 That's a bit pretty. It's a bit ringy as I said, isn't it? It's a good good morning everybody. My name is Bridget Smith, I'm a leader of south CAMD, and this is a our latest is cabinet meeting. We have members, officers and make the public um here in person. This is really nice, welcome everybody, thank you for taking the trouble to come here. And a couple of members of public tuning in online as well. gyda'n gwybod yn fawr. Gweithio'r prifoedd y rhan o'r cabanau yw yw'r ffotos yma, ac mae gennym o'r traddwl. A ac mae'n gweithio'r ffotos arall, mae'r ddechrau'r ddweud ei wneud o'r ddweud ac mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud ac mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae'r ddweud yn y cwm y cwmba mae'n gweithio'r ddweud i ddechrau'r ddweud. Rydyn ni'n cymdeithio'r ddweud, ond ei gael ei wneud bod chi'n meddwl i'r ffodol, peidio'n meddwl i'r ffordd o gyllid yn hyd. Felly, mae'r ddweud am oes i gyd yn ychydig i'r lleidiau sy'n ei gael i'r ffordd o'r chat yng nghymru? Mae'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud. Felly, rwy'n gwis i'n meddwl i'r ddweud, mae'n meddwl i'r ddweud i'r ddweud? Felly, rwy'n meddwl i'r ddweud i'r ddweud, mae'n gwybod i'r ffordd y bydd eich mended i'r test ym Llywodraethol. Felly mae'r ddiwedd yn ddweud o'r cyfnodd yng nghymru yn ymdill yn ystod o'r cyfnodd. Mae'n rhai cyfan o'r ddweud. Mae'n ddweud o'r cyfan o'r cyfnodd cyfnodd. Felly mae'r ddweud o'r cyfnodd cyfnodd yn ddweud o'r cyfnodd. Mae'n ddweud o'r cyfnodd gyfnodd gyfnodd y Prifysgol Llywodraeth, the lead Cabinet Member for Economic Development. Item three, have we any declarations of interest in items on the agenda today? No declarations. Sorry, Leader. I just want to declare an interest on the Sourston item as I am a parish counciller in Sourston. Thank you. Thank you very much. That is noted. Thank you. And moving on to item four, minutes of the previous meeting, I would like to move the approval of these minutes as a correct record. Do we have a seconder, and then I will ask if there's any issues. In fact, I'll ask now if there are any issues with any of the minutes. On page 4 of the minutes, there was a point I made which hasn't been minited so if it could just be corrected on the hybrid working policy. In between Councillor Ellington and Councillor McDonald's point, I just want to stress that hybrid means exactly that. It's flexible working for modern workforce in the 21st century. And that it was going to be reviewed on a six-monthly basis. So to check that the policy was effective for officers, customers and local members. Thank you very much. Have you got that, Jonathan? Thank you very much indeed. So, and Councillor Rippeth, I think you're going to second. I'm happy to second. Thank you very much. Do members agree to approve the minutes? Anyone wish to vote against? And anyone abstaining? Thank you. So Cabinet therefore agrees the approval of the minutes as a correct record by affirmation. So item 5 are public questions. I'm very pleased that we have five people registered to speak today. So the first question is from Mrs Elizabeth McWilliams, who I think is attending remotely. Are you there, Mrs McWilliams? No, I don't. Oh, hello. Yes. Hello. Do you want to come in? Are you asking a question on her behalf? Sorry. We can't hear you. Are you? Can you unmute? Yes. Elizabeth just emailed me to say that she hasn't been able to get through via the link. She did send an email to Jonathan to try to get the link recent. But I assume that that hasn't been sorted as yet. But she's also sent me the question so that if that doesn't get sorted out, I can ask her the question for her. Is that okay with you? Yes, that's my discretion, but that's fine. And what will come if she hasn't managed to join by the end of the meeting, I'll invite you to do that. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. That's lovely. Okay. So we'll move on to the second question, which is from Mr Tim Andrews. Hello again. Again attending, attending remotely. Would you like to ask your question, Mr Andrews? Okay. So this question is to either yourself or to Councillor Hawkins. I'm a full born resident. I live off Cow Lane, very near to full born fields. I, along with many full born residents, I'm very disappointed that the developer has won its legal challenge to build 110 houses on the site of the site of Tevesham Road. Now South Cams District Council had refused the reserve matters application against the recommendation of the planning officers last year, but the developer was able to convince the planning inspector to support the plans, particularly in relation to the flood risk. As one of many people that are directly affected by the substantial flood risk arising as a consequence of this development proceeding, I would like to ask either Councillor Smith and all Councillor Hawkins what their reaction is to this decision. And what do you think the council would do differently another time? Thank you very much, Mr Andrews. I'm going to ask Councillor Hawkins to respond to you on this issue. Thank you, leader. Good morning, Mr Andrews. And thank you very much for your question. And I note your concern. Obviously the council has noted the appeal decision in this case, which allowed the approval of the reserve matters and overturned the earlier planning committee decision. But following the receipt of your question, after your question came in, the council has now been notified of a potential legal challenge to the appeal decision in which this council would be an interested party. And for that reason, and whilst we are still reviewing the submissions made and on the basis of the legal advice received, unfortunately I don't consider that it's appropriate to make any further comment on this matter at this point in time. Mr Andrews, do you have a supplementary question you'd like to ask, which if we can answer we will, but I think you appreciate the difficulties here. OK. Yes, I do have a supplementary which I think probably you can answer, which is at least what lessons you think can be learnt from this process. There seems to be too many times where there is a mismatch between what the planning officers are wishing to do and what the interests of the local residents and certainly at least sometimes the council wish to do. Would it not be better to get all ducks in a row? Thank you. Councillor Hawkins. The council follows local planning policies. We have to weigh up applications on that basis. And again, I need to be very careful in that we have a potential legal case here. The recommendations that each stage was following planning policies and of course we always have to make a balance when it comes to planning applications. But that's as far as I can answer the question at this point in time, bearing in mind the situation we're in. I'm sorry, but we'll have to stop. I'm sure Councillor Hawkins will be very happy to talk to you offline, but I think we need to move on otherwise we have quite a lot of questioners. Thank you very much for attending and hopefully we might see you later if we don't manage to get our first questioner in. Thank you. So the next question is from Mr Daniel Fulton. There's a microphone over on my right here. If you'd like to go and sit there. Hello. Very good to see you all. This is actually a statement and not a question. The social contract between the people of South Cambridgeshire and this council is completely broken. We're expected to keep paying our council tax so that officers can keep receiving their six figure salaries, all whilst failing to produce any accounts since 2018-2019. And whilst presiding over an administration that goes to unlawful links to allow serious environmental vandalism to proceed to benefit the coffers of this council and its development industry partners. How can these officers justify continuing to collect their six figure salaries when they are accountable to absolutely no one? The Council's Employment Committee is a joke. A mere rubber stamp from some of the worst misconduct I have ever seen in municipal government on two continents. Meanwhile, the natural environment of Longstanton continues to be trashed by this council and its rapacious developer allies. Our investigation of borehole data released by Homes England indicates that the phase one and phase two attenuation leaks at North Stowe are in continuity with the River Terrace deposit aquifer. Either the head of paid service and the planning director have known these facts for quite some time and have kept them secret from members and secret from the public, or the officers responsible for the paid service and the planning service are grossly incompetent, which is it, Councillor Smith. On the last Monday, the 4th of July, I met together with other Longstanton residents with the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency has not finalized its position on the matter, but I understand that its preliminary position is that the agency accepts that groundwater is likely to make up a substantial portion of the volume of the attenuation lakes. The design of the phase one, phase two, and three, a drainage system did not consider any significant interactions with groundwater or the possibility of groundwater surcharging. Where is all this water going to go? Reynolds drain and Beckbrook are already at capacity. I can tell you where it's going to go. It's going to go into people's homes in Coddenham and into farmers fields, and it is going to destroy those properties, and it is going to deprive South Cambridge families of their homes and livelihood. This is a serious situation. This council, each and every one of you are responsible for this. We have to work together and find a solution. The stakes have been made, but please, can we sit down at the table and come up with a reasonable solution to protect North Stow and Coddenham and Longstanton from further environmental harm? Thank you. Thank you for your statement, Mr Foulton. Right, next question is from Mrs Jenny Conroy. Could we just ask Councillor Milnes to mute, because I think the very loud song is coming from his microphone. