 Good morning, Members, Officers, Gentam and any Members of the Public who are viewing the livestream. Welcome to this meeting of the South Camperature District Council Planning Committee. My name is Councillor Mark Finkarn and I'm Chair of the Committee. May I ask those who are joining us remotely to ensure that their cameras and microphones remain off until they are addressing the committee? For those of us present in the room, please ensure your microphone is close to you ac yn ystod yn ychydig yn ddweud o'r rymd. Mae'n amlwg yn fawr o'r testau ar gyfer arlau ar 10.30 am, ac mae'n rhaid i'n ddiweddol i'r ddechrau ar y dda. Felly, roedd yna'n ysgrifenni, rwy'n meddwl yma yn ddesgrifenni i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Rwy'n meddwl gyda feddwl fod yn gweld y ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweudio. Mae'n meddwl, roi eu dal ar y ddim yn digwydd, feddwl fod yn arddi ochr cynnig o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, fel y bydd yn cael eu ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae'r ddweud yw Downing Carn, ac rwy'n meddwl o'r meddwl amma yng Nghymru. Mae'n rhaid i'r gymian oír verticallyau ym Ddeudio. Yn yn ystod, Yn yn ystod, Councillor Ariel Kane. Good morning, Ariel Kane, 빨跟an ac ybiment gyllideg Cym Cir. Councillor Bill Hanley. Good morning, Bill Hanley. Councillor for the villages of Over 사람 Willingham. Councillor Jeff Harvy. Good morning, Chair. Councillor Jeff Harvy, the member for Haw reparal Ward. Heard him of the regions of Over and Willingham. Councillor Judith Rippeth. Good morning, moo yng ngyrangel iousi yn yr EYörper yng Ngwater supporting beatw parse fel lorydd y Llywodraeth. Mae'r ysgol yng ngherod, yng Nghymru, Mae'n cael y cygodi'r ysgol yma. Ysgol Yng Nghymru. Yn athio'r blain, Senedd yra'r fawr? Rwy'r gwrswnor yn Daimiri Homun i'r dynnu'r dynnu yn dweud arfer. Mae'r dynnu'r dynnu yn ddechrau'r dynnu yn dderbyn o'r dynnu'r dynnu'n dynnu'n sefydliadau ar memeid yndyn nhw. Mae'n dynnu i ddwy'r cyfliadau ar ei ddefnyddio ar y dynnu. If at any time a member leaves a meeting, would they please make this fact known so that it can be recorded in the minutes? We should take breaks from this meeting as and when they are needed and are appropriate. The main agenda pack and online plans pack supplement were published on 4 December. Please notice that the minutes of the previous meeting and the compliance and appeals report are on the agenda for next week's meeting. Item 2 on the agenda. Apologies. Do we have any apologies for absence, Lawrence? Thank you, Chair. Two apologies for absence today. One from Councillor Dr Tim Hawkins and one from Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you. Declarations of interest. Members, when I come to item 3, do you have any members have declarations in relation to any item of business on the agenda? If an interest absolutely becomes apparent, please later in the meeting, please would you raise it to that point. I will start by saying that I know one of the presenting officers of the first item on North Stoke. So at the time, the first item on North Stoke, but she's a neighbour of mine, but I've not discussed it and I'll come to a matter of fresh. James Hubbrough is online, so could you introduce yourself, please? Good morning, Chair. My name is James Hubbrough. I'm the member for Foxton Ward and I'll be speaking in item 5. Thank you. Thank you. Will Hanley? Yes, thank you, Chair. I will be stepping out for items 4 and 7. Item 4, the North Stoke one, because I'm the community's lead and North Stoke is within my portfolio, so I've had a lot of discussions over this particular application. And also item 7, the welcome campus, because I've had, as a member of the cabinet, several briefings by them and I think it's best that I step back. Thank you, Chair. Just in relation to item 4, we probably should just for transparency note that obviously is an application from the council. So as we all have an element of interest, but that doesn't affect our decision making today. Thank you. Now we come to agenda item 4. This is at North Stoke, application number 2303248, stroke REM, North Stoke phase 1, parcel 6, part findaway North Stoke. It's a reserve matters application for the erection of a community centre and associated landscaping and cycle parking. The reserve matters include access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and related partial discharge of conditions 11, 18, 28, 36, 39, 40 and 42. Pursuit to the outline planning permission, S, 0388, stroke 12, stroke OL. The applicant is South Cambridgeshire District Council and the application is being reported to committee as it is the development of the council which has received objections. The key issues are design, layout, scale and landscaping, carbon reduction and sustainable design and cycle and parking provision. The recommendation is to approve subject to conditions. Luke Mills is the presenting officer. So Luke, would you take us through the application? Wait a minute for some technical issues to be sorted. Thank you chair, we're just trying to get this set up so you can see. Sorry for the delay. Once to get the laser pointer so everyone can see everything. Skip ahead because that's not the correct item. Here we are, thank you. Thank you chair for the introduction. So here we have, yeah as council Williams pointed out beforehand and this should note that this is a an application by the district council to the district council and it's regulation three of the town and country planning general regulations that gives authority for the council to determine its own applications. The site itself is in phase one of North Stowe. It's shown here on the site location plan in red. Blue land is also owned by the applicants. So the site is currently part of what will become the local centre in phase one. It's adjacent to what you can see to the west there with that crisscross kind of shape. That is the green. So that is an as built kind of formal square within phase one. And then you have the two main roads to the north and the south. So to the north is Stelling Road, to the south is Pathfinder Way and until recently using the main routes into North Stowe. And I think we move to the next slide. Take a moment to catch up. This one shows a bit better. So this is the proposed community building. It's almost a thousand square metres just under of floor space and it incorporates. So this L shaped building and then an enclosed courtyard garden here as well. What you'll see to the south here in outline is the temporary community building, which members may recall was approved by committee in March this year. So that's a community centre that provides some of the facilities that this permanent community building would provide on a temporary basis for three years. So what we're considering today is the permanent version of that. You can see a bit closer up as well. This is the green and then Stelling Road, Lynx Lane, Pathfinder Way. The remainder of the land, as I say, will come forward as a local centre in due course. And currently it's all just laid to grass and developed. Here's a closer view of the ground floor plan. I appreciate some of the notation might be difficult to read on the screen, but I'll try and pick out the key elements. So first we have a main hall and that's designed to be a flexible space that could perform a number of different functions. Large activities, performances, that kind of thing. It doesn't need to be the main formal performance space in North Stoke as there is one on the education campus. But it has that flexibility to do a number of different jobs. Then there's the cafe here and foie, so this would be quite a large kind of informal element as well for members of the community to use. And then there's what's called a messy or activity space, which a number of different groups would be able to use and that has direct access out into the courtyard as well. What you can see on this ground floor plan as well, is that they're kind of marked almost like car parking spaces would be, but these are actually cycle spaces all around the building there, around this side as well. And then we've got oversized spaces on the southern elevation as well. Then into the first floor. Up the staircase here there's also a lift as well, which both arrive out onto the collaboration space. So this is an area for people to co-work. Do other things, I think there's scope for microline, but a lot of the users here I think it's quite flexible. It will depend on what people need. There's also then some office space. So there's community office where staff would be located and then there's three meeting rooms and an NHS room as well. So that's somewhere where NHS staff can hold their appointments. Moving on to the elevations. We have the south elevation at the top, so that's facing where the temporary community currently is. The temporary building is the west elevation at the bottom of the screen. That is what would be the front elevation. So what we have in terms of the main materials are we have kind of brick at low level. There's a lot of timber, so there's a timber pergola structure that wraps around the building. There's charred timber proposed to clad, I suppose half of the or perhaps a bit more than half of the building and then it's like a green zinc cladding. I mean the actual final details of all the materials would be confirmed under a condition that's been recommended, but that's the design that's presented. It has quite a striking appearance, I'd say, with that roof form, which that derys from its sustainability credentials in fact because those pitched roofs, they allow natural ventilation. It's part of the ventilation strategy for the building. I'm just trying to get the laser pointer to the right position. I think there's a bit of a lag. So there's windows in this element here, the vertical part, and then solar panels on the sloped part. And then it also creates a building with some stature which is what was always envisaged in the design code for this building and this plot was for a landmark building, which it's considered to be. And then these are the other elevations. So we have the north, which would face onto Stirling Road. There's certainly service accesses, I suppose, for the bin stores and access into other stores as well. And then the east elevation at the bottom there, this would have the, the rear entrance to the building as well, where this pergola which wraps around the courtyard would be some gates here, which at times would need to be closed for security reasons, but other times might be open depending on the events that are taking place. And so then that's a route into the building through the courtyard garden. There's a landscaping plan just to pick up on. Yeah, some of the landscaping elements. So there's a couple of trees, or the three trees at the front at the moment, two of which, unavoidably do have to be removed, but they would be more than compensated for within the scheme with replacement planting and additional as well. So you end up with plenty of trees along the frontage here, a couple of new trees on the Stirling Road frontage and then generous landscaping within the courtyard as well, and also some shrubs and things to soften the impact on that northern elevation too. Again, final landscaping details will be confirmed on the condition, but I think this gives a good idea for what would be included. So we'll just say within the courtyard as well. Again, quite a flexible space. The messy activity area can spill out into here so there could be spillout activities outside from that. There's also just some limited kind of play equipment proposed for children, but also just a bit of space to run around. And then there's seating under the pergola which forms an L shape around the courtyard where the shelter from the sun and in parts of the rain. Let's move on to a couple of photographs of the site just for some context. So this is taken from... pretty much looking at what would be the... where the front elevation would be so it's standing at the north-west corner as the site's just beyond. So you can see the undeveloped area if the centre will come forward. There's the houses that surround the other side of the road and you can just about make out. Probably not really. You can see the fencing or the garden of the temporary community building. That's there on the right-hand side of the photo. And then this is looking from the... I'm going to catch up. This is looking from Lynx Lane so that's to the east of the site looking towards what would be the rear entrance. So the courtyard entrance and you can see the... let me point to catch up. You can see the temporary community building just there. So here's an artist's impression of the front of the building. So it's not the detail elevation but it does give a good impression of what the building would look like once built. Taken from about the same position where the photograph