 Thank you very much, Chair. You are now live. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to South Cams District Council Planning Committee. I'm John Batchelor. I'm Chairman of the committee. My Vice-Chair is Councillor Haylings. Would Councillor Haylings make a presence known, please? Thank you very much, Chair, and good morning, everyone. Thank you. We are supported today along the virtual top table. We have the following officers, Chris Carter, who is Delivery Manager of Strategic Sites. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, everybody. Stephen Reed, who is a senior planning lawyer. Good morning, Chair and members and guests. Thank you very much. And Ian Senior from Democratic Services, who will be taking the minutes. Good morning. Good morning, Ian. Thank you. I will introduce individual case officers when I invite them to speak. First, just a few housekeeping announcements. Please make sure that your device is fully charged and switched your camera and microphones off unless you're invited to do otherwise. When you're invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched on. When you finish addressing the meeting, please turn off the microphone and cameras immediately. Speak slowly and clearly, and please do not talk over or interrupt anyone. Please ensure that you have switched off or silenced any other devices you have so that they do not interrupt the proceedings. The normal procedure at Planning Committee is to take recorded votes and we will continue with this unless there is clear affirmation. When we move to a vote on any item and there is not clear affirmation, I will ask for a roll call to be taken. I will then ask committee members to speak into the microphone so that their vote is clear, both committee and those watching the webcast. Members should respond for, against or abstain when their name is called. Now, committee members present, I will now invite each of you to introduce yourselves. Members, after I call your name, please turn on your camera and microphone. Wait two seconds and say your name and the word you represent so that your presence may be noted. Please remember to turn your devices off after your introduction. My name is Councillor John Bachelor, Chair of the Committee and Member for Linsham. Councillor Bradman, please. Good morning, everyone. I'm Councillor Bradnam and a Bradnam and I'm the Member for Milton and Water Beach Ward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Cahn. Hello, I'm Martin Cahn. Hello. You're very quiet, Councillor. Hello, I'm Councillor Martin Cahn. I'm the Member for Histon and Impington. Thank you very much. Councillor Harvey, I believe you're substituting today for Councillor Fain. Would you confirm that, please? Yes, that's correct. So, yes. Councillor Geoff Harvey, I'm the Member for Portion Ward. Thank you. Councillor Dr Hawkins, please. Good morning, everyone. I'm Tumi Hawkins and I'm the Member for Coalicot Ward. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Halings. Good morning, everybody. I'm Pippa Halings and I'm the Member for Histon, Impington and Orchard Park. Thank you. Councillor Ripeth. Good morning, everybody. I'm Councillor Judith Ripeth and I'm a Member for Milton and Water Beach. Thank you. Councillor Roberts, please. Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, everybody. Deborah Roberts, District Councillor for the Foxton Ward. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chairman. Heather Williams, I represent the Mordons Ward. Thank you. Councillor Richard Williams. Thank you, Chair. I'm Richard Williams, I'm the Member for Wittlesford Treplo, Heathfield and Newton. Thank you. And Councillor Wright. Good morning, Councillor Nick Wright, Pat Wittlin-Cagston. Thank you very much. So I can confirm that the meeting is quiet. If at any time members leave the meeting, would they please make that fact known to me so that it can be recorded in the minutes? So that members of the public are aware if a Councillor is absent for any part of the presentation of or debate about an agenda item, then they may not vote on that item. This includes technical issues. We have had various occasions where members have dropped out because of that. If it's immediately seen, I will hold the meeting for a while to try and get members back. We have several public speakers today, and I would just like to explain how public speaking will work. This meeting is being broadcast live by the Council's website. Public speakers are reminded that by participating in this meeting, you are consenting to being broadcast under the use of the images and sound recordings for webcasts and training purposes. You will each have three minutes to address the committee. When you start to speak, we will start the timer. Please ensure that you have switched off your microphone on before you speak. When your time has elapsed, we will ask you to conclude your speech. Once you have finished, we may wish to ask you questions, so please be concise in your responses. If there are no more questions, you may leave the meeting and continue to watch via the webcast. Committee members are reminded that any questions to speakers should be for clarification purposes only. And the process for this shall be as follows. I shall ask if there are any questions. If you do have a question, please ask to speak using the chat facility. The committee can only consider planning reasons for or against the application. The committee cannot consider general observations about the development site. The committee cannot consider comments from public speakers made outside of their allotted speaking time. Therefore, we request that those registered do not interrupt outside of their time. Once the committee has heard from all speakers and planning officers, we will form a view on the application. Planning committee will then vote. The outcome is decided by a majority vote. In the event of a tie, I as chair have casting the vote. When planning committee members vote, please can they ensure that they identify themselves and speak into microphones so that the vote is understood by committee and those watching the webcast. Members are reminded that they should indicate whether they are fought against or abstained when their name is called. At the end of the introductions, we can get on now with the minutes. We are on item 2 of our agenda. Apologies. Mr. Senior, do we have any apologies? Thank you, chair. We have one apology from Councillor Peter Fain and his substitute is Councillor Jeff Hargis. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. We are on item 3, which is decorations of interest. Does any member of the committee have any decorations of interest? If so, put your name in the chat area. Let's give you a moment or two to see if that's working. Right, so Councillor Ripeth, you wish to speak? Yes, I've got a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5. I have a daughter in year 10 at Impton Village College and she has an education health care plan, but I come to the matter of fresh and we'll look at it from a non-predigious position. And also item number 11, Water Beach Recreation Ground, which is just the member for that ward. Okay, thank you very much. And Councillor Cahn, please. I have a non-pecuniary interest in the sense that my two children were studied at Impton Village College and I was formally on the parents' committee for the village college, so I'm no longer on. Okay, thank you very much for that. Councillor Bradman. Thank you, Chair. Like Councillor Ripeth, I am a member for Water Beach, so I'm aware of item 11, the Recreation Ground proposals, but I haven't been involved in any discussions about it in a prejudicial way and I come to the matter of fresh. Thank you. And Councillor Haggling, please. Thank you, Chair. For agenda item 5, I would just like to declare that I have been present at several meetings between the project management team, the applicant and officers to seek ways to address some of the issues that have arisen, but I'm coming to this application afresh. Right, thank you very much. And Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you, Chairman. Just for clarity on the appeals section, I'm the local member for one of the appeals, so just to confirm that, obviously, we won't be making any decisions on that. But for clarity, I am the local member. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, I don't have any other speakers. So that's Decorations of Interest. We now move on to item 4 with the minutes of a previous meeting. These can be found on page 1 through to 6. These are the minutes of the 13th of May, 2019. So I believe eight of us were present at that meeting. Does anyone have any points of accuracy that they would like to raise? No, I can't see anyone asking to speak. Councillor Williams, Heather Williams. Councillor Heather Williams, yes, sorry. Apologies, Chairman. I tried to do that earlier, so it's come through twice. OK, thank you very much. My chat function may not be working. Right. We have that in mind. Thank you very much. So members, can I do we accept these as a true record of that meeting? Councillor Ripper. Chair. Councillor Ripper, please. Sorry, just one typo on page 4 of those minutes. Trailer is spelled O-R rather than E-R, but everything else looked correct to me. Right. Thank you very much, Chairman. We note that. So members, are you happy that this is a true reflection of the meeting of the 13th of May 2019? Agreed. Yes. Now on the gates. Thank you very much. We now move on to the main business of the day. Before we get into that, unfortunately, two of these items are being proposed that they are deferred. These are officer recommendations. Mr Carter is going to explain why we need to do that. Mr Carter, please. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, members. As the committee was informed on Friday afternoon, an issue was identified by officers on Friday regarding additional consultation periods that had been instigated automatically by the planning department's IT system. This error affected a number of planning applications, including several on the agenda for today's meeting. Members were advised on Friday that officers would recommend that three of the items on the agenda for today should be deferred to a future meeting, as it was anticipated that in those particular cases, the likelihood of additional representations received, potentially raising new issues, was quite high, and so it would be prudent to wait for the additional consultation periods to expire before the applications are considered a committee. For the remaining affected items, officer advice was and is that the committee can make a resolution to grant or refuse planning commission subject to no new material issues being raised during the outstanding consultation period. The only change to this advice that I would wish to highlight is in respect of item 9, 130 Rampton Road, Willingham. On this item, I was advised by colleagues last night that following a detailed review of the IT system, it is apparent that this item was not in fact subject to a further unintentional consultation period, and I can therefore advise that there is no reason why the committee should not consider this item today. In the interest of clarity, therefore, it is the case that officers recommend that items 5, 7 and 12 can be subject to a resolution of the committee today. Items 6 and 8 are recommended to be deferred to a future meeting, and items 9, 10 and 11 can be determined today. I hope this is clear, but happy to answer any questions, Chair. Thank you. Right, thank you very much. For that, so we need to decide whether or not we're accepting these deferrals. So I will deal with those first. So this is item 6, reference S4 207 stroke 19, R, M at Cotnam. So the proposal is that these are deferred to a later meeting. I'm proposing that. Do I have a seconder, please? I'm happy to second that, Chair. And are you including item 8 at Long Stanton, or are you doing them? We have to do this separately. OK, but I'm happy to second item 6 at Cotnam. Thank you very much. Members, does anyone wish to speak to this item? Chair, can Stephen Reed would like to speak? Right, OK. Mr Reed, would you like to advise us? Thank you, Chair. It applies to all items where members decide that they can proceed today. You've heard Mr Carter refer to new representations. I have emailed all members to indicate that in fact there are various options you can take in terms of delegation. Clearly the you can decide that where no representations are made that the matter can be subject to delegated authority to the Director of Planning. There is a question that members will need to consider and that is that if representations are made whether you wish to delegate to the Director of Planning for him to use his judgment as to whether they are indeed new representations raising matters that have not been considered by Planning Committee today. Thank you very much for that. I think that applies to the ones that we will be processing so we will come back to that shortly. We are on the deferral of the Cotnam Item 6. I think I have some speakers. Councillor Heather Williams please. Thank you Chairman. Obviously the situation we find ourselves isn't very satisfactory and it's not the first time we're going to have to have this situation. We've had other ones which have had to be deferred because of consultation or come back to Committee 2 and sometimes 3 times. Around the deferral my issue is from the advice that we're being given which I respect officers are there to give us advice but it's down to us to decide what advice we take and what we vote on. I don't see how it is fair to the parishes to be cherry picking ones that we will defer and ones that we will leave open for us to come back. So that leaves me in a situation where I'm happy to vote for deferral if we are going to defer all of them equally and treat our residents equally because I don't see how we can say that somebody's view in Cotnam and Longstanton is more important than somebody's view is in one of the other parishes which we're going to determine today and not wait and while I appreciate that's probably not the intention but I think it's an absolute ridiculous situation to be quite frank that we're in. So I think as a committee we need to decide to treat everybody equally and that means we either determine them all under the proviso that we've been informed is legal and compliant and we do it all that way or we defer all the ones that have been affected but I think this situation of we'll do some and we won't do others and actually people want this to come to committee they want councillors to determine these applications that's what we're here for and actually as a member we sit and we listen to all the representations that are made and I don't see how we can make informed decision taking to views of the public if we haven't heard from them and they've still got a chance to respond so I think as a committee chairman we need to decide if we're going to defer all of these or not and I would propose that that we defer them all, let the consultation even though it was an IT glitch for whatever reason but it's just pure chaos if we start cherry picking and ranking some higher than others that's not what we're here to do we're here as a committee to take everybody's views into consideration and use that in our determination of applications and I don't feel we can do that till the consultations finish to be quite honest. Right thank you very much for that so you made a proposal, do you have a second term? I will second it Chairman. Right Councillor Roberts you're down to speak as well, do you want to speak to that? So we're speaking to the Councillor Williams proposal that all those affected by the IT issue should be deferred Yep. Thank you Chairman yes I would like to speak now if I may I support the deferral on the grounds that have already been put by Councillor Heather Williams and I think to address it as cherry picking is quite right the very fact is that all the ones that we have in paper form today have already been through a process of deciding that it was important that they came to the committee for consideration and decisions and therefore I would utterly go again to the fact that it's been suggested by Mr Read that this could be deferred then to an officer clearly they were classed as important enough or sensitive enough to actually come before us for a decision making and I think it's quite right we can't be arbitrary here if they're important to come to us then we have to come to us with all the information and it just looks so bad if we say well some of the ones today we can make a decision on them and if something comes in reconsider it that's not our job our job is to make sure that people's concerns whether they be their parish or individuals are properly considered and that the full allocated time be it might have been a mistake is actually strictly adhered to everybody not picking some and saying that they matter less so we can all look at them today what may be important to us may not be important to somebody else and I think we've got to always consider that but I always remember a previous legal officer telling us that we have to remember how it will look to the man on the Clapham Omnibus and I would say that to the man on the Clapham Omnibus or the stagecoach to Covenham it's very important and we need to make sure that the public feels confidence in this council are not being seen as some choosing picking choosing group of individuals who care about some parishes but don't care so much about others that's not true we know it but that's how it will be perceived and I also fear that this will be challenged that what we are doing is not right my understanding is that it is absolutely mandatory that a consultation period should be strictly adhered to and if we go off on one saying no then I think God help us we're going to be up at the high courts again and I think it's probably questionable in actual government guidelines and rules that we can pick and choose or as Councillor Heather Williams said cherry pick so you know what is the harm chairman of just waiting a little while longer they will come to us but please let the public believe in us it's as simple as that thank you very much I think Mr Reid wants to have a word again please thank you chair if I may I have advised members in writing that if no new representation are made then members can have the confidence that they have heard all matters on which to make a decision there is no question of making a decision prior to the end of the consultation period right thank you very much for that thank you thank you right thank you very much for that Councillor Bradman thank you chairman I just wanted to say that I think the accusation that we'd be making a judgement ahead of time or picking and choosing is not correct what we've been recommended to do is to make a decision pending the consultation period and if no further representations are made then our decision goes ahead if a representation is made then that will be considered again and I don't think it's a question of picking and choosing after all the people who might wish to have made representations have had an opportunity to do so during this first period and if they then wish to do so they still can in this further period and if they make a representation then those thoughts can be taken into account so I don't subscribe to the argument proposed right thank you very much and I mean you're quite right there the resolution that we would vote on would actually say that should there actually be any more material consultation data coming in then it would come back to this committee so Heather Williams you want to speak again is this a new point I just wanted to clarify that I can reply as it's my motion and councillor Richard Williams has also requested speak I'm happy to go at the end fine okay councillor Richard Williams then please thanks thanks very much chair there were just two points I wanted to make following off what councillor Braden said I mean I think my first preference would be to defer everything just because it is fair and it looks like we're treating everyone equally but I think councillor Braden made the point that if we didn't she was envisaging that we would say the delegated authority was subject to no representations being made which is different I think to the proposal which was no material representations being made now I would be much more comfortable with a delegation that said no representations being made therefore there could be no question about us treating different parishes differently so any we will hear every representation that's made in relation to the ones that we do differ and we should hear every representation in relation to ones that we don't if that's the decision that the committee makes but my first preference would be to defer everything thank you very much councillor Kahn can you speak I have a point of view of accuracy I would like a reference to the parishes having their say I would like to point out that the Impington application the parishes have not raised an objection the matter has been brought to committee because the men officers thought that it was a matter of importance and there's been a long period of consultation so I think this point is not quite so relevant in that particular application thank you very much councillor Bradman you want to come back again do you a new point thank you chairman yes it is a new point the other sorry I meant to say it before I apologise for doing it in two iterations and that is that many of the applicants will not welcome a delay and I think we need to where it can be seen that we can make a decision in a proper and reasonable way I think we should do so and I think if we were to be delaying unnecessarily as in the case that councillor Kahn has mentioned I think that would be deemed unreasonable so I think the advice we've received from the officer is reasonable and I think I'm quite happy with the adjustment of the more precise wording that councillor Richard Williams has suggested if there are any representations I think we should be it would be reasonable to look at those I wasn't being so precise to assume I just felt that if there's the decision is being made pending final comments as it were thank you councillor Wright please Chairman just picking up that we have once already this year been found guilty of making a decision while the consultation period was still running in the High Court and we don't want to find ourselves back again there already when the spotlight is on us and just it is transparent and open whether it is an accident or not the consultation period has been triggered again let's act evenly and precisely and defer these till that consultation period is over thank you thank you very much that's the end of our speakers councillor Heather Williams do you want to come back now? Chair, Stephen Reed asked to come in again for clarification I had noticed that alright sorry chair I fully respect the comments of councillor Wright but they are not what is being put forward today so what what happened in the case referred to by councillor Wright was that the planning decision was made before the end of what the public might have perceived to be the end of the consultation period that is not what members are being asked to do today they are being put to members that if any new representations come forward then that the item would come back to members that is completely different to the case that councillor Wright has referred to alright thank you very much for that advice councillor Heather Williams thank you chairman just to sum up my motion and to bring members back to what the actual proposal was I think some members may have misinterpreted my reference to cherry picking is the fact that we are not treating every application the same that has been affected we are suggesting two different types of treatment and the others to go through this other process and I said right at the start when I moved this suggestion this motion that it's one or the other we have to be consistent in our decision making which if we decide to do one treatment for deferral for two of them why are those two in the eyes of the public for somebody that lives in Harston why are the views in Cotnam and Longstanton more important than theirs that is the issue here so if you want to take that direction as a committee and we want to determine things in a timely fashion then they should all be receiving that treatment not just picking two out to defer and not the others and that is why I'm suggesting that we defer them all so every single application that has been affected is treated the same otherwise I don't think we are being proper we're not being reasonable and we're not being consistent which is what we need to be as a committee for the public to have any faith in us and the actual answer is to make sure that this doesn't happen again and we don't have applications keep coming around because we shouldn't keep being put into any possible decisions like this sorry Chairman but they are my thoughts on the matter okay thank you very much so we've got a motion before us that is that we should defer all those items which are affected by the IT issue before we vote we should bear in mind the very clear legal advice that we have been given which does not support that view now I'm sure there will be a vote on this so I'm going to have a roll call so you know Chair if I may are you sure you need to Mr Reid I think so Chair if I may go on then I understand the force of the argument made by Heather Williams and if that is a point of concern to members then members can decide that actually all cases will be treated the same so that Water Beach and Longstanton are debated but you heard from Mr Carter I'm going to stop you there Mr Reid because that isn't what is on the table at the moment so I would like to concentrate on dealing with what we've just been debating so thank you for that input but I'm going to put the motion to the vote and you'll understand if you vote in favour of it that is to defer all items today that have been affected by the IT element and if you're against that you vote against if you wish to abstain you abstain so Mr Reid would you turn your camera off please thank you okay we're going to start the vote now then Councillor Bradman are you for against or abstaining against Councillor Cahn against Councillor Harvey against Councillor Hawkins against thank you Councillor Halings against thank you Councillor Ripeth against thank you Councillor Roberts for thank you Councillor Heather Williams for thank you Councillor Richard Williams for Councillor Wright for thank you and my vote is against so that is four votes four votes to seven so that motion falls so we're back to the original position where we are asked to defer two items item six and item eight so I go back now to the Cotlam item six and would like to put to you that this is deferred to a later meeting I will propose that I believe I've already had a seconder in Councillor Bradman. Chair I'm sorry I'd like to move an amendment to that an amendment to it so my amendment is the fall back position I mentioned earlier which is that we now delegate subject to no representations being made rather than the propose I think it was subject to no material representations being made I want to make it delegate subject to no for the representations being made. Hang on a minute could you put your camera on and Councillor Hawkins would you turn yours off please so that the public can actually see who is speaking right could you start that again then please. I'd like to move an amendment chair that the committee agrees to delegate the decision in these applications subject to no for the representations being made. Right I understood from Mr Reader that's precisely what we were going to do I thought the proposal was it would be no material representations so I'm removing word material Well I think we've already done that actually with the wording that I've got in front of me which is subject to no new issues being raised during the amended consultation period. The issue is the word new chairman it should just be no issues Well don't forget we've already done the consultation Chairman I think if we've already dealt with it Chairman I think we've got to be absolutely strict here we've got to get the I mean we are very careful usually about wording and I think it's imperative that we actually have an amendment voted upon because there's an awful lot of difference between material and not everything. Alright thank you I noted that I would yeah it's an amendment we will pursue