Agenda item

Demolition of agricultural buildings and erection of 5 No. dwellings with associated access and landscaping.

By 6 votes to none, with 1 abstention, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Chair noted that the site had been visited on 10 January 2024 and the Senior Planner (Mary Collins) presented the report. Officers responded to Member questions and clarified that:

·       Financial contributions were required by the Neighbourhood Plan which would go towards improvements to the bridleway and cycle lanes, however it was not clear if these improvements would be directly related to the site as it was up to Gamlingay Parish Council to allocate the funding.

·       In relation to proposed plots B and C, the ridge height would be similar to that of the existing barns.

·       The application had been through a pre-application process and conditions dealt with a number of matters as not all information was available at the point of application.

·       Officers were satisfied that the proposed biodiversity net gain could be achieved, with a baseline plan which detailed the proposed habitat creation having been received by the Planning Service as part of the application. Some of the biodiversity net gain was to be delivered within the blue line boundary and further net gain to be delivered within the red line boundary through the delivery of replacement habitat.

·       The floor area increases from the existing permission to convert the barns (a fallback position) was 100% by virtue of one additional storey proposed, whilst the ridge height was very similar to that in the fallback position.

The Committee was addressed by a public objector, Gillian Kitchener, who clarified, in response to a Member question, that she held concerns that the granting of permission would set a precedent to allow further development of the heath land which local residents felt was an important asset that should not be built on. The Committee was addressed by the agent of the applicant, Liz Fitzgerald, and Kirstin Raynor, Clerk of Gamlingay Parish Council, on behalf of the Parish Council who objected to the application.

Councillor Dr Richard Williams left the meeting and did not return.

In the debate, officers offered the following points of clarification in response to Member questions:

·       That surveying had shown that there were protected species (bats) on the site and as such there would be a level of harm, but that condition 10 secured a requirement for a wildlife sensitive lighting strategy to mitigate harm (as recommended by the Ecology Officer).

·       The Gamlingay Neighbourhood Plan had been considered, the report and presentation acknowledged that the proposal was not compliant with policy GAM1 of the Neighbourhood Plan and that the officer’s recommendation was based on a planning balance that included assessment against the policies within Neighbourhood Plan.

The Committee agreed that the principal of development had been established by the existing permission to convert the barns which was a fallback position. Some Members expressed views that, whilst the fallback position of Class Q dwellings would be in keeping with Neighbourhood Plan policy GAM1, the incorporation of basement floors was a better use of space. Further comment was made that the proposed design was sympathetic to the existing barns and the fact that the ridge heights were very similar to those in the fallback position meant that the proposal was an improvement on the existing permission. Views were expressed that policy GAM3 of the Neighbourhood Plan was not relevant as there were already existing structures on the site and thus it would not conflict with the character of the open countryside. Members noted that a financial contribution was required by a Unilateral Undertaking dated 9 October 2023 (as described by Informative 1) and this satisfied policy GAM8 of the Neighbourhood Plan. Members noted that the Ecology Officer had no objections and that conditions covered biodiversity net gain requirements. A Member comment was made that there was not enough information included in the application and too much reliance was placed on conditions to secure details; other Members noted the concerns of objectors but felt that, on balance, the application was an improvement on the fallback position.

By 6 (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Peter Fane, Ariel Cahn, Bill Handley, Dr Tumi Hawkins and Peter Sandford) votes to none, with 1 abstention (Councillor Eileen Wilson), the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, and subject to the conditions, as laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.