Issue - decisions

By affirmation, the Committee approved the issue of a Lawful Development Certificate for the reason specified in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

(Councillors Bradnam and Daunton were not present and were not part of the affirmation.)

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the update report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, and an additional Condition requiring inverter detail as set out in the Officer presentation.

Following limited discussion at the Planning Committee meeting on 12 June 2019 (Minute 7 refers), this application had been deferred to enable officers to brief Members about a few specific details therein, and about the nature of design codes in general.

In the interests of clarification, Councillor Mark Howell informed those present that he was the Cambridgeshire County Councillor for the Electoral Division of Cambourne.

Councillor Nick Wright declared a non-pecuniary interest because some of the land within the site of Cambourne West was owned by relatives of his. Councillor Wright said that he would be representing his constituents by contributing to the debate but would not be voting.

The case officer referred Members to the update report and reminded them that the Design Code did not override the Outline planning application. He emphasised the difference between mandatory elements of the Code (indicated by the use of the word ‘must’) and preferred elements (indicated by the use of the word ‘should’). The case officer explained that the use of ‘should’ was effectively an invitation for applicants to demonstrate to the Planning Committee an intention to innovate and to justify why Members should authorise something above and beyond what had been envisaged.

A question was asked about the status of the Gibbet Mound. The case officer undertook to investigate.

Danielle Bentley (applicant’s agent) and Councillor Shrobona Bhattacharya (a local Member) addressed the meeting.

The Assistant Director (Delivery) confirmed that South Cambridgeshire District Council had fulfilled its legal responsibility in terms of notifying all appropriate parties, including Cambourne Town Council. She read out loud an extract from the Minutes of the Town Council meeting held on 11 June 2019, which the case officer had attended and at which the Design Code had been discussed. She said that the Town Council had been regularly involved in the development of the project as a whole. Although the Town Council had not commented formally, the case officer remained in contact with the Town Clerk.

Councillor Bill Handley proposed, seconded by Councillor Brian Milnes, that the meeting move to a vote. However, following advice from the Assistant Director (Delivery) , Councillor Handley withdrew his Motion.

Councillor Deborah Roberts expressed grave reservations about how the design code issue had been progressed. She considered it to be unsustainable and that it would deliver a low quality of life for residents.

Councillor Nick Wright, observing that the Design Code had been developed while Cambourne was a group of three linked villages, said that it was vital that the principle underlying that Code be reassessed to take account of Cambourne’s new status as a town.

Councillor Heather Williams urged officers to ensure effective consultation with parishes neighbouring the site of West Cambourne, including Caxton and Papworth Everard. She also expressed concern about proposed densities and said that sustainability issues must be mandatory. Any departure from the Design Code should be referred to the Planning Committee for determination. The Assistant Director (Delivery) reminded Members about the Scheme of Delegation to officers and said it was important not to cause any conflict with that. Councillor Williams suggested that, in the interests of efficiency, minor departures should be dealt with by officers and only major departures (such as from the mandatory elements of the Code) should be presented to the Committee.

Councillor Brian Milnes said that the Design Code should be future-proof so that evolving standards could be taken into account.

Councillor Mark Howell reminded Members about Cambourne’s experience with drainage and emphasised the importance of treating this issue as mandatory, particularly with reference to an additional pumping station.

By nine votes to one, the Committee gave officers delegated authority to approve the amended Cambourne West Design Code subject to

1.    the receipt of additional details and reassurances in relation to matters highlighted in the main report, which include:

(a)  Typographical corrections

(b)  Amendments to the Parameter plans to reflect the latest submission under S/1775/19/NM;   

(c)   Corrections to Sheepfold Character Area, in particular Figures 74 and 75;

(d)  Corrections to ensure that diagrammatically the proposals meet the design aspirations and parameter plans

2.    On page 17 of the Design Code, in the section headed ‘foul water drainage’, the words “Where practicably possible, further pumping stations should be avoided; however, if they are required, they should:…” being replaced by the words “Where practicably possible, further pumping stations should be avoided; however, if they are required, they must:…”

3.    On page 59 of the Design Code (Section 3.25 Sustainability) the fourth bullet point (Address climate change mitigation…) being moved from that list to become mandatory; and

4.    Other variations required from time to time being recorded in minutes of Planning Committee meetings.

(Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Cahn, Fane, Handley, Howell, Milnes, Rippeth and Heather Williams voted to delegate approval. Councillor Roberts voted to refuse the application. Councillor Wright did not vote.)

The Planning Committee Chairman agreed to allow the this application to be dealt with at this meeting as an urgent item of business pursuant to Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972. The item was deemed urgent because there was an Planning Performance Agreement timetable in place for this scheme and determination was required in June 2019 to comply with that Agreement, and to ensure that the effective delivery of the outline planning permission could be achieved.