with that amendment before we do so I just ask Mr Carter for his advice on that is there any issues about just changing the wording for that. Thank you chair two things I'd like to say firstly I believe at the moment you're moving to a vote on deferring the two items to a future committee separately to that I'm hearing that members would like for the remaining items for which I've suggested a resolution to grant or refuse could be made today that that is subject to no new sorry no representations no further representations being received previously I had suggested no new representations but I'm hearing now that members would like that to be no further representations of any kind so that's that's my understanding I believe that was also included in the advice provided by Stephen Reed earlier in the week. Okay so there's no problem with that element of it. No chair. Okay thank you very much. Okay I'm not sure we need the amendment because deferrals we're only talking about Cotnam and Long Stanton Chairman? Yeah I'm just I'd like to take some advice on what the proper procedural process here is Mr. Reed perhaps you could advise us clearly the deferrals and the matter of the wording of the delegation are two separate matters should we take those separately or can we take that as an amendment? Mr. Reed? Is Mr. Reed muted? He is muted and Mr. Reed can you hear us? Doesn't look as though he can I'll try one more time Mr. Reed All right thank you Mr. Reed can I take a card to advise on that? Yes chair I think I can help yes they are two separate matters I believe that you can take the two cases of deferral separately and then for the other items if members so wish that they can make their resolutions subject to no further representations being received in each of those cases that are affected. Okay thank you very much Councillor Richard Williams are you happy with that? Thank you chair yes I'd be happy that at the end of each item we resolved to delegate subject to no further representations. Fine we can just simply do the wording on each one of those. I'm happy with that. Okay so I can proceed then with the delegation votes the deferral vote so we have a proposal to defer item 6 at Cotnam this is reference S4207 19 R.M. Is anybody against that? Yes chairman I have registered to speak three times on it to deferral Okay thank you Councillor Heather Williams please. Thank you chairman I'm against the deferral because if we defer Cotnam or Longstanton we are treating it different to the other ones that was the whole point of the motion we've chose not to defer them all so now we should determine them all under the same clause so I don't think the deferral you lost that one so no no no this is completely different chairman we lost the fact of deferring them all therefore now we should determine them all as is requested so I'm against deferring this item it's complete reverse chairman and I'm against it and I will have my say ridiculous thank you Councillor Roberts please thank you chairman that's absolutely right isn't it we cannot have a situation here where we are using our fancies on one and our fancies differently on two we either look at none of them today or we look at every one of them today I think we've had that we've had that chairman just let me just please finish chairman let's say something new then please then oh gosh chairman would I love to if you'd give me the opportunity the situation is becoming hilarious we are being so inconsistent now this council has an obligation to be consistent we are told that on numerous occasions on numerous applications by these officers who will keep interrupting here to try to get their point across the situation is we are obliged to do things properly in this council not at the will of a officer certain officers to contradict ourselves make ourselves a complete idiots in the eyes of the public and thank you I think we've got the point okay I don't have any further speakers I mean this is not democracy John I'm sorry you are not being open governments you are choosing which ones you will go with just because the officer tells you that his opinion is right we've heard your argument and it's up to the committee to decide if they support it or not so thank you I don't Councillor Brednum do you really need to speak on that just briefly chairman I just wanted to object to Councillor Roberts criticizing the officers I think it's completely unfair under these circumstances we are advised by our officers and we trust their judgment and I for one believe that what we have been advised to do is perfectly acceptable thank you very much that was the same thing we lost in time we listened to the officers then and they weren't right then they may not be right now you cannot Anna think that officers thank you Councillor Roberts yet again I say we're doing item 6 it's the proposal to defer to a later meeting this is S4207 19 RM Cotnum I'm going to do a roll call so are we ready for that so if you're in favour of deferral you're for it if not you're against it and the option of abstain is also there roll call Councillor Breddon please for you're for deferral correct four deferral Councillor Harvey four deferral thank you Councillor Hawkins four deferral thank you very much for Halings four deferral thank you Councillor Ripeth four thank you to Councillor Roberts in the case of consistency against against right thank you Councillor Heather Williams against thank you Councillor Richard Williams against thank you Councillor Wright against thank you my vote is four so so that's seven four in favour of deferral so Cotnum item six is deferred to a later meeting we now move to item number eight which is Longstanton reference S3215 19 DC I propose that this is deferred to a later meeting do I have a second please thank you very much that's Cotnum item wish to speak to this one yes Councillor Heather Williams thank you Chairman I won't seek to repeat the arguments you can imagine it's the same as before however I will say that the fact that I'm voting against this isn't a sign of my thoughts about officers or anything else it's the fact that I respect that as councillors we have a different role in this to officers and it's us that takes this decision we can take advice but we can equally choose a different course because we represent the public right thank you very much that's okay I don't think I've got any other speakers have I alright we go to the vote on that one then so you're voting to if you in favour of deferring it you go for if not you're against otherwise you can abstain and this is item 8 S321519 DC at long stand do the roll call Councillor Bradlam please four deferral thank you Councillor calm four deferral four deferral thank you Councillor Hawkins four deferral Councillor Halings four deferral alright Councillor Ripeth four deferral Councillor Roberts against Councillor Heather Williams against Councillor Richard Williams against the gates here and my vote is four so again that will come out as seven four so the motion is passed and item 8 is deferred to a later meeting we will now move back to the agenda and get on with our first substantive item which is item number five which is Impington Village College this is on page seven to 58 of your agenda papers so the proposal is for the erection of one two-story building class D1 for educational use and erection of one single-story building class D1 for educational use associated landscaping, car parking and replacement ground storage facilities the applicant is the Morris Education Trust the case officer will take us through the key material considerations this is a departure and the application is brought to the committee because this application has been referred to the committee on the basis of current assessment of the sensitivity and significance of the proposal because it is of local interest and represents departure from the development plan the officer recommendation is for approval and the presenting officer is Karen Pell Coggins so Karen if you would like to take your presentation please thank you chair for the little verbal update before we start obviously the recommendation of the application now is a delegated approval subject to no further representation being received during the consultation period couple of points the conservation officer has put in some comments a new flu has popped up on the building which there are some concerns with regards to the flu but this can be dealt with by condition so an additional condition is requested to agree details of the form construction and appearance of the flu through the submission of 1 to 20 scale drawings in addition it's been brought to my attention that condition why has been repeated in relation to the screen storage of refuse in condition a1b so the proposal is to delete condition a1b thank you I'll just do my presentation now so the application as previously advised by councillor Batchelor is the erection of a two buildings for educational use one is for a new school called the Cavendish school for children with higher function in autism spectrum conditions ASC and the second building is for additional accommodation for impington village college so the key constraints with regards to the site is greenbelt and countryside grade one listed building adjacent to the conservation area flood zone one a tree preservation order along the mature trees on new road and partially plain fields so this is a map to show you so the site for the new school building will be down here see my cursor and the site for the additional accommodation for impington village colleges in this area so the green is greenbelt lands the dashed line here is the edge of the development framework the pink line is the conservation area boundary which is this side of the line and this pink area here is the grade one listed building there's another pink area here which is a protected village amenity area and the blue lines along the frontage are tree preservation orders so this is a location plan which just outlines the site on the site at the moment there is a number of single story buildings I've got some photographs so you can just see here so this is the site for the new school so there's existing single story brick building in the centre point here with a single story brick ground store and then there's a mobile classrooms two large mobile classrooms in this area there are a number of trees on site the trees along the eastern boundary will be retained but the others will be removed this is the tennis courts the sports centre to impington village college these are obviously part of impington village college classrooms and again this is a two story building here which is a classroom building so just some photographs to give you an idea of what's on the site so to the left this is the brick building that's on the site at the moment the ground store which gives you a view just looking down park drive towards the entrance again this is the brick building from the car park which is just here and then you can just see the mobile classrooms behind the tree there this is the view towards the existing classroom buildings for impington village college and the new one of the new buildings will go in this gap just here and then there's just an example of the existing view from new road so this is view from new road along park drive and you can just see an outline basically the new school will be down that behind the trees and this is an example of the existing design of building of impington village college so just going on to the site layouts we have the new school building here which is a two story building there is access works to the park drive along here and you will come in and there's a sort of turning turning area one in and out section oh sorry bear with me 20 parking spaces included in one disabled space there is a drop off area with 6 additional spaces 34 cycle parking spaces so cycle parking is here and over here Karen we have lost your presentation okay bear with me Karen you seem to be sharing your team screen rather than sharing the presentation sorry bear with me Karen if you just go to the top right next to leave and go to the box with the X in it that will stop you sharing your team screen just next to the red leave button I think we have lost Karen I think we may have Karen may I speak who's that sorry it's Stephen Reed yes Stephen Karen I was only able to see the top half of the of the slides can I check that everybody else could see all of the slides I saw them yeah could see them yeah so it's just you Stephen that's fine sorry right I think I pressed the wrong button next one Karen bear with the X in it just next to the microphone button and the leave question can we just tell Karen can you see the presentation now no okay sorry sorry I'm just trying to get you back let me try and go out of perhaps whilst perhaps whilst you're doing that Karen give you a couple of minutes we'll have a five minute break thank you all right members so we're closed down for five minutes thank you very much chair you're now live again thank you very much welcome back to south camps district council planning committee and I think we've sorted out the technical issues now so we're returned to the officers presentation just to remind you that we are on item five Hamilton village college thank you thank you chair so the new school building is down here which will be a two story building as proceeds revised it is 2800 square meters of floor space on two floors the building is 56 meters long and approximately 32 meters wide with a height of 7.65 meters the building would be cream multi buff bricks with red brick details and a single prime membrane roof in grey there's also a replacement ground store which is just here to the east and a horticultural room the new building for Hamilton village college would be single story in height have a floor space or approximately 350 square meters and would be for classrooms it would be constructed from the same materials as the main school building so I don't know if you can see that very well but just an example of the ground floor for the new school so we have hall a hall we have classrooms we have sensory rooms and obviously ancillary facilities just gives you an idea so just going on to the elevations so the building has been now being designed to reflect the sort of character of the existing listed building at impington village college so just with details so for example there will be tiles around the entrance which will match some tiling on the original impington village college building so it's taking sort of details and materials from that building along with the sort of flat roof form and just giving it a modernist contemporary approach to the historic building going on to the school elevations so here's some perspective views just so you get an idea of what the building will look like so it is fairly sort of flat roof and sort of a box but with some features to break up the mass of the building so going on to the impington village college building so there will be three general teaching areas an office and communal area again flat roof design so again with materials to match and this will be single story in height so there will be a feature at the entrance of the building to direct see people to the main entrance so again this is the same materials will give you an idea of the perspectives of the building just an example of the ground store so single story brick building very similar to the existing building and it will have a funded area for the side for an oil tank and again details of the horticultural room for the children at the school so they can do some work outside the key considerations are the principle of development in the green belt education use protection of open space basically the site is adjacent to playing fields for impington village college architecture and appearance of the area heritage assets trees landscaping and biodiversity transport and highway safety flood risk and drainage neighbour amenity and whether there are any very special circumstances thank you right thank you very much okay members any points of clarification please Councillor Bredman thank you chairman I just wanted to clarify I may have been looking at an original site plan do I understand it now from the plan that you showed us that the grounds storage building has been moved closer to the school building was off at the northern boundary and it's been moved in now hasn't it that's correct yes it was originally near the dwellings on Perture and Close and it has been moved next to the new school building now thank you thank you very much Councillor Heather Williams please thank you chairman sorry my mute seems to be stuck which may be fortunate you may feel but I just wanted to congratulate Karen on it's very very informative report and there's a lot of very useful information in it I just wondered if in future I can see and on other items we've gone to some sort of new style on the front page which from a public perception view I really don't think is as accessible as the old one so I'm wondering if in future we could have the other style that you know you can find your recommendation but it's sort of buried in the executive summary in the parish those sorts of things and I think that'd be really helpful my clarification on the application itself is around and the green belt the processes just so we need to establish that it's in the green belt there's harm and the very special circumstances is that that's the test that we need to go through I just wanted clarity and for the public as well because we've not gone through that for a while so the process around the green belt please thank you yeah so firstly you would need to determine whether the proposal would represent appropriate development in the green belt or inappropriate development in the green belt you would then need to determine whether there's any other harm as a result of the proposal so for example character and appearance of the area heritage assets by way safety etc if that is the case so say for example it is inappropriate in the green belt and there's other harm any very special circumstances would need to clearly outweigh the harm through inappropriateness and any other harm for us to be able to approve the application right thank you very much for that I don't see any further points of clarification from members so I'll now move on to the public speakers we have a number of public speakers on this is Mr. Kelso with us please for the applicant Kelso would like to put on your camera thank you welcome good morning sorry to keep you that's quite alright you know the form do you you got your three minutes and then there's members may wish to ask questions so when you're ready I'd like to start by thanking members of South Cambridge the planning department, the county council environment department and the education department and local councillors for working diligently with us as a trust, a DFE and McAvoy is the developer supreme of Cavendish school development to this meeting today for planning approval the school needs to open in the academic year 21-22 the Cavendish school will provide education for a large number of students with autism diagnoses many of whom are currently not receiving appropriate education or are accessing extremely expensive private provision at significant cost to the council at a time when the high needs education budget in Cambridge is already approximately 18 million pounds in deficit there are currently over 100 young people in Cambridge who should be being educated in special schools who are not failure to open the Cavendish school in the academic year 21-22 will mean that these young people will continue to be unable to access educational provision they require deserve and are entitled to by law throughout the free school application development and planning process the Cavendish school has received and retained significant support from the local authority the local community via parish and district councils and the wider send education community there is clearly a desire from all stakeholders to ensure that this school opens delivers on its vision for fantastic education and opportunities for young people with autism in Cambridge I've mentioned the very special circumstances and much need is specialist education provision a building of excellent sustainability on a sustainable site clearly delivers benefits that outweigh the harm of this development in the green belt in planning policy terms additionally being a complex development we have worked with officers through multiple consultations and amendments so it can be of the highest standard overcome the concerns raised by residents and statutory consultees I would like now to explain why approval of the application today is so important these are not material planning considerations but they provide very important context we face the challenge of building an opening a school in less than 12 months if approval is not secured today this will delay the improvement of the head teacher and staff will mean that young people in need of this provision will not be able to access it until the academic year 22-23 and this will incur significant further cost to the Learning Alliance Trust formerly the Morris Education Trust the DFA in Cambridge Accounting Council moreover it will cause further anxiety trauma for families and vulnerable young people our significant experience as a trust working with young people and families with special educational needs makes us to determine to our community school as soon as possible as we are acutely aware of the negative impact in appropriate and inadequate provision can have on the development and life chances of the vulnerable conversely we are also aware of the transformative impact that the right provision can have on the lives of young people with special needs and their families as a trust we are committed to delivering excellent provision for those most in need we would ask your support in doing so by approving the planning application for the Cavendish School today thank you thank you very much and the Consulate Professional is exactly three minutes well done any points of clarification that you would like to pursue no we are all happy are we Councillor Bradnan chair Councillor Bradnan please thank you thank you Chairman I don't know if you can see me can you see me okay good I just wanted to ask are you confident that there is sufficient parking for staff in the provision that you've made Mr. Council yes we do that's sorry I put my camera on as well yes we are that's something we've considered as part of the wider site management process and we're retaining significant existing parking and also they'll be parking for the school the school has a small staff body initially and will grow over time okay thank you very much any other points members I can't see anybody asking no Mr. Council thank you very much thank you if we can move on to the parish council representative then that's Councillor Payne Councillor Payne are you with us yes chairman I should be but I appear to have a problem with my video we can hear you very well may I proceed then do proceed please thank you thank you chairman good morning I'm sorry just a procedural matter I have to confirm that you have the permission of the parish council to speak on their behalf yes chairman I was granted that permission at our parish council planning committee last night excellent thank you very much so when you're ready just the three minutes thank you chairman good morning thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee on this application my name is Dennis Payne I sit on Histon and Eppington parish council and I'm currently the chairman of the council and vice chairman of the parish council's planning committee we have met with representatives of the county school on a number of occasions that includes meetings with the chair of the governor's attendance of public exhibitions and attendance of the project team at all our planning committee meetings covering this matter in addition when details of the application associated with the ground storage facility received negative inputs from the community the project team went out of their way to meet with concerned residents and representatives of the council and explore options and produce a solution to meet those concerns the parish council's planning committee has been totally supportive of the plans and ambitions for the county school throughout this process in addition at the first meeting with our planning committee the project teams ambitions to meet the highest possible sustainability and energy efficiency standards were discussed the committee was supportive of those ambitions and encouraged the school to plan to make the best possible start we therefore wish to support the school's ambition to achieve dream excellent standard we sincerely hope that the committee will support this application thank you thank you very much any points of clarification members I think it's just a statement of clear support there okay there's a councillor Payne that's thank you for your contribution we move on then to local councillors do they have councillor Halings wants to speak at this stage we have councillor David Jenkins I have him on my list I'm asking you first I'll reserve my speech for the end alright fine and councillor Carn I take it that you also will reserve your speech and we have Willis and councillor Jenkins who is the county councillor for this area councillor Jenkins are you with us yes chair good morning and good morning committee good morning three minutes when you're ready okay I'm county councillor for Histon and Impington I'm also a trustee on the board of the Morris Education Trust the multi-academy trust which will run this school from a county council perspective I strongly support this application there is a shortage of places in Cambridge for children with autistic conditions and the Cavendish school will address this there is a need for extra provision now and this school cannot open that's why I would like to see this planning application approved today bringing this application to this meeting has been a challenge and I'd like to recognise the role of the South Cairns officers concerned in making this possible they've been very professional they've rightly challenged the applicant to an appropriate and they've persisted and not wavered in ensuring that the due process will be followed however when it was appropriate to expedite the last steps to enable the application to come to this meeting today they did so the effort was matched by similar commitment on the part of the county council officers I thank them all for what they have done and have every confidence that they have done it right and without compromise there is broad support for this project in the community and I urge the committee to approve it subject to the conditions already proposed thank you chair right thank you very much any points of clarification members from councillor Jenkins no I think that's perfectly clear endorsement there so thank you very much councillor Jenkins we can move on then to the debate local members will no doubt wish to speak I just say that the report makes it very clear that all the statutory consultees are supportive of this proposal and all the speakers we've heard are equally supportive so perhaps you just bear that in mind and can we see who would like to speak now councillor and the Bradman leaders thank you chairman yes I think this is an excellent application I'm so pleased to see that through negotiation and discussion that matters have been changed which improve the application and I think it's an example of how people have worked together for a very positive result and as a councillor also not for this area I'm very aware of how short we are of this specialist school provision and so I'm very pleased to see this happening right in the area where it's needed we have very many children who are being taken very long distances by taxi to appropriate schools so having it here would be wonderful the other thing I wanted to say is that I'm really pleased that the building does reflect the architecture of the Walter Gropius building and I think it reflects it appropriately and it's showing respect for the original building so I have no hesitation in supporting this application wholeheartedly thank you thank you very much councillor Halings local member please thank you very much chair and yeah so being local member obviously we're very very interested in ensuring that this application gets a proper debate and we do weigh up the potential harms and benefits that it represents because of its sensitivity and the significance