MELBOURN PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes of a Planning Committee Meeting held on Monday, 18th October 2010 at the Parish Office, 28 Station Road at 7.15pm.
Present: Cllrs. M. Sherwen (Chairman), A. Brett, R. Gatward, J. Hales, D. Mowatt, A. Mulcock, P. Simmonett and R. Wakerley.
In Attendance: The Clerk; Paul Sexton, Principal Planning Officer; David Bevan Conservation Manager and 6 members of the public
421/10 Apologies for Absence: Cllrs. Hardingham and Linnette
422/10 Declaration of Interests: Cllr. Hales declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in Item 430/10.
423/10 Discussion in connection with the Old Police Site:
Mr Paul Sexton addressed the meeting and said that since the letter and list of questions from the Parish Council had been received he had received a pre-application plan for the site from Hundred Houses Society as to how the site may be developed. Mr Sexton told the meeting that there had been no guidance or advice what so ever given on this matter to Hundred Houses Society by SCDC Planning department. The information gained tonight can be used to feed back comments to a pre-application meeting. Mr Sexton thought there were a lot of issues to come out of the plan both from the public and SCDC.
The following points were then discussed:
(a) As the site is in the village envelope and in principle it can be developed. There would need to be increased emphasis on design due to the site being in a Conservation Area and the two listed buildings opposite the site would also have an effect on the application.
The Planning department would be looking for a draft design and access statement which had not been received as yet. The views along the High Street will be a very important consideration. The pre-application plans bring the development closer to the street and forward of the present building line. Cllr. Sherwen thought that raising the profile would not be acceptable. Cllr. Mowatt is happy with the openness of the site at the present time and does not want the site to be overdeveloped.
Mr. Sexton said that this was not a site that the Planning department needed to insist on 100% affordable housing being built there, but the Planners have to make sure the site is used viably. Cllr. Mowatt said he hopes that the aesthetic needs would be taken into consideration.
(b) There is no set density for the site: There are individual constraints on each site that the Planners look at due to the different characteristics of each site.
(c) Surface water drainage: The site is within flood zone 2 and 3. The applicants will have to produce a flood assessment and hard water drainage will have to be taken into consideration that there was to be no increase in surface water run off on the site. There have been no flood works carried out by the applicant at this stage. The applicant cannot be asked to solve any existing drainage problems in the area. A resident said that he could help with the water problem. He said at the back of the Old Police site was a storage ditch leading to the main drainage points in the village. The interceptor drain on Kays Close had been blocked by builder’s rubble. Mr Sexton suggested that the applicant discuss these issues direct with the Parish Council. The Highways Authority will also insist on a surface water drainage and foul water drainage scheme being put in place by the applicant.
A resident asked if the residents of the village had a voice in the context of water problems. Mr Sexton replied that it was not a question of numbers it was more to do with issues raised, and that any building on the site must not make an existing situation worse.
[Cllr. Mowatt left the meeting at this point the time being 7.55pm]
Mr. Sexton was happy to keep the Parish Council advised on any pre-applications for this site. Cllr. Hales enquired if there could be a liaison committee set up with members from SCDC, the Developer, Parish Council, Highways Department and residents of the village. This was thought to be a very good idea.
(d) Mr. Bevan said that the trees could be afforded protection due to them being in a Conservation Area. At the present time the applicants had not done a tree survey report. Ros Richardson, Tree and Landscape Officer for SCDC did not think that the trees which are Silver Birch and Ash warranted a Tree Preservation Order on them. Mr Sexton would want to work with the developers to see if some of the trees could be saved. It may not be possible to save all the trees from being cut down or from damage to their roots by building taking place. Mr. Bevan said the trees on the site are important to the vista of the site as they form part of the character of the area.
(e) The Parish Council wanted to know if there was any restriction on it working with Hundred Houses Society with a view to getting a Community room put on the site. The only problem would be that the Parish Council would have to be careful of predetermined schemes.
A resident of the village asked if a Section 106 could apply to the site in the form of a Community Office being provided under a Section 106 agreement. It appeared it was very difficult to get money from Affordable Housing sites. The resident asked if the Parish Council had any funds to contribute to this scheme. The Clerk replied that funds still exist from a previous attempt to have a Community Hall and these are ring-fenced for this purpose.
Cllr. Brett wondered if a Section 106 could be applied to a drainage scheme for the site.
(f) Highway details will show viability splays and highway widths. Highways have said that at the moment it could not justify a zebra crossing for 17 dwellings. A resident said that it would not be just used by the houses on the site as Community facilities would increase the need for a Zebra Crossing. It was felt that the village college and Safer Routes to School could all make use of this crossing. Cllr. Hales asked if Highways would have any objections to the Parish Council and Hundred Housing putting a Zebra Crossing in.
(g) The facts of noise and loss of light will be looked into when the Planning Application is received by SCDC Planning Department.
(h) Architectural restraints: If necessary these would be looked at in the context of the site in a Conservation Area when the planning application was received.