I just showed. And then this is within the courtyard. So it's standing around where the... just inside the gate into the courtyard looking into it. Hopefully that gives a feel of how that space would be used. So then moving on to the officer recommendation it's considered that this is an important... it's a delivery of a necessary community centre so the need for it comes from the Outline Permission for Phase 1 of North Stowe and the Section 106 Agreement that it had. So it addresses and identifies need. It has a high level of sustainable construction far exceeding various different standards. It's got full support from the sustainability officer and it also promotes sustainable transport choices through its location where the various walking and cycling routes around North Stowe converge on the green and provide real opportunities for people to walk and cycle to what would ultimately be a local facility. So it's felt that the balance is firmly in favour of the proposal and therefore the recommendations for approval subject to the conditions in Section 11 of the report. Thank you very much. Can we have any questions of clarification? That's a favour. Thank you Chair. Just two questions if I may. Looking at the... perhaps I missed it. Is there any provision for a cafe or equivalent within the building? Yes there is. I'll go back to the ground floor plan. There we are. So it's the light yellow area or well it's cafe and foyer but so the cafe area perhaps around I'll just outline it with a pointer and this area is the cafe and so near the front entrance of the building. And then if I may chair another question relating to the performance area I don't want to draw too many conclusions around the number of illustrative chairs but that looks like an area but do we have any idea of how many people might seat or accommodate? So that arrangement is that would be a performance activity. In fact what was included in the application was various different layouts for how that might be used but different types of events. It's also it can be subdivided. You might see that there are two entrances here. There's one there and one there and then it can be subdivided down here as well. A lot of the time it will actually be smaller activities across either the whole hall or in different parts. It's not mainly to be a performance area but the typical occupancy well not actually the typical occupancy the typical maximum occupancy for the whole building is it seems to be 200 people it will probably be less than that on day to day but then with occasional peaks 300 people that would be the absolute maximum for a really large event which could be one that would spin out as well. There is an event management plan as well with the application that explains how what these events would be managed. Can I just follow that up before we come to it? I'm just wondering if it is for instance let out to other community organisations or indeed just for the North Stur community organisation and we do have 250 plus people there on occasions presumably there might be quite a few who would arrive by car how would it be proposed to accommodate any cars for such events? That's a good question that was quite perhaps the most significant issue working through the applications around the car parking provision that has changed during the course of the application so initially the car parking so I should start by saying that the site is very well located on the walking and cycling network and as a local facility most would be expected to walk and cycle for every opportunity for those that are able and the cycle parking provision does exceed standards as well so that's provided for very well but in terms of the car parking calculation working from standards it would start with so looking at that typical occupancy it came out at around 50 spaces which immediately seemed very high for such a local community facility and then with the benefit of advice from county highways we accepted a 90% assumption that is in 90% with travel by non-car loads so that reduced it down to 13 spaces the applicant initially proposed to include those spaces along Stirling Road parallel parking spaces but there were some issues with that more technical issues with the way they were laid out and in fact actually highway suggested when seeing 13 new spaces that in fact none might be required at all and the reason for that is because this site isn't completely in isolation it does have, you can see even on this plan is parking spaces at the green there are nine spaces in total along the green including two accessible ones and two electric vehicle charging points as well and then there are 23 parking spaces in the nearby, I don't have them on the plan unfortunately to show you but 23 spaces at the end of the path find a way in a car park there and then there's a new western park pavilion that's been built with a 99 space car park which is likely to have excess capacity and these are all within 400 metres walk so as part of the travel plan that's been submitted people would be directed when making bookings when attending events to actually park in those nearby locations and then walk to the event I should also say highways are recommended a couple of conditions just to mitigate any adverse effects that there might be from on-street parking probably in the relatively short term because what will come is with the remainder of the local centre the design code will provide for additional parking to suit all of the local centre which includes the community centre so there will be parking on site then but then also the actual I'll flip to the site location I don't know if this one works Stirling Road here Lynx Lane sorry, the point was very slow so it's a bit wobbled and then Pass Find Away these would be the main roads you would expect people might park on at peak times these will be adopted it's in the adoption strategy for Phase 1 of North Stoke these will be adopted when the final houses are complete on Phase 1 which they nearly are so they'll be adopted by the Highway Authority then we anticipate WLA lines and then the worst offences of on-street parking could then be enforced by the council with its little parking enforcement powers as well so that's quite a long answer I hope that answers the question Councillor Heather Williams Thank you, Chair sorry my comments start in relation to page 17 from the access officer just wondering it says about a discrepancy with the accessible car park and just checking that has been resolved and also whether officers believe that in general the other comments in relation to accessibility are sufficiently secure with the conditions that are in place and lastly on page 18 the landscape officer says about information required has that been resolved does the landscape officer now have everything that they require Thank you, Chair Thanks On the first one the access officer comments around the parking yes that's been resolved in the sense that I think the figures that the access officer had seen related to what was in the initial proposal so as I said initially it was being proposed that there were going to be 13 spaces actually along the road but in fact it's relying on that shared existing provision so that's all been worked through with the highway authority as well so we think we're happy with that the other comments of the access officer some of them relate to quite detailed points internally so we would certainly intend to put those on as perhaps recommendations to the applicant to take on board when doing a design inside but a lot of that's kind of outside of our scope but then there are other elements certainly there are comments around some of the some of the actual materials of the external of the building and for those visual impairments different colour contrasts and things like that then that's something it kind of it works into like the materials details condition but it's like an extra reason why we would want that information is to address that point as well so we'll be looking at that when those details come and then on the landscape officer comments so the landscape officer didn't quite get everything in the sense that I pointed out there might be a couple of limitations say for example there was something around the external walkway I can just show you on this ground floor plan this external walkway suggested that it ought to be a bit wider as well to allow people to pass because there would be tables on the outside here but I think we were comfortable that we were talking about sort of 0.3 or something of a metre and we were comfortable that actually there's space for people to pass and that was okay but so but then yeah a lot of the other comments are incorporated in the sense that the final landscaping details will still be agreed under condition but as is common and there will be opportunities to explore those but some of them related to that we might not be able to fully address to these trees on Stirling Road and it was felt that there might be a better way to arrange the trees with the cycle spaces to fit I think it was maybe four or five trees instead of the two and then change some of the cycle spaces around but we'll have to see because we can't compromise the cycle spaces in a sense so there is a bit of balance that needs to be struck if this we think but overall I think we can accommodate the landscaping officer's comments and the conditions and Councillor Eileen Rawson Thank you this might be a bit previous but I was wondering what are the plans for managing this building so we do have an event management plan which is submitted with the application which sets that out but I don't know chair if we might be able to invite the applicant to explain a little bit about that because some of that comes down to methods of detail that we wouldn't necessarily look to control through planning unless there are any specific concerns underlying that concern but it might be an opportunity as the applicant is registered to speak to do that I think we'll leave that then to the when we have a presentation for the applicant Councillor Rawhill Cym What is the cycle parking provision It's 70 additional spaces there's some moving around of existing spaces as well just because there are already some at the front of the building which needs to be relocated around the green but it's yet a net increase of 70 spaces and the standard according to our policies is 67 so it's a slight increase on the standard and also taking advice through the application there are comments from Cam Cycle and County Highways around providing some oversized spaces as well for cargo bikes and other types of oversized bikes and those have been shown so here on this southern elevation as well there's a number of them there these are double spaces as well shown as six but that would be 12 spaces there and also throughout the course of the application with removal of the car parking spaces that were going to be alongside Stirling Road it allowed things to be freed up a bit to distribute the cycle spaces all around the building which is helpful because people will be travelling from different directions across North Sto so yeah hopefully we've got quite good cycle parking provision there oh and also I should say there's actually loads of cycle parking I think it's around 50 spaces around the green which are designed to be communal spaces you know they're not dedicated to any one particular use so at times of peak usage then yeah there should be more than enough Councillor Sandford Thank you chair and thank you Luke for a comprehensive presentation can you tell me how close this site is to the guided bus way station I'm thinking we should be encouraging visitors from outside North Stirl to arrive by guided bus and provide them with full signed well lit footpath to make their transit easier thank you yeah thanks that's a really good point unfortunately it's not quite on this site location plan but the existing Long Stanton Park and Ride stop is just to the north of where this site location plan is and so at the moment the land to the north this is the enterprise zone which council owns and will come forward in due course and so at the moment it's under developed land but in the meantime there is actually a temporary footpath just off this road here that connects the two and it is only a short walk on that I mean given the undevelopment nature of the land surrounding it in the fact that it's a temporary footpath it's not completely lit but there's a more slightly more convoluted route but not as director around a road that's recently been built as well but it probably takes it and it's probably still I need 500 to 600 metres walk that kind of thing so and there's a very large car park there but people are driving but also people using the guided bus could walk from there and so yeah I mean that's definitely a part of it and that's the kind of thing that could be so it could be in the travel plan