 Good morning, good morning Members, officers and members of the public and including those watching us on the live stream Welcome to this meeting of the South Camber52 English district council planning committee my name is counsell Peter Thain and I'm the chair of the committee Just a few weapons everything on our desk including your laptop screen is likely to be broadcast at some point y cwmraeth wedi rhoi'r taw o'n gwybod o'r mynhaidd, rwy fydd ymdgaen trafnoddras, i ddim yn gwybod i'r cwmraeth a'r lle. Bydd ym mhaswnodd y flynyddoedd, i ddim bod yn nech yn cael ei achos y llwy holyf ac maen nhw'n ôl yn ddefnyddio ei chael ag dweud y lle, ac mae'r salu yn hwysbieg nesaf ni yn cael i'r pwysgiadau'n gwybod a wedi gynhymhau yn yr hyn. Fyngigonodd yn credu y gwe 먹어� spacecraft o'u sydd wedi'u hawrdd ar y Llywodraeth, i'w wneud o unig i fynd i gael gael eich trafnol, neu oeddych yn tu chi'n cael ddweud, o bryd anghydd iaith o'r ddechrau Cymru. Felly mae'r gwneud wedi'i gwneud sy'n mystanoln pan ddafodd, lle mae'n ffordd doedd oherwydd ei wneud i'r gwnaeth a chaf wahanol, yn ddraef fawr o gwneud i gael ddweud drifiadau rhaid i ffellyio'n gael. Yn y ddweud y mod i'n gwneud i'ch gael ei sefydlu, is for those online and only for anybody else to use heads. When you're invited to address the meeting please make sure your microphone is switched on and when you finish addressing the meeting please turn off your microphone, obviously speak slightly unclearly, please do not talk over or interrupt anyone else. More generally please note that if we need to vote on any item we shall do so via the electronic voting system using the microphones in front of you and I shall voila hynny yn cyflwyno your name, rwyf yn ddechrau'r newid yn y cwymfyrdd maeswn. Yn y telodol, mae'n iawn i'r cwmwysgol yn ei chylywion syrfa hynny. Mae hyn yn ddalfodol yn ddechrau. Felly, mae'r glasoedd maeswn yn y ceiwn, rwy'n meddwl i'n ffordd i'w gweithio i'w ffordd i chi'n gwybod. Mae'n ddalfwch i'r wneud i fynd yn cael ei wneud i mettreion'r cwmwysgol yn dweud. Oes i ddеньio rydyn ni, mae'r prysys ers ynchynllwch yn gweithio. Rydyn ni'n gwneud y byd y bydd yn Gwladeromech. Gwladeromech i'r tynni a�faith sy'n gweithio. A weith Lastly, fan y gwiriau eriol Caen. Fan y gwiriau eriol Caen, fan i'r cyfaint rydych yn cymryd. Mae'r cyfaint bod hanfodol maen i gyflyning. Mae'r cyfaint bod hwnnw i'r ceffai ar y cynfer am hefyd. Cynslau Helen Leaming. I'm Helen Leaming, I'm one of the members of Campbell Ward. Cynslau Dr Beesa Redrup. Good morning, I'm Dr Beesa Redrup, I'm one of the members for Haarston and Cumberton Ward. Cynslau Peter Sanford. Good morning, Cynslau Peter Sanford, one of the ward members for Caxton and Papworth. And Cynslau Heather Williams. Good morning everybody, Heather Williams, I represent the Mordans board. And Cynslau Dr Richard Williams. Thank you very much, today I'm Richard Williams, I represent the Whittlesford Ward. I didn't see any other members present, do we have any members present online? I think not. I can confirm the meeting's quarry, so we can start. We have two officers with us in the chamber for the duration of the meeting. And we will be joined by case officers throughout the course of the meeting, I'll introduce them then. But more immediately we have with us Phil McIntosh, interim delivery manager. Good morning chair, good morning members. Phil McIntosh, interim delivery manager, will be a great chemistry shared planning service. And Vanessa Blaine, who is our senior planning lawyer. Good morning chair, good morning everyone. Vanessa Blaine, senior planning lawyer. And before I go any further, I should correct myself. We are joined online by councillor Bill Hanley. We have also others who are in a sport function throughout. That's immensely valuable to us. As I say, I'll introduce others as they come to speak. So, from democratic services we have Aaron Clarke. And also we are on this news online, I don't think so. And Laurence Delart, Damari Hermann, who is the taking minister secretary to the meeting. Now, if at any time member leaves the meeting, will they please make that known to me or to Jeff Harvey so that we can be recorded in the minutes. I intend to break for about 15 minutes at 11.45. And if the meeting is still going on at about 3.45. And I propose that we have a 45 minute for break for lunch at 1.30. Hopefully members will have received the agenda pack. So maybe look at this online. And there's also an online plans pack supplement dated 28th of February. We have the appendices also for item 5, which is the application for footpath changes in sourced in a badrum. And that is an online only supplement dated 28th of February. We also have circulated this morning, I think, the minutes of the meeting on 8th of February, the draft minutes, which I shall come to in a minute. So have all members seen the documents they need to, anyone need further good? Right, so let's move on when we come to item 2 on our agenda, which is Apologies for Absence. Lawrence, any apologies for Absence today? Thank you, chair. Good morning, everyone. Four apologies today from councillors Henry Batchelor, Dr Tim Hawkins. Bill Handley has sent apologies, although I do see he's joined us online. And also councillor William Jackson Woods with councillors Dr Lisa Redrup and Helen Lee. And kindly stepping in the substitute. Item 3, declarations of interest. Do any members have interest to declare in relation to any item of business on this agenda? Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, chair. Just to say on item 8, William, I do know one of the public speakers, but I was unaware that they were speaking until I walked into the chamber. So it does not affect my ability to determine the application. Thank you. Any other declarations? Councillor Sampson. Regarding item 9, pathfinder way, temporary community building. I think all the members have received briefings and emails regarding this. So I'm coming to an open mind, I'm sure the others are though, but we are familiar with the situation. Thank you for that. That's helpful. And I think I'm going to assume that that applies to all those many further declarations on that. I have a small declaration to make in relation to item 6, which is in Saarston. I believe we may have a speaker listed from CPPF, Cambridge Past, Persons and Future. I should just declare that I'm a member. I suspect there may be other members here. So I think we can then move on to the minutes of the previous meeting. And you have the minutes of the meeting held on 8 February, which I hope everyone has now received. Do any members want to make any amendments to those minutes? The list is starting on page 3, page 4, page 5 and page 6. I see no suggested amendments. Can we take it by affirmation that we approve those minutes? Do we need a proposal or something like that? No, we'll take those minutes by affirmation. So moving on to the substance of our meeting today, Saarston and Babram footpaths, item 5. This is an application to stop up part of public footpath number 12, which is in Saarston and public footpath number 9 in Babram, and to replace them with a public bridalway and two public footpath connections. And I'm very glad that Tom Rosala, who is the asset information definitive maps officer at the County Council, is with us to summarise this. Tom, if you would assume that we have read the papers, but it's very helpful to have you here to summarise and to update us on any further developments. Please, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. I'm just going to share some slides. So I'm going to summarise the reports, which you've seen. This agenda item is regarding an application for a public path order under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning House 1990. Section 257 allows local planning authority to make a public path order to stop up a public bridalway if they're satisfied that it's necessary to do so in order to enable a development to be carried out. Section 257 also allows a local planning authority to create an alternative highway for use as a replacement of any authorised to be stopped up or diverted. The Order Making Authority for Public Path Orders under the Town and Country Planning Act are the planning authority. So in this case, it's the South Cambridgeshire District Council. Cambridgeshire County Council responsible for the legal record of public rights of way. And the County Council in South Cambridgeshire have an agreement, which dates back to 2007, which enables county council officers to process these types of applications on behalf of the district council. Although the powers to make and confirm the legal orders are attained by the district council and this planning committee. You'll recall why I was previously here in September to talk about a public path order in Gamlingay. So the report for the committee is in relation to planning permission to rat 280 dwellings at Lans after Baber Road and Soulston. The plan showing the footpath proposed to be stopped up between points A, B and C. It's up on the screen and it's to be replaced, proposed to be replaced by a perimeter driveway, which goes around the edge of the site. Appendix B is the layout, as it is on the Ordinal Survey map now. Appendix C is the layout as proposed when the development, which is planning permission, is built. The applicant is retro homes and they've applied for a public path order to stop up the footpath and upgrade part of an existing footpath between D, E and F. And they also create a new bridal way around the edge of the site as a replacement. And there's also two new footpath connections, so K to C, two existing Pampasford footpath 1 and G to H to Pampasford footpath 2. So the present alignment of the footpath, ABCs across the middle of the field. I've got some photos here, as it looked like in May last year. Although I think some buildings start to take place in the site now. As you can see, it's a crossfield footpath, it's quite narrow during times when there's crops in there. And then this Appendix H is some photos taken back in May last year of the bridal way to be created. This is along these sections of existing footpath to be upgraded to a bridal way at point D looking eastwards. And then you just see some photos here of the fields, which it would go around the edge of. And then at point M, which is by the main road, there's a field gate present at the moment on a dropped curb onto an existing shed pedestrian cycle access. So just to summarise the report, section 2 provides a background to the application. The application is Red Road Homes. Section 3 describes the character and alignment of the proposed footpath to be stopped up and the one to be replaced. And it's proposed that the bridal way surface for the majority is to be a hoggin, four metre wide hoggin type surface, which is a naturally occurring gravel type substance. And it's often used on public rise of way for leisure purposes. An example is currently constructed circular bridal way around the perimeter of Canborn. Part of the bridal way is also kind of its proposal for the utility connection into the new development between D and E. So that's proposed at the moment to be tarmac. As a cycleway because it was identified in the local plan as an important utility connection into the development, which would make the development acceptable. So section 4 or 5 of the report provides a general framework, legal framework for public path orders. And also some of the county council's own policies and South Cambridge district council's own policies on sustainable travel. Section 6 outlines the consultation, which I undertook from September of last year. In summary, it actually generated quite a relatively high number of responses for a proposed public path order. We did initially have some concerns which were raised by the parish council. Although we met with the parish council on myself and the applicant. Although one or two members had some concerns about it, certain aspects of the proposals and the parish council as a whole proposed to support the order. And we also received lots of detailed considerations of the scheme from the British Wall Society and Cycling Touring Club for Cambridge. And they were generally, they were all supportive of the scheme. And although Cycling Touring Club had some concerns about the wider connectivity of the development, which isn't necessarily related to this particular public path order application. And then we also did receive some objections from residents who live standing where we're close. Their properties, they back onto the existing public footpath. And there's a hedge and some trees, there's a tree line. These are their properties here. And they were concerned that stopping off at the moment their housing association is maintaining the hedge all around it, but from the back. And they were concerned that when this footpath stopped up, their landlord wouldn't have access to maintain the hedge. And so it become overgrown and that will affect their enjoyment of their properties. So in relation to that objection, we held a meeting with the housing association and also with the applicant. And came up with a compromise where the applicant would leave a one meter wide maintenance strip to the rear of this hedge. And provide permanent access for the landlord's metropolitan in order to maintain the hedge from the south. Which should leave the concerns that the hedge would become unkept. I communicated this to the residents, it was for residents who objected. I didn't receive any further objections and I got one positive response from them. County council, the assistant director of highways maintenance is the officer who has delegated powers. And he confirmed in February the 21st that he was satisfied that this proposed order would be acceptable for the county council as the highway authority. Therefore the decision to be considered by the planning committee is whether it's necessary to make and confirm a public path order to stop up the public footpath. Or replace it with an alternative black ride away and the two foot connections in order to enable the development as was approved in August 22 to be carried out. I've included in the reports and guidance from DEFRA on circular 109 on some of the considerations that planning authorities should have when taking these types of decisions. This states that the local planning authorities, when they decide whether or not to make or confirm an order, they should not question the merits of the original planning commission. Nor should they just grant it purely because it has planned the mission. Having granted planning permission for development affecting the right of way, authority must have good reasons to justify a decision either not to make or confirm a public path order. So the disadvantages or losses likely to arise as a result of the public path order as members of the public generally or to persons who properties are joined or are near to the existing highway should be weighed against the advances of the proposed order. Following a detailed consideration of the report, my conclusion and recommendation is that the public path order is necessary to enable development to take place. Furthermore, the overall benefits and positive impacts of the creation of the new public right of way. So the provision of a new perimeter leisure route which can be used by all non-motorised users, so people on the plate. Pedestrians, people on horseback rather than just pedestrians as is the case with the current existing footpath outweigh the disadvantages of stopping up the existing cross-field footpath. That is that. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for that, Tom. Any questions of clarification? Thank you chair. Through yourself, if I could just ask how much of the section sort of as a percentage will not be hogging and what will that be instead? Will it be a question friendly? And the reason I'm asking is whether it's going to force the questions into a road or anything like that. I'm just trying to avoid what we call sandwiching where a horse will have sort of cars on one side, cycles on the other and essentially gets and that can become quite dangerous for everybody involved in that situation. Because naturally the horses will be actually used to having traffic on the right hand side, but if you have it both at once it can cause real serious issues. And signage and how is it going to be anything that makes it really clear what can go on this track and this bridal way and what can't. I'm thinking in particular if there's anything that can stop. I have a bridal way, the Streck Null Roman Road, which horses and everything, but it's not for motor vehicles. But we do have dirt track bikes, which are illegal on the road. We have those going through. So we had to put some gateways in place just to make it harder for people to get a motorised sort of mechanical bikes and wonder whether that's something that is being looked at. If there's anything that can be done or at least appropriate signage that no one can have the excuse that they didn't know. Because again that has created fatalities in my area because you should get off the bike to do the road section and they don't. Thank you chair. Okay, thank you for the question. It's approximately 20% of the group should be tarmac. There is, I'd say that this is proposed to be adopted, the section that's going to be tarmac. It's not, the specification isn't agreed yet, it's subject to the adoption process so it can be changed. The particular type of tarmac which they're proposing at the moment is something called AC10, which is a particular type of tarmac which has got a bit more given it than your ordinary tarmac you might find on a road or a pavement. And it's a type of tarmac which was used on most recently on A14, the non motorised routes for A14, which horses are able to go on. And it has a bit more given it than your normal tarmac. The rest of it, it's about 20% would be tarmac and that section would be lit as well because it's identified as a utility connection. So horses can use it along with bikes and pedestrians and stuff and you'll find horses, they do use horse riders, some horse riders do use tarmac tracks like for example the busway. It's a nice busway. And it is preferable to being on a road, definitely. So the fact that it's tarmac, whilst it's not the number one surface that equestrians would choose, at least it's an off-road route and they're able to use it. And the rest of it is a more hogging type of surface which we use for more leisure routes and it's more of a permeable natural type of surface and it's more of a preference for equestrians and that's in the section which isn't identified as a utility connection. So the second question is about signage and potential structures. We've identified lots of locations with the applicant where signs would go, so Waymarks which says it's a public bridleway. We haven't yet discussed exactly what the signage should say but we can have that conversation with the applicant and insist that the signage should say which types of transport are legally can use the bridleway. In terms of structures like gates, our preference is we don't like to see any kind of limitations or structures which limit the public use because they can be difficult for people to navigate with pushchairs or in wheelchairs. So ideally we don't want to see those things however where there becomes a case where it is needed because it's illegally being used by motorbikes into becoming a danger, we can authorise those types of structures and the highway authority can authorise those types of structures where it's appropriate for safety purposes or security purposes. So I say that in the first instance we wouldn't want to put those types of structures in place because they said they're limiting but if they became apparent that they weren't necessary the highway authority do you have the power to recognise them? Thank you. Councilor, does that deal with your questions? Yes, Chair. It's more about having the ability, the fact that on these sections that aren't going to be adopted essentially. We've had sort of essential cattle grates put in. It just means a motorised vehicle can't get across but a normal cycle can be lifted and that sort of thing. It sounds that that's something we may come back to later but will not be part of this proposal. I think Councilor Dr Richard Williams, can I ask members to keep questions of clarification quite brief and that will probably help on to keep the answers rosely brief as well? Thank you, Chair. My question is about access onto the bridalway from Plantation Road. So I wasn't quite clear on that from the papers. Will there be access onto that bridalway from Plantation Road because it's not clear from the map that there would be? So the access onto Plantation Road strictly is not part of this public path order so it's not part of the replacement bridalway route. My understanding is from the applicant-red-writer homes that there will be an access onto Plantation Road. It will be an informal type of access so there will be a gap for me to gap in the boundary but it's not going to be a formally designated pathway. So people will be able to get through. It's going to be a formal highway as such and I think next Councilor Dr Lisa Living. Thank you, Chair. First, I just wanted to ask about the Commissive bridalway through the development. Is there any timeline on that or does that have to stay indefinitely? I know there's also one clarification about access to Stanley Webb Close