Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chair made several brief housekeeping announcements.

There were no 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 Dr Martin Cahn declared that he had called the application in and that he would withdraw from the Committee and instead speak as local Member. Councillor Ariel Cahn declared that his father was local Member, but that he had held no discussions regarding the application and was coming to the matter afresh. A general declaration was made with regard to the fact that many Members had been present when the original consent for the proposed development was given, with all Members who had been present coming to the matter afresh.

With respect to Minute 6, Councillor Peter Sandford declared that he had discussed the application with the Chair of Caxton Parish Council regarding the planning process only and was coming to the matter afresh.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 August 2023 as a correct record.

By affirmation, the Committee authorised the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 August 2023 as a correct record.

S73 to vary condition 2 (drawings) of ref: S/4191/19/FL - (Erection of new private rented residential block comprising a total of eighty studio one and two bedroom apartments) for removal of underground car parking and associated structures, reduction in the length/depth of the new blocks with associated internal alterations, alterations to apartment mix, reduction in amount of internal communal space, alterations to cycle storage, increased no. of EV charge points, alterations to above ground car-parking including increase in total no. of car club spaces and external landscape alterations.

By 6 votes to 3, the Committee refused the application, on grounds of insufficient car parking and insufficient soft landscaping resulting in harm to the amenity of the area, contrary to the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Delivery Manager informed the Committee that there had been some changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) between the time of report publication and the commencement of the meeting. Members were advised that officers had reviewed the reports in the agenda in light of the changes to the NPPF and were satisfied that there were no impacts on the reports or recommendations.

The Chair withdrew from the Committee, in line with his Declaration of Interest. The Vice-Chair assumed the role of Chair and Councillor Bill Handley was appointed Vice-Chair by affirmation.

The Principal Planner presented the report. Members raised a number of questions, to which officers responded, regarding:

•       Student accommodation- it was confirmed that conditioning would prevent the development from becoming dedicated student accommodation and changes to this would require a change of use application. Members were advised that individual dwellings could be rented to students on a private basis.

•       Reduced cycle storage- Members were informed that the slight reduction in cycle parking spaces was in response to the change of the mix of dwellings and subsequent reduction in demand for cycle storage. In response to a question, officers advised that the cycle parking would predominantly utilise Sheffield stands and that there was no proposed provision of parking for cargo bikes and that much of the external cycle storage proposed in the original permission had been relocated to internal cycle storage in block B.

•       Parking- Members had concerns over parking provision but were advised that the County Transport Team and County Highways Development Management had no objection to the proposal. The Chair advised that parking matters would be discussed in the debate.

•       Community Council concerns over the appropriateness of a S73 application- officers advised that it was appropriate for the proposal to be brought in the form of a S73 application, rather than a new full application, as there was no firm definition of “minor amendments” in Planning guidance and the description of the development had not changed.

•       Concerns over housing mix and compliance with policy H/9- officers advised that the Strategic Housing Team had no objection to the proposal and there were exceptions to policy H/9.

•       Data behind County Transport Team comments- Members raised concerns over the underlying data used by the County Transport Team regarding car ownership and the potential for car club spaces to reduce demand for resident parking spaces; officers agreed to come back with the data after the public speakers.

It was also clarified that disable parking and 10 electric vehicle charging points were to be provided by the proposal.

The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Paul Harney of Paul Harney Associates, and clarified that research on build to rent demographics had led the approach to apartment mix and parking (both car and cycle) provision, with a recent permission in the locality (20/03802/FUL) also influencing the car parking provision. The clerk of Orchard Park Community Council, Victoria McNeill, addressed the Committee on behalf  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Outline application with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 9 self build dwellings and ancillary works.

By 9 votes to none, with two abstentions, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions and the completion of a S106 agreement, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Senior Planner presented the report and, in response to questions, officers provided clarity that:

•       The biodiversity net gain was just over 1%.

•       The cycle path extended up to the Cambourne West development.

•       The Council had opted in to be a Right to Build Vanguard Authority, which was given weight in the assessment of the planning balance.

•       The S106 obligations laid with the developer, rather than the individual builders/occupants of each plot.

•       The established vegetation on the boundary of the application site was to be retained, as secured by conditioning.

•       Policy H/8 of the Local Plan prescribed average densities for developments, with variances to be based on local considerations/ site context. It was confirmed that the proposal was complaint with policy H/8.

The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Olly Ansell (Grass Roots Planning), who clarified, in response to a question, that the S106 agreement would ensure that the development was delivered as self-build housing, with the developers bringing forward a Reserved Matters application prior to the sale of the individual plots to the purchasers delivering the dwellings. Councillor Laurence Kelly of Caxton Parish Council addressed the Committee on behalf of Caxton Parish Council.

In the debate, Members noted the weight given to the obligations of the Council as a Vanguard Authority and stated that many of the issues raised by consultees had been resolved. In response to concerns around the potential for the plots to end up as market housing, the Principal Planning Lawyer advised that there was a protected occupation period of three years placed upon land designated as self-build, with a requirement for the dwelling to be occupied by the party who directly acquired the plot from the owner, as their principal residence. In response to concerns over access, it was suggested that the trigger for the access upgrade obligation in the Heads of Terms could be altered to prior to commencement of development, with an obligation to maintain the upgraded access added to the obligation. The Committee agreed to this alteration of the Heads of Terms by affirmation. It was also clarified that the roads on site were to be addressed at the Reserved Matters stage.

By 9 (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Peter Fane, Ariel Cahn, Bill Handley, Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Judith Rippeth, Heather Williams and Eileen Wilson) votes to none, with two abstentions (Councillors Peter Sandford and Dr Richard Williams), the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions and the completion of a S106 agreement, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Principal Planning Compliance Manager presented the report and provided update on staffing matters within the Compliance Team. Members noted that, whilst some information on ongoing cases was no longer being presented in the report, compliance issues were still being dealt with. The Principal Planning Compliance Manager stated that he was happy to discuss specific cases with Members in private where it was not appropriate to put information into the public domain.

The Committee noted the report.

The Delivery Manager presented the report and informed the Committee that possible alterations to the layout and detail of future reports were being explored, and also informed the Committee that delays in the Planning Inspectorate were impacting the appeal timelines of some cases.

The Committee noted the report.