 Thank you and good afternoon members and officers and any members of the public. That's a good afternoon. Good morning. That's a good start. That's a good start. I think it's probably because I arrived early, I'm not used to arriving here all the time. Let's start again! Good morning members, officers and members연 of the public who are viewing the live streaming of this meeting. Welcome to South Camm's District Council Planning Committee. mae ni'n gweithio i'r Cymdeithasol, ac mae'n gweithio cymaint. Mae'n gweithio gweithio gweithio gyda'r cwmwysgol. Felly, rydyn ni'n ddeg y pethau'r cwmysgol oherwydd yr hyn oedd y pethau oherwydd yn ffyrdd y cwmysgol a'r pethau oherwydd yn ei wneud o hyn o'r cymdeithasol. Mae'n cymdeithasol oherwydd y cwmysgol oherwydd yn gyfan o'r cymdeithasol, oherwydd oherwydd o'r cwmysgol. If you are participating via the livestream please indicate that you wish to speak via the chat column. My vice-chair will be noting hands raised within the room and the chat column and putting everything in order to make sure that everybody gets that chance to speak. Obviously make sure your device is fully charged, you switch your microphone often less invited to do otherwise and then switch it on and your camera on when we invite you to speak. Maen nhw'n ddigon i'r ddweud â'r gweithio sydd y gallu gweithio arfer. Mae'n gwneud hynny i'ch bod yn y gyfryd. Fel ydych chi'n meddwl am y brifysgol, yn ôl ei gwrs yn ei ddweud â'r gweithio, yn gweithio'r system yma. Cyngor y dyma. Rwyf i'n gweithio ar y cwymau. Rwyf i'n gweithio'r cyfrannu i'r cwymau. Dyla保 i'r hawlwyr Cymru ym mhwylwyr Saxenaeth Argrifiuation Re館ys bridges ychydig, wedi fi'r опychu resizef yn gyf keineilio lwysoch!ol nasıl? Rhywbeth y Llywodraeth hwn yn fawr fel o fewrshfwrdd yn Gymraeg yn moddlus ystod, Ond mae'r rhall o amlwg Order Doesh. I'm Heather Williams, and I represent the Lord and the Ward, and very much, I'm Richard Williams. Morning Chair, thank you very much. I'm Richard Williams. I represent the Whittlesford Ward. Thank you, and Councillor Eileen Wilson, who is not here with us. You'll have apologies. Do we have any other members present? I don't think so virtually. No, we may come if they're speaking to an item. So I can confirm that the meeting is court. We also have two officers in the Chamber, Chris Carter, who is our delivery manager. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Members. Thank you very much, and Richard Fitt, our legal adviser for today. Thank you, Chair. Morning, Members. Good. Welcome to you and to our council meeting, and also Ian Senia, are you with us? Hello, Chair. Hello, everyone. I'm here. Thank you very much, and Ian obviously has been taking the minutes. Ian, is this your last meeting with us? It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. Another couple of months yet. Oh, okay. Good. Thank you with us. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. If anybody, Members, wants to leave the meeting, or needs to leave the meeting, would they please make that fact note to me so that we can be recorded in the meetings by Ian? Given that we're in a room with very poor ventilation, as normal, we'll be taking a break. I suggest that that break is for 15 minutes approximately every hour. I would suggest the first one is around 11.15. If that's okay, that's how it ends. Sorry, Chair. There's a problem with the modern glove, which means we can't get onto the online things, but also means we can't access the local plan. Is it possible to have hard cockings available for us? Because I do normally look at it because we can't get onto the electronic versions. Can I get that one? Yep. Are you able to do that? Thank you. Maybe for that we could have one in the room for future occasions. If we do that break for 15 minutes around about every hour, but not on the hour depending where we are on the agenda item, is that okay? So we'll just take it in terms of common sense. And then in terms of when we're getting closer to the lunch break, which I think would be around 1 o'clock, depending on where we are, do you mind if I then put it to you if we've only got one item, whether or not we do it or we have the break. But otherwise we will just take in those breaks if that's okay. Good. So agenda item 2, apologies, please, Ian. Apologies just from Councillor Wilson. I'm not aware of any substitutes. I'm afraid. No, that was a late one and within the code. End date. She was looking for a sub, I think, but couldn't find one. Yep. Okay. Thank you very much. In COVID times these are the difficult one. We get the late alerts and things. Thank you very much. In terms of agenda item 3, declarations of interest. Do I have any declarations of interest? Yeah. Three so far. Chair, councillors Williams, Roberts and Ripeth. Thank you in that order. Thank you Chairman. Agender item 7 is in relation to an application from Councillor Cohn. Given the closeness of which we work and that we're friends, I won't take part in that debate. I will remain in the chamber but I won't take any part at all. And then I'm the local member for something that's been included in the enforcement report. Thank you very much. Councillor Roberts. Thank you Madam Chairman. Item 6, a declaration of non-pewnery interest, as I am a member of Falmere Parish Council who have put their views in. Just to state that the written work from the Parish Council, I took no part in actually drafting that. I was there when they were discussing it, but it was done by the chairman of the Parish Council and the planning committee chairman. I took no part in that. And item 9, which is the cotinum item, I won't take any part and I won't vote in it. I'll probably sit and listen but I won't take any part because it's a trap of this issue. Thank you Madam Chairman. Thank you. Councillors Ripeth and Richard Williams. It's best in non-pewnery interest in agenda item 5. I'm a local member. I did meet with the applicant about three years ago with an officer present when the application was in a different iteration, that application was withdrawn, so I come to this matter afresh. Thank you very much. Councillor. Richard Williams. Thank you Chair. I should make the same declaration in relation to item 7 because Councillor Cohn is a deputy leader of my group. Thank you very much. And is that just in terms of those who are on teams, does somebody have their videos still on? Ian, thank you. You can just turn your video off. Thank you very much. Members, minutes. We have a bit of a marathon of minutes and I think this is in part, as Ian Senior is preparing to clear his desk and make sure that we've got all of the backlog through so we have three sets of minutes in front of us. So we'll move quickly through those. So first of all we have the minutes on page one which are from Friday 19th of February. Do we have any comments on the meeting on those minutes? Please, Members. One from Councillor Rippeth and Nathan Chen. Just to say that, I'll say it because I wasn't present. Thank you. Councillor Fane. Can we hear you? The problem with the second paragraph on page three is that when we come back to this particular item again, as inevitably we will, it might be taken as an indication that it refers to C2C which is a particular scheme for meeting the condition 13 on page eight. There may be other ways of meeting that and if these minutes weren't to be taken literally it might be taken as an indication that should that scheme not go through then the condition could not be met in other ways. I think the word the busway, maybe that's misleading there. So we'd want to change if by then the busway, that's a bit... A busway was not operational. Thank you. Thank you and noted. Councillor Rippeth, you had one. I would also abstain from this as I wasn't present but I do like on page one that it seems that I sent apologies for apologies Ian senior. Perhaps we just need to remove one of the apologies. That's good. So can we take the minutes of the 19th of February by affirmation with those changes? Great. Thank you very much. On page 11, which is the second set of minutes, this is for the minutes for the meeting of Wednesday 26th of May. Do we have any comments on those? Councillor Rippeth. Yes, on the bottom of page 12, I think it's a typo where a comment spoke as a local member and articulated that her main concerns for the application could be addressed at the reserve matter stage. That's fine. She added that there was no need to attribute significant weight to the inspector's decision whereas actually I said the opposite that we did need to attribute weight so that could just be altered please. That's significant. So Ian if you could take that note of that. No one else? I have one which is on page 13 and the bottom which is during this ensuing debate members referred to the following. What's missing is the significant open space contributions that were being made which was also key swaying part in the argument so if we could include that within the bullet points please. Also on page 15, item 10, I think there's a sentence missing. So Ian is that okay in terms of those comments? Hello Ian. Chair, sorry. I'm on two different desks at the moment. So it took me time to get to my computer. That is absolutely fine. I've got all that down. Thank you very much. Members can we take up our information then to approve the minutes of Wednesday 26th of May. Thank you very much. And on page 17 of our agenda pack, the minutes for Wednesday 9th of June. Do we have any comments on those minutes? Councillor Harvey. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Yes, thank you Chair. Just to say on page 19, just my comment, I think the causation of that is kind of the obverse in what I meant. My concern was that the design of the hotel should protect future residents from the fact that the airport is a very noisy environment rather than the other way around. Do you understand that comment Ian? You've got that noted. Thank you Chris. Any other comments on the minutes? Thank you Chair. Just a small one on page 19 at the bottom. It's just a typo that says that we voted in favore, which I think is Italian. Let's sing it. Thank you. Good. And so can we take those final set of minutes by affirmation? Thank you. So now we move to the substantive part of the agenda, agenda item 5 on page 23 of our agenda packs. This is application number 20 slash 05253 slash full application in Water Beach and the proposal is a hybrid application for the expansion of existing business park to create a sustainable campus comprising full application for the erection of two office, classy buildings. The outline application for the erection of additional office floor space together with the landscaping suds, earthworks, renewable energy generation storage, new pedestrian and cycle routes, cycle and parking facilities and associated works. This is in the Cambridge Innovation Park, Denny End Road and Water Beach Cambridge. The applicants are Cambridge Innovation Parks. The officer recommendation is delegated approval. And the key material considerations that we would bring to debate members here are the principle of development, access, highway safety and parking provision, character and visual immunity, residential immunity, biodiversity trees and landscaping, flood risk and damp drainage, renewables and climate change, the developer contributions and other matters. It's not a departure. The presenting officer is Alice Young. Alice, are you with us? And this is brought to committee because the officer recommendation conflicts with the comments and recommendations of Water Beach Parish Council. That's why it's with us today. Hello Alice, how are you? Can you give us any updates and a summary of the application please? Of course. So there has been an update. Our Sustainable Drainage Officer has provided a consultation response and has no objections in line with the LLFA and the IDV responses. Can you give us a summary now of the application itself? Bear with me whilst I share my screen. Chairman, if I may, just before we start for the officer's starts of presentation, we had a late input email from Water Beach Parish Council and I'm not sure if the fact is that they wanted to join us today but haven't been able to. Can we just have clarification? Many thanks. We received that and it has been resolved that we do have Councillor Jane Williams of Water Beach Parish Council attending and will be able to make her comments virtually. Thank you Alice. Brilliant, thank you. The proposal is for a hybrid application for the expansion of the existing business part to create a sustainable campus comprising a full application for two office buildings and associated landscaping and an outline application for all matters reserved for access and scale for additional office space together with landscaping, suds and associated works at Cambridge Innovation Park North Denny End Road. The site is located on the north side of Denny End Road on the edge of the Water Beach Village and outside of the development framework. Water Beach New Town site borders the application site to the north and east. The land directly surrounding the application site is allocated as a country park with the closest residential dwellings located approximately 55 metres to the north of the site. The Army Cadet Training Centre is cited to the west of the site. The site is an existing established business park comprising Stirling House a 3.5 story XMOD building cited essentially within the site and Blenham House a 2.5 story building which was built in 2007 and is located along the eastern boundary. Both of these buildings will be retained as part of the proposal. The site also contains existing suds features and mature tree belts along the southern boundary and mature trees to the north western corner and landscaping throughout the site. This drone shot gives a good illustration of the existing sites where the Stirling House is to the left and Blenham House to the right surrounded by ground level car parking and landscaping. The proposal comprises two applications, a full application for two office buildings referred to as Building 3 and Building 4 totalling 4,588 square metres of office space and associated landscaping. This full application is split into two phases, Phase 1A which is Building 3 and Phase 1B which is Building 4. The outline application refers to the further phase of developmental prize and further office space landscaping and supporting facilities for a sustainable campus. Here all matters are reserved except for access and scale. Please do ask any points of clarification if these phases are not clear at the end of the presentation. This is the illustrative master plan as you will see Stirling House and Blenham House are retained Building 3 and Building 4 Phase 1A and Phase 1B in the full application are cited to the north east of the site and then the surrounding buildings and landscaping are within the outline consent. This illustrates the full planning commission aspect of the hybrid scheme and these drawings show Phase 1A and Phase 1B. You'll note that Phase 1B includes further landscaped areas and a temporary car park located to the west of Building 4 behind Stirling House. This is Phase 1A so Building 3 and this is the site plan and the ground floor plan. My apologies that's the ground floor plan and the first floor plan. This is the south elevation and the east elevation Building 3 Phase 1A which shows Building 3's relationship with the existing building Blenham House which is along the eastern boundary. This is the north elevation and the western elevation Building 3 and then this is Phase 1B so we're still within the full application so this is Building 4. Phase 1B Rex Building 4 and associated landscaping including Swells and the temporary car park. This is the site plan. This is the ground floor plan. First floor plan with potential future link bridge to Building 3 second floor plan and roof plan which includes PV panels. This is the south eastern elevation this is the front elevation of Building 4. This is the side elevation south west so this is adjacent to Stirling House. The north western elevation so this is the rear and the other side elevation the north eastern elevation in some perspective views you can see the buildings within the existing sites. Stirling House is to the left and Building 4 and Building 3 are labelled on the plans. These are all perspective views and these are CGIs to give you a more of a picture of the elevation or treatment of the buildings. We are now on to the outline element of the planning permission of the hybrid scheme. The outline element is for all matters reserved except for access and scale for the erection of further office space in Building 5 in the form of Building 5 a car parking deck landscaping and supporting facilities. This is an illustrative site plan demonstrating that the site can accommodate the proposed floor space whilst remaining a landscape-led design. I've just popped the key vision for the sites on the left hand side so this includes the central landscape green space and cafe facilities to the south east of Stirling House the shared pedestrian cycle route on the diagonal and through the site and the car parking deck to the north west of the Stirling House the energy building which is currently located north of Building 5 outdoor working spaces which are weaved throughout the scheme and solo cycle parking and showering facilities. Again this is illustrative with all matters reserved except for access and scale but it does demonstrate what could be done with the site. This is the parameter plan which details the scale of the site showing that Building 5 would be approximately three stories and the depth car park would be 2.5 stories all below the 3.5 story height Stirling House which is what's considered the main focal point of the site. Here again is the illustrative master plan which incorporates several features which I've mentioned in the vision section which would provide wider public benefits such as the energy centre the central green space with cafe facilities and the shared cycle pedestrian route through the site linking to the strategic cycling of the structure proposed to the north and more to each new town to the north. The bridge links favour the proposed Wales assist in placemaking and connect to the characteristics of Cambridge and to ensure these are provided in the reserve matter application and condition is proposed to secure these for delivery. This is the 3D model to give you a bit more of an understanding of the site in 3D. So, Blenheim House is labelled as one Stirling House is two and then Building 3 is three and so on. I'm on the principal development now whilst the site falls outside of the development framework boundary Policy S7 states that development of this nature would be acceptable if supported by other policies in the local plan. Policy E9, E13 and E16 support development of high tech clusters on the edge of villages and expansion of existing employment provided suitability can be demonstrated. The proposal is strategically located along the Cambridge Science Park Cambridge Research Park corridor and adjacent to Water Beach New Town enhancing the existing Cambridge cluster whilst meeting future demands of Water Beach New Town. I think this is particularly illustrated by the diagram on the screen so the site is circled in red and the research parks and New Town are circled in glue. Moreover, the site is an established business part with demand for office space demonstrated by the business case and poses the most suitable location for this type of development in the area. It is also worth noting that the draft Water Beach neighbourhood plan supports employment uses on this site. The site is well connected accessible via regular rail and bus services within and cycling distance from the site and will be connected to strategic improvements to the surrounding cycling infrastructure which is planned to the north of the site. This accessibility will only increase alongside the strategic transport improvements along the ATEM. The proposal encourages a modal for employees by enhancing and promoting active travel linking to the strategic transport network and Water Beach New Town alongside incentivising use of rail and bus services through shuttle buses and financial contributions. While the ATEM is currently at capacity in certain locations by virtue of the proposed modal shift the county council highway major development team advised that the network of trips to the site would not increase if the travel plan is implemented effectively. Therefore the proposal would not pose significant additional stress on the existing transport network. Drainage initially the internal drainage board and lead local flood authority and the drainage officer objected to the application due to proposed discharge rates. However these have been resolved and all three consultancies are now supportive of the application subject to conditions which are recommended and included in the officer recommendation. The proposal aims to be an example of sustainability by including various measures including sustainable construction methods and design practices, renewable energy and resource efficiency promoting sustainable transport and providing sociable workspaces which are flexible to the needs of the occupiers and facilities to enable benefits for an integration with the wider locality. The proposal is an innovative forward thinking development supporting the transition to a zero carbon economy which exceeds the sustainability standards set out in policy CC 1, CC 3 and CC 4. So alongside providing contributions to transport improvements and public benefit through job creation provision of green space and connections towards each new town some of the sustainability credentials are highlighted on the screen before you. This is the 3D module of the illustrative master plan just at a different angle to illustrate the landscape on site and the