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs Conroy. I believe my question relates to agenda item number 10 in relation to the feedback on the consultation of the emerging local plan. In the case of North East Cambridge, having been included in the emerging local plan, how will the council fulfil its obligations to respond to the consultation feedback of Regulation 18, demonstrate the evolution of the plan in response to the feedback and new evidence as it emerges? Given the fact that Angliam Waters DCO application this autumn to relocate the sewage works, waterworks into the green belt, will be founded on the case of a benefit of 8,350 new homes as specified in the draft kneecap and that this outweighs the environmental costs of the relocation and site selection. Examples of feedback and emerging evidence that could influence the emerging local plan and thus the proposals for kneecap include the lack of sustainability in the context of existing water supply, natural England's assertion that without evidence, evidence, not plans, evidence of water supply in place, the growth target will require extending beyond the planned period, i.e. there will be a requirement of a reduction in housing growth targets to 2041. The environmental and economical costs to the public purse of a relocation of the future-proofed water treatment works as a means to fulfil the scale of housing development proposed will not be fully known to the council until the DCO submission. Alternative options to fulfil the long-standing objective for mixed development, including housing at NEC, that does not require the relocation of the wastewater treatment works, evidence by the options supporting the existing local plan and recent planning applications. The existence of viable alternative site allocations for the 3,900 homes specified for North East Cambridge in the emerging plan period amongst identified development areas and on new sites emerging which exclude Greenbelt and the surrounding villages. Legacy housing in the emerging local plan excluding North East Cambridge in excess of 15,000 for build-out beyond 2041, negating the requirement of the balance of 4,450 homes at North East Cambridge, either now or the distant future. The evolution of additional and alternative sustainable transport networks linking core housing and employment sites, including of course the Science Park at North East Cambridge, such as Water Beach, Newtown, Camborn and Cambridge East, i.e. the airport development, in effect undermining the qualification for the scale, environmental and economic cost of NECAP on the base of it being the most sustainable large scale. Finally, in terms of examples of evidence that may influence the emerging local plan, the updates on employment and housing growth requirements, which I believe the council are intending for January 2023, and resulting reviews of site allocations which will take place, including of course, but you're quite a lot over time. Thank you, cost-benefit analysis. Thank you. Sorry, I haven't timed it. Just remind people, three minutes is the time allowed. Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, leader. Hopefully I didn't have a time limit on the answer, but thank you very much for your question. The NEC area, including the Water Works treatment area, is allocated in the current adopted local plan for employment-led development. Now, the NEC area over the larger area of NEC expresses the potential form and extent of the opportunity at North East Cambridge and the required policy framework to achieve that ambition. You might realise that the first proposals consultation draft of the joint local plan that we are preparing, and it's associated evidence base, does indicate that the NEC site is the most sustainable site for development in Greater Cambridge. And based upon the work to date, other development options advanced to deliver the economic and housing growth required to meet our identified needs, do not perform as well against ambitions and vision set up for the plan as the NEC site does. I must say that the council has of course recognised in the timetable for the local plan and the AAP the need for us to secure clarity on the DCO proposals. Both the AAP and the special strategy in the joint local plan recognise the contribution that the site can make towards achieving sustainable growth of the Greater Cambridge area over the plan periods to 2014 and beyond. You ask how the council will fulfil its obligations to respond to consultation feedback. The consultation statement will be updated at each stage of the plan making process, and it will summarise the comments received and how they have been responded to and taken into account. And we do take them into account, I must emphasise. They will also be considered in the topic papers that sit behind the local plan, which draw all the relevant threads together. Now, as we have said in response to previous questions about the Water Works Treatment Plan DCO, that is a separate process to the local plan. But the local plan sustainability appraisal will look at the impacts of our plan in combination with plans and projects being developed by others, including the DCO. And of course we will be looking carefully at all the work again over the coming months alongside considering all the issues raised in the consultation comments and new evidence on some key issues, including our needs for jobs and homes. And the site-specific issues you raise above the MEC will be part of that process. Thank you, Councillor Hawkins. Mrs Conroy, you have a minute for a supplementary question if you'd like to pose a supplementary question. I think the bottom line is that if the DCO application is successful on the basis of an opportunity to build 8,350 homes, will the council remain in a position to adjust that figure? Councillor Hawkins. Adjust the figure for what? I'm not sure what that is. 8,350 homes. No, we will take into account all the information that we can. We will, as I said before, we will be updating our information. And we will take into account all the factors that we need to take into account to create the local plan. The local plan has to be found sound. And so we have to make sure that we do what we need to do to make sure that it is found sound. Thank you. Thank you very much, indeed, Mr Conroy. Thank you. The next questioner is Mrs Hilary Stroud. If I can just remind you, you have three minutes. This is a personal statement and is not made on behalf of any organisation. In 2015, groundwork started out on Nallstow phase one. Shortly afterwards, ponds began to dry up and fish died. In December 2015, I first notified South Cams planners of the environmental damage that was occurring. Since then, residents have been asking to no avail for an explanation and for mitigation to be put in place. Local residents want answers and are not expecting you to answer these questions today, but answers we want. There is a list. Firstly, was the collapse in groundwater permitted in the original Nallstow planning application? If not, have the groundworks deviated from the original permission? Two, has South Cams investigated the works carried out on Nallstow to ensure no deviation from the planning permission has occurred? Three, what mechanism did the planning permission contain fulfilling the Nallstow amenity lakes? Four, why has the Nallstow planning process not given long stanton adequate environmental protection? Five, by December 2017, the Kingfisher pond was empty, but the phase one lake was full. This lake was supposedly designed to be filled with surface water from phase one. At the time, very few houses had been built, so there would have been very little surface water from the development itself. So where did the water come from to fill up that lake? Six, currently the phase two lake has plenty of water and there is standing water nearby despite very little rainfall. Where has this water come from? Seven, why are councillors ignoring the disparity in water levels between long stanton and Nallstow? Question eight, in 2016 the Environment Agency wrote to South Cams and queried whether the drainage scheme has altered from that originally agreed. They also advised that the