of this being a departure from our policies because of it being a development in the green belt however we've just heard such endorsements from the education trust and from county councillors around the need the urgent and important need for state specialist provision for high functioning autism and so it's not just a benefit to the local ward but also for many families across the county and we're very proud that this is being built on as such an excellent track record of this kind of provision given locally already and in terms of weighing up that balance I've been extremely impressed this is how things need to happen where when we do go out to consultation and I would like to insist here there have been multiple consultations for this application and when they've received concerns about some of the key material planning considerations that we've been asked to weigh up in the balance they have been addressed in the time that's needed to take to address them one of those is neighbour amenity and urban design and character appearance where many residents living close to that area were quite concerned about the location of the ground store and oil tank and with the amended plans and the relocation both the urban design officer and all of those residents have now withdrawn any objections that they had despite perhaps the case officer showing this as I think what it she mentioned was that it was a flat roof and box type aspect I think councillor Bradenham has just said that she as the urban design officer says this does capture the modern approach of the architecture which is famous to Gropius and which has led to that being a grade one listed building so a lot of work has also been done to make sure in the next couple of minutes that does respect the setting and the character and appearance another issue was around flooding and drainage and it was excellent to see that in this last stage County officers for flooding and for drainage together with the case officer together with the project management team and the education trust were able to come together to make sure that they had everything secured in terms of the drainage aspects which are now in condition are we're in place for everything to be addressed all concerns to be addressed this is time critical we have to ensure these students can get the kind of education they need for September 2021 which is why this application is time critical but we can't approve it just on those grounds urgent I've been witness to the fact that this has gone through multiple consultations that every single concern has been addressed and they are now in the conditions however I would like to move to committee in support of Councillor Dennis Payne who is the chair of the parish council this motion that we add an informative and in the informative we strongly encourage the applicant to adopt Bream excellence in all energy aspects and in all other relevant areas too and chair that's a motion that I would like to put to the committee before any final decision is made thank you right thank you very much that's a proposal which is noted we are just getting the speakers do you want a seconder for that chairman not at this stage I'll come back to that thank you Councillor Heather Williams please you like to speak thank you chairman so reading through the application obviously we have a balance we always do and you know it cannot be in doubt that obviously this is outside of our policies and policies that many of us including myself hold very dearly because they are protection but quite rightly in special circumstances in situations such as these I think it is appropriate that we make a conscious decision to support an application against our policies and this is the right place for us to do it because you know we're councillors we set the the local plan is up to us if we want to deviate from it and I'm minded having to do care and attention to the report and listen carefully to our local member that just spoke that that is the appropriate recommendation and I'm very happy to offer my support to this application I know how important these issues are my daughter doesn't have autism but she does receive special educational needs and the support she gets is brilliant in her special educational needs plan but they need more facilities for other areas and I'm just more than pleased to support it and on the motion that councillor Haley's made I would be happy to support as well but I would like some advice as to whether it would meet the six reasonable tests thank you chairman thank you very much councillor Ripeth please you're muted in my opinion this far outweighs any harm to the green belt and it's a proposal that we need to support today and cannot come soon enough so I hope everybody else would like to support it right thank you very much and councillor Khan other local member please sorry sorry get the camera on again okay my comment really here is that first thing I would say additional declaration of interest my wife is on the planning committee of the parish council and also I did see some of the presentations before the application so I'm approaching this refresh on these matters as well so I really just wanted to support what councillor Hainings has said but also in addition comment about the impact on the green belt in terms of the fact that the existing buildings on the site are unsightly really a bit of an eyesore and you are replacing this with a fine building it's actually quite although it follows the modern line of the gropiest building it's actually quite distant from the building and there are other buildings in between but I want to draw attention to the comparison between that and K block which is also in the green belt in the new building within the school which doesn't follow in doesn't have the same following of the gropiest design this is a much better a much more sympathetic design in those terms so I think in visual terms it's actually proving an enhancement of the green belt compared to what is there now and so on those grounds I would like to support it in general very much in favour of this application of this development Thank you very much I can't subred them you want to come back again do you? Thank you Chairman it was just I forgot to mention before that this planning committee has previously looked at applications in the green belt and weighed up whether they were appropriate to approve or not and the example I'm remembering is the Arthur rank hospice and in that case this application has done a similar exercise of doing a search for sites and they have identified this as the most appropriate site and I just wanted to confirm my view that the approach to finding a suitable site has been appropriate and I think the benefits that would be preferred by this application do outweigh the harm to the green belt and for that reason I think we should approve it I'm happy to propose if any or second that if anybody wishes to propose it We have an amendment first which I'm just going to go back to now so thank you very much for that Councillor Breddon if I go back to Councillor Haylings could you give some words around your informative please Thank you chair and I'd just like to give it a bit of context which is you know we have declared a climate emergency we do have a zero carbon strategy and just as this application has shown excellence in the way that it's dealing with consultation and the design we want to be able to support everybody in ensuring that it's exemplary also in terms of sustainability now our local plan the existing one does not enable us to put a condition to require green excellence but I have been advised by officers that an informative that strongly encourages and this is the wording I would like that we have an informative additional which strongly encourages the applicant to adopt green excellence in all energy related aspects and in all other relevant areas and I'd just like to confirm that I have received reassurance from the project management team that the applicant would be able to adopt such measures if the committee were moved to approve this Right thank you very much for that just before we move on to any discussion on that I would just like Mr Carter to make sure that there's no issues that this raises which may complicate anything in particular Thank you chair now I'm happy to advise that we're okay to proceed on this basis just quickly in response to Heather Williams point as this isn't proposed to a planning condition it's just an informative that she decided there thank you thank you very much for that okay members does anybody want to speak to that I think it's perfectly straightforward I'm happy to second the amendment if you wish that okay thank you so we have a proposal and a seconder and this is to strongly urge the adoption of green excellence standards can I take this through affirmative yes agreed agreed no one against no one abstaining okay so that's agreed by affirmation we therefore now move to the main recommendation which is on page 49 of your papers paragraph 213 so that would now be as delegated approval subject to no issues being raised during the amendment amended consultation period subject to referral of the application to the secretary of state as a departure together with the conditioning which the officer has already outlined so are we in favor of that agreed agreed right no one against no that's that's passed so we approve that one thank you very much item 6 has already been deferred at Kotlin and so now members we're moving on to item 7 this is arston pages 137 through to 172 so it's arston the reference is S4057 19 OL the proposal is for outline planning permission for the demolition of an existing buildings and provision of up to 16 dwellings up to 120 square meters of office accommodation access public open space and landscaping including details of access and with all other matters reserved the applicant is access land partnerships the case officer will take us through the material considerations this is not a departure and it's coming before the committee because of the request of the local member and the parish council the presenting officer is Karen Paul Coggins if you'd like to make your presentation please Karen thank you chair with regards to the recommendation it will be a delegated refusal subject to know the representations being received during the consultation period just to note members in your plans pack there is a couple of elevations of buildings of houses and an annex which doesn't actually relate to this application apologies I'm not quite sure how that managed to get there but go on to my presentation now so the site is located outside the Haarston development framework and within the green belt the key constraints are green belt and country sites the site is previously developed planned it is within flood zone 1 low risk and there's a railway line along the south eastern boundary and mature trees along the north western boundary so just an example the site is down here which is wholly within the green belts the this is the rest of Haarston village so the dashed line is the village framework there is a listed building just here the railway line goes along the to the south east and this is station road along here so the existing sites has a one and a half building along the south eastern boundary adjacent to the railway line which has a use of storage warehouse purposes in addition there's a two storey office building within the site just here to the rear of the that's probably an easier plan to see to the rear of the office building there is an open storage area which has permission for storage up to 2.4 meters in height again there's hard standing to the back and then there's a range of single storey buildings right at the bottom of the site on the boundary so the mature trees are alongside the boundary with the residential property known as Ticktock to the north and there is a Leylandi hedge along the south south eastern boundary adjacent to the railway this is station house which is a residential property which does not fall within the application site so the just examples of buildings which are on the site at the moment so the first one this is station house in the corner with the warehouse storage building to the rear and then you can see the office building and then just looking from the rear of the site back towards the back of the office building and the storage building so shows the open storage and then again another photograph looking towards the rear boundary with single storey buildings on the rear boundary this is a view of the site from Newton Road so to the east I believe so this is station road obviously the level crossing is here and then the land rises up to a hill on Newton Road and you can see the existing Leylandi screen on site with the railway line just in front of that so the proposal is for the erection of up to 16 dwellings and 120 square meters of office space the buildings would be two storey in height so in a layout at right angles to station road so just an example residential development is this pale orange area just here and then the employment development is the darker orange area just here to the this side there is details of the public open space which will be a local area okay access roads through the site will be down here and there will be two small turning areas and this will access the some garages to the properties that from station road so again building heights it will all be two storey in height across the site so the illustrative master plan it's an outline application so the current plan is illustrative only but it shows again this is the employment building here with parking next to that and then you've got various terraces of properties a terrace of properties along the frontage station road and then a linear form of development at right angles station road coming down here with again terraces and semi detached properties and then you have the larger detached properties at the back and here is an axonometric view of an example of what the development may look like so again you've got the two storey buildings this is the employment building here the existing station house and tiptofs house the open space and the detached properties down there so the key considerations are the principle of development in the green belts loss of employment location and scale of residential development housing density, housing mix affordable housing developer contributions the character and appearance of the area heritage assets trees and landscaping and biodiversity highway safety flood risk, naver immunity and whether there are any very special circumstances thank you thank you very much members any points of clarification please officer see you needing them okay good thank you very much we can then go hello thank you how's the bread mum thank you very much chair I just wanted to ask miss pal Coggins whether the fact that this is a brownfield site in the green belt needs to needs to weigh in our obviously it weighs in our how it should be weighed in terms sorry whether it represents a different presentation sorry I'm not being very clear whether we need to take that into account the fact that it's a brownfield site in the green belt rather than just say green belt per se so the policy and the paragraph in the MPPF is slightly different in relation to brownfield sites that is in the report but I will just read it out to you it says when determining whether a development is appropriate or inappropriate partial or complete redevelopment previously developed land which would not have a greater impact upon the openness of the green belt than the existing development or not cause substantial harm so the openness of the green belt whether development would contribute to meeting and identified affordable housing need within the area so that's when determining whether a development is appropriate or not in the green belt so it's slightly different test for previously developed land than what it is for land that has not been previously developed so it hinges on the perceived harm compared to the existing harm that is yes and whether that's substantial or not but then you also have to take into the balance of the affordable housing needs as well. Thank you very much Councillor Hawkins Thank you chair I think Karen just mentioned now that we also need to take into account the need for affordable housing that was what I wanted to clarify in that the requirement for affordable housing should also bear significance in how we weigh up this application Is that correct? That is correct yes Thank you Thank you very much I think that's all the members comments can we now move on to public speakers we have a number of public speakers here is Mr Cosgrove with us please Yes good morning chair Good morning Mr Cosgrove Can you you can see and hear me okay? I can hear you can't see at the moment Yep okay we're all there Thank you very much sorry to keep you No problem at all good morning thank you very much chair for allowing me to speak today Okay The drill will do you three minutes and then they may well want to ask questions so whenever you're ready Hopefully I won't need the full three minutes I'm here to represent Mr and Mrs Norman who are the owners of Tiptoff's house the dwelling immediately to the north west They don't object to the principle of the application but they do have very great concerns about the impact on their trees that run along the boundary These trees have been assessed as being worthy of a TPO and an application for a tree protection order has been made I'd just like to make the members aware that just inside the boundary those trees are covered by about a meter thick concrete plinth and none of the tree protection documents or the details dealing with the trees have addressed how that could be removed without causing substantial harm or loss to the trees and because the application is an outline that's not really something that could be addressed satisfactorily as it is part of the reserve matters application we need to know now and there could be very substantial costs to that which would have an impact on what level of affordable housing could perhaps be provided on the site and there could be a scene of liability assessment that has addressed that so I think that's a question that's still very much open in the air Further issue is although the outline is only an indicative outline showing where the houses are you'll note that the rear gardens are very shallow and some of the dwellings particularly the ones to the front sit within the tree protection area and would lead to harm to the trees and those shallow gardens would lead to a lot of pressure for any for future residents of those houses to have those trees cut back or removed entirely which would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area because those trees are a very important landscape feature then there is a slight further issue but one of much less importance which is to do with drainage the field immediately to the rear to the west of the site has a network of pipes running through it to drain it because the land is very foggy and admittedly the quantity of this development would lead to the quantity of hard surface being substantially reduced but we don't really know from the documents submitted how the actual water flows would be affected by this and it's interesting to note that the land level because it is concrete concrete plant between the application site and tiptox house changes by about a meter and there are drainage holes drilled in the concrete plant so they do have some concerns about how the water flows would alter based on if this development were to go ahead so really our comments just entirely hinge around the impact of this proposed development on those trees and really don't think that what's been submitted so far adequately addresses how those trees could be protected long term so thanks very much for your time today thank you very much I'm sure all those points are noted by officers and as you say this is outlined at the moment and I know the tree officer who has already made the initial report and I'm sure they take that on board Councillor Hawkins do you want to point of clarification yes please thank you but I think councillor Kahn was before me I I simply wanted to speak to the officer and that's finished now so we can continue with councillor Hawkins carry on councillor thank you thank you for that I just wanted to because I'm not quite sure I understand the issue you raised about the concrete plinth the concrete plinth surely is in the application site is that correct it is indeed but the trees themselves are not the roots run under the concrete plinth and if that was to be removed that would lead to potentially the loss of the trees and certainly severe harm to them the way of doing that there possibly is an engineering solution but we need to know that now at the outline stage how they propose to do it it's not something that could really be left to the reserve matters because it's unsure how if it can be done at all and if it can be done we need to know how okay so your concern is the damage potential damage that you reckon the removal of the concrete plinth will do yes and whether that can be done at all and if it can be done what harm would result in it and then the secondary issue is the houses being too close to the trees that would really overshadow the gardens of those houses and lead to a lot of pressure from the residents there to cut them back so does that mean that the canopy of those trees actually protrudes into the application site okay thank you thank you very much I haven't got any other questions so Mr Postgrove thank you very much indeed thank you very much for your time Jack thank you and could we then move on to our next speaker who's Mr Adams who's representing the applicants I believe are you with us Mr Adams hello can you hear me good morning so I think you know the drill you've got like three minutes whenever you're ready thank you chair and good afternoon members my name's Andrew Adams I'm the senior land manager of access land partnerships the applicant to this application which seeks outlining permission with all matters reserved apart from access the proposals seek to remove existing buildings and structures within the site and replace with new dwelling houses with a 10% of which would be provided as affordable housing employment generating office space would also be provided as officers have made clear the application site comprises a brownfield land within the green belt and is situated on the edge of Haarston we have a respectful working relationship with officers however in this instance I feel strongly that the officer recommendation of refusal is wrong the reasons for refusal solely concerned matters of judgment and it is entirely appropriate for this opportunity to reach an alternative view to that offered by officers on such matters. Officers suggest that the development proposals would comprise inappropriate development within the green belt as defined by national planning policy this is incorrect the MPPF is clear apparel 145G that the redevelopment of brownfield land within the green belt is not inappropriate development except where substantial impact upon openness of the green belt is caused the impact to be substantial the change in openness from the current situation would need to be very great indeed that is simply not the case in this instance. Officers suggest that the development proposals would result in unacceptable loss of employment land contrary to policy E14 again this is incorrect even ignoring the fact that the proposals include employment development which will yield as many if not more jobs in the existing policy E14 is clear that loss of employment land uses is acceptable where the overall benefit to the community outweighs any adverse effect on employment opportunities and the range of available employment land and premises. It is a fact that Haarston is extremely well served by existing employment sites within the village framework more than I mentioned at power 67 of the officer report at the same time there's a significant deficit of affordable housing in Haarston and the development proposals will make a substantial contribution to meeting this need providing a hugely significant community benefit. In addition you've seen that the parish council is strongly supportive of this scheme I cannot think of a better barometer of community benefit officers suggest that it will be less than substantial harm caused to undesignated heritage assets in the area being the former station house and the remnants of historic earthworks. The officer report alleges that both features are de facto undesignated heritage assets and states that the scheme causes harm to both however the paragraph 15 of the report where the conservation officer's comments are set out it is clearly stated the setting of the station house can adequately be preserved by appropriate scheme design of reserves matters and there's also uncertainty as to whether in fact the earthworks are capable of being considered to be non-designated heritage assets. Perhaps more importantly the balancing exercise required by power 197 of the MPPF has not been carried out. Thank you for allowing me to speak to the members. We'll see the significant benefit of this scheme and I hope that you will vote to support the proposals. All right, thank you very much. Points of clarification members, councillor Halings. Hello, yes. Even though this is a brownfield site it is within the green belt as you've said and you've been talking about it being purely about judgment but I would say we have one very very strong policy which is about outweighing harms in the green belt is that it's an exception site and when we're putting forward the arguments for affordable housing specifically to meet local and district need exception sites like this are 100% whereas you're putting forward what is a normal market application for what is normally within the village development framework and not in the green belt for 40% affordable housing. Can you explain why you're not putting this forward as would be policy compliant for an exception site and as the affordable housing office has mentioned in the report which you didn't make any reference to in your three minutes thank you. Yeah, I mean I can clarify well within the report it was noted that what the affordable housing officer said was incorrect in terms of this having to be an application for an exception site for this to be acceptable it's perfectly within planning means to be able to put a market compliant assessment with affordable housing site on the previously developed brownfield site within the green belt which we are doing and we feel given that and increasing and changing the employment capability on the site together with together with the affordable housing remit in Haarston which is completely surrounded by green belt that we feel that that is bringing together impact or positive benefits together with the possibility of some open market housing as well. Can I just ask a further come back on that. Thank you and so you mentioned we have had cases like this in the past where a viability assessment has shown that it's not possible to meet the 100% requirement for affordable housing and recognizing that Haarston does have a housing need for affordable housing and so I didn't see mention of the viability assessment that would say that it would need to be a traditional 40% affordable housing. The viability assessment is done in that regard but it is what we've looked at is the housing mix and bringing forward smaller dwellings which are more beneficial to the population of Haarston rather than in other recent applications on land within Haarston that have gone for large 5-6 detached bedroom houses. We have done a sensible mix that is compliant with officers and through having those conversations. Right thank you very much I've got Councillor Carl please. Thank you two things really I wanted to ask you first of all what precautions you've taken to cater for the noise problem I know that being close to a railway line quite severe noise impacted as close as these houses are being proposed I realise the level suggested is too high. How do you how do you anticipate making the houses habitable I can speak and experience on that actually for a few years right next to the railway line and I know the impact the second thing how do you is there any public transport passing by the the housing development some distance from the village of Haarston the separate open space countryside between it and the nearest part of the village envelope the village perimeter is there