Agenda, decisions and minutes

With the regular Vice-Chair sending apologies for absence, the Chair proposed that Councillor Henry Batchelor fill the role of Vice-Chair for the meeting. This was seconded by Councillor Bill Handley and agreed by affirmation. The Chair also informed the Committee that he would withdraw for the hearing of application 22/01972/FUL (Great Shelford) and proposed that, with Councillor Batchelor taking the Chair for the duration of the application, Councillor Peter Sandford assume the role of Vice-Chair for the item. This was seconded by Councillor Bill Handley and approved by affirmation. The Chair also made a number of housekeeping announcements.

Councillors Geoff Harvey, Dr Tumi Hawkins and William Jackson-Wood sent Apologies for Absence. Councillor Dr Lisa Redrup was present virtually 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 Peter Fane declared that he would withdraw from the Committee and speak as a local Member. Councillor Dr Richard Williams declared that he had no disclosable interest but was familiar with the area and would be coming to the matter afresh.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 14 December 2022 as a correct record.

By affirmation, the Committee authorised the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 14 December 2022 as a correct record.

Erection of 15,056sqm/162,090sqft of commercial floorspace falling within use classes E(g)(ii) Research and Development, E(g)(iii) Industrial processes and B8 Warehouse and Distribution, landscaping, access and associated infrastructure works at Phase 2 of Bourn Quarter. This application is the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment

By affirmation, the Committee agreed to the addition of 5 informatives regarding foul water drainage, as recommended by Anglian Water. By unanimous vote, the Committee approved the application subject to the conditions and informatives laid out in the report and update report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, as well as the agreed additional informatives.

The Principal Planning Officer (Strategic Sites Team) presented the report and presented a number of updates:

• Paragraph 3.2 stated 6 units, this was amended to state 7

• Paragraph 1.2 stated November 2020, this was amended to state November 2021

• Comments were received from Anglian Water who raised some points regarding drainage but had no objection

• The Highways Authority confirmed that they had no objection

The Committee asked a question of clarity on why condition 33 had been included and were informed that it was recommended by Environmental Health.

The Committee was addressed by two agents of the applicant, Jeremy Aitchison and Mike Beadman. The Committee had no questions for the public speakers.

The Committee debated the application and agreed that there were no reasons for refusal. It was noted that the previous issues with the application had been overcome. Councillor Heather Williams, seconded by Councillor Dr Martin Cahn, proposed that the Committee move to a vote- this was agreed by affirmation.

By unanimous vote, the Committee approved the application subject to the conditions and informatives laid out in the report and update report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, as well as the agreed additional informatives.

Change of use to Use Class E(a) and external works

The Committee agreed by affirmation that, if it were minded to approve the application, the reasons for approval and contravention of the officer’s recommendation would be as follows:

In weighing all material planning considerations in the planning balance Member’s considered the application should be approved for the following reasons;

1. Members were of the view that securing a tenant within a vacant commercial premises, which had been vacant for a number of years, had significant positive benefits for the character and vitality of the village.

2. The proposal is considered to provide an appropriate level of on site car parking. Although the level of on site car parking would not meet with the indicative standards as set out in Policy TI/3 of the South Cambridgeshire District Council Local Plan 2018, Members of the planning committee considered, on balance, sufficient provision is provided. Given Members were of the opinion an appropriate level of on site car parking will be provided, it is unlikely to result in indiscriminate parking within the pubic highway (including the Mandatory Cycle Lane). Furthermore, statutory powers exist to enforce against any illegal parking within the Mandatory Cycle Lane. On this basis, although the comments from the Highway officer were noted and debated, Members did not agree with the conclusion of the highway officer.

3. Although Members of the planning committee acknowledged some conflict with the car parking standards set out within Policy TI/3 of the Local Plan and the concerns of the Highway Authority, in weighing the overall planning balance, Members were satisfied this did not outweigh the benefits of the proposal, in particular the occupation of a long time vacant commercial unit which would enhance the character and vitality of the village, in accordance with Policies HQ/1 and the NPPF. Members were satisfied that the proposal could also be the subject of conditions which would make it acceptable in planning terms.

The Committee agreed by affirmation that, if it were minded to approve the application, the approval would be subject to the following conditions and informatives:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

(Reason - To ensure that consideration of any future application for development in the area will not be prejudiced by permissions for development, which have not been acted upon).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

(Reason - To facilitate any future application to the Local Planning Authority under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

3. The materials and finishes shall be as indicated within the submitted application and thereafter retained as such, unless otherwise agreed with the local planning authority.

(Reason - To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in accordance with Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018).

4. Prior to first use, the car parking layout shown on drawing no. PP103 REV A shall be implemented in its entirety and retained  ...  view the full decision text for item 6.

