 Okay Chair, you're not alive, thank you. Thank you and good morning everyone, members, officers and any members of the public who are viewing this live stream of this meeting of the South Camber Chair, District Council Planning Committee. My name's Councillor Pippa Halings and I'd like to welcome you. But before the meeting, I would just like to open with a short period of reflection following the sad news that is Royal Highness the Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh died on Friday. And we'll have that moment's silence for reflection now and I will let you know when the minute is complete and then we'll introduce everybody and start the agenda. Thank you everyone. We also have other news just before we go into the meeting proper and that is that Councillor John Bachelor has resigned as chair of this Planning Committee and as a member, full member of the Planning Committee. The good news is this is so he can take up his new responsibilities, the lead cabinet member for housing and we know that that will be in very safe hands with him. But as his vice chair since May 2018, I really want to thank him for the calm, assured, informed and professional way that he has chaired this committee and especially during the last 12 months challenge for everyone to take up the technological challenges of that. And John really did do that and made sure that this was a very fair hearing and for all given the new technological challenge. And I also want as vice chair to acknowledge just how supportive and wise advice he gave to me ever since taking up the vice chair role. And I've really, really appreciated that and it's enabled me to be in the position I am, which is as you'll soon find out, taking the interim chair of this Planning Committee. And I'm sure that committee members may want to join me in thanking him, acknowledging everything he's given. If anybody would like to say anything now, then we can do that before starting the meeting. I have Councillor Anna Bradenham. Thank you, Councillor Halings. I just wanted to say that as you have said, I thought John did a brilliant job of actually picking up on the technology when we all had to in March and handling the Planning Committee with the same aplomb and correctitude that he did when we were in face-to-face meetings. And I think that was a great credit to him. And I think he handled the committee at a time when it's been going through a considerable challenge and I think he's done it extremely well and I thank him for that. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Just to echo that we wish him every success going forward in his new role and that he has been chairman of the Planning Committee in a very difficult time and that his nickname for me was affectionately Trouble and that I will continue being Trouble for you, Councillor Halings, as well, in true traditional form. I'm sure Henry had the same treatment as well, being referred to Trouble on more than one occasion. Thank you. And Councillor Toomey Hawkins. Thank you, Councillor Halings. Just to add my thanks, I would like to officially to Councillor Batchelor for the great work he did with the Planning Committee to date and I look forward to his participation in the new role in the cabinet. Thank you. Good, thank you. Do I have anybody else? So, as I said a moment ago, my name is Councillor Pippa Halings and I'm vice chair of the Planning Committee and until full council appoints a new Planning Committee chair, which is in two days time, I'll be chairing this committee in the capacity of vice chair in the chair. I've asked Councillor Henry Batchelor to be vice chair for this meeting. Again, until final council confirms his appointment and I would love him to be the vice chair of this committee, so that will be put forward to full council. And then I was happy to confirm that Councillor Henry Batchelor is vice chair to do that by affirmation. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Against that? No, lovely. Thank you very much. In that case, Councillor Henry Batchelor, could you introduce yourself, please? Yeah, thank you very much, chairman. Morning, everybody. Councillor Henry Batchelor and happy to be vice chair of this committee. Lovely, thank you. So if everybody could turn off their videos, please. Just now, all members and all guests. And we're supported along the virtual top table and I ask each of you, please, to switch on your camera as you introduce yourselves by the following officers. Chris Carter, who is the delivery manager of strategic sites. Good morning, chair. Good morning, members. Thank you. Stephen Reed, who is our senior planning lawyer. Morning, chair. Morning, members. Yes, I hope we don't have to count on you too much in this meeting, Stephen. Thank you very much. And Ian Sr. from Democratic Services, who does the very, very important task of making sure we have the minutes today. Thank you, Ian. Nice to meet you. And we do have other case officers with us and we'll work through the agenda. I'll introduce them as we work through the agenda. Thank you very much, Ian. So just a few housekeeping announcements, everybody. Please make sure, given these technological advancements, that your device is fully charged. Switch your cameras and microphones off unless you're invited to do otherwise. And when you're invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched on. I think everybody knows that the phrase of the last year has been, you're on mute. So please make sure that your microphone is switched on when you're addressing the meeting. And if you speak slowly and clearly and please don't talk over or interrupt anyone. And that's especially for those who are viewing this meeting so that they can clearly hear everybody's contributions. And then please ensure they've switched off or silenced any of the devices so that they don't interrupt proceedings. We do a recorded vote and we're going to continue with that tradition. And so I would like to propose that we record each of our votes for each of the agenda items. Would anybody second that proposal? I'll second it, Chairman, if you want. Thank you very much, Councillor Deborah Roberts. Can we take that by affirmation? Agreed, agreed, agreed. Good, thank you. So when we move to vote on any item, I will ask if there isn't a clear affirmation, then I'll ask for a roll call to be taken. So each committee member to speak into the microphone so that their vote is very clearly heard, both to committee and to anybody watching the webcast. And members should please respond for, against, or abstain when their name is called. And I'd just like to remind, as I did when I last shared, this isn't a moment for another reference to your opinion on that item. It's just for, against, or abstain. Committee members, I'd like to now ask each of you to introduce yourselves. After I call your name, can you please turn your camera on and your microphone? Say your name and the ward you represent so your presence may be noted. And then turn your camera off when you're finished. So I'm Councillor Pippa Halings and I represent Histon, Impington, and Orchard Park. We have Councillor Henry Batchelor. Morning, Chairman. Councillor Henry Batchelor, one of the members for the Linsen wards and also Vice-Chair. I'm Councillor Martin Kahn. I represent Histon, Impington, and Orchard Park Ward. Thank you very much. Councillor Peter Fane. Martin, if you turn your camera, thank you, Councillor Peter Fane. Peter Fane Shelford Ward. Thank you. Councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins. Good morning, everyone. Toomey Hawkins representing Cordicott Ward. Thank you. Councillor Judith Rippeth. Good morning, everyone. I'm Councillor Judith Rippeth and I am one of the members for Milton and Water Beach Ward. Thank you. Councillor Deborah Roberts. Good morning, everybody. I'm Deborah Roberts and I'm the district councillor for the Foxton Ward. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. And I represent the Mordens Ward. Thank you. Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you, Chair. I'm Richard Williams. I represent the Wittlesford Ward. And Councillor Nick Wright, who'd like to be present when everybody's presenting. I look at Councillor Nick Wright. Good morning, Councillor Nick Wright, representing Caxson and Patworth, and we're there, I think. Thank you very much. Since I can confirm, we're all here, the meeting is court, yes. Are there any other councillors present, please? Thank you. I'm going on a little bit with the housekeeping, and so if at any time a member leaves the meeting and that could be because of a glitch or any reason that they need to leave the meeting, please make that fact known to me as Chair so it can be recorded in the minutes. So members of the public are away. If a councillor is absent for any part of the presentation or debate about an agenda item, they may not vote on the item. However, if a member is having technical problems and lets either me or the Vice Chair or Democratic Services know immediately, I'll adjourn the meeting for a short while so that an attempt can be made to get the member back into the meeting without missing anything material and they can vote if they want to, and we make all of that publicly known. We have several public speakers today and I just want to confirm how public speaking works. This meeting has been broadcast via the council's website and public speakers are reminded that by participating in the meeting you're consenting to being broadcast and that the use of images and sound recordings for webcast and training purposes, they may be used. You will have three minutes to address the committee either individually or together with one another. I would like to highlight that using that three minutes of public speaking, we do expect all public speakers to address the application and not any individuals, but the application itself and the merits or not of that application. There is a protocol for public speaking and I hope we don't have to recall or remind anybody about that. When you start speaking, we'll start the timer to please ensure you switch on your microphone before you speak and I'll talk to you about that and we will remind you if you need to conclude your speech if you're going over the three minutes. Once you finish speaking, we may wish to ask some questions for clarification so please be concise in your response and if there are no more questions, you may leave the meeting and continue to watch it via the webcast. Committee members, please just to remind you that any questions are for clarification and that we will leave all discussion then for our debate. And so what I'll do is I'll ask if there are any questions. If you do have a question, then you put it in the chat function saying you have a question or you'd like to speak. The committee can only consider material planning considerations for or against the application. We can't consider general observations about the development site. We can't consider comments from public speakers made outside of their allotted speaking time so we request that everybody registered, please don't interrupt or try to come in after your allotted speaking time and it's not possible for anybody but members of the planning committee to use the chat function and the chat function is for requesting to speak only or to let us know that you have a problem with technology and connectivity. Once the committee is heard from all speakers and planning officers, we then have debate and we form our views on the application and we will then vote. The outcome is decided by majority vote and the invent of a tie then chair as chair I would have the casting vote. It may be a long day. We have multiple agenda items so I just want to let everybody know that we will have some breaks. I intend that we break for about 10 minutes around 11.30, 30 minutes at 1.30 and 10 minutes at about 3.30 if we are still in session at that time. Thank you everybody. Now we will go to the matters of the meeting and the agenda and we go to item number two of the agenda which is apologies. Do we have any apologies? Thank you chair. I'll turn my mic on this time. No apologies from me for today. Thank you very much. Now we move to declarations of interest. So members, do any members have interest to declare a relation to any items of business on this agenda? If you could put in the chat that you would like to speak that's how we will conduct this and the vice chair will let me know if anybody is requesting to speak. If an interest subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting, please just let me know in the chat and raise it at this point but we'll try and acknowledge all of them at this moment. Vice chair, do we have anybody who has any declarations of interest? We have several chair. Councillor Bradnam. My interest is regarding item 10 which is a pecuniary interest because my employer has an ongoing business relationship with the applicant so under advice I won't be taking any part in that item and I'll be leaving the meeting for the duration of that item. So Councillor Batchel you will physically, virtually physically leave the meeting at that point as I understand. I will. And therefore we will move to put somebody else as vice chair during that time. You will then rejoin the meeting for the following agenda item. That right? That's right chair. Thank you. Next. Next is Councillor Bradnam. Councillor Bradnam. Thank you Chairman. I'd like to make a declaration of non pecuniary interest for item 7 which is the application of Water Beach. I have had discussions with the one of the residents in that area and advised how they might address the matter if they wish to. But I come to this matter myself afresh. Thank you. Thank you very much. We now have Councillor Rippeth and then right. Councillor Judith Rippeth. I too have a non pecuniary interest in item 7 just as local member and I come to this meeting afresh. Thank you. Councillor Nick Wright. Thank you Chairman. I have a non pecuniary interest in item 10 over the seven years it's the development to be talked about and proceeding. I've met with developers Alia and cash council and planning officers and but I come to this meeting completely afresh not having determined myself at any point. Thank you. We next have councillors Roberts and then councillor Heather Williams. Councillor Deborah Roberts. Thank you very much Chairman. Non pecuniary interest and item 8 the Milfong Falmere Road Falmere and I am a member of Falmere parish council who have considered this application but I come to the matter afresh today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Williams. So I have a non pecuniary interest in agenda item 6 I'm the local member so have been present at parish council meetings but I've not taken part and not given any opinion so have not predetermined myself in any way. Thank you. Next we have councillors Fane and Hawkins. Councillor Peter Fane. Thank you Chair. I have a non pecuniary interest in item 5 as the local member. I've taken part in discussions in parish council and with the developers who I know but I come to this meeting afresh on this matter. Thank you very much. Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins. Thank you Chair. I wish to declare non pecuniary interest in item 5 I know some members of the development company have had meetings with them in the past but not about this application and I come to this matter completely afresh. Thank you. Thank you. And then we have two more members that have already spoken, councillors Roberts and myself again. Councillor Debra Roberts. Thank you again Chairman. Yes I will declare a non pecuniary interest again in item 9 which is the Piper's closed family application. Again I'm a member of the parish council and I consider it but I come to the matter afresh today. Thank you Chairman. Thank you. And Councillor Henry Batchelor. Thank you Chair. One just occurred to me. Item 13 as the applicant is Campershire County Council. I am a member of Campershire County Council but that is a non pecuniary interest so I intend to continue to discuss and vote on that item. Thank you. Good thank you and I assume we have a meeting. So all of the members who were at the January committee meeting I would understand Ian therefore that we're all coming to this afresh. We do have another one. Sorry Chair from Councillor Bradnam. I presume it's the same as the other one. Exactly Chair. Sorry Councillor Batchelor has reminded me of course that I ought to also declare a non pecuniary interest in item 13 the proposed legislation of the public footpath because I'm also a county councillor but I've come to this matter afresh. Thank you. Thank you. Is that all Vice-Chair? That's everyone Chairman. Good thank you very much and now we come to item agenda item 4 which are the minutes of the previous meeting. This on page 1 to 12 of your agenda pack. The minutes on the minutes. No one's showing Chairman. Sorry Councillor Heather Williams. Councillor Heather Williams. It's just on page 3 it's a favour of the notion I think it's meant to say motion. A notion remotion. Not to be confused with the hairspray some. Ian is that okay? Is that noted? I've got that. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Can we take by affirmation that we approve the minutes of the previous meeting? Agreed. Anybody against? No. Thank you very much. Chair forgive me for interrupting just to confirm there are two sets of minutes there to be approved from two previous meetings. Thank you. We'll take by affirmation the minutes of the first meeting which is from the 29th of January. By affirmation please. Agreed. And then by affirmation the minutes of Wednesday 10th of March the minutes of that meeting please. Agreed. Thank you Chris. Committee so we now start with the main items of the agenda which are the applications that we have. We start with agenda item 5 which is on page 13 of your agenda pack. And this is for land between Imperial Road and Hinton Way in Stapleford Cambridge application 20 stroke 02929 stroke OUT the proposal is for outline planning for the development of land for a retirement care village in use class C2 comprising housing with care, communal health, well-being and leisure facilities, public open space, landscaping car parking, access and associated development and public access countryside park with all matters reserved except for access. The applicant is access land partnerships with DMW chalk and Trafford and chalk. Key material considerations would be the principle of development in the green belt, green belt openness and purposes, character experience of the area, landscape biodiversity, trees highway safety and parking flood risk and damage drainage, heritage impact residential amenity renewables and climate change contaminated land loss of agricultural land other matters and very special circumstances. Given the situation with the pandemic there has been no site visit it is a departure policy and there has been an extension of time agreed for a decision on this application to the 20th of April 2021. This application is before committee because of the objection from Stapleford Parish Council that came through the chair's delegation meeting referring with a request to refer this to planning committee. The officer recommendation is for refusal and the presenting officer is Michael Sexton. Michael. Sorry Chair, before we start we do have a declaration of interest from Councillor Heather Williams. Yes, Councillor Heather Williams. Apologies, one I missed on my list from the next page. It's a non-becuniary interest in that I'm a member of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Assembly and they do have a holding objection in this application. But you're coming to this afresh. Yes, it's not been discussed at the Greater Cambridge Partnership. Thank you very much. And as I said, the case officer is Michael Sexton and Michael, would you like to provide? Thank you very much. Good morning Chair, thank you. Good morning members. Just a few updates before going into my presentation. Since the publication of the committee report I've received four further representations to the application two of which are from local residents who have already commended. No new issues raised within those comments that haven't already been addressed and considered within the report. Primarily those four representations talk about Greenbelt and Highway Safety which are all within the report. Turning to the report and to say obviously those public representations have been available on the website since receipt. Turning to the report, paragraph seven that's a screening opinion application which was submitted to the council. At the time of publication of the report that application is pending decision. I can confirm it has now been determined it's not EIA development so that would be updated and there would perhaps just be one extra line within the report confirming that this is not EIA development. Paragraph nine refers to a 2006 application being approved that was in fact withdrawn. Apologies for that error. Paragraph 22 refers to the comments from the British Core Society and just to clarify because I don't think it is clear in the report there is no loss of route or access or public right of ways. You'll see when I show some constraints to that that sort of objection is relatively unfounded. And then jumping all the way to paragraph 314 of the report where it's discussing the planning balance. Paragraph 24 should include references about the officers are giving limited weights for the release of housing stock. The issue of limited weight housing stock is addressed in full in paragraphs 296 to 299 It's just an omission from 314 so apologies for that. There are the updates to the report. There is one further update before I go into my presentation. Members will be aware that the agent for the application circulated two documents to members of the committee and then to myself on Friday the 9th of April. Those documents were published on the council's website yesterday and I sent a copy to the objectives who are registered to speak today so that they had sight of that ahead of the committee. Chair before I go into my presentation I don't know if there's any need to discuss that point any further. I think we received quite a flurry of different representations sort of yesterday and even up until the evening and what we've done with all of them and as you said earlier is to make sure that they're available as much as we can to all and I understand that what you've done Michael is upload those as well and they have also been circulated so thank you for those efforts. I'm going to move on to my presentation Chair if you could confirm you could see a PowerPoint presentation please. Yes thank you very much Excellent okay so yes this is an outline application with all matters apart from access for a retirement care village in use class C2 comprising housing with care, communal health well-being, leisure facilities, public open space, landscaping, car parking access and associated development along with a public access countryside park between Haverhill Road and Hinton Way and Stapleford. So this is the planning application boundary and just to put it in context with the village we have Stapleford here and Great Shepherd over here so it's on the north eastern edge of the two villages and currently comprises open agricultural land in terms of constraints it's not a wonderfully wonderful looking map but it's just to highlight that the site is outside of the development framework boundary and located entirely within the green belt which is the green wash across the plan there's some listed buildings to the north of the site and a few to the southwest of the site within the village framework the Stapleford conservation area is denoted by this pink line there is a scheduled ancient monument and little trees to the northeast of the site beyond which you've got Wandelbury Countryside County Wildlife Site further to the northeast public rights of way are denoted by these blue lines so just returning to the common and secure British law society there are no public rights of way within the site it's not accessible to the public in its current form and the site is located entirely in flood zone 1 low risk you can see there's no blue washing across the site it's quite a difficult one to put into context in photos but I will try my best this is a view looking north along Haverhill Road with properties on the eastern side Stapleford Recreation Ground on the left and development along Government of Way and Short Kills to the north the application site is in here beyond these properties which is shown slightly clearer in this photo taken from the junction that we've got and Haverhill Road again the application site in behind these houses and the countryside part beyond in front of those trees moving to the northeast corner of the site this is a view looking down towards there so you can see those properties we just saw in the previous image down there to the southern boundary of the site and the countryside park element to the north side you can see the topography rises north out of the village and particularly to the northwest of the site. This photo is taken from the landscape and visual appraisal that currently the application and is a view from little trees held scheduled each monument you saw on the strength map looking down towards the site you can just about make up some houses there so the application site is in this field here. This is a view from the northwestern corner of the site from Hinton Way looking across the site so you'd have the retirement coverage over beyond this you can't really see it from here and again just the rising land levels to the north sites. This is a site photo again from the LVA that is taken from within the site looking east across the area on which the retirement coverage would be cited just to give context to the existing open agricultural nature of the site which is bound by head roads along Haverville Road and then possibly along Hinton Way and again two further photos within the site this is from the western edge of the retirement coverage element looking back towards stable for the village where you can see those properties along the northern edge of the village and short kiln and then this is a view from I suppose a central point within the proposed countryside path again looking down back towards the village and you have those properties this is Haverville Road running along here and then short kiln properties in the Goggway again. Just a very brief bit of context on the retirement coverage and I'm sure if members have any particular questions of clarification on this then the applicant would be very well suited to answer those. It is used class C2 residential institution as set out in the report and the description and that is for the use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need. The model proposed within this application comprises combinators with full care facility which is still standard care which we're probably all very familiar with and retirement accommodation with care linked packages which is often referred to as assisted living or extra care and those elements can provide a range of services to the individual care needs and cater for the level of dependents required which can be adapted as the needs of the applicants change and retirement care also includes several onsite facilities some of which are available to members of the public and can include dining, leisure, gym, swimming, hairdressers, activity rooms and gardens but those aren't fully known at this stage because it isn't outlined in the application. These there are four, three or four parameter plans that have been submitted with the application you would have seen in the plans pack again you have the application boundary a single point of vehicle access from Haley Hill Road into the where will be the preferred retirement care village three pedestrian points of access, one to the south west of the site one to the east and one to the north west and this does show in grey the can or autonomous metro routes and I'm sure we will come onto that in a bit more detail the parameter plan for land use and building heights gives a sense of likely division of the land so you have the retirement care village in the southern portion of this L shaped site and then the countryside park filling sort of a 19 hectare space along here it gets outlined only when this is a parameter plan it gives an indication that does talk about heights of buildings with that sort of set out in the report in terms of how much we can consider that particular element and again a landscape plan which just emphasises that you have a large 19 hectare countryside park to the north of the site and then some structural planting and landscaping around the retirement care village element and then that is all drawn together in what is an illustrative master plan it has to be stressed that this is illustrative but nonetheless it provides a sense of how the development may well be accommodated on the site going back to the central care home building and then the retirement living spaces in different forms but again this is an illustrative plan Key materials considerations as Chair has already read out there's quite a lot to consider hence the long reports so I won't dwell on those too much the key is obviously the principle of development in the green belt and the MPPF is clear that the government attaches great importance to the green belts, the fundamental aim of the green belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open the essential characteristics of the green belt are their openness and permanence the green belt serves five purposes to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas prevent towns from merging into one another to safeguard the countryside from encroachment preserve the setting of special character historic towns and to assist in urban generation by encouraging recycling of derelict or other urban lands so in the context of this application paragraph 143 of the MPPF states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt and should not be improved except in very special circumstances paragraph 145 and 146 of the MPPF clearly define development that should not be regarded as inappropriate the two elements of this application and quite clearly the retirement care village could not align with any of the provisions of paragraphs 145 and 146 of the MPPF and is therefore inappropriate development the countryside park however would represent appropriate development but nonetheless the proposal as a whole constitutes inappropriate development it's therefore necessary to consider whether the development of retirement care will result in further harm beyond that caused by an appropriateness and to consider the justification but forward in support of the proposal and the extent to which those matters constitute very special circumstances and the final slide is my attempt to summarise a 54 page report in one diagram so the paragraph 144 of the MPPF states that when considering any planning application local planning authority should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the green belt very special circumstances will not exist and less substantial harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations in the report officers have identified obviously substantial harm through by virtue of inappropriate development to the green belts there's also significant harm to the openness of the green belt given the amount of belt form that would be introduced and encroachment into the countryside conflicting with the purposes of the green belts officers also consider there to be significant harm to the character of the area and to the landscape turning to very special circumstances that have been advanced officers do accept that there is an unmet need and that does carry significant weight in favour of the proposal clearly the countryside park has significant benefits and that has been given significant weight there's the environmental benefits the biodiversity net gain and the landscape enhancements that would go hand in hand with that element clearly the social benefits of having a 19 hectare countryside park accessible to the public an area which is not apparently accessible that fits with national and local policies about making green belt accessible where appropriate so again significant weight is given to that element the development would result in about 70 jobs and while obviously officers fully acknowledge the importance of job creation in the context of green belt the side of officers have given limited weight to the economic benefits who also have given limited weight to the release of housing stock the occupants are not necessarily going to be from Stapleford or Great Shelford or indeed the district which is acknowledged within the documents that have been supported by the applicant so even if you took a cautious one to three ratio it would be perhaps 70 to 100 to earn them freed up within the district but again in the context of green belt officers give limited weight to that as a benefit there another benefit put forward which isn't listed because officers aren't giving it any weight the planning statement did list social well-being and cohesion as a separate very special circumstance but officers consider that clearly countryside park has delivered the social the social element of that and the unmet need as well addresses well-being so that hasn't been taken as a separate very special circumstance it is clearly for the decision maker to attach weight that they see fit to the to the arguments this is the conclusion of officers that the the very special circumstances advance do not clearly outweigh the harm and therefore the application is recommended for refusal it is obviously for members to debate the way that they may wish to attribute which may be the same as officers it may be different if our members were minded to approve the application then there would need to be a very lengthy list of planning conditions section 106 agreement and the application would also need to be referred to the secretary of state being a major in appropriate development within the green belt that is it from me chair thank you thank you Michael and I'm sure all of us will have the seesaw balance now as a useful image for all types of you know the balance and the judgment that we have all of these types of applications vice chair I'm opening this up now for any questions of clarification for the case officer for Michael sexton I do note that at the beginning he said if there's anything specific around retirement care home provision and the description of that that would be perhaps directed at the applicant but for anything else given in his presentation do we have any other do you have any questions for clarification from members we have one request chair from councillor fein Councillor Peter fein thank you two points of clarification if I may the first was there was a reference on the plan to the proposed route of the Cambridge to southeast transport busway referred to as being the cam probably cam compliant to what extent is that a consideration bearing in mind that that is just a proposal it would of course make it more accessible if it were to go ahead the second question relates to and I think Mr sexton covered this but I'd still like to ask confirmation referred to paragraph 145 of the NPPF and I just wanted to what extent the proposed retirement village would meet condition F of that which is relation to limited affordable housing for local community needs can you confirm this does not meet that criteria thank you thank you councillor three you chair and in respect to the cam it's a bit of difficult one to answer because it's not at a significant advanced stage or we can attribute it significant weight I think that's set out in the last two three three and two three four the report clearly the developer has acknowledged that there is potential for this to come forward should it come forward he would have benefits in terms of public accessibility to from the site from public transport but that's not known at this stage the developer has some of their best to accommodate that may come forward the route on their indicative plans doesn't entirely match the route that's been suggested by greater Cambridge partnerships hence the holding and I think it is a holding objection because they themselves don't know at this stage fully well you know whether that's going to come forward or not and therefore officers can't really give that weight at this time the second point paragraph one four five of the MPPF where it talks about what are exceptions and what could be appropriate the Greenbelt paragraph F section F talks about limited affordable housing for local community needs and this is not a rural exception the site is not an affordable housing site is being brought forward so no it wouldn't fit within that category provision of one paragraph level five at all thank you Michael Vice Chair we don't have any other questions of clarity chair thank you very much thank you Michael and I'm sure we may come back to you during the debate if there's any other need we'll now go on to the section for public speakers and the first public speaker we have is Jenny Flynn are you with us Jenny? can you hear me okay? can hear you perfectly see you very well too if you'd just like to introduce yourself and then you have three moments yes good morning everyone Jenny Flynn I am a resident of Stapleford and hopefully it will be a great day to reflect some of the 42 objections that you've received from local people thank you Jen we'll start now with your three minutes today parish councillors and your own case officers will be more eloquent and informed than me in telling you how this application contravenes policies intended to protect Greenbelt how 80% of the site would be built or parked on 12m high rooflines would overshadow existing homes and be out of keeping with Stapleford's village design how retirement community residents quality of life would be eroded by poor light over-crowding and reliance on cars how development would remove valuable grade 2 arable land from productivity and how the proposals do not meet the special circumstances required to unlock land from the Greenbelt I'll say it again these are the findings of your own case officers can't tell you though is what it will be like as a Stapleford resident to have such a significant development in the proposed location it will shift our village boundary towards the east further away from local shops and transport links the nearest shopping health and care services are in great Shelford about two and a half kilometers from the site without direct public transport retirement village residents will use private cars and further increase pressure on local roads and parking areas access the site's close proximity to existing community facilities and to Shelford railway and claims the site is well connected and sits in a sustainable location this is patently untrue for other reasons too the sighting of the development is incredibly ill-considered Stapleford is very proud of its connection to McGovern the retirement village will be the closest tallest and densest development in any direction to this local landmark a newly approved county wildlife site this is not a badge that Stapleford residents would wear with honour one of the special features of McGovern is its status as a local high point with uninterrupted views for many kilometers and the retirement village would significantly diminish public views across open land be visible from Stapleford's conservation area and set a precedent for further incursion into the Greenbelt in return for development access has offered two sweetness access to a swimming pool and access to a country park let me knock these both on the head first no elderly person of financial means will want in a post-COVID world to share a swimming pool with lots of local people secondly gaining access to a countryside by giving up Greenbelt is not a trade-off we should have to make if you know the area then you'll know that the site proposed for the country park is too steep for development that's why it's not also been earmarked for housing it's also exactly where the GCP's way plans to pass through this needs a minimum width of 14 meters and will run through a cutting along the full length of the country park add to this way barriers to prevent people and animals from falling into it and landscaping to obscure it compute what then will be left for a country park by all means rewild it but don't pretend it's anything more than a narrow strip of unusable and developable land with many buses passing right through it every hour to summarize then this is not about being anti-change or nimbish this is about respecting the value of the Greenbelt and providing the right development in the right place for the right people on all of these counts accesses plans fall far short of the mark please do the right thing and reject their application my time is up thank you very much thank you Jenny and indeed perfectly timed very very eloquent thank you very much do we have any questions from members of the committee any questions of clarification for Jenny Flynn no one's indicating chair thank you very much for your contribution today Jenny you can turn your camera off and you can then watch the proceedings by the webcast if you'd like to thank you very much and I'd like to now call the applicant and I understand that we have Phil Grant who'll be speaking for the applicant good morning chair can you hear me okay do you have Matt with you as well he is in the meeting I'll be doing the talking but Matt is available to assist with any questions of clarification if needed would you like to introduce yourself first and then we'll start the three minutes yeah sure thank you for the opportunity to speak I'm Phil Grant I'm a director of Axisland Partnerships and I'm the applicant along with the Chalk family who live in Stapleford thank you very much your three minutes thank you I think it's important to explain the intentions behind our application to go with the Chalk family we want to provide something special that being much needed specialist housing for older people it's also environmental benefits for the local community in the form of a countryside park there is no provision or allocation for such accommodation within the council's adopted local plan and officers have confirmed no schemes of this type are being considered elsewhere in the greater Cambridge area I'm sure the main question is but why in the Greenbelt well for a range of factors and the nature of a retirement village it needs to be located close to a rural centre except for Cambor there are no rural centres outside the Greenbelt we found no suitable or available alternative sites outside the Greenbelt for retirement village let alone accommodating the wider benefits of a countryside park it is accepted both locally and nationally in the decades we have been under providing for older generations many people as they get older need support but do not wish or need to live full-time in a care home most existing commissioned care schemes have strict eligibility criteria often excluding those that own their own home which is most older people in the whole of South Cams there are only 76 units of extra care accommodation available for self-funders in the shortage of proper accommodation often older people live in suitable large family homes that rely on external or family help to support their care needs the alternative is to uproot themselves from their homes and communities in which they have lived and move to new care settings away from partners or loved ones in many cases this can be very isolating and upsetting for couples our scheme will provide a range of homes for individuals and couples with services that adapt to people's needs change independently as long as possible even with their pets from the outset we included a 50-acre countryside park as part of the proposals we have an agreement to transfer this park to the McGog Trust for public use and perpetuity along with funding in my view in the light of COVID and the demand for open space the significant benefits of a vast new public park should not even be questioned the intention is to restore the proposed parkland to predominantly chalk grassland habitat bringing more