 Ychydig cymryddiol. Felly, ydych chi i gweithio'r bwysig a'i gweithio'r cyfraith gyda ar y dyfodol. Fawr gweithio'r gweithio'r Metru Cyngor Genfer, Llyfrgell Cymru. Roeddwn i'n gweithio'r Metru, Martin Carn, ac mae'r cwsiedlion yddych chi'n gweithio. Mae'r gweithio'r gwaith yn cyfraith Peter Ffane. Ydw i'n gweithio ychydig yma, fel rhan o'r gweithio ar gyfer y gweithio, yr unig, yn yr unig, a'r unig yn ddiolch yn gweithio'n gwrthwynt, mae'n meddwl i'r ffryd sydd i'r ffilm a'r ddweud o gwaith o'r ddweud o gweith ar y drafnig o'r gweithio a'r ddweud o'r gwaith. Mae yna osblyd o'r gweithio'n gweithio'n meddwl am y mynd i ddim yn gwybod i'r meddwl cymryd ysgol â'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r gweithio yn meddwl, For those of us present in the room, please ensure your microphone is close to you and speak clearly when addressing the room. I'm advised there will be a brief fire alarm at 10.30am, so we will briefly pause the meeting at that time. For those of us in the chamber please note that we do not have to leave the building during these tests. If at any time a member leaves the meeting, would they please make the fact known so that it can be recorded in the minutes? Before we move on to the rest of our business, I would like to propose a variance in the order of business to take application 23, stroke 01581, stroke 4, Manifam, Horningsey as the fifth item of business, effectively spotting it in application 23, stroke 01134, stroke 4, Mubble and Science Park in the running order. Do I have a second of this proposal? Can I take it by affirmation? Thank you very much. Thank you members. The variance in the order of business is agreed. Item 2 on our agenda is Apologies for Absence. Lawrence, are there any apologies for absence today? Thank you chair. No apologies for absence. Councillor Heather Williams is just joining us. Thank you. Full house, thank you. Members, we have now come to item 3, declarations of interest. Do any members have interest to declare in relation to any item of business on this agenda? If an interest subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting, please would you raise it at that point? Do we have any point of interest? Councillor Fane. Thank you chair. Yes, I think I should declare non-peculiar interest in relation to item, what is listed as item 5, Melbourne Science Parking, that I'm a member of CPPF, which has submitted a view on that, and also in relation to Manifarn Clayhithe, in that I'm a professional member of the country's land and business association, which has submitted a view on that. But I haven't discussed either case with the organisations concerned, and it doesn't affect me. I come to this afresh. In Councillor Meddwl. Yes, for the same item that was item 5 in our agendas, it was just to declare that I have been a customer at the Melbourne Hub and the Melbourne swimming pool, and I'd probably continue to be a user of that service as a member of the public, but I come to the application with an open mind ready to listen to the debate. Thank you. Thank you. Any other declarations of interest? Thank you very much. Now, item 4, minutes of the previous meeting, which covers the meetings held on both, both the meetings held on 17th of January and the 14th of February 2024. First we had the meetings, the minutes of the meeting held on 17th of January up for approval. Any members wish to make amendments to these minutes? Councillor Samford. Thank you, Chair. I note at the top of page 10, it is noted that Councillor Heather Williams rejoined the committee, and then half we do on page 15, it is again noted that Councillor Heather Williams rejoined the committee. At no point is it noted that she left the committee, so it was an error in that. Can we have any clarification? I believe Councillor Samford has pointed out an error in my work. I do apologise and I will amend a review and find when Councillor Williams left the meeting and amend accordingly. Thank you, Councillor Samford. I've got an amendment on page 13, a typo. On the final paragraph, the conservation officer, it says the conservation officer had commented that there was less than substantial harm to heritage assets, which he felt were mitigated improvements to the woodland. There should be the word, I think, by after mitigated. Any other amendments? Can we take these approved and by affirmation? Okay, the minutes of the meeting on the 14th of February, can we have them up on the screen? Apologies, Chair, do you bear with me? Do you have any comments or amendments to these minutes? No. Can I say a red rub? Sorry, I haven't seen these yet because they weren't part of this agenda, so I'm not sure I can vote on those. They were circulated separately to the members. Apologies. Apologies, just for clarity, these are the minutes of the February meeting of the committee that were published earlier this week as an online supplement. I think none of the people I've seen them were present yet. Have other members read the minutes, seen these minutes? Anybody else? Councillor Wilson? I have seen the minutes, but I wasn't present at that meeting, so I can't vote. Sorry, I did see the minutes. Okay. I think we've got enough people who are here to be able to confirm. I propose that we approve these by affirmation or by members who were present at the meeting. Who would not be voting? Councillor Redrup and Councillor Wilson. Do other members agree by affirmation? Okay. Now, we come to... Thank you, the members, the minutes of the meeting held on the 14th of February 2024 agreed as a correct record. Members, as they agreed variance in the order of business, we will now address application 23 stroke 01581 stroke 4 manafarm, Clayhart Road, Horningsey. This is listed as a gender item six in our agendas. Conversion of existing vacant farm buildings into seven dwellings with access, parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure. The application is being reported to committee due to a call in from local member, Councillor Graham Cohn and third party recommendations. The key issue is departure from local policy. The site was visited on the 7th of February 2024 and the officer's recommendation is refusal. Amy stopped to the presenter officer. Can we have your presentation? Thanks very much. Thank you, Chair. So, the application in front of them today is the manafarm, Clayhart Road, Horningsey application for the conversion of existing vacant farm buildings into seven dwellings with access, parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure. Just some points of clarification before I start my presentation. So, a third party rep was received, which was not mentioned in the report. However, it was felt that the comment echoed what other representations had been saying and those points were addressed within the committee report. The parish council wants to clarify that they support the application. So, the comment submitted by the parish council is listed within the committee report as just a comment. That should now be read as support. The previous application was deferred from committee on section 106 grounds just to remind everyone why it's coming back today. And just to clarify that further information was submitted to members at the beginning of this week but was not submitted to officers. There was an inaccuracy in that document that I just wanted to highlight. On page 11 of this document, it was stated that a section 106 agreement was agreed. This is not the case. The section 106 contributions that are outlined in the officers report have not been formally agreed and they are just proposed at the moment. So, the agreement has not been instructed. It has not been drafted. It is just the contributions that have been highlighted. So, moving on. The location plan of the site itself lies within the development framework boundary of Horningsea. It's also within the Horningsea conservation area. The site is adjacent to the green belt which is on this side of the application site. The Mana House property here is grade 2 listed while the farm buildings that are within the cottage of this dwelling are curts listed with grade 2. So, the north of the site is open countryside. To the east of the site are 1 and 2 Mana Farms, Mana Cottage and Clay High Road. To the south of the site is an area of green associated with the Mana House. And to the west of the site is an area of green space and properties which front onto Dot Lane. Site constraints or designations that affect this site. Like I said before, it's within the Horningsea conservation area. It is within the setting of a listed building and all the buildings are grade 2 listed. It is adjacent to the green balance within the framework of Horningsea. The existing site presently has disused farm buildings just to show what the existing site looks like for context. The proposed site plan sees the conversion of these buildings into seven dwellings with access, parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure. The dwellings do not meet space standards but as they are not new bills they do not require to meet that standard. The overall size of the dwellings are considerably suitable. Each dwelling will benefit from two file spaces, a private garden and a meeting on to this farmyad aeroclunal immunity space. All the private immunity spaces meet or exceed the recommendations of the council's district design guide. Plots want to find ground floor plans just for context of what these properties will look like. Bedrum 4 of Plot 4 does measure under the space standards for a double room so it has been listed as a single but again they do not need to meet it. I just thought I would highlight it. For completeness this is what the first law of these properties will look like. Again there is no proposal to increase the height it is purely just to convert these buildings to be fit for housing. Plots 1 to 5 which the plans I have just shown for floor plans will remain within the existing fabric of the building retaining the appearance and the character of the barns. The courtyards between these barns have been used as a central point when converting the structures to keep the appearance with minimal domesticate of private gardens. The properties within the courtyard area will be separated by a mixture of low level building brick walls and hedging just to maintain that openness. Plot 6 much like Plot 1 to 5 will remain relatively untouched apart from the inclusion of glazed screens windows rather to convert it into a dwelling but the fabric of the building will remain relatively unchanged and there will be no increase in height. Again very similar Plot 7 will maintain the fabric of the building where possible but it does see the most change. The existing structure is currently an open front barn so where the structure is presently open this will be in filled with walls and windows to make it into a residential property. Cart lodges will also be retained on site to allow for parking to keep that barn yard aesthetic through development. And just for context of what the landscaping will look like, again quite a lot of green reeds here and low level walls to maintain that openness. So in terms of policies this application, office finance application unsuitable because of the principle of the development so policy S11 sets out that in very special circumstances slightly larger developments within in-field villages which is stipulated to be two dwellings per proposal which is exceeded in this instance where 7 has been closed can be committed where it would lead to a sustainable recycling of brownfield sites. However this site does not constitute as brownfield land so therefore cannot comply with this part of the policy. The number of dwellings proposed on site exceeds the stipulated limit by 5 so therefore was in direct conflict with policy S11 of the South Cambridge Chair local plan. Policy again S11 refers to the conversion of redevelopment into residential buildings that would not result in a loss of employment. The applicant had submitted a supporting agriculture statement which did state that the barn buildings have remained unused as 2021. This was when the last occupant concluded their tenancy on the site. Office technology is not uncommon to convert these types of buildings however the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed conversion would not result in a loss of employment although vacant the buildings were used for employment in the agricultural industry and therefore demonstrating of how this conversion would not lead to a loss of employment or loss of local employment would be required to see how these buildings are not suitable for present day agricultural use. The infill villages are one of the smallest villages in South Cambridge Gym. These villages often have a poor range of services and facilities requiring many people that live within them to travel outside of their villages for their needs. The development on this scale any development on this scale would be unsuitable in these villages so therefore it has been stipulated that only two dwellings would be allowed under proposals that seek to create new residential developments. Hauling Seat does have a local hall. It has two pubs. There is no primary school, secondary school. There is no general practitioners. There is no general practitioners. There is no general practitioners. There is no general practitioners. Public transport opportunities within the village are limited with the number 19 bus providing two buses into Cambridge in the morning and two in the afternoon. The proposal fails to promote sustainable transport due to the limited access to insufficient infrastructure and is therefore contrary to policies S2, S3, S7 and TI2. So it's all that just also highlight the, as I said before, the application was deferred last month for proposed section 106 contributions. So I thought I would include a summary of what these contributions would be going towards. A total contribution of £61,499 on 26 pence would be proposed for this application. The, what each of these contributions has been further explained in the officers report. So on balance, although matters, there is benefits with these structures and it would provide housing and would be appropriate and design responsive to heritage assets and would unlikely impact neighbouring properties. It is unacceptable. The proposal is unacceptable in principle as it does contrary to policies S2, S3, S7 and S11 and TI2. And it is for this reason, these reasons that I've mentioned before, that officers recommendation is for refusal. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do I have any questions of points of clarification from members? Councillor Redder. Thank you, Chair. We had some letters through, giving extra information about this and one was mentioning the Horningsea greenway that would go, I believe, past the site. I just wondered if that had any impact on the consideration of whether it passes TI2 policy. Thank you. I'll just have to see if I can find the route of why the greenway's supposed to go because at the minute I haven't got access to it but I'll come back to you. First of all, GCP projects have been mentioned so I should declare that I'm a member of the Great Caves Partnership Assembly. Just some clarification as to the second bullet point down. It says about there being seven dwellings and the maximum indicative size is two. Obviously, indicative suggested it's a suggestion as opposed to a rule. Could you expand a bit on that and the importance of that, please? So indicative, as you've rightly said, it kind of says about, it could potentially be considered acceptable. However, under the where it is at the moment being in your village and where people would have to go outside of the village to meet their needs, we kind of deemed it to be unacceptable where that infrastructure can't support those proposed dwellings as well as the part two of that policy refers to re-use of brownfield sites. This application site doesn't constitute as a brownfield site so there are ways that proposal of this site could be deemed acceptable but officers thought in this instance that it just didn't meet that criteria. Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. First of all, can you please explain what the definition of brownfield is? Sorry, I have several questions. So a brownfield site is land that has been previously developed or has been occupied by a permanent structure including the cartilage of the developed land. However, under the MPPF annex 2 this definition does exclude agricultural land which this site is. So it specifically excludes? Yes, and forestry. Chair, if I may, you also said that there was no proof that employment space would not be lost. What was asked of the applicant and what did they produce that was not sufficient? The applicant provided information on the tenancy of the site and basically provided a statement as to why they deemed that the agricultural buildings would not be acceptable anymore to be used for that purpose. Usually when it comes to lots of employment we might see that there has been measures put in to show that there has been some marketing to show that there isn't a need for it to have provisions in this location. And as the tenancy was concluded in 2021 officers felt that it was still within a reasonable timeframe that that area could still have been used for agricultural purposes and the information wasn't provided. So there's no proof of it being on the market and not selling or whatever. You also mentioned that there some of the rooms did not meet the standards, what proportion are we talking about? It's only a few metres with the bedrooms, I think it was plot for yeah, so plot for yeah, plot for bedroom 4 measures as a single bedroom only but it was listed on the plans of the double so I just wanted to make in the report that was produced that I listed them as a single rather than a double despite what the plans have shown. But because this is a conversion and not a new build the standards are new applied to new build dwellings so it doesn't have to meet space standards but I just wanted to... the proposed dwellings are more efficient and our size to be used to highlight. Last but not least chair in terms of the last point about the disproportionate number of additional journeys I didn't see that, pardon me if I lost if I didn't notice it was there traffic calculation that shows that it's disproportionate to what is there now. I have to double check for the transport assessments but the officers felt that where there would be an introduction of residential movement at the moment while at the site the site is what the applicant had confirmed is used so where agricultural traffic would have been going in and out of this access normally the access is moving up the road from where I can go back if that's helpful. So the access at the moment, the current access is here it is moving up to here but each of these dwellings will benefit from two car spaces so we considered that there would be more movements coming out of this access and it being an infill village as well people are more likely to travel outside of all their needs so then it would generate a higher level of traffic coming out of this access we're kind of exacerbated by the need to travel outside of all these things. So the term disproportionate is relative to the current use of the site or the previous use of the site as I've reported rather than relative to the traffic going out of all these things. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Sorry. If I can just come back on the Horningsy Greenway I've just had a look at the route and the shared use path is going between Horningsy and Fenditon proposed when it is installed so that won't have an impact on the assessment against S11 because obviously it would still be considered to be an infill village however once in place potentially could have an impact on the assessment against TI2 but obviously that's not there at present so the assessment is based on what's there at the minute. Thank you. Any other? I have a question. If this had not been a listed building would the development have been possible under permitted development rights? Under CLOSQU so it would have been but because the site is curtsilish listed it was not. In terms of context in the village if it were given permission are there many other similar structures for which it would create a precedent in the village? The application itself has to be reviewed on its own merits there are barn structures within Horningsy but it would be at the moment that the application has to be reviewed on its own merits. OK now councillor and the Williams Sorry church just on the greenway at what stage would of the greenways planning process because greenways is one thing that we've actually been able to agree on at the GCP and is actually being pursued and going forward so at what point what's the tipping point for it to be able to be considered what part of the process would it need to be at because it's this one was one of the first I think is quite a very very long way down that road and should be one of the first I'd hoped to come online. I can see that the traffic order is out for consultation at the minute I would say unfortunately until it started construction as such that we probably we know it's coming if that makes sense but until they start the construction then I would say that is when we would assess the proposal against TI2 and whether that makes any changes to TI2 it's almost there but the office of recommendation relates to sorry if I can just get the reason for refusal relates mainly to S11 anyway rather than SI2. Thank you so I appreciate I'm putting officers on this one but I think it's quite an important point and other members have raised it It is always when I'm speaking I obviously have a thing about 10.30 on a Wednesday opening my mouth It's a plot is it? Well that's from a cabinet member so I'll take that as a red It's a plot against the leader, the opposition is it Bill? Right, they'll do anything to silence me but on this one on other applications we've had things like CSET which are nowhere near being incorporated in a sort of relied upon as future sustainable transport even when it was paused so it does feel a bit odd is it because it's a busway rather than a greenway because normally it's the further you go along the process the more weight you would give and I just thought given the fact we're at that traffic order we'd be applying more weight than we would perhaps when the application was first submitted or before that happened it seems odd that we've put weight in one respect and also another If I can come back on that so the village is actually listed as an infill village under S11 which relates to the kind of the restriction on the number of dwellings being the wording is sorry I just want to get the wording exactly right not more than two dwellings the further assessment that's been done in terms of whether it's a sustainable location is the one that is done under TI2 which talks about being a sustainable location in terms of creating more journeys so the link for the greenway will be between Horningsey and Fenditon which will give access to a group village for some day-to-day facilities but the officer main assessment relates to the policy relating to a restriction on the number of units sorry to interrupt but the idea goes to Fenditon but it connects onto Fenditon and Canberra City Marley is part of Fenditon and the idea is that this greenway does connect on the city we don't often just do a greenway village to village the idea is to give sustainable transport into the centre itself it's just that's the phase as it were if I can come back to the reference the reason that officers are recommending for a refusal is the direct conflict with S11 so the fact that it's more than two proposed units rather than just an unsustainable location does that make sense? Thank you and I'll try and avoid 10.30 next week to be on the chair Down to the harpy Thanks just on a sort of technical point if this were to be taken to appeal and in the intervening period the greenway had been implemented I mean, would the inspector be allowed to take that new context into account or would it have to be somehow judged on a sort of outdated context? So the officer recommendation as I've said relates to a policy S11 within the main wording of the policy and also relates to excessive number of units representing over-development and therefore being an unsustainable form of development so there is a reference obviously within our reason for refusal to TI2 and we have made an assessment in the report in relation to TI2 if the greenway is open then that provides a more sustainable travel option for residents to get to Benditon on to Cambridge. However people could cycle that way at present however it will be a safer cycle route between the two we will still obviously refer to it and our defending of our reason for refusal if it got to that point however we would have to point out that that greenway is open if it got to appeal by the time it got to that point I just wanted to reiterate that the officer's main recommendation in terms of reasons for refusal relates to the more than two units that are relying mainly on policy S11 I want to come up with a question about this direct conflict with S11 in particular in relation to paragraph 3 of that which says in very exceptional circumstances a slightly larger development not exceeding not more than 8 buildings where this would lead to sustainable recycling of a brownfield site now as we have explained earlier on the annex 2 definition of brownfield site excludes agriculture and I assume also includes land previously used for agriculture because I think we've established that this site has not been used for agriculture since 20 or 21 I just wonder if there are other exceptional circumstances that might bring into effect that paragraph such as for instance the preservation of curtain listed buildings or is it specifically restricted to brownfield also I wonder whether the definition of brownfield might be affected by the current government consultation on brownfield that I recognise is just a consultation for another 10 days or so which specifically refers to encouraging the reuse of previously used buildings rather than just all previously used buildings on brownfield land might that be a factor in this? So under policy S11 with what is stipulated there under what is acceptable where this would lead to a single recycling of a brownfield site if the site was brownfield then that would be okay but because the site isn't being bound by policy it's kind of there where we can't really deviate from as it is not a brownfield site under the definition of the brownfield site I've gone under the MPPF definition and what annex 2 refers to I can't really take into consideration the consultation as of yet because that definition hasn't been adopted so it can only really work with what's allowed at the moment Thank you very much indeed Now we move on to the other speakers public speakers Can I call the applicant Nick Dakin Thank you very much indeed Just to remind you you'll have three minutes, if we'll exceed three minutes we will cut you short at that point in time Thank you very much indeed Thank you, I want to listen to you now I'd like to just comment on a couple of points that have been raised here On room sizes revised drawings were submitted on the 24th of November I've just been shown the email and they are now compliant On the section 106 the sum has been agreed we are not, we just haven't signed it at the moment obviously The parish council representation wasn't an objection it was comments and for the record we have visited them and addressed all their comments to their satisfaction they now support the application there's also a mention of loss of employment to clarify the farmer surrendered the lease on the Horningsy Manor House and farm buildings there was no loss of employment now derelict these farm buildings are adjacent to grade 2 Horningsy Manor and therefore Curtis is listed they are inside the conservation area, inside the village envelope and in walking distance of village facilities in addition shops, schools, train stations and employment centres at Water Beach, Fendin and Milton are all easily accessible by cycle with Cambridge reachable in about 20 minutes recommendation is refusal for refusal mainly citing policy S11 of the local plan limiting infill new developments to quote not more than two dwellings this is followed by the words indicative size suggesting some leeway this policy was introduced for sound reasons but surely was never intended to block the restoration of heritage buildings limiting