Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Planning Committee - Thursday, 25 June 2020 10.00 a.m.

Venue: Virtual meeting - Online. View directions

Contact: Ian Senior, 03450 450 500 Email: democratic.services@scambs.gov.uk  Members of the public wishing to speak at this meeting are requested to contact the Support Officer by no later than noon on Monday before the meeting. A public speaking protocol applies.

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Chair's Announcements

Minutes:

For the benefit of members of the public viewing the live webcast of the meeting, the Chair introduced Committee members and officers in attendance. Councillor Richard Williams had recently been appointed to the Committee in place of Councillor Sue Ellington. The Chair paid tribute to Councillor Ellington and thanked her for her past contribution.

 

He explained that this meeting of the Planning Committee was being held virtually and asked for patience bearing in mind the challenges posed by the technology in use and by the new meeting skills required.

 

The Chair confirmed that the Planning Committee would continue with the practice of recording votes unless a resolution could be reached by affirmation. He explained the process he would follow in a virtual meetings environment.

 

He confirmed that the meeting was quorate but informed members of the public that, if a Committee member was absent for any part of the presentation of or debate about an agenda item then that member would not be allowed to vote on that item.

2.

Apologies

To receive apologies for absence from committee members. 

Minutes:

Councillor Dr. Martin Cahn sent Apologies for Absence. Councillor Dr. Claire Daunton was present as his substitute.

3.

Declarations of Interest

 

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.

Minutes:

Councillor John Batchelor in relation to Minute 7 (S/4418/19/RM - Linton (Land South of Wheatsheaf Barn, Horseheath Road)) declared a non-pecuniary interest as he had been present at Lintgon Parish Council meetings at which this application had been discussed. He was considering the matter afresh.

                                                 

Councillor Anna Bradnam in relation to

·       Minute 8 (S/2896/19/FL - Duxford (Imperial War Museum Royston Road, Duxford)) declared a non-pecuniary interest. In her capacity as South Cambridgeshire District Council’s representative on the Board of Trustees to Denny Abbey and the Farmland Museum, she knows another Trustee on that Board, Michael Peirson, who is the Retail and Admission Manager for the Imperial War Museum at Duxford. While she and Mr Peirson had discussed the generalities of museum finances and strategies for the future,  Councillor Bradnam confirmed that she had not discussed this application for a hotel at the Imperial War Museum, Duxford with Mr Peirson at any time. Councillor Bradnam was considering the matter afresh.

·       Minute 11 (20/01005/FUL - Fen Ditton (1-3 and 2-28, Musgrave Way)) reminded those present that she was the Cambridgeshire County Councillor for the Electoral Division of Waterbeach, which includes the northern part of Fen Ditton parish.

 

Councillor Dr. Claire Daunton in relation to

·       Minute 10 (20/01004/FUL - Teversham (1-4 and 17-28 Ferndale)) and

·       Minute 11 (20/01005/FUL - Fen Ditton (1-3 and 2-28, Musgrave Way))

reminded those present that she was one of the local District Council Members.

 

Councillor Peter Fane in relation to Minute 6 (S/0158/20/FL - Sawston (Former Spicers Site, Sawston Bypass)) declared a non-pecuniary interest as one of the local Members for the neighbouring Ward of Shelford where discussions and exhibitions had taken place in respect of this application.

 

Councillor Brian Milnes in relation to Minute 6 (S/0158/20/FL - Sawston (Former Spicers Site, Sawston Bypass)) declared a non-pecuniary interest as this application had provoked a significant amount of discussion in Sawston, for which parish he was one of the local Members. He was considering the matter afresh.

 

Councillor Richard Williams in relation to

·       Minute 6 (S/0158/20/FL - Sawston (Former Spicers Site, Sawston Bypass)) and

·       Minute 8 (S/2896/19/FL - Duxford (Imperial War Museum Royston Road, Duxford))

Declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Whittlesford Parish Council where both applications had been discussed. He was considering both matters afresh.

