 Thank you, Aaron. Good morning, all. Good morning to members, officers and members of the public, and some who are viewing us on live stream. Welcome to this meeting of the South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee. My name is Peter Fain. I'm Councillor Shelford and chair of this committee. May I ask those who are joining us remotely to ensure that a camera and microphone remain off unless they are addressing the committee. If anyone has questions on how proceedings this meeting will work, please ask Democratic Services. I'm not going to go through the full range of small print that I might previously have done. Committee members present in the Chamber are now inviting each of you to introduce yourselves. Members, after I call your name, please turn on your microphone and say your name. So your presence may be noted. I'm sorry, councillor. Close the doors, perhaps. Yes, my apologies, councillor. I didn't hear you because of the construction. Right. I will now invite each of the members present to introduce yourselves. As I said earlier, my name is Peter Fain, councillor for Shelford. And my vice-chair is councillor Jeff Harvey. Good morning, councillor Harvey. Good morning, Jeff. Good morning, everyone, Jeff Harvey. And we have with us today councillor Ariel Kahn. Councillor Ariel Kahn for Horsley and Converton Ward. Councillor Dr Martin Kahn. Hello, Martin Kahn for one of the castles for Heston and Impington Ward. Councillor Bill Hanley. Good morning, everybody. Bill Hanley, one of the two members for the Villages of Over and Willingham. Councillor Dr Tumie Hawkins. Good morning, everyone. Tumie Hawkins, Member for Caldicott Ward. Councillor Dr Lisa Redrup. Good morning, everyone. I'm Dr Lisa Redrup and I'm one of the members for Heston and Converton Ward. Councillor Peter Sanford. Good morning, all. Peter Sanford, Member for Cuckston and Pupworth Ward. Councillor Heather Williams. Third time lucky chair. Good morning. I represent the Mordans Ward. Thank you. Do we have any other members present? Councillor Richard Williams. I won't take offence, chair. Richard Williams, Wittlesford Ward. Do we have any other members present online or indeed in the room? I think I might have spotted them. No. We have some officers in the Chamber for the duration of the meeting. Oh, I should confirm that the meeting is quarried. I'll come to apologies in a minute. We have some officers with us in the Chamber for the duration of the meeting. Phil. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Members. Phil McIntosh, Interim delivery manager for the Shared Planning Service. And also with us, we have Vanessa Blaine. Good morning, everyone. Vanessa Blaine, legal adviser. Lawrence DeMarie-Hulman. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Lawrence DeMarie-Hulman, Democratic Services Officer of the Planning Committee. And I'm glad to say we also resume technical support from our Democratic Services Officer, Aaron Clarke. Thank you very much, Chair. And we will be joined by various case officers throughout the meeting who I will introduce as and when. If at any time a member leaves the meeting, would they please make that fact known so that it can be recorded in the minutes? I'm not going to announce the times of any breaks at this stage. We will take a break as necessary. And I think Members know how to signal to me if they feel that might be a good time. Can I just check that Members have received the main agenda pack and the online plans pack supplement, which was dated 28th of April? OK. Thank you. So, apologies. Item 2 on our agenda today. Apologies for absence. Lawrence, any apologies for absence today, please? Thank you, Chair. Two apologies today. One from Councilor William Jackson Wood and one from Councilor Henry Batchelor. Councilor Dr Lisa Redrup has kindly set in. Councilor Henry Batchelor. Thank you. Item 3, Declarations of Interest. Members, we now count to writing three declarations of interest. Do any Members have interest to declare in relation to any item of business on the agenda? Obviously, if any interest subsequently becomes apparent then please raise it at that point. Any declarations of interest? Councilor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. Just that I'm a local member for something on the appeals number 7 of which they are cast from my husbands, but they have withdrawn so there's nothing. Crews between the meeting. Thank you. Any other declarations of interest for anything on the agenda today? No. Right, we then come to item 4, which is the minutes of the previous meeting. So, we have the minutes of meeting on 12th April for us today, which you will find on page 7 of your printed agenda. Any items of accuracy? Page 7, page 8 and page 9. Can I take it by affirmation that we approve those as a correct Councilor, Heather Williams? Thank you, Chair, as I wasn't present at the meeting and I would like to stay for a minute. Okay, that said, can I? Should I do the same? I'm glad to say there are a few of us here who were present at that meeting, so I think we can probably still take it by affirmation. So, we then come on to item 5, which is on page 11. And this is application number 2204280, outline. This is for land at the rear of 40A Middleton Way in Fen Drayton, and there are special considerations in this case. It's for the erection of one self-build dwelling. And the presenting officer is Tom Chenery. Tom, I think you're with us online. Can I welcome you to the committee twice? Where with you? Please present this to us. Thank you, Chair, just bear with me for a second. I just want to get the presentation up on the screen for the members to be able to see. Hopefully everyone can see that. Thank you, Chair. The application before members today is a direction of one self-build dwelling at the site at the land rear of 40A Middleton Way in Fen Drayton. I'm recommending approval for the application. The application site is located within the former Fen Drayton Land Assessment Association of State. There is currently a few outbuildings on site. It's surrounded by residential dwellings to the west, north, east and south. So the application is before members today because the application raises special planning policy and other considerations. So the main considerations that