 Yn ystod rhaid o'r rhaid ffordd. Good evening everyone. Welcome to this meeting of South Cambridge District Council scrutiny and overview committee. Convened scrutinise the latest stage of the greater Cambridge local plan. My name is Councillor Stephen Drew and I am Chair of this committee. I have specifically invited to this meeting members of the climate and environment advisory committee so that they can contribute to the discussion and help formulate any recommendations that might be appropriate. Welcome colleagues. Can I make a few housekeeping announcements? Those present, including any members of the public observing or any public speakers are asked to note that this meeting is being filmed and live streaming. By your presence, you are deemed to have consented to be filmed and to the use of those images and sound recordings for a webcast. May I remind members that, when speaking, they should not disclose any personal information of any individual, if this might infringe the rights of that individual and breach the protection act. Mae nifer ym weeklyd yn tynnu'r calling yw'r newid yma yn gyfnod o'r gweithio'r cyffredinol. Felly, fel ydwch yn fwyaf'r gweithio, fe allan, mae'r cwestiynau'r cwestiynau rai'r cwestiynau ar gwaith, ac mae eu gwneud arnyn youfwn i'n gweithio, rydyn ni'n mynd i gweithio'r cwestiynau. Mae'r ddweithio'r cwestiynau gweithio ői, yn llyfr. Mae'n cyfeirio'r chweithio'r gweithio'r cwestiynau nhw'n cael ei wneud. I will ask the vice-chair to note the order of speakers, both virtually and in the room. I may point out at this point that there are obviously quite a significant number of members for this and I imagine many will want to speak, so please do be patient with myself and Councillor Cove if we do not get the order entirely correct. Committee members present, I will now invite each of you to introduce yourselves. Members, after I call your name, please introduce yourself and say which ward you represent. I'll start with the Scrooodynow View Committee and, as I said earlier, my name is Councillor Stephen Drew and I am one of the members for Camborn. My vice-chair is Councillor Graham Coe. Thank you, Chair. I'm one of the members for the Fenditon and Fullborn Ward. Thank you. Councillor Anna Bradnam. Thank you, Chair. I'm Anna Bradnam and I'm one of the members for the Milton and Waterbeach Ward. Thank you. Councillor Tom Bygox. I represent Longstown to North Stow, Okington to Westwick. I'm one of the two members. I shall pause for just one moment. Next on my list is Councillor Libby Earle, who I'm not sure I see in the Chamber. Do I see online? Not at the moment. And Councillor Sue Ellington, who has given notice that she may rave slightly late. Councillor Peter Fane. Thank you, Chair. Yes, Peter Fane from Shelford Ward joining you online. Thank you very much. Councillor Sally Ann Hart. Thank you, Chair. I'm Councillor Sally Ann Hart, one of the members for Melbourne Ward. Thank you. Councillor James Hobro. Good evening, Chair. I'm James Hobro and I'm the member for Foxson Ward. Thank you. Councillor Helen Leaming. Thank you, Chair. I'm Councillor Helen Leaming, one of the members for Camborn Ward. And Councillor Judith Rippeth. Good evening. I'm Councillor Judith Rippeth, one of the members for Milton and Water Beach Ward. And Councillor Richard Stobart. Thank you, Chair. I'm Richard Stobart. I'm a member for Gertin Ward. That includes Drydraithon and Meddingley. And Councillor Aidan Van Derweyr. I'm Aidan Van Derweyr. I represent the villages of Barrington Ward. Thank you very much. I may now invite members of the Climate Environment Advisory Committee, CAC, to introduce themselves. Councillor Pippa Halings. Hello, I'm Pippa Halings and I'm one of the members for Histon, Invington and Orchard Park. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Good evening. I'm Jeff Harvey and I'm the member for Portion Ward. Thank you. And Councillor Paul Bear Park. Hello. I'm one of the members for Milton and Water Beach Ward. Thank you. And Councillor Lisa Redraup. Oh, sorry. Hello. My name is Dr Lisa Redraup and I represent the Haarston and Cumberton Ward. Councillor Peter Sanford. Thank you, Chair. Peter Sanford, one of the ward councillors for Caxton and Pupworth. And Councillor Bunty Waters. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'm representing Barhill Ward. Thank you. Before we move on at this point, both myself and Councillor Halings, as Chair of the CAC Committee, would like to take the opportunity to recognise and acknowledge the sad death of one of our councillor colleagues, councillor Dr John Lovelock, who unfortunately died at the start of the year. This is the first gathering of councillors since that sad event occurred. And John was a member of both the Scrutiny and Overview Committee as well as the Climate Environment Committee. John joined the council, as I did, in May when he was first elected for Cartman Ward, and as many colleagues have mentioned to myself and to Councillor Halings and to others since his sad passing. John was somebody who had made a huge difference during a short period of time as a councillor. His caring attitude towards his colleagues and towards his community was absolutely clear in all that he did. John would sit roughly there right in front of me, maybe sort of in the space where councillor Smith is and councillor Hart are, and John would always be sat there during the meetings with a very intense look of concentration on his face. And what was always quite interesting is he would often wait for other people to ask questions and would nod away sagely or shake his head very quietly, very gently, and would then wait and would add a question and was always very self-depreciating when he would speak and showed a really great strong understanding. From a personal level, I always found John extremely supportive in my work as chair of this committee where he would always come and talk to me at the end of a meeting and say, oh Stephen, that kind of went well. I think you missed that, and I think somebody said that, and John was always a very, very kind and supportive colleague in that way. Very incisive in his asking me questions, but I'd also just like to add, very fearless. One of the things we talk about with our scrutiny and overview role is that it is the role of all of us to be holding the councillor to account without fear or favour, and regardless of what uplift persuasion may well be, whatever group we're part of, that we are seeking to improve the services the council provides by being fearless in our questioning and allowing our administration colleagues and our officer colleagues to give us the information and maybe think more about what they do. I think John really enjoyed being part of this committee for that reason. So I just want to take the opportunity to note the passing of our colleague councillor John Loveless and just express our sympathy to his family for his passing. I'd like to take the opportunity to offer councillor Halings as chair of the climate environment committee, the opportunity to add a few words. Thanks very much, and I think everybody feels that councillor Dr John Loveless, John, was taken too soon. And it's very hard, it's very hard for his family, it's very hard for his friends, it's very hard for his community. And he was a much, much valued member of the Climate Change and Environment Committee. He was passionate, absolutely passionate about the environment. Before he joined the district council, he was very, very active in Cotinham Parish Council. He was very active in starting up biodiversity conservation programmes in Cotinham. He was just about, and it will still happen, to get solar panels put on the Parish Council community building that he also got help to get established. And in the Climate Change and Environment Committee, he was always pushing us to make sure that we were serious enough, evidence-based enough, and doing enough to do the little changes that we can do around. He will be much missed and is a much, much valued. Thank you councillor Halings. I'm sure that I can express that we speak for all of us present in all the words that we have shared there. Thank you colleagues. We'll move back into our agenda. So we obviously have a number of members present who have not yet had the opportunity to introduce themselves. So first of all, I'd just like to ask any members present who are not members of Cabinet or the leader if they wish to introduce themselves. So councillor Dr Martin Karn. Martin Karn Member for the Australian Indian Award. Thank you. And councillor Ariel Karn. Ariel Karn Member for the Australian Indian Award. Thank you. And because this is always the point to which I'm not sure I'm looking round, I see councillor Heather Williams, but I'm making sure I don't miss anyone else going round the room. Yes, councillor Heather Williams. Thank you chair. Heather Williams, and I represent the Mordans Board. Excellent. And what I'd like to do is offer the opportunity for members of Cabinet to introduce themselves. So first of all, councillor Bridget Smith. Good evening, councillor Bridget Smith, leader of South Cambridge District Council, Member for Gamling Bay. Thank you, councillor Henry Batchelor. Good evening, chair, councillor Henry Batchelor, one of the members for Linton and Cabinet Member for Environmental Services. Thank you, councillor Peter McDonald. Good evening, chair. So Peter McDonald representing Ductford Ward and a responsible economic development on the Cabinet. Thank you, councillor Byrne Mills. Good evening, chair. Thank you, Byrne Mills, Member for Sourston and Deputy Leader. Thank you, and councillor Bill Handley. Hello, Bill Handley, Member for the villages, one of the members for the villages of Overn-Winningham, and the lead member for communities. Thank you. councillor Sue Ellington, introduce yourself. councillor Sue Ellington, district councillor for Swaybsea Ward, including law. Thank you, and councillor Richard Williams. Thank you, chair, councillor Richard Williams, I'm the member for the Wittlesford Ward. Thank you very much. Before I move on from councillors, since there are a very large number of people present, do any councillors need to wave at myself or councillor Byrne vigorously to point out they are here and I haven't yet asked them to introduce themselves? Okay, we shall move on at that point. Thank you very much. We also have present with us a number of officers, so Liz Watts, would you introduce yourself please? Good evening, chair. Good evening, committee. Liz Watts, chief executive of the council. Thank you, and Stephen Kelly. Good evening, chair and committee members. Stephen Kelly on the joint director of planning. Thank you, Caroline Hunt. Good evening, Caroline Hunt, strategy and economy manager in the shared planning service. Thank you, Jonathan Dixon. John Dixon, planning policy manager. Thank you, Stuart Morris. I am Stuart Morris, principal policy officer in senior. Hello, I'm the scrutiny and governance supervisor. Imagine Aaron Clark. Thank you very much, chair. I hope I get my own tech to work. A democratic services technical officer. Thank you, and Jeff Memory. Good evening, chair. Good evening, members. Jeff Memory, head of transformation, HR and corporate services. Thank you, Rory McKenna. Thank you, chair. Good evening, members. Rory McKenna, minister and officer for the council. Are there any other officers who I've missed at this point? I apologise if I have missed you, if you could either wave at me in the chamber or make yourself known online and introduce yourself. Okay, this seems to have covered up, so yeah, everybody else is telling me that they need to be added. Okay, thank you very much. I can confirm that the meeting is quiet. There being at least four scrutiny and overview members in here in the chamber. If at any time a member leaves the meeting, would they please make that fact known to me so it can be recorded in the minutes? Ian, are there any apologies for absence? I'm not aware of anything. Okay, thank you very much. And declarations of interest. Members are required to declare the existence and nature of any interest which affects or relates to any item of business to be considered. If the interest becomes apparent during the meeting, then the member should bring it to the attention of officers at that time. Do any members have interest to declare in relation to any item of business on the agenda? Councillor Bradnam first. Sorry, thank you chair. I put my hand up earlier. I don't have any specific interest to declare with regard to this, but I wanted to ask if you could clarify, if we come to a point where we are being required to take a vote, I'm assuming that only the members of the scrutiny and overview committee and this climate and environment advisory committee will be able to take part in that vote. That is my understanding. Let me turn to Ian. That is my understanding. Yes, excellent. Okay, that was my answer. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Okay, so yes, Councillor Stobart. Thank you chair. So I'm declaring an interest. I'm a director of both SKIP, South Cambridge Investment Partnership, LLP and South Cambridge Project, LLP. Both companies have an interest in development during the planning period we're going to discuss. Thank you very much. Are there any other councillors who wish to register an interest at this stage of the meeting? No. Okay. Let's just say if anything becomes apparent to you during the meeting, please do register and assist at that point. So, as we can see normally item four, we have an interest in the last meeting for the minutes of the 15th of December 22, presented for a future meeting, which then brings us on to item five of the agenda, which is public questions. We have one public question and one public statement. Our first one is our public question. So, we have one public question. Jenny Conroy, would you like to ask your question now, please? Thank you. Actually, sorry. You are most welcome and we are delighted that you are here. I apologise. I was doing my thing of reading through my script very formally and I suddenly thought, I think I should welcome you. So you are most welcome. Please Jenny, could you ask your question? Thank you for accepting the question, Chair. The GCP Integrated Water Management Study informing the Development Strategy, Spatial Options report of November 2020 identified that in the case of water supply, over abstraction of the chalk aquifer is having a detrimental impact on environmental conditions, particularly during dry years, and that even without any growth, significant environmental improvements are unlikely to be achievable until major new water supply infrastructure is operational. Given that Angliam water do not anticipate even their interim measure of transporting water into the region much before 2030, how then can the existing commitments in the local plan to 2031 be fulfilled ahead of any further plans for development amongst the key strategic sites identified to take forward in the development strategy update? Thank you very much for your question. I will go to, I'm seeing a pointing, I'm going to Councillor Henry Bachelor for the first instance for an answer. Councillor Bachelor. Thank you Chair and thank you Mrs Conroy for the question and for taking the time to come into the office today. It's probably worth explaining at the start that usually councillor Tumi Hawkins is the lead member for planning but she's on an extended leave of absence so myself and the leader will be trying to cover as much and to the best of our ability as we can the questions from the public this evening and also from members of the committee. So I do have a pre-prepared answer to the question so please do excuse me as I read from the screen and I turn my back to you. So Water Resources East and Cambridge Water are planning a range of measures that address both water supply and demand to seek to achieve abstraction reductions to protect the environment whilst also accommodating development needs. We are engaging with the water companies and the environment agency as consultees in relation to planning for committed development. Planning permissions that have been granted will continue to be implemented and we have been advised that the demand for these permissions is factored into the emerging water resources management plan of Cambridge Water that's currently being considered by the environment agency and DEFRA at the present time prior to publication. We expect to consider that plan further once it has been published for consultation. In terms of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan and the report on this agenda today we will not confirm a full strategy including reconfirming delivery timings for existing commitments until such a point as we have clarity on the water supply as set out in the development strategy update. Thank you. I believe you have a supplementary. Given the sustainable transport initiatives underway led by GCP and the recent announcement in the government's autumn statement confirming east west rail would it not be prudent at this time to include the extension of Canborn as one of the key strategic sites forming the central building blocks of any future strategy for development as identified in the development strategy update and at the very least quantified potential allocation of housing numbers to the Canborn extension that have yet to be specified. Councillor Batchelor. Thank you chair. Just coming back on that then. So the response to that question is northeast Cambridge, Cambridge East and Cambridge Biomedical Campus are confirmed as central building blocks of any future strategy for development drawing upon their unique features. The development strategy update identifies northeast Cambridge and Cambridge East as the first and second most sustainable locations for strategic scale development available within greater Cambridge area. The Cambridge Biomedical Campus is an important location for the city of Cambridge and of national and international importance for health, life sciences and biotech. The strategy topic paper supporting the development strategy update at Para 2.71 identifies that there are no other strategic sites available for development in these broad spatial locations. Noting the uncertainty set out in the development strategy update including in relation to water supply the councils have not ruled any other sites including Canborn either in or out of the strategy at this point. Thank you chair. Thank you councillor Batchelor and thank you Ms Conroy for coming and asking the question. We are due at this point to have a second item which is a public statement from Mr Daniel Fulton however I do not see Mr Fulton in the chamber and therefore I will move on at that point. Sorry a couple of people looked around I was thinking I'd made a mistake but no that's fine okay. So we will move on therefore to item six on the agenda which is the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Development Strategy Update Regulate and 18 preferred options key. So therefore the scrutiny and overview committee is asked to review the attached to our cabinet report to comment upon it and to make any recommendations that it deems appropriate. Now obviously we have a large number of councillors present who are likely to want to ask questions and obviously this is quite a large item so therefore what we decided to do is break the item down into five sections and it is not a strict control mechanism if your question happens to cross two sections of this that is absolutely fine you may find that the cabinet member officer answering goes into a different section as well but in principle we will seek to sort of bunch our questions together. The five areas we're going to look at is water, jobs, infrastructure, housing and economics. So therefore I will read those through again water, jobs, infrastructure, housing and economics. You are of course entirely welcome colleagues to ask a question in each of the five sections should you wish to do so. When I asked Grace Hanson just a moment as I say councillor came to seek to write it down for those who are not members of the committees you are of course entirely entitled to ask a question but you'll be placed sort of at the end of the list the first time around and then we will give you the opportunity to ask the question. So in the first instance I'd like to open up for any questions related to water issues so if we could raise our hands please colleagues if you wish to ask a question related to water issues. Okay so councillor Halings your hand was the first one to go up. Yes and as chair of the climate change and environment advisory committee and having talked with members who have other questions as well but I think what we wanted to ask a central question about water is whether or not we should be reaffirming the key principles that were laid out in the first proposals and those are that as we can see in paragraph 3.14 that we would yes seek to meet objectively identified housing need seek to meet but only contingent on no unacceptable environmental harm and we would like to make sure and have confirmation that in that same paragraph where it says and paragraph 3.14 and 3.15 where it says that council needs to define what unacceptable means is that we do involve the climate change and environment advisory committee in the definition of what unacceptable in environmental harm means there we understand and acknowledge that there needs to be a balance and it is responsible to recognise need and that that has also sustainability at heart in terms of social inclusion soaring house prices mortgage of whatever but on the water side it does say within this report that under 3.22 the sustainability puts the balance clearly there which is to meet these higher growth numbers unless we have certainty which we do not have at the moment unless we have certainty it is not possible not to meet not to have unacceptable environmental harm the second question then balances on this when the housing delivery strategy the updated version of this suggests that there should be a change in the spatial strategy to move out to smaller villages um from the climate change and environmental side then we would find this unacceptable and want to seek affirmation that we would stay with the principles for the current spatial strategy which is for um all types of environmental reason thank you very much um oh council smith i'm going to come to you in the first instance each time and obviously you may pass on to others council smith thank you very much indeed so thank you for the opportunity to reaffirm that the spatial strategy um as it stands at the moment as the one that will this is going to stand um you know it's it's predicated on sustainable development in the true set true sense of the word and that relates to to to water as well as to other considerations so you know there is no under no circumstances will we be be supporting development at any cost you know if there is a cost to to the environment in terms of water or anything else then that makes it unacceptable in our in our view so we have two limiting factors which have been articulated in the covering paper one is the water issue and we've already heard and mrs conroy very very kindly you know brought this to the fore as well that the time the timescale for delivering the strategic water solutions um is very is very long and we know that until a fen reservoir is delivered uh that actually the uh the chalk streams on the rivers and the aquifer flow will not will not replenish so tapping into the pipeline going from grapham to uh to bury is a bit of a sticking plaster that allows a certain amount of development to happen but actually it doesn't solve solve the whole problem um so the other factor that is highlighting the paper is actually the deliverability of additional housing and there is a you know there's a problem around it about the delivery and whether it's actually possible to do it uh with the current spatial strategy and I I'll remember which which item it is now but you know we've taken consultants advice and the consultants have said you know the way to overcome that is to have a different spatial strategy well you know consultants are there to give advice we do not have to take we do not have to take that advice they are saying that you know one way of addressing the problems of delivering with the current spatial strategy increased numbers is to uh take a different view of how development is dispersed but we think that the spatial strategy that we have at the moment is the right is the right spatial strategy it gives maximum protection to uh villages those villages where further development would be unsustainable um it concentrates developments in sites where uh in big strategic sites where there can be the best in public transport in health provision in education you know where we can start moving towards the uh the philosophy of the 15 minute city where you can get to everything you need within 15 minutes on by means of sustainable transport as well so I'm not anticipating uh any change in the spatial strategies things stand at the moment and um say water is water is absolutely critical to that um and then Henry do you want to add anything to that before I ask for any any input from Stephen Kelly for anything that I've missed uh I don't think so leader I think just pretty worth just reiterating the fact that um you know if if uh a plan isn't sustainable due to water levels I think it's very difficult present authority to support that and I don't think there's any appetite to go um you know against advice from people such as the environment agency for example so I think it's worth hammering that point home thank you very much Stephen Kelly uh thank you I shan't I'm sure there's a number of comments around this but but the report I think just to offer assurance the report that we put forward highlights um uh actually the wide ranging evidence and advice but but um in the report we're quite clear that we remain committed to the development strategy that was set out in the first proposals which was widely supported um which required um relatively limited um uh number of of sites to come forward for development at that point um and resisted the um uh ambitions of of some to um disperse that growth across across the the great Cambridge area to secure benefits in terms of delivery rates so um uh whilst recognising it as a as a as a challenge if the numbers are to increase the report in front of you uh seeks to confirm uh the continued validity of that strategy because of its sustainability um uh in terms of accessibility et cetera that the leader has identified in terms of of water clearly we're not yet in a position to settle on a housing figure that isn't the purpose of this report and understanding the consequences of the strategy that Cambridge water is putting forward and the capability of that strategy to support growth is a key piece of work that will inform the final paper of the the next version of the plan which is due later in the in the year great thank you very much councillor Haylings thank you just to follow up on that within the papers it does say that that once we get the Cambridge waters draft water resource management plan there will be an update to the water cycle study so i don't think we're only going to seek reassurance that we're not just basing ourselves on Cambridge waters resource management plan knowing that we have in this country still the automatic right to connect which is where water companies have to say they can deliver whether they can or not but we would then look at the water cycle updated study on the basis of that chair just to confirm yes that that's absolutely intention our consultant stand tech working with the with the shared planning team are quite clear that once we have the information not only the plan that came to water putting forward but the detailed information that sits behind it we expect to be able to analyse that to give you an informed position on potential implications for water of a increased in the housing and others councillor Haylings you happy for me to move on thank you very much councillor Harvey yes thank you chair um my concern is that um the the excellent um integrated water management study um was was an integrated management study we've hit the two i think in in this debate as it's evolved focus very much on the water supply issue my concern is that every extra litre of water that we make available eventually ends up in the sewage system and although the stand