 

Councillor Nick Wright in relation to

·       Minute 6 (S/0158/20/FL - Sawston (Former Spicers Site, Sawston Bypass)) and

·       Minute 8 (S/2896/19/FL - Duxford (Imperial War Museum Royston Road, Duxford))

declared a non-pecuniary interest. As a former Planning Portfolio Holder at South Cambridgeshire District Council, Councillor Wright had been involved in discussions about both proposals but was now considering both applications afresh.

4.

Minutes of a Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 138 KB

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 May 2020 as a correct record.

Minutes:

The Committee authorised the Chair to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 May 2020.

5.

S/2423/19/DC - Longstanton (Northstowe Phase 2) pdf icon PDF 589 KB

 

Discharge of condition 14 (Town Centre Strategy) of planning permission S/2011/14/OL

Decision:

By nine votes to one with one abstention, the Committee discharged Condition 14 of Outline planning permission S/2011/14/OL requiring further detail of the early phases of the development of the town centre to ensure that services and facilities could be delivered. The discharge would include text in the following terms

 

1.    That the submitted Town Centre Strategy provided a suitable basis for the early delivery of community buildings (known as the Civic Hub) and the first commercial building (the Market Hall) and in particular Stage A of the submitted Strategy in accordance with the requirements of Condition 14 of S/2011/14/OL.

 

2.    That indicative floorspace figures provided an initial basis for consideration of the capacity of the town centre but with appropriate flexibility in the delivery to allow for changes in technology and new uses as well as delivering significant employment provision. The town centre would be capable of accommodating the level of comparison retail floorspace under planning reference S/3187/18/FL in a sustainable town centre location. The proposals would also deliver other aspects including community uses, residential, public realm, leisure and other commercial floorspace through promoting flexibility in uses. The town centre strategy was consistent with the creation of the education campus.

 

3.    The town centre strategy provided the opportunity to deliver a range of uses and temporary facilities to create new markets and provide innovation and enterprise, particularly to the Small and Medium-sized Enterprise market.

 

4.    Discharge of the condition would  not grant Reserved Matters or detailed consent for any building but rather agreed a Strategy for early phases which would build on the approved outline planning permission, and should be read in conjunction with the Town Centre Strategy approved as part of outline planning permission reference S/2011/14/OL.

 

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Faunton, Fane, HeylingsMilnes, Rippeth. Richard Williams and Wright voted to discharge the Condition. Councillor Heather Williams voted against discharge. Councillor Roberts abstained.)

Minutes:

The case officer made a detailed presentation of the up-to-date situation and addressed Members’ concerns, including those relating to employment levels, the Market Hall, outdoor space for assemblies, and leisure.

 

Members expressed views both against and in support of the latest concept.

 

By nine votes to one with one abstention, the Committee discharged Condition 14 of Outline planning permission S/2011/14/OL requiring further detail of the early phases of the development of the town centre to ensure that services and facilities could be delivered. The discharge would include text in the following terms

 

1.    That the submitted Town Centre Strategy provided a suitable basis for the early delivery of community buildings (known as the Civic Hub) and the first commercial building (the Market Hall) and in particular Stage A of the submitted Strategy in accordance with the requirements of Condition 14 of S/2011/14/OL.

 

2.    That indicative floorspace figures provided an initial basis for consideration of the capacity of the town centre but with appropriate flexibility in the delivery to allow for changes in technology and new uses as well as delivering significant employment provision. The town centre would be capable of accommodating the level of comparison retail floorspace under planning reference S/3187/18/FL in a sustainable town centre location. The proposals would also deliver other aspects including community uses, residential, public realm, leisure and other commercial floorspace through promoting flexibility in uses. The town centre strategy was consistent with the creation of the education campus.

 

3.    The town centre strategy provided the opportunity to deliver a range of uses and temporary facilities to create new markets and provide innovation and enterprise, particularly to the Small and Medium-sized Enterprise market.

