Agenda item

Construction of 74 dwellings together with associated infrastructure, open space and landscaping

By 10 votes to 1 (Councillor Peter Fane), the Committee refused the application, contrary to the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report. The Committee granted delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair, to write official wording of the reasons for refusal.

The Principal Planner informed the Committee of a number of updates. The recommendation (para. 340 of the report) and some of the subsequent conditions (c, e, f, g, t, w and bb) were updated. This was to refine the wording of conditions to provide greater clarity and link to sections of the report. The recommendation, if the Committee was minded to approve, was altered to include “final wording of conditions to be agreed with the Chair and Vice-Chair”. The Principal Planner informed the Committee that a representative from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), Harry Pickford, was on hand to answer questions on drainage and then presented the report.

The Committee was addressed by an opposing resident, Mary-Ann Claridge, who stated that the application was against policy and highlighted issues that were detailed in the report. The agent of the applicant, Andy Moffat, spoke in support of the application and answered a number of Member’s questions. These covered:

•           Building heights and contrast with the Village Design Guide

•           The landscape buffer and green space

•           Consultation with the Parish Council

•           Energy

•           Public Transport

•           Water

The Committee was also addressed by Phil Claridge who spoke on behalf of Caldecote Parish Council. Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins did not speak as the local Member and chose to save her comments for the debate.

In the debate, the Principal Planner informed the Committee that the Village Design Guide (VDG) had been adopted in 2020 and was therefore a material Planning consideration, despite Phase 1 of the development being granted approval prior to the adoption of the VDG. The Members stated that the VDG should be given more weight than the Phase 1 development in the Planning balance. The Principal Planner also offered clarity on the heights and density of buildings in the proposed development and informed the Committee that the application complied with space standards policy. Members also debated:

•The levels of affordable housing

•The lack of bridleway provision- the Principal Planner informed the Committee that the bridleway would be part of a section 73 application that would be brought to the next meeting of the Committee. However, the Chair noted the objection from the Maps Officer and the Principal Planner stated that, as bridleway provision was conditioned in the Outline application for the whole site, the Committee could give weight to the lack of bridleway provision

•Drainage- the representative from the LLFA offered context on the drainage scheme and the Committee discussed flood risk and surcharge. The Chair noted that officers had no objection to the drainage scheme but stated that it was down to the discretion of the Committee as to how much weight this was given.

•Biodiversity- the off-siting of biodiversity gain (financial contribution to Lower Valley Farm scheme) was noted, but Members expressed disappointment that no biodiversity gain could be found on site

•Infill, overdevelopment and impact on character and amenity- Members felt that the application was not infilling in the village and that, due to the density of housing, the development could lead to overdevelopment. Members also felt that it would have a negative impact on the character of the village and damage visual amenity as it appeared that the development would lead to a suburban feel to the area, in contrast with the rural nature of the village. In particular, Apartment Block C of the proposed development was highlighted as being unacceptable. It was also noted that 74 new homes would greatly increase the population of the village and that the proportional increase was unacceptable.

•Landscape buffer- Members felt that the landscape buffer was too small and unacceptable for the development; concerns on the impact on local biodiversity were raised amongst others. Members also expressed disappointment that the drainage ditch on the periphery of the site was incorporated into the landscape buffer and felt that it was inappropriate.

Members thanked the Principal Planner for the level of clarity and detail in the report. Concern was expressed by Members that the harm of the development outweighed the benefits. The Committee also noted that the Local Plan had been adopted and the requirements for the 5-year housing supply had been satisfied, therefore refusal of the application on material Planning grounds would be acceptable.

The Chair summarised the reasons for refusal, if the Committee were minded to refuse. These were:

•Location of the site laying outside of the development framework boundary of the village (contrary to policies S/2, S/6, S/7 and S/10 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan)

•The scale, mass, form and proportions of Apartment Block C (contrary to policy HQ/1 of the Local Plan and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021)

•Harm to the character of the area (contrary to policy HQ/1 of the Local Plan and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021)

•The loss of hedgerow and landscaping on the southern border of the site (contrary to policy HQ/1 of the Local Plan, paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 and the Caldecote Village Design Guide)

•The failure to provide a new bridleway in accordance with conditions in the Outline Planning consent and policy TI/2 of the Local Plan

By 10 votes to 1 (Councillor Peter Fane), the Committee refused the application, contrary to the officer’s recommendation laid out in the report. The Committee granted delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair, to write official wording of the reasons for refusal.