 Yn y gweithio yng Nghymru, mae'n unig gweithig gwasanaeth rhaglen yn y cyfrifydleeth. Mae'r Eich Mhwyl Gweithreib Dsoeddewch, maen nhw'n mynd i'w ysgolol. Mae'r ei gweithio hefyd, Henry Batchelor, a'n gwneud fel y gweithwyr MCD, ac mae'r gweithwyr haith yn cyfnodd phoblaethol i hynny, mae'n ei ddim yn cyfrifau'r gweithwyr. Mae'n gweithwyr bod mwyn nhw'n meddwl ar ddechrau digwydd, Nid wych i'n dda i'n ddeniau Iergyrchu'r pethau Paedlaethol – dwi'n ddyl cellphone i'r ddweud fflaen a'i ddweud. Nghymru, pa'is gweithio bapau'r rye? Dda'nig i ddweud ar Creu Paedlaethol yn y ddweud, mae'r ddweud er mwyn i'r ddweud. Dwi fawr i ddweud creu o ddechrau, fel ddych chi ei ddweud i'n ddweud yn yr eich gweith gwyfyrdd. This may be an old bit of text that I'm reading. I think the front of the building is sufficient! Can those participating in the livestream please indicate that you wish to speak via the chat column? Please do not use the chat column for any other purpose other than indicating you wish to speak. Please make sure your device is fully charged and that you switch your microphone off unless you are invited to do so otherwise. Please ensure that you've switched off or silenced any other devices you have so that they do not interrupt proceedings. When you're invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched on. When you've finished addressing the meeting, please turn off your microphone immediately. Members please note that it we need to vote on any item we should do so via the microphones, only those present in the chamber can vote or propose or second recommendations. Committee members present in the chamber, we're not going to go through a roll-call. I ddweud hynny, chi fod beth bod chi'n deis wng hwnnw i'n gweithio'r gweithio, ti'n gweithio'n cerdd i'n gweithio ar y cyfnod i chi. Isprifodwyd yma. Wyt wedi cael llanog unid, Ham острyn Henry Batchelor, ychydig yn ddu llynedd Cymru i fych o Gymru Unedig â'r Llywodraeth Llywodraeth ac Llywodraeth Cymru. Roedd yng nghymru yn gymhyshu i'r cyfnod cyfnod, Peter Fhame. Rwy'n cael ei cyfnod i chi'n gweithio'r rhaglach. Yn chest dgymru, Clydefaeth allan oetherbé. Roedden Wh nhân C er precisely ar hyn oed sicrhau wasain, i gweithio voedd巴 [? ysvetllent, mae peth Festogul yng Nghy minaf yn chwarae. Holywg arหม Mcaintlyliau ar drithbyn ac roedd yr oedd mahedrin entirely yn prorogaf a'i地 plyddo. Rwy'n llei'n tro i fynd yn wrth'u lang ment. Mae'r cwmpio eitempras, a'i tympras, mae'r cyfarfodd gael ymdorg. Mae'r cyfarfodd gael ei drill yng nghymru. Mae'r cyfarfodd gael ei drafodd gyda'i gael eu fedydliadau hyn, a'r cyfarfodd gael eu meddwl hwnneddiadau. Rwy'n llei'n tro i fynd i mewn cyfarfodd gael ei meddliadau. Mae'r cyfarfodd gael ei meddl wedi'u meddliadau. Mae'r cyfarfodd gael ei meddl hefyd. Debra Roberts, dystrych cwyslwyr o'r Ffockston Ward. Thank you very much. Councillor Heather Williams. Good morning, Chair. Heather Williams, and I represent the Mordins Ward. Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you, Chair. Richard Williams, I represent the Whittlesford Ward. Finally, Councillor Eileen Wilson. Thank you, Chair. Eileen Wilson, Councillor for Cottenham Ward. Thank you very much. Members, we are now quarts, so we can proceed with the meeting. We are also assisting us today. We have two officers present in the chamber. We have to my left, Mr Nigel Blaiseby. Good morning, Members. Nigel is the delivery manager for the interplanetary department. Stephen Reed is our senior planning lawyer. Morning, Members. Morning, Chair. Thank you very much. We also have our democratic services officer who will be clerking the meeting today, joining us virtually, Lawrence Damari Hoeman. Morning, everyone. Thank you, Lawrence. Hope you all the best for today's meeting. Thank you very much, Lawrence. Appreciate that. Members, if any time a member leaves the meeting, would they make that fact known so it can be recorded in the minutes? We'll be taking regular breaks, depending on where we are in the agenda, but if any member feels they desperately do need a break, please do indicate. Councillor Williams. Sorry, just to let you know, on item number six, I've just had a message from Councillor Coe that would be speaking to a local member. He's been delayed with a patient, so if he doesn't make the time of your discretion, if he's able to join in a different sequence, if he's able to speak, he doesn't know how long he'll be with his patient. OK, well, if you could keep us updated on his whereabouts, that'd be useful. Thank you. OK, Members, just another item. Members should have the main agenda pack dated 11th January and an agenda supplement which wasn't posted but emailed around, dated 12th January containing the plans for the various applications we're looking at today. You should have also received a consultation response from the Cambridge and District or CAMRA, C-A-M-R-A, which relates to item eight, the Jolly Millers pub. Is everyone in receipt of all of those documents? Councillor Bradley. OK, thanks, they are available online as well if you could pull them up. Thank you. And one last item for myself before we move into the main agenda. It's with, sad or a heavy heart that I have to tell everyone that on the 1st of January this year, a parish councillor from my own ward, actually, Linton, councillor Enid, board sadly passed away. She was, you know, very heavily involved in village life and the parish council and she has attended this planning committee very regularly to represent Linton and obviously many members of, many elected members and members of the planning service were very well, she was very well known too and it is a great loss to Linton and to planning in general. So, you know, for myself and the committee as well, we do send our condolences and our thoughts with husband John and their family at this time. Thank you. OK, members, with that we'll move on to the agenda starting with item number two, Apologies. Laurence, do we have Apologies, please? Yes, Chair, Apologies from the Chair, Pippa Halings, Councillor Pippa Halings, also Apologies from councillor Judith Rippeth and councillor Jeff Harvey. Thank you. Thank you, Laurence. Agender item three, Declarations of Interest. Members, does anyone have any declarations of interest to make, please? Councillor Daunton and Wilton. Thank you, Chair. I have a declaration in relation to item six, the Ida Darwin hospital. I'm quoted in the papers and will be stepping out. Will not take part in the discussion of that item. But you will still be speaking as a local member. I would like to speak as a local member. I will speak as a local member. Thank you. Thank you very much. And councillor Wilson, please. Thank you, Chair. I declare an opportunity in trust in relation to item eight. I'm the local member for Cottenham Ward. And I have been receiving emails copied to other people with representations about the application. But I haven't discussed it with anyone. And I come to the matter of fresh. I would also like to point out that on item 12, the enforcement report, there is a reference to the Smithy Fenn Gypsy Roman Traveller site. And I have been involved in discussions about that. But I just want to state that I'm the local member. That's fine. Thank you very much, councillor. Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you, Chair. Two items, items five and item seven. I'm the local member. I am the Welsh council. But I come to this matter fresh. And with item seven, I was not at the meeting where it was discussed. But I have subsequently discussed with the parish chair and clerk, but I'm coming to the matter fresh. Thank you. Thank you very much. And one for myself as well, item nine, Lyndton as this application has already come to us, and I made the same declaration last time. I have discussed this application with neighbours and the parish council, but only around matters of process, Roeddwn dweud i gwneud yryd gyntaf, a'r relOOM yn ei ddechrau i gyd yn modd. Roeddwn i. Yn y rhai o'r ddydd, Cymru Ynw'r ddrygu cyfleiaid yn oed yn hyn o'r enghreifft y ffawr y bydd yn byw, ond ni ddim yn ei ddiwn i, byddwn i'n oed yn mynd i'n mynd ar y ffawr y bydd, ar hyn o'r dyfu ofniad y mwyaf yn deongi o'r lly spurth pwyllai, felly mae'neg o y bydd na'r ysgrifennydd yna'r ysgrifennydd yma, ymlaen nhw, ac ei gair o'r gael y Dorog Llywodraeth, y Dorog Llywodraeth, Llywodraeth Cdwlda Cot. Mae'n addysg o'r gael yn wirio gyd yw y g oper Chelsea yn ymooch gôl o'r cyffredinol galei gael y Ddechrau. Dw i'n fawr am ddyghunio'n agorau ond y dweud o'r gael gyd, i'n arweinydd â nhw'n adnodd y gyrweithreith. Mae gwerthfydd gyd-drech wedi ar y τα strengthening y blaenau hyn yn bwysigol Yn ddechrau cyntaf o gyflawn. Yn trwyddi'r cynllun sydd yma, ynghylch yn ei gweithio'r cyngorol bobl ei fod yn ddechrau. Dyfodol rhai ddreuio'r ddweud ar y lyfrantadau hynny sy'n gaes o gweithio'r ddweud yn ei ddweud o'r cynhyrch pan ffathiau. Yn ddweud yma, arwad yna, ar ddweud o'r 2015 cyngorol a nid defnyddio llawer o'r cyfrantadau i wneud. Ond nad yma hwnnw o gweld i'r cyffrediadau yr cymdeilig ar y cyngorol ac yn ystod y gweithio, os ydych chi'n dechrau'n gwybod cyfnod o'r clywbeth ffyrdd yn y cyfnod ar y cyfnod ar y clywbeth, rwy'n rwy'n rwy'n cymwybod i'r cyfnod yr eitem 5 fel ffordd. Byddwn yn gweithio'r clywbeth am yra, os ydych chi'n cael ei wneud bod y cyfnod ar yr eitem, ac yn gweithio'r cyfnod ar y cyfnod ar y cyfnod ar y clywbeth. Yn ceisio. Yn ceisio, Nigel. Er fyddai unrhyw gwaith yn y cyfnod, I would like to propose the defer on that particular item please, and Councillor Roberts is seconding that. Members, do we need any debate on this or is everyone in agreement that this should be deferred? Agreed. Thank you very much. Item five on our agenda has been deferred. With that we move to item six, which is on page 23 of our agenda's members. This is an application of the Ida Darwin site in Fullborn. The application has reserved matters application for 203 dwellings including affordable housing and land for community provision. The applicant is Morris Holmes. We have a list of key considerations in our agenda's members and the reason it's brought to the committee is because the overall scale and complexity of the application warrants it to be judged by planning committee. And just for clarity, Councillor Daunton is taking no part in this but she will be speaking as a local member. The presenting officer is Mr Dean Scrivener, who I can see online. Dean, good morning. If you could give us any updates to the report we have in front of us and then introduce the item please. Thank you, Chair, just to check you can hear and see me all okay. Chair, can you just confirm that you can hear and see me? Quite faint if you could try and hold the mic a bit closer that would be useful. Is that better? Yeah, I think that's okay if you want to carry on. Yep, thank you. Just before I start the presentation, quick update for members. An email sent round last week confirming the discharge of some of the conditions on the outline permission. This included condition 14, which referred to cyclone bins, store details. Condition 28 was a waste minimisation strategy. Condition 17, which was a surface water drainage strategy. Condition 32, which was the design statement. Condition 17 and 32 were required to be discharged prior to the submission of reserve matters application and therefore have been discharged in consultation with technical consultees. So, I just want to admit that members are aware of that before starting and I'll start my presentation. Hold on a sec, Dean. We've got an issue. Councillor Bradman. Sorry to interrupt your presentation, but I can't find any condition 17 on this application. Am I missing something? I'm on pages 90 of our agenda and it stops at 16. There is no condition 17. Sorry, I was referring to condition 17, the outline permission. Sorry to give me, thank you. Sorry. Okay, shall I proceed? Yeah, carry on please, Dean. Just to confirm, Chair, that you can see that, okay? We can. Okay, so this is a reserve matters application for the layout scale appearance and landscaping for the granting of outline permission for 203 dwellings, including affordable housing and then for community division with access and associate works, open space and landscaping. The site is Ardidalbent, full born. The main consideration in this presentation today I'll talk about layout scale, appearance, landscaping, biodiversity and drainage. So just a bit of background to the site location. As you can see, the site is located just outside the village boundary, village framework boundary of full born, which indicated by the dash line. The application site was once occupied by NHS Hospital buildings, which most have been demolished by now, but some still remain as you can see. The site is located within the green belts and the site is an allocated site under policy H3 of the local plan, which also secures outline permission, which was approved back in November 2019. So as part of the outline permission, a land use parameter plan was approved, which just outlines the different sections of development within the site and the different phasing. So all of this area to the left of the orange dash line is phase one and the area development to the right of the orange dash line is phase two. As you can see, there are green areas within development, which should be preserved for open space and obviously you've got the green wedge to the west. The main access points are a cycle access to the west, main vehicle access and a temporary access approved here. As part of the outline permission, there were restrictions on density and heights and this is indicated on this plan here. So the dark area to the northeast of the site has a maximum density of 45 dwellings per hectare and a maximum height of 9.5 metres. The lighter shaded areas have a maximum density of 40 dwellings per hectare and a height of 9.5 metres and the blue areas have a maximum density of 30 dwellings per hectare and a maximum height of 9 metres. The idea was to create a decreasing density from east to west as you move from urban development across into the further countryside. This is again depicted in the illustrations of master plan, which is a document under the outline permission. Again, you can just see how the general layout of each development parcel on the site was allocated with a green central woodland area with water features through the middle, community provision to the west, a leap to the west and area of play here and again the green open parkland to the west. So this is the proposed layout plan, which has been submitted and amended many times with work with discussions with the Urban Design Officer and Morris Homes. So as you can see, the general layout is informal. It's in accordance with the parameter plans approved to outline permission with development surrounding a central woodland area running through the central site. The main access is here in the same position as approved temporary access is here and a cycle access is still maintained here. This is a cycle footway route, which meanders through the site as a whole and increasing permeability through the sites for people to use and meanders through the central village hearts all the way to the eastern boundary. It also travels along the front of the site to again enhance permeability through the site and connectivity. Lots of soft landscaping along the western boundary just to mark the transition from development into countryside and to soften that edge. Community provision is in the advocated position as out as proposed and outline permission and the road layout follows a meanders through the site. One of the main changes which was discussed through the progression of the scheme was to change the layout of the main road which originally was proposed to go through the middle of the central village heart was actually agreed to actually follow around the central village heart to allow the central village heart to be a main focus of the development. As you can see, the general layout plan respects the rural countryside setting in terms of retaining green space and lots of soft landscaping along the eastern boundary. You can see dense layers of soft landscaping along the east to screen the development against neighbouring dwellings and to screen it from local countryside. So the full warm village design guys, which was adopted in January 2020, just outlines the key characteristics of the island sites. So these are the natural woodland to the west of the site, which is rich in biodiversity. The development line, which prevents development encroaching into that western area. Key views into the countryside to the north and to the south across the windmill to the south as well. Local areas of play, the central green woodland heart as well and the main vehicle point cycle access and temporary access as well. So in terms of the progression of the scheme, this just shows an earlier concept which was identified at the pre-application stage. And what I just want to draw members' attention is that each of these parcels of development will comprise a variety of architectural styles and design appearance. So it's a very varied layout. So not every block will appear the same. And this is indicated by different colours on the edges of each block. And this is identified in the character zones area map shown here. So the green edges is the woodland edge character area. The blue is the intimate streets character area and the red is the development edge character area. Again, the scheme is evolved from pre-application discussions with the urban design officer and the parish council who are supporters of the scheme. So these are just snapshots of the layout that I just showed you and I just wanted to hone in on some of the key details within the layout. So as you can see, the development follows a central green village heart, which is the key characteristic of the site and is in accordance with the village design guide. To the west of the site is obviously the green wedge, which remained open, but it's been enhanced with soft landscaping and community orchards, the LEAP and a viewing platform, which is being proposed by a developer to allow views across to the windmill and the countryside further to the south. These conditions are secured by a recommended condition. And this area here is the eastern section of development just showing a footway link, which increases permeability through the site, which is set within grass verges and green hedges and lots of landscaping, which then meanders around the back of the site to a Pinnock area just to the south of the eastern pond. And this just shows the main access and how the layout is very informal with a cycle route which is set within the grass verge, trees being lined along either side and car parking tucked to the side of dwellings. So these are just extracts from the Village Design Guide, which points developers in direction of design and how places should create a sense of place in respect of full borne village. So this extract just shows that natural verges should be preferred to hard landscaping, trees should be planted on either side. Narrow roads to indicate private driveways to reduce any visual dominance of cars, cars parked to the side of dwellings, and either side of accesses should be richly planted. So as you can see, this measures 3.8 metres in width to indicate a private driveway, which will comprise a gravel bound material. Cars are parked to the side of dwellings with tree planting along the side with a grass verge on the other side. And then this just shows what I showed in the previous slide in more detail, so this is the main access way. As you enter the site, as you can see a cycle route set within grass verge to the right footway on the left. Green soft landscape into the front of gardens, cars parked to the side out of view, and obviously trees as well to help soften that approach. And then this is depicted in the Village Design Guide, so it just shows how the scheme has developed and how it is incorporated some of the design features recommended in the Village Design Guide. As well as the Village Design Guide, which was again discussed at pre-application stage, the developer was encouraged to incorporate some of the layout of housing in around the four-borne area. And there are two Muse courts arrangements set within the scheme. Again, as you can see, cars are parked and tucked out of view. They're set back. Soft landscaping has been incorporated. So as you approach the Muse Court arrangement, it softens the use of hard landscaping. And again, this was just to reflect an approach which was in existing form development found within the four-borne area. So in terms of the character analysis undertaken by the developer, they undertake an analysis of the existing characteristics and architectural styles in four-borne. Again, this was in consultation with the Parish Council. And as you can see, there are a range of architectural styles and roof forms and design, which are found within four-borne. For example, an eyebrow window detailing, hip roof, consistent use of one material such as render or red brick. And what they've done is try to incorporate these architectural details within the design. So this is what this slide shows. So as you can see, the dwelling types will contain a range of architectural styles and details to create a variety in appearance as referred to in the Village Design Guide. So for example, gable frontages, eyebrow window detailing, cat slide roof windows, consistent use of one material such as render or red brick. Sash windows, which are all found within four-borne. And these images just show examples of what the house types would look like. So this slide just shows examples or snapshots of some of the street scenes within the development and within each character area. So as you can see, there is a range of architectural styles proposed, which was discussed with the Parish Council on what was agreed with a pre-application stage. So as you can see, cat slide roofs, gable frontages, flint walls, which are found within the four-borne Village. Soft hedging with state railings, which again soften that edge and hit roofs. And then here again in intimate streets, character area have consistent use of red brick, which are probably more simple in appearance, but again found in four-borne. And then down here you have the Brudden Dedge character area, which comprises these in oval windows with red brick and buff brick, which are found at the nearby pumping stations in Jo Hinton. So also within the development, you will find these focal buildings, which again was discussed and agreed at a pre-application stage. So what the developer has done has undertaken a character analysis of architectural styles in the area and incorporated them into some of these focal buildings, which will help create a sense of place and also help navigation for users within the site. So these buildings will be found mainly on street corners, but on the Woodland edge, opening and fronting onto the central Woodland heart. So focal building type one just incorporates these in oval elongated windows with red brick detailing, which is found at the pumping lodges near Jo Hinton. So that's one type of building, which will be found in development. And then the other two types of buildings you have these high gable frontages, which additional front walls to the front, which again found in four-borne. And the other type of building is the building with these eyebrow window detail, detailings, which again are found in four-borne. And then these are just examples of what these house types will look like within the development for members reference. So onto landscaping. So this is the western edge of the development. As you can see, a proposed parkland is proposed, which will incorporate a variety of tree species to buffer that or soften this edge of the development in accordance with the outline permission. A community orchard is also proposed, which will contain a variety of local species, which was raised as a comment by one of the representations on the application. The viewing platform of where people can view and celebrate the historical significance of the windmill to the south. These conditions are secured by, these details are secured by condition recommended and those are for matters. Again, these would be heavily screened by tree planting. The leaf details are also secured by the condition recommended. The number of mature trees are proposed along the western edge of the development to soften that transition from development into the countryside. Soft boundary treatments are also proposed around plots along the western boundaries, just to soften the edge and along the front as well. Just to soften the transition of urban development into the countryside and also respecting the rural location. So this is the eastern side of the development. Again, as you can see, the central village heart, which all the existing trees are being retained and also new planting of trees are proposed to replace the trees which are dying on site or in a poor condition. Again, the eastern boundary densely screens by soft landscaping to respect the privacy of neighbouring dunnings to the east and to mark the boundary of development. Along the northern boundary, there's a 10 metre ecology buffer, which was approved at Outline, which the developer has to retain. They're also enhancing this with more hedgerow planting as well. Again, to the front of the site, the cycle footway link is set within grass verges. Again, the front hedgerow is just to be enhanced significantly to create a soft edge. In terms of biodiversity, the developer has submitted a habitat creation plan, which just highlights all the ecological habitat enhancements on the site. This includes native woodland wildflowers and grasses, mainty grasslands, native wildflower meadows, which seems to care about the yellow, tenuation pond planting, which will have native wetland meadows within them to enhance biodiversity, and native hedgerows around some of the plots, edges, boundaries, and boundaries of the site. As well as that, the developer is proposing a number of ecological enhancements. This includes insect towers, hedgehog highways, swift nest bricks. Swift are obviously prevalent in fullborns, so that's very important. Traditional bat boxes and bird boxes, and that's indicated on this diagram here. A condition is recommended on reserve matters to secure details of these features. On to drainage, as I mentioned earlier, a condition 17, the outline permission, was required to be discharged prior to the submission of reserve matter application. We allowed the developer to submit a deus charge of condition application to run alongside the reserve matters application to discharge these details. This has been discharged in consultation with the Environment Agency, the Locally Further Authority, and the Drainage Officer. So this plan just shows that the proposed drainage scheme will incorporate an infiltration method, whereby these tenuation ponds proposed within the site are to act as water stores in events of extreme rainfall or storm events. So at the members briefing that we had back in early December, myself and Harry Pickford from the Locally Further Authority went through some of the technical drawings on the drainage scheme with members, and it was decided that, or members requested that a more simplified drawing should be provided just to explain how the drainage scheme will work. So in discussions with the developer and their drainage technical consultant, this drawing has been provided just to show areas of, just to show how the surface water drainage scheme will work. So this just shows, so the yellow areas are the permeable areas of permeable roads and driveways, which will help rainwater percolating into the ground. And the blue areas, light blue areas are obviously the attenuation ponds, which will act as water storage in events of extreme rainfall. The dashed purple lines indicate redundant tunnels, which is the existing drainage infrastructure on the site, which are to be removed or replaced. Some of these will exist and still remain, which are the thick purple lines. So some of these will still be used in terms of managing surface water on the site. The blue dashed lines are just showing how the water will drain into these attenuation ponds within the site and how that will work. A new foul pumping water station is proposed to the northeast of the site. And there is an existing sump pump, which is located just outside the red line of the site, which is intended to be retained and is obviously connected by an existing tunnel, which will be used as part of the water drainage scheme. Just to let you know, I have got Harry Pickford from the Locally Further Authority and developers, technical and drainage technical consultant, just in case members have any questions regarding drainage later on. So this is just a simple proposed cross-section through the site, just showing the location of the attenuation ponds and how they will act as water stores. So this is the existing situation with the existing soakways located underground above the groundwater table. And these are to be replaced by these attenuation ponds, which will act as storage waters. As you can see, these attenuation ponds will be located clearly above the existing groundwater level. So this is the proposed section which just simplifies that the cross-section is submitted as part of the drainage strategy, which members requested that members briefing. Also at members briefing, there was a question regarding how the areas of development will be managed or which roads cycleways will be adopted. So this is just a plan just showing which areas will be adopted by whom. The white roads and cycleways are to be built to adopt a standard which the local highway authority will adopt. The green and yellow areas will be managed by private management companies, and the attenuation ponds and the water pump will be adopted by Anglen Water. We understand that the developer has been in conversations with Anglen Water and they have technical details approved for their adoption. Lastly, this is just a plan just showing the affordable housing distribution across the site. So as part of the outline permission, 40% affordable housing was secured. 