 Dwi'n radd. Mae nemu ni, Neil Goff. Am yng Nghaethau Llywodraeth, dwi'n radd, ddefnyddio, ac i rŵs cyfnod yr unedig o ran ymddowsu i ddechrau pinodd yn y bwrdd o'r adrodau ac wedi'u gweld, maen nhw'n gwirionedd gyda cyfnod. Mae'r newid i'r ddau, gan gweithio'r hiad Ynwys Gweithwyr those present in the room. If attending the meeting in person, we ask that wherever possible you wear a face covering at all times. Please also keep to the one way system in the chamber and please use the hand sanitizer and sanitising wipes provided. Whether present in the chamber or virtually, please make sure that you do not switch your microphones on unless you are invited to speak. Those who are participating virtually should, if possible, use a headset microphone. All participants should speak slowly and clearly. Please ensure that you have switched off or silent any other devices that you have so that you do not interrupt proceedings, which I will do now. The normal procedure at Cabinet is to take votes by affirmation and we will continue with this tradition. When we move to a vote on any item, I will ask if members agree with the proposal. If any member wants to either vote against a proposal or to abstain, then a roll call will be taken. I will then ask Cabinet members to speak into the microphone so that their vote is clear both to Cabinet and to those watching on the webcast. Members should respond for, against or abstain when their name is called. Only those members present in the chamber will be able to move and second motions in vote. Members present virtually may speak in the debate. Please make members who are attending virtually indicate a wish to speak by the use of the chat in the teams meetings. Those present in the council chamber should indicate their wish to speak by raising their hand. I will ask the chief executive to keep a note of the order of speakers both virtually and in the room. Members of Cabinet will be entitled to speak before non-Cabinet members starting with remotely participating Cabinet members. Other members who are not Cabinet members will then be able to speak starting with any attending remotely. Cabinet members present, I will now invite each of you to introduce yourself. Can we perhaps start this end of the table? John. I'm John. Bachelor, councillor for Linton and I'm the lead Member for Howe. Good morning, councillor Peter Macdonald and the councillor for Duxford and responsible Cabinet Member for Business Support. Good morning, Brian Melds. Lead Member for Environmental, Environment and Services. Environmental Services and Licensing is actually what the title is. Thank you. And Member for the Sallstone. Good morning everyone. To me, Hawkins, Member for Codicot Ward and the lead Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Delivery. Thank you. Good morning. I'm John Williams. I'm the lead Cabinet Member for Finance and Staffing and I'm a member for Ben Dyddon and Forbill Ward. Hello and Bill Handley. I'm the Member for the Villages of Over and Willingham and the lead Member for Community Resilience, Health and Wellbeing. Thank you. We have a number of non-Cabinet members present in the room as well. So Heather, would you like to introduce yourself? Thank you. My name's Heather Williams and I represent the Mordins Ward. We also have a number of councillors, I think, who aren't cabinet members who are present online. Would they like to introduce themselves? I think Claire Daunton first. Yes. Thank you, leader. I'm Claire Daunton and I'm one of the members for the Fendit and Full Born Ward. Jeff Harvey, please. Yes. Jeff Harvey, Member for Bulletin Ward. And Richard Williams. Hi, Richard Williams, Member for the Wittlesford Ward. Thank you. Are there any other members on the call who I have missed? Thank you. We also have officers from our senior leadership team present, both in person and online. We have Liz Watts, a chief executive, Rory McKenna, some monitoring officer, Peter Maddock, Head of Finance. I think Stephen Kelly is not with us. He's unwell. But we have Chris Carter from the Joint Planning Service as well, and Sharon Brown as well from the Joint Planning Service. Plus, Democratic Services brought staff in a number of officers who are present for individual reports, and we will introduce them when we get to our item. Also, Jeff Memory, I think, part of the senior leadership team and the Head of Transformation is also on the call. Okay. Moving on. Apologies for absence. First of all, I'd like to declare the meeting court. In the apologies for absence, John. Thank you, Deputy Leader. We've received one apology of absence from Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Council. Thank you. Okay. Moving to item three, declarations of interest. Do any members have any interest to declare in relation to any item of business on this agenda? Nope. Can't see any. If any interest does subsequently become apparent later in the meeting, please would you raise it at that point. Okay. So turning to item number four, minutes of the previous meeting. Members are asked to approve the minutes of the meeting held on the 5th of July. I move the approval of those minutes as a correct record. Is that seconded? Thank you, Mr Councillor Batchelor. The members agree to approve the minutes. Agree. Does anyone wish to vote against the proposal? Anyone wish to abstain? Cabinet therefore agrees to approve all the minutes as a correct record by affirmation. Item number five on the agenda is public questions, but we have no public questions which have been submitted. Item number six, issues arising from the scrutiny and overview committee. My understanding is that the scrutiny and overview committee don't have any issues relating