(i) It has been asked if the access to the site could be at one end of the site instead of the middle. It was thought there would be no obvious reasons why this could not be put forward on the planning application.
(j) How far should the Parish Council liaise with the developers: At the SCDC meeting with Hundred Houses Society on Friday 22nd October Mr. Sexton will suggest working with a group which would include members of the Parish Council as part of the work on site. Cllr. Gatward asked how the Parish Council could find itself in the position of the site being sold for affordable housing with no consultation with the Parish Council on the matter. Mr Sexton replied that present planning policy would not exclude a mix of housing on this site. There could of course be a covenant on this site which stated that if sold by the Police Authority it had to be for affordable housing.
Mr. Sexton and Mr Bevan were thanked for attending the meeting as were the members of the public. All were thanked for their valuable input to the meeting.
424/10 Minutes of the meeting held on 4th October 2010:
It was proposed by Cllr. Gatward, seconded by Cllr. Hales and agreed that the minutes of 4th October 2010 should be signed as a true record.
425/10 Matters Arising:
Item 393/10 (Urgent Matters) Cllr. Hales reported on the Office Space being considered by the Council on the village college site. He said that Cllr. Brett had drawn up Heads of Terms. These will be presented to the Warden and Business Manager and if they are happy with the content then they would be asked to agree to the terms.
426/10 Village Car Park:
Cllr. Brett reported on the meeting held on the 14th October with Huck Partnership. Huck Partnership are going to produce the first draft of the car park design, which will be looked at in early November.
The Clerk reported some lights out in the Car Park and brought this to the attention of the Council.
427/10 Police site in centre of village:
This matter had already been dealt with under Item 423/10.
[The next item was taken out of order]
[Cllr. Hales having declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in the next item left the meeting]
430/10 Wind Farm at Heydon Grange:
An ‘Action Group’ web site has been set up and can be found under (www.stopheydonwindfarm.com)
Mr. Sexton reported that at the present time no formal planning application had been submitted. The scoping meeting passed back a number of comments and it seems that a lower number of turbines for the site are now being considered by the company.
[At this point Cllr. Hales returned to the meeting]
428/10 White House Farm:
There was nothing to report at the present time.
429/10 Co-operative Store:
Cllr. Simmonett reported that trolleys were still being left on the pavement. He felt that this matter should be brought to the attention of the Head Office and the Manager of the store. It was decided that this matter should be closely monitored over the next two weeks and if there was no change then it should be reported.
431/10 Village Green Registrations:
The Clerk reported that she had sent for three OS maps for the three sites in the village whose paperwork seemed to not be readily available.
432/10 Notifications and Planning Consultation Documents:
(a) SCDC – 15a Fordham Way. Extension. S/1223/10/F Permission Granted.
(b) SCDC – Melbourn Bury. Proposed Demolition of Existing Attached Garage and the Construction of a New Quadruple Garage. S/1189/10. Permission Granted.
(c) The Planning Inspectorate – Appeal Decision with regard to application S/1922/09/F. Enclosure of part of an existing covered retail area at Bury Lane Fruit Farm. Appeal upheld and Planning Permission Granted.
(d) There were no further Notifications or Planning Consultations received.
433/10 Planning Applications:
(a) Brantwych, 5 New Road – Greenhouse. S/1600/10. Recommend Approval.
(b) Fairfield. Newmarket Road – Double garage. S/1520/10. Recommend Approval.
[The next two items (c) and (d) could not be dealt with by the Council as it had a Personal and Prejudicial Interest in these]
(c) 32 Station Road. Change of use from guest house to dwelling and erection of cycle/bin store. S/1623/10.
(d) 28 Station Road. Change of use from office to dance/exercise studio. S/1622/10.
(e) Application to carry out Tree Works subject to a Tree Preservation Order or situated within a Conservation Area. 20 The Lawns work to one semi-mature Sycamore Tree to reduce crown by 20% due to excessive shading of front garden. No comments.
(f) There were no further planning applications received.
(a) CCC – Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan – Examination of the Core Strategy.
Cllr. Hales felt that this needed to be monitored as in the next two years a MRF (Materials recovery facility) would have to be built to deal with waste from blue bins and a site had as yet to be found. At the present time waste was sent to other MRF facilities in the area to be dealt with until a facility for SCDC area was built.
(b) SCDC – Notification of planning application S/1623/210 change of use of 32 Station Road. Noted
(c) Letter from Land Registry – Voluntary registration of the land. Noted
(d) There was no further correspondence received.
435/10 Urgent Matters:
Cllr. Hales reported a large crowd of children playing on the road by the entrance to his road. One of these children lived at Greengage Rise. He felt that there was a need to speak to residents at Greengage Rise as children should be playing on the open space there .
Cllr. Mulcock requested a copy of the Melbourn Highway Drainage report of 2006 which had been brought to the meeting by a resident.
There being no other business the Chairman closed the meeting at 9.35pm