Agenda, decisions and minutes

Pre-application presentation to Members from Carter Jonas about three sites in Impington:

a)         Old Station Yard

b)         Former Station Site

c)         Former Bishops Hardware Building

(To be undertaken in accordance with the protocol agreed at the Planning Committee meeting 6 April 2016 (Item 12))

http://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=768&MId=6578&Ver=4

Representatives of the three developers attended the meeting to present three individual proposals in Impington being processed by the three developers as a single entity.

This Pre-application presentation related to

a)         Old Station Yard

b)         Former Station Site

c)         Former Bishops Hardware Building

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley welcomed the principle of different developers working together in the best interests of the wider community.

The Vice-Chairman stressed the importance of ensuring that the three developments could be accessed by disabled people.

The Chairman said it would be helpful if the three applications could be co-ordinated so that they could be considered at the same Planning Committee meeting. He endorsed the earlier comment by Councillor Kindersley about joint working among developers.

Councillors Anna Bradnam, David McCraith and Des O’Brien sent Apologies for Absence. Councillors Hazel Smith, Nick Wright and Val Barrett were substitutes respectively.

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 Sebastian Kindersley declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute no.10 (S/2068/15/OL - Land at Green End Industrial Estate, Gamlingay)) because he had attended Parish Council meetings at which this application had been discussed. He was now considering the matter afresh.

Councillor Robert Turner declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute no.5 (S/3181/15/FL - Land to the North of Pampisford Road, Great Abington). He had made a statement about the application when it was first presented to Committee at its meeting on 6 July 2016.At a subsequent meeting with key stakeholders (Parish Council, developers and local Members). Councillor Robert Turner thanked everyone for attending, and hoped for a satisfactory outcome. He then left that meeting before the discussion started, and was now considering the matter afresh.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2016 as a correct record.

 The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2016, subject to the following:

Minute 4 - S/1963/15/OL - Linton (Bartlow Road)

To the paragraph starting “Jake Nugent (applicant’s agent)…”, and after the full stop, add the following sentence:

“Councillor Henry Batchelor, the other local Member, had submitted a written statement focussing on the following points:

·        cumulative impact

·        the unsatisfactory and “outdated” statutory consultation process conducted by Cambridgeshire County Council relating to pupil capacity at the three local schools

·        inconsistent evidence as to the ability of the drainage network to cope with this development

·        a 2013 report suggesting that the A1307 could not cope with any more traffic, thus making unsustainable further large-scale development alongside it

·        the proposed development being outside the village framework.”

In response to Councillor John Batchelor, officers confirmed that the Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would reflect the fact that that 70% of the affordable housing would be for rent, with the first eight being offered to those with a local connection, and the remainder being offered to those with a local connection and to others on a 50 /50 basis.

Minute 7 - S/0243/16/FL - Bassingbourn (Snow Centre)

Following the paragraph starting “Councillor David McCraith…”, add a new paragraph as follows:

“Councillor Sebastian Kindersley, while preferring an outright approval, proposed that the application be given planning permission for a temporary period of three years, without the applicant having to contribute £5,000 towards the implementation of improved pedestrian crossing facilities on High Street Bassingbourn. This proposal was seconded but, on a show of hands, lost.”

Erection of 20 Dwellings.

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

(a)   The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to

(i)               Affordable housing

(ii)              Open space

(iii)            Community facilities

(iv)            Waste receptacles

(v)             Monitoring

(vi)            Management and maintenance of surface water drainage system

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

(b)   The Conditions referred to in the said report.

Mitch Tredgett (applicant’s agent), Councillor Pennie Zimmern (Great Abington Parish Council), and Councillor Tony Orgee (local Member) addressed the meeting. Mr Tredgett highlighted the changes made to the application following deferral of the item at the meeting in July 2016. Councillor Zimmern said the scheme had been welcomed locally – the village needed both market- and affordable housing. Councillor Orgee particularly welcomed enhancement of the landscaping element.

Councillor Robert Turner commended the manner in which all of the interested parties had worked together since July in order to achieve a positive result.

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

(a)   The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to

(i)               Affordable housing

(ii)              Open space

(iii)            Community facilities

(iv)            Waste receptacles

(v)             Monitoring

(vi)            Management and maintenance of surface water drainage system

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

(b)   The Conditions referred to in the said report.

Erection of two dwellings and vehicular access.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the  Head of Development Management.

Members visited the site on 4 October 2016.