the conversion of 12,000 square feet of buildings in 1.2 acres to two dwellings defy is all reason the two huge houses created interlocking and overlooking each other would be so commercially unviable that it would give the land a very low or even a minus value so nothing will happen hardly satisfactory in terms of land use or heritage conservation if this was a derelict factory it would be classed as brownfield and up to eight dwellings could be consented but farm buildings however derelict cannot be classed as brownfield if these buildings were outside the village envelope in a remote location miles from many facilities the two dwelling limits also could not be applied this application is supported by the village, the parish council south cam's own conservation team and all the immediate neighbors who are dismayed at the prospect of looking out at a derelict farm yard forever more for want of a viable consent this will recycle anisor into a heritage asset enhance the setting of historic warnings in manner and the seven family homes created will support warnings these businesses and many thriving clubs and activities the planning system gives plenty of scope to make exceptions to planning policies when balanced against in this case considerable local support and many heritage and community benefits rather than lying derelict these heritage buildings could be preserved by sympathetic conversion to seven family homes within a village thus providing desperately needed new housing stock without any building whatsoever thank you very much indeed do we have any questions for Mr Dakin councillor Fave thank you yes Mr Dakin you referred to accessibility to shops in other villages I wonder if you could clarify for us what is the position of shops within the village in particular Scottsdale's I believe they have a food hall is that right Scottsdale's and a farm shop thank you the one point was raised is that the possibility of continuing agriculture use by offering the buildings for sale or rent has not been examined can you give some indication of what the possibility would be for other agricultural holdings for instance to use the buildings haven't actually been used for mainstream agriculture since the 80s they are very direct totally unsuitable for modern agricultural operations thank you do we have other questions councillor thank you Mr Dakin can you just clarify when you say the buildings as they are now will not be suitable for today's farming well they are Victorian buildings which aren't suitable for today's farming you need big tin apcos type sheds now which is what they've got up the road more modern buildings altogether the last time these buildings were adding anything done to them the buildings in question was in 1963 when they fitted a state of the art grain dryer it's still there that wooden structure in general Victorian farm buildings aren't suitable for agriculture councillor just looking at your plans I wondered what the heating options were for all of them I could see air pumps for most of them but I couldn't see anything I was just wondering what the plans were I think maybe three I believe they're all heat pumps heat pumps I haven't got the plans with me but I've been assured that they're all heat pumps have we any other questions thank you very much Mr Dakin now we have a community supporter Mr Michael Hellowell I'll just remind you again that you're limited to three minutes thank you very much indeed good morning as you've heard I'm Michael Hellowell I've lived in Horningsea and believe it or not over 50 years I've always been very active in the village affairs and I have been involved in the installation of the new village green, the village hall and numerous other village initiatives I'm a past member and chairman of the parish council and have spoken here many times before on planning matters pertaining to Horningsea I'm familiar with policy S11 which seeks to limit infill developments in villages with few facilities to two dwellings and I can quite see the sense of it however I do think it's a mistake to apply it to this particular application Horningsea would disagree with the description of it having a low level of facilities we have a pub we have a hotel or a restaurant which is also a second pub we've got a farm shop which we try hard to encourage to do good business and of course we've got a garden centre which is more than a garden centre it's a supermarket in many cases we are a vibrant village we have social life, many events and societies we've got all sorts of societies going on within the village it's very easy to access other facilities in Fenddon, Water Beach Milton over the bridge at Clayhithe and indeed into Cambridge itself which can be accessed in about 20 minutes by cycle via the recently widened cycleway to Fenddon current green transport local infrastructure proposals under consideration can only enhance this accessibility I also disagree with the imposition of the two dwelling only policy on the conversion of these buildings the policy was never conceived to prevent the preservation of historic buildings such as these that we have in Hormingsey this situation is somewhat unique in that Hormingsey Manifam Yard is probably one of the last farm yards within a village in South Cambridge that has not been developed the two dwelling policy was only brought in I understand in 2018 since when there have been no applications for similar conversion projects this is because there are none left to convert making this a unique situation without precedent in planning terms but that should not mean that good old fashioned common sense can't be applied consideration should also be given to the households abutting the farm buildings who are all very concerned that the enforcement of the two dwelling only policy could see them lying derelict a magnet for criminality and vandalism Thank you very much indeed Do I have any questions for Mr Helamoll? Councillor Wilson I wanted to ask you Do you have any visiting like milkman, grossers fishmongers delivering in the village so that people don't have to go to shops to stock up on these items? A mile and a half up the road of course we have got models facilities at Water Beach and a mile down the road the same offending but we do have we do have our milk delivered by a plunderry they come run on a regular basis a newsagents from Water Beach bring us newspapers every morning and we have a fishman that will come on a regular basis Do we have any other questions? Thank you very much Mr Helamoll Now we come to the local member Councillor Graham Cohn is online Graham, you know the escort for a few minutes Thanks for allowing me to speak chair Can you hear me okay? Lovely I have always felt it is a real shame that this unused, unloved site with really old interesting buildings could not be put to better use I truly believe that the application that we have in front of us today is exactly that preserving the buildings that are already on site and much of the landscaping and planting whilst turning it from an unattractive derelict site into something useful I believe these plans brilliantly preserve the site as it is whilst providing well thought out accommodation whilst being active to the conservation area It is really nice to see a number of homes being delivered on an existing footprint not affecting the green bell and within the village framework I would next like to address the reason for refusal which is why I have called this application into committee. I understand officers have to adhere to policy to make a more objective view Policy S11 of the local plan limits in-field developments to quote not more than two dwellings followed by the words indicative size in brackets indicating some leeway hence me calling it in. It is this leeway that I want the committee to consider this development would deliver an additional two dwellings over and above the two dwelling policy but given the size of this in-field site and preserving the buildings and the footprint that is existing their two dwellings on site would be absolutely the wrong thing to do in my mind for the following reasons. I struggle to see that putting two dwellings on this site would be viable leaving the current situation with the unused buildings and derelict site for the foreseeable future keeping the two buildings would split the site into two properties creating lots of unused space two dwellings would be very big and far more expensive putting them out with the reach of most people. If this site was an unused factory or an office block rather than an agricultural building the footprint would be deemed to be brownfield site meaning the site would be eligible for eight houses anyway under our current policy. It is these areas that I want the committee to use their discretion and judgement over and in my mind that the site is a sensible site for development. It's a win for the council as it provides more homes it's a win for Haulingsey upgrading the current site it's a win for residents making more housing available to local people so I just want to also add that there's been no objections from residents to the parish council, local councillors which is very unusual and it's very well connected to both Fendit and... Thank you. Do we have any questions for for councillor Coen? Councillor Williams. Thank you. Councillor Coen you might have heard the conversation earlier around the greenway and where that's at Could you give us some local knowledge as to that sort of commute into Cambridge in a sustainable way? Yeah so it's long been earmarked that the greenway would run through Haulingsey on to Fendit and into Cambridge essentially actually currently Haulingsey is pretty well served we've talked about the pubs, ScotStales with food provision, deliveries etc that councillor Wilson mentioned is served in its own right actually as a village but if you were taking your children to school that would be done via a very quick cycle to Fenditon at the primary school for example there are buses that stop in Haulingsey a bit not as frequently as I would like but yeah in terms of the greenway I mean it is well connected the cycle path has already been widened to make it safer to make that commute easier into the city essentially so actually you know you're talking minutes walking or cycling from Haulingsey to Fenditon which has all of the services that were described earlier in terms of community building, schools, shops etc Thank you Do we have any other questions? Thank you very much councillor Coe Thank you for letting me speak chair Okay now we come to the debate Do we have any comments for the debate? Councillor Wilson I'm just thinking about policy S11 this was made for the local plan in 2018 but since 2018 there have been significant changes in the way people live their lives a lot more people work from home people use more online shopping for their daily needs so I understand the purpose that setting them in a maximum of two because of car journeys to go to work and travel by car for daily needs but I think things have changed significantly since we've had the pandemic that more people are working from home and people are using online deliveries much more so that people living in these homes would have access to whatever they need for their daily needs by ordering online perhaps I was just thinking that setting the two I understand the purpose of it but I think that things have changed significantly this is perhaps not quite so significant now Councillor Sanford Thank you chair having listened to all the representations which all seem to be very much in favour of this application I think this is a situation where we should use our common sense and the committee should agree to vary from policy it's pretty obvious that these those of us have visited the site know the buildings are derelict there's probably no possibility whatsoever of them reverting to agricultural use as the local resident explained and the developer as well and from what I can see these are sympathetic well designed conversions from very old buildings so I will be tending towards voting in favour of this application Councillor Williams Heather Williams Thank you there are two of us today so when it comes to I'm going to look at our sort of approval refusal chart I've got that in front of me I think we do have to look at the sustainability of the existing villages as well because Horningsy has a lot more than a lot of other villages and that's because there's a community there to support it and we know very much from some of our parishes that if you don't actually have enough sustainable or enough development that you can end up losing those forms of services so I'm not proposing that every village takes eight houses I want to make that very clear chair because some of my own villages will be very angry with me about it but I do think it is right that we have a sensible conversation about whether development is right for that to support those local facilities as well otherwise we're just making more houses unsustainable I do believe that there is already cycle provision and I know that the greenways to put the hard standing in and what have you but it's already been widened it's very much down that road now so I do think that it benefits or by the time this is built out most likely will benefit from a very sustainable route into Cambridge and definitely to Fenditon where a lot of the schools and day-to-day would be so for me I don't in my opinion think that it is unsustainable to have seven houses in Horningsea that then makes me look at the bullet point we have on the site and this sort of infill indicative too but as we can see from the policy itself as one of the public speakers has said we look at point three of that it says that a slightly larger development not more than eight dwellings may be permitted and it does then go into this question around brownfield sites so for me it's not so much the numbers because the eight is within that policy it's this situation around the brownfield and our interpretation of our policy which we in here don't call brownfield we call previously developed land and when we look at the definition of that it does say this excludes land that is or has been occupied by agriculture but for me there is the words exactly that I've written and then there is our interpretation of those words and how we see it going forward now I see that very sensibly to do two purposes one is to make sure we don't lose working agricultural buildings for development and that people because there are certain permitted development rights around it that people don't pop up with a building put a tractor in it therefore it's then classes being used then remove it and then develop it the sort of purpose of that I completely see and support that sort of abuse of the system it's trying to close a loophole but I see that very much as usable agricultural buildings I think that is how we should be interpreting it in the merit of which it was wrote which I interpret as to protect usable buildings given the type of agriculture in our area those buildings would not be suitable and I don't imagine would meet any of the sort of almost statutory requirements that would be required for numerous reasons for agriculture in that way in the storing of food and the like we have the listed building and we do have policies that say that we should support applications that can enhance the area of that listed building so I understand why it's been recommended refusal to us however my interpretation of the definition of previously developed land means I don't believe it was meant for this sort of situation with these historical and anything that can be done to maintain the fabric of these buildings so they can still be used rather than just left into disrepair and it's horrific in my eyes when we lose those historical features and we've sat here with some buildings historical buildings that have had to be caught rid of and bulldozed and there's very little salvageable so if something can be done I'm minded also to use common sense and what I feel is more in line with the spirit of how this was written Thank you, councillor Thank you very much chair I will be voting to support this application so against the recommendation for refusal I think our local plan is there obviously to protect the district and protect villages from over development but it shouldn't be used to fossilise communities We don't do villages any favours if we fossilise them and we refuse to allow sensible proportionate, well designed sympathetic as has already been said and very well supported developments On the sustainability point I think again we do need to apply common sense here, the reality of life in most villages in south Cambridgeshire is that you need a car to access local services I live in a village, the main village in my ward Wittlesford which is a group village and larger developments would be allowed but the reality is you need a car in Wittlesford to access local services you need a car for a GP you need a car if you wanted to get to the secondary school although there is a bus, most of the time if you want to access a shop you go to Shelford or Sallston, there is a village shop that is relatively limited number of days and obviously it's not suitable for all needs very good though it is, excellent local shop I should say but the reality of life is that you need a car and that's the same in group villages it's the same in infill villages and I don't think we should use that as a reason to prevent well designed, well supported developments so I don't find the argument about sustainability but in this case I would add one other thing I think the presence or absence of a school seems to be quite important to whether a village falls within the group category or the infill category but I think I've just done Google Maps it's 1.5 miles straight line from this site at Defenditon at school that is less distance than the distance between many parts of my village, my ward rather and the nearest local school so I think we ought not to get too hung up I think we need to apply common sense and I will certainly be supporting this development thank you Councillor Handling Thank you chair, I won't make a speech I actually, we've got to accept that our officers are here working to the rules that have been set and what I'm about to say is in no way a comment on their decision or their judgement but I actually agree with a lot of what's been said both by colleagues on the planning committee and also by the commentators we heard earlier I actually think we're here to add a bit of interpretation to the rules as presented and the case presented as presented by the officers so it provides us to use our I support the case for us to use our discretion on this occasion because I do think it looks to be a good development and one which actually enhance the village of Horningsea and not detract from it Councillor Harvey Yes, thank you chair As a cyclist I'm quite familiar with Horningsea because the early parts of my career I lived in central Cambridge and I worked in Water Beach and that was my commute to work and it was a very nice way to start and end the day later on in life I lived in, well I still do live in Abingdon and I worked at St John's Innovation Centre on the Science Park and again my commute took me almost Horningsea but then turning left across Clayhithe Bridge because to me actually there's already quite a strong incentive to use sustainable travel even without the greenways innovation because a lot of people will be working on the Science Park or St John's Innovation Centre as probably the nearest main centre of employment to you like and it's an awful lot quicker to get there by bike across Clayhithe Bridge than it is by car so I just wanted to make that point there is actually an incentive in Horningsea and quite a powerful one to use sustainable transport so I agree with what Councillor Hanley said we are rather the officers have to read local policy and national policy onto this case but I think sometimes one size fits all doesn't doesn't work even though we try very hard to so I would be actually supporting this application Councillor Hawkins Councillor Dotson Hawkins Thank you chair one thing that we seem not to have or to seem to have omitted is that this site is actually within the village framework which in some respects I would have said that was a positive to go on that side but anyway yes we've talked about S11 and the various bits of it but at the end of the day it does allow up to eight dwellings in exceptional circumstances we are here as a planning committee obviously to look at all the points that have been made the planning considerations and add some common sense you know accessibility to what's on the table which is what we are doing today now as it says within the village framework it potentially could have been converted on the class queue I don't know why that wasn't that but it's just a point to make and I think it's important for us to actually look at preserving this list of buildings or this cartilage list of buildings which you know as I saw from the site visit that we had which was a useful thing to have done I don't say that it could be useful for anything else frankly it cannot be useful to these agricultural uses as you've already heard so you know what then would happen to them if they're not converted for residential use infill villages some of them are dying and there are many that don't have young families moving into them because there's nothing for them in there so we really do need to look at this you know in the wider context of the fact that honiw sydd actualy is a bit bigger and better than or has more facilities than some of the small infill villages in my ward I know that so in my view I think it will be a good thing to actually give this permission to be converted into seven houses that will benefit more families to move into honiw sydd and allow the listed cartilage listed buildings to carry on being used and preserved so yes I will be putting for this and I will leave it there but to say thank you to the officers obviously for doing their job and doing it properly we might not always agree with you what we do thank you for doing it properly Councillor Ariel Khan, do you want to speak? No sorry Councillor Fave Thank you chair. I think this is one of those cases where there may be a conflict between what it seems we all feel should be done and what we feel the local plan in particular may require us to do or limit our flexibility to do and the key issue it seems to me is S11 of our local plan on the extent to which if we think we should approve this application we can do so under the discretion applied there there is this word that is used there indicative and in paragraph 3 it refers to very exceptional circumstances which relates to Brownfield land and as we as Councillor Heather Williams has explained and as our case officer has explained this is not Brownfield land but it is a proposal to redevelop an existing facility and I think the key question in relation to S11 is are we seeking to prevent unsustainable development in a village that cannot support it or is it our purpose to make villages more sustainable to reduce and travel to work by matching housing to existing employment in some villages we need to bear in mind Councillor Williams referred to the fact that this was a policy drawn in 2018 actually of course 2014 originally because there was a 2007 in relation to this particular paragraph although to be fair to Horningston not a lot has changed there except that of course this building has ceased to be in use for agriculture and as Councillor Jimmy Hawkins said could not reasonably be put back to use in agriculture when we look at the material considerations upon the planning balance before us I think an additional factor is not just that we need to be responsive to heritage assets but as our conservation officer said in the report paragraph 6-4 consider the proposal will preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area that is they do consider it would do so in relation to these buildings this is of course heritage listed that is what matters is the manner and I think it's very important to that grade 2 listed manner that these buildings be preserved and conserved and very difficult to see how that can be done without finding some viable useful very difficult to see any other viable use and I think that is an exceptional circumstance which would be right to take into account in relation to the material considerations for a few well I've referred to S11 of our local plan is this a level of development is not appropriate to its location well this has been referred to by some of our speakers including our public speakers is a village that has actually very good access to a school primary school and has also shops a farm shop a food hall within the existing garden centre that was referred to by somebody knows it extremely well as a supermarket it is not typically an infill village from 2007 when this policy was drawn up and I think it is quite probable that allowing this development could potentially reduce the need for future occupants to travel by car because of course there is employment in this village and employment opportunities I think if our purpose is to make existing villages more sustainable and to preserve existing assets where those are curtainage listed then the right thing to do would be for us to use our discretion to approve this application as councillor Hanley said that is not any criticism of the officers in setting out a strict interpretation of our existing plans but I do believe it is within our discretion to approve this application Thank you very much Does anybody else have comments? No Sorry, councillor Hanley I heard my name down chair but only to say I would I'd propose we go to a vote I wish to make my comments then I'll put this to the vote I was going to say that many comments have been made which I agree with there's a lot of common sense being drawn up here I absolutely understand why the office recommendation is it is but we have a number of anomalies what might be seen from that side is idiots is in planning where this often happens when you drive one policy for one situation and it's tried to apply to every other situation you have a building which clearly are derelict buildings the only building which I thought could possibly be used for agriculture was the large barn which in fact is proposed to demolish, it's the one building we're taking out in terms of the development so all the others are far too small for modern agricultural use the I cannot see I can understand the argument that only converting it to two dwellings would be one create large dwellings which are unsuitable for which would propose would not be suitable for many residents of the settlement and having smaller dwellings is much more in policy that's the shortage what we have a shortage of so to me they are evidently derelict land they may not be brownfield land within the definition but the buildings are derelict they're buildings which we would want to keep as commented for conservation reasons it's been made we've been made aware I think that there are far more services available in the village perhaps normally in such a village so that particularly with the garden centre they're providing a shop so in terms of local services it's exceptional the village is unlike most other small villages that it's that it's actually quite close to Cambridge it's not like a village out in far west of the district or it is actually quite accessible to Cambridge there was a good it is already used cycling is already used as a means of transport quite regularly here so the only alternative use that I could see for it would be small industrial units that actually I think could well introduce more traffic than actually having residential development so in that sense would be less sustainable so if we have the anomaly that these buildings in the development framework if they were not listed it would be converted but because they're listed and we would want and we might not want to protect them because they would be unsuitable ugly buildings but because they're listed and have historic interest you couldn't do it under permitted development rights it's a complete anomaly that's the situation we have in the legal framework so I absolutely agree I think this ought to be an exception and we ought to a special situation but when I went through the village I did think it would be a precedent for lots of other farm buildings in the village being converted I saw one other set of buildings which looked as though they might also be in a similar sort of context so I don't think