MELBOURN PARISH COUNCIL
MINUTES
Draft Minutes subject to formal ratification at the next Planning Meeting.
Minutes of a Planning Committee Meeting held on Monday, 20th June, 2011 at the Parish Office, Melbourn Village College, The Moor at 7.15pm.
Present: Cllrs. M. Sherwen (Chairman), R. Gatward, J. Hales, M. Linnette, D. Mowatt, P.Simmonett, A. Mulcock.
In Attendance: The Clerk, The Deputy Clerk, Mr C. Anderson (Land Agent) and 18 members of the public.
102/11 Apologies for Absence: Cllr Wakerley
103/11 Declaration of Interests: Cllr. Hales declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in Item 108/11 because of family in the village; Cllr Mulcock 111/11 because he knew members of the public who had come to talk about the issue.
104/11 Minutes of the meeting held on 6th 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.
105/11 Matters Arising:
There were no matters arising.
106/11 Village Car Park
(a) A meeting has been arranged with Huck Partnership for Thursday, 23rd June, 2011 in the parish Office at 2.00p.m.
(b) An invoice has been received from Huck Partnership for Landscape Architectural services for £1008.19 as part of the grant fund for this project.
107/11 Police Site:
(a) No further meetings scheduled
108/11 Heydon Grange Wind Farm:
At the present time there was nothing new to report
109/11 Village Green registrations:
(a) On-going for the New Recreation Ground
(b) No communication over the allotments. Cllr Linnette to contact them
110/11 Notifications or Planning Consultation documents:
(a) Notification of planning permission in respect of Springfield, Fowlmere Road, Melbourn SG6 6EZ S/0739/11: permission granted
(b) Notification of planning permission in respect of 9, The Lawns, Melbourn SG8 6BA S/0819/11: permission granted
(c) Notification of planning permission in respect of 5 bay mobile classroom until 31st August, 2016 at Melbourn Primary School, Mortlock STreet, Melbourn SG6 6DB S/007531/CC : granted.
111/11 Planning Applications:
(a): Amended certificate in respect of Shop 49, High Street, Melbourn SG8 6DZ: There is no copy or explanation attached to this application and therefore it is to be returned as incomplete. Refusal because of the lack of paperwork
(b)Planning application in respect of the Erection of a Turkey Rearing Shed and hard Standing Area on land adjacent to sewage treatment works, A10, Meldreth on behalf of A.P. Burlton (Turkeys) Ltd S/096671: this application is in the parish of Meldreth. The committee is therefore not responsible and cannot make a recommendation.
(b) Planning application in respect of 31, The Moor, Melbourn SG8 6ED S/1091/11
Site plans put forward as revised application for the demolition of the existing house and the erection of 9 dwellings. A residential scheme in a residential area put forward by the owners, Windsor Life. The scheme, outlined by Mr Chris Anderson, Land Agent is in line with the SCDC guidelines on density and the current development plan and provides for 3 social housing dwellings. The previous applications S/1798/10 & S/1823/10 are entirely separate applications and are not part of this application and therefore the scheme is for 3 social housing dwellings and not 4. The social housing allocation cannot be bungalows as this contradicts the requirements laid down by SCDC. The existing house needs to be demolished because of the state of it and no longer complies with current regulations. The questions of the bats, the Japanese Knotweed and the Giant Hogweed are being addressed and, in the case of the weeds, should be completed by the end of 2011. The exits on to the highway meet with Highway Standards and the parking standards are in accordance with those laid down by SCDC. Any construction traffic associated with the development with be dealt within the plans and will be made a planning requirement.
18 members of the public attended the meeting to raise objections to the planning application. The reasons for their objections were:
(a) The intensity of the development is too high and based on commercial gain at the expense of what the village requires and at the maintenance of the village character and heritage. The nature of in-fill development is not favoured by the village as shown by the draft Village Plan and the council and the planning authority should be listening to the villagers and going for low impact development instead of high intensity;
(b) Highway safety implications caused by the amount of extra traffic which will be generated in an already busy area by the addition of 20+ vehicles, the extra on-road parking by visitors and construction traffic. The Moor already suffers with traffic problems between 7-9a.m and 3-9 p.m. depending on social events and evening classes. The road access proposals for 4 road accesses being added between Thatcher Stanford’s and the Little Hands Nursery turning is going to result in both hazards and congestion. There also seems to be a presumption that there is a ‘turning circle’ associated with Nos 54 & 56 which does not exist as it is a direct driveway.
