Issue - decisions

By seven votes to three, with one abstention, the Planning Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informative set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

(Councillors Cahn, Harvey, Hawkins, Heylings, Milnes, Roberts and Heather Williams voted in favour. Councillors Henry Batchelor, Fane and Richard Williams voted against. Councillor Rippeth abstained.)

By eight votes to two, the Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reason for refusal as being that, by virtue of the bulk, size, location and choice of materials, the proposal would have an unacceptable visual impact on the character and appearance of the Linton Conservation Area. The level of harm would be less than substantial but there were no clear public benefits that could be considered as outweighing that harm. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with the requirements of Policy HQ1 of the South Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2018, the National Planning Policy Framework and Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

(Councillors Cahn and Hawkins voted to approve the application. Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Fane, Rippeth, Roberts, Heather Williams, Richard Williams and Wright voted to refuse.)

By affirmation, the Committee gave officers delegated authority to approve the application subject to

1.    The Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Conditions associated with, and attached to, the Outline planning permission S/2553/16/OL;

2.    An Informative advising the applicant that, as part of any discharge of conditions application to condition 14 of outline consent S/2553/16/OL (survey for retention of existing trees and hedges), the hedgerow on the northern edge of the site adjacent to Horseheath Road should be retained where it is practicable to do so. precise wording to be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee; and

3.    The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

Upon the proposal of Councillor Heather Williams, seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam, the Committee unanimously voted to withdraw Permitted Development Rights Class B (additions or alterations to roofs which enlarge the house) and Class C (other alterations to roofs).

By nine votes to two, the Committee approved the application subject to

(a)   Withdrawal of Permitted Development Rights Classes B and C of Schedule 2 part 1; and

(b)   The Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Ellington, Fane, Heylings, Rippeth, Roberts and Wright voted to approve the application. Councillors Milnes and Heather Williams voted for refusal.)

By six votes to two, with one abstention, the Committee refused the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal to be design, adverse impact on the landscape, and location of the proposal being outside the village framework.

(Councillors Cahn and Fane voted to approve the application. Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Bradnam, Rippeth Roberts and Topping voted for refusal. Councillor Milnes abstained from voting.)

Members had regard to the update report published on 7 November 2019 and, in particular, the updates to paragraphs 10 (comments from the Landscape Officer) and 15 (comments from the Affordable Housing Officer) of the main report published on 5 November 2019, and deletion of the reference to Plot 35 having a garage as part of the application. By five votes to four, the Planning Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informative set out in the main report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, with the final wording of any amendments to these being delegated to officers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman for this item (Councillors Brian Milnes and Peter Fane) prior to the issuing of the Decision Notice.

(Councillors Cahn, Daunton, Fane, Milnes and Rippeth voted to approve the application. Councillors Bradnam, Roberts, Topping and Heather Williams voted to refuse it)

Members visited the site on 9 April 2019.

Consideration of this application was begun, and adjourned until after Item 6 on the agenda to enable Committee members to read additional written information. Councillor Sue Ellington had left the meeting by the time consideration of this item resumed.

Councillor John Batchelor declared a Non-disclosable Pecuniary Interest because his son, Councillor Henry Batchelor, had a business relationship with the developer. In view of the legal advice he had received, Councillor John Batchelor withdrew to the public gallery, took no part in the debate, and did not vote. However, South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Monitoring Officer had granted Councillor John Batchelor a dispensation allowing him to address the meeting as a local Member.

Councillor Pippa Heylings took the Chair and, by affirmation, Councillor Brian Milnes was appointed as Vice-Chairman for this item.

The case officer updated the report.

Geoffrey Pearse (objector), Christopher Moore (applicant’s agent), Councillor Enid Bald (Linton Parish Council) and Councillor John Batchelor (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

Committee members were disappointed that the applicant had decided not to submit the proposal to South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Design Enabling Panel. After further debate, and by six votes to one with two abstentions, the Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being the adverse impact on character and appearance of the area, inadequate landscaping, and the failure to distribute the affordable housing units throughout the development.

