 Hello, and good afternoon. Whether you are attending virtually one person, welcome to this meeting of the Scrutiny and Overview Committee. My name is Councillor Judith Ripth, and I am the committee's Vice-Chair. However, because the committee chair, Councillor Grenfewd Chamberlain, cannot be here, I will be in the chair today, and I've asked Councillor Sarah Johnston to be Vice-Chair of this meeting. Do members agree with that by affirmation? They agree. First Mayor, welcome to this meeting as guests, the Chair of the Climate and Environment Advisory Committee, Councillor Pippa Haleings. He was joining remotely. The reason for their presence is that her presence is that the same agenda item will be considered at a meeting of that committee immediately following on from the conclusion of this meeting. May I now make some housekeeping announcements including important safety information for those present in person. If attending the meeting in person we ask that where possible you always wear a face covering. Please also keep to the one-way system in the chamber and please use hand sanitizer and sanitising wipes provided. If you are in the chamber please try to leave an empty seat between you and your neighbour. Whether present in the chamber or virtually please make sure that you do not switch your microphones on unless you are invited to speak. Those who are participating virtually should if possible use a headset and should speak slowly and clearly. Please ensure that you have switched off or silenced any other devices you have so that they do not interrupt proceedings. Only those members present in the chamber will be able to move and second motions and vote. Members present virtually may speak in the debate. These are members who are attending virtually indicate a wish to speak by use of the chat in the team's meeting. Those present in the council chamber should indicate their wish to speak by raising their hand. I will ask my Vice-Chair to keep a note of the order of speakers both virtually and in the room giving priority to committee members. All members are of course welcome to speak. The role of this committee today is to review and scrutinise the decision to be taken by the executive next week and to give them our views as a committee. We are not required to vote on anything today but I will provide feedback to the cabinet on the views gathered at this meeting today. Those present including any members of the public observing or any public speakers are asked to note that this meeting has been filmed and live streamed. By your presence you are deemed to have consented to be filmed and to the use of those images and sound recordings for webcasts and for training purposes. May I please remind members that when speaking they should not disclose any personal information of any individual as this might infringe the rights of that individual and breach the Data Protection Act. In the event of the fire alarm sounding please leave the chamber and go down the stairs to the fire door. Finally may I remind members you are required to address the meeting through the chair. I shall now ask those committee members in the chamber to introduce themselves. As I said before, I am Councillor Judith Rippert and chairing today's meeting. My vice-chair is Councillor Sarah Chung-Johnson. Hi, I'm Sarah Chung-Johnson, councillor for the long standing ward and not his turn in as it's showing over there. Councillor Henry Batchelor. Afternoon chair, Councillor Henry Batchelor with some feedback. One of the ward members for Linsen. Councillor Anna Bradnam. I'm Councillor Anna Bradnam and I'm one of the district councillors for Milton and Water Beach Ward. Thank you. Councillor Dr Martin Karn. I'm Martin Karn and I'm one of the councillors for Histon in Bington on Orchard Park Ward. Councillor Nigel Caphart. I understand that councillor Graham Cohn has indicated he'll be late and I'll announce his presence when he arrives. Councillor Dr Clare Daunton. Thank you. Clare Daunton, I'm one of the members for the Fenditon and Fallbourne Ward. Councillor Peter Fane. I understand that he's having some technical issues and I'm sure he'll be here in a minute. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Thank you chair. Yes, good afternoon. Jeff Harvey, I'm the councillor for Orchard Ward. Councillor Steve Hunt. Yes, chair. I'm Steve Hunt. I'm one of the councillors for Histon in Bington on Orchard Park. Councillor Aiden van der Veier. I'm Councillor Aiden van der Veier and I represent Barrington Ward. Apologies for mispronouncing your surname. Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you very much chair. I'm Richard Williams. I'm the member for Whittlesford Triple O Heathfield Fenditon. Can I check if councillor Peter Fane has managed to join? Okay, so we'll wait a moment. Nonetheless, Ian, our democratic services officer, could you introduce yourself and could you confirm please that the meeting has caught it and we can proceed? Thank you. Are there any apologies for absence please? Are there any other apologies for absence or a battle? Thank you. Okay, declarations of interest number three on the agenda. Do any members have interest to declare in relation to the item of business on this agenda? Obviously apart from the fact we either live or work in or both in South Cam's district. If an interest becomes apparent later in the meeting, please would you raise it at that point so that it can be recorded in the minutes. Okay, thank you. We will now deal with public questions. Questions have been received from Mr Daniel Foulton and Mr Phil Grant and were emailed to members yesterday. Mr Foulton will go first and then Mr Grant. Okay, I would remind each speaker that they have a maximum of three minutes in which to ask their question and may put one supplementary question providing it arises directly out of the original question or reply and does not exceed one minute in length. I will now invite Mr Foulton to ask his question and for councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins, lead Cabinet Member for Planning and Policy to respond. Please go ahead. Thank you very much chair and thank you for holding the scrutiny committee today which is especially important since the last two scrutiny committees have been cancelled. Today's meeting is to discuss the local plan. The local plan process is premised on public participation, engagement and public trust which requires openness and transparency from the council. Recently the audio feed of the council's planning committee meeting on the 8th of September was abruptly terminated just as a member of the public began to accuse the council of serious misconduct. Certainly one would normally assume that the occurrence of the apparent audio malfunction at that moment was a mere coincidence. However, since that time the council has declined to provide any contemporaneous evidence about the purported audio fault, has declined to provide any software error codes even in the description of the software, error logs, any contemporaneous emails or other documentation. The council has declined to provide even any basic information about the type of hardware being used for the system or the software used to operate it. If the council were to provide evidence as to the nature of the audio fault, then any concerns about impropriety could be allayed but the council so far has declined to do so. To provide some reassurance to the public the council please state if it has instructed any officer not to provide any evidence or information relating to the audio video system or to the events that transpired on the 8th of September to any party or to delay providing any evidence or information to any party. Thank you. I now invite councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins to respond. Thank you very much chair and through you. Thank you for your question Mr Fulton. But as you know you have contacted several officers at the council about this matter and you have been provided with a written explanation on the 10th of September as to the underlying cause of the technical failure that occurred. You then subsequently rang and spoke directly with the external engineers last week and they provided verbal confirmation of the running order of the faults and the support that they provided. So the issue of delays or not providing information does not arise. Thank you chair. Now I ask Mr Fulton do you have a supplementary which directly relates back to the answer or your original question. Yes I do chair. Thank you very much for your response. I did speak with the external engineer last week who confirmed that he was quote not comfortable that we will ever be able to get to a technical explanation of the fault that occurred. That's what he said in the conversation. It raised a lot of red flags that he wasn't able to give any kind of answer. I do think that the council is going to have to provide for their information and I hope that it does. Thank you. Is there a question now? No just a response. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. I will now invite Mr Grant to ask his question and for councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins the cabinet member for planning and policy to respond. Sorry if you just got into your seat. Okay we're paused for a brief moment. Good afternoon chair and members of the committee. I am Phil Grant a South Gemshire resident and a director of Axisland partnerships limited. Thank you for the opportunity to address you all this afternoon. I would like to ask a question relating to the Greater Cambridge local plan first proposals and preferred locations for growth. The proposed direction for policy S slash DS development strategy set out in the first proposals document correctly places significant weight on aligning new developments with investments in public transport. Can you still hear me? Sorry. The transport strategy on page 42 confirms our proposed strategy is heavily informed by the location of existing and committed public transport schemes. However a comparison of figure six showing proposed sites for inclusion in the plan and figure 11 showing existing and proposed major transport projects illustrates that the spatial strategy is disproportionately reliant on the delivery of significant levels of new major and complex transport infrastructure projects such as the Camborn to Cambridge C2C transport link and East West Rail. The provision of the latter being outside the control of the authority and does not have the level of certainty on delivery timeframes necessary to support a robust local plan. The independent audit review of the C2C project recognised that housing developments in Camborn West and Bourne airfield require the C2C project to be opened by 2025 to provide reliable public transport services. Otherwise that planned growth will be put at risk. The committee should be aware that no proposed growth has been aligned to existing public transport routes and committed investments to the south west of Cambridge for example along the A10 corridor and national rail network which will benefit from the Melbourne Greenway and Foxton travel hub. The latter due to be operational in 2024. These projects are in the direct control of the Greater Cambridge partnership delivery of which would enable sustainable growth to be realised in the early part of the plan period. In the light of these facts what does the committee think about such reliance on uncertain complex and third party infrastructure projects to deliver significant levels of growth as opposed to aligning growth with existing and inherently sustainable public transport infrastructure. Is it a sound strategy and when in the plan period will this growth be realised? Thank you very much. Thank you, Justin Tyne. Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins, please may you respond. Thank you very much chair and through you. Thank you Mr Grant for your question which obviously got us thinking. However bear with me because it is a question and my answer is just a bit more technical shall we say but bear with me. Our first proposal for the new plan draws on several evidence bases including transport considerations but also there are other components of what makes a location sustainable. Our evidence showed that the combined benefits of the East West Rail and Campbell to Cambridge projects would make Campbell a highly sustainable location in transport terms but in addition to transport considerations our evidence showed that providing further development at Campbell would be a lot more sustainable than allocating a new settlement in a brand new location. Given that it will grow an existing town to become larger it will enhance the existing critical mass of the population employment and services and it would actually speed up delivery of development in comparison to starting afresh in a new location and also in comparison with locating development close to an existing rail station development at Campbell will provide an opportunity to design a sustainable community built around the new station. Now if I go into terms of reliance on transport schemes to inform locations and delivery assumptions in the first proposal strategy we took an informed view about the transport schemes including the certainty and timing of delivery. We worked with partners that will be delivering this infrastructure including the combined authority, the county council, greater Cambridge partnership and Network Rail of course and the delivery assumptions that we have included in the plan draws on the information that has been provided with publicly and by these bodies. As well as being informed by the delivery rates and lead times that was identified in a housing delivery study of August 2021. Now the key locations that we have included rely significantly part on the schemes that are in direct control of the GCP sorry greater Cambridge partnership to explain the acronym who have a great delivery vehicle and have committed funding. With regard to the C2C this has progressed since 2018 through several stages refining the options and at the last executive board meeting in July 2021 the board approved the outline business case and asked the project team to go ahead with the next stage of the application process which is to undertake a full environmental impact assessment. So that project is making progress. Now we do know that East West Wales is currently at an early stage but it is expected to go through its process and be delivered potentially I think halfway through the plan period that we are looking at at the moment. So once we have given weight to it we've also made clear that we will review the progress and the position of East West Wales delivery at each stage of our plan making process and the growth that we have allocated for Campbell actually is at the latter part, the other half of the plan period bearing in mind the timing that I have just mentioned. So basically in summary or before I do that Melbourne also is one of the villages that we have actually allocated something in and that is in the south west along the transport corridor that Mr Grant mentioned. So our evidence shows that our strategy is sustainable when considered relative to the transport issue plus other impacts. Now obviously we're happy to answer further questions if Mr Grant has further questions to ask but those might be technical issues that we might have to take up outside of this forum. Thank you chair. Thank you. Now I need to ask you Mr Grant, do you have a supplementary? Yes, thank you. It's just a brief one and I'll try not to make it too technical. Apologise it too technical. I thank you for the very in-depth answer and I appreciate what you're saying. It does concern me that through now two local plan periods the last local plan which couldn't adopt stand the new local plan coming forward both the Cambridge London, Liverpool Street line and the Kings Cross line have neither had a major or been considered for a major areas of growth which serve multiple villages along the way and connects into different parts of the country. The east west rail as you acknowledge is a long way away and we have seen various central government projects which is this reliance on fall away including the expressway. Therefore I would ask if there is part of me increasing the robustness of your plan and looking at the cost of the public purse whether these existing railway stations along both the Liverpool Street line and the Kings Cross line could actually deliver better more robust growth of a reasonable level. Apologise it too technical. Apologise it too technical to ask you to land up. Yes, sorry. Cancel of Dr Tim Hawkins. Thank you. I take Mr Grant's point but as I said before the evidence that we have worked on has been quite robust. It doesn't mean that we can't have a look at this again bearing in mind the points that he's made but it's an ongoing process and we take his points on board and of course I've got the assistant director of planning policy next to me and our planning policy team and we can have a look at that and get back to Mr Grant if there's any further information to provide. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you to our public speakers. Before we move on to the substantive item on the agenda I'd just like to announce that a couple of members have joined us. Councillor Graham Cohn would you like to introduce yourself please? Thank you chair. My name is Councillor Graham Cohn. I'm one of the members for the Fendit in a football ward. Thank you. I also understand that Councillor Peter Fane has managed to join us online. Could you introduce yourself too please? Okay, I gather there's a slight technical issue. Can I just see how long it's going to take? Hang on. Councillor Fane, you've been asked to repeat what you've just said. Ecologies, everybody listening online and in the room. We need to pause for probably about five minutes whilst we sort out one of the technical issues and I'll get that to you shortly. Okay, about live that issue has been resolved and in the sense that anybody on the online members will type their question in to the chat and the vice-chair will read that aloud so that everybody on the live stream and in the room can hear what the question is. Okay, if we move on now to this, this is a fantastic item of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan on pages one to 372 of your agenda packs. So open this item. I'd like to ask Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins to introduce the category as planning lead. Great, thank you chair. You have before you this evening the first proposals which is the preferred options of the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan. I would first like to thank the policy team who have done an exceptional amount of work to get us to this stage. And thank you. I have here with me the assistant director policy. Strategy economy. I've got policy on the brain. Paul Frenner who will assist in answering questions today and I've also got Jonathan Dixon who is on the other side. He's been leading the team. We have worked and built upon the existing local plan that we have on the adopted local plan. Having had a look at all the outcomes of the first conversation which we had last year, we found that overwhelmingly people were in favour of having a plan that took account of climate change and its impact. And that meant that of course one of the themes of the plan that we have is climate change. We also have biodiversity and green spaces, health and well-being and great places which all go together to help us identify how many jobs and homes we will need in the plan period of 2020 to 2041 and the infrastructure that will go with it. So we were very mindful of that and I think we have come up with what we think is a very green local plan basis. The preferred options stage we have selected 19 new sites proposing to add just over 7,000 new homes. But we have also allowed for 10%, which is roughly about 4,000, just about 4,000 homes. This allowance is in case some sites fall out or things don't go according to plan. So what you have before you is one that rolls over 37,200 homes from the current adopted plan and 11,200 in the new plan. I'm sure you have lots of questions that you want to ask us. So rather than wrap it on, I will hand the word back to you, chair, and take the questions from the quality members as they come. Thank you. Before I ask, I gather that Paul Frainer here has a presentation as well. Before we go to that, I just want to break down this huge agenda item so that we can get through at the pace of the meeting. Members on the committee, can I ask you when you are asking the questions to really keep them cogent and on the topic matters, and we'll take them in this order. So housing numbers, number one, and I'll let you know as we go through. Number two will be allocations. So we'll be looking at locations and jobs, etc. And number three will be green belt. Number four will be the environmental impact. By that, I mean subjects such as climate change, active modes of transport, biodiversity, water supply, electricity supply from renewables, etc. Finally, infrastructure and its implications. I've done this to make the discussion go in a positive and informed direction. So it's not scattergun in its approach. Anyway, so before we start on those questions and do jot down your questions on a piece of paper in your packs to keep them very much to the point. Thank you for that in advance. Paul Frainer, would you like to present as well? Thank you, Chair. Just a matter of clarity because obviously we've had some problems technically. We do have some of our team on the other end of teams who are going to share the presentation. Aaron, I can share it from here. John is going to talk through it with that work. What can they share the presentation? That's helpful. So if I ask him to share the presentation now and John will walk through it and then we'll answer any questions as best we can after that, Chair. Thanks very much. That's fine. And one after playing when there are questions that please direct them to the planning lead, Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins, if there are things that she needs assistance with, come back through me and I'll go to you, Paul Frainer. And then if there's anyone else who needs the help, answer on that from your team, please just go directly to them. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to go through this point quickly. This is a very similar presentation that we gave to our... Introduce yourself. Oh, sorry. John Dixon, the Planning Policy Manager. This is a very similar presentation to the one we gave to the webinar online about three weeks ago now. And also we also presented this presentation to the Joint Local Plan Advisory Group, which met again about 10 days ago and also to the issues of that joint forum. The consultation we're proposing really builds on the first conversation that we undertook back in 2020. And since that time, we've carried out an awful lot of research and options testing and further engagement with stakeholders. You'll recall we published a lot of evidence back in November and had a series of workshops. And all that has led to the point we're at now. The consultation includes a guiding vision which we think tries to capture what the plan is aiming to achieve in a nutshell, I guess. And all this obviously will be up for consultation when we start proposed consultation in November. That's supported by a series of objectives. Now, you may recognise that those objectives are very much structured around the big themes that we consulted on back at the first conversation. And we continued those themes through this process. Looking at our objectively assessed needs, the plan needs to respond to the needs and plan for them. A lot of work has gone into looking at what those needs should actually be. In particular, an evidence-based looking at what's happened in our economy and what's expected to happen in the future. And drawing on that information together, the evidence-based suggests that that level of jobs growth at 58,000 is the most likely outcome in terms of jobs that would happen up to 2041. And therefore, the evidence indicates that we should be planning for a higher level of homes than the standard method in order to respond to the jobs that are likely to be happening in the area, because that is the most sustainable approach available. What that means in terms of the overall number of homes at this library tries to capture that, we have an awful lot of homes still to meet that need in the pipeline, so we already have 37,200 homes on site coming forward with planning permission or allocated in the last local plan. Looking at that evidence of need, we need to identify then a further 7,200 homes to respond to additional needs 2041, plus the 10% buffer, which is really about making sure we have enough sites with some flexibility to make sure we deliver those numbers. Then a lot of work has gone into looking at the strategy that should be undertaken, so where should those homes, jobs and infrastructure be located, and we touched on that in the public questions earlier. We've looked at a range of key issues, so carbon emissions and climate change has been a key influence on the strategy. It's really led us to focus on those brownfield opportunities on the edge of Cambridge where you have that benefit of proximity and also science which can take advantage of the transport infrastructure that is being planned or coming forward in the area already. Green infrastructure is also key. It's not just about built development and you'll see in the proposed consultation material we have the green infrastructure theme and proposal regarding what investment in which areas would benefit from green infrastructure investment support developments. We're also very keenly aware of the challenges regarding water supply and we've made very clear that there is an ongoing process at the regional level from water providers looking at that water issue and we still need to understand the outcome of that process to confirm there is sustainable water supplies available to support the strategy that's been identified. The next slide really looks at where the homes are proposed and again this slide tries to capture that we do have a lot of homes in the pipeline at sites on the edge of Cambridge released to the previous plan making and those new settlements to the last round of plan making and the additional sites that were proposed primarily focused on the Cambridge East Airport site. North East Cambridge where we're preparing an air action plan and then broad location at Canbourne that would reflect the arrival of a new railway station association with East River Rail and the slide shows the distribution of that growth across the area. We've then got a map showing, as I mentioned earlier, the green infrastructure proposals. You may recall back at the first conversation we asked questions about where we should be prioritising green infrastructure and carried out an opportunities mapping exercise and got a lot of feedback from the community and this is the outcome of those consultations providing details of where we think green infrastructure investment should be focused in the future. All this, of course, will be part of the consultation going forward. The next slide really goes through where the allocations specifically have been proposed in the plan. I won't go through all of these given time constraints but you can see there's a range of sites proposed within the City of Cambridge itself but also opportunity areas which would look to shape developments that will come forward during the plan period and some of those key Cambridge areas such as around the Grafton Centre where you get a lot of change happening over the period which is addressed in the consultation material. There are some large developments then proposed on the edge of Cambridge, got existing developments at Darwin Green in North West Cambridge where we think there might be increased opportunities to growth as part of this plan and then the airport proposals which would deliver substantial new urban quarter to the city as Marshalls intend to relocate off the site and we've also looked again at the southern fringe of Cambridge looking at how we can support the future needs of the very important biomedical campus but also balancing that with the importance of the green belt landscape or other issues in that location. Looking further out from Cambridge the existing new settlements clearly form an important part of our strategy going forward. They will deliver a significant element of the strategy over the plan period we're talking about and then clearly Canbourne once it gains a railway station it will provide an opportunity for further growth to make Canbourne an even more sustainable location taking advantage of the considerable improvements transport plan in the area. Now this one is slightly different in the fact that it's a broad location. We don't yet have a confirmed location for the station and that is an important issue when deciding where growth would happen in this area so it doesn't identify a specific site at this point but we'll be seeking views on the role of Canbourne as a broad location and how it might come forward in the future. We also then identified through the testing of many options that what we called the rural southern cluster was an important element of the strategy and we looked at development opportunities in this corridor. There are some existing allocations there sourced additional proposals that have been identified at Great Shelford. Actually the genome campus already has a planning commission for a significant development there. Sorry, I missed one. We also got on proposal at Dugsford and the Bayburn campus, the proposal there is to remove the existing developed area of the campus from the green belt to facilitate future growth of that site so it can enable and adapt to the future needs of the campus and then in the rest of the rural area we've identified a number of allocations which I won't go through in detail but the strategy really has focused on those key locations which are available and can be supported by transport. That's why the additional rural growth in addition to what we've already got committed isn't a substantial element of the strategy we're really trying to focus on those most sustainable locations driven by I think a lot that carbon narrative. The plan isn't just about allocations and sites it's also setting the policy framework for future development of the area and planning applications which will follow. Again structure around the big themes we've set very ambitious policy aspirations regarding net zero carbon. Effectively the policy proposals require buildings to meet their own requirements on site and if they couldn't make contributions to offsite energy provision we've also proposed a range of other policies with one of the other aspects of carbon informed by our net zero carbon study which accompanies the plan. In terms of green infrastructure as well as the green infrastructure map and proposals I've spoken earlier we do have policy on biodiversity net gain and the policy proposal is to seek net gain which is above the 10% national requirement which is emerging reflecting the importance of the issue in this area. On our well-being social inclusion theme we propose to make health a running theme through the plan and require very clear health assessments to be carried out on applications. We look at how we can make our new communities sustainable and affect the beat communities from the accent which includes supporting meanwhile uses so you can have facilities on site at the early stages of those sites rather than waiting for them to come forward as settlements grow. We're also looking at how we can make developments providing inclusive employment opportunities so could there be ways of supporting training and opportunities for the local community access employment generated by those sites both in construction and when they're operating. The great places theme is really our design chapter and we've tried to capture what we think great places look like in Greater Cambridge to provide the opportunity to comment on those before the policies have formally developed and we've looked again at how we can help our heritage assets to adapt to climate changes there more we can do to support those changes. In the jobs chapter a lot of the policies might be fairly familiar but there are some new areas for example should our large employment areas include elements of affordable work space and how can we support creative industries what can we do to help our centres adapt to the changing retail environment and how can we help Cambridge and other locations respond to the visitor pressures for example Airbnb and those issues that arise. In terms of our homes the policies would continue to seek high levels of affordable housing. One of the issues we need to come back to is looking at the needs of gypsies and travellers. This evidence was particularly affected by issues surrounding COVID because we were unable to go out and do the face-to-face surveys we need to create that evidence that work is now under way in this consultation already and then on infrastructure we think we've proposed a strong policy framework for making sure developments are well connected and sustainable and we think we should be asking for developments to provide charging points to make sure we can respond to the changing vehicle fleet and look at how our energy infrastructure is provided building on the work currently going on at East Cambridge with an Energy Infrastructure Master Plan and in digital infrastructure become really important in every plan to stay alive. We look to build on the policy and the current plan by creating even stronger requirements for developments to be well connected and then finally I think we've got a slide just picking up the recommendation the cabinet will be looking at which really asks to obviously approve the consultation going forward and a lot of the material will also take shape. Thank you chair. Okay, so housing numbers, we have a first question from councillor Dr Claire Daunton. Thank you chairman. On page 42 of our agenda 22 in the local plan document the figure 4, the illustrative map showing locations of proposed new development could you please councillor Hawkins un-pick the difference between delivery rates and densification because both are shown in blue and the two are quite different things councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins. Thank you chair. Yes, definitely. This issue has been picked on before and I think we will be making a change to the colour scheme but to answer the question densification is the process where you are building more houses on the same space and that is what is going to be happening in Eddington and that is because the land owners have assured us that they are able to deliver to build more on the space that they currently have that has been allocated. The difference with Water Beach and North Stowe is that there is no densification in Water Beach North North Stowe. The plan for that is to have the houses built faster within the plan period. So instead of building 250 houses per annum which is what developers tend to tell us that they can do. We are saying that they should be delivering 300 homes per annum starting in the mid 2020s might be right on that one. That means we will be building more within the plan period and less after that. So that is the difference on North Stowe and Water Beach. It is not additional it is just bringing things forward quicker. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have a follow up? Thank you. That is answered. Next we have Councillor Aiden Bandavaya. Thank you very much. I have two questions. One of which is on the same subject as Councillor Bronfell's question. The map in particular is confusing and has caused confusion in some postination. Could I ask specifically that this map is not used in the consultation and another way of presenting this information is found and if possible we stop using it at stall in presentations and public material. My second question relates to the numbers and the locations in particular between South Cown and the city. This is a joint plan. It is very clearly set out as a joint plan with Cambridge City in South Cown which is quite right with functional economic area functional single housing market in most respects and we should be approaching the development of these policies jointly choosing the strategies regardless of the council that they affect. However it is quite important for people in South Cown and I would imagine pretty much using the people of Cambridge likewise to know how it affects the district they live in and it is also I think important to us as representatives of South Cown's district council. Some of the obviously the history of development in this area meant that in the past five years ago there was much more construction going on in Cambridge City than in South Cown so it was again largely reversed because of the way the fringe sites would look out. So we need to find a way of talking about this balance between the city and South Cown in a way that is fair and representative of what is actually happening so rather than just saying this many houses in the city and this many houses in the South Cown my suggestion on that would be around the fringe sites which are joined in some of the material some of the fringe sites are described as fringe sites and some of them as urban sites when they are fringe sites in the sense that they are shared. If we are considering the fringe sites as shared then it would be useful to know what is shared what is in the city and what is in South Cown. Not just a fundamental part of the plan not a fundamental part of the plan but just supplementary information. Thank you. Doctor Hawking. Thank you. On the first question yes we will stop using this map. We already have it in that documentation but for the consultation we will be changing the colour scheme. On the issue of this I guess it's the shared sites between South Cown and the city. Now as you rightly pointed out this is a joint plan. We have looked at needs and jobs and assessed those across both areas we are looking at the areas as one. We have in the past and we still do have a number of sites that straddle both local authority areas and that's one of the reasons why I think the inspector at the last local planning examination actually encouraged us to create a joint plan because trying to decipher this is what South Cown will do or this is what the city will do or need or have was getting more complicated. We have a plan here that looks across the past. I wouldn't say it doesn't matter where how many is in the city or how many is in South Cown because I know that those who live in both areas would like to know but my emphasis is on the fact that we are looking at this jointly and we should be talking about the numbers jointly not this is what is in South Cown in the city. I think one thing to point out is that within South Cown itself the villages have been protected mostly because we only have 384 homes proposed in five rural villages. So that stands out in itself because we are not dispersing development but trying to concentrate it where it's most sustainable. I hope that answers your question Councillor Van der Waite. Thank you. Do you have a follow up? Next Councillor Dr Richard Williams Thank you chair. Just before I start I've actually got quite a number of questions so I don't know whether you prefer me to ask some and then let others know. Can you just sort of try and factor me for the follow on meeting can you emphasise the housing number one first and just keep it to one get it into one question. I can't possibly scrutinise this without I just can't and I think it's important that we aren't allowed to scrutinise but I'm more than happy to ask some and then Paul's for other members can come back. How many have you got? Six. Can you ask them very succinctly and we'll... I will do my best. First question. Do you accept the uncertainty inherent in employment estimates and predicting future growth on the basis of that or rather do you accept the uncertainty inherent in employment estimates and therefore the predicting future growth is in large part a matter of judgement on the growth on the basis of employment estimates. I would cite I think you already heard it before but power 9.11 of the employment and land review estimating employment is intrinsically difficult and it is arguably becoming even harder there is no unambiguously right answer 9.15 it is clearly difficult to agree exactly how much employment growth Greater Cambridge has seen in the recent past I cite that because of course the housing number is derived directly from projections on the basis of employment which the report itself acknowledges are highly uncertain. Would you accept as my second question sorry Dr Richard Williams that is yes quite a long question so we're going to have to take one question at the moment and then let up people have a go and then I will have to see how long it takes thank you cancer doctor Tim Hawkins would you like to answer the first one yes thank you I wish everything was certain in life but it's not the case yes there is a level of uncertainty in predictions that's by their predictions but what we have done is to get as much evidence as we possibly could on what we expect growth to be and some of this is based on what we have seen happen over the last few years this area is growing and is growing quite quickly we have also had the benefit of the Spears report now Cambridge Cambridge and Peterborough we have had that report which showed us that the growth in the greater Cambridge area has been quite significant more significant than had previously been predicted and if we were to carry on in the way that it is going definitely the numbers that we have predicted seem to be the reasonable approach we agree there is uncertainty but we need to make sure that whatever it is that we put before an inspector we can justify and we can do that with the numbers we have come up with with the evidence that we have thank you I will go down the list and come back to you if there is sufficient time okay doctor sorry not doctor councillor Dr my question takes us back to the point that councillor Daunton made about bringing forward the delivery of housing at Water Beach Newtown and I just wanted to remind those preparing the plan that the approval for Water Beach Newtown Phase 1 is contingent upon a trip budget for maximum numbers of vehicles to be added to the A-10 i.e. not very many and so any subsequent phase of Water Beach Newtown also needs to be contingent upon that same trip budget for the A-10 so reference to that that there is a need to balance those two requirements thank you councillor Dr Tim Hawkins yes we take on both the fact that by bringing forward delivery we would have to make sure there is a refreshing of the looking at the trip budget alongside that because that you might end up obviously with bringing things forward means you read that trip budget quicker so we would be looking at working with our highways colleagues to make sure that we don't exceed that thank you councillor Brannan does that answer your question? thank you yes it does next councillor Capcart just not really one question no just a relationship between the anticipated number of houses which means 7,200 and the buffer the buffer is actually quite a high proportion of the total number of houses about 60% and a buffer to my mind is a contingency something you want to keep in reserve in case you need it however when you look at the way the plan is crafted and the way that the sites and we've identified specific sites to cope for not only the anticipated 7,200 but also the buffer for the after 11,000 we've actually already anticipated we will need that buffer because of the way whereas a buffer what I'm really saying is you may find at the end of the day you don't need the buffer because all the sites and all the houses you've identified will come to fruition as you anticipate therefore there may be a risk of actually providing more sites than you need by actually assuming that the buffer will be required you see what I'm saying that's a great question okay cancerdoctor Timmy Hawkins cancerdoctor Richard Williams can you turn your mic off please oh sorry right yes I do see what you're saying but the 10% if you look at that is the 10% of the overall figure not the 10% of the 7,200 and what that means is we're still saying that yes there might be a risk that some of the sites in the current plan themselves might not deliver which is why we need to look at it in the round okay but bear in mind that all of this isn't going to be delivered within the plan period is that many of this will be further down the line so there's an opportunity further down the line to actually also revise what we provide I'm not objecting to a buffer as such I think it's a useful thing to have it's just that we need to bear in mind and it may not be required in its totality it may not we don't know that but we need to be exactly okay supplementary or your question answered councillor Kefcart okay councillor Chung Johnson hi I'm asking these questions partly as the member for award which is building out the biggest new town so obviously sensitivity around new settlements we're already experiencing so I'm hoping some of what I've had to say is experience sharing for future stages that water beach and born airfield and other sites we'll see so just reiterating we've already made the points on the maps but just to ensure it's not just a colour scheme that needs to change on this is page 46 and page 60 figures 4 on page 46 and page 60 figure 9 but it's also the numbers so there's some confusion sorry that north stone numbers looked like they were increasing I think we need to make it crystal clear we were not increasing numbers in north stone you're just talking about increased build out rates so we in this room know the details more we're more aware but I think when you go out to consultation just make it really clear because it did cause a panic also also in addition I understand councillor Dr Hawkins the point you're making about it being a joint plan but I think there is some consternation from residents feeling that South Cams are taking the brunt of the additional growth so during the consultation process you may be asked specifically how many houses is Canberra city building and do we have an answer to that and do we have a justification for that that we're ready for councillor Dr Turing Hawkins please respond thank you yes this map this map and the colour scheme we'll get it right for the consultation promise on the second issue I think it's it is unfortunate that we have had some people who have been scared and angry and what we will try and make sure we do is to have the the information that we need to answer that sort of question but I must emphasise this is a joint plan and the moment we start breaking it down into cities taking this and South Cams is taking that we will find ourselves just going around in circles frankly and causing consternation where there really shouldn't be we need to look at this as a joint plan otherwise why are we doing it okay any follow up councillor Cone thanks very much chair just two quick questions the first was on housing numbers in terms of the equation that's being used and how much does that sort of factor the pandemic I know that's difficult with an emerging local plan to factor that into emerging equations but how much has that been factored in terms of growth, housing numbers and sort of commercial development the second one I think is linked to housing numbers but it's a question on neighbourhood plans so on page 265 of our pack and the information is the same number we talk about the need to encourage neighbourhood plans to sort of allocate sites or additional housing numbers essentially within those neighbourhood plans which I think is a good thing and should be in the policy but I just wondered if the policy in here had enough bite in terms of where that would be applicable and how much influence the neighbourhood plan would have over exception sites because it talks about the local plan and the neighbourhood plan essentially sort of being overridden for exception sites but gives then detail on why that would be the case but where it talks about rural exception sites will be allowed in Greenbell only when it can be demonstrated that non-Greenbell alternative sites are not available I just wondered who's demonstrating that who's involved in that and whether that could be padded out within that policy but that's all Thank you Dr Tim Hawkins to the spawn please Yes, thank you Let me take the last one first Now you will be aware I think Councillor Coon that we have in South Cam some villages that are completely entirely within the Greenbelt So if they wanted affordable housing or exception sites it would logically be in the Greenbelt and in fact I do know of a couple of such villages who had a request for affordable housing to be allocated within the local plan for them or on exception sites but you can't do that within the local plan if you were to allocate a site within the local plan not an exception site it's exception because it's not in the local plan that's the difference so in that case it's easily demonstrable however I'm sure there are ways in which we can demonstrate that there aren't any other sites available you know if it was not completely entirely within the Greenbelt but I can't see that unless it's a village that is on the edge of the Greenbelt and the potential site is within the Greenbelt we can demonstrate I'm sure when it comes to exception sites this has been going on for a while we know how to do this and we'll be able to demonstrate it in terms of it was two questions wasn't it yes impact of Covid I think we're all still finding out what the impact of Covid is and the in an area like ours where we have seen that even during the pandemic once we went out of the first lockdown business kind of restarted a lot of research work can't be done at home and there's a lot of that that goes on in this area but we are mindful that the need for office space might be different but the need for research space might not I'll give you an example Born Quarter which is next to my village is a completely the Born Quarter itself was an employment site still is an employment site and the developers when they started to build it came up with phase one phase three we will do that further down the line they are now coming in for the pre-app for phase two potentially because they have found the take up of their phase one site has been quite high that in itself is an indication that there is growth still happening probably even faster than we think it is happening so we will have to be very careful obviously as we carry on with the plan to make sure that whatever evidence there is we can gather it and we can use it in determining I guess the final figures that we will require for employment space thank you Do you have a supplementary Councillor Cain? No chair, I think that sort of was getting at the question I was asking with the neighbourhood plans essentially what I was getting at was both the local and neighbourhood plans I was just worried that the policy didn't imply that they could be sort of overridden if you like I know exception sites are exceptional to what is already in the local plan but if you had a neighbourhood plan that was allocating local housing need and there was an exception site that wasn't within that neighbourhood plan that came forward I was just sort of making sure the wording didn't imply that that could be overridden as well essentially but I think you have answered that in Okay, um Thank you neighbourhood plans have to be in line with the local plan the neighbourhood plan cannot override the local plan right and if a neighbourhood plan is wanting to include something that is an exception site obviously we have officers who work with the community to bring forward the neighbourhood plan but it will definitely be in line with the local plan but the exception I would like to say before will be outside of what is in the plan It does not override the local plan Okay, Wichle Can we move on now to councillor Dr Martin Cahn When you measured the numbers you were basically based upon employment but historically since the war much of the increase in housing has been due to reduction in house size Has size been taken into account in the estimates at all or how has it been taken into the estimates it has quite an implication and a number of factors in terms of the type of housing you are providing and in terms of the certainly the type of housing you are providing and in terms of the to do with HMOs you may want to decide that if you are having a problem with numbers you may need more small houses you may need to increase the controls for instance by withdrawing using an awful four directions to withdraw rights down to three like a number of London boroughs have done so it might have an effect on small villages where you have quite a wave in villages of any small house by building extensions so that smaller houses are reduced these are factors which depend upon house house size and predictions and your policies How much has that been taken into account? Thank you chair I think I will pass this one on to Jonathan Dixon Thank you So one of the evidence studies we have prepared and is available to you is a study looking at effectively those housing needs so it translates and I repeat for the number of jobs that is to make it come to the area or needing homes looking at what sort of homes they are needed household size issues and so on so there is a complex evidence base looking at those issues not just from the employment but also the housing needs population growth element as well so those issues very much have been part of it and the mix that we need will also inform what we need to plan for on sites and that is very much captured in the housing theme of the plan as well so the important issue that has been looked at in detail Do you have a supplementary or is your question answered? OK We have councillor Sue Ellington who does not sit in the committee but can take a question then we will turn back to councillor Dr Richard Williams if your questions have not have already been answered and then after that I would like to move on to more on the allocations and green belts Thank you for indulging me You say that most of these houses are going to be in large sites like Nallster and Camborn and so on and not affecting our villages but you've also put a substantial number of homes which are going to be windfall sites and I just wondered whether there is a criteria