tech report i would say place less emphasis on that side of it it's extremely important and it really sort of set aside um that kind of aspect of water management in in sighting um on page 110 the angliau water long term plan in 2018 in which they said all of the treatment works identified as near permit in those sites planned upgrades have already been identified and i have a great concern because since 2018 the credibility of the water industry in general has been really under the microscope we've had the environment agency with a particularly damning report on the water industry last year um off what similarly um even to the extent that um criminal sanctions have been proposed um and therefore i think um if as Steven said we're going to perhaps have a sort of um revision to the stand tech report it seems to me crucial that we look at the waste water side of things in tandem with increasing the supply water and and that would be particularly important um if um i think the behaviors were referred to um possible change in in our spatial strategy which which we would oppose but um let us um be um reminded that most of the problems that we have with our water quality are emanating from the smaller treatment sites um and and and really anything that happens in terms of whether or not the main Cambridge waste water treatment plant is relocated presumably and i think as we've been assured the performance of that particular treatment plant would be enhanced compared with what it is today um as i say um a lot of the problems are actually associated with the smaller treatment plants and i suppose also we were reminded here of the situation that's um developing in the southwest where the environment agency are saying well we can't have any more development because if if we do the phosphate levels in the rivers um from new developments are going to augment the already worrying phosphate levels from agricultural run-off and they've actually put a stop to all development while that's sorted out so yes i think waste water um is equally important as um the supply of fresh water cancer smith so absolutely agree with you um it's also imperative though that we take the opportunity of reducing water consumption so it was a great disappointment in the the current local plan that we have that the government's planning inspector resisted this council's intention to reduce household use from 120 litres down to 80 litres i've failed to understand what why that was the case so i believe we're having another bash at that i believe and uh and hopefully now you know now we're a few years down the line the importance of reducing the the consumption of water which in turn reduces the amount of it going into the sewage system um you know we'll that will be more acceptable for the government's planning inspector i don't know if any officer wants to add any more detail to that thank you my i might ask jonathan ddixon to comment but just just to reassure that um the approach to integrated water is is an important part of the work that we're doing clearly the lead local flood authority at the moment are looking at their strategy their surface water drainage strategy and sustainable drainage strategy work and um you're right this is a whole system approach that's required because climate change and the effects of climate change in terms of the pace at which rainfall is happening running off the running off the land causing its own problems in terms of as you say phosphate enrichment of water courses um sits hand in glove with a strategy of um of others about how we can improve the infiltration rates into the aquifer itself but also looking to improve the condition of the stream but perhaps jon can comment on the integrating water study i think it's worth reminding members that um the council responded to the consultation angling water held on the drainage and wastewater management plan several months ago and expressed many of these points but clearly through the water evidence we'll be preparing we will need to understand that there is appropriate wastewater capacity to meet the needs of the scientific plan we certainly did that to inform the first proposals work and we'll carry on with that work and expect to be very much covered in the strategy the other issue is clearly in the first proposals um the council put forward to consultation proposals to um increase the level of water efficiency standards for residential and non residential development we continue to explore the issues raised and representations on these issues and explore implementation with and the water companies and and from my conversations both water resources ceased and the local water companies are very encouraging of our approach to seeking higher standards okay thank you council harvey are you happy with the answers and we can move on thank you thank you council harvey council bear park thank you chair um yeah i wanted to cover off the topic of water efficiency which our councillor Smith has already touched on um the reason being that i i think that water efficiency is important because it doesn't have the same negative environmental impacts and costs as building new reservoirs or the energy required to pump huge volumes of water vast distances um i think from memory something like three percent of the UK's carbon emissions related to pumping water um now in the 2018 local plan um i think it's specified as 110 litres per person per day so it'll be interested to understand whether any assessment has been undertaken to determining whether the development um under the 2018 local plan has actually been achieving this um i know the first proposals um i think had 80 litres per person per day um and this is a standard that was used for development at eddington um i'll also be interested to understand whether there's been any assessment of eddington uh where dwelling dwellings i think have two separate water supplies they have a a grey supply and then they have one from the mains um so just understanding what how successful or otherwise that has been if we're proposing the same thing for the in the first proposals okay thank you councillor Smith i'm going to need to defer to um officers on this one on folks i don't know what the assessment has been done Stephen Kelly um it feels like past the possible but i'm going to ask jonathan to comment other than to other than to um uh note that there is um uh there is evidence i think from from eddington that jonathan may well be able to comment on about how successful that project has been achieving his objectives okay marbles jonathan dixon it has ended up with you uh so clearly once the 2018 plans were adopted the implementation then is through um conditions and implementation to an alternative building regulation standard and we monitor the implementation of that through uh the authority monitoring report which is soon to be um updated and those conditions are being rolled out uh my understanding is on eddington yes the scheme has been um successful i've heard it quite as i don't have those details to hand but yes there is information that has looked at that okay councillor Smith anything to add or go back to councillor bear park well just that you know we can we can get more detail with councillor bear park would like like it councillor bear park yeah thank you very much um yeah so just one further point was reading the stand tech report was that the water companies water results management plans cannot assume lower levels of um consumption uh because there are concerns about maintenance and long term uh whether they work in the long term so now that eddington's been in place for quite a while i would hope that there would be a reasonable amount of evidence um and therefore you know the water resource management plans perhaps could then start um taking account of lower consumption that's yeah thank you very much councillor Smith a point well made and we'll take on board thank you thank you my first i shall move on then councillor bear park yes councillor leaving thank you chair um i have three questions relating to uh water usage that has sort of interrelated um my first question is do we have enough water for our current land housing growth without the additional housing that's outlined in these papers my second question is um what role will the environment agency play in regards to extraction licenses it's mentioned in paragraph um 3.12 in appendix a um there's a mention that um the environment agency may reduce um abstraction licenses to protect the water environment and my final question um is to do with um the timing the timing of increased water capacity um so the new proposed reservoirs how will the timing of this sequence with the planned building of these potential houses is there a risk that the housing development will bunch up at the end of this planning um this planning period councillor Smith thank you so yes my understanding is that um there is enough water in the system uh to deal with the housing that's currently um that's currently planned um i can't answer the question about the role of the environment agency so i'll have to defer that one and uh your question about about the timing i mean this is really the critical factor you know the lack of certainty over this strategic infrastructure about whether it's ever going to happen and about the timing so you know we have to have absolute certainty over you know the delivery of this and that was the subject of the letter that i wrote to the two MPs only last week on that um and that timing will to a large extent determine uh the time the timing for house houses to be delivered what we cannot have is for houses to be built when the water is not in not in place so you know there is going to be a tricky balancing act between water availability and housing and housing delivery which well may probably will load it towards the end of the plan period and then that plays into uh the subject matter that i started up with which is about the deliverability as well and the fact that we are going to have to um put quite a lot of effort into looking at ways to deliver to ensure that the housing that's needed provided it's going to be sustainable can can be delivered without changing our strategy and um somebody might not be aware of a report that was done by Lord Letwin back in 2018 2019 i think which was an x outstanding piece of work that actually showed ways that you could speed up housing by delivery by incorporating a mix of housing types and tenures and that you know the housing type that had slowed the delivery of the market housing but if you add in shared equity social housing and so on and so forth actually it doesn't slow down the delivery of the market housing which is obviously what the developers make make their money on so there are solutions out there and there are evidence solutions out there that we'll have to investigate um but i need somebody who knows everything about the environment agency which is not me i was about to go to Stephen Kelly but i see that Jonathan Dixon is already raising his hand suggest that he's ending up with him Jonathan absolutely there's a significant narrative on these issues in the draft regional water management plan published by water rules east which is a consultation the council will be considering and responding to coming to the next cabinet but in very short terms um what they're dealing with is a with seeking a reduction in the abstraction from the chalkwraffer and that is considered necessary for the environment in order to protect the environment so much of the reductions we're talking about are actually responding to existing development actually that's the most significant issue it's existing development not new development um and the waters of the east plan and we anticipate the canvish water plan which hopefully will be coming out in the next few weeks it's all about demonstrating how they will respond to those issues in terms of looking at demand management such as rolling out of more smart metering so you've got better information you have telling what's been used or if there are leaks looking at how they take water from different sources and looking even they make recommendations about even things like washing machines and stands in your home alongside the supply side about bringing in different sources so it's actually a whole package of measures they're looking at not just the reservoir and so on and um yeah we really we've got some detail in the regional plan which gives a strong feeling for it that we're we're awaiting that detail in the canvish plan okay thank you and councillor Leaming thank you councillor Smith and John Dixon thank you for your advice okay excellent thank you I have two more councillors in relation to water and then we will move on because i'm sure we'll be on other topics from there so next up is councillor Blackman thank you chair um i have two questions um so the first refers to the reference at item in appendix a 4.4 which refers to the overall development strategy and in that we're reminded that we will complete an assessment of the impacts on three aspects of sustainability which include environment the environmental aspect economic and social and this the economic element refers to the need to provide affordable housing and having sufficiency of supply in order that housing is affordable but my concern is that these aspects cannot carry equal weight in this scenario when we're concerned about water because we cannot deliver houses that do not have a water supply and even if they were affordable they wouldn't be livable in so can you reassure us that those the balance between those drivers is going to be considered carefully and the second one refers to an earlier point which in fact councillor Leaming has touched on this is about the abstraction license cap reductions suggested and alluded to in paragraph 3.12 of the same appendix now bear in mind we need to be reassured that abstraction has to be reduced because it's abstraction from the aquifer that is causing the harm to the chalk environment and the chalk ecology but these licenses many of which deliver water for agriculture many of these licenses were granted for life and in perpetuity in order to sustain local agriculture and some of them are awarded within water authorities so for example some the abstraction at Flyn Dyke delivers to a water a neighbouring water company affinity in Hartfordshire so we need to be sure that those might be considered for capping as well but meantime whilst thinking about that water from the Anglian supply pipeline if it comes and that's in question it cannot be used to recharge the aquifer it has to be used for domestic supply so my concern is that if we are getting water from that pipeline do we also need some kind of storage for it in order that can be used to supply domestic houses will we need local holding facilities before the Fenn's reservoir becomes available probably 2037 in order that that supply is going to be usable thank you thank you thank you so the first part your first question was easier than your second which was very technical so we know we have said all along that you know the the lack of water the unsustainability of the water situation is the red line it's the thing that it's it's the stop button all right so you know that the water as you've quite rightly said can't build houses if there's no water for them and we can't build houses if it's going to do further damage to the to our natural environment in terms of the chalk streams on the rivers so that you know we've been very very clear about that and nothing has changed there now on abstraction you know as far as I'm saying we don't have any control over that and it was very technical question so I'm going to have to refer back to to Jonathan who probably has much greater understanding of it but my understanding is that you know we have you know we're a consultee in this stuff but actually none of this is within our powers even remotely uh yes quite right we are we are our consultee um those issues are addressed to an extent again in the in the water plans and there is reference in the regional water plan to addressing issues specifically around the agriculture so if the council wishes to respond on those points they can do so through their response but it's it's a very detailed point I mean in terms of the water uh local water infrastructure point clearly in moving that water around from the england region it will probably be stored elsewhere outside our district that doesn't mean to say there isn't the need for um very local water infrastructure in moving that around but that's a matter we would um consider with um Cambridge water on the sort of site specific level but it's effectively already stored at a a large scale how they move around in their network outside the district thank you um the reason I ask that question is because I sit for this council on the internal drainage board at Water Beach and so I'm familiar with the nature of the abstraction licenses and so I appreciate they're not within our control but I'm mindful that water coming from the river Trent direction is is never going to be able to to recharge our aquifer here it's a it's a different kind of entity um I'll leave it at that over the time being thank you are you happy for us to move on or did you want any further answer no okay and I have councillor Rippitt it's still on water slightly different question um my concern is the tapping off of the water from Graffin waters of Bowes and Edmonds I know we're focusing on um the south Cambridge and Cambridge area with the local plan obviously but I'm concerned there just isn't enough water I mean what happens to Bowes and Edmonds I mean I don't I assume they're not awash with spare water because they are also part of East Anglia which is they're quite a dry region um and that's just my concern really and I would like any answers if there are at this stage councillor bachelor councillor Henry bachelor thank you chair um so I think the answer to that would be um well one I'm not sure about the Baryson Edmonds question but two I think it's very unlikely um a plan would be supported by either the Environment Agency or England Water if if the water was not there to supply Baryson Edmonds plus you know what South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City are planning to tap out of it as well so I think that is you know a very short answer to what is a very probably complex question I think we wouldn't be allowed essentially to take water from a supply if there wasn't enough there I think it's the the long and short are there any officers who are going to provide more detail in relation to councillor bitford's question Jonathan thank you I would make the point that um the the regional plan um the regional water plan is actually the first of its kind and the whole point of it is in order to get individual water companies a holistic view of the east of england suggest those questions can be explored to look helistically at it so I very much hope that that process would have been successful exploring our overall picture of water availability thank you just give me a second cancel to it with anything else um so we know that for sure that that that is feasible and we can tap off that without making someone else lacking water Stephen Kelly um our understanding is is um it's not that there is an evidence doesn't need or West Suffolk doesn't need water but it's trajectory for demand doesn't mean it means that it doesn't need water till much later on in the process the water resources the regional plan water resources east plan has a kind of complex strategy of moving water and changing supply provisions but the advice that we've had from both water resources east and indeed in the conversation with the environment agency about the challenges with water is that is that the transfer of water initially from the western side of Cambridge into Cambridge and then in due course on to West Suffolk the approach being followed is consistent with their understanding of both the environmental consequences and priorities and needs so um in due course if you're familiar with the kind of broader strategy and I wouldn't want to divert us into looking at that at the kind of East Anglia scale there are a series of measures even including things like desalination that are proposed in water resources east plan towards the middle of the century that are geared towards supplying other components of East Anglia's water requirements including West Suffolk as long as well as the as the potential furnace reservoir okay so they're kind of oversupplied um to the degree where that supply can be redirected to us in the meantime it's up to 2035 essentially we're they're partially completed completing the water transfer project because um it will continue eastwards from here to Bowes and Edmonds and and the advice is that that that supply from West Suffolk's perspective is not required until after the Fens reservoir comes on stream which allows the continuation of that supplement to that particular thank you it's good to understand thanks okay happy first move on thank you council badnam thank you chair for letting me come back um at the end of the answers I just wanted to be reassured that those um questions about whether there was going to whether we've needed to ask a question about whether there would be further local storage required in order to put that um water into the domestic system whether those i don't appreciate that's not within our power but whether those points could be raised with the people drawing up the plan and um whether but uh council smith the leader reassured us about the water supply being the stock market so can we be reassured that that comment will go through to the consideration of the local plan council smith so if I'll go to council smith in the first instance give her the opportunity which she may prefer sorry I've slightly lost it so what my comment about um you know the the solution to the water supply not being found being the stop button yep I mean I think that's absolutely clear in all the papers and it's been absolutely clear in everything that we've published we've published so far um you're also asking about water store water storage because um you'll appreciate the aquifer is charged from rainfall whereas the pipeline water coming to India needs to be used purely for domestic supply so is there any do we need any capacity for storage for that for domestic supply that no don't Stephen Kelly shaking his head at me come back Stephen can I just clarify our understanding it's not explicit in um uh the water resource disease plan but we're waiting and this is why we're waiting for Cambridge waters uh resource management plan but our understanding is that the supply from the anglia region as it's described in water resource disease is in fact supply from graphon reservoir um which means that there I wouldn't be surprised to anticipate any and it's in the order of I think 10 to 14 million litres per day which wouldn't suggest it needs a new reservoir in greater Cambridge um it's going to be a pump supply but um we're waiting as as Jonathan's highlighted for the water resource management plan from Cambridge water because it is their supply strategy and they will need to indicate whether or not there is a local transfer solution or pumping facility required thank you very much chair for that thank you councillor Richard Williams thank you chair um yeah I just wanted to ask what work has has gone on or what work is going on to put some numbers on the level of housing delivery that's possible on the various water scenarios um under this new strategy or this this new figure that that we've got because I suppose where I'm going with this is that the vast majority of the water is going to come from the fen reservoir it's 80 you know million litres per day I think Stephen Kelly has just said it's you know 10 to 14 from anything we get from graphon so the vast majority is going to come from that reservoir let's be generous and say that reservoir comes on stream in 2036 so it's five years before the end of this plan I mean I think from reading the reports they would have to be a huge step up in housing delivery for those last five years to meet anything like the 57,000 homes we'd have to have an annual you know delivery target it's probably in excess of some very large city so anyway my question is what work is going on or has gone on to kind of establish what is actually deliverable you know in a sort of staged way with different water resources coming on stream okay thank you councillor smith so that's that's the work that is absolutely critical to to the report here but I'm going to vote to Stephen who will be able to put some figures on it Stephen Kelly I'm not able to put some figures on it unfortunately but to answer councillor Williams's question this is the reason why we haven't translated the figures that you have seen we've highlighted about an objectively assessed need into a housing figure for the local plan because as councillor Williams highlights if we're working on the premise of what is a sustainable solution in terms of the rate at which housing delivery can come forward without adversely affecting the environmental conditions in the area then whilst Cambridge Water is suggesting that leakage reduction and smart metering and so on will reduce existing consumption to create some headroom for new homes to be built in the period between now and say 2030 when those physical measures come forwards we're waiting to understand what that actually means in terms of additional water that may well be available with no detriment and then further to that and picking up on a question raised earlier the report makes clear and I'll refer to Caroline Hunt that there are delivery rate challenges the leader referred to Sir Oliver Letwin's report about the rate at which new homes can be built each year and and as you can imagine there is a finite limit to the number of homes that will be built by developers and indeed bought by consumers in any one in any one year and are are papers that are past this row show that once you get beyond the significantly beyond the levels that we're at at the moment but actually in the realm of the annualised housing rates that we're suggesting is what the area needs those matters become more challenging so being able to translate a housing a number of new homes that can both fit under the environmental parameters or within the environmental parameters for a certain number of years understanding how many new homes the bulk water transfer from the Anglain water region might unlock in terms of growth and the rate at which those can be delivered and then factoring in as I think the question was notionally and I think Councillor Williams also suggested a very very large number of homes in that housing need figure into just a few years is unrealistic I think in terms of the mass quadruple in the supply of homes in one year is not going to happen and we would be unrealistic to plan for it and it's because the stepping of that infrastructure capability capacity and the water supply capacity over the next over the local plan period but also understanding the delivery timescales for some of that infrastructure that allows you to change the environmental headroom or the rate at which you can build new homes from one level to another picking up on the commitment that we've all asserted in the important in this room to safeguard the environment. The precise points at which those things happen will impact the end cumulative number of homes that the plan is able to plan for and our parts to Caroline because we've done quite a lot of work about what you can do in terms of delivery rates. Clearly the Fens reservoir is implied to be delivered in the latter part of this plan period and on one level all other matters being equal and please don't take this as an assumption if there is then no environmental capacity from a water perspective you would arguably seek to meet your objectively assessed needs in the period after that but you may only have two or three years to do so and the rate at which homes get delivered is final and so the final figure and I'm sorry to this is why we haven't in and I know people want this number but we have identified an objectively assessed need there will is likely for all these reasons to be protected a difference between the objectively assessed need and what we feel can be delivered within the environmental constraints and the deliverability limitations you know no household of ours or other