Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

With the absence of the Chair, the Vice-Chair assumed the role of Chair for the meeting. Councillor Peter Fane, seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam, proposed that Peter Sandford be appointed as Vice-Chair for the duration of the meeting. The Committee agreed to the proposal by affirmation. The Chair then made several brief housekeeping announcements.

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillors Dr Martin Cahn and Geoff Harvey. Councillor Anna Bradnam was present as a substitute. Councillor Heather Williams sent apologies for lateness.

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 Anna Bradnam declared that she was a member of Cambridge Natural History Society.

With respect to Minute 6, Councillor Dr Lisa Redrup declared that she was present at a Parish Council meeting where representatives of the applicant were present, but she did not discuss the application nor stay for the presentation on the application and was coming to the matter afresh. Councillor Anna Bradnam declared that she knew one of the public speakers (Gillian Elwood, Clerk of Hauxton Parish Council) in a personal capacity but had not discussed the application. Councillor Heather Williams declared that she was a member of the GCP Assembly.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2024 as a correct record. Minutes document to follow.

By affirmation, the Committee authorised the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2024 as a correct record.

The Natural Environment Team Leader and the Principal Ecologist presented the report.

Councillor Heather Williams joined the meeting

Members discussed the report and asked officers a number of questions. With regards to the delivery of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) measures off-site, officers advised that sites where delivery could take place were not designated by the Local Planning Authority; instead, sites would come forward from private initiatives and secured through Section 106 (S106) agreements or conservation covenants. Officers informed the Committee that the hope was that a range of different types of habitat banks would come forward within the region to allow for the delivery of BNG measures and maximise their impact. Officers advised that range of different size habitat banks was desirable, and it was hoped that Parishes and local landowners would take it on themselves to provide land where BNG measures could be delivered within the Parishes in which development was occurring. The Committee was advised that the emerging Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) would identify sites and nature reserves where BNG measures could be delivered, and the emerging Local Plan policies would be influenced by and make reference to the LNRS. Major, high value sites designated for BNG delivery were likely to be given designated status, such as SSSI, following the 30-year monitoring period secured by the S106 agreement. Members were informed that green open spaces had biodiversity value, but achieving high quality habitats that could be maintained for 30 years would be difficult given the other uses open green spaces served, such as recreation space for residents, and as such they were not ideal sites to deliver BNG measures.

A question was raised regarding how developers could be prevented from removing biodiversity from a site prior to the submission of a planning application in order to minimise their BNG obligations. Officers informed the Committee that the Environment Act 2021 required the biodiversity baseline to be measured based on the state of a site prior to January 2020, meaning that if developers did remove trees and habitats they would still have to deliver BNG based on what was present on the site before 2020. Members were informed that officers could use historical aerial photographs and other sources of information to assess the biodiversity value of a site prior to January 2020, and that the legislation advised ecologists to be cautious in their estimations where habitats had been removed and err on the side of overestimating habitat value, rather than underestimate. The Committee was advised that where the evidence base was incomplete, sites would likely to be assessed as moderate or good value, rather than poor, and as such developers who removed habitats prior to submitting an application may well be obliged to provide more BNG measures than if they had left the site as it was. Members were assured that the legislation included mechanisms that would prevent the clearing of land in order to minimise BNG obligations.

Members enquired as to if the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Outline application for demolition of existing structures and redevelopment for employment (office and laboratory) floorspace E(g)(i)(ii) alongside a new amenity building (including F2(b)(c)), country park and associated infrastructure with all other matters reserved for future determination apart from access, layout, scale

Prior to the vote, the Committee agreed to changes to conditions 14, 15 and 47.

By 8 votes to 1, with 1 abstention, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, informatives and completion of a Section 106 agreement, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and amended by the update reports and the Committee, with officers were delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions and Heads of Terms.

The application required referral to the Secretary of State for consultation for 21 days, for the Secretary of State to determine whether he wishes to call the application in for his own determination. 

The application was referred under paragraph 4(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2024, being development which consists of or includes inappropriate development on land allocated as Green Belt in an adopted local plan, unitary development plan or development plan document and which consists of or includes the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1,000 square metres or more.

The Principal Planner, Katie Christodoulides presented the report and advised the Committee of the following changes to the proposed conditions:

·       14 (d) was amended amended to replace “constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details” with “submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

·       An additional sentence was inserted into condition 14, following (d), which read “The walking and cycling infrastructure shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details within 1 year of first occupation of first building.”

