 Thank you, Terry. And thanks for the presentation. Can you take that down? We've got a couple of people who've indicated that they want to speak. And I noticed that they are present in the participants. The first person who asked whether they could put a question was Andrew Martin. I think, Ryan, we need to just unmute you, Mr. Martin. I think, is that right? Or are you able to, I think your, your bike's open. So, yes, please. Okay, can I go ahead? Yes, please. Okay. Well, thank you very much, chair. My question is, why is there so little support for great green belt from the council and councillors. And there is so much rhetoric about doubling nature and biodiversity net gain. Let me explain the reason for my question. There are many people concerned about kneecap and the double AP, which is seen by many as a lose lose situation for Cambridge. The first lose starts with a new North Cambridge station. I plan to see this as a way of satisfying the housing requirements and extending business sites, but it has gone to extreme where it resulted in a Hong Kong style ghetto, which is not typical of Cambridge design. There'll be a lack of open space, although you have increased it, it's not to the is only a fairly small amount. There will be no recreational facilities, no secondary schools and land hungry primary schools will be in cramped conditions. In fact, visitors to the site are being discouraged. There will be an unbalanced demographic due to the high proportion of flat dwellers. There will also be a huge increase in traffic movement as people living there will not necessarily work there and people who work there may not live there. There will be no large supermarkets in the area. So, they will require residents to drive to purchase their weekly shopping. The second lose is a more important one is the relocation of the wastewater plant. The outcome of this is a result of the councils voting for it without due regard for its destination. This is now in the hands of the DCO process, but it will be the result initialized by the two councils who then organize the government hif grant to pay for the relocation. The shocking decision of Anglian water, a private company, which is only accountable to itself and the wishes of its shareholders to choose honey hill, a significant green belt site. Anglian water has totally ignored all of the results of the consultation process. This will result in an industrial site, industrial site larger than Wembley Stadium. Yes, larger than Wembley Stadium. Wembley Stadium is 18 hectares. The new site is 22 hectares. Mr. Martin, obviously, we've got a number of people who've asked questions in the Q&A and in order to get through, can I ask you just, I appreciate the statements that you're making, but could you get to your question, please? Yeah, yeah. I'm basically saying, well, I've already asked that. I'm basically saying there will be a problem and my main problem is about the green belt. So I'm talking about how much interference there will be by destroying the green belt at honey hill and the various different things that will change the nature of that area. So going back to my question, it is, in our campaign to save honey hill, we have written to many councillors, all councillors, asking for their viewpoint. So I'll ask my question again. Why is there little support for green belt from the council and councillors when there is so much rhetoric about doubling nature and bias of the steed net gain? Basically, you seem to ignore honey hill. It's green belt. You talk about open space and green, green belt, but you don't even mention it. It's just gone out of the window and not being discussed. So I want to know from councillors and the council what they think about green belt and why they think it's a good idea to destroy honey hill. Thank you. Okay, thank you for your question. I think obviously it's a very wide ranging question in terms of and your comments. I think probably from my perspective, it might just make clearly this is part of a wider spatial strategy. And I just wonder whether or not someone from the planning service can just it very briefly because I'm conscious of other questions that explain the basis of the approach to the spatial strategy that the councils have put forward at this moment in time as part of the process. And then, and then I'll ask Catherine Martin, I think has also got a question as well. Although, again, please, if we can think about keeping it brief. Would you like me to come in first on on that one. Yeah. Good evening. I'm Caroline hunts. I'm strategy and economy manager in the shape planning service. So in terms of why the focus on Northeast Cambridge as a location for development in the great Cambridge local plan. We looked at a whole range of issues as we were preparing the plan in terms of the constraints that that existing in and around Cambridge, the, the pressure there is for for economic development in this area. It's been a very positive very successful area in terms of economic growth, and that therefore requires housing to support those jobs and where possible those homes to be close to those jobs to. So we, we've looked a whole range of issues, including the desire to reduce need to travel and the priority of focusing on Brownfield land for development. And the whole suite of evidence that we've looked at which covers everything from the forecast level of growth through to the importance of biodiversity which the councils do see as a really important issue. The transport implications of various different spatial strategies everything from within the urban area as it is the case at North East Cambridge land on the edge of Cambridge in the green belt which is the case with. You know we've had a number of sites that forward to us on the edge of Cambridge in in the green belt. New settlements around further new settlements around Cambridge or growth, growth around villages and we looked at over 600 sites in total that were put to us. What came out really clearly from our residents particularly from a transport and movement point of view is that North East Cambridge is the most sustainable location for development because it means that people have to travel less. You've got already got the the public transport from Cambridge station from the busway with more proposals still to come with just a trail coming in so on. So