proposed buildings. This is the other angle which shows the swales and the bridges throughout the site alongside the cycle and pedestrian route. So in conclusion, officers recommendation is one of the approval of the innovative and sustainably designed hybrid application subject to conditions and section 106. Officers request delegated authority for the wording and form of the conditions and the completion of the section 106 agreement in accordance with the heads of terms set out in paragraph 129 of the committee report. I've just listed some of the headline conditions on this slide and then the heads of terms are there on this slide. So thank you. Thank you very much for that. We'll take this one. I see that Councillor Roberts has a question but we will take the main bulk of questions if you want to get into the main debate as well. But we'll take back questions if that's okay. If you could wait, I prefer it to go because I think it helps the flow of the debate when we bring it into the debate. We still maintain the questions to any of the public speakers to allow clarification. That goes on for everybody? Thank you. So we will now move to the public speakers. Public speakers for Ward Beach and we do have with us I think it's Professor John French on behalf of the applicant which is Cambridge Innovation Parks. Do we have you with us? Yes, good morning. I'm here. Thank you and I understand that you're together with Matthew Dugdale who's the planning agent in case there are any clarifications questions you could help with those. That's great. Thank you very much and you know the procedure is to have three minutes and I have Chris Carter by our side who will help me with the timing for that. Thank you very much. Are you happy for me to start now? Yes. Thank you. Thank you chair. Good morning members. My name is Professor John French. I'm speaking on behalf of Cambridge Innovation Parks. Who are the applicant? CIPL are local investors, developers and operators of business parks. Cambridge Innovation Park north is one of three sites that CIPL owns. CIPL has owned this campus at Denien Road since 2012 and today the site is a thriving business park comprising two occupied office buildings and an onsite cafe and gym which are open to the local community. It is home to 40 businesses within the creative knowledge and high technology sectors and there is a significant demand and tenant interest for further office floor space in this location. Proposals before you seek hybrid planning permission to deliver the expansion and transformation of the existing site into a sustainable innovation campus. The illustrative master plan sets out a phased approach to development which falls out on a high quality and sustainable scheme that raises the bar for development in Water Beach as a gateway location. The scheme is underpinned by a comprehensive green travel plan which promotes and facilitates a modal shift towards green and active travel. The proposal we sought to exceed sustainability standards and there is a package of contributions towards transport improvements to help facilitate modal shift including contributions to the greenways initiative street lighting and bus shelters on Denien Road and the shuttle bus service between the site and Water Beach station. The scheme would also deliver multiple benefits including job creation we estimate 725 new jobs support the long term viability of existing cafe and gym facilities an extensive landscaping scheme across the site that is used by the West Wing Netgate and new pedestrian and cycle links to connect the site to its existing surroundings of Water Beach, Newtown. From the outset we entered into a PPA with the district of Cattie officers who have worked tirelessly in a proactive and positive fashion to ensure that all potential technical constraints are identified and addressed early on. We have also engaged with the neighbouring residents and businesses, Urban and Siwet and Water Beach Parish Council. As confirmed by the planning officers report proposed development is supported by the local and national planning policy. Furthermore the emerging Water Beach neighbourhood plan supports new employment uses at Cambridge Innovation Park north in principle and as demonstrated in your officers report we accord with this policy and have overcome the objection. We fully support your officer recommendation to approve this application no objections have been received from statutory consultancies and there are no tentacle reasons as to why the development should not be approved. I would sincerely like to thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions and provide any clarifications when necessary. In addition my planning agent Matthew Dugdale is available here to answer any more technical questions should you have for this scheme and thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much and for keeping to time as well. We'll see if there are any questions. One so far chair from Councillor Ripper but then also councillors Hawkins and Heather Williams. Thank you Councillor Ripper. Good morning. Thank you for that explanation. Can I ask you how do you predict or project the working patterns of those using the site currently and also how they might evolve? To give you an overview we are encouraging through the use of a community app a transformation strategy for the use of businesses on the site so that we encourage them to follow the green travel plan that we set out. So we do see we see the central to the whole scheme is the modal shift in the approach that we are adopting for the campus. So there will be hybrid working and we do expect people to be working outside and making use of the well the nice landscape facilities that we set out as well. So we have tried to adopt a progressive approach to the development of the site and the way in which people will use it but Matt may want to add some further comments to that. Thank you Matt and if you would address the question of how you are doing the calculations of that, I think the question was in there about how you are addressing the quantification of predictions of those. Yes, thank you chair. As Professor John Frunch has said there is going to be an expectation of a more hybrid working model in the future but equally businesses need to ensure that facilities there on the site to enable working to workers to come back to the office and the work spaces are secure and flexible and can be adapted in the future. Now, CIPL has been monitoring the level of attendance on site throughout the pandemic and has obviously been speaking with its many tenants and businesses that operate there and those certainly demand many of those businesses to return to the workplace and indeed conversations from prospective tenants who were interested in the new force based at sort of by this application excuse me have equally shown a desire to come back to the workplace. Now that will be monitored throughout the future as the phases of development come online here on the site. Yes, if I may. So from what you're saying you were giving me the impression that it won't be a 9 to 5 necessarily working pattern it might be part time, might come in for a few hours and the expectation is to use an app and to try and plan that but also will that mean the shuttle bus will be working throughout the day and see people are getting the train to the railway station? Yes, I mean that's right there is a comprehensive green travel plan which sets out a range of measures and it's done under the plan monitor manage approach with the county council so there are measures in place that's set out through the travel plan which will be conditioned and they'll also be secured by section 106 agreement and that will be monitored and managed in collaboration with the county council to ensure that those services are right and fit fit for purpose and will ensure that the modal shifts sought by this application can be delivered. Thank you. Thank you chair. My question hopefully is a simple one. I note from the professor's contribution that he said currently there's a cafe on the side that is open to the public. In the light of the asks from the parish council are they able to tell me which of the facilities in the new campus will be available still to the community? Thank you. Thank you. Who did answer that one? I'm happy to go first. Our intention is to continue to see for the community for the facilities on this campus that is core to the ethos of the development that we have proposed here. So the answer is to all of the facilities with the open access. Council Hawkins, thank you. Wondring, in relation to the comments from the parish council there's concern around the attenuation ponds and ffencing. Is that something that you would be agreeable to if it was conditioned that there must be ffencing to the community? I'm going to pass that question to Matt Dildale to answer that point. Thank you council. It's a suggestion which is something that can be looked at through a planning condition. Certainly there's an intention to require a full landscaping scheme to be submitted before those landscaping works are undertaken and the works will be undertaken in phases as well. Is that something that can be looked at with offices as part of that consideration? And Councillor Harvey. Councillor Harvey. Yes, thank you chair. I wondered if you could explain a bit more about how the micro grid and the energy centre and the Phoebe's work together and also talk a bit more about what's envisaged for the heat pump technology. Is it going to be air source or ground source? And then also perhaps picking up on page 45 paragraph 124 it seems that there's possibly the potential for further ambition with water management and I wondered if there are any ideas for how we could increase the ambition level there. If I start on that Councillor Harvey the building designs if you drill into them are based on mechanical ventilation and heat recovery systems and the use of air source heat pumps. The buildings are designed to what we would call a passive design principle. So we are seeking to get the lowest possible energy consumption that we can although we haven't intended to go with passive house certification because of the cost associated with that. But we are looking at passive design in principle. So the first element of the net zero strategy is to get demand for energy down to the lowest possible level and for users of the buildings and the site to understand the importance of that. Second point then is clearly we need to be looking at not just operational energy but embodied energy and embodied carbon and so the design concept that's been used for these facilities is locally sourced materials timber, sawn timber frame construction for buildings for and by to maximise carbon storage in buildings and also to maximise building life so that we can minimise future emissions from the removal of buildings. So this is an area that I specialise in. So we've been keen to get this concept integrated but at a campus level rather than just simply in an individual building level. We're simultaneously looking at energy reduction strategies on the other buildings. So we have an integrated plan that we are working through and key to this will be how we integrate energy supply and energy consumption across the whole site. I wouldn't say we are fully there yet on that but we do see the potential to generate power from the solar panels and to store it locally with battery storage associated with the new multi-storey car park in phase 3 as being a way to manage a local energy grid and have an integrated campus supply strategy. So I think it's what I would describe as aspirational working progress but we would like to see this development as setting the standard and asking difficult questions that need to be answered in order to help the wider district to achieve zero carbon and net zero carbon across business parks because there currently is no established typology for this kind of integrated approach. I think I've answered all your questions. I think on water our approach is an innovative substraining scheme is driven by water conservation and water waste minimisation because as you know managing water is one of the UN sustainable development goals so we've integrated that into our sustainability plan and of course where possible we will manage peaks and troughs of surface water through the use of the swales that we've expanded on the site. So again wherever possible local management kicking in to make best use of resources. We think the swales is also a very nice natural asset for the community of users in the business eco village if you like because it also provides a natural asset some natural capitals from biodiversity and of course you'll be aware that we've set a net biodiversity net gain target of 13% which is quite ambitious but I think it's entirely appropriate for the site of this kind. Matt, do you want to add anything to that? Thank you John, I think you've eloquently come with all the points there. Thank you very much. And we have Councillor Khan. Just to be a thing, you talked about the balance and timing. I just wondered whether you'd looked at the probable destinations of people working on the site. Will people mainly be coming out of Cambridge? Will you foresee the majority coming from joining new town when it's built? How do you see the directions of flows? Will it be many countercurrents the main flows towards Cambridge or would it be how does it fit in? Well it's probably going to provide employment for significant numbers of people on the water beach new town and we have been collaborating very closely with Urban and Civic on this. Wherever possible we would see to encourage local employment to local communities and to minimize impact on the travel networks that has been caught in this philosophy. There will of course be some businesses with staff that travel further but they will be asked to work within our green travel plan that we've established. So I think it's a combination of things but clearly with an opportunity associated with the new town to provide employment right on the doorstep this scheme has also opened up familiarity to the new town with access routes on the north and the west corners of the site and the east corner of the site. So really I think this I would like to think this is an example of some thought through coordination around integrated planning with the new town. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time both of you for those responses and we now go to comments from Councillor Jane Williams are you with us? Yes I'm here. Hello we can hear you Councillor Williams but not necessarily see you just yet. Now just putting the video on here we are should be arriving here somewhere. It doesn't seem to it's cleared that you can see me but I can't see you. Oh wonderful we can see you now. Can you see us and hear us? Thank you and we can hear you perfectly as well. Thank you. Just to obviously establish as normal that you have the authority of the parish council to be addressing it today. That's correct. Thank you very much and apologies if there are any issues about you having the confirmation and the link and things like that. No worries I'm happy that I'm able to speak on behalf of the parish and also our residents really that's the main thing. Thank you very much and so you know the drill that you have three minutes and Chris Carter will be helping to monitor that time so thank you very much. Thank you. Water Beach Parish Council notes that South Cams officers have agreed lump sum payment of 22,000 pounds are sufficient for WPC to maintain the bus stops for the development in perpetuity. WPC notes that a contribution of 10,000 pounds is sought for street lighting for Denny End Road and is being allocated to the future phase S1 and 6 agreement. It is clear no money has been allocated for such improvements in phase one. WPC is specifically requested that a lit footway be provided to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cyclists from the beginning of this application if this application is granted approval. WPC is unclear when councillors were formally approached to be partied to the S1 and 6 agreements as there have been no formal invitation for these and other S1 and 6 agreements for the development. WPC, when requesting conditions, page 27 para 22 of the agenda pack, asked that the drainage ditch and the bus stops were the responsibility of the innovation park. There is no provision for a pedestrian footway along Denny End Road from the development to the 8 end junction and south of the developments on the western side towards the village as requested by WPC. This entrance is subject to speeding vehicles accessing and exiting the industrial estate and Water Beach Village. It is especially dark and dangerous for pedestrians particularly in the winter months. It is further exacerbated by urban and civics original proposals for a temporary access for construction traffic accessing the site by Denny End Road to become permanent. Originally this was a temporary application until the northern access from the 8 end was constructed. This will further increase traffic numbers and risk to pedestrians and cyclists. WPC notes that by way of S1 and 6 phase 1 will give £70,000 to the Water Beach to Cambridge Greenway and the future phase will give a further £54,000. WPC understands that this is a greater Cambridge partnership initiative funded by the Cambridge City Deal but not developed contributions. This is going to take me a few seconds over but I have since find out from GCP that it is developer contributions as long as they can get them. So just going back to what I've nearly finished WPC considers the proposed package for funding for this development does not serve the interests of each residents and WPC's request for S1 and 6 contributions to the village sadly appear to have fallen on deaf ears in favour of the Greenway. And at the finish WPC would like to add a note of caution regarding provision of possible water electricity, sewage and broadband for the parish. After years of speculative development WPC is concerned that due to information received many required essential services are now at capacity. Although utility providers have a legal obligation to provide their services does SCD have any checks in place to ensure that supply and demand is met. Thank you very much. Thank you very much and we'll see if there are any questions for you. We have two so far chair councillors Hawkins and Heather Williams. Thank you. Thank you Miss Williams for your presentation on behalf of your parish. I note your concern about the monies allocated especially for the bus stops for example from the way you said it seems that if you are not happy or you don't think that that is sufficient to be able to maintain those bus stops. That's my first question. The second one is regarding your requests for contributions to various amenities in the village which you say seem to have fallen on deaf ears. However in paragraph 128 of the report it does so that it has been considered so it's not fallen on deaf ears. However those requests do not seem to be necessary to grant the planning permission for the reasons to get in that paragraph. So is that not sufficient answer for you regarding those asks? Well I am speaking on behalf of a parish council. It's the old chestnut really. It is actually being partied to what is being agreed for our residents. We have been elected to represent our people. We were involved perhaps in these and we have requested this before to be partied to S106. This could have all ironed out rather than time after time having to come back. Yes the bus stops and particularly the drainage and a footpath is really the main ones that are for the safety of our residents and for the increased traffic that this is going to pose. And also an accumulation of the Water Beach New Town. So I think I would go back and say please could we as a parish council speak with officers and the developers just to ensure that we are all speaking on the same page and that we don't have to continually almost as though we are being antagonistic, come back to ask these questions. You as our representatives are we as our representatives of the parish. Do you know we are suffering huge, huge growth that we have, I think it was nearly 500 houses special development and you can't keep adding the straws to the campers back. So that's what I would like to say councillor to me and thank you for your questions. That's okay, thank you. I think it's worth noting that there's a request which we need to consider for delegated authority to investigate with the county council the appropriateness or security pathway where's that? It's on page 47 just below the table. So if I understand and we'll take this into the debate and perhaps for a proposal that you've been making therefore councillor Hawkins is on page 47 underneath the heads of terms that within that greenway there's more specificity to explicitly talk with county council and the parish council to get the specificity about the pathway improvements around that. Thank you. We have a question from councillor Heather Williams. Not a question but the Greater Cambridge partnership got mentioned so I just need to declare that I'm a member of the Great Cambridge partnership assembly. That's fine, thank you. Thank you very much for your time again and I hope you'll join us in hearing in the debate and see what happens with that proposal that comes through as well. Thank you councillor Halings. Thank you to the committee as well. Thank you. Good, and we now move to any of the local members. I understand that councillor Paul Bearpark as local ward member can't be present to the sense something through and Chris Calfill will read that. Thank you chair, these are the comments of councillor Paul Bearpark. I have the following concerns regarding application 20052534. The short stretch of road for accessing