applicant does have responsibility to correct or mitigate against any local effects that their dewatering is having. Damaging local effects are obvious, as illustrated by the photos on your screen. Why then has this advice from the Environment Agency been ignored? Question nine, the HR Wallingford report has proved that the groundwater collapse was not caused by lack of rainfall. Why then have the recommendations of this report still not been implemented? Ten, why does South Cams consider the environmental damage inflicted on long stanton to be insignificant? Eleven, when have members of South Cams cabinet come to Long Stanton to witness the environmental damage and to discuss mitigation options with the parish council and local residents? Final question, when will South Cams take responsibility for nature and the environment and the impacts of Nallstow on surrounding communities? Residents believe that Nallstow lakes are being filled by groundwater and not rainwater alone. We will continue to raise this issue until Long Stanton receives the environmental protection and mitigation it needs. Meanwhile, the refusal of South Cams to resolve this issue is causing immense damage, not just to the reputation of councillors and Nallstow but to Long Stanton's environment too. Nallstow should benefit this local area, not blight it. It's time we were told the truth and residents expect that to happen. Thank you. Thank you, so I know that's a statement but I will make a very brief response to it. First I have visited Long Stanton on a number of occasions. There is nothing that we are ignoring and we certainly don't consider any detrimental environmental impact to be insignificant. We are taking it all really seriously. So I would be very grateful if you would forward your statement to both myself and councillor Bill Handley who is responsible for all our new towns. So the questions that you have just asked are exactly the questions that councillor Handley and I are asking at the moment and which are officers together with partners in the environment agents and so on are working very, very hard to answer. It's a complicated situation. There isn't a simple answer to these but when we publish the answers we have to be satisfied that the information we're putting out is accurate and that we have an action plan to take forward. So, you know, I'm sorry you feel that we're not taking this seriously. I assure you that it's taking up more of councillor Handley's and my time than anything else at the moment. We're bar, bar dealing with our Ukrainian guests but you are top of our list of priorities. So if you'd be kind enough to forward your statement to us then we can feed that into our process but I didn't hear any questions that you're asking which I haven't been asking as well. But thank you, thank you very much. Do you have a, that's fine. So we went over time so about by just over a minute so thank you very much indeed. So I think we can now return to our first questioner who I think has managed to join us now. Let me just go back in my paper work. So Mrs Elizabeth McWilliams, hello you've managed to get in have you? Hello there, can you hear me okay? We can thank you. Would you like to ask a question? Sure, apologies about my IT issues earlier. In the news currently are two issues totaling nearly 33 million of funding shortfalls between developer promises and what can be achieved in the S106 agreements. Significant projects that were originally going to be paid for by the developer but that now require public monies in order to be completed. One, the request to the Greater Cambridge partnership for 20 million to relocate the railway station from Water Beach to the new town. Two, South Cams District Council investing 12.85 million in north Stowe for sports pavilion and other community facilities. My question in three parts is about how South Cams District Council is going to avoid any more such large projects requiring public funding specifically. One, what risk assessment has been undertaken on other developments currently between outline planning stage and finalisation of S106 agreements? Two, has that risk assessment process identified any other projects at risk of funding shortfall? Three, what lessons has the council learned about how to do this better in future? Thank you very much and so I think it's councillor Tumi Hawkins again. Thank you. Thank you leader. Thank you for your question. This is my Williams and I will try and answer them in the three parts that you have that you have asked. Now the first part says what risk assessment has been undertaken on other developments and what I will say is that the delivery of strategic sites development requires of course careful consideration of development by ability. And I'm sure that's not the first time you've heard that because such projects over a long period of time often require very significant upfront infrastructure investments that have to be made before any new homes can be sold which will then help repair the borrowing. The council has in recent years routinely undertaken viability assessments to help it to determine what infrastructure of other plan objectives our development value created by planning permission should be directed towards. Now recent section 106 plan agreements have also sought to move away from placing obligations upon the district council for delivery of new infrastructure precisely to manage risks upon the council. The county council also have their own risk management approach. The water beach funding decision does not impact the district council or the plan that comes envisaged by the planning application. The obligations arising in phase one of the national development are not repeated in the most recent phases 3A and 3B. The agreements for other more recently consented strategic sites also do not include the option for the developer to invite the district council to deliver new infrastructure. So the circumstances at Nosto are not therefore repeated elsewhere. Now recognising the changing circumstances about the 20 plus year life of a development. We as an authority obviously maintain a continuing relationship with the lead developer on all major sites to ensure that the risks and the issues that surround deliverability and viability can be explored alongside with solutions to resolve them. Strategic sites of course form a central plank of the council's growth strategy and a 5-year land supply and ensuring continued delivery of new homes on these sites is important. So if we are to avoid the risk of unplanned growth taking place elsewhere we must make sure we work with the developers on that. I think that's the first part. The second part of your question says has the risk assessment process identified any other projects at risk of funding shortfall. Now the current inflation rate means that build costs and development viability may be adversely impacted on both small and large sites. And section 106 agreements and planning permissions nevertheless define a set of requirements that have to be met. So if a development becomes viable developers can either choose not to build and indeed they will be unable to secure lending or funding to do so or they may ask for planning permission or the section 106 to be varied. Now the local plan authority is required to consider such requests and depending upon the size of a project measures to improve viability can lead to requests to change levels of affordable housing delivered or request to delay infrastructure delivery or change or reduce the specification of works or skill of contributions. Now we would expect any such request to be justified by evidence and instead of seeking to vary planning permissions developers may also look to access other funding sources such as grants or loans. And the recent decision of the GCP to take over delivery of the railway station at Water Beach is an example of such public sector support that is actually routinely sought to enable development to take place across the country. And for example the public funding of the Northern Line extension to London to serve Battersea 9-Os is an example. So based upon engagement with developers of our strategic sites across the area we are not aware of any similar issues or requests at this time for supporting impact in planning outcomes proposed to be delivered on other sites. And I think lastly the third part is what lessons has the council learned about how to do this better in the future. I think part of that was answered in the first part of your question. We've changed as such one of six agreements to remove in most cases options for the developer to obligate or nominate us as the district council to step in to deliver infrastructure. And as already said it continues to engage we continue to engage with all our strategic site developers to ensure delivery risks are understood and effectively managed. Thank you. Thank you for councillor Hawkins. I was very detailed. Mrs McWilliams do you have a minute for a supplementary question if you have one. I've got a few comments. Firstly a viability assessment on behalf of the developer is quite different to a risk assessment on behalf of