 We're now live. Good morning, Members, officers and any members of the public joining us today. Welcome to this meeting of the South Cambridgeshire District Council planning committee. I'm Councillor Peter Fane. I'm usually vice chair of the committee. However, our chair, Councillor Dr Martin Khan, has sent apologies for today, so I'll be chairing this meeting. Members, in view of that, we need to appoint a vice chair for this meeting, and I'd like Felly, mae'r ddau'r ddau hynny yn fawr i'w pryd ar yr unigol, oes hynny'n gynllun â'r ysgolio'r iawn? Ynrych. Ynrych, ddau'r ddau. Rwy'n ddau'r ddau yn ddau'r ddau? Rwy'n ddau. Rwy'n ddau'n ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau. Rwy'n ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau. Rwy'n ddau'r ddau, rwyf, yn ychydig ar y cyfan. mae mentioned that the meeting is being live streamed by your presence here in the Chamber and also that our video conference you're deemed to have consented to being filmed and to the use of images and sound recordings for the webcast and for archiving. Those joining us remotely have already turned their cameras off. For those who are present in the room, please ensure that your microphone is刻dwyd di, ac ei bod yn gallu'r cwm yn hollb am yr amwyloedd, ac mae'r hollb yn cwm yn hollbarth y dwych chi'n gofio cais i ddweud yn rhan o'r gweithio'ch dweud. Yn y gwybod, mae ydw i, mae'n rhaid i ao'r amdwyloedd o Benning Cymru, fel sydd yn credu rhan o'r bwysig, felly yna wneud i chi'n rhan o'r gweithio. Mae'n rhaid i ddweud i chi'n gofio ar maes o addyn nhw體m y dailig. Rwy'n gofio amdoedd i'n gweld ar gweithio'r gweithio. â'r cael ei oddi, wrth gwrs, y ddon i'n ei gweithio llawer o'i cyffredinol â y tro cyflwynnys sefydliadau pwydigol, sydd yn y gwneud cyffredinol. Rwy'n dechrau am yr aelodau sy'n meddyllai, rwy'n meddylio arall. Yr apoglŵs. Elor�, arall, rydyn ni'n ddiddordeb ar gyfer apoglŵs o'r apoglŵs oedden nhw? Rydyn ni, dyma. Maeки'r roi gwrs,i'r adliad. If you Yn yourbeth nesaf, Fel ydych chi yn ddiddordebfa ar gyfer y pethau? Mae'r ddiddordebeth ym hwn yn ysgolion hwn yn ei ddiddordebeth o'r writeraeth yma y mae'r sprin iawn i fyngau bobl yn hollion y bydd ynddo gweithio arhaidd hefyd. Mae'n ddiddordebeth, mae'n unrhyw gwerthifth, bydd y dyna'r ysgolion, mae'n hollion rheiddiad yn y pethau ar gyfer y dyna'r y pethau i fynd, ychydigem yn unrhyw rheiddiad ar y pethau ar gyfer y pethau? Rwy'n credu i am y maen nhw'n ddweud fel yr adref a'r adref a'r adref ddweud a'r adref a'r adref gref fawr hwyl. Roeddwn i'r adref ddweud fel yr adref. Roeddwn i'r adref a'r adref i'r adref a'r adref sy'n gweithio. Roeddwn i'r adref yn ddweud. Thank you. Item four minutes of the previous meeting, we have minutes of the meeting held on the 13th of March for approval. That was published as an online supplement. Do any members want to make any amendments to those minutes? So can I take the approval of those minutes by affirmation? Thank you members. Minutes of the meeting on the 13th of March 2024 are therefore agreed as a correct record. Our next item, item five, is an update on biodiversity net gain. So item five is an information report relating to the recent changes to biodiversity net gain legislation. And we have this morning a presentation from John Cornell. And then I will invite members to ask questions afterwards. John, are you happy that we will try to take questions at the end of your presentation, but are you happy if members signal that they want to take questions? So if we can keep questions to the end, but there may be matters that you want to ask as we go through. John, would you like to give us your presentation please? Thank you very much, Chair. I will begin this presentation with Dan Weaver, who is our principal ecologist, who is online. So we are going to do a bit of a double act, but I will kick it off by sharing my screen. I think there is a cost that the technology is going to work. Absolutely, how is that? Better? Okay, so biodiversity net gain, brief update. Biodiversity net gain is a new deliverable for councils and developers. We will be talking through this presentation a little bit about how we measure biodiversity net gain and why it is still important and of course we can take questions. So straight in, what is biodiversity net gain? It is an approach to development that seeks to go further than we have before, rather than simply replacing what is lost as a function of development. Biodiversity net gain seeks to enhance and add to biodiversity and that is really the game changer. So it is about enhancing the natural environment as a function of development and not simply replacing what is lost through that development. If we were to look down on where we are, Greater Cambridge, South Cams, 940 square kilometres, 300,000 people, it looks very green. That is mostly agricultural land. We live in a part of the country that is very nature depleted. So it is deceptive when we drive around and see lots of greenery and trees. It is not very good, it is mainly monoculture. So we are already behind the curve when it comes to our baseline for nature. If we were to look at where we are doing development, we can see major developments, new towns, Water Beach, North South, a lot going on in Cambrill West and of course there is a lot of activity around the Cambridge fringe. So we know that we live in an area not just depleted of nature but also has an awful lot of development pressure. 51,000 new homes agreed between now and 2041 and so we have a challenge in this regard. If we were to look at that same map and put in some spatial context, you can see the footprints of Water Beach, North Sto, just outside the green belt and of course the urban fringe which I alluded to earlier. The development, much like anywhere else, takes the form of urban infill, like this. I think this is the railway station central Cambridge. We have got Eddington, quite a large development on the urban fringe which is mainly greenfield site and then of course we have got the new towns like Cambrill. This is upper Cambrill from the air and one of the interesting things about this picture is that vast green area in the front middle of the screen, I believe it should have been a golf course but it wasn't ever turned into a golf course. So it is now a wonderful country park which benefits not just the people but the nature and that is what we are trying to get to find that balance. If we think about delivering by the western net gain, we have got essentially three different models. We can deliver by the western net gain on site within the development. This becomes increasingly difficult as you move down in size so smaller developments will really struggle to deliver quality by the western net gain. We should be able to of course include green infrastructure and the sorts of green amenities, amenity grass and trees, soft edges, all of that kind of stuff you will still see but by the western net gain of any kind of quality on site, on small sites is going to be very difficult. This I believe is this picture is Eddington, that is probably a pollinator corridor right there. We can talk about off site and nature responds to scale. When we go off site we can talk about the kind of opportunities that scale affords to enhancing and preparing our natural habitat. That is one of the options. Of course we can do a combination of both where we do what we can on site and we go off site for some of that by the western net gain too. If we are thinking about off site we are talking really about habitat banking. Habitat banking is something which we are seeing in Greater Cambridge now and it involves the advanced habitat creation for essentially mitigating the habitat loss. You take your loss at a development site, you mitigate it elsewhere. The credits purchased by developers pay for the creation and the management and the monitoring of any habitat that is lost over a 30-year period. So there is no financial burden on the council on the public purse. This comes from the developers. These sites ideally are strategically located for the best outcomes for nature. We cannot just plop things on bits of farmland willy nilly. They need to be carefully thought about. Of course there are good opportunities for business to facilitate this nature restoration for partnerships. It is important to say that BNT sites must be registered in natural England on a national database. They will need to create and enhance habitat and manage for 30 years. They should be ideally at least 40 hectares in size if smaller. They should be proximate to wildlife sites or other natural habitats and they should be ideally again within habitat priority areas. What we mean by this, if we look at this map, these are advanced habitat creation sites that we already have either agreements with or are in the process of finalising the Section 106 agreement with. So this is how they look in terms of their spatial context within the district. They do align broadly. This is the Cambridge Nature Network. These are the nature priority areas, the designated sites. The map that I have just shown you broadly aligns with what is going on here. Most of those sites are in the Government Hills priority area with one out to the west in the Boulder Clay. Then we are going to talk about measuring BNG because this is a very important point. How do we measure BNG? Dan Weevill is going to come on next. He is going to tell you all about the details of the biodiversity metric, but just as an infographic, very, very simple infographic, if we take the green blob there at the top left, if that is your development site and we develop away in the middle, the old model of no net loss sought to simply replace what was lost. That model never really worked. It didn't do what it said on the tin. But of us in that game goes further than that, so we replace what has been lost by the development, but then we go further. In this instance, the Government is telling us 10% minimum, so that 10% goes above and beyond what we have lost. There are aspirations to go greater than 10% and those discussions move forward with regards to the new local plan. But the model that is being used broadly aligns with something called the mitigation hierarchy, which tells us that at first we should avoid. If we can't avoid, we should minimise damage. If we can't minimise, we should rectify. If we can't rectify, we should reduce. Finally, we offset and that's the concept of offsetting the biodiversity net gain. We go above and beyond simply replacing what's been lost as a function of that development. I'm now going to hand over to Dan Weaver, who's going to talk us through how we measure the baseline and how we measure enhancement and the creation of new habitats for biodiversity net gain. Thank you. Thank you, John. Hopefully, everybody can hear me. Move to the next slide. Thank you, John. Measuring biodiversity net gain, we do this through the use of an algorithm, a mathematical tool based in Excel spreadsheet called the standard biodiversity metric, which is developed by both DEFRA and Natural England since around about 2012. It breaks down the measurement of habitats into certain different aspects. First of all, we look at the size of the habitat or the length, depending on what sort of habitat we've got. Grasslands, forests, we would look at the size, the area, the number of hectares we have. If we're looking at hedgerows or we're looking at riverbanks, we look at the length and all three of those are measured separately. All three of those must provide 10% net gain separately. We can't offset one against the other. We can't have 9% net gain on an area and 25% net gain on hedges and call it done. It's not the way it works. Each individual element must provide their 10% net gain. We then look at something called habitat distinctiveness, how distinctive, how biodiverse is that habitat? Is it aminesi grasslands or is it ancient woodlands? There are different ways of measuring each one of those. We'll have a multiplier, which will create more value to that particular habitat. Then we look at the condition of that habitat. How is it functioning? How well is it functioning? How diverse is it? What sort of species do we have in it? Do we have any undesirable species in it? Do we have bare ground over management, that kind of thing? All of those aspects are calculated through use of the UK Habitat criteria, which is a specific way of assessing habitats. Lastly, we look at the strategic significance of those habitats. Are they a local priority? Are they a priority habitat by Natural England? Have they been shown to be or broadcast as a priority habitat within a local plan policy? Are they part of the LNRS that we have at the moment? Also, when we are creating habitats, we can also look at that strategic significance. Again, if you are creating your habitat within an area that the LNRS has provided as a positive area, that will provide a higher value to it. Additionally, I think we were talking about this earlier on between myself and John, the further away from the LPA or the natural character area that we are within, the less value those habitats have. So there was a diminishing response if you are getting further away from the actual impact itself. Next slide, please, John. Next slide, John. Thank you. Additional to what we would call the main metric, there's also what's called the small sites metric. Now this is mostly going to be used for, I would say, minor development sites. So where we've got sites of nine or less units, less than one hectare or less than half a hectare, if they haven't decided how many buildings they want to put on it. Additionally, again, with non-residential, less than 1,000 square feet, sorry, square metres feet, or where it's less than one hectare, again, if they haven't decided on the number of square metres. Next one, John, please. Of course, there are always going to be exemptions, so these are being brought forward through guidance and the secondary legislation that was we saw in January. So anything that is permitted development or urgent crown development is exempt from mandatory biodiversity net gain. Anything that is exclusively a sealed surface, so anything that is just concrete or is just houses, there is no elements of greenery within that surface at all, it automatically scores zero, so it is technically exempt from biodiversity net gain because 10% of zero is still zero. There is also a de minimis threshold, so anything that is less than 25 square metres in terms of area or less than five metres in terms of length, so that's again, that's our hedros and our river habitats would be exempt from a mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain. Householder applications are also exempt from 10% mandatory biodiversity net gain as our small-scale self-build. Now, we weren't given the definition of what a small-scale self-build was until November last year, so we were kind of rooting around in the dark a little bit on that. We've now been given that definition, and this is nine or less units, is now small-scale self-build or custom-build development. And then again, biodiversity net gain habitats themselves are exempt from biodiversity net gain because the principle is they are biodiversity net gain anyway, so again, they are sort of exempt by the fact that they're doing it anyway really, as far as I can tell. Carry on please, John, next one. So, we have some policies and guidance that we sort of backing this up, so you'll all be very aware of the National Planning Policy framework. From 2012, we had what was called no net loss, as John explained earlier, then there was a distinct change in the MPPF from 2018 onwards where it now starts to ask for measurable net gains on all development. I think that's quite an important point to make. It doesn't distinguish between different types of development, it says all development should pursue opportunities for securing measurable gains for biodiversity. So, we have moved away from that no net loss and finger in the air have they done enough kind of stuff, too. We actually want you to show us that you're not actually making a loss of biodiversity on your site. Next slide please, John. And the big one, as again, all of you will be well aware of. The Environment Act from 2021 is what brought measurable net gain through into legislation, and then it was backed up by the secondary legislation that was passed in January of this year. So, this gives all planning permissions except those that we've already said are exempt to deliver at least a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain, and that's from applications that were submitted, a major application submitted post the 12th of February of this year, and from minor applications submitted post the 2nd of April this year. So, from last Tuesday on basically. It's given us as an LPA an enhanced duty to enhance biodiversity and report on their actions. So, that tells us we're supposed to be monitoring and collecting data in order to give reports to central government. We have to comply with that above duty and look to the nature recovery strategy to look for those strategic gains. So, I mentioned earlier on that sort of political element, the strategic importance of that site that will be mostly driven by the LNRS process, which will inform our local plan of what we believe is strategically important and where we want those large and more strategic sites to be placed. And then, yes, we are in terms of delivering that local nature recovery. There are responsible authorities have been appointed by government. Our responsible authority is the combined authority, but they have delegated the job to county council. So, county council are putting forward the process for working out and delivering that the LNRS at the moment. Next slide please. And obviously we have our local plans and our local policies. Again, our doubling nature strategy, which you will all be very well aware of, and the biodiversity supplementary planning document, which we brought forward in 2022 and our emerging local plan. So, again, we are looking to see if we can go beyond that 10%, if we can move towards 20% how feasible that is, what the viability studies are on those. Other areas and other districts have already brought forward a 20% minimum within their local plans. We are looking to see whether that is something that is possible for us to do as well. Next slide please, John. And so we come to the very, very important planning committee in you guys and what you really need to be looking for in applications where biodiversity net gain is required. So, again, we are looking at making sure that things are a minimum 10% and above. And I think that's the point we have to go with. It has to be a minimum. We can't really say, oh, it's 8.5, it's 9.5, we're almost there. It's got to be a minimum of 10 and we would want them to look beyond that to push towards 20%. Make sure that they are looking at that the mitigation hierarchy has been used. They haven't just gone, oh, we'll just concrete a lot and we'll put it all off site. It'll be fine. That's not the point we're trying to do. We're not trying to greenwash here. We're not trying to create concrete jungles. We would like them to do the hierarchy properly and to look on-site as best they can. So, four per site on-site B&G must be explored. This must also be a reasonable way of delivering biodiversity again, as John stated earlier. There are certain restrictions that we have been given by governments in terms of guidance. So, for example, somebody's back garden is a private garden and we don't have a reasonable right to impose any kind of way in which they should manage their private garden. So, we can only measure it as vegetated garden, which has about the same value as arable land. Unfortunately, that's what we've been told to do and that's what we have to deal with. So, as John said, the smaller the development, one dwelling, two dwelling, three dwelling developments will struggle to provide biodiversity net gain on-site because we can only measure those back gardens as vegetated garden. So, quite often developers will be proposing biodiversity off-site, especially on those smaller ones, and we've got to know how it's going to be secured. Can we do this through condition? Do we do it through section 106 or conservation covenant, which I will come on to you later? And then at the end, we've got to ensure that any of those proposed habitats for enhancement of creation are realistic and deliverable. So, for example, if you have a public open space that's going to be used by people for playing football, having picnics, running around, all that kind of stuff, can we really think that that's going to be quality calcareous grassland? I don't think we can, so we have to make sure that those assumptions are realistic. It can be calcareous grassland, but the condition maybe have to come down to poor condition or medium poor condition because we don't think it would be realistic to impose a high condition on a well-used piece of grassland, for example. Okay, next one please John. So, as I said before, we've got three different ways in which we can secure our biodiversity net gain. So, first and foremost, we've got our planning addition, so next slide please John. We all know what a planning addition is. They're fairly simple. We tend to standardise them as best we can. We can't impose any fees on those conditions. In terms of biodiversity net gain, we can only really apply it to what is within the redline boundary. There was a train of thoughts earlier on in the process two, three years ago that we could also apply it to the blue line. So, if it was within the ownership of the developer, but I think since then the thinking has been that no, it must be within that redline boundary. So, planning conditions for biodiversity net gain should only really be applied to what is on the inside, to the redline boundary itself in terms of management anyway. Next slide please John. Then we have our section 106 agreements. Again, you will all be very aware what a section 106 agreement is. We're trying to use a template, so we've sealed and signed our first 106 agreement with Lower Valley Farm back last summer in August, and we're using that as the basis for agreements going forward. We're trying very hard not to modify it too much. Vanessa Bain, who we all know very well, is helping us immensely with this process, and she is working very hard to make sure that we are on track in getting these things through and not taking too much rubbish from other people's solicitors in the process. One of the advantages of 106 is that we can ask for a monitoring fee in terms of ecology monitoring fee, so that we can make sure that there are resources in place to gain that information, to make sure that information is correct, and to go to sites if necessary. The LPA has a lot more control over those sites within the 106 agreement. They can be complicated, and as we have found out, they can also be very admin heavy. Next slide, please, John. Finally, we have what is called a conservation covenants. Now, this is a new form of a new mechanism that has been brought forward with the Environment Act from 2021. It's a very kind of woolly grey area that not a lot of people have a lot of confidence in at the moment. Again, much like a 106, it can be fee generating. It's probably slightly more flexible than a 106, but the process itself is less transparent. One of the reasons is that anybody that is eligible to become what is called a responsible body can become that responsible body through application to DEFRA, and then they can be the arbiter of that legal agreement on the land, if you see what I mean. They can play the role of an LPA with a 106, but not be an LPA. They have to show that they are a company that has had an interest or has been working within the environment sector for some time, so you can't just incorporate a company on a Tuesday and apply to be a responsible body on a Wednesday. You have to show that you've got interest in the area that you've been working in that area. The LPA itself could become a responsible body to arbiter over conservation covenants, if necessary. At the moment, it doesn't have a lot of officer support because, again, because it's just so woolly and cloudy and it hasn't been done before. We also believe we would need to go through a member process with you guys because it would be an additional responsibility on the LPA and we would need agreement and an input from the members themselves on that subject. At the moment, I believe, I think there are a total of three responsible bodies in the country at the moment. The first one was Natural England. They have stated very clearly that they will not be a backstop responsible body and they will only apply conservation covenants on their own projects where it is beneficial to them. That's the kind of level that we're at at the moment. I think one other LPA, I think Warwickshire, I think, are applying to become a responsible body and I think there's one other that I can't remember at the moment. At the moment, very few bodies are taking up the process of becoming a responsible body and I think it's because it's not been tested. It's new and everyone's a bit scared of it, which is fine. Next slide please, John. Like I mentioned before, we will have to be monitoring a lot of this stuff for a total of 30 years, so each of one of those biodiversity net gain plans must be for a 30-year period. So, we will have to collect regular monitoring data from each of those sites and whoever is the legal holder of that agreement in terms of one of sixes or conditions, it will be us. So, we will have to collect that data, we will have to store it, we'll have to monitor it and we will have to report on it. Natural England will have no enforcement powers on sites that fail to provide those required units. So, it will be down to us as the holder of that legal agreement with the landowner to enforce that legal agreement. So, again, there is additional cost and responsibilities that we must take on in terms of that. So, again, having that ability to gain a fee from the 106 means that we can resource these sorts of actions if necessary. Next slide please, John. One of the things that we are working on hard is how much do we charge for monitoring, how do we work that out. At the moment, we're doing it on a combination of officer time, complexity of habitat, complexity of delivery, that general thing, on how many officer days do we envision per year that we require monitoring, will it take us to work with that landowner. How regularly do we require monitoring data? So, for example, setting up a grassland, we would probably want monitoring data a lot in the first five years, so years one, two, three, four, five, and then less as we go on with woodlands because it takes quite a long time for woodlands to establish, we probably don't need those initial monitoring years, so we could say first year, fifth year, fifteenth year, twenty-fifth years. It will depend a little bit, but again, we have to take that into account when looking at these sections. Sorry, Dan, can you just pause for a second, we've got a fire alarm going in here. Yes, please carry on, thank you. Lastly, we're looking at how do we collect that data. Do we want hundreds of PDFs per year, or do we want a more automatic way of delivering that data to us into a database for us to be able to query directly? So, again, there are certain issues that we are looking at at the moment we are trying to work out, the kinks trying to work out the most efficient way forward in terms of monitoring those post-decision considerations. Next slide please, John. So finally, we're sort of looking at what it might bring. So again, it's a very significant new legislation and it will create a very large amount of new habitats over the next few decades, which I think is a very important thing to remember. The GI on site, where you have large sites with GI, that GI will probably become better quality biodiversity kind of area. So you will have more grasslands of quality, you will have more woodlands, you will have more trees on site. Urban trees score very highly in the metric, so I would have visions you would see a lot more trees in more dense urban developments as well. So hopefully this will help green those areas a little bit more. But again, it does bring new responsibilities to the LPA that we are working very hard to get through and hopefully we'll get there in the end. Thank you very much. I think that's the last slide. Thank you very much, Daniel. There is now time for questions. I would just mention we have also with us today, Jane Green, Head of Natural Environment. Members, I would like us to move on to the next item before too long, so I'd be grateful if Members would keep their questions reasonably brief and likewise of course officers in their replies. I would say that if Members have more detailed questions and would like to submit them in writing, then the written replies will be given uncirculated to the committee. I think we started with Councillor Bradman, please. Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much to both Dan and John for their presentation, which was very interesting. Two questions I'll confine myself to. I'm just thinking that we're conscious that there's a wish to deliver as much biodiversity net gain within sites as possible, and that's obviously an ideal situation to keep it where the development is, but obviously there's that conflict between needing to provide good quality biodiversity net gain habitat, and that sometimes requires us to deliver it off-site. What I just wondered is whether you feel there is going to be a conflict going forward where actually we end up with all our net gain being delivered off-site because that's the best quality habitat, and we end up with not very much in our developments. So I'll ask that, and then do you want to come back for the second afterwards? Okay, the second one is there is a problem with developers who tend to chop down all the trees on their site before they announce an application. So is there any way that we can report an as-was status of a site before? There are a lot particularly in this area. We have a lot of people who record biodiversity. I just mentioned Cambridge Natural History, of which I am a member. I make a declaration, but there are lots of amateur naturalists and the monitoring people whose name escapes me at the moment, who are doing a lot of monitoring of urban sites. So is there any way we can register an as-was condition of a site before an application comes in? So we get a real recognition of how much biodiversity might be lost in the process of development, and therefore what we really need to provide as in terms of a replacement plus 10 or plus 20. Thank you. I can answer those questions if that's okay. I'll answer your second question first because that's probably the simpler one to answer. Within the Environment Act 2021, there is a clause which states that if habitat or trees have been removed prior to the end of January 2020, that when we assess the baseline, we have to assess the baseline prior to January 2020 through aerial photography or other ways in which we can do that. So this prevents clearance of land prior to assessment. So if people have taken down trees or cleared land or they've browned the sites before you've got anywhere near it, we can look at aerial photography from 2020 to say actually you had lots of woodlands, you had scrublands, you had trees, you had grasslands, we will have taken a view that that is what we would like as our baseline. Now when we are making that assumption, we are told within the legislation to be cautious in that assumption, in which means is that we should be cautious not to lose biodiversity. So we should basically think that anything in there has a condition of moderate or good rather than poor to make sure that we cover everything. So that actually puts the developer at a disadvantage because their baseline survey will probably be much higher than it would do if they'd done it properly. So without being sneaky, shall we say. So hopefully we have enough in the legislation to stop that from happening. I don't know whether many developers know that yet, but they will do very soon. Your second question was the within site off site question, which is a hard one and it's difficult and it is going to be a balance, you're absolutely right. What I think we hope is that we're going to get a mixture of different types of habitat banks. Yes, big strategic lower valley farm type habitat banks, excellent, bigger, better, more connected, really, really good. But what we also hope is that parishes and other landowners, local landowners, might take it on themselves to make something slightly smaller within parish boundaries. So for example, if you have county wildlife sites in your boundary and they want to have some kind of buffer around them and the landowner is agreeable, that is something that could be done locally through the parish or through that landowner. So we can move smaller sites closer to parishes, which would be more accessible and more beneficial to smaller development if necessary. So there are ways and means it's a way we have to kind of stimulate the market. We have to give people the ideas and they have to kind of move forward and try and do that themselves. But yeah, it is going to be a balance and we were trying very hard to push as many of these as we can. I hope to answer your questions. We have a number of others. Would you perhaps bear with us and see whether they might deal with your question as well? I would just remind the members I would be most grateful if we keep our questions relatively short. I think next we have Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. Mine is quite simple. The third way of the conservation covenant that you explained, that sounds like a quite uninteresting one, bearing in mind that we have one of the lowest biodiversity stuff here in Greater Cambridge. I was wondering if we couldn't become one of the forefront leaders in taking this on as a responsible body. We're used to being out there in the forefront might as well. An interesting suggestion, Daniel. I don't think we're expecting a firm commitment from me today. I wouldn't dare give one. No, I mean it is perfectly possible. LPAs are almost automatically eligible to become responsible bodies. That is the way that the criteria has been written. So the process for us sort of admin-wise in terms of applying to DEFRA is probably not going to be too in-depth. It may take some time but not too in-depth. I think it's really a matter of balancing new responsibilities, how we manage those responsibilities internally and to be able to make that work properly. So, again, I'm not against it personally, but others officers have more opinions than I do on it. So, again, I think it's a discussion that we need to have and see whether there is a way forward. Thank you. Then Councillor Sampford. Thank you, Chair. Apologies for the feedback. Just could you clarify the basic process? I assume planning officers will push back any application that doesn't achieve 10% per the algorithm. But if there is a discussion between the applicant and the planning officers, the application may come to planning committee even if all the other boxes are ticked just because 10% isn't achieved, will that be correct? So, this would be a planning balance question, I would imagine. From my point of view, we would not, as ecology officer, we would not recommend approval of anything that is required to have mandatory 10% by law. But I believe if that's a planning balance question, that might be a planning officer question. I was going to come in there. I mean, it's one of a material consideration that you, as a planning committee, or we as officers have. So, it won't necessarily come before his planning committee, because there's a scheme of delegation which already sets out what doesn't, doesn't come to committee in terms of the nature of the applications and the issues and the like. So, it's another material consideration that you, as members, need to take into account. You're aware it's mandatory now, so that's about the weight you choose to give it. But nevertheless, it is one of a number and it's not inconceivable that you might have a scheme that does have something that is in the balance and something else is slightly higher priority to members. So, it's not inconceivable that that happens, but it's being aware that, you know, the status it has, the additional weight, and you need to be aware of that when you're making your decisions as do officers. Hence, this briefing is for yourselves. Officers have had the same. And we've done a lot with development industry and with age parish councils and residents groups. It's still very early days for everybody across the country, and I'm sure we will learn as we go through the different metric may well develop over time. Lessons will be learnt. But you can see the clear intention of what the legislation is trying to do. Thank you. Next, Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. It's just, we talk about a lot about net gain. Obviously, preservation, biodiversity preservation is probably more important than that. And I'm just wondering if there is anything in the algorithm or anything that would help give weight to perhaps relocation of things. So, for example, when what we normally see is large substantial trees that are actually doing the job that we need them to do, removed, and lots of whips put in place, which will take, they do count, but they will take so long to actually get to a point where they're as much benefit as the older tree that's gone. Now, there have been some sites and some some developers that make a point of relocating that I appreciate. You can never guarantee that a tree or hedgerow or whatever it is that's moved, can be. But also, we do have some sort of quite unique habitats and scenery and what have you. And it's just wondering whether there can be that weight attached to relocation rather than just destruction and then putting in something new. Sometimes it's nice to keep the old stuff. Well, I mean, I think in terms of trying to sort of keep it and make it better, there is the enhancement option within sites so you can enhance habitats within your red line boundary, which would create better habitats within there. You can also do that outside the red line boundary so you could say have a woodland as part of your biodiversity offsite solution and they could be enhancing that woodland to make it a better place to be. So there is that option. Relocation and translocation of trees. I think this one is being debated by ecologists at this moment in time on many, many Facebook page. So again, we're still trying to get to grips with the with the ins and outs of how we would measure that at the moment. What I would say is I believe there are sort of size restrictions on what trees can and can't be relocated in terms of cost analysis benefit. When they're too big, they just become too big. You lose too many branches and their chances of success diminish. So there's sort of a sweet spot you can hit in terms of size of trees that you can translocate. I know, welcome trusted, an incredible job on translocating quite frankly over 100 trees, I believe, into a new area. I don't think we've counted that as enhanced forest. I think we counted that as new woodland when they relocated it. Planting larger trees with bigger db8, so like over 30 centimetres as a new tree scores much higher than a tree that is less than 30 centimetres. So again, relocating the trees would have a much higher impact to the metric than a small tree itself. So I think there are ways and means. Again, I think the complexity of translocation relocation trees is still a grey area for a lot of ecologists who don't work out the kinks in that particular one. Members, I am keen to move on to next business. I have another question to myself, which I'll be submitting in writing so the answers can be circulated. I think it was important that that session has been held in open sessions so that, because we will need to engage with developers and others as well as with this committee, it's very important this committee be informed. Now on work, Councillor Bradman, you had a further question. Do you want to put that now or put it in writing later? I just wanted to ask, given that we have this new responsibility, are we, as a local planning authority, considering designating any new areas for green space and for, like for example, lower valley farm, but maybe on a slightly less grand scale, but are there any areas that we're considering designating for that purpose? I can take this. I think if you mean, are we, let's say designating, low valley farm wasn't something that we designated, it came forward as a county farm, a county site managed by Bidwell, so that's a whole commercial free market operation that we have no control over. Other than, we can send our ecologists out to check what they're telling us is fit for purpose, is actually fit for purpose, but that's the only control we have, really. What I really meant was, are we thinking for the future and designating land in our local plan to recognise that we need green space? Jane, I think perhaps this is one for you. Yes, I suppose there's two things. There's the local nature recovery strategy, so we'll have this county-wide document which will come through members, and if members are interested, I think the Climate Environment Committee have got a briefing on it this Thursday, but you'll see that and that'll become part of our evidence base for our local plan in due course as well, so that will tell us where the priorities are, both for us that are making planning decisions, but also in terms of landowners, in terms of giving them opportunities. In due course, we will have that on one hand, which tells us where it's really important for nature, where we're trying to prioritise. On the other side of things, we'll have our local plan, our current local plan, our emerging local plan, and that will set out, it will make reference to the LNRS to actually, there's a clear link there, but obviously green open space has a slightly different function, so there might be an element of biodiversity net gain in there, but other uses have to take place, you know, recreation, dog walking, you name it, etc. So it's a combination of documents that we will be using as a planning authority, yourselves as committees. So in terms of, I suppose the other thing to say, the off-site mitigation, the habitat banks that you've heard about this morning, the intention is that once they're there and monitored and are there for 30 years, the aim is to really make those incredibly high value and I understand they may even be getting to almost like SSI type status because it's almost things to follow through. So in the fullness of time, there may well be further designations, but that's for the future and this is of the start of that process. Thank you. All Members, this is an issue which we will be coming back to, not only in relation to the local plan and other work, but also of course in relation to particular applications that we consider, including possibly today. With that, the committee is invited to just note the report that is before us. I think we can do that by affirmation. I don't think I even need a proposal for that. I agree with your decision. Thank you. Let's move on then to item six, which is application number 3203080, outline, the former waste water treatment facility at Cambridge Road, Hawxton. Members will be aware that we've had a number of updates, two particular updates which were sent out on emails. If anyone hasn't seen those and would like a copy, I think Lawrence has some spare copies if you'd like. This is an outline application for demolition of existing structures and redevelopment for employment, both office and laboratories floor space. The use classes are set out there alongside a new amenity building, extension to the country park, associated infrastructure with all other matters reserved for future determination, apart from access, layout and scale, which we will be determining today. There are of course a number of key issues and the application is being reported to committee as it is a departure application. We visited this site on 3 April, so on this at least, and members have received the two updates I referred to. The presenting officer in this case is Katie Christopher Deledys. Katie, would you like to give us your report? I should say that this is of course on page 11 onwards of your printed papers. Katie. Thanks, Chair. I'm just about to share the presentation. Okay, so as Chair has said, the application is that the former waste water treatment facility Cambridge Road in Hawxton is an outline application for demolition of the existing structures and redevelopment for employment, office and lab floor space alongside a new amenity building, including a country park, associated infrastructure with all other matters reserved for future determination, apart from access, layout and scale. Members will have received an update report on Friday in which there have been some deletions and changes to the report wording and some minor changes and deletions to condition wording. A key point is that Hawks and Parish Council support the proposal. The report had stated no objection. A second update report was published on Tuesday in which two late representations were received and the responses to these representations and the issues raised are covered within this second update report. Just a verbal update today at committee, condition 14. As you can see on the screen, there's slight changes to the wording of that condition just to ensure that it complies with condition 14. Then condition 47 has been a slight change to the wording there just to ensure that it complies with the report and the proposed EV numbers. The site extends approximately 20.3 hectares. The central portion of the site, which is marked here as you can see with my cursor here, forms the redundant wastewater treatment facility associated with the former bear crop site. This houses silos, tanks, plant and also the recreation building for the former bear site. The wastewater facility was closed in 2005. The site is heavily contaminated and designated as contaminated land under part 11a of the Environment Protection Act 1990. The site also includes the Hawks and Sports Ground, to the east, which is formerly the sports field belonging to the Bear Sports and Social Club. This is now owned by Hawks and Parish Council. This has passed pitches and two tennis courts and is used for organised sport. There's also a small pavilion marked here with my cursor on the west side of the pitch. The site is bordered by the A10 to the east. There's the A10 here. And the River Cam, which is to the north and then agricultural land to the south and west. Access to the site currently is here from the A10. Surrounding site, you have the redevelopment of the former bear crop site to the east, which forms residential and commercial. This bit here. And then to the north of the site up here is the South West Travel Hub, which will provide 2,250 car parking spaces, 80 velo box cycle spaces, a cycle parking coach hub and public transport routes to Cambridge into the Biomedical Campus. The site constraints, the site lies outside of the Hawks and Development framework within the open countryside in the Greenbelt. It's previously developed land, which as defined in the MPPF is Lawn, which is or was occupied by a permanent structure. The site is heavily contaminated. It was previously used in relation to the form of bear crop science waste water treatment works. It's designated as contaminated land at the partner level of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The site lies within the flood zone one, low risk, and then the northern partner site lies within flood zones two, medium risk and free high risk, with the river cam running close to the northern boundary of the site. Right away, Haaston 116.1 runs south of the site in an east to west direction, connects Hawxton and Haaston to Hazelfield. The site also lies within zone two of the Imperial War Museum, their safeguarding zone. So outline planning permission was granted on the site in 2021 for fair to two dwellings. A current reserve matters application is under consideration. We've got some existing site photographs here, which shows what the site looks like with some of the tanks and silos and buildings on site. Then some more photographs and then some of the wider sites with this graph. This is the sports pictures. Then some of the wider site photographs, the existing access into the site. You've got the sports field here and then the sports fields and pictures as you go along the A10 and then a bit of context for the surrounding sites. So one, we've got adjacent to the site officers, the residential commercial development, which is marked here. Number two, which is here as you go further into that residential development, photograph three, which is the Hawxton bridge over the A10 and then photograph four, which is the Hawxton well. The proposal seek to demolish the existing structures and for the redevelopment to provide a new life science campus along with an amenity building which will be open to the community, a public accessible country park and associated infrastructure. The new buildings have been arranged to sit broadly within the previously developed land. Better 1,868m squared of gross internal floor space for life science is proposed and this is to provide for start-up and growing companies filling the gap between incubated locations and the large corporates. The buildings have been designed to be flexible and accommodate a range of suite sizes to suit tenants of all sizes and stages in the early development. This would be provided for the direction of six new buildings, numbers one to six marked on the plan here and then an amenity building, which is marked as A there. The amenity building would be provided to include changing facilities, gym, cafe, bar, meeting room and external sitting areas. All matters are reserved except for access, scale and layout, which is to be determined. The proposal will be a fossil fuel free, will meet Bream accident as minimum and achieve five credits for water efficiency under Bream, Watto one and maximum credits for Bream, Watto form, achieve letty guidance used to inform the design code and fabric performance buildings in targets and will achieve 10% of our diversity net gain which will be provided off site. We've got the priority plan here which is the remediation demolition plan. The priority plan shows the remediation and demolition as part of the contamination remediation. All land which is dashed in the green is to be remediated in all buildings to be demolished which is shown in red and then the trees marked in orange these ones here are to be removed as part of the contamination clear up. So the prime time which is land use and layout shows the site, the sixth research and development buildings in pink here and then the proposed amenity building marked in purple, the main car park which is marked here in light green, the country park which is mainly to the west and north in the darker green and then the landscaing surrounding the six research buildings as well. So the priority plan showing maximum building heights, buildings one and two which are shaded in red would have a maximum height of 16 meters, building four would have a maximum height of 14.5 meters, buildings five and six having height of 13 meters, the amenity building marked here in purple and would have a maximum height of eight meters. The buildings would have pitched roofs and the pramptorans identify an area of three meters above the maximum building heights for flues. The flues would be detailed at the reserve matter stage as appearances of reserve matter. The building heights seek to decrease as you go further to the west, further into the site and near to the open countryside and films. So pramptor plan access and connection plan, the central portion of the site is not accessible currently to the public and is closed off. Access to the sports pitches here is controlled by by gating access only at certain times. The proposal would allow the site to be publicly accessible with cycle parking connections in a new country park. The main vehicle access to the site is from the A10 which is here and there would also be a designated three meter wide footpath and cycleway running along the access shown in purple and a primary pedestrian route marked in green running through the landscaped area adjacent to the car park. The car park would provide 330 car parking spaces which should be used for the campus and the amenity building. So during the week the car parking will be for the research and development and then the evenings and weekends for the amenity building when sports games are on. A new cycleway pedestrian route from the A10 running along here would come into it to the west and then a new north south cycleway in orange which is marked here connecting trumpington and the proposed south west travel hub and to the south to the Melbourne greenway here which is proposed. This is run along through the site marked in orange. There are two new bridges proposed across the main channel on the tributary of the river cam to the north. These are marked with these blue circles here so they allow access along to the Trumpson Country Park. Within the centre of the campus highlighted in pink this will be a pedestrian zone only and then a restricted vehicle route in blue in the dash blue here is marked which will go around the perimeter of the buildings to allow vehicles to service the buildings and for the blue badge holders parking only. For cycle parking there have been 306 cycle spaces in total which should result in 257 employee spaces 26 visitor spaces for the life science use 13 oversized spaces then 10 visitor spaces for the amenity building. The proposed highway improvements and general arrangements access to the site would be through provision of a new access arm that connects to the existing junction arrangements on the A10. The new highway improvements are proposed so that vehicles can exit the site onto the A10 turning left and right. Currently vehicles can only enter the site from the south and have to exit the site to the north. The access road will be increased to 6.5 meters wide with a three meter shared user path on the north and south to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. A new four meter wide two can crossing is designated across the site access arm. The existing 2.5 meter wide footway to the south and north of the access are proposed to be widened into the carriageway to facilitate a three meter wide shared footway, cycleway plus a one meter verge. The proposals will upgrade the connectivity to Hawks in the wider area. The proposal is supported by the local highways authority and the transport assessment team subject to section 106 requirements and contributions which are detailed in paragraph 9.221 of the committee report. The parameter phasing plan this just shows the proposed phasing for the development. It should be noted that condition 4 of the reference conditions require submission of a site wide phasing plan prior to determination of the first preserved matters application. So I've just got a couple of proposed CGIs showing the arrival avenue from the A10, the access route and then the pedestrian route. Proposed building to the Gable Reveille Elevation Study. These are just indicative CGIs. This building is free and full so the Gable Bay Elevation here. Who's building five and then a proposed view from the west. So 11 viewpoints assessed as agreed with the LPA. The following slides detail six viewpoints which were identified as key views and visualisations undertaken. The existing and proposed so they're showing existing and then proposed year 15 photo montages. So viewpoint one which is a public footpath number five in Hawxton is here and the site is marked in red. So top photograph shows the existing view and then this is proposed view. You can see the event in here and then viewpoint two which is right here which is from the public bridalway number two Hawxton at Rectory Farm. You've got the existing, the top and then proposed. You can see the rooftops here. And then viewpoint three which is the junction of the A10, the London road, just marked. So existing proposed and then viewpoint six which is from Cantolick Road in Haydenfield. So there's a lot further out. And then viewpoint eight which is the A10 Cambridge Road coming away from Cambridge. You can slightly see some rooftops in here proposed. And then finally the viewpoint nine which is the surface path. It looks like a red trumpet in meadows as you can see. So the applicants, the environment agency have maintained their objections in terms of water resources stating that proposed development may individually or in combination with other proposed development increase abstraction and risk deterioration to water bodies in the greater Cambridge area because of additional demand for possible water use. There the applicant has provided supporting information in terms of a submitted consumption study which details the annual possible water consumption. The biggest detail here is that the waste water treatment plant, the annual possible water consumption of 5,840,000 litres with the approved housing development of an annual predicted consumption of 3,784,320 and then the proposed scheme with an annual predicted consumption of 2,950,486 as detailed in the committee report as the development will result in a decrease in water demand compared to the waste water treatment plant and the extinct approved housing development. The proposals will reduce the strain on water resources and the environment. So principle of development in the green belts, the MPPF paragraph 152 states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 184 and 155 of the MPPF define development that should not be regarded as inappropriate development in the green belt. The proposal for the employment office and lab floor space alongside the new immunity building would not align with any of these definitions and would therefore comprise inappropriate development. As a result it's therefore considered necessary to consider whether the development for the office and lab floor space alongside the community building results in any further harm in addition to that called by the appropriateness and then following on from that is therefore necessary to consider the justification put forward in support of the proposal and the extent to which those matters amounts to very special circumstances. In addition to the harm by reason of inappropriateness which we've considered to afford significant weight, the proposal would have an impact on the openness of the site by the introduction of larger and higher buildings in the green belt. This has been afforded significant weight. The proposal would conflict with the purpose of the green belt and the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area in the landscape area all of which significant weight has been given. Substantial weight is afforded to the overall harm to the green belt however the applicant has put forward a list of very special circumstances for the proposal which comprise of economic social environmental benefits. In terms of the economic benefits the proposed development would provide 31868 square of the lab and office floor space to allow for purposes purpose built space for small and medium sized scientific companies allowing for R&D businesses to grow and leading to economic growth within a cluster. The proposal would support 1190 employees within the life science campus and the level employment would support 26 million per annum in earnings. This has been afforded significant weight as a benefit. For the social benefits the proposal would provide a new extensive landscape country park where significantly improved public access for walking, cycling and informal recreation and the provision of a new meaty building and shared car parking for both the campus and for the local community associated with the existing sports ground. The provision of a new landscape country park has afforded significant weight and the new new immunity building moderate weight as a benefit. In terms of the environmental benefits the proposal would result in the delivery of a comprehensive remediation scheme for the heavily contaminated site which is afforded significant weight. The proposal would improve the visual immunity of the site by removing unsightly existing structures making safe the site which currently poses a risk to human health resulting in planting habitat enhancement and ecological improvements. These are afforded limited weight. Paragraph 153 of the MPPO states when considering any planning application local planning authority should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the green belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriate fitness any other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweith by other considerations. So when wearing the overall planning balance the very special circumstances would unbalance outweith the harm by reason of inappropriate fitness and the harm by virtue of the loss of the openness of the green belt conflict with the purpose of the green belt, detrimental impact on the character of the air and the burst impact of the landscape character as required by Paragraph 153 of the MPPO as which the proposal