than a doubling of the biodiversity of the site chalk grassland is one of the most threatened but highly rich habitat types in the district linking with existing rural stewardship schemes in the area means that the biodiversity benefits are manifestly multiplied through the strengthening of the ecological resilience of the area this is a special environmental opportunity not to be missed enhancing the quality and access to inaccessible greenbelt land for all to enjoy and delivering the council's doubling nature strategy we strongly believe the significant benefits of our proposals and its unique environmental factors clearly outweigh the harm and do constitute very special circumstances therefore it's entirely appropriate for you to reach a different conclusion to your offices who found a difficult balancing consideration themselves and grant planning permission we do hope you will do so and thank you for listening and I'm happy for any questions thank you thank you very much and thank you for sticking to the time and clearly elucidating you know the issues around from your point which are the benefits that outweigh the harms do we have any questions for clarification from members not yet chair I'll hold on a couple of seconds in case one comes up there we go councillor Hawkins councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins thank you very much chair for you thank you Mr Grant you have focused a lot on the countryside park and the environmental benefits that this proposal is intending to bring which is a good thing however as you've seen from the officer's presentation there are a few issues which I think you did mention on which is you say that this is the only place you have found in the whole of south camps that could be suitable for this I'm afraid I find that difficult to believe how far did you look so we did we looked across the whole district including in the city we undertook an alternative sites assessment which was part of the application which identified 109 sites which we then had to work through to see whether they were suitable or available as I said most of the those that were outside the green belts were either either unavailable because they were identified to development and you will probably appreciate that most edge of settlement sites outside the green belts are preferred to the more lucrative general housing schemes and being put forward in their call for sites and the new plan or being developed already so sites within the green belt would often have to demonstrate this very significant very special circumstances or we would have to demonstrate here combining that with trying to provide the ecological benefits and coming from a genuine place of trying to balance the harm and the benefits to try and find a site that could accommodate the retirement village and vast open spaces we have done there were no other sites there was one site in Camborn that we looked at which is next to your council officers which is part of the west Camborn strategic site so that wasn't available and also unsuitable for retirement living because of the business park location there are other retirement living schemes coming forward which are not retirement villages and these were sent through to us and these actually see three retirement just basically limited by age housing and do not offer the same care benefits so we did have an extensive site search and by way of trying to demonstrate that this is the suitable location and this is the problem you've got because the maker for the district and all the rural centres which have the key services which can support such a scheme none of those rural services sorry rural centres are outside the green belt so you will face the same problems so the question being if you're not in this location where is the right location thank you do you have a supplementary question I do and I think this is one of the things I tend to ask developers is this I'm not sure how well how much of engagements you had with the local community because looking at the comments that have come back from them there's a lot of comments that actually don't support you so did you actually engage and engage properly not just go this is what we want to do you know like it or not yes so we started engaging with the local community back in 2017 and the first thing we did was attend meeting with members of the parish council and also neighbourhood planning forums with a blank piece of paper to say we'd like to look at bringing development forward in this area and we'd like to work with you for 18 months the parish council wouldn't let us talk to the steering group and eventually after some time of persuasion we were able to speak to the steering group but unfortunately the steering group has discontinued but we have met with them on a number of occasions and we attended a lot of the consultation events and our starting point was to look at some of the aspirations of the neighbourhood plans to try and work with them and those aspirations were to get better connectivity to the countryside and to provide the right type of housing unfortunately Shelford and Great Shelford and Stateful are completely surrounded by greenbelt and they have and anything they bring forward unless it's going to be within the village framework which is very tightly drawn is going to have the same pressures whether it be C3 general housing retirement housing or any of the type of development we have and I think you've got the parish councillors and I think they will confirm along with the ward member that we have spent an extensive time trying to consult with them a number of consultations and follow-up so we've had a very open I would say generally positive although you know people don't support it so it's something which is dear to our hearts and also the family members live in the village and they're keen to make sure that this was done properly thank you chair thank you very much question next question chair is from councillor Kahn you talk about for the country park restoring chalk grassland on the country park area the area that you have a chalk grassland is a developed over many years it's normally a developed a renzino soil a shallow renzino soil what you seem to have there is rather more clay with flints type chalky soil how do you propose to create a biologically valuable chalk grassland on such a heavily farmed land so at the earliest opportunity if we were to be consented with that permission we would look to councillor Kahn still there it's okay he's still there so we have been in discussion with the McGog Trust and who are the experts at restoring this and as you will know have just been awarded county wildlife status so they are the experts and we have a draft agreement in place to transfer the land to the ownership of the McGog Trust at the earliest opportunity along with funding to pay for the setup of this ongoing to return this so we appreciate that it will take a number of years to restore the land from the high intensity agricultural usage just one moment sorry I said that Martin Kahn was still with us councillor Kahn can you confirm you're still with us yes I'm still here I don't know why continue sorry sorry can you hear me councillor Kahn is that alright I hear everything you're saying okay yeah so in talking with the McGog Trust we expected to take around four years to try and restore to its former habitat and it's quite critical that you know that we take the time and we as the developers are not the experts to do that which is why we went to spoke to the most appropriate organisation to do that and they are we walk the site with them and they are very confident that they can return and enhance the area and go back to its original habitat and support also the wide ecological resilience of the McGog down and then linking into the further areas of the Hobsons Park so trying to create a necklace of green spaces all the way out from Cambridge all the way to the McGogs and to Wanderbury thank you very much you have a follow on question councillor Kahn no thank you that's very much thank you very much and can you lower your hand councillor Kahn as well as you've turned off as well Vice-chair councillor Wright next councillor Nick Wright thank you chairman my question is to do with sites that are available and I appreciate from what you said that you've been looking at sites over quite a long period of time and during that time there's been a brownfield site at a mine and rule centre i.e. Pat with Everard the Royal Hospital has come available and been sold perhaps for a scheme similar to what you're looking at building did you consider that site because that was available and for sale during the time that you've been looking at the present site you're on I'm aware of the site it's come to me in a different capacity but not actually as every time we're proposing with quite a significant price tag so it would make it unsuitable in terms of the cost available to it and it's quite a different scheme so again it's not one that we at the time of the application bearing in mind where we've been working on this for a number of years that was available however in my view we need to be looking at the need that's available we need to be looking at multiple sites for retirement living not just a single site and I think we need to be looking at providing and throughout the district I know that's a slight departure from this particular application but I think we've got to be careful that we don't just we don't just look at putting retirement living in one particular place because then you're asking people to move we need to be catering for the the amount of all the ageing generation we've got around the district and around the county so at the time do you have a follow-up question to then? no that's fine thank you very much Councillor Bradnam Thank you Chairman through you to Mr Grant thank you for your explanation of your assessment of need it seems those your assessment doesn't meet with agreement from the residents who said on our page 17 in the agenda as summarised by the case officer that several similar schemes in nearby villages are struggling to fill vacancies and that the provision doesn't match any perceived local need which hasn't been established have you actually done a local needs assessment in Stapleford and the nearby villages? we have we've done a district a market catchment area and we've done a district wide need area and I think the percentage if you look at the research 37% come within a three kilometre distance of the location of the retirement village it's it's not like a housing needs survey in terms of an affordable housing needs survey because of the weather eligibility criteria and as I say again if you have assets of £23,000 or above you are not eligible for social care therefore saying if you own your own home you will then have to be a self-funder and the issue we've got here is that we're not providing accommodation for self-funding and commissioned care dealt with by the cancer council and commissioned care has strict eligibility criteria so it's the difficulties we've got here we're not providing for self-funders so the only way we could do a needs survey is to go around every single residence and say do you require accommodation now and their situation isn't that they might not need it now but in the future they may need it and then it also requires a situation where what you can't do is move as a couple so then you're looking at separating couples where one will need to go into accommodation for care and then you leave somebody at home and that can be very distressing so this type of accommodation which isn't actually accounted for in any of the cancer council assessments and even the Cresa model and the City Council and South Council have done they've purely been looking at shelter accommodation and extra care and they've acknowledged that they need to amend this review but they're not coming forward but if you wait the need is going to get even critically worse and the need hasn't been questioned by your officers they've acknowledged that it's an under provision now and we haven't got the and we haven't got we're not bringing the right accommodation forward and also all that's coming forward at the moment to see to accommodation is care homes which doesn't accommodate for the mass majority that need it so we need to move away from the care home model Thanks, thanks very much Phil, do you have a supplementary question No, thank you Vice Chair We have one final speaker chair which is Councillor Fain Councillor Peter Fain Thank you chair, my question was largely just been dealt with but I also wanted to ask in relation to alternative sites whether AXIS had considered an adjacent site which is available and not for the country park or the retirement village just adjacent to the car park to the proposed country park the other side of Hinton Way Thank you and Councillor Brandon if you could turn your video off please your camera, thanks Thank you Phil I'm not sure are you able to be more specific Councillor Fain about the site Yes, I'm talking about the Waverly Park care home site which is currently redundant and has not been put forward for the local plan at this stage I'm not aware of it I fear if it's just a care home site then the size won't be suitable so the retirement for a full retirement village for the full package of care including the assisted extra care and then the full care home suite nursing condimentary care would need to be at least really it needs to be minimum of 7 acres or 7 to 10 acres if it's just a care home site that's available it would only be available to provide one type of accommodation primarily a care home site Okay, thank you very much Thank you, are there any further questions? No one's indicated chair Okay, thank you and thank you very much for answering those questions as well so fully You're welcome, thank you very much Thank you very much I'd now like to invite the parish council we have Stapleford Parish Council and Councillor Howard Kettle Good morning, can you hear me? I can hear you but not see you Mr Kettle Yes, perfect and if you can speak up a little bit so we can hear you and am I pronouncing your surname correctly? My name is Howard Kettle Councillor Howard Kettle Thank you very much So we have Councillor Howard Kettle for Stapleford Parish Council Could I ask you to confirm that you have the authority to speak for them today? Yes, I'm fully authorised by the parish council to speak on their behalf Thank you very much and you know the rules, you have three minutes to speak now Yes, thank you This is an application for a significant development located outside of the development framework of the boundary of Stapleford Furthermore, this is an application for development in the green belt and we have not been able to identify any exceptional circumstances to justify this development Stapleford Parish Council supported by a local firm of solicitors prepared a statement in 2015 regarding its position relating to the green belt It recognised it is quote, tasked with preserving Stapleford's green belt for the pleasure and benefit of its current residents and as a custodian for future residents The parish council at its duty will consider afresh any planning applications and paragraphs 81 and 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework will be taken into account in its objective consideration of the application and its merits unquote Stapleford Parish Council does not consider that this application complies with this policy statement This is a proposal for a high-class residential and care facility and there is no evidence of this need in Stapleford Furthermore, as a care facility there is no opportunity or requirement for affordable housing to be provided which is a need that has been identified in our village Care homes notoriously command high values and high annual service charge costs which would not generally make the development accessible to people in our village of retirement age It cannot therefore justify as an exception site Again, the dubious advantages suggested of public amenities such as hairdressers or restaurants are already well represented in the village centre and again there is a question mark over affordability and accessibility for what would be on offer If permitted this development would remove land around the village which is regarded as its green lung and would be detrimental to the special landscape and the semi-rural setting for the village itself all of which would be eroded by permission for this development This development we believe is harmful to the green belt Furthermore, the proposed disproportionate in both height and mass of buildings The existing buildings of 7 to 8 metres in height would be overshadowed by buildings up to 12 metres in height The wholly inappropriate dense development would be imposed onto the edge of the village where densities are currently extremely low It is the parish council's view that if permitted this would be a carpenter on the edge of the village and the proposed additional tree planting and landscaping would be wholly ineffective in mitigating the overall impact on the views either from the village or from the extraordinary proposal for a location for a time of village with virtually no public transport access and a good 30 minute walk to the nearest shops with an uphill return journey If you could bring your comments to a close It does not represent a sustainable location and indeed the arrangements with the Magog trust would appear to be at this stage highly opaque In conclusion, we believe this is a development in the wrong location It's overbearing It doesn't serve the needs of the village and it's certainly not presenting any circumstances to justify there's a Greenbelt exception and should be refused Thank you very much Council could tell Do we have any questions for clarification? We have two so far chair the first being from Councillor Rippith Councillor Judith Rippith Thank you so much for that clear explanation I've just got one question In your point of view how accessible is this area of Greenbelt within this red line boundary and on the edge of Stapleford from your very local point of view Do you mean for local people? Yes, for local people I think it's already been pointed out there are no public rights of way over the land so I think it's a frequent walk on the Magog Down and I would walk past this field regularly as I walk up the Haverhill road so it has to be taken within the context not only of the village setting as a semi-rural setting but also in terms of the setting of the Magog Down and the Magog Hill Do you have a follow-up question Councillor Rippith? I think you're trying to get at what it is but so from your point of view it's the openness of it the views which are probably the most important aspect of it Yes indeed it is really a question of we've got the Magog Down which is open to the general public for ramping and in any event if access really do want to make this available or the family wish to make it available it doesn't just have to be part of a property speculative deal to open up access Thank you very much Thank you Next she'll have Councillor Hawkins Councillor Dott's to me Hawkins Thank you very much chair and through you Thank you Mr Cattell that was quite that was quite clear but what I want to pursue really is the issue of housing need within the village because you referred to it that proposal doesn't actually provide for any needs within the village did you discuss with the developers you know affordable housing or any other type of housing that you might require as a need within the village and if so what was their response My understanding is that the developer has been proposing a C2 user so there is no opportunity there for affordable housing affordable housing we've been very concerned in terms of consultation with the developer because we basically just needed to stand on our statement that we would not encourage in any way development in the green belt and certainly not in this location Okay thank you Thank you Councillor Brandon Thank you through you chair my question is rather similar to that of Councillor Hawkins but it relates to given that you're on the parish council I wonder whether you could characterise the sort of accommodation that you think would be suitable for the elderly population in your area I appreciate the catchment of this sort of development tends to be wider than that but what is the sort of need for elderly people that you would recognise I think it's obviously been shared but just picking out a piece of development in the green belt which arguably is cheaper than going elsewhere I don't think there has been sufficient evidence of research in this area Sorry my question was are you aware of what the parish council has identified that might be the character of the sort of accommodation that you think might be suitable for Stapleford for example I think you're asking a very focus question in terms of the fact that the presenter of the proposal has explained that this is not a care home facility it's not housing as such it is a very it's a different type of user and at this moment of time the parish council has not deemed it necessary to do any surveying of that nature it doesn't have the resource to do that we simply rely upon the local knowledge we have and the responses that we get from the 40 or 50 people that have written in to say that this is not appropriate in the village okay thank you thank you very much for your time and responses there Howard thank you very much and we would also now like to hear from Great Shelford parish council and we have councillor Barbara Cattel Hello I can see you we can hear you you now know don't you the rules about the three minutes if you also just confirm for us please that you have full authority from the parish council to represent them today I do have full authority from Great Shelford parish council and along with the other things that have been mentioned I am chair of the neighbourhood plan steering group for Great Shelford and Stapleton which is a combined village neighbourhood plan which is in the process of being produced thank you very much Barbara so if you'd like to start now your three minutes okay there's been a lot of talk about the fact that this country park is going to be an amazing facility for the two villages as you are probably aware Hintonway although the part of Hintonway where the access would be is in Stapleton Hintonway is mainly in Great Shelford and so the country park aspect would link from Hintonway across the Haverhill Road the question really is that that is a site that we don't believe is actually necessary but would be valued if it was put in place the country park but it doesn't seem to be being offered as a country park in its own right and it comes with the condition that a large development is put on the other part of the land which again I can only talk from Great Shelford's point of view as to the views across to the McGog down and over to Wargulbury and the the retirement village would be just obscuring so many different views and so many rights of way across because that is a whole area that would be blocked out in terms of privacy it's proposed that we do have access to it we have hairdressers we have a swimming pool at Sourston Village College which is open to the public we have all the facilities that are being offered we have empty restaurants and pubs which are really ideal and have recognition around the country so I don't see the from Shelford's point of view the residential village is of no value whatsoever obscures of use and the country park although it might be useful we don't really see that that is the appropriate place to do it especially with the fact that there may be a bus way disconnecting it from the village anyway and therefore not allowing access across in the normal idea of things as regards the steering group of the neighborhood plan we were approached way back in time by Axis about this the reason I believe they're planning to do this on this site is because they own this site through the Chalk family and that is probably why they haven't looked at other sites in quite the same depth I don't know that for a fact but that would be my view on this and as regards steering group for the neighborhood plan they have brought several presentations and on most occasions if not all we have said this is not the appropriate use of this land we do believe that there is going to be a need in the future possibly already for affordable housing the houses that were shown on the very edge of the development were built as affordable housing unfortunately when they were ready for sale the affordability didn't continue so we do need somewhere some protected affordable housing for local children elderly whoever it may be but that is not what is being offered here and the fact that there is absolutely no transport link of any sort or even maybe with the busway because the busway will be full but it will have to stop so that what we are really saying is that we don't think it is an appropriate place thank you very much do we have any questions for clarification for you no one is showing German thank you very much for your time and for speaking so brilliantly without news can I actually there are a couple I see just one moment sorry it takes a minute to come in in my village there is assisted living care home which is being closed down because it is an economic are there any such care homes already in Shelford and Sable doing the neighbourhood plan you should be aware of them and have they shown to be if there are are they being economic or what is the position of this particular form of development which is what I understand they propose where you don't have a poor care home will have just these people are able to live on their own but just with a little additional help as far as I'm aware there is the development in Great Shelford which was the old BMW site on London Road which my understanding is that it is very expensive and that it is not full because people can't afford to be there there is another development that is about start on the old Shelford oil site next to Shelford station which is to be more of a care home than a residential home in the terms of it is going to provide full medical facilities I understand and that is very much on the beginning of planning at the moment and I mean other than that I'm not aware of anything in the two villages thank you and I think members we have heard from officers about that there is an agreement of an unmet need that's not being questioned do I have any other questions we have one chair from Councillor Hawkins councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins thank you chair through you and I'll be very brief thank you Miss Skethel you mentioned your neighbourhood plan that you're working on is this jointly with Stapleford and do you have or do you have any proposal for the land that we're talking about here right yes it is a combined neighbourhood plan Great Shelford and Stapleford together it did it has sort of paused at the moment due to the fact that the previous chair of Stapleford parish council died and he was very much masterminding it I am the chair of it but it has not met due to lack of personnel to take part in it for probably 12 months or so we're about to reinstate it and to get going on it so far we have done a landscape survey and have recorded the fact that the views from both villages up and across towards the north towards the east all over this site here are the vital views from both ways both directions from the God Hill and from the villages across they are the main views that we consider define the landscape of the villages I don't know if that tells us you Thank you very much Any further questions Vice Chair No further questions Thank you very much Barbara for that as well In terms of public speaking we also now have the possibility for local members to speak Councillor Peter fame would you like to speak now or at the end of the debate Chairman I'll speak at the end of the debate if I may Okay good so members we'll now move to debate on the application Sorry to interrupt you I just wanted to point out are you putting to speak in the chat I just wanted to point out it's 11 30 and you said you thought you might have a break then that's all Do you want to turn your video off Councillor Bradenham Sure Thank you I was just about to say that we would have a debate now based on the full information that we have in the report back and what we've heard just now from the public speakers as well and we're looking at the balance in terms of the harm and benefits of this and whether it meets the special circumstances that would be needed and yes I am going to announce that we have the 10 minute break and that while everybody is making a cup of tea stretching or whatever they consider what they've heard and what they've read and we will be back at 11 40 to have the debate on this application Liam I think you are in charge of the meeting itself how will we conduct this part of the break As it's only 10 minutes I just suggest that everybody turns off their cameras and mute their microphones and yeah I don't think I'll put up a slide for the 10 minutes but for the longer break later I will I think that's the best way to do it Thank you, thanks everybody If everybody turns off their camera and their microphone we don't necessarily need to hear the chatter while you're having your break and we will be back at 10 40 please Thank you Just to confirm we're still live when you resume in a moment Liam thank you and it's 9 40 now Members what I'd just like to do is a quick roll call to make sure that you're all here you don't need to turn your video on just respond to me please by audio Councillor Henry Batchelor Present Chair Councillor Anna Bradnam Present Councillor Dr Martin Kahn Councillor Peter Fein Present Councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins Present Chair Present Chairman Councillor Heather Williams Present Councillor Dr Richard Williams Present Councillor Nick Wright Present Thank you Thanks everybody So as I said we'll open now for the debate and the debate is around exactly this seesaw that Michael Sexton's case officer showed us which is looking at the harm and benefits of the application and whether or not it meets those very special circumstances for an application that's a departure in the green belt Do we have any speakers Vice Chair We did have councillor Wright just before the break I'm not sure if that was to speak in the debate or not It was Chairman So may I start Of course you may thank you Thank Chairman I've been on the planning committee for many years and to be honest this application I cannot remember an application that does more harm than this application It is in not just in the green belt it's in one of the best bits of the green belt for goodness sake and it is so important to the setting of those villages around it The area is well served by country parks already and in these days we need to be thinking about producing food not just country parks I believe there's real harm in this application in the country park and the care home I don't accept that this is the only site available as I pointed out there were other sites available but at a price the most available site at the price the developer wants to pay for it but there are other sites in Southcams there is a need but not here absolutely not here and it has so little going for it Chairman you might consider asking councillors who wish to speak in favour of it to do so because I just cannot see I don't see there's a balance there's real harm here I'll leave that to you Thank you councillor Vice Chair We have councillor Rippers next councillor Judith Rippers councillor Wright has just summarised what I wanted to say I'm not finding the balance difficult on this application I really think it's severe harm and very little that I can think of in favour of this application and it really changes my mind I will be voting against Vice Chair do we have others who have asked to speak Yes we have four chairs and what I would ask is if anybody who has something different from what has been said so far please to use this time to speak or as councillor Wright said if you have a counter argument in terms of the balance then please do speak Who is next sorry We have councillor Roberts next councillor Deborah Roberts I've taken on board what you've said so I'll keep it very brief Clearly the list that we've got in front of us shows Sorry Surely we have in front of us on page 13 the list of things that we needed to consider but the most important one was the very special circumstances In my opinion it has not been shown that this does quantify and qualify under very special circumstances I should be voting against Thank you Councillor Heather Williams next chair Thank you Chairman with your words in mind I would just also like to draw members attention to page 19 from our affordable housing team because one of the things that we do sometimes say is in the right balance of affordability and affordable housing can tilt it but I quote only be suitable for those on high incomes and therefore there is absolutely absolutely no benefits that I can see to this that would outweigh the undoubtable harm as others have mentioned Thank you Chairman Next we have councillor Hawkins Councillor Dr Jimmy Hawkins Thank you chair and through you There is I mean the diagram that the case officer for us I think is very instructive and the balance is just not there but what struck me also was Miss Kettles comment about the hotel mentioning that in the neighborhood plan so far the views looking towards that side is one of the key views that they have referred to in their plan and that indicates just how important that part of the landscape is and building on it is just not right in my opinion so I would be putting it against this Thank you Councillor to me Hawkins and obviously at the stage which in terms of the neighborhood plan it's not a significant material condition but obviously that is very important in being one of their first findings and key findings so thank you for that can I reiterate that if you have requested to speak if you have something which adds to the debate about the balance between how and benefit that hasn't already been said then please do continue with your wish to speak So next chair we have Councillor Richard Williams Thank you Chair keeping that in mind I'll be very brief I agree with everything that that's been said I just wanted to really add that I thought the report was set up very well and the presentation as well both set up the issues very clearly and I think really helped me to make the balance but I will be voting against Thank you Thank you what was different case officer note you were complimented on the report I was complimenting the case officer Yes, yes But in due obviously what we do have here is some I think this come towards us because of the amount of public interest because of this whether or not providing access and to this piece of this countryside park area but at the moment I'm not hearing that for anybody that has changed their view in terms of the balance anybody else who's registered to speak has something additional or to bring to this debate please I got a little comment that I would like to make Sorry no, I'll go to the vice chair Sorry In order chair it's councillors Braden and Fein and then Kahn Thank you Chairman My observation is that I did understand what the applicant was saying and we do need to make provision for elder accommodation it's really important but it needs to be suitable for the people who need it and within their affordability and we need a range of accommodation and I dearly hope we do consider that in our evolving local plan this is not the right place as councillor Toomey Hawkins and councillor Cattel said to build on an iconic view and the local precious area it would be totally inappropriate so I should be voting against Thank you Thank you councillor Braden and also to recognise that as the case officer did say that there is a need we do need to look at this in our new local plan going forward and I think it was very very important considerations that were brought through Vice Chair Who's next sorry? It was councillor Fain but I've just read that he wants to speak at the end as local member so next committee member is Martin Kahn Thank you very much I really wanted to have a couple of mind points I've taken the point about the speech One of the main purposes of Greenbelt is to keep settlements apart and in particular to limit ribbon development and the proposed element seems to be a classic form of ribbon development so it's not just that it's in Greenbelt it's also the type of development in the Greenbelt which does cause reservations Secondly obviously from the comments were made it's clear that it's not a straightforward matter of creating a high quality wildlife short grass that is not an easy thing I think this needs to be taken into account as well So the third point is that the actual location in terms of providing for the elderly is quite isolated for links that strikes me as a very significant factor to take into account So like the other councillors that have commented I am actually voting against I think that it seems to be quite clearly against this development Thank you I think we can now invite the local member to speak and move then forward to somebody who may want to put forward a motion Thank you councillor Peter Fain I would just mention the objection put forward by my fellow ward member councillor Nick Sample and he rightly identifies the potential benefits as well the need for affordable housing suitable for elderly residents the need also for access to the countryside immediately around these villages as well as the very substantial and significant green spaces which we have on the edge of the village and those are important factors however firstly we have to consider whether this will be affordable for local people that is clearly a key factor in any assessment of very special circumstances I'm not convinced that that has been established I think it's worth just bearing in mind that there are 70 sheltered housing units within these two villages of this district council there is however an identified need for more affordable housing and including for elderly residents the question then is whether this is the site for it and I asked the planning officer earlier on for confirmation on those criteria there are certain criteria for the construction of new buildings being appropriate in the green belt but I think it's quite clear from the evidence before us and from the planning officer's response this site does not meet those criteria it would not be limited affordable housing for local community needs nor would it be an exception site although that's not the sole criteria and so when it comes to the balance just one moment Councillor Peter Fein I have just seen that Councillor Heather Williams has dropped out of the meeting and I want to establish her ability to vote on this Liam are you able to help me Hi there, yeah so they've dropped out sorry Councillor Heather Williams has dropped out of the meeting she's trying to rejoin we need to go back have you heard what Councillor Peter Fein has been saying I heard up to the words that Peter Fein said about Nick Sample and referencing the affordable housing in his submission and then dropped out for a few seconds and came back so I've only missed between now and when Peter said affordable housing Peter do you want to just read summarise those there's the positive points from Councillor Sample's part you just want to summarise the last bit that you said about why then it's about where it is Chairman that's the best invitation I've had to repeat myself don't normally do it Councillor Peter Fein I was recognising the importance of affordable housing particularly for elderly people in this community I was pointing out we have in fact got 70 units of sheltered housing in these two villages I would recognise also the chalk family have made provision for affordable housing for local people themselves nearby in the past so this is not a new development however we come to the key question of whether the very special circumstances are met here would this be a local affordable for local people and I'm afraid that has not been established and therefore I think it's quite clear that under paragraph 146 of the NPPF this is not a case where land could be developed within the green belt and I have to say that I will be voting against this Thank you very much for that Councillor Peter Fein and Vice Chair do we have somebody who will be ready to move the motion? We do Councillor Roberts has moved that we go to the recommendation chair which I'm happy to second Thank you very much so the recommendation by the officer on this application is refusal I haven't heard anybody yet that has shown that they would be minded to approve this application so I'm going to ask whether or not we can take this by affirmation as Councillor Debra Roberts is recommending that this be refused as per the officer recommendation can I take that by affirmation agreed agreed Is there anybody who is against that recommendation that motion Anybody who abstains Thank you therefore that's a refusal of that application Members we now move to Agenda Item 6 which is on pages 69 to 84 of your agenda pack I'll just find them myself This is land south of Thompson's Meadow, Gildon Morden The application number is 20 stroke 0 3 1 5 1 stroke for reserve matters The proposal is reserved matters for appearance, landscaping layout and scale following outline planning permission S stroke 3 0 7 7 stroke 1 6 stroke 0 for the proposed development of up to 16 dwellings 8 market and 8 affordable with all matters reserved except access The applicant is Peter David Holmes No site visit given that we're during the pandemic we haven't been doing any of the site visits Is it a departure from policy? No and an extension of time has been agreed with a decision due by the 16th of April 2021 The application has been brought to committee because Gildon Morden Parish Council requested this to be determined by planning committee The officer recommendation is approval and the presenting officer is Aaron Cove as principal planning officer Aaron Cove, are you with us? Chair, we have a question councillor Braden and perhaps it might be worth him what she has to say before Aaron starts Yes, sorry, thank you Sorry that was an error on my part I would say that I have actually visited this site when it was at outline stage but I will save my comments for the debate, thank you Sorry about that. That's fine, thank you very much Aaron I can't cue you Aaron but I can see your presentation Can you hear me now? Yes Brilliant So the application site is the land to the south of Thompson's Meadow which is located immediately adjacent to but just outside of the village framework of Gildon Morden The site is not within the conservation area As you can see from this aerial view the application site is currently undeveloped grassland and eastern boundaries of the site include trees which are protected by a group tree preservation order The southern and western boundary also consist of tall trees however none of these trees are protected The site is in flood zone 1 which is an area of low risk The principle of residential development for direction of 16 dwellings on the site was established through the outline planning consent which was granted in 2016 The outline application dealt with the matter of access to the site and this application comprises submission of matters for approval that were reserved when the outline planning permission was granted and these include details of the layout of the site the scale of the buildings the appearance of the buildings and the landscaping details So this slide shows the proposed site plan and layout As established under the outline consent the vehicular access to the site is on the northern boundary and there's also a footpath link access which is also along the northern boundary The outline permission was granted to include 50% affordable housing So 8 of these 16 units will be affordable So the key issues to consider in the determination of this application are therefore compliance with the outline planning permission, housing provision open space provision and the