the site has several entrances to industrial estates and the entrance for construction traffic to walk to each new town. This stretch of road is quite hazardous for non-motivised users. Between the A10 and the innovation park there is no footpath on either side of the road so the only access for pedestrians is to walk in the road itself. This is not safe. Facilities such as the coffee shop and gym are becoming well used by village residents therefore the access from the village to the site needs to be improved on the end road. This is a missed opportunity to significantly improve this section of road for pedestrians and cyclists, not making these improvements inconsistent with the aspiration of a motor. With construction traffic entering both this site and the Water Beach new town site there needs to be proper consideration of safety for pedestrians and cyclists entering the existing site from the east and the west. The Cambridgeshire County Council highways department stated that they had no objection subject to a section 106 in securing improvements to the entrance of the site to encourage sustainable transport prior to the occupation of building 5 and completion of the car park deck. This is very vague. Does it mean that there will be a continuous footpath from the A10 on the north side of Denien Road to the existing footpath to the west of the site? Will this be sufficiently wide to be a shared used path? My recommendation is that the section 106 agreement incorporates provision for dedicated non-motivised user paths to the site from both the east and the west to the north of Denien Road. Given that the bus stop will primarily be used by those working or visiting the site, the bus stop maintenance should be the responsibility of the innovation park not the parish council. Parish residents will not use these bus stops. Does the applicant have a proposal for the frequency of the shuttle bus to the station? A poorly timed infrequent service would have negligible impact on modal shift. Finally, the design and access statement provides no details of the design of on-site provision of the non-motivised users so it is not possible to comment on the on-site provision. That's the end of this comment. Thank you very much. The other local ward member is councillor Ripley. Would you like to speak now? Now. Yes. Looking at this application in its entirety first of all, the first thing I'd like to point out in my belief is that the Brienne standards met are either excellent or exceptional on the first two buildings and I think that's a very important thing to take on board and the whole attitude towards the build is commendable on that part. I do acknowledge however that some of those sustainable transport options that have missed an opportunity with the footpath however yes, can we please look at page 47, that power graph underneath the table about securing that pathway although that's later on in the development should it be approved and the shuttle bus frequency that's something else which really needs to be established that it does serve those working there and I would argue that maybe some villages would use it because the cafe, the gym is quite popular and indeed if you've got children going to classes there you might want to put them all on a bus so that I think could be expanded and I'd just like to know how that's going to work if that's possible I was impressed by the idea of an app to use the travel plan and to get businesses really focusing on the patterns of work and that's really all I have to say at the moment and obviously I think lots of interesting things will come out within the debate thank you very much are there any questions for any of the local members or you'll take those in the debate going to the debate thank you very much and as we open the debate I wonder whether it would be useful if the case officer we could have did one of the diagrams show us this path that sort of the access the Denny Road access which is the focus of parish council and local ward member comments that would be helpful to the debate I think that would be good member councillor obviously indicated at the very beginning she'd like to speak and the clarification question thank you very much Madam Chairman I did say at the start that I would like to put a question to the officer who is dealing with it so that's what this is about before I go into the general debate it's an interesting proposal I think it's got a lot of good things in it but it's got I'm a little I want to know a little bit more about the fact that John policy because it is and it's something that hasn't been touched on it is outside the village envelope and I think that at page 35 at 71 of the policy E stroke 16 supports the expansion but it has to have various things there in place I think this has A is that the proposal is justified by a business case and B there is a named user for the development and my reading of it if I've got it right Madam Chairman is that those things are not actually in place and therefore one could say that it is in reality a speculative development which isn't what policy E stroke 16 is about supporting so can I have some views from the officer regarding the whether this actually fits in with that particular policy I know it talks about it may be supported by others but I think that really our policies are extremely important and obviously we don't want to set precedence for other things thank you Madam Chairman thank you very much Councillor Roberts and so Alice Roberts is our case officer so that's page 35 it's about policy E16 in particular whether or not A and B are fulfilled thank you very much so they have provided a business case which demonstrates demand for office space on the site which has met that criteria in terms of named occupiers the site at the moment obviously has a lot of different businesses on site and there are no restrictions in terms of named occupiers for the existing site the development is for a similar amount of office space in terms of the way it is used lots of smaller units for businesses and so it would increase the amount of businesses on site for lots in terms of the appropriateness of the named occupiers there would be a size of the number of occupiers so requiring named occupiers with restrict flexibility on the site and for my reading of the policy it's mainly for individual businesses to ensure viability whereas the proposal is to expand an already thriving business park with a size of the number of different businesses on site which demonstrates alongside the business case that the scheme is viable without the need for a named occupier so I hope that it gives members confidence and confidence quickly a secondary question that Madam Chairman Alice can you tell me is the rest of the site because you talk about that there are lots of businesses on there is the rest of the site also or was it outside of the village envelope when they got permissions so the site itself is outside of the development framework yes it's an established business park and obviously as I said previously it's somewhat allocated for development in the water beach imagine water beach neighbourhood plan the draft plan it's supportive of further development on the site for business use obviously the previous application for Blenheim House in 2017 that's kind of separate from the merit scheme of this case but as I said there was no additional restrictions in terms of named occupiers on that scheme now thank you very much as well for going through there it's really important yes Chairman we have Councillors Hawkins, Riffith and Heather Williams there I guess question to the peace officer and then we'll come to the substantive point I wanted to make Alice you heard you heard about the concerns from the Irish council representative with reference specifically to the £10,000 for lighting I note in the transport response that that indeed is slated for a future phase and I just wanted to find out why we are accepting that when in reality we should be looking at having that in the very first phase to enable the model sheets to take place and if I may chair as I said earlier on we do really need to take that point that's been requested which is to have find a way of putting that part on the north of Denning End Road and I must admit I am surprised that that wasn't done as part of the considerations to this point I would have thought that would be one of those things that would be the top of the agenda so for me those are the two things right now I think that I want that qualification on the application in my view is a good one with lots of good things in it and it's in some ways for me an example of where we need to be heading with new builds like this but if I could have those answers that would be helpful thank you Alice thank you chair so the street lighting was within as you've already outlined within the county transport assessment teams response for the later phase of development so within aligning with phase 2 the development so the outline consent we could agree for an earlier stage of development but I'd like to refer to Tam Parry who's also on the call to kind of explain the reasoning for why it was for the later stage of development thank you hello Tam and thank you very much hello committee good morning thank you very much can you hear me okay wonderful grace so the applicant has actually asked if the payment could be for the street lighting could be for the second phase and I was happy with that request I am of course happy to also ask the applicants when we negotiate the section 106 that payment could be brought forward to the first phase so I'm very happy to do that would you like me to answer the other points raised by the council via park and the parish council as well about the footpath yes please so the footpath on the north side of denien road I didn't request that because it's actually going to be provided by urban and civic as part of their works for the denien road junction of the A10 so they'll be making some changes there I think next year so that footpath should be in by the time that this development has its first phase completed can we have a diagram up just so we all know exactly what we're talking about would you like me to try to share my screen yes you've got one thank you let me get the drawing first because I don't think I've got it loaded just bear with me for a moment have to find the right file wait so I haven't loaded it and share my screen now hopefully oh I'm not able to share my screen actually so I don't know how I would manage that so I can be assure you that there's a footpath on the north side denien road from the A10 to the site access the power scale to the right there isn't one at the moment and that is a gap in the provision and the drawing doesn't clearly show this this is one that was approved perhaps if Alice has got one that we could see I thought you had one there but if Alice has got one otherwise if not Alice then we wouldn't be wasting any more time on it but you do have one Alice unfortunately I don't have one that shows that particular route I have one that shows the surrounding routes and the proposed new town greenway to the north side but not the pedestrian path along denien road Alice I'll leave the drawing I have and then maybe you are able to share it can we just sort of understand that what we've got on page 47 the council council was picking up on the basis of the what beach parish council is officers asked the delegated authority to investigate with the council with reference to the greenway project the appropriateness of securing pathway improvements Tam what you are saying they are going to happen anyway so we are just a bit confused here yes so that's correct council hailing some the footpath I believe is going to be provided anyway which is why I haven't asked the applicants to make provision as part of their application Alice why do we have the sentence then in the report about securing delegated authority for that if I may can I suggest that given what Tam said about the footpath likely being secured through the urban and civic scheme if members are agreeable to that paragraph if that isn't the case then we can secure that through this scheme if members delegate that to officers should permission be granted so we can clarify that after the meeting and if for any reason we are concerned that that isn't being secured through the urban and civic scheme then we can secure that through this section of the agreement council office do you want to make that proposal as he said propose what he said yes please if we take that to the vote now which is based on what he said seconded seconded and by affirmation agreed thank you very much for helping us out there supplementary whilst we have Mr Parion the parish council requested WL lines what you seem to be indicating that that is not necessary paragraph 53 says parish also requested WL lines to be installed along then he enrolled to prevent yes I wasn't aware of that request but I don't feel it's necessary because the applicant has set out a very very clear transport strategy for the site for both the first phase and the second phase and this involves provision of car sharing spaces later arrival so off-peak spaces are only available for people driving outside of the big periods they're providing the minibus service one minibus in phase one and two minibuses for phase two as well as the travel planning measures that's very comprehensive travel plan and the connectivity towards reach new town so all of these added together make this transport strategy actually one of the most innovative ones I've seen for quite a long time and very comprehensive so I think the motive ambitions of this site are achievable without the other lines thank you yes numerous other speakers chair councillors Ripeth, Heather Williams, Richard Williams and then Thane and then Harvey some of what I'm going to say is a classification this shuttle bus which I've got in my head this amazing thing which is going back and forth and I hope that is the case yes indeed can we secure anything more a little bit more detail on that and my second point is the greenway moneys as part of section 106 matching favour of that because the idea is that the greenway has already been costed in the pipeline to be built within the next few years but it will need maintenance and the numbers of people hopefully using it from this site will increase the football pedal full on the surface and that needs to be obviously properly maintained and that all these things just need to join up and that's the point about the footpath would have been just good to know that was that all part of the picture that you saw comes together good so if I understand in terms of what we've just heard is that it's one of the better modal shift sort of travel plans that the county has seen but I think Councillor River is asking around the questions that she put to the applicant as well about the flexibility and making sure that it's available for the flexi working hours with that up does any more detail need to be in the greenway? or do we just have to you know trust that? I don't know how that detail can be ascertained would you like to answer that Tam? Yes very happy to one of the things that I've asked for and the applicant has agreed to and the analysis agreed to is the hold between phases one and phase two and for the applicant to submit a review of how successful phase one has been and if it's not being successful therefore a hold on the development before phase two can proceed so really it's within the applicant's interest to make the minibus as successful as it can be in order that they can progress from phase one to phase two of the development and I think the applicant has every intention of making the minibus successful enterprise and provision for the science. Thank you for asking for that can we just ask is included then within the conditions yes? Thank you very much and we have the other speakers and I'm hearing mainly positive and looking at sort of moving as a long committee so whoever has got asking to speak make sure we don't duplicate any issues and if it's any other things that you feel is necessary for the debate that haven't come forward yet. Thank you. Thank you chairman mainly clarification but no doubt will be an additional opinion along the way. First of all I just want to come back to clarify about policy E16 because I've got it in front of me and B, I'm just going to read out the short sentence, there is a named user for the development who shall be the first occupant, a planning condition will be attached to any commission to this effect but it's difficult to hear everything on the virtual book and my understanding for the response to Councillor Roberts is that there is not going to be a named person so are we acknowledging that this is departure from that policy on B or are we misinterpreting the word will because if we say it will be done then surely that's pretty conclusive and it needs to be, we need to have named users. The other do you want me to keep going to my next one The other thing which I can understand is on the parking pressures because inevitably you know there will be modal shift and there won't be so many but there will always be a need for some to use car and looking on page 55 the condition it says the temporary car park hereby permitted shall be removed prior to the development of phase 2 so I'd like some clarification around that because that actually worries me because surely you want the next car park in place before you take away otherwise we could be then pushing people onto road or other things so that seems like it might be well founded and there might be a reasonable argument I hope to hear that but it sounds illogical I'd be wanting to keep that until until alternative car parking was included and also wether we can word the word of the condition in a way that means that the car park stays if phase 2 for whatever reason does not progress because there is a risk if it's a temporary car park what we want to make sure is it stays in place and isn't isn't subsequently removed oh we're not doing phase 2 we're going to remove it anyway which I think is a bit of a risk as it currently stands I would also like to as was raised with the applicant and they seemed agreeable I think we've done it in my ward with ponds that there is ffencing and I think given that it will be open and I welcome that it will be open to the public that I think that's a reasonable safety request that the parish council asked before and we should condition it there may be something else chairman but I think I'll leave it there for now good thank you very much and Chris Carter I think he's going to answer on the policy question thanks chair yeah case officer will agree to come in as well so my advice to the committee would be that this is as always a case of the planning balance and the case officer set out the position with regard to policy S7 and the hook there which allows development outside the village framework where other policies in the plan support it case officer set out that policies E9 13 and 16 do support it I would agree with you council Williams that point B of policy E16 on the face of it does not appear to be met but I think what we need to weigh is the potential harm in your minds from not meeting that one criteria of that policy versus the compliance of the other policies in the plan that have been set out so I think the case officer was clear that there is no single named occupier the operation on this site there's lots of smaller occupiers and to restrict it to a single occupier would restrict the ability of new businesses to enter the site so I think it's really a question of your judgment as to whether or not you think any harm arising from there not being a named occupier and that degree of conflict with policy E16 outweighs the other benefits and the other policy compliance of the scheme on that point if I could just ask supplementary question because the issue here is the policy is very certain will be it is a condition policy could you for the balance when we're looking at harm explain or give a reason why that was included in such a formal way in the local plan the need for it normally and why we've obviously considered it necessary to do because I see it as it gives certainty that we're not putting something up but then be empty and losing countryside it does feel like a necessary requirement through you chair I can't tell you why the wording was drafted in that way when it was originally drafted but I think it is a matter for you as decision makers to judge having regard to the fact that this is an existing employment site and there are other policies in the plan that support it acknowledging that there is an element of conflict with policy E16 does that outwey any other benefits you might identify from the scheme and any other policy compliance so yes I acknowledge the wording of the criteria is drafted in the terms you've set out but I think that's a matter of judgment for you as decision makers thank you and in terms of the car park could we have both the questions on car park so I'm understanding in terms of the way it's worded from Councillor Williams what she's hoping is that what we're not going to do without the car parking space prior to the development of a new one or even indeed if phase 2 doesn't come ahead which a key point as well about the modal shift and what's happening with car parking right thank you chair so with regards to the temporary car park we obviously want to retain that to serve phase 1A, phase 1B in the interim before the car park deck has been developed to help with the uplift with building 5 so I think we may be able to tweak that wording of that condition to ensure that apologies that wasn't done previously but I think that's reasonable to change and it says in the officers report that the specific wording of the condition we request it to be delegated to