the travel plan I should say is relatively comprehensive but it's just missing a couple of bits so that will be updated under a condition that's been recommended as well so the Longstown Tafelryd site could also be specified as forming part of the travel options for people coming through the site Councillor Judith Fierbeth Councillor Sanford has just asked the exact same question on public transport I was going to so thank you I will ask a question the whole centre has been defined around the idea that people won't use cars or a limited amount of 50 spaces in the community baking my main concern would be what will be the impact on surrounding roads for a major event which has 250 perhaps people attending perhaps in bad weather when people wouldn't use cycles what would be the impact how far along the surrounding roads would people park or would you direct them to the park and ride park which is probably rather far to travel if it's raining for instance what would be the provision in that sort of situation for perhaps not very frequent but occasional yeah I think that's a fair question also I think it does need to be accepted that in the in the very short term until those roads are adopted there could be a few issues and that's partly why the conditions have been recommended by the highway authority but essentially it's those roads that I point out Stirling Road, Lynx Lane, Pathfinder Way all of these primary roads through North State these will all be adopted and then it's anticipated we'll have the double yellow lines that then can be enforced as well then I suppose the question becomes where do those cars get pushed out to when in fact then the actual car parks that are in place so there's one at the end of Pathfinder Way that is only just of this plan just at the end of Pathfinder Way there's 23 spaces there that's then looks very close Western Park Pavilion is really very short distance away to the south as well and then it's you know these will be safe places for people to park and there's measures in the travel plan around signing the walking routes as well like providing people with maps when they're attending events of where the parking is and what the walking routes are between then also actually having way marking signs on the ground just to kind of point people between the community centre and those parking locations and longer term when the remainder of the local centre comes forward the design code will provide for will require parking that meets the needs of all of the local centre including all its uses including this community centre I think in a perfect world perhaps it would have all come forward at the same time and you'd have done that but what would really be keen to ensure is that if things do come forward in it so a more incremental way which this kind of has to because it has to reflect an identified need for a community centre we wouldn't want to add car parking to one and then to the next and end up with a glut of car parking when actually the end state that would look to reach would be an efficient car park that suits the needs of all those uses according to its peace and trust of usage so we think it works well and we think it would encourage people to use sustainable travel and we think there are then options for those that aren't able to park nearby unfortunately it's not an exact science but we think the judgment is supported by the highway authority but there will be what will be the situation on the residential road so for instance on the other side of the main road there or the smaller roads will there be parking restrictions on those or will there be for instance parking on one side that's a good question so I think some of those smaller streets as well they would I don't think I mean it's not specified I don't think but I don't think they would be adopted or not all of them anyway so they might not end up with WLIs and those restrictions so it could happen to some extent but those houses do also have the on-park parking that they require in parking courts and things so on street parking isn't something that they rely upon for for their parking needs I wonder whether Tam Parry perhaps could comment on this yet good point I think we have Tam actually on the call say Tam Parry from the Highway Authority, Cambridge County Council hi Tam hi good morning yes I'm from the Cambridge County Council of Transport Assessment team I think it could happen that people could park in the residential streets but as Luke said people every house has got all street parking most of the houses do tend to use it the amount of on-street parking around this area I don't think is very high so you could support some element of on-street parking I think if it becomes a nuisance we'll have to deal with that at the time but I think what Luke set out with the car park spaces and park finder bay in the sport centre car park and at Longstown Park and Ride there are immediate parking that we would highlight to or we would seek but the applicant highlights to any people hiring hall particularly if they think they're going to be a big activity and bringing in people from far field and in the long term as Luke was saying there'll be more car parking immediately chasing to this area in the enterprise land thank you no more questions can we now move on to the presentation by the applicant have Kirstyn Donaldson here on behalf of South Cambridge District Council Kirstyn you have three minutes at the end of we'll indicate at the end of three minutes we'll come to a close if you reach that time thank you very much indeed thank you chair I don't have a presentation to make today but it was to let the committee know that I as the representative of the applicant supported by my technical team Ricardo Obisey, Adam West Andrew Kometski and Adrian Cole are available for questions okay do we have any questions council Wilson thank you I'll come back to my earlier question it was really about the viability would someone need to pay would it be contracted out would someone need to pay I just want to know that it would be viable in the long term that it wouldn't fail that's all thank you so the future governance and management of the building is a subject for a separate piece of work that's been led by the district council community's team those teams have led the work on the temporary community centre and the sports pavilion and the solution for this building will be tailored to this facility and likely subject to a separate future southcambure cabinet decision in terms of the temporary community centre and the sports pavilion different approaches have been taken there and I know that the community's team are working closely with north store town council on what the future solution for this building might look like councillor Heather Williams thank you chair through yourself if I could just ask of course you have heard earlier that I raised questions in relation to access and how those things we've had the response that they were internal along with some of the things that come back from the police can we have assurances that those will be complied with in that guidance those recommendations will be taken on board thank you chair accessibility has been exceptionally important to this design and it is something that is refined through the technical design stages you will see that in the plans we are including for a changing places facility we have put in place a lift to ensure that wheelchair users can access the whole of the building we are currently working up what we call our employers requirements which deal with the sort of design of the internals and we are looking at our IBA the Royal Institute for the Blind guidance around colours and contrasts and so on and so forth as well as putting hearing loops in place in appropriate settings within the building we will look at any additional recommendations that the committee have any other questions thank you very much now we move to councillor Richard Owen who is from Northside Town Council who is online we would like to in councillor Owen welcome to hear from you we would limit you to three minutes for your presentation thank you very much thank you very much can you hear me okay in the room yes thank you we can hear you councillor thank you councillor Owen have you the consent of the town council to speak on their behalf yes I do thank you thank you very much and thanks very much to the planning committee for the opportunity to speak here today on behalf of Northside Town Council it's fair to say that over the first few years of Northside's existence the relationship between the town and the district council left quite a lot to be desired communication for the district council wasn't good the district council wasn't good statutory deadlines for progressing amenities required by section 1.6 were frequently missed and this led to our available facilities at the time the community being at the local primary school being lost without a suitable replacement being ready and this had a significant impact on the town because groups that have spent years getting established were left without a suitable space to thrive and support the growing population here and I'm happy to say that in recent months a huge amount of progress has been made the temporary community centre has been completed opened and is full on a daily basis and now this application is in for the permanent community centre the first landmark building in Northside as Luke just said as a town council we've strongly support this application we believe it's a comprehensive proposal and design which will meet the needs of the Northside community now and in the future the main hall, cafe area and meetings basis will support large scale events social activities as well as the wide range of statutory services and provisions needed making this a key focal point in the town the focus on a sustainable building with use of PV energy and gross or heat pumps is much appreciated and it will help burnish the credentials of the Northside as a sustainable new town the parking provision has come up several times here we believe it's sufficient as a town council as we believe the existing 99 space car park at the sports pavilion within five minutes walk will satisfy this need as well as the parking basis mature available near much closer for greater accessibility on top of this the town council would like to highlight that it believes the process has been transparent both during the pre-planning and planning application process and we believe that substantial and sufficient input has been sought from the community with clear feedback loops built into the process so as we move into the next phase of development in Northside notably the local retail space which will follow from this building and which Northside really needs as soon as possible and we would like to strongly endorse the approach that's being taken here we feel that we've been listened to and there's full results and a successful facility that the whole town can enjoy thank you very much and I'm happy to take any questions you might have OK, any questions for councillor Rowan thank you very much councillor Rowan now we come to the debate does anybody any councillors wish to speak in the debate councillor Williams thank you chair so looking through I'll start with my initial concerns over a few bits one was about the accessibility being complied with and I think we've had a sufficient answer from that was sufficient as we can get today so that has been addressed on the parking I can understand why there has been representations of concern around that and I'm thinking particularly if people choose it for a party you're naturally going to have people coming from out of the area in but looking at the conditions I think there is a condition that says that it's going to be monitored and managed and sort of maintained and there is on-site within the ownership of the applicant there is the ability to expand the parking provision if required so I do think that time will tell on the parking but at least we have that clawback if required and I would make advice officers to make sure that's really strong conditioning and can be enforced well if required but that in the balance the sort of concerns that I had mainly in those two areas I think they have been alleviated and it is something that is as we've heard very needed and long overdue so we're happy to support the application chair Councillor Sanford did you want to speak? Thank you chair I think it's unfortunate that North Star has been so far developed and so many houses occupied before the community facilities have been brought forward but better late than never I think what we have in front of us here is a modern sustainable well thought out building I'm sure there will be teeth in troubles as there always are when you're pushing the envelope but I'm very much happy to support this application Thank you chair I very much echo what Councillor Sanford