 Y flynyddiad yn gweithio, yn ddechrau, i ni'n gennymраeth leirio ffriffaith yn gweithgwyrd. Wel defnyddio gennymrwyr y Cymru, Ceir y iechyd, Cymru Penthysmu fyddion'r Llyfrgell館ig. Mae ydych chi'n llwyddoch chi'n llwyddoch yn meddwl, ac rwy'n cymdeithio nhw'n gweithio yn ceir. Mae chryfal yn cyfan Rydw i'r cyfriffaith a ddim yn cyfynu'r cynyddu y Llyfrgell wrth hyn yn cyfar o'r cynllun yn y Давgfyn Fyrdd. Those in the chamber are reminded that the meeting is being live-streamed by your present share in the chamber and by a video conference that you are deemed to have consented to be filmed and to use the images and sound recordings for a webcast and an archive recording. May I ask those who are joining us remotely to ensure that their cameras and microphones remain off, unless they are actually addressing the committee. For those of us present in the room, please ensure that your microphone comes close to your body and speak clearly when addressing this room. I'm advised that there will be a brief fire alarm test at 10.30am so we will briefly pause the meeting at that time. For those of us in the Chamber please note that we do not have to leave the building during these tests. If at any time a member leaves the meeting, would they please make that fact known so that it can be recorded in the minutes. Before we proceed with the business on our agenda, I understand that the officers have an update with us for us regarding item 7, Application No. 23, Stroke 01581, Stroke FUL in Horningsey. Michael, could you provide us with the update on the officer's recommendation? Good morning, thank you, Chair. I'm just going to hand to Vanessa Blane, the Council's League Officer, but there is a recommendation from our League Officer that we defer item 7, which Vanessa will elaborate on. Good morning, everyone, Chair, through yourself. I have recommended defer of this application. It came too late that the Section 106 officer had not had the chance to consider the application in common, and if the recommendation of the officer is committee decides not to accept that recommendation, we would need to be around all of the information regarding obligations that would become due on this development as it does exceed a thousand square metres. So my advice would be to defer, allow the officer to consider all of the application, give his comments, and then bring it back before committee for consideration. Members, given the comments, I would like to propose that item 7 be deferred. Do I have a seconder for this? I believe that Vice-Chair may have a comment. I don't really have a seconder as yet. No, okay, okay. Have any opposing proposal? Chair, my view is that where we consider a deferral of an application, we should do so as part of that application. We should not prejudge the discussion by considering a deferral separately and start the meeting. Whilst I'm not opposed in principle to deferral, I think our legal officer gives very good reasons for that. We should come back to this matter at the start of item 7 later on. Do you have any opinions on that from Members? Councillor Batch. Thank you, Chair. I agree with Councillor Ffain on that one. I'd like to fully understand the reasons for the deferral, and if we could do that at the item, I think I'd be more comfortable with that than doing it on the hearth. Thanks. Any other comments? I agree with Councillor Ffain. I think we should discuss it at the time. Do you want to consider it when we consider the meeting? Can we vote in either... First of all, if you vote in favour, you want to consider it... Let's try to put it this another way. Can I have a vote by affirmation if you want to delay it to consider at the same time when we normally be considering item 7? Those in favour of delaying to the time when we consider item 7, please vote yes. Those voting by affirmation, those want to consider it now, vote no. Sorry, this is on the hornings, the application. Obviously, we've gone up to appreciate, apologies for being late. I'm not able to drive yet still because this ankle on my mother-in-law had a fall. The reasons, my understanding on the reasons for refusal is because to do with the 106, so I'm just going to ask for nods, apologies to other members. I appreciate, I probably won't be able to vote because I haven't been in here for the whole thing, but I would say it's not really satisfactory. No, the point is we're delaying and considering whether to defer the application. There's been a recommendation that we defer it, and the question is whether we consider it now or before the actual position where we would normally consider the actual application. And item 7 on the agenda. But I don't see how you can decide this without having everything completed. I know I can't vote, but I can say my view on it. Chair, through you. Councillor Williams, I have advised that the application is deferred, and the committee will decide when they consider that. And it's deferred because we need to take consultation from the section 106 officer. It isn't going to be refused, I know you said refusal. It's no recommendation today. My recommendation and advice is that it's deferred today and not heard in full. When that is discussed, is entirely matter for the committee, that's the reason for my advice. So, to come back, if you're voting, sorry, Council Hall. Thank you, Chair. Point of clarification. There are requests to defer. Now, I suppose it's being considered now because there might be applicants or applicants reps here in the meeting. And if we have to wait until the end or when it comes to depending on how long everything else goes and then defer it, then we would have sat here for nothing. Is that why we are asking for this now? That is, I understand the situation. So, I want to find out where... Okay, can we come back to the point? Those who would like to defer, consider it a matter, when the normal position of item 7 on the agenda, please vote by affirmation in favour. Those who would like to consider it now, please vote against. So, those in favour, can we see how many we are of deferring it, considering it with item 7? Do we need to vote on that? Yes, probably. So, can we do it electronically? To clarify, this is a vote about reorganising the agenda and not whether the application is served. Absolutely. Just thought it could be a little confusing. Okay, we have a... Wait, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... No, there should be more. No, there we are. Okay. We consider it at item 7 on the agenda. Thank you very much. If I may, my understanding of this is this current vote is rather than to take the... Is between taking the decision to defer at this point in the meeting or continuing to item 7, at which point we will revisit the matter of deferral. The vote 4 was suggesting that we take this at item 7. Is that correct? So, I think we might have to... You can change your vote. Okay. Was this clear to members? Members that weren't clear? No. Okay, fine. I thought I made it clear. We'll start... Can we retake the vote then since there seems to be a lack of clarity? Before we take the vote live, are we all now happy with what we are voting on? Yes, thank you. Now, just to repeat again. If you're voting in favour, you're voting to consider the matter at item 7. If you're voting against, you're voted to consider the matter now. Okay. We all understood? Okay. If I go. Two people haven't voted. There was a majority considering deferral now. Okay. So, by 8 votes to 3, the committee has voted to make a decision on the deferral now rather than at item 7. Okay. Can we now go back? Does anybody wish to speak on the motion? We had a second... I was proposing it. Councillor Redrup has seconded it. Do we have anybody speaking? Sorry. Councillor Williams. Hello, Williams. Thank you, Chair. Just before, because I missed the declaration of interest in the relation in the item towards Littlington, I will remove myself. No, but we haven't got a declaration of interest. Oh, my goodness. Well, I've got to clear that anyway. I was ahead of the game. On this, I really don't see how there's any other option than deferral. I think we need to look into and have it really looked into why this wasn't picked up and why we didn't realise as a council at this point because, to be quite frank, we've just had the comical bit of how we were voting just now, but obviously this isn't good for the applicant, the residents or anybody. So, and it does feel like this was something that could have been avoided. So, as I'd quite like to ask that to be looked into, because we are what we are, but lessons need to be learned. But, yes, I will be supporting deferral because there's no way we can determine this without having everything confide and fulfilled with. Thank you. Okay. Now, just to Councillor Wood Bachelor. Thank you, Chair. So, just so I'm absolutely clear on this, the reason we're being asked to defer is should the committee overturn the officer's recommendation of refusal and approve, we don't have the section 106 agreed at this stage, is that correct? That's right. Okay, fine. So, on that advice, I mean, there's no way I'm going to vote to continue with this, I will be voting to defer. But, yes, I mean, it was my understanding that every application that came before us would have had that sorted already. So, you know, I do have some sympathy with Councillor Williams' point that, you know, why are we in this position being asked to defer something when, you know, normal procedure would be, we're not in that state, but we are where we are and I'll vote to defer. Thank you. Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. I guess the question is whether or not this deferral will affect the timing of when the application is actually determined and if we have to ask for an extension of time. Can we have information upon that from the officers? Back through you, Chair. I think Michael has dates, but as I understand it, everyone is going to work extremely hard to bring this back to the March planning committee. Just for clarity for members, I did discuss this with the agent yesterday. It is an unfortunate situation. We have outlined our intentions to consult with the section 106 officer as a matter of urgency and then bring this back to the committee at the earliest opportunity and hopefully March committee for that subject to the response and then discussions on those contributions with the applicant and the agent. In terms of there is an extension of time agreement in place until the 19th of February, I believe. We will obviously liaise with the applicant and agent and ask if they are agreeable to an extension of time to accommodate potentially bringing this back in March. So I confirm we will ask that question, but obviously it's up to the applicant and agent whether or not they choose to agree that with us. Chair, we have already discussed the question of when to consider the deferral. We are considering the deferral now. I will withdraw my earlier objection, the intention to consider it later, and I therefore suggest that we now move to a vote and identify why that should be done by affirmation. Can I have a second to remove the vote? Can we do it by affirmation? All those in favour of deferring? Anybody against? Any abstentions? Thank you very much. Now, thank you members. We have agreed to defer item 7 application 23 stroke 01581 stroke 4. We will now proceed with the rest of the agenda. Item 2 on our agenda is apologies for absence. Lawrence, are there any apologies for absence today? Thank you chair. The one apology for absence today for Councillor Eileen Wilson and Councillor Henry Bachelor have stepped in the substitute today. Thank you. Declarations of interest. Members, we now come to item 3, declarations of interest. Do any members have the interest to declare in relation to any item of business on this agenda? If an interest subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting, please would you raise it at that point. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you chair. So just in relation to item 9 is a property that is opposite my, aren't in law, so it's probably best that I remove myself. I have to figure out what familial connection was there accurately. I would also say that I do think that in future the declarations of interest should be taken first before any other business because had somebody had a declaration in the item that's just been decided that would not have been done publicly and I assume that would have been when I joined the meeting. So I would like to raise that concern as well, chair. Thank you. So if you can, sir, and Jeff Harvey. Thank you, chair. Though I'm the member for Portion Ward, I actually live in Great Abingdon in relation to item 8. I have no knowledge of this so. I would like to declare an interest in item, I forgot the number now, item 6. Orchard Park. I'm not a member for Orchard Park, but I've taken no part in the discussions and I come to this matter refresh. So now the minutes of the previous meeting. I can fall on the agenda is the minutes of the previous meeting. Firstly we had minutes of the meeting held on 17th January up for approval which were published as a supplement on the 13th of February 20th at 4. Given the length of this meeting, the minutes and the fact that they were published yesterday, I would like to give members an opportunity to propose that we defer the review on approval of minutes until the next meeting. Please note that amendments are part of the approval process and a deferral would only be to allow time for further review if necessary. So do any members wish to make amendments to these minutes? Sorry, sorry. Do you want to, sorry, do you want to defer on the one procedure? Would members like to defer? Anybody want to propose it? Heather Williams. I'll second that. Sorry, second. Okay. Can I do this by defer by affirmation the consideration to the next meeting? Read read. Okay, thank you very much. Okay. Sorry, we now come to the design review panel review. The year one of the review of the great Cambridge design review panel and the incorporation of disability consultative panel into the design review panel is being considered. This is an information item and as such is forenoting by the committee following discussion. Treveen Montero is the presenting officer and he will support the matters. Mr Treveen, could you present to us your report? Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Just before I start, I'd just like to introduce my colleagues to yourself. So I'm Treveen Montero. I'm the team leader for built environment for greater Cambridge head planning and to my right I have. Good morning members. I'm Jane Green. I'm the manager for the built natural environment. So all of your specialist officers from the design side of things landscape and ecology through to conservation. To my left. Hi, I'm Russell Brown and the co-chair of the design review panel. Thank you. I've just got a presentation on my screen and just want to pass on my apologies because I can't expand the screen because of some technical glitches in the presentation. But hopefully all members can see the presentation. What I'll do is break my presentation in three parts. The first one is just to take members through a journey of where we are in terms of design review in greater Cambridge and the greater Cambridge design review panel. Talk about the recommendations of the independent advisory group that was set up as for the terms of reference on the one year review of the greater Cambridge review panel and finally talk about the incorporation of the disability consultative panel in the design review function. So firstly what's design review? Design review is a well established way of enhancing the quality of the built environment. It offers multidisciplinary independent and expert advice. It's a critical friend to all parties including local authorities and applicants. It works in the public interest. It is advisory and it gives decision makers like yourself and planners the confidence and information to support innovative high quality designs and resist poor design proposals. It's not the only play in town and it has to be looked at with other tools and expertise that the council has. There are multiple benefits of schemes coming to design review. Some of these are listed here. They offer better design places in terms of outcomes not just in terms of the planning process but actually built outcomes on the ground. It's more collaborative way of dealing with applicants. It results in in our view a faster planning process if things are resolved during these stages. It's an endorsement on some schemes that are highly controversial. It helps fill any skills or capacity gaps that the authority has and it gives confidence to public sector decision makers. At the end of the process we have lots of learnings that come from it. We use design review based on the 10 principles that have been set up in this document to make sure it's fit for purpose. It needs to be independent, expert, multidisciplinary, accountable, transparent, proportionate, timely, advisory, objective and accessible. Within Greater Cambridge we have two panels operating. One is the Cambridge chair quality panel which members might be aware of and this panel looks at strategic sites within south Cambridge chair as well as Cambridge city and the schemes here generally go to the joint planning development control committee. The panel that we are looking at today is the Greater Cambridge design review panel and this is a panel that operates within the Greater Cambridge chair planning service and it looks at schemes in south Cambridge chair as well as Cambridge city and these are the schemes that are looked at by this committee but also by the Cambridge city council committee. Before this panel was in existence we used to have two panels within Cambridge city and within south Cambridge chair and we conducted a review in 2021 to see how we could be more efficient in the way we organized ourselves giving consistent clear advice as part of the Greater Cambridge shared planning service for schemes that came within Cambridge city but also within south Cambridge chair and the outcomes of this review suggested these points was to have one review panel that operated in both areas to pay to use the service which is managed in house, a new pool of panel members with wide expertise in the four Cs and I'll come back to the four Cs. It is independent and advisory but it also has a governance in terms of an independent advisory group that's set up and I'll come to that again later. We pay panel members to ensure that not for their full rate but a honorarium that gives them an incentive to be part of our panel. We have specific referral criteria that is based on significance scale and site. It is aligned with the Cambridge quality charter and there's some synergy between the Cambridge quality panel and this panel in the way we look at schemes across Cambridge and we have a better communication channel in terms of transparency in terms of how things are done within the panel. So I mentioned about the four Cs so the Cambridge quality charter it's been a while since it's set up about two decades ago and it covers the four Cs which are still relevant and is referred to in the national design guide. It's based on community connectivity climate and character and old schemes that are coming to the panel reflect and review these elements in terms of how they respond to these issues. We have three types of reviews, a full design review which costs £4,000, a subsequent design review which is without a site visit which costs £3,500 and then a desktop review which is £2,000. This is a recap of what a review contains. Basically we have now in-person meetings but during COVID it used to be online hybrid. We have meetings on the second and fourth Thursday of each month. One week before an applicant's presentation and case of sub-briefing is sent, conflicts of interest are checked, a pre-meat occurs at the start of every review where case officers brief panel members on the context of the scheme and any planning considerations. A site visit is always held. The meeting format takes the form of a presentation, panel questions, panel discussion and a chair summary at the end. The chair writes a letter with the help of the panel manager which is issued 10 days post the review. Finally, when the letter is sent, we also send survey forms to take feedback from stakeholders. We have got a good back of house process set up on the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning website which takes bookings from applicants for schemes and gives all the information about the panel and how it is conducted. This is the team that we have got. We have got Russell Brown today with us who is the