is going to be able to build 10,000 homes in a year regardless of the water supply issues and through the summer as we understand and unpack Cambridge Water's trajectory in terms of what they see as the number of homes both existing permissions and potential additional permissions as we understand when that capacity exists in their program and indeed over the next 18 years we will be able to tot up the numbers year on year and give you a number that we are assuming as a planning target for the plan but unfortunately not until then so sorry that's a long response but hopefully it's an explanation as to why we can't be doing it right now did you want to go to Caroline as well yes yes Caroline thank you chair as Stephen said that was a full quite a full explanation just a couple of additional points um what we what the report says is that our housing delivery consultants recognising the um the uh those environmental constraints um plus the fact that until we actually have an adopted plan we can't deliver more than the sites in our adopted plan so we're going to end up with a stepped housing target so it will start at a certain level once we adopt the plan it will go off a bit more that will very much be influenced by the water supply situation um I don't know how many steps there'll be but we know that when the reservoir comes on board there'll be more capacity but absolutely the reason we commissioned some additional work from our housing delivery consultants was because we know that you're not suddenly in those last few years in the plan period going to be able to make up everything that you haven't been doing in those in the years up to up to the reservoir um there is no magic number that our consultants have identified that um that that we could use at this point um and that's where the point that councillor Bradman made earlier about that they're saying well if you focus if your focus is delivering as many homes as possible then a way of doing that might be to spreading you know spread sites around more we're very clear that for to create a sustainable form of development we have those guiding principles that we're advising members to to to re-confirm to inform us as we work towards the draft plan um uh you know we we will absolutely be able to take those those uh guiding principles into account because this is about as again as councillor Bradman talked about the three arms of sustainable development and we absolutely need to to look at all three we need to show ultimately in front of an inspector we need to show that we've understood the implications for all three aspects of sustainability and our sustainability appraisal we'll also look at that but it will be for us as the plan makers to work out what is the right balance and where the right priority uh is but we need to show that we've understood all those implications um and if we don't meet our needs and for we need to show we've understood that that's the right thing to do because of the the the constraints that exist in in this area thank you councillor Richard Williams it's okay thank you chair i won't come back okay i may have some other questions later no no problems all thank you um i have councillor Haylings councillor Heather Williams and councillor Martin Kahn and what i'm going to do then we're going to move us on to the next topic simply so that otherwise water being very interesting we could spend the whole evening on water and if that's the questions we ask that's the questions we ask but i'm going to move us on at that point so councillor Haylings thank you and it was it's two questions about a lot of this is seemingly kind of outside of our control except what we finally put within the draft local plan but on the hyper local side which um reinforcing what councillor Paul Burr Park was talking about water UK which is the water of companies registered because we heard the second hottest summer on record this year a 40 increase in demand so when we're looking at the water cycle and water efficiencies in terms of the appliances and the design of homes there was a 40 increase in water demand during the hottest summer you know where other water companies declared a drought anglin water didn't declare a drought because it said quote we were in reasonable shape so there was never a drought declared in our area which is a bit conceivable too but anyway but so the hyper local is what we have the water efficiencies in design the other is the behaviour change and whether or not we as well as the water companies have a role to play in the build up to that about that consciousness about water demand on the other side on the other side which is the national side and there is reference to this within the document which is about accelerating that infrastructure and i know you've got infrastructures another but on the water infrastructure the question is you know what are the elements um and i know that the the leader sort of wrote an open letter about this to our MPs there are elements which could be accelerator or there could be confirmation from the government given that even the existing development you know is at risk if we're wanting some of the medium term mechanisms so it's just a confirmation of both are we able to do some of that hyper local in advance of and make sure that the water cycle considers climate change extremes that will change behaviour so what do we do around that and then nationally what more can be done from the government in terms of helping resolve this this this problem so this is all about resilience and you know in the same way that we have to factor in the one of the hundred year floods so you know we now have to be factoring in the what could be one that one in every 10 years serious serious drought so on behaviour changes i think there are things that we as a local authority can do we have you know tremendous communication networks and i you know even through our magazine and so on so i think there's a lot that we can do to encourage behaviour change in people in their water consumption in exactly the same way we did during the pandemic to encourage people to you know adopt the best practices there so i anticipate that we'll be exploiting that we have you know we our relationships with developers is very important particularly as we move into into a new local plan and again i see those opportunities for us working with developers to encourage them to design houses and employment premises that actually are as water efficient as possible in the same way that we've been pressurising them for the last five years to build houses that are as energy efficient as possible but we now have to factor in water water efficiency as well um you reference government you know we need leadership from government here to actually start mandating for some stuff i personally don't think that we should be building new houses these days that don't incorporate rainwater harvesting because why you know rainwater isn't great for flushing looms it's very cheap to install at point of build and it's more expensive to uh to retrofit so i think there's a role for us in uh lobbying government in the same way that we would ideally like to see photovoltaics on every single roof i think rainwater harvesting particularly in these these water uh thirsty parts of the country should be should be the norm and not not the exception and that that will help as well and you know developers planting gardens with drought resistant plants and so on and so forth as much we can do and i think a lot of it we can do collaboratively with developers um and particularly those with whom we have particularly particularly good relationships um i don't know if any officer wants to add any anything else for that or councillor bachelor okay excuse me councillor Halins it was just on the infrastructure side of that i think steam culley just just uh from the conversations that we that we've had there is a suggestion that um the reservoir is already the fence reservoir is already on a rapid infrastructure programme pathway um and so i think there's limited opportunity there the area that is um potentially worth exploring further and we've certainly been asking the water companies came to water what is possible is to accelerate the um completion of the work to provide both water transfer from 2030 which is the current schedule timetable sooner into the um into earlier in this decade and it's it's understanding um i i do i do believe they are exploring that possibility um but i think it's going to require some um uh focus in order to be able to achieve that um improvement in terms of alternative supplies and therefore consequent reduction on abstraction um sooner rather than rather than later is possible i'm told um it relates to the way in which the regulator um uh considers and and approves the investments of Cambridge water um uh for as part of their water resource management plan but it is an area i think we would all be looking to try and focus and support Cambridge water um in doing um because it on it helps us to address um the issues of water supply sooner in the process thanks for having us okay thanks for having the Williams thank you chair and through yourself can i just ask um a few questions the first one is we've heard about numbers being hard to define and and where we're at and more information will will come through um but my concern is really what the risks attached to it are in particularly this council is fully aware that um over delivery of houses on trajectory is not a problem under delivery is and that's when we start to lose control off of where um housing happens my concern chair is that we're seeing increased numbers again we also know that there are environmental constraints and that makes me uncomfortable and a little nervous that by having the figures as high as they are that we will under deliver on our trajectory at which point i can see environmental reasons as a planning committee member to be able to refuse strategic sites that would require it but find it very difficult in that situation for infill for example that the two and five and ten houses that wouldn't be deemed to actually considering particularly to the issue unless it was a sort of Norfolk situation so i would like to understand and have cabinet or officers explain to us what the risks attached of this are um and also in relation to the levers that we have um develop working with developers i appreciate the administration needs to do that um and indeed to keep the land supply to keep the trajectory running you need developers to build but equally they are there to make money which i you know don't disagree with with people trying to make money so in that case what levers does the council have to you if we're just there asking for things i don't have a lot of confidence that we will always be as successful as we need to be there will always be developers that are willing and proactive and want to work with the council we've seen that but we also see the other side on planning committee as well so what risk are we exposing us to i think is is the key thing because residents really you know will be concerned given given um the history uh and and to the weather trajectory and i think more explanation for for everybody around the land supply and the trajectory because as we know they're not always aligned um so what level of exposure is the council at thank you chair that's the smith thank you very much council williams um i'm going to uh you're talking about the five year land housing land supply and the importance of maintaining the housing land supplies so that we don't go back to uh a sort of free for all for developers um which was not mindful of the environment at all so you will be aware that things are changing um with the national planning policy framework and i'm going to ask i think steven kelly's got a slide i'd really quite like him if that with the chair's permission which talks about what the proposed changes are in nppf um which you know it looks like there's going to be some changes proposed the consultation doesn't finish until March um to the five year housing land supply um rules um but also to some other factors that actually might help give some reassurance of how we're going to manage manage this risk at the end of the day um i think there's going to we're going to be having some quite challenging conversations with with government because we know we as as i said at the very outset we're not prepared to take development at at any cost and uh you know if we can't find a way through through this then we will have very different conversations with with government um who've got a great focus on this area as being the driver of the economic well-being of this uh of this country but may i chair ask steven just as i'll go through the nppf please just to help give some reassurance on this one i think they'll make more sense uh thank you chair i mean um with respect to the to the leader actually i think it probably makes sense for us to cover the nppf point in the um discussion around housing delivery or that but but just to offer a comment to to to council williams on on on this point because i think there is a um there is an understandable anxiety around if you increase the number of homes that you say you need in an area you then need to deliver those homes and if you don't you fail on the land supply i think that's the the crux of the concern the reason the the reason why um we have in some respects as part of this local plan commission um explicitly consultants around delivery is that picking up on caroline hunts point if we need to evidence that the way our plan will go forwards is with some form of a stepping trajectory then the important point is that the housing supply will need to relate to that capability stepping and changing over time and what we're trying to understand and which will be examined when the local plan gets um prior to the local plan being adopted um is what is that delivery rate precisely to remove the concerns and the risks or not remove but help us to understand the concerns and risks around around deliverability so that if we put a number forwards um we can be confident exactly what is required in order to make that number happen and therefore not to expose our communities to the uh terrible circumstances of not being able to have a fire land supply and what that means as as as all of us in this room know um in terms of the weight of the tilted balance as it's called in favour of development so we're working on exactly that point council williams and my comments earlier on about why we wouldn't put a number for example in the plan once the reservoir has gone that maybe many many thousands to meet this objectively assessed need within the time period is to avoid the risk of putting a number in there um notwithstanding that there isn't then a water constraint that we can't year on year meet and therefore expose the the organisations and the communities to that to the risk so we're trying to take a considered view that absolutely and recognises though that particular concern so how's the williams thank you chair my my concern on the trajectory was in relation to would we could we be in a situation where we couldn't give permission for strategic sites but smaller sites would be so that's just one that was why i brought it in on this topic and the other was about levers that we have um other than you know just no we won't give you permission which is quite a blunt instrument but we don't always succeed on you happy to move on for the opportunity to answer on or would you like a further answer okay okay sorry about that um in terms of the um small sites obviously the local um the national planning policy framework i think carolina correct me requires a provision to be made for small sites in any case um there is a part of the the spatial strategy that we put forward does as you say invest in strategic sites particularly to protect villages and so on from the the kind of middle range 150 unit kind of developments that prove to be disruptive we do we would expect to still see small sites coming forward and being part of the strategy they're generally counted through as a windfall as people um with large gardens sometimes in villages subdivide where it's appropriate and create an extra plot the um the uh so so i think um the quantum of those windfall sites and indeed densification in the city is probably a significant component of that conversation as well um that will be something that we'll explore through the the plan process and the contribution that that makes towards um uh towards the annualized housing supply the government are talking around gentle densification that you'll have seen perhaps the term used in terms of brownfield and previously developed sites and making the best use of that and it and it has a contribution to make which is why we've identified northeast kenbridge for example as one of those key locations um in terms of the contribution to the uh or the ability to be able to refuse those applications um uh i come back to the point that the tilted balance will only apply if we fail to deliver there will be an element of delivery continuing through the plan period from those small sites as a consequence of it's sometimes remarkable isn't it how how we don't think there is any development in a city and yet more development happens in relatively discreet ways that still produces numbers so so i suspect it will still remain a part the ability to refuse it in principle um i would say is not something supported by the nppf and it's something that we would end up as a planning authority or a planning committee dealing with on a case by case basis the um at your point about levers with developers i think they are relatively limited it's fair to say the planning process is the most and the development plan is the most significant lever again the consultation on the nppf is looking to explore whether there are ways of compelling both those people land banking to un-land bank or effectively um uh to complete developments uh and in and uh in the alternative to whether or not the failure to deliver development that is consented is a material planning consideration that then relates to the merits of a planning application subsequently but those matters are highly contested and are subject to consultation so i wouldn't suggest that they form part of the toolkit of what we have at the moment um so we are in the situation where um we inevitably seek to kind of plan and working with those infrastructure providers and others that are important for unlocking um the barriers sometimes so either development viability or um uh or delivery that is really the role of the authority and uh and um in parallel with its plan application Chancellor Heather Williams thank you chair okay thank you councillor Ariel come sorry councillor Martin come i see your face and one of shot there councillor Ariel come you thought i was coming to you councillor Martin come on today thank you very much i want to ask um i'm sorry it's not directly related to water but i'm coming to leave in 15 minutes it's related to delivery so which we have been discussing um some of the points were raised by councillor Heather Williams uh but uh i'm very concerned even in the short term with the existing allocation that there will be adequate delivery we've come to historically um the amount of housing provided for private purchase has been fairly constant over the last 50 years um the council what has reduced has been a provision of affordable housing um in this area we are at the position so i can't there are limits to the supply of housing that you can achieve in any market and if we put the increase in numbers we may not deliver them if there isn't the money to buy the houses available or the ability of people to borrow money to buy the houses we're now in a short term becoming into position of higher mortgage rates uh lower affordability reduced purchasing uh and and we seem to be a step change in our economic background now uh the area of cheap mortgages seems to be over at least for a number of years ahead um so i see the difficulties of delivering even the private supply in terms of that will also make sites less affordable as housing because we're talking about a 10% reduction in enhanced values so people have bought property at a higher value and it's going to go down it's going to become it's going to be uh less margin of profit less money for section six and affordable housing and there will be no doubt demand to reduce the allocation and the we've gone for large strategic sites uh they have a high development cost and we've not been finding difficult to maintain the 40 demand even on the existing prices so i see a short term problem we're actually supplying if we unless we have other means of supplying the housing which has not been supplied over the last 50 years which is affordable housing for rent um in the past that was provided by large-scale house uh council house building and uh that's been replaced by much smaller scale um housing association building uh what solutions do you see within the planning framework rather than i mean camera for an example might be what has happened at the genome campus where we've tied the provision of housing for employer to the provision of employment um but i mean there are other are you foreseeing the provision of much larger social housing provision and i'm trying to find more more supply how are you going to tackle that problem which i see has been a problem even delivering the existing supply uh numbers without even increasing numbers so Smith think about this one um so i think there are conversations with us to have with the there's other major employers for us to have conversations with about key work key worker housing and in fact uh we are talking to the biomedical campus at Attenbrooke's hospital about that about that very issue um so you know obviously a lot of their staff um you can use all of their staff but for the doctors we're on very low incomes at the moment and actually that's a major that's a major problem um so i think you know we we're going to be having more of these conversations about key worker housing uh for people on lower incomes which is proximal to uh to places of employment uh because that's obviously benefits people's pockets it benefits the environment and it benefits the economy the economy as well uh what i can't answer is about whether we are actually seeing us slow down in housing delivery at the moment because of increased mortgage mortgage rates but i even might know that i don't i don't okay also one second councillor the williams uh thank you chair it was just a point of information that might help members in relation to the uh site that it was just a point of information that might help members in relation to the uh site that was referred to by councillor martin carne um that in the genome campus about the issues in relation to key worker housing what's like the council needs to look at is although his planning committee permission for for key worker houses was there those houses i believe is after 16 weeks it may be a week either side are available on open market if not sold internally so i think members should be aware that even if it's key worker and it's a range of a company if there's no internal appetite it does go on to the open market and it is market housing and i don't know if that's that really came through um when we're looking at these documents Chancellor Smith anything further to add at that point so i think if we're talking about rental property actually that would be that would be different um but i defer to Stephen Kelly right Stephen Kelly and this is our last point of this stage and then we'll move on so uh on one level anecdotally yes uh house builders are taking a much more cautious approach to their forecasts for future years based upon mortgage availability and affordability considerations um uh and and can we quantify that at this moment so i know i don't think we can it's too early to say um but uh but it's something we need to keep keep a weather eye on i think um something to bear in mind uh is that the council is uh with the city council looking at its housing strategy which is obviously not the local plan but an integral partner to the local plan uh and um uh we will no doubt need to explore some of these issues in terms of what it can do to diversify or a housing strategy can do handing love with planning policy to diversify housing delivery um and particularly given the cost of living challenges that many people are facing what housing choices uh and indeed the balance of housing um uh can be achieved and what that may well mean as we as we look at individual planning applications for particular locations um there are uh there are um discussions we're very conscious that some of the major employers have very acute concerns and issues around it uh and um uh whether that's had in books or the or the or or the public sector more widely um i think well that is something that can be tested and explored further through the housing strategy but um the devolution deal provided funding recognizing Cambridge's affordability difficulties um and certainly the city council as part of that have delivered substantial volumes of council housing alongside the ambitions of of south cambridge uh i i suspect we will need to return to to understanding what the housing needs are through the housing study um not from a numbers perspective based upon a pure assessment of population change or economic growth but also what those sectors mean in terms of the affordability within that sector and the profile of people in those sector looking for those new homes so we've started that conversation with the housing service uh in the city and and in south cams uh to translate the numbers that we identify as need so um the various sectors that we see is growing what that change in population means for the affordability within that sector and i think you will start to see an increasing sophistication in terms of the way that we need to look at planning applications and the mix and tenure of housing on particular sites in particular locations to try and optimize um a proposition which involves housing for everybody rather than housing only for the next across the across the greater cambridge thank you councillor martin carne thank you thank you for that sponsor thank you very much everyone um okay so our next topic i'm going to make oh councillor stovart chair in relation to the next topic i was just getting oh goodness me this is what we call can i just say colleagues is a very impressive we did an hour or so on water your keenness for the next topic is shown i think councillor bygwrt was about to do the same as well yes so it's definitely stovart and bygwrt straight away everyone else we are moving on to jobs if you'd like to go after councillor stovart and councillor bygwrt please raise your hand for any questions at that point if you do so councillor stovart you may begin thank you chair so um there are lots of cues during that initial discussion around quantity and numbers and i just wanted to verify the kind of causal chain that we're following here that we're starting with economic prospects for greater cambridge and we're then working out what that means for housing um and then the consequences of housing and of course that then touches on the water question but there are some nuances here in that the economic growth will produce particular types of job and i know in the icini report which is great you know for its coverage talks about demographics but for example it doesn't bring in the question of how many students are going to stay if you know there's an explosion in life sciences is that going to be a lot of single people is that going to you know be phd students and postdocs in the kind of numbers that we haven't seen before in cambridge so things like that so it's a little new answer my first question was is that a causal chain that we are following and that we'll investigate and develop as the plan goes ahead so that's jobs growth economic growth followed by housing followed by the other demands so the second question is kind of consequent on the modeling process adopted and that again is documented very well but as we're predicting numbers and this whole price so crucial um crucially depends on the numbers what is the kind of statistical behavior of those numbers so if we predict a certain jobs growth um what's the variance in that and are there circumstances which will bring that variance under control by