The Huntingdonshire Council Development Management Committee met to consider planning applications for a solar park in Haddon and for residential developments in St Neots. The committee was also scheduled to discuss the minutes from the previous meeting and any declarations of interest from members.

Haddon Solar Park

The committee was scheduled to consider a report regarding a planning application for the installation of a solar park on land east of Billing Brook and north and south of Peterborough Road, Haddon (application number 25/00652/FUL).

The application proposed the installation of:

• 40,000 photovoltaic panels
• 7 inverters and transformers
• 2 electrical buildings
• 1 on-site control building
• Boundary fencing and gates
• Security cameras

The report pack noted that the application followed a previous application (22/00668/FUL) and associated appeal. It stated that this application proposed a reduction in the overall area of the site by approximately 20ha, together with associated reduction in the number of panels from 65,000 to 40,000 and a reduction in supporting infrastructure.

The Planning Service Manager (Development Management) was expected to recommend that powers be delegated to the Head of Planning, Infrastructure & Public Protection to make representations to the appeal on behalf of the District Council, in accordance with the reason for refusal outlined in section 9 of the report. The report pack stated that Councillor Tim Alban had requested that the application be determined by the Development Management Committee.

The report pack noted objections from Elton Parish Council, and Peterborough Flying School. It also noted that HDC Conservation recommended refusal on the basis of harm to the setting of Grade II Listed Sheepwalk Farm Farmhouse and the associated Granary.

The report pack stated that the main issues to consider in the determination of this application were:

• Principle of Development
• Character and Landscape
• Highway and Transport Impacts
• Public Rights of Way
• Impacts to Safe Functioning of Aircraft
• Ecology and Biodiversity
• Drainage and Flood Risk
• Impacts to Heritage Assets
• Impacts to Neighbouring Residential Amenity
• Contamination Risks and Pollution
• Other Matters

The report pack stated that the Planning Service Manager (Development Management) considered that the applicant had sufficiently addressed the comments of the appeal inspector in relation to the matter of landscape. However, the information submitted and the assessment of the impact to the airfields was not considered to sufficiently demonstrate the proposal would not adversely impact the safe functioning of Sibson Airfield or the adjacent private airstrip at Furze Farm.

The report pack included the following recommendation:

Delegated powers to the Head of Planning, Infrastructure & Public Protection to make representations on the appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the District Council, in accordance with the following putative reason for refusal;

1. The application has failed to demonstrate that it would not materially harm the safe functioning of Sibson Aerodrome or private flying strips through adverse impacts of glint and glare, and the loss of land necessary to facilitate emergency landings. The development is therefore contrary to policies LP14 and LP34 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036.

Land Adjacent 31 Luke Street, Eynesbury

The committee was scheduled to consider a report regarding a planning application for the erection of four dwellings and associated works on land adjacent to 31 Luke Street, Eynesbury (application number 25/00596/FUL).

The Planning Service Manager (Development Management) was expected to recommend that the application be refused. This recommendation was contrary to that of St Neots Town Council, and the application was therefore referred to the Development Management Committee.

The report pack noted that the application site was located within the built-up area of St. Neots and within the St Neots Conservation Area.

The report pack stated that the application sought approval for the erection of four bungalows (one three-bedroom and three four-bedroom).

The report pack noted that there had been extensive planning history on the site, most notably, an appeal for non-determination that was dismissed and planning permission refused for the erection of six bungalows and associated works (23/01164/FUL), a refusal of planning permission for the erection of six dwellings (22/01642/FUL) and a refusal of planning permission for seven dwellings (21/00212/FUL) that was subsequently dismissed at appeal.

The report pack noted an objection from Huntingdonshire District Council Conservation Officer, who stated that the proposed development would result in harm to the special architectural and historic interest of this part of the St Neots Conservation Area.

The report pack stated that the main issues to consider in the determination of this application were:

• The Principle of Development
• Design, Visual Amenity and Impact on Heritage Assets
• Residential Amenity
• Highway Safety, Access and parking provision
• Flood Risk and Surface Water
• Biodiversity
• Impact on Trees
• Accessible and Adaptable Homes
• Water Efficiency
• Developer Contributions

The report pack stated that the Planning Service Manager (Development Management) considered that the proposed development was of a poor design by virtue of its cramped form of development, quantum of hardsurfacing within the site, site layout and lack of soft landscaping that would result in harm to the character and appearance of the site and less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the St Neots Conservation Area.

