Up to 110 homes at Mingle Lane, Great Shelford And Stapleford

What was proposed

An outline application proposed up to 110 homes, including affordable housing, open space, play areas, landscaping, ecological land, drainage and associated works.

“The committee received an outline planning application (all matters reserved except means of access) for residential development of up to 110 houses, including affordable dwellings, together with open space, play areas, landscaping, land for ecological purposes, drainage and associated works.”

Minutes

Application updates

Ecology, Natural England and flood-risk objections were resolved after further information, while archaeology could be addressed by condition.

“Paragraph 6 - Consultations Natural England and the Ecology Officer have removed their objection – updated text for their consultation responses: Ecology Officer- No Objection 6.40 Following the provision of amended details, there is sufficient ecological information with regards to BNG, Ecological Enhancement and local ecological protection.”

“Natural England- No Objection 6.58 Further information required to determine impacts on designated sites. The proposed development has the potential to have a harmful effect on terrestrial Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and those Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protect Areas (SPAs) or Ramsar sites that they underpin. Assessment of recreational pressure impacts on the notified features of SSSIs and measures to mitigate adverse impacts.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The committee heard from an objector, the application’s agent, and representatives speaking for two parish councils in objection.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the Green Belt, village framework, housing supply, affordable housing, agricultural land, access and harm from development outside the settlement.

“During debate the Committee considered the following issues: i. The officer recommendation was persuasive. They placed emphasis on the village framework, and the proposed development was outside the village framework. Accepted the land was Green Belt but qualified as Grey Belt land but as there was a 5-year housing land supply did not believe there were very special circumstances to justify development. ii.”

Minutes

The vote

Members unanimously voted to follow the officer recommendation and refuse the application.

“The Delivery Manager summarised the officer recommendation of refusal set out on p154-156 of the agenda noting the removal of reason for refusal 4, and the correction to reason for refusal 3 to refer to Grade 3A land.”

“By unanimous vote in favour of the officer recommendation of refusal the Committee refused the application for the following reasons: i. The proposed residential development site lies within the designated Green Belt, wherein there is a strong presumption against inappropriate development. The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is, by definition, harmful.”

Minutes

Why it was refused

The committee found unjustified Green Belt development, countryside encroachment and irreversible loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.

“Development outside these frameworks will only be permitted where the site is allocated within a neighbourhood plan, or is for horticulture, forestry, outdoor recreation, or other uses which require a countryside location, or where supported by other specific policies in the Local Plan.”

“Policy NH/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 seeks to protect Grades 1, 2 and 3a agricultural land from irreversible loss unless the land is allocated for development or it can be demonstrated that sustainability considerations and need for the development outweigh the need to protect the agricultural value of the land.”

Minutes