 Maen nhw ydych chi'n gweithio â gwaith i gyd amdano'r cymdeithasio'r rhai? Mae gennym ni'n gweithio i gyd yn mynd i gyd yn gweithio'r cymdeithasio. Mae gennym ni'n gweithio'r cymdeithasio'r cymdeithasio. Mae gennym ni'n gweithio i gyd yn gweithio ar gyfer y byddwch yn gwneud iawn, a'u cyfan yn y cyd-ciwg. Mae'r cyflaen sy'n gweithio ar gyfer y byd, ac yn gweithio ar gyfer ei gweithio. Nid ydych chi'n golygu ar ôl i chi gyd yn gweithio, the room. We will be using these devices to vote electronically. The voting names will be recorded by this system and will be published as part of the rest of tomorrow'sabout. quite a few housekeeping rules, given this is our first time and we are being Covid compliant. So we need to follow the governments advice on meetings and gatherings y gwasanaethau a ganddoedd yn cyflawnol, ac mae'n meddwl o'r cyflawni ar gweithio i gyd yn y COVID-19 pandemig. Rwy'n cael ei wneud, rydyn ni'n meddwl i chi gyd yn y gweithio i gwybodaeth i ddweud o'r bydd, yn y cael ei gweithio i gyd yn gyflawni'n cyflawni. Felly, gyda'r gweithio, yw'n mynd i'r gweithio i gyd, rydyn ni'n meddwl i chi, dwi'n gweithio i gyd yn gweithio i gyd yn gyflawni ac yn gweithio i gyd. mae hynny'n mynd i'r rysg i gael ei ysgol felly mae'n meddwl i'r ddechrau. Mae haf ddweud ar y teimlo a chydweud ar gyfer gwaith ar gyfer, a yw yma ddweud ar gyfer ac mae'n meddwl i'r seitio seitio seitio ar y gyrdd. Mae hynny'n gwneud hynny'n meddwl. Mae cymaint yn ei ymddangos ar y ddweud hynny. Mae ddweud ar y ddweud hynny'n meddwl i'r ddesch ar y teimlo. Mae hynny'n meddwl i'r ddweud ac yn ddweud ar y teimlo. pan wrth ymlaen, byddwn yn y dweud y ddweud i yda here. Ac, ychydig, ydw i'w felly, o'r ddweud y ddweud i'r ddweud a'r ddweud i ddim yn y ddweud i ddim yn y ddweud. Jabwn i'r ddweud hynny, ac mae yna bod ysgoredd yn ddweud, bod yna eich hyrchon y byn, ac ydw i'n ddweud o hyd o ddweud, byddwn yn olygu'r llwy fwy o ein bod hefyd yn meddwl ychydig ychydig a ydych chi'n sylwch i'r ddweud o'r llwy ychydig, ac rwyf ni ddych i gyd yn ddiweddol yn y ffrinddedd yma. Mae'r gweithio siwr arweithio a'r gweithio ar gyfer y gweithio. A oedd oedd o'r gweithio o'r gweithio, a'r gweithio ar gyfer y gweithio, yn gweithio i'r rhaid o'r oedd eich sgwrs, a'r gweithio i'r gweithio a'r gweithio, a'r gweithio i'n ddylch chi'n gweithio ar gyfer hynny. Dyma'r gweithio ar gweithio, ond mae oedd yn gallu ei ddweithio ar gyfer y gweithio, Unfortunately it may not help them, but hopefully we'll be better about it. Attendees may also make their own audio and video recordings so long as they do not interfere with the meeting. Please turn off mobile phones and other alarms or set them to silent. Please put everybody make sure that they are off or set to silent. As you know bathroom toilets are available next to the lift. Please before re-entering the chamber use the hand sanitizer. No food to be eaten in the chamber or anywhere else in the building. If anyone at any time feels unwell, please notify me, another councillor and officer, and we'll do all we can to help you. Because of the absence of windows in this chamber, which is why we've got so many controls in place to make this as safe and COVID compliant as possible, we have both doors open and they must remain open all of the time, and we will be taking some regular breaks. Because the doors are open, that also removes the need to touch the door handle, so please avoid doing that. This will ensure some airflow. So I intend that we take a 15 minute break at about 11.30 and suggest that we go outside and take a bit of fresh air and come back in. And then at lunch break, which will be around 1.15, we will break for 45 minutes, again to take some air also to sort of freshen up the and let any masks dry if they are getting a bit damp or saturated. In addition, where you have it on your phone, please use the NHS COVID app to sign in for track and trace purposes. And the barcode notice is on the door as we came in. I haven't done that, so I'll do that during break. So if anybody else hasn't done that, if they could do that too. We've all been asked to carry out a little protest before we came. Screens on desks for the participants are to some extent visible to those watching online. And as I said, please ensure that papers on desks don't contain any personal data or confidential information. Thank you everybody. I wish to get through that. And so it's very good to invite to you and everybody to this meeting. As I said, I'm Councillor Pippa Halings and I'm the chair of this meeting and I have my vice chair, Councillor Henry Batchelor. Morning everyone, Councillor Henry Batchelor, vice chair of the planning committee. Thank you. And I'd just like now to introduce everybody who is here as councillors on the chair. So, Councillor Martin Khan. Hello. Councillor Martin Khan, Member for Hysnodd and Input. Councillor Peter Fane. Calling Peter Fane, Shelford Ward. Councillor Jeff Harvey and welcome to the planning committee. Thank you, chair. Yes, Jeff Harvey, Member for Portion Ward. Councillor Dr Tooby Hawkins. Good morning, everyone, to me Hawkins, Corly Cut Ward. Councillor Judith Rippeth. Good morning, everyone, Judith Rippeth and Milton and Water Beach Ward. Councillor Deborah Roberts. Good morning, everybody. Nice to be back, I think. Deborah Roberts, district councillor for the Foxton Ward. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Heather Williams, and I represent the Mordins Ward. Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you, chair. I'm Richard Williams, I'm the Member for Whittlesford Triploke Field in Newton. And Councillor Eileen Wilson, and welcome to the planning committee. Thank you, chair. Councillor Eileen Wilson, Member for Cotton Ward. And on the top table, I have together with us in the room Nigel Blaisey, who is the delivery manager for development management. Good morning, chair. I also have Stephen Reed, who is our senior lawyer. Good morning, chair. And together with us virtually we have Ian Senior from Democratic Services who is wonderful, keeps us all in order, keeps us informed and will be taking the record of the minutes. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, everybody. And now if we'll turn to our agenda pack and agenda item to our apologies. Ian, do we have any apologies for this meeting? Thank you. I'm not aware of anyone, and I think you introduced them all actually. So no apologies. Thank you very much. Good. And declarations of interest. Do we have any declarations of interest? Chair, we have two. Councillor Jeff Harvey and myself, Bachelor. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Yes. As Member for Bullsham Ward, I've been present at parish council meetings where the item on the agenda for Western Colville has been discussed. That's item 10. But I will make my decisions coming to it fresh. Councillor Bachelor. Thank you, chair. The same item Western Colville. I've been present at parish council for the village. And I've also been present at parish meetings where they've been, where this item has been discussed but are coming to it fresh today. Sorry, Chair. We also have Councillor Cahn who would like to declare an interest. I'm Member for Easton, in Pinto, on Orchard Park. And I've been at parish council meetings where item, which item it is, the Orchard Park development number six, has been discussed and also discussed with the Chairman of the parish council about the section 106 agreement. But I'm coming to this matter of fresh. And Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you. Chairman, I just wonder whether we, those of us at wrong committee before, need to declare an interest or not an interest but make it clear that on agenda item five we're viewing it afresh. Thank you, Councillor Williams. And I think best if that goes for the whole committee, yes. But of those who are present, we have two who are not present, but yes. And finally, Chair, Councillor Roberts. The same declaration item five, Chairman. I have obviously been present when we discussed it before but come afresh. Thank you. And there is myself, thank you very much. I'm also a ward councillor for Easton in Pinto and Orchard Park which is agenda item six and I've been present at meetings of the community council when this has been discussed and also was present at the same meeting as Councillor Cahn with the chair of the community council. But I come to this matter afresh. Thank you. Thank you. So with no further declarations of interest we go to agenda item four minutes of the previous meeting. We will find on pages one to ten of our agenda pack. Do we have any comments on the minutes of that meeting? Just one so far from Councillor Rippeth. Yes, agenda item seven from the minutes. I did also speak as a local member on the Bannod Road application and expressed that my concerns would be dealt with at the reserve matter stage and that in this case we had to take the inspector's comments on board regarding the site next door. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Rippeth. Mr Senior, would that be possible for you to include an amendment in the minutes? Yes, indeed. Thank you. Thanks, members. Can I take then by affirmation that we approve the minutes? Agreed. Agreed. No abstentions. Members, so now we'll start the agenda proper in terms of the substantive material of the meeting. We go to agenda item five on page eleven of your agenda pack. It's an application for the retreat fuse lane in Longstanton. The reference number 20, stroke 02453, stroke S73, and this is for a variation of condition seven of the traffic management plan pursuant to planning commission S, stroke 0277, stroke 19, stroke FL. To reflect the proposals in the traffic management plan to substitute the current wording in condition seven with the development hereby permitted to be carried out in accordance with the traffic management plan prepared by SLR consulting version final number one and dated December 2019. The applicant is Mr Jerry Cadw of Landbrook Homes Ltd, and the key material considerations are the appropriateness of the amended traffic management plan, highway safety, green infrastructure policy, NH6, and additional third party representations. Is it a departure from application? Is it a departure? No. And this is being brought to committee. It's already come to committee on the 13th of January and again later in March. And so matters were risen following members earlier endorsement to approve the S73 submission of the 13th of January 21 planning committee meeting, which required a further assessment and clarification from officers. And the officer recommendation remains to approve the S73. The presenting officer is Lewis Tomlinson. Lewis, are you with us? Hi, I'm Chair, President. Thank you very much Lewis. Would you like to provide any information that you'd like to give us an update on this? I'll do it at the end of my presentation if that's okay. I'm ready for your presentation. Perfect, thank you Chair. I'll just share my screen. Can someone just confirm they can see that please? Yes. Great, thank you. So the site is the Retreat Fuse Lane Non-Stantom. It currently comprises a single story dwelling of an unadopted private road known as Fuse Lane. This is the retreat here. You've got Fuse Lane Private Road here. You've got the High Street within Non-Stantom here. You've got additional permission at the rear for a new dwelling. You've got two recently constructed dwellings just here. You've got the Willows and neighbouring property here. And you've got 135th of the High Street here. So the site currently has permission under planning application of reference S-027719-FL for two two story dwellings on this site just here. Fuse Lane is not an adopted highway. It comprises a single vehicle width gravel service track. The lane currently serves as an access to a double garage serving 135th High Street and three other dwellings, the Willows and the two recently constructed dwellings here as well as the Retreat itself. The lane varies in width and runs alongside a treed and vegetated area to the north, boundaries to a number 135th and the Willows to the south side. A footpath, which is a public right of way, linking the home farm residential development to the south and the west of Fuse Lane with High Street emerges on the south side of Fuse Lane at a point to the immediate west of the Willows. The site lies within the designated village framework. So this is just an aerial site view of the site. So again, you can see the High Street here, Fuse Lane down here. The site in question is this area here, two recently constructed dwellings here, the Willows here and the 135th High Street here. We run through the approved site plan. So as you can see again, Fuse Lane is down here. This is the site. You can see that you've got two two-story dwellings approved here, a bunglo to the rear under a separate plan permission and two recently constructed dwellings across here. These are the approved elevations of the dwellings and these are the approved floor plans of dwellings. This is the approved street elevation. I'll just run through some photos just so members are clear of the context. So this is a view up Fuse Lane from the access off the High Street. You've got 135 High Street on the left. The site is down here on the right-hand side. This is a view along the High Street past the frontage of Fuse Lane. Looking north with Fuse Lane access here on the left. We've got traffic calming also on the roads. This is a view along the High Street past the frontage of Fuse Lane. Looking south with Fuse Lane access here on the right. This is a view along High Street past the frontage of Fuse Lane. Looking south with Fuse Lane on the right. You can see this is taking from the entrance of Mitchcroft Road with traffic calming here. This is a photo of the Fuse Lane entrance looking towards the north, set a bit further back into Fuse Lane. This is a photo from the Fuse Lane entrance and this is looking towards the south. So this is a photo looking down Fuse Lane. So we've got a garage to 135 High Street here and the willows on the left here. The site in question for its application is just down here on the right-hand side. So this is looking down Fuse Lane a bit further on. You can see the retreats, the sites here on the right with the two recently constructed dwellings just in the foreground. This is the informal turning head opposite the retreats. Access onto Fuse Lane from the public right-of-way to Home Farm. So the proposal in front of you today is a section saying to free application for the variation of condition 7, the Traffic Management Plan, Plan and Permission, S slash 0277 slash 19 slash FL to amend the wording of the condition for a pre-commencement submission to a compliance condition through the approval of a detailed Traffic Management Plan. Substance of the merits of this plan were debated in the January Planning Committee. The effect of granting a section saying to free application is that a new plan permission is given, which is constrained by the original time limit for implementation. Otherwise, the question of what conditions, if any, are necessary to make proposed development acceptable in planning terms is for members of the Planning Committee to determine. Members of the Planning Committee are free to attach new conditions, not previously attached, if those new conditions are necessary to make proposed development acceptable in planning terms, and that they meet the other six tests of planning conditions and are legal in all other respects. Officers can advise that, as a fresh permission will be issued, since S slash 0277 slash 19 slash FL was approved, there's been no material change of policy or other circumstances, which might require reassessment of other conditions or indeed a reassessment of development as a whole. Whilst the officer's report covers reassessment of conditions, officers should add that we are satisfied that no wider reconsideration of the principle of development is justified in this case. Just on the screen in front of you is the legislation relating to section 83. So the current word on condition 7 of Planning Permission S slash 0277 slash 19 FL is set out on the slides. The key part to the notice here is point 2. Contractor parking shall be within the cartridge of the site and not on the streets. This application seeks to amend the wording of condition 72 to the wording on the screen in front to a compliance condition. The applicant claims that a submitted traffic management plan is informed by lessons learned during the construction in 2018 of the two existing new homes on the site. The traffic management plan includes details of the arrangements for delivery of materials, turning movements, enclosure of the site, contractor parking during the construction phase, as well as detailing areas for material storage, keeping the onsite turning area clear, and also the site office. The provision of offsite contractor parking has meant that the terms of part 2 of the original planning condition cannot be met and it's this departure from the original condition that's prompted this application. The third party representations and parish comments have highlighted a number of concerns around the access of vehicles into and along Fuse Lane. These were discussed in the January meeting on this item. Officers are satisfied with the highway authority conclusions that the measures outlined in the traffic management plan are appropriate and reasonable. The highway authority has assessed the submitted traffic management plan and considers it to be acceptable and supports the proposed variation to the wording of condition 7. Members will recall considering this application on the 13th of January 2021 and the 13th of April planning committee meetings. The committee resolved to approve the application on the 13th of January subject to the revision of paragraph 3.2.4 of the traffic management plan to state during the construction stage, delivery vehicle shall not park on any street within the village of Longstanton. The addition of an informative urge in the establishment of a liaison mechanism between residents, site manager and Longstanton parish council to monitor compliance with the traffic management plan and to resolve any disputes and the conditions and informers set out in the report from the joint director of the planning economic development. So the application was deferred on the 13th of April so officers could consider additional representations from Fuse Lane consortium that were not recorded in the officer report. Following assessment of these representations officers advised members that no new material considerations have been raised and therefore the officer recommendation remains the same. Officers can now confirm all third party representations which includes all the letters from Fuse Lane consortium have been considered. All substantive points have been addressed in this report and previous reports. The council has received two pre-action protocol letters from Fuse Lane consortium, the first of which is attached to Appendix 3. The council has responded to this formally and maintains its position that as the local planning authority it has lawful authority to entertain this application pursu into section 327A of the 1998 and Article 7 of the DMPO 2015 and that there is no flaw in the red line as submitted when the application under reference S-0277-19-FL was approved which appears to be at the root of the Fuse Lane consortium's concerns. The issues understood to concern whether feasibility displays at the end of Fuse Lane were required to be included in the red line plan of the original application. The council's legal advice including from external council who has reviewed all the correspondence is clear that it did not and that in any event that issue is not directly raised by consideration of this application and is too late to challenge the original permission. The highway authority remains satisfied that the red square displays exist and they are on highway land and therefore will continue to do so. The issue of lawful authority cannot be resolved conclusively today. There's no case law that supports the Fuse Lane consortium position on this matter and there's also no definitive case law that supports the council's position on this matter. However, the council's advice is clear. In these circumstances it is open to Fuse Lane consortium to test the point by issuing judicial review proceedings if the application for you today is approved if they wish. But the officer's advice is notwithstanding the Fuse Lane consortium's extensive correspondence there is no underlying legal flaw. The council received a second reaction protocol letter last week that letter raises issues relating to ownership of land within the red line of the application site and the correct notification of interested landowners. The council solicitors available to answer any questions regarding the matters which this second letter raises. So to conclude the officer's recommendation as a preval subject to the revision of paragraph 3.24 of the traffic management plan to state during the construction stage delivery vehicle shall not park on any street within the village of Lonstantum. Addition of an informative urge in the establishment of a liaison mechanism between residents, the site manager, Lonstantum Parish Council to monitor compliance with the traffic management plan and to resolve any disputes and the conditions and informative set out and the report from the joint director of planning and economic development. Thank you chair. Thank you very much Lewis for that comprehensive presentation of the case and of the updates. I'd like to move to the public speakers and I understand that we do have one object who is joining us virtually. Mr Fulton I think are you with us? You're virtually. I can see you on the screen. Can you hear us? Yes I can. Thank you. Thank you and you know the procedure by now. I think the slightly different one is that we have, as I understand it from democratic services, we'll have a clock on the bottom of the screen. No we're not. So could I ask Mr Laisley if you would let me know once we get to two minutes and then to three minutes in terms of public speaking. Sorry about that Mr Fulton, we're still testing the system. Thank you very much and your time begins now Mr Fulton. So thank you. I appreciate everything Mr Tomlinson just said. But the information Mr Tomlinson just presented to the committee is directly contradicted by what he wrote in the officers report. So I'm a little confused. I'd like to call the committee's attention to page 26 of the agenda pack and the paragraph 32 of the officers report. It quotes a passage from the planning practice guidance that summarizes the approach that was taken by officers in the decision making process for this application. The quoted paragraph states that, in deciding an application under section 73, the local planning authority must only consider the disputed conditions that are subject of the application. It is not a complete reconsideration of the application. A local planning authority decision to refuse an application under section 73 can be appealed to the secretary of state who will also only consider the conditions in question. Now the problem is that this paragraph from the planning practice guidance was deleted many years ago because it was found to be contrary to the lawful interpretation of the relevant statute. There are numerous judgments that resulted in this paragraph being deleted, including Stephanover versus Westminster City Council. All the material considerations have not been taken into account in regards to this decision. First, I'll just state briefly that our representations on the water conservation measures and carbon emissions have still not been reported to the committee and have not been taken into account in the officers report. I mean, I could go on with another list of it does the things, but I'll also say that the also officers didn't even bother to get a measured, a scaled plan of the access, and they failed to provide a copy of the boundary, highway boundary plan to the committee. If this was provided to the committee, the committee would see that the facts regarding the width of the adopted public highway in the officers report is not correct. The figures reported in the officers report cannot possibly be correct, so I'll stop there. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr Fulton. Does anybody have any questions for clarification from Mr Fulton? Councillor Roberts. Yes, good morning, Mr Fulton. In the officers report, it's to my recall stated that the only way forward for such as your group would be to go now down the legal route if you do not agree with the reports, conclusions and information. Is that what you think might happen? Thank you. Yes, if this decision is approved, there will be the election, but that's fine. We don't have a problem with that. What we are concerned about, though, is that the decision-making process has not been conducted properly by officers. I mean, that's our overwriting concern, and this is something that I think the planning committee of this council needs to address, and it shouldn't be necessary for us to go to the high court to get a fair decision. Thank you. Mr Fulton, one of the things I found interesting within the points of order of information here is the amount of redacting in some pages. In fact, I couldn't really see the point of the pages being there because it was all redacted. What did you think of that? It was not clear to me why any of the material was redacted. I mean, it didn't make any sense to me. I can't see any clear legal reason why it was redacted. I'm sure there is one, but I don't think it was necessary, and I think the planning committee needs to have as much information before it as possible. So that's my opinion. I agree. Any further questions for Mr Fulton? Thank you very much, Mr Fulton. We don't have any further public speakers registered to speak at this moment, so what I'll do is move directly to the debate members on this item. What we need to really consider, as we did in the April meeting and in the January, is to consider do we have the information to hand with which we can make a decision on the variation of the condition of the traffic management plan. Yes. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chairman. I assume we're still able to seek clarification from officers as we've gone straight to debate, so will that be on all items? Okay. So obviously we've heard the public representation now, public speaking. Prior to that, I did want to question, but I think that we've had a lot of good actions, and maybe officers could explain to us why it was necessary, because I agree all we've got is a date on some of it. We've got a date, and who sent an email to who and who replied, but nothing. I'm struggling because it must have a applicable consequence to be included in the report, but we can't ascertain anything from it. There's a reassurance around that, and I'd also like some reassurance around paragraph 32, as that's been raised, about its current status. To be honest, Chairman, I think until I've had those responses and clarification, I don't think I can really offer to the debate, because my view may change. Thank you very much, and I will ask Stephen. Sorry, that's got a senior lawyer, if you could respond to Councillor Williams. Thank you, Chair, and apologies. The redactions, I think, wholly relate to correspondence that was marked without prejudice from Fuselame consortium, or in response to without prejudice correspondence. Fuselame were invited to confirm whether they were willing for that correspondence to go open, and we didn't get a positive confirmation that the papers should not continue to be regarded as without prejudice. Thank you. Could you also comment on paragraph 32 and the status of the quote there? Chair, I think that's a matter that the case presenting case officers should address. Nadia, would you like to answer? So Mr Blaisby will answer that. Thank you, Chair. I've got the guidance up online on my screen at the moment, and that paragraph is showing as still relevant and live as part of the National Planning Practice guidance. However, notwithstanding that, I feel that the report has outlined the key policy considerations and the material planning considerations, and I think notwithstanding this point, members, you can come to a decision today. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have other speakers? We'd like a follow-up question. Thank you, Chairman. Sorry, on the redaction, can we have a steer as to why it was included? Because if it wasn't able to publish it, why was it even in the report? It's not something we can take into consideration. We might not be able to publish word for word, but what actually were we to take out of that had it been allowed to be shared? The purpose of including those documents was to assure members of the extensive correspondence and attempts to find the resolution to the concerns raised by Fuse Lane Consortium. Had we not put in all of the correspondence, albeit that some of it was redacted, in my view it would not have given a full impression of the extensive steps taken by Fuse Lane Consortium and the extensive steps taken on behalf of the council to try and find a way forward. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. I think that was a point raised at the last planning committee as to whether or not there had been attempts to resolve this in terms of communication. Thank you. Next. We have councillors Roberts and then the Hawkins. Councillor Deborah Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Now, I'm not frightened of people saying that they are considering taking legal action. It's up to us to stack our case against any such. However, I am very unhappy at the redactions because to me it's outrageous to suggest that because you didn't get a reply back that indicated that the person sending the correspondence didn't want it to be known publicly. We could say the absolute opposite. When you see full pages of redactions on what should basically be available to not only us, but the public as well, you start to wonder what's going on. This isn't the first time recently that I've had to be horrified by redactions that have been taking place on another one. Councillor Roberts, can we keep it to this? I will, Chairman. However, I'm telling you that this isn't the first time. It seems to be becoming a bit of a habit. In my opinion, local authorities, national government, BBC, call who you are. Councillor Roberts, I'm going to ask you to focus on this application and the merits in terms of the... Yes, but I have to talk about these redactions. I'm not redacting so much information. It can only be worth considering that the reason it's been redacted is there's something in it that doesn't suit the case for the council. Because it has been redacted, and therefore I do not feel, I am in full... I don't have the full facts in front of me. And I'm considering that it could end up as seemingly judicial review or of the other. Let's face it. Fus Lane have actually got a reputation for getting it right with... So, Councillor Roberts, as I understand what we're saying, I think you're absolutely right in what you're saying is, we have to say, do we have enough information as members of the committee to make a decision on this? I understand from you, this is difficult for you therefore to be in full cognisance of the facts for you to be able to form a decision on this. Well, that's exactly my case, Madam Chairman. Thank you very much. We are not in full availability of the facts. I think therefore we would be very foolish and full-hardy to give it approval today. I suggest that actually it's deferred and the full facts are presented again at next month's meeting where we will be in a better position to know whether or not we are doing the right thing. Thank you very much, Councillor Roberts. Who's next? Councillor Dr Tony Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. I think I need to focus us back on what we're here to do, which is to discharge or not a condition on an extent planning permission. We have heard from the case officer that the only reason this has come before us is on the issue of parking which is 3.2.4 in the traffic management plan. Now obviously we have discussed this before and if you might recall at the last meeting I voted against deferral. Nothing has changed. The information we have then is what we have now. We have been reassured by legal council that we are entitled to make the decision. The proposal that has been put before us is, in my view, acceptable. It is to do with parking on site and where they can't. The arrangement for parking has been made elsewhere. My view is that we consider this and discharge this condition. It is not that we can do other than either discharge it or not. There is nothing else because everything to do with access and displays and all of that was part of the original planning permission. All we can do now is discharge and I will be put into discharge this condition. Thank you. Thank you. We have Councillor Ripper for next. Councillor Judith Ripper. I'm pleased with the information provided by the case officer which is very clear, very articulate as was his few minutes of description on the screen that we can come to a judgement. Councillor Eileen Wilson. Councillor Eileen Wilson. I was present at the planning committee in January and I've listened to the case officer and I've listened to the legal officer and I feel confident that I have enough information to support this application. Councillor Harvey. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Yes. Thank you, Chair. Well, I've read the report in quite some detail and I've also listened to the case officer make his presentation today and I've heard from the legal officer and I think there are very good reasons why the report is presented as it is and correctly as it is and therefore I feel I am confident in concluding this today. Thank you. And what I would do is I think unless you have an issue that would be different from that, Councillor Carr, I think we could move to a vote on this. Moving to a vote which would be the officer's recommendation on page 16 and that is that the vote is to support the officer's recommendation of the planning committee approve this application subject to the revision of paragraph 3.2.4 of the traffic management plan to state that during the construction stage delivery vehicles shall not park on any street within the village of Lonstanton and that there is an addition of an informative urging the establishment of a liaison mechanism on mechanism between residents, the site management and Lonstanton parish council to monitor compliance with the traffic management plan and to resolve any disputes together with the conditions and informatives that were set out in the 13th of January 21 report. I would like to ask you now members that will use this voting system so if you are voting for support of that recommendation against or abstain if you press the blue person on it Thank you and for everybody we have now the voting results up on the screen in front of us with eight votes in favour one against and two abstentions that means that this is approved. Thank you members. We'll move to the next agenda item and we'll move to agenda item 6 which is on page 175 in your report agenda and that's Orchard Park. So this is Orchard Park the development of parcel L2 on Topper Street in Orchard Park the reference is 20-030802-FUL the proposal is for the residential development of 75 dwellings along with access, car parking landscaping and all associated infrastructure the applicant is Cambridge Investment Partnership the key material considerations the principle of development impact on character and appearance of the area residential immunity refuse arrangements, highway safety car and cycle parking drainage, trees and ecology energy and sustainability affordable housing, public art section 106 contributions and third party representations it's not a departure and this application is being brought to committee because in the interest of transparency given the application is made by Cambridge Investment Partnership which is a partnership between Hill Residential and Cambridge City Council and the fact that planning officers form part of a shared planning service between South County District Council and Cambridge City Council this is coming before us in respect of that transparency the presenting officer is Ganeshan Anamruti hello Ganesh, we can see you on the screen with us Thank you. Would you like to give us your report? Indeed, thank you I'll just share my presentation Is someone able to confirm form that they can see both my presentation and also my laser pointer Can see both, thank you Ganesh Perfect, thank you in that case I will start with my presentation so the application as Councillor Haynes has rightly said is application 2303802 FUL it's passed a little to the English Park and also a little the parcel of L2 is a square bit of land where my pointer is shown and it's also encompassing a bit of open space to the west of the site where my pointer is now focusing on so the sites in question looking from a Google Maps we can just get a bit of perspective of the site so if we take the square parcel of land here which is L2 where my pointer focusing on this is the site in question which is owned by the Cambridge Investment Partnership the rest of the red line site which is the area to the left and is also shown more clearly in a blue line is part of the site but is not owned by the Cambridge Investment Partnership it's landed the ownership of the community council I just wanted to provide a little bit more site context so this photograph here is a slightly different angle of the site which helps to see the buildings that surround the site in a bit more detail to the west of our site we've got a block of flats here on Engledale Drive which we can see is four stories with a pitch roof to the east of the site is some properties on Black End so we've got a small block to the rear of the site here three stories with a pitch roof and to the front of the site Just one moment, Minish We've just lost you for a moment We're back Shall I start? Can I just check we're okay with the live stream? Okay, continue Thanks very much Okay, I'll just go back over this slide again so just looking at the context of the buildings surrounding the site to the west of the L2 parcel is a four story with a pitch roof block of flats on Engledale Drive and to the east of the site on Black End so to the back of the site here we've got a three story with pitch roof block and to the front of the site similarly another three story building with pitch roofs with a parking area in the middle there top of street runs east to west along the front of the site here with the development of Marmalade Lane to the south of that street the site is not within a conservation area and there are no listed buildings nearby and just to the south of the Engledale Drive you can see the open space that exists which forms part of this site as part of this application that's before us today so just some further sight photographs so this is the building on Engledale Drive with the open space to the front of it and this is opposite the site on Marmalade Lane which is a co-housing site a co-housing scheme built early recently so the proposal is for the residential development of 75 dwellings along with access, car parking, landscaping and all the associated infrastructure I'll just talk you through the scheme now briefly so this is the pro-site plan and ground floor layout to start with I'm just going to focus on the slides that look at the L2 parcel and then we'll look at the proposals for the open space separately afterwards so the site of L2 is now focusing on so the square bit of land here grey features to the left of the site here is Engledale Drive the block of flats we've looked at and the grey blocks on the east of the site so one there and here are the properties on black end so the proposals for the L2 part of the site are as follows they'll be to the rear block of flats ground floor with its own cycle store and to the front of the site sitting quite centrally on that top of street elevation is another block which has a north to south axis so it will sit perpendicularly to the block to the rear the block to the rear is proposed to be used for affordable housing for council rented purposes and the block to the front will be market housing access to the site from top of street where my pointer is now showing with parking bays on the left hand side of that access and also on the right hand side when we look at the upper floors you'll see that there are going to be flats proposed above this area where my pointer is now showing which is the eastern part of the site also on this plan what we can see is some planting along the western boundary and also between the two blocks and in the far north eastern corner we have a growing area for residents development there are two dotted lines rectangles where my pointer is that's one of them and the second one is just here and this is the proposed wreckage areas so the proposal includes underground wreckage bins and we'll have a look at those area and I'll explain a little bit more about how they work so on the upper floor unfortunately this plan isn't in context but the blocks that you saw on the first one the one to the front of the site is shown here keeps the same for print as does the one on the back this is the flats that appear above those parking spaces that I've pointed out on the eastern side of the block so there's four flats featuring in here one of the things about this block to the front which I didn't point out on that previous slide is that it has quite a big indentation here which is quite a key feature and I'll discuss that a bit more later on it also has quite a shanford corner which I'll talk about a bit more in detail every move to the second floor you'll see that the footprint of the two larger blocks stays the same as it goes up the building the third smaller build block has only a two-storey element so parking, a ground floor, flats at first floor and then we're now looking at the roof and then at either end there's another additional bit of accommodation so moving up to the third and fourth floor layout so they're exactly the same for the two larger blocks and there's no further development to the block on the eastern way so this really is focusing on the area shown here as blue because that's not the ownership of the applicant but it does form part of the application site so various improvements are proposed including additional tree planting hedge planting and tune trail play equipment covered seating areas pagola with benches community allotments in this area here with timber planters new railings running track which you can see in yellow providing a bit of play interest and also table tennis tables here as well as bollards and timber bollards to prevent people from parking along the side of the open space as well I had a slide in here about the reasons why this is being referred to planning committee with the chair a very good job of explaining why that is done so just to very briefly cover that it is really in the interests of transparency so the applicant for this is the Cambridge Investment Partnership which is a joint venture between Cambridge City Council and Hill Cambridge City Council as part of a shared planning service between Cambridge City Council and South Cairns District Council it's considered appropriate that we bring this item forward for consideration today one