 

4.    Discharge of the condition would  not grant Reserved Matters or detailed consent for any building but rather agreed a Strategy for early phases which would build on the approved outline planning permission, and should be read in conjunction with the Town Centre Strategy approved as part of outline planning permission reference S/2011/14/OL.

 

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Faunton, Fane, Heylings, Milnes, Rippeth. Richard Williams and Wright voted to discharge the Condition. Councillor Heather Williams voted against discharge. Councillor Roberts abstained.)

6.

S/0158/20/FL - Sawston (Former Spicers Site, Sawston Bypass) pdf icon PDF 691 KB

 

Demolition of 582 sq.m (GIA) storage building (B8 Use Class) and erection of 50,445 sq.m (GIA) of research and development accommodation (B1(b) Use Class), including ancillary accommodation and broken down as follows: (i) Office accommodation (9,503 sq.m); (ii) Wafer fabrication (FAB) cleanroom (22,351 sq.m); (iii) Single level basement incorporating 284 no. car parking spaces (9,417 sq.m); (iv) Central Utilities Building (8,694 sq.m); (v) External storage building (480 sq.m); (vi) Cycle parking spaces (80 for staff and 6 for visitors, total 86); (vii) Surface, disabled and visitor car parking (16 spaces) adjacent to the office building entrance; (viii) Access and circulation roads, engineering works and footpaths / cycleways; (ix) Drainage and servicing infrastructure; and (x) Hard and soft landscaping.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Councillor Deborah Roberts proposed deferral on the grounds that the application was premature, would impact adversely on water supply, and should form part of a Masterplan. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Heather Williams and, upon a roll call being conducted, was lost by eight votes to three. Councillors Roberts, Heather Williams aand Richard Williams voted for deferral. Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Daunton, Fane, Heylings, Rippeth and Wright voted against deferral.

 

Upon a second roll call being conducted, and by nine votes to one, the Committee approved the application subject to

 

1.    The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing mitigation measures relating to

a.    Transport

b.    Landscape and ecology

c.     Archaeology

d.    Section 106 monitoring fees

as referred to in more detail in paragraph 195 of the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development;

2.    The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development including specific additional wording to condition 6 to require consultation with Natural England, and additional wording to condition 25 to include mention of re-use and recycling.

 

(Councillors Bradnam, Daunton, Fane, Heylings, Milnes, Rippeth, Heather Williams, Richard Williams and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillor Roberts voted to refuse it. Councillor John Batchelor had missed several elements of the debate due to technical issues. Having taken advice from the Senior Planning Lawyer, Councillor Batchelor did not vote.)

Minutes:

The Delivery Manager (Strategic Sites) acknowledged that this application had attracted a lot of local, national, and international interest recently, mainly for security reasons. He reminded Members that their responsibility as a Planning Committee was to restrict themselves to matters of a planning land use nature and material considerations arising therefrom, and to disregard the identity of the applicant, which was not material. He also reminded Members to base their comments on the Development Plan, South Cambridgeshire Local Plan and National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Henk Koopmans (Chief Executive Officer, Huawei) and Councillor Barbara Kettel (Stapleford Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

 

Members focussed their debate on

 

·       Water supply issues, including potential impact on the water table

·       Landscaping and design

·       Concern about the apparent lack of cycling connectivity with nearby villages, although officers explained that current proposals were proportionate to the application being considered, and that further opportunities would arise in future as the site was developed

·       Biodiversity issues that had been addressed by statutory consultees

·       Clarification that the proposal site was not in the Green Belt

·       Prematurity

·       The need for a Masterplan

·       Issues surrounding ‘high end’ employment, housing, and sustainable transport

 

Councillor Deborah Roberts proposed deferral on the grounds that the application was premature, would impact adversely on water supply, and should form part of a Masterplan. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Heather Williams and, upon a roll call being conducted, was lost by eight votes to three. Councillors Roberts, Heather Williams and Richard Williams voted for deferral. Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Daunton, Fane, Heylings, Milnes, Rippeth and Wright voted against deferral.