observations and measurements or seeing what happens um so that those predictions that we make and in relation towards spine resource and so on will will actually be more reliable kind of decisions so what can we do during that process um and um you know are there measurements that we can take intermediate points just to increase the level of confidence and the predictions that we're making and finally um my third question um council williams talked about risk and i just wanted to expand that notion of risk um what's the risk of um if our jobs growth model isn't quite right so the variance is too big and we don't build the number of houses that we need what are the consequences of the local economy so that's a kind of for instance question but you know what what are the you know what's the the ripple on effects of getting those estimates wrong thanks for smith thank you i'll take staff and then i might ask um peter mcdonald to uh to talk about this as well um so you're quite right you know so the the model of economic growth is what's what's driving um our understanding of the need for need for more housing um what's really interesting in this area is that covid as well as causing a substantial reduction in certain types of jobs such as retail and um leisure and so on has actually escalated growth in certain areas particularly in you know the knowledge intensive industries, pharma and biomed and so on so we're actually seeing a positive covid effect here for jobs and it's been we we couldn't have predicted it you know when we started out it was before before we had a pandemic and it was not what what would have been predicted and of course you know these are the companies we have here who are growing at such a rate our companies not just of um regional significance but international significance so it's uh that's why it's so important that you know we facilitate their growth because they are important uh important to the whole the whole world um i'm going to let it'll probably Caroline or Stephen pick up on the your the second project questions about about modeling um and you talk about you know the risk of actually not delivering the housing we need so if we go back to the CPIER report the spear report which was commissioned by the combined authority um i don't think how many years ago it is now is it four four years ago i think uh jointly between them and Cambridge ahead um that actually that actually predicted higher growth than actually we we've thought in our first um the first stage of this local plan process so they're predicting it to be higher um but what they quite categorically say in their report is is if we do not accommodate this growth in terms of opportunities for businesses to move here to expand here to grow here and for their employees to to live here in an affordable way actually companies will start making choices and the choice won't be Cambridge or Warwick or Cambridge or Reading it'll be Cambridge or abroad so you know that that is really significant and we've already seen that in a couple of significant companies that they have moved they have moved abroad so you know they are a loss to the UK economy as a whole so there's that we had had lots of conversations with various companies particularly on their science site and the Biomed site about the Cambridge offer and we're talking about you know the people that they need to need to attract actually the lifestyle offer for Cambridge compares very unfavorably with places like Bristol and Reading so if you're an up and coming um 30 at 30 year old or the phd with and the world as your oyster you can choose where in the whole world you work um the lifestyle offer elsewhere is invariably much better than it is in Cambridge Cambridge is very attractive to to Americans because they buy into all the sort of heritage stuff but for you know a wizard material just graduating from from Reading actually it's quite old fashioned and small parochial of a lot of clubs you know it's um you know we think it's lovely but actually it's a life as a lifestyle choice it doesn't it's not comparing favorably enough so these companies very high tech companies are already struggling to attract people because nowadays and I'm aware of this from my own three sons all in their 20s early 30s that actually it's not all about the jobs when it was when I was their age it was all about the job now young people want they want a lifestyle they want to work life balance they want to live somewhere where they can exploit their their passions their cycling their open water swimming all all the rest of it so you know we have to we have to do something to to address that as part of our placemaking but most importantly we have to address the affordability of housing and if you are you know a young person whose world is that oyster you know for half of your salary to be going on your your rent or your mortgage as it is from my youngest son living in yet none of the moment actually that's that impact starts to impact significantly on whether you choose to have children whether you know all sorts of lifestyle choices so it's really really important that we that we get this right and we provide sufficient housing and it is housing that is affordable for everybody to live in um there's a very interesting question from you about how much detail how how nuanced we've been over the types of jobs that are going to be created which I can't answer so I'm going to defer to whoever's the best officer on that one. Pete's a bigger bag and I did defer to you. Yes thanks I mean if I can if I can give a perspective as as much as I can from an economic development point of view and jobs and then Stephen and and some of the officers may may want to comment so first of all in the report you see that between 2011 and 20 so just prior to the majority of the COVID insinences we had historic growth rates about two and a half percent I know these are average numbers but it's something to start with and then in the predictions going forward on jobs growth it's about 1.3 percent so it's half what we have now then if we go back 2009 to 2020 it's 1.5 percent so that probably is a better measure and comparison than that than that peak during that period immediately before before COVID so if we took a very high level prediction on on jobs growth to the 66 000 um at first face that seems reasonable um the other thing we've tried to do um from a cabinet point of view and looking at it um as elected members is look down the road towards Oxford and what's happening in Oxford so to give you an idea Oxford between the end of 2021 and the end of 2024 are saying there will be additional 7 000 jobs in the broader Oxford city area over that period so that's a three year period um so roughly you know 15 2000 jobs let's say per year in the long-term forecast from 2020 to 2041 our prediction is about 3000 so every which way i've looked at the research numbers and i'm not an economist i'm an agriculturalist and an involved in business but every which way i've looked at the job numbers the job number of predictions seem to be broadly correct and then there's another discussion obviously of the projection of the housing numbers coming back to your question about single people and rented versus purchase property where the total property numbers are but certainly um the the perspective i've had in looking at those job numbers seem correct and then the final point i want to make which is what councillor Smith mentioned is the foreign direct investment remember the government post brexit said look what is important above all it's the foreign direct investment that will come after brexit and what's happened with that is particularly in the medical sector that that is happening so companies that we had discussions with before christmas they're in that listed company and they're wanting to expand in in south cambrature um we saw with the we see with the genome campus that um obviously that's a trust so a slightly different thing but significant interest from around the world so not between us and oxford or us and bristol and us and edinburgh but us and california um so the the combination of that foreign direct investment pressure that's coming in in which the government is encouraging and the final thing to say is that um the genome campus have just started a five-year project uh basically looking at the prevention of the next pandemic and they've been asked to do that by the government and there is serious money behind that and not surprisingly we don't ever want to be in the situation again that we were in the last three years and had the government have recognised that and guess where that money is coming to it's coming to oxford in cambridge thank you okay um we're going to go to office in the second chance to say but in your view what remains to be answered from your set of three questions is we've talked about a while there yes yeah uh to be fair i mean a brief comment on is worth the statistical behavior of the models but but don't labour it i think um i've had a a lot of air time from my question here okay and which officer uh season is half waving for that one i think share if i start and pass on because there were questions about students and the agglomeration of other other users that i might ask colleagues about but but but absolutely to affirm that the um we what we have here is a specific model driven um for the local fit for purpose for the local plan process for south cambridge and the city there is a national model that takes a national figure for the total number of houses across the whole country and divides it by 364 local authorities based on an algorithm we know that that number is much lower um but that but the evidence the local evidence suggests if we use that model to predict the number of homes that we need we will we will exacerbate the issues that we're currently facing around the supply of housing because it it will not it will not produce um a a sound number on which we can deal with not just the economic consequences and jobs um and these houses uh that that support that um but it will lead to it won't stop we can't necessarily stop those jobs from being created what it will drive uh is uh serious um damage into your uh the the ambitions of communities to be inclusive because house prices will become even more affordable they're already challenged um as competition increases um it will drive greater commuting which will adversely infect both the climate change and well-being objectives um so in addition to the kind of national picture and and the position for the country um uh we've we've we've we've sought to properly understand the very specific circumstances in this case and that's consistent with the NPPS um requirement to identify your objectively assessed names and yes the national planning the standard methodology as it's called um might be appropriate in a range of circumstances the evidence that we have points clearly to the fact that that is not an appropriate methodology to apply here for all of the reasons and and council mcdonald's highlighted Cambridge Oxford and a very few other parts of the country are probably exceptional in needing to be identify their needs based upon the economic success most other places are dormantries or they have very modest growth rates in economies we the evidence is clear no one disputes the evidence that we are growing faster than anywhere around this part of the region and so that's why we've chosen to develop a model that is jobs translating into houses picking up on your your your point as the population working here drives the housing need rather than demographic adjustments or or gentle migration which is the characteristic of many other parts of the country but um i wonder whether um caroline can comment on this process because we are factoring in or giving consideration to the issues surrounding student demand and so forth all right thank you chair um i'll start and then uh student life may wish to add a couple of comments on the very technical side of side of things but i think it's um it is fair to say that we you know we undertake economic forecast we're required to do that we need to understand what the forecast economic growth is in our in our area and for many areas as steven said the standard method for calculating number of homes may well be broadly in balance with with those jobs we did a sense check of our standard method number of homes and the number of jobs that would support um and it would support um just over 43 000 jobs compared to our updated forecast of 66 600 so you can see that there's a significant difference between the number of jobs that the standard method homes would support and the forecast jobs to come to the area now um in the light of that um that situation um and very much with the focus on sustainable development a strategy that responds to climate change if we were not to respond and provide the homes to go with those jobs um there are there's the list of the economy when we are required by national planning policy framework to support the national economy that's sorry that there's a support economic growth um but also risk of non distance commuting and and all the other affordability and other factors that that steven was referring to um in terms of the variance there may be i mean a forecast is it's as as good as it can be but it's a forecast and obviously it's really important that we do monitor what actually happens and one of the reasons we did the update um on our evidence now was that we thought it was really important um to make sure we have up to date evidence as we go through the plan making process and we don't get to an examination in in the future and we'll still be relying on evidence based on figures from 2020 for example that you know that would put us in a difficult position down the road um so this may not be the last update that that we do even to confirm the plan but obviously after that we have authority monitoring reports where we monitor what what we actually deliver and we update our local plans government says every five years um so as we move through time we check how how reliable our forecast have been um the forecast that supported our adopted plans for example um assumed um uh 40 20 000 jobs in south cairns and similar in the city in our plan period of 2031 and i can remember sitting in the examination hearing on jobs and all the developers around the table thought that was a pretty good estimate a pretty good forecast for jobs our current evidence shows that we've all ready delivered almost all of that and we're we've still got another um eight or nine years to go so you know that's why you have to keep things under under under review as you as you move forwards if our forecast tried to take account of uh changing market cycles economic cycles and so on um ensure is there anything else that you'd want to add i suppose you can say a little bit that's about job types um but also we have separate evidence that is looking on student needs and demands that are going to be coming forward in the area we have separate evidence that looks at not just for the number of homes what type of homes do we need not just affordable homes what sort of um population demographics are we thinking about you to come to the area and what does that mean for the type of housing needs um both for those working in the area also things like housing for older people so um this is just one bit of evidence and you know of course in the first proposals there's a a big suite of evidence but is there anything specific no okay thank you hope that's helpful. Councillor Stoddart I'm kind of hoping you're going to say that's okay so I think Councillor Bygott feels he's wasted quite a long time but I will give it to you anyway you read my mind that's excellent answers thank you very much. Councillor Bygott you're up. Thank you chair. So my question relates to jobs infrastructure and housing. So one of the key issues that is addressed in numerous places in draft plan is the question of where is the most sustainable place to be putting development so for example if I read from problem page four on appendix C allocating development at the most sustainable strategic scale locations thereby locating jobs homes and day-to-day facilities and services in close proximity should reduce the need to travel for all. So one of the topics that Mr Kelly mentioned earlier was the concept of densification in Cambridge City. There is a table on page 11 in the main section and a similar similar table on pages seven of appendix A and also pages seven of appendix E. The numbers are very slightly different but one of the features of those tables is that there's a single line item for Great Cambridge comprising Cambridge City and South Cambridge. And I'm wondering if there's a specific reason why we don't break down allocation between Cambridge City and South Cambridge and so my question is could it be helpful to help us to understand the issue of the most sustainable locations of which Cambridge City certainly is one of the most sustainable locations if we were to make that breakdown in those tables. Well the simple answer is that it's a joint local plan and it was the planning inspector who made the final decision on the last local plan who determined that the next one needed to be joined. Now I know that for the existing local plan it's possible to identify so I think for the current sites that we've identified we can split that split that difference but you know until we know what the opportunities are for densification and so on you know it would not be possible to to discriminate between the two but it would be at the end of the day. Stephen, shall I end the I'll start to that. Sorry yes thank you chair yes I mean there's a couple of points in there the first is and it's something we can look forward to reading in the future which is the authorities monitoring report which identifies already gentle densification happening across the city for example in terms of the density of new developments taking place but the it is a single housing trajectory for a single economic area and the reason for the cojoing plans the reason there's a greater Cambridge partnership and so on is because the spatial decisions that that are being made now of a spatial strategy is in fact the continuation of a spatial strategy that started building houses in the city and expanding outwards from greenbelt releases and continues to do so it's quite for and and distinguishing between effectively the scores on the doors of the city and south canbercher is complicated further when one considers that places like Cambridge East for example so Cambridge airport actually has a boundary through the middle of it north east Cambridge the science park which is intended to identify the jobs and the boundaries around Cambridge railway station north are in fact in south canbercher and the the residential development area for example is in Cambridge city so what we've tried to do is avoid separating artificially out the housing numbers in the first proposals for example it's possible to do that between the city and south canbercher because what we don't want to do is to end up with a perverse incentive to allocate development in different places just to even the balance between everyone genuinely sustainable development doesn't respect administrative boundaries it's about the behaviour of people and how they how they work and travel and so we haven't we haven't done that the existing two local plans that sit together if you looked at the delivery rates in the early years were significantly greater in Cambridge than they were in south canbercher and as planned in that trajectory the later phases of those that spatial strategy on which the first proposal build is a greater delivery rate in south canbercher than the city because those elements in the in eddington for example those parts of eddington that have been developed in the city the future parts are in south canbercher and so forth so it's the administration administrative distinction between the two we think is less significant i recognise that sensitivities in terms of communities in south canbercher and city if you start to polarise things into the member pose per administrative area might be of interest but i don't think they would change the spatial strategy that you that you came up with and the rationale behind it quite rightly once we understand what the final achievable deliverable housing figure might be within the bank period part of that will be looking at those brownfield sites particularly in the city that may well be capable of or see redevelopment there's large areas of retailing for example which we know are um through the changes in the sector are changing there are questions about the future uses of some of those areas um but um we haven't yet been able to land on an absolute figure for the city or south cans what we're trying to do which is i think the point that you are making councillor by got is to recognise the importance of infrastructure jobs and homes being connected and being in in clusters or in in corridors that make sense to achieve those kind of objectives thank you so um thank you very much for that answer i just have one question of clarification uh so you mentioned um several times concept of gentle density i wonder if you could define that because my understanding is that it means something really quite different from the word gentle as we know it in the standard language thank you that's the smith or i think you said gentle gent's densification didn't you implying that it's been happening slowly and quietly and you know not dramatically impactfully am i correct now that's it has been going on i mean it's been going across going on across cities um over the last 20 years when i was working in london it was happening um it's in some respects it's happening across the country so people with a large garden whether they'll be in a village or in a or in the city um may well feel they they they have an opportunity to provide a home um it's not solely and it's in fact a term that the government are using moment to suggest how they wish the building better building beautiful campaign to see a realisation not only of beauty but also of more homes for people is about making the most effective use of making the most effective use of land in the cities you'll see elements of developments in in large gardens in our villages you'll see infill development taking place within the village which increases the density of the of the village on a per acre basis what we're also seeing is making the most efficient use of land and the planning committee end up having to make judgments about the design qualities that drive the right density for the right location so it's a process it's an ongoing process there isn't an absolute number that i can say what it means clearly um there is consultation going on about for example increasing heights of buildings um through committed development that's an ambition um that that's being set out particularly to add density in cities in city areas um as a way of making the most effective use of land but it's a it's a it's a blended approach um of different solutions informed via a set of you know fundamentally judged by design parameters rather than absolute set of numbers or targets thank you i wonder if we could just have something um um later um in writing on that because i think um if you read the building better building beautiful document and also the consultation that the government put out there was actually i think a section in there that had a very very specific meaning of the term gentle density that is actually quite different from the standard word gentle so i think it would actually be quite um useful for us to understand that as a technical planning point thanks sure that can be done yes excellent good okay and in that case then i shall move on to sorry cancel but you're okay for me to move on yes thank you yes excellent okay councillor Haylings thank you um while we're looking at sort of the the job projections and the impacts on housing and that's within the greater Cambridge area and and what we've heard is emerging within that area i wanted to know whether or not we're looking at the impact of changing job patterns in the wider area of London and us being in the commuter area the commuting district of London so therefore the competition for housing coming out of jobs and working from home and more flexibility is people moving out of London into areas like despite what councillor Smith has been saying about Cambridge being an attractive area or not but um people in my ward have been receiving letters saying do you realise are you considering moving and selling your home because there is considerable interest from London commuters who would like to move to this area to be able to work from here for London so it's just have we done a study within our study do we understand that other push pull in terms of competition and increase in demand and whether or not it will impact us supplying the jobs and houses that we need here when there's also pressure coming externally and again this is raising the whole affordability homes again it's that sort of raising the prices there so it's just wondering whether we've considered that in the modelling councillor Smith so i know some work that the combined authority did some time ago evidence that as many people commuted into Cambridge every day as commuted out of Cambridge every day so there was sort of spaces there i don't know if councillor mcdonald has anything sort of more up to date on that but yes so i'll have to defer to officers in that stage but that was my impression that actually yep the unit there's no there's not much advantage um you know as far as house prices are concerned of living here or or in London but i don't know if we've got anything more up to date than that um i'm just going to ask whether stewart has got any insight around this because there were assumptions made around commuting patterns that that have um informed some of the work that uh producer to come through that. Stuart Morris. Thank you and the overall answer is we don't really know commuting data um the best data is provided by the census and the last commuting data we have is the census 2020 sorry 2011 2021 data will come out but there's always the last data set to come out and so it could be over a year off and noting the point at which it was um recorded there's question marks over how meaningful that will be as a staging post general trends so we have used the census 2020 sorry 2011 as one uh kind of way of looking at the the relationship between jobs and homes but uh as per the approach we took last time round in order to try and cater for the jobs of both standard methods and visits to come forward in the forecasts the numbers in the report fly a one-to-one provision of homes to meet those additional jobs so they don't match up with the pattern C precisely to try and reduce that longer term commuting impact but back to your question we don't know the impact of that London change and COVID change in terms of commuting right now I don't think anybody does in precise terms. Catsa Haley? No I mean it would be good if you had some modelling but you know again it would just be if it could be but I think it'd be interesting to see. Sorry a little moment there. Councillor Peter McDonald to come in in relation to Councillor Haynes. Just just quickly I um I was interested in Stuart's response because I haven't seen those those numbers on London versus Cambridge would be interesting. What we have seen is because we have companies like Novartis and GlaxoSmithFly who are based in Milton Keynes and Stevenage and places like that and because of three days a week anecdotally we're seeing people of moves north because they don't have to be there five days a week and and coming because then they may have a job opportunity of them moving from GlaxoSmithFly, Warner Vartis into a Cambridge based job so that is definitely happening. Councillor Stobart I assume your hand is up to be added to the list yes. Yes it is it's a very brief question. No no that's fine you're you're on the end of the list now but just checking. Councillor Richard Williams. Thank you very much chair um so my question is is to ask what involvement um anyone at the council and at what level has had in scrutinising the assumptions behind the modelling that drives these employment numbers so just to give you a kind of few examples of why I'm asking that question we've got this new modelling 2022 it actually uses completely