about how large a windfall can be because you know some rather large gardens can manage 30 houses quite comfortably and it just can have a dynamic effect on relatively small villages when you get a influx of new people as I know Thank you Thank you councillor Ellington for your question I would like to think that when a windfall site does come up we look at it within the context of the policy for the hierarchy of that village and there would have to be exceptional circumstances I would imagine for us to deviate from that so we have limits of I think good villages it's 8 and 15 if it's a site to be reused I mean it's got 34 rural and minor rural so we will be following that criteria as quickly as we possibly can I hope that assures you councillor Ellington do you have a follow up? Thank you OK, back to councillor Dr Richard Williams I hope some of your questions may have been answered far away with the next one One was, councillor Ellington just asked one of my questions so there we are, we're making progress We're making progress just coming back to this city and South Cams issue, I've got two questions so I'll try and delight them into one I mean just on the question councillor Johnston, those figures are actually key documents and in the key facts document we were given 14,022 houses in city, 34,772 in South Cams that's not scaremongering, that's in the council's own documents and you know the facts may be scary but they are the facts anyway, so those key facts, those figures that are given by the council in the key facts document they equate to an annualised need for 616 houses per year in the city over the plan period the South Cams the annualised number of houses needed per year is 1,656 of the number of houses required in that plan on that basis is actually very similar to the standard method the standard method number for Cambridge in December 2020, House of Commons Library Research is 662 we're proposing 668 it's virtually exactly the same the difference for South Cams though is huge, the standard method calculation again, same source in December is 1,083 houses in South Cams per year annualised over the course of the plan we're proposing 1,656 it's 53% more but this comes to the number of my question, in the housing and employment relationships report which translates the employment figure you want to aim for into housing need 123 of that document on a one-to-one commuting ratio applying that to city and South Cams that document says that there is a need on our own calculations on your own methodology for 990 houses in city per year and 1,120 in South Cams so one of my questions, not the last one one of my questions is how did those figures in a calculated need on your method in that housing report become very different figures where all of the extra housing is loaded on to South Cams and none of it is loaded on to city how did that happen? Councillor Dr Williams could you turn off your mic please Councillor Dotsitumi Hawkins please respond Thank you chair, I probably will like to take this into part Councillor Dr Richard Williams quoted 1,434 500 figures for South Cams and the city those are in the current adopted local plans they were created separately we have figures we have substantial numbers already in the current adopted local plans that is a fact and those are being carried forward into the emerging local plan that is a fact too they are not new they are in what is already in the pipeline In terms of Please can you let the lead member for planning respond and then you will have a chance to follow up Please listen, thank you Thank you chair You have raised some very I guess it's a very technical detailed question which I don't have the answer to but I will ask the officers to please provide some answers to that second part of the question Did that be as a written response or do you have the answers on you now Paul Frainer I think we should provide a written response that I believe is a similar question to what was asking our LPAC question I think we've got some further detail on that because obviously as you understand it is quite a complex piece of economic modelling I think the difficulty is being able to explain it in a situation that provides you with all the detail you're looking for So a written response to that question I think if it's very very detailed that's probably the most accurate and detailed way to get the right answer Do you have one final one which you could encapsulate Well there are two further questions chair I want to ask I don't want to be difficult but I would press the point this is a local plan Go ahead Just on that point and again maybe a written answer would be useful for this one as well but this is a question about the economic modelling of employment and again the different impact of that modelling has on the city and on south camps So this model that's been developed with those extra employment projections in those three areas Now if you compare that to the East of England economic forecast model the difference between the employment growth figure you come out with the city on the EEFM model and on the bespoke model you've got it's actually very small the EEFM growth figures this is backward looking 2011 2017 it's 2.8% in EEFM it's 3% with the model you've derived so there's not much of a difference but again you see with south camps is the EEFM figures for south camps it's 1.5% but the figure for your model is 3.4% it's more than double and then if you project that forward again we can see the same thing so EEFM projects 1.1% growth in south camps employment over the period your model projects 1.2% very similar Look at south camps EEFM predicts 0.5% employment growth your model predicts 1.1% so again it's more than double so in as much as you're making the argument that the EEFM model is inapplicable to greater Cambridge I would actually argue that it's inapplicable to south camps it's not inapplicable to Cambridge it works pretty much the same as your model which again goes back to this point about the way that the methodology that's been chosen is one way or another loading growth on south camps in this case forcing employment growth south camps up to the level of city effectively and that's the key really effect of that model that you choose so I would like some explanation or some more explanation as to why this model you've developed has such a different effect in south camps to what it has in the city Councillor Dr Richard Williams have you got one final one as well is that a short one okay I'll make it a very short one and this one is just an overall question just about the final choice on the medium growth the sustainability appraisal that we have says minimum growth scenario which is the standard method tends to have fewer negative effects than the other methods it talks about the high growth scenario which has been rejected on sustainable that's having positive effects and it talks about the medium growth as lying somewhere between the two has more negative effects and fewer positive effects it looks like the worst of both worlds but the sustainability report it tells us that the medium scenario is worse in terms of local services strain on local services it's worse in terms of conserving and enhancing habitats it's worse in terms of enhancing the character and the distinctiveness of south camps it's worse on the historic environment it's worse on water as we know but the sustainability report also says that it will make no difference in terms of sustainable growth and it will make no difference in terms of maintaining and enhancing employment so I am a bit confused on the sustainability appraisal as to why the medium growth scenario has been chosen given what that report says that it will be worse for quite a number of areas it will make no difference economically yet we seem to have chosen that one it's a bit inexplicable but the information on that would be helpful too thank you thank you Dr Timmy Hawkins please go ahead thank you chair I will I will defer to Mr Freyna further down the line but just to perhaps remind us that when the devolution deal was signed it was predicated on growth in this region and the mayor at the time was I think his policy was to double GVA which means there was going to have to be a lot of growth and also please bear in mind we are within the Oxcam arc and the the government's agenda is to encourage and facilitate the growth within the arc and let's not forget we also have the Spears report which I referred to earlier on again which shows that the growth that we have actually experienced was way above what was previously predicted so you could say predictions we talked about that earlier on there's an inherent risk in that an uncertainty but what we have to do is make sure that we do the best we can to to take account of what we think will be the growth based on what we have experienced a previous model is talking about perhaps I will come back but perhaps I can ask Mr Frainer to add to the response Thank you councillor Hawkins and yeah we note your points councillor Williams and I think the one thing to state is that it will be helpful to get a full detailed kind of picture of your exact kind of questions that we can answer in response in the technical detail and I'll do my best to add a little bit me to round the bones now I think in terms of the EFM model that you described it doesn't necessarily deal particularly well with the sectors that we have in this area and that's why we've had a separate piece of economic modelling done and I think the Spears report which councillor Hawkins referred to which is a significant key piece of evidence for this area which is commissioned by the combined authority back in 2017 states some very different figures as well I think it's important to remember that we have to demonstrate a robust evidence base at examination and that's the point of making a local plan and to underplay our need in this area would not be correct and not be reflective of what we would need to do and also it would be challenged at examination in public so we need to be very clear that once we've established that need we have done our own economic work on that is our established need and my colleague John may be able to help a little bit further with the sustainability appraisal but as we have established a need we need to work to that need and the sustainability appraisal is there as a sense check to pick up on all the points of sustainability that we need to address in meeting that need and their options for us to take that further down the line so John, did you want to come in on the sustainability appraisal? Absolutely My essay is an important document but it's one element of our significant evidence base it did explore back in November and part of this process as well different choices available to the plan but in terms of our levels of development locations of that development and it did highlight differences across scenarios, across growth levels I think on some of the numbers you've talked about clearly both the need the standard method, the low and the medium will both have significant effects on delivery of housing jobs so they will still have significant effects but ultimately it comes down to the level of need identified as to what the objective of the assessed need is and clearly it's come about through a significant evidence base that's informing the plan does the sustainability appraisal indicate that some of the impacts of higher levels of growth might be higher yes it identifies uncertainty around those impacts because it comes down to then how we plan on a site specific basis and clearly moving the plan forward from those testing board options what we aim to do is move from those uncertainties through to having greater certainty where we can look at those impacts and how they can be mitigated and use that essay tool to inform our process Thank you I count on Dr Richard Williams who will be receiving detailed responses in written responses because they are very detailed questions Thank you Okay, we have got a question online from Councillor Heather Williams but I'm going to ask her to write in with the question again for a written response I would like to sum up briefly the housing numbers point Excuse me I will have to take legal advice on that because I was unaware that you were substituting on this committee Rory McKenna could you come in please for us in senior can you respond I was absolutely unaware that Councillor Heather Williams was sitting today on the committee Would it be an idea to come back to that and we move on to allocations whilst you search up the email in senior Rory McKenna or do we need to wait to see Perhaps I would like to re-send the email to the email to verify the variables Okay, are we okay to continue whilst that's sorted and Rory McKenna could you get back to us Yeah Okay Lots of detail and thank you very much for your questions committee on that aspect of this summarising and since we're at a first proposal stage where we are looking to see how this is going to be shaped going forward what I am understanding as a broad point from people's comments are that there's a few things like map to be updated which we've been assured will happen with the colour scheme changed in it identification I think we've had clarity on what's been densified where it's been densified and where new homes have been brought forward faster with the point made by Councillor Bradman that the trip budgets will have to be in sync with that and not to stop development and we have to be very careful points raised principally by Councillor Dr Richard Williams about jobs, homes and predictions how it is difficult to predict this kind of thing I think also the flexibility needed and again with Councillor Cohn Covid and its impact and how we have to be very mindful of that not just the homes allocation but also office space and jobs in the future and how that will change or will it go back to how it was before to a certain extent so the major picture here is that flexibility needs to stay in we need to be alive to what's changing and that this is not in concrete at this moment I now would like to move on to allocations and we have a question from Councillor Peter Fein I'll be reading out Peter Fein's question because we've got a problem with hearing the team session on the live feed so question from Councillor Peter Fein on this item is what robust evidence is being relied upon if assuming that East West Rail will definitely go ahead unlike the expressway and be in place before the end of the plan period is it premature to place reliance upon a particular C2C option being completed by 2025 since the OBR has yet to be considered there is no EIA no formal decision has been taken by the GCP and it's yet to go to public enquiry or be approved by ministers Okay, Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins infrastructure obviously along with allocations there Yes, thank you chair I consider we have been engaging with East West Rail in the best way that we can and we've also based our proposals on information that is publicly available obviously the fact that we are taking account of what the government is planning in this area means we are putting our you know we are being proactive in ensuring that we we are trying to align what we propose with what the government is saying should happen and it's encouraging to happen we don't know for certain and we've already said this that we don't know for certain when East West Rail will come but we do know that it will it will come potentially not until the second half of the plan period that is as far as we can go for now in terms of the C2C the C2C is a piece of infrastructure that underpins the delivery of Borne airfield as contained in the current adopted local plan and there needs to be something delivered along those lines now the pace of development of that obviously is down to the GCP the EIA environmental impact assessment is being undertaken now I believe and so a decision will be taken sooner or later once that is completed and we should bear in mind that a lot of this has undergone a lot of discussion and thought we're not just doing this because it's easy to do it's not easy to do so all the information we have is out there in the public and it's the best foot forward that we can put at this point in time Thank you, I will try and ascertain if we have a supplementary from Councillor Peter Fein and can we go back to Rory McKenna please for legal advice or an update I understand that and Councillor Peter Fein does not have a supplementary to that question once again can Rory McKenna update us on the situation regarding whether Councillor Heather Williams is sitting on this committee receiving or not Sorry, we have Rory McKenna, I can see your photo, your vision your image on the screen Are we ready? Since that newt message has only just come to me now I will go with the second option and she will not be sitting on the committee but I will permit her to ask the question via our technical system we have here via Councillor Sarah Trun Johnson I presume you have it written down so I believe that Councillor Williams is having problems typing into the chat so if we could ask Councillor Williams to say it on the teams and I'm going to have to repeat it for the live feed and we can hear you, go ahead Thank you Councillor Heather Williams Councillor Sarah Trun Johnson has written it down and will now read it aloud Thank you So, perifies on Councillor Williams' question there is some confusion on the housing numbers which are referred to in the current local plan there are members here and in parish councillors who don't recognise these numbers these numbers have come about because of additional housing numbers in different areas would cabinet be able to separate what was in the original plan what has become additional to that plan so as to avoid confusion because we're having a situation where residents don't recognise the figures I hope that's a good summary sorry Councillor Timmy Hawkins Thank you chair I'm surprised that some councillors who were here pre-2018 claimed they don't recognise those numbers it's in the current adopted local plans which are available on both websites of South Cams and the city there is this diagram on page 53 of our papers which I think was actually also in the