By nine votes to nil, the Committee deferred this item to an Extraordinary Planning Committee on Friday 28 June 2019.

(Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Cahn, Handley, Milnes, Roberts, Topping, Heather Williams and Wilson voted for deferral. Councillor Wright abstained. Councillor Rippeth had left the meeting part way through consideration of the Cambourne West Design Guide and did not vote.)

Members visited the site on 7 May 2019.

Mark Hoorn (objector) addressed the meeting. The case officer read out statements from Guoying Qi (objector) and Councillor Ruth Betson (a local Member). Comments from Councillor Shrobona Bhattacharya (a local Member) were read out.

Members identified and debated the following issues:

·         Overdevelopment of the site.

·         The impact on the character of the area and the street scene.

·         Detrimental effect on amenity of the neighbouring residential properties, including in respect of overbearing impacts and overshadowing of neighbouring property.

·         Adverse impact on the quality of life and amenity of the application site, through the loss of external amenity space.

·         Whether the development sets a precedent for similar development of other properties in the area .

·         The applicant’s fall-back position with regards to permitted development rights.

The case officer confirmed permitted development rights were intact for the property, with an exception in relation to the conversion of the garage, and advised that the assessment had taken into account the potential impacts of a single storey extension erected utilising those rights. The case officer also confirmed the Local Planning Authority was the determining body with regards to parking and loss of parking spaces, and that the Local Highway Authority had not objected, but had noted there may be impacts from the loss of parking to be considered.

However, the Vice-Chairman said it would be difficult to defend refusal based on adverse impact in terms of residential amenity of neighbouring property or visual impacts and the Local Highways Authority had not objected to the proposed development in terms of highway safety of the loss of parking.

However, the Vice-Chairman said it would be difficult to defend refusal based on adverse impact in terms of residential amenity of neighbouring property or visual impacts, and the Local Highways Authority had not objected to the proposed development in terms of highway safety due to the loss of parking.

By six votes to four, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, the final wording of which would be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman prior to the issuing of planning permission.

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

The Committee approved the application subject to Conditions 1 and 2 set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, and Condition 3, amended to require cessation of use within one year from the start of development on site, rather than from the date of the Decision Notice.

The Committee approved the application subject to the draft Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, the final wording to be determined by officers in consultation  with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee.

Following a brief discussion about security and health & safety issues, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the outline planning application, including parameter plan and detailed access drawings, subject to:

1.       The prior completion, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms document attached as Appendix 2 to the report from the Heads of New Communities; and

2.       The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Head of New Communities, final wording to be determined in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee before issuing the Decision Notice.

The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions and Informative set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development.

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

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to no objections to Ownership Certificate B being received prior to the end of the 21-day consultation period, and to the Conditions and Informative set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee deferred this application for a site visit.

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to

1.              the prior completion of a new Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

a.     reiterating the provisions in the original Agreement, where still applicable, and including the amended wording described below.

b.    delivering covenants that would bind the land and building comprising the supermarket and make sure that no more than 596 square metres (6415.3 square feet) of the net sales area of the supermarket building could be used for the sale to members of the public of comparison goods.

c.     retaining an overall sales area but with the following higher limits for chemists goods and recreational and other miscellaneous goods,

                                                 i.     Chemists goods: 152 square metres

                                               ii.     Recreational and other miscellaneous goods: 180 square metres

                                              iii.     All other categories: 92 square metres

as indicated on the submitted floor layout plan.

2.              The Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.

The Committee welcomed the applicant’s commitment to licensing four Farmers’ Market events on the Market Square at the junction of Broad Street and High Street in Cambourne, but instructed officers to investigate with the applicant the possibility of extending this trial period to 12 months in order better to assess practicality and viability and success of the markets, and provide potential stallholders with a greater guarantee.

The Committee deferred this item to allow further discussions to take place  between the applicants, the Company seeking to bring new retail businesses to Cambourne, South Cambridgeshire District Council and its consultants Carter Jonas, and Cambourne Parish Council.  Members also indicated that consultation should take place to determine how those living in Cambourne felt about Morrisons’ planning application.

The Committee deferred a decision, instructing officers to commission from an independent retail consultant a report on the proposal’s impact on the viability of future retail development along Cambourne High Street.

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

The Committee approved reserved matters of layout, scale, appearance, and access, as amended by letters and plans date stamped 11 June 2012, 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 application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee resolved to tell Cambridgeshire County Council  that, when the County Council’s Development Control Committee meets to make a decision about this application, it should take into account the fact that South Cambridgeshire District Council has no objection  to the application for a secondary school on land west of Cambourne, subject to the issues and Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities)  being satisfactorily addressed and imposed.