Councillor Sue Ellington (applicant) and Councillor Will Wright (Swavesey Parish Council) addressed the meeting. Councillor Ellington expressed sympathy in general terms with the Parish Council’s concerns about the impact of development in Swavesey on healthcare and education. She then withdrew from the Chamber. Councillor Wright said that the Parish Council did not object either to the design or location of the proposal, but was concerned about the pressure on village infrastructure. Sustainability was crucial.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Head of Development Management.

Erection of single storey studio building

The Committee deferred the application to give officers an opportunity to

(a)   discuss with the applicant how best to address the issue of ground levels so as to minimise the prominence of the proposed property in relation to the Mill Way boundary wall; and

(b)   review the proposal’s impact on the Conservation Area by virtue of its size and bulk.

Members visited the site on 4 October 2016.

Spike Jackson addressed the meeting as the agent appointed by Grantchester Parish Council. He outlined the Parish Council’s objections as being

·                  The site was part of a group of buildings

·                  Impact on the character of the village

·                  Size of the studio flat

·                  The proposal’s position outside the village framework

·                  The proposal’s visibility from the north

·                  The proposal neither preserves nor enhances the Conservation Area or the          setting of the Listed Building

·                  The absence of any public benefit

Councillor Hazel Smith was concerned about the impact on the view beside the barn. She said the application should be refused because the footprint was too big.

Upon the proposal of Councillor Sebastian Kindersley, seconded by Councillor Pippa Corney, the Committee deferred the application to give officers an opportunity to

(a)             discuss with the applicant how best to address the issue of ground levels so         as to minimise the prominence of the proposed property in relation to the Mill Way boundary wall; and

(b)             review the proposal’s impact on the Conservation Area by virtue of its size            and bulk.

Erection of single storey studio building

The Committee deferred the application to give officers an opportunity to

(a)   discuss with the applicant how best to address the issue of ground levels so as to minimise the prominence of the proposed property in relation to the Mill Way boundary wall; and

(b)   review the proposal’s impact on the Conservation Area by virtue of its size and bulk.

Members visited the site on 4 October 2016.

In view of its decision to defer Application S/1197/16/FL, the Committee also deferred this associated application to give officers an opportunity to

(a)    discuss with the applicant how best to address the issue of ground levels so as to minimise the prominence of the proposed property in relation to the Mill Way boundary wall; and

(b)   review the proposal’s impact on the Conservation Area by virtue of its size and bulk.

Conversion of three bed semi detached house into two flats (part retrospective)

The Committee deferred the application and instructed officers to commission an up-to-date structural movement survey.

Members visited the site on 4 October 2016.

Mr Krusel (objector) addressed the meeting. Councillor Dr Douglas de Lacey had submitted a written statement. Mr Crusall expressed some personal comments relating to process.

Upon the proposal of Councillor Deborah Roberts, seconded by Councillor Val Barrett, the Committee deferred the application and instructed officers to commission an up-to-date structural movement survey.

Outline application for the demolition of existing industrial and office units and 5 dwellings and the erection of up to 90 dwellings, together with associated garaging, parking, public open space, landscaping, access, highways drainage and infrastructure works. All matters reserved except access.

Further to its delegated approval of the application at the meeting on 22 April 2016 (Minute 5 refers), the Committee

(a)   gave officers delegated powers to require completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing payment of £240,006 to be offered in the first instance to Gamlingay Parish Council for the provision of early years education, subject to a time limited opportunity to identify a specific project and, should such a project not be forthcoming, to be offered instead to Cambridgeshire County Council as detailed in Appendix 2 to the report; and

(b)   noted that the contribution for primary school education should be £513,835 and not as reported to the meeting on 22 April 2016.

Kath Slater (applicant’s agent), Councillor Sarah Groome (Gamlingay Parish Council) and Councillor Bridget Smith (a local Member) addressed the meeting. Copies of a letter from CAM Academy Trust, dated 27 September 2016, were tabled at the meeting. Kath Slater drew Members’ attention to the high level of community engagement and to the policy compliant nature of the Section 106 Agreement. Councillor Groome (accompanied by the Parish Clerk) concentrated on the need to ensure the provision of early years learning in this part of the village by securing sufficient money to extend the Methodist Chapel. Councillor Bridget Smith said that the site had been allocated in the Local Plan for development but that the current development had paid little attention to the needs of the community. She felt that Cambridgeshire County Council, as Local Education Authority, had somewhat undermined the Parish Council on the issue of early years provision. A County Council representative explained that his Council’s responsibility was to commission a sufficient number of school places in Gamlingay. Councillor Sebastian Kindersley, as a local Member, said that the sum being offered in respect of early years education was inadequate, The developer should be providing a vibrant and sustainable community.