is to touch briefly on the planning history of the site in particular an application was approved on 5 September 2017 for a mixed use residential led development comprising of 63 one bedroom units on the upper floors including 40% affordable housing along with 67 car parking spaces cycle parking and associated hardened soft landscaping to include gym and two commercial units comprising news classes A1, A2 and D1 at ground floor so that permission expired in May earlier this month and the scheme was not delivered due to issues for the developer in terms of the viability of providing the year we've just lost you a little bit about the design which is one of the key we just missed you we just missed you on the last bit when you were explaining why it wasn't delivered you were just about saying it wasn't viable okay yes sorry have you got me back now got you back now perfect so the reason why the scheme wasn't delivered is the developer I feel we're being redacted definitely not redacted we were just wondering why it was not viable so the cost of providing the underground car park is obviously a very costly exercise and was deemed unviable for the developer to actually achieve just wanted to talk a little bit about the design I think this is one of the key considerations really there is a North Park Design Guide SPV which was drafted and adopted in 2011 the context of the site and surroundings has changed quite significantly since then so we've got some decision to make about what's appropriate in terms of design for the site and how that fits with what's in the design guide and one of the key considerations and key changes since 2011 is the building of the Marma Lane development over the road which was an award winning co-housing scheme and one of the things that the applicant has done is they they employ the same architects and the Marma Lane Lane scheme to try and make sure that whatever proposal came forward on this site responded well and respected that development particularly so just looking at the North Park Design Guide SPV within it there's two extra actually showing images that you can see on your screen now of developments that would be acceptable so these focus purely on the passing of language which is the L2 and not the open space to the west but you can see these images have potential building lines so these both show L shapes in different orientations with 12m heights as absolute maximums and the SPV does state that 12m should be the maximum for the site it's worthy of note as well that although these are these are quite high level drawings and these aren't the only acceptable layouts the scheme that was approved is probably most similar to the one on the left but it's more of a C shape so where this kind of north to south axis that I'm highlighting on now that sort of extends further in the approved scheme and then comes across to the east a little bit but we'll have a look at that in a bit more detail in another slide so other things that the design guide talks about in particular to the L2 site said 12m building heights to terminate views from the west 6m 1m heights through other buildings key active frontages are required to the public open space which is the area to the west of the site which is included in this application as well as the top of the street and to create positive relationships between fronts and backs of buildings and to ensure all publicly accessible open spaces are well overlooked so the approved scheme was a four storey building which as it describes a little bit of a C shape so top of street one is east west where my pointer is now access to the site was to the east of being the bottom axis of the C shape with access to an underground car park there were some issues with this scheme in terms of things that as officers we've discussed with the applicant moving forward how we could improve on these issues and some of these are just highlighted on this slide so one of them are where the corners of the seas are you end up with these slightly awkward balconies and for example this flat here has a window that's in very close proximity to another window with this flat here which provides not the greatest of relationships and with balconies of different flats being quite close together the usability and desirability that is questionable so that was one of the things that we wanted to make sure we didn't replicate and there are also some flats which are shown with this red line around it which are all single aspects with only a north facing aspect and then on this eastern edge see that because of the proximity to Wengledale Drive what you end up with is needing visibility placed to protect them from views of each other's balconies to again stop them being not usable but then that limits what sort of light we get into these flats and one thing that's not shown on this but was also a slight oddity with that application is that these two stair calls to the rear of the site actually fall slightly outside of the L2 parcel so these were things that we discussed with the applicant as to how we can make sure that we don't replicate these and try and come up with something better solution and you might think this is a mistake but I am intentionally showing you the slide that I showed you previously with the design guide because one of the things that we looked at was how this fits with the current context and you can see in these diagrams at Marmalade Lane which actually sits where my pointer is shown on this left hand guide and wasn't built at that time and we needed to make sure that whatever we looked at doing responded well to the existing context including things that aren't shown in these diagrams and in particular if we look at this left hand diagram this shows quite strong and long frontage to top of street which could in theory all be 12 metres according to this design guide and as I say this design guide is 10 years old and we need to make sure that whatever we develop now meets the context of the current situation but still respecting the spirit of this document and so what we asked the applicant to do was to have a look at what views of this would look like if we had a long 12 metre high building along top of street with Marmalade Lane on the other side of the road and this is an image that they are able to put together and so on the left of this image this is the Marmalade Lane development and you can see you could end up with quite a long 12 metre high wall which wouldn't be the greatest idea without a look for the properties on Marmalade Lane so we looked through various options with the appearance of how this design could evolve in a way that responds well to the site and achieves not only an appropriate frontage opposite Marmalade Lane but responds well to the other things that are pointed out in the SBD talking about how it responds to the open space to the west providing overlooking to those spaces and also looking at how buildings relate to one another so going through some computer generated images of the proposal that's before you so this is from the east of the site looking down top of street where my cursor is here on the left of the screen is Marmalade Lane this building here is the existing black block on black end just to the left of it here this building will be the flats that sit over the half parking spaces on the east of BL2 site proposed and then I'm pointing out on one of those floor plans that's quite a big indentation in that front block which faces top of street and that allows this form to always look like two slender buildings rather than a giant block in the middle so its relationship is very different it is taller than what is set out in the SBD but the alternative was that there could be a block which in theory could have extended roughly where my territory is up 12 metres high and along all of this so we've looked at this as a possibility and with the urban designers we've decided that this would be a more appropriate form of development to face onto top of street and in the images that come forwards shortly you'll see how it responds to the open spaces as well so one of the things that was pointed out in the SBD was wanting to have a building that terminated views from the west so this is a view from the west you can see the open space in front of Angle Bell John right here and this is what would appear as the first of two blocks those appearances are kind of maybe even more deliberate by using different brick types for the two wings as they were of the same building but you can see it provides a strong image to the open space with balconies for the residents providing natural surveillance to make it feel like a safe, usable space and with the kind of upgrades to the open space it's proposed that we looked at on a previous slide having this sort of natural surveillance obviously makes it feel like a safer place for people to let their children play next image so this is the third image in fact before I do so let's go back to the previous one just on building height so if we had so the building height proposed is 15.9 metres which is taller than the 12 metres proposed but one thing we looked at was again this whole notion of having a building that terminates views from the west and if this building was much smaller let's say we took a floor of it to bring it slightly closer to the 12 metres it would sit slightly oddly with the Angle Bell drive building this point is a 13.8 metres and so it actually fits much better being a slightly taller building than what we have here in terms of terminating those views from the west the way the site has been approached with the slightly smaller building which you can see here which are the flats that sits over the parking spaces that then provides an adequate transition down to the shorter properties on black ends and third CGI so this is looking into the site and the access to it so we've got a shared surface here front and it almost creates a feeling of a sort of road in itself where then you have an access point with properties either side so we've got the flats that sits over those parking spaces flats from the market housing block up to the front and then the block up to the rear which will be the afforded housing block and one of the key things that we've looked at is making sure that the buildings are in appearance quite similar and that we're other than brick tones which you see there's a attempt to use three different bricks here to make them feel like different buildings but in terms of design quality and window sizes and balcony types there's a very strong relationship between them one that creates a harmonious approach across the site but two that also helps to make the development feel tenured blind and parking bays along the front are all broken up by rows of planting which helps to just soften that feeling of it being a row of parking I wanted to look at proximity to existing residents so I've just put this slide together and annotated some distances on it so if we look at the market block to Henry Goldow Drive it's very close to the very edge of it there's a 7 metre distance and it's more to the nearest windows that same block to the property on black end is 13 metres this is probably quite an important relationship because there are windows on the flank of these properties of black end which we'll have a look at the market housing block is close to the front here so that's 11 metres away from the nearest point of that market block on Engeldale Drive and then again further to the nearest windows and 23 metres away from these black end properties there's also built form above these parking spaces these properties in black end have no blank windows facing out this way and then this is an area of car parking to the middle of those properties the next slide just shows how this sits in relation to the steam that has previously been approved it's a bit of an rifle but there is a red dotted line which shows the line of the approved steam overlaid on steam that's before you today so you can see this kind of sea shaped building that we discussed earlier on so to the north of the site the building line is very similar to what's proposed now Ganesh, just how many slides do you have? there's probably another seven or eight, there's not two more if we move on I think we've got the comparison part okay, thank you just about a minute a future occupiers of these properties so 71 of the 75 to M42 complies which is far greater than the 5% the policy requires all properties comply with or exceed the space standards that are nationally prescribed the building is as we've described the tenured line by virtue of their design and all properties have their own private external amenity spaces and they take the form of balconies and terraces and then there is an issue about the A14 the A14 runs east to west along the back of the site at an elevated height hence the site is here the SPD talks about needing to make sure that properties are protected from noise from the A14 which you can see already has an acoustic barrier so this is one of the upper floor plans of that rear block so the actual windows of the flats run along the line where my cursor is now the property has the access which is along here and there is a further row of windows along the back which provides further buffer from any sound from the A14 which the council's environmental health consultant has confirmed is acceptable in terms of wreckage arrangements so wreckage vehicles will enter the site where this cursor is to reverse to where the bins are and they're operated by a truck like this so it's a specialist truck which will be able to lift the waste directly out from underground replace the container and drive back out in board gear so car parking is quite a big issue and of the concerns that we've had from residents it's mainly around this so for 75 to 26 spaces are provided and this includes two car club spaces so excluding those two car club spaces it's 0.32 spaces per dwelling research data from DCLG and some census data shows that a development of this nature needs to be provided 0.63 cars per dwelling which would equate to 48 spaces similar data also shows that each car club space has the capacity to possibly displace as many as 12 cars parking surface for the area has demonstrated that overnight capacity on the street exists to potentially swallow ups any additional demand that there might be in cases kind of number of 12 and realised exactly we also have an issue with trying to make sure that in terms of parking we are encouraging sustainable transport and this application has tried to do that so some of the measures for that are 116 cycle parking spaces for residents 8 visit cycle parking spaces residents are to be given a 2 year membership to the car club 6 parking spaces would have even charged points from day 1 with a remainder passive provision to allow the future connection the applicant will be making a £75,000 financial contribution towards cycle route improvements as part of section 6 and it's also noted that the site is enclosed proximity to the guide busway and it's 140% of affordable housing which is policy compliant and that's 100% for council rent public art so on the issue of public art with the original submission the applicant has submitted a public art delivery plan which set aside a budget £40,000 for public art public art officer had requested an increased budget of £65,000 in the meantime section 106 contributions have been sought for is scheme from the council's officers which is shown on the right hand side of the screen we have proved scheme previously as shown on the left hand side so when putting the application together the applicants were working on a figure of approximately this figure at the bottom here 192.786 per dwelling when they came up with their budget £40,000 for public art and unfortunately what was requested for them was significantly more paid and that has meant that they have asked for in public art contribution to be taken their document to be withdrawn and they're not now making any contribution towards public art so in terms of that the policy encourages the provision of public art but then does quite clearly state that this needs to be decided through negotiations and competing demands of development need to be weighed up against each other this is the hoarding at the front of the site and the applicant has worked with the local community to ensure that this has actually been designed in collaboration with them and you can see some of the artists here actually putting that together which is quite a nice bit of public art that's there at the moment sustainable drainage so the site is over one which indicates that there's low chances of flooding and in any event the site caters for 100 years plus 40% climate change storm events which is in accordance with the MPPG and other sites provisions includes green roofs permeable paving and so forth sustainable in terms of sustainability the MPPF says that for development we consider sustainable there needs to be economic environmental and social benefits to the scheme in terms of this development in terms of economic benefits there will be job creation during construction social benefits into the creation of social and market housing as well as creation of new social infrastructure environmental benefits are that this will be a gas free development which should be powered by air source heat pumps 60.8% reduction in carbon from building retro requirements green roofs, EV charge points sub-sfeatures 146 of that gaping on the ground the report has a table showing on the lefğ midst two items that i just want to celege amendments to so it is about I want to clarify that and completely oedd y cyfnod o ymwneud o'r cyfnod, ac yna gweithio ar y llwyr o'r ymwneud. The opposite contribution for formal sport set out quite specifically what it should be included for, but there are things to be included like astro and surf improvements, so I'm proposing the wording is made a little bit more general to allow for more widely used. Also in the event of for any reason the landowner of that parcel of open space to the west y west fel y cyfnod o'r llwysig yn fawr o gymryd, ac yn dweud o gael eich prifysgol o'r ysgol iawn. Ieithio, mae'r ysgol iawn i'r ysgol iawn yn y ffordd yng Nghymru, ac mae'r cyfnod i'r ddechrau, yn ddefnyddio'r prifysgol iawn, yn ddechrau'r rhywbeth i'r siwethaf, yn ddechrau, yn oed yn oed yn y sigud. Yn gyfaf ymlaen, mae'n ystafell o'r ysgol iawn i'r ysgol iawn, a'r rhaid o'r rhaid o'r the last thing you need to say is that the recommendation is to grant planning permission subjects conditions in a section 106 agreement in accordance to the detailed set out in this report and the clarification providing the presentation today. Thank you very much for a very full report there, Ganeshan, welcome. It's very nice to have you as part of the authority. And thank you. You've obviously done a huge amount of work there with all parties involved. ac mae'n 11.30 oes, rwy'n meddwl i ddim yn cael ei wneud i 15-minu wneud. Rwy'n meddwl i ddim yn gwneud ar y ddedig. Rwy'n meddwl, rwy'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'ch cyflwyno'r cyflwng yng nghyfrifredig ac oes ddweud yn gyntaf, ac roedden nhw'n meddwl i ddweud i ddweud, a'i ddweud, ond byddwn ni'n meddwl i'ch lefnodd gyda'r ddigbyn yw'r prysgau, galler y gallai'n meddwl i ddweud i ddweud yma? He's not chairman. He's not. Thank you. As I'd understood, if there was going to be somebody objecting he wanted to speak and have the opportunity to speak as there's nobody objecting he's not joining us. Is that right? Good. Thank you. So members what I suggest is we take that 15 minute schedules break. Please remember that we need to go out through this door and come back in again through this door. Let's make sure we're all sitting again here at 11.45. Please do try and get outside and get a bit of fresh air. I'll come back in here and see you in here. Thank you very much. Thank you everybody on screen. Are we okay in terms of those who are doing the live? I've just had that short 15 minute break. I can confirm that we have all of the members of the planning committee back in the room. Thank you very much. We'll continue now with agenda item six, which is Orchard Park. We've just had a very full descriptive presentation of the application. We don't have any public speakers who are down to speak. We do have local members. Councillor Martin, would you like to speak now or at the end of the debate? At the end of the debate? Good. Thank you. So it is now open for the debate during which you can also ask any of the clarification questions that may have come up to officers. Vice-chair, do we have anybody who'd like to speak? I have two chair, councillors, Wilson and Roberts. Thank you. Thank you, chair. My first question is about provision for people with disabilities. Is any of the parking set aside for people with disabilities? Are any of the apartments provided for people with disabilities? I do have other questions but I'm happy to leave them to other people who have asked their questions. Thank you very much. We'll go to Ganesh in terms of access issues in terms of the design of the apartments but also in terms of disability access parking. Seemed to have frozen. Councillor, do you mind if we move on to another while we're checking? Who do we have next? Is councillor Roberts? Is it a question for the officer? No, it's debated if I'm made, Madam Chairman. That's fine, absolutely fine. Okay, thank you very much. We are looking at this afresh but obviously there is history already and a previous approval. However, what is in front of us doesn't give me a lot of confidence really. We know that there are now growing concerns at Orchard Park itself about the amount of this type of housing that is going there. Because I have been here forever in a day, I remember the conception of the Orchard Park idea. My recall is that it was a very different beat that we were looking at. We were looking very much at a mixed housing approach of families. What we appear to now be getting is just one after the other of these one bedroom type apartments. I don't think it adds to the quality of life for the people who are already there. I don't think it will add to the quality of life for the people going there. Also there have been, again to my recall, very strong input about the concerns already about parking at Orchard Park and the amount of overspilling that occurs. Here we are with all these basically young people who I'm sure probably do bike but obviously as well maybe have cars. We just do not seem to be providing what is required in the parking criteria here. Very ugly building seems that Cambridge really doesn't seem to worry about how ugly all its entrances are these days to be supporting this sort of thing. Very ugly building, very large, very tall. I think it will be imposing upon Marmalade Lane houses. Not a good idea. I don't think it fits in. If this applicant says that it's not viable, well let him go away. I get a bit sick of these would-be developers saying that it's not viable. Don't take it on board then my dear, that's your answer. But I just think that this is not a good project. It's not a worthwhile for the area. I think I should be voting against it. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Robertson. What I've noticed is that you have issues around material considerations such as density, parking, design, impact on character and appearance and the vibration in terms of public art. Thank you. We have... Councillor Ryford. Councillor Judith Ryford. My answer question, so I don't know if we have... What do we have back? I'll wait. Would you be able to answer at all any of the questions? Are we okay in the live streaming? We've just lost our office at the case office. Can I take your question and we'll see. Yes, it's actually about the cycle parking and a little bit of a pointer exactly where it is on the side. I know it's internal and also the security aspects of it. I'd like just like a little bit more information. I'll keep that question on also. Do we have any other? Yes, a few. We have councillors Fain, myself, Heather Williams, Richard Williams. Councillor Peter Fain. Thank you chair. Yes, I'm going straight to debate. I don't have any questions. I have to say I share some of what councillor Robert said about the design. It is quite clear that the SPD talks of the position of buildings must ensure positive contributions to existing street scenes, in particular those bordering existing residential development. The summary that we're given suggests that the proposal is of a high quality design and would respond well to the local vernacular. I'm not sure that I'm persuaded of that. The proposal is in direct conflict with a lot of the local vernacular. Not only in terms of height, 15.9 metres compared with that set out in the SPD, but also the pitch roof, except of course in relation to the small block over the parking, which does have a pitch roof. That access to one of those is gained by a steel staircase off the street, which is not usually regarded as good practice, but there may be another access, I don't know. I am concerned about the design of this. It is clearly dominant, has no pitch roof. It is not consistent with other design in the area, and this is a particularly sensitive sighting view of development since the SPD, as was outlined by the case officer. I'm always concerned when I see affordable housing blocks effectively serving as noise barriers, which would appear to be the case here, with that against the A14. There's the question of car parking. We see a greater number of units here, but a lower number of car parking. Now, of course, that may be a contribution to sustainable transport, and we have here the car club. The question that concerns me is whether this is likely to lead to cars being parked on the street. Now, despite all those concerns, I have to ask myself whether that is a reason for refusal, and I'm not yet convinced whether it is, so I shall be interested to hear the debate and the views of others on those points. Thank you, Councillor Payne. There's myself, I have a question for the officer. I can put it now in case we get him back. I think we have the question. What I'll do, you're going to have a series of questions, and so I'll tell you which of the questions that are received so far, and then we'll add Councillor Batchel's question. You did hear, I think, the two which were around the provision in terms of parking for disabled parking, and also the provisions of accessible apartments for modified for disability as well, and also a question around the cycle parking, just to clarify where that is within the building, and the security aspects for cycle parking, given that that is one of the key issues around cycling is security of the parking elements, and now the question from Councillor Batchel. Thank you, so my question relates to the land to the west of the site that isn't owned by the applicant. You mentioned towards the end of your presentation that the landowner may or may not be allowing the use of the land. I just wanted to ask what the likelihood of that is if we've actually got any indication from the landowner that they would allow the use, and if not if they had a justification for that. Go ahead. Thank you, so sorry about that. I completely lost my connection momentarily there. So I'll try and answer those questions. Hopefully I've got them all written down on here, so I'll try and answer what I have, and if I do miss any help, please do let me know. In terms of the disability situation and accessibility for the units, 71 of the 75 meet M42 standards, which means that they are accessible and adaptable units of the parking base. So some of the bays that are under the flats have much wider width room either side, so it can be used as disabled bays rather than the standard bays which as you enter the access road, the ones on the left are just of a normal width. In terms of cycle parking, each block has its own designated store, so the two blocks have stores which are only accessible to residents themselves. The four flats that sit above the parking spaces in the separate block, two of those will have access to the cycle store in one of the blocks and the other two will have access to cycle stores in the other ones, but they are completely accessible only to residents. During the design stage of this and conversations between urban design officers and the applicants, we asked about whether or not there could be more glazing on some of the elevations of the cycle stores to provide more natural surveillance, but we had conversations with the secure by design officer who suggested that that wasn't actually the idea and having minimal, it's one of those things that almost ends up serving two purposes, so our initial thought was if people could see into it would that deter people from wanting to commit crime because there was more visibility of it, but the view of the secure by design officer was that actually creating those greater views creates a greater likelihood of being misused, so in the end there's now minimal views within, but they are totally secure and only accessible for residents. On the issue of the land to the west, Councillor Paterson's question, the applicant is in conversations with the community council who have agreed to issue an licence for these works to take place, so there is an agreement in place, but I think the reason for that final slide really was more to just kind of provide a safeguard that if there was an eventuality where that wasn't forthcoming for any reason that we were still able to secure contribution to open space improvements or provision locally, but the intent of the applicant and certainly from conversations it had with the community council is that that is likely to be acceptable. Just a couple of other things really that I think I'm not sure if there were questions or the things that I'd heard as I came back online. There was talk about the kind of affordable housing block being used as a barrier to the noise and that certainly isn't the intent, and one of the reasons why it's been designed the way it has with the external decaps to the rear is that actually it's a perfectly acceptable rockerflats and it's that dect access along with the existing kind of noise mitigation measures, like the acoustic barrier that's in place that serves as a noise barrier rather than the block itself. I think I also heard some comments on the design and I think it's one of those ones where what we've tried to do is make sure that it does relate as well as possible. I think when we look at design, it's not just about replicating exactly what the immediate surroundings is. It's just making sure that what we do design responds well to it. Thank you, Ikanesh. I think that's good. I've answered the questions and I think that part of the debate you've outlaid well in your original presentation. Thank you very much. Anybody like to come back on the answers to the questions they had? It wasn't on that question. I have another point to make so I'm happy to wait my turn. Was your okay with the question answered? Thank you. So next we have councillor Williams, comma Heather. Thank you, Chairman. So looking at the... I have several concerns about this and I do recognise that actually Orchard Park does have its own unique character compared to some of our other villages and the word character appears hundreds of times quite rightly in our local plan. I do have an issue with the design of the proposed buildings. Design is subjective and obviously so you will all have our personal likes and dislikes of things but when it comes to fitting in in the area the roof height, it's a flat roof it's quite a blunt shaped building and I think that adds to the dominance in its area when you look at the others which are much more softer design apex roofs, et cetera and also they're lighter in colour and given the height of it not so much the other types of brick and the darker bricks I think as it's going to be so tall rather than a lighter colour that would then sort of fade into the sky so it's a very dominant building I'd also reference out of the local plan page 47 it's paragraph 3.7 which actually says about the noise in relation to the A14 Chairman would you like me to pause to allow people time to get to that? So page 47 actually says that any residential development near the A14 you must be wary of noise and it does include limiting height and yet we can see from this development that we're actually looking at exceeding heights so I have concerns around that and its dominance in the area now we do want iconic buildings and we do want focal points but I don't think that this is a particularly suitable for the area and most importantly policy H101C about the groups and clusters I can see that there are some practical reasons that we've been given as a reason why we're not adhering to that policy in relation to management and costings however that policy is there for a reason and to be quite frank though I very much assume that we have the intention but the consequence of the design is that we have this issue of noise really A14 and we are putting all the affordable housing backing on to that in one big group when we could actually see a dispersement through the development which would be policy compliant might be more difficult to manage but difficult doesn't mean it's a reason to stop and I'm highly uncomfortable of putting all the affordable housing at the back one block and it effectively become the noise barrier to the other developments I don't think that's suitable and I don't think it's policy compliant I think those chairman are my main concerns with it I think that there is it is suitable to have development there I think that the principle is set and I think that the proposed mix and types of development is probably suitable there but I think it is it is found wanting on more than one place I'd also say that on the transparency issues that I am places come forward but I think we also should note that this council is also in partnership with Hill and therefore that is another reason why applications should be coming to the committee as there is a financial link now between this council and Hill thank you chairman thank you on that final point I would just like to ask Stephen Reed our senior lawyer I did raise that point for coming into committee meeting just to double check on that so I'd like confirmation for Stephen Reed as to the allegation that there could be some level of conflict of interest there thank you chair I did consider whether there was a potential conflict but the two partnerships with Hill one between the city council and Hill and ourselves and Hill I don't think there's any reason why we can't consider this application on its merits I think that wasn't the question it's about the issue of transparency whether or not it's the South Cams relationship with Hill is also an issue for the transparency that's the point that's being raised thank you council Williams thank you chairman my point is that going forward I think when we're referencing the need for these applications to come to committee we should also include the fact that this council is in a financial agreement and partnership with Hill not just that and because we have a joint service that it's coming through I think it's really important as we go forward that we're very clear and open about that so I would just request that in future it's listed as another reason for the transparency though I'm not questioning our ability to make the decision thank you chairman thank you and noted and we'll make to make sure we've got absolute clarity on the issue going forward here and so I'm hearing from you council Williams not principle in development but there are for you again issues out of council of things design of the dominance of it the height in terms of character appearance and compliance with the auction park SBD and the clustering policy H10 in terms of affordable housing and open for other speakers yep we have council over Richard Williams next that's not to Richard Williams thank you chair I'll be brief because a lot of the points in fact all of the points I wanted to make a word of you made by the councillors I am concerned about the height of it again we have an SBD that we are not sticking to and it does concern me that we're constantly going a little bit higher a little bit higher a little bit higher than the SBD but more than that more than the fact that simply we're not complaining with the SBD it is the dominance of the building it is the materials that have been used I think councillor Heather Williams mentioned they don't fit in with the local surrounding with what's already there and they are rather stark I have to say as well that we were shown a graphic of I think what was in the SBD and the supposed sort of wall that we'd have opposite the houses I must admit when we moved on to a different slide and I saw what was proposed I thought it looked pretty much exactly the same to my mind so I think we still have that problem of a very tall building facing the housing opposite and as I say with materials that really do not fit in with the existing surrounding it also bothers me but the block at the back which is affordable housing the noise issues actually slightly worries me about the pollution issues as well we should forget we're building that close to a very very busy dual carriageway and I note in the SBD that the houses on that block much further forward not so near to the A14 but when I'm proposing something that is really right up against the road and I think that concerns me for the quality of life of the residents who would be there as I say on noise and pollution grounds parking is again a real concern if we are trying to build sustainable communities we do need to build places where people can live in the long term we continue to build one and two bed flats and we don't give people parking opportunities with the best will in the world with car shares people aren't going to stay in those places they're going to be places that people move through they live for a short period and then they move on just for the nature of life if you have children life becomes more complicated you often need a car if we don't give people the option to live well we can't really expect them to stay there so I do worry that by building these these residential sites without sufficient parking we really aren't building sustainable communities and of course it hardly needs to be said that this doesn't comply with our local plan in terms of the number of car parking spaces and doesn't comply with the government guidance that's already been mentioned so for all of those reasons I'm not at all happy with this proposal I did have one slight question this is not a material consideration but this is partly just out of interest but it was mentioned that the affordable housing would be social rented which council would be renting that would it be South Council or would it be Cambridge City we can ask that question to the officer just as a point of interest and what I'd like to do members is also make sure that what I'm doing is summarising what are those material considerations that you're raising so we don't need to duplicate them you can say you agree so we do have the issues that have been raised in terms of concerns some people yet are still trying to come to the balance so even though they're mentioning them doesn't mean that they're necessarily coming to a decision although some people are leaning in one way the levels of the density the height and impact on character appearance design and the public art issue the compliance with the orchard park plan in terms of the height of that and also around the noise barrier aspects and the clustering of the affordable housing at the back of the development materials included within the design and concerns about the allocation for parking those are the issues that I've heard raised so far in terms of material concision that have been considered so what I'm asking is as you speak yes yes yes it does dominance has been mentioned by yourself and by people that cancelled paying in terms of that design so those are the issues that have been raised which are material considerations on you with the debate and who I have next with four speakers chair councillors Hawkins, Wilson, Harvey and Griffith again thank you very much thank you very much chair I'll try not to repeat some of the things that have gone I do agree with with the issues that have been raised my specific concern is the impact of this building on Mamillid Lane it's an award winning development just looking at the CGI we were shown just shows me that it's just way too overbearing in its size and the way in which it is oriented and also there was if I refer to to do with the issue of light in the flats which affects the amenity of those who are going to live in it my finger on it earlier on that's its page 184 paragraph 73 and 74 I know it says that it didn't meet guidelines by small margins marginally what is marginal it might be marginally numbers but the effect of it could potentially be quite severe for those who live in it and I note that it says 80% of requirements in the area is for small units one and two bedrooms okay that might be a positive but there as has been said there is it's going to be a transient type community and that worries me as well parking I wouldn't go into that as all being very well said but the feeling what I see for me is a proposal that doesn't sit well where it is and the fact that it doesn't it deviates from the SPD by some way in some aspects just policy well with me and I'm not sure I'll be voting for this while waiting to see thank you thank you members and as we're going on this is coming to us in terms of transparency so we have no objection to the site there's a neutral response from Orchard Park Community Council so this is coming to us for transparency I just want to remind us of that but the issues that are being brought forward are material considerations they're all taking very seriously thank you Councillor Wilson's next Thank you chair one of the points I was going to make was this slight edging of the margins of the SPD but that was dealt with by Councillor Richard Williams I have a concern about the affordable housing being separate but also all the people the residents of the affordable housing have access to the other facilities that the residents like the car club I've read quite a lot about portals in London and the difference in treatment between people in the affordable housing the non affordable housing I wouldn't like to see that here but my other concern is on the main block which has the slight division on the side so it looks like two separate blocks there is one block and there are apartments on both sides but the ones on the end will have windows on the side three on one side and the two on the left hand side what won't have any three ventilation and I wondered what provision is in place to make sure that those apartments are properly ventilated Thank you very much I'm going to invite the case officer we had a couple of queries Ganesh are you there? So you may have noted them down there's a query of interest in terms of which council rent of the affordable housing the access to car share the equity of that in terms of the those who would be living in the affordable housing and the through ventilation and issue in terms of amenity that marginal aspect in terms of amenity on lighting that was raised also by Dr Tumi Hawkins So in terms of the social housing it worked very similarly to what's been proposed on another scheme that went to the joint development