Decisions

By seven votes to four, the Planning Committee gave officers delegated authority to grant Listed Building consent for the demolition of the Grade II* Listed Building known as the Great Eastern Drying Shed in Sawston, subject to

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

2.       the Secretary of State being notified should the Victorian Society register an objection to the proposed demolition.

All planning applications for Duxford considered by the Planning Committee since May 2003. For individual reports, please click on the “Meetings” tab above. For further details on all Duxford planning applications, please visit our Planning Applications Database and select Duxford from the drop-down list of parishes.

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

All planning applications for Orchard Park considered by the Planning Committee since May 2003. For individual reports, please click on the `Meetings’ tab above. For further details on all Orchard Park planning applications, please visit our Planning Applications Database and select Orchard park from the drop-down list of parishes.

The Planning Committee unanimously 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

1.    That the application was contrary to Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and, specifically, the following criteria therein, namely

·         Criterion A - Preserve and enhance the character of the local urban and rural area and respond to its context in the wider landscape

·         Criterion C - Include variety and interest with a coherent, place-responsive design, which is legible and creates a positive sense of place and identity whilst also responding to the local context and respecting local distinctiveness

·         Criterion D - Be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale, density, mass, siting, design, proportion, materials, texture and colour in relation to the surrounding area.

·         Criterion E - Deliver a strong visual relationship between buildings that comfortably define and enclose streets, squares and public places, creating interesting vistas, skylines, focal points and appropriately scaled landmarks along routes and around spaces;

2.    That the design of the proposed development would be contrary to the Orchard Park Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2011;

3.    That the landscaping/planting proposals illustrated on the submitted plans did not provide high quality landscaping which integrated the development with its surroundings and the landscaping and planting measures which had been proposed were not considered to be viable. The development would therefore be contrary to Local Plan Policy HQ/1(m).

4.     That insufficient information had been submitted to enable the Local Planning Authority to determine whether there would be harm to protected species.

By ten votes to nil, with Councillor Sue Ellington abstaining, the Planning 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:

·         Conflict with South Cambridgeshire District Council Local Plan Policy HQ/1 (Design Principles)

·         Conflict with the Orchard Park Design Guidance SPD (2011)

·         Conflict with Local Plan Policy NH/14 (Biodiversity)

All planning applications for Whittlesford considered by the Planning Committee since May 2003. For individual reports, please click on the ‘Meetings’ tab above. For further details on all Whittlesford planning applications, please visit our Planning Applications Database and select Whittlesford from the drop-down list of parishes

The Planning Committee unanimously refused the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Committee agreed that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following agenda item in accordance with Section 100(A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that, if present, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

The Head of People and Organisational Development circulated the report.

The Deputy Head of Legal Practice explained that the Chief Executive would fulfil the duties as laid out in the Constitution. The Director of Environmental Services was currently named as the Special Responsibility Officer regarding the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee would need to consider any change to this arrangement.

It was noted that Council meeting had been arranged for Thursday 4 July to allow the appointment to be agreed with the minimum of delay.

It was noted that Councillor Peter Topping had been unable to attend the appointment panel meetings. It was reported that his position had been offered to the Independent Group and Labour Group. Councillor Douglas de Lacey stated that he was unaware of this and it was agreed that this issue should be investigated. Councillor John Williams expressed disappointment that there had been no input from the Leader of the Opposition in the appointments process.

The Committee expressed its thanks to the Interim Chief Executive for the work he had done for the Council during the interregnum and to the Head of People and Organisational Development for organising a robust process in a short period of time.

The Employment and Staffing Committee unanimously

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL     that

A)           Liz Watts be appointed as the Chief Executive of South Cambridgeshire District Council this includes the following roles; Head of Paid Service, Electoral Registration Officer and Returning Officer and to all other roles, duties and delegations that are prescribed to the Chief Executive in the Council’s Constitution for South Cambridgeshire District Council. 

B)           it be noted that a provisional offer of employment has been made, subject to exemplary references and eligibility checks in accordance with the Council’s policies. The necessary references have been received. 

C)           the appointment commence on a date to be mutually agreed.

D)           the salary to be offered is within the Council’s salary range for this post as set out in the Pay Policy Statement (£113,690 - £129,930 per annum).

E)           the appointment will be subject to a 6-month probation period.

Purpose

1.            The purpose of this report is to agree the Council’s response to the public consultation on the submission version of the Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan. The consultation runs for 6 weeks from 19 June until 31 July 2019.

Background

2.            The two parishes of Histon and Impington are treated as one community and since 2012 a grouped Parish Council has been in place. Histon & Impington Parish Council decided to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan for this community to provide a more locally focussed set of policies for their parish. An application to designate that part of Histon & Impington north of the A14 of their parish as a Neighbourhood Area was submitted to SCDC in June 2014.  It was considered that the area of Impington south of the A14 had very different needs and requirements which could not successfully be captured in a Neighbourhood Plan covering all parts of the parishes. The Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Area was designated on 9 September 2014.

