 Thank you very much everybody. Love to see you, I've been off a little bit, so it's a real pleasure to be back here in the Chamber with you, I'm not as cold as we were expecting, so I have lots of layers on I think everybody else has, will manage that, I hope it doesn't get any colder during the rest of the morning. So, hynny'n gweithio am ymddangos, yn ymdw i'n gyffredinol a'r pwble sydd rydyn ni'n gweithio ar y livestream. Felly, wrth gyd, fel y gweithio ar Ysgrifennu Cymru, y Disgwysbryd Llywodraeth Cynllus Cynllus. Mae'r cysylltu'n Cysyllt Pippa Hylings, ac rydyn ni'n gwneud yr ysgrifennu. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn y Cysyllt Cymru yn ychydigol, mae'r tyffan ymgyrch yn eu gwestiynau'r gweithio'r cymdeithasol yn y gweithio'r gweithio'r cymdeithio. a mae'r bwysig arall o ddod yn rhan o'r gwerthgfaith a chyfodd i ddim yn ddod o'r gwnaeth. Mae'n ffau gydig i ddim yn ddod o'r gwerthgfaith hwn o'r gwrdd ac mae'n ei wneud o'r gwrdd. A'r ddomliadau gyrdd gynnig yn dweud o'r gwrdd yn ddod o'r gwrdd ychydig o gael y ddweud. A'r ddod o'n ddod o'r ffordd ar y cwrdd, rydyn nhw, rydyn ni'n ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r gwrddrio am y llyw o'r cofnithol yn ystod o'r cyflwyddau yn yr ystod, neu roedd eich cyflwmp yn dod. Rwy'n bydd y cyflwmp ychydig ap y sgwr, a'r cyflwmp yn ymderddol yn llyfrllwyddon, a'r cyflwmp yn ei fenyded yn yn ymddangos, ac y diwylliant yn meddwl ffyrdd yn ei gyflwyno'r cyflym, a mae'n defnyddio eu ddweud ychydig, yw'r cyflwmp yn ddyweddol gyda'r gwleidog. your microphone is switched on, and when you finish addressing the meeting, please turn off your microphone immediately, speak slowly and clearly, and please do not talk over or interrupt anyone. My vice chair as always will be noting who's asking to speak both within the room and those who are able to speak to work on the live stream.damn members present in the Chamber, and now invite each of you to introduce yourselves and after I call your name, please turn on your microphone ond mae hyn yn gwneud yn gyfodol, rydych chi'n gwneud i'r wneud i'w'r neu'r eich bod y defnyddio'n unig yn rhanol. Rwy'n ein bod yn Ymlaen i Llyfrgell Pippa Hyling, ac mae'n ymlaen i'n ymlaen i Llyfrgell Ymlaen i Llyfrgell Pippa Llyfrgell. Rydyn ni'n gwybod a'n gweithio pan fyddwn i'n gweithio. Yr cyfanydau a'r cyfanyddiaeth yr unrhyw ar gyfer enw yn fwyaf gyntaf'r ymuno. Fe yw'r cyfanyddiaeth dail yw'r cyfanyddiaeth yw'r cyffanydd yw'r cyffanydd, gyda'n gyfer ynw'r cyffanydd yw'r cyffanydd. Mae'r cyfanyddiaeth dail eich gwahanol yn ffathau'r cyfynghwyrion i'r cyffanyddiaeth i'r cyffanyddiaeth. Mae'r cyfanyddio yn gyflynedd yn cyfrannu, O wych.으면 Maen nhw, bynnag hefyd. Maen nhw已 dowod riding. Rwy'n med anim hyn wrth gwrs cymryd mewn gwirionedd. Rwy'n med anim. Rwy'n med am wind cradol Association Rydd Mass los passe Brahllid yw directul. Rwyf yn med awr o Gwtaidd, oedd Maen nhw ei ddaeth drosod, i adnod yr ar Ageff� G i mi rhedeg hefyd ac o sicr ardyear warydd. Cymru, Cymru, Cymru. Cymru, Cymru, Cymru and I represent the Mordans Ward. Yn bwynt i gael gweinol, ac yn dd pozi Imagir describes Lywyllus Williams. Cymru, Cymru, Jyntud Williams, dyna ar y bwydwyr Llywodraeth. Cymru, mae'n gwybr Ynbryd Cymru. Christian Wilson. Cymru, siar. Good Morning. Cymru, Cymru, Christian Wilson, Cymru Cymru, Cymru, Cymru. Dwy'n fwyaf, neu eisiau lleill fforfynol, gennych ymdweithio'r pethau. Fel ei fod yn ei fod yn los. Fel ei fod yn roi. Lleithiaid yma. Yn oed i'r mewn ysgolwyddon, mae ar y dyfodol? Diolch. Yn oed? Mae'r ddechrau o'r ddechrau. Ydw'n ddechrau o'n ddiolch ymdweithio'r pethau. Felly, mae'r ddechrau o'r ddifio maen nhw questo rywbeth yn ymleid. Mae'n ddifio'r ddifio, I intend breaking for 15 minutes at about 11.30, and then if the meeting is still going on at about 3.30 and I also propose we have a 45 minute break for lunch at about 1.15. That's okay with everybody. Thank you. Members, may I check that you have the papers issued for this meeting on the 13th and the member and a supplement issued for this meeting as well. I should have received three written statements earlier this week. Can I just confirm that with everybody? Thank you very much. Wonderful. Thank you very much. So Lawrence, are you with us? Morning chair. Morning chair. So Lawrence also just introduced yourselves. You are a very, very important member of this committee's proceedings. Yeah, I'm Lawrence Damari-Hulman, the Democratic Services Officer for Planning. Thank you. You're slightly broken, but that's okay. And you help organise the meeting and provide the meetings for it. But also help us with item number two. Apologies, please, Lawrence. So as far as I'm aware, there are no apologies for absence today. Members have any news to the contrary, but it sounds like we're all present. No, it is full house. Thank you very much. Agender item three declarations of interest. I know some, one of the objectives on item one in between the lane. And I will also be presenting the local councillor's viewpoint. So I will withdraw from the meeting for that during this discussion. I don't need to present my point about the local councillor. Thank you very much. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Yes, I'm the member for Borsham Ward. And therefore, I have been present in Paris Council meetings where item five, so far, has been briefly discussed, but I'll be coming to this in fresh. Thank you very much. Councillor Eileen Wilson. Thank you, Chair. On agenda item 11, there's an item relating to the Smithy Fenn Traveller's site in Cottenham. And I'm the member for Cottenham. It's a non-procuding meeting just. Thank you very much. And myself, also agenda item nine, which is 60 in Pington Lane. I've been involved in conversations with Paris Council about drainage issues for the sites around this area and do know also the people who will be speaking, but have not been in any direct conversation about this with any of the developers and the applicants. And I will obviously be coming to this fresh. But Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins. Oh, sorry. It's a big chair for you. I have an issue, sorry, an interest in item number five. I'm the councillor for Westwickam and Westratting. I'm the councillor Harvey. I've been present in fresh council meetings, but I'm coming to this decision of fresh. Thank you. And apologies, Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins. Thank you, chair. I'm the ward member for Little Branson. Item number eight. And I have the parish council's authority to give a brief statement on their behalf, because they can't be here today. Ah, so on item number eight. And I have not been present at any of the discussions on the issue. So you'll be speaking out for reading out the parish councils then? First of the statement, a short. Good, okay. Thank you very much. And Councillor Heather Williams. For completeness chair, agenda item 12. One of the appeals is in Stephen Warden, and that's an application that I have been involved in. Thank you very much. Good. Thank you everybody. We'll move on to agenda item four, which are the minutes. These are the minutes of the meeting held on the 10th of November. To find in our agenda pack from page one, do you have any comments on the minutes? No. Let's move on. So could I have an affirmation then that we take these minutes, except for myself, because I will abstain because I was not present. But can we take by affirmation everyone else in the chamber that will accept the minutes? Two of us abstaining. Everyone else agreed? Thanks very much. Great. Thank you. We'll start with agenda item five, which is on page 15. Do you want to resolve it in the break? Can we resolve it in the break, I think? Agender item five on page 15. And this is for application 20 slash 01564 slash full application. This is for Bolsham Ward in West Rotting Parish, land to the south east of Burton End, West Wickham. The proposal is for mixed use of agricultural and land and solar farm. The key material considerations are the principle of development, renewable energy, heritage assets, natural assets, agricultural land, character and appearance of the countryside, landscape character, neighbour amenity, highway safety and flood risk. It's not a departure from policy, which I think it is. No, it's not a departure. The application has been brought to committee because of the level of local interest, presenting officer, Karen Holcock. Are you with us, Karen? I am indeed. Thank you very much. Good morning. Hi there. Thank you, Chair. Have a small verbal update for the application. The agent has submitted a representation earlier this week, which has been circulated to members. Can you just please confirm that you have all seen that representation? Thank you. We already confirmed that, Karen. Thank you. Lovely. Thank you. So, just to confirm the applicant is Mr David Lodge. Mr Lodge has submitted a number of media articles in relation to the following issues. The need for renewable energy generally, the lack of renewable energy in the UK, alternative power would be potentially via electricity pylons, which would have a greater impact on the landscape, need for biodiversity, livestock farming and solar farms, and the need for a local supply of renewable energy. Have one additional representation has been received from property at 53, the common west routing. Basically reiterates a lot of the concerns that are set out in the report, specifically in relation to the loss of high quality agricultural land, the adverse impact upon the landscape, the setting of heritage assets, no provision for decommissioning of the site and that the developers have not engaged effectively with the local community. Also, some concerns were raised with regards to highway safety. So, I will go on to my presentation now. So, bear with me a second. Can you just confirm that you can see the presentation please? Yes, thank you very much. Okay, great. So, this is an application for mixed use of an agricultural solar farm. The site is located outside of the west routing and west Wickham Village frameworks. So, the site is represented by the red star in the middle. West routing is up here to the northwest. West Wickham is down here to the southwest. So, the connection point for the solar farm is here, which is about 300 metres to the northeast of the site. So, just on the largest scale plan there, you can see the connection point. Just go on, just an aerial photograph that shows the extent. So, again, west Wickham is down here, west routing a little bit further up to the northwest. These buildings here are large former Aria hangars. Obviously, a lot of arable land surrounding it. And then you've got, this is Burton End, which comes towards west Wickham. The common, which goes towards west routing. Common road, which goes towards Carlton. And Skipper's Lane, which heads towards Withersfield. So, the site is just here. So, just to show you some photographs of the site. So, this is the site from the junction of Burton End, the common road in Skipper's Lane. So, the extent of site you can see is the area of grassland and scrub. And then there's views of the site. So, this first one is from, so this is a longer distance view from Burton End in west Wickham. And the site is to the right-hand side of that road. And this is a bit of a closer viewpoint with the site being just here. You can see the building, one of the Aria hangars here. It's going on further. This is the view from common road from west routing. Again, firstly, a longer distance view. So, the site would be here. And then a more closer view with the site here. The area of the site is on grade two agricultural land, which this is a map showing the agricultural land classification in the district. The site is over here where the red star is. And as you can see, that's in the area of the light blue, which is very good agricultural land. The green is the good to moderate agricultural land. And then red is the urban areas. Yellow is the poor quality agricultural land. So, the site lies in the south, south of North Essex, national character area in landscape terms. The site measures 1.8 hectares in area. And it would comprise 4,580 solar panels. It would be for a temporary period of 25 years. It provides one megawatt of renewable energy to power approximately 650 local homes. Landscaping would comprise native species head roads around the perimeter of the site and grass and wildflowers on the site. The agricultural land would be grazed by sheep. Access to the site is of Burton End Westwickon, which is just here. And then, as you come into the site, you would have the two substations, which one would be the district network operator substation and one would be the client substation. And those buildings are the highest is 3.5 metres. The other is 2.9 metres in height. And then this central area has an inverter, which is 2.4 metres in height, with the solar panels being 2.5 metres in height. The key material considerations to consider in the determination of the application are the principle of development in terms of renewable energy, heritage assets, natural assets, agricultural land, character and appearance of the countryside, landscape character, neighbour amenity, highway safety and flood risk. Just to go on. So you have got these in your plans pack, this information, and the policy is there if we need it during the course of the meeting. Thank you. Thank you very much, Karen. And I'm sure there'll be some questions as we move into the debate time. We don't have anybody who is down to speak as an objector, but we do have the applicant agent, which is Linda Walker. Are you here? Yes, I'm here. Can you see me? Yes, so you have three minutes to help you know the protocol. Yes, I do. Thank you very much. So we'll start the time now and I think Nigel, you will be helping me with the timing. Thank you very much. That's okay. No, thank you for the opportunity to speak and good morning to your members. I did send an email on Friday because I'm conscious that I only have three minutes. So I think I just wouldn't mind just speaking about the really, for the two reasons of refusal based on the time period that I have. So firstly, the solar farm, as mentioned by the officer, will provide green energy for up to 650 homes and also assisting in meeting the targets, the zero carbon targets for 2050. The reason one, officers are talking about the landscape impacts. Just to clarify, we did actually submit a landscape visual impact assessment which confirms that there will be low to moderate impact and the main impact would be mainly during construction. We have also provided a comprehensive landscape scheme which has been included, and we've also included the biodiversity scheme within that as well. So we've looked at reducing the impacts as much as possible. With reason two, that makes quite a lot of statement to the ministerial statement and it's given it's significant weight in the report, the officer report. I'd just like to mention, I believe the statement is actually rather outdated to be honest, given the fact that we have now a new target to meet for 2050. It has been given significant weight in this ministerial statement talking about the loss of agricultural land. Firstly, this land hasn't been farmed for, I think, 25 years. In the officer report, it suggests that grazing isn't actually characteristic of the area. It's more of an arable type of farming. However, the planning system doesn't actually have control on what they actually farm and how they treat their land. We will be grazing sheep to bring it back into an agricultural use. Also, going back to the ministerial statement, if members do decide to give it the same weight as officers have, the statement does actually talk about that they would like to keep agricultural land. As I said, we're actually enhancing the area because we're actually bringing the site back into an agricultural use. The statement also talks about diversity schemes. It actually says in there that, well, you can actually, so the farms can be approved if we're going to provide a biodiversity scheme as we have. There is no loss of land, agricultural land in this development. That's your three minutes if you've got a... Okay, all right, thank you. Thank you very much. There is an opportunity for questions if anybody does have any questions for you. Councillor Deborah Oaks. Thank you, Chairman. Through you, Chairman. I wonder if you could tell me, you talk about it would have a newer agricultural use that you had livestock on it. However, I think I read through the pages that livestock in that area is not a commonplace thing. It's merely a feed, a food rather than animals. Can you tell me how many animals, sheep, you seem to be intending putting on there? Can you tell me, do you know any other examples where locally, where on these sort of solar farms, sheep are actually grazing? Yeah. Firstly, I haven't actually got a number. I'm sure I probably have, it's in the email trials to the officer, but there will be grazing sheep. My client has actually approached a number of people to see if that would be an opportunity, and yes it is. And there is a mixed-use application that was approved in Norfolk, not quite as local as maybe you'd hoped, but that scheme was approved, and that was also been sent to, the details have been sent to the officer during the process of the application. And that was approved, and the condition was imposed to say that basically the development of the solar farm couldn't go ahead unless sheep were grazed constantly actually on the site. Wondring why the land had been left uncultivated in an area of very prime agricultural land for 25 years? Was it set aside, brought the series, and why it was left uncultivated? Okay, again the officers have been made aware of this during the process of the application. It's something to do with, so the land was owned apparently by one farmer many, many years ago, and due to a death in the family, the land was parceled off, and this small parcel was actually just given through the will and everything, just to one person in the family. It's not part of a wider agricultural setting, sorry, in the parcels of the actual farming for the larger farm area, it's just one parcel that's been left over almost. And is this person who presumably is now responsible for it able to manage the farming, how would the farming be managed? Would it be managed by this individual with a small plot of land, or would it be managed as part of a larger farm? It's actually talking about specialised sheep on there, so it would be actually farmed by that individual on that field. But I know that the client has actually spoken to local farms in the area, and there is a potential need for grazing in the area. Councillor Williams. Thank you, so a couple of questions, check through your self-chair. What of which is there has been a request around the construction vehicles and looking at the access and how narrow those lanes are. Normally if you see solar farms, they tend to be a sized sort of dual carriageways or major roads. So I'm just wondering if it's possible to actually not have HDVs. I'm just trying to assess the equipment that's going to be used, whether it's possible or not to use smaller vehicles. The other thing is going into sheep farming, you can't just have one piece of land to graze. There has to be rotation in the grazing, there has to be periods for it to be left. There's all sorts of reasons for the need to do it. So how many other sites will there be or is it being outsourced? I say this if it's going to it, if there's not a local supply or alternatives, then I'm sorry it's just a solar farm because you can't practically graze because you have to have rotation in them. So I'm responsibly informed. Would you like me to comment on that? Thank you. So with regard again through the process of the application, I've submitted some details to the officer to say that we would be using just fans for the construction purposes. And as we're all aware, the vehicle generation for solar farms is almost nil while they're in operation. In regards to the sheep farming, there is other land available and yes, there would be a rotation of different sheep on to the land. That was something that we could investigate further. But looking at the evidence for the approval in Norfolk, the sheep farming does actually work very well with the solar farm use. We've faced our application. Thank you for the follow-up from that research. Thank you. So two things, two things, chair. One is on references to Norfolk, I think, and we're being asked to look at the energy efficiency and everything else. But if you're transporting sheep from that farm, you want to know that there is more available sites to have sheep, I'd have thought, in the vicinity. And you can't just swap the sheep. It has to have rest periods. So it's not a case of bringing in different types. It's a case of actually the majority of time that land will not be able to be grazed on just through the sheer cycles and the license requirements of having livestock. The other thing is what sort of water demand do we think that this solar farm will actually require? Because those of us with solar farms in our patches know that quite often a stampite comes in and a lot of water in the summer months actually for cooling processes is required. Thank you. So there's an additional question on there. So it's coming back on the details of the sheep just to clarify whether the sheep are coming from Norfolk, but also it's not just, it's about the sort of, the condition you mentioned was talking about constant sheep grazing you mentioned, but as Councillor Williamson said, there's actually got to leave the land to rest as well in between periods if you could address that. Secondly, just where would the sheep be coming from? And thirdly, the issue about water usage, water demand. If you'd like to respond on those ones. Oh, sorry, okay, sorry, yes. No, when I made reference to the farming in Norfolk, that was actually, that was actually just an example of an application that has actually been approved. That's not part of the farming that we're proposing here. The farming that would be specialised sheep, and it may be that they wouldn't, the sheep wouldn't be on the land constantly. I could need to do some more research for you to give you that information. But as I said, they will be on the, they are actually proposed to be on the land for grazing. With regard to the water supply, that's something that I'm not aware of, if I'm really honest. We have submitted a drainage scheme, a flood risk assessment, a comprehensive one at that. And we haven't had any issues raised from the LLFA that have actually removed their objection for any issues relating to water or flood risk or anything. The flooding, I think the question was around water supply and the water demand in hotter times for the panel. So as I have to hear you're not, you don't have an answer for that one. No, I don't have an answer for that one. Good. It's myself, I have a question for you. And that's in the report. There is a question about whether or not there was sufficient evidence provided of having looked for other potential sites in the area. Can you just explain a little bit about that? Yeah, okay. So the officers, I think as I explained, based on the ministerial statement from Eric Pickles, that was I think it was 2015 that was published. And that asked for compelling evidence if you're going to use agricultural land. The officer of myself had quite a lot of discussion about this. And as I said, the ministerial statement is quite outdated for one, talking about compelling evidence required. The evidence that you provided having looked at other sites. So not the ministerial statement, but the other sites that you've looked at and found this not to be suitable. Okay. Well, the other sites, I mean the other sites we've looked at we've had a look at brownfield sites, but the brownfield sites are generally very, very close to residential areas, which will cause amenity issues. And this site was picked mainly because of that. We haven't found any sites that would be suitable. So can I just go back to, we have on page 33 paragraph 72. And I did see that you were saying that a lot of that brownfield was adjacent to population, but it said that there is an area of grade 3 agricultural land considered suitable for such development. Evidence by permission being granted for a solar farm there. So that particular area within six kilometres of the grid connection point to the east of the A11 and west of the village, there's an area of grade 3. Do you know that site that's been referred to? No, I don't know. Okay, thanks very much. And I have Councillor Jeff Harvey. I don't actually find the exact reference here, but Karen Pell Coggins touched on it earlier. The idea that this would reduce future need for overhead pylons is that part of what you're kind of arguing? I just would sort of query that because my understanding is that all of these kind of schemes actually end up with a greater sort of requirement for grid connection capacity, if you like, because in an ideal world, I suppose the solar farm would provide local houses and then diminish the need for energy to be brought in from outside, but in reality the sun doesn't always shine, so it's a kind of aggregate effect is that you need more connection rather than less. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that there would be more need for any pylons, and all the evidence that I've found from my research would suggest that actually the solar farm are efficient and are supplying the energy that requirements and hopefully meeting the targets of 2050. I haven't got that information, unfortunately, sorry. And Councillor Peter Finch. Thank you, Chair. My question relates to the prospect of a very small block of agricultural land being brought back into arable production where the solar farm not to go ahead or during after the life of the solar farm is is it likely that neighbouring arable farmers would in the absence of the solar farm be able to take this back in or because of the location of the site could that only be done by for instance hedge removal. I haven't seen the site usually we would visit it first but we haven't this time. How likely is it that this could be brought back into arable production in the absence of the solar farm? Thank you. Could you answer that question? Sorry, the question was about when we're talking about the decommissioning of this and there would be a condition around the reversal of this to its agricultural use category. So the question is how likely do you see possible, is it, do you see for that to go back into active agricultural use? Yes, well again the consent would be for 25 years generally is a temporary consent we have actually my client has actually had a decommissioning agreement in place and that's kind of part of the standard. I think the question is more how likely is it Peter, sorry, go on. Get, Councillor Peter Pan. Chair, I'm sorry if I wasn't clearing my question. My question was if the solar farm were not to go ahead, how practical is it for this small area of prime agricultural land to be brought back into arable production? Are there obstacles to that perhaps hedgerows between there and neighbouring land or similar obstacles? I don't think there are any obstacles to actually have the land brought back into arable or grazing agricultural land now. I don't think there are any more questions so thank you very much for your time and for answering all those questions. Members, before we go move on to the debate section because we have no other speakers lined up. Does anyone own vehicle YP11XCL? I think it's blocking so don't blame us if it gets towed away. We'll move into the debate. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you chair. I think we all can see there is a balance to be made. Obviously we want more renewable energy and all these sorts of things. However, I do also have concerns around the loss of the agricultural land so I'm just going to read what grade 2 is. It's very good quality agricultural land. This land has minor limitations which affect crop yield cultivations or harvesting and I say that because we also need to look at food security and there's no point having solar farms and renewable energy if we're then having to chip food in from further fields. There is a balance to be struck. I also do have concerns around that we don't have any clarity of what the water demand can be because solar farms can be put extreme pressure onto water supply and as we know from other areas we are in danger of becoming water stressed here if we're not already. So I think that also gives cause for concern. We've heard from the applicant that there are no obstacles into actually bringing this back into prime agricultural use at which point then I have to say that this is obviously a commercial choice for them to go down. For myself I am in agreeance with officers. Members know that this isn't always the case but in this case I am. I think there are opportunities for solar farms in this area or for better renewable energy given this location as well I do think that we can wait to the landscape officers approach. I did reference that normally solar farms are near sort of dual carriageways and things like that that also is about access. There will need to be access to this and sometimes equipment does require certain issues if it is going to have cattle there at some periods it cannot for their licensing to be constant to clear that matter. You will have traffic in relation to that and traffic attending daily to tend to them and water for the water troughs and everything else that comes with it. So while I do it except there are merits and I am not opposed to solar farms in South Cairns at all in this location and on the information we have in front of us I am agreeing with the officer for refusal chair. Good and what I am noting therefore in terms of that planning balance which you have laid out I think so clearly Councillor Williams is that the main reasons for you would be the loss of the best and most fertile agricultural land but also there are some environmental considerations in terms of water demand because the information is not available to be able to make a decision around that and then you have the issue around transport implications Councillor Judith Rippus Councillor Williams has stole my thunder and I also agree that we should refuse this application because I don't really believe on what the applicant has been saying that they've really looked closely enough at alternative sites which are not prime agricultural land. That's my main reason. We have to bring that into the balance. Thank you very much. I have nothing further to add really these were my concerns as well. What I would suggest for everybody members is we've got here one of the key reasons for refusal that I'm hearing is the same as we have on page 36 which is the officer recommendation for refusal about the loss of the best and most fertile agricultural land whilst everyone recognises that we've got a climate emergency, we've got net zero targets but it's where these are and I welcome the fact that we've got this discussion here because it's this balance again that we're trying to seek. Sorry can I just say if you do speak please try and can it be for other issues because they're not about the loss of agricultural land just to see if we've got additional reasons. Councillor Heather Roberts Thank you Chairman. I agree with what everybody has said prior to it but I think we also need to flag up the effect on the countryside the visual effect as well which is in Mrs Pell Coggin's report here but I think that is one that also I'm worried about it's very much in the open countryside and it would be very different in an adverse way I think. Thank you Chairman. That's the second key reason. Councillor Peter Fane Chair, two reasons I'm afraid I am going to mention the loss of agricultural land a different aspect because as the applicant made clear this land would not be lost to agriculture it would be partially used for a different type of agriculture. However I do place as Councillor Williams said very high importance on food security in this case I was inclined to think this piece of land is too small for practical arable production on its own however I was reassured by what the agency said but it would be possible to restore it to arable lands I regard that as dealt with. My principal concern however is landscape and the statement by the landscape officer which is at page 21 disagreed with the applicant's assessment on the landscape impacts and I think given the nature of this site and its adjacent to what is referred to as common land or the common it is important to respect the landscape and I don't think that this is a suitable site for even such a small solar farm. Councillor Dr Martin Carn. I did disagree for a change I was felt that I needed to go and visit the site because I from the report I couldn't really gather what the site was like and I went out it's a very large open area the flat area you would hardly see the farm from most viewpoints it was a very small feature it's not high, it's only maximum height to what it's 3.5 metres for one minor item and most of it's 2.5 metres which hedgerows around about will probably be similar I felt there was a large hangar nearby which is a much more industrial quite an industrial looking building I didn't feel that this was going to create a major impact on the landscape I felt I didn't really see how I could justify the landscape impact. In terms of the agricultural land I agree the need to defend agricultural land basically what you are saying it's been said that land could be restored to agriculture at the end of 25 years I don't want it to be lost for 25 years that's the argument it's not that it's permanently lost it's going to be used in a low intensity way for 25 years I can see the argument for using sheep it keeps the grass down it prevents vegetation from squaring the panels I feel that's a viable use we're not allowed to really consider the ownership but that's not a consideration the question is whether but the question is whether it will be used it clearly has not been used for the last 25 years it's not been contributing to agricultural production we cannot impose land ownership either so we have to assume that the situation is going to remain the same in this situation I cannot see if it's not being used for the last 25 years I cannot see it being used likely in the next 25 years so I don't really see that it's going to make any difference to agricultural production in the sense that there will be a slight amount of production I I can see that the use for sheep is potentially viable has problems it may not be in practice but we can see that it is a potential viable and that's all I really think although I need to do it in planning terms consider so there is a benefit it's not a very large benefit from the solar farm there appears to be a connection point relatively near which is a big consideration with solar farms many sites you can't produce and so that means the question of water and I see that's a big question because solar farms panels above 25 degrees their production rate goes down so presumably it's used to use production I don't see why we can't impose conditions so I don't see that as a reason why we should refuse it we just have to accept that it's a slightly lower production at the peak times when it's more likely to be a surface less valuable energy in any case so I've come around to the conclusion that in fact I'm not sure that I think there are reasons for refusing I shall be supporting it thank you very good that's what we're here for thank you thank you that's what we're here for councillor me so yes and what I just want to say is I've been on several webinars and courses at the moment around solar farms so I would just like to bring into the debate that I saw very seriously that there are solar farms agro photovol takes that we're talking about now where you can bring this in there are examples where there is grazing together with biodiversity on the site so they can site much much more productive together with solar panels so it doesn't become a desert with photovol takes on top it's integrated into biodiversity and some kind of agricultural use that's just as a principle however for me I don't think there's enough evidence that we've looked at the best site for this so I think there's lacking information to provide the evidence that of all the sites this is the best at only one and I would therefore support the issue around the loss of agricultural land councillor Jeff Harvey thank you Jeff would I think a committee might expect I would normally be very much in favour of any sort of renewable energy generation but I kind of begs a question now how do we appreciate the countryside and I suppose you have to accept that actually a lot of people even because of perhaps they're not physically able to appreciate the countryside from our sort of highways and byways if you like and I think this is actually a very sort of prominent location in the group of villages which it's in the midst of and therefore I think it will have quite a large visual impact and not only that but it will be an impact that a lot of local residents will be seeing kind of two or three times a day and so I suppose the other question they might ask themselves is I can see that there's a hierarchy of suitability for these sort of sites if you like and that one should be accessing the least damaging sites first before moving on to perhaps the more problematic ones and I suppose a lot of residents might be asking themselves well those two large former hangers for example don't appear to have any solar panels on their roof and that might be the first place that one should look in a sort of hierarchy so I'm afraid I think that this isn't the best site although I'm kind of agreeing with the landscape assessment I hope I'm adding a particular angle on that so I think I would not be supporting this because I think at this stage there are certainly better sites available Thank you very much, I think members having heard everything we're about to be able to move to the boat and I'd like to check with Nigel about the reasons for refusal that were to be the result Thank you chair, so the reasons for refusal I believe are set out in the report there was debate around lack of information around water supply but I'm content that from the debate the two reasons are I will be putting forward as officers, thank you we would find members on page 38 in terms of planning, balance and conclusion and the reasons for refusal that were laid out which is in paragraph 109 it was a result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and also adversely affect the character and appearance of the countryside but we do welcome in general renewable energy and solar panel applications I know the case officers have been involved in many of those in our district so let's go to the vote is that fine Stephen? Chair, I just you may want to invite members to have a discussion as to whether they feel they should address conditions where they might to approve I don't think so, thank you very much so I think we'll move forward to the vote so the vote would be to I approve the officers recommendation agree with it the planning committee refuse the application and with the reasons which are given on pages 38 and 39 thank you members if you vote yes that is to agree with the officers recommendation as usual if you vote no you are voting against the officers recommendation what's that one question mark? I've got one question mark someone hasn't voted sorry thank you member so that's with nine votes to two this is refused thank you very much we'll move to agenda item 6 on page 41 this application 21 slash 033 07 slash full application for land at Babrum research campus in Babrum the proposal is for the erection of new building for office research and development use and associated infrastructure and works the applicant is Babrum research campus and the key material considerations are as on page 41 and I'm sure the case officer will outline as well is this a departure from policy yes as advertised and the application is being brought to committee because if approved the application would represent a significant departure from approved policies of the council being a major development in the green belt an officer recommendation is approval the presenting officer is Michael Sexton are you with us Michael? I am good morning chair good morning and thank you very much Michael okay I don't have any updates further to the update report that you would have seen other than just to say members would have seen an email circulated by Lawrence in demographic services yesterday that contained a letter of support from the chief executive of Babrum research campus limited but I believe that's been circulated to everyone so I'll move straight to my presentation if you could confirm that you're seeing the presentation on the screen please chair yes we can thank you excellent this is a full planning application at Babrum research campus for a new office slash research and development building with associated infrastructure and works the site is located within the existing research campus and this part of land here which marks on the air of photography is here and you can see the existing research campus buildings in terms of constraint making the reason the application is the full members today the application site is located entirely within the green belt which is a green wash that covers this entire screen appreciate doesn't come across too clearly you have Babrum conservation area to the south of the site up of listed buildings the grade 1 listed church and then Babrum listed Babrum Hall itself and as you can see a small part of the site is located within flood zones 2 and 3 although the built form of development is not located in these areas it's just for context with the areas a fairly recent aerial view of the site from the design access statement the application site is this parcel of land in here between the recently developed R&D 2 development at Babrum research campus so the new building is proposed in this space here as shown on this site plan so these are those two existing buildings that you could see and the new proposed research and development building located to the south in terms of appearance it will take on a very similar appearance to the two existing buildings while having its own architectural spin just to set it apart slightly from the existing buildings and this is elevations taken across the site which show how the proposed building shown here would sit in the context of the two existing buildings either side ground level slope to the south so it would sit slightly below the height of the existing buildings and sit quite nicely within the context of the site and the landscape of the area just a few nice visuals to show you the building so this is the proposed front elevation of the new building this is a visual of how the building again would sit between the two existing buildings retaining this central area of landscaping and open space where people can spill out and have this communal effect on the research and development from how everything works within the campus and similarly looking of the north west of how the building would sit and relate to the existing buildings as well as the rest of the campus and quite a lot of material considerations as set out in report on the whole the application implies with national and local policy in most of these respects the key issue is obviously the fact that it is a green belt site so the MPPF sets out that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances paragraph 149 and 150 of the MPPF sets out development that should not be regarded as inappropriate but the research and development building would not align with any of those so the proposal does constitute inappropriate development by definition so it is therefore necessary to consider whether the development results in any further harm in addition to that caused by inappropriateness as you will see set out in the report the only other harm identified is an impact on the openness of the green belt and the degree of introducing a new built form albeit arguably infilling between two existing buildings that degree of loss of openness can't be denied and is therefore necessary to consider the justification put forward to