MELBOURN PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes of a Planning Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 8th May, 2012 at the Parish Office, Melbourn Village College, The Moor at 7.15pm.
Present: Cllrs. Sherwen (Chairman), J. Hales, M. Linnette, K.Crosby, J.Poley, D.Mowatt, R.Gatward and A.Mulcock
In Attendance: The Clerk, Cllr. V.Barrett and 5 members of the public
832/11 Apologies for Absence: Cllrs Simmonett and Wakerley
833/11 Declaration of Interests:
840/11(b): All councillors: Prejudicial. The application is in the name of the council.
840/11(d): Cllr Poley; Personal & Prejudicial as he lives in the same road.
840/11(e): Cllr Mulcock: Personal & Prejudicial as he lives in the same road.
834/11 Minutes of the meeting held on 16th April, 2012:
815/11(b): Line 4 Delete ‘Melbourne’: Insert ‘Melbourn’
It was proposed by Cllr. Hales, seconded by Cllr. Poley and agreed that the minutes of 16th April, 2012 should be signed as a true record. This was carried.
835/11 Matters Arising:
813/11: Cllr Gatward asked if Armingford Crescent and Worcester Way ought to be listed. Cllr Hales reported that Cllr Simmonett had measured the area in Armingford Crescent and it is too small to be included and that Worcester Way is not registered as belonging to the Parish Council.
836/11 Village Car Park:
Cllr Sherwen had nothing to report.
837/11 Police Site:
Cllr Poley stated that there were no further developments. The planning application will be discussed by the Planning Authority on 6th June.
838/11 Deed of Dedication registrations:
Nothing to report: see item 835/11.
839/11 Notifications or Planning Consultation documents:
There were no notifications received.
815/11 Planning Applications:
(a) Planning application for a change of use from Class B1 to Class B1 and Class D1 in the alternative at B5 Beech House, Melbourn Science Park SG8 6EE on behalf of Mrs Sarah Galbriath S/1590/12/FL was recommended for approval without comment.
(b) Planning application for a proposed storage container at Pocket Park, Grinnel Hill, Melbourn on behalf of Mr Peter Horley, Melbourn Parish Council S/0855/12/LD was passed to the Planning Authority without a recommendation (see item 833/11).
(c) Planning application for undertaking work on trees situated within a conservation area at 9, Drury Lane, Melbourn SG8 6EP on behalf of Mrs T O’Malley was recommended for approval with the comments ‘If this meets the approval of tree officers we are happy to approve’.
(d) [Cllr Poley withdrew from the meeting at this point] Planning application for the erection of a conservatory to the rear of 32, Water Lane, Melbourn SG8 6AY on behalf of Mr Graham Halsey S/0547/12/FL was recommended for approval without comment.
(e) [Cllr Poley returned to the meeting at this point].Planning application for retrospective planning application for stables at Greenlow Cottage , Royston Road, Melbourn SG8 6DG on behalf of Mr & Mrs Bunton S/0888/12/FL was recommended for refusal with the comments ‘We are not confident that the building meets equine stable standards. What is the ultimate usage of this ‘stabling’ i.e. commercial.’
(f) [Cllr Mulcock withdrew from the meeting at this point]. Planning application for a two storey side extension and alterations at 3, The Lawns Close, Melbourn SG8 6DR on behalf of Ms Lucie Knight was recommended for approval without comment. [Cllr Mulcock returned to the meeting at this point].
(g) Given the number of the members of the public who attended this meeting in relation to this planning application, it was decided to consider this planning application first. Amended planning application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of 12 new units and associated access at 31, The Moor, Melbourn SG8 6ED on behalf of Windsor Life Assurance Company Ltd & NM Life Trustees Ltd S/2609/11. After a lengthy discussion between all parties, it was recommended for refusal with the following comments ‘Firstly, the PC considers that although the development is apparently within density levels it is overdevelopment for this locale in Melbourn; secondly, Melbourn is a known drainage problem area, as such we are greatly concerned that this development has written into the application that all surface rain/storm water and any grey water is dealt with on site and contained within the site and this be defined/written into subsequent planning applications; thirdly, residents were extremely concerned about the problems created during the development of the site and we would like to see a Site Usage specification included in the application; fourthly, some residents were concerned that they would be overlooked unnecessarily and that further ridge height reductions should be made; fifthly, there is a discrepancy between the architects ‘shadow fall’ and the ‘fall’ predicted by a resident using formal data which needs investigation; sixthly, both the PC and residents believe that the Moor is being used almost beyond its capacity now and, should this be allowed, it may well set a precedent besides affecting the lives of those living and working here; lastly, that further wildlife has arrived at the site which will need to be taken into consideration.
There was no correspondence.
842/11 Urgent matters:
(a) Cllr Mulcock had local residents comment to him about the amount of building work going on over the weekends at Etilis. This was reported to Planning / control at SCDC, who reported back that there is a big hole being dug in the premises.
(b) Cllr Gatward reported that she is unable to attend the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee picnic at Burleigh House on Wednesday, 13tth June. She asked if anyone else could be nominated.
There being no other business, the Chairman closed the meeting at 9.36p.m.