81 affordable units will be provided with 57 being rented out affordable rent with 24 being shared ownership. This has been consulted with the affordable housing team and they are happy with this distribution and layouts and the tenure and mix is provided as well. So in conclusion, the proposed development accord to the outline permission and its associated conditions, the proposed development corporate design approach which responds well to the character and appearance of four-worn village and the four-worn village design guide and is acceptable in terms of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping. Development proposes a range of ecological enhancements to provide faster enhancement on the site. Service water drainage scheme has been approved and condition 17 has been discharged in consultation with the EA, LFA and drainage officer and therefore officers recommend approval subject to conditions. With some illustrative drawings which the developer has provided just to show members of what the development would look like on the ground but obviously it is just illustrative purposes. Thank you chair. Dean, thank you very much for that. Hugely details introduction there, we really appreciate that. I mean this is a huge reserve matter application we're looking at so we really appreciate the level of detail you've gone into there. I'm sure we will probably have some questions for you so if you could leave your presentation open on your computer but switch it off for the moment please I'm sure we'll be coming back to you for any questions of clarity in the debate. Members we have a raft of public speakers now and we're going to start with a member of the four born forum Mr David Cotty, David are you with us? I can see you Councillor Cohn but I can't see Mr Cotty. You should be able to hear me. Yes we can hear you. Okay you should be able to see me. Yes we can see and hear you Mr Cotty, welcome. Good. So a few ground rules. We have three minutes each for each of our speakers and at the end of your presentation if you could just stay on the line for a second in case any of the members of the committee have any questions of clarity for you if that's okay. Okay thank you very much. Okay so whenever you're ready please. Before I start can I just make one small point of clarification. The playing officer has referred to the water basins as attenuation ponds. In fact my understanding is that they're infiltration basins which are quite different. So I just make that clarification because I'll be referring to infiltration basins in my piece. Okay that's understood thank you. Chair could I just ask that our audio is turned up a little bit in the chamber please. Okay Mr Cotty when if you're ready please. Right thank you. On 19th November 2021 I wrote in response to a further submission of new and amended drawings. I drew attention to what shows that the bank age level of the six surface water infiltration basins was higher and in some cases significantly higher than the surrounding ground level. The bank levels and the basin bed levels were shown on Wyrmold Borough's drawings 503 and 504 but adjacent ground levels were not shown. These levels can only be found at the end of the engineer's drainage strategy document part 3 revision 2 appendix H. By extrapolation of the tabulated data I found that the height of the bank above ground level adjacent to the basin was 270 millimetres and 50 millimetres respectively for basins 1 and 2, 720 millimetres for basins 3, 4 and 5 and 910 millimetres for basin 3a. It should be noted that in appendix H basin 3a is referred to as basin 7. I'll give just one example that of basin 4. On the drawing the bank level is given as 11.80 while in appendix H the ground level is given as 11.08 resulting in a raised embankment of 720 millimetres. The bed level of the basin is given as 10.54 which means that the bottom of the basin is only 540 millimetres below ground level. So the underground drainage pipe discharging into the basin is likely to be below the bottom of the basin that is it doesn't work. I found it difficult to believe what I'd found so in my November letter I asked the planning officer to confirm whether my analysis was correct or whether I had misinterpreted the data I received no reply. Only with the publication of the officer's report did I receive confirmation that my analysis was correct. Paragraph 211 states that I quote the intention is to raise the ground levels around much of the site by approximately one metre or so on average. Please note the words that the intention is and around much of the site. This represents a major change to the proposals and is not as far as I can tell shown on any drawings or in appendix H. The report confirms that the raised ground is required in order to provide the necessary separation to ground water and is also clear that the raised levels are required well away from the basins to allow the underground drainage network to perform under gravity. These very late significant changes to the proposals appear only to be identified in the officer's report. How will the raised ground be achieved? Will buildings also be on raised ground a metre or so above the existing ground levels on this green belt site? What might be the impact on the surrounding lower ground? Together with the contentious water table levels and the environment agencies agreement to reduce the minimum distance between the basin bed level and the peak water table from 1.2 metres to 1 metre, there is no confidence that the issue of surface water drainage has been adequately resolved on this low site at the foot of the Gold Hill. There are still perhaps more questions than asked. Sorry, sir, if you could bring your comments to a conclusion please, the three minutes are left. I'm finished. Perfect timing, thank you very much. Members, do you have any questions of clarity for Mr Cotty and any of the comments he's made? No, okay. Sorry, we have one from Councillor Bradman, please. Thank you Mr Cotty, that was really interesting to hear from you. Could you just tell us, does the vegetation on the site indicate that the site is wet at the eastern end currently or does it not indicate that? Sorry, can you just repeat that, sorry? Sorry, I'm thinking about the vegetation and whether it's an indicator currently of what the level of waterlogging of the ground is. So at the eastern end, near Fullbourne, is the ground damp basically or is it not at present? There's nothing to see at the moment but I'm aware and I have seen that area wet with minor flooding in the past, way back in the past. I think an indication of the damp in that area is possibly shown by the water pump which referred to in the officers report over in the far eastern corner which discharges water into the ditch in Hinton Road. Part of my submission back in February last year I submitted photographs of this pump working and discharging water into the ditch outside the actual site. The pipe appears to go under the playground area of the Steiner School finding its way to the actual ditch. That pump was always part of the NHS site. It's strange that it's somehow now not in the development site because as far as I'm aware that pump is now neither in the county council site who are the ownership of the Steiner School and neither is it in the ownership of Morris Homes. Maybe somebody can clarify that but I think there is indication that there is a wetter area down there. I'm just looking at page 88 of our packs I'm just wondering given a lot of what you've spoken about is about the attenuation ponds there is a condition 5 on here that does say that more details will be coming forward at a later date so I'm just wondering is it your view that what's currently proposed isn't sufficient enough but that there is a way of addressing it there or do you feel that it can't be addressed ever and therefore the development shouldn't happen so do you think a suitable resolution could be found? I'm obviously not a drainage engineer so it's difficult to tell but it's obvious from the fact that there's been this proposed raising of the ground by up to a metre over much of the site. Nowhere does it indicate exactly what area of the site needs to be raised but it's quite clear that the previous scheme was unable to satisfy the requirement of having either 1 or 1.2 metres clearance below the bottom of the infiltration basin and the peak water table level and I made this in several responses during last year that there was concern that this could not be achieved and infiltration basins will not work unless there is this clear area below the bed of the basin and the peak water table it would seem to me that the only way that this can be resolved without having to raise the ground levels would be to provide larger water storage areas but this of course could only be achieved by losing a few of the homes otherwise I can see no other resolution and it doesn't seem appropriate to raise the site by a metre it raises all kinds of other questions as to the effect on the surrounding lower areas potential runoff into those other areas and so on and this site as you know is at the lowest point of full-borne and it isn't far away from the commitment to be aware of the Tewisham Road site recently refused permission this is not very far away from there but it actually suffers from some of the same problems Thank you Mr Cody I believe there is a follow-up from Councillor Williams Thank you chair just to clarify your answer there I think actually what I heard was that there could be a solution there is a way to deal with this issue and just to explain chair why I'm asking is as members as you said you're not a drainage expert nor are we but we have to if we want to approve or refuse it's because we think a solution is possible or not so am I right in considering from your comments there that you think there could be a solution to address it I mean there obviously I assume that there is a solution given a different scheme but I think the solution put forward of raising the ground by up to a metre brings with it all sorts of other questions given that this is a green belt site with restrictions on the heights of the buildings so it really doesn't seem to be appropriate and I think the implications a sudden decision to raise the ground level seems to be a last-minute decision and my feeling is that the implications of that have not been thought through we've not got the full information to understand the impact of that raise going on Thank you Mr Clerk, I think we get the gist Thank you very much We have no further questions of clarity for you so we thank you very much for taking the time to speak to us today and we will move on to our next public speaker which is Mr Mark Gaithouse who is speaking on behalf of the applicant and I believe Mr Gaithouse is sharing his time with a drainage consultant Mr Gary Goodwin Do we have Gary and Mark here? Yes we do I can see you Gary, I can't see Mr Gaithouse Is he with us? Hi there chair, can you hear me and see me? Yes we can see and hear both of you thank you very much so we have roughly three minutes to address the committee please at the end of which if you could just hold on the line in case there's any questions of clarity from committee members so I'm not sure who's going to lead but whoever is, whenever you're ready please Can I just clarify it will be myself that's speaking, Gary Goodwin and Mark Gaithouse is our technical director for our eastern region who is responsible for the design of the development and the drainage scheme so just to find some correction there, sorry Thank you Chairman, members, thank you for the opportunity to speak my name is Gary Goodwin and I'm the group planning and design director for Morris Homes Limited I would also like to introduce our technical director for the eastern region Mark Gaithouse who has been responsible along with our professional consultants for the design and ultimately the approval now in place for the drainage schemes on this development and he's available for questions should you have any through your deliberations The application before you today represents the culmination of over six years of work by your council Homes England and Morris Homes, indeed just this reserve matters application has taken two years to get to this point but that's representative of some of the complex issues on site the level of local involvement and the need to meet all the high design aspirations of all those involved and I believe your planning officer is to be commended for such a detailed report and presentation which is very informative in every aspect of this site and it's very difficult for me to summarise that in three minutes At the beginning of our involvement with this site we embraced every element of the design brief and the conditions approved in the outline consent. We then began a very thorough consultation process with your urban design officers the parish council and other area forums to ascertain their own design aspirations for the shape the form and the appearance of development and any local concerns and after a year long pre-application process and the receipt of everyone's backing we were actually invited to submit the reserve matters application before you today Throughout the last year we've spent an enormous amount of time responding to the very detailed and complex consultation responses associated with the finer detail that we've now applied for even down to the types of hinges and bolts on the bin store gates. A particular importance has been the proposed drainage scheme but we've now proven that that does have the capacity to accommodate our developments and in fact offer significant improvements over the previous uncontrolled former hospital drainage scheme by providing on-site storage for water in the event of extreme weather events and global warming without imposing on any off-site systems or causing flooding elsewhere and we're pleased that the LLFA and the Environment Agency have now approved our proposals and the relevant drainage condition on the outline consent has now been discharged after their own detailed assessment The proposals before you today comply with all your adopted policies in terms of design, landscape, ecology, sustainability and affordable housing etc and in many aspects they go beyond those policies for instance in providing a biodiversity net gain The proposals present a well-designed bespoke development the form of which accords with the outline consent the approved design master plan and the specific requirements of both the parish council and your urban designers Ultimately our proposals meet and exceed the aspirations of all those involved with this site over the past six years and they are worthy of your office's recommendation for approval and I would kindly ask that you vote in favour of his recommendation As with Mark, I am more than pleased to answer any questions you may have during your deliberations Thank you very much Thank you very much for that, that's almost three minutes to the second so I really appreciate the timing on that one Members, are there any questions of clarity for either of the gentlemen? Councillor Hawkins, please Interestingly I picked up on the issue of the drainage and the proposal to raise the ground level when I was going through this application so what I want to ask you is this the condition that has now been discharged on drainage is that based on you raising the ground level on most of the site up to one metre to be able to give the clearance that's needed for the infiltration basins to work? Good afternoon chair Is it OK if I start, Councillor Hawkins? Yes, that's fine So is it possible, I wonder is it possible for the drainage sort of the simplified drainage strategy to be pulled up to identify some points of reference? Was that the document in the office's introduction? Is that the document you can see on your screen now? That's the one, thank you So I think in simple terms I just need to try and explain this graphically So the drainage strategy to our proposal consists of three important elements Ground raising is part of that So the drainage strategy is also to deal with obviously this was a full hospital site so a brownfield site and we've got capping layers to put in there to create a sort of clean garden area so there's actually a residential end-use requirement for us to raise gardens notwithstanding what we need to do about the drainage The drainage really is taking from what was there previously which as Gary has alluded to is largely impervious areas of roof hard-standing areas which are then being piped into soakways and uncontrolled soakways so flooding straight into the groundwater So the system now you've seen in front of you where what we've got here are extensive areas of permeable pavements which are then controlling water getting into the ground also pipe systems which act to storage and control basins which also then percolate the water into the ground below and provide storage Our system as Gary suggested in his commentary includes for not only the sort of peak 100 year rainfall intensity which is what we're required to do as a new development but also includes a 40% increase in climate change The system that was there previously when this was all covered by hospital buildings and our parking drives and all the rest of it didn't have any of those requirements in there So we've actually got within our design large areas of controlled storage and measured importration into the subsource below So to answer your question it's not just being driven by raising ground levels there's a whole site-wide strategy here that's been called into play So what we've looked to maybe just to clarify is that Mr Cote seems to make reference to these sump pumps being an absolute critical part of the previous drainage strategy Our discussions with the NHS and their facility managers have clarified that the service tunnels which are indicated in magenta on this plan Those sump pumps all they're doing is emptying water from those service tunnels are approximately two metres deep You can walk from one end to the other down the primary arterial route They've not been maintained They're leaking, they're redundant Those will in the best part when we build our development be redundant or be at the sump pump which is to the northern boundary of the Steinschool will still be in existence and still be utilised But what they're not doing, they're not lowering the groundwater locally It's a terrible strategy That's incidental as part of the facilities management of the hospital I think there's this urban myth that these sump pumps are protecting the environment and keeping the groundwater artificially low and preventing flooding They're basically a subservient system to the service tunnels that are exhibited across the site Our system will replace that but also retain that in part So it's a significant improvement on what was there previously So I don't know whether that's in a convoluted way as I answered your question, Councillor Hawkins Did you want to come back, councillor? Thank you for your answer I'm still not clear You still have to raise some parts of this site Is that correct? Absolutely, yes Okay And how much of the site are we talking about? Can you tell us which areas of the site please? Where we've got the balancing ponds we are raising levels across there but there's a wider requirement to raise levels for us to put a capping layer in above the existing made ground on ponds because this was obviously a former brownfield site so we've got to bring in material or generate material to install a capping layer across the site Thank you, Chair, I'll come back to this later Thank you My question is similar It's very useful we've got this diagram still up because I wanted to ask in which specific areas will the ground be raised and I've got a couple of other questions but if you'll give me I'll ask those after that question has been raised In other words, for example I hear what you say, you need to put a capping layer over the existing ground because it's a brownfield site and you might need to raise that up so what depth would that be having to raise the ground where the five attenuation ponds and the sixth large pond are in order to make them viably deep for the purpose they're intended and could you indicate where that is? So just in answer to your question in parts, yes we are raising ground levels to give us a basin of the attenuation, the importration basins to give us a sort of a clear at least a metre clearance below sort of above the ground water table in terms of a capping layer where we're required to raise levels to cap over my ground we're required to install a 600mm capping layer where you've got the attenuation ponds which is just south of the pumping station in the east, we're not raising ground levels there So in the immediate vicinity of the three attenuation ponds in the central green area how high are you having to raise the ground in that location? Approximately half a metre OK, thank you The next one is the sump pump which is to the south east corner of the diagram You said it will still be used but as others have pointed out it's outside the red line plant and I wanted to know what is your understanding about whose ownership that's in and who will maintain it? My understanding with that existing sump pump is that our understanding is that it's currently in the ownership of the NHS and they're maintaining their operatives It sits out of the land that Morris Homes will be acquiring and I would presume that whilst the NHS has still got buildings being retained there on our phase 2 parcel it will remain in existence at the point in which that phase 2 land becomes vacant at the site and the building has become demolished then there won't be a requirement for it because all of the service tunnels that sump pump drains will become redundant and will eventually be abandoned and demolished but in the interim while we're building our phase 1 parcel it will remain in existence for the duration that the NHS facilities are still there Thank you Thank you very much I don't think we have any further questions of clarity for either of our speakers so again we say thank you very much to both of you for addressing the committee and for answering the technical questions and we will move on to our next three local speakers or the three local members for full born We will start with councillor Graham Cohn As I appreciate he has work commitments so councillor Cohn if you're with us Thanks very much chair, thanks for allowing me to speak and I'll be brief Essentially I hope the committee support this application I think there's been lots of work done with the developers, the parish council, local residents the local members in trying to make this an application that is suitable for full born and something that is credible for our village I think it does take into account the village design guide and it's a bespoke development that's really taken into account design within full born as a village There's lots of other things that have come up during the consultation in terms of swift boxes brewing platforms, play areas the orchard and the community building those things I think have been taken into account in this development I think given that it's got 40% affordable housing I think this development really could be a good thing for full born so I hope the committee does support it it's got support of the parish council it's got support of itself as local member I think there has been lots of concerns about the drainage and the fact that we know this is an area that could flood given the surrounding area I think there has been a lot of work from the developers to rectify that situation and it is supported by the environment agency and there is, I think there needs to be suitable conditions in place to make sure that that is fulfilled obviously I'm not a drainage officer but I think that condition should make sure that that site isn't going to have an implication on the surrounding areas so in short I support the application and I hope the committee does as well Thanks for letting me speak chair No problem councillor, if you've got a few more minutes I'm just going to ask you to hold on in case there are any questions of clarity for yourself I don't see anyone so I think your comments are duly noted and we thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to speak to us today Lovely, thank you, cheers Now I'll go to our next local member who's councillor John Williams I believe he's online John Thank you chair Good morning committee As you can see from the case officers report my concern has been the surface drainage for this development The report acknowledges that drainage is an issue given that we have a record of flooding in the roads to the east of the Idaarwin site namely Thomas Road and Roberts Way We must ensure that this development doesn't aggravate this problem contrary to our planning policies You have before you a proposed drainage system which as we've heard the developers assured us and me is better than that that was in place for the hospital and that this reserved matters has now been discharged As other speakers have said I'm not a hydrologist and therefore must rely on the experts to guide me and yourselves Nevertheless the development is taking place in two phases and I should ask that you consider instructing the applicant to review the working of the drainage system following completion of phase 1 and before the start of phase 2 and obviously the start of phase 2 involves the removal of the tiles and the pumps I should also ask that you ensure that the ownership of the pumps which are mentioned in the report are secured so they can continue to be maintained and that for as long as they are needed particularly the pump by the Steiner School as we can see is very important until the estate is completed and the new drainage system comes into use Otherwise I support the officer's recommendation of approval given that this development will bring much needed affordable housing to full-born but I would ask you to ask that you instruct the applicant to review the drainage to make sure that we are absolutely certain that the drainage system that is being put in place does the job and doesn't flood other homes around the site Thank you Thank you Councillor Williams If you wouldn't mind holding on in case there are any questions of clarification for the local member I'm looking around, no I think that was all clear thanks very much for your time as well this morning and with that we'll move on to the third local member who's with us in the room Councillor Daunton if you'd like to come forward to the mic please might need to tap in, there you go so as usual three minutes and then if you wouldn't mind holding on for any questions of clarification or we may be having a microphone issue here Any more success? I think you know the rules, three minutes and then hold on for any questions of clarity Whenever you're ready please Thank you, I want to support this application The development provides 40% affordable housing which full-born needs some of which I have already raised at an earlier stage three points, cycle and bin storage outdoor space for affordable housing and overall design first point, the development meets current local plan obligations for cycle storage however this does appear to be under provision for the affordable homes which do not have external storage to provide additional capacity this won't further our aims on active travel full-born is at easy cycling distance and then we'll have to go to employment centres capital park, Peterhouse Technology Park the proposed Cambridge International Technology Park Adam Brooks, the biomedical campus and the city centre even with just one bike space per bedroom the bike stores for plots 50 to 55 those are the on your plans winter, may, grass, may and will side house styles make it impossible for the easy removal of the two end bikes if the central racks are occupied and there is no basis still evident it should also be noted that both have been in cycle stores for the community building in the apartments building plots 40 to 45 have no roof protection previously the bin storage for the affordable homes had individual wheelie bins for each home but because the stores were too small the bins were so tightly packed that somewhat have been very difficult to access the developers tried to deal with this without increasing the size of the storage building and larger shared bins because of the size of the bins it's now not possible for residents to move them into place for collection understand that some kind of management agent will be responsible for taking out the bins each week but the loss of just a few dwellings would enable property size stores and allow for increase in cycle parking second point most affordable homes are provided as flats or masonettes most without gardens even for ground floor flats and no balconies of first floor properties the affordable homes will mostly be reliant on tumble dryers for drying washing but a recent report found that one of the main sources of microfibers into the air was from tumble dryers and these will be the people most unable to afford to buy and run such high energy appliances this is a tightly drawn development where dwellings are clustered together on a larger site third point the Philbourne Village Design Guide pages 14 and 15 advocates good contemporary design of elegant simplicity which should reflect the diversity of the village what is presented here is very loosely based on an interpretation of two styles Jordan and Victorian there are also still houses with meter boxes on the front elevations contrary to Village Design Guide recommendations I draw these points to the attention of the committee since the Village Design Guide project has been sponsored and promoted by Southcams thank you thank you very much members any questions hold on Claire any questions of clarity councillor Hawkins please and then councillor Heather Williams thank you chair I just want to pick up on the point you made about the bin storage can I refers to paragraph 251 on page 83 of our papers I remember marking that thinking to myself how will the management company get people to come and pull the bins out for collection is that have you seen this work elsewhere I mean what exactly is your concern about it I am concerned but I just want to understand what your concern is my concern is that the space is still too tight and do you think this thing will work that the management company will send someone out every whatever it is to pull the bins out well that was my concern that it would be dependent on a management agent and I wondered how that would actually work in practice thank you thank you councillor Heather Williams thank you chair perhaps if the bin storage is of a particular concern or if it will debate it would you be agreeable if there were some sort of conditions on bin storage perhaps that's my first question secondly this one's probably more for officers I don't think we can take use of tumble dryers as a material planning consideration I'm having shakes of heads so I'm afraid I'll have to glaze over that the other issue you raised was around design and the village design statement that's a balance of material but obviously the parish council fill the opposite to yourself that it does fit in with the character is it just the fact that it's only two styles whereabouts in the actual if you're asking us to object to this what would be the material parts of the design guide that you feel it's in conflict with thank you chair my copy of the village design guide which I have here so in one point and the village design use your mic please I'm trying to find the exact the village design guide refers to simplicity sorry chair I can't find it now yes here we are 10.12 building should not be a repetitive and provide variety of building types and design with coherent scale massing in elegant simplicity in detail and that's on page 15 and on page 14 is mentioned contemporary design for new developments contemporary design is what is promoted or advised and my point here is that the styles are copying Victorian and Georgian styles and not contemporary styles you want to come back so to be clear the reason for refusal for yourself would be that there's it's two historical styles but it also said about simplicity and you said about there needs to be more variations from what we've seen there are three different areas in the site for 200 houses and also there's lots of sub variations within that how much more do you think there needs to be how many more variations because we've seen about probably about 10 I'd have to add them up but it should be then if 10 or plus isn't sufficient I think my main point is that I would say that those are copying earlier styles rather than the elegant simplicity of a contemporary design so to clarify it's not that there isn't enough variation it's the type of style ok that's different from the original thank you thank you and a question for councillor Bradlin thank you I'm going to come back to the refuse storage and I just want to understand because I'm sure you understand it more clearly than I do as I understand it the designs that the amount of space allocated for bin storage in your view has caused them to be required to change what would normally be the arrangement in other words in normal developments you'd have each house responsible for its green, black and blue bin and because the space that's been allocated is not sufficient they are presumably indicating a communal bigger size of bin which a management company is going to pull out do you have the feeling that if the bin storage area was made larger it would be more possible for people to manage their own bins because like other members here I think it's deeply dubious as to whether a management company will come out it says should the managing agent put the bins out the night before the collection you think about this in your own arrangement a paved area will need to be provided for the bins however if the bins are put out at 6am in the morning of the collection day this is not required so somehow they're going to sit out in the middle of the road until the bin man comes around I mean is it your impression that there might be enough room within the site if they just configured it differently yes thank you for your elegant simplicity of your answer might I come back on that briefly yes I think my main point is as I said that it is a little too tightly packed and if it were less tightly packed there would be the requirement for managing agent thank you very much I think those are all the questions for you councillor so thank you for your time okay members that's the end of our public speakers so we have two options now we can either move straight to the debate or we can have a brief 10 minute recess if anyone fancies we've been going for an hour and a half just want to take a quick straw poll if anybody does anybody want to break now are they happy to continue okay we'll carry on then members moving into the debate now obviously we do also have an opportunity to ask any questions of clarity of either the case officer or we do have a drainage officer with us as well if there's any specific questions that a drainage officer can help with so I'm going to start with councillor Heather Williams please thank you can I just get clarification first from officers about we've got this issue with the bins and obviously we have been recommended approval so this would be something that the officers have looked at so can we have a bit more view from officers as to where that is in the planning balance for them because it does seem a minor bit in the balancing of all of this but if perhaps some sort of conditioning could work to alleviate concerns I think it answer that one I will point out I see there's a condition 11 which does relate to waste collection yeah that's why I'm asking do we think that's sufficient to cover if I just could ask the second one as well which is about how the comments around the design guide because obviously it's been felt in balance it's supportive we've heard one section of it by Councillor Daunton that it might be in conflict due to contemporary styles so just if officers who are probably know it off by heart by now could say about the design guide as a whole and the issues that sure who wants to take that Dean or I see Treveen's appeared yeah I'll probably let Treveen jump in on the design grounds I was just going to answer the question regarding waste or refuse plans first which was raised obviously as the chair you have indicated that condition 11 is recommended to secure details and management of the refuse across the site I would just like to remind members that condition 14 has been discharged which secured bin and cycle store details this was carried out in consultation with the waste department and they were happy with the bin storage and they are satisfied that there is sufficient capacity of bins provided and the arrangements including pool distances and bin collection points are all secured and they are happy with these arrangements so I just wanted to answer that first, I'll let Treveen jump in to answer the comment regarding design, thanks Thanks Dean, good morning members my comment with regard to contemporary design and what stated in the village design statement is simply the definition of contemporary and contemporary means of its time and the scheme that's before members today is a scheme that is drawing from kind of the features as shown by Dean in his presentation the features that are found in full born village and trying to adapt the house types of Morris homes to respond to the characteristics that are found in full born it is in no way a Victorian house or in no way a Georgian house but it's interpreting some of those historic features that are found in full born in this development so in the true sense contemporary means of its time and this could be seen that way the other point I think to say is also the consultation exercise that we conducted at pre-app stage and the opportunity to discuss the future of what the future style of this place would be like and we carried quite an open consultation process through which we have got feedback from the parish council that they wanted to go with this form of approach and that's the way that's the direction that we when taking on board some of the views coming in from the village thank you Thank you for that I believe Councillor Williams you wish to come back on those points Chair I was just going to give my view for the debate if that's okay so given the condition that's in here in regards to waste and given that the other conditions have already been discharged and that our operatives are happy with what's being provided I don't feel it would be reasonable to look at that as a grounds for refuse or given technical offices that probably know much more about emptying bins and what have you than us and if they