Agenda, decisions and minutes

For the benefit of members of the public viewing the live webcast of the meeting, the Chairman introduced Committee members and officers in attendance.

He explained that this meeting of the Planning Committee was being held virtually and asked for patience bearing in mind the challenges posed by the technology in use and by the new meeting skills required.

The Chairman confirmed that the Planning Committee would continue with the practice of recording votes unless a resolution could be reached by affirmation. He explained the process he would follow in a virtual meetings environment.

He confirmed that the meeting was quorate but informed members of the public that, if a Committee member was absent for any part of the presentation of or debate about an agenda item then that member would not be allowed to vote on that item.

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.

Councillor John Batchelor declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest in Minute 6 (S/3826/19/FL - Linton (3 The Ridgeway)). He had been present at Linton Parish Council meetings at which this application had been discussed but had not taken part in those discussions and was considering the matter afresh.

Single storey rear extension (and conversion of existing garage and first floor side extension approved by extant planning permission S/0974/19/FL).

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.

Councillor Peter Fane had not joined the meeting at this stage and was not therefore part of the affirmation.

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.

Councillor Peter Fane had not joined the meeting at this stage and was not therefore part of the affirmation.

Two storey side extension

Councillor Tom Bygott, a local Member for Madingley spoke against the application. The Chairman then invited  the Senior Planning Lawyer to advise and having heard his comments  the Chairman proposed that this application be deferred so as not to prejudice the applicant, whose agent had withdrawn his request to address the Committee prior to Councillor Bygott being granted exceptional permission to communicate his objections to the application. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Heather Williams and, by affirmation, the Committee deferred the application.

Councillor Peter Fane had not joined the meeting at this stage and was not therefore part of the affirmation.

Members noted that a Member site visit had taken place some time ago. Subsequently, officers confirmed that this had been on 11 February 2020.

The applicant’s agent had registered as a public speaker but had cancelled that registration the day before the meeting because no community objector or other speaker had registered by the deadline of 4,00pm on 15 May 2020. However, shortly before the meeting started, Councillor Tom Bygott, a local Member for Madingley, asked that he be allowed to address Committee members and, on the strict understanding that this very late application to speak should not be seen as setting a precedent, the Chairman agreed. Councillor Bygott spoke against the application. The Chairman then invited  the Senior Planning Lawyer to advise and, having heard his comments,  the Chairman proposed that this application be deferred so as not to prejudice the applicant. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Heather Williams and, by affirmation, the Committee deferred the application.

Councillor Peter Fane had not joined the meeting at this stage and was not therefore part of the affirmation.

Single Storey front and rear extensions first floor extension alterations and garden room (re-submission of S/1241/19/FL)

Upon the proposal of Councillor Heather Williams, seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam, the Committee unanimously voted to withdraw Permitted Development Rights Class B (additions or alterations to roofs which enlarge the house) and Class C (other alterations to roofs).

By nine votes to two, the Committee approved the application subject to

(a)   Withdrawal of Permitted Development Rights Classes B and C of Schedule 2 part 1; and

(b)   The Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Ellington, Fane, Heylings, Rippeth, Roberts and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillors Milnes and Heather Williams voted for refusal.)

Councillor Peter Fane joined the meeting prior to the beginning of the consideration of this application.

Councillor Enid Bald (Linton Parish Council) addressed the meeting.

During the ensuing debate, Members made the following observations:

·       The application related to a large development in a small space that would put pressure on car parking on the Ridgeway.

·       Permitted Development Rights (PDRs) should be removed

·       The addition of extra rooms and height would create a building that was out-of-keeping with the character of the local area.

The case officer displayed a plan showing the distance from various parts of the proposal to boundaries and adjoining properties.

Councillor Peter Fane said that the central gable should not be considered as a second storey. He agreed though that measures should be put in place to prevent the roof windows from being converted to dormer windows in the future.

Councillor John Batchelor, speaking as a local Member for Linton, commented that it would be difficult to justify refusing the application, but added the PDRs should be removed.

Upon the proposal of Councillor Heather Williams, seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam, the Committee unanimously voted to withdraw Permitted Development Rights Class B (additions or alterations to roofs which enlarge the house) and Class C (other alterations to roofs).

By nine votes to two, the Committee approved the application subject to

(a)   Withdrawal of Permitted Development Rights Classes B and C of Schedule 2 part 1; and

(b)   The Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Ellington, Fane, Heylings, Rippeth, Roberts and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillors Milnes and Heather Williams voted for refusal.)

The Committee received and noted an Update on enforcement action.

The Chairman reported the death of William (Bill) Trotter, Planning Enforcement Officer, and conveyed his and the Committee’s condolences to Mr. Trotter’s friends and family.

The Committee noted a brief verbal update relating to ongoing prosecutions at Smithy Fen, Cottenham.

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