presentation we had earlier on which says that the new homes already in the pipeline for 2020-2041 is 37,200 and they are sites which are already allocated in current local plan and sites which already have planning permission and on windfall sites which are not specifically identified in the plans but which are policy compliant so 37,200 is what is in the pipeline already as explained now I think I understand what councillor Heather Williams is asking what we can do is provide that number to her as we'll go look in the policy documents and I'm sure we've got them and give her those numbers as to what is in South Cams local plan currently answer Dr Tim Hawkins are you proposing that as a written response or for written response councillor Heather Williams you'll obviously receive a written response to that do you have a follow up question councillor Trun Johnson can you relate that please just to clarify councillor Williams we can hear you in the room I'm just paraphrasing for the live feed so you're just clarifying that the amount of permissions given on top of the current local plans mean that the numbers do not tally so it's these additional housing numbers that you are requesting can I just check councillor Heather Williams is that a yes to that is that correct thank you I'll direct that back to councillor Timmy Hawkins thank you chair I'm sure that we can provide councillor Heather Williams with a breakdown which will also include the number of homes that are granted planning permission when the council didn't have a fire housing land supply pre-2018 thank you moving now to councillor Dr Claire Daunton on allocations yes thank you chairman so I'm looking at page 100 to 103 of our agendas which I think is pages 80 to 83 of the local plan document it's really a question of clarification on the allocations for Cambridge East Cambridge East is a general well it could be seen in two ways and it's really a clarification and I think this will be really important when it goes out for public consultation Cambridge East can refer to the airport site to the Marshalls airport site which has been taken out of the green belt since 2006 and earmarked for development but Cambridge East also refers generally to the developments in the east which include two developments in the current local plan Marley on Newmarket Road and land north of Terry Hinton which is the far part of the western part of the airport site so it is very confusing and then there's the Cambridge area east action plan on the Cambridge Eastern access scheme so I would really put in a plea that when this document goes out for consultation if Cambridge East is referring to the Marshalls airport site which will become available from 2030 that is made absolutely clear and that the numbers refer to the Cambridge airport site the number 7500 refer to the Cambridge airport site I hope my point is clear Mike please Councillor Dotson to you Hawkins can you clarify that question please I think I understand the concern that's been raised and we will do that along with the mapping clarification as previously promised Okay councillor Dr Kerr Daunton any supplementary or you're happy with that Yes thank you very much obviously since it's a concern for my ward it would be really helpful to see the clarification before it goes out if possible Will you be able to take that on board thank you very much Next councillor Wanderai Thank you very much Yes I have a question about the allocation for the Cambridge biomedical campus which I have raised before but I have a slightly different question about it so just to remind everybody there's a new allocation of land especially on the biomedical campus in the green belt and so on page 108 of the port, 88 of the map so there's the new allocation which is SCBCA as well as showing the allocation in the last local plan in south comes SCBCE2 which we had some debate on in previous years so there's the allocation and also the introduction of this area of major change which is the blue line which includes at the side of White Hill running down towards Adam Brooks so quite important running up to the edge of Ninewells so as explained in the policy this area that's within the blue line but outside the red line is proposed to be part of the infrastructure landscaped really exciting things potentially happening there I think that my concern is to me you'll know very well if an area is sort of included in some sense in the policy there's room for could be room for variation and pushing the boundaries a little bit in the future and I was wondering whether we couldn't somehow strengthen probably more for the consultation to the conversation whether we can strengthen the clarity that the area outside the red line but inside the blue line is not for development but for other uses so it's a sort of a separate allocation rather than part of that allocation I hope it makes a bit of sense and I hope you can sort of sense the danger to me undoubtedly can cancer doctor Timmy Hawkins please respond thank you chair and through you I do understand where cancer doctor van der Wa is coming from and I'm sure that we should be able to have a look at the warding of that policy and make it stronger so that we don't end up with development in that area that is within the blue but outside the red so I hear him and we will do our best to make sure that's the case it's a follow up or are you happy with the answer cancer doctor Richard Williams a question thank you chair there are actually two questions but they're very short so allocation in Great Shelford between mingle lane and Hinton Way could some indication be given for that allocation of the maximum capacity with improved access it's a 10 hectare site it's been taken out of the green belt it was rejected before but it's only being suggested for 100 homes nobody will build a 10 houses for hectare on that site it's going to be much more I would imagine because the premium that will be available on houses to create better access so I think to be fair to the residents of Great Shelford some more clarity on the maximum capacity would be helpful secondly close to home Wittleton Parkway there's a proposed special policy area I understand the reasons for that because of the GCP proposals but there are actually two listed buildings in that proposed special policy area there's the Duxford Chapel and there's the red line so I can't see any reference to that and I would imagine that the presence of those buildings could be on what's possible at least part of that site so I'd like to see that reflected if it could be in the consultation thank you Doctor Doctor Hawkins which question first thank you chair I'll take the second one first Wittleton Parkway obviously this is a stage where right now we're looking at it as an option policies are not firmed up yet but we are hoping that we will get feedback from all concern when it does go to consultation I understand your concern but again you know we've had developments near too close to opposite to listed buildings and those it's not, it's a land impediment it just might affect what gets built but yes we will listen to consultation feedback on the first one I'm not sure we know what the maximum capacity might be if there was a second access that is an if what we are allocating now or proposing to allocate now doesn't have that access so you're asking us to do over and above what we're currently proposing I think perhaps I'll ask Jonathan if he might comment on this so at the moment clearly it's proposed for 100 dwellings reflectments at the moment it's clearly proposed for 100 dwellings reflecting the site access policy we also need to acknowledge that it would need to accommodate significant landscaping particularly reflecting the edge of village location and that is what is included in the plan clearly if an alternative access was proposed we need to look again at that site as may come if it's possible but our proposal is clearly as set out with the 100 dwellings as the landscape and so on a follow up just a quick one can I just press that point because all the other allocations have got densities of 30 dwellings I think on one of the Melbourne sites so I think it would be helpful to residents if we could give some indication because I think everybody can see what it's likely to be with improved access yep okay councillor Henry Bachelor thank you chair I've got a comment and then a question if I may just add a bit of variety and I'd just like to speak up generally in support of the allocations policy I was hoping when the allocations were released that we would be following the similar general policy of trying to concentrate the housing numbers into existing and forthcoming larger settlements rather than disperse them amongst the villages as we have done in the last i.e. the current local plan that we are operating within so I was pleased to see that when the allocations were released and as someone who represents an entirely rural area with no large settlements within it the very much the feeling from the villages is we'd like to remain as villages and retain the rural way of life so I was just like to speak up generally in support of that particular allocations policy question was more about process so presumably after this local plan proposal goes through the various public consultations and committee stages we will as a council have to agree and sign it off given the fact it's a joint local plan with Cambridge City what would happen if we were in the situation where we as South Cams agreed to the local plan but the city didn't and had concerns would it simply fall dead or what would be the process there That's there Dr Timmy Hawkins I'll pass that to you and hoping you can respond Oh wow I would like to think we wouldn't bring your plan to council that hasn't been talked through by both authorities and agreed to in principle Yes Would you like to ask for help from Paul Frainer? Yeah Paul Frainer What will we do? I think the question and I will have to check this but it will have to be agreed by both councils committees and councils Can you speak into your mic? Sorry as far as I would understand it would have to be agreed by both councils why obviously we've put a huge amount of time to working through that with all members to try and come up with a plan that meets both and it's a very tricky thing to do a joint plan but I think that's the key point from a governance perspective would need to be agreed by both council committees to go to consultation in November and as a point of reference the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee for Cambridge City I think is next week or the following week so it will be decided at the meeting Do you have a follow up? No just to say sorry for putting you on the spot there but it's a stranger things have happened so thank you My comment is on the Okington site so just as a heads up you will get tremendous amount of opposition to this site I would just recommend that full consultation that you put in a little bit more justification for the choice of this site other than the proximity to the busway because obviously it is in green belt but it is on flood land Okington itself feels like it is already being swallowed up by North Sado and it just feels a little bit picked on especially as we are trumpeting that most of this plan does not affect villages but it feels like it's it's been hit by the double whammy of having both North Sado and these additional houses in its plan so my request if we could would just beef up the justification because it is quite thin thank you Can you take that unbaws councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins Yes certainly we will make sure that we have additional information that goes out with public consultation and chair if I might through you whilst I still have the floor just to say thank you to councillor Batchelor for his comments on the allocations what you appreciated councillor Peter Fane has a follow up on his allocation question which I believe councillor Jim Johnson will read out So on behalf of councillor Peter Fane what evidence do we have that all the criteria in NPPF paragraph 141 for exceptional circumstances to justify removal of land from green belt have been met particularly in relation to the 10 hectare site in Great Shellford including the optimiser the density of development But before you answer councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins a number of questions have merged with the allocations in green belt so if we take any other green belt questions at the moment and this is one of them Thank you chair through you I mean obviously we are aware of the sensitivities of the green belt and what I can say broadly is that we wouldn't be bringing or making proposals in the preferred options to take land out of the green belt if we hadn't considered all the the circumstances that would justify it I mean some might say that we haven't given enough information but we will try and provide more where it's possible to do so but to councillor Fane's question I would say that we have considered the exceptional circumstances in line with the MPP paragraph that he quotes I'm not sure that's anything else that I'm not sure Do you require a full-franer would you like to allocate the officer to answer? Yeah thanks I think the matter is exploring quite significant detail within the topic paper Sorry the mic again a little bit closer I've never been told I've got my voice before so I think the matter on green belt and exceptional circumstances is exploring quite significant detail within the topic paper within the document library on the published documents Okay so councillor Peter Fane is there in detail councillor Cathcart Yes beefy Yes I'd just like to really hear what councillor Bachelors said that I think the officers have done a good job in crafting a plan which has actually recognised that many of the existing villages have significant growth over the years and the vast bulk of the rural area has broadly escaped development so I think that's something that actually personally it should be welcomed and I think many members would probably agree to that it's not as if the existing villages don't take any development there are developments already in the pipeline which are going through there are windfall sites that can be significant in the context of many villages and there are neighbourhood plan opportunities for those villages that are seeking development and will actually enhance the local environment and the population's needs and this plan recognises the individuality and diversity of individual settlements in the villages and the need to retain it at handset so I think it's to be welcomed Thank you councillor Cohn it's yours on allocations green belt topic area Thanks very much chair so like councillor Cathcart and councillor Bachelor there are many of my villages that are protected via the current local plan and this emerging local plan but also within my ward there are villages that have got very large scale developments on their doorstep coming about because of this plan if you looked at Tevesham and the development on the airfield that sits adjacent to their village which sort of brings them very close to sort of being in the city at that point and then if you also looked at the kneecap development a direct result of that development is that the water treatment plant has to move taking land out of green belt between Haulingsea and Fenditon which isn't illustrated within the plan so I suppose my question is should we for transparency's sake have that included within the maps and as an impact on green belt within this local plan given that they're hand in glove so that's my question Thank you Thank you chair and through you thank you councillor Cathcart for your comments much appreciated obviously as I said right at the beginning what we've tried to do is to listen and take account of what we heard from residents when we had the first conversation regarding councillor Cun's comments let me just remind us that Cambridge Airport was taken out of the green belt and is it protected safeguarded safeguarded development site so it's not a new site in the sense of it's brand new to this plan it's been safeguarded from previous plans I think last but one Cambridge Airport and the same for North East Cambridge and of course at the time yes it was predicated on the possibility of the water treatment plan moving and that is now a distinct possibility which is why we're now able to include it in the current local plan and I think you will be aware councillor Cun have been working on an area action plan for North East Cambridge we are doing that because that is what we can do the actual relocation itself is not our project it is being undertaken by Anglain water and the fact that it's been relocated to a site in the green belt is it's in the green belt it's not specifically part of this plan so I'm afraid I will not agree with your it's handing gloss so we should you know include the relocation in our plan it's not in our plan it's not work that we are doing and we will not be taking responsibility for that thank you Do you have a follow up councillor Cun? Just to say that councillor Hawkins Dr councillor Jeremy Hawkins is correct that both these sites or in the current local plan have been either taken out of a green belt but I think it is true to say that neither of those sites have been allocated any housing numbers it's only in the current or this emerging local plan that they're allocated housing numbers and it was the lead officer for planning Stephen Kelly that described the two sites as handing glove not me councillor Cun is that a question or does the comment you don't require a response or would you like to respond? Through you chair noted about the comment handing glove whatever that is the reason that numbers were not because conditions were not right the whole point of safeguarding a site is to say we want to develop this site at the time when the conditions are right when certain things can happen with North East Cambridge it was when the water treatment plant could move and now it is moving and with Cambridge airport it's when marshals are certainly going to move and they have confirmed that they are moving and they will be moving by 2030 so that's why the numbers can now be allocated