 

Following further debate, including discussion about Conditions and a Travel Plan, the Chair welcomed the application as an excellent use of a brownfield site that complied fully with the Local Plan, and delivered several benefits for the local area.

 

Upon a roll call being conducted as to the substantive motion, and by nine votes to one, the Committee approved the application subject to

 

1.    The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing mitigation measures relating to

a.    Transport

b.    Landscape and ecology

c.     Archaeology

d.    Section 106 monitoring fees

as referred to in more detail in paragraph 195 of the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development;

 

2.     The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development including specific additional Condition regarding the permission time limit, additional wording to Condition 6 to require consultation with Natural England, and additional wording to Condition 25 to include mention of re-use and recycling of water, such additional wording to be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee.

 

(Councillors Bradnam, Daunton, Fane, Heylings, Milnes, Rippeth, Heather Williams, Richard Williams and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillor Roberts voted to refuse it. Councillor John Batchelor had missed several elements of the debate due to technical issues. Having taken advice from the Senior Planning Lawyer, Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

At this stage the meeting had lasted four hours. By affirmation, and in accordance with Standing Orders, the Committee agreed that the meeting should continue.

7.

S/4418/19/RM - Linton (Land South of Wheatsheaf Barn, Horseheath Road) pdf icon PDF 726 KB

 

Approval of matters reserved for access appearance landscaping layout and scale following outline planning permission S/2553/16/OL for the erection of 42 dwellings including the provision of 0.45ha for allotments.

Additional documents:

Decision:

By affirmation, the Committee gave officers delegated authority to approve the application subject to

 

1.    The Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Conditions associated with, and attached to, the Outline planning permission S/2553/16/OL;

2.    An Informative advising the applicant that, as part of any discharge of conditions application to condition 14 of outline consent S/2553/16/OL (survey for retention of existing trees and hedges), the hedgerow on the northern edge of the site adjacent to Horseheath Road should be retained where it is practicable to do so. precise wording to be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee; and

3.    The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Minutes:

Councillor Enid Bald (Linton Parish Council) addressed the meeting. A written statement from Councillor Henry Batchelor (a local Member) was read aloud to Committee members.

 

The case officer highlighted the footpath to the south west of the site. Currently there was no link between that footpath and Martins Lane across third party land but, he said, such a link might be negotiated in the future if there was sufficient local demand. The Senior Planning Lawyer informed the Committee that the question of land ownership was not an issue at this Reserved Matters stage. Outline consent had been granted on appeal, but Linton Parish Council was now out of time for challenging that decision. Members noted that the developer had relocated the fence along the western site boundary so that none of the third party land formed part of any of the properties along that boundary,

 

Committee members appreciated the way in which the developer and Parish Council had worked together to produce a high-quality scheme. However, Members expressed concern about the abrupt nature of the boundary, and also sought to minimise loss of the hedge along the frontage to the site.

 

By affirmation, the Committee gave officers delegated authority to approve the application subject to

 

1.    The Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Conditions associated with, and attached to, the Outline planning permission S/2553/16/OL;

 

2.    An Informative advising the applicant that, as part of any discharge of conditions application to condition 14 of outline consent S/2553/16/OL (survey for retention of existing trees and hedges), the hedgerow on the northern edge of the site adjacent to Horseheath Road should be retained where it is practicable to do so. precise wording to be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee; and

 

3.    The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

8.

S/2896/19/FL - Duxford (Imperial War Museum Royston Road, Duxford) pdf icon PDF 588 KB

 

Construction of a 168-bedroom hotel with ancillary facilities associated access gates car parking (including reconfigured conference centre car parking) cycle parking and landscaping.

Decision:

By seven votes to two, the Committee gave officers delegated authority to approve the application subject to

 

1.    Officers being satisfied that all appropriate public consultation had been carried out. If not so satisfied, then the consultation exercise would be carried out , and the application again presented to Committee for determination.

