Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chair made a statement on the passing of Queen Elizabeth II and the Committee observed a two-minute silence. The Chair made several brief housekeeping announcements.

Councillor Bill Handley sent Apologies for Absence.

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.

• With respect to Minute 5, Councillor Henry Batchelor declared that he was a Member of Cambridgeshire County Council

• With respect to Minute 7, Councillor Heather Williams declared that she was a member of the Greater Cambridge Partnership but would be making a decision as part of the Committee with no conflicting interest. Councillor Dr Martin Cahn declared that his wife was a member of the Histon and Impington Land Trust

• With respect to Minutes 9 and 10, Councillor Peter Sandford declared that the property in question was in his ward, but he had held no discussions on the application and would not be speaking as local Member

• With respect to Minutes 11 and 12, Councillor Dr Richard Williams declared that he was unsure if he knew the applicant but would withdraw from the Committee during the discussion of the applications to avoid any potential conflict of interest

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 10 August 2022 as a correct record.

Councillor Heather Williams abstained from the vote on the approval of the Minutes as she was not present at the meeting. By affirmation, the rest of the Committee authorised the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 10 August 2022 as correct record.

Proposed Diversion of Public Footpath No. 10, Gamlingay pursuant to planning permission S/4085/19/RM

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application

Cambridgeshire County Council’s Asset Information Definitive Maps Officer presented the report. Members asked questions on accessibility (dropped curbs and raised roads) and the status of the footpath on Definitive Maps- it was clarified that sections of the footpath that were part of the highways network would not be part of the Definitive Maps. The Committee was informed that the County Council would retain responsibility for the maintenance of the right of way.

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application

S73 Variation of conditions 1 (Approved plans), 2 (Reserved matter details), 6 (Arboricultural Method Statement), 7 (Boundary treatments), 8 (Refuse storage), 10 (Housing mix), 12 (Energy Statement), 13 (Contamination), 14 (Noise assessment), 17 (Drainage strategy), 19 (Access) and 23 (Fire hydrants) pursuant to planning application 21/01474/S73 (Variation of condition 2 (reserved matters details) pursuant to planning application 20/02528/S73 (Variation of conditions 2 (Reserved matters), 5 (Construction Environment Management Plan and a Construction Method Statement), 6 (Airborne Dust), 7 (Site waste management plan), 8 (Tree protection measures), 9 (Boundary Treatment), 10 (Siting and design of the screened storage for refuse), 14 (Renewable energy statement), 15 (Contamination), 16 (Noise insulation scheme or noise mitigation Strategy), 19 (Surface water drainage scheme), 20 (Surface water), 21 (Remediation Statement - Contamination), 22 (Scheme for disposal for surface water), 24 (Visibility splays), 26 (Recording of Industrial Heritage), 27 (Foul water solution), 28 (Archaeological works) and 29 (Fire hydrants) pursuant to planning permission S/0057/17/VC

By affirmation, the Committee agreed to changes to conditions laid out in the report:

• Condition 1- Approved plans no. 7, 8 and 9 were removed from the condition

• Condition 17- the wording was changed from “…pursuant to application reference S/4820/19/DC” to “S/4820/18/DC”

• Conditions 13, 18 and 19- references to “phasing plan BARR/22/02/001 Rev A” were changed to “BARR/22/02/001/ Rev C”

• Condition 23 was removed

• Two informatives relating to drainage, with one regarding ordinary watercourse consent and the other regarding pollution control, were added

The Committee requested, and approved by affirmation, a change of wording in condition 19; “Prior to the 111th dwelling within Phase 3…” was amended to state “Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling within Phase 3…”.

With one abstention, the Committee approved the application by affirmation in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and subject to the changes agreed by the Committee.