co-chair of the panel. We also have Maggie Baddily who is also the other chair and then we have Simon Kohn who is the vice chair. The panel is managed by Bonnie and Tom who are here today and also supported by Katie Roberts and Brooke Moore. The broad membership of the panel is almost 50-50 so we have half of the membership that are based in the local area and half of it outside but mainly London but it has lots of connections in terms of their work in this area. You can see broadly the break up. Apologies, it's slightly tiny. I'll go through that. 14 architects, 15 conservation specialists, four urban designers, four climate specialists, five community specialists and five connectivity specialists. This is a review that takes into account all facets of the four Cs when we look at schemes and we pick the appropriate panel member based on the scheme that is in front of us. The review, the annual report was produced around September time and broadly it looked at the schemes from January 2022 to June 2023. We reviewed 23 schemes, four schemes came for a second review so a total of 27. The graph below gives a break up of the schemes of the type of schemes that have come between city and south camps. The governance of the review panel. Based on the terms of reference, an independent advisory group was to be set up and is set up and it includes independent chairs which were recruited through a transparent process. Robin Nicholson who chairs the quality panel and Esther Curlyn who is the director of urban design London are the independent chairs and they rotate chairing in the next three years. The lead member for planning is also part of the advisory group for both city and south camps. The chairs of planning committee are also part of this group. The chairs of the greater Cambridge design review panel also sit here and I should say the vice chair as well and then the senior officers of the greater Cambridge shared planning service. As for the terms of reference, the independent chairs in consultation with the joint director of planning make recommendations to adjust working practices to ensure the effectiveness of the panel. The independent advisory group met on 19 September 2023 and made the following recommendations to apply the four Cs of the framework of the Cambridge quality charter in a flexible manner and limit the number of questions from the applicant to chair the panel more effectively with the chairing spread between the chairs and vice chair, a private briefing session with planning officers after panel meetings, update the the chairs and vice chairs on the outcome of planning applications so they are in in touch with what happens to the application post the review. Applicants and planning officers explain through their design and access statement and their planning officers report how this theme has evolved post going to the design review panel, expand on the design review service to other local authorities as we are getting interest from neighbouring authorities to do design review for them, acknowledge the expansion of the membership to include more expertise in sustainability, biodiversity and accessibility due to the merger of the DCP but also the lack of the number of specialist in sustainability and biodiversity within the panel and finally to have an annual meeting of the greater Cambridge design review panel and the Cambridge quality panel to share best practice and experiences of review. The next bit is the incorporation of the disability consultative panel within the greater Cambridge design review panel. Some members may be aware that there is a disability consultative panel that is run in the greater Cambridge planning service which focuses on the accessibility of significant applications. It's made up of people that have different disability or have cared for people with disability. It's been operating from 1999 in Cambridge City Council but only recently since the shared service has been in place it's also operating within South Cams District Council. Old schemes that go to the disability consultative panel also go to the design review panel. The panel has been running for a while and there was a need for a review to look at arrangements in place to ensure that we are being efficient and effective in our working practices again to provide a consistent advice across South Cams and City to ensure that there was a consistency of attendance for members because this was not always the case, to develop resilience in terms of officers managing that service if they went on annual leave or were off site, ensure that the service was cost-neutral. The benefits of incorporating the disability function in the greater Cambridge design review panel were to streamline the processes within the service to make sure that existing resources are delivering value for money for both councils, make it easier for applicants not to go to two different panels but actually come and get the advice in one panel, enabling disability access and inclusive access, inclusive design comments to be discussed together with other disciplines so that they can be looked at in the round and a balanced reasoned situation can be reached out by the chairs. Recovering the cost of administering the service benefits from professional expertise, back of house management governance, comms processes of the existing greater Cambridge design review panel. The one element that the new system would lack is the lived-in experience that I've mentioned that the existing panel members bring. In order to tackle this we have suggested the creation of an accessibility forum to meet with greater Cambridge shared planning service once every quarter where the existing DCP members but also new members can provide insight on various initiatives, guidance and strategies that the council may deploy to educate, advocate and improve disability issues across greater Cambridge area. The next steps really for the disability function to be incorporated within the greater Cambridge design review panel are finalising the equality impact assessment that we are currently involved with in conversation with the equality officers of both councils, amending the terms of reference of the greater Cambridge design review panel to make it explicit that it will cover accessibility, inclusive design and disability, recruiting new panel membership together with the other specialisms that I've mentioned earlier on. There's no reason why existing members of the DCP cannot apply to become experts. Amending our back-of-house processes to ensure when applicants present to us they also understand that they need to present issues of disability to be looked at. Hold a thank you event to express our gratitude to the members that have given their time voluntarily over the years and finally to establish an accessibility forum for members who wish to continue and new members to come together to meet every quarter. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions? Councillor Harvey. Just on the schedule of charges, I was surprised that we are offering the middle price, I think that was $3,500 compared with $4,000 including a site visit for $3,500 not because as this is mainly applied to significant developments, I would have thought that the benefit that you would get in terms of informing the report that comes out of the process would benefit hugely from a site visit. I suppose the other thing is that if I would develop a £500 is quite a small amount of money, so therefore having that option would sort of risk the perception that the developer had not chosen a site visit because it would have revealed something that the developer would feel uncomfortable about having that application viewed in the context of information that you would be in from a site visit. Can I just provide a clarification on that? All schemes that come for a first review to the design review panel have to go for a site visit. It's the second time schemes that come on the second time because members have already been to the site once, then that's when the second review is taken into consideration. Sorry, I was going to say yes. Perhaps just to clarify, what we've tried to do, we're trying to front-line the process, so we're actually asking applicants to go to design review quite early on before they've got fixed views, so generally speaking we're trying to encourage them to go twice. We know that's not always happens and the reason we're trying to do that is come early, talk to us, get those guidance, but also come a second time, so that final report when it's done, so when it comes to you as members at planning committee, you actually have a report for the latest scheme that has, how it's developed and you can see that because one of the concerns previously was sometimes it had only been once and then members were getting an actual scheme with a report because of this report come to you as decision makers and it didn't quite tally with the scheme that you were now seeing because that scheme had evolved, so there's now an encouragement. Obviously it's all discretionary, we can't insist applicants, but generally speaking it's been well received, people are using the service and it's covering costs etc, but that's why we've introduced these two stages and the difference obviously is without that site visit, but it's assumed it has had that first visit, first big meeting with the site visit. Okay, councillor Richard Williams. Thank you very much chair, thank you very much for the presentation of the report, which was very detailed and must have taken quite a lot of work to put together, so thank you for that and thank you obviously to all the members of the panel for the work that they do. We've got a few questions and a couple of comments. In the papers we were given, in the annual report, it's a small point, but some information has been redacted, so some of the names of the schemes that have been reviewed have been blocked out and then we go a little bit further, so it's page 26 of the bundle that I've got, the printed bundle. It's paragraph 6 of the annual report. The finance figures have been redacted, which I thought was a bit odd, so it says it illustrates the panel's fees and expenses, but then all of the figures have been taken out, so we can't actually have any idea really about how the resources are sort of operating, so I don't know why that was done. I think for councillors it's quite important that we would see those figures, even if under pink papers it struck me as a significant redaction. In terms of the disability panel, I do have some concerns about folding that in. The report says that members of the existing disability panel will be invited to apply to become design review panel members, but under the terms of reference they wouldn't qualify because, or I'm sure most of them wouldn't qualify because under paragraph 8 of the terms of reference, if I can just find that, it says that the panel will be made up of internationally recognised experts in a number of listed fields, so there's no provision in there for lay members, so is the proposal to change the terms of reference such that lay members without, you know, these internationally recognised expertise or whatever professionals in the field are involved, so the people who don't need that could apply from the panel. I do slightly worry about the forum, that's quite remote from actual planning applications, I mean that's obviously useful, but meeting quarterly as a forum to discuss policies is very remote from the sort of nitty gritty that you might get and insights into actual planning applications, so there might be, I would slightly worry that there might be insights, we could lose there, so a bit more information on how precisely people from the panels could apply and qualify and what steps would be taken to ensure that we don't lose those insights on actual planning applications would be handy. There was just one other broader point and that's about lay membership more generally, now obviously this panel is deliberately composed of experts and obviously we need experts on particular things, sustainability and that kind of thing, so obviously we need a lot of expert input here, but I would just like to raise the issue of having more general lay input into this panel, particularly when it comes to general questions of the aesthetics of design, because I think there are, you know, different opinions about the sort of aesthetics of design and I know many of us on this committee sometimes have concerns, doubts about the sort of, the design of things that we're given and there's, you know, it's a bit like having a police judging the police, you've got, you know, an experts in design judging the work of other experts in design, you don't have any external input and I think external input actually from some more general lay members on, you know, obviously they can't give input into, you know, technical questions of design of sustainability policy potentially, but some lay input into general questions of design I think would be useful and broadened out at the base of the panel, so I'd like to raise that as something that might be considered in the future to broaden out the membership of the panel. Can I come back on those three points? I think the last one first, so within the design review framework and the 10 principles that I mentioned at the start of my presentation, this panel is set up to provide expert independent advice and the scrutiny of that advice can be held up at appeals, can be, you know, taken up in confidence by officers, by decision makers like yourself. The consultative panel is a community based panel that consists of people with lived in experience, so they're quite two different things. What we're trying to do is provide the disability expertise within the design review function, so to keep it as an expert panel, but with the accessibility and inclusive design expertise. In terms of, you know, you're right, in the terms of reference it says that experts, you know, international I think would be great, but experts nonetheless in the terms of reference. But some of the disability panel members are members of REVAL for example, and so people who of the panel who are, who have expertise of disability and also members of REVAL, RTPI, et cetera, you know, can apply to become a member of this panel. So that's the way we see actually that membership application working. In terms of the remit of the existing DCP, of the accessibility forum that we are trying to quote, you know, we still need to formulate exactly the terms of reference for that, and you know, quite happy to hear thoughts from members in terms of what they should do. You know, we've attended quite a few sessions ourselves. One of the things that keep coming is recurring themes, so you know, they keep discussing similar themes, you know, accessibility to toilets, to bedrooms in houses, and bedrooms in the ground floor, et cetera. So there are recurring things that keep being surfaced up, and I think one of the advantages of doing what we are suggesting is that that frees up the membership time to do much more other work, like campaigning, and you know, for example, there was this issue of accessibility to pubs recently in Cambridge, and they could be doing more advocacy and dealing with issues in that way. So the outreach could be much more significant in the options, rather than being very restrictive to just looking at planning applications. In terms of the reduction issue, I mean, because these papers are in a public forum, you know, we haven't put these figures out there because we are thinking of expanding our service commercially to go to other local authorities, and because of the commerciality of those issues, we have redacted those schemes, the commercial information. We have redacted the information on some planning applications because of confidentiality issues because they are still pre-apps, and they have not become full applications. Once schemes become full applications, then we are happy to release the names of those schemes. Do you wish to come back on that? Thank you, Chair. Just very briefly, thank you for having me to come back. Just on the disability panel, I mean, I probably used the wrong word, but it sounds like to get on this panel you're going to have to have professional qualifications, and I kind of think, you know, you're an expert on something by living with a condition, and that makes you an expert even though you might not have membership of professional organisations. So that's my worry, is that we're going to lose people who are experts because they have to live with it day in, day out, but they're not a member of REBA or whatever, so I am concerned about losing those people. I mean, just on what general aid membership, I completely understand that it is meant to be an expert panel. I suppose the problem I feel, and I'll just make a plea really, as an ordinary planning committee member, is the difficulty we have is we get it, and this panel has been through the design review panel, so they think it's great. So you've really got no basis, in fact, to turn it down. So actually, we don't really have the ability to say, no, we don't like it, gone, because they'll appeal, and they'll say, well, the design review panel thought it was great, and the inspector will say, yes, there was no evidence for the district council to review it. So if we can get some more aid membership in at some point in this, I think it will be helpful, but I will stop there. Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to come back. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Councillor Toomey Hawkins. Councillor Toomey Hawkins, sorry. I don't know. Have you already spoken of? Yes. No, Councillor Heather Williams. I'm sorry. Thank you, Chair. I would hate to jump in front of Councillor Hawkins. Very uncounsel-like. We don't have parliamentary uncounsel-like. So I have a few questions on the report. First of all, just, this could be an error, but on page 24, for some reason, the panel chair has been highlighted. I didn't know if that was for a specific purpose, or whether that was, and it's something that you might want to just take out the document if it's an error. But equally, the source and application, I must admit, when I read through it, it wasn't a glowing endorsement of the process. If we look at page 25, that chair's word disappointingly in it from the panel. I was led to believe in this bit that it just means, as Councillor Richard Williams has said about the frustrations we have as committee, sometimes things have gone through the panel, so you can't have a difference of opinion. And yet, we can see on the other side, there's also dissatisfaction from the panel as well, that they're not being taken on board. So it does feel like it's slightly disjointed here and some work needs to be done. If there's something in particular about the source and application that officers would like to clarify on this, I'd be more than happy to hear it. Also, I do have concern about the redaction. Normally, as councillors, if there is something that's commercially sensitive, we would be given, I think, a papered version of which we would go into closed session if we wanted to discuss the figures. But right now, as it stands, I'm being asked to note something which I actually do not have all the information for, same with the applications. So I think this could have been done differently. I accept it's commercially sensitive, but there is a middle way and I'd ask officers to consider that going forward. On page 29 on the improvements, it says planning officers require training about the material weight of the DRP. I think that kind of goes as well into what's been said previously. I think what would be really helpful is a clear distinction when this goes to panel of what is technical and what is subjective. So something around biodiversity, disability, to a certain extent, that's technical and I think it's great. We need to make sure that all buildings are disability friendly. I remember when it can have quite a bad impact, for example, even just how the noise of hand dryers, so my, there's many members know, my daughter in her first years was wearing hearing aids, she still to this day has, will tense, because imagine it's a huge sound going in to their ears, microphoneed, when they're one or two. It's actually quite a traumatic experience using public toilets in that situation. So I'm awful, including it more, but I think it does need to make sure that it's got a wide range because there are so many forms of disability, some of them that people just wouldn't even know. So don't be shy in broadening that out, I think is a plea there. But I think, I have sat here frustrated in the past and I'm sure it's not ideal for planning panel members