balance is recommended for approval. So a list of material planning considerations which are detailed in the report and also we've covered a lot of these in the presentation. So officers recommendation of approval subject to conditions and completion of the section 106 legal agreement should the application be approved the application will need to be referred to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning consultation England direction 2009. Thank you. Thank you very much Katie we have an opportunity for questions and I see some hands raised. Let me just say that we have also online I see we're joined by both Tam Parie and John Finney from the County Council but I'll leave it to Katie to answer questions for them if necessary. So I think the first question is from Councillor Hanley please. Did the water availability issues the thing that struck me? But I think the officer said that it would go to the Secretary of State so presumably if the Secretary of State is concerned about water availability which there should be they might you know they they they they made I'm just just I'm asking the question how might this in you know how might this affect what we do today you know the fact that the Secretary of State is involved I mean if yeah so you've got to answer. I'll come back on that one if that's all right so the application so the committee can make their resolution to determine it on the decision today but the application then needs to go to the Secretary of State for consultation for 21 days once the decision has been made on whether or not the Secretary of State wishes to call in the application to make their own decision so we will have to send the committee reports the Council's decision notice and all of the consultation responses that we've received and then if the Secretary of State doesn't respond within 21 days then we can proceed with the Section 106 legal agreement and determine the application. The other I guess the other side of it would be that the Secretary of State could call it in to determine the application itself. Thanks Chia I'm just a bit concerned over the water availability issue because what we may make a decision today to to approve this in line with officer recommendation the appeal goes in the planning inspector puts a much less much less importance on the environment agency's objection and so return we got all the expense this bothers me because it's it's a strategic matter the fact that we haven't gotten water in this area it puts us into a very very difficult position here. Before I call councillor Dr Richard Williams who I think is next on the list of questions I wanted to follow up that question for councillor handy because we clearly have to take the objection from the environment agency at 644 extremely seriously they welcome the water efficiency measures proposed however their objection is maintained as they don't feel their concerns have been expressed but in presenting the case we also had on slide what is effectively para 9.180 on page 57 report which points out this the potable water consumption on site according to the calculation is done earlier this year would be I think a 22% reduction on that from the already approved residential consent if you like the fallback for this so I would like officers to give us some advice on what what weight in those circumstances we can put on the remaining objection from the environment agency in this respect just to give us a moment while officers agree who is to address that question and we'll come back to you. I'll come back but Vanessa might chip in as well if that's all right chair so the environment agency objection is if you look at power 6.47 on page 23 of the report so they acknowledge the water efficiency measures proposed but maintain their objection they've got the water consumption study and they understand it will have lower water consumption than the permitted scheme however the environment agency are solely looking at the scheme in front of them rather than the comparison to the extent permission which could be built out on site in which we're currently looking at the reserve matters application so officer assessment and recommendation is on the basis that the proposed development would use 18% less water than the extent permission if that were built however the environment agency objection is purely on the basis of the current scheme in front of you rather than the comparison to the extent permission in terms of how much weight you wish to give it it's one of the material considerations officers have given their view um and compared it to the extent scheme but the committee could add a different amount of weight if you wish to assess differently okay so that is a matter on which we will have to make our own judgment as to what extent we are considering this as though there were no other application already approved and to what extent we're considering this against the water consumption from the existing planning consent chair now um i have next dr Richard Williams but dr Williams if you're prepared to allow councillor and Bradman to come in first on this point that would be appreciated i will give away to thank you thank you so much that's very kind of you thank you dr Williams i wanted to ask for clarification on that point because i wanted to know the timing of these because i suspect i don't know i wanted to ask was the permission for the extent application given before the environment agency issued their their more general report about concerns about water sufficiency because if that is the case then we maybe need to add more weight to the environment agency advice because it's come out since that decision was made um the residential scheme was a 2016 outline permission the reserve matters is current looking at outline here not reserve matters on the a residential scheme the 2016 was outline the reserve matters is currently in with us yes but was the environment agency concerns as a result of their water resources management plan issued since that reserve matters for the residential scheme was issued so the residential scheme reserve matters application is a live application the outline application was in 2016 so before the environment agency issued their current water residential scheme hasn't been approved it's just the outline has been approved the reserve matters is a current live application right okay so i think that's a fairly clear answer and i'm afraid it's a matter on which members will have to decide for themselves how much weight to put on that answer look at original Williams thank you very much chair um just just just on that point i did actually have the the same questions cancer brandon so i think that's a useful clarification i i just want to make a small comment if i can before my questions i think it's worth bearing in mind what we're talking about here is that this application would increase demand by less than potentially the alternative it's not a reduction and the waste water treatment plant closed 20 years ago so i'm not sure we can put place much weight on what was consumed 20 years ago and the situation is very different but anyway i did have a few um clarification questions um my first question relates to the submission of the uk health and safety agency so on page 26 paragraph 676 of our report the uk health and security agency is listed as not objecting but going back to the documents on the website and reading their submissions there are some quite extensive points they made in their first letter of i think the 19th of september that have not been addressed by the applicants in the second letter from november um they say that they they've not addressed the number of the concerns um so i was wondering if the officer could say a little bit more about that because that does concern me that there are unaddressed issues um the way i read the documents and whilst i mean i think it's fair to say the uk health and safety agency don't object they don't exactly support either um so i'd be interested on some some clarification on on that on the question of the supplementary report we got and the concerns raised by uh cancer thornborough from um cambridge city um i went back and had a look at the documents on site contamination and i may be missing something so again this is my question for the officer um the the base material for the contamination reports to my mind seemed to relate to a number of reports which have been compiled compiled over a number of years some of them related to the previous application so um their reports listed go from 2005 through to 2016 so my question would be has there been a recent new investigation of the contamination of of this site or is the material we're relying on entirely based on those um historic reports because i think that will be quite quite important because the the concerns are are quite um concerning um and then just very quickly final point on this issue of need which we seem to be laying quite a lot of emphasis on in terms of counter balancing the harm to the green belt so um you know the the significant benefit of providing lab space again having a look at the documents the only evidence i can seem to find online but again it may be i'm missing it um about need is a report from bidwells um from 2023 so my question is is there any independent because i'm afraid i don't regard bidwells as entirely independent i'm sure their work is very good and it's compiled professionally i'm not questioning the professionalism of it um but they are they they've got two hats on in in a lot of these cases um so is there any independent evidence we have on need for lab space because as you know many of us here sit on jdcc and we're now dealing with applications for lab space to a month we're doing them here we're doing them in in jdcc and in jdcc at the last meeting um one of the um applicants we had or giving us presentations said there isn't a bottomless pit for demand for lab space um and i think there is some concern now that we're approving so much lab space um that in a few years time there's going to be a glut so my question is is there any independent evidence we're relying on for this significant weight we would attach to the lab space benefit i'm sorry for um thinking of time of those questions chair so i'm just going to kind of answer you in a um in order it's not kind of as you answered the questions um in terms of like the contamination um conditions 18 and 19 of the recommended conditions will require um new information in terms of um the contamination um your kind of first question um i'll defer to the contaminated land officer and Claire Sproats who's online um he'll be able to kind of hopefully help answer um your question in terms of that and then i think we'll come back in terms of your question about the lab space Claire are you able to help us on that uh yes um there was quite a lot of information in the questions there um the so the first question what helped with is the one to do with the comments from the uk hsa was it in relation to the historic reports perhaps you could clarify Dr Williams if the question so my question is about the hs um the security agency is i was really asking the officer to address the fact that they have a number of unaddressed concerns so their second letter um says that a number of the points they raised in their first letter have not actually been addressed by the applicants so really i'm looking for clarification as to why we shouldn't be concerned about those because i assume um the implication of the report and the recommendation is that we we shouldn't be concerned about them so i'd like a bit more detail on why we shouldn't be concerned about those yep that's fine um i think really the uk hsa who are kind of supporting us in looking at these with all their sort of specialist information they um it it's kind of should be regarded as fine details that they're looking for so um it's the information that we're looking for now i don't think we expect to substantially change the proposals for remediation or how they're going to go about it there's just some agreement to be had and some work to be done between uk hsa and the applicant to work out some of the numbers um to be worked to etc and so that's bit of work that can still be done by condition so we can iron out all of those details um to get the sort of the final final numbers and final proposals in before they start any work but that's to material changes and how they go about the work wouldn't expect that to change does that answer that question uh so is the answer that the outstanding points are to be dealt with in conditions yes okay thank you that does answer my question and i think we need to bear in mind barathef got six seven six as you referred to answer Williams uk health security agency their comments still stand but they have no objection oh they don't use the words no objection they just clap for that chair they don't actually say no objection they just set out comments okay and in terms of the other point that you had about historical reports etc um the information we have on the site is or built up of a number of phases of investigation it's kind of builds layer upon layer of information adding more um the the reports that are submitted all ones that we had seen before on the previous application for residential consent and a lot of those had been agreed at the time but given some time had elapsed and there had been some updated sort of advice and guidance etc and plus some new monitoring data of the understanding some of the surface water ground water samples that's all further monitoring has continued in that time and and so we were just looking for those to be incorporated in some new reports so it's quite usual to use historical data in combination with all of your more recent to build like an as much as an entire picture as possible thank you i think we've given as much attention to that particular point as we can i'd like to ask councillor Eileen Wilson for her question thank you um on could we go back to the um the the um amendments to the report and the bits about um cycling i i didn't have time to read it when it was up on the screen and my question is um on the amended report that we've received and it says that condition 15 requires cycle parking therefore condition 39 is not necessary um i'm looking at um condition 39 that does actually state a number of cycle parking spaces um but i didn't have time to see when you put up the subsequent amendment whether that means state of the numbers um so condition 14 um which we're looking to change um just slightly kind of changes the wording of the conditions so that the cycle and walking structures and approve of a one-year first occupation of the first building so so really by um deleting um condition 39 um we don't have the number of cycle a requirement of number of cycle spaces because condition 15 only refers to the need for cycle parking yeah i think in terms of removing condition 9 there was a duplicate um of conditions um so that's why 39 was was removed um yeah condition 15 replaces cycle parking therefore condition 39 is not necessary but condition 39 stipulates um 306 covered secure parking but that's not contained in condition 15 i think what i'm going to do is to the end of the debate i will ask officers to clarify the amendments before we take any vote on this um this may be a matter that we'll have to look at in a little more detail and come back to you if that's all right council Wilson right next we have council Lisa redrop uh thank you chair most of my questions have already been asked um so i guess just just to check will access to the sports field um be maintained for the community during the remediation and construction and will they have access to the parking early on because i know that the main car park comes in and phases three and four in the current plans thank you so the aim is to keep the sports field going needs to be maintained um the in terms of the car parking um in terms of like the construction i'm not quite sure how that would work but um there is exist the existing kind of arrangement how it works now so i assume that would be maintained um during the construction but the other sports would be be kept open i wonder whether that's a point on which you'd want to bring in tam pari or if any if they have anything to add thank you uh i have two further questions councillor sanford and then councillor braddenham and then i'm proposing to take a break can i take it those of both relatively short questions because they're going to be long questions we might want to take a break before we being in that case i think perhaps we'll come back to your questions after the break if we may councillor sanford thank you chair and this would be a question for tam pari um we're looking at a car park with 200 plus spaces um are highways comfortable that the access can be modified to accommodate probably 100 or more vehicle movements at big times without causing congestion down the 810 into hoxton and perhaps back up to the m11 um if that points addressed in the report i haven't found it thank you very you chair am i okay to answer please yes sorry 10 thank you hi thank you um no good morning um committee i'm tam pari came to county council transport assessment team so the applicant has done some detailed modelling of the junction both with the um and with the extant permission and also with this um application and this junction that they're proposing actually performed within the what was accepted um for the extant permission and it shows that um whilst there might be some delay in the pmp for vehicles leaving um but overall the junction works better than what we would have with the extant permission if they were to build out the houses on the site so on that basis um i'm happy with with the junction capacity um with the 810 thank you okay right um as i said we'll take councillor Bradham's questions after the break can we take a 10 minute break and be back here at 1145 please thank you very much right we are live welcome back to this meeting of south cams district council we're considering item six and our agenda of the planning committee we've had the presentation from officers and we're just concluding questions of clarification to officers let me just say that at the end of the when we've heard from our public speakers at the end of our debate i will ask officers to just clarify exactly what the recommendations are including the amendment so hopefully that will make it easier for us to come to a view uh next question councillor Bradman thank you chair um so as i said two questions one is about water sufficiency but it relates to the um the water usage comparison made by the applicant personally i found the comparison with the previous usage as a water treatment works it seemed inappropriate to me because the water treatment works doesn't actually use water it simply treats it um as i found that comparison bizarre i understand the comparison with the previously or live application for residential use but as far as i can make out compared to what is actually being used on the land at the moment the nearly three million litres per annum is an addition and i wanted that clarified an addition to what is being used at the moment um shall i come back to my second question when that one's been on no i suggest you keep going right uh the second one is the the matter to do with the contaminated land this may have been gone through um as you know i'm subbing on this committee so there may have been all sorts of discussion at this at the proposal for the residential application but um i've been on this council and on planning committee at various guises for long enough to remember the time when we uh when hawkstone still was the bay of sight and it was still working and then it closed down and and then we undertook to remediate the site in order to make it suitable for the housing that is now there now at that time we dealt with the site on the east side of the a 10 i do not recall um reference to this particular location but what i do remember was that it was a very long and complicated process necessarily because of the nature of the material that was being processed at the bay of plant and so what i wanted to ask is has this particular location had the same rigorous uh assessment and consideration in terms of remediation as the actual hawkstone that the actual bay of sight has because all of the material that would have gone through the hawkstone site would also have gone through this water treatment works and so i wanted to ask has it gone through the same rigorous um assessment of what is needed in terms of remediation has it had that remediation i suggest not since the site is exactly the same as it was except it's um dilapidated but thirdly have we given any consideration to having an independent assessment of the need of of the contamination at this site um prior to development thank you so the site is is not currently in in use um it's not been used for some time um in terms of um in terms of the water um so the water use is in addition to to what it was um in terms of the contaminated land um the um assessment has gone through the same assessment and um consideration as the the site across the road was undertaken and the remediation hasn't been undertaken yet that will have to be undertaken so is there any plan to have um an independent assessment of remediation as i believe there was on the site on the east side of the A10 in the process to make sure that it's been done properly because it was long and laborious and took many iterations and much removal of soil and you know it was a very and replacement of soil in order to make safe soil onto which to build the residential development on the east side of the A10 so i'm just wondering will there be an independent assessment of the residual contamination of the land i can see that condition 18 refers to that but there's no reference of an independent assessment um if i can just jump in on that one chair um so as part of the extant residential permission um there has already been details of the remediation strategy have been approved on the site um so um that has already kind of those stages have been gone through we are requiring the same information to be submitted again um as part of this application because obviously it's a alternative or a separate planning application as such so that we have got um various conditions including the verification report um the remediation strategy and their remediation method statement and verification plan so there's a suite of conditions relating to that um which includes monitoring and so it it will take some time which is why the time limit has been amended because it was originally for three years um we've amended the time limit condition for five years because the remediation needs to happen then will a period of monitoring um so the conditions that are recommended are the same as the conditions that were recommended and have been submitted and approved for the extant residential commission forgive me but did that also relate to the need for piling because obviously these are much taller buildings on the other side of the road i recall a significant depth of soil was removed and fresh top soil was brought in um but here given that the buildings are not residential anymore under the previous consideration which wouldn't have needed piling these buildings will need piling and and i'm just wondering what the uh monitoring and considerate you know the remediation in terms of piling will be just before officers answer that we will be considering this outline application in the light of the assessments which have already been made if for some reason members are not satisfied with any of those assessments that will be a factor to be taken into account i would just add that in relation to paragraph 980 9180 as some members have made clear the comparison i think we should be focusing on is that between the existing residential consent and the proposed consent we are now considering and of course the water usage before 2005 when the plant was discontinued whether or not we accept the figure is less relevant officers would you like to deal with that was that the current residential um uh application would not have necessarily implied the need for piling whereas don't ask officers to address your question so that was what i was trying to see clarification in terms of the remediation works that are required that will be determined by the proposal and so once we get the details submitted about um what the remediation requirements strategy let me start getting my words in the right order um in the remediation strategy will detail the amount of remediation works required which are relevant to the proposal it is in some regard referred to at condition 51 um you know if it's contamination not previously identified so i just wanted to clarify that there is provision for that should more contamination be discovered okay thank you do we have clarification to your questions now in that case i'd now like to move to our i'm sorry council walkins i missed you thank you chair you do not look my way usually somebody has to say there she's saying something i'd like to say something um thank you i think when we have decided to say it and thank you for officers for um actually arranging that um the issue of the remediation was discussed and i'm sure we can ask um the applicants when they come to address us um my understanding was that the remediation was going to be carried out to the same level as was um granted or agreed for the residential um permission which means it's going to be the best that it can be you can ask them directly for that but i just way to point that in and if i may ask my question it's doing the transport and the new um uh junction into the site um i could see that there's drop curves for cycling but it's not clear that there's something across there for them to cycle across and for pedestrians to actually access this sports ground can that be clarified please yeah there's a the two con crossing which is proposed um over the um main access to the site sorry it wasn't obvious on the diagram to me i knew there had to be something but it was okay members do we have sufficient clarification though i think we have one further question council Lisa Redland thank you chair it's just to build on council Hawkins question and we can see there's a two con crossing across the entrance way to the site but i just wondered if there's any way of crossing for pedestrians to get to the hawkston included thank you so the um junction improvements will be improved so there's the existing um crossing there that pedestrians will be able to cross over the site to um hawkston thank you councillor Heather Williams not a question i reassure you chair um i just realised the greenway is being mentioned um which is the greater cambridge partnership project and i'm a member of the great part greater cambridge partnership assembly that's a lot of words and a lot of the same words in different order sorry chair thank you for that declaration right let's now move on to our public speakers thank you for your patience can i firstly call Rob Saddler um i think you're acting as agent perhaps you could just clarify your relationship to the applicants bridgeman land and you have three minutes and then if you would uh members may have some questions strictly of clarification to ask you afterwards thank you um Rob Saddler from foundation capital ventures um effectively we are the commercial partner bridge me a land who are represented here today at the land owner we are the uh commercial partner and we have extensive um experience in life science um spread across the past 20 years um mainly in uk and north america um and there's a bit more about us but i'll wait for the my three my three minutes thank you for your clarification you start when you like and your three minutes will start then hang on put your glasses on don't start don't worry i think we can wait until you've found your glasses before we start the clock i've got this time to two minutes 56 thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak in relation to this application i'm Rob Saddler founding director of foundation capital ventures the commercial development partner working with the applicant personally i am local to the area and i learned to play squash of the site from the age of nine the proposals provide a new life science and innovation campus dedicated to small and medium sized companies a 30 acre country park with links to trumpington meadows and a shared amenity and sports pavilion with a local community we will also deliver the remediation of a contaminated site to which already secured agreements from your environmental health officers and the ea under the previous residential consent we have worked closely with all statutory consultees and undertaken a very helpful public consultation with the local community a special mention is made to hawkston parish council as several workshops and meetings have taken place and we also continue to work with the shepherd conservation wildlife trust in terms of a re-wilding package for the country park the committee will be aware permission was granted in 2021 for 32 market houses but this new application will deliver a far greater package of public benefits and enable the remediation works to take place the buildings are a bespoke design set in a cluster only two stories in height with pitch roofs and plant hidden within the roof structures and focused around the previously developed part of the site car park would be shared between users of the sports clubs and the life science campus and is located close to the sports fields at the request of the parish council the detailed design is secured through the design code fixing heights and locations of the buildings the indicative phasing plan also commits to the early delivery of the immunity building cycleway and shared car parking parking and access to the sports fields will be maintained throughout sorry at all times through close dialogue with the hawkston parish council we will contribute 682 000 pounds towards the melbourne greenways or travel hub 20 000 pounds towards bus shelters and 5000 pounds for waiting restrictions we've worked hard to ensure the proposals would use approximately 22 percent less water than the approved residential scheme and would achieve all five water credits under briam we are targeting briam excellent with a focus to meet briam outstanding the ea did not object to the reserve matters in relation to the residential consent as recent as february 24 the proposals would create around a thousand jobs from entry level to senior positions and we have prepared an employment and skills strategy to support vocational courses for school leavers and others who are excited about getting involved