support the proposal and the extent to which those matters amount to very special circumstances either taken individually or collectively and MPPF again is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the green belt and very special circumstances might exist unless the harm is clearly outweighed and as set out in the report officers do feel that the very special circumstances do clearly outweigh the harm to the green belt, the harm being the inappropriate development and some loss of openness but the very special circumstances in this instance is the need for additional research and development space that's being clearly set out within the application and relevant supporting documents is a very successful campus that's seeking to expand significant economic benefits, there's 114 permanent jobs associated with this building and an economic assessment estimates at least 5.74 million pound net effect on the area biodiversity benefits, the development would deliver a 32% biodiversity net gain which obviously aligns with a very hot topic at the moment so those three factors officers are giving significant weight to environmental sustainability benefits in terms of the building being Breanne excellent a 30.3% carbon reduction or a 41% reduction with SAP 10 and social and health benefits in terms of how the research campus operates and how that sector operates with the exemplary working science community officers give moderate weight to those factors so overall officers consider there are very special circumstances to outweil on clearly it's for members to form their own view today but the recommendation is one of approval thank you chair Michael and we'll come back to questions I'm sure we have nobody speaking as an objector but we do have the applicant Derek Jones are you with us I was a written submission ah yes sorry thank you very much so we all did we just confirm at the beginning of this meeting that we did receive that written submission and therefore we don't actually have any public speakers so we will go straight to straight into the debate thank you very much councillor Peter Payne thank you chair there's only one issue that I want to pursue here which is the question of the very special circumstances to the extent to which that may outweil the harm to the green belt the question of openness is quite difficult to interpret of course as Michael Sexton said that is to some extent offset by this being between existing buildings it wasn't clear to me from the site plans the extent to which this is between existing buildings seems to me it does it isn't to some extent a new incursion into the green belt in which case the extent of the harm to the green belt would be rather greater so I'm still weighing that in the balance so Michael do you have anything in terms of your slide pack there that would give more of an insight into that you said it can't be denied that there is some impact on the openness but you said it's between the buildings but it can't be denied is there any way of like visits that you can share again from your slide pack or any other view I made the mistake of closing my presentation so bear with me and I'll reshare some of the drawings from that just so hopefully you can see this is the aerial photo of the existing site layout the new building will be cited here so slightly to the south of the existing buildings but forming this U-shape group of buildings as you can see here so it's not I suppose the inner thing is in it's directly in the middle but clearly it forms part of that that building and in terms of openness clearly it's a new built form so the loss of openness is inevitable it's then a matter I think of interpretation I know in the planning statement it was cited as being limited localised loss of openness and I think that's when you take it within the context of the campus and the existing buildings so this isn't a singular new building in the middle of nowhere in the green bell so it's a matter of judgement I suppose on how much weight you want to give to impact on openness but clearly there is a loss of openness because as it currently stands there's no building here and there is a building proposed we had the same arguments I think there's an outline application in 2014 for these two buildings so again it's the same issue with openness as it is each time but there is a loss of openness but when you take all the factors that way in favour of proposal I think that that harm is clearly outweighed in the view of officers I don't know if the later visuals help either bit since within the context of these existing buildings but clearly there is a loss of openness Thank you, do you have a follow up for that Peter? No thank you Thank you very much Thank you chair, Michael a question for you again if you could leave the presentation open it's actually around flood risk and drainage I believe in your introduction you said the site albeit none of the built form is in flood zones one and two but I note from paragraph 165 on page 61 that actually some of the site falls in flood risk 3 which is high risk I just wondered if you could clarify that for me at least Yeah so the built form let me jump back so you can see part of the site here in the southern areas within flood zone 2 which is the lighter blue and then flood zone 3 is the darkest blue so the built form of development is here the main building and most of the hard standing the wraps round outside so I think it's only sort landscaping improvement works that would fall within flood zone 2 and 3 you'll see there's a number of conditions relating to to drainage that are recommended within the report so officers are satisfied and it's been subject to consultation with the environment agency lead local flood authority and there's no technical objections so the built form is solely flood zone 1 but there are areas of landscaping there in flood zone 2 and 3 which is not an issue and there are conditions to ensure satisfactory methods of drainage and contamination and the like Cater doctor Richard Williams Thank you very much sorry thank you very much chair I did actually visit this site last week not as a member of planning committee I did happen to be there so I did take the opportunity to look at the site and I was visiting one of the buildings right by the side it's the one to the left on the view that we've currently got ordinarily yes so the one in the nearest to us ordinarily I would put a lot of weight obviously on maintaining the openness of the green belt but I must say personally having visited the site that building that is the one nearest to us did feel rather isolated actually I was quite struck when I visited that it felt very isolated from the rest of the campus that you can't quite see here a very significant drop down towards the river so you come in on the road and you really go down so I don't have particular concerns that this would be out of keeping in the setting and whilst obviously we must put significant weight on openness I am for myself having visited the site satisfied that it would not look out of place the harm would not be huge and that it is outweid by the special circumstances as the officer's report has set out so I'm strongly minded to support this Thank you Councillor Eileen Wilson Thank you as I was reading through the papers a question came up in my mind when the other buildings were given permission was this already a green belt site and if otherwise how I couldn't understand how we have a green belt site in the middle of other buildings that are already built and I was just worried that if planning commission is given for this if there would be further encouragement on the green site because obviously there are very good reasons for supporting research and development and the economy it brings to the areas so I just would like some clarification around that please Thank you Michael I can respond to that chair through you I think the site has always been a green belt site because it's proximity to Cambridge and obviously the extent of the green belt so it's a bit of an anomaly that typically this sort of site would be perhaps an established employment area akin to Grant's park but because it's a green belt site it can't be an established employment area so each phase of development consider very special circumstances at each point although members can't wait to it for the purposes of this application within the council's emerging local plan there is an aspiration that this site would become a special policy area so perhaps when the new plan is adopted and another phase of development may come forward you wouldn't have the same green belt issues that are before members today so I think that is recognised moving forward today it is a green belt site it has been a green belt site for many years these two buildings here were subject to a 2014 outline consent where again officers felt the economic benefits the need etc outweade the harm to the green belt so it is a growing campus nothing that will be acknowledged moving into our next local plan but as it stands today it is a green belt site as with previous phases of development so members do need to weigh up the very special circumstances do you want me to say this offscreen by the way thank you very much councillor Dr Martin Cohn I take the point about the development many of the points of councillor Richard Williams has made the development of building on its beefy 950 on the plan nearest to us in the photo which was given in 1914 which effectively extended the path towards the Cambridge direction and this is the site that you've got sandwiched in between three existing buildings basically within an area which is outlined as a part so in effect in the impractical terms whatever the legal terms impractical terms the decision was made in 2014 about the extension of the site of the park and the impact of this development I don't see would be any significant therefore I cannot see any the effect on the openness therefore will be very limited because the effect of the openness was created by the 2014 permission therefore I can't really see any good grounds for refusing this any further extension in any direction is likely to have a much greater impact on but we're not looking at that we're not looking at that we're looking at existing ones so I think the decision basically was effectively made even if we have to regard each development on it so we're looking at it fresh because that's the rules but I think effectively the position is already clear and I support thank you very much I think I would accept that there is a special circumstance here and sort of acknowledge the world leading work that goes on both in the Baberham site and also Grant Park but I don't know whether Michael Sexton could clarify I couldn't really determine from the report act whether the solar generation was just associated with the bin store and cycle store whether it was going to be on the main roof of the structure and I suppose also just to say both in terms of Baberham and Grant Park live very close to those it does seem rather in Congress that you have a very forward looking business there and also quite a young demographic probably they might ask themselves there seems to be a very low usage of PVs on roofs in both those sites generally it would be nice to see this making a correction to that if that's possible Michael I think there's an intention to use PVs throughout the site and there's a condition to secure the Bream credentials so depending on the credits that need to be scored to achieve Bream Extern then solar panels may be applicable to the cycle store and the building certainly the developer is very keen on making this as sustainable a building as possible so they may well be solar panels on both items was there a second question in there? No, no I think that was there Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins Thank you chair I don't want to repeat what's been said but for me the picture that Michael put up earlier on showing what the strikes were actually I had three strikes not two he had two so two, three strikes down and five up for me the special circumstances definitely outweith the harm and I know we can't give weight to that now but just to assure Eileen and those who are listening that we have recognised the importance of this site in the emerging local planner we have a policy S that we are seeing as Michael mentioned earlier on which actually we hope will enable us to move forward with this site taking it out of the green belt as a proposed policy and could I just say that in this and in the other reports we're having so thank you Michael and other officers that you're showing us the thinking behind your conclusions in terms of waiting and telling us what level of waiting you're putting on each of the aspects so that's something that I just like to share with other officers for it helps us in our deliberations I'm next and I just wanted to come back on the Bream point that you mentioned Michael so what I note is that on paragraph 218 on page 67 the applicant is targeting Bream excellence but the conditions and I read the sustainability officers is that the condition is for a minimum of very good and I would just like to know whether or not we can just say that the condition says excellent seeing as this is cutting edge site that is sort of one of the showcasing of things so there's just a slight difference there and I we've had this on other applications around schools as well whether or not we can go from very good to excellent but on the site like this I would hope that we could have excellent unless you've got reasons why not I'm just refreshing why we did talk about this quite a lot with the sustainability officer so you've got on page 61 the proposed building would deliver a high level of energy efficiency and is targeting a Bream excellent rating so they themselves show appetite for this is this the kind of development that we can actually say well actually condition it to go that extra mile I suppose if members were minded to specifically restrict the condition to achieving Bream excellent you're entitled to do so I think the very good is there just to allow a degree of flexibility but I think we're confident that excellent will be achieved but clearly it's within members gift today if they want to tweak that wording you can do so that it is the intention to achieve Bream excellent Good so we do have Cats had a little bit to speak but I would like to make a motion that that be put it to members as a motion that we do amend that wording in the condition G on page 76 but I haven't gone to the motion yet can I do the motion now so if I put that to members seconded thank you very much which is that condition G page 76 rather than very good that becomes excellent in terms of the Bream condition seconded by council doctor to me Hawkins by affirmation good thank you very much and Cats had a word thank you chair I'm just it's sort of timely actually as a member of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Assembly we had an update this morning nice early start to the day half past eight already on my second meeting from the Centre for Business Research Update and it was on the Greater Cambridge Employment and it's showing the trends and what have you in a post COVID COVID world and how actually our economy has been protected a lot because of the type of industry that we have and the research and development and given given that given that area I think actually that evidence base gives more weight to the special circumstances that the research and development holds here so that was timely by coincidence but timely in my decision making today I'd also just draw members' attention to paragraph 17 page 49 which refers to the purpose of the green belt because I think like many members our natural instinct of green belt is protect and that's actually quite an emotional instinct as well because we don't want to see green belt loss but it says to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas I do agree that it is an infill if it was to be attempting to breach that natural head border or there wasn't the other buildings either side I would say that that purpose hasn't been met but I think because it is infill it is prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another that isn't an issue safeguarding the countryside from encroachment again it's infill in my mind preserve the setting and special character of historic town it doesn't have an impact there and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelicts and other urban land so that's the only thing which the purpose but I think the majority of the purposes of that green protection have been satisfied as well so with that in mind then I'm minded to support the application in its current form chair Thank you, thank you very much and on that point I think as councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins has said that a huge amount of thought has gone into enabling this in the future so it becomes a policy area being proposed in the local plan because of the local importance to local jobs and the local economy also because of its global and international significance in terms of what's being produced there so let's go to the vote and that is on page 72 the officer recommendation this would be officer's recommendation including the amendment to condition G that this now would be pream excellent if you could do we do that by affirmation because I've not heard anybody say anything that would be worth it Thank you Michael Thank you chair, just to remind members of voting to approve this will need to be referred to the Secretary of State for final determination because of that departure shall we take that by affirmation because I haven't heard anybody say that there would be voting against Thank you everybody it's it's 11.20, shall we do the break now 15 minute break thanks everybody short break this is the South Cams district council planning committee I would just like to I know I just like to let everybody know that agenda item 10 to confirm that that has been withdrawn so we will not be dealing with that today so if anybody is on the live stream just so that you know that agenda item 10 that application yes the application has been withdrawn and therefore we will not be dealing with that item on today's agenda thank you so we are now at agenda item 7 which is on page 81 of the printed agenda report this is application 21 stroke 03628 stroke full application of 36 Apthorpe Street in Fullbourne the proposal is for the erection of a three bedroom one and a half story timber framed barn style building on land to the rear of St Martin's cottage and the applicants are Mr and Mrs Keith Carter scratching at the carpet but that's some building up above and the key material considerations principle of development, character design and heritage, residential amenity, trees, ecology drainage, contamination highways and other matters is it a departure application yes and the application has been brought to the committee because the proposal has been called in by local member war member councillor Cohn and referred to the planning committee by the committee's delegation panel presenting officer is Jane Roddins are you with us Jane? hello there thank you if you can give us your any updates in your summary thank you very much Jane thank you there's no updates to give at this point in time I shall start my presentation would it be possible to confirm that you can see that slide so thank you chair so this application is as you said for full planning permission for one dwelling to the rear of St Martin's cottage in 36th Epsilote Street in Fourbourne the left hand location plan shows the site and the right hand block plan shows the proposal within the red area so this application is marked as the red star on the left hand plan it's outside of the development framework which is marked with the black dotted line it's inside the conservation area which is the pink line it's outside the green belt you can't quite see it on this plan but it's all this area to the north and east of the site to the front of the site you've got St Martin's Cottage and number 38 and 40 which are both grade 2 listed buildings here's a further detailed plan of the proposed dwelling location to go along the site with two parking areas and access along an existing track from Epsilote Street here the proposed elevations it's to be one and a half stories in height with a basement the plans in front of you show the living accommodation that's being proposed so here are some photos of the site this is looking towards the current shed that's at the back of the site so I'm stood roughly where the house would be further back into the site looking towards the shed this is turned round looking back towards St Martin's Cottage to where that tree is in the middle is roughly to be the new boundary between the two dwellings this is the access track and you can see that shed in the background this is almost to be used this is further back towards the main road looking up the access track with both the listed cottages either side this application has been recommended refusal as the application site is located outside the development framework full born also there's been less than substantial harm identified with no public benefit given for this new house thank you thank you very much Jane and we don't have anybody speaking as an objector but as the applicant we do have Keith Carter Carter are you with us Mr Carter hello sorry about that and you understand the procedure for the three minutes so thank you very much so take your time can we have slide one Jane we won't start your time yet until we have slide one upon the screen can you see that slide yes we can thank you okay well good morning and thank you very much for this opportunity to explain respectfully why both grounds as stated for refusal no longer apply and should be overruled firstly all matters of design, character and heritage have been fully satisfied as the report confirms it has only been refused because of public benefits outweigh the minor less than substantial harm it indicates have not been made clear slide two please there are multiple benefits existing access lane is used regularly by us and various neighbours and