different data input set to the modelling we had last time so we've got this LEFM um dataset not not the old east of England forecasting model um the LEFM is adjusted to 2021 population from the census which I think is probably a reasonable assumption it then goes on to repeat the same exercise using different data that we had in 2020 but it doesn't do it in exactly the same way so in 2020 I think there were three high growth sectors that were added on to the baseline this time we've got five high growth sectors that are added on to the baseline and just to give you an example it in respect of the IT section in 2020 the 2020 report said that even though there'd been um some high growth it had growth in that sector it had fluctuated considerably so despite short run growth but fast growth between 2014 2017 in south camps testing the growth rates does not suggest a justification for modelling growth above the regional average that was what was said in 2020 this time the report says it should be modelled above the average it should be a high growth sector because of the recent strong performance the employment count has increased by 20 by 40 percent since 2011 so two completely different views just two years apart one rejected as a high growth sector the other one accepts it now I've asked some questions about this privately as well I mean the model makes various other assumptions so for example when it runs the higher growth model for these key industries the current report says that if the model comes up with a figure for employment growth that's lower than the baseline they'll actually take the higher of the two so we don't always use the model if the model gives you a lower number you don't actually use the model you go back to the baseline so whatever we might think about this you know there are assumptions made throughout this modelling to produce these numbers and they are contestable people will have different views about those assumptions so I think residents and I think councillors as well really should know who's making these assumptions what level or what involvement has there been from council officers or indeed council political lead in in making the choices that result in these numbers that are you know potentially hugely significant for our area thank you councilor Smith so yes of course there are assumptions made and my understanding is they're made at the highest level but I'll let Stephen Kelly confirm that thank you I think council Williams is right there are a series of assumptions there has been a shift in terms of the modelling the categories used for modelling based upon the quality of the data that is available and the degree of greater finesse that the more recent modelling provides compared with the EFM model but perhaps I can and to offer reassurance what we have done is officers have been very closely involved working with the consultants around the modelling that they have been doing they're clearly economic forecasting experts but in terms of the way that the assumptions are being interpreted in terms of the values that value judgments that are being made and corroborated through as council Williams if he's looked at the report we'll see external attempts to validate sets of assumptions based upon the evidence that we can determine recognizing that this is quite a sophisticated model for economic forecasting at this type of geography but perhaps I can ask Stuart Morris has been intimately involved in this process from its inception to perhaps comment further. Stuart Morris thank you and so yes so absolutely and we're not leading experts in this forecasting that's exactly why we commissioned the consultants and we went through a procurement exercise to identify the best consultants to do it we have involved our colleagues at the county council research group to scrutinize particular elements related to their expertise to ensure that key inputs to that that modelling was was based and was robust from their perspective and collectively as a team we we we seek to scrutinize it all so that it's robust as possible. In terms of the particular points council Williams makes so yeah so the model has changed from the last time round that's because the east of England forecasting model previously used is no longer held by the local government association it's not available for use so the LEFM the local economy forecasting model is available for use it's used by a wide range of people around the country and I guess their its robustness is is related to that they they maintain it and people use it and it's used in a wide range of instances in terms of identifying additional sectors I think the broad point is just that our consultants used the available data in 2020 and we and we'd expect them to to respond to what the data shows so in 2020 the data led to them identifying those three sectors we have three more years of data and drawing on that we'd expect them to respond to that and that's what they've done is identifying those additional sectors the only other point is that mapping the EFM sectors onto the LEFM sectors is not entirely matched up so there is a bit of differentiation there in itself the last point about running the higher growth model against the the baseline where the central scenario approach falls below it so I think I've engaged with our consultants about this point and the response being sent to Councillor Williams but in that instance it relates particularly to the one sector which is health and care and our consultants view was there is a particular relationship between the population in terms of health and care and that that stronger driver for the outcomes at 2041 was the approach the right approach to take for that sector okay thank you absolutely to Williams yes thank you chair yeah I mean thank you for those answers I mean it it's important because you know the result of all of these assumptions and these changes is it adds 16 000 to the to the baseline number because actually if you look at the the local economic forecasting model baseline for 2021 adjusted to the the census data actually comes up with a growth level it's not all that different from standard method it's a bit higher but but but it's not all that different so all of these assumptions are kind of adding on more and more jobs so I think it is I mean I'm reassured I suppose to some extent to know that officers are closely involved in this and that we're not just being given you know models which which which the council is not having input into but but I do I do have concerns about these models and the extent to which they make assumption after assumption after assumption that just raises the number again and again and again and again and again and then that's presented to us as our need you know some of the figures that are corroborated it's I mean I have looked at the report but some of the figures that are you know cited as corroboration I mean there's some Cambridge ahead data in there well that that's not entirely objective because that comes from an organisation with a particular agenda it's interesting it's relevant it's certainly something that that you know you can take into account but I do worry about the extent to which the assumptions here are all tending towards the upside they're not tending towards the downside but that's more of a comment than a question chair so I'll I'll finish there great thank you councillor Richard that thank you councillor Richard Williams councillor if it I think councillor Williams has just asked my question in a more complex way than I would um but I might just ask it we've used one source for this report then one one company one source councillor Smith in the first instance I'm not sure that's the case really is now refer to Stuart please thank you so yes clearly one company has produced this report the drawing on all the available data sources so councillor Williams refers to the Cambridge ahead data uh picking up that point so we hit there come to health and so looked at that they didn't rely on it noting the concerns that councillors may have but it is an additional data source and it is it just illustrates the challenge that is very difficult to even identify what historic level of jobs might be in the past so it's important to look at all available data sources including the national ones um the locally produced ones and also to talk to stakeholders about their view of what the economy is doing at that point so they've tried to triangulate all of that to come to as best as possible view of the future I ask it if I may come back um some of the things in the report seem to contradict each other and then I'm also thinking do we actually need these or not you know these these homes which I know is these kind of circular question that we're going around like on page 10 of appendix b paragraph 1.7 for example it says stakeholders abroad the other view that great to Cambridge notably life sciences is in a fast growth cycle a presence that will continue for a period but that's a slow down in the medium term can be expected so that's kind of like the opposite of what's been said in much of our you know discussion so far and and yet on page 27 that nobody's really picked up on this yet um also this thing is a more link with where you put those homes if you need them is that I'll just find the quotation the current level of floor space commitments in the greater Cambridge land supply and first proposals allocation so I'm assuming taking what we've got at the moment would provide enough offices in laboratories employment land to meet the needs generated under the central scenario however there is uncertainty regarding industrial and warehousing needs so that would be obviously something in a different logistic location because that is usually reliant on road system so I'm just a little bit worried that we're jumping the gun a bit and we don't quite know I know it's predictions but it's like an assumption that it's all guns blazing going miles ahead and um this is anecdotal but I know of one friend who um now lives hundreds of miles away from this job because with post COVID can work the majority of the time from home and just commutes um in like you know a couple of times a month by train um it's all these things we wish I'm a little bit concerned about that have we done enough to know this sorry I'm directing that rather at you fine I'll it's fine obviously we've got cancer smith in the first instance who may well then defer I know that Stephen Kelly has something to add as well so we have cancer smith first so it's really a question about the soundness of the local plan and the soundness um you know it is completely up and dependent on the um the validity of the data and the evidence the evidence on which these assumptions are made um so I'm going to defer to Stephen for some sort of reassurance that you know we're not taking this lightly we're not jumping the gun and the importance of getting this getting this right now because going back to Councillor Heather Williams our question you know if we don't get ahead of the game on this actually we get we potentially end up in a mess with no five-year housing land supply if we get it wrong Stephen Kelly um thank you a couple of points the first is um building on the point um of uh cancer smith the point the the reason we do this work and and and importantly um remember we then publish this work is is to ensure that there are many eyes on this and there will be a many different views in terms of the um conclusions that we reach I think um uh we've had representations I know that um I think members of the scrutiny committee have had about the industrial logistics sector that that uh again challenged the um uh the modelling that we've done um your point so so there is scrutiny through this process and the examination of our assumptions picking up on Councillor Williams earlier point and the soundness of the thinking or the rationale that underpins it um uh will be tested this isn't the end of the process the publication of this report this is the start of a process in which when we publish and finalise a housing number we fully expect that either ends of the spectrum those who believe the figure is too low to advance arguments and rationales as to why they think it's too low and those that think it's too high um to equally advance their their narrative the process provides for the arbitration of that of the or the examination of the evidence for precisely independently for precisely that that purpose the other point though that you highlighted about is this our officers in a sense being sensible are we taking a view about this understand exactly the point you're making around the maturity of the life sciences sector and the report highlights the fact that in the if this were the us then the rate of pace of growth and the headroom and rate of change in the life sciences sector is now maturing and is slowing as that part of um uh the the economy in that sector in that country um is go it is um is finding greater maturity it makes clear that we are 15 years back from that process because because of the very nature of um the way in which Cambridge is positioned the consequences of COVID and so on but it does forecast a tailing off of the rates of growth that councillor mcdonald highlighted um in the latter parts of the plan period we have disagreed with Cambridge ahead's forecast which makes an assumption about how long that rate of high growth continues and you'll understand that our consultants have taken a view which is in the report but actually we figure we think the market will mature at a group faster than the suggestions in in greater Cambridge so what we have tried to do as your officers as as Stuart has said is we're not experts in this field but we've tried to take the data source of food tried to take the advice and take a view is that assumption credible well we know that the US life sciences sector is a more mature sector we know that um in some respects the UK particularly through our um the work that we're doing is still in a um rapid growth councillor mcdonald highlighted the investment that's pouring into that sector as a consequence of COVID and the attractiveness of our institutions in that journey does Cambridge ahead's proposition seem more realistic than ours time will tell but what we're trying to do what we're most certainly doing is taking a considered and cautious view on the evidence that we've got and by the time we get to the examination phase we will have more information we will have another year's data we will have greater insights on what's happening across all sectors in in that trajectory so I can't promise you that it's that it's right what I can I've done four three local plans in in three different local authorities no other in my we have never gone to this level of sophistication in terms of economic modeling to try and determine a figure for housing for you so uh we're in uncharted territory in some in some respects some people will say well that's reckless or foolhardy what we would argue is we are absolutely committed to giving the communities the best possible understanding of what their need is or what the need is for new homes because in this place the consequences for getting it wrong either under or over are significant and so our interest is solely to give you the very best evidence and we will continue as Stuart and Caroline have highlighted to sense check to challenge and to validate the work that we're doing to try and make sure that you can feel confident that there is no better way of producing that forecast at this moment in time. Thank you. Councillor Riffus. Thank you that's reassuring and reassuring to know that this is under constant kind of examination and that's obviously why we're here today. Okay I have two more people on this list Councillor Heather Williams and Councillor Stover I then pray for you to take five minutes come for break. Um my list did include infrastructure housing and economics I feel we've covered a lot of things on housing and lots of things on economics in that and not saying we can't come back to them so my proposal would be that I would start a section on infrastructure after that break and that would basically be the bit if there was anything else at that point people can throw it in but we've gone shorter each time as we go through so Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you chair and just on a couple of things that we said earlier I appreciate that it is a joint local plan but there will be anxiety potentially in what's been said about having one figure for everywhere and not providing some form of guidance as to the proportions that will be in city or south cambridge here because it we're talking about an awful lot of housing you know housing levels that we we can only really dream of and and it's not everybody will probably still be this council when it comes to fruition but councillors and officers alike so I do think we need to give residents some assurance that not all of these houses are going to come to south cambridge here equally not all are going to go into city so I don't think it's enough to provide just a blanket number for the whole area we need to give people some reassurance because they will be fretful enough given the numbers that we're talking about so that would be my first point the second point coming from what councillor paper Halings was saying in relation to London now my ward is is very different to many other parts of South Cambridge here because the majority is south of Royston so London is 38 minutes on the train from a train station within my ward and a lot of people actually commute London way instead of Cambridge so I think it's something that we shouldn't you know shouldn't disregard and should appreciate in our numbers where things are coming from when we're looking in that respect I think that was a very valid point that was made and so will that be taken forward and will that be looked at the other part or third part of my questioning is that we have mentioned in some of the documentation some of the briefings about the ability to share responsibility with other district councils in respect of our our demand the amount of jobs and I'm thinking from the jobs perspective as well we there is a finite amount of resource be it water or anything else and there will come a time if we don't try and spread that growth that we will implode or just run out or or tensions will get so high that will stop and as councillor Bridget Smith has said it's very important that we keep the investment here in the United Kingdom so I would like to know what conversations are being had with neighboring district councils to see if they are able to take a share of this growth because I'm sure there are other district councils out there that would cry out to have the investment and the growth and the jobs that we are forecasting here so I do feel that perhaps what gets lost is a responsibility to try and share that growth as well with our neighbours and that's something that it gets mentioned but we don't really know what's happening with thank you chair thank you councillor Smith um so um I can categorically say that some of the if there was to be additional housing uh some of it certainly will be in Cambridge City um and if you look at the results of the first call for sites and where the proposed allocations are are there you will see that uh you know quite a bit quite a bit of it in the city and necessarily considerably denser than than we're seeing in south Cambridge so that's that's for sure um you referenced the number of people from your patch of mordans uh commuting to London and trust you're not saying you want development in the mordans in order to accommodate London London commuters okay fine um personal explanation chair um and um I feel councillor Smith are based on your comment you ought to allow councillor a few seconds to come back okay fine thank you chair absolutely not what I was saying at all um in relation to my ward I was pointing out that south Cambridge here is a large district so it's not just the city and where the provision was being made in the modelling to to help people that are commuting London way but no I was not advocating thousands of houses in my own ward chair and I think it's very important um that that is clarified and accepted by this committee I was I was I was teasing you councillor the chair will just sit with a benign smile at that point councillor Smith and then um so then on your conversation about the duty the duty to cooperate we're very regretfully one of the things that's been consulted on in the government's current review of planning planning laws is ditching the duty to cooperate which will be absolute tragedy so in fact I was meant today to have a meeting with the leader and the chief executive at the so council unfortunately they they had to cancel it at the last minute because that was exactly one of the conversations I would be having so you know we do talk uh both at my level and certainly at Stephen's level uh and uh and Liz Watson's level with neighbouring authorities um to see what the opportunities are um because of course the borders we have particularly sort of borders between us and the likes of Huntington are not real borders people you know the jobs cross them the houses cross them people cross them well you know people aren't aware of these these borders um and so you know we are certainly between the city a bit of east cambridge at us in Huntingtonshire we are all part of the same functional economic area and it's really important that that we work together uh when we know when we're conducting our local plans because we can't be constrained just by our geographic geographical borders so those conversations do go on all the time I think Steve I think Stephen Kelly might want to add something to it Thank you chair just to confirm we have in fact had duty to cooperate conversations with all of our neighbours we had to do that for the first proposals because we were proposing a green belt release and where you propose a green belt release you have to have a conversation in the first instance with neighbouring districts to ask whether they will be prepared to take the housing that would otherwise be proposed in the green belt into their areas the most relevant in some respects we are bounded by a large number of authorities I don't recall that any of the authorities offered to take housing need from south Cambridge and Cambridge and increase their own housing supply requirements as a consequence of that we do have conversations that with West Suffolk particularly about the relationship of Haverhill to south Cambridge because clearly we know people travel in that direction as we do with Utdlesford and particularly around the point around the relationship with Royston and commuting clearly we're quite tightly bounded to that to that town and so our duty to cooperate conversations with them with Bedford and with Huntingtonshire east Cambridgeer who have gone through a recent local plan review clearly didn't propose to increase their housing numbers and so are making no provision in their assumptions about growth that we've identified in greater Cambridge needing to happen that process that plan has been through an examination process and we're waiting to see what the response is so we are most certainly trying to understand the consequences for the relationship with neighbouring boroughs at boroughs neighbouring districts sorry and indeed the relationship with the city picking up on your your point council Williams around commuting patterns I think we probably need to wait for the census releases that will come forward in the next year or so which will help us to understand better the current trends towards commuting patterns than the 2011 data which clearly massive changes have taken place in our functional economic geography since that time and we will continue to keep under review issues around the site allocations respecting those patterns of behaviours as we go forward but we we most certainly notwithstanding the government's consultation continue to engage with our neighbouring districts and as long as the provision is there we will be examined on it in fact as part of our process for the local plan thank you councillor Heather Williams thank you chair I'm satisfied also that nobody knows or wants to believe that I am proposing thousands of houses in my ward although I'm sure perhaps councillor Bridget Smith is inviting them to go perhaps I feel we'll move on at this point otherwise our two leaders are clearly engaging you know well we shall call it gentle ribbing shall we okay councillor councillor Stobart two brief comments chair the first on commuting patterns the thought that popped into my head was why not monitor how water beach new town develops because of the proximity of the station it is a prime place for London commuters to look at if they want to live in the Cambridge countryside but there will be a large number of people there who will commute to Cambridge south and Cambridge and the research park and so on so I think monitor water beach new town is a way of gathering some data and then just the other thing about the modelling in the sectors that I'm familiar with and mostly in the engineering sector one model always emerges as dominant and the reason for that is that it's first of all widely used that means it's widely trusted because it's usually being subjected to barrages of cynicism you know with this model work and it's survived so you know going for a model that's well used and this one is is the early ffm is is well acknowledged and thoroughly used and I think you know as a reliable modelling tool it passes all the tests so I would say it's a good choice okay thank you very much councillor Fane did stick his hand up just as I was about so we're going to move on so councillor Fane will do your question and then we will take your break thank you chair um yes I want to go straight for the headline housing needs assessment which I think is the core issue which has been of concern to a lot of people who are reading about this update in the press who think that we have moved from the maximum of 44 400 to 51 800 an increase of 16 and a half percent um now that 44 400 was based on objectively assessed need clearly there are some factors that have changed um but the water constraints we discussed earlier have hardly been resolved as yet uh there are other constraints greenbelt um but the the question that I wanted to ask about is how objectively assessed need is to be assessed because there have been a number of changes to this and in particular the Secretary of State said on 6th of December he's he made a statement in the house and the gist of that is that there will be an amended method for calculating assessed need which will be advisory it will be up to local authorities working with their communities to determine how many homes can actually be built taking into account the constraints that is what should be protected in each area uh green belt is mentioned water is not specifically but clearly that would count and it will be up to them to increase the proportion of affordable housing if they wish to now of course we don't know the exact wording that will be adopted for this or when that will come in but the consultation closes on the 2nd of March the bill is not likely to be getting royal assent till well after that and I'm wondering whether it is wise to make such a massive change in our assessment of need when the criteria for doing so so uncertain because they're not actually saying you you you are allowed to under deliver the amount of jobs and housing that the evidential evidence shows you need what they're saying is you can find other other ways of other ways of meeting that need but we don't specify what the other ways of meeting that need is now we have we are in the position where we have already hit the target that we thought we would hit in 2031 for jobs and we've hit it in 2023 so so you know we if that job if that trajectory for jobs continues at this rate you know we are very rapidly going to be in a deficit for housing we already have some amongst the highest housing uh purchase and rent prices in the country and we have 25 percent higher carbon emissions than the rest than the national average because of the amount of commuting so we know we have to think our job as local leaders is to make make difficult decisions for the great for the greater good and we know we have to think about the consequences of not provide not making provision