reserve matters details I've mentioned the layout scale appearance landscaping, biodiversity flood risk and drainage highway safety and the residential amenity of existing and future occupiers The next few slides I'm going to show will show the floor plans and elevations which were included in the plans pack which has been circulated to members I'll just flip through these So moving on to the context of the area this slide shows images of properties nearby to the development site the local character is generally mixed in terms of house types, materials and designs as you can see from the images shown on this slide It's considered the overall the proposed development is generally in keeping with the existing scale of development the character of the surrounding area and the proposed design of the buildings would not dramatically change the overall visual character of the village edge location that the development site is located in A suitable design response has been produced by the applicants and it reflects the scale of the neighbouring dwellings This slide shows a CGI of the proposed development site So as I've set out in the officer report and as shown on this slide of the presentation the key material considerations for members to consider are those listed on the slides and overall officers consider the submitted details to be acceptable and the proposal would provide a high quality scheme that would positively contribute to the character and appearance of the area For the reasons set out in the report officers consider the reserve matters to be acceptable and in accordance with relevant national and local planning policies subject to condition the application is recommended for approval Thank you chair Aaron thank you very much and if you keep that slide up there now just do we have any questions for clarification for Aaron vice chair Not immediately chair but I'll give it five seconds or so No one's indicated chairman Okay and if anyone just makes note that these are the key material considerations in terms of the reserve matters we have layout, scale, appearance and landscaping but we do have these are the issues that will be the material considerations for our debate Do we have some questions coming in? Yeah we've had a few people pop up we've had councillors Bradnham and Heather Williams Thank you councillor Bradnham Thank you chairman through you I just wanted to ask the case officer to what degree the case officer has been involved with discussions about the road layout for this site and is it the case officer's view that this is a satisfactory road layout for this arrangement the reason I'm saying that is because the road seems to whilst it keeps the integrity of the development in the middle yes the road around the north and east side appears to sort of cut the houses off from the green space and I just wondered if that had been a matter of discussion So the applicants carried out pre-application discussion before I came involved as case officer of the reserve matters application but the as I mentioned the access was fixed to outline stages to be located there but the internal road layout was considered to create a acceptable highway environment for the future occupants but also to emphasise the open spaces that are on the site as well so obviously they've got these properties along the western boundary they've got nice views of the open space here and also the filled element in the application here so for the access to be provided in this way is considered acceptable Thank you That's fine it's a better layout than I saw at the outline proposals, thank you And councillor Heather Williams Thank you and I just wanted to clarify with Aaron and or any other officer that was involved in it is that I do believe there was a bit of discrepancy around the original plans to the outline and if you could just give reassurance that that has been overcome and we now have matching matching designs and also if there is conditioning around on the outline to do with operational hours on construction, thank you Are you able to answer or would you like somebody else to it? No I can answer that yeah so the yeah the access issue was resolved highways are now content that the preserve maps plans complies entirely with the the outline plan approved SK1 as shown on the plan here yeah then the footpath link is in the same location and also there was a condition on the outline that ensured that was provided And the second point raised by councillor Williams on the construction hours we have to check the outline consent for that I believe it was covered under the outline permission yes there is a condition that restricts the hours of operation of machinery and deliveries during construction So that's carried over is that your They'll have to comply with that Has that answered your question councillor Williams? Yes thank you Thank you very much And we have councillor Fain next councillor Peter Fain Thank you chair On the question of highways the highways authority concerned about the difference between the conditions in the outline and those and the proposal here If we look at page 84 paragraph 43 Officers recommend that the planning committee approve the application subject to the following conditions there's then a blank Would that condition be one of those proposed? Sorry Can you just clarify the question again I said the details of the access arrangement Do you want to refer to the page Peter or the paragraph number? The page number is 84 The paragraph number is 43 Officers recommend that the planning committee approve the application subject to the following conditions However there is no conditions stated there I wondered whether the one requested by the highway authority is proposed as one of the conditions applicable Chair if I may it's Chris Carter here Thanks Chris The conditions were circulated as a supplement following the publication of the agenda So that's why they're not listed there The condition with regard to construction hours and operation that Aaron referred to is a condition of outline planning commission So that would also bite on implementation of any reserve matters So that would carry forward that wouldn't need to be listed again Thank you Chair Does that answer your question Councillor Fein? Thank you yes Thank you Any more questions Vice-Chair? No further speakers Chair Thank you We have no public speakers in terms of objectors, applicants or parish council on this item And Chair we've just said Councillor Cahn asked to speak Councillor Cahn A brief comment and it's not a reason for refusal Can I just no comments, the only we have a clarification question at this point? Yeah the clarification that I was going to ask is it would seem to me whether the fact that it seems to me that a lost opportunity with plots 13 and 16 to benefit from the view that they could have over the field whether that's a consideration that you can do anything about in the discussions that point was considered in discussions with the urban design team and the applicants actually amended the elevations of these properties number 13 and 16 to include additional windows within these elevations so there will be views of the open space Thank you Thank you Good so we've finished the clarification questions to the presenting case officer we don't have any public speakers in terms of objectors, applicants or parish council or local member Sorry chair, I believe we do have public speaking on this item for the applicant and Mr Watson I think Mr Watson said that seeing that there was an objection he said that he didn't want to speak that was the latest I received perhaps the in senior can confirm. Do apologize Yep that's correct chair Thank you so local members Councillor Heather Williams would you like to speak now or at the end of the debate Councillor Heather Williams Do you want to speak now at the end of the debate Heather Well I'll try and do both I'll speak as a local member now if I may chairman Of course, yep And then as a planning committee member Lisa So this is an application actually the parish council had wished to withdraw their request for it to come to planning committee and they asked me to make that clear to members today that's why they're not in attendance and I am pleased that there is a condition in relation to the safety arrangements around the pond and I would suggest that we do look very carefully when the time comes around the construction and access because it is a very constrained site in that respect it comes just at the start of coming from a 60 mile an hour to a 30 mile an hour sort of t-junction to turn in and obviously with the protected trees it can and this is quite narrow so I think we do need to make sure that any plans on that are really done with the protection of the residents particularly those that will be right opposite that access road but I think on page 82 to 83 most of the issues being raised have been dealt with by officers and I thank them for that but I would ask members to include that condition around the safety issues around the pond and that is a particular concern to residents particularly those with smaller children or grandchildren and the fact that it's 50% affordable housing I know is a strong factor into why it has been accepted and supported by many residents and the parish council I think I shall leave it at that if I can Councillor Williams I just want to know whether in terms of that condition Councillor Williams is that something that you've discussed with the case officer who may have wording or has already included or is something you'd like to propose? It's already included in the suggested conditions if very refer to page 82 it says the condition will be imposed to ensure a sufficient boundary treatment is put in place surrounding the drainage features and I'd just ask that members endorse that condition and don't make any efforts to remove it because it is a real concern to local residents that along with the maintenance which it does refer to in section 106. Lovely thank you very much so members we now are open for debate do we have anybody who would like to speak first? Yes we do Councillor Bredin was first up Thank you Councillor Bredin Thank you through you chair thank you very much for the report and as I said I did visit this site at the time it was given outlining planning permission and it has been through a number of iterations trying to improve the layout and improve the amenity of the site I know at the time there was also a lot of concern expressed because there isn't the public transport links are not good in this area and the access via Meadow Lane is out onto a point of the road where it switches from 30 to 60 miles an hour as Councillor Williams has said but on balance I think this is actually a much better proposal than we had all those years ago and I'm pleased to see that there is now much better provision for play in on the site and absolutely I'd endorse Councillor Williams's concern about the swale actually one way of addressing that is actually in addition to what Councillor Williams has said is to make the the slope of the swale very shallow because then there's less likelihood of falls into water it's more likely that with good planting on the outside nobody would get into the water but absolutely I would endorse that care so I shall be voting for this. Thank you Thank you Next we have Councillor Fainy Yeah it's always dangerous to assume that there will appear to be now other speakers however it's clear in this case the principle of development is obviously established if we look at paragraph 42 taking account of the reserve matters the proposal would provide a high quality scheme that would positively contribute to the character and appearance of the area we know that the work concerns to be expressed by the parish council but those it seems to me particularly in relation to highways can be met by conditions which we've heard confirmation will be imposed I was going to suggest that we therefore move straight to a vote since the parish council have not asked for this matter to be referred to us however I see there are now other speakers so I will not make that proposal as intended Next speaker Chair is Councillor Hawkins Councillor Hawkins given the power of speed to Fainy saying that we probably could move to emotion on this one but is there anything else that you would like to say? No Well it's just to actually say to Councillor Bradnam and Councillor Heather Williams that condition 4 in the supplementary paper that we had with this actually states that prior to the first occupation the treatment boundary treatment should be directed around the edge of the drainage ponds within the site will be submitted to and approved so that is taken care of so there really is no reason for them to worry just to assure them and yes I'm happy to second Councillor Fainy if he's going to make that motion again Yes and I think Councillor Heather Williams did recognise that this was contained in the report and she was just emphasising how important they were and but there should be no attempt to remove them which I'm sure nobody would want to attempt to remove those Do we have any more speakers or could we move to the motion Vice Chair Another request from Heather Williams to speak Councillor Thank you Chairman you've echoed some of my reports request to speak is that I did identify that condition in what I said and also to emphasise now as a planning committee member that the eight affordable housing housing units are very much required and that also to thank those residents that you know especially those nearby that have accepted this site as well we don't always see that and I think that shows great maturity and appreciation for their village as a whole so I thought that's worth noting Thank you and so we will now go to a motion which is the officer recommendation is for approval that's been proposed by Councillor Peter Fein and be seconded by by me Councillor Hawkins Chair Councillor Toomey Hawkins I haven't heard anybody that would seem to be saying that they're minded to refuse this application therefore I'd ask if we can approve this application with all the appreciation of the hard work that's gone into resolve all of the concerns can we do that by affirmation members agreed anybody against anybody abstaining good thank you very much so that Agenda Item 6 has been approved members we're now moving to Agenda Item 7 this is in Water Beach the application number is 20 stroke 03370 OUT this is an outline planning application with all matters reserved except for access for the demolition of the existing house and the erection of five dwellings it's Van Old Road Water Beach the applicant is Mr Sanders the recommendation is delegated approval the key material considerations are the principle of development housing provision access highway safety and parking provision infrastructure and visual amenity flood risk and drainage and agricultural occupancy condition there wasn't a site visit to this particular application but we did have a site visit to an application in a similar area and we will hear about the planning history of that one I'm sure it is a departure and that was advertised on the 2nd of September 2020 the presenting officer is Alice Young the senior planner and it's being brought to the committee because it's a departure from the adopted local plan and the officer recommendation of approval conflicts with the recommendation of Water Beach Parish Council and I understand that a date is yet to be agreed in terms of the extension of decision date for this application and Alice if you would like to present the case to us as a summary thank you let me just get my screen up can I just confirm that you can see that I've been having IT issues today we can see it and we can hear you perfectly okay so 9 to 5 Banner Road comprises a detached dwelling with a generous front and rear garden and is located on the northern side of Banner Road Water Beach the application site was submitted to the Water Beach Development framework with the boundary located south of the site the proposal seeks outline consent with all matters reserved except for access the demolition of the existing house and the erection of five dwellings this is an indicative site plan illustrating a potential site layout please note that this is indicative a previous planning application for this site was submitted to the council and was withdrawn prior to being presented at planning committee the current application is similar to the previously withdrawn application but it also includes the access connecting to the site connecting the site to the adopted highway at Banner Road a judicial review pre-action protocol notification was formally submitted to the council regarding the extent of the red line shown on the site location plan as previously submitted and claiming that this should also include the visibility space across the adopted highway after receiving council legal advice officers consider that the red line as submitted is sufficient and that all necessary visibility space as required by the high authority are either within the red line or within the adopted highway land there remains an ongoing dispute as to the red line location plan and whether it includes all of the land to which the application relates attached to the committee report as an extensive correspondence with Fuse Lane Consortium which correspondence remains unresolved the legal officer will be available to answer any questions from members as stated the application site falls outside of Water Beach settlement boundary the location of the proposed residential development is not supported and the location of the proposed residential development is not supported by neighborhood plan therefore the proposal is contrary to policy S7 as a matter of principle yet there are other material considerations relating to the site and officers consider that despite this conflict the proposal should be supported due to the limited harm which would arise from the development this is an aerial view of the site the application site is in red and this shows kind of the site context of this area of Water Beach the aerial view shows that the application site is surrounded and enclosed by residential development to the north and to the east and to the south the sites to north and east are outside of the development framework boundary and gain consent when the council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply consequently the northern side of final road has through the introduction of these dwellings changed physically and functionally furthermore the council recently lost an appeal on the narrow site directly west of the application site so this one just here here is the application site boundary so hang on a second this is just showing the development framework boundary here and this one is on the aerial view as this one does not show the site next door which was also been developed so this is the adjacent appeal which has just been allowed and costs were awarded in this instance the inspector noted that the character had changed when assessing the appeal and emphasised that the appeal site had more affinity to the suburban form that surrounds it rather than the countryside beyond the adjacent developments and surrounding Water Beach Village officers considered that the application site 2 which is the subject of this application this one has more affinity to that of the suburban development surrounding the site compared to the rural countryside which the site is separated from and makes limited contribution to therefore the proposal would not harm the wider character and appearance of the countryside and it is the view of officers that the site and its immediate surroundings cannot be categorised as countryside to which the proposal can encroach to in terms of suitability the proposal is for five dwellings well within the indicative maximum of 30 dwellings which a minor rural centre can meet detailed in policy S9 whilst the application site is located outside the development framework boundary and therefore technically policy S9 would not apply the scale of the development five dwellings a net gain of four is aligned with the quantum of development which is normally permitted within this framework officers consider that a departure from policy S7 of the local plan is justified in this instance given the site context limited harm to the countryside and the relatively sustainable location of the scheme close to services and facilities furthermore there are no other technical issues such as drainage or highways that would render the development unacceptable when taken individually or accumulatively another aspect of the development's note is the agricultural occupancy condition the existing dwelling due to be demolished has condition restricts in the occupancy to agricultural workers policy H19 relates to the new dwelling to support a rural enterprise and supports the removal of agricultural conditions subject to specific criteria the proposal does not seek removal of the condition but demolishes the existing dwelling and redevelops the site however given that the original reason the condition states that the dwelling serves the agricultural use of the adjoining land which appears to be redeveloped into housing now the need for such a condition is no longer evident and thus officers support the redevelopment of the site several concerns have been raised regarding the impact of the development on amenity of neighbours the application is in outline form with matters of scale outline scale layout landscape and appearance reserve for later approval and thus final layout scale and appearance is not known yet officers are satisfied that the fire dwellings can be accommodated within the site without significant loss of light and privacy or outlook to surrounding residents again these matters would be considered further at reserve matter stage in conclusion planning decisions should be taken in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations that indicate otherwise arise this is a clear case reinforced by recent appeal decision of the inspector where officers advise that material circumstances indicate otherwise and the principle of redevelopment of the site for housing should be supported whilst the proposal with the principle limited terms the aims and objectives of the local plan would arise in terms of encroachment onto the countryside or the sustainability of development therefore officers recommendation is one of approval subject to conditions thank you thank you very much Alice Mr. Cadu is it possible to turn off your camera please and your microphone thank you very much thank you very much Alice for laying out all of the issues that we need to consider do we have any questions for clarification for the case officer we do we have a few chairs starting with Councillor Bredinan thank you chairman I just wanted to clarify with the case officer please could you just point out to us given that this is an illustrative plan could you just indicate to us the distance between the eastern boundary and the nearest liveable rooms in the development to the east of this site I don't have that information directly to hand so I would need a bit of time to get that information to you I'm happy to do that if that's desired it's possible to come up but it was just something I would like to clarify the other issue I wanted to ask about was whether I can see that there's a condition relating to a scheme for disposable surface water disposal of surface water and I wanted to and I'm going to ask it now whether we can add in some wording referring to ongoing maintenance of the ditch which runs along the front of the property it's piped at present and I just wondered whether we could add in some wording relating to that and whether the case officer felt that was acceptable when I went out to site multiple times I didn't necessarily see the ditch that you were referring to and there is a ditch on the adjacent sites which has recently got consent however I'm more than happy to attach a condition if that's felt by members I think the reason you can't see it is because it's been piped underneath but it was just simply if we could amend if you would I just wanted to establish whether it would be acceptable to amend condition 18 which says no development should take place until a scheme for disposal of surface water and file drainage including ongoing maintenance of the ditch might be added sorry excuse me Alice you're able to look at that I think during the debate if there's a proposal for that condition to come through do we have other questions is that fine for you councillor now? Yes that's fine thank you Yes we have councillor Rippers next Jen Thank you Alice for that clear presentation Councillor Bradlam could you turn your camera off please You mentioned obviously the site next door which has just been one on appeal for the developers How much weight I mean I'm getting from you is it really significant because this obviously seems to me to have a big impact because this is literally next door How much do we apply in our considerations? Of course thank you for your question Yes it does carry significant weight as does the surrounding context which is what I was trying to illustrate by those visuals I'm happy to get those back up again to show you in a bit more detail but yes it does carry significant weight within the application assessment process especially as in that appeal decision they were awarded costs against the decision that we made Does that answer your question councillor Rippers? Yes it does I mean it's quite difficult at this stage because we don't know the exact layout and it's quite hard to ascertain I imagine how close everything is going to be to surrounding sites Sorry that's a bit of So we do have those considerations that we do have but I think as we're understanding it even though we have to look at each application on its own merit what we're being advised here is given that a decision that we took at an earlier planning committee meeting which was to refuse an application within this area for the reasons that we refused it Southcams then presented those arguments during the appeal and we do have a copy in our report of the inspectors countering each of those reasons So the question that was really helpful for us all is what weight therefore do we have to afford that context, the context of that appeal decision And we've been told that's significant Thank you Next Is councillor Fain here? Thank you chair There is no intention to demand affordable housing so paragraph 71 deals with that would not be sought for residential development for not major developments except of course in the case of exception sites. Now in terms of paragraph 3 the proposal would not comply with the local plan is outside the development framework boundary not supported by neighbourhood plan What consideration was given to making this treating this as an exception site The agricultural occupancy tie is also perhaps relevant here because whilst it is no longer agricultural land or indeed rural that does not necessarily mean it is not still needed for some element of affordable housing so that if it were an exception site we would see a mixture of affordable and market housing rather than just exempting it under paragraph 71 Candice Thank you So It's a valid point obviously this outline consent is for just 5 20 so it falls below the threshold of affordable housing and it's as such we haven't included a condition to require affordable housing on this site I think councillor Fain's point was if it's outside therefore even any kind of what we would say a rural exception site that you would have some kind of affordable housing requirement I think that was the point he was making so was that considered not the threshold of a major development of 10 houses Chris I can see your help with that The starting point for determining the application is the development plan clearly the local plan unless material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be made that's really the consideration that was set out by the inspector and the recent decision on the site next door so the starting point would be this is beyond the development framework and therefore unacceptable unless it was either a scheme for affordable housing as councillor Fain points out or there are other material considerations which indicate that planning commission should be granted and what Alice has explained and what the report explains the context in particular of the surrounding area and how that has changed is in officer's view a significant material consideration which would indicate that planning commission should be granted in the circumstances the applicants obviously entitled to apply for a scheme for market housing which is what they've done and that's what we need to consider so whilst councillor Fain is correct that in normal circumstances you would expect a site on the edge of a settlement such as this to come forward as an exception site for affordable housing in this particular case there's an argument being made that there are reasons not to do that and that a market scheme should be acceptable thank you councillor Fain do you have a follow-up question no chair that's a very comprehensive answer thank you bye chair we have no more speakers chair okay thank you very much Alice for that and I'm sure we may come back to you during the debate thank you very much we'll now move to the public speakers and I'd like to invite Mr Skidmore to speak please are you with us and Dr Ian Skidmore sorry I can just see that and if you just explain introduce yourself before we get to your three minutes can I also say I've asked for some slides to be shared whilst I'm speaking so could those be ready can I ask you if that's possible or Alice okay yeah right yeah so anyway before I start so I'm Ian Skidmore I'm a neighbour of 95 panel road on field clothes thank you so I'm representing several of the neighbours we've joined together for this statement basically thank you very much and so your three minutes begin now and we have these slides as an aid to your point thank you so as I say I'm speaking here on behalf of all four neighbouring properties on barnfield clothes but I'd like you to note that objections have been raised by no fewer than nine neighbours in total amongst more common fauna foxes deer and bats can be seen using the properties gardens the application is to replace a single house and these substantial gardens with five houses plus garages a suggestion that this can enhance restore and add to biodiversity is not credible and no evidence has been provided to the contrary indeed the plan requires the filling of 11 trees including two class A trees and seven mature or early mature trees the development will convert a distinctive local property that offers a small refuge for nature into an additional load on already stretched services one such example is the local open reach street cabinet which is already at full capacity this means that number three barnfield is on a waiting list to receive fibre broadband as will be any new houses built regardless of their internet service provider whilst the submitted plans illustrates that five properties can fit on the land it also reveals that to do so means that they must be pushed close to its boundaries causing the maximum negative impact on neighbouring properties residential amenity so to prove the likely scale of light loss for example my first figure at top left looks across the site from the solar room window of number five the sun is seen setting straight ahead just above the boundary hedge it's irrefutable that any development in this direction will block direct sunlight from illuminating the room my second figure there shows just how much of a sky a house like those depicted in the illustrative plan would block depending on its distance from the boundary indicative plan would have a dwelling blocking the full lateral extent of that image movies dwelling that moves dwelling laterally and it will instead block the light of one of my neighbours you should also note that the illustrative site layout shows buildings occupying nearly 90% of the lateral extent of the plot are we still on the same slide just to ask yes yes yes so next slide now please yeah so daylight daylight loss can be calculated this figure shows a plan of plan view of my living room on the left you see the light level now and on the right you can see the significant impact where the indicative plan to be built similarly the application does not show that five houses can be brought to the land without a significant loss of privacy to residents regardless of the final layout some of the five new houses will have views directly into both the living rooms and master bedrooms of numbers four and five and overlook the gardens of all four neighbouring homes so in summary the building of any additional homes of this land will have a detrimental effect on the local ecology and add pressure to local facilities the application provides zero evidence that five houses can be placed on the land without a significant loss of habitat and residential immunity breaching two aspects of policy H16 the proposed development will irrefutably cause a significant loss of light and loss of privacy for neighbours on Barnfield Close negatively impacting the residential enjoyment of our homes permitting five properties here will push buildings towards the boundaries of the land making the development even more overbearing and out of keeping with the street scene without evidence but the layout which doesn't cause a significant impact on both habitat and residential immunity is even possible this application should be rejected Thank you very much Ian and thank you for all your preparation for your contribution today do we have any questions Yes, jelly of one from Councillor Rithford Councillor Judith Rithford, yes Thank you so much for such a clear three minutes one thing I'd like to ask which I found really helpful with your photographs and I know the plot well because of being a local member how many metres would you estimate those windows are from the edge of the hedge the site boundary Do you mean our front windows? Yeah from your front windows number five I think It's about 15 metres 15, okay thank you that's really helpful Thank you The distance to the house would be 17 I believe on the indicative plan Any other advice chair? No further speakers chair Thank you very much Ian if you close down now you can join the meeting via the webcast Thanks Thank you and I'd like to invite now Mr Moyes applicant Are you with us Nick? Hello Hello, I'm here, thank you Would you like to introduce yourself first before we get to the three? Yes, my name is Nick Moyes I'm an associate partner with Brown and Co property consultants and I act as agent for the planning application so I'm speaking on behalf of the applicant Thank you very much, if you'd like to start now Yes, I will be brief because I think many of the points that I wanted to raise have already been discussed and mentioned Of course it's acknowledged that the proposal is contrary to the local plan because of its location outside of the development framework boundary and of course in many circumstances that would justify a refusal of permission in principle but I think this is one of those quite unusual cases where the particular circumstances of the site would justify a departure from policy Essentially I think in this location as you've seen on the slides the development boundary has been overtaken by events in that there's been quite significant development around the site so it's now bounded on three sides by housing and as you've seen also permission has been granted for development on the fourth side So really the site forms part of Sorry just Mr Moyes Jane Williams councillor, if you could just turn off your cameras please Thank you, go ahead Mr Moyes I think she's frozen but Yes so essentially the site forms part of the built up area of the village and there would be no intrusion into the countryside or adverse effects on the setting of the village and therefore no conflict with the objectives of policy S7 In terms of broader sustainability considerations there's a good range of services in the area all of which would be readily accessible from the development and in terms of its scale, its small scale would be keeping with the council's strategy for growth in villages like this In terms of other planning considerations obviously we have taken note of the concerns about potential over development of the site and impact on neighbours amenities again as you've heard the application is an outline layout is indicative but I think in terms of broad principles our view is that the site is certainly capable of accommodating five dwellings satisfactorily the density of the development proposal would be quite low and what that gives us is I think considerable flexibility in terms of the layout to make sure that the final proposal which would obviously be subject to a further application would meet all of the requirements in terms of relationships with neighbours the application is for five dwellings so some of those dwellings could potentially be single story or elements of the buildings could be single story and there is certainly scope to vary the layout from that shown on the indicative plan to create a satisfactory relationship with surrounding properties in terms of other issues various technical reports have been submitted with the application in relation to matters such as ecology ground contamination and protection of trees and no objections have been raised by consultees in respect of those reports and so we would hope that all those matters can be satisfactorily dealt with by condition and in terms of the proposed conditions there's no objection from our side to those that are proposed in the report so on that basis we would hope that members can support the application and that's all I wanted to say thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have any questions Vice-Chair and thank you very much Nick for keeping within the time. Chair then no one's indicated yet I'll give it a few seconds just in case they're on and we have Councillor Rippith. Thank you. I'm not sure if my classification is for you actually or Chris Carter is that okay Chair? Yeah you just mentioned elements could be single story I would like to know at this stage if we're able to consider that kind of question or whether that would be something for reserved matters. I think it would be good for Chris to come in because this is an outline planning application of course what has been raised within the other public speakers is whether or not the fact that giving outline permission for five buildings would make that possible or not that has been raised Chris. Thank you Chair. No at this stage we wouldn't be able to control that that would be a matter for the reserved matters application that comes later. Okay thank you. No one else has indicated at this stage Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you Chairman through you. I just wanted to check with Mr Moyes you heard my asking for clarification at the beginning as to whether we might add making sure there's ongoing maintenance for the ditch that runs along the front of the property. Would that be an acceptable modification to the conditions? Yes If the application were given approval Yes no objection to that change. Thank you very much. Thank you and I think it was nothing more. Thank you very much Mr Moyes. Thank you and I'd like to invite councillor Jane Williams. Hello can you hear me alright? Can hear you yes I saw you earlier previously are you able to put your camera on? Hello I'm having trouble switching my camera on and off so let's just go with what we have. Just before you introduced but also confirm that you have full authority of the parish council to speak on their behalf. I do Yes I do Can you hear me alright? You're frozen here. We can hear you perfectly yes we can't see you but we can hear you. Right. Yes I'm going to say otherwise I'll switch my camera off. Yes I do have authority to speak on behalf of all to the parish council. There are three issues I would like to address. The first is the agricultural occupancy. Could officers actually confirm that it is a requirement for the applicant to seek to formally apply the removal of the agricultural occupancy prior to the approval of the planning application. I did note that the officer said that this would be a requirement once approved but I would just like to ask that question to the process. Because permitting the application as it stands would breach the clear wording of policy H19 4 in the adopted local plan regarding the relaxation of the existing occupancy condition. And then I'd like to move on to drainage there is no evidence from what I can see regarding drainage in the applicant's planning statement for this application page 92 power 4 in the public PAC states the proposals are not in accordance with South Cam's adopted planning policy I'll let you read the rest of that or I'm going to lose all of my time. Condition 18 on page 111 of the public PAC actually mitigates the drainage but without the evidence also there is no evidence that the Water Beach Internal Drainage Board as the regulating board for the management of drainage for the parish has been consulted with capacity for the new development but I don't know why the Old West drainage board has on the council's key list WPC has concerned regarding who is responsible for the long-term maintenance of the ditch and culvert between the road and the property which is a vital part of the village storm water drainage and request that this is clarified and appropriate action taken before any construction is allowed and there has been much discussion between local bodies regarding this matter WPC are not aware of any resolution to mitigate surface water drain as you're flooding which has occurred quite badly over the winter in Bannold Road where the development is proposed and therefore WPC recommends the deferments of this application until such outcome is known as I say it's been a huge issue highways this is the last issue I would like to address the application is for outline planning commission with all matters reserved except for access there is no approved plan for the access list and there is no condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with any access plan WPC understands that this creates total ambiguity with regards to the detail of the access as access is not a reserve matter for this application the question of access is at the heart of the decision on granting outline permission paragraph 109 of the national planning policy framework 2019 requires that development should achieve safe and suitable access for all users and just my last words with regarding to highways WPC request that details to provide a safe and suitable access for all users are specified and controlled by their planning condition and WPC says reassurance the decision to approve without such a condition will not be to the detriment safety of pedestrians and other users of battle road thank you very much thank you very much thank you sticking to the time as well Jane and so and so the last it would be to the detriment yes of safety do we have any questions for cancer Jane Williams not as of yet chairman again I'll give it a few seconds in case there are and we have one from councillor Richard Williams thank you chair this is not actually so much a question for Jane Williams but I did want to pick up on a point that was made in that submission which is about policy h19 for there is a paragraph in the report on a paragraph on policy h19 for but at no point does the report actually say that the conditions have been met it seems to sort of gloss over that so I would like to reinforce what Jane Williams just said it would be useful to hear from the officer about h19 so there is a clarification you'd like clarification as to whether or not that has been or the clarification of the officer rather than yeah speaker Alice are you able to respond to that or or Chris hi yes that was taken into consideration and as I said in my presentation the reason for the condition when it was imposed on the dwelling was to do with the adjacent lands which it served and obviously it appears that that land has been developed and so in terms of need for that particular dwelling