currently suffers a dangerous lack of visibility as vehicles emerged across the pavement visibility displays as part of this application will fully eliminate this existing and very real danger to pedestrians there are substantial biodiversity gains we are planting a fruit orchard a large wildflower area replacing hedros with native species and solid fencing for nature friendly fencing plus numerous wildlife assets four warm villages will gain an extra high quality family home and the street scene will benefit by green and more attractive facade to the existing access lane St Martin's cottage as a result will become more viable and substantially more affordable as a village home without the excessive gardens also as a local listed asset it will benefit from new ownership to adopt the mantle of care that sadly with genuine health issues we are both no longer able to continue as we have for two decades happily finally we too remember our members of the public will enable us to retire within the community still and keep some of our garden at least this proposal does conform with paragraph 2 or 2 and it maximises viable use as required and in principle is redundant slide 3 please the second reason as policy S7 is wholly contingent upon an incorrect boundary line has drawn on the map which follows an inexplicable and inconsistent route across the middle of our garden instead of a more sensible route emulating the conservation line just 30 metres adjacent which does correctly delineate the greenbelt portion of our very large garden and is rightly sacrosanct and will remain so totally unchanged as garden slide 4 please all of our garden including the proposed plot is fully encompassed both physically and visibly within a robust boundary of mature hedgerows and ffencing that clearly distinguishes it as garden not countryside this line can only have been drawn by someone who physically hasn't seen the land maps can be wrong people do make errors and to refuse this application based on a factually incorrect map would be wrong and unjust in the extreme not least if there was local precedent approving similar even identical plots slide 5 please this application proposes just one highly sustainable dwelling respectful of its heritage obligations with green technologies inherent to an eco friendly self-build initiative it makes more viable use of an over large garden with existing access and is all but invisible from the road it does offer public benefits and has overwhelming support from neighbours and full born parish council slide 6 please the single fundamental fact upon which S7 is based is flawed and so this decision to refuse is unsound in conclusion national policy states that planning authorities can make decisions to approve an application that departs from a development plan if material considerations indicate that the plan should not be followed and I respectfully request that committee recognise these new facts and approve this application thank you very much thank you very much thank you for staying within the time members are any questions councillor Eileen Wilson thank you chair I just wanted to ask for a bit more clarification about why the st martins cottage isn't viable and also our analysis question later whether that's about planning consideration thank you shall I answer that it's not viable we actually tried because we can't keep it up any longer we can't look after it any longer as it is it takes all of our time and our health reasons of women are going to be in public stop is using it we have put it on the market twice over the last year or two both with different agents and both times it attracted lots of attention but everybody without doubt just said quote on quote I don't need that much land I don't want that much land I want a normal garden so we're trying to put it back to the garden as it was 100 years ago from the plans using that next garden as plot for us which allows us to stay there it is literally unviable with that garden people don't want it they seem to want just smaller gardens to date it's a shame we've had 20 years of the good life with animals and everything but they don't want it now and it does make it's knocked half a million off the price it literally knocks it down by 500,000 which is substantially more affordable as a village home then that's how I'm liking it much more thank you that's fine thank you doctor martin cahn you talk about building a timber frame dwelling what sort of timber frame are you going to be using is this going to be green oak is it going to be modern timber are you using innovative techniques or is it standard techniques yes thank you really welcoming lots of these green initiatives obviously at this stage of planning we're trying to get approval and I'm quite happy to have it conditions upon certain things but the architect we've seen many ways it's an oak frame timber cloud building which is apparently 100% sustainable if responsibly forest which it will be because I will manage the build I won't do it but I'll manage it to make sure it's all done properly with no waste so the oak frame and the timber clouding is sustainable thermal efficiency where all we can certainly I will do high performance insulation because my plan is and my own principle is that if you don't need the heat then you don't have to spend energy don't forget I'm living here this isn't a commercial project this isn't for profit this is for me to live in so it's saving cost as well as the planet there will be passive solar benefits such as the fact that the glass facing the east side its orientation is east so in the daytime we get the sun from where you're looking at it comes up and does that in the evening it goes down and does that and then the sun in and I'm hoping to put the glass in it's not solar glazing I think that makes it electric but the glazing that keeps the heat in at low e glazing it's called certainly ground source heat pump it's a no brainer that apparently is the best thermal option and we have all of that top lump of garden to put the ground heat source in after that we have a stove in the kitchen and a stove in the lounge so we shouldn't even need any other heating for the house they will be the log stones but the biomass log stones stoves sorry not stones so their quote eco design is the current 2022 it will come in where in log fires can only use certain certain log energies and everything else I can do I mean even low energy light bulbs electric vehicle charging points rainbow to harvesting we can use a rainbow to harvesting if nothing else for planting so thank you I think thank you very much for the answer on that question and councillor Peter Fane chair my question was brought in the same thank you that's all the questions thank you very much thank you very much for the opportunity and we did have somebody coming from the parish council but they've been able to come in today so but we do have the local member councillor Graham Cohn and so we'll just wait for Graham councillor Cohn to be able to take the microphone thank you and I'm sure you're very well aware of the system I think we need to put the microphone on thanks very much chair for allowing me to speak on this application and also for allowing me to bring it to the committee as well it's not something I've made a habit of over the last six years you have some credit so it is a first time for me bringing calling anything into the committee so I've written a little statement about why I think that you should consider this application so national planning policy establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development stating that available sites should be used more effectively we must promote an effective use of land especially underutilised land and to seek out opportunities within conservation areas full born needs individual homes not just large developments and exception sites St Martin's Cottage has been in the village for over 360 years and deserves to be fully included within the village boundary either it's part of full born or it isn't it can't be sort of half in and half out the village boundary line as drawn is inconsistent and incorrect this is a domestic garden not countryside this application in my view will have absolutely no impact on the green belt the decision to refuse on the grounds of policy s7 should be overruled in my view there is also local precedent within the village for similar single development with similar boundary lineage it's a high quality highly sustainable low carbon home taken into account the village design statement principles and the villages emerging neighbourhood plan I consider this application a much needed and valuable addition to our village housing stock that will also release existing home the new ownership on a personal level I am pleased that the application is coming forward from a member of our community who cares about full born and wants to remain living in the village splitting down the cartilage makes total sense creating two better sized gardens and in doing so Saint Martin's Cottage itself will become substantially more affordable as a village home in conclusion apart from the boundary issue that I hope the committee will use their judgement on this application is an acceptable one and will benefit full born as a village unusually this application is supported by myself as district counciller and has full support of the parish council and has not got objections from resident groups like full born forum or individual residents so it is an unusual case where you get virtually everyone in the village in agreement on an application it is quite rare so I urge the committee to approve this application because I think it is the sensible thing to do I know there was supposed to be a member of the parish council coming who has been held up and he has messaged me just to simply say I think at most of the points that he raises have actually been covered by the applicant and myself but the parish council fully supports this application and have been clear about that in their statement to the application and you know happy that it won't be any detriment to the village at all so I just want to add that at the end so thanks very much for letting me speak Thank you very much, did anybody have any questions for local member counciller Henry Bachelor? Thank you chair, hi Graeme Graeme just a quick question to go back to the boundary issue just so I'm clear on this are you saying that the boundary has been drawn wrong on the map or you feel the boundary as it currently is in the wrong place that should be brought inwards? Both actually so I think both historically it's been drawn incorrectly because it's quite clear when you visit the site that it's garden not open country side and from a to-day point of view I think that it's very reasonable to have development in that location given the boundary I think it should be different to what it is Thank you and perhaps what we can do is ask the case officer just to explain they've included information from the inspector about individual settlements outside of the boundary which obviously they have to take into consideration so we can ask for a bit more explanation but Councillor Deborah Robinson Thank you chairman I think at page HEA at paragraph 37 that actually explains just how long this boundary has actually been in place so if the parish and residents felt that it was incorrect they've had an opportunity of 15 or 16 years in which to get that problem as they saw it sorted out and I take on board very much what the the two speakers have just said about the design and that's I'm sure we all think it's a nice design etc but together there is one thing that wouldn't be able to be done we cannot I don't think and I'll get legal advice maybe from Mr Reid or the officers we cannot make this a personal approval and though the gentleman may be wishing himself to be in any new property there there is absolutely no guarantee I have seen over my 30 years of being here Lord Health as all that I've seen applications where it's supposed to be for one thing and it's not ended up in that way but the really important thing here is which we need to focus upon I think is the fact that it is so against policy and there's not a village in south Cambridgeshire that doesn't have properties that would fit in exactly with this that the house is a part of the garden is within the village boundary or development approval is a question for I'm sorry and mine was going to be my spiel so we'll just find out if there's any other questions thank you if any other questions if not it's purely functional Councillor Jeff Harvey we'll bring it back to you thank you chair I would just I would have could understand a bit more about the visibility displays and the sort of alleged danger because I I would have thought currently is this for Councillor Cohn because I don't think he mentioned that well yes okay sorry I would have I think we've moved past we'll take it into the debate well let's take that to the next table thank you very much we're in the debate Councillor Deborah Wright sorry chairman if I'm what would you up I jumped in there thinking that we we often wait for the questions I was giving you a little bit of that thank you chairman so my priority here is the policy and as I think I was just saying there's not a village in south Cambridge that doesn't have just these same situations where some thing is just out of the village boundary right on the edge part of it is in the village boundary and part of it isn't and you set dreadful dangerous precedence if you go along with this line I've had attempts to incursion in all my villages and you know if we have a policy it's there for a reason and it's been thought out and it's been thought out over a long period of time and if we don't support that policy then we've got great danger of our villages actually moving out into other areas and once you allow one brand new because it's not a replacement dwelling and it's not a barn conversion it's a brand new property in the open countryside once you allow it for one how do you stop it coming forward from other people in the next part of the field saying well I would like this little bit of my land it's just outside the village envelope but next door you allowed something and I think we really cannot we know the pressures on this district and that's why we have spent again recently so much time looking at the coming local plan to make sure that development is as far as we can actually believe is going to be in the right places and that we do not have this chipping at our little villages so I'm sorry that there is no way whatsoever I can support this so what I'm saying is on page 95 the first recommended refusal reason is for the policy S7 which is about outside the development framework so I think that's what you're saying but thank you very much and Councillor Jeff Harvey actually we want a different question connected with Councillor Robert's question is it clearly this has been looked at in the last local plan in some sense the fact that this boundary wasn't redrawn then sort of affirms it is in the correct place but are the boundaries really examined down to that level of detail I would have thought in other words you're asking what's the process for defining the village development frameworks and whether or not those are all reviewed in new local plan Nigel do you want to answer that or Councillor? If we all look at our maps that we all have a term of the villages it quite clearly shows on the lines which properties actually shows and every single property I think what the question is what's the process I think we're just saying what's the process in terms of planning it Chair I'll help as much as I can although I'm not a policy officer the village framework boundaries are reviewed but my understanding is that they are not reviewed in such fine detail so that every part of every village framework is looked at they're reviewed because people come forward with proposals to include a land typically that has subsequently been developed within the village framework my understanding is they are not reviewed in that level of detail I'm understanding as well so it will be in a neighbourhood plan allocation that would be one opportunity for it or the parish council brings forward as Councillor Deborah Roberts will say a proposal that the village development framework would be amended Councillor Heather Williams Thank you chair and I think I'm trying to think on consistency grounds as well for myself and office as a committee that I agree that it should come here I agree that it does it is a departure and it breaches those policies and respect the comments that have been made already on that and I do understand those emotions and attachments and the policies we've put in place but the purpose of committee I would also say is to look at these applications where it doesn't meet policy officers have done the right thing in their recommendation because that's compliant with the rules but it is down to us as a committee whether we wish to use discretion on those rules from time to time so it's in the right place and the officers have made the right decision however I do find it more difficult than other members I think the visuals that have been shown show that it's not what we would traditionally call open countryside I appreciate that this boundary dispute and I'm not a boundaries expert and I'm not going to pretend to be I do think the boundary does look odd in the way that it comes in and goes out so I can listen to both sides and take merit from both those sides with that in mind I'm also thinking that normally when we see these applications I'm normally on the same side actually as Councillor Robertson and defending those policies because they normally come with objection it is rare that we have parish council not only have we got no objections we actually have letters of support which is something that is quite rare and I've always put an emphasis on listening to communities that we're planning with them and that we need to do what they want and I am inclined to think that we should also not just put emphasis on that when opposing but supporting because I think we've all sat for parish councils get infuriated we wanted to refuse that you've approved it we wanted to support it and you then refuse it it's one of those so I am struggling with it I think there are merits and given it's local support I perhaps am minded to support the parish council and support the local residents and their desire for this dwelling on the basis that there are also properties if I might have we have the plan re-displayed chair that we've got properties in that line already if it was going beyond that line then I would Jane would you be able to put up the on-screen yeah I'd like clarification because I think there are properties I am familiar with that area as well and I know there has been quite good development in that area but I think whatever we decide if we decide to approve it we have to acknowledge that it is a departure and that we are at a discretion I think what we would need is what would be your reasons so planning reasons if you were going against the officers recommendation not going to ask you to give them now but if you can think to help us thank you chair I think for members there are two things here firstly it is quite purely contrary to the policy and this could happen again and again and again so you would need to set out what your material planning considerations are in this case that justify a departure from that policy and the other factor is the other reason of refusal that we put forward and I recognise this hasn't been in the debate yet but just to put into members' minds is that we've identified heritage harm here and there's a requirement to balance that harm against public benefit and as officers we haven't identified that there is any public benefit to put forward thank you chair so I will move on but think about what your reasons that's what we've just got to challenge ourselves with as you're saying there's that violence there no pressure on me then chair Councillor Dr Marty Cack I agree with a lot of what Councillor Hella Williams has been saying again this was another site which I looked at and felt I couldn't really consider it without going and having a look at the site and of course it's difficult to get access to the rear but you can see from the road and the photographs of the actual on-site which were given here confirm what I was thinking you have a very exceptional situation here you've got a very small plot outside the village envelope but not within the green belt so it's the which when you look on-site is clearly part of the garden practically looking at it you see it's not open countryside it's not really open countryside it's part of the town so I feel that the argument that it's in in the country doesn't stand to my mind that's the way I look at it the argument about whether it has a detrimental impact upon the listed buildings the listed buildings are really beautiful and more beautiful than I realised when I got out and saw them but the proposed building was very interesting it's modern use of traditional techniques if you use green oak which is an unusual technique basically like the night's porting safe which is being used in modern buildings it would be an example to show other people could use in conservation areas and I would see a benefit in that can I just ask you because so it's it's recognised in the report that it is minor less than substantial harm but you mentioned benefit and what we've just heard from Nigel and also the report in terms of reasons of usage it has not seen the benefit what benefit do you talk, the public benefit my argument is not that it's an interesting building which will provide a suitable complement and might be useful for other how you might build it in close proximity I don't see that visually it has a benefit a detriment to the existing buildings just because it's a new building doesn't to me make it automatically a harm if the building creates a more interesting built environment and I think this one would do so I would not actually agree with that I would agree that it is neutral or perhaps because it creates a more interesting group of buildings benefit