 Members, good morning. Good morning. I think, as probably, as all of us, I'm struggling to have all of the evidence and information around us with piles of papers. But good morning, Members, offices and other members of the public who are viewing the live stream. Welcome to this meeting of the South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee. My name is Councillor Pippa Halings, and I'm chair of the committee. So can those present in the council chamber note that everything on your desk, including your laptop screen, is likely to be broadcast at some point. Just be aware of that. The camera, as we know, follows the microphone being switched on. So council is an officer requested to wait a couple of seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up, especially when I ask your name and especially when you're asking to speak. If the fire alarm sounds, please leave the chamber and make your way down the stairs. Do not use the lift. And the safe assembly point is next to the marketing suite halfway along the business park. Can those who are participating in the live stream indicate that you wish to speak via the chat column? My vice chair will be taking that down as well as all of those who are in the chamber raising their hand to speak. And as we know, he does that extremely proficiently and fairly, so we won't be having any questions on that. Please make sure that your device is fully charged, that you switch your microphone off unless you're invited to do so. Otherwise, there's people on the live stream and that you've switched off or silenced any other devices as well. And as requested yesterday by email, please use a headset of available when speaking and hold the microphone close to your mouth. When you're invited to address the meeting, those on live stream, please make sure your microphone's switched on. When you finish addressing the meeting, please turn off your microphone immediately. And please speak slowly and clearly and do not talk over or interrupt anyone. Please note, if we do need to vote on any item, which we do, we shall do so via the system of the microphones. And that will be publicly available immediately. But only those present in the chamber can vote or propose all second recommendations. So, committee members now present in the chamber. I'll invite each of you to introduce yourselves. After I call your name, please turn on your camera and microphone, wait two seconds and say your name so that your presence may be noted. So, as I said, my name is councillor Pippa Haleyings. I'm the member for Histon, Impington and Orchard Park. I'm chair of the planning committee and I'd like to invite now my vice chair. Morning everyone, councillor Henry Batchelor, one of the members for the Linson Ward and vice chair of this committee. Thank you very much, councillor Dr Martin Cohn. councillor Dr Martin Cohn, a member for Histon, Impington and Orchard Park. Thank you very much, councillor Dr Clare Daunton. Yes, I'm councillor Clare Daunton and I'm one of the members for the Fenditon and Fullbone Ward. Thank you very much, councillor Peter Fane. Good morning, Peter Fane, Shelford Ward. Thank you very much, councillor Dr Tumie Hawkins. Good morning, Tumie Hawkins, Codicot Ward. Thank you very much, councillor Judith Rippeth. Good morning, councillor Judith Rippeth and I represent the Milton and Water Beach Ward. Thank you very much, councillor Deborah Roberts. Good morning, chairman. Good morning, everybody. Deborah Roberts, councillor for the Foxton Ward. Thank you. Thank you, councillor Heather Williams. Heather Williams and I represent the Mordons. Thank you very much, councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you, chair and Richard Williams. I'm the member for the Whittleford Ward. Thank you, councillor Eileen Wilson. Good morning, I'm Eileen Wilson, councillor for Cottenham and Rampson. Thank you very much. Are there any other members present with us on the live stream? Okay, thank you very much. I can confirm that the meeting is called. We have everybody here, which is wonderful. We also have two officers in the chamber, Chris Carter. Good morning, everybody. Chris Carter, delivering manager for Struthier sites. Thank you very much. I'm Stephen Reed, microphone and again. Morning, chair and morning members. Stephen, can I ask that you may need to bring your microphone forward or not blocked by your laptop? Sorry about that. We just may need you in this meeting. We can hear you, so that will be good. Thank you very much. If at any time a member leaves the meeting, will they please make the fact known to me and through my vice-chair so that they'll record it in the minutes. I intend breaking for 15 minutes at about 11.30. If the meeting is still going on at about 3.30, we have a 45-minute break for lunch at about 1.15. We'll check that as we're going on in terms of the agenda. Members, may I check that you have the papers issued for the meeting on 8 September 1 and 2, and a supplemental which was issued for this meeting as well, and draft meeting dates of the meeting held on 11 August and circulated and for adoption today, and we're available on the website, as I understand. Good. Thank you. Agender item 2, apologies. Oh, Ian Senior. Sorry, Ian. Oh, my goodness. Would you please introduce yourself, Ian Senior? Yes, Ian Senior, Democratic Services at the meeting today taking the minutes and giving you some apologies, I think. Before that, Ian, would you confirm whether this is your last meeting with us? It isn't. We're getting there, but I'll be back in two weeks' time. I'll be back. Good. Thank you very much, Ian. So, yes, apologies. Agender item 2. Yes, apologies from councillor Jeff Harvey and his substitute is councillor Dr Claire Daunt. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Ian. Agender item 3, declarations of interest. Thank you, chair. Just on the enforcement report, item 12, as the local member, I have been involved quite sensitively with the Whitehall Farmhouse one. Yes, good to be there. Thank you, chair. 3 to declare. 1 on item 6 and 7, which is the same site. I have a pecuniary interest here because my employer has an ongoing business relationship with the applicant. So, on legal advice, I will be withdrawing for the chamber for those two items and not taking any part in the debate or vote. And item 8, again, another application in Linton. Following the flooding back in July, I have had several meetings with residents who have been affected by the application. I think one of them is speaking to us today, but that doesn't preclude me from taking any part in the debate, but I wanted to declare that as an interest. Thank you very much. Yes, councillor. It's not a substantive item. We're not voting on it, but I'm the local member. Agender item 10, there's a report on Waterways Newtown East. Thank you very much. Minister Deborah Roberts. Thank you, Chairman. Shouldn't we all declare an interest on the few's lane one because we've seen it on numerous occasions, but we come Twitter fresh? I was just about to say the same. Thank you very much. I agree with that. If that's noted. Thank you very much. Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. As always, with anything with born airfield, I declare an interest. I'm probably the one who leaves closest to it. Thank you very much. Also, well known. Thank you very much. We now go on to the minutes of the last meeting members. So we have the minutes for the, as I understand. Can you help me on this one, Ian? So it's the minutes of the meeting held on the 11th of August and the 8th of September. So we'll take the meetings held, the minutes of the meeting held on 11th of August, 1st of August. Which? Councillor Aileen Wilson. Thank you, Chair. On the meeting of the 11th of August, at the last paragraph on the first page, it says that Councillor Aileen Wilson declared non-bidium interests. It says that I discussed both of these cases with Councillor Nilgoth, but in fact, the first case, Gertin, Rustin, Huntington Road, I discussed with Councillor Corrin Garvey. It being Gertin. So we can make that. Thank you very much. Any further? I just need to abstain from the 11th of August minutes because I wasn't present. Thank you. Councillor Mattingham. I will need to abstain as well because I wasn't present on the 11th. Thank you. Members, can I take that by affirmation that those minutes are agreed? Agreed. And now we go to the minutes for the 8th of September, which were in our public reports pack. Do we have any comments on this agenda? Thank you, Chair. I wasn't present on the 8th of September, so I just need to abstain from the minutes. Thank you. Any other? If not, can we take that by affirmation that the minutes have been agreed? Agreed. Agreed. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And now we will go to the substantive items of the agenda. On the first of these papers that we have, which would be agenda item 5, 7 to 388 of your agenda pack. This is for application 20 slash 05101 slash full. Land at the Retreat Puse Lane, Longstanton. The proposal is for the erection of a chalet bungalow with garage and associated infrastructure. The applicant is Mr Jerry Cadw. The key material considerations in front of us, members are principle of development, impact on the character of the area, impact on residential immunity, highways matters and other matters. It's not a departure, and the application is being brought to the committee because the proposals raise significant concerns locally and it's to be considered in the public interest for the application to be referred to the planning committee. The presenting officer is Lewis Tomlinson. Lewis, are you with us? Present chair. Hello Lewis. Hi chair, present. Thank you very much. Lewis, do you have any updates before giving us a summary of the application? I will do it as part of my presentation. Thank you. Great, I'll just share my screen. Just bear with me one second. Can someone confirm they can see that please? We can see all of the slide. There we come. You can just watch my expression. Thank you chair. The site is Fuse Lane. It's land at the Retreat Fuse Lane, as outlined in the red on the plan in front of you. Fuse Lane comprises a single vehicular width grave service track. The lane currently serves as an access to double garage 735 High Streets. Excuse me, the Willows and two other recently constructed dwellings to the west of the retreat. So the Willows is here, and two recently constructed dwellings here, which are just to the west of the retreat. The lane varies in width, and the lane runs alongside a tree line of a vegetated area to the north, with boundaries to a number 135 and Willows to the south side. A footpath, a public right-of-way, link in the home farm residential development to the south, and west of Fuse Lane with High Street emerges onto the south side, Fuse Lane at a point to the immediate west of the Willows. I'll just show you an aerial view of the site, so you can see a public right-of-way here. Fuse Lane here, two recently constructed dwellings. Here is the retreat, and the site in question we're looking at today is this area to the rear of the retreat. You've got the Willows here, a garage for 135 High Street and 135 High Street here, and the entrance for Fuse Lane onto High Street. The site lies within the village framework. To the immediate north of the site is a drainage ditch, so along here, which outfalls to Lonstant and Brook. The site is otherwise unconstrained. I'll just run through a couple of photos, just to get context. This is a view up Fuse Lane from access of High Street. 135 High Street is on the left. This is taken from the High Street looking up Fuse Lane. The site is down here. This is a view along High Street past the frontage of Fuse Lane. Looking north, Fuse Lane access on the left. Please note the traffic calming measures just here. View along High Street past frontage of Fuse Lane. Looking south, Fuse Lane access here on the right. This is a view along the High Street past the frontage of Fuse Lane. Looking south with Fuse Lane on the right, taken from the entrance to Mitchcroft Road. Again, noting the traffic calming measures just here. Fuse Lane is just there. This is the Fuse Lane entrance looking towards the north. Again, you can see the traffic calming measures there. Fuse Lane entrance looking towards the south. This is looking down Fuse Lane, garage to 135 High Street and the willows on the left. The site is just down here on the right. It's looking down Fuse Lane and you can see the retreat is on the right. In the background you can see the recently constructed dwellings. This is the informal turning head opposite the retreat. This is access onto Fuse Lane from the public right-of-way to Home Farm. This is an existing site plan. The proposal is for a single-dead dwelling, Chalet Bungalow, with garage and associated infrastructure. It would contain four bedrooms. This is the proposed site plan here. You can see just for context again, this is the retreat to be replaced by two dwellings. This is the two recently constructed dwellings and this is the site we're looking at today. The proposal mirrors the recently constructed dwelling to the west, known as the Elms, the same roof pitch and ridge height. It has a ridge height that is lower than the approved dwellings plots four and five to the south. So these are these two dwellings. It has a smaller footprint than the approved bungalow on the site and yet still provides four usable bedrooms, with an increase in garden size. The proposed dwelling would exceed the internal floor space policy requirement and would also provide parking within the cartridge of the site and the ability to turn and leave the dwelling in forward gear. That's just a zoomed in version of the site plan. You can see the turning area here, garden here and obviously the dwelling here. These are the proposed elevations. As you can see, Chalet Bungalow with rooms contained within the roof space in the form of dormers on the front and a dormer on the rear. Please note there are no side windows on the first floor level. This is the floor plans. So you can see the ground floor plan on the left-hand side of the screen and the first floor plan on the right-hand side of the screen. So members should be aware that the applicant is submitting an appeal to the planning inspector on the grounds and on the termination. As a result, the local planning authority no longer has the authority to determine the application. The local planning authority is required, however, to prepare a statement of case as part of the appeals process setting out its evaluation of the planning merits of the proposal. Given the history of the site, the application would have been referred to the planning committee for its determination had the appeal against non-determination not be made. Officers are therefore bringing the application to planning committee in order that members can express the committee's Minded 2 decision that will form part of the statement of case. The council has secured an extension until Friday this week to submit a statement of case to allow members to consider this application today at committee. Officers would like to point members towards the update report that contains additional representations from Fuse Lane consortium and members should also note that long-standing parish councils changed their position from support to object. Members will also be aware of a complaint letter from the Long-standing Parish Council that related to the recent Section 73 application for the land to the front of the site. The response from Stephen Kelly to the Long-standing Parish Council is available on the website. The day before the previous committee, officers were forwarded a highways engineer report by CREIT consultant engineering on behalf of Fuse Lane consortium, which concludes that any further development of Fuse Lane should not be permitted due to significant concerns relating to the visibility and the existing site access arrangements. The local highway authority has provided a response later that afternoon to CREIT's assessment. The response from the local highway authority concludes that there are no substantive highway reasons to recommend that the development be refused. The council also received a large number of emails in the morning of the planning committee, raised a concern about the potential for the removal and cutting back of hedges to enable inter-vehicle visibility displays and the lack of consultation about this. Dr John Finney from the local highway authority will be available in committee today to answer any questions regarding the local highway authority's response to the application and in regards to CREIT's assessment. Members should also note the update report sent yesterday as previously outlined principle development of a dwelling on the site has been established through the granting of the application S-2937-16-FL for appeal. The applicant confirmed on 15 September that this planning permission has now been implemented before the expiry date of 27 September 2021. There's also another planning permission on the site under S-2439-18-FL which remains extent until the 25 March 2022 and is yet to be implemented. Members should also note that Fuse Lane Consortium has submitted a cost application against the council as part of the appeal. Within the cost application, Fuse Lane Consortium states it is seeking the cost of obtaining expert evidence to address the highway safety assessment that should have been conducted by the local highway authority as a statutory consultee. The council needs to respond to this by the end of 30 September 2021 which is tomorrow. Officers are seeking delegated authority from members to issue a response to the cost application for the inspectorate to consider. There is an amended officer recommendation to reflect this. Officers have considered all other representations made by Fuse Lane Consortium and third parties over the course of the application. Officers do not consider that any of those representations alter the recommendation or the primary reasons for reaching this recommendation. So the recommendation is, officers recommend that the planning committee determines that it would be minded to approve the application if it had authority to do so, subject to the conditions and informative as set out on page 24 of the 8th of September 2021 officer report. Officers also request delegated authority to submit a response to the cost application submitted by Fuse Lane Consortium dated the 23rd of September 2021 to the inspectorate for consideration on behalf of the council. Thank you chair. Thank you very much. Is our want, we will move to the public speaking now and any questions that we have for the planning officer for the case officer will come in the time of the debate. Thank you very much chairman. I want some clarification here before we start this exercise. I mean we've destroyed a forest in presenting this case haven't we? The trees must be groaning every time that they have Fuse Lane. Can you just go to exactly what you're doing? I certainly will chairman. I'd like to understand really at that last meeting which act to be abandoned because of their technical problems seemingly. I thought it was being made very clear to us that we had to try and get something done that day because we were out of time. So I find it questionable why we're now being told that we've asked for extra time and that is being given. I mean it reeks of desperation I'm afraid. If I can understand your question which I will allow because it's not a debate one it's the essence of the timing that we're doing this under. If I answered your question you're saying why do we have more time to look at this now when in the last meeting it was immediate. With respect I will ask you to respect that I have a right to put a question in the manner that I would like to put it but there is a definite question there and that is why was it that we were told historically that the time was out within a very short period of time when we looked at it the other week and now somebody has gone and asked for extra time. The second question that I would like answering is we had great resistance from officers about allowing us to speak to Dr John Finney. Dr John Finney was supposedly available last time but there was absolutely in my opinion concerted effort to not allow us to actually ask Dr Finney at an early stage questions which are quite obvious needed answering before we actually go into it. When is Dr Finney going to be available to members now? Thank you very much. On the first question we'll take now the second question we will go into the debate and I'm chairing this meeting and we'll be questions for Dr Finney which is why he's here. Where's this extension of time come in? At the time of the last meeting the deadline that the council had from the planning inspectorate to respond was I believe a day or two after the committee we had put in a request for an extension to that time but at the time of the meeting no response had been received from the planning inspectorate following the abandonment of the meeting officers again sought agreement with the planning inspectorate to extend the time further in order that the committee would be able to express its views on the application. That was agreed but not until after the original deadline had expired so we have an extension which enables the item to be reconsidered today but at the time of the last committee the deadline was more immediate now it's obviously been moved by the planning inspectorate to allow for the council to respond. Can you clarify what the deadline is now? If you bear with me one moment I can. Or possibly Lewis if he knows it off hand. Thank you chair for you. So the new deadline is Friday 1 October so two days from now just to expand on that so at the last committee we did have a deadline until the 10 September which was two days post committee obviously following the abandonment of committee we did seek an extension both on the day of committee and the day after no response was received so we just submitted the information to the inspector stating that we had no view of the council because members couldn't discuss the application due to technical issues following the 10th we continued to request an extension of time from the inspector the inspector did agree one now until the 1st of October to allow this committee to happen so following this committee we will submit a statement of case to the inspector for consideration We've got two days after this one Councillor Williams Thank you chair it's a procedural question and I like yourself I wasn't at the previous meeting so I don't know everything that went on in relation to questions but I just wanted to clarify whether this sort of change in procedure of when we ask clarification if this is permanent because some people think it's hilarious but actually it's quite good to know as a committee member if this is changed because it just sort of happened overnight and also we were asked your questions in the debate and I thought that was perhaps just for a couple of items it's not very clear if that's a permanent change so whether we're being consistent here so if I could have a clarification from you and actually whether that's something that can be done yourself as chair or whether actually as a planning committee we should probably have a bit more input because I find it useful to have the questions outside the debate because otherwise you end up in a situation where you're having to give an opinion before perhaps you've actually had time to digest the information so for me it might not for me personally it doesn't quite suit but yeah so as you know I put this forward at a time when we were duplicating the questions and the debate as well the questions were coming back again so I put it forward everybody agreed that we would do it for that meeting we have concluded in my opinion we've had more efficient meetings since we've had some very very good meetings and some very good debates since I'm very happy that at the beginning of each committee meeting we put it to a motion and say will we in this meeting allow for that we also have the planning development group we can raise it in there if it's something that you put but for now what I'm happy to do is put this as a motion to say to everybody are we happy that we continue in the way that I put forward earlier that we have the questions in the debate so I'll put that as a motion right now so there's my motion all of those in so yes seconder for that motion thank you very much thank you could we go to the vote on that thank you so this would be for if in this meeting we have the questions that are considered at the time of the debate okay thank you so that has passed with seven votes to four thank you very much and we will take your question thank you very much I'll now go to the public speaking and we have Mr Daniel Fulton who is with us in the chamber Mr Fulton we can see you yes and you are also available on the screen you know the procedure by now that you have three minutes thank you very much that's right thank you chair first of all I'd like to note that Mr Thomas has said about the cost application is completely false Fuse Lane Consortium has made no cost application against the local playing authority that is there is no basis at all for that I don't know where officers got it from in fact the documents on the council's website specifically say that the application for cost has been made against the local highway authority which is Cambridgeshire county council officers have literally put in front of you stacks of hundreds of pages of documents but officers apparently couldn't be bothered to actually read the cost application before submitting a report to you that is just completely baseless if I could ask for the diagram of the visibility space to be placed on the screen please you do have a report an independent report from create consultant you have a report from create consultant engineers the author of the report has 25 years experience and working on this is not the correct diagram a new diagram was sent today create consultant engineers the author of the report has 25 years as a highway engineer he visited the site he considered all the evidence including the extent of the boundary of the public highway and the conclusions of create consultant engineers are completely supported by evidence the points made by Dr Finney are not supported by evidence at all I'll wait for the