Planning Minutes 13th October



Present: Mr Dalton, Mr Dinsdale, Mrs Glasse, Mrs Handley, Ms Hoar, Mr Prince, Mrs Pritchard, Mrs Spencer and, in the Chair, Mr Tebbit,

Apologies        Ms O’Callaghan

The Chair invited members of the Parish Council and the public to view the plans that were on display and highlighted the revisions.

Mrs Pritchard declared an interest.

The Chair opened the floor to the public for comments.

Mr Bridgewater asked what happened to the application after the Parish Council had debated it. Mr Tebbit informed him that the PC decided whether to Refuse, Approve or have No Objection to the plans. The resulting form was then returned to SCDC with comments on the application if necessary.

The Clerk informed the meeting that the public consultation is open until 4th November.

Mr Pritchard said the site was driven by ownership and not the best site. He said that although the recommendation would minimise the loss of trees, the fact that the whole hedge would be lost had not been taken into account. Other concerns including the 2m high red brick wall, the lighting and the series parking, as opposed to parallel.

Mr Walmsley stated that he was not opposed to the site but was opposed to the red brick wall.

Mr Bridgewater offered a slight apology for paper that he had circulated as some of the information had been misleading. He said that OSP 148 was an important heritage site and we had no right to interfere. There were other sites identified in the village and we should consider very carefully before destroying the heritage site. He would prefer to see his own land used.

Mr Bidwell said he thought this was the easiest route in terms of the site but not the best. He was in favour of development but not at the expense of the environment and community.

Mrs Walmsley asked what the other site options in the Village were.

Mrs Pritchard, who has a personal interest, spoke as a member of the public and informed the meeting that she felt the development would have an urbanising effect on an increasingly scarce rural village. Mrs Pritchard then left the meeting.

Mrs Webster asked how it could be that if SCDC had ownership of the land that they could make the decision on approval of the application.

The Chair then addressed the comments raised by the public:

Regarding the hedge line the ecology report states that part of the hedge is diseased. There is a landscaping condition in place and new diverse replacement planting will take place and provide new habitat.

There were 5 potential other sites suggested in the sequential test process undertaken. These had all been considered. None of the proposed sites had come to fruition. Mr Tebbit said that if Manor Farm was still a possibility then Mr Bridgewater should contact South Cambridgeshire District Council for possible future use.

Various members of the public gallery wished to debate the need and site for the affordable homes. Mr Tebbit said that 3 surveys had been completed since 2006, all identifying a need for a further 12 homes in the village. He said he did not wish to debate these issues at the meeting and recommended that members of the public send their views to the public consultation at SCDC.

Mr Dalton was in agreement that the red brick wall was unsuitable.

Mrs Handley said she thought there was space for additional parking in the South West corner of the development and that this would help with visitor parking. Mr Dinsdale agreed this would be a valid improvement and would support a clause for additional spaces.

Mr Tebbit indicated that the Community Orchard and play area were still part of the development and that the proposal is for 7 rented properties and 3 shared ownership.

Ms O’Callaghan sent written comments in her absence, which were read out by the Chair.

She opposed the affordable scheme on amenity, sustainability and environment grounds preferring any necessary housing to be in Little Eversden.

Miss Sach asked that the plans ensured enough turning space for the dustcart. Mr Tebbit responded that it seemed the latest plans had covered that point, and showed bin points and turning positions for lorries.

Councillors debated the points raised in open discussion. Councillor Dinsdale agreed to the unsuitability of the red brick walling and the suggestion for low pollution level lighting throughout the site. Councillor Handley suggested additional guest parking might be sited in the South West corner of the site.

The Chair proposed the following resolution:

The application is Approved with the following comments:

The provision of additional guest parking spaces in the south west corner of the development is highly desirable.

Lighting for the site should be low pollution as in Low Close.

We are not at all happy with the proposed red brick boundary wall.

Mr Dalton and Mrs Glasse seconded the proposal.

The Parish Council were then asked to vote on the resolution, 7, Approved and 1, had No Objection, there were none against.

That concluded the business on the agenda.

The Chairman then asked Councillors how to respond to a request from a developer to attend a future council meeting and discuss two sites in the village. There were no plans as yet.

It was decided await the official plans before making a decision to invite the developers.

Comments are closed.

Back to Top ↑