for the jobs and the people taking those jobs the people living here because it allows us just to keep our housing numbers down and we know we've heard a number of times this evening with the consequence of that is even higher house prices even more commuting even more dam you know even more carbon emissions even more damaged the environment even more pressure on people's already stretched cost of living so you know we regardless of what the government says you know we still have a duty to meet the the need that we have assessed for jobs and housing the the government will certainly have something to say about it if we as a local authority take actions that does damage to our economy we are net contributors to uk plc you know we are the golden triangle you also came bridge london golden triangle we are the people who are restocking the government's coffers and if they if they see us starting to damage damage that economy and cut off that stream of money that comes out of the golden triangle they will most certainly have something to say about it so you know it's all very well for government to say you know to to say these things but for areas like us which are really very unique in the amount of growth we're seeing they they really are not are not relevant and i sat in a meeting yesterday at the local government association talking to council leaders of different political persuasions but in areas that are enormously constrained by green belt to the tune of up to 96 percent you know who are just outraged by some of these proposals coming forward because they know that they they are not going to be able to like like us easily meet then the need for housing and jobs that keep them as truly sustainable and vibrant and good places to live. Peter sorry, councillor Peter Fane. Thank you. Thank you chair I think that's a very very question strike. So if there's a question so maybe the answer on councillor Smith is the entire answer okay councillor Haylings. Just a clarification that very robust thing I think just to confirm that we seek to meet not that we meet because we have to balance everything out so I think you said we have to meet it when we seek to meet it but getting late and I'm getting tired. Thank you. Okay so I suggest at this point that we take a five minute break and then we come back and we have our final section discussion related to infrastructure. It is seven minutes past eight so let's aim to literally back for 12 minutes past eight so that we can aim to finish. Thank you very much. Okay thank you everyone welcome back to this meeting screen in the overview committee. We are going to move on to our third topic which I think really will now be our final topic as the other two of housing and economics have to some extent been covered by all the topics however if colleagues have quite questions which they had an answer in those areas if I can encourage you now to just ask any remaining questions under the general banner of infrastructure. So nobody lets in first of all. Councillor Ellington is our first one, Councillor Hart is our second one and Councillor Redger up our third and then we'll carry on from there. So Councillor Ellington. Thank you. My concern is that there is an enormous amount of concentration on jobs and housing and very very very little concentration on communities and communities need odd places where they can have pavilions, they can have a little corner shop that where entrepreneurs can start a one-man business all those sort of things are needed and there is nothing that I've found having not read totally every word I have to admit but actually talks about communities and if one thing that's more important than anything else in South Gams it's that each of our villages is a little community and that people support each other and one of the reasons in my view that the country is in such a muddle just at the moment with NHS is that the next door neighbour doesn't know you and therefore doesn't pop in and just make sure you're all right and it's those sort of communities that are the strength of South Gams that we need to build on and it's not in this plan. Councillor Smith. So Councillor Ellington I agree with every word that you say regarding the importance of community and I think during the pandemic South Cambridge demonstrated the strength of its communities outstandingly that every single village had mobilised a support group within less than three weeks was quite astonishing. So I think you know within our villages I think we have excellently established communities I think they're under enormous pressure because of the economy I've heard of three pubs closed in the last last week I heard of three pubs that were closing they're all pubs that I know so I think that's extremely tough on communities. I'm not worried you know other than the fact that we know we're seeing the loss we're seeing the loss of community facilities within villages you know the villages are remarkably resilient. Obviously when it comes to building these large new settlements you know there needs to be a lot that is done to ensure that communities become established as early as possible and have the infrastructure that they need for it. So you know Camborn which is an extraordinarily successful place now did not have a good beginning because it was housing first and you know things like the churches and the community centre and so on came came came too late. As you know it's been challenging to get that all in place at North Sto but things are now moving forward there they're at pace so you know we know the we know the importance of making sure that there are there are community facilities there you know these depend on largely on developers and on section 106 but obviously we are we are largely responsible for ensuring that you know the developers meet the commitment to provide the wherewithal so that communities communities can thrive can thrive so so absolutely and if you think it needs to be reviewed within the current local plan then you know we will review it because it's everybody's important to me as it is to you. I seem that's going to be the end of your answer unless you wish to refer to any officers. No, Councillor Ellington anything further? No thank you. Okay thank you very much. Councillor Hart. Thank you chair and I've been sitting here thinking oh I could have asked this question in another section I hope but thank you for giving me the opportunity I was going to wait for housing but here we go. So I've noticed that the term and I'm very pleased to hear that the term sustainability and sustainable development I mean I've kept to tally really of how many times it's been mentioned on it it's really reassuring to hear that that's still very much on the cards so in terms of the need for more housing I guess the question that's probably in all of our minds are you know well where could these actually be built and and would this or might this mean there was a need for another new town? Councillor Smith. Thank you very much. So you know the papers you have in front of you today identify there's the sort of three key strategic sites of you know the biomedical site questions there on whether there needs to be any green belt release. A recent meeting I had with them they were talking about key worker housing but not on the green belt actually through densifying parts of the site that are already in use and then obviously we've got the airport of northeast Cambridge. I think further work needs to be done to validate the figures that are coming forward now and to identify what the opportunities are for further densification of existing sites and proposed sites so you know a lot of effort has gone into minimizing the further further land release through through greater densification and we know that in places like Water Beach actually buildings are being built quite high for this area it's a fine balance isn't it between you know how much land you're prepared to you're prepared to release for development because of course once it's developed it's lost and it's gone it's gone forever but our people prepared to accept higher higher rise buildings so I can't categorically say that there won't be a need for a further large settlement I think that will become evident in in due course but I'm sure Stephen Kelly can add some some meat to that. Stephen Kelly. Thank you. Well really just to say one of the things that we're seeking to try and one of the things that the report highlights is the commitment to the current spatial strategy and that spatial strategy includes settlements that we haven't mentioned in its makeup depending upon as part of the first proposals we distributed the growth in the housing figure across that whole area we don't yet know what is going to be deliverable in terms of a housing requirement across the plan across the plan period and therefore whether or not those sites and the distribution or indeed scope further densification or indeed further sites in the city that weren't identified in the local plan are going to come forward or be capable of forming part of that solution that will be something that we will need to resolve by the summer when we bring the next iteration of the plan when we've been able to work through the housing numbers more clearly against the environmental constraints that exist and whether or not that that justifies any further site allocations across the area so it will be wrong for me to rule in or rule out any any additional proposition here because I simply don't have a number against which we need to distribute that quote. Councillor Hart. Thank you Jay, thank you for those responses I guess the other words that are going around my head is that word deliverability and I feel reassured that that's something that's you know very much front and centre and I think Councillor Llywydd, you said another in your previous answer to the previous question about infrastructure first and learning so thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor, sorry Councillor, are you wanting to go to the list? Yes sorry, I know that's what you're doing but it causes me to stop when I'm going to be thrown by that. Councillor Redwell. Thank you Jay. My questions about the carbon impact of building new homes really pleased looking at the policies in the first proposals that we have so many good policies on energy use in new homes that go well beyond the current national standards and clearly any new proposed new homes would be much cheaper and more energy efficient to run the majority of our current housing but we still do have this carbon impact of building lots of new homes and the worry that it could use a significant portion of the 11 million ton carbon budget for Greater Cambridge so my question is can we reduce the impact of building new homes by going further in the policies on reducing carbon emissions and construction? Councillor Smith. What a good question so you know that we will go as far as we possibly can so we are looking at building some houses with our joint venture partner and we're looking to build to passive house standards for that. Again it's all a balance again so balancing the carbon cost of building homes which is a one-off against the carbon cost of people commuting for years and years and years which is an ongoing cost so we need to be thinking about that as well but absolutely we should be building a generation of houses which are just so much more energy efficient than certainly what I live at the moment which definitely is not energy efficient and you know to benefit the environment but also to benefit people's cost of living so you know for five years this administration has talked about housing that's affordable for everyone to live in and that means freeing up as much people's income as possible from the slavery of paying utility bills and gas and oil and electricity so the more energy efficient we make the homes the better it is for people and the better it is the better it is for the environment so we will certainly go as far as we possibly can. The you know what I am seeing a lack of commitment from government about this again government in my view should be mandating that all new homes need to be including a significant percentage of renewable energy they should be mandating for much higher biodiversity net gain targets you know as I said before water recycling there because there's so much that government could do to show leadership on this we can do our best but at the end of the day you know a planning inspector could easily decide that we're being unreasonable and that because developers some of them will go along with us others will say you know it hits their bottom line so you know we'll do our best to work with developers to deliver housing of the higher standard but you know we need to be working with government to get them to bite the bullet as well and make it make it easier for us to deliver on our ambitions which I know was shared by just about every council of every political persuasion in this country. Do you wish anyone to add something from officers or are you happy from your perspective to move on? No, I'm checking if you if you want anything else out here to this point. No, okay that's the right route. Thank you very much councillor Smith. I was just wondering if there is any possibility of looking into extending any of our policies to to a wider range of developments so perhaps the whole life carbon assessment or the circular economy policy for construction or if it might be possible to include any best practice targets for upfront carbon emissions for construction. Those are the sorts of things I was thinking about but obviously it does depend on what's feasible. Thank you. Well thank you I'm going to come to Mr Kelly because I you know much as I would love to say yes it's about what is what is possible. Stephen Kelly. Two things. The first is that is that we've we actually have done work as part of the local plan to try and understand the key parameters to get us towards a net zero position through the through the life of the plan recognizing the 2050 kind of commitment statutory requirement to do so. Councillor Smith has already highlighted the the conclusions of that which is that it's very on one level it's not easy but it's straightforward to identify how you can reduce the footprint arising from construction and the homes themselves. It becomes far more significant in those circumstances as you improve or get closer to passive house the implications of people's use of those homes and behaviors in terms of travel movements which is why we came we come back to and settle on the spatial strategy but we have produced a report on that which I'd encourage people to look at. In terms of how far we're going to be able to push it this is a kind of live debate in the context of where national development management policies might take us and at the same time where the building regulations and the review of building standards may well in fact push things. Certainly wherever we can we're seeking to ensure that new homes so the homes on Darwin Green that were consented by the Joint Development Control Committee have a I think they have a provision in them that they are not fueled by fossil fuels in their you know electric heating and so forth and so we are dynamically as we can moving towards trying to encourage the development industry and both commercial and residential development to adopt those those kind of approaches. It does get difficult when it becomes when we think about cementing that against specific standards in the plan because we will be examined against compliance for national policy and and at the moment it doesn't it encourages but it doesn't necessarily allow us to strengthen it perhaps as far as we would go but the national development management policies that have been referenced do seem to be suggesting or pointing towards standards for building performance and environmental sustainability but we'll have to wait and see when they come out later this year. Councillor Redwell. Thank you very much. Yeah I was going to ask this under housing but I'm obviously asking now. So if an additional area of Greenbelt were released to the south of the biomedical campus how do you see that as the best way of maximising that if that were given permission? So you know it won't be my decision. Greenbelt release has to meet the exceptional circumstances standard and the decisions down to the Secretary of State to make that decision. So you know if any Greenbelt is put forward it will be down to the applicant to make the case for exceptional circumstances and then you know it'll go to the Secretary of State to decide on it. So I'm correct, aren't I? Oh not quite, no he's frowning at me okay better clarify then sorry. Wait back if I'm getting it wildly wrong please. You're not totally wrong but certainly the local plan ultimately the determination will be whether the any release of Greenbelt is justified through the terms of the examination process and that is the Secretary of State's inspector provides an assessment of that which is why I just wanted to clarify it but the rationale for including the Adam Brooks continuing exploration of the Adam Brooks Greenbelt release in this paper is because of a set of very interesting circumstances that we're trying to understand whether they're exceptional which relates to the biomedical campus its current deficiencies the difficulties in terms of movement and sustainability that it's starting to expose it's obviously only two-thirds completed at this moment against its existing allocation and the suggestion that because of the composite nature of land ownership we need a very unique way of managing the success of what is Europe's largest life sciences cluster in a different way to solely landowner driven development proposals. So with the arrival of Cambridge South Station which is imminent in in many respects in terms of a commitment for infrastructure we feel it appropriate and that's why we've referenced it in this report to try and understand how far the requirements to create a much better place dovetail with the exception test before we can determine whether or not we can take that forward through the local plan process but with apologies for suggesting that the leader was in some way incorrect. It is ultimately a matter for the local plan and the assessment of whether or not the release is justified by the Secretary of State's inspector rather than the planning commission referral or any specific thank you. Am I allowed a quick follow-up? Yes yeah um yeah so if that were given permission as in the mindset of what we would best want for that area obviously the employment and the almost like tidying up and improving what's there from the money from anything extra um but also I presume what type of housing like a full range of affordable to meet to make it a walkable cyclable neighbourhood um with almost on site job to work you know um sorry I'm losing my thread your home to um placement employment would be incredibly closed and that would be a much better environmental solution from the point of view of emissions um so key worker housing um what are what would we be wanting to as a council look at if that site were one that we decided to apply for by the release of green belts. I'm going to defer to Stephen in case I say something wrong on this. Stephen Kelly. It's a complex site and one of the things and it's got a lot of in a sense even fairly straightforward issues to do with the fragmented land ownership um the level of amenity that leads to um difficulties even for existing workers in terms of the mix of land uses so we are exploring the way the role of in which some form of um more um holistic and master planned approach might deliver not only um the essential ecosystem that that allows for significant and rapid advancement of medical treatment for communities not only in Cambridge but um importantly in Cambridge and across the world through the close association of both research and hospitals acute care hospitals but also what that means for staff how we can manage more effectively the flow of people in and out um including the need to accommodate some of those key workers the difficulties that Adam Brooks faces in terms of recruitment and retention the reduction of commuting and so on and um elements of place which the biomedical campus is particularly weak on at this moment in time so the proposals that um uh we are exploring with them include the creation of more public access to some of that green belt in terms of country park space and so forth as well as understanding where the best place to put home put any key worker housing is where the best place is to put some of those other features including things like the helipad even um as we go forward they're in a process in which we're asking them to justify um how all of those things come together in a deliverable because the the let down for the biomedical campus has been the ability to curate and deliver that effectively in the way that other places can and we're asking them how to just how they can explain and justify that any further green belt release would would make the delivery of that better quality place and that integrated kind of proposition of places to live and work and addressing those some of those acute commuting difficulties that give rise to the campus every day um before we form a final view but what we want to try and do is to signal to them that they're that we um are interested in them still pursuing that because it's not a cheap endeavor and the landowners involved in that process need to understand that we are still interested in understanding whether they can pursue that thank you that's about place making thank you councillor co thanks very much chair um so my question builds on council councillor Ellington's question um it's sort of around healthcare uh predominantly um in you know when we're forecasting additional houses and uh making plans um really just to to make sure that we are considering healthcare local to where people are whether that is dentists uh GP service health centres so it's about how how are we working with um local sort of healthcare providers whether that be the NHS or the private sector which you know might include some of the GP services you know which are essentially their own businesses how are we going to facilitate premises within new developments for you know uptake of you know GP service and um you know dentists to want to start up locally to where people live and then i suppose the bigger issue around you know if if we are having a lot more residents the impact on adonbrooke's hospital i know we've talked a lot about that in terms of staffing and housing which will obviously go up if we've got more patients to treat in in the local area so um just an assurance that we are working with um those providers to make sure that we can deliver good healthcare to the additional um people that will be living in this area and and that's provided as locally as possible but thank you so again not a very not a very good question and very um very appropriate at this time when we are you know we're in a healthcare crisis um you know throughout nationally um so obviously there's there's a limited role for you know our role as planners and people who produce section 106 and so on uh is key to to this um it feeds into the place making question as well about making sure there's provision uh the combined authority is involving itself very much in in health provision obviously the the mayor is a is a medic um and the a member the head of the integrated care service is a is a non-voting board member of the combined authority so you know we need to see leadership from all parties on this to make sure that we don't end up with a more denuded um health offer to people in south cambridge and cambridge city than we already have um we had a meeting last week with adonbrooke's hospital where they were talking about the the new cancer hospital and the new children's hospital and the fact that they are fundraising for i think 100 million pounds additional for each to deliver each of those and uh you know that's not to that's to reduce the relieve the pressure that's currently on on adonbrooke's at the moment it's not really extra beds it's just to relieve relieve the pressure so it was really quite um it was quite alarming actually the conversation with the hospital about about their pressures and the fact that the um outcomes of the pandemic in the east of england were amongst the worst in britain and that was because of the existing pressures on the health service here and that of a regional centre which you're obviously very familiar with um but is there more i'm good if i may refer to steven kelly of this is there more we should be doing within the local plan to make sure that um our residents have confidence that new housing and new jobs will be will come with associated improvements and increases in health care steven kelly so we are having um uh we are engaging with the integrated care partnerships um and um no surprises the question that they're quite rightly asked is how many people are going to be in the area and how many people do we plan for and we cycle back to the conversation about how many homes are we going to have and the importance of making sure that we have the right number of homes uh that we're we're identifying so that the health community can identify the right treatment patterns and pathways for those for that demographic um the the other thing that we can do so so so helping the health service by ensuring that our forecasting is as good as it possibly can be about what the population of this district is um this isn't about a planning conversation in terms of it has real meaning for the health health care sector that is trying to build infrastructure and to think about the infrastructure down the line that that is going to give rise to so um we're doing our best with modelling as we've tried to explain um and we will see where that takes us to the other thing though that our spatial strategy seeks to do is to recognise how um in so far as we can concentrating growth and and and focusing on new settlements does provide through the scale of those those developments sufficient scale to see new facilities delivered on those sites to support those those new communities if we seek to disperse growth in another spatial strategy across the entire area what you then find is incremental pressure on localised existing facilities but lacking the in the case of of for example born airfield potentially five million pounds into the health into the primary health care sector to deliver a new building deliberately for that that new community clearly um health infrastructure can be quite expensive setting aside the need for um uh the processes that sit behind it but by a spatial strategy that we've advanced in which we're seeking your continued support for centering on these larger settlements we have the best opportunity to deliver new infrastructure for those new communities without compromising significantly the infrastructure in those in those surrounding areas and it's really important as part of that that we can continue to update and keep appraised things like our annual monitoring for on housing delivery helps the health care community to understand where homes are being built and therefore where demand is likely to come from so the less that we spread out the growth the more that we can try and locate it in new settlements noting that all of the comments um that have been made about the challenges of doing so in places like northstone cambourne um the best chance we've got to help the health health sector responds to the kind of growth growth challenges with at least land and buildings and funding for new infrastructure in the meaningful challenge thank you council cairn thank you very much for that yeah thank you thank you um uh i would like to to sort of broaden out this the um um the issue of these new the new allocations that there was a bit in the in the um uh in documentation and and just clarify um how they're related to the the um um a bit objectively it's us need um uh there's a bit more um to move in line i think that is that we can maybe speed up the delivery bit is there is the idea to explore that potential to um increase delivery or increase density on those sites um uh and um between now and the summer which which when when you said we need to be sort of being clearer about this are we will we really be able to achieve much more certainty about what can be achieved there um