 Yn hyfforddi'r gweithio'r gweithio hynny o'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio yng Nghymru, Henry Bachelor, a rym ni'n wneud yn ei gweithio'r gweithio. Gweithio'r cyffredin am y ddechrau'r gweithio'r ddweud, mae'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gwneud o'r ddweud. Mae'n ddweud yn ddweud yn ei ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud i'r cyflym, ac nid yw'n amser o'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio. Rwy'n meddwl y byddai'r meddwl gweithio'r Gweithan Llywodraeth Cynulledig, y gwirionedd, ymgyrch, ymgyrchgyrch, ysgrifennu, yma'r 70 grws rwy'n gyntaf Llywodraeth yn gweithio'r mhenach. Dyma'r grwp ar y wrthoedd o'r rhwng mewn ysgol, rwy'n cyfleoedd yn ei ffryd i'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio yma, yn gyfrwyngio'n gynghwylliant, o'r rwyf erbyn i'r llwylliant. As Britain changed around her, she was the rock that remained constant. While it is a time of great sadness, it is also a time to remember the legacy which she leaves behind. So I invite you all to join me in standing for the next two minutes in silence, reflecting on this historic moment, and paying your own private tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Thank you. Okay, just the usual bits of housekeeping and then we will move into the main body of the agenda. So could I please remind all those present in the chamber that everything on your desks, including your laptop screen, is likely to be broadcast at some point. The camera follows the microphone being switched on, so councillors and officers are requested to wait a couple of seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up with the microphone. If the fire alarm sounds, then please leave the chamber and make your way down the stairs. Do not use the lift. The safe assembly point is next to the marketing suite, which is halfway down the business park. With those participating in the meeting via the livestream, please indicate that you wish to speak via the chat column. Please do not use the chat column for any other purpose than requesting to speak. Please make sure your device is fully charged and that you switch your microphone and camera off, unless you're invited to do so otherwise. Please ensure you switched off or silence any other devices so that they do not interrupt proceedings. Obviously that goes for us in the Chamber too. When you are invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched on. When you finish addressing the meeting, please turn off your microphone immediately. Speak slowly, clearly and please do not talk over or interrupt anyone else. Members, please note if you need to vote on any item we should do so via the electronic microphones in front of us, and only those who are present in the Chamber are able to vote. Committee members, we're now going to do a quick roll call. After I read your name out, please switch your microphone on, introduce yourself and then switch the microphone off again. I've mentioned at the start my name is Councillor Henry Batchelor. I'm one of the members for the Linton wards and I'm the chair of this committee. The Vice-Chair on my right is Councillor Peter Fane. Good morning Peter Fane, Shelford Ward. Thank you. Councillor Arreol Cahn. Arreol Cahn, Horstyn and Cometon Ward. Councillor Martin Cahn. Martin Cahn, Member for Hysden, Inbeton and Otter Park. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Yes, thank you, Chair. I'm Jeff Harvey, Councillor for Borsham Ward. Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Timmy Hawkins, Caledricot Ward. Councillor William Jackson Wood. Good morning, world Jackson Wood of Shelford Ward. Councillor Peter Sanford. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Peter Sanford, ward Councillor for Caxton and Papworth. Councillor Heather Williams. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Councillors. Heather Williams, I represent the Wardens Ward. Last but not least, Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you, Chair. Richard Williams, Member for the Wittlesford Ward. Thank you. So I can confirm the meeting's core rate, so we will be proceeding with business today. Also joining us at the top table here, we have some officers to support the committee today. So on my left we have Mr Phil McIntosh, who is the interim delivery manager. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, members. Phil McIntosh, interim delivery manager, west, for the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service. Thank you. And we have Mr Richard Pitts, who is the principal planning lawyer. Good morning, members. You have Richard Pitts, principal planning lawyer and the legal adviser to today's committee. Thank you. We also have Mr Steve Fraser-Lyn, who is the planning officer. Thank you, Chair. Steve Fraser-Lyn, planning officer. I'm just going to be presenting the item on Bediachysden Road, Cotman. And Tom Razala, another planning officer. Good morning. I'm Tom Razala, definitive map officer. I work for Cambridge Accounting Council. I'm presenting an item on public football. Thank you. And finally, joining us remotely, we have our democratic services officer, Lawrence Damari-Homan, who will be clarking the meeting today. Lawrence, are you with us? Yes, thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Lawrence Damari-Homan, democratic services officer for the planning committee. Thank you. So, members, if you need to leave the meeting at any point, please, could you indicate to myself or the vice-chair so it can be recorded in the minutes, please? We will be breaking regularly dependent on where we are in the agendas, but if any members feel they need a break prior to that, just again, indicate to myself or the vice-chair and we'll do our best to accommodate. Members, we should have the main agenda pack dated the 5th of September and then two additional online supplements dated the 6th of September, which is a plans pack, and the appendix for agenda item 5, which is the public right of way application. We should have also received a supplementary update report for agenda item 7, which I believe we have paper copies of in front of us, and also a paper copy of some representations from local members that were received after the agendas were printed. Do any members not have any of those documents or access to them? No, I think we're all ready to go. Lawrence, can we go to you please for agenda item number 2, which is Apologies for Absence? Thank you, chair. Just one apology for Absence today from councillor Bill Handley. Thank you. We move on to agenda item 3, which is declarations of interest. Do any members have any interests to declare relating to any items of business on the agenda today? Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you, chair. In relation to item 14 on the appeals, one of which is listed on the local member for. Thank you. It's been noted. Councillor Sanford. Just a clarification. Items 9 and 10 right to property in Comington, which is part of my ward. I had no contact with the applicant. Any comments I make will be as a member of the planning committee, not a local member. Thank you. I have one as well. I'm an elected member of Camershire County Council, who are the applicants of agenda item 5, albeit that doesn't preclude me from taking part in voting. Members, if there's no more decorations of interest, we will move on. We are now on agenda item 4, which are the minutes of the previous meeting held on 10 August. They are on page 1, moving forward of our agendas. Do any members who were present have any alterations or any mistakes in them? No. Can we agree those as a correct record? Oh, sorry. Councillor Heather Williams. I am abstaining chairs as a president meeting. No, notice that Councillor Heather Williams would be abstaining if she wasn't present. Members, can we agree those as a correct record, please, with that one abstention? Agreed. Thank you very much. Members, we move on to the substantive business in front of us today, on agenda item 5 on page 9 of our agendas. This is an application for a public right-of-way diversion, which is public footpath number 10, Gamblingay. Sorry, because this is a Camershire County Council application. It's laid out slightly differently, so I don't have all the information in front of me, but I think, as we heard earlier, the applicant is Camershire County Council. The presenting officer is the definitive maps officer of the county council, Mr Tom Rosala, who is with us in the room. Tom, I will hand over to you to present the report, please. Thank you very much. This agenda item is regarding an application for a public path order under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 257 allows a local planning authority to make a public path order to divert or stop up a public right-of-way if they're satisfied. It's necessary to do so in order to enable a development to be carried out. The automating authority for public half-orders under the Town and Country Planning Act, on the planning authority, is a local planning authority to make a public path order to divert or stop up a public right-of-way if they're satisfied that it's necessary to do so in order to enable a development to be carried out. The automating authority for public half-orders under the Town and Country Planning Act are the planning authority. In this case, South Cambridgeshire District Council. Cambridgeshire County Council are responsible for the legal record of public rights of way in the County of Cambridgeshire in the form of the definitive map and statement. The County Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council have an agreement in place since 2007, which enables county council officers to process applications to divert public rights of way associated with the development on the district's behalf. All of the powers to make and confirm that public half-orders are retained by the district council, where they are the relevant planning authority. The report for the committee is in relation to a reserved matters planning permission approved in 2020 for 90 dwellings, a green-end road, a green-end industrial estate in Gambingay. I've got a plan up of the proposed public right-of-way, but I also have here a plan which shows the proposed open spaces gives you an idea of the planning permission that was granted under planning reference S408519RM, which is shown at Appendix E of the report. As part of the development proposals, the applicant Morris Homes Eastern have applied to the County Council for a public path order to divert the legal alignment of part of public for a path number 10, Gambingay, which is between A, B and C on the plan, which is on the screen. Prior to the development of public footpath number 10, Gambingay ran down a private access road in the green-end industrial road site. I have some pictures here of what it previously looked like. These are extracts taken from Google Street View and they show the appearance and character of the relevant part of the footpath prior to the commencement of the development. It generally followed the northern footway of which it will now generally follow the northern footway of the State Access Road which is ultimately proposed to be adopted under section 38 which is an adoption agreement of the Highways Act. You can see it previously between points A and B run down basically a shared vehicular access way. Then again between B and C of a shared access vehicular way to point C which is in the distance in the picture where the public footpath will end. I am also taking some photographs which are actually taken in May 2022 during construction works and therefore there are bits of the proposed route which wasn't able to photograph but it gives you an idea of the layout being built at the moment so it's not complete. So this is basically point D looking towards point E. As I said the proposed public footpath would follow the footway. You can see part of that there. That's just point D looking back towards Green End which is the main road and it would end at the Tattel paving there. This is not completed but it would go up to a raised crossing point F to G and then at this point I can go any further but it's basically a construction site so the footpath would continue on the footway when it's constructed. This is point C looking in towards B point J at the time in May 2020 that we were constructing. Section 2 of the report provides a detailed background on the application to divert the footpath. Members of the committee may already be aware of the work that started on the development in October 2020 and part of the legal alignment of the public footpath has previously been unavailable for the public to use during construction. A temporary traffic regulation order was previously in place between October 2020 and December 2021 to facilitate the closure as part of the public footpath. At the end of December 2021 however the temporary traffic regulation order expired and extension was not granted by the counter council due to local objections to the severing of a useful link between Green End, Maple Court, each site. A road which I struggle to pronounce I think it's Kinks Road let's say. As a result the developer since opened up a temporary access path through each site now is in alignment very similar to the public can now get through. Section 3 of the report describes the existing alignment which has been through. Section 4 and 5 provide the general legal framework for making a public path order under the town and country planning act and the county council's policies. Section 6 outlines the consultation which the county council undertook with the local user groups such as the Rambolers, the public rights of way officer, local members and the parish council. So yes here we go. So the original diversion was actually proposed along the southern axis southern footway. So probably should get you a plan. What you've got there in pink is the areas which are proposed to be adopted by the county council and it was originally proposed to be along the southern footway however. We had some comments from the rights of way officer and the local parish council and we updated it. Basically they were concerned about the road crossing points. So it was the alignment after the feedback that we received was changed to the northern footway because it crosses at point J and point G to F raised crossing points which would look something like this. This is considered to be more safe. So yep. Ultimately north and the south footway are going to form part of what is going to be public highway under the adoption agreement and it's open to the public to choose which road they wish to walk on really but making changes to the alignment of this stage has resulted in a greater general understanding of the proposed highway network in this location in the might of a potential of any unnecessary objections to any order which we may make to develop a footpath. So when the adoption agreement for these state roads is finalised and the work is undertaken ultimately the proposed alignment of the footpath will be subsumed within the greater highway network and it will cease to be a public footpath so a highway state capable of being recorded and given it's a mapping statement it will still be a public highway or just be like any footway that you get on a public road. The proposed arrival is required to be considered this point in the development to ensure that the legal record for the public rights of way can be amended within the necessary timeframe so it needs to be before a point when the development is substantially completed. This is because adoption agreements tend to be signed off after developments have been substantially completed and the main is a public highway in perpetuity and this just really concerns how the footpath will be recorded on the county council's public highway records. I took this to the assistant director of highway maintenance of the county council and he's the officer who's delegated the power to make decisions on rights of way and he confirmed on the 15th of August that the proposed public path will be acceptable to the county council as the local highway authority. Therefore the decision to be considered by the planning committee is whether it's necessary to make the public path order to divert part of the public footpath number 10 as proposed to enable the development which has been approved to be carried out. Following detailed consideration the proposal in terms of the legislative framework section 7 and the county council's own policy framework section 8 the officers conclusion and recommendation section 9 and 10 of the report is that the public path order is necessary to enable the development to take place and the order should be made subject to the inclusion of a record with two metres. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, very comprehensive introduction Members we have no public speakers on this so I think we just go straight to the debate of course if anyone has any questions of clarification for the officer we can do that now as well Councillor Richard Williams please. Thank you Jerry, just a quick one I think I saw this on the photograph just to check between points E and H there is there a dropped curb because I doubt very many people will walk up to G F and G. Okay so I think that's it. What's going to, at the moment there isn't a drop curb in that picture because it's under construction but what will be in place is something similar to this so you'd walk up to this raised Yeah no sorry it wasn't too much that because there's a kink and I just think hardly anyone is going to walk up across and back they're just going to cut across the road so will there be a drop curb there so they can cross safely in a straight line rather than up and round There isn't proposed to be a drop curb in that location it's I believe it would be the development engineer decided that the safest point across is yeah walking up and across the raised crossing so there's no one to stop there's nothing to stop people from walking across at that point but that's the proposed crossing point Marks any way there? Please It's really just a question about the probably the next stage but the definitive map you'll say that the whole area will be adopted and therefore would cease to be a footpath but the initial bit from C to J appears to be a footpath separate footpath rather than a road so it would not be open to all traffic Would that remain on the definitive map? Sorry C to H So C to H will be part of the highway which will be adopted so that at that point is actually crossing the road the remaining parts of the public footpath which is shown by a line with some vertical lines on it they'll remain on the definitive map and statements the rest it's it's just a process of how it's recorded it'll still be public highway it will be mostly on the footway so it will be away from the traffic it's just the way that it's recorded really But a footpath can be adopted and still be on the definitive map if it's just a footpath I'm talking about the first little bit marked on the plan of the dwelling that you showed as a footpath rather than as a road that's why I was wondering what the legal position of that was if it's adopted does that preclude it from being on a definitive map because I thought that wasn't actually a preclude it If it's adopted it would come off the definitive map and statement because it would be a status of highway that isn't capable of being recorded on the definitive map and statement definitive map and statement is generally what you'd imagine in the countryside like public footpaths you get when you walk on a nice green lane or a ride away or a byway and then we also have the list of streets which is like a record where you record public roads and footways so effectively this is going to become part of the road network so it will have to be when it's adopted it will have to be removed from the public from the definitive map and statement but it's still public highway it's just the way that we have to record are we just keep our highway record that way that we can to council Thank you and councillor Heather Williams please Thank you chair and through yourself I think the pronunciation syncs if that helps for everybody and just on page 15 6.5 it says about the objection for the rights of Wales saying and saying that just touching on the point from councillor Dr Richard Williams about dropped curbs and the rights stated that footpath crossing points over the state should be fully accessible by dropped curbs does that create an issue with that objection given that we've been told there isn't dropped curbs or is that an equivalent how are we marrying those up Initially the public rights of Wales was concerned this was the original proposal and it was going to go along the southern footway which was this one here and it was going to cross a road here and there wasn't proposed to be any drop curves and he said that was not it's not fully accessible fully accessible so it's been changed to be along this section here there's a raised crossing with dropped curbs and there's a raised crossing here with dropped curbs that was satisfactory for the rights of Wales as being fully accessible under the Equalities Act so it's not got dropped curbs in every single point where it meets a road but they've been put at certain points where they're deemed to be the safest crossing points I believe so I think just for clarity the rights of Wales no longer has an objection to the scheme that's correct thank you do you want to come back yeah it's just because it does clearly say originally that the footpath crossing points over the estate roads so it doesn't specify a certain road so are we what I'm trying to ascertain is all of the roads do they have some form of provision either raised platforms or dropped curbs and actually this isn't an application that we see a lot of chair so please bear with me on this one the difference you referenced about Equalities the difference between a raised platform and a dropped curb is there any difference in those methods that we should be aware of when making this decision that you believe this is difficult for me to answer so it's what I will say though there's a highways development management team within the county council and they deal with the adoption process and they're scrutinising what's proposed to be adopted and one of the things that they'll look at is the crossing points whether they're safe and whether they're in line with accessibility requirements and so that will be all of the roads that are proposed to be adopted which is in pink here within the scheme so I would trust that if there was any things that needed to be improved they would make sure that they were improved prior to the road being adopted this is just concerning the version of an existing public footpath so it's yeah it's going to cross at points which are raised and level and then the rights way officer doesn't have an objection anymore and yeah it will be scrutinised by the highways development engineers I hope that that goes some way to answering your question I think so, I think the question was regardless of whether it's a drop kerb or a raised platform the accessibility for everyone is acceptable to the county council whichever department looked at it it will be, yeah, prior to adoption yeah I think that's answered the question thank you councillor thank you chair perhaps a minor point but I just wanted clarification paragraph 3.5 says a proposed diversion which is 7 metres longer than the existing route and then paragraph 7.4 says is 8 metres longer than the existing route is it 7 or 8 metres well, it's either 7 or 8 I'm not sure exactly which figure it is I don't have the means of measuring right now it's slightly longer but I'd say it's only a little bit longer it gives a direct connection I think a minor point I think in the scheme of things but worth being clear sorry councillor we need to be consistent here no, that is a fair point councillor William, sorry I cut you off earlier thank you chair so it's just my final point of clarification we're talking about adoption what I'm concerned about chair is that if things could have decision today it doesn't affect the ability to change the scheme later on if you need to to get adoption because what I wouldn't want is for us to approve something that's not adoptable and then have unadopted areas as a consequence so some reassurance chair is not actually creating a bit of a mind field by doing this a mind field I'll pass the officer for mind standing we're just being asked today to approve a diversion rather than any engineering technicalities but obviously I will ask Tom if he could comment briefly yeah, we're looking at ensuring that the public footpath between C, B and A is diverted onto an alignment which will mean that it's out of the way of where they're going to be building houses under the approved scheme it's proposed to be adopted if it's not if there is some complications with that the route which is C to J to I to H to G