officers so we can change that but I'd be happy to change that. Thank you if I have an operation on or something like that and to expand it to say that in the event of phase 2 not proceeding that the car park is to remain. So if we make that a proposal Councillor Williams do I take that by affirmation? Yes Seconded and seconded by Councillor Toomey Hawkins and by affirmation members. Thank you very much and also let's use this opportunity as well Councillor Williams to Heather Williams on the attenuation fund. Would you like to make that proposal that again it's about the wording and the timing of it as Tam was saying but that would be included as well. Yes I think that there is a condition that states that it should be fenced at some point. I think we could incorporate that into the wording of condition 21 around the hard and soft landscaping scheme that that is considered a design through that process. Thank you very much. We have other speakers. We have three chair Councillor Richard Williams, Councillor Fane and Harley. Thank you chair. I'm afraid I'm going to pick up the C16 point because it's actually the same thing under E13 as well. Paragraph 67 of the report says that policies support this development and there are three named E9, E13 and E16. I think we've established it doesn't comply with E16, it doesn't comply with E13 either because E13 has the same wording. There is a named use of the development. Who shall be the first occupant in the planning condition will be attached to that effect. So it doesn't, to my mind, comply with E13 either. So then I suppose we fall back on just E9. Other key point I wanted to ask really is where the figure for the contributions to the busway the greenway, sorry, came from 133,000 out of the total 165,000 contributions will go to the greenway. That's 80% of the contributions will go to the greenway and not directly to the community. Now I think we all agree the greenway is a very good thing, I think we all support the greenway but the greenway is promoted by the GCP which has a lot of funding behind it. So I do slightly worry that such a large proportion of the 106 contributions are being devoted to the greenway which as I say does have GCP backing which is with its own funds. Yet there are funds for some of the other things that the parish has requested. So my question really is where did this figure come from? Where did these figures for contributions to the greenway come from? So just to clarify, so Water Beach Parish also requested contributions for community facilities within Water Beach SC4 and SC6 refer to specifically housing developments to contribute to the provision of services and facilities. It doesn't mention commercial developments or developments of this nature and so as far as I can see there is no policy basis to seek contributions for community facilities for this type of development. With regards to where the figure came from for the greenways project that would be better, you know, Tampery would be better placed to answer that query. Thank you. Hi again. Yes, the contribution figure for the Water Beach to Cambridge Greenway was derived from the pro-rata amount that was applied to the application and consent for the development at Cambridge Research Park just nearby to this site. So I've used the same the same contribution per thousand square meters of development for this site which has survived at this figure. So the amount that this applicant has been asked to contribute towards strategic transport infrastructure is the same as the applicant was asked at for Cambridge Research Park. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. One thing they have asked for is some double yellow lines and that doesn't really seem very much. The cost of that will be quite small when we're giving so much to the greenways. Did you say double yellow lines or street lighting? Double yellow lines just to pick up one of the technical reason why not for that one. That was already asked. Yes, I know. It doesn't seem like that they've asked for all that much but we're giving a heck of a look to the greenway. Thank you. Councillor Fane is next. Do we have anybody else? We have councillors Harvey and Rhythda. It's now 11.30. We said we would have a break after just over an hour. So we've gone beyond the 11.15. There are other contributions and then what I'd like to know with those contributions are these new material considerations that we're bringing to that would be significant in terms of our vote. I'd also like us to consider while we're in the break that if we were to move I haven't had anything moving towards refusal yet but some concerns, what I'm hearing is that we would have to acknowledge that there is certain departure from policy which we said at the beginning wasn't so whatever decision if it was positive it would be acknowledging the departure on those points of E13 and 16 so it would be acknowledging that so we're not doing it that way but I'm not saying we determine which way we go just if that was moving towards approval and I would like to have a break now so we have a 15 minute break it's 11.30 so it's more than an hour time in the room. Everyone says about the break. No, it's about your reference to departure because it's not been advertised to departure. I would want to bring it back after the break to actually look at what we do around that because it wasn't advertised. I'd like us to understand what that points, yes? Thank you. We'll break 15 minutes. Thank you. Thank you and welcome back everybody to the South Cambridge District Council planning committee and we're looking at the Water Beach application and the Innovation Park and the point at which we left off was looking at conflict with certain policies supporting this proposal and therefore I'd like to ask some clarification from Chris Carter our legal adviser Richard Pitt. Thank you chair. Yes, so acknowledging that there is conflict with policy that does not make it a departure from the local plan I think there's some clear case law on this point that Richard Pitt can refer to if needs be but we're satisfied that it's not a departure from the local plan. Yes, thank you. There was a case that actually last year it's more that I haven't got the exact details of the case but it's the principle that was established that of course recognised that many development plans have policies that may pull in different directions and it doesn't necessarily mean there's a breach of the development plan as a whole our Corbett against Cornwall County Council last year so that means that it's basically a matter of planning judgment as everybody by the decision makers. Thank you, so members what I would suggest we do around this one we were looking there at E13 and E16 is to say within our judgment in terms of where we're moving on this proposal is the harm versus the benefit that judgment in terms of any conflict with those policies that are being discussed. Now, Heather Williams. Thank you, it's just a departure application because I think we all recognise that often there's conflict between policies but in that case was it something that was outside the framework because I think that's the thing that would normally say departure and obviously this is outside so I just want to check that that wasn't sort of policies that say we're landscaping things inside a development framework because I feel that's a significant difference. Yeah, as I said I haven't actually gotten into details of the case I saw the case referred to in some councils advice on a different matter recently but as I say established the principle that there can be departures from certain policies without rendering the plan being breached so that's the takeaway. My takeaway is understanding the difference between departure and conflict or incompatibility with parts of a policy. That's what we're understanding. Yeah, I think sorry, conflict should be the word I used I think. Okay, thank you and we have other questions. Yes, Chair, we have speakers in this order, councillor Thane, Harvey, Griffith and Heather Williams. Good and I would then like us to seeing as we don't have this issue which people then have to take the judgment on looking everything in the round would like us to see if somebody would move to a vote. First floor, sorry again. Councillor Thane. Thank you Chair before contributing to the debate I just wanted to go back to a matter of clarification which I was seeking to raise on the original presentation by our case officer. The key criteria for policies E13 and E16 in particular appeared to be as referred to by the case officer and set out a paragraph 2 would support development of high tech clusters etc. Provided suitability can be demonstrated. I've just unclear as to the meaning in this context of the word suitability. Obviously plenty of reference to sustainability and so on but the only reference to suitability I could find was in relation policy E13 and that set out on page 34 paragraph 70 supports new employment on sites adjoining to or very close to British developments where no suitable buildings or sites are available and so on. I'm just wondering whether there is a legal meaning for the term suitability assuming that was the correct term to have put in this paragraph in the first place or whether this is as certain other matters just a matter for us as decision makers to apply a subjective judgment it would help me if we could just clarify the status of that phrase. Richard for our legal advice. Sorry can you can cancer just repeat repeat that. Relates to the meaning in this context of the term used on page 24 paragraph 2 which states that policies E13 and E16 would support the development of high tech clusters etc. Provided suitability can be demonstrated. How much weight should be put on the word suitability or is this a matter for us to make a subjective judgment upon. Thank you cancer. I think it would be suitability in the ordinary dictionary definition of the word so it would be for the members to decide what would be suitable as opposed to be if something was unsuitable. If I may come back that satisfies me it is a subjective judgment for us. If I may I would like to then contribute to the debate. I am satisfied that this is a highly sustainable proposal and indeed has ambitions for further sustainability which obviously we can't we have to put a limited weight on today. I am very glad to see the continuation of the policy of access to the local community which I think is important. Clearly the jobs provided 725 jobs in the current economic circumstances in a high tech sector is something we have to take very seriously. I am encouraged that if I interpret the words correctly this is not a departure it may appear to conflict with certain aspects but it is not a departure from the local plan those are the words used by Chris Carter and in that situation I believe that the other concerns that have been raised can be met by conditions and I would be inclined to be very supportive of this application. Thank you. Next we have councillor Haraldine. Yes thank you chair. Well I really applaud the level of ambition reducing carbon emissions and I was all described very well by Professor French. I'm showing you this shuttle bus dependent on how frequently that runs and what the level of ridership is I suppose a concern would be that were that not specified with a fully electric drivetrain that could really undermine those ambitions and also cause a particular pollution problem within the village and I wondered if we were going to talk about the shuttle bus whether it would be reasonable to specify that that should be an electric drivetrain bus unless it can be shown that it's not viable to do that and actually evidence from around the country shows that ridership is increased when you provide an electric bus so that would be a very good thing. Is that something that you is considered or would go to the case of the bus? Chair through you. The specification of the shuttle bus service is a requirement of the section 1 is 6 agreement. The precise terms of which is to be delegated that's certainly a factor that I think could be included and you'll see in the table at the bottom of page 46 the Heads of Terms table it describes the provision of a shuttle bus to and from the site from Waterloo railway station including service specification etc. I think we could perhaps look to include service and vehicle specification as part of that process but subject to the point that you made Councillor Harvey around the commercial viability or the financial viability of delivering such a vehicle. Would you like to make that proposal then in terms of what he said? Yes. Can I take that by affirmation? I agree. Thank you very much. Thank you Councillor Harvey. Did you have any other? Thank you very much. Then we have Councillor Ripper's chair. Many say I think this on balance is an extremely good application and this kind of thing should be grabbing with both hands. If you look at the design of the buildings and the ambition as has just been mentioned by the previous speaker I just want to hop back to in time to Councillor Dr Richard Williams's comments about the greenway it is actually something in Water Beach that villagers are waiting for with bated breath it went up the list it got the go ahead because so many people commented and said how much they wanted that as an actual connection into Cambridge which for cyclists at the moment doesn't really exist not a safe one so that's why I'm fully supportive of that mitigation money for the maintenance of the greenway going forward for that. I just wanted to point out that in Water Beach this isn't some add-on this is actually absolutely crucial. Thank you. And finally Chair Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you Chairman. I think we all acknowledge that there are real ambitions and in this site first off and that what has been put together in terms of sustainability and other things is what we would like to see from developments but we have to balance everything and I'm going to go back to the principle of development really of it happening rather than what it is here and it's when I look at I've read policy E9 E13 and E16 in relation to the principle whether we should or shouldn't be developing this piece of land or giving permission for it to be there is something else that auto says in E13 on A it is demonstrated that there are no suitable buildings or sites within a settlement or nearby or suitable buildings to reuse or replace in the countryside nearby the way that I interpret these policies and it is an interpretation is that we want to maximise what's within the framework before we then start going outside of it and we've heard that there is a business case we have to take office's word because we've not got that in our reports and I think the point of the named user I'm going back to the purpose of the policy is to ensure that going outside of this framework should be a last resort and if we're doing that then we want to know that there is most definitely a need and that it will be used I understand about the flexibility but I don't think that's personally that that's what E13 and E16 stands for I understand that there can be conflict between policies and we see that all the time in the way that's why we call it the planning balance and weight and sometimes we give weight one way or another but for myself the fact that it's outside the framework it becomes a departure in its first sense and then we have to decide this policy that means it doesn't it doesn't meet 100% two of the three policies that have been listed on various grounds so for myself it does feel like a departure application we can still say yes to departure applications you know again that doesn't rule it out but it hasn't been advertised as such and I do think there is calm as we've been asked to demonstrate in the fact that it is not compliant with our policies because we fought very hard for our policies and have a local plan and I agree with the sentiment that we should be maximising internally also Water Beach is somewhere that is going to have a lot of employment land therefore the need for this expansion balancing the benefits that it would bring and then the harm of it being where it is for myself means that I'm inclined to go towards refusal and my view is that we should have been treating it as a departure application but I recognise that's not always everybody else's view and thank you Chairman no one else chair I think we should move to the vote I would like to move that yes please and so do we have Chris in terms of those who if this was to be refused we have reasons for refusal we've got the points Councillor Williams has highlighted with regard to the elements of conflict with policies E13 and E16 I think through you chair I don't know if you have a feel for things but we can explore those points further and I can comment on how those concerns could be further mitigated I'm just saying we've got those noted down I think Councillor Williams was very articulate in saying how she understood it Shall I just summarise the other things that have been agreed through the debate as well so we've got the variation to condition 19 regarding the temporary carpark retention if phase 2 doesn't come forward as well as it remaining until the new carparking provision is delivered condition 21 the landscaping condition to be adapted to include the details around the fencing around the swells the change to the heads of turns regarding the shuffle bus and its method of operation and then the points about the new carpark provision and the urban civic scheme and if that isn't being delivered that being incorporated into this section 161 and I have one more which is the streetlight meeting in the moving up state phase 1 rather than phase 2 so that's the £10,000 contribution being paid as part of phase 1 thank you all of which were passed as motions to that so taking into consideration those would be the changes to the conditions sorry sorry I just feel that this one thing that's been been missed on my reasoning is that it's a judgment as to whether it's a departure application or not and I do feel it is a departure application and therefore we shouldn't be determining until it's been advertised as such that's my interpretation through you chair I've just been advised by the case officer that it has been advertised as a departure albeit we don't consider it to be a departure but it has been advertised in that way it doesn't say in the report that the case officer has confirmed that it was advertised in the Cambridge independent as such so we've just got an issue on our report that that hasn't, there's some confusion around that so we would help us to correct to not have those confusions I know it's not helpful it's not helpful I know but it has indeed okay thank you, thank you very much so we're moving in terms of the vote here and the vote on this one is on recommendation page 48 that approval and I would like to say this is approval subject to the conditions as set out below the final wording and form of which is delegated to officers in consultation with chair and vice chair given that there are quite a few of these yes that's correct thank you if we could include that on our sixth agreement in accordance with the head of terms and in accordance with all of those issues that we've just agreed by motions sorry and also in consultation with the parish council their concerns expressed by councillor can I just clarify what I understood within that the securing the pathway piece of that that we've got written would be in consultation with the parish council yes rather than all of it we're securing the pathway so we're going to again this is now moving to the vote being moved by vice chair councillor Henry Batchelor this is an approval subject to the conditions as we've just said and the completion of the S106 agreement final wording and form of which delegated to officers in consultation with chair and vice chair all of those who are in favour please remembering to push the blue person on your good thank you very much and so the as well done now and so the application has been approved with seven votes in favour and three votes against and thank you very much and we'll move and we're looking forward to seeing as you were saying a lot of that was experimental in terms of the sustainability and the standards and in terms of the typology for business parts going forward we very very much would like to know how this proceeds so that it can actually inform a typology for excellence and outstanding standards for business and science and innovation parks going forward so thank you we now move to agenda item six which is Fowlmere page 67 in our report pack this is for application s slash four two five two slash nineteen slash ffelf Fowlmere cherry tree field road conversion of cowsheds to three bedroom house internal annex and stable building applicants Mr and Mrs Fulton our key material considerations of principle of development visual amenity and local character and sustainability issues and this has been brought to us to allow consideration of Fowlmere parish councils comments and the presenting officer is Richard Fitzgall hello Richard and do you have any updates for us and then followed by a summary of the application thank you thank you chair yeah just one matter of housekeeping I'd just like to make members aware there's an error on paragraph 21 of the committee report the error relates to the date of the local highway for a consultation response it was actually received on the 13th of May 2021 but I've written the 13th May 2020 yes thank you that did have head spinning a bit so thank you very much on that one apologies for that so that means that on page 21 on page 76 at the bottom that is the latest comment of local highways authority which means that they are approving the application they have no objection yep thank you okay can I just confirm you can see