and to serve the surrounding agricultural land it renders it slightly what's not as needed in that respect I think the question from Dr Richard Williams is whether or not that policy has been met you know the conditions for that for the change have been met Chris Carter sorry I don't want to speak in your yes sorry Councillor Williams yeah it was that particularly point K about marketing for 12 months but also the point about the condition needing to be removed before this planning application is approved which I think was the point that Councillor Jen Williams from water management if I can try and help so policy H 19 relates to proposals for permanent dwellings in the countryside for full-time work is an agricultural forestry etc this application isn't for it doesn't propose dwellings for such workers it proposes new market dwellings and the demolition of an existing dwelling that is tied in that respect so when that dwelling is demolished it's my view that the tie the agricultural tie will fall away with that and the new commission would override therefore I don't consider that they need to meet that requirement of 4k of a marketing marketing exercise because this isn't an application for either removal of the tie because the dwelling would be demolished and therefore that tie would fall away with that demolition sorry to come back again would not the tie be tied to the land not the building the land will still be there and the land will still have the tie it's not just the building it's the land well policy H 19 relates to proposals for permanent dwellings in the countryside as opposed to the use of land as I'm reading it quickly here therefore my view is that it relates to the occupation of the building and if the building is no longer there then the occupational tie would fall away it's an agricultural building thank you Catherine Williams have you a follow up question I'm sorry I've taken up a lot of time here but I'm actually looking beyond this policy now about the nature there is a condition attached to that land through previous planning permissions and surely I would imagine that condition on the land has to be released it wouldn't necessarily disappear just because the building goes can we have a legal response to this or Chris or Steven chair I don't know if Stephen Reed wants to add anything to the discussion the application in front of us is a proposal for market willing so it's not a proposal for agriculture use the use of the land would be changed the agricultural tie would fall away Steven did you want to add to that no I will leave that to the planners to give their planning view on the condition thank you I don't really have anything additional to add to that council Williams other than it's my view that the new planning commission should it be granted would override the existing agricultural tie which would fall away on the demolition of the property thank you Alice I see you've come in would you like to add anything yeah just to add something on Chris's explanation there the agricultural occupancy condition specifically talks about specifically relates to the dwelling not the land just to clarify so what Chris was saying is when the dwelling is gone and demolished that falls away because there is no longer dwelling there okay thank you Councillor Dr. Williams is that okay we can move on to a further question I think I've had my say for the time being I might come back to it in debate do we have any other questions two chair one from Councillor Heather Williams and then Councillor Bradman thank you Councillor Heather Williams my apologies to Councillor Jane Williams because I think my question is more directed to officers as well and Councillor Jane Williams referred to a lack of consultation with the internal drainage board it went to an old board I just want to clarify what we've signalled the greatest at times and if I could confirm that's correct and then from officers what implication does that have do we have to consult with them what confidence do we have that the consultation process can't be challenged thank you Alice can you respond sorry there's a slight delay of my computer my bandwidth isn't coping very well in terms of drainage obviously that's something that has been considered and appropriate conditions have been attached to the outline consent for which further detail will come in the reserve matters and that will be addressed through those conditions on the outline consent I think Alice the question was around the consultation around that which consultees did those include the internal drainage board or have they been satisfied that consultation has taken place with those responding on drainage I would have to triple check that to confirm but when writing the report we were satisfied that all the correct consultations were carried out would you like to follow up to that Councillor Williams yes and this time I'll direct it to Councillor Jane Williams could you just clarify in your three minutes you mentioned about consultation to an old board as opposed to a current board could you elaborate a little bit more on that please and then in the meantime if officers could double check and triple check that would be appreciated thank you I think I'll mute still sorry come on hello yes obviously I've done some homework and looked at the planners pack and looking at the consultations it's not clear who has been consulted if you look on the planning portal the front page the consultee the highways and also the IDB are shown under general comments i.e. and so is the parish councillors mixed up with everybody's consultation so the lead flood is on front but basically going through the IDB and because of the issues that we've had in flooding in the pan or road area it's really imperative they have the last say or they say the advice as to how much capacity there is in the storm drains and the drainage that they are responsible for it and should be consulted with looking at the planning portal it only shows the IDB the old west and drainage water has been consulted with but not the water beach internal drainage board which is my concern because of the issues that I've raised about ricarian responsibilities but also about flooding as I say the manhole covers have been lifted with this rain so it's really important that we sort this out and it's done in the right way so this is why I've raised that thank you and if we can move to the next questions while officers are looking up if there is any more information on that we can send the breadman next thank you chairman so two things and again I just wanted to point out that my understanding of paragraphs 113 and 114 address the issues that councillor Jane Williams brought up about the agricultural occupancy in the sense that there is no longer long term need for a dwelling with restricted occupancy to serve the need in the locality I think that's the ground clarification questions at this moment the other point was that for clarification sorry I'll wait till the debate thank you do we have any more information coming back from the officer on the consultation sorry I'm having technical difficulties accessing that information so my manager Toby Williams is just going to chat for us now that can perhaps come to us as we're getting the rest of the speakers thank you very much guys thank you very much Catherine Williams for your time you can join via the webcast thank you very much bye and now we turn to local members councillor Braden and councillor Judith Ripper would you like to councillor Braden would you like to speak now as local member at the end of the debate yes I'll speak now thank you chairman just one moment councillor Jane Williams are you able to leave the meeting or turn your camera off I still seem to have you on the screen perhaps Liam can you help us with that chair yeah I would advise to leave the meeting and come back in I will watch the participants list to admit them thanks thank you yes councillor you'd like to speak now thank you I just wanted to as local member I'm familiar with this location and you'll recall that I asked the same question that councillor Ripper asked about the distance between the boundary and the front windows of the neighbours properties because I'm mindful of the distance involved and the aspect of those dwellings the point I was going to make is that my understanding of the condition around the agricultural occupancy in addition to what Mr Chris Carter has said is that under H 19 section 4B my understanding is the part of the reason is in addition to the fact that the agricultural occupancy condition relates to the dwelling not the land that at section B there is a clarification that it can be relaxed when there is no longer long-term need for a dwelling with restricted occupancy to serve the need in the locality so that's my understanding that that's reasonable the other point I wanted to point out with regard to the Water Beach internal drainage board is that Jane Williams is quite right that that ditch is within the Water Beach internal drainage board area but it is not itself an internal drainage board drain it's a right and proper to check that they have been consulted and the reason they are is because anything that goes into that drain does eventually go into the internal drainage board drain for the award drain at the eastern end of Bannill Road and I'm that's all I wanted to say at this point thank you thank you and we know that you are also considering proposing a motion that you will bring later in the debate I'm sure we also have local member Councillor Judith Rippus would you like to speak now at the end of the debate I'd like to speak at the end of the debate thank you thank you first one member so I think we'll continue with the debate and at half past one sort of have a rain check where we are as we said that we would have a short break for lunch at around half past one so we're opening now to the debate I don't know if we have any more information on that consultation yet Alice just before we go into the debate sorry Toby Williams is still checking that and checking the areas for jurisdiction in terms of internal drainage boards as well just to then be able to come back to you fully on that members so that is an issue that we do want to bring into the debate we can open the debate now do I have any speakers we have Councillor Rippus chair Councillor Judith Rippus it was only to suggest if we do lunch now whilst all that information is being collated obviously that's your choice this chair and we have somebody else Councillor Bredin Councillor Bredin and obviously pending the information that comes back I wanted to this is sorry a bit iterative and I apologise chair I just wanted to ask that we I would like to propose we amend regardless of anything else we do that we consider an amendment to condition 18 on page 111 so that it should read and I'm reading from it and I'll point out where I'm putting the amendment in no development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of surface water and fell drainage that can be maintained for the lifetime if the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority I would like to add in including ongoing maintenance of the piped ditch and if you remember Mr Moyes said he would be happy to accept that condition so that would just be if the committee is minded to approve then at least that condition would protect maintenance of the ditch for the life of the development good and so we have some information outstanding for them to look at we have also just to for officers to double check on that the wording of that condition so it could be that we have the break now and then come back and we would have hopefully have that information and the clarification do we have any other questions we have a question of clarification from Councillor Heather Williams thank you Chairman it was just to reiterate part of my clarification earlier which I fear has been forgotten I actually did ask not only have the right people been all consulted but what are the implications if they haven't as well I know that's a small add-on but it's quite important that's fine, okay thank you very much what I will do then if everybody's okay with that I've got it 11-13 if we come back at 11-45 and if I can speak to officers during that period just to make sure that we have got answers to that and also that the proposed conditioning the wording of that is all clear as well and then we'll go into the final debate on this Liam as we've got a half hour break what do you propose I will put up a slide in a moment thanks but everybody should also turn off their cameras and their audio microphones yeah they can do it it doesn't matter as it would be being streamed but I would be on the safe side I would mute yeah thanks thank you everybody we'll be back here at quarter to two thank you okay we're now live thank you thank you welcome back and welcome to everybody who's watching this this is the planning committee of South Cambridgeshire District Council we are resuming after a short break over the lunch period with a gender item 7 which is for 95 panel road Water Beach I'm just going to do a quick roll call of the members of the planning committee to ensure that we're all here and present. Councillor Henry Batchelor present here Councillor Anna Bradnam present Councillor Dr Martin Kahn present present Councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins present Councillor Judith Rippeth present Councillor Deborah Roberts present chairman Councillor Heather Williams present chairman Councillor Dr Richard Williams present Councillor Nick Wright hello hello thank you everybody and we're resuming and as you all remember we were waiting to have clarification regarding whether or not the internal drainage boards are statutory consultees whether they were consulted and also whether correct one was consulted and what implications are there for the planning process if they weren't consulted is it Alice or Chris who's going to give us response on that chair I'll respond to that thank you colleagues have been looking at this again up to the very last second so I'm happy to advise that having interrogated the back office consultation system the consultation was sent to the generic email address which covers both the Old West and Water Beach levels IDB so whilst it lists only the Old West on the website I'm afraid that is slightly misleading in that it was sent to both the email address that covers both but no consultation response has been received so the correct consultation has been undertaken I can confirm thank you okay and we also wanted to know in terms of the wording of a proposed motion by Councillor Braden in case committee was minded to approve yes chair thank you this is the amendments condition recommended condition 18 I see no issue with the amendment as proposed by Councillor Braden should members wish to support that thank you and this is around the maintenance management of that said ditch that's correct Councillor Braden would you like to move that motion yes thank you chair so I have not not predetermining my decision but certainly I would like to propose that condition 18 should include wording would you like me to read it or would you like me to I'll read it so condition 18 should now read no development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of surface water and fell drainage comma including ongoing maintenance of the piped ditch along the sorry Chris can say the right word of the frontage of this curtailage that can be maintained for the lifetime of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority right so I can see I'm looking at condition 18 and it's it's inserted within there so we understand the spirit and essence of what you're saying would anybody like to second that proposal I'll second the council Hawkins thank you councillor doctor to me Hawkins so this is in the event that when we come to the vote around that if it were committee were minded to approve it would be with this condition so could I now is there anybody that would can I take this by affirmation I'll say that what can we take this condition by affirmation that if committee were minded in terms of voting to approve this that this condition would be added agreed is there anybody against anybody abstaining thank you so we have approved that condition thank you very much I'm happy that the officers tidy up that rather clumsy one thank you we'll go back to the main debate now on the merits of the application itself vice chair do we have anybody ready to open the debate I'm using no one I can see as of yet chairman but I'm sure something will pop up in a second or maybe not or somebody would like to propose a motion voting on this one we have a couple of speakers requesting now chair thank you starting with cancer Braden cancer on the bread and thank you chairman and I want to point out that I have I accept the point that the officers and indeed the manner in which we've been advised about the environs in which this planning application finds itself the surrounding area has changed around it and I am satisfied that that has covered the concerns that people had about whether this was actually going to be planning as it were in the countryside which I don't feel it is anymore the advice the comparator of the appeal next door I think that has convinced me however for myself I feel that five dwellings on this plot represents an over development of a plot which and the building out of that means that those have to go very close to the boundary and I feel that's inappropriate so I'm very glad that you've accepted the condition should the committee wish to approve this application but I am minded to vote against this thank you thank you chair we also as a local member at the end of the debate but I think we have some other speakers who have requested we do the next one being councillor right thank you chairman councillor Braden I'm sorry councillor right can you turn your camera off councillor Braden I'm sorry chairman it's showing us off on my screen I don't know why it isn't off thank you councillor right thank you chairman I'm I'm minded to refuse this application and from what I've heard from the parish council and local member I'm not happy that the trees being removed without um you know two quality trees that you know we've given good planning and good good eyesight could be saved on this scheme there's only two class A trees you know there's there's ways of saving those um so that comes down to poor layout I think of what's proposed and not only does the poor layout damage the trees it damages the neighbour's amenity from what we've heard as well so now I appreciate without a visit to site this is very difficult to judge uh and the neighbour has made some clear points from what he sees and how it damages his amenity um we've not heard the distance it is actually from that neighbour's home from the planning officer which would you know give us some idea of you know how damaging to his amenity it is but it gives the impression that the house is on there a shoehorned onto the site um which also concerns me so poor layout and design not saving trees and damaging neighbour's amenity I'm concerned about H19 and that I'm not sure we've interpreted that correctly and it's I appreciate it's not a farmhouse although on the previous history it does call the house a farmhouse rather than a farm workers house um so I'm not quite sure there how that goes but even as a farm workers house it still has that tie to agriculture and in this day and age that is a big demand for any houses where small holdings can be built um you know with the acreage that's there around this house it is an ideal small holding for somebody in that area and there are others in Water Beach in that area as well it would make an excellent small holding for still to stay in uncultural use so I don't think till the proper procedures have been followed to remove the agricultural tendency the uncultural holding the tie on it that we should proceed with this development at all if you don't follow the correct process you lay yourself open to challenge all the way through so you know we haven't had legal advice on that we've had planning officers opinions which isn't the same and I think we need to look particularly at this being advertised for the 12 months to give people who are looking for small holdings and we know there are more and more to have the opportunity of purchasing this as an uncultural development at a fair price because that's what it is as it stands at the moment so you know I am minded to refuse that with those reasons and I'd be interested to hear what other local member and other members say Thank you Councillor and what I'll do is bear with me as I'm learning my chair role as well on this one but as I understand it's a scale and layout would be part for reserve matters but I'm hearing from you it's definitely around the principle of development visual amenity and the agricultural occupancy conditions are the reasons that you are putting there That's correct. Thank you Vice-chair who do we have we have some more speakers but Chris Carter would like to come in I think it's pretty prudent to speak Thank you chair just to clarify one point and before the debate moves on too far this is an outline application with the matters of layout scale etc reserved so we don't know that the impact as on the neighbours would be what they're concerned it may be it's an indicative layout that's been provided and I think indicated there is the potential for alternative house types to be proposed at reserve matters stage if an outline permission was granted it would be the reserve matters stage where concerns around the scale layout etc should be correctly raised so I just wanted to be clear with members that in my opinion to refuse this outline application based on an indicative layout would not be a sustainable position for the council to take Thank you chair so that kind of kind of confirms what I was saying there but I think as therefore what I heard from for example from councillor Wright were the issues around principle of development visual immunity and the agricultural occupancy conditions but not the issues of layout and scale or appearance yeah Thank you Who do we have next? We're back to councillor Richard Williams Thank you councillor Dr Richard Williams Thank you very much chair I read the the officers report on this and listen to the presentation very closely because I really wasn't sure how I felt about this and which way I would go so I've listened to all the arguments and read the documents quite carefully I am concerned about over development we're just densifying areas more and more with these kinds of applications so I do worry about over development of this plot for five homes through in whatever configuration they're eventually brought forward so excuse me over development is key concern for me I would echo what councillor Wright said about H19 as well I'm not at all convinced that that's actually being followed H194 talks about the relaxation of an occupancy condition it's not about a new condition it's presupposing a condition is already in place and it sets out three criteria for when a condition should be relaxed and clearly one of those hasn't been met and that's about property being marketed for four months now taking the logic that demolishing the property would mean that the original condition would lapse then essentially what we are doing in this application is deciding to relax a condition because we would grant a plan and permission that would in effect override it so I would see that as exactly the same as relaxing the condition because we would take an action which would mean it would no longer exist so on that basis I think H194 is applicable because as I say we would be replacing a permission with a condition with a permission that doesn't have a condition so we would be effectively relaxing it and I'm not content to do that because I don't think those three points in H194 have been met thank you thank you Councillor Hawkins next thank you chair thing for me I was I mean what Mr Carter said earlier on actually took away some of the things I was going to say because it's outline and that's what we need to be looking at now everything else will be sorted at the reserve matter stages the question is, is the principle of development right or allowable on this side and bearing in mind the appeal decision that we had in February my feeling is yes we would lose this if it went to appeal on the basis that we turned off we refused an application for outline with everything else reserved so on that basis I would be leaning towards actually putting in for this application thank you so if I understand that what you're saying is in terms of the principle of development you're accepting that significant weight of the appeal decision on a similar site in the same area means that you think there isn't a reason for refusing that principle of development yes that is correct I mean it's the site right next door and all our reasons of it's in the countryside it's at the framework everything else has been debunked with a site right next door to it so I don't see that that will stand up it's an appeal thank you the head of Williams is next chair thank you chairman can you turn your camera off please sorry so I think I agree much of what all colleagues have said however I too am not satisfied that H19 isn't applicable I feel that the demolition is almost an attempt to circumvent that but I think when it comes down to it that policy is in place and the criteria haven't been met so I'm not comfortable with us making a decision on that basis I think they're on the principle of development five houses on that site does seem excessive and over development I'd agree with Councillor Bradnam and others about that in relation to the appeal I can understand why that appeal decision would make members nervous but every application is on its own merits as we're told time and time again and over development is something that we need to take particularly serious and the densification on an area that is already seeing quite high development so I think we have to have the courage of our convictions and I think we have to do what we think is right and not not make a decision today based on fear of an appeal and in later days I think that it's over development H19 does come into that case and there is harm to the visual immunity and character due to the amount of housing that would then be put into that plot of land and it does need to be advertised thank you Chairman we have some other speakers but the case officer Alice would like to come back in so we'd better take her next hi thank you I just wanted to come back on issues to do with density over development because I think it's really important that I emphasise again that the density of development the quantum is compliant with the local plan in terms of it's under 30 dwellings per hectare that's not over development we can't call that over development in my professional opinion I would not say that it is over development of the site considering that it is below what is required of stated in the local plan whilst this is outside of the framework as I said in my preceding presentation we have used that as a guide to given the site constraints and the site context as a guide to suggest that it's not over development within the density within the planning application but it's also been considered that if you don't take that context and the significant weight of the appeal decision people are saying just having another development another application another development in that area for them is outside development framework is over development that's what they're saying so they're challenging with principle of development so yes okay yep thank you next please councillor Fein Chairman I'm very influenced by what councillor Hawkins was just saying in relation to an appeal on the next door site whilst it might appear that the circumstances are very similar there are some significant differences if we talk about the objections which are being proposed now but in relation to policy S7 which was the one which the inspector was looking closely at in that case furthermore the inspector drew attention to the advantages of affordable housing on that site whereas in this case we're seeing a site with no proposed affordable housing on what would otherwise be considered to be an exception site I'm not convinced by what was said earlier that sufficient consideration has been given to treating this site as an exception site I accept that it may be appropriate to remove the agricultural occupancy tie but that should be done in the right way not by giving consent to demolish the property and making it redundant and I don't think the proper procedures has been followed for that so I'm inclined to say we should refuse this application thank you I also listen to what the various people have said I've also listened to what Councillor Hawkins has said I tend to sympathise more with Councillor Hawkins I view the site now as de facto an urbanised area whatever the location about the perimeter I think we have to treat this as an urban area and having a house which is limited to agriculture using an urbanised area seems to me inappropriate and I think that if any appeal the inspector would just wave the condition by de facto the situation that you find on the ground rather than upon policy I think it's an overriding factor on policy so I'm not worried about the condition in terms of the density development I had another look at the aerial photograph which was shown up in one of the size and looking at it and taking a different alignment with different types of housing I'm pretty sure that you could minimise any impact on the joining of the site and it's within the prescribed density so I do think the fact the experience on the joining site is that the fact that one couldn't impose the new affordable housing on this site I'm afraid is not our choice it's imposed upon us and therefore we have to work within the frame within and while it might be desirable I don't see that we could insist upon an exceptional site on a site which by the presence of the previous site application now will be considered an urbanised and developed area so I'm afraid I would support and approve with it this application. Thank you do we have any other speakers or we could move to the local member It's just the local member left here Thank you I timed that correctly I'm guessing how many more people there would be I find this really really difficult because when I first joined the planning committee we were told you know it's really pointed out to us to view every application on its merits and really focus in on that but in this case we have been told to put significant weight from the appeal which we lost on the site that is next door so we can't avoid that we can't sort of step away from it and on balance having heard like every representative and the whole debate I really do think that any concerns that I have can only be addressed at the reserve matter stage so I'm not going to go on for ages because you know everyone else has made the points the dwellings per hectare although you look at the site and you think how do those fit in they can fit into the site and we can't say it's over development of the site because it isn't anywhere near the percentage that wouldn't be allowed so I will be voting to approve okay thank you and if there aren't any more I think what we'll do now is move to a vote and I think we have very different opinions that I've heard in terms of where people are leaning on this so I will do a roll call and this would then be on page 107 oh sorry Chris sorry chair just for you you do get to a vote I just wanted to be clear obviously if the committee is voting to refuse the reasons why so I've heard obviously discussion about the agricultural tie and I've drafted some wording in respect of that beyond that I think I need a bit more guidance if there are additional reasons that some members may wish to cite yes I think what I said and we can hear back from others so I think we have principle of development is a consideration and I think we've had several that have questioned the principle of development right and also the visual amenity so the tie the agricultural occupancy condition and the tie the principle of development and visual amenity are the ones that I and also the housing provision Councillor Peter Fein I think his point was around the housing provision okay would you mind if I just commented on those so as we've just heard from Councillor Rippith and it would have to be my advice that the refuse principle having regard to the very recent appeal decision on the site would be would be at risk and likely to be overturned at appeal in terms of visual impact given we're an outline I think I need to understand a bit more about what the visual impact is that is unacceptable to some members and then Councillor Fein's point I think I understand which is in relation to the site not coming forward as an exception site so I don't know if there's anything other members may wish to add to those points please Vice-Chair does anybody want to add to those yes Councillor how the Williams would like to expand on the reasons for refusal mm-hmm I just think one thing that's not been picked up and I'm sure I've heard other members say as well is that we're talking about the harm from this development so what we're saying is the five houses on that the harm that that creates is on the visual amenity of the area given the quantity of housing that are being proposed and that's due to the lack of affordable housing and the fact that this is a departure application that the harm is not outweighed by the benefit so if there was affordable housing as was in the appeal application that we lost then there could be an argument of the harm being outweighed by the need for affordable housing however this is not the case in this application so we need to be very clear why this is different to the appeal application and that I think is a very large large part of it that it is only harm there is no benefit Chair we also have Councillor Bradnam asking to speak Thank you Chair The request to speak was purely because the case officer has asked to speak and I didn't know whether you had seen that, that was all I think that's an old request No, it was just before Councillor Heather Williams Sorry, I'll leave it to you to decide It's been picked up, thank you Stephen Reed would like to speak then Thank you Yes Stephen Reed Reference has been made to the affordable element on the adjoining site The adjoining site was not brought forward as an exception site it was only brought forward with 40% affordable housing and I think that's something that members could be mindful of so we're under the threshold here yes members may decide that all or some of the five dwellings should be affordable but I just wanted to highlight that the appeal site next door was not brought forward as an exception site Hmm Thank you Stephen Reed So that basically is what you're saying there in terms of the numbers this is under the threshold where we could oblige and therefore use that as a reason for refusal if that's what I'm understanding Chris, I see you are Yes, thank you chair So just to come back on the reason that Councillor Heather Williams was expanding upon so I've got that the applicants failed to satisfy that the harm created by the additional five hazardous site has been adequately mitigated but what I don't what I need to understand is and I'm not trying to be difficult here what is the harm that members are identifying of these five dwellings is it a visual what's the visual impact harm that these five dwellings might create bearing in mind that this is an outline application with those matters reserved Thank you chair Councillor Heather Williams I think we refer to the visual immediacy the street scene is sometimes referred to and that's a break and also it's a departure application and we can't forget that or ignore it just because of the appeal next door and I know it was 40% affordable housing it was an exception site but that's still more affordable housing and this offers nothing to the residents and it's a departure application and surely in that case it's important that the harm is mitigated and we managed to outweigh that that is our policy is it not Chair if I may through you and obviously it's my role to explain the risks to the committee so I will just quote from the inspectors appeal decision with regard to the cost application on the site next door where the inspector says that the council failed to consider the layout and appearance of recent housing nearby and failed to have regard to the schemes overall appearance in this context so that's why I'm asking if we can try and identify what the visual harm is that may be resulting from this proposal that's the reason I'm laboring that point just because that's clearly an issue that was identified by the inspector next door notwithstanding that that was of course a separate site in that case with your permission chair and I suggest it's a significant change of the street scene it's developing land that currently has a rural nature to it and is of agricultural use and that in itself is harmful to the character of the street scene and Water Beach is a village it's not a town we have the new town coming up the road but it is a village it is not urban and that character with the new town coming is even more so important I think to the residents of Water Beach and we should take that into consideration okay thank you and so obviously we're about to move into the vote members and just as chair I think this is a difficult one I think as several have pointed out this is in terms of having a everything's taken on its merit but this one we do have and often we sort of said consider if this what are the implications of the decision thinking now about the implications of the decision and the case officer has shown us that this by virtue of the decision from the inspector the character of this area has changed both she said in terms of physically and functionally and that was the inspector's opinion and I've heard everything and I think what's difficult in for me is that saying you know we don't want two wrongs make a right so it was upon the fact we didn't have a five year housing land supply that then laid had some of the building we as a committee refused that application that came on an adjacent area an area that was near to this and that was defeated at appeal and we do have to take that quite seriously and in that appeal decision the inspector said that the character of this area has changed and this is more now of a suburban not urban but sort of suburban outlook in my where I am minded to go with this is because of those conditions those this context I finding it very very hard to come up with reasons therefore for approval although I'm disappointed with what's happening with the area but I'm finding it very hard to find enough sufficient reasons for approval myself as a voting member of this Chris did you want to speak again sorry I just saw just very briefly chair just so that members know what they're voting on so I've got three reasons for refusal if members are minded to refuse one relates to the agriculture tie then the lack of affordable housing as a rural exception site and then thirdly a reason around the visual harm and change to the street scene and the character of the village of Water Beach as highlighted by Councillor Heather Williams thank you and what we're voting on members is on page one and seven in our sorry we have councillor Braden wishes to speak on reasons for refusal as well councillor Braden thank you chairman it was just the reasons described by Chris Carter I don't object that's fine but the specific point was that there's a potential for loss of light even if those houses are put in the middle of the plot there is a potential for loss of light for those properties to the east so it was a loss of light to what's the word visual amenity it's loss of light to visible rooms but I appreciate it on this one those are reserved matters I think on that one I think we've heard from case officers that would be a reserved matter of and you said you're happy with the three reasons that Chris has given if you were minded to refuse with that members are good page 107 paragraph 137 so what the recommendation is that this is approved subject to the following conditions plus the condition that we approved as committee members as well which is about the maintenance and management of the ditch I'll now please as I do a roll call say this is to approve so either you are Anna can you turn your camera off please Councillor Bradenham this is you answer for approval against or abstain Councillor Henry bachelor Councillor Anna Bradenham against Councillor Dr Martin Kahn against Councillor Peter Fane for Councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins for Councillor Judith Rippith for Councillor Deborah Roberts against Councillor Heather Williams against Councillor Richard Williams against Councillor Nick Wright against and myself against which I think very much reflects the debate that we've just had quite a complex application thank you everybody for your time on that one members we're now moving to agenda item eight in your agenda pack page 255 this is for sorry Falmere Foxton Mill Farm Falmere Road the proposal is for the construction of a single story dwelling the applicant is Mr Timothy Poulsen of Poulsen architecture and the key and this is a very interesting one for us is the key material considerations principle of development character and appearance of the area residential immunity ecology drainage and highways there was no site visit it is a departure request for the decision date and this has been brought to the committee because Falmere parish council has requested that it comes to the committee the presenting officer is Jane Rodin senior planning officer Jane are you there Hello Jane thank you do you want to give a presentation there can you confirm that you can see my power point slides yes can hear you perfectly and can see your slides perfect the part of a verbal update before I begin the determination date of the application this should read the 28th of September 2020 and the further extension of time has been requested the condition pollution control is to be removed this is a duplication of pollution control water the conditions implementation of energy strategy and water efficiency have also been duplicated in the list of conditions it's suggested that the duplications are removed an email has been received from a resident who is not speaking at committee they raise no new issues but their comments are summarized that this applicant is a member of the DUP and the application should be considered by an independent panel they also have concerns over the access to the site and the delivery of materials okay and here's my presentation so this application is for development of one dwelling on Mill Farm Falmill Road this application is referred to by the Parish Council and deferred by delegation panel on the 9th of March this year the application is located in the countryside as it is outside the development frameworks as indicated on this map which shows the closest development frameworks to this site this constraint plan shows the proposed site it's located to the south of three dwellings which are Mill House and Springfields the RSPB SSI is the south east of the site this plan shows the flood zones the river Shep along the north east boundary the Guildenbrook along the south west boundary and footpath 11 to the north of the site this dwelling is located in the south east corner of the site as shown on the block plan the proposed access is to be from the north east corner of the site and will lead through the centre to the building this area plan shows where the location of the building is to be and access road these are the moan areas shown on the plan in front of you in relation to the block plan so this application has been submitted under policy H15 of the local plan and paragraph 79 E of the MPPF where it's to be considered as a dwelling of exceptional design and quality so this application has been reviewed and commented on by southcams urban design officers southcams design enabling panel this was on the 19th of