has just said about the importance of this application bearing in mind of course there is a temporary community facility but that is temporary the key issue for me was always going to be parking and of course the came which a quality panel which is back in July they expressed this concern the parking strategy at that stage remained unresolved proposed car parking provision as I think our officer explained at 8 spaces is far below the indicative parking standards in our policy which would normally indicate 50 spaces but we have heard from the county council on this as well as from our own officers and indeed from the town council and I think that there has been a lot of community engagement with this and I think it's therefore reasonable to accept that this is an opportunity that will not only meet the needs of the building without putting too much strain on the surrounding streets but will take a step forward in encouraging more sustainable methods of travel and this is a good spot to do that because of the facilities all around so I think it would be right to to go with the flow on that to accept the advice of the various parties and I similarly would be would support this application and accept the officer's recommendation I would comment myself the same that I was concerned about parking strategy and particularly for large events and these concerns have largely been laid by the comments of the county council and the planning the strategy I think will work it's certainly we don't want additional parking which then turns out not to be necessary and with the provision of a commercial centre joining with the existing facilities the 50 car parking spaces community area I think that this should meet the needs so I was that concern has been laid there have been concerns about the design and the finish when I looked at the elevations I sort of looked a bit odd but then we saw the three quarter the overall view and he looked a really interesting building so it shows you how difficult it is to judge straight from elevations what a building looks like so I think it will be a feature and attraction for the area and it's clearly very much needed it has been commented it's unsatisfactory that it has been so late but better late than never and I think this will be a major asset in addition to the community so I'm generally like the other comments that have been made in favour of the application are we ready I think now to go to a vote can we go to a vote please I was going to say shall we go to a vote and let's get this delivered for north excuse me chair there we are proposed please I'd be happy to propose this goes to a vote seconder I'm happy to second thank you very much can we go sorry all in favour okay just to clarify if you're in favour of the recommendation to approve you vote in favour if you're opposed you vote against that's approved Lemcom randomly okay now we move on we're going to have a 10 minute adjournment now please before we consider the next application thank you very much thank you very much I'm sorry for that delay there was a technical a legally serious to this decide we're going to consider the next application number 5 at the end of the proceedings because there was a piece of information which we believe was sent to all councillors we want to check first of all who has received the correspondence from Colgraver States regarding the application this week we have I don't know from Colgraver States have other councillors received this sorry when was it sent 8th 10th past 6th sorry can you I can Wilson yes okay it appears that councillors have received it we're going to councillor Henry I did receive it I didn't read it okay fine the planning officers have not received it so we're not aware of it so we're going to give them time to look at it and then consider it the last item of business councillor Williams can I just ask chair is this something that's going to be are we going to put it into the public domain so it's something that we're facing our decision on then I'm assuming that other speakers should have time to look at it as well that is part of the aim is to ensure that it gets in the public domain and that the objectors have a chance to see it as well sorry Melissa Blaine just to confirm this document came with an email from a Joel Frears but the letter accompanying his email is signed by Mr Blondell the applicant that document needs to go on to our planning before that can happen it has to be redacted so that's why we need to push this back at least one item they're working as fast as they can to get it uploaded but it's entirely proper that everybody sees it those for this application and those in objection to it we will advise when it's gone live on the planning portal which hopefully will be as soon as possible today we're working as fast as we can as I say this document was sent on Friday to council members but the planning officer had not received it he hasn't seen it so he needs time to look at it we need time to get it once it's uploaded to the council's public planning portal so that objectors and those in favour can see it it can be discussed until that point we can't hear this matter that may take an hour it may be after lunch I can't give you a time which item this will now drop to it may be at the end of the day but they're working as fast as they can councillor, I think you're inviting me to say something my name is David Brock I'm the chairman of the planning committee of family and parish council a number of us have appointments at around about lunch time which means that we will have to leave here shortly and we are booked to speak what would be helpful is if we could have a not before time at which you will come back to this item for myself I would hope that I could be back here at 2pm we were looking to do it after the probably the end of business after the other applications but maybe we'll be able to hold it a bit earlier but certainly it would be I think not before 2 is a reasonable assumption could we and there are other people here from Falmer could we know for certain that it will be not before 2pm I will confirm that and we all can confirm thank you very much could we just get a copy from the planning office while we're here before it goes live no because it has to be redacted on the parade okay thank you very much we'll sorry okay now can we formally we need to formally propose the order of business all to the order of business can I have a forward proposal Chancellor Chancellor proposes can I have a second are we all agreed agreed okay we now move on to item 7 on the 6 here 6 on the agenda item 6 on the agenda 30 foot application 23 stroke 03293 stroke HFUL 24 West Creek Cometham the proposal to replace existing outbuilding with a 2 base single story cart lodge style garage with a low profile Bonapitch roof the proposal to replace with a low profile Bonapitch roof and additional landscape planting it's been reported to the committee as the application was submitted by an officer of the council the key issues are the character and appearance and impact on heritage assets and neighbour amenity the recommendation is to approve subject to conditions Adam Jimi Dvovic is the presenting officer thank you Adam so I'm just waiting to get my presentation up just confirming that we won't be taking item 5 till after 2pm for those of you who are not concerned but thank you for your patience I'll begin okay so the application is at 24 West Creek Cometham so it's a replacement of existing outbuilding with a 2 base single story cart lodge style garage with a low profile Bonapitch roof the installation of 2m high gate and additional landscape planting as you can see the location is located north of West Creek in Cometham adjacent to number 18 and 14 West Creek here both listed buildings and number 26 which is not listed so you can see here this is the boundary for the Cometham development framework and the conservation area which is within application property here is here this is the approximate location of the proposed development and of course as discussed here are the listed buildings so the proposed site plans are proposing the proposing keeping the existing 3.2m high existing hedge those are proposing a new a new U hedge to approach the gate on this side so it's essentially meaning that the garage would be obscured from public view so the show would be demolished and the garage would be replacing that in the third print and the elevation pictures of existing art building the existing proposed access elevation post floor roof plan for the garage and the elevations so there would be a slight tilt among the pitch roof as you can see here with the higher side being to the west and the lower side being to the east the planning balance on this one is for approval to be able to design the scale which is in the character and appearance of the area whilst respecting the immunity of neighbouring properties while reasons for refusal will be a potential impact to heritage assets our official recommendation is for approval but this is for you to debate today thank you very much indeed are there any questions of clarification from members? Thank you chair I wonder if I could ask the case officer to go back to the site plan explain to us how this building as proposed relates to the west facing window of number 14 that's almost to the two listed properties in particular how close will the eastern wall of the proposed would the eastern wall of proposed garage be to that window to what extent would it block all light and visibility from that window? Thank you councillor I'll just take a couple of notes thank you for your patience location the ground floor window of number 14 is positioned here so it's located a small distance away the distance from the garage to the wall is about 1.5 metres apart the key point is that the garage would be located to the north of the window and not immediately outside it and blocking it is that right? That is correct we believe that it overcomes the potential immunity impact that was present on the last application as it be located a sufficient distance north of the proposed window so thereby allowing sufficient light to a habitable room as more than due to part of the sun and providing a clear line of access for light Sorry councillor Read your papers understand that the side of the window facing the garage from 18 West Street is a bathroom window is that one of those blocked out windows that isn't clear glass? It's a number 18 is it's a bathroom window so by the coronavirus regulations that means it's not down as a habitable room so thereby for if you're seen as being obviously considered unreasonable that the application should reject some of the grounds that be blocking light to this room councillor Harvey Thank you chair I just wonder if we could clarify what's meant by a cart style building is that does that have any sort of import or is it just you know being thrown in there for embellishments if you like or can it constrain what's eventually built in any way Thank you I'm just going to have a look back at some of the notes and I'll just confirm back to you have a bear with me for a second sorry chair could I just clarify were you asking why it was sort of described as a car port I might have missed Okay thank you for that clarification I think it's just been described that way because one of the there's a two bay garage and one of them has a door one doesn't so I think that's simply describing the fact that one of the parking spaces is kind of open in the sense it doesn't have a front door so it's as simple as that design that's come forward Any further questions Thank you very much Now can we have a speaker Mr Funch the applicant I'm sure you know that you have three minutes to speak and look forward to hearing from you Good morning I would just like to say that the garage will not be visible from west street it will have no impact on the street scene the installation of the gate shown on the proposed site layout plan and the elevation plan would further limit the views into the site and the landscaping condition will ensure the screening will remain in place The impact of the proposal on the conservation area is not harmful to its character and appearance and the design being similar to the other outbuildings in the conservation area The west elevation of the listed building 1418 west street is screened by the 3.2m high U and the mature U tree at the front of the site Therefore the setting in terms of the view of the listed building from the public highway would be unaffected The proposed garage would be subservient to the listed building having height on the east elevation of 2.5m and a low profile monopitch roof design It would be a similar height to the existing timber outbuildings The west elevation of number 14 west street has a ground floor window directly above The proposed garage does not affect the outlook from either of these rooms The distance of the