to F and E and D it will still be public highway and it will be maintainable public expense so it will be maintainable by the county council so the county council will have an obligation to make sure that the route is open available when it's up to or the high standard we'd expect a public footpath to be so even if the rest of the roads for some reason weren't considered to be adoptable yeah, we have a certification clause we put a certification clause within the order to ensure that the it would only be confirmed and finalised when it's up to a standard that's acceptable that's fine Tom, I think that's answer the question Members, do we need any further questions for the officer on this or could we make a decision on it I don't see anyone indicating a request to speak Members, does anyone wish to vote against or abstain on this particular item is to approve the diversion does anyone wish to vote against or abstain on that can we take it by affirmation then that this is approved does everyone agree agreed, okay so that is agreed by affirmation Tom, thank you very much put a few more questions if you're anticipating there but I appreciate you're at your input there Members, we're moving on to agenda item 6 now which is an application at the former Barrington Cement Works Haislingfield Road Barrington, the application is a section 73 variation of conditions which are all listed in the agenda and I'm not planning on reading them all out the applicant is Red Row Homes the reason it is before us today is because it's a departure application from policy and the presenting officer in front of us or who will be presenting the application today is Michael Hammond who I see is joining us online Michael, good morning good morning, can you hear me? we can hear and see you fine Michael, so I'll hand over to you to give the committee any updates to the reports and then to introduce the report for members please great, I'll just share my screen a bit of me please just confirm you can see that in full presentation mode we can, great okay so yes this is an application for the former Barrington Cement Works site it's related to the application that came before committee last month for what's called the South Eastern parcel which the committee made a resolution to grant approval subject to a section 6 being drafted which is currently being done it's a very long description because there's been multiple previous variation of condition applications so hence why it's very long but I won't go into every single condition here but it's mainly been submitted for procedural slash legal reasons because to facilitate that drop in permission they need to effectively change the outline plans to exclude that area but I will show you that in the plan form shortly but in terms of updates I do have a few I'm afraid so bear with me update number one relates to the highways related drawings, members will note that there is comments from the highway authority saying basically that the highways related drawings shouldn't be included in the approved drawings in condition number one upon reflection and sort of discussing with legal we're minded now to actually agree with that so we're posing to take out drawing numbers seven, eight and nine that were originally proposed in condition number one so we're posed to remove them and also to remove condition number 23 in its entirety this is on the basis that there's a section minus six agreement on the site which covers this matter and there also will be section two, seven, eight works with the county council so the drawings aren't at a fixed point so we wouldn't want to make them part of the approved drawing so we're posing effectively to revert to what the highway authority suggested in the first place update number two is a fairly minor one but it's more one that we like to take the opportunity to do if it's available effectively under the previous permission the reference number 21 01474 slash S73 the condition reference said 19 but it should have said 18 it's relatively minor but given we've got the opportunity to vary it we might as we think it's probably the best opportunity to do it so proposing to basically change the condition reference to 18 which is the correct one so relatively minor in the scheme of things update number three is not a change to the actual report it's just to make members aware that we received quite late comments from the lead local flood authority officers as members will note there's objections from the lead local flood authority in drainage I'll get on to drainage in the next slide but mainly because their view was that this should wait until the drop in permissions have been approved but I think they misunderstood the reason for this application so we've since gone back to them and following that clarification that they're not seeking to amend what's already been agreed through discharges of condition previously they no longer have an objection to the application in short they have recommended a couple of informatives on the permission which I'll get to shortly but their view is that because those drop in or the drop in permission that's going to be granted the other one in the advanced stage yet will have their own pre-commencement conditions the feeling is that that will be the appropriate juncture for them to comment on them and as I was referring to there are two informatives suggested and the standard ones that we tend to get on most applications one is about ordinary water courses and the other one is about pollution control but officers don't have any objection to those being included as informative numbers three and four respectively so we're suggesting that added on the update from the drainage team similar to the lead local fund for as much shorter it's it's also being put online it's in writing but yeah drainage doesn't have any objection to the application following clarification that any drop in permissions will have their own separate discharge of condition processes so similar to the lead local fund authority they no longer have an objection either number five is very much similar to number two in the sense that it's just a sort of administrative error it was noticed that the conditions were mainly saying REV-A in relation to the phasing plan which was the drawing number that was originally submitted when the application came in but it's since been revised so it should say REV-C so effectively officers are asking for conditions 13, 18 and 19 to say REV-C rather than REV-A or in this case there's no REV number but the phasing plan should all be REV-C but hopefully they're all clear but I'm happy to go back and if members want to at the end on any of those points so this is the site location plan that they've submitted so effectively it's the red line around the entire site that was granted permission under the original outline but they've included this grey area here which is the area to be developed pursuant to plan permission reference 21 stroke 04 088 stroke full which is the application that came for committee last month so it's effectively graying that out and this is a recurring theme for all the plans but just to show the ones that are being approved so this is the phasing plan that was referred to so where it shows phase one, phase two, phase three and then this area has now been excluded similarly this is the height parameter plan under the outline which specified how tall buildings could go and so again it's just been excluded from that plan sorry Michael just sorry to interrupt I've had a request from the room to if you could put the laser pointer rather than the mouse it's more difficult to see for us in the room absolutely yep school wear right that's better yep sorry about that yep so this area in here and again with the land use and access parameter plan that form part of the outline drawings against pros to amend that to effectively exclude that area there this is more for context this is not part of the approved drawings but just to job members memories this is effectively the change that has a resolution to grant following last month's plan committee where they were taking out the apartment blocks and replacing them with housing and then developing into some of that open space area there so that's just a reminder really of what was approved so in summary the application has been submitted practically by the applicant as it is considered to be necessary by the applicant because of a recent court of appeal decision which is hillside parks limited versus Snowdonia national park authority which has led to questions arising in respect of the ability to deliver so-called drop in permissions where there would be inconsistency between the drop in permissions and the original plan permission granted the drop in permission to which the application relates is the one that came to committee last month certain conditions have been updated to compliance conditions and to reflect the latest drawings for example the ones that I've gone through in the updates how the application does not seek to amend the nature of the originally approved development and has been submitted only for legal purposes officers recommend amendments to condition numbers 113, 17, 18 and 19 the removal of condition number 23 and the insertion of two informatives went into drainage and set out in the update slides earlier so approval was recommended sub to conditions and informatives as updated by the updates yep that is all thank you chair Michael thank you very much members we do have a public speaker on this item but before we move to them we'll offer members the opportunity to ask any questions of clarification of the officer in case anything in his presentation was unclear councillors Richard Williams Hawkins and are you indicating Martin councillor Richard Williams please thank you very much I've got a few points I'll start with one of substance the officer very kindly sent me before the meeting a comparison document of the conditions before and the conditions afterwards one thing that I noticed was condition 19 and I think there are some words missing on condition 19 but also did seem to be a change so second paragraph of condition 19 reached on page 40 of our pack it says prior to the 111th dwelling within phase 3 as shown I think there are actually some words missing there should be prior to the occupation of presumably but more substantively at least the document I was sent the previous condition was prior to the first occupation of any dwelling within phase 3 the visibility space will be provided that now seems to be being changed to the 111th dwelling so I wondered if officer could explain why that's being changed from first to 111 on another point this may be better off directed at the agent I don't know but I think there are two planning applications drop-ins on this one I think one we're yet to determine so if we change this now to exclude the parcel of land that we've already given planning permission for are we going to have to do this again if we give another planning permission to exclude another parcel of land because if we are going to have to do this again it just seems better to do it once rather than twice and on the legal point having spent a very enjoyable two hours yesterday learning all about this case it is under appeal to the Supreme Court so again I wonder if this is a bit premature given the point of law that seems to be an issue is currently under appeal and the Supreme Court heard the case in July should give a judgement reasonably soon so this might all be totally unnecessary depending on what the Supreme Court says Michael I'm not sure if you picked up those questions there's a question around the specific wording of condition 19 i.e. how many dwellings need to be occupied before the visibility splays are agreed and then there was the question about prematurity, i.e. is this coming to us too soon and then there was the pending legal case that Councillor Williams mentioned I'm not sure if you can answer the last one or two but the first one certainly thank you chair so in relation to the 111 I believe that's been updated to reflect because when the conditions were originally drafted for 19 it wasn't known at that point exactly how many are going to be phased on phase 2 because there's certainty that they'll have that number up until phase 3 I believe that's why it's been updated but it might be a question perhaps for the agent who I think is speaking as well because I don't have the exact figures in front of me but that's my understanding of that but yes Councillor in terms of I think the occupation of should be added before the 111 dwelling and if members are okay with that I think I'd suggest that as an amendment as a bit of a typo and speaking with the agent my understanding is they would plan on submitting another section 73 application for the northern parcel which is referenced that is reference number 21 slash 04088 slash FUR I believe but yeah my understanding is that they would be submitting another one but I'd have to defer to Mr Pip in the legal team regarding the supreme court case and what impact that has I'm afraid but Richard do you want to are you familiar with this court case? Yeah I can do I'm not master Sorry Richard I think it might be more pertinent if Councillor Hawkins went next I imagine she's probably got a similar question so Councillor Hawkins please Thank you very much chair yes definitely my question was directed to the is to the legal side of things the word dropping really I don't think each one of us actually understands what that dropping is and why is that particular case relevant to what we are looking at this morning because that has not been made clear I'd like to understand that before we carry on thank you Is that something you can answer Richard or is it better for the case officer? Not the term dropping I think I'd probably be better for the case officer but I can deal with the application as relevant to them I mean in terms of I think probably they're just taking a commercial position trying to be prudent with the fact that there has albeit that it's yet to be determined by the supreme court they can make an application obviously the application is going to have to be determined by members unless they withdraw it unless the agent says ok well we'll withdraw it in the light of the supreme court because we wish they would have taken legal advice on anyway so I'm still comfortable with members making a determination today ok well I am can I come back what is it about that case that makes it proactive for this applicant to bring this to us now I still don't understand that I think it's to avoid any risk of challenge on the basis that it would differ substantially from the original what was originally applied for so I think in that case there was a really long spell in the Snowdonia case there was a really long spell between when outline permission was issued when the permission was implemented and then subsequently a section 73 was made years and years later and so there were challenges on the fact that actually this is in a different context different local plan etc, a change of circumstances so it's probably to protect that position to make a transparent application to say actually we would like this kind of safeguarded from the application applicant point of view I imagine but you're here from the agent but I don't think it precludes members today voting otherwise you could be forever waiting for the result of court cases before making determinations you have to assess it on the facts that you've been given by the case officer today but I must admit that the term drop in sounds quite a casual kind of approach and I'm not familiar the first time I heard that referred to was in this case Phil you were looking to add some clarity to that actually I was just going to say through you chair that the case that has been referenced in the in the report that it was my own research honour was based on the Pilkington principle which is a longstanding approach that establishes that two overlapping permissions can be implemented on the same site as long as they aren't contradictory so it is about saying well we want to change parts of what we had originally permission for but as long as we can still do that in accordance with what the original permission says then that's my understanding of researching the sort of legal principle around why this application has been made Councillor Williams do you want to come back on the legal yes sorry it's not the oversteffing my role given that I'm going to do this the problem as I understood it was that in Hillside what they decided if you have a second full planning commission and it's inconsistent with the first then it renders the first one incapable of being implemented because the second one renders the first one incapable the first one could become unlawful and any development under the first one would be unlawful because that planning commission is not capable of implementation it was obiter it was just a passing comment that the judge made that that could be the case that is the specific point that's under appeal because it seems bizarre that that would be the law but I think that's what they're worried about is that if they don't change this the agent can correct me if I'm wrong there could be a risk that the anything done under the original permission could be regarded as unlawful if it isn't capable of implementation exactly as it was agreed as a result of the second one it was a fun couple of hours I enjoyed it new area of law I think that's all clear the agent they are with us in the room so can I invite you to step 4 please is it Ms Fitzgerald if you're just sitting in front of the microphone please I think you're familiar with the process here so welcome back as last time three minutes to address the committee and if you need it and then at the end if you could stay seated in case there are any questions of clarification for you no problem chair thank you very much good morning councillors I'm not proposing to use my three minutes I thought given that this is a point of law it would be worthwhile me coming and sitting here to see if you did have any questions around the nature of the application just looking at the drop in and responding to the questions raised councillor Dr Williams is correct it's about how an application fits into the description of development so the description of development is very clear it's 220 dwellings the south east scheme that you have in front of you that you kindly approve subject to legal agreement last month obviously changes the number of dwellings so what the law is currently saying as a consequence of the court of appeal decision is that the description of development or with the south east parcel would no longer be the same and therefore the underlying permission would fall away or become unlawful potentially as a consequence of building out what's been phrased as a drop in application historically you used to be able to layer up planning permissions and nobody had any issue with it this one particular court case has thrown that into debate we have seen sought legal advice and the legal advice was to go down this route to effectively take out that jigsaw piece from the original outline so that we can still build out with the two separate consents to the lawfulness of that permission it is therefore purely procedural and yes the case is in front of the supreme court at the moment it was heard a few months ago it can take up to nine to ten months to get a resolution from the supreme court and we don't know what the answer is the simple fact is Barrington is being built now and we're at the point whereby if we want to continue building without people moving off site we're about to start looking at that surface corner we have removed the northern parcel from this application and that will be considered separately both as a full planning application and potentially a subsequent section 73 depending on the timings of the supreme court judgement if the judgement says the section 73 isn't required because the court of appeal in making one rogue statement changed the whole of the concept of planning law then so be it but unfortunately we have to preserve the position now under the terms of what was decided by the court of appeal which is why this is in front of you today hopefully that helps I think so Members do we have any questions of clarity for the applicant here No, councillor Hawkins sorry Thank you chair is still this phrase dropping why is it used why is it a drop in application I think it's just a turn of phrase it's in essence it's a small parcel of the wider scheme and because it sits in amongst the wider development just taking out a section and you're dropping in a new layout so there's no legal ramifications or technicality that sits behind that I think it's just because you're taking out that jigsaw piece and putting a new one in does that help Members I don't think there are any further questions of clarification for the applicant so thank you very much for taking the time to come in and speak with us this morning I think that was useful obviously this is it was useful to get some legal clarification on the reason for this application as well so I think that has been helpful so again thank you very much for taking the time to come in and speak with us No problem, I've got a nightmare I think Thank you Members we have no further public speakers albeit the local member council of Underwire has written in I believe his comments were circulated via paper are in front of us in summary he is supportive of the application so if we could take those comments on board as well when we are formulating a decision in our minds I think that would be useful so with that we'll move into the debate section of proceedings of course if we do need to we do have the officer with us still we can ask any questions of clarification again but I will throw it open to debate and hopefully come to a decision on this please Councillor Williams Heather please Thank you chair I think that what it feels premature because we haven't got the decision I can understand the motivation to need that security so what I'm weighing up is this is sort of giving belt buckle embraces to a situation and I'm very conscious that the cement works the form of cement works has been in applications going on way before I was a councillor and for the community this is something that's just been dragging on and on and on so I can understand why there's a a will to get things sorted I do on the point that councillor Dr Richard Williams raised would like a bit more understanding from officers as to why we're changing changing that just the phasing I mean we must have known phasing was happening and just looking at the comments and consultations it does feel rather odd that we've got objections because normally we're told we can't refuse because there's no objections and now we're looking at approvals with objections so sorry if I could have a bit more information particularly in relation to drainage and the local flood authority what seems you know what's occurring basically and I'll be comfortable I think it's the main things Michael if you're still with us I think there were two questions there are one just some more clarity around condition 19 why the number of occupied units has changed and then secondly around the objections that we have in our papers I believe the LLFA has now removed their objections as in your introduction but obviously we do still have one from the sustainable drainage officer and highways development management so I don't know if you could shed some light on that and reassure committee that officers are comfortable in spite of those objections thank you chair yes regarding the condition 19 again I think it is the applicant or agent just trying to be a bit proactive and specifying the dwelling number but equally if members were uncomfortable we could effectively revert back to prior to the first occupation of any dwelling within phase three given that it's on that phase plan drawing so if it makes members more comfortable we could revert back to that but it's just too literally specific because up until that that's when they get to the 100th length dwelling basically it's up to phase three so sorry Michael just quickly is that essentially the same number the 111th dwelling is the first dwelling in phase three yes that's one standing okay so 111th overall or first dwelling in phase three are those essentially the same number okay understood and on the point of the lead local flood authority yes just obviously it's the same for the drainage officer as well but it was essentially given that the description development suggests that they are varying so I think it's condition 17 in particular I think they were just a bit nervous about that you know they were effectively trying to change something in the plan or something like that but there wasn't the case at all once we explained to them it's just to effectively make it all tie up really so as officers we're comfortable with it those