffic as parents opted to drive their children to school. Uncertainty about car parking provision could lead to an increase in on-street parking. Councillor Waters expressed dismay at the proposal for two blocks of flats at the entrance to Bar Hill as this would spoil the village’s character. Would the affordable housing be for local people? What arrangements would there be for maintaining the play area?

Committee members made the following comments:

·        The development would greatly change the entrance to Bar Hill

·        It would damage the village’s character of having four distinct areas (this proposal includes residential, recreation and commercial in a single package)

·        Concern about the landmark nature of the two blocks of flats

·        Inadequate affordable housing provision

·        Bulk and size made the proposal out-of-keeping with the surrounding area

·        The design is unacceptable

·        The proposal was overbearing and unacceptable in a rural setting

With referenc to Members’ interest in imposing an uplift clause, the Planning Lawyer said that, while there was no policy basis for insisting on such a clause, precedants did exist. He suggested that the application be referred back to Committee should the developer was unwilling to negotiate an uplift clause.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Head of Development Management. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being

1.     That the proposal, by virtue of its bulk, height, massing and overbearing nature, was out of character with the local area, and that the overall design was contrary to Policy DP/2 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007; and

2.     the need for affordable housing in this location is considered to outweigh the benefits of a high specification design.

Extension of existing haulage yard along with associated infrastructure to provide additional HGV, trailer and car parking (part retrospective)

The Committee

1.         approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Head of         Development Management, amended as follows

a.         by adding to the condition requiring details of the acoustic fencing along the rear western boundary of No. 5 Station Road, a further requirement that it extend for 60 metres along the southern boundary of the site to ensure that the amenity of adjoining neighbours is protected; and

b.         by adding to the landscaping condition the need to provide landscaping details to protect the existing tree belt.

2.         instructed officers, in consultation with the Developers, local Member and other interested parties, to investigate the possibility of establishing a Local Liaison Group to monitor noise disturbance and other issues.

Members visited the site on 2 August 2016.

Catherine Bailey (objector), Andy Payton (on behalf of the applicant) and Councillor Alex Riley (local Member) addressed the meeting. Catherine Bailey spoke about pollution from fumes and noise, in particular low frequency noise. She said that the proposed acoustic fencing along the rear western boundary of No. 5 Station Road should be extended for 60 metres along the southern boundary of the site to protect neighbour amenity. Landscaping should be enhanced. Catherine Bailey referred to the Council’s Long-term vision relating to quality of life.  Andy Payton said that the proposed expansion of the business would create 25 new jobs and no viable alternative site existed in Cambridgeshire. He explained that 65% of lorries left the site on Monday morning and only returned on Friday afternoon. Mr Payton was keen to do everything possible to address the concerns of neighbours, while nevertheless avoiding any significant adverse impact on the business as a result. Councillor Alex Riley said the most important thing was to protect residents, for example by restricting the hours of operation, stopping the practice of leaving engines running on stationary vehicles, and adopting effective noise mitigation measures.

Following discussion centred around the need to protect neighbours’ amenity, and desire to establish a local liaison group, the Committee

1.         approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Head of Development Management, amended as follows

a.     by adding to the Condition requiring details of the acoustic fencing along the rear western boundary of No. 5 Station Road, a requirement that such fencing must also extend for 60 metres along the southern boundary of the site to ensure that the amenity of adjoining neighbours is protected; and

b.     by adding to the landscaping Condition the need to provide landscaping details to protect the existing tree belt.

2.         suggested that the Developers and other interested parties, including the local Member, might consider the establishment of a Local Liaison Group to monitor noise disturbance and other issues.

Installation of 21-metre-high lattice tower supporting 6 no. antennas and 2 no. transmission dishes, the installation of 3 no. radio equipment cabinets and a meter cabinet, a 2.1 metre high security fence and ancillary development works

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Head of Development Management.

Members visited the site on 2 August 2016.

The Case Officer read out a statement from Councillor Tim Scott. The statement referred to:

·        The height of the tower being determined by the coverage required

·        The provision of 2G, 3G and 4G signals in Comberton

·        The opportunity for future mast sharing

·        Health and Safety concerns having been addressed

·        The viability of the proposal

Jill Feldman (objector) addressed the meeting. She referred to:

·        Health risks

·        South Cambridgeshire District Council’s long-term vision, including the pledge to ensure that residents enjoy a superb quality of life in an exceptionally beautiful, rural and green environment

·        The questionable need for such a tower at this location, if at all

·        Questionable coverage details as supplied with the application.

·        The tower as a “blot on the landscape” and “a sledgehammer with which to crack a nut”.

Following some discussion about the need for such a high tower, and confirmation that the tower was completely new, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Head of Development Management.

Two Storey Rear and Side Extension

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Head of Development Management.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Head of Development Management.

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.