to any of the items on this agenda. That's Cedsel Milne's. Thank you. I'd just like to thank the scrutiny committee for its contribution at the meeting. I can confirm that the lead officer Rachel Jackson and I are working and using their contributions to the formulation of the policy that will be coming forward. I think it's a good example of how scrutiny can make early interventions in policy development. Thank you. Just for the benefit of the other members and members of the public, what was the policy you're referencing? So we had a long conversation about street trading and consent streets. Thank you very much indeed, but there's nothing relating to items on the agenda today. So we will move on to item number seven, actions taken under chief executive delegated powers. Members, you are asked to note this report. The action which was taken relates to the national lockdown business support policy and the growth fund policy which was issued on the 14th of July. Do any members have any questions or comments about that, the chief executive? Okay, so we will just ask to note that report. So moving on, we have now the item relating to the naming of Newtown at Water Beach. I think Councillor Hanley will introduce and move the recommendations. I think we have officers on the call as well. I can see Ryan Curtsy who is on the call. Ryan, is there anybody else on the officer call who is with you? Good morning, Deputy. No, there's no other officers present. I believe Jeff Membrey is representing the paper and then we've got a representative from RLW Estates and Urban and Civic on the call as well. Okay, thank you very much. If I can now hand over to Gatswell Bill Hanley to introduce the report and move the recommendations. Thank you, Deputy Leader. The naming of the Newtown at Water Beach is an important milestone. The paper presented to Cabinet today is a result of a two-stage, 12-week public consultation by the developers. I'm pleased to see we have representatives from the developers here on the call today. Consultation booklets were sent out to over 3,000 properties in Water Beach and surrounding villages. The consultation was marketed through the developers' regular newsletters and various online media. There's also a dedicated web page which contains all of the consultation material. Despite the publicity, a new relatively small number of responses were received, but those that were received were both constructive and helpful. The first phase of the consultation found that just over half of the people who responded preferred the name to cover both the Newtown and the existing village and opting for the name Water Beach. This was further explored in phase two by a series of three workshops involving a wide demographic, including representatives of Water Beach Parish Council, local county and district councillors and other interested parties such as the Water Beach Heritage Group, the Primary School and Water Beach Action for Youth. All three of these workshops supported the whole place approach using the Water Beach name. Although there were some suggested alternatives such as Water Beach North or North Water Beach, in the end the alternative suggestions didn't really go on in much support. The conclusion of the consultation is that Water Beach should be the name of the new settlement, including the existing settlement. The options for Cabinet today are laid out in paragraph 15. Cabinet can note the developer's consultation report of Pentaxe, affirm the development's consultation process and agree with their proposal that Water Beach should be the name of the new settlement in Water Beach Parish, omitting that includes the existing settlement. Obviously the alternative is to reject the findings and suggest an alternative course of action. I would like to make this proposal that we accept the paper. Thank you, Councillor Hansley. Is that seconded please? Yes, Deputy Leader, I'd like to second that based on the consultation response and the support from the Parish Council. Excellent. Are there any other Cabinet members who wish to speak on this? Councillor Hawkins. Thank you very much, Deputy Leader. I think it's just to say congratulations to all those who took part in this process. I was quite struck by a paragraph in the report that said the overall conclusion was that the name Water Beach should apply to the village and the new town as a whole in order to promote a sense of integration and collective identity. I think that says a lot because people have obviously thought about it and felt that they needed to be that, not with them and us, but a sense of we are one. It just happened to have been here, you know, it was also in the village a bit longer than those who will be in the new town. So I think that probably builds well for the future. Thank you. Are there any non-Cabinet members who wish to speak on this item? Right, so I think we have no other speakers so we can move to the vote on this item. The recommendation is set out in paragraph two of the report to note the developer's consultation report at Pandex A affirming the developer's consultation process and agree the outcomes of developer led consultation which includes that Water Beach should be the name of the new settlement in Water Beach Parish and that this will be inclusive of the existing village. Do members agree with the proposal? Great. Does anyone wish to vote against the proposal? Anyone wish to abstain? Therefore the cabinet agrees the proposal by affirmation. I'd just like to thank the officers and the developers who are participating in the consultation process for their work in reaching this resolution. So thank you very much indeed. Okay, so we now move on to item number