conditions are still in place and there's conditions proposed on the south eastern parcel that they'll have to do prior to the commencement of development and then there's also ones in the event that we were to grant permission for the northern parcel when it comes to committee later potentially we'd also propose similar conditions on there so I think there's enough security in that sense in terms of drainage I think that was the main point if there's anything else chair sorry and also the question around the objection we have in our papers from the highways development yeah again that was to do with the sort of detail of those technical drawings regarding the cycle way layout which and the footpaths for example the applicant agent submitted those more to try and help I think the parish council and the residents understand where they're at in terms of how far along they are in terms of those designs but the highways have got concerns I think about the timber edgings for example on the plans but it goes back to the point that we're not proposing to include those as approved drawings and there will be a section my six and the section two seven eight which the highway authority will have control over yeah they'll deal with those processes so we're comfortable again with their objection in this case yes thank you for that clarification it's just something that does feel a little the opposite way to have a normal advice so I think it was really good to have that clarification in relation to the condition 19 about the hundred and eleven dwelling I would be happier with the original wording chair because you're reliant on all of the phases being built out and everything else so I don't see any reason why that needs to change from the outline I can understand the reasons for the others but not that one so if I could move that we keep the original wording on number 19 okay so your proposal is to as the officer suggested would be to change the wording so prior to the first dwelling or phase three as opposed to as it's written in the papers prior to the occupation of the hundred and eleventh dwelling 111th dwelling within phase three I see so I'm not funny although that might be it says prior to the hundred and eleventh dwelling within phase three that could be interpreted as 111th dwellings literally within that phase and that parcel that's what I'm not comfortable with okay understood I think the office has probably heard what we would like it to say whilst we're going through the debate could I ask the officers to sort of write up on the screen before we make a decision so we're absolutely clear on what that condition 19 is saying I think that'll be helpful before we first dwelling chair so I think if officers have encapsulate that in writing to show us on the screen before we make a decision that'll be helpful I have Councillor Richard Williams next thank you chair I'll be brief I'm happy enough with the legal stuff given that I raised it I thought the African gave a perfectly reasonable explanation while they're doing this now I was going to talk about the hundred and eleventh dwelling and I also asked that it went back to the first occupation but that's happened so I'm done okay then there's does anybody wish to raise any points that we haven't covered so far does anyone need any further questions of clarification for officers I can't see any but oh sorry Councillor Fane well I won't be voting chair I won't be voting on this one but it seems to be quite clear this is procedural it is if you like Milton Bracey's it makes no difference to the decisions we have already taken but that is my view and I'm not a position for the motion or anything like that it's worth clarifying the reason you're not voicing is because you left the room partway through the officers introduction so therefore aren't in full possession of the facts members I think we have something on the screen in front of us now Michael if that's right could you talk us through the changes yep so thank you chair so the second part of condition 19 ignored the bit on the left that's the historic one but it's this right hand bit where it says prior to the first occupation of any dwelling within phase three as shown on plan number bar slash 2202001 Reb C which I think are referred to in my updates that we need updates of Reb C but that's what one person's change is effectively that first bit there okay yeah sorry members are just drawing attention in the papers it says Reb A but I think the actual correct Reb is Reb C yes yes sorry about that okay members with the changes as we can see them on the screen in yellow are members content to make that change or does any member not wish to make that change I should say okay everyone does well not happy but everyone isn't shaking their head at me so I take that as an agreed change members I don't have any further speakers on this on my list but one final opportunity before we make a decision if anyone has any final questions or points they wish to make nope okay so the recommendation we have members is on page 34 at the very bottom 10.18 and the recommendation is to approve subject to the planning conditions as set out in the papers with the change that we've just seen on screen and agreed does any member wish to either vote against or abstain on this decision other than Councillor Fane nope so can we take that by affirmation members that that is agreed agreed okay so that is unanimously agreed with one abstention from Councillor Fane so thank you very much to the officers and to the applicants that have come in to speak to us today and I'm being indicated that we would someone like to take a short break so members it is nine minutes past 11 if we come back at 20 past by this clock here we'll carry on with the agenda thank you good morning everyone and welcome back to South Cambridge District Council's planning committee we're currently up to agenda item seven in the business today and that is an application at the land to the rear of 38 Histon Road Cotinum the proposal in front of us is an outline planning application for up to 34 new residential units as a social rural exception site in the green belt the applicant is prime crest homes limited and the reason it is before us today is because it is outside the village framework and is in the green belt so it's a major application the presenting officer is joining us live in the room Mr Steve Fraser Lim so Steve I'll hand over to you to give us any updates to the report in front of us and then to introduce it for members thank you chair I'll just bring up the presentation whilst I was loading I think Councillor Williams would like to declare an interest thank you it's something very very a thin interest I think but I'm going to declare it just in case so I'm a member of the great Cambridge partnership assembly and the figures for exception sites get used into the calculation of their progress in relation to when they bid for their next drawdown funding so I'm just making that completely clear but I obviously am just looking at this application and will be taking it on this application later in your interest but nevertheless worth worth saying anyway for completeness absolutely now understood Steve I think it's all loaded and ready to go could I ask if you haven't already the laser points yep it's all good okay over to you Steve thank you chair so yes this is the application site here it's agricultural building and lands the rear of 38 Heston Road Cotnam and the application is an outlined planning application with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 34 new residential units as a social housing rural exception site and as noted is within the green belt this is this plan just gives a bit of context for the wider area where it sits in the village though it just sits to the south of the centre of the village on Heston Road views of the site access from Heston Road so this is looking sort of straight ahead at the site access with dwellings to the either side and then sort of a bit further up the access into the site and views around so you can see the different sort of houses that this is looking further to the north as you go into the centre of the village housing fronting Heston Road and to the south and there's also some views from within the site itself so it's currently a sort of it's in a sort of grassed field with agricultural building on site and this is a view looking north and the Oakington presents sorry Oakington close sort of adjoins to the north and you can see the sort of housing there the view to the south the residential gardens the houses fronting Heston Road and the view to the north west with a head row bounding the bounding the site and then beyond that fields which you can see in some another image I'll show shortly this is the view from Oakington close and looking over the residential gardens and the site and then this is the view from Oakington Road looking southwards across the fields you can sort of see some of the housing fronting Heston Road in amongst the tree line further across the field these are some of the views from the visual impact assessment and they just kind of show where things are in relation to the site a bit more this is the top image Oakington Road and you can see this is the site marked in red there behind that head row and then some of the other housing along in the tree line and then the bottom image is the view from the sorry Cossington close looking south towards the site and then within the site it's sort of looking back towards Heston Road from within the site and then looking southwards sorry and then the view from the bottom image is from the bar field looking north this is the site location plan indicative site layout plan the application is an outline so this is just indicative just showing how it may be possible to accommodate 34 dwellings on the site with access and amenity spaces and so on and then the access which is applied for for full details shows how the relationship with Heston Road so there are footways within the site on either side of the road there is a need to relocate a telegraph pole just sort of here and then on the site photos you may have noticed there is no footway on Heston Road along the northern side but there's a footway on the southern side so the proposal is for these two uncontrolled crossing points so that you can cross from the site to the south side of Heston Road to access the footway along there and then into the village centre some further indicative elevations again it is outlined but that just gives you an idea of some of the thinking about how it's possible to achieve the kind of units proposed and then how it's sort of street elevation just a sort of more unfolded elevations this is an extract from the ecology statements and it just shows how the proposals can accommodate a biodiversity net gain of just a bit more than 10% through enhancements to the boundaries additional landscaping and tree planting along the site boundaries some of the site boundaries have hedgerows along them so there's also the opportunity potential to enhance those hedgerows which would help screen development as well and also along the northern boundary as well as some biodiversity enhancements in terms of kind of wildflower meadows and and then this image is also from the flood risk assessment just showing indicative grade strategy which has been reviewed by the consultees including the need local flood authority and the council's drainage officer the approach is that there will be permeable paving for all the sort of road and parking areas and then surface water will be collected in attenuation within these sort of blue hatched areas here in terms of underground attenuation and then there's also the open storage in a swale or drainage pond and then the water presentation down to the site entrance where it can connect with the internal drainage board surface water sewer so the drainage strategy there were some concerns raised originally by consultees but it's been updated and we consulted with those consultees and they now raise no objection to the drainage strategy the I think that's sort of my that can be the end of the presentation I would just draw members' attention to the amendment report it just includes some clarifications including references to the Cotman neighbourhood plan and how the proposals relate to the policies within the neighbourhood plan this is the supplement, the paper supplement members have in front of them, yeah that's correct, yeah and just additional clarifications on some of the acronyms that were used in the table within the committee reports some a change to paragraph 869 just to clarify that the site was previously agricultural land and paragraph 8.102 just to confirm that the indicative layout plan does show that the proposals could accord with the requirements of policy HQ1 in terms of the separation of from the boundaries and sort of facing distances of the windows to windows I think the policy HQ1 refers to 25m separation but the drawing within the local plan does clarify that that's a sort of distance from the real proposal of elevation to the neighbouring dwelling so that's a 25m separation from building to building which is the proposals would be able to meet I would just also it's not on the written version of this report but I just would like to just make a further sort of verbal change condition 26 in the committee report refers to a certain percentage of housing being able to comply with M4 three standards we just want to remove that proposed condition because it's not considered to be necessary given the there is no policy requirement which page of the agenda is page 80 of our agenda we've got the condition on M4 two compliance and that's the most relevant one in terms of the south cans local plan policy so we don't need that further on M4 three all other matters are as set out in the committee report thank you chair thank you very much members before me to our public speakers do any committee members have any questions of clarification for the officer Steve it may be we need to look at the presentation against if you have that ready just in case but councillor Richard Williams please yeah thank you chair could we see a map which shows this development against the village development framework and the green belt which are pretty crucial I think in determining this so how much of this is outside the development framework and how much is in the green belt the officer will get that comparison for us there isn't a ready made document but one we can have a comparative I think that might take a few minutes or so to do that so we will come back to that when the officers got the information can I raise another point it looks to me like all of those parts of the development framework in the green belt a point on the report which really jumped out at me so paragraph 8.6 and 8.7 the report says that part of the development site is within the village development framework and then in paragraph 8.7 it says it identifies no conflict with policy S8 development outside the framework because part of the site is within the framework even though pretty clearly it looks to me like the vast majority of this site in which I think all of the buildings are outside the framework so is it the planning department policy that as long as a part of a development site is within the development framework then policy S8 is met because I find that very strange because policy S8 talks about development within a framework not partly within a framework because otherwise you could have a site with 1% in the framework 200 houses and say there's no conflict with policy S8 that seems strange to me I don't know if any officers would care to tackle that one essentially can we have some clarity on policy S8 and how that applies to this case here i.e. if a very small part of an application is within the development framework outside does that satisfy policy S8 or not I think if part of the site is outside of the development framework we would have to treat it as such outside of the development framework and potentially contrary to those policies but in this case it's an affordable housing exception site so there are other policies that apply in terms of the framework so for instance the affordable housing exception policy does allow for development in sites outside of the framework if they're meeting a certain affordable housing need I just come back on the briefly I completely accept that the assertion and the report that there's no conflict with policy S8 here seems to me odd because there clearly is a conflict with policy S8 I think if we're looking at points 8.6 and 8.7 they seem to be in contradiction ie it says the policy S8 is being satisfied albeit the development is outside of the village framework so I think just some clarity around whether it does or doesn't comply with policy S8 I appreciate this as an exception site so yeah I mean to clarify the parts of the development that are outside of the development framework would be contrary to the policy if they were not if they would convert you know market housing or not a real exception site okay how we on the on the map that we're we might need a little bit more time for policies to check okay no problem members we have a question from Councillor Fane please thank you chair this is something that may become clearer when we've heard from the parish council but on page 48 we have the statement by the parish council that the need for affordable homes in Coplandham is a negative figure since we have an excess I think they mean an excess of affordable housing an interesting concept that's the third paragraph down and yet in South Cambridge District Council housing officers assessment there is a housing need in Coplandham for local people which is of course the criteria for a rural exception site a proven unmet local need for affordable housing as demonstrated through the housing needs survey as well as information from the housing register those two statements would appear to be incompatible I wondered whether our case officer has any comments on that conflict well in terms of the sort of housing housing need in Coplandham we're relying on the sort of up to date we're also there's the evidence base of the plan which is referenced in the committee report but we also rely on the sort of up to date figures of people that are kind of applying for accommodation and so we take that into account as well which may be more up to date than the housing and the evidence base for the local plan I may just come back on that yes I accept that the information from the housing register is one of the factors however the housing officer referred specifically for the need as demonstrated through a housing needs survey is the case officer aware of a housing needs survey undertaken in respect to this village and what that shows well not there isn't referenced in the committee report I'm referring so I mean it's I'll set out in the committee report in terms of the so it references the Suffolk egg or the acre report not 2019 is this the one you were referring to yes and that supports that supports the statement made by the parish council that the need for affordable homes is a negative figure since we have an excess well it shows a requirement for affordable housing perhaps this would it be good for the housing officer to comment on this it's worth saying we do have a housing officer with us online who might be able to clarify this as it is them that made the comments in the report Osmar Alley I think is joining us as the housing officer Osmar are you with us yes I am good morning chair and yes I'm happy to kind of provide a response to that query if I'm allowed to please do essentially I think you pretty heard the question it's just some clarity around the housing needs survey and does it show that there is a need for social housing in the village of Cotinham yes so when this application prior to this application being submitted to south camps district council a housing needs survey was carried out because the premise of a rural exception site is to ensure that there is an identified housing need to support putting forward a rural exception site that housing needs survey was carried out in December 2019 so it's still valid within the five years that it has its validity and the total figure that was found to be in housing need at that time was 64 applicants and the breakdown obviously of that need was within one beds two beds three beds properties I can further kind of I don't know if I'm allowed to kind of further reiterate kind of the need that is current at the moment obviously appreciate December 2019 and the housing needs survey is valid we have also an up to date figure I think that probably was quoted in the report to say from my housing register we had 96 applicants with a local connection for Cotinham in June 22 but I have also got an even more up to date figure to say that actually at the current time and this is with accurate at today's date we have 108 applicants with a local connection to Cotinham just to appreciate that housing register is alive register it never closes so on a daily basis we get new applications coming in all the time and for the whole of the district at the current time we have over 1,800 applications registered on the home link obviously of those 108 have a local connection to Cotinham sorry if I've gone on too long but hopefully that clarifies the point I think that's clear and I think that has helped thank you I've got Councillor Heather Williams and then Councillor Hawkins Thank you chair I think one of the things that's potentially leading to some different figures getting thrown around about negative is in relation to the policy that we had on five year land supply site it's not all of them being built out so I think what would be really helpful is for us obviously we've got an identified need but we've also granted permissions and we can see there are 55 properties and yet to be completed I assume that there be affordable properties so can someone just provide us the net figures of we know that okay 108 we've just been told we know this provides 34 but out of all of the other sites because Cotinham has had a lot of development out of all of the current sites that haven't got permission for affordable housing not just five year land supply sites how many are due to be built have we already given permission for and what's the net difference between need and what's given permission please thank you I'll hand over to the officer to clarify but I'm looking at power off 8.30 which is a page 56 and that does say that the housing need for Cotinham and taking away the 55 that I think are in the pipeline to come forward there are 41 homes that is identified as the need but I will ask officers to clarify that if that's possible either Ismar or Steve so I think I misunderstood the question Councillor Williams Apologies chair my point was that only relates to the five year land supply sites local connections looking at affordable housing in total all the applications that have been granted how many affordable housing houses do we have to be built out so not just those the 55 is just the five year land supply sites if that helps understand my question chair okay so I think I've understood so essentially have the affordable units in planning permissions that have been granted but not yet built out being taken into account in the housing needs figure which I think is the question either Ismar or Steve first and clarity Would you like me to provide my response to that In terms of obviously appreciate Councillor Williams comment question about the five year land supply sites we have kind of detailed those there are obviously three kind of major sites that were granted planning permission in terms of housing need how we assess housing need is at the point of a applicant being rehoused so until such time as that applicant has a house to move into they are in housing need irrespective of what properties might have been built out does that make sense I hope that makes sense yes I'm guessing a nod so I think that has clarified that issue and of course I think we will be hearing from the parish council a bit later on as well so perhaps we can ask them why their view is that there's a negative need in their cotton as opposed to the officer's calculation okay Councillor Hawkins please had a question I was going to point out the paragraphs 838 3831 regarding the needs really so that's been done for me just to say for me the clarification I have the clarification I need on that basis there is a housing need and as we've just been told this morning on the housing link registration 108 which has increased from 96 so whichever way it is we're going we still need affordable housing and from the fingers we have there is a need but yes I'll be willing to listen to the parish council's view absolutely that's clear any progress with the maps or okay I think we're there now on the map issue for Councillor Richard Williams I think Phil's going to share his screen so I think the query