The Chair made several brief housekeeping announcements introducing the members of the committee; the process of how applications would be considered and reminded members that they needed to remain in the meeting for the whole of the consideration of each application.

Councillors B Handley and G Harvey had given their apologies for the meeting. Councillors C Garvie and W Jackson-Wood were attending as substitutes for the meeting.

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 Lisa Redrup indicated that she had attended a developer meeting in 2022 and residents meetings in relation to item 7 (Branch Road, Comberton) on the agenda but had taken advice from the Monitoring Officer and was approaching the consideration of the item with an open mind and would remain in the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting on that item.

Councillor Heather Williams declared an interest in item 5 (Planning Committee Review – Scheme of Delegation) by virtue of being a member of the Civic Affairs Committee which would give further consideration to these matters at a later meeting but would remain in the meeting for the duration and voting on the item.

Councillor Heather Williams declared an interest as being the applicant for the provisional tree preservation order at item 6 on the agenda. Councillor Williams indicated that she would withdraw from the committee membership for that item but wished to address the committee as applicant.

Councillor Heather Williams indicated that she had heard locally about proposals under item 8 at Guilden Morden but indicated that she proposed to remain in the meeting for the duration of voting on the item

Councillor Tumi Hawkins stated that she had attended public meetings at the village hall in relation to item 7 (Branch Road, Comberton) on the agenda but that she had not indicated any view at those meetings and had remained of an open mind and would remain in the meeting during the discussion and voting on that item.

Councillor Arial Cahn stated that he was a local member for item 7 (Branch Road, Comberton)  but had not taken part in any local discussions on the item and proposed to remain in the meeting for that item.

Councillor Martin Cahn indicated that he had visited sites being considered at the meeting and proposed to stay in the meeting for the duration and consideration of them at the meeting.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 9 and 11 December 2024 as a correct record. (attached)

By affirmation the committee authorised the chair to sign the minutes of the meetings held on 9 December and 11 December 2024 as a correct record.

To consider the attached report and appendices.

The committee received a further report of officers, following on from a previous report in August 2024, on the recommendations of a review of the planning committees for both the Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils.

The recommendations of the review sought to rationalise: a scheme of delegation to the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service; the focusing of more complex significant and controversial applications to come to member committees; aligning the council's triggers for committee referral; introducing a delegation panel for Cambridge City Committee and the Joint Development Management Committee and aligning the operation of process at that panel across the three committees.

The committee were being asked to endorse a referral to the Civic Affairs Committee and to the Council of a joint scheme of delegation for the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, revisions to the public speaking rights scheme and a members planning good practice guide. Members additionally had before them an update report with minor amendments proposed by officers.

During debate members queried which applications could be called into committee. Officers clarified that only matters detailed in schedule 1 of the delegation schedule would not be able to be called in and all other matters could be. There was also provision whereby officers themselves could refer a matter that would not otherwise come before members. Provision had also been made in scheme whereby if 5 or more third party representations, based on material planning grounds, were made regarding an application, officers, in consultation with the chair of the planning committee, could refer the matter to the committee for determination. This was a new provision based on PAS (Planning Advisory Service) best practice advice.

Additionally, members asked about the arrangements for the Delegation Panel and it was clarified that local ward members could attend those meetings should they wish to, members were notified and informed of applications in their area and that notes of the meetings were taken and published on the website.

It was suggested that given the complex nature of the delegations themselves, which had to be legally drafted to withstand potential judicial review, that a briefing note be prepared for members explaining the new processes.

Councillor Richard Williams expressed concern that the proposed amended members planning good practise guide actually went further than the code of conduct required and its definition of interests and as such would restrict members in representing their communities.

Councillor Heather Williams expressed the view that members ability to call in applications should be clearly set out as her view was that the propose scheme read as if it were taking local members voices out of consideration. Officers indicated that guidance could be issued about call-in without jeopardising the time frame of the review and its implementation.

The committee thereupon considered a recommendations separately and  recommended that:

(1)        the Cambridge City Council / South Cambridgeshire District Council / Joint Development Control Committee endorses the following for approval at Cambridge City Council Civic Affairs Committee and the South Cambridgeshire District Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider whether to serve a provisional Tree Preservation Order within the Parish of Coton for the protection of 12 Bramley apple trees. (Attached)

By seven votes to one, the Committee approved the making of a Provisional Tree Protection Order TPO PZZHXBPN contrary to the recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Councillor H Williams withdrew from the membership of the committee for this item and addressed the committee as applicant

The committee considered a report of the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development regarding a request for a provisional tree preservation order at Coton Orchard, Cambridge Road, Coton. The request for a tree preservation order had been made by the same person who had previously made an application which had been declined under delegated powers in November 2024. The members had before them that original report and a further report from 17 December 2024 which had reached the same recommendation.