(Councillor Fane voted to approve the application. Councillors Cahn, Milnes, Rippeth, Roberts, Heather Williams and Wright voted to refuse. Councillors Handley and Heylings abstained. Councillors John Batchelor and Ellington did not vote.)

By eight votes to one, the Committee deferred the application for review by the Design Enabling Panel in respect of the scale, layout, appearance and landscaping of the scheme. The Committee asked officers to consider further issues concerning flood risk in the area abutting the site, and biodiversity.

(Councillor John Batchellor, having withdrawn from the Committee for this item, did not vote. Councillor Peter Topping voted against deferral.)

Members visited the site on 16 August 2018 prior to the meeting.

Councillor John Batchelor declared a Non-disclosable Pecuniary Interest because his son, Councillor Henry Batchelor, has a business relationship with the applicant. Councillor John Batchelor had never met said applicant. In view of the legal advice he had received, Councillor John Batchelor withdrew from the Chamber, took no part in the debate, and did not vote.

Councillor Pippa Heylings (Vice-Chairman) took the Chair and, with the Committee’s affirmation, Councillor Anna Bradnam acted as Vice-Chairman for this item.

The case officer referred Members to paragraph 87 of the report and to the table in paragraph 84. The distance from first floor habitable room windows in proposed Plot 1 to the ground floor conservatory at 24 Parsonage Way should have said 30 metres not 27 metres.

Kate Kell (objector), Kath Slater (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Enid Bald (Linton Parish Council) addressed the Committee.

Members observed that overlooking was a two-way issue and that the new dwellings might be overlooked by existing properties. They expressed concern about the extent of car parking on site, and access and manoeuvrability for emergency vehicles.

In the first sentence of paragraph 87, the second line should read “…the first floor   the nearest of the new dwellings …” In the final sentence of paragraph 87, the first “not” should be deleted so that it states, “It is considered that this relationship is not sufficient to warrant refusal.”

Those Committee members present voted unanimously to approve the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development and amended as follows:

1.     Condition 4 to require the retention and extension of the existing hedge along the boundary with Horseheath Road;

2.     In respect of condition 12, Officers to see whether there was scope for the plans to be amended to   ensure vehicles can turn within the site to allow access and egress in forward gear.

The final wording of Conditions and Informatives would be agreed in consultation with Councillor Pippa Heylings (Vice-Chairman in the Chair) and Councillor Anna Bradnam (Vice-Chairman for this agenda item).

Those Committee members present confirmed the removal of Permitted Development Rights agreed at the meeting held on 6 June 2018.

By ten votes to nil (Councillor John Batchelor having withdrawn from the Chamber) the Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, and to the following: by seven votes to three, Members agreed to remove Permitted Development Rights, and gave officers delegated authority to finalise appropriate wording. Councillor Deborah Roberts’ proposal to remove PDRs was seconded by Councillor Heather Williams. Councillors Bradnam, Cahn, Handley, Milnes, Rippeth, Roberts and Williams supported the proposal and Councillors Ellington, Fane and Wright opposed it.

The Committee refused the application unanimously, for the reasons set out below (amended from those set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development):

i)          The proposed development would result in encroachment into this open landscape setting of the village on land that rises between the valley and woodland and result in the loss of a proportion of the rolling chalkland hills that are distinctive to the landscape setting of the village and make an important contribution to the landscape character setting of the village. This would lead to a visually intrusive and dominant mass of built form that would detract from the rural character and appearance of the area in short distance views from Back Road and the adjacent public right of way and long distance views from the A1307 and the road to Hildersham. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DP/3 and NE/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD 2007 that seeks to protect the character and appearance of the countryside and retain or enhance the local character and distinctiveness of landscape character areas. This reason alone is considered to result in an adverse impact that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing additional housing (including affordable housing) to meet the Council's housing land supply, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

ii)         Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that traffic generation from the development would not be detrimental to the capacity and functioning of the public highway. In addition, the proposed access is considered to be substandard in terms of its visibility and potentially levels and would result in a hazard that would be detrimental to highway safety and there would be inadequate pedestrian connectivity to the village. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DP/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD 2007 that states all development proposals should provide appropriate access from the highway network that does not compromise safety.