was what bits are inside the development framework and what bits are inside the green bell and you can see that the development framework I think is that black dashed line at the backs of the gardens of the houses fronting Histon Road and then the access to the site the front part of the site is within the framework but then the substantial part of the site where the housing is located is at the rear and then the green also indicates that I think is it the green bell is the is the hatch or the darker green thank you so from what I'm seeing the majority of the site is within the green bell is that right yes okay so do you want to come back Councillor Williams? yeah thank you for that just by my remembering the map and the clarity I think virtually all of the houses maybe the back of one of them might just be inside the development framework basically they're all in the green bell and they're all outside the development framework is that a correct way of viewing this? that's how I can see it is that correct? yes that's correct good so I think that's clarified that I have a question of clarification from Councillor Martin really the issue that I wanted to query is what the housing from the housing officer is what the housing need is in the joining villages of Heston and Impton which for a time and the member which is quite close by because there are very eventually no opportunities for social housing or affordable housing in Heston and Impton or very little so I think it is relevant what the need is in the joining village which is a good public transport connection to know whether that's also an impact an issue which we should take into account yeah okay last question just to say that I can provide that information outside of this meeting if that's okay just because I haven't got that to hand would that be okay if I provided that would you require that I think obviously we are going to make a decision on this hopefully today right if whilst we are going through the rest of the process if it's possible to find out the information before we do come to a decision I think that might help Councillor Carn okay if you could give me a few minutes I'll be able to find that information no problem okay members question everything clarified at this stage okay so we will move on to our public speakers if you wouldn't mind switching your camera off if that's okay nothing personal so our public speak we have is a representative of the parish council Councillor Tim Jones from Cottenham parish council Councillor Jones are you with us yeah good morning hopefully you can hear me good morning yes we can see and hear you hear you fine so before you start can I just confirm that you do have the permission of the parish council to represent them here this morning yes I do perfect so in terms of process we'll give you three minutes to address the committee give us your comments and then if you could stay on the line at the end in case there's any questions of clarity for yourself that'll be great yeah certainly thanks yeah I mean I would just note before we before I get into my comments that we reviewed as a parish council we reviewed this application in January 2021 and we've had no involvement with it since we haven't seen anything about it until it's come to this this planning committee meeting and I would also just by way of background just note that as a parish council we are absolutely of course we are absolutely in favour of affordable housing to the extent that we've defined a locally affordable housing category that is detailed in the neighbourhood plan so we do we are absolutely supportive of doing it the biggest problem we have with this proposal is in relation to flooding particularly rainwater and surface water within the within this locale along Heston Road and Cossington Close there is regular in some cases annual flooding of gardens and in August and December 2020 we had significant flooding events including some discharge of raw sewage into gardens and in some cases inside properties to the extent that some people actually only moved back into their properties this summer when we did our review of this proposal in January 2021 our parish council meeting was attended by an unprecedented number of local residents we had 11 representations to the planning meeting that discussed it and flooding was the number one issue that was discussed so just to come to some of the concerns that we have the revised flood risk assessment document that's referred to in the agenda pack in the report that was used by the LLFA to remove its objection to the proposal doesn't appear to be available on the planning portal at least not that I could find and we certainly haven't seen it we are concerned that the proposal discharges from the attenuation basin into what is essentially a 100 year old field drainage system that drains the area from the 5 year land supply sites to the north and drains the fields behind this is very this system already struggles to manage the water and you may have noticed there was actually on the plan we just looked at for the green belt and the planning framework there was actually some flooding noted on that plan we have concerns about the long term management and sustainability of the SUDS plan particularly since the roads can't be adopted we're concerned that there will be an issue around that long term management and just changing tax slightly in terms of access and accessibility we note in the report that it mentions having controlled pedestrian crossings at the end of the access road across Histon Road which we would consider to be absolutely essential developers design and access statement actually only mentions uncontrolled crossings but we'd be very concerned about whether we can actually fit those in we've had recent experience on Rampson Road trying to fit in both controlled and uncontrolled crossings and we've really struggled to find space to put them in and that area of Histon Road is a quite busy and b quite congested from a land use point of view so we think there may be difficulties in if it's possible we'd like to see conditions around those crossings being in place before commencement and certainly before first occupation and that's my comments thank you chair that's great thank you very much for those if you can stay on the line in case there are any questions of clarification for you from committee members members do you have any questions of clarification for the parish councillor councillor Hawkins please thank you chair and through you thank you very much for your presentation just on the last point you made about the crossings and one of the things that actually occurred to me when I saw the pictures was that if it's a busy road there will probably need to be what do you call those signals to stop traffic potentially maybe that was just my thought is that something that might you probably thought about because this is referring to paragraph 8.88 where you mentioned that the roads would not be adopted in the development it states there that because what's being planned now is 4.8m wide which is less than the 5m minimum required by the highways agency is that why you mentioned that it's not going to be adopted the roads the issue of adoption was more around the long-term management of the sites including the suds I think that's our bigger concern but yes we absolutely would strongly prefer a light controlled crossing over Histon Road than uncontrolled okay thank you one more thing if I may put you are happy about the issue of the housing provision we understand we understand the argument I think the the issue is that to the best of our understanding the policy relates to the housing needs assessment the AECA study from 2019 and it was that that we based our statement that with the pipeline that we had more affordable provision than the needs assessment set and that was our statement in 21 if the housing register is to be used as the as the benchmark if you like then yeah we absolutely understand that okay thank you thank you we have a question for you from Councillor Fane thank you chair looking at the objection from the parish council that we have before us I don't know if you've got the same papers as us but for the members here it's page 47 the application is contrary to the referendum really the neighborhood plan the plan I think has now been made hasn't it and I just wondered I was trying to see having looked at that plan what aspects of this are regarded as being contrary to the plan I think the question from Councillor Hawkins has already dealt with the question of housing needs and we may have some more information on that from the housing officer in a minute the other question of course and I think your primary concern is on flooding and I was concerned to hear that the revised flood risk assessment which I don't think we have before us is not available and that's perhaps something we might ask our case officer about later so my main question to you is how this conflicts with the neighborhood plan bearing in mind that this is an exception site um yet I mean as I say it's quite it's quite old for us now and I think the objections that we had around the proposal were around the form of the housing for example roof heights and pitches and the scale and massing being in conflict with the neighborhood plan and the village design statement for example that recognising that this is only an outline application and that detailed design has got to go ahead for example there was a three story building included in the outline plan which would not have accorded with the village design statement so just on that are you accepting some of the matters which are possibly in conflict with the neighborhood plan might be appropriate to deal with at the later stages with regard to the layout and building design absolutely. Thank you very much there's a few more questions for you so sorry to keep you councillors Harvey, Heather Williams and then Martin Kahn please yes thank you chair I noticed on page 62 about 8.73 so apparently some concerns were raised in regard to the proposed drainage strategy and I suppose having sort of seen the plans there you know the area available for infiltration is quite a small portion of the total area and I just wondered as a parish councillor obviously the concern raised here is that there's very little elevation between the base of the infiltration features and the water table and therefore the effectiveness of those infiltration features is low but I mean I wonder as a parish council seen or you know aware of during heavy rainfall has there been standing water on that area or do you feel it's kind of close to that situation historically? Absolutely there is regular standing water for extended periods both on the site and in the gardens of the houses immediately adjacent. Thank you very much. Sorry just to clarify that there. So one of the reports from one of the homeowners on Cossington Close which is literally on the corner of the proposed site he reports that their garden has flooded 18 years out of the 18 that they've lived there. Thank you for that that's helpful. Two more questions for you first from Councillor Heather Williams please. Thank you chair. This may be more for the case officer but it was just a relation you said there were documents that you weren't able to view before the meeting. Could you just clarify for me which documents they were and if the case officer could look into it? Sorry is that for me? Yes. It's the revised flood risk assessment and I took this note from the officer's report so it's the revised flood I'm sorry no to clarify. I took this from the LLFA letter that said they were removing their objection which is on the portal and it is the revised flood risk assessment document and it's reference 2740 FRA and DS RevC dated October 2021. Thank you chair. Could officers update us? Thank you. I think we do have some clarity on that I don't know if it's possible for Steve possibly to shed some light. We think the latest version of the flood risk assessment is on the website RevC but I think the date on the LLFA letter is wrong I think it refers to October 2021 but when you look at the website that was submitted in July the covering letter is on the website and then the revision C document is dated June 2021 so I think there's a mix up of the reference in the LLFA letter But for clarity the document that the LLFA have read which has subsequently removed their objection is publicly available That's right the revision C document Is that answer? Thank you chair. Thank you and then final question counciller and then we'll let you go it's from councillor Martin Cahn please It's basically about the flooding the flooding Councillor Harvey has raised but there seem to be two aspects of the flooding one is the water on site so you talk about the being water on the joining gardens Is the flooding that you have and you talk about flooding in the joining properties is the flooding purely on Cossington Close or is it also on the other houses on Houston Road there seem to be two elements here flooding actually on the site and the impact of the development on flooding off site so I wanted to look at those bit separately So in terms of the extent of flooding that we have seen over recent years that yes it is both on houses on Houston Road as well as Cossington Close and on the site itself as I've discussed and this particular area of the village we have a couple of very flood sensitive areas of the village and this is Wallam So so it covers quite an extent of this particular local so the site itself some of the houses on on Houston Road in fact on both sides of Houston Road and also at Cossington Close The other point around that is it the residents are clearly very sensitive to any changes that might exacerbate the situation they're already in we had a lot of representation about the five year land supply sites which were seen to be heading more water their way across the fields through the field drainage system that I referred to so yeah it's absolutely there's a current concern already and a fear that this might make things worse extremely flat area I would like to have a look at the site and it's absolutely flat so are you talking about an inch or two or are you talking about a foot? I don't think I don't think it generally reaches as much as a foot so it's probably less than that I think the chap I referred to on Cossington Close he sees regularly six inch depth across parts of his garden Okay, thank you for that Councillor Jones I don't think there's any more questions of clarification from creative members so thank you very much for your time and for giving us your thoughts and answering the questions we appreciate it very much so thank you Thank you Before we move on members I believe Usmar has come back to us with the housing need figures for Histon and Impington as requested by Councillor Carn Councillor Jones if you wouldn't want to switch your camera off please thank you and Usmar if you are still there Yes, thank you chair Yes I can confirm that we have the figures for Histon and Impington there is a total of 191 applicants who have a local connection to Histon and Impington which is broken down between Histon but it has 97 applicants who have a local connection to Histon and Impington 94 applicants with a local connection to Impington I hope that helps I think so, I think there's a question from Councillor Richard Williams on that point Thank you Just a point of clarification when you say local connection to a particular village what does that mean I mean do people list a number of villagers they'd be interested in is this people who live in those areas What does that mean? Yes, sorry I'm happy to clarify that point and absolutely it's quite a confusing point isn't it so local connection means people who have a local connection either by way of living, working or having close family relatives in the area I mean we have a criteria which I can detail to you so for somebody who's working in the area there has to be a set amount of time that they've been working in that village to be able to get that local connection by living in the area for at least five years out of the last eight years and if they are have close family relatives in the area by close family relatives we mean either parents, children brothers or sisters and they would have had to been in the village for a period of five years or longer so that's what is meant by local connection so when people apply on the housing register if they have a particular local connection whilst they will have a district connection to South Cambridgeshire they may have a village connection to a particular village such as Histon in Bington, Cotwnham etc and that's where we have the local housing need figures for those particular villages, I hope that helps Thank you, that's really helpful Great, thank you very much as Councillor Richard Williams said that was extremely helpful so thank you very much for your input on that Members, we also have written representations from one of the local members, Councillor John Lovelock, they are again on our printout sheets that we have in front of us I'm not proposing on reading it out verbatim but essentially he is supporting the views of the parish council and reiterating the concerns around flooding and also transport so as I said I'm not going to go through this in detail so please do wish to refer to that during the debate, feel free but please do take the local members' views into account when formulating a decision With that members, we will now move on to the debate section of proceedings so this is the opportunity for members to put forward an argument one way or the other or equally to ask any further questions of clarity of officers to help them make a decision so I will throw it open to yourselves members, Councillor Hawkins Thank you very much chair This obviously is an interesting one for us and as I said earlier I think in my view the issue of the requirement or the need for affordable housing has I think has been clarified and the fact that we've got 108 on the current register and if this were to be given permission that means we will be having things about 89 potentially with what already is has been given planning permission in those five year land supply sites which still leaves a need anyway The two other issues which have been raised as concerns the drainage one in some ways if we look at 8.78 and 8.79 on big 63 Anglia Water has not commented on anything to do with the surface water drainage and I think of course that is because the surface water will be dealt with through the internal drainage board and as you see from 8.79 they seem to be happy with what has been proposed to provide for the surface water drainage for the site but that doesn't negate the concerns raised by neighbours as to the fact that their gardens tend to flood and the one that was referred to it's flooded 18 times out of the 18 years they've lived there raises a question drainage for us is a constant issue but I think we should just realise that if the IDB is happy with what's been proposed then we might be treading on save grounds to refuse on that point but I still want to just make the point about Anglia Water who have said that there is no capacity for the far water drainage but if we get that information then they have to provide it that for them is a standard statement it always worries me because not all the time have they fulfilled that responsibility but again that's what the law allows them to do so do we have a leg to stand on probably not the site being mostly in the green belt raised the flag but it's we have to prove that there is a special reason to grant plan information for something like this there I think the housing need for me ticks that box so I am lucky to be supported in this application thank you chair thank you and yet I agree I think it's one of the first times I've actually in Anglia in water say that there isn't capacity currently so yes refreshing to see that albeit as they go on to say is their responsibility to deal with it regardless come what may so that's that speakers next we have in order councillor Heather Williams, Richard Williams, Peter Fein and Martin sorry first councillor Sandford sorry Peter I almost jumped over you there apologies please not a problem chair I was actually going to make exactly the same comment about paragraph 878 and Anglia in water saying the area does not have the capacity for the full water as councillor Dr Hawkins said the broad brush statement that follows does not fill me with confidence that they will technically be able to deliver what's necessary to drain away the foul waters serious concern okay now that's fine I think that point around Anglia in water's comments has been noted a couple of times now councillor Heather Williams please thank you chair so I'm going to take my debate points in order if I may first of all on the there is an identified need but I think every village probably in south Cambridge here has an identified housing need and you know it's an issue throughout the district so I'm just going back and I'm using this in terms of talking first about the green belt issue because we know that any we have to accept if this is to go forward then it creates harm to the green belt so now it's a case of is it inappropriate development in the green belt and that those special circumstances and chair I think it's really important that we sort of do debate that 149.f says limited affordable housing for local community needs under policy set out and that goes on to include rural exception sites now there we have to accept that actually Cotlam has had although there is a need it has had a significant amount of affordable housing compared with other parishes in the district so I think we when we're making our decision need to decide whether the affordable housing is sufficiently limited in order to deem whether this is appropriate or inappropriate when looking at the green belt policies one thing that would help for myself and we've had when we've looked at green belt issues before almost like a little bit of a checklist is whether there are alternative appropriate sites within Cotlam that could be used to deliver affordable housing without the need to go into the green belt because if there were alternative sites chair I appreciate there is a site selection process when going through an exception site that we may not deem it appropriate to build on this particular site so if we could have some information around site allocation and selection that would be very helpful determining that characteristic I'm very taking out of this context very pro the policy of exception sites I think it's that we all are particularly in this district but we do have to be careful because the housing need is so high that we don't have that used against us because then we could have development anywhere just because of the need because we know we've got a big affordable housing problem here so I think we do have to look at look at everything not just need one of the things that concerns me within the application itself even if we take out the green belt is on the density and we can see that this would lead to a higher density potentially than other than our policy allows now I believe people in affordable housing or market housing should have the same standards there should be equal standards and I think we need to decide whether the difference in density is something that we're comfortable with or not what I don't want to see is because it's exception site affordable housing is more properties crammed in than is appropriate so I think that's another debate point that we haven't touched on chair that we probably should for me I will seek more advice from officers on that point and I'll listen to others in the debate but that's something that I'm also sure on because actually having worked on lots of different exception sites and seeing them come through one of the positives of an exception site is normally that it has greater community engagement and actually we can get a better quality than what we can on normal sites so I am concerned to see and hear that we haven't got the support of parishes on this one this with the exception of one I think would be the first time we would be giving permission for an exception site that didn't have the support of the parish and they've raised quite clear objections to that so I would just throw that as something for members to bear in mind in their decision making that this is not the normal situation and I have parishes that would be jumping for joy if they could get four houses that's all they want this is an unusual situation to have objections from the local communities and I think that is something that we should be taking into consideration on this decision so to summarise chair are there alternative sites and perhaps seeing Cotinum with the green belt line because I think it's a triplo councillor Dr Richard Woodins or nod or shake his head that is completely surrounded by green belt so green belt is an