any public transport apart from rail line which is on the site of a station which closed in 1963 series unlikely to be reopened is there any public transport because it needs to be affordable housing needs to have good accessibility in other means than car fans sure thank you I'll deal with those in reverse order if that's okay there is the public bus stop is a couple of hundred meters back up station road and in terms of sustainability your two 300 meters walk from the local school and all of the various services that are there in Haarston including shops etc in regards to the noise we have we have liaison with the EHR in this matter and there are no objections raised in terms of noise from the railway there will be various mitigation measures that will be in place and will come through through reserve matters and that's including noise buffering on the railway planting and obviously appropriate materials being used in construction all right thank you are you going to answer your question councillor Karm yes okay we move on then to councillor Hawkins please thank you chair Mr Adams I think you have heard concerns from the neighbour regarding the issues of the trees along the border can you tell us if you have considered this how you see yourself being able to remove the plants without damaging the roots of the trees because I think it's of value and obviously if you're going to be doing that and also for me the fact that a lot of the canopy there's a lot of overhang from those trees into the application site in some ways does reduce what you have available for those buildings so if you're having to spend more to remedy all that how will that affect the provision that you are now agreeing to or proposing for affordable housing okay thank you councillor Hawkins just in answer to that a tree survey was carried out and submitted as part of the application and this was updated following concerns that were raised by Tiptox House the tree officer initially had some concerns and following on from the additional information that was submitted they did remove any holding objection in that regard it's important to know that it is an iterative design at the moment and this is outline we feel and our tree consultants share the same view that would be absolutely no issue with coming across to be able to remove that plinth or to be able to use engineering designs to not cause harm to the trees and in terms of canopying in terms of the garden design that is a simple measure of just some formal cutting back that would need to be taken forward can I come back on that please chair you say simple cutting back can you give us an idea just how much overhand there is in terms of meters and how much cutting back will be required because again too much cutting back called damage those trees couldn't they yeah I mean some of them are rather large trees some of them aren't of particularly good quality and actually some some lopping and cutting back would be beneficial in that regard and the tree officer has agreed in terms of our tree consultant as well that there wouldn't be any long term damage in that regard and in terms of cost that's not something that would have a massive impact in terms of viability thank you thank you very much Councillor Wright please thank you Chairman my issues are the affordable housing which is largely what this site is being sold on and going back to Councillor Haley's point around about the viability study looking at this site and I've got a picture of it in front of me there are substantial buildings on the site a lot of hard covering on the ground the viability is going to be seriously affected by the amount of work you have to do to clear the site not mentioning that one of the businesses on the site is selling roofing and it has a turnip which is asbestos so by the time you've cleared this site up the viability is going to be very seriously challenged and I really doubt it's going to make the 40% or anything like it perhaps you could comment yeah just in return to the comment for that and probably following on from previous camps and comments I think part of the reason why the site wouldn't work as a full exception site is for that basis that we do realise there has to be some demolition and site clearance we propose that this wouldn't cause an impact on viability in terms of trying to reduce the affordable housing element on the scheme and that would be able to be taken into account by the fact that there will be some market housing on the site and that would be taken into account and brought forward as part of any viability concerns which we propose there wouldn't be going forward by the reserve matter stage right thank you and Councillor Bredman do you have a yes thank you Chairman I just wanted to ask Mr Adams whilst we have a report from the trees officer it simply deals with the canopies it doesn't refer specifically to the removal of the concrete plinths which the parish council the gentleman who spoke on behalf of Tiptoff's house mentioned and it's not clear to me that the trees officer was entirely aware of that when they made their report as I say their report only deals with the canopy that's not a question from Mr Adams sorry from the officer I could just clarify that the updated comments from the tree officer were off the back of additional material we put in following on from the objection from Tiptoff's house on those concerns so the officer either considered I believe that that was of not high enough importance to raise further concerns on because it could be addressed from standard engineering design and the fact that this is a indicative layout currently which then can be looked at in more detail reserve matters right thank you very much well thank you Mr Adams I think that's all the questions from members thanks for your time we move on then to the parish council representative is Councillor O'Breen with us please yes can you hear me yes I can hear you good afternoon chair and adjacent gentleman before you start just as a procedural matter I have to confirm that you have the permission that your parish council speak on their behalf as agreed at the parish council meeting on the 3rd of September thank you very much so it's three minutes whenever you are ready okay as I said good afternoon chair ladies and gentlemen my name is Niall O'Breen I'm chair of Harston Parish Council I'd like to take a few minutes to explain why Harston Parish Council strongly supports this development and would like it to take place let me return to Karen Pell Coggins's photos and I would underline to you that this is a brownfield site although it lies within the green belt Harston has a need for affordable housing South Council District Council's affordable homes department states that we have a need for 21 and the 6 in this development would make an appreciable contribution to that need as has been mentioned Harston is tightly surrounded by the green belt and over the years it has been virtually impossible to find building land in the village for affordable house building let me mention in passing that we have not built a council house in the village for over 40 years and none are currently planned in terms of living in Harston this site has several desirable features it is within 200 meters of the local primary school a safe walk along the pavement in station road for children the co-op plans to open a small supermarket next to the school providing shopping at a walkable distance and the bus stops on Harston High Street from the number 915 bus are about 300 meters away so these facets will help to keep people out of their cars and looking further to the future there is potential we are about to bid for funds to do a study on the reopening of Harston Station nearby which would offer further non-car transport links finally ladies and gentlemen I would like to briefly mention that in spite of being asked I have been unable to have a dialogue with South Cams District Council planning about affordable housing in Harston I wanted to propose that a holistic view be taken of our needs for affordable housing and to replace this particular potential development within that context that hasn't happened thank you very much thank you Mr Green any questions members can't see anything coming up so no thank you very much then let's thank you Mr Green we'll move on then to local member Councillor Sollum Councillor Sollum are you with us yes good okay thanks chair Wendy are you ready so I'm really here today I am here to support this outline application but it's really more important to emphasise that I'm here in support of the parish council who you've just heard from and the community that we represent there are clear trade-offs in this application and legitimate concerns about the potential harm to the Green Bay belt about the potential loss of employment sites we've heard from the neighbours on the tree issue and the benefit to Haarston is the other side of their trade-off making those trade-offs is obviously the judgement call that you have to make today but it's my view and it's one that I share with the parish council that the benefit does outweigh the harm Haarston has the need for affordable housing but it's been very hard to get that built within the village framework and with Haarston being so tightly constrained by the Green Belt this is a site that can actually finally deliver an affordable housing contribution to Haarston and it is much needed now we do need to proceed with great care with any developments in the Green Belt but this is a substantial brownfield site and a development of 16 houses doesn't need to cause a great increase in harm to the Green Belt beyond what is already there it's true that it's important to get the details right to make sure that that is actually the case that it doesn't cause harm but this is an outline application and I personally don't see any reason why those details can't be addressed in the usual way they would in taking an outline approval through to development similarly I don't see the trade-off on the employment site it's sufficient to outweigh the benefit so I'm not going to labour the point any further you've heard it from me you've heard it from the parish council but I do hope that you will take our views seriously in your deliberations today and vote in favour of approval thanks thank you very much any points of clarification members yes Councillor Richard Williams please thank you chair can I just ask Councillor Sollum to clarify whether his position is he's supporting this really only because of the affordable housing element to it I'm just trying to get into my head the arguments we've heard earlier about the viability of it so is it the case that you really are supporting this only because of the affordable housing that's the key element for you certainly that is the driving driving element for you for me but and I think it's absolutely right that you consider the viability element within that I am not a planning expert nor do I pretend to be so and I am not sitting on the planning committee hearing these all the time but I think the sense I get from the community in Haarston is the need is to the extent that they are desperate for any affordable contribution and that is an important it's the most important factor in my consideration of supporting this and I think to me it represents an appropriate scale of development on what is a brand field site in the green belt thank you all right thank you very much I don't have any further speakers question yes so Councillor Sollum thank you very much right just before we move to debate I see that Councillor Bradlam would like to ask the case officer a question Bradlam please thank you chairman I've got two one was that whilst we've heard from the agent for the neighbour at Tiptoft's I couldn't see any representation from the neighbour in our report and please correct me if I'm wrong but I just wanted to check whether any written representation was made that has been incorporated the second one was that I was concerned that the tree officer didn't mention this existence of the plinth the tree officer only appeared to refer to the canopy and I just wanted to check whether the tree officer was aware of that matter about the plinth I think those are questions I would like for clarification thank you thank you thank you Councillor Bradlam with regards to the additional information that was submitted to address the concerns from Tiptoft's house that was consulted the tree officer was consulted on that information and obviously came back with the comments that are actually in the report with regards to Tiptoft's house that representation should be noted in the report it's not specifically under an address but it's within the representation section okay sorry I missed that then okay maybe it was well hidden alright thank you okay members we are open for debate I see Councillor Roberts please are you going to open it thank you very much Chairman and it's been a very interesting discussion and a lot of information to take on board and a lot of different perspectives however I am going to go back to the basics really here and the policy of the green belt and I think when we were talking earlier about in Pington and Councillor Bradlam reminded us about the hospice where they were clearly easily available for us to decide that there were exceptional reasons to go with an application we saw it within Pington this morning when I've been listening to the whole discussion this morning I've had no indication whatsoever that there are for this type of application exceptional circumstances it would have been absolutely different my feelings would have been absolutely the opposite had it been going to be an exception site with 100% for affordable housing I think there is an argument in the village clearly being discussed about the lack of this type of housing for local people however this is not going to provide it we haven't really had a serious reason why that hasn't been considered I think that the officer in this application has come up with absolutely the right recommendation for us which is for a refusal and I will be supporting the officer's recommendation thank you thank you very much councillor councillor Heather Williams please thank you chairman I'm going to refer to my notes I've made from the speakers through the representations that have been made because I think a lot of us do identify with the affordable housing issue that a lot of our villagers face and some of the words that we use were need and desperate for affordable housing it's been hard to find sites and the viability isn't an issue and I can understand why feeling that way and as was referenced by the local member desperation would lead to supporting anything that came their way to provide it however I do think that I would be doing a disservice because it's so hard to find sites and I've listened to that very carefully that this is the exact situation where the exception site policy is therefore because if we do find a site where there can be affordable housing it's our responsibility to make sure we get the maximum amount possible of affordable housing in that area and 40% just is not enough. Harston needs more and therefore it needs an exception site and the special circumstances have not been identified as to why that this application before us should be supported and you know we would have the viability assessment if it came forward as an exception site the viability could show if only 40% could be delivered but let's try and make the most of it and I'd encourage the parish council to try and have those conversations with housing officers because they are right, they deserve more affordable housing but I'm afraid that this development in its current way is not the way to achieve it you need more and you could get more in different routes and so I will be supporting the officer's recommendation thank you chairman. Right thank you very much Councillor Bredman please. Thank you chairman yes I'm I remain unconvinced by the well not unconvinced by the need in the village I appreciate that but as others have said I think if that is the case it should follow the rules for an exception site and it should offer 100% affordable housing and secondly I'm concerned that this in no way reflects our normal approach to village approaches in other words when we come in from the countryside we do not expect to see a big long terrace of houses right on the outside of the village we expect a gradual approach to development as you go in towards a village edge and although this does have an existing Leylandi hedge in front of it I don't think that reflects the spirit of the intention of our of our principles around development and also I'm concerned that we've got no evidence of any kind of search for sites within the village prior to the bringing forward of this I appreciate the local member has said there has been search for sites but we didn't see any evidence of that and I think if we had had that evidence we might have looked upon this application or sorry I can't speak for others but I would have looked upon this more favorably but at present I'm still interested to hear the remainder of the debate because I can see a number of people have asked to speak but I'm not feeling very favorable towards it at the moment so thank you Thank you and next speaker is Councillor Wright please Thank you Chairman I'm really concerned about this application as well I think the officer has got its spot on there are clear objections from the landscape officer I see there's harm to the green belt the urban design officer objecting the historic building the officers objecting and there's also objections from Network Rail this is an outline application and I note that the contamination officer has only been a brief survey but not the detailed survey that would in my mind with the demolition works needed on the site which will remove the 40% affordable housing because of the viability argument so for me this is an absolute non-runner and I think the officer's recommendation is correct, thanks Thank you very much and next speaker is Councillor Cahn Councillor Cahn please Sorry I wanted to say come back to the position I talked about earlier on this site lies right next door to a railroad I'm very close I've been doing my research for a doctorate working within about the same sort of distance from a railway line in the field in north Wales and I remember the impact of having a train running at high speed past you very close it's not just the noise level it's the shock level because it's a sudden arrival and it really would mean that you are putting housing in a satisfactory situation for convenience it might meet the official requirements but it won't be very unpleasant to live in and the area I don't see this as a satisfactory solution for affordable housing or any other housing secondly in terms of distance I did a little measurement on the satellite map and it's about 500 metres from the local school and from the main road in Harston it's a bit further than 500 metres depth in the actual site so people at the end of the site will be quite a long way away from public transport perhaps further than desirable thirdly in terms of openness the largest houses are put at the far back end of the site this is beyond the actual back of the gardens of the properties that tree drops in the station house along the main road I might have viewed it a little bit differently though probably wouldn't change by opinion if it had only gone to the depth of the existing properties along the road but this goes right down and the largest houses give the most impact in the openness of the green belt I think it is a significant impact on the openness and therefore in addition to the other aspects that have been talked about I think the pressure towards affordable housing is laudable but this is not the site it would be much better now in the process of a local plan to look to see if the site can be found adjacent to the village for a minute or for an exception site rather than going to some distance from the village in an isolated site not totally convenient for affordable housing and with the risk as councillor Wright has said of it not actually being viable in the final analysis so I should be supporting the office's recommendation for refusal Thank you very much for that I've got three more speakers and I'd like to draw it to a close then I haven't heard anybody speaking against the office's recommendation so if we can move fairly swiftly the next speaker is councillor Haigling please Yes and I'd just like to address sort of my comments to the presentation made by the chair of parish councillor councillor Byne and completely understand the need and desire for the affordable housing and this coming forward to outline planning stage is exactly where we set the parameters for this and I think whether or not this is the site to have affordable housing or any kind of housing at all is still up for debate but I think you are absolutely right seek to have the conversations with affordable housing and under the terms of a viability analysis work out if you can get as much of the affordable housing as necessary but what I'm really reading into the report is not just about harm and benefit in terms of the open countryside which is one of the concerns but we've also heard this is a brownfield site which is particularly it's not very attractive itself at the moment I'm also looking at what type of housing what kind of place making we're doing when all of those who know about housing are saying this would lead to very very dense and cramped housing so even if we want affordable housing we want that of such a style that it would be good quality of life for everybody or whatever the type of housing it is and so I'm really leaning forward to the fact that we're hearing that that number of housing is too dense for this site for lots of reasons and that when you look at the viability analysis there is the possibility to get more affordable housing which is what should happen in a site of this nature and there's still a bit to run on this and I do hope that you can have conversations with the affordable housing officers but at the moment as with others I'm leaning to you know to not support this application all right thank you Councillor Richard with the aim of this thank you chair I'll keep my comments brief because I'm going to agree with a lot of what's already been said I'll just say that I'm a member for a neighbouring village to Haast and Newton is within my ward I agree about the problems of no the objection of the urban design officer I think there would be an impact I agree with Councillor Cahn on the openness of the green belt given the narrowness of the site the railings as just said it could result in rather dense and cramped developments I think those areas are of concern to me with the green belt in terms of the affordable housing I completely understand as a neighbouring member I was a member for a neighbouring ward I completely understand the acute need for affordable housing in the area but it does worry me that this has not been brought forward as an exception site therefore there hasn't been the proper viability assessment there are current applications very nearby to this site not in this ward but there are other applications that are 100% affordable housing as exception sites and I think this should have been brought forward as an exception site so we could have a proper viability review thank you very much thank you and finally Councillor Harvey please yes just to say I'm very familiar with the site and I've sort of stood at the entrance and within the site a few times and I just attest to the fact that it really feels it's a sort of open sky kind of aspect that really at the moment does feel very much detached from the village itself and I agree with Councillor Bradnam's comments that it would seem to me rather in Congress in that position in relation to the village and I just feel there are too many other problems which other people refer to the trees, the fact that it's so close to the train line and the viability should really be aiming for much more affordable housing if we're going to overcome other problems so I just feel on balance it's not the right place okay thank you very much alright so I'm going to wind this up now and go for a vote the recommendation before you is delegated refusal subject to no issues being raised during the amended consultation period so I haven't heard anybody speaking for approval so can I take this by affirmation I agree I agree Chair, I'd like to abstain please Chancellor Hawkins one abstention 10 approve 10 in favour of the recommendation therefore is delegated refusal thank you very much we now move on to next item next item is item 8 which has been deferred at Long Stanton so we now move to Willingham Chairman would we request a brief pause time are we yes by all means 10 minutes or 9 minutes shall we say back at 12.50 thank you thank you thank you alright Willingham deferred as well let's back on again Aaron are there you asking for Aaron or Karen sorry I was asking for Aaron I just wanted to check that the live feed was cut okay I'll go away thanks he did he did confirm that Chris okay thank you I was just getting an indication that it may not be the case so just bear that in mind just in case please thank you okay noted thank you Chair can I just let you know that it's Councillor Bradnan here I'll have to leave just before four o'clock so I'll give an indication in chat if I have to do that well I hope we'll be finished long before four o'clock let's hope so fingers crossed hi Aaron one minute to go on my clock yep sorry I'll be back on stream can I ask it while we're still seemingly off what time are you thinking about for lunch sorry chair you're back online now alright sorry thank you very much welcome back to South Cams District Council planning committee we're now on agenda item nine page 321 of our papers we're at Willingham this is reference S0123 stroke 20 stroke FL that's at 130 Rempton Road, Cambridge the proposal is the erection of a five bedroom house and a one bedroom ancillary annex with associated parking the applicant is Mr and Mrs Webster the case officer will take us through the key material considerations we visited the site yesterday it is a departure application and it's brought to the committee because the parish council requested it the officer recommendation is for approval the presenting officer is Luke Simpson would you like to give your presentation please hello chair can you hear you and see the screen okay I'm just trying to play the presentation said that you can't see my notes can you confirm that you can't see the notes we can still see the notes okay let me try that again please bear with me please bear with me we can still see the notes this is a real problem does it matter if we can see the notes just press on would it help if you just went into slideshow yes I have gone into slideshow I have this problem regularly when I'm at committee sometimes it doesn't just share the slideshow sometimes it shares the whole PowerPoint including the notes which is helpful because you can't see the plans properly just let me keep trying sorry is that any better yes that's fine brilliant brilliant sorry about that okay as the chair described the site is located at 130 Rampton Road Willingham the proposal is for the erection of a five bedroom house one bedroom ancillary annex with associated parking as you're likely aware the application was reported to planning committee on 22nd of July 2020 the committee deferred the application to allow the senior planning lawyer to consider the legal arguments made at that committee meeting and the verdict reached in the case of Mansel the Tombridge and Malingborough Council 2017 such that he is able to advise the committee today and the other reason the item was deferred was to enable a site visit which as the chair pointed out took place yesterday so we've been through this presentation before but I'm going through it again I know that some of the members at least one wasn't at that meeting previously this slide shows the extent of the application site so the framework boundary actually falls about here hopefully you can see the pointer towards the rear of 130 Rampton Road so the village framework is along this line here and this is an aerial photograph of the site as you can see there's a proliferation of development to the rear of properties on Rampton Road what this photo doesn't show as members would have appreciated at the site visit yesterday is the two consented dwellings which are substantially complete either side of the application site one at 