proposed garage away from number 1418 is ample to ensure that to enable repairs and maintenance work to be carried out when required and to allow air circulation as part of the drying cycle for the line render I feel I can't do better than the words of the planning officer The proposal by virtue of the modest scale, the low profile roof is considered to respect the value of the adjacent heritage dash sets where views of the two elements would exist The proposal is not considered to dominate or diminish the setting of the listed building and to represent an acceptable built form in this instance Having regard to all these points The proposal is acceptable in terms of its siting within the conservation area and proximity to the listed building I would like to thank the planning officer for his work on my application and I ask that the committee to approve the application in line with his recommendation Thank you Thank you very much Do we have any questions? You said there's ample distance Can you just confirm what the distance is between the eastern face of the proposed building and the western face of 1.5 metres Okay Thank you very much We seem to have no more questions Thank you Mr Punch Now we come to the debate Is there any debate? Who would like to speak in the debate? Councillor Fave Chair, if I know a little bit Chair, if I know others perhaps I could There are others but I'll lead anyway now It's no secret that we have looked at this before I think significant changes have been made to the proposals I would now accept that it doesn't have a significant impact on the listed buildings next door Not looking at the view from the road of those listed buildings but particularly the view of the ground and the light from what is a habitable building a habitable room on the ground floor of number 14 So in view of the changes I would be happy to accept the officer's recommendation Councillor Salford Thank you chair I was going to say exactly the same things as Councillor Fave I believe the only issue we had with the previous application was the blocking of the window at number 14 so I'm happy to support as it comes before us today Sorry, Councillor Hanley Thank you I agree with the previous comments I personally would be happy to go to a vote and I'm willing to propose that if you wish Second We have a proposal from Councillor Bill Hanley seconded by Councillor Heather Williams Are we happy for that? Can we go to a vote please? Sorry Just to clarify if you're in favour of approving the application according to the recommendation you vote green if you want to refuse the application you vote red refuse against it Can I just advise that we are having slight technical difficulties with our display and the votes are being recorded but they might not be on screen so I'll read them out for you Just to confirm that it's been approved unanimously Sorry, Chair Member staff, it's to go to an electronic vote It's been to an electronic vote Yeah But it's not being displayed It's been to an electronic vote but it's just not being displayed Thank you, Chair so that is the vote fully in I have nine votes yes and none no and zero abstentions Okay, thank you very much indeed the application is approved Now we move to item seven on the agenda Can we adjourn for five minutes to make sure that the applicant everybody is available Welcome back to the planning committee We now consider item seven on now consider item seven on the agenda the welcome genome application on the welcome genome campus application S4329 stroke 18 stroke com COND stroke 21 welcome genome campus Hingston submission of details required by condition 21 strategic design guide of the outline permission S of the application reported committee is the application raises special planning policy or other considerations the key issues are the framework plan policy movement and access landscape and dive by diversity land uses dwellings and buildings design and layout and scale the recommendation is to approve the full discharge of planning condition of the planning condition subject to a minor amendments to the design guide post committee decision that are not material to the outcome of the document delegated to officers James tipping as the presenting officer to speak thank you chair morning members so I'm just going to get this presentation online this slide delay that's great, lovely thank you so members this is as the chair says submission of a design guide in relation to condition 22 of the outline plan just to quickly explain which is going to give you the context in terms of the extent plan permission which is the outline plan permission and what it provides for as you can see provides for 1,500 homes 150,000 square metres of flex and point uses and other associated uses community leisure etc in terms of the condition 22 and there is other relevant conditions in relation to this as well the design guide is not a design code and the reason for that is there are other elements of the outline plan permission which do provide for more detail in relation to the submissions whether they are as it matters and you can see here conditions 17 there is a requirement for development area which supplements the design guide and this table here you can see it coming up just gives an example of the process in which the outline plan permission and where the design guide sits within that process so the design guide relates to development areas 1 and 3 so you can see there with the parameter plan on the right hand side you can see development areas 1 and 3 there as part of the expansion land and so within this the process the strategic design guide you can see on the the central image sits just above the sitewide landscape and ecological management plan and phasing plan which are also required by conditions then that follows with a development brief and then the subsequent reserve matters applications so there is a particular process that has to be gone through which the design guide forms part of so to say the why is there a sitewide design guide requirement as to say the welcome trust are very much leading on this and look to retain and manage the development including the expansion land going forward and that is quite a key in terms of development going forward and with Urban and Civic as the delivery manager or the master planner who will implement on the strategic level and just to go with the context again in terms of the actual site location design guide and how it fits within the expansion land so you can see there the red line is the outline for the outline plan permission and then we have the blue line is the design guide requirements for the expansion land requirement so this these two plans just give a bit of context in terms of in the wider context of where the expansion land and also the existing welcome genome campus sits and certainly in relation to Cambridge and also the surrounding villages excuse me as part of design guide which has been an ongoing process for a couple of years now engagement has been a critical part of that and Urban and Civic as well as consultation team have been working closely with the council as well as other consultees such as the counter council ensuring that the design guide is brought forward and is well considered and obviously having the full public engagement workshops including the quality panel as well and that's been a critical part of the process and refinement of the design guide itself so just turning to the design guide in terms of its requirements as part of the design guide and developing the master plan there has been some minor amendments to that from the outline plan permission and those parameter plans that are approved as part of that permission as you can see there on the right hand side there is a slight overlay of what is from the parameter plans that were approved to what is now going to be the master plan so you can see there that there has been a slight shift in terms of where the central green is which butts the A3001 to the west of the expansion land and then there is some change in terms of the internal road layout as well but what remains fixed is the development areas in terms of those boundaries so they retain a little while fixed so that is an important element so in terms of the other parameter plans that are approved they are adhered to so this slide just sets out what the design guide contains it is quite a comprehensive design guide that is around about 200 pages within the document itself there are I can see from the destruction elements of the design guide sustainability is one of the key elements of the design guide and sits near the top of the document it is quite forefront and then what precedes that is what follows is those stretching elements and parts of design detailing the place as well in terms of reading and understanding design guide just extracted a couple of elements or pages from the design guide itself in terms of how it is read and understood and can be conveyed by developers us and when reserve matters submissions come forward so there are in the blue box there are these industry principles or design principles which have to be adhered to and then there is further guidance that supports that within the pink boxes and they contain musts and shoulds as I can say there the musts of industry requirements and shoulds are where it is recommended or can be tried to be achieved where possible so this image here just shows the framework plans that is a key plan to the document and it provides some structuring elements such as landscape movement there is a key to this as well which is more detailed but I thought this would be better as a framework plan and it is key to the document itself so sustainability is quite an important element of the design guide and this slide here just gives an indication of what the design guide but also any sort of subsequent conditions certainly the conditions that form part of the outline plan permission in terms of sustainability and those requirements are that sort of given in terms of that diagram on the right hand side as you can see there in terms of the actual requirements to sustainability they are sort of a high bar and something that is well received by officers and certainly our sustainability officer is very supportive of in terms of those particular requirements that come through in the design guide so again talking about some of the structuring elements within the design guide itself this is how some of the can't go through every single page so it is quite a substantial document and comprehensive but understanding some of the elements which can be taken from the design guide so looking at say landform for example because there is a slight change in levels so again from that image at the bottom there you get an understanding of how those levels are treated and also there are some present images as well to support guidance within that sort of structuring and landform element sustainable learning drainage systems obviously as a key component not only for sustainability but also for by the person that gained as well to some extent and again there are sort of these images within the design guide which give a clear demonstration of how certain elements come forward and you can see there from the image on the right hand side those structuring elements again to the somehow the studs will come forward excuse me so this is a sort of I guess in terms of the land parcels and how they will come forward and the land uses as well and where they are positioned as you can see there from the image on the right hand side you can see that the within development area 3 the majority or predominantly land use is residential and then that sort of bleeds into development area 1 coming further to the south where it becomes more some high density residential and mixed use with residential as well as the commercial leisure community uses and other supporting uses so this slide here just again sort of indicates the landscape elements that surround development areas 1 and 3 it's also got the built form which are the preceding slides shown and this is the landscaping elements which are again it's an important element when it comes to elements such as biodiversity net gain and sustainability to some extent so the images further to the right just gives an indication of the detail that can be brought forward within future reserve matter submissions and what's expected in some of those landscaping elements within certain areas of the design guide and the expansion land so access and movement is a critical part of the site as we have the welcome junior campus the existing campus which is the other side of the A3001 will be future commercial developments that forms part of the expansion land and it's trying to reduce certainly usage of car so a lot of focus is around walking and cycling so there's very much a focus on that and suddenly looking at the gateway loop the internal roads they won't be adopted but