and control committee a few months ago at the Meadows because the land is an ownership of the city council they will have a local lettings plan with self cams for the allocation of those the way it's worked on the Meadows is that there is in the first instance they look for people who've got a joint connection with both self cams and the city council so that's how they are prioritised but they are ultimately city council owned and city council controlled in terms of the car club access so yes the car club access is for all potential both affordable and market housing residents and the two years free membership to those clubs will be for residents again both affordable and market in terms of the impact on marmalade lane and the light receipt that council Hawkins had mentioned so it is marginal in terms of the test how much it fails by but we also have to remember the aspects that these windows are facing in so those windows on marmalade are all facing in so the light receipt is somewhat restricted anyway by virtue of that of its orientation overall it's not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the residents of marmalade lane and certainly when you consider what you could also have is a 12 meter high much wider block and it wouldn't be any significant difference to what that would achieve either in terms of through ventilation so these properties are all fitted with mechanical ventilation and heating so there is sufficient mechanical ventilation to make sure that there is adequate ventilation for all properties thank you councillor Harvey is next councillor Jeff Harvey thank you chair I think it's commendable actually the effort that we've put in on energy performance has just heard mechanical heat recovery and source heat pumps et cetera and also attention to possibly overheating in summer I've just also I think it's good that the number of car club spaces has been increased from once to and if we're right about the effectiveness in terms of reducing each one reduces by 12 the number of private known cars is an excellent thing and perhaps also slightly mitigating against councillor Fane's other point on the lack of pitch roof I think other people have mentioned that I approve of the green roof there which I guess would be difficult to attain with a pitch roof but my concern on both of those is I'll be certain that I notice the developers funding for the first two years but with the car club and the green roof are we sure that there's a sort of management plan in place that will be funded to make sure those continue beyond two years and into the future thank you can we just ask the case officer then to just to clarify the issues around the longer term management of those options both the car club and the green roof yep so with respect to the green roofs as part of the planning conditions there is a condition about its long term management and maintenance to make sure that that's quite often what we see is green roofs or green walls on buildings that end up not being so green after a while and so we will be conditioning a maintenance plan for those roofs to make sure that they stay green and maintained in an appropriate manner with regard to the car club so this is just for two years so normally what happens with developments like these is after that period the car club will determine as a result of the usage of it whether or not they wish to continue operating it but with things like car clubs lots of this is about learned behaviours and what the developers doing by providing the two years membership for residents is trying to encourage the initial use of it but then be hopefully seeing that the prolonged use of it means that you don't necessarily need your own car ownership especially when you're in a relatively accessible site like this is Thank you Councillor Harvey switches my call and then Councillor Riffer at a second point Usually in this room I actually quite like the design of the main block although some of that is to deal with looking at what was previous and you have to look at something and think is this the best we can get and I'm not quite sure if we really got to that point although the division of it so it's not quite such a long block across is I think an improvement and equally I quite like the materials and the way they've been placed on the buildings but I know that's subjective and that's my point of view against other peoples The main thing I'd like to point out though or know a bit more is actually hearing from the local members I'm wanting to hear what you both think of it in its location because you know the place the best I mean I know it's a little bit but just knowing how it fits in its context for you Gasko Perhaps this is the moment for me to comment on this at the local community council was neutral on it and they were debating both ways the big concern for all of them is parking and this issue about the number of car parking spaces the question is whether it will work in the longer term they felt at the end that they came to a conclusion they couldn't really draw a conclusion on that certainly with the highways not objecting accepting it it was a bit really a bit uncertain my attitude to this is very much determined by this site has been vacant it's the last basic site in Orchard Park the bare site is not a satisfactory situation we want to get something on that site this is one of the other aspects that affected the community whether this is the perfect response is uncertain we are clear reservations which people have brought up so I started to look at the situation from a number of points talking to people who live there regarding the visit point about the affordable housing which lines along the road we talked to somebody long before I became a councillor who was working in one of the shops in my village who lived in the houses in Angledo Drive and I immediately thought the same that you were talking about here it's going to be polluted it's not going to be satisfactory and the comment was we moved into that house because it was available and it's been fine there's no problem with noise the way of having flats on one side and the bare wall on the other works and then I looked at this block and they said oh it's worse than the people who are in the private housing actually in some ways it's better because this is the one block that is south facing so it's got the best aspect and if I were living there that's the block that I would want to live in if I know that the the noise is a barrier is effective so I'm not totally convinced that this is actually a worse position and that it is something we should complain about if people who live in an equivalent block are happy about it and feel that it works I can only talk about the experience of people living in an equivalent situation am I I feel that that objection actually in actual experience doesn't work out the question about the height of the building is a concern but unlike previous one it doesn't go parallel to the road and the design well I've my wife's from Eastern Europe so this is why she feels this is the sort of thing that she tends to like well I don't I know it's not pitched roof it's not more typically British so maybe but this is a very mixed community and I think it might be the sort of thing that they would be more more used to I'm not sure that that is in itself a reason I quite like it, other people don't like it it is a matter of taste in terms of the overshadding you do have to remember that this is north of Marble Aid Lane, not south the residents in those houses in Marble Aid Lane mainly live on the pedestrian street on the other side this is not the area which they mainly live in it is a bit overbearing but it's to the north it's not going to prevent them getting any lights so I'm not sure that I can stand that this is enough of an overbearingness to say that I would like to refuse it the previous application on Neil Road the top bit was reversed taken back a bit but that would spoil the vision where it forms a western end to the a blockage to the views from Orchard Park so it wouldn't work so well on that particular site again I'm not really sure that I feel that that's enough to say no to it against that there is the advantage that there's improvements being made to the recreational area the community has not managed to do and this is one of the things that they were quite happy about they were pleased about this was going to be a good improvement so in terms of numbers on the other side I was thinking about is that Marmalade Lane provided a large number provision because it was pushed to and in practice they've not been using what they can park in space so maybe this form of development would work there it perhaps might be an example to show whether it would work whether a private development of people that are not quite so committed to environmental matters as Marmalade Lane is but the community is a very it was originally planned as a mixed community and family community but basically it's become much of a small many of the houses in multiple occupations many of the family houses are converted into multiple occupations it's become a place a dormitory for individuals working in either young professional individuals single people working in the city or students or other people and this a shortage is obviously a pressure on the houses so providing allocated accommodation is a positive point from that point of view it would put reduce the pressure on the splitting up of existing houses into multiple occupations and that will seem as a positive point so there were points both ways on consideration I came to conclude I've come to conclusion in the end that I will support this application I think the benefits of having the environment developed that the benefits of all the environmental improvements on the open space the fact that I actually think that the affordable housing is probably the best housing on the side so I don't think they're being badly done by I know it looks like that may be the case but in practice it doesn't appear to be the case the fact that it will we will be able to see from this where the actually we can make sustainable development work on a site where in fact anywhere in Orchard Park there is the most available street parking I mean the other part is much worse but there this little part is the least over stock parking so there is one other part that I would make something which we can't do but which I would highlight because I feel it's important for the future there's been a this area has a lot of areas or it's very small having a wide open space in the countryside the existing sites such as Anglesey Abbey and Rympole are over stocked and overloaded we don't provide provision for it we don't actually have policy grounds for which at the moment we are able to do some work on it but this is exactly the sort of site where the increasing population will provide increasing pressures on the local countryside and maybe we ought to be thinking in the future whether we can take account of that in terms of providing areas in the countryside as a result of this it's not possible here I realise that but it is something you think about take into the new local plan process I think would definitely take that we have anybody else but I do have Laisley would like to speak Yes, thank you chair I just wanted to make one point I've heard a few members use the phrase design is subjective and that is true to an extent but there are well established design principles and I just wanted to remind members that this scheme has had an awful lot of input from our urban designers through a pre-app a lengthy pre-app process and through this application so yes there are elements of design that are subjective but there are also established principles that have been looked at very carefully Do we have any speakers? In terms of myself as a local member what I would just add onto this as Councillor Cahn has said there's been lots of discussion within the local community with Orchard Park Community Council with ourselves at Orchard Park Community Council as well what they would like to have noted is there appreciation of the engagement around the section 106 there's been a lot of engagement with the community council around the section 106 the section 106 is greater than they thought originally and that section 106 does focus on improvement and access to the open space offsite which is the adjacent site so it's both on-site and off-site and as I understand from the case officers presentation one of the concerns of the community council in the section 106 was that it didn't specifically it was too specific in terms of the section 106 funding for the recreational formal recreational space and it didn't therefore mention the astroturf and so what they would like is a little bit more flexibility in terms of all surfacing that could be improved so that they could agree that with the developer. They are overall concerned about the height and that is the increasing density and always in Orchard Park is the issue around parking but they felt in terms of the balance that we as the committee have to come to is that they didn't fall down on either side of that but they did appreciate this improvement of their access and the quality of open space that was around it and the engagement with Marmalade Lane co-housing and the design around that so members Councillor Cun. One additional point I thought to mention is that there is a real shortage of in terms of the private housing of opportunities for people to buy starting on the housing when they're single buying properties I've chatted to people in Cambridge and the one thing that they find is they can't start they can't get this first place small place which they can have on their own so there's a real demand and need for this and it's not being provided by the market sufficiently so that is an argument I feel in favour of this development I don't think we really realise how difficult it is for people to do this and I was quite I was quite shocked talking to people about how difficult they find it and that's another argument in favour. Thank you so we've heard members sort of the real concern so there's no challenge to the principle of development I haven't heard anybody challenge that in terms of principles of development but there are concerns and density the impact in terms of character and appearance of the area the issue of that density the height the issue of not being compliant with the orchard park local plan someone's closing us down and in terms of the parking the dominant aspects in terms of the design because of that and I think those are the issues of amenity so those are the main things in terms of the balance the balance between that in terms of the harm and benefit and what we've also heard in terms of sustainable energy sustainable designs the reasons that the design have been worked on including together with the architect for the Marlonade Lane Co housing huge efforts being done in terms of that heard about the affordable housing side and the need and demand for this kind of housing as well so members it's up to us now to I think go to the vote and see where you fall down in terms of the balance between these issues which even the community has worked on quite a lot so if we move to the vote we have the recommendation from recommendation I'd just like to ask officers that you can have the recommendation on the first page if there are any conditions so the recommendation is on the front but it just says approved but on page 220 is the recommendation from officers that this is the planning committee approves this application subject to the conditions which are contained in those pages following we've had no motions for any other conditions to be attached to this we do note that the case officer said that there would be slight amendment of the wording in the section 106 to respond to the community council's desire for more flexibility in terms of the use of the improvement to the pavings within the recreational formal space and now we'll move please members to vote for against or of Stem Sheriff Unmay do you want to agree reasons for refusal before the vote sorry thank you very much in terms of agreeing the reasons for refusal would you like to Chair I wonder if the case officer sorry for those that started voting yes the reasons for refusal so just looking at reasons for potential refusal so river gas design and the proposal would be overly dominant in terms of its height and position and on top of street and relate poorly to its surrounding context including the marmalade lane development opposite and would be countries policy HQ1 of the south camp local plan and the orchard park design guidance SPD adopted 2011 significantly exceeding recommended building heights also relating to design the proposed design of the frontage block on top of street would relate poorly to its context in terms of its roof design and use of materials and would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the urban character of orchard park proposed example country to HQ1 of south camp local plan 2018 and the orchard park design guidance SPD adopted 2011 and with regards to clustering and where the location of the affordable housing is the proposed development was failed to distribute the provision of affordable housing across the site in clusters which accord with the affordable housing SPD 2010 and would thus fail to promote community integration contrary to MPPF paragraph 127 and with regards to parking the proposed development would provide an insufficient amount of car parking for future residents contrary to policies TI3 and HQ1 of the south camp local plan 2018 and would result in a significant overspill of car parking on local roads which would cause unnecessary inconvenience for future residents so within the orchard park SPD the issue of you had the height but also in terms of the noise barrier so in terms of noise pollution and air quality was one of the issues that was raised. So just on that point I think if we're going to make a reason for refusal around that we need to note that with the application submission there was information in terms of impacts of the A14 on those properties in that block on the northern end of the site and its effects being being acceptable so if we are going to make a reason for refusal for that if members just need to be aware that that would be contrary to the information that has been submitted which is obviously of the technical future. Thank you. I would just say I would recommend against that because the evidence would not suggest that there is an issue. Okay so we would not include that I think there is plenty in there in terms of reasons for refusal if anybody wanted to substantiate that decision. So please if you use your vote and press the blue and vote for against or abstain. Thank you and that application is approved with seven votes in favour and for against. Thank you very much everybody. We now move to agenda item seven and I thank very much the paces of those who have joined us in the committee and have waiting to speak so this is on page 203 and this is an application for 108 D High Street Haarston reference number 20 slash 02066 slash FUL. The proposal is for the erection of a residential development containing nine units comprising a mixture of houses and apartments along with access car parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure following the demolition of existing buildings. The applicant is Enterprise residential development limited and the key material considerations principle of development housing density, housing mix loss of a village service loss of employment, character and appearance of the area, highway matters and parking provision, residential space standards, neighbour amenity residential amenity, biodiversity trees and landscape, flooding and drainage, noise and contamination. It's not a departure and the application is being brought to the committee because the local member has requested that this be determined by the clinic committee. The officer of recommendation is for approval. The presenting officer is Karen Pell Cogins. Are you with us Karen? Hi, thank you chair. I am with you. Thank you. I also see that we have councillor Tony Mason with us. Thank you. We'll be one of the public speakers if you take off your video for now councillor Mason. Thank you very much. Karen, do you have your presentation? I do. Just before I start presentation, I have a brief update. The landscape officer has made further comments has no objections to the scheme and acknowledges that an additional tree has been provided on the north western boundary which is the London road frontage. They've asked the hardness of the landscaping condition which is set out in the original report but there is some revisions to the word in just to provide a bit more detail around that condition. That is requested to be added if possible or revised so the existing condition revised. Which condition is that? Are you asking to be revised? It's the hardness of the landscaping condition. I'm not quite sure what number it is but I apologise. I will try and share my presentation with you. Can you see that? We can see that, thank you. Excellent. So this is a that was me. Okay. Sorry about that. This is a proposal for the erection of nine houses following demolition of the existing building on the site which has an existing lawful used as a restaurant. It's a site within the village development for a microcaston at the entrance to the village along the A10 from Cambridge. It is a brownfield site and measures 0.24 hectares in area. The proposal for nine dwellings comprises of plots one to five would be three bedroom dwellings which will be two story with a height of 7.7 metres and plots six to seven would be four bedrooms two and a half stories with a height of 8.8 metres and