what extra council funding might be required. And I would put it to the council that was the GCP may be there to support public infrastructure projects. The money it is now spending on the Water Beach Station move is money it cannot spend on other vitally needed projects in our area on public transport. And I think I know I'm aware of the clawback mechanism in place but I think residents will be rightly cynical about money coming back through that mechanism and how that will be made accountable. Especially give in light of the recent failures of Southcowns to produce clearly audited public accounts. RLW if they're saying it's not this project is no longer viable for them then I don't think they're going to be very keen to give more of their profits and obviously whilst inflation does bring cost pressures to developers the house prices will have a concomitant value increase. So they will be the point of sale will be greater. So I appreciate they're not specific questions there but more comments on council Hawkins response. Thank you. As the board member on the GCP I will just comment that the money allocated for the station was money that was ring ffenced for housing and essentially not the building housing but for unlocking housing. So it's completely appropriate that it's been it's been spent on this because without the station no houses will be built so it's completely right and proper under the terms of the GCP deal that that money was spent on this which unlocks unlocks housing. So but thank you very much indeed for your questions and your follow up comments and thank you very much to all members of public who have contributed today. We're now going to move on and next item is issues arising from scrutiny and overview committee. We don't have either chair or the vice chair present and members are asked to note the report which focuses very much on the feedback from the local plan consultation and on north snow delivery and there was there was broad support. But I thank the scrutiny overview committee for the appropriateness of their their feedback. They've made very useful comments on this and also for the brevity of their report which is always always welcome. John back to a counselor bachelor. Sorry to miss you. Thank you. Thank you. Could we just correct one comments. You said we were delivering 80 affordable housing. The actual figure is 60. Thank you very much for reminding us about that and that correct that correction will be made. So members you're asked to note the report and this is any more comments. OK. So moving on to item 7. Linton Way sourston recreation ground and council build Handley is going to introduce the report and move the recommendation. And I believe council Hawkins is going to second it. OK. Thank you very much over to you miss councillor Handley. Thank you leader. The recreation land at Linton Way sourston is owned by South Cams District Council and leased to sourston parish council. The parish council have plans to invest substantially in the site including the building of a new cricket pavilion. I quite understandably in my view that the parish council wishes to ensure that this investment will lead to a long standing benefit to their community. And they also wish to have greater control and management of the land going forward. So in light of this they've asked South Cams District Council to review the lease officers have reviewed the arrangements in line with the council's approved asset transfer policy. And this does allow for a new long term lease in this case 99 years. This is recommendation option one on page 14. And I'm proposing that we adopt this recommendation today. Thank you very much indeed councillor Milnes you want to comment on this. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to offer my support for this proposal. Obviously as a member of sourston parish council we've been discussing this at some length and I think not just cricket pavilion. On the site but a sports and village amenity hall is the proposal before us. So it's important that we've got a regularised arrangement with the district council over this lease. So be happy for colleagues on the cabinet to support this. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I look forward to visiting the new cricket pavilion and whatever else transpires in sourston hopefully in the sunshine. Councillor Hawkins. Thank you leader. Just to say that I'm pleased that we're able to assist the community in sourston to carry on using this site. And of course I second this recommendation. Thank you. Are there any more comments? So we'll move to the recommendations which set out at paragraph 2 of the report agreed to implement a new 99 year lease with sourston parish council relating to the land owned by South Cambridgeshire district council at Lintonway sourston. Do you members agree with the proposal? Anyone vote against? Anyone wish to abstain? No cabinet therefore agrees the proposal by affirmation. And item 8 another similar or well beacon asset transfer. And Councillor Williams is going to introduce the report and move the recommendation and I think Councillor Riffith is going to second it. So Councillor Williams. Thank you leader. Very straightforward. We own a beacon. Which was donated to us by Marshalls. And the parish council it sits on parish council land and the parish council would like to take ownership of beacon. And we'd be quite happy to transfer that ownership to the parish council. So I hope that we agree that. Thank you very much. Any comment? Councillor Riffith do you want to add anything? Just to say I'm happy to second. Excellent thank you. So cabinets recommended to agrees the transfer of ownership of the Orwell beacon. Rackets the beacon also known as Orwell Millennium beacon from South Cambridgeshire district council Orwell parish council. And do members agree with proposal? Anyone wish to vote against? Anyone wish to abstain? So cabinet therefore agrees the proposal by affirmation. Now item nine biodiversity net gain. And councillor to me Hawkins is going to introduce the report and move the recommendation and I am very happy to second it. So councillor to me Hawkins. Thank you leader. It's one of those days today I think. Which is why I have my water bottle. But diversity net gain. The proposal in this paper is a proactive interim approach that. The greater Cambridge planning service has created to help us deal with and to increment the requirement for 10% water. Again, above baseline conditions for all new developments that the environment act requires from 2023. As I say, we've been proactive here because we were put in the simplest now that we can work on it and be ready for when it comes in 2023. I think about November. As you know, we have adopted a dubbing nature strategy and a bud of STSPD to enable us to protect. The natural assets that we currently have and to create new and well managed habitats so we can double what we have now as they grow. And we are growing as we know. We are receiving many plan applications. And we consider that it was important to get a head start in putting a procedure together. That will be helpful to our planning officers and the planning committees as they deal with applications. And of course it will be helpful to developers as well. So they know how we will be assessing their proposals along to provide the biodiversity net gain. There's a lot of technical stuff in there. So I'll leave that. But just to say that, of course, the net gain is calculated using the DEFRA's Baudabastimetric 3.1. I think it is now. It's an accounting tool that's caused different habitat types according to their potential, the size, the condition and all that. Well, the thing is sometimes we know that it's not possible all the time to achieve 10% on the application side. But I must point out that achieving the full 10% on the application side is a priority first option. But where the possibility of the onsite is exhausted or not possible, that's when we look at the offsite solution. And what this proposal is doing is saying how we will do that, looking at where we can achieve offsite. And the first point offsite is to look at potential, what we call the strategic locations, on the principle that bigger is better, I suppose. And the risk of management is less. And this strategic sites could be bespoke schemes or from a habitat ban provider. But what we want to do is make sure that we're able to manage that or that it's able to be managed by a 30-year period, which is why we're looking at strategic sites to begin with. And if we can find that, then potentially go to a potentially local-led community scheme. And if that still isn't possible, then we go further afield from the area, but within greater camps. But you'll see this in the flowchart that we have provided for you on page 5 for the appendix. And also on page 7, you will see that we've got the landscape target areas that have been proposed in our emerging local plan. Just to mention that there's a couple of strategic sites coming up, which we've identified in Wendlbury and the Lower Valley Farm near Fulburn. So, as I say, it's an interim process. We'll be looking at this as