they are looking to be more some cycling focus cycle streets in essence so there is that sort of priority use in terms of that movement across the site so just looking at the parcel design again this is what design guide contains is some of those present images understanding the built form the edges and interfaces certainly with the green and the other landscaping elements and how that sort of interacts and can be brought forward within subsequent reserve matters submissions and just to add a bit more onto that in terms of massing a layout again there's a lot of precedence images but also testing of particular built form as you can see there within the images below those precedence images and then some detail in the place, the roofscape and building services the roofscape is quite an important element as part of that sort of built form so there's a variety of uses that could be incorporated within the roofscape certainly and again these present images on the right hand side just gives a flavour of what could be brought forward again the hard landscaping materials and furniture images of what could be brought forward as part of the future reserve matters submissions there will be again some of the detail will be contained within Development Briefs and the subsequent reserve matters applications themselves wayfinding public art these are quite important elements as well the image on the right hand side just indicates where some of the views could be experienced within the site itself and then which could lead to positions of public arts but also the wayfinding it's a relatively large site so wayfinding has got an important element as well and certainly as we go through future phases to final completion of the site looking at the planting strategy there are a number of key landscaping elements to the site and certainly if you look at for example the agroforestry that could come forward to the north west of the site this is quite a substantial part of the landscaping element and which separates things from village to that sort of northern part of the development so it's an important part of the site and how that can come forward within future reserve matters again this is all linked to some of the biodiversity net gain elements which will come forward in a later presentation it's just here actually sorry yes biodiversity and habitat so you can see here just we've gone into all the time goes into detail certainly in relation to biodiversity and habitat and those requirements in terms of what's expected future reserve matters to achieve and as you can see here there's a target of 25% biodiversity net gain which is well above policy requirements of 10% so this is something that's been worked with our ecology officer who's very pleased in terms of what's going to be achieved within this site in terms of biodiversity net gain so yes just looking at the final slide in terms of that planning balance as you can see here from the slide so it complies in terms of design guides it complies to the approved parameters plans of the outline plan permission it complies with the approved documents of the outline plan permission including development principles which incorporate part of the design guide adheres to the local plan policy requirements provides for a framework for highly sustainable development and demonstrates extended targets for BNG and water resources and the design guide is recommended for approval thank you thank you very much have the members got questions of clarification Councillor TANFORD thank you chair could I ask for clarification on exactly what we are being asked to approve today are we approving that the condition has been satisfied and a convincing looking document has been submitted or are we actually being asked to approve the content of the plan the latter I don't feel technically qualified to identify that every point is technically accurate and viable clarification please yes you are asked to discharge the condition essentially thank you could I ask that point to be ministered okay any other questions of clarification Councillor FAIN yes I appreciate we are being asked to discharge the condition not the details of the design two questions if I may firstly could we have clarification of the difference between the design guide and design code which is not quite clear to me and the second relates to I'm sure I may not be the only one who is having difficulty reading the key on some of the plans that were shown earlier my particular concern related to the roofscapes there was something to say about the possible issues of the roofs and the design of the roofs and I wonder whether we can go back to that one and clarify that thank you yes thank you in terms of design guide versus of design code design code provides the precise detail in which the development should come forward whereas design guide provides it is essentially that is guidance only and provides some flexibility in terms of how the elements will come forward again it goes back to the the structuring of how the Outland Plan permission provides what requires a development brief to be submitted which essentially provides more detail and then the reserved matters will provide that precise detail I hope that helps and in terms of the roofscapes it helps us to go back to that so I'm just going to pass it yes I appreciate it it's difficult to read the text within the images in terms of the actual planfication on the roofscape so I just want to ask what that is about I wasn't quite there chairman whether the pictures the photos at the top are meant if they refer to other buildings which perhaps being used as examples of what might appear here and to what extent the illustrations are intended to be illustrations of what might appear here yes I would say that they are just present images they just give an example of what could be incorporated as part of the roofscape and within the guide itself there are a number of present images which just gives an indication of what could be incorporated again I guess it goes back to that guide versus code element any other questions thank you very much now it comes to Councillor Williams thank you I thought you were going to forget me there chair I hate to linger on the point but just to be really clear about the difference between the code and the guidance to take it what you say is the guidance so it's giving a steer as opposed to making it required but how does that look from an enforcement point of view essentially this is there's nothing in here that we can enforce and within the guidance itself there are development principles which any developer would have to adhere to I can just go back to this particular slide so the development principles and they're embedded in the outline plan permission so they have to be adhered to so that if they're not followed or strictly followed then that could be enforceable as part of the condition 21 and then as part of that there is additional guidance where it's must and shoulds and the musts are they must carry that out in that way and if they don't then again that could be enforceable in that sense sorry to come I just really want to be clear on this before we go to the next part in the voting because as you say the musts and the shoulds they also appear on the design code if that makes sense and we've often had a design code and we've gone through and debated whether things should be a must or should be a should so those principles that we would apply for the code if it's as must still stand here from an enforcement point of view because if we can't enforce any of this then it's as much use as sort of a chocolate teapot really I appreciate that but I think in terms of the guide itself it still provides that flexibility whereas the code certainly there's a lot more fixed elements within it but yes in terms of what it says must then that would have to be followed thank you if I would elaborate on that does that mean for instance that the design briefs must follow the principle of the design guide which therefore provide the control am I understood that correctly? yes yes the development briefs to provide more detail which then would have to be subsequently followed the development briefs can be submitted either as a wider area or it could be in line with say a particular reserve matters area as well so that there is that some flexibility that they have but in terms of what's required it is more detailed essentially sorry so council Harvey so I just wanted to share through you does this how long into the future would this guide have would inform the sort of future developments of the site I mean for example if another application is coming forward I don't know to say expand the extent of the built form at the expense of some of the greener areas would this still have import there the condition would be approved if it was to be approved would it be standing for perpetuity until such time say the developer wanted to change it completely there would be a subsequent application within the development within the design guide so if there is something that needs to be updated for example whether that's to do with sustainability or there might be another restructuring element then there is that review mechanism to just make sure that I guess it keeps pace with any of the legislative changes that might come forward so there is that but if it's a whole set of changes then it would be a new application in itself I hope that sort of answers Councillor Fane Yes further question from me we have had circulated to us this morning a briefing note from David Locke Associates which appears to be the November edition of the document page 139 of our papers I wonder if we could just have a brief highlight of the differences that we should be looking at of the significant differences from the one we looked at as a part of our papers Thank you I would say that the certainly the highlighted edits apologies just through my papers is the requirement that as a minimum 25% by the person that came to be delivered on a site-wide basis that's on page 2 of the additional sheet those other elements certainly to the sustainability incorporated within the main report but certainly that as an addition is a highlighted amendment of that art Thank you very much Are we finished questions? Now can we have now we come to the speaker for the applicant Caroline Foster from Urban and Civic you have three minutes to make the presentation look forward to hearing from you Thank you very much indeed Thank you and good morning Good afternoon Well on one hand we are taking another step through the planning process to realise the Outline Planning Permission for the Welcome Genium Campus this is an important moment and an important document it's not a document just to be signed off but one that we will use as we move forward on the development an Outline Planning Permission in many respects is an exploration of opportunity but now we are at a point where Welcome and Urban and Civic are defining intention this document articulates ambition and lays down a commitment to the key components which will ensure that this campus is not like any other development and becomes truly exceptional as a location to support scientific endeavour the guide provides all of the partners and stakeholders who will play their part in delivering the campus expansion with a manual and a reference point to ensure that the things that really matter to creating the right environment are to the fore and become the defining features sustainability landscape nature community convenience, connectivity and of course serendipity the guide is to be a compliance document to safeguard quality consistency and ensure coordinated development that said it is strategic it is not a design code and there remains huge scope for creativity and invention as there should be when a special opportunity presents itself in commending this document to you it is so important to recognise the considerable contribution made by many partners it has been an enormous collective effort to bring forward a working document with a shared vision at its core so thank you thank you very much do we have questions for the applicant please for members councillor Fane thank you chair I'll just take this opportunity to show my ignorance how would we design in serendipity the unique place that we're creating is all about encouraging those chance encounters and the way we want to do that is not just through the wonderful architecture and buildings and spaces that we're bringing forward but by creating moments for those of chance encounters so thinking about our desire lines our way of finding the amenities that we're bringing forward the beautiful green spaces that we're creating we're creating these wonderful informal moments for scientists from all different organisations to happen to meet by chance encounter and so that's where we're working very hard to design that in and really give that some consideration