because in one of the documents around page 70 or something in the correspondence with CTC it said that there would be some access via a grassy area but then in the actual reports in 6.9 it said there's a locked gate in place. No problem. So the permissive route is the pink line, you can see on the plan. Essentially that's just an additional bonus. It's not part of this public path order. It's something that the applicant's offered up. So the nature of permissive routes are that they're there purely with the permission of the landowner and they may change their mind at some point in the future if they decide the access isn't appropriate. I think the nature of the development is where that pink line goes is through the state roads. So if a questioner or anyone chooses to use that, there's not going to be any barriers ever there to stop them from using it. So effectively I think there's always going to be access through for questions in that location. It's just there as an alternative to using the main road which I think a lot of questions might prefer. So yeah, I think it will always be there but it's just a permissive route. In terms of the access to Stanley web post, yeah there was... So this is again, I don't think this is strictly part of the considerations for the public path order here because this doesn't form part of the right away replacement for the footpath. However, my understanding is that there is a gate in place, the gates owned by Metropolitan Housing Association. They don't intend to open the gate through to the development and the reason for that is because they've consulted their residents who live at Stanley web post. Stanley web post is currently unadopted and they're concerned that an increase in traffic and people walking along their road which is unadopted will lead to more maintenance issues and the residents have to pay for the maintenance of the road through the service charge. So I'd like to see the gate open from an access point of view but that's a private piece of land that's a private gate and that's what's in. They've decided it's best for their residents. I hope that that changes in the future but that's a situation. Right, any other questions? I don't see any. Yes, if you want to come back a bit. Sorry, just one more. It's about the footpath is put in place beforehand as a grassy path and then it needs to be upgraded. It's sort of about are there any conditions on timelines for having to do that and for limiting disruption to people's access to that or if they have to put in any kind of diversions or anything like that whilst what's going on. Thank you. So, yeah, there is within the reserve maps planning application, there was a condition where the applicant has to submit a rights of way scheme and we haven't done that yet and we're currently in discussions with them about that. One of the considerations that we're talking to them about is access across the site during the time they're being built with regards to existing public right of way which goes across the middle of the site at the moment. That is going to be left open until such time that if the public path order is made it's been confirmed and this is all wrapped up so the public will have access across the site all the time until this order if made is confirmed and then later on once it's been confirmed they put the grass track in, it goes around the edge of the site and the developer has, yeah, but that point is a public right of way so there is a legal obligation for them to keep that open at all times. If they do need to temporarily close it in order to carry out surfacing works they'll need to go through the proper channels and this will be in the condition sign off and so that will be a temporary traffic regulation order. A part of that process is putting in place any temporary routes so the public still have access during the time that they are surfacing it. So there is a condition which is really good within this that will allow us to agree all this detail later on and we'll make sure it's done properly. Thank you very much. Right, members, I think we have had clarification on all of the items that are set out in the report and a very helpful summary from Tom. Just before we come to the recommendation, which is on page 21, paragraph 10, South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee approves the making and confirmation so that no objections of a public path order under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Any comments from South Cambridgeshire offices on this? Let me just endorse that recommendation. We have no public speakers. Does anyone want to enter into debate on this? Council a lot, which we will. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I do just want to say it does slightly concern me if there isn't any guaranteed access from Plantation Road because the residents there will be losing apart which could have useful recreational purposes. If they can't access the bridalway, then we are basically taking quite a significant amenity away from them. I was wondering if some of the land that joins onto the bridalway is actually owned by South Cambridgeshire District Council at the end of the Colossan. I don't know that, but that does concern me. Right. I won't ask Tom to respond to that just to make it clear that is not part of the current proposals. No doubt that can be addressed on a later stage, but the current proposals are as before us on these papers. Any other? Anyone inclined to vote against this? I see none. Do I have a Council up to Heather Williams? I do note the concern by Councillor Richard Williams and I think it is a legitimate concern that we would hope to be addressed later on. I will still vote for the application because otherwise the alternative is we've already taken this away and then there is nothing. But that being said, I would strongly endorse and say that please do make sure that there is going forward a way to make that connection if possible. But I don't want to leave residents in a position of having nothing because we've already granted permission for the build, but I think it is a valid point that you raise. I'm sure those points have been noted. Do I have any other members wanting to debate this? Do I have a proposal? I'm not in calm. A proposal of what, Doctor? Do you have a second of that? Thank you. Eddie, against? Can we take that by affirmation? I don't think we need to have a forward answer. Thank you. Tom, thank you very much for your presentation. I fully understand you have other business. Thank you very much for coming on this morning. I appreciate your attendance. We will just take an unscheduled break for a moment or two, say a few minutes, before we come to agenda item number six. We'll have a five minute break, so if you would pause the stream, yes. My apologies to all members and to those online and to our visitors here today for that unscheduled break. It's a little bit of business. We now come to agenda item six, which is the application in relation to Dale's Manor Business Park in Sauston. The applicant is abstract, mid-tech and limited. It's for a proposal for the erection of research and development buildings, use class E. The presenting officer is Alice Young, who is with us today. Alice? Thank you, chair. Just bear with me a moment last I get the presentation up. The application is at Daleman Business Park, Sauston, the erection of research and development buildings, use class E and associated debt car park, landscaping and associated infrastructure. So, there's a few updates, which I'd like to allow members to. Apologies, there was a misquoted height in paragraph 6.42 and 10.17 of the committee report. The height of the main building is 14.3 metres, not 14.1 and including rooftop plant is 17.015 metres. Condition 10, wording has been altered to be a compliance condition with the submitted construction environmental management plan. And there are slight minor changes to the trigger points of the conditions that these minor changes will be delegated to officers. So, Daleman Business Park is located at the north eastern edge of Sauston within the development framework north of Abraham Road. The site comprises hard standing as the previous industrial buildings have since been demolished. Access is via west way to the north west, middle way to the south west and east way to the south east. There are existing warehouse units to the south and north west and concrete batching plant to the north west here. The village framework and green belt boundary lies to the north east, just where my cursor is now. The proposal seeks permission for the erection of research and development building, totaling approximately 9,700 metres of square metres of floor space, building within use class E and associated deck car park and landscaping. The three-storey R&D building will be sighted centrally within the site. With the car parking deck located to the south east, which has cycle parking at ground floor. There are three vehicle accesses to the site, from west way to the north west for visitors and pedestrians. Middle way, which is just here, predominantly for cyclists and pedestrians with access to the cycle stall here. East way for access to the car park and servicing to the rear of the main building. Further pedestrian cycle links are proposed along the north eastern boundary to connect to the proposed Cambridge South East Transport route here and here. So there are quite a few plans, but I'll go through them quickly, but hopefully they are familiar for members. So this is the ground floor plan, it's open plan and flexible office space, first floor, second floor. And then this is the north west elevation, which shows the entrance of the building. This faces the concrete batching plant road west way. This is the south east, this faces to the east way. South western elevation, which is kind of adjacent to Grove Road. And the north eastern elevation, which faces onto the countryside. This is just a detailed plan showing the elevation of details and the materials used. There is a materials condition recommended by officers and secure for the details. This shows horizontal metal cladding and brick basing detailing alongside another GRC cladding. This is the layout of the car parking deck and total car parking space is 286. This shows the bike stall over here as well. There is also a ground floor. Sorry, could you just repeat that? I think we missed that bit. So there is cycle storage at ground floor and then plant rooms and storage area also at ground floor within the car parking deck. Total car parking space is 286. So this shows in a bit more detail the cycle parking layout. This is all Sheffield stands and the majority are Sheffield stands. There are other types of stands as well to accommodate larger cycles and e-bikes. There is also this cycle parking to the entrance. This is the entrance here, the landscaped area. There is five here. Five here shows 20 out the front. These are the elevations of the car parking deck. This stair core here is finished in brick. This is all meshed metal. On the south-west in elevation, which runs middle way, there is a green wall proposed for climbing plants. This is the north-eastern elevation. South-eastern and north-west elevations of the car parking deck. These are the sections. There is also a utility store behind the main building where the servicing area is. This is just elevations and layouts of those. As members will be aware, the site falls within a 10.7 hectare parcel designated within the local plan under policy H1A. This allocation was carried forward into the 2018 local plan from the previous development plan. Yet the north-west part of the allocation has consent. It has been partially redeveloped for business use. This is outlined in yellow here. The white is the site. Due to this, the council has concluded that the site is no longer suitable for residential development and is not being carried forward in the first proposal of the joint local plan. There is high demand for high quality, flexible office slash lab space in Greater Cambridge as identified within the employment land and economic needs study. Therefore, officers conclude that the departure from this allocation is contextually and robustly justified. The site redevelops Bramford land in an existing business park for business use in Sallstone Village, the most sustainable in the settlement hierarchy. Sallstone has a variety of facilities to cater for residents' everyday needs. It is well connected by public transport links both to the city and the surrounding villages via cycle and bus. Sallstone has a large employment site, including Downman Business Park and the New Science Park on the western side of the village to support the residential population. The site is therefore well located in Sallstone in an existing business park within Coast Proximity. To further residential development proposed along Abraham Road, which members saw is partially complete on the members' site visit, this is outlined in yellow. On the edge of the village, the proposal enhances pedestrian access and cycle access to the site through New Pavements, Long Grove Road, West Way and East Way. The site itself is well located close to existing bus links to Cambridge and the surrounding villages. The site is also in close proximity to other large employment sites such as Granter Park, Unity Campus, Welcome Genang Campus and the Abraham Research Park, enhancing the science and technology cluster in the wider Cambridge area. Taking this into account, officers consider that the development would be in scale with Sallstone Village, given its rural centre classification and associated facilities and would promote and support the existing employment cluster to the south of Cambridge. As identified, the site is on the village edge adjacent to the framework boundary, countryside and green belt. Nonetheless, the site also falls within an existing business park characterised by large industrial buildings. The proposed buildings are taller than the surrounding industrial units, however the development has been sensitively designed to minimise the appearance of massing by having a staggered form of the main building and car parking deck significantly set off the north-eastern boundary as shown on the side here. The main building also has been designed to vertical emphasis and recessive material pallets to break up the perceived massing and is set behind additional planting to further minimise the impact of the massing on the landscape. The plant has also been set away from the roof edge as shown on the slide to decrease the visibility of the plant and step back the height away from the edge of the building. By virtue of the design interventions and the mature tree belt along the north-eastern boundary, the landscape officer considers that subject to additional landscape mitigations to reinforce this existing tree belt and a lighter colour cladding to be used. The proposal would sit comfortably within the landscape. This is demonstrated in the landscape and visual impact assessment. The two most notable views are view 5 and 6 from the footpath to the north-east. These are the two views that we showed members on their member site visit yesterday. Officers requested additional visualisations to provide additional comfort for members that reinforcing the tree belt would suffer the appearance of the development in the wider landscape views. This is view 5 and this is the baseline view from the landscape visual impact assessment. This is the latter view that we saw yesterday. I'm sorry, it's spread across two slides there, but that's the existing viewpoint. This is the proposed visualisation. I hope you can see that in detail. This is the proposed development in 15 years post construction showing the additional planting along the north-eastern boundary to screen the development. You'll see that this planting significantly helps screen the development and the main building and car parking deck is softened by this planting. This is the close of view point, view point 6 and this is the proposed development as built and then this is the view point across the additional landscape mitigation. Given the design interventions mentioned earlier, landscape mitigation and the surrounding built context which is visible here in this plan with additional large industrial units surrounding the site alongside the residential development further to the south, officers consider that the interventions are sufficient to mitigate against an adverse impact on the wider landscape and the green belt. So to conclude, the proposed development would result in the redevelopment of brownfield land for R&D flexible lab space in a location which would further foster the clustering of the science and tech cluster south of Cambridge. The proposal by virtue of the high quality landscaping, scale massing and place responsive design would integrate well into its setting, particularly as the landscaping establishes. For these reasons, officers consider that the proposal would not adversely affect the countryside or the green belt. The proposed development would assist in strengthening the Cambridge cluster whilst promoting sustainability by reusing brownfield land within the framework and providing sustainable construction methods, resource efficiency, significant biodiversity net gain, sociable outdoor working spaces and leisure facilities on site. Taking this into account, officers consider that development is acceptable and officers' recommendation is one of approval subject to the conditions outlined in the committee report and the section 1.6 contributions. Thank you, chair. Thank you very much. Members, any questions of clarification? You've had a fairly full briefing there and I know a number of us were able to visit the site yesterday. Just wondered if I can clarify, both in terms of relation to this application and generally, turn to page 38 paragraph 6.52 and it talks about our requirements under the existing local plan to have minimum 10% carbon emissions above building regs part L. But it was my understanding that the building regs were substantially upgraded, affected from June 22 last year, and I'm just from memory. I think that upgrading was more than 10%. So I'm wondering whether this paragraph actually amounts to a lower standard of insulation and energy efficiency than would be required under the existing upgraded rules. Also, while we're on the subject, can we have a clarification of the upgraded rules in place for a temporary period, which I have heard mentioned from some quarters, or are they there as a permanent upgrade to the existing regulations? And I suppose, although it doesn't relate to this particular application, do the building regs apply at the time of planning permission being given, or do they apply at the point of building, which was my understanding? And I see you able to help us with the points that do relate to this particular application. Thank you, Chair. So the standard that we're currently using is the 2020-21 building regulations in reference to the 10% carbon emissions reduction. This is guided by our SPD. The proposal complies with that. It actually marginally exceeds it, but we have a condition to secure those details, condition 13 secures those details. In terms of the building regulations, which are relevant at the time, after planning, if members were to support the application, and we approve the application, after the planning process, a building regulations application is submitted to the council, which they review, in reference to their updated building regulations, and then they go through that process. So hopefully that clarifies that for you. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. And if I could ask officers through yourself to just give me some reassurance that obviously we have, as has just been pointed out by Councillor Harvey, and I know there's brain accidents looking at, and we've got lots of landscaping things. Just wondering in relation to maintenance, like the green wall, we know from other projects how a green wall can really help with building research and development and industrial units and softening that into the rural landscape. But a lot of that is reliant on maintenance, and I just would like some clarification that officers think they've got enough leverage in their conditions to be, if we were to have granted permission, to be able to ensure that it's not a case of all we planted and a bit like the A14. We didn't water them and they've gone to make sure that they're sufficient and leave us in those conditions. Thank you, Chair. So this is covered in condition 3 in 3D. We are requiring them to submit a landscape maintenance and management plan, including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas. So that would be covered in that part of the condition. And obviously the green wall is included in that. Yes, I want to come back on that. Thank you. I should have been clear about, I'm thinking more on the enforcer. I appreciate that they need to give us a plan and that they need to provide for these things. But how long will that go for? So in 10 years time will we still be able to enforce or is it sort of plan and that's what we're looking at. I just want to make sure, I appreciate what you're saying, but make sure it's robust enough. So I believe on previous applications we've looked at a long-term maintenance plan, which typically covers between 10 to 30 years time. So I think that should provide members with sufficient comfort for the green wall to be established and maintained for a long period of time. Sorry, just to be clear on that, you said in previous applications that is applied. Can we be certain that applies in this case? So typically we look for a maintenance plan, which covers that 10 to 30 years period. And that will be dealt with later? Yes, under a discharge condition. Yes, councillor, Dr Moffin Carter. Simply a question about the green wall again for my attention. We're in an area with a major water supply problem. Presumably the green wall will need to be supplied with water and it's probably, I would imagine, to maintain it wet if we have quite a demand. Has any information been provided upon that and the impact upon water supply on these? If so, would there be provision for that, for instance, by green water in the later reserve matters? How would that be dealt with? Thank you. In terms of the application list, the full application, there aren't any reserve matters coming forward as part of this site. We do secure further information for water management on the site as part of condition 7 surface water drainage in respect of the specific water demands for the green wall. I don't have that information to hand, but if members were wanting that detail, we could add a condition if members thought that was reasonable. Okay, councillor, Dr Richie Williams. Thank you, Chair. It's a question about the Briam situation. I think the officers last slide said they were targeting Briam and I know one of the Constancies, the Sustainable Development Officers, made reference to that and there are conditions about Briam. But the conditions are that, prior to occupation, you'll demonstrate this, within six months of occupation, you'll demonstrate that. Why can't we have that before occupation? If they came back after six months and they didn't get a Briam, excellent certificate, we're not going to require them to knock it down realistically. So why can't we have those Briam conditions met before they start building? So yes, there are two conditions with reference to Briam. One is a design certificate and the second is a post construction certificate. So in terms of the trigger points of when those details are provided to the council, a lot of the time the level of detail needed is not available until a certain stage of development. And also the applicants will have to apply to Briam to get an assessor to go through all of that information. And so we provided a little bit of leeway in terms of the trigger points of providing that information to us, given that they are intending to achieve Briam excellence. So hopefully that provides members with comfort that that will be achieved. Okay, I'm not proposing to invite members to seek further clarification. We can only know so much. There are inevitably potential fairies of uncertainty. I think Councillor Peter Sandler wanted to ask a question, just a question for clarification on what was said. Yes, thank you, Chair. Through you, can I ask Alice to confirm the exact location of C-set with respect to the site if it gets built? That area of sourcedon appears to be lacking in sustainable transport and obviously a C-set stop close by would be a big positive. I think you had it all on your slides, possibly. Let me just reassure my slides. Perhaps when you come to that, you could also just confirm the planning status of any of C-set, the purposes of any decision. So not coming to that. C-set is proposed to be north-east of the site. So this is the site plan showing the indicative future route. So it would run along here, potentially. This hasn't received consent yet, so it's subject to change. The design has responded to it, trying to make future accessibility as easy as possible from the C-set route to the site. The proposed buildings by proposing pedestrian cycle access through the tree belt to the site. Obviously, because it hasn't got consent yet, it is subject to change. So we are securing those pedestrian cycle routes by condition if the C-set comes forward in that location. Just on that, we need to bear in mind that the decision on C-set and the aspects of it will be for a future date, primarily for the County Council. We will have an opportunity to comment if it comes forward. It's not something which we can take into account in this application. I'm aware that certain Members here have involvement with GCP Assembly. I don't regard that as relevance for these reasons. So I'm not seeking any declarations of interest on this unless Members wish to make a declaration. Councillor Williams. Thank you, Chair. As it's now being discussed, I think for belt buckles and braces, I'll declare that I'm a member of the Greater Cage Partnership Assembly, but it doesn't impact my ability to sit here. Yes, for clarification, I was seeking to suggest that it is not a subject of discussion. Councillor, Dr Richard Williams, you wanted to come back. Yes, I wanted to ask a different question, Chair. It's not a question. Good. Can I ask it now? Please go ahead. It is about the C-set, actually. It's about the contribution. So the 106 contribution proposed here, is it contribution to C-set? I was wondering if the Officer could say a little bit more about that, because I find that a little bit concerning the financial benefit from this would go to C-set, which if it gets built, it's going to get built anyway, and not to the local community. Can we deal with that? What do you think? Through you, Chair. Yeah, we've had, obviously, our discussions with our county highways colleagues and the impact of this development that would potentially derive from the C-set scheme should it come forward. Obviously, there would be a number or seemingly a number of people employed at the site, likely to obviously make use of the C-set corridor to a means of transport to and from the site. And on that basis, there's been a contribution that's been identified as a means of mitigating the impact of the development for C-set and a contribution towards its infrastructure to contribute to its delivery should it come forward. So we consider that contribution is fully appropriate for a scheme of this scale in this location. But it's only, obviously, subject to C-set coming forward. Council, I'll do it again. Well, yeah, I'm not sure I actually agree, but I'll leave that until the debate. Council, I had a meeting. I was actually going to go back to one of the very early points in this pack, which is the key point based on the principle of development and the change of allocation on the site. I just wanted to be sure that we're looking at the comments. It says that there's a departure from residential use, and that makes sense because there's planning consent for employment use on the site. Does that automatically convert to making sense that this is the correct use for the site? We can't use it for development, for residential development, that's a given. I wanted to understand that it says the departure from this allocation will be contextually and robustly justified. I know that's expanded on further on page 57, but I just wondered whether you may wish to expand any more on the decision processing industry behind this. Just before you answer that, can I just remind members, we will be hearing from the developers as well as from an objector who may have a view on that as well. But if you can, just clarify that. As outlined in the committee report, this site and the land around the site was allocated in the development plan prior to the local plan, which is the adopted document today. It was originally allocated as a residential for up to 200 buildings. In terms of since it was allocated, there has been consent, which I showed in the PowerPoint presentation that can get up again, for the 1, B2 and B8 uses to the north west of the site within the allocation. Whilst liaising with our policy colleagues, it was clear that the site was not being brought forward into the new local plan because the whole site is no longer available for housing. The site is part of an existing business park, so business uses are around the site. So a business use on this site is considered acceptable because other material planning considerations justify the departure from the allocation. So hopefully that helps clarify that point. Thank you. Yes, I think that's very helpful clarification. We will now come back to that point in the debate when we've heard from our public speakers. I think that deals with all the questions. I hope that deals with all the questions, clarification. I'm very grateful that we have two public speakers, one online, one who's joined us in person. I'm proposing in this case to hear from the developer first. I think we have Emma Woods from Sphere 25 here. Thank you for your patience. I think you probably know them all, but you have three minutes to address us, and there may be some, as you've probably gathered, there may be some questions afterwards. No, we're going to hear from the developer first on this occasion. I believe that we also have Sarah Nicholas online. I'd be grateful for your patience if we hear from the developer first. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. The application before you today is made by Abstract, a company with a strong reputation for delivering high spec buildings with top environmental credentials. Abstract have consistently developed strong relationships in the areas where they develop, working closely with local authorities and stakeholders, and looking to contribute to the communities in which they are active, encouraging local employment and apprenticeships by their supply chain, and seeking to support local projects with schools and other neighbourhood groups. This project is no exception, and the applicant team have worked with officers through an extensive pre-application and post-submission process to develop the right scheme for this site. We welcomed the opportunity to work with officers to deliver youth engagement at the nearby Ignael Tyromy School, and will be incorporating benches designed by the children within the landscaped entrance to the scheme. We've met with the parish council, listened to their initial comments, and directly addressed these, working with the wider estate road owners to reach agreement to deliver cycle and pedestrian routes into the site, which will also benefit accessibility to the football stadium. It is noteworthy that there are no local resident objections to the scheme, and the parish council have resolved not to object to the scheme as presented to you today. The proposals seek to redevelop existing brownfield land within the existing settlement boundary. The MPPF identifies that this should be given substantial weight, and which subsequently takes the pressure off release of greenbelt land. Demand for research and development floorspaces is high, and R&D companies specifically seek flexible, high-quality, lab-enabled floorspace with high environmental credentials. This scheme will contribute to meeting this demand within the core Cambridge cluster. The project is targeting Breamt Excellent with an EPC rating A, and aspires to be an operationally net zero carbon development in accordance with the UK GBC framework. The proposals incorporate water conservation measures, including, for example, rainwater harvesting systems for toilet flushing, and the incorporation of a water storage solution beneath the car park for irrigation. The Village Design Guide describes the northeastern edge of the village as large sheds with light industry. The proposals are entirely consistent with this, albeit that our building is of a far higher quality. An LVIA was prepared in support of the application, appropriate views were agreed with the landscape officer at that time, and through post submission consultation, additional information has been provided to address the new landscape officer's comments. Landscape officers have concluded that the mitigation proposed comprising tree and hedge planting and amendments to the colour of the cladding mean that the development can be accommodated without significant adverse effects on the functions of the greenbelt or the character of the countryside, and that indeed some of the effects of the scheme would be beneficial in nature. The landscape proposals incorporate significant habitat and biodiversity improvements reflected in the biodiversity net game metric of 761% to be achieved on site. As noted within the officer's comments, the building will have an attractive contemporary appearance which will be an uplift in the design quality of the area and set a precedent for well-designed buildings in other areas of the park. We trust you can support your officer's recommendation and approve the application before you today. Thank you. Thank you very much for that presentation. Thank you for that. Councillor Heather Williams, you wanted to ask a question, I think. Yes, Chair, I'm wondering whether I need a minute just to take some procedural advice. Fair enough. If we have that request, if you feel that is entirely necessary, we'll adjourn for a minute. Can we go offline? Thank you very much. Thank you for that. Any questions following that very clear presentation? I have a brief question myself and I think perhaps Dr. Richard Williams would like to go first to have a question. Thank you. I'd just like to ask the applicant their view on the proposed financial contributions under 106 and whether they talked about making a different form of contribution to the community where that was ever discussed as part of the application. Thank you. In terms of our highways contribution, that's been recommended by County in terms of the amount of contribution and we understand that that's similar to other amounts of contribution that have been requested for other developments of a similar nature in this area. What that contribution is used for our understanding is to go towards sustainable transport and it's for highways to decide which sustainable transport measures that goes towards. Thank you for that. A brief question for me. You referred to the colour of the cladding which is of course coloured by condition 13 which was the last item referred to by the officer in the presentation earlier. Can you just clarify for us what your position is on the colour of the cladding for the main building? The recommendation is that we look at a lighter colour cladding. We've got brick cladding to the front building and a metal horizontal cladding to the rear. We have drawing shadow sort of a mid to dark grey colour and we've accepted that we'll be changing that to a lighter grey as per the recommendations to help reduce the vision impact. Thank you for that assurance. I don't think we have any further questions for you. Thank you very much for your presentation. And I will now come to our next speaker, Sarah Nicholas, who is online. This is Nicholas. Thank you for your patience. I just want to explain to the committee that I've chosen to use chair's discretion on this occasion to hear from Mrs Woods first. But now we come to, because of the nature of the discussion earlier on, on questions and we now come to Sarah Nicholas from CPPF. Sarah, please go ahead. You have three minutes. Thank you. You can hear me okay? We can indeed. Lovely. Thank you. Good morning councillors. My name is Sarah Nicholas, and I'm the principal planning officer for Cambridge past, present and future. We are Cambridge's largest civic society and one of our aims is to protect and enhance the green setting of Cambridge. Our objection to this development relates to the impact of the buildings on the landscape. The site is visible from the higher ground of the Gogba Gogh Hills, including from Wandelbury Country Park, which CPPF owner manage. The landscape and visual impact assessment identified the landscape character of the area as being an open landscape with often extensive views over the lower land. We therefore raised concerns that the study area of the landscape appraisal is limited to about one kilometre up to the River Grantor and omits viewpoints from the rising ground on the other side of the river. The officer in her report recognises that the site is located in a sensitive location on the village edge and on the edge of the green belt. Revisions were made to the landscape and visual impact assessment and additional mitigation comprising tree and hedge planting is now proposed. Photomontage visualisations have been produced for views from the footpath running from the site showing the development of 15 years. These viewpoints are only 200 to 500 metres from the proposed building. We are disappointed that the updated landscape and visual impact assessment does not extend the study area to include the higher land to the northeast. The building is just over 17 metres in height and with the chimneys reaches about 20 metres. The multi-storey car park is just over 13 metres in height. The form of the building is of a large block, 73 metres in length with no articulation of roof or elevations. As you've seen in the officer's presentation, despite the proposed landscaping, the height of the building still exceeds the average height of mature trees. The visualisation demonstrates that after 15 years the buildings are still visible and dominant on the countryside edge of the village. From the higher ground they will be particularly visible above the tree line. The northeast elevation of the building will appear as a large wall of development. We request that you refuse or defer this application and request additional evidence on the landscape and visual impact assessment so that you can properly understand the impact of the development on the wider landscape and longer distance views. Thank you. Thank you for that. Do any members have questions of clarification on that? Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. I will refer to page 43. You're asking, not yourself, Chair, but through yourself, for more assessment and questioning the competence of officers and councillors to make a decision without it. Other than an assessment, we know planning is a judgment, a balance, there is no precedence, as has been also referred to. So what is it extra to everything else that we've got, our own ability and competence to, as we do, sit at committee all the time and make decisions on visualising how things will proceed? What is it you feel that a deferment for that assessment would help in establishing any harm or lack of harm? What materially advantage would that give us other than the tools that we would normally use? Sorry. Are you able to answer that? One question. In deferring this application? I think, with the visualisation impact assessment, it's identified a study area, which is only one kilometre in length, sort of width. It doesn't bring to your attention that the site is visible from further afield. The views from the gogs down across, you can see, sourced in through the various tree belts there. So it's just making sure that members are aware of that, and what impact this building would have on those longer distance views, which the current assessment and the smaller study area doesn't give. Right. Do you want to ask a further question? Councillor Williams. Thank you. I just want to clarify the answer. The request for further assessment is for us, as a committee, to appreciate that this could be viewed from further afield and from further away. So the fact that committee acknowledges and appreciates that would that satisfy some form of comfort that we are aware of? Yes. Yes, so that you're aware of that. The visual assessment at the moment doesn't give you what, you know, that information of what it would look like. So, you know, it would either be, you know, your knowledge of the local area of views from, of sourced in from higher above. If you don't know that and it's not in the reports, you don't have that information in front of you. Thank you for that. I'm just going to confirm that a number of members of the committee looked at the site yesterday and that was something on which the committee members present, not all of us, were informed. But it's very helpful to have had your further presentation. I think that's... Is that the end of questions or do we have one further question for you? Just for point of information, talking about visualising the site from the GogMogog site that you have, what distance is that from the site that we are, the development site? I don't know particularly, but so the site, I'm just thinking out here, the study area was about a kilometre up to the grantor and then you've got the A3, I think the 1307 and then you're up the hill, the other side. So we're talking at a guess, two kilometres without measuring it off a map. Forgive us, I think officers are able to inform us on that. Yeah, three, Chair. I'm just having a quick look on Google aerial images and it's about three kilometres on the site. Thank you. Is that correct to you? Yes, yes, I'm sure that's fine. Okay, I think we've satisfied on that point. We have a question also from Councillor Ariel Cowan. Also a point of information. You mentioned that the erection of this building could damage the view. Does the site already present such an impact on the surrounding area even if it's a lesser one? Or is the foliage currently sufficient to cover up the other buildings in the grantor site? You're able to tell us on that? So I think you can see the buildings, the current buildings, because from that you can identify this site. Also the new residential development is prominent with, you know, you can see the rooftops. The case officer, just call up the