132 Rampton Road and the other at 124 Rampton Road so this aerial image although useful isn't particularly well it's not up to date as members will have appreciated yesterday as you probably were already aware the app can already have consent under application reference S slash 40 70 slash 18 slash FL that consent remains extent and development must commence before 28 of March 2022 this slide shows the existing consented development on the right so this is the dwelling they already have planning permission for and the slide also shows the currently proposed layout on the left this includes the proposed annex the footprint of the dwelling would increase slightly but this would primarily be at single story level so these two components to the east of the dwelling but it the location and footprint are similar to that of the currently consented dwelling and the plan also shows the change in circumstances since the grant of the previous planning permission and shows the two dwellings which I referred to earlier on the side of the application site to the west at 124 Rampton Road is a large two-story dwelling these dwellings currently under construction members will have noted substantially complete yesterday to the north face is another two-story dwelling which is also substantially complete so that plan is quite useful in showing the proposed dwelling in context these plans show the proposed elevations and floor plans of the proposed dwelling notably whilst this is a two-story dwelling it is no higher than the currently approved 1.5-story dwelling in terms of the maximum ridge height the appearance would be relatively traditional with brick work and a range of tiled pitched roofs proposed now these are the currently approved plans say if I flip back this is proposed this is already approved so just a way of comparison and as you can see the 1.5-story the ridge height is approximately 8.3 meters to provide living space at first floor level so I think it's been quite a bit of correspondence about the dwelling being single-story but I think it's an 8.3 meter ridge height and I'd probably describe this dwelling as a 1.5-story dwelling that's what they've already got consent for so you need to bear that in mind in coming to your conclusions today this slide shows the currently proposed elevations for the annex which is proposed between the existing dwelling and the main dwelling this annex would serve the proposed dwelling and we would condition the annex to ensure that it's only used for purposes ancillary to the main dwelling such that it couldn't be converted to a separate dwelling house without the benefit of planning permission I should also point out that it appears that the north and south elevations are incorrectly labeled and should be swapped so the elevation at the top left of the screen should state north and that below should state south I ask that members please allow officers to address this discrepancy under delegate powers if you are minded to approve the application today just to also point out I don't think anyone well no one would be prejudiced by that because for these elevations well firstly it's a single-story building and secondly both elevations have windows in them so it's not like there would be additional windows as a result we're just talking about the labelling of these two components of the plan these photos show the site to the north and the mobile home which is consented which will be removed as will be required by planning condition prior to first occupation of the new dwelling if approved so this photos towards the rear so this ground site yesterday you'll note that that's the location of the proposed dwelling this slide shows the existing access there's a gravel drive to the front of the existing dwelling there's an existing detached triple garage which will be retained as you can see the existing dwelling at 130 Rampton Road which is here is a relatively substantial two-story dwelling with a traditional appearance in comparison to more temporary designs approved either side more recently so the character is quite mixed in this area by way of providing some context for the decision today this is the dwelling approved at reserve matters last year at 124 Rampton Road as was shown on the earlier site layout plan so the neighbouring site to the west so this is a large two-story dwelling with a more contemporary design so it's quite substantial this is the two-story dwelling approved to the north east of the application site to the rear of 132 the neighbours again more contemporary design two stories substantially complete as you'll have noted on site yesterday okay so since the previous planning committee Fuse Lane consortium limited have made a number of representations to the council's legal officer in relation to this application I'll therefore seek to address these primary issues insofar as they relate to planning matters I think Stephen Reed will address the case law which was previously referred to by Mr. Fulton and was one of the two reasons for the previous item being deferred by way of background on 7 September members will have received copies of the correspondence between Mr. Reed and Mr. Fulton which primarily relates to legal matters deriving from the previous planning committee members will recall that the item was deferred in part to allow Mr. Reed to review the case law referred to by Mr. Fulton these emails and letters were all sent to Stephen Reed and I was not the recipient of the emails nonetheless they've also been circulated to members in any case the issues raised by the consortium during the last committee meeting have all been fully addressed in the updated committee report the reason that the report focuses on the case law referred to in terms of Fuse Lane consortium's comments is because the previous committee item was deferred partly on the basis of that case law and the need for a view of its contents content and relevance the other reason for deferral as cited in the minutes was to allow members cited is it all other matters including reference to H16 could have actually been addressed on the day with regard to the three points highlighted in Mr. Fulton's email dated 23rd of July I address these in turn as follows Mr. Fulton states that the officer report relies on three clear errors of law the first of which he states that the report ignores the key material policy of the development plan policy H16 so reference has now been made to policy H16 and included in the latest version of the committee report but as I said previously in any event had members not deferred the item previously officers would have displayed that policy on the screen and confirmed that all of the criteria complied with and addressed in the original committee report so H16 has various criteria for development of residential gardens for dwellings and all of those criteria were already addressed within the previous version of the committee report but in any case they've been addressed again and reference has been made to policy H16 so that is a correction which resulted from the submissions of Fuselain Consortium Limited the second error of law cited by Fuselain Consortium Limited is that the officer report misdirects the committee or the previous officer report misdirects the committee as to the degree to which the application conflicts with the development plan as a whole the degree as far as I understand the degree of conflict with the development plan is a matter of planning judgments and the committee reports both sufficiently address any planning development plan conflicts with other material considerations notwithstanding of course the reference to H16 which I've addressed at point one above I'm satisfied that the committee reports both provide sufficient rationale reaching a conclusion on the impact of the scheme which in any case is a matter of planning judgment and not a matter for the courts further in order to appreciate the materiality of the conflict with policy S7 as members will have noted yesterday a site visit in this instance is actually really important turning to the third point the third error of law cited by Fuselain Consortium it was suggested that the officer report or the officer completely misunderstands the nature of the materiality of the fallback position in this case officers respectfully disagree with Mr Fulton on this point the fallback position is a material consideration and both of the committee reports sufficiently consider the differences between the fallback scheme and the proposed scheme and they reach conclusions as to the overall development plan policy compliance and they both consider other material considerations so the only other thing I'd add to that is even where a development is more harmful than a fallback position so the fallback position in this instance is the extent planning permission that's what we're talking about when we refer to the fallback position so even where the currently proposed development is more harmful than that development the approved development is still capable of meeting the statutory test at section 386 the planning and compulsory purchase act so it's not the case that if the development is more harmful than the fallback position in some way that directs refusal of the scheme obviously what is necessary is to consider compliance with the development plan and all other material considerations which includes the fallback position as part of the overall planning balance anyway it's a moot point in this case because in this particular instance development is not materially more harmful than the fallback position having addressed those issues I now turn to the other key considerations in the consideration of this planning application so the main issues in considering the determination of this application are as follow the principle of development so there is conflict with policy S7 as the site is located or the site for the annex and the dwelling are located wholly outside of the development framework of Willingham however the existing consent is a fallback position as I've discussed and does establish the principle of residential development on this site planning officers consider that the proposed revisions to the design and the introduction of an annex would not result in a development which is materially more harmful to the objectives of policy S7 and I've explained this in detail in the report indeed it could be considered that the resighting of the dwelling actually results in a less harmful development given that the dwelling would not be in such close proximity to the two recently consented and substantially constructed neighboring dwellings which members will have noted on site yesterday so moving the dwelling further away from those dwellings could actually have a beneficial impact in terms of amenity of occupies of all three of those dwellings policy S7 has two aims the first is to ensure developments located in sustainable locations well there's already an approval for a dwelling on this site and therefore there is no more harm to this aim than there would be in a fallback position the second aim of policy S7 is to protect the countryside against gradual encroachment as far as I'm concerned and my advice to members is that the dwelling is in a very similar position to that already approved parts of the dwelling would be up to 10 meters further to the south when compared to the rear elevation of the approved dwelling but the two story element of the proposal is only around 5 meters further south so taking these factors into account planning officers consider that this would not result in a significant conflict with the aim of policy S7 when considering the fallback position of the existing consent there are other considerations which I went through last time and I'll go through them again now so in terms of character there are two planning questions either side of the applicant's garden which establish a character of development to the rear so when I say established character I'm not talking about principle or precedent I'm talking about actual character so what is there in design terms once it looks like what's on the ground the proposed development in officers opinion is in keeping with this character the dwelling is going from a 1.5 story dwelling to a two story dwelling but there wouldn't be any increase in the maximum ridge height there would be no adverse impact on amenity subject to conditions and there haven't been any objections from neighbouring properties which is a very important point because that's a key consideration isn't it? Who is this development going to affect? There haven't been any objections from neighbouring properties the development would be served by its own independent access from Rampton Road sufficient parking for the existing dwelling and the approved dwelling is provided on plots and in addition they'll retain a triple garage as well but even without that triple garage there's sufficient parking on plot proposed and existing legal submissions have been received which are addressed from Fuse Lane consortium limited the parish councillor objecting and we will hear from them very shortly so in conclusion the development accords with all relevant development plan policies with the exception of local plan policy S7 however the fallback position is in material consideration and planning officers do not consider that the proposed development will resolve any significant increased conflict with the purposes of policy S7 then that already approved therefore planning officers recommend that the planning commission should be granted subject to conditions thank you very much alright thank you very much for that very full presentation Councillor Bradman do you have some points of clarification sorry Termin no I withdraw alright thank you very much I don't have any other members asking for clarification so in that case we'll move on to the public speakers alright is Mr Fortun with us please yes I am yes I am thank you welcome thank you I'm sure you know the form but yeah thank you so first first of all I'd like to say reasonable people can disagree on whether or not the planning considerations involved in this application waive for or against the development but what cannot be disputed is that this application has not been considered in a fair highest manner by the council I will refer to the officer's report which you have before you in particular paragraph 41 which states that no representations were received in regards to this application this statement is false written representations were received from the fuse link consortium on the 16th of July and the 23rd of July if anything the officer's report presented to the committee and published on the council's website misrepresents what was actually said at the last planning committee on the 22nd of July and misrepresents are written representations that were made on the 23rd of July it is insufficient first of all I'd also like to say that I agree with most of what the officer said in his oral updates to the committee today and I appreciate those points and I appreciate that he has acknowledged the points that we raised on the 22nd of July however it is insufficient for officers to present a written report to the council a week in advance of the meeting that fails to correctly summarize your representations received and then at the meeting to supply the council with new information that they have not had an opportunity to consider just before the decision is made what fairness requires is not a matter of judgment for the discretion of the decision maker what fairness requires is a question of law that is solely within the jurisdictions of the courts if the council approves this application today it will be on the basis of the of this meeting and the report that is before the committee and on that basis a judicial review proceedings will be brought and this case will serve as an abject example in English law of how local authorities should not undertake planning decisions I'd just like to say that this process has been unfair to the Willingham Parish Council to the residents of Willingham and to the applicant the applicant has a statutory right to receive planning decision within the time frame set by law that does not happen in this case and that's regrettable I would encourage the applicant to assuming that the application is not improved today I would encourage the applicant to appeal for non-determination and to get a fair and lawful decision from the planning inspector rather than relying on a decision of this council which will be unlawful and which will be challenged in the courts and that completes my remarks thank you very much right thank you Mr. Holton any points of clarification members see any there thank you very much for that we move on then to the applicants is Anna Webster with us please hello yes I am good if you like to put your camera on then please I can't the camera won't work for some reason we can hear you quite clearly you're all still very scary to me just bear with me that's fine so you know you've got this three minutes to make your point okay thank you I'd like to address some of the points actually raised by the parish council I can't go into every detail because this is now approaching its fourth year of a hard emotional struggle to sort out planning permission to keep my family safe firstly the village envelope we know the application is outside the village envelope but it's along with 100 other houses in Willingham which are also outside the village envelope including the ones either side of us and the annex that we got permission for 12 years ago so maybe and maybe I shouldn't say this but maybe the village envelope actually serves no purpose and maybe it should be updated which would save the planning department lots of time and it would save you committee people hundreds of hours it's just a thought and then Harris said in the original that the original annex should have been taken off the property under the planning permission he said that the annex was to be removed after Mr Webster passed away within two months the actual full planning permission had a clause on it that said the annex could be lived in by any other member of the family including a gardener or a cook not that I have one but it could it would only have to be removed from the property if it wasn't lived in for two months which up until recently it was lived in but we are now in the process of taking it down to make way for the house so hopefully I've cleared that one up again the parish council have said the house has been moved further back further back than they would like but so are the two Hava Rouses in which are either side of us and if it hadn't have been us if the parish council hadn't objected it would be our neighbours that were in this position and having to push the house back it's literally for privacy for all of us he also Mr Harris has also given a visible elevation between Mill Road and Rampton Road I've taken some photos and we've asked for Luke to put these up because my video is not working but basically we've took these photos from the actual footpath and you can see from the photos that 124 is going to actually be hiding the house from the actual footpath in the actual drawings that Mr Harris has supplied he's actually on the other side of the field on the right hand side and which is there is no public footpath there so if you are actually on that side it's only the farmer that's going to see that I think that's everything I need to say thank you Felicity thank you very much any points of clarification you would like to take up with Mrs Webster no thank you very much Mrs Webster for that if we can then move on to the parish council's comments Councillor Harris please hello yes can you hear me afternoon good afternoon are you working? sorry would you like to see you if possible sorry yes we could before we could yes I thought you could I can see me yes there you are that's fine for procedural matters I have to ask you if you have the permission of your parish council to speak on their behalf yes I do I know thank you very much so you don't know the drill you've got three minutes so whenever you're ready to speak yes thank you I'm representing William and parish council this is the third application for this development I noticed Mrs Webster made a comment that it's been going on for five years but they had outline approval first law then an application which has been approved since the main reason for our objections has been the location of the development it is well outside the village envelope I don't know if Luke can show the information that I supplied as he did with Anna Webster all right if you carry on here I'll get Luke to look for that can I just make a small point I didn't know that you would visit it yesterday it would have been very nice to attended that meeting as well that's by the by the first page of the information is the extent of the development the initial outline application the 27 team one was well outside the village which we objected to the the original application the edge of the envelope is 40 meters or so from the edge of the road the main dwelling on this application is about 22 meters deep and starts 18 meters outside the village envelope the back of this dwelling is therefore 140 meters from the road the second page of my application the first one was where it shows how the relation to the village envelope could you go to the second page please the second page shows the original 27 outline application was for a four bedroom two story house together with an annex of 270 attached two bedroom houses at this time there's no five-year plan and as such this was approved for the conditionate which states dwelling here by permitted shall not exceed one story in height and all accommodation within it shall be on the ground floor only when a full planning application was made in 2018 this condition was not complied with as the house had one and a half stories there are four bedrooms in total with three bedrooms and two bathrooms on the upper floor and a single story bedroom with ensuite facilities added at the side towards the back and that's the middle application and the annex is not shown on this application the lines show where this development is extended the overall size of this is about 221 square meters just under 2,400 square feet Willingham parish council recommended refusal and let it go to committee who was approved on the delegated palace the current this current application has grown considerably it extended another 10 meters or so back and the house is now two stories high as on the original application although it is listed as five bedrooms the previous ground floor bedroom is now described as a dog room also these five bedrooms and three bathrooms are all on the upper floor increasing its visibility considerably additionally the external annex has reappeared shown as an extra bedroom unit this is the same footprint as the original four bedroom annex the other application this increased house size has grown from an original approval to 371 square meters almost 4,000 square meters square feet additionally the detached annex has reappeared all bits shown as a single story with a footprint of 85 square meters overall this has gone to a proposal of 456 square meters about 5,000 square feet twice that of the approved application the lines again show how further this has gone back into the country finally on page 3 can I draw your attention to the difference between the visible elevation from elsewhere in the village I realised that the hoded ass taken showed that it would be hidden from that viewpoint that footpath is actually quite long these shows at the house if I have a page 3 please it shows the adjacent development which is actually the single story part of the nearer house and you can see how much bigger the whole first floor part of the elevation is it is much larger than that originally can you draw through a close please we feel this application is overdeveloped twice as big as that approved it has also further extended into the countryside and greatly increased impact on local views calling additional harm we ask SCDC to reject this application on these grounds to stop original approvals trying to expand this should not become a principle that can be applied to future developments thank you okay members any points of clarification you want to raise I can't see any no okay thank you very much indeed thank you right members we can move on but just before we do I'd just like to check with Mr Carter if there's any further advice he wants to give us not from me chair but I don't know if we'd like to check with Stephen Reed possibly right okay Mr Reed do you have any do you wish if I may chair my camera is not working but hopefully you can hear me yeah we can hear you it's my understanding from what Mr Fulton was saying is that actually there are further issues in relation to the report which he feels are not accurate he said that at Power 41 various statements are made which he says are not true and he has suggested that judicial review proceedings will be brought arising out of any decision today there has been lengthy discussion at the start of planning committee as to the ability for anyone to make representations and I would therefore advise members that in my view Fuselain consortium should be making representations such that the matter comes back to a committee for further consideration in the light of Mr Fulton's complaints and that the committee has the opportunity to consider those representations rather than to face the issue of judicial review proceedings which clearly can take into account any further any representations which Mr Fulton wants to make so I would invite Mr Fulton to make representations such that the matter does come back to committee and committee can decide that it has a report which stands or not thank you so just to be clear on that so what are you asking us to do now you asking us to defer the thing again more to actually go to a decision and then no I'm not I'm not inviting you to defer I'm inviting Chairman I am going to propose a move to defer hang on wait let's try and get some sense out of this Chairman Lucas are you still there or have we lost you all together now Chairman Lucas they can link he really wants to speak sorry sorry it's the Vice Chair so Chair if you'd like I can read out the people who would like to speak one of them is the case officer we've also got I'm sure a lot of people do but if we're going to defer we might as we need to get on with it we've already wasted a whole load of time other people's time this morning and then the case officer again who wants to come back now I want Mr Carter's advice whether we should defer now or not please thank you Chair in my opinion I think we need to complete the advice that Mr Reid was providing I don't know if Mr Reid may have just rejoined possibly can I take over now Chris thank you so my advice to members of the committee is not to defer but if Mr Fulton is minded to issue judicial review proceedings he should take he should first take advantage of the ability to make further comments during the consultation period such that those comments can be reviewed as specific comments Mr Reid let's stop there for a moment please I understood that we are told at the beginning of this meeting that the IT issue didn't actually apply to this Chair if I may yes that is correct there is no further consultation period for this item so there wouldn't be any further opportunity for fuselain consulting to make further representations so given that Mr Reid what's your advice now my my advice is that not withstanding that the consultation period has closed you've been advised that judicial review proceedings will be issued because of inaccuracies in the report so in those circumstances it would be my recommendation to defer right thank you very much all right members regrettably I don't think we've got any option but actually defer so I'm proposing that we defer this to a later meeting can I have a seconder please seconded Mr Chairman Councillor Roberts is seconding is this by affirmation or does anyone wish to vote against it Chairman I would like to speak to the motion please I've indicated so yeah you've got that and also the case officers requested multiple terms it's probably not relevant now on that one I think Councillor Williams do you want to speak to this thank you Chairman I just wanted to clarify something in the report it says we should have made a decision on the 10th of March I the advice is that we have to defer I think we ought to be apologising to the applicant because I've had applicants come to me about this and they say that