it's going to create a waiver of development in the village if we make this exception in this village and so I agree with most the other members here and I think we should we should give permission for this development to the office of recommendation and now I propose to go to the debate I propose to go to the debate thank you very much okay can you can you summarise the position Apologies, my microphone wasn't working so officer recommendation is for refusal however I think we've had a proposal second over turn with recommendation for approval as I understand it we've had a recommendation to go to the vote am I right? yeah that was my but I'm very happy to propose that we go to a vote with recommendation to approve it I'll be guided by you I'll move that we overturn the officer recommendation that's what you need to do I think the simplest way to deal with this we've got to get confused about what we're voting for could the delivery manager remind us the office recommendations and so that I then propose that we go to a vote and if you're voting in favour you're voting to refuse the application you're voting against you're voting against recommendation you're voting to approve it I just wanted to make a point that if we are going to approve the application that we need do we need to say something about the section 106 to make sure that that is included as a condition that's why I was trying to clarify at which point you are voting at present so officer recommendation is for refusal for the reason set out in the report my understanding is we do you wish to vote on that at this stage or do you want to vote it seems to me that it's likely that there will be a vote to approve the application which has been moved and seconded so we now have we don't need to decide whether there's any change in the conditions section 116 officers will have a slide prepared with suggested areas for conditions which we can put up on the screen now and we also obviously have the heads of terms which are already set out within paragraph 9.131 of the report are there additional points so Councillor Hella Williams I'm just pleased to be able to think it's very important we're all very clear and it's a little murky at the moment I appreciate the headings but obviously we for example there are things in there where there will be further detail given later on so would it be sensible and more practical for us to have a vote to overturn the officers recommendation to support the application and delegate to officers final wording of these in consultation with the chair and vice chair because there are a lot more words to go with than just those and I think we need to authorise officers to do those final wordings but are you making a proposal? I'm taking advice whether that would be and then perhaps the mover and the seconder might accept that revised proposal if that is more appropriate Councillor Handy are you willing to accept that or would that be appropriate for you? It would be appropriate for me I was merely trying to draw the discussion to a conclusion and actually get to the business of making a decision that's what I was trying to do First of all we do have details of a proposed section 106 were it to be is everybody happy with those? I was just going to ask if they are the main title headings of standard conditions if members were happy with those then we can obviously consider the standard conditions that we would normally use with any minor amendments to the conditions to be delegated to officers I think we now go to the mover and the seconder That's fine, that process that you outlined is exactly what we need to do to support that and I second the motion to get to the vote Now we need to clarify what you're deciding if you're voting in favour of the motion and against the motion So my understanding of this vote from the discussion so far would be that a green vote would be in support of the officer's recommendation of refusal the red vote would be to overturn that and if so it would be with the conditions outlisted Council Williams is shaking her head Once we have in front of us is an application and a recommendation to refuse the application So yes on this equipment in front of us if we press green we are agreeing with refusal if we press red we are not agreeing with refusal equals we are approving the application We have a motion to overturn the recommendation and to approve subject to this That's why I'm worried about confusing what we're deciding I propose that we go back to the original situation and that we vote if you're voting in favour you're voting to follow the officer's recommendation as Council Councillor Tumey Hawkins was recommending and if you're voting against you're voting to approve the application with the with the proposed conditions and the heading of the conditions Councillor Heather Williams Chair, with the greatest respect that's not the motion that's in front of us The motion that's in front of us is one that's been proposed and seconded and the wording to that effect was that the motion was to support the application subject to these conditions and the 106 with final wording to be delegated to officers in consultation with the chair and vice chair that is what we're voting on so we want to vote for the application with those conditions with the 106 and the delegation, you vote green and if you don't want to vote then you vote red because we're not voting on the substantive here we're voting on this motion that's been put and I've got nods from officers on this okay it's everybody happy with that first of all so that everybody knows where they are I think that's the motion we have in front of us do we then need to vote again on the opposite recommendation I don't think we do, I'll be happy I just want to make sure okay let's go on and do it on that basis on the basis that's just been outlined Councillor so we're voting to amend the recommendation in line with how we want it to be that we are voting to amend the recommendation to say that we support subject to the conditions section 106 being delegated to officers for final wording consultation with chair so this first vote is to vote in order to amend the recommendation once we've amended it then we can vote on it okay we can do it that way I think that seems to be logical okay Councillor sorry can you give us advice that is correct respectively going to be two votes so you vote for the proposal as it has just been outlined by Councillor Wiggins and when that's done you will take another vote thank you very much first of all the vote on the motion to overturn to amend the recommendation okay thank you can we have that if you're voting in favour you will amend the recommendation to approval so if you're voting green you're voting to amend the to change the recommendation to approval and if you're voting against you're voting to keep the distinct recommendation of refusal okay can we have that vote please okay Mae'r dŵr yn ymmell o gynnwys gweithio, sy'n gweithio'r awdurdod yn cael gwahod o'r cael pethau Gwneudio. Mae'r awdurdod yn cael gwahod o'r requerfynu trwy'r awdurdod. Pwys am gweithio'r awdurdod o'r gwahod o ymellod o'r requerfynu trwy'r newydd o'r gwahod o'r gwahod o'r gwahod. Felly, yw'r cyfnod, gan gweithio'r cyfrimod, sy'n gyflwytaeth i'r cyfrimod? Felly, mae'n cyfrimod yw'r cyfrimod... Felly, mae'n cyfrimod ar-nynni, ar-nynni ar-nynni ac yn gyfrimod, fyddwch i'r cyfrimod. Mae'n fawr... Fawr. Yn gyfrimod yw'r cyfrimod, mae'n cyfrimod. Yn gyfrimod, honno, mae'n fawr yw'r cyfrimod yw'r cyfrimod, gydydd o'r cwestiynau maesafol 1-06 maesafol nesafol gyda'r eistedd yma i sicrhau y gwaith sut iawn, ac yn amlwg ystod Cymru, Yng Nghymru, ar y cyffredinol roedd yn ychwanegu arlau a ffrif yn cael ei bodemol. Yn cyflol. Os byddai gweld, mae'n fath o'r crossf fooledyr ar maesafol 15 munud. Rwyddo y gallw gweld, yn cael y 12 mdd. We now live. Thank you, chair. Welcome back to the South Cambridge District Council Planning Committee. Sorry, to me, are you coming back? We'll wait for you to meet because otherwise you can't vote. Welcome back to the South Cambridge District Council Planning Committee. We are now on item 6, Melbourne Science Park, application number 23-0-011344-4 landed Melbourne Science Park, Melbourne. This is an extensive proposal for details listed on the first page of the report. The application has been reported to the committee as it raises special planning policy or other considerations and due to third-party representations. The key issues are principle of development, character and appearance of the area and the wider landscape views, car parking and highway safety and the impact on neighbouring community. The site was visited on the 6th of March 2024 and the office of accommodation is to approve subject conditions on the completion of a section 106 agreement. Michael Hammond is the presenting officer. Michael, can you take us through the application? Thank you, chair. I won't really read the whole description but obviously it's in front of members in their report pack but essentially it's for the redevelopment of Melbourne Science Park and I'll run you through each element of that so rather than read that long description. So just before we get into it, just in terms of updates, there were four later representations or submissions received. One of these was from the ward members who are present today and will be speaking. One was from the Science Park neighbourhood group who raised additional comments. One was an individual third-party representation and we also had the agent who sent a briefing note to members. These are all online on the file now. Having read them, it is not considered that any amendment to the recommendation report conditions rises directly from these. In terms of other updates, since the report was published, the agent and myself had correspondence about the wording of some of the conditions to run you through some changes to those conditions. Condition number 15, which relates to biodiversity net gain, has been requested that reference to off-site mitigation be removed completely. Because the biodiversity net gain will be solely on-site. We don't have any objection to this as it's positive change because it guarantees it will all be on-site. A request to amend condition number 28, which relates to cycle parking, and number 29, which is cycle parking specifically for the public users, essentially this is to amalgamate them all under condition 28. It's just moving that wording, essentially, into this new condition so it's a fairly minor amendment. A request was made to amend condition number 42. There was an incorrect reference that I made in terms of the hotel. I think I referred to it as C2 when it should be C1. So just to point out that condition 42, the hotel element would reference C1 instead. A request was made to amend the wording in relation to block A in terms of it only being used. Originally, officers recommended that only being used between ED and EE use classes. It would be requested that a more wider use for this had been sought. However, on this one, officers do not agree at this point because the full spectrum of use class uses within that. Classy may not be appropriate, so we're minded to not go with that amendment, so that element would be staying as is. Finally, as it relates to conditions, drawing number VN212120D105 would be replaced from F to G. This is solely because of a road safety audit work that's been going on the background with local highway authority. There aren't any significant changes to it, but I'm sure either the agent or we have the highway officer on the call would be able to clarify those, but there's no significant changes, but it's just a point of clarification in the conditions where it was to that. So going into the actual application now, so as I'm sure you're aware, Melbourne is situated in the southwest of Cambridge. It's one of the larger villages in the south of Cambridge here. So Melbourne Science Park is located on the eastern edge, where it runs adjacent to Cambridge Road. So this is the extent of the red line, members' purposes, so it's this rectangular block in here covering the existing science park. I'll point out to the northwest there is Project Birchwood, also known as TTP, which is near completion now, I believe, if not already actually occupied, so that is in process. And then we have residential properties to the south, and then to the west is the main part of Melbourne. So just to show you how that looks on an aerial view, obviously this is pre-Project Birchwood coming in, but just to show you an aerial view of how it sits in the landscape. Just to show you the existing photos of the site. Obviously some members were present at the site visits last Wednesday, but typically you've got Da Vinci building, which I think in the 2000s that was built, but otherwise it's a lot of brick buildings, typically two or three stories in scale. The Mote House is currently used as a canteen for the science park. And then here are some more photos, again just showing the standard building types. There are some more industrial shed type buildings with this sort of tower protruding above, for example. So in terms of site constraints, the main ones are that the conservation area runs immediately to the southwest of the site. There's this purple hatched area there. You've got listed buildings to the west here, and you've got this rural factched cottages, for example, along here, which are all listed. The access road through the site leads to Project Birchwood. And then the land to the east is shown in the emerging local plan as a potential employment site, science park expansion and housing allocation, which just to illustrate on this slide is this area of land here. So it's for two and a half hectares of employment in 120 homes. Obviously that is the emerging local plan, which is at a very early stage so it can't be given any significant weight yet. And then this is where Project Birchwood would be. The remaining plan history is largely things like canopies and other extensions, really. So in terms of which buildings have been demolished, which ones retained, a building known as Ash, which would be known as Block A under the proposals, would be retained, as would the Moat House and the Da Vinci building. The remaining buildings would all be demolished. So this is the proposed site plan. I've just shown on here some distances to neighbouring properties which was a request made at the committee site visit, but in the starting in the left-hand side you've got the existing Moat House where my cursor is going here. There would be a hotel extension coming off to the rear and side. There would be quite extensive landscaping works but in this area it would be this village green. It would be the main new addition and the existing flint wall running along here, or part flint wall, would be punched through and creating a permeable roof through. Block A would retain primary existing footprints. They would be refurbished. This would be Block B, which would be largely incubator space. The Da Vinci building would be retained. There would be a wider plant enclosure just along the roof here and then there would be these brits of shading planters installed along the front. They would be explained on the elevation how they work. Block C would be what's known as the gateway building which again is largely more office space and then you've got blocks D, E and F. So this triangle of buildings here would be research and development uses. You've then got the mobility hub in this corner and then like I said there's various other landscaping including creating this wetland area for example, where it walks across the existing pond, the science square, but again I will talk you through all of this shortly. So this is in the report, so I won't go into too much, but it was just to point out in terms of the net difference and the gross increase in floor space. So overall excluding the mobility hub there would be 49,000 gross external area floor space created which is a net increase of just under 29,000 and then if you include the mobility hub that rises to 73,051 or nearly 52,000 respectively. But this is in the report so I'll let you cruise up. So I've got the existing site-wide elevations on the top and then the proposed on the bottom. So in terms of going through the proposals you've got block A here which is facing on to, so we're looking from Cambridge Road which is largely as is, it's changing the walls from brick to timber for example as well as some other external changes. You've then got block B coming in here and then where my cursor is would be the main entrance, existing spine roads that are going through the site leading to Project Birchwood. You've then got block C which is that gateway building I was talking about where it's sort of a triangle footprint where it's got curved edges. You've then got blocks D and E near the corner of the village as it leads out to Cambridge Road. Then looking from the other end almost from that Project Birchwood from the north you've got the mobility hub. So it's adjacent to the hedging and existing boundary treatment along Cambridge Road. Then you've got block F. You've then got the existing Da Vinci building but with a plant enclosure that's a bit wider currently it's split into two parts. As you can see you've got that plant and that plant and then the proposal would be to join that up. You've then got the Mote House hotel extension which is roughly where my cursor is going there coming off the back of the existing Mote House here. Then in terms of the east elevation so looking if you would from that field adjacent to the northeast you've got block E so Cambridge Road running where my cursor is here. You've then got that gap which is the science square and then you've got the rest of the mobility hub. Then looking from the other end on the west side you have the Mote House hotel extensions in here and then block A in the foreground and then block B is in the background to that larger element that's obviously set further back. Then because some of that gets missed out because obviously it's other buildings blocking other buildings it's just to show you so looking from again from the south they're almost from the centre of the side you've got the Mote House Da Vinci building block F and that mobility hub and then looking from the west again sort of looking through the Mote House and block A you've got block B and Da Vinci and then you've got block E here for example so this is looking from the north again that sort of through the mobility hub so you have block E so sort of look at the back of block E and the back of block D back of block C the back of block B and then block A and then finally you've got this one here looking through the eastern section again past block sort of looking through block E but you've got block D and block F so this is a illustrative aerial view of how that would look as a CGI so again the Mote House hotel extension would be here you've got block S in there this would be block B this would be the Da Vinci building this is block C and then you've got block D, E and F in here and then this is the mobility hub there so going through so this is the Mote House proposal so there would be a sort of brick extension in here replacing existing conservatory but other than that largely fenestration changes to the Mote House fairly minor additions and then obviously adding that extension of the back the purpose creating a sort of gastropub hotel then I'll go through landscaping later but there will be this village green here for example so yeah the hotel would have 17 rooms they will be on the first floor you can see here and then beneath that there will be for example a restaurant and then this is the gastropub element and then these are some elevations of how that would look and then this just to give you an idea of the material so the Mote House would stay largely in brick whereas the extension to that would be a combination of flint on the ground floor level with glazing and then above it would have this child timber effect and then with a zinc roof above that and then this is a CGI of how that might look we then have block A which as mentioned you can see in the bottom left here is largely the same footprint it's changing it from brick to timber planning currently adding in green walls and then changing the layout for example you can see this part of the flint wall open there will also be a vehicular access into here as well which I'll get to later and then these are just some additional CGI's how that might look and again the footprint is largely the same in terms of the use it would be indicatively a gym a creche was proposed and is shown on this plan here but you'll probably note at the end of the conditions obviously they permitted development one because there was concerns about the creche use and the number of vehicular movements that would generate so although it says creche on here it wouldn't be in terms of 1 to 2 it would be permitting a creche there would be a physio and a gym as shown for example a dentist use at the upper level and then again that's just showing the timber cladding then move on sorry this will be a long presentation then move on to blocks B the Da Vinci which is the existing block C so in terms of the Da Vinci building the main footprint is unchanged adding in these planting structures to provide a means of solar shading because currently as you'll see in the bottom left corner it's fully glazed on the south facade so this would be actually to address some overheating issues as well as to introduce greenery there will be this moat there will be this walkway it's above the pond and then these are just some further CGIs of how that would look and the floor plan largely as is there will be some co-working spaces office but no significant changes to its use as such in terms of being on the science park and then as I mentioned you've got this plant above currently as I pointed out earlier sort of a gap in between the two it does rise slightly higher and then it's existing so it's not actually taller than existing it's just that it's more continuous and then this is a asked impression of how that might look we then move on to block B so this is adjacent to the entrance so it's immediately west of that entrance there where it goes through so this would be largely as an incubator space as well as providing some office and lab space as well these are just some more CGIs block C in the right hand side there for reference and again just showing its use as described and I'll just include this to point out there would be a terrace at the second floor level and you'll note there's conditions recommended regarding the management use of that and then this is just showing the different material palette across the scheme so you've got aluminium louver systems here for example and then you've got anodised aluminium dark bronze here so to give it a bit of variety and this is showing another facade of it and then this is just how we look in elevation form and then this is a asked impression looking from the north so this is looking at the actual back of the building here we then move on to block C which as described has been designed as a gateway building it will be office and light lab use in here to some further CGIs of that again primarily office use in here and then just showing it in elevation form and then this just shows how that shading fin element across it you'll notice will work and then an artist's impression of how that might look then we've gone to the final element in terms of buildings blocks D, E, F and the mobility hub blocks D, E and F are quite similar in terms of their architectural style and massing for example but we've gone through them so this is just showing the extent of demolition that would be proposed and how the buildings relate to the existing setbacks from the road for example and where existing buildings would be demolished with the proposed elements in the background and then this is at least a view of blocks D and E from Cambridge Road with the existing arrangement you can see here all plans again it's largely a case of office and lab space typically they all have terraces in the small element of them which again would be managed by a way of condition so this is a typical elevation just showing the double height floors for example and the use of a greenery on some of the elevations to break up the massing on the elements facing into the sign square so the rears of blocks D and E are these pavilions which would act as the main entrances for people arriving that way so just to show you block D specifically so this is another view of block D so looking eastwards down Cambridge Road this time so looking away from the bridge in that direction and then this is looking at block E and block F and like I said they will be quite a similar design so these existing buildings for example here would be demolished so this is a view of how I look from that sign square so that we look at the back of block E here for example we then move on to the mobility hub so there will be this large building in here to act as a space for public art that obviously the main purpose of it would be for car parking it's proposed 744 standard bays 44 EV bays and then 34 disabled bays are proposed so 822 spaces in total so these are some examples of how that artwork and lighting might look and this is a view from the northwest of the sides of the back of the mobility hub and then there's not much to see on the floor plans largely a case of you entering at the back and then drive obviously around the various levels and I'll give you a call and then you exit out in this direction to go out onto the new egress onto Cambridge Road and then do some further CGIs as you can see largely a case of aluminium mesh panelling on the outside there will be some small elements so the energy centre which is proposed as you can see here right outside the front it's sort of embedded into the landscaping bank which looks a bit blurry you can see here it's kind of set within a landscaped element there would also be some other elements rather side for example these logistics hubs where bins and would be stored and waste collected from another waste compound in the substation so I'll just try and run through the landscaped areas so you've got this landscape corridor going through the site you've got the central, you've got the village green element for example here this new permeable route this woodland area and then you've got this sort of wetland area and then you've got the sign square so just showing how that's broken down there so again the village green element the moat house would have some courtyard elements to it and then you'd be getting into the woodland area the water and wetland area as it then crosses the road into the sign square and then around the site the proposal is to enhance the landscaping on the edges so just showing that village green again and this is showing the courtyards either side of the moat house it's a great formal setting for that this would be the woodland area which would likely be a case of retaining existing trees and then creating a pedestrian route through you've then got the water and wetland area which is using the existing pond outside Da Vinci and creating a new wetland area with a boardwalk going through to the sign square and then you've got the sign square with a bit more hard landscaping and a space for taxi drop-off for example and the main entrances into each of the blocks and again they would each have these pavilions and then as mentioned for example in the southern boundary to blocks D&E there would be additional landscaping as well as in the northern boundary quite a number of trees 107 trees in total would be removed as a result of the development they're predominantly in category C in category U in terms of tree type so this is just showing where obviously the rent means that trees are going green retain trees and then there would be 285 new trees planted across the site so again much of it going into the boundary elements alongside here for example this is just showing some of the perimeter lighting that is proposed in terms of the lighting for each use pedestrian access again there will be this new route through where the plant wall is and you can obviously walk through the site it's currently publicly accessible and that would be retained cycling there would be again routes into the site from Cambridge Road there would be cycle spaces there for example I've got a cycle parking slide briefly but just to show that it is accessible by cycles so this would be in the bottom left corner here this would be a new vigular ingress only so vehicles going to enter