that's the whole point of safeguarding, thank you chair Okay on this topic of Greenbelt we have Councillor Bradnam and then after that I'd like to move on to the environmental impact since I think we discussed this one fairly thoroughly, allocations on Greenbelt together go ahead Thank you chair I just wanted to also talk make a statement really about the Greenbelt and I just wanted to welcome the reiteration of our intention to respect as we apply to the NPPF protections afforded to the Greenbelt and especially so between the villages of Milton, Heston and Impington because without this section of Greenbelt space between the villages which I very much appreciate to protect the merging of these villages they would either merge with each other as we are under a great deal of pressure in our area at the moment or indeed they would merge with the north of Cambridge and we you know I'm very grateful that that hasn't, it's not an area that's been taken out of the Greenbelt allocation because it's extremely precious to the northeast corner of Cambridge so thank you very much Councillor Badden, just a comment then for response Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins Just to say thank you to you for your comments, we acknowledge that and obviously we want to do our best for our concern we wouldn't always have it right but we'll do the best we can, thank you I'll just summarise very briefly some of the points which have come up in that part of the discussion which I'm sure in Senior Democratic Services Officer is making copious notes and he will assist at the end of this meeting Okay, so Councillor Baster was saying in support of the policy of keeping the housing numbers in the larger settlements and close to the city and protecting our rural villages and a number of other councillers also reflected that in their comments Councillor Fame was aware of the sensitivities of the green belt and the exceptional circumstances and that was something also that Councillor Dr Williams Richard Williams was very concerned about the Great Shelfford one particularly being taken out of the green belt and if you're going to do that I think I'm right in summarising the allocation of the number of homes at the moment isn't really kind of likely shall we say then moving on to Councillor Caffcott was broadly very supportive of the general direction of the plan and its approach to allocation and we also have just running through the notes I've made Councillor Cohn has expressed concern about the anglin water moved to of the water treatment plant to release that brownfield site although it was pointed out that is beyond our control as a local planning authority in the sense that it's a government a federal government's decision with the HIPPID to support the numbers of housing which could come forward and hence why areas have been safeguarded along with the airport marshals and finally Councillor Bradman welcomes the protection of the green belt as do I in between Milton, Houston, Limpington and the making sure we do protect as much as we possibly can in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and just to stop everything merging together I would like to now move on to any questions on the kind of overall environmental impact so we're looking at climate change biodiversity et cetera and Councillor Hunt apologies Councillor Bradman I was just going to say would anybody appreciate a pause a comfort break at all we've been going since 4.30 I was quite happy to carry on but if we had should we call five minutes on that okay thank you we start after that comfort break and environmental impact in its fairly general sense Councillor Steve Hunt thank you chair yeah I'd like to talk about the section around the net zero carbon new buildings page 166, 167 in our papers I'm delighted to see that we are going to insist on higher standards of energy efficiency and so forth for building regulations it's fantastic to see that because 70 times in planning we've been told that we can't insist on that in that wonderful progress but then I assume on page 166 that there's what appears to be a bit of a get out clause of developers who can't meet the requirements who might better offset future proof to enable retrofitting now I think we all know retrofitting is not a desirable solution to insulation and energy efficiency so my question is what will be the criteria and how strict we make those criteria so it does not become kind of an easy to use get out clause to not meet these high standards we want to achieve and just a sort of small supplementary thing to that is on page 165 no new developments should be connected to the gas grid I wonder about that because are we not making an assumption about the future energy mix I mean it may well be that carbon neutral gas biogas or something might become significant or indeed pipe hydrogen might become significant so do we really want developments that may have to be dug up to put gas lanes in should that come about councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins two questions there please take both of them thank you chair and thank you for the comfort break we couldn't insist or we can't currently insist on certain requirements for reaching net zero carbon on buildings because it's not in the current local plan so obviously we're trying to now address that making sure that we put that in the current plan there are times when you can meet all the requirements on the site and from what we've seen so far there are times when you can't and you might have to offset it away from the site but that is the last least preferred option policy wording I'm sure we can work on that and strengthen it but we take note of that and we make sure that there isn't local so to speak so that those requirements are not met on the issue of gas and gas main I think we refer this point to natural gas main bearing in mind that government has decreed that is 2025 2025 there should be no more connections to mains gas so we're taking that into account in the current plan now I don't know if the current network will be suitable for non-natural I can't remember what you got but other types of gas but it's what it is where we're monitoring and we'll have to wait and see what comes up further down the line Chancellor Hunt do you have a follow up? Yeah just thank you for the answer Doctor to me I think I understand your points about we can't know what's going on my understanding is that biogas for example will go down ordinary gas mains and there are companies trying to prove feasibility of sending hydrogen down them so my other point would be that there probably are commercial and industrial uses of gas who will not be phased out as early as domestic boilers and we have to consider that developments do include commercial premises Thank you for that I'm sure we'll Paul Frainer are you going to step in here? Thank you yeah I think we know that hydrogen we understand is not really readily for residential properties it may be better used in heavy industries and to me is right in fact 2025 it will be phased out for residential but noting your policy wording offsetting a future future proving only are going to be considered for certain very strict types of development where densities only allow for renewables to be provided in certain ways so I think certainly this is the consultation for people to be able to provide feedback not just residents but for those who are delivering these solutions going forward as well so we can understand what the opportunities are for them but in terms of for us we need to be able to plan for readiness as well to be able to future proven terms of those will be extended as well Thank you Councillor Bradman Thank you chair I am looking at page I was looking at page 212 I think but rest assured I find the assurances concerning I'm thinking about water sufficiency and water relations so I find the assurances concerning sufficiency of water supply itemised on both page 27 of the document and page 41 very reassuring but referring to page 156 of the document which relates to the policy around flooding and integrated water management I had crafted a request that we might use some of the wording that came from the response to the first conversation and inserted in our policy and I'll explain how so the original on page 156 of the document under what consultation have we done on this issue I'd like to I would propose that we look at that wording not amend that but use that wording amended slightly in the policy so that we could say on page 155 under the proposed policy direction after the sentence where we say it's in the bottom paragraph on that page where it refers about what developments will be required to do and it says suds and green or brown roofs should provide multiple benefits such as biodiversity and amenity and then to add in development must demonstrate it is resilient or adapted to flooding flood management policies will ensure that the risk of flooding area is not increased as a result of new development so that would give a strong steer to our policy direction thank you answer dr Tumi Hawkins or if you want to pass out the poor frame there if it's more detailed can you answer I think I can I understand where councillor Bradlan is coming from for the suggestion when it comes to flood resilience we must not forget that we rely on a third organisation the flood authority that we consult on all applications we can require certain things but at the end of the day we do rely on them to tell us when a proposal does meet their criteria for being flood resilient we I think what I will do is ask councillor Bradlan to send us the proposed wording we can then have a look at that and make sure that we are not proposing something that we cannot deliver ourselves that we are relying on the flood authority for do you have a follow up councillor Bradlan yes thank you thank you councillor dr Hawkins this comes from my concern that any development should not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere which I appreciate is a it's a kind of cuts across both planning and flood resilience planning and I would just like this authority in developing its planning policies and in its thought processes approaching approval of any given planning application that it would be mindful that no development should increase the risk of flooding to any other property so if we can bear that in mind I would appreciate if we could put some wording into the policy to protect against that and I'll certainly send you the wording thank you councillor dr Stephen Hawkins can you answer that yes chair just to say quite quite aware of the issues regarding flooding cos I've had to deal with some of that myself and there's concerns expressed by residents across the pace you know you're doing this and somebody else is doing that but we have to work with the organisations, our statutory consult teams and we will need to do that better going forward so I appreciate the comments that's been made by councillor Bradlan and I'm sure you can send in the wording that you would like anyway thank you councillor dr Martin Cahn basically I was commenting on the condition which has determined the numbers which is the problem about water supply please direct your comments into the mic, thank you I'm talking about the problem about water supply which has been constrained on numbers I actually agree with that that's a big concern and the fact that there's no clear evidence of investment into providing water supply I'm worried about the fact that when you have a development when you apply for an application they always say well the water authority is bound to provide a sewage or water to the site and it's not used as a reason for refusal now if this is taken to the plan scale the fact that it's not going to be supplied may not be considered by the minister as a valid reason for restrictive development I wondered how you would approach that problem when we approach the minister I agree with the proposal but I'm worried about how it might be received councillor, can you respond yes chair potentially in part we have obviously listened to the comments we've had back and we know that water supply is a big concern which is why we have put that upfront to say this objectively as says need requires this many houses and offices and stuff like that but at the end of the day we can't deliver that if this major infrastructure is not in place and we will have to justify that at examination but we do know that there are plans in place by the water authorities and water resources in this to actually address the issue now we don't have control of the timetable for that but we do know that for example there's a reservoir plan which might come after 2030 but the plan starts 2020 to 2041 so what do we do in the meantime there is already talk about piping water from other areas that have supplied that we could use now again I don't have details of that yet we are at the early stage of this plan and we would expect to know more as time goes on as to how the issues can be addressed but in just to say so as a I hate to use the word backstop but if if the issue isn't resolved timely then obviously we might have to just phase in the development so we are considering all these issues and we will make sure that we are not putting our communities in a difficult position on ourselves really because at the end of the day we are applying authority but we are not the water authority councillor do you have a follow up yes simply to clearly there is a if you have problems with the minister through the chair have problems with the minister whether this is a plan is presented will this be is there any precedent of such issues being used to being supported in a plan or refused in planning local plans in previous times will be an experimental plan I am not specifically about this thing but I just think we ought to know about it councillor Dr Hawkins thank you chair I don't know if this is an issue that has come up before so I will defer porfreina I will defer to porfreina in the first instance it's in Turkey Mike thank you thank you I am not aware of any porfreina can you move your mic please and adjust the whole room thank you I am not aware currently of any specific plans but that doesn't mean they don't exist currently I think that we've put water really at the forefront of how we've presented this published work for the preferred option as essentially we have a development strategy but it is reliant on the fact that water infrastructure at a regional scale that solves these problems is absolutely crucial to being deliverable and at this stage of plan making which is a slightly less formal stage than we get down further down line it's a regulation 18 we can explore those options and we are working quite closely as much as possible with parts both water resources east and the water companies to say that this is an issue that we have to kind of work through and again with government and obviously the opportunities and the ambitions around the Oxcam arc may well be something that we can use to ensure that government understand how critical this is to the nature of what we are trying to achieve here but obviously we haven't shied away from presenting a plan that is incumbent on the fact that we have a water issue here which is a hugely problematic issue and has it solved our regional scale in terms of proper interventions okay thank you um we have a number of more speakers on the list in order councillor Cafricart, councillor Harvey councillor Van der Rhaia councillor Dr Richard Williams I am sensing that the environmental impact and the infrastructure is merging a bit so if we open those two up because they do overlap and I'll take councillor Cafricart next thank you yes the water supply is crucial as you mentioned and clearly don't report it's stubborn with references of conditionality and provisions for expressing the importance of the subject last time when we're on the conservation committee the actual nature of the underground water system is actually perfectly understood as far as I know I don't think anyone has actually done any serious work on it so we don't actually know how the whole thing flows at least that was the case a number of years ago and I'm a bit concerned that the water companies don't really seem to have done a huge amount of work as they talk about a reservoir and the fence and various other things that may be pumping it from other locations but a lot of work is vast and a lot of money is vast as well so I think that's something we need to look at but it also feeds into the other which is the most uninfrastructure as well but there's a reference centre of a pair and we're in statement of the area's chalk streams so what we're looking at is not just maintenance of a status quo i.e. keeping things from deteriorating we're looking actually for an improvement we're looking for a way to actually bring the flows back to the chalk streams and we're looking for ways to manage them in a way that they will actually flourish again as they did many years ago now that can only be done if we do manage our water resources properly then actually find some way of our punishing the springs and reinstating the flow which is not easy but it can be done because rivers can repair themselves if actually they're given a chance to our people, in fact if they're given a chance you'll get well a chalk stream will recover but it does need that commitment and I'm glad to see it's actually enshrined here that's something that needs to be worked on the other thing I just wanted to do quick items buildings one stage was talking about having a policy for the reuse of existing buildings which is actually quite a sound environmental policy because there's a huge amount of embedded carbon in existing buildings to demolish them and build something on the same site that's often very wasteful in terms of actually our carbon footprint so it'd be nice to see something here a presumption favourite reuse of existing buildings where it's possible clearly it can't be done in every case or even a majority of the cases but it can be considered as part of our policy of presumption favourite of reuse of existing buildings where it's sensible and practical and something along those lines and the other thing I've got is public footpaths under I don't