diagram to come up Lewis I can understand if you receive something this morning it may be difficult to bring this up can you just say yes on there when you can bring it up because I don't want to affect the timing that Mr Fulton has for his three minutes spare me one second I'll just sort it now apologies that's fine I'll go ahead the substantive problem here is that the evidence put before you today by officers ignores all of the areas that are actually in dispute in regards to the development which is the impact upon highway safety the visibility at the junction is simply inadequate anyone who has visited the site and has used the junction understands that it's extremely dangerous all I mean there is zero visibility between vehicles exiting fuselang and pedestrians moving along the pavement and cyclists and vehicles travelling north along high street it's extremely dangerous even the county council can see the visibility plays are obstructed the county council says that it owns the hedges along high street and has the right to remove them or trim them if this is the case why hasn't the highway authority done so since 1962 since 1962 we have residents who have lived next to fuselang at absolutely no time since then has the county council conducted any maintenance on this hedge Dr John Finney now says that the county council owns it I think that's completely baseless there's evidence submitted that officers have not submit to you that I had to submit myself that actually shows where the highway boundaries are the position of the boundaries are a matter of law you have to consider the evidence in regards to where the highway boundary exists Dr John Finney has consulted an indicative ordinance survey map and has based all his conclusions on that and if anyone knows anything about ordinance survey mapping you know it is not accurate down to the details Mr Fulton I've given you a little bit beyond the stream and it's because of the map issue oh wrap it up yes so the bottom line is the local highway authority has had many different views on this application on visibility plays in front of you you will see a diagram with orange lines blue lines purple lines and green lines these are the different opinions that the local highway authority has had in regards to the development of the site over the past over the past eight years every time that the county every time the county council finds out that the applicant doesn't own land it changes its highway safety recommendation the conclusions of the local highway authority are not based on highway safety they are based on the unlawful consideration of what land is owned by the applicant the council has bungled this completely I feel sorry for all of you that you have to consider it again today thank you thank you very much and do we have any questions thank you very much for your time and we'll move now to the applicant Mary Cadw can remove the slide thank you very much and Mr Cadw are you with us yes indeed I'm here hello and you also know the procedure by now I do indeed we can hear you we can see you and you're three minutes ready now thank you good morning all thank you for allowing me to address the committee once again thank you today for the erection of a shawley bunglow with garage and associated infrastructure the main reason for submitting this application was to address concerns raised by the parish council on the previously approved application for a single bunglow on this site the proposed dwelling mirrors the recently constructed dwelling to the west known as Aeons a property which we constructed and sold to Daniel Fulton and his partner Brian Cameron in 2018 if Mr Fulton is so concerned about highway safety why did he purchase the property the proposed dwelling has the same roof pitch and ridge height as the Elms and a ridge height lower than the approved dwellings plots 4 and 5 to the south we attended the parish council meeting on the 8th of February 2021 at which the parish council considered this application and gave it an overwhelming vote of support we now understand that after a period of some six months and probable intervention from a third party they wish to remove their support this is exactly the same application that was submitted back in December last year nothing has changed except the parish council's recommendation from one of support to one of objection some would suggest the parish council is not here today to represent the 2,500 plus original I think Mr Cadu you should be very careful in terms of making references I know this is a very difficult thing but yeah just discontin okay so the create highways report that's referred to in the agenda part was commissioned and paid for by Fuseland consortium and allegedly only approved by Mr Fulton after the fourth draft the response from the local highways authority clearly shows this report is not worth the papers written on Mr Fulton should be asking for his money but instead of applying to the planning inspectorate to recover those costs from the LPA or indeed the highways authority we have noted the various objections raised we are led to believe with the exception of objections from the parish council Fuseland consortium most of the other objectors very few of which are long standum residents raised objections in response to Mr Fulton's campaign on social media designed to cause alarm by spreading misinformation about the proposal Mr Fulton's campaign against the LPA has been running for three years now and has built on foundations of misinformation lies and deceit and the cracks are now beginning to show his last three applications have been reduced by the High Court Mr Cadu I think we can't have slanderous comments I don't think it's slanderous I think it's factual anyway I've finished then I would just like to ask the committee to support this application, thank you Thank you very much and I think from both we had aspersions about the professionalism and the evidence on which both from Mr Fulton and Mr Cadu I can understand that emotions are very very high over this case but we have to be very very careful and it's often this is why we're here to try and address these kind of issues so we now go to thank you very much for Mr Cadu oh sorry any questions I wonder if Mr Cadu is I don't think he is are you either a lawyer or a planning consultant and would you like to retract the statements that you've just made which are really out of order I didn't quite understand the one question was about did you hire a planning consultant is Mr Cadu a lawyer or a planning consultant himself and some of the statements he's just made is he now going to retract them I didn't ask Mr Fulton if he was a lawyer we haven't asked him if he was a lawyer Fulton made the sort of statements which are very much that the views are wrong and I would just like some clarification how qualified is he to make these statements so I think what I would like to do as chair is both of the speakers today and we can understand that the emotions are raised but I also heard from Mr Fulton as versions that the statutory consultee has no evidence and I would just prefer everybody that comes to committee that doesn't have to have these kind of gets to the situation where they are making these allegations I understand that emotions are very very high and they could feel this and perceive this but this isn't the place for them to assert that on both sides so if you accept that thank you very much so thank you very much Mr Cadu for your presentation and we move now to the parish council and we have councillor Daniel de La Mer Lyon with us Good morning chair Good morning and I hope we are not going to go into similar grounds thank you very much and would you just confirm with us that you have the authority of the parish council to speak I do yes and I will try and keep it very short to keep you on track Thank you very much so good morning everybody I hope you will receive the written version of what we would have presented at the last meeting with the contextual information and all the documentation I would like to thank councillor Roberts for her reply and acknowledging the content I don't want to dwell on the procedural issues that we highlighted but I will touch briefly on that in just a second I think both the applicant and Mr Fulton know the views of the parish council well our views on this have always been one around highway safety speaking in one of my additional capacities as the organiser and orchestrator of the community speed watch initiative for the parish council in fact that's what brought me into the parish council I can speak from personal experience of the volumes of traffic at that specific location as we highlighted we have two approved locations very nearby it has always been a concern it's also very close proximity to a bus stop where the local colleges pick up which causes large gatherings of children on the pavement which further obscures the view so our view on highway safety is underpinned thoroughly and I hope that from the documents that we shared with you previously you have a very clear view I'd like to thank Lewis for correcting the statements and just to address Mr Cadw's observation which is a little bit disappointing as I believe he was at the meeting where we changed our view from support to reject or to do not support that was purely on the grounds of the information as presented to the planning inspectorate not representing our views or comments correctly and not including any of our feedback so I hope that makes that clear I'll happily take any questions that anyone may have on our previous submission after the last meeting or anything I've said today Thank you very much Do we have any questions please? Councillor Edwards Good morning Can you just confirm to me was that unanimous decision of your councillors that they were now rejecting the application From memory councillor it was yes but unfortunately I am doing that from memory I would like to just to understand and I've been in planning committees with our parish council where this has happened the objection Can you just remind us what the objection the reason for the objection it was because at that time the planning inspector had an allowed an appeal and you felt that they had not included the parish council's concerns So the original position as Mr Cadw suggests was indeed support but it was support with observations around highway safety when the summary information for the planning inspectorate was presented it was presented as a clear support with no mention of our additional concerns as it appeared that they had not been provided any of the documentation which we had submitted be it submissions to this forum or otherwise we decided to remove our support and make a very clear statement that we felt procedurally we were not welcome and our input was not valued in the situation as you'll note from the tone in the content of the complaint that we raised Thank you very much Thank you Councillor Devereaux Can you just inform me are you going to be putting in representation yourselves the parish council at the planning appeal Thank you I believe that we probably will yes however I'm not sure what additional material we could provide over and above what we have already provided Thank you very much Thank you Thank you very much for your time Thank you I'm opening the debate and any questions that you have or comments for debate Members Councillor Devereaux Thank you Chairman for a penny and for a pound At the last meeting I think quite a few of us will certainly decide we were concerned the fact that at the very last minute I think it was the night before it suddenly appeared on the horizon that the county council were going to take down quite long lengths of the hedge presumably because otherwise it was dangerous this access and I think it was I'm sorry I don't believe in coincidences I think it was rather blatant that it was being done quite so hurriedly and without seemingly without consultation so if Mr Finney is around I would like to ask him how that came to be so suddenly and within hours others having to make a decision something like that was happening Also I mean it's really seems to me it's very much down to not the building itself not the scope of that what we're down to is as the parish council have just pointed out we're down to is this a safe access or not and is it going to be dangerous and that I think will be the guiding principle I would have thought of the planning appeal but I would like to know again from Mr Finney various maps and drawings and layouts have appeared obviously on the paperwork and I'm not quite sure how accurate they are and how compliant with each other they are and I'd like to know from Mr Finney Doctor John Finney Doctor Finney if the council can be absolutely sure that or should I say are the plans really basically only indicative and therefore should not be relied upon for legal purposes because I think you know one of the things I was very concerned about at that last meeting before it was adjourned was that we were being expected to make a serious decision which would be going as part of our exercise to an appeal actually rather in the dark and Mr Reid and I somewhat clashed swords because I was very unhappy that we were going to go into something that would be legal understanding and we didn't know what actually also our legal advice had been now I did actually say at that meeting that I was going to ask for that information following that we actually went away so I've been out of district but the officers can be assured I shall be asking for that information albeit that it will be privileged information I'm sure but those are the questions that I would like to ask Mr Finney how comes all that sudden manoeuvre about the hedges and quite honestly how can the council be taking hedges down that maybe don't belong to them without getting themselves into a bit of bother and I would like to know do you just the county council believe it can rely on the maps are they indicative or are they actually definite that they could be relied on for legal purposes thank you chairman thank you are you with us Dr Dr Finney I am Chair so three questions that I see one can you just explain the work on the hedges that went and are they county hedges two can you confirm as in the report that you consider that there are no severe impact significant impact on safety and three can of the highway access and three about whether or not you can rely on indicative are these indicative plans and can you rely on them for legal purposes first and first the relationship to the hedge my comments were that the highway authority have powers under section 154 of the highways act 1980 to trim back vegetation which includes hedges which encroaches over the adopted public highway specifically to allow visibility between vehicles now we normally in this process would ask the owner to do so first if they fail to do so we do have powers to undertake that work at their cost it's not something we do normally we say we normally ask them to undertake those works first and most people are quite happy to do so so there is no intention on the highway authorities side of going in heavy-handedly we will ask for the hedge to be trimmed back if it is required to provide appropriate into vehicle visibility space we don't own the hedge we don't own the highway it is land over which we have control and if the hedges encroaching over that land we do have powers to request the removal of the vegetation so we don't own that and we don't own the hedge in terms of the extent of the adopted public highway the maps as provided are sufficient for the highway authority to carry out each duties as required under the highways act 1980 and or as a consultee for the planning authority they are actually based on a series of documents I will give you a very quick list if I may the enclosure awards which are 18th and 19th century documents of the regularisation of common land I'm finding it a little bit difficult to for ventilation we shouldn't be closing them do we know what the works are for anybody who is listening on live stream we've got some kind of works going on in the building sorry Dr Finnie sorry if you could just repeat that of course, yep there are a series of evidence one of which is the closure awards which is the consolidation or land held in common to private ownership what that demonstrates is the areas that aren't in common ownership or in private ownership and they're mostly the roads so that's the extent of the highway they date from the late 18th and early 19th centuries we rely on the 1910 finance act maps which again show where private land ownership is therefore land outside that where it's so to be a road etc it is likely to be adopted by public highway we have a list of streets which we are required to maintain under section 366 of the Highways Act 1980 we have the roads and budges committee records dating from 1899 to 1977 where roads are adopted by resolution of committee we rely on our section 40 plans from 1959 Highways Act and our section 38 plans for 1980s Highways Act but probably the most important document we rely on is the 1929 handover maps when the rural district council handed over responsibility for highways to the then county council under the 1929 local government act those plans are at a scale of 25 inches to the mile as it was then obviously and they actually do show the colour the extent of the adopted public highway so we're not reliant on a series of ordinance survey maps accuracy within urban development is reasonably good we are reliant on a whole series of evidences and that's not the full extent but that's our primary evidence base so we are provided is suitable for the highway authority to carry out each duties in relationship to highway safety as many of the councils in this committee would have heard before I have often said you cannot make the highway safe it is the risk filled environment the question as highway officers we have to ask is is the range of risks and hazard associated with the development within that that the people using the highway would expect to encounter given the low level of impact of this development and it must be remembered that this already has planning position on this site forward dwelling so from the highway authority perspective there is no increase in motor vehicle movement for this application from a three bedroom house before bedroom house there is no significant increase in risk and hazard there is clearly an increase in risk and hazard but it is not significant and certainly would not comply with the requirements of the national planning policy framework I trust that answers counter Robert's questions thank you very much thank you chair I don't want to be pedantic but I wonder if Dr Pinnick could just clarify for me because I understand that what it was talking about was a removal of the hedge quite substantial I understand that the word was removal but Dr Finney is now saying cut back what is the intention is it to take down the hedge I remove it completely or just cut it back a little bit I mean I know that the county council have those powers about cutting back hedges however I do have to say that in my own patch there have been numerous occasions we've got enough in this case where it doesn't ever happen can we keep it in this case and we've got enough to deal with on this one and I also want to know how relevant this is to the case we're asking whether or not action that has happened was removal or cut back I think use your question the answer question as far as I can ascertain the hedge is not planted within the adopted public highway so it will be trimming back not removal thank you and we have Councillor Dr Richard Williams please thank you thank you chair I'd like to stick with Dr Finney if I can and I'd like to ask a question which is on a similar line to Councillor Roberts I'd like to ask a question about the map that appears on page 27 of our supplement or bundle just so everyone can see now on that map Fuse Lane appears to come out the highway at an angle there's quite a noticeable angle there and if you sort of turn back you can sort of see that angle on page 25 but you can see it a little bit more prominently in the map on page 23 but there is no such angle on the maps we were shown by the planning officer at the start where he showed a sort of continuous straight line where Fuse Lane abuts the highway and having visited the site which I did do before the 8th of September planning meeting that is not what I saw any indication that Fuse Lane somehow jutted out into the middle of the pavement so I'm not really clear about the accuracy of what we're being shown on page 27 given that the this angle that suddenly seems to have appeared seems completely at odds with what I saw on the ground and he's at odds with the pictures that the planning officer showed and indeed the map that the planning officer showed so I would be grateful for some clarification really about where this odd sort of angle and your concern is because because we're not relying on accurate drawings because I think this drawing on page 27 is supposedly showing us I think that visibility is possible but I don't it's not my experience of that lane having visited it, it does not look like that and therefore the question is how much reliance can we actually place based on that map and then another quick one on page 29 we have another diagram bigger 3.3 and now is that diagram applicable only to a direct access because I'm sure I've seen this diagram before looking at planning applications and that looks like a diagram that is just simply for a direct access off the highway to a dwelling not what we've got here which is an access to a lane where there are a number of houses so I'd just be grateful for some clarification as to what that figure 3.3 diagram actually refers to, does it refer directly to a situation like we have on Fuse Lane thank you very much Dr Finney In relationship to the cartographer representation of Fuse Lane the reality is that according to our records on the public rights of way Fuse Lane at that point is 2 metres wide if you take the centre line Fuse Lane at 2 metres wide and measure a long carriageway edge 2 metres by 2 metres as shown in diagram 3.3 you can achieve appropriate pedestrian visibility displays so while there may be slight cartographic differences between the Ordnance Survey and what is now on the ground it's obviously sometimes difficult to know when the Ordnance Survey map those areas things do change there is no issue in achieving appropriate pedestrian visibility displays and briefly Fuse Lane consortium mentioned that we have changed our standards in relationship to pedestrian visibility displays that is because the guidance has changed Magnifer streets published in 2007 has no guidance on pedestrian visibility displays from accesses the only published guidance at the moment is from Design Magnifer Roads and Bridges published in 2020 we are reliant slightly upon that as Dr Councillor Williams has rightly pointed out that is for direct access but it is the only nationally published guidance we have for pedestrian displays if we were to take Magnifer streets we would not require them at all Can you just repeat that last sentence I didn't understand that last sentence Magnifer streets volumes 1 and 2 make no reference to pedestrian visibility displays so according to that guidance there appears to be no requirement for the same as highway officers we prefer to have some pedestrian visibility displays and as I say figure 3.3 is the only nationally published guidance available and it complies with our guidance which we published in May of this year where we asked for 2x2 displays these are 2x2 displays so they will achieve what nationally is being sought Okay thank you very much Can I just come back for a quick supplementary check Okay so just so I get this clear you are agreeing that there could be some differences between what we see on page 27 and what's actually on the ground because I must say look it's completely different having deliberately drove up that lane and I turned around and I came back out of it and that is not what it looked like and I did have real concerns about the visibility actually you couldn't really see until the bonnet of your car and I've got a pretty small car but you really couldn't see anything and it was because of the head which looked like it's on private land but anyway the key point is can I just have a clarification that you accept that what we've got on page 27 might actually be different from what's on the ground because it might entirely rely on the map I can't deny that there are occasional differences between the cartograph representation of the ordinary survey and what then appears in the future so the data of the map I'm not sure of but there may be slight changes of angle etc I'm not going to disagree with you but as I said it doesn't impact on the ability to provide those pedestrians' plays and that's the important as far as we are concerned Thank you very much Catsahedd Williams Thank you chair I think some of my questions may be for Dr Finney and some may be for our own officers and I'm afraid it is on visibility so in relation to the hedge you have powers to the overhanging from what I can gather so you could cut back however height is actually quite a key thing on visibility for the height of hedges so is there any powers that mean you could actually bring the height of the hedge down so you could see over the top perhaps of the hedge as opposed to just overhanging on to the footway and then for officers clarification around obviously we'd have to take into consideration biodiversity and lots of other environmental issues when assessing applications and because this is something that the county would potentially do as part of their powers and not directly to the application although it's probably because we're building house down there do we need to take into consideration any loss of vegetation and things there in our deliberations or do we have to treat this as sort of almost two completely separate things hoping you found the questions in there Chair Shall I respond to this councillor Chair In terms of section 154 we have powers to remove now there is no stipulation that is trimming back or lowering therefore we can make a decision on site as the highway authority you're quite right councillor Williams it is usually we go for 600mm height that being apparently the height of an unaccompanied