plots eight and nine would be basically a one and two bed apartments in a block which will be three story and 9.5 metres in height. So just to go on apologies. I'm not quite sure how to remove the section from the slide. So just in terms of the context of the site as you can see this is the site here outlined in red. The existing building on the site is two stories in height and is situated 30 close to the road. So to the rear of the site there is a parking area just here and another parking area here with a single story building. This area is grass and also there is a tree in this area here which is a horse chestnut tree. The map on the left just shows the development boundary framework and the green belt beyond that and this is the site just here. So just moving on an aerial photograph I don't think we're seeing your pointer. Why not? Sorry something's happened to my screen so bear with me. Is that better? Can you see this? Yes we can see that. It's not in presentation mode but we can see the cursor. Sorry I put it in presentation mode and it went on to the funny setting so apologies for that. So this is the site here neighbouring properties down here so this is number 8 London Road and number 174 High Street just here. So just moving on to photographs of the site. So this is the site at the moment as you come in along the A10 from the Cambridge direction. So two story building and then parking to the rear this is the tree. So this is the view from the High Street. So showing parking area existing single story building and then this property to the right 174 High Street and this is a view from London Road showing the existing access point and site, the tree and then this is the neighbour here at number 8 London Road. So just moving on to the site plan. So plots start here this is plot 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 which are two story plots 6 and 7 here which are two and a half story and plots 8 and 9 on the corner which are three story. So just give you an example of the design of the properties. So plots 1, 2 and 3 gable frontage so this is the front elevation at the top here and then the rear elevation has gables plots 4 and 5 very similar design. So plots 6 and 7 so this will be this elevation here will be the frontage facing the car park and London Road or is that back from London Road and this is the design of plots 8 and 9 so this will be the frontage facing that you will see when you come into the village. So this one at the top left. So just give you an example of some street scene elevations so from London Road this will be the apartment building plots 8 and 9 which will be further forward on the site and then behind that you can see plots 1 to 7 so there will be parking in front of those plots and then this is the tree and then the existing access point is here you can see that and then the elevation from the high street again this is the apartment block 9 that you will see and this is unit 1 which will have its side elevation onto the high street just an example of sorry design and materials so materials put forward are buff bricks and then I think it's warm yellow render for the property on the corner and then you have the timber details on the side so the key considerations to take into account is the principle of development which will include a potential loss of a village service, stroke, employment on the site and the scale of the residential development housing density, housing mix the impact on the character and appearance of the area trees and landscaping biodiversity highway safety and parking flood risk, neighbouring and then there's a number of other matters such as sustainability as well thank you thank you very much Karen and as we've done before, if there are any questions we will take them in debate so we'll move now to hear from the public speakers and we have Mr Mrs Rogers thank you and in terms of the timing now and how are we going to do the timing on this one we will definitely allow you to run over a little bit hopefully not thank you very much for coming thank you for letting us attend as well that's good I'll keep it as brief as I can we live in London Road as Karen said at number 8 so the adjacent property to the proposed development the initial planning assessment stated that we had no windows in the flank of our property but didn't take into account that we have a single story element running from front to rear which comprises of a kitchen lounge and corridor leading between the two which is attached to the flank now this was part of the original build and was not an extension we had a small courtyard between the kitchen and lounge where we sit out in privacy and in shade from the sun now our main objection is having a two and a half story house therefore unit 7 erected so close to our fence line which will be obtrusive and mean we will look out at from our lounge courtyard and dining room the dining room is adjacent to the corridor we appreciate there have been some changes to the original plans such as moving unit 7 further towards London Road and adjusting the design of the roof etc but the first and second story elements of unit 7 will still start between our kitchen and courtyard and will still look out at the walls of an imposing building we will experience less light coming into our lounge but we understand this is not a consideration because of other glass areas letting in light from other directions as well as the closeness of unit 7 we will suffer from a lack of privacy with regard to windows in the first story side elevations of unit 6 and 7 at levels 1 and 2 and the garden facing elevation of unit 7 at levels 1 and 2 we believe that the windows in the side elevations of 6 and 7 will now be obscure but we don't see that mentioned on any amended plans these windows will all give vision into our property and will be faced with a prospect of having to use blinds in the lounge and corridor windows the proposal to site 7 houses adjacent to us is in our view an over-development and one less unit would possibly mean more acceptable separation between ourselves and the adjacent new unit if units were of similar to story heights with obscure glass in the side elevation of the adjacent unit and more separation it wouldn't be so much of an issue to us being so close means we are also concerned about any potential damage to the walls of our kitchen and lounge from vibration when groundworks take place we find it hard to believe that a 2.5 story building can be proposed so close to an existing single story now we have always maintained we wish to see the site developed but not in such a way that it will affect and alter our living conditions this is the main reason for our objection thank you very much thank you for keeping to the time very well and you said that very very clearly and articulately so are there any clarification questions from any members for Mr Rogers no good you absolutely made the idea out very clearly thank you very much I'm sure we'll pick those up in the debate do you want to remain here for now no if you take back your seat thank you very much Mr Rogers we now move to the applicant Mr Stocking Peter Stocking I think you are with us virtually hello I think you are on mute there you go can you hear me yes I can hear you very well thank you I'm going to ask Mr Bloby to do the timing of this as well and I'm sure you're very well aware of how this works with your three minutes indeed thank you very much if you want to introduce yourself yes good afternoon members my name is Peter Stocking from Enterprise Residential Limited we are the applicants here we are locally based developers based in Wittlesford and we have strong crack record of delivering quality developments within the district and the wider region when we outset this project we have engaged with the planning officers through the PREAP process the parish council at two of their meetings and we've also met with the joining residents to discuss the proposals the parish council are supportive of the application and welcome the regeneration of what they refer to as an eyesore site this is an important gateway site which constitute the entrance to Haaston we do feel that the proposals for the site will deliver a successful development that will result in a real enhancement of the location a total of nine residential dwellings will be delivered on the site including a mix of two, three and four their properties which we believe will appeal and be obtainable to local people the site is located entirely with the development framework for Haaston and has been confirmed by the officers report can accommodate the quantum of development proposed the application is supported by all statutory consultees including highways, landscaping environmental health and urban design who refer to the scheme as having good design merit the proposal is for sustainable development to be introduced on this site with each of the units exceeding the minimum internal space standards and also providing generously external private amenity space the majority of existing boundary vegetation will be retained and this will ensure that biodiversity net gain will be delivered on site the proposal will utilise the existing established access arrangements to the site and therefore the scheme will not be detrimental to highway safety the car and cycle parking arrangements are compliant with local plan policy requirements the traffic management plan will be secured by a condition and this will ensure that no harm will be caused to highway safety and residential amenity during the construction phase of the development suitable separation will be provided with the adjoining residential properties and this will ensure that the residential menaces of the neighbours will be protected you will have read in the officers report and obviously acknowledged by the previous speaker that the application proposal were revised post submission to ensure that development would not enclose secondary amenity space of the adjoining London road property and with those amendments this relationship is now considered acceptable just on that point we have met with the neighbour and we would be happy to engage with him at the later stage should this be approved and do what we can the windows that we are referred to are obscured and if they are not shown on the drawings then we would agree that they would be obscured we are fully committed to delivering high quality development on the site being designed by award winning Cambridge architects we respond positively positively to the context and character of the area it is a prominent site within Haarston and we feel that the design of the corner building will accentuate this gateway location ensuring that an exemplary development will be taken forward the application is recommended for approval by the officers and we fully endorse that recommendation thank you thank you very much for your time as I remember any questions yes thank you chair really is to do with your discussions or otherwise with the neighbour who spoke earlier I know you said you are willing to have for the conversations with them but my question is did you converse with them or show them the latest plan and the fact that you are going to put obscure windows in the window that they are concerned about it just seems to me that if you want to talk later you should have talked before no well I believe obviously we've been liaising with the the planning officers and the planning officer has fairly recently visited the site with the information that we've discussed and the changes that we've proposed and now agreed so I believe that that has been conveyed to the neighbours that that is what the intention is we have since the early days we haven't personally spoken to the neighbours any more now but we have been liaising with the planning officers who have raised these concerns that's okay consultation with neighbours could be better we certainly engaged right to the start with them and that's something we should always do but I'll take on board your point any other questions we have one from councillor Richard Williams thank you chair I've got a quick question for the applicant if you could take us through the reasoning line having unit 6 and 7 which are the taller and the denser of the units up against the neighbouring property I mean it kind of jumps out at me that 5 and 4 are much smaller and they're in the middle so why is it that way because it would seem to me that any way of dealing with a neighbour's concerns would be to swap things around essentially it's really a case of there are various design issues across the whole of the site but it's not a problem the size of the site is what it is and it's trying to make the best use of that site we have looked at various options and discussed various things with planning officers it's a matter of getting the emergency space appropriately and I believe there has been quite substantial change in the location the relationship between plot 7 and the adjoining one in London Road number 8 and we have moved that forward and taken account of the that space, the secondary space so I believe it's the optimum design for the site taking everything on board, everything into consideration Thank you Councillor Harvey I just wonder if you could sort of talk us through the the sort of aesthetics of and the functioning as a sort of gateway because obviously the sort of dominant view is I would think as you're coming out of Cambridge down the A10 you would see this and it's on a sort of apex but it seemed a bit odd to me that the kind of dominant sort of form there the roof sloping away from the A10 if I read the the sort of computer graphic correctly it just seemed a bit that you would expect perhaps as Councillor Williams was just saying that the height of the apex would be a sort of dominating it if indeed it is to function as a sort of gateway Sorry well I think the point is to we've always thought it is a very important building to meet you as you come into the village and I think the first principle was that to use architect's speak that it turned the corner into the village there has been a number of again a number of versions that we've discussed this with the urban design team as far as what is the best design solution for this there was a slightly different version originally but and taken on board the urban design officers comments that we've made certain amendments to that and certainly some detailing on the ground floor brickwork as well as the aesthetics of the elevations so it's hopefully the solution that we've come up and say the urban design seemed to be the design to have merit and hopefully that's a solution that works obviously everyone will have a view on how that works, the aesthetics of it and the design proposals but we believe that it works as that sort of gateway into the village Thank you very much for that no further questions, thank you very much if you turn the stocking for that Thank you We have now the local member Councillor Tony Mason Would you like to speak now Councillor Mason Afternoon everybody The proposed development of the site has raised significant concerns of residents and neighbours to the site but through the planning process and discussions both with the parish council and where residents' concerns have been raised by the planning portal we do acknowledge the developer has addressed these concerns and improved the proposed development however, significant concerns remain for which residents would appreciate the planning committee considers these concerns and where appropriate puts in place conditions on the development to mitigate and ensure the appropriateness of the development which it cares at the gateway to Haast and Doge along the 810 principalling on these is the housing density the current proposed what is from nine units to be based upon the site this is a significant increase on the new density of residential properties in the village and impact upon the immediate neighbors to the property the loss of privacy and outlook arising from the height of the buildings and closeness to existing property boundaries if consideration can be made in reducing the number of units to enable a more separated development where appropriate space between the current neighbors leading to improvements in privacy and outlook by reducing the number of units by one then development would then be within the committed development framework for group villages at eight and would also reduce the density from being more than the maximum density at 37.5 to being closer to the committed policy requirement at 30 in terms of the character and appearance of the area Haaston has over the past 100 years had many developments and cannot be said to have a design leg but there is a green corridor down the 810 that gives distance between properties and the 810 and the impact of the road noise the development looks like the Hawkson Meadows and the trumpington and this give raises concerns on the development plans for brick walls and immature vegetation I've provided photographs of three locations the existing permanent arms and the development of the horseshoes which provides a difference of scope between immature and mature development of sites we're not looking for a pastiche of a village development but looking for a mature vegetation a significant impact for residents on London Road will be the lack of parking on site which will then lead to visitors to the development parking on London Road which is a 40mh zone the 810 is a 30mh zone the entrance to the site is going to be at a junction whilst appreciating that highways do not have a concern around this when vehicles exit the 810 if they want them to go into the development they will be stopping at a junction and already along London Road there is an increase in the level of parking in the Aston Martin and Port Scourges down the 810 but finally, in terms of trees and landscape within the existing property there are mature trees which unfortunately as part of the development will be removed to elaborate parking spaces within the design there are hard and soft landscaping designs incorporated which are deemed to be acceptable by their planning offices it would be preferable if a condition could be placed upon a planning decision to ensure that sufficient level of planting is put in place at the boundary walls and ensure that the appropriate number of mature trees where reinstated as placements are not just seedings or sapins or tree cuttings that concludes my statement Thank you very much Were there some images that you wanted to that you made reference to? Yeah, they're on the final page Do we have those images? Karen, I don't know if you have those images You're on mute Karen Yes, sorry I can share that with me Do you want to talk us through those? Yeah, so photo 1A and 1B similar to what Karen has shown already they show the junction with the 810 You can see it's quite an open junction with the building as the gateway but when you look down the 810 you can see that there are a green row of trees going down the 810 and the residence would be that when the initial building is put up there will be immature vegetation compared to mature vegetation going into the 810 and into Haarston Photo 2A and B was a modern development that was put onto the car park of the form of Pemberton Arms that is a modern development and the residence would say it is wholly on keeping that is when people in Haarston look at developments that's what they consider as being unacceptable in terms of meeting the nature and its environs and that what they look at is then the development on Photo 3 which was the redevelopment of the former three horses club into the Kitchens Retail Unit which they thought was acceptable and actually quite a good redevelopment which was sympathetic to its environs used materials that were sympathetic to the local building nature and also provided good landscaping Thank you, thank you very much councillor, any questions? Nope councillor Mohawkins Thank you councillor Mason for talking to us today In some ways I think I can see where the issues are regarding that building in the height it is either the flathead building What in your opinion do you think that the residence would like to see I know you've shown those examples but on this side obviously it can take a lot more than you know a handful What in your opinion is the preference I mean I know the parish council say that the building is potentially too tall As a gateway entrance into the village should it be smaller sorry, lower Is that the feeling? I think certainly building on the corner because it is higher than the existing building gives some concerns that it is overlooking and dominating a gateway entrance that makes certainly coming along the road now may not give the impression we are entering the village and it is difficult enough to slow vehicles down entering along the A10 as it is Thank you Thank you very much for that We have councillors, Williams, Griffith and then Robbers As questions or going into debate They are just councillors Richard Williams and then Griffith councillor Mason Sorry, thank you chair Thank you very much councillor Mason I just want to press on one point I mean obviously as planning committee we can only really decide to approve or refuse the application that is before us I know you made reference to one fewer unit on the site but I was just wondering if I could push you as the local member your preference or recommendation to be is whether the committee should refuse or approve the application before us given that we can't amend the design we can amend the conditions we can't really amend the design If the decision of the committee is to approve at nine units my position would be to reject and bring it back down to eight to meet the requirements of the group villages and to reduce the density to be