The report pack included the following recommendation:

REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:-

1. The site sits within the St Neots Conservation Area. The development would appear unduly cramped, due to the lack of space around the buildings, which with the undue dominance of hard landscaping for vehicles and a lack of space for adequate soft landscaping would result in a poor quality development which would detract from the appearance of the site, the special character and appearance of the St Neots Conservation Area and surrounding area. The proposal does not conserve or enhance the historic environment or respond positively to its context or appear to draw inspiration from the key characteristics of its surroundings or contribute positively to the area's character and identify or successfully integrate with adjoining buildings and spaces.

The harm to the designated heritage asset would be less than substantial as set out in the NPPF and therefore the harm has to be weighed against the public benefits but the limited public benefit of the development that include the tidying of the site, the provision of additional market dwellings and the employment opportunities associated with the construction, would not outweigh the harm caused.

As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policies LP11, LP12 and LP34 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036, Policy A3 of the St Neots Neighbourhood Plan, the Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, and Section 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).

Land Rear of 34 to 38 Ackerman Street, Eaton Socon

The committee was scheduled to consider a report regarding a planning application for the erection of a three-bedroom bungalow with garage and associated works on land to the rear of 34 to 38 Ackerman Street, Eaton Socon (application number 25/00756/FUL).

The Planning Service Manager (Development Management) was expected to recommend that the application be refused. This recommendation was contrary to that of St Neots Town Council, and the site was within a Conservation Area, and the application was therefore referred to the Development Management Committee.

The report pack noted that the application site was within the St Neots Neighbourhood Plan boundary and was located within the St Neots Conservation Area. The application site was also directly south of the Grade II Listed Building of 36 Ackerman Street, Eaton Socon.

The report pack stated that the application sought approval for the erection of one bungalow with a garage and associated works.

The report pack noted that the Council's Conservation Officer objected to the proposed development, noting it would cause less than substantial harm to the St Neots Conservation Area and adjacent Listed Building.

The report pack stated that the main issues to consider in the determination of this application were:

• The Principle of Development
• Design, Visual Amenity and Impact on Heritage Assets
• Residential Amenity
• Highway Safety, Access and parking provision
• Flood Risk and Surface Water
• Biodiversity
• Accessible and Adaptable Homes
• Water Efficiency
• Developer Obligations

The report pack stated that the Planning Service Manager (Development Management) considered that by virtue of the scale, design and siting of the proposed dwelling, the proposed development was harmful to the significance of the adjacent Listed Building and harmful to the significance of the Conservation Area.

The report pack included the following recommendation:

REFUSAL for the following reasons;

1. The site is an area of undeveloped open land to the rear of and associated with the Grade II Listed Building, 36 Ackerman Street and sits within the St Neots Conservation Area. As an area of open land, the application site contributes to the setting of the Listed Building at 36 Ackerman Street as an element which allows space around the Listed Building for it to be seen and also seen within the group of historic buildings. The application site also provides a buffer which creates a physical separation between the historic group of buildings containing the Listed Building and the modern housing estate to the south and east. By virtue of the scale, design and siting of the proposed dwelling, the proposed development is considered harmful to the significance of the adjacent Listed Building and harmful to the significance of the Conservation Area. The proposal is not considered to preserve the Conservation Area's character or appearance as it does not maintain the historic grouping of buildings along Ackerman Street nor the grain, scale or character of the historic agricultural settlement. Given the nature of the proposed development, any public benefits are considered to be negligible and would not outweigh the identified harm in this instance. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policies LP11, LP12 and LP34 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036, Policy A3 of the St Neots Neighbourhood Plan, the Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, and Section 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
2. The proposed development by virtue of the siting, scale and massing of the proposed dwelling, and close proximity to the small private rear amenity spaces of Nos. 34 and 36 Ackerman Street, would result in overbearing, overshadowing and loss of light impacts to the detriment of the residential amenity of occupiers of No.'s 34 and 36 Ackerman Street. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy LP14 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036, the Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).