child though who actually made those measurements I have no idea Lewis could you be so kind as to share plan 4 for me please I've provided Lewis a series of draws that domain it's just easier for me to say plan 1 that's the one this shows the maximum extent of any trimming back that will be required as you can see over the 43m of the intervehicle visibility space it is very relatively small areas and therefore we are not talking about removing the entire edge by any stretch of the imagination so again possibly to the north I suspect there will be no requirement of what's there that most appears to be a basis vegetation so just to put it into context yes we could ask it to be reduced in height you're quite correct that would be a judgement call on site and that would be a matter really for local highway officers to make that decision rather than I would not make that decision thank you Lewis it's very kind I'm afraid I'm placing it I wasn't that question councillor Williams I'm a sensitive student my question was as members are we taking into consideration the potential loss of vegetation in relation to the application or is that a second completely separate thing there is actually a supplementary to that about the height that if as members we felt that the highway safety was a real concern we wanted that hedge lowered is that something we could condition or if we were determining potential condition or is that something that would not be not be allowed or found reasonable I should say rather than not being allowed yes could I perhaps ask just to finish before we ask that question whether about in other cases where 600 metres you've gone below because you know you're on site you've seen that it's you know advisable the simple answer to your question councillor Williams and councillor Haylings from a highway authorities perspective highway safety is paramount and we have powers to remove as I said cut back hedges and we are clearly cognizant of environmental implications of doing so and do so the least that we possibly can now if it was a can't imagine situation where perhaps it might be a very important hedge or it might be an ancient hedge we would probably seek advice from our look from our tree officer or from the district authorities tree officers to see what can and cannot be done again you can lay hedges which of course is a traditional way of maintaining them which looks quite stark initially but then she makes the hedge better it's not something I can answer directly without a specific case but I will say that I said highway safety is our paramount concern and therefore if it is required to be removed we have powers to do so and we would do so regretfully but we would carry that out Question around whether or not you conditioned something to take it lower but that would all be determined on the site itself so I think that was your question is that something that you would consider in the conditions who do I ask? Chair couple of points so I think the potential trimming or loss of a hedge is capable of being a material planning consideration consider that with regard to potentially conditioning a reduction in the height of the hedge my question would be whether or not that hedges within the control of the applicant or whether it's on third party land and actually whether or not such a condition would be reasonable if it's not in the control of the applicant could it actually be delivered I suppose would be the question and I don't know the answer in this case as to whether or not that hedges in the control of the applicant or third party control OK thank you very much Doctor Martin Khan Looking at the Cambridge County Council Highways website a couple of days ago for another matter I came across a provision that you have where volunteers can maintain highway with permission of the highway of the authority including trimming back hedgerows and boundary vegetation where it's attractive Has any application been made to trim the highway have permission to do that on a voluntary basis there and if and would you give permission where it demanded because it strikes me as a relevant consideration is whether the local people residents affected have already asked to be able to trim back the vegetation because it indicates how serious the problem is Far as I'm aware counciller no application for trimming back has been made as I stated earlier if a member the public raises this as a particular problem that would include the residents of Fuse Lane our initial response is always to write to the owner and ask them to trim back their hedge in the first instance in terms of voluntary voluntary organisations are taking those works if the county council's highway authority is content with that then I see no reason why they shouldn't do so Thank you very much Have no further comments or questions If we can go into the and assume we're going into the debate now We are in the debate where we have questions So I find this very so we actually I think one of the first things is the new committee in 2018 we visited the site so most of us have had a site visit and my concerns around the Fuse Lane is very much actually if you're walking across the front as a pedestrian you can look round and you can hear or see a car coming what's very very difficult is the bonnet of your car as it's coming out and to be able to see it which is why I've asked the questions about if you could cut down the 60 centimetres cut the hedges down because then at least you'd be able to see over the top and I think that would have a very different impact on the highway safety and I appreciate it is a balance as well because it's the additional the additional house and and everything else and there's already like a fallback position of the three bed rather than the four bed but I do think that even though it's going up it might only be seen as a bedroom that we in practical terms we know that's another car quite often and it's it's very difficult I think I hear what our advice is that we can't condition for the because it's not in control of the applicant but I am concerned about the space and the visibility I wish there was a way that we could condition it or if there was a way of finding out if it was possible or agreeable to the local residents to lower that because actually I think that would be a benefit all around but without getting that reassurance and without knowing if that's possible I do feel that I do feel that the visibility is too poor to put any further pressure on it than currently there is thank you chair Christa thank you chair just in response to that point and perhaps Dr Finney can confirm that the local highway authority I think you already have confirmed but the local highway authority does have control over those relevant areas of hedge and could provide that during back if it was required is that what you're saying Dr Finney yes the part of the highway authority is concerned the hedge is going over the adopted public highway which is past the grass verge and if required or requested under section 154 the highways act we have powers to trim back so in answer to councillor Williams question yes we can reduce the hedge in height or we can trim the hedge back to the required visibility display as I said we would normally ask the residents to do that first out of courtesy and also frankly on this many people don't realise they're overhanging the highway and once you point it out they are more than happy to trim their hedges back getting it down to the appropriate time of year so it doesn't impact on nesting birds etc can I ask the question thank you councillor Williams thank you chair that was more of a statement than a question I understand I do understand that there are powers however in granting permission we have no reliance that or any way to secure that that power would be used and I think like many things in planning and what have you it's subjected to the person so while for myself that is a real concern for somebody else they might take a different judgment which is their prerogative but without actually being completely 100% guaranteed that that hedge can go down which we can't have we know it's possible we don't know it will be done so that's just it for myself and this is just to remind the applicant unfortunately you had your three minute speaking so this is now the debate for planning committee members so you're not able to speak at this point councillor Deborah Rook thank you again chairman well the thing is of course as well is that hedges regrow they regrow very quickly once you start hacking at them they tend to grow even more quickly and strongly than they were previously so I don't honestly believe for a moment that the county council is going to go around continually cutting this hedge back certainly in my patch problem hedges aren't cut back even though we tell them about them they never do anything, never even send them a letter it's left to the parish councils and I'm afraid this has become a bit of a David and Goliath fight hasn't it and it's all become in my opinion far too personal and as you rightly pointed out chairman I think emotions are running high on both sides and I think we've allowed ourselves an authority to get tied up in that as well I think the very fact that so much information has been plowed out to us that for the most of us we are not lawyers we have some a lot, thank God but the majority of us aren't but at the end of the day I think that this is going to be very much decided quite clearly by the arguments that are put forward at the appeal and the I'm going to dismiss in my mind the two sides the two personal sides that are fighting about it and I'm going to concentrate on the parish council I don't believe for a moment that the parish council is emotionally involved in here I think that they're taking a pragmatic and sensible approach to it and I'm going to dismiss and and they are very much focusing not on whether the building should be built or what but what the effect highways wise now these are the people who we all know many of us are members of parish councils and we do know that our parish councils do know their own wards and their own roads and have very clear understandings of the problem ones here we have the parish council stating that it cannot support this on highway safety and that to me is pretty damning and pretty critical I think Dr Finney answers to Dr Williams here actually indicate that we cannot particularly guarantee that the maps and the drawings actually will stand up to a great deal of critical consideration at the appeal and so I go back to the fact that yes I have been on that site I've walked along that site and know what that site is like going into it and going out of it I think I've actually been to that site on more than one occasion and that is one thing that has always strike you now if we are making a decision based upon the clarity and the stand up of the evidence I have got feelings that it won't stand up and that we will lose and I'm very sorry that it has come to all this because I think that taking an untoward attitude about it hasn't helped us either to make this thank you unlike councillor Roberts I will be supporting this because I've come to a judgement that I think the evidence does support the full bedroom property as opposed to the three bedroom and is the balance and for me that balance is okay and I'm happy with it councillor Dr Tony Hawkins thank you chair I think I heard the parish council earlier on and what they did say was that they had supported but with some concern about highway safety and they only changed that recommendation because they hadn't seen that we had put in in our response to the inspector their specific concerns which is a shame but you know we can improve on that obviously learn lessons but they didn't say categorically that they didn't support it in the first instance I think we're hearing things we want to from what people have said but we need to be very careful to make sure that we understand what has been said that is what I heard the concern obviously on highway safety is is important we have already a decision to grant outline at appeal so I would imagine that the inspector had actually considered all this and as Dr Finis said the increase from 3 to 4 bedroom in highway terms is marginal and there doesn't seem to be any reason why the safety is any more compromised with a 3 or 4 bedroom house now I think as has been said we have to strike a balance highways as we've heard have powers that they can use and no doubt they will use if and when they have to we can't condition anything that is outside of the applicant's ownership and I have to rely on the evidence of the professionals who is the highways authority in this case and if they're willing to put their I guess themselves behind this and they have recommended that we can go ahead with approving this I am minded to support thank you thank you chair I won't take up the committee's time by speaking at a great length because I agree in large part with the comments that Chancellor Roberts made I will just say and this is understandable how this has happened and it's not a question anyone's professional judgment or integrity but the difference between these maps and what you see on the ground does concern me I completely understand how something can be one way on a map and that gets taken forward but I do worry here that we've ended up with something that is really at odds with what you can see on the ground and that is a concern for me coupled with what the parish council have said I am minded to both against this thank you thank you very much when this if the site had been as it was when it was only the retreat and the willows on the lane and we were given an application then I think there might be a case when we were considering the highways impact cases on this road however we now have all you are talking about here is an increase of one bedroom on one house so the inference is minimal then I come back to the situation is the situation currently available a series we come back to the fact that no member of the people living on the lane has asked permission to trim back the hedges from the highways authority which they can do with a provision and a scheme for voluntary people doing it so it suggests that they don't consider it sufficiently serious a problem that they want to take action themselves because we do know that highways authorities are not always terribly efficient in keeping everything highly trimmed by understanding that problem so the question now arises now that it has been put in the public there is a solution we are told that if you trim back the hedge there is adequate visibility it is a provision which they could do to maintain the hedge so I do not see a problem coming from the maintenance of the hedge roads it could be done there is a solution to that problem which is available to local residents including the actual objective to this application so I cannot see any grounds on which we could object to this application having had professional advice which we have to take into account that is acceptable therefore I will be supporting this application Councillor Eileen Wilson Thank you Councillor has eloquently said what I was going to say that there is a remedy that is open to any of the objectives and even to the current residents if that visibility seems to be not sufficient so I will be supporting this application Thank you I am down next to speak and I also want to refer to the parish council comments and especially I think we have had multiple occasions here where we have had representations from local people that they do consider they are very concerned about the highways safety but we have had to consider in the end the level of significant impact that highways have been presented to us in their professional view as a statutory consultancy and we have had this conversation many times but why aren't we hearing from highways that this is significant enough so this isn't the only case we have had in front of us like this and local representation so I do fully understand what was presented to us today by the parish council I as council doctor would like for us to ensure that in what is presented to the appeal does include fully all of the parish council submissions and concerns and I hope that that would be taken forward specifically around the highways safety concerns that they have and it is good to hear that especially the representation that we had today from the parish council in speed watch initiatives which are community speed watch initiatives what I would hope is the community around this area comes together with the owners of those hedges and does work together with the applicants to work out what can happen around the safety because this is now a village this is an issue that needs to be dealt with for me we have to go according to what the statutory consultancy says and this was refused on how we're safety grounds the inspector looked at it and visited it and said that it was allowed because they did not consider them they conceded that there wasn't a significant impact on this so for me therefore I feel I must be leaning towards approving this on those grounds councillor Clyde-Arton yes thank you we've heard from Dr Martin Carn a very clear statement concerning the maintenance of the hedges and we've had very clear evidence from Dr Don Finney and on the basis of what we have here in the documentation and what we've heard this morning I'll be supporting this application I think we've heard from most people so I'd like to move a motion that we're here on any of the reasons for refusal thank you chair through you so obviously you've heard some members I think would be likely to vote against the proposal and so just to clarify that that would be on the basis that the applicant has failed to demonstrate the existence of orability to create safe vehicular access and that would be contrary to both the national planning policy framework and policy H16 of the south Camershire district local plan so for those members voting against that would be my summary but just to check that through you chair I think that yes that's what everyone is saying thank you very much and if Liz could you put up on to the screen what was the recommendation because that was slightly updated from the commission appreciated it has been mentioned by a number of councillors now about the ability of residents to cook back the hedge I'm not sure as though that's going to be a very important factor in the argument at appeal I would like to understand whether officers actually believe that a possibility of people cutting back their hedges will actually amount to very much at all in an inspector's decision making material we have the inspector's report in front of us which I read three times last night and they talked about how they'd walked it they'd driven it and then they've made what they think of their conclusions there are different inspectors but I did read that because we also have to seriously consider where we make the balance that's part of the evidence so rather than considering what they might do we know what they have done and that's not often not the case for us I am moving yes I'm going to explain this no no no that's what I want to do so I'm moving to now if we look on page 30 you have the agenda pack from the prior meeting we have the officers' recommendation that the planning committee determines that it will be minded to approve the application if it have the authority to do so I'm now looking at the screen do so subject to the conditions on page 24 of the 8th September 2021 officer report I have it as page 30 so I'm going to go as page 30 so I'm going to take it exactly textually as it is on page 30 Lewis not as it is on your screen there am I okay with that Chris thank you very much so it's read it again officers recommend that the planning committee determines it would be minded to approve the application if it have the authority to do so subject to the following conditions and informative the officer has asked that we take both of these together I would suggest that we take them separately so I just want to vote on the first one so that is what we are now voting on is that first part of that so if you would now please vote so that has been approved with 8 votes to 3 nerve extensions and obviously there is the question that there was by Mr Foughton that there was no basis for the second part so if I could have some clarification thank you chair I have checked with colleagues during the meeting the planning inspector directed the cost application response to the district council although the issue being raised in that cost claim I understand is to do with the comments of the highway authority but the district council does still need to respond to that claim so officers would like the authority of the committee to respond to the claim thank you chair so could you please put that back on the screen again Lewis oh sorry sorry it wasn't your yes of course cancer doctor Richard sorry chair this is quite confusing I mean Mr Foughton is saying he hasn't made a cost application I mean he should know and that explanation seemed a bit old but the planning inspector referred something to us I'm not sure what's going on here so I don't understand this is the inspector that decides how the costs are going to be awarded but I am also not can I just say during this whole meeting we are being asked to be considered sort of legalities in many things we're moving very far from the balance thing so I'm going to ask for confirmation I don't really have anything further to add chair the letter from the planning inspector is to the district council notifying us a claim for an award of cost on the basis of the lack of evidence provided by the highway authority the district council will need to respond to that letter from the planning inspector that has part of the appeal process and that's what we're seeking consent to do through me I would suggest you said that you can't cancel through you chair I would suggest that the response is to send it to the county council I think that that is rather a flippant response we have just asked and have to confirm from our senior delivery officer whether or not he can repeat and confirm that the inspector has decided that the costs would be a decision for the district council I will not query that further I will move to the vote on this one Cats Heather Williams chairman I believe before we vote we have to debate so I'm going to speak if that's okay chair and I don't believe that that's what was actually just referenced I think there may have been a misunderstanding there because our response should be that the cost should go towards the county council what's been asked here is that we delegate the authority to make a response if I could just give my comments to the debate on this section chair I think we need clarifications this is the first time to my recollection we're being asked about this what is the normal standard practice because actually what matters to me is whatever happens we are being fair and consistent and it automatically doesn't fair and consistent the fact that planning committee has got this when it's something we don't already have so can we please have the reasons why we're being asked for this if it's normally or is this the normal procedure and what would what officers advice really on this how would they normally deal with it because it's not something we normally deal with thank you and council be detained chair I second your proposal we move directly to a vote on this matter thank you I do have Chris if you want to do thank you chair in a normal course of business where a cost claim is submitted to the district council if it's a matter that's being dealt with by officers under delegated authority we would provide a response to that cost claim rebutting that claim if we thought that was appropriate to do that's what we're asking for authority to do here is to rebut a cost claim that's being made in this application the reasons within that cost claim I understand are to do with the advice of the highway authority but the letter has been sent to the district council and so the district council wishes to respond to that so the question is does this come to planning committee if it's because we're treating at the planning committee that's why we're being asked to do it yes that's right chair so thank you very much I'm going to move to a vote on this second item officers also request delegated authority to submit a response to the cost application submitted by Fuslane consortium dated I'm still reading it I know you're going to go you moved on to the vote but I was just still reading that bit so officers also request delegated authority to submit a response to the cost officers also request I'm going to read it out officers also request delegated authority to submit a response to the cost application submitted by Fuslane consortium dated the 23rd of September 2021 to the inspectorate for consideration on behalf of the council and we do take very very seriously obviously so I'm going to move to the vote before if you accept and adopt that recommendation please members thank you that has passed with seven votes to three Having this to be built. So that would be seven votes for three against and one abstention. Members I said that we would break for 15 minutes about 11.30. It's quarter to twelve. We'll have a short break. Thank you very much. So it is now 11.43 so if we can be back in the chamber sitting ready for 12 please. Thank you and welcome back everybody to the South Cams District Council planning committee. After a short break we are now back to agenda item 6 and this is on pages 389450 of the agenda pack. I understand that Vice Chair and Council Member Bachelor will remove as he mentioned during the declaration of interests. So he will be out for both agendas item 6 and I would ask that if somebody would second my motion that Councillor Peter Thane, the actor's vice-chair, thank you very much and I assume that by affination that goes ahead. Great, thank you very much. Thank you. Are you okay? Absolutely. Thank you. Very well. Lovely. Thank you. Sorry about that. Okay. And we are now on page 389 of the printed agenda report pack. This is application S slash 1963 slash 15 slash condition G, land to north and south and immediate Linton. The proposal is submission of details required by condition 10 of surface water drainage planning commission S slash 1963 slash 15 slash outline. The