when they've sat there and done the piece of work and everything and then committee does what they do. So I do think there is a piece of work that needs to be done to really try and balance this and make it really clear because whether a building is beautiful is so subjective. We've had it ourselves, landmark, landmark for some reason, nearly every developer we've seen thinks that just means tall and big and large. And that is incredibly frustrating because actually it's the smaller buildings that quite often can have the more character and be more landmark in themselves. So I do feel that it's a positive thing that we have it, but equally it does come as a bit of a double-edged sword sometimes for committee members and I think a lot of work needs to be done to address that which I don't see in the recommendations. I think there are so many points there we'd ask to answer and respond to those now please. We've got so many here points in this one that I think perhaps you'll be good at responding. So I'll certainly make a start. So apologies in terms of how we presented it, lesson learned about you wanting to see that information, happy to share that outside of this. I think probably we took the view that it's just information items, perhaps we didn't need to do that but we will absolutely do that in future and happy to share outside of the meeting. In terms of being a double-edged sword and I suppose this is but one of the tool that we as the planners have or you as a committee have what this we try and encourage applicants to go at a pre-app stage. This sits alongside community engagement and all the other discussions that happen. So although this morning we're focusing very much on this one tool that you have available to your members it is but that. So for example if members I mean obviously there are technical things that need to be looked at and you've obviously mentioned things in your comments Councillor Williams. Design and aesthetics is not necessarily one of the things that that absolutely can be subjective and those are the sorts of things that can be discussed through the communities about what are the expectations. Generally design what we're trying to look at is the context and actually what's appropriate and looking at for example does the place function, is there good accessibility, have they left enough land for landscaping and for biodiversity etc. So those are the things that the panel will predominantly look at, stylistic things about perhaps the appearance and that side of things. Yes there's a view for community and that and there's but there's a process that sits alongside this. This isn't the only element, the only process. It'd be useful just to get Russell's being called Russell's the chair of the Padlock and his experience. I think I've been a panel, I'm the chairman of Hackney and set it up because he's well used to live there for about 15 years so very much our understanding and my personal understanding is we are absolutely part of a democratic process and as an architect my taste might be very different from yours but you have the final say and that we are very very conscious that we in some ways are technocrats to help you and I think it is difficult this whole thing of going to appeal and where that sits in all this process but the majority of time we'd be defending you by pointing out technical errors. We do try as James explained often we'd be saying look you just haven't got enough landscaping here it's much more general and we're pretty careful about saying I like it because it's got a picture for it hasn't and so and often they'll be disputed within there'll be more than one architect on the thing and there are classical architects and there are vernacular architects and often the the taste will be spread and will be varied so we do take it very seriously that one you have the final say and that we're there to support we are briefed in advance by the planning officers and then we're now talking about you know having a debrief afterwards so I think so I think we it's much more about the quality of things that people aren't doing landscaping aren't making it accessible aren't thinking about sustainability and that's one of the good things about the four C's actually we try to spend an equal amount of time on community and connectivity and on climate and actually character is often it's a bit pushed to the back dealing with you know the problems of the planet so I think we take that very seriously and I think we we really try very hard not to let montage which might be very different from yours you know and allow that to be in our reports and I think we'll reflect on that I think the one thing going back on the disability um there is there is a bit of an issue that particularly if we're dealing early with a scheme there won't be the detail about how wide doorways are or the real nitty gritty so I do think that's something we have to make sure and we don't schemes in Cambridge and we go to the disability part and the discussion is about height of switches for lifts ramps colour even and things like that and so that's in real detail it's probably can't really be covered at DRP where we're dealing with bigger bigger problems but I think one thing that is really good quite early on is we attempt to look about how accessible the design is is it legible if you're in the car park can you tell where the entrance is does it feel safe so I think the accessibility in a broader way less technical and maybe more about how understanding or user friendly that's a good word um is I think that's very important and I think maybe we could shift the disability discussion to those bigger things a final thing is I hate you I refuse to use the word landmark as well um I hate seeing it and lots of poor schemes claim to be landmarks so I'm as sensitive to that phrase as you are well overused and I try not even for myself I would never use it it's a very dangerous overused phrase I agree thank you uh thank you for the responses and I think that's really interesting actually to hear from yourself about how panels try to be really careful on that because it does feel very much sometimes that we're told oh but it's been through the design enabling panels so you you can't really object on design so I think perhaps that last um bit about planning officers and I I don't want to just make this officers I think planning committee members as well you know we're all part we're all decision makers in this process so I don't want to sort of just shift blame on to the officers I think it should be planning officers and and councillors um I'd suggest all councillors because we'll have local members involved in this process as well um to require training about the other ways of it I think that's something that we need to do together um but I didn't get an answer on Sourston chair uh yeah so what we did in the report is put one or two examples of actual real schemes that I've been to the panel and asked the chairs to comment on their experience of that and you know there are positive experiences and there are things that we learned from um and in that response you know there is there is both there and so the aim of the exercise is not to say oh everything's empty dory within the service um there are things for example that's highlighted for example um how planning officers um are writing the report in the planning officers report and how panel's comments have been taken or not taken on board and that's something that we are quite conscious and we are aware of and we need to do more training on that with officers to provide advice on exactly how um panel's views are captured in planning officers report and have clear to members in to arrive at that decision thank you so the the other thing I was wanting to add is that you know having established this new combined panel for both Cambridge and Southcams what we've deliberately done is put in a very formal review process every year so actually there will be this you know what we've done now is we will do again another year to see how it's improved I think going forward there will also be an emphasis on the outcomes on the ground at the moment we're only a year in so obviously the schemes that it's considered are still there in planning or haven't quite yet started on site um so there is learning going on but we've set up this in this way so we can have that learning process the other thing one of the other points was members said they wanted to get to know panel members they ought to understand a little bit more so hence we've been in Russell having so this will come on an annual basis and again we're happy to have feedback so if you need more information less information that point about training and joint training is something we'll take back so all those are the information item for you members it's really helpful to hear what you need from us and from your office and from the panel so we can work on that and that will continue to evolve and likewise the point about disability and whether we've got that that will be picked up another year's time to say well has it worked or not um so you know it will continue to be you know evolving and learning as we go through one final point for me is you know the reviews that we are currently doing um lots of those have not caught a determination in terms of the application some have caught but even between determination and things being built in a text of few years to do that and the intention is you know on a periodic basis we do like a yearly annual site visit and we'll invite members as well for that to see the schemes that we have looked at and how they are performing on the ground. Councillor Tumi Hawkins sorry for the delay. Thank you chair that's that's absolutely fine um I just want to say first of all thank you very much to Russell for for being here with Maggie for chairing the design panel and obviously also Tom and Bonnie for how they've managed it it's a lot of work that goes in this and I declare I have been an observer on some of them so I know exactly you know um what what goes on there um just if I can sort of start with the bit about the training um certainly will be useful um for not just the lead members of the planning committees but planning committee members to be observers on some of these because that's the best way to actually see how it works and what goes into it and how the issues are discussed and the balance that is reached. Now what what I think we do currently now have the um the final report is part of the paperwork when an application comes to committee because I've seen that and what I tend to do is go and look at the urban design comments compared to what is in the committee report oh sorry the design report and that way that gives me a feeling of just how well the applicant has used the information that was given or the advice given by the design panel to improve their design so there's ways in which we can do that I just want to be sort of you know point that out but you know thanks very much for the information we've we've had so far and I'm glad to hear all the comments that have been made because all we're trying to do is improve the planning service that we gave to residents of city and south camps and this is just one of those ways in which we do that um page 22 uh the paragraph that says on some occasions we've got um we've had cancellations late cancellations which means the slot is lost bearing in mind we already have a situation where there's more applicants than we've got the time to do to you know to um to have the service isn't there something we can do to ensure that we don't have this late I know late cancellations you know may happen it's life but perhaps there's a way in which we can prevent that happening or have a just in case something maybe something we can look at please um and the next point was going to be sorry I've got it all on um there's on page 26 something about some developers having little awareness of the design guide I'm not sure what you mean by that maybe we can um so the fourth bullet point on the wider impact of the panel um also sorry page page 30 um the top half second to the last bullet point some parameters appeared to lack knowledge on local plan policies and neighbourhood plans I think you've left out village design guides we shouldn't forget those they're very important I know that you know it's and that's the sort of the the lowest level that people can see please um I've talked about having just not just lead members of planning committees observing that's page 31 all all members I think should have an opportunity to actually um sort of observe what's going on um I think I'll leave it there a lot of what I was going to say has been said but thank you very much to everyone who's who's been involved and hopefully we'll see things improve going forward thank you are you expecting responses they seem to be more comments than than questions do you have any particular point you want I don't have questions it's just you know just making comments as I said you know I I tend to be privileged in that I've had I've seen it I've seen it work um cancel the next semester thank you chair and everyone for the interesting answers I was just wondering about the integration of the disability consultative panel and whether that had any possible implications of perhaps fewer projects being assessed for the disability accessibility because you're moving from a free service to a paid for service which wondered if that'd been considered um so we've done a bit of work to look at the schemes last year that the disability panel had seen and what we've found is basically the same number of schemes that have gone to the disability panel have also gone to the design review panel so design review panel is a paid service um we're not asking to pay any more um for also adding the disability service so it's all coming as one package what we're just making you know we're absorbing in in effect the cost of that uh because it's no additional work necessary for us except the front cost of setting it up so you know we hope you know that there wouldn't be any impact as a result of that um thank you uh councillor Peter Fane thank you chair um let me echo what councillor Hawking said I've found it extremely helpful personally to have Russell Brown here and we're sure in tune to know the um the relationship between the panels and this committee um I think we're all faced with the fact that rather more of the decisions we have to take are tend to be subjective if we're looking at the inclusion of beauty uh whilst there is a objective assessment of that it is inevitably rather more subjective and I think one of the things that is very important is that we don't have a variation of views between the experts on the panel and ourselves as committee members who come to this as lay members whatever we may think our own expertise may be um on the question of lay input I I do feel it's important that that is primarily a role for this committee but I accept the point that councillor Richard Williams made earlier on that it is very important that um those who have lived in experience of disability don't feel that because they may or not be RABO members or whatever they're less valued than before and I'm sure that's something that can be taken into account in taking this forward but I'm conscious of the fact that those may not be questions and our role here is merely to note this report thank you um I have a comment too in terms of the disability aspect of it um I would while I accept the need for lay lay input and lay experience and lived in experience um disability is a very individual thing uh there's uh I mean I I've got a mentally handicapped child he has problems they're not to do with wheelchair access but there are other problems like councillor Heather Williams the different responsibilities and that's why it is important I think to have expert the importance of expert advice people who've studied a wide range of of problems to take into account and the various different ways that different disabilities can can impact upon uh on on the building so I think it is it is important to have expert advice lived in experience will already be individual related to an individual's personal problems um and they're very they felt very strongly but they you can't just rely upon that so I think that I just want to emphasize that point um but um that's so there there we are um have we any other comments for the report uh councillor Jimmy Williams thank you um I think okay don't worry about it I think at one point we is there the option of having the chair of the panel attend a quality meeting for more difficult or sensitive applications can we make is that something that we can have we don't have to be here physically they can I mean I mean there is precedent but I think over here we haven't considered that but we can take that away and come back because obviously if members have you know specific issues or questions then they'll put in use there for them to ask um thank thank you Eddie councillor Heather Woods I would just second that proposal because like we have highways officers on hand and others but particularly when you the the panel is probably being sort of relied on as that technical evidence and on larger sites or these small ones to be fair quite sensitive and that would definitely just be a good thing and also I think it would provide more transparency because I think for when we have sort of an approval and we have residents that are opposed to it and then they hear of this panel that is just is sort of faceless somewhere else and we're being told that you know oh we've got to it'd be I think it would just benefit everybody to know no no not share the blame at all but it it would just help to sort of humanize the process because rather than and rather than it sort of precedes this sort of top-down authority that has his iron grip on committee which I sometimes the way that we and all of us the way we discuss it you can't really blame them for thinking it um so yeah I think that would help give some transparency to it come back on on a couple of points really one just to mention I think you know certainly all that you're saying is quite relevant and useful one of the things we just do need to bear in mind that you know the chairs and the design review is here as an advisory and shouldn't be replaced you know or seen as a tick box to say the scheme should go ahead so just to bear that in mind and the other point I think last time when we had a similar conversation with city councillors I think they were of a different view to yourself so we just need to take it very different and it's all our differences which make us stronger together yeah but I think you've you've even got cross party support for this one so run with it we'll take it back and give some thought to that whether it's you know whether it's all applications are certain ones we can give some thoughts about certainly okay I think we come to the oh councillor Hawkins and then I think we'll I just want to finish we can just hear another maybe last words from Russell Brown okay the DRP feel very much that you're making the decision I'm a bit worried you seem to take it far more seriously than I thought you did so I'm a bit taken aback by how powerful we are because I hadn't perceived that I think there's two things to say one is to think it is very well organised and that there's an amazing amount of effort by the Cambridge team to look after us and get us in and out of taxes but also the paperwork and everything and I do sit on other committees and they are not as well organised so you should be thanking everybody who's here and Bonnie and Katie and all the other people and Joanna who's finished now I think the one point that just to answer one of the questions is that it is it is quite difficult at committee so a DRP might have had months before you actually see a scheme and a lot of change might have happened in dialogue with the officers so I think for us as sitting on the other side of the table it is only best practice I mean I guess to try and put it in the best light but to actually run through the comments that the DRP made and actually to point out how the scheme has developed in that view so that should be coming in the final design and design statement and if not it you know not to put more work on the officers but for the officers to say look this was three months ago and these things have changed or for you to be able to ask that question so it is quite tricky and as soon as pointing out you can often be it so wait a minute there's all these comments from the DRP and you're looking at quite a different scheme and that how you compare in any technical terms I think that's quite an important factor