my screen yes we can thank you good afternoon members agenda item 6 is an application for planning permission for the conversion of an existing agricultural buildings into its welling with an internal annex and for the erection of a stable building next screen so the application site is Cherry Tree Field, Shefford, Fowlmere the location of the existing agricultural buildings which were proposed to be converted is marked with the red dot on this aerial image the image also shows the built up area of Shefford to the north west Boxston to the north and Fowlmere to the south east the application site is located outside of the development framework and within the countryside with the immediate surrounding area predominantly comprising agricultural fields as you can see on this image here this image shows the extent of the application site outlined in red the location of the existing agricultural buildings which are proposed to be converted is shown here the application site is served by an existing access on the southwest boundary which is joined Shefford Road you can see the existing access here this plan shows the proposed residential curtsillage for the proposed welling outlined in green this aerial image shows the location of the existing agricultural buildings again zoomed in a bit closer marked with the red dot just here so it's this big building in the middle of the site this aerial image shows the locations of the nearest public footpaths to the site so in addition to the site being visible from Shefford Road it's also visible from these public footpaths that are shown in blue shows the location of the existing access to the site in the background you can also see the existing agricultural buildings just here so this shows some photos of the application site and the existing agricultural buildings which are proposed to be converted to a dwelling this is a plan of the proposed site layout it shows the access and driveway just along this boundary here which leads up to the proposed welling which is here the plan also shows the outline of the proposed stable building which is the dashed L shaped line here the plan also shows a number of proposed trees this plan shows the existing and proposed elevations of the proposed welling the proposed welling would retain the main form of footprint of the existing agricultural buildings however the height of the building would increase by 1.2 to 1.4 metres it would create a first floor and it would incorporate this curved roof in the middle section of the building here so the top two images are the existing building you see this is what those elevations will look like as proposed sorry and then existing elevations what they would look like as proposed as well this shows the floor plan of the proposed welling you see the internal annex inside that as well it shows the elevations and the floor plan for the proposed stable building the current plan and application which we are considering today application reference S oblique 4252 oblique 19 oblique FL has been considered previously by the planning committee on 11 November 2020 officers had advised members of the planning committee at that meeting that a 2018 prior approval application provided a fallback position for the building to which application relates to be converted into two dwellings and that this was a material consideration for members of the planning committee to consider members voted 8 to 2 to approve that application this application however following the committee's resolution at that meeting it was brought to the council's attention that the 2018 prior approval application contained an error the decision notice was dated 17 September 2018 however condition 4 of the decision notice required that developments be commenced by May 2016 which was actually two years before the date of the actual decision so as a result of this error the decision relating to the prior approval application reference S oblique 2685 oblique 18 oblique PA is incapable of implementation and could not itself amount to a fallback position since this application previously being considered by the planning committee on the event for November 2020 a separate prior approval application reference oblique reference 20 oblique 05371 oblique PAI 03Q was approved by the local authority for the change of use of the agricultural buildings to single story dwellings under part 3 class Q was scheduled to the GPDO in order this slide shows the elevations and floor plans which were granted prior approval under that application the grant of prior approval provides a fallback position for the existing agricultural buildings to be converted into two dwellings in addition since this application previously being considered by the planning committee there has been additional amended information received in respect of the current application as listed within paragraph 8 of the committee report and there's also been additional representations received which are included also in the committee report the key planning considerations in the determination of this application are the principle of development visual amenity and local character and sustainability issues and officers recommend that members approve the application subject to the condition set out within the committee report thank you chair thank you Richard this is deja vu but as the planning table this is a fresh chair sorry to interject at this stage I'd just like to check with the case officer on this issue of departure seeing as the front page of officer reports has not been advertised as a departure application whether or not that is the case let me just double check that I believe it's a level that has been obviously it's an open site so we need to check that just bear with me I'm just trying to find an email as well from Nigel Blaiseby as well that considered that it wasn't actually a departure from the development plan because we consider it does comply with the policies I'm just going to check for the email and for whether we have actually regardless of that advertising as a departure I think this obviously needs to be checked properly because it needs to be checked whether it's a departure application or not I appreciate we've just had a break but to give officers a bit of time should we have in the German or break early for lunch or something because it seems a bit unfair to have them I'm assuming that it's very easy to check whether something's been advertised as a departure the only reason I'll just check whether it should or shouldn't be is also being raised to us sorry it has been advertised as a departure but since then I did have a discussion with Nigel Blaiseby who considered that because it was because officers consider that the application complies with policies H7 and S7 of the local plan that we don't actually consider it is a departure but can we just establish first of all it has been advertised as a departure it has been it has been advertised as a departure okay thank you very much can I ask when it was advertised and where it was advertised because I as a local member of no knowledge of that I haven't seen anything in the paperwork and I'm sure that my parish council also isn't aware of that and we are talking about a development outside the village framework which was neither which does not comply with the local plan in that it was never advertised for a commercial use as is the requirement in the local plan to be so it was advertised as a departure in the Cambridge evening news on the 14th of April 2021 thank you very much for taking the concerns into the debate thank you very much was that the end of your presentation then Richard on that? Good thank you very much and we'll now move to the public speakers and we have James Fulton are you with us Mr Fulton Mr and Mrs Fulton I think yes hello sorry and Mrs Fulton sorry Mr and Mrs Fulton and you know the procedures so Richard if you just take your video off for now then we'll see full screen the public speaker thank you very much I'm aware of the procedures so Chris Scott will help me with the timing on that so you have three minutes thank you very much okay thank you I'll begin now so good afternoon chairs members ladies and gentlemen I would like to begin by thanking you for considering our application again this application was approved last November by eight votes to two with members agreeing that this environmentally friendly self-sustainable application met the criteria to approve it as a barn conversion my wife and I know the local area extremely well and we are good family friends with the farmers in the neighboring fields we fully appreciate that this is a sensitive site and whilst we have the prior approval to build two dwellings we feel that converting the barns is a sympathetic sensitive and sustainable way to create a family home quite simply the only reason why this application is being presented again today excuse me just one moment I can't have him not listen to the full debate is that okay sorry in terms of timing I'm very sorry for that interruption can you continue from where you just stopped there thank you okay sure so quite simply the only reason why this application is being presented again today is because there was an incorrect date for the original approved class Q fallback position this has since been rectified and as of the 16th of February this year we now have a fully approved class Q fallback position committing us to build two dwellings we are currently in the final stages of discharging the conditions associated to the approved fallback position and intend to build as soon as they are discharged we are hoping that as this is an identical application to the one that was approved last November that the committee members will approve this conversion again today and instead of building the two dwellings that we already have the permission to build we are able to convert the barns into one sustainable eco friendly family home to ensure that the conversion is sustainable all heating will be provided by a ground source heat pump all rain water from the roof will be collected and reused and the solar panels we intend to use will provide a large proportion of the energy required and are laminated into the metal sheeting so not to affect the aesthetics of the barn conversion whilst we are aware that there are multiple examples of an established class Q fallback in position in case law which has allowed for new builds in the countryside we are simply dedicated to converting what is already there in fact there was a comment made in the meeting last November about only retaining four of the steel structs from each of the barns I would just like to clarify that this is not the case and we will be retaining as much as possible of the current barns in order to be sympathetic to the environment this includes all 22 of the steel uprights that are currently in situ not only altering the shape of one of those structs to allow for a door we will be retaining all 10 of the roof structs and only altering the height of a couple of those structs to allow for headroom thus contributing to the fact that this constitutes as a barn conversion which meets policy as recommended by the planning officers today and which also contributed to the fact that this application has already been approved by the committee once before if approved today we intend on planting additional native trick that will provide screening but more importantly provide additional habitat for wildlife. We have already put up bird boxes, bat boxes and relocated the owl box in line with the guidance from the barn owl trust and are maintaining the surrounding hedges to promote bird nesting sites. The plan shows the proposed cartilage around the barns will safeguard the site from future development. We are saying maximum land, livestock and vegetation today we are hopeful as we now have all of the permissions in place with the correct dates and nothing has changed with this application since the committee last approved it but you will allow us to start building our family home. Thank you very much and obviously we have to consider everything afresh that's what the system is so that's what is going to be in front of the members do we have any questions members no thank you for your time thank you very much thank you very much do we have Mr Crats with us Philip Crats and he didn't send anything I've just had an email from Philip saying he's lost internet connection we don't know whether it will be possible to dial it in I was just asking whether in terms of the case of contingency there was nothing sent in in writing in terms of what you said no I did give him the option of doing that okay can I now just ask for advice on what happened if we can't hear from the parish council well I think it goes ahead if the parish council theoretically they couldn't turn up in person couldn't they as well I don't think it's but I was going to say it's fatal I don't think we have to defer just because one of the representatives of the parish council doesn't turn up or can't turn up to the committee so I'm asking on the legal consideration so what you're saying on legal consideration there isn't anything to stitch I think from time to time the other councillors that I advise the parish council don't always send they object to things but they don't always send a representative I think on this occasion I mean we haven't got any any alternative I don't think we can defer the matter or just because of the absence of the the parish council I'm just asking in terms of protocol we take it very very seriously so we want to and obviously when we're in these pandemic conditions there are often other reasons why people can't come into the room and so yes I can see we have two requests councillor Williams and Roberts would like to speak Roberts would like to speak I was just going to say that we have in previous cases where this has happened given 5-10 minutes to enable and I think we need to be consistent so I wouldn't like to see us move on we could perhaps reshuffle the agenda chairman and come back to this application that would seem reasonable I think that that seems a sense of privilege I was just trying to I don't think we could justify hello saved by saved by the old fashioned telephone wonderful it's very good to fall back on the telephone we're very very pleased to have you with us Mr Crats that's okay I'm going to switch off the audio on my computer which there's a time lag on so it's a little I'm sure there was a mountain python sketch along those lines so I'm getting rid of that and apologies I'm a couple of seconds behind you but can you hear me can I just confirm that you have the authority from the parish council to speak on their behalf today indeed I do have the authority of the parish council to speak on their behalf today and written confirmation that was forwarded to Mr senior thank you very much and you have three minutes now Mr Crats and Chris Cart will help you in terms of the timing for that thank you there is a saying that applies not only to planning that if you're in a hole and you're digging you should stop digging and the parish council feels that the district council has got itself into a hole in this regard with this application as was partly explained by your officer there's another principle of course that all planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise now material considerations indicating otherwise which in this case might be the fallback position isn't the same thing as being complied with the local plan in that context the parish council recognise that whilst prior approval has recently been granted for a proposed class Q permitted development scheme on this site this application for an express planning permission is for a dwelling that significantly exceeds both the floor space and the limitations on that, the increase in size and the cartilage that could be permitted under a class Q the proposed development is not by any stretch of the imagination a conversion of existing barns but rather a new build within the footprint of those from the applicant supporting information it is clear that all exterior cladding is being replaced the roof structure is being replaced and raised in height and then the roof structure is being clad in new material only the vertical columns of the portal frames are being retained the structural report acknowledges that the existing foundations need supplementing and floor slabs will need installing to replace the existing earth floor it is also clear that the proposed windows clash with the locations of the portal steel frame columns which cast out on the intention to retain even that element of the existing structure what is called to mind by all of that is probably triggers broom rather than a genuine conversion of an existing building the structural information that has been provided is not sufficient to establish that this is a conversion the parish council therefore believed that policy H17 concerning reuse of buildings in the countryside for residential use should not be applied in this case if however the committee decide that is the appropriate policy rather than S7 development outside development frameworks then there are five criteria A to E that must be applied these are addressed in your office's report primarily starting on page 86 the first one concerns employment reuse the class Q approval for the buildings considered various matters but this the failure for the consideration of employment reuse takes this proposal outside of this policy criterion criterion B concerns the structural integrity of the building and whilst the building has a class Q approval, prior approval this application is materially different to what could ever be allowed under PD and is not seeking to reuse the existing structure in the same manner the parish council do not believe that the application qualifies as a reuse of a building and amounts to a rebuild and it will be interesting to see what the building legs make of that in due course. The report of the structural engineer as I've already said identifies conflict between the portal frames and window locations but despite the time that is elapsed since that was identified no adjustments have been made to the proposed design to take that into account criterion C deals with the enhancement of the buildings and their surroundings sorry your three minutes have up, if you can bring a summary concluding but there will be the possibility of clarification questions where we can then find out further yes the parish council believes the application fails to meet the requirements of policy 817 and therefore could not be permitted on that basis the case referred to by your officers was a rehash of a case often referred to the city of Edinburgh case and what that says is that there are often policies supporting applications as well as policies not supporting them and it's up to the decision maker to make sense of that in this case the parish council's view is that there are no policies supporting the application that the only thing supporting it is the fallback position, a flawed fallback and therefore that does take it outside of the normal consideration in accordance with the development plan and therefore we think it is a departure thank you I have to bring your comments to a close there Mr correct yes thank you very much and members do we have any questions council Roberts chair good morning Mr Crats and I'm pleased to hear you I'm sure my parish council colleagues who made very clear that you were going to be their representative will be very happy when they see the recording I'm sure Mr Crats you talk about the class Q and I think maybe for lots of members class Q is a little bit of a strange thing there's a lot of new members on the committee and you indicate that you don't think it's compliant with a class Q anyway so could you just clarify what class Q actually is and how you feel that this may be in conflict with it and could you also express your view as to the importance of the policy H17 which looks to actually protecting the countryside from speculative development and given that the parish council's view and your own is that this is very much a new build in the countryside would you say what your view is as to the conflict therein what I would just say Mr Crats we're not going to ask you to explain policy but what we would like to do as Councillor Roberts said is to clarify your opinion about the harm that is created by this conflict with policy from the parish council's point of view you don't need to I'll put that in the context of class Q and for new members in particular class Q is one of the classes under the general committee development order that allows committee development to take place without the need for express planning permission slightly bizarrely it does require the prior approval of the local planning authority that's to sort the week from the gap and make sure that nobody is lifting their leg when proposing these applications the big question on class Q because it requires a prior approval is in essence is there a building there that's capable of being converted now that decision has been made by the local planning authority they granted a class Q approval but any class Q approval is subject to limitations one is that the development must take place within the built envelope of the existing building it's not possible to raise it widen it or deepen it it must be within the built envelope and the second one is that the residential catalyst that goes with it must not exceed the footprint of the building and that's to minimise domestic paraphernalia that goes with a dwelling otherwise in the countryside now the harm is a visual harm because you expect to see a agricultural building in the countryside that's where you find them what you don't necessarily expect to see is something that might or might not have been on grand designs or a dwelling house with light pollution and all that domestic