members should be considering today is that the development is outside the development framework of Fen Drayton. It is in the former Land Settlement Association area of Fen Drayton. It is a self-build dwelling, whether the proposal has any impact on the character and appearance of the area, whether there's any impact on neighbouring immunity and whether there is any highway or car parking or cycle parking issues. This is a slightly more detailed plan as I showed just there. So the site is an existing parking area associated with number 40A Middleton Way, which is just for the social plan illustrating that in a second. But I thought I just want to show this plan as it shows the existing buildings to be demolished. Within the former Land Settlement Association policy there are several eligible buildings that can be demolished in order for development to be allowed. These buildings as part of this are not part of those eligible buildings within that policy. So this plan just shows the same as the existing one, but it has the blue line outlined on it, which is the extent of the ownership of the applicant, but not part of the development side. So that does include the garden. I'll just get my pointer up because I just want to point out that the garden for number 40A is included within here, and this land is associated as garden space and residential and present. So this is just the map showing the extent of the site and its location, whether it be near any areas of surface water or flood area. The sort of hashed purplish area, that is just the extent of the Land Settlement Association estate area. And then just to the west is the edge of the village framework of the ring. This is the Google Map view of the site, so these are the two buildings to be demolished, which I'm just highlighting with the laser pointer. So there's the building centrally, and then there's another building just to the west of it. A new dwelling has been built to the west of the site. That was done under policy H5, and that was using some of the eligible buildings that were originally on the site. And then there's a dwelling just to the south as well. That was part of the different part of the land. That was also a recently approved dwelling, which was also allowed under policy H5. I also believe that there is power and permission for development just to the north of the site as well, but that has not been constructed as of yet. So in relation to consultation responses for the application, the parish council have objected, as they believe it's a breach of the vendorate land supplementary plan document, and it covers buildings that do not qualify or not act under the policy, as I mentioned earlier. The proposal would also set precedent that will be exploited. There's been no objection from environmental health, subject to conditions, no objection from the local highways authority. There's been no objection from the sustainable drainage officer, and there's been no objection from the tree officer. There have also been no third party representations that have been received. So I'll just take you through some of the photos of the site. So, as you can see, it's currently used as a storage of materials. There is no works commencing on site, it is simply just for the residential storage for the use associated with number 40A to the east. This building here being fenced off is one of the buildings to be demolished, and then this is the approved and built out dwelling to the east of the site, as I highlighted earlier. This is the entrance to the site through the unmade track, and this is number 40A itself. This is used towards the east of the site with the recently approved dwelling and just showing the extent of the remainder of the site. This is facing northeast towards Fen Drayton in the Diffar distance, and then this is the other building, which is to be demolished as part of the proposal, which was previously used as a car repair auto body shop. There is a glass house on site, which is very common for areas similar to this. From my understanding, that is not to be demolished as part of the application. So, regarding the planning balance, one of the key material considerations for approval is that the dwelling is for the provision of a self-built dwelling, and also we consider that there is no harm to the local character of the area. However, in regard to refusal, the key material considerations are that it is outside the village development framework, and it is contrary to policy H5 and the land settlement association policy. Officers are recommending approval. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Brief opportunity for any questions on the content of that presentation. Any members have any questions for Tom? Jeff? Chancellor Arby. I just wonder what the planning history of the workshop buildings that are proposed to be demolished is. Are they correctly under H5 or have they been just built without permission? So, there is no planning history for the two buildings that have been erected and are to be demolished. They were technically unlawful when they were built. However, because they were built such a long time ago, they are lawful. And are outside of the 10 years enforceable period because I believe they are in constructed prior to 2012. The applicant did provide some information regarding that. So, although they were not built with plan permission, they are lawful. And a brief question from me as well. We've referred to this being, since contrary to the LSA policy and appendix 2 and 3 of the SPD. I wonder if you could give us some guidance on the weight to be placed on the LSA policy, which is an SPD, rather than a neighbourhood plan or some person. So, there is two documents. There's the policy, which is policy H5 within the local plan. That itself is very specific and is given weight within the planning balance. The supplementary planning document, that itself is completely different and it's its own document. That is also given weight also, not as much as the local plan policy. It also relates to the previous local plan, although it is still applicable within the determination of this application. But the SPD provides guidance more than it does the actual local plan policy. Hopefully that makes sense to you. Yes, thank you. You referred to