applicant is Abbey developments limited. Our key material considerations are surface water drainage and flood risk. And the application is brought to the committee because of the referral from the council's director of planning and economic development, parish council objection and the wider public interest. And the presenting officer is Michael Sexton. Michael are you with us? Good afternoon chair. Good afternoon. Yes, just. Yes, just. Yes, Michael. Thank you very much. Do you have any updates and a summary of the application? Yes. Thank you, chair. I've got quite a few updates to go through. The first update is just a brief update to the update report. Members were provided with a copy of the 3C legal services formal response to the pre-action protocol letter by email yesterday just before five o'clock, which is referenced in the update report. So I just wanted to raise that. In terms of commencement of work on sites, concerns were raised by Linsen Parish Council with officers on Wednesday, the 27th of September, the works have commenced on site. The council's enforcement team undertook a site visit on Friday, the 24th of September and officers contacted the agents of the application for review from themselves and Abbey as the developer as to whether works had commenced. We received a response that did confirm that works have commenced. That response was received by officers by email yesterday and aligns with the findings of the enforcement team. So officers can confirm that works have now started on the site and the permission has been implemented. That has a slight impact on the discharge of conditions application is before members now. The details of the application are still recommended for approval, but as the trigger for condition 10 states prior to the commencement of any development, a scheme for surface water drainage needs to be agreed then lawfully the decision notice of council would now issue if members were minded to support officers of recommendation and would state that the condition is accepted but not discharged rather than being discharged in full. So that has a slight update paragraph seven and 98 of the officer report which refers to condition being discharged. Then just clarify because the trigger has now been breached as it were, we would simply agree the details rather than formally discharged in a condition. Members will also be aware of an email circulated from Linton Parish Council on the 28th of September at 20 past four. So yesterday with attached letter and annotated drawings from the plans pack to support the committee items today. In response to the points raised in that letter, I cannot for the following response for the benefit of members and the plans do indeed have the same plan number, but they have been submitted to two separate applications. The plans are clear and readable as uploaded to the applications on the council's website but I appreciate printing within plans pack might not be as clear. The plans are identical in respect of road layout, siting of buildings, location of pipe work, drainage, etc. The plan submitted to support the surface water drainage discharge discharge conditions application is in colour and highlights relevant areas of permeable paving and details applicable to the surface water drainage scheme and includes annotated boxes relevant to surface water drainage. The plan submitted to the foul water drainage section 73 application, which is the next item on the committee agenda graze out the details of surface water drainage as to only highlight those that are relevant to foul water drainage provides further annotations in that respect. There are some annotations that are consistent across both plans. For the purposes of the surface water drainage plan, which is drawing number E17-084-131 provision C7, which is referred to in the parishes letter, I can confirm that that plan has been published on the website council's website since the 1 March 2021. Linsen Parish Council have been formally consulted on the application on the 1 March 2021 and 12 May 2021 alongside all relevant and technical consultees. So that information has been readily available for comment. Final updates. I was made aware this morning that a letter from Lucy Fraser MP was sent to Liz Watts, the chief executive of South Cambridge District Council this morning. Primarily the content of that letter relates to the horseyth road development site, which is to the north of Barlow Road Abbey Homes development. There is a short paragraph at the end of that letter that does refer to Barlow Road, but only as far as matters have already been provided in this update, the update report and the main officer report. So there's no new issues raised in that letter, but I just wanted to bring that to members' attention for clarity. So quite a lot for that. That's the updates. I can move on to the presentation, chair. We've just got a bit of a lip-sync thing with you at the moment, but just at the very end. Yes, sorry, that is my internet and team sometimes does that and I've not been able to resolve it. So if I freeze and speak, that's the reason I can't do anything about that other than turn my camera off. Okay, no, that's fine. Thank you. I think I've caught up with myself now. Chair, if you could confirm that the presentation is now visible on the screens. Excellent. So, yes, this is planning application S slash 1963 15 condition G and relates to the submission of details of edition 10 of the outline consent, which relates to surface water drainage. So for context, this is the site location land. The site comprises two parcels of land, one to the north of Barlow Road and one to the south and is located on the southeastern edge of the village called Linton. This is just from the context of the approved layout plan from the reserve matters application, which shows the arrangement of properties to the north and the southern parcel and associated areas of landscaping and landscape buffer. And this is condition 10 in full. I don't intend to read it in full because it is in the officer report. I did just want to highlight a couple of key sections. The condition does require the details, submitted details to be in accordance with the flood risk assessment that form part of the outline consent and for the scheme to include, take into account any subsequent changes in revised flood maps produced by the environment agency between the approval and implementation of the scheme. In that respect, this image is just an extract for notes from the flood risk assessment that supported the outline application. The document in summary showed that the term will incorporate sustainable drainage system that suits the site conditions. It considers the options of infiltration and restricted discharge, both illustrating the provision of an infiltration basin or lagoon here in the southern part of the layout. The strategy would include either the use of infiltration techniques or restricted discharge into adjacent watercourse and use of on-site attenuation. That's all covered in paragraphs 42 to 52 of my report. In respect of the updated drainage maps, the southern site drainage layout submitted in support of the application do include the latest environment agency flood maps and that has been cross-referenced with the maps published on the environment agency's websites themselves. Again, that is confirmed in paragraphs 53 to 56 of the main report. The application is supported by an array of plans, documents and calculations which are set out as this is approved. Plans at the end of the report, I only intend to show a couple for summary. This is the northern arrangement of the site and it just illustrates that the northern part of the site will manage surface water from private areas by infiltration through individual plot circulways and permeable paving while the northern site access road will drain into a ring circulway, which is highlighted in paragraph 58 of the report. This is a plan showing the southern layout and drainage arrangements with the environment agency flooding imposed over the top for reference. This shows that the southern part of the site will be managed by permeable paving with a balancing pond with crater storage and flow control, which will restrict surface water to 2.8 litres per second during and up to all events, including a 100-year storm event plus a 40% allowance for climate change. The condition actually only requires 30% climate change, so it's actually 10% better than what's required by the condition. Surface water from the balancing pond will then pass through a filter trench with gravel rifles to provide a final element of surface water treatment before outfalling to the river Pranta. Again, that's in paragraph 59 of my report. In terms of key considerations, it is obviously surface water drainage and flood risk. The application as amended is supported by an array of plans, documents and drainage calculations to demonstrate satisfactory scheme. The concerns of Lins Parish Council in relation to scheme are noted and have been considered at all stages and shared with relevant technical consultees as assessments have been undertaken. However, the council specialist advisers and statutory consultees, specifically the environment agency and the lead local flood authority, considered the surface water drainage scheme to be acceptable and to provide a satisfactory method of surface water drainage and to prevent an increased risk of flooding. Officers therefore consider the details submitted as amended comply with the requirements of condition 10, relevant national and local policy, and the condition should be agreed. I've just left the slight update. There, obviously, we're not looking to formally discharge because of the now breach of the trigger because what depends on the site. So we're looking to agree the details and that's the end of the presentation, Chair. We'll now move to the public speakers and we don't have either the applicant objectors, but we do have Parish Council here. And so I understand that we have Councillor Kate Kell and Councillor Enid Bol who would help answer the questions. Hello, how are all of you? It's lovely to see you like that. Thank you. We needed that today. That's lovely. Thank you very much. And you also have Corrie Newell who is there as a planning consultant to help answer the questions. So as I'm saying, Councillor Kate Kell, yes? Yes, Kate. And you will be the one who is speaking for the three minutes. It's going to be Enid. Oh, Enid, you're going to be speaking for the three minutes. Thank you. It's wonderful. And I have to ask that you have got authority from the Parish Council too. I certainly do. I'd also like to ask a little bit of consideration. I'm working with one loan at the moment, so a bit restless. So I might go over my three minutes, but the brain is still working even if the loan is off once. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you for making the effort. It's really, really important. Thank you. Thank you. And so in your own time, you let us know when you're ready to start. Right. We're going. Our solicitors have served a pre-action protocol letter, which goes before a judicial review, as you cannot lawfully approve conditions when the outline consent has expired. The reserve matters application is out of time and permission for this development has lapsed. Condition 10 is at appeal and should not be determined here. Also, there's a moratorium on any development in Linton until the full drainage review has taken place. This is still underway, but we are aware that Anglia Water maps are inaccurate. It also recommends that you approve a drawing which has two different schemes and at least one law that has not been consulted upon and is not on the website. We have only been able to be consulted on version 14 and not version 15, which is the one that Mr Sexton referred to as one that we had consulted on and we haven't. The scheme brings back many of the items which had previously been excluded in order to get support from the statutory consultees. The previous objections included poor quality and design, inconsistent data and drawings, water flowing uphill, breaches of building regs, failure to comply with the parameter plan or reserve matters layout, landscaping objections, shared socarising gardens and loss of strategic tree buffer. There were ecology objections, there were pollution from the crates and breaches of the buffer zone for the river and its habitats. There were also steep roadways, high maintenance smart sponges and high road brakes, which highway is objected to, excuse me a minute, as previously known flooding. We need a picture. Yes, we need some pictures please. Sorry, we need the picture. I do have some material to present for the parish so I can bring that up on screen. Let me know when I need to move around, I'm happy to accommodate that. Thank you. Is that the one? We want the one of the flooding. We want the one of the 1968 flooding. Please. No, this is sort of photograph. Okay, sorry. That one, that one, that is the 1968 flooding. So we know that is where Noah's flood field flooded in 1968. The floods would cover half the houses on the southern side. The drains, pumping station, silkways and drainage pond, causing river surge and pollution. The flood map of 1968 and the photographs of the time show this. In your pack, the lead local flood authority refers to river water in 2001 as the highest level ever recorded. However, they've only been recorded since 1981, and the EA has confirmed the water level was guessed at as that was as high as the pumping station could measure. There are no pictures showing the extent of the flooding made public. Counselors have not had a chance to see the extent of the damage of the 20th of July. Sorry. Counsel teas appear to be working using different plans. But the council's remit is larger than the consultees and it says to protect the village against the risk of flooding. Development has now started on site despite outstanding pre-compensant conditions. If there was still a live consent, this work would invalidate it. The works include new houses, accessors, services and drainage, which are critical to the development and go to the heart of the matter. We recommend you refuse to determine this while these issues are resolved. When, not if, flooding occurs to this level again, the drainage scheme will be flooded with pollution in the centre of Linton and to the river, a rare chalk stream. If this application is not deferred to confirm meat outstanding, we recommend it be refused. It does not meet the leech needs. I think that's all I can manage. No, thank you. I have allowed you to go over the three minutes. Thank you very much for that. Thank you. Good. Do we have any questions? Counselor, doctor, Tony Hawkins. Counselor, Williams. Thank you. First of all, chair if you're indulge, we just say this won't have any impact on my on my deliberations, but thank you for the presenter. I know how much pain and everything else you're in right now, so can I just say complete or how you'll still contribute to your community. So I was just wondering, you said about the deferral. Is it something that you could see that there is potential resolution to have an application here that both the community and the applicant could bring forward or would a deferral lead probably to more objection rather than us just refusing it today? Do you think there is a resolution that could be made here? Thank you. It was actually conditioned that the developer should consult directly with the British Council on draining schemes. They have never done this. I think that if we did have proper consultation using correct data and we are well aware that a lot of the data used here by consultees and especially by the developer is entirely wrong. We have engineers. This is not the only engineer on board the parish council who have actually gone through all of the data with a fine tooth comb and we are well aware of the discrepancies between the truth of the matter, the plans and what is put forward in various outlines and the remits for the reserved matters and the outline. I am sure it could be resolved only if the developer and the consultees are provided with correct data and will listen to the parish council. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation and thank you for all the effort that you have put into these applications to represent the people of Linton. I just want to ask you about paragraph 22 on page 397 where it is talking about the southern part of the southern site experience for that flooding and the applicant has provided photographic evidence to confirm that this flooding was confined to the environmental agencies modelled flood zones and did not extend to the part of the site proposed for development. I just wanted to ask you if that is your view because you seem to have the opinion that the LLFA maps do not represent what is happening on the ground. Lega, one of our parish councillors who is an engineer to help us with this. I can definitely answer that. Our submissions have been completely misrepresented by the LLFA in the report. Our photographs and for the very detailed information that was provided was to challenge the flood maps that are being used on this site. It has been misrepresented as being that is the extent of the flooding in a one in a 100 year event and that is absolutely not what those details were trying to say. The details were saying that actually the line that is drawn at that one in a 100 year event currently floods at least twice a year. So the return period to that one in a 100 year event line is actually twice a year, not one in every 100 years. Hence the severity of what we believe to be very, very inaccurate flood maps. Thank you. I would also like to add that the co-enthousying next door through at Finchams Coast was built in about the 70s. At that time it was built above that contour level plus an extra metre of height and because they were working on correct flood maps. Since then their gardens have flooded several times. This is despite drainage ditches and all the rest of it. Their gardens have flooded, their houses have not flooded. It's this extra one that stopped them from flooding and that has never been taken into account with these current plans. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you. I would also like to make a question as well. I feel this absolutely because I think flooding is one of the issues that we're going to have to be dealing with from now on and we should have been dealing with a lot and the best way is when we can work together and I do remember that on this very difficult application that we did insist after the site visit and having known of the experience and expertise that you have there that there is this working together with the applicant so it's concerning that that hasn't happened. But as I understand, can I just clarify the pre-action protocol is about whether or not there has been an expiry of the application. Is that right? So it's about the expiry of the access part of the conditions. That's what the pre-action letter protocol is about rather than about the flooding issues that we're dealing with right now. Is that right? Pre-action protocol actually it will go to the heart of the matter doesn't it Corrie? We do believe and the representation that you were all sent on Friday of last week from we sent you a copy of the solicitors email very clearly outlines why we believe that the planning consent is no longer extant, it has expired and yes that is the first part of our issue and with regards to bringing pre-action protocol. The second issue very much relates to the section 73 which is the second application Corrie is there anything else that we need to add on that one? In terms of the response that we've heard, I think it's worth saying that that the response has actually not addressed the points made by Lenton Carriage Council's lawyers and particularly that section 13 is actually out of date it refers to a previous letter from LPC's lawyers Okay Thank you very much for that You want to come up on that now Stephen Reed? Stephen Reed, the lawyer, I'm the lawyer Thank you chair if I may Councillor Bould was asked the question whether she felt the matter was capable of being resolved and answered in the affirmative as I understand it is that accepted? I think that if people took notice of the facts and the true calculations and all of the issues that lead into the flooding we not only have river flooding we have surface water flooding we have water coming up through the gravel we have a lot of issues regarding flooding it's not simple and although the parish castle has tried to address some aspects that was actually used against us in the outline and I think Stephen you put into place a condition that helped us but the only work the parish council has done was to restore flood plain we have never done anything that would affect the site in question and I know that misinformation was given even at outline it was a very complicated matter a parish council in itself cannot address it and this planning application has completely ignored at least two of the reasons why we flood the reasons of flooding need to be understood and they can the current layout does not address at least two of the reasons of flooding thank you Councillor Bould thank you for that but the fact is that you did say that you felt that matters were capable of resolution in relation to surface water can we yes yes what we are saying is that if you resolve the matters regarding surface water flooding there are other implications which you have not yet taken into account and that will include landscape and it will include other issues to do with flooding and we don't believe that the current layout could be consistent with the known flooding on the site and the photographs from 1968 and from 2001 show that you have development well within the area that floods thank you very much Mr Reid may want to ask another question of our parish council but can I say I think it's my question that is being explored by Mr Reid so I'd like to clarify what my question was that on this site not perhaps this application but anything that there could potentially be resolution of a development of some sort I wasn't saying that on this particular flooding if that helps Mr Reid as well because I think that's what was that's what was referred to and can we talk of any but of the one that's been given the outline if we basically what I was trying to achieve was if we defer to today for example was that just going to lead in a still an objection or whether there was a foreseeable way in order that this could be resolved at some point because if not then we might as well determine it today you know so maybe that helps Mr Reid because quite unusual for a parish council to be asked questions by Mr Reid the reason why I asked the question was to assist Benders because if members are assured that there is a resolution as to all of the issues the reason why I raised it is because members need to be aware that the parish council have said that they will judicially review this this application and therefore no no their issue is that the outline planning permission can I take this into the debate part because I think we have the parish council here with us can I that's okay so thank you very very much I don't think we have any more questions or comments thank you very much for all of your time and for being with us here today thank you we'll we'll move forward to the other speakers and then on to the debate thank you very much good and we now have the local member councillor John Bachelor are you with us we can just hear you it's very strange to have you up there and hear you okay afternoon members nice to see you again the protocol don't you for yes I think so I'm sure you put me right if I go wrong okay are we ready to go right okay so afternoon everyone I'm here certainly to report the parish council in their viewer of the world in all respects except for one in that I don't believe that that is a possibility of a resolution on this site and the reason I say that is because I will now refer you to the appeal decision on the reserve matters that this committee refused before the one that we were dealing with now the the appeal inspector had this conclusion I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area the development were being conflict with paragraphs 127 and 130 of the framework which collectively require that the development is sympathetic to local character and history including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting that is an absolute fundamental objection it means that there should be no development on this site the yes I'm just about to do that because the one that we have before us the inspector had full knowledge that permission had been given and yet he made this very distinct decision so let's turn to the current position as you may as you will be aware the parish council is arguing that this whole business is out of time and shouldn't even be with you the applicant seems to be agreeing with that in that he has submitted a new outline application what I want to see is all decisions stopped on this current one and allow the new outline to come forward and for you to make a proper judgment on it given the current policies in place as you know as you've just been told there is a judicial review pending I believe that no further decisions should be made until the issues have been tested in court to do otherwise would be unwise unsafe and not to say breakfast I would urge you to defer this now not only on these grounds but also on the grounds that have been outlined by the parish council in terms of the flooding which is not addressing currently you will also be aware that the applicant has started work on the site and we're desperate that this should be stopped before irreversible damage is done so please defer this and let's preserve an area which should never have been given permission on thank you thank you thank you chair can I just clarify local member is asking us for a deferral he also said about I thought I called everything to be refused so just clarifying where his position is on refusal versus deferral and I'd also like to on top of council bachelors reply ask officers as well to understand the implications of deferral and refusal for or acceptance for the committee if that's okay yes councillor John bachelor do you want to answer that question yes yes indeed whether you accept the parish