Planning Meeting 18 July, 2011



Draft Minutes subject to formal ratification at the next Planning Meeting.

Minutes of a Planning Committee Meeting held on Monday, 18th July, 2011 at the Community Centre, Melbourn Village College, The Moor at 7.15pm.
Present: Cllrs. M. Sherwen (Chairman), R. Gatward, J. Hales, M. Linnette, P.Simmonett, A. Mulcock. R. Wakerley
In Attendance: The Clerk, The Deputy Clerk, Cllr Barrett and 14 members of the public.
178/11     Apologies for Absence: Cllr Mowatt
179/11 Declaration of Interests: Cllr. Hales declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in Item 144/11 because of family in the village;
Cllr Simmonett declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in Item 187/11 (b) because he lives in Greengage Rise.
180/11     Minutes of the meeting held on 20th June, 2011:
It was proposed by Cllr. Hales, seconded by Cllr. Simmonett and agreed that the minutes should be signed as a true record and this was carried.
181/11 Matters Arising:
141/11:  Cllr Barrett informed SCDC that the Parish Council wished applications S/1091/11 and S/1823/10 to be considered as one. Cllr Barrett said that this would happen and that SCDC is likely to be speaking to the applicant about this development.
182/11 Village Car Park
The Committee considered two quotes:
(1)   A quote from A.D.M. Drain Clearance for:

  • First visit: Evacuate silt from gully’s and disposal of waste 3 x £23 = £69
  • Pipe cleaning by high pressure water jetting £52.60. Giving a total cost of £121.60
  • Second visit: Annual routine maintenance 1 visit Dec, 1 visit June. Evacuate silt from gullies x 3; Disposal of waste; Annual charge. Total cost of £115

(2)   A quote from Allan Peacock (Street Lighting) Ltd for the Car park Lighting, High Street, Melbourn. This quote remained undisclosed due to pending decisions about the progress of the work on the car park. The Clerk to write to thank the firm for its quote and to explain that the quote will be considered in due course.
The Deputy Clerk reported that letters had been sent out to three firms inviting them to tender for the Hard and Soft Landscaping of the car park. These firms were: Timotay Landscapes Ltd, Pro-Scape Ltd, Land Unit Construction Ltd. The firms were asked to submit quotes by the date of the next Parish Council meeting on 25th July, 2011. No replies have been received to date.
The Deputy Clerk also reported that he had spoken to Huck Partnership about the need to obtain further quotes and the firm has agreed to undertake this.
Cllr Wakerley asked that as the Parish Council now lease the car park should we be asking the SCDC to remove their sign only and we will replace with our own one.
183/11 Police Site:
Cllr Sherwen reported that the committee was still awaiting an update of the design for the site from ICENI.
One of the residents reported that they had sent a letter of complaint to Hundred Housing about their failure to keep residents informed. The residents have received an apology and a promise to inform the residents about current developments this summer and to inform them that there will be no work on the site before next year. In the meantime, residents are looking at other parts of the village for good designs in order to make a contribution when plans are submitted.
The residents asked that they be kept informed of any discussions and decisions. Cllr Hales informed the residents that a conversation had taken place with Hundred Housing and that Cllr Sherwen would write to them asking that they clarify the points made during that conversation. Cllr Hales assured the residents that they would be kept informed. The residents expressed their thanks to the council.
184/11 Heydon Grange Wind Farm:
At the present time there was nothing new to report
185/11 Village Green registrations:
Cllr Linnette is taking responsibility for measuring the verge on Orchard Road so that the Parish Council can register it with the Land Registry.
186/11 Notifications or Planning Consultation documents:
The committee received and noted the following decisions:-
(a)    Panning permission granted for the Erection of Turkey Rearing Shed and Hard Standing Area at Sewerage Treatment Works, Meldreth for A.P. Burlton (Turkeys) Ltd
(b)   Planning permission  refused for Replacement of existing outbuilding additions and changes of use from residential C3 use to A1 Use (part of retrospective application) at Shop 49 High Street, Melbourn for Mr Dipak Solanki
(c)    Planning permission granted for the Erection of a porch to the front of the property and a single extension to the rear of 76, Russet Way, Melbourn for Mr Wilson.
There were no other notifications.
187/11 Planning Applications:
(a): Amended planning application in respect of Shop 49, High Street, Melbourn SG8 6DZ on behalf of Mr Dipak Solanki for Proposed Signs: S/1675/10. The copy of the revised plans were examined and commented on by the committee. Refusal was recommended on the following grounds:-
The submitted plans appear to refer to 3 signs, one of which doesn’t exist, so which is to be considered?
The signage details sheet which may have detailed this was not attached.
(b) Proposal for the Erection of 3 new dwellings, associated access, parking and landscaping S/1298/11 Land South-West of 50, Greengage Rise, Melbourn on behalf of Taylor Wimpey South Midlands.
(Cllr Simmonett withdrew from the meeting at this point)
Members of the public expressed the following objections to this proposed development:

