Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chair made several brief housekeeping announcements. Following these, the Chair proposed a variance in the order of business to take Minute 5 (23/01134/FUL – Land At Melbourn Science Park, Melbourn) as the sixth item of business and Minute 6 (23/01581/FUL – Manor Farm, Clayhithe Road, Horningsea) as the fifth item of business. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Peter Fane and agreed to by the Committee by affirmation.

There were no Apologies for Absence.

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 5, Councillor Peter Fane declared that he was a member of CPPF, who had made a written representation regarding the application, but had not discussed the application with the organisation. Councillor Dr Lisa Redrup declared that she had been a customer of the Melbourn Hub and swimming pool, both referenced in the Heads of Terms in the report, but was coming to the matter with an open mind. During Minute 5, Councillor Jose Hales, who was addressing the Committee as a local Member, declared that he was a director of the Melbourn Hub which was referenced in the report as a recipient of Section 106 funding.

With respect to Minute 6, Councillor Peter Fane declared that he was a member of the Country Land and Business Association, who had made a written representation regarding the application, but had not discussed the application with the organisation. During Minute 6, Councillor Heather Williams declared that she was a member of the Great Cambridge Partnership (GCP) Assembly when the GCP development of the Horningsea Greenway was discussed.

To authorise the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 17 January and 14 February 2024 as correct records. The Minutes document for the meeting held on 14 February is to follow.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2024 were amended the reflect that Councillor Heather Williams left the meeting at the start of Minute 7 (Gamlingay) and at the start of Minute 9 (TPO, Shepreth. With the amendments, the Committee authorised the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2024 as a correct record.

By affirmation, the Committee authorised the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2024 as a correct record.

Demolition of 13,594sq.m of existing buildings, alterations and extensions of 1,127 sq.m to retained buildings to allow use within Class E within Ash House, Class E(b) within Moat House and Class C1 within the new wing rear of Moat House, development of 46,031 sq.m of new office and technology research facilities (Class E(g)(i), (ii) and (iii)) including continued use of DaVinci building and 22,941 sq.m of ancillary buildings for vehicle and cycle parking, together with temporary and permanent plant and infrastructure works including formation of two additional vehicular accesses and one additional vehicular egress from Cambridge Road and landscaping.

The Committee agreed that a number of amendments were to be made to the conditions and Heads of Terms, if the application was to be approved.

By 7 votes to 3, 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.

Minute 5 was taken as the sixth item of business, as per the agreed variance of the order of business

The Area Team Leader presented the report and advised that 4 late representations had been received that did not result in any amendment to the officer’s recommendation. The Committee was informed that all references in conditions to drawing number VN212120-D105-F were to be replaced with drawing number VN212120-D195-G, and that the applicant had requested a number of other changes to conditions:

- In condition 15, the removal of all reference of “off-site mitigation” regarding Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). Officers had no objection as it would result in all BNG measures being delivered on-site.

- An amendment to condition 28 (cycle parking) to cover all buildings and the removal of condition 29. Officers had no objection as, with the amendment to condition 28, condition 29 would essentially be a duplication if conditions.

- An amendment to condition 42 to correct the class use reference of C1, which was a correction and as such officers did not object. Further request to amend the class uses for the Block A within condition 42 from only use for Class E(d and E) to “for purposes within Class E other than Class E(f) which officers did not agree with as it could potentially allow for uses that would not be supported in the location.

Members asked a number of questions of clarity covering a range of matters and officer’s provided response, clarifying that:

- Tree removal on site would mostly result in the removal on category C (low quality) and U (poor quality/unretainable) trees, with 19 category B (moderate quality) trees being removed, as listed in the report. Across the whole site there would be an uplift in total trees as a result of the proposal.

- The “village green” in the western area of the site was the name the applicant chose for the green space.

- The “mobility hub” was a car park with a cycle parking and repair element.

- The figure of 530 new jobs on-site being provided as a result of the proposal was based on figures from the economic report from the agent (Savills).

- Officers were unsure if the hedge on the Cambridge Road boundary was to be retained, but landscaping conditions could be amended to require retention or replacement of the hedge. Trees along the boundary were to be retained.

- Condition 17 d) required details of the long-term maintenance of landscape areas and criterion b) required replacement planting for any planting that died/was lost for 5 years from the date of planting.

- Residential amenity impact assessments were the same for both private and affordable housing in close proximity to the site, including with respect to Townscape and Landscape Visual Impact Assessments (LVIAs).

- The principle of public art on the site was to be agreed as part of the proposal, with details of public art installations to be secured by condition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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

The Committee unanimously voted to approve the application, contrary to the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. By affirmation, the Committee agreed that the approval was subject to a number of conditions, with officers delegated authority to produce the final wording in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair, and the completion of a Section 106 agreement.

Minute 6 was taken as the fifth item of business, as per the agreed variance of the order of business

The Senior Planner presented the report and informed the Committee that a third-party representation in support of the application had been received after the report had been published. In response to Member questions, officers provided advice on matters related to non-compliance with policies of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and other matters:

Compliance with policy S/11

Given that the site was in an infill village, officers deemed that 7 dwellings would not be compliant with policy S/11 as the location of the proposal was unsustainable due to the lack of services and facilities in the village. The very exceptional circumstances of sustainable recycling of a brownfield site did not apply as the site did not qualify as brownfield.

The National Planning Policy Framework definition of brownfield land (previously developed land) (page 74) excludes land that is or was last occupied by agriculture or forestry buildings.  The Committee was informed that the ongoing Government consultation on strengthening planning policy for brownfield development carried no material weight as decisions were to be made on adopted policies.

With regard to a lack of evidence on loss of employment as required by part 2 (d) of S/11, the previous agricultural tenancy for the site had expired in 2021 and no evidence of marketing of the site had been provided by the applicant. Given the time since the last agricultural lease of the site and the lack of marketing evidence, officers did not have evidence to conclude that the conversion of the buildings would not result in the loss of local employment.

With regard to the introduction of residential dwellings to replace agricultural buildings, officers were of the view that there would be more vehicular movements as a result of the proposal. This was due to the fact that each dwelling would have two associated car parking space and given the nature of Horningsea as an infill village, residents of the dwellings would have to go outside of the village to access services which would result in more vehicular movements. Officers advised that this assessment was based on the previous agricultural use of the site and traffic movements generated, rather than wider analysis of traffic in Horningsea.

Compliance with policy TI/2

The proposed Horningsea Greenway, which was under consultation for an associated Traffic Order, was not considered a material consideration with regard to promoting sustainable travel. Officers advised that the Greenway could be taken as a material consideration, mitigating the non-compliance with policy TI/2, once construction had started. It was clarified that the officer’s recommendation was centred around the contravention of policy S/11, with contravention of other policies adding further weight to the recommendation of refusal.

Other matters

Plot 4 bedroom 4 of the indicative plans was listed as a double bedroom but did not meet the space standards for a double bedroom. As space standards applied to new build developments and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Delivery Manager presented the report and the Committee noted the report.

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