policy H5. I don't think I saw that set out in your report, perhaps I missed it. Perhaps you could just remind us. Within paragraph 8.9 of the report on page 17, it just says, policy H5 states, planning permission for the redevelopment of existing buildings, excluding glass houses, will be permitted, provided that the development complies with several criteria, including being a groundbreaking form of sustainable development, the buildings are no longer needed for agricultural purposes, and the development would not occupy a larger footprint than the existing buildings that are being replaced. That is an abbreviation of the policy bit, covers largely of policy states. Thank you for that. Councillor Bill Hindley. I just want to ask a question on the comment from Andréidd and Parish Council that this proposal is setting a precedent that will be exploited. We've got a building that's going next door to this site, so is it setting a precedent? I mean, if that's been built in relatively recent times, is that a valid comment? Yes, in a way, as this proposal is not seeking to build under policy H5, they're seeking to go outside of that policy essentially. So, I think what the Parish Council are getting at is that by not conform, essentially by going outside policy H5 in a special policy area, that they have concerns that then that would set a precedent that other dwelling houses could be built within the area outside of that policy. But obviously this land itself has its own policies that it complies with, and obviously there is the selfhood aspect. So, it is different in a way. So, I don't think it could set a precedent in itself because this land is very different to the majority of the rest of Middleton Way and some of the other formal and sentiment associated areas. But, yeah, I hope that clarifies that. Okay, I think we then move on to our public speakers. In this case, we have just one public speaker. David Mead of the Planning Partnership, who I think is here with us today. Welcome. I think you know the rules. The floor is yours for three minutes and then there may be some questions on the content of your presentation. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and members, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to come and speak this morning. I won't go on too long. The report is excellent. It outlines all of the issues. I just wanted to highlight the fact that this application is submitted to the Self-Build and Custom House Building Act of 2015, of which there is a duty on all local planning, all local authorities to deliver a sufficient number of self-build properties within their local authority area, and there is currently a shortfall in South Cams, and this may only be one dwelling, but it still helps to help meet that shortfall. The applicant has lived on this site with his family for over 30 years. There is a local connection. There has been no objections from any of the neighbouring properties, both new residents and residents that have been there for a considerable amount of time. I stated in the office report that the site itself is effectively surrounded by a mixture of relatively new dwellings as well as older, more established dwellings, as well as a plot that hasn't been built yet to the north-east. Two buildings are to be demolished. They have both been there for some time, one that has been there for 30 or 40 years. No issues, no objections with regard to access on the site, and drainage is already available in the vicinity. As a self-build, the design of the dwelling has to, under the rules of self-build, the design of the dwelling has to involve directly the person who will be occupying the dwelling. That's one of the fundamental rules to make sure it is a self-build. Of course, that's an issue for... The actual design of the building will come forward as a reserved matters application if you decide to approve this application. But, of course, the applicant will continue that process and be directly involved with the design of the building to build it for themselves. The final issue I just wanted to refer to is the issue about precedent that the parish council have made reference to. Obviously, if a site of very similar circumstances with existing buildings surrounded by existing dwellings comes forward for a self-build, then perhaps that could be approved, but I don't think this would be setting a precedent for that because that would be equally acceptable. As Mr Chennery has stated, there are very few examples within the former LSA of a site that has these exact characteristics, so I don't think it would be setting a dangerous precedent in this area or more widely within Southcams. I'd be very happy to answer any questions if you have any, but thank you for letting me speak. Thank you for keeping that brief. Members, any questions on the content of that presentation? No, Mr Mead, I don't think we have any questions for you, so thank you very much indeed, that was very clear. Thank you. Now, I don't think we have any specific comments from the local member in this case, who's not with us today. We have the parish council's comments before us, so I think we can then go straight into the debate, I would suggest. Does anyone want to open up the debate on this? Councillor Sanford. Thank you, Chair. I am somewhat familiar with this area, and as the public speaker said, it is a fairly large area with a scattering of dwellings of various ages and sizes. There's no real character to it, so I don't see that this dwelling will do anything other than enhance the area. From the pictures Tom Chennery showed, it looks like there's a derelict building and a pile of junk, to be honest, so I think reusing this area will be a big asset to fendre it in general. So I'm inclined to vote in favour of this application. Councillor Dr Martin Cohn. I went out on Monday to look at the site, because I felt that it needed to be looked at on the site. I could confirm that the appearance of the site is of being surrounded by, relatively surrounded by other buildings, enclosed by other buildings. Apart from to the north, where there is now a planning permission available to be implemented, the site is tattie, I think is perhaps the word. The buildings are, I would say, downright ugly. They are more of no particular