  • Access to the site remains an issue despite the widening of the access road to 4.484 Metres from the previous 3.5 metres;
  • The impact on N0 49 Greengage Rise will be considerable as it will leave approx. 30 cms between the new boundary wall and the boundary of No 49 which will give very restrictive pedestrian access to No 50. This will result in either visitors trespassing on No 49’s property or using the access road itself which will heighten the threat of a vehicle collision with pedestrians. In addition, the proximity of the opening to No 49 leaves little margin for error and will devalue the market value of No 49;
  • The proposed site is clearly designated as a Play Area on the original drawings. The land has been maintained as such over the years. Greengage Rise would lose the only open space area on the estate that provides a safe haven for children to play in. There is strong support within the community to continue the upkeep of this facility. The SCDC 2005 Recreation Study shows Melbourn has a deficit of open space and that the play area should be maintained.
  • There is a high level of congested parking in Greengage Rise. Almost all available space along the pavements is taken up be parked cars during the evenings and weekends, and is exacerbated when friends or family visit.
  • The mouth of the access road is used on a daily basis as overspill car parking. The Highways Authority recommended refusal of previous applications on the grounds of Highway safety. The report from the transport consultancy claims that a ‘low level of activity’ will be generated by the new development but they have not taken into account the existing ‘high level of activity’ already happening;
  • The design statement makes no mention of a pavement along the new access route and, as such, ignores the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using this access route;
  • The waste management arrangements for 3 new dwellings are flawed and will not work. Bins and recycling boxes will need to be brought from the new development and placed in front of existing properties and driveways prior to and after collection. At the moment, it is necessary for the refuse freighter to obstruct the cul-de-sac to collect the bins from existing properties and this problem will be exacerbated by the new development. The claim by the developers that the refuse freighters will be able to reverse up the access road is, according to SCDC, wrong and against their guidelines which is for a ‘kerb side’ only policy;
  • The construction of the new dwellings will cause a great deal of disruption and inconvenience to current residents. Heavy plant will have no alternative points of access other than through a densely populated residential area.;
  • The access to the allotments will be compromised by the closure of the second access point.

Cllr Gatward proposed THAT THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANS BE REFUSED. This was seconded by Cllr Hales and CARRIED.
The reasons for this recommendation are:-
1)      There has been almost continuous usage of the area as a play area for children since Greengage Rise was developed in the 1970s. This is still of major importance as the only other paly area is Clear Crescent which is over ½ mile away and across a major road into Melbourn;
2)      The previous concerns about safe access have not been resolved in practice despite the slightly wider roadway. There is neither a pedestrian pavement nor protection for pedestrians. This is the only means of pedestrians accessing the site as the other existing pathway has been blocked off;
3)      The existing house, No 50, now has no off-road informal parking other than the already overcrowded road in front of this property or in front of their proposed new garage which will affect the sight-lines for entering/exiting vehicles;
4)      Other than the 2 vehicles shown there is no room for additional informal parking which we consider to be an inevitable requirement;
5)      Rubbish collection facilities are not as suggested in the application. We are informed that SCDC refuse collection vehicles are not prepared to enter such a restricted area nor are the ‘operatives’ able to provide other than ‘kerb-side services’, i.e. they will not collect/return bins. Occupants of these houses will have to take their bins out to somewhere in front of the other houses in Greengage Rise to leave them for collection;
6)      We view this as a variation on ‘infilling’ which is no longer acceptable in the current environment.
Cllr Barrett to ask that this application be brought before the Planning Committee rather than leaving it to the Planning Officers. This was supported. Cllr Barrett pointed out the importance of sending a representative from the council to the meeting and that they need to contact the office before Midday on the Monday before the scheduled meeting in order to be able to speak. The same advice was given to the residents present.
Cllr Mulcock raised the possibility of registering the land in the name of the council but was advised that this would likely result in expensive litigation with the builder.
(Cllr Simmonett returned to the meeting)
(c) Proposal for a Two Storey Extension to House S/1314/11 at Russet Way, Melbourn SG8 6HE on behalf of Mr Lee Whitehouse. The committee recommended approval.
There were no other planning applications.
188/11 Correspondence:
(a) Letter from Ms Abbotts of 46, The Moor, Melbourn SG8 6ED of 21.06/11 with regard to the proposed development of the land at 21, The Moor, Melbourn. The contents of the letter were note.
(b) Letter from Mrs B.J Carter of 52, Greengage Rise, Melbourn SG8 6DS with regard to the proposal S/1298/11. Dealt with in 187/11 (b).
(c) E-Mails from Tracy Pearce, G.L. & S. Dunn, Elizabeth Goldstone, Peter Hills, Mr & Mrs Knight and Mrs Jacqueline Pluck all with regard tp the proposal S/1298/11. Dealt with in 187/11 (b).
189/11 Urgent Matters:
(a)    Cllr Gatward raised the issue of the proposed seats in Stockbridge Meadows. The Mutty family are buying a separate seat and placing it in the designated alcove. The History Society is placing their seat elsewhere but probably in the adjacent alcove.
(b)   Cllr Barrett has written to Charles Swain, Enforcement Officer, thanking him for his visit. He has replied expressing his gratitude.
(c)    Cllr Hales proposed a letter to Chris Jackson, Hundred Houses, to confirm in writing the details of the conversation re: the Police Site.
There being no other business the Chairman closed the meeting at 8.50 p.m.

Welcome to Melbourn Parish Council