know to look in vain for some reference perhaps it's there when I've escaped me public footpaths which are such an important asset in our villages and especially connecting between villages in fact and as a whole network of redundant or semi-redund and all generic derelict footpaths that could be held up enormously in the well-being agenda so I think that's something perhaps during the later stage of this process we can actually look at to see if we can do anything about that just the last point there is talk about conservation which is excellent but many of our villages we have a stock of listed buildings and important buildings we talk about heritage assets but looking at the document it looks at Slanton which is right very much in favour of Cambridge City which is a fine stock of important nationally important buildings but side by side at every single village or most of them have a fine high street in fact which would benefit from some degree of improvement so whereas a conservation issue here looking at how we can actually improve the quality of our high streets again it's long term but and also conservation areas and how we can actually bring those more to fruition so I think there's an issue here that could be better than this report so there are a lot of feel for issues there I think until Dr Timmy Hawkins please take them in the order you wish thank you chair and through you I'll take the water first I think in terms of dealing with this problem yes we identify it we know it needs to be resolved but there are a lot of extreme of particular concern as we know but the water authorities and DEFRA and those responsible are looking at the potential solutions but one thing I need to emphasise here is that there seems to be this what I call a wrong emphasis on house building being the cause of water shortage it is not we all use water commercial, business leisure, agriculture these are all big users of water house building and residential is just another user so I'd like us to kind of get that in context so that we're looking at water replenishment for all these older users not just for house building but you know the solutions potentially hopefully will come as Mr Frenner has explained previously working with the other bodies that can do something about it we are the planning authority we are not the water authority but we work with those other bodies to try and solve this problem about food parts yes it's not just food parts it's cycle parts as well linking our villages to make them more sustainable so people can get for perhaps a smaller ones when they can get a bus or something like that in terms of policies I'm not sure what we can do but I will leave my colleagues to add more to that reuse of buildings it won't always be possible but I'm sure where possible I mean even now you know we do try and get buildings to be reused but a lot of the time we do find that they're perhaps in a state that they can be used or the conversion is even more difficult than just knocking it down and building something else we can't be prescriptive but we can encourage with policies to make sure that buildings are reused wherever possible at this point I will hand over to Mr Freyna he can talk about heritage assets and anything else I might have missed that will be helpful to answer your question I'm going to speak into the mic I'm going to see the body this time so thanks for all your points and they are very important I think that we have covered a little bit around the reuse of buildings and the cycle of construction materials within some of the policy framework under the theme of climate change so there's a policy emerging policy direction around reducing waste and construction as well so that does but we can certainly look at that and tighten some of that policy wording up as we go through as I've said before we're still quite in early stages at the point of I suppose this first opening up is to say this is our direction to some of those policies what do you think and what do stakeholders think in terms of the deliverability of those policies as we go forward and again the same with the heritage assets which essentially covers heritage assets but is regardless of location but again we can also look at tightening up some of the wording in there as we move forward as well yeah cancer cut cut do you have a follow up or getting back to Walter you touched on this and this is a question of abstraction license which there are not all of it around and I don't know how many of them are but when it was last looked at we were horrified to find that many of them were virtually irrevocable in fact now I don't know what the present situation is but that's something we could look at to see because there are so many abstraction licenses and I don't know exactly what their status is at that point in time but if something we looked at to see what the energy can be down about revoking them, mitigating them I don't know what and there may be an issue there at least we actually can address that to see if we're going to help, thank you cancer dot to me Hawkins any response Paul Frainer thank you I think it actually has been looked at but I'm happy to go away and check that out for you and come back to if you'd like a written response I think we have actually had a look I think it's part of the evidence I'll check on that thank you councillor Jeff Harvey thank you chair referring back to councillor Hunt's comments I will say applaud the ambition in terms of reaching effectively zero carbon for new homes and I just wondered in the climate change topic paper it says I've got it in front of me but we've not gone as far as setting requirements for all new houses to achieve passive house although we all gave you on existing building standards but I'm just wondering there'd be quite a lot of work to define the hurdle or the sort of setting of that bar in terms of something that's sufficiently complex that it achieves the end but it's not so complicated that it invites sort of endless negotiations from developers and I just wondered would we for example go for some sort of already developed standard like the old code 6 or if not I mean is it worth possibly looking wider than greater Cambridge to kind of team up with other local authorities that are trying to achieve the same end because it sounds like it could be quite a complicated but it's a policy to write answer Doctor Tim Hawkins, would you like to take that one? With your permission I will pass that on to Mr Farina I think I'm going to pass to John Dixon on this one because he hasn't spoken yet and I think he might be able to speak on this matter because he's very close to that John Dixon Thank you chair I'm actually cheating slightly and cribbing from our sustainability officer who is on the end of the news message Passive House is almost a brand name but we've done a lot of work with our looking at our net zero project as to what an appropriate standard for our area would be Passive House is still challenging to live at it requires experienced practitioners not all developers have access to it The standards that come out of our study are technically feasible across a range of developments and achieve a very very close level of improvement to Passive House but we think the standards our study has come out as a more effective and deliverable and technically demonstrated to how it can be done our sustainability officer who advises on these issues is very clear that developers will have a clear understanding from that policy guidance and the policies evolving of how to implement those policies and we can also if necessary supplement our policies in the eventual plan in supplementary guidance so in short we think they offer a very effective method of securing improvements and sustainable dwellings Any follow up councillor Harvey That was fine thank you Paul Frainer I think you want to add an additional comment Yes just a point of clarity on working with other councils I think that we know that zero carbon policies are relatively new in planning policy and plan making as we go forward and it's one of the biggest areas that we've had to really look at in detail from this point of view we are working and as you will know that we're part of a group of councils along the Oxcamark where a detailed set of environmental principles have been established by the local leadership there and it's certainly something that from a bottom-up perspective as local councils we need to be pushing in terms of understanding how we can work together as councils to say the need is real in terms of delivering on those objectives around reaching that zero and meeting the sixth carbon budget as set out this year Thank you Chancellor van der Weyer Yeah thank you very much I'd like to expand a bit on them Chancellor Kahn's questions about the water supply that there are in this policy in this proposal several innovative policies that we should talk about water usage for example I think the acceleration there's some innovation there which obviously brings risks and I was wondering what during the process of developing the plan we could be doing to sort of mitigate and assess those risks because undoubtedly developers in particular will be challenging them because they'll affect their viability profits and also some sites which have been excused because of some of these policies Obviously as Paul's saying we are relatively early stages so there's plenty of time to do that but I'm wondering what sort of thinking there is at the moment about how we're going to be managing those risks through to inspection Answer Dr Hawkins Okay I think on the studio question is how do we manage the risks of water usage now before No policy process how is the risk of challenge to the innovative policies that risk of challenge Thank you I think as you'll all be aware plan making is an inherently risky piece of work but what I would say is that the reason for the huge volumes and toms of evidence that you've got just at this particular early stage of the process is where we really have to cover every single base when it is very much a systems process all of those evidence bases do feed in there are obviously risks and challenge because at the end of the process we do go through an independent examination that's why we have to detail our process all the way through and be robust and consistent about how we've worked and iterated the plan process there are also checks and balances in place around if we're talking around the viability of delivering some of the new and innovative policies which I think you refer to at some of these areas that currently at this stage they have been tested to the extent that they've been worked up so we're confident at the moment but that will continue to happen all the way through the process alongside the sustainability appraisal and some of those other checks and balances that we do all the way through I would say that this is probably the most significant piece of evidence based on what I've seen in planning in this area and there are some very different bigger pieces as we know in that kind of water but that's the reason why we've put a huge amount of effort into ensuring those evidence bases are robust and come together as soon as this is possible Do you have a follow-up? Councillor Dr Richard Williams Thank you chair it's another question about water now we know and we've known and I think we all agree that water is a problem it's a constraint, we had a report in November casting doubt on the deliverability of the medium growth scenario the one that's been chosen and that's why there's talk about getting the government to step in so we've known that for a while my question really is why has the evidence that the medium growth scenario can't really be delivered and it's not sustainable on current water supply why did that not act as a constraint on the proposed number of houses to be developed because it could have been it could be cited as a constraint and then we wouldn't be in because the solution seems to be if the government doesn't step in we'll have to have a phased approach it seems like this 49,000 number is fixed that is not going to change everything else has to be made to work around it why isn't water regarded as a constraint on building I would understand if you were proposing to build at the standard method that you think it would be difficult to go below that but given that you're proposing to build way above the standard method I would have thought you could quite reasonably argue that actually water is a constraint on development and it should come down below the number that you're a way in which as you know I have issues with but just except leaving that side for a minute it should come down below that number Doctor, councillor, Doctor Timmy Hawkins Thank you chair and through you the first thing I would say is that again this insistence on this housing number is fair enough but I will remind us again that 37,200 of those are already in the pipeline and at the time the last local plan was being put together there was assurances from the water authorities that the water supply was suitable for that type of growth and the proposed housing now this new emerging plan is proposing to add just 25% on top of what or as part of what we need going forward in 2041 the number is smaller compared to what's already in the pipeline but we have to show an inspector that we are putting forward a plan that meets our objectively assessed need in this area now the fact that water supply is an issue is one of the issues we have identified that from the get go and we are saying folks this is what the guidelines say we need as objectively assessed for this area that doesn't change what changes is how we can deliver that based on the resources that are available and if we can't do that then I'm just saying we scale back or you defer it but you have to show an inspector you've done the job properly and we have to do the job properly so it is a constraint yes it's a constraint that can be accommodated within the plan as we are proposing just to follow up on what you actually have to show the inspector is it's exceptional because you are proposing to depart from the standard method the NPBS says you use standard method unless exceptional circumstances apply so you are actually going to have to prove to an inspector exceptional circumstances apply to go over through the chair please chair the councils are going to have to prove to an inspector that circumstances exist which are exceptional to justify going above the standard method so it's not quite as simple as been suggested councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins your response it is as suggested plain we have looked at what we require objectively the standard method itself even in the government paperwork says it does not give you the housing need you still have to look at what you need objectively and take into account various other factors you know that however we have come up with a number we have come up with something that says yes we are looking ahead there are constraints we will take care of those constraints and we will act accordingly but I can't say any further than that we have to show we as authorities city and south camps have looked at what we need projected that and agreed that number and we work towards it okay we have a number still to go and I would like to try and round up with those people so we have councillor Trun Johnson followed by four more from the committee and two not sitting on this committee and I would like to take them all and hopefully we can get through those councillor Trun Johnson hi I would like to congratulate the ambitious targets we have seen on the EV charging and also on self build and I have a question on both on the EV charging will there be additional rules added on in terms of how that is implemented because there are concerns around cabling across pavements and things like that so there can be more detail around that and on the self build numbers will they apply how will they be applied to or new building housing numbers in south camps or would they for example in north stone where we are having the 6,000 sow houses of the 10,000 are planned would you have a self build number within those 6,000 now or does that not apply because north stone is already kind of agreed previous plan answer Dr Timing Hawkins thank you chair, I think two of us might respond to this we are working currently to the policies in the current plan and as far as I understand we can't change that whatever new policies we bring in will start from when we adopt those policies am I right? Thank you Do you have a follow up? Councillor Badnam Thank you chair I'd like us to turn our attention to open space we've talked about numbers so much so I'm looking at policies BGPO on page 183 and BGEO on page 185 and forgive me I'll just read you the first line of each of them it says this policy will address how important open spaces are considered in the planning process and this policy will set out how new development should provide new and enhanced open space to meet the needs it generates so I would like us to be if possible to strengthen that and work a bit ahead of the game on that as was done at Camborn where when the land was originally considered for a new village at that time the environmental assets were identified right at the outset the lake, the hedgerow the wet land area these were identified and protected right at the outset and in fact what happened was that parcels of land were identified for building outside those precious areas and so I'd like us to if we could and I'll leave it to you officers and yourselves how to work it in but to put in these policies if these are the appropriate places to put it an obligation or an undertaking to require excuse me to identify the natural resources of any site right at the outset of planning and to require that developers work around those locations and particular assets and to nurture them in their build so that these areas can become real assets for the communities that they are part they will become part of thank you counthead dr Timmy Hawkins thank you chair and through you yes we want to do that now bear in mind we have a policy of doubling nature the only way we can do that is to preserve what we currently have and not let them