the other question is clearly against policy I absolutely agree it should come to committee can I just follow those members if we're really making this decision we have to be kind of rigorous so on page 89 paragraph 48 I think the officer agrees the conservation officer with the applicant in terms of what you're saying as well but it says that the impact paragraph 48 is on the setting which is the garden setting so rather than the building itself it's agreeing with you that's minor but what they're arguing is on the setting side of it so we've just got to keep in mind I think we're going to overturn the officer we need to be able to address their issues the next question is whether it's what sort of precedent it is most situations where you have a gap of white land between the region below and the green belt it's quite a large, significant area and there could be alternative additional areas nearby which could be developed in this case you've got one tiny plot there's clearly not going to be development on the green belt because that's clearly designated so as a precedent in this rather exceptional situation I see it's unlikely to lead to other cases if we can show what the reasons for overturning the officer are would you say are exceptional reasons so we have the support of the whole village which I think is a general support of the village which I think is also an exceptional reason it's unusual in a situation like that so basically it comes down to the one I went out to look I thought why what what harm is this actually doing I just couldn't feel that there was a solid reason ok thank you so my tendency is to go to override recommendations which are justified but in these exceptional circumstances to feel that it's justified to override them I'm going to come back to you while you think and write down where you think the reasons for overturning are just more succinctly so that we've got them into policy terms on material planning consideration Councillor Peter Fane Thank you chair I'm very sympathetic to the position put forward by Councillor Heather Williams earlier on and indeed the local member I think it would appear on the face of it and I don't know the circumstances that the the village framework may have been drawn in correctly there were lots of reasons why it might vary from the green belt fewer reasons why it might vary from the boundary of the conservation area however that is the village framework as it stands and it may be that there are other opportunities for correcting that if it is an error and considering this on another occasion I follow what Dr Khan said about the exceptional design although of course this is an outline application I think it were in the open country it might even be appropriate to consider this under ATE as I think it's a full application not outline it weren't in the open country it might be relevant to consider this under section ATE of the NPTF as truly outstanding the highest standards of architecture helping to raise standards of design more generally as Dr Khan said and enhancing its immediate setting but I don't think that has been put forward in this case so sympathetic as I am I have to say that with the boundary drawn as it is there is not sufficient benefit from this to justify a variation from our current policy whether or not that current policy is correctly drawn in this case Thank you and just to clarify this is a full application so if you were and as you are saying it hasn't been put forward with justification that this is about outstanding buildings in the outside of the development framework Counselor Dr Tumi Hawkins Thank you chair Bear in mind we've just had a look at the Bibroham side and done the weighting of the strikes and the pluses I think we need to be consistent and look at this in the same way now strike one it's outside the framework whether we agree or not that it is correctly drawn so strike two it's in the countryside even though it's not open countryside and trying to look for the benefits in this plus one I would say it does provide a local home for a local family and plus two is that the design is very good is supported by the parish council and actually they have made the statement that let me see if I can take your pardon the make mention of the design respects the principles of the adopted full one village design guide which is a statutory SPD and so I kind of look at this and I'm going to strikes to pluses What would you say there's another there is one, this is really really helpful Counselor Dr Tumi Hawkins I think in terms of our balance what is in the offices report is strike three is in terms of the listed building so that's something we have to consider they put that as their second reason that it's on the setting and that the needs, you have to prove the public benefit if there is any kind of harm to them so that would be three's That's fine in which case if we look at paragraph two or six in the MPPF it says local pan authorities should look for opportunities for new development within conservation areas and world heritage sites within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance now whether or not this does that is something that we perhaps need to consider so you might say you've got three strikes and three pluses we don't move forward but I just thought I'd put that in the next I think that's excellent and really really helpful it lays out exactly why we're here which is this issue of balance yes Thank you very much I'm just going to rehash the village boundary issue again chair because as for me that is the one key issue why I believe the application should be refused as a member that operates within a ward that has had developments built outside of the village boundary and there's a member who has sat in this room and argued till I was blue in the face that it shouldn't happen I think it would be controversial of me to then sit here and agree that we should be overturning that policy so for me chair the one real issue is the fact it is outside the village framework however incorrectly people believe it to be drawn so for me I shall be voting to refuse Thank you Thank you chair I just want to clear up my earlier question about the viability of the present the cottage and whether the non viability which the applicant has suggested whether that is a valid planning consideration I suspect not but I just wanted that to clear it out Shall we ask? Can we ask the planning officer? Kate can you answer? Having said technical difficulties then material planning considerations one of the ones that wouldn't be considered material planning consideration is of course public so the value of that I'm I'm going to stop here on my screen The conservation areas comments that were received on this application they went through the heritage statement that had been submitted and that was where the less than substantial harm had been identified was in the applicant supporting statement and they put forward the reasons why the public benefit would be overcome and in the heritage our conservation officers view that the viability for St Martin's cottage wouldn't be a public benefit because it's only benefiting one house, St Martin's cottage Of course other material planning considerations that are considered by officers one of them isn't the value of properties the value of the property isn't a material planning consideration I hope that answers your question I've asked to speak and it's me to follow up on that because I'm trying to look at this this weighting of balance because I think there are different situations in different villages and I'm looking at the three strikes the three positives absolutely we need to defend strongly any encroachment and going against our policy but I do know that there are and I don't think that we should do it by individual applications we change development frameworks in a way that we should be going forward but I am very much listening to harm when it comes to balance this is often about perception of benefit and harm and the fact that we have this anomaly where we have very very strong local support for this means that in terms of how that harm or benefit is being perceived I think we ought to give weight to and I want to because we haven't got the public benefit I think clarified Kate when you just said that James right you just said that the public benefit for the viability to maintain a listed building couldn't be accepted as public because it's one building that one building is a public asset being a listed building so you as an individual owner of that can't do whatever you want to there is public value to it so can I just explore that a bit more you're thinking around saying that you see that as an individual benefit making that listed building viable its maintenance rather than a public one yep it's no problem so there might be other cases and the Nigel can come back on this if you'd be that there may be some applications where the public benefit may stay maintaining a listed building if it's structural repairs the public benefit may be that part of the development of a site behind it might help pay for a new roof for example that might be the viable actual physical public benefit of making sustaining a property of course this was considered by our conservation officers who have dealt with lots of other listed buildings in the district and of course they've seen the viability of one house keeping it in ownership isn't one public benefit for one house does that help answer the question I just wanted to say that I feel that we don't have the evidence anyway that this property would fall into disrepair you'll see in the report in paragraph 54 we say that we feel that's quite unlikely actually and there certainly isn't any hard evidence to show that it would fall into disrepair if members were not to approve this application so I think that for me is a critical point thank you so just to finalize thank you for answering those questions and where I am at the moment with this is I think there is potential for there to be exceptional reasons that's about outstanding character and sustainability of the design of this building and if we could see evidence of how this would improve the viability of the listed building some kind of direct evidence of that because if somebody struggled really hard and strived hard to maintain it it doesn't mean that that can always kind of happen but if there was some direct evidence of how this could contribute in terms of public benefit that may outwey the harm that we see for going against policy but at the moment I don't think it's been presented in that way sufficiently for me but I'm very very sensitive to it could has the potential for an exception thank you councillor Jess Harvey and then councillor Deborah Roberts oh I think you were before actually by the sure I think I answered my questions councillor to councillor thank you councillor to Williams before councillor Deborah Roberts thank you sorry I was going to get missed out there but a couple of things just from listening to the debate one thing we haven't touched on that was suggested I don't know if officers can give us any advice on that was about improved safety on the access and displays so I'm just wondering if we've got any information on that because I think we're all, well not all of us but some of us are struggling with that with that balance and the strike I like the strike system that councillor to me Hawkins has introduced here that in itself could could be a benefit to the other properties but I don't think we've not really had that shown to officers could give us some clarity on that that would be good I think in terms of the waiting I think this thing that councillor to me Hawkins has referred to is again I'd like to say thank you to officers because what they're presenting with is the weightings of all of these to be able to make our balance but on the highways issue so what the applicants said was this is a public benefit because it would improve safety chair I did have a second to the same one to the planning officer well I think, yeah so the other thing was it was referenced about on biodiversity grounds about orchard and some sort of you know plan to put that in which again you might say that that's a public benefit to reaching targets etc so I'm just wondering if officers know whereabouts that is and if that's conditionable and to what extent for example if it was going to be open to the public or for the orchard etc. Thanks so I think what was said earlier in those issues that they could be seen as public benefit or benefit to help out way the harm which be around the safety and the biodiversity yeah and I wasn't sure if the orchard reference was one for private use only or whether it was for community benefit. Thank you. Okay so first up with the highways one can you see that screen so this is the one the plan has been submitted as part of the application and this is the visibility space that has been put on it so the highways authority raised objection at the beginning because they had concerns about the visibility space further information was submitted and now they're happy with the visibility space that they can be proven on site there's no development as such being proposed to alter the access it's just been proven that the visibility space can be achieved on the site. Right so it's what it's showing is it's overcome the highways objection to show that the visibility displays are. Yes and then with the biodiversity that can be conditioned. Do you want to come back? Sorry and it's difficult perhaps I should have asked this when the applicant because he sort of suggested there was going to be some works done that was going to improve displays so I can hear that there is some sort of agreement here that there is going to be improvements are officers aware of any improvements that are planned? I think the difference is Jane what you're saying is what was then produced has overcome the highways officer objection and is visibility displays that we would normally expect for anything versus what the applicant said that there's a public benefit because this is going to dramatically improve safety for everybody around there. Yes so I'm not aware of any development that's going to go ahead and take down any thoughts on just checking the plans two seconds. I'm not aware of any physical works that are going to take place just that they've managed to prove that they can meet the highways expected visibility displays. Okay and the second question was around was around the positioning of the orchard and plans that were referred to and whether that's going to have access to public therefore potentially community benefit or whether it was just as a private garden area. Some of the plans that have been submitted it shows that it will be part of the private garden for the house will be extending further up into the countryside into the green belt there's no information in the application to show that they'll be made to the public the only issue will be up to the owner of the site. Can I just clarify did you say that the garden would extend into the green belt where at the moment it doesn't extend into the green belt? Give me two seconds if I show you the feelings. Sorry. So this, let me see that slide. So this is the what would become the new ownership of St Martin's Cottage at the beginning and the red line would become the cottage the ownership of the new house so this is that shared with the boundary here the house at the frontier so this would become in the ownership of this new house here this would become their their site. And that site if you show us back when we went back to the development framework yes so there's that shared there here's the house here so their garden would be extending further up into this area that's part of the green belt. Is there any indication that any of that will be made public that garden? No there's no indication in that application in the public. Is that fine? Thank you yes it was just knowing whereabouts it was and whether there was any sort of public access for passing like that through it. And Councillor Deborah Roberts. Thank you again for allowing me to quickly come back Chairman I will try and keep it quickly. There was talking you yourself mentioned it about the design and about exception. My understanding of the policies are that land outside of a village envelope if there is an application to develop a new property on such it has to actually reach a very high bar it's not just it's a nice house it has to be exceptional it has to be very special and Nigel I hope will confirm this it has to be very special and if you remember a few months ago here where we actually had the design panel had looked at it the design officers had looked at it and they concurred that it was I didn't particularly agree with that but that's the argument that was put so we actually had an argument that we could put if this application is to be given any approval based on exceptional design I don't think we've got that we actually have to defer today and we would have to go to the design panel and to the officers and actually ask them to balance that up and look at it I think we cannot possibly say that it's such a wonderful design that we can give it approval we have absolutely no positive situation that we can prove that to be the case so my feelings are it's outside the village envelope and it has not proven that it's an exceptional design otherwise defer it and go through a further process thank you very much and I think it was Councillor Peter Thane who brought in that policy section 80e but what he recognised was it hasn't been presented in that way so therefore the officers haven't weighed it up in that way it's a possibility but it was spent that it was outstanding to re-bring it but not to defer it because it's not actually part of what's being presented today so Dr Tumi Hawkins and I'd like us to move towards and that's what I'm hoping we can do having looked at the strikes and the positives we kind of are at an on pass here however considering the responses that we've had the only reason this has come to us actually there's no objections from most of the other consultees if it were within the village framework it wouldn't come to us it wouldn't have come to us more than likely so realistically that seems to be the main reason upon which we can refuse this application and much as we've gone through the exercise of the plot bearing in mind what we've come before I think we we're left with I think the option of refusing on the basis that it's at the village framework because everything else seems to add up that's my view and much as it pains me I think what we're struggling with is that we can absolutely see and I think what we're clarifying is that this is going to be needed to be able to provide the evidence for benefit versus harm but anybody would like to say anything else before we move to the vote and we would need to clarify if the vote was to approve what the material planning reasons and the reason we need to do this is if anybody were to object and this went to appeal we would have to show that this committee had the material planning reasons sufficiently robust enough to defend our decision Thank you chair I've got one clarification and I think that will then determine how I vote so I'm seeking clarification from officers if we believe that there is an error in that boundary a genuine error no I'm saying if we I think that's the question she's asking if we believe that is that a material consideration that we can take because then you know then it's but I'd just like clarification from officers what we have to do when we have a development framework brand in front of us yes well if we think there is some of us may think there is a genuine error here but is that something we can give way to to chair what I've said it is the village framework I've got no evidence that there was an error it's not unusual for village frameworks to cut across garden land so I'm not I've got no evidence there is an error and even if there was that is the village framework that's where it is the process for reviewing that is through the local plan process not through development management processes Could I have asked one more question we are about to go through a local plan process so in the local plan process the village full born could ask for the development framework to be amended that's correct I'm going to move do we have any reasons for approval that would be material planning considerations that have been heard I'm really sorry that we just have to follow the procedure I know it's very frustrating I'm struggling I've listened to the debate members filled out that the new dwelling the new dwelling would be of an attractive design but that's not in itself that's not a public benefit that would outweigh the harm that's been identified in heritage terms one member said that Councillor Carn said that he didn't feel there was any harm that is something that members could conclude but listening to the debate that's viewed more generally so I think I need some help from members regarding the public benefit point to outweigh the harm that's been identified and also the material planning considerations that mean that we should depart from our normal framework policies in this instance I think what we did here was in terms of we do support local home, local family and single dwellings we do support that within villages there was the sustainability but not just attractive but a sustainable design the level of support this isn't a material planning consideration but it is in terms of the perception of harm by local residents and the parish council and the local member we have heard that perhaps having been echoed more than Dr Martin Carn I haven't here the harm to the listed building I've not heard anybody here saying there is harm to be I would put it the other way I think we've accepted that there's a huge amount of public perception that that is that it isn't considered to be of harm what we've been challenged by is that the planning rules mean that we have to therefore show public benefit and that's where we've struggled around that so I think we Council Dr Martin Carn I personally feel that the development of a building using traditional materials with