can't exit through this to go around the back of the moathouse and then exit via the existing main entrance there would be this new ingress egress outside block A so this would be a new access point created here then on the right hand side in terms of visitors to the science park they would use the existing Da Vinci car park here and then the taxi route would allow them to exit only onto Cambridge Road through this new access created here employees as I mentioned earlier would access in the moath the Da Vinci hub would come through here and then exit that way so in one loop and then goods and waste would be provided some would be collected for example outside the front of these blocks here so there's 978 total spaces proposed on site predominantly of which 822 of which are in the Da Vinci hub there are also some accessible bays around the site some drop off areas there'll be new parking for block A here some of the moathouse there's currently parking as you will know from the site visit all around here some of this will be retained around the back of the Da Vinci as well so this just to show the anticipated modal splits as anticipated that the majority of people will be arriving by car obviously we can refer back to this later if we need to or not in the discussion and then cycle parking the new blocks would be internal so they each have their own internal cycle stores with shower facilities for example actually within the blocks block A and then the back of the moathouse would have external cycle storage so in the form of an enclosure there would also be some other ones dotted around for example but on the first day of operation there would be 676 bases available and then again this is just showing that servicing arrangement that we touched on now so this is just showing the detail of that new egress onto Cambridge Rose this is the northeast corner of the site where it's exit only it's just showing there'll be this new crossing point in here and then the existing main entrance very dedicated crossing point for pedestrian cyclists here and that's just showing an indicative interface with the emerging greenway scheme a new drop kerb of providers and this would be enter and exit just to note that we have got a condition about these spaces essentially not being used unless further information is provided for a discharge of condition because of the number of cars that would be entering and exiting and that's a result of highway discussions and then this is that new ingress into the moathouse here so that it'll be entry only so you have seen this in the drawing pack so this is the existing view from Cambridge Road so you can see where my mouse is hovering here I've got the existing edge of the science part so this is as existing taken in the summer though not in the winter I thought I'd include this obviously I can't put the pose on this but this was just a photo taken from the site visit we did last week obviously in more of a winter view just to show that where you can see the existing buildings so this is the pose view so this is the block E in here with the mobility hub in the background now that included the rest of the LBI views so this is taken from the north east of the site so the next slide will probably be more helpful so you can see here for example where block E would be you can see the mobility hub where it's just going to be just above this landscaping this tree sorry in here but the rest of the development would be along there and then this is taken from the north along the A10 so again you can see much of the project virtual TTP development is actually already present in this view so it's primarily this mobility hub you can see here rising above which would be the new element you would see and then this is taken from the south east so near the Kingsway Golf Centre there's a footpath and from this view in this season you wouldn't see very much of the development there would still be elements you can see here for example where the orange is shown and so this is more of a townscape view taken from here close so I'll just go back so this is the existing so you can see in here you can't see anything under the proposal you would see the edge of block D I believe it is in here and then this is taken from Russell Way so you can see the existing block B in here and then this is what the proposed would look like so obviously all this additional massing in here and then this is taken from the west from the high street so within the conservation area so this is just showing that largely you wouldn't see the development because it's already obscured by buildings from this angle and then this is from Armingford Crescent so again you would see this element in here where it faces onto Cambridge Road and then this is from Drury Lane so you can see block A is existing there and then because block A is staying as is in the background there would be the Mote House extension element but otherwise that's quite far away and largely there would be much changeless view other than materials used in that block and then this is from the north so from Dickerson so from Mote Lane from to north so again there might be some the very orange line running along the top there a very brief one but otherwise the Mote House would be obscured and the extension is set below that in terms of height so that won't be visible and then this is looking from public footpath and local playing fields from the west again showing that at this season wouldn't be visible and then South Eastwood from the public public footpath on Meldra Station which again this season would be visible and then from the station road bridge where again the development would be obscured by trees in this season and then looking further eastwards north eastwards from Cambridge Road where again this existing hedging would mean that it would largely wouldn't be visible and then this is another view from the A10 so from the north east and again you'll see at the top of the mobility hub in there for example when block E is shown there so I won't talk for reason detail but this is obviously in the report just to point out that section 1.6 contributions are sought as well as non-financial ones relating to the open space being managed and publicly accessible and for block A and the Mote House facilities to be kept open to the public but those are all set out in my report so in terms of the playing balance in terms of possible reasons for refusal going down that route so the landscape team you'll note have raised an objection due to the landscape and visual impact assessment not being in accordance with best practice and the subsequent potential harm to the character and appearance of the area this could cause due to scale and massing there would be a degree of harm from temporary construction process as anticipated the actual process would take approximately 8 to 10 years according to the documentation submitted the quantum of car parking proposed 937 spaces is technically below the standard sought by policy TI3 which would require 1663 spaces in terms of material considerations weighing in approval is considered by officers that the principle of development is acceptable in terms of policy E12 it's been for a series of pre-application discussions and it's been to the design review panel the urban design and conservation teams have not identified any harm to the character and appearance of the area or any heritage assets there will be significant economic benefits for delivery of approximately 27,500 net additional research and development floor space which will create about 530 new jobs on site and then 1,860 jobs in the wider sub region with an approximate gross value added of 32 million pounds per annum there will be moderate social benefits from financial contributions towards local infrastructure improvements to the range of hotel and community facilities in the area and those landscape and permeability improvements there will be moderate environmental benefits through the reuse of previously developed lands embodied carbon and enhancements to operational sustainable performance there will also be an uplift of 44% by reversing net gain on site the temporary harm identifier is considered to be dealt with by way of planning conditions and again the concept of car parking has been justified by travel survey data and there is no objection from the transport assessment team so the officer recommendation is one of approval sub to two conditions section minus six agreement and just before I sign off chair just say we've got a few members of the few consultees present on the call should we wish to refer to them but I'll refer to them as and when as I'm conscious of the amount of time I've taken to do that presentation but thank you Thank you Michael Do we have any questions of clarification Councillor Hanley? Thank you for that Mr Hammond Could you take us back to view eight please? Yeah Now that's the one that my ears prick till back what is that building can you tell, you may have said I didn't miss it Yeah so based on the way it's looking it would be block D this one here so there would be block C that gateway building which is quite distinctive would be roughly where my cursor is going block D is in this approximate location and block E is meet next to it so based on that I think it's block D or block E block E sorry Yeah Okay thank you Councillor Heather Ward When it comes to you've got different slides and some show that there'll be quite a big large visual impact others show next to nothing Could you just outline us how it is with affordable housing in relation to the areas where there's the most impact is that affecting more affordable housing? Breach I'm not quite sure in terms of affordable housing because there's an employment scheme sorry maybe I'm misinterpreting it so the houses that are around we must have an idea if they are privately owned or affordable housing Thanks for clarifying in terms of how we'd consider things like residential meanty impact in terms of if it hasn't overbearing impact or would cause overlooking it'll be treated exactly the same whether it's a private house or for example one that's for affordable housing there's no distinction between how you treat residential meanty impacts Councillor Hawkins Thank you chair I have a few questions The Cresch why was that removed? It's largely as a result of highways comments so I think the concern was that with a Cresch you can have a lot of pick up and drop off and if you because of the amount of parking proposed the highways were concerned that it might need to offsite parking for example so people pulling up on Cambridge Road and potentially dropping kids off picking them up on Cambridge Road which poses a threat to highway safety so if you want we do have Chris Green on the call from the local highway authority if you'd like him to expand I want him to expand because it's I mean there's going to be a lot of young families people who work on the site and I know for a fact there are times when one has to go and connect the kids from somewhere there was a childcare facility on the site which is what we try and encourage we know we don't have enough childcare facilities in the district and we're taking facilities off why? Hello, good morning, my name is Chris Green I work for Cambridge County council highways development management and as Michael alluded to I made some comments with respect to the car parking spaces in general that are serving blocks A and B the concern at a time when the initial proposals came in was with respect to the design of the access is somewhat different to the other three that are proposed this is going to be the vehicles are going to be crossing on a dropped crossing affair which basically means that vehicles sorry can you hear me? Yes we can hear you what does that mean? A drop crossing basically a drop crossing is a similar arrangement that you would have say for a private residence so if you want to access your own house at home you have a drop crossing across the footway or verge so this is a different design to the other three designs that Michael showed insofar as that the priority for the non motorised users and the shared surface users of pedestrians and cyclists they have the right of way instead of vehicles exiting the site so in other words what the highway authority were looking at here was basically to ensure that this access is more lightly used so per se we were not against the crash or any other particular individual business being on site it was just a number of car parking spaces and the number of vehicle movements across a drop curb which could lead to an increased conflict with non motorised users I'm sorry that does not seem like a good enough reason to remove a crash facility from a site that's going to have lots of parents of young children the recommendation for the local highway authority was not to remove any particular business it was just a number of car parking spaces available I don't agree with what's happened but there we go, my next question thank you very much it still doesn't seem reasonable to me the public art is an electronic form of public art how was that determined that it had been something more real like a sculpture or something like that through you chair it might be I think Dr Bonnie Quock is on the call who will be advising because we'll have a condition about public art so the image that I've shown which I'm practically trying to get up here it's just an example of what it could look like I know Dr Quock did I think there was a similar example I can't quote the scheme now which I think which I think was where this was derived from but that's not to say that this is the final solution it could change but Bonnie are you on the call I don't know if you're able to elaborate on public art opportunities perhaps within the scheme yes Michael thank you chair can you hear me yes we can so this is just a public art proposal and it actually proposes three areas for public art based on visibility and also integrity and also the objective of enhancing the public realm quality not just for the staff and visitors but also for the local community now we've worked with Jason Bruges a very famous international artist on the Cambridge Science Park project and he just happened to have a really good working relationship with the architect Shephard Robson and they through many collaborations they have suggested Jason Bruges to come up with a proposal to to come up with proposals for these three key areas and the facade that you see with the Y which is related to the DNA which is part of the science is the science element of the park it is just a proposal at this stage but it's just an indicative drawing to show how that could potentially look like at night time it doesn't have to be white it doesn't have to be light but it's just a proposal and Dr Hawkins in relation to your idea of sculpture absolutely so there is actually a proposal for a sculpture to be placed in front of the Da Vinci building and on top of that there is the breadcrumbs approach which means a series of art pieces across the park but we would be very happy to work with you in the local community should the application be approved at this charge of condition stage thank you thank you for your answer that's satisfactory my next question if I may chair Village Grim it's not in the village is it why has it been called Village Grim I think that might be just the way the apricot is calling for example it is technically speaking we are in the village still I think it's the element of giving back to the community the spirit behind it it might be a question for the apricot nation who are also speaking today perhaps the writer of the name thank you you said some trees are being removed and what categories category C any predominantly category C in category U there is a small amount of what are those categories sorry category U is essentially a tree that is on its last legs of every turn but it's in a very poor condition and it's unlikely to be around much longer category C is I think it's a moderate quality it's definitely in my report sorry low quality sorry category B I should go right in front of me so 19 category B trees which are trees of moderate quality are to be removed 47 category C trees which are trees of low quality are to be removed and then 9 category U which are called unretainable condition are to be removed as well so there are trees that would be removed obviously our tree officer is satisfied with the ones that are being removed but then there's more that's going to be um grown around the site they'll be replaced there'll be an uplift in total trees on site so the proposal would plant 285 new trees so they'll actually be as a result of this there'll be 506 trees on the site so yeah thank you yes I do not agree with that reasoning for the crash it's a community facility should not have been removed on any circumstance councillor Sanford back to the planning balance ok thank you I've got two questions regarding the third bullet point 530 new jobs on site is that 530 total or is that 530 over and above existing jobs on site and also when did these numbers come from I wouldn't have thought we could estimate anywhere close to these numbers without knowing the business of the companies that are leasing on site it might be a lot less than this it might even be more through you chair the 530 will be additional jobs about existing as of how these figures were arrived at again saffles as well as being the planning agent also offered the economic report present here today and will be speaking so it might be a big opportunity to perhaps ask that to them in terms of where those figures were derived from thank you thank you councillor Heather Williams thank you chair I'm just looking at the condition 37 which relates to parking because parking I think is going to be quite a key theme to this application our officers confident that the wording of this really does enable the monitoring to be able to step in if parking becomes a problem because if I refer scrolling back to page 58 we can definitely see that there is an issue in relation to parking I I do kind of get to a stage where I think why do we bother having parking ratio policies and the like because there always seem to be told don't worry it'll be fine it's a huge difference on page 59 absolutely huge I get we don't want people to use a car but how on earth does that make sense and then with that situation we have to really make sure that condition is ridiculously robust in order to be able to stop issues for residents I'm sorry to put you on the spot there but I think it's going to be a key point thank you for you chair if I just go back to this slide that I did briefly go over in my presentation chair my question is around the conditioning I appreciate you've got your slide sorry just to go back on the difference in the numbers as well sorry the reason why for example a strict interpretation of that policy would say the 1600 figure and it's different it's because based on the travel plan data that we've already got for example what was used on that typically 80% would be arriving by car so that would reduce that 1600 number down a bit so it won't be the whole way and then through other measures it's anticipated that would come down another 5% so just to provide some background to where that has arisen from but in terms of the condition wording for 37 I think you'll recall we had a similar discussion on Orchard Park I think it was last month about this wording the wording we've used is the same style as wording is that which I think members agree was a bit more robust than the generic wording so we have tried to go for the more robust wording but there is a clause in there about monitoring for I think it's 5 years and one of the criteria so in terms of the effect obviously I can only really I can't really comment much more on that but sorry so normally these things get opened in phases right so is this 5 years of the whole site being built out or 5 years from opening because in my mind until the site is fully opened you're not going to really know what the consequences are it's just we don't want the clock starting building and you said about from the existing management plan obviously that this says that management plan would have to be signed off so what weight your 20, 25% what planning weight does it really have so going to your first point about the condition in terms of when that applies criteria 5 in Roman numerals currently says 5 years following first occupation now having listened to your points there it might be prudent to perhaps reword that so that it's 5 years following last occupation or final occupation or something like that to ensure that it's satisfied because I agree that given the phasing proposed that might leave us in a difficult position so I think the conditions but we don't we don't want it to not start until then so it would be monitoring go ahead monitoring from first occupation until 5 years post last occupation otherwise you create a gap between thank you chair thank you councillor dr Patrick redrop thank you chairs looking at the planning balance as well and the reason for refusal was the landscape team objection and the visual impact assessment not being in accordance with best practice how usual that is for a large large development of this kind and if it makes it more difficult for us to make the judgement for you chair Emma lily on the call I think she's still on the call I'm looking at the screen there she is it might be perhaps useful for her to come in and just sort of explain what typically happens in terms of best practice guides and where this doesn't quite lie and then perhaps we can get onto that as a second point in terms of how to treat that but Emma is it okay if you're able to expand on that please hi of course thank you chair so particularly the photography and the visual representation of development isn't in accordance with the landscape institute's technical guidance note on visual representation of development proposals and this has made it quite difficult to judge what the significance of the effect is likely to be some of the information that we're missing is whether the views are verified they're not presented in the standard way that would inform us on what the zoom level is so are we seeing an effect that is a small element in the distance or is it in fact in reality a much bigger element because of the way the camera focal length work etc so that's what's made it quite difficult typically we would expect winter photography and very robust photographic sheets as well as a dedicated plan showing the viewpoint locations in relation to things such as public footpaths and other publicly accessible places and that's not being provided and particularly in a development of this scale that's very important for us to make that judgement so that is where this PBIA, Townscape and Visual Impact assessment falls short does that answer your question? I'm not sure I fully understand but thank you I just wonder if they chosen the sort of area of the sites that you would choose would that be lacking as well? I think to a large extent the viewpoints that we would choose have been included I think we would have included one more and we would have hoped that that consultation would have happened over the scoping period of the application but generally they have covered the areas it's more the quality of the photography and the visualisation that isn't clear and robust Okay, thank you Councillor Hampton Well thank you chair actually my point is very much related to Councillor Redrop's and the points just made by Mr Lily because we saw pictures photographs and I couldn't really hear perhaps part from one I couldn't really see any that gave me big cause for concern but if we can't rely on them as being the real deal that bothers me because if you live in parts of Melbourne and one day you've got a huge building that you weren't expecting to see I'll be very uncomfortable doing that and I'm just wondering whether or not we've given this enough we've explored it enough the other question I would have is of those trees that are screening on those photographs are any of those going to be removed by this project we're losing a lot of trees some of those might actually go so they'll be even more visible from the village I'll have a go at the answer chair in terms of that last point there with me I'll get the tree and move a plan up but the actual trees along the boundary to be retained but let me just get the actual tree and move a plan to show you that there with me I think it's coming through so gone back a slide now there we go so the trees actually along the boundary here the ones in green for example shown to be retained within the site but they're not really substantial the substantial planting along here is to be retained and then you can see them on the proposed plan there wouldn't be much there isn't really opportunities for much more on that boundary so there's some pros on the other boundaries but in terms of new planting but those trees are shown to be retained on that point in terms of your other question which I think is more about perhaps not having all that information that's been requested by landscape now obviously there's a degree of timing with this the application was submitted in a believable sort of March, April time so when the application came in it didn't come with winter views for example they've obviously been I think the landscape team I'll be fair in saying in their own comments said the knowledge you won't be able to get winter views right now because although we've gone through winter now this was targeted for probably a late autumn determination so there was never going to be that opportunity to get the winter photography as such but all I would say is that I think in a perfect world and desirable I think it would be quite good perhaps to have that reassurance that verificability but we haven't so we're in the position that we are we've got urban design are comfortable making recommendations that they feel that wouldn't have a detrimental impact same with conservation for example and we've come to the view as you're reading the report that on balance we think we've got enough information to make the judgement that it wouldn't harm the character and appearance of the area so we very much have to assess what we've been presented with it's best practice and it's guidance in terms of what would be good to have but there's not a strict requirement as such if we felt we really needed it officers, we would say so but I think we're comfortable making that recommendation with the information providers Cathloredd, do you want to say any more asking for an upgrade on that Yes please, thank you for showing this Mr Hammond this mentions trees, I just wonder what the consequences of the proposal are on the hedge that's at the front of the development on Cambridge Road and if that's being retained or if that's coming out sorry I'm not quite sure, I can see it on this diagram Just come back so is that because there's a hedge road that runs actually if I go to the I'll be easier to go to the viewpoints actually is it this hedge here you're referring to Sorry, yes I believe it goes towards the entrance way the current entrance way Just seeing if it's I think it extends slightly, I mean I have seen a plan that did show a hedge on there I don't know whether the existing hedge would be retained but there was a plan showing a there's one plan that showed it without obviously we've got the boundary treatment of landscape conditions that we could either require a new hedge or retaining that hedge so we do have that to fall back on the such but I'd probably find the slide of it on but yeah, it's Thank you Councillor Richard Williams Thank you chair, just two points hopefully easy to deal with but picking up on things we've just talked about so given what we heard from one of the technical consultees earlier about these photographs just from my own clarity am I understanding it correctly then that because of information that's not been provided we can't be sure from those photographs that what's represented is actually what will be seen because as we all know sometimes when you take a photograph a photograph comes out and it looks significantly further away than it in that look in real life so is my understanding correctly that we can't be sure actually that there isn't a sort of distorting distance effect because the information are provided and I think this might have just been answered by Mr Hammond but that seems very important to me and if we don't have certainty what the visual impact of this development is can we reasonably make a decision on it today