·       In condition 47, the wording “Minimum of two rapid electric vehicle charge points, or two fast electric vehicle charge points (min 24kw capacity) should rapid charge points not be technically feasible” was replaced with “Minimum of 165 slow electric vehicle charge points and 30 fast electric vehicle charge points”.

Members asked a number of questions of clarification on various topics, to which officers provided response:

Water supply and usage

In response to Member questions on water supply, usage and the objection from the Environment Agency (EA), officers provided the following point of clarity:

·       Water supply and the comments of the EA were material considerations for the Committee.

·       The proposed scheme had greater water efficiency and lower projected water use than the fallback position of the extant permission for a residential development on the site. The extant permission (outline) was granted prior to the publication of the EA’s recent concerns over water abstraction in Greater Cambridge. The Committee was advised that the reserved matters application for the extant permission was a live application.

·       The site had not been in use for a number of years and, as such, had not been consuming water.

Contamination

Members asked questions with regard to contamination, remediation and the comments of the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). Officers provided the following responses:

·       Previous information on contamination on the site, complied over a number of years, had been considered by officers. This included the details submitted in the application for the residential permission granted in 2016 and further detail submitted since then.

·       Conditions 18 and 19 required new information on contamination to be submitted, alongside a remediation strategy.

·       The concerns of the UKHSA were to be addressed in the discharge of conditions process, through the submission of final information and proposals regarding contamination and remediation.

·       No remediation works on the site had commenced.

·       Conditions 20, 21 and 51 also related to contamination matters, including monitoring. The time limit condition (1) had been amended to extend the time limit to 5 years in order to allow for remediation works to be undertaken, followed by a period of monitoring, prior to the commencement of construction works.

·       Condition 8 required details of piling to be submitted. The discharge process of this condition could start once the details of the remediation strategy had been submitted.

Other matters

-       Officers advised that the existing crossing was to be retained to allow for pedestrians to cross the A10 and access the village of Hauxton.

-       With regard to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Erection of 3 employment/research and development units with flexible Eg(ii), Eg(iii) and B8 uses with ancillary offices for total of 8,018sqm (86,306sqft GIA) together with service areas, car parking and landscaping

By unanimous vote, the Committee approved the application in accordance officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions and completion of a Section 106 agreement, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, with officers delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions and Heads of Terms.

The Principal Planner, Alice Young, presented the report. Officers provided a number of points of clarity in response to Member questions:

·       The provision of solar panels on the roofs of the structures would be the same across the phases.

·       The application was presented to Committee as the land had been allocated for residential development under Policy H/1(a) of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 (Local Plan). As such, the application was a departure application.

·       There was an extant consent in place for the site that allowed for some industrial usages, including class B8 (storage and distribution), and some of the floorspace in the buildings would be used for storage and distribution. The principle for class B8 use had been established in the extant consent.

·       The proposed development would result in some new HGV movements, but the wider business park already had some areas of class B8 usage and HGV movements already occurred. The site was a significant distance from nearby residents and Cambridgeshire County Council’s Transport Officers had assessed the impact of HGV movements arising from the proposed development and held no objection.

·       Officers were of the view that the proposed cycle storage location would be compliant with Policy TI/3 of the Local Plan and full details of cycle storage was to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority in order to discharge condition 8.

Members discussed the type of cycle storage to be used and some comments were raised that two-tier cycle parking was challenging for some to use. Following comments from officers on the details of the proposed cycle storage, Members noted officer comments on the compliance with Policy TI/3 and that further details were to be submitted at a later date, as well as noting informative 13 which related to the type of cycle storage to be used.

The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Roland Lee, who responded to a Member question and advised that the applicant had not received any representations from the occupants of the dwelling to the north of the site. The Principal Planner advised that the Planning Service had received correspondence from the dwelling and that this was referenced in the report.

In the debate, Members noted that the principle of development on the site had been accepted and that the application was presented to Committee due to the nature of the development as a departure application. Comment was made on the third-party concerns raised regarding harm to residential amenity, but officers advised that the separation distance between the site and the dwelling to the north was over 90m and that there was extant permission for similar usage on the site. Members agreed that, following the comments of officers and what had been seen on the site visit, there was no harm to residential amenity and that there were no reasons to refuse the application.

By unanimous vote, the Committee approved the application in accordance officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions and completion of a Section  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Outline application for the construction of 9 No. self build plots with access and associated infrastructure with some matters reserved except for access

By 8 votes to 1, the Committee refused the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation laid out in the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. The Committee agreed to delegate authority to officers to draft the final wording for reasons for refusal of:

-       Residential development outside of a development framework boundary that does not fall within any exceptions cited by policy S/7.