November and the 17th of December last year where it's considered that the design of the dwelling has met this high standard it has been raised that the applicant does sit on this panel but not for this application the terms of reference for the DEP dated the 15th of April 2014 state the terms for the panel members that attend the DEP as if they were an applicant for their own planning application it was acknowledged at the start of the panel meetings that the applicant has been on a panel before and that there was no conflict of interest at the time this was covered in the subsequent reports from the DEP the planning officers and the urban design officers are satisfied that this does not preclude the panel from considering this application so the dwelling itself is single story in height there are three areas to the building to the left this is where this to include the car parking and the energy centre the piazza in the centre which is open includes that water feature sorry and then the main dwelling which is to accommodate all the living space the dwelling is three metres in height and will be simple in its form the elevation plans show the layout and the structure of the proposed openings which are also to be simple in their nature the external fabric of the building is core 10 steel there is a central water feature that runs through the site and inter drainage ditch so here are the south west and north east elevations and then a 3D model at the bottom here are the south east and north west elevations with the same 3D model at the bottom and so here are some 3D plans taken from the applicant supporting information at the site the first two on the left are internal views same with the bottom one on the bottom right and the top one is an external view of the site so the setting in the landscape is raised in policy H15 and the MPPF the location of the dwelling is to be on the highest part of the site out of the flood zones its relationship with the river ship the gildenbrook, the adjacent nature reserves and the current wetland have been part of the consideration of this application this has been reflected in the landscaping that's being proposed as indicated on the right hand plan which includes informal park land meadow domestic landscaping tree planting wetland, grassland area and a ditch for the link between the water feature and the dwelling because planning committee can't do the site visit I've taken some videos of the site as you might need to bear with me for this one so in all the videos there's a plan on the right hand side the star in the centre is where I was stood taking the video the arrow is where I started and then the arrow shows where I've panned round so this first video shows the access track is facing south along the access track this is towards the access these are the properties that share the common boundary with the proposal site that's the boundary to spring fields these posts in the ground mark the dwelling the first post to the outbuilding and this would be the piazza in front of you and the dwelling to the rear that tree in the middle is where the courtyard would be I refer to that quite a lot through my videos that's the boundary with the RSPB site and panning round further to the western boundary and then finishing back on the access track where I started this next video I'm facing is with the boundary of spring fields I'm stood near the far corner of the site this is facing the RSPB boundary as you pan round there's a tree showing the internal courtyard this would be the piazza in front of you now and then the external outbuilding that centre of line of trees I was referred to later and then the continuation of the boundary with spring fields this video is to part way down the real ditch I mentioned a minute ago facing northeast with the spring fields boundary in front of me there's the courtyard tree just in front panning round this is spring fields boundary there's the RSPB boundary facing the western boundary and there's the continuation of the ditch behind me towards the access the common boundary with the other properties and back to the beginning this video is facing the access this is the proposed access through this head row found near road panning round to the common boundary and then this is myself walking along the at the proposed access every so often facing the western boundary I'm following those road arrows on the site plan stopping in a second at that second star towards the development site in the background spring fields boundary there's the common boundary in front and then back towards the access where I've just come from this next video I'm stood on the edge of the part of land that's not to be included in the site facing towards the courtyard tree which you can see in the middle there there's the RSPB boundary in the distance the western boundary the access track would just be in front of me past those paths of logs there's the access in the distance these are the properties that share the common boundary with the development site there's the centre line of trees and then the development site and the courtyard tree in the centre so this video I'm stood at the bottom of that centre line of trees facing the courtyard tree in the centre it's towards the southern boundary the RSPB the western boundary there's the access there's towards the access through the hedge you can see the cars just in the distance and then background there's the common boundary and then back through the centre line of trees spring fields in the background background to the beginning this video I'm stood in the centre of the site with my back to that courtyard tree I'm facing the centre of the line of trees where I stood a second ago at the furthest point you can see the posts there the outbuilding coming backwards and forwards as the outbuilding the energy centre the part in between would be the piazza and the post-closest would be the boundary of the dwelling this is where all the rest of the living accommodations are going to be and then walking around the tree in the centre this is the boundary where spring fields you can see the moan area is the proposed dwelling location that's the boundary with the RSPB site that's the western boundary in the background and then background to the beginning this video I'm stood in the far southwestern corner of the site facing towards the access that's the western boundary that's the centre line of trees that I stood at a moment ago that's the southern boundary of the site and then this is the view out of the corner of the site looking out of the site and then background for the beginning again this video I'm stood at the centre the bottom of the centre line of trees facing towards Mill Farm there's a tree in the middle there's the RSPB site this is the proposed access the moan area the western boundary there's the rest of the access going towards family road and then background you can see the buildings in the common boundary and then background to the centre line of trees and then my final video I'm stood in the corner the far south eastern corner of the site this is the common boundary where spring fields you can see the courtyard tree in the centre so I'm walking into the site you can see the courtyard tree in the centre and then in the second I stop and turn around towards the boundary where spring fields and then this is the view out of the corner of the site towards the RSPB site there's the rest of the boundary of the RSPB site that's just stood and then background to the courtyard tree in the middle so this is the area of heads that's being proposed to removed from looking outside the site this is looking east along family road and then west along family road and then the key material considerations in front of you as previously read out thank you chair thank you very much Jane Vice chair do we have any questions for clarification of case officer we do chair we have three so far councillor Roberts is first up yeah thank you very much chairman and miss rodens can you give me the following information can you firstly tell me they can you agree that the drawings show as spring fields and then also show as the other two dwellings which is mill road and can you confirm that spring fields is actually under an agricultural reason and policy compliant in that it is a category in the open countryside and it is also a small farm and can you also confirm that the other two buildings one of which is in the ownership of the applicant were put up to replace very small prefabricated houses when it was a pig in the insemination area and can you also confirm that and I don't think you showed us maybe you could go back to the video there's no sign of where the stream is you didn't actually show us a stream which is an important issue here as well and runs along the site so if you could show us and somewhere on the video where actually that that is situated and could you confirm how far away in distance the nearest other dwelling is there those things and also that due to how far away from the other present dwellings in that area it is that actually there is no light pollution whatsoever on this very still very wild country area thank you chairman thank you so in regards to the site history of Springfield I'd need to have a look at their site history to confirm if they are an agricultural holding I do believe they are an agricultural holding in regards to the cattery I would have to look at their site history to confirm that but I can come back to you on chair if you wish on that one in regards to the replacement of things from Mill Heights and no sorry Mill House and Mill Farm again I'd have to look at their site history to see how they were replaced and how they were given planning permission that might take a little bit longer I would need to come back to you on that one chair as well I could save you on that Jane both those are the correct situations Springfield is a cattery and it is a farm and it's just had recently had a barn put up and it has sheep there and the other two dwellings were prefabricated small prefabricated dwellings when they were the employees of the pig insemination unit do you still check or are you happy with if you're happy with your own answer definitely I'm happy Jim but I just wanted it to be made clear exactly what we are talking about here rather than a clarification question you're bringing new information well bringing some information to the members so there are those two questions distance to the nearest dwelling and you mean beyond those dwellings that you just mentioned Councillor Roberts no I think to those dwellings that I've just mentioned Chairman okay I can start with the stream one first if that helps that was the next question if I can share this slide again sorry I didn't take any videos as such of seeing can you see that chair I didn't take any videos of the streams itself it was a little bit tricky to take them at the time but the river shep is the boundary to the northeast and the Guildenbrook is the west of the site I will see if I have another might come back on me on that other one for a picture of it Chairman could I get Jane to say can you confirm Jane that actually the streams are very close up to the application site and where the dwelling would actually be yep so probably the best one would be this plan here can you see yes it's very smooth so the best one would be this plan here the blue lines are the streams the east of the site and the west and as you can see the dwelling is the closest this one at the top okay thank you very much that was established and in terms of the distance to dwelling would you need to have you got that I need to measure that one I need to come back on to that one in a second alright I can get measuring on that one now okay thank you very much is that okay Councillor Robertson if we continue with the other questions thank you very much Chairman appreciate it thanks we have councillor Bradnum next year councillor Bradnum sorry I just had a telephone call just at the moment when my name was called it's supposed to be turned off Anna I can't turn it off I don't have any way about turning it off sorry what I wanted to ask was yes when we were panning round the buildings in the distance were they Paddlesworth Mill Farm and Mill House yes Mill House were those the ones that we could see so in other words was one of them Paddlesworth on the north side of the road thank you very much that's what I wanted to clarify thank you very much next one please next is councillor Rippeth councillor Rippeth sorry this isn't a question it's just are we supposed to after four hours of the meeting agree to carry on procedurally yes okay I was just looking at my watch and realised with lunch and breaks we were over four hours that's alright Ian are you with us Ian senior yep I'm here yep so that is right after four hours you need to just vote to continue can I do that by affirmation everybody agree to meet okay thank you anybody is abstaining thank you thank you very much councillor Rippeth we were sort of hitting so yes next one please vice chair is councillor Richard Williams thank you councillor Richard Williams thank you chair sorry I'm having a bit of trouble in my videos is it okay if I keep my video off okay the stream keeps breaking up yeah I just had a quick question about this issue of curtailage and policy h15d I think it is the report sort of asserts that it's not in the curtailage because a red line is drawn on the site on the application form I was wondering if we could just hear a little bit more about that because that seems odd to me because it seems that anybody could therefore say something is not in the curtailage of their property by just submitting an application for say half their garden so what is the basis for saying that this site is not within the curtailage of the existing dwelling okay so it's in the ownership of the applicant site at the moment which is in the blue line we said it's not in the curtailage because it's not used as their consistent residential garden of the site so the curtailage would be the most private part of your garden that you use consistently that's kind of the main approach that we take to curtailage we would say quite rightly this bit's taken out it's not used as a main residential garden at all times it's just land either associated or in the ownership with the applicant site at the moment also because of the boundaries we could say that it's not a residential curtailage it's got quite clear defined boundaries which is both the stream and the trees on either side Jane we just lost you that little bit can you hear me now yes we just got to the streams bounded by the streams and the hedges no problem everybody went glitchy then that's fine so we would say that it's got it's going clear defined boundaries as well through the streams and the trees where I ended there okay thank you and thank you that's useful clarification thank you very much and then Councillor Fein that's the beautiful useful to have those videos a lot of time and trouble put into that saved us perhaps doing a site visit bearing in mind there's nothing on the site at the moment it does seem to me however that this one stands off all principally on 79 E of the NPPF I wonder if I could ask the planning officer to put up that particular paragraph again so we had a slide where you both policy H15 and 79 you had them side by side that's not a problem can you see that one yes maybe if you come can you make it a bit bigger it's a bit smaller so if I unshare and share again sorry that might make it easier is that better yes thank you that's helpful and if I'm right that the key question is whether this should be allowed in the countryside as an isolated home despite the plan of exceptional quality and our local plan policy H15 goes a little bit further than 79 E does did it's slightly different in that respect I'm just looking at the you showed us a picture presentation of what it might look like and I believe this building is to be coated in cotton steel and it's not a material I'm familiar with but it's highly recommended by the look of it from the design enabling panel and notice that the applicant refers to it being reminiscent of Dutch barns well I've got a lot of Dutch barns in my years I've never seen one quite like this do we have a debate do we have a question for the officer sorry yes is it appropriate is the design enabling panel referring to this as being like a Dutch barn is this cladding material something that will last so it would last it's a highly sustainable material so from my understanding it would come into the site pre-weathered it would be as it that mottled effect to it as it comes in already in regards to the design of it I believe Bonnie's on the call as well she may be able to answer a few of your specific design questions if that's easier thank you yes I'm happy with that reassurance as the impressions that you showed us how it will continue to look often with wooden buildings that's not the case but on the design the applicants do make something of a fact that it looks or suggests that it looks like a Dutch barn I'm wondering where that impression comes from I believe that's more to do with it's colouring more than anything more than the design of it so this design's taken as you've seen through the progression from quite a few different stances really it's set low into the side so I wouldn't say it's a Dutch barn due to it's height probably more to do with the colour of the material thank you okay thank you for the answer that surprised me rather more but there we are okay is that okay councillor Peter Fain so I was going to say there's no further speakers but we've got councillor Roberts who wants to come in again please chair yes councillor Roberts many thanks chairman chairman could I ask can we just go back to that policy statement that we've just had up again please because I would like to point out something on that particular and ask the officer as long as it's a question and not something that you want to tell people in debate but yes yes chairman can you see that one I can thank you very much Jane on the left hand side and the pink block one of the things it says that this has to comply with is significantly enhancing and the nature size of the site the design of the dwelling is landscape and location of sight are sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area and to wider views in your opinion would you say that this design has would actually comply with that is it like in any shape or form and the other dwellings in that area in simple it isn't in design and forms as the other dwellings in the area but that's kind of how we take a paragraph 79 house these are the grand designed houses if you want to take that approach on it the Kevin McLeod sort of houses and as I said in my office the statement they are they can be considered my my might and they are very subjective so we've taken the views of from the design enabling panel and our design colleagues as well as landscape officers to have their recommendations on whether there would be any impact on the landscape from this particular dwelling in this setting and it's been considered by all those three parties that there would be at the minimal harm subject to conditions of course on this site again to you chairman and Jane I think you and I have only spoken once about this application some weeks ago when I was just sort of seeing how the thoughts process was going on and at that time my recall is that you said that this was a fine balance and that the the position and the allocation and the style and the area and the unspoiltness were also a big factor in the decision making along with the views of basically the design panel. That correct? Yeah so every application is on a fine balance especially considering this one they have to meet such a high standard and a high bar that's why we asked our design enabling colleagues to comment on the application that's why it went twice as well with additional information okay thank you very much thank you very much yes and I'm keen for us to move on to the other speakers that we have do we have any other clarification questions we have one more chair from Cassava who just raised a lot of the points but I'm interested in this word exceptional and what it means in terms of exceptional quality you've taken the advice of the design panel how much how much importance do you think needs to be put to the fact that people generally like it and how much importance do you have do you need to put to the fact that how it would be considered in 30 years time it will be moved into a different era and otherwise how do you accept what the meaning of exceptional is it seems to me a very difficult thing to do I can I agree exceptional is exceptional at the time is considered by the design enabling panel that at this moment in time this building is exceptional of course it has to meet the test with its truly outstanding design innovative and landscape qualities whether that may change as you say in 30 years time something may come along and trump it but at this moment in time the design enabling panel and the other quantities on this say that it meets that standard Thank you Thank you Councillor Khan Good now thank you very much Jane and I understand that you're still just looking at the issues of distance is that okay Councillor Roberts if that continues to be looked for while we move on with the other public speakers I'm very happy with that thank you Chairman Thank you I would now like to invite on behalf of the applicant David Grech Grech are you with us Yes Good afternoon Apologies how is your name It's David Grech As if it's CK C-H's And David do you just want to introduce yourself before the three minutes start Okay yes and my name is David Grech I'm a qualified architect and some of you may remember me from my time as this council's design and conservation officer between 2003-2008 I subsequently worked for Historic England and while I'm now retired I still sit as Vice-Chair on Cambridge City Council's design and conservation panel and often joined the South temperature design enabling panel I've ever believed I'm quite well placed to talk about design issues I must confirm that also though that I wasn't on the design enabling panel that considered this particular proposal And do we have the applicant who's available as I understand to answer questions if there is needed is that right Hello Mr Pillson yes so you're here and could answer questions if need be I understand yes I can but you're the three minutes will be taken by David Grech they will Thank you very much You may start David Okay thank you The application before you is for a new house that is to be considered under paragraph 79 of the government's national planning policy framework which allows for new houses in the countryside where and I quote their design is of exceptional quality reflecting the highest standards in architecture A little while ago Tim Poulsen invited me to undertake an independent review of his proposal for Mill Hyde and to test whether I considered it to meet the criteria of paragraph 79 of the MPPF In order to ensure my conclusions remained fully independent I've not accepted any fee for this work At the outset I first needed to establish where the bar might be set on designs for this type of house and I did that by reviewing a range of 20 different paragraph 79 houses that have been approved across East Anglia including the only one currently approved in south temperature. That particular scheme at Mainz Farm was first allowed on appeal back in 2009 though the project has not yet been built More recently there was another appeal decision for a paragraph 79 house in the Cotswolds and again I took a careful examination of that particular proposal Through this work that enabled me to establish a benchmark for the design excellence as required by paragraph 79 When I reviewed Mill Hyde against that benchmark I concluded that it passed the bar and indeed was significantly superior to many of the other schemes that have been approved So today you're being asked for your judgement on the design merits of this proposal Assessing design excellence can be challenging You're not being asked whether you like the scheme or whether you'd want to live in this house I suggest you need to ask whether it displays a design integrity that is founded on a valid architectural concept that is then being developed through a rigorous process of examination and testing The architectural concept behind this proposal is founded in the work of the Italian Renaissance architect Andre Palladio and in particular his seminal design for the Villa Rotunda outside Vicenza But this is not a near classical proposal Instead Palladio's ideas are developed in a striking contemporary manner and adapted to specifically relate to this site I consider this to be a design of merit that would contribute positively to the quality of the built environment here in South Cambridgeshire Furthermore, I believe it will be from designs such as these that in 30 years time Historic England will make its selection of buildings from the early part of the 20th century that are to be added to the national list of buildings of architectural or historic interest I therefore commend it to you Thank you Thank you for keeping within the time as well Obviously very experienced at that Do we have any clarification questions for David Greck We have one from Councillor Roberts, Chair Thank you Thank you again Chairman Hello Mr Greck I do remember you at South Cams Hello Yes, you talk about it being in your opinion a fine new example in the built environment but this isn't in the built environment is it this is out in the open countryside can you tell me what considerations you took to that and obviously the policy is very pertinent and very careful because it's concerned about protecting the natural environment and as being said on numerous occasions during the early discussions here there was a talk about the bar is set very high How can we be talking about it being part of the built environment when it clearly isn't I think what I meant by the built environment is I actually said the quality of the built environment because it is a building and it's adding to those range of buildings that exist in South Cams it's not part of the urban environment but it is a building that is part of the ranges the suite of buildings if you like that exist across South Cams and those buildings can be in the rural area can be in the urban area but the point I was trying to make is that in 30 years time when one is looking to add buildings to the list of national buildings of architectural and historic interest it is these type of buildings that will be being looked at rather than the sort of more run of the mill if you like types of buildings that exist and in terms of the setting of the bar and things I looked at 20 different schemes that have been approved across a number of district councils plus ones approved at appeal and the appeal decision ones I think are particularly pertinent because obviously the planning inspectorate has looked at it in a very forensic way if you like and when you see what the planning inspectors are saying about design the issues and things that they're talking about I do believe this does meet that criteria it's a building that is relatively modest in its scale it's not tall it's single story so it's the Cortaine steelwork is a hue and colour that actually I believe complements the natural environment and I think it sits into its site which will be changed I mean the site is not going to be urbanised or anything but it will evolve and the way the building relates to the site the use of the water the rail and the enhancement of the existing trees and things like that the site will be changed but I think this building will sit in it and it will actually enhance the area and I'm going to say can I come back on a secondary then chairman about that I don't think actually my question was answered about the other how much interest you've taken in looking at the area around about but clearly and you're talking about the national policies but the policy age stroke 15 is very specific and it says that it should be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area and to wider views are you trying to say that this actually complies with that line? So I think Deborah if you don't mind I think I've heard that he obviously does and the applicant does and I think that's very much something for us to debate and I would love you to bring that to the debate because I'd enjoy debating that as well Thank you chairman I appreciate that Thank you Next question chairs from councillor Khan So I was coming back to this term exceptional again and the scene and the point that councillor Roberts was referring to about being sensitive to the surrounding setting when you looked at your other other appeal decisions I mean it seems to me there was a conflict inherent conflict in being exceptional building and being similar to the buildings around it now does that therefore be sensitive not mean similar what exactly does it mean when you look at your other appeal decisions did you find that the successful ones were more sensitive in the sense that they tended to mimic some of the buildings around them or were they exceptional in the sense they were different how does that fitting in come in would you say that your fitting in is to the fact that it's a medium mountain and it's in the natural I don't think anywhere it says fitting in so it says sensitive to Okay Right obviously I haven't got slides of the 20 houses to show you but generally speaking as the planning officer mentioned these houses by their exceptional quality is makes them different to the buildings that are in proximity to them because otherwise they wouldn't be exceptional but I think they need to be aware of their site they need to complement the site they need to fit in with their locality and I think this building does that I say the the Corten steel work if you're not familiar with it it's basically it's steel that has been weathered so it has a rust red colouring and I'm sure you're all familiar with sort of barns and things that exist across south that have corrugated iron that's gone rusty red and things so it's that hue that colouring that you do see in the landscape that compliments nature in terms of the greens and the hues of nature I think this material compliments that in a way that say white painted red or something Thank you David I think what you do is you actually answer the question around sensitive to and what that means in terms of exceptional and similar to. Thank you Do we have another question? Do from Councillor Fain Thank you You've answered some of my questions in relation to the quality of the Corten steel in the way that it will look in perhaps 30 years time you refer to it being a single story building I think there is a section that looks to me to be three stories that's as shown on one of the slides that may be for illustration purposes three stories and I referred earlier to it being resident with generations of agricultural buildings you've just dealt with that and the familiar farm yard Dutch barn Would that be your impression of this building? Right dealing with the scale as far as I'm concerned the building is a single story building and I don't think there's any component of it that is more than a single story but the the relationship to Dutch barn I think it's more it's not a a direct sort of comparison with the Dutch barn it is a total quality of a Dutch barn which has got a curve corrugated roof that is then rusted over time gives you that hue that colour because I think we're having a repetition so I think Councillor Fayne the case officer mentioned it was more the colour and the tone of it and we have just had an explanation of that particular colour and tone from David Gregg and he's about to repeat the the illustration that I'm referring to submitted by the applicants form slide 25 on design report volume four you can put there merely for illustration it would be helpful if that had been explained but it does seem to be three stories that section she said thank you but what we've heard is a single story I've got somebody with a hand raise I can't see that's not the way to raise a hand so I'm not I'm sorry chair my name is Bonnie Cork I'm there hello Bonnie yes sorry I didn't see that hello hello Bonnie yes you want to just introduce yourself Bonnie yeah my name is Bonnie Cork I'm a Principal Urban Designer I'm commented on this I just want to answer the question in relation to the three story element so in volume four of the DAS the three story element is actually a precedent study of another bird hide so it's not related to this application it's just an example to show the quality of the 410 flooding that's all so it was used as an illustration of a different example and the height has nothing to do with this particular application that's correct is that okay Councillor Fein just the explanation I needed thank you thank you very much good as I understand that's all of the questions thank you very much David okay thank you and I'll now invite please from the parish council Councillor Steve Mulholland Councillor Mulholland has had to leave and he's asked me this is Lauren the chairman of the council speaking he's asked me to read his statement in his place can I ask if you have the full authority of the parish council I do I speak on behalf of and at the request of founding parish council thank you very much and thank you for taking his place and I'm sorry that the proceedings have taken this long which meant that Councillor Steve Mulholland couldn't continue with us your three minutes begin now thank you parish council have significant concerns relating to this application that have not been given due weight in the officers report the specific intention of policy H-15 was to prevent existing sites being divided up so as to permit the construction of additional dwellings in the open countryside but this is exactly what this application is proposing the site is registered with the land registry as part of Milfarn and the application is proposing construct a second dwelling within the site the officers report tries to argue that creating separate access and boundary treatments allows us to be treated separate site but that is contrary to the policies adopted the officers report places significant weight on the conclusions of the design enabling panel where the potential for conflicts of interest is a serious concern the applicant is a member of the panel but this was not mentioned the reports of most panel meetings and it was only after it was highlighted by the parish council that a somewhat tokenistic statement was made in the final report members of the design panel are not elected and they're not answerable to voters for this reason the parish council had suggested that it would be appropriate to refer the application to enabling the design panel which would have put the planning authority above reports which was not done leads to unsatisfactory situation where officers are recommending approval whilst drawing heavily on the opinions of the panel of which the applicant is a member whilst the design enabling panel have commented on the quality of the design they actually drew no conclusions on whether it significantly enhances its immediate setting one of the requirements the assertions that this is the case for those made by the applicant and consequently no way to be placed on them the parish council does not see how the construction of a large new building uncharacteristic to local area and next to a site of special scientific interest enhances the setting and simply calling it a high does not mitigate the tests required within policy H15 and the NPPF paragraph 79e deliberately set a high bar and we would argue that this application does not meet the requirements for a countryside dwelling with exceptional quality contrary to policy H15 the proposed dwelling would not significantly enhance its immediate setting the design of the dwelling is not sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area and there is an existing dwelling on the site capable of being replaced in consequence we asked members of the committee to uphold the existing adopted policies and to refuse this application Thank you Thank you very much Lawrence for that. I would as chair I will put forward before members that in terms of design enabling panels such a situation as this has been considered and any member of the design enabling panel has signed up to due protocol which ensures that there isn't a conflict of interest and so that's something that we must accept within this but we do hear I think very strongly from you which is around the setting the understanding of the enhancement of the setting is one of the key issues that you are bringing forward in terms of your comments today and contributions Thank you. Can I just check one thing logistically, Councillor Peterflane momentarily lost connectivity but you did hear the parish council presentation. Is that right, Councillor Fane? That's correct I heard the presentation may have missed half a sentence in the middle I think that's is fine that in terms of you continue to be able to have the vote thank you for letting us know Do we have any other clarification questions? Councillor Bradenham chair Thank you Chairman I just wanted to ask Mr Ragh when you say that there is already a building on the site, are you referring to either Mill Farm or Mill House or are you referring to the triangular site in the red line? I don't have the diagram in front of me but within the cartilage there are surely existing buildings Well not as far as I'm aware that's why I asked the question so to be clear the triangular green site let's call it that the site with houses and with trees and scrub on it that we saw the video imagery from Miss Rodin's didn't appear to show any other building on the site so I can only assume it's about the wider cartilage which includes either Mill House or Mill Farm Councillor Bradenham can I perhaps we just ask the Marifares Officer because I understand it's very difficult for Mr Ragh to answer that question specifically. Jane thank you Mill Farm and Mill House shall I show you the slide would that be for the dwellings to the I think would it be these dwellings at the north sorry well that's what I'm asking is it that because those are within the same ownership is that why Mr Ragh is saying that there is already a dwelling on the site I think that's the point the parish council wanted to make yeah okay right I understand what you're saying now thank you for that clarification thank you Miss Rodin's. No that's fine thank you very much and don't think we have any other questions thank you very much for stepping up and stepping in not at all thank you and we'll now go to if you turn your camera off please thank you and local member Councillor Debra Roberts would you like to speak now at the end I'd like to speak now and follow the normal procedure and at the end as well please Chairman as Heather Williams did earlier on today yes it's an interesting one and I 30 would like to say that the other few dwellings in the area have actually been either replacement buildings or have got agricultural restrictions to them the mill farm is clearly the ownership in the ownership of the land that's in question today and therefore in my opinion it is clearly within the curtailage of a building that is on site already and the way forward would be if the applicant wished to have something different would be to demolish that present residence that he has and replace it because that's what happened before there was as I said small prefabricated house there it got demolished and the mill farm was built so that would be how you could actually satisfy the policies however there are things that we need really to think about here this is a completely at present unspoiled area it's very close to the RSPB reserve it's right next to the site of special scientific interest it's right adjacent next to important streams very close to important streams it's still completely unspoiled and round here at round farm here and unfortunately all over south canons we have very few of these areas left and we as a council have the double greening up policy now because we know that we are in danger more and more as the years go by of losing these sites and I think our intention absolutely absolutely spot on as being to try to actually protect them and that we've put these things within the policies we've got to stick all sorts of stuff over there greenhouses excuse me we have somebody who is should have their microphone turned off thank you very much sorry thank you councillor Robert thank you for limiting me for a moment but the policy of H-15 our own policy is quite right and it talks about design if it was to be allowed it would have to be sensitive and I actually don't think that particularly has to just be about the design I think it has to be sensitive is it right to put something like this in two very unspoiled wild undisturbed area and I think that I'm going to ask colleagues to really think about that because this site has no light pollution it has no noise pollution it has no building that particular area though as I've said it has another site already another dwelling on that site so it's not compliant but in that area I can tell you the deer the deer herds that's one of their rooting areas there are badgers all over that area there are brown trout in that stream there are all sorts of butterflies and invertebrates and all sorts of wildlife that that area is extremely important to and I think that we really have to say that this is not sensitive to any of that it's described within the pages of being a monolithic type building well if we are talking about local designs we're not living on Salisbury Plain with Stone Henge and so you know this idea of this monolithic style building is completely alien it's like a spaceship would have landed on here and we have to protect these places this gentleman could build this anywhere in South Cams within an envelope where it would be seen and might be admired he could do that anywhere there's lots of land that is presently being considered for the new local plan he could build it I'm going to ask we're looking at the application not the applicant so if we focus then on what I'm understanding from you it's about whether or not this is sensitive to and enhances the setting so we can hear very strongly that that is not in your regard I'm sorry chairman I absolutely you've just said but the thing is here that I'm looking at this particular one but this particular design could go anywhere but is it right to put it in such a natural unspoiled rural place which is really important and it seems to me that as a planning authority we have every day we have to make decisions about planning applications which don't run up against this problem but this problem is something that we must focus upon the problem of the loss of these sort of places which we are trying so hard to avoid and I very much hope that my colleagues will think upon these things and I see no way that this can be validated as being a good application a correct application within policies application but I'll speak again at the end if I may chairman thank you very much so we're moving into the debate members and we've had a lot and this is I think really a good test and it's right that it comes here into committee a good test for us in terms of a policy that in my time we haven't had to look at which the only reason that this could be given planning application is because of those two policies that say it's exceptional and outstanding on page 257 at the bottom and page 258 just as we had with the case officers slide we do have the explanation of policy 79e and policy H15 abcnd and basically whatever we decide has to show that we are convinced that this does meet all of those it has to meet all four abcnd of policy H15 not just one or two but all four of them and it must meet in full 79e and they're similar but they have sort of slightly different sort of emphasis I think between the two of those so ready now to open the debate Vice Chair We have councillor Wright first up. Thank you Thank you Chairman I agree with you this is a really interesting application and when I looked to start with looking at the plan from