Minutes of the Planning Meeting
held on Monday 21 September 1998 at 7pm in the Bowls Pavilion
Present: RJ Farrington (Chair) R Day HM Smith RT Summerfield
LC Twinn and the clerk SJ Daniels.
1. Apologies for Absence: JE Coston J Shaw RLE Waters.
426/98 2. Appeal
(94/98) New Dwelling on Land at former Library Site at Coles Road
Noted that the County Council's Appeal against SCDC's
decision to refuse planning permission was dismissed. The
scheme would be an intrusive addition to the street scene
which would fail to preserve or enhance the appearance and
character of the area contrary to the Local Plan Policy C31.
The scheme would not be well related to its surroundings as
sought by Structure Plan Policy SP12/10. The proximity to
the buildings of no 14 Fen Road and 1A Coles Road would act
to the detriment of the living conditions of the adjoining
occupants contrary to the aims of good neighbourliness
promoted in Planning Policy Guidance 1. The Inspector was
concerned about the cramped nature of the scheme and the
over development of its plot
3. Decisions Received
427/98 P Runham 49 Fen Road - extension refused.
(402/98) Over development of the site and a significant loss of light
and sunlight to no 47. The extension would also appear
overbearing when viewed from that property.
428/98 Mr TT Tyrrell 162 The Rowans - front extension approved.
(410/98)
4. New Applications
429/98 S/0917/93 Rowing Trust - amended plans revised general layout.
(372/98) The following comments were sent to SCDC.
"1. Construction traffic must not use Fen Road Milton.
2. Consideration should be given to a link for cyclists from
Milton Country Park along the southern end of the lake to
be used as a local cycle route to the river.
3. We are concerned that as the whole scheme is being reduced
in size the amount of spoil extracted will be concentrated
on smaller areas of land thus increasing the height of the
bunds.
4. We are concerned at the loss of the Country Park element.
5. We are concerned at the reduction in landscaping on the
north/west side.
6. We are concerned in general about the drainage.
7. We do not like the design for the new aqueduct. Its capacity
does not seem as large as the previous design. It would
appear to be a sediment tank that cannot be cleaned out.
8. We are concerned about the maintenance of Public Drains.
Are the Environment Agency aware of the problems of drainage?
9. If the lake is higher than the River Cam then water will
flow into the Cam against the natural flow of the river
at the outfall into the river.
10. Does the Fen Road bridge allow for access for agricultural
vehicles including combine harvesters? Will the bridge
comply with the County Council standard for cycle bridges?
11. We would like the assurance that the trees along the
drift road will not be lost.
12. We understand that the conditions as set out in the Draft
Conditions (revision 6) dated 15/12/95 cease to have any
effect without renewal of permission by December 1998.
Is this correct?"
430/98 S/0840/98 P Runham 49 Fen Road - amendments to lean-to.
(350/98) Roofing panels omitted, velux roof lights added. For
information only.
431/98 S/0849/98 Mr & Mrs Heath 8 Goding Way - amendments.
(351/98) Slight enlargement to front porch, two storey rear extension
omitted, existing single storey utility room extended. For
information only. Permission already approved - no objections
by Planning Officer to amendments.
432/98 S/1442/98 Upware Marina 2 bungalows at r/o 8-10 Cambridge Road.
(137/98) Preservation of the old farm hedge on the southern boundary
requested.
433/98 S/1535/98 Nickerson Biocem Ltd Science Park - 2nd flue stack.
Information requested as to what was being extracted.
432/98 S/1536/98 Trinity (CSP) Ltd - erection of new security fencing
to the southern boundary of the Science Park. No comments.
433/98 S/1537/98 Trinity (CSP) Ltd - land between buildings 290 and 320
Science Park - Day Nursery for Children. No comments.
434/98 5. Draft Regional Planning Guidance
(369/98) It was agreed to support SCDC's sequential approach to
development:-
"1st preference - development within Cambridge making best
use of previously developed 'brownfield' land whilst
maintaining the Green Belt intact.
If development needs cannot be met from the 1st preference
then:
2nd preference - development in and around the ring of market
towns which mark the present outer limits of the Cambridge
Area, again making best use of previously developed
'brownfield' land.
If development needs cannot be met from the first two
preferences then:
3rd preference - growth on rural 'brownfield' land which is
in sustainable locations - primarily land which is presently
well served by public transport or where good public transport
services can be guaranteed.
And if development needs cannot be met from the first three
preferences, only then:
4th preference - limited release(s) on the inner edge of the
Green Belt around Cambridge provided that the integrity of
the Green Belt remains intact eg separation is maintained
between Cambridge and the "necklace" villages."
The meeting ended at 8.25pm.