nine which is the consultation on the location of the, excuse me, the wastewater treatment plant. I will introduce this report and move the recommendation. So this consultation relates to the relocation of the wastewater treatment plant from Cowley Road, the preferred route has selected by Anglian Water. This is the second public consultation prior to the development consent order submission which is expected to be next year. I think the report highlights a number of issues which will be particularly relevant to our residents focused on issues relating to traffic landscape and indeed even the technology and the environmental impact of that technology. So I would like to recommend that we move this report and submit it as our response to the consultation. Do I have a seconder please for that? Thank you Councillor Toomey Hawkins. Thank you, I would like to second this recommendation. Are there any cabinet members who wish to speak on this item? Councillor Williams. Thank you chair. As this report says that this is the second consultation prior to their submission of their application to the Secretary of State and I have to say and as is indicated in this report, our disappointment at the what is actually proposed to what we were promised at the first consultation. At the first consultation we were promised a state of the art exemplar water treatment works and excuse the pun but what we've got here is a bog standard sewage works. I'm bitterly disappointed that Angli Walter doesn't appear to have taken on board many of the concerns and suggestions that were put forward in the first consultation and as a result of that as you can see we have some serious concerns about this proposed development and I hope that Angli Walter will take on board these concerns in their application to the Secretary of State. In particular the access to the site and that it should have a dedicated access and also that it should enable those working as well as visiting the site to be able to do so using active travel either walk or cycle where at the moment it doesn't appear they can do that. Also how disappointing we are that they don't appear to be using the most up-to-date technology and if they did then the footprint of the site would be a lot smaller and it would have a lot less impact on the landscape. So I personally am very disappointed with Angli Walter. I'm very disappointed that their consultation is more hype than substance and I do urge Angli Walter to take on board the criticisms that we've made in this report and to demonstrate that they have listened to the local communities and they are going to deliver to us a state-of-the-art 21st century water treatment plant which at the moment from the second consultation it's not going to happen. So I do urge them to take on board out our comments and suggestions. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor James. Any other members of the cabinet like to speak on this? I turn to any non-members who would like to speak. Thank you, Deputy Leader. I'd just like to stress as well that the comments I'm going to make are a representation from myself and Councillor Cohn as you know he works up at Edinburgh so he's not able to attend today. So going through the report I have to say that we also were disappointed for some of the reasons that have been outlined. Mainly and I'm going to comment on a few things but the vehicle access I mean what you've put in this report it's the only sensible option in our views so that must happen. And that there is strong local feeling around the landscape proposals and what's referred to and it's quite strongly opposed so I think the comments you've made on here definitely need to be delivered strongly and robustly to Anglian water. There was some concerns if I draw members' attention to page 32 that we had around as a procedural issue so you've got three options. With the first option to endorse the recommended approach to the consultation with authority given to the joint director of planning and economic development in consultation with Deputy Leader and need members to read it planning. To amend the draft consultation response to make reference to any additional issues that may be identified through the ongoing consultation process. That would suggest if that was taken by Cabinet today that a consultation response could be submitted without members or members of this council actually seeing the final version. So ahead of a decision of Deputy Leader for this consultation to go through given it's going to be one of the most important things that is decided should we not as members of the council and the public get to see the response before it's submitted and it's too late if that is to be the case as it's suggested there. And also we're making assumption that these bullet points in the actual body itself there's no appendix that shows the consultation response so we're making assumption here that this is going to be a sort of copy and paste drop. So if you could please clarify because if so there are a few typos that would need to be addressed. And one final matter of clarification from Cabinet would be very much appreciated from Councillor Cohn and myself and I'm sure others that there are serious concerns with the current proposals in Councillor Cohn and I view this is not the right site. Honeyhill is not the right site at all. I'd be interested to know if Cabinet have made a decision as to whether they agree with the site location or not. But if they don't take the concerns on board is Cabinet willing to pull out of the HIF agreement and pull out the project as a whole because it can only actually go ahead if this council is party to it. So if it's not going to be what