merit than they are ugly, so that if a good design on the site will probably improve the visual character of the area. I do take the argument of the need for self-build, and as long as adequate precautions are put in to ensure that it is a self-build running, I think this, I'm tempted to, my general feeling is this towards approving. Councillor Bill Hanley. Thank you, Chair. I agree with Councillors Sanford and Caern. I know the area quite well. I think this will actually improve the appearance of the area considerably, actually. The only thing I would say, or ask the case officer's advice on, is am I correct in saying that the parish council's concerns over setting a precedent can be, it's not actually true if we approve under the self-build regulations. I've not put it in a very good way, but basically, I think we should take consideration of the parish council's concern, but if we're going to accept this under the self-build, that's a higher balance in my book. I am inclined to approve but can you just clarify that for me? Through you, Chair. So obviously the local plan is a material consideration here in the development plan, it should be what you're assessing playing applications against, but there are other material considerations that you're entitled to take into account when making a decision on a planning application and one of those reasons in this instance is the requirements of the self-building, custom-building act. So what we're saying here in terms of waiting those considerations is that the provision of a self-build plot and dwelling in this location in this instance on balances is outweighing what the strict wording of the policy says in terms of eligible buildings that could be demolished for residential use. So it's a balancing exercise in the way you're giving that as a decision-maker which you're entitled to do in coming to your decision on it. Councillor Harvey. Thank you, Chair. My view on this is that any set of rules like local plans are bound to throw up occasional corner cases and anomalies and I think this is probably one of those but I think that's probably why we have a planning committee to bring a common sense of view to bear on those auditors and I sort of agree that this is a particular kind of situation that's unlikely to crop up or maybe it will crop up again but in low numbers and I think overall to replace those disused units with housing which is in the middle of other housing probably the sensible thing going forward so I would be voting for it. Thank you. Right. Members I think we're probably about ready to move to a decision on this. We have the recommendation before us on page 24 paragraph 9 which is to approve subject to the planning conditions of set out. I think in coming to a view it's important we have another look at the planning balance on this. I haven't heard anyone set out intention to vote for refusal so I'm not proposing to go into possible reasons for that but I think it is important we should address that side of the planning balance as on this slide which Tom Jennery put up for us earlier. Clearly it is technically outside the finished development framework that must inevitably be offset by the fact that it is surrounded either by development or by already approved development. It is contrary to the LSA policy Tom was explaining the weight of that and the circumstances of that. So members I'm not sure that we need to take an electronic vote on this I suspect we could do this by affirmation if I have a proposal. Councillor Dr Tumey Hawkins. I propose we move to vote on this. And how do you propose that we should vote on this Councillor Hawkins? If I have a second document. Thank you I've noted Dr Martin Caen any contrary views. Can we take that by affirmation? If anyone against I think that is approved as per the recommendation on page 24. So let's and thank you again Mr Mead. Then move on to agenda item 6. So this is application number 2300375 full 24 West Street Cumberton. This is before us because the application is from an officer of the council. It's for a proposal to replace existing outbuildings with a three bay single story garage with a monpage low profile roof and the presenting officer is Charlotte Spencer. Good morning chair. Can you just confirm you can hear me clearly and see my screen? We can indeed thank you. So yeah this is an application at 24 West Street in Cumberton. It's for the replacement of an existing outbuilding with three bay single story garage with monopitched low profile roof. It's in front of committee today as the applicant is a member of staff. Just a quick update since the submission of the report officers have decided that the reason for refusal to should be reworded to clarify that the concern lies only with the impact on number 14 West Street and reference to number 18 has been removed. So the new wording would be the proposed garage by reason of its scale and proximity to the neighbouring property would have a detrimental impact on the outlook of the ground floor window of number 14 West Street causing an unreasonable sense of enclosure and therefore a nably form of development. The proposal is therefore contrary to the national planning policy framework and policy HQ one of the South Cambridge local plan. So just to go over the location so the application refers to a two story attached dwelling located to the north of West Street. It's set back from the road quite considerably by over 17 metres of hard standing and soft landscaping. The site lies within the combatant development framework and conservation area. This is adjacent to grade two listed buildings at numbers 14 and 18 West Street. You can see here. So the proposal involves the demolition of an existing outbuilding shown here and in the erection of a three bay single story garage would be located to the front of the dwelling approximately 1.5 metres from the boundary with numbers 14 and 18 West Street and approximately 3.2 metres from the front boundary. The site plan does include a new gate to the front, however this does not form part of the application is considered to be permitted development. Okay, so these are the plans of the garage. It would have a width of 10 metres and a depth of 6 metres be characterised by a mono pitched roof with a maximum height of 3 