3.            Officers provided informal comments on earlier drafts of the Neighbourhood Plan ahead of the formal pre-submission consultation process.

4.            A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening was undertaken on a draft version of the Neighbourhood Plan, and a screening determination was published in October 2018.

5.            Pre-submission public consultation on the draft Neighbourhood Plan was undertaken by the Parish Council from 1 October until 16 November 2018. Officers provided a formal response to the consultation, providing constructive comments about the Neighbourhood Plan to assist the neighbourhood plan group with finalising the Neighbourhood Plan.  

6.            On 3 June 2019, Histon & Impington Parish Council submitted their Neighbourhood Plan to SCDC. Officers have confirmed, as set out in the Legal Compliance Check for the Neighbourhood Plan that the submitted version of the Neighbourhood Plan and its accompanying supporting documents comply with all the relevant statutory requirements at this stage of plan making. Public consultation on the submitted Neighbourhood Plan is therefore being undertaken between 19 June and 31 July 2019.

7.            Officers, in conjunction with Histon & Impington Parish Council, are in the process of selecting and appointing an independent examiner to consider this Neighbourhood Plan. All comments submitted during the public consultation on the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan will be provided to the examiner for their consideration.

Considerations

8.            The Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared by Histon & Impington Parish Council to provide planning policies for development in the area, with the aim of providing greater clarity when determining planning applications in the area. The Neighbourhood Plan includes 19 planning policies that cover a range of issues including:

(i)            Protecting the essential character of the community

(ii)           Encouraging the growth and success of the retail, leisure and commercial businesses of the villages;

(iii)          Ensuring the villages community infrastructure develops and adapts to emerging and changing demographic needs;

(iv)         Developing a network of sustainable, accessible transport links within and around the villages;

(v)          Supporting the community in continuing to make the villages safe, secure, supportive and welcoming to all;

(vi)         Ensuring a sufficient supply of sustainable and high-quality housing within the villages.

9.            To successfully proceed through its examination to a referendum, a Neighbourhood Plan must meet a number of tests known as the ‘Basic Conditions’. These tests are different to the tests of soundness that a Local Plan must meet. The Basic Conditions are set out in national planning guidance and are summarised as follows:

(a)          having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State it is appropriate to make the Neighbourhood Plan;

(b)          the making of the Neighbourhood Plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development;

(c)          the Neighbourhood Plan is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area;

(d)          the making of the Neighbourhood Plan does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations; and

(e)          prescribed conditions are met in relation to the Neighbourhood Plan, including that the making of the neighbourhood plan is not likely to have a significant effect on a European wildlife site or a European offshore marine site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

(f)           the making of the neighbourhood development plan does not breach the requirements of Chapter 8 of Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

Our Neighbourhood Planning Toolkit includes Guidance Note 11 (What are the Basic Conditions and How to Meet Them), which sets out further details on each of the Basic Conditions. When a Neighbourhood Plan is submitted to the local planning authority it must be accompanied by a Basic Conditions Statement that sets out how the Parish Council considers that their Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions. 

10.          When considering a Neighbourhood Plan, the examiner will assess whether or not the Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions. When an examiner recommends that the Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to referendum (if it meets the Basic Conditions, with or without modifications), the examiner’s report must also set out whether the referendum area should be extended beyond the neighbourhood area. Comments made during the current consultation on the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan, which will be provided to the examiner for their consideration, should therefore address whether the submitted Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions and can also address whether the referendum area should be extended beyond the neighbourhood area.

11.          SCDC is fully supportive of Parish Councils bringing forward Neighbourhood Plans for their areas, including Histon & Impington Parish Council’s decision to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan, and officers have been supporting the Parish Council in the plan’s preparation. The Council’s proposed response to this public consultation on the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan (as set out in Appendix 1) reiterates and supplements comments made previously by officers, both formally during the pre-submission consultation and informally on earlier versions of the plan, where they remain relevant and appropriate.

12.          SCDC is supportive of the aims of the Histon & Impington Plan and our comments are intended to help the Plan to be successful at examination as well as delivering policies that are clear in their meaning and are unambiguous in their interpretation. SCDC recognise the achievement of Histon & Impington PC in reaching this stage of submitting their Plan to us for examination.

13.          SCDC considers that a number of the policies in the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan, would need to have some amendments made to them for the Plan to be capable of meeting the Basic Conditions. These concerns are set out in the proposed response (see Appendix 1).

14.          If the examiner is minded to recommend that the Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to referendum, the Council does not feel that the referendum area needs to be extended beyond the Neighbourhood Area as the planning policies included in the plan would not have a substantial, direct or demonstrable impact beyond the parish. 

To agree the response from SCDC set out at Appendix 1.