with the innovation sector plus providing a dedicated fitted lab space as part of the scheme in partnership with former future we are pleased officers have recognised the extensive range of benefits and recommend consent we will continue to work closely with the local community through the detailed design construction and beyond phases and for these reasons we would respectfully request the committee approve this application thank you thank you for that now it may be that members have one or two questions strictly of clarification on what you said councillor braddon thank you chair it's not particularly on what you've said but I just wanted to clarify in our amendment to the report referring to 9.65 there's a correction that says that the proposal once operational could create would create and we've had 900 meters squared crossed out replaced with 185 meters squared of ancillary training space which will be dedicated to knowledge transfer activities no wonder who could explain that please yeah thank you the right from the outset we pledged that as part of the the floor space that we were creating we wanted to create an area for training purposes for life science and innovation and we were doing this and we want to do this in partnership with former future um who are effectively doing the same thing but what we wanted to do was actually provide a physical space for school leavers and anybody who effectively wants to get into the industry that perhaps doesn't necessarily have a Nobel Prize but wants to go through that process through vocational skills so it's a cost of the development um and the size of the suite um that we would talk about and it'd be part of the six buildings not in the community building um is approximately 2000 square feet 185 meter squared i'm not sure where the 900 meter squared came from that was was it always going to be that size it's so it's not changed no from day one it's always been 185 and i suspect it's a typo error i signed off on all the documents i suspect is my fault but it but that space is within your research buildings within the research buildings and important to note that it's not part of the immunity building uh councillor redrup do you mind if i ask councillor hawkins to follow on from that i think you were indicating no councillor redrup thank you chair um thank you for your presentation mr saddler i'm sorry through your chair um i just want to say it was great to see in the report and from your presentation about the um the engagement with hawks and parish council um my question is about the the cycle links you mentioned in your in your presentation that you're planning to introduce them early on i just wondered if you could clarify if that's all of the cycle links including your plan thank you absolutely what we're wanting to do is is effectively complete the greenways and take the um the cycle way away from the busy eight ten um and there is a commitment from us to provide that in in the very early phases of the development um i suspect that when we work through the detail of it um we may um have to provide a temporary solution to begin with because if you note the um the greenways section that we're providing cuts right through the middle of the development um and i suspect what we have to do is first phase is provide that link on the outskirts of the development so it doesn't interfere with the construction um and then once the phasing is complete or that particular phase is complete then we can complete the the the thing through the middle but um we will provide that link early on but it might be on a temporary basis thank you very much um i'd like to come back to the um the arrangements you have with form the future to um encourage people who may not think that they can work in the life sciences to actually participate in in training um is this going to be a long-term commitment i think that the fact that we're actually providing the space um it suggests that it is a long-term commitment we're providing physical space so this is this is not just a plan and words that we're providing but we're actually providing a figure of physical space so as far as we are concerned it's it's long term and i think this ties into the the the space that we're also providing and it was touched upon earlier that we're not necessarily providing incubator space there is an incubator in Hawkson on the other side of the road nor are we providing huge corporate spaces that can be found at the biomedical campus this is space for for smaller medium-sized companies to grow on so there'll be a you know effectively a cluster within the cluster and as as that park starts to fill up we also hope that the businesses themselves will get involved with that training processes as as well as us as responsible um developers uh thank you chair and through you um i'd like to support uh counselor redrop statement um well done on your engagement with the local parish council and the community and um definitely would like to see more of that thing happening i mean it's it's unusual to see uh statements in the way we've got it in six two and six three but very good thank you water as you know is a is a big issue um i think you said and correct me if i misheard that the ea did not object to the uh i think the reserve matters you're bringing for for the residential is this correct that's correct and and um it the there's been a bit of overlap as you understand between the um the residential and the commercial um and uh that is correct there was a letter on file in respect to the residential um reserve matters um from the ea confirming no objection um to water usage and effectively a week later from the same um officer at the ea writing to us um with holding the objection clearly saying she can only look at the application that she she's in that's in front of her and um what what we were saying is well look we've really worked hard to reduce the water consumption um from the extant residential permission um and so it is it is running now it is running live that residential consent is running live and as i say the ea is recently is last month or month or four um has written in on that basis thank you for that um and my last question chair is to do with the remediation um and that again i mean from the information we got at the um scientific was that it was going to be remediated to the same level as for the residential and to borrow cancer radnams concern does that mean there needs to be piling or not there will be piling um and first of all i can i can say i'm joined here by mr steveggor who is our remediation expert i can answer some remediation questions um but i when i when it gets up in my depth i will refer to um to steve but there will be a piling risk assessment as part of the reserve matters remembering that this is an outline application so there will be a piling um uh risk assessment and certainly in terms of the remediation work that we're carrying out we are mindful of that um piling will come forward councillor dr Richard Williams thank you very much chair um through you um my question remain excuse me uh relates to the remediation um again if i can speak so um going back to the health security agency in the letter of the 18th of september they said that they felt your remedial targets assumed dilution within the river cam and they said in their view a human health risk assessment should be conducted about receptors potentially exposed at the point of entry into the cam on the letter of the 29th of november that point seemed not to have been addressed um it seemed to be one of the outstanding points um because the health security agency was recommending that the district council should should look at this question so i suppose my question to the applicant is um does the remedial strategy assume dilution within the cam if it does was the health the human health risk carried out um or not and if not why not okay can i refer this to mr aga i mean it is a specialist question and i know that i will hi yeah so um the assessments that we've done the risk assessments that we've done does include a factory of dilution into the river cam that's part of the overall technical risk assessment that's done to to assess how the contamination moves through the site and into the river um and that that's factored into those into those risk assessments which set the targets that that is as mr sproats identified earlier a kind of an iterative process that will continue through the assessments that will now be submitted as part of this application so that that is considered it is looked at um and the health aspects of that are considered alongside does that that's that's helpful but just just to cover on that final point so what was a separate human health risk assessment carried out or are you saying it you regard that as being part of the previous assessment so there has been so that so there's there's i suppose there's a number of main kind of risk receptors that we assess through the risk assessment process human health is one construction workers during the development are another and then controlled waters of the third so that's the the groundwater and the surrounding river and the virons all of those assessments have been completed and as mrs sproats said there were some questions some back and forth finer technical detail points between ourselves and the authority and the health health security agency which will continue to be happening throughout throughout the remediation process throughout the submission of documents against conditions and throughout the validation and verification process after the remediation is complete so that dialogue will always continue and is continuously reviewed renewed and updated and that's what a lot of the questions that the the health security agency brought up during their consultation fairs were things that had changed since the original assessment was done members i see no further questions and thank you both to mr saddler and to mr edgar for your presentation yes please provide 306 cycle spaces end of thank you thank you both your presentations a next we have for the parish council julien elwood i think clerk to the parish council these and i think you're going to share your time with council upon ponderig curadi is that right yes so um if you can manage it you have three minutes between you but please we would like to hear your presentation on this can i just ask before you start do you have the consent to your parish council to represent them here today you do yes i thought you might thank you hello to everybody here at the meeting today my name is julien elwood and i'm currently the clerk to hawxton parish council i've been in role for several months the application predates my role but it is a matter of um written consideration that the parish council has worked very closely with the developers they have been very cooperative very informative um there is actually a published document where the carer parish council are actually stated that they support all parts of the application including the vital ancillary arrangements associated with it around car parking sustainability and the proposed immunity centre consultation has again been textbook from the developer as the site is not just in our parish but a neighbour to the community facilities at the sports ground next door the parish council had its meeting last week the 4th of april uh mr sadler very kindly came along updated us as he has continually um about the application and where we stand the um we were quarreled at our meeting and it was resolved again at the meeting that uh nothing has changed we are indeed grateful to them for consulting us and uh we stand in support of the application thank you councillor karate if you would find have i got to your name correctly but uh would you like to supplement yeah so i'm going to primarily talk about the amenities building because i must also run the sports committee within the hoxton parish and the amenities building which which we've discussed in this forum that's a great addition to the village um we have various sports been played on the ground but the amenities building is just going to announce the whole facility um it's going to basically add a lot of value to the to the local community in terms of the users of the ground basically fill the gaps we have in terms of what we can offer to the wider community in terms of the gym the cafe um and just recreational space um the other thing the big thing which we see in terms of as a sports committee member is we have a lot of anti-social issues around that wastewater site and like having a business park is certainly addressed some things those things in terms of 24 hour surveillance security which which is a fundamental thing for us we have repeated cases of anti-social activities in that waste water site and this this particular engagement and arrangement will basically help a lot of these issues as well for us thank you both if you would hang on there a moment i think i have two or three questions for you for members i think we start with councillor annabraddon please thank you chair and through you um so i should before we start i should possibly say that i know jillian elwood through a totally different um uh life uh and it's totally not related to this so i should say that so to my question um are you confident um that so i'll put it bluntly i know you've had um consultation with the applicants but i'll just put it bluntly so it's easy to be something are you sure that the applicant is not just offering you a building which um gives them the opportunity to use your sports ground for all their activities and then in the end of the day you'll find that all the times when you want to use the sports ground they will have booked it um so you know you could look at this provision of an amenity building as simply aware of using your sports ground rather than the opposite which should be enabling you better facilities for your sports ground are you are you happy that you know which way the balance is you can i come i'll comment on this one so so the sports ground the hoxton parish will still have complete ownership of the sports ground will help cricket and football and everything else what we are talking about is amenity's building which obviously we will have access to it the local community will have access to it that's obviously the business park will have access to it so from our sports ground yes the sports ground will still continue to have cricket football tennis whatever we have the amenity's building is the one that basically will be co-shared depending on the arrangement we have with the business park and that's that's where we completely sort of say okay this is where we will have access they will have access in terms of the gym or facilities at that cafe and that will be accessible to the users of the sports ground as well i asked that question that's for you chair because it says the facility the amenity building is intended primarily to meet the needs of the works on the business park and it will be managed by them so you know there is it's clearly going to be a building that's under their management which might be advantageous to you but i just wanted to yeah it's known that they'll be they'll be managing it but we'll have an arrangement with them where the users of the sports facility whether it's cricket or the footballers or tennis can have access to the cafe the gym and we can we'll have a as i said a right level of access yeah and representation as well thank you thank you for that i think i also have a question for you from councillor to me Hawkins uh yes chair through you sorry my question was also to do with the amenity building um i was going to ask if you will have any input into the design of it or if you've been asked to input into the design of it yes we have in fact as has jill said uh rob and his team has been very much actively working with us in defining what the facility should look like what what things might you want to have there because it's a gym what should be the layout um i think that has been happening um and i expect this to continue to happen again to the point that around the arrangement of our access to the facility what time frame i mean in terms of what time during the day we have access to the car park as well as to the facility the weekend weekdays all of this i'm expecting to be working out so they have been very cooperative in this sense that's great good to know thank you thank you for answering those questions i think it is clear that you are satisfied as a parish council there will be mutual benefit from the provision of this facility thank you both we'll now proceed to the debate councillor heather williams did you want to ask a further question or do you want because yes uh as to the debate i think i'm right in saying that councillor Lisa redrop is the local member is that right there's two of us here i beg your part yes of course there are councillor area we can't did either of you want to speak first in this debate um i'm happy to if you'd like thank you um i'm obviously really pleased to hear about all the engagement with hawkston parish council and how confident they are with plans and the involvement that they've had um looking through it all um to me i think that the water issue has been explained it's not ideal but i guess i accept the officers the officers thoughts that this is better than the the extent application um i guess the the landscape officer has given clear clear objection based on the encroachment and the uh sorry i'm trying to think it all through there's a lot to this the landscape impacts um i can see that there are some impacts to that um but i guess i guess i'm leaning towards thinking that they are outweighed by the benefits to the community um and to getting this remediation sorted out um i was really pleased to hear about the commitment to to bringing in the cycle way early and i i wondered if that's something we could bring in on a condition just to make sure that that definitely has to happen um so i think that's most of the points i wanted to raise but if i think something else later i'd hope to be able to come back but thank you so i i guess i'm leaning to support thank you councillor redrop i didn't mean to put me on the spot it is your right as local member to speak first if you wish i get the impression councillor carnaw want to speak later if on this door later now right please i'd also like to reiterate that i was very pleased to see um how well the communication was going between the applicant and the parish council that was really great to see i was also happy as the redrop said to to hear about the commitment to um competing the amenities in the cycle palace and all that first was also great to hear about the the water issues and i was also that was also slightly concerning but i think the officers have tended to convince me that there there are some plans in place to resolve it to everybody's satisfaction um and i think it's so it does seem also to me that that results to be positive about regarding the benefits for local local people with this application so i'm also tentatively in support i would say i've asked officers to put the planning balance slide back up on the screen just in the hope that might help us all to focus our comments on this next i have councillor Heather Williams thank thank you chair my microphone's trying to log me off i hope that's not officers giving me a hint um so i've set the planning committee for at least six years now and so people know that i'm uncharacteristically quiet today um and that i have to say is because the applicants have made it very difficult for me to find something to get my teeth into and i mean that as a compliment um because there has been engagement councillor Hawkins knows exactly what i what i mean yeah normally um because because we have a different role to officers right we're here as elected representatives so what the community thinks is really not that it's not important to officers but it's something that's particularly you know we're looking at and there has been and it's just so refreshing to hear a parish council come in support of an application so whatever happens today i think that should really be looked at and i hope others are are looking towards the applicants actions equally when it comes to the scale and heights normally we have people coming here really pushing their luck for a sixth or a seventh for an eighth floor and that does get my goat sometimes as well because it has to be we need to evolve and we need to provide space and housing employment however that is but it needs to be done in a sympathetic way and i think although we've got the planning balance it's very useful one thing that i found really helpful was those views to show the actual impact and also i think but i do think materials and we have conditions those materials in this project will be key as to whether it really does what it says on the 10 or not um because so long as those soft as is in the CGI those soft um materials are used and more natural materials then it won't become an eyesore that we've we've had to balance to and throw with so on on that side all all positive um it is brownfield and we prefer brownfield getting lots of ticks so far there is obviously then the water issue um had there not already been permission given i think the the environment agencies response would have been incredibly strong and all of that you know great fantastic work that has been done could have been a real you know assembling blog but i suppose in a practical me being practical obviously we do have a water issue i do understand the representations been made and i understand where where they come from it's something that concerns a lot of us but the reality is yeah there is still that fallback position which is more um so being pragmatic i don't think it is wrong to accept that there is a water problem and also to follow the officer recommendation i think i'll be honest i think if that position wasn't already there then there could be a different weight attached but but it is there we see how it is now i do appreciate the comments that have been made about the Secretary of State but we have to do what we think is is right um and and there's many times when there are applications that could be called in either to appeal or or for sexual estate so i'm i feel that following the officer recommendation here is a practical thing to do but also um the right thing to do for the local residents because they will they will genuinely benefit so longer as everything we've we've heard i know Councillor Bradlin's raised a point of concern um you know as long as everything is as it's shown there then then it does seem like a great asset and i'm sure it's a way of producing and we know we need to give that employment space we can't get to net zero if we don't have employment in some areas and um i wish they were all as sympathetically done as this that's for certain um please do share with your with your peers thank you next i think we have councillor Dr Tewby Hawkins thank you chair um yes the fact that um this has the support of the community is a very big plus um and i think i will be asking Hoxton Parish Council offline uh some more detailed questions on how that engagement went um for future reference and of course thanks to um Kate C. Christoddolidys for the report which is very good well set out and um a lot of work has gone into this so we're going to the team i'll start with the water issue um yes it is a concern um however as uh we have heard there is no objection environment agency on the residential scheme that um you know they were consulted about but then decided to object um a week later to something else that was you know got to replace that which to me is inconsistent i would wish that they could be just a bit more consistent um but i also want to refer us to the the case for Cambridge 2050 which is on the government website which was issued the same day that the um Jeremy Hunt made his speech um where the government is committed to delivering intervention to save water now through improved efficiency um committed to ensuring that there is uh you know a solution uh longer term for the problem i also said issue a joint statement from the environment agency the greater Cambridge Shed Planning uh D-LOC and DEFRA outlining our commitment to sustainable growth and development on the basis of our water credit scheme this is directly from the document in my view um i would say that yes we are we accept there's a water issue but this for me is not an is not a reason to object um to this application um theory of the objection i think we had was from landscape but then seeing those views that um were provided to us and visiting the site for me actually showed that um this development proposed has been designed in a very good way to minimize impact on landscape um as far as the balance goes yes it's in the green belt it's in the countryside and all that but the the benefits to south canis to hoxton to the community um to me far out ways the fact that it's in the green belt and it's in the countryside and all that so i am definitely going with the um officer recommendation for approval so thank you councillor annabrednig thank you chair um so clearly we can see that having the existing site dealt with um would be very welcome for the people of hawkston um as i say i i i've known that site not that particular location but i've known the hawkston site since it was still functioning as bayer um and obviously that it would be one can see there is a huge um if one puts it in blunt terms there would be a huge temptation to accept any development there if it meant that the contamination were remediated um however i think that the that and there are all sorts of concerns i also think one of the things i wanted to ask about was that councillor katie thornborough from the city council greater cambridge planning arrangements um was concerned about the disposal of wastewater at the haislingfield um water treatment works which we already know is under pressure if not over capacity and the concern that she has raised about that um and i'm we haven't even um sort of discussed that apart from in the response uh that we've received from the uh from the officer um i'm still deeply concerned about water sufficiency which is why i asked about the timing of the approval for the residential site and then the issue of this document sorry it should be green not yellow um which is the uh representation from cambridge water uh on the draft water resources management plan um which i don't feel has really been it doesn't it doesn't lift my concerns um and indeed as we've just said the wastewater treatment works although i recognise in the in the paper it says that there are water treatment works does draw on water my understanding is the vast majority of the water that went through that site would have been what's being treated um one doesn't normally add to water being treated uh by drawing on it um unless there's a something very noxious in there that you need to dilute so i'm i'm concerned about that um in terms of the landscape issues like others i feel that whilst it will be an intrusion on the green belt actually the design of the buildings and the design and layout of the site is uh not unreasonable um given that it's effectively brownfield land um i still would like to see an independent assessment of the contaminated land issue um and if somebody wants to send me a copy of that for the residential site which i haven't seen as a sub on this committee i'd be very happy to see it and i'm also mindful that if we were to be seen as unreasonable um then you know there are all sorts of um consequences of that i i find myself still uncertain how to vote on this um i appreciate the parish council will see this as a benefit and i may end up voting that way but i still haven't decided thank you i think next council sanford thank you chair um i'm rather surprised we're even talking about harm to the green belt um context of this application when we visited the site last week um i thought we'd probably been transported into a post apocalypse urban wasteland or possibly the set of a mad max movie even um Katie Christodoulis's pictures done to the justice there's debris waste everywhere the existing structures are rotting and falling down every single flat space has been covered with graffiti so i've just looked at it as the the ultimate brownfield site and as council Heather Williams already said we we like to reuse brownfield sites rather than green spaces um we've also talked a lot about water um when we discussed the skip development across the road which is 256 houses mr Stephen Kelly told me it was too small to concern the environment agency so i'm a little puzzled why they should be concerned with a small development office mainly development of five buildings which would presumably consume far less water than the skip development not that i'm saying we should keep the skip development into touch um so yeah i'm tending to go with the officers recommendations which i think are sand in this case councillor Eileen Wilson thank you chair um others have mentioned the benefits for the community and the support from the parish council and um i too think um pleased to see this amount of community engagement that's taking place but i'm particularly pleased about the um the commitment to providing training spaces for for the future and to to make a positive step in attracting young people from the area to life sciences people who might think that those sort of jobs are not for them i know there are a lot of people who a lot of young people who feel that way and who feel like the um the science aspect of cambrish is is really not for them and i i really applaud that that commitment and along with all the other community engagement the other benefits of the community i do have some concern about the water but i think the benefit to the community the the betterment of the land from the the waste land that councillor sandford just mentioned i i i'm in time to um support the officers recommendation on this councillor bill handy thank you chair very very very briefly because i think we i think we've covered all the points now um can i also say congratulations to the developer with their consultation with the parish council it is refreshing and on yeah we won't see more of it really um i'm going to take the the the points on remediation i'll trust that i think we're just going to have to trust the people who know what they're doing do the right thing uh water resources is an issue um i think the environment agency need to be more consistent with what they do um and if we're not really careful in the future we might we might end up having the debate about water availability at every single application so i