have to go out the night before that's no different to what any of us do I think to be quite honest in relation to it as a principle and the design I have some agreements with the parish council because when I was looking through it personally I thought how nice that we've actually got three different sort of styles with its 200 houses all development really in the grand scheme what we've seen for me I've really liked the fact that it's got character I've seen so many things here where I've thought it's just standardised blocks and it gets said it's urban or it's contemporary and these words are used to give alternative whereas actually for me maybe it's my degrees in law and history perhaps I'm nostalgic I've really liked particularly the sort of arches and the windows you know it's got something about it and also I think it does reflect many areas of Forbwn you've got more modern areas but one thing that's always struck me by the village of Forbwn is its green spaces in its settlements it is an area that has seen development but managed to maintain those little patches of green in places and that communal green area and I think to have that at the centre the way it's been done and I agree with the way the road has moved so it's not cutting through I have to say for myself very much in line with the feeling of Forbwn so I will be I will be supporting it in line with supporting the parish council Thank you very much for those comments The council of Hawkins please Thank you very much chair two things if I may but first of all just to say well done to Dean found the report quite exhaustive and easy to read and good work can we bring up if you don't mind please Dean the picture showing the distribution of the affordable housing please if you could Dean whilst he's doing that it's just I so the top left seems to have a lot as you can see there's a lot of yellow at the top towards the western side and there's hardly any sorry Dean can you remind us of the colour please what does yellow mean yeah so the yellow represents the affordable units which we affordable rent and the red shows shed ownership so that is the distribution which has been consulted with the affordable housing team and they are happy with that split and the distribution sorry I'll let you finish I know they say they're happy with it it just seemed to me when I initially looked at it I thought there is a bit missing at the bottom western end but yeah that I just wanted to point that out but I didn't think that that was the best distribution however it's still a good distribution the other issue that actually concerns me is paragraph 116 on page 58 where it talks about some degree of conflict with the village design guide in that some of the buildings will not sit below the crown of the trees and it also further on when I read about having to raise the land at some points raised an alarm in that if we're raising the ground already and this isn't sitting below the crown of the trees then what sort of height difference are we looking at how much does it stand out it might be in material plan in terms that it's a minor conflict but that point isn't clear to me yet and I'll just add some clarification on that otherwise yes it is a good plan I'd love to see it when it's done Thank you, is there any clarification on Councillor Hawkins' point from either Dean or the flooding officer? Yeah I'll go first in terms of the heights of the buildings some of the apartments were actually three stories high as originally proposed and we had a discussion with the developer and it was agreed to lower those heights which would actually also reduce the visual impact of those buildings to two and a half stories are reports probably not quite as clear in that respect in that the apartment blocks I was referring to they actually have a two and a half story element but they actually step down into one and a half story element so they're not completely two and a half stories in total and it has been confirmed that those heights will be in line with the crown of the trees and they wouldn't actually appear above them in terms of the raising of ground levels I might ask Mark just to clarify on the raising of ground levels is my understanding that the raising of ground levels would just be around the proposed ponds area but I'll just see if Mark can clarify that if he's still here Is that Mark Gatehouse who spoke previously? Yes If he's able to clarify for the committee? Idein, so you're correct we don't want to get carried away that we're raising ground levels across the entire site that isn't the case we're raising obviously to achieve the surface water headroom above the groundwater table but when I'm talking about raising ground levels I'm talking about putting in a capillary garden so you've got clean material in rear gardens I don't want the committee to have these visions that we're coming on with huge amounts of earth and raising the whole thing that really isn't the case so when I'm talking about raising ground levels not raising the units, we're raising the earth around the gardens to generate a capillary so you've got clean gardens for the residential end-use which is a building regulation requirement Is that clarified Councillor Hawkins? No it doesn't, sorry, maybe I've been thick today so when the building is built are you telling me that the reach height will be at or around the level of the crown of the trees including whatever raising of ground that you need to do? Correct, I believe in certain places the reach heights of some of the apartment units which are two and a half storey will be at the crown of the trees but most of the units will be significantly lower than the crown of the trees and that will also be after any ground raising is required for drainage and remediation Thank you chair, clear now Thank you very much Next we have Councillor Bradlin please Thank you chair I'm going to come back to drainage because we've got an engineer here so why not use them I would like clarification of the issue that was raised early on in the report at paragraph 32 the environment agency raised the matter of the necessity for a minimum of 1.2mm clearance between the base of any infiltration sustainable drainage system and peak seasonal groundwater and then later on on the 25th of August they said ultimately the 1.2 clearance is not a statutory requirement so that seemed to be saying one thing on one hand and then changing their mind on the other but in addition at paragraph 213 on page 76 there was all the business about the pumps and I know we've been told that the concerns that were originally raised have now been resolved to the satisfaction of the lead local flood authority I would like to know so I want some address of that EA comment I want some address on the tunnels that are already there and I also want to concentrate as would happen in times of heavy rainfall on that very eastern attenuation pond next to Robertsway and Thomas Road who know they have already a history of flooding and I want to be absolutely sure that that attenuation pond at the very eastern end of the site what is the arrangement if that becomes very full where does the water go from there does it go out through the pump near the Steiner school does it go to a ditch where the water is already high and I take us back as a planning authority to the Christmas Eve 2020 when the water table was already very high all over the county and we had very heavy rain on 24th or 25th of December and places flooded and I want to know what would happen under those circumstances to the properties in Thomas on the road and sorry in that area so that's fine I think there's three points to address there please Dean or equally the drainage engineer so we have some clarity around the environment agencies comments and then retraction of comments some clarity on the tunnels and then some clarity on the eastern attenuation basin please I'll take the question regarding the EA's comments so the EA had originally requested 1.2 meter clearance between basin level and the groundwater however their main concern was the potential of groundwater becoming contaminated and had actually overlooked that conditions 21 and 25 of the outline permission required these details to be submitted prior to commencement which the developer will have to demonstrate at a later stage under a separate discharge condition application so after discussions with the EA they withdrew that comment regarding the 1.2 meter clearance level and it's my understanding that that will be dealt with under a separate application I will let Mark explain the answer to the other two questions regarding the drainage of the eastern ponds if that's okay Mark thank you Dean. Chair is it possible to pull up the cross section that Dean had in his planning pack that showed the ponds I'll get that up so just to answer the counciller's concerns if I can just reset the scene when this site was the hospital facility the large buildings large areas of heart standing all of the drainage was directed via pipes into the socaways which sat in the groundwater and so therefore you had uncontrolled rainwater flows going straight into the socaways and straight into the local groundwater and I understand that there have been local and historical flooding events as a result of that because you've got uncontrolled large areas of catchment being directed straight into existing groundwater what our system does and I think the proposed section at the top there again helps to demonstrate against the sort of scale really against the sort of tree landscape as well could you explain what that section shows sorry to interrupt you but could you just describe where that section is thank you I don't know whether you've got the plan which shows where that section was taken through it's essentially this cuts through the central green heart of the site areas of the road and housing through the middle of the site but is it north south north south so this is where the attenuation ponds are correct yes that central area and this is the bit where racing ground levels you can see on that top section the red line which shows existing ground level on that left hand side where the housing and carriage way are raising ground levels to make sense of the infiltration pond to make that shape but actually on the right hand side we're not raising ground levels significantly to make the attenuation pond work but we are raising ground levels to make the capping layer work if that kind of makes sense so what you had previously was all this rainwater firing onto roofs into the groundwater in an uncontrolled manner or I would suspect that at some point in intense rainfall the wider groundwater to become saturated I understand has been historic flooding in the adjacent development what we now have with our scheme is all of that rainwater both infiltrating through permeable layers and going straight into the ground in much wider areas but importantly everything goes onto a roof and onto carriage way is captured into a piped system which obviously has got its own storage by virtue as you've got a pipe and you've got manholes directed into the infiltration basins where in low levels of rainfall the rain just simply enters those basins and infiltrates through into existing groundwater albeit at a metre above existing groundwater table and an intense rainfall those basins actually act as storage so if you take the consideration of if you've got a bath and you've got a shower which is pouring into the bath at low falls, at low rates all of that bath goes down the plughole if you turn the power up and you've got lots of water coming up the shower head and it can't get down the plughole the shower eventually percolates away and that's what you've got here is a very much a controlled surface water system to answer your concerns about future flooding the system that we've designed that we'll be delivering not only has adequate volumetric storage for the 100-year storm event which is quite an intense rainfall but also an additional 40% storage requirement to cover future climate change now none of those requirements featured as part of the previous development and obviously aren't in place currently what you have at the moment is part of the site or three-quarters of the site which has been demolished and the only thing that is actually on site which is still removing small degrees of water is the service trenches which are then served by that sump pump now we're keeping all of that sump pump and those trenches on that final third of the development in place whilst the NHS facility is still there because it's important that that is still there because it drains their service trenches that sump pump isn't part of a site-wide surface water drainage strategy for us and it wasn't part of a surface water control system on the NHS, all it is there doing is draining 2m deep trenches which are full of gas pipes electric cables, water pipes and the like and are 2m deep so that the operatives could walk through those tunnels and carry out maintenance repairs on that infrastructure without having to do it I think we've probably enough for the moment for the time being I've actually just been reminded of course Mr Gatehouse a drainage engineer for the applicants not our drainage engineer so I think it would be more appropriate if we could hear from the council's drainage engineer please Mr Harry Pickford Mr Pickford are you online? Yes I can see and hear you please sorry for rehashing everything but if you could give us the council's view on the question around attenuation basin please I'm hearing from the applicants, thank you Could I clarify the attenuation basin it was useful to go back through that again but the attenuation basin I'm concerned about is the one right on the east of the property next to Robert's Way and Thomas Road I take the point about these but it's the one right at the east of us yes exactly that one I'm concerned about sorry to clarify I know the site I used to work at Capital Park and I have walked across this site when it was occupied by the NHS frequently I know the number of buildings that were there and the likely change that is going to cause in recharging to the groundwater when all of these houses are built out so I can understand the relative development of the site as it were currently and then so I just want an explanation of how this system is going to cope with the intensification of development on the site compared to what it is now because a lot of the site currently although yes it did have buildings on it and it did have parking on it there was actually also large expanses of green space so I want to understand the difference, thank you I think it's important to point out that the applicant has provided quite a lot of hydraulic modelling that's kind of used to size up these systems and it's kind of been demonstrated that they've designed these systems to accommodate the 100 year plus 40% climate change storm so they are providing sort of ample capacity within these basins to hold what is quite an intense storm and obviously being the 100 year it's a lifetime of the development we can't ask that there is additional capacity provided within the system in terms of water intensity I guess one way to look at it is that the water that's falling on the site is infiltrating as it is yes they are providing basins to accommodate and hold the water to infiltrates but there will be no increased volume of infiltration across the site as it is continuing to infiltrate so there will be no increased levels of rainfall expected if that makes sense Sorry Members I'm sure will remember that in the last five years we have had quite close to one in 100 year events several times and I'm just really concerned that yes I'm not suggesting that well actually yes I am suggesting that there might be an increase in rainfall not in totality but in intensity and we know don't we that this happens often during the summer when the ground is hard it's effective to water and when we have heavy sudden intense rainstorms in the summer that's when we're at risk we did have the event in December 2020 which was when the ground was already sudden and I just would really appreciate your view on whether you think this is modelled to cope with these intense summer rainstorms and I do want somebody to think about the people on this road because what happens to the water in that very eastern infiltration pond if it over tops does it go into does it go into those two roads or does it get pumped somewhere else or what happens to it you know if there's not enough if there's not enough capacity to cope with the water that will naturally drain into that lowest pond where does it go Yes to address the winter differences that the modelling does they look out the summer and winter storm scenarios and that plays into what the ground conditions are and run of coefficients for the ground so it does accommodate that sort of difference in the rainfall events in terms of addressing the increased rainfall that is expected it's kind of a set parameter within the modelling systems and the 40% climate change is designed as that contingency to accommodate that increased rainfall over the course of the next 100 years so that's kind of how the modelling is kind of carried out and you know they've designed these attenuation basins to accommodate that maximum volume expected from the employer of the site and in that sense the modelling that we can ask for they are expecting that basin not to over top with the rates that will be measured for the infiltration Okay, thank you for that clarification Four more speakers, members, councillors Wilson, Roberts, Caern and Richard Williams Councillor Wilson please Thank you chair My questions have been thoroughly answered by Councillor Bradman's questions I was wondering about the 100 year event living in a village where the 100 year event happened a couple of times over the last year My other question is relates to a point raised by Councillor Daunton about people living in flats with no balconies and how they dry their washing having been involved in a number of case work cases where people have black mould in their homes and I'm wondering what the provision will be in those apartments if people don't have tumble dryers for drying washing that this is a perennial problem and I know that quite often it's trying to dry washing in a closed space with no outside facility what provision there will be Also I would like some sort of explanation about what the amenity space is for those apartments that don't have outside balconies or gardens Thank you I think it has been reminded that specifically conditions around tumble drying aren't material so we can't base our decision on that but if we can have a comment from the case officer hopefully on drawing arrangements for the apartments that are not on ground floor Can you hear me? Each of the apartment blocks no balconies have been provided this was a design approach which an design officer discussed with developer during pre-application stage Treveen might be able to explain that in more detail but I think it was because balconies weren't considered to be a prevalent feature within Fallbourne despite that each of the apartment blocks have outside amenity areas provided which in accordance with the standard set-out in the SPD so in terms of outdoor space for each of the apartment blocks there is sufficient provision of outdoor amenity space provided Treveen, did you want to add anything regarding balconies? You are on mute Treveen Thank you I just wanted to make the point that where flats have been located in the development is around areas where there is lots of wider amenity provision be it amenity directly related to the apartment as well as large amounts of open space as walkways or through routes and so there was ample of space and relief for people within the blocks to kind of move out and so that was the rationale for not providing balconies Did you want to come back councillor, is that clear? I'm just wondering whether that public community space is a suitable place for people to hang out washing Yeah, I suppose not Good question Treveen, are you popping back? Obviously not is the answer and so the drying will have to be accommodated within the apartment block in itself and that's down to the space standards of blocks that has been set out nationally I accept that as the answer but I'm not particularly happy that that's the solution for the people living in those accommodation I know that especially if they're families with small children in those flats then that's going to be a difficult problem but I accept that that's the answer Thank you, and I believe we have the interjection for Mr Readied Mr Gathers, can I request that you do not put any comments on chat? That is not the purpose of chat and it is completely out of order Thanks, and on a practical scale the majority is not going to read it Moving on, councillor Roberts, please Thank you very much, chairman The talk of the washing brings me back because I'm so damned old now that I remember my grandmothers and they're back to back houses with their back lane at the back of them with everybody with the washing out down the back lane and the kids still racing around and playing all sorts of games The council house had a line in the kitchen, a wooden line which had the thing that you pulled I think washing has always been a bit of a problem but we women usually get over it somewhere or other However, in the main I think that the time that this has taken has been well spent and I think we are so often in this committee that we come to us this sort of size and we say, well, it's okay but it's got a long way to go and I think in this case we haven't got that argument to use I think it's commendable that everybody seems to have put their heads into this and tried to work hard obviously including our own officers but the developers, the parish council all these different groups and that is a refreshing change that people have worked so well together I'm quite happy with the design I think our officers explanation of modernity and character is right and I think in general, I think it will look nice I think there's some nice designs there it certainly isn't a development where they've just literally taken that thing off the top row and worked to that so they really have put some effort in so I think it's a good one if some bits and bats but it appears that the refuse has been sorted out to our departments hope and that they're quite happy with it so I think it's a good scheme and let's watch as councillor Tim Hawkins said I think we'll all look forward to seeing it in the future Great, thank you councillor Graham, you ought to come back is this on a specific point, we do have other speakers? Yes, sorry I just wanted to pick up the point that local member councillor Williams made councillor John Williams which was he recommended a condition or that we made sure that given that our concerns about the drainage that the applicant was asked to review after the completion of phase 1 and before the start of phase 2 whether the drainage was actually working as was intended and also that the ownership of pumps be secured so that they continue to be maintained especially the one by the Steiner school so can I ask that we I'm not sure where the decision will go but can I ask that we put that into our any approval if we do approve this that we put in that condition? I did actually ask that as we're going through the debate and I believe we can't condition a review of the drainage after phase 1 but we can include it as an informative on the second point I haven't had any advice on that yet I don't know if officers can assist on that front and again we can include an informative regarding the ownership Sorry and the other one was we need to secure the maintenance sorry the ongoing management plan and that management association recognises in words of one syllable its responsibility towards the drainage infrastructure for the site and that that should then be maintained in perpetuity either by the management company itself or by delegation to you know numbers of house users or whatever how they're going to do it but we do need to maintain the ongoing responsibility for maintenance of drainage infrastructure Okay I don't know if Dean if you can comment on that I don't know if this is already included in either a condition in the reserve matters or in the outline Yeah thanks Chair Condition 19 secures the management and maintenance of the drainage strategy approved so that will be covered under Condition 19 of the outline commission and those details will be submitted prior to your occupation I believe Okay so but the reason I'm battling on about this is because sometimes when the developer has an understanding of their responsibility but sometimes that responsibility is not explicitly explained to the management company and I would just like to make sure we're absolutely sure that the management company knows that they're responsible for that Thank you Yeah Dean can you just clarify? Yeah yeah there'll be sufficient details submitted and all parties involved will be agreed on the management maintenance of the strategy Okay and going back to the issue of the informatives obviously when we finish the debate I'll obviously ask the committee if they wish to include that before we make go to the recommendation Moving on then we have Councillor Cahn who's joining us online Councillor Cahn Simply I come back to the drainage that's the one issue that affects everybody and concerns me there are two points which I still have not totally cleared off and I would like to have some clarity on is the comment that the level of the pipes leading into the attenuation ponds was actually below the level of the ponds which would be very difficult to see how they would effectively evacuate now maybe that's a misunderstanding maybe that's not accurate or there's a typo somewhere but I wonder if you could confirm to me that they would actually evacuate in and the second issue that I'm concerned about is the raising of the land around the actual generally in the lower areas you're talking about I wanted to have a bit more information about what the actual ground conditions are are these gravels which then discharge underneath to permeable chalk or is it clay lying there impermeable and will the raised land be impermeable or permeable if you're leaving it as as porous land you may find that you're just passing the racing put it sending the stuff straight to the ground water and maybe causing problems in the lowest parts of the site I would like a bit of clarity on that if it's impermeable will then the surface water on the surface from the land go straight into the attenuation ponds I have to obviously accept the comments of the drainage office that they think it will work but I'd like some explanation exactly how that would work ok, I'm not sure who wants to tackle that Dean or perhaps Harry I'll let Harry answer that one that's alright so in terms of the levels of the pipes they will drain positively into the basins the system is designed to do so I guess wouldn't make sense to have a basin which is shallower than the pipes that are taking it taking the water into it so that is it will drain by gravity into the basins and I think the thing that shows that is obviously you've got quite a few basins across the site and the reason for that is because there's kind of limited falls so it's being split up into quite a few sub-catchments to assist with allowing that to drain by gravity in terms of ground conditions I'm not sure whether Mark Gatehouse has kind of the direct information I'm not sure what the ground conditions are off the top of my head existing because they've done infiltration testing which confirms the permeability of the ground but I'm not sure what the ground conditions existing are off the top of my head and I'm not sure what will be going in if you can't I don't know if Dean you can confirm that I'd rather an officer respond it rather than the applicant I can't confirm that the underground rock which council council is referring to is chalk so it is a permeable rock to allow water to infiltrate and percolate away from the site underneath so that's it's a permeable rock which would allow water to run run through so I believe that was the main point of the question so that would work in that instance I also want to know whether the raised ground would be impermeable or permeable and how that would affect it I'm not sure Dean you might be able to correct me I'm not sure whether you've actually been provided with that what the sort of made up ground would be at this point I mean obviously with it being an infiltration design it would be expected that will be a permeable permeable layer I'm not sure whether this might be a better one for Mark if it's okay if he is able to answer Is that okay chair to ask Mark If you can answer very succinctly yes Mark if you could jump in please Hi there chair Firstly apologies for my comments in the chat I thought that was helpful so apologies for that I'll move on So very quickly our intention is to recycle material on site we don't want to be taking material away from site existing ground level existing ground conditions are permeable so you've got obviously chalk material there in the larger open space areas will be utilising that material and that will be utilised so natural materials being used to raise ground levels where we need to raise ground levels where the ponds are in rear gardens obviously will be raising ground levels we need to put an permeable capping layer in there above the main ground where there's main ground areas where there's natural ground natural ground that's been ported so there is a bit of a mixed bag what you won't have is creating a scenario where you've got large imperious areas of clay material creating surface water runoff I think that was one of the councillors concerns I don't know if that answers your questions Okay well for me it does councillor Carney is that satisfactory Yes fine that's that's what I wanted to find out Thank you very much you're free Okay final speaker we have councillor Richard Williams Thank you Thank you Jay I'll keep it very brief and just to say I think this has been a really good debate I think the officers papers put together really well the presentation has been excellent I did have a number of questions that other members have raised they've all been answered to my satisfaction and again I would commend the officers who I think have dealt with all the questions extremely well and certainly to my satisfaction so I've not heard any reasons to not accept the officers recommendations and I will plan to do so when we come to vote Thank you very much or members those are all the another interjection for Mr Reid please Sorry chair I've got a question chair I've just looked at the 106 agreement under the outline scheme and at this stage I cannot see the fallback provision that in the event that the management company failed to deal with ongoing maintenance and management of the what I'll call the pond areas that in fact the that there is a fallback whereby the liability would pass to the individual residents as we've seen on a number of key developments so if members are minded to prove this application I would recommend chair that it's subject to delegated authority for me to verify whether in fact the 106 agreement should be amended to cover the fallback position we've seen the importance of this for example in relation to the development the other development in full gone where the developer refused to provide certainty as to long term maintenance of those key areas and although the appellant won every ground of the appeal the inspector dismissed the appeal because of the uncertainty as long term management so I would ask for delegated authority to verify that like reading of the 106 needs to be improved to deal with that chair one second I thought the responsibility that's really helpful from Mr Read but it's just coming back into my brain didn't it say the applicant say that the responsibility for the attenuation ponds would fall to Anglian water at some point in I'm sure somewhere I wrote down the responsibility will fall to Anglian water and I thought oh good because actually what they've done is recognise that it's complicated and it needs to be maybe these two things can go alongside each other I'm not disagreeing with Mr Read but I did think that at some point the applicant said that it should fall to Anglian water and I now can't find it in my notes so I apologize okay Mr Read chair I would still ask for delegated authority because even if those ponds were to go to Anglian water there is sufficient open space where we need the certainty of ensuring that if the management if the parish council didn't take a transfer of those open space areas and it went across to management company that if the management company was not to look after those areas always to be folded because the residents didn't want to pay their management charge that in fact the liability would pass to the residents because that would be in effect the guarantee to ensure that those areas of open space irrespective of the ponds were properly looked after the areas are of such significance on this development that that to me is a key consideration okay thank you I was just going to say in a bid to try and move along that perhaps we just changed the recommendation to say subject to investigations into the 106 but make it clear that if officers find that they've covered it or they're able to we give them authority to negotiate it and sort that bit out that it doesn't have to come back to us chair obviously if everyone goes to war with each other and they don't sort it out we don't have to come back absolutely okay members so we've had that recommendation from the legal officer to include that condition members are we content to include that yes good and we also had a request earlier in the meeting to include an informative on the applicant to review the drainage scheme after phase one is complete before they begin phase two again is everyone content that we include that informative great okay well we come to the recommendation and which is on page 86 which is to recommend approval subject to the condition we've just we've just agreed upon where we delegate the legal officer to investigate the section one is six responsibilities members I haven't heard anyone say they were planning on voting against so can I take this recommendation as amended by affirmation agreed does anyone wish to vote against abstain no so that application is approved thank you