uh not not are related to the the sort of where we might find more numbers the the question of of a new allocation um we've discussed in the past how how having too many large new allocations can actually um uh be counter productive you don't just have a large new allocation get um the portioning more more houses because there's some sort of competition between between them um uh will it be possible to to um uh get some idea about about um about that effect uh yeah between now and the relatively short time for the summer um and then um uh just to sort of just on that um uh at the moment we're you we're we've got this new evidence um so so what's happening next is is um we're having you're having this sort of a bit of feedback interaction with us on this um uh and then and then we'll we'll come back in in um six months time whenever um uh with this draft is there is there any other new evidence to be expecting between now and then um to feed into that process and um so will there be other opportunities to to to interact on on through the process capsa smith can i can i ask Stephen to pick pick that up because he was uh quite detailed about how uh what we're doing so far to increase delivery and density and how the num the predicted new numbers relate to those those two sites so um uh and i'm sorry if this is not if it's not clear and um the basis that the the report today is not seeking to bring forward any new allocations as part of the process um uh and and equally contingent upon what the um position is in terms of the most substantive new evidence will be water that then allows us to identify how we um what that what the headroom is to um head to either um at least make moves towards the identified need um based upon the fact uh based upon the um existing provisions that we outlined in the first proposals um which of course go beyond the current adopted local plan so those proposals in the first proposals uh those site allocations and the assumptions about densification that council man via is highlighted um uh we need to be able to validate against the the water data of beyond that whether there's a need for further allocations is as i said something that we will have to we will have to consider um uh but at this moment in time um i can't i i can't impus ish significant further evidence coming forwards um uh beyond the water uh the the water framework plan uh other than our own understanding of what that means that will that will um that is pending any further decision on on those matters as as we as we said we're seeking to affirm the spatial strategy um and we're not proposing to suddenly move to a different spatial strategy um that means that if we are if we do need to start to look at other sites we would look to try and identify sites consistent with the current strategy of large sites rather than dispersed growth and looking to try and um think through what that meant in terms of um our densification that we touched upon and and the first proposal allocations point around camborn that people have raised um which we haven't asserted at this point it was not one of the questions i think um but but which is clearly in the in the consideration that we will take thank you councillor heather woollyum thank you chair um so one of which is councillor batter chair could be here this evening but um one thing that unshul members will be aware of is her um dedication to promoting that faith provision would be made and i do hope that that can be looked into and explored further because we are talking about significantly more housing and we're talking about people moving for work purposes and not just expansion of the current population so with that we are going to have you know need for more more diversity in the in the provisions that are made um so if that could be noted please chair a response given for a commitment to that from the leader or um whoever's do we get at the moment um when it comes to affordable housing on strategic sites because i think this is sort of touching what um just been mentioned by um by councillor van derweyr is that it's incredibly frustrating when you're on committee we have a policy of 40 percent of affordable housing but as we saw like in water beach you get 30 percent because there's lots of other competing costs um for setting up a town or all village is like you're born and completely from scratch and that leads myself to be concerned at the moment and those on planning committee will know affordable housing is one of my shall we say pet pet issues um that i particularly like to to focus in on because we know that a lot of the issues we have as the leader has said is around affordability so how are we balancing that with the with the other needs but in a way that we don't think we're going to end up with less than 40 percent affordable housing like we've seen on places like water beach because otherwise it feels like a bit of a self-defeating prophecy that will always need more houses for affordable ability purposes but the way that we're planning means we're never going to to get them um so that's the other thing is on appendix d i think it is for everybody we've had some differences if you're online or or paper so um it's the page 12 on d as i've got it in front of me um effects of spatial option nine identified in 2021 s a and this is something i think is causing or definitely in my patch i've had people speak to me that's causing concern some reassurance around this that the current spatial strategy because we have these 8 000 houses that aren't allocated anyway yet um does allow for building in villages indeed we heard early on from mr kelly that small sites in villages are still envisaged and the bit that's particularly concerning um it talks about rural employment um swaysie junction babrum as well as in the southern cluster and villages now i won't go this is an element of um political challenge in in southern cluster so i won't go there the chair that's that's a matter for council but those of us in the southern part of the district do have concerns when we hear southern cluster and villages and there was 600 plus sites a lot of them in that southern cluster and a lot of villages and residents right now because they don't know where these 8 000 houses are going are genuinely concerned that any submission of the call for sites is now up for grabs again by developers so can we have more explanations to the process obviously those sites have been looked at i very much imagine there's been more sites to it since so maybe knowing how many sites we're now at would be helpful um and to are we looking at the the sites submitted again for these 8 000 or you know where are the future ones and if there has been some since because i imagine in south cambridge and carat city there have been where are they and some residents can really see what it is that's potentially going to be built on because that i think right now is the real fear factor and that's not good for our residents okay so i'll go backward on this so i think i think you're jumping the gun we're just jumping the gun here council williams so um as you know um sites continue to be submitted into the local plan process right up until the the last minute um they are assessed based on what our our strategy is you know the the whole purpose of this evening has been to reaffirm our our strategy and i think we've given a very very strong message that you know the strategy the strategy stands so the strategy that protected unsustainable locations from development during the first um you know the first sift of those many many sites put forward you know still stands and will will function in exactly exactly the same the same way so i think it's really important that we're not we don't raise alarm amongst our residents i think the thing that will give them reassurance is to say that the strategy that we've used thus far will be the strategy that we'll be using going forward um on affordable housing you know as as you explained um the viability the viability issues over over large scale new developments are always really tough and it's a great it's a sadness to me that in you know more often than not it's the affordable housing the sentence that suffers as a result of it because it's having to compete against doctor surgeries and schools and so on and so forth so you know it's just it's a function of the planning system that we currently have and until there's you know still there's some action by government that cements these affordable housing numbers and forces developers to deliver them and ceases to protect developers profits as much as they currently are protected um then that situation will will perpetuate and regarding faith provision you know that's part of uh placemaking and sustainable community sustainable community so of course it will get it will get full consideration in the same way that health provision gets out consideration but Stephen can probably add some add some more detail Stephen so i was waiting for you to finish writing if i give you a moment Stephen um i'm just uh actually i'm asking one of my colleagues because um in terms of the reference that you made on appendix d i i think is identifying the the effects of the different spatial options um uh the the underpin the um se a i think um process so i don't know whether any of my colleagues can comment on that because i can't immediately place it to hand the spatial option that was mentioned uh spatial option nine was actually the preferred option that was included within the first proposals um uh it's factual so so um okay so responding to to the to the wider point about the concern that people have expressed about the assessment or the promotion of further sites the lead is quite correct the effectively we can't prevent people submitting propositions forward um through the local plan process and indeed um they will continue to do so i suspect all the way up through to examination um but the matrix the methodology and the kind of approach that we follow to um site assessment is included on our evidence base online so if if residents have got a concern i have met with a couple of parishes in the past who have been concerned about the noises there the local promoters have been making about a particular site you can see our assessment of that site online and um in the vast majority of cases as you recognise we've discounted those sites from consideration going going forwards so if there are sites that people are concerned about um uh it's probably useful or reassuring for them to look at the way in which we have assessed them as part of the work that we've done that we've done today but we will see sites coming forward absolutely there is a challenge and thinking about viability development viability and indeed debt finance is likely to push that harder as well as construction costs and labour costs as we go forwards um but affordable housing of course is not able to be delivered at all on small sites and so our strategy of trying to concentrate on larger sites is we think overall probably the right approach because you can then also deliver different forms of tenure and create parents communities through that way but um as you highlight uh water beach wasn't able to achieve our 40 percent housing affordable housing requirement of course born airfield is able to currently demonstrate that it can achieve that um and some of these elements are written by both the land structures that sit underneath how these sites sites come forward as well as some of those exceptional difficult development costs we've discussed before. Thank you. How's that happen Williams? Thank you chair I think most has been covered in my questioning but perhaps I wasn't clear enough chair or this has just been overseen um I did ask for a number of how many to date I appreciate there will be more coming in but how many site solutions we are to date and also whether we will like we published the site submissions those 600 odd and we gave commentary whether we will be publicising an update to the new submissions that have come in since to give that transparency and because what I was saying relation to the documents what concerns people is it does it's it just broadly says villages um in the spatial strategy doesn't say you know sort of villages of a certain size or anything like that and so there is real genuine concern that the numbers going up means there'll be some sort of disbursement of of houses that all villages will be um required to take x amount even if it's two houses or one depending on its size so because that the spatial option allows and includes the word villages there isn't that reassurance that I think residents really could need but if we knew how many have been submitted and where they were the new ones that may well give residents a sense of a sense of security they know that there isn't something that's at the council on their doorstep that they don't know about thank you chair so yes just just two things first of all obviously the current adopted local plan allows development in villages for two houses anyway so um there is no shift from that in terms of the the current policy framework from the 2018 local plan um but uh jonathan or correct me we we do periodically publish the additional information we update the assessment that that we do to capture all of the additional sites that have been um that have been submitted we did that um alongside the first proposals you'll recall we published the call for sites we then published the first proposals and we did that um obviously we're trying to focus on preparing the plan so we're not going to do it constantly we can't do it constantly because there's actually quite a lot of data processing that has to sit behind it because you'll have seen the interactive plan that people can go on and see all the documents and so on but but uh periodically we will publish all of the call for site or the submissions effectively being from out the site promotions that are being made and i know that in a number of cases um some of those developers are actively promoting with parishes and talking to parishes about it um but jon or caroline might be able to advise me how frequently we update the the schedule lot that's available online the interactive map that's welcome our primary focus at the moment is testing the sites that were put into us so we published um in the summer all the sites received us on the top of my head it was about 41 new sites and there was additional information about 180 sites that's a lot of work for us to plough through and that's our our current focus and all that we try and be as transparent as possible with putting all the information received on the website okay caroline thank you i wonder if it's also helpful just to clarify what the recommendations before members are are focusing on um at this stage the recommendations are to um confirm this the guiding principles that informed the first proposals um and they include won't read the the basin but they include to direct development where it has least climate impact where active and public transport is the natural choice where green infrastructure can be delivered alongside new development where job services facilities can be located near to where people live and they have all necessary utilities provided in a sustainable way so those are the guiding principles that are actually in the report that we're asking members to confirm that we would then use as we move forwards in creating the draft plan the only sites from the first proposals that we're explicitly asking members or recommending to members that they couldn't confirm at this stage are north east cambridge cambridge east and the biomedical campus with a still to look at the green belt extension um so we're not asking suggesting that that should be confirmed at this point the reason we're focused on those sites is because of their scale um the fact that they are the most sustainable locations that came through our evidence and because there are infrastructure um uh consideration sitting around that so the relocation of water treatment works through the ECO the relocation of cambridge airport and so on so it's it's it's confirming these as key sites to help with confidence to promote us to continue to pursue the um the measures that will enable those sites to come forward and be part of the plan um the rest of the first proposals would be considered once we understand the water supply and once we understand how much development can be in our targets within our plan and we've talked about that a lot this evening so uh we don't know at this point whether it will be all the sites that were in the first proposals uh or not and those guiding principles will help us confirm uh which of those sites should be within the uh draft local plan as we create that over the coming months um and indeed those guiding principles would help us identify any further sites if there was um capacity uh to uh to go beyond the first proposal so um I just thought it might be helpful just be really clear what's in the report before members um so there was reference to um other words around uh that that perhaps in uh some of the um first proposals work but the very specific recommendations are included within appendix a or refer to appendix a and the policy directions that are in section five of appendix a and that's specifically what we're we're suggesting that members confirm because that will then help us as we do our work over the coming months to develop the draft plan I hope that's helpful okay thank you Councillor Heather Williams um chair I think when we've made an announcement like this summer is not very recent enough I think there needs to be or a few and things need to be really as up to date as it can be appreciate it's not going to be a daily update or as applications come in but given the level of anxiety I just don't think summer's enough chair okay um I suppose then that's directed towards Councillor Smith who will need to reflect upon that and consider whether or not to take action okay uh Councillor Haylings thanks and I can I sort of sense this the steering us towards emotion to take a decision perhaps coming from one of the officers just though but it would I would on the infrastructure side um I'd like some reassurance really that we're looking at at at risk and I appreciate this is potentially kind of new risk coming but we've talked about infrastructure first and that being one of the key guiding principles so that if we're looking at um keeping it within the strategic sites and that infrastructure has to be there and anytime we talk to residents about if you're building walls going to happen referred you know with the medical facilities with school facilities with the play equipment with with everything with the water that's on the one side and we've also heard about how important affordable housing is I was in the meeting this week with the local government associations and with the chairs um with the board which is environment economy housing and transport looking at the the planning reforms which are there and the change away from the section 106 to the infrastructure levy which is in the planning reforms and the two deep concerns about that are one that 50% of affordable housing is currently provided and delivered through section 106 so housing associations are particularly concerned about the affordability and the second is that the infrastructure levy compared to section 106 will only be provided when the first house is bought and purchased and is taken up that means that all the upfront cost for the infrastructure that we're talking about would be at the responsibility of the local authority with no power and resources nor confidence that they will actually get the money and that the how much money it will be and what we'll do so you completely hobbled I'm asking for reassurance because this is what we're seeing what risk are we looking at these new government measures will actually limit our ability to provide the affordable housing that we need to and secondly that infrastructure first approach so how how will we how will we kind of look at that risk in terms of what we're doing absolutely right well it's rubbish isn't it you know I mean it's a rubbish situation being being created here it's you know making life really really really hard for us and that's uh which is why I'm you know I'm expecting a very robust pushback from the LGA to a lot of these proposals these proposals that are coming as a result of of the planning planning reforms and I think that goes for yeah for all councils you know that it's not all bad there's some there's some good stuff there but there's some some stuff which makes our life really hard how we deal with it I don't know I presume Stephen's probably given it's given it's some thought about how we manage the situation where you know the money isn't coming through early on for us to fulfil our infrastructure first aspirations so um I think I think there's very limited detail on it but but um you highlight a fundamental challenge with tariff based levy payments which is that someone has to fund the infrastructure upfront and if the suggestion is that the local authorities have to fund the infrastructure upfront for for councils like South Cambridgeshire with a large amount of strategic growth and a large number of urban extensions uh and and the council as well um that the costs the the costs of funding that infrastructure will run into hundreds of millions of pounds that the local authorities or some form of alternative delivery are going to have to fund through borrowing to be repaid at some point by receipts through a levy so it's not clear how that's how how government envisage that process to work but there are um there we will need to wait and see the the details behind it but it is going to be a very substantial shift from the developer effectively um borrowing the money to deliver those those infrastructure costs and and um uh uh we'll have to just wait and see how that how that happened but it it is one of the challenges associated with any tariff based type of solution. Chancellor Haynes first. Thank you and so that yes I think we would support anything that doesn't just favour the developers you know even more in this unbalanced situation at the moment so I hope that that would be challenged the second is and like I don't in terms of the evidence so about schools so I know that CB4 schools met last week and their concern is the falling role of primary school children so that was all schools in CB4 area all are looking at the at falling role now when I look at the census and we know that there's a small school that was closed but but actually it's wider than that so when we look at the census it doesn't seem to be saying the same thing as the head teachers are perceiving and so I'm just wondering how that's what evidence in terms of the infrastructure and the sort of providing the needs to that as is it this changing demographic have we got any evidence around around that that could help us yeah consider what we're doing in terms of placemaking. Chancellor Smith. So I'm sorry I consider we're kind of straying off what you know the purpose of this meeting which is about sort of validating the you know the strategy because we're in quite a lot of detail now which I think we might struggle to answer at this at this stage I mean I'm struggling to answer it at this stage I don't know Stephen what you feel. Stephen. Well just briefly yeah I mean these are matters to be worked out through the demographic you know they will flow out from the final housing numbers things like the location the proportion of affordable housing on individual applications but we work with the county in terms of their modelling work on child yield associated with different types sizes and tenures of housing clearly they you know we're bound and guided by them in in the right and proportionate balance but they do look at existing school role provision before they start to suggest new classrooms on new or new schools elsewhere. Chancellor Nealings okay thank you Chancellor Woodie if you caught my eye a moment ago. Thank you chair thank you for that meet there was one thing I forgot earlier and that was just around our reliance we referenced on faster build out rates um from developers particularly reference north stowe and water beach two areas particularly you know have raised their own concerns in in recently with the lack of community facilities in north stowe and with water beach you know I know things are saying about future bills and everything about government but actually as we currently stand I don't think we should forget that in water beach millions or over 10 million pound was used of taxpayers money to do with the railway station because it's even what they couldn't comply with their planning commission which the gcp have failed them out for so if we're asking for faster delivery rates how can we be certain that that's not going to result in another bill for us because I'm acutely aware that the way that the railway station for the gcp and perhaps I needed to declare an interest that I'm on the gcp um is is indefinite they are picking up that's the minimum of what it's going to cost you know a blank check essentially was given by the great cambridge partnership um to to cover these costs of which we as a council are a decision maker so are we opening ourselves out potentially to more financial burden by being reliant on those faster delivery rates just food for thought given the way the top of the conversation has gone chair so you know what what are the reasons for speeding up delivery means that we we then are less reliant on further land releases so it's you know that is why we've been working with developers in order to speed up the rate at which they build because if they're building faster we have we have to look at less land being released for further development so it's in our it's in all of our interest that uh look we keep on top of that okay great so i'm just going to second comment okay we have done it in 917 which means we are about to hit up four hour window I still have councillor Harvey councillor Richard Williams councillor Beigart councillor Stovart councillor Bear Park and councillor Bradman who have all put their hands up to ask questions and that's right at the end of the day we control how long the meeting lasts and if we all continue to ask questions and we all continue to talk at length and we all continue to invite councillor Smith or the officers to give us lengthy answers then our meeting lasts a long time and that's a collective decision that we make and obviously the fact that these six councillors are still waiting to ask the question is entirely valid and they should be able to ask the question however what it does mean is obviously it's about here four hours we have to collectively ascend to the fact that we will add maybe another half an hour to our meeting so therefore it is currently about 2920 so I would like to propose that we add a further 30 minutes to our meeting to go to 950 and that we seek to get through our remaining six councillors and I'm just going to say rather northerly no one else puts their hand up to add themselves to the list but obviously it is up to you colleagues to decide whether or not you do that and then we ask councillor Smith to give us a sense of exactly what it is that you would entirely like the committee in terms of general recommendation towards cabinet for this and then we are sent or not to that and then we come to the end of our meeting so therefore okay we can yes we can except that we haven't up to this point limited people and what I will do is I will say that I will encourage colleagues to ask just one question and one answer I think that's the best I can say at this point but yes cancer but thank you okay so I have proposed cancer better than I seconded so can I ask for a scent for the additional 30 minutes agreed quietly agreed okay thank you very much colleagues we move on to councillor Harvey the record of UK power networks um in keeping this council in the loop and itself in the loop um he's been very disappointing I know at least two cases where emails from very senior officers have not been applied to um you know are they even aware that we've reached this um sort of watershed and decision point in the progress of local plan surely they should be because um in their Rio2 ED2 business plan they talk at length about using digitalisation and flexibility to avoid putting in any hard infrastructure in fact um people from their