2.    The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a commuted sum towards maintenance of the ‘keep clear’ markings on the M11 Junction 10 roundabout.

3.    The Conditions and Informatives referred to in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development plus additional wording added to the materials condition in relation to the use of toned down colours and the landscaping condition to secure a hedge along the eastern boundary adjacent to the M11 slip road.

 

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Daunton, Fane, Heylings, Milnes and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillors Roberts and Heather Williams voted for refusal. Councillors Rippeth and Richard Williams were not present and did not vote.

Minutes:

In response to concern raised by Members, the case officer was satisfied that Thriplow Parish Council and residents in Heathfield had been consulted but had not responded. Officers took the view that the public benefit in securing the viability of the Imperial War Museum significantly outweighed the harm caused by the proposal. They considered that the impact on heritage assets was less than substantial and that it was for the Committee to achieve a planning balance.

 

Andrew Bennellick (agent) addressed the meeting. A statement from Councillor Peter McDonald (local Member) was read out to the Committee.

 

The Senior Planning Lawyer advised the Committee that it would be possible to adhere to planning time limits and check on the consultation issue by delegating any approval to officers. In any event, a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 had yet to be finalised and signed. If consultation had been carried out satisfactorily.  Then consent would be granted. If consultation had been defective then the proposal would be brought back to Committee for determination.

 

Members’ discussion focussed on

 

·       Landscaping

·       Design, massing, materials, and colour

·       Impact on the Conservation Area

·       Viability of the Museum

·       Economic development benefits for South Cambridgeshire

·       Renewable energy

·       Potential light pollution

·       The principle of development

 

The Delivery Manager (Strategic Sites) confirmed that, in the absence of a Viability Assessment having been submitted with the application, Members were unable to give any weight to that topic.

 

By seven votes to two, the Committee gave officers delegated authority to approve the application subject to

 

1.    Officers being satisfied that all appropriate public consultation had been carried out. If not so satisfied, then the consultation exercise would be carried out, and the application again presented to Committee for determination.

 

2.    The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a commuted sum towards maintenance of the ‘keep clear’ markings on the M11 Junction 10 roundabout.

 

3.    The Conditions and Informatives referred to in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development plus additional wording added to the materials condition in relation to the use of toned down colours and the landscaping condition to secure a hedge along the eastern boundary adjacent to the M11 slip road.

 

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Daunton, Fane, Heylings, Milnes and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillors Roberts and Heather Williams voted for refusal. Councillors Rippeth and Richard Williams were not present and did not vote.

9.

S/0185/20/FL - Gamlingay (Grays Road) pdf icon PDF 340 KB

 

Change of use from public amenity space to parking including resurfacing

Decision:

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informative set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

 

Councillors Rippeth, Roberts and Richard Williams were not present and did not form part of the affirmation.

Minutes:

Referring to paragraph 11 of the report, the case officer said that the land jn fact was owned by South Cambridgeshire District Council and not by Cambridgeshire County Council.

 

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informative set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

 

Councillors Rippeth, Roberts and Richard Williams were not present and did not form part of the affirmation.

10.

20/01004/FUL - Teversham (1-4 and 17-28 Ferndale) pdf icon PDF 149 KB

 

Additional cladding layer to 14 flats and two bungalows

Decision:

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

 

Councillors Rippeth, Roberts and Richard Williams were not present and did not form part of the affirmation.

Minutes:

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

 

Councillors Rippeth, Roberts and Richard Williams were not present and did not form part of the affirmation.

11.

20/01005/FUL - Fen Ditton (1-3 and 2-28, Musgrave Way) pdf icon PDF 141 KB

 

Re-cladding and insulation from a pebble dash finish to a light rendered topcoat.

Decision:

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

 

Councillors Rippeth, Roberts and Richard Williams were not present and did not form part of the affirmation.

Minutes:

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

 

Councillors Rippeth, Roberts and Richard Williams were not present and did not form part of the affirmation.