Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chair made several housekeeping announcements. Following these, the Chair invited officers to advise on an update on the recommendation for application 23/01581/FUL – Manor Farm, Horningsea (Minute 7). Officers informed the Committee that the Officer’s recommendation had been revised and was now to defer the application. This was to allow officers to formally consult the Council’s Section 106 Officer to ascertain what financial contributions may arise from the development given the floor space created is more than 1,000sqm, in the event that the officer recommendation is overturned. Officers advised that the S106 information was not contained within the officer report and therefore not available for Members consideration.

Following the update from officers, Councillor Dr Martin Cahn, seconded by Councillor Dr Lisa Redrup, proposed that the Committee vote to defer the application. Members discussed whether the decision on deferral was best made at the start of item 7 of the agenda or prior to proceeding with the business of the agenda, as proposed by Councillor Dr Martin Cahn. Members had different opinions on the matter and, as such, the Chair requested it be put to an electronic vote.

By 8 (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Henry Batchelor, Ariel Cahn, Bill Handley, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Dr Lisa Redrup, Peter Sandford and Heather Williams) votes to 3 (Councillors Peter Fane, Geoff Harvey and Dr Richard Williams), the Committee voted to decide on the deferral of application 23/01581/FUL – Manor Farm, Horningsea at the start of the meeting as per Councillor Dr Martin Cahn’s proposal. Members requested that officers review the situation that had led to the update to their recommendation.

By affirmation, the Committee agreed to defer appliction23/01581/FUL – Manor Farm, Clayhithe Road, Horningsea.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Eileen Wilson. Councillor Henry Batchelor was present as a substitute.

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 6, Councillor Dr Martin Cahn declared that he was a local Member but had not held any discussions regarding the application and was coming to the matter afresh. Councillor Dr Cahn also declared that he had met the agent of the applicant, who was due to address the Committee, but that this was in a non-professional capacity and that the application had not been discussed.

With respect to Minute 8, Councillor Geoff Harvey declared that he was a resident of Great Abington but had no knowledge of the application prior to it being brought to the Committee and that he was coming to the matter afresh.

With respect to Minute 9, Councillor Heather Williams declared that the property was opposite to the residence of a family member, and as such she would withdraw from the Committee during the discussion of the application.

To authorise the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2024 as a correct record. Minutes document to follow.

Councillor Dr Martin Cahn, seconded by Councillor Heather Williams, proposed that the Committee defer the approval of the Minutes to allow Members to have further time to review. By affirmation, the Committee deferred the approval of the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2024.

The Built Environment Team Leader presented the report. Members thanked officers for the report and the work undertaken, as well the members of the Greater Cambridge Design Review Panel (DRP). In response to Member questions, officers clarified that the initial “Full Review” involved a site visit, which the “Subsequent Review” did not, hence the difference in prices. Officers also informed the Committee that the DRP had annual reviews in place to allow continuous learning and improvement of the service, and that this would include the review of some case studies of schemes that had been reviewed by the DRP. Further discussion was held on a number of topics.

Incorporation of the Disability Consultative Panel (DCP) into the DRP

Members enquired as to if the removal of the DCP, dedicated to accessibility matters, would result in less schemes receiving consultation on disability considerations. Officers informed the Committee that the incorporation of the DCP into the DRP would allow developers to have their schemes reviewed from an accessibility perspective, as well as others, by the DRP at no extra cost and that the incorporation of the DCP was expected to cover the cost of disability consultations without reducing the amount of disability consultation provided.

Members commented that the Accessibility Forum felt somewhat remote from the application process. Officers advised that the Terms of Reference for the Accessibility Forum were under construction and that Member input into the process would be welcomed by officers. The Committee was informed that the Forum was envisaged to highlight recurring accessibility themes across various developments, rather than be a review mechanism for numerous individual schemes.

Russell Brown advised that the DRP could look at broad, design-based accessibility matters but, given that final details of proposed schemes were not usually presented at the DRP stage, the Panel was only one part of the review for accessibility matters and that it was important that other stages of the application process also dealt with such matters.

Membership of the DRP

Reflecting on paragraph 8 of the Terms of Reference for the DRP (Appendix 3), Members commented that more lay membership in the Panel would be valuable with respect to matters of accessibility and design. With regards to accessibility, Members held concerns that those with lived experience of disability may be precluded from being Panel members if they did not have professional accreditation, despite the expertise that they had garnered their lived experience. Officers advised that a number of those who were members of the DCP would also qualify to sit on the Panel if they chose to do so.

With regards to design, Members commented that opinions on aesthetics were subjective, and that more lay membership within the DRP could allow for more perspectives to be heard in the review process. The Committee noted officer comment that the DRP was there to provide expert advice to applicants that could also be taken on board by officers and decision makers, with the advice being able to hold up in an appeal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

An aparthotel / hotel with the addition of mixed-use facilities, includes the erection of a building above a basement, car parking, landscaping, and other associated works.

By affirmation, with one abstention, the Committee agreed to:

·       An amendment to Condition 19 regarding details of a Travel Plan and Parking Management Plan.

·       The addition of a criterion to Condition 24 regarding litter management.

·       The addition of a condition regarding noise mitigation.

·       An amendment to the Heads of Terms to make reference to a £5,000 contribution towards the provision of double yellow lines as part of the £80,000 transport contribution.

By 10 votes to 1, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the 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 and amended by the Committee.

The Chair noted that a site visit had been held on 7 February 2024 and the Area Team Leader, Michael Hammond, presented the report. Members asked a number of questions of clarity regarding various topics.