council's argument that it's already out of time or not it would be out of time in November anyway on the current application actually goes out of time early in November my what I want to happen is for us to go past that date and for the new outline to be decided I'm perfectly happy with either one personally that's fine we don't have to press one so thank you very much clarification yes and before we go on can I ask Michael what thank you very much I don't know we have got other questions for you first of all okay so members I'm just thinking whether we want this clarification from officers before we go any further about the implications of that yes Michael can you help us at all in terms of the implications of deferral refusal in this case for the committee I can try I personally don't see the benefit of a deferral I think if members are not happy with the scheme that is before them then the application to be refused but the application is presented to you with full technical support of the local flood authority who are present today I should have mentioned that at the end of my presentation so we do have Hilary Alice in the IFA who can answer any technical questions that members may have as councillor John Baxter has highlighted the notwithstanding the judicial review letter from the parish council the consent does lapse in November clearly deferring the item to an October November committee is simply pushing the issue down the line to potentially hit that trigger so my advice to members would be that and Stephen Reeves obviously can chip in that the assets out on the report and update report offers the satisfies that the committee are in a position to make a decision on this application today the original submission to discharge surface water drainage and several other conditions was made two years ago this is actually the third application that relates to surface water drainage it has been through rigorous assessment to my understanding there isn't any mantra I forget the terminology that the parish council used there is no restriction from a technical body that prevents us from the committee from making a decision today following the unfortunate flood events that occurred in Linton at the end of July the lead local flood authority did write to council asking for a pause on this application and the Bartlett road site while further investigation was undertaken of those events that is in one of the appendices to this report following additional work from the lead local flood authority we received further letter which is also appended to report that confirmed that in light of the further evidence that had risen from the events in July they remained of the view that the scheme in front of you for the Bartlett road site offers an appropriate scheme of surface water drainage and reports with the condition and therefore lifted that cause that they had asked us to put on which is why we are now here with you today so in my view I don't see what would be achieved from a deferal this process has been going on for two years lots of amendments have been made to the application in response to the parish council and technical consulties in my view we won't reach a position where we would receive a letter of support from the parish council in terms of the surface water drainage scheme and I would I'm sure Steve will chip in but my advice is that the scheme before you should be determined if you feel it's not a suitable scheme then clear the committee is entitled to go against officer recommendation and refuse the application but what I'm presenting to you with the consultation of the local flood authority is that members do have a suitable scheme in front of you for the decision given sorry it's fine to have more information about what you've written in the officer report I think it was more given that we're in sort of a legal maze kind of with this it was really understanding where were the implications for as a committee as I understand it's still up to us whatever decision there is and we now understand what it would mean to defer but we have got the information in front of us so thank you very much and did you want to come back on that at all? No I mean Councillor John Batchel main now he's heard the officers as well No he doesn't get a chance to answer questions Councillor Deborah Roberts is the question for Councillor John Batchelor Chairman my question was the same as just been answered thank you thank you very much and no other questions for Councillor John Batchelor for being Thank you Thank you Councillor John Batchelor and we will now members move to the debate and any questions we have that can help enrich that debate it's been made clear that we have got the representative of the LLFA the lead flood authority and I think we should make obviously use of them and their expertise as well so Councillor Tommy Hawkins Thank you very much chair I definitely would like to ask the LLFA how come their views differs so dramatically from that of the parish council and specifically how old are the maps that they used in assessing the scheme in comparison with what's happening currently now as the parish council have actually explained to us I'm considering the parish council shows 1968 I understand what the question was what the parish council said was currently the line of where the flooding is has actually come much more forward so thank you very much who do we have from the lead flood authority Hilary Alice hello Hilary thank Hilary very much for being with us I think if you heard Councillor Tommy Hawkins question there as well we also heard the case officer refer to the fact that there was a stop and there was a review following the flooding so it would be good to understand what happened during that review as well thank you very much No problem thank you two questions in one in terms of why does our view differ so much from the parish council so rather complicatedly I suppose the flood maps are generated by the environment agency so the maps that show the flood zones two and three which are the blue areas on the maps they're the environment agency maps we do also have a map in one of our own documents at which the Linsen Parish Council pointed out which shows the 1968 flood outline I've checked where we got that information from and again we actually got that from the environment agency who confirmed that was the flood outline we did involve the environment agency in this if it's slightly out of our remit of surface water drainage normally we look at the actual drainage on site rather than the flood outlines but we did involve the environment agency to ask them what your thoughts given that we have got maps that suggest that it was flooding in 1968 that extended up into the site they still haven't raised any objection on those grounds and the most up-to-date environment agency mapping which is used is what has been used by the applicant and that when they do review flood mapping whenever they undertake that as the environment agency that does take into account previous historic flood events to calibrate that model so we're going on the best available information we've got and we're relying on the environment agency ourselves actually on the flood outlines the maps as I say are at the most up-to-date they're the ones that are available now on the environment agency website or the gov.uk website and that modelling has been undertaken in recent years so well since 1968 in terms of the stop and the review following the flooding in July we as I say because we had the two live applications in Linton we thought it was the safest option was to ask for a pause on both of them while we investigated in both cases the flooding was actually caused by surface water so the rainfall that fell that was extreme whereas these flood outlines for this particular site relate to the river flooding which we didn't experience in July so when we reviewed the surface water drainage strategy we didn't feel that there would be any adverse impact on flood risk as a result of the development Thank you for that answer and Councillor Heather Williams Oh sorry, do you want to come back? Yes, thank you I don't think my question has been answered because I still don't know when the last when the flood map was last updated recent years means what 510 or last year because obviously as time changes I would expect the development agency to actually improve the mapping but it sounds like perhaps that hasn't happened so when are we talking about recent years what is recent? And also as I as I understand what has let out a consultation at the moment which is looking at increasing the risks and the frequency from 1 in 100 to even 1 in 500 as well so we have to update the way we look at flooding obviously we're under the current regulations but yes so what is the latest maps that have been made available by the environment agency? I actually don't know the date off the top but I'll find it out while on this call to see if I can find out but I know that they review them every six months but they don't necessarily update the modelling every six months but I can try my best to find out I'm not quite sure Thank you chair and through yourself could I just clarify it was mentioned that the environmental agency haven't yet raised any objections have they responded? I only say this because you know is it a case of they haven't responded or they have responded in a positive way towards the application and can you answer that Hilary or that one that Michael can answer? I think he's probably best for Michael Yeah so I can come in on that one and we're consulted and have responded and that should be reflected in the consultee section of my report I'm just trying to find you the paragraph number yes paragraph 21 of my report the six for those who've got the printed papers We've received two formal responses from the environmental agency raising no objection to this application for members. Thank you very much Do we have any other questions for the legal authority? Could I could I ask one when you I don't know if you can answer this or whether it will be during the debate but in your professional opinion when you did the pause and you went and looked at the site and as you said that wasn't it was flooding due to surface water drainage in your professional opinion that is something that's going to be you know part of the situation ongoing you know we increased intensity and frequency of flooding due to climate change we are going to have surface water flooding as part of the flood risk and there will be a link to that and the surface water drainage even then to you know where that goes into foul water drainage at times it's linked is that in your professional opinion something that is going to happen with greater frequency going forward or even then? I mean I can't say categorically but from what we've seen it appears that that frequency sort of intense and the extreme rainfall is appearing more frequently it does appear that way yet. So it's something that hopefully national guidance and policy will change towards that thank you and that's exactly the point I wanted to do and this is exactly the situation that we're in with planning committee when we haven't got the rules catching up in a way with the situation but we have to make decisions according to the rules you know that are here at the moment which is often why I think we wanted that to sort of be done perhaps if it would be impossible in consultation with the community but as we've heard from both the local member and the community in the parish council they just think the whole thing is unsuitable anyway and inappropriate anyway so that's not necessarily very possible. Is there questions for the leader of the idea? Oh yes, thank you. Sorry, just to make you aware so I'm using the modern gov paper free our pages are different hence my puzzle look so I'm 392 when you're 396 so I will make sure when I say it's printed page I'll say that but I won't know what yours is on. Maybe just if we can try and marry it up so that those of us trying to do the paper free trial what I'll do is we'll mention the paragraph rather than the page. That'd be great, thank you. We're looking at paragraph 21 there on the environment agency Dr Tumi Hawkins Thank you chair, just one last question I think for the LLFA which is did that really have meetings with the parish council and discuss this discrepancy? Yes, during a pause or at any point? Yes, we have had quite a few discussions with the LLFA we've reviewed their correspondence as well and we have met them on site albeit to discuss primarily the horsey road site but we have also discussed some borla road areas as well and we've had meetings with them. Can I just jump in on that as well? There was a meeting held on the 26th of July with LLFA the lead local flood authority and the water and the environment agency and that's the heavy rainfall event so there was a very well attended meeting and discussions between all parties. I just want to let members know that we do have somebody here from Angliaw water as well and this is just about but they are here if we did have any questions just so you know that but that's about the full upfowl water drainage rather than surface water drainage and we're looking at surface water drainage Do we have any other comments? It's really more for the planning officers the Parish council expressed on the joining of the element there was one meter difference between the floor heights and the highest flood point and they found that acceptable according to the information provided here there's 700 millimetres difference between the highest flood level and the proposed floor heights Would it be possible to impose a condition to increase that to a similar one meter level or is that something that is not possible within the conditioning of this application? As I think I think it goes to the heart of this Chair, I think my advice would be that the committee is here to consider the details of this discharge of condition application if those details are unacceptable to you then it should be refused but otherwise we need some service on the basis of the submission before us not to sort of seek to redesign it at this stage Chair, I also wonder if it might be helpful just briefly to hear from Michael Sexton with regard to the point that the Parish council made about plan numbers and plan C14 and C15 because I think there's a very straightforward explanation for that. So we'd heard from the Parish council that they'd not been able to see or be consulted on both versions of the map if that was what I heard correctly from them. Yes Chair, there is a plan with a lengthy drawing number on revision C14 and C15. The only difference between the two plans is C14 which illustrated the southern part of the site showed some foul water arrangements connecting into the Bartler Road sewer. Clearly they're not related to the discharge of conditions application for surface water drainage but having received that comment from the Parish council I felt it was necessary to ask the developer to remove that particular element from the plan so that in the event that we did approve the surface water drainage team there could be no grey areas on whether we'd also approved a foul water connection to Bartler Road. Therefore revision C15 of the plan is identical to C14 in all respects apart from the fact it does remove the foul water drains and because that was simply removing an element that wasn't relevant to the application it wasn't necessary to re-consult because no other details have changed it was simply removing an area so there was no ambiguity in what might be approved it was simply removing foul water connection if that helps. I mean yes thank you cancer doctor Richard Williams. Thank you very much chair I just wanted to go back to a point that's been previously mentioned I think chair may be something that you said you were going to ask officers to say a few words on but I just like some clarification about the legal situation here we've had the submission of the parish council that we can't lawfully determine this that was reflected I think in the comments of the council of bachelors of course I think very seriously because you're the chair of this committee so I would welcome some clarification on that point because it appears from what's being said that the plan commission has actually inspired it was not extant at the moment could I also put clarification on something that's suggested in some of the documents which is that if we were to grant this discharge of condition that would revive a previous permission that was not extant I saw some potential reference for that so I'd like some clarification on whether discharging this condition if we were to accept that the original permission was not extant if we were to grant this nonetheless somehow revive that some suggestion about that I would welcome some clarification I will pass this on to officers but just sort of chairing this we've been subject to a huge amount of documentation just in the last 48-20 hours around this and even more in the last 24 hours around this but as I understand one of the things that we have received and I read it very early this morning was on the council's response to that issue about whether or not it was extant so the pre-action protocol we received from the council their response to that one so there is a difference of opinion as to whether or not this is extant and the council is saying that it is rebutting you have a difference of opinion but I think we'll go to your point which is the legal situation for us in determining this sorry just to clarify I did see that as well but given it to come up in the meeting I think some clarification in the meeting what do you want clarification on the council's position on it and then that second point chair if I may take the second point I think that line of argument relates to the next item on the agenda the section 73 application rather than this one but I'll let perhaps Mr Reid comment on the other point I think my view is that it relates to both applications and the position is that if you were to grant approval on this application then we're on notice that the parish council would judicially review the approval on the basis that it's not within your jurisdiction to grant the approval because they argued that the outline commission has already lapsed and therefore it's not within your discretion to approve this application I hope that's clear so it would then be for the court to determine whether if you were to grant the approval whether they would overturn the approval on the basis that it wasn't within your gift to approve because the outline had already lapsed Steven you can now clarify what is the council your position on that whether it's extant or not the only thing we can base our position on so the council's position is that the thrust of the position of the parish council is that access has not been approved pursuant to reserved matters that the time limit for approval of reserved matters has been and gone and therefore because they did not approve access pursuant to the reserve matters timetable they can't try and do that now they've run out of time and it's on that basis that they argue that the permission has lapsed so Steven once again that is the parish council position I'm just asking you the legal advice is that access was granted as part of the outline permission and therefore the permission has not lapsed in such regard that's what I understood from what I read thank you so this is really really hard my first thing is this is what happens when we have something as big as this which is approved on appeal and it was being applied to housing land supply issue and so we're now in this kind of ground so we have in before us I think we can only determine you know whether or not this is judicially reviewed we have had legal opinion from the council that we can determine this that it isn't that it is extant what we're then looking at is for me is the fact that this was so complex it was asked that there were pre commencement conditions that had to be in place pre commencement and that there was work with the parish council around this and that didn't happen and what we also have to look at is very seriously is that our statutory consultees have looked at this and said that it is technically sound so that this discharge of condition could happen because it is technically sound so what we are in a bit of a legal minefield but we're also being asked to look at for me it's the condition had two things one is how technical the condition is and the other is the timing of the condition which is a pre commencement condition so we have to look at this balance in the round in a very very complex situation and I do think as far as I'm concerned I do think we need to determine rather than defer so I would ask members to think whether this is refusal or acceptance of the recommendation and I wouldn't be supporting an emotion for deferral so we're being told technically we have grounds for acceptance we have heard the concerns around the fact that this was pre commencement and it wasn't pre commencement and yet it was so sensitive we all know it's such a sensitive site so there's a timing issue around that and compliance with it and the fact that on the outside of all this there is a lot of legal context for me the fact that we are looking at in flooding conditions what I'm finding very hard is I know we have to deal with the rules we have in front of us and if not then somebody could appeal and win the appeal against us but I do think the rules are not keeping up to date with climate change I know there's a government consultation out there will be changing the rules I consider but we don't know that yet so we cannot yet base our decisions on what we think should be the rules I don't know if that's being very helpful members but this is where my head space is right now and I would like to say that I can hear that there has been considerable engagement both from our case officer and from the lead flood authority and they did pause and stop and they did go and review so you know that is a good thing but there has been that engagement I wish I would have seen more of it on behalf of the applicant yes we're in the debate out there the Williams that's what I was kind of framing for our debate that's alright thank you chair so I've just been doodled on by councillor Robert so I might have to do some distance there if I start to flinch but yeah I think you're right deferral is a yay or an a today we're at that point now so I think the suit various things I think we need to clarify so for me yes deferral is gone I need to take the illegal advice that we've got that we can can make a decision today on it and it does feel that we're sort of in a minefield of like say a legal minefield that one way or another somebody else is probably going to decide but we often get into this conflict of technical advice and local knowledge and it's a constant frustration of mine and I'm sure it is of everybody that we have local residents that literally see it they see it for example flooding twice a year and then they're told it's a one in a hundred event given everything that is that is going on and given the level of knowledge and local knowledge I'm minded to refuse and I appreciate very much that we're going to be told about the technical advice and everything else but I do feel on this one we need to give local knowledge a chance and for me I will be minding that way we've got evidence of the flooding we know of the problems in the area and like you say it's rare to have pre commencement conditions so it's a recognised issue in the area so it's I'm going to give local knowledge a chance on this one and I'm minded to refuse Thank you Thank you chair this one was a decision that was due to be taken by the 18th of June the Outline Planning Commission was granted in September 2017 whatever the process was the reserve matters was granted 15 November 2019 we have just been advised by our legal advisor that that has not lapsed we asked the parish council I forgive me I forget exactly who asked whether this was something that was capable of resolution we had rather a long answer but I wasn't satisfied that it amounted to the word yes we had a very persuasive representation by forgive me I'll call the senior local member by the local member it seemed to me the gist of that was that if it hadn't lapsed we should defer it until such time as it had lapsed I'm not entirely convinced that we could go along with that we then look at the advice we have received from our statutory consultees on this and we heard from the LLFA this morning and we're informed that that advice takes account of a meeting of all parties including the LLFA and I believe I'm going to water with the parish council on 26th of July that is since the heavy flooding which I believe occurred on the 20th of July in the light of all that evidence when we're faced with the question do we agree to the condition submission of details required by condition 10 on surface water drainage we've been advised this has been separated from the foul water drainage I find it very difficult to say that we should not now approve that and that we should again defer this matter or fail to decide it we are not here to say whether we think we would grant a planning application in the first place we are not here to say whether we would have approved the reserve matters we are here to confine ourselves to that particular question in the light of the evidence we have heard today I don't believe we can come to any decision but to approve the meeting of that condition Thank you cancer doctor Taking the points that cancer fame has had in broad term diamond agreement this is the site that obviously we would not have approved in the first place but you have decided on appeal but as you have put explained we have gone through various reserve matters which have already been approved I as I obviously explained would have been happier if there was one meter between the lowest floor level and the highest flood level as predicted and there is only 700mm so the question really comes down to whether I consider 700mm acceptable the flood authority seem to consider that acceptable I don't think in terms of the examinations that they have done that I can see that we have grounds like cancer fame that we have grounds to refuse it however much I might not have wished this development not to have taken place in the first place so I