Venue: Council Chamber, First Floor
Contact: Laurence Damary-Homan 01954 713000 Email: email@example.com Members of the public wishing to speak at this meeting are requested to contact the Support Officer by no later than 4pm on Wednesday 23 February 2022. A public speaking protocol aplies.
Councillor Henry Batchelor, the Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee, informed the Committee that he would Chair the meeting as the usual Chair was not present. The Chair proposed the appointment of Councillor Judith Rippeth as Vice-Chair for the meeting and the Committee approved the appointment by affirmation.
Due to the exceptional circumstances of the meeting, the Chair proposed two motions. Firstly, it was proposed to allow all those who had registered to speak before the deadline an opportunity to make a three-minute representation. The first motion was approved by affirmation.
The second motion was to structure the debate through discussing the topics present in the report in groups. The groupings were:
• Sections 1 & 2- Principle of development, land use and vision, parameter plans
• Section 3- Access and transport
• Sections 4, 5 & 6- Employment assessment, housing delivery & social and community infrastructure
• Sections 7-10- Environmental considerations, cumulative impact, financial obligations/S.106 & planning balance
The second motion was approved by affirmation.
The Chair also made several brief housekeeping announcements.
To receive apologies for absence from committee members.
Councillors Pippa Heylings and Peter Fane sent 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.
Councillor Heather Williams declared that she was a member of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Assembly.
Outline planning application for the development of Northstowe Phase 3B, comprising up to 1,000 homes, a primary school, secondary mixed-use zone (with retail and associated services, food and drink, community, leisure, employment and residential uses), open space and landscaped areas, engineering and infrastructure works, with details of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access reserved. Application accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
By 7 votes to 2 (Councillors Deborah Roberts and Heather Williams) with 1 abstention (Councillor Geoff Harvey; did not vote in accordance with the advice from the Senior Planning Lawyer), the Committee approved the application. Councillor Richard Williams was absent at the time of the vote. The approval was subject to the prior completion of a s106 agreement and the conditions laid out in the reports from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and those amended and added by the Committee.
The Principal Planner (Strategic Sites), Paul Ricketts, presented the report. Members asked questions of clarity for officers. Questions were raised on:
•The village traffic scheme payments, detailed in the Heads of Terms- Cambridgeshire County Council’s Principal Transport Officer, Tam Parry, offered details on how payments would be divided and used.
•The potential to include another roundabout/ other access point to the site- the Principal Transport Officer informed the Committee that the land suggested for an additional access point was not in the ownership of the applicant and that it was designated as green space in the parameter plans so an additional point of access could not be added. The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development stated that the boundaries of the proposed site was reflected the Local Plan allocation and inclusion of a new access point would require land outside of the site allocation set out in the Local Plan.
•Assessment of Gypsy requirements- the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development stated that work was ongoing in conjunction with Housing officers and, at this stage, there was no specific need to safeguard land on the site for Traveller pitches. The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development acknowledged that meeting the needs of the Traveller community was part of the forthcoming Local Plan.
•Building heights- The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development offered context on the building heights across the site and clarified that buildings along the B1050 were up to three storeys.
•Drainage and water- The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development advised that, as a representative from Swavesey Internal Drainage Board (IDB) was due to speak, it would be best to save comments until the debate.
Councillor Geoff Harvey joined the meeting. The Senior Planning Lawyer advised that Councillor Harvey should not vote on the application as he had joined the discussion after the start of the item
The Committee was addressed by a number of public speakers:
•Keith Wilderspin on behalf of Swavesey IDB- The IDB’s concerns on the impact of the development on both surface and foul water drainage were raised. Members asked questions of clarity of Mr Wilderspin which covered the following matters; flood risk and historical flooding, meetings between the IDB and the developers, sewerage discharge, pump requirements, monitoring (telemetry), long term impact on drainage and the long term impact of the development on Swavesey was discussed.
•Daniel Fulton- Concerns over the impact on groundwater, the chalk aquifer, river terrace deposits and the assessment process of those topics were raised.
•Bruce Robjent- Concerns over the provision of amenities, drainage and sustainability matters including permeable paving and other green infrastructure throughout the overall development were raised. Members asked questions of clarity.
•Agent of the applicants- Clarity on a number of topics was offered by Michael Bottomley (Tibbalds), and a drainage consultant (Madelaine Davies, Arcadis) answered questions on water, on-site water storage and the drainage scheme on the site. Dean Harris (Homes England) answered questions of clarity on the provision ... view the full minutes text for item 4.