iii)        Insufficient information has been submitted in relation to the impact of the proposal upon features of archaeological interest to demonstrate that the proposal could be accommodated on the site without harm to heritage assets. The proposal cannot be supported until the results of a trench-based field evaluation have been carried out prior to approval being granted. The proposal  is therefore contrary to Policy CH/2 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD 2007 that states archaeological sites will be protected in accordance with national policy and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 that states the effect of the proposal upon the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account when determining an application having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

iv)        Insufficient information has been submitted in relation to the impact and mitigation of the new footway and traffic from the proposal upon the Furze Hills Protected Roadside Verge County Wildlife Site and Hildersham Protected Verges. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy NE/7 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework Development Control Policies DPD 2007 that states planning permission will not be given for proposals that may have an unacceptable adverse impact, either directly or indirectly, on a Site of Biodiversity Importance.

v)         The proposal would result in the loss of a proportion of grade I agricultural land. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 112 of the NPPF 2012 that states Local Planning Authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural and where development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, poorer quality land should be used in preference to that of a higher quality. 

vi)        The adverse impacts identified above are considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing additional housing (including affordable housing) to meet the Council's housing land supply, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee approved the application, subject to:

1. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to Affordable Housing, community facilities, open space, strategic waste, transport requirements and waste receptacles, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, and the maintenance and management of the surface water drainage scheme;

2. Two extra Conditions, as follows:

(a)   Prior to the commencement of any development, a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul water drainage to connect to manhole 7501 via a pumped regime shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the implementation programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason - To reduce the risk of pollution to the water environment and to nsure a satisfactory method of foul water drainage in accordance with Policy NE/10 of the adopted Local Development Framework 2007.)

(b)   Prior to the commencement of any development, a detailed scheme for the provision and implementation of flood risk and surface water drainage mitigation in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment reference 151077 dated July 2015 by Rossi Long Consulting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency and Linton Parish Council. The scheme shall take into account any subsequent changes in any revised flood map produced by the Environment Agency between approval and implementation of the scheme. The scheme shall constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the implementation programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

(Reason - To ensure a satisfactory method of surface water drainage and to prevent the increased risk of flooding in accordance with Policies DP/1 and NE/11 of the adopted Local Development Framework 2007); and

3. The Conditions referred to in the report from the  Head of Development Management.

The Committee unanimously gave officers delegated powers to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reason for refusal as being over-development by virtue of the applicant’s failure to demonstrate that nine dwellings could be accommodated on the application site without having an adverse impact on neighbour amenity.

The Committee deferred the application for a site visit.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informative set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report and an Informative requiring all vehicles leaving the site to do so in forward gear.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.It would instead be determined under officer delegation following the withdrawal of its objections by Linton Parish Council.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the consideration of comments about the revised drawings, and the applicant entering into a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the required contributions to public open space, community facilities and waste receptacle provision, the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director and an additional Condition requiring the provision of two extra car parking spaces (below the Beech trees) making a total of 22 car parking spaces altogether.

The Committee deferred this application.

The Committee noted that the applicant had withdrawn this application from the agenda so that it could  be considered at the Design and Enabling Panel  meeting in August before being presented to a future meeting of the Planning Committee for determination.

The Committee approved the application subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring infrastructure payments, the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and an additional Condition requiring the submission of an acceptable Construction Management Plan.

The Committee gave officers delegated power to approve the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report and written update from the Planning and New Communities Director, and the outcome of negotiations to resolve outstanding issues of design and landscaping and finalising of a S106 Agreement.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.