metres. Just to clarify in terms of the site history in 2021 the planning committee granted a certificate of lawfulness for a concrete base for the sighting of a caravan, two metre high gate boundary fence and installation of gravel parking area. Members are advised that this certificate of lawful development only confirms that a concrete base can be constructed and not a caravan itself. The sighting of a caravan on the land is not operational development and therefore does not require planning permission. Elevations were only submitted to demonstrate that it fell under the definition of a caravan. A caravan is movable and this is materially different to the erection of a building. As such the placing of a caravan on the land is not considered to provide a credible fallback position which carries material weight when considering the proposal for the building. As the material considerations of the design, layout and scale impact on heritage assets and residential amenity the parish council had objected and two neighbour representations in objection have been received. Officers recommend refusal as per the refusal reasons laid out within the report and as per the amendment stated at the start of the presentation. Thank you chair. Thank you for that presentation. I wonder if you could just confirm that the revised reasons for recommending refusal relate to paragraph 2 on page 35 and not paragraph 1. Through you chair that is correct. Paragraph 2. Thank you. So the proximity to the listed building at number 18 is still relevant. Number 14. Sorry. Paragraph 1 at the moment reads the proposed garage by reason of its scale in sighting in close proximity to grade 2 listed buildings at number 14 and 18 West Street and perhaps I've misunderstood it. Paragraph 2 relates the detrimental impact on the outlook of the ground floor windows of number 14. Paragraph 1 is relevant to both 14 and 18. Yes. Just 14 for paragraph 2. Thank you. Okay. Any questions from members of the committee for our presenting officer? Seems very clear. And we have one public speaker. Alasdair Fung, attending in person. Alasdair, I think you know the system. The floor is yours for three minutes and if you would stand by for any questions at the end that would be helpful. Thank you, chair. I've had to amend mine short notice because of the change in the reason for refusal with regard to number 18 but I will do my best. Firstly, let me address the plane officer's assertion that the proposal will have less than substantial harm on the character and appearance of the conservation area. This is contrary to the conservation officer's comments which state the description of the proposed garage to be acceptable for this location and the parish council support the design of the outbuilding and feel that it is fitting for the conservation area. Hence, the design itself is considered acceptable within the conservation area. Could I have photo one, please? We'll bring that up in a moment. Okay. Well, photo one is a view of the site from the west taken out from the footpath to the south of West Street on the corner with Barren's Way. I would then ask for photo two. Shall we wait for photo one first? Yes. That shows a view along West Street. Actually, that one is from outside number 17 West Street. So, as you can see from the photo the garage will not be visible from the public highway. Could I have the next? This is the view from the other side which again shows that the garage itself would not be visible from the public highway. Could I have the next photo, please? This is a straight-on view of the site. You'll see cars parked in roughly the position where the garage will be, although they will be further back and less than visible and with the gates that were included on the proposed site plan you won't be able to see anything at all. I said that a picture paints a thousand words and I hope these photos demonstrate that the garage will not be visible from West Street and have no impact on the street scene. As I say, the installation of the gate shown on the proposed site layout plan would further limit the views into the site. I submit that the impact of the proposal on the conservation area is positive, enhancing the conservation area as the proposal replaces an existing unattractive and decrepit shed and an elderly caravan. Can I have photo 5, please? Which is unlike an example Three Doors Down, which is number 32 West Street which is adjacent to Whitehorse Cottage 28 West Street, a grade 2 listed building. The west elevation of the listed building 14 and 18 West Street is screened by a the 3.2 metre high U hedge and a mature U tree at the front of the site. As you've seen in photos 1 and 2 and therefore the settings in terms of the view of the listed building from the public highway would be unaffected. An existing shed and caravan occupy the land where the garage is sighted and these unattractive items would be replaced by a structure acknowledged to be acceptable in design in the conservation area. The proposed garage would be subservient to the listed building with a height on the east elevation of 2.5 metres and a low profile monopeach roof design. It would be a similar height to the existing shed. The west elevation of number 14 West Street has a ground floor window with a first floor window directly above. The ground floor window serves a hallway and staircase and the first floor window serves a landing and staircase to adaptable rooms. Whilst the proposed garage is in front of the ground floor window it is set 1.5 metres away to allow for light to reach it the hallway will also benefit from the light afforded from the first floor landing window. The planning officer cites reason for refusal number 2 as the proposed garage by reason of its scale and proximity to the neighbouring properties would have a detrimental impact on windows originally including number 18 but now only number 14. The outlook from number 4 the proposed garage was designed with a low profile roof to minimise its impact and not block the first floor window of number 14. Lots of a view is often cited in planning objections by home owners concerned about how this will affect their property. Loss of view under planning system it is accepted that unlike loss of view a loss of outlook is a valid planning