without that information it seems old to me that we would I'll come back on the on the first point I might ask Emma, Lily again perhaps just to clarify the the differences and what perhaps a verified view would what that would entail might be helpful in the meantime whilst Emma's answering that I might ask Vanessa or Rebecca if they can come back on the other point about the information provided and whether we can make a decision but Emma if you want to crack on with the first point thank you Hello thank you chair that's absolutely correct yes so a verified view would determine the location and the height of the camera to a very small error margin and then that would allow the computer generated visualisation to be accurately represented in the view as well as then those visual distortions that can occur when we don't know to what level or what zoom basically we're looking at when we're looking at the pdf on our screens are we looking at it at 100% zoom to see what we would see in real life on the site or are we zooming in further we don't have that information to make that judgment on typically on a photographic sheet you would have that information in a title bar so that you could basically recreate that view with a decree of certainty if you needed to and that's what the comfort is in a verifiable view that we don't currently have thank you very helpful very helpful thank you councillor Heather Williams thank you chair so I think obviously it's up to us if we think we've got enough information to determine this application I appreciate you say for officers but and I think it's quite clear from how some councillers have spoken that many feel they do not have the appropriate level of information to make a decision could officers advise us how we would stand if we were to make a decision to defer in order to gain that information how are we on timelines can I just clarify the information that you would be requesting would be winter views which would mean photographs no spring so it would be November December I can just clarify that would be the timeline I understand it was to do with the focal length of the camera that was used the normal equivalent that I've been told for a human vision is a sort of 50mm lens that comes out roughly like you would see in a human vision we don't know the focal length of the cameras used and that so we don't use telephoto lens it makes it seem larger and use a wide angle lens to make it smaller than what you would see in real life Apologies chair I thought I was being asked about getting the additional views and the additional information rather than just the zoom information I think the issue has been raised with verified views I mean it does feel quite wintery at the moment but that aside the verified views and what's being raised here but it's how are we on that time what is the agreed determination dates etc if we were to defer or is how long would it take to get this information are we talking 10-15 minutes or a week I think in terms of obtaining that information I'd imagine it's really seeking to take at least a few weeks probably months I don't think it's just a quick fix I wouldn't take 10-15 minutes for example so obviously we'd want the landscape officer to then look at that information again confirm they're verified for example if you were minded to acquire it so no I think I don't know Beck if you were to touch on whether we were looking at a potential defer or not for that information I think our feeling probably not was the answer but I'll let you I would suggest that we wait and see what the public speakers say I can I ask Amalili again whether my interpretation of what you the comments were she sees that as accurate I made a comment and I'm not the expert hello thank you chair yes that's correct that's part of what we are thinking and certain those very verified views would be a key component and there is allowance in the guidance for summer photography in circumstances where the project constraints mean that winter photography can't be obtained in terms of additional photography now anything that basically is before leaf burst would be of benefit so we're probably talking going into late April maybe May where we could still get sufficient kind of permeability through the vegetation to get a good view of the worst case scenario which is the aim of the photography so as Emma's confirmed if we could get additional photography in April May then obviously the applicant would have to put the wireframes on to those photographs submit to us we would then have to consult with Emma so if we were asking for that additional information it would be much later in the year I'd say a month, six months before we could get the information back to committee strictly speaking the extension of time is I believe until next week technically but if obviously there was a recommendation to approve today they were the greeting extension of time obviously but technically the as stands we've only got to next week to determine the application thank you I'd like to welcome to welcome students from Japan planning students from Japan who are visiting us today we're in the middle of considering an application for a new lab lab development rebuilding a lab at a state in Melbourne a village which is about 10 miles from Cambridge and discussing the quantities on landscape issues now I've got some questions a question as well in terms of comments on landscape issues as I, the impression I get that most of the landscape comes from the north north east of the site from the residents and yet the implications from the punctures are good or bad as they may be is that the biggest impact is from the south in terms of visual impact in terms of though we saw those developments on the along Cambridge road did we have many objections from the south to that impact the impact of the visual impact rather than the overshadowing I get the impression that the comment was made that there's no actual sunlight impact on this thank you chair so obviously there were comments from residents along the south of Cambridge road and those side roads that come off it there were objections some of them did relate to the scale and massing of it obviously there's a slightly different arena from design and impact to what an overbearing impact is I think if I refer back actually I had that slide but it was roughly 35 meters or more the distance from those properties so as much as yes it will be visible I don't think we'd say it has an overbearing or a pressing impact on them because of that distance that was our feeling perhaps Emily could comment on the photos that we saw were basically set back some way into that estate so rather than do you have any photographs right close to Cambridge road upon the impact there and how would you see the impact closer quarters thank you chair we don't have any images closer to Cambridge road I think the generally the level of impact these receptors has been assessed as moderate yes at the moment they sit quite comfortably in the building line but at the same time they remove some of the openness and views of skies and vegetation that you currently have so you could only it would probably be viewed as an adverse effect and I think probably some views closer on Cambridge road would have been useful as they would have been an additional one to the north east of the site where a footpath meets Cambridge road it's very difficult to say whether the impacts would be increased or not without that evidence thank you councillor halloween would you have further I think it would be good to get some advice because we're in a ridiculous situation where we don't feel we've got the information that we need to make a decision but we've only got a week so then where do we stand what are our options right now because this does feel a bit like hands tied behind our backs councillor Fenn chairman I would urge that we don't get hung up on what we've got to say as the landscape institute says in its guidance this does not provide a detailed or formulaic recipe that can be followed in every situation it remains the responsibility of the professional to ensure the approach is appropriate to the task in hand we will be hearing from the public speakers on this and we can come back later in the debate if we want to I think it would be helpful to move forward can we have comments from my manager I was also just going to add in that obviously we brought the scheme as presented as it is in front of you if members are concerned that they don't have sufficient information there's obviously the opportunity to overturn the officer's recommendation and refuse on the grounds of insufficient information to be able to determine for particular reasons such as impact on the character of the landscape councillor Harvey you've had a call yes thank you chair I was quite surprised in a way that there isn't more mentioned in the report around the sort of shift in the focus of what will be the new science part because my understanding is it will kind of be a shift away from telecoms and radiofrequency more towards biotech and therefore I was looking at the water I mean it's quite impressive that with the increase in floor space the water usage is being reduced but on the other hand I suppose you know is that predicated on the existing use or because my understanding is you know biotech with sort of wet labs compared to telecoms development would use more water so I sort of wondered if is there any more information we can have on how that's being achieved because it seems like it's quite an impressive sort of aggregate reduction in water given the change of focus in terms of occupancy through you chair I was hoping Tracy Martin our sustainability officer would be in today but I can confirm that a lot of that reduction is for example due to things like the phasing of the development so the way the development would be phased ie it wouldn't be a sudden stop and then the whole new development they're introduced that without meaning to pass back again I'm mindful I could see one of the agents who's going to be speaking later was quite involved in that water report so it might be useful perhaps for a question for him I'm happy to look at the detail as well to make sure we've got it covered but you might be able to answer it a lot better than I can Councillor Redwell and then I think we'll move on to the next stage Thank you chair I just had a couple of questions on conditions if that's okay there's a few buildings with planting down the side of them shown in the drawings and I just wondered if that greenery is covered by condition and if it needs to be retained in perpetuity there's sort of a five year limit I was also wondering about the timing of the section 106 because it says for a lot of the items preoccupation and I just wondered what that meant in terms of a long term phase delivery over eight to ten years I also wondered about parking for the community regions like the hotel the restaurant and building A is there any provision for a EV charging parking space is there and should there be a quintaur policies and then for building A I just wondered if if that's the whole of building A that's being used for community use or if it's part and if that should be specified Thank you For you chair so in terms of the greenery and securing that we do have condition 18 I think criteria D for example requires the long term maintenance of that to be submitted so we do have that to require that if it helps we could always and for example there's criteria B on it which is where if a period of five years from planting it dies it needs to be replanted etc so I think we've got it covered if it helps we could always add an informative that when submitting the information it should include details of the boundaries like you said in terms of the I'll go for the EV charging next there is a condition so I'm trying to look through my report to find it but there was a condition of electric charging because from my calculations there were one short we could adapt that condition because I think it's a good point you raised Councillor Redbrough that it is quite focused it's condition 23 I'm looking at now it's quite focused on the mobility hub so I do wonder whether we could amend the trigger point and the wording of that condition so that it also covers for example the moathouse and the community use in terms of the provision of some sort of electric charging for that because I think it's a fair point that's quite focused on employees and that there is a lot of other elements in the scheme that haven't got it so if members were minded we could amend condition 23 to include that in terms of the building A uses obviously in section 6 we're planning to include a mechanism that they retain public accessibility as we had a discussion today obviously it was shared as a crash originally but we've got a gym, physio, a dentist shown on the plan there is that condition towards the end of the report sorry I haven't got the exact number which talks about what can be used within that in terms of the use classes 42 be important to you now so as far as we're concerned there the community aspect is quite well secured I'm not sure if that fully answers your question but feel free to come back if it doesn't and in terms of the section minor 6 timing what's said in the report is obviously a because the section minor 6 as we know will be drafted a lot of that will come down to detail to be drafted and delegated to officers I think it will be a case that we would want those prior to occupation uses secured it would all depend a bit on which block they relate to so I haven't really got the exact when that comes in whether it's prior to first occupation of all buildings or certain ones but typically that does come to officers a bit later in the process if you had a concern again we could add either informative or officers could note that if there was any preference of how certain elements came forward we could always secure it that way so thank you sorry Castle Redwick you're finished yes thank you Castle Wilson I'm just wondering about the naming of the car park as a mobility hub does that have any other significance is it used for anything else or will it just be a car park I'll come back technically speaking on the ground floor there is a small element for renting bikes so repairing bikes for example so it would predominantly be used as a means of car parking but there would be a rental bike zone within there so it's more just a name really but yeah I have one final question and then I'll move on the comment was made about the loss of the trash and it will be used in the facility and the reason for that was because you didn't want people coming delivering children to the crash and there would be a loss of traffic would it be possible to restrict access to that car parking space simply to people working in the building rather than clients because that might seem to me to solve the problem obviously we can't insist that they have a crash but at least that would make it perhaps a feasible possibility in future because in practice we don't know what actually is going to be presented with the potential use in those buildings sorry chair, just looking at the conditions as we've currently got we've got I thought there was some sort of parking management plan or something to that effect sorry I haven't got it right in front of me but in terms of whether those spaces could be used specifically for staff car parking or not edition 37 yes because the travel plan and the parking management plan together so through that we could for example because criteria 2 or II in Roman numerals is how the car parking spaces are distributed and allocated to the employees of the site so within that we'd have the scope to potentially say these are for staff only if you were minded if that's how you felt I wasn't sure if there was a second question now I'm not sorry you've covered what I was asking now I plan to finish around at 1.30 but I was hoping that we were going to do it all this morning but clearly I don't think we're going to now so I will just ask for you from now on the next beginning of the public speaker can we have the object of William Webb do you have three minutes and I will stop it will exceed three minutes just so you know thank you and good afternoon I was speaking on behalf of the residents of Mote Lane known as the science park neighbourhood group and supported here by Annette Myers we've also uploaded a short paper to the portal should you want to look at it in more detail we understand the need to update the science park some of us work there we're not opposed to the development this is the scale of the development so we'll be happy to see existing buildings replaced with buildings of similar size but this is not the case critically one and two story buildings are being replaced with three story buildings with the SARS extending to a fourth story over 18 metres high these will be the tallest buildings not only in Melbourne but for miles around they would hugely overshadow our homes and overlook our gardens and dwarf the residential buildings some of which are grade 2 listed it would be a dramatic change to the village street scene and I wonder if that is sympathetic to a Cambridgeshire village and indeed we've been looking at projections visual projections none of them show what it's going to look like from our houses or our back gardens and it's understandable why because with a building of over 18 metres tall a few tens of metres from our house the impact is going to be staggering and we would like to see those kind of projections any further planning can go ahead because I think you have inadequate evidence in terms of what that sort of visual impact is going to be to the people who live right close beside the science park and the mitigating measures such as planting tall trees will put us further into shadow and we've talked a bit about the living facade but we do have our doubts that it soon becomes a dying facade and more of an eyesore than a help in protecting us visually we've also found to our cost from the new development that lights at night are very intrusive lights at 15 metres or more on the first story of these buildings will be left on all night just as they are on the Birchwood site right now removing any chance of dark skies from where we live we've heard that nearly a thousand car parking spaces are proposed for the site that's more than the Grand Arcade car parking Cambridge really along with the 400 parking spaces recently added to the Birchwood site that's 1400 and we thought that that's inadequate there's going to be a multi-story car park in a village setting is that sympathetic to the village and these cars have to travel through Melbourne which already struggles badly in term time during peak hours a thousand extra vehicles means that gridlock is unavoidable in the village to conclude we're not Nimbus we understand and accept the need to modernise the science park but it should be with buildings of equivalent footprint to the ones that are already there not buildings that are going to be the tallest for miles around there are other ways of delivering the space needed than building upwards we urge the committee to look closely at why such huge buildings are needed and whether there are better options more in keeping with the residential village we love living in Melbourne but we fear for the future thank you do we have any questions for the objectives thank you councillor doctor thank you chair and through you thank you for your presentation I mean I was recently at the TTP site and actually won an award two weeks ago the CFCI award but I was interested to hear your comment about the light pollution from it how bad is it I don't know we're 24 seven all the properties along the back we're long standing residents so we have a relationship between us having a fact that all installed white black out blinds despite the low level lighting it being LED lighting etc for the modern day it's on constantly 24 seven we've looked at interest at the lighting plan for this development and it seems extensive throughout the site currently it's predominantly dark at night but this shows a comprehensive lighting plan I have no doubt that it will glow just like the TTP one does from the A10 now thank you that's interesting because the TTP site is not as high as this building no it's very sympathetic to the skyline whereas obviously this is tremendous it's something that's maybe more in keeping with the science park development in Cambridge as opposed to a small southern village in our view thank you have we any other questions of it thank you very much indeed oh wait I I just wanted to ask your group of residents are they mainly from the moat lane area north of the site or are they also from the area south of Cambridge they're from the moat lane site all the way along yes thank you very much okay have one more speaker and then when we will have the agent speaking and then after the agents we will have a break before the electric representative speak okay thank you Paul Rowland a sharing with Josh Stokes in person from the agents can we have your presentation between you we are again restricted to three minutes presentation thank you very much very good thank you my name is Paul Rowland I'm here to speak for the applicant Bruntwood Psytec whose ambition is to provide fully supported high quality office and laboratory space at Melbourne Bruntwood Psytec are long term asset holders and managers and as such they have been securing a highly adaptable and appropriate development to this end we've engaged positively with the parish council, local community and your officers and made changes for the scheme over the last two years the current park is ageing and whilst well maintained most of the building stock is no longer fit for purpose in terms of current and future needs for life science occupiers now that TTPs vacated the park is unlikely to be the demand from high quality occupiers given the relative age and inflexibility of the accommodation it's likely that unless there is significant investment and renewal of the built infrastructure that the car park will fall into a managed decline a decision to refuse this application would not therefore maintain the status quo rather it would signal the future decline of the site the proposals involve a significant element of replacement buildings and the more efficient use of the site through the rationalisation of car parking which allows the enhancement of the existing parkland setting and the introduction of new village green, larger high quality and beautiful buildings overall this allows an increase in the quantum of floor space on the site whilst retaining and reinforcing the attractiveness of the currently mature landscape crucially it allows for the development to become more environmentally efficient addressing biodiversity, energy and water scarcity targets whilst also respecting the character of the location at the edge of the village given the brownfield nature of the site we believe this opportunity is consistent with the council's aspirations for sustainable growth and the strategy to ensure the necessary development of business parks to fuel the economic engine for growth in South Cambridgeshire a scheme delivering less floor space would not be viable the officers thorough report has identified all of the material considerations to be taken into account along with the views of statutory consultees and we're pleased to note that none has been identified that would warrant the refusal of the application whilst we respect the opinions of those parties that address you today no new issues have been raised and the officers assessment and recommendation having been prepared in full knowledge of those matters remains relevant the collective vision of both Bruntwood SciTech and their design team is for the park to become a globally recognised world class campus where research, commercialisation life science innovation and manufacturing come together to improve the future of human health well-being and business within the established village and wider science cluster and we ask you to support this objective by resolving to grant planning commission today thank you Welsh, do we have questions? Councillor Samford please Thank you chair. Mr Rowland apart from provision of cycle parking I've seen nothing about sustainable travel in any of these presentations for example Grout of Park which is a well-regarded science park in South Cambridgeshire provides shuttle bus for its employees between the site Cambridge station and Cambridge city centre will you make any commitment to sustainable travel to and from this site please Thank you chair. I think you'll see there's conditions in the proposed recommendation in relation to travel plan development the thing about there certainly is a commitment to sustainable travel and to diverting people away from reliance on private cars and in part that's part of our story because otherwise we would need to be providing a lot more car parking on space on site so the proposals will evolve, there is a commitment to a travel plan champion and the commitment to a travel plan strategy it will evolve depending on the type of occupiers and the pace at which the development takes place we have started to look at shuttle buses, linkages through to the station what's going to happen when the greenway is developed how much more, how much harder we can push towards cycle and other means so yes there is that commitment from the company Mr Rowland when you're planting trees have you some idea of the development of the trees that you'll be planting and how long it will take them to provide effective screening will they be very young trees or will they be more mature trees that you're planting on the site Chair there's been a lot of detailed work on the proposed landscape arrangements the specification and typology of trees and the preparation of the ground to ensure that what goes in gets established and becomes effective quickly building on what Mr Hammond said the big trees at the boundaries of the site are all preserved as part of this development so we're not relying on new trees to create that context for the site a lot of the trees are to be planted within and around the new public areas within the site but yes we've been discussing in detail with your councils, landscape officers how to prepare the soil and what plants and tree types and sizes to select there'll be a range on day one that goes in small because they grow quicker bigger because you can see something early on and a range but twist in between Thank you I just wanted to, before we continue the questions, I wanted to ask the parish council representative Councillor Travis whether he can stay on whether he has any problems staying on so you say it's okay is it? Yes Thank you very much, I wanted to give you time before lunch or not Thank you very much Thank you, Councillor Harvey More information on my previous question are the water consumption figures based on a switch more towards life sciences and biotech and away from comms and radio frequency or the actually based on circulation from the existing uses I know that Josh Stokes has been itching to answer that question and here he is Josh Stokes from Shepard Robson Josh Stokes from Shepard Robson Architects so the water addendum that we submitted it was based on the BRES Bream Water 1 calculator so the methodology that we went through and this was a multidisciplinary report it was ourselves the civil engineer, landscape designer and also the public health engineer and what happened is we assessed the existing water consumption on the site through metered data where metered data wasn't available we made an estimate based on the size of units or the use that was in that building and then doing that we had an existing consumption target and then we've applied best practice using the water 1 calculator what the proposed consumption will be at each stage of the development so we've tracked all the stages to make sure that other than a tiny period at the start we are throughout the development actually making a saving on water which we hope in some way will contribute to resolving the scarcity issue that's in Cambridge at the moment thank you can I just have another question well I suppose the point was has the water consumption specifically taken into account the shift towards life sciences and therefore wet labs and away from electronics which we imagine is a very low water consumption so that's the question yes they are so the water consumption estimate that's been provided assumes the new typology of use, the wet lab use okay councillor Bill Handley thank you chair