high environment benefit and I think one could impose much higher restrictions in terms of environment performance in a normal location would be a public benefit in terms of providing example for use but we'd have to use a particular policy but we'd have to use a particular policy for that one That's my personal view Good and I think so I'm going to move to the vote now Were there any conditions? If the vote went to approval conditions Yes as officers we'd asked for delegated powers to draft the conditions but in terms of the headings that we would look to attach to the decision notice the standard three year planning condition, the compliance with plans condition conditions to relate to ecology, biodiversity service water drainage contracted vehicles, secure cycle parking construction management plan, delivery of goods traffic management plan contamination, unexpected contamination boundary treatment, 10% renewables, water efficiency wi-fi and then anything that's been recommended by the local firewoods authority and we would also remove permitting development rights because of the sensitification of the site Good Thank you Thank you I just wanted to know whether it would be possible to in exceptional circumstances were we to vote for approval to impose a higher performance than 10% renewables That's within your your gift I just missed a couple I'm afraid Materials which I think has been mentioned that would be important and looking at the report on paragraph 61 it says that development has not been carefully mitigated in light of its proximity to the green bells is recommended that the condition would be applied to the application for more details of the application and the requirement for approval of something around its around that paragraph paragraph 61 that's principally in relation to landscape an impact on the green bell so that's about mitigating impact on the green bell Thank you Members are going to go to the vote and that is for the recommendation by the officer on page 95 and the recommendation is that the committee refuse the application for the reasons given so we move to the vote John, is it recommended? Yes No, sorry So this one, this is about the officer's recommendation so if you support the officer's recommendation vote green if you don't support and would like to overturn the officer's recommendation then put red in please So that is with 10 votes to 1 that has been refused according to the officer's recommendation but I think we have all felt that that was there was a huge balance and we were very very sensitive to all of the local contributions and considerations that have been put forward and hopefully you'll take into consideration what the planning system means that we have to do but I think there was also some interesting things there that could be pointers to how to do that, thank you very much Can we have a 5 minute break is that right, very rapidly? Oh, actually what time is well, what have we got here Little Gransden The African South Cams Do that one after lunch should we break from lunch now Cats of Deborah Oats you're going to that's alright but I think if we break from lunch now we'll break, everybody is that okay? So we've got back at half past one thank you very much Thank you Afternoon everybody Thank you, we've all had a little lunch break This is the South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee and we're resuming with agenda item 8 which is for Land North West of Seven Primrose Walk Little Gransden, application number 20 slash 05251 slash for an outline application for the erection of a single self-build dwelling with all matters reserved and the applicant is South Cambridgeshire District Council I'd like to invite Nigel Blaisby to say a few words about this application Yes, thank you chair So for pragmatic reasons this application is on the agenda and those are essentially that in November this application was meant to be on the agenda but we realised that we needed to do some additional consultations so we undertook those additional consultations but unfortunately one resident was missed off that consultation Now I am happy that the recommendation will ensure that everybody has the correct opportunity to make comments and have their views considered but I recognise that members may feel uncomfortable with the situation so one option open to you is to defer the application if you felt in that way and I just thought I'd say that at the start rather than if there was a lengthy debate and we've left to the end, thank you Can't say the Williams Chair, unlike what you've said and given the fact that this comes to us for a transparency reason and we are the applicant therefore I'm assuming would be agreeable to deferment I think it's probably right that we do that and give whoever was missed off the opportunity to make representation I'm open to hear others but that's my initial instinct And we have asked the opposite to consider this so in that we've had an example before where we decided to go ahead make a decision and if any new comments came in on new issues were raised then it would come back to planning committee but however what we're saying here is there is the option to especially for perception and transparency that this be considered How's it done to Tim Hawkins? Yes, thank you chair it's one of the concerns that the parish council raised and also I think the fact that it is our application we need to make sure that we do the best that we can So I'll put the motion forward to members The motion is to defer this application until all of the public consultation has been concluded By affirmation? Okay, thank you very much We move to agenda item 9 which in your printed agenda pack is page 115 and this is for application 20-044706 flash full application for hisden-in-pington ward for 60-in-pington lane The proposal is for the demolition of an existing garage an erection of a three bedroom single story dwelling to the rear with a detached carport store The applicant is Mrs S Green the key material considerations flood risk, character, residential immunity and impacts and it's being brought to the committee because it's being called in by the parish council and referred to the planning committee by the committee delegation panel Presenting officer is Phoebe Carter Phoebe are you there? Good afternoon Hello Phoebe I'll also just note that councillor Dr Martin Carnas mentioned at the beginning of this meeting has removed himself as a committee member for this item and will be speaking to it as local ward member and therefore he is at the back of the room and is not sitting on here as committee Thank you Phoebe We can see that, thank you Phoebe So this is an application for a new dwelling to the rear of 60-in-pington lane So the site is situated here to the behind the dwelling and the it's on the south-western side of in-pington lane which is currently a residential street characterised by detached dwellings situated within the development framework There are no listed buildings within the immediate vicinity and the site falls outside of the conservation area Number 60 is presently a detached residential property with a large rear garden as you can see This is an aerial view of the rear amenity space which is just situated in here So the proposal seeks planning commission for the demolition of the existing garage which is shown here on the plans and the erection of a three-bedroom single-story dwelling to the rear with the detached carport and the proposed dwelling would be accessed by a proposed driveway along the western boundary constructed from permeable paving situated along here The proposal complies with the internal space standards, building control, M4-2 and with and provided acceptable amenity space for the existing and proposed dwelling cycle and bin storage The dwelling by virtue of its backland location would not be prominent within the surrounding area and would have limited views from the main street Whilst in-pington lane has a strong linear frontage to the street there is significant backland development to the rear of the surrounding properties due to the constraints of the site and the surrounding properties the proposed building has been kept to a single story which is appropriate massing and scale The proposed materials are vertical cedar cladding with white render and a green roof whilst these proposed materials are not common within the area the design is contemporary to those around it and it contrasts successfully with the surrounding context Concerns were raised that the proposed development would be over-development of the site The garden of number 60 however is generous in size and officers are of the view that the dwelling of this size and footprint proposed would not result in an over-development and the garden sizes are larger than the design guide The proposal has been carefully designed as a single story L shape building to take account of the surrounding dwellings which can be seen here By virtue of the scale and massing I'll just show you the elevations of the property here This is the proposed floor plan with the main living and dining room area set to the side with the sitting room to the front and bedrooms along that northeast boundary Here are the elevations with the surrounding section This is 11 rosley to the rear of the site This is the annex at number 62 and this is number 58 on the north-eastern side and so all no prology is north-western side so this is the side facing number 58 here and this is the carport plans and this is the side facing number 58 here and this is the carport plans By virtue of the scale and massing it's not considered to give rise to any overbearing or overshadowing impact to the adjacent dwellings but windows have been kept to a minimum on the side elevation overlooking number 58 which is shown here and the windows on the south-eastern boundary will be set as far away from the annex at number 62 as possible These are approximately 12 metres away from the annex The application has submitted a revised flood risk assessment and drainage strategy by Rossie Long Consulting The Sustainable Drainage Officer has reviewed these submitted documents The report has set out the proposed use to permeable paving and infiltration which provide the suds technique that reduce flood risk by accepting the rainfall responding and attenuating the rate and quality of surface water runoff from the site improving water quality and amenity The drainage officer has confirmed that the attenuation under the permeable surface is sufficient for the surface water roof water will be collected by traditional gutter and downpipe system and directed into the sub base of the new permeable paving system In addition the applicants propose existing driveway to the frontage of number 60 is also proposed to be replaced which will be linked to the new area of the permeable paving to the rear Doing so will effectively prevent uncontrolled flows from the frontage running off site into the highway in larger rainfall events which is likely scenario within the current arrangement So the drainage officer is confident that the calculations provided within the report are correct Whilst the concerns regarding drainage are noted the technical advice submitted within the report and expert advice received from the drainage officer have been refused a refusal based on drainage grounds in their opinion would not be justified So officers therefore recommend approval of the application subjectly attached conditions I'd also like to point out that in the report it stated that there was an anger and water informative which wasn't initially attached which will need to be attached onto the report Thank you Can you explain what that would say? It would be about the drainage system connecting to the current anger and water surface run-off into their foul water drainage system Thank you If we move now to Dr Simon Goddard and I understand your withers virtually Hello there and I understand also John Gooch his withers as well Chair, if I may Apologies, he's unable to make it That's fine So Dr Goddard, you know the procedure I hope you've got three minutes and we'll be timing, I'll be hurt by Nigel in terms of the timekeeping but no pressure just take it easy I'll do my best I do have some images that I'd like to show as well and I think they've been already shared so I don't know if it's possible to show So Phoebe would you be able to show the slides that Dr Goddard likes? Do you want to start with one already? It's okay, I'll make a start then So I'm talking on behalf of all the neighbours around the proposed development site So Histon and Impinton Parish Council and the residents of all the neighbouring properties have rejected the proposed development at number 60, Impinton Lane all the relevant details for the objections are in the documents and letters which have been submitted The development is far too large for a back garden and would severely impact the privacy of neighbours particularly those at number 62 where the proposed development would be extremely close to the existing Alex In addition, a large low level chimney on the proposed property is unacceptable It is also noted that the purpose of the building remains unclear in terms of whether it is a family house or a multi-tenancy The main point of contention is that the drainage in the area has still not been adequately assessed The area where the proposed house is intended collects water from the surrounding area including specially constructed land drains and this soaks into a large drainage ditch on the garden of the land owner of number 60 There is no mention of this drainage ditch on any of the surveys which have been conducted but it runs along the boundary of number 58 and I think perhaps you can show the image of that please and in winter fills with water The proposed build is a few metres from the ditch and runs alongside the ditch for most of its length This will prevent water entering the drainage ditch and water will build up elsewhere and would not be drained away Pictures of the drainage ditch and flooding where the intended build is have been provided and members of Histon Impton Parish Council have viewed the ditch and considered the drainage in the area as part of the reason for rejecting the application Furthermore, the land owner is responsible for maintenance of the ditch and access would be severely limited by a house in such close proximity Since being fenced off by the land owner which was to prevent children accessing the ditch the ditch seems to have been forgotten If the development goes ahead the flooding currently encountered by neighbouring properties will become a major issue This has already been demonstrated when the annex at number 62 was built and which caused considerable water build up in the neighbouring properties of Rosele and resulted in expensive drainage schemes to try to alleviate the problem But even then flooding can still occur in these properties The problem will be greatly exacerbated if development at number 60 is granted Land owner has made no attempt to discuss the proposed building with any of the neighbours and is unaware of the boundary between 58 and 60 which differs from one plan to another It seems strange that alternatives such as downsizing or selling the excess land to neighbours to use as a garden have not been considered which would help maintain the important ecology in the area We therefore hope that all the important points will be considered and investigated and the planning application rejected You can see the first image there which is flooding on the land which occurred last last winter and the image below it is some pictures of the drainage ditch which run beside the property and you can see the water collects in there and is drained away onto the main road If you could scroll down please And we've finished the three minutes Just explain the slide Yeah sure This is the area where the flooding occurs and where the water collects There's another image of the drainage ditch and shows where the ditch is in relation to where the property is on the bottom bottom image I think there's just one or two If you scroll down again please And this shows that the boundary and some plans It's another thing Where is the one on the left hand So I'll finish now Thank you so much Dr Goddard and I'll open it up for any questions from members Councillor Dr Tim Hawkins Thank you chair I think I got a bit confused about which house had the drainage next to it Can we clarify that? Dr Goddard you can answer that question It runs between number 58 and number 60 So number 60 is the application So perhaps if we have Can we have a diagram please Yeah You showed that in one of your slides Dr Goddard Yes that's correct If you scroll up please Yeah it's on this one here So number 58 is on the left hand side You can see where the ditch is and number 60 is obviously the area in highlighted in red Thank you Thank you Councillor Jeff Harvey I just wanted to know anything about the low level chimney Would it be actually intended to use that Would it be a log burning stove or what would it be I mean it doesn't look nearly tall enough to function properly as a chimney to me but what's your opinion on that Dr Goddard do you want to answer Do you know anything you were saying the sort of concerns about the chimney Yes well I see on the plans that the chimney looks quite large I assume I don't know what it's meant to burn I'm assuming it's meant to be some open open fire but if that is the case then it's going to cause a lot of pollution in the area because it's not very tall Thank you Thank you Do you have any other questions for Dr Goddard A question from me Dr Goddard would be when you mentioned that there's there have been previous instances you said from the building of the annex which is neighbouring to this application had caused was that found was there evidence to show that the flooding damage to neighbouring properties had come from the impact on runoff from that I would I would need to check the exact details but I know that the properties on Rose Lee which is the road behind behind the property particularly one or two of them when the annex was built at number 62 did suffer more flooding I'm an expert and I don't know exactly why that was the case but it did happen at the same time and some of those properties have now invested a lot of money to put in drainage schemes to cope with that and the concern is that if the water is not going to be drained away by this ditch anymore which looks quite possible then that's where the water is going to end up Good thank you very much so and thank you for your time and we'll now move to the agent Rob Preston who's here with us in person and I understand that also Paul Cosford drainage consultant and you're going to divide your time Yes So you have one and a half minutes each and I understand we're going to do a little dance so we'll stop after your one and a half minutes and then bring in Mr Cosford Thank you very much I understand the procedure that you have to use Thank you very much Okay, good afternoon members The objective of this application scheme is to develop a single dwelling to help to meet local housing need within a sustainable location The site is located within the development framework of a rural centre and therefore a development called to policies S7 and S8 of the local plan which supports the principle As the case officer states of paragraph 22 there are examples in the surrounding area from the road which is a feature of the local pattern of development The proposed dwelling has been carefully designed in terms of citing the scale and appearance that preserves the local character The dwelling is modest in scale and height and situated within a large plot then enables a good degree of separation from the boundaries was also retaining sufficient garden space The design and placement of windows affords overlooking and overshadowing The development is therefore acceptable in terms of neighbouring residential community The proposed development has been formed by a suite of sporting assessments on access, trees, ecology and flood risk and drainage and is supported by the council's technical consultees The scheme will also deliver biodiversity enhancements including a green roof, native planting and other measures outlined in the preliminary ecological appraisal The details can be controlled by condition The building is designed to high standards of insulation to operate solar panels solar water heating and electrical vehicle charging We support the recommendations of the planning officer and her assessment of the scheme The proposed development will deliver several planning benefits and it accords with the development plan Thanks very much Thank you I think we'll hear both first and then we'll go to questions if you can sit nearby then we can have answers from both Good afternoon members I hope to clarify that the site is designed used on the site The main point to note is that the site will be self-contained in terms of surface water drainage in the sense that the drainage solution does not rely on the ditch or any other offsite connection The proposal is to collect all runoff from the new and existing roofs and driveways and infiltrate to the ground The site is located in flood zone 1 which is defined as land having a flood risk of less than 1 in 1000 from rivers in the sea and has multiple considerations therefore management of surface water runoff The environment agency flood maps do indicate ponding in the rear gardens in the 100-year scenario and as discussed this is the location of the new building and driveway In the post-development scenario the design will capture this water and direct it elsewhere rainfall on the new development at the rear of the site will be directed into a stone blanket beneath the thermal block paving temporary storage and conveyance to the front of the existing building The rear of the site the current garden area is located over clay subgrade which is virtually impermeable however the front of the site is located over sands and gravels which is permeable site testing was undertaken to establish infiltration rates and the design developed to accommodate the volumes generated by all storm events up to 40% additional allowance for climate change The