Agenda item

Outline planning application for mixed use development (up to 150 dwellings, public open space, and new technology plant); new car park and access for Sports & Social Club; and associated infrastructure. All matters reserved with the exception of the means of access.

Appendices 2 and 3 are available online by visiting www.scambs.gov.uk > The Council > Councillors, Minutes and agendas, and browse.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being the proposed development’s lack of sustainability (its isolation from the village of Meldreth, its distance from village facilities, and the absence of public transport) and encroachment into the countryside.

The case officer referred to the highways assessment suggesting that the junction was at 50% capacity. The issue of contaminated land could only be addressed fully at the Reserved Matters stage.

Philip Kratz (representing the objectors), Gareth Davis (applicant’s agent) accompanied by John Stapleton (representing the Eternit Social Club), Councillor Richard Goddin (Meldreth Parish Council, and also speaking for Whaddon Parish Council), Councillor Spenceley (Bassingbourn Parish Council), Councillor Philippa Hart (local Member) and Councillor Nigel Cathcart (a local Member for Bassingbourn) addressed the meeting.

Philip Kratz argued that the proposal was not sustainable socially. It failed to provide an appropriate mix of housing tenure. It was car-dependent. The proposal was on a greenfield site encroaching on the countryside. There would be a loss of employment. The site was isolated from Meldreth. The harm caused by the proposed development would be such as to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of new housing.

Messrs. Davis and Stapleton made the following points:

·       The proposal would secure a new stretch of footpath between the existing footpath and the social club

·       The proposal wassustainable

·       It was a brownfield site

·       Road safety audits had been carried out

·       The proposal complied with the National Planning Policy Framework

Councillor Goddin expressed concern about:

·       Sustainability of the site

·       Connectivity with surrounding villages

·       The lack of public transport

·       The increased pressure on community infrastructure

·       The lack of detail on road safety issues

·       Who should pay for the remediation of the contaminated land – the polluter or community

Councillor Spenceley used photographs to highlight road safety and capacity concerns, including the impact on Kneesworth, and the lack of visibility at the road junctions.

Councillor Philippa Hart (local Member but not serving on the Committee at this meeting) declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in the interests of transparency. Councillor Hart’s  family business, Roger Hart Farms, farmed, as tenants, land belonging to Marley adjacent to the application site, and Councillor Hart lived with her family within half a mile of the site. Councillor Hart made the following points:

·       when Meldreth residents were asked via public consultation for their views on this proposal, 80% of the respondents were against it going ahead.

·       Were it not for the fact that South Cambridgeshire District Council could not currently provide a five year housing land supply, an application in this location on this site for this proposed use would never be acceptable.

·       When Marley took on the site at Meldreth with its history of manufacturing amongst other things asbestos  they took on the commercial liability of its inevitable eventual decontamination. Those costs were now seemingly being indirectly passed to the local community in being required upon "viability" grounds to accept a reduced allocation of affordable homes.  The offer of 25% affordable housing was inadequate.

·       committee members need to be satisfied that the offer of a new technology building and up to 25 new jobs can actually be conditioned. Had Marley chosen, rather than residential development, to develop the proposed site for a use consistent with creating employment then the extent of the decontamination operation would have been commensurately less and therefore less costly.

·       In view of the other speculative developments coming forward in Meldreth and Melbourn, if planning permission is given for this site, it would be the thin end of the wedge, leading to further unplanned development in this no man’s land, and the establishment of a large settlement way outside our village framework.

Councillor Hart urged refusal.

Councillor Hart read out a statement on behalf local County Councillor Susan van de Ven. The statement referred to:

·       The recent loss of public transport

·       The inability of such a loss to be compensated for by community transport

·       The provision of real-time timetabling would simply be a reminder of a sustainability that no longer existed

Committee members briefly discussed the subject of community transport.

Councillor Cathcart addressed the Committee by emphasising the site’s isolation, and its severe impact on three existing villages. He said that development of this type should form part of a strategic plan instead.

Councillor David McCraith (in his capacity as a local Member) agreed with Councillor Cathcart, and expressed disappointment that the highways assessment did not, in his opinion, take account of future impact.

A representative of the organisation responsible for undertaking the traffic assessment summarised the process that had been followed. Committee members concluded that there was a difference between road safety and the capacity of those roads.

Committee members then had a discussion, including with an Environmental Health Officer, about contaminated land and, in particular, asbestos, remediation timescales, and who should pay.

During the course of the ensuing debate, the following points were made:

·       Being simply an outline application, it would be unreasonable to expect this proposal to be delivered such as to have a beneficial effect on the Council’s five-year land supply

·       The proposal was unsustainable by virtue of its isolation, remoteness, and impact on neighbouring villages

·       The harm significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits

·       The development would be dependent on the use of private cars

·       Loss of greenfield land

·       Loss of employment

·       The cost of remediation and its adverse impact on the percentage of affordable housing on offer

·       viability

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being the proposed development’s lack of sustainability (its isolation from the village of Meldreth, its distance from village facilities, and the absence of public transport) and encroachment into the countryside.