LVIA assessment based on 15 years tree growth so that you can see that more clearly marked so far as we can tell. Now that's obviously from a much closer perspective and through offence it happens, but I hope that shows you the extent to which the building will still be visible even when the trees are effectively mature. Does that help? I appreciate that. That is not the LVIA viewpoint which was being requested here, but I think it's time now for us to move on. Thank you very much for your presentation. Right. Well we have the recommendation which is on the second recommendation on page 58. We approve this application subject to the planning conditions and the certificate of completion of a section 106 agreement. I will come later to a recommendation 11-2 if we get to that point. So does anyone want to start the debate on this? I have first Councillor Heather Williams. Any others? Councillor Williams. Thank you chair. So I think we should first, you know, we've acknowledged that it's been a departure application. I assume it's been advertised as such. But I think, that's why it's here, but I think it is a sensible suggestion to change it from residential use given where it is. It's got many merits. It's brownfield and there are so many times when it's almost heartbreaking sat in this chamber when we're seeing agriculture or Greenbelt or Greenland being converted into residential and other things. I really think that's a good making good use of the land that's there. I do appreciate the concerns that have been raised in relation to views. I think there has been reasonable steps and when we're asking for conditions we have to be reasonable in the landscaping and green rolling and other things that have been put in place. I think the reality is whatever was put in that in that area is going to have some form of impact. We're never going to be able to shield up to everything. But would I rather see brownfield used on that balance rather than somewhere that may not have that quite such a viewpoint but was using up Greenland? No, I wouldn't. So I think it's is it ideal? No. Is it the best in the balance of things? Probably. And we do know that we do need more employment space and we are a growth area and we do need to make sure and Soulston has been a parish that has actually taken really well the employment opportunities there and has been and has prospered I think because of it. In relation to page 56 when it refers to heads of terms I just sort of say and I think I might have a seconder for what I'm going to propose based on what you said earlier and it's in relation to the financial contribution to CSEC because that as has been said has not reached its conclusion yet and is still an unknown what we have done on previous applications is put in a provision so that if CSEC was not to go in its current form or something else was to materialise or indeed nothing was to happen with that we have had a set of wording that we've used in previous applications to say in the event that CSEC does not happen this money will be reallocated for the purposes of mitigating the transport we've done it quite as a fallback position in the heads of terms I'm sure the wording that we've previously used would be sufficient here if officers could appreciate that they're not going to have that at their fingertips and this is whatever we agree to is subject to the heads of terms so I'd ask if members were supportive of making that provision in the event what we wouldn't want to do is the community lose that contribution towards what it is it's mitigating the impact of the development because of a difference of approach CSEC may become I don't know it's a CSEC 2 could be 3 or 4 songs we don't knuckle it down I hope that helps Chair We have cleared the basis I'm going to take advice from our legal officers to what extent we can formally agree to that without a formal consent to the developers I think I'm getting an indication that the developers would be happy with that but I think it's important we take legal advice on this before we consider that amendment if we may Thank you, Chair Are you able to guide us on that? I'd like to hear from the first on that Yes, unusually then I'm going to go back to the applicants although they had an opportunity to speak but we give them an opportunity to respond on this point before we discuss it further Would you like to comment on that? Sure, thank you I think it's a very sensible proposal from my recollection I think the heads of term suggest that it's a 10-year period in which it should be spent if CSEC goes ahead but I think the drafting of that particular clause should be amended to reflect the fact that it can be retained for an alternative should something else come along That's very helpful Thank you for that immediate response It's not reasonable to ask that of you but I appreciate you being able to help us in that way Councillor Heather Williams Having had that obviously we'll get more advice I would like to make that recommendation it would have a nil financial impact we're not asking for any more or any less but would allow for any alternatives or different proposals that there may be within the next 10 years Before I ask you I believe there are precedents for putting in similar wording as Councillor Williams referred to Chair, if I could just come back I need to be very clear it's a lot of money it should be CSEC related we can't we can't just say or towards something completely different certainly has to be highway related and it should be CSEC related so I want to be very careful on the wording that we use All 106 have a clause where if the money is not used for its intended purposes it's returned after a period of 10 years That's which the planning officer asked whether we specify CSEC and if it's not used at CSEC but it goes back or if we use it as a highway contribution to be used at the discretion of the highway authority and if it's still not used it's returned they will come with a 10 year return clause So I suspect that in your amendment you might like to consider putting in wording to the effect to be used not just for general public benefit but to improvements to public transport to benefit the site which I think again is acceptable to the developers Chair, I'm happy with that I don't think we need to fix the exact words because our recommendation is that we are approving or refusing this subject to the heads of terms being agreed so officers do still have the time we've given our views and our gist of where we would like officers to take this if approved chair I'm happy for officers to take our debate to take our concerns and formulate that we do have I think we might need to check in with can't remember which application it is but we might be able to do a bit of a research into when we've used this before because this has come up and we did change it before Right, because this needs further discussion outside this committee I would hope that you could put that forward as a proposal in principle which can be accommodated at a later stage with the agreement to the developers if that is the case and you have a seconder which I think you do then I suggest I think we might be able to take that by affirmation at this stage and then move on to other aspects of the debate I'm not proposing to put that to a formal now, councillor Dr Richard Sorry chair I'm happy to second that I'm not happy with C-set and I'll be honest with the committee that we are not debating C-set today I'm not happy to find ourselves to this application I'm not happy that this contribution makes this application acceptable in planning terms which is the point of 106 is that we say that the planning application is not acceptable unless we have this 106 contribution I am not happy really to accept that a contribution to the council saying that to make this acceptable there has to be a contribution basically a council project this site is one and a half miles from the back end of the car park that will be C-set nobody is realistically going to park in C-set get a bus, a mile up the road when they can drive to this site so I think actually C-set is going to do very little actually to reduce driving to this site because it's so close to it so on a planning point and I think it is a planning point I don't actually think this is acceptable in planning terms with a contribution to C-set I would much rather see this money go to a sustainable transport which would actually benefit the local area having said that if you need a seconder I'm happy to second it I do reserve my right to vote against this at the end of the day because I'm not happy that this makes it acceptable in planning terms yes let us be clear we are not at this stage debating C-set C-set for the purposes of this application does not exist I think the proposal was quite clear I think however your seconder might be suggesting something slightly different which would specifically remove the possibility of this contribution being towards C-set should that happen I'd just ask clarity from the proposer and seconder as to what you are proposing and if necessary I will then put that to a formal vote I think to clarify and based on the advice as well is that the contribution in the heads of terms is for sustainable a financial contribution to sustainable travel and not to specify the project and then as our advice has said then it can if that's a project that is deemed so be it but there could be other projects that come on sooner that would be more appropriate to this site as Councillor Richard Williams says there are other alternatives so what we want to do in seeking this is to create flexibility as to how that money is spent and not ring fence to a certain specific project which has absolutely nil financial effect on the applicants it's going to be of no consequence to them but it does give the local authorities flexibility into how that money is best spent so we're just we're not referring to a particular project it is just for sustainable a financial contribution of towards sustainable travel improvements Can I ask you to be specific as to the wording you're seeking to change on which remind me which condition we're looking Paragraph 10.85 page 56 removal of c-set 2 towards sustainable travel sustainable travel You want to delete the word c-set 2 altogether from that my understanding of original proposal was that should c-set not come forward that it would then be I diverted to public benefit specifically sustainable travel you're now saying you don't want it to be sustainable travel because that's the advice that we've had I think the seconder are happy with that wording but that to the vote because it is not quite as I had understood so we do have perhaps we'll take advice from the officers first Thank you chair it's very important that contributions made to mitigate the effects of development are meeting their sealed tests which is set out in the report and just reviewing the county transport teams comments they are very clear that the mitigation identified is relating to the c-set infrastructure that is proposed there's no other reference to requirements for other sustainable transport in their comments it is related to the c-set project itself so they haven't for example said that additional contributions for improving cycle ways or bus infrastructure bus service infrastructure is necessary it's specific to the c-set project so if that project doesn't come forward then my reading of the comments from the highway authority is that the contribution isn't necessary so it is on the provider that the c-set is delivered and then the contribution isn't required so that's quite clear and the tests within the seal regulations are also quite clear in that they should be meeting those three tests set out in the regulations councillor Williams do you want to amend your proposal to take a count for that chair with the greatest respect I appreciate the advice no I don't I appreciate that that's the advice that's been given and but the way I see it we have an applicant that is happy to accept what we're proposing as if it is to go forward c-set then it may 10 years is a long time c-set might not happen but an equivalent or something new may a which point just because this happens to be what's on the table at this specific point in time I think would be a mistake so my understanding as well is we are not bound by that we are here to make a judgment ourselves and what we think is right so I don't think there is anything that stopping us being able to propose this we can propose and agree whatever we want to however we have to bear in mind the question of whether it would be legally enforceable after this regardless of the views of the developers on this the advice is that the highways authority does not feel that such contribution would be necessary in the absence of what is referred to here as c-set 2 you are proposing I think to delete the word c-set 2 all together I think that if the committee wants to do that we will need to take a vote on it but before we come to that I know you have a composer and a seconder but I would like to take further discussion to debate councillor dr Martin Carn in the comments in the report you talk about it is necessary given the scale proximity and the potential employees and I think the potential employees are in a significant number you are talking about 550 staff working there the current bus service number 7 goes to the centre of source the crossroads as I understand it the end of Abraham Road which is probably a 4km from the site maybe even more sorry dr Carn I have to stop you there we do not yet know what the proposals for c-set will be I am talking about the existing bus I appreciate that but we have to confine ourselves for what is before us yes but you are asking whether I was asking whether the comments of the highways authority have some relevance to other bus services and bus access basically c-set would provide a bus access to the area the existing bus access is not satisfactory and therefore the might if it does not go ahead in terms of bus services might be a relevant issue and maybe whether the sustainable transport could be limited to bus services or bus provision in some sort I think that could be related to the highways comments I am not sure whether other forms of sustainable transport would really cut the muscle but that is just a comment for the way I look at it I think the yes thank you thank you chair I would like to be clear if we are voting an amendment what exactly it is that we are voting for because we seem to be talking about two separate possible choices here one is removing c-set entirely from the heads of turns and rewriting the section 106 contribution into more general terms towards public transport and sustainable infrastructure that would be one approach the other approach is to say that there is a first point of call this money would be used for c-set but should c-set no longer exist in this current format then we will do x, y and z those are two different paths and I am not sure we are clear which one we are taking at the moment yes Councillor Williams there are two alternatives I think what Councillor Liam has just described is not your current alternative could you clarify what you are proposing so what I am proposing right at this moment is that we remove c-set and substitute that word for sustainable travel now that does not prohibit potentially it being used for c-set but what it does mean is if between now and the 10 year mark something that is better applicable to this site comes up that that money could be sent to deliver that so when it is not it is not excluding it as much as some of us may disagree with it but it is allowing more flexibility with that funds because my point is over the next 10 years there could be something else that comes through that actually would suit this site better and because we have specified a certain project we then do not have the ability to react to that this is a long term thing it is not a five minute thing so do I think that c-set is the right thing to help this now but that is a side issue I have two questions one is for the officers which is why was c-set specified specifically in the first place what was the original decision to make such a specific request that it was c-set what was the thinking about that in the first place and the rationale about why it is so it is named as c-set rather than general transport infrastructure I totally appreciate the point that in 10 years time the situation could look very different but both paths either removing c-set from the thing altogether or saying c-set but should c-set no longer exist in this current format if we do x, y and z both paths would meet that requirement because the second one is reflecting that there is another option if the future is different I don't understand why you would wish to remove it completely I'm not going to ask officers to clarify at this stage but the other makes for the debate I will ask for officers to give us advice before we move to a formal vote your second one to speak you want to come first the more flexible wording I'm proposing does something which doesn't allow the other and that is c-set could still be there it could still be happening that something better is alongside it then choose the better option not all we've got this fantastic thing that's much better but because we said we can only do it if c-set falls and that's still happening we can't use it so that is the distinct difference between the two options that you've just referenced thank you Chancellor, Dr Richard Williams I don't want to have too much back and forth on this I think single contributions to this this is just one aspect of the overall debate and then I will ask officers for advice before we proceed to a vote I'll make this my last point chair but I just wanted to address the points that have been raised in support of Councillor Heather Williams I think there is a logical gap here the start point is a 106 contribution is as it says on page 56 necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms that's why we impose 106 obligations I think there is a huge logical gap in the county highways position which is that the start point must be that this development is not acceptable in planning terms without 106 but if c-set doesn't happen then there's no need for any contribution to anything else but it is suddenly acceptable but what's unacceptable about it what is it about the conditional occurrence of c-set that makes this unacceptable perhaps if c-set happens there needs to be a contribution but if c-set doesn't happen suddenly this is perfectly acceptable and there's no need for contribution I think there is a logical gap there it is necessary to improve sustainable transport for this development and that's why I think it is better to make flexible wording such that if c-set happens and it decided this goes to c-set 5 if c-set doesn't happen we should still be concerned about sustainable transport in order to make this acceptable in planning terms that's my argument yes thank you I think you may need to come back to that argument once we've resolved this particular issue in relation to the overall justification I'm now going to contribute to the debate had this amendment been to say towards the public transport route c-set 2 or other sustainable transport then I would have been prepared to support it since that is not quite clearly the nature of this amendment I would I intend to oppose this because I'm not sure that it would be legally enforceable that is the advice I think we're receiving and before we put this matter to the vote because we now have a seconder and we've had I think sufficient debate just think it important we take legal advice on that point and then I propose to proceed to a vote are you happy with that? legal advice please thank you chair I've come up with some alternative way for you to consider to be used towards c-set or alternative sustainable transport infrastructure in agreement with the highway council Williams it's for you to propose the wording are you happy with that wording I'm happy with that because it's not a secondary action it does leave both options available I believe my seconder is also happy right and that's very much what I was just suggesting I'm very grateful to you for accepting that suggestion on legal advice I think we do just need to proceed to a vote on that is everyone clear on the nature of Heather Williams proposal I've seen of the room do we need to take a formal vote on that or can we take that by affirmation I don't see anyone opposing the wording that is now before us I think everyone's suggesting it's clear I think we're all in favour of that can we take that by affirmation just insert those words thank you now yes I said we'd have a break at 11.45 I thought it was important we resolved that first bearing in mind we've had a couple of breaks earlier so I'm most grateful to the patience of members of the public for some variations in our timetables this morning but we will now take a short break of 10 minutes and then I propose that we actually break for lunch at what time did I say earlier on yes I think that would be about right ok so we'll take a 5 minute break now back in the room as soon as possible after 12.05 if you would and we'll then we now resume the meeting after a short schedule break we are on item 6 of our agenda we've resolved one little issue in relation to contributions to transport public transport schemes sustainable transport schemes and we now move back