above I thought ah Roman Villa and seeing the pictures of it from the side you could not unfortunately it does not have the grace and the beauty that we associate with Roman Villains because of the lack of pitch roofs and everything else and I thought I was pretty doubtful about what I saw and you know its suitability in its real setting however I am worse than a tin pot expert when it comes to design and I really do value the opinions of David Grinch who not only is an outstanding artist in his own right but also was an outstanding officer for our council and greatly missed can you come back please David so his opinion sort of independently given that it is a building of quality I accept that and to other councillors that didn't know David he has a very good reputation and a very good eye for this sort of development however there is weight in what Councillor Roberts also says in this may be an outstanding building but is it in the right place where it sits is a at the moment is a sort of a green lung between the present housing and the SSIs and for that to be picked up as a planning objection we would need the support of our ecology officer Natural England and the RSPB unfortunately they from my reading of their comments they do not raise an objection that we can latch on to as a reason for refusal as a material reason for refusal so they leave us with a very subjective decision of our own policy without lacking that that definite reason for a refusal that we could latch on to with an objection from the ecologist they all raise concerns but they don't say that there are grounds there for a refusal acknowledging there is nature on the site it's a lovely wetland site and is a green lung so I'm going to be really interested to listen to what other members say and I look forward to that in the debate we have Councillor Kahn next chair thank you Councillor Kahn I've been tossing and turning around decision making on this it's a Councillor like Ray eloquently put the discussion and the issues involved in this and I also Councillor Roberts raised the issue about the area which is where it's being built however I found also I found that Mr Gregg's presentation very illuminating very helpful I was particularly taken by his reference to the Palladian influence and putting a building with Palladian influence in arable farmland which is perhaps the alternative if it's not going to be an interesting site would have nothing Palladian buildings are about setting and in a sense we can see that that makes sense for it being in the setting where it is the building I'm not sure whether I like it but it's interesting as I mentioned earlier on the test is would it be a building of a listed building in 30 years time which is when modern buildings are listed and is it exceptional enough to be considered worth protecting so we would it is really unusual it has a theme and an interest and the setting it would be really very nice so it comes back to the worry about the sensitivity of the site of whether it needs protecting it's been located on the driest part of that site which appears at least from what we can see to have the least biological interest so it's been well set the fear is that the rest of the site might be more intensified there might be pressure on it and that I think can be determined by condition and it may be that we need to look in terms of Article 106 to protect the remaining areas of the site and to ensure that they're properly enhanced and if that is covered there then that term doesn't come in terms of the Kurtleidge I just don't buy this idea you've got a river between the house and the site that's a pretty big division I see them as two separate Kurtleges and I don't follow this argument at all so I think people will be coming to look at this in 30 years time that's the question as an example that they want to see and that to me is a pretty good test of whether it's exceptional so I think I'm coming to the idea that I would support this and it's been difficult and I think it's very important that it can to committee Thank you Next speaker chairs yourself Thank you Yes I think as others I've really looked at how we weigh this but I also have set the bar high for myself in terms of having to meet everything 79E and ABC and D of Policy H15 I have heard about and I'm like councilor right I think that I wouldn't be able to say if something was outstanding in terms of design and I'm not going to apply any subjective opinions on that I would listen to our design enabling panel upon that however what I do when I read the report is I do not find because 79E says it doesn't just say respect, retain and enhance or perhaps as councilor Martin Carnister said now with a condition mitigate the enhancement of the setting it says this is where it would be outstanding it would significantly enhance its immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area which include significant we have very few of them in South Cambridge which are designated protected sites and I was very disappointed to see that in terms of all of the consultees and I'm bit different from councilor right in this it's not about having reasons for refusal if this is about significantly enhancing the setting and being sensitive to that wider location there would have been agreements already with Natural England with the SSI site and RSPB what they're saying is we very much like to be involved in any decision making in the future and to me that would have had to be to say how do we live together with nature if you're going to have some kind of building in this it can be amazingly outstanding exceptional in its design of the building the dwelling but the second test there about how it fits into the setting I'm not convinced that it's significantly enhances the report says it respects, retains and enhances it doesn't say doesn't convince me yet that it significantly enhances and in terms of the energy it does there is innovation in terms of the nano grid that is being put there but I haven't been convinced in terms of significantly and that they've actually ensured that the grid would enable this so the condition that is in there is if it turns out that the grid cannot support what is being proposed then there is almost a sort of a get out close and that's where I'd like to see something outstanding in Southcowns is where the solution is put before us of how we actually do overcome grid capacity constraints with our energy efficiency so those are kind of where I'm at at the moment Next speaker is Councillor Fein Councillor Peter Fein Chair it may be apparent to members of the committee from my previous questions but I am a little skeptical as to whether this meets the very high bar that has been described here However in that regard I was very reassured by the entirely objective assessment of David Grech in this matter and his assessment which is of course backed by the Urban Design Officer who says quite clearly design is considered to be of exceptional quality he may be referring to the views of the design enabling panel is truly outstanding and would reflect the highest standards in architecture in some respects I'm if you like disappointed in that in terms of sustainability I don't see as much as I would have liked to see on that but that is not the criteria on which this is being judged and when we look at those criteria I have to say that it does seem to me to be exceptional I'm not sure whether all of those criteria have yet been satisfied as you said chair in relation to our own criteria so the question might be whether it is ready for approval yet before we have the assessment of its ability to enhance the area but I think I'm moving towards a position where I would say that yes I am persuaded that despite my personal views on the design it does meet the criteria and that it would be good to have paragraph 79 has actually constructed within South Cambridgeshire rather than merely one approved on appeal and that this maybe is the one that as Councillor Cahn said in 30 years time we will certainly still be looking at this one and probably admiring it Thank you Councillor Heather Williams Thank you I do find this application particularly difficult for many of the reasons that others have mentioned but because when we're talking about words like exceptional it's very subjective it's not clear there's a lot of great negotiating it and what one person sees is beautiful is not what another does and what one person sees exceptional is not but if I look more towards page 272 with the policies and paragraph 79 again it is a matter of personal judgment I think this one but I don't see how putting this building in place enhances its setting and the character of the local area so I'm very much minded to refuse if I will listen to others but I can't say personally that the design I do think is exceptional I think it's good I think it's better than some but to go to exceptional you have to really go far I'm not sure if it's quite gone far enough for myself on those grounds and actually I think I think Councillor Ragh made a very good point in that the design enabling panel is very helpful it definitely helps us as members but they aren't accountable and we are so when it comes down to it I think we have to be content ourselves and I'm not content that it's it's it's exceptional enough and I definitely don't think it enhances the setting and therefore doesn't comply. Thank you Chairman Thank you and Councillor Bradlam Chair Good and I think then probably after that we would move to a vote I think Thank you Chairman Sorry Anna You speak obviously at the end Thank you, sorry Anna It's alright thank you Yes how interesting to see such an innovative design come through our planning committee it's quite refreshing to see a modern design and in terms of our wish for buildings to be sustainable with the exception perhaps of the Wi-Fi that Councillor Haylings mentioned and the internet access and the power grid I'm not sure about that but in terms of the building itself I have no doubt that this building is sustainable in that sense but as Councillor Haylings has said it needs to significantly enhance its immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area What I find about this application is it's undoubtedly a striking building and an innovative building but sensitive to the defining area I see it turning its back and its sides on that field which is a rural area close to a SSI and the Wildlife Reserve and I find the reference to monolithic it's not so much that for me it's just that I find it feels as if it's turning its back on the rest of that field of that plot because there are so few, so little windows and fenestration and I just feel as I say it's striking but I don't so there's other things the colour I actually quite like because on an autumn day I bet all that field is going to be autumn colours and it will look brilliant with it but I do find that the absence of visible access I find slightly insensitive if I may say so I still haven't decided which way I'm going to go on this one but I find it an interesting application and an interesting design. So I hope people can start to consider where they because we do have other agenda right so we're going to need to move to the vote but prior to that as the local member Councillor Roberts if you'd like to have any concluding comments Thank you very much Chairman and I'm going to I think probably focus on your comments that you've made because I think that's the absolute star point of all this the bar is a very high one and I think as some of the people have said it's an interesting design beauties in the eye of the beholder and it's subjective as Councillor Williams said one person will think it's wonderful another will think it's terrible but we cannot ignore the fact that the two policies that we are working upon the national policy and the local plan policy are very adamant about that we are trying to protect these unspoiled special places and it seems to me to be quite apparent that this is not doing so it says very clearly as you said Chairman that all four parts of policy age 15 have to be complied with not you know maybe should be complied with could be with complied with it absolutely states they must be complied with and I believe that they do not do so and therefore they are actually undermining if it was to be given approval we are undermining our policies now we have to look at every application on its merits and we can't go out of the thing however this will set up a precedent because everybody now is going to come and think that you can buy a field or own a field and all you have to say is and get some people I think you have done very well up to there and I think what we are saying is there is a very high bar set by our policies and everybody can come and just do it but there is a very high bar and you have just explained why you don't think that bar is met but I think members should also know that even at this moment in time there is another application for the very next field to this which has been argued on exactly the same things and we are in great danger of losing precious and rare resources of open countryside here in South Cambridge we are not the most beautiful county in the world we must never kid ourselves but what we do have is lots of lots of housing in villages and very few areas like this to actually give those houses somewhere that they can see and enjoy in their entirety in their rural nature with all the wildlife please, please members don't put this particular application on thank you Chairman what I need to do is Chris in terms of where people are minded I'm hearing that this is very very interesting so people are minded either to approve or to reject if they were to go against the officer recommendation which is to approve and to reject do you have a comment? I have a reason I've drafted chair I wonder if it might be worth hearing briefly from Bonnie Quok the urban design officer just to address some of the points that have been raised before we just go to that reason that I've drafted if you're happy thank you chair, thank you Chris I would like to just answer some of the questions I heard for example from councillor Brebnam about the building not having a lot of windows or turning this back if I may yes, so basically I think when we look at this application unlike other applications that we've looked at for para 79 for sub terms this house is designed by the architect who has been living in the locality for some time he understands the site really well and this house is something that he really wants to build for his family and the reason for the proportion of the windows and how this is very much to reflect his personality because I believe the applicants when we had the design workshops he talked about he's a very quiet person and a very private person so he felt it's quite important to solve her problem more in clothes enclosed towards two sides of the queue can you take your camera off please so we're not having any requests but thank you and actually if you look at that square plan form two sides it's got four facades basically two facades are quite enclosed two facades are quite open and that's the southeast and the southwest and that sort of reflects the concept of the bird hide which is very much what the RSPB is about it's about the birds and it's about relating to them so that sort of openness focusing on those two facades is his way of relating to that and his willingness to open up his personality so it's very much a house that he wants to design for his family reflecting his own needs and also a response to the surrounding context so that's what I want to say about how the way the windows are sighted and why there are some enclosed areas on two facades and more open areas on the other two facades thank you chair for Bonnie giving that explanation I found it very helpful thank you thank you Chris I've got a single reason drafted should members wish to vote to refuse and that is as follows whilst considered to be of high quality design the proposal is considered to fail to significantly enhance or be sensitive to the defining unspoiled rural characteristics of the local area contrary to the requirements of the South Cambridge District Local Plan Policy H-15C and Paribas 79E of the National Planning Policy Framework I think that matches what the comments that I've heard from others today is there anybody who has an agreement with that being the principal reason if they were minded to refuse thank you so sorry chairman I'm sorry I don't think it's compliant with Policy H-15 where it says that it would significantly enhance its immediate setting what he's just said and the nature and the size of the site it's landscaping and location and site are sensitive it's not sensitive chairman I don't believe Chair would you like me to read it out again yes so the wording I have is whilst considered to be of high quality design the proposal is considered to fail to significantly enhance or be sensitive to the defining unspoiled rural characteristics of the local area contrary to the requirements of the South Cambridge District Local Plan Policy H-15C and Paribas 79E of the National Planning Policy Framework that's fine thank you chairman thank you so members as on page 285 the officer recommendation is that the committee approve the application subject to the conditions that are contained there I will do a roll call so this is to approve so please say whether you are for against or you'll abstain Councillor Henry Batchelor against Councillor Anna Bradenam sorry I'm actually for it sorry okay that's fine I'm fine Councillor Dr Martin Kahn for Councillor Peter Fein for Councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins for Councillor Debra Roberts against Councillor Heather Williams Councillor Richard Williams it's not present chairman gosh I didn't realise when he he'd left okay Liam do we know when Councillor Richard Williams left or was dropped out of the meeting chairman if I may he hasn't dropped out he did say at the start he had a medical appointment and then he'd be back at four okay agreed at four and myself against that's six four and four against therefore this is approved members it's just two minutes to four and we were going to have a ten minute break at three thirty so I suggest that we have a ten minute break now and come back at four ten thank you agreed thank you if you turn your camera and turn off please hello Liam hi there we're still live is that right yeah that's correct so thank you everybody it's four ten this is South Cambridge District Council planning committee meeting and we're continuing with today's committee meeting we just had a short break for ten minutes I'll do a quick roll call just to make sure that we've got all of the planning committee members here and present Councillor Henley Bratula present Councillor Bradnam present Councillor Martin Kahn present present present present good Councillor Deborah Roberts yeah present and annoyed excuse just please Councillor Deborah Roberts Councillor Heather Williams present chairman Councillor Dr Richard Williams so not not present present thank you we're moving to agenda item 10 on our agenda pack if Councillor Richard Dr Richard Williams joins us he'll be able to join in the discussion but not in the voting on agenda item 10 ah Stephen Reed it's item nine chair it's item nine oh my goodness agenda item nine excuse me everybody I've skipped one thank you agenda item nine which is Falmere which is pages 297 in our agenda pack and this is the 28 Pipers Close Falmere and the proposal is for new access from London Road an extension to the existing parking area to create on-site parking and turning the applicant is Mr Sean Gentle the reason it's with us is because this is owned by the Councillor Richard District Council we wouldn't have this kind of application in front of us but because it's owned by the council those are our rules we haven't had a site visit it's not a departure in terms of application decision due by the 15th of April 21 and the presenting officer is Marie Roseman hello Marie I see you and your recommendation is approval and you're going to give us any updates but also a quick summary of the application itself Marie thank you I'm just going to share my screen let me know when you can see I can see that perfectly thank you no problem so this is an application for a new access from London Road an extension to the existing parking area to create on-site parking and turning for 20 a Pipers Close Falmere and as you said this application has been brought to Planning Committee as the site is owned by South Cambridge District Council it's in the Falmere Development Framework so the aerial photo on the left shows the site on a slight bend in London Road with filled opposite and the existing plan here on the left shows that currently 20a and 20b share vehicle access for the land owned by 20b so the property on the below 20a the application site seeks to create a new access and parking arrangement shown on the proposed plan riot in grey this would create a parking area 12m in maximum depth and 8.5m in maximum width a chain link fence would then separate the properties so the photo on the far right is the existing access and the first two photos show the location of the proposed access site and the key considerations are character and appearance area, highway safety and neighbour community so thank you chair thank you very much for that any questions for clarification for Marie? No one's indicated chair I can see a hand raised but if anybody needs to speak could they please put that in the chat box I can't see sorry Deborah Roberts is indicated in the chat thank you thank you chairman good afternoon Marie can you I'm finding this quite a difficult one because I I know the circumstances behind it in a way but can you just confirm to me there is actually which I know there is actually parking allocated spots there already isn't there and the next door neighbour who's a private owner that was bought a parking spot of his own which was what was used to be the front garden so actually there is more than adequate parking in that area already Yes there is I believe that the reason for the application is because 20B and 20A this and some they prohibit them from parking outside their house and that's why they're asking for a new access but obviously we don't get into neighbour disputes No we don't we don't get into the neighbour disputes just what's in front of us and whether or not somebody is able to apply for a change to to have a new access thank you can I talk about the application thank you I'll talk about it in a minute thank you Vice Chair we have any more clarification questions that's one more Chair from Councillor Fane Chair that's Preventure I am proposing to say something on debate thank you and Councillor Bradman sorry thank you very much yes I just was trying to work out what was going on is it that there is already access on the northern property isn't there there is a southern property the existing property is on the southern property and it's a northern property that are asking for a new access okay right so it obviously looks different to what it does on Google maps then so okay I stand corrected by your presentation thank you thank you very much and just reminding everybody this capital application wouldn't normally come before us it's a general issue of public interest or a policy issue it's coming before us because it is the applicant is a member of South Cams District Council that's just due diligence on our part for transparency so I will now thank you very much Marie and I'm going to move to the public speaking section which we don't have any public speakers and this is the local member do you is there a need for you to speak at this moment on it or you speak in the debate I speak in the debate chairman oh no sorry I will speak as local member now if you would like yes I I have a lot of sympathy for the department in this application I can see absolutely no real reason for it but I know that the person that we are trying to placate will and has caused a lot of difficulties I know you've got this local knowledge but as members we have to just look at the application in front of us which is for access so we normally don't go into the reasons why people are asking us for an access I'm a little concerned about the fact that we're getting a new access because it is actually right on that corner itself and we get a lot of cars whipping around that corner and it's quite a risky area so I think there are reasons that I don't think it should be going on in planning terms but I'm being obviously led by the information that I've got which isn't anything to do with planning so we've got no objections from the parish council and not in principle from Highways but they have asked for making to your point they have asked for some specific conditions to sort of deal with the safety issue that you're mentioning there I've got objections to it but not as a planning application then you keep those to yourself thank you very much so we will go to the main debate and I think Councillor Peter Fein you said you would like to speak in the debate thank you chair this is not a departure application it's had no representations from members of the public the film the parish council has no objections the concerns it possible concerns in relation to highways adult with by the local highways authorities in terms of a condition the access is further from the bend than the existing access I would recommend we move straight to a vote yes I would agree with you Councillor Debra Roberts you said you have no objections but not on planning terms if I said that we would move to this by affirmation in terms of the officer's recommendation would you have a different opinion I share your opinion chairman thank you okay so officer recommendation is approval members and can we do that by affirmation can I second pick Councillor Fein's I agree sorry and thank you very much you can second that I jumped it into there thank you very much and is anybody who can I also say no no Councillor no well because just if you take your camera off please thank you sorry in my mistake so I should have allowed you to second the motion the motion was proposed by Councillor Peter Fein it was seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam we took it by affirmation but I just want to check there was nobody against and nobody abstaining thank you so that agenda item is finished thank you very much and that was agenda item 9 which I put in the chat which is finished so that is now agenda item 9 that's finished members we move on to agenda item 10 in your report pack that's on page 305 just remind you I need to step down at this point thank you very much this my vice chair Henry Councillor Henry Bachelor as he mentioned at the very beginning has declared an interest he will now leave the meeting and I will ask that Councillor Peter Fein acts as my chair vice chair and can I take that by affirmation that Councillor Peter Fein acts as my vice chair for this agenda item thank you very much everybody anybody against going to be astained and thank you very much so Councillor Henry Bachelor has left the building left the virtual building this is agenda item 10 on page 305 application number 20 stroke 02098 stroke S106A it's for the land between church lane and ermine street south and Papworth Everett the proposal is for the modification of planning obligations which concern the building of a community building contained in a section 106 agreement dated 21st October 2014 pursuant to outline planning permission S stroke 0623 stroke 13 FL the applicant being flagship housing development limited and the key material considerations are the principle of development and the section 106 agreement and infrastructure contributions in fact this is coming to committee for a change in those conditions agreed in the section 106 agreement so no site visit for this it's not a departure an extension of time has been agreed until the 20th of April and it's brought to the committee because Papworth Everett parish council requested that Aaron co is our principal planning officer Aaron hello afternoon chair hello again nice to see you thank you for keeping in with us here and would you like to give us any updates or summary of the situation that we have here yeah I'll just share my screen with members first can I confirm everyone can see that yes we can brilliant case yeah firstly I'd like to make members aware of the additional representations have been received since the report was circulated on this item Papworth parish council provided additional comments submitted yesterday which echo similar concerns and objectives objections have been previously raised alia limited to the first beneficiary of the community building have also made further comments raising concerns related to the timings and the modifications proposed and an additional representation from the local resident has been made supporting the data variation each of these representations all now available on the application file via public access so moving on to the application so the application site is the land between church lane and ermine street south which is in the village framework of Papworth Everett and partly within the conservation area this slide here shows the blue and pink land has approved under application reference s 0 623 slash 13 slash FL so this original planning consent was granted in 2014 which was considered as a hybrid planning application the scheme secured outline planning permission for the erection of up to 58 dwellings within the land shown as blue on this image here and then full planning permission for the works of the community building as well as an erection of eight residential dwellings on the pink land here so this slide shows an error review of the site as you can see here so moving on to the details of the application we are considering here today the data variation proposes to amend various aspects of the original section 106 agreement firstly the original section 106 involved the community building being completed and offered to the first beneficiary prior to the occupation of the first dwelling since flagship acquired the site and commenced the tender process for the development in 2016 there have been other matters which have resulted in delays in the recovery of the community building these matters have included a series of issues being uncovered which has resulted in further investigations such as assessment of temporary works structural fabric surveys steel upgrade geotechnical and concrete core testing flagship then decides to carry out pre-application discussions with the district council regarding a new community building rather than refurbishing existing building on site however the pre-application responses by the council did not give flagship enough certainty that revised application for a new building would be supported and therefore flagship made the decision to pursue the delivery of the extamper mission for the community building. Due to the delay suffers whilst considering the options of providing a new building were explored the construction of the dwellings has now surpassed the trigger which required the community building to be completed prior to the first occupation and there are a number of dwellings that have been completed prior to the first occupation. The variation is required to enable future occupiers to move into their properties before the community building is fully completed as set out in the report a series of enforceable new triggers have now been introduced to secure the delivery of the community building. So I'll just run through these quickly. These include no dwellings within the blue land to be occupied until 60,000 pounds have been paid to the district council towards the fitting out of the community building reconstruction has commenced on site. No more than 30 dwellings shall be occupied until the still frame of the building has been installed. Then no more than 35 until the brick work for the building has been completed and no more than 40 dwellings until the community building has been completed and offered for transfer to the first beneficiary. The second modification relates the timeframe given to the first beneficiary to open the building to the members of the public following the transfer. This involves a reduction of this period from 24 months to 18 months. The third modification proposed relates to this six schedule of the section 106 agreement and this is proposed to be modified to ensure the spec of the building will be in accordance with current building requirements and the installation of an upgraded flooring as well as new fire doors provided. Fourth modification amends the owner occupier exclusion clause to ensure the obligation which prevents occupation of dwellings to individual owners and their mortgages. This offers more protection than the original agreement which was not enforced against any owner occupier or mortgagee of individual dwellings. Sorry. Just to cover the fifth modification as well which introduces an amended mortgagee and possession clause for affordable housing. This variation is proposed to update the clause in line with current best practice. So moving on to the planning assessment and the key planning considerations to be taken into account today. The two key questions that must be considered to determine if the proposals meet the relevant test are, does the obligation still serve a useful purpose? If it does, does it serve the purpose equally well if it affects subject to the modification specified in the application? So in respect of the first test, the revised obligation still secures the provision of the community building. At a stage of the development where there's still a reasonable number of dwellings left unoccupied, dwellings remain unoccupied to ensure the opportunity for the council to enforce in the event of any future breach as well as a clear incentive for the developer of the site to carry out the development and comply with the obligations to enable the release of the remaining dwellings. In addition, the revised triggers have been introduced to ensure that dwellings cannot be occupied until the community building has reached the relevant stage of construction. Officers consider the additional triggers provide sufficient certainty that the community building will come forward and be delivered. The district council section 106 officer has also been involved in the process and throughout and is of the same view. With regard to the second test whilst it's acknowledged the revised proposal will result in a further delay in the provision of the completed shell of the community building it must be noted that the revised proposal now includes £60,000 contribution towards the construction of the shell which will provide a core toilets a kitchen as well as the upgraded flooring of fire doors which ensures the community building spec is compliant with the building requirements. In addition to this as mentioned the reduction from 24 months to 18 months from the completion of the transfer to the opening of the building as set out in paragraph 25 successfully reduces the delay. A reconstruction build out program has been submitted within the application is also available on the public file. So overall for the reasons set out in the report officers considered the obligations which continue to serve their purpose equally well if modified as detailed in the presentation in the report and therefore approval is recommended. Thank you chair. Thank you very much. Do we have any clarification questions? Yes chair we have question from councillor Adam Bradnum then followed by councillor Toomey Hawkins. Chairman I withdrew my request to speak because the question was answered as the case officer presented. Thank you. Dr. Toomey Hawkins. Thank you chair and through you a couple of things I'm sure I kind of read the documentation through but I couldn't find anywhere where the reason for the £60,000 contribution was explained and how it was calculated and if it was in conjunction with earlier or however it's called and also why reducing the 18 24 months to 18 months and again it's this what's this done together with either the parish council and or earlier who are supposed to be taking it on. Thank you. Thanks councillor Hawkins. So the £60,000 is going towards the fitting out of the community building to get it to the spec level and the reduction from 24 months to 18 months is sort of an incentive for Allia to complete it in a faster way to speed up the delivery. I'm sorry that doesn't answer my question Aaron the question is how was that £60,000 rich as a figure and also you know if the developer is proposing to reduce the time frame just because they feel they can was it I mean how can they do that without the third party who's going to take it on actually agreeing to it did they agree to it? So I can ask if James Fish is on I wasn't involved in the application of this when the £60,000 was decided as a figure James when Katie was leading the case James is with us I don't know if we have James for sure with us who's our section 106 officer Chair it's Chris Carter here can I suggest possibly Stephen Reed might be able to hopefully contribute at this point Stephen Reed Thank you chair in relation to the reduction from 24 months to 18 months when we get to the public speakers and we hear from Flagship or their representative I think you'll find that they're proposing now to revert to the 24 months Can you answer this we'll hold that and get clarification of it before we take it up as an item that we're trying to dig into further but and on terms of how the figure was achieved at the £60,000 the the £60,000 again when we hear from Flagship it's an offer that they've made and they'll be able to set out the basis of it if they arrive at the figure Okay Thank you chair I will wait Then we have any other questions then thank you very much Stephen Reed as well Thank you can you turn your camera off Yes indeed Can we have councillor Wright Thank you Thank you for that Chairman for my point it has been made this morning we had a change amendment to this that it was going to be 18 months but Nicole Smith from Flagship has moved it back to 24 months this has only been informed this morning it just shows what a muddle we are in with this application for my question is you know in the absence of James Fisher can I ask the planning officer when was he made aware of this material planning change to the 106 that it was going back that when this application was put in it was going to be 18 months and this morning I understood that it had gone back to 24 months when was the planning officer made aware of this I was also made aware this morning that they were reverting back to 24 months however I'm assessing the application it's been assessed on the basis of being 18 months because that's on the application form and that's the item we've got in front of us and that's why I'm presenting it in that way and advising members to consider this as they have in front of them as 18 months rather than 24 Stephen you are available and yet you've referred us to the 24 months can you answer two questions Stephen one is we'll leave it to flagship but I think we need to know what are we looking at not what flagship is presenting what are we looking at in terms of the planning application here in terms of the change to the S1 and 6 condition what are we looking at and what do we need to look at the planning committee now and secondly yes so that first of all Chair if I may the if members wish to determine the application on the basis of the 24 months as Aaron says that's the application which has been subject to consultation then you could determine it on that basis however Alia have sought to criticise the reduction from 24 months to 18 and I think we'll hear from flagship that in those circumstances and they would they would ask members to consider them the application on the basis that it reverts to the 24 months because that will withdraw an objection from Alia Stephen can I just clarify something as I have seen everything we have looked at it not at 24 months in the way it was consulted we have been presented with it and by the planning officer as 18 months yes not 24 you've just said it was as 24 we've been presented as 18 months yes and so what we need to know before going any further is if during the presentation in terms of the public speaking phase flagship were to say they would change 18 to 24 what implications in planning terms does that have for us are we able to see within the period of time that we are now sitting as planning committee being asked to look at it 18 and it is then moved to 24 within the same meeting does that have any planning implications for us as committee members and as also explained the relationship between flagship and Alia in that it do we have anything to do with that at all or is that a private matter but the first is the most important which is what are the implications for us as planning committee to have it how significant I think councillor should it was material key material change in what's being put forward to us so the application that has been the subject of consultation is 18 months however if members decide that actually they would be willing to grant the application were it to be amended to revert to 24 months I think that is within the gift of members to decide in terms of inviting an amendment to the application and for members to decide on the basis of the period reverting to 24 months what you are confirming now Stephen if I understand it is that that is in our gift of the committee to hear new evidence and to enable that change to the S106 agreement to move from 18 to 24 if flagship presents that to us yes thank you share we have councillor Heather Williams next before then I see that Aaron Coe would like to speak again perhaps on this point thank you yeah my issue has been covered just I was just correcting Stephen that the consultation went out on the 18 months not 24 but councillor Haylings already did that thank you so then councillor Williams councillor hello Heather Williams please Sharon can you turn your camera off please unless Heather has got a question for you it may well be chair it may well be I think it probably is so we have been told in the gift of the committee to to take in what's been given to us this morning however my understanding of the practice is normally if there is a key material change then we would re-consult so I just want to because to ask us to then take into consideration a 24 month based on the applicant's email this morning only if today during this committee meeting but during public speaking the applicant tells us that if the applicant tells us when they speak and surely we would be in some difficulty on consultation grounds the fact that there has been a material change and we have not consulted thanks Kevin I was trying to get to whether or not in any way at all including re-consultation when I asked that question Stephen Reed I see Chris Carter has asked to speak so maybe he can help us with this. Yes chair thank you and thank you Councillor Williams I must admit I tend to agree with you I think we need to hear from flagship as to whether or not the email they sent this morning was actually proposing a change or not if it is not proposing a change to that which has been considered by officers then I think the committee can proceed to consider the application in front of it if they are proposing to make a change then I would tend to agree that we should consider whether the consultation is required in which case we may need to consider deferring the item but I think we need to hear from flagship to avoid going around in circles on the panel. Thank you very much yep do we have any other clarification questions for sorry now we have for this councillor Bradnham again. Thank you I just wanted to clarify that as I understand it the driver behind this was the wish for a community building to be delivered at a sensible time to match the new development can someone clarify that is correct yes that is correct so on the original outline of the hybrid application the community building was put to come forward prior to the first occupation of the dwelling but as I said the applicants were exploring other options and trying to achieve a new building on the site rather than refurbishing the existing