In line with his declaration of interest, the Chair withdrew from the Committee. As agreed in Minute 1, Councillor Henry Batchelor assumed the role of Chair and Councillor Peter Sandford assumed the role of Vice-Chair.

The Senior Planner presented the report and informed the Committee that an amended cycle plan had been received which showed additional cycle storage. An update on paragraph 8.21 was also given and the Committee was informed that there was an entrance on High Green Road as well as Granhams Road. The reasons as to why the officer’s recommendation was refusal were detailed by the Senior Planner. Members asked questions of clarity on the previous permissions on the site and the impact of a change of use on the highway and the Principal Development Management Engineer offered the Cambridgeshire County Council Highways Authority’s perspective on the issue.

The Committee was addressed by an opposing resident, Dr Martin Stephen, who raised his concerns over the application- there were no questions of clarity. The agent of the applicant, Chris Edge, made a statement and responded to questions on the access to the store. Councillor Greg Price of Great Shelford Parish Council spoke on behalf of the Parish Council and detailed why they were supportive of the application; a question was raised to Councillor Price on the perceived likelihood of illegal parking. Councillor Peter Fane addressed the Committee in support of the application. He informed Members that Councillor William Jackson-Wood, the other local Member, and the County Councillor, Councillor Brian Milnes, were also supportive of the application and answered Members’ questions on access and the local context. The Chair noted that a number of written submissions had been received.

In the debate, comments were made both in support and opposition of the application. The Chair stated that there were both harms and benefits to the application and it was up to the Committee to strike a balance of the material considerations. Members stated that approval of the application would enhance the character and vitality of the village, citing policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. Some Members agreed with the reason for refusal 1, as laid out in the report, and felt that the advice from the Highways Authority carried significant weight for refusal. Others felt that the level of on site car parking was sufficient and, if the application was approved, it would be unlikely to cause indiscriminate parking. In response to a question, the Interim Delivery Manager informed the Committee that, as the additional cycle storage was not within the site it could not be considered as satisfying the cycle storage provision requirements.

As there was a divide in opinion, the Committee agreed by affirmation that, if it were minded to approve the application, the reasons for approval and contravention of the officer’s recommendation would be as follows:

“In weighing all material planning considerations in the planning balance Member’s

considered the application should be approved for the following reasons;

1. Members were of the view  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Re-submission of previous approval - S/1629/16/FL - Change green area outlined in red on the plan in to an additional parking area due to very limited parking availability and neighbour disputes

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

Councillor Peter Fane returned as the Chair and Councillor Henry Batchelor resumed his role as Vice-Chair

The Senior Planner presented the report. Members asked a question of clarity on why the application had been brought forward and officers provided local context to explain the assessed need for the development.

In the debate, the need for the application was revisited. Members felt that the scheme was acceptable and noted that there had been no changes to it since it was previously approval and subsequent lapse of permission. Councillor Heather Williams, seconded by Councillor Henry Batchelor, proposed a vote. This was agreed by affirmation.

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

Single storey extension to rear and loft extension with rear facing dormer window

By affirmation, the Committee deferred the application.

The Interim Delivery Manager provided an update on the application and informed the Committee that further consultation was required. The Senior Planning Lawyer advised that the Committee defer the application until the consultation had been completed.

By affirmation, the Committee deferred the application.

The Interim Delivery Manager presented the report and the Committee noted the changes to the protocol based on their comments at the meeting held on 14 December 2022. Members agreed with the changes, but debate was held on the ability for Parish Councils to request a site visit. Councillor Heather Williams, seconded by Councillor Bill Handley, proposed that an amendment to paragraph 3.5 (i) be made and include the wording “or Parish Council” for those who could request a site visit. The Committee agreed to the proposal by affirmation.

With the amendment, the Committee noted the report and confirmed the protocol.

Councillor Heather Williams left the meeting

The Principal Planning Enforcement Officer presented the report and raised a number of points based on previous comments of the Committee; Members were informed that a map-based search system for cases was not possible at the time but would be explored further. The Planning Compliance Manager was introduced to the Committee and Members were informed that he would be presenting future Enforcement Reports.

The Committee noted the report.

The Interim Delivery Manager presented the report and informed Members that some decisions on appeals listed had come in since the publication of the report- these were to be presented at the next meeting. Requests were raised for appeals awaiting decision to not be repeatedly listed month to month and for any information on notable issues arising in appeal cases to be raised to the Committee.

The Committee noted the report.

To authorise the Chair to sign the restricted Minute from the meeting held on Wednesday 14 December 2022 as a correct record.

By virtue of paragraph 7 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Committee agreed, by affirmation, to the exclusion of press and public to discuss the restricted Minute. By affirmation, the Committee authorised the Chair to sign the restricted Minute as a correct record.