we were told and for once I think Councillor John Williams and I are slightly aligned in our concerns. Not often people were saying this council. But we have to be willing to pull out of this if it's not the right thing for our residents. Does Cabinet have that intention and will. Thank you Deputy Leader. Okay, thank you. So in terms of the your first question, can I ask Sharon to Sharon Brown to comment? I think the consultation response is due on the 18th of August. So Sharon, could you sort of give us some guidance as to whether we could possibly circulate another draft for further comment before submission or is that not possible? There are still some consultation responses to be received. So we're still expecting some of the remaining consultation responses. What I would say is that we have this week received the response from the quality panel. This item was considered by the quality panel a few weeks ago. We now have their detailed response, which generally accords with the draft response that's referred to in the report. So there is the opportunity for a final version to be circulated. And Sharon, can you give two questions on that? First of all, roughly what the timing you would anticipate for that final draft to be circulated in order to meet the 18th of August deadline and presumably you would circulate that through email. Is that correct? And then any subsequent changes to that could be done in accordance with the recommendations here. That's right. So I would recommend that it would be circulated at least a week ahead of the deadline to ensure that we could respond fully before the deadline and that that communication would be via email. I was just going to come back on that one particular issue and say, so this final draft, will that enable, while it be circulated, will it be enabled for members of council to make comment on? Because ultimately that could result in another draft and potentially agreement which would be difficult to do without in a meeting where agreement could be found there and then and going through email exchange and will it be made available to the public? So let me say that if we go through around from the 11th of August by email, it would appear to me that then comments which come in there could be incorporated into the draft. In the recommendation there is a delegated authority to the joint director and planning and economic development consultation with me to make any changes and that process I would envisage for that. Given the time frame here, we could go around in endless loops here. So we will afford one opportunity to go around again and then we will deal with it by delegation. In terms of the process for then making the final version of the submitted reports available, maybe I could again ask Sharon Brown to comment on what that would be and whether they would be made public and how they would be made public if so. So yes, we would make the response public. It isn't a statutory consultation but given the level of public interest we would make the response public. Sorry Sharon and how would you do that? How would that be made public? I think we should put it on the website. That would be my recommendation. It might help to put it with the consultation response in phase one so that people are looking, it's in the same place not dotted about. Thank you. In terms of your second question, I think we have raised here a number of questions associated with the plans which Anglia Water currently have. They went through a process of their own which will be tested in terms of the site selection. At this stage we are raising a number of issues which I think are made very clearly in this report actually concerns which we have and members of the public which we sincerely hope that Anglia Water take on board and your points made about the relationship to the HIFBID and the imports of that hopefully will give way to Anglia Water making changes and taking on board the points which we are making to make this a scheme which is acceptable. Thank you. Councillor Daunton. Yes, thank you, Chairman. I speak as one of the elected members for the ward in which this side falls. I'm very glad to have the opportunity to speak about this response. I share, Councillor Daunton-Williams, a deep disappointment in many elements of it and the fact that it falls short of what Anglia Water were promising. I mean, as we all know, there was serious concern about the location, the site selection, but also over the hopes that have been built up and not fulfilled in what Anglia Water has been offering. I won't repeat what Councillor Daunton-Williams has said. As I said, I share his views, but I would also draw attention to the importance of the falling short on biodiversity, the 10% and also falling short on taking the opportunities to use the latest technology in the development of a new water treatment plant and the opportunity that offers to use the very best technology in water recycling and all the other aspects that Anglia Water could use. Also, I think that they have made commitments which, in the initial stages, they made commitments which they don't seem to be following, which they don't seem to be able to fulfil. And I think this report, this response highlights that and I think that's a really important element of the response that we really do need Anglia Water to fulfil the promises that they made. And finally, very important to the local community is the whole issue of access and the option 3, the dedicated route into the site. The choice of dedicated routes is really important for the villages most affected in my ward. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Baxter. Thank you very much. I'd just like to clarify one point. The Cambridge quality panel made their report on the 14th. This report, it says, incorporated informal feedback. Could I just check that their official report didn't add any further substantive items? Can I ask Sharon Brown whether you'd respond to that, please? Yes, so there were no further substantive points that were raised by the quality panel beyond the key points that are set out in this report. The quality panel did make a suggestion that Anglia Water should have considered consulting on three landscape options, setting out pros and cons. So that's one of their suggestions. They also focused very much on new technologies, which they said should have been considered. So obviously that's in line with the report and also were disappointed in relation to the biodiversity net gain issues in particular, feeling that that illustrated a lack of ambition. So generally, very much in accordance with the report, but just that suggestion about consulting on landscape options instead. Thank you. Sorry. Are we taking that on board then, the landscape options, which apparently is... I think there was reference, wasn't there, in the report to the fact that there was only a single landscape solution which was provided. We'll take your comment as to... I didn't see a reference to the fact that there should be three in the consultation response, but maybe we could include that in the subsequent draft, which we will then circulate. So thank you members for that. I'll just make a comment that what we've heard, I think, is a sort of universal kind of support here for a robust response to what is a really quite disappointing proposal. So I'm sure officers will take that on board, that the feeling of the members here and the need to hold Anglia Water accountable to the promises which they have made and where we feel that they are falling short. I think that the report though clearly does come across as being very critical and hopefully have some impact in terms of shaping their thoughts as they go forward. So let's now move to the vote. The recommendation is set out in paragraph 6 of the report to endorse the approach set out in this report and give authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and Consultation with Deputy Leader and Lead Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Transport and the Lead Cabinet Member for Transformation and Projects, otherwise known as me, to amend the draft response to make reference to any additional issues that may be identified from the ongoing consultation process and to submit response on behalf of the council, recognising, as Councillor Williams has suggested, that we will have one more cycle through members for this report. Do members agree with the proposal? Does anyone wish to vote against the proposal? Does anyone wish to abstain? Therefore, the Cabinet agrees with the proposals by Affabache. Thank you again to Sharon Brown and her team for work on this and I hope that we will be able to incorporate the additional comments from Councillor Batchelor in the response and get further input from members in the process. So thank you very much indeed. Okay, so we now move on to item number 10, which is another critical important piece of infrastructure in our area, which is Cambridge South Railway Station and the response to the consultation on that. I will introduce the report and move the recommendation to endorse the response in this report. This is a statutory response to a consultation by Network Rail in this case for planning consent to the Secretary of State for Transportation. And again, as in the previous item, which we referred to, this report picks up on a number of issues of concern which have been raised and are represented in the consultation. Do I have a second up, please, for this report? Councillor Timmy Hawkins. Thank you, Deputy Leader. I second this motion to adopt the response in the report. But in doing that, if I may say a quick word, I am concerned about the proposal contained, or that Network Rail have made, regarding the biodiversity net game and the way on which we are doing it. I am concerned about the issue of achieving that, which seems to be either off-site or working with third parties on their site. And I think this needs to be looked at properly again, so I don't see how they can leave that in the hands of third parties. The other issue that I'm concerned about is how passengers will get from the station to Edinburgh, for example, in terms of cycleways and footpaths. That doesn't seem to be included in this. I might have missed it, but I think we ought to strengthen that as much as we can, because there will be those who will be using it to get to Edinburgh. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other? John, Councillor John Williams. Thank you, Deputy Leader. Yes, I'm picking up on the points that Councillor Hawkins has made. I, too, am disappointed with the biodiversity net game. And I think it's, we must point out to Network Rail that Canberra South is part of the OXCAMR, and the ambition of that is to have at least a 20% by the biodiversity net game. So I would expect Network Rail to conform to that, and I look forward to them amending their proposal to deliver what we are expecting of the OXCAMR, as Canberra South Station is part of that OXCAMR. Also picking up on the point that Councillor Hawkins made about travel to and from the station. The station is on the very western boundary of the Biomed campus. It is some 15 minute walk from the station to Edinburgh's hospital, which is on the opposite side of the Biomed campus. And again, I'm disappointed that Network Rail offer no proposals to support the development of a sustainable public transport and active travel plan to enable train passengers to access and those that work on the site to access the station. Without resorting to the use of cars. One of my great fears is that we could well see many people using private hire and taxis to travel between the station and some of the employment centres because there isn't an adequate public transport network, although it's not an adequate cycle. I hope that electric bikes, for example, could be provided at the station to enable that last mile trip to be accomplished. So I am disappointed by Network Rail's response and plan and I do hope they take on board the environmental issues that are lacking at the moment in their plan. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Williams. Can I just, we've got Chris Carter, who is the officer involved in this project. Chris, would you like to just, I know you've covered in the response the biodiversity net gain and made reference to the council's 20% ambition. I think we probably could include a reference there to the OXCAM arc as well. But would you like to make a comment about the sort of active travel issues and that sort of connectivity to the rest of the annual website? Thank you, Deputy Leader. It's probably worth setting in the context of a piece of work which was just commenced with Adam Brooks and the Cambridge University Hospital Trust on a refresh of the Adam Brooks Hospital's master plan. That will include connectivity between the proposed station and the hospital as well as within the wider biomedical campus. So whilst it's not explicitly cited in this response network, but rarely it is a matter which is on the agenda for discussion with the hospital and partners through that work. It sounds like we could make reference to it in this response though. Yes, I think we could add reference that if members so wish. Yeah, okay. I think that's the case. I can see nodding heads. Do any non-cabinet members? Castle Williams. Thank you, Deputy Leader. I only want to say that I do endorse particularly on paragraph page 53 in relation to the concerns around net biodiversity gain. And I think also we want to be gaining not just relocating. I think that's a really important thing which and these things often do slip. So very much want to see that robustly. And the language has been used about hopeful and, you know, hope we're taking on concerns. Can I please urge cabinet to be strong on things like this? You will, I'm sure, be listened to, but you need to be really robust, confident and be a bit more demanding. There's no point just putting up a mild protest on these things. If you truly believe them then you should be shouting from the rooftops. If you think something's wrong you should be saying it's wrong and doing everything in your power to change it. So some strengthening of the resolve of cabinet on issues such as this and the previous item would be very welcome, Deputy Leader. Don't underestimate our resolve. You need to show it then, Deputy Leader. Okay, excellent. So I think on the biodiversity net gain we've covered that in the response. I think we're going to make reference to the arc ambition as well. Do I have any other comments from non-cabinet members? Okay, nothing other than members. Okay, so this response is due on August the 2nd, which is early next week. So moving to the vote, the recommendation here is to endorse the draft formal response in Appendix A subject to a couple of changes which we've added here and give authority to the joint director for planning and economic development to make minor amendments to the consultation that's appropriate. So these will be drafting changes given the limited time available. Do members agree with that proposal? Does anyone wish to vote against the proposal? Anyone wish to abstain? Very good. Again, thanks very much to the officers and as I mentioned before on the previous item you have our full support to be robust in your interaction with Network Rail on these issues which are clearly, they have some way to go. Okay, moving to item number 11, which is the black cat to cats and givets widening. Again, this is a response to consultation. I will introduce the report and move the recommendation on this. To cancer Heather Williams point, this report is probably of the three we've just reviewed. I suspect the most challenging to the applicant in terms of their current plans relative to our expectations. But the key comments are in the report. Could I have a seconder please for that? Councillor Brian Milne's. Are there any cabinet members who wish to speak on this item? Councillor Tumi Hawkins. Thank you Deputy Leader. I think this particular infrastructure, yes, it is welcome but I am disappointed in the way that highways in England have responded and the information that they've given or not as the case may be. And the assessments that I am aware of also suggest that the traffic implications would have significant impact on traffic at the Curtin interchange. Which I know is not part of this project but they did admit it would. As everything else, we have a serious problem with access to the M11 from this side of town and it's just getting worse without any hope of solutions being provided. But, you know, get off my hobby horse, they've not been as responsive I think as they ought to be. Councillor John Williams. Thank you Deputy Leader. There's a trend here, isn't there? If I observe angry water, network rail and now highways in England, have they not read the policy of this council of being green to our core? Because in so far, those three organisations, national organisations have ignored the policies of this council in their proposals. And I think we should be sending a message to