surface water drain solution meets the requirements of national planning policy framework and the lead local authorities flood criteria the latter having approved the proposals as suitable That's my statement Thanks very much but if you have money to do that within the time Questions Dr Tumi Hawkins Thank you Chairman and through you Mr Cosford I think if I heard you correctly you said the front of the site is on permeable soil and the back where the proposed building is going to be is on non permeable clay soil That's a big difference in types of soil on what is a shore Yes there is a clay sand gravel horizon to the rear of the existing property so the entire frontage and the existing building is on sand and gravels and that is the existing building's drainage regime it's using soakaways I'm sorry it just seems to me that the different types of soil on the same plot It is a large plot This is a big difference The clay is basically the subgrade and it arises to the rear of the building so to the front you have the superficial sands and gravels That makes a big difference Thank you Chair I would like to ask a question please Councillor Jeff Harvey Yes I just worry if I could address my previous question What would be the use of the low level chimney Perhaps that would be to Mr Preston Sorry could you repeat the question The use of the chimney What's proposed for the use of the chimney Well the chimney serves the living room so whilst it's not been confirmed in absolute it does serve a fireplace so therefore it could be a for example a wood burning stove for example I think the officer has addressed this in the report in terms of what can be considered as a material consideration with regards to chimleys Yes Good and I have a question one for you and then welcome Mr Cosford if that's okay Okay Could you just clarify the level of engagement and consultation with neighbours that has happened prior to the application being submitted I mean this is for a single dwelling it's obviously been subject to the normal statutory consultation requirements as part of the planning application that otherwise there's been no specific pre-application engagement Which often is really quite good even though we can have the biggest conflicts of a single dwelling but I do understand I'm hearing you okay and then Mr Cosford in terms of the drainage Can you explain why there is no mention or consideration of the drainage ditch and its function given that you've given the characterisation of the soils Yeah we there's no proof that the drainage ditch has a positive outfall we weren't the AW I'll bring the AW comment into this we were not permitted to discharge any surface order from the site into the AW sewer at the front of the property and the Indianton Road if the ditch is connected into the sewer which would be a combined sewer we wouldn't have been permitted to discharge into it in any case so we had to formulate a solution which was self-contained within the plot But again there's no mention of it because it serves a function What has served a function? Well it's not we don't think it forms a continuous link with anything we think it's a an ad hoc ditch which has been put in there to take up a certain volume of run-off from the rear areas of the properties and so we're very slowly into the ground but there was no link shown on any information that we could find so we then went into a ground investigation and discovered that we had infiltration available on site So we went down that route Thank you Thank you Chairman Just to follow your question there Mr Cosworth you said that you couldn't find any information about this ditch Did you actually trace it? Did you trace it on the ground or were you just relying on documentation that was available? There's been impington further to the west there's quite a significant ditch network to the west which is mapped and that is linked together and that does form a drainage for some of the village but it does not extend down impington road so this is an isolated ditch and given the fact that the only outlet for it could be a sewer which we were not committed to discharging to be part of the I'm sorry Did you trace it? No we didn't trace it Thank you Any further questions? No thank you very much Thank you very much for your time We don't have anybody from the parish council but we do have local member Councillor Dr Martin Khan This site lies in the rear garden of a vicarage in the village of impington The property has a large garden and a few fruit trees to the east of the garden is a drainage ditch which no longer discharges and fills to its brim in rainy weather The area represents a significant area greenery which backs on to more densely developed area to the south To prevent loss of privacy to adjoining properties the proposed property has been restricted to one story to occupy a larger floor area which is completely covered by an impermeable roof To counter drainage concerns the applicant has proposed the use of sustainable drainage by the use of permeable hard standing Much of the area to be developed currently is slable to flood in extreme weather as indicated by the high risk of surface water flooding indicated on the national flood map The water eventually drains to the adjoining drain but this itself is reported not to evacuate effectively It has been suggested to me that the ditch formally distraught to the north but has been filled in for whatever reason the impermeable nature of the ground prevents the clearance of the ditch to the brim The site is underlain by Gort Clay which is highly impermeable and causes water to be retained Wherewith mixed with some sand it is reputed to be slightly permeable but the evidence of completely full ditch suggests that even in the present conditions it is not able to evacuate effectively to the north The evidence from recent development to the north of the Ddington Lane is that the soil is very impermeable and difficult to drain The development of Hunter's Lane in the last two years and this has caused the previously draining garden of number 75 opposite number 60 to become waterlogged in wet weather when it previously did not become so because the water cannot evacuate through the impermeable ground underlain by Gort Clay It is feared that this large area of permeable hard standing with this large area of permeable hard standing surface water will seep down and be retained in this permeable material but not be able to seep away from the impermeable clay beneath After prolonged rain the hard standing material would displace water that previously stood on the garden and in fact the storage capacity for surface water will be reduced with increased discharge in extreme conditions for instance when the area has already become waterlogged It is feared that the ditch to the west will be more likely to fill and overflow as it cannot evacuate in a similar manner to the problems that have arisen in the garden of number 75 where standing water cannot evacuate Furthermore the replacement of the garden area by hard standing will replace vegetation with a mineral surface over more than half of the surface area of the plot It is difficult to see how this level of development can be considered to increase the biodiversity of the plot by 10% and so the concern expressed by local residents that the areas becoming less natural would seem to be justified Therefore I ask the members to reject this proposal due to the fact that it aggravates the risk of flooding because of the resultant of the diversity of green space in the green area of the village Thank you, perfect timing Thank you members Do any have any questions for the local man? Counselor Dr Tumi Hawkins Thank you Chairman I am through you Counselor Dr Karen Prism obviously read the report and paragraph 54 talks about not being so refusal on the grounds of drainage is not appropriate Could not be justified Cannot be justified bigger pardon Whereas what we've heard so far seems to suggest that there are still issues with drainage Can you comment on that please? I know from talking to local residents that there is a real problem I'm unconvinced that if you place material which is permeable on an area where water is retained that you will have adequate means for it seems to me that then you will just displace some of the water that is currently retained If the area underneath is impermeable then you will replace some of the water that is presently retained in fact you may aggravate the problem because the water will fill up more rapidly some of it has currently been filled by impermeable hard standing I'm concerned that the effect will be that after a long drain when the permeable hard standing is already waterlogged because it can't drain away because of the impermeable layer underneath it will actually be more likely to overflow into the ditch rather than nest likely Thank you chair One more thing if I may During your talk you mentioned I think it's number 75 opposite I wasn't quite clear what was happening there between 60 and 70 When the development north of Eimpington Lane which came to committee here you considered was developed the level of the the work drainage conditions but afterwards this didn't really include conditions for dealing with adjoining properties adjoining properties to the south of the site which in fact is slightly higher than the area where it's draining to had problems of flooding on the rock in the garden particularly this year so the areas which previously have been dry became flooded with water and this is presumed to be because the level was raised perhaps by six inches or so to the north it's a very flat area and that was sufficient to prevent the area to dissipate and because the area of clay you can't soak into the ground and therefore this is a similar area almost exactly similar area to the area that you are on the evidence from previous experience in the vicinity suggests that it's going to be very difficult to get at disposal of this water and I'm expressing some hesitation that the proposal will actually resolve the problem from experience in the vicinity Thank you Thank you Thank you very much so members we will go to the debate and maybe I can start off so I think the benefits of this to be using the land to provide that additional house we are in a village which is completely surrounded now by green belt and we've done almost all of the any potential infill that can happen so if the people building local build for a local home this is important the fact that there's consideration by making it one story single story is sensitive to to the neighbours and to the other buildings that have the fact that the annex and neighbouring properties however what that then does in our consideration is as councillor Dr Martin Karn has said this takes up a much greater area of the land that they're building on to be able to provide now we've got a very difficult situation here where we're being advised that we've been told by our statutory consultees on technical grounds that any doubts regarding drainage issues are not justified because our statutory consultees have told us that this shouldn't be a problem the context for Histon-Limkington is that a recent development that is happening in the same area has now had the head of economic development and planning from the greater Cambridge plan it has had our CEO visit personally the people that have been impacted in neighbouring properties from developments that the statutory consultee said met drainage conditions and they're still dealing with that and they're dealing with an audit of the amount of damage this has caused to the neighbouring properties and it's exactly this that councillor Dr Tumio Hawking has asked this question about the changes it's because this area, the characterisation it's right on the edge of that change into that floodline something is happening in terms of the capacity of that area to deal with the increased weather conditions and the flooding it's not doing well we've had backup in terms of the surge capacity dealing with that as other villages so the whole capacity of the area we're finding is becoming much much more stressed and this is probably as a result of climate change and what I find very difficult is perhaps our planning rules are not fit for purpose yet to actually catch up with the climate change situation but I do think that we I will ask officers on this one but having been having been local ward members in a village that has had to deal with applications that have then even though they've had statutory consultees on the local flood authority and our drain job is saying this is sufficient it hasn't been sufficient and that's just in the recent year and it's in exactly the same area kind of the area that we're considering so this is very difficult because we've got to look at this application and we've had, we've been told that it's not justified but I support all the principles of this development but I do I'm knowing and the people who are developing this know those situations so I would have expected perhaps far more investigation of what's happening the drainage ditch that's there just to be able to show that we've done an even more the necessary investigation to be more than doubly sure that there isn't a risk here Catherine Williams Thank you chair I think the drainage issue has been quite well explored and explained but equally we do have a report as you say it says and if we were minded to go down that route then obviously we have to accept that there's a high risk of that being overturned so I am going to steer my comments away from drainage though that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the issues that have been raised so I'm looking at page 25 of our plan pack on the online one that's not the agenda but the plans that have been described so I don't know if it's possible to have that displayed Phoebe have you got who there so do you know which one it's being referred to? I'm just bringing it up I'm not sure which one it refers to Do you have a figure number it doesn't have a figure number it's just page 25 of the Proposite Plan Proposite Plan I don't know if it's a block plan but that equally will do the same job so I appreciate there is an annex at the rear of 62 but a big part of an annex is it's not a separate dwelling so it has to be connected to the main building itself so I don't see the development being on par with its neighbouring property in that respect I do also look at the footprint you'll see see an annex is very much smaller even though the distance is the same the footprint of this dwelling like you say probably because it's single story is the majority of it I mean there's not much for garden and residential amenity I'm looking for the future residence of that property they're going to have very little manoeuvrability or quality actually I think in that area 12 metres next to the annex as well I mean that's close while I appreciate the heights not there it almost makes me think if they were to go into their garden they're almost on three sides cornered in it's almost like a courtyard so while I appreciate the drainage things for me there are other things of this site which I'm not particularly happy with and I do wonder if it's over development in that area in the report it says it doesn't support an over development which is what local people have said but maybe Phoebe you could help or having heard Councillor Williams it says here that there's a good retained garden can you explore this to the vicarage chair but not to the future residence of the future dwelling if I'm not looking at what's retained with the vicarage I'm looking at what the future residence of that property to the rear are going to have because we have to think of the future residence not just the current ones Phoebe so the rear garden of the new dwelling is 186 metres squared and the garden retained within the vicarage is 160 metres squared both which are above what is set out in the design guide the history of the village design guide no the design guide from 2010 trying to do the square route for 160 if you could bear with but that's going to be within policy compliant for a garden area but I think your point yeah I mean it's not it's not just with a garden area there on that policy you've got so that's 12 by 12 which is you know that's not even it's not even this room I don't think probably but it's the fact that the annex being so close creates sort of you've got walls on three sides but it's not a small garden looking out or anything like that I do you know look at that and think that's a house crammed in to a small plot that is my I think the what's been retained with the vicarage is substantial but I do fear for the quality of the future residence of the rear property thank you councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins thank you Chairman councillor councillor councillor Heather Williams actually has said one of the things I wanted to talk about which is I think there's a good development on that side it's a postage stamp garden for what is a large three bedroom dwelling but I'm also still very concerned about the drainage and whilst I note that paragraph that I read out earlier on I'm not convinced that the drainage scheme that has been proposed will do the job I'm sorry if the applicants, agents drainage people cannot even bother to trace a ditch that's right on the plot how should I know that the modelling that's been done actually does do the work that we say it will do I mean we in my village I know have challenged reports from consultants in the past and we find it to be wrong and they've had to go back and change it so in my view, I will not be supporting this, I'm sorry there's just way too much risk that other neighbouring properties will be affected by what I think is an insufficient drainage plan as well as the fact that I think it's too big for the plot thank you thank you can I just ask a question of officers just as we're looking at reasons reasons to overturn officer recommendation would be if that's overdevelopment and it's policy compliant but if it's a view of overdevelopment how does that stand in terms of reasons actually we could phrase it in a way that the proposal is of a sighting footprint and scale such that it would appear out of keeping character and appearance of the local area okay thank you councillor Jeff Hardy councillor Dr Richard Williams thank you chair I won't repeat what everyone said about drainage but I shared the same concerns I just want to go back to this question of the size of the gardens can I get some clarification on that plan we just saw because I find it difficult to believe that the garden in the annex is bigger than the retained garden in the vicarage it just looks significantly smaller whereas the planning report pack says that as the officers just said that the rear garden of the new dwelling is 186m2 the retained garden is 160m2 I just can't make that fit with that map I think it was 168m2 Phoebe can you give us the dimensions again and just show us with your laser the garden bits are so the garden of the new dwelling slightly changed by the paving around the house so it's taken up to the boundary and then to the rear walls and side elevations of the house so you include the grey area here as well as the green and the hedging that's surrounding it which does when you look at it and you look at the green area it looks smaller but then you have to take into account the paving directly outside the house and also up to the boundary fence where obviously in the vicarage they've not shown any boundary hedging or paving areas so it looks proportionally different but when measured it comes out as those figures thank you chair, thank you based on that and I was taking that in that we're in the calculations that was part of my fear that we're including these little tiny thin strips that circle around which is essentially a boundary just so you can do any maintenance on those sides of the wall in the classes garden personally I then would have issue with actually the landscaping design of it and whether I think that could be could be managed I mean it's it's tiny so I think we've got here size, footprint and scale if that would be a reason so I think that's good councillor Jeff Harvey Yes, well I also got concerns on the drainage and I the representatives for applicant were describing what seemed to be a position from clay to gravel they seemed to be describing that as if it were a kind of quite extensive soak away in other words a sort of sustainable drainage system from a kind of a former period I suppose a bit like you might put a tank there these days on these cellular tanks but I guess the advantage of that is if there is an advantage is that you're creating a body of space where water can accumulate during a period of heavy rainstorm but heavy rainfall but still the long term capacity of the infiltration is not affected by that that's just a temporary storage of water I mean the infiltration rate in the long term is the infiltration rate of the clay underneath the site per cubic per square metre times the square metre of the site but in building this very large war area new development you've effectively I would say reduced the infiltration rate to the site as a whole by 25% that's quite a lot so you know I would really have concerns that in a period of sustained rainfall that this would not have an effect not only on the site but also on the neighbouring site so I would have concerns okay and I'll have one more and so what I think is I think the difference is this is being put forward as a scheme that in a self contained scheme within that and I think that what we have seen in that same area is it's not sufficient because of the extreme conditions in that area and so I'm going to ask now that we go to the vote that's okay I would like to check with Nigel what would be reasons for refusal thank you chair certainly the saturn footprint and scale that would be appropriate I would advise against the drainage reason for refusal on the basis that the relevant consultee and expert has looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion that it is acceptable we know there's been some flooding nearby but we don't know the full nature of that and the the relevant experts haven't given us