we go forward. I therefore recommend that cabinet and those is it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Hawkins. Can I thank all of the Natural Environment team for all the work they've done on this? You've only got to look at page 50 at the desperate paucity of designated nature conservation space in South Cambridge to realise actually that there's an opportunity for us to actually make a difference here, as well as ensuring that we are delivering biodiversity net gain, but also to increase the amount of land that is protected for nature, because we don't really have a lot. So, my particular thanks. Does other John Conell or Jane Green want to add anything in to what Councillor Hawkins has said? No, it's all good. Thank you. All good. Lovely. Well, thank you very much to both of you and your team. So, yes, so Councillor Bradman. Thank you, Chair. I'm delighted that we're bringing forward this policy early, and I'm really pleased that we're looking to be ahead of the game on this. But what I'm slightly concerned about is the map on our page 49 in the agenda, which rightly shows the, as you say, the paucity of areas set aside. Now, somewhere in a local plan map, I'm sure I saw that the area which is directly to the north of Cambridge, to the east of Land Beach and to the west of Water Beach, was also in that area designated for, as a potential to be protected for green space. And I was pleased to see that in the local plan allocation, because we have already said about proposed development at North, but, well, that Water Beach is going ahead. We have North Stowe to the west, but we've also got the Northeast Cambridge site. And in discussions about the Northeast Cambridge site, this area between the A14, Land Beach and Hystyn and Impington, that whole area was indicated as possibly being an area in which the people who were going to be living at North Beach, or East Cambridge might have access to open countryside. And so I don't know if the Cambridge network, nature network area, is an existing allocation, or whether it's a future proposal, because if it is a future proposal, I would dearly like it to be extended down into the area towards the A14 in a southerly leg, so that it actually provides space and a green area for the people that might be in future used as a green space for Northeast Cambridge site. I was wondering if anybody could clarify whether that was an intention for that. I think I'm going to have to go to John Cornell or Jane for an answer for that. Thank you very much. What I can say is that the maps that we've included in this report are indicative maps. That doesn't not meant to sound like it's Weasley words. They really are indicative and they are based on maps that have come from natural Cambridge, maps of existing biodiversity resources in the form of small county wildlife sites and input in the form of character areas. So whether it's Chalkland or Clay and the like. I think, Councillor Bradman, that the map that you're referring to was part of the evidence base for the local plan going forward. And that's a much more detailed study. And I would agree that blob, if you like, to the north of Cambridge would be a very good option were to make its way through this process and must have realised something in that area. But in terms of this report and this approach and the maps that we provided are indicative only and don't include the evidence that came through in the local plan, the recent local plan work. I hope that kind of makes sense. That's an interim report, so I'm sure when we get the final thing. Do you want to come back, Councillor? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Leader. I'm very encouraged that Mr Cornwell indicates that this might be a good idea to include in future. And I'm very mindful that this is an interim report. So please can I have it minited? That people are interested in making this area into a green space because of the extreme pressure. I think I should point out that during COVID, the Milton Country Park, which is our only country park in South Cams, was exceedingly heavily used. Certainly during COVID and since it continues to be heavily used. We also are fortunate in my ward to have our ward to have the River Cam topoth, but all of that area is under a huge amount of pressure from people who need to get out into the open air. So please can we look to a vision to the future where we use that area to the north of Cambridge because otherwise you will be aware there are already planning applications in that area. And unless we protect this area, it will just become a continuous development from Milton across to Hisden and Eampington and up towards Cottenham. And I think we desperately need to protect that area for future green space. Thank you, Councillor Bradman. I'll ask Stephen Kelly to comment. And then I've got Brian Mills and then Councillor Rifford. Thank you, Leader. I think it's important to understand the distinction here. This is about biodiversity net gain, which generally is incompatible if you want to optimise it with public access. So the local plan, the emerging local plan does have an indication about wanting to absolutely enrich the area that you've identified having regard to the needs for public access enhanced for all the reasons you've highlighted well being included. But this report is about focusing on biodiversity net gain and the enhancement of that through a hierarchy. As the leaders identified and Mr Cornell, it's an interim position because we're waiting to see how the government brings forward the statutory provisions, but we want to get ahead of the game. And as we work forwards, we will clearly be relying upon the evidence base that we've been gathering as part of the local plan, as Mr Cornell highlighted. We've used the county records to form a baseline for this work, but it will evolve and shift as we go forwards. But it's important to highlight that the strategic objective around biodiversity net gain will not fully overlap with things like public access to the countryside because obviously people tend to disrupt and indeed hold back the successful fulfilment of biodiversity gains that can be maximised. So we're absolutely have regard to the evidence bases that emerge and your aspirations and through the local plan and this work in the interim. We hope to achieve both. Thank you. Councillor Mills. Thank you, leader. I just wanted to comment very briefly as newly appointed cabinet member for environment and climate change and offer my support to John and Jane and the rest of the team for being ahead of the curve. I think that Stephen just mentioned here. I think it's really important, particularly in view of developing our local plan, our next local plan, that we have some consistency and some cohesion between those different elements of our policy and this feeds very well into that. So I applaud this interim report and look forward to further development. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Mills. Councillor Ripper. I think most of what I'm just going to say has been highlighted by Stephen Kelly, but just the difference between green infrastructure and biodiversity net gain and maybe I think this is a really important policy because it looks ahead to many years hence where maybe these places have grown up, opposite to built out, where public access could to some extent be on these new, hopefully like country parks in 20, 30 years down the line, but not immediately otherwise you have a zero effect on what you're trying to do. Thank you. Can I just ask a question about how does the emerging nature recovery strategy fit in with all of this as well? Do you want to answer John? I get all the good questions then. So thank you. I think in terms of local nature recovery strategy what we do know is that biodiversity net gain is the principle mechanism that we have in our toolkit to deliver that local nature recovery. And so Stephen's correctly highlighted that biodiversity net gain is about improving the quality and the opportunities for biodiversity to thrive and not necessarily places for folk to walk their dogs. And that is something we're going to have to grapple with, but that's what the intention is. That's the intention that's set by national government from DEFRA, and that's the steer that we're getting. So we're trying to get the balance right. I think that's the important thing to say. Thank you very much indeed, John. OK, so if there's no more questions, we'll go to the recommendation, which is to endorse the biodiversity net gain proposal as an interim approach of guiding principles for citing biodiversity net gain for developments within South Cambridgeshire with delegated powers given to the joint planning director of planning and economic development to make minor changes to the technical note. Do members agree with proposal? Anyone wish to vote against? Anyone wish to abstain? Cabinet therefore agrees the proposal is by affirmation. And thank you again to the team who've worked really hard on this and will continue to do so no doubt. Thank you. So item 10, the Greater Cambridge Local Development Scheme and Greater Cambridge Local Plan first