very much members we're getting dangerously close to lunch how does everyone feel about taking their lunch break now and coming back after lunch okay so if I give us 40 minutes we can come back everyone in their chair is ready to start again at 1pm okay thank you thank you very much and welcome back everyone in the room and on line to this meeting of south camps district council's planning committee we on the agenda are now up to item seven which is an application land northwest of seven primrose walk little grenzen is an outline application for the erection of a single self-build dwelling the reason it's before us today is because the district council are the applicant so it's for reasons of transparency and also because we have an objection to it from the local parish council the presenting officer is Mary Collins I'm hoping is online and is able to join us do we have you Mary is she online Erin Mary are you with us bear with me chair and I'll try and get hold of her for you thanks yes okay we'll give Mary a minute to try and rejoin if not we may have to come back to this item I'm afraid members if we don't have the presenting officer if everyone on line could bear with we're just trying to get hold of the case officer for this application apologies everyone Mary is having some difficulties with connection but she should be with us imminently thank you Lawrence yes I'm here now sorry about that Mary welcome back no problem that's fine it happens to all of us Mary we've just introduced the item and we're hoping you'll be able to let us know of any updates and then introduce the item please if you could the only updates was I believe the councillors have been sent the what little grandston parish council are going to present to you later on sort of in a written form so this is on my end the document we've received is back up in case little grandston parish council can't send a representative I'm hoping they will be with us but if not I will provide that document to you thank you brilliant thank you very much for letting us know great thank you Mary right okay I'll just share my screen and then we can start can everyone see that we can yes right okay I'll start in that case the proposed development site lies within the development framework on the southern western side of primrose walk to the north west and immediately adjacent to an existing number seven primrose walk the as I say it lies within the development framework so here you can see where the framework ends and where the actual site is just in here so primrose walk is off of primrose hill and is characterised by bungalows and two story houses there is built development opposite the application site which currently extends marginally further along this side of the road the site would also extend up to the village limits on the southern western side and would result in built development on either side of the road up to the edge of the village so I may need to just go back so yeah so it would be filling this gap right to the edge of the village there the piece of land is currently grassland and with shrub and trees the perimeter particular access would be from the existing hard core track which leads to serve the existing dwellings and this this road is within the ownership of south Cambridgeshire district council there is a public footpath number two which also forms part of the goes alongside this access road along the stretch and then it goes out towards Great Grandston I think it's Great Grandston the application seeks outline permission for the erection of a sorry this is just another picture just showing the access track and the application site so the applicant seeks outline permission for the erection a single story a single self-build dwelling with all matters reserved south Cambridgeshire district council is a right to build vanguard authority James to support people to design and build their own homes a potentially a lower cost than buying an existing property so that's part of the application so this is where it would be located this is just indicative only because as I say it's an outline application we haven't got any other details at the moment it's just the principle we'll be looking at this indicates the potential scale for the property so as I mentioned layout is a reserved matter however the sighting of the proposed dwelling is indicatively shown and indicates that there is sufficient room on the application site with the sighting of a dwelling and garage height to the proposed dwelling is not known at this outline stage therefore a similar height dwelling is considered appropriate this will be subject to the reserve matters application in this particular stretch of street there is a mixture of styles in the surrounding neighbouring properties there's no single architectural style and as I say we haven't got a specific designer for the the dwelling at the moment given the location of the dwelling we don't consider it would have a significant adverse impact on the heritage of the landscape but this would again be an assessment for the reserve matters stage the proposed dwelling so I'll just go back to some of these other drawings one second Mary I think we've got a request from councillor Roberts to go back to our previous slide councillor Roberts sorry Mary there's a photograph that we keep seeing very briefly but it's of the road I think it's before this one the one before this one that one please yes because there's obviously can we go back again there's comments about from the parish council about the the accessibility can we go back again just one previous please Mary for your primrose walk no no keep going and then the one after photograph one back please stop there we go yes so this photograph is showing existing access which serves the dwellings already there and this here is the application site so in terms of exciting it would be alongside number seven primrose walk which is here which is a bungalow the indicative position shows an insect in the boundary of this property and it would be approximately the same depth this adjacent bungalow and aligned in a similar fashion so giving this orientation was satisfied that the directionless dwelling would be detrimental to the amenities of this adjacent occupier by way of overbearing, oversharing or loss of light the main issues raised by the parish council is flood risk and drainage there is concern that the development would exacerbate existing drainage issues in the village particularly as primrose hill primrose walk are on higher ground to where the regular flooding occurs and the parish council are concerned that run of water from these more recent development areas would end up flowing down to the villages old areas at lower levels a little grounds in those the site is situated on the green sand formation drainage offices are satisfied that they can make an assumption that the infiltration coefficient would be good enough to permit infiltration subject to BRE365 testing and detailed design of the drainage can be obtained by way of condition and we have recommended that condition is attached so yes the principle of sustainable drainage is considered acceptable in this location subject to compliance with the proposed drainage conditions it would be in accordance with policy the proposed condition is a pre-commencement condition which would need to be satisfied prior to any work on the development commencing so this would ensure that the site is drained without causing flooding issues inside or outside of the application site and so because of this condition any issues auto-management flood risk would be addressed to the satisfaction that the drainage team before this condition could be discharged then if acceptable the drainage scheme must be implemented in accordance with the approved details so subject to that condition officers consider that the application meets the local planning policy and we're recommending that planning permission is granted subject to conditions so that's my presentation thank you chair thank you very much Mary appreciate the detail and you indulging us flicking through the presentation if you could stay on the line I'm sure there will be some questions of clarity for yourself during the debate but we're going to move to the public speakers now and I believe we have two speakers representing the applicant Clara Cabello and Darren Heffa are either of you there Mary could you stop sharing please thank you Darren Heffa speaking I hope that you can see me we can we can also see the Clark of the PC if you can switch off thank you very much so we have Clara and Darren welcome both yep I said you all speak on behalf of the applicant today so I understand you're going to be sharing the 3 minute time slot I'm not sure who will be kicking off but I'm sure you know the procedure by now 3 minutes to address the committee then if you could hold on at the end for any questions of clarity around your comments please absolutely that's fine thank you very much chair I'll be speaking first Darren Heffa I'm a director of Saunders Boston Architects based in Cambridge and we are the agent acting on behalf of South Cams District Council who are obviously the applicant for this site this is one of a series of sites that's been identified that are owned by South Cams to be potentially developed as part of their self and custom build scheme and I don't need to remind you of the local authority's statutory obligation to maintain a self and custom build register this particular project has been through a formal pre-app process and has been significantly redesigned we are establishing at this stage as has been presented as purely this is an outline application with all matters reserved for a single dwelling which we are showing at the moment at one and a half stories there is an identified need within Little Grandston for such a self build property the development is outside of the conservation area it's within the development framework there was a question which was raised there by the presenting officer reference to the road just to clarify the point there this is access to this particular plot is from an unadopted road which serves a type of 12 properties and it is owned, managed and maintained by South Cams district council it's worth noting as well that the highways authority at CCC has stated that they have this would have no adverse effect on the current traffic flow that's all I wanted to say really other than here if there are any questions for clarification and I would just urge the committee if they're so minded please to support this application to assist South Cams district council in fulfilling or helping to fulfil their obligation to maintain a custom and self build register I'll just hand you over now very briefly to my colleague who will purely just introduce herself in case again any questions are asked thank you for your time I am Clara Cabello I also work at some of the foster architects and architecture and technology in case you have any questions thank you okay thank you both of you for the update and the introductions I'm now going to ask if any committee members have any questions of clarification for either of the agents starting with councillor Heather Williams then Richard thank you and thank you for your comments but I'd just like to check my understanding is we have a statutory responsibility to hold a register we don't actually have a statutory responsibility to make plots available could you confirm if that's my understanding of that is correct please is that a question for the agents that might be a question for the case officer possibly yes chair I believe we haven't got any specific policies that relate to self-build or custom build but we are a vanguard authority and as such we should be providing this register but we should also be identifying places where self-build could happen but I don't think we have a specific thing that's correct sure could you clarify please thank you chair so the agent to clarify I'm asking the agent this question because they have referred to the statutory responsibilities in their comments and whether we should or shouldn't be doing something or whether there's policy or not is not my question here he referred to statutory responsibilities I'm asking if he's referring to statutory responsibility to hold and maintain a register or responsibility to make available plots I'm trying to clarify what was said because he said this would honour our obligation for statutory responsibilities but I'm pretty sure he said list of which therefore is not a statutory responsibility okay thank you chair yeah Darren or Clara I'm not sure if you can clarify that for us I'm afraid no I can't clarify that I know that there is an obligation to maintain a list whether there is an obligation for the authority to actually provide sites is something that I'm afraid I can't respond to I know that we've been involved in other applications similar applications to this which have gone through the committee but I can't categorically state whether you have a a responsibility to actually bring forward and provide the actual sites thank you chair chair I now understand what the agent has said which is all I was seeking to achieve it's okay and councillor Richard Williams please question of clarification yeah sorry chair I think my question might be actually better for the for the planning officer it was about the ownership of the track but I think that might actually be better directed at the planning officer yeah I think it's actually shelved on for the debate councillor Hawkins please thank you chair the access road also acts as a public right of way but you omitted to mention that how does that work with public rights of way and access road is it either one of the agents want to answer yeah yes I can answer yes absolutely as was suggested in the presentation by the officer public right of way does follow the same route as this unadopted road there is no segregation of a footway is from the road as you will have seen from the from the photographs so there's no delineation of a separate footpath and the road I would just refer again to the fact that the local high rise authority has stated that granting of consent would have no adverse impact upon this we're proposing a single dwelling here the unadopted road already serves 12 properties we're proposing just one further property at the end so there would be very very limited traffic traffic movements okay thank you very much for that response members I think those are all the questions of clarification for the agents so we say thank you to both Darren and Clara for their time this morning and we'll be moving on to the next public speaker which is the Clark for Little Gransden parish council do we have Miss Sylvia Sullivan on the line yes chair I'm here thank you good thank you we can see and hear you perfectly so if you've heard me before the rules are three minutes to address the committee and then if you wouldn't mind holding on at the end in case there's any questions of clarity around the comments you've made thank you very much chair I am Sylvia Sullivan and I am Clark to Little Gransden parish council I have been asked by Little Gransden parish council to represent the parish council's views on this application the parish council first considered this application on 4 February 2021 and took note of residents concerns the parish council's main concern was that Primrose Walk has the status of a public foot path it is a well used path that provides an essential link to Great Gransden for residents walking to the shop taking their children to the local primary school and going to church services as well as linking to the network of paths used for recreational exercise historically Primrose Walk was the site of ministry of defence accommodation huts for military personnel serving at Gransden lodge airfield during World War II after the war the ministry of defence relinquished any upkeep of the huts which were taken over by the district council for rented accommodation the huts were eventually demolished and replaced by semi-detached houses there are now 14 dwellings these were built by or are now the responsibility of the district council as tenanted dwellings some are now in private ownership the parish council is concerned that the access to the proposed development site is via the public foot path a track that has not been maintained and is not of a sufficient standard to withstand modern day traffic requirements through regular comings and goings not only of residence vehicles but also delivery vehicles and utility vehicles such as waste disposal lorries although the district council did provide additional car parking space several years ago near the junction with Primrose hill for these provide for single story dwellings they do not have their own driveways Primrose walk however is not maintained to a standard sufficient for existing dwellings it was for this reason that the parish council response was that if the planning office were minded to approve the application little grandstone parish council strongly urged that a condition of any approval should be that either the vendor or the purchaser of the land should make up Primrose walk to public highway standards and that the county council should adopt Primrose walk to the extent of the dwellings at their meeting on 2 September 2021 little grandstone parish council noted Mr Stephen Kelly's letter of 19 August 2021 and had no wish to make any further comment but could not support this application thank you so much for listening and paying attention to us we much appreciate it thank you Mr Chair thank you very much for addressing the committee if you mind holding on the line for a few minutes in case there are any questions of clarification for yourself we do have a few starting with councillor Heather Williams please thank you I'm just looking at on google maps the entrance from what I'm looking here it looks as if the area where you've got the two you've got properties either side of the road looks a bit wider but that could just be the imagery do your knowledge is it the same width for Primrose walk for the entire section or does it narrow towards the end please I can always ask the local member if she's speaking if that's easier I think that's a question that's a question for yourself Miss Sullivan I believe the current access track along the track put in by the Ministry of Defence is approximately the same width throughout at the end of the dwellings the semi-detached houses at the end it reverts to what would normally be regarded as a footpath width of approximately two to three metres okay thank you for that clarification we have a question from Councillor Hawkins thank you chair Sylvia can you tell the committee or explain what the issues are with the condition of the access road and any items the PC has made in the past to get it sorted thank you the parish council has made applications in the past for the road to be adopted by the county council and was told that it was not within their intention or remit to do so the parish council also asked at one point whether a turning circle could be put at the end at least to facilitate vehicles going in and out and was told that there wasn't sufficient requisite area to make that turning circle and so far as the current condition of the access track there are several potholes in it and as a frequent walker I have to be quite careful to avoid these potholes to avoid turning my ankle in it I was quite interested to hear that it is the responsibility of the district council to maintain that path thank you for that clarity is there anything further council thank you very much and we have a question of clarity in councillor Roberts thank you chairman good afternoon one of the comments that I've been picking up is from people who actually live down there who are saying in the paperwork that this is the only area of grass in Little Grandstone and it's used for community gatherings, children's games etc there is nowhere else for children to play that is close to home can you just confirm that that is correct is the sort of play area community area for the village Little Grandstone parish council has no responsibility for any public land can you confirm to me though that the area that we are talking about the site area is the only open space in the village that is used by the community for sort of play type activities there is no playground yes that answers my thing there is no proper playground so this is the one of the well the only area that children can actually play on what children do I'm not party to I don't know where they go but there's no official playground as such I think that's answered the question I think we have completed our public speakers so I'd like to thank all the public speakers for their time and their input today and following that members we are going to now move into the debate of course we do again have the opportunity to ask the case officer sincere apologies I've forgotten the local member sorry you weren't on my list my apologies we do have councillor Tumi Hawkins speaking as local member as well thank you very much chair this site yes kids do play on it I was still there on Saturday Sunday and on one of the trees on the boundaries there was a rope you know how they play with swings on ropes so there was one still there and I only just found out that Southcams owns the access road an access road as well as the public price of way that picture that you saw that had the narrow that is the width of that road some of the houses the semi-detached houses don't actually have anywhere to park which is why Southcams put up a six car park space right at the top of the road, access road and yes it's got potholes in it it's not been maintained properly and as you heard they have had difficulty actually getting anyone to own up to on in the on in the road and maintaining it so I have I will request as part of this if you are minded to approve it to ask that the owner of the road brings it up to standard before giving a right of access over it to that site I do support the parish council in their objection because when I first saw the piece of land I thought to myself why aren't we developing this ourselves seeing the size of it we could put affordable housing on it it doesn't have to be huge we've got a pair of semi-detached bungalows right next to it something like that could go on there for local people is my view which I have expressed to housing and I think for me this thing of doing getting planning permission and then selling off to self-build yes and no in this case I think no if you look at paragraph if I can find it paragraph 13 on page 100 it does say that our policy for infill villages which this one is is to build sort of in gaps in the built-up frontages of roads this one isn't and as it says it does not accord with policy S11 however exception is being made because site is within the framework of the village which is fine but in my view I would prefer to see this develop for us rather than to be sold off and so my view is if you were minded to approve this I would ask that the site not to be put on the market before it goes before cabinet for cabinets to actually decide whether or not it should be sold or developed for us or a and other use thank you thank you very much members do you have any questions of clarity for the local members several starting with Councillor Wilson please thank you chair I was just wondering whether there's any reason when this this is like close was developed why this piece of land wasn't built on is there a particular reason also I was wondering about play space for the Jordan is there a need for play space for Jordan and could this be reserved as such thank you Councillor Hawke can you answer that one I can answer that I understand that some years ago before the current clerk was in place that the parish council at the time actually did try and get this piece of land to be to rent it or to have allocated to them for play space for kids and that seemed to fall fall away so yeah that's all there is for them thank you was the first question remind us please Councillor Wilson why this particular plot wasn't developed when the other houses were built okay again I'm not sure if you can answer that I'm afraid that was just what was built at the time okay the next question of clarification is from Councillor Williams please yes thank you and I think we'll let Councillor Hawking off I don't know what happened in the 60s I would definitely be a hypocrite for asking that given I think my parents were just about born but there we are it was just something you touched on Councillor Hawking's in your comments about things coming to cabinet and this made me more of a council procedure than a planning but surely these projects people are aware they're not just from so this must have gone through some sort of process to or is it normal practice for these sort of parcels of land to go through without sort of member acknowledgement I thought I thought we have to it would have to get signed off in a portfolio or something to dispose of an asset in that way or look at it because obviously it just seemed a bit odd so sorry I'm trying to clarify that because I was thinking you're a member of cabinet how can it not come to cabinet what's going on I think the process is that the lead cabinet member for housing signs off disposal of assets and my request is that on this particular location it should not just be the cabinet member for housing but that the whole cabinet actually has a say in this because of this objection no no can we hear from Mr Blaiseby please thank you chair just to direct members to the planning merits because I think a lot of the debate and the discussions rather so far have not been planning issues so I just focus members' minds on that thank you thank you members any further questions of clarification for councillor Hawkins as local member councillor Dawnton is it for councillor Hawkins yes please yes so councillor Hawkins in your view one of the comments here in the papers is that this could be the site of two bungalows in your view would that be appropriate or could that happen you're knowing the site as well as you do yes I think that would be more appropriate thank you all bit we are deciding on this application in front of us today not what could be there is what is in front of us today just to clarify that for everyone okay I don't think there's any more questions of clarity thank you councillor Hawkins for your comments there we're going to move into the debate now we already have quite a lengthy list starting with councillor Roberts well I remember the 1960s best times of my life sex drugs and rock and roll now I've never had the drugs and that's all the Beatles however the thing that bothers me about this one is the change of character and though our policy may be admirable I think we've got to balance it against people's quality of life who are already living there quite clearly it's a very attractive area nice open space there for them and in a village such as the grandstand very small with no play area this is obviously a very valuable asset to the village and to the residents it's probably somewhere that they can easily see children playing and children don't need always need formal equipment and things they can have a jolly good time in an open space just fighting amongst themselves so I'm concerned, I think it's it's possibly to me one to refuse but based on not what we may do they're building something different on there but actually protecting that area because it's the one and only seemingly asset in the village that the residents can use I'm sure that when they have little village doos that's probably where they go for their picnics and parties and what have you so I'm quite against it on that respect I think at times that you have to actually you know stick to your you know stick to your principles about protecting the countryside and looking after people etc and so I shall be voting against it thank you very much councillor Heather Williams please in the debate thank you chair so taking the words from Mr Blaisby I'll try my best to stick to planning only issues being ticked off there so on the matters of debate one thing that I'm looking at at the moment is the mycamshire maps which shows all of the you know all the land that's in ownership of the local authority and this is with the exception of council housing this is the only piece of land that we currently have in the Epistons and I reference that because there is no county council land that I can I can see on here either and we've heard that the parish council haven't therefore for myself it means that actually for informal leisure space and we do have formalised playgrounds I know but there is a room for informal green spaces and that is an amenity that I think should be given significant weight to giving it is the only only available space without being reliant on private individuals so I think there is a detrimental impact on that planning is always a balance so it may be that's another benefit such as affordable housing may have seen a you know tilty of the balance where you thought you were gaining something more but what's currently proposed I think and we this is I would say about the access but I notice that access is one of the matters that would be reserved my understanding this we're not looking at access on here I think for myself the balance is the loss of this use for the community and the amenities is outweighed by any potential benefits but also we see lots of these self-built plots I would clarify we're responsible for having a list we're not responsible for making it an opportunity just to touch on what the agent was saying about our statutory responsibility is it's really we need to be really clear we do not have to make these self-built plots available with our own land because I feel we sometimes get pinned into a corner and almost told that we need to release this land we don't so we shouldn't especially in this case hopefully we won't be appealed by our own council you never know who knows I think Mr Blaise would like to come in on that point as well yes thank you chair so sort of labouring what I said earlier in a way I think it's important that we focus on planning merits of this application so this application presents us as a dwelling on a plus land and it's not relevant who the applicant is so you need to consider this as if it were any application rather than consider what the council might prefer us is for so I just I just I advise members to steer clear of looking at this from a sort of council ownership perspective is the planning merits of a dwelling thank you yes so on the basis of what you've just said and what I was saying so I was using planning merits I take it that we can give weight to the amenity of the greens open green space where it is on a planning consideration Mr Blaise thank you chair on that point this site is not designated as open space so you have to have regard to that this is a site of land that's within the village framework where policies for residential development are it would comply with policies for development for residential purposes I think it's it would be very difficult to say that this land should be retained for a purpose that it doesn't have there's no there's no necessary prospect of that use coming forward and again it partly comes back to this point about because south camps own the land there may be some possibilities for alternative types of development but that's not an issue for us as a planning committee that we are looking at the merits of this proposal and whether it complies with planning policy I hope that answers the question it's not an amenity area at the moment so it isn't going to be lost as an open if you felt that in terms of the character of the area that this site could not be developed that's another matter because you're looking at the importance of this as a green space in terms of its visual amenity but I would advise against that because I think that would be a very difficult argument to make even if that were the argument that you were making but it is not an amenity area it may be informally used by children but it is not and you heard from the parish council that they'd actually tried to acquire it for that purpose and were unsuccessful so that isn't what it is at the moment at the moment it is just a piece of green space within the village framework where policies for residential development where it complies I think one of the material considerations we have is visual amenity and local character so how much weight we as a committee choose to give to that is obviously up to us we've had the advice from officers on that so it's up to us as a committee to decide how much weight we put into that particular material consideration next speaker having the debate is councilor Richard Williams please thank you very much chair on the squeak okay this is not in full so I'm not satisfied with this accord with our policy on infill and I do feel that there is a material consideration about access and I'm not satisfied about the access to this road I know highways didn't object on the basis that it's not a highway outside of the house so I think we can rule that out as not really being relevant because they're not saying there's not a problem they're just saying it's not our responsibility so I would object to it on that ground as well I'm not satisfied there's sufficient access so yeah I would vote to refuse this for those reasons thank you for those comments I've councillor Bradlin next please thank you chair I have the pleasure of having walked down this lane a number of times and I'm familiar with the locality and the connection it provides between great grandston church and the parish of little grandston and the points that the clerk of the parish council made I am mind it firstly can we have some clarification later on if the district council will be minded to make up the road and I say this because I have in my own parishes a road that is unadopted and in the past around the 60s the district council purchased land or had land beside this the lane in my parish built six dwellings on it and have never adopted and the road has never been owned or indeed either by the parish or the district council or the county council it's a totally unadopted road and it causes enormous problems for just the six dwellings there because it every winter it goes into really severe potholes because there is no drainage in it so I actually would like whatever happens about this planning application I would like the planners to go away and try and establish