thank thank you very much now we we come to the recommendation now the officers recommend that the south campish district council planning committee knows the recommendations made by the ret independent advisory group about the GC DRP and how these will be taken forward the incorporation of disability consultancy panel into the existing GC DRP and establishment of an accessibility forum thank you thank you very much thank you very much for your contribution and uh we'll re-note that forward now I think it's now time for a break we'll come back come back at half past 11 for the next item on the agenda very much to welcome back to the south Cape to district council planning committee we're now the considering application number 22 stroke 01632 stroke ful auto part parcels com 4 n l 2 top of streets auto park it's an appart proposal for an apart hotel on a hotel with additional mixed use facilities including the erection of a building above a basement car parking landscaping and other associated works the application is being reported to committee as it raises special planning policy or other considerations the key issues are design and character transport and transport and parking and mini t impacts the site was visited on the 7th of February 2024 the officer recommendation is to approve subject conditions in a section 106 agreement Michael Hammond is a presenting officer thank thank you very much uh mike or could you uh present the application thank you chair um so as you mentioned the application is for an apart hotel slash hotel so it'll be an 80 bedroom apart hotel element and then 137 beds in the hotel element uh it also includes mixed use facilities um such as conference facilities gym swimming pool um restaurant facilities within it as well as landscaping car parking and other associated works so here is the site location plan so it immediately abouts the top street play area to the west is nil drive and members may recall there was an application discussed leaves a few months ago at this committee that I also brought um that was refused then to the east you've got properties on engledo drive to the south of properties on top street and then to the north is the boundary with the a14 and this just shows that bit more zoomed out and in aerial view um so it's one of the last remaining parcels you can see another parcel being developed over here for example um remaining at orchard park in terms of constraints there aren't too many to note the green belt is the other side of the a14 to the north the site lies in policy allocation ss1 um which is a major development site it's part of the wider orchard park area members will note there is a design guide that covers the orchard park area the parcel forms part of comfor not the entirety of the pass as I mentioned that the western end isn't part of this application is this eastern portion here of comfor just showing some extracts from this document um terms of constraints and opportunities um there is obviously the noise associated with the a14 um there is for example routes going through the site as well as key views and vistas and this is showing where the back of the development would be adjacent to engledo drive and then these are the design principles so as mentioned there would be there's a design principle for a pedestrian um public realm link going through here um there'll be this open space element and this is a rough indication of how development might be um orientated with an active frontage on the southern end and then this is just marking the um possible noise tenuation through architectural design so I won't read these all out but in terms of the site specific design criteria the next slide would be more useful but things to note for example is 15 meters building height for the primary block on the site and then that goes down to 12 and nine meters for other buildings um but it's probably easier if I show this slide to illustrate that visually so again lots of landscaping um outside the front with a route going east to west um and again showing that um suggested sort of airflow routes to try and eliminate some of the air quality impacts associated with the a14 for example but it seemed like that a 15 this area here would be where the the largest element would be and then you'll note at the bottom here is an indicative section showing distances from the noise barrier how the public open space work and if it was a 12 meter building how it would be laid down and they had distance of roughly 23 to 24 meters from that noise barrier uh there's quite extensive site history across Orchard Park um but of the most relevance is this one which is a 2016 outline application it was originally 2014 it was then a variation of conditions but ultimately the same scheme um for 82 part slash hotel units again with restaurant and gym facilities and a ground floor surface area car park around the sides of it um and this is showing so it would have been around 19 and a half metres high this was the previous scheme and this is a visualization from the documents provided with that just to give you an idea of what that would have looked like so moving on to what's proposed in front of us um it is a say a part hotel hotel scheme with open space near the front adjoining the top of street play area so i'll go for the floor plans which will help illustrate which bits of which that moment is obviously not labelled in here but there would be a car park where there is an entry level at ground floor and then there is also a ramp that leads up to the mezzanine level which then has a ramp going down onto neal drive so you come in off top of street here and then you would go down onto neal drive there um but yeah lots of public realm and it would generally follow a linear route in terms of east west how the actual building is laid out but that will become clear in the following slides and it's roughly 22 and a half to 24.7 metres from the acoustic barrier i say roughly because you'll note the acoustic barrier does um curve slightly so so starting at the bottom um there is a basement level which includes a cinema sort of screen area here for the conference facilities um as well as some other facilities at the ground floor level this is showing there'll be a swimming pool above at the upper level and there's also some toilets and changing areas down here for example at the ground floor try to mark on this legend what different areas are so the main entrance from the ground floor with the combination of restaurant bar public areas um by your receptions so generally speaking the western end will be where the apart hotel is so this will be the main entrance into the apart hotel and at the east this will be the main entrance the hotel element coming through here you've got that swimming pool and gym and then as I mentioned before is parking at the back and the sides uh back of house where bins will be kept for example is in this sort of left hand corner here with the intention that uh bin lorries would collect and servicing would happen on this new drive turning head where you can see the lorries marked there for example moving up there's what's called the mezzanine level so immediately above this ground floor which is where you see this divide this sort of red line indicates the divide so you've got co-working at first floor level and then at the western end you've got where the apart hotel what's called long stay starts and then there's more recreational facilities above that gym and you'll see again more car parking which is accessed by the ramp and then above that at first floor um this is where the more firm divide comes in eastern free blocks so what a cd and e are where the hotel the short stay would be and at the western end a where the long stay would be there will be um outdoor um biodiverse roofs of terraces for example for the main biodiverse roof element will be on this eastern end with this area being able to be publicly accessed and going up through the floors um at this point there aren't any terraces coming up the second floor but the same layout which I'm going to detail the rooms was continues upwards and then once you get to the four floor level this is where the outer blocks of block e and a um when you go for the elevations later aren't as high so they're a story lower than the uh free central blocks and then this is just showing what would be technically the fifth floor um of the free central elements and the roof of the others so mainly for plan and accessing that and again just showing the roof of the free central blocks with pv panels for example there as I mentioned access in terms of vehicle access is from this end on top of street here the exit onto neal drive there will also be um pedestrian access sort of going east to west through the site as well as connecting into the existing top of street play area and then it's just a landscape master plan of how they might be laid out obviously there's conditions relating to landscape but principally this would be where most of for example the tree planting would be um there'll be a small play area to the west over here so going on to the elevations so it's yeah approximately 22 and a half to 24.7 meters from that barrier on the A14 but you'll see where I was mentioning the this is so the north is looking from the A14 if you would so again much of this won't be visible because it'll be behind the barrier but it's um steps down on the outer edges with the roof plan also set in from the edge and then this east view is largely what will be visible from those engordeau drive properties to the east but you'll see that um it's stepped away so you've got the first part here and then it gradually comes up and then that stepped away and then this is the sort of principal elevation the southern elevation this red outline is where the previous hotel permission um what the massing of that was broadly and you can see so this is from the south and then this is looking from the west so the main entrances will be at the ground floor here and here in terms of materials will be a mixture of uh different brick types um trying to mirror what's being done on marmalade lane for example and copper cladding for example at the higher levels with the rooftop plan so looking at a wider site elevation I've tried to mark on here hopefully it's legible the different heights of the other um either approved developments or existing developments on this part of orchard park so starting at the left so ffirmas west you've got the trampolodge hotel which has highest point that's about 14.5 meters then there's the 2019 permission for um land west of nildrive which is 15.35 meters the proposed scheme would be 24.4 meters at the highest points so these are these three roofs that are set back and 21.1 on this outer edge angle though dry properties around 11 meters and then you've got these um flats further east that are 14.9 so there's two um what called verified views which the landscape and urban design team requested so this top image is how it looks currently so looking westwards from top of street at the side this middle image is um it as in if it was built what it would look like year one so to speak so you can see this additional massing up here and then this bottom image is at year 15 so if the street tree planting um plants already there grow what the impact of that would be in terms of those views and then this is the other verified view so this is looking from the north um across the lake uh from the guided busway so again top where you can currently see travel lodge for example the building here um this pink that is outlining the permission adjacent as i mentioned and then this is the proposed development in here and again we're at year 15 so with more the trees being more grown how that would look so just going through some indicative views so this is CGI of how it would look and then from ground level so looking from the southeast across the existing play area if you're standing in front of the play area how it would look and then just moving around the sort of landscaped area so these are some sort of longer distance CGI sort of modelling that's been done so looking for example from Stanley Avenue how it'd infill this gap and from central avenue in here and then been closer at top of street and then somebody looking from Neil driver tip and then the east end of top of street and then these are some much longer distance ones um so looking from the east where the black is where the new uh proposed development will be and then this is just what that view from the guide busway would look without the planting and anything else in the way so there was an update sheet done there was one note um it was to do with primarily the section 106 figures there was a reference of 1.2 to there only being two design naming panel meetings but that should be free as I'm set out in 9.17 but the updates relate to the financial contributions towards outdoor sports and green infrastructure um essentially the figure needs to be revised down uh as per the section minus six officers request because let's agree that an apart hotel doc can see rate is about 78% in terms of what you'd usually have 100% occupancy for a fully residential scheme so essentially those figures need to be brought down in addition I should note those two figures that were in the table in 9.96 I think were wrong it should have been a lower figure to start with so my apologies um there's also um a bit more of a minor point but originally the table just said public access to gym but it should be the gym and swimming pool which is what I've said later in my report as well so apologies for that so before I get to playing balance I'll just let members know we do have tam parry on the call from the county council transport assessment team I don't know if tam you're able to just share your video and just introduce yourself now suspence for yeah keeping the suspended uh he was having trouble with an electrician early I heard so hopefully it's nothing to do with that but um he is on the call so hopefully when we get to the questions or debate he can assist for that point um so going through the playing balance of officers so in terms of potential issues or considerations weighing in refusal of officers the quantum of post car parking 178 spaces falls below the local plan standards for the mix of uses which will be 361 if you have a strict interpretation of that so that's something to weigh in mind in terms of approval principal development has been established by the previous permission on the site it's acceptable it's been for a series of pre-application and design enabling panels that we're talking about earlier iterations and the view of officers which is shared by urban design officers is that it doesn't harm the character appearance of the area there will be economic benefits through the creation of local employment opportunities social benefits from those financial contributions towards local infrastructure improvements to the range of accommodation and the provision of recreational facilities for general public to the gym and swimming pool there will be a biodiversity in that game that will be secured through off-sites biodiversity in that game um so yeah ultimately chair the officer recommendation is approval uh substitute conditions and section one six agreement thank you thank you very much um do we have any questions for the officer uh councillor sanford thank you chair and thank you michael for your presentation can you just confirm what i think i saw there's no vehicular drop-off at the front of the building anyone arriving by taxi or the amazon van doing delivery would i have to go round the back through the car park or park on top of streams and for you for you chair um yes um that is i'll just double check on the plans but yeah there isn't specifically right outside the front doors if you would a drop-off area um just get the plan up now for my peace of mind yeah there's not a dedicated space within the site so there needs to be dropped off on the existing public highway um around the site um councillor um Hawkins uh thank you chair two things um can you confirm the the height of the is it the travel lodge that's next to it just you know comparing the rich height of this one with that one um and also the form the built form of this proposal compared to what was granted permission before looked as if there's more built up section you know facing the existing um properties just to clarify that one please thank you um for you chair i'll just share my screen again because probably easier to refer to the slides i did whiz through them so yes as uh mentioned before so the travel lodge at this highest point is 14 and a half meters high in comparison the proposal would be 24.4 meters that's to the top of the rooftop plan um at its highest point and then the two outer blocks would be 21.1 meters high to the rooftop plan so hopefully that clarifies that question councillor Hawkins but um just um oh this one here sorry yeah that is there was 2019 permission for i forget how many flats exactly but it's residential flats it was permitted on the site you may recall we had a basement car park and it came to committee a few months ago without the basement car park and they got refused if you remember so that's not there yes that would be yeah yeah okay but yeah in terms of your other question uh if i go back to the history so previously it was this this is the southern elevation of what's proved previously so i had this smaller i'm not on the outside here but it was sort of a series of pitched roofs and then this slightly shallower central element here and again on the outskirts it was slightly shallower there um in terms of it might be useful to look at again this visualization of how that looked um as i mentioned it was um smaller than what was and what we've got in front of us here uh the exact figure again is on a slide let's try to find the right one correctly yeah well this yeah this has got it on uh i have one where i have the exact figure but it looks like so this line if you can see my cursor here is 21.1 meters this is just below that so i think it was 19 and a half from memory i think i'm up had that on the slide actually that's ringing the bell um sorry it was on the pre i've definitely done it uh there it was it wasn't the one i was looking at uh 19 and a half meters previously yeah which means there's a bigger block facing the existing houses yeah that's that's new compared to what was there please thanks sorry uh councillor sorry um Heather Williams thank you chair i've just got a few questions around um the main areas of objection seem to be around parking noise and litter from the community council in other applications what we've done when litter has been a concern is um we sort of have like a waste management strategy or some sort of commitment or some strategy to deal with if there is i think we had one developer that's sort of in their strategy committed to doing a litter pick once a month or something which helps the company as well because no one wants to turn up at a hotel surrounded by you know packets of chewing gum or whatever it is um so i'm just wondering i've had a look at the sort of the conditions we've got those bullet points and i was thinking well littering is sort of antisocial behaviour but other people might not class it as so so just wondering whether because i think that is a a real concern with them being apartments as well there is higher chance of takeaways and and the like than a hotel normally has restrictions on that um so if that's possible to include also with the noise i appreciate that there there is a condition for that but would it be possible to in put something around materials because we also know that the materials that are used can in the structures of the building can really help amplify or sort of act as a bund so is that something that the conditions would would help with which potentially could resolve that issue and then on parking um those people that know arrington in my patch no parking has been an issue because the wind pole gates for a long time and when we had an application there was a unilateral undertaking to just give a pot of money um so that uh double yellow lines the cost of that could be covered is that something that you've explored potentially in this there was no section 106 which is why it was a unilateral undertaking in the multi-trail but is that something that is foreseeable in the are you confident that within the 106 and the conditions that should it become an issue once it's open because the problem we always have is until it's up and running for some years you won't really know the extent of things like parking um and there is such a deficit from the local plan for us to to if we were and i'm not