and unfortunately the trigger has now passed and this is what has caused the frustrations of the parish council and Allia as well the fact that they have continued developing dwellings beyond the thank you Aaron we are just establishing a question just to clarify my understanding though the whole driver was to provide community buildings early on in the development so it could provide a core place for the community to build in this newly developed area so actually this delay back to 24 months is the opposite of what can I just clarify I'm just trying to clarify that that is the implication of what's being is that right sorry is that right that it simply takes it back to a longer time frame which was not what was wished in the first place but the original building to be delivered would have been sorry Steven should I Chair if I may can we wait to hear from flagship Yes I think so Anna because I think what we've done Anna is clarify the intent but we don't yet know about this period of the 24 months are there any other clarification questions for the case officer Not if you move on quickly Chair so let's move to the public speakers and we have Tim Jones I'd like to invite him to speak Thank you Chairman Good afternoon I am Tim Jones I first got involved in this project in 2012 I am now the Senior Consultant Senior Advisors who earlier I am authorised on their behalf to speak I was at that time the Chief Executive of Valia and I got involved with Trust and Learig Learig being the developer of the site on behalf of Trust to look at how to use the former print works and whether they could be brought forward for community benefit I should say Alia is itself a charitable community benefit society not a company our mission in life is about community benefit Thank you Thank you for that introduction and you have you don't have a camera but that's fine we can hear you perfectly Oh do I have a camera that's hold on I've got to turn my camera on can you see me now so forgive me I don't know why that's not working let me just let me just come back in can you see me now No but I think we should just continue Tim that's fine we can hear you perfectly I will carry on We'll start your three minutes now Super Thank you Jim The the presence was a consultation with the community as to what might be done with the former framework so we ended up designing a microgrurian pizzeria because at the time the community was short of a place to for eating and drinking and coming together for that sort of a purpose and there was to be community rooms and a variety of uses we did a full community consultation with the parish and indeed with the community and that is all on file designs were worked out with Allium design and fully costed and those designs became the planning application which has been referred to earlier which was s062313 FL and those designs were incorporated into that full planning consent at that time marketing materials was then developed with January's and Bidwell's opposition was made clear in the marketing materials that this consideration to pass was an amount of money and the full development of the community building and that was costed in the planning application by the way at 940,000 pounds we entered then into a development and transfer agreement with Papua Trust in order to transfer the building to us and Alex B of that agreement is the building specification and Alex C is the draft transfer. Those two Alex's then became schedule 6 and 7 of the section 106 which is in turn granted from the 21st of October 2014. Now the application before you today proposes from Allium's point of view a reduction in the time allowed for Allium to fit out the community building once offered it and it amends the specification for the building. So this new application appears to supersede the application which was 20,02098 S106A that is what it says in the application yet and in fact it was signed on the 18th of March this year in that application certificate A says that there's nobody else involved who's affected by this application and of course I hope it's clear from what I've said that Allium is very much impacted by this application because we are a party to the planning but we haven't been consulted so in order to answer one of your earlier questions from your panel no we haven't been consulted there are one or two statements in that on the web portal which are very misleading one says that Allium approves the reduction to fit out time we do not and another says we approve the changes for the specification for the community building we do not. The reason why we need the time which is the same reason as was set in 2014 is because we need time for consultation with the community as to what the now uses of that building might be because of course since then a microburry has set up in Paphworth the hospital has closed new food and beverage offerings have been established so until we know when we're going to get the building we can't really specify what its community use will be and therefore we can't the contracts we can't get planning consent we can't do the fit out we can't open it and so on so the whole string of work which we need to do and we're a charity we can't have that kind of constraint Tim you can ask your three minutes if you can have this concluding sentence. Okay thank you Chairman so the concluding part of course is on the community building specification the changes to that either encumble or make delays in the procurement of the building and do not shorten the time in any way at all the proposition that it's an advertisement is I'm afraid it's an entirely moved. Thank you Are there any questions for Mr Jones? None listed Yes Councillor Timay Hawkins Thank you Chair through you Mr Jones thank you for that clarification you kind of yeah I was concerned potentially that you know what you said was the case I'm presuming that you probably made active approaches to flagship to try and resolve this issue Yes Yes we have and we have been unable to find a resolution in fact we weren't consulted on this application coming in at all Okay thanks for that Thank you Chair no follow-up. Thank you we have no more questions is that right Vice Chair? No more questions Thank you very much Mr Jones and we'll now move to invite Niki Fonseca who's the agent for the applicant you can turn your camera off Councillor Hawkins I can't forget him I'm sorry Chair Good morning and afternoon I feel like I've been healed Oh we have too I know Niki is probably a bit fatigued now aren't we for a reason I can hear you My camera is on so I'm not sure why but I suspect everyone is probably more than happy not to see my face So do you want to introduce yourself Niki before we start the three minutes? Yeah of course thank you Chair Can I just say for clarity this application is for the reduction to 18 months I know there's a lot of debate about so just to be clear it's for the reduction to the 18 months in line with the officers report My name is Niki Fonseca I'm a planning lawyer acting predominantly for local authorities and I'm instructed to speak on behalf of flagship today who as we know is a charity and a registered housing provider Thank you we'll start your three minutes now There's a long history relating to the community building on this site flagship has explained the backgrounds and reasons for the delay and I do not propose restating these now partly for timing reasons but also because they are not part of the legal test under section 106a relevant to this determination These are does the obligation still serve a useful purpose and if it does does it serve that purpose equally well if it has effect subject to the modifications When assessing whether an obligation serves its purpose equally well this should be based on the policy that justified it the relevant policy is H4 of the local plan which requires development proposals in the area to include a mix of community employment and housing development The provision of a community building is therefore the aim of this obligation The timings of delivery are not relevant to this question which has no basis in policy but even if they were the time it will take to complete the building which is the same regardless of whether the application is approved The revised obligation would continue to secure the provision of the building at a point in the development which is enforceable and effective What is relevant is whether the obligation achieves the same aim which it does and in fact it now goes beyond this flagship have offered to reduce the time scale give an additional contribution and enhance specification and further legal restrictions agreed with the council planning lawyer making the variation more beneficial and more robust than the existing obligation In my professional view there is no doubt that the tests have been met and there are no valid reasons I can see that would justify a refusal of this application This view is also supported by the officers report which confirms the legal tests have been met I note the various concerns raised and the comments made today in particular the approval of the application and time scale available to Alia for delivery of the building and discussions have been ongoing with them and they are aware of these changes None of these are valid reasons for refusal however and flagship consider the time scales and specification are reasonable and Alia has had sufficient time to consider these Should members wish to allow further time for delivery we are content for the application to be approved subject to a variation to remove the amendment to the 24 months period Delegated authority to approve reasonable changes to the specification within the scope of the original agreement or revert the original specification as members see fit to enable determination which in our view does not require reconsultation A refusal or a deferral would be of no benefit to anyone and would only serve to cause further delays and challenges to the delivery of the building and the deliverability of a scheme ultimately intended to fund affordable housing provision I think it's also relevant to say that flagship was not a party to the original obligation and is a housing provider not a commercial developer. I am available for questions as are my clients if you wish No questions as yet chair Sorry I did. Council of Hawkins Okay clarification please for flagship Thank you for your presentation Nikki I know you say that your client is a charity not a developer but your client took on this land with full knowledge of the condition Is that correct? Yes certainly when the site was acquired the planning obligation would have been in place albeit my client wouldn't have been fully aware of the extent of any works required to the building or the pandemic was around the corner Okay Fair enough but then that was clear in the intent of that obligation so I know we need to focus on the issues which does the obligation still serve a useful purpose It served the purpose to provide a building a community building but as earlier has said representative has said Mr Jones the issue is the building needs to be the type of building that community requires and this has gone on for such a long time as he said it's not quite you know they need to know what it is that the community wants now so I am do you think that that still applies in your case that it still serves a useful purpose bearing in mind the purpose has changed somewhat whether a planning obligation still serves a useful purpose is the first test should this obligation be retained does it still serve a useful purpose if you were therefore to say to me this no longer serves a useful purpose then the application would be to discharge the obligation which it obviously most certainly isn't so I think the question as to whether it serves a useful purpose is absolutely yes we can all see that a community building in this location is in line with policy and is a great benefit to the wider area so I don't think that's an issue what is an issue is whether the revised obligations still secure that building and I think what I'm seeing here there's obviously a lot of history there are a lot of questions and concerns of the delays but we are not where we are and regardless of what now happens it cannot physically be constructed any more quickly and whilst I understand there's huge frustration about that we can't go back in time and why penalise the potential purchases and also affect the delivery by impacting on the viability of the scheme and I mean thank you I think you answered the question thank you very much I think you can understand the I think you can understand the frustrations of the community in that we're now proposing going from pre what's the phrase sorry chair before anyone moves into the housing to now 68% of the development will be occupied before the building actually is finished that is a big jump I think you will agree and therefore the community doesn't feel that the obligations still serve the purpose Councillor Hawkins I think that's for debate so I think that's a good comment for our debate but not necessarily a question yep to the to the agent for clarification then you have Councillor Nicholas Wright yep thank chairman for letting me speak my question to Nikki is did you hear Tim Jones of alias speak because he said that they have not been consulted quite clearly on this amendment at all yes I did hear Mr Jones speak and obviously there does seem to be some confusion there as so far as I'm concerned and certainly as far as my clients are concerned they have been aware of this process discussions have been ongoing obviously they were aware when the original the previous application was submitted and made comments about that application we've now submitted a revised application in consultation with offices but there is clearly some confusion is all I would say over that because certainly they are aware they have been able to write a full objection and response I think I think there's a difference I think what council rights coming to be being aware of something and being actively consulted on it I think that's what you're driving I think you have your answer Councillor Wright could I ask another point too you know all and confusion are just so apt with dealing with your your clients on this flagship they you know so many of the delays have been through their own making it is not you know it is nobody else to blame and now they've reached a point where they can't they finish the houses but they can't be occupied because they have not started this community building and the frustration right I think again these are ones I think bit like council Hawkins that's a debate one where you can give your event your opinion on this I think you're affirming something rather than asking a question there if you agree with me thank you do we have any other questions I see no other questions thank you I'd like to invite then from the parish council councillor Chris Howlett thank you very much thank you for speaking with us thank you hello Nicky can you my camera doesn't seem to want to turn on oh perhaps has now not yet but if you want to just introduce yourself as it's warming up maybe it's now frozen there we are we can see you right okay can I first ask you if you have authority of the parish council to represent them I do I'm chairman of the parish council planning committee and have been approved to speak thank you matter yeah and so can we start with your three minutes now Chris thank you thank you fundamentally if approved this application puts in jeopardy the viability and deliverability of the community building required under policy H4 of the local plan and secured by way of the current form of the 106 agreement approval would also go against the very assurances given the parish council by when the application was approved the preoccupation trigger clause and the related subsequent deadlines tied to this trigger with the subject of considered an extensive negotiations between the parties and deliberately included in the 106 agreement to ensure the timely delivery of the community building in accordance with the policy the need for this was flagged by the original applicant at the very outset of the development indeed it was the legal assurance of the preoccupation trigger clause and the related subsequent deadlines tied to the trigger that satisfied the concerns of both planning committee of south games to district council and the parish council to enable each to change their recommendation from refuse to approve at the time of the original application the applicant talking about the impact on viability and deliverability the applicant seeks to relax the pre-application trigger until there is occupation 40 of the 53 dwellings ie so that 75% of the dwellings will have been built before they need to have completed the community building in alleged mitigation of this extended time period the applicant seeks to squeeze the subsequent defined deadlines for fitting out the building which affects alia not the applicant and as we know the timelines room reduce from 24 months to 18 months in addition the applicant applied for fundamental change in the ownership structure of the community building if alia should fail to follow the strictly defined and squeezed timeline contrary to principles Paulson provisions previously agreed and reflected in the current section 106 agreement and this is discussed later on this has not been withdrawn in writing and remains part of the application file of notice that there are no legal consequences on the applicant for non-delivery the community building in fact to the contrary in such a situation the applicant could the building and the land then could revert to the applicant without obligation and we'll come to the end of your three minutes Chris right okay I will conclude by saying that it's our view that there is enough there are enough reasons quite apart from the 18 or 24 months question to to refuse this application if you don't refuse it we would prefer it were deferred because it is a mess we've had numerous different inputs from the applicant at different times changing different aspects of it and thank you it needs to be clarified and then re-consulted thank you very much for your time any questions for verification from councillor Toomey Hawkins councillor Toomey Hawkins thank you chair through you I'll be very brief Mr Howlett did Flagship ever tell you how came about the £60,000 calculation I think it was just a figure that the applicant put in because they thought it would sweeten some of the other changes they were making right okay thank you for your explanation thank you chair councillor Radnam but Aaron Coe would like to speak we may want to take that first yes we'll take that first if you don't mind councillor Bradnam just in response to councillor Hawkins question that was raised earlier about the £60,000 I've done some digging and found the answer was a quantity surveyor put the information together in a costing exercise for the service core the toilets and the kitchenette for the additional facilities in the community building to be provided okay thank you very much did we know that was out of what was it just those things or was that out of all of the things that needed to be done that's on top of the flooring and the other works as well thank you councillor Bradnam thank you I'd like to ask Mr Howlett so do we understand you to say that you would actually prefer this application to be refused or deferred in order that it can be tidied up thank you and do anybody else councillor Nick Wright thank you councillor Nick Wright thank you Chairman I'd like to ask councillor Howlett to the Prash Council and the community to me this is not about the £60,000 this is about delivery of the project yeah that is that is our it's not just getting the shell of the building which is down to the applicant it's completing the whole thing and making sure it's delivered and we do have severe concerns about um suspending or changing the preoccupation clause to a much later date because by the time you sold 75% of the houses there's very little incentive you know there would be very little incentive to get the community building finished and what you know what leverage do you have there with a an applicant who then doesn't do it when you've got so little value left in the site thank you thank you Nick councillor Wright okay thank you very much councillor Howlett thank you for joining us and being so clear as well thank you and in terms of local member councillor would you like to speak now or at the end of the debate thank you chairman happy to say a few words now and then speak at the end that's alright my thoughts on this are very simple you know what we've heard you know is muddle confusion and a lot of legal ease this is simply you know it back to strip it down to its bare bare minimum this is about the council set a trigger point on the number of houses that no house could be completed and sold till the community building was built we do this and we expect developers and house builders to deliver on that and I think in the application on born airfield a trigger point like this was set at 500 dwellings you know very recently and if we don't stick to that what value do we have you know with born airfield and others like this there's no point doing 106 is if the council does not enforce it when the trigger point is red it is met so you know my thought to the committee is that this should be refused the muddle that's being created around it is of flagships own making and you just you know it makes their lack of consultation you know it just makes you feel they've been delaying the delivery of this community building and no one else so I don't accept those excuses you know Pat was once its community building and let's stick to the agreement please thank you very much that's all right councillor Timmy Hawkins followed by councillor Heather Williams good and I think what we do have here members is sort of say okay about we have to balance now what are we being asked about is about reasonableness and whether not the tests have been made around obligation but also balanced with the original intention and the incentive that's there well you know given the changes to that in the moment so reasonableness given the current situation but also what incentives are contained within this are we convinced that they're sufficient in terms of a trigger to make sure that the community does get the building and we've also heard and I've also had seen there's kind of a lot of changes only just within a few days that we've received information about so the clarity issue is obviously key within there thank you very much so I have also I can see we have Vice-Chair do we have any other inputs that should come to this before I have members speak in the debate forgive me I don't have that information on Steven Reid I may yes thank you chair councillor Wright has referred to the sticking to the original deal in order for that to happen the district council would need to apply to the high point for an injunction to prevent occupations taking place so you're talking about enforcement which is the trigger has been surpassed as the case officer said so the south council now would have to enforce through an injunction so the trigger hasn't been passed because there haven't been any occupations but we're mindful that houses are ready to be occupied and therefore there is the prospect that the trigger would be passed the critical point I want to explain to members is that in order to apply for an injunction that what's called an equitable remedy and what that means is that the court will look at arguments on both sides to say whether an injunction should be granted should prevent occupations taking place in the terms of the original agreement if flagship were in breach they could nevertheless allow plot purchases to go into occupation and then the district council would need to obtain the injunction to prevent that continuing to happen under the form of the revised planning obligation flagship have accepted occupation restrictions which would bite upon owner occupiers the importance of that is that any solicitor acting for a plot purchase would be in breach of their professional rules which would allow them to apply for mortgage monies and such as to draw down an occupation in breach of the restriction the other point is that there isn't a single trigger at 75% there are a series of triggers up to the 75% which will provide clarity that at 75% the building is ready to do for handover and again that's absolutely critical in terms of ensuring that the occupation restriction or restrictions will bite at each of those revised triggers so I can say to you that in terms of a robust planning obligation what is on the table from flagship offers very significantly enhanced protection to both the district council and the parish council to ensure delivery of the community building we've heard from the solicitor for flagship that the building will not be delivered any earlier so the question is should some people be allowed to occupy dwellings which are built and ready for occupation or should they be penalised because matters have moved on and the building can no longer be delivered unless the occupation restriction remains clicked in so what's on offer is a compromise but with very significant protections for the district council as to delivery thank you I don't know whether Chris Carter wants to add to that thank you chair I'll be in a different way Stephen has said what I was largely going to say so I just wanted to refer members in particular to page 314 of the report pack paragraph 23 and the proposed clauses there that Stephen has summarised there are a series of clauses at different points in time so it isn't a single trigger as Stephen said and it's just important to highlight those for members' attention thank you yes so we've got staged triggers throughout I think as the case officer put forward thank you councillor Anna Bradnam thank you I don't know about anybody else but I'm getting thoroughly confused about this and I just wanted to clarify we've as I understood it we've had a request from the parish council for deferral refusal but we've been advised by our legal advisor and by Chris Carter that what is being proposed by flagship is would deliver a secure delivery of this building be it perhaps not as soon as we might have wished but it would secure delivery of the building whereas I presume if we refused or deferred that might be less secure can somebody confirm if my understanding is correct Chair through you it's not that it would be less secure the existing obligation would remain but what it would do is restrict any occupations taking place in dwellings which are now built and ready to be occupied so what the amendment proposes is to introduce some flexibility which would allow some occupations as and when the houses are ready and you wouldn't be left with the houses sitting there empty pending the community building with your indulgence chair can I just ask a follow-up I will word this carefully is it your impression Mr Carter that the might have an improper perception that sticking to the original might give a faster delivery whereas in fact sorry what I mean is do we would we lose the strength of incentive for the developer if we if we were to agree the amendment in my opinion no there's still a strong incentive set out in the revised clauses for the developer to deliver that's what you got in the office's report it's now before members obviously to to look at that and say how we could convince by that next we have councillor Heather Williams chair thank you chairman I believe councillor Hawkins might have been before me but I'll carry on unless I'm and I'm shouted down but but yeah so it is very difficult and it's complex one isn't it it's very technical and but the fact that there are empty houses is the developer has developed them they've known the obligations this isn't exactly a surprise you know it's been there all along and there is there is an agreement and obligation in place that all parties have signed up to and happy with to change that now I mean it's just creeping isn't it we go from pre commencement to preoccupation we go from preoccupation to occupying some I do think it does lose an incentive and I think part of the looking at the case part of the aspirations of this was it be here early it be here at the start it be here to welcome people as they moved into those houses with it not complete until up to I appreciate there are other triggers but essentially up to you know 70 cent then it has lost its original intent is completely driven a horse and cart through it to be quite frank and unreasonableness I think it's highly reasonable for residents to expect us to honour and stand up for them and you know that's what we're here to do isn't it stand up for residents and and there is an obligation in place the residents completely you know understand where they're coming from if it does change in time I think we have to refuse it and if they want to come back with for 24 months then that's their that's their choice but we cannot vote on something that's not been consulted on and I think it's time for the developer to honour their original agreement it's no surprise it's been there for thank you the next speaker is me unless as councillor William says councillor Tumi Hawkins wanted to speak again yes I do go ahead I thank you chair through you I didn't think I see the day when I'd be agreeing with councillor Heather Williams in total almost but there we go these things happen and I'm happy that the obligation is being changed in this way and I think the incentive even though it is there and I appreciate the work that has been done to try and get this sort of stepped you know stepped proposal I still think it completely misses the original intention and purpose of the initial obligation so I would I'm not happy thank you very much I'm now given our time so as you speak members if there's anything additional to say from what we've heard from councillor Heather Williams and councillor Tumi Hawkins taking into consideration what Steven Reed and Chris Carter have both said then please speak but not necessarily a repetition of what the things that we've just heard Chairman we now have a number of officers wanting to speak again so I'm going to go Steven Reed and I think also Chris no we've confused perhaps you can clarify had Steven Reed and Chris Carter spoken we've had Anna Bradnum and we've had councillor Tumi Hawkins it's yourself now Vice Chair thank you Chair I suggest we look at this what's happened in the past and look ahead to the future in terms of the past flagship who are a charity took this on from another developer and there are genuine reasons which have been outlined to us why there has been a delay in refurbishing the the print house they maintain that there has been consultation with Alia along that period that may be determined later but it's not a matter for us really now we have to look to the future and the question I think has to be what purpose would be served in refusing this application would that result in the converted community facilities being made available sooner might it even threaten the funding of those converted facilities being made available at all we're told that if we were to refuse this then those intending to move into the houses which have now been completed might in theory be prevented from doing so I'm not sure I see any purpose in that and it might well as Mr Reid has explained depend on further legal action on behalf of the council so the question is is this community building likely to be delivered sooner if we agree to this application than if we were to refuse it my view is that taking account of assurances from officers it would probably make no difference the community building would be delivered at the timescale which is now feasible regardless of whether we agree to this application or not so I'm inclined to say we should now take the officer's advice and agree to this application thank you councillor Faye and I see that we have you'll go back into vice chair and just to help you I see that we have councillor Judith Rippus and then I'll leave it up in your hands again thank you chair I was about to suggest we go to a vote but maybe there's more people who want to speak I see that councillor right wanted to speak again I have this one question from councillor Martin Kahn Martin with this can you please then leave councillor Wright to give his concluding comments to local member there's a simple but I wanted to ask a legal advice normally with a planning application the application is independent of the application but as it goes with the land here we're talking about the section 106 agreement are we allowed to consider the behaviour of the applicant in a situation dealing with an agreement with the land it's a query that we can get advice from Mr Mead or Mr Carter Chris Carter I'm not sure I quite understand the point but certainly the behaviour of an applicant I would advise not to take into account we need to consider the planning merits of this proposal only to vary the section 106 agreement thank you good councillor Nick Wright if you want to give us some concluding comments and then we'll go to a vote on this one thank you chairman and behalf of my community and perhaps council and my residents I'd like to ask that the planning committee refuses this application there is a lack of trust that flagship putting it back they're actually going to deliver this at all we're just being told councillor Wright that we can't consider the applicant but if you just well I I think you can look at the incentives and the triggers can't you yes the triggers are there but the triggers are there at the moment and those have not been met flagship you will have picked up the comment that you know they'd like to move on the houses and let them be occupied passing on the responsibility to the residents they would pick up the responsibility for delivering this community building in the end now to me that rings real alarm bells and it should to the rest of the committee the useful purpose of this 106 as it stands is that a community building still has to be delivered and at the moment we have some leverage over flagship in that they cannot occupy the buildings till they get on and deliver it they've had plenty of time to do that and they need to get on and deliver it and you know as a local planning authority we have to stick to our 106s we can't keep shifting ground otherwise what's the point of making them at all if you're going to give all the way through because people and developers will not pay attention to us they'll just say we'll get there and then we'll let it slip and we'll deal with it at the time so that's the points that I wish to make and I would urge the committee to refuse this application thank you I would like to vote now Stephen Reed wanted to advise on the legal aspects of that again if I may I just want to reiterate that the planning obligation that is before members is robust does provide certainty it does not put any obligation on homeowners to deliver the community building which is a concern of council right what it does do is it means through mortgage monies to provide certainty that occupations will not take place above each of the new triggers and I would urge members to have regard to that improved position thank you and before we go to the vote obviously we need to clarify the reasons for refusal Chris yes chair I have got a reason that officers have prepared if I just read this out the proposed variation to the legal agreement is the delivery of the community building in a timely manner resulting in up to 40 dwellings being occupied without adequate community provision consequently the proposal would be contrary to policy H4 of the south kermish district local plan 2018 which requires redevelopment of pact with everard west central to secure a mix of community employment and housing uses and policies sc4 and sc6 which require all housing developments to contribute towards the provision of indoor community facilities to meet the need generated thank you I think that captures perfectly what the concerns that are there which is whether or not not only whether it's timely but also if it's there as part of the place making which are part of our policies as residents go into those dwellings and we've also heard from the other side that this is seen by those who've negotiated this as being a very robust way of being able to enforce and ensure that that does happen but at a time when we're looking at 75% occupancy so members that's the balance that we have before us we'll go to the vote and this is about this is on approval of the changes that are being put forward here in front of us the recommendation is approval so please answer for against or abstain councillor henry bachelor henry's not here oh gosh sorry I understand a breadman please that one to me sorry I think I'm going to vote for the secure conditions so for this application councillor martin carne feel a bit like Anna yes for councillor fein for councillor to me Hawkins against councillor judy's ripeth against councillor Debra Roberts against councillor Heather Williams councillor Nick right against and myself against six to three six to three against that's a refusal on that application it's now 535 I'm going to suggest that we have a 10 minute break I see that councillor dr Richard Williams has been able to rejoin this thank you thank you and we'll come back again members for the remaining items on the agenda thank you everybody 10 minutes please turn your camera and microphone off does anyone got a way of contacting Henry bachelor he may want him to resume the vice chair yes I'll give him a call if you like thank you I haven't got his number Andy please microphone and camera off thank you coming back at 545 hi Liam hi so we are live that right yeah yeah we're still live thanks thank you hello everybody this is the south camp oh hello Chris I'm so sorry for interrupting just with regard to the further extension of the meeting Rebecca Dobson Democratic Services Manager should just be about to join us to explain the standing orders in that regard very much second no thanks very much for checking up on that I'll do a roll call meanwhile um councillor Henry bachelor yeah I'm back chair you're back and you're now vice chair again thank you very much good to be back thank you councillor Bradenam present councillor Dr Martin Kahn present Peter Fein present thank you for your help councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins present councillor Judith Rippeth present councillor Debra Roberts yeah councillor Heather Williams vice chairman councillor Dr Richard Williams anybody no anybody on your face councillor Nick Wright present so we're just um I've asked for clarification about um standing orders regarding extension of time of the meeting because we had after four hours we all agreed to continue um so we can still do that while we're waiting to see if we can somebody can contact the councillor Dr Richard Williams I am here chair sorry thank you sorry yes I'm sorry it's my fault thanks Rebecca Dobson from Democratic Services have you joined us yet you're still trying to get in Chris is that giving up the will to live probably chairman I'm just checking chair be with me sorry hi chair there's nobody in the lobby at the moment it's Liam just to let you know there's no one in the lobby I think Rebecca is just about to join us I'm so sorry Chris we may have to extend the meeting to find out if we can extend the meeting yes I do apologise I'm not quite sure what the delay is there we go hello Rebecca welcome hello chair hello councillor Halings thank you so the question Rebecca is um we extended the meeting once after four hours and I just wanted to understand what situation we're in there yes I mean I think in correspondence with Chris Carter I was wondering whether on principles of ensuring everyone's well-being it would be better to take a second vote but on then checking the motions without notice they are quite specific so the one in relation to continuing beyond four hours in duration simply states that so the provision is there to move that the meeting continue beyond four hours in duration I understand that you've already done that yes um it doesn't say to do that again after a further four hours um I was limited after that I would think so and I have um in my experience encountered longer meetings so I think that that would probably be the guiding factor okay okay thank you very much thank you for caring for everybody's health and well thank you thank you very much chair okay thank you very much so members you know I hope you're with us we did agree to continue and I think we will try and finish the agenda if possible we will take a rain check if that's taking us far too much into the evening hours we are now on agenda item 11 page 321 of your agenda pack that's application S stroke 3215 stroke 19 DC long stand in the retreat of Puse Lane the proposal it's the discharge of condition four foul water drainage and condition five surface water drainage planning permission S stroke 2937 stroke 16 FL application applicant is Mr Jerry Cadu from Landbrook Homes key material considerations for foul water drainage surface water drainage and flood risk it's not a departure application um original decision drew by 11th December 2019 and why is it before us at committee um because at our January meeting we did approve the discharge of these conditions four and five but um the planning committee meeting does require further assessment and clarification from officers and the offer recommendation we'll now hear from the officer about those issues which has meant that this is coming before us again today um officer recommendation is that we discharge the conditions um we're looking at this afresh the presenting officer is Lewis Tomlinson Lewis do you want to give us a little bit of a summary of why it's before us again and what we need to consider as committee members now I'll just share my screen just so you can see a relevant information in front of you great thank you chair so members will recall considering the application to discharge condition four foul water drainage and condition five surface water drainage planning permission s slash two nine three seven slash 16 slash FL at the 13th of January 2021 planning committee meeting the committee resolved to discharge conditions at the January meeting officers advise members that sustainable drainage systems non-statuary technical standards only applies to development of 10 homes or more or major commercial development and therefore was not relevant to the application to discharge conditions given that it was only for one dwelling aka a minor application officers have sought counsel advice on this matter following a post committee representation infuse lane consortium despite the non-statuary technical standards guidance itself being framed only to apply to 10 plus homes or major developments as set out in the accompanying statement of December 2014 the council's adopted policy CC slash eight the 2018 local plan which refers to standards that criterion a does not specify development threshold for compliance with the standards therefore in light of this officers considered that the standards standards guidance is relevant for the purposes of assessing against the requirements of CC eight STAN tech the council's appointed independent drainage consultant has provided a further supplementary technical note dated the 5th February 2021 which provides a further assessment against the non-statuary technical standards as appendix one of the report it concludes that all principles or the standards are passed apart from peak flow control however the proportionate approach is taken to the proposal given limitations of a single dwelling and achieving the necessary controls on peak flow officers are set this advice and consider proposal does comply with the principles of the non-statuary technical standards as far as reasonable practical given the minor nature of the proposal and that a refusal to discharge condition against CC eight on this point of conflict with the not be justified in the circumstances of this case so I'll just quickly run through the site and the proposal just to remind members so as stated there's two conditions condition