actually think that we need to take this take it up you know we need we need to have a higher level discussion about what we do because otherwise we're just going to make decisions and say no we can't we can't approve this because of the water problem and it's just going to go to appeal after appeal to appeal it's going to cost his council millions so honestly that has got to be sorted at a political level um Mr council sanford said any development on the site is going to be an improvement um so can i venture that we actually move to a vote i'm happy to move that as a motion chair you can do that and uh if before you second it can i just say that there are one or two members who have indicated they still have something to say on this i want to say a few words myself do you want to now press it to a vote immediately on that i'm just saying i think we've covered all the points i think you know people obviously i can have their say but you know if they're not going to say anything that that's already been said then let's move on if you if you are proposing in the light of that that we move to a vote and councillor Hawkins has seconded that then we move directly to a vote on that motion uh and i don't suppose to take an electronic vote on that those who want to hear have a little more time for debate we'd vote against this those who support councillor Handley's motion please show we're taking a vote on whether to proceed to a vote yes chair yes counts those who support councillor Handley's motion that we move directly to a vote please show no i don't think we do have to debate chair's discretion as to whether to take a debate on that if we decide not to proceed directly to a vote then we will hear a few more speakers councillor Handley you have made your proposal councillor to me Hawkins has proposed it i don't think there's any need for a debate on whether we have a debate so would those in favour are moving directly to a vote please show and those prepared to hear more debate please now show i think there is a feeling that we might give a few more minutes to the debate so thank you councillor Handley and thank you councillor Bradlin for your contribution on the procedure but that's the way i'm supposed to take it today now councillor dr Richard Williams you had been indicating councillor Richard Williams are you happy for councillor to me Hawkins to uh i can stop sorry it's point of clarification i don't i mean we have covered a lot of points the question is are those who still want to speak with me the same points we have heard already or are they going to be different points if they're different points then yes obviously i have i have no way of predicting that i take it on trust that members who seek to add to the debate will have some new points to raise i'm sure councillor Richard Williams who is the next speaker will have something new to say because otherwise i have faith he would not otherwise have kept his hand up councillor i've certainly got a different take on things chef from from what's been said before so i won't rehearse all the good stuff i do accept the good stuff of that engagement and all of that i won't go over that again that is good stuff i am concerned about this application um first point the fall back um in terms of the water need now i am i am concerned about the water need i think it is important with very mind that the fall back position of the housing development is not yet certain um the outline planning application as i understand it was approved in 2021 if the reserve matters application were not which is currently for the district council if that were not approved then that outline would fall presumably because it would be more than three years old so the fall back is not guaranteed so whilst we could put some weight on it i think we need to bear that in mind that fall back is not certain um need i did ask a question earlier i'm prepared to let it go up on this occasion but i think given we're being invited to weigh um you know need for laboratory space give that significant weight in the context of green well i think we are going to need as time goes on more information um and about what actually this need is because at the moment it's asserted there's a need everyone assumes there's a need um but i think we'll need some more evidence of that but i will i will be prepared to accept that for this application um i am very concerned about contamination with this planning application i would much rather have seen a letter from the uk health security agency saying all of their points have been addressed we don't have that evidence the answers i got to my questions have not entirely satisfied or have not satisfied me um that those points raised by the health security agency have been adequately addressed i accept that we have conditions relating to remediation but once we approve this application the trainers left the station and then it's just a matter of haggling over details i am not actually satisfied that the um points of concern raised by this application have been adequately addressed i would much rather have seen an independent report where i would have certainty that the concerns raised have been satisfactorily resolved to say that there'll be an ongoing dialogue once we've approved this we've approved it um and i don't think we should be in a position where we we approve things without being sure that some fairly serious points raised by this health security agency which were not addressed um have not been subsequently addressed i think um council handling said it was prepared to take remediation on trust i'm afraid i'm not prepared to take that on trust i would have liked much more information about the discharges into the cam the potential environmental and health impacts of this i would want much more um reassurance on that so um whilst i haven't fully made my mind at yet how i will vote on this application accepting all the benefits accepting the parish council's in favour these are all good things these are all way in favour i'm not satisfied about remediation um council leeson riddrup thank you chair um just one quick point um to follow doctor williams um if if the if we're saying that the fallback position of the residential outline application is not guaranteed and we're saying that this one is not guaranteed i guess we're putting back the chances of remediation for this site in both in both ways so i just just raise that as that was a strong benefit of of the application um what i wanted to raise was to come back to councillor braddon about hazing field wastewater treatment plant because obviously that is a big concern for the community it is an area of large large spills but my understanding was that we're not able to consider that because andi and water have said that they will they will provide adequate treatment um i'd just like to check if that's that's correct because that's that was my understanding um also the re one of the reasons i voted to continue the debate was i thought we were going to talk about conditions a little more before before we came to the vote so i'd be grateful if we could do that before the next vote thank you well i think that if you want to talk about conditions this would be the time to do it because i'll then ask the delivery manager to comment before we actually proceed to the okay so there was the cycling parking condition about the numbers and i guess whether we need to include a clause about future expansion of cycle parking that was in the original condition 39 that was deleted and then for the cycleway condition if there could be something to say a temporary route will be put in before the main route um to be to be in there for initial occupation um i'd be very happy with that if everyone agreed thank you i'm not going to say a few words myself about this in summing up where i understand we've got to and then i will come back to rebecca as our delivery manager um i think we have one or two technical questions you may want to respond to there is the question of economic uh the value plays on the economic regeneration um and then of course as i've said earlier she may want to comment on that the condition point and i've said earlier i will ask her to um just reiterate where we are with the amendments um i haven't actually heard anyone say they would be inclined to any of the concerns that have been raised would be grounds for objection both councillor dr Richard Williams and councillor Anna Braden and we're considering their position but that again is a matter which rebecca may want to deal with whether we are clear as to what the grounds for any refusal might be where the committee to be minded that way as to my own comments i want to reflect what has been said by a number of councillors earlier how refreshing it is not only to hear the positive engagement to the developers with the not just the parish council but with others but also particularly the positive response of the parish council that is not something we always hear on planning applications the question is often whether to reject or oppose and it is sometimes refreshing to hear that following that sort of engagement parish councils are prepared to support an application i want to just deal briefly with two of the matters set up on the planning balance i think there are two key ones that affect us the first is that whatever we may think of the value of this remediation that is proposed this is as is stated inappropriate development in the green belt it's technically the case that is the reason as i understand it will go to the secretary of state whatever our decision may be so the question then is are there very special circumstances that would outweigh that and i don't want to repeat all of those because members have already referred to them but to my mind the the key one is the delivery of a comprehensive remediation scheme of a contaminated site and in my view that and the other items listed on the approval side do count as very special circumstances that would outweigh the fact that this is inappropriate development in the green belt the other one that i wanted to comment on and i don't think much comment is needed on this but i think it is a critical critical issue whenever we face a formal objection from the environment agency on the question of water it is clear to me that with an existing planning consent uh on for residential development which would involve the use of more potable water than this proposal that it is reasonable for us to put our own to take our own decision on this and to decide whether the uh the potable use proposed here um would be ground's refusal in my view it is not i think we should assess that against the full bank proposal what we have here is effectively a reduction in the use of water on this site as against what would otherwise happen uh so on that basis my view for what it's worth would be that we should approve this but before we proceed to a vote i want to ask the delivery manager to comment as said earlier i'm always reluctant to take further comments at this stage but councillor braddon did you want to make a further comment thank you chair it's a question um and it relates to the fact given that we've i think we dealt with questions earlier on is this a consideration for debate before we go to the vote um it relates to wastewater and normally wastewater management of is a condition but in this case it only appears as an informative and i suspect that's because i don't know why that is normally one would want the treatment of wastewater to be handled as a condition that could be enforced against whereas this is only an informative and i just wanted some reassurance from the delivery manager that that is felt to be adequate yes i'll ask the delivery manager to address that in a minute just before i do that two members have said that they are it is in the balance for them as to whether they have grounds for refusing against the officer's recommendation councillor braddon have you come to a view on that now i will do when i vote right but you have nothing that you would like the delivery manager to assess in setting out the possible reasons for refusal the matters that concern me we've discussed they relate to water sufficiency and contamination councillor dr ridgid williamson do you have anything to add to your previous position i would reflect the same concerns right and i'm sure the delivery manager will pick those up can i now turn to rebecca as delivery manager to deal with the the outstanding points before we come for a vote on this i'll try and capture them all chair apologies for not coming back on the question of need councillor williamson that you asked earlier i think it's um we set out in i've got two no staples today um parent 9.45 up to 9.5 in the report um about um the area and the budget statement and the need for life sciences um we have a greater Cambridge employment and housing evidence update report from 2023 um which was commissioned by the shared planning surface that actually this isn't contained within the report apologies identifies as an anticipated future supply of about 9.8 million square feet of office and lab space required in the area of 2041 um in terms of the demand over the same period it identifies as a need for approximately 13.5 million square feet um so there's a net need of approximately 3.7 million square feet that's not already been accounted for through previous permissions so we do have our own report which sets out this high demand for um employment floor space within the greater Cambridge area so that's in addition to um the spring and autumn budget statements um setting out the need for life sciences in this area um with regards to foul water the condition 36 relates to um onsite foul water drainage including disconnection points and discharge rates to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and there are various conditions relating to surface water as well um I can clarify the various amendments to the conditions though if you wish me to at this point so the office of recommendation is for approval subject to conditions and the completion of other section 106 legal agreement the heads of terms of which are set out in paragraph 9.221 of the report this then includes amendments to the conditions are set out in the update report which are to conditions 1 2 3 14 17 26 31 39 and 46 in addition amendments to the condition wording 14 and 47 are set out on the slides on Katie's presentation further amendment to condition 15 the cycling condition to include the wording that was set out in the stroke out condition 39 referring to the 306 cycle parking spaces and also the capacity for expanded and additional cycle parking if required and and further amendment I think I've got four different amendments to condition 14 now as well to include um a temporary cycle route through the site as early as possible in the phasing which will also be picked up in the site wide phasing plan as well so um prior to the um main cycle route going through the site to link the two greenways thank you thank you now before we proceed to the formal vote I want to do two things firstly I would like to suggest that we accept by affirmation the amendments to the proposal that had been outlined most of which we've seen on the screen can I have a proposal to that effect council to me Hawkins council to Sanford are we happy to take that by affirmation before we move to a formal vote and the second thing I just want to get assurance from delivery manager that were the committee inclined to go against the recommendation you refuse this do we have a clear understanding of the possible reasons for that yes or no we'll survive I could do some clarification that's right right my understanding is around water consumption and the environment agency's objection and a potential second reason around insufficient information about the remediation a nod we'll do on that thank you okay let's we'll see whether we come to that point later I think it's time now for us to proceed to a vote on this so we're voting on the officer's recommendation as per the amendments just outlined obviously bless the blue if you are in favour of the officer's recommendation and approving the application then you press the green if you're opposed then you press the other color red I'm not very good on colors so we now proceed to the electronic vote bear with us members right well I think we have all voted now usually I call on the officers to announce the result and I think you can all see it on your screen there so we have approved that application by eight votes one opposed and one abstention that application is approved thank you to all who've been involved in that I had intended to finish at one o'clock so we'd have our lunch I apologize for being a minute late but if we could come back at 145 to consider our proceedings and I'm sorry to those who were hoping to get through another item before lunch there are no facilities here so I'm afraid if you haven't brought lunch you need to go down the road if you're coming back to us after lunch 145 members right welcome back to this meeting of South Cambridge District Council planning committee on 10th of April we have resolved item six we move on to item seven which is an application in Sauston application 2303654 full for westway Sauston direction of three employment and research and development units with flexible again the use classes are listed um with ancillary offices for a total of 8 000 square meters and 18 square meters together with service areas car parking and landscape a number of key issues the application is being brought to committee as it is a departure application and some members of committee visited on 3 April presenting officer is Alice Young this application is on pages 113 onwards in your printed notes Alice thank you chair let me just share your screen brilliant thank you so the application is about Cambridge south on westway Sauston and it is for the direction of three employment research and development units with flexible class EGII and EGII and the eight uses with ancillary offices for a total of 8 000 ish square meters together with service areas car parking and landscaping at Cambridge south so the site is located on the northwestern side of westway um within the Dale's manor business park um on the eastern edge of Sauston village the site falls within the development framework with the green belt and framework boundary to the north and northeast to the east there is a concrete batching plant um with the recently consented um R&D buildings um here um which are currently under construction which members would have seen on the site visit um to the south um is industrial kind of employment buildings um within phase one of Cambridge south development which characterised the business park um and then residential properties approximately 80 meters um away the new Cambridge City football club is is to the northwest and then to the north um further up here which you can't see because it's so far away is a residential dwelling um which is over 100 meters away to the north um and then the C sets um Cambridge southeastern transport link is proposed to be along here um along the northern boundary so um the application site is part of an approved scheme um 27 units for B1C B2 and B8 uses which has been partially implemented um so this scheme is extant and can be fully implemented and is a material planning consideration this is the layout of the extant consent and the red line denotes um the application site boundary for which we're looking at today but you'll see that the development includes this area here and members will remember that this has been built out um as um already on site and this is an aerial photograph um of the application site which is here and built out extant consent here concrete batching plant um Cambridge City football grounds and then that residential property which is up here this again is photos of the application site um is behind this wind turbine um which was erected as part of the extant consent and you'll see it is predominantly kind of scrub lands um with tree belts um along the north western and northern boundaries so this is the proposed site plan um for the three units one detached and one kind of semi detached um which is unit two and three and there are outdoor working areas um to the north um west of unit three and to the south of unit one alongside cycle stores um in these locations as well and then car parking to the to the south and southwest of the units in a similar layout to the extant consent so this one hopefully is a little bit clear on the separation distances so the built form is set off the boundary um approximately here is about 7.6 meters and then um goes to 11 meters up here and then the distance between the um existing units here and the proposed is about um 73 meters so um the proposal is in two stages and this is um a bit complicated but bear with me so they will be constructed um in phase one fully constructed with a laboratory space um on the first floor here which will be extended potentially in phase two if um demand uh allows it so they're adding um additional mezzanine space within the existing fabric of the proposal um in phase two so this is the roof plan and these are the proposed um south elevation and west elevation of unit one so this is the detached unit north elevation and eastern elevation of unit one and then it's the same for unit two and three there will be an extension at mezzanine level in phase two to these the roof plans and the elevations so this is the south elevation and the west and then the north and the east so these uh this is a section which is um section a um which shows the concrete batching plant here um unit one two and three and the amenity space between that and the boundary you'll see that um the height is um approximately 35 meters and this is section b which goes across the site and shows units um two in relation to the existing um extent consent on the other side um the existing industrial building and it shows that it's slightly shorter than um the ridge height of the existing building just for clarification if we go off that could i just ask to understand that is the left hand side of that lower drawing the northern point on the section diagram yeah it's yeah it's just here um these are some 3d visuals of the proposal so this is the southern elevation this too and then this shows the kind of view from westway and that's the view further down westway towards the trap towards the residential property and then this shows the visual in its context on westway and this is the existing um extent scheme um when we were out on site i took um members to the footpath which is to the east of the site um and uh you you'll remember that um this was a viewpoint that we that was used as part of the other schemes um on dale's minor business park so this is the existing baseline and then this here is the proposed development you can just see it coming over the tree line boundary so in terms of um the planning balance um the site does form part of the housing allocation um h1a um despite this the site has an extent approval for employment use um several parts of this um larger housing allocation have been developed for employment use and there is uncertainty regarding the delivery of the remaining allocation due to this and due to these consents um being partially implemented um the council does not wish to carry this allocation forward um in the emerging local plan and does not rely upon this allocation to secure its five year housing land supply as its current supply is 6.1 years the proposal would develop um brownfield land um delivering employment in a sustainable location within an existing business park in sourston village and within close proximity to other r and d uses enhancing the cambridge cluster the employment uses within the development um have changed to reflect the needs and demands of the employment market compared to the extent consent and the scale of development would be um in keeping with the uh category of um village of sourston as a rural centre in accordance with policy e 12 as a local plan the development is considered um high quality sustainable and to conceptually appropriate by virtue of its renewable energy and water efficiency measures uh the siting scale and sympathetic character of the development and would sit comfortably within its context um not adversely impacting upon views from the countryside or green belt the proposal would therefore preserve um the character and appearance of the area within its wider context and comply with nh2 and hq1 um residential immunity would be preserved given the significant separation distances between the site and the development despite its scale there would be no adverse impact um to trees um protective species or trip to our sides and the additional traffic generated um along bay bram road which leads into the dale's manner business park would be offset by contributions to public transport routes to encourage sustainable and active travel to the site so um when weighing it in the planning balance um officers there will consider that the recommendation is one of approval subject to conditions some of which um along this screen and section one is six contributions towards the strategic active travel improvements in the area thank you chair any uh questions of clarification on that presentation councillor Lisa redrup thank you chair and thank you for the presentation um i just wondered about the phase one and the phase two um was the roof the roof diagram showing different extents and solar panels and is that something that's necessary to happen if they expand the lab space inside please did you get that all right sorry i didn't know whether you were collecting them up or um oh sorry i think we'll take questions one at a time it's probably easier unless we uh start going over time so um thank you um let me just share my screen again so in terms of um the solar panels um as per the different phasings i believe they're actually staying the same as far as i can um i'm aware this scheme is not something that i've been a part of since it's um submission um i'm taking it on from um Karen our colleague um so i might not be 100% accurate on that but i can come back to you in a bit more detail after a few more comments um but my understanding is that the um roof and the PV panels are going to stay the same um from phase one to phase two thank you if you do find out anything more about why the lines look like they changed the red to the red and what that means i'd be grateful thank you so these lines are just showing um where the first floor is going to be expanded to the mezzanine level um it's just to show the different phase in um it's not to show kind of changes inside the panels or anything thank you my misunderstanding come to la alun wilson i think you had a question there's on page 116 about impact it's um there's a table setting out the use of the various parts of the of the unit and each of each of them has a ground floor warehouse i was wondering what sort of warehousing this will be and whether it's likely to lead to um a number of hgv movements thank you so there will be um some floor space given over to kind of storage and distribution um as part of the development um this is the use that was approved previously on site um so some of the the floor space was previously used uh well was previously considered as b8 use um which is the same use um in terms of hgv movements um it will be um that you know that impact has been assessed by the county transport officers um they are satisfied that the development would be acceptable in terms of the impact on the highway and um the site is located a significant distance from um residents so um neither of them or um planning officers were concerned about the impact um to surrounding residents with regards to noise and disturbance um the surrounding business park um does have um a few uh units that are in b8 use so storage and distribution and the roads are regularly used by that type of um uh vehicle um so i don't we didn't consider that that would be a significant impact uh i'm not quite sure that we heard the last thing you said there but you hear the answer right yes okay sorry uh council that and then for you thank you chair um i just want i'm sort of slightly i sort of understand it but i'm slightly puzzled as to why this application has come to us because at um 1.2 uh an it's a departure application it says the site's allocated for residential development under policy h1a of the local plan however there's an extent consent for employment use of the site under classes light industrial and general industrial and storage or distribution so i'm sort of slightly wondering why why we're querying it now but maybe if there's an explanation that'll be helpful um so the application came because it's a departure from the allocation um you're right in saying that obviously there has been an extent consent on site and that does give the material um weight that is that should be given material weight um just to add as well there is um a condition which um restricts the amount of floor space used for the eight use um so that that kind of um restricts the whole of the unit's being in one use councillor rhetoric thank you chair um it was just about the cycle parking i can see it's um a condition i just wondered what sort of what sort of things we look for in checking that it's suitable um our policy says convenient secure and accessible and i see that it's got the double layer a two tier one um shown in the in the listed on the portal and i just wonder if that is classed as convenient i mean i've struggled with one before so that's why i'm raising it because you pretty much have to crawl under to put your bike in on the level of the council red drop i did not find two-tier cycle racks convenient or easy to use and i don't think most women do is it a female thing i didn't know that anyway i just wondered if that was deemed acceptable in our policies and so i'd be grateful for any guidance on what our minimum standards are thank you and um and i appreciate your your comments um with regards to cycle parking we have conditioned it because we want further details um in terms of um what it says in our policy um ti three um looks at parking provision um and it states that um it should be um just bear with me last i get it up um secure uh accessible and convenient cycle parking um which is what it says in ti two actually so apologies for that um so members obviously have to consider whether um the cycle parking in their opinion is secure accessible and convenient officers um consider that it is in a location which is convenient and accessible and it can be secure um in terms of whether it's a two tier or a single tier um we have accepted two-tier cycle parking um on other sites