objection. Loss of outlook is difficult to quantify and necessarily involves a degree of subjective judgment on the part of the planning officer. I submit that the loss of the outlook to the ground floor window of number 14 being a non-habitable room should not be allowed to unduly influence a decision. The current outlook comprising of the elderly caravan shed building materials dustbins is effectively what the outlook is and the window is normally covered with a very thick net curtain. Also if you put it in context in modern terms the privacy in terms of privacy if these windows on the west elevation were subject to a current application grant of approval they would have a condition attached requiring them to be permanently fitted with obscure glazing and non-opening with no view of the neighbouring property and no outlook. The proposed garage will have a positive impact on the fabric of the listed building having a footprint of 60 square metres. Can I ask you to come to a conclusion please? Well this is an important better. The proposed garage will have a positive impact on the fabric of the listed building having a footprint of 60 square metres. The rain falling on the area would normally percolate into the ground adjacent to the listed building. The roof of the garage will allow the surface water to be collected and challenged to soak away 15 metres from the west elevation of the listed building helping preserve the structure of the building by ameliorating damp problems. In addition the owners of number 14 have requested a French drain being stored to assist with the damp and help preserve the building. To undertake this work on a voluntary basis as part of the development in order to be neighbourly. This is something I've done previously as a good neighbour of the owner of Rosemary Cottage number 20 West Street which also joins the eastern boundary. Sorry Mr Fung a conclusion please. Okay could I have photos 4 and 5? This is a recent development at a listed building within the conservation area. Oak Dean number 17 West Street diagonally opposite the site and as you can see this is acceptable within the conservation area and within the setting of an existing listed building. And a quick look at 5 and then if you could conclude your remarks please. Having me round to all these points I believe the proposal is acceptable in terms of its siting within the conservation area and adjacent to a grade 2 listed building and I ask that the committee approve the applications. Thank you for that. Any questions for Mr Fung from members of the committee? Yes councillor Dr Martin Carn has a question for you Mr Fung. First of all I visited this site on Monday and I spoke to Mr Fung but I didn't express an opinion. Looking at the plan there appears to be a second ground floor window behind the behind the building and they refer to what we used as a study. I just wanted to check what the actual situation is. Is there a second window behind the proposed building on the ground floor under a separate room or is the rest of the site a blank wall? Are we talking about number 14 Duchess Crossridge or number 18? I don't know between the buildings are so you have to tell me. How many windows are behind the proposed building and are they both are the ground floor windows both going to a stairwell or is the one in fact to a room? Quoting in the refusal serves a toilet. The window in number 14 Duchess Cottage serves a hallway and stairwell. Okay, thank you. Councillor Dr Juby Hawkins. Thank you chair. Just wanted to say thank you for the photos that you provided that was quite helpful actually because that's one of the things I was going to ask. But it's not a question for Mr Fonish directly. I'm just thinking looking at the reasons for the proposed refusal what I have not seen because it's not been a side visit is the actual outlook that seems to be the problem and I would like to propose a deferral please for a side visit so we can actually see it from the number 14. Okay, well some members have but is that something which with the right photographs might be possible without deferral? We haven't seen the outlook from number 14. From this window that supposedly is a big thing that is being used as a cause for refusings. Okay, before we come to a view on that can I just ask Phil McIntosh to comment and then I think Bill Handley Councillor Handley I think yours is on the same point is it? Yes. Just through you chair. It may be worth Charlotte just clarifying the window in question I'm understanding there's a study in number 14 at ground floor level which would be how it's all room and that's the window that is the cause for concern and I understand Councillor Hawking's point but Charlotte might be able to give some more clarity on the position of that window Could I address that point? I'll come to you in a moment Mr Funscher Mayor, Councillor Handley you wanted to comment on the same point I'm just supporting Councillor Turner Hawking I'll clear myself on this point and I'd like more information Let's just see if we can clear this up a little from the block plans which I think we have now up on the screen Mr Funscher are you able to throw any light on this from the block plans submitted? Yes, so there are two windows facing the garage there's one in number 14 and one in number 18 we are not concerned about the one in number 18 so we understand this serves a toilet the one in number 14 based on previously submitted plans for number 14 and comments made by the occupier of number 14 this serves a study which does include a stairway up to the first floor Could I ask you to convert your pointer to a laser and just make it absolutely clear which windows and which viewpoint we're referring to Is this one here? So there is a window on a boundary being the study at number 14 which faces directly onto the proposed building, is that right? That is correct Yes I'm going to just take Councillor Heather Williams first and then I will come because there's a question Mr Funsch may be able to help us on Councillor Williams Thank you chair One thing I'd like to clarify because we also said this study has a stairway in it and I appreciate some older buildings but for example in my hallway I have a desk but it's not habitual room it's not got a single window so