think that I come around to the opinion that we should approve the application No other speakers Thank you chairman Right Oh you did want to speak Yes I did Yes chairman I mean we have a huge responsibility where flooding is any sort of a threat and we know around the district we have various places where there is a big water problem and one can think of Swayze one can think of Tumihawkins Council of Tumihawkins on area where we have seen huge flood areas over the time when we have been into that patch and visited them and Linton I mean it is practically notorious for the amount of flooding that it gets and how regularly it gets them and on page 425 of the paper copy paragraph please it is sort of it says during storm conditions service water down the site and into the battle road regularly described as running like a river and I'm quite sure that that observation is absolutely correct now we have two country legal opinions that's not unusual and we've had legal opinions ourselves in the past which actually haven't stood up to actually investigation so I think we've got a situation now where we have two differing legal opinions and I think the word that councillor John Batch will use was that it would be reckless well I actually think it would be irresponsible of this authority to go along with this situation and approve it given that there are so many various and variant opinions and I cannot believe for a moment that any parish council in South Cambridge or even the larger ones would go down the route of judicial review if they hadn't had advice that it would be worth their while doing so judicial review is a very serious matter to take on board it's very expensive they will have to take I'm sure council and planning consultants on board to argue their case now they wouldn't be doing it if they didn't believe that they had a strong case to argue and I'm afraid I'm beginning to think that actually they are probably correct that the approval has fallen by the way and if that is proven to be right and we don't say that into account today I don't think we're going to be in dire trouble and I think quite rightly we would be in dire trouble for ignoring that I think it's one of those that really we do have to be safe rather than sorry and I think that really I agree this is a yes or no today deferral wouldn't I don't think anything because I think that the differences are so large that it's actually what is needed is a new application to see how that would run now given what we know but I'm afraid I have to say I think it would be entirely irresponsible and very dangerous for us could be very expensive for us to go down this route and if we do give it approval and there is what is envisaged by the residents of Linton if that happens how could we actually sleep at night knowing that today we had a chance for it to be really reconsidered but we gave it and we let their homes flood I can't go along with that thank you chair thank you ymgyrchewd I know that sometimes we've had data from applicants especially with flood calculations that have not been quite accurate and in fact in one of my cases it's been local residents who've torn it apart and made them go back to square one so to speak but I'm also concerned that we seem to have statutory maps that don't take into account what's actually happening now and what that means is we potentially will be making decisions based on inaccurate information I know what's before us we've seen what's before us but I'm still not convinced that the flood maps being used are accurate enough and I know that Linton have gone to a lot of trouble actually to raise their concerns and I do salute them for what they've done can't have been easy I say it's a tough one we need to determine this I still haven't made up my mind but that's hard and we have to the fairness both to the case and the parish council is there are a set of rules that are out there are a set of published maps this is how all kind of things are determined but we're concerned that they're not they're not right I am concerned that they're not right and that is from personal experience in my ward whilst I know there's no objections and there's no objections but we know what sort of goes on potentially this is one where we probably need to throw it back at the flood authority to go what the heck are you doing how do they update it where's the feedback do they get feedback from residents and they update their maps on that or they just leave it and go it's okay I don't know Council of Dr Timmy Hawkins has said my thoughts probably far more eloquently than I can so yeah I think I will be voting to abuse this application yeah Thank you chair I too am member for a ward where we have sovereign flooding where it's not in the flood zone awful problems and I'm very conflicted over this because on the one hand we have the first hand experience on the ground and on the other hand we have a set of maps and rules that says that isn't happening so the experience that people have come to talk to us about I think we need to listen to them and I too I don't feel like I can support this at all because of them I've got Council of Dr Timmy Council of Dr Richard Williams Thank you chair like other members I find this a difficult one I'm putting all the legal dispute to one side and not considering that given what was said earlier so just looking at this on the ground I do share the concerns of other members I think it's very important that our decisions don't become entirely about reports and preset maps and that we do take account of local knowledge and I do find the evidence that's been put by the parish council and actually by the local members as well quite persuasive and I think it is important that we do take account of real world information and not just become an automated system as I say but preset maps and on that basis after having struggled with this I think I am minded to refuse as well Council of Dr Clarend Clarend Dr Clarend Thank you chair Yes it's a very difficult one we've had a lot of information I want to pay tribute to the people who have spoken this morning to the case officer to the parish council to the local authority providing us with such clear information I think that as other people have said those on the ground those experiencing flooding those living with it on a very regular basis we have to pay attention to what they've said and to balance that with the other evidence that we've been given and I'm coming down on the side of refusing I was trying to work out what the initials ME were Thank you chair your indulgence I share the council of dawnhans concern indeed that of other members the importance of taking account of local knowledge and the detailed assessments in this case however I'm a bit worried that we are saying I think this came up from what councillor Hawkins said followed by councillor Ifith and councillor Wilson that we have doubts from our own wards about the accuracy of the environment agency information here they are a statutory consultee that is assessed by the local LLFA and we have heard from them today and I'm just a bit concerned that if we take the view that we never get accurate advice from the environment agency sorry I know nobody actually said that then it would be very difficult for us to resolve any planning applications we have to take advice from our statutory consultees and assume that they have assessed the concerns that we may have about the accuracy of the data and now it's ME so I'm very much chairing this I don't want to go now into every single planning application around every single application that is in a flood zone one or two that we've got local experience of flooding because we all have and therefore we don't trust the statutory consultee and that's what I was saying we've got evidence in front of us that statutory consultee not only have they done it they stopped everything and they reviewed their information together with the local community as well so a huge amount of effort has been put in not just maps I think it's much much more it's been about how does the system work and looked at what were the causes of this on the 20th of July my concern my concern is a bigger one because I think the rules will change and this is a big big application and I think our statutory consultees will soon be catching up with climate events because the rules and the guidance will change around that and up until then things that are subject to things that haven't caught up with that but where is my greater concern my greater concern was that this was a pre-commencement condition and it was supposedly to be done pre-commencement and together with the local community now what's in front of us a pre-commencement or done without it being as they're doing at the moment they're discharging to already it looks like it would have been the same thing and it would have been approved by the by our statutory consultees so that in some ways the timing isn't different because it's what's in front of us that those are technically acceptable my concern was such a sensitive site to have not complied with the pre-commencement condition is what is on something that is so sensitive is where I'm very very concerned about this now if we, is that enough to say refusal it's kind of what's going around in my head is a concern but I'm still not decided on where I am actually so Councillor Richard Williams Councillor Cairdon, then I think we'll move to a vote yes, thank you chair just, thank you for taking this as I jump in just on that last point I sort of put that out of my head because I was under the impression that breach of material consideration breach of the planning condition could not be material consideration but I just welcome some clarification whether I'm right on that because I put that out of my head I could put it back in Thank you chair through you I think as summarised by the case officer we've amended the recommendation to reflect the fact that they've started on site so we would be agreeing the details as being acceptable but not discharging the planning condition given that they have breached the trigger which was recommencement albeit of course it was due to be determined some time ago and I understand that the breaching of that trigger only occurred very recently but yes, thanks chair but the question was is it material did a material plan consider a breach well, I don't think it's in my opinion what we're looking to decide is whether the technical details of the surface water drainage scheme are acceptable and in that sense the breaching of the trigger doesn't really affect whether or not that scheme is acceptable as a solution to deal with surface water drainage Thank you Caz Clare Dawn to then count the dots to me Yes I just want to go back to someone else that's got a microphone I just want to go back to something that was alluded to earlier I wanted to make it clear in my remarks that I it wasn't that I didn't have any faith in the information that was provided by the Lead Local Blood Authority or by the Environment Agency in my view it's a balance and that's what I was trying to get across as I said in my previous remarks we've had very good reports from the case officer if I thank him and also from the other statutory consultees but it is a balance Thank you and that's why it's before us Yeah absolutely Thank you Chairman Supposing this was approved but the conditional cannot be discharged How does that affect the permission then? It is being discharged already No? I know that we can approve it but it means the condition is not discharged it cannot be discharged ever again I think that is what's been advised In that case does that mean this site still then does have that information or not because when it comes to people buying anything on it it can still show that this condition was not discharged so how does that affect the plan information of the road? Thank you Thank you Chair through you Yes sir, correct Council Hawkins that we would be agreeing the details but not discharged in the condition the condition would remain undischarged or not discharged, one to best term but what we're saying is that the technical details are acceptable and therefore we wouldn't be taking any enforcement action because the technical details meet the requirements of that condition albeit they have only been discharged provided after the event At what point do they get discharged? They won't be discharged we're just agreeing the technical details but not discharging the condition because the trigger was pre-commencement and they have commenced But then what's the implication of that? The implication is that we wouldn't take the enforcement action but the condition would remain undischarged and that would flag on any search that a subsequent purchaser may do but there would be a letter there from the local plan authority saying that the details were acceptable but the condition was not discharged because of the timing issue Did you want to come back on that? Yes, I bring this up because I have had a query like that referred to me in the past where a self-builder went through this exactly the same situation but they couldn't have a certificate at the end of a build because they didn't discharge pre-commencement a condition which was found okay So you might end up with people buying properties on this development that is not lawful or does not have a lawful certificate to say that it's been built to all the conditions Chair, through you I think that's a risk for the developer to have born in mind before they made the decision to start on site and I'm sure they did and then for any subsequent potential purchaser to also take a view on it But you want to show on the search results when properties are being bought Yes, as I described earlier that will be there but there will also be a letter assuming it's agreed from the district council saying that the details were acceptable Well, Councillor Williams Thank you chair I just want to clarify because I feel I may have got confused and we had some interesting interaction with the microphones which meant it sounded like we had sweep from city and sweep on this side of the room for a minute lots of squeaky so I just want to make sure I've understood this bit correctly Is the advice that if we can refuse it today but essentially we then wouldn't take important action so in which case there is no like what's the purpose of it Through you chair what I'm saying is if the application was approved we wouldn't be discharging the condition we would be confirming that the technical details are acceptable but the condition wouldn't be discharged if the committee decides to refuse the application then the next step is for the district council to consider whether or not the important action is required as a result of that decision Thank you chair I just thought it might have been both way round in which case I thought what's the point in this but yes, thank you for the application I think we moved to a vote members on terms if it was to be refused Yeah so I'll put my heart at on for a moment it would be remiss of me not to highlight as councillor Bain has done that clearly we have no technical consultee objecting to the details that have been provided notwithstanding I've obviously heard what the committee has had to say I think a reason along the lines of the scheme being that's been provided not providing satisfactory evidence that a method of surface water drainage or a satisfactory method of surface water drainage can be provided and that would be contrary to policies CC7, 8 and 9 of the local plan It's satisfactory that's the point so you're saying policy policies CC7, 8 and 9 and this is the hard thing if that was then taken to appeal and we have no evidence to show except for local knowledge that this is not technically sound that's putting the council there so that's one of the things we have to take really seriously, I know I'm just saying this seriously yeah there is case law to that effect yeah there's well established case law to that effect it was actually highlighted in the planning advisory service report that was done for the council as well of the clearly it's for the decision maker to make their decision but the significant way should be given to the advice of technical consultees but it is ultimately a matter for the decision maker okay yes we're ready for the vote oh I'm not sure no I think we're going oh so we're moving to the vote and the vote is in terms of the recommendation on yes exactly we've already voted mine didn't vote yeah it's still around but it's not the blue so you've registered it's just not accepted your actual selection so just be did it tell me I'm wrong what can we kind of vote for you then if you press that again it should there we go yes okay so that is refused with seven votes against two, four and one abstention it's one, 37 and I think we have a break for lunch and until said put from it should we say quarter past I think it's easier to say but let's start at quarter past two hello and welcome back everybody to south Cambridge district council planning committee we've just had a little break for lunch and we are now back in session and starting with agenda item seven which can be found on in the paper pack on pages four five one to five three zero about now this is application 21 slash zero zero six two nine slash seven S73 and it's land to the north and south of Parklow Road Linton the proposal is for S73 variation of condition 11 of foul water drainage of the outline planning permission S stroke one nine six three slash one five slash outline for the residential development for up to 55 dwellings of the landscape buffer and new vehicular accesses from Parklow Road for revised wording to refer to the foul drainage design the applicant is Abbey developments limited the key material conditions foul water drainage this is the departure yes because of the application being a departure from development plan and this is being brought to the committee because it's departure and a referral from the council's shared planning service delegation meeting and Paris council objection and the presenting officer Michael Sexton are you still with us Michael hi hello there don't give up on us you still I know I'm here on back again next time as well with other items for you so excellent thank you very much good do you have any updates on this particular one I do obviously it does quite closely to the updates I provided for the previous item but I think just for transparency I'll run through those again if that's okay chair so again further to the update reports members were provided yesterday with a copy of 3C legal services for more response to the pre-action protocol letter that we've received there is actually an update to the main report as well paragraph 10 refers to a discharge of conditions application which sought to discharge condition 11 as was imposed originally that was approved by the council on the 17th of September it says pending in the report but that has now been approved as we've discussed on the previous item the terms are raised about commencement of works on site which the enforcement team have investigated and the agent was also emailed to confirm that works have indeed commenced on site that doesn't necessarily have direct impacts for the variation of the condition that's before members in this application an email was sent to all members on the 24th of September from Linton Parish Council with an attached letter that just reiterates their grounds for the judicial review and their preliminary outline and reserve matters consent have lapsed and again an email was sent yesterday by the parish council with various attached letter and two plans from the plans pack about discrepancies between the submissions and again just to confirm going through the points of the parishes letter the plans do have the same plan number but they are made to two sets of applications the plan submitted to surface water drainage is in colour and highlights the relevant areas of animal paving etc for that particular condition whereas the foul water drainage application has the plan that grays out anything that's not relevant to foul water drainage and just highlights the foul water piping and associated annotations and again to confirm the drawing number reference in that letter from the parish has been publicly available on the website and the parish were formally consulted on this section 73 application on the 8th of March and the 7th of June no other plans have been submitted this part of the application so that is the only one available and again just to remind members we received a letter from Lucy Fraser this morning primarily raised the horsey throat sites but there is reference to the Bartlett Road application before committee today it doesn't raise any new issues it just raises issues of judicial review and any other matters that have already been covered so I appreciate quite a lot of that I was repeat but I thought it would just be helpful to clarify so I shall move on to the presentation if you could confirm and share please that you can see a presentation on the screen yes thank you excellent so this is a section 73 application to vary condition 11 about one consent 196315 OL which granted permission outlaw permission for residence permit of up to 55 dwellings with landscape buffer and new vehicle access and the application seeks to revise wording to condition 11 which I will come on to and again the site is land to the north and south of Bartlett Road which is this site outlined in red parcels to the north, parcels to the south and it's on the south-east corner of Linton outside of the development framework boundary so the outline consent imposed a condition that prior to the commencement of any development a scheme for foul water drainage that connects to manhole 7501 via a pump regime shall be submitted and approved by the LPA I'll just jump back a slide manhole 7501 is located to the west of the development over roughly roughly around here sorry my cursor is jumping around because the reference 7501 is quite a way to the west of the site the section 73 application is seeking to vary that condition such that the developer could connect to the existing network on Bartlett Road at manholes 1501 and 2501 or via a manhole 7501 via a pump regime so it's giving the option there's a bit of complex history to get head around on this one as set out in the report so the outline application was considered by the council's planning committee in September 2016 I'm not sure how many members on the committee today were on that one some may recall two extra conditions were agreed by the committee relating to foul water drainage and surface water drainage so including condition 11 that's before members today the committee minutes set out that the Linter Parish Council went into the report by an independent drainage consultant that advised connection to manhole 1502 at Bartlett Road was not acceptable there was no technical objection from the manhole water to connection to the Bartlett Road system but notwithstanding that lack of objection the committee resolved to grant permission with the condition that specifically required connection to 7501 via a pump regime set out in the report and again the application is seeking to vary the condition so the developer has the option of connecting to Bartlett Road system or manhole5701 again just for context this is the technical drawing for the foul water network coming down the northern parcel into an area of new piping which heads west off the plan continuing along connecting into the existing Bartlett Road system and as you can see the foul water connection from the site would also come up and connect into the Bartlett Road system or the developer has the opportunity of pumping it through this pumping station along to manhole7501 off to the west so the key consideration is the foul water drainage because that is the condition that is being sought as being varied under this application the concerns of Linter Parish Council with third parties in relation to the scheme and noted again the specialist advisers and statutory consultees consider the foul water system to be acceptable and provide a satisfactory scheme and officers are there for review given the lack of the technical objection the recommendation that the condition should be varied is the one that is presented to the members today that is it for me chair I believe we have Hannah Wilson from Agnan Water with us thank you very much for letting us know about that and I do have some information that the parish council would like to be displayed so if they could let me know when they want that to pop up happy to provide once again that's very very useful thank you Michael so we will move now to Kazethir Williams thank you chair it's just in the interest of transparency obviously I do correspond and work alongside Lisa Fraser at times that I haven't had any communication in relation to this application at all yep okay good thank you very much and we'll now so we have somebody with a video on and the name is as Steve Webb can you just turn your video off please thank you very much yes I'm sorry welcome that's myself that's fine good so we'll now move to the public speakers and we have the parish council again and I don't know if the three of you are there to talk to us again which is councillor Kate Kells the councillor in-evolved and Corrie Maywell as well hello hello the same excuses as before regarding my lack of long but I have put on some pleasure so I don't look quite like a zombie anymore thank you very much should I start now I have some permission from the parish council right do you want to have the pictures displayed as you're talking could you display the pictures please I have repeated as we should do that you have full authority on the parish council to represent them so thank you right this is not a minor but it is a major change from the approved outline either the drainage can join the specified manhole 7501 or to go to Bartlow Road and through the village where the drains are old in poor condition and already overburdened the wording of this amendment is neither precise nor enforceable it is also clear the developer had no intention of implementing the condition this application is not a revision of wording but is required to be a new application this needs to be considered the new application should be made and need and to be considered under the laws and policies that apply now not the current development