By unanimous vote, the Planning Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Members agreed that the reasons for refusal were:
Design
The proposed development, by virtue of the scale and siting of the two and a half storey apartment buildings located centrally within the site and within a key view north through the site across Poor Well and along the chalk stream towards the open countryside beyond, would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and significantly erode the existing wide open view and green space, which provided a positive connection between the existing village and adjacent countryside.
Furthermore, the adverse visual impact of the apartment buildings was exacerbated by virtue of the buildings being sited on raised platforms, which would increase ground levels by up to a further 900mm above existing, enhancing the adverse prominence and dominance of the central apartment buildings within the site and within views from the surrounding area, creating a scale of development that was out of keeping with the character of the area.
The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021, which required developments to be of high quality design, to be compatible with its location in terms of scale and appearance and to make a positive contribution to its local and wider context and the Fulbourn Village Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2020, in particular guidance notes 10.3, 10.10, 10.12 and Figure 46 of the Guide, which sought in Section 10 to integrate larger developments within the village.
Drainage
Insufficient information had been submitted to demonstrate that the reserved matters scheme can provide a satisfactory scheme of surface water drainage and prevent the increased risk of flooding. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policies CC/7, CC/8 and CC/9 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and paragraph 167 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 which require development proposals to incorporate appropriate sustainable surface water drainage systems and to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere.
Biodiversity
The reserved matters scheme failed to provide a measurable net gain in biodiversity. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policies HQ/1(m) and NH/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and paragraphs 174 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 which require development proposals to aim to maintain, enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and minimise the impacts on, and providing net gains for, biodiversity.
Affordable Housing
The reserved matters scheme, by virtue of the proposed layout, failed to adequately distribute affordable properties throughout the site and to integrate those units appropriately with the market housing. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy H/10 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2019-2023 which sought to provide affordable housing in small groups or clusters distributed through the site.
By affirmation, the Planning Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
(Councillors Heather Williams and Dr. Richard Williams did not vote and were not part of the affirmation.)
By six votes to four, with one member not voting, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Fane, Milnes, and Roberts voted to approve the application, Councillors Hawkins, Heather Williams, Richard Williams, and Wright voted to refuse. Councillor Daunton did not take part in the debate and did not vote.)
The Delivery Manager (Strategic Sites) informed the Committee that, on the evening of Monday 11 January 2021, the Council had received a draft copy of grounds for judicial review of this application, should it be determined at the current meeting.
Officers had spent a considerable amount of time analysing those draft grounds, which related to matters of compliance with the outline planning permission. A key consideration had been whether or not officers would be in a position to advise Committee members adequately at this meeting given the amount of detail needed to address the issues raised.
The draft grounds had been submitted by a third party who lived next to the application siteThey had been shared with the applicant who had now formally requested that the application be deferred.
In addition, and following the submission of another third party representation on Tuesday 12 January, the Lead Local Flood Authority had also requested that the application be deferred in order to give them an opportunity to review their comments on the application.
Upon a proposal from Councillor Pippa Heylings, seconded by Councillor Deborah Roberts, and by affirmation, the Committee deferred the application to allow officers and the Lead Local Flood Authority enough time to scrutinise the issues raised in sufficient detail and thus be able to advise the committee fully.
The Committee approved the application unanimously subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development.
Members visited the site on 6 March 2018.
Councillors Graham Cone and John Williams (local Members) addressed the meeting.
The Interin Head of Development Management summarised the concept of a Mortgagee in Possession (MiP) clause.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to
1. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (or other appropriate legal agreement) as follows:
a. No financial contribution – on viability grounds – other than towards the provision of waste bins at £73.50 per house plus indexation)
b. Affordable Housing
100% Affordable
i. 9 at Affordable Rent (rents at no more than Housing Allowance levels)
4 x one bed
3 x two beds
2 x three beds
ii. 5 Shared Ownership
3 x two beds
2 x three beds
c. Mortgagee in Possession wording to be included in the Legal Agreement
d. Restriction to limit staircasing on Shared Ownership units not going beyond a maximum of 80% ownership.
2. The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development.
Members visited the site on 6 March 2018.
The case officer corrected paragraphs 32 to 34 to read as follows:
Site and Proposal
The site
32. The application site is located on the Capital Park site adjacent to the Cambridge Road and accessed from that road via the main entrance to the business park and off its internal access road. The wider Capital Park site is a business park comprising 4 large three storey office buildings, the old hospital building, a daycare nursery, café and gatehouse, as well as the existing social club which occupies the application site.
33. The application site is approximately 8,500 m2 in area and is enclosed by mature planting on the southern boundary with Cambridge Road and alongside the business park access road to the west. It is open to playing fields to the east, which are in turn enclosed by a mature tree belt on their eastern boundary. The site is currently occupied by the existing social club building and its car park and access. The social club building is single storey and of a relatively simple, utilitarian design with hard standing for car parking to the west side, between the building and the internal access road for the business park.
34. The site is located outside of any development framework boundary and is in the Cambridge Green Belt and is part of the Fulbourn and Ida Darwin Hospital Major Developed Site in the Green Belt. It is also located within the boundary of the Conservation Area of the former hospital site.
David Cottee (Fulbourn Forum – objector), Paul Wilmott (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Graham Cone (local Member) addressed the meeting.
Discussion focused on the rural nature of the application and its impact on the Green Belt, and the adequacy of car parking provision.