to the debate on the recommendation itself which I mentioned earlier on I can't remember which page it was on but I'm sure we'll manage without that who wants to start us off on the debate on the recommendation itself do I see Dr Martin Cahn wanting to start us off on this? I can I generally I mean I know this site I know this site for many years actually I lived in Thornton 50 years ago for a year and a half and I developed an area of industrial use then at that time so it's a long standing industrial use it's not a new use the site is clearly unsuitable for housing present locations surrounded on three sides by industrial buildings existing industrial buildings of a rather different character but so this is in fact a change towards a more research orientated use in an area which has a lot of other new research developments coming up in the area so it seems to be that's what the pressure is in this area now it seems to me so the main concern that I can see that the only real concern that I can see about this use is the distant views the views from outside generally this is basically something that any development is ugly I think really the idea this building is much better a more attractive building even if larger than the existing buildings on the site some of which are not well screened at present it is a largely horizontal character in its construction and therefore I think even if it is visible at a distance it won't be particularly intrusive and I understand there's a certain subjective element in that but that's the way I would feel and certainly from a distance of three kilometres it will be a minor element in the landscape and I don't think it will intrude so my personal view is that the impact on being built is certainly not enough and in fact might create an improvement compared to the industrial buildings and might I think it is likely though you can't be obviously, this is not a matter really to think of the consideration in terms of whether it's improved or not if it's successful it would include induced changes and other sites adjoining to which might improve more attractive buildings on that site therefore generally I'm in favour of this thing and I should be voting in favour Thank you for that I think Vice-Chair Jeff Harvey wanted to comment on this Well really agreeing with what Martin Khan said we spend quite a lot of time in the committee discussing ways of sustainably arranging housing near to employment but I'm actually a converse washer should be an objective and I know it's very important to the business community to have the sort of clustering effect and I think this would be a sensible use of some available land Thank you Thank you Chair I would agree with the preceding comments the site is currently derelict overgrown with brambles and weeds it's no asset to anyone as it stands and putting a reasonably attractive new building on the site can only be a positive as regards the distant views I have trouble imagining that putting a reasonably attractive new development amongst several ugly heritage is probably the wrong word elderly buildings and cement works and a warehouse unit is going to detract further from the views from three kilometers away in particular as the applicant is proposing to put screening in front of the views from the green belt side so I would also tend to support the application Just going to say that I agree that with the development on Bramfield site we did go and visit the views and I feel okay with the level of impact that this would have and agree that some of the neighbouring buildings have more impact than this one that we're looking at I'm always pleased to hear about the environmental credentials of the company and the efforts to have the tack's for irrigation and the efforts to improve the sustainability of it I think I read that we are approaching a consensus on this Do we have any contrary views? Would someone like to make a proposal? Doctor, come I think a proposal would be a proof move to the vote Do I have a seconder for that? I'm going to take a full vote on the electronic scales in part when we record this so if we could set that up please right I think you know that if you're in favour of having pressed the blue one you then press the green one if you're opposed to this application you would need to press the later appear as a red one so the vote is now underway Thank you I see we are unanimous and that application is approved Thank you very much to those who took part in the public debate and we really appreciate your patience and that of everyone else involved It's 12.17 We'll now move on to the next item on our agenda Item 7 which is the form of Barrington cementworks a variation of conditions and that is on page 73 of your of your papers I see Alice has left the room I should have thanked her for her all her detailed work on that one but I should do so later so form of Barrington cementworks variation of conditions I won't read out all of the items concerned the applicant is red row and the representative officer is Michael Hammond Michael Hammond is on screen Michael please bear in mind that we have I hope all read the papers but if there is any summary or update you want to give us we would appreciate that Thank you chair I'll just share my screen check that's working first Can you confirm that you can see the slides We can see the slides We can see that clearly Thank you Michael Excellent I'll be quite brief chair the applications legal procedure one that's similar to one that committee considered back in August I believe last year effectively it's an application to almost exclude these elements greyed out so you've got the south eastern parcel here and this northern parcel which members will recall went to came to committee last month for a resolution to approve and it's to to exclude those elements so that the rest of the development can come forward or it's already started the development so just for ease of reference these are the two site layouts that were approved so on the left is the south eastern parcel so that's for 36 dwellings an increase of 3 and then on the right is the northern parcel which members will have seen last month which was for an increase of I believe it was 37 dwellings approximately at the top of my head so like I said effectively this application seeks to change the plans to exclude these greyed out areas from things like the master plan which is what I'm showing you now so that the original outline is still compatible and they don't conflict with one another so again things like the building heights plan and for example the phasing plan which obviously they've already started on phases one and two but for example the access to those developments is unaffected by these to drop information so there isn't an issue in terms of compatibility so I put on the screen here chair effectively the summary from the report which is that it's being submitted at the site of the hillside decision about which has led to questions about drop in permissions we've taken legal advice as officers including from council and our opinion is that based on that advice that this approach is sound and that the application should be recommended for approval with variations to the conditions on the host permissions which is why the description development is so long that's a very brief presentation chair but I'll be happy to take any points of clarification if that's okay Do we have any questions for Michael Hammond bear with us a second Michael right and thank you for the advice on the legal status of this application anyone want to Councillor Lisa sorry it's just to be clear my understanding is that this is just a legal an application to cover a legal element so there's no changes for us to consider is just for a legal clarification for the application that's my understanding Michael you're confirming that I think yeah you can see my nods yes Councillor Heather Williams okay so we'll come back to that in a minute Michael thank you very much for that presentation we look so we will have a brief debate Councillor Heather Williams I think the extremely brief chair so just to refer members to page 82 and 83 never have I seen the word no objection and no comment used so often in a planning application I almost feel like I need to verify this and double check as has been said we had this similar previously it's a legal matter it's seeking to regularise things I think that the debates on the application has sort of been gone on the merits of the case and I don't see any reason to hold things up chair I think it's a it's seeking to address matters in the light of the case that was taken yes and perhaps I could add that there's one further no objection which is from the local member I think we have an email from the local member saying that he has an objection to this I don't propose to take a formal vote on this because I think we've done that on previous occasions we have a registered speaker yes thank you for that reminder so yes my apologies to Liz Fitzgerald of Barker Parry and I think you're online so my apologies for failing to call you earlier on and we would appreciate your views on this so please you have three minutes thank you very much chair I don't intend to use the three minutes with the agents acting on behalf of the applicant and as per previous applications I put myself forward to simply be here to answer any technical questions that councillors may have so on the basis of the discussion I'm more than happy to step aside thank you very much for that and my apologies again for not calling you in the right order right does anyone have a concrete review I see a sort of consensus towards agreeing this would somebody like to put a proposal councillor Dr Martin Calm second if I councillor Dr Richard Williams thank you we'll take this by affirmation I think we all agreed we all agreed right thank you so that is approved in line with the recommendation 1225 so we have time to move on to the next item on our agenda item 8 which is the bungalow at Haydenway Willingham and I will remember this time that we have a public speaker two public speakers we've been very patient but before we get to that let's hear from the we're on page 93 of your papers this is an application for the site is the bungalow Haydenway William the replacement of a dwelling and the demolition of the existing following the demolition of the existing we applicant is Mr Jay Rooney it's been called in at the request of the parish council and the recommendation is to approve it subject to conditions the presenting officer is Phoebe Carter Phoebe can you see my screen we can indeed wonderful thank you so this is an application for the bungalow it's a detached bungalow located off is located off an unmade road here accessed off Haydenway the site is surrounded by open country side to the east and the south to the west of the site is has a separate permission which was approved by planning committee in 2021 for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes to the north of the site is open country side in this field followed by commercial buildings and a new residential development which this field here is the new residential development that's being built and you can see here that there are some commercial and farm barns situated around the site the application seeks planning permission for the replacement of a dwelling this is the dwelling just in here and this here to the west of the site is the former pickery building that will come up throughout the discussions the application seeks planning for a replacement dwelling located in a slightly different position site which is just shown here on the block plan a new dwelling would be a single storey as well a full board bedroom dwelling and it would have a maximum reach height of 6.3 metres the proposal complies with internal space standards and has provided an acceptable level of amenity space parking and cycle storage some of which will be secured via condition so this is the original floor plan of the dwelling and here are the existing elevations the proposed floor plans this dotted line in here shows the outline of the dwelling to be demolished so as you can see the proposed dwelling is larger than the existing dwelling but it is considered that it would not dominate the site and the proposed dwelling would not be set forward of the existing footprint and is of a simple design the elevations are shown here and this is the rear elevation and side elevation an ejection has been received from the parish council regarding the existing bungalow being conditioned with an agricultural tie which is a key issue within the application officers no other objections have been received from third parties or consultees policy H14 is a local plan replacement dwellings in the country side which supports one-for-one replacement dwellings outside the village development framework boundaries and officers are satisfied that subject to condition 3 demolition of the existing dwelling the proposal is considered to be compliant with policy H14 whilst the proposal is for a replacement dwelling consideration of policy H19 in regard to the agricultural tie that was considered relevant this is the plan from the 1975 application for the original dwelling which was approved with an agricultural tie to the former Piggory so this is the outline of the Piggory which is sort of labeled B and the section here R was the proposed site of the dwelling house originally the applicant purchased the site of this original dwelling plus some additional land in here which had previously changed use after planning permission had been approved for the demolition of the Piggory site to the west and the change a material change of use of the land to the sighting of caravans the existing dwelling therefore has currently no agricultural holding link to it however it could still be used in relation to agricultural or forestry in the local area the applicant has provided information regarding the use of the site and dwelling and officers consider that this information has demonstrated the agricultural operations tied to the occupant ceased over 30 years ago and considering the limited cartilage associated with the existing dwelling is not sufficient to operate a viable rural based enterprise whilst there is some conflict with the requirements of policy H19 in justifying the removal of the condition and the fact that property has not been marketed in line with policy H19 the planning history of the site carries significant weight and officers are satisfied that the dwelling has not been occupied with an agricultural tie for a significant period of time and for these reasons officers are satisfied that there is no longer a need for an agricultural tie dwelling on land the reposed replacement dwelling is considered to be of an appropriate scale and design and is appropriate within its setting within the open country side in all other respects the proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of the local plan and for these reasons officers are recommending approval of the application subject to the attached conditions if you have any further questions then please let me know Thank you for that presentation we may have further questions just before I wonder if you could go back to the slide which showed the red line within which the application is to be considered I think your second slide you could just put that up for us does anyone have any questions yes councillor will you give us a moment and any others so that is the red line it's rather difficult to see where it overlaps with the blue line isn't it but it follows the blue line in here these two boundaries of the blue line so that is the site we are considering councillor Heather Williams I think you had a question thank you two questions chair one of which if I understand correctly from the presentation we've just been given and from the information in here the property hasn't been occupied with somebody in relation to agricultural use for some time now my question around that point is how long have we been aware of it not how long has it been happening because there is a concern there that if we we're sort of saying it's okay because it's been going on but actually we probably should have enforced it have we been aware so it feels a little peculiar to say that we didn't enforce our own planning conditions we've now set and made it okay so I think we need a bit more explanation around that the other point was a bit more on the agricultural link now my understanding is that really properties are needed in agricultural places when it comes to livestock you don't need it for trees and arbery but if you've got livestock you need to be able to be on site you know for lambing season or carfing or whenever it is and for other reasons but there isn't a need for arable purposes to live on site and the like is there such distinction between what the agricultural use or is it simply agriculture because I think that that in itself sort of because we've been told that you can still do arbery work and things like that I wouldn't say arbery work is farming can you just clarify your terminology arbery work how did I pronounce it? what did I pronounce? I obviously pronounced it wrong but yeah so I wouldn't class that as agriculture I was just seeking a clarification of the word arbery works that you used okay, thank you just to confirm good you know some of us are a bit slow to catch on to these terminology so forgive me for seeking clarification like the judge who asked what the TV is for you know I think we have next Chancellor Helen Leaming you had a question for I think there was a question there perhaps we ought to deal with first Phoebe I wonder whether you want to deal with that yourself or whether you want to ask our legal officer if you're prepared to contribute on that perhaps you could both come in on it I'm happy I like enforcement in the 1980s or 90s or whatever the first thing there we only became aware of the agricultural tie to the dwelling during the lifespan of this application when the applicant bought the land the agricultural tie to the building and the dwelling was not made clear within the land searches so they were not aware when they purchased the property that it had an agricultural tie on it and until this application came forward I was unaware of it so as to the why we haven't enforced on our own condition we've only become aware of this during the lifespan of the application so why we potentially didn't enforce on it 25 years ago I'm unable to answer but in regards to the current period we've only become aware of it during the lifespan of the application and in regards to agricultural links it depends on the wording of the condition this condition for the 1975 application wasn't directly linked to a specific agricultural holding it was linked to agricultural working in general right I think we may have a broader concern as to why such conditions are not by searches but that is not a matter for this application well perhaps I could ask Vanessa as our legal officer to deal with that point that's alright what weight can we give for what was said about the fact that it's been happening for a long period of time therefore it's okay when it it was actually because nobody was aware of it's else I think we've had clear guidance on that from Phoebe but it would be helpful to have the view about legal advice on that as well thank you chair I'm going to have to step back one take one step back Phoebe and can I ask why an application to discharge the condition once it was identified was not bought by the applicant prior to the application to demolish and rebuild because that condition is in existence on the planning history I understand it was not on their legal land search and therefore they were not aware that this agricultural tie to the dwelling existed when they purchased the land and they weren't aware of it until halfway through the application itself which I understand but it was on the council's planning history so there was a permission granted with a planning condition that tied the property to the profession as it were and having established that my question is was there no thought given to the usual application to discharge that planning condition by way of a certificate of law for development supported by an affidavit that simply said this occupation this property has not been used or the agricultural tie has not been in operation for 30 years it has been raised with the applicant and agent but they weren't willing to withdraw the application I think we're going to need clear advice from our legal officer I mean my impression is that since the agricultural link effectively ceased more than 30 years ago it would almost suddenly have been unenforceable the question is whether we are able now to progress this application in view of the fact that no application was made for a certificate of law for development or the necessary application are you happy for us to proceed with this application the application can proceed but I'm uncomfortable with the process the process should be that that condition should have been discharged and they either withdraw that or this was effectively put in abeynts until that had taken place and I am concerned that the council is setting a quite a dangerous precedent on this we may not have enforced and I'm not aware of any particular reason why we didn't but the passage of time over 30 years would have been long before these officers were employed by the council but I am concerned that there is a