everyone out there including angry water, network rail and highways in England, that we have a policy of being green to our core and we will not accept proposals which are not aligned to that. Thank you Chair. So at the stakeholder meeting of the A428 last week which I attended, it was clear that a lot of the work that we would have expected to be already for a consultation period that starts in four weeks. Is not yet ready. There has been no announcement of the traffic modelling system, so we have no idea on what baseline that's going to be based. And there is a consistency of response now that Councillor Williams will be pleased to know that from both the County Council and the District Council over issues like LTN 120, which is government guidance but which highways England is declining to adopt. So this means there are issues of the permeability and connectivity to be addressed. And whereas we want an exemplar of modern design and active travel, alternative modal shift, it's clear that highways England are far less ambitious than we want them to be. So this report hopefully will, this consultation will be robust enough to pass Councillor Williams' benchmarks in that regard because I think we're all agreed that we want this to be much better than currently is before us. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Mill. Do I have any other cabinet members wishing to speak? Thank you. Any non-cabinet members? Councillor Williams. Thank you Deputy Leader. And yes, we've heard much on this one. I'm simply asking that when it comes to things that this council is involved in also such as the relocation of the water treatment plant, we equally give it that robustness and gusto. And to hear we will not accept proposals not green to the core. Let's hope that that means that when I didn't get the answer earlier that we will pull out of things if they don't show the correct amount of environmental benefits to our residents. In relation to this as well, one thing I would just like to highlight this, ultimately one of the most important things, not the one of, but the environment as well, is the impact that it has to residents during any construction if this is to go ahead. We've seen that on other infrastructure projects such as the A14 and things. And I really would like to stress that of utmost importance to cabinet in any responses given on these matters. Because what we see is increased traffic free villages that aren't really designed for that traffic sometimes. And we need to make sure that they're not left in a worse state than previously. So I would emphasise that as important deputy leader. And like I say, I look forward to hearing this enthusiasm when it's things that actually is in the control of the district council as well as things that are from outside bodies. Okay, thank you very much. Do I have any other non cabinet members who would like to speak to any other members? Okay, excellent. Okay, so I think we've heard with this report quite a lot of concern and quite a lot of issues raised where it's fallen short of our expectations. So we have a recommendation here to submit the report, submit the consultation response. I would sort of like to propose another part of the recommendation because in addition to the actual issues of environments and so forth, there were concerns which were expressed and they come through in the report about inadequacies of the process. For example, the sort of lack of baseline. So rather than sort of incorporate those within a consultation response, which will just be received as a consultation response, I would like to propose another recommendation in line with the spirit of Councillor Heather Williams on this, that we asked the leader to write to the Secretary of State of Transport, hopefully with the support of leaders in other affected councils, the county council and other district councils if possible, expressing our sort of concern about the process here and the way in which the process has fallen short of our expectations. So I'd like to propose that we add that as a recommendation B if that is acceptable to Cabinet Government. Just to say from that stakeholder meeting, I would anticipate support from fellow councils around the area that are impacted by this because that was their response at the stakeholder meeting. So I very much endorse that additional step. So we will ask the leader to write in that way and see if she can get support from other affected public bodies above and beyond the recommendation. So on that basis, can I please move the recommendation to endorse the approach set out in this report, give delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development in consultation with me to review and amend the response contained within the local impact report, written reportizations in the statement in common ground in response to further information that may be forthcoming from the scheme promoters and B to write the letter to the Secretary of State. Do members agree with that proposal? Does anyone wish to vote against the proposal? Does anyone wish to abstain? Cabinet therefore agrees these proposals by affirmation and once again to officers, thank you very much indeed for your work and your report here which clearly highlights to us the deficiencies and again we encourage you to be as robust and as forceful with Highways England to get these changes in their proposals. Thank you very much indeed. Okay, we've now reached the end of our agenda. Thank you very much indeed for joining today's Cabinet meetings. The next meeting of Cabinet is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 1 September at 10 o'clock. Thank you very much indeed and now we can end the live stream.