the emotional impact this has is just cruel and this feels like we're putting them through an awful lot by doing this I appreciate that might be the legal advice but we ought to be apologising as well well yeah and other people ought to be apologising as well because it's not us who's created the situation okay so let's go to a vote then Chairman look anyone against Chairman would it be wise to hear what the case officer has to say no you've heard the legal advice thank you no Chair if I may I think you should hear what the case officer has got to say thank you Mr Read case officer what do you have to say to us thank you Chair I'm surprised you didn't want to hear from me it's essential that I get this point across representations were sent to Stephen Read right from Daniel in relation to the case law referred to at the previous committee the report itself states that no third party representations have been received but I can correct that now and I've already corrected it because I've already been through all the representations received I sent them to members as well so you've had sight of them the only error in the report is the fact that well it's not even necessarily an error because those representations weren't sent directly to me they were sent to Stephen Read but in any case they have been shared with members and I have covered them in a power point slide at this meeting there's absolutely no need to defer this item absolutely no need you don't want to get into an argument it's not an argument Chair it's perhaps in a very difficult position well let's see what Mr. Read has to say off the back of that because I'm not sure he was necessarily aware of the basis for a legal challenge and it wouldn't be sensible to defer just because there's a threat of a legal challenge when we don't actually understand what that challenge centres on so that's very important especially given that the applicant has had to wait for this item to be deferred once already and I don't want to take the blame for that Chair I think Mr. Carter would like to speak as well Who sorry? Mr. Carter please Thank you Chair I would like to support the comments that Luke has just made Mr. Fulton in his presentation referred to his representations that were submitted they were submitted to Stephen Read Luke has referred to them and they were circulated to members before the meeting so members have had an opportunity to what's important is that members have that information in front of them at the time that they make a decision the fact that it wasn't covered in the report is regrettable but what is important in terms of the decision making is that members have that information in front of them and they do therefore my opinion would be that we can determine this application today that is my advice to you Chairman Thank you Chair if I may Yes please I asked you specifically to allow Mr. Simpson to comment following my comments in case he did wish to take a different view to the one I had expressed I fully support Mr. Simpson's comments and I am now suggesting that you do not defer the papers circulated to members show that Mr. Fulton has been invited since since late July to actually accept that the representations he made to Planning Committee were not reflected in the Court of Appeal decision he's had many many weeks to say that he doesn't agree with that and he hasn't done so I suggest we get on and determine this matter today Right okay members we have a rather confused set of issues there but now we appear to have come to a clear recommendation that we actually proceed with this so in the interest of the applicant and that this has been going on forever I think we should proceed to actually deal with this so we will now go to the debate can I have people who would like to speak to the debate we are not debating deferral anymore we are talking about the coming to a conclusion please do I have speakers please Yes chair you have Councillor Cahn Councillor Cahn please yep I can trouble with the oh sorry trouble with my unmuting it's alright we can hear you sorry Councillor Cahn you're now muted I think you actually muted yourself after I didn't do anything but I don't know what happened never mind here we are if this application had been received before the applications the adjoining properties had been approved we would certainly have refused it because it's outside the village perimeter now it is you're talking about developing between two existing developments which have been approved on the site of an existing site with a very small extension to the rear the site visit the was critical in terms of appreciating this site the appears to me having seen the site on location on site that there is an improvement despite the size of the property of the proposal because of the increasing distance from adjoining properties particularly number 130 130 I think 132 and road the original proposal was very close to the boundary within the meter and the new proposal is considerably further distance which would mean less impact on the immunity so I think the minimal extension mirror is countered by the fact that there is improved immunity and it's a more desirable option so in that sense I feel that I should be supporting the recommendation approval thank you very much for that councillor Griffith please councillor Griffith please thank you very much to the case officer for arranging the site visit I found that particularly helpful and I too like councillor calm think that the immunity will actually be improved and I will be supporting this application Heather Williams thank you very much councillor Williams please thank you chairman so looking and trying to take into consideration on this application and as I referenced earlier I really do feel for the applicants in this situation however when determining the application obviously I can't take that into account and on balance I'm going to I'm inclined to vote and refuse of this application on the base of the impact and character and appearance of the area which I do believe the parish council have identified succinctly and the fact that it's further back than previously done you know it's just going further and further back and we now have a land supply as well so we have to take the decision in the situation that we are in we are told we have a land supply we are determining applications on that basis and therefore it's a departure it's out of policy policies that I think we read hold on to and I will be voting against but I do hope that they have resolution soon as applicants thank you councillor Bradman thank you chairman I am very unhappy about this development for all the reasons that the parish council explained and I'm very glad we had a site visit thank you very much I'm glad the deferral gave us time to do that because I think it was important but what I note as others have said, this new proposal is actually further back outside the village framework than the previous proposal. It is bigger in footprint, much bigger than the previous proposal which was actually quite a modest dwelling at one and a half stories and this is much bigger than that and as the parish council chairman told us it's twice the size of the original application and this application has an additional annex so I whilst I take the point about buildings developed on either side I actually think this proposal has a bigger impact on the countryside around willing them than the previously approved application and so I'm afraid but I am minded to refuse. Councillor Roberts. Yep, Councillor Roberts please. Thank you very much Chairman. I share the concerns about the application itself and I did listen very carefully to the parish council's representation and it seems to be really a question of mission creep here from what it was originally and the restrictions on the size to a completely different beast now and I think that it is detrimental now it's become a detrimental application. Can I just say as well I am very concerned and would hope that officers and chairman vice chairman would look at this recording again today to see how this has been handled. I think it's disturbing. I think it's not acceptable. I think that we have to question how much allowance we will make to officers with their input. I'm not going to say anything about that Chairman. Yes I agree with consideration and rely on the fact that this will be pursued. Thank you. Thank you Chairman. Councillor Roberts is it? Thank you Chairman. I too visited the site having requested site visit before when it was deferred last time. The site visit to me was particularly important because you can stand back and look at the two developments on each side and view what is coming in relation to those. The damage on this application was done when the three were granted because of the lack of the five year land supply and it was then out of the village framework. So to me that horse is bolted. Of enormous respect for William Parrish Council and they are usually right and I really understand their anger on this application. But looking against what is already built on each side of it this is no worse, no better and I am minded to approve it. Thank you Chairman. Thank you very much. Councillor Hawkins. Yep Councillor Hawkins please. Thank you Chair. Definitely the site visit was quite important I think and in fact I will not keep you too long because Councillor Wright has pretty much said what I was going to say. If you had seen those two either side of it it makes no difference that you know this is now going to be a two story rather than one and a half the ridge height is still the same and frankly you know the harm I don't see the harm or any worsening harm than what has already been done. So my view is I will be supporting this application. Thank you. Right thank you very much. I see Councillor Collins computers crashed. So yeah. Councillor Harvey would like to speak. Yeah Councillor Harvey please. Yes thank you Chair. Can you hear me? Yeah so I... Can you turn your camera off please? Can we hold until Councillor Cahn is back on otherwise he's not going to be able to vote. I think he must be back on because he's giving me a message. I've been back on since Councillor Nick Wright was speaking but I missed what Councillor Branlam and Councillor Roberts were saying. I'm sorry. Alright okay thank you noted. Sorry Councillor Harvey. Yes thank you Chair. I find stuff in a slightly awkward position because I was booked on to the site visit but because I'm substituting on this occasion it was my understanding you know yesterday morning that this application would be deferred and therefore I didn't think it was good use of my time to go on the site visit given that I wouldn't be part of or unlikely to be part of the subsequent. So therefore I feel I must abstain because others have kind of attested to the importance of site visit which I haven't had the benefit of. Right thank you very much. Chair if I may. Sorry who's that? It's Mr Stephen Reed again Chair. Alright. Councillor Cahn has said that he didn't hear the comments of Councillor Roberts and. Bradnum. Bradnum rather than him not being able to vote can Councillor Roberts and Councillor Branlam repeat their comments? Oh yeah. Does Councillor Roberts and Councillor Bradnum want to do that? I can quickly reiterate so that we can very shortly please. Okay my point was that I felt that the site visit was useful but this application is still much bigger than the previously approved application and in fact it's twice as big in terms of the footprint. I appreciate the ridge height is similar but the footprint is much bigger and this application has an additional annex that was not present in the previous application whilst I appreciate that 124 and 132 have large approvals which are being built out now. I still feel this is being moved back further away from the village the development framework and for that reason I feel it's detrimental and therefore I'm minded to refuse. Right thank you very much for that and Councillor Roberts would you say of your views? Yeah thank you Chairman dear. It's becoming a bit of a circus today isn't it? More than a bit of a circus. Yeah I'm against it because I feel it's mission creep. I know what has happened to the adjoining properties however they were done at a time when we didn't have a control. I think now we do need to realise we have a control and we need to actually implement that control where you have a house that was formulated for a much smaller entity and now has doubled up in size its mission creep and I think that we would have this situation all over the district. There comes a time when we have to accept that what was going on before has happened but what is with us now gives us back control and I think we ought to be absolutely sticking to that ability to control our policies. This doesn't fit in with that and the parish council are quite right to be very concerned about it and to be objecting and I will be voting against. Excellent thank you very much for that. So Councillor Carl, I take it you are still with us and you have heard all that. Did you just say yes? Yes I did. That's great. Okay thank you very much. Councillor Richard Williams please. Thank you very much chair. I won't keep you very long. Just to say I've listened to the debate very carefully. I'd like to record my thanks as well for the site visit which I thought was really very useful in judging this application. I've listened very carefully to the arguments on either side. I must say it's not a clear cut decision for me. I think on balance I tend to agree with Councillor Wright however that I think the damage was done many years ago when the first planning application was made and that even though the footprint here is larger I'm not sure for me that that's sufficient to refuse. I'm reminded to vote in favour. All right thank you very much. Now Councillor Heather Williams. Chairman I wrote that about 20 minutes ago and it's only just come through. I think I have an issue with my chat. So it got clarified during. Right. Good advice earlier. Okay fine. All right. Okay members let's actually bring this to a conclusion. So obviously there's going to be a split vote. I'm taking it that those who want to refuse are doing so on the basis that they feel that this new application causes more harm than the existing approval. There are also issues about it outside of the village envelope and the impact on the character of the area. And also the additional. Hang on. So who wanted to speak them? Sorry Chairman. Councillor Barnum I wanted to point out it also has an additional annex which was not on the previous approval. All right that comes into the additional harm doesn't it? Okay fine. Thank you. Yeah Councillor Roberts did you want to add something there? Yeah just Chairman that it is outside of the village envelope and it is contrary to search and I think we ought to be standing up. Thank you. So we've got that. So that's the basis for any refusals. My own view is that the real issue is about the existing application and this one which whatever happens there is going on here which is doing the least harm. My view is that this one slightly further down is actually less harmful than the existing. So I will be voting in favour. We will now have a roll call. So the proposal from the officer is for approval with all the conditions and so on as per the report. So if we can start the round of voting them please. So if you want approval you vote for. If you want refusal you vote against. And abstain should you wish to abstain. So Councillor Bradnham please. Against. Against. Councillor Cahn. For. For. Councillor Harvey. Abstain. Abstain. Councillor Hawkins. For. For. Councillor Halings. For. For. Councillor Rippith. For. Thank you. Councillor Roberts. Against. Against. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Against. Against. Richard Williams please. For. For. Councillor Riots. For. For. And my own vote is for. So the vote is seven, three and one abstention. So that is approved. Okay, thank you very much. There's now just about two o'clock. I suppose that we have a half an hour break for lunch. And reassemble at two thirty. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much chair. You're now live again. Thank you. Good afternoon everyone and welcome back to South County District Council Planning Committee. We are now moving on to agenda item ten. It's on. Agenda papers at. Three six one. Now members you should also have a supplementary. Set of papers. Entitled update reports. Which is giving the views of the Camborn Town Council. So with those papers. We're at. Camborn. It's a reference twenty. Zero two one nine five stroke. F U L. This is South Camerature Hall. Camborn Business Bar. The proposal is the provision of carbon reduction emission measures including a borehole. Array across the existing car park. Ground source heat pump system within the existing building. And provision of a vote of a panic solar car park. Ports. So the applicant is South Camers District Council. The face officer will take us through the key material considerations. The applicant is brought. The application is brought to the committee because the applicant is South Camers District Council. And it's a requirement that all our internal. Applications have to come to this committee. The officers suggestion for. Is approval and the presenting officer is Luke Simpson. Luke. Can you give us your presentation please. Thank you chair. So similarly I am going to share the slides. And can you confirm that you can see the PowerPoint without the notes please. Yes you can. Thank you. Excellent. Good afternoon again members. So as the chair explained the site is South Camerature Hall which you'll all be very familiar with. The proposal is the provision of carbon reduction emission measures. Including a borehole array across the existing car park. A ground source heat pump system. And provision of photovoltaic solar car ports. Members will have seen the update report which was circulated. And that includes a revised list of planning conditions. It also includes reference to consultation responses from. Camborn Town Council and the tree officer. This slide shows the extent of the application site. As you can see from the slide there's also an area of land to the east of the office building. Which is proposed as an area for a temporary car park. During construction of the solar car ports and borehole array. So this feels to the east of the site. This slide shows that the solar car ports. Would be located across the central section of the existing car park. So this area here highlighted in blue. The car ports are cited such that they would not result in the removal of any trees within the car park. The car ports would incorporate 20 electric vehicle charging points to promote electric vehicle use. And the plan also indicates the location of the closed loop borehole array. Which will be linked to four pumps within the old server room in the main building. And the borehole array will be entirely below ground. So these blue lines indicate the location of the below ground closed loop borehole array. I know that the agent is going to speak. But I'll try and explain how the ground source heat pump works. Forgive me if I can get it slightly wrong. The ground source heat pump works by pumping cold water underground. Which is then heated naturally due to the warmer temperature underground. So the water circulates in the system and there's no abstraction of water. Because it's a closed loop as opposed to an open loop system. The heated waters then pump back up to the pump and evaporates as it cools and creates heat. The aim is to replace the majority of gas used for heating and hot water within the building. As I said there's no water abstraction and water circulate through the system. The development as a whole would reduce the building's annual carbon footprint from over 350,000 kilograms of CO2 a year. To approximately 182,000 kilos. In keeping with the council's commitment to support the transition to net zero carbon. And the panels would generate approximately 136 kilowatts of electricity. Which would meet approximately 20% of the building's peak demand needs. This plan shows the location of the temporary car park. So clearly the car park will have to be closed or part of the car park will have to be closed during the construction period. So the applicant has proposed a temporary car park on land within the red line boundary. Notice has been served on the landowner as well. Currently car parking is provided across the site as follows. So there are 227 bays for staff. There are 13 accessible spaces, 19 car shifts basis and the overflow parking along this access road here provides for 34 spaces. There are 293 spaces in total at the moment. The overflow car share and accessible parking spaces will all be unaffected. So if I just go back a slide. So these spaces and the accessible spaces directly adjacent to the building will not be affected. They won't need to be closed off. And the overflow spaces on this road here will also remain during the construction period. If I go back to the parking slide plan. So the proposals will result in the overall loss of one parking space. And obviously there aren't any proposals to increase floor space or anything like that. The proposals don't result in the increased parking. Any increased parking demand. I suppose the reason I've dedicated a whole slide to parking is because I obviously having worked at the council. I'm aware of the issues associated with parking that can sometimes arise. And that has formed a sort of basis for my initial pre-application advice to the agent in submitting this application. So the car park is likely to be shut for seven weeks for construction to take place. Construction was originally planned for the summer this summer. But there has been a delay in determining this application unfortunately. However, clearly with the current increase in home working the impact associated with parking is significantly reduced. At this present time. Nonetheless, the applicant has provided or is seeking to provide 135 parking spaces to the east, the main building with obviously the 90 spaces are referred to that are unaffected. Remaining as well. So that would bring us to 225 spaces during that construction period. Planning officers consider that taking all of that into account the level of parking provision over the construction period has been sufficiently justified by the applicant and quite a lot of work has gone into making those arrangements. These are the images of the temporary parking area. So to the right, it's this field adjacent to the building you'll be familiar probably with the access road. So it wouldn't be difficult for employees to access the building from the temporary car park is only a short distance to the main building. Provision will be made for temporary roadway matting to be laid from the access from this access point to all parking bays so grass parking maps and reptile fencing will also be erected around the boundary of the temporary parking area. This area shows the location of proposed panels and at the bottom of the plan you can see the elevation of the proposed panels as well. So the solar car ports would have a mono pitch roof with a maximum height of approximately four metres and a minimum height of 2.5 metres. As you can see the panels will be located such that there would not be any trees removed either within the car park or along its boundaries. So they're located in the centre of the car park and this planting and the planting along the boundaries which I think is a lot more established than shown in this area will be retained and there won't be any trees removed. As you may be aware the previous application for solar panels when the car park was refused in 2015 by Planning Committee. This was due to the resultant loss of mature landscaping so the landscaping and planting I've just mentioned along the boundary and within the car park itself. That previous proposal involved the removal of a lot of that planting and then we're not satisfied with that and the loss of planting was considered to have an unacceptable visual impact upon the setting of this part of the business park. In addition the previous refuse scheme proposed canopies all over the car park so all of the parking spaces would have been covered in car ports so the visual impact would have been far more prominent. So this scheme has obviously been carefully designed. It's much more modest and it does not involve the removal of boundary planting. It has a lower visual impact because the planting obviously actually helps screen the panels from the surrounding area. And I should probably say the borehole array itself has also been revised to avoid the root protection areas of the trees as recommended by the tree officer who is now in support of the proposals. This slide shows the location of electrical charging points which will be built into the frame of the car ports. So the slide shows an elevation as well of the proposed inverters which would take up one parking space. So there would be the loss of one space and that would be to the inverters which are required to convert AC current to provide electricity to the building. So only one elevation has been proposed or submitted this elevation here. So I would recommend an additional planning condition to those which just set out in the update report. And the wording of the conditions on the following slide so I don't know if someone can note down the proposed wording. We really need to see all elevations of those inverters before development commences. And I suggest that that information is provided and considered by the council prior to commencing the development. So I propose the following wording. No development shall commence until details of the proposed inverters have been provided to the LPA and approved in writing. The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with those details. And the reason being obviously to ensure that the proposed development is in keeping with the character surrounding area in accordance with adopted local plan policy HQ one. So in terms of the key considerations, the principle of development complies with local plan policy CC2 on generating energy from renewable and low carbon sources. It complies with all criteria with the exception of criterion C, which relates to decommissioning. The reason for that criterion is, well, it centres on large scale development or development whose sole function is to provide renewable energy. In this instance, it's not considered to be conflicted with, well, it's not considered irrelevant because of the dual function of the solar panels as car ports and providing electrical charting points. As opposed to, for example, a solar farm which would potentially be decommissioned and removed from science for 25 years, these car ports will remain in situ indefinitely. Therefore, I don't really, I don't consider that that condition is necessary or reasonable really in this instance. Should members decide that it is, they can recommend the inclusion of a condition on decommissioning after a certain period of time, which could be 25 years. That's generally a standard period. So in terms of visual amenity, in comparison to the previously refused scheme, this scheme involves a lower quantum of development. None of the trees or hedgerows in the car park would be damaged or removed as a result of the proposal and the landscape officer is also supportive. In terms of climate change and renewable energy, there are significant benefits associated with the development by way of generation of energy from renewable sources, which I mentioned earlier and obviously the carbon reduction, the resultant carbon reduction, which I also mentioned earlier. Parking provision proposed development doesn't create any increased parking demand and only involves the removal of one space. The temporary measures are all well considered and planning officers consider those temporary measures to accommodate the temporary need for alternative parking, particularly in the current climate as well. That's obviously a relevant consideration. In terms of impact on biodiversity, the ecology officers recommended various conditions, which have all been included. These include a condition requiring bio-divacity enhancement measures and a condition requiring the submission of the construction ecological management plan. On that basis, officers consider that the development complies with local plan policy NH1 on biodiversity. There haven't been any objections. We've received one letter of support from a local resident outlining the benefits of this development. Planning officers therefore recommend approval subject to the conditions set out in the update report and the additional condition which I highlighted on the slide requiring details of the proposed inverters to be submitted prior to commencement of development. Thank you very much. Right, thank you. Just before we proceed further members, we're coming up to the four hours. We have to agree to continue the meeting. So I suppose that we do continue the meeting. Can I have a seconder for that, please? I'm happy to second. Yeah, thank you. Anyone against? No, okay, so unfortunately we continue. All right, so any points of clarification for the new case? Councillor Bredman. Councillor Bredman, yep, please. