Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 10 July 2019 10.00 a.m.

Venue: Council Chamber, First Floor

Contact: Ian Senior, 03450 450 500 Email: democratic.services@scambs.gov.uk  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.

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies

To receive apologies for absence from committee members. 

Minutes:

Councillors Peter Fane, Judith Rippeth, Peter Topping and Nick Wright sent Apologies for Absence. Their substitutes respectively were Councillors Anna Bradnam, Henry Batchelor, Sue Ellington and Shrobona Bhattacharya.

2.

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.

Minutes:

Councillor Pippa Heylings declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minutes 7 and 8 (S/3983/18/FL and S/0768/18/FL - Orchard Park (Western side of land parcel COM 4)). As one of the local Members, Councillor Heylings had met with the developers but was considering the matter afresh.

 

In connection with Minute 6 (S/1483/19/LB - Sawston (Great Eastern Drying Shed, 163 High Street)):

 

·         Councillor Brian Milnes declared a non-pecuniary interest. Noting the approximately 20-year history of the matter in question, Councillor Milnes said that, as a Sawston resident for much of that time, he had from time to time commented on factors concerning the Drying Shed prior to him becoming a South Cambridgeshire District Councillor. He was considering the matter afresh.

 

·         Councillors John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam and Deborah Roberts had each been a Planning Committee member when that Committee had previously considered the Great Eastern Drying Shed. Each of them declared a non-pecuniary interest and was considering the matter afresh.

3.

Recorded voting

Minutes:

Upon the proposal of Councillor Heather Williams, seconded by Councillor Brian Milnes, the Committee unanimously agreed that all substantive votes at the current Planning Committee meeting should be recorded by name and / or number and name.

4.

Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 June 2019 pdf icon PDF 229 KB

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2019 as a correct record.

Minutes:

The Committee authorised the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2019 subject to

 

Minute 7 - S/2709/18/DC - Cambourne (Land to the west of Cambourne, Cambourne, CB23 6ER)

The reference to Councillor Nick Wright abstaining should be a reference to him not voting.

5.

S/1639/19 - Duxford (3 Blakeland Hill) pdf icon PDF 189 KB

 

Site for the erection of a dwelling.

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Planning Committee unanimously approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Minutes:

The case officer reported that Duxford Parish Council supported the application and that there had not been any objections from statutory consultees.

 

The Planning Committee unanimously approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

6.

S/1483/19/LB - Sawston (Great Eastern Drying Shed, 163 High Street) pdf icon PDF 682 KB

 

Total Demolition of the buildings known as the ‘Great Eastern Drying Shed’.

Additional documents:

Decision:

By seven votes to four, the Planning Committee gave officers delegated authority to grant Listed Building consent for the demolition of the Grade II* Listed Building known as the Great Eastern Drying Shed in Sawston, subject to

 

1.    The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development; and

 

2.       the Secretary of State being notified should the Victorian Society register an objection to the proposed demolition.

Minutes:

Members visited the site on 9 July 2019.

 

Noting the approximately 20-year history of the matter in question, Councillor Milnes declared a non-pecuniary interest because, as a Sawston resident for much of that time, he had from time to time commented on factors concerning the Drying Shed prior to him becoming a South Cambridgeshire District Councillor. He was considering the matter afresh.

 

·         Councillors John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam and Deborah Roberts had each been a Planning Committee member when that Committee had previously considered the Great Eastern Drying Shed. Each of them declared a non-pecuniary interest and was considering the matter afresh.

 

The case officer:

 

·         Reported that an additional consultation response had been received and published on South Cambridgeshire District Council’s website;

·         Read out loud the letter accompanying that response;

·         Confirmed that the Victorian Society had been consulted but, although comments had been received, the Council was seeking clarification as to whether these comments constituted an objection. Should an objection be registered, the Council would have to notify the Secretary of State;

·         Informed Members that the application was for Listed Building Consent only: Planning officers had received legal advice that Planning Permission was not required for the works;

·         clarified the issue of Departure from the Development Plan as follows

 

o   Paragraph 98 of the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, stated that “Applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” This wording had been taken from Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. These two Acts concern themselves with applications for planning permission.

o   As the present application was for Listed Building consent, the requirement did not apply.

o   Nevertheless, Policy NH/14 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 remained a material planning consideration.

o   Paragraph 98 of the report also stated that there was some conflict with Policy NH/14 as not all the criteria set out in Paragraph 195  of the National Planning Policy Framework could be met.

o   Therefore, if the application was to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, this conflict with Policy NH/14 would constitute a departure from the Plan.

o   The report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development stated that the application was not a departure. This remained the case as there was not a statutory requirement to have regard to Policy NH/14 of the Local Plan.

 

Judith Martin (objector) and Emma Sharp (applicant’s agent) addressed the meeting.

 

Members appreciated the Drying Shed’s significance in terms of its scale, form and historical uniqueness. Demolition would be regrettable, and Members contemplated opportunities for the reuse of materials or wholesale reconstruction elsewhere, and discussed the deferral of the decision until this had been considered further.

