Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 26 May 2021 10.00 a.m.

Venue: Council Chamber - South Cambs Hall. View directions

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 4pm on Friday 21 May 2021. A public speaking protocol applies.

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Chair's announcements

Minutes:

The Chair announced that, following the end of temporary legislation allowing public meetings to be held entirely by video conference, this was the first time the Planning Committee had met in the Chamber since March 2020. All voting Members now had to be in the same room but, while there were two officers present on the top table, other officers and Councillors would be joining the meeting online. Public speakers and others could be present in the Chamber, addressing the meeting by video conference or watching the webcast.

 

The Chair explained that, in the absence of clear affirmation, voting would be conducted electronically.

 

There was still a need to follow the government’s advice on indoor gatherings and social distancing due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Chair summarised several ‘housekeeping rules’ including stipulations about

 

·       the wearing of face coverings

·       hand sanitiser use

·       the one-way system into, out of and around the Chamber

·       webcasting and attendees’ deemed consent to their images and voices being broadcast and used for training purposes.

·       private audio and video recordings

·       courtesy regarding mobile phone and other alarms

·       facilities

·       ventilation

2.

Apologies

To receive apologies for absence from committee members. 

Minutes:

There were no Apologies for Absence.

3.

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 Henry Batchelor declared a non-pecuniaryinterest in Minute 10 (20/02593/OUT - Weston Colville (Garage Plot to North of 14 Horseshoes Lane)). As the local Cambridgeshire County Councillor, he had been involved in discussions with Weston Colville Parish Council about this application but was considering the matter afresh.

 

Councillor Dr. Martin Cahn declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 6 (20/03802/FUL - Orchard Park (Development Parcel L2, Topper Street)). As one of the local Members, Councillor Cahn had been present at meetings about this application and had also discussed the Section 106 Legal Agreement with the Chair of the Orchard Park Community Council. Councillor Cahn was considering the matter afresh.

 

Councillor Geoff Harvey declared a non-pecuniaryinterest in Minute 10 (20/02593/OUT - Weston Colville (Garage Plot to North of 14 Horseshoes Lane)); As the local Member for Balsham Ward, he had been involved in discussions with Weston Colville Parish Council about this application but was considering the matter afresh.

 

Councillor Pippa Heylings declared a non-pecuniary interest in Minute 6 (20/03802/FUL - Orchard Park (Development Parcel L2, Topper Street)). As one of the local Members, Councillor Heylings had been present at meetings about this application and had also discussed the Section 106 Legal Agreement with the Chair of the Orchard Park Community Council. Councillor Heylings was considering the matter afresh.

 

Minute 5 (20/02453/S73 - Longstanton (The Retreat, Fews Lane)) had previously been considered by the Planning Committee on 13 January 2021. Councillors Henry Batchelor, Dr. Martin Cahn, Peter Fane, Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Pippa Heylings, Deborah Roberts, Heather Williams, Dr. Richard Williams and Eileen Wilson (each present at the current meeting) had been present at the meeting on 13 January 2021, and each was considering the matter afresh.

4.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 263 KB

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 April 2021 as a correct record.

Minutes:

The Committee authorised the Chair to sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 April 2021, subject to the following addition:

 

Minute no. 7 - 20/03370/OUT - Waterbeach (95 Bannold Road)

At the end of the paragraph beginning “During the ensuing debate…” add the following:

 

“Councillor Judith Rippeth spoke as a local Member and articulated that her main concerns with the application could be addressed as Reserved Matters rather than at the Outline stage.  She added that there was no need to attribute significant weight to the inspector’s decision to allow the planning application on the neighbouring site, where the inspector had stated that the Bannold Road was no longer of a rural nature, and was now more suburban in character.”

5.

20/02453/S73 - Longstanton (The Retreat, Fews Lane) pdf icon PDF 497 KB

 

Variation of Condition 7 (Traffic Management plan) pursuant to planning permission S/0277/19/FL to reflect the proposals in the Traffic Management Plan to substitute the current wording in Condition 7 with "The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Traffic Management Plan prepared by SLR Consulting, Version Final_1 and dated December 2019" (Re-submission of 20/01547/S73)

Additional documents:

Decision:

By eight votes to one, with two abstentions, the Committee approved the application subject to

 

1.             The revision of paragraph 3.2.4 of the Traffic Management Plan to state, during the construction stage, delivery vehicles shall not park on any street within the village of Longstanton;

 

2.             the addition of an Informative urging the establishment of a liaison mechanism between residents, the Site Manager and Longstanton Parish Council to monitor compliance with the Traffic Management Plan and to resolve any disputes; and

 

3.             The Conditions and Informatives set out in the 13 January 21 report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Minutes:

The case officer confirmed that all representations had now been considered. The Fews Lane Consortium (FLC) had written two pre-action letters to South Cambridgeshire District Council. The Committee received legal advice that these letters should not be considered as relevant because they had been received out of time.

 

Daniel Fulton (Fews Lane Consortium – objector) addressed the meeting.

 

In response to concern raised by Councillors Deborah Roberts and Heather Williams, the Senior Planning Lawyer explained that the large number of redactions in Appendix 1 related to ‘without prejudice’ correspondence and, despite the Council’s best efforts, Fews Lane Consortium had not agreed to allow such correspondence to be put into the public domain. Inclusion of the redacted material served to demonstrate the extent of the correspondence that had taken place between FLC and South Cambridgeshire District Council.

 

In response to further concern from Members, the Delivery Manager (Development Management) confirmed that the National Planning Practice Guidance referred to in paragraph 32 of the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development remained in force.