Further discussion ensued.

The Section 106 Officer explained how the Community Infrastructure Levy rules could operate to allow more money for early years provision to be applied from up to four further planning proposals.

Further to its delegated approval of the application at the meeting on 22 April 2016 (Minute 5 refers), the Committee

(a)   gave officers delegated powers to require completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing payment of £240,006 to be offered in the first instance to Gamlingay Parish Council for the provision of early years education, subject to a time limited opportunity to identify a specific project and, should such a project not be forthcoming, to be offered instead to Cambridgeshire County Council as detailed in Appendix 2 to the report; and

(b)   noted that the contribution for primary school education should be £513,835 and not as reported to the meeting on 22 April 2016.

As part of the consultation process, the Committee instructed officers to inform the Planning Portfolio Holder that it endorsed the proposed amendments to the local list and associated viability guidance, and the drainage, flooding and Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) checklists attached as Appendices A, B and C to the report from the Head of Development Management

The Planning Committee considered a report on proposed changes to the local validation scheme, made necessary by a planning process complicated by the lack of a five-year housing land supply and shortage of affordable housing.

The Committee’s comments, together with those received as part of the ensuing public consultation exercise, would help support the Council in managing the decision-making process and achieving high quality, consistent, deliverable and sustainable development.         

Councillor Brian Burling was concerned by the potential extra burden and cost the proposals would impose on developers submitting Outline proposals only.

As part of the consultation process, the Committee instructed officers to inform the Planning Portfolio Holder that it endorsed the proposed amendments to the local list and associated viability guidance, and the drainage, flooding and Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) checklists attached as Appendices A, B and C to the report from the Head of Development Management

The Planning Committee approved changes to the public speaking protocol relating to

(i)               Advice to speakers about the timing of items

(ii)              Allowing Parish Councils to appoint agents (including Parish Clerks, to speak on their behalf

(iii)            A “one objector and one supporter” policy subject to where the officer recommendation is for refusal, when a supporter from the community will be allowed as well as applicants or their agents

(iv)            An absolute deadline for interested parties circulating material, subject to officers identifying material factors

(v)             Registrations to speak being made direct to the Democratic Services Officer, and not via anyone else

as reflected in the draft protocol attached as Appendix A to the report jointly from the Executive Director (Corporate Services) and Head of Development Management, and incorporating an additional paragraph making it clear that no individual may speak in more than one capacity.

The Committee considered a report proposing minor amendment of the public speaking protocol in order to ensure its continued consistency, transparency and suitability.

The Head of Development Management proposed additional text that would limit people to speaking in one capacity only. In reply to a question from Councillor Sebastian Kindersley, the Head of Development Management confirmed that this would also apply to “dual-hatted” Members, such as those who were both District- and Parish Councillors.  Kindersley urged caution on this point. The Chairman invited Councillor Lynda Harford to address the Committee. Referring to Councillor Kindersley’s concern, Councillor Harford said that the rule would only create a potential problem in the case of single-Member wards. Councillor Hazel Smith asked whether the new rule would allow a Member to read out a statement prepared by the Parish Council and then speak as local Member. The Chairman said this would not be allowed but that, instead, the Parish Council statement should be read out by an officer.

Councillor John Batchelor received confirmation that each ward Member would still have a right to address the Committee.

The Planning Committee agreed

1.               changes to the public speaking protocol relating to

a.     Advice to speakers about the timing of items

b.     Allowing Parish Councils to appoint agents (including Parish Clerks, to speak on their behalf

c.      A “one objector and one supporter” policy subject to where the officer recommendation is for refusal, when a supporter from the community will be allowed as well as applicants or their agents

d.     An absolute deadline for interested parties circulating material, subject to officers identifying material factors

e.     Registrations to speak being made direct to the Democratic Services Officer, and not via anyone else

as reflected in the draft protocol attached as Appendix A to the report jointly from the Executive Director (Corporate Services) and Head of Development Management; and

2.               that, in the interests of clarity and transparency, the following wording should be added to the protocol:

“The same person is not allowed to address the committee in more than one of the speaker Categories.  Where speakers have competing interests, such as community objector and Parish Council representative, they should choose their dominant interest prior to registering to speak, and delegate the other role to another representative if need be.”

3.               To delegate to officers the correction of typographical and formatting errors; and

4.               That future reviews of the public speaking protocol should be made as and when required rather than strictly on an annual basis.

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.