Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chair made several brief housekeeping announcements.

Councillor Dr. Martin Cahn has sent apologies for absence. To receive apologies from other committee members. 

Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Geoff Harvey, William Jackson-Wood and Heather Williams sent apologies for absence. Councillors Anna Bradnam and Sue Ellington were present as substitutes.

Councillor Peter Sandford was not present at the start of the meeting and had sent apologies for lateness. The Committee was informed that he was due to join them later.

With respect to Minute 6 (21/00915/REM – Willingham), Councillor Bill Handley declared that he was a local Member for Willingham, had discussed the application with the Parish Council and residents but was coming to the matter afresh.

With respect to Minute 7 (20/01687/S73 – Caldecote), Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins declared that she was the local Member for Caldecote and had discussed the application with members of the Parish Council but was coming to the matter afresh.

With respect to Minutes 8 & 9 (21/02476/REM and 21/02477/FUL – Whittlesford), Councillor Dr Richard Williams declared that, as the local Member and a member of the Parish Council, he had been present when the applications had been discussed and had given residents updates on the procedural progress of the applications but was coming to the matters afresh.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2022 will be presented to the Committee for approval on 13 July 2022.

The Committee noted that the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2022 would be presented at the next meeting.

Outline Planning Application for residential development of up to 80 dwellings and associated infrastructure (considering access only) following demolition of existing buildings.

The Committee agreed to a change of wording in condition 46 and changes to the Indexation section of some of the Heads of Terms.

By 8 votes to 0, the Committee unanimously voted to approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that the wording of condition 46 was to be changed to “all future Reserved Matters applications shall undertake overheating analysis of a sample of units to ensure that homes are not at risk of overheating and submit a Part O Assessment as part of the proposal. In order to design out the risk of overheating, the cooling hierarchy should be employed, prioritising architectural responses to minimise risk before considering mechanical ventilation”. The reason for condition 46 remained unchanged. The Principal Planning Officer also informed the Committee of changes to some of the dates listed in the Indexation section of the Heads of Terms (4, 5, 6, 10 and 13 were changed to tbc). The Committee was also informed that the figure of 33 dwellings per hectare for the average density across the site was the correct figure and the Principal Planning Officer then presented the report.

In the debate, the Committee discussed a number of matters. Members sough clarity on the response of the Healthy Development Officer, The Construction Management Plan and the impact of works vehicles travelling through Willingham was discussed- officers referenced condition 17 in response. Members raised concerns over the adoptability of some of the roads on site but noted that the Reserved Matters stage of the development would present the precise details on Highways. The Reserved Matters stage was also referenced in regard to the drainage scheme; Members raised concerns over drainage and flooding but noted both the response of the Lead Local Flood Authority and the submission of details that would come with a Reserved Matters application. The Delivery Manager reminded the Committee that Councillors could call-in the Reserved Matters application when it was submitted.

Councillor Peter Sandford joined the Committee during the debate and thus did not vote on the application

The Committee agreed to the changes presented in the updates from the Principal Planning Officer. By 8 votes to 0, the Committee unanimously voted to approve the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Reserved matters application for the approval of details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following outline planning permission S/2921/15/OL (Erection of 26 Dwellings including 10 Affordable Units & Ancillary Access Arrangements (All matters reserved apart from access)). The outline planning application did not seek permission for EIA Development.

By 7 votes to 2, the Committee voted to defer the application.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and updated the Committee of the addition of an informative regarding stating:

“The granting of a planning permission does not constitute a permission or licence to a developer to carry out works within, or disturbance of, or interference with, the Public Highway. A separate permission must be sought from the Highway Authority for such works.”

 Members asked questions of clarity on:

• Flooding and the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA) response in the report

• Biodiversity net gain

• Car parking and Highways concerns

• Urban Design

The Committee was addressed by a public objector, Chris Thornhill, who raised a number of concerns and responded to questions on flooding. Matt Hare, the agent of the applicant, spoke in support of the application and answered questions on drainage, design and Highways.