 

Following further debate, and by eight votes to one, with two abstentions, the Committee approved the application subject to

 

1.             The revision of paragraph 3.2.4 of the Traffic Management Plan to state, during the construction stage, delivery vehicles shall not park on any street within the village of Longstanton;

 

2.             the addition of an Informative urging the establishment of a liaison mechanism between residents, the Site Manager and Longstanton Parish Council to monitor compliance with the Traffic Management Plan and to resolve any disputes; and

 

3.             The Conditions and Informatives set out in the 13 January 21 report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

 

(Councillors Henry Batchelor, Cahn, Fane, Harvey, Hawkins, Heylings, Rippeth and Wilson voted in favour. Councillor Roberts voted against. Councillors Heather Williams and Richard Williams abstained.)

6.

20/03802/FUL - Orchard Park (Development Parcel L2, Topper Street) pdf icon PDF 645 KB

 

Residential development of 75 dwellings along with access, car parking, landscaping and all associated infrastructure

Decision:

By seven votes to four, the Committee approved the application subject to

 

1.    the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 based on the Heads of Terms set out in paragraph 145 of the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, it being clarified that the £58,000 for informal open space would be spent on existing open space; and

 

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

Minutes:

The Chair explained that this application had been presented to the South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee for transparency given that the District Council and Cambridge City Council were both advised by the Greater Cambridge Planning Service.

 

As part of his presentation, the case officer told Members that the applicant was no longer offering a financial contribution in respect of public art. He explained that the sum of £58,000 included in the Section 106 Agreement for open space would be spent on enhancing existing open space.

 

During the ensuing debate, Members referred to the following:

 

·       The pressure on car parking, including accessible car parking

·       Quality of life

·       Density, design, bulk, and materials

·       Inconsistency with the local vernacular, including Marmalade Lane

·       The absence of public art

·       The security of cycle parking

·       The apparent use of affordable housing to mitigate noise from the A14

·       Conflict with the Supplementary Planning Document and original concept for Orchard Park

 

The Senior Planning Lawyer assured Members that, despite the business association between South Cambridgeshire District Council and Hill, there was no financial or legal conflict of interest.

 

After further debate, and by seven votes to four, the Committee approved the application subject to

 

1.    the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 based on the Heads of Terms set out in paragraph 145 of the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, it being clarified that the £58,000 for informal open space would be spent on existing open space; and

 

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

 

(Councillors Henry Batchelor, Cahn, Harvey, Hawkins, Heylings, Rippeth, and Wilson voted in favour. Councillors Fane, Roberts, Heather  Williams and Richard Williams voted against.)

7.

20/02066/FUL - Harston (180 High Street) pdf icon PDF 417 KB

Erection of a residential development containing nine units comprising a mixture of houses and apartments along with access, car parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure following demolition of existing buildings

Decision:

Minutes:

Mr. Rogers (objector) and Councillor Tony Mason (local Member) addressed the meeting.

 

Councillor Deborah Roberts referred to the current openness of the area, and to the variety of housing designs. She described the proposal as unimaginative in design and out of proportion. The ‘gentle approach’ to the village should be preserved.

 

Councillor Judith Rippeth agreed that the proposal would be overbearing and that its context had not been taken into account.

 

For Councillor Heather Williams, the issues to consider were density, loss of amenity, height of the proposal, and negative impact on the immediate neighbour.

 

Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins accepted the principle of having a ‘gateway landmark’ in this location, but said that landmark should be a space not a building.

 

Following a few more comments, the Committee voted unanimously to refuse the application contrary to the recommendation referred to in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed that by virtue of its scale, height, design and form, the proposal would be out of keeping with its surroundings contrary to Policies HQ/8 (Design Principles) and H/8 (Housing Density) of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. In addition, the proposal would lead to a loss of amenity and light to the immediate neighbour contrary to Policy HQ/8.

8.

20/02531/FUL - Graveley (Home Farm, Home Cottage,High Street) pdf icon PDF 410 KB

 

Barn replacement

Decision:

The 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:

Councillor Heather Williams read out a statement of support from Councillor Nick Wright (a local Member) for the recommendation in the report.

 

Members noted that there was no intention that the use should change and, after a short debate, the 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.

9.

20/02532/LBC - Graveley (Home Farm, Home Cottage, High Street) pdf icon PDF 348 KB

 

Barn replacement

Decision:

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Minutes:

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

10.

20/02593/OUT - Weston Colville (Garage Plot to North of 14 Horseshoes Lane) pdf icon PDF 427 KB

 

Outline planning for the development of 1 No. detached dwellinghouse with all matters reserved.

Decision:

The 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:

Members briefly discussed access to the adjacent farmyard, historical flooding on site, and car parking. I relation to the final point, the case officer said that t

The 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.

11.

Enforcement Report pdf icon PDF 134 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee received and noted an Update on enforcement action.

 

In relation to Elmwood House 13A High Street, Croxton, the Principal Planning Enforcement Officer reported verbally that a new planning application had been submitted and that enforcement action had been suspended.

 

Councillor Heather Williams requested that Whitehall Farm, Arrington be added to future update reports.

 

The Principal Planning Enforcement Officer undertook to update Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins about Burwash Manor Farm where enforcement action was now a priority.

 

Councillor Peter Fane said that he would be submitting details and requesting that Hill Trees in Great Shelford be investigated.

12.

Appeals against Planning Decisions and Enforcement Action pdf icon PDF 26 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

 

Councillor Heather Williams requested an update about the informal hearing in connection with land at Mill Lane, Sawston. The Senior Planning Lawyer said that, although the appellant had been late in submitting written representations, a challenge was likely in respect of South Cambridgeshire District Council’s five-year housing land supply.