from a from a planning point of view it is a very sustainable location for development. Now we have been really clear that, and this is a site that's been looked at over, you know, in planning terms in many over many years. It hasn't been possible to look at this site for development in the past because of the constraint of the wall street and works, and the plan is therefore predicated on that relocation taking place it's not requiring that relocation to take place. So, yes, we understand that the relocation requires it's like a green belt location and the councils will consider those proposals as I think we'll go through the process as statute consultee and that. But picking up on one of the questions in the in the in the chat which I think is related to this is our other sites considered if you if it if it wasn't North East Cambridge, well the answer that is, we consider 600. There are no easy answers to meeting development needs in this area. So we would have to look at whether and where the most sustainable alternative location would be, which could be on the edge of Cambridge for example another green belt locations or around villages. Thank you. That's all I was going to say thank you for that I'm conscious of Catherine Martin has also asked asked if she can ask a question so so Catherine over to you please and then I'll turn to the Q&A. Just taking my question. James Littlewood has pointed to the lack of open space in the NEC, which will lead to overcrowding at Milton Country Park. You've identified area six as a strategic open space to the northeast of of NEC. How will this land be paid for, and how will this space be used by the public do you envisage it as another country park or how do you see it developing and what guarantees you have that this land will be developed as a country park or whatever you see it as. Thank you. Thank you Catherine. Who's able to answer the question. I'll attempt to answer the question. Absolutely. That's okay. Yes, so, yes, I'm aware of Cambridge PPF and the comments that they've made about overcrowding at Milton Country Park. And we're aware of that as well we know that Milton Country Park is a well used and well loved site within this area and lots of people go there from, you know, Water Beach and Cambridge and other places as well. In terms of what we're what we're looking at in terms of the local plan and these new strategic open spaces. That's something that we obviously published for the first time, only a couple of months ago as part of the first proposal's local plan. And what we're doing now is we're actually working up how those sites could actually come forward because there are a number of large open spaces that we've identified. Each, each one of those will have its own constraints they'll have their own sort of land ownership things that will constraints and stuff that will need to take on board. So they will have different kind of functions, you know, habitats and things that will need to will need to consider. Now, how we actually deliver those spaces. That's something again that we're looking at at the moment, you know, there is definitely scope that they'll be funded they could be funded through development contributions. But exactly how in terms of the mechanism is at the section 106 is a seal levy or something like that. That's something again that we're looking at in more detail. So I can't give you a really definitive answer at the moment because we're still at such an early stage of the, of the local plan process. But yes, the intention is that these will be areas that can be used by the public. You know, they, you know, there will be areas where maybe they'll be more habitats that the areas that we've more public use. So I've said, you know, each one will be different in its own right. And so it's kind of just on the spotless space in terms of what the local plan will say about those as we go out to console consultation on the next version of the local plan. Thank you. Thank you, Terry. And I'm conscious of trying to make sure that we, we have plenty of time for that for the questions got another 15 minutes. I'll read out some of the questions that we've received in the Q&A chat. First, first round of questions. Mr. Martin made a number of points, but there are questions here about have the needs of homeowners changed during the plan period particular reference to COVID. And then actually one of the more recent questions that has just popped into the chat. Also on the, on the topic of COVID talks about expectations in terms of people's movement and whether these will be commuter homes or whether they'll be genuine homes. Terry, are you able to comment on that? Yes, so COVID was what was really interesting is that we consulted on the draft plan during the kind of, I think it was between the first and second lockdown. So it was really interesting. So, you know, it was really at the forefront of people's minds. One of the things that people were really keen on was just the availability of open space in the local area. Hello. Sorry, my son. So the availability of open space on their doorstep, which was really important. So they didn't have to travel miles in their car or whatever to actually just find some green space. And again, it was about the informal space. It was where they could walk their dog. It's where they could just go for an informal, you know, walk with their family as opposed to somewhere where they'll go and have a game of football or, you know, game of cricket. So that was something that we really took on board as we started to develop the plan further. So the question about homes, obviously, you know, as a planning authority, we have no necessarily control over, you know, who buys homes. Exactly. But what we are doing is making sure that we develop our plans to make sure it meets local housing needs. So we're doing studies on that as part of the local plan and that's feeding into this. So the sort of the types of homes, for example, like the some of the smaller units, we know that working with colleagues in housing, that there's an acute shortage of smaller units that sort of help the council housing register. So that's again something that we're working up with our housing colleagues to make sure that we're providing the right housing in a really sustainable location on the edge of Cambridge close to facilities