dangerous precedent being set here which is well if there is a planning condition and we just haven't enforced it and it has a one on the land registry we just ignore it because until that condition is discharged it's forever there right so I'm sorry I just want to clarify this one is it your advice that we can progress with this application despite no such condition having been discharged your concern is a broader concern for the council as the procedure we apply more generally not a concern that we should now cease to consider this application can we just confirm that position the application can continue to be considered are we all happy with that advice councillor Heather Williams chair I accept the advice but I'm incredibly uncomfortable with proceeding having heard what we've just heard I appreciate there might not have been something legal but it is the two words buyer beware that award your respect is not our issue I would propose that we defer give officers and planning lawyers the opportunity and I appreciate we have got public speakers that have been and the applicant is suggested to withdraw the application because it's either that or I think it has to just get refused because how can we can we just remind everyone we're currently in the state of questions of clarification to the officer we're not into the question of debate we do have public speakers so if councillor Williams would agree I would like to close the clarification and come back to this issue when we get to the debate would you agree to that or do you wish to put this matter put it forward and propose that effect now I'm happy to hear from the public speakers chair but I do think we should seriously consider the advice we've been given about concerns about going forward yes the advice is from the legal officer that we can progress this application we have two others I think want to ask questions of clarification on what was said so I think it's first yes councillor and Lily thank you chair so in 1975 when this was designated it was given the condition of having the agricultural tie was that specifically in relation to the fact that it was associated with the pigory and now that the pigory has changed use does that part of the reason why we're moving into considering using this in a different way that's my first question second question is just because it hasn't been sort of being associated with the agricultural tie because that wasn't known about that doesn't mean that there isn't a need for that that just means that we didn't know that that was what it was and it's two separate things I wondered whether there is actually a demand for properties with an agricultural tie in the area and what have we done to assure ourselves that this is something that we can just you know move on from we don't know that that isn't needed we found out that this was the original purpose of the building it hasn't been for us because we didn't know about it that's understandable but now we do know about it is it required in the area and if it is required in the area I think we need to consider whether it is required in the area before we move away from it I'm just trying to understand that question Phoebe I appreciate you have addressed those points before but do you have anything to add in on that question so in regards to the condition with the agricultural tie the bungalow was built in relation to the piggery they wanted a dwelling on the site essentially for the management of the piggery however the tie was not directly to the piggery the tie was a more generic agricultural condition but the property was built directly for the piggery and the piggery and the holding essentially that went with the land has now gone so there is no holding land in relation to the bungalow and the cartilage around the bungalow is not considered large enough to support a viable rural enterprise in regards for agricultural need it hasn't been marketed as an agricultural building when the bungalow was sold as previously covered there wasn't any knowledge in the sale particulars or in the land searches that this was an agricultural building and therefore the marketing for the agricultural building hasn't occurred in regards to local need there is there isn't with the recognition of farming there isn't the requirement for as many agricultural dwellings as they historically used to be as for the need in the area we don't have those figures or that that data now we have had a number of questions I have a couple more who are down to ask questions can I just be sure that these are there is need for further clarification on points that we have already discussed or are we happy to move on to the public speakers in the debate Councillor Motton can I was going to ask whether this site if it was an application for agricultural dwelling now would have been approved on the site and you said that it's not a viable agricultural dwelling but in relation to this were it to be operating as an agricultural enterprise would all the food be produced for the animals to be produced on site I imagine they would all be be imported and whether that would be a desirable location in that location whether that would be an issue that would be related to the approval of the site on this location to try and get the context of just before I ask Phoebe Carter to respond to that can I just be clear we're not asking our weeks for a reconsideration of the 1975 is that a question you think the planning officer should be in a position to answer let's see let's see Phoebe are you able to help us on that it depends on I mean the bungalow wouldn't necessarily have to be used for animal farming it could be an arable worker living there and therefore it wouldn't require it I mean when the pigory was in business it was it was purely for the pigs feed would have been brought into the site at that point it wasn't an arable land that they then used it wasn't split as an arable land it was just a pigory so feed would have been brought into the site in 1975 as to a current use it depends on who moves into the bungalow which we would be unaware of at the current time I suspect that may be the best answer we can give in the circumstances councillor Dr Lisa Woodrop thank you chair my questions about encroachment because my understanding is that the point of the policy is to prevent encroachment into the outside the residential framework and I just note that this house is slightly bigger than the existing one but the existing one has a garage integral to it and this one has no garage or no outdoor store space I do note that it has a condition to remove permitted development for those types of things but I would imagine that it would seem reasonable later to then give permission for some sort of store or garage and also there's a condition asking for bike storage to be included so I just wonder how we feel about that if that could then result in more encroachment and more land in that non-developmental framework site thank you just before I ask you because to do that you say a question of how we feel about that is this a matter for debate later on or is it a matter of clarification now I'm confused on that point can you help us again well any application that would come forward at a later date would be assessed on its own merits the proposed the increase in floor space and the single story the additional floor space proposed is something that actually could be achieved as an extension to the current dwelling under prior approval if they chose to however the current building is of a very poor construction and very poor insulation so in rebuilding a bungalow there are improving the efficiency and energy efficiency of the building the other building would need significant improvements to meet current requirements for energy so it is something that could be achieved under prior approval an extension of the size of the single story sort of extension beyond the existing footprint of the development we have put on additional restrictions of permitted development and therefore any future application that comes forward would be assessed on its own merits and something that we would consider is the visual intrusion into the countryside I think we've had very full clarification thank you very much Phoebe Carter I was proposing to say a few words at the end of this debate but I will say it now which it is clear from this discussion these questions we've had that we may need to ask the joint planning service to consider ensuring that such the conditions on previous applications are clear why that was not clear on the land searches that were undertaken and to consider the procedure when such applications come forward but we have had clear advice from our legal advisor that we can now progress this application and so I'm proposing now to proceed to our public speakers and we have two public speakers one on behalf of the applicant I think and one on behalf of the parish council who have objected to this so first we'll come to Ray Manning who is I think a neighbour and I have a feeling that Mr Manning knows our procedures quite well so I'll be insulting by repeating the floor again thank you German it's been a sentimental journey and I've been sitting here with an overwhelming feeling of nostalgia thank you could I just say thank you to the officers who have been sorting out the hearing aids for me because I'm almost deaf now and thank you for that I made a note beforehand that this all centres on the agricultural tally the original bungalow is a prefabricated one Mr Manning built that in 1976 and it really is well past itself by date as you've said I've been an SCDC councillor for 14 years parish councillor for 46 and I'm convinced that the criteria for lifting the key criteria for lifting the agricultural tie has in fact been met I live in an agricultural tie it hails myself and I'm a farmer and fruit grower so I'm well aware of all the rules and regulations and I think that the tie has been met I've found the land my family's found the land opposite since the 1930's and most of the land around on the south side so I'm well aware of the site it was offered to me by two different estate agents in the 1980's and again in the 1990's because I was the neighbour and in both cases I turned it down the first time it was for 25,000 which I wish now I'd bought it but there we are there's no agricultural use there hasn't been for over 30 years I can explain the ownership of the roadway if you want me to do so it was of course in over-parish until 2018 when the boundary changed so Willingham Parish Council have never discussed it with it prior to the boundary change in 2018 as the other question I heard when I started in 1964 there was my father and me and five employees on the farm there's now nobody there's me part time because I'm older and slower there's my daughter and my son I don't know of an agricultural worker left in the village and I'd be very very surprised if there's anybody who would meet the criteria of being wholly or mainly employed in agriculture or horticulture there's just nobody it's a sign of the times and you have actually lifted the agricultural ties with several other houses in the village this is not that unusual and last but not least Mr Rooney asked me to come and speak for him because he doesn't read and also he'd booked a family holiday and when this got deferred he unfortunately is in Israel but he wanted somebody to come along because well you know somebody there so it's me Thank you very much for that presentation before we get to any questions that there may be does anyone want to take up Mr Manning's invitation to explain about the status of the roadway or is that an issue? Yes I think Councillor Mott and Cardin would appreciate that Can you perhaps elaborate on that? Under the enclosure's act in 1832 I think it was 32 Under the enclosure's act 15 feet of land was put from the oversight as a private carriageway, driftway or mearway Willingham resisted the enclosures for another 5 years and then they gave 5 feet from Willingham's side to make a roadway of 20 feet wide Therefore Mr Rooney has 15 feet and I on the opposite side facing him have 5 feet You're entitled to the herbage you're entitled to tether animals on it but you have to give access to other people down it There's only one other now because all the rest of the land I own it so there's only one other person that actually has an excess over the roadway I mean briefly that's it is that good enough but anyway blame the enclosures act That's it That's a very helpful background Thank you, I think Councillor Heather Williams had a question for you Thank you chair I'm just looking for members 6.1 on the page 97 and the parish council is objecting of the main thrust being about the agricultural tie Is there any if we took that issue out because like you say changed and agricultural ties have been lifted is there anything else that you think would lead to their reasons of objection or is it just simply the principle of it should be agricultural Before we ask Mr Manning to answer that is that intended to be a question for Mr Manning on behalf of the applicant or is that intended to be a question for the parish council who have yet to present us It's very confusing Shall we hear from the parish council and ask them what you want to ask Mr Manning I was just asking his sort of view but we can let you that for the parish council if you so wish Mr Manning you are very welcome to comment on that if you like or you can choose to leave it to the parish council to answer for themselves Well I was a member of the parish council for 40 odd years and it's parish council policy to object to the lifting of all agricultural ties on the it was a policy and the reason being that we don't want the system to be abused and I agree with that because I benefited from it being able to build a farm house where I've lived for 50 years when I couldn't have normally done that And incidentally you were a member of Willingham or Over Parish Council I don't think Over would have had me We won't put that to the test either Are you happy with that that's very helpful and we may choose to ask the parish council representative that as well but meanwhile thank you very much for coming in and we appreciate that it is important the applicant be represented and it's important you did that so thank you Right We have then a speaker on behalf of Willingham Parish Council who is online I think it's Dr Neil Harris Are you there? I'm not the doctor at last just playing this stuff How can you hear me? Perhaps you'd like to put your camera on as well We'd like to see you You see me? Unfortunately it's not doctor's play Mr I'm afraid You can hear me alright though We can yes thank you You have three minutes Thank you very much I'm here as chairman of the planning committee of the parish council and to represent our case We strongly object to this application to demolish the bungalow and replace it with a new dwelling The bungalow is a prefabricated building constructed in the 1970s unsuitable by modern construction standards However it was also built for an agricultural purpose on Ty which has long since disappeared Planning laws allow for a redundant agricultural buildings to be repurposed as dwellings provided they retain the appearance of the original which is not the case here and the proposed replacement is also on a different part of the site The bungalow was purchased in 2020 by the applicant who also owns the adjacent property known as the Piggery It was constructed in the 1970s to be the manager's house for operating the Piggery and was originally part of the same site The Piggery eventually fell in disuse as it was uneconomic and in about 2015 was purchased by the applicant In 2017 the applicant proposed to construct a dwelling on the site of the Piggery This was refused by SCDC Planning and also on appeal in 2018 The appeal reason the main issue was the principle of proposed development with specific regard to its location in that it is outside of a defined settlement By definition it was in the countryside The reasons presented in that appeal refusal are as relevant in this application In 2019 the applicant applied a traveller pitch on the site of the Piggery and the parish council recommended refusal as in part willing on as many traveller pitchers some of which aren't in use The application stated the applicant seeks planning commission for a single residential gypsy pitch to meet a recognised need for such facilities in there and to facilitate a gypsy lifestyle However this was approved despite the many arguments against it as presented Related to the bungalow documents show that the property has remained occupied on a regulated tenancy since 1988 and the tenant will be entitled to remain in occupation for life It also stated that it could be a considerable time before lawful vacant possession could be obtained However around this time for some reason the tenant suddenly felt unable to remain there and found alternative accommodation leaving the property empty Willingham parish council has objected to all developments in this area towards Norso which effectively extends the village envelope In this case the bungalow would not have been allowed without a sustainable agricultural operation to require its construction in this location as was the case when it was built This requirement which allowed for the original bungalow has long ceased and therefore there is no need for replacement Permitting this application which set a precedent for further development to encroach in this area thus removing the natural barrier between Willingham and the town of Norso We urge the planning committee to reduce this application Thank you Thank you very much There may be questions for you I should, I know you are chair of the planning committee of the parish council, I should have asked you at the start just for confirmation that you have the consent of the parish council to represent their views Yes I don't know whether council, Heather Williams wanted to put the same question to Mr Harris I can do, I think some of it was addressed in what was said but yes, more than happy It would be helpful because it was the parish council view you were seeking Yes, so the agricultural tie is what's referred to Is it just the fact because there is a building there that can be used for a very long time without the tie So is that the only real reason for refusal in your mind or is there any other thing that you would like to raise? The main reason for refusal is that we it's outside the village envelope and we are very conscious that once a development takes place outside the envelope it tells the set of precedent for other developments in the same sort of area and William was a minor rural settlement has already had a lot of development particularly in the last few years when there was no planning policy in place to prevent it which we are really concerned that this type of change of use or change from the agricultural original building has now likely to be to cease and that it could encourage other development Thank you Thank you very much for that I think that is the only question we have for you so thank you very much for for your presentation you'll now move on to the debate The local member has confirmed that he doesn't wish to speak on this so I think we do then move on to the debate Does anyone have any views on whether we should accept the recommendation? Councilor Dr Martin Carman This is a site which were it to be applied for as an agricultural development nowadays information provided would not be considered a viable development I think one would probably also be concerned about the fact that it were it to operate as an agricultural development as a piggery there would be quite a lot of food feed brought in and so there would be traffic heavy coming along that access which is of clearly small access not very heavily not of a statutory one the so it doesn't seem to me that on the basis of the use that had been used on the site there is now an agricultural need that seems to be clear the fact that it was the applicant bought the site with a regulated tendency and therefore would not be likely to be able to develop it to me seems to me not a relevant planning issue the fact that you've been lucky the tendency to move has become available and he takes the opportunity that arises so in planning terms I don't see that that's an relevant issue so the relevant issue to me is whether so we know from that it's an existing development on the countryside the building that's going to be that would be built while larger would be probably more attractive and less less of an impact than say the the current one which is not a particular attractive building so the general development I would normally approve it as a replacement dwelling on the countryside so the only question is whether we I cannot see the argument for retaining the agricultural use on that site and I don't see that in this particular case there really will be a precedent if it were proposed now we would not want it to be an agricultural dwelling there so therefore there's no real justification therefore I'm quite happy in fact to approve this application I think in terms of what they recommend thank you councillor Heather Williams thank you chair so in relation to the agricultural tie which does seem to I know we've dwelled quite a bit but it seems like a significant part of this application the fact that it hasn't been important looked into I think we have to separate I think that's as councill is