paraphernalia a visual impact and that's why there are policies restricting the development that is possible in the countryside and what the parish council feel and I do agree with them is that this pushes the boundaries in making that ask of the decision maker and that the result will be harm caused to the visual interests of the countryside and that isn't an academic harm as your officers pointed out as well as being visible from the road there are thought paths from which this development can be seen. Thank you very much and thank you very much for thank you very much I don't see any other request for questions thank you very much for representing the parish council. Apologies for the technical problems about my end but I have to briefly thank this thank you very much for being in contact with our democratic services and being with us thank you very important and now for local ward member would you like to speak now Councillor Roberts or at the end? Thank you very much Madam Chairman and through you this has been quite a long and winding road as Mr Krax has said and I do come to it afresh I've listened to everything over the last few months either parish or here listened to all the different explanations reasoning wishes etc but I do come to it afresh and this is a fresh application and we must judge it on or against its merits the mistakes were made but I don't blame any of the officers who were dealing with the case it wasn't theirs that person has gone and things happen however I think we have to look at this now on policy it has to be on policy emotions wishes to have family homes in the countryside etc they've always been accepted there's nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing on planning applications it has to be judged on the policies and the policies are very clear that what we as a local councillor doing is we are not looking to start putting domestic premises where there is no need and no call for out into the open countryside the open countryside is very special it has been taken all over South Cambridgeshire and it is very important that we actually do stick to the policies in the areas where development isn't expected to happen we must therefore stand those policies up and the policy is quite clear and if you read and I'm sure members have done if you read the very well thought through well informed detailed representation of the parish council which I didn't take part in drafting it was done by the chairman of the parish council and the planning committee chairman you will see there that they very carefully and consideringly explain why it does not comply with policy of conversion the title of today is a conversion of a barn it is not a conversion of these barns Mr Crats has just described there is going to be really nothing left of it it doesn't even have a floor it's got an earth floor it's going to be higher it's going to be bigger it's got nothing the doors and everything there is no converting of this building no converting this is simply a new build in the countryside and that is dangerous if we go down that route we set precedence for other villages other pieces of our green and pleasant land ground south Cambridge to have just this sort of thing there's been absolutely no proof of evidence really that this is compliant Mr Crats Mr Crats is I'm trying to get your one is you're very supportive of what the parish council has put forward I'm hearing from you in terms of your real concerns are around to apply H17 you don't see any demonstrated needed terms I think as Mr Crats pointed out the parish council has pointed out even the structural or engineers report indicates that it's not going to be they're not going to be using what is there now this is going to be a new house in the countryside and it doesn't comply I mean another thing is that it was never advertised as a for a commercial use and there are barns that are being put up round about so they might have easily been a commercial use but that wasn't done and in fact is it really an agricultural barn now because the previous owner of it did farm there and got an approval however he sold that on and it is no longer in my opinion actually classified as an agricultural building it's not being used these people who have bought it have bought it specifically to try to turn it into a domestic dwelling so I don't think that the policies are being complied with I think if we start going this far off the beaten track we will end up with real problems we are defying our own policies so for you it is a departure from policy and you don't see that it complies with H17 which is the reuse of buildings for residential and you don't see it as conversion but rather a new build and I don't think it complies that it's an agricultural building thank you Chairman you have a question from Martin Khan Councillor Khan yes no and I'm now opening for a debate thank you very much I saw her hand from Heather Williams I didn't know if she wanted to ask a question of the local member or the debate so start with Councillor Khan then Councillor Williams Councillor Khan what's he done now I'd like to comment basically the question about this is quite clear to me I've greatly sympathised with the concerns of family of carriage council the problem lies in the whole business of section Q permittive development developments it's a very unsatisfactory system it allows the development of bonds that we would never normally consider being worthwhile converting and I think this is a good case in which this plays and therefore one would on principle not wish to do this it certainly has lots of conflicts with the local plan however I mean it's very nice development in the sense that it's very sustained lots of sustained forces but the location is not one that one would not be allowed to develop so what when it's presented with here is a situation where Q permission has been given so we are presented with a the possibility of two two dwellings going there and it's being replaced by a much larger dwelling, a single dwelling generally we try and reduce the number of dwellings when they come to side for various reasons but in particular sustainability more isolated dwellings are much less sustainable in terms of all our energy and climate policies than the dwellings and settlements and this is the case I can very well understand why the proposers would like to develop a house here a stable housing development if they were proposing a horse enterprise it might be a different basis on which the judge is on its own it's obviously a personal use I can understand that but in some ways I would prefer here but what they are proposing is full development it's a new development and the only justification is because you're replacing one development with two it's a bit of a blackmail it's in a sense but it's a legal blackmail and it's perfectly legitimate and we have to decide whether really the key question is whether we want to have one dwelling or two that's the basis of the whole thing I feel that we probably have to go in favour of the development because of that I'm unhappy about it I would much prefer that the legislation behind it and were different and gave you more power to restrict redevelopment of the barns to buildings which have value in themselves which this clearly doesn't so it's with regret that I think that I will probably support this application but that's the situation we are until the permitted development regulations change I feel that's the way that we're going to be thank you next chair we have Councillor Heather Williams then myself thank you chairman and you said an element of day job which I think we all will find with this one I'm trying to listen to colleagues and officers and all the representations but I think we do need to be careful that we don't fall into a bit of the debate we just had where it's a question of one or two or it's already got this, it's already got that this is the application as we see it in front of us we've heard about that it's got prior queue for the two dwellings but I think an important part point has been made it should be within the envelope there shouldn't be increased in height etc etc and the visual harm that that causes and then we have the apology H17 as well now there is nothing such as precedent in planning we all know that and we are very well informed and briefed on that however we have an obligation to be consistent and I know in my own ward roof height for example has been used repetitively by officers quite rightly at times others in my view have been a little more crucial there is a valid point in that Chairman we need to be consistent especially with these applications because it's not something we see everyday so I'm struggling to see how we've relied so heavily on that in the past to refuse why we're then supporting this because there is a significant height increase and then we also have the change of the pitch that we've got the dome of the sort of connecting building so looking at policy H17 itself because it does say the form bulk design materials etc and the character that's part of D also the fact that the flooring doesn't seem to be like a permanent flooring in there it does H17B the buildings are structurally sound not makeshift in nature to me a mud floor is makeshift in its nature our permanent substantial I wouldn't say that substantial so I think we've got it's not just one or two things we see the marketing and employment use on there so we are in conflict for this form when we look at the fallback position that is what it is and they have permission to do that I don't think we can question that we're not here for that but that doesn't mean that something that we then have to therefore something that we feel is inappropriate and doesn't comply with policy so it would be nice for us to get out of that mindset so for myself it's going outside its current envelope particularly with the height and the shaping of the roof it doesn't comply numerous parts on H17 it's outside of this framework and therefore whatever the prior queue it's a refusal very clear for me thank you very much we've got the principle development the visual immunity and local character that would come in with it in the conflicts with the policy H17 thank you very much me just a question of clarity first of all just around this class queue for me I'm assuming more than anybody else so the prior approval that was granted in February this year I just want clarity from officers exactly what relationship does that have with the application we're looking at today and what if any weight can we give to that in our decision making today so I'm still not that's our fallback just want to clarify please for myself I'm happy to date chair yes thank you so the class queue approval exists and can allow the conversion of the building into two dwellings as the chair has pointed out that provides the absolute fallback position so an alternative position which is material in consideration of this application because the applicant has given a clear indication of their intention to implement that consent should they be unsuccessful in securing this permission and as the applicant I think said in their own presentation they've already sought to discharge the conditions associated with that class queue permission which in the minds of officers it sets out that clear intention to implement if they're unsuccessful then so it's a material consideration and it's for you to consider how much weight to you afford to that okay that's clear thank you very much on that basis then I'm more inclined to judge the application we have in front of us today on the merits of that itself and at the moment I'm tending to agree of previous comments that there are a raft of policies currently that it does not meet predominantly S7 and H17 for my own for myself so I mean unless I hear any strong arguments the other way I'll probably vote in against this today thank you thank you Joe yes we're considering this application afresh obviously but as officers advisers we are asked to give significant weight to the legitimate fallback position provided by class queue that is not a matter for us to decide on today that has been approved it was very helpful to have what was evidently an expert explanation from the mr cracks for the parish council including of class queue which I think some of us have come across before but he referred to it as a grand designs of building that may or may not be so the question I think is whether it meets H17 is it a conversion and there are of course a number of places the five criteria are the buildings suitable for employment use well this is a fairly typical building except that it was designed for a particular purpose in the past which is not compatible in my view with modern agricultural use in particular the roof height would not be sufficient for modern agricultural equipment are the buildings structurally sound well these are buildings constructed with quite substantial steel uprights they are not in my view makeshift in nature and this is I would say very definitely a permanent and substantial construction will the proposed building provide an enhancement to the immediate setting of the buildings we can all make our own subjective assessment of that my own view is that clearly it would the form bulk design and so on the change of use and adaptation I think it is clearly from what was stated and I have to assume this is correct all the 22 steel uprights would be retained slightly extended in some cases and all 10 of the existing roof struts would be used I don't think anyone has raised the safe vehicular access site as an issue so it is quite clear to me that despite the assessments of others this does meet the terms of H17 and on that basis on its own merit regardless of the fallback of class Q we should be approving this today next chair we have councillors Harvey and Richard Williams thank you chair well I concur with councillor Williams really we have to be consistent in the application of policies I mean a normal class Q application there is sort of tension between on the one hand gain approval you have to retain the existing structure as you can to what you find and then that creates attention to modifications that would make it more compatible with its new function as a living space but I mean if we were to approve this surely then that would set a new sort of mode for these kind of developments where you would as a first step always disregard the aspirations for the new use and for example inserting windows which might be nice as a living space you would have to minimise those in order to get approval under class Q and then you would go back councillor Harvey I think we can't that's the situation we just have to look at this if we look at H17 which in some ways sort of mirrors the situation under class Q this can be approved if the buildings are structurally sound but really it's kind of a perversion of the reading of that B if you kind of accept that the buildings can go beyond what the existing building is because really B is saying this is kind of a mirror of class Q it's just under a different policy so I would be against this Thank you What I am hearing is obviously there is concern with what's a bit of a perverse system with committed development rights at the moment which is creating this situation and we do hope that this doesn't continue We have councillors Richard Williams and then Khan Councillor Richard Williams Thank you chair I mean we do keep going back to this class Q point and I don't think we can entirely dismiss it because paragraph 79 is 59 throughout the report where the officers are considered spread here at A does basically come down to class Q because I hope the case seems to be that the buildings are unsuitable for employment use because there is class Q and therefore they could be inverted into two dwellings so we can't really avoid that class Q I mean I note in passing it this is still the same application submitted in 2019 it was drawn after the problems in November it does seem it was held over so that class Q rights could be put in place which is something interesting to note but why didn't it come back to the committee I don't really know but sticking to the relevant policies today H part 17 does say the change of use and adaption of redundant or disused buildings to residential use will only be permitted where is it the same building really therefore is fundamentally a relevant question H 17 as much as it's relevant in class Q and I think as some other members have said the extent of the work that's being carried out the raising of the height the pillar seems to be being retained but virtually nothing else I don't really for my part see this is the same building it's a different building it's a rebuilding and therefore on that basis it's a client with policy on H 17 I'll be voting against OK thank you I think what I'm hearing is there's differences within this and those who are moving towards thinking towards refusal is mainly because of the fact that this is not reuse or conversion this is a new building and therefore that then comes into conflict with the existing policies even though they accept the fallback position the point who are looking forward to supporting this is because of the taking into consideration with significant material consideration of that fallback position which in itself is this more beneficial to have the one building then fallback position which are the two buildings all are noting a slightly perverse nature of this class Q coming in again before we get the new application who else do we have before I bring it to Councillor Roberts on speakers Councillor Cohn is it a new point on that? yes it's a new point basically there's been a lot of concern saying about this being a conversion I think he's emphasising that this is not a class Q application it's not a, as people have commented it's an effect on new building even though it incorporates parts of the old bounds the reason why one might consider accepting it and I think accepting it as a new building is because it prevents the reuse of the two buildings before in other words it's reduction from one to two I don't think we should get distracted by the idea about it being a conversion I think that's rather irrelevant the real argument in favour of it the only argument that I can see is that you're reducing the number of buildings that can be built on that site from one to two to one thank you it is advertised as a case chair if I can just contribute at this point so just to draw members' attention to paragraphs 74 on page 88 so these paragraphs have been included because of this scenario were members to be concerned that it's not conversion that it's a new build dwelling and really I want to highlight the point there that officers are making is that even if you were to consider it a new build dwelling it's the view of officers at least that it would still be compliant with policy having regard to the fallback position so I accept that the description is for a conversion but if members were minded to agree to defer for it to be re-advertised as a new build that is an alternative that is open to the committee if the overriding concern of members is the description rather than necessarily the conflict and in the fallback position okay thank you Chairman if I may I did also ask that it was outside the village framework and that I thought there was visual harm so I have expanded beyond that if reasons are required thank you very much and Councillor Roberts I think from the end of the debate yes yes Chairman I'll try and keep it brief and I think we'd like him to keep it brief I think members have actually picked the problem, real problem here in that it doesn't comply with a very important policy the policy is there to protect the countryside it's to make sure that we don't get willy nearly speculative applications getting through to warrant it being acceptable it would either have to have a proper use in the countryside for a farmer or a farm worker or some multicultural or what have you use as somebody who is needing to be there in the countryside and it has to be compliant with being able to be actually adapted this is not an adaption this is not a barn conversion it's completely incorrect to have it titled as a barn conversion or a conversion of cowsheds this is a new build in the countryside which is not compliant in fact it's extremely non-compliant with a very important policy of this council I think it's a red herring to be thinking too much about one or two that's not what is in front of us today that would be up to the applicant to consider if this was a refusal today but in fact the parish council I don't know whether I particularly agree with it but the parish council have made the point that if it was two at least would give two families a home whereas this is one very large house with only providing accommodation for one family who've got no need to be there but just wish to be so chairman I very much hope that that we will actually support our policies my god they took some getting through we had all that time where we didn't have a local plan I just want to come on to this one let's please make sure that we actually follow our policies for the sake of everybody many thanks chairman thank you very much and I think Chris Carter what he put forward was if anybody wanted to consider proposing a deferral or you were saying for re-submission of this as a new bill I was just making the point chair that the option is there if members did want to defer the item for it to be re-advertised as a new bill but from the sounds of the debate I was just going to say I'm not hearing that exactly I'm not hearing that from the debate so I just wanted to clarify that I'm going to move to the vote if that's all right thank you chair I just want to clarify what we're voting on so we're not voting on that now we're voting on exactly I'm just about to say what we're going