proposes representation, which really doesn't slip off the tongue terribly easily. Thank you. So this is going to be councillor Tumi Hawkins introducing and moving the recommendation. And councillor Batchelor is, I believe, going to second it. So councillor Hawkins, over to you yet again. Yes, it's me again. Hello. First of all, just to say thank you again to the planning policy team. I mean, the Greater Cambridge Planning Service team are brilliant. I will say this so that we can all hear it and note it. The report before you this morning is giving us an update on the journey that both South Cairns and Cambridge City are on in preparing our joint local plan. As you know, and I'll say, I keep saying this, the current local plans of Wood District sets out the proposed development up to 2031. The emerging plan we're working on now is building on that to propose how the area will develop up to 2041. Now, the report is on two main issues. The first is the response to the first proposed consultations that we held late last year. And the second is on the what we call the local development scheme, which is effectively a plan making time table. So I will start with the first proposals consultation. When we created the, or we had the consultation, the information that we used actually was based a lot on the results we had from the first conversation that we held back in 2020. We listened to what communities told us. We took note of it, and we definitely used it in preparing the proposals that we set out for consultation. And really was a proposal for the level of growth to meet our identified needs, the locations to build on and the planning policies to guide the planning decisions that we make. And the way we engage with communities to ask for their comments, as I said, built on what we did before in 2020, but life has moved on, as we know, and it's moved on a lot online, and we make sure that we use that method to get engagement with our communities. So we published the first proposal document in the usual way, hard copy, but also as in a digital format that was accessible online and specially designed interactive webpages on the Greater Cambridge Planning website. And I was quite thrilled with that. I really enjoyed using that thing when people did too. The standard document was obviously available for inspection in a number of physical locations for those who are not online. We don't forget them either. We held a number of in-person drop-in events. We actually went out to where people were instead of expecting them to come to us. And we reached out, especially to what we might call the hard-to-reach groups, including gypsy and travellers, and especially our young people. And we used social media to reach out to communities using things like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. And I must say this, that our YouTube videos collectively had over 120,000 views, which is quite good, I would say. And we had many online events, including webinars, briefings, where we explored each of the key things of the emerging local plan. So this was our way of saying, look, this is not doing to you. It's working with you, planning with you to build communities going forward. And we gave our residents options on how they could give us their feedback. Just very briefly, we had a quick questionnaire, and we had the online consultation webpage I mentioned earlier. We had about 5,500 responses from the quick questionnaire, or answers to comments. And also we had just about 4,000 representations on the website. One of the things that we also had was additional sites that were suggested by developers. There were 40 of those, and I think I must make a comment on the reports that there's on the paragraph, a Cambridge paragraph, it says 30 sites. It is actually 40 sites. We had one new green site suggested that we had about 172 sites that previously were submitted but comments in addition, whether we were explaining other things. Now, at this stage, all we're saying is this is what we've had. We're not asking, we're not going to be doing anything for now. We're still examining those comments. We're saying, please note, this is what we've received to date. And I must emphasise that the additional sites that were submitted will be analysed as we are doing for the previous 650+. They have no planning status whatsoever, and we don't know what we will find once we actually analyse them. And I must say also that the work that our planning policy team did on community engagement is now recognised industry-wide, has been of high quality. We got shortly set for awards, but we didn't win, but we have been called upon to share experience given with government departments. So, once again, a big thank you to the team. That's on the first proposals. The second section is on the local development scheme, as I said, which is our local plan making timetable. Now, the current one we adopted in 2020, but of course certain things now require us to re-look at that timetable. I will just mention the factors that are causing us now to look at this anew and to propose a new timetable. The first is the North East Cambridge and the Cambridge waste water treatment plant development consent order process. As I said earlier this morning, as a two-way question, it's the most sustainable location for development that we have identified in our emerging joint local plan. It was not relied on when the current adopted 2018 plans were being created because of the fact that they weren't sure whether or not the water treatment plan would be relocated. However, with the HIF funding that was awarded in 2020, that is now, that process is now going on and it will be relocated, but that is being done by Angliaw Water through the DCO process. Of course, a local plan now depends on the outcome of that because we can't put it in place if the development consent order doesn't come through early enough. At this point in time, the submission for the DCO is anticipated in autumn 2022 rather than summer, so that's pushed forward. The outcome is expected in early 2024 rather than in autumn 2023, so again, that's later than we're expecting when we put the 2020 LDS in place. The second issue that is of importance in this case is on water. We clearly stated in the first proposals that the strategies we were proposing were very much dependent on the availability of sustainable water supply, and the water companies responsible are with water, Angliaw Water, water resources. So again, it's out of our control. We're having to rely on third parties. Now, water resources is planning to consult on its draft plan for eastern region up to 2050 this autumn coming, and Angliaw Water will also consult around the same time. They have their draft 25-year water resources management plan, so like we have a local plan, they have their water resources plan too. So the final plans are now expected to be published in autumn of 2023. So of course, our plan making timetable now has to take that into account. Those are the two main issues really that are shifting the timetable. There are two other factors that are important, but at this point in time, I think they're broadly in line, which is east west Wales. I mean, to be proactive, we propose a broad location for growth in Canbon post-2013. If it's going to go ahead, we will know by then what's going to be happening. And Cambridge East, the airport free location, of course, that was a safeguarded site from way back. Marshals have not confirmed that they've got somewhere to move to post-2013. So we've just been watching those. They're not shifting timetable at this point in time. So with the two main issues, the overall effect is to push our red 19 stage to autumn 2024. This is where we consult on what we're going to submit and then to submit. And the submission red 22 stage is pushed back to summer to autumn of 2025. I think that's it really, I'm not sure if I've missed anything that perhaps Caroline might want to add too. I congratulate you on being so completely utterly on top of this. But I also congratulate the planning policy team and John Dixon and Caroline Hudd in particular. Both were the clarity of the report writing, which actually is a pleasure to read, albeit it's long, but it's a pleasure to read because it's completely intelligible, but also the clarity and accessibility of all the consultation materials. Which invites people to respond because they just look so good. And it's not the sort of minefield of jargon that some I've seen have been so well done on that. Councillor Bachelored, do you want to comment at this stage? Councillor Hawkins has made a very full report. I'd just like to briefly say a word about what will interest people in the wide of public. And that's the new applications and some that come in. I think it's worth repeating what has already been said that these applications have no planning status whatsoever at the moment. Perhaps it's also good to keep in mind that the current proposed allocations, more than meet the needs in terms of housing numbers in the longer term. So I hope people won't get too agitated about these new elements coming in other than that. This is really