concerning and I think I would ask that officers take a look and make sure that we can you know be safeguarded from this in the future but the agricultural need for it was the pigory it was the livestock the pigory is now gone so whether or not it applies it can't be used it can't be done really they've lost that ability so that then makes me look at this proposal and go okay it can't be an agricultural dwelling it can't keep the tie on so what harm is replacing one for one which is essentially what this is there's nothing at the moment stopping this dwelling being used unless we were to take enforcement action to get them to enforce something that is not applicable to actually meet and we gave permission for that we gave the permission that meant that it could no longer be an agricultural tied residence so and I do hear the concerns from the parish council in relation to they've mentioned precedent but we know very well that every case is on its own merits precedent is not something in planning there can be precedence a procedure but not on determination of application so I appreciate that won't help the parish council potentially but I hope it does reassure that if this is approved then that's not everything else goes with it as well because there is no precedent and balancing balancing it up having the current building there or the new building there I don't think establish is much harm if I'm honest it's just it's one for one were this going to multiple were it going to three or four or five absolutely the size of the scale of it is sensible it's not a seven, eight bedroom mansion that's been put there and I think it's disappointing that the advice wasn't taken you'll have heard from what I said at the start I am anxious of that process but I'm having to sit here and try and separate that out for myself if I'm just looking at the merits of the application then you know I think it's going to establish very little harm in the change and potentially has some benefits on environmental levels so I'll be going with the officer recommendation Do we have any other views on this? Members? Members online? Yes Councillor Helen Lee Thank you I'm just wondering if I could ask a question of the officer at this point or has that moment passed I'm sure you can cover it Thank you There are various parcels of information that we have about this situation the point about building outside to the envelope of the village settlement I I'm not particularly concerned about that because it's replacing one property with another and it's not on a bigger scale so there was a residential house there and it's being proposed to be swapped for a different one The critical thing that I think that makes this a thorny issue is the agricultural tie we've established that there isn't much need for that locally what I would like to ask the officer is if this is just a matter of sequencing if there is a way that we can process the agricultural tie issue first and then continue to giving prime commission to this development because my only concern about this is setting the precedent that we remove we just remove the agricultural tie based on usage and that is only that has happened because we didn't know about it it's not a conscious decision we haven't made a plan to not acknowledge the tie it's happened that way and I wonder whether we can deal with the legal issue remove the tie with transparency and then move to planning I'm not sure how that process would work You posed that as a question but I think in fact it is a proposal that we deal with the agricultural tie first which would have to be done separately and then if the applicant wishes to come back to the planning application do you want the officer to comment on that? Do you want to put that as a proposal? Or are you just seeking advice? Seeking advice at the moment about how we would do that I think you're still we'll refer that to Bill I think Through you chair there's no compulsion on the applicant to submit an application to remove an existing planning condition so whilst you may have the applicant to do so they may say no thank you of my applications in and this is what we've got and that's what we're asking you to assess on its merits now obviously we're aware of this the agricultural tie which has been debated and exists on the existing dwelling and there is provision in the local plan which discuss when that is appropriate to relax and we've got a slightly unusual situation here where it's effectively being relaxed and we've got a range of 30 plus years albeit unburnoed to ourselves as officers of the council and even the applicant themselves so it's a slight anomaly and so I hope that gives some comfort to members around enforcement procedures and as you've heard from the public speaker we have had applications in where we've sought to deal with other applications for relaxation agricultural ties so as I say it's a slightly unusual circumstance that we've got here but the weight that members want to give to that issue is down to your decision makers in terms of whether that's something that is material to the decision making process and the requirements set out in policy H14 which deal with relaxation of agricultural ties so it's within your gift to give that the weight you desire in terms of coming to decisions on this application but as we've heard there's policies which support replacement of one for one dwellings in the local plan policy H14 and again that's been debated as well so to answer your question I wouldn't advise that we can suggest to an applicant that they deal with that issue first because you can take any into consideration in determining this planning application Council leaning based on that answer do you wish to take a view on the application? No no I don't I think that that's answered that's answered my question I suppose my biggest concern was that this would open up grounds for appeals that if it's there in the law and we happen to dress it formally that it could it could make things difficult further down the line but I will accept the advice then Council adopt to Richard Williams I hope this is on the debate for other questions Yes Chair, just be brief just to say that I'm happy that we can proceed with this we will agree if we agree a new planning permission which will stand on its own merits and be unaffected by a previous planning permission so I'm perfectly content with us to proceed with this and I will probably vote in favour of it Thank you for that I would just state a brief view of my own which is the reason I asked for the red line plan to be put up again with that I was keen that we can find ourselves to the land in question of this application helpful we've also had explanation for the inclusion in that red line of the driveway I also I think would take from what our legal officer said earlier on that we are able to consider this application on its merits the question of whether there might be other measures in future cases it's for review at a later stage but I don't think we should hold the applicant responsible for that bearing in mind that the application on the neighbouring land which made it I would say unfeasible for any agricultural occupancy tied to be continued on this site was taken by ourselves as Councillor Heather when he was pointed out so in the light of that I personally am inclined to take the office of recommendation that we should approve this I fully appreciate the concern that the parish council had on whether this might create a precedent or in some way extend the village envelope I'm satisfied that it does neither of those things and therefore feel we should judge this on its merits I suggest we now proceed to a vote on this I'm not proposing to ask for a formal proposition I just say those who are in favour will go to an electronic vote if we may those who are in favour of the office of recommendation should press the green button those who are opposed to the red we have all voted we have all voted in favour of the office of recommendation this application is approved it's 20 past one I said we would break at half past one I've not been very good at keeping tiny at all today but I'm wondering whether it is worth our while starting the next item before I think the general advice isn't we do have members on line can I just check that those who are wanting to contribute to this item might be available later on if anyone isn't perhaps you could put that in the chat or you have two members online are you happy that we indeed unless you take a strong view on the matter I'm going to adjourn for lunch I can't hear anyone agreed indeed I think I'd have very great difficulty in persuading members here of any other conclusions so we will meet again at I suggest two o'clock right welcome back to this meeting South Cambridge District Council planning committee we're now moving to item nine land north of Pathfinderway Northstone this is on page one on five on of your printed papers so this is for the construction of a temporary modular community building for a period of three years in association parking landscaping and so on and the applicant of course is South Cambridge District Council the planning officer presenting to us is Luke Mills it's come to us of course for that reason because it is a development by the council but the recommendation of the planning services to approve subject to the conditions so Luke bear in mind we've all I'm sure read all the papers studied them carefully is there anything you wanted to say or updating us on the recommendation yes thank you chair can I just check that these slides are visible on the screen very clear thank you so yeah I do have a short presentation to introduce the item so before I begin the main presentation I should highlight that there's been one late representation since the agenda was published it clarifies that the existing one way access road I will seek to indicate it on the so I just get the pointer ready I know this is a common situation so you can't see my cursor can you yeah that's what I was just looking to do I'm sorry it's just a pointer can't see it there we go my apologies can you see that again yeah so this late representation it clarifies that the existing one way access road it's not entirely clear here but it's along here it moves in a one way direction from Stirling Road to Pathfinder Way and the reason that's important is because when we get on to the site they are to see some parking spaces that have been shown they're existing parking spaces so it doesn't actually affect the application but they're shown in the wrong orientation pointing out that they wouldn't work in that alternative orientation and I just reassure members that there'd be no proposal to reorientate those existing spaces more will probably make sense when we get to that site plan so please do feel free to ask questions if there's any confusion when we get to that point so moving on to the main presentation the site is located within phase one of north Stowe and measures 0.37 hectares it's outlined in red it includes vacant land that is currently laid to grass but will eventually form part of the phase one local centre it's on this broader square here as well as the access road between Pathfinder Way and Stirling Road completed residential development surrounds the sites to the east and the south and immediately to the west is the constructed formal square known as the green and to the north is vacant land that will eventually accommodate a further portion of the local centre and the enterprise zone the phase one outline planning permission confirms through its parameter plans that the site will form part of the future local centre which is due to comprise a range of uses such as the permanent community building this land use parameters plan on the screen shows the site in context with the remainder of the local centre in red so here's the site here or more specifically in this corner and then also this across the road that will be part of the local centre the green appropriately in green the enterprise zone in blue to the north and residential uses in yellow this plan is essentially a zoomed in version of the location plan so it's much the same information but it does indicate the position of the temporary building being proposed here we'll get into a bit more detail on the next slide the proposal includes change of use to a community facility on a three-year temporary basis erection of a temporary modular building erection of a covered cycle stand containing 12 spaces installation of hard and soft landscaping the proposed temporary community building will provide an interim arrangement that bridges the gap between the recent closure and the temporary community wing at the Pathfinder Primary School which was in July 2022 and the opening of the permanent phase 1 community building estimated by the applicant to be in 2025 a suite of application drawings and documents was included with the initial application further documentation has been submitted during the determination period including an updated transport statement travel plan, ownership certificate sign and access statement and drainage strategy the proposed development involves construction of a standardized modular building of a single story height and with a floor area of approximately 352 square metres an amenity area at the rear would include landscaping a play area and community herb garden the proposal includes no new car parking provision relying instead on its sustainable transport credentials and existing shared parking provision within the nearby car parks at Longstanton Park and Ride and Pathfinder Way a 500 metre and a 300 metre walk respectively slightly closer to the site there are six on-street parking basal on Pathfinder Way that could be used a total of nine shared spaces are also available off the one way access road and here I'll just point out those incorrectly orientated existing spaces are referred to earlier there actually is one space in that orientation the submitted travel plan includes measures to support a target of 90% of all journeys being made by sustainable transport modes in terms of cycle parking a cycle store would provide 12 new spaces in addition to the existing 50 shared spaces around the green the schedule of accommodation includes a flexible meeting space shown here with a movable partition in the middle three offices an NHS room and waiting area and a cafe and informal gathering area as well as ancillary facilities the external wall finish for the building would comprise green coloured vinyl wrap with blue grey columns and faces while a simple canopy at the front would provide a covered outdoor seating area overlooking the green this aerial photograph hopefully helps to put the site and proposal in context with Stirling Road so we're kind of flipped around now we're looking in the other direction so south is at the top of the screen so we have Pathfinder Way there Stirling Road, Lynx Lane and then the Access Road that I referred to there so access is one way from this direction through there now a few photos of the site taken from approximately this corner just outside the site looking into it further context as well so that's looking directly down the wrong way down the access the one way access road then panning round overlooking the vacant plot then all the way round sharing the connection to adjacent footpaths and then I'll just leave on screen for a moment the artist impression of the building finally just to know it should be noted that the reports concise summary of one of the third party objections perhaps misses an extra layer to their comment so the summary at Paragraph 7.2 of my report is impacts on delivery of the permanent community building however related to this is the resident's point that there is a more suitable site elsewhere specifically land at the council lanes to the north of Stirling Road nevertheless as explained in section 10.1 the application site is considered an appropriate location for the proposed development it would only be appropriate for the planning authority to require consideration of alternative sites if this were not the case now just moving to the officer recommendation through the use of appropriate conditions it is considered that any potential harmful effects arising from the appearance of the development surface runoff non sustainable transport choices and construction activities could be suitably mitigated it's therefore concluded that the significant positive social benefits arising from addressing a recognised need for community facilities means the balance is in favour of the proposal therefore officer's recommendation is for approval subject to the conditions in section 11 of the report thank you we have the opportunity for questions of clarification if that is needed just one brief one from me Luke you mentioned there are various updates that have been received without going into the details of them can you just list them to make sure we have received them if we need to see them sorry chair I slightly missed that updates are there any updates to the information that we have seen in this plan that we need to be aware of no so I covered them sort of integrated within the presentation I suppose is a late representation that we received and then there was reference to documentation that has been revised during the determination period so okay yeah thank you for that does anyone have any questions of clarification right I then plan to proceed direct to our public speakers I think I'm right in saying that we have no one speaking as an objector now is that correct so we then come to our first speaker Peter Cope if you are there online are you there Peter yes hello hello yes we can hear you you have three minutes I can be far more brief than that but just to really stress the importance to members how important this planning commission is for this community as a local residence so I've experienced firsthand the negative impact the loss of the community wing last summer had on this community and the many developing groups in this town the need for this interim community building is great for the continued development of this community and even more so for some of those who are more vulnerable amongst us for instance since the wing closed the local food bank distribution centres had to relocate into Willingham which has negatively impacted access to those vulnerable in this community we also know similar to other developments since that has Cambridge here the local census has indicated these large numbers of children and young families for which these sorts of facilities are really critical for groups and also addressing issues of loneliness particularly in our communities post Covid the proposed building management structure should ensure that the community is met while also ensuring that those most local to that facility it doesn't have a great impact on them so I'd just like to stress how important it is that we get planning permission for this. Thank you Thank you for that. If you'd like to just hold on and just in case any members have clarification on the points you just made I think not. No, thank you very much for coming online. Thank you Thank you. Well next if you're there we have Councillor Paul Littlemore on behalf of Northstone Town Council. Are you there Paul? I think you should be able to see me now We can and we can hear you, thank you Can you just confirm just formality that you have the consent of the Town Council to speak on their behalf? I can confirm that. Yes, thank you Yes, you have three minutes Please go ahead. Excellent, thank you very much So the Town Council supports this application and as you've just heard its primary purpose is to bridge that gap of provision from the closure of the community wing in June 2022 until the construction and opening of the permanent community facility which is now expected in 2025. Since the closure of the community wings many groups have found it difficult to secure access to appropriate space for use of a wide range of activities including but not limited to community events, meeting space for community groups and operation of a previously very popular community cafe This space is essential to getting those activities back up and running located within the heart of our community. Earlier in the planning process we provided comments on three areas, hours of construction not being in line with the site-wide conditions of Monday to Friday 8 till 5 8 till 1 on Saturdays and no working on Sundays and mandatory use of white noise reversing alarms on construction vehicles associated with the construction of the facility. These items have been included in the officer's report and are covered by condition in the recommendation. We also sought assurance with the two parking bays proposed in the plans and that this would not inhibit any future installation of an EV charging point in the adjacent area. We have since had such an assurance. I hope the committee will accept the officer's recommendation and approve this application today to give our community the space that it needs to flourish. Thank you for that presentation. If you'd like to just hold on does anyone have questions or councillor a little more on the basis of that? I see none. I have one question for you councillor. Hi, thank you. I just wondered we've seen that there's lower car parking provision than might necessarily be required. Do you think that could cause any problems in the area? Do you hear that right? Yes, I did hear. Thank you. So the green does actually provide a