saying we would but if we were to give consent that we think they'd probably quite understandably the locals would need a lot more assurance on that matter so i think that's um they're the main things and then obviously we've got some sort of conflict of views amongst officers um with the landscape officer and what have you but i think that's adequately addressing the report which is those three please for you chair um in terms of your first point council williams um i'm assuming the litter is that condition 24 in terms of the bill of points in that condition was that the one you were referring to bear with while i scroll please that's fine thank you there are quite a lot of conditions yes page 90 it's on page 90 and it refers to on-site security means of affording against any antisocial behaviour on-site um it's i suppose it's a debate as to whether littering is antisocial whether we could perhaps create a H in that in that area thank you for clarifying um yes um we've had no objection to that as officers um to that to be included in that condition so that's absolutely fine um moving on to your next point about materials being used um i don't think in principle we have any issue with that being weaved into the wording um again sorry i'm going to refer to you was that condition 31 you were referring to in terms of the noise um you just like me scrolling down don't you because i went back to my point um do you want to go to the next bit while i scroll yeah that's fine in in the meantime i know you make the point about parking and um the potential for contributions towards imagine sort of WL lines i mean it might be at this point if tam parry can hear me this time um to perhaps yes he's yes sorry sorry tam just hold on one second of his uh 31 was the one yep okay um sorry tam thank you jump back and forward um could uh you just perhaps go into the issue of sort of perhaps parking on the street and how that might be managed and potential mitigation measures that's okay thank you hi sure um yes good morning committee um my name's tam parry i'm with um Cambridge County Council track sport assessment team so we don't think there will be an issue of overstable parking onto the surrounding streets from this application however if there is then as council Williams has noticed that there was a possibility of putting in them WL lines or singria lines in locations where they're not currently there um if parking is found to be an issue in those locations um now there there isn't there is a section 106 contribution from this application towards the history road scheme and i'm more than happy to suggest to the applicant that we take 5000 pounds from this from the overall contribution and allocate it to specifically for a fund for installing the other lines should they be needed in the future um but don't see if it's been an issue um it would amend to be headed terms slightly um so this is uh something that the committee wants and i'm more than happy to to to suggest that sorry chair um i see councillor councillor me was raising her hand but um yeah it might be i think we had a question about the noise and was sorry i should be asking us questions um is the for clarification is the concern about noise in terms of amenity on adjacent occupiers or future occupiers of the building just for clarity okay so just before i have to scroll back up to the other part um it is on number 31 it's about the way things will be constructed and my interpretation of what the community councillor was concerned about is ongoing noise for the residential properties around it because those people staying at the hotel obviously they're short term but the residents will have this more long term um what i what it says in number 31 is the developmental reconstruction strict accordance with the noise mitigation then goes on about works i just wanted to be clear that that's not just about construction noise that is about ongoing noise and being able to use look at the materials that are being used and what sort of protections um because like i say quite often i know it's not a tin roof but you get the point if it's a tin roof it's going to be a lot more noisier than than a different sort of noise than actually quite a lot of hotels have soundproofing it's those materials that will make a big difference to the day to day lives of the residents around living around this building the way that's worded is there enough in there for you to be able to take that into consideration when um when deciding on the conditions um i think the short answer is has worded currently probably not um the issue is also in if you look at the reason for that condition it's for the amenity of the future occupiers rather than what the impacts on neighbours would be so i think we'd either need to explore amending that condition to also consider the impact on nearby properties and probably add some wording into the main text whereby that could be considered or return to flee inserting a new condition that specifically deals with noise um from material use and how that impacts on neighbours as a prior to occupation condition for example or something to that effect for yeah um thank you chair if we can make an obviously i've asked some conditions i appreciate we're going to debate the item if you could make note of that because i think whatever yes it's important to protect the residents that they're but equally we we have a duty to the residents around as well so would want to make sure that all were being treated fairly and i think so some alteration or new i'm open to how that would be done but um i do think it's something that i just noticed was missing a little bit okay uh councillor michael ffaith uh michael brylion okay uh just one question for me and if it's about parking um um so yeah Melissa um your microphone seems to be on and causing us to be back in each hand yeah that's all right okay um so parking development provides 178 parking spaces local plan policies would suggest 361 that's fewer than half um it's 49 percent um of the parking spaces that we're supposed to be there under the plan are actually being proposed um so but i've got two i mean this is questions i've got two specific points this figure we're given a 0.182 parking spaces per room um can you just confirm to me that ignores the parking requirements for leisure space it ignores the parking for co-working space it ignores the parking for conference space that is just 178 divided by 217 which are the hotel and the part hotel car park so actually that that is not really 0.8 percent is 0.8 to what we need it's 0.8 to just a hotel element and ignores all the others um i mean the reports as apartment guests are likely to be long term and less likely to have a car what's the evidence for that um i would ask i mean um what what is the evidence for that actually the number of parking spaces being provided is fewer than the number of um parking spaces required for the short stay of hotel so ignoring the apart hotel entirely there aren't even enough parking spaces just for the hotel element um and i would be interested to hear why the transport team thinks that there's not going to be over spilled parking given that we're providing fewer than half the parking spaces that are needed but it seems counter to all common sense to me and for your chair i guess i'll reintroduce tan parry i don't know if you're able to come back on those two points specifically thank you yeah sure so the hotel element of the development is 80 rooms and the apart hotel the apart element is 137 so the 80 rooms is the it's the element where you're going to have the most pressure on the parking it's reasonable to assume that the um apart hotel element will have longest day people and you know the nature of cambridge lots and lots of technology companies lots of people visiting the university from overseas um lots of people staying for for you know several months at a time these people are flying in they're not driving in generally so i'm not not saying that that's going to have to be the case for all of them but it's certainly a reasonable assumption to make that the the number of people will guess staying with the car for the apart element is is going to be less than the number of guests staying with the car for the hotel element um when you look at the lesser uses in the conference facilities their use is highest in the daytime um the hotel elements in the apartment hotel elements have highest uses in the in the evening so it's reasonable also to to to expect that as the overnight use is tailing off and the daytime use will pick up so the applicants have done some quite extensive work on the accumulation of vehicles throughout the day in the carpark and they've taken some very robust assumptions on the the trips generated by the leisure uses and the co-working space and the um that the the other elements of the hotel that are operational in the daytime that will attract visitors they've taken some very robust assumptions on the car mode share as well um looking at the census data for the area and other other data from other developments they've surveyed the the carparks at the Premier Inn and the travel lodge nearby and what they found is that the occupancy of the carpark at night they expect to be peaking at about 77% and they expect the occupancy in the daytime to be peaking at about 60% and they've compared the 77% to the surveys that they've done at the travel lodge from the Premier Inn and found us to be broadly similar um so from the information provided and extensive in the transport assessments and the work that the applicants done that's the reason why I'm satisfied but the likelihood that they're being oversupply parking into the surrounding area I don't think will be is is not a high chance um and we now have parking enforcements in in the districts we didn't have that when the application was submitted um but we do have that now which is very good um and we do have yellow lines in Northwood Park so there is a possibility now for enforcements um and as I was saying earlier should there be a willingness from the committee then we can seek some funds for the introduction of additional yellow lines you tend to put those on corners and places where you don't want people to park you wouldn't normally put them on a ride stretch stretch of road roads that's great um you you have them in places where you don't want people to park for highway safety reasons so if that's needed um or felt to be needed by the parish council then I'm more than happy to seek that fund to ameliate and mitigate any impact that there might be but um from the information provided I'm satisfied but I don't think there will be an impact hope that helps um councillor Richard we're in the state thank you chair for allowing me to come about this just just two points I think at the start of Mr Terry's contribution that he said the apart hotel would have 137 beds and the short stay would have 80 beds that's not what's on our papers the papers say that the apart hotel has got 80 beds and the short stay hotel has got 137 beds um so can I just clarify that actually the figures that the transport authority are working on are the right figures and they haven't mixed up the apart hotel and the short stay hotel um elements of this because of the other way around what was said just on one other point on that um comparison with the travel lodge being 60% for when the travel lodge was built was the travel lodge built with the car park that had half the number of parking spaces that the local plan would say it did because if the travel lodge doesn't have the same start ratio then the occupancy levels are irrelevant because if the travel lodge is 100% of what it should have had and it's 60% fall um then that tells us that here we'll be 10% short um so I'd like to know whether the travel lodge was also built with 50% of the car parking spaces that the um that the local plan would say should have otherwise the comparison is irrelevant doesn't tell us anything okay um may I come back chair yeah please come back thank you um so uh yes on the on the 80 and 137 that's just going to be me getting a bit confused so I apologise for that it doesn't change anything that I'm saying um because if there's 187 rooms there's still 178 parking spaces so it's still a lot more than the number of rooms um the travel lodge I've managed to find out through the planning system they've got a car park with 118 spaces and 138 bedrooms so that gives them a ratio of 0.85 spaces per room which is slightly higher than here but here we've got a ratio of 0.78 spaces per room um so in my view that's pretty similar um and if you wanted to compare some of other hotels then if you go to eddington there's a very similar hotel to this proposal built in eddington for again it's a a park hotel and a hotel they've got a ratio in their application of only 0.25 I think it is from memory so they've got a lot less parking 0.23 they've got 75 spaces for 150 bedroom hotel and 180 suites so this one is providing a lot more than that one if you're on a directly comparable type of application could I just come up with very one quick one just if miss time I'm unable to give it to us now but could we get the figures which include the other uses not just the hotel element because I'm not sure if the travel lodge has got you know a restaurant that is swimming pool and god knows what I suspect it probably doesn't the conference space so we seem to be focusing here on just the hotel element that's not the only generating um you know factor here so and the figures are being given are ignoring the leisure space and the co-worker space and conference space so you sort of get those figures thank you I would stop now through you chair yes please thank you um yes the analysis undertaken by the applicant does actually take account of all of the other uses the leisure uses the co-working space the conference facilities um and various uses um they have higher use in the daytime now the daytime is when the hotel has got lower use so if you like the car park and can perform two functions it can operate for the daytime uses in the daytime and it can operate for the evening uses in the evening um and the applicant has looked at those all of those uses together they've mapped all of the the trips and the vehicle attraction and then they've mapped that with an accumulation profile of the car park so you see the car park more full in the morning and then it empties through the morning fills up towards about lunchtime a little bit and then it empties again in the afternoon and fills up in the evening so it's almost like a like a ravey curve um so they have considered in everything um together thank you I'm going to butt in here while Tam is online and ask a specific question which is a note which I know about auto park there are problems with the travel lodge and the premier in with coaches coming to the to the hotel and parking for coaches which I presume might also be a problem we've got a conference facility so I just wondered how that will be coded for in the proposal there is the bus route very nearby actually the ATA comes into Orchard Park so I'd imagine about coaches for the hotel would probably follow a similar route that the buses take and then they would they would pick up and drop off passengers I would expect that the nearest bus stop which is about 50 meters away that to me would be the obvious thing for them so so the problem is specifically about coach parking at the hotel you would not predict that to be taking place I don't understand that coach parking is provided at the hotel it's a detail that I'm not totally familiar with Michael may know some more on that but I from from what I've seen I don't think that there's approach coach parking based specifically at the hotel itself as we established earlier the hotel fronts onto the green area and the vehicle access point is to the right from top of street onto into the car park and I don't think the car park is designed as such for coaches there is a turning head in Neil Drive and and if it can cater for for the lorry's delivering goods then there's probably a very good chance it can also cater for coaches so that's also an alternative location where coaches could good access okay um sorry um build hand cancel build handling and actually time after I put my hand up Tam answered my question so pass okay councillor are we all gone yes sorry just a small point of clarification for tamperi again um you mentioned that just earlier that the ratio of um spaces spare parking spaces per room was 0.78 but the report was a ratio of 0.82 isn't it the double check that the report has the correct figure hi um through you chair again it's probably me getting a bit confused it doesn't take much so I'd imagine that Michael is is um the more accurate one here but it's either way it's very very similar isn't it okay thank you okay um sorry can't um councillor Heather Williams thank you chair just on because the travel lodge has been referred to quite a lot just to answer one of the questions actually Councillor Richard Williams said um or called to their website they have a bar cafe which is currently or has been closed but there's none of the other facilities it is just rooms and they actually advertise free parking on site um but to quote it off their website it's on a first come first served basis um but we've been given sort of a lot of reassurance shall we say because of referring to the travel lodge at Orchard Park and how that's working but we now know that they're very different but equally it says that they've been undergoing a lot of refurbishment for a quite a long period of time um so not everything has been open and up and running can we be sure that the comparison information that we are using to give reassurance for this application was taken when it was business as normal and not during this reduced um time I do find it odd to think that of an occupation being at 77% if they think that's the only capacity and we'll have the extra but there we go um Richard is that more of a question for Tam Parry perhaps I think rather than me up yeah sorry Tam I'm happy to take an answer from whoever wants to answer um for you chair the surveys were undertaken before the application was submitted um so it's quite some time ago I don't know off the top of my head when the surveys are undertaken but if you like I can do that research for you in the background chair and there's the thing about them being not being like for like I hope I've covered that through my answer earlier about the leisure uses being more dominant in the daytime and the hotel use has been more dominant in the evening for parking thank you over um councillor Lisa Redwell um sorry thank you chair um on the travel the traffic in the parking I wonder if there's any room in the travel management plan to have any sort of check check on how this is working and be able to change anything about the conditions of that if there does seem to be a problem um and also I was wondering about the water treatment capacity at Anglian water and whether it meets our criteria of having having the necessary infrastructure capacity because the statement from Anglian water says that the Cambridge Water Recycling Centre does not have capacity to treat the flows from the development site and that's basically until the new new development that's currently under under planning application against the DCO so and they're applying to the environment agency for an interim new permit to address accidents thank you um for you chair I'll go for the Anglian water one first whilst um perhaps Tam can consider the other question uh that might come back to us as well as officers but in terms of the Anglian water point um ultimately in terms of if you read their full comments yes they've expressed that they have concerns about capacity in the future but is their legal obligation to take that sewage and that is dealt with through they'll need to apply for a separate permit separate from planning at all I'm mindful we get those comments come up on pretty much any major application we get um so I think if we applied that to literally I think not much would happen at all but it's a point taken and I spoke to um our colleagues in strategic sites earlier and um their anticipation is that a decision should be made on the wastewater recycling centre DCO development consent order by November of this year um it's currently the examination is ending in April this year and there should take six months to get that unfortunately couldn't give me a idea of when exactly it's going to come in as you might understand but um yeah it's a point noted but um they have said they will have to take it and they'll have to deal with that through their separate environmental permits outside