 

Officers from Historic England and the in-house Built and Natural Environment team acknowledged the issue of significance but said that that significance was also a handicap. Methods of building recording were discussed, with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

S/3983/18/FL - Orchard Park (Western side of land parcel COM 4) pdf icon PDF 561 KB

 

Erection of two new private residential blocks comprising 158 student rooms and associated facilities

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Planning Committee unanimously refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being

 

1.    That the application was contrary to Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and, specifically, the following criteria therein, namely

·         Criterion A - Preserve and enhance the character of the local urban and rural area and respond to its context in the wider landscape

·         Criterion C - Include variety and interest with a coherent, place-responsive design, which is legible and creates a positive sense of place and identity whilst also responding to the local context and respecting local distinctiveness

·         Criterion D - Be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale, density, mass, siting, design, proportion, materials, texture and colour in relation to the surrounding area.

·         Criterion E - Deliver a strong visual relationship between buildings that comfortably define and enclose streets, squares and public places, creating interesting vistas, skylines, focal points and appropriately scaled landmarks along routes and around spaces;

 

2.    That the design of the proposed development would be contrary to the Orchard Park Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2011;

 

3.    That the landscaping/planting proposals illustrated on the submitted plans did not provide high quality landscaping which integrated the development with its surroundings and the landscaping and planting measures which had been proposed were not considered to be viable. The development would therefore be contrary to Local Plan Policy HQ/1(m).

 

4.     That insufficient information had been submitted to enable the Local Planning Authority to determine whether there would be harm to protected species.

Minutes:

Members visited the site on 9 July 2019.

 

Councillor Pippa Heylings declared a non-pecuniary interest because, as one of the local Members, she had met with the developers but was considering the matter afresh.

 

Jan Chadwick (objector) and Mike Galloway (Orchard Park Community Council) addressed the meeting.

 

Members noted that the first bullet point in paragraph 3 of the supplementary report should refer to a car ownership restriction rather than a five-year clawback provision.

 

Members had reservations about the application, based mainly on the very limited number of car parking spaces within the development, and uncertainty as to the identity of the intended occupants. Design and noise (from the adjacent A14)) werealso issues, as was the perceived absence of placemaking and quality  of life.

 

The Planning Committee unanimously refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the supplementary report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development (as amended). Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being

 

1.    That the application was contrary to Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and, specifically, the following criteria therein, namely

·         Criterion A - Preserve and enhance the character of the local urban and rural area and respond to its context in the wider landscape

·         Criterion C - Include variety and interest with a coherent, place-responsive design, which is legible and creates a positive sense of place and identity whilst also responding to the local context and respecting local distinctiveness

·         Criterion D - Be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale, density, mass, siting, design, proportion, materials, texture and colour in relation to the surrounding area.

·         Criterion E - Deliver a strong visual relationship between buildings that comfortably define and enclose streets, squares and public places, creating interesting vistas, skylines, focal points and appropriately scaled landmarks along routes and around spaces;

 

2.    That the design of the proposed development would be contrary to the Orchard Park Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2011;

 

3.    That the landscaping/planting proposals illustrated on the submitted plans did not provide high quality landscaping which integrated the development with its surroundings and the landscaping and planting measures which had been proposed were not considered to be viable. The development would therefore be contrary to Local Plan Policy HQ/1(m).

 

 That insufficient information had been submitted to enable the Local Planning Authority to determine whether there would be harm to protected species.

              



 

8.

S/0768/18/FL - Orchard Park (Western side of land parcel COM 4) pdf icon PDF 653 KB

 

Erection of two new private rented residential blocks comprising a total of 93 apartments

Additional documents:

Decision:

By ten votes to nil, with Councillor Sue Ellington abstaining, the Planning Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reason for refusal as being:

 

·         Conflict with South Cambridgeshire District Council Local Plan Policy HQ/1 (Design Principles)

·         Conflict with the Orchard Park Design Guidance SPD (2011)

·         Conflict with Local Plan Policy NH/14 (Biodiversity)

 

Minutes:

Members visited the site on 9 July 2019.

 

Councillor Pippa Heylings declared a non-pecuniary interest because, as one of the local Members, she had met with the developers but was considering the matter afresh.

 

Jan Chadwick (objector) and Mike Galloway (Orchard Park Community Council) addressed the meeting.

 

By ten votes to nil, with Councillor Sue Ellington abstaining, the Planning Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reason for refusal as being a balanced assessment of the proposal being inconsistent with Policy HQ/1 (Design Principles) of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.

9.

S/0029/19/FL - Whittlesford (Duxford Road) pdf icon PDF 268 KB

 

Proposed demolition of existing factory premises and construction of 7 dwellings and associated infrastructure, including access, parking, landscaping and ancillary works

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Planning Committee unanimously refused the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Minutes:

Members visited the site on 9 July 2019.

 

The case officer read out aloud comments from the local Member Councillor Peter Topping.

 

Louise Smith (objector), Kath Slater (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Kennetn Winterbottom (Whittlesford Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

 

Members established that appropriate marketing had not yet been carried out. A traffic assessment should also be undertaken.

 

The Planning Committee unanimously refused the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

10.

Enforcement Report pdf icon PDF 256 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee received and noted an Update on the enforcement report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. .          

11.

Appeals against Planning Decisions and Enforcement Action pdf icon PDF 129 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee received and noted a report on appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action.