Venue: Virtual meeting - Online. View directions
Contact: Ian Senior, 03450 450 500 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Members of the public wishing to speak at this meeting are requested to contact the Support Officer by no later than 4pm on Tuesday 26 January 2021. A public speaking protocol applies.
For the benefit of members of the public viewing the live webcast of the meeting, the Chair introduced Committee members and officers in attendance.
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.
Because of technical issues, this meeting had started an hour later than advertised. The Chair apologised for the delay and noted that the Council’s Monitoring Officer had confirmed there was no problem with the late start of the Committee meeting in constitutional terms. By seven votes to three, with one abstention, the Committee agreed to continue the meeting (Councillors Roberts, Heather Williams and Wright voted to defer the meeting, and Councillor Richard Williams abstained).
To receive apologies for absence from committee members.
There were no Apologies for Absence.
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.
Councillor Anna Bradnam as a Member for Milton and Waterbeach had been involved in discussions locally and had been a member of the South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee when related applications had been considered previously. Councillor Bradnam was considering the matter afresh.
Councillor Judith Rippeth as a Member for Milton and Waterbeach had been involved in discussions locally but was considering the matter afresh.
Councillor Dr. Richard Williams had taught in the past (but no longer did) at St. John’s College, Cambridge, which was referred to in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
Outline Planning Application (with all matters reserved) for development of up to 4,500 dwellings, business, retail, community, leisure and sports uses; new primary and secondary schools and sixth form centre; public open spaces including parks and ecological areas; points of access; associated drainage and other infrastructure, groundworks, landscaping and highway works.
The Planning Committee gave officers delegated authority 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 on the terms broadly referenced in Section 9 of the main report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, with delegated authority granted to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to negotiate, secure, and complete such agreement on terms as are otherwise considered to be appropriate and necessary, including the Heads of Terms (HoTs) as set out in the report, and any other HOTs or the detail, such as phasing and triggers, that are still under negotiation. The final wording of any significant amendments to HoTs listed in the report will be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee prior to the issuing of planning permission;
2. setting out, as part of the decision notice and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017 reg. 29 ‘information to accompany decisions’ a reasoned conclusion of the significant effects of the development on the environment and to carry out appropriate notification under reg. 30 accordingly;
3. The presentation to Planning Committee in July or August 2021 of a report outlining progress with the Section 106 obligations; and
4. The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development amended as follows
(a) Condition 15 now to state
No dwellings shall be occupied until the approved railway station (planning ref. S/0791/18/FL or as may be varied) has been completed and is open for use and the link road connecting the site to the southern junction with the A10 as shown on parameter plan 1330 GA 010002 Rev 17 in the adjacent U&C development site (planning ref. S/0559/17/OL) has also been completed and is open for use.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, to provide quality placemaking, and to ensure the delivery of strategic transport interventions before the occupation of any dwellings, and to ensure that the site is accessed in an appropriate and comprehensive manner, in accordance with Policy SS/6 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and the Waterbeach New Town SPD.
(b) Condition 42 now to state
No reserved matters applications shall be submitted, and no development shall commence until such time as a scheme to manage the residual risks of flooding from a River Cam flood embankment breach (scenarios to cover risks both within and outside of the site, to and from the development) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the scheme’s timing/ phasing arrangements, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority.
Reason: To manage flooding and to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere by ensuring the satisfactory storage or conveyance ... view the full decision text for item 4.
The Committee considered an application, as amended, seeking planning permission for the development of up to 4,500 dwellings, business, retail, community, leisure and sports uses, new primary and secondary schools and sixth form centre, public open spaces (including parks and ecological areas), points of access, associated drainage and other infrastructure, groundworks, landscaping and highway works. The proposal formed part of the strategic allocation for a new town as set out in Policy SS/6 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. The western half of the proposed new town had been the subject of a separate outline planning application by Urban and Civic (U&C) for up to 6,500 dwellings, approved in September 2019. The cumulative total for the two separate proposals amounted to the development of up to 11,000 dwellings.
The following public speakers addressed the meeting:
· Barbara Bull (resident objector)
· Katherine Else (objector)
· Nigel Seamarks (resident objector)
· Jane Williams (resident objector)
· Chris Goldsmith (for the applicant)
· Councillor Kate Grant (Waterbeach Parish Council)
· County Councillor Tim Wotherspoon (mandated to speak on behalf of Cambridgeshire County Council)
· Councillor Hazel Smith (local Councillor)
· Councillor Anna Bradnam (Committee member speaking as a local Councillor)
· Councillor Judith Rippeth (Committee member speaking as a local Councillor)
During the meeting, the principal issues raised and discussed were:
· The potential for flooding, and flood mitigation measures
· Insufficient provision of public open space
· The health and wellbeing of existing and future residents
· Housing and, in particular, the need for an increase in the provision of affordable housing
· Relocation of the railway station
· Improvements to the A10
· The impact on the setting of Denny Abbey
· Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan
· Governance of the new town during its early years and the importance of involving existing residents and Waterbeach Parish Council
· Density and building heights
· Transport, including financial contributions towards strategic transport
· Impact of traffic on Waterbeach village, including Cody Road
· The need for infrastructure to be delivered at a very early stage of development
· Importance of this Fen-edge location
· The vital need for the current development to be taken forward together with the neighbouring development by Urban & Civic to ensure the cohesive delivery of a single new town
At the beginning of the Member debate, there was some difference of opinion about whether final wording of Conditions should be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair or presented to the full Committee for confirmation. A motion was duly proposed and seconded that any changes to the wording of Conditions made subsequent to a Committee decision to approve should be determined by the Committee at a future meeting. Upon a vote being taken by roll call, the motion was lost by seven votes to four. Councillors Roberts, Heather Williams, Richard Williams, and Wright voted in favour of the motion while Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn. Fane, Hawkins, Heylings and Rippeth maintained that final wording to Conditions following the meeting should be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.
Members went on to consider the ... view the full minutes text for item 4.