The Principal Planner, Michael Hammond, presented the report and offered a number of updates regarding changes to conditions laid out in the report. These changes were:

• Condition 1- Approved plans no. 7, 8 and 9 were removed from the condition

• Condition 17- the wording was changed from “…pursuant to application reference S/4820/19/DC” to “S/4820/18/DC”

• Conditions 13, 18 and 19- references to “phasing plan BARR/22/02/001 Rev A” were changed to “BARR/22/02/001/ Rev C”

• Condition 23 was removed

• Two informatives relating to drainage, with one regarding ordinary watercourse consent and the other regarding pollution control, were added

The Committee questioned the wording in paragraph two of condition 19 and the use of prior to the occupation of the “111th dwelling”. Members asked questions of clarity on what a “drop-in” application was and the status of other applications on the overall site and where informed that two overlapping permissions can be granted on the same site as long as they are not contradictory.

The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Liz Fitzgerald, who gave an explanation of why the application had been brought forward and what it set out to achieve, as well as providing context on the “drop-in” nature of the application and how it fit in to the larger site. The Committee noted that Councillor Aidan van de Weyer was supportive of the application as local Member.

In the debate, Members discussed the changes to the proposed development that the application brought. Discussions were held around the historical objections from some statutory consultees. The wording in condition 19 was discussed; the Committee requested, and approved by affirmation, a change of wording in condition 19; “Prior to the 111th dwelling within Phase 3…” was amended to state “Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling within Phase 3…”. With the agreed change, Members signalled satisfaction with the application and understanding of the procedural nature of the application.

Councillor Peter Fane was not present for the full duration of the discussion and subsequently abstained from the vote

With one abstention (Councillor Peter Fane), the Committee approved the application by affirmation in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and subject to the changes agreed by the Committee.

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 34 new residential units as a Social Housing Rural Exception Site in the Greenbelt with all matters reserved except for access from Histon Road.

The Committee agreed, by affirmation, to the removal of condition 26. The Committee requested, and approved by affirmation, an additional condition stating “notwithstanding the details set out in drawing number 22938_08_020_01, details of the access road and pedestrian crossing shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The details shall then be implemented in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interest of pedestrian and highway safety in accordance with policies HQ/1 and TI/2 of the Local Plan”. The Committee delegated authority to officers to draft the final wording and approve it in conjunction with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

By 5 votes to 4, with one abstention, the Committee approved the application subject to the conditions laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and the changes to conditions made by the Committee.

The Committee agreed, by affirmation, to the removal of condition 26. The Committee requested, and approved by affirmation, an additional condition stating The Principal Planner, Steve Fraser-Lim, presented the report and informed the Committee that officers proposed to remove condition 26 as they felt that condition 25 and the compliance to Building Regulations M4(2) were satisfactory. In response to a question, officers clarified the amount of the development that was in the green belt and outside of the Village Development Framework and offered explanation on how this impacted policy compliance. The Committee raised the Parish Council’s statement on affordable housing provision in Cottenham and the Housing Development Officer provided an explanation of the assessed need and how the conclusions had been drawn.

The Committee was addressed by Councillor Tim Jones of Cottenham Parish Council who presented the views of the Parish Council and raised concerns over surface water, the proposed three storey building not being compliant with the Village Design Statement and access to the site. Members asked a number of questions of Councillor Jones regarding the concerns he raised. The Committee noted a written submission for Councillor John Loveluck as local Member.

In the debate, Members debated the balance between the need for affordable housing and the harm to the green belt that the proposed development would bring as required by policy S/8 of the Local Plan. The Committee accepted that the need for affordable housing had been proved, but some Members were concerned that the proposed site was not the most appropriate site in the village and thus the application was not compliant with policy H/11 of the Local Plan. Opinion was divided as to if the balance required to meet the criteria for a Social Housing Rural Exception Site was met. Concerns were also raised by some Members over the proposed housing density and whether the proposal was compliant with policy H/8 of the Local Plan, although it was noted that this consideration, like others, would be dealt with at the Reserved Matters stage. Water drainage, both surface and foul, was a point of concern for the Committee but Members stated that the comments of the Internal Drainage Board on surface water drainage meant that surface water concerns were not a viable reason for refusal and the comments of Anglian Water prevented foul water drainage concerns from being a reason for refusal.