to vote on so this is now on the recommendation in the pact which is that thank you yes please reasons for refusal so a reason for refusal would be conflict with policies S7 and H17 in particular related to the enlargement of the resident's cartilage the increase in height and the bulk and form of the building and the visual harm thank you chair thank you and we are now page 93 is the recommendation on which we're voting which is planning a permission be approved subject to the conditions that are indicated and the informative from page 93 onwards so please members vote we're still waiting for one more Aaron could you help councillor Roberts with her voting please and that application has not been approved with six against and four for approval thank you members and thank you for everybody who's given their time it's ten past one and so I think we now take a break we have remaining two and three I think the next four Paul Van Haasen and Cymru those are all ones that have become because they are the transparency reasons aren't they and with some objections as well and then the rest are tree and hedge preservation borders so members do we take half an hour max more thank you very much 30 minutes so that's ten past one so we're back here at 22 thank you very much everybody thank you everybody welcome back to South Cams district council planning committee we are now moving on to agenda item seven page 99 of the agenda report pack this is for application 21 stroke 01390 slash H full of 24 Shelford Road full born the first list of the demolition of an existing rear extension and the construction of a two story side and single story rear extension the applicants councillor Mrs Cohn key material of considerations the character and appearance of the area residential amenity highway matters and green belt it's not a departure application it's been brought to the committee as normal because this is a member of the council so for transparency purposes the offer to the recommendation is approval and the presenting officer is Paul Hunt Paul are you with us good afternoon thank you chair good afternoon and welcome it's your first time to committee so very nice to see you Paul thank you just let me one second to share my screen alright thank you so is that visible for you there it is thank you very much thank you so yes the application is for a householder extensions a two story side and single story rear extension at 12 to 24 Shelford Road and we are recommending approval on the application the site is located on the north western side of Shelford Road indicated in red here the row is characterised by a group of semi detached dwellings and just please note on this map the large area to the south east of the site that is on the open countryside and that is the green belt boundary on the southern edge of the highway indicated here in an aerial map the site itself has a existing detached garage single story rear extension that would be demolished as part of the proposals and a brick front porch you can note here that there's a variety of materials in the street scene between brick and different coloured cladding the site does have existing solar panels the proposal would retain and relocate those on the extensions this is the indicative site plan indicating the hit roof of the two story element and a mono pitch roof to the single story rear element Elevational drawing shows the building to retain that hit roof profile which I noted before is a characteristic of the street scene that was following an amendment that we received the original proposal was for a gable end we consider the roof height to be dropped down sufficiently to make the extension subservient in accordance with the district design guide FPD in terms of the single story rear extension this is significantly screened from the street scene by its small size and location at the back and would project 1.6 metres beyond the rear elevation which we consider sufficiently small to avoid any neighbour harm here we see the simple floor plan showing the depth and width of the extension first graphs here indicate the character of the street scene again there is a level of uniformity however we can see that there are breaks with different porch extensions and also there are examples of two story extensions already permitted further down the street in terms of neighbour harm this neighbour does feature a first floor window as per the reports this window is obscured and serves a bathroom so I consider it to have minimal amenity value and there would be over 4 metres between this window and the new extension so I don't consider that it would create additional shadowing that would detract from the amenity of that neighbour oh I seem to have skipped a slide there apologies yes just a quick photo to show the rear of the house the neighbour has a window set some way from the boundary which leads to me believing it won't that the single story rear extension won't un-july overshadow will be overbearing and just confirm again that single story rear element is proposed to be demolished I've mentioned highway safety and parking in my reports because the extension will technically come out onto the driveway however the existing layout has a fence adjacent to the house and the site plan shows that it would retain two parking spaces in accordance with policy TI3 and also the site is adjacent to the green belt but due to the small scale and location the extensions we don't feel that would conflict with the policy on NH8 and just confirm we are looking to approve and that the only reason the application is before the committee is because it is a member of the council for transparency purposes thank you very much thank you very much and I know that we don't have any representations from public speakers I also know that in your report the parish council recommends support and there have been representations from neighbours about this and I would like to move that we go to a vote is that okay and I do note that two members of the committee have already stated that they wouldn't take part in the vote so everybody else shall we take this by affirmation by affirmation great thank you very much thank you very much Paul thank you if we can go to agenda item 8 members on page 107 this is for application 21 slash 01024 slash outline application land adjacent to 12 church street Haarston outline planning permission for a two-storey self-built dwelling with all the matters reserved the applicant is Mrs Geraldine Roper who is from South Cams district council the housing department the recommendation is approval key material considerations are principle of development impact upon the character and appearance of the area impact upon the adjoining green belt impact upon heritage assets residential immunity highway safety and parking provision ecology and tree matters and other matters it's not a departure being brought to the committee again in terms of transparency because the applicant is South Cams district council third party and the recommendations have been raised as well which is why it's come to committee the presenting officer is Charlotte Charlotte are you with us? Yes hello Charlie I'm here hello there nice to see you so could you give us any updates on the summary of the application please Charlotte nice to have you with us yes absolutely I'll just share my screen there we go can you just confirm that visible please it is now thank you okay brilliant okay yep so my application relates to the land adjacent to 12 Church Street Halston and the application seeks outline planning permission for a self-build dwelling up to two story with all matters reserved okay so I'll just start with some updates because I have been a few changes so firstly I have the description of development has been changed only slightly but just to point this out to members so the description previously was outline planning permission for a two story self-build dwelling with all matters reserved the description has been changed to outline planning permission for a self-build dwelling up to two story with all matters reserved and that has been changed so that with any reserve matters application a dwelling of two story or under could come in rather than just knocking it to two story only I've also had some additional comments since the report was finished so firstly from Halston parish council so the parish council raised an objection to the application on design and appearance materials highway safety issues taking and loss of privacy and the loss of designated allotment land so several of these matters have been covered already in my report including the designer materials, neighbour impact and highway safety and I just want to remind the committee at this point that the application is outlined so a lot of these matters will need to be addressed in full at reserved matters stage in terms of the allotment land the policy NH11 and NH12 can be used to protect designated land under either a protected village amenity area or as local green space this site has not been designated as protected allotment land in the local plan and is not in current use as allotment therefore the development of the site is not considered to conflict with these policies in terms of the amenity to the community also there was a representation received from 12 church street which is the property to the east of the site immediately adjacent to the boundary they wrote in to reiterate their concerns about the impact particularly in terms of loss of light to their west facing windows and particularly they wanted to point out that they have had some new windows permitted recently in an application the permitted extensions would involve the addition of one window which would serve the stairs at the first floor level and a patio door at ground floor level on the west elevation obviously the full impact would need to be addressed at reserved matters stage however the stairs are a non habitable room and the kitchen is also served by patio doors to the rear and likely there would be a significant impact that we would object to at this stage finally number 53 church street which is a little way from the site but along the road has also raised some objections including notice to neighbors height and design lack of parking space congestion on church street and loss of allotment land so the concern about the notice to neighbours was regarding the application having an extension of time the occupier was concerned that a new notice had not been erected following the extension of time a site notice was erected at the beginning of the application process and an extension of time does not require any additional notice to be given in the form of a site notice or any neighbour notification letters the height and design parking congestion have already been covered in the report and I have gone through the allotment land concerns ok so just moving on now so this is a site location plan that's been submitted on the left and on the right here I've just shown the site on an aerial photo so you've got the planning unit in red and the site in ownership beyond this in blue the reason it's been divided in this way is because beyond the rear of the red line is the country sign and green belt so this was a way for the applicant to keep the development contained within the development framework and not impact or not directly impact the countryside of green belt by developing into this land here I've just put together some photographs to show the site and some surroundings so if we just start in the bottom left here this is from church street so looking directly from the front of the site to the rear with number 12 church street to the right and you can just about see number 16 church street to the left there the second photo here is me where I'm stood in sort of the middle of the site looking towards number 12 church street just to show where that sits in the photo in the top at the middle here I've moved slightly further back in the site and I'm looking towards the front of the site which is church street from a similar location I've also taken a photo here of number 16 so this is the rear of number 16 looking from the site and finally in the bottom right hand corner here this is looking across church street I just thought this was an important part of the context for this application so with the application there have been some illustrative drawings submitted so this is the block plan and proposed site plan it does show how a dwelling may be accommodated within the site however this is an outline application this is only for illustrative purposes this is another illustrative image an elevation just to show again how a dwelling here may sit within the site so you've got number 16 on the left and I've attached a photo to show that excuse me and number 12 on the right here again I've shown a photo here this is again some 3D perspective sketches just to help trying to show how the dwelling again would sit in the site but as I've talked about there for illustrative purposes only as this is an outline application with all matters reserved key planning considerations are the principle of development impact on the character and appearance of the area impact upon the green belt impact upon heritage assets residential highway safety and parking provision ecology tree matters and other matters and my recommendation is to approve subject to conditions you have to you have to ask to go through this bit late in the afternoon it's alright so we don't have any other public speakers so we can go straight to questions and to debate again chairman can the officer just go back to the I think it was about two from the end two from the last that we saw which was a photograph of the site looking at the site just to give me an idea of that these if it's possible yep that's fine I'll just go back to my screen is this the I think when you were standing in the on the site apologies yep no further on this one do you have a question about that that's fine so I think just to remind ourselves especially in terms of representations received most of those are would be dealt with under reserved matters I suppose what we have to make sure is the key material considerations per outline application so do I have any yeah Councillor Richard Williams of myself thank you chair can I just press a bit more on this allotments issue which is new information I'm trying to sort of get my head around having had a quick look at the local plan not all allotments I know were designated in that plan because the allotments are right behind my house not identified in the plan for my village so are we absolutely sure that this is not allotment land and therefore I think there is an act about allotment land you can't sell it off for that Secretary of State's permission are we absolutely sure that doesn't apply because I don't think designation in the local plan is necessarily definitive because as I say I know for a fact there are allotments that are not designated in that local plan just a clarification of that point land being used for allotment and what is called designated allotment land and what the status of this I think is that what you're asking case officer yeah so currently it's not in use as allotment land and it's not designated so from our point of view you know it's not currently in use and it's not designated therefore it can't really be protected as allotment land Can I just come back I'm not necessarily arguing because as I say this is new information for me and I'm trying to get my hand around it as well but have we looked at the legality of it all because there is legislation around allotments and obviously I don't have time to go through it all and check what the definition of allotment is in law but there are legal rules about that so can I just have a clarification to whether we have looked into the law the 1922 act there, the 1925 act I think have we looked at those Yeah I can say Chris would you like to comment on that Yeah I don't know if it's been looked into but if it's not registered as allotment land then it wouldn't be subject to any requirement to refer to the Secretary of State before being used for allotment purposes far as I'm aware but unless Richard wants to add a certain thing to that No I think it would be on a register held by Southcams District Councillor if it had that statutory status It was me but one question has been answered so Councillor Cahn is next I would just go to comment that we're looking at planning permission here and it's a separate legal matter they could be given planning permission but then find out they couldn't implement it and that's the way I would look at it but I wonder if there are any comments on that That's true It's all becoming very legal ease our planning community meetings Do we have any other comments So I had a Williams chair Yeah Thank you Chairman Looking at it I think it can fit one dwelling on that site in that respect However I'm not entirely convinced that it's appropriate for a development and a building on that site Under which On material considerations would you say for outline On the principle of development to the character of the area you could say or the street scene I just think it's a green space that breaks up that area So I'm a little torn because while I do think one would fit I'm not sure I think that it's a slippery slope It's a green space We shouldn't be Thank you and Councillor Roberts Yeah I'm disappointed that it's come in as an outline I think that it is a sensitive application actually and I'm not sure on the details of actually how well it will marry in down there There's some very interesting buildings in that area and it looks to me as well also it gives you that through look into the green bells and I'm also slightly wary I've taken part what Martin said which is if we give it and then there's a legal thing then we won't be able to do anything if people seem to think it is allotments whether it's one of those things that an old an old charity situation land or even church land or something it's in church street So I would have liked to have known a little bit more about the why people think it's allotment land and I'm wary of actually approving it because I don't know what we're getting there but in terms I can't really hear material considerations in that normally I can Councillor Roberts but I think what I would say is that all of those things probably would be addressed in reserved matters that's what you're basically saying isn't it so it's kind of but I don't do we have anybody I would From the photo world it appears to be that it's an open land but it's used as public access at present the factor whether it's legal I do the point about green space it seems to be a legitimate concern that people may have because it effectively is a lot of open space even if it was originally allotment land and I think we do need to consider that matter If I may I think we're all struggling with the planning reasons so I think it's going to inevitably we have to be that vote but as the application is ourselves perhaps we could ask the applicant to consider even if they get permission whether they really want to do this and put this building in this space as a work around and I think that the springs up just practicality down at this they do want it because they've made the application it is also supporting self-build policy and self-build infills and being creative in those I do take the piece about green space but in terms of the policy reasons it's not there nor clasped as green space so I'd like to move to a vote quite quickly on this for the outline planning reasons the one reason I've heard in terms of principle of development will actually impact on character and appearance of the area is what you were given if that would be is that right? Yeah chair through you I think there are hooks to that effect in policy HQ 1 design principles which provide proposals among sort of things to preserve or enhance the character of the local urban and rural area and respond to its context and there are also hooks in there in relation to being compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale density mass I don't think that we can really use here but I think we need to be clear that we're talking about the principle of a dwelling and if members are minded to refuse them we're saying in principle a dwelling of any kind up to two stories would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the rural area that would be my only suggestion really. Okay I'll move to the vote and I think in terms of green space that's something we need to do in policy terms to see what you actually do with these kind of things but right now we don't have that there so members please if you would vote and the recommendation is to approve recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to the appropriate planning conditions and informative that laid out on page 114 to 117 for this outline planning application and all other matters where we've heard representations would be at reserved matters please vote. Aaron thank you very much we have a result there yes and that is that this has been approved with seven votes in favour and three votes against thank you very much we now go to agenda item nine on page 119 of our agenda pack this is for application 21 slash 0662 slash TTHR in Cottenham land sexual drove and smithy fen and the proposal is to remove ah so the next few applications that we do have committee are about hedgerow and about tree protection orders and it's a bit sort of a strange but within our protocol this is something that South County district council has to go through and do but we do have a doubling nature strategy I just want to say this before we go into all of these so it is important that each of these do go through somebody to make sure that each of these applications are sound and robust but usually we should have all of the relevant justifications for those so this one is for the