Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 17th October 2011.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 17th October 2011 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive from Members declarations as to personal and/or prejudicial interests and the nature of those interests in relation to any Agenda Item.  Please See Notes 1 and 2 below.

Councillor P L E Bucknell declared a personal interest in Minute No. 41 as a former Member of the Great Fen Project Steering Group.

Councillor D B Dew declared a personal interest in Minute No. 41 as a Member of the Great Fen Project Steering Group.

Councillor P A Swales declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Minute No. 41 by virtue of his family relationship with an individual who had a commercial connection with the Great Fen Project.  Councillor Swales withdrew from discussion and voting on the Item.

Councillor J J Dutton declared a personal interest in Minute Nos. 44 (b) and 44 (f) as County Councillor for the Ward in which the proposed developments were located. 

Councillor R B Howe declared a personal interest in Minute No. 44 (h) by virtue of his membership of Upwood and The Raveleys Parish Council.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning Services.

(Councillor M F Shellens addressed the Panel on the Item.)

The Head of Planning Services introduced a report (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) to which was attached a summary of responses received during consultation on the draft RAF Brampton Urban Design Framework (UDF).

It was explained that the UDF established a series of planning principles   which would enable the delivery of a high quality, sustainable, and mixed use development for an important and sensitive site in Brampton.

The Panel noted that, with one exception, there was broad support for the development of the site.  The remaining area of objection related to the future of the Brampton Park Theatre.  To overcome these objections, it had been suggested that the final (UDF) should include reference to potential options for retention of the theatre building which would then be subject to negotiation with any future developer.  Members were hopeful that the planning process might deliver a multi-use or community building but it was accepted that this outcome would be dependent upon the viability of the project.

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Housing Strategy, Councillor Guyatt and the Chairman of the Panel, Councillor Dew paid tribute to the contributions made to the process by local Ward Councillors, Brampton Parish Council and the RAF Brampton Development Working Group.  These sentiments were endorsed by the Speaker, Councillor M F Shellens who thanked Members and Officers for securing such a positive outcome to the Working Group.

Having been assured that the military heritage of selected buildings had been taken into account in the UDF and that it was the objective to generate and retain employment as part of the development site, the Panel

RESOLVED

  that the Cabinet be recommended to authorise the Head of Planning Services, after consultation with the Executive Councillor for Strategic Planning and Housing and Chairman of the Panel to finalise and approve the RAF Brampton Urban Design Framework as planning guidance to inform Council policy and development management decisions on potential planning applications.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning Services

(Appendix B to the document has been circulated separately to Members of the Panel only.)

(See Minute No. 41 for Members’ Interests.)

Having regard to a report by the Head of Planning Services (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) the views of the Panel were invited on the content of the Great Fen Masterplan:  Statement of Consultation (a copy of which also is appended in the Minute Book).

Members noted that the Masterplan, which had been prepared in partnership with the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Middle Level Commissioners and Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and Peterborough Wildlife Trusts would be used to guide the delivery of the Great Fen Vision over a period of 50 years or so.  As such, it was explained that the masterplan should be adopted as planning guidance to inform Council Policy and to act as a material consideration in respect of potential planning proposals.

During discussion and whilst it was not the intention to build on the fen, the Panel acknowledged the possibility of some economic and tourist development in the locality and the need for consideration to be given to how this might be achieved and marketed without detriment to the Great Fen.  The potential to attract funding to the Great Fen Project through development and the possibility of commercial interest in water storage for local farms and businesses also was discussed.  It was suggested that the Environment Agency had already recognised the opportunity for water storage on the fen and the possibility of attracting grant funding towards achieving a project of this nature in the short-term.  Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

  that the content of the Statement of Consultation be endorsed and the Cabinet recommended to approve the preface text as set out in Appendix A to the report now submitted and adopt the Great Fen Masterplan as District Council policy guidance to inform Council policy and guide development management decisions.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning Services.

 (Appendices A and B to the document have been circulated separately to Members of the Panel only).

As a consultee in the process, the Panel considered a report by the Head of Planning Services to which was attached a supplementary planning document (SPD) on developer contributions which would establish the Council’s framework for securing planning obligations from new development that required planning consent (copies of both documents are appended in the Minute Book).

The Panel was informed that it had been necessary to update the SPD to complement the draft charging schedule for the Huntingdonshire Community Infrastructure Levy which also was subject to preliminary consultation in November/December 2011 and Examination in Public by Spring 2012.  The updated SPD also would comprise the Government’s statutory tests for developments capable of being charged CIL.

In discussion, Members raised their concern at the need for infrastructure improvements in St. Neots and notably to the A428 before further development occurred.  It was noted that the SPD would help to direct funds towards infrastructure improvements generally but that there clearly were issues with all main roads around St. Neots about which leading Members were continuing to lobby the Highways Agency.

In response to further questions, the Head of Planning Services assured Members that an annual monitoring report would be produced to identify where CIL funds had been directed and on what items.  It also was confirmed that Section 106 Agreements would continue to be used to secure affordable housing and more local site specific infrastructure requirements such as open space.  Although it was envisaged that local communities which accepted new development in their areas would be allocated a “meaningful proportion” of CIL funds to support infrastructure projects, the Panel noted that the Government had not yet specified what percentage of contribution this would be. 

Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

  that the content of the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document be endorsed and the Cabinet recommended to adopt the document as District Council planning policy guidance.

To consider a report by the Planning Service Manager (Development Management).

Further to Minute No. 8 of the meeting held on 23rd May 2011 and by way of a report by the Head of Planning Services (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) the Panel received an update on the outstanding enforcement issues at Hartford Marina.

The Chairman reported on the outcome of a meeting held subsequently with local Ward Councillors, the Parish Council, Marina owners and Manager, representatives of the residential Boat Owners’ Association, the Hartford Marina Community Association and members of the public at which it was agreed that the effective date for any proposed planning consent for residential use should be 22nd August 2011.

The Panel was advised that, since then, discussions had continued with the Marina owners and that it was the expectation that a series of applications for planning permission would be submitted in the New Year.  During discussion, it was confirmed that Officers would ultimately possess a definitive list of Marina Occupiers requiring planning permission, that few were not required to apply having lived at the Marina for 10 years or more and that the action taken at Hartford would not set a precedent for marinas elsewhere in the District.  It was further confirmed that residency at the Marina would be monitored on an annual basis and that ultimately, over time, the Marina should return to use as a holiday complex.  Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

  that the report now submitted be noted.

At 7.21 pm, it was

RESOLVED

  that the meeting stand adjourned.

Upon resumption at 7.30 pm.

To consider a report by the Planning Service Manager (Development Management).

The Planning Service Manager (Development Management) submitted reports (copies of which are appended in the Minute Book) on applications for development to be determined by the Panel and advised Members of further representations (details of which also are appended in the Minute Book) which had been received in connection therewith since the reports had been prepared.  Whereupon, it was

RESOLVED

  (a)  Replacement dwelling, Rose Cottage, Puddock Road, Warboys – 11/01037/FUL

  (Mr A Campbell, agent addressed the Panel on the application).

  that contrary to the recommendation, the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include the removal of permitted development rights, demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings, return of the original curtilage to agriculture and any further conditions recommended by the Head of Environment and Community Health Services and the Environment Agency.

  (b)  The Demolition of 20 – 24 Chequers Court and 31 – 54 Chequers Court, comprising 2 retail units with offices above, 5 ground floor and basement retail units, together with two floors of vacant offices above.  The buildings will be replaced by construction of a new supermarket, 7 retail units, a restaurant/café and 2 kiosks, Chequers Court site, Chequers Court, Huntingdon – 11/00979/FUL and 11/00980/CAC

  It was proposed by Councillor N J Guyatt, seconded by Councillor P L E Bucknell and

  RESOLVED

  that Councillor J D Ablewhite, in his capacity as Executive Councillor with responsibility for Strategic Economic Development be permitted to address the Panel.

  (Councillor J D Ablewhite, Ms L Millington, objector and Messrs N Ruffles and R Evans, representing the applicant addressed the Panel on the applications.)

    that, subject to the completion of an obligation to make an appropriate contribution towards car parking provision as part of the redevelopment of Chequers Court, the Head of Planning Services be authorised to determine the applications subject to conditions to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted and additionally to ensure that the method of demolition for Chequers Court minimises the disruption to and respects the occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

  [Further to Minute No. 31 (c) of the meeting held on 19th September 2011, the Executive Councillor for Strategic Planning and Housing, Councillor N J Guyatt indicated that he would continue to pursue the possibility of the installation of a pedestrian crossing across Hartford Road in the vicinity of Saxongate with Cambridgeshire County Council and that he would continue to lobby for egress from the development for delivery and service vehicles directly to Huntingdon Ring Road and not via Hartford Road.]

  (c)  Demolition of existing outbuildings and replacement with single storey extension to provide ancillary guest/tourist accommodation.  Alterations to listed building and provision of new vehicular access, West Farm, The Lane, Easton – 11/01250/FUL and 11/01251/LBC

  that the applications be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted.

  (d)  Erection of agricultural farmhouse with offices, outbuilding and livestock  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Planning Service Manager (Development Management) advised the Panel of the progress of various appeals against refusal of planning permission by the District Council.

In view of increasing constraints on resources, the Panel was informed that, in future, the Planning Service Manager would report only upon the outcome of those appeals of key interest or impact on the District Council’s interpretation of planning issues.  Members were reminded that details of the outcome of planning hearings would continue to be circulated weekly together with the list of applications received.

To consider a report by the Planning Service Manager (Development Management).

By way of a report by the Planning Service Manager (Development Management) (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) the Panel reviewed the performance of the Development Management Service over the period 1st July – 30th September 2011 in comparison with the corresponding period in 2010.

Attention having been drawn to a reduction in the percentage of major applications determined in 13 weeks in comparison with the previous quarter, the Planning Service Manager assured the Panel that overall, the District Council continued to meet the targets required for the determination of such applications annually.