if this is a district council asset that it should be built up to the appropriate standard and the district council should take responsibility and in fact I notice on the planning that actually district council is indeed responsible for the road as well as for the dwellings the few dwellings on either side and this piece of land so absolutely the district council ought to be making sure this road is in good condition so that's one thing I also have some views about the wisdom of using this plot in this way and mindful of what Mr Blaiseby says but I would very much I would actually agree I would support what councillor Tumi Hawkins has said because I would I think in this location I don't like the fact that it's a market house when all the others are I mean there are some market houses there but they were originally district council bungalows so I would actually sorry district council bungalows and semi-detached and so I would actually quite like Cabinet to consider what purpose they would like this land to be used for because I think probably little Gransdon almost certainly has a need for retirement bungalows and this is a good location for them so I would support the lead Cabinet member for planning to ask for that to go to Cabinet to decide what the grounds should be used for sorry can I interrupt chair I think what super is about to say is that isn't a material consideration we can't we've been asked to judge what's in front of us today can we put it as an informative I don't think so no could we for example if we I think the comments the comments been made and I think it's publicly on record now but that's what you'd like so the other point is that councillor Wilson asked was there any reason why this piece of land wasn't used in the first place to build and it would be interesting to know if there is some geological reason why this piece wasn't used we don't know maybe it was just that the MOD didn't need that piece I'm not sure but I just don't think this I don't think this is a very good use of this plot and I would do it on the grounds of whether it preserves and enhances the character of the local area so policy HQ 1 I know the officer has said that that can be overcome but the other dwellings in this lane are modest, semi-detached and bungalows and I think it would be appropriate to provide another modest, semi-detached or bungalow in the same lane so I will object to this application ok, thank you, I'm sure Mr Rhee's going to rehash what's been said earlier but I will allow him to yes this is an outline application can we concentrate on the application before you sorry, but if I may say, I absolutely agree which is why I said I'd object to it but the point being, instead of being a small number of similarly sized dwellings as are currently in this lane this is proposing one market dwelling and that's my objection sorry, it's not proposing one market dwelling it's an outline application forgive me, forgive me Mr Rhee the application is outline planning application for the erection of a single self-built dwelling with all matters reserved I take that to mean they are applying for a single self-built dwelling it doesn't say two or three or it says one and I just don't think one is appropriate in this location thank you thank you, I think the point has been made okay I'm going to move on then next speaker in the debate is Councillor Fein please thank you chair yes I will of course take full account of the advice from officers on what we are actually considering here I was very sympathetic to the concerns raised about the use of this track for a footpath but I am satisfied that in practice one more dwelling in addition to either 12 or 14 or something like that will make no real difference I share some of the concerns that were expressed about the state of the road but we have to look at paragraph 32 the highway authority have raised no issues in relation to it and have not recommended conditions looking at the green space requirement of the village again I accept that this village does need green space this may in practice in practice not in law be the main area available to children or others but it is not currently devoted to green space and it is within the development framework and I think we have to work on that basis of course the question of what recommendation is subsequently made to cabinet or others as to the actual use of this land is separate from what its planning status might then be we have heard that there is an established need for affordable housing in the village I wasn't sure whether there is actually a housing needs survey being done to indicate that but I accept that there is that need indeed I would say the need is in general greater in the smaller villages where our hierarchy tends to discriminate against small villages if someone put it and we have of course the question of self-build and I think it's important to just look at what we are told on this paragraph 41 we are on duty not only to maintain a register but also places a duty on public authorities to have regard to those registers in carrying out planning and other functions places a legal duty on authorities to grant sufficient development permission to meet the demand and further down 42 the council doesn't at present have a specific policy but as was pointed out we are a vanguard authority so we have taken on certain commitments in that regard and I therefore think that in the circumstances despite my concerns about local green space what the absence of it and the possible alternative uses of this land I think the case is made and we should accept the offer of the recommendation and approve subject to the conditions that are set out thank you Mr Reed would you like to come in please sorry chair looking at the application the application is for one one and a half story four bed six person detached dwelling dash self-build stroke custom build so it's the papers before you refer to self-build only there is scope for it to be custom build which means that it doesn't have to be a market dwelling in my view ok thank you next up with councillor Hawkins speaking in the debate and then councillor Williams thank you very much chair stick into the planning material reasons paragraph 13 it does not accord with policy S11 but we are trying to make an exception in this instance for the erection of one dwelling it's a balance and in my view the balance has not been proven I would rather it was affordable housing policy HQ 1 we talk about the mix and styles of neighboring properties and I know the paragraph 15 says there's no single architectural style but when you look at what's on the road you've got a row of semi-detached properties two stories and two three pairs of semi-detached bungalows and this would be next to a semi-detached bungalow and this would stand out it does not fit in it does in my view adversely impact on the character of that road paragraph 33 policy TI3 it says that two car parking spaces should be provided per dwelling and I have paragraph 34 telling me that it is likely that this could be achieved but there is no certainty and it is a track a public rights of way that you cannot have cars on or it should not be blocked so if you cannot guarantee that there will be two parking spaces then you should not be granting planning permission thank you chair thank you councillor and finally councillor Heather Williams thank you and desperately trying to not make Mr Blaiseby and Mr Reid explode by whatever I say next I'll just put that caveat in first so I think actually what's just because I imagine we're going to get shouted at again for parking maybe has a real outline but I think actually paragraph 15 it's what's just been read out about it is considered to be an exception to policy S11 can be made I think some members may be minded that an exception can't be given to that on balance on the principle of development and that there's concern for the character of the walk etc and then the infill that councillor Williams would that be a happy medium Mr Blaiseby of our reasons for refusal hopefully keeping to planning I hope so I think we have reached the end of the debate now members and I have been making some notes as to the concerns that have been raised so should I think the committee be minded to refuse this application I think it's pretty better to rehearse those to make sure everyone including officers are content with them so what I had was the impact a lot of local amenity access to property and contraventions of policies S11 and HQ1 so or impact on or loss of local amenity visual amenity and impact on local character as well and then the other two policy numbers were contraventions of policy HQ1 and policy S11 that's what I had members unless there's any I've missed there that anyone else wish to raise as well so I suppose over to you for some comment Mr Blaiseby on those thank you chair I think if the committee feels that those reasons are justified refusal then I think they are acceptable because they don't go beyond the planning considerations that we've raised in the report if you are minded to refuse would you be happy for those to be delegated ridden off of delegated reasons and if you can yes I'm content with it okay members I think we are going to have to go to a vote on this because I have at least one member speaking favour of so if one of the democratic services officers could set up the vote for us please so the recommendation is approval so if you're in agreement with that vote green, vote yes if you're against that vote red or no or obviously if you wish to abstain vote yellow so just running through it again if you wish to approve the application vote green if you wish to vote against the application vote red or if you wish to abstain vote yellow press the blue there you go so just one member so we're missing one vote so there you go, now you can vote perfect okay I think the results are in members and we can see it is two votes in favour seven votes against so the application is refused okay members thank you for the good debate on that we're now going to move to the next item which is agenda item 8 this is an application at the Jolly Millers pub 73 High Street Cotinum the proposal in front of us today is a change of use for a public house with a flat to a dwelling demolition of existing outbuildings and an erection of a new dwelling and parking with manoeuvring for two vehicles the applicant is Mr Gary Jackson and the reason it is before us today is because it is in contradiction to the parish council's recommendation we have hopefully Alice Young with us online who is the planning officer presenting this to us today hi yes I'm here thank you chair thank you Alice is your can you switch your camera on please I can still see the cloud from Little Gransden there with me a second well yeah we can see and hear you Alice so yeah if you could give us any updates to the paper in front of us and then if you could introduce the item to us please of course thank you chair just an update hopefully members have received the camera consultation which was sent yesterday around to members can I just confirm that everyone had access to that before we get started yeah we have received it via email albeit I see Councillor Breddon shaking ahead at me it is on email I don't know if Aaron or Lawrence could quickly email that to Councillor Breddon please but other than that if you can carry on Alice I'll get on the case chair brilliant thank you I'll start the presentation now just let me share my screen bear with me a second okay so can I just confirm that you can see my screen we can brilliant that's great thank you very much so this is a prying application for 79 High Street Cottenham the Johnny Millers and it's for a change of use of the public house and the flats associated with that public house demolition of the existing out buildings and annex and erection of a dwelling to the rear 79 High Street Cottenham and the Johnny Millers pub is located on the south eastern side of Cottenham High Street and the site comprises a public house and several out buildings and public munity lands in the south east the development framework boundary cuts through the site 38 metres from the front of the site beyond the existing out buildings the site also falls within the Cottenham conservation area and the two trees on site are protected as they are in the conservation area but do not have TPO status to the north east of the site is Smith's Path which leads to commercial residential units to the south east of the site aside from the commercial units predominantly the site is surrounded by residential units with large plots extending beyond the development framework boundary which typically contain barns out buildings and some small backlands and dwellings here are some photos of the site you'll see that the blue is the rear of the existing pub building the orange arrow is the annex out building and then there's another out building which has the yellow arrow there could we just ask on that photograph is Smith's Path to the left or to the right or straight ahead let me just get my orientate myself of course of course so can you see my pointer yes so this path is just to the right and this is the site more pictures from the site this is number 75 here with several out buildings to the rear of that dwelling as well and this again shows Smith's Path which is just here number 71 and 71 High Street as well you'll be able to see that this is Smith's Path in this right hand picture as well I hope that's clear for members and again this just shows the site which is this is the back boundary of the red line site so it shows clearly what the site context is the applications the explanation to change the use of pub building and managers flats to a single residential dwelling and the demolition of the existing annex and out buildings and the erection of a detached dwelling to the rear and associated facilities including parking bins and immunity space the existing vehicular access to the south west of the pub will be retained and two parking spaces will be provided one per dwelling within the site and two parking spaces will be provided on the carriageway but these are the existing floor plans of the pub you'll see the bars and pub is downstairs along with the store and annex and then the living quarters for the manager above and this is the proposed floor plans showing the conversion into a single dwelling house and the removal of the existing store and annex to the rear and you'll see that there's a rear garden for this public house and associated bins and bike storage in the rear garden so the proposed new dwelling to the rear and these are the floor plans and the elevations and this is to give a context of the proposed dwelling in relation to the main house so members should have received a consultation from camera and the PAC campaign for wheel ale this week detailing their comments on the loss of the pub whilst the loss of pub is unfortunate the principle of the loss is justified the pub has been extensively marketed before the pandemic for over 12 months at a realistic price for a variety of uses and no offers materialised for any other use other than residential development moreover the viability assessment demonstrates that the pub use on site is not commercially viable due to market conditions and the works required to get the building and business operational Cotnum has a healthy amount of facilities with three alternative pubs albeit one is temporarily closed due to the health of the licensee but all of which are located within the village centre in a more sustainable location taking these factors into account alongside the limited objections from residents on the loss of the pub officers conclude that the criterion in policy SC3 have been met and the loss of the pub would not lead to an unacceptable reduction in the level of community or service provision in Cotnum in terms of the principle of development for the dwelling whilst the proposed built form of the dwelling would be contained within the development framework boundary it is noted that the residential cartilage would extend outside of the development framework boundary this is not supported in the neighbourhood plan or other policies within the local plan and therefore is contrary to policy S7 of the local plan as a matter of principle however this land is pub amenity land and is clearly defined by a formal boundary fence and is not open countryside therefore the change of use of this land to residential to be included within the residential carriage would not represent an encroachment into the open countryside and no harm arises from this aspect of the proposal despite the minor conflict in policy so you will see here that this picture clearly denotes the boundary fence that has been existent for almost 20 years according to council aerial photography as illustrated earlier the surrounding areas characterised by front facing properties with long rear gardens extending to the rear beyond the development framework boundary in these rear plots outbuildings barns and smaller scale dwellings are common such as number 71a which is just to the north of the site north east of the site residential and commercial units are also located to the south east of the site which are completely outside of the development framework boundary which are here and there's also some here noting this context which is reflected in the evidence base for the Cottonham neighbourhood plan officers consider that the modestly scaled subservient dwelling would not be out of character with the surrounding area particularly as it is similar in appearance to number 71a the dwelling to the north but it would be smaller in scale comparatively. The conservation officer has no objection to the proposed dwelling and therefore it would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area they do however raise a partial objection to the loss of the pub due to the loss of activity at the site given the pub has been vacant for three to five years and that a condition is suggested securing the former pub signage officers consider that the impact on the character of the conservation area would be limited as a result from this. The parish have raised objections regarding the proposal restricting views of the countryside from the high street from the north side of the pub the proposal which replaces this annex here but it is cited further back would be seen within the context of the frontage buildings the formal boundary treatments and the other built form to the rear such as number 71a here and the commercial buildings to the rear it would not restrict views of the countryside here as the only indication of the countryside is the trees behind the built form which the proposal would not restrict views of from the south of the pub the proposal would be seen again within the context of the larger scale commercial units behind I've zoomed in slightly so you can see but these are denoted by the red arrows so they would be seen within the context of these larger scale commercial units behind and the formalised rear pub garden again these trees would still provide a backdrop to the built form and from the east so from the open countryside again here the proposal would be seen within the context of number 71a over here and the barns to the south and would be contained within the pub immunity lands garden denoted by the boundary fence officers therefore consider subject to appropriate landscaping that the proposal would not due to scale massing and ancillary appearance compromise the views of the open countryside as the only markers of the open countryside to the east is the tree backdrop behind the existing large scale commercial units this is just a further picture of the commercial units behind the highway authority originally objected to the application due to the intensification of the use of the access to and from the site whilst suggesting that in their objection that it could be overcome by only providing two car parking spaces within the site with sufficient turning space for one vehicle at a time the proposed site plan has been amended as recommended and officers now considered that the highway authority subjection has been overcome and the traffic movements are comparable to the former pub use and the additional car parking on the road due to the roads width and car parking capacity would comply with TI3 and would not result in car parking pressure on the high street and therefore officer recommendation is one of approval subject to the conditions outlines in the committee reports which include the ones on the screen now thank you chair thank you very much Alice we do have one very quick point of clarity for you which I allow Councillor Williams thank you chair, I appreciate when you will be asked afterwards it was just on paragraph 23 it has the officer note the plans have subsequently been amended and it is advised to make it impractical for more than two parks to park on site I'm just wondering if that's if that's worded correctly because then I might have a few more parking related questions for the applicant chair thank you councillor could you just remind me which paragraph you're referring to so I can just check that briefly it's paragraph 23 on page 118 it says to make it impractical for more than two cars to park on site I thought the idea of the rescheduling was that one for each house could park on site therefore practical yes it is to make to make sure that only two car parking spaces are provided in the site so further car parking will not be provided so further car parking should be impractical within the site that is the desire of the highway authority they would like it so that there is only two car parking spaces and enough space for vehicles to turn within the site and no more than those two car parking spaces on site I hope that's clear for you thank you we're not in the debate at the moment okay councillor Bradman just FYI there is no representation from the applicant today either so I'm not sure if that changes anyone's if there is a very quick point around that so can I just clarify with you this young that you did say that there would be two car parking spaces on the carriageway and I suspect that's as a result of limiting the car parking spaces on the site any further parking would then therefore have to be on the highway can you just clarify that point? yes so two car parking spaces one for each dwelling will be provided on the carriageway and two within the site again this has come from the advice of the highway authority thank you councillor Willson I see you indicating as well is this around the same point I do want to move on to the public speakers oh it's not for that part can I ask the point of clarification if we could save those for the debate please I will obviously come back to you after the public speakers of which we only have one I do notice and that is a representative representative of the parish council do we have councillor John Lobluck with us we do I see you on the screen councillor welcome yes and hopefully you can hear me now yes we can see and hear you perfectly welcome to the planning committee I'll allow you to address the committee albeit in a three minute time frame if you can manage that please and then if you wouldn't mind holding on after your comments if in case there's any questions of clarification for you from committee members very happy to thank you thank you sir whenever you're ready please okay well thanks for giving us the opportunity to speak three minutes isn't long there's quite a few objections to this development but if I concentrate on two first of all it's the house at the rear which is at odds with a linear development in this part of the cotton conservation area as has been said along the northern section of High Street the majority of houses face the highway and have direct access of it with views through the open countryside both from the properties and from the main highway and we believe this linear aspect is an important characteristic of the village and its retention is a goal of the cotton neighbourhood plan the development of more dwellings behind the current linear plan is contrary therefore to policy S7 of the south Cambridge a local plan and since it's responsive not responsive to village characteristics it's also contrary to what we see COH15 of the neighbourhood plan the planning officers report quotes little misleadingly from the cotton heritage and character assessment saying it's common for all plots to be subdivided and this is true it's the same fact but the neighbourhood plan itself basically we wish to retain the traditional layout in the future and to avoid piecemeal development that happened before the current local neighbourhood plans were in place as has been pointed out at 71 High Street and along the neighbouring Smith's path and not directly relevant to this but we note with concern that this along with applications of 35 and 129 is one of three similar applications for backland development made in this stretch for High Street in recent months alone and while we recognise each application should be judged on its own merits we recognise we request that you reject the application to avoid setting a further precedent it is undesirable although obviously the will of the local property owners to create a second line of development behind High Street and the second point has already been picked up by a couple of councillors and we are concerned by the off-road parking arrangements and safety of access to the site our neighbourhood plan policy COH14 requires developments to retain or increase on-site parking to reduce roadside parking and here we seem to be doing a reverse normal planning policy would require at least two off-road parking places for each of the four bedroom and two bedroom houses a four in total and this was accommodated in the original plans by having parking spaces beyond the development boundary that we would object to but the local highway authorities made the to us mystifying requirement that due to the inadequate access road to safety the provision of more than two spaces must be prevented which forces increased parking on the High Street itself consequently reducing visibility because of leaving the site and we do not see how this is in the interest of road safety and I think this is a paradox which can't be squared which demonstrates the unsuitability of this location for the proposed development and if I've got any time left to say a little bit about transport links developing in this area which is a long way from public transport nearly half a mile from the nearest bus stop with regular services our neighbourhood plan state of the true sustainability houses should be located less than 400 metres from the well service bus stop to discourage car use and we believe that by developing in this kind of area to discourage car use rather discouraging it Thank you very much councillor that's very useful comments for us there members do we have any questions of clarification for parish councillor councillor Roberts please Thank you very much thank you very much chairman I don't think parish councillor mentioned the need for a Cotnam public house but it is mentioned in your representations in the agenda so I think I'm okay to go over there I'm getting a nod from the chairman so I'm not going to get shot at the horn so could you explain to me seemingly you're saying that there's only two working ongoing public houses at the moment and obviously Cotnam has had a major growth of development can you tell me therefore would you believe that it could still be a feasible asset to the village to it be reopened Thank you chair Thank you very much for the question because in the three minutes I decided I didn't have time to cover that as well as the other points but I'd make one point the applicant has made a big deal of the fact that the property was marketed at a sensible value and failed to come up with any takers but that is sold for 100k less than the asking price and I failed to see that it can therefore be marketed at what would be a realistic price also point out quite a lot of the marketing, not all of it was during the pandemic and as you say there are an additional 500 new houses coming to Cotnam admittedly in the other end of the village there are three pubs currently normally in Cotnam but one of them is on the market currently with statements in the selling details being transferred to residential ownership so I'm looking forward to hearing what camera have to say hopefully they can make a very cogent argument for why we should retain the pub but it wasn't the prime focus of our objection which as I say is mainly on neighborhood plan development issues and on parking arrangements not an expert in pub marketing so I don't feel really qualified to override the documents in the dossier but they are open to question I'm sure The Chair has allowed me to come back on the secondary The public houses that are going in the village are they busy I mean is there a sort of quantifiable need shown in the village that people want to go to the village pubs I mean I know we've all been boozing like mad at home or in the garden but is it seems to you that they are still popular and that people in the village are looking for that sort of leisure recreational facility Now I'm one of those people who defends the need for pubs but then realise I haven't been in a pub myself for quite a while so I'm one of those armchair pub goers There are many of us The hot bind is a thriving pub dealing with the sporting population of the village the youth of the village checkers tends to have a slightly different chiantail it's become more of a restaurant than a pub of recent years and I think that's all I can really say I used to drink in a jolly millers on occasion and found it very very convivial pub I would have to say it was often quiet but I think that's probably how it's marketed and how it's managed rather than and how the brewery handles it as much as anything I don't think I can say anything further really Councillor Roberts I'm sorry but there are certainly evidence that the hot bind in particular is a thriving pub in the centre of the village That's very clear thank you Councillor Bradman please Thank you You said that the parish council were concerned about parking just give us a sort of pen picture of what the parking is like on that part of the high street because just looking on Google Maps which purports to be 2022 but still has the pub sign outside and lights on outside the pub I don't know if that's right but there appears to be only one parking space immediately outside the pub and I just wondered what impact you thought having two cars there might make in the area I think it would encourage parking on the high street which I saw the statements in the report about there being plenty of widths plenty of space I've also seen justifications for the safety of the exit from the site by showing a line of parked cars which remove visibility I cannot see how having parked cars along the front can in any way improve the safety of the exit from the property we're talking about I don't live at that in the village so I can't directly comment on how frequently cars park along this That's fine, counciller I think you've answered as best you can, thank you councillor Hawkins please Thank you chair and I'll be very brief considering the fact that Cottenham is going to grow over the next few years based on all the houses being built now there is a potential view that if the jolly millers opened as a free off type hub that it could be still thriving going forward Do you agree with that? I do agree with that Thank you Good, very succinct Okay, one more sorry, councillor Heather Williams please a final question of clarity said with such exasperation from the chair I was just going to to ask whether there'd been we have community value and community get the right then to bid for the pub and things like that if there'd been any movement within the village to make it a community owned pub I have not heard of any such plans I think that was a no I mean I I'm not saying I would have heard them I'm just saying I haven't heard of any such plans No, that's a fair comment That's what you can say, thank you Okay, councillor Bluck, thank you very much for your time and for probably I imagine waiting quite a long time to address us today so I appreciate your patience and we will now move on members We do have a local member with us councillor Wilson I don't know councillor if you wanted to speak as a local member now or save your comments to the debate I would like to ask for some clarification first and then speak later at the end of the debate Okay, I think we'd better move into the debate then obviously I'll give you final say when we come to conclude the debate First I have councillor sorry councillor Wilson if you want to answer your questions of clarity before I skip over My question is for the officer about the marketing of the premises because in the papers it says it was marketed from March 2019 to July 2020 but March 2019, one year later we were in lockdown and all pubs were closed so that was just one year of marketing so I wouldn't is that considered to be extensive marketing so that was one of my points I should add that when we first moved to Cottenham a local who lived there or his life told me there were months 42 pubs in Cottenham working so now we're down to 42 although so there's been great loss over the years and a growing village so that was my first question OK, thank you for that Alice I'm not sure if you can comment on the suitability of the marketing period during a lockdown What I will say is obviously as stated in the report it was marketed from March 2019 to July 2020 so that was a full year before lockdown occurred and in our local plan it does talk about 12 months marketing and the extensive marketing was to do with where it was marketed how it was marketed which agency it was marketed in what it was marketed for it was marketed for pubs primarily but also restaurants cafes other community facilities alongside other uses there was a reduction in price when from its original price when it was originally marketed in 2019 and it was then obviously bought at a lower price then it was marketed for a reduced price if that makes sense I would also like to highlight that they have provided a viability assessment which does demonstrate that it is not commercially a not commercially viable entity and it also does say in that report that the re-establishment could impact upon the profitability of other facilities in Cotnam I just thought I would raise that now but hopefully that