through you a question about is there any possibility I get to your your message about viability and the need to retain floor space but is there any scope to reduce the height of some of these buildings I'm looking in particular at block F and the car part mobility hub seem to me to be the biggest massing on the site is there any possibility of reducing the height of these whilst still maintaining viability I think I'd start with a sub-answer which is we are satisfied with the massing and scale of the proposals that we've put to you in general terms we became aware quite early on in our consultations with the parish council and with the local residents that there were concerns about the massing and the height of the buildings and we did look carefully to see what we could do and the plans have changed those taller buildings have moved further away from the edges of the site so they're not so close to people and Josh would probably tell you next that areas of the upper floors have been removed or set back or staggered so that the shape and appearance of the buildings is more sudden so that has all happened I might get a question about LVIA in a minute which would be a joy but staying on the actual subject the requirements functional requirements for these new buildings have established floor to ceiling heights which it would be pointless to reduce because we would not then be able to attract the sort of people and the sort of businesses that we want to attract to those buildings the cost of putting up that sort of stuff has requirements that flow through the viability and therefore you have to achieve a certain amount of lettable floor space in order for the whole thing to be realistic at all and the net result is this scale and appearance is the least we believe we can do and still deliver a viable development and get a board to say yes we'll pay for it thank you so you're saying sorry Roland is saying that there's no scope perhaps to reduce the height by actually going underground save with the car park so we have a unique geology to this site which means that the water table is quite high in the ground it's impacted some of our sub-strategies we're also targeting ambitious embodied carbon targets which means excavating earth underground is not permissible really so we want to try and keep things to the existing ground plane and as Paul alluded to making the architecture beautiful filtering views where we need to through landscape enhancement but yeah excavation wasn't an option for us thank you councillor Tumi Hawkins thank you very much and through you, thanks Mr Roland for your presentation yes you've heard our concerns about the LVI so what information can you give us an addition please I think the first thing to say is it's frustratingly it's not in addition the LVI documentation that was presented states in terms that all the photography has been carried out in accordance with the landscape technical guidance notes it is with fixed 50mm lenses it is with tripods it is done by a professional photographer it is then verified and what you see is what you would have got if we'd done it the way your advisor is saying we should have done it because that is what we've done the only thing we haven't done is take those pictures when there were no leaves on the trees so where you see those images with the faint lines and you think well we can't even see those above the trees that is a true image that is scoping the extent and appearance of the outline of the buildings if the trees didn't have leaves on yes you would be able to discern more of the buildings below and behind the crowns of those trees the issue with LVI is it is supposed to help you to understand the impact of the development it's not a tick box requirement unless you've done a proper LVI you can't have planning permission it is to help you and I generally believe that the information that's in that document allows you to understand where you would need to be to be able to see the buildings and how much of the buildings you would be able to see from that point if you were looking really hard all the viewpoints were agreed first of all with your landscape consultant so it's a bit difficult for us to sit here and be told it would have been nice to have another one from here and another one from there we should have been told that 18 months ago and we won't so you have what was agreed many of those viewpoints and Michael's report says it for you are from 500 750 metres away and you have to have chosen when you got to that point on the A10 and you're enjoying walking the dog to stop looking at 360 degrees and focus in on 30 degrees over there there to look at the gap between two trees half a mile away and think my goodness I can see the edge of Melbourne Science Park now what you might see at that point might be the new TTP building or it might be a little bit of our building sheltered behind the TTP building or in 10 years time it might be a little bit of our mobility hub behind those 120 new houses on the allocated site between us and where you're standing so genuinely believe you have enough information a deferral would be enormously disappointing for us if all you're wanting us to do is take pictures of trees with no leaves on because the outlines and the base information will be exactly the same we have had some of that conversation with your consultant but what we haven't done is rewrite the report in exactly the shape and style that she would have preferred us to do thank you very much for that I need to come back thank you there's also the issue of you said the heights the concern about the heights and the massing you've addressed that and that's what we have seen now is the best that you've been able to come up with okay that aside what about the pray this way I mentioned this earlier on there's something about those who will be working on that side who will have young families and yet one of the community facilities which would have helped them and their well-being has been removed which is the question why and you know we don't have enough in some times we'll be bringing you bringing more young families in who will have these issues so yes the building might look good and all that but those are going to work there you know we'll have some issues wouldn't they yes we understand what you're saying we understood it with respect we understood it before you said it we thought Cresh is one of the things that you would normally put on a new business park if you possibly can here's a building that we could put it in we'll put it in the planning application we did and we sold it frankly as being look this is a community facility it's a benefit to the community it's something we want to do anyway and it'll have positives for the local people and employment the trouble is the only way to get into it conveniently is straight off Cambridge Road on a dedicated access point and the highways officers experience say mine to a degree is that if you've got a Cresh everybody turns up with a push chair and a car seat and a child and they're in a hurry to get to work and they stop as close to the place as they can unload the child drop them in the place come back out and get in the car the only places to do that are on a small car park that we had proposed which the officers thought was probably too small and it would involve a lot of people coming and going over an access point which he thought was too narrow and they would probably instead choose to park out on the road which is where the bus stops so he said too difficult and our client said on a trip this application up we will remove it we're in the science park business not primarily the Cresh business so if you think the balance is wrong remove the condition that Michael is recommending and you'll probably see a Cresh there thank you I mean I know it's too difficult it's not a phrase that I like to hear I like to hear creative solutions and I would have thought that there would be a way to make it work but if you think there's a way to make it work then we can discuss that later on as far as the massing goes you heard about the light pollution what can you do about that so all of the buildings will have PIR sensors on the floor so if there's nobody active on the floor the lighting of that floor will turn off equally the buildings have sustainability credentials at their core so we have seen it in the visuals and we've created aluminium shading on the outside of the building that there's two things it does one to stop the glass overheating from solar gain but it also then helps filter any light emissions out of the buildings as well in the reverse basically so alongside that and the enhanced landscape buffers that we're planning to install that will also help filter any remediating issues with light pollution in terms of landscape lighting because I know there was a query on that earlier the general philosophy has been to keep things as low as possible so keeping it safe but also respecting the fact that this is a rural site and we want to keep lighting low and as I said I've been to the TTP site and yes it's low level lighting but as you heard I'd add to that there's still issues I'd add to that in relation to anything to do with TTP because as I've said to you each site on its merits before now I understand that the TTP site has extensive surface parking runways for vehicles and what have you which all need to be lit for safety purposes we are not proposing that we're moving away from that so the lighting will be in buildings where it can be controlled the condition that Michael has recommended gives additional control over any external lighting for safety or security and that would obviously be governed in a downward and contained manner as well Thank you, have we any more questions of course I think it's probably time now to eat half a lunch I suggest we now break and come back at 2.30 Thank you very much indeed Welcome back to the South Cambridge District Council planning committee we now come to the elected members speakers first of all the parish council can we have councillor John Travis please first of all can I ask you do you have the agreement of your council to represent them can you say it on the speaker can you repeat again Yes of course Yes I'm councillor John Travis Melbourne parish councillor I speak for Melbourne parish councillor Right the Melbourne parish councillor has considered this application at a meeting in April 2023 and resolved to support it Melbourne parish council understand the science park requires redevelopment and welcomes this in principle the new park will create job opportunities track people skills and significant investment to the village it's planning to use sustainable energy and encourage sustainable transport the park will also become more accessible to the public it's already accessible but it will become more so and it will enhance green open spaces however we believe this is the first time that the applicant has proposed carrying out this scale of project in a village rather than an urban setting a decision to support therefore comes with three serious reservations firstly the townscape and visual impact assessment the height and scale of the buildings will have a significant impact on the street scene building characteristics lack harmony with this rural village setting compared to the present park the plans are for much larger buildings near adjacent roads neighbouring properties will be overlooked and may be affected by a loss of natural light during the day and suffer from light pollution at night especially during the construction phase secondly then the construction phase it's understood that construction work on the site could take up to eight years or more there's concern about the impact of this work on neighbouring residents and the wider village noise, vibrations and debris from the works near resident properties will have an impact on the wellbeing of residents and we understand this view is shared by the health impact assessment officer at South Council the Melbourne Council also questions whether the health assessment carried out by Subbles consulted an appropriate professional and this is really because of the South Council's health impact assessment officer having highlighted significant missing information apparently in the report lastly the future impact of traffic on the villages of concern I know this was discussed this morning according to the transport assessment report there will be 900 well I'm not sure of the number the number is quoted slightly differently this morning but we thought there would be 978 car parking spaces on the site implying that there would be affairs and vehicles possibly on the site at any one time during construction work there will be increased traffic due to traffic travelling through the village and yet more when the park is fully operational so whether we're supporting this application the Melbourne parish council requests that assuming funding consent is given that the correct conditions are put in place to mitigate the impact of A the wider development on the village and the increased traffic load on the village thank you very much a few minutes can we have any questions for Castle Travis Castle Williams Castle Williams I can say this time down the Williams as it were and there are three of us to choose from with this council can I just ask on the conditions obviously there is a raft of conditions through this and there's been some debate amongst members already on such things is there any condition that your field is missing or that needs bolstering or none of the above is an option as well in response I don't have anything more specific than there's a great concern about the traffic load particularly on Cambridge Road and a doubt really as to whether the aspirations that traffic will turn as it were left out of the site and leave the village towards the A10 rather than taking a short cut perhaps through the village we're talking about a very large number of vehicles now I think people are saying it could be 1,500 vehicles perhaps exiting the site at night when the facility is fully built some of those will go through the village is basically a medieval footprint still and we're going to have to put up with that kind of traffic load on top of what's already there the village has increased in size in the last 10 years thank you for the question thank you for the response I imagine there are particular concerns where the sort of co-op leeches, butchers and that I think we've all been stuck there on occasion even on a Sunday so this might be just for officers if we've had the response there about the area of concern I think if we could have a response in the course of the debate around how enforceable these things are because as I said there's one thing having a theory and a plan there's another thing about how we actually enforce that plan so could we have some clarity on that please chair sorry chair, if we do it now or through the debate I thought I heard later okay sorry cancer of fame thank you chair I noticed in the list of objections raised one was that the concerns of the parish council have not been addressed now the concerns of the parish council you've outlined them and they're set out 62 of our report on page 26 is there anything additional that you feel you've submitted that has not been addressed clearly the question of the height of the buildings is difficult to address we either accept this or not if the case may be but are there particular points that you feel the parish council may which have not been addressed so far no I think that the two two key things in the long term which concern us are the effect on the street scene on the visual impact of the build because it's so different to the the site that exists at the moment we understand the case for a better science park but the impact from the street scene is very great I think we have concerns that this will somehow get swept under the carpet because of the need to develop the site in an economic in an economically viable way but I think the long term issues with traffic are the things which concern us the most because traffic is already a problem in Melbourne and this will significantly add to it any other thank you very much indeed okay now we come to the local members we have two local members first of all council have you decided your sequence councillor first councillor first councillor and then councillor each of you have three minutes if you don't mind share before you start your time I'll make a declaration of interest I'm a director of Melbourne hub and in the 106 agreement there is money going to the hub but it's a non-pecuniary but I'll just get it out there while we're here and if you don't mind Sally Anne and I will do a tag team that you described as Mawrcoma Wise she's the wise one so if that's okay with you we'll just crack on and do that yeah great thanks so thank you for hearing us this afternoon it's very disappointing this application has taken a long time to come to committee during the consultations at the start of last year and through last year up until about August I think so some of the things that were raised at that point weren't addressed as you've heard from the parish council and the bulk of those issues were on scale so when we'd been sitting here listening to colleagues on the planning committee asking questions before public speaking those lines of questioning were paramount in our minds so when we finished our presentation please ask lots of questions because we are very very keen to answer them now you will have seen a document we submitted to colleagues in demo services which has got basically the paragraph from Mr Hammond's report with a bit of detailed writing to it again those are questions that we would really love to be answered and I think that's it really other than from me anyway but from my point of view this is about the scale and impact comments have been made as you walk down the Cambridge Road with the Sands Park to your left walking out towards Cambridge that you would lean to your right towards the road because these buildings are so big that they make you feel that they're tearing over you and they are the best part of nearly double what is going to be there if you look at them and I know these guys will argue that it's not double but it's the feeling of double so as has been said earlier this development is not a village it's a cityscape so the bigger developments they've done in the past on the side of Manchester in a huge field somewhere up north there was nothing round it this is nailed to the side of Melbourne which is a doomsday registered village and everything is no more than two stories so I'll leave that thought with you and hand over to Miss Wise I will be coming back to Joe's to talk about sewage because he knows a lot about sewage I think what we both want to say is that we are in support of the site being redeveloped as a science park however this proposal is better suited as Joe's said to a cityscape rather than a village setting there are severe reservations that you've heard from the parish council and documented in the papers from residents I've been interested in looking at that table on paragraph 3.1 I can actually see the increase in the square meterage of this site it is huge compared to what it was the creche is something that really concerns me I know when villages were consulted creche was part of the plans I don't understand why the vehicles can't access there because that multi-use path at that moment has at least three more crossings on it that have give way signs where the members of the public have to give way to traffic so I don't understand what the creche is I've been interested in the terms that have been used today we spoke about planning applications being sympathetic and in proportion this one is in our view terms like village green when actually the green is not inside the village it's on the outskirts of the village a mobility hub that really is a car park and the terms sort of urban development rather than rural now front would have been really good consulting with the parish council on three occasions but sadly since August 23 none of the severe reservations have been addressed and I would like to think that they're into best practice so I will be very concerned LVIA documentation isn't available I couldn't see any photographs from Mote Lane and we had residents from Mote Lane talking about the effect of those properties on their lives really so I would at least if I was sitting where you want that information to be ordered to make a decision to talk about sewage thanks the guys have talked about how much water is going into the site and they didn't talk about how much is going out that's because the statutory obligation of Anglian water unfortunately Melbourne has enjoyed various paying applications throughout the years with the comment there's 50% slack in the system from Anglian water we challenge those comments and Anglian water did a hydraulic test of the entire system and it came back as 100% at capacity so they then dug up our high street and put three or four dirty great big concrete tanks if you like in line with the sewage system to put an ebb and flow if you like in the system so that the silly little pumping station that we have can keep up with itself I can't remember the numbers 83 mega litres of water coming into the system has got to go somewhere if it's going to go directly to Royston treatment plant that's a farewell trek if it goes into the pumping station in Melbourne it will not be able to cope even with the telemetry it just will not be able to cope so we are concerned that the very low manholes in and around the village will start to sprout ground ffountains and that is not nice for anybody and we've had that for a number of years so I'd like those answers on that one and there's another little gem 8 to 10 years I think it says for 106 agreements to start being triggered off at various points I would ask the committee to make a direction to the developers if this was approved that the 106 is for the community based stuff and I've already declared my interest but there's a whole raft of other things there and that includes the Paris Council because all their stuff was for the basis of the community that those are brought forward at the time the first spade goes in the ground I don't want to wait 8-5 years wherever it happens to be they've got to be triggered straight away I think that's that so the last little bit I suppose it's back to you on this if there was words earlier of the word defer which made my ears sing which was lovely so these poor old lads could go and do their work but actually we would ask for a deferal because there is a whole raft of things that we need to talk about scale, impact etc etc the mobility hub is an absolute classic I came home from Cambridge and I saw a nice long line white of lights and they'd be mentioned as the TTP site it looked like a train on the railway track which is to the right if you then put that onto this site the TTP hub is 6 floors I believe the car park at Adambrooke that we know and love the one with the swirly bits on the side is 7 time is up I know my time is now up and I'm sure there will be 100 questions so thank you very much OK have any questions I've got two questions the first one is I know that a question would serve the people using the site but is there much call in Melbourne itself for a crash my second question is how far is the science park from the station and is it walkable if people were perhaps if parking permits were limited to a certain number of people would other people be able to walk from the station or obviously they could cycle I'll come back on the crash one if that's OK through a new chair when I believe Brunt was first consulted with the village that we actually had consultations with the other settings offering childcare in the locality what is missing in Melbourne from my understanding is placements for people with very young babies and one of the discussions was thinking about the workforce people returning to work that's often what's required so it certainly would appear that there would be enough demand for another place for the children while the parents are at work and the station I'm going to take a guess but I think it's probably from platform to the front gate of the proposed site I would think it must be a bit on for two miles you will take I'm looking for you because you've probably measured the weary thing but I think it's going to be it's between one and a half to two miles but the station does not have the ability for anyone with disability to come from the London track on to the Cambridge track which then brings you back into the network of the cycle network or the smooth footpath it takes you over an 800mm wide footpath which you've got across the road on a humpback bridge that goes across the railway so that's the lethal I think Michael had something Mr Hammond has anything that's going on I've just done a google search so from from Meldref station to Melbourne Science Park it's a 24 minute walk 1.1 miles is what it says on here so yeah that's what google maps says so that helps at all okay sorry we need to stop now we need to make a possible solution to continue because we're reaching four hours so come and propose it and seconder can we do my affirmation sorry Councillor Wilson did you have some can we do my affirmation thank you very much thank you very much sorry no further questions who we got Doctor Hawking thank you chair and through you thank you for your mochuban wise presentation in terms of the brown stuff I think paragraph 6.9 we know that Anglia Water is responsible for that and though they have no objection but it's their responsibility and they do state that the Melbourne Water Recycling Centre does not have the capacity to treat the flows but they are obligated to accept to do whatever needs to do they need to do so in some respects I know that exactly because we seem to have a lot of that happening in the district a lot so I mean that for us is not something that we can say is a material consideration that you know will stop us from looking at this is that something that you accept or agree with if I'm out totally except what you're saying as the local members including county counciller colleague we need to be with Anglia Water next week to try and sort out some of the issues in Meldriff which eventually come into our so they're kind of linked to one point on station road so there are masses of issues we've spent the last three years berating I think is the part where I was saying that Anglia Water to sort out the most simplest problems in Meldriff without a long Melbourne and so I understand I have a 10 year capital spend cycle I have no idea where we are in that 10 years we'll be asking that next week I suspect we're already into it it's already been set in stone for what they're going to spend my worry is that as this development starts to take off that the equilibrium will gradually end up where we'll be totally level and then we start to get into the issues of problems I'm assuming there'll be a non-site catchment like there is on the TTP side I think they've put in a a thousand of litres catchment to come My other question is to do with the concern about the heights and the massing of the buildings I mean currently the buildings on the site are two stories and the proposed new ones are mostly three stories except the mobile hub so in some respects yes the massing has increased by one story do you think that that is I'm not even saying that is too high causing the massing to be too much and I know you said it's not a village thing but Melbourne is a minor rural centre according to our policy which means there's potential for growth Can you have a question? I did ask the question I think we've got the question we understand exactly so yes the mass is great the visual impact is great we appreciate as the guy said that they've moved it back a fraction and that's lovely but these buildings are significantly large and one of the things that was mentioned earlier were the photographs and I think Mr Rowland explained that one of the gem photographs that really annoyed me and I did mention this on several occasions which was there was a picture of the science park on the left hand side with building C which is a beautiful kind of copper cloud building they look gorgeous and on the other side of the Cambridge Road was a line drawing of the grey two listed buildings with daffodils growing out of a tarmac path and two people walking a dog it didn't represent the visual aspect of what you will actually see so when the moat lane neighbourhood people did a scale version of what