The request sought to protect 12 Bramley apple trees within a private orchard. The trees had been assessed using a third party consultant in July 2024 which had identified some of the trees as being of veteran status with the trees also including specific specimens registered as champion trees for their species and registered on the Ancient Tree Inventory.

Officers had considered the further request against the amenity value of the trees and the expediency of making an order. The trees in question were also located within an area of influence of a development comprising public transport infrastructure. It was likely that the consenting of such infrastructure would be likely to have an impact on one or more of the trees for which the order was sought. A consent granted for that infrastructure would override the tree preservation order.

The committee heard from the landowner, Anna Gazeley, who was in favour of the making of an order and confirmed that she would not object to the classification of the trees specified.

Additionally the committee heard from Councillor Heather Williams as the applicant.

The chair of the committee read out a statement on behalf of Coton Parish Council who similarly supported the making of an order. Councillor Michael Atkins spoke as the local councillor in support of the making of an order.

In debate the members considered the merits of the protection of the trees regardless of other factors. They took note of the views of the parish council that the trees were a value to the local community and the assessment of officers under the TEMPO system which scored them worthy of protection.

Committee considered a proposal to support the officer recommendation not to make a tree preservation order which was defeated. The committee thereupon considered a proposal moved and seconded by the committee members to support the making of a provisional tree preservation order.

By seven votes to one, the Committee approved the making of a Provisional Tree Protection Order TPO PZZHXBPN contrary to the recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

To consider a hybrid planning application for the construction of an Integrated Retirement Community (IRC) of up to 200 extra care units (Use Class C2) with ancillary communal and care facilities and green space consisting of:

a) A full planning application for 24 Close Care Units and 32 Extra Care Units (Use Class C2), the Clubhouse, means of access, landscaping and open space, and all other associated works and infrastructure, and,

b) An outline planning application (all matters reserved except access) for up to 144 extra care units (Use Class C2) with ancillary communal and public open space, landscaping, solar generation and battery storage, and all other associated works and infrastructure.

By unanimous vote, the Committee refused the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the reasons for refusal, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and in the supplementary update report.

Councillor H Williams rejoined the committee for the remaining items of business.

The committee considered a planning application at Branch Road, Comberton which was a hybrid application for the construction of an integrated retirement community of up to 200 extra care units with ancilliary care facilities and green space consisting of: a full planning application for 24 close care units and 32 extra care units, a clubhouse, means of access, landscaping and open space and other associated works and infrastructure; and an outline planning application for up to 144 extra care units with ancillary communal and public open space, landscaping, solar generation and battery storage and other associated works and infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access.

The committee had before them an officers report with an additional update report showing proposed amendments to the report made by officers since the publication of the agenda together with additional reasons for refusal and a summary of further neighbour representations.

The committee heard from Claire Michel who spoke as an objector to the proposal and Ellen Pearce who spoke on behalf of Inspired Villages, the applicant.

Councillor H Williams asked a question of the applicant why they believed that the council no longer had a five year land supply. Ms Pearce stated that they had submitted a letter to the council in the previous week sitting out why they had taken this view. Planning officer reported that the latest Housing Trajectory Report was published in April 2024 and the council would be publishing an updated housing trajectory report in April 2025. The Council was reviewing the implications of the updated National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance, including the updates to the standard method which would be incorporated in the updated report.  As yet the council had not reached conclusion on the 5 year housing land supply.

Members sought clarification from the applicant that as they had identified a need for housing for older people, and the application was for quite a large number of units, where the likely residents would come from. Ms Pearce reported that their calculations had been based on a district wide basis.

Additionally, the applicant addressed questions of members regarding how the scheme would reduce the burden on the NHS services, whether they had spoken to the local GP practice and how they would propose to deal with objections from both the Health Development Officer and the Housing Strategy Officer. The applicant stated that it would be a combination of factors but the facility would reduce the need for health and social care. The scheme would also provide a clinical space but that there was currently no agreement with the local GP practice for the space. She indicated that they had set out within their Heads of terms proposals for the on-site health service which would be offered to the GP and if that was declined it would be offered to private and public use.