and um whilst it might be difficult to for some people to get there like on the top tier they can use the bottom tier and that's 50% of the provision that they can access yes so if i don't think you're satisfied with that can i just come back because my doctor's does have a two-tier one now and unfortunately a car is generally parked in front of it so you can't use the top um and then also the bottom layer i did find very difficult and i'm an active able person so i just wanted to raise that because i could barely get it under i had to kind of bend down double and there wasn't the provision to lock it as i would normally like to with the frame because i had to just do the wheels so i'm just concerned and i just wanted to raise it so thank you for letting me right uh councillor Bradliff just on that same point um what i was saying wasn't flippant um as county councillor i went and had a look at cycle parking near a railway station recently in a county council car park or actually some time ago because it had been raised with me as how difficult this top two-tier racking is for people to use so they're demonstrated in front of me was somebody easily putting a racing bike upon the top tier and i support can i try that and when i tried it because i'm shorter and um i'm sure i'm not as fit as councillor redrop and i certainly wasn't as fit as the gentleman who showed it to me i found it impossible to get the bike up onto the top tier and also people raised the fact that some two-tier cycle racks do not have suitable locking points and in fact all of the ones that i've seen used where bikes are in them they're actually locked to the superstructure not to be actual racks for individual bikes so i think it's something at a general issue that we should be aware of that um provision for cycling the numbers of cycle parking spaces is very easy to concentrate into two-tier racks but it's actually not very easy to use and i think as a council we ought to be seeking sheffield stands or the like wherever we possibly can thank you councillor heatham thank you chair not not seeking at all to take away from the questions been asked but i think at this point it's probably important that we ask officers to to clarify weight in relation to cycle racks my understanding is there is provision for x spaces and that's what we can take into consideration however officers may have a different view but it might be wise for us to have some advice on that chair thank you so um we've just had a look at the details that they have submitted and they are proposing gas assisted and double tier so it is assisted the racks that they have submitted drawings of do secure um the wheels um so you can secure it via the wheel it seems not necessarily the frame um but condition eight we are requesting all details of all of the cycle parking um to be kind of covered and secure and all the details to be submitted prior to occupation um all the use commenced so i think it's something that we can um review at a later stage via the discharge condition process in terms of the amount of weight that we should give to it obviously it's got to comply with policy um officers consider that the location is considered acceptable um we don't typically have all of the details to hand at this stage and the condition does secure um further details to be submitted to us and approved so i consider that um we could put on a informative if members were wanting to um to kind of reinforce that members wanted the cycle parking to be secured via both the frame and the wheel and potential to look at other options thank you i think we've expressed the views on i think informal doesn't have you we've got to be consistent we haven't done it in other areas but i'm sure officers will appreciate these committees as it goes forward so you're suggesting council Williams that an informative would not be appropriate because we haven't done so in other cities that i'm saying that to apply conditionally informatives on the type of cycling racks is not something for this stage that there is a condition attached to deal with that and they did data is not necessary and wouldn't be reasonable but there already is an informative at number 13 peculiarly entitled external cycle staff i think that means external cycle parking or store or something um but it does have some description in there about what would be desirable and it may be yeah that was my point we don't need further informatives okay and prescript or we don't have to be prescription at this stage members i think the concern here has been noted i think i would accept what councillor the William says and what councillor Bradner was pointed out that we already have an informative on this so shall we move on to other points i think that's probably concluded our questions of clarification to the officer thank you and we have now a public speaker i think uh Roland Lee who will pale architecture is in the room so thank you for coming in just tell i think you know how the system works you have three minutes to present your case and um afterwards it may well be that members have some questions of clarification so if you wouldn't mind staying on for that thank you the floor is yours thank you chair thank you members um my name is Roland Lee i'm an architect and we are the agents for the application um a lot of the things have been covered by the officer but i'll try not to bore you uh by repeating too many of them but um the site as you mentioned is uh phase two of of an existing development which we've taken on and tried to look at producing three high quality employment buildings with flexible uses that address employment needs around the area with the total area of eight thousand and eighteen square meters um i have to say during the process through pre and through the application itself in fact very good engagement with officers um and work to address all the concerns resulting in no objections at this point of the process including support from the parish council um we exceed the the biodiversity net gain requirements we're contributing to the local transport network including the c s uh et we've upped our briam credits uh according to achieve excellent we've got ev charging live ev charging to 20 of the total car parking spaces and passive charging to all of the remaining spaces which is a little bit ambiguous in the wording of the report um we're very pleased with the end result uh our client's very keen to get on with this and uh i'm here to answer any questions but we'd appreciate your support and take this forward thank you mr lee any questions of clarification on what mr lee has just told us i thought that was extremely clear to our councillor Anna Bretman thank you i just wanted to clarify whether any representation had been made by the resident at the end of westway wondered whether you've received anything from them see that may be more of a question to officers have we had any objections or representation from the residential premises i think we referred to it in the report don't you yes there's two residential third party comments um one of which is um the house um to the north of the side north of the side yes mr lee thank you very much your comments anything to add no good right uh okay i don't think we have any other public speakers on this one um so let's move to the debate we don't have a local member here today but councillor heather williams uh thank you chair so with this application in a similar with the parish council why have you i can't see any real sort of outcry of of opposition to this um i think as well i think it's probably just a general exception that that site is going to be developed in somewhere or another so and with the departure isn't it's not as if it's a site that was planned to be preserved and kept and not built on we're just talking about what it is and i said earlier on the previous application about the importance of employment to make life more sustainable i mean i think sourston is the largest parish now the canvons of town and it's it's quite a substantial well established it's got a lot of housing so and um so i think some more employment space and using it for that purpose is not it's not a very bad a bad thing um and so i do think it was right to bring it here because it is a departure but the departure is not quite as extreme as we've seen in in other situations so um so yeah um i think there's a lot going for this application at this stage though i await to hear my colleagues who may argue differently councilor redmond you wish to argue differently um thank you chair i the reason i asked the question about um had you had a representation from the resident house north of the site is because they're the ones most likely to be affected and it's not evident from paragraph 7.2 on page 121 whether the of the two representations you've received whether one of them was that site because um strangely enough i actually have visited this site on a many years ago our completely different application but so the point i made earlier on was you know this is already although it's allocated for housing it's already the principle of industrial use has already been um kind of considered in principle and and established um so i don't think there would be any objection on those grounds and so i just wondered if the resident had made any objection on in terms of because there is one at point three residential amenity impact noise and disturbance and i wondered if that was coming from the residents in terms of the area to the south where lorries would be going through or whether it related to this house on its own at the north um however uh all in all i i can't see any reason why one would find a reason to object to this because it's already an established industrial estate uh the uses have been well established for some time it's actually with some exceptions it's relatively remote from most of the residential area and i think anything closer to the to the southern residential area is likely to be adjusted according to the proximity to those residents whereas this site um is further north and out of the way so i can't see any reason to object but i was just wondering if we could have some clarification as to whether um any objection has been received from the residents at the north right uh i think we've attempted to deal with that question already answer that to the hawkins i asked the question because i wasn't really curious the same question that we addressed earlier on wasn't it you were not satisfied with the answer you received correct i what i was asking you is has had any of those um is are any of these representations at seven point two from the resident at the north do we necessarily reveal the identity of those whose objections you've mentioned in seven point two so typically we um list the number of objections or representations um i do think that it's okay to disclose that um the neighbour to the north did um right in objection um i'd just like to reiterate the separate separation distances is over 90 meters so it is a significant distance and there is an extent um commission on site for similar uses um of a similar scale that's very helpful thank you very much miss right then i think we have councillor to be hawkins thank you chair um we did visit the site last week and we actually had a walk sort of northwards to go see the building that's been referred to the residential building and the separation distances is much more than um is required to not have an effect on it um again i mean looking at this uh it's unusual to have two successive applications come through where little objections on it but with massive benefits um and all for this there's no one going to speak against it can we move to a vote we'll agree to move to a vote i think we should still take this by an electronic vote so if we can set that up so again if you are in favour of the application accepting the officer's recommendations you press green you oppose press red and i think we have all voted that is unanimously supported that consent is granted thank you all so to just confirm um this recommendation is for delegated approval subject to conditions and section 106 agreement and we have agreed to that recommendation now uh we then move on item eight which is at allwell this is on page uh 161 onwards of your papers application number 23 02966 outline land of ledden hill allwell um we have had updates circulated i don't know we have a paper if anyone hasn't seen that we Lawrence has paper copies if you want them uh the key issues are as set out here principle of development impact on visual amenity residential amenity highway safety and environmental impacts and the application is being reported to committee as a departure application um at the request of allwell parish council uh some members have been visited on third of april and as i mentioned about some members will have seen an update report um and our presenting officer is charlotte spencer charlotte with us um we're joined by councillor van derire who i think is probably the local member yes who will know once three days later thank you charlotte thank you chair just bring this up sorry if i think it's just frozen hang on go back to the start i can just confirm you can see my presentation and can hear me clearly yes charlotte by thank you thank you so this is an application for nine self-willed plots with access and associated infrastructure with sun matters reserved except for access it's been brought to committee as it was called in by the parish council and it represents a departure from the local plan uh just to highlight the amendment sheet where an additional third party representation had been received it has been summarised in the amendment sheet but the full comment that can be found on the council websites so moving on to the locations of the application relates to a plot of undeveloped land located to the north of ledden hill ledden hill is a private unmade road that runs southwest from the junction with hurdle ditch road and town green road the site is generally flat in nature although there is about one meter change in level between the north east and southwest the site is surrounded by tall hedges to the southeast southwest and northwest beyond which lies agricultural fields to the northeast lies the garden areas of numbers 22 to 26 ledden hill the road is semi rural and character and appearance with the built form being located to the northwest with open views across the countryside the buildings which line the road predominantly comprise a single story and one and a half story dwelling houses which vary in design scale this secondary photograph demonstrates the relationship of the site to the village and its services here's the site here some of the services are not just notes so we've got petersfield primary school just here we have the pub up here the post office is just opposite and then one of the churches is here just moving on to the constraints the site is outside but adjacent to the orwell development framework this is shown by the black hashed line the site lies within flood zone one which is low risk and whilst there are no surface water risks on the main part of the site here there are some along ledden hill as you can maybe not quite see but the blue along here in addition a public right of way as shown in purple runs along ledden hill leading to the open countryside so this is the indicative site plan submitted by the applicant members are reminded that layout is a reserve matter so is not to be considered as part of the application however this plan demonstrates how nine dwellings could be laid out on the site with potential options for landscaping as well as a suds pond this is the indicative management plan which whilst is also indicative only demonstrates the potential landscaping that can be done on the sites some of the existing trees would be removed however they would be placed with new trees to outweigh the loss the details of which can be dealt with under reserve matters so this just shows the rule of development put forward by the applicant some points to note that the two storey dwellings which would be limited to the front of the site along ledden hill would not exceed seven meters in height and the dwellings to the rear closer to the open countryside will be limited to single storey this also refers to the five meter landscape buffer around the boundary of the site and these rules have been conditioned this is just to show some example of the designs that that may come forward just showing the different schemes that potentially happen but again this is indicative only moving on to photographs of the site so this is the entrance with ledden hill so just here's the access to the houses at twenty two to twenty six and the proposed access would be approximately here within the hedge this photo is being shown from the driveway to the new houses it's about here looking across the site this is from the southeast corner as you can see twenty two to twenty six just here and the view looking up ledden hill from the junction of tangring road and hurdle ditch road as well as some other views that show the neighboring properties so we also have some wider views and these views were shown within the landscape and visual appraisal and demonstrate the longer views of the site and so this first one here is view four this has been taken from cambridge road just here to the site here uh there may be partial distant views of the rooftops and i don't know how clear it's showing on the screen but there is you can just about see the neighboring properties of twenty two to twenty six to the left here view one is just taking a lot closer to the site and you can see how high the hedge is that faces the public right of way view three is just from here and again they've just shown where the extent of the site would be and again stating that rooftops may be visible so view two just being shown down here you can see the existing built form along the road and then the hedge which kind of covers it and just to point out here again i'm not sure how clear it is for you um you can just about see the rooftop of members twenty two to twenty six um and just to point out that the proposed dwellings as per the design code state that's the maximum height would actually be lower than this here charlotte sorry to interrupt but just while you're on that photograph where you have the laser pointer at the moment there are some words written above the on the screen above the red line which you may be on to read we can't and it might be helpful to know what he said there it says extent of site where proposed rooftops of dwellings might be seen above the hedge top if you talk about this here just move on to view five so this is from hurdle ditch road looking across the field kind of a similar position to where we looked on their site visits again the extent of sites being shown here and again you can just about see number twenty six shown there um the last few are from further afield so view six is from toot hill which is about a kilometre from the site um it is considered that if any new buildings were visible from this view they were difficult to discern from the rest of all while view seven it's taken here again and about one kilometre from the existing sites and the trees and buildings here would essentially block the view of the development from this view and view eight which is about one and a half kilometres from the site um this is this is saying southeast and hedge visible with taller conifers beyond and it's stating that these features are not easily discernible with the naked eye so the material considerations of the principle of development impact on visual amenity residential amenity highway safety and environmental impacts so officers consider that whilst this is um also proposal is a departure from the local plan the level of harm is limited to low to moderate in the short term and after time for any proposed planting to mature it will be negligible to low oh it's considered that significant weight can be given to the provision of self-build and officers consider that this outweighs the harm in this case officers recommendation is for approval subject to conditions and the completion of a section 106 agreement thank you chair thank you Charlotte i think we may have some questions of clarification for you uh starting with councillor Anna Bradlam thank you chair through you um and thank you Charlotte i just wanted to understand the principle um by which we were we're receiving an application for nine self-build plots which inherently are the intention is that they're for individual build and yet we're receiving the application from hawks are unlimited so not from the individuals i just wondered could you explain the regimen around that and is that normal um i would say it would be pretty normal for a scheme of this size of up to nine for a self-build that they first come in as outline um and then i believe they would then go on to sell the plots to when the individuals will come in with the reserve matters it was because is it normal for a developer to seek permission for self-builds on a site and then to sell them off to people who want to build self-build because i thought the principle was that you had a plot and you wanted to build a house on it to your own design but i may have misunderstood that um i see somebody has sort of organised the land but right if i was going to if i had um a plot of land i could apply as a self-build and you know i know as a as a planning authority we are obliged to make available plots of land for self-build but this appears to be a developer applying not nine individuals who want to build individually designed houses i just if somebody could explain that that'd be helpful i mean i'm not sure if the agent is there who's probably better placed to answer that question to matter of district council policy so rebecca is honorable manager thank you chair um it's not unusual to get an outline application to establish the principle of self-build plots on a site and then the reserve matters applications are likely to come in individually by the individual applicants for their individually designed self-build properties thank you very much thank you chair your microphone draw my attention to other people wishing to speak um lots of fingers pointing in all directions around the room merely adds to confusion so if people want to speak if they'd kindly put hands up and draw the attention of the vice-chairman then i shall bring them in otherwise i should ignore all pointing fingers in the future councillor heather williams i sorry chair i think the lots of the point of fingers there with your microphone because it was playing some sort of i don't know just going on and off so i think that explains some of the point of fingers anyway um i don't know where i have a question now i think i know right um looking at the planning balance scales that's what i'm looking for that you displayed earlier it's a lots of grade two agriculture land is lohan but grade two is very good land uh it's it has some minor imperfections but it is class as very good agricultural land so i'm just wondering is is there a a scale that's been used to classify it as lohan because if it was if it was a lesser grade maybe but grade two i bet some farmers would be quite happy with that grade two land anyone like to address that question yeah thank you and just bringing the relevance for port um so it's explained in paragraphs 8.17 to 8.20 so um yes it is classed as best most first tile land um and it the proposal would result in its irreversible loss i'm but it's considered that the the land is not is currently used as a paddock rather than for any crop growing and due to the size it's relatively small so the loss of this degree would have a minimal impact on food production um and this is why we stated there is harm but we consider it to be lohan in the balance i hope that answers your question thank you i appreciate the words my my issue was on on the planning balance of it being lohan and in that case the the fact that it's it's got to be surely the potential of the land not just its current usage otherwise every farmer in the country could just stop creating food and then suddenly be you know come under this which i'm not advising they do um but you see it's got to be about the potential where that paragraph suggests oh well they're not using it at the moment so we don't classify it so is it more the size rather than the potential because my worry is we should be looking at it as what's the potential of that land and that sentence kind of suggests that is because of the use of that land at the current time hope that makes some sort of sense there yeah so it is a mixture of both i think the size does have um a greater impact and then each kind of case is is based on its own merit um and so it's up to to members to kind of take the the level of harm they think it is in terms of loss of agricultural land into into consideration when you consider the balance yourselves uh councillor to be hawkins did you want to ask a question uh not on this at this point my my lifting of my hand was to do with previous question okay and then i think councillor Lisa redrop had a question i think you chair it was um around the appeals that we we have listed in 8.32 and 8.33 and it was saying that there's there was an appeal for all well where the they decided that the facilities were too far away um for for the application to be able to go through um it says then 8.3 the distances to services have been noted for this application i just wondered if there was any if you could give me any idea of the difference in distance between that appeal site and this site because it looks to me like the pub's quite central in the village so i just wondered if there if it was a significant difference thank you yeah let me just bring back up um my presentation i can just point out where previous appeal was i'm so the appeal referred to in all while um if you can see this if it's come up is leave with this plot of land here um and whilst i can't really speak for the the inspector who made the decision um just take into account that they would have to walk down believe this is westcroft and across then to get to the services but this is this was where the the appeal plot was is that to help thank you i think does that john deal with your question councillor rhetoric thank you i just wondered um there's a condition about keeping the hedge at the frontage to six meters i wonder if the applicant has control of that so for example is it going to be covered by the management company thank you uh yes they do uh that condition was checked with the agent um prior to adding it because we just wanted to check what the current height of the hedge was at the moment um and they are open to that condition and they have control okay thank you very much right councillor raddan i think you want for the question thank you very much yes uh at 4.2 in our report it refers to number 22 and 26 leaven hill which lie directly to the northeast of the site were recently approved and have since been constructed i just wanted to check are those the ones referred to in the table immediately above um which was obviously approved in 2019 item yep i was picking up yeah thank you sorry i was just scrolling a lot there uh yes that is for the because it's pointed out it's the relevant neighbouring site history um and with those the black barn like buildings that we could see in the previous photographs that you showed us yes they were so so did they sit where the where if you look at google maps there is a barn presently i can see councillor band of ire nodding yes yes i just mean that yes they sit where that um building is on the google um aerial photograph yes okay i don't see any others but i have a few questions myself i may um on the plans there is a strip of orchard um to the east south east side uh which as currently shown would be retained except for the access strip through them um we noticed on our visit some of those were quite old trees and probably quite valuable from the point in view of biodiversity and so on uh but of course that is a matter for reserve matters later if we were to um let's say to approve this as as put before us is there anything to stop those trees from being uh put forward for ripping out later and they are not protected in any way and so the fact that they may have been indicated as being retained at this stage would not have any validity when it comes to the reserve matters stage i don't know whether the delivery manager might want to comment on that or indeed the legal advisor thank you so go on sorry to say that um we've got a landscaping condition on the outline i'm just trying to find it as we speak number 16 i believe condition 16 uh 194 meaning that it doesn't say anything about retaining those particular trees it just says a landscape plan shall be submitted that's just to do with replanting if trees fail yes the so the end of paragraph of section b might that be relevant uh do you know i'd like to comment is that possible i was going to say if can i jump in sorry i promise i wouldn't keep doing this on this one um so um there is actually nothing the trees aren't protected as charlotte has outlined so actually those trees could be cut down tomorrow so yes although they've been indicated on the plans to show that they would be retained we actually have a condition relating to a proposed landscaping plan for the site as a whole which is something that we could then ensure was retained going forward right could we put it as a condition now though chair if we wish to retain that bank even if it wasn't exactly the same trees but if we wish to retain that strip of trees and green space for this development could we put that as a condition and protect that area i think the indication is yes we probably could could we consider whether such a condition might be drawn up and come back to that later brings me to my next question um haven't heard much mention of biodiversity net gain of course there are exemptions and i assume that because of the the scale and the number of self-build houses this would be exempt from and the data course application am i right i think that's confirmation that is correct um the views that were shown i think it was view number four which would be from the general direction i think of wimpoll um would it be possible to show that again because it did seem to me from that view that there might be some landscape impact but uh again i couldn't read the words i may have got wrong number wrong number of the view this was on this page of the that that's the the right set of views yes i'm not quite sure which would be the most appropriate from the direction of wimpoll or indeed if wimpoll is relevant in this context to be this before you're saying right and