more in keeping with the environment in which the plot sits If you are saying that is not available then I will continue Can we just sort of clarify in terms of what could be in terms of conditions so conditions would you or the case office can you clarify conditions cannot change the main elements of the application we have to approve or reject the application which is in front of us what a condition could do is sort of mitigate some of the issues with that but not actually change either the design layout scale or the main elements of the application so for example of the things that you raise if I understand the density and number of units it would mean refuse that rather than the condition and the character and appearance again that would be difficult to condition the parking it would only be about how the parking happens not whether or not the amount of parking that's available and then in terms of the trees and landscape that probably is something that could be conditioned in terms of the softening of that landscape as the case officer mentioned the type of trees that could be there and assuring that whether or not the loss of trees we have to check that within the application as I heard from the applicant we could go back and check this with the case officer but in fact there wouldn't be any loss of trees so we could go back and clarify that but it would be around the landscaping softening the landscaping and the trees I think aspect would be the only one of those that we could condition so count that Dr Richard Williams would be right otherwise your points would be reasons for you to recommend refusal to the committee thank you do we have one more question I think that's Larissa thank you for such a clear explanation Councillor Mason one thing that you mentioned was about the road entrance which obviously caused you concern although the highways said that's okay would you like something which is orientated differently and access slightly differently again I think we can't oh okay I think if you want to know that he would debate at the time of the pre-application the design panel is that okay Councillor? that's actually fine thank you very much Councillor Mason and you can obviously be around for the debate thank you members open to debate Councillor Roberts is first thank you Madam Chairman I think the photographs that the local members just shown were spot on and picked out what a lot of my concerns would be the thing about the high street and London Road there is they are very very open I think originally the high street on the right hand side going from Cambridge was actually the village green probably very light barrington very long and that's why those houses are set so far back from the road on the right hand side from Cambridge you really can't see the houses what you see as the local member explained is the abundance of green trees and openness and even on the left hand side it's the same not quite so far back but certainly the properties are all set back from the road with very adequate front gardens the other thing about the whole area is that it's a complete mixture of housing designs and this is one of the things I found very disappointing in this that it's actually rather characterless and all of a kind and I think it's been a little bit unimaginative I think that we could have had something on there that would have been worthy of calling an interesting exemplar of a gateway and what we've got instead is I think far too many properties on the site compared with the whole rest of the area they are far too high I think the the thought of putting that free story on that front so close to the road that will hit you it won't be a beautiful idea of high character design it will just be a damn great building and that isn't like anything else round there and I think this is a wasted opportunity I think I'm hoping we refuse it because they're quite right everybody's quite right we know that something will go there and what's there at the moment which was the old restaurant and then take away is very bedraggled and I'm sure that the village would like to see that rectified and sooner rather than later but as a council we do need to make sure that we get the best possible for our villages design and layout and space and one of the overriding things certainly with the villages at my site and I'm the member who lives nearest to it at Falmyr the thing about our villages is that the gentle approaches to all our villages this turns off very slow and grow and then gets nearer into the village obviously or gets much more dense in numbers but it's usual that we have a gentle approach to villages now this could be a gentle approach but that's not what we're getting here we're getting something that in my opinion is very appallingly obstructive visually to the entrance of the village completely out of keeping it's complete in my opinion over development of the site and the designs are I'm sorry in my village we've actually and this council as in my villages produced lovely developments affordable housing developments where there's been real attempts to put character and good design and good materials outstanding the one at Foxton is superb it's a south cams so chairman I'm not at all happy with this principle is there and is accepted but we're not there yet not challenging principle development character and appearance the height, the approach trees and landscape in terms of green corridor the housing, mix and design those are the key elements that I've heard there other members following on from my question which should be debate I'm concerned about the orientation of it and the main point is it's overdense, I mean it's won too many buildings and the like with the previous application we had to look at the context of the area and I also feel that the context isn't really taken into account and this word gateway always slightly goes with me like what exactly do we want from that and is that one building is it a number of buildings how does it work and I'm not really that convinced by this development and I'm really grateful for the really incisive points made by all the public speakers so I probably will be voting against what you've added to this is the issue of the density that was slightly marked but it's about the number of units, this is one of the things that have been challenged by the local member as well and in terms of gateway I think we do need to be fair that an applicant has been to pre-application and that has just gone through urban design so when we then come here and we challenge the gateway I think we have to be very very careful but also mindful of what the public speakers are saying maybe what also the gateway actually is what do we think it is and what should it represent and I just don't think the design works well enough is good enough thank you Councillor Heather Williams is next Councillor Thank you Chairman so I think with this with this application I think it's actually quite sad that a lot of the meeting I think we have to recognise and debate that as well I think we probably will see more of this unfortunately and and that's not a loss that we should take lightly but I think on this particular site enough has been shown that it is time now to have a change and for it to move to residential so on that the principle of development I think we need but it was important we recognise recognise that and that it's brown it's a brownfield site and therefore we do want it used to its full capacity however when looking at the figures on housing density and looking at our policy of 30 this is at 37.5 that's a 25% increase we're not talking 3, 4, 5% it's 25% even if we were rounding up it would be 7 houses it works out at 6.81 or something very similar and yet we've got these additional 2 so I have a lot of sympathy in the references that have been made to over development and being too many units I would also say that we do seem to be hitting a bit of a trend in gateway or feature or focal point building that there's some assumption that therefore needs to be a high building it doesn't have to be a high building to have a focus point or be something of beauty or something that can create a lovely entrance to the village there are many other ways of which that can be done so I do feel that the height is inappropriate in its location but I also agree that that should be a building that has extra to it to give a nice entrance but I don't think that's done by just whacking an extra story on it to be quite frank and most definitely on the properties closest to the neighbours to have 2.5 stories I can't see at all that there's any need for it and based on your advice earlier chairman that if we're not happy with the density and that is not something we can condition it is a refusal and that is how I'm minded to vote chairman thank you thank you very much so you've agreed with the density and the height issues in terms of the character appearance and what the approach and gateway means and you've included as well the issue of the loss of amenity not the original loss of amenity you're talking about the loss of a building that provided employment and services but the loss of amenity to the neighbours thank you very much councillor Hawkins thank you chair thank you might think councillor Williams and I had compared notes what we have here when we did the village design guides one of the things that came out was that villagers didn't like landmark buildings cos I think that's what these things are called then we would prefer to see landmark spaces rather than buildings and when I saw this my first reaction was I know this site this is too much so in terms of density I agree I think it's too much I know that we say I think our policy is that on brownfield sites we can go up to 15 dwellings in a group village but bearing in mind we still have to keep the density because it's way too dense and I'm concerned about the amenity to the neighbours definitely I wouldn't like to see this to me ugly three story building setting an entrance into the village it's the wrong building in the wrong place and I just want also to point out on page 210 the comment of the Haarston history group where it says the building is 180 years old so why the heck isn't it actually registered as a building of significance for the village I don't know but it is obviously of significance to them and I would have thought that there would be a way potentially in which the developers could do something about keeping it building around it whatever it is but the fact that this is a significant building to the village hasn't been taken into account at all and that's a shame really I think for me on those grounds I'm not likely to be voting for this but obviously I will be listening to the debate I'm going to call it the next speaker please remember if these are material considerations already mentioned in terms of sort of leaning towards not approving we've heard so if there's additional comments that you're making or reasons why you're sort of finding it difficult the balance because you've actually found some issues that are perhaps positive towards that and please do bring them forward but let's not just rehearse things that have already been said thank you Councillor Richard Williams Thank you Jay on that basis I will just say that I haven't compared no to Councillor Hawking's but I agree with everything she said I would merely just cite policy S10, it's a group village I don't see that going over it would make the best use of this site Thank you I've been debating by self along this I really wasn't sure what I was going to do but I was going to agree with Councillor Hawking upon the building I don't know why the rest of the village just used it to an eyesore I was looking at the building it's quite a well-formed structure building really it's quite an attractive building the existing building on site and I find that perhaps would make a better focal point than what is being replaced it's being replaced it's a bit odd rather than it will be an interesting building I'm not sure it's a bit attractive building but it will be an interesting building so you would notice it but I feel there's a lost opportunity I do agree I think there's a lost opportunity here to make something a bit more and to build on what you've already got on the site it is a bit dense I think it is a bit dense I'm not sure whether that's a sufficient reason to refuse but I do think they haven't made enough of the site and I'm tending towards and listening to the debate now to go towards refusing Do we have anyone else I haven't heard yet any views that would say that somebody is leaning towards approval of this and I'm looking around could we hear what the reasons for refusal would be from the case officer just to make sure that we're clear Thank you Thank you chair, yes I've been in touch with the case officer so the suggested reasons of refusal if members are wanting to take their rig would be by virtue of the scale, height, density and design of the development the proposal would result in a form of development that would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area and unduly dominant on this site that is prominently located at the junction of two roads at the entrance to the village consequently the development would be contrary to policies HQ1 and H8 of the South Cams Local Plan 2018 which requires all development to be compatible with its location and context and the reason for refusal around amenity which we've heard in the debate so due to the proximity of unit 7 to the eastern boundary of the site the development would unacceptably harm the amenities of occupiers of number 8 London Road by reason of a loss of light and outlook to their patio space that lies directly adjacent to the common boundary and windows serving haversball rooms that face into this courtyard consequently the development would be contrary to policy HQ1 of the South Cams Local Plan thank you chair thank you so I suggest that we move to a vote if ever there is an agreement with that and the recommendation and councillor Richard Wood is gesturing sorry sorry chair we want to sign S10 as well as its group knowledge an maximum of 8, we've got 9 here I think we don't sorry I would put that forward as a potential error I did the advice against it because I think it does comply gyda bydd hi'r cyffredinol fath fel rhanfodol ar y cyfaint, i gael o bobl 15 eich gwneud yma y wneud yn llechion gwaz i'r cyllidio bwysigr gweithbeth jennidol ac yn llechion gweithbeth jennidol am y cyfrin Abertafwyr yn yr yma yn llechion gwaz i'r cyfrin fath, ac y maen nhw'n i gael yn chymdeitl, ac mae'n dweud i'r cyfrin gweithbeth jennidol If you press your little blue button, whether you are four against or abstaining from that. The result of that is that we have 11 votes against that application as it stands at the moment. Thank you members what I'd like to say. There has obviously been a huge effort of the applicant with our planning officers. We recommend them for that. I suggested by Dr Cymru Hawkins that there is better communication with the local residents As they look to find a resolution to this, and come back again hopefully, or not need to come back, with a better design. So thank you all very much that has been refused, and it's time for lunch. Yes, so it is time for lunch. If you look at the items that we have on the agenda, we have got agenda items 8, 9, 10, 8 man in terms of applications. The ones who come because they need to come because of impact in a listed building or South Territory as well is presented. We are, not determining anything, just saying they are not as complex applications as the ones we have. I think we should still take that 45 minutes, if everybody would like that, to make sure that they get some lunch Felly, mae'n ddaw i mi arwad i'n ffordd. Felly, rydyn ni'n gwneud hynny'n gweithio'r ffyrddol yma. Felly, rydyn ni'n gweithio, rydyn ni'n gweithio'r ffyrddol arwad i'n gwneud hynny. Aron, rydyn ni wedi gweld i'n bwysig o gyfnodol. Rwy'n gweithio ar gyfer rydym. Mae'r gweithbeth y Cymru Cymru Cynllwyr Bwysigolwyr Cymru. Mae'n gweithio'r gweithio ar gydag yma. Ieg o'r ysgolwyddiad yma 8, o'r ysgolwyddiad yma 229 o'r ysgolwyddiad yma. Dyma yw'r rhaglion hwn, rhaglion hwnnw, y ddweud y rhaid y cyflwyno, 20-02531-FUL. Ieithio'r ysgolwyddiad yma, y cyflwyno'r ysgolwyddiad, yma, ymgyrchau, ymgyrchau cyflwyno, ymgyrchau cyflwyno, ar y bwysig iawn i tynnu cyflym yma yn dweud eich yr 주ed. Mae eich ystod yn dweud i ychydig, mae'n ddim yr ysgol cribe wahanol ar y troi, ac ydych chi'n oed yn ei gofynnig usiwch ar eu byddai. Mae'n mynd i'r ysgol cribe wahanol, mae ein gŵn ymddangosid, a'r ymddangosid o'i gofynnig ein ffordd. Yn y mhiloed gynnwys, mae oedd eich bod yma yn gwaith yn yr ystod bwysig, yn cyfifion. Mae'r ysgol cribe'r ysgol cribe yw Tom Gray. Iain ti'r cynnig. Rwy'n meddwl chi'n gweithio. Rwy'n meddwl i chi weithio. Rwy'n meddwl i chi weithio ac i wahanol. Rydw i chi weithio, dyna, bryd, yn iawn. Roeddech chi'n rydyn ni fydd yn ymdillion i gael y barn, ychydig, mae'r wych yn ddysgu'n bach, bobl yn ymdod i'w grannu ar gyfer unig oes ymdrygiad. Dyma'r Llywodraeth yn gweithio metaf, ac mae'n ffasydd o casg mwy o'r gweithio ar y ddweud o'r ffasg fel hynny, o ran y barhau hefoedol. Mae'r bolod, fel cof...! ychydig yn ymgyrchu. Mae'r ysgwrdd a gweithio ar y barng ymlaen, yn ysgwrdd, ond rydyn ni'n gwneud hynny. Yn ymgyrch, mae'n cymdeithasol. Yn ymgyrch, mae'n cyfrannu. Mae'n cyfrannu'n cwestiynau. Mae'n cyfrannu cyfrannu. Mae'n cyfrannu ymlaen o'r cyfrannu. Y ddechrau yma yng Nghymru, y ddechrau arall, y ddechrau Heloedd. Mae'r adrodd o'r cyffeydd yw'r adrodd, ac mae'n gweithio wrth ein bod yn nefru. Ydw i'ch angen, mae'n rhan o ddaeth pethau, a yna fydd yna eichuarthu'n ddweud. Dylai ychydig o'r ddechrau, mae'n rhoi yn rhan o'n gwneud hefyd. Mae'n rhan o'r ddechrau, mae'n rhan o'n gwneud. The only change in terms of to the south side is this dilapidated shed which has no architectural merit, and that would be replaced with a gate and fence. Here we have the existing elevations on the left-hand side and the proposed elevations on the right-hand side. You can see I've highlighted in the red area what the area is going to change from, from the shed on the left-hand side to some gates and a fence on the right-hand side. The only change to the replacement barn is the inclusion of two double doors on the rear elevation. This would provide for better access for agricultural storage and therefore ensuring future optimum biodiversity. The top plan is existing now, posed out and showing the two double doors at the rear elevation. Here's the timeline of what's the history of the site. Since 2019, this was what it looked like in 2020, and unfortunately the part of the barn collapsed, because it's proximity to the probably right-of-way adjacent to the site. We agreed that the dangerous structure could be taken down. Here is some site photos of the site, so I'm now taking it from the road, looking towards the site, and again from the public footpath. This is what is left of the barn in terms of some operating posts here, and then the plinth is currently all that's remaining of the barn. The key considerations of the principle of development are heritage impact, impact on the character and appearance of the area, and other matters, including biodiversity impact. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Thanks very much. We don't have any speakers to this item in terms of external public speakers, but I understand that Councillor Heather Williams would like to speak on behalf of the local. Thank you, Chairman. Councillor Nick Wright was hoping to be here today, but unfortunately for personal reasons isn't able to attend committee, but he has asked me to speak on his behalf. What he would like me to emphasise is his support for the officer recommendation, and Chairman, with your permission I'll speak on behalf of both applications given their similarity, and that he's fully supportive of those, and also wishes to me to bring to the attention of planning committee members today that he is aware that there is support for the applications with the residents of Graveley, and I think that's all that I've been asked to pass on. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. Much appreciated. It's a question to the officer, please, Chairman. Two things. Can we have an idea of how old the original barn was, because I can't think that I've seen it on the paperwork, and how much of the original barn has actually been retained? Because I think it's basically saying that not much, and yet one of the things, one of the conditions seems to be that it should be, if a new one is built, it should be implemented by using what is there in already. So age please, and materials left. Thank you Chairman. Thank you, councillor. I'll get back to you about the age once I've just reminded myself of the history of the barn. In terms of the historic fabric that's going to be retained, if I just show you on the plans that have been submitted, what elements will be retained. So the existing beams will be retained, as well as the roof tiles, where they're still whole, and those are the two things that we've retained, and it's described in more detail in the Heritage statement, and we've conditioned, as you say, on the consent. Thanks Tom, so you're saying in the heritage section. So what I'm understanding is, even though the building is obviously not standing at the moment, those have been, they're held somewhere, and they won't be used, that's what I'm understanding. Yes, that's right. Is that answer your question councillor? So Tom, if you can find the age, that would be great. Thank you. No one's indicated but I do have a question for the officer, if that's okay. So it's around the parish council comments on this application and the next. I see they ran out of time to submit any. I wonder if any have been submitted subsequent to this report being printed? No, I haven't received any parish council comments on the application. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Williams. Thank you, Chairman. Obviously, we would like to see these historically important buildings maintained in the first instance, but I think it's quite clear that that's obviously not feasible now in this case. And I would imagine that for gravely residents that seeing whatever comes in its place would be preferable to what's currently the situation. And bearing in mind what the local member asked me to pass on, I'd be happy to support this application. Councillor Cahn, then Hawkins. And briefly, I was going to comment that normally the situation where building collapses, that's the end of the building full stop. And I think it's rather cheerful, nice to see that somebody actually wants to rebuild the building in style, in the same style using as much as possible. I think it's quite an inspiring thing to do, and rather pleased. Thank you, Councillor Cahn. Thank you, Chair. Clarification, please, if I may, from the officer paragraph 55 on page 240. It talks about the concrete floor and brick plinth is also in a poor state of repair and is all that is remaining of the barn. Is it a proposal to remove that as well and rebuild, or is it just the elements that you've mentioned that will be used? And just to say, whilst I've got the floor, it is a shame when these buildings kind of fall into this thing, but there is now a prospect of actually putting something back in its place. Not in the full state it was, but something that at least would show what was there before. But I would like that clarification, please. Good, thank you. Tom, do you have any answer yet on the age and also on that query there, that question? Yes, I look back into the heritage statement submitted about the application and stated that it's likely that the building and application dates back in the 18th century. Gosh, so this is quite, yeah, special, isn't it? Good. And in terms of the question around the materials that Councillor Tommy Hawkins just asked. Yeah, so my understanding is that the plinth will be removed because a lot of the bricks aren't in a very good state of repair. So it'll be a new plinth pretend, but using sort of her matching brick work. Councillor Roberts. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to have some sort of clarification on the future use of this building because at page 242 it talks about residential amenity, but it's talking about neighbours amenities. But is it a given that it's actually, it can't be treated as a separate dwelling? And we could ask you that. We were hearing about the use of those double doors being for agricultural use, but can you just confirm the usage? Yeah, so the use that the application for us is just for replacement barn, no change of use has been submitted as part of the application. So I have put an informative just to make sure that it is intended, it is going to be used as agricultural purposes and it's been assessed as a agricultural unit. So if they were to want to change that to residential accommodation, they would need a new application for a change of use. Thank you. So just for clarification on page 245, informative number five that would be part of the planning commission if it were to given is for the avoidance of doubt the replacement barn here by permitted shall be used for agricultural purposes only. And the case officer has just confirmed that any other use would have to be presented as an application for change of use. Chairman, again, if I could quickly go back on that one, when we say informative, I think it should be a condition. Are we talking about it actually being a condition because it's quite a decent size piece of building and it would be quite easy for somebody to actually subdivide it. I mean, whether it's got barn doors or not, it could still be changed. So is it actually going to be a condition rather than just sort of recommendations people? I'd like to ask Mr Blaise be to answer that one. Yes, thank you chair. I'm afraid it wouldn't be a reasonable condition because to change its use would require planning commission. So it wouldn't pass the test, I'm afraid. And it's not necessary. Good, thank you. I think members we can move to a vote on this one. I haven't heard anything that would mean any difference. So we are looking therefore at a recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions that are indicated on PH 244 and the informatives on PH 245. So if we would move to the vote please, if you are for the officer's recommendation against or abstaining. Thank you, Erin. On the screen there we have 11 votes for that means the application has been approved. Thank you very much members. And we move straight on to the next agenda item nine, which is intimately linked with this one, which is again home farm home cottage high street gravely. The application number 20 slash 02532 slash LBC. And this is about the heritage impact on cartilage listed buildings. So this is to give permission for what basically the impact on this building that we've just given mission for. So the application is being brought to committee because it's for the demolition of a listed building or a building of local interest. Tom, do you have anything as a case officer, anything else that you'd like to add? Do we need to take into consideration when? In terms of the assessment, it's the impact on the heritage aspect and all the other considerations that have been taken into account during the planning application assessment. Thank you. So the application, the one that we've just visited was about the application itself to demolish and rebuild in the way it was. And this one is the impact on the listed building that that would have to demolish and rebuild. So they're just sort of very, very closely associated. Members, can we move to a vote given that we've just taken a decision on the previous one? Can I take that affirmation? Great. Thank you very much. So Agender Item 9, that application also has been approved. Thank you very much. That takes us on to Agender Item 10 on page 259 members. And this is in the parish of Western Colville. The application number is 20 slash 02593 slash outline planning. The proposal is for the outline planning for the development of one detached dwelling house with all matters reserved. And it's the garage plot to the north of 14 horseshoes lane, Western Colville, Cambridgeshire. The applicant is Ms Geraldine Roper of South Cams District Council Housing Department. The recommendation is approval. The key material considerations are principle of development, character and appearance of the area, heritage impacts, flood risk and drainage, residential amenity, public right of way, highway safety and parking provision, ecology and trees. It's not a departure and the presenting officer is Richard Fitzgen. And the reason that's here, as always, is because of conflict of interest. This is an applicant that actually works with South Cams District Council, which is the main reason that it is here. Richard, are you with us? And do you want to share your screen? You're with us? I think he's trying, isn't he? He needs to be trying. Richard, are you able to unmute yourself? I think you've beamed into the right galaxy this time. That's okay, Richard. So we're ready to hear your presentation. Are you able to share your screen? Yep, sure. Can somebody just confirm they can see the screen? Confirmed, we can see it. Thank you. Okay. So this is an application for outline fan and permission or one dwelling with all matters reserved. The application site is the land to the north of 14 or shoes lane west in Colville. The application has come to committee because it's a, the applicants are South Cams District Council. And the objection has been received from a third party. Sorry. So on this slide you can see the location of the application site, outlines in red. I'm seeing you see number 14 is residential property located just to the south. To the north is a grade two listed building, which is also a residential dwelling. This is the neighbouring property where we receive an objection from. To the north, east and west is generally agricultural fields. And to the south is predominantly residential development. You see that sort of more clearly on the aerial photography here. So you can see the residential development to the south. There's a residential dwelling directly to the west, also to the north. And then you can see the surrounding agricultural fields as well. So on this image here, you can see the application site to the left hand side of the screen. You can see 14 horseshoes lane, which is the adjacent dwelling. You can see the street scene along the eastern side of horseshoes lane. Again, you can see on the right hand side, you can see 14 horseshoes lane. This is the application site in the middle, where these trees are here. And on the left hand side, you can see the grade two listed building, three horses farm. These are some photos of the site. So the top left photo is looking directly into the site from horseshoes lane. You can see there's an existing access in there into the site. And there's also existing heart standing within the site where you speak formally some carriages, which have since been demolished a few years ago. You see the trees also to the front of the site and they continue around the side boundaries and some hedging along. You see that along the bottom left photo there between the application site and 14 horseshoes lane. And the bottom right photo is looking towards the grade two listed building from within the application site. Planet history of the site. There was outland planning permission with all that is reserved for demolition of garages and erection of a single dwelling approved by South Cambridge District Council planning committee in January 2017. That outland planning permission has since expired and there's no longer any garages on the site. It is an indicative site plan. There in mind it's outline application format is reserved. I just remember to be aware that this is purely indicative, but it does show how a dwelling could be laid out on the site, how it could be accessed and how trees could be retained around the boundaries of the site as well. There's also a public footpath which runs through the site. This shows indicatively how public footpath could run through the site. Although there are some issues in terms of the actual physical layout of the public driveway not being in accordance with the definitive map. But the definitive map team at the county council are happy that the scheme or the redirection of the public footpath can be achieved through condition. This is the environment agency flood map. So the application site is located in flood zone one where the principle of development is generally acceptable in flood risk terms. And you can see flood zone 233 to the east of the site. The key planning considerations are the principle of development, the character and appearance of the area, heritage impacts, flood risk and drainage, residential amenity, ecology, ecology and trees, public rights of way and highway safety and parking provision. Thank you chair. Thank you very much Richard. We have no public speakers to this item and no objections received on this item. Are there any questions or comments? In order I saw them councillors Wilson, Hawkins, Harvey and Fyne. I didn't thought it would generate this much discussion members actually. But as you will councillor Wilson. Thank you chair. My question is about the representations made by the neighbours about the construction vehicles and the parking once the dwelling is built. First of all, the site was previously garages so I suspect that there were already vehicles going in and out of this site and I wondered whether there were any problems for the farm opposite. From those vehicles and whether any condition can be laid on the any future planning commission for the actual size of the dwelling that parking is provided so that there isn't parking on the road outside which seems to be a concern for the neighbours. Richard, do you want to answer that? Yes, there was in the past a few garages on this site. I'm not sure what garages were specifically used for or how they impacted in terms of any sort of parking industry that may have caused sort of disturbance to the neighbour or sort of preventing access to neighbours farmland. But Jim, I mean if members do have concerns of it, it's an option that they could have a condition on for a traffic management plan which would control where construction vehicles could park and so on. However, the amount of construction traffic required for a development of one dwelling wouldn't normally be significant enough to warrant that. And the size of the site probably wouldn't accommodate anything that would practically resolve their misuse for the neighbour because of how small it is. I don't think you could get many construction vehicles parking within the site whilst the house is being built. Thank you. Just to remind members, this is coming before us. Normally we wouldn't get a single dwelling of a small plot with no contentious issues for policy or for residents really, but it's becoming here because they are a member of South Council. But yes, we have now. Councillor Hawkins. Councillor Otschwmio Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. It was to do with that. I just wanted to know if we could see a drawing that shows the entrance to the farm that was the boom of contention. Just to get a view of how that would affect it. Do you have a picture you can show? I think I can get it up on Google Street View. It might be the best way of doing it. So there's no objection from highways that I can see? No, there's no objection from highway. Can you see my screen here? Yep. OK, so this is the bottom end of the road here. This is the existing access into the site just here. We've got a grade two listed building here, and then the track comes down here. So I think it's this general area here where the neighbour is worried that the development may cause additional parking that may block access to the farm yard. Thank you. Councillor Harvey. Yes, thank you, Chair. Well, just as local member, I discussed this yesterday with the Chair of the Parish Council. A very common really is an altruistic one that this particular plot has been flooded within recent history, I suppose, in 2005. I think they were just concerned that the flood risk is kind of at the forefront when getting down to detail planning. Thank you. So shall we move to the vote members? And the officer's recommendation is for approval with the recommendations that are contained from page 263 onwards. So page 272, that this be approved and granted subject to appropriate planning conditions, informatives, and those conditions from page 273 onwards. If you are for against or would like to abstain on that officer's recommendation, members, please. I could really have done that by affirmation. Thank you, by affirmation. 11 votes to supporting that officer's recommendation to approve. Thank you very much, members. So we move on to agenda item 11, which is enforcement. The enforcement report on page 279. And who do we have with us? We can answer anything about our enforcement report. Hello, Will. Hello. You're right. Good. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you very much. Good. Do you have anything that you'd like to report to us in terms of updates? Yep, I've just got a verbal update on the Elmwood House at 13A High Street Croxton matter. A new application has recently been submitted under reference 20 oblique 01408 oblique HFUL. I'm having discussions with the area manager who decided, obviously, to hold any further enforcement action in a bain until that's been decided upon. Thank you. That's my verbal update for you. Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you. Counselors, Cahn, then Heather Williams, and then Tim York. Thank you. We have queries. I've had queries about the Hild Rediments in the Inkington Lane, which I was passed on to enforcement. Because of flooding in and joining gardens along Inkington Lane. Looking at the planning permissions, it's difficult to see how they can be enforced. But I just wondered whether you'd come across this and seen any of your solutions and if you thought of a way that might be solved. Because the problem was the drainage was the site itself and not about the impact on adjoining properties. The Epicurell air cancer, obviously, we've had conversations regarding this through email. It is difficult one. It's difficult one for us to enforce. We have to look into what I will do from this meeting. I'll contact our drainage officer to see if there's something that we can possibly suggest to the developers to hopefully limit the impact of the flooding. It's not something that is likely to be enforceable for action. Obviously, to try and move things forward and resolve matters. That will be an action that I can take forward. I just wanted to think in the future in terms of conditioning, whether there is a way that this sort of problem could be considered in conditioning. Trust the thought. I think we need it up with planning officers. Perhaps even in the new local plan, what we're looking at in future conditions around flooding. Thank you Chairman. My question is in relation to the standing items that we have. I'm wondering if it's possible to have the addition of the Whitehall farms in Arrington. Because that's been going on for quite some time now. And the ongoing issues there. Or I'm happy to take an update outside. I do have another local issue. So I would appreciate a phone call outside the meeting, but I won't use up the whole committee's time a bit. But if you could, very much appreciated, please will. Yeah, no problem, councillor. You have a lovely smile when you get... Of course, of course. Any more? And councillor Hawkins. And then the fame. Thank you, chair. My question is to do with Burwash Manor. That has been going on for quite a while. And we don't seem to be getting anywhere with it. The last statement here is, no application submitted on a prosecution file is being prepared. I thought we had a prosecution file prepared before. Because they didn't comply with the first or the second notice. What exactly is going on? Are we with the prosecution? Opposed prosecution, put it that way. Yes, councillor. So each prosecution is a new prosecution as we move forward. John Shufflewood is the officer that's dealing with that case. I had an update from him this morning to state these in the process of doing full of the prosecutions as well. It is a priority. I have reiterated that to him. And I hope to have a fuller update for you for the next committee. There was a partial compliance. There was something that took part of the kids' equipment that they had installed next to the boundary. Or what is the partial compliance about that? Because that means there is still something left there. I could take it up with John Shufflewood outside of the meeting. Okay, thank you. It is something I will get back to him and I will update you by the end of today. Okay, thank you. And councillor Fein. Thank you. It is relating to a different case. I am sorry, I haven't been able to track down the application number. It concerns hill trees on Babrum Road in Great Shelford, which has a long planning history. Applications were put in both for certificate of lawful development and planning for use for car sales, which was turned down. I see a renewed application which claims that those car sales are already going on. I don't know, I've got no access to the site, whether that is the case. But according to the golf club next door, there may be some substance to that. I don't know whether that's a matter which I would normally take offline, but which perhaps could be looked into. I'll send happy to submit details when I can find the case number. I think we're being a bit unfair to you here, because we're actually raising issues with you rather than the report on issues that are already in your register. We've been a bit cheeky. It is the end of the afternoon. You've got such a lovely smile, so thank you very much. And all of the members will take these offline with you. Yes, thanks very much. On agenda item 12, members, which is that, appeals. Oh, sorry. Oh, thank you very much. On agenda item 12, yes. I think the report is as is. Thank you, Chairman. It was just on the land at Mill Lane-Sorston. I see we've got another informal hearing date. How confident are we that this date will actually go ahead, because it feels like this has been going on for a very long time. And my question was, we were aware that, potentially because of the time delay, that they could be challenging the five-year enterprise, potentially, and they were going to submit new evidence. Is this the case, or are they not, please? Thank you. Chair, I think Mr Reid might be better to answer this one. Thanks. I've got to catch up in 55 minutes with the planners. We have... The appellant is late in terms of submitting information. That's one of the matters which we need to consider this afternoon. And it may be that we're going to have to make some representations to pins. But we are on notice that they intend to challenge the five-year enterprise. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Alas, I was an hour too early. Thank you, members. And that's the end of our meeting today. And thank you all so much for coping very well with our new hybrid system. But thanks so much to Democratic Services here in the room. And also to Ian. Also there, thank you very much for all your support in all the information to everybody getting prepared for this meeting and what is present. Thank you, everybody.