about procedure and timetables and really isn't very contentious. So I'm very happy to second that. Thank you very much. Can I just ask the 100 or 70 or so sites which haven't been carried forward, but for which further details or amendments have been subjected. Do they then go through the whole process again? Can I just ask an officer about that? Yes, the short answer is we have to now consider all the representations that have come into us and provide a response for you to look at at the later meeting. Where we've got new information on specific sites, we will go to the assessors we used for our housing and economic land availability assessment to make sure we've looked at all the information very thoroughly and come back to you with any revisions needed to the healer. Thank you very much indeed. Any other questions on this? No, they're quite long recommendations. I'm not going to read them out but they're at paragraph 5 of the report. So do members agree with the proposal? Anyone wish to vote against? Anyone wish to abstain? So Cabinet therefore agrees with the proposals by affirmation and thank you very much again for the considerable effort that's gone into this. I'm very proud of what we're doing with the local plan. I think it's outstanding and I think other people are looking at us for how to do it really well. So thank you. Moving on to item 11, Cymru, Peter and Peter were a local transport and connectivity plan, the draft plan consultation response. So we have prepared a response for submission. I'm going to move this and I think Councillor John Williams is going to second it but Councillor Brian Mills is going to introduce it. Yes, thank you. I'm doing this in substitutes for Peter McDonald who would be normally presenting this to you in his absence. So first of all, thanks to Stuart Morris who is the principal author of this and is with us here I see. So he'll manage to correct me if I say anything that's not right. But this is a response to the combined authority revised local transport and connectivity plan. And it's actually very pleasant to see that we're moving in a positive direction. So the overall response is very positive under this. It is strongly supportive of the changes that have come about since the previous local transport plan from the combined authority. And as somebody who was involved in many of those meetings, we were very concerned that there was a lack of consistency across combined authority, the county council, our own local plan and the GCP. And what we are seeing here is a general move in the right direction because our response reflects a move to more consistency, cohesion and alignment between all of those parties. And although we've got strong suggestions, additions, removals in amongst our responses, the broad picture is one of very supportive of the plan. So without going into too many details of this, I think we can be confident that our proposals are reflecting the issues related to ourselves as one of the prime requires, if that's an expression of a sound local transport plan. And so I'm happy to recommend this report to you. There are a couple of technical issues. So in a previous briefing, cabinet members asked for some beefing up to the response on a couple of issues. One was the electricity grid and the other was the east west rail and the new market line. So we'd like to delegate authority for making those revisions accordingly. My own perspective on the electricity grid with the move to zero carbon is that both national grid and UK power networks are going to struggle to provide the electrical infrastructure. So I think if we are going to be relying on, for example, electric buses as they're coming forward now, we're going to have to have some serious upgrading of our electric supply. And John Williams was particularly concerned about extending the east west rail new market line. So Stuart, I don't know if you've got anything to add to that surrounding and be happy to have any omissions or exceptions noted. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Mills. Stuart, do you want to add anything into that? Only just to say that the response that was published for this meeting was agreed by Cambridge playing transport scrutiny by the Executive Councillor so that the amendments can be agreed as an out-of-cycle decision as a joint one again with the Executive Councillor. But that should be fine. Thank you. Of course, I mustn't forget that this isn't just about us, is it? So my understanding is that we, I think Councillor Mills used the term beef up, that we've beefed up the focus on active travel, but we've also asked for the inclusion of doubling nature and increasing the environment and the whole thing. So I'm very pleased about that. Councillor Williams. Thank you, leader. I'm delighted to second this. Two particular reasons. First of all, that there's the intention to prepare a transport strategy for the Great Cambridge area. And as Councillor Mills has said, it's refreshing to see a draft transport strategy that recognises the Greater Cambridge Partnership and the local authorities, something that I believe the previous combined authority had difficulty in accepting. I would also like to highlight the fact that, and we've drawn attention to this and Councillor Mills has touched upon this. And that's the requirement for a bus depot to serve the Greater Cambridge area, which has the capacity needed to provide the electricity provision for electric vehicles. The current City Council-owned Stagecoach depot is required for the North-East Cambridge strategic site. And these things take years to produce. It will take a long time to get planning permission for a new depot. And also, as Councillor Mills has pointed out, we have a grid capacity issue, which has also got to be sorted out if we are to have a fleet of electric buses serving the Greater Cambridge area. So I'm very pleased that we have strongly drawn attention to this. Because we need to start work on this now, because it could be five or six years before we actually are able to have such a depot to deliver the Greater Cambridge Partnership's plans for the bus network for the Greater Cambridge area. Thank you, Councillor Williams. And I will take that back to the combined authority board at every opportunity. Councillor Bradman, you wanted to ask a question. Thank you, Leader. In many regards, I'm very grateful for the response that has been produced. But drawing our attention to paragraph A6 on page 12 of the supplementary papers, it refers to the need to improve public transport. And then within this, we also strongly welcome the support for policy measures such as trip budgets where considered appropriate to limit the transport and environment impacts of a new development. And I wanted to ask, and it may be as a separate exercise to this. And I know it's the county council that has requested trip budgets for, for example, Water Beach Newtown. But the first trip budget I'm aware of was Water Beach Newtown. And we haven't seen any of these working out yet to find out whether they're effective. And I wanted to ask whether we can seek confirmation maybe in the sidelines from the county council of the effectiveness of trip budgets in this endeavour to reduce traffic impact, particularly for us on the A10. And so whilst I endorse the principle, I would like at the very earliest opportunity for us to be seeking confirmation from the county council that trip budgets as a measure to mitigate development do actually work. Can we ask that? I'm going to ask Stephen Kelly to come along. Thank you, leader. The use of trip budgets is relatively new. And as Councillor Brandon will be aware, we haven't actually seen substantial homes on Water Beach, I think, if any at this moment in time. The county and the planning authority are working on monitoring arrangements that will sit alongside the use of trip budgets for developments precisely for the reasons that you identified to make sure that they are proving effective as a means to mitigate the impacts of development. And clearly, there's an ongoing monitoring alongside relationships with things like the travel plans and how subsequent phases even are designed in terms of things like on-block car parking and so forth. So we're in the early days of it. There are clear obligations around monitoring on the section one of six agreements that are associated with those schemes that have trip budgets. And indeed, we're now using trip budget concept in some of the design work on schemes that haven't yet come to JDDC or planning committee. So we're working on it. Yes. Come back. Thank you. And it's precisely because we're using this trip budget methodology in other new developments, but we don't know whether it works. So I'm just slightly concerned what would happen if the monitoring proved that the trip budget wasn't working and that the development did blow the budget. So on sites like Water Beach, which obviously have a 20-plus year build out, the expectation is that later phases, during the monitoring later phases of the development design considerations would be adjusted, but also the measures required to mitigate the trips and