issue wherever you go but there are other places where one side of a village is and one side isn't so what are the opportunities that's the first one density and I will be acutely listening to colleagues because and I would stress we cannot just go there's a need therefore consent we have to look at density and all these other things as well to ensure there's a good quality of life for future and present residents and I think the drainage issues I share those concerns though they've already been noted chair so that's my contribution to debate Thank you so perhaps we can ask the officer those two questions then so one how was this site selected over others and two essentially around the density is it within policy I think is the question Thank you chair I'll just bring up the as part of this application sequential test assessment was submitted with the application to look at you know to demonstrate that this was the most suitable site as required by the exception full housing exception site policy and you can just this table just sort of summarizes the sequential test assessment so there were 14 sites that were looked at there are shown on plan and talked about in further detail elsewhere in the document they were sort of arranged around and about one of the requirement policy requirements of exception sites is that they must have joined the development framework boundary so all these sites due to some or are quite close to it and some of them actually are sort of separated but might become closer of other developments sort of took place in between but you can see CO21 is the application site and that is part of their acceptance assessment that they scored this the most highly in terms of access or proximity to services in the village so if it's within a sort of easy walking distance then to shop services schools and public transport then that scores more highly and then the sort of physical relationship to CO21 if it's sort of adjacent to the development framework boundary and closer to the part of the village then can also score more highly not all the sites were in the green belt so you can see some at some war but the green ones the ones that scored green were outside of the green belt so it wasn't a sort of deciding factor but the other sites that warned in the green belt were found to have quite sort of significant townscape impacts they were kind of perhaps more exposed from the development from the village they would be more visible in longer views lots of them were within conservation areas or potentially affecting the setting of listed buildings and then the final point was around availability and I think because the applicants as part of this assessment contacted site owners and some responded and some didn't so there's perhaps an element of subjectivity on that but in terms of the site assessment we're happy that this is the most appropriate site other sites that were in the green belt were other sites were also in the green belt and so have similar issues the sites that warned in the green belt were kind of much more prominent in sort of long distance views and had more impact on heritage assets were also perhaps further from services and so on we do accept the conclusions of this sequential test assessment but this is the most suitable site for this rural exception site then just sort of turning to some of the other points that were raised in terms of the in terms of density I mean the site is sort of a small amount above the 30 dwellings per hectare but I think when you look in the report it does identify that there are some concerns around the sort of design and layout of the development and that we would be looking to secure improvements as part when we move through to reserve matter stage the description does say up to 34 dwellings so at reserve matter stage when we have negotiations with the applicants it may be that slightly less than 34 dwellings which would then reduce the density down a bit and then also it needs to be recognised that density is a factor in our assessment but it doesn't on its own indicate harm so you need to look at the kind of whether that density is causing harm so in terms of substandard amenity spaces internally and externally a sense of place and so on so in terms of amenity the occupiers would have a standard of amenity which would fully meet our policies and requirements and we would be looking to seek improvements in terms of the overall design and the sense of place and so on so that could bring about some improvements on that I think that covers the two points so just for clarity on the density issue so officers are content that fitting 34 dwellings on that site should the full 34 be applied for reserve matters wouldn't cause any issues regarding density albeit I think it has been identified it could be improved from the current indicative layout but essentially our officers content that you can fit 34 dwellings on that site comfortably At this stage at that outline stage we feel that what's proposed in terms of up to 34 is acceptable OK thank you that's answered the points raised Councillor Richard Williams is next please Thank you chair I have got a number of concerns about this application and I think we need to step back here to actually being proposed we have a proposal that is outside the development framework of the village it's clearly in breach of policy essay it's largely in the green belt again not on that basis policy compliant I'll come on to the rural exception sites in a minute it breaches our density rule let's be clear we have a policy in our local plan and this proposal is in breach of it the cynical side of me says when does a developer ever come back with fewer than they want planning permission for they almost invariably come back with more and they say oh but you've already given 34 so 36 is fine and then we say we can't we tell we can't reject it on that basis at reserve matters so I think we need to be realistic about what's likely to happen here it doesn't comply with policy H8 as it stands on density on this issue of rural exception sites yes there's a need for affordable housing as councillor Heather Williams has said that applies across south Cambridgeshire but if we simply say this building in the green belt outside the development framework in breach of policy S7 in breach of policy H8 is alright because there's a need for affordable housing we are basically declaring open season I fear on the green belt because that applies in every single village in south Cambridgeshire that's in the green belt pretty much I think that you'd be hard pushed to find somewhere that didn't have a housing need Anyway coming back to this point about rural exception sites which is what we seem to be focusing on quite rightly so because this is green belt and we do have to perform the balancing exercise Now the NPPF paragraph 149 says limited affordable housing to meet local community needs limited affordable housing our policy H11 talks about affordable housing meeting locally on small sites adjoining the development framework this is a proposal for 34 dwellings that is not limited affordable housing it is not a small site it is a significant development so I do not believe that this scale of development is actually compatible with paragraph 149 which others say again limited affordable housing on our policy talks about small sites this isn't small it isn't limited in terms of the availability of other sites that we've just been talking about again I would read policy H11 part 1C says for sites and settlements within or adjoining the green belt that no alternative sites exist that would have less impact on the green belt the table that the case officer has just very helpfully shown us demonstrates quite clearly that there is an alternative site available that has less impact on the green belt because it had site 14 which is available had a green box for green belt because it's not in the green belt now the developer has given that a red score or something else but our policy is very clearly about having less impact on the green belt so the developer may feel that the site is less suitable because of its impact on the character of the surrounding area that is not the criteria that we have to apply the criteria is impact on the green belt and there is an alternative site that will have less impact on the green belt so actually in sort of applying the facts terms I am not at all satisfied that these policies that our policies are complied with here so I think almost certainly I'm going to be voting against this OK thank you I would offer officers the opportunity to come back but I do want to get through our other speakers first so Councillor Fein is next on my list and then Councillor Cohn and then Harvey Thank you chair I think it's important that we bear in mind this is an outline consent with all matters reserved except for access so a lot of the issues that we have been discussing will be for consideration at a later stage where this to go forward dealing with the question of the housing need there has been some debate about the amount of that need but I think we have established that there is a need for housing for those with local connections and broadly speaking this application would meet rather less than half of the current outstanding need within this village it is of course always a great challenge to find rural exception sites which is why the rate of progress and providing local affordable housing has been slow does this conflict with the neighbourhood plan well as we established earlier to some extent that is in relation to concerns are in matters of detail and the neighbourhood plan does indeed as was mentioned to us by Councillor Jones make the case for affordable housing so the key point I think is that raised by Councillor Richard Williams just now is this in fact limited or small does it fit within the criteria in NPPF149F I would argue that actually in relation to other developments going on in this village it is actually quite small and certainly if it meets less than half of the housing need then I think it does count as a limited it is of course rather larger than other rural exception sites which we have had cause to consider but that doesn't mean it isn't small and if it is indeed an exception site then inevitably it will not necessarily comply with all other policies I am broadly more satisfied taking that into account that this may be the least damaging i.e. the most suitable of the sites potentially available within this village so in relation to need I think there's a strong case the fact that there are other sites in particular site 14 which is not in the green belt is not a major factor I'll give you another factor at all if we're satisfied that this fits within 149F that it is not inappropriate development within the green belt in the first place so that then brings us to the question of the drainage and this has always been a very serious concern particularly surface water drainage to this committee in many other cases but I think the question is does this development make that situation worse in the village or does it in fact possibly provide a means to resolve existing and longstanding problems that need to be addressed and I think it was a pity that the LLFA report from June and July was not available and we haven't been able to go into that in more detail but I think it is a matter we can come back to at later stages at the design stage so I think the question really for this committee is how serious are we in meeting the local affordable needs within our villages within Cotman because if we are serious about that then we have to look very seriously at giving consent in this particular case and that would be my inclination Thank you very much councillor Fein we have in order councillors Martin Khan, Harvey and Heather Williams I also looked at this I should perhaps maybe relevant express an interest on the trust on the land trust in eastern England so I had some idea about the difficulty of providing so affordable housing there the the issues seem to me councillor Fein has outrun largely the point that I was looking at in terms of demand but I think it is particularly serious in the sense that the adjoining village of his community which I represent as a member 185 on the list, much larger than Cotman and virtually no opportunity to provide the land trust has been trying for three years to try to find a site that has been absolutely impossible there are a couple of developments but they will make a very minimal impact upon that demand so there is a need in adjoining village which could also be met from the district part of the allocation that would be made of housing and that to me is relevant an issue that I would consider in the application because it seems to me that Cotman would be the most suitable adjoining village which is going to provide for this in Impington so that's an issue the issue that seems to me the most serious is the drainage issue this has been raised by various members the water that seems to be causing a problem in surface water in other words it's not draining away rapidly it's not river flooding and it's very shallow now you can design housing to go on that sort of site which makes sure that the houses don't flood but areas in the gardens are accepted which might flood so that is possible you could do but we would have to make sure that that was done in the design stage that's an issue that we would be considering the other issue is whether it's going to affect adjoining properties that's much more serious and if I find it difficult to refuse I'm concerned about that with the lack of what is accepted by the internal drainage board that they can take away the water from the site but it would be a consideration that would be a major consideration obviously in any future detailed application I have been hovering but in view of the really really serious housing need in this area because there are two large villages where there is a need and increasingly I suspect that the housing need issue is the issue that I would feel most strongly about and I am tending towards approval at the moment Thank you very much Dr Collins we have councillors Harvey and then Heather Williams please Jeff Yes, thank you chair I'm also finding it difficult to balance the housing need argument against the various concerns that have been expressed but just to return to the Angliaw Water Statement on page 63 that's 8.780 it seems odd to me and I wasn't sure that councillor Hawkins was saying that this was a standard form of words I haven't actually seen this form of words before but it does seem to me an odd thing to say that the capacity for foul water isn't available for this development because we've got 34 houses here so I would like to know which house if we imagine them built sequentially from 1 to 34 which one of those houses takes the foul water capacity over limit if you like because it seems to me improbable for them to say that 34 houses would make a situation which is currently okay into one that actually is over capacity in terms of the sewage capacity so isn't it more likely that actually hidden in this statement is an admission from Angliaw Water that the system is already over capacity which would fit from some of the evidence from the parish council and if it's the case it's already over capacity why is it necessary for Angliaw Water to make this rather bizarre statement because if it is already over capacity surely they should now be working on creating the extra capacity and if they aren't doesn't that put a question mark under whether if this were to go ahead whether they would then create the extra capacity so I have a lot of concerns especially in view of the ongoing investigations from what and the environment agency transparency of the way Angliaw Water respond to demand and provide capacity which seems a big question mark over it but as I'm sure council Hawkins would remind me we just really have to accept this because that's what the consultee is telling us but I do have concerns that in the future this will turn into some kind of a problem for the village as a whole Thank you Councillor Harvey and Councillor Heather Williams and then Hawkins and then Richard Williams Thank you chair just a couple of points and I welcome all the comments that have been made I would stress though and I'm sure this is not what council fame is implying that we are making a balance so I think if you fall on either side of the decision today I think all of us take very seriously the need for affordable housing and I think we are looking at it seriously because we all agree so I just wanted to stress that point because I have concerns and which is why I wanted to look at the site locations that are being looked at because we've got on 8.20 we have the affordable housing mix and when we look at numbers and colleagues will know I love my numbers you could be sort of lulled into this sense that well we need 108 we've got 55 34 that's half that just isn't necessarily the case because at this stage and this is why exception sites more often than not are full applications not outline we have no idea of the tenure and we don't know of the tenure requirements of those on the housing list are they people that want need shared ownership are they people that need social rent so we could end up trying to fulfil a need here of people that require social rent and end up with a load of shared affordable it's all classes affordable shared ownership so it's really not as clear cut as this will have it so I think that's important to know we don't know what impact it will have we don't have that information yet it's outline so we can't make that assumption that it's going to halve our problem when we're looking at this ok so just wanted to iron that one out chair and equally we cannot look at the housing need of surrounding areas the exception site policies are about helping with an identified need in that parish yes there is a cascade but the whole point the idea of an exception site policy is to to sort out an issue or to provide affordable housing in that parish so while I accept the figures from Heston and Impington I really don't think it's something we should be taking into consideration because it's not Cotnum's obligation to resolve issues of another parish by taking more housing that's what we have the overall 40% policy for so I appreciate the concerns but I think it should not be coming into consideration for this application when we then look at the debate of the green belt and the MPPF in relation to limited affordable housing that is a subjective decision as to whether 34 bear in mind we've desperately been trying to build four in one of my parishes 34 even in the size of Cotnum is a considerable development it's a sizeable exception site it is rather large now I do not feel that that is limited when we have an alternative that is available and as has been shown by the diagram if there wasn't an alternative available then I may feel that the exceptional circumstances those special circumstances would have been demonstrated but there clearly is an alternative and while there is an alternative on the table I don't think we can say that the green belt has a special circumstance to be built on I think that they could come back with the other proposal on the non-green belt site because as has been pointed out and I've said myself housing need is an issue everywhere in South Cambridgeshire so if we have that as a sole reason to be approving things it gets very difficult in the future density as well for myself I want to ensure and as I'm sure other members do that whether you are in affordable or market housing we like tenure blind it's an important policy of ours I am not comfortable with policy breaking on an exception site but as I said earlier it's an opportunity to actually get more than the policies allow not less so if I look at our adopted policy plan on H8 it says very clearly this is relating to rural exception sites will achieve an average net density of 30 dwellings per hectare so for myself it's not this is not good enough and actually I am going to favour with the local member and the parish thank you chair thank you very much we have two more speakers and I will offer officers the opportunity to come back on some of the concerns raised councillor Hawkins please thank you chair this outline obviously is for the principle and the and the access and for me the point I made earlier on about crossing the crossing of the main road potentially with light crossing I think perhaps can we consider that as part of the condition which one it is now but there is a condition on highways I think we can probably add that too and the other thing that concerns me is I know it's an indicator design at the moment but the fact that the roads are being proposed to be 4.8 meters wide which is less than the 5 meters that highways require to be able to adopt the roads means for me that we need to look at that as again I don't know can we put a condition on the outline now they have to build the internal roads to make sure that it is adoptable by highways those are the two main concerns I think I forgot to mention the last time I mean I hear the issues or the discussions about the green belt and the harm and all that and definitely the term small or limited is subjective and I think the fact that we have here a site that is available it is a small site I mean the one that apparently is the other one available is 2.2 hectares which is a huge site which could lead to various other things that we might not like but this is an opportunity for us I think to at least go some way to meeting the need the housing need that has been shown is quite high and looking at the harm to the green belt I mean this site is actually adjacent to the development framework so it's not as if it's out in the middle of somewhere the green belt actually I was surprised that the green belt extends that far into Cottenham but there are houses on at least two sides of that site so in my view I don't think the harm to the green belt at that site is as significant as it could be elsewhere and which is why in my view I would be supporting this thank you thank you councillor and finally Dr Richard Williams and then we'll hear from the officers thank you chair just a very quick point I just wanted to make the point in relation to comment that was made earlier paragraph 149f of the NPBF does refer to local policy so it's not either F or this or F doesn't override our policy they do work in conjunction I just wanted to make that small point I think it's obvious for me I don't feel that the balance of very special circumstances is made out on a slightly different point chair I don't know how long the officers are going to take and I know we're near lunch but would it be possible if it's going to go on for more than 10 minutes very short break because I would like to vote on this one may shortly have to leave the room point taken well I think that's my list of committee speakers done so I'm going to hand back over to the officers and hopefully well they can respond to some of the concerns raised and also some of the questions that I think councillor Hawkins and the parish council raised about potentially conditioning some highways elements i. a signalised crossing point and also the roads to be as wide that highways require to adopt so I'm going to if we could start with those points if I don't know if officers can respond to those and then maybe address some of the other concerns that have been raised by members during the debate okay think on that officers we're going to have a two minute break it is 12.52 by this clock here if we have five that will start just before one o'clock so if we can pause our room please hello everyone welcome back to South Camershire District Council's planning committee we are still on agenda item 7 which is the application in Cottenham we have had the debate members have raised some concerns and some questions so I'm going to pass over to officers now to offer a chance to respond to those questions and concerns so over to you thank you chair so I just try and sort of pick up on some of the comments are made there are some comments around the kind of access access arrangements and potential for different crossing types what we could do is include an additional condition to say that notwithstanding the pedestrian crossing details that are shown on the access drawing additional new details to be submitted and approved so it would give us the potential to look at those crossing arrangements in a bit more detail it would be difficult to specify a particular crossing type because it's in the public highway and it would be sort of ultimately up to the highway authority what they would accept but it would give us the chance to review the details a bit more and look at that in terms of the some of the comments around the policy wording of policy H11 and whether it meets the requirements of this policy and MPPF and so on so the issue that was a contention was so it went for was part C at