and jobs. Thank you, Terry. There are a couple of questions relating to Milton Country Park. One is around the delivery of the, I think, referencing the sporting lakes proposals. And the second is the issue about how Milton Country Park is is supported in many respects by people driving to it and paying the parking charges. Do you want to kind of place because we had we have had representations about Milton Country Park? Caroline or Terry, I don't know whether you just want to comment about the potential in future for Milton Country Park to be to receive support from development at any city. Yeah, so we've actually been engaging with Milton Country Park for a number of years now before this forum was set up, we actually had a community liaison forum and Milton Country Park were actually put on on that forum and we, you know, we've done a really good relationship with them as part of that. Now, at the moment, the planning permission for the sports like proposal has lapsed so there's no there's no definitive proposal on the table at the moment for the sports like extension. So in terms of how in terms of the plan making process, we can't specifically say where the any offsite contributions from northeast Cambridge would go if there isn't a firm proposal in place so we can't say X amount of money is going to go towards Milton Country Park because at the moment there is no proposal. So that's something that we'll need to keep keep in mind as we undertake the health check on the air action plan but also as the plan continues to go through the examination process, and then later on through any plan reviews as well so that's something that we're really mindful of. The infrastructure delivery plan that we've done undertaken for northeast Cambridge identifies that that that developer contributions towards strategic open space offsite so places such as Milton Country Park or the area that I showed in my presentation between Cambridge and North Stowe and Water Beach is for over a million pounds to go towards offsite green open spaces. Now that's in addition to the 69 million pounds that we anticipate will be on site green and blue infrastructure. So if you consider what amount of money going towards green and blue infrastructure and like I said over a million at least a million, if not more towards offsite enhancements. Thank you Terry. There's a there was a question about accommodations for cycling, particularly in terms of routes across and over the river can you, can you just comment on on the extent to which I'm just looking for the comment in the chat Yeah, what new cycle connections are you considering to cross the river. So, as part of the spatial framework where we aren't we aren't proposing any additional connections over the river. Obviously the Chisholm Bridge has just has just recently gone in and opened which is great. What we're really keen to do is make sure that we have a really good network within North East Cambridge for walking and cycling and we provide all the necessarily segregated segregated routes and things to make sure that walking and cycling is the kind of the obvious choice for people when they're moving in and around North East Cambridge. Now, one of the things that we are keen to do is have a bridge over the railway line that goes into the area known as Chest and Fen, which is just the top end of Fen Road. And then that will then provide a link to the to the to the river top half, which will then enable people to go north up towards Water Beach and then south towards the Chisholm Trail and the city. So we're not providing any new bridges in addition to what there are but we are improving connectivity towards the river in that direction. Thank you Terry. We've had a question about when we can when can we have a date on on when we predict whether we will need a secondary school or not. Or is that or is that an expectation that residents will move when they they've children that that are older do you just want to clarify the position in terms of the education engagement. So we've, we've been working really closely with colleagues at the Council, both in terms of the demographics team that generate the population forecast and also the education team there as well. North East Cambridge would only actually generate around 1.4 forms per entry in terms of secondary school provision and I think I believe the minimum is kind of around four or five forms of entry in order to in order to actually require a new school. So, so based on that the numbers aren't there in terms of secondary school pupil yields. So therefore, the county have recommended that we go with offsite contributions to improve the existing schools within the existing communities. Thanks Terry. There's a question about the mix of housing proposed for any see how many one bedroom and two bedroom flats and houses and so on I don't know whether you can provide a breakdown on that. I don't have the percentages with me but we can provide that afterwards in the written responses, but it is, it's fair to say that it's predominantly flatted. And I believe that the majority that the largest proportion of those are two bedroom units. We can give a detailed breakdown, but it is that the numbers are actually in the area of action plan itself, but I can we can provide that. Thank you. And I'm sorry I'm trying to manage. I'm trying to look at different screens but I've got a raised hand from someone who identifies themselves as Anthony. Anthony you able to ask your question. Yes, it's Anthony Carpenter here can you hear me. Hello yes we can Anthony welcome. Thank you. My question is about the Milton Road garage site which is just south of the busway and just west of Milton Road and it's just within the southern boundary of the site and you've got about 75 homes I think. It's not allocated for there, but the area of footprints about this is actually larger than that for Parkside pool. And I've had a number of conversations with counselors saying that this would be an ideal spot for either an indoor swimming pool or a Lido because it would serve two of your most economically deprived wards in Cambridge, which is Chesterton and King's hedges, and it would serve the North Cambridge Academy and it would serve Cambridge regional college as well as the Northeast Cambridge site. Furthermore, you've got all of the public transport and