Litter

Members enquired as to how litter could be managed, in response to the concern over litter from Orchard Park Community Council’s response in the report, and if condition 24 could be amended to include a requirement to confirm details of litter management. Officers advised that such a change was acceptable and presented to Members that a criteria h “the management and control of litter” could be added to the condition.

Traffic management

In response to a Member question, officers clarified that drop-offs and deliveries to the building would be made to the rear of the site, with no dedicated space being provided for this at the front of the building. Members noted the concerns of Orchard Park Community Council, listed in the report, regarding parking and traffic flow and enquired as to if it would be possible to provide funding for double-yellow lines to be introduced, if parking became problematic. The Principal Transport Officer advised that the Heads of Terms for the Section 106 agreement could be amended to designate £5,000 of the £80,000 Transport Obligation towards the provision of double-yellow lines, if required.

The Principal Transport Officer advised the Committee that the Transport Assessment Team (Cambridgeshire County Council) did not expect overspill parking to occur as a result of the proposed development and that the proposed level of car parking provision was deemed to be acceptable. Member concerns were raised over the levels of parking provision and the shortfall of spaces compared to the parking provision standards laid out Policy TI/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. In response to Member queries, the Principal Transport Officer provided details of the reasons behind the Transport Assessment Team’s conclusion that the proposal was acceptable:

·       The hotel element of the proposed development was likely to result in higher levels of parking, which was expected to be overnight parking more than daytime parking.

·       Occupants of the aparthotel element of the proposal were expected to be less likely to use private motor vehicles and thus require parking spaces.

·       Daytime parking was expected to occur at higher levels than overnight parking and predominantly serve non-accommodation facilities, such as the conference and leisure facilities.

·       The applicant had produced modelling on expected car parking, incorporating data from other local developments of a similar nature (nearby Travelodge and Premier Inn, similar development in Eddington).

·       Given the information provided, officers were satisfied that the different times of use and parking requirements for different elements of the proposal would lead to parking provision being sufficient and, as such, there was a low chance of overspill parking occurring on nearby streets.

·       With the introduction of Civil Parking Enforcement in the District and the suggestion of allocating £5,000 of the S106 agreement, the Principal Transport Officer was content that, if overspill parking did occur, enforcement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Conversion of existing vacant farm buildings into seven dwellings with access, parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

By affirmation, the Committee deferred the application.

Application 23/01581/FUL – Manor Farm, Clayhithe Road, Horningsea was deferred, as agreed by the Committee in Minute 1.

Single storey side extension together with internal alterations.

By affirmation, the Committee agreed to the addition of a condition regarding a Traffic Management Plan.

By unanimous vote, 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 and amended by the Committee.

The Senior Planner presented the report and provided the following updates:

·       The elevation plan had been corrected by the architect to accurately reflect that the roof of the existing house was half-hipped, not gabled, but this had no impact on the officer’s recommendation.

·       Great Abington Parish Council had submitted a late response, unanimously supporting the proposal subject to conditions relating to the control of construction vehicle parking, no use of passing bays for parking, and repair of any damage to the verges.

·       The officer’s recommendation was to approve subject to conditions as listed in the report, with an additional compliance planning condition relating to construction parking.

In response to a Member question on the wording of the additional condition, officers advised that a standard Traffic Management Plan condition (below) would be reworded to reflect the modest scale of development. Officers detailed that the following wording would be adapted in response to the context of the site:

“No demolition or construction works shall commence on site until a traffic management plan has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The principal areas of concern that should be addressed are:

- Contractor parking, with all such parking to be within the curtilage of the site where possible.

- Movements and control of all deliveries (all loading and unloading should be undertaken off South Road where possible).

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that before development commences, highway safety will be maintained during the course of development.”

Officers also clarified, in response to a question, that the proposal was compliant with the Great Abington Former Land Settlement Association Estate Neighbourhood Plan.

In the debate, Members expressed support for the application. The Committee agreed by affirmation to move to the vote, as proposed by Councillor Dr Martin Cahn and seconded by Councillor Peter Fane.

By affirmation, the Committee agreed to the addition of a Traffic Management Plan condition and granted delegated authority to officers to produce the final wording.

By unanimous vote, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation and subject to conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and amended by the Committee.

Existing outbuildings to be replaced with new Nissen style outbuilding.

By unanimous vote, 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.

Councillor Heather Williams withdrew from the Committee, in-line with her declaration of interest.

The Planning Officer presented the report and, in response to Member questions, gave clarity on what a Nissen style building entailed and confirmed that the proposal was to replace existing outbuildings with a new outbuilding.

The Committee agreed by affirmation to move to the vote, as proposed by Councillor Dr Martin Cahn and seconded by Councillor Peter Fane.

The Committee unanimously voted to approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation and subject to conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Councillor Heather Williams rejoined the Committee.

The Principal Planning Compliance Manager presented the report. In response to discussion regarding the number of cases, the Committee was informed that the caseload had increased in 2023. Officers advised that there were a number of factors influencing this, including the increased ease for residents to raise compliance concerns through the online reporting system, the increased recording of the work undertaken by the Compliance Team and the varied nature of compliance matters and subsequent cases. In response to a Member question, the Principal Planning Compliance Manager agreed to review the electronic sending of compliance investigation details to Members (as described in paragraph 3 of the report). Responding to another question, officers advised that where works had been undertaken that were outside of permitted development rights, if the works were viewed as acceptable in principle but required permission, the owner would be requested to submit an application for retrospective permission. Where this was done, it was expected that an application would be submitted within 28 days in general, with exceptions applying depending on context. Clarity was provided over 4-and-10-year rules.

The Committee noted the report.

The Delivery Manager introduced the report, and the Committee noted the report.