point 1 of policy H11 when it says for sites at settlements within or adjoining the green belt that no alternative sites exist that would have less impact on green belt purposes so there are some sites that have been considered in the sequential assessment that are outside of the green belt I don't know off the top of my head whether some of those are adjoining the green belt potentially they may be but we do have to consider the sort of suitability of alternative sites in the round because some of those other sites have significant other constraints which I'll move on to for instance things like proximity to conservation areas and heritage assets there are other policies that deal with that and require us to have special regard to impact on heritage assets so we do have to consider it in the round and as part of any planning assessment you have to make a judgment in the round based on all the planning considerations and those other constraints are still going to be considerations just sort of moving on to the sequential assessment and I think you have suggested that there are other sites that are pressurable and I think it's worth just having a look at that in a little bit more detail so on the table that we talked about that we should have discussed before there was another site COC14 which was listed as being available and I think that was suggested as potentially being a better alternative but when we look at the characteristics of that site it has a lot of problems so for instance just bring up the how it's been scored here so it is a large site larger than the application site probably wouldn't want to have development on the whole site it's much further from services than the application site to the school and the college for instance one kilometres to the village college which is a fair distance really one of the furthest of any of the sites that were looked at it isn't in the green belt but it's in the countryside it borders the conservation area and listed buildings so it does have a lot of constraints and I don't think it from this sort of very simplistic assessment you could say that it's a better site than the application proposals when we don't have any sort of application on that site but I think it's clear that it's not a it has a lot of problems in comparison with the application site in terms of the there's been a sort of fair discussion around green belt issues again just to clarify the proposals as they are an affordable housing exception site they do meet the criteria for exceptional development within the green belt so they wouldn't be in appropriate development in the green belt I think that's just sort of worth clarifying I know there's been some sort of consideration around whether it's a small is it small and limited in terms of kind of an exception site it's bigger than some of the other exception sites that have been considered you know I think you also have to look at how it sort of fits on the site and the kind of visual impact and they also the visual impact assessment does show how it does fit within the kind of built up area of the village quite well in terms of it's well screened by those other, by the site boundaries and so on so it does you know that's also got to be a factor in terms of sort of green belt considerations and yes it's less than half the housing need that it's required in the village and so these are all considerations I think you know if you just focus on the number on its own it's not the whole picture in terms of drainage we will be able to secure a sort of full detailed drainage strategy that in terms of water pooling on the site there are measures that you could look at in terms of you know the sort of finished floor levels of the proposed houses in terms of run-off all the consultees are happy that it's not going to be at risk of flooding or result in kind of flooding of surrounding sites I think that probably covers me to the point that's it thank you chair okay thank you Members I think we've had a lot of information put in front of us now I feel we're probably in a position to be making a decision but I will offer one final opportunity for any final questions unless if that would help members in any way at all nope I can't see anyone so before we go to a decision I think it's important that we identify if we are thinking that we want to refuse this I think we need to be clear about on what reasons so this is what I've heard so far and I will ask if this is correct so one reason for refusal could be that it is outside of the village framework which is contrary to policy S8 the green belt intrusion test has not been fully met the density is contrary to policy H8 the rural exception it is a rural exception site and the site selection process hasn't been met those are my rough notes I probably need someone to help me expand on that but what I've got written down is that's contrary to policy H11 so those are the planning reasons I have I've heard during the debate for refusal can I just ask members quickly if that encapsulates everything or if I've missed something yep I think I'm guessing nods and equally on the flip side if members are inclined to vote in favour we have had a suggestion from the officer to include a condition around detail around the crossing point perhaps sure ok perhaps you could say that Phil so through you chair I think we've heard the discussion around the details of the pedestrian crossings and they are indicated on an access drawing as part of the application but as Steve has suggested we could add an additional condition to review that and see further detail subject to a condition which we could agree wording on with you chair if that's agreeable to members is that agreeable to members I'm seeing some nods so should members be inclined to approve then we'll include that condition wording to be finalised nothing on the road width of the road to make it adoptable yes so we actually didn't cover that did we so there was a question around would it be possible to condition road width to make it adoptable to highway standards I suppose it technically could be possible to put a condition on like that but I think it could have be a bit limiting in terms of when we start to look at the reserve matters in terms of the overall layout and the urban design implications and I'm sorry I think this is the point where we need to do this because people having roads not adoptable by highways means that there ends up being a management company that ends up charging those who are living there even more and many residents are complaining about this now they pay their council tax and they have to pay this on top of it because you've got all these things that a management company has to do so at what point are we going to say look can we at least just make it adoptable because right now nothing's highways has already pointed it out so we have been warned please let's take up that warning well officers I don't know if you want to respond to that well it's tricky to I don't think we could really put a condition on to require it to be adopted because there are other parties involved in terms of the highway authority that would have a say on that so so essentially the advice to officers is that would be unwise to condition that because it might not be enforceable essentially is that right yeah so I don't think you can it doesn't pass the tests of reasonable enforceability I don't think because a section 38 agreement which was the adoption agreement is a document, a separate document that has to be drawn up between the land owner the applicant goes through a process of certificates as to maintenance and all this kind of thing that and these days we're seeing fewer and fewer developments with that are adopted certainly the other councils that are represent it's not unusual so I don't think so I think I think nationwide is probably the same thing so unfortunately I don't think you can do it because I think that any such condition would just be appealed okay Councillor Carn is that on this point yes it's basic on this point I was coming in this is a really rather exceptional circumstance that we have evidence of problems with drainage a concern about drainage and it's absolutely essential that the the street is maintained and the only real way to ensure that is to ensure that it's managed by a public body and therefore I can see that there is an argument which might be rather exceptional in this circumstance I don't so I I just wonder whether the member of the office could look at whether that might be a factor which could cause a different approach I think we've had legal advice saying that it wouldn't be possible to include that as a condition however we'll hear from councillor Fein I'm guessing it's on this point it is I think the important distinction here is that as I understand it councillor Hawkins is not suggesting we should make it a condition that is adopted which I think perhaps councillor Carnes' point but that having specified a width the width specified bearing in mind that this is not one of the reserve access is not a reserve matter in this case the width specified should be such as to make it adoptable if that is agreed we can't make it a condition that it should be adopted but can we specify the minimum width which is what councillor Hawkins I think was seeking interested to hear the legal view on that if we can specify a width which would make it adoptable but the ego is the highways discretion whether they do then adopt it or not we could have a condition on to say that the access road should be a minimum of 500m in width similar to some of the other conditions that say it should be 10m from the boundary so officers would be comfortable including that as a condition I think I think the thing that I said is yes but I'll come on to councillor Heather Williams we're we're not trying to test your patience on the subject chair can I suggest that the wording is that we require the roads to be made to an adoptable standard not that they are adopted because we sit here and specify a width now the adopted standard width changes between this build out whereas if we say to an adoptable standard we are future proofing it if it is to go ahead so I'm not trying to be a nuisance but I do have fears if we become prescriptive then we are going to have a problem potentially later and equally it could get smaller you just never know with these things so adoptable standard and if we can't have a condition which would be preferable at least in informative thank you chair sorry chair, yet with your permission unfortunately it's a nice idea that you can't have or if you do have to an adoptable standard the condition has to be enforceable and you're going to need to employ a highway engineer to say this is to an adoptable standard and there may be a conflict in what county highways would say is that's not to their standard so I think it's just it's an impossible task because it's the the the highways department are the statutory local authority responsible for roads so if it was adopted under section 38 agreement that would be to their standards but I don't think the district council have the expertise or even if they were to get a highway engineer consultant that you could ever deem that safely to an adoptable standard I hope that makes sense it's just because you are kind of stuck in this position that if the county aren't adopting it you can't then say it's an adoptable standard but house buyers have a choice whether to buy a development that's not been adopted and they through due diligence and marketing and marketing let's hear from councillor Richard Williams I was going to make the same point about adoptable standards I mean surely there must be something we can do here in terms of having some reference point about an adoptable standard and I know maybe I'm pressing my point but I would just make a point to other members as well we're talking about affordable housing we're apparently putting or some members are planning to put significant weight on affordable housing against the green belt is a housing development where the people who end up in these houses could be clobbered with maintenance charges I mean that must cut against the affordable housing factor but on the point of highway surely there's something we can do there must be something I'll put that to officers then obviously you've heard members' concerns and what they would like how is the best way in legal planning terms that we can incorporate that into a decision to build a variable I'm sorry there is no objection from highways but what highways are said is from the indicative plans the roads they will not seek to adopt them for very reason that it doesn't meet the minimum standard for adopting roads so all I'm asking is let's at least say that we want to see them build the roads to adoptable standards as a minimum then it's up to the highways to go yes or no they won't for affordable homes please this is for affordable homes we can't not do something to make sure it carries on being affordable so can we clarify the legal standpoint and the legal advice we're getting from our lawyers is that we can't put that as a condition would it be possible to put that as an informative so essentially it's unenforceable but we can say we would recommend that the roads are built to an adoptable standard there must be somewhere we can get to we can get to the solution well possibly but it wouldn't have the same obviously clout as a condition which is I think what members are after I think just my concern is that you can have the words to an adoptable standard but what does that mean I don't think that passes the test of precision needs in to impose a planning condition or is it enforceable because who enforces it if it's adopted but highways are not adopted you can't make an agreement to agree but there's no they will look to it but it's obviously they can't guarantee that until there's an adoption agreement well yeah my advice is you can't but if members take a contribution then draft the condition to adoptable standard but I don't know how you would I don't know who would be appropriate officer at the district council to take a look at to walk along to the road and say yeah that's to adoptable standard or who you're going to employ to do that okay I think I think we've had the legal advice last comment I think and then we can hopefully wrap this up I appreciate the legal advice Jeff for myself could I add this to the list of reasons the fact that the roads potentially you where we're at because what we can't do is build affordable housing make exception for affordable housing and then put the cost of running that on to people that are you know by definition require affordable housing is there something in the planning terms that means actually this whole issue which is a very real issue is a reason for saying this is not the place because if there isn't space to do adopted roads and we're already putting more houses in that's dense you know it I very much appreciate the concerns that have been raised by members but feel that this is just strengthening my side of the debate to be quite frank I'm not sure which reason material reason that would be to refuse it affects the planning balance of very special circumstances it lightens the weight of the affordable housing I would just know since I've got the microphone so I've butted in but you know there is a policy document from the Department of Transport which says highways adoption the adoption road to the public highway advice note there must be objective criteria if you say adoptable standard that clearly means something means something to the county and according to the Department of Transport it means something so it's not an uninforcably vague requirement but given that I'm likely to vote against okay I think I think we need some clarity on this then we have the legal advice which is no you can't have that as a condition whether we want to go against that advice or have it as an informative as opposed to a condition which is uninforcable I think we need to make that decision now Martin you wish to come in I just simply want you to say that if there is concern about the term adoptable standard we just simply have to say five metres which seems to be something which could be enforced and would provide the possibility at the detailed stage of providing road system which is adoptable at a later stage give the opportunity whereas if you don't do the five metres now the likelihood of it change there is always the possibility of it changing but there's been no proposals to change that in the short term as the minimum standard so that's what we have to work with Councillor Ariel Cahn will you make in the same point okay okay unless anything's changed what I understand the position to be is the legal advice is we can't have a condition saying it needs to be adoptable standards we can have one specifying a road width so I suppose we as a committee need to decide whether we want to include a five metre condition in any approval or if we include adoptable highways adoptable standards as informative Councillor Harvey could we not have to adoptable standards and in any event no less than five metres any thoughts Councillor Hawking thank you Councillor Williams for this this is the highways document and it says plan authorities may impose specific planning conditions for the approval of details and this may include those set out in their appendix so we may impose specific planning conditions it's a highway this is from highways it's clear to me that this committee does want to see some condition imposed it would appear from what Councillor Hawking has just read out that that may be possible it is I think going to be within the capability of officers to draft something that meets the general wish of this committee both those who are inclined to oppose it and those who are inclined to support it and it is that would then be in theory enforceable according to the I don't know where that guidance came from but the government's own guidance so I think we should leave it to officers to draft something maybe in conjunction with yourself that would meet the concerns of the committee so that we can move on to the national principle Councillor Williams can I say obviously this is something that is really important to members and I jokingly said we should have dealt with this after lunch but equally I do think we have thrown a lot at the officers right now and there's documents very useful documents being raised potentially is it better to allow officers time to digest and maybe give them the access to the document that's been searched before we come to a conclusion I appreciate we're all keen to get on but equally what we don't want is something done in haste and not considered fully for the future okay I appreciate the suggestion I think we have made some progress though from what I understand so I feel I understand we may have made some progress sorry I've just been reviewing the condition that we suggested previously around details of the pedestrian crossing being agreed with you as an additional condition and given that those the same drawing that we have the drawings set out within the application have got the access road and the pedestrian crossing details within histon road I've just been looking at whether we could reword that condition to state the following which is notwithstanding the details set out on drawing number 22938 08020 0101 which is the access design drawing details of the access road and pedestrian crossing shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority the details shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details and the reason for that will be in the interest of pedestrian and highway safety in accordance with the policies HQ1 and TI2 of the local plan that would be the gist of the condition that I could suggest Councillor Hawkins thank you chair it also should include the roads in the development itself because that's what highways is saying that they will not adopt as well it's there in paragraph sorry my understanding is it's just the access to the site that is we're looking at today the roads within the development themselves will be a reserve matter that's how I understand the application right okay let's start with that I will make this point again whenever this comes up I think that's been noted so with the rewording of the original condition regarding the pedestrian crossing as Phil has just read out to members Phil that encapsulates what we're trying to achieve here in terms of getting the access which is the only thing we're talking about today up to the correct standards should we grant approval does anyone disagree with that no okay well I think we've found a middle ground anyway so I think with that we've outlined the reasons for refusal should members be inclined to refuse should members be inclined to approve we've got a some updated conditions which I believe are agreeable to the committee so I think with that we are now in a position to make a decision so I'm going to ask democratic services if they can launch a electronic vote for us so the recommendation we have members is on page 70 and the recommendation is to approve the application subject to the conditions listed in the agenda as well as the additional condition that we have just outlined so members to vote press the blue button to signal you're here if you're in favour press green if you're against that press red and to abstain press yellow I should say Councillor Harvey you are illegible to vote as you weren't here for some of the debate so you might have to remove your okay what is an abstention for that reason but shall I remove it? okay fine one step ahead of me are all the votes in so we have nine votes in total five in favour four against so that application is approved thank you members it's half past one do we, do members feel a lunch break would be appropriate now? okay so as it's bang on half one we'll have a half hour break so we'll be back to start again at two o'clock on the dot good afternoon everyone and welcome back to South Camershire District Council's planning committee we're currently up to agenda item eight in proceedings which is on page 87 of members agendas the application before us is at the car park in Walklingway Milton the proposal is for the installation of a 10 bicyclytes bike shelter in the car park the reason this is before us today at the planning committee is because the applicant is the district council the presenting officer is Amy Stocks who I believe is joining us online good afternoon Amy good afternoon can I just quickly ask Gabriel to turn his camera off please we will come to you Gabriel thank you, sorry Amy so yeah over to you any updates if there are any to the agenda and then if you could introduce the item for us please yep so just assuming everyone can see my screen at the moment the presentation we can yep perfect thank you I think I said this is for the installation of a 10 bicycle kind of bike shelter at the car park at Walklingway in Milton quick update on condition 2 there were some submitted drawings which were included in your plans pack which weren't included in under condition 2 I have highlighted where this condition changes so it's just to amend the wording saying that the work to be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans while before the wording referred to advertisements where there is none proposed during this application so we've just removed that from the wording as well as the inclusion of the two plans so just for some site context the proposal site lies within the Milton Village framework the site currently comprises of a car park which serves 24 neighbouring flats and provides 24 car spaces the site is bordered to the north south and west with residential properties while the east boundary is of the site is shared with the actual Walklingway road so the application seeks planning permission for the erection of a covered communal bicycle shelter on the car park within the car park grounds the communal bike shelter will be used by the council owned flats of the Walklingway residents just so some pictures were included on the application which just shows something of a similar structure of what will be erected there these are the additional plans that were submitted so again this is something very similar to what it would look like it's just your standard bicycle shelter really at the moment there isn't any provision for cycles on the site for people who do own them in the flats so this would be an improvement in increasing that provision as there is none again just an assembly drawing of the kind of structure you seen previously of what will be there I've just taken some pictures when I went to site so the actual bike shelter will be going in this area here where the bins are currently being put out on bin collection day I have requested under the conditions that a location for bin storage is submitted to us prior to the occupation of the actual cycle store just to ensure that there isn't an over