the advice so I would advise against that do you want me to I would like to include it because I think we're getting into a situation where if we don't we're being blind to the situation and maybe we need you know if there is an appeal then we need it to be properly investigated as an appeal because we can't be unfair to applicants but we also have to make sure that we're having the proper investigations I would I would like to see it included that's the other way around thank you we did have an application recently actually where we went against the officers advice on drainage I'm not sure if there's been a pill or anything from that I think there has to be an element of what counts hailing to saying that I thoroughly respect the advice we've just been given Mr Blaiseby and your reasons for doing that but there is an element of if we don't try we'll never know I think that's also you know available here and I think this isn't one issue that we're refusing this application I also have an issue with the potential residential amenity for new residents in that as well if we could take a look at that but I would see your reassurance that I think we all appreciate that there is an element of risk in refusing on the drainage I think we have to accept that based on the report but that in that situation it's not a case if they all have to apply or none if it goes to appeal and inspectors have noted the drainage then there are still the other reasons or is it a case of if we get one wrong then it all gets thrown out so just your advice on that because I think that then may alleviate the concern for officers and us that you've got a plan B absolutely chair, I think the drainage reason is unlikely to be supported at the level of appeal I would say I think an inspector would consider that the relevant expert has given us the advice and on what basis are we going against that the other reason of refusal I think is more subjective and I think that that is appropriate but members it's your decision and my colleague Toby Williams has drafted a couple of reasons is it disadvantageous do all the reasons for refusal have to be approved by the inspector? No, no my apologies, no not at all the inspector may well disagree with that reason but then we'll look at the other reasons and it doesn't affect the the weight that an inspector might give to other reasons Stephen I think there is an important point that you mentioned which is that there have been examples where the statutory consultee on other schemes has said it's all okay but the proof of the pudding is actually they got it wrong and therefore I would support your wish to see drainage included because it would then allow the inspector to go and are we satisfied that having got the advice wrong on other schemes that we just have to follow blindly their advice on the schemes I think there is a case acknowledging that there is a risk that if the other reasons get trapped out that there may be an application for costs on the drainage one because it's not supported by technical evidence at this stage the alternative that you may wish to consider is if you were minded to refuse is the applicant would the applicant prefer to take a deferment to provide further evidence that the drainage isn't the issues that they could come back and say we've heard your concerns here is additional drainage evidence that we would ask you to have regard to before you issue a refusal which includes a drainage condition that's helpful thank you I just want to come back to see if I raise that question so I hear what Mr Reed is saying about deferment I think if drainage was the only issue then I would support that course of action but even if the drainage was sorted in my mind it's still a refusal on the other grounds and I would move that we refuse a move to the vote on refusing on those grounds accepting there is potential risk on that but I think we're at a point now where we need to accept that risk and proceed if members were minded to refuse this are you in agreement that we include the drainage everybody yes please thank you so as I said my colleague Terry Williams has drafted a couple of reasons so the first is the proposal lies partly within an area that is susceptible to sepswater flooding the proposal has failed to justify that it would not exacerbate existing sepswater flooding issues and or property as such the proposal is contrary to policy cc 9 of the south camp shill of plan 2018 and national planning NPPF parallel 159 and the second reason for refusal is the proposal is of a sighting for print and scale such that it would appear out of keeping with the prevailing character and appearance of the local area and as such would appear cramped and represent an over development of the site as such a proposal is contrary to south camp local plan 2018 plus is hq1 and h16 and NPPF and NPPG guidance on good design okay members so I have got the councillor Dr Tim Halkins and Judith Rippeth the councillor Judith Rippeth down to speak if there's a new item you want to bring up or a new consideration otherwise we could go to the vote councillor Judith Rippeth I see there is something you would like to see and now can I just check is the order and the hierarchy of that important and the drain is you're saying is the weaker reason is it better to switch those or will the inspector not take them to account at all it makes no difference at all so the inspector will look at each reason of refusal and in fact the inspector will look at the scheme as a whole actually yeah thanks I just wanted to completely double check thank you can we go to the vote councillor sorry I'm just going to support your request to put in the drainage I'm sorry but we have at the points where we need to deal with our drainage issues it's just getting worse in the district sorry thank you very much so members we're looking at the recommendation on page 125 printed pack so officers are recommending that we approve the application so that means if you press green you want to approve the application and you are going against the officer recommendation for a refusal that's it but we've got one more is that me oh no that's wrong I've done it wrong press the wrong one press the little one we're only nine Deborah's and Martin's over there so members that with 8 to 1 that has been refused thank you agenda item 10 has been withdrawn so we moved to agenda item 11 which is enforcement councillor Tim Hawkins do you want to note that councillor Dr Richard Williams has just left the building thank you he had mentioned to me that he may need to leave he's on the pick up run school pick up today and for enforcement hello there hello chair how are we all we're good we lost you just suddenly oh there you are so yes thanks very much any updates just one brief verbal update on the Haydenway Development at Willingham over the last few days we've had a report regarding utility works outside of the red edged area obviously causing some concern with parking from residents we just need to clarify that it's not a district council matter utilities can dig up roads and carry out works without contacting us however they possibly should have notified the highways and neighbours probably should have been updated via them but just clarify that it's not a district council matter okay thank you do we have any questions on the enforcement report councillor Williams thank you and those of us that have been on planning for some time will appreciate my comments when I say I'm about to channel councillor Nick Wright and talk about the Smithy Fenn application I see that you're saying that we're getting to some form of conclusion again with another report but this has been ongoing for a very long period of time now and is there is this just going to be another trench of another round and cycle of things or do we actually think we've got a chance of resolving this because I can understand how local residents would feel incredibly frustrated at this point almost as a committee member you know it's always there and we've seen to struggle to address it so how close are we to conclusion on this and have we been including those local residents in this process will they get to contribute because obviously it's something that's highly emotive in the area so if I can say councillor from the planning side unfortunately it's a whole multiagency approach that we're going to have to take at this site we've got very different departments that have their own interest in the site on effect for each service all I can say from the enforcement side is we've got our take we've submitted our information to the overall enforcement undertaking for the site we're waiting to be told what the next stage will be whether we'll be serving planning contravention notices to everybody on the whole site or what that next step will look like as soon as I have been told I will be notifying members unfortunately I can't give any more information until we're led further can I ask Mr George to share that with us and that is appreciated but we'll be sharing it obviously with the local residents because this isn't the case of weeks or months this is years we must get close to a decade soon go yes it's took me a lot of reading on this site I'm going to catch up to date with it but yes as soon as we I've been directed and I have a way forward I will update the parish councils as well thank you chair, thank you Councillor Eileen Wilson thank you chairs because I wanted to speak on the same topic I'm the recall member for Cottenham and the questioner the questioner of Smithy Fenn as you know has been filling our inboxes for quite some time I'm grateful for the work that the officers have been carrying out with Ivy League and I'm really looking forward to the results when we get final decisions but in the meantime the residents are still very concerned that I've had another communication this morning because there was a report in the east that I've been daily time about an instance that took place at Red Lodge which resulted in transient members of the travel community being arrested in Cottenham by an armed response unit these incidents become intimidating and this is what the residents actually see that they see the incidents of criminal activity which they then associate with the site and it actually some of the residents at the site really detest that they all get a bad name because of the actions of a few so what I would ask is when we do have the outcome of this report and decisions are being made that there is a public meeting for the village because they have been waiting a very very long time to have some sort of solution on this issue and that's what I had to say thank you thank you Councillor and I can out of that and put that forward Thank you, thank you very much Councillor Jeff Harvie I'm making from the minutes from the last meeting that I queered for us with any progress in organising a cross departmental approach to cottage nursery orceath which has sort of multiple enforcement issues but I notice this time that it's kind of the enforcement report and I wondered is that an oversight or is there a reason why it's disappeared from the report? Yes Councillor it appears that it will be an oversight for that one obviously there are various enumerous issues at that site which I'm dealing with myself personally in liaison with all the members of the local parish council as well we've not entered the premises yet we are having issues on that side of it which may lead to a much straight warrant what we're trying to avoid that if we can but yes it is being dealt with and it's myself so if you want to contact me directly then please feel free to do so for any updates I'll just come back on that so through you chair can I assume then that there will be a report in the next enforcement report at the next yes I'll make sure is that Councillor Thank you and Councillor Dr Tewin Hawkins Thank you chair two or three things Brewer Washmana thank you for the update on that one I'm glad to see there's now an application that's been submitted does that just seem to have sat on the enforcement list for so long but at least there's you know something happening on that on Smithy Ffenn I can tell you no one is as keen as myself in my official role to see this thing resolved and it's a shame that criminality activities by a handful is causing so much concern and being conflicted with planning issues yes there might be some planning issues but I think it's more the criminality that's driving this so hopefully we can get that properly resolved with this multi disciplinary group Finally Hayden Weir Willingham I think I spied an email that something was happening there again or had happened in contravention of the of the planning conditions I'm not sure if you saw that from Councillor Bill Handley I think it was an email on Monday please have a look Yeah that email was to do in relation to digging up outside which is the utilities company which we don't have any control as a statutory undertaker I think the residents were complaining obviously that they were digging up part of a grassverge outside of the site and impacting on the highway unfortunately as it's doing the fibre optic broadband that's been installed we don't have any control over that Okay have the residents been told has it been explained to them that it's not in that we can do anything about because otherwise we're still being piller it for not taking enforcement action Yes I'll be contacting Councillor Bill Handley by email shortly on it all we've just had the confirmation from our legal side that we can't take any action against it so we will be updated Okay thank you I think in this case a lot of the time it's just simple communications with those who are raising the concerns so they can understand what we are able to do by law and what we and what is beyond what the law allows us to do Thank you Thank you and thank you I think everybody we really respect all the work it's very complex difficult what you do and really important to people's lives so thank you very much Thank you very much chair Thank you and members we go on to agenda item 12 which is appeals and I have asked Nigel also to give us a bit of an update something not included Thank you chair Yes so you'll know from the the appeals table that unusually we've had five allowed decisions and three dismissed I was just going to talk briefly about two of the allowed decisions so firstly the Linton drainage condition so the inspector the inspector there I'm sure members of you are fully aware of this one so the inspector there said that he noted that that a drainage scheme was submitted to the local legal authority who didn't raise any concerns and they said that subject to the drainage system being appraised by the environment agency so following the submission of the appeal the apparent undertook some testing some borehole testing that information went to the environment agency and they were happy with it and essentially the inspector said that because the support from the environment agency and the local legal authority that the appeal should be allowed so I don't feel having any questions on that one I do not on that particular condition but on that particular site I noticed one of the conditions the landscaping was dismissed I think it would be useful to know what exactly that means in terms of what the developer is now actually allowed to build out from what I understand they're allowed to build up to foundation level but it would be interesting to know given landscaping it relates predominantly to layout it would be useful to know what exactly the developer isn't allowed to do at this stage because there is some local concern that they're not out here into what they are allowed to do OK I'd have to take that way and have a look at it I mean clearly they need to re-discharge the landscaping details and all of the triggers in that condition still apply but I will investigate that and let you know and answer to that Any other questions? There was another one that I had to look at was the apple acre so again members I think you may be familiar with this but this was there were two applications to remove conditions from two parcels of land and the conditions said the site shall not be used other than as a touring caravan site and shall not be occupied by mobile homes used either for seasonal use or permanent residential accommodation there had been an appeal a dismissed appeal in 2018 essentially the inspector gave little weight to the appeal because there had been a change in circumstances where a lawful development certificate had been granted by the council stating that touring caravans can be permanently occupied all year round and the inspector gave great weight to that and decided that the two conditions should be removed from the consent which essentially means that they can occupy the site permanently but the numbers he kept the conditions limiting the numbers to 15 on site A and 5 on site B in the consent so I don't know if you've got any questions about that one It's just going through my head now so by granting that the lawful development certificate okay we cannot shut ourselves in the foot is that what he's saying it sounds like that you could look at it that way but what I would say is the lawful development certificate the lawful development certificate is based purely on evidence so the council had evidence it's based on the balance probability of evidence so it's not looking at planning merits it is only looking at what does the evidence on the balance probability suggest and clearly we had we were we were satisfied that on the balance probability the evidence suggested that there had been permanent occupation and therefore we didn't have any enforcement power so we granted the certificate okay so taking that forward that means we should have given more weight to that lawful certificate that we gave I would say yes so we can learn and don't make the same mistake again or rather learn how to do our balancing better okay thank you the other matter I wanted to raise just to unfortunately it's not on appendix 3 so we've had two recent appeal hearings one for a sites Mill Lane's Sourston scheme of 30 dwellings and a scheme of 40 dwellings so we're awaiting the decision on that but I can't predict when that's likely to be forthcoming and the other one is a site at New Road over where the appeal was a couple of weeks ago and again we're awaiting the decision on that one that's a beautiful thing do you want the microphone? it was due to be a a hearing on an appeal against refusal of retirement village in Stapleford that hearing was due to start yesterday I don't know if that is going ahead or whether that's page 149, I missed it okay oh I haven't got page 149 that's correct it's a public inquiry that started yesterday and it's scheduled for eight days that's Heather Williams thank you Mr Reed has summarised for us my request from last time if we could have it in the report because I did request at the last meeting that those ones obviously drop off and then eventually we get decision notice it's hard to track where we're at with things so thank you for the update if we could have a chart in the report still and just on the horse and groom it says it's on in Stepham Warden which it is but it's a very odd place in which you could literally have a drink in that pub in two different parishes one end is in Stepham Warden and the other end is Littlington because the parish boundary went straight through the bar so yes but I have to say that this site has had more planning permissions than probably meetings that I've attended at this council in the hundreds so I do hope that we will be pushing back quite sternly on defending the decision that you've taken on it on the basis that we have literally given permission for so much this is the odd thing that's been classes not suitable suitable you know they just need to use one of the permissions they've already got in my view as I'm sure Nigel will agree with we will robustly defend the appeal as always indeed thank you very much it would be a shame to lose the Simpson's graffiti over this I just have one more thing which is not on the agenda but I thought it might be useful to update you about and that is the current position of judicial reviews so you'll recall considering the Duxford Imperial War Museum hotel application and papers were lodged for judicial review on the basis that the allegation was that we had improperly considered policy E7 which is a special policy related to the Duxford Imperial War Museum in that we had not adequately considered the need for the scale of hotel that was proposed we we said that there was no requirement within the policy to justify the scale of the proposal and the application permission to apply for judicial review was refused so there is a period of seven days to challenge but that's just recently come through and that's on top of the two others this year and Fuselain one of those was unsuccessfully challenged and one is subject to challenge so it's kind of 3-0 at the moment for the council in judicial review proceedings thank you I think it is really important for this to be recognised so we often and the plan is often getting a lot of flack and even planning committee decisions it's really important for us to know what they sound if they go to appeal and have an analysis of that not just a little it's there and I think 3-0 what I understand is costs were awarded on the Duxford that's correct chair which is a huge thing so not only was it but costs awarding music you have to have had a very robust defence of it and also on the Fuselain costs were also awarded so it's not great to have judicial reviews but it is important to be able to for us to know and I think for others to know that those have been won so far council doctor Tim Hawkins thank you chair I was going to talk about the costs that were awarded especially with the Fuselain one and I think just to reiterate it is good to know that decisions that we are making are being upheld and whether or not we need to learn the lessons from them but this is good that with the JRs we are ahead okay thank you thank you members thank you everybody who is still with us online and to all of the planning offices as well and have a good rest of the day