Decisions

Cabinet:

Reviewed the KPI results and comments at Appendix A and progress against Business Plan actions at Appendix B.

Endorse proposed investment route and route to market

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

(Councillor Deborah Roberts was not present for part of this item and did not vote.)

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

(Councillor Deborah Roberts was not present for part of this item and did not vote.)

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

By eight votes to one, the Committee refused the application for the following reasons:

1.    Principle of Development 

The full planning application was located within the Development Framework of Rampton identified by Policy S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018  as an Infill Village within the adopted Local Plan. The Policy stated that residential development would be permitted in the village where there were two dwellings. If there were to be more than two dwellings, then they must be of very exceptional circumstance.

This development by virtue of its poor design, would create harm to the Rampton Conservation Area where it is situated, have a poor relationship with the neighbouring properties and harm their amenity.

Therefore, this was not a development of very exceptional circumstance and not in conformity with Policy S/11, S/7 and S/2 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.

2.    Impact on heritage assets

This application had been refused due to the less than significant harm that would be caused to the Rampton Conservation Area. The dwellings were not reflective of the character of the Conservation Area, the level of development was too intense for this site and their design did not reflect the historic core of the Conservation Area, nor did the dwellings reflect the previous uses of the site as a farm yard. The visibility of the buildings from around the site would remove the current openness which was a unique feature of this yard to such an extent that would cause harm to the character of the Conservation Area.

The public benefit stated by the supporting information was not acceptable as it did not provide sufficient justification for development within the Conservation Area. The proposal was not in conformity with Policy NH/14 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Rampton Conservation Area Appraisal.

3.    Character and Design of the Development

Policy HQ/1 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire  Local Plan 2018 stated that development within the district must be reflective of the character of the area in which it was located, create a legible and place-responsive design, that created a sense of place and identity. Parking within the development should be well integrated.

This application would harm the Conservation Area as it was not reflective of the character of its surroundings. It would be visible from important views into the site and mainly The Green. Within the site the U-shaped development would create a cul-de-sac which was not a character of the Conservation Area.

When entering the site, parking being proposed would be dominant, which could be viewed from outside the site.

The application was not in accordance with Policy HQ/1of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 and the NPPF, both of which required a high standard of development reflective of the surrounding area.

4.    Residential Amenity 

Within Plot 1 bedroom four was smaller than the requirement in Policy H/12 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018. Plots 3 and 4 did not meet the requirement of creating a residential garden that was 15 metres from the rear elevation of the development to the rear common boundary, as stated in the District Design Guide.

The proposal would therefore cause harm to the future residents of the site and the amenity of the neighbouring properties. This application was not in conformity with Policies HQ/1, H/12 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, the District Design Guide and the NPPF.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam. Cahn, Haswkins, Heylings, Richard Williams, Wilson and Wright voted to refuse the application. Councillor Fane voted to approve it. Councillor Roberts did not vote.)

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.

Councillor Pippa Heylings proposed an amendment and addition as set out in 2 (a) and (b) below. This was seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam and, upon a vote being conducted by roll call, the Committee approved both the amended Condition and additional Informative by eight votes to one with one abstention.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Fane, H\awkins, Heylings, Wilson and Wright voted in favour. Councillor Roberts voted against. Councillor Richard Williams abstained.)

The Committee gave officers delegated authority 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 securing

a.     A 15-year clawback mechanism in relation to affordable housing

b.     Implementation and maintenance of a car club scheme

c.     Developer Contributions towards community facilities (but excluding the cycleway contribution sought by Cambridgeshire County Council)

2.    The Conditions and Informatives set out in the report, subject to

(a)  Condition 5 being re-worded as follows

The pedestrian link on land within the Applicant’s ownership, between Neal Drive and Chieftain Way, as shown on the approved Site Plan OP/170/2 Rev 1 shall be constructed and made available for public use prior to first occupation of the approved development. The pedestrian link within the Applicant’s ownership, shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved plans and shall remain accessible to the general public at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The pedestrian link within the Applicant’s ownership shall be maintained to a standard sufficient for public use as proposed.

(b)  An additional Informative that would satisfy the concerns raised by the landscape officer that the details submitted in relation to the soft and hard landscaping (as required by Condition 6) shall provide a high-quality landscape that overcomes the objections raised.

final wording to be agreed by officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee.

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

By eight votes to two, with one abstention, the Planning Committee gave officers delegated authority to approve the outline application, as amended, subject to

a)    The Conditions set out in Appendix L to the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development (including Explanatory Notes and Terms)with conditions in relation to the foul water strategy to be consulted with the Environment Agency; consideration of an additional condition to address monitoring of visitor numbers exiting the site towards Wicken Fen and Cam Washes; and additional wording in the design code condition to include retention of the memorial garden. The final wording and / or any amendments of all the recommended conditions shall be agreed in consultation with the committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman prior to the issuing of planning permission;

b)    Contributions being secured by way of the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as set out in Appendices H (revised by way of an update report dated 9 May 2019) and I, the final terms being agreed in consultation with the committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman prior to the issuing of planning permission The Section 106 financial viability review mechanism shall include provisions to ensure that where there is an uplift in profit beyond 20% IRR this will be shared on a 50:50 basis between the developer and the Council. The Council will utilise its share towards delivery of on-site affordable housing and where this exceeds the 40% affordable housing Policy H/10 requirement the excess shall contribute towards the Section106 strategic transport improvements along  the A10 corridor; and

c)    The presentation to Planning Committee of a Summary / progress report on the Section 106 obligation after six months from 13 May 2019 if, by then, planning permission had not been granted.

(Councillors John Batchelor, Cahn, Fane, Handley, Heylings, Milnes, Rippeth and Wright voted in favour of delegated approval. Councillors Roberts and Heather Williams voted against. Councillor Topping abstained from voting.)