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to confirm with the case officer that there won't be any legs under the free edges of the solar panels, that they'll be totally cantilevered from the middle. I say this as somebody who has driven my car reversing into a space and hit a pillar. So I just want to check there are no legs at the front. All right, thank you. Can you give us an assurance, Luke? Yes, thank you, Councillor. Good question. The applicant's agent will hopefully confirm this, but having looked at the plans, the mounting posts are all in the centre of the carport. I did church slide, probably wasn't particularly clear, but yes, the mounting posts are central and that's where the charging points are as well. So there's nothing on the perimeter edge in that regard. That's reassuring. All right, thank you. We have a few more. You want to just check that they are questions rather than debate. Yeah, questions only for clarification. Councillor Harvey. Yeah, thank you. Really a question on climate change mitigation. We have some windows at South Council, which sort of self-destructed with resonance. And I'm just concerned about the cantilever solar panel arrays. I did find a document from the building's research establishment, but it didn't seem to have been specifically on the solar arrays for carports. It didn't seem to have been particularly recently updated. And I just can you confirm that the wind speed and any kind of resonant effects are kind of taking into account projections of increased wind, both mean and gust speeds for the lifetime of the carport. All right, thank you for that. Please officer, please. There's a very technical question. I'll do my best to answer. But again, perhaps the agent might be able to help. The panels are obviously designed to be erected in the way they are. I don't know what the query is in relation to resonance. It's a difficult question to answer, to be honest, Chair. We'll raise that with the agents. We'll have to speak to them in a minute. That would be great. We'll keep that in reserve. Councillor Carran, please. My query is about the exit from the temporary car park, which passes by onto the... I can't remember what it's called. The lay behind the district council offices. That exit is actually rather difficult. I just wondered what the highway's view is on the increased traffic rule and inevitably come out of the temporary car park. Thank you. Luke. Thank you, Councillor. So we've had a consultation response from the local highway authority and they've considered the development and the plan submitted, which include the temporary parking. And they've commented that there wouldn't be any adverse impact on the highway as a result of the development. I speak as somebody who has had an accident coming out from there because of the speeding on road. Although it's 30 mile an hour limit, people don't keep to it and the visibility is not ideal. And parking on that road is haywire. All right. Okay, thank you. Moving on then, we've got two representatives from the applicants. We've got Mr Wingate and Mr Ingall, please. Yeah, sorry. I'm just... Councillor Paul Ingall here. So I'm the architect. Oh, right, fine. I'll do a very brief introduction. I'm sure you don't want to listen to me for too long. And Luke, to be fair, has done a very good appraisal of the scheme so far. I've pretty much just answered the questions that you've already asked. And then Alex will do a brief introduction on to the... Yeah, a bit more about the solar array and the actual boreholes and the way they work, etc. And we'll answer any questions. Yeah, okay. But you've only got three minutes for your initial presentation. Okay. The screen is now frozen. Okay. Can you still hear me? Okay. We can hear you. Okay. Sure. Okay. Yeah. So yeah, I'm happy to start if you like. Yeah. You've got three minutes. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. So yeah, we're the architect and agent for the scheme. Yeah. Thank you to Luke for his appraisal of the scheme. I say we have very little to add. Just to confirm, there are no posts on the outside. The canopy is all cantilevered. The design of the car ports are specialist designed. So they have been specialist designed with wind speed in mind, the structure, etc. Structural calculations and the foundations are designed accordingly. They are very robust. That kind of answers the two questions. So if I just... If I meet myself, then Alex can just tell you a little bit more about the actual borehole array. Okay. Thanks very much, Paul. Thanks as you kind of alluded to. Can everyone sort of hear me and see me okay? We can't hear you very well. You're a bit quiet. Is that better now? Sorry. That's fine. Marvelous. So yeah, these measures form part of a wider project which will reduce the energy consumption at South Cambridge Hall by over 60%, which is obviously a vital step towards the Council's net zero carbon ambitions. Luke's done a very good job so far of describing the project. Although the one graph we would have is the solar car ports of a capacity of 136 kilowatts, but will generate over 108,000 kilowatts per year. So that's 20% of the site's electrical consumption, which will be offset by the solar car port. As Luke alluded to earlier on, there's the borehole array, which will be within the car park, which consists of a number of boreholes which are drilled to 198 meters in depth, which is then piped back into the building to the ground source heat pump itself, which is within the server room. That combined with a number of other measures we're looking to reduce the heating demand of the building or reduce the gas consumption of the building will save over 90% of the building's gas demand as well. So it's a huge step in the right direction to removing the building from the gas grid. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have on the remainder of the project or any specific elements of the works that have been put forward. Okay, thank you very much. Members, do you have any points of clarification you'd like to raise? I don't see any questions coming. I think you've answered those and we've had a very full... Chairman. Yes, Councillor Redman. Just a quick one. I just want to know how long do you envisage the installation we'll take to complete? I'm not sure that that's a planning issue. I think we're talking to the architect and the designer. So initially this was planned so that the vast majority of the works would be completed within the summer holidays of this year. Now it's looking like the installation works will be taking place over the winter months, so it may not be within those seven weeks that were previously put forward, but we would anticipate the disruptions to the car park would be limited to 12 weeks. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. I haven't got any other questions, so gentlemen, thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much. And we'll now go to the discussion. Bearing in mind that absolutely nobody is objective to this, all the consultees are supportive, so I'd hope that we can move fairly swiftly to a decision on this. So does anyone wish to speak? No? Shall we simply go to the vote then in that case? There are two. Oh, is that right? OK. Councillor Haylings, please. Yes, thank you, chair. And I just want to thank the case officer for the very detailed presentation. And I think I'd have liked to hear a little bit more to equal this out in terms of harms and benefits as well as the car parking and the landscaping efforts, but also the fact that this is this is transformational as a local authority to be designing and constructing this solar carport and ground source heat pump, which will address huge savings on our bills, but also replace the cost of heating and water heating for the building and also for car charging with an energy performance guarantee built into that. And so, you know, I think this is accomplishing. It's not just sort of complying with our climate change policy requirements. It is excelling and it is showing leadership and it's implementing our zero carbon strategy. And as many people know, I am baffled that, you know, there was a decision in 2015 to refuse this on landscaping and tree planting grounds, which are very dear to my heart, but it should have come straight back in with a revised design because we actually lost out then on feed and tariff incomes and revenue to the commission. I'm not sure this is relevant to the planning application. I'd like to move that we approve this application check. OK, well, we still got one more speaker. Let's see what Councillor Rufus has to say, please. I'll be really quick. Just to say this sets an excellent example. And we leave from the front on this and let's vote for it because it's actually perfect timing because the car park is not being as heavily used because of COVID-19. So the next 12 weeks would be great. Excellent. OK. Thank you very much. Councillor Heather Williams, you wish to speak. Thank you, Chairman. Obviously, I won't reflect on decisions taken in the past because, you know, it'd be horrible if somebody did that to us. We make decisions in the manner in which we are at that time. However, I do think this application is good. I will be supporting it. And I look forward to seeing the results. Thank you very much, Chairman. Excellent. Thank you. All right, no more speakers. Let's go to a vote. So we need to vote. Is there anyone against this? I can't hear anybody. So can I say that this is the... Well, I would say that the proposal is for approval plus conditions. And this would include the extra condition that Luke outlined to us and the extra elements that were in the supplement. So if you're in favour of approval, then can we do that by affirmation, please? Agreed. Agreed. That is therefore approved. All right. Thank you. Let's move swiftly on then to item 11. Item 11 is Walter Beach. So this is reference S, stroke 0009, stroke 20, FL. Recreation, it's at the Recreation Ground, Cambridge Road, Walter Beach. The proposal is to replacement bowls pavilion following the demolition of the existing pavilion. The applicant is Walter Beach Parish Council. The case officer will go through the key material considerations. This is before us simply because the applicant is Walter Beach Parish Council. And there have been third party objections. So it's a requirement that local Parish Council applications would have to come to this committee. So the recommendation of the case officer is approval. The presenting officer is Sumaya Makomaya. So Sumaya, could you give your presentation, please? Thank you. Can you please confirm if you can see my presentation? Not yet. Yes. Yes, yeah. I'll let now. Thank you. So as you said, the application is for the replacement bowls pavilion following the demolition of the existing pavilion. And yes, the reason why this application has come before the members is because the applicant is Walter Beach Parish Council and the third party's objections. So the site is located north of the Walter Beach Recreation Ground. It is east of Cambridge Road and at the rear of Presidential Properties Numbers 21 to 31 Cambridge Road and the Beach Social Club. The site is located outside the development framework of Walter Beach and in the countryside and green belt. Towards the east corner of the site is the Walter Beach Conservation Area. The closest access into the site is from Cambridge Road along a public footpath that runs along the north of the Recreation Ground south of the Bowling Green. The site has a boundary fence separating it from the rest of the Recreation Ground with secure access. The existing building is single story with a floor space of approximately 38.7 square meters and it is constructed from timber cladding. I'm just going to go through what the location plan. The site is aged red here and Cambridge Road is this grey shaded area. These are the properties, the residential properties are referred to and this is the Beach Social Club. Towards the south here is the footpath and this is the application site. The pink line you see at the top here that's the Conservation Boundary Fence very boundary. I'm just going to go through the context to just give you an idea where the site is. This is Cambridge Road. These are the properties here that I was referring to the residential properties and this is the Social Club. Alongside the Social Club here is the public footpath that leads to the site. So this boundary fence here that's the boundary fence of the site and here is the access into the site and this is looking towards the north and west side of the site so you can see the residential property at the back here and this here is the existing pavilion and this is the close up of the pavilion existing here. This is looking towards the west side of the site and at the back you can see the residential properties and this is looking towards the south side of the site and this is looking at the boundary treatment of the residential property which is somewhat informal. So here you can see the site can and this is the existing situation here is the existing pavilion and this is where the proposed pavilion will be on the proposed plan. The proposed pavilion will have a floor space of approximately 122 square meters so the floor plan will have its main entrance from the south side of the building which is here and towards the west side of the building are toilet facilities and changing rooms and towards the north here is the storeroom and kitchen area. This area here will be the bowling mat measuring the length of approximately 13.8 meters so with this application Labour's raised objections that the proposed development would be overbearing and would overshadow grey gardens due to its close proximity to the rear bound defence. Also they raise concerns that due to its size and mass the proposal would be visually intrusive. Officers agree that the proposed building will be closer to the bound defence compared to the existing situation. So for example if we compare the existing situation and we look at this property here which is number 31 the distance is 7.4 meters whilst from the proposed building the distance will be approximately 5.4 meters and towards the closest point which is on top here and this is number 23 the distance is approximately 2.4 whilst the existing situation is no building here however officers consider that this space between the rear bound defence of these properties to the building is sufficient and would not significantly overshadow the rear gardens of these properties. With regards to issues of overbearing and being visually intrusive given its modest height with an ease height of approximately 2.4 which is similar to the ease height of the existing building and having a height that would be a ridge height that would not be comparably higher than that of the existing building officers do not consider the proposed development to be visually intrusive or overbearing that would harm the residential immunity or rural countryside. So looking at the elevation of the existing you can see that the ridge height is 3.4 and if you compare it with the proposal here which is a section is 3.6 and if you look at the ease height the ease height of the existing which is 2.5 meters the proposed ease height is only 2.4. Here is a 3d representation of how the building would look like as you can see will be constructed of brick timber cladding and render. With regards to the key material considerations they are principle of development in the green belt, visual immunity and impact on the conservation area residential immunity, landscape, ecology and highway safety. With regards to principle of development in the green belt because the development is a replacement building in the same land use and also it is a sport and recreation facility it is compliant in principle with the green belt policies and also because it is a single story we are satisfied that it would not harm the openness of the green belt or the visual immunity of the area. With regards to visual immunity and impact on the conservation area the proposed development would not would be single story and therefore it would not harm the openness and the rural character of the green belt or the visual immunity of the area. With regards to residential immunity because we have already looked at the size of the building and its proximity to neighboring properties we are satisfied that it would not harm neighbour immunity. With regards to landscape offices have recommended a landscaping condition and with regards to ecology and highway safety there are no ecological issues or highway safety issues raised and therefore offices recommend that the committee approves this application subject to conditions and informatives and for clarity with regards to consultation this application is unaffected by the consultation error and a recommendation should be determined as per the report. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members any points of clarification? Sorry my comment was for debate Chairman. Okay fine. Okay no points of clarification then. Oh actually perhaps Chairman I could just speak one clarification. Yes alright. It's simply to thank you very much to the case officer for putting those diagrams of the footprint of the building next door to each other the existing and the proposed because I guess we are confirming are we not that the new footprint is approximately twice as long as the old footprint in other words it affects not just 31 and 29 now but it would actually go across the backs of 27, 25 and 23. Can you help us with that? Sorry can you repeat the question sorry. Sorry I would just I wanted to say thank you very much for putting the two diagrams together of the existing footprint and the proposed footprint. Can you confirm that whereas the old footprint only went across the backs of properties 31 and 29 station Cambridge Road this new proposal would go across the backs of 31 well all the way from 23 to 31 is that correct? Yes. OK thank you very much. Alright thank you I don't have any other speakers so thank you very much for that I don't have any public speakers either so that's you again then Councillor Bredlem we're into the debate. Thank you Chairman. OK so I think that's the observation isn't it that this is actually twice as long as the old pavilion and so it intervenes between more properties and their current view of the bowling green it affects properties that were not previously that didn't previously have a pavilion behind them but as we know in planning no one has a right to a view given that this property this development is proposed to be single story and they are proposing screening on the west side of the site so hopefully to improve the boundary with the back gardens of those properties from 21 or 23 down to 31 Cambridge Road I think this is not an unreasonable suggestion it provides for increased sporting activity it allows bowls to be carrying on indoors when the weather is not good enough to be doing bowls outdoors so I think I don't think there's any reason to object to it. Alright thank you very much Councillor Rippith please. Just to say I will be supporting this application because I think it's a good one I think it's something which is much needed and can offer a lot to local residents and just to add to the yes the building's been made much longer but the ridge height and the eaves height is actually lower as the officer has said and the windows as it says in the report which face on to numbers 23 to 31 are above eye level and I think it's a good design and I would urge people to support it. Thank you okay I don't have any more speakers so all the statutory consultees are in support so I'm going to go to the vote now and the proposal is for approval subject to conditions according to my notes here this water beach one is unaffected by the issue with the IT consultation period so we can have a direct vote on that so all those Can I just confirm that the condition for screening is going to be added The one suggested by the officer yes I mean that is part of it so the approval is approval plus conditioning including the additional one including the screening Lovely thank you Okay so can I take this by affirmation them is anyone against anyone against so that is approved very much we move on to agenda item 12 and that's on page 387 of our agenda the reference is Airstroke 01085 HFUL and we're at number 2 but late great Wimbledon the proposal is a second floor front extension to provide staircase headroom additional accommodation and dormers to rear this is a resubmission of Airstroke 130619 FL the applicant is Mr. and Mrs. Devo key material considerations will be brought into by the case officer the application is brought to committee refer to planning committee by great Wilburn parish council and the officer recommendation of approval conflicts with the recommendation of great parish council so the recommendation is for approval and the presenting officer is Michael Sexton so Mr. Sexton over to you Councillor Brednum would you turn off your camera please I'm sorry I'm sorry chairman thank you let's over to you then Michael Thank you chair just two updates before I go into my presentation the first is obviously this is an application is affected by the IT issues so the recommendation on the front of the report and in paragraph 70 will be updated to reflect that as I've put in my presentation a further response was received from great Wilburn parish council in response to the consultation on certificate B but they didn't raise anything they haven't said before so it hasn't taken the form of an update report why we'll just read that for the benefit of members now the parish council commented members unanimously agreed to maintain their objection to the planning application members want to reiterate their concerns over building work and request a robust traffic management be in place to avoid any problems and I will move on to my presentation so if you could just confirm chair that you can see the PowerPoint presentation yep got it excellent so yes this is an application to but Lane in great Wilburn for a second floor front extension to provide staircase headroom for additional accommodation and dormers to the rear it is a resubmission following a previously withdrawn application so this is the site outlined in red also the eastern edge of the village perhaps more clearly shown on the block plan to just take you through briefly the constraints of the sites it is here outlined in red it is an application where the property is within the development framework boundary of great Wilburn it also falls within the conservation area of great Wilburn as you can see from these pink houses these are the listed buildings in the proximity to the site and the green area is the green bell to the rear of the site but obviously the development is not within the green belt itself for context just for site photos the top left is the existing rear elevation of the property the top right is the front elevation of the existing property bottom left is the front elevation of number four but Lane which is the property to the left of the application site just worth noting that there's this existing dormer Juliet balcony feature here and the photo in the bottom right-hand corner is just the courtyard in front of the properties and the accesses is to this undercroft here so the application is posing is essentially three normal windows to allow a loft conversion you have an additional cat's light dormer at the frontier which will allow the staircase to be continued from ground floor to first floor up to second floor so this window will serve a staircase going up into the loft conversion where you also have the addition of three roof lights and on the rear elevation you'll see there are these two pitched roof dormer windows how that affects the building internally I haven't provided a ground floor plan because the ground floor is unaltered at first floor the only change is the continuation of the staircase up to the new second floor area which will provide two bedrooms both served by each dormer window and obviously the staircase served by the front cat's light dormer window to put it into the context of neighbouring means you because I know that is a concern has been raised locally between the front of the property where this new dormer window will be and the boundary of number five it's approximately 17.2 meters across that four court so there's a good degree of separation there the key material considerations obviously the character and the visual amenity of the development and officers feel that the additions are proportional and in keeping with the character of the area there are examples of several dormer windows within the wider village context and within the conservation area of varying designs and scales and obviously heritage impact important to consider as the site is located within the conservation area the application has been subject to consultation with the council's conservation officer for that reason who is supportive of the proposal subject to condition so just in terms of addressing those first two points there is a condition recommended condition three requiring precise details of materials and section plans of the construction just to ensure that it is as compatible with the area as it can be the residential amenity the potential for loss of privacy from these these windows the front door window serves a staircase which is a non habitable area and there's a 17 meter neighbour garden and the rear door windows would obviously look out over the applicant's garden so with a bleak fuse available towards number four so we don't consider that there's significant harm there noting the presence of first floor windows serving habitable rooms on the existing front and rear elevations Highway safety is in there as an issue because again that's been raised locally as I've just read from the updated comments of the parish council but Lane is quite an narrow road and there's a lot of traffic in sites so acknowledging those concerns we have recommended in condition for a traffic management plan condition which we wouldn't typically do for a household application of this scale but it is in response to those concerns and the constrained nature of the site to make sure that materials stored on site and contract to parking is arranged in a manner as suitable as possible and as for the updated recommendation in the dedicated approval subject and no further comments being received during the new consultation period that has arisen and that expires on the 21st of September Thank you chair Thank you very much Any points of clarification members? Yes Councillor Haylings Thank you Michael So here it's sort of reading the parish council submission and also representations by neighbours who are concerned A lot of it is about the impact of the actual works and so as you say you've included a condition which isn't normal on a domestic building but what I see as being requested is one that's robust and enforceable and I just would like you to explain in what way do you think the condition that's been attached meets that criteria both and enforceable? Thanks Thank you so yes obviously it's a bit unusual to impose it on this scale of development it's recognising that there is a constrained nature to this site so what that condition will do and secure and being in condition it is enforceable we would be provided with a plan which would indicate where storage of materials would be I expect that may likely be in the rear garden of the property so that doesn't affect other people who are using the forecourt or but lane and it really seeks to minimise the contractor parking and again given the scale of development you're not going to get half a dozen contractors fans so that plan should be able to indicate that the parking can be accommodated within the applicant's site in a manner that doesn't affect other users of the forecourt so by virtue of it being a planning condition and they have to