-       Significant encroachment of built form into the open countryside resulting in harm to the character of the countryside and village.

-       Irreversible loss of Grade 2 agricultural land.

The Senior Planner presented the report. Officers responded to a number of questions from Members and clarified:

·       That the application from the developer for an outline consent for the principle of 9 self-build dwellings on the site, followed by individual applications for the construction of each dwelling on the site, was common practice for an application for a self-build site.

·       That given that the land had been used as a paddock and the site was small, the loss of Grade 2 agricultural harm had been assessed as low harm by officers, but it was up to the Committee to decide the weighting of the consideration.

·       The location of the appeal site referenced in paragraph 8.32 of the report and the distance to services in the village, comparing it with the site for the proposal in front of the Committee.

·       That the hedge referenced in condition 24 was in the applicant’s control and that the applicant had agreed to the condition.

·       The location of nos. 22-26 Leaden Hill.

·       That the trees on site were not under any protection orders. Condition 16 set out the requirement for the submission of details regarding hard and soft landscaping which could require the trees to be retained, but until those details were secured the trees could be removed at any time.

·       That the application was exempt from Biodiversity Net Gain requirements, as per the legislation.

·       That the hedges to the sides of the site required enhancement in order to properly screen the development and that this would be dealt with by the landscaping condition (16).

·       That the appeal decisions were based on the individual circumstances of each case. The Chair commented that it was up to Members to decide what weight they gave the appeal decisions in assessing the balance of the application.

·       That there were 18 dwellings served by the Leaden Hill road, which was a private road and the Local Planning Authority could not control measures implemented on the private road as it was outside of the control of the Highways Authority.

·       That as the road was a private road, no conditions regarding the movements of waste vehicles could be implemented into consent for the application.

Councillor Dr Lisa Redrup left the meeting

The Committee was addressed by an objector, Sam Cottrill on behalf of Leaden Hill residents who, in response to a Member question, stated that he recognised the need for self-build properties in the District but that he and other residents of Leaden Hill felt that the harms of the proposal outweighed the benefit, citing harm to the green belt and development outside of the village development framework (VDF). The agent of the applicant, Peter McKeown, addressed the Committee and responded to Member questions. The agent informed the Committee that the applicant had not engaged in consultation with Orwell Parish Council and consultation with owners of the private road had only involved conversations with one of the adjoining residents with regards to access, as well as the owner of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Single storey side infill extension with front and rear rooflights and entrance canopies, front rooflights and rear dormer roof extension.

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, with officers delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions.

The Planning Officer presented the report and provided the Committee an update, informing them that Cambourne Town Council had expressed support for the application. In response to Member questions, officers clarified that the proposal would not result in harm arising from overlooking as the rear dormer would be overlooking the shared parking area. Officers also clarified that the application was being reported to Committee as it came from a relation to an officer of the Council, otherwise the proposal would have been decided upon under the scheme of delegation.

Councillor Anna Bradnam, seconded by Councillor Heather Williams, proposed that the Committee move to the decision and the Committee agreed by affirmation.

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, with authority delegated to officers to make minor amendments to the conditions.

Report to follow.

The Principal Planning Compliance Manager presented the report and responded to Member questions. With regards to staffing within the Compliance Team, the Committee was informed that the vacancy within the team was due to a secondment of a member of the Team to the Strategic sites team which was due to end shortly. Temporary cover had been in place, but this had ended in March, however the secondment had been extended until the end of April. Regarding the assignment of priorities to historical cases, Members were advised that for the Compliance Team to give meaningful information a full analysis was required and that the Principal Planning Compliance Manager felt that anecdotal information could be provided but that this was not a preferable solution. Members felt that information on outstanding historical priority A cases would be useful, including average time taken to address and close a case. Members were informed that the intention was to include information in future reports on the time taken to visit a site following the submission of a case, alongside the priority assigned to cases.

The Principal Planning Compliance manager offered advice on a specific matter in Elsworth, and advised that discussions over compliance matters on traveller sites within the District could be held outside of public session.

The Committee noted the report.

The Delivery Manager introduced the report and, in response to Member questions, clarified what was meant by “statement due” and also advised that the Local Planning Authority was awaiting information from the Planning Inspectorate on what type of appeal would be held for the Grassy Corner Caravan Park, Chesterton case.

The Committee noted the report.