it actually looked like and they overlaid these guys drawings over a proper street scene it was oppressive I think to be polite so if you put that there as you walk down the multi-use footpath on the left which is to the front of the site you feel you should be doing this if you're driving into the village all you see potentially is a wall of light and one of the things Mr Hammond showed and he made reference to it with the grey tower which is on the back of a building at the back which is going to be demolished and the mobility hub goes somewhere near it that represents three stories the mobility hub is twice the height of that and so there you for you see the impact on that eastern border are already mature you're not going to get any bigger so they're around about three stories so you're going to see three stories of carpark sticking out the top of a tree and I know the representation is fine but trees come and go, trees die trees do this, that's what the nature of the business we need to get this right Rump would have a 250-year lease on that site it will see Salianna now we won't be councillors at the end of the lease however, there will be decades of impact to the village if this isn't done right now and we appreciate it has to be redeveloped we appreciate it's got to go for the sciences we want that you heard the Paris council say we want that as a community but we do not want to be overshadowed by essentially a metropolitan landscape if you like on the edge of a Doomsday book listed village all pair dig OK chair, if I just respond as well thank you I'm going back to really you look at the designs I can't say that they're not great designs they look wonderful but it's where they are coming into Melbourne when you sweep into Melbourne and I know there is a science part there already from the pictures you saw earlier from the people looking from Arwinford Crescent or Assit Wave they actually seeing red brick buildings at the moment which you could assume could be just a big house because there are lots of big red brick houses in Melbourne as well as other different colour houses in Melbourne and I think that that's the thing that has been frustrating that what's being developed is not sympathetic and proportionate to the village and when you sweep in at the moment you come past that head row, that green space you see the green fields and I think unless you see that LVIA photographs of that also there are no photographs from Cambridge Road there are houses on Cambridge Road and there are no photographs that show the impact of those buildings on those premises either OK Councillor Handie Thank you first of all could I just say to Mr Hammond that Councillor Hales has said something about something being twice as high as the tower that there is already there now would you mind checking that factually because I think it's quite key but my question is and it goes back to the to the Cresch discussion not knowing anything whatsoever about the village of Melbourne I just ask if the problems that have been reported to us today about locating a Cresch on this site if they can't be overcome is there scope within the village to increase the facility the Cresch facilities in the village even if it has 106 monies Thank you and through you chair as far as I'm aware now we have a lot of problems finding space we've had problems finding space for a youth club that's why we now have the connections bus that comes to Melbourne we have an out of school club and they also run a playgroup in the village but that's obviously for children from about two years upwards as far as I'm aware there is any space so it would be involved going to private nurses and the bumpkins for example or little bunnies in Shepard and the school doesn't have capacity to have any more buildings on that site so there isn't any more as far as I'm aware Councillor Sanford Thank you chair I can just return to traffic for a moment I understand there's a possibility of over 900 vehicles turning into the sites in the morning some will probably be coming out of the village but most will probably be coming off the A10 added to that I don't know how many hundred people work on the TTP site Will these thousand plus vehicles turning across traffic coming out of the village called gridlock do you think If we stick to the rules what has been said I think my esteemed colleagues on my right they all turn left out of the site and go up to Shepard the Frog End Junction as it is called that is very difficult to get out of and live if you try and jump in front of a car because you have the level crossing that goes up in your sequences and you get a constant stream of cars so you're not going to get out quickly which means a thousand cars coming out tonight are going to queue more or less back to the TTP Bruntwood site because that's about the length of a car so they will then make the obvious choice of doing a quick ui and doing right down to the traffic lights which again has its own issues as Councillor Williams rightly said if they turn right they're doing the same thing to go back down station road and try and queue to get out on the A10 there that's dodgy if they then go down further through the village they go to the other Greenlow End which is towards Royston and again they have exactly the same issues so we're going to be gridlocked of all of those three exits onto the A10 the other way of course is they go through Falmouth the Mill Road into Falmouth and go out that way to the 505 or they go down New Road to the 505 equally troublesome and we have the school down Mortlock Road and the family school leads into New Road so in answer to your question I really hope it doesn't happen because it's going to be hell Drivers to attend to look for rat runs if they're stuck in traffic so thank you for that Councillor Williams Sorry Chair, thank you two questions around the traffic because I do think that the scale we've heard both sides of the traffic seems to be quite a nub from further debate one of which is the view about with the calculations and obviously we're talking about a thousand cars which is an awful lot but really according to the ratios it should be more than that and do you have any concerns around parking and any dangers that would potentially lead on to also in relation to the directions of travel I believe and I think Councillor Hales and I had a mutual acquaintance that required the ambulance have very urgently one day after an accident he's nodding so I think he knows who I'm referring to having access to that at speed is imperative is there any issue of which the rat running has that been considered in your mind and the ease of flow traffic in relation to that because obviously that's not a piece of localling stretch we would have in all villages Excuse me it's really quite difficult actually because I think I understand the 106 agreements well enough to know that you can't sort out someone else's mess with the 106 for your development so I have sympathy for the developers on this the most obvious and easy method is to traffic light every single junction onto the A10 out of Melbourne because that way it gives everybody a sporting chance of moving out unfortunately that would probably cost millions at the end of the day so and I don't think there would be a requirement for the developers to do that so it's an issue as far as access as you say the more cars there are the worse the access the longer the wait an ambulance going out to A&E from Melbourne if it's stuck behind even 100 cars getting out onto the A10 at Frogend it would have to go on the wrong side of the road round that dodgy bend by Dobbies and then it's taking its life in its hands to try and get through it is just I think you're driving at the accident way to happen frankly it does bother us I don't think there's any real solution other than what I just said but we're talking some significant investment in road traffic management which would be unfair to be fair to inflict on the developer thank you and just one other thing about the Frogend round by Dobbies and obviously you've got the green man as well round there has there to your knowledge been any view or any scope on the fact that actually you can go straight over on that don't you and that's also you mean if you're going towards Sheproth which a lot of people would do if they're coming from or coming from Camborn or this side and obviously we have got the joy of the Foxton crossing not too far which have said anybody that falls pregnant fears are going to give birth in because you get left there for so long has any provision been made for people making that junction for safety it was if you recall Councillor Williams there was a slip road from the Cambridge that's not the Royston track London track on the A10 into Melbourne council highways took that out as a safety measure after some fairly serious injuries were sustained at that junction that has in all fairness made it safer because you're only on the two lanes to contend with them and that's it but that junction to Sheproth is a staggered crossroad and that in itself causes issues because people when you're on across the road and they will try and jump out in front of something and get across and then of course we've got the issue of the road network through Sheproth and you still have the double barriers coming down now which has now been shutting off Sheproth to the rest of the world on that line so no there hasn't been considered I'm sure and frankly it would be pointless because you couldn't do anything there anyway Thank you chair councillors thank you very much for that presentation before I ask my question let me make it clear that I am confused and I'll explain why you commended the way that the applicants have engaged with the parish council over the last I think three years and more until last August and we heard from the applicants how they have adjusted their plans recited the buildings, stepped them back a little bit and other adjustments they've made in response you went on to say that since August last year this has taken too long to come to committee and then you urge us to defer to put it back even further do you want to just expand a little bit on what your view is on what we should do now Thank you chair apologies that might have been me leading some confusion I was speaking when I was mentioning the August 23 that there hadn't been any more feedback from Bruntwood to the serious reservations that were were shared so there wasn't about the length of time it's come to committee it's been the length of time that things there has been time when perhaps things could have been addressed but nothing has it's just sort of sat feels like it's just sat on the shelf if I might sorry if I might add to that chair the initial intention for this committee if it's come to this committee if I recall it was during last year to be fair these people are not nasty people we have had long conversations about they're doing their job they've explained why they've got to do it that's fine we're doing our little bit here to try and put a fit up in that but in all seriousness we've been talking about this for a long time and one of the big things have been I think you guys will probably agree is it's the scale and impact we want the site redeveloped we want it to go for science we want it to be a big employer in the thing and we want our name on the map in far as that's concerned just like TTP is but we do not want to live on the edge of a city which is what it feels like and those buildings are cityscape buildings if they can bring them down a floor and I know Mr Rowland is having kittens but if you can bring them down a floor you're laughing and I know you don't want to dig out dirt but that multi-story car park I'll use the phrase because that's what it is because I think the graft and not graft and the other one grand arcade has got a bike rental and repair shop at the bottom of it too and this has got more spaces as you were reminded earlier so it can be buried by two floors it won't be the impact on it on the rest of what you see people will be a dam site happier and accepting, I think that's really where we're coming from OK, I wanted to ask a question I think there's been a some people have been talking about a thousand extra vehicles perhaps a point of information from how many vehicles all existing on the site what will be the increase in the number of vehicle parking spaces because it's not a thousand I can look into that figure Chair, I was looking at another figure actually about the traffic but I don't know if you have enough questions for the members while we're at it I was going to ask the TTP development has already come in and will it increase the amount of trash with the existing development how much difference has the TTP development made to the traffic in the village can you give someone, because this might give some indication of what you're expecting in the future if I recall and please forgive if the numbers are wrong but I believe that the total employee for the new virtual campus is something in the region of 400 to 500 it could be a fraction less they aren't as far as I recollect up to full capacity at the moment that kind of reflects what was roughly on their old site by a few extras because the new site has got better space and better usage that answers your question so that coupled with the potential for the front of the site i.e. the Brungwood site probably puts numbers into the 14 to 1500 mark I would have thought 14 to 1500 mark total are there any other questions thank you very much indeed I'll come back on there was a question you raised there about traffic numbers unfortunately looking at the documentation I'll share my screen just so you can see what I'm also looking at so in terms of trying to find the existing development traffic the document says to refer to figure 15 when I've gone to figure 15 unfortunately it's a bit of a I don't really know what to make of that unfortunately it needs a bit of a transport expert to probably digest it but what I would say is and the reason I brought this up is because we have got the figures for would be in terms of the peak hours for example so I know there was a lot of mention about a thousand cars going to and from it's important to note though that in terms of the AM peak and the PM peak so you're eight or nine and five to six I believe it is there's in the morning anticipated to be 570 trips associated with the employment in terms of both in and out and then in the PM peak there'll be 385 there'll be a thousand staff it does say further up here if you bear with me yeah so 1,148 staff members will be based at the Melbourne Science Park site but as I mentioned earlier there's things like an absence rate of 10% for people working from home, annual leave etc applied to that so I just want to make that clear that it wasn't necessarily a thousand during that peak period but if I can just take this opportunity to come back on some other points there was a point raised I think councillor handily I think raised about the heights and about this tower and how big it is I did obviously scale these earlier and the top of that existing tower on the site is 12.9 metres because of my calculations there the poser would be 21.2 so it's not quite double it's three metres four metres short but I just want to point that out that it's going from 12.9 metres in terms of the top of that tower to the top of here would be 21.2 metres so I just want to point that out and then I had to come back as well councillor Williams you raised a point about the enforceability in relation to traffic and we've all got two aspects to this there's condition 12 criteria B which talks about the construction traffic and how they have to tell us which routes they're going to take for example for construction traffic entering and they need to include enforcement measures to ensure they're taken and obviously there's condition 37 which we talked about already which is the travel plan which is operational so people are coming and going for their jobs obviously their conditions we feel they're enforceable it'll be a case that if there's an important breach for example we have to raise it with the planning compliance team and see where that takes us in terms of that action can't really obviously pre-empt that but we think they're enforceable so we would recommend them otherwise and I'm mindful there was a lot of talk about how the scheme has been developed through the pre-app I don't know if it would be helpful there's a slide in the design and access statement which does kind of show how the scheme's moved on in that cycle I don't know if you'd find that useful can you present briefly I think it might be helpful I'll just quickly it's in their pack so this isn't anything that's not in the public domain I've got this annoying thing at the top now which is stopping me from getting into the tabs that's wonderful sorry I have to bear with me this is the one so I'll zoom in because this is going to be tiny so we had pre-app 1 which was this one here on the left and you'll see it's a lot different to what we've got in front of us by point out for example the moathouse extension was significantly bigger it wasn't subservient so that's been changed a lot you can see the form of block B and the scale of that has changed quite dramatically has have a lot of this I think it refers to this as the piano at one point but it's changed shape and obviously gone for a different design and the mobility hub for example was gone from sort of rotated 90 degrees because of the amount of massing in that corner so that was the first pre-app we had and then if I go left you can see where we've got a scheme that's getting closer to what we've got I think this moathouse is still a bit too big and the form of some of these blocks I think still needed refining as well as this gateway building and I think block F has changed its position as well and then for example we move on to the third pre-app which is one way to start to see that triangle form taking shape for example it's been obviously an iterative process but I just wanted to point out that there has been quite a lot of change with that that goes on to the next slide and what it does is more pre-apps so then for example with the fourth pre-app we start to get something at block B which is a bit closer to what we've got block C is probably similar to what we've got now and I think it was roughly at this point it went to design review panel as well so then move on to it's a bit of a different rendering but move on to this where we actually had quite a lot of extra greenery on the sides and us as officers actually suggested they removed some of that for example and then we move on to essentially the scheme we've got in front of us so I thought it might be useful to show that it's been through six pre-apps in total so it's just to show how it's gone along that journey thank you that was helpful now we move to Councillor Williams thank you chair just two quick things one of which we were asking about so we're looking for the net difference I do wonder if the applicants probably we might not know but the applicants probably know how many car parking spaces so you might wish to use discretion chair to get an answer to your own question there when it comes to mobility hubs there is a definition of a mobility hub because we keep saying it but my view of that is it's a car park a mobility hub are places in a community that bring together public transit bike share, car share and other ways for people to get where they need to go without a private vehicle this mobility hub is car parking spaces and a bit of bike rental how does that quite you know how are we squaring that circle of that definition I don't it's a question really for the developer but it's a question of terms I think I think do councillors feel they understand what the mobility hub actually is that's the question I would ask people because we need to decide upon whatever it's called do we understand what the mobility hub is Castle Wilson when I was reading the papers I did ask myself the question what is a mobility hub and I saw it somewhere that would probably ease the mobility of people who had trouble getting around the site perhaps and offering other facilities not just cars and parking for cars and cycles so that's why I asked the question earlier whether it had any other significance I'm afraid all the way through this I've been thinking of this as a multi-storey car park I must admit this is what I I assume it is whatever it is called I want to be sure that people are happy that they understand what it is okay we'll leave that for the developer to define what he wants to call it but we understand what the item is that's really important for the point of view of decision making the idea is for us to understand it but also the application is for a mobility hub not a car park where we stand on that is my question through you chair for all intents and purposes it's a car park over multiple levels I don't think the fact whether it's called a mobility hub or a mobility hub in terms of planning I don't think it changes the way that you approach it as the appearance of a multi-storey car park is able to accommodate cars over multiple stories it doesn't really affect the planning balance okay now we come Councillor Doctor Hawkins thank you chair before we go into the debate I just want to ask officers considering all the discussions we've had on the crash if there is a way in which we can bring back the opportunity to actually put the crash back into this through you chair yes there probably is is the answer so condition 42 as currently drafted refers to class E and then classes D and E within that class now what we could do is change that to D, E and F F would capture the crash so if members were minded that they wanted the crash affecting back in then expanding it to D, E and F would allow that so that would be a Mending Condition 42 if you want to do so sorry just to jump in and clarify that the description of development also would allow for F to be handed in as well and it would just mean that there would be an informative that we would need to remove if members wished us to do so no to add the use as a crash which would be class E, F there's an informative recommended by officers to say that although it's shown on the approved plans that there's no permission given for the crash so we'd need to remove that Members happy about this can I get an indication by affirmation that they're happy or not? Councillor Redriff My understanding was that the crash was taken out due to highways concerns the developer mentioned removing a different condition around the parking I think or something around building A that would be necessary to allow the crash Councillor Williams Just please can we ask how many parking spaces there currently are on site? Yeah Perhaps you could give us a quick answer So just for the rank did I hear that as 729 existing car parking spaces? There are 729 car parking spaces on the site at the moment There is also an unimplemented planning permission for a further 46 car parking spaces on the site So the increases of the order are 200 Okay, thank you I think that's Councillor Hawkins Thank you Just to come back to Councillor Redriff's question When the highways officer answered my question he said he didn't say that any facilities should be taken out When the highways officer answered my question about the crash and why was taken out he did say that he didn't say any facilities should be taken out of that building and you've also heard Mr Roland saying if that's what we wanted then we could see it It seems to be a general contentment Am I judging the view that of members that are happy with this proposed suggested amendment Is anybody not happy with it? Is the proposal to change the class of what the applicant is requesting? Yeah Because I don't think we can do that They would have to request it Apologies I thought I tried to clarify that The description of development includes class E and the crash was shown on the plans We suggested or recommended a condition to remove which removed the uses of class E part F from the proposal or from the approval by removing it from block A We'd put a condition suggesting that block A could only be used as D and E under class E The applicant applied for class E We'd restricted which parts of class E it could be used for We are suggesting if members wish to expand the restriction that we'd put in place that we could add the crash back in and it is already shown on the plans It was commented that one might think about a travel plan about how that managed the parking on site That should be considered That's a later stage Can we now get on to formally on to the debate which we should be on discussion getting more information So have we any question? I'm still not clear Are we accepting that that should happen? Nobody is objecting I've asked when people can I have an information that everybody is happy with that change for the conditions Agreed Can we now get into the debate who's first in the debate Do you mean Councillor Hawkins? No No The question sorry Councillor Williams As Councillor Hawkins is in a state of shock over there I think I'll go first CS We want we know there is need for expansion of science and given where we are we can't say no to every science application or science and race application and I think there is support and actually over years an acceptance of science park where it is and it is a sort of employment for people locally and that's a positive thing Sorry I think the principle is not like trying to put in a brand new science park somewhere so on that it has very many merits I do understand though the concerns around the lighting that residents have raised it feels like it was a very long time ago that we had that in our chair but we should refresh our memories of that and we have to look at those existing residents and their quality of life and any future residents that may occupy those houses the car park I'm sorry it's not a mobility hub the car park is too high in my view it needs to be lower I appreciate that there are commercial reasons why developers will want to not go into the ground and have faith in car parking but I think to make this an acceptable development it needs to be lower down and I also appreciate that they need the capacity and the viability of it so I understand why you need the level of space to get the office space will have you ways that this could be mitigated and there are ways to make this application acceptable I'm certain of that but that is not what we have in front of us we have the parking which we have gone on a lot about and rightly so I still am concerned about such difference in the calculation and what's been provided the increase of 200 spaces which is what we've established is the net increase or 200 and something it's not as bad as if you're putting a thousand brand new on there I take it but I do have concerns about safety requirements that that will lead to with people if we can't enforce it that I don't think though I'm going to be able to give that ground for refusal on because officers have put in conditions and the like so for me it really is those the highs I think there's a lot to be celebrated in the design and I think some of the design I particularly like the improvements that are being made with the plants going down I forget which building it is now apologies the existing building I think things like that and I want to encourage it I think the loss of a crash is something that's very controversial in this room I think the developers are probably hearing that loud and clear and perhaps there is a job for us to be clearer with officers as well about what members' expectations are around things such as crashes so I think we've all got a role to play in that one it's such a shame that it's so high I take on board the issues around sewage but I think we have we were in the situation we were in with Anglian Water I'm just trying to make sure we've you know you're heard on that one is just where we are in a difficult position as ever so on the transport without a statutory objection it would be hard to refuse on that ground I can completely see how other members will take a different view and feel that the height for them wasn't an issue but for me where it is we do need to keep our countryside the countryside yes to modernise yes to embrace that local economy but it's pretty up in high so it's no from me I'm afraid I do agree with council Williams largely you know what we're seeing here aren't we is you know tech companies want to come and build in the Cambridge area you know it's all part of the government