I think we need to know is it just because it's a slightly bigger area than normal that it's been used in that but it's not actually classified as a habitual room or is it an actual room itself that's the first thing I'm not clear on The other is from the images and everything we've been shown what we're actually asking is what is the current outlook from that window because from what we can see it's a whopping great big hedge and this garage is going to be behind the hedge so if part of the conditions was that the hedge must be retained then the outlook isn't going to change at all from this development so I think that's why we're struggling with this chair Yes Chancellor Dr Martin Cahn has visited the site yesterday so maybe on top of us the window on the outside I can't say what's inside but I can say that the window present is hidden behind a group of building, a caravan and some built cars it is quite with due almost as high as the window itself so it is affected by the cars outside it's not behind the hedge it's behind the cars which are on the part in the front area I'm going to come back to Charlotte Spencer again on this are you able to help us on whether this is a habitable room for the window concerned Based on my understanding of what is considered a habitable room we would say that a study is a habitable room Right Mr Fun, would you like to comment on that? Yes, just prior to the submission of the application my wife went round to see all the neighbours show them the plans and discuss it with them at that time there was no desk in the stairwell at that so it it's appeared after the application was submitted I like Councillor Williams I have an upstairs landing which has a number of bookcases and an armchair I don't consider it a library Right, so there's some question here as to whether that is a habitable room Councillor Dr Richard Williams Thank you chair Is this a question for the No, it's not a comment to support Councillor Hawking I think we need to see this site I feel very strongly having heard that it's very difficult to judge without actually seeing it I think there is a feeling around the committee that we do need to see the site I have a proposal to that effect from Councillor Dr Chumey Hawkins I think I have a seconder They can find it out I'm willing to second that So, yes but I only need one, thank you Councillor Councillor We have a proposal on a seconder I'm proposing to move to a vote Are you happy with that? Yes, I was only going to comment that having visited the site I would agree that I think people would be helped by that Right I think that is broadly the view of the committee Is anyone opposed to us deferring this so that we can visit the site and therefore coming back to this on a future occasion Can we take that by affirmation then? Thank you for that I should perhaps have asked beforehand whether that causes any particular problems but if it does we will have to address them when we come to them So we have decided not to determine this application today but to visit it on a future occasion and to decide it then Mr Farns, thank you very much for coming along and putting that to us and I'm sure you will be happy to receive us in due course to have a look at this No problem Right Well we have no further applications before us today We have not resolved that one of course Let's then move on to item 7 Appeals and you have this before you on page 37 Appeals set out here I think Phil Macintosh is going to respond to any questions you want to present to us before I'm happy to take any questions if members have got any questions around the appeals that are listed So yeah I haven't got anything to particularly report on through those issues Any questions from members on the appeals as listed Appendix 1 Councillor Dr Tew Hawkins Thank you, um page 40 the um the quality comment that was dismissed I'm happy to see that because we do need that We do need that part We'll note your reactions to that I note that on page 41 we have Land adjacent to 26th Church Street in Little Shelford which was a dismissed but it was a non-determination and we have now have those listed separately Also on the appeals we have Appendix 2 page 43 Any questions for Phil Macintosh on any of those and then I'm sorry I'm just wondering what the reason for the appeals was particularly the one in Hazinfield please Which one are you referring to which page number, page 43 is that Appendix 2 um so it's a 44 board lane address in general that table doesn't show the reasons I was just wondering about that The reason to refuse all you mean These are appeals that have been lodged I was just wondering is it non-determination or is it appealing a decision that's been made I'm sorry I don't know actually it's not listed as you said Are you happy to accept that I mean I'm sure that will be I can find out for you We'll deal with that later It does seem to me we have Appendix 1 which contains more information than the appeals set out in Appendix 2 I don't know why that is but it's quite difficult to see from Appendix 2 the sort of information that Dr Redrick was asking for and I wonder if there's a particular reason for maintaining the Appendix 2 format I'm not sure, Chair Perhaps we could review that Yeah, absolutely Right And then before we go to the compliance report we have Appendix 3 which is local enquiry and informal hearing dates and we have an enquiry due on land north of Cambridge North Station that'll be in June and then informal hearings as listed on page 45 um Any questions, comments, no Page 47 we have appeals awaiting decision from the inspectorate um Any questions or comments on those Page 48 Page 49 50 51 52, 53 and 54 And then at Appendix 5 we have appeals pending statement Um Right Can we move on then to the compliance report I think we have Chris Braver Good morning Chair Hopefully you can hear me, good morning Um So the compliance report for for this month amount in changes I've provided some information just about how the online forms are still being used at this moment in time but I would just like to say we have offered when it comes to my update on staff in we have offered a candidate a position that has been verbally accepted so hopefully we'll have that post filled soon and I'll be able to update with a start