be destroyed and I'm sure that I'm not sure what the exact policy wordings are that we've got now but it's probably something that we can make sure that we do to make sure that we do keep these precious resources and I think also when you're talking about biodiversity net gain what we have now is a basis is where we start from and so all I can say is yes we want to do that and we will make sure that we do that follow up councillor thank you I work in agriculture and I know all too well that many aerodal fields are pitifully low actually in biodiversity it's the hedgerows and the margins that are rich and the woodlands and the copses and the streams and the ditches these are the rich places and that is what I would like us to identify at the outset and protect and enhance wherever we can so however that can be so simply doubling something that's a very tiny number for the broad field area is not especially thrilling but actually really identifying the things that are of worth the ditches et cetera is what I would like us to be doing thank you councillor, air park so not to a committee member but on the climate environment advisory committee but go ahead thank you chair I just wanted to add my support to the net zero carbon new buildings policy I've listened to what's said about passive house I think it's important in a minute why it's a fabric first approach to building of new houses so I think council needs to lead in terms of in terms of what it defines should be the fabric of a new house rather than necessarily what's attainable today because I think what we say will obviously influence how developers and educational institutions and other places develop their own policies with regards new house building the GCP recently I recently heard that the electricity demand in the greater Cambridge area is going to triple I'm not exactly sure over what period but that will be due to three reasons one is development one is electric vehicles and the other is space heating and I think that's going to be extremely challenging to and it's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built to supply that extra electricity demand so it's really important that new buildings provide as little demand for the electricity as possible so I'd really like to see an emphasis on fabric first within the net zero in carbon new buildings policy as much as possible thank you I completely agree with Councillor Beyr Park I don't know if new buildings actually don't use much in terms of what they need to heat, space heating that helps to reduce what we take from the grid and we know that there's going to have to be improvement in the electricity infrastructure I'm not sure if Mr Frinner has more to add to that would you like to add on to that thank you Councillor Orkinson, Councillor Riffith Chair so yes I would agree absolutely too and I think that the fabric first is actually at the heart of some of the policy direction travel that we're taking with the carbon work in terms of the electricity we are also seeking to look at the demand on new homes but further to this particular stage of plan making we will be doing some further work on grid capacity alongside some of the work that we've done previously for any seed because we are aware that's a key area as well and there is some policy approaches towards kind of distribution schemes etc etc so I think that totally we understand those points of view so I would agree with that point of view around fabric first rather than looking at it at a little bit more high level Councillor Beckhark No thank you very much for your comments I look forward to seeing the policy when it's drafted Councillor Harvey Yes thank you chair I had a sort of message from Councillor Haillings which I probably would have read out if we were now into the SIAC meeting but as you know she's not able to be here because of family illness but she asked me on her behalf to thank the officers for their robust and radical response to the groundbreaking evidence commissioned on net zero and especially the carbon cost of spatial strategy options the water cycle and supply work, climate adaption infrastructure and biodiversity and particularly not just as add-ons or projects but as underlying considerations in all decision making and also for the ambition in raising building standards beyond the future home standards so that was just a message from Haillings Thank you in that case I'll take my next speaker Councillor Ellington Thank you Chairman I didn't think it right that if we were talking a lot about water in we inevitably have to talk about water out and as all these houses are going to be built in Camborn and Norstow and all points in between and all that water is going to end up at in a row sewage works and all that water will then come in an open ditch around the outside of SwaveSea and SwaveSea is considerably lower than that particular ditch I am very concerned that the amount of water some I have talked to one or two internal drainage board people and they say that we are talking about something like a billion gallons of water and I fear for my village and I am quite sure that it is going to be another considerable problem to be sorted before you embark on some of the proposed buildings councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins Thank you chair I think I will pass this to Mr Dixon Okay John Dixon So one of the studies that we are undertaking is an integrated water management strategy and that is we have published a significant element of that report alongside this plan and that study will continue that study identifies that wastewater is a key issue that needs to be addressed through the plan it also acknowledges some of the challenges around up in the strove so what that plan will need to continue to explore with the service providers so I should mention that Anglian Water are currently undertaking effectively their plan review a I forget the acronym the work plan they are undertaking their version for wastewater and we very much now need to take part in that process to ensure going forward we identify the right infrastructure to meet the future needs of the growth that is identified through the plan so it is very much part of our plans to keep engaging in that process Councillor Ellington do you have a follow up No I think it will be coming later Thank you Thank you Thank you chair I want to move us on to talk about specialist housing and homes for older people I hope this is the appropriate place I think now we will round up and yes you can take that question Good we are getting older getting tired the meeting is getting long so it is really a plea and it is on page 278 279 of the local plan 298 299 of our agenda there is again a conflation here I think slightly of the two terms specialist housing and homes for older people and I would really urge you to separate out the two to make it absolutely clear so there is a sentence the provision of some forms of specialist housing such as general housing for older people and there is a conflation specialist housing for people with disabilities people with dependency a conflation of that use of the term specialist housing with housing for older people and we do need housing for older people we do need whole life housing and I would really like to have a little bit more emphasis in the plan on the provision of whole life housing and the possibility of downsizing within developments there is no mention of downsizing our whole life housing councillor dr Timon Hawkins if you would like to take that thank you chair I care councillor dr Donnton about the conflation of specialists and housing for those who want to downsize and one of those who has been banging the drum about people wanting to downsize and being provided for I think our current housing strategy does make allowance for houses to downsize to what perhaps we can look at the policy wording that we are proposing to strengthen it as has been requested just to make sure that we are catering for those in specialist housing and those who do want to downsize but we will not want to downsize that's all point in time I'm sure Do you have a follow up just also to mention the phrase whole life housing I think that can be quite a good one to use provided it's well understood it's well explained Do you want to follow up on that so you are confirming it and finally we have councillor dr Martin our final speaker before I round up looking about the idea about passive house style but this refers to new housing the majority of our housing even after all the development is actually going to be existing housing and you talk about the improvement of heritage housing but in fact the vast majority of housing is neither heritage housing nor new housing and we have a vast the general way that the British people I get this from my wife who is Polish and comes in and looks at the British system and she says you're all expanding your house you're not building yourself a house for the future you're building yourself you come on you buy a little house and you build it and extend it and that's a look at it it's true and I see it in the village responses to all the planning applications that they receive but the vast majority of them are extensions now we don't imply energy standards on extensions apart from that there's been built on you don't require a whole house and this strikes me as an opportunity for where you have power to improve the total housing I don't see how you can get passive housing in many of the existing housing but you could get zero carbon housing because it's always a balance if you've got a zero carbon energy supply between improving the amount that you use and the supply so it does seem to me that there is a scope for trying to impose zero carbon housing when you have large extensions and having a policy at least to encourage that do you see that as a possibility could that be included in the policy range is it possible within the planning legislation that's available Thank you Dr Tumi Council Dr Tumi Hawkins Interesting concept I think we have traditionally with development management looked at the application in front of us and determined that based on what is there now what I don't know is if we can extend or we can create policies that will force homeowners making extensions to actually retrofit because that is what you are suggesting effectively is retrofitting a house once they decide that they want to extend it now I don't know how thoughtful that is if we can do it I think I'm seeing shakes up head to my right here but perhaps Mr Dixon can comment further Okay John Dixon Retrofitting obviously would be an ideal because yes quite agree a lot of the challenge as she and our own carbon evidence from November the big challenge is existing development but retrofitting through planning applications for new development is very difficult if not impossible instrument so for example city council I believe in their current plan had a policy seeking what they call consequential improvements but it's very difficult to secure with the planning system so I think retrofitting the existing properties is a challenge perhaps for the wider roles of council and government rather than something you can necessarily secure through applications for new development I think but that's a difficult truth And finally a follow up That's all you have Apologies Paul Frainer Just a very brief follow up to that and as Mr Dixon has identified through planning policy it's very difficult there are other obvious other areas to explore and building regulations obviously is a key area for some of this stuff to be able to be looked at a bit more holistically you know planning policy can do so much through development management but there are other areas that we should be pushing a corporate years councils as well for that to make a difference Sorry follow up Sorry no that's it Thank you and thank you everybody for your contributions to the officers for your many many hours of work and for your answers so far and for the many many hours of work in the months and years ahead I will try to sum up what we have got there on the environmental impact and also on the infrastructure and then I will call upon Ian Sr when we go to the recommendations to encapsulate what's been said throughout this meeting Firstly a number of councillors commended net zero carbon new buildings policy and wanted loopholes to be avoided and asking for that to be tightened up as best it can and following on from that we had questions from councillor Hunt also about carbon neutrality and gas pipeline on natural gas biogas and maybe don't assume that that's going to be banned is the best word I can think of to use fossil fuel gas and what can we actually push for and make sure is in the policies going forward then comments about flooding and water management and also water supply flooding to make sure we get as much resilience as we possibly can bearing in mind that also the flood authority is not ourselves but we have that slight conflict possibly but to really try and make sure that places are not built which flood downstream elsewhere all this I think put this much better than me but displace flooding okay then also water supply the constraints on numbers which is obviously a real concern and that has been illustrated I think in the documentation that we've received but many councillors were pushing for that to be as kind of dealt with as much as we possibly can and any license is to do with that and we had also buildings with the re-use of existing ones points made by councillor Caffcart then we moved on to footpaths and cycle paths and how we interconnect between villages and also conservation listed buildings and the improvements in the quality of high streets in response to some of this councillor Hawkins did point out the water supply uses of commercial businesses, agriculture isn't just housing so we have to look at the border picture but I think all the councillors members of this committee were probably the top concern was how we build these homes with the water supply then councillor Dr Richard Williams was illustrating the points that medium growth and the evidence and also that water supply problem and what the constraints are and can we examine that and there's obviously a conflict, potential conflict between the two councillor van der Veier talked about the acceleration of housing and the problems with the risk of challenge and how we can really try and make this as robust as possible and then different topic, if you're charging self-build and commit ambitious targets and then moving on to open space and doubling nature but actually the doubling nature is we need to look at what we really want to preserve like the heteros margins, the corpses, the streams and thinking about where the biodiversity really lies there's more biodiversity in those heteros and in an agricultural field so the terminology we use and what we actually mean and finally I'd like to pick up on ultimately the electricity grid and the three times more supply will be needed and how to re-marry these two things up I think that came across very strongly and then the point of sewage, the water that comes in and the water that goes out and the fear of where that will land up and if there is not a strategy and a point to be used or taken forward in the process of how can we ensure that that kind of thing does not happen and specialist housing and whole life housing and trying to firm up that as giving people options to downsize and also to look ahead, not just next five years, ten years of their lives but something which will really provide opportunity into the future and the final comment which seems like it's going to be difficult but can we retrofit existing housing, can we make that like an imposition I think and make it something in the policy which is certainly one to be thinking about at this point before we move to recommendations which are on page four of your agenda papers I'd just like to bring in in senior at the ready if everybody could turn if you have your papers in front of you the recommendations are listed on page four for A down to G and as read as they're in your papers and in senior can I ask you to summarise the extra points that we want to recommend to cabinets based on our discussion our debate this evening I thought you would thank you for your time this evening okay committee because this is very long very complicated I trust that it's okay maybe I should check with Rory McKenna we are okay to go with the recommendation as written with follow up extra points coming shortly indeed thank you so many of these recommendations hopefully by affirmation to the cabinet next week's meeting do this by affirmation chair I'm going to stay okay so one extension from cancer Dr Richard Williams that could be noted Mr senior okay I now bring this meeting to a close apologies councillor Kampfgaard I'd just like to think that this is very important a set of policies and they're highly enlightened and actually quite radical as has already been pointed out but in fact they're highly important as I said and it could well shape this district for many years to come in a way which would be beneficial to everyone so I think we look forward to these policies being implemented because they're probably the most enlightened and possibly radical in the country I don't know for that thank you just said councillor Kampfgaard and just thanks for so much work and really in my opinion ambitious for thinking policies and since I haven't spoken that's myself oh councillor Badnam dissipation of you shortly closing the meeting I just wanted to say thank you very much for chairing what has been a very complicated meeting so well thank you very much thank you I now bring this meeting to a close may I remind this members who are also members of the climate and environment advisory committee to remain in the chamber I'm not actually sure I'm sure we will have information on that those wishing to join see it remotely will need to leave this meeting and join the see it meeting members of scrutiny and overview committee just before you leave please may I remind you that the next schedule scrutiny and overview committee meeting is on Thursday the 14th of October thank you and good night I wanted to say good evening but it probably is good night thank you