of this playing remit um Tam I don't know if you want to come back first in terms of travel planning and how that's reviewed it may be a case that officers also perhaps suggest some tweaks of the wording but I'll pass it over to you first Tam thank you so currently um the travel plan is covered in condition 18 I think um and it is it doesn't include this wording in the condition at the moment but it's um very reasonable to to add into the condition wording um your suggestion to to to incorporate parking surveys and so that we can um ask for some monitoring of the parking within the um the hotel to see if it's getting full um and that can be done as part of of the travel plan monitoring the condition could also potentially be strengthened to say you know they would need to the applicant would need to submit monitoring reports um following this monitoring um so yeah very good suggestion I'm very happy to to to have that as a updated condition 18 councillor Peter Fane thank you chair um I think we've had plenty of questions on the parking and the traffic flow which would be main concerns of community council we may come back to those points no doubt later I wanted to come back to the point about height uh and this was raised by council team at Hawkins earlier on but as I understand it the um the spd which was back in 2011 said a maximum height of 15 meters and that was broadly met by the travel lodge and here the previous application is not really relevant we have a maximum height of 24.5 meters now we have seen a number of visual assessments which didn't seem to show a significant impact to that but I'm conscious of the comments of the landscape team who say this is paragraph 643 maintain concerns regarding the scale of the development and the effects of the development on sensitive local visual receptors it wasn't quite clear to me how that um what they had in mind though in terms of local visual receptors and the extent to which they're suggesting those could be met by somehow by conditions to any approval I wonder if you have clarification on that point yeah for you chair um I'll just reshare my screen to clarify those local visual receptors it's essentially those two verified views um so essentially this went through obviously a pre-application design label et cetera and it was agreed that between officers and the applicant and their landscape visual impact assessment author that there were two views in particular they wanted to have what's called verified views which are a bit more advanced than your standard scaled contextual ones so it's these views here where landscape are of the opinion landscape team that is of the opinion that it does have an impact in terms of harm so it's this view I think you can see my mouse moving just on the reds there and then also this view in particular from the north across the guided busway in terms of introducing this extra massing here um as mentioned earlier there is urban design team are of a different opinion and they don't consider it has a negative impact on the character here it's the area so there is an element of disagreement here and going back to the previous item in this committee there's an element of subjectivity sometimes these matters um but the officer views with urban design and that the impact has been minimised enough that it's okay um so we're supportive of it that that's where the landscape officers comments come from thank you um are there any oh uh council Richard Williams sorry thank you chair I just just want to point out that the views we've just been shown a quarter in summer and those are deciduous trees um so you know they're going to be in flower for they're going to be leaf from like may through to october so for half the year the views are going to be very different because they won't be leaves on those trees just I think just to put them to verify that if that's accepted I presume for you chair it's more for comment yeah but I yeah there will be obviously a difference in winter when there's less leaves and trees so yeah that does need to be born into consideration thank you um I think we have no more questions uh we now move on through the applicant we have Colin Brown from speaking from Carter Jonas you you have seen minutes uh thank you very much can we hear what you want to say thank you chair yes my name is Colin Brown I'm planning partner at Carter Jonas and I'm here today representing the applicants the TLC group thank you for all taking the time to consider the application and of course for visiting the site last week um as has been explained the application relates to parcels con 4 and L2 on topper street which is one of the last remaining development parcels in Orchard Park we're seeking permission for a mixed use hotel and leisure scheme including a hotel an apart hotel meeting rooms and conference facilities bar cafe and restaurant and gym including a swing pool all facilities are planned to be available both to hotel guests and to members of the public members may be aware of TLC groups other apart hotel known as the fellow's house which has won multiple hospitality awards and become a fantastic facility close to Mitcham's corner and this site is envisaged to function in a very similar way the scheme has had a long gestation period two pre application meetings three sessions with the council's design review panel and two rounds of detailed community consultation and I think all of this is reflected in the assessment of the urban design officer who supports the scale massing height and appearance of the proposal and feels that it will be a positive focal point for Orchard Park in accordance with local plan and relevant design guide policies it's also reflected in the favorable recommendation of your case officers who have been helpful and proactive throughout the application and determination process we've actively engaged with highways and the local flood authorities they've both confirmed that the scheme is acceptable subject to conditions the parking provider is we believe appropriate as explained by Mr Parry we are over providing cycle parking spaces relative to standards and many guests will be able to use the guided busway and the Cambridge North Station it is hoped that the gym and eating facilities will become a destination for Orchard Park residents who can easily walk or cycle to the site and moreover the location of the site and the nature of the proposal means that the development will afford enhanced noise protection to residents within Orchard Park from the A14 the scheme includes part of the open space to the south and incorporates improvements to it including new paths to improve east west connections between CRC and Unwind Square ecological enhancements and new tree planting all of which are supported by the landscape officer these improvements have been discussed and agreed with the community council who will continue to maintain the space afterwards in terms of water provision our scheme has been screened twice by the environment agency they've confirmed that there is no concern with the level of water use nevertheless we have presented measures for obtaining at least three briam water credits and the condition is now proposed committing us to exploring the possibility of achieving five just two points that came up in the discussion very briefly if I may there is a management plan condition condition 24 which may deal with some of the issues raised by councillor Heather Williams there is a drop off area within the car park area so you need to get vehicles would need to enter the site and there is a drop off area in the internal car park and we would have no objection to this suggestion of some of the section 106 funding been used for W yellow lines to sum up this is a high quality scheme it has been arrived at following extensive collaboration with your officers we're confident it will provide an attractive destination and focal point to orchard park members are therefore respectfully requested to follow the officer's recommendation and approve the application thank you thank you very much i'll be any questions for the applicant councillor hawkins thank you chair thank you mr brown for your presentation in terms of community engagement uh how much engagement did you do with the community i asked the question because the um orchard park community council is recommending objection so i just wondered if you'd discuss with them if you do or how much it did and why their objections have not been um minimised i suppose chair through you um so in terms of the community consultation there has been a lot of it we i think we have had three if not four separate meetings with a community council we've attended briefings and we've done presentations we also at a very early stage had a website we leafleted a lot of the properties in orchard park i would say that the engagement was surprisingly limited in terms of response you've ended up i think with only four people who've commented specifically on the application i think the dialogue with the community council has been positive although i know the community report references an objection my take on it is that they they've raised points of concern and i believe that we've addressed a significant number of those points which is why you have a recommendation of approval before you we do see this there was a part of an ongoing conversation um and you know as you are aware from the presentation the open space partly is in the ownership of the community council so there's an ongoing discussion there around around that in the particular arrangements related to that but we do see this very much as something that we will move forward absolutely in close collaboration with the community council over thank you chair and just one more thing in terms of the facilities like a gym and the swimming pool again thinking in terms of community your plans to maybe give them some discount or something rather than you know full price um i mean i think on that we have not got to the point where the operations team at TLC have got to grips with things like that but i think it's a it's a fair point we do see this very much as a facility that will have a predominantly local catchment area in relation to public use there may be some people who come from further afield um and you know i see that very much as part of the ongoing conversation with the community council and others and i'm sure that the operations team at TLC at the appropriate moment will reach out and have those discussions thank you if you do get the planning i will chase councillor Heather Williams can i just ask in some of the representations it raises concerns around male and female changing room layouts um i'm just wondering if there's anything you could say to that and also whether there's going to be any family changing spaces because a somebody of a young family they are crucial because if you've got more than one child it's very difficult so is it sometimes a two-man job um when dealing with these situations through you chair um i mean i think again that these are matters of detail um as i'm sure you appreciate the internal layouts obviously are shown on all of the drawings as as planned at the moment but inevitably as the operations team starts get to grips with the proposal there may be some internal adjustments that are required i think you raise a very fair point obviously about family changing facilities i've been there myself i know exactly what you mean by that and i think that um you know the clients and i will take that message away and ensure that you know there is appropriate provision for families but also separate facilities for male and female which i think that there absolutely would be uh don't have any more questions of clarification for the applicants thank you very much indeed uh we now move to the local member councillor Sonita Hansraj um hello Sonita would you please give your presentation we're limited to three minutes and i'll stop you who exceed that thank you very much indeed thank you chair um this development has a long history starting before my time as the councillor residents and community councillors from Orchid Park raised their concerns about several issues and it is good to see that the developer has adjusted the plans somewhat to address some of these however there is still one issue that is worrying local residents and that is the problem of the numbers of cars and lack of adequate parking space everyone who lives in Orchid Park knows that the parking is already an issue although our area is supposed to be a sustainable transport area we have a lot we have long had problems with access to public transport this has led to many cars being parked on the pavements and causing a nuisance and problems with access to their own homes there is a problem between the vision of being a low car area and the reality we are all living in fact um there is the history in planning terms about this which i would like the planning committee to consider here today because i think this has already been said but i will reiterate that a similar planning application for flats to be built on new drive was refused by planning committee due to limited parking space the number of parking spaces provided by the new build is not adequate particularly when there are examples like residents and others using facilities such as the gym this will result in an increased need for parking spaces this has this is going to cause an over spill into the adjacent streets and this has to be addressed before the hotel is open there's a conference space of 160 seats and an assumption is made that one space parking space is adequate for five seats um and another assumption that the apart hotel residents will uh not either have a car or just have one car we can the residents cannot wait for ifs and buts this is going to happen because we have the lived experience you cannot compare the travel lodge traffic with this type of building which has several other facilities and um yes there is going to be there is parking enforcement but it is very limited there are hardly any yellow lines and there are hardly any traffic wardens to enforce parking restrictions additionally the entrance and exit to the one way system for accessing the hotel needs to be risk assessed can you wrap up now you one once more vehicle access is through topper street where there is a children's playground if the application is to be approved I would like to request that a condition for specific parking restrictions to be placed in the area before the hotel is opened and during construction thank you very much Sunita happy any questions for local councillor councillor bachelor thank you chair um so obviously we've heard from officers and the applicant themselves that they will be willing to put money towards painting new yellow lines in the area should they be approved by highways in your view then given your comments do you think that might help alleviate the concern that you've just raised around parking it would help alleviate the concerns however that will be limited because there aren't enough traffic wardens to enforce these restrictions that councillor Hawkins thank you councillor bachelor kind of stole my thunder there but um I guess in addition to that um just to mention that now that there is a civil parking enforcement um surely do you think that will not help it will definitely help because we are asking for the entrance and exit to have parking restrictions however civil parking enforcement requires someone to enforce it at present there are not there are hardly any traffic wardens to do so if I may come back please chair um I've also heard from highways transport uh mr tampery um about the reasons for you know the calculations they've made the estimations etc does that not give you any comfort that the problem might not be as bad as you think I think these comparisons with travel lodge are not equal comparisons as if you will um travel lodge has a different type of clientele than what is going to come into this hotel um travel lodge is already causing problems with coaches that they park outside they are travel lodge and prams and uh children going to school aren't able to get through people have complained time and time again about this travel lodge is a much smaller place and it has been there for a while longer so this larger building needs to be better planned regarding parking uh thank you very much do we have any further questions for cancer and such thank you very much um now we move on to uh the debate I think looking at the time we can have uh um 15 minutes break um so we come back at one o'clock thanks very much for the debate that's the Hawkins sorry chair before we go uh is then the representative from the community council so if I may chair um democratic services received no speaking requests from the community council regarding this application um councillor Williams thank you chair I was just going to say it in the 15 minutes there's been quite a lot of reference from us to do with for example the double yellow lines and some change of conditions if officers in that 15 minutes could sort of make good use of that time to word that so when it comes to our debate we've got something tangible that we can look at I think that'd be really appreciated thank you point 19 can you come could there you do that yeah thank you very much yeah yeah okay now uh we come back at one uh 12 uh one o'clock sorry thank you thank you very much now now we come to the debate on on this uh application in orchard park um who is uh councillor to me Hawkins thank you very much everybody I mean this is the first time I've spoken on this meeting um now I just really want to start this off by saying I you know he's clear from what we've heard so far that that great deal of time and effort's been put into this application and the design of the building um we've given it a good thrashing already this morning you know by the questions that have been asked um and I've been by the answers given I've been pretty much reassured that this is a pretty good balance between functionality and viability for this business um the only thing I feel we do need is a more positive statement of out parking um and restrictions in particular um I think they should be I think they should be applied from day one I appreciate uh councillor hands Rajah's comment about you know enforcement but of course we do have a new regime now we have got civil parking enforcement which was really only just started and if there was a huge problem with parking I think that could be dealt with by a targeted approach by the enforcement officers that's my that's my view um and I basically if the parking issue is addressed because I think this is going to offer it's going to be a great facility for for the city and I think it's going to be actually a good facility for the residents of watch your park if they wish to use the facility it's going to be out into the public so I my my view is that you know given those parking those comments on parking I would be quite content to vote for this thank you very much um councillor Heather Williams I do believe councillor Samford was before me he looked slightly exasperated so I think we'd better let him go first sorry I'm taking advice okay thank you councillor thank you we'll go to councillor Heather Williams and then and then we'll go to councillor Bachelor okay right could I suggest a modification to the wording of condition 19 at the moment it's very airy fairy it just talks about the applicant she'll discourage vehicle traffic could we reword that to require them to actively manage their parking spaces um how they do it is obviously they're prerogative but I'm thinking an online system where you book a room it'll ask you do you want a parking space you click yes and it says okay this is your parking space number or I'm sorry we can't accommodate your car come by other other means um and particularly for conference guests I think they should be um maybe directed to a park and ride or some other site and shuttles provided in from um more sustainable car parks having walked the streets last week I don't think yellow lines is going to make a huge difference in the immediate area that the configuration of the streets is such that yeah maybe discourage 10 or 12 cars from parking but you get too far away you're in the over spill from the travel lodge and the premier in which we talked about a few months ago and rejected that um application on nil drive so if they are willing to take responsibility for their own car park I'm happy to support this application but thank you councillor Henry bachelor Henry bachelor yeah thank you chair so um I think to be honest I think the majority of the debate has already been had uh through the questioning that we've given