the active transport access North Cambridge railway station all of the villages along the busway and furthermore your indoor sports facilities strategy from 2015. So on that side I read these documents said that Parkside pool, the main use pool at the moment is already well over capacity at the moment in particular in peak times, and also Cambridge University also recently announced that they are not prioritizing their hybrid swimming pool. So therefore I urge you again, if Anglianwater decide to go ahead with ministerial approval for their move to wherever they're going to move to, to look at that Milton Road garage site as one where you can build a swimming pool. And finally, in the consultations that you do please ask the children please ask the primary school secondary schools and CRC whether they think it would be a suitable site for a swimming pool because ultimately they will be the ones it's their future they're the ones are going to be doing it. Thank you. Thank you, Anthony. I don't know whether Terry you want to comment we have. I think you touched on the issue about pool pool provision. I suspect there is something Anthony to come back to in terms of thinking around pool provision across the growth plan in the local plan as well but it's a, you know, I think the point's well made, and certainly we can take that consideration away. I'm conscious that I've got about six more minutes to try and cover some questions one of one of the threads that a couple of people have highlighted it is around. I think Caroline you covered this question about why the loss of the of the green belt is being tolerated. I'm just looking for the precise wording but why, why the loss of the green belt is being envisaged for the relocation process. By the assumptions made around that northeast Cambridge I don't know whether there's anything that you can add to clarify I think it probably needs a longer answer in in response but is there anything you can say now and I'll just see up another question. I think there would be lots to say and I'm just trying to think how to how to address that in a in a succinct way. Yes, the, the opportunity that's provided by this area in North East Cambridge is is one that is not replicated anywhere else in or around Cambridge because of the existing and proposed public transport opportunities the proximity to the science park and so on. It really does provide an opportunity to provide homes close to jobs help reduce travel and get people out of their out of their cars. Caroline can you just I'm conscious of time and sorry to interrupt but I'm conscious there's also a question though about how the carbon footprint is calculated to draw that conclusion that you've just that you've just outlined can you can you just comment on that. So the. As we look at the local plan we look at the sites that are within our plan but we also look in combination with other projects so as the local plan and the reaction plan progressed we will look at the carbon impacts from arising from both the development proposals but also other proposals such as water treatment works do just want to mention though that the development control order process itself will need to look at the carbon impact not only of the new proposed works but also the the the in the use of and definition of the the current the current site and that is something that the planning inspector have made clear in this greenie opinion that they expect to be covered through the development control order process so that that will be that will be picked up. Thank you Caroline to respond to the one where someone's come back on something I said earlier about whether we looked at downsizing onsite or would you rather. I think it's probably I'm keen to try and in the in the three minutes that we've got left a number of people have asked about infrastructure and both the phasing an update of existing infrastructure and also the imposition on on communities, not just in the city but also in in Milton particularly. I don't know whether someone can comment about. I think there was a concern that investment or contributions would only be dispersed towards Cambridge when there were there were some concerns about Milton and and also the phasing of that infrastructure I don't know Terry whether you can answer or Caroline around the infrastructure program or information that underpins the. Well it's very much looking at North East Cambridge as as an entity across both district areas and as we move forward to the local plan to we're looking at Greater Cambridge as as one planning unit through through the plan so section 106 agreement would and contributions would absolutely look at the most appropriate places for provision to be made and it wouldn't be limited by the administrative boundary between Cambridge and South camps. In terms of the phasing and provision of infrastructure clearly that's a really important issue. And that's something that the infrastructure every plan does seek to look at as and as the proposals will come forward in more detail would absolutely need to be looked at and we are mindful that that is a particular issue in an area where there's a number of different landownerships and developments will come forward at different times so that's one of the reasons and significance of the AP and trying to look at this in a very much a holistic way to make sure it comes forward in a. In a in a way that brings all the infrastructure that's needed for the site but also bring benefits we hope to surrounding community. Thank you Caroline. I mean unfortunately, I don't think we're going to some really really good questions in the in the Q&A section, which I don't think we're going to be able to do justice to buy. And more in, there's a question about the availability of the slides, they will be along with the recording available I'm sure for for people to peruse. There will be, there will be answers to all of the questions that haven't been able to be answered live as I said at the start on the, on the web page for the forum in due course we're going to do that. I think, I think we aim to do that as soon as we possibly can, but to make sure that we've got comprehensive answers for those people that have that have raised them. Terry thank you for your presentation I think it's 645 and I'm doing my very best to keep people on time. We have