Agenda item

Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access and for strategic landscaping areas for the residential development of up to 215 dwellings, including affordable housing as well as land to be reserved for nursery use (Use Class D1), open space including strategic landscaping, play areas and sustainable drainage features and asociated infrastructure including foul sewerage pumping stations

Appendices B (Committee report, 2 August 2017), B1 and B2 (attached to the report dated 2 August 2017) 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:

1.     Sustainability, and scale of the proposed development in relation to the extent of the existing village; and

2.     Landscaping and visual impact

The case officer reminded Committee members that Counsel’s Opinion was that, in legal terms, it could only be reasonable for the Local Planning Authority to give the least possible weight to consideration of the future use of the Papworth Hospital site. In other words, in planning terms, Papworth Hospital was not a material consideration.  An additional representation had been received saying that village facilities were inadequate to support further development.

The Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development referred to the e-mail mentioned at the Planning Committee meeting on 2 August 2017. The e-mail was sent by him to Councillor Mark Howell, one of the local Members. In connection with alocations in the Local Plan, the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development had met with the local NHS Trust to discuss the Papworth Hospital site. He emphasised that the discussion was in general terms only and that, in particular, no planning application had been submitted. He told Committee members that the weight they could give to Papworth Hospital was minimal.

Robert Butcher (objector), Colin Brown (applicant’s agent), and Councillor Chris Howlett (Papworth Everard Parish Council) addressed the Committee.

Mr Butcher’s main concerns related to traffic congestion caused in part by relocation of Papworth Hospital to the Biomedical Campus at Addenbrookes in Cambridge.

Colin Brown described the proposal as being on a sustainable location. Delivery was likely to begin in 2019. The Reserved Matters application and Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 were both ready.

Councillor Howlett said the proposed development would not integrate well into the existing village. It would have an adverse impact on Caxton Gibbet roundabout. The Parish Council was concerned about the loss of the village’s main employer.

Councillor Wright listed the following points:

·       The proposal’s lack of sustainability

·       The loss of  a major employment opportunity

·       Traffic concerns

·       Local opposition

·       Adverse impact on residents’ amenity

·       The proposal would add no value to the existing village

Councillor Mark Howell (the other local Member but not present at the meeting) had indicated that that the application departed from assurances given to Papworth Everard in the past.

During the ensuing debate, Committee members made the following points:

·       The proposal was unsustainable

·       There were negative implications for the landscape and character of the immediate area

·       It was necessary to strike a balance between housing and employment

·       Traffic congestion resulting from an increase in car movements

·       Implications of the future dualling of the A428 west from the Caxton Gibbet roundabout

·       The impact on neighbouring parishes

·       Site not identified in the Local Plan

·       Papworth Everard is a minor rural centre within the development hierarchy

·       Visual impact

Officer comments were as follows:

·       Members should take into account a recent approval given at Highfields Caldecote, which was less sustainable than Papworth Everard

·       A balance had been achieved

·       The proposal was acceptable in terms its distance from the primary school and village facilities

·       South Cambridgeshire District Council’s methodology led to a finding that the proposed development was sustainable

·       To be a material consideration, landscape had to benefit from a particular local or national designation

·       There was no evidence base for objection on the grounds of taffic

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:

1.     Sustainability, and scale of the proposed development in relation to the extent of the existing village; and

2.     Landscaping and visual impact