spill of bins on the Walkway or anything like that the sorry the car park does not form any essential part of the local character and is not considered that the shelter would jeopardise the local features of the greenscape or anything like that or landscape ecological or historical importance the 24 flats that utilise the car park do not have provision for cycle storage there is a need for this infrastructure in order to support the existing development in line with the council's vision for sustainable transport officers considered that the loss of one car space in this location here would for the provision of the 10 cycle spaces in accordance with the relevant policies which prefer to sustainable transport and parking provision retrospectively would be acceptable as a council we try to promote sustainable transport and as Milton is a 25 minute cycle from the city centre officers do consider that the loss of one car space to allow for the actual doors to open up into the car park to allow people to put their cycles in would be appropriate and would be acceptable the next one again just another close up of where this would be going so it wouldn't be encroaching onto highway land or anything like that it would be just going in this location here which would then take up this bay which you can see is currently being used for bin storage the application has garnered quite a lot of support from councillors and from third party representatives there has been a one objection from the third party rep which should voice concern in relation to a presence of a shed within the wider car parking area and how this would impact the number of spaces said to be existing on the site in the application officers did check that this piece of land was within the council's ownership and that this shed that is there at the moment is unauthorised and isn't accepted so it could be removed if necessary it's not on it's on council on land it's not been the piece of land hasn't been given to the owner of the shed or anything like that Milton Parish Council have no recommendation for the scheme the parish council did previously query that there is a stump here shown if there could be a tree replaced but given that the stump doesn't add anything to the landscape officers do consider it would be a bit unfair to ask for its replacement the highways the local highways authority don't have an objection to the development principle but did voice some concerns on the reliance of the five spaces shown here in the application to provide relief of the loss of the one space within the car park boundaries and there was also requested proof that the 24 spaces that said that there is existing be kind of shown there are no parking bays outlined on the site not designated specifically not clearly so the removal of the one space is considered acceptable given the no provision on site for the cycle store but in regards to actually demonstrating the existing 24 car spaces it is considered that the car park was constructed in accordance with policies of the local plan back when it was approved in 1969 so to hold the site accountable to new policies in relation to parking parking provision and basizing would be unfair through this application and again just to reiterate with Milton being so close from the city centre it would be likely that not all of the occupants actually have of the neighbouring flats have cars and would actually need cycle storage which they don't currently benefit from so in the bin storage would be secured through condition just to reiterate that given that there was quite a few bins shown in the location of the cycle store so just a very quick presentation officers do recommend that the application is approved subject to conditions thank you thank you chair thank you very much Amy we do have a few public speakers on this application members but before we move on to that does anyone have any questions of clarification for the officer Councillor Richard Williams thank you chair just a quick one could you just clarify for me which way the bus shelter will be facing the cycle storage busway is on the brain why would that be it's the cycle shelter is it facing out towards the road and then because I'm just thinking if it's facing into the car park we'd probably lose two spaces rather than one because people would be needing to come around it it is facing into the car park so it would be opening up into the into the car park area rather than the highways that wouldn't be suitable as given that it would block footpaths so the applicant has put it so that it does open up into if I get up a quick plan just to show quickly it should have been included in the plans pack there we go if I share my screen quickly once again just to show it's a very plain plan in that sense where you can see where the locate assuming my screen is visible again this is where it would be locating it would open up so it's more so kind of not the grass verge where those bollards are so the actual doors would open up into one space while this is included onto where the bollards were shown in that photograph I can get that photograph up again if needs being so essentially the bike store won't be in a parking space so the access to and from it would be using that space apologies yes I should have made that clear understood thank you Members any further questions of clarity or can we, Councillor Hawkins please thank you chair from the photograph that we saw we can see that the bins tend to be put in that parking space now how, where are they going to be allowed to put their bins if not there so so there was an update from the applicant this morning which did say that they are looking to find a new location I believe it's condition three or four put onto the plant that says that they will have to submit a yes it's condition four they would have to confirm the location of the bin store to ensure that these bins are kept off of the local highway and things like that as there is going to be a cycle store in there prior to the actual use of the cycle store so they would be able to build it but they just wouldn't be able to use it so it is in their best interest to get that information over to us sooner rather than later as I don't believe this is an actual designated area for the bins anyway it's just more so just by they've been gathered that's clear thank you for that okay Amy thank you for that we may call on you a bit later on but we're going to move on to our public speakers now the first of which we saw slightly earlier Gabrielle Bienzebas I'm sure that's the authentic pronunciation can you hear me? very faintly, is there any chance you could increase the volume or move closer to the mic possibly? yes one second is that any better? very slightly, still very difficult to hear you okay I mean if this is the best we have we'll do our best to accommodate you Gabrielle so am I right and thinking you're representing CAMP Cycle today? no I am a CAMP Cycle trustee but I represent Milton Cycle campaign so Milton Cycle campaign well I'm the leader of Milton Cycle campaign so Milton Cycle campaign won the £15,000 grant from the CO2 community back in 2020 and this is part of that of one of those schemes that we kind of put in into the plans so we have a few comments to make on this application so we support the application but we have a few concerns so the main concerns remain on these several stands that should be this sank into concrete to make them more secure and more difficult to remove or have shared nets also called security nets does to make it more difficult to remove those stands and impede or basically audit that cycle theft if access was to be gained to the set the Coder Padlock which I believe is one of the one of the items that the cycle store comes with a Coder Padlock we would like that Coder Padlock the number to be three to six months just because when there is a number it's likely that more people will find out and it's just for security purposes it makes sense to have that number being replaced or updated frequently or replace it with a key key by padlock instead and have a master key at the party's office which is just across the road actually and one observation that I'll make but I'm aware of this in as I kind of I kind of being pushing through these plans is that there is not sufficient cycle parking for all the residents and also the cycle parking that will be provided will only be suitable for standard two wheel cycles so that's image one from the LTM from figure five two from the LTM 120 so no hand cycles, cargo bikes stand them so cycles with trailers or any other cycle types that you can imagine so it's only standard two wheel bikes which is possibly okay for the use but you know it's just to be it's an observation and the last one it's one to do with the visibility of the shed from memory I don't think the area is that well lit and also the the shed will be located adjacent to the car park in this area which is currently it's just a grass strip and my observation is that it might be a good idea seeing as there is quite a lot of car movements not that many car movements but there is some car movements in and out the site to maybe mark the edges of the shed with reflective tape or some sort of reflective material in order to do a visibility of the shed and those are my comments Great, thank you very much it's useful to hear those Members, do we have any questions of clarification for Gabrielle? No, I can't see any Gabrielle, thank you very much for taking the time to join us and give us your thoughts Those were very... Martin, did you want to ask? For the... Okay, we'll come on to that in a second We do have one more public speaker before we move on to the debate and we have the local member, Councillor Judith Rippeth who's joining us virtually Afternoon Judith, you're muted Can you hear me now? Yes, there you go Here and see you fine I think you know the procedure three minutes and then we may ask the questions of you so please whenever you're ready Thank you The idea for secure cycle parking at this location first came about through a successful grant application to the Zero Carbon Community scheme The site is within easy cycling distance of many places of work in Cambridge and Water Beach which are quite commutable on a bicycle such as the Science Park As you will have seen on the plans, the shelter will use one car parking space and a small area to the front of it which currently has number of bins scattered next to a tree stump Although the photos show lawn in front of the block of flats, the area near to the bins is obviously not usable in the summer because of the smell I've had to confirm that the matter of storage is being taken on by the Assets and Compliance team who are looking into changing the bins to larger ones and fewer and additionally creating storage area for them Importantly, if granted permission this would be implemented before the bike shelter This will have the additional benefit of tidying up the immediate environment and improve the amenity Although anecdotal evidence and not an official survey I can confirm that I've visited the flats on both a weekend and during the week and at different times a day The car park has never been at capacity and indeed often with many spaces left vacant To enable residents to make more journeys by bicycle or indeed in some cases not to require ownership of a car at all this shelter will enable them to make that step, removing the need to carry bikes up to their cases and into flats or stored on balconies I ask that committee supports this application which will have both environmental and health and well-being benefits and make life for residents just that little bit easier Thank you and I understand that Lawrence has a couple of short statements from my ward colleagues We do have written comments from councillors Brannam and Bear Park which we do have physical copies of here I wasn't proposing on reading them out but essentially they are wholeheartedly supportive as you have been of the application I just wanted to check that Everyone is in possession of those Members, do we have any questions of clarity for one of the three local members? No, I think that's extremely clear Judith Thank you very much for I'll stay on to see what happens Those are all our public speakers We'll move into the debate section now Councillor Cahn, I think you had a I had a question on the office It seems to me, it appears to me and maybe the office could confirm that this actually is permitted development for a local authority development under one of the permitted development things, it's small building less than four metres high and I would think below the volume I just wanted to explain to me why that doesn't account and why an application has been put in by our three U chair it's not permitted development flats don't benefit from permitted development rights so they can't install that without planning permission It's because it's a local, it's a flat housing development rather than a general It's also an outbuilding forward of the main building line as well so it wouldn't be permitted development on that basis Okay, thank you very much Members, does anyone wish to ask any further questions of clarity of officers or make any points for debates? Councillor Heather Williams, please Thank you chair Just in relation to the comments that were made about lighting I'm just wondering if we're able to put a requirement for lighting or reflective material as well as requested and whether we could just condition that to taking on forward the comments that were made on the basis that it is our application as well so I'm sure we wouldn't appeal ourselves chair Three chair Condition three talks about materials to be used in external construction of the development and as you can see it's a fairly standard metal type structure that will be put on the side in terms of reflective material I think that's something we could include as part of the structure but I think lighting is probably a step too far in terms of being a reasonable requirement as a result of the scale of the development Chair, if I may then can we condition reflective material and inform ourselves of lighting please So you're proposing including in condition three specifying reflective material then adding an informative if possible proper lighting Officers, do you need to chip in on that or is that clear? I'm happy to include the reflective material and as part of condition three and informative yes Okay, good Members, does anyone have an issue with including those two points? Okay, so we'll include those should we vote to approve this Members, does anyone wish to make any further points or like me do you feel in a position to make a decision? Agreed, okay well members we have the recommendation is on page 96 and that is to approve subjects of the conditions laid out in the papers with the addition of the reflective material in condition three and the informative around lighting Members, does anybody wish to vote against or of stain on that recommendation? Nope Can we take it by affirmation that is agreed? Agreed, okay so that is unanimous Thank you very much everybody Thank you Amy We're now on to agenda item number nine which is on page 97 of our papers The application is at Braybank Barns Ellsworth Road Connington, the application is for a single story side extension the reason it is before us today is because the applicant is related to a staff member of the council so it has to come to us as a matter of process The presenting officer is Dominic Bush who I see has joined us online Dominic, good afternoon Good afternoon Dominic, I'll hand over to you then if there's any updates to the reports in front of us please do give us the updates and then introduce the reports, please Thank you Perfect, thank you, can I just confirm if you can see my powerpoint? We can There are no updates to the application and as you just mentioned the application is for a single story side extension at four Braybank Barns in Connington There are two applications there's the householder application and then the listed building application the same proposal The application site as shown on this map is located in Connington and is accessed from Ellsworth Road running to the west The property is a single story semi-detached dwelling which is attached to three Braybank Barns at the south shown here Whilst to the west of the site is the residential gardens of three Braybank Barns The application site was a previously agricultural outbuilding that has been converted previously to a residential use This GIS map shows a larger view of the area with the grade two listed Braybank Barns farmhouse further to the south of the site The application site to which this application is concerned is currently listed due to its proximity to the grade two listed farmhouse as well as the date the application or the property was constructed The property is also located outside of the development framework of Connington which is shown by the dash line to the west This is the proposed site plan for the application with the proposed side extension shown here to the north elevation of the existing property Here are the existing and proposed elevations with the extension shown here at the bottom This is the existing and proposed floor plans Here are some contextual photos of the site This is the front of the property looking to the west This is looking south from the north of the property where the extension will join the north elevation This is looking south west from where the extension will sit towards three Braybank Barns with the residential gardens visible in the foreground This is looking south further down the site with the listed farmhouse visible in the distance This is a closer up view of the farmhouse This is the view of the listed farmhouse from along Ellsworth Road The conservation officer held no objections to the proposal and the detail of their opinion can be seen in section 6.2 of the report and as laid out in section 9 of the report the recommendation is for approval subject to the following conditions Thank you, Chair Dominic, thank you very much Members, we have no public speakers on this application so I think we can go straight to debate and any questions of clarification for the officers Members, over to you if there's any Sorry, so Members, over to you if there's any questions of clarity for the officer or anyone wishes to chip in with a debate we'll go to councillors Hawking, Sanford and then Martin Cunn Thank you, Chair Three, it's just some clarification and again this is to do with dimensions so forgive me if it might seem a bit a small issue but it's not We have in paragraph 3.2 where it says the single suicide stories extend by approximately 4.66 so the north 5.3 metres wide and then in 8.16 we have 6.5 metres and 4.9 metres so how big is this extension just those numbers are inconsistent So Dominic, if you could confirm the the actual scale of the extension Sorry, apologies This might be a bit clearer if you can see this the internal measurements of the extension so it's 4.3 metres internally to the north and then 4.226 metres in width That's a different set of figures to what's in that report So the ones in the measurements in the report one of them will be the external measurements I can't measure them at the exact moment in time but I can come back to you with the measurements externally if that would be helpful I'm not sure it's clear about my question So Dominic, in 8.16 of our report it says the extension is 6.5 metres by 4.9 and then earlier in the report somewhere which I've now lost it says it's slightly smaller So it will be the smaller measurement it's not 6.9, sorry So we should go by 3.2 in the report which says it's 4.66 wide by 5.3 Is that correct? If we take in the measurements in 3.2 of the report Thank you Sorry, it's just We've clarified that Councillor Sanford, please Thank you Chair I am somewhat familiar with this property having put leaflets in there mailbox on a number of occasions recently Are you declaring an interest then? That's not an interest As long as the mailbox remains that's fine It is a rural location The property does not overlook other habitation and it is not overlooked by the habitation As the proposed materials match those of the existing property that would be my only concern I see that's called out in 18.7 that it will be matching So I would be inclined to vote in favour of this application Thank you Councillor Martin I see that the extension is proposed with a reduced roof line set back from the original building which makes it look rather like a little tag-on In this instance I know this is generally what is requested of extension but in this instance I think the building would have been better if the existing line was continued and the existing size continued so that it was seen as part of the original building I think it would look much less of an add-on and I don't think there's sufficient reason to refuse it because we have to deal with what's coming but it's just a comment that one has to be a bit more careful sometimes in not always following a doctor in a response to these occasions I think that comment has been noted Members Is anyone inclined to either vote against or abstain on this? I haven't heard anyone with any negative comments that they think are warrant refusal but if anyone would like to put that forward now please do Members we do have a recommendation on page 104 which is to approve subjects to conditions as laid out in the papers Does anyone wish to vote against or abstain on that recommendation? Members Can we take that as approved by Affirmation? Agreed So that's unanimous approval Dominic, thank you very much but if you stay on the line I think you're going to present the next item to us as well which is a follow-on so a gender item 10 members same reason it's in front of us but a slightly different application Dominic, perhaps if you could introduce that to us please Do you want me to run through the presentation briefly again? It will just be the same presentation but that's fine If you could outline what the difference between this application and the previous would be We don't need to go into detail again So the disability application is just concerned with the heritage aspect of the proposal So that would be the impact on the listed building which is located here and as highlighted by the conservation officers comments the heritage importance of the property is related rather to the relationship between the properties within the farmyard rather than the individual property and therefore the proposal is acceptable in its modest scale and the impact it would have on the proposal So for clarity this is just the listed building consent that needs to be sought because this application is within the cartilage of a listed building albeit the building itself is not listed Correct Okay, thank you Members Any questions or my view is it's fairly straightforward and we can probably move to a decision on this unless any members have any pressing questions Nope Okay, well members we have a recommendation in front of us on page 110 and that recommendation is to approve subject to the two conditions as laid out in the papers. Do any members feeling inclined to vote against or abstain on this recommendation Nope, can we again take that by affirmation to approve? Agreed so that is also unanimously approved Dominic, thank you very much for that and with that we'll move on to agenda item 11. This is an application at 6 Marys Green Great Shelford The proposal is the demolition and replacement of an outbuilding in the cartilage of a grade 2 listed building The applicant is a Mr T hacking and the reason it is before us today is because again it concerns the demolition of a listed building We have the presenting officer, Karen Pell Coggins who's with us on the screen Karen, good afternoon Afternoon members Apologies chair, I just realised I may know the applicant so I'm just as a potential interest Does that preclude you from taking part? No, maybe a former colleague of mine Okay I suppose it's up to your discretion whether you continue or not I suppose Yeah, maybe I'll go and sit this one I've actually just I think you just fancied a break Yeah, I do You know I need to leave frequently Okay, so the clarity council Richard Williams may or may not have a conflict so he's playing it safe and removing himself for this item and presumably the next So with that, sorry to interrupt you, Karen We can see your presentation on the screen so if you would like to present the report to us and then hang around in case there's any questions Sure, so this is two planning applications One, a householder application for erection of an outbuilding and secondly a listed building consent application for demolition of the existing outbuilding Bear with me So the site is within the development framework of Great Shelford outside the conservation area which you can see the pink line here The conservation area is to the south of the site and it is a grade 2 listed building The I just