The case officer referred to the sequential search that had been carried out.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application contemporaneously with the associated application S/3404/17/FL, subject to
1. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the provision of transitional arrangements to allow the social club to continue to operate after the demolition of the existing building but prior to the completion of the new building; and
2. The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, final wording to be agreed in consultation with the Planning Committee’s Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Members visited the site on 6 March 2018.
David Cottee (Fulbourn Forum – objector), Paul Wilmott (applicant’s agent), and cllr Graham Cone and John Williams (local Members) addressed the meeting.
Discussion focused on location and the adequacy of car parking provision. There was some difference of opinion relating to noise, and sustainability of the proposal.
Upon the Chairman’s casting vote, the Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, contemporaneously with the associated application S/3418/17/FL, subject to
1. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a Car Parking Management Plan; and
2. The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, final wording to be agreed in consultation with the Planning Committee’s Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director and to the application being advertised as a departure from the Development Plan.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Planning Committee refused the application because it did not represent sustainable development, and conflicted with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, for the following reasons:
1. the proposed development’s adverse visual impact on the landscape character, setting of Fulbourn Conservation Area and ecological and open space interests resulting in demonstrable and significant harm which, on balance, outweighed the benefits which would have arisen from delivering up to 110 dwellings (30% of which would have been affordable at a 50/50 rented to shared ownership split) in a village well served by services and facilities and with good access to public transport links; and
2. The absence of a clear timetable, thus giving rise to uncertainty that the scheme, in its entirety, could be delivered within a five-year period.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, following the reduction of ground floor levels, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act securing financial contributions towards public open space, community facilities, waste receptacles and monitoring and legal fees, and to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members requested that enquiries be made into the causes of flooding in the area.
The Committee endorsed the Development Brief as a material consideration for all subsequent planning applications in the village.
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 the absence from the proposal of any appropriate community facilities.
The Committee deferred the application to allow the applicant more time to consult with the community and, in particular, with Fulbourn Parish Council, and for officers then to reassess all material issues before presenting a further report to a future meeting of the Planning committee.
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 financial contributions (index linked) towards the provision and management of public open space off-site and in Fulbourn, and towards the provision of new community facilities or the improvement of existing ones, and per dwelling for the provision of household waste receptacles, and subject also to the Conditions and Informatives 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 from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, the word “extension” in Condition (iii) being corrected to state “dwelling”.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, so long as there were no new material concerns raised as a result of consultation responses still to be received, and subject to the onditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.
The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Members agreed the reason for approval as being that the proposal, as modified, would not compromise the character and appearance of the Grade II Listed Building, or cause unacceptable harm to the Conservation Area.
The Committee refused the application for the reason set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee approved the application, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Reason: Members considered that the proposal posed no significant harm in planning or conservation terms. Appropriate safeguarding Conditions would be attached to the Decision Notice.
The Committee approved the application, as amended by drawing number KMA3199/01 (site location plan) date stamped 20 September 2010, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), and the taking of appropriate tree protection measures in the light of the tree survey arboricultural impact assessment.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application as report, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of discussions with South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Health and Environmental Services aimed at minimising noise nuisance, confirmation of details in relation to access for fire vehicles, and provision of public art.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to refuse the application, as amended by letter and drawings date stamped 5 August 2009, for the reasons (other than reference to photovoltaic cells) set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities), with revisions to address comments received and subject to Fulbourn Parish Council not raising any new material planning considerations.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities).
Approved as report with additional Conditions restricting occupation to the Brethren of the Causeway Gospel Hall Trust and the amendment of Condition 8 in the report so as to prevent amplification of any kind (not just music).
Refused contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities). Reason: non-compliance with Policy HG/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework, which requires the provision of an agreed mix of affordable housing.
Approved as report
Deferred for a site visit.
Refused as report with the appropriate enforcement action and compliance period to be determined in conjunction with local members.
Delegated approval as report
Delegated approval as report, with further discussion between South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council about the County Council’s aspirations.
Delegated approval as report
Delegated Approval / Refusal, as report, subject to receipt of the Local Highway Authority’s comments on the Transport Assessment.
Approved as report.
Approved as report.
Approved as report.
Refused for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, and for additional reasons relating to the adverse effect on trees, hedgerows and the adjacent Listed Buildings.
Approval for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services, subject to the Conditions referred to therein (the word ‘weekends’ at the beginning of the third line of Condition 3 being corrected to read ‘weekdays’) and an additional Condition requiring implementation of the submitted drainage scheme.
Delegated approval / Delegated Refusal contrary to the recommendation contained in the report from the Director of Development Services. Having visited the site, Members considered that, subject to some improvements being made to the visibility splay and parking layout, the expansion of a local firm outweighed the possible adverse impact on the neighbour at no. 18 Home End, and reflected the aim of Policy EM7 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004. If the required improvements could not be achieved, the application would be refused.
Refused as report.
DELEGATED APPROVAL
Refused as report.
Approval contrary to report, in view of the special circumstances of the case, service to the community, need to preserve customer base, sustainability, employment opportunities, and removal of an existing building.
Approved
Delegated refusal.
Delegated Approval as report
Approval
Approval subject to Condition 1 in the report being amended to read “…on or before 1st January 2006”
Deferred for a site visit.
Approval as report.
Refused
Approval as report
Delegated Approval