and the government are trying to encourage you know silicon fenn and all of that Cambridge is a go ahead place all around the Cambridge University and we've got something here which is potentially a really good part of that but we still haven't the government yet hasn't put in the infrastructure that we need to make it all work I'm not talking more generally we talked about traffic lights off the A10 so people can get out of the village that kind of thing it's got to be thought through and I feel sorry for the developer because they're obviously investing huge sums of money here and there are things that they just cannot control which are going to make us wonder if this isn't the right place for it to be so I am also worried like as councillor Williams said I'm worried about the height of massing and I'm hoping that the developer can come back with mitigation for that councillor Shane thank you chair it was clear from the comments of the parish council and indeed from the local members that the parish council were clear that they support this in principle but with severe reservations and the local members also accepted the need for this science park to be let's call it updated and we've heard also all the various stages that the applicants have been through you only have to read the comments of the unfortunately named urban design team in the council which set out all the changes that have been made to accommodate local concerns and indeed design concerns as well I think to be fair to the developers we have to recognise that the reason they are not able to further reduce or do not feel able to further reduce the height of the let's call it the car park are not commercial they have done all they can to reduce the number of cars being accommodated despite some pressure to go the other way those reasons are to do with groundwater and sustainability and of course we would like the developers if they can to find a way of reducing the height of that building in particular but we have to recognise that we are here to consider what is before us not what we may wish was before us although of course deferral is always an option now having agreed that there is a need for this science park to be updated the question is one of scale and how that can be accommodated on this site and I am inclined to defer to the applicants expertise as to what is needed to make this viable because I don't think the parish council and others would have pride in this if it didn't come up to date and meet the needs of the marketplace and in that respect I think we've also got to take account of national guidance which council I just referred to and I think all members will recognise where this comes from but recent assessment last week by the department there is a significant shortage of they call it the laboratory space in Cambridge businesses are seeking 2.2 million square feet of lab space between Oxford, Cambridge and London and large occupiers expanding Greater Cambridge could take years to require the right facilities with the risk that they choose to locate outside of the UK entirely now we have got as a planning committee to consider the national pressures as well as the local factors it is clear to me that over an extended period the applicants have done what they can to take account of local concerns and that in putting forward this proposal they are meeting a very important national need as well as updating a science park that is important to the local community and I would certainly be opposed to deferring it I think it is time for us to as was said by the local members it has taken rather too long for this to come to a committee it is now time for us to take a decision on it and I would say that whilst it would be great if the developers, the applicants could take further account of some local concerns we recognise that they have probably gone to the limits of what they do on the height of the buildings and therefore the time has come for us to approve this application as submitted, as recommended by officers OK, council Williams then I would like to have a speak Thank you some advice would be good a lot of reference has been made to national policy and recent documentation is what that actually has in planning wait because the way I look at it is we are determining this application with our local plan policies of all the information we have been given today we have had reference to reports I believe from the case of Cambridge there, what planning wait if any does it have or am I right in believing that we have the ability to determine this application ourselves on our local policies here if I can come back obviously yes we do need to look at the local policies but we also need to be mindful of material considerations in my report in the conclusion section sorry I'm just trying to find the paragraph numbers I do refer to for example I think it's in the main body of the text sorry but there is for example the industrial strategy I think it's got a new name but for example there is the national industrial strategy which highlights clusters such as life sciences and R&D are an important part of the government's strategy now I've given that weight as an officer in terms of coming to my decision I've also been mindful that as Councillor Fane said there is this shortage of employment space and I think paragraph 8.192 of my report probably summarises it best is that there is this demand for it obviously yes in very recent days almost that case for Cambridge has come out that's very new, very fresh notwithstanding that I think if you look back at the government's industrial strategy the MPPF I think there's quite a clear demand for this and quite a support from the government for this which we do attribute weight to I'd be reticent to attach weight to case for Cambridge right now because it is very new and very fresh personally but I think that you can historically look back at MPPF the government's industrial strategy for example as well as the information I've provided in the report as material paying considerations that's my feeling that you might come back but in any of those cases does it say that you have to just approve because it's a certain sector and not take into consideration local considerations no it's the short answer thank you Councillor Doctor Hawkins you wanted to speak thank you chair just on that point I think in our emerging local plan we identified we would need about 30.5 million square foot up to 2041 and so far we've identified I think it's 9.8 in supply coming forward up to 2041 so of course there is a shortfall and I think what is proposed here is about half a million square foot or something like that which will go some way to meeting that shortfall that we currently have in our emerging local plan so that is our emerging local policy rather than the case for Cambridge that Mr Gove is talking about and frankly if we were to approve this it would come to fruition before Mr Gove's plan naturally will see the light of day sorry but it just to continue on I mean I want to commend the Africans on the way they are engaged with the community it just seems that it's not been done towards to the end really as it should have been and so this issue with the concern about the massing and the height still coming to fall as I said before the site is within the framework of Melbourne which is a manual centre and yes our policy supports creating employment space in places like that the question is does the scale of this match the size of Melbourne I don't know I mean there needs to be something on the site we all agree to that in some ways I think there is a match and we might not all like it but of course we also need to bear in mind that the built environment team I will not say urban team we have looked at this we have seen how things have evolved how the proposal has evolved and yes there is also a viability issue here so this is where we might not like it but I think the Africans have done what they can do to make this proposal work so I think in some respects I am looking at putting this thank you okay I was oh sorry now I was speaking there were some of these some of these aspects are very subjective in terms of scale and I there is a tendency to think that anything in that any building is ugly full stop impact and there were issues to do with distance that you view them in terms of the scale one lesson that I learned when I first was looking at landscape issues was that the further something is from you the less the more it comes just an item in the landscape rather than an impact so in that sense the view of the car park coming from from Cambridge is viewed at a distance over space we can't really take a there is a merging allocation but it's very low weight so we can't take really the implication of what it will be in the middle of this element as it is now and any future development would have to adapt to whatever is there so I don't take that as a great weight the car park viewed from McLean distance it's 60 meters compared to 20 so it's one in three height the question is whether that is overbearing they moved it back they've done what they can at that height it's to the east of the north east of McLean houses so it's it's not going to shade them except at four o'clock in the morning the image shown on the items around to us actually look at the shadows that was what would happen at four o'clock in the morning so even if it were to shadow on the things it's not like to have a big impact on the houses you're worried about what's happening in day the full light of day so I don't see that it's going to be as common as a sunlight issue on any of the properties the ones to the other side of the road to the south are going to be they're not going to be shaded because they're to the south of the main development so I don't feel personally that that height that distance from the houses I think they will adapt to it I don't think it's really going to after six months that will be just the environment and I don't think they will be upset but that's my personal subjective view the houses the buildings along Cambridge Road to me are more concerned though there's been less objections because they are there's quite a big difference in scale on both sides of the road and the houses along the road I think will be impacted now the question is whether that's sufficient of an impact, it will be an impact to to refuse the application and I think the fact that the buildings are to the north of the houses and therefore won't have an impact on the light has an impact on me and however bearing them in that field the gardens will be facing south people will be in the houses it's a bit like having a fairly narrow road with houses on the other side because the closer they seem bigger so there's quite a wide wide road there I don't feel personally that that is enough of an impact for me to say that we should refuse there is a tendency if we've seen in other developments or if I have to take existing parks and build them up higher that seems to be the way trends are going now are we going to that's a subjective judgment where you think that's acceptable but we've granted some, we've refused some in the more urban area of Cambridge this is quite much more open site than many of the other sites that we've looked at there's a lot of greenery in the middle none of the other sites have this sort of degree of greenery within the site in some ways it's have more to do with like granted park they're not on a bigger scale but on a smaller scale larger buildings around a central green space the lighting now will mainly be within the green space in the middle of the public to open space lighting and that's been designed the impact of the houses of remote lane I think will mainly be actually from the existing building which is not being removed I think that's much closer and will have a bigger impact on those houses than the new ones despite the other ones greater heights I the lighting plan should support one would hope would support the lighting I did about 20 years ago look at public lighting as one of my projects and there are designs of lighting at which using faceted reflectors which can very much constrain the light land and I'm sure that they will look at that and that will be an issue coupled with the building around the edge I don't think I would hope that a lighting plan could be devised which would not be an intrusion so overall when I consider the national pressure the shortage of such property right here while I understand there's a way of the concerns of the local residents I'm coming round to stay thinking that I will be in support of this application Cancer, Ariel Cahn I think one of the things that really comes down to is that we're trying to decide whether the benefits material benefits of this application will outweigh the impact and it does have an impact on the landscape the rural landscape on the area and I think that when it comes down to it overall I think the impact has that the developer has done a lot to try to mitigate the impact as much as they can and they've clearly put a lot of work into doing that into rating it as you've mentioned the design keeping the green spaces inside to limit the effects of the lighting scaling scaling back as much as they believe they could their buildings the buildings themselves I think the design is great they've clearly put a lot of work into it and I tentatively I believe that overall the benefit that the part would end up bringing both to the local area and into the national need would about outweigh the limited impact so I'd tentatively also thinking that I would be in support of this application because of it How are you? Council Member Hi, thank you I guess to me it comes down to whether it is in keeping with Melbourne and that's I guess that's where I'm struggling with because it is a very different look to how it has been before before the buildings were relatively a bit large but they kind of looked a bit residential they had kind of different shapes and roofs and now the style that's being posed is very different the heights are much larger at sort of more like 20 meters so for me it's quite a difficult one because it is on the edge of a village and it does look very different I guess I haven't quite sided yet which way I want to go but can I just ask I raised a couple of possible conditions earlier in case of approval and I wonder what other members think about those about trying to make sure that the greenery on the buildings is maintained if it's approved the possibility of an EV charger around the mototel and then perhaps thinking about the timing of the section 106 and perhaps Councillor Hale has raised about whether that can come in at commencement of work rather than at use so I think I'd be in favour of supporting that if we could do that, thank you Thank you, Councillor Wilson Thank you My main concern is the size and bulk of the mobility hub and the numbers of vehicles that are expected expected to be travelling to the site and the impact that that will have on Melbourne but as we've discussed it does need updating the site and this research and development of the buildings are needed I'm pleased that we were adding something to allow for a crash that was one of my suggestions like Councillor Redger if section 106 the community buildings could be the community use could be brought forward I think I would find some support for that and at the moment I'm still I'm decided but those are my concerns Councillor Sanford Thank you chair I'd have preferred that this application came forward with a detailed effective travel plan I've heard warm words from the developer but the moment I'm struggling with how tomorrow's headlines about South Cams approved six-storey multi-storey car park in rural South Cain which is squares with our aspiration to be green to our core that two things don't don't match up I'm afraid I won't repeat what everyone else has already said in previous comment Have we any other comments now okay we better consider there have been comments made by Councillor Redger about potential conditions if we will be to approve this to people can you suggest more details so that we know exactly what's concerned I was just going to say I think I've got a note of most of them so that we could look at an amendment to condition 23 to include provision of EV charging within the moat house car park and I think the other one I picked up was an amendment to condition 17 to include which is the hard and soft landscaping scheme to include details of the boundary landscaping as well is that the two oh and the 106 we can look at the triggers at the point when it's being drafted because obviously these are the triggers that have been identified and suggested by the section 106 and we could look at the triggers which might have to look at making them relevant to particular buildings would that be acceptable can suggest that we when they come forward or will we come back to committee with the section 106 I don't think we will worry I think that's obviously the way forward you probably would go stages would you I think the one that we were looking at was about the community facilities and that the minute the trigger suggested is preoccupation towards the additional cost of additional capacity for health and well-being space so we could look at the trigger of that role Do we know the order in which all these works are going to be carried out so we can define a trigger Yes there is a phasing plan condition attached to it but we do also have an indicative idea that there is a phasing plan condition that I can look for it in the background but you have to let me stop sharing Did you want to There is a question I would like to ask of the officers in terms of the only providing 45 I think it is electric car park charging play points in the car park I believe it's a building regulation requirement now that every site you have to have an ability to supply everything and that perhaps you could confirm that or not how does it work I can't say I come back in building regs but I know that the mobility hub has got the potential for what's called passive provision which is what you're referring to where it has the routing so that if more spaces were needed they could be installed it doesn't prevent it I'm not building regs I know for new dwellings they have to but I don't know if it applies to employment development unfortunately at the top of my head but yeah It's provided for in the application Yes so there's passive provision within the mobility hub as well as the ones that are already shown so there's scope in there I think rightly though we need to amend that condition so that the moat house for example can cater for it Okay now we come I think everybody's had this so Rebecca would like to the front manager would like to go through the application on what we've now what is in front of us and then we'll go through a vote okay Thank you chair Bear with me there is quite a list of amendments to conditions so recommendation is to approve subject to the conditions set out with amendments to condition 15 excuse me to include as detailed by Michael in his presentation to remove offsite references to condition 17 to include details of the boundaries to condition 23 to include the moat house provision of EV charging then as Michael outlined in his presentation there's a revision change to some of the highway plan so that is an amendment to condition 26 slight amendment to condition 28 to refer to the new each new or refurbished building which then means condition 29 can be deleted there's an amendment to condition 37 to be five years following the final occupation not the first occupation for the monitoring reports condition 38, 39 and 40 revision G to the highways plans condition 42 to be amended to reference use class C1 for the hotel and add in use class EF to allow the provision of the crash and deletion of condition informative number 15 plus the satisfactory completion of the section 106 agreement agreement with review of the trigger for the community facilities contribution Thank you chair Castle Williams you have comment Thank you there was one other condition that I referred to earlier so Michael said was about having the difference if you recall right back before we even had public speakers about the difference in the parking that was from another ratio and for what was prescribed and one of the things about parking and how that would go on now on other sites we've had need as part of the monitoring program to then have things like double yellow lines particularly if a crash does appear then you would have them for safety reasons can we have a condition or an informative or have it as part of the section 106 that there is provision to put in place things such as but not limited to double yellow lines if they become required and that's just something that has been one of the concerns raised I don't think we've quite dealt with we have in previous applications made sure that there is provision to if we needed to enforce something we had a provision in the Yorkshire Park application provision in Yorkshire Park if you remember I asked whether and we referred to it earlier we had provision there for that I'd need to look at that again I'm concerned on enforcement so the provision we had on Yorkshire Park was that there would be an allowance for double yellow lines if through as they go forward they were required earlier on you said that it was very much like the same condition as Yorkshire Park but I'm just asking for that to be really assured and clarified as I remember there was £5000 added to the section 106 which is not a major issue but just to provide the funding for it if it was needed yes there was provision made for that particularly if we are discussing a potential crush that's going to be added okay yes point noted so yeah like you said on the Yorkshire Park scheme last month there was that requirement for the £5000 obviously that is specific to that site what I don't know is if there would need to be any parking control measures associated with this but I do see a point that they could come about as a result of travel plan work so I think there would need to be potentially I don't know or refer to Rebecca or Vanessa at this point but whether it's a case of the condition as the monitoring in there for the travel plan or whether you'd be seeking for it to be included in the 106 but I can see Vanessa hovering over her but what I need to establish is you were talking about double yellow lines is that on land that would be within a public so that would be for we don't control we can't enforce the council itself has no ability to enforce on a public road on double yellow lines that's not within our gift I'm not talking about the enforcement I mean the council does have other powers in which parking can be enforced the issue was we could leave them with other authorities not having anything to enforce against so what we had for example in Arrington on that planning application with multi-trail what we've had in Orchard Park in relation to the hotel there especially when there is this variance in parking that we have that that backup and we have it provision made for it so that it can be installed I'm not saying that the planning officers enforce the parking tickets but there should be provision made especially given the difference in parking I think that's a really important point if a majority members are minded to approve this Sorry council does I want to be clear what provision are you thinking literally the same as we had in Orchard Park where we had provision put in we had 5,000 pounds to ensure that they could be implemented not enforced they could be installed and there was sufficient funds I'm thinking about on that ratio a huge amount of I appreciate the modelling there's a huge amount of parking to the ratio to this and we have the same situation Orchard Park we put a condition and I'm just asking for like for like consistent conditioning here between the two given the parking issue in fact in this case is worse on the difference and you probably need to put it in no stopping I've said yellow lines or equivalent I'm not a transport expert but I want to make sure provision particularly we've heard the strong views of a crash being included highway safety is going to be paramount The suggestion was done if it proved necessary so as we review how the travel plan works out as I remember in the Orchard Park situation Provision was made in the Orchard Park we need to make sure it's made here if it became a problem it wasn't an obligation I think you might want to include it full stop and get a mini crash Okay, so what I'm doing is waiting five minutes for the office to decide break for five minutes and then we'll come back and have a vote straight away and then we'll try and deal with the other items so we're not too late that's like okay, but manager please outline the recommended will we approve what the recommended change of conditions will say Thank you chair I'm not going to propose to run through all the wording changes again because I think hopefully I've got captured all of those last time so recommendation is approved subject to the planning conditions with the minor amendments I've already set out together with the satisfactory completion of section 106 agreement with amendments to the trigger point for the community facilities contribution and also to add an additional obligation of £10,000 to be paid by the applicant to the council for onward transmission to the county council as the local highways authority towards identified traffic management measures which should be identified via the monitoring and feedback mechanism included in condition 37 Thank you chair Sorry chair may I just threw you that was my mistake because I gave the wording to Rebecca that should have said paid by the owners Thank you Nowy, can we go to a vote please If you're just to clarify if you're voting in favour you're voting to approve in line with the offer this recommendation and if you're voting against you're voting to refuse the application Thank you 2 more 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 1 more person You're happy and voted We're waiting for one more vote Thank you very much indeed What's the result? Thank you very much chair By 7 votes to 3 the application is approved in accordance with everything Rebecca's detailed for us Thank you very much indeed Long application procedure Now we move on to item We've got the number right now 10 on the agenda I would like to try and finish that We've just had 5 minutes So, Chris Bragg was not able to stay this late so we're going to manage Rebecca and we're going to present that to us Thank you chair and I promise to be quick So, Chris has put together our usual compliance report which sets out the team had 651 cases in the whole of Greater Cambridge around 300 of them being open cases in South Cambridge 15 6 new referrals during February and there's also the information about which one's a priority A, B and C together with how many cases were closed during the month and there were no new enforcement notices served during February If you've got any questions I will take a note Thank you chair Have we any questions? Hey, Chancellor Thamford Thank you for the question The formatting of appendix 1 has got rather mangled orphan text at the top of the page an incomplete explanation at the bottom of the page I believe No, that one's okay but it's the first one I think that's the appeals report Sorry I think you can ignore that comment I'm losing the will to live Thank you very much Have you noted? Can we come now to the appeals? I have nothing further to add to the report chair There's the decisions received from the Secretary of State along with two new appeals that we received during February and then the ever-growing list of appeals waiting decision from the inspectorate If anybody has any specific questions about any of the specific appeals please let me know and I can come back to you Thank you Do you have any questions, anybody? Sorry, Chancellor I appreciate this is probably one you'll have to take away but there is an issue in my village which was resolved six months ago which I'm getting almost constant demands for enforcement I will give you details later but I'll give you details later but it's they're going to be breathing down our necks because six months is after which you can start to take the action that you're supposed to Okay, thank you very much The dates of the next meeting will be held on Wednesday the 10th of April I will not be present higher at that next meeting so we'll be Chancellor Fane will be taking chair Thank you very much indeed Welcome you all back again in a month's time