plan confirms the development is unacceptable in principle the need for this condition was properly considered in the outline knowing the need to use a better section of the system this was agreed by council the applicant and Andrea Water all accepted the parish council consultant's report the outline condition to go to manhole 7501 was clearly thought out to reduce the risk of water pollution and flooding to the village we can see what happens when Bartlow Road sewer overflows it's coming out down by the river all as we see and the next photo as well please thank you this is water coming up through that manhole like a fountain into the river this is what happens when the manholes at Bartlow Road overflow the protected drop stream is polluted and the village centre is flooded the sewage system at the eastern Linton was in powerless condition when our consultant wrote his report in 2016 much more so now with all the additional housing that's been added to it just a note I'm near water assess each manhole individually and not for their cumulative burdens on the 20th of July the system was overwhelmed following a burst of heavy they are not in precedent to drain for and near water has confirmed that the Bartlow Road sewer is shared between surface water and sewage it's too much for the system and not preventing flooding CCC put a moratorium on development related to drainage in Linton excuse me a moment this investigation into the causes of the flooding has not been reported this application is premature decisions should wait until the review of surface water flooding and the sewage system has been completed and reported upon such a review was considered necessary outline and now again following the recent flooding events following outline it was never done I'm so pleased the fire and surface water conditions go to the heart of planning consent and need to be fully considered following review legally it's also a mess and solicitors acting for parish council have served a pre-action protocol letter you cannot lawfully vary conditions using S73 when the outline consent has lapsed it is unlawful to remove the RM condition and it's time-scaled but it's not been fully discharged and the unauthorised work has started on the house has started if there was still a live consent this alone would invalidate it thank you thank you very much do we have any questions councillor Dr Tony Hawkins thank you very much chair thanks again you mentioned that the the manholes let me get this right the analysis that was done by Anglian Water was done on a singular basis for each one not on the cumulative impact of one to the other did I hear you right yes okay and the reason again for the condition that it goes through 7501 because the Bartlow Road manholes are a combined system which as you've seen from those photos already overflow when they are stressed with too much surface water okay so to add any further foul water from this site is going to run the risk of again seriously compromising that sewer right thank you I'm quite familiar with the second picture that you showed because we have some that gets like that when it's at surface water inundation so I wasn't surprised to see that if I may the other question I wanted to ask was it's paragraph 90 and on the printed papers is page 467 in that the applicant kind of contests your report and concludes that your august 2016 report was not was not prepared to reflect the implications of development on the Bartlow Road site and uses incorrect methodology what do you say to that I was involved with that report the report was originally commissioned to deal with the Bartlow Road site however Bartlow Road site however it was then transferred to look at the horseheath Road site because the Bartlow Road site had already been approved but it's the same it's the same group of of pipes right thank you chair thank you very much and as I said councillor Dr Martin Kern if they're connected to everything was connected to 7501 originally proposed would that require less pumping than if it was used to the everything was pumped up things as if the other site was used on Bartlow Road I'm not sure that we've calculated that we're looking at the safety of the pipes the one going to 7501 is a long Fleming's field on the flat the one going to Bartlow Road is quite a steep uphill time yes the one going to 7501 is a 375 diameter pipe as opposed to a 180 so as opposed to the old 6 inch it's a larger pipe which was the main reason for choosing it it was a newer and larger pipe and I don't want any more questions so thank you very much for your time thank you for being with us see you again thank you and we also have councillor John Bachelor as the local member I think to speak to it yes afternoon again right ready to go yes please lovely okay again I won't detain you very long I'm here to support the view of the parish council just to reiterate Linton has largely a Victorian sewage system which is part of the Bartlow Road one and is not doesn't simply doesn't have the capacity I'm sure in your papers you will have an independent survey commissioned by the parish council a few years back which shows that the whole system is close or at capacity and any more stress put on the 6 inch pipe is just not acceptable so just basically we should stay with the 7501 should this this project go ahead as you know my hope is that it shouldn't be there in the first place and the condition yes and after your very good decision just recently I hope that this won't actually be relevant so thank you thank you very much and I'm sure we will make use of from Anglia Water to also get their opinion on this do we have any questions or comments or questions to John Bachelor I don't see any thank you very much John okay thank you members so we are now to the debate during which we can ask questions either of the case officer but also we have Anglia Water here with us and it was Hannah Hannah Wilson hello Hannah hello lovely to have you with us if you don't mind me asking straight I'd like to ask a question so yes could you just explain to us why Anglia Water considers that this is technically sound given the concerns that we've obviously just heard and we've read yeah absolutely so first thing just to clarify is that it's not a combined network we're looking at a foul only network that they're proposing to connect to and that means exactly what it says is that that should be taking foul flows only that surface water should be managed and directed elsewhere and not into that foul only system so when we look at a capacity assessment for a development site we look at where that development has the right to connect to and in this instance excuse me this development has the right to connect into Bartlow Road in that foul only system and the assessments that we do is we look at the foul flows that will be coming from that site based on the properties and the occupation and we make an assessment based on those foul flows entering a foul only system now what's happening is that you're getting surface water and ground water runoff which is entering a foul only system that should not be there and we can't take that into account as part of a capacity assessment we have to look at that network as it was built and as it should be running to so what we say is in dry weather flow conditions that network is working effectively and we have been on site and we have looked at our network and we can confirm that it is running effectively for that condition the dry weather flow which is what it's built for apologies if I'm not making sense and please do come back with more questions but basically the technical assessment on both connection points so both manholes shows that there's no mitigation required that the development can connect and the network is capable of accepting those additional foul flows from that development site without any mitigation required does that answer your question that does and when you said that you've been to the site and reviewed it and was that also at the time of the flooding or just after the flooding were you able to review it again yes so we did some reviewing of the site of the area after flooding we also reassessed and just checked calculations after the flooding just to make sure everything was done appropriately and accordingly so we have done that and it came back with the same conclusion that it can connect without mitigation required and can I just sort of it being a Victorian system and can't so that's quite normal for a lot of our networks the age isn't unusual and it's really it's not about the age and a small pipe can actually take quite a lot of capacity it's quite deceiving in that sense and it's more about the velocity of the flow just to be clear even a pumped connection we hold back and restrict flows at a pumped rate so we're not allowing flow flows to come in and I'm intemuated and that's really what the assessment is all about looking at more the technical details if it's a pumped flow do we need to restrict that flow what's the material of the pipe what's the gradient of the pipe how does the actual flow travel and so having that older system isn't unusual at all and actually it works quite effectively it's only when we see those extreme weather conditions and that surface water and groundwater getting into the fell only system that's when we see these problems during flood events okay thank you very much council dot that's Richard Williams oh thank you there were two questions I wanted to ask but I've just asked a clarification of Ms Wilson did I understand you correctly did you say that it's supposed to be a foul only system but there is surface water going into it but you can't take account of that in your assessment did I understand you correctly yeah so I'll just elaborate if that's okay so it's a foul only system so it's built for foul flows only we do not seal we do not have an entirely sealed system you will see the manhole covers they are not entirely sealed therefore when there's extreme weather events that surface water or surface groundwater from the land it cannot seep into our sewers and that's what causes the issue now we in new development sites especially we look to ensure that surface water is managed effectively and therefore not going into a foul only system and we also understand that over the years historically people may have had extensions or new driveways and unknowingly connected those surface water flows into a foul only system and again that's where the problems occur and surface water is very much a kind of multiple organisational remit to manage that so you've got highways authorities and obviously the need for flood authority but when we look at the foul only system we do allow when we have our analysis and assessment of growth we allow for 25% infiltration of surface water so even when we do an assessment we do understand that there will be that slight infiltration of surface water but we can't build our systems to accommodate this extreme weather event and surface water and groundwater flows entering a system that is not designed to accommodate such flows they should be dealt with effectively at source Come back Yes, thank you chair I did have a second question I'll just go straight into that I think this might be one more a question more for Michael but I was wondering if somebody potentially Michael could just tell us why when the conditions originally set it was thought appropriate for the condition that it had to go into sewer 57501 what was the thinking behind that original condition? My understanding I wasn't involved in the outline application is that obviously it brought to members to make a decision on their application as a whole and as part of that consideration there was the independent report from Linton Parish Council and at the committee meeting members took the view that it would be appropriate to for one of the better phrase side with the report of the parish council and imposed the condition that requires connection to 7501 rather than to the Barlow Road system so I think that was a decision made within the committee meeting that that was the specific wording required that was felt appropriate at the time to ensure that the delivered an appropriate system but I don't know how helpful that is Thank you and Councillor Eileen Wilson Thank you I wanted to ask have there been any recorded incidents or how many of the surface water going into the foul road system and the parish council mentioned that it overflows into the chalk streams and pollutes them how many incidents have been of that in the past say five years with the severe weather? Thank you So in regards to complaints or reports of incidents of sewer flooding we did have a look for the parish council in Barlow Road and the reports of sewer flooding there over the past five years were mostly due to blockages or transferred sewers so sewers that were not originally in our ownership then they were transferred to us and potentially there was some maintenance work to ensure that they flowed effectively so in terms of the surface water flooding and extreme weather flooding it's something that we've seen recently that we don't have a loss of historical complaints or records on it it's not to say it hasn't happened sometimes they aren't always recorded or reported to us directly it could be to the flood authority the environment agency there are a number of bodies that people report to in terms of pollutions again no record of pollutions I can go back and check but as far as I'm aware there's no record of pollution and often what happens is when surface water into our found network it can be the case that if there's a pollution incident recorded we have to then inform the environment agency who come and do tests we do sample tests and it could be that actually discharging into the water course was so watered down by the surface water that it wasn't actually a pollution event it's not to say it didn't happen but there's levels of pollution and the environment agency do check those I can go back and double check that because I don't want to give you misinformation but I'm certainly happy to pass that on to the case officer so in the recent floods event there were instances where they were backed up into their gardens and unfortunately into properties but that was on the Lonsdale side of the village in terms of the Bartlow Road I'm not aware and the records that I have show that there were blockages more blockages or like I say transport sewers again it's not something that I can say to certain I don't know if the parish council will potentially know more but I'm happy to share some of those reports obviously I know you need to make a decision today but we can be open and transparent and share those with the case officer if required. I'm coming back again to the issue of the two alternatives 7501 or the ones in Bartlow Road and the energy use for pumping can you give some indication about the amount of energy use for pumping for the one the Bartlow Road solution and the other solution because obviously we're concerned about the use of energy and sustainability and the less use there is of pumping obviously the more sustainable solution would be found. So in terms of that level of technical detail I can't answer that however what I can tell you is that this development have put forward for us to adopt their on-site sewer network so anything that they do build and they want us to adopt they have to build in accordance with adoptable standards and our standards are the national standards that water companies use so we ensure that it's done to a certain standard in terms of energy I can't be specific so I'm afraid I can't tell you that. Okay thank you very much Hannah for for being here because it's really really helpful that you're here and you can answer our questions as well provide extra information. Yes Sorry was that for Hannah? Yes the question is from the water. Sorry. Okay. Thank you it's I guess it's going back to your previous statement about the sewer has been only for foul and not for surface water but you do know that it does happen. Now I'm glad to hear that you have a 25% allowance for infiltration but what we have is a situation now where this is happening more and more and it seems to me that you need to be perhaps taking in this problem into account more than you already are so I go back to the question at the time that the inspector gave the decision for the foul to go through 7501 I presume Anglia Water was present had prepared something so why is it now saying that why are you now accepting that it can be buried because that wasn't part of what was Before we go to that and can we just check with the case officer perhaps on that because I think it was the committee and council that did that rather than Anglia Water at the committee meeting? That was part of the decision notice that condition was part of the decision but it goes through 7501 Michael can you you weren't here I know but can you clarify that? Sorry I missed part of the question because my team froze it could you just repeat councillor Hawkins my benefit that mandated that the foul goes through 7501 that was a condition that was imposed by the planning inspector is that correct? No it was the planning committee who made the decision on the outline application so that was a condition imposed by the committee as per the minutes that are appended in one of the appendices of this report So that's clarification one but there was a reason for that and that reason hasn't changed has it? No it's got potential lack of capacity through the others but it hasn't changed in so far as Anglia Water didn't raise objection to connection to Bartler Road at in 2016 and Ninja Parish Council submitted their reports and obviously members made a decision on the wording of the condition at that stage and we're back here today in a similar situation where Anglia Water are not objecting to connection to Bartler Road has very well explained but again the parish council have submitted their report again so it's again handing it to members to make that balanced decision I presume you are aware of the problem with was it, what's the number? The final broad one the bar whatever the other B mode is you are aware of the backing up and the other flow that has been occurring on Bartler Road sorry yes so again that's the surface water issue which then surcharges the sewer and I just I don't know if it helps but just to touch on a point about the future that you've mentioned is that we recognise that climate change is happening obviously and what we're going to put flow monitors in the village to ensure that the surface water we can understand that surface water inundation more in detail and identify where it's coming from and when it happens so that we can then share that with the lead local flood authority and monitor that closely and it will be monitored over a 12 month period I don't know if that has answered your questions or concerns It doesn't help now because you've not done that analysis have you not done that? It can only do the analysis on what that file network is built for and the file flows that are going in because that surface water shouldn't be there it should be managed elsewhere Thank you I'll be going around in circles if I can Okay, thank you very much and Dr Clare Daunton You're fine Councillor Deborah Roberts Thank you Chairman, through you Chairman just a bit of clarification really here and following on from Dr Councillor Tumi Hawkins Page 40 Page 455 on the paper copies and paragraph 35 Linton Parish Council it actually says then which confirms what Dr Hawkins has just been saying The condition imposed on the OLL approval was that the site drain should link to manual 7501 This is in part of a newer drain near Emerson's Palace The perilous Parallous I can't even say the word The perilous state of the drainage system at the eastern end of the village was understood by South Cam District Council Planning Committee and was the reason for the specific condition that the surge link should be by Manhole 7501 not to Manhole 2503 or any of the Barclow Road That's the Parish Council's report That's in promotion we received and what we took on board That's in promotion we received and what we took on board and so what's changed Thank you And I can't for Dr Martin Cahn Can I ask Angliau Water again Angliau Water is not objecting to connection to the Manholes and Barclow Road but not objecting is not the same saying which would be the better which would be better from your point of view connection to Barclow Road or connection to the 7501 which would cause these problems and be the most acceptable solution not necessarily whether it's not going to be objectionable so different things So either solution both options there's capacity within that network to accommodate those flows If there wasn't capacity we would state that and we manage that mitigation that's required so we have done that assessment either connection point does work in terms of the capacity I don't know if it's okay to bring it up now but just to be clear the developer has the right to connect to the nearest connection point of a pipe that can serve that development site and that is Barclow Road So either option would work in terms of capacity in terms of legislation the developer has the right to connect under the Water Industry Act to that connection point in Barclow Road We take each one in its own rights but we do know that there are connections between these two. We have just said in terms of the surface water drainage that we did not accept that and that is something that needs to be dealt with and as we understand this is about the file water drainage and I'm even though I say I agree with what's changed what perhaps we didn't have water there at the time and I think here so what we've got here is once again it's technically acceptable what's being proposed the developer has the right to do it and yes we do know that surface water has an impact on it and we have just said we didn't accept the surface water because it's not right but actually in this one it is simpler and I have heard the parish councillors I'm thinking about this but I am also listening to the statutory consultee so this is for me a slightly different one to the previous application and I would be and I think in terms of that balance I'm more on the balance on this one and saying that I find it very very hard to find an objection at this moment in time on that and would be looking to move to a vote but once we've heard of the reasons why not Thank you chair. I was just wondering if it's possible. I thought I saw on the team screen something from Councillor John Batchel I was wondering if there's a local member whether we could it might be something that's helpful for our decision making. Sorry? I didn't say I'm sorry didn't you? That's right I'll carry on chivalry a message appeared to pop up from Councillor John Batchelor on the teams and I'm just wondering it might be helpful to our decision making. Well it may or may not be helpful to use the chat and I haven't got it in front of me and I think a certain counciller knows that we're not supposed to be using the chat to have a separate non-transparent debate that's not happening in the chamber so we should actually saying that the chat is only to us to speak and we've passed the moment where we had counciller John Batchelor too OK. I'll try to give a child I'll let you tell him off chair Yes thank you Good No, the other local member is not having any intervention in this aspect so that's where I am and so I don't know where anybody else is but I at this moment would think that we go to the vote on this one Thank you very much and I did write down where the other one was which is on page 472 in the printed pack which is paragraph 129 the recommendation and this is that officers recommend that the committee grants delegated authority to officers to issue a new planning permission subject condition set up below with any variation to condition 10 agreed by chair and vice chair and conditional on the completion of a deed of variation to attach the section 106 from the 2017 oh I see to attach the section 106 from the 2017 outline consent to the current section 73 application correct Michael in terms of that but still the recommendation that is correct just for clarity that obviously this would be a new permission so the deed of variation would make sure the planning obligation attached for the original outline is brought forward Yes absolutely so that's belt and braces Okay members so if could we now go to Chris I don't have a member so that's the emotion if people were voted to refuse that the reasons for refusal Chris so I think the reason for refusal would be very similar to the last item referencing the same policies but in this case that the alternative foul sewer connection is not considered to be acceptable by the council and therefore not accord with policies CC789 Is that acceptable to everybody? Good okay thank you if we go to the vote members okay and we have that has been refused so we have seven refused and against three who have approved thank you very much members and we move to now item number eight Henry bachelor will rejoin us this is on pages five three one two five six two in your agenda pack hello get warm oh yes make sure that you're logged back in to the respective microphone please yeah good so we are on agenda item eight this is for application s slash two five five three slash sixteen slash condition h and the ward of linton part of linton for the land of course Heath Road proposal for submission of details required by condition twelve foul water drainage of planning permission two five five three slash sixteen slash outline for outline planning application with all matters reserved for up to 42 dwellings and allotments at not less than point four five hectares the applicant is Crowdy's homes and the key material considerations for us members foul water drainage and neighbour amenity it's not a departure from policy and it's been brought to the committee because the application is one that in the opinion of officers in consultation with chair and vice chair should be determined by committee because of special planning policy considerations the complexity of the application which is significant and of strategic importance to an area beyond both the specific site and parish in the presenting officers caron pal coven's are you with us I am indeed thank you chair hello hi there afternoon right just before we start I'll