date and the such like in the next committee meeting I'd also just like to let the committee know that the part where I've spoken about acknowledgement emails for enforcement cases that has actually gone live today that is now up and running so when councillors members of the public fill in the online complaint form when that is then transferred onto the planning enforcement database and a case officer is assigned with a reference an automatic email as long as an email address has been given or then be sent to the person who's made the report letting them know the case reference the case officer and how to contact that case officer for further updates the last committee I was asked about anonymous complaints I'm still looking at getting the website amended so that we can advise the public about contacting their elected ward members or parish councils to raise a on their behalf and how to find the details of their ward members and I'm hoping that that will be sorted out for the next committee and I can update you on that as well let me just go to the sorry I've got it open let me just go to appendix one the update in appendix one we now have quarter I don't have the new quarter updates because I hadn't got to the end of March so I apologise for that not being on here but the new quarter one 20 sorry final quarter will be on on the next report and enforcement notice is issued we issued notice in March which was an enforcement notice a temporary stop notice and a stop notice for Bridgeford farm kennels that's at Flink Cross on the A505 heading towards Royston for a change of use operational development so that was a B8 storage and distribution use for chicken eggs and there were some extensions to an existing buildings so those notices prohibit the use of the land for B8 and require the removal of the unauthorised additions to the buildings we issued a temporary stop notice and then a full stop notice as well due to the highway safety concerns of that site and an access onto the A505 the temporary stop notice and full stop notice is currently being complied with the B8 use on the land is currently ceased a appeal has been submitted against that enforcement notice however I do not have a start date for that at this moment in time and that concludes my update I do have an update for the committee as well from Neil Langley just bear with me which he's asked me to that we are going to consider some matters in closed session which I think you'll be speaking to us about and I don't know quite whether this is the one you're referring to but if you're going to go on to those matters we will need to formally close the session first so sorry carry on please well this was just an update on this is Neil Langley's update on the Smithy Fenn Chair so we'll all come back to that okay alright perhaps we could just take any questions from members before we go on to that one take any questions from members of the committee on the your compliance report you're referring the large paragraph to updates on significant cases should members wish for specific updates to be added to the report they should be addressed to you and for the next available planning committee I don't know whether members have any particular requests that they have made or any particular updates they would like to have considered Councillor Heather Williams thank you chair there is a very long outstanding which some members may be aware of probably councillor to me Hawkins in relation to White Farming Croydon where there's been lots of crossovers I think it would be advisable for that to now be appearing on the report given the length of time it's taken can that appear on the next report for us yes it can our problem thank you any other queries from members of the committee you and I have spoken about a couple of cases relating to I mean firstly I should mention the compliance issues in relation to Duck End in Gyrton the two local members met with me the other day to stress how strongly they support the parish councillers view that this must be carried out as set out in the inspectors report on that appeal I just wanted to register that probably no comments needed unless you want to also in relation to my own ward I have raised with you a number of concerns going on about the construction going on on number six Redlands Close which I think you're aware of I don't know if you have any comment for the committee on that the only comment I have at this moment in time is that I my officer who is dealing with this site will be going back on the concerns raised on the departure from the plans at this moment in time I can't answer you about those departures because he has not been to site since our emails I will be replying to the further communications from the neighbours on the further points that have been raised which I think you were copied in on and I will copy you back on that I have explained the limitations of the construction management plan which is rather unfortunate however as you're aware chair we are kind of constrained by what is written in those construction management plans and the lack of what's written in those plans as well so it's kind of a a bit of a double-edged sword I understand the frustrations of the neighbours there but we will be limited to what we can and can't do to sort out the problems they currently experiencing Perhaps that one we could also come back to next month on the report next month Thank you very much for that I'm proposing to now go to item 9 Members we come to the exclusion of press and public which is required to allow us to hear item 10 and whilst it might be noted that there are no press or public visible we nonetheless have to take this motion I propose that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item item 12 item 12 I think it's item 10 item 10 in accordance with section 104 of the local government act 1972 on the grounds that if present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph 7 part 1 of schedule 12a of the act and paragraph 7 refers to information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime Members I'm sure it will not be apparent to you that I was actually reading that So I propose that Do I have a seconder for that Thank you Councillor Toomey Hawkins can I take this by affirmation Thank you