again there are those words above the view which i imagine are the extent to the possible impact is that right yeah it says extent of sight it's just outlining where it would it would be but the hedge there which masks the possible future buildings is not in any way protected is it where is that affected by the landscape condition um so we've um requested the hedge at the front um to be protected because currently that um provides enough screening whereas the ones at the the two at the side um they do need a bit more enhancing so that will be dealt with under the reserve matters and the landscaping conditions to enhance these edges and this is also where the five meter landscaping buffer would be thank you lastly you have referred to there are a number of inspectors findings in rather similar cases of in fact exactly the same number of self-build houses i just wonder if anyone is positioned to give the committee some guidance as to the weight we should put on the inspector's findings in similar cases and to what extent the circumstances are seen as being different i'm not sure if that's one better for um Jane or Vanessa at this stage um is anyone able to give the committee some guidance on that the weight to be put on those inspector's findings that will depend on the circumstances application before here so it would very much depend on the circumstances and you've got a particular appeal in mind uh well i there are a number of cases referred to here one of which i think was for quite a nearby development of nine self-build houses and it's tempting to take put a lot of weight on the inspector's finding in that case in considering this one given the similarities but there may be reasons for not doing so i don't know whether anyone is able to give the committee any guidance on that okay so of members will have to make their own decisions on that uh councilor Bradnam i think you had another question yes i do thank you i just wonder whether any consideration has been given to providing a footpath down here because with an additional nine dwellings i'm sort of doing a quick tot up along that road and bear in mind we're trying to encourage people to walk not drive so if you add nine and then there are it was 26 was the highest number so that would be 30 something it's 35 dwellings without a footpath down the road admittedly not a heavily used road but um if we want to encourage people to walk rather than use their car to go everywhere particularly to facilities in the village should we not be thinking about trying to make sure there's a path along here and i'm sorry sorry what i'm meant to say was have we given any thought to that in the s106 um so firstly to clarify i believe there's 18 dwellings currently served by that road i think the numbers is just odd numbers um and secondly the uh ledden hill is a private road um so the local highways authority we we can't kind of control anything that happens on that road because it is a private road okay next question councillor heather williams not a question and i don't wish to beat councillor Hawkins to it but but anybody's been down there it's a track yet it's not it's not an adopted road it's a track so i think uh i might have i appreciate the enthusiasm that was being shown by that side of the room but just to be clear and and i do think there may be merit to what cat's brand saying in the debate just as a point of information ledden hill road is actually well maintained gravel road it's definitely in better state than most of our a roads so it's owning the last 10 meters or so that would need to be made up and it's not adopted it's not adopted but correct but the residents are obviously maintaining it no councillor Hawkins you were referring just now to say you're in the future so somebody get in with your question before you um no i think you know this is an application in front of what's that we need to consider on its own merit yes you know there have been there has been a previous application that was turned down by the inspector but then again that was on the merit of that application um the relevance of it to what we're looking at now is questionable maybe so can we move on with well i'm going to follow councillor Braden's good example and ask a further question which is um how the waste away vehicles would leave the site and whether that is covered in the conditions it's a private road and the private road is owned by the various owners of land of properties along there that is a civil matter it's not a planning matter so to confirm from officers there are no conditions that would cover the um access or address for waste away vehicles and others no good okay do we have any further questions somebody said which i think means no i shall take it as a no and move on we have got we have got a number of speakers um and thank you for your patience uh our first speaker is sam cotrall speaking i think on behalf of a number of residents am i right perhaps you'd explain that uh sam cotrall i see you on the screen you know you have three minutes and i think you want to show us some do you want us to show some slides to you yes we have that set up so please go ahead i'll just get my transcripts prepared thank you chat um paragraph references are from the case reports next slide please see image one the site is an island outside the development framework not adjoining it paddocks are between the proposed site and the development line the site is therefore bound on all sides by countryside the northeast boundary should have the same buffer to comply with nh3 4.1 22 to 26 were built to replace demolished buildings in the development framework these are not the land use adjoining the site 7.3 westcroft appeal disagrees with support given as provision of housing quote authorities can demonstrate a six and a half year housing land supply for period of 2022 to 27 therefore full weight should be afforded to the development plan policies 8.7 quote some of the day-to-day basic requirements can be met residents would rely on car travel as stated all well is a group village and so s10 applies to this less sustainable site 8.8 quote not contrary to second purpose s7 westcroft appeal disagreed and it's also contrary to s7 2.51 and 2.53 8.10 and 8.11 the proposal is against s2 and s6 8.20 argument is made on the size and current land use it is not relevant to nh3 and supported by the westcroft appeal quote policy nh3 does not however include the size of land as a factor to justify the irreversible loss of quality agricultural land 8.27 quote it is noted that the provision of nine self-built dwellings would make a limited contribution to the demand identified on the council's register contrary to t1 slash 2 and mppf section 9 paragraph 110b the transport statement submitted incorrectly stated that there is a footpath down the south side of town green road 8.31 contrary to sc4 other sites suggested in the call for sites proceeding the local plan provided more homes per land lost and safer access to amenities next slide please see image 2 8.85 the application is based on the misconception that the site is chalk land according to the survey by the environment agency it is clay water management and flood risk is not compatible with cc 7 8 9 or nppf advice next slide please see image 3 8.63 the depth of development and revised lvaa appendix 2 is far greater than shown on the site plan so it's difficult to decide if the proposal is compliant with hq1 or nh2 8.109 concludes regarding residential immunity without any survey next slide please given this and the factual errors and emissions in the application which appear to have had a material impact on decision making this application should be rejected by the committee and it's also worth noting that the biodiversity question that was asked earlier was wrongly answered and in 8.77 you'll see that it quotes however to be in accordance with the council's biodiversity spd a measurable net gain is required and that will be offsite purchase thank you chair and members give your presentation i think we have a question for you from councillor to me hawkins please thank you chair thank you mr cotrill just i think firstly correction 8.77 i know it states that but the new guidance that been released recently exempts self-build nine or less anyway so there's no requirement for biodiversity net gain here so there is no contradiction there i quite appreciate you pointing out the you know the various policies that um so you know go against this but the point i want to make or the question on to ask is this yes um even if if this got planning permission uh it's nine self-build properties very in mind that south cams is a um self-build vanguard that's the word i was looking for thank you and we have a shortfall we have to meet that shortfall so don't you think that you know this nine will at least go some way in helping us meet that shortfall um so um firstly just just just to um clarify um the the statement i made about the biodiversity has come from the the case report from shellet spencer being a layperson um i've taken that on face value when it says that it is required under a different policy so i'm sorry for making that error um with regard to the the nature of the self-builds of course nine um also is always going to go some way towards um that target um i guess the case is is this the right place for those nine self-builds and should we really be sacrificing so many planning breaches in order to fulfil that nine self-build requirement um based on sc4 does it really provide what the community needs um and and once we've gone forward with an application um there is no going back that land is developed and it currently is open countryside as i explained it's not just adjoining the development plan it is an island outside of it and as you could see from my first image the paddocks that are attached to 22 it's 26 evens are paddocks and as the the the landscape officer quoted um as per landscape officer paragraph 6.27 paddock is countryside use and so there is a buffer of um of countryside before that development or potential development and it worries me what could happen if we were to allow development in open countryside um you know what precedent does that set for future developments because it it doesn't adjoin the development plan um the development framework that that's all i have to say about thank you very much for your responses to that uh next we have um Peter McCann I think for the applicants thank you chair good afternoon members the proposals within this application as noted will deliver nine self-build building plots there is a need for additional self-build accommodation within south cams and as noted by councillor hawkins you are a vanguard authority as of october last year this shortfall was 332 plots the site we feel occupies a sustainable location on the edge of the village in close proximity to services such as the primary school village shop and pub none of the statutory consultees are objecting to the application and this includes drainage highways and ecology additional information was submitted post submission to address concerns which were raised initially regarding landscaping and ecology the site is well enclosed by existing vegetation and this will help to limit views of the proposed development the new dwellings closer to lean hill would not exceed seven metres which is lower than the adjoining dwellings the dwellings to the rear would be single story a couple of landscaping conditions are proposed to ensure that the impacts of the proposals can be managed as sort of outlined by the chair the applicant is also happy for you to attach an additional condition regarding retention of those orchard trees which were referred to I'm going to just sort of we've sort of been around the houses possibly in this requirement for biodiversity net game and it is correct and saying that on on minor planning application there is no requirement for bng but the fact in this instance the site area exceeds half a hectare so there is actually this does trigger the requirement for bng so that will be met sort of partly on site and also through the purchase of offside credits the half a hectare area point also triggers the requirement for a section 106 agreement and there are a range of financial contributions that will be secured through that mechanism and those will go towards open space facilities and community spaces as well that is outlined within the officer report the access arrangements are acceptable on the highways authority are not objecting as noted lean hill is a private road there is also a private road sorry a public right of way along it and that would remain open and unobstructed at all times there have been a couple of recent appeal decisions in the district for similar size developments as you have discussed the two sort of probably most relevant are at Caxton and Kneesworth both these schemes are closely linked to the village and we're not considered to cause significant harm to the character of the village of the countryside and coming to the decisions here any harm was outweighed by the very significant need for additional self-built properties we acknowledge that every application should be determined on its own merits whoever in this instance the site isn't in a sustainable location well located to existing services and facilities and we do not feel that it would cause any significant harm to the character or setting of the countryside and yeah i picked up on a couple of points that have been made earlier and yeah so as I said the delivery of nine self-built dwellings here will help to address the identified shortfall of 332 dwellings and we feel it should be attached significant weight thank you thank you for that I should say I did allow you a little bit of discretion on the timing because you had taken the trouble to answer some of the questions addressed to others which was helpful so do we have any questions of clarification to Mr McCann I think first is Councillor Heather Williams thank you chair through yourself what engagement has the applicant had because you can see this very strong objection from the parish council and yeah no no direct engagement has taken place with the parish council councillor Williams councillor Tumi Hawkins thank you chair and through you thank you Mr McCann what engagement have you had with the owners of the private road the applicant has been in discussion with the one of the adjoining residents and has been discussing matters on the access with him as far as they understand and then also with the owner of the application site as well but then if I may chair there are many houses along there so speaking with just one surely is a big shortfall yeah well those discussions with all of the residents haven't taken place to date but should planning be granted this afternoon the applicant would be happy to to sort of engage with them and meet with them to discuss the proposals further and any sort of implications that that future development would have that's not satisfactory I think there's many of you know developers who've heard me say this you need to engage with the local communities when you're actually putting something together and today we had an exemplar um um you know engagement presented to us in our very first application where the parish council was in full support understood the issues and now we have this which is the complete opposite very disappointing my feelings are exactly the same as my colleagues that you should have engaged in some consultation um with the parish council and with the owners of the private road since it's their road down which your construction vehicles will need to go as well as any ultimate residence so just for what it's worth I would um I will throw out into the ring a suggestion that we might defer this and ask uh for it to be deferred in order that the applicant can consult properly with the parish council and with the owners of the private road so sorry can I can I I will ask you to respond yeah yeah and then after that I will take invite our legal advisor to comment uh in the light of the date submitted but Mr McCall that is a question to you may not have been as such but it is yeah and on that sort of point my understanding Leedon hill it is actually on registered land so as as part of the application process we put a notice into the Cambridge news inviting owners off the road to come forward I am aware that a couple of the existing properties on Leedon hill have registered a small parcel of land to the front of their properties but as far as the entire road goes it is actually on registered so within that application our red line runs to the public highway so of those people one of which was Mr Kruger who we have been in contact with they own part of the land and no requisite notice was served on those individuals but as it said yeah Leedon hill itself isn't it it's an on registered parcel of land it's a private a private track right and before I take the next question from council Heather Williams I just want to invite our legal officer to comment on the suggestion that we might defer the application on those particular grounds or possibly the delivery manager or whoever would like to comment on that it's not a reason for deferral right so the legal advice is that that would not be a reason valid reason for deferral councillor Heather Williams did you want to ask a further question hi I have a question for the applicant that's derived from his answer to approve his question by major easy you're happy to take that question are you Mr McCann yes yes yeah and unless I've heard incorrectly through yourself chair um there was mention about an advert going in the Cambridge news I'm wondering why that work publication was selected given it's an SGA airing and served predominantly by the Royston crow now the readership of the Royston crow um there are free copies at the areas and it isn't actually a free delivered paper and I can can guarantee the readership of the paper copies of the Cambridge news in my ward or of two large villages in my ward is a precise number of three so other than that advert I appreciate there is online sections was there was there a reason was it written that you had to go to the Cambridge news at interest as it was given as an answer earlier it is a procedural matter that if you're serving if it's certificate c of the planning application that is completed that you provide a notice you well you outline sort of means of trying to understand ownership off the site and it was considered that the most appropriate means of doing that was the Cambridge news the application was submitted it was validated by the council and that matter was never was never raised or questioned so in my view the application as submitted was a was a valid submission right Mr McCann thank you do you really want to come back here no no I would say it was just a query derived from a response at the applicant game fair enough now you know the reach of the Cambridge news first and worst in crime always helpful information to have at our fingertips thank you um Mr McCann thank you very much for your presentation and for answering questions so comprehensively uh you will have detected that there is a certain amount of um dissatisfaction with the method of communication with the residents on ledden hill but that is a matter we'll come back to in debate before we do that and thank you very much before we do that uh yes I was going to go to the local member next but do you want to comment before we go to the local member just to confirm that we undertook all the consultation as necessary so the site notice put up and all the relevant consultees were consulted along with the neighbors as part of the planning application so all of the neighbors were consulted now before we progress any further even to the local member who I think wants to address us we do need to just take the standard four hour resolution uh we have gone on for four hours council Heather Williams happy to propose happy to propose do I have a seconder can we take that by affirmation we have agreed to continue um we have the local member with its council of under eye did you want to comment on this do you want to make a solution to us if I right yes please thank you so um all is seen quite significant growth recently um especially at the council of under eye perhaps we can start again we're not hearing you clearly I don't know if there's some technical issue that we might resolve please um I'll I'll try a different speaker is that any better I think it is thank you yes so all has seen quite significant growth recently um especially at this end of the village west cross improvement we've mentioned that's 49 dwellings 40% affordable uh for leaders a couple of years ago opposite that there's oaklands which is an exceptional site of 15 dwellings and then south cams itself built four flats completed this year so that's 70 homes of which over half are affordable you could say that all well is making a major contribution towards housing need um in the area this and there is potential for other exceptions sites to come forward um in the future with local support I fear that speculative proposals of this nature will really undermine the positive support for getting affordable housing built um in in good sustainable locations um as you've seen this proposal clearly goes against our policies on development outside of villages uh the red line uh just touches the development framework and that's really just the access uh in reality this is well outside the built form of the village at the end of what is already a bit of a sort of odd protrusion into the countryside and the the topography of the area um and those uh the image you've shown that you want to demonstrate this um makes this even starker uh the impact on the landscape will be will be quite significant uh this site is on the brow of a relatively prominent hill in the local area uh taking the settlement well into the open countryside um uh visible from the surrounding area well beyond the village uh over to the windbowl estate which um you picked you picked up on earlier so this isn't just a small addition to the natural addition to the village it creates a whole new limb of the village into the open countryside in a very harmful way um as we discussed the need for self-builders there's a major consideration uh but the harms both in planning terms and in terms of the development strategy for the village are really significant uh and the harm here is much greater than in say the appeals of Caxton or or um or the in the Basimon case where they are well integrated into the village sort of development area um and so the planning balance just isn't the same um uh this application just does not have policy support we've got good planning policies that we put in place for good reasons we should stick to them unless we have carefully thoughts through um uh until we have a carefully thought through update new local plan there's no way that this proposal could you bring your remarks there's no way we this proposal would be acceptable if it were not self-build the fact that this self-build alone does not make up for the harm uh to this area and to the damage to uh to our policies so i urge you to um support our policies uh and reject this application now thank you um do any members have any questions for councillor van der Vy? councillor Toby Hawkins uh thank you chair and through you um um the the issue here as you say is the fact that there's a number of local policies that um this application goes against um that is not in dispute um however the only objection that or the statutory objection that is on this application is the landscape and yet we have seen uh the views um you know of what the um site would look like you know from different views from outside of oral and none of that actually uh seems to be at least you know from my viewpoint um significant so um i'm not sure why the fact that we need to meet our our responsibility as a vanguard authority cannot be a substantial reason for considering this in a positive way um councillor van der Vy? So i mean as i said the the the self-build need is a material planning consideration that should be taken into account i accept that um i support the the policy that we have i mean i i i i i don't think it was made clear when he became a vanguard authority that it would be used against us in palling policy to be honest um i i i have no recollection for the supporters at the time and that was not made clear but is now being used against us in palling decisions for locations that would not otherwise be acceptable um on the landscaping um the the the landscape impact they're sort of in pure landscape terms the impact will be mitigated by the by the large hedgerows around that but um although it is clear that it will be visible from the surrounding area and because of the prominent location that will be quite a wide area including sensitive sites like like Wampold um but the the the main issue is about approaching into the countryside in in contrary to our policies and that's not that's not about what statutory consultees say that's about what we say in our policies and we need to apply our policies which are very strongly against this and unless there's the sort of the harms are really limited um uh to to other other beings that i don't just don't think that's the case of this instance you can't hear me councillor vanavard i only wanted to thank you very much for your submission and for your answers hear me now yes so i think we now move on to the debate um and i think councillor heather williams would like to start us off thank you thank you triggering debates today um so i if it if i can be indulged and have displayed the planning balance scales again so do you think that's really helpful when we're making our decision to have that visually in our minds um because when i can wait chair if you want so give us a moment okay i can yeah i'm just bring it up now for you we will lose councillor vanavard but uh i'm sure he'll forgive us does that come up no cool there it has thank you right um so when we when we look at that that really does focus our mind that in normal circumstances this would absolutely be a refusal with with no hesitation and i think there is merit in what has been said about the sort of the way that the becoming a vanguard authority that was for really good reasons and and this is uh you know was not to my understanding is still not a reason why it should be sort of weaponized against this it's a separate thing it's a separate department essentially we are we are separate as a committee to it um we do have an issue with the land supply as a council for the self-filled and we i think are seeing nearly every month now self-filled applications and we're going to see that same ways when we didn't have a land supply on other houses we we saw it then and that's going to put us as a committee in a very difficult position for a long time yet um however on other applications when it's been self-filled there's a lot more balance than what we see up there you know it's it's normally a lot more 50 50 and then that that self-filled provision gives it that you know tilted balance of a little bit more but even if we tilt that balance for me there is still so much more on the reasons for refuse or particularly where it is and i i do actually think that it's we have to hold on to agricultural land for its purpose and actually if we didn't use it you know class it's low harm then people might actually start using it um but and nine yeah this isn't hundreds we've heard earlier the shortfall that we are this nine is not going to make or break it for us i do appreciate that you know sometimes little adds up but i don't think overnight this is going to resolve our our problems um and i do think that there probably are a lot more suitable areas for us to be able to make up that shortfall i completely understand why officers are given the recommendation they have because of essentially that tilted balance towards self-builds but for that's what this committee is here for officers have to give us what it is within the rules that we set them and the policies and the way that that it is and it's our decision if we want to deviate or if we want to make a different choice i will be making a different choice of the officer and i will be voting for refusal because even tilting that there is still all of those reasons for refusal and i do believe it's different it's not it's not a bolt-on to the rest of the village you know it's that in all well there are other places where it'd be more more suitable um and uh and that's clearly my reasons why thank you chair um i have to admit i'm fairly skeptical about the real need for self-build i agree i know there's lots of names on the register but Caxton's has been mentioned a couple of times i'm very familiar with it's one of my villages there've been three sites for self-builds approved in Caxton the first they started building out three years ago it's still only half built out the other two one which was approved on appeal the other which we approved no sign of movement at all so i'd really like to see some sort of statistics maybe from our wonderful planning department on how many of these approved self-builds have actually been built um and i fully endorse all counts of the Heather Williams comments about um if we take away the self-build tag um there are good reasons in front of us to actually refuse this application councillor Anna Bradley thank you chair um my observation as a parish who had a speculative planning application to us was that um it's always much better to consult with the parish council first before the applicants make proposals mainly because sometimes the parish council might be able to offer you a really good alternative for where you're suggesting in this case um one wonders you know at least just outside the village framework i mean i wonder whether anyone considered as an exception site you know with 100 affordable housing um having said that i suspect if that had been the case you might have had even more i don't know or you certainly would have had probably 31 representations from third parties objecting um so i am not convinced by this as a a need or indeed a very sustainable location um and i shall not be voting for it councillor to me Hawkins uh thank you chair and through you can councillor Bradnam switch off her sorry we have a situation um which is that we have a shortage that we need to catch up who is it that says every little helps thank you yes if we don't take the minute steps that we need to take to meet that need it's just going to carry on i will just going to see more and more unless of course we as a local authority can find some piece of land somewhere create all these plots and go back that's it so we'll go build