the reasons why the trip budget wasn't being fulfilled would obviously need to be tackled. So we're generally using it on large sites where there is a degree of time and multiple phases in terms of allowing us to make adjustments to bring them back. The use of a trip budget, I would say, is going to have to be the way that planning authorities look at growth issues because the continued expansion of road infrastructure, for example, in order to meet demand, is an unsustainable future. And very much in the way that we're trying to make efficient use of road space. We're also trying to discourage private car use. And so the alternative of building your way out of that, out of trip growth, is not one that the transport strategy is highlighting or indeed is recommended having regard to your objectives around net zero carbon and so forth. Thank you very much. Obviously it's something we're all going to have to learn a bit more about, aren't we? OK. So if there's no more questions, I'm going to move the recommendations. I'm not going to read them all out for the long set out in paragraph five. So do members agree? So I'm making the recommendation. So do members agree with a proposal? And it's seconded by Councillor Williams. I think we said at the outset. OK, thank you. Anyone wish to vote against the proposal? Anyone wish to abstain? Cabinet therefore agrees the proposals by affirmation. Item 12 is neighbouring local plan consultation responses. So I gather we still have a duty to co-operate with neighbours on their local plans. So I think Councillor Toomey Hawkins should be fairly straightforward. And Councillor Rifford is seconding. Thank you, leader. Yes, definitely. I hope this is straightforward. We are responding to three neighbouring authorities. East Cams, West Suffolk and Bedford borough. The East Cams consultation has actually ended and we already sent a response, which was, yeah, we know what you've said. We don't need any more housing. West Suffolk, actually they tell us that they are importers of jobs. More people come in to them to work than go out to work, which I thought was surprising. But obviously we share the travel to work area and economic area with them. But our response in paragraph 16, of course, encourages them to continue to talk to us so far. You know, there's nothing serious, but we need to be sure we address what we need in terms of infrastructure, roads and stuff. Bedford borough, now. In this case they are proposing to build a new settlement of about 3,800 homes in Little Bathwood, as well as employment space. Now, of course, Little Bathwood is five miles west of Gamlingey, eight miles southwest of Camden. So, of course, you know, there is a potential impact there. However, that site is dependent on East Westfield being implemented. So, you know, they have to watch this space as we are watching this space. But I think, as I highlighted, they also have access to the new 12428 from Black Catucas in Tibet. So, you know, there is that transport option there, or rather the highway option there. It's just that we both need to monitor East Westfield and see where it goes from there. But at the end of the day, that's all we can say to them. Thank you very much. Quite nearly. Councillor Williams, before I come to Councillor Miffith, the seconder. Can I just take the opportunity to ask members to go take a look at what's happening in Utdlesford. Down in the Emelon 11 corridor, there is now an enormous amount of house building going on without the council's consent because, as we all know, Utdlesford went into special measures because they didn't follow the government guidance. And now they're reaping the whirlwind of that. But obviously, all that house building could be having a consequence on us because not all the people who are going to be living in that new house are going to be commuting towards London or Harlow. Some of them are going to be commuting towards Cambridge, Greater Cambridge. So, I know Utdlesford isn't mentioned, but I would use this as a marker and ask that we keep a very close eye on Utdlesford and what's going on there. So, actually, Liz Watson and I are meeting with the leader and the chief executive of Utdlesford very soon. We'll be top of the agenda, I think, for this discussion. Any other questions before I come to Councillor Riffa? Councillor Riffa? Yeah, just wanting to say thank you for keeping things on the radar and the really pertinent points and things that might happen, might not happen, as is the process with all local plans, but I'm happy to second this. Thank you very much again, and I think more thanks to Caroline Hunt. Gosh, you've been busy. So, thank you very much to you and your team for this. So, again, a very long recommendation set out at paragraph four, which I won't read. Do members agree with the proposal? Anyone wish to vote against? Anyone wish to abstain? No, so Cabinet therefore agrees the proposal is by affirmation. And on to item 13, which is delivery at Norstow. Members, please note that appendices F, G and H of this item are restricted as it's commercially sensitive. It's not anticipated that discussion will need to take place on these appendices. However, if requested and moved to a confidential session will be required. So, do any members want to discuss the confidential appendices? Nope, okay. So, we can therefore just move straight on. Yep, okay. So, Councillor Bill Handley, you are going to introduce a report and I am happy and move the recommendation and I'm happy to second it. So, over to you Councillor Handley. Thank you, Leader. This report provides an update on a range of issues related to Norstow and makes a number of recommendations related to the provision of community buildings, the enterprise zone, funding including section 106 issues. It's been considered already by Cabinet informally and discussed at length by the scrutiny and overview committee. So, I don't plan to go into any great detail today. But what I would say and I would stress is that there's the setting up of a governance board and this is a draft document which we are currently intending to call the Norstow Delivery Board. This is in the agenda supplement and as I say, it's a draft document but it does give a flavour of how it's anticipated the delivery board will be constituted and carry out its functions. You will note that we propose to include representatives or a representative from Norstow Town Council and a representative from the County Council and with other representatives invited to attend as and when, depending on the content of the agenda. So, that's all I intend to say. Leader, I recommend that the Cabinet approves the recommendations which listed on pages 205 and 206 that they be presented to full council for approval. Thank you very much indeed, Councillor Hanley. Are there any questions on this item? I see we've got Adele and Gareth here. Is there anything either you would like to add? I know you've been working incredibly hard on this and my thanks to both of you. Thank you. We're making progress on this and I'm meeting this week with the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor of Norstow so I hope they will be feeling positive about the efforts that we are making here and are happy with, as a term of reference, being shared with them. They need to be approved. Okay, that's fine. So hopefully they'll be pleased about the level of involvement from the Town Council because it might well be that they're actually running some of these facilities at the end of the day. So it's really important that they have a say in their creation and design. If there are no more questions or if no officers want to contribute anything... No, okay, fine. So, lots of masses of recommendations at Paragraph 2, which I won't read. So, do Members agree with the proposal? Anyone wish to vote against? Anyone wish to abstain? Cabinet therefore agrees with the proposal by affirmation and my thanks again for the massive amount of work that has gone into this. Thank you. Finally, Item 14. We now come to a point in our agenda where we need to consider whether to exclude the press and public from the meeting. This is because the next items contain information which is commercially sensitive. Members of the public are advised that if Cabinet agrees to exclude the press and public, the video stream will end. I therefore propose that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business in accordance with the Bill of Rights for the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that, if present, there would be a disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act brackets has amended. Is that seconded? Councillor Ripper, thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Do Members agree with the proposal? Anyone wish to vote against? Anyone wish to abstain? Cabinet therefore agrees with the proposal by affirmation. Members of the public who are watching the webcast, this means the video stream will now end. Thank you for joining us to view today's Cabinet meeting. I note the next meeting Cabinet is scheduled to take place on Monday, 12 September 2022 at 10 o'clock in the morning. Thank you very much.