to officers and our public speakers as well um so a lot of my questions and concerns have already been answered or raised um the one I mean the main sort of question of concern for me was around the comments of our landscape officer who I understand who understands uh raise an objection and has still has that objection uh listed albeit um they have recommended certain conditions that would need to be applied to this application should the committee vote uh to approve um I understand from officers that all of those conditions have been incorporated in the recommendation we have in front of us so um so for me on balance that overcomes that objection from my side um in terms of other conditions um I would be sympathetic to a specific condition that I think was mentioned before the break around setting money aside through the 106 process for parking enforcement i yellow lining etc which I believe our officers have been working up so I would be supportive of of that to be an amended or an additional condition um but as yeah as mentioned previously I don't see in the balance of planning I don't see any other major concerns that would lead me to vote for refusal so I'm inclined to support the officer's recommendation of approval thank you councillor Heather Williams thank you chair um so on this application you'll see there was as I was I said we've sort of discussed quite a bit of it in the questioning and there are a series of conditions which before we go to a substantive item vote I think we should address and would want to see through um mainly around sort of to try and address the issues understandable issues raised by the community council I do think the noise and the litter can be addressed and the parking there was definitely with some improvement to those conditions and the money for the 106 I think that does make quite a big difference so long as that money we've got to make sure the conditioning is strong enough so that there is a review process through that and it's not a you know it has to be done in 18 months and then it drops off yeah we do need some time for this um in relation to condition 19 I think I wouldn't want to be too prescriptive because we want to ensure that it's something that can evolve we don't know exactly when this is going to be completed and things could have changed so I'm I wouldn't like to be prescriptive in the conditions that we have to trust that they will be executed correctly um I do understand the parking issue and it is something that is holding me back from sort of full hardly supported seeing it I'm willing to listen to the rest of the debate at the at the moment it's whether the parking is enough to to warrant refusal I can really understand the residents concerns but I'm not quite sure if it's enough to to say no in this case thank you chair sorry councillor Richard William um thank you very much chair um two points I mean I must I do have some concerns about the scale and massing of this which is which is significantly high higher and bigger than surrounding buildings um so I think that's relevant to me as well but but my main concern about this um as I'm sure will not be a surprise for anybody is is the parking and I am very concerned about the figures in our report particularly that 0.82 figure which ignores significant uses of this site that is just looking at the hotel function um the hotel element of this and ignores all the other trip generating um parts of this proposal and and I I do think that 0.8 figure um 82 figure is is is not accurate and it's not something we should rely on the real figure is 0.49 this proposal provides 0.49 of the parking spaces that our own local plan says are needed and as we heard from the local member even with the local plan there are some you know optimistic assumptions about one space per five seats from the conference area for example but let's just take the local plan as it is that is our local plan these are our policies this is providing 0.49 um percent I'll rather you know 49 percent 0.49 of the parking spaces that are required we hear applications come before this committee again and again and again from orchard park but the residents are telling us there is a problem with parking and again and again and again we are approving planning applications which on our own policies do not have sufficient parking because of you know assumptions models and and sometimes I'm afraid to say I think magical thinking um about what's going to happen and I think we do have to take this issue seriously on the issue parking enforcement which has been raised um I I'll be honest I don't really see that as as a solution to this problem because I think you know if it turns out as I think is highly likely there aren't enough parking spaces here and people start parking on over the roads if we start finding everybody people are going to stop using this hotel so I find it bizarre really that the supposed solution from the developers is that people who are using their hotel will be fine because people will stop using their hotel we all know in reality you know I've had something to do with conference centres in the past one of the key things people ask when they're looking to book a conference at a venue is what's the parking like is there enough parking for my delegates to come and if there isn't enough parking and if people you know this hotel gets a reputation if you park on the roads you're going to get a 70 pound fine people will not book park conference spaces there and the business model will start to fall apart so I find this all a bit you know unlikely to work out in in reality that it's not really in the in the business owners interests to tell people they can't park because people will stop using the hotel so I'm not really sure um the parking enforcement is actually the solution to this when the parking is so um so woefully um inadequate so this is so far below our own local plan as I say of 49% of the car parking spaces that our own local plan says are needed I honestly don't see how we can approve this application given what the residents of orchard park have been telling us again and again and again in application after application after application thank you chair thank you uh councillor Harvey thank you chair um I just um want to make the point um I don't think this is anything to do with um something the um applicant should should be taking on board but I mean it is very frustrating that um angry water have said this will cause effectively exceedances and I just think that's um you know um a sad thing but I realise that's national planning policy um I realise angry water are legally advised to take it but I I do think it's regrettable as well to say um in terms of the um uh application overall I was so uncomfortable about the parking um because it's in a in the middle of a uh a sort of neighbourhood where parking is already under stress um so I have to go so thank you sorry uh actually I wanted to say before which I meant to say before I came back before the debate um I have actually uh I've met Colin Brown as a member of a of a parents association at IVC I've not discussed this application with him I don't know more than an acquaintance but I wanted to declare that and I'm approaching a matter of fresh um okay uh the uh sorry what is the mind alone have you got a thing on pizza fame council pizza fame please thank you chair um it seems to me there are two key issues we need to address in this debate the first is of course that the the height of this building proposed height uh over 24 metres is well above that of the SBD not necessarily out of kilter with the local plan we've seen some visual assessments and we've had officer advice on that um and it was also suggested to us uh by Colin Brown that this would provide useful noise protection from the A14 which I find quite persuasive for the community um and taking account of the visual assessments I'm satisfied that we can approve it on that that is not a grounds for a fuel so we come back to the key one which of course is the key concern of the community council as outlined by the local member too and many concerns expressed here which is that of parking um I accept that the numbers are not up to those we we specify we're moving towards or seeking to move towards lower reliance on cars and if in my view the developers can take that problem on board that is make it their own problem and the future problem for TLC management then I'm prepared to go with that I think this is a good location for a hotel that is less reliant on cars than would be the case in the past so long as the hotel TLC future management is managing that issue uh very much along the lines that Peter Sanford said uh so that if indeed and I think as as Councillor Williams said uh Councillor Richard Williams this could become a problem for the hotel's business plan well that is for them to take on board if they're finding that due to local enforcement people are not booking as they might have hoped for conferences or for events then they have to start making other arrangements and I think this will be a test of the civil parking enforcement which is now in place but that being there I'm prepared to go with approving something which has lower parking standards than we might otherwise have wished for um chair I wonder whether having asked our officers to go away for quarter of an hour to look at this issue before actually taking a vote on this it might be helpful to uh to get their suggestions um I I would agree with that there can we have uh can you feed it feed it into us what you thought thank you chair um yeah during the break we've drafted some changes to conditions as was a new suggested condition which we've just run you through so the first one we do have two options for so this is the first option that officers have drafted which relates to the travel plan and including this feedback mechanism and basically to review it um which I think was a point that uh Tam Parry was agreeable to and during the questions earlier so this was the I guess lighter touch option that we're opposing but I'm mindful there's been debate since about whether the condition more widely can be um more robust so we are setting out an alternative which members may want to consider so you might need to do a vote on which of these you prefer when we get to that point but the alternative is something um it was used at the way and found me which I think committee um discussed recently it's slightly different because obviously I've changed some of the wording but it's a bit more criteria based so it requires methods to be used to discourage private motor vehicles and arrange for sustainable alternatives how their car park is based to be distributed allocated to the users um so the different components in this case you've got park hotel hotel how the car parking will be managed and enforced so that it only occurs within designated vehicle parking bays locations how the proposed measures are to be published to potential users how the provisions of the plan will be monitored for compliance including monitor reports for up to five years following first occupation and then again the inclusion of a feedback mechanism to the local planning authority allowing for the alteration of working methods and management prescriptions so that is the second option I'll go through the remainder of the other conditions first but there might be something you want to debate as a committee about which option you prefer if at all um then there's condition 24 which is a request from council Williams in terms of adding a criteria H at this stage we've just added criteria H but the management control of litter if it's not precise enough for example in the request additional wording please let us know but we're posing that um as an amendment to that condition then this is the new condition again council reference council Williams request regarding the finishes of the building and how materials for example can impact on noise in the surrounding area and the impact that can happen to joint properties we've highlighted the british standard reference because we'd like to check with environmental health officers that um that's definitely the most up to date one but we would hope we could do that under the delegated powers outside this committee in the event that permission was granted and then finally it's less of a prescriptive wording because the section minus six won't have been drafted yet it doesn't happen if obviously permission is granted but it's to essentially include reference to the provision of w o lines as a means of parking enforcement and the contribution of five thousand pounds towards that which will be taken out of the eighty thousand pounds existing transport contribution that is in your reports that was set out by tam parry um yes yes yeah thank you chair i don't know if you want to keep your slides up or not but uh sorry okay thank you chair it was just on the last one i appreciate what you're saying that the it will be um in the 106 so we i'm assuming that we would then be voting um subject to the 106 being sorted and the checking of that um environmental standard can we just make sure that in that that there is something around just um restricting restricting vehicles as opposed to prescribing yellow lines from my experience before of this is actually there's lots of things like consultations then you've got the actual putting in of the lines themselves so if we can just make sure that that is yeah that is broad enough to um to enable it might be that actually we have to go with a different type of line which enables residents you know there it's a minefield it's not just the paint on the on the tarmac thank you councillor rigid William thank you chair this is a question of clarification really um can i just clarify that we can allocate this money in 106 but actually we're not controlling here what sort of double yellow lines there are or indeed if there are in double yellow lines because that is a matter for the game to council to decide i think we heard earlier that um the council officer suggested really they're only interested in double yellow lines on corners so i think it's important that we clarify that we might put this in 106 doesn't mean there will be yellow lines because it's not in our control to dictate whether there are or not actually ultimately yellow lines here thank you very much and now it's my turn to contribute to debate um the issue is everybody in terms of the issue of height the local the sdo for ultra park suggests a maximum height of 15 meters and the proposal here for 21 and a half meters is considerably more um the um the massing is larger than the previous proposal but not an enormous amount uh but the previous proposal was 90 and a half meters and that was acceptable and there is some benefit from having a higher height in terms of improved screening from the the 814 which of those of us who've been there know is quite a noisy um impact it's a big impact on ultra park generally the noise from the 814 so i i tend to agree with the officers that the the height um and scale is to it it is okay um the biggest impact on residents is on ankle drive but generally the um ankle drive in terms of its location facing south and it is um it's i don't think people have much impact on light perhaps a small bit in the late afternoon for the couple of houses um and the the misadiquate distance um for the um amenity so don't look over windows so i think um my view is that that's that's acceptable result of the the discussions with the design review panel and and the the relohing of the east and west wings of the building so the big the big issue um to my mind is like everybody has said is parking and whether the parking is adequate now we normally should take advice we follow advice of our especially said advisors and they say it's adequate i know we know from experience of problems in orchard park um and way what the average sort of occupancy is that's relevant than the problems that arise from peaks peaks um and we can't but there again the previous example that was quoted of the fellow's house which is a similar site development near the centre of Cambridge where only 0.25 provision is provided and i haven't noticed a particular problem i don't others have noticed a particular problem of parking over still there there are various techniques that one could control or limit parking for instance many such institutions have their own private minibus which then collects people from stations or in this instance from park and ride on it could do on on Milton road the existing the links between park park and ride and this site actually are not particularly good um you'd have to go as far away as i think long stand to get a park and ride site that could really facilitate the site but there is relatively good public transport um and so there are solutions my my feeling um is that he's very important therefore to have a review of the transport plan to see how it works if it's approved uh the particular concern needs to be taken about about coaches because that seems to be the biggest complaint upon the existing hotels in the area and so uh that can be covered again in parking restrictions uh coaches shouldn't be parking there there's normally a provision for parking for coaches outside of it overnight parking for coaches outside of the area so it's a matter of management and we would like i think that's going to be an important element in any management and travel plan to ensure that there is no overnight parking at coaches i don't think the drop off drop off is a particular problem um so considering the the um the elements the fact that we are advised that it should be sufficient with with a continuous monitoring and uh improvement of the uh restrictions if it proves necessary um my general view is that the uh and the fact that this site it conforms to previous application in general terms the previous application that's been approved so that that's the accepted sort of use of this site is also providing facilities it could be used by the local um residents though we uh can't impose controls on the price which might be an element for for this area um but it will be available so it seems to me that generally there's more benefits the benefits the balance is in favour of benefits rather than restrictions and i think i will end up voting in agreement with the officers on this one okay are we ready to go to a vote on this jerry i think we've got two alternative amendments to um condition 19 to choose between oh okay fine uh can't counsellor heather will you it was just on that point um i'm quite happy to go with the second one which is a lot more detailed um and gives if we could have it displayed i think that alternative is a better condition than sort of the adding of the wording elsewhere if if others are agreed uh can we agree to the amended condition by affirmation after we have a proposal from she hasn't had the williams i'm happy to second that we go with condition 19 alternative two and then perhaps we could take a vote on that okay uh can we go by affirmation for that agree okay um are there any other the other amendments to the uh conditions are people happy with those if we don't have a proposal that we accept the other amendments counsellor will you um if we can take more together the other amendments i'm happy to propose yes uh also for chair chair for completely for completeness i think you've got to ask the question does anyone wish to abstain and uh or against it you can't just take the affirmation as okay okay go back to the previous one uh i said after um done by affirmation has any does any wish to abstain uh okay counsellor Richard Williams does any wish to uh object no okay thank you very much now we go to the other amendments uh counsellor had the williams uh propose counsellor Peter Fain the second did can we take that by affirmation for those those uh is anybody wishing to abstain counsellor Richard Williams anybody wishing to oppose can we otherwise take it by affirmation okay thank you now we go to the the as amended uh um we go to the application uh those in favour will be accepting the uh approve the recommendation to approve those voting against will be voting to refuse the application thank you very much indeed counsellor have the williams chair can I just clarify that is subject to the so we are sort of delegating in relation to the environmental standard and the 106 so okay thank you uh thank you very much indeed okay thank you chair so by 10 votes to 1 the application is approved as amended by the committee and subject to all the details laid out in the report thank you very much uh we will now adjourn for lunch for half a uh 40 minutes at all 10 past two thank you very much indeed welcome back