Agenda item

Appendices B and C are available in hard copy only.

Minded to Approve for the reasons referred to in paragraph 2 of the report, subject to the application not being called in for determination by the Secretary of State. 

Members discussed, and received legal clarification of, a range of procedural issues relating to the consideration of this application.

Councillor Mrs JM Healey (Conservation, Sustainability and Community Planning Portfolio Holder) expressed disquiet at the requirement for Members to leave the Chamber on this occasion.  She argued that the Conservation Advisory Group had simply been consulted about this application, and possessed no decision-making powers.

Councillor Mrs SA Hatton expressed her sympathy for those Members who had been prevented, through alleged prior determination, from taking part in the debate despite being “sufficiently able and honourable to put aside their prior consideration of the conservation aspects” of the application, and equally able to limit themselves to “the planning issues, all the planning issues, and nothing but the planning issues”.  She deplored “yet another example” of the apparent determination of Parliament and the courts to keep the control of local government out of democratically-elected hands.

Councillor SM Edwards pointed out the Development and Conservation Control Committee had already made a decision previously and that, in effect, all those Committee members who had voted at the April meeting and who were currently in the Chamber, should declare their predetermination.  In fact, this was not in issue, and thus underlined what Councillor Edwards referred to as the “ridiculous” nature of the argument.

The following Members were present for the entirety of this debate namely Councillors Dr Bard, Barrett, Batchelor, Bryant, Mrs Corney, Edwards, Mrs Hatton, Mrs Hunt, Martlew, Mrs Muncey, Mrs Murfitt, Nightingale, Pateman, Riley, Mrs Roberts, Scarr, Mrs H Smith, Williams, Dr Williamson and Ziaian-Gillan.  Councillor Kindersley was present at the beginning of the debate, but left the Chamber on other Council business prior to the vote.  Councillor Page entered the Chamber during the course of the debate, but did not contribute to it, did not vote, and was not present at the Conservation Advisory Group meeting on 8^th December 2004.  Although Councillor Mrs Roberts was listed as having been present at the said Conservation Advisory Group meeting, she was there by invitation for an earlier item and had left the meeting by the time Members discussed Sawston Hall.  Having sought clarification from the Head of Legal Services, Councillor Mrs CA Hunt declared that she had arrived late for the Conservation Advisory Group meeting on 8^th December 2004, and had not been present when members there had discussed Sawston Hall.  Councillor RF Bryant attended the Conservation Advisory Group meeting by invitation, and did not contribute to the debate.  Councillor Dr DR Bard was a member of Sawston Parish Council, which had considered this application on 14^th September 2004.  He produced to the Head of Legal Services a copy of the Minutes of that meeting which stated that he, as well as the other local Members (Councillor Mrs Hatton and Councillor Ziaian-Gillan) had not contributed to the debate or voted.

Councillors R Hall (who attended the Conservation Advisory Group site visit to Sawston Hall on 7^th December 2004 though not a member of the Group at that time), Mrs JM Healey, Dr JPR Orme and NIC Wright declared alleged predetermination, withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate and did not vote.  Councillor JH Stewart was not a member of the Conservation Advisory Group on 8^th December 2004, but withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate and did not vote.

At the nomination of Councillor SGM Kindersley, seconded by Councillor RE Barrett, the Committee

Councillor Mrs CAED Murfitt took the Chair.

At the nomination of Councillor Dr J Williamson, and with general support, the Committee

The Committee considered afresh the application relating to the restoration, refurbishment and Change of Use of Sawston Hall to Hotel; and of the Coach House to Hotel accommodation, and associated works. 

The Council had received notice of an application for Judicial Review of the decision of the Development and Conservation Control Committee dated 6^th April 2005.  The grounds relied upon bias, unreasonable rejection of highways objections, and the lack of evidence of justification for the decision.

The Head of Legal Services had advised that the allegation of bias presented the Council with a real problem.  Whilst he was not in post at the time of the original decision, he had been informed that those Members of the Conservation Advisory Group attending the 6^th April Development and Conservation Control Committee had not declared their alleged pre-determination, took part in the discussion and voted thereon.