significant number of car parking spaces which doesn't seem to be sort of or wasn't included in the original application. So there is actually a rate of a row of car parking spaces there which is where we were querying the layout which your officer has indicated that a late submission has shown them in the correct orientation. So actually there's more parking provision than what's described but I believe the event management plan has appropriate controls around it to manage any issue around parking that may arise in the future. I was just saying I don't think we have any other questions for you so thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you very much chair. And then I think we have online also the local member councillor Natalie Warren Green. Are you there Natalie? Yes, just turning on my camera Mike. Welcome the floor is yours. Still showing poor little more at the moment I think. Yes, I just want to add to the two people who have supported so far. I'm in full support of the development of the information community facility and I'm found it reassuring that the vast majority of public comments received were supportive and today we have full support at this meeting. The north stone communications and community team working with SCDC especially the COO and Ainsworth have tirelessly consulted closely with the community. The planning team including Kirstin Donaldson has also ensured that while the permanent building is being developed a wide variety of community groups will have a facility located in a convenient location with the basics of what is required to run organised sessions for the community. Opening this interim facility late in spring or early summer would be excellent timing. I'm a regular volunteer in north stone including the market where they are looking forward to making use of the area near the interim community facility. Also community groups operating like the warm hub who have found themselves inaccessible to many of the current locations since it means a long walk on cold dark evenings and also the food bank I met in the same location before they moved to Willingham and they were looking for a central home in north stone so the facility has space for multifunctional activity including yoga, sustainability group activity, the youth hive and all activities that are being planned will be a really good opportunity for people to be in a centralised location. It also located next to where the permanent facilities will be built this offers a sense of visible progress for north stone and also feedback loop to ensure that permanent building caters for the needs of various groups that will be using the permanent community centre. All the feedback while people are using the interim facility will be really valuable in ensuring that north stone has a centre that is fit for purpose. I'm in fully support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions for the local member on that presentation? I think not. Natalie, thank you very much. It's very clear. Thank you. So now we move to the debate on the merits of this. I'm sure all members will appreciate you're wanting to contribute to the debate I think I'm saying yes. I think all members will appreciate that we consider this objectively regardless of the source of the application on the merits as we see it as a planning committee. Councillor Richard Williams. Thank you very much chair. I'm happy to say on the get go for all the support of this. Obviously take account of the fact that north stone needs these community facilities obviously the design is a temporary structure it's not not a beautiful design but it is a temporary installation so I think on that basis I'm happy with this application. Any other views on this application on the merits of the application? Ah, Councillor Helen Lee. Thank you chair. I would like to raise the question of cycling facilities on the site. I'm wondering whether this would be an opportunity to well concerned, the one concern I have about the plan is to do with encouraging people to have green and sustainable transport options to access the site and I wondered whether it would be an opportunity to increase the number of cycling storage places available on the site. So there are 12 new spaces included in the plan. There are 50 on the site already and I wondered whether we could consider increasing the 12 new ones that are visible from the building. That I think is a question directly from the case officer. Has that been considered? Yes, thank you. So yes, as you described the figures there, the 50 shared spaces existing at the green and there will be 12 new ones. So that's set against a requirement of as we calculate based on our parking standards a minimum of 28 spaces for the development. So there will be 12 dedicated but then access to 50 shared spaces and for the duration of this temporary permission based on the remainder of the local centre and to an enterprise only nearby that is still forthcoming. There is probably not the competition for those spaces on the existing green at the moment so we deem that the provision is sufficient. I mean there is a condition that is being recommended to clarify the design citing of the cycle store not least to address a concern of the design up crime officer to make sure that they are a bit more visible from within the building. So the applicant will be needing to submit a revised cycle store location there. So if the applicant was so minded they could at least in theory increase the provision but as a planning authority we wouldn't require it because we deem or as officers we deem that it's sufficient as it stands. Ynso Llymi you happy to leave it on that basis or do you want to come back on that? I'm happy to leave it at that basis that chance comes perhaps we should make the best of that opportunity. Thank you. Point taken thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you chair. On that note as has just been said on page 124 there is opportunity around the cycle storage and we know that the applicant has been available for us to take questions and things today I'm sure they are listening very carefully to what members are saying and very carefully that members would like to see more cycle storage if when that is addressed they can provide it and so just offering my support to what Councillor Leaming has said but overall much needed facilities it is temporary as Councillor Richard Williams says about would it be the ideal landmark building that we hope we will get there no temporary basis I think it's suitable it does what it says on the tin essentially and I hope that it will be well used and looked after. So you're recommending approval. Thank you and I'm sure that the applicant in this case will be listening carefully to comments. Any other views on this proposal? In that case I think we come to the recommendation which is on page 132 paragraph 1060 approve subject to the planning conditions as set out below because of the nature of the proposal I will be taking an electronic vote on this. Does anyone else want to contribute to the debate before we take a vote on that? I see none let's move to the vote then. If you're in favour obviously press the green button and if you're against press the red one. Right we are unanimous that is approved as recommended. We then move on to thank you to look for that very clear presentation. We then move on to item 10 which is an application at number 19 Foxton Road Barrington for the installation of solar panels on a rear flat roof page 137 of your papers. This is brought to us because the application is submitted by the relative of an officer of the council. It's worth noting that this would be just outside I believe the permitted development rights on this but we have the recommendation is to approve and we have best part with us as presenting officer. Do you want me to keep on babbling and get your machine connected up or do you have it with us good? Beth welcome and please let's hear your presentation. It's unusual for members to say the challenge we kept on talking a bit longer usually it's the other way around but we will get there very shortly. While we're waiting we could just note the position of the local member who's not I think able to be with us but do you have a note to that effect are you able to read that out to us? No need to read it out the local member, Councillor Aidan van der Waier has confirmed that he supports this application and that's it approved. Thank you. Thank you chair. Can everyone here and see my presentation? Yes. So the application before members today seeks planning permission to install 12 solar panels on a roof black roof. The application site is located at number 19 Foxton Road, Barrington and it's located within the development framework founded. The site is not located in a conservation area or within the green belt and the property is one and a half stories detached dwelling house. The proposal has come before members today as the applicant is a member of the council. There is an update so the measurement for the height total height of the solar panel stated within the officers report is incorrect. It was noted that the measurement of the height is 22 centimetres but it is in fact 45 centimetres at their tallest point and this is referenced in paragraphs 3.2 and 10.7 of the officers report. So this is the location plan this is it in the context of Barrington and here's the red line. This is it on google maps. So the plan considerations as I said the application has been submitted by a member of the councils that's what's coming for and the considerations are the impact on character and appearance of the area and of neighbouring amenity. Here's the proposed roof plan and block plan. Here you can see the solar panels 12 of them on the rear flat roof. Here's elevations and you can see from the side the solar panels what their profile would be and this is the view from the garden of 19 Fortson Road and back towards the property. Here's some photos from a site visit and they would be located on this flat roof here and this is the outlook if you're standing at the house towards the neighbouring property at the rear. You can see the neighbours either side from the context of the flat roof where the solar panels would be located. On planning balance we're recommending this for approval as we don't believe it will cause any harm to the character and appearance of the area it will not unduly impact upon the residential amenity and it supports renewable and low carbon energy generation. There have been no objections to the scheme from neighbours, parish or ward members and the application as I said is being recommended for approval subject to planning permission. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Do any members want to ask any questions or comment on the application? I'm not keeping the questions on the debate separate. Do any members want to comment on that? Ah, Vice Chair has a comment. I was planning to comment in the agenda in the description that in the planning balance really the contribution to renewable energy wasn't mentioned so I was glad to see that it was explicitly mentioned in the slide so thank you very much. Right. Any views on this application? Are we ready to move to a vote? Which for reasons the reason for this application being submitted to us I will take that vote electronically. So if you're in favour of this press the green button if you're opposed the red. We have eight members in favour. Sorry. There's always someone who takes a bit of catching up probably best in the circumstances. Right. We are unanimous even the chair has voted for that. So that is approved. Thank you very much. We now move on to item number 11 which is an application at 64 Gables Clothes from Naldrith for our single story rear extension with a raised rear garden to ground level removal of a shed and insulation of a ramp. Page 143 of your papers. The applicant is Mr Nathan Lund. The reason it's come to us is because some are all of the land that will become clear to us is within the ownership of the council and the recommendation is to approve the conditions that are set out. I don't know whether Dominic Bush is yes, Dominic Bush. Dominic, where the floor is yours. Thank you. Is there a presentation? Can I just confirm if you can see the presentation? We can. Perfect, thank you. So, as you said, this application is at 64 Gables Clothes in Naldrith for a single story rear extension raised garden to ground level the removal of the brick shed within the rear garden the insulation of an external ramp on the southern side of the house and internal alterations. As you also mentioned, the application is before committee as the site includes an area of land within the ownership of South Cambridge District Council which I'll come on to later. There are no amendments or updates to report on the application. This is the site plan of the application site as well as an aerial view on the right to the right. You can see the application site is borded by Gables Close to the south and to the west and there is a small area of parking also located to the south here. The adjoining property to the north here is number 62 Gables Close and there is an area of public amenities based to the east. The area of land within the ownership of South Cambridge District Council is this area of land surrounding the car parking area here. This is a proposed site plan for the application. It can be seen here and the proposed access ramp to the south can be seen here. It should also be noted that this access ramp steps in around half way along to avoid the kerbs around in the car parking space here. This is the existing floor plans of the property. The adjoining neighbourhood property can be seen to the left here while the existing access ramp within the rear garden property can be seen here. The shed to be demolished can also be seen here in the corner here. The property, the footprint of the proposed road extension can be seen here while the proposed access ramp to the southern side is seen to the right hand side of the property here. It provides access in the rear of the garden as well as access into the property through the side elevation. Here we have the existing elevations to the property. Again, the neighbouring property can be seen here and the proposed elevations to the property. As you can see the ridge height of the proposed road extension is set down from the ridge height of the existing property and also set away from the boundary with the neighbouring property here. The entrance again within the side elevation of the property that's proposed can be seen here as well as the access ramp that runs towards the rear garden. Here we have some photos of the site so this is looking towards the southern elevation where the access ramp resided. It's noted that the ramp would likely not require the removal of this shrub within the land however if it needs pruning back any of this can be agreed with the council following the planning process. This is a view from the rear of the property looking along the southern elevation to the front elevation and this is the existing access ramp into the front of the property currently used for access. This is a view into the rear garden. The brick shed which is to be demolished can be seen here as well as the existing access ramp which will be removed and the garden leveled out within the proposal. Finally, the make consideration is application or its design, layout and scale as an impact on residential amenity. As you mentioned, the officer recommendations for approval, subject to the conditions laid out in the officer report. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dominic. Again, no need to separate questions from debate. Any comments on this or questions for clarification to Dominic? I see none. Shall we move straight to a vote on this? Again we'll take it electronically. That's everybody's vote. So we've all voted and we approve that unanimously. So that ends that session. We can now move on to consider the enforcement report which is on page 151 and I think we have Chris Braybrooke with us in case of any questions. Chris, welcome. Good afternoon. I have one. Did you want to speak to this or are you happy for us to just note it? That's entirely up to you. I think there's not a lot in there to be honest, Chair, that's changed. There was one new enforcement notice which has been issued in January which is reflected in this report in the appendix but otherwise the figures speak to themselves. Unfortunately just because of when I had to put this report together it was just before getting the February figures in. So this is reflective of January even though we're in March. Hopefully with the dates of the next committee we should be back up to date again with the figures hopefully. So the only other thing I would like to do and I've just noted it in the report is just to thank John Shutterwood and the compliance team and basically the compliance team wishing well in the future with his new role. Thank you for that. Any questions on this report? Or comments? No. Well Chris, thank you very much for that report and yes if you would pass on our thanks to John for his period in handling all this work and wish him best in his move. Certainly will. Thank you chair. So we then move on to appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action on page 155. The report was put together by Ian Papworth. Does anyone want to speak to this? Chair I need to say that I'm happy to take any questions on the appeals that are listed now and for questions I can't answer now I'm happy to take them away but the usual list of summaries of the appeals is there before members to know. Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you chair. It's just a quick point about the way the information is laid out which is obviously very useful but I was just wondering in future if it would be possible to flag up committee decisions which are subject to an appeal because I sometimes go to this trying to work out if it was a committee decision or not but it would be really helpful. Yes. It's very helpful to know when we've got it wrong. Any other legitimate comments on this? Yes, Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you. It's just referring to page 166 and 168. I don't think I saw any others. Those are for termination within the framework. Is this a case of potentially is there any twin tracking going to go on with those? Or how are we dealing with those? Are we going to be making a decision and then representing that? And if so will there be any planning committee involvement required and a bit of how that's come about please chair. Thank you. Three chair. I don't know the specific details of those two applications that Councillor Williams has referred to and again without looking into that and speaking of the case officer I don't know what our might have minded to recommendation would be on the applications but we can only submit to the planning spectrum how we would have been minded to deal with the applications and the authority to do so that's now resting with the planning spectrum and to say how it again got to that point again I don't have the specific details. Would it be possible to pass on to, forgive me, would it be possible to pass on to the case officers in each of those cases that the committee were interested to know why these had been not been determined anymore? There may be very valid reasons for that. Councillor Williams. There may have been, we know these things happened but there was a couple so felt it needed to be raised but also what would be helpful when it comes back is once it's been decided how this will be defended as it were whether we would have approved or refused if we can include that rather than just it was non-determination here was the outcome so we can see if the outcome is contrary to what we would have done if that's agreeable Chair. If that's possible. That's a lot Dr Martin Cohn. It's like a bit of context on the appeals on Byways Station Road in Haarston. Page. Page. Page 160. There's two appeals and there was also I noticed enforcement notice. A little background to what happened was in fact that you had an enforcement notice and they therefore submitted appeals against refusal and operational development and what exactly is operational development what's the difference between operational development in this big context when there's more about it. Can you throw any light on that if not perhaps... Operational development will be a building or extension to an existing building and that's what the enforcement notice will be doing more work than it originally did the refusal of planning applications. I gave without knowing the full context I don't know if the commission has been granted in excess of that or something done without planning of missions in the first instance. This has been going on for a long time so I just wanted to see if there's still in the process. I'd have to refresh my memory on the history but I can certainly come back to you and give some more context on that. You have on the bottom of page 169 of course the listing of the former hotel Felix which was hearing recently. That will be one which in future will be listed following a committee decision of course. But I assume we haven't heard the other way yet, yes. Right. Any other questions? I think we can take appendix 5 page 173 under the same heading. Any questions or comment on that? No. In that case members I think we can bring our consideration to an end and close this meeting to 240.