In the debate, Members raised a number of concerns over:

• The comments from some of the statutory consultees

• The design of the scheme, residential amenity and the location of the Local Area of Play

• Issues around Highways and access

• Biodiversity net gain

• The lack of consultation with the Design Enabling Panel

Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins, seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam, proposed the deferral of the application. The Committee agreed that, if it were minded to defer the application, the reasons for deferral would be:

• Clarity on the comments from the LLFA

• The layout of the proposed road and the concerns from the Highways Authority

• Design, the location of the open space and the impact on residential amenity.

By 7 votes to 2 (Councillors Ariel Cahn and Peter Fane), the Committee voted to defer the application.

Removal of condition 17 (Improvement works to the footpath, crossing points and cycle parking stands) pursuant to planning permission S/2047/16/FL in view of the replacement with a financial contribution secured through a S106 Agreement.

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

The Area Development Manager presented the report with no updates. The Committee was addressed by the applicant, Neil Farnsworth, who explained why the application was being brought forward and responded to Member’s questions.

In the debate, Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins expressed her views as local Member and explained that the development which the application pertained to had already been built and occupied. Cambridgeshire County Council’ Principal Transport Officer, Tam Parry, offered context on the Transport Assessment Team’s comments and detailed the merits of the application.

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

Approval of matters reserved for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following outline planning permission S/0746/15/OL to provide 67 residential units following demolition of 39a Station Road West and the formation of a new access road. (Re-submission of 20/03755/REM)

By affirmation, the Committee unanimously refused the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation and the reasons for refusal laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Area Development Manager explained the link between the two applications on the site, informed the Committee of an objection received and presented the report. The Committee was addressed by Councillor Arthur Greaves, Chair of Whittlesford Parish Council, who presented the objections of Whittlesford Parish Council and responded to Members’ questions.

In the debate, Members discussed concerns over the application and highlighted issues of design, dominance, lack of affordable housing provision and overdevelopment. The numerous objections from statutory consultees were noted by the Committee. As local Member, Councillor Dr Richard Williams stated that he felt the report summarised the situation well and that he supported the recommendation of refusal.

By affirmation, the Committee unanimously refused the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation and the reasons for refusal laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Demolition of existing building and erection of three storey building to provide 8 flats, together with parking and landscaping

By affirmation, the Committee unanimously refused the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation and the reasons for refusal laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Area Development Manager presented the report. The Committee was addressed by Councillor Arthur Greaves, Chair of Whittlesford Parish Council, who presented the objections of Whittlesford Parish Council. Councillor Dr Richard Williams, as local Member, reiterated his comments from the previous application (Minute 8- 21/02477/FUL) and expressed support for the officer recommendation of refusal. Members noted the objections from statutory consultees laid out in the report and raised concerns over parking and drainage.

By affirmation, the Committee unanimously refused the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation and the reasons for refusal laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Demolition, Replacement and Extension of existing timber framed building.

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

The Senior Planning Officer, Tom Chenery, presented the report and offered updates on an objection received and the addition of a condition which stated:

“The annexe hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house known as 4 West Wratting Road, Balsham. It shall at no time be separately occupied or let and no trade or business shall be carried out therefrom.”

The Committee discussed the nature of use of the building, the building’s listed status and the added condition. Members also discussed the objection received and the impact on the neighbouring property.

By affirmation, the Committee unanimously approved the application subject to conditions, including the additional condition reported by officers, in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Demolition, Replacement and Extension of existing timber framed building.

The Committee agreed to the addition of a condition.

By affirmation, the Committee unanimously approved the application subject to conditions, including an additional condition as reported by officers, in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Senior Planning Officer, Tom Chenery, presented the report and, as in Minute 10 (22/00483/LBC), offered updates on an objection received and the addition of a condition which stated:

“The annexe hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house known as 4 West Wratting Road, Balsham. It shall at no time be separately occupied or let and no trade or business shall be carried out therefrom.”

Members noted the concerns of the objection received and discussed the impact of the construction on neighbouring properties. The Committee also discussed the use of the building and the new condition.

By affirmation, the Committee unanimously approved the application subject to conditions, including the additional condition reported by officers, in accordance with the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

New vehicular access, dropped kerb, parking/turning area and relocation of traffic calming bollard

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

The Planning Officer presented the report and informed the Committee that the use of the word “pre-commencement” in paragraph 9.15 was incorrect and required removal to be concurrent with condition 4. The Committee discussed condition 5 and the relocation of the bollard.

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