The report from the Director of Development Services summarised the legal issues and, in particular, the House of Lords’ decision in the leading cases of Porter v Magill and Weeks v Magill, the leading cases in this respect.

Members had each received and considered the letter from Messrs. Hewitsons, Solicitors, dated 30^th September 2005, sent on behalf of an objector.

It was considered that the application posed no serious threat to the fabric of Sawston Hall, or to its setting or character.  Proposed demolition of certain elements was justified because the buildings in question were not deemed worthy of retention.  One of the main issues raised in opposition to the application had been that of traffic safety.  Whilst Members considered the scheme satisfactory with the existing 30mph speed limit along Church Lane, it was suggested that the Local Highways Authority be asked to extend the 20mph speed limit zone to beyond the access to Sawston Hall.

Members had seen for themselves some of the dilapidation on site.  This in itself would seem to justify some kind of renovation.  Any use of the site would be better than allowing it to deteriorate, so long as it served to enhance the listed building.  Vehicular access was deemed suitable, and the potential employment opportunities at all levels were to be greatly welcomed.  It was considered that the implications for existing local businesses were minimal, and that the proposal should be seen instead as providing a challenge that would be to the benefit of the community and local businesses.

Councillor Kindersley left the Chamber at this stage, and did not return until after the conclusion of consideration of this application.

Councillor Dr Bard noted that visibility splays and the width of Church Lane were limited, but served as safety features.  A language school had operated from Sawston Hall for some 20 years without any apparent problems, despite it generating a significant number of pedestrian movements.  Church Lane was too narrow for there to be provided a separate footpath.  Councillor Bard considered that a number of unsympathetic extensions had been added to the Hall in the past, the design of which was more utilitarian than that currently proposed.  He concluded by pointing out that, marketing during the past three years had failed to identify an appropriate alternative use for this Grade 1 Listed Building.

A Member raised the following concerns, namely:

Members noted the significance of Sawston Hall to the History of England.

Having visited the site on 4^th April 2005, upon the recommendation of Councillor Mrs DP Roberts, seconded by Councillor Mrs SA Hatton, and by 19 votes to one, the Committee was MINDED TO APPROVE the application and to reaffirm its decision made on 6^th April 2005 namely that it was Minded to Approve the application subject to the proposal being referred to the Secretary of State and not being called in by him for determination, for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services and subject to the Conditions referred to in the report presented to that meeting other than Condition 6 under paragraph 112 (to be deleted), with Condition 11 under paragraph 112 being expanded to require also details of any alternative cleansing tank to be agreed, and an additional Condition requiring the agreement of the precise position of the crèche/laundry building, service trenches and the structural grass road providing access to the pool and treatment rooms and the prior signing of a Section 106 Agreement to ensure the whole site only operates as a single planning unit.  Whilst mindful of the Local Highway Authority’s latest comments, Members, having visited the site, considered that the proposal was acceptable having regard to the following matters: the proposal involved an appropriate use for, and without harm to, this important site/listed building; highway matters were carefully considered at the time of Committee’s site visit; the use would enable a degree of public access to the site; the use would provide local employment; a modest amount of new and well-conceived build was proposed; the proposal involved a number of sustainable features; the removal of the restaurant attached to the Coach House and the link between the Hall and the Coach House would enhance the setting of the listed building; and, by not involving alterations to the listed gate piers, frontage walls or Church Lane itself, the scheme preserved the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the character and setting of the Hall, gate piers and St Mary’s Church.

Additionally, the Committee cited as reasons for approval, the positive implications for the listed building, and the opportunities posed by addressing the highways issues, sustainability matters, and commercial viability.  They considered the extent of new build development proposed to be appropriate having regard to the comments of HLL Humberts Leisure and Peters Elworthy & Moore.  They also resolved that the planning permission should be subject to a further Condition relating to a Green Travel to Work Plan for staff.

For the avoidance of any doubt, the applications would again be referred to the Secretary of State

Councillor Dr JPR Orme returned to the Chamber and took the Chair following the conclusion of the debate and taking of the vote.  He noted that Charmain Hawkins, the Historic Buildings Officer, was leaving the Council, and he conveyed to her the Committee’s good wishes for the future.