addresses councillors concerns Can I come back on that point? Yes you can I know from my local knowledge that this pub went through a very turbulent period where owners' demands were made on landlords so they could not make the pub profitable it was very very touch and go for a long time as for the impact on other pubs in the village that there is definitely a green end and this pub is at the church end of the village the other pubs are at the green end of the village and it's a very very long village so there did tend to be polarisation of use of the pubs and I know that a lot of people are very disappointed that that particular end of the village doesn't have a pub anymore so I would just like to add that to what's been said councillor Dornton please be your next in the debate My question was about marketing the period of the marketing and what was it involved in the extensive marketing so I think it's probably all been answered Thank you Next we have councillor Heather Williams Thank you and mine's for the debate chair so I'm just going to say on a parallel I've got one of two pubs in one of my villages which is a lot smaller in fact it's got 300 and something houses and it's got two pubs so I think Copnam on the amount of pubs it's got it could support another pub in the area I'm speaking as a former landlady and knowing that industry relatively well there are lots of things that can be done and yes I respect that it said that the other pubs in the area would have an impact from it reopening but they would from anything if McDonald's turned up on the doorstep that's we can't control the market in that respect but there are other things that concern me about this application as well as I don't think any of us want to see the loss of a pub or facility so I'm reminded that in the current climate I think most of our ability assessments would fail and the likes due to the pandemic so we should have that in the back of our minds but the parking for myself is a real concern there may be some clarification here actually around the cycle parking I might have glazed over that perhaps but I couldn't see where that was provided and I'm just minded of HQ1 our local plan policy which I'm just pulling up that says ensure that car parking is integrated into the development in a convenient accessible manner and does not dominate in development and its surroundings or cause safety issues now I say that because it's all cause safety issues so it's not and you know you have to if you have safety issues that are addressed then that means the others go I personally don't think by only having one car park space it brings my mind one car park space per dwelling for dwellings of that size you know it's ridiculous to be quite frank he would be concerned if they had to car parking spaces for the size of the dwellings that are proposed and the occupations that they'll have and I don't think if you actually look at the street as well while there may be not cars outside the pub itself there's lots of dipped curbs and preventative measures there's double yellow lines literally three doors down there's lots of restrictions on that road for car parking that this is for two sizeable dwellings we're not talking about two up two down there'll be big houses with bedrooms as families develop you'll be taking up half that provision on both sides so I don't think it's compliant with policy I think we've got enough to refuse it even if you don't look at the economic impacts on that I think it's complete over development and trying to squeeze a ridiculous amount in the sizes there and should be refused personally that's me off my high horse chair thank you very much next in the debate we have Councillor Richard Williams thank you chair mine was actually a question of clarification for the officer I understood that there was supposed to be some on-street parking I think that was referred to earlier so there would be one space on the site and then another space for each dwelling on the road can I just check where that on-street parking would be is it intended to be outside designated outside the dwelling Alice I'm not sure if you can help us with the map I will just try and get it up now there with me can you see my screen we can so obviously there's two car parking spaces within the site here and I believe they would be on the carriageway just outside the public house just around here can I come back to that this is not necessarily a point for the officer this may be more of a debate point but I'm slightly dumbfounded really as to why highways have said they can't have more than one space on the development site it's basically because of visibility space but if you put designated parking spaces right in front of the pub surely you're going to move the visibility space further out onto the road and they will still be obstructed by the designated parking base so I'm dumbfounded about how highways think this is better as I say it's not really a question for the officer maybe it's more of a comment for debate no thank you that's been noted thank you for the map Alice next up Councillor Bradman please thank you chair I'm dumbfounded in the same way that Councillor Richard Williams or whoever it was said it I'm looking at plan for the annex although it appears to show the pub at the front but I can't see any parking spaces on the proposed ground floor plan because it refers to a boundary wall to be retained so the place that Miss Young identified for parking that may well be right but it doesn't appear to show on the plans that I'm looking at for the dwelling so I'm dumbfounded as to why it should be okay to put or even to consider that there might be space for two parking places in front of the pub when actually when you look on google maps it's fairly clear that there's only really space for one vehicle outside the property not least access the visibility space for both Smith's path and the actual access to the parking behind this property are both very narrow and for both constrained by dwelling walls on both sides so I can't see how that's going to work and also the fact that whilst we want to promote means of active transport these two dwellings could between them as far as I can make out have something between four and five bedrooms in total or maybe more than that I'm sorry I might have missed the plans but certainly the property at the back appears to have two bedrooms and the property at the front appears to have more I'm sorry I'm four yeah something like that four bedrooms so that's a total of six bedrooms and to only provide two on-site parking spaces just doesn't seem to be enough the other point I was also going to make which Councillor Heather Williams has made is that any viability on any pub during over that period would have come out with any pub showing that it wasn't viable so I just I'm not convinced by the arguments around and also the very fact that it was being marketed at a price £100,000 over what it was finally sold for to the current applicant seems unfortunate to say the least anyway I shall remain listening to what other people have to say thank you for your comments then Councillor Hawkins please thank you chair, I think I just want to clarify this thing on the viability assessment can you remind me when the dates were that the assessment was carried out I had Councillor March 2019 to July 2020 unless Alice is going to tell me that's incorrect camera say November 2020 Alice can you clarify the dates the property was marketed the dates that you've just quoted there Councillor Bachelor were the marketing periods that wasn't the date of the viability assessment a date of the viability assessment was the second of November 2020 okay thank you Councillor Hawkins that makes sense so we're right in the middle of the pandemic I'm afraid that doesn't make sense to me of course it will be not viable okay thank you Councillor Roberts please thank you chair and I'll show everybody's concerns here and it seems to me that I don't think it's been proven in my mind that this is an unviable business potential I think it's been marketed at the wrong time I think we need to require a further period now that we are coming out of lockdown and that pubs are opening again I think the price has probably been pitched far too high that's exactly what happened in Falmere with one of our two pubs it was wildly exaggerated price and nobody was going to buy it for that sort of price because see it was a tiny pub it was a sort of income but eventually of course because nobody was going for it it got sold and it's now but luckily it is a business it's a nursery for children in the village but I think that it's down to the price here and at the right price you'd probably get the right buyer somebody who will actually put some effort and interest and work again we're all talking about our own patches but at Falmere it goes down for two years and it had been terribly badly managed before that it was bankrupt now somebody has taken on and it's going great guns so I think we need to refuse this one and I don't know officers can maybe advise can we request that it's marketed for a new period of time in a different business situation that we have now with things taking off again like that answer but I don't think I can support it I think officers will look into that and come back to us if that's okay next to speak please virtually Martin Khan Councillor Khan I'm sorry I missed quite a lot of the discussion here and I can't fit in any case because I'm online but I have some comments which I think might be helpful first of all regarding this position as a pub I think this building is totally unsuitable for a pub in a modern era simply because it has no parking on site you are replacing to build it, you're talking about replacing residential development in place of a pub which would itself attract far more traffic parking on the road than the two dwellings any pub nowadays will normally want to provide food to make itself viable to provide food you have people driving one person not drinking and you need car parks so I think there is definitely a need for a pub but I don't actually think this is the right building I think there may be other sites in northern cotton which will be suitable but for this reason I'm not worried about the fact that you lose the pub you need to go and find another site which is more suitable for modern needs 1840 at which time everybody will be coming by foot or by horse and it's a totally different context I don't think the site is suitable the second question is whether they propose residential development which is suitable which is a separate question there are issues here I think looking at the aerial photograph of our cars parked along that stretch of street there appears to be adequate for two-way traffic plus the parking itself is not a problem but there are other issues we want to have all new development having electric car charging points a new is a big problem with the new development where you don't have car parking on site you don't have easy recharging of cars so I would want all the cars that go to user to be charged have access to electric car parking and you can't provide that electric charging so I think the access to the site through the access is very narrow cars are going to come out between cars I think it is certainly the highways are right that it is dangerous but why two or four it's dangerous full stop so really you want to leave the access at the existing level and therefore having two dwellings on site is I think debatable on this site I would find that that is the reason to refuse rather than the question about the requirement need for a pub there is a need for a pub but this I don't think is a site and it's not therefore a justifiable site for refusing I think possibly the reason why it was not accessible in addition to the fact that it was during the pandemic was the fact that it is not suitable for a modern pub thank you thank you councillor my next speaker is councillor Fhane thank you chair a lot of what I would have said has been said already I won't duplicate it except to say that on the parking if it has not in practice been a problem for a pub I can't see that it would be a problem for two residential units I don't want to say more just to add to the degree of dumbfoundedness in the room on the question of viability I think the assessment has already been questioned I am very persuaded by what camera has said to us I think that a village of I believe 6600 houses does need provision for a reasonable number of pubs I don't want to stray into areas that the local member may be about to cover so forgive me I'm sure we'd all be very happy for her to repeat it in more coherent form if necessary but it is quite clear to me that not only are at least three pubs needed in a village of this size a pub is needed on this site to serve this part of Cottenham North Cottenham it is, we understand, ten minutes walk from the other pubs the nearest pubs in Cottenham so I think there is a strong case for that and camera rightly refer us to the NPPF on this and to paragraph 33 in particular planning policies and decisions should plan positively for provision of shared community facilities such as pubs pubic houses and should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services especially particularly where this would reduce the community's ability to meet its day-to-day needs and as camera point out to us and I am again persuaded of this that experience shows that when communities lose their pubs they rarely if ever regain them. I don't know that we have any proposals or likelihood of insisting that new developments in the community should include provision of pubs so I think in the circumstances I don't believe the case for this be, I mean I think it discontinued trading in June 2018 but if it were marketed at the right price and no longer as a tide pub but as free of the tie it could well be that this would be a viable business and we should do our best to safeguard it and that means turning down its proposed conversion to other uses and the additional unit at the back so I'm inclined to vote against this Thank you very much three more speakers Councillor Daunton Roberts and then Councillor Wilson as a local member so Councillor Daunton please Thank you, well I won't repeat much of what Councillor Fain has said and I'm really very much persuaded by the conservation officers concerns over the change of use in paragraph 26 and 27 and I think that we really need to take that on board so I will be voting against it I mean made clear that it's an important building an important building in the village but also historic pub and it's set out very clearly in those two paragraphs Thank you very much Councillor Roberts I'll keep it very quick if I may and try I agree utterly with Councillor Fain sometimes we don't agree but on this one we certainly do and Councillor Daunton's comments and everybody else I think the thing is that it's quite clear that at this end of the village there's no facility, there's no public house and I think one thing that the pandemic has taught us is firstly how much we miss human communication and secondly how much we are more happy now to walk places we don't want to get in our cars and we should be dissuading people from getting into cars and going to public houses because you know if you've got one that's fairly near to you why would you bother to get your car out if you can walk to it so I think that this is a good case to actually stand up for a public house being retained Thank you Chairman Thank you Councillor Bradlin then I'll conclude with Councillor Wilson Thank you I have already spoken and I would just like to it's interesting that the conservation officer recommended that if it was to be approved for change of use that the pub sign be retained I'd like to suggest the opposite that the pub sign be retained for the good reason that it remains a pub but also I'd like to urge if that's the way the application goes I'd like to urge the parish council to actually register it as an asset of community value that's clearly what is being argued though No Agreed and obviously if we were to refuse the application today hopefully the parish council are listening and will take steps to do our search and finally to conclude as Councillor Wilson, local member Thank you On that last point I did ask some years ago before I became a counciller whether this could be registered as an asset of community value but I was advised that because there were other pubs in the village it wasn't so unique as to merit that nomination I've got a couple of points on the car parking although it looks like the road is quite wide and there's parking on the street the high street in Cottenham has constant HDV movements and sometimes it's very hard to for cars going one way to get past the HDVs going the other way and that does create what could be a very risky situation both for pedestrians and cyclists so I wouldn't want to see any more parking on the street also if we're trying to encourage cycling and walking we don't want more parking because it does make it unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists on the the report mentions good transport that this end of the village has not had good transport for some years now the bus that used to go through the length of the village only goes that way once a day each way so there's no good public transport at that end of the village it's concentrated more at the green end of the village which is the centre of the village this is a departure from the neighbourhood plan a lot of work went into the neighbourhood plan and a lot of thought and I I would really object to a departure from the neighbourhood plan for the reasons that Mr Loughluck explained and like councillor Robert said post COVID people are looking for more and more opportunities to socialise and to socialise within the village without driving to other places and this is one lost opportunity for people to socialise thank you thank you very much I think that draws the debate to conclusion we can move to a move to the recommendation I'm getting a sense that some people are wishing to vote against this so I'm just going to go over the material considerations that I've heard during the debate first one is principle of development second is access highway safety and parking provision and the third I need some advice on this is departure from the neighbourhood plan is there anything I've missed there what does that pretty much encapsulate everyone's concerns around this application councillor Hawkins question around the viability of the pub I'm not sure I have to ask officers on that if that is a material consideration thank you chair I mean what I would say is that in my opinion the scheme has met the policy test in that the applicant has gone through an economic viability exercise the policy talks about the future economic viability and as far as I'm aware they have considered it its future so I don't think Covid is the only factor in that it would have looked at a number of factors around the suitability of the building its location etc and that's been demonstrated so I think that's a difficult error for members and in terms of the marketing I think clearly it has been marketed for 12 months out completely outside of the lockdown period so I would advise that both of those factors together would indicate that it's not viable nor anyone has come forward to take it on and therefore it's policy compliant but members it's a matter for you we've had debates about the price that it was marketed at it's not an absolute it's a matter for you my advice would be that I believe it's policy compliant could you use that? it was in the paperwork and it was mentioned that it's an historic pub and that it's a 19th century pub and I think that the paper clearly talks about the Victorian character of the building as well which is very much part of the village scene and part of the design of the village area there and I think we ought to also flag up that character that it's specific characteristics as being a Victorian building impact on character is a material consideration so is that fair to include that as well Nigel? yeah okay so those are the and the question around part from the neighbourhood plan presumably that's a material consideration it certainly is yes the neighbourhood plan adopted okay so the four I have members are principle of development access highway safety and parking provision departure from the neighbourhood plan and impact on the character of the area I think that pretty pretty well encapsulates the reasons for refusal should we go that way good okay we'll go to the recommendation then which is on a page with the number 113 so the recommendation members is that we approve the application subject to the conditions listed in the agenda I feel more comfortable if you did go to electronic vote on this actually if that's okay members Aaron could we set that up please so obviously the recommendation is to approve so if members are in agreement and want to approve press green if members wish to refuse on the reasons that we just talked about press red or if members wish to abstain press yellow one more to vote okay done done done okay so members you can see on the screen that is nine votes to refuse none to approve and no abstentions so that application is unanimously refused chair if I may just clarify that the reasons, the actual reasons refusal can be delegated to talk to us and we will draft something in consultation with the chairman thank you very much members I think a ten minute recess and then we can hopefully finish the agenda it's now just gone six minutes past three so if we come back just after quarter past and we will resume and hopefully finish off so meeting postponed for ten minutes thank you very much and welcome back everyone to South Cambridge district council's planning committee and the final stretch now just two more applications to consider we are up to agenda item nine members which is page one for one of our agendas this is an application of the land adjacent to 35 Bolsham Road, Linton the proposal is an outline application for the direction of a single self build it's the reason it's before us today is because the applicant is again South Cambridge district council and also the application is in contradiction to the parish council's recommendation the officer is Mr Nick Yeager Nick are you with us online afternoon Nick thank you for joining us Nick I'm wondering if you could please let us know if there's any updates to the agenda and then if you could introduce the item for us please this is the land adjacent to 35 Bolsham Road, Linton and there was an amendment on condition 11 it will be split as follows so prior to the installation of new surface material in relation to the access and as indicated on the submitted plan this will be submitted to and agreed within the local planning authority reason interest of highway safety and then it will be split in a separate condition which will then state the access shall be minimum width of five meters for a minimum distance of five meters from the nearest edge of the highway boundary this is the reason is in the interest of the highway safety again okay so just for clarity that's page 151 condition 11 you're proposing to split the condition into two so separating the final sentence beginning with the access shell is that right? okay thank you sorry Nick what's that Councillor Bradford sorry there's also prior to the installation not instillation we're not trying to influence it we're trying to actually put it in okay yeah I think that's grammatical error I think we can take out the bread thank you Nick back to you okay I just want to check with the chair that my screen is shared quickly yes we can see so yep this application is for because the applicant is the application is recommended by planning officers this application is a resubmission of application 20-05-250-0ut which went for development control committee on the 9th of the 6th 2021 so at that committee the application was recommended for approval however following the committee's recommendation the application was then withdrawn the application was then withdrawn Onol, mae'n dweud hynny, ond mae'r pwysig yn cyfnod dros ookyr, ond oherwydd mae'n dweud. Felly, mae'n rheswb yn fath o nos, na hwnnw, ond mewn fath o'r rheswb yna'r pwynt underside. Felly, mae chyfodd yn rhan o'r pwysig o'r amser yn eu nhw. Aen nhw'r byd yn unig, maen nhw'n cydnod o'r pwysig o'r amser o'r mobod hynny. A fyddwn i'r plan bob hiio, ond mae'n cyfrifiad honno i mewn hirionedd. ac yn ganwraith o bowl anhygoel. Dylech i ystod i argyrchu fally. Dyna os yw 35 bowl anhygoel. Kliad amgylchedd yn niw, ac mae'n gondol i'n gondol ac mae�r rai fawr yn rai bwyr yn de mlu. Dyna y fan y gysig, mae'r f experience iechyd ar y pwysig ar y pwysig. Gondol i'r fawr yn de mlu, mae'n gondol i'r rai fawr yn de mlu ac y 35 bowl anhygoel yn dlech i'r eich fawr. Mae'r cyflethau cyflethau yn ymlaen nhw am y cyflethau. Gwylwch i'r hyfforddiadau a'r gaeliau sydd wedi eu gaeloedd, ac yn ymddangos ymddangos yma, ac mae'r cyflethau yn deilio yma eich angen i'r cymryd. Ymddangos ymddangos ymddangos ymddangos, mae'n gyhoeddiadol i gaelio ar yr adnod maen nhw. Dwi wedi ceisio'r seffordd, dwi'n dweud â dweol, a dyma beth yr ysgolion blot yn ei gilydd, ac mae ein dweud â dweol o'r dweol, ond angen yn gondol. Mae'r glores yn gallu. Mae mae'n gorfodd acces, ac mae'n gondol, rydyn ni'n gorfodd acces wedi ffordd y 35. Rydyn ni'n cymryd yn gyffredin â'r gweithio'r wcŷod. both side plan. So again shared access will be located here of the two, okay and parking spaces.shaw number 35, and also known additional two spaces here for theר phos new dwelling. Community space perhaps and will be located alko be located to the rear. This Aria would then be a shed Sorry Nick 就是 one second I just had a request are you able to activate your laser pointer rather than the mouse just make it easier for us to see in the room Perfect, thank you Moving on this is an addictive 3D sketch As just mentioned all matter is reserved however this is a sketch of how potential dwelling can sit in a relationship with the neighbouring properties however this would be decided and determined ymarferredu ymlaen. Felly dyfoddiwch yr ysgol Lleidwyr i'r uniteid, ac dyfoddiwch ac yw'r sydd wedi'i'n cael ei wneud ar y dyfoddydau, i'n bod ychydig yw yn ddiddordeb. Mae fel ar derbyn i'n gwneud arlaen o'r perff BREIER. Mae'n ddod i'r Lleidwyr, i'r ddangos yng Nghymru. Mae'r Llyfodd yn siarad lleydd—35— ac mae'n ddwin. Mae'r Llywodd wedi'i ddwylliant, i ddwydd ar fynd, wrth gwrs neu feddwl am gallwch chi. A yna'r gweithio. Mae hynny'n gweithio'r amsredd gan y sgolaf. A yn en riding o'r gweithio yn meddwl am dda i ddweudio'r rei. Côr hynny'n oes yn llender gan sy'n gweithio, ac mae'n gweithio yn ddo, ac mae hynny'n gweithio ar gweithio ar arost yn amlwg y ffordd. Mae hynny hwn yn gweithio'r amsredd gan y sgolaf, ac mae hynny'n gweithio ar y sgolaf. Mae hynny'n gweithio'r amsredd gan hwn. yn y cydwyd. Rydyn ni'n medryf yn rhwng an sympathetic o bawb fel oedryg rhai, o hettyn, oedryn amgylawniol, presents o ll감 anodyniadau, a llwyd ddechrau. Mae'r cyfrifiadau o 35 oedryn a llwyddon Shop. Mae'r cyfrifiadau o'r llwyddo llwyddo alw. Rydyn ni'n medrynu'r llwyddo llwyddo anodyniadau i'r fforddiadau, ddiwrnodd dod y lleon, ond'i ddaf yn cael ei ddwell pan'rmarth. Be ychydig i'n dweithio, mae'n eich ddweithio i'r ddweithiau ddweithiau a'r ddweithiau. Yn ymwybod am yn ei gweithio a'i ddweithio radd, mae'r newid yn aml beautifol ac y gallwn, Ondo yn gydag, mae'n ddweithio i'r cyfyrdd wedi'u cyfryd. and ways have both objectives. One of the objectives is relation to this electronic substation and we have conditioned a noise reports with the application it was insured that the amenity would be protected. There's been comments related to the highway matters relation to speeding, which outside would be a police matter if there are speeding along on Welsh and Rhoed as such. The Highway Priority have confirmed that the application is acceptable and the shared access would not lead to highway safety issues. So it's noted that it is located on a bend, however the Highway Priority have assessed it and considered that it would be acceptable. yna ben y dynion o'r Ffordd, ond mae'n rhai amser yn gyffredinol ar gyfer gan Ofojol, a rhaid i'r cyfrefyrd yn dWithre Draw gan y cyfrefyrd yn ardullus. Mae yna beth o hyn yn cyffredinol i'r cyfrefyrd, mae'r cyfrannu yn ei bod nhw i'n gweithio a gweithio yma. Mae'r cyfan ymlaen i boedai ar y ddechrau Cymru ac yn y pethau hyn o'r ffordd ac yn gyffredinol o'r cyfrannu. I have been signed, delidabores a forged bygych. I didn'tитlaslive I have said no objection, the highways has no objection subject to the conditions, trainage officer also acceptable subject sinful surface and foul water condition and environmental health subject to construction hours and construction management plan. The construction management plan would be to also ensure the enabling mean rig to be protected during construction related activities ond o'r oesio unrhyw llwyddiad o ddysgrif hon oedd. Mae'r ddweud y briffeithio sydd y cysylltiadau a'r cysylltu'r briffeithio yn cyfnodd a gael lwyffydd y Llywodraeth, hynny'n ddydd y cyfnod o'r ddalod, y bydlwch llwyll, yn y llawd. Y dweud o'r llwyddiad o'r aplydiadau wedi'u diwrnodau sy'n ond y dweud o'r aplydiad o'r cyfnoddau sydd gyda'r ysgrifetad fel'r ad SCP-121. cyfrelogrhaes flynyddoedd o'r argyflwyllion o'i afliig ac mae hynny oddiwyd gan y cwmniol propicio fel dyma'rそfyn. Fe fydd y cwmniol hynny'n adnodd a gynwedd o yr aED Yrboedd Gwmniol o'r bobl yn meddwl i'w sefydliadau. Felly, am ychydig hon i thins gwybod i'ch ddweud. Rydw i'n meddwl â'r gweithio. Rydw i'n meddwl i gyd, yn fyddi'n meddwl â'r gweithredu, Nick. Mae'w amser i'r syniad ysgolwyddiog mewn ei ddechrau i Carthian oedd wedi gweyddus o'i ddechrau. Rwyf wedi rhoi'r ysgol yng Nghymru, y cyfrifoedd y Poblik, Mr Tony Dixon, mae wedi rhoi'r adreswyr o'r peth ar gyfer y cynnu. Tony, rydyn ni'n gwneud. Rydyn ni'n gwneud, ddweud. Rydyn ni'n gwneud yma, ac efallai'r adreswyr yn cael ei gwneudIAi, dwi'n credu eich bod i chweilio'r adreswyr a'r adreswyr. y gallu ei wneud hynny o'r cymryd yn ymweld. Felly, yn ystod, yn ymweld, os ydych yn fwy. Ddweud. Rwy'n rhaid i'n ddweud yn ymweld Clywed Arling, sydd yn ym 35. Yn ymweld, mae'r bwysig yn ymweld yn 3 mwy. Felly, mae'n ddweud. Mae'n ddweud. Felly, y gallwn i'r bydd ymweld yn ymweld. Rwy'n rhaid i'n ddweud, mae'n ddweud i'r gweithio ymweld yn ymweld. Yn ymweld, mae'n ddweud. yng Nghymru, ychydig hefyd, i unrhyw hwn. Mae'r bwysig yn sylweddol, a defnyddio'r cyflawnu cyflawni, oherwydd yna y bydd ymlaen i'n cyflawni, ac mae 35 o'r rhan o'r ffiyth yn ei dweud i hynny'n edrych sy'n gwybod i bwysig y byd. Ychydig i'n meddwl i'r Clare Darlings. gan gennym o'r cyffredinol i'r gyfarwydd Gerdin Yngyrch yn ffwrdd, ond mae'n ysgrif honno'r gweithio i'r bwysig o'r gyfrifodau a chael ei wneud hynny oherwydd mae'n eu gofod arall o'r gyfrifodau oherwydd am y ddim yn cael eu gofod arall o'r cyfrifodau. Yn y gweithio'r gweithio'n gyfrifodau cwyrnod, mae'n fawr yn cael ei ddweud ar gyfer y gweithio'n would be at extreme risk, as highway state that vehicles must enter and turn and leave the site in full gear. The only way vehicles, including loris plant hire etc, could achieve this is for them to turn around right outside her front door. It states also that loading and unloading must be undertaken off the adopted highway and the contractor parking etc must be within the kerthleaders site, which would not be possible due to the restricted space available. The proposed site is also on a dangerous bend on a busy stretch of road and we still feel and she still feels that the extra traffic entering and leaving site would cause a major hazard and potentially an accident as the road is a primary route in and out of the village. For myself and my wife our objection relates a highway safety as well and inadequate parking and access whilst living and running a childcare setting next door to the proposed planning development. I'm concerned that the construction of a self-built property would impact on the safety and well-being of my own family and that of the children we look after. We are extremely worried about the delivery of building materials and the parking of construction and contractor vehicles on a dangerous blind bend in the road directly opposite the proposed development site. During peak times when parents are dropping off and picking up children both in cars and on foot, this could potentially cause a serious accident or worst-case scenario fatality on a busy section of the road. I have attached photographs to my objection which illustrate this clearly and the loss of view around the bends if anyone was happened or happened to be parked on the corner of the road. The final objection we have is construction risks such as noise and dust pollution with the position of our childcare windows within close proximity and they are both standard envelope windows to the proposed development site. I have concerns regarding the children breathing in harmful contaminants e.g. dust particles from cement, brick and insulation materials. In addition to the noise risk attributed to the construction vehicles a machinery could have a harmful and detrimental impact on the children's learning and well-being. Thank you for listening to our objection. Thank you very much and well under the three minutes so thank you very much for that. If you could just hold on a sec Tony just in case there's any questions of clarity from committee members for you around the comments. Members do we have anything for Tony? No? Oh sorry one actually. Councillor Bradman please. Thank you. Could you just advise us how many children your childcare facility service is? Yes we do before school like a breakfast club for children who have dropped off at local schools that's infant and primary and we work from 7.30 in the morning and we also look after nursery children during the day which is up to 15 nursery children and we also do an after school club as well so we collect children from the local schools and we look after the children after school as well and that's up until 6 p.m. And sorry thank you your breakfast club deals with how many children and your after school club with how many? It varies from day to day but I'd say on average for breakfast club we can have seven to eight children. After school we can have 10 to 12. Thank you. Thank you. I don't think there's any further questions so just say thank you very much for joining us and for waiting what I imagine