The Committee raised concerns over the proposed access road not being up to the adoptable standards required by the Highways authority and felt that, as an unadopted road would lead to management costs being the responsibility of residents, this was unacceptable in a Social Housing Rural Exception site. The Committee requested, and approved by affirmation, an additional condition stating “notwithstanding the details set out in drawing number 22938_08_020_01, details of the access road and pedestrian crossing shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The details shall then be implemented in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Installation of a 10 bicyclite bike shelter at the car park at Walkling Way.

The Committee requested, and approved by affirmation, the inclusion of a requirement for reflective materials to be used into condition 3 and an informative on providing lighting around the cycle store.

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the changes made by the Committee and the conditions laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Senior Planner, Amy Stocks, presented the report and provided an update on a change to the wording of condition 2 which stated:

“The works hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

• Walkling Way Cycle Store Location Plan – dated 08/11/2021

• Walkling Way Cycle Store – dated 08/11/2021

• Walkling Way Site Location Map – dated 08/11/2021

• N17 BDS Shelter 10 Space Customer Drawing – dated 25/07/2022

• BDS Shelter Swinging Gates – dated 25/07/2022

Reason: In the interests of good planning and for the avoidance of doubt.”

The Senior Planner clarified the orientation of the shelter and that the bin storage that was taking place on site was not in a designated area.

The Committee was addressed by Gabriel Bienzobas, on behalf of Milton Cycle Campaign, who supported the application but raised some concerns on some of the proposed materials and raised concerns around visibility at the cycle store. Councillor Judith Rippeth addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee requested, and approved by affirmation, the inclusion of a requirement for reflective materials to be used into condition 3 and an informative on providing lighting around the cycle store. The changes to the wording of condition 2 were agreed by affirmation

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the changes made by the Committee and the conditions laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Single Storey Side extension

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Planning Officer presented the report. The Committee was informed that the dimensions listed in paragraph 3.2 were correct.

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Single Storey Side extension

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Planning Officer presented the report and clarified that there were no objections regarding heritage and conservation.

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Demolition and replacement of an outbuilding in the curtilage of a Grade II Listed Building. Resubmission of 21/02390/HFUL.

With one abstention, the Committee approved the application by affirmation in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

In line with his Declaration of Interest, Councillor Dr Richard Williams withdrew from the Committee

The Senior Planner, Karen Pell-Coggins, presented the report. The Committee was addressed by Councillor Greg Price of Great Shelford Parish Council who informed the Committee that the Parish Council was supportive of the application but would like to see the tree that was proposed to be removed replanted elsewhere. Councillors Peter Fane and William Jackson-Wood stated that, as local Members, they were supportive of the application.

In the debate, Members questioned if the replacement of the tree could be conditioned and officers advised that, due to the poor quality of the tree, there was no requirement for replacement and such a condition would be inappropriate. In response to a question, officers clarified that there was no overhanging into the neighbouring boundary.

The Committee approved the application by affirmation in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Councillor Dr Richard Williams did not vote on the application.

Demolition and replacement and replacement of an outbuilding in the curtilage of a Grade II Listed Building. Resubmission of 21/02391/LBC.

With one abstention, the Committee approved the application by affirmation in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Senior Planner, Karen Pell-Coggins, presented the report. In response to a question, officers advised that it would not be appropriate to reuse the heritage materials due to their poor condition.

The Committee approved the application by affirmation in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Councillor Dr Richard Williams did not vote on the application.

Councillor Dr Richard Williams rejoined the Committee

The Principal Planning Enforcement Officer presented the report, offered updates on staffing within the Enforcement team and requested that Members steer the Parish Councils in their ward towards the new Enforcement website. An update on Smithy Fen was provided and Members requested a briefing on developments on the site.

The Committee noted the report.

The Interim Delivery Manager presented the report and offered explanation on what a “turned away” decision meant.

The Committee noted the report.