your houses but we can't and the fact is the sites that will be coming along as we've seen last month month before are going to be outside the village framework of many villages so how are we going to ever meet that that's the question we need to consider yes this site um again this is where you need to take a balance it's on the edge of the framework it's not adjoining in the sense that it's not exactly on it because you've got that bit of orchard or whatever it is but it's still on the edge of the village framework now there are benefits which actually have not been put on that balance which is all the contributions that are going to be made to sports facilities health there's 21 000 for this 33 000 for that 9004 you know um there's those benefits which we're not seeing up there and the only reason this is coming forward yes is because it's self-built so i don't like it but it's not whether or not i like it it's whether or not we have material planning reasons uh for this to be to be given permission we have consulted with statutory consultees even highways have no objection though their objection raised on potential conflict or difficulty at the junction um i recall that we had this with the site in Bourne but at the same time um you know we gave the planning permission because it went towards meeting the need that we have so i would ask that we consider this very carefully we might not like how the consultation has taken place or not taken place but we need to really consider the planning reasons in front of us thank you the other comments before we go to a vote yes Dr Widger Williams thank you chair um i'll try and be brief um so i've listened to the debate here with some interest and i think it is finally balanced i completely taken forward the points council Hawkins has just made about the need for self-build it can have provided a more affordable way of people obtaining their own home and i think that is important um for me though i struggled to distinguish this case from the two dismissed appeals particularly um the appeal which is mentioned at 8.34 in our bundle which is actually foulmere sign triplo when i first read this being a ward member for triplo i thought how did i never hear about this appeal um but um it was it's triplo rogue foulmere which i think is significant because foulmere is a more is a larger village than triplo um and that application for nine self-build was turned down for what i perceived to be very similar reasons but for this so the inspector commented about the fact that that application in foulmere even though it's on and in that case it's on an adopted road um the inspector laid some emphasis on the fact that there was no or there were limited facilities for pedestrians and cyclists to access um the site in foulmere um and that um people accessing the site would need to share the road with vehicles um they mentioned the fact that there was no street biting um nearby in that application and this looks like a very similar situation so i think bearing in mind what we were told earlier each case turns on its merits um but i do find it very difficult to distinguish this case from the other case normal the case in foulmere and i think there are sufficient grounds to refuse this application on on that basis and i am leaning in that direction right well members we're coming to the moment when we need to take a vote on this let me say i understand and share a number of the concerns that have been addressed uh some of which related to process which is not what will determine the outcome i think today um i share what councillor heather williams said about land quality that assessment is specifically about potential not its current use um um i had some concerns that i expressed about the application of uh inspectors and i had made it clear earlier that i would expect some guidance on this i don't think we had any guidance on the application of similar um decisions on similar sites that i could interpret that i might have been able to take into account um but i also take very seriously what councillor to me hawkins said about our very significant shortfall in delivery of our commitment to self-build housing of course we cannot actually secure the delivery can't actually go out and construct those houses ourselves and ensure that delivering sites for that actually results in them being built i share a number of the concerns that council of antivirus the local member expressed about the landscape impact in what is a very sensitive site in a sensitive area it's quite clear that we're this not a self-build housing i think it unlikely that we would be approving it even as a rural exception site this is not of course for affordable housing so i am finding it quite difficult maybe it should be difficult for us to come to a decision on these on these applications but i'm finding it quite difficult to see whether the provision of nine self-build dwellings outweighs the material considerations for a fusel i would perhaps give higher consideration to the loss of grade to agricultural land for the reasons i've stated and to the spatial introduction to the countryside as council of antivirus said i think a new spur into the countryside is that low to moderate harm might it be greater so i'm not going to state my conclusions i'm happy to take any further comments if people want otherwise we'll proceed to a vote right shall we do that vote by council Hawkins yes thank you one thing we we actually haven't talked about as a further there's a design code that comes with this application which is the first time i've seen this in a similar application which in some ways goes to show that there is some serious consideration about the impact or potential impact of this proposal on the on the landscape and i suspect that design code is one of the things aimed at actually helping to give some balance to what is before us so we know credit to the the applicant for doing that and probably will be helpful if others did if we're to ever bring something like this forward again in terms of agricultural land it is potential agricultural land it's not it's current use is not that it's not in a place where it's a farm either so in my view i can't see that we you know that is a significant weight in my view obviously that's just one person's view um but yeah those are just the two things i was going to say now i had said we were about to proceed to the vote there is one new issue raised there uh i think before we proceed to the vote i'd better ask the delivery manager whether there are any amendments um and to just clarify what it is that we're voting on or thank you that'd be very helpful so to clarify the priorities for a recommendation of approval subject to conditions and completion of the section 106 agreement um okay right can we then progress to a vote electronic vote if we could set that up if we accept the officer's recommendation which is to approve we press the green if we do not then we press the red so it's telling me to log off some reason to want to uh confirm the results of that excuse me thank you chair so by eight votes to one the application is refused thank you members yes it may be that we need to just clarify the reasons for refusal that arose out of that debate is that clear to officers can we perhaps can consummate up for us so on my notes here i have the reasons for reasons to show is a loss of agriculture land being won outside the development framework and recruitment into the countryside and then landscape impact i think that covers the main concerns that were raised by members in the debate thank you so let us then move on to item nine in our agenda which is number three acorn lane this application number 24 00652 let's take a break welcome back to this meeting of south gameshore district council on 10th of april uh we now come to item nine which is application number 24 00652 full three acorn lane cambrone and the key issues are design layout and scale residential amenity uh this application is brought for the committee because it was submitted by an officer of the council or presenting officers Beth Clark Beth thank you chair yep so as previously mentioned the application for four members today is here because the applicant is a member or officer of the council the application seeks planning permission for a single story side infill extension with front and rear roof lights and entrance canopies front roof lights and rear dorma roof extension there is an update for this application in that the parish council has since commented on the application in support of the proposals provided the extension remains ancillary to the main dwelling so the application site is located on acorn lane in cambrone it's a detached dwelling with the garage it's shown here outline in red on the location plan and in yellow on the aerial view from google images these are the elevations um the top shows the existing dwelling and the proposed development is the bottom image these are the proposed floor plan showing the side infill extension named boot room um on the ground floor and the second floor level plan um and section showing the proposed rear dormas so there have been no objections to the proposed development the proposal will not cause harm to the character and interference of the area normally unduly impact neighbouring lestential immunity yep patient is being recommended for approval subject to planning thank you any questions of clarification councillor and a breadman thank you um i just wanted to ask uh it doesn't look as though there's any likelihood of overlooking from the new dorma windows on the rear but given that houses are quite close to each other in some parts of cambrone i don't know the area very well um is there any risk of overlooking thank you so if i just go back to the plan um where the rear dormas will overlook is the shared parking area um to the front there right any other questions councillor to me hawkins you might be sure that's the question brain is crying um when obviously from what we've seen um there's no planning material with issues here and it's only come to us because it's a member of our office of the council if not it'll probably be under delegated just clarify that that is correct isn't it yes uh do we need to have any seconder for that thank you let's proceed to i'm not proposing to take a vote on whether we go to a vote let's go straight to a vote um yeah should we do this by affirmation agree any opposed um any wish to abstain um the application is approved thank you so we then come to uh item 10 is Chris our Chris your words thank you for your patience i'm monitoring our progress carefully all day uh thank you for your report did you want to introduce it uh yes thank you chair um just uh there are a few um updates here in this report um for the committee um we'll just start with open cases we're slightly more this month we're at 676 open cases with 313 being identified for viable within south cambridge here and we've received 184 compliance referrals across both councils since the beginning of january the statistical data is obviously in the attachment to the report um i do have an update on staffing um i'm sorry to interrupt chris can we just be very clear as to which of the various reports oh yes sorry the agent uh the uh my um my appendix is one two and three is the statistical data so we're talking about appendix one at this stage sorry chris um just for clarity these reports were published as an online supplement and are not in your paper perhaps that's the appeals i do have paper copies if members would like them why don't we see how we manage without the paper copies if chris would like to take us through it okay let's take it through it to you okay so paper copies are available for those who want them sorry to delay you chris but i thought it just important to clarify that sorry chair i wasn't aware you didn't have a visual copies of them in front of you right we're with you again okay um so uh yeah um as i was saying we have six hundred and seventy six open cases um currently three hundred and thirteen identifiable within south kain butchere and we've had 184 compliance referrals since the beginning of the year across both councils that have come in for officers to deal with um i have a update on staffing i have a member of staff who um was on long-term sickers now come back uh to the office and is back with us full-time however our contractor george mineham has now left the authority um he was um backfilling whilst john shudler was on succumban um i can't really give you an update about whether john's coming back to the team or whether we're going to be going out so at the moment i've awakened principal planning compliance posts um but i will hopefully be able to update the committee in the next meeting um so uh moving on um sorry bear with me a second um i know that councillor heather williams requested in the january 24 um planning committee that um i seek to examine the cases that are older six months to see which ones would likely be a priority a case um just with resourcing i've had a look it's probably a couple of hundred um files that we have and i think it would take about a week for one officer to do that i don't really have the resources to do it at the moment but it's something i will then have a look at um once i'm fully staffed again and we we can see what we can do about that i do apologise that this is something that councillor williams has asked a couple of times about uh unfortunately i've just not had the resourcing to to go ahead and do that um and coming on to the appendixes appendix two we haven't served any enforcement notices in march in south cambridge here and the case of those statistics have been updated so cases that are less than six months old we are 238 in total 119 in south cams with a breakdown of the priorities more than six months old we have a breakdown of the numbers again but also now we're starting to see the um cases that are open by priority as well um the priority system's now been in enforced more than six months and as we move forward these numbers will um get updated on a more regular basis so that you can see how many of our priority cases are older than six months due to my annual leave um there are there's only one closure in march 2024 um so it's taking me longer to deal with these all march closures have been processed by me now and these will show up in the 2024 figures as a result um i'm also including cases closed by um priority so those figures will reflect there as well and a new statistic um is the average time taken in days from the receipt of a complaint by the team to the file creation and acknowledgement sent where it's applicable to the customer targets three days um so new referrals priority a priority a cases were made up in basically the same day there are no priority bs and priority c's were all made up within point 36 of the day and that concludes my update any questions thank you i think we might have some questions for you um i think i'll start with councillor heather williams thank you chair i have about three questions um so it's just if i can start on the staffing if i look at um page three and four it sort of goes over and and i appreciate your reference people that have been a second comment on long term six the mindsays people that are on long term six were still included but we've got this vacant situation so is the vacancy for somebody who has been seconded or is it sort of what you described in your dialogue is that on top of this i wasn't quite sure no how it will match together yeah so that that vacancy is a result of john shaft of wood who was um presenting the committee when i started um that's it he moved on to um strategic sites and um he is still on that's a comment till the end of this month i don't know whether he will be going for a full-time role within that team or not that is a possibility and once i know what's happening there i'll know whether we will be able to advertise that post permanently or whether john will be coming back into that post so so you are not advertising till that vacancy at current i can't advertise until i know whether john's coming back to the role or not because i don't know whether he'll be coming back to the team and i can't fill a role that technically exists for john at this moment in time okay but we have we had agency in that are we able to get some temporary cover yeah that was that was george mine and his contract finished at the end of march and john's the convent was extended by one month for the month of April okay thank you that's my first question um the second question um i appreciate that you've given a response in the papers and the verbal response given but i suppose this is my my in logic perhaps is that there must be cases that we know are higher priority from those old it just doesn't mean i don't quite understand why we can't have a figure of how many of those cases in that 200 are the ones that are high priority and being actively worked on because um yeah because it just seems it just seems very odd that we can't seem to quantify that because if not how how is that prioritisation going for those older applications do you certainly just to our practical point of view there must be some sort of mechanism to and rather than just chronologically going through them by date because obviously somebody builds 10 houses is probably more than somebody moved offence if you like um yeah yeah i understand that um obviously the priority system was brought in late last year as we've kind of spoken about with it being properly in place for november um the the problem that i've got is to give you meaningful data i need to look at all of the cases that we have open and work out really whether their priority a b's or c's i can ask my officers what a priority a is um i wouldn't know what they all are just looking at a list of uh numbers because obviously there's a lot of open cases some of them uh obviously probably proceed my time here as you're probably aware there are some longer longer term open cases and i'd just be relying on them to give me kind of a a lowdown of what they think they have as priority a's where i would rather give you some more meaningful data if it's an exercise we're going to do so that you actually have a list of the actual priority a's the actual proper priority b's and c's so that those statistics are more meaningful so that you can say well actually you've got a lot of priority a's priority b's can you say you know why the majority of these are still open or something along those lines so i can ask officers to include perhaps some numbers for older ones that they've got but i would like it to be meaningful when i report back to the committee and yourself yeah i mean the the important thing is having a comparable right so we just need because i accept with b's and c's i don't want you spending loads but it just seems odd that we can't seem to get the priority a's because there must be some sort of prioritisation happening and if you read the report i know that's not the case but the report sort of implies that we're not priority using a priority system on the other ones so it's just a way to try and you know be more reflective of what i'm sure is actually happening so that's on on that one i do appreciate the new the average time taken to with the receipt i think that's a really positive thing to be putting in and if you can expand that more so that we see sort of average times to you know close a case etc because then that would help with that performance that obviously as councillors is what we sort of want want to be able to see but at least if we had a face mark on your priority a's that we could then count down from even though it wouldn't be everything at least we can see because what's really hard to to distinguish is do we have priority a's that i sat there for years and i do appreciate sometimes that can have really good understandings of why it is when we used to get the list of sites you wouldn't actually be able to see if a site was still on there for a long period of time and we we lost that with the change and i'm not saying the changes are bad but that is something that i miss because it gave you some sort of guidance of longevity of application so it's not i'm not trying to be nitpicker just trying to get back that comparator so i do i do just have a very quick comment on that chair just for for councillor Williams i am looking to introduce a statistic for the time taken to visit a site when it's a priority a b and c site so they're in in line with our policy the five working days 10 working days and 20 i've looked at the statistics we have at the moment there appears to be a anomaly of bringing in much much older cases which actually completely skews the the system where the priority a b's and c's aren't actually listed but it is creating a problem where an initial site visit date is put in and it's pulling through data that doesn't actually technically sit correct by and working on that and hope to give the committee that in the coming months thank you chris um i think councillor sanford had a question for you yeah thank you chair chris apologies if this seems like a very basic question um it was asked by the parish council chair and i couldn't answer um we have a situation where an applicate pending application has been approved but the applicant has not discharged most perhaps all of the conditions is that a compliance issue or does it come back to the original planning officer to monitor those conditions it is it is a compliance issue um and it would be for us to see whether those breaches whether there's some kind of action we can take obviously as you know not all conditions probably go to the heart of a planning permission um we might be able to sort some of those out um you know quite quickly um to get details discharged but if there's something very specific that requires something to be done prior to commencement then we need to know about those quite quickly so that we can double check that that we get those conditions discharged and the appropriate details sorted out we would obviously work with our planning colleagues to get conditions discharged um but it is for us to uh investigate those and chase those okay thank you just for background it was the Ellsworth parish council chair who asked that question thank you chris a question then from uh councilor Bill Handing and councilor Ivan Wilson thank you chair um i i have a couple of points first of all i know that George Mineham was doing a lot of work at smithy fen so i'm really disappointed that his contract has come to an end because i thought he was doing some positive work then and so it would be useful to have an update on on where that had got to and um there's another site that i know is currently under appeal at cheer fen but there are other things happening on that site that were that are being reported all the time and that i'm just worried that it will get beyond the point where it could be manageable to bring things back um into being um yeah in compliance and my third one is um another development in Cotinham where they the builders have not um stuck to the planning permission they were given and those houses are actually on the market so there is a sense of urgency to um actually get that back into compliance before um um people innocent buyers actually buy something that isn't compliant with the planning permission that was given in the first place so there is a sort of sense of urgency there about getting that all back in order yeah i can i can comment on on three on all three of those i think firstly for smithy fen i will um get in contact with you uh and just have a an update conversation with you about that um and where that is in terms of cheer fen in general terms once we've issued an enforcement notice which is subject to appeal any subsequent work will still be caught by that enforcement notice um george has been out checked that site for us and got photos while he was working for us we have a comprehensive record of what's been going on on site up until recently um any new works um are caught by that enforcement notice the requirement is to put the land back to its former condition um and that that is what will have to happen at the end of um any appeal procedure where notice is upheld so um i would not have um too much in the way of concern about the additional works that they've carried out that is at their own risk uh the other cotton um um site that you've spoken about if that is um till your homes possibly um i will um speak to you about that and i will ask that um tovi uh williams also provide you an update of where he's with with some of the highways matters um i'll write you it's not till you but um i'll write you about what is okay right and councillor annan bradley has a question for you thank you chair um thank you chris um on appendix five on page 211 of our agenda pack can you just um explain to me the appendix five is called appeals pending statement and then we've got a column at the end saying a statement due so who is that statement due from is it from the planning inspector councillor bradley i think we need to be aware there are different appendix five floating around these are the agenda pack no they're not it's the next item okay i'm just asking because i know no no i'm leaving i'm up i'm asking because i've got to leave okay well why don't we move on to the next item do we have any further questions for chris he's here no i think not so let's move on and let's start on the next item with councillor bradley who has a question on the next item for which i think rebecca will be responding to thank you very much chris sorry rebecca did you are you there oh yeah sorry okay um do you want to present what does what does statement due mean on page 211 it's statement due from whom the councillor that this is something that's gone to appeal the inspector has made a decision what stage is it at um so it's at the stage where there's gone to appeal um the applicant submitted the appeal pins have accepted the appeal as an appeal and now it's going through a due process so the part of that process is for the council to submit a statement defending its position and so the reason why there's um one that had a statement due date of the 29th of march is just purely because of the date that easter fell so the report would have been published and prepared before the 23rd march so that one would have been the statement would have been done by now right councillor bradley does that deal with your query right um did you want to present the report in any way or have we got it in front of us and we can ask you further questions if we want to yeah if anybody's got any further questions i'm happy to take them away and come back to you if they relate to a specific appeal if there's anything general i can try and so if we go through this one by one first of all on page 205 we have appendix one decisions notified by the secretary of state i've been to take that without further comment appendix two appeals received um i make the two our decision on land to the south of each secretrys all road foul mere it's now subject to appeal right can i just have has the planning committee received feedback about the appeals allowed under appendix one in other words these were refused by the planning committee and they've now been allowed on appeal the first two and i just wondered if the planning committee is is um getting the benefit of learnings from that process um the first two were delegated decisions i'm just looking for they were delegated decisions fair enough okay so the appeal i couldn't see one which had been determined by the planning committee i really was the councillor bradley number where it was determined by the planning committee if it's subsequently successfully appealed we should hear the reasons but i think i miss Rebecca and didn't see that it was a delegated decision that's all i see right councillor Eileen merson is just for clarification on appendix one um appeals allowed appeals dismissed appeal turned away what what's the difference between turned away and dismissed oh okay sorry yep that's an issue in our list but let's not worry too much about the reasons for that so appendix two i think we've dealt with any further questions on that appendix three a local inquiry dates just for information i think appendix four and similarly three three b appendix four a waiting decision from inspectorate well there's not much i think we can usually say about that we just have to awake the outcome councillor bradley i'm sorry i just wanted to ask um the appeals on page 210 there are about six of them across the corner caravan park is that likely to be heard in person or on paper sorry and my pages are in order um it's the very end of appendix four um so they're awaiting a decision okay so has they've been heard then um the parish council would like to um if there was going to be an in-person hearing the parish council would have liked to attend then they're not down as an inform in in appendix three b as an informal hearing date scheduled so i can only assume that they're in writing but i can come back to you thank you yes please right so back to appendix four then um we have land north of cambridge north station non-determination that's just not that imparting um the navigator extraction unit page 208 um the navigator has now closed um claim that the enforcement on the extraction unit was what forced them to close but actually i think planning officers would suggest that they had found a way of resolving that and they may have closed for other reasons but uh in any case the navigator is gone for now um page 209 any questions or comments on those we have another non-determination on darwin green phases two and three would that have been for this committee or would that have been jdcc i thought so yes uh and then of course we have the fenny lane farm halfway down that page awaiting a position on that we have another one relating to uh self or custom built residential dwellings going to appeal following refusal of planning commission that one was in gambling gay on page 210 um i'm just going through the one if members want to stop me if they have any questions or comments to page 211 rebecca anything you want to add to that yeah so we're just to update on the um appeals that i think you're referring to cancer braddon on page 210 at grassy corner um we're waiting on pins to decide what type of appeal it'll be the appellant has requested inquiry grassy corner i was i hadn't spotted that right that would be in person but yeah waiting to hear what route it will go down okay any other comments or questions from members good thank you very much indeed um i think just a reminder that the next meeting is on wednesday eighth of may and i declare this meeting closed at 20 past four thank you