do a short verbal update so in terms of we have received three additional representations since the publication of the report which was a letter from the Lucy Fraser the MP to Chief Executive of South Cams Linton Parish Council and a local resident in summary following concerns from the parish council and local residents in relation to the unauthorised development continue on the site and potential flood risk given the recent flood the MP has requested that the condition in relation to foul drainage is considered at the same time as the planning committee meeting as the condition in relation to surface water drainage basically the development proposes two separate systems one for foul water and one for surface water these are disconnected from each other foul water is proposed by the foul water sewer where surface water is proposed by sustainable drainage systems in the form of an ink filtration to the ground via a basin and permeable paving with regards to foul water drainage anger and water and the drainage officer and environmental health officer have not raised any objections to the scheme the important action in relation to the foul drainage scheme was not considered necessary given that it would not be used until the development is occupied in any case works would rise to stop on the foul drainage connection responses received from all parties are based on the submitted information for the flood drainage application Anglin Ward has advised that parish councils independent drainage report follows similar principles to its assessment however it has overestimated the dry weather flow in the sewer network however it does know that our surface water contributions in the foul only system obviously which has just been discussed previously does not have a lot of complaint history for Linton and to ensure it understands the full extent of surface water in the foul network it is installing flow monitors in the village this will show the dry weather flow baseline and help identify the amount of surface water and the sewer's response in rainfall events is evident from the recent flood that there is also an overland flow issue surface water entering the network from this overland flow and it will work with the lead local excuse me lead local flood authority to share its findings basically in conclusion there is dry weather flow capacity in the current network to accommodate both the development sites without mitigation a connection has already been made at the top of Lonsdale and this has been approved the onsite foul network and foul pumping station has not been spitted to Anglin water for adoption and it will be managed privately we have agreed to adopt the surface water underground onsite pipes network but not the sluts features attenuation bond after the flood event the network at Lonsdale wasn't inspected and an error was recognised in the asset mapping a new assessment was carried out and the site can connect without mitigation to the foul network we've also got a new map which I will show in my presentation shortly also the surface water from Hoss Heath Road site went into the foul drainage they lifted manhole covers in Lonsdale and Baker's Lane and CCT was carried out within the sewer in Lonsdale it was running as it should have been with no damage or connections Anglin water therefore have no objections to the scheme the foul drainage scheme is not required to be redesigned just a little bit with regards to surface water drainage because a lot of issues have been raised with regards to that a temporary stop notice was issued on the site on the 24 February 2021 in relation to surface water drainage as the original application was refused this stopped work on the site for 20 28 days in order for new information to be submitted the applicants have been advised to stop work since the expiring of the stop notice continued but no further formal action has been authorised however works were advised to stop on the surface water scheme a new application has been submitted and at the current time the legal authority have no objections to the application however the parish council still raised concerns and they are currently being taken into consideration thank you so with me I will just go on to my presentation now so can you see a presentation yep I'm just trying to bear with me it's in presentation mode now oh okay I think we're seeing your screen now for some reason oh yeah okay on my screen I've got the slideshow mode before you did whatever you did at the last minute we saw the presentation mode this one no if you're now going to you went up then to presentation mode didn't you and we saw it yep I'm just going to try yep so it's in presentation mode now nope okay sorry I did try there we go don't do anything else okay okay it's not on my screen in presentation mode that's probably why so okay so this is an application for discharge of condition 12 foul water drainage of outline planning application for 42 dwellings and allotments to the lands of the south of Fawcete and Linton but I'm just going to the next slide this is the location plans shown in the site so Fawcete Road goes along the top of the site you have this line here is Baker's Lane running southwards from the south west corner and Lonsdale is the residential road to the west so south just to make it clear southcams do own a strip of land along the eastern boundary of the site which is shown in this next slide which the developers do need to cross that land to connect to the manhole in Lonsdale in Linton the approved sorry approved site layout for the development so you have 42 houses houses on the frontage there which come down and then in the south west corner there is an area of public open space within that public open space is the proposed infiltration basin for the surface water drainage scheme you have a main adopted road into the site which comes down here and then this area to the eastern side is allotments so in terms of the foul drainage that's quite small that plan so I have done a larger plan but basically it's a private foul pumping station on the site which will be in this location slightly larger so this is plots number 31 here the private pumping station will be in this location and there will be pipes to the east of that which will run along the front of the houses and then go along between plots 33 and 34 and then northwards and at that point there will be a holding sort of area before it connects to the manhole in Linton basically the capacity of the pumping station is 24,480 litres which incorporates 150 litres per person per 24 hours it will be pumped 2-3 times per day that's great to be agreed with Anglia and Water which I understand to be 5 litres per second when it reaches Lonsdale it will go into the main public sewer system to the south along Lonsdale so just in terms of the previous map on the site this shows so this is the map that Anglia and Water had originally basically shows so the blue is the surface water pipe and the brown is the foul water pipe and the foul water pipe originally went eastwards from the bottom of Lonsdale before connecting to Bartlow Road which is down here the new basically investigations on the site have been carried out and the new flood water map shows the new route but the accurate route of the foul water pipe which actually instead of going this way to the east actually runs west and then comes along here before going reaching Bartlow Road so just some details of the foul pump system so the actual foul pump in terms of it's above ground it's a manhole sort of cover above the ground but then you do have a telemetry system which is a 24 hour system which basically monitors the levels of such within the pump to ensure it's working correctly etc so that is above ground I do have a photograph if you didn't need to see that so the key considerations in relation to the proposal of foul drainage and the impact upon noise neighbouring meaty in terms of noise and odes thank you which is a different situation compared to in terms of our legal context and that we defer this item so that it is considered together with the surface water drainage so we understand that technically they are separate systems but as we've just heard they were supposed to be pre-commencement and that would affect the design so that committee that committee would be able to consider both at the same time just as today we've considered both at the same time so that's what I would like to move that motion members and I've seen that Williams has seconded that motion and the reasons for that do I need to thank you we're okay to go to a vote on that one can we do that by affirmation agreed glad we came back and to address the speakers who are ready and have been on most of the applications actually today so to the parish council who are about to speak again thank you very much I hope that there is some satisfaction in that proposal to defer and once again I really like to appreciate the work that's been done and we know that there's been constant engagement by the case officer in this so thank you very much and also to Anglia Water and to the lead blood authority to come and to be here so that we can talk with you and understand these things so thank you very much for your time of being made available so that means that we so members we have items on the agenda 9 and 10 both of those are update reports on the section 106 and then revoking a TPO before going on to enforcement and appeals so it's 315 it was you know we were kind of looking at a 330 break but I'd like to suggest that given what we've just happened now that we at least do one more item yep is that okay, is everyone okay that we move on thank you very much so we go to item number 9 which is born airfield pages 563 to 590 in your agenda pack right chair just occurred to me I need to declare another non-brochunary interest my employer has previously had a business relationship with the applicant so it no longer does so I'm not precluded from taking part in this one just for openness thank you very much that will be noted I think this is for application s slash 3 440 slash 18 outline for born airfield born when the parishes of born highfields culvert cut the proposal is for an outline planning application with all matters reserved except for access yeah yeah yeah we're not considering the application yes you're absolutely right the proposal is for that but what we're considering is an update sorry got into my stride there thank you very much it's going to be an update report on how we've got on with the section 106 to date because we did ask for a review of that because we're really concerned on our strategic sites what's happening with the section 106 the viability has often been one of these very important issues significant issues so we could move directly to the report by the officer yeah and Kate are you with us yes I am and so this has been brought to committee because you're going to update us on the s106 agreement thank you that's right it is indeed an update report on the section 106 for born airfield new village I can advise you that overall good progress has been made on the section 106 agreement and many items have been tentatively agreed subject to finer detail officers and the applicant have now agreed a revised target date of the end of October for signing the agreement and just for clarification the report is for noting and no decisions are required to be made thank you thank you very much do we have any questions council doctor to me Hawkins thank you chairman just to say thank you to Katie for all the work she's done on this I just want to have some clarification really I'm kind of if we go to page the table on the printed papers 567 where it talks about where it talks about the item six special needs education so the contribution is towards an offside school at north stone that seems to be a long way for kids to go to school with special needs will this be including the transport for them to get there and back that's number one number two is on page 570 item 34 this is the cycle where links to born colicot and camborn I think Katie might understand where I'm going with this because we have had a request from born for a cycle way from the new born airfield village down to born village itself is that included and also 41 paragraph 41 what do we mean by wider improvements to full path network thank you through you chair thank you for those comments with regard to the special needs yes the county council have requested that it should go to the school at north stone I believe that there is consideration for the transportation of children there but I'm sorry I don't know the details off the top of my head I could come back to you at a later date on that the other item you raised was a cycle network there is a condition as well as the section my no six agreement that deals with connecting the proposed new village up to camborn highfield colicot and born now the condition does omit the word born the village born in it and we're looking to see whether that can be included and that's currently under discussion with the highway authority we are looking to provide that connection in the master plan the parameter plans connections are shown good connections a variety of good connections are shown fairly straightforward direct ones that follow Broadway and run parallel to Broadway and through the centre of the site and the highway authority along with the applicant are also looking at a temporary provision because it's going to take about 27 years to develop out the whole site so they are looking at a temporary provision in the section 106 agreement to connect up to those three adjoining villages as I said it is still work in progress and that is what we are looking to achieve thank you the final item my apologies you might have to remind me what your third question was paragraph 41 line 41 of the table sorry the wider improvements to the good path network right it sounds big yes the details of that again are currently under discussion between the applicant and the highway authority so I can't confirm exactly what the details of that will be it's still a matter under discussion thank you I know it's in the second table as well isn't it so it's kind of there we haven't got the details on to that one okay and thank you Cody yes yes I just want to come back on councillor Dr Hawking's point about the special education needs I think and to press that the financial contribution includes transport really important good yeah and just to thank we know often we just don't see when we pull those conditions in and we really really argue section 106 we don't see all the hard work that then goes on prior to that and then during it to make sure it's happening and negotiated out and on these strategic new towns which are it's so so important so thank you very much I'm very glad that we're going to have the reviews of this because it's key so thank you we now go on to agenda item 10 which is the Water Beach New Town East strategic sites section 106 update which is similar to what we've just heard so that's 591-622 in our printed pack and Mike hello hello good so Mike do you yes we're looking forward to the update from you thank you chair my my text will be very similar to Kate so what I can say is good progress has been made on the drafting of the section 106 many items have been agreed subject to details we do not have a completion date yet the report is for no team something I wanted to comment on and hopefully Chris Carter can confirm as well I'm pleased to hear that there will be a further period of public consultation on the draft document before it's signed off so it gives myself others and the parish council another chance to input on such a huge scheme yeah chair through you we have agreed to make a more developed draft available for review by the parish and others I don't know if we're quite at that point yet I'm sure Mike will confirm but once we reach that point we're agreed to do that thank you that's correct thank you chair if I can just confirm what Mr Carter said yes so once we've got to the stage where it's ready for people to comment on it because obviously we don't want people to comment on some of this it's not quite finished yet and then when it's ready for them to comment we'll publish it online so we'll be back in a moment good thank you very much and I think that's an exercise of very good practice I think so that's excellent thank you very much good sorry council Peter Payne thank you chair I'm afraid I'm going to take us back to someone who's been under discussion for a long time the first item of course is 30% affordable accommodation I appreciate this subject to viability I wonder if there's any prospect of some conditionality on that such that if it proves subsequently that the viability test was pessimistic let's say it might be possible to raise the extent of affordability as I understood as we approved it this is exactly how we get more affordable housing and this was really well negotiated by housing but that's exactly what our condition was about but Mike you can perhaps elucidate more thank you chair yes so we've got if members will recall we're both thinking about the new town as a whole because that's obviously one of the things that we're trying to look at the whole is that for the eastern half we were thinking more about both sides of the new town have viability process and the western half the viability process is predicated on affordable housing first and then transport second on the eastern half we were looking at transport first and affordable housing second and then with the target being I think for the western half it was up to 40% of affordable housing then additionality would then go on to transport eastern half transport first then affordable housing up to 40% after that so it was balancing two very important strategic elements affordable housing and transport thanks Mike and I think the communications about this we do need to have better communications about it because as it's written here it seems that it's 30% but we all know as we did those negotiations we have multiple briefings on it this is all to get us up to that 40% that's correct chair and the development over this length of time is at least I know Kate talked about Bourne being 27 years for Water Beach who knows the length of time but it's going to be at least 20 years if not more viability appraisers at various stages during that development will deliver more okay and the preferred options were trying to accelerate it on me that's correct yes okay thank you again apologize I meant to mention this with the public consultation so that's like parity with Urban and Civic so I'm pleased to see that both sides of Newtown have been treated in the same way from that point of view at the end of the day it's one whole Newtown not two separate developments okay we go to agenda item 11 which is to revoke a tree protection order on page 623 in the agenda pack this is for TPO 0005 in 1985 10 Burton and West Wickham the proposal is to revoke tree preservation order which is no longer current and the recommendation is to revoke the order it's brought to the committee as we know as happened in previous committee meetings because it's required under the council scheme of delegation I don't think we've got Miriam with us jave good afternoon nice to have you with us thank you I'll just start then yes please can you see my slide yes perfect this item involves tree preservation order number 5 of 1985 located at 10 Burton and West Wickham the order protected one ash tree the tree was failed wind permission given on the 14th of February 2013 due to the poor structural condition of the tree the decision notice is on file there are no outstanding matters relating to this order and we seek to revoke it and remove it from the register thank you so it was approved so it was just a case that this didn't happen within it wasn't audited at the time in terms of a TPO yep so I think thank you that's a rousing cry of a greed there jave so yes you're having a very different day than most here yes that's right thanks for waiting thank you for waiting an indeterminate time thank you for waiting very much good members we go to agenda item 12 which is the enforcement report on page 625 chair that's actually going to be me now oh the enforcement officer has suffered a power cut in his street and it's not proposed to be fixed into our passport so I'm afraid I've got some updates for you that he's sent through from his phone so if you're okay I'll just I'll read these out so with regard to North Stowe and the recent incident of piling on one of the parcels on phase one a temporary stop notice was served on the 21st of September to cease the piling and the enforcement team are currently collating evidence from residents to commence a prosecution due to them being in breach of the notice all works have since stopped in respect of piling Haydenway Willingham a breach of condition notice has been served on the 23rd of September with regard to piling on site again and the meetings being arranged with members and residents as soon as possible Bartlow Road we've obviously spent some time discussing this afternoon and I think the enforcement team will need to consider next steps following the decisions that have been made today and the same with Horseith Burlwash Manor a ddechrau 21.03587 has been submitted for the retention of two pieces of play equipment and the introduction of an acoustic fence and so any enforcement action is now on hold pending the outcome of that application Smithy Fen the report by Ivy Legal has been completed and is currently with Stephen Kelly the joint director for review and Cottage Nursery there's a multiagency meeting taking place tomorrow to arrange and discuss interests for a site visit but also to limit the number of people in attendance of that ones moving forward and finally Whitehall Farm application 2103532 has now been submitted and validated so it's under consideration I'm happy to take a note of any questions but I hope members will appreciate I won't have the answers immediately but happy to report good thank you so we have Catsa Heather Williams first not logged out chair is that working it was just on on my one I sort of had a bit of conflicting that they had submitted an application and in here it says they haven't submitted an application and then I've also got something that says that they submitted an application and it was invalid so could I just get a bit of clarity as to where we're at so obviously not from yourself but from yourself that's fine I might be able to help so the report was obviously originally published on the 8th of September the email from the important officer today says that the application has been submitted and validated so it should now be live which is that one on Whitehall Farm and Catsa Doctor Timmy Hawkins thank you chairman Brwishmana this has been going on and on and on and on the latest is that we've had the prosecution filed drafted and then once complete will be reviewed by legal there's no time frame to this is there an end in sight at all is my question can we be given some time skill please because this is now getting a bit silly I'll take that back chair but just to highlight the update I was given this afternoon is that there's now a planning application for the retention of two pieces of play equipment in the introduction of acoustic fence I don't know if that's the same enforcement issue but in the normal course of events local planning authority would be expected to determine that application first before then proceeding with enforcement action but I will seek an update from the important officer and ask them to come back to you council Hawkins thank you but I think the point here is this enforcement should have taken place ages ago we've been dragging this frankly it is a little Alice in Wonderland hobbit house kind of thing isn't it so can I just say something and please do take this to our enforcement team which is they did act on the horsey throat and they did do a temporary stop and pause and I think that was absolutely necessary and I'd just like to say they don't often hear it thank you thank you for taking action and timely and that has helped in the feedback into what we've been considering sorry there was just one small thing so that's my page 627 I have no idea what it is for yours but it's noticed served just that the village is Croydon rather than the ward so the ward is the warden just something somewhere is slightly awry so it doesn't get carried on to the future 831 631 yes perfect thank you and then appeals a gender item 13 no particular update chair but happy to take any questions got to Richard Williams thank you chair this is just a clarification page 635 grade Abingdon test decisions split we are often split but we usually go one way or the other by majority so the planning inspector have the power to issue a split decision if there are two elements of a scheme which are discernible from one another I'll ask that the decision notice is well it will be on the public file but the planning inspector's decision but otherwise I can get it circulated yeah but not useful to put a bit of detail on but the split needs thank you thank you chair and if you could just ask officers maybe Stephen and Chris to give some sort of clarification how far behind are we still on appeals because the the Appalachia Park at Falmyr still hasn't had a date given and it must be a good it must be about 18 months I mean I know we've had the COVID what sort of time thing are we on now please I don't immediately know the answer to that but you are right that one has been around as long as I have here so I'll see if I can find out I know the planning inspector do you publish the planning inspector do you publish their time frame for decision making for different types of appeals so I'll see if I can find that for you and let you know thank you just on the land at Mill Lane sourced in at the last meeting we had some concerns about room venues and stuff like that I take it that's all addressed and as it stands we're good to go on the 18th of October chair if I may it's in that week but I don't think it's actually on the 18th and as I understand it the appeal will be in one of the sports pavilions at Campbell so I can circulate he tells us that something good okay and with that thank you everybody thank you to all those online if you're still with us thank you everybody in the chamber thank you members and thank you officers