(c) The extra noise and disturbance which will be generated by the development and the addition of 20+ vehicles and people;
(d) The failure to deal with the hazardous materials adequately: the Japanese Knotweed and the Hog Weed are encroaching on other people’s property and the Hog Weed is about to seed;
(e) The loss of trees from an established plot with orchard and tree lined boundary. The bat report highly recommended that the trees both on South and West of the property should not be removed as part of the requirement for the roosting of the bats;
(f) The effect on the character of the village and conservation area caused by the proposed demolition of an Edwardian building and the practice of ‘garden-grabbing’. Concern was expressed about the demolition of the house which many felt could be made into a substantial family home;
(g) The impact on an already creaking infrastructure in terms of water and sewage associated with Thatcher Stanford’s Close and the provision of other services such as doctors;
(h) The disingenuous nature of the original applications S/1798/10 & S/1823/10 has created the opportunity for the present application. The proposed development is effectively for 10 houses and should therefore include 4 social housing dwellings and not 3. There is a desperate need for more social housing in Melbourn, including the provision of single- storey housing for the elderly. Given these factors, there is a need to reconsider and object to the planning permission already granted for S/1798/10 & S/1823/10.
The Planning Committee voted to refuse permission: 4 voted for refusal; 1 voted for no recommendation; and, 2 abstained.
The Comments of the council are:-
- There has been a 450% increase in the number of dwellings proposed (relative to the original application) on the same site by the same developer;
- Both the Parish Council and local residents affected consider this excessive, unnecessary and detrimental to the location;
- The previous applications S/1798/10 and S/1823/10 appears to have been used to establish access to and approval for the opening the site up for further development. The PC would not have given approval had they been aware of this;
- Approval S/1798/10 should be taken into account and consideration when assessing social housing requirements;
- Concerns over the problems of an increase in vehicle numbers and movements using The Moor to access the site;
- Concern over the ability of the sewage and drainage capacity to handle the additional input, problems already exist we have been informed;
- The size and proximity of the proposed houses and likely to cause overlooking and light reduction problems to existing houses.
A second proposal was put forward: that the committee seek to reconsider and object to the previous applications S/1798/10 & S/1823/10. This was proposed by Cllr Linnette and seconded by Cllr Hales and was carried: 5 voted in favour; 2 abstained.
(d): Planning application in respect of the Erection of a Porch, 76, Russet Way, Melbourn SG8 6HF: this was approved.
(e): Application for Certificate of lawful Existing Use or Development for the occupation of property as a dwelling at Noon Folly Farm, Newmarket Road, Melbourn SG8 7HG. This was for information purposes only and it was noted.
112/11 Correspondence:
(a) E-mail from Brian Orrell re: 31, The Moor, Melbourn which was dealt with under 111/11;
(b) Letter from F.A & J.S Whitfield re: 31, The Moor, Melbourn which was dealt with under 111/11;
(c) Letter from Drs B & K King re: 31, The Moor, Melbourn which was dealt with under 111/11;
(d) Letter from Mr R. Smart re: 31, The Moor, Melbourn which was dealt with under 111/11;
(e) E-mail from Dr B. Davis re: 31, The Moor, Melbourn which was dealt with under 111/11;
(f) Letter from Mr & Mrs Selby re: 31, The Moor, Melbourn which was dealt with under 111/11.
113/11 Urgent Matters:
In the light of the recent e-mails and documents relating to the Police Site and the conversation between Cllr van de Ven and Hundred Housing Society, a general discussion took place with regard to the development of the proposed site, its timescale, the possible provision of a community building which will meet the needs of the community and be within the financial capability of the Parish Council both now and in the future, the desire of the council to proceed with the negotiations to secure part of the site and to preserve the street scene. The Clerk is to contact C. Cllr van de Ven to see if she is happy with the current position after the communication of the latest document; and, John Travis in relation to 12.6 of the Draft Village Plan concerning the creation of a ‘village hub’. It was decided to include something about this matter on the Melbourn Parish Council agenda for Monday, 27th June, 2011.
There being no other business the Chairman closed the meeting at 10.07 p.m.