The applicant indicated, in response to members questions, that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider an application for the erection of 1 No. Self Build Dwelling. (Report attached)

By seven votes for, one votes against (Councillor H Williams) the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s unconditional recommendation and associated informatives with the inclusion of informatives about the public right of way and expansion of commentary on highways requirements.

Councillor Lisa Redrup left the meeting permanently at 3:10 pm.

The committee considered an application on land west of Pound Green, Guilden Morden, for a permission in principle to erect a self-build dwelling. The application was before members as it was within the conservation area of the village and outside the development framework. Additionally the parish council had objected to the application.

The committee were asked to consider the location, the use of the land and the amount of development proposed. The committee expressed a view that were the application to be granted the matters raised by the highways authority within the report relating to access and public rights of way should be included as informatives to the applicant.

The committee heard from local resident, Mr Neil Brady who was objecting to the proposal. In response to questions from members, officers clarified why the officers view had changed from a previous proposal, the reason being that it was now proposed to be a self build dwelling.

The committee also heard from Mr Tom Kilvert, the agent for the applicant, who confirmed that should permission in principle be granted, pedestrian access requests from the highways authority would be assessed at the next stage. Issues raised about obstructions to the public rights of way locally were a matter for enforcement by the County Council.

Councillor Ken Lock, Chairman of the Guilden Morden Parish Council, addressed the committee and clarified that their objection stemmed from this being a new build rather than other local developments which had been built under permitted development.

In debate, members considered whether new build dwelling would alter the character of the area, whether the committee should support the views of the Urban Design and Conservation Team around intensification of the site and impact on the open nature of the land balanced against the shortfall in the supply of self and custom build housing plots in the district and whether at the later stages of design, an acceptable dwelling could be provided.

By seven votes for, one vote against (Councillor H Williams), the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s unconditional recommendation and associated informatives with the inclusion of informatives about the public right of way and expansion of commentary on highways requirements.

To consider an outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 4no. custom build dwellings. (report attached)

By a unanimous decision the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendations and associated informatives subject to:

(i)          The planning conditions as set out in the report with minor amendments to the conditions as drafted delegated to officers;

(ii)         The amended planning conditions and informatives contained within the update report; and

(iii)       The Satisfactory completion of a legal agreement as set out in the report with minor amendments as set out delegated to officers.

The committee considered an outline application for the erection of up to four custom build dwellings at Avon Fields, land at Haden Way, Willingham. The matter had been brought before committee because of the special planning policy and other considerations namely land was outside the development framework; they were of a self build nature and the proposed character and appearance of the development.

Members had before them the officers report together with an update report circulated separately which suggested amendments to condition eight of the proposed approval together with a number of proposed informatives.

The committee heard from Mr. Lewis Collins, agent for the applicant who addressed members concerns about part of the site being within a flood risk area. He indicated that they had proposed an attenuation system be constructed as part of the development and had additionally, as part of the design of the dwellings, provided for the floor level to be raised by 300 millimetres above the ground level. The assessment had also indicated that there was no flood risk impact on adjacent sites.

Officers clarified that the applicant had submitted a flood risk assessment with the application and that part of the site had a one in 30 year risk of flooding.

The committee heard from local District Councillor Bill Handley about the issues of flooding within the village which had seen sewage contaminated water flooding locally.

In debate members observed that a number of self build plots were outside the planning framework and each was considered on its merits. They were of the view that, for this site, the benefit of adding four more additional custom build sites outweighed the potential harm. It was additionally noted that a unilateral undertaking would be required to ensure the access to the sites and the plots were custom build.

By a unanimous decision the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendations and associated informatives subject to:

(i)          The planning conditions as set out in the report with minor amendments to the conditions as drafted delegated to officers;

(ii)         The amended planning conditions and informatives contained within the update report; and

(iii)       The satisfactory completion of a legal agreement as set out in the report with minor amendments as set out delegated to officers.

The Delivery Manager introduced the report and reported that, in the last period, 13 decisions had been received and only one appeal. Of those decisions, 10 had been dismissed.

The chair of the committee particularly commended officers on the dismissal of the enforcement appeal at Grassy Corner Caravan Park, Chesterton Fen Road, Milton and expressed her thanks for the hard work of officers on the matter.