submit the details once those details are approved if there was a reported breach of those details then that is something that could be subject to enforcement investigation but we would anticipate again because of the scale of the development hopefully a minimal disruption but it really is acknowledging local concerns and the agent app can have agreed to that condition as well in response to those concerns of both parish and local residents Thank you. Thank you very much Councillor and please. Looking at the pictures of the elevations of the proposals first of all in terms of the extension to cater for headroom for the stairway on the road frontage it's replaced with a single-pitch roof in the area where most of the features have got a range of double-pitch Has that issue been discussed or considered at all in the considering the design of the development? On the rear windows of the rear dormers you've got a long horizontal window again the windows in the remaining buildings seem to be predominantly vertical in orientation again has that issue been discussed possibly breaking up the window in the dormers discussed at all with the applicant All right thank you. Thank you so if I bring up a proposed plan just to facilitate the discussions. So as the description indicates the application does follow a previously withdrawn scheme where originally there was a single flat roof dormer window across the full width of the property and that was felt to be inappropriate in design and heritage terms. So the applicant did come to us for pre-application discussions which we held in conjunction with the conservation officer. The Catslide dormer is one that in the view of officers is an acceptable addition to the front of the property the pitch of that Catslide dormer has been reviewed and it has actually been reduced to the minimum sort of degree of angle that you could get away with for the internal headroom just to minimize the impact of it but certainly officers in consultation with the conservation officer are satisfied that there's an appropriate design approach we did certainly explore a pitched roof at the front as well but actually when you see that on plan it didn't it doesn't quite work and the rear dormers again we feel are appropriate the glazing bar patterns as you'll see on the plans have been designed to mirror the glazing bars of the existing properties in the windows themselves along with the existing first-sort arrangements so there have been a number of discussions and different iterations which have brought us to the application as before members now and we feel as officers this is the appropriate scheme to recommend for approval. Thank you very much. Councillor Hawkins please. Thank you Chair. I think for me I wanted to just clarify a couple of the objections were on overbearing impact and loss of privacy but I think Mr Sexton put up a picture that actually showed one of the other buildings in the courtyard had something similar in the front of it is it possible to just show that again please to see where that is compared to where the current application is? Certainly just clicking my way there. So this is a slightly different style property this is number four but lane which is the immediate neighbour to the left of the site which you can see the rear elevation of here so in this photo it's to the left of where I'm standing. That's got a picture so effectively that's in the front of that building. Yes that's correct I think the difference between this and the application would be that one has actually called it cut slide instead of a... Yes it's a different style dorm but obviously they are different style properties and the one the application site is a sort of a two-story property the number four is a one-and-a-half story property so we don't feel that there's a particular conflict a harmful conflict in the style of dormers proposed. I think I just wanted to clarify in my mind that there was something similar already within the courtyard although it's a one-and-a-half rather than a notice. Yeah as I said in response to Councillor Cohn we did look at a pitched roof dormer but actually seeing that on plan it doesn't work for the style of property and again that was just noting what was next or whether that was worth exploring. Thank you and just to comment if I may share the way issues have been addressed by the case officer in this report has been very good but I'm clear. Thank you. Thank you very much and Councillor Bradman please. Thank you Chairman. I would like to as Councillor Hayling said I would like to make condition four slightly more robust in the... she's right it does need to be enforceable and I would like there to be specific reference. I don't feel we have to do it here but I would like the officer to agree specific reference to where materials shall be stored and I think that ought to be on the house owners rear garden perhaps but that's for him to decide with the applicant and where the contractors vehicles will park and I think that also ought to be defined because the access down but lane is extremely narrow and it's used regularly by farm vehicles and the access as far as the building is used by all the other occupants of that courtyard so I think we need to be clear about where materials will be stored and where contractors buildings may park. Chair if I can I certainly think we can add in a bit that perhaps there's access arrangements of contract parking storage of materials which should be within the application site where practical or worse that effect which I'm happy to draft and share with yourself and vice chair for agreement if that's that's fine thank you otherwise it won't be enforceable will it that's the thing I was pointing out thank you thank you very much that's all the clarification for the moment we do have a public speaker on this one so if Mr Lewis is with us please yes I am I don't know if you can see me unmuted on the video can you hear me okay I know we've got you in full color excellent okay sorry to keep you so long I've been with you from the beginning so I'm aware of the procedure and I'll kick straight off so chair members of the committee thank you very much for allowing me to speak I've also been asked to speak on behalf of the owner of number four Buck Lane the next door neighbor to the applicants the other household in the courtyard is not objective because they are close relatives to the applicants I wish to make it clear that whilst two Buck Lane have two separate planning applications in for a stage expansion of this property I'm objecting to two zero zero one zero eight five HFUL and not their other application two zero zero two five two seven HFUL as someone directly affected by this proposal I'm in agreement with all the reasons for refusal put forward by the parish council and also by the owner of number four Buck Lane I wish to emphasize the following and please do not as a committee underestimate the sort of misery and distress that this application has caused my objections to this development include the overbearing impact this proposal will have on a small development in the conservation area both the parish council and the two other neighbors consider it to be overbearing although this may be in contrast to what the planning officer has said we believe it would have a poor relationship with neighboring properties as well as harming their amenities it will not be in scale and character with the existing courtyard dwellings it will be much bigger the planning officer also refers to existing normal windows in his reports but neglects to state that these windows are although he said a one and a half story they're actually a two story an entire story lower than those proposed existing windows are the proposed normal window which serves as staircases also I would say much higher and not slightly elevated and the impact on the loss of privacy to two other residential amenities we consider enormous now I do request the committee consider this please when the planning officer visited the site in order to make his report no one had heard of Covid-19 or lockdowns since the pandemic started the importance of a garden as an amenity has drastically changed and increased a garden is now considered much more essential to the mental health and well-being of individuals if this proposal were to go ahead because of the loss of privacy and the overlooking we would feel uncomfortable going in and out of our back door and would feel uncomfortable and reluctant to sit in our garden irrespective of the distance in meters quoted by the planning officer the occupant of number four but Lane is also distressed at the loss of privacy to large parts of her garden and this would seriously affect her right to enjoy this amenity now the applicants who previously had an amicable relationship with their neighbors submitted their applications without speaking to their neighbors hence it's had to come before you despite this and my immediate horror what they propose I have tried to come up with some positive suggestions to mitigate the impact of this development if this development is to be allowed I would like to request that you consider the following conditions be placed upon the development the new windows overlooking the garden of my house number five high street contain opaque glass the new front stairwell window which is newly and directly overlooking the back door utility room and garden of my house have opaque glass or at least the bottom half clear and the top half opaque finally I would like to repeat the new added emphasis given to the importance of gardens to people's wellness and well-being since the start of this particular epidemic and request that this be taken into account on members of the committee it will demonstrate to the public that the council can adapt to these unprecedented times and as one of you earlier commented show that you're leading from the front thank you for listening thank you very much trouble opening up chairman I wanted to ask a question of Mr. Lewis yeah hang on I was having issues with the camera can you hear me there yes yeah if you want to thank you Mr. Lewis since the geography of the courtyard is quite hard for those of us who don't live there to understand could you just explain to us where your house is in relation to the housing question number two if you were coming through the archway to enter the courtyard my house is immediately on the right and is connected to number two it's a linked attached property in fact there's a garage and a room bedrooms that go over the top of the archway and that connects our two houses what one other point if I might very briefly is just to say that one of the pictures in the planning officer he showed the trellis with plants growing across there that actually doesn't exist it was blown down in the February gales I've tried to use garden cover to mitigate the loss but because the new windows will be so high they will line of sight will directly look down into my garden the existing windows do not their line of sight does not and that's from the previous occupants of the house told me that okay thank you and the other thing was you said you were presenting on behalf of the resident at four but Lane that's great could you explain is that the one over the other side of the road so if you if you enter the courtyard and you face number two number four is immediately on the right if you were coming out at number two's front four is immediately on the left so number four is the one with the Juliet balcony that's correct and again that Juliet balcony actually doesn't at the moment see into the other two properties gardens because it is much lower than the existing proposed cat side door window okay and um what I was just trying to work out is the proposed larger dorma windows look effectively south don't they so I'm just trying to work out is your garden detached from your house then because you're saying I have a very small garden that is actually the walled garden okay cancer is Mike the case officer what do we hope if I bring up a block plan just would you that would be so helpful thank you so if you can see the block plan Mr. Lewis's property is is number five here and garden is this area which L shapes and then number four with the Juliet at the front is this property here so so Mr. Lewis am I right in understanding that what you're saying is that the cat slide window would overlook your garden yes it would not only overlook the garden but it would newly also overlooking to my utility room and it would look it would have a much clearer view of me leaving the back door going to and from the back door okay and sorry if I may pursue this just one more iteration Mr. Sexton please could you show us the photograph where you had four photographs on the page that's it so are we right in understanding then and looking at the top right hand photograph the cat slide wind the cat slide extra bit is over the if we look at the top right is yes over that window immediately over the pitch roof okay I'm with you yeah I think forward then yes it's here so that's the existing window by the door which is is to remain and then the cat slide sitting in in that area there okay thank you very much indeed thank you for that clarification all right thank you councillor Haylings please thank you yes so I just wanted to know when you were talking about if it was to be were to be approved and you were suggesting having opaque windows is that something that has been discussed with the applicant at all and do you know if they would be in favour of that the applicants have decided not to speak to myself and to the people in number four they sort of slam the doors and disappear so that hasn't been discussed if there was some way in which we could discuss it yes and I thought I'm not against I can understand people want to expand their houses it was just something that I tried to come up with in mitigation that would reduce the damage to my life and my happiness living in this house and I therefore chair just ask the case officer you know what it is about thank you chair and I mean we can ask certainly ask the applicant it's not something I feel we would be able to insist on or reserve by planning condition because it's fully acknowledging Miss Lucy's concerns it is a window that's serving a stairwell and a very small landing so it's not a window that's serving a habitable room it is 17 meters from the boundary and our district design guide recommends 15 meters from habitable rooms to the boundary of property so I'd be more than happy particularly that we've given we've got this additional consultation period to ask the applicant but I think that's as far as I would be able to push it if they would say no I don't think it'd be reasonable for us to impose a condition if they would say yes to half the window being obscured glaze and obviously that would suit Mr Lewis so I can ask the question but I don't feel it would be appropriate for us to put a condition thank you now and I do appreciate what you've done there Miss Lewis and it's you know according to policy conditions we couldn't as you were saying kind of condition it but we do understand the situation that you're describing and so maybe that is something to consider thank you very much right thank you I don't have any more questions so thank you very much Mr Lewis okay members anyone wish to speak to this I haven't got any body coming out sorry Chairman I'd like to say speak go on then thank you this is really difficult isn't it because the applicant is making not necessarily unreasonable attempts to increase the amenity of their house and the neighbors are making reasonable representations as to why that would make their lives less enjoyable and there's the matter of it being in the conservation area and close to but not in the green belt my feeling is that on balance I think it's not an unreasonable request and I think if we can do anything to mitigate the impact on the neighbors because by the very nature I suspect these buildings that house number four and number five actually were subsidiary buildings to the original house in the first place so I think it's not unreasonable that it should give due respect to those buildings so if we can ask as Mr Sexton said if we can ask if they would consider putting opaque glass in the lower portion of the cat slide windows I think that would be courteous of them if they would accept that and I think we should ask but I think I'm minded to approve that with that informative right thank you very much yeah we have Mr Carter before others perhaps alright Mr Carter please thank you chair I suppose what I wanted to say really was that this window is to a stairwell as Michael has advised and so by its nature it's unlikely generally to result in significant overlooking of neighboring properties we've also got to bear in mind the distance between this window and the neighboring property not withstanding the understandable points of Mr Lewis but the council has a guideline in that regard and this is beyond that guideline so I think there are a couple of reasons there really why to impose obscure glazing on a stairwell window in this kind of situation this kind of relationship in my opinion would be a bit unreasonable on the applicant really with regard to the normal windows at the rear I take a similar view that the level of overlooking again as Michael has said of neighboring properties from windows albeit higher but in a with a similar aspect to the windows on the first floor below is likely to be to be minimal if any additional overlooking would occur at all so that would just be my view and I hope that's helpful for the committee thank you very much hello Williams on my screen it says Councillor Nick Wright first and I take to take his place it's not on mine okay so I think this is I can very much understand the concerns around the overlooking and how the proximity it is and I want to make sure that I listen to all members before I come to a judgment on it I think but it was on the idea of conditioning I do understand why officers are advising us that it wouldn't meet the reasonable tests to make a condition but I still don't think there's an issue in us asking and speaking with the applicants to see if that compromise can be found and just want to double check and reassure with officers obviously there's been constraints on the site and concerns over the management plan that that will there's confidence in officers that that can be enforced and I think that's a good point because you know I've seen on small sites how those things can can really result in a breakdown of neighbours and that's not something that we'd want to see here but we'll listen to others carefully but they're my two issues at this time thank you thank you very much Councillor Wright please I would urge councillors here not to try and change the application that's in front of them but you know we have to vote what's in front of us and we can't we can't change things to what we would like better now to me this application you know it is it is difficult what made my mind up is looking at the design on the photographs those dormer windows on top of the house and that window at the front they just look awful and you put those in a conservation area I'm amazed the conservation consultant hasn't objected to and I understand why the parish council has it just looks weird and top heavy and just the balance of the house so to me I'm not so concerned about the overlooking but I am concerned about the design and the effect that will have on the conservation area those are my thoughts thank you thank you very much yeah Richard Williams please thank you very much chair actually I share similar concerns it is a difficult one this one I approach it with a very open mind it is difficult balancing the rights of the neighbors and the rights of the householder I do worry about the condition and I think there should be an enforceable condition if it does get approved but where the materials are stored I think that could be a real problem I do worry about the scale of the massing and the design as well as as councillor Wright said I must admit I had wondered if given that we've got this 21 day consultation whether we might defer so that some of these issues can be looked into but I'm not making that proposal thank goodness thank you and Catherine Catherine please I'm a trickster between with this one as I expressed I'm not totally happy with the design I'm not really worried about overlooking the garden will be overlooked in any case in terms of the rear window dormers are rather large a bit of a bearing I've had another look at the photos and the design and the plan again taking account that it's a bit difficult to look at the front looking at the courtyard because you've got the building of the garage area on the left the linking bit which is not really how it looks in reality in a front elevation architectural elevation and I'm looking at it again I don't think it's going to be as bad as I originally initially thought as it perhaps appears on the elevation and certainly in terms of overlooking from the front from the stairwell area that's looking over the courtyard so I'm not really worried so the large dormers to the rear look out from the conservation area to open countryside I don't think it's going to be really viewed from the street scene so I don't quite think there's enough I would have preferred that the windows in the large dormers have been vertical in orientation perhaps splitting up into three but I don't see that that's something one could really impose one deals with application in front of you I don't really quite think it's enough to refuse though I've been hesitating more long OK thank you very much that's all my speakers now I think we have already agreed to put some more bump into the traffic management plan and some more storage arrangements Mr. Sexton is that something you're OK with Yes, yes you're happy to add some tied to constraints around that being within the Amplicance Curse which I'll bring back to yourself and Vice Chair So and contractor parking was the other element Mr. Sexton Yes it would be an additional line within that point A of the condition which would address contract parking and storage of materials OK fine thank you very much Keeping that in mind the proposal then is for delegated approval subject to no new issues being coming forward during the amended consultation period So that would include we've already done some more on the conditioning which would be included I take it that there will be a split in the vote so I will take a roll call on this Chair can you just clarify whether or not apart from the condition around the traffic management construction management plan is the request or not around the windows so is that not not being considered not a condition for a request I think that's an informal request from us how would we deal with that Mr. Sexton I think the difficulty with that is if they don't agree what is the verdict of the committee So an informal request could be made if it was agreeable then a condition could be added to require the obscure glazing of part of that front door window but if they don't want to do that the decision of the committee would be would be the same I think it's an encouraging that they consider it that we can't enforce that so So I wonder then if it might be better that we include an additional informative commission granted strongly encouraging the applicant to use obscure glazing in that front door window rather than perhaps complicating the process further by doing it the way we sort of initially suggested Absolutely so let's say informative as well Chair could Michael Sexton just bring up the slide with the wording on the consultation period Who's speaking I'm sorry Steven is it Yes Chair Michael Sexton Yeah Michael can you bring that up please I think it is quite straightforward Do you want to change it then No I just want to No further comments I think somebody was referring to no new comments We've already dealt with that Steven We're now using the term no comments So there was no because previously it was no material comments wasn't it So we've dropped that bit of the wording so in order to say that there is going to be reviews if there's any comments at all Is this alright So are we deleting further Are we deleting further Does it matter Yes it does Chair if I may yes the recommendation that's on the screen should delete the word further so that it's subject to no comments being received during the consultation period Okay all right give it all that then the members let's have a vote So if you're all or what you're voting for is for approval Councillor Wright yes speak Thank you Chairman I feel I've got to come in at the end because asking for an informative to be sent about a proposed condition that won't hold any weight is a complete fudge and you know it is absolutely ridiculous and we should be voting on what's in front of us and that isn't an informative can be just abandoned at any moment and nobody's going to put in glazed windows and in clear windows it is a complete fudge if you're against it or you're for it you should vote that but don't be fobbed off by this It's not something we're actually voting on anyway since this is only an informal thing and as you quite rightly say it's not enforceable so we my understanding is someone will simply have a check So let's not get tied up with that So can we now do the vote then please So if you're for that's for approval if you're for refusal you're against and if you want to abstain you abstain So let's go then Councillor Bradnam please Sorry somewhat reluctantly I agree for Councillor Carnes Similar to a Councillor Bradnam somewhat reluctantly Thank you Councillor Harvey Yeah I didn't speak because I concurred with pretty much everything Councillor Cairns said and I would vote for Okay thank you very much Councillor Hawkins please Thank you Councillor Halings I'm hoping that the neighbours can come together again but therefore reluctantly I would also say for Thank you Councillor Rippith Thank you Councillor Heather Williams Sorry Chairman it wouldn't unmute me Too much reluctance has been mentioned so I will vote against Okay thank you Councillor Richard Williams Against Okay thank you Councillor Wright Against as well Okay thank you and my vote is for So it's 7-3 in favour of the recommendation which is for approval to be changes to the conditioning So thank you very much that is done and we now move to item 13 on page 401 of our agenda and this is the enforcement report Is anyone with us to give us an update? Chair I don't anticipate that we might have an enforcement officer with us but as we don't appear to do so I don't have any particular comments to make given this has come quite hot in the heels of the last meeting at the end of August so happy to take away any questions as usual but no specific comments to make thank you You don't know what happened at four born on the 28th of August then No not that they paid Okay Any questions members Heather Williams We should speak Thank you there have been some serious ongoing issues for quite some time now in Arrington in relation to a building that's been built and obviously is local member I know things but I'm just wondering if it's possible to actually have it as an agenda item on here given its significance and the fact that it's been such an ongoing issue I'm sure Mr Carter's heard that. Yeah noted I'll take that away Thank you. Okay anything else Nope right let's move on then to item 14 which is appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action That's four oh nine in our agenda The appendix one shows the current out turns and we've got one of each are we withdrawn dismissed and allowed Is it allowed of any consequence at Foxton Yeah the allowed appeal at Foxton related to a certificate of lawfulness Perhaps it'd be helpful it's quite long actually quite a long decision quite detailed I could circulate that for the committee if members would like to read it themselves Okay thank you And any other comment I would make is on the final page page 415 those two appeals that were going to be subject to a public inquiry later this month starting later this month have now been withdrawn Thank you very much Okay anything else members on that one No Alright thank you very much That's the end of the meeting I just remind members that our next meeting is on Wednesday the 14th of October at 10 o'clock so thank you very much for your attention and thank you for everybody who has contributed to today's planning meeting and thank the general public who have looked in for their time So thank you very much and we might see you in October