business plan they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to spend sort of hard cash on on new cabling um so um surely as councillor Smith has said um the government is very much invested in the economic development of this area now would be a very good time for the chief executive to write to the government minister and to off-gen and and sort of say well this is not acceptable because the result of this is going to be I suspect that the houses will still get built but the sort of things like provision of EV charge points will then kind of drag way behind where it should be and that's a contributor to our carbon mitigation sort of objective I could just put in one suggestion that might be useful I've discussed with Emma Davies my view is that we are where we are we probably won't have enough group capacity so that we should consider in the new local plan that um battery storage is considered in the same category as solar panels as um contributing in by some formula to um the carbon efficiency of new developments thank you councillor Smith uh this thank you thank you for the suggestions uh the suggestion of letter writing we'll take back to cabinet and uh and discuss with the chief executive thank you that's a perfect answer I feel we can probably move on at that point yes councillor Richard Williams thank you chair I'll try and be as quick as I can so my question is about about housing the the ACOM addendum which is included in our in our paper says that paragraph 3.21 that the 2020 medium growth which is the main growth we're talking about um presents an unprecedented challenge to housing delivery in greater temperature that would require a step change in delivery far above the delivery rates of the past um two decades so my question really is to go back to a point that councillor van de Vijermade which is what work is going to be brought forward which looks at that downside not just the upside to say we have a lot of evidence on the upside assumption after assumption is made as I've already gone through in the modelling I mean I'll just note in passing that you know councillor Stobart said that the lefm is a good model and I might agree with him on that but I think we should all remember we're not just using the lefm we take the lefm adjust it to the 2020 population and then we go through a series of assumptions choices which add on 16 000 jobs to that lefm model so there as I say is a lot on the upside what can we expect on the downside as to what evidence is going to be brought forward about the constraints on development councillor fein mentioned green belt we've talked about water um because I fear if we don't bring forward some evidence on the constraints we really are doing the developer's job for them if we keep coming up with models that show higher and higher and higher and higher and higher need and nothing on the other side if we decide we actually want slightly lower need we've given the developers all the evidence they need to turn up and challenge our local plan and say well look this is the need they came up with and now they're trying to get out of it if we don't have that strong evidence based on the other side so I would ask and I would urge that we get that evidence and I will forego my supplementary chair councillor fein thank you so developers will always argue for for greater greater numbers um they did last time and they will continue to argue for greater numbers and greater land release and so on so I think the the papers in front of us today actually articulate very well what what the constraints are and the two main constraints as we've discussed at length are the water and the actual deliverability of additional housing numbers within within the times constraints so you know that there will be other there will be other things such as the you know the electricity supply there will be other constraints there but I think those those two two constraints of the main ones that are going to actually result in me having to go and have a big big difficult discussion with government about whether you know the numbers that the independently assessed evidence are actually you know we can actually take them forward within a local plan do I anything I don't think I'll stop at student just offer a very briefly we are we are looking council williams at all other matters including character appraisals the heritage assessment the nature conservation consequences and so on and some of those things may well also particularly as the suggestion from government focuses on safeguarding character of areas may well also form part of the assessment as to what the right figure for housing is and what the how the principles that Caroline has referred to that would apply to any further or or even existing sites in that context so we are we're not just looking at as you've described the upside we are all of the evidence base is looking really carefully at the effects even on landscape character areas of some of the potential development proposals that we've already discounted from the from the planners as those propositions excellent from what council which williams said I think I'm just able to move on yes okay so councillor bygott thank you so you are following them from what councillors cone and hailing said about infrastructure following on after houses were to be built so we heard last night at the north stoke community forum there are now 1296 homes occupied in north stoke but it will still be another three to five years before the doctor's surgery moves in um and similarly uh you know a long time before shops and other facilities come um camborn has a a similar issue in that it's um got space reserved for high street but that high street hasn't been finished um so but I think with those things there's space and land reserved for that type of infrastructure so my question is about transport infrastructure uh and how we are going to plan in the next stages of developing a local plan the trans transport infrastructure alongside the housing because one of the great problems that can happen if you build the houses first and then sometime later you come along and say okay well how are we going to provide transport to people you get into a similar situation that we had with the camborn to cambridge c2c um proposal in the question how how is that actually going to get into camborn um so is there some way that we can have some system where we reserve land corridors for transport even though we haven't built them yet? Dr Smith. So that's essentially what the GCP's doing so the you know the city deal was signed in order to deal with the infrastructure deficit that had resulted from the from the previous local plan so as you say camborn started building long before there was any there was any transporting infrastructure in place so that was the whole purpose of the the GCP proposals the GCP proposals um are as well as dealing with the retrospective infrastructure deficit are also future proofing us in greater Cambridge and so you know these you know when you look at the strategic sites that are being proposed now they are all linked through the GCP schemes either by busways greenways or or whatever so you know that's all that's all being factored in and the fact you know the fact that there either is or will be transport links um funded by the GCP is what makes locations sustainable locations for for development so you know we are not banging you know not doing what was what happened with camborn which was take up a heck of a lot of fields build thousands of houses and then go oops there's no there's no transport infrastructure here other than a rather inadequate road so you know that's all that's all part of it and if you read the local transport plan which is now the responsibility of the combined authority the greater Cambridge partnerships plans are very very key to the local transport plan looking forward thank you anything to add okay okay okay and captain Stobart thank you chair um if i may ask one question just make two comments i'll be brief with them all um the the final section the additional document the isenia report talks about provision of as it were industry space talks about r&d space manufacturing space there is a brief mention of mid-tech that is the flexible r&d and manufacturing space which i wouldn't say is exactly unique to Cambridge but is is has a bit of a Cambridge uniqueness about it um and i would ask you know what is being done through the local plan to in a sense encourage mid-tech but encourage it in a way that is in a sense bears a Cambridge characteristic so that may be life science oriented with some web labs it may be oriented to some emerging emerging industry sector and so on so how do we do that over the next 10 years and have a good offering so that was my question and then just two things that i hope we could come back to is the inclusion of aesthetics and the development of you know what is Cambridge from a design point of view um and then to councillor Redrup's point earlier um one way of reducing carbon maybe to explore the use of factory built homes and premises so much more kind of long term production in environments where carbon usage can can be significantly reduced so my question was about mid-tech thank you so i was ashamed that uh peter mcdonald's gone now because we know there's been considerable research going into looking at um what's needed moving forward and you know it's not it's not small officers actually is the the sort of wet lab mid tech stuff and that's where there's a real shortage and if we are to keep our economy growing and vibrant we absolutely have to make um make provision for that um we're also very so the the spear report obviously made a huge thing about the the requirement for businesses these businesses to agglomerate together they don't necessarily no they don't necessarily want to be out except separate from the people who they are working with you know the people who have the same sort of intellectual property as them so it's about facilitating that to make sure that we are we're creating the right the right spaces for the right people obviously Cambridge itself is quite quite sort of overheating so you know we now have all these various science parks um and we need to make sure that um we are allowing them to optimise and maximise their their capacity so that we know we've got quite a lot of research now about what we need and that it's now our job to make sure that we are doing our utmost to encourage the development of the right sort of right sort of premises but Stephen I'm sure can add lots to that just very briefly um to say that yes mid tech is an identified area for growth along with logistics which we will be looking at over the next few months there are some challenges though because the rationalisation of these classes order means that in fact the kind of affordable rents for mid tech in the event that you grant a permission for that are trumped by the rents for R&D space or offices and that creates some challenges in terms of thinking about the distribution and management of it in other words there are a promotion there are people who have advanced proposals in the core sites for mid tech based enterprises in locations that you can see very easily being taken up by much higher value uses once once we've allocated the land for example or once we've identified a site and it's quite difficult with the use classes order these days to actually differentiate now a controlling process within the allocation or in terms of the planning process to stop that from happening and so they're not actually satisfying the tech demand but we are trying to explore how we can do that chief objective thank you councillor Staggart um thanks to um councillor Smith councillor Bear Park oh thank you chair my uh question is not about infrastructure so much as uh actually as such it's a green space so i was just wondering um you know given the considerable pressures on land use within the area and increasing pressures how do we ensure through the local plan that there is sufficient green space and I have in mind particularly um northeast Cambridge on the strategic sites and um you know which is in my ward and one of the concerns I have is you know the pressure it will put on not in country park for instance um so you know how are we ensuring as as as there seems to be more and more pressure on housing that there is sufficient green space to go with it absolutely so that's obviously vitally important to to us um both green space so you know we know we know from the pandemic that the benefits of having ready access to to green space to trees to you know to water and so on for for people so you know I think the there's a sort of certain number of minutes aren't there Stephen that people are meant to is it 10 minutes in order to get to green space so I think that's the that's the sort of planning planning aim that everybody has easy access nobody is maruned in a concrete jungle where it's you know it's an hour's walk or a half an hour's drive to get out before you see a before you see a green field so that's very much in the planning also you know as you recall we were uniquely called for sites green space sites as well which we are undoubtedly going to need in order to be able to deliver on 20 percent biodiversity net gain for some for some of the developments as well so you know it is important it's something we've got to keep a really really close eye on to make sure that it it doesn't get squeezed out by you know other other viability considerations and so on but it's uh it is critical and it's ever so ever so much more critical now that we know how important it is to people's health and well-being. Is there anything to add? Jonathan Dickson may well have something to add because he is sponsoring the piece of work at this moment I'm looking at this matter. Jonathan I'm just briefly to say we did publish work as part of the first proposals we are now following up effectively with the strategy exploring implementation and picking up on many of the issues that have just been mentioned so that we'll come to to members to see. Councillor Bearpark, thank you very much thanks for the answers and Councillor Bradner. Thank you chair. I'm very glad to hear that question about pressure on green space but my question is also I'm glad to hear you're having discussions with the Cambridge Biomedical Campus about capacity following on from we have that answer following on from Councillor Cohn's question and at Joint Development Control Committee we have been seeing and broadly speaking approving with considerations applications for both the Children's Hospital and also for example repurposing of the space that was made available for surge facility during the pandemic repurposing that for orthopedic work now but what we are aware of is that the original master plan for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus is has not been updated and it's a I would I think it's polite to say the way it has come forward has appears to me at least and I won't blame it on anybody else appears to be somewhat haphazard and somewhat serendipitous so I would like to ensure that in our approach to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and not for Caroline Hunt's benefit I'm going to bring us back to the proposal policy directions on page five of Appendix A there you know we're talking about proposed policy direction at 5.8 should include the existing Cambridge Biomedical Campus to meet for these listed needs which I won't bore you with but can we please encourage them to update their master plan so that that development of that area which is so vitally important has been said of the capacity to provide the services we need to do but also to sit comfortably within the space and the environs in which it sits and also to serve basically quite a lot of Cambridgeshire for the services specialist services it provides can we please get them to to have talks with them about revising their master plan thank you so I've been having talks with them been a pretty intensively for the last four years on and off and yes they have they now have very expensive consultants and the whole team of people on board and they are doing they are doing exactly that and they've had considerable pushback from myself and the previous leader of the city council about you know before we talk about you know any any release of any further land about having to optimise you know what they have currently and they they agree that you know it it it's evolved rather than resulted as a you know resulted from the proper plan so that that's all happening now lots of very interesting conversations but you know they are you know they desperately need to um they desperately need to increase the capacity of the hospital they desperately need to make the hospital a really attractive place for them for their workforce because you know an empty hospital with no staff in it is not is not fit for purpose but you know we expect to see a redrafted master plan soon there's a there's a I shan't you're right they are preparing a master plan there is a technical question about whether that master plan can actually assume the status of planning policy because there's no policy in the current local plan for it um but the whole point of uh the work is to frame um most certainly a more robust policy approach to sites like this whether it's NEC or the um all the things by medical campuses we go forward sorry councillor sorry you led forward councillor badman do we have any idea when uh the master plan is is um uh likely to form part of the evidence base to any local plan process but the um until there is a policy in which to create effectively an spd um it won't be before the plan is adopted the difficulty is as the government are also suggesting there will be no spds in the new future planning regime so then they will have to be captured in the local plan so I can't give you a precise response on that but it's not going to be made to the end of the break. Thank you for letting me break the rule I suggested. That's a suitable note to finish your answer to our question there thank you very much okay so we come to all our questions sorry we come to the end of all our questions so this is absolutely excellent and obviously we I feel that we have most definitely reviewed the document in every possible level we have asked a very large range of questions there were 33 separate occasions when members of the committees asked questions and if we assume about an average of two questions we have got somewhere in the region of 66 75 or so questions anyone who chooses to watch it back and counts if they choose to do so or maybe one of our colleagues at the back has counted we certainly ask lots of questions I feel we have definitely investigated him full so therefore I'm just going to ask counsel Smith at this point if you want to say to kind of summer and maybe what you what your view is on what exactly you would like the committee to recommend thank you so you know you've got the copy of the paper that's going to go to cabinet on the 6th of February in front of you with the recommendations the key one of which is to agree the greater Cambridge local plan development strategy update and in particular the proposed policy directions in section five for the following policy so it's really it would be good to have affirmation from scrutiny that you support us continuing with these with the strategic plan as we have been debating it all evening that you know that we have the right we have the right we have the right strategy for the creation of our local plan and that we should continue with that strategy and with those those priorities as we've been working on them thus far if there's any additional information you know anything additional you want cabinet to pay a particular attention to then obviously we we will there's anything you think we've missed out at this stage of the game obviously there's going to be numerous opportunities in the future to discuss lots and lots of detail about lots and lots of things but this is primarily about the overarching local plan development strategy and about continuing with it as it is unamended absolutely actually yeah okay so one like to propose at this point is we take what councillor Smith has said there is obviously in the documents which is that we affirm the document and that they go forward but we do so based on the fact that obviously the minutes of the committee were produced and councillor Stovart has offered again I believe to go to cabinet yes please do not at me before I can give you that job and obviously there are a number of things that have been raised during the evening I think particularly I just immediately think of councillor Williams points in relation to the publication for instance of called sites and such like of things where there are things that many councillors have flagged issues in relation to so that therefore those things would go in the minutes and that him would draw those up as the key point so that therefore we would affirm the continuation of the process if you have suggested councillor Smith but with those kind of recommendations and comments that the committee has made of which there are so many that only we can go immediately through them at the end and the councillor Stovart will go on our behalf to cabinet and make sure that those are raised from the committee unless anybody wishes to disagree with that as proposed strategy oh can't I have oh sorry I better go to councillor Watts because I've been saying councillor all evening my apologies it's a terrible thing to say to chief executive I it's too late to respond to that councillor tree um I just want to check with my colleagues in planning that there are actually a set of recommendations laid out and I just I think it may be helpful for colleagues in planning if the if you approve those recommendations on block over and above so my view would be that isn't that what councillor Smith suggested to us when she said the affirmation and then referenced the things that were in the appendix and wanted us to confirm those as recommendations is that what you would say the recommendations to cabinet as in the cabinet papers which you have in front of you I didn't want to go through the more I see quite the more specific you refer to a family say yeah is that is that correct that you want me to specifically refer to the recommendations and set out in the report yeah okay now that's fine thank you fine and councillor Williams your hand went up at that point as well thank you chair and I won't get to vote on this because I just clarify because I'm I'm not a member of the committee but I would say um these are cabinet papers uh asking for endorsement is a political decision I would like it recorded chair that this I believe this committee as it doesn't actually have a scrutiny recommendation sheet should be noting the report and cabinet should be taken into consideration the comments that have been made by scrutiny when they make their decision whether to proceed it's quite clear on page seven or sorry on page eight the recommendations that cabinet will be following that's a decision for them to make not for this committee to say whether they should or shouldn't this committee should only be noting with the and asking the recommendations to be taken into consideration that they have made note only otherwise this committee is politically endorsing this document yes no I'm asking I was seeking to try to find a way that avoided that but I recognise that I may not have done so to a full enough extent councillor Haynes your hand was up just want to clarify that as my first intervention you know this evening from the climate change and environment advisory committee is that we wanted to reaffirm wanted you know scrutiny overview and climate change environment advisory committee to recommend to cabinet the making those decisions that we reaffirm the key principles upon which these first proposals of the spatial strategy were based that's that was our recommendation to scrutiny first to to affirm this evening I feel I need to turn to councillor Williams again on that chair um you'll know I've raised before we don't have an explicit note here for the scrutiny we have cabinet papers I think asking members of the committee to to vote on this is in endorsement of it and therefore it should be noted with the comments note the support from the climate environmental group that that and the things have been said all of that can be noted and it can be um cabinet have heard the leader is here all the other things have gone through because what you've asked for here is changes and everybody has contributed and made changes so how can you endorse something they also ask for changes the changes should be taken into consideration and the leader and cabinet vote accordingly based on the document the end document I think this committee should be noting it and I would I would appreciate some constitutional advice as well because there is no written recommendation sheet here before I go on I'm just going to come back to councillor Smith since I have obviously gone to councillor Williams a couple of times in that regard just your view at this point councillor so I mean I've heard lots of comments lots of very valuable comments and lots of views I haven't heard a request for changes so there so I mean that's as far as I said there's no recommendation coming from scrutiny to make changes I've not heard that could I defer to the chief executive please who might have heard things differently from me thank you so I think it if it seems as though impossible for this committee to note the recommendations to cabinet and to provide all of the feedback in written form which our colleague from democratic services will do uh to cabinet so that cabinet receives all of your comments including the comments from SEAC okay so did you be so kind as to repeat what you have just said simply this may be for my benefit only but this may be our solution to where we are if you could repeat what you just said and then hopefully we will get a cent from the committee for what you have just said that the committee noted the recommendations to cabinet set out on page eight of the pack and provided the following comments summarised by the democratic services officer and then the comments will be summarised I'm just going to ask the two leaders in that regard councillor Smith is that okay from your perspective so I'm fine with that thank you very much William so it's okay from your perspective thank you it's exactly what I asked for excellent okay um councillor Baddam is there something you desperately needed to add at this point before I just asked the committee to affirm that no that's fine uh what the chief executive has said is in that case colleagues if I could ask you to affirm that we agree with the form of words that Liz was just suggested that we note we note yeah no no but I'm agreeing to the form of words that has been suggested if we say it out loud yes I apologize for asking to say it out loud but I feel that if something was to happen in regards to the video nodding might not be suitable okay and if I can just round off by saying um I would like to most definitely at the end formally make sure I'd like to thank um Stephen Kelly for his extensive and lengthy set of answers I'd like to thank his colleagues Caroline Hunt Jonathan Dixon and Stuart Morris for their excellent contributions as well um I'd like to thank Ian senior in particular in this meeting for sitting making notes of four and a half hours which is most certainly something excellent um I would also like to thank although he's gone now he's not hearing it Peter Maddux who sat for four hours and 20 minutes and said not one word I would also like to note my colleague Brian Mill councillor Brian Mill's adaptive leader who sat for four and a half hours and not said one word thank you very much this solid commitment thank you to Aaron for managing the whole thing I'd like to thank councillor Cone for taking the notes and I want to finish by particularly thanking councillor Smith as the leader for the fact that whilst you could well say it was her job as leader she has sat for four and a half hours and answered many many questions with occasional inputs from her colleagues and as a final thing I'd like to thank our three colleagues at the back of the room who have sat and taken notes and shown significant interest in the importance of local democracy we value your presence greatly thank you very much and thank you Collin