removal of five seven metres sections of a hedgerow to facilitate the laying of a new sewer you don't have to move it it's fine that you're not voting and this is by Anglia and water services the key material considerations is whether or not the hedgerow qualifies important hedgerows and whether the removal is justified and the applications brought to the committee because all hedgerow regulation matters must come to committee and the presenting officer is Miriam Hill our trees officer Miriam you with us good afternoon hello Miriam can you hear me nice to see you welcome to committee I can just share my screen with you can I confirm you can see my title slide we can do thank you thank you so this is a removal notice that's been served on the council the applicant has to give us notice because they are working on a hedgerow within the countryside area and therefore it is protected under their hedgerow regulations 1997 I'll just give you some information about the location first so we're in the north side of Cottenham at broadly the Smithy Fenbridge the yellow lines are the roots of some new sewer pipes that need to be laid in this particular location the green arrows are the points at which the hedgerows need to have the seven metre sections removed from them so these sections there's three on Smithy Fen and two on sexual growth so just having a brief look at the character of the area and the exact locations of where they'll be putting these gaps in the hedgerows so the most suddenly one is a protected hedgerow it has been there so all the locations would qualify as important hedgerows under their hedgerow regulations for varying criteria so the main crux of the issue is whether there is sufficient justification to remove the sections of hedgerow so just to briefly look at them though so the most suddenly one is your traditional countryside hedgerow and with sheep grazing behind it the second most suddenly one you can see at the top of the screen there, top right of the screen and that's actually already a gap within the hedgerow so technically they won't be removing any of the hedgerow but gaps within protected hedgerows are still of a class as hedgerow under the regulations then the three most northerly two are a more a Cyprus hedgerow and even though they're not a native hedgerow, technically they still would fall under the hedgerow regulations because the location of the hedgerow is pre-enclosure act location of hedgerow so they would still qualify it's an unusual scenario but technically it would still qualify and then the most easterly section of hedgerow is a hawthorn and lwm traditional countryside hedgerow I believe that's all my slides I have the regulations are clear that hedgerow removal should be only for exceptional reasons the hedgerows are being removed to facilitate a sewer at these particular points there is no other method of laying the pipe work such as directional drilling etc and therefore the officers recommend that the notice and the reasoning is reasonable although the applicant didn't mention this in their notice to the council they do do replanting once they have finished on site thank you thank you very much do we have any comments or questions members so just at the end of all that they are going to replace them is that right they are going to remove these and replace them is that what I heard that is correct yes they were not very specific on their specifications but they did clarify that it sounds like that they will replace like for like that's useful for my decision making do we need to condition that is there a way of condition that in any way I'm afraid not these are notices on the councils rather than applications so there's no condition if we find it unacceptable we have to issue a hedgerow retention notice okay thank you very much members I suggest we put this to the vote and this we note then this the hedgerow removal and cut it up by affirmation great thank you very much I think you're still with us Miriam on agenda item 10 which is on page 123 this is the tree protection order 0011 from 1985 in the parish of Eltisly and the proposal is to revoke a TPO which is no longer current in land to the north of Eltisly Wood and the recommendation is to revoke a TPO and the application is being brought to committee because it's required to under the council scheme of delegation Miriam can I just confirm that you can see my title slide yes we can okay so TPO 0011 is land to the north of Eltisly Wood it protected one oak tree in a field the original order was placed on a tree in 1985 and this is an aerial photograph from 2003 so the tree has been not in this this situ for more than 20 years if the tree had only just recently been removed when this aerial photograph was taken the striations of the plowing would look slightly different because they'd still be going around the stump or it would still be a rocked ground from where the stump had been removed so this revoking this order has not come from an application as such we are undertaking an administration of our TPO's and trying to remove or update orders so as there's no longer any tree there and there is no outstanding enforcement issues or anything like that we would like to revoke this order thank you Miriam and I think what we are concerned about is what we don't want to have is a situation where we've heard previously where there's a sort of a perverse situation where people cut something down and then say it's no longer there so can we seek to revoke the TPO obviously you're showing as you're doing this we're going to receive quite a few of these and it could look like we're just allowing that to happen but what you're doing is updating and making sure that the records are correct so in this particular instance that tree hasn't been there for your records since 2003 from that google search that's right yeah so just to confirm at some point between 1985 and 2003 the tree was removed unfortunately our records aren't accurate enough some records were lost due to compute systems and some before compute systems occurred have gone off into the filing ether so it could have been genuinely moved for any number of reasons and as there's no enforcement case I don't think there's some kind of like nefarious tree removal going on thank you I like that one we'll use that one so I'd like to put this to the members that we vote to note and approve that this is revoked can I take that by affirmation committee great thank you and we continue then on agenda item 11 this is TPO number 0016 from 1989 in castle camps to revoke a TPO which is no longer current in old camps castle high street castle camps and the recommendation is to revoke the order Miriam you want to tell us about this one so again this is a very similar issue where a TPO was served on a tree in 1989 this is the location in castle camps this is the main we can't see your screen actually bear with me a moment sorry we can now thank you excellent okay so there's the village layout with the main junction of the village there and this TPO was previously in the grounds of the new inn at castle camps it protected a weeping ashtray and if I now just show the 2003 aerial photography you can see the location was in a side garden and sometime between 1989 and 2003 the tree had to be removed again there's no outstanding like enforcement issues or any records as to why the tree was removed at the time okay so so we would ask if it could be revoked thank you that's a recommendation and this is part of an audit so we're actually being able to be better at knowing what's happening with our trees overall is that right Miriam that is correct yes so again I move council can again we have the same situation where a tree has been lost at a time we don't know by somebody we don't know so it's very difficult I really want to if this had happened say in the last couple of years and there was a complaint about it we would normally ask for replanting when a tree is removed we don't seem to have any policy about what sort of delay that we would take up these matters it might be useful but I wanted to ask you say there's no enforcement issues do we need to have an enforcement notice to be able to insist on replanting how would you make sure that somebody replanted are we precluded from requiring replanting if we can't identify the person to serve the enforcement so enforcement cases have to be created within three years of the tree work being undertaken so because these are so old they couldn't even if we thought there was some kind of nefarious reason for the trees removal we couldn't take it up if it had happened recently we do have a very strong enforcement team and they work with me to create things like tree replacement notices etc but I'm afraid this is somewhat older and we can't really raise a case from some time before 2003 so the critical issue is three years three years is the key period of time yes thank you so I move that we take this by affirmation that we revert so Councillor Williams did indicate which it I was only going to make a point to suggest that we went to the vote really because I would say it's hard to enforce I mean Councillor Batch and I were just about alive for this one but we weren't for the last one so I think it would be a bit hard to trace back so happy to go to the vote thank you there's someone revealing good so move to by affirmation to revert that TPO yep good thank you very much agenda item 12 on page 27 this is in Caxton is the same this is a good news so this is to serve so not only we taking away we are creating and serving TPO's and this is on a development conditional on a developments conditional tree planting in first farm St Peter Street Caxton and the recommendation is that a TPO is to be served thank you Miriam so just to confirm can you see my screen yes give me just flick through so this relates to a current development site at first farm in St Peter Street Caxton here is Caxton and the red arrow points out the site and then I've just put in a couple of closer images so that you can get an idea of the lay of the land and the position of the site that's a former farm and now is going to go over to eight dwellings so this item is to request permission to serve a non-emergency provisional TPO on conditional tree planting this tree planting has been agreed to under discharge of conditions associated with the erection of the eight dwellings the boundary trees on the site will be especially important to the setting and with the topic first discussion during the planning application process and most parties agreed that they were quite pivotal to the development soft landscaping is conditionally protected for the five years after installation but the order would seek to extend their preservation over the following decades the focus of the order would be on the external boundary trees rather than the internal streets trees these are the long term structural boundary trees including field maple and hornbeam a provisional order will be served and if agreed to and the interested parties will then have a period of time to give representations or object to the order the council can then consider these issues and choose to confirm with or without modification or not confirm the order thank you I'm sure I will speak on behalf of everybody you have difficult decisions and a landscaping is a key part of that and we want you to see that but then this comes in to be protected so that's good I noticed on the plan that the field to the north a joining field is marked as the menorial earthworks and there's indications of earthworks is this a protected site and will the boundary trees threaten the underground remains that might be there no it is not a protected site and they won't damage the earthworks there was already a row of trees and kind of I think hedgerow is a bit of a grand term for what it was that was in that location and so but it was not of high quality so they removed some of the material that was perhaps more dangerous or was not fit for purpose and so this is strengthening that boundary and then providing more trees going forward thank you, thank you very much and so again continue to retake this by affirmation oh sorry thank you chair, just a quick clarification I noticed where I'm saying it was not an emergency TPO but I mean what I'm trying to understand is if we don't put it on now isn't there a risk that the trees could then be cut down in the meantime by the time we get to put the TPO on it is there a risk I think is my question in this location and time no there isn't because these trees have not actually yet been planted so it is possible to issue a conditional TPO on trees which have agreed to be planted either on development sites or because a TPO tree has had to be removed and we conditioned its replacement we can then condition the TPO onto the new planting even though it hasn't been put in the ground excellent, you're doing brilliantly here this is fantastic can we take that by affirmation that we do agree to serve that TPO thank you very much agenda item 13 this is a review of the local list of validation requirements of planning applications that we've been receiving some information about through council emails as well I think we have Sharon Brown hello Sharon with us do you want to explain this item to us Sharon yes good afternoon everybody hello this is a procedural item so all local planning authorities are required to have a local validation list in place to supplement their national validation requirements the local list sets out the council's requirements in relation to information to be provided with planning applications the requirements need to be related to local plan policies and adopted guidance and be necessary and reasonable the local list has been subject to consultation Appendix 1 attached to the report includes the validation list schedule of requirements Appendix 2 attached to the report summarises the consultation responses and the officer comments on those and whether changes are being proposed a parallel process has been carried out in respect of the Cambridge City Council local validation list and this was agreed for adoption by the city council planning committee on the 30th of June whilst ideally it would have been preferable to have a single joint validation list combining the south cams and city council requirements it hasn't been possible at this stage however there's will be opportunity through the planning service review process which has recently started to reconsider this and to carry out a further update in due course so the recommendation is as set out on page 132 of the agenda papers that the local validation list be approved for adoption thank you very much I'm pretty sure I'm just looking at the consultation responses we did consult with parish councils didn't we on this as well I'm sure I've seen it on agendas but it only lists a few is that because we didn't have anything back from parish councils so we're checking not missing something so that's the first thing and the second one is a bit of a plea it might not be possible that if we're looking at changes it really does help if we've got track changes from the original so we can see what is actually different so just a couple of minor points thank you chairman so the consultation that was carried out was generally an open consultation which is consistent with the way that consultations are carried out on validation lists so the consultation was published on the council's website and comments invited parish councils were advised about it informally rather than formally and I think the only mail out that was carried out in respect to the validation list was in relation to planning agents because obviously the planning agents are the largest group of stakeholders in terms of submitting planning applications so it was more of a general consultation an open consultation so for example Cambridge Pass Present and Future responded as part of the open consultation process and just apologies about the track changes as you can see though was a relatively small number of responses to the validation list consultation as a whole but again this is consistent having looked at the consultations carried out by other planning authorities and looked at their consultation responses again I think given that this is a technical process and more of a procedural process they tend to attract quite a small number of consultation responses That's what we want to come back Thank you, yeah it was just could you just confirm that no parish councils have responded and it got into the consultation That's what I was clarifying just to make sure I missed Thank you That's the whole case Thank you another question I guess it's a statement just to say I'm glad that we've got this here now because it's hopefully going to enable us to get applications that are better and because perhaps we have lots of validation issues ongoing and this is guidance for those who are submitting applications It's good quality applications that can be balised there quickly and enable us to actually process the application efficiently so I do welcome it Any other comments? Yup, I've been through it all and it does seem that you've addressed every single one of the comments they seem a lot but they're from a few people on many points but I do see that they've been addressed every single one of them so that is committee I move that as per the recommendation that we do approve this for adoption this revised local validation list Can I take that by affirmation? Thank you very much Sharon Thank you and we now move to agenda item 14 which is the enforcement report and sadly we hear that Yes chair I'll give a brief update unfortunately the enforcement officer is taking on well this morning so he has emailed me with three updates which I'll just quickly run through related to the items listed in the agenda papers so on the crowd-aise site at Linton a further meeting has been held between the planning officers and the developers to move forward with the matter regarding drainage and planning enforcement are not currently instructed to take any further action at this stage On Burlwash Manor a letter under caution has been sent to the owner advising that a prosecution is to commence and on Whitehall Farm the planning agent for the owner was contacted and they have stated that an application will be submitted by the 19th of July so those are the updates that I've been provided with I'm happy to take away any questions and refer them back to the enforcement team otherwise if members want to approach directly I'm sure that's fine too thank you Thank you for including Whitehall Farm on the agenda and I look forward to seeing the application come in as officers will be aware that has been promised quite a few times so if we can make sure that we're on the ball on the 19th to make sure it actually comes in this time thank you Cantha Ross Just a very quick thank you if it could be passed through to Julia I reported something to Julia just a couple of days ago that had been confirmed by one of my parish councils up in the hills and I got an immediate response from Julia the next month, the next day just really hours to say that she was on to it she was going to get something activated immediately so I think that is superb and very very quick especially in the circumstances that officers are still not working properly here so if it could be passed on I'm grateful and I'm sure my parish council will be very great for when I report it to them Thank you chairman Thank you very much and we do hope that it gets back to us So agenda item 15 Appeals Yeah just one brief update in relation to hearings so I think at the last committee I advised members that there was to be a hearing at the end of last month in relation to the two appeals at land at Mill Lane Sauston that hearing was postponed as the applicant had failed to display a site notice on the form so the planning inspectorate had no choice but to delay that so we are waiting for a rearrange date for that hearing the reason I raised that one is that members are interested in appeals related to FIVIS supply and the other one just to highlight is the appeal at land at and to the rear of 1332 where they are following very similar argument to the appeals at Sauston so just to bring that to everyone's attention as well we don't have dates for those hearings yet though so keep them informed on that Thank you Any questions? Just on the one that was just mentioned you said the abbey group from that 1332 it's gone down as a non-determination that's going through will we be giving a view as to what we would have said I just recall sometimes that application down to committee that have gone through a non-determination but we still give a judgement as to how we would have voted if that makes any sense to all I'll need to refer back to the case officer to ask whether that's happening this particular case it is possible has happened in the past so I'll take that away I don't know it's correct but on the enforcement notices you've got three in May and then one in the calendar year to date does that mean that the does the calendar year to date just mean the months before May or is it just that you transpose the figures Where are you soy? I'm at page 185 at the top You've gone back? We've gone past enforcement on appeals now Notwithstanding chair I'll ask the question Anything else? I just want to check the group set up after the pass report I just want to check it's not met recently because it was I think back in the last meeting somehow I got left off the distributionist and get invited so I just want to check it hasn't met rather than I've just I was on the priority list to re-establish it Can we make sure I get back on that distribution list if it's the date because we don't know I haven't had that date Well we will make sure that everybody gets the invitation Yes Okay That is everything for today's agenda Thank you committee Thank you everybody