is quite a long time to speak to us today so I appreciate your patience on that. Thank you. We're going to move on now. We have two representatives from the applicant who have actually already spoken to us today. We have Darren Heffer and Clara Cabello from who represents in the applicant. Darren and Clara are you still with us? Yes indeed I hope you can hear me and hopefully you can see me as well. Yes we can. So yeah as earlier same rules three minutes and then any questions of clarity if you just hold on for those at the end please. Thank you. Thank you very much chair just to confirm that Clara is no longer with us we'd just be myself speaking so yes Darren Heffer director of Saunders Boston Architects based in Conebridge. We are supporting South Cams District Council with this application which is another site which has been identified by the council for proposed development as part of the south build and custom build scheme. I don't really have much further to add than the planning officer has already explained other than to just reinforce the comment that this application did actually come to committee last June and was recommended for approval. It's purely the technicality of certificate B which needed to be issued to highways that has resulted in this application coming back to committee today. There's been no further adjustments to that application which was recommended for approval just over six months ago and again just to reiterate that obviously this has been subject to comment from highways authority and they don't have any objections to this particular application as indeed do none of the other statutory consultees. So thank you that was all I wish to add and I'll be here and happy to answer any further questions as they may arise. Okay that's good we have one immediately from Councillor Breadman. Thank you chair. Thank you very much Darren can you just advise us what would be the distance between the front wall of any proposed dwelling and the rear of the substation compound roughly speaking. I appreciate this is illustrative and it's early days yet but it's just hard to understand what space there is available on the site and also could you advise us the width of the site in other words the north south dimension of the plot at the position where the house is indicated in your design and access plan. Certainly yes these are not exact dimensions to the millimetre but approximately so the distance that it's set back from the the current electrical substation so moving west is potentially we're showing at the moment about six to seven metres you can see two car parking spaces side by side which act as a buffer zone between that substation and any proposed dwellings and then the overall site width as you are heading in a north south direction is approximately 11 to 12 metres across the front of the site again if it's possible to see the proposed layout you'll see that there are again two car parking spaces which are five metres long they'll then need to be at least six metres for reverse space so that gives you your 11 metres and I think there is a slight additional buffer to that as well. Just as stress as well as you've correctly pointed out Councillor that obviously this is to establish the principle of a single property on this site at the moment and the the detailed design layout massing and volume will obviously be determined by any reserve matters application at a later date thank you. Thank you very much that's really helpful and also could you just confirm the terms as it were under which this new property might be able to use the front garden of the property at 35 which I understand would be a rented property from South Cymru District Council at present. Sorry is it just right of access or is it right to turn or what would be the nature of that usage? I'm afraid I can't clarify that the adjacent site is obviously within the ownership of South Cams as well and again there's been no objections from highways to the current proposals with the two car parking spaces that are currently shown in the front of that property. Perhaps that might be a question for the case officer as well during the debate. Any further questions of clarification for Mr Hepper? So okay well thank you for staying with us Mr Hepper and we'll now move on to the representative from the parish council. Councillor Kate Kell Kate are you still here? Hello hopefully you can hear me and see me all right? Yes we can hear and see you. Before you start just I did say a few words at the beginning but you know from the committees sincere condolences for the loss of Councillor Enid Bald obviously she usually does represent Linton parish council along with yourself and others so you know it's going to be a great loss for the parish council of Linton as a community so you know just the committee wanted to pass their condolences on. Thank you I'll do my best in her absence. Indeed. Okay so I think you've been here before Kate three minutes to address your comments to the committee at which point they may have some questions of clarity for you afterwards so thank you whenever you're ready please. Chair councillors thank you for inviting me to speak. I'm now the chair of the planning committee of Linton parish council and confirm I have their permission to speak. Linton parish council typically supports plans for small infill homes in our village however the more we look at the constraints on and around this site the more we're convinced that it can't accommodate this proposed two-story three bedroom dwelling. In response to paragraph 30 the development proposed would not be reflective of this current street scene which is approximately six metre gaps and associated clear sky between all the existing pairs of homes on this part of the road. The proposed dwelling would fill one of these spaces so would not reflect the street. We believe elements of points 31 to 33 of the officers report are inaccurate especially in relation to 35 Bolsham road. The statement that there would be no impact in regards to the loss of light is simply wrong. The ground floor windows in the side elevation of 35 Bolsham road clearly visible on the google street view will be about two and a half metres from the side wall of the proposed new dwelling. This side wall of a two-story dwelling will be around about five metres high plus a roof. This will cut almost all natural light to the rooms on this side. The spacing is contradictory to your district design guide which looks for a 12 metre gap between windows and blank walls to maintain amenity and also a 45 degree upwards angle from the top of neighbouring ground floor windows to prevent loss of light and overshadowing whilst accepting that this layout is indicative only. Where can a two-story house be moved to on this site? Move it closer to the road and you prevent the space needed for access and egress in forward gear and the need for off-street parking for both this house and 35 Bolsham road. This space is already very tight and the proximity to the blind bend and position next to a childcare setting make this space particularly important. Move in the opposite direction and you cause total loss of light to the valox and side windows in the childcare setting at one rightly close. Create overlooking of private gardens to neighbouring homes and severely compromise the private amenity space to the rear of the new dwelling itself. Additional constraints include the electricity cable running across the site. No details are given, only a statement that this is something the developer will need to resolve. Given the proximity to the substation, it's perfectly feasible this could be a three-phase supply, not something that can be built over and expensive for a developer to move. Would it also need an easement for access? This is a request for outline consent for a two-story three-bedroom self-built home. In reality, it will be impossible to deliver such a property whilst also respecting the amenity of existing neighbours. We respectfully request that this application is therefore refused. Thank you. Thank you very much for that and if you wouldn't mind holding on the line in case there are any questions of clarification and we do have one from Councillor Bradman. Thank you, Chair. You referred to the Google imagery. I'm looking at April 2021. Thank you for your presentation incidentally. It's very helpful. Can you clarify on that imagery there are one, two, three, four, five wheelie bins illustrated and it looks like a compost container and a van parked in front with a white picket fence across the front. Can you just clarify, are those associated with the site itself or are those associated with a neighbouring property in your understanding? Without being able to read the numbers on the fronts of the bins or sides of the bins, I'd imagine I honestly don't know the answer to your question but I suspect they may belong to number 35 but I would not wish to misrepresent that. I've just zoomed in and it says number 35 on them. Thank you very much. That's all. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Members, any further questions or clarities for the Councillor? Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation. I knew there was something familiar that I'd missed. You mentioned the electricity cable. Can you describe roughly where it goes across the site? It's something again, I'm afraid, I can't answer. The only thing I do know is that when the development was done and in fact, if the neighbour at one right be close is still available, he may have a better understanding than I do but a cable was found whilst they were doing the work for either the extension or their fence. In fact, I spoke to the resident of 35 Bolsham Road today and another cable has been found almost directly underneath the fence line that is running up the side of 35 Bolsham Road which they didn't know was there. She had a water leak and it needed fixing so it's entirely possible that there are multiple cables running under the site. I don't believe any survey or request to the electricity board has been made for locations etc. That's a good point. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think those are all the questions of clarification. Sorry I'm speaking too soon. Councillor Bradman. It's a very good point given that it's a substation. There's a great likelihood of cables running through this site, isn't there? I would imagine. Thank you. I think that's everything for yourself, Kate. Thank you very much for holding on until quarter to four. I appreciate your patience. I think I believe that concludes the public speakers that we have on this item. I am one of the local members for Linton but I'm going to reserve my comments for the debate which we are now going to move into. Obviously we do have an opportunity now to ask any questions of clarity of the officer as well and opening the debate. Does Councillor Heather Williams please? Thank you chair. When I was looking at this I did look back at what we said in the previous application that we judged in June because we're always told about the consistency and consistency is important. We're told it's like for like and I can understand why that description has been given but when you go back through it on the previous one in June it was a dwelling. There wasn't any size that I can go through and I'm recalling back to what my thought was in that decision making process that this is a new application but I'm talking for consistency purposes was that you could squeeze a very very tiny, tiny dwelling in there sort of thinking it'd be like a one bed or something like that. We do now have a bedroom specification in this application in front of us that says a three bed housing and looking at the imagery that shows how narrow it gets to the rear of the property. I do feel that a three bedroom house in that location is over development if it gets into that point. A three bedroom house is obviously quite sizeable and I appreciate there probably is plenty of power cable issues just as if you develop an army barracks you're going to find a lot of unexploded bombs but I don't know if that's a planning consideration that we can take into consideration. Mr Blaisby and Mr Reid will guide us on that but putting that to one side I think the three bed in that edge just it doesn't fit. Not in any way that would actually enable people that lived there to have a decent quality of life in that respect. You know the rear garden which would be their only privacy would have to be almost entirely lost so it's also taking that into consideration chair but if we did put three or someone put three bedrooms in there to make them habitable you're going to lose everything else. That's my thoughts chair. Thank you very much. A next speaker is actually myself so these are my my comments on the application as Councillor Williams indicated this has come to us before and my concerns are still the same now as they were back then that is around the principle of developing a three bed property on this piece of land. I don't believe it will I don't believe that the principle is there and I don't agree with it. I think the impact on the residential humidity of both neighbours 35 Bolsham Road and one Rydey Close will be too negatively impacted to that way the the benefit of this application and to a lesser extent I think the highway safety issues which I appreciate can or have been requested to be conditioned out are also of concern to me will be on a lesser extent to the first two points. So for me personally my view hasn't changed from last June so I will be voting against unless I hear some strong arguments the other way. Councillor Roberts please. Thank you Chairman. Abizhu residence may well fit in there a very small residence one bedroom as Councillor Williams has said but this is too big and I think there is a reason that this plot wasn't developed by ourselves along with the rest of the line in that it is too small and that there is the possibility of those electricity cables etc. I don't think particularly affects my thinking about the the arguments that put about the nursery I think that's just a side issue but I think that the main issue here is that this is just too big and it won't fit in and I think it will cause difficulties I think it's going to cause difficulties with parking certainly there's going to be huge difficulties if it was in the development of it so I think it's a no go I think it's also very disappointing and I'm not quite sure why this is happening when we own land ourselves so we haven't got the cost of the land it is a little bit beyond my understanding why we are selling them off to other people instead of developing themselves with a guarantee that they are actually for people for rental accommodation which we so desperately need in this district so desperately need thank you councillor councillor Richard Williams please anyway thank you chair I was waiting for it this time I actually share of the comments that chair has put forward but but I won't repeat all of those but too big too small plot there were two points though I did just want to raise one is about the garden that we're going to take or this application would take from 35 and are that as I think we've been told properties in the ownership of south cams district council but presumably that is left so I would like some clarification that it would even be possible to take that garden when it sounds like that property is it's already subject to a lease I will leave aside the issue whether the district council should be enough because that's not a planning matter the other thing like I have a strange feeling of deja vu that I may have raised this in relation to the last application is policy H16 development of residential gardens the development of land used or last used as a residential garden for new dwellings will only be permitted away blah blah blah blah blah that policy isn't referenced again in this I seem to remember at some point the argument was made by somebody in a previous committee that all that policy only applies to reserve matters there's nothing in that policy that says it should only apply to reserve matters there are clearly things in that policy that are material to this application um and I don't really understand why that policy's not been cited or looked at given that this clearly the last use of this would seem to be a residential garden thank you so I think the two points of google maps it's two points of clarification there I think one was around the the use being able to currently use the garden given the fact it is already a residential garden for a property and the second question was around whether it is in the contravention of policy H16 development within residential gardens um Mick I don't know if you can pick up those two questions can you the first point I can say um the with ownership and use of I presume referring to the front garden um is that um the red line is drawn and the applicant has stated as it's in their ownership um I believe the other matters of of ownership and at least is outside the planning system um and and yeah and therefore not more part of the assessment as this stage um with regards to H16 um development of residential gardens um I I wasn't I didn't take this to the last but um I yeah I'm not sure personally I'd welcome any other thoughts from the officers on that but one second Nick we're just discussing internally I'm being asked is Julie uh Juliaire on the line I don't think so okay we're going to have to come back on that point around policy H16 officers are just going to look into it in the in the interim councillor Dawnton which I might have just asked that that they put on this screen on the planning officer puts on the screen the image of the site that we're talking about is referred to the red line I think it would be very helpful to see that if you have the the floor plan Nick with the red line you're showing Jay if I could just clarify which might help officers looking into this the point I was relying on there was last used as a residential garden we were shown a couple of pictures which appeared to show things on that plot of land that seemed to be related to number 35 and we were also shown an ownership um map and there was no line between what is now 35 on that new site so it looked very much to me like it's last use they may give a sort of fence there now but it's last use before that seemed to be as an integral part of 35 as part of the garden so that's why I wondered that's why I've drawn attention to that policy that's a fair comment I think officers are looking into it as we speak councillor Dawnton sorry if we could see the photograph showing the wide fence that councillor Richard Williams has just referred to that might help yeah okay can we see that closer up yeah thanks that's good that's good thank you so one second everyone um we're just going to get some officer input on policy H16 conversion of residential gardens Nigel yeah thank you chair I think it all it all hinges on whether or not this land for the site did form part of a residential garden if it did form part of a residential garden then policy H16 is relevant it's not and then it is not relevant and that's that will be my view thank you that's the question and I don't know whether Nick could help us with that Nick can you help us with that definition as to whether it was a garden previously I mean as someone who's lived in linton I know it I'm certain it was but if we can get some officer clarification on that that'll be handy and the boundaries are clinching um so I think if you go back one Nick that might be the photo that might help us that one hmm so I think we're behind that VW is that right yeah yes councillor Braddon please the reason I asked the um chair of the parish planning committee whose bins those were is because I suspect this has never been part of the garden of 35 I hear what you say but um I believe it was probably always reserved land because of the substation and I think the owner of 35 has parked vehicles and parked their vans on it the matter of ownership does not affect us as this committee all I'm saying is I think this plot of land would always have been reserved and not part of the garden of 35 because of the because of the substation and there must be cables underneath so my concern is that um the the problematic nature of building on the site but the thing I wanted to clarify was um oh gosh has escaped me yes the amenity of the existing dwellings I think I think the whole problem lies with the fact that the proposal that we have in front of us is too big a plan for a small site also it's right on the corner of the two roads and I think it would be quite dangerous also the other issue I have is um the resulting loss of amenity to the front garden of 35 which currently is shown in all the google imagery as a as a mode grass lawn um now that may not be what it is now we know that google imagery goes out of date but the point is that that still is we still have to preserve the amenity of the building of number 35 which is on in our ownership we can't just um do that without consideration thank you thank you um I did see the neighbour was trying to indicate to speak perhaps tony or if you can speak on behalf of clay you might be able to clear up the garden issue yes we've lived number one right be close for over 20 years and uh originally uh that it was the garden of of number 35 so um when um he passed away um a fence was erected um through the garden was the whole of that garden belonged to number 35 okay sorry I'm losing you um I've been there 20 years and that was 20 years or as long as we've lived here it belonged to number 35 I think the garden I think the question was around how long was the fence been there hello did you yeah sorry I look at the question was around how long the fence has been in place the fence has two years since the own previous owner passed away okay I understand yeah just two years since the previous owners uh yeah so in order to provide us with a self-built plot yeah so I think that it has been used as a garden until two years prior thank you Councillor Heather Williams please thank you I was just going to say in relation to the front bit it's quite clear that the front area is still being used as a garden and also where that driveway section is if you look at the other place um the semi-detached on the other side the grass goes up to the edge of the building and then there is parking alongside so if you if you look at it that part and that track you've got the footpath and then sort of a double wheeling slabs that must relate to number 35 because if not they've got no parking and the grass mirrors the other side so even if you just look at it from plainly maybe not the rear because the fence has gone up but the front area is used and is part in in my mind that's quite clear is part of the garden of 35 um and what we said about the the servicing of the power station obviously there is a contained area for that anyway um so I would suggest that it's still being used as a garden at the front therefore it would any changes to that would be change of youth surely from residential that being shook ahead at so we've got something that is a residential garden always been used as a residential garden but we can't use planning policy on residential garden if we weren't bamboozled enough on the last application I think we are now okay well hopefully mr blazer is going to shed some light onto this for us um yes members I just wanted to take members through the policy um if we if we take the view now that policy age 16 is relevant to consideration and so what age 16 says is development of land used or last used as residential gardens for new dwellings will only be permitted sorry okay so policy age 16 says the development of land used or last used as residential gardens for new dwellings will only be permitted where then a the development is a one-for-one replacement which clearly isn't or and then there are um some criteria so I'm just going to go through the criteria because I think where I'm going with this is we I think we have addressed all of the criteria already in the in the report so although the report is lacking the consideration of this policy I think we have dealt with them but I'll go through them so um so there would be so where there would be no significant harm to the local area taking account of the character of the local area I think we've addressed that in the in the report the second one is any direct and ongoing impact on the residential amenity of nearby properties again I believe that is addressed in the report third one is the proposed siting design scale and materials of construction of the buildings all those are going to be reserve matters that um that we we don't know any of those details at the moment so the next one is the existence of or ability to create a safe vehicular access we can see where the point of access is although access again is a reserve matter the provision of adequate on-site parking or the existence of safe convenient and adequate existing on-street parking um Nick could have your views on whether or not you've you feel we've addressed that sufficiently in the report and the piece of address is sufficient of on-street okay um the next is the setting of the buildings which we are not or character of conservation area which we is not relevant here um any impacts on biodiversity and important trees and again Nick I'd ask you to comment on that please um the application site um doesn't appear to have um any impact on any important trees or there will be any impact on yeah there wouldn't be any impact on biodiversity okay thank you and the last criteria is ensuring that the form of development would not prevent the development of adjoining sites um and Nick would you comment on that please I don't believe with um um the joint site so so members I hope that's helpful but that's that's my assessment of that policy and how we we we might have dealt with it if if we had included this in the report and I'm satisfied that actually the report what and including what you've heard here has adequately addressed the criteria in that policy thank you okay yeah I mean presumably it's up to the committee whether they choose to include policy H16 as a reason for refusal should they go down that route um but obviously we've had the officers advice on that um I've got three more speakers on this item uh starting with Councillor Wilson please thank you um I've been looking at the area plan of the the site and um the two parking spaces um assigned to the what would be the new dwelling and two parking spaces at the front of number 35 but it all feels very awkward and I can't see how that could function in a in an efficient way for both both um if their family is but both both dwellings so I feel like that that isn't um really 100 feasible okay thank you councillor and I've got Richard Williams I don't know if that's for a previous point okay and councillor Hawkins again I don't know if this was relating to a previous point but I've got you down to speak not not not not essential sorry chair I wanted to check with the case officer um the distances between the proposed building and the neighboring buildings and whether or not it conforms to our district design guide thank you Nick some clarity on distances please we will be assessed at the um we will have the control whether we will um um it will correct and be accordance with with the design guide as such when we when we do assess the design and the scale thank you yeah sorry I well for one I didn't um fully understand the answer there I think the question was uh does in terms of conforming with the district design guide albeit it's a guide I think the question for councillor Hawkins was does this proposal conform or not yes yeah we do believe it um are you researching the answer Nick I'm not sure so just if I may come back it seems to me that the distances between the proposed location of this potential bill and the neighboring properties is too close to for me to be within our guidelines which is what I wanted to check those numbers and if it doesn't meet that now the only way it's going to meet it is if the building is right back in the plot so unless we are sure that we can meet those guidelines then that's another reason I think um that this is not a suitable place to be put in a building whether whether it is a single or two-story two-story just for me means that there will be overlooking no understood and I'm hoping Nick's looking at this to whether it does conform with spacing in the design guide at the moment um but in the interim we do have one more speaker councillor Caern online I just wanted to make a single comment a couple of comments on this online I can't vote but I wanted to make a couple of comments about the proximity and the windows and overlooking the window in number 35 is a ground floor window part of which is in the extension what I don't know and which I don't know whether the we've got information on that is whether that extension is part of an extended kitchen with a window on the other side in which case the there would not be a problem of light because it will be provided if there isn't then there might be because it's very close and it's a north facing window and it would have effects on the light but if there is then the it's irrelevant the overlooking is hardly relevant because it's on the ground floor you can put a fence up quite close by but having a two-story dwelling at that location would have could create a very dark if that's the only light so that that's a comment I would make and I don't have the information but it might be something you might want to consider on the other side in terms of number one really really close I this is a roof the roof lights um it's a south facing roof I think you in the soap of a roof I think you're going to get adequate light not that's not going to be a problem of light or of overlooking so that's where I could see the the concern that still arises in terms of parking I agree that the parking in front of number 35 is likely to create an impact and whether that's sufficient to turn down will be sufficient to turn down the development I don't know since I'm not going to vote on it I'll be able to vote on it I wouldn't like to draw a conclusion but it is I would think I'm a satisfactory but I would have thought that some form of management in terms of ownership and rights of access over it would mean that it's practical whether it's desirable that's another question okay thank you um I think that's the end of speakers in the debate so I'm not sure if we ever did get a response on the um on the issue around the design guide but I think still trying to find out but in the meanwhile Mr Reid wants to weigh in um if we look at paragraph three on page 142 although it suggested that the application is a resubmission of an earlier application and that's on that occasion the committee recommended the application for approval it's not correct to say the resubmission is otherwise identical it picks up a point that councillor Heather Williams made because the application under 2005 250 was an outline application for the erection of a single self-build dwelling with all matters reserved here there's a material difference in so far as we with one saying it's two-story which may give rise if members are satisfied to the question of overlooking it specifies the number of bedrooms which um I think point councillor Heather Williams was making was that you might be able to get a one bed single dwelling on the plot without giving rise to the issues that arise in relation to a two-story three bed unit so I think it is important to just correct that there is a to my mind a material difference between what members approved last time and what they're being asked to approve now I raise that because Mr Blaiseby pointed out that if you had approved what you're now being asked to approve last time there would to my mind be an issue of consistency and you would have to establish very clear reasons as to why you were satisfied that there was a material change which justified taking a different approach to the one you adopted last time that's not the case here you're looking at a very different animal than the one you approved last time I think that's helpful yeah and of course you know we judge each application on its own merits whether it's a resubmission or not um Mr Blaiseby thank you chair um I don't wish to muddy the waters but I just wanted to make one one point just so that we absolutely clear um the the description has changed from before and it now includes the words two story three bedroom five person within the description but but actually if the resulting planning commission did not include a condition that either required the development to comply with parameter plans on the outline or a condition to require that the development would be a two story three bedroom five person dwelling then in my view the size of the resultant dwelling is entirely up to the consideration of reserve methods application thank you okay I'm not sure let's go with that but of course a flurry of questions will come from that I'm sure councillor Bredinham thank you so could I just seek clarification then if uh the and I haven't gone back to the wording but I'm we're told that it was a general description excuse me whereas this is specific and it says yes it's an outline but it's for the erection of a described property two story three bedroom five person now if we would if we were to give approval for that that is what we would expect to be built we wouldn't expect them to go back to something smaller or more modest so um whereas if we had approved something that indicated a smaller property do you sort of mean what we have chair is absolutely right with we we have this application in front of us and it defines a single self-built two story three bedroom property so that is the that is the matter on which we're making our decision today if we don't think the plot is big enough then people can say no but but in I appreciate this is an outline but we know that once an outline is set and it's approved then that is what will be built to am I right for my view yes it's very prescriptive as to what we're being asked to judge today but I'm sure Mr Blaisby will come in thank you chair I mean that is clearly the intention I mean there's no question about that that is the intention of the application I think my response was on the sort of technical point really because it's an outline application it's all matters reserved that that includes the scale the appearance the layout et cetera that if an applicant