and thought throughout councillor Williams thank you so through your self chair I'll say overall the parish councils are sort of supportive but Hinton have raised a slight issue in relation to light spillage and just wanted the applicant would like to comment on that or add any reassurance for the parish council there absolutely happy to all of the detailed lighting design that will come forward in future reserve matches will absolutely be in accordance with the outline planning consent and the development principles and the wider concern I believe that you might be referring to is one for a future application that's coming forward on infrastructure which we have been looking at very carefully and we're actually presenting to our five local parish councils last night and they'll be further presentations on that to demonstrate that there's no impact on from light spillage just a question for me really I just wondered in preparing for your design guide and later in codes have you drawn on any other examples of science parks elsewhere for instance the Sofia Antipolis or other ones in Europe or the Western United States just wondered what sort of influences of what you've been basing on your preparation on thank you and yes absolutely I mean I look for inspiration everywhere I think we all do and completed a lot of research in terms of the considerations for the design of the campus and we have looked internationally for those as well and we've obviously looked towards the states for the scale of development that's coming forward there in terms of life science but I think what we're creating here is truly unique I think the opportunity to lead globally in terms of sustainability in bringing forward housing that's needed for campus workers in terms of the beautiful green spaces and immunity that we're focusing on and sustainable transport we absolutely want to be rod-leading I think a couple of the best examples I was very fortunate to do research recently to Australia we looked at two different places in particular that give us a lot of food for thought one being Macquarie University in Sydney which was really interesting in terms of how the place, the students people working there, the labs all worked so well in terms of place making alongside great immunity and landscape and I think in terms of life science precincts the best we have seen so far is actually in Melbourne where the investment in infrastructure and transport and focus on connectivity encouraged that serendipity and opportunity for collaboration between universities hospitals, researchers so, yeah, we've had a lot of inspiration, thank you All the examples you're talking about have a somewhat better climate than we do here in terms of outdoor provision have you taken account of that in your design guide principle? Yes, absolutely I would love to have the Sydney climate absolutely, we are we're trying to always think about how we can encourage people to meet indoors and out and think about our wonderful climate in the UK but that doesn't limit the opportunity at all whether it's making sure that we have some great indoor spaces that function really well we're looking at opportunities for working outdoors in parts that could be used all year round we're trying to get people outdoors as much as possible but I appreciate this is a place to work so the investment in the first buildings are in leisure centres in cafes in community spaces that will allow cultural events so we're really trying to get that balance right as well thank you Any more questions? Thank you very much indeed Now we come I propose to go to the base and complete this application and then we'll have lunch for the remaining application so we come to debate and have any correct comments for the debate who would like to comment? Councillor Wilson It's clear that a lot of thoughts and a lot of discussion and a lot of parties have been involved in the elaboration of this code so I think it is going to create a space that's on a human scale and it's going to be conducive to collaboration and working together so I'm inclined to support it Councillor Thank you chair with the benefits of the clarification given earlier I'm quite happy to prove that this condition has been more than adequately satisfied by the design guide and I thank James and the other officers and also we've been in civic for all the time and effort that's gone into what looks like a thoroughly comprehensive design guide Thank you Councillor Fein Thank you chair We're technically just agreeing to the discharge of condition 21 I think and there is no doubt this goes well beyond that it's rare that as a planning committee we get the chance to consider something that really isn't replicated anywhere else in the world I haven't had the advantage of going to Macquarie for a long time since I went to Melbourne and wasn't of yet that aspect but I think this is it's fair to say inspirational approach I'm also I was concerned earlier at the relationship with the local communities I am entirely satisfied that the community engagement we've had outlined to us including meetings last night that I we don't need to know about today but this has been going on and it seems to me that the communities have been very much involved will be involved and given all that I'm entirely happy to accept the office of recommendation and approve the application Councillor Williams Thank you chair so as I said we're discharging the condition today looking through the code the gateway loop looks like something that's very it's going to be interesting to see the impact that has to be honest on paper it looks quite complex but hopefully managing it and negotiating it it'll be slightly simpler so I think there are things in here that time will tell to see if they work and they appeal but yeah I think the applicant has complied with the condition and happy to discharge it have you any more questions no I I will simply comment that yes it's clearly there's inspiration behind the work on this and it seems to me that it meets the requirement meets the condition and hopefully will provide the framework for some really inspiring new development that's what after all is we're hoping this is going to be a world centre but I'm inclined to support the application I think now can I propose that we move for a vote so have a seconder thank you councillor Rippers seconder are we all in favour ok just to remind you if you're voting in favour you're voting to approve the recommendation of the offices if you're voting against you're voting for the application somebody hasn't voted ok fine so thank you very much the application is approved now we'll retire till 2 o'clock for the next application the final application as was agreed with the with the people standing who were here and see you at 2 o'clock welcome back to we've got one more item to deal with on the agenda today item originally number 5 on the agenda application number 22 stroke 05427 stroke 4 Nans out of 86 Crizzor Road Fowlmere the erection of 32 dwellings including 26 affordable dwellings and 6 private market dwellings representing a Royal exception site with association with associated landscaping play area and access so resubmission of 21 stroke 05640 stroke 4 it's reported to committee as the application raises special planning policy or other considerations the key issues are the proposal location and scale the housing need the impact upon the countryside and the landscape and various other matters as well the recommendation is refusal a site visit was conducted on the 6th of December which a number of members were present at Tom Gray is the presented officer can you please present explain the application to us sorry, thank you chair before I get into the presentation itself there are a few updates on the application we received as we mentioned earlier applicant correspondence this morning concerning the site outlining the benefits in their view of the scheme this has now been reviewed by officers there are a few misleading comments within it I'd like to correct these are as follows so by diversity net gain metric was provided as part of the application this concerns 33.29% gain of Habitat units and 20.74% in Hedro units and not the 143.22 by diversity net gain in Hedge line as noted in the applicant's correspondence the creation of a new footpath this concerns that connects the application site to shore close development to the north no footway has been proposed on the official road itself the indicated 30 mile an hour speed limit relocation that is outside the planning process that needs to be go through highways approval if they feel that that is something they could support the 75% reduction in carbon emissions and zero fossil fuel use as contained in the sustainability statement that statement can be conditioned by a member's amount to prove this the retention in the woods could be secured through section 106 agreement no supporting letters from the two housing associations have been provided as evidence though that is mentioned by the applicant within the planning statement itself that there is support but no evidence has been provided there's no guarantee that affordable homes will be required as a result of the new research and development hub at the way which was heard at the planning committee last month I understand the housing need is on the basis of what the need is currently not necessarily this future need it's not in office of view considered a sustainable village location there are constraints such as green belt to the east conservation area in the centre of the village and countryside friendship on the western side of the village just to confirm that there are some constraints around the village but not maybe to the extent that the applicant is stating in terms of update the refusal reason as mentioned as stated in paragraph 8.145 of the committee reports that underlines which refers to and grade 3a agricultural land has been added into that refusal reason as that is also by definition a best of versatile agricultural land is included within that definition in terms of the planning application this is the application site marked in red there is changed my cursor the application site is marked in red the other land owned by the applicant is marked in blue this area of land to the north was granted planning consent for 16 affordable dwellings and our undergoing construction and as I understand complete here is a google image showing those 16 affordable homes to the north and this is the application site these fields here including this area of woodland in terms of site constraints themselves the application site is outside the framework development framework and approximately 100 meters from this black dashed line framework there are tree preservation orders on site to the front of the site and also to the rear of the site and there are some surface water flood risk issues it is in flood zone 1 the lowest grade flood risk and it does encompass the best and most versatile agricultural land to the east on the opposite side of Cricill Road is green belt land in terms of the agricultural grade this will be useful to members tonight so the blue areas are grade 2 agricultural lands that represents 16% of the total application site and then the dark the dark green here is a grade 3a 34% of the land so this is the proposed site plan access would be gains from Cricill Road itself for car users there would be a footpath pedestrian users connecting to the north the development comprise 26 affordable dwellings and 6 market homes the market homes are located in this area here with the affordable dwellings located to the centre of the site and to the east there is a play area and communal areas for residents it is intended to bolster some soft landscaping along the southern side and the retention of the hedge on the eastern boundary it is also proposed to retain the area of woodlands to the west here are a couple of street scene images so scene A refers to the market dwellings which are one and a half stories which as I say are situated to north of the application site and B shows looking towards the west of the site along the first row of affordable dwellings here is a proposed 10 year plan showing the market dwellings and the affordable there are quite a few house types quite a few styles and types of houses which range from one bed to five bed here are proposed building heights which range from a single story bungalow here one and a half stories and two stories towards the eastern half of the site in terms of parking there is a mixture of on-plot parking and some allocated on-road parking which are situated in between some soft landscaping there is also some visitor parking as marked by the blue areas so these are in members presentation packs system mixture of what the examples of different the proposed elevations and floor plans of the houses so there are only examples of four but if members do wish to see more I can