Agenda, decisions and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 13 March 2019 9.30 a.m.

Venue: Council Chamber, First Floor

Contact: Ian Senior, 03450 450 500 Email:  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.

No. Item



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.




Recorded voting


The Committee unanimously agreed that all substantive votes at the current Planning Committee meeting should be recorded by name and / or number and name.


Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 86 KB

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2019 as a correct record.


The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2019, subject to the following amendments:

·         At the end of minute 6 the Councillor’s name be corrected to Brian Milnes.

·         The time in condition 1. be amended to 09.30am.


S/2626/18/FL - Comberton (64 Barton Road) pdf icon PDF 158 KB


Detached dwelling

Additional documents:


With seven votes against, none in favour and one abstention the Committee REFUSED the application.


Councillors John Batchelor, Peter Fane, Bill Handley, Pippa Heylings, Judith Rippeth, Deborah Roberts and Heather Williams voted against the application, whilst Councillor Nick Wright abstained.


Ted Halford (objector), Mark Arnold, Sally Arnold and Chris Sale (applicants) and Councillor Ian Sollom (a local member, who also read out a statement on behalf of the parish council) addressed the meeting.


The Senior Planning Lawyer advised that Councillor Martin Cahn should not vote on this planning application as he had not been present for the entire debate. Councillor Cahn did not vote. Councillor Peter Topping was also not present for the entire debate and did not vote. Councillor Brian Milnes left the Chamber during the debate and also did not vote.


Concern was expressed at the proximity of a badger sett. To comply with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 the Committee agreed that the wording of the third sentence of condition 4 should be amended to read: “Thereafter no development shall be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.”


The Committee noted that paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.


With seven votes against, none in favour and one abstention the Committee REFUSED the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development. Those members voting agreed the reasons for refusal were:

·         the harm to the designated heritage asset outweighed the public benefits of the proposal, as laid out in paragraphs 193 and 196 of the NPPF;

·         the guidance in the HQ/1 Design Principles laid out in the Local Plan;

·         the guidance in NH/11 Protected Village Amenity Areas laid out in the Local Plan.


Councillors John Batchelor, Peter Fane, Bill Handley, Pippa Heylings, Judith Rippeth, Deborah Roberts and Heather Williams voted against the application, whilst Councillor Nick Wright abstained.


S/2424/18/FL - Melbourn (36 New Road) pdf icon PDF 236 KB


Erection of 22 dwellings together with associated open space, landscaping, highway, and drainage infrastructure works

Additional documents:


The applicant withdrew this application.


Mr Lawrence (Objector), Ben Thomas (Applicant), Councillor John Travis (Melbourn Parish Council) and Councillor Jose Hales (a local Member) addressed the meeting.


Councillor Jose Hales suggested that, as the foul water drainage system was already at capacity and it was unclear how Anglia Water could meet the demand created by this new development, a condition should be included to prevent the homes from this development from being occupied until this matter was resolved. A vote was taken and with eight votes in favour, none against and three abstentions the Committee agreed to add the following condition: “No dwelling unit shall be occupied until a scheme for the improvement of foul sewage capacity in the existing sewage system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and implemented in accordance with the approved details.”


Members of the Committee expressed concern that the proposed development would only deliver 4 affordable homes, which was 18% of the development when a development of this size should consist of at least 40% affordable homes, according to the Council’s guidance. It was noted that the report recommended an independent viability assessment.


Following a short recess, the Chairman of the Planning Committee reported that the application had been withdrawn from the current agenda to allow more time for consideration to be given to the concerns expressed by the Committee regarding the provision of affordable housing and other matters.


Enforcement Report pdf icon PDF 103 KB

Additional documents:


The Committee received and noted an Update on enforcement action.


The Principal Planning Lawyer updated the Committee on the current situation at Smithy Fen in Cottenham. He promised to keep the Committee informed of all future developments.


Appeals against Planning Decisions and Enforcement Action - Withdrawn from the Agenda


This item had been removed from the agenda.