move on to the site plan The outbuilding is to the north west of the existing dwelling single story outbuilding not in a particularly good condition and the application seeks to demolish this outbuilding and replace it one with a very similar scale design etc Then I just move in on so it's an aerial photograph of the site so you can see the listed building here it's situated so this is Maris Green to the left hand side of the picture here This is the outbuilding with the roof and the listed building faces westwards towards the garden of the main garden of the property These are some photographs from the street so this is on the left hand side is the photograph of the listed building which is the render building here This is the existing outbuilding which is to be demolished and replaced an existing tree which will be removed just here Again this is from coming up Maris Green towards the site so again you can see the outbuilding here the existing listed building here behind the neighbouring property which is this garage and house in the foreground Here's a photograph from the garden of the listed building which shows the rear elevation of the outbuilding currently and the building on the left hand side here is the garage to the neighbour Then I've just put some photographs in so you can see the sort of character and appearance of the main listed building so the one to the top left is the front elevation main front elevation the bottom left is the rear elevation and then you've got all of the elevations of the outbuilding which shows you this one is the one which faces the road this is the one which faces the parking area the one which faces the garden and then the one that faces the neighbour So in terms of the existing floor plans the outbuilds used as a studio storage area storage area storage garage at the moment although it's mainly used for storage simple design with a dual pitched roof and it's timber cladding as you can see in the photographs and corrugated tin roof The new outbuilding to replace that again would be a studio and a study stroke workshop area again a simple sort of dual pitched roof building which would be timber weather boarding with corrugated tin roof painted black there are some roof lights and a flue will serve a wood burner within the studio area So the main considerations for the full application is the principle of development the character and appearance of the area, heritage assets trees, biodiversity and neighbour amenity and then for the list of building applications which will come on to is the impact on heritage assets Thank you Thank you Karen Members, do you have any questions of clarification on Karen's presentation before we move to our public speakers Nope, I don't think we do so thank you Karen we will come back to you but we're going to go to the parish council representative Councillor Greg Price who I believe is joining us online Councillor Price Good afternoon Chairman, thank you I'm speaking on behalf of Great Shelford Parish Council and we are in support of this application we have obviously looked at it and we believe that a sympathetic development will enhance the local area however we would like the tree that will need to be removed to be replaced elsewhere on the property of a mature native tree Is that it? Okay Short and sweet Yes Thank you very much, it's very concise and we appreciate you taking the time to join us to give us your comments Members, do you have any questions for Councillor Price I don't think we do Councillor Price so again thank you very much It's time to speak to us this afternoon We also have the two local members for Shelford who are actually with us today in the committee Councillor Fein and Jackson Woods Gentleman, I don't know if you want to speak as local members at this point it's not essential but you may speak in the debate as committee members equally Councillor Fein Thank you Chair I think with Councillor Jackson Woods I'll go first on this Yes, I think this is a very simple application really Marius Farm is an important 17th century building The outbuilding in question effectively protects it, shields the position but it is not in very good condition, I have to say I haven't actually been inside it to check the structural condition of it but clearly it is in need of works and the heritage officer has said that proposed replacement building which is slightly different from that previously considered has no concerns about it is very sympathetic it's covered in very similar materials it's a very similar scale and design materials and I make no comment on the tree the trees officer says that it's not in particularly good condition however it is sort of directly against the current building so inevitably it's not in the best condition the trunk sits against the building so I have no views on that but I do think that it does make sense to approve the replacement of this probably 20th century we don't know the exact date it could be 20th century outbuilding with a new building of similar and sympathetic design Thank you Councillor Fane Councillor Jackson Wood, would you like to speak as local member? Yes, thank you as Councillor Fane mentions although I'm not familiar or not had any partake in this application to date I am familiar with the exterior of the building which is in a relatively dilapidated state certainly from its external experience sorry, its external I can't speak appearance, there we go sorry so absolutely I'd be very supportive of something that was very similar in appearance albeit a lot newer and better so I think it would definitely enhance the road in the surrounding area Great, thank you very much those are all our public speakers I think we can move into the debate part of proceedings and if members have any questions of clarification as well then now is the time to ask Councillor Heather Williams and then Hawkins Thank you chair, it's just in relation to Councillor Price about the tree if that's something that we can condition looking just for a nod or a shake of head or that was a look that means it's a no so okay, we've posed a question, it would be nice if a tree was planted but it's been made very clear to me that's not possible but as there is general consensus and support chair then I see no reason my committee would deviate from that So just on that point I'm assuming that the response would be it's unreasonable to request a replacement tree planted Yeah in this instance chair if it was a protected tree by a tree preservation order or in the conservation area then yes I think there would be some grounds to say it was a reasonable position but in this instance now they could obviously remove that tomorrow and there would be no requirement for us to be able to replace that tree in any form so in this instance my advice is no Okay understood Well councillors Hawkins sorry councillors Hawkins Martin, can't please Thank you chair, a quick one hopefully the paragraph 7.1 on page 115 where it talks about the third party representation, I just wanted to confirm because obviously they're concerned that the building doesn't overhang the neighbour's land and I presume that's the one behind Can we confirm that the building is not higher than what the proposed new building is not higher than what is there now Karen, that might be one for you I think the question was around the third party representations of that just didn't want the gutters on the new building to overhang the neighbouring property is it, can you just clarify one if that is the case and two the new building would be larger than the existing Yeah, no problem so the site plan submitted with the application shows the roof plan of the building gutters would not overhang the neighbouring boundary and the height of the building is exactly the same as the existing building Thank you, it's just been pointed out 8.33 does confirm that the guttering doesn't overhang the neighbouring property so hopefully that has alleviated the concern of the third party Martin, please Simply I wanted to comment that I always quoted that the tree is a yew tree looking at the picture we look more like a blue seed of old spruce which are non-native trees and so it would be less that would just make it less serious consideration than if it was a native tree Okay Thank you very much Members, again any final comments before I move us to a decision Okay Members, we have a recommendation page 119 and the recommendation is to approve subject to the conditions listed in the in the agenda papers Members, does anyone wish to either vote against that recommendation or abstain on the decision I don't see any, can we take that by affirmation that we approve agreed so that is unanimously approved Members, last application and it is linked again as the previous two were so Karen hopefully you haven't left yet, you're still there If you take us through agenda item 12 which is the same application but is the listed building consent that goes with the application we've just approved Yep, so can you see my presentation We can Excellent I will leave it on this mode if that's okay So, as you've seen it before so the listed building application is for demolition of the existing outbuilding so many issues to consider are the impact on heritage assets with specific reference to loss of any historic fabric Thank you, happy to show any details that you need to see again Thank you Members, as with the previous two applications in Covington this is essentially the same application but it's the listed building consent that's required as the building proposed to be removed is listed Members, do we have any any questions on this one for the officer or is it all straightforward as I think it is Councillor Heather Williams Sorry to disappoint, Chair If I could just ask Karen about materials in destruction you mentioned about that is there any way of trying to ask for the materials to be when it's demolished sensitively so that those materials can be reused or is that not possible just to try and keep the historical fabric because there will be other properties that could benefit from that material rather than bulldozer attached to it It may I wouldn't say it's necessarily appropriate given the quality of the materials in terms of what the materials actually are then and they're not in particularly good condition but that is something that potentially could be conditioned, I wouldn't recommend it though necessarily Your advice is taken Karen Thanks Thank you Members Anything further on this one Are we all in a position to make a decision Okay, well we have a recommendation on page 127 and that is again to approve, subject to the two conditions laid out in the papers does anyone wish to either vote against or abstain on that recommendation Can we take it by affirmation that is approved so that is unanimously approved Karen, thank you very much Members, we're at the end of the planning applications we need to look at now we do have two more items on the agenda that's the enforcement and appeals report I would ask if someone could go fetch Richard because I'm hoping he's not conflicted on the last two items so we're just going to I don't think we need to break for this we're just going to fetch our member back so people can give us 30 seconds John, are you presenting the next item the enforcement? Yes, I am chair, thank you very much it would just be a note to flutter the other exit this summary chair we're just waiting for a member to come back who is now with us so if we're ready we'll move on to agenda item 13 which is the enforcement report and we have John Shuttlewood joining us virtually John, good afternoon Good afternoon chair, nice to see everybody So I'll hand over to you to introduce the report for us please Thank you very much chair this is the report for September basically just summarising all August events so at the end of August and start September we're 142 open cases in South Cambridgeshire rise of four from the previous month so we had 16 new cases opened and 12 investigations completed we served one enforcement notice in the parish of Linton that was regarding operational development updates to service delivery still current vacancy in the principal enforcement officer lead role that has been out for external advertisement in the past weeks hopefully we have attracted some candidates and officers will be interviewing any of those candidates in due course however following a very successful recruitment process I'm pleased to announce that Tony Wallace has been successful in recruitment for a senior planning enforcement officer on a permanent basis Tony was as you may know acting up into that role for the past six months turning the page and going down onto last month we reported the introduction of new ways of alleged breaches of planning control being reported online along with new online web content in reference to what councillor Hanley said last month about communications we are still awaiting a full suite of communications to be released in the coming months but I would ask members I'd be very great for if you members could steer any parish council requests at the moment to lead inquiry form and make them aware of it it would actually make they then have the opportunities to upload any additional documents and photographs themselves and once they've submitted everything online they then get back once the information has been validated they get back details of the case officer and a case reference and a point of contact should members wish for specific updates on any sites please come to me permanently just come to me individually and I will play offline via email I'm happy to meet you in person I'll give you a telephone call updates on Smithy Fent an experienced enforcement officer has been allocated to the Smithy Fent site investigation and the officer has undertaken a site visit and has begun engaging with the on-site community on issues to do with the lawful use of the site the site visit has indicated very low levels of occupancy across the site where there are several empty and vacant awful pitches the compliance team are therefore working with council colleagues to explore and agree the council's approach to the site and ensuring its appropriate occupation and management now I understand the officer Neil Langley was due to meet some of the occupiers on the site in a very new future unfortunately this meeting has had to be rescheduled that's a report chair thank you very much if anybody has any comments or questions I'll take them now thank you John thank you very much for that we do have a few in the room so councillor Heather Williams and then Hawkins please thank you first of all just echo congratulations to Tony because I know I think we all know he's been working very hard on acting up in his role so that's good on the vacancies I just want to clarify because there's also a vacancy on the Cambridge City only side I take it that is dealt with amongst the Cambridge City only staff we're not having to make up for that and therefore losing hours on our side of things so some reassurance on that please and in relation to Smithy Fen now there are I won't say who but there are only two councillors that are on this committee today that this agenda item does not predate and it may actually predate all bar one so I say that but it's been on the agenda every single meeting since I got elected we have real issues with that site for a very long time and just this little paragraph here that says we've allocated probably yet another person to it doesn't really give a sense of encouragement that we're making progress and there are safeguarding issues in relation to the site as well and I feel like I am channeling councillor Nick Wright right now but even if we can't have it here can we have a briefing chair or something on this site because I know councillor Hawkins in the past said it's very frustrating when you've got an application that's on for a period of time nothing has been on more than this and it really does feel like it's never ending and I know it's a particular issue for the local residents so can we have some sort of briefing perhaps or meet with officers as committee or whatever whatever it is that means we get more than these couple of sentences because it's such an important issue that being said with everything else what you were saying about to parish councils as well if you really handy we had something that wrote down if you wanted to communicate that send it out to us and I'm sure all members of the council would send it on to their parishes and encourage it but probably better to give us something in writing than let 10 councillors here interpret their own way of what you've just said and repeat it to parish councils alright thank you chair thank you for that so John I think two questions there one regarding the vacancy in Cambridge city is that up for Cambridge city to recruit rather than us in Southcams and two would it be possible for interested members to get an offline briefing on Smithy Fent to go into a bit more detail thank you chair far answer Councillor Williams questions in reverse so the writing of the email yes and I can send that across to all members and in fact to get that to all councillors that'd be fantastic with regard to Smithy Fent I can certainly take that back to Stephen Kelly executive officer and Neil Langley who is working on the case and I will let Stephen contact you regarding that but it's obviously not just the planning issue on site as you allude to there are safeguarding issues which can suggest it's police it's housing as a whole manner of suite of issues on site there and regarding the city and the district council split you asked the question as whether the district is some way kind of compromised as through the vacancies of the city and whether there's some kind of imbalance at all I'd just like to state here at the moment that I am actually was originally a full city officer dealing purely with city and due to the amalgamation of the two areas in the shared service and the fact that the enforcement team on a day to day basis has now come together I am now taking my time out from the city and working on district council so the city might actually say in reverse that they're actually losing some officers as well but currently basically the enforcement team is part of the shared service the shared service we are Southcams employees so we are Southcams employees Southcams put out the advertisements for the shared service across the two local planning and authority areas but we try our very best to have per ratio the same amount or resources in both the city and in districts Thank you John we appreciate that but I think Councillor Williams would like a bit further clarification if that's okay Yes, thank you, I want to clarify that question particularly it's not a case of where people have traditionally worked or not it is joint service but it does say on here Cambridge city only and then says of the vacancy what we don't have is sort of SCDC only so I'm asking if that's happening or what are we seeing that SCDC only is having to compensate at the moment for the vacancy and where are we at we've heard where we're at with the vacancy for the principal planning but where are we at for the planning compliance officer nothing in relation to how you're spending your time or historically which officer is compensating for which authority specifically around that vacancy to ensure that both councils are receiving the service that they will require thank you chair and so go on John I was going to say how understood it was that all the greater Cambridge planning service enforcement team is everyone in this list in the agenda I think perhaps the Cambridge city only might be a bit misleading unless you're saying something else I thought everyone was one happy family now everyone needs one happy family chair I can report that I'm actually struggling on my report I printed out to actually see where it says Cambridge city only so perhaps that's just my copy but I can assure councillor Williams that all all officers in the team work on both codes city and district 130 if that helps okay I'm afraid I don't have a massive document in front of me councillor Williams but I will take your word for it with regards to the senior enforcement post that is due to close I believe on the 5th of October so we see what candidates we get from that I understand that there has been some interest shown about that post thank you thank you John thank you chair thank you so I've got a list of speakers I'm not sure if it's up to date I've got councillors Hawkins and Carn is that historic give them to me a platform okay thanks thank you chair on the issue of Smithy Fein we have been doing a lot of work in the background we did actually have a consultant do some work on this we have been doing a lot of work in the background we did actually have a consultant on this and what we found is there's a lot of sites that are no longer occupied as you probably heard and there's some things that are not applicable now that were there and etc etc so they're a lot more complicated than has you know that is seen on the surface but there is work on it and yes you know we've had to change the personnel has times gone on there is progress on it and we'll take it forward to have some briefing on the other I understand that I understand that but just so I show you that it's not quiet on the compliance is what we call it now actually there was a notification through the chief exec update at the beginning of August about what the new process is and in the website and stuff like that so I think if you look back you see that we already have actually sent confirmation out to members and if memory serves me right we also had one from communications team but we can send that out again just to remind members yeah that's fine I'm saying that to everyone and last but not least I thought we were going to have a briefing on the compliance the new compliance policy for the planning committee am I missing that can we look at that please thanks okay I think officers have taken that away specifically members does anyone else have any further questions for our enforcement officer John no okay well John thank you very much appreciate it's always difficult being at the back end of the agenda because you never know when to join but we appreciate your patience so thank you very much and I'm sure we'll see you at the forthcoming meeting thank you very much yes you will okay members this is agenda item 14 and I believe Mr McIntosh will be presenting this one to us thank you chair the item is for information for members if there's any questions I'm happy to ask them or take any queries away if I can't answer them off the top of my head now but yes obviously it's the usual format in terms of appeal decisions under awaiting decisions and one sort of in the pipeline being prepared I don't know if there's any queries I'm happy to take those now I really wanted to ask about the bill on Implington Lane which I was very glad to see has we were dismissed it was quite a complicated it was an issue where we disagreed with the reports of the land drainage issue I just wondered what issues had been the main how the inspector dealt with that issue the fact that we disagreed with the statutory consultees on that one in our reasons for refusal what was the main supporting how could you respond because I thought it would be interesting to find out sorry can you just confirm which item it is number 60 Implington Lane the decision I haven't read the decision myself but I'm happy to get a copy of it across to you if you'd like to read it I can get that for you and send it over thank you very much councillor Heather Williams thank you on page 137 I don't believe we've ever been turned away before so just some explanation as to why on that application we were turned away thank you chair yeah I imagine it's been deemed to be out of time by the planning inspector sold that basis to the appeal can't proceed so for clarity it's not Osdor's been turned away the application to appeal has been turned away because it's passed the decision time presumably as I'm guessing they're appealing a refusal the appeal is not going to be allowed presumably as it was a retrospective that should now need to be enforced or a fresh application forthcoming it either rose to options I'll have to check with the enforcement team about the status of enforcement action I'll say if we could because I think it's really important if we've managed to uphold something appeal them especially retrospectives that we do then enforce thank you chair absolutely as we had in Gertan last month appreciate you weren't here actually if members remember that one members any final questions on the appeals section of the agenda nope okay members I think we've got that we're at the end so thank you very much everyone officers, members of the committee anyone that's joined us from the public to addresses today yep thank you very much for your involvement the days of our next meeting is Wednesday the 12th of October