to the south camberchart district council planning committee on today 14th of febru the next application about eight on the agenda paper is an application in great abbington 2304804 strode H4 um 24 south road great abbington it's a single story side extension together with internal alterations the application has been reported to committee as it was submitted by relatives of an officer of the council the key issues are principle of development and the great abbington formal land settlement the officer recommendation is to approve subject to conditions and melissa and also presenting officer melissa could you present the application please uh yeah good afternoon um so as noted this application is on 24 south road in the great abbington land settlement the application is for a single story side extension um and has only been brought before members because um the applicant is relatives of a member of staff um i've got a short update in terms of um we had a late comment from great abbington parish council um who support the application unanimously but have asked for planning conditions relating to contractors parking um south road is actually private road um if you know it it's very narrow and has passing bays along and they're concerned about damage to the verge of people parking in um those bays so um the recommendation is updated to include the condition relating to just managing the contractors parking and would require compliance with that um i'll just show you share my slides so this is the site it's on the south road a south road uh this is the property just where my cursor is here these are a couple of barns the site backs onto um the agricultural settlement uh this is the rear of the property as it is it has previously been extended um the extension will get on the right hand side here just where my cursor is this being that side extension um of the property um so that's looking directly at it and that's looking at it from the front of the house um and this is a view of it um the front of the property is quite well screened it's got a very large hedge um this is the closest you can really see it from from the road um you can see the barn on the left here and the property where the extension will go over here on the right hand side so as you can see from this this photograph it will go with just a glimpse view um from from the road um officer recommendation is um approval oh sorry elevations thank you pardon so um as you can see it's a fairly small extension with a hip roof the existing property has got hips on it this plan has been updated the architect had shown these as gables and actually in reality they are small half hips doesn't make any difference at all to what was proposed that's the rear of the house with the conservatory that you saw in the original photos that I showed you and this is the extension here with a small door um facing onto the garden and front window facing onto the front part of the house as you can see from here it's this little extension here very modest in relation to the existing dwelling on balance we feel that design and scale would sustain the character and appearance of the area whilst respecting the amenities of neighboring properties all of which are quite far away from it thank you um thank you very much do we have any questions for the uh presenting officer please any clarification councillor Medro I was just wondering if you had the condition that you were recommending to show us please I did have it before bear with me a moment um a bit of a break in between bear with me a second it's going to stop sharing and then I'll reshare my screen hopefully we'll be able to see this here you go sorry technology's not my forte so this is one of our standard traffic management conditions um it's a bit OTT for an application of this scale so I've highlighted the bits I think might be relevant um the road is a private raid and the parish council has flagged that they're concerned about the verge my view is that's really a private matter but if they're encouraged not to park on the road by way of having to comply with this shouldn't be a problem any more than any other vehicle going down there and it is quite a actually surprisingly busy road for somewhere so out of the way um so it would get contracted parking being within the kerch to the site and um movements in control of all deliveries because we see no building site like this you might get some delivery vehicles as well would that satisfy you and yes I was just wondering you're saying it's a private road so I think that condition mentions adopted public highway so are we meaning if you'd be off the private road yeah as I say it would need to be tailored to the specific circumstances but if the gist of it would be these wording noting me it's a private road thank you very much um whilst anyone wants to do it just clarify for me it won't be exactly it's going to be a compliance condition that says contracted parking shall be within the kerchlet of the property and off the highway so it's just uh yeah as Matt said a tailored version of that just a simple compliance condition do we have any other questions yeah cancer Hawkins thank you chair just um private just looking at this in terms of the neighbourhood plan I note everything at cause but there's nothing about oh it's not an ancillary building is it it's an extension yes it's an extension to existing dwelling in the land settlement so in the report gone through all the particular points in the policy and it was accepted by all those those it doesn't exceed the amount of space allowance either although the house has been previously extended we've all been quite modest okay thank you okay Robbie if that's all the questions can we come we have no public speakers can we go to the debate um does anybody have contribution to debate cancer bachelor thank you chair so I mean for me anytime there's an application in the abington land settlement I'm going to look at their adopted neighbourhood plan because they have one policy in it when it's the building within the land settlement but I mean as has already been touched on we can see in 10.11 that all of the criteria for building within the land settlement has been accorded with so for me I'm completely comfortable with the application and I don't see any reason to refuse it so I'll be supporting thank you any further comments I think we can then go uh I propose then that we go to the vote secretary um just to remind you if you vote in favour you're voting to approve the application in accordance with the officer's recommendation if you vote against you're voting to refuse the application uh thank you very much thank you chair so 11 votes to none results in a unanimous vote for approval thank you very much so yeah that application is approved now we move on to item nine um at Littlington 12 uh application number 23 stroke o 3 2 3 4 stroke h ful 12 silver street Littlington the existing out buildings that have been replaced with a nissen style out building the application is being reported to committee as it's submitted by an officer of the council the key issues are design conservation impacts the opera officer's recommendation is to prove subject to conditions and john macateer is the presenting officer now john can we have your presentation please of course thank you very much chair and good afternoon councillors I'll just share my screen can I confirm you can all see that yes we can thank you john so as chair described my application is 12 silver street in Littlington which is for existing out buildings to be replaced with a single new nissen style out building I have the site location plan here on the left and overview and here on the right we have the existing uh block plan we can see silver street here and the uh main dwelling at 12 silver street here with the two existing out buildings to be demolished located here and here with no views of those visible from the public road I've included a proposed site plan which shows the proposed nissen style out building in situ here and I've also included the proposed plans and elevations of the building just a standard out building 12 meters by 7.3 the site falls with the conservation area of Littlington uh and it is in the cartilage of the listed building at number 12 but no objection was raised by the conservation officer the out building does fall outside the development framework and we have had no neighbour objections to the proposal the application would normally have been approved by officers due to the minor nature of the out building but as the chair said uh the applicant does have a connection to the council which is why it was brought before you today in my assessment the proposed out building is acknowledged to be bulkier than those that are currently on the site but would still be suitable within the agricultural aesthetic of the area the existing location already contains built form and hard standing as we've already seen the new out building would not be visible to the public no objections have been received from consultees or neighbours and no material harm has been identified and this represents the planning balance as I see it the design and scale would sustain the character and appearance of the area whilst respecting the amenities of neighbouring properties which is why we are recommending approval of this application thank you thank you um do we have any questions from members of questions of clarification from the officer so thank you just to be clear what's a nissan style building as I understand it that's how they've described that that rounded corrugated structure thank you very much any other questions I mean I I would uh ask whether the building to be constructed is going to be a re-election of an existing nissan style building or a new building it is a new building um if we look at the existing site plan currently we have um two slightly smaller less bulky um out buildings occupying more or less the same footprint they're going to be taken down or replaced with um what we've already discussed do you have any other questions of clarification very much um there are no public speakers to this application as well so um do we have uh go to the debate do we have anybody wish to contribute to the debate councilor Hanley okay um can we uh go to a vote everybody agreed my information okay can we go to the vote please yeah um two tell me I think it was wasn't it no I'm sorry I thought we can take about the mission if yeah yeah no but we need a second yeah Peter will second it yeah I'll second it somebody already had that that's what I asked you yes so two me hawkins did second it yes did it second it okay okay then we've gone by affirmation to agree to go to the vote so we go to the vote one more one more person have you pressed this one thank you darling have we lost somebody so just to clarify council hella williams declared that she would be withdrawing plan okay and as such we have 10 votes to none for a unanimous vote thank you but application is now we um come to item 10 compliance a compliance uh you know a compliance report is um Chris Grable uh the presenting officer uh are you there please to present your report good afternoon chair um the uh the contents of the report um obviously given update on the current statistics um for uh compliance um we've already had a steady start to the new year uh on on new compliance um contents have come in so we've had over 70 already uh in january um I've got a couple of staffing updates um George Meinhan uh our contractor um his contract will finish on the 28th of march um so we are unfortunately losing him um at the moment I have another officer who's off on long term six so the team are currently just sort of covering um as best as possible with some of these staffing issues that I have again um and I do have an update for councillor Williams um she asked me in the last uh committee that while she appreciated it was difficult to go ahead and re-prioritise the older cases perhaps if we could have a look to see whether um we could try and identify older cases that might be priority A cases I've had a bit of a look into this it will require the team to basically look at sort of the best part of 400 open cases and work out whether just from the descriptions whether there'd be a priority A or not um that's probably quite a time consuming process um and um it's not something I'm probably going to be able to commit to in the immediate future however I'm happy to have a chat with councillor Williams outside of the committee just to sort of you know try and work out what we can do to to try and help her with her request okay do we have any questions uh council Heather Williams thank you I thought I thought a better response um partly to that um so yes I'm happy to meet and discuss uh with you sort of any practical ways or just for us to get a bit of a steer because I think moving forward it's going to be really great but we can't forget you know that that area so happy to to meet and see what can be done yeah I will um I'll I'll give you a call um tomorrow then councillor Richard William uh thank you very much chair excuse me thank you very much chair um it's just really a question on on appendix three so case load stats so I think there are about 640 um 650 rather sorry cases open um in total with you know 400 being over nearly over six months old I suppose my question really is is is there a sort of time scale to work through those and is that a sort of unusual backlog because it seems like quite a high number of cases for a relatively small number of officers to work through um yes uh in terms of um case load numbers um I think I kind of hit on the uh on the issue late last year with um our case numbers uh for last year being just at a couple shy of 800 um and I just made the committee aware previously that um we were probably going to be significantly higher in case load for 2023 than we had uh been previously um case loads had been around the 500, 550 mark for both councils um that has gone up in part I advise that I considered that was probably due to the online reporting um that's now taking place it is easier to report a breach of planning control to the council for investigation and we have been promoting that as best as possible to um to to the public um the other thing is we're also recording more of the work that we do um we've been doing um work previously that's not been recorded we um we reply to solicitors um regarding um inquiries on enforcement notices things that things of that nature that we've we've never done before it takes time we need to be recording it and that's all included in these figures and case loads um in terms of the workload and the fact that obviously quite a lot of those are older than six months um compliance is not always a straightforward situation um my office has tried and closed files down quickly where it's not a breach of planning control or it's permitted development where it's a minor breach where whereby um it's a technical breach and enforcement action would not be uh something that would be looking to take other matters do take time to negotiate and regularize and certainly um where we take enforcement action and we receive appeals they are they are cases that will be open for a lot longer um I can't really put target dates for closures on files because it is very much a matter of the circumstances as to which you know the complaint is and what we're investigating and the way we go with things um there is there is a lot of work um I'm aware of that and we're trying to manage that as best as possible um I don't have any other questions to the councillor. Thank you chair and thank you for the report I was just interested in the executive summary point three it mentions that the details of compliance investigations are sent to members weekly I just wondered if that's happening currently I don't recall. That that is something that was told um was happening um but it's certainly something that I can can check it's been um a process that was taken place prior to my arrival and I'm not aware of any changes but we can have that checked and make sure that information's accurate and if uh if those communications are being received we will look to make sure that happens. Thank you um just a query it's about the it's in context of one enforcement matter I don't want to get into the detail of it but the the principle is that the app was enforcement for something which is determined to be permitted they're not permitted development and the applicant was asked to put in a um put in a planning application what sort of delays you normally accept in a situation like that and what is the position in terms of four year and ten year rules does the matter become active immediately that the notification has taken place so you become aware of it um I would like some clarification um in in terms of where we are um requesting an application to be submitted um if we're requesting an application that is usually because um on on the initial view of officers and that would be um obviously taken in um the planning considerations from our development control colleagues um if something's acceptable we would ask for an application to come in um generally speaking we wouldn't invite an application where development is not not acceptable but of course obviously anyone can put in a retrospective application um so we would advise if if something's not acceptable we probably wouldn't um you know look to um support such an application but of course obviously those you know those decisions are on their merits if we're asking for an application um we usually give 28 days um if if if that's going to be longer um we're asked for people to advise us obviously um if we're inviting an application and we don't receive one we need to consider whether the development in itself requires any conditions to you know that would make the development acceptable um or or not and that would sort of bring us to the conclusion of whether we're going to proceed with any further action on someone so it can delay it um like I say the 28 days is not a hard and fast rule dependent on circumstances it can be a tight deadline for applications to be made and I understand some circumstances are more complicated than others and may require agents and architects and it's just a matter of matter of the circumstances in terms of four and ten year rules they they kick in um so the four year rule at this moment in time kicks in um whereby what where the development is substantially complete so if you're building a building um your local planning authority has four years in which to take enforcement action um and then um uh if if if we don't pick that up it then becomes it comes immune um for the 10 year rule which is a change of use that would um ordinarily be when the use first commenced for 10 consecutive years um so they're they're they're the two um it doesn't those time frames do not stop for the four and ten year rule until the council takes some kind of action to stop it i.e an enforcement notice or a bridge a condition notice so a simple a simple request to putting an application doesn't doesn't end before you know within the four year period that's not sufficient it does not no thank you that's useful notice thank you um okay do we have any other questions or points of clarification thank you very thank you very much now we move on to item 11 appeals um rebecca rebecca smith is to respond uh um thank you very much indeed uh rebecca can you introduce this the uh appeal situation thank you chair apologies i don't know what i was going to do i hope you'll feel you're clear with those now not really but that's why i thought michael was going to do this one but i'm happy to do what i can while i can get a bit of a voice um unless michael wants to take over it's up to him um but um the report includes a summary that's okay um would you prefer prefer michael to take in honestly okay includes a summary apologies i'm not there in person but you can probably hear why um the report includes a summary of the decisions that we've received during january on appeals as well as the new appeals that we received to the council as well as the ever-growing appears list of appeal decisions that we're still waiting pins to have a decision on um if anybody's got any questions then i'm happy to take them away and i probably will come back to you because i've not got much voice without coughing today do we have any questions for rebecca or points to raise thank you thank you rebecca seems everybody's happy maybe i should stay at home more now that's the final item on the agenda the next meeting will be held on wednesday the 13th of march i thank you close this meeting now and look forward to meeting you again on the 13th of march thank you very much