came forward um with a three bedroom dwelling of two story and members did not did not wish to approve that then you would be you would be entitled to come to that view really that was my point but I do also accept the point that that is the clear intention behind the application sorry I think members just need to be careful if if an application was approved are you saying that it wouldn't be open to the applicant to then come forward and put a reserve matters application for a one bedroom unit contrary to the description and the application proposal that there's there's a difference of view I'm afraid between the legal officer and the chief planning officer I'm I'm of the view that it would not be it it would it would not be open to the applicant to reduce the number of bedrooms or the story height because you've approved that application which is specifically for two stories and three bedrooms you're not approving a one story one bedroom no I think okay I think we're going in circles a bit here I think one final point from Councillor Williams and I think we're probably ready to have a vote on it chair mine is an attempt to move us on to a vote um while respecting both of our officers and you know not wanting to look like parents choosing between their children as to who they favour um I have to say I'm inclined to give weight to the comments made by Mr Reid I do see this as an application for a two story three bedroom house um as outline um I appreciate the comments Mr Blaiseby that you've said but I also would say actually what was made clear from us as members and because I've got not much else in my life obviously than planning I can remember and call the application what I said was yes you could get a single very very small dwelling on there and did we did debate the size of what could fit and it was small which I would not class a three bedroom house is small um and I I do believe I did follow it up and saying but I hope that these plans never come to fruition and it never gets used um so uh so yes um I think if that helps to to reassure Mr Blaiseby that in the debate that we had in June we did discuss the size and that it would have to be a small one so that may give a little caveat to um help support thank you I appreciate the assistance there so members I think we've uh had a good debate on this one even at the top table up here so I think we're probably I think we're at a stage where we can make a decision on this um members the concerns that I've uh heard and written down that are material highway safety and parking provision residential amenity principle of development and the only other question mark is whether we should include this or not is the contravention of policy H16 which rolls around development of residential gardens um sort of opening up to see whether people want to have that included or not um does it okay does anyone not wish to have that included as a reason for refusal okay Nigel's going to come back in thank you thank you chair I just I would just ask um that I think it would be helpful if we could understand which part of H16 it breaches um that would be helpful to understand could we refer to the document that I'm looking at which I've had a bit of struggle finding the district design guide are we allowed to use that because in infill development it says at 5.60 in I'm not quite sure which chapter I'm in but um it refers to infill plots a small scale plots within existing developed areas and will always have a significant impact on the character of the established streetscape and on neighbouring properties therefore good design is essential to ensure a positive impact is achieved infill sites will be expected to complement the street pattern by continuity of form and design all by an appropriate contemporary contrast they will be expected to make best use of the site while enhancing the rhythm of established street pattern to retain the character of villages it's appropriate to retain some vacant plots I don't suppose that's any help whatsoever but I did find it okay council Williams uh just on H16 um I would cite H16 B2 direct and ongoing impacts on residential amenity of neighbouring properties and M3 yeah although we don't know about material construction doing okay so that's that's policy H16 points B2 and B3 yes one last comment thank you chair the the other um reason that I heard was highway safety so you would be making that um decision contrary to the advice of the local highways authority and there are risks involved members was it highway safety or parking provision we had the most concern with was it just parking provision I'm seeing some nods yeah so I think not not highway safety but parking provision was a concern okay members so the updated reasons for refusal I've heard parking provision residential amenity the principle of the development and contravention of policy H16 points B2 and 3 okay I think we're finally there okay members I think to avoid any confusion let's have an electronic vote um just to avoid any confusion Aaron could you set that up please so members the recommendation is to approve so if you agree with that press green for approval press red for refusal and yellow to abstain and I think we can see the results on the on the on the screen up there so that's nine refusals no approvals and zero abstentions so that is unanimously refused thank you very much everyone we I thought that would be a fairly quick one but you can you've been hope can't you but thanks very much okay members we have one more and it's 4 30 almost so I'm going to move straight on to it it's agenda item 10 page 153 of our agendas it's an application at 19 Foxton Road Barrington the applicant is Mr Daniel Ostheimer the proposals for a loft conversion and the reason it's before us is because the applicant is employed my greater Cambridge planning service which I think should be by and the office there is Mr Nick Yeager Nick if you'd like to rejoin us and present the report please Councillor Bradford can switch your mic off please This is an application for a loft conversion imagine Foxton Road Barrington and this application report before committee because the applicant wife is required by the greater Cambridge planning service this application is recommended for approval by planning officers so this is the application site this is a semi-detached bungalow located here and there's a attached property located to the left and a semi attached property located to the left attached property located to the right so this application site is located within the development framework as shown with this dash line located here it's not located within the conservation area which is shown by this pink line and there was sufficient distance from this building which is located over here so this is the proposed plans are essentially to create from the bungalow is to create a single well a front dormer facing here and two roof lights and then there's two rear facing dormer windows here and these are the existing floor plans so currently it's a three-bedroom bungalow sitting dining room area kitchen and bathroom a hall on suite these are the elevations so the bungalow does have an extension which comes up here or extended area to the back and that's its area on the front so these are the proposed plans so the loft conversion will create another bedroom study and a shower area here great elevations so you'll have a front facing dormer here the two roof lights and two rear dormers here this is the application site I'm just looking here there's going to be a front dormer window located roughly here and the two roof lights it's a neighbouring property located there a few more shots of some of the application site facing dormer here two roof lights and just looking back on on the the access the private driveway here while the driveway here um this is the rear of the property so where the dormer windows would be located there are shots of the of the immunity space to the rear and this is the shot looking looking back towards a neighbouring property I've had a shot of the site the operating parish council would have recommended approval 498 markhouse way objecting to the proposal today um due to the grounds of privacy and over looking of the front dormer um front dormer window would be located here um this is at approximate distance of um 15 meters from from this boundary located here it's also nated that this front the front dormer window that will be behind three located there is also of a non-habitable room therefore we feel that the impacts would not lead to significant harm to of overlooking that would warrant a refusal of the application located in the development framework of barrington the loft conversion will not lead to material harms to the over character of the area that is on the context of the host dwelling consider the loft conversion not lead harm to the neighbouring immunity um is therefore considered compliant with s7 and 8c1 of the south English local plan 2018 thank you after that I'll go back to the chair thank you very much thank you Nick for that um members before we move on to anything else I've been reminded that we've been carrying continuing for more than four hours now so we need to have a vote on whether to continue as we're right at the end I suggest we do carry on um so could everyone agree thank you very much um members we don't have any public speakers on this so I'm going to launch it straight into the debate I think Councillor Bradlin was first think Councillor Roberts thank you um it's one of those things that very often the applications that we receive from um uh employees of the Greater Cambridge Planning Service are often very well presented to us and thank you to the officer um the only potential objection I can see from the neighbour which they've raised at 49a is the potential for overlooking but given that they have uh what looks like a six or seven foot fence between their property and it looks like a ground floor window and the property anyway and the only um the only thing that's between the front edge of their house and their fence is a small strip of grass and a path by the look of it on imagery that comes from apparently 2022 I and and they don't have any dormal windows themselves in their um roof I think there's no problem whatsoever and I have no objection to this application and I support the uh officer recommendation for approval great thank you very much Councillor Roberts uh yes thank you chairman um chairman through you could Nick just put on the photograph that would show us what the house in um in Malthouse way please in in where its location is with regard yes certainly um so the objecting comes from this this property goes from the dwelling here I can just I go and I can get some pounds slide I can show you some photos should hopefully become slightly larger for yourself so the objecting came from about the fort like this front dormal window um Nick can I just stop at second and ask you is Malthouse Lane 1 the one to the far left with the um the lights in the in the on the roof it yeah but to the left to the left of the uh photograph is that Malthouse way is that the one that we're talking about yeah that's what we're talking about well it is a distance isn't it yeah I don't I'm like Councillor Bradman I don't have a problem with it superb members does anyone wish to raise any additional uh additional concerns to this that might uh want them to refuse the application nope I don't see any so members can I take it then that we can just move to the recommendation which is to approve and agree that by affirmation agreed clarity anyone wish to refuse or abstain nope so that's okay and okay so Councillor Heather Williams needs to be marked as an abstention if she isn't present in the room but other than that it's unanimous from those present thank you very much in it so members we move on to now a gender art of 11 which is a provisional TPO uh this is on page 161 of our agendas uh it's beside Bournebrooke situated southwest of westfield farm combaton uh it's it's before us today because it is required under the council scheme of delegation the presenting officer is mr Jay Patel who I see on the screen now Jay good afternoon good afternoon to you okay uh I'll just confirm you can see my screen I can see you yes I can't see your screen we can see you okay we can see your screen now great I'll make a start I'll have to repeat some of what you already said okay the proposal is to serve a TPO on a woodland in the interest of public amenity for its contribution to conservation and canopy cover local planning authorities can issue a tree preservation order where it appears to them expedient in the interest of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in the area TPO can be initiated either by the local authority or by request of another party this request came from another from a third party in accordance with the council's constitution the request to serve a non-emergency provisional tree preservation order comes before the planning committee the location concerned is within a woodland the woodland is located on the banks of borne brook which is here it encompasses two parish councils Cumberton here and Little Everston there the brook itself provides a natural boundary between the two parishes assessment of the TPO the key consideration for the local authorities is is it expedient in the interest of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodland in the area amenity is not defined in law and therefore it is left for local authorities to exercise their judgment the trees must have a reasonable health visibility and individually or collectively have a wider impact other factors may be considered such as importance to nature conservation response to climate change but only if the trees achieve the basic qualifying factors the basic qualifying factors in this case are met as the trees within the woodland seem to be in good health and contribute greatly to the wider landscape they can be seen at a distance from Cumberton bridge and along the road leading to the bridge that's the trees there they can be seen much clearer from the public right of where nearby which is here on pink public right of way going all the way along here there's also all railway track that runs past the woodland the track is here and is used by local people regularly the location of trees woodland is here and that's the borne brook going along the picture you already saw was taken from the bridge here i've got a couple of pictures from our site visit that shows you slightly better picture of the trees this is the railway track here and the pictures of the trees are there black populars other qualifying factors in this case are the woodland consists of a variety of tree species and includes black popular trees which are one of british rarest trees this piece is recognised in the cambridge by a diversity action plan this is not a statutory designation however it must be considered within the planning system borne brook is undesignated but it is home to the abundance of waterfall and otter these are statutory protected species preserving their habitat is helpful to their continued presence the site is also within the range of everstone and wimpol woods spatial area of conservation this is an internationally important site designated for its maternity roost of the rare barbestel bat wooded river corridors are a prime hunting and community community habitat rather for such species species and therefore the protection of such habitat could contribute to the conservation of statutory protected species so to conclude then the proposal is to serve a provisional woodland tpo on those with an interested with an interest in the land and invite those parties an opportunity to submit objections comments or representations the responses will be considered and add the decision to amend confirm or not to confirm the order the formal consultation starts when the provisional tpo is served should the decisions be taken to confirm the order it will return to the planning committee to request that the order be confirmed recommendation the tree officer recommends that the committee approves the issue of these non-emergency provisional woodland tpo jay thank you very much for that introduction um members do we have any questions or or comments or need for debate on this canster others just a very quick one uh joe um will it be if we say yes now and I think you know it's it seems to me a really important site and a really important reason and I'm concerned that we make sure that we act quickly will it be served immediately this uh withholding order please uh we will try and serve it in that next week although it wasn't my top priority although we brought it to committee it wasn't top priority because it's not an emergency order I've got about three or four others to do before this one because emergency ones we can just go we've got permission from the committee to go and do it from the committee to go and do it but as far as these ones are concerned we normally take our time with this because they go in priority order of behind the non-emergency behind the emergency ones but I will try and get it out next week sometime thanks joe for that can I just ask a follow-up question chairman on that um given that obviously a third party has expressed concerns is there any indication that there's activity going on that could be destructive at this moment in time well this request was received uh sometime october last year we're just getting round to it now um and um the when they put the request in they didn't tell us it was it was any there was any threat to those trees at all and that's why we considered it as a non-emergency order and that's why it took so long thank you very much joe that's very explaining thank you jay okay with a few more questions for you please councillor fein first quick quick question for you if we were not to um pass this order to what extent would these woodlands be protected by the need for a funding license indeed by the protection given by inclusion within an s a c okay um within the s a c I don't know they're down to put a planning permission but they gotta do something uh and that would be taken consideration by the planning by the planners however woodland by by themselves are protected woodlands are protected because if somebody wants to do any work on woodlands they should go to the forestry commission for permission so this is just an extra layer of protection for these trees so just to say that forestry commission if you're on a woodland you're allowed to take so much every quarter I don't know exactly how much because I'm not the tree officer but they're allowed to fail so many trees within a forest okay thank you jay for that clarity councillor brandon please I'm sorry it's not a matter of clarification I think this is entirely sensible uh we know don't we that um I have known myself trees to be felled before anything's been done so I would very much welcome this and I propose uh I have to approve it thank you very much we've got one more speaker councillor carne and then I think we can go to a decision on this the uh I think I think that you've I mean he's the arguments in favour of this but I just wanted to question whether you've actually checked with the um nature with the um nature in natural england whether the these black poplars are native black poplars or hybrid black poplars because native black poplars are very rare yeah but hybrid back poplars are very common and it's quite possible that on on farmland you might have actually had planted native hybrid back poplars which you might just wanted to check that because if it isn't if they're not you shouldn't really be using that as a justification I think there are plenty of amenity justifications free of the side woodland has its own match uh by diversity interest but I was just querying that whether you would check that well that's a really good question because uh I'm not the actual tree officer this was taken up from us last year and he was left for me to do so I haven't personally checked it uh the tree officer and I did have a look at this before and like I said I I can't tell you personally because I'm not an expert to tell you that so I can't say hand on heart that they are definitely native ones we were just I was like I said this this has been on the book since october last year and I'm working through my list to to bring it to committee so the answer to the question is I don't know all right I think that's clear you can only answer what you know so fair enough yeah yeah indeed um okay members I think that's probably enough debate on that um we have a recommendation to approve this provisional TPO um members can I take that by information everyone's in agreement agreed anyone wish to refuse or abstain nope so that is unanimously agreed thank you jay thank you okay members we are now on to agenda item 12 uh which is the enforcement report um I understand that will Holloway or Holloway's he's not with us um so I think the proposal is if anyone has any questions or specific concerns we can jot those down and nod you'll take them away and get responses emailed round um so members does anyone have any um any issues or concerns or questions they wish to raise regarding enforcement Councillor Wilson please um I just want to make a point at the time I'm pleased to see that the progress is being made on the report about Smithy Fenn and there's you should be coming to us very soon and I want to thank the officers for the work they've been doing on them indeed um Councillor Heather Williams please uh yeah just on Smithy Fenn I mean it was sort of suggested last time that we were going to have something and obviously that's taken a bit of time and I appreciate it it's complicated um and and taken more comments from Councillor Wilson but I really would like to emphasise that this was on the agenda when I first become a councillor um I would like and I'm sure it was well before then as well issues there so we need to be getting to some sort of conclusion especially given the safeguarding issues that are on the site as well and so I would say that um and out of curiosity I was wondering if Alistair's back from his injuries um and how we are we we're up to a full full slate of officers yeah or not if not I hope him for a speedy recovery no I'm being told he's not back quite yet but imminently but I'm sure the comments on Smithy Fenn will be passed on to the enforcement team Councillor Bradlin thank you chair as you know I haven't been on this playing uh and you know I've only been subbing on this committee recently but actually way back from when I was on it as a full-time member the cottage nursery at Cardinals green has been on the enforcement list so I'm very glad to see an update to it but um I just would like to have a clarification of what what on earth is going on because it started off as an advertisement and then it changed into a property that was being developed and now it's a house in multiple a dwelling in multiple occupation with an erection of a building to the rear just you know it just seems bizarre that um this has gone on so long and it's gone through so many iterations yeah I mean as local county councillor for Cardinals green I don't ask it's it's been there's lots and lots of problems lots of issues and contraventions so I yeah I'll probably leave it there but the enforcement team is you know is going at it from a multifaceted point of view because there are multiple breaches across many departments within the county within the district and county council so yeah I can go assure you it's not straightforward on okay um no further questions on that one so we'll move on to the next agenda item which is 13 and that's appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action again I think Will would usually present this but as he isn't here today oh okay so sorry we have Mr Blaisley stepping into the firing line for us so Nigel if you'd like to present this please yes thank you chair now I think this item is is is usually presented by myself although I do have to be honest and say that I haven't actually um prepared anything for each day so I hope that I'll be able to answer your questions but um what I would have liked to have done is perhaps um summarised um some of the appeal decisions that have been received but one thing you will note is that we have as members requested we have added the appeals awaiting decisions um to the report um you'll see that we've done that in two in two section of appendix four and appendix five um the reason for that is that we we felt we need to differentiate between appeals where a statement has been submitted and appeals that are awaiting the actual statement so you've got all of that information and of course um it may be out of date by the time it goes to print because um as you'll as you'll know the over appeal decision is now out so and it's showing here as a waiting decision but obviously it was correct at the time that the agenda went to print so um members if you have any questions I will try and answer I believe the over one was dismissed is that right if the appeal was dismissed no no maybe an update on the over so in relation to the over appeal the inspector has allowed so this is this three chair this is on appendix four it's 181 Stephen so the inspector has allowed the appeal but has held that the council's five year land supply remains in place and chair if I may add um also critically the inspector has accepted the methodology that um that the council uses which is also another important point but but this one will be reported on the next agenda set and I hope to give you more information at that time thank you uh Richard Williams please oh this week thank you chair um it's one not on this agenda um so if we can't have an appeal on it today I would appreciate an update next time on the one at Staplesford um which which the inspector granted the retirement village and what we if anything plan to do about the inspector's uh decision okay councillor Heather Williams please thank you so a couple of bits thank you very much for the um editions that I asked for with the ones that I think it's helpful to have have them as have been displayed um one of the things that I wanted to ask is quite often now we've seen um reason for appeal being non-determination so I'm just wondering if if there's a reason for that or it's just been a few very difficult cases um and whether we could you know because that's not something it's one thing if people are appealing for us having made a decision but if it's on non-determination it doesn't um doesn't give us an indication of whether it's something that would have been supported or wouldn't have been so we when it happens we don't know if it's particularly something pro or or negative for the district in in that respect um so that's that's with um that question um just interesting in what um Mr Reed just said there which is the five-year land supply which um I imagine everyone sighs a sigh of relief when when that happens just wondering if they commented on the numbers at all or whether they just mentioned it because I know sometimes um it you've still got it but they judge it differently so um so yeah if I could have and then I've got one other thing chat we'll take those first Mr Blaisbyn okay thank you so in terms of the non-determination there's no there's no single reason for that um I mean uh it's uh as you know officers have got backlogs and they have been struggling with struggling with um resourcing the teams so there are a number of reasons behind those there isn't a pattern to it but um but in in in all cases we I mean if it if it's something that would have come to committee we bring it to committee to get the committee's view so that the council puts forward at the appeal you know kind of what what whether it would have approved or or refused the application and why um and officers will will do that as well in comparing a statement for the for the appeal so the council does put forward its view albeit it loses the power to determine the application and on some occasions when we're asking applicants for extensions of time and you know that we've had again some backlog issues some backlog in the validation meaning the applications have come through late sometimes when we ask an applicant for an extension of time they weren't granted and in that case um they had they would have the right to appeal against non-determination so various various reasons I hope that's answered the question there um on the uh over appeal of the five year supply um there were a thousand units of the inspector did not agree with us that were deliverable within the period um I can give you they're on the major sites but I can give you more information about that next time but it still means I think it leaves us with um a 5.6 or 5.7 year supply regardless of those thousand units that the inspector did not agree with us on but I will give you more information on that and the Stakeford appeal at the next committee thank you is there another question yeah thank you just on where it says non-determination if we could have it's obviously useful to know a bit that's why it's going to appeal but maybe if we could have had have under it what the officer recommendation would have been whether it would have been or from what viewpoint we will be defending it from an allowed or refused basis because I think that then gives us bit more of an idea because it's something we'd have allowed and it goes through anyway you know you're going to be less concerned of it or if it's something we'd want to refuse um check can I just say as well that I'm aware this is I don't know if she's still on here but Julie airs last meeting isn't she before she's leaving so I just wanted to same as we did you know with John this one what I think she this is her last well either way just I thought this was her last one so I just wanted to recognise that and say um when well with many of us first joined it was John and Julie and um they were very supportive to all of us between them and um I don't think I've ever had an officer be so well regarded amongst the parishes as well so wanted to recognise that chair thank you here here I mean unless I'm mistaken I think Julie's leaving on the 10th or 12th of February and I think we have one more meeting before then at least so well anyway yeah the sentiment I'm sure is appreciated 10 okay um Councillor Roberts please um thank you chairman I'm sorry I am lax here appendix to uh page one seven eight if I could quickly go back the greenpox farm farmer road melbourne um if I recall my parish were um it invited to make on it because it's a borderline um site I presume then it must have been refused on delegated because it never came to the planning committee I think um and it was a very contentious one it looked like a it looked like a spaceship landing one seven eight Nigel the melbourne one I believe it was delegated but I'm not certain so I will look that up and let you know that would that would be nice thank you very much because another one in that same area which was contentious did get past so I think we were in fear that this was going to become a um a new way of getting round um the rules about building and the open countryside and just a quick one um to um follow up from what council limbs has just said which Heather has just said um I I do hope that before she goes before the next meeting that officers will um say to Julie um our great thanks for all the help that she's been given all my four parishes are very concerned and and sorry to hear that she's leaving uh because without fail she has been a really wonderful officer to our parishes to my villages she's always been available she's come out when they've asked her to that she never quibbles about coming out she's coming out next week um to Hayden and um you know she's a real she's been a real asset to this authority because she's very professional but she's also got a very nice manner with her and that I hope that Nigel that you will pass on to her now but the fact that we will miss her greatly and that she is greatly appreciated as we say yes I will certainly and um as officers we we will also miss Julie greatly yes thank you thank you and councillor Bradmill please thank you chair um I would just like firstly um two things uh the first is on appendix three and also on appendix four we have um the ice of land to the north of the old collyard Chesterton Fenrow-Pilton and uh on page 182 it refers to mobile homes cited on land without planning permission um I just really want to emphasise in words with great clarity that Chesterton Fenrow-Milton might technically be the right postal address and it does fall within the parish of Milton detached but um Fenrowed Chesterton is separated completely from Fenrowed in the village of Milton um by the A14 and there is no um direct vehicular route you have to go right away around through through the city edges over the A14 through Milton and back down to land at Fenrowed in this particular case it's not so crucial but there are applications that come in um I would draw your attention informally to others uh offline but where there has been an alleged connection a connection alleged between land at Fenrowed Milton and where premises are being proposed at Chesterton Fenrowed uh when clearly there's a rather different thing going on however coming back to this I'm very glad uh thank you very much to um Will Holloway for picking this up and going with it and I see it's the cause the the cause of an appeal against us uh on that so I wait um the outcome of that with interest um but secondly I also would like to thank Julie Eyre because she was um you know I haven't been involved with playing so much recently but she has always been extremely helpful extremely um helpful to parishes in understanding the reasons why things sometimes can't be done but she's always been so professional and uh I didn't realise until today that she was leaving so I'd like to express my thanks as well to Julie Eyre through you um Nigel if that's possible I'll pass that on thank you okay thank you members I think we've reached the end so thank you uh with one minute to spare so thank you very much to uh to everyone for their patience um members just to reiterate there is a special planning committee meeting next Friday the 28th which is just looking at a north stowe item um and then we return to regular meeting of the committee which will be Wednesday the 9th of February so yes just to remind members of that and I thank you all for your time today and see you at the next meeting good thank you very much