show so in terms of views this is coming into the site then to the village and the application site is this area here we used to see on the left hand side the sort of the retained area of woodland here there is some hedging along this area but as as it is existing it is fairly sparse in terms of the vegetation along this southern edge is another view through the hedge line towards the application site and this is from looking the other way through whether the access would be to the trees in the distance on the application site so the main considerations are the principle of development in terms of its location and scale in officers view it would not comprise small sites as referred to in policy H11 and the scale would not be appropriate to the size facilities and services attached from the development framework boundary and existing built form the housing need there is housing need within Falmyr and this has been evidenced by the housing need survey and the housing register impact on the rural character of the countryside the proposal would extend further to the south and also the west of Falmyr and would it encroach upon the open countryside and harm the rural character of it and the loss of agricultural lands as I've mentioned a loss of grade 2 Falmyr although it would make a significant contribution to housing need would provide a high level of sustainable construction and provide and support services and facilities it is the excessive scale development heavy variance on private car and the failure to be where related to existing built form the encroachment in the countryside and harm to it's character and the loss of the most rarest iron cultural land which has then led officers to recommend this for refusal Thank you chair Thank you very much Members do you have questions of clarification please Thank you chair I know it's not part of this application but can you just confirm the adjacent development is for 16 houses on a rural exception site Thank you Yes it is 16 dwellings it is an entry level exception site however the agreement the session 106 agreement means that it cascades out so it will be for local people it will fulfil a local need first before cascading out the district and other villages so it has a similar set up to a rural exception site in terms of ensuring that those with local connection needs are met first Thank you Councillor Williams Thank you chair Could officers remind me of the policy reference but if you go back to the slide where it shows the affordable and the market we do have policies that say that we should be 10 year blind and it should be interlinked Has there been any reason given why that policy is not taken on board here like is there any justification for why it wouldn't be a 10 year blind place and with the parking could we also understand is it just the market houses that have, obviously they have the garages do they have driveways that take it with them and the affordable housing is it do they have driveways or just on-road provision I could see the different colour blobs but it was quite hard to tell whether the garages were being included as the parking provision Thank you Thank you So in terms of the mix of affordable and private housing policy H11 doesn't have any requirements in terms of clustering of affordable housing and it's mixed within the market housing The market housing is there to facilitate the delivery of the 26 affordables so it's in terms of the viability they have done a viability assessment and that's been reviewed by the third party and inclusion is that six market houses are needed to facilitate that 26 affordables so although there is the market housing is distinct from the affordable there's no requirement in policy H11 which is the rural exception policy to require a mix within that Can I just come back so they need that amount of housing to facilitate it I completely understand that but when we've seen other ones it hasn't been market affordable those market dwellings are there but they are sort of pepper potted through the site so I'm pretty sure what you're saying it's more about the fact that they're so distinctly separate if you could just clarify why this is different if this is acceptable and obviously we normally strive for 10 year blind and the other things about the parking yes thank you so I think you're referring to policy H10 which talks about affordables when there's a market housing led scheme and you're absolutely right that would be needed to be 10 year blind this is an affordable rural exception site so it's not that requirement for this in this instance in terms of the parking show that again so the market housing does have garages and allocated parking spaces within their plots the affordable dwellings the majority of them have on site parking and some do have on road parking as well and so instead of on plot parking there's also some visitor parking as well so councillor Hanley can I just have clarification you just said that the rural exception site which is would be next door has got does allow family of residents to have precedence does that not apply to this or would that not apply to this site that's correct it would this is a rural exception site so those of a local connection would be prioritised councillor Payne thank you a question relating actually to proposed development would fail to comprise a small site and I guess that's a reference to page 61 page 9 paragraph h11 affordable housing developments to meet local housing needs on a small site I don't know whether we define a small site or whether that is defined in terms of the where it's to meet identified local housing needs is there any specific definition of what is a small site within our local plan within our local plan itself there isn't any definition however in paragraph 8.16 or a third to the affordable housing SPD which I can read out states that it's not appropriate to define a particular number of developments that we consider to be small for all rural exception sites the appropriate scale of development would be influenced by the category of the village in this case it's a group village at which it is proposed to define the core strategy the size and character of the built up area of the individual village concerned and the level of services and facilities available in the village in terms of achieving sustainable development and it goes on it does provide some useful numbers at the end which typically range from 6 to 20 developments councillor Harvey thank you I think you almost answered the question but I think we're sort of more used to seeing rural exception sites sort of are butting and contiguous with the existing development framework but is that provided it satisfies what you're just describing in terms of proximity to services and sustainability that there's no, I mean it could literally be anywhere provided it satisfies those those concerns the policy H11 refers to so it is in the main body of that it says affordable housing environments to meet identified local housing needs on small sites are joining the development framework so it needs to join framework according to this policy and it needs in theory it says to it development is of scale and location so there's a number of considerations when assessing whether it meets that policy test could I come back on that so how does this satisfy the joining part of that paragraph is that a sort of is that the case in terms of a close reading of that or is the word of joining being more loosely interpreted in that case well sorry could I ask if you show the map which shows the blue line is one here yeah so that's the this is the development framework boundary is lack dotted line here so in new it doesn't comply with this policy it's neither a small site it neither adjoins the development framework nor does it relate to the existing build development to the north and is not appropriate in terms of scale to the category of the village which is a Greek village and found it doesn't have certain facilities like shops and it would mean that people would have to travel some distance by car for their days they need can I ask on the question on the oh sorry Catherine Williams now you go first come on I normally end up finished thank you so I've got the local plan open here on H11D it says that affordable houses are secured for occupation by those in housing need in perpetuity I'm just wondering how that works given in paragraph 8.42 some of the rent to buy properties if we could just have some explanation about how that would obviously rent to buy is new and I think we're all supportive of the concept but how does it work in this situation rent to buy refers to the 16 dwellings to the north that was that was allowed because it came in as an entry level exception site so it's still the case that will be for local connection first in that case in the 16 dwellings scheme but the rent to buy will eventually go on to market housing so it's not in perpetuity in the case of this application it would be in perpetuity because there will be shared ownership which we control to ensure that applicants can't have more than 80% can't have more than 80% of their property and the affordable rent will obviously be in perpetuity as well I'm trying to look at the comparison with the existing the 16 house application which has been improved and which is being developed at the moment and comparing it to this one in terms of the criteria for the 16 dwelling site am I would you regard the difference in the context that it is joining it appears to be joining the development frame like even though it's on the other side of the road and the fact that it's even though it's outside the development framework it is surrounded by development on virtually on all sides in terms of the house on this would that be key issue in why you would make a different decision in that case and in this case in terms of meeting the policy requirements I think that's one of the factors in consideration in terms of how well related the application site is to that built form to the north I wouldn't say in the office's view it's not well related but members can obviously take a different view in that I'm trying to look at why you have a different decision in the two places it might be recommending different decisions in the two places that's why I was wanting to see what the criteria are that really distinguish the two well I think the main thing for me is the scale of development irrespective of how well related it is 32 houses is a significant amount for a group of this nature thank you I don't see any more questions thank you very much we now move on to the public speakers because of the recommendation for a few so we commence with the objector would Sally Roskilly please come you have three minutes to present your view we'll warn you if you like to exceed it good afternoon it's fine as long as we can hear you alright well let's see can you hear me good it's odd going first but much is made of the weight of support for this application by the developer from just six comments on the planning portal in favour and the parish council support coincidentally the majority of those comments are from the school and parish council as home addresses with one desiring to work with a developer who cares about affordable homes more like in my view a developer who cares about profit let's not forget the two previous applications for 15 self builds on the same land by the same developer the lower density scheme attracted one neutral comment and 13 objections citing the size and scale and the disconnect from the villagers for many reasons permission was refused but the developer still has irons in this fire as he awaits for the outcome of his appeal still not decided today I think residents are suffering from planning application, fatigue and confusion on this site and don't realise that they need to reiterate their concerns every time a new application or an appeal is made thank goodness that an independent review from BNP Paribara State was requested by STC planners to look into the viability of the affordable housing statement lack of justification evidence was mentioned throughout this report BNP's review revealed construction costs up over 1.2 million above the norm with no explanation professional sales and marketing costs higher than the norm profit levels 2.5% higher than the norm and a measly 160,000 pounds S106 payment inflated costs can equal inflated profits with the developer of the S106 to over 630,000 pounds if BNP's appraisal had not pointed out that this development of the 32 houses would provide a surplus of over half a million pounds against the viability benchmark I don't think so but that is what they did in their August letter with no mention of their inflated costs and inflated profits having been found out there is no altruism involved here in their letter dated May 4 the developer also wanted to dismiss the approved short closed exception site for 16 houses as