for is to do a fair water drainage condition five is service water drainage this is the site so the site is within the development framework boundary of Longstanton village falls outside the conservation area of the retreat this is just an aerial site view of the site so the site in question is here these are the approved plans of the dwelling and this is the approved site plan so just to kind of summarize the conditions and what's been submitted so the foul water discharge of foul drainage into an existing foul sewer infused lane for the service water drainage discharge of service water to a tenuration tank located within the rear garden of the dwelling a hydro break below control chamber is shown at the outfall to the proposed storage tenuration tank which discharges to the existing water core stitch to the north and the drive driveway seven dwelling is proposed as a gravel driveway operating as an infiltration filter filter feature sorry so the officer recommendation is to ask questions thank you chair thank you very much Lewis do we have any clarification questions for the case officer nothing at the moment chair thank you very much so we'll move forward now to the public speakers and mr. Fulton is I see already ready that's right thank you mr. Fulton and if you want to introduce yourself although I don't must people know you but introduce yourself and then we'll be able to start with your three minutes I think everyone here knows me fairly well so I'll just get started in the interest of trying to hurry this up so the starting point in the consideration of an application to discharge a planning condition is to have regard to the terms of the relevant planning permission including any conditions attached and any approved plans identified in any condition in this case the approved plan includes a large double driveway parking area and turning area of approximately 110 square meters which is specifically identified and approved and labeled in English as being hard paved the plan submitted for this charge of condition application however do not comply with the approved plans and change it to a gravel driveway the local planning authority simply has no power to amend a planning permission using the discharge of conditions process even if the LPA consider the change to be non-material an application must be submitted under section 96a of the 1990 act in order for the LPA to have any lawful of power to amend the Exxam permission furthermore when construing a planning condition a planning condition is to be construed in conjunction with its reason for imposition so that its purpose and meaning can be properly understood in this case the inspector's decision notice reads as follows quote in particular conditions relating to foul and service water drainage are necessary to prevent flooding and the need to take effect prior to commencement to ensure an orderly sequence of works a condition requiring adherence to the approved plan is needed in the interest of certainty however a specific condition controlling runoff from the new dwelling driveway is unnecessary as this can be controlled by the condition that I have imposed relating to service water drainage in the case of this application there is no way around it the officers report fails to correctly apprehend the nature of the permission the meaning of the condition and I'll stop there this is one of about five major problems I did write to Mr Kelly last week and told him this should not go back to the committee and I asked him to meet with me he did not have time to do so and no other officers contacted me to offer to meet so I regret that the committee's time has been wasted again it's very unfortunate that concludes my remarks thank you thank you and do we have any questions for clarification from Mr Fulton no one's indicated yet chair sorry I tell Eli Debra Roberts Councillor Roberts thank you very much good evening Mr Fulton haven't we all had a long day Mr Fulton can you just tell me given what you've just said about it I presume what you're saying is that we can't do what we are charged to do this afternoon and that this has to be actually a new planning application no the local planning authority has discretionary power to consider amendments the application is free I mean the applicant is free to put in an amendment if he wishes to do so and it's within the discretion of the local authority whether to entertain it I suspect that officers in this case will be willing another amendment because they've done so in the past but haven't done so at this moment in time okay thank you very much any other questions for clarification no one's indicated yet chair okay thank you very much Mr Fulton and we now hear from I'd like to invite Mr Cadu Jerry Cadu who's the applicant yes good evening all I've got no comment to make on this application but I would like to speak on the the next one I am 12 on the agenda thank you very much thank you and we don't have any representation from the parish council from Longstanton parish council and I haven't had a request from any of the local members to speak to this item so we can move directly to the debate members anybody like to speak first up is councillor Roberts councillor Roberts oh dear me we always seem to be in trouble don't we with these particular application or ones that views land consortium pick up you know I'm glad that they do pick them up because we have to do things right so I think really mine is a question at this moment I did what Mr Fulton has just said about amendments I'm disappointed when I hear a rate paying resident who's paying officers salaries and members allowance is councillor Roberts can you just go directly to the I am saying yeah but this is part of the thing well I mean that's just democracy in general so can you when somebody says that they've asked officers to contact them or talk to them and they're willing to do so I think it's very disappointing to hear that nobody has been in touch with Mr Fulton because maybe it could have been resolved and so I want to know really from officers what what are they intending to do now are they intending to ask this applicant for an amendment thank you chairman um Lewis or Chris sorry chair through you I personally wasn't aware that Mr Fulton had written to Mr Kelly I don't know if Stephen Reed can perhaps advise on the legal point that Mr Fulton is racing on this occasion which is about the section 96a whether or not that's it's necessary for an amendment application to be made I suppose the question is whether the plan is shown in the condition or within the reasonable scope of the permission Stephen chair if I may the application that is before members is for discharge of conditions four and five the point that Mr Fulton has made relate to a drawing which in my view does not affect discharge of those conditions right members this came before us in January it's come back the case officer has explained the reasons it came back it's before us again Mr Fulton has raised concerns relating to section 96a around that drawing that Mr Reed has just referred to we've just heard from our legal advisor that that doesn't impact this decision on condition discharging conditions four and five and the officer recommends that there is no reason in fact there's not grounds for us not to follow his advice which is recommended in the papers I see that nobody is asking to speak and therefore I think we could move to the vote is that right no Councillor Heather Williams is Councillor Heather Williams I find this a bit worrying a bit of element of deja vu and I imagine some other members are feeling the same in relation to this amendment I don't know if it's so there's been a drawing that's been changed Stephen's advice is that we don't need to take that as it's not an amendment or is it not material amendment and very my advice is that you can discharge conditions four and five notwithstanding that there is an old drawing which shows a paved area can somebody clarify the issue of the amendment because what I'd understood is I don't Chris yes thank you as I heard it Mr Fulton is raising the issue of the original commission showing a paved driveway area and this condition showing that that would be a gravel area to act as an infiltration feature and those two things being different the advice from Mr Reed which I agree with is that these conditions can be dealt with today and the amendment to that original permission could come under section 96A as Mr Fulton commented could come following the discharge of these conditions I believe there's no reason why that couldn't happen so I believe these conditions can be discharged today should the committee agree Councillor Williams thank you for that advice yeah thank you so we have Councillor Hawkins next chair thank you chair I think my point is the reason this has come back was because of the non-statutory technical standard which we talked about before applying to a single building so and as we have had from STANTEC this is acceptable it is good to go and that really is the consideration of this current application so I move that we vote on this please yeah thank you just have one more speaker chair which is Councillor Ripper Councillor Ripper do you mind if we move to second that yes okay good thank you very much I will do a roll call members and what we are voting on is the recommendation by the officer in this report that there's approval for the discharge of conditions 4 and 5 so please answer 4 against or abstain Councillor Henry Batchelor 4 Councillor Anna Bradnam said it very firmly before but I was muted sorry 4 Councillor Martin Kahn 4 Councillor Peter Fain 4 Councillor Tumi Hawkins 4 Councillor Judith Rippith 4 Councillor Deborah Roberts Abstain I don't know if about it it's too much of a model Councillor Heather Williams Abstain 4 Councillor Nick Wright 4 and myself 4 I have 9, 4 and 2 abstentions that's been approved thank you everybody we'll move to agenda item 12 page 349 in your agenda pack Steven Reid could you please turn off your camera sorry thank you very much this is the retreat Fuselain Longstanton application 20 stroke 02453 stroke S73 and the proposal is for the variation of condition 7 of the traffic management plan pursuant to planning permission S 0277 stroke 19 FL to reflect the proposals in the traffic management plan to substitute the current wording in condition 7 with the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the traffic management plan prepared by SLR consulting version final one and dated December 2019 which is a resubmission the applicant is Mr Jerry Cadu Landbrook Homes our key material considerations are highway safety including the safety of all users of the adopted and unobdopted highways in the vicinity of the site it's not a departure decision would do by 16th of July 2020 and the application brought to committee this was before us at January planning committee and members gave an earlier endorsement to approve the S73 submission this required a further assessment in clarification from officers and that's what we'll receive today from Lewis Tomlinson the officer recommendation remains to approve the S73 Lewis thank you very much for want to give us any update and present the issues that we should take into consideration thank you chair I'll just share my screen thank you chair so members will recall considering this application at the 13th of January 2021 planning committee meeting the committee resolved to approve the application 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 Longstanton the addition of an informative urgent establishment of the liaison mechanism between residents the site manager and Longstanton parish council to monitor compliance with the traffic management plan and to resolve any disputes and the conditions and informative set out in the report at the planning committee meeting in a response to a point raised at the meeting by Mr. Fulton on behalf of fuselain consortium officers advised that article 15 of the town and country planning development management procedure order 2015 which is the publicity requirements for planning applications did not apply to the section same to free application because it was not an application for planning permission but an application to vary the word and other condition this was an error because a section same to free application is still an application for planning permission however the context within which this point was raised at the committee related to whether the application had been advertised as effects in a public right of way as fuselain is a public right of way officers confirmed that in fact the application was advertised as effects in the public right of way and article 15 has been satisfied in this case a copy of this advert is attached as appendix 1 to the report representation had been sent to democratic services from 6 Mitchcroft road on the evening of the 12th of January the day before planning committee due to human error this representation was not passed to planning officers and therefore was not reported to members this representation can be summarized as follows the conditions were not expected on highway safety grounds recommended conditions regarding the lane to be widened to five meters insertion of a two by two meter pedestrian visibility display and the maintenance maintenance of such displays the conditions were not imposed on the original planning consent nor did the highway authority request such conditions on the current application as such conditions now fused lane consortium raised concerns this representation went to the heart of the key matters in the committee's decision and therefore it would be likely that the committee's decision would not have been the same if representation had been taken into account officers disagree with this particular point for the reasons already stated it's also should be taken into account this late representation also does not raise a new material considerations and as such would not change the officer recommendation so I just run through the site and the proposal site location plan is in front of you and this relates to the front of the site so the retreat around here and you've already seen their review of the site but just to clarify it's this heart of the site that's the approved site plan approved elevations approved floor plans approved street elevation I've got a number of photos so I go through these quite quickly as you've seen them previously so this is a photo fused lane from the access off the high street this is a view along the high street this is another view along the high street further one this is the entrance looking towards the north looking towards the south from the entrance this is looking down fused lane again another one looking down this is the informal turning head opposite the retreat access onto fused lane from the public right away to home farm so just why the applicant submitted this section 73 the applicant claims that the submitted traffic management plan is informed by lessons learned during the construction 2018 traffic management plan includes details of the arrangement of delivery of materials, turn and movement enclosure of the site, contractor parking as well as detailed areas for material storage the site in this case the site and the size of development plot itself however means that space for parking within the site is limited therefore the applicant has submitted this section 73 to amend the wording of the traffic management plan to allow offsite contractor parking so the recommendation is approval subject to what was outlined at the beginning but just to go over it it's subject to the revision of paragraph 3.24 of the traffic management plan to state that during the construction stage delivery vehicle shall not park on any street within the village of Bond Stanton the addition of an informative to ensure that there is a discussion set up between residents, site manager and Bond Stanton parish council to monitor compliance with traffic management plan but also to resolve any disputes and it's also subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report thank you chair. Thank you very much Lewis members do you have any clarification questions for the case officer? No one's indicated chair thank you you're already there Mr. Fulton I'm just about to invite you as public speakers come into the room thank you very much I'm ready yes okay so at the January meeting councilor Wright who I very much respect and with him I usually almost always agree said that members had to trust the advice they were being given by officers I just like to reflect on the scorecard so far of the council on the last application for the discharge conditions the first decision was quashed by the High Court and the second and third decisions the council sought outside legal advice from council who advised officers not to grant approval and to remit for redetermination so I think we see a clear trend there and following blindly the advice of officers that is plainly questionable I do not think it's going to be a successful strategy for the council going forward on this particular application the officers report was published on the first of April the members of the consortium are all great pairs of the district based on the council statement of community involvement we have a legitimate expectation the material consultation responses received by the council will be taken into account on 14 December the consortium the material representation is to the case officer on conditions 11 and 12 these representations are not mentioned summarized or there's no reference made to them in the officers report and the officers report does not even allude to addressing these conditions on March the first representations were made by the shoes length consortium these have been published on the council's website since March 1st these representations the division of the development site and smaller parcels of individual dwellings that have considered outside their spatial context would provide a means to circumvent the requirements for infrastructure set forth in the development plan very material consideration to this and many other applications the community has heard today on the 14th of March the consortium submitted representations online again these representations have been published on the site since the 14th of March these representations the local planning authority has failed to apply its mind to the evaluation of the reasonability of the local highway authorities history of statutory consultation responses which are clearly contradictory and simply do not add up even if the council were to read these representations today that is still materially unfair to the consortium the proper sequence would have been for the officer to consider our representations at the design humans formulating his recommendation the officer's report should have been published five clear days in advance and if we disagreed with the officer's conclusions we would have had five clear days to lobby committee members I'll just stop here I could go on for longer but I mean at some point the committee is going to have to realize that we have to find a new solution we can't keep wasting committee time on this and wasting the court's time so thank you for your consideration that's all Thank you Mr. Fulton any clarification questions for Mr. Fulton We have the case officer Lewis would like to come back Mr. Chair it's not a question for Mr. Fulton sorry I forgot to mention that there's an update report that was issued in response to a representation received from Fuse Lane consortium which members have seen Thank you The update report that was mentioned by Mr. Lewis did not contain any of the representations or allusions to the representations that I mentioned Thank you Thank you Mr. Fulton Are there any questions Mr. Fulton Yeah there was one from Councillor Roberts Hello there Mr. Fulton Can you tell me Do you feel that you are being ignored by South Cambridge District Council Do you feel that's deliberate or not and is this one also going to end up in the High Court The council's current strategy to engage in with me and the consortium is to have no engagement at all This is why we keep having to go to the court If we could sit down and work I know Mr. Kelly and Ms. Brown are reasonable people ask this Mr. Carter I think if we could sit down over Zoom or over teams I think we can make significant progress closely to date the council has not been willing to do this so we've been forced to take the only recourse we can which is through the legal system and it's very unfortunate and I continue to try to engage with officers almost on a weekly basis Thank you No matter what time of day this is absolutely we're not going to deal with individuals or people how I have disparaging comments Thank you Councillor Roberts I think you've asked that clarification question Any other questions for Mr. Fulton There is one from Councillor Richard Williams Thank you Thank you chair Thank you Mr. Fulton Just so I can get it sort of clear in my mind in terms of weighing up the different arguments What would be the nub of your case as to why the committee should turn this down I think I'd find this a summary I don't think the committee can refuse it today because the committee hasn't even been given a summary of the material considerations I think a refusal today would be just unfair as an approval because basic officers reports are to be read benevolently and keeping in mind that they're written for a training councillor to have local knowledge but in this case there are just so many representations missing I just don't see any way the officers report could be deemed to be acceptable within the standards that have been set in case law Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you very much Mr Fulton Miss Oh Do we have one more question Is there one from Councillor Fulton Not from Mr Fulton, thank you Thank you Thank you very much Mr Fulton We now have the applicant Mr Kaduja Can you go to this one Yes thank you very much My name is Jerry Kaduja I'm the applicant for this site This is the fifth application in respect of a traffic management plan for this site of two dwellings The first application was made on the 18th of July 2019 some 20 months ago The current traffic management plan has been produced as a result of extensive consultation with highways We have already confirmed they have no objections to the proposal It should be noted that in regard to the single plot to the rear of the proposed site the planning inspector in considering the appeal for that site concluded the development would have no adverse effect on highway safety and that conditions relating to traffic management or road improvements were completely unjustified I understand that the Paris Council raised concerns in respect of highway safety In response to those concerns I already met with the district councillor the Paris Council chair and the Paris clerk at Fuselay and I have given them my personal assurance that I will continue to work with them before and during the construction phase in site to ensure that safeguarding users of Fuselay is our number one priority Thank you Thank you very much Jerry Are there any questions that you would like to do? Not that I can see chair Thank you Sorry I am so slow off the mark I do apologise So I just wanted to clarify with Mr Cadu through you chair if I may I have slightly lost track and I just wanted to clarify did Mr Cadu agree with the approval of the section 73 or were you disagreeing with it? Sorry I don't really understand the question My question is following the earlier endorsement at the previous meeting the reason this application has come back is because there was a question about the section 73 application I just wanted to clarify we have been recommended in the report to continue to approve that section 73 application and I just wanted to clarify with you if you are content with that or not Yes I am content Thank you We don't have Sorry We don't have any representation of the parish council nor from local members so we will move directly into the debate members over this Do we have anybody who would like to speak I think councillor Toomey Hawkins has to speak Yes Can you take your camera off Yes thank you very much chair I think this is back before us for the reason that has been explained which is whether or not the application was publicised In the right way with section 73 Exactly and that was done Yep that was questioned and it was done Yes and it's been confirmed here So I don't see really what the problem is if we have the answer because we considered this before we resolved to grant permission the question raised has now been answered Yes it was advertised in the right way So I think that's an answer and I would move that we we go to the votes chair So there's a move to go to the vote is there anybody would like to speak or will we move to the vote Yes me please chairman Thank you chairman and when Mr Fulton said he basically was very disappointed and wanted an opportunity to speak and to engage with officers I said yes don't we all and I wasn't being disparaging what I was meaning was that I think a lot of this could be avoided backwards and forwards and I think it is a question of the two sides speaking to each other I do fear that we are now behaving with you as consortium as though they're almost as though they are the enemy rather than actually accept that they've got every right to pull us up about things make comments about things explain where they believe things are wrong I'm saying chairman let's please talk to these people please officers it may give you a lot of work but actually that's your fault but let's start talking to Duke Lane Consortium and we maybe won't be having visits up to the High Court or planning meetings going on until half past six at night thank you chairman I think we hardly blame the meeting going on this long on to fuse things we've only just come on to this one can you turn your camera off unless you want to speak again the next two speakers are councillors Bradlam and Ripeth councillor Bradlam and Ripeth you've got something that will help us in terms of the vote I just wanted to suggest that I think we should go to the vote happy to second and Stephen Reed will this help us within the voting yeah no it won't help you with the voting but I just wanted to correct Mr Fulton saying there's been no engagement with the council I'm engaged by email with Mr Fulton if not on a weekly basis then certainly more than once a month so there is engagement but not face to face maybe chairman and then we've also got challenges haven't we Mr Fulton was talking about a Zoom meeting I was copied in on correspondence between Mr Fulton and Mr Kelly prior to about this particular agenda item over the last week members were going to move to the vote and the recommendation on page 351 is the same as the recommendation that we had in front of us in the January committee but we're coming to this afresh Chris Carter yes sorry sorry chair I regret to interject but it would appear that the two representations Mr Fulton has suggested were submitted have been submitted and may not have been taken into account by officers I'm afraid on that basis I would have to recommend that we do defer this item further for those representations to be considered to see whether or not they do raise any additional points over and above those that have already been considered I do apologise thank you Councillor Roberts I think we all hope that there won't be both applicant members committee and objector that we don't continue to meet eras like this so members I'll put it to you that we defer on the basis of that advice from Chris Carter that by affirmation we vote to defer this application agreed agreed anybody can I does anybody not agree me against so I've got I will now do a roll call sorry I'll go with a roll call Chairman do we not need to debate the motion of deferral yes I thought I could do by affirmation but obviously yes so we can debate that motion for deferral so I'm happy to move the motion for deferral is there anybody who would like to second that I'll second it Chairman thank you and now freedom to speak perhaps the Judith Rippers perhaps that would like to speak to that yes please Chair if I may I think what I wanted to say was can we not still resolve to grant this subject to a review of those comments and if they didn't have any bearing to grant the permission instead of coming back to committee we could put that to Chris Carter I'm assuming that he's considered that before giving us that advice and Chris do you want to answer that Chair in the circumstances I haven't but I think if the committee was so minded they could delegate authority to the director of planning to consider the additional representations and whether or not they raise any issues which have not already been considered in front of you I think that is something the committee could decide to do if it wished okay thank you I will move that then so what we'll do we've got two motions one is to defer but one is the other motion is to not defer but to go ahead with the vote and giving delegated authority that if it's the vote shows that this is approved then there's delegated authority for the director of planning in consideration with I assume with chair and vice chair to make sure to verify whether or not those representations provide any changes that would need to be taken into account is that correctly representative chairman chairman I think I seconded the motion I do normally get to speak yes so I'm just clarifying if that's the alternative motion that's okay Heather and chairman can I just suggest that we deal with one motion at a time no I know I'm just trying to understand so yes thank you so before we vote on the one I think it's understanding what the alternative is but has that been correctly represented thank you good so knowing that let's hear now from the person councillor Williams who is seconding the motion to defer thank you chairman I think we need to take officers advice on it it is regrettable no one regrets it more than more than I right now because you know we're all councillors we've had a long day and we give up personal sacrifices actually to do this do this job so I think we're all equally frustrated that this is going to result in a deferral but if we were to do as has been suggested and we can look at that as an option but to make a decision and then potentially have it come back anyway and then actually whether it's influential or not whether it's material or not we are then delegating that to two officers and given the complexity of this of this case for whatever reason and I don't think that's fair I think this has come to committee councillors one way or another have to decide on this it's not right to put officers in that position and they will then be doing making a delegated decision as to whether the new submission is material or not I think it's frustrating you know I'm going to miss my daughter's bedtime tonight I cannot tell you how frustrating that is but it is the right thing to do and the right thing to do is to defer it because this isn't fair on anybody at all so I think in terms of fairness we and I'm the one who's moved it but we have an error in not publishing the representations and do we have other speakers to this motion I think councillor Wright and then Fein and Roberts Roberts and if you really feel we need to speak or we just go to the vote because I think we've got strong the strong opinions on this and they could be shown through the vote and yes no German you'd like to see that's fine councillor Wright thank you and I would urge the committee to defer this not to do a delegated decision because I think this is one that should absolutely be done in the open and it should be transparent so let's defer and get this sorted out and let it come back again okay who do we have next councillor Roberts thank you Chairman we have to be open about this we've made a little mistake again however it's got to be shown to the public that when we do we're big enough to put our hands up and say we need to hold this back for a while we've got to get the public's confidence in us not just few lanes consortium but the public's confidence in us as a planning authority and we'll only do that by being open the minute you start saying oh no there's no way to do that tonight when the you know when officers have said in their professional opinion we need to do it and I don't want it going back to the high court again please let's try to avoid any more aggravation with this and I think the deferment is a very sensible and I'm glad the officers thank you and as we know so material consideration isn't the threat of something going to the high court but I think we've heard the reasons there as to why this might go to deferral shall now take it to the vote on this motion which is whether or not it goes to deferral the motion is that this is deferred so it's for against or abstain on that motion Councillor Henry Batchelor against Councillor Anna Bradnam for Councillor Martin Carn against Councillor Peter Fein against Councillor Tumi Hawkins against Councillor Deborah Roberts for Councillor Heather Williams for Councillor Richard Williams for Councillor Nick Wright for and myself for I presented the motion so that's six five for deferral so the that means that the item is deferred which means if I understand correctly that we wouldn't move to the second motion because the decision has already been made for deferral is that correct I agree with that yes please thank you Chris may I say Chairman with your permission I just wanted to say that I wanted to point out that I think this committee is being the very fairest and I object to people alleging that it's not being fair because I think we are thank you Councillor Anna Bradnam I think we'll do that through actions I think members we move to item number 13 Camborn the proposed diversion of a public footpath pages three seven three in your agenda and page seven three so this is to report on the proposed diversion of Camborn public footpath number seven in the parish of Camborn and this is from James Stringer the asset information definitive map officer do we have Mr. Stringer with us good evening hello James how are you saying I haven't been here all the whole time yes thank you do you want to run us through this yeah I'll keep this very short an application has been received by Cambridgeshire County Council acting on behalf of South Cambridgeshire District Council under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act the application asks South Cambridgeshire as the local planning authority to make and confirm if the public footpath order to divert a public footpath to enable the delivery of the consented Camborn west phase one strategic landscaping under permission s slash four one six one eight slash nineteen slash rm a background and overview of the proposal was detailed in sections one two and three of the enclosed report on pages three seven three in the agenda pack public footpaths record on the legal highway record known as the definitive math and statement can only be altered by legal order whilst the majority of those powers rest with the local highway authority provision is made within the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act to alter the public highway in respect to footpaths bridleways and restricted byways where the local planning authority is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to enable a consented development to be delivered this is subject to the alternative route in the case of reversions being to an acceptable standard to the local highway authority or that they're all being a clause within any public path order to allow for improvements to be made to an alternative highway. The full legislation can be found in section four of the report. Cambridgeshire County Council's local highway authority confirmed on the 16th of March that it was happy with the proposal and that it was in line with the its non motorized user policy and rights of way improvement plan detailed in section five of the report. Consultations were undertaken and no objections were received. The grounds for this diversion are detailed in section seven and eight. The application before the committee relates solely to whether a public path order should be made and confirmed if unopposed to divert Kanborn Public Footpath number seven. The application does not provide the committee with an opportunity to revisit the merits of the enabling permission in this case the reserve matters application for the phase one and landscaping. My recommendation is set out in section 10 and that is that the diversion is necessary and that an order should be made. Thank you. Thank you for lovely clarity any clarification questions there? No one's indicated chair Thank you and we don't have any speakers can I move to a vote on this members Agreed The recommendation here as just expressed by James Stringer is that we move to approve the proposed diversion of Kanborn Public Footpath number seven can I take that by affirmation Agreed Anybody against? Any abstentions? No Thank you very much Thank you Agenda item 14 members is the enforcement report on page 4 and 5 Do we have Alistair with us? Good evening Surely not that time I've got one small update with regard to Elmwood House They have done some part work there partially complying with the notice so we'll look to see if we get any further work done I was also looking to introduce you to my replacement this will be the last committee that I'll be reporting to Will Holloway if you'd like to show your face Yes hello good evening everybody I can't see your face I'm showing on my camera It might just take a bit of time to before while we're waiting for your face perhaps what we can do is also show our appreciation to Alistair for all you've done Alistair we know critical job and it's critical to the reputation and critical to making things fair for everybody who goes through the planning system in terms of enforcement and thank you very much for everything that you've done for us Thank you very much for saying that chair You're the first and definitely part of the council to actually thank me but if you have got any enquiries Will is your man so he will be dealing with everything in future and I will be resuming my role as a senior enforcement officer If anyone's got any questions happy to try and answer them We still haven't got a face for you Will but I'm sure that we can put a face to the name in future meetings Sorry chair I keep coming in and coming back out of my camera I'm still not showing some reason Okay thank you for that and then agenda item 15 which are appealed against planning I think we have request speak Yeah there are some speakers chair Three in fact starting with councillor Griffith Yeah Thank you Alistair I've just got one question before you go I just wanted to ask about Fenrod and Milton and the enforcement of that field with I know Tony Wallace has been working on this with getting it not looking like a motocross track anymore You still there Alistair I think you should be saying Will Yeah Will Sorry Alistair yes if you want to reply I think Alistair's camera looked as if it had frozen Yeah sorry I did not hear it I didn't hear your question My question was about Fenrod and Milton and the field there which is still looking like a motocross track I know that Tony Wallace has been working hard on this I just wondered if there were an update I'm sorry I'm just going to tell my husband to shut that door is he No Tony Tony's still consulting with the owner to try and get a result on this and we've had no instruction to proceed to prosecution at this stage Okay any sort of time span in your mind Difficult to say I can't say I mean at the moment it's not being used so the noise problem which was the main issue is no longer with us I suppose we're concerned about you know will there be a 2021 season Well if that happens then I'm sure we will move straight to prosecution Thank you, thanks very much Thank you Councillor Heather Williams is next Thank you Through yourself Chairman just to echo thanks to Alistair for all he's done and the reports he's given to us it's always been a welcome end to our meetings when we see your face pop up we know the end near of the meeting and welcome to Will and you've got very big boots to fill and there are few applications that Councillor Wright will need you to get up to speed on I'm sure Alistair will help you with that he does have his favourite application but thank you Alistair for more of us Thank you very much Councillor Williams I appreciate it it's not been easy it's been a difficult time for everybody with the pandemic and losing a valued member of staff very suddenly and a personal friend was very difficult We do understand that Alistair and thank you very much for stepping up And we have a question from Councillor Bradlam as well Thank you I wanted to express my thanks to Alistair as well because as he said it's not been an easy year in all sorts of ways and I think we're very glad that you'll be carrying on as a senior and that your experience will be with us as we go forward because one thing we do know about enforcement is that you need a long memory of sites so I'm very glad that you're staying with us Alistair and thank you for everything you've done Thank you very much Councillor Thank you And Councillor Hawkins Thank you Chair just to say big thank you to Alistair for stepping up as you said not been easy and I know what it's been like behind the scenes so big thanks and you're still here with us Good Thank you Thank you and as you said I think just to make us reflect we started this morning with reflection on the death of this Royal House Prince Philip I think you've also made us reflect on just ordinary people and this pandemic and the year and the people that we've lost who are very valued and we may not have a moment's reflection but they do we do think of them so thank you very much for that We move on to a gender item 15 which are appeals against planning decisions Chris Thanks Chair I'm not going to update on any specific cases one matter just to inform the committee of you'll recall a decision on Strawberry Farm Little Abington some months ago the committee resolved to grant permission subject to number of conditions you will also be aware that that permission was issued in error without those conditions it has now been quashed by the High Court and will be reissued with the same conditions agreed by the committee very shortly I just wanted to inform the committee of that Oh that's a very different one so it's actually you know it's enabled it to come back with the conditions so that's good Any questions for Chris No one's shown Chair and I declare at 6.53 I did have a question I don't know if it's uploaded in the chat Yeah Councillor Heather Williams is coming with a late one It wasn't I think it was a bit of a delay my fair is to be fair It was just around page 429 Have we had chance Do we know even on the two applications in Sourston that we've had any new evidence submitted or have we had chance to look at that yet as we've now got dates which I'm pleased to see we've finally got dates Thank you Councillor Williams through you Chair I understand that the dates may be subject to change obviously the council has recently published its new housing delivery statement I think it's called which obviously sets out the five year supply situation the applicant should be given an opportunity to respond to that given it's the most updated position I understand that's there in the process of doing that at the moment so once we receive that obviously it will be a public document as part of the appeal proceedings and that may mean that the date of the hearing is changed that's being discussed with the inspectorate at the moment I saw a date Everything's movable Thank you very much, thank you members I think we heard a building being described as monolithic I think this meeting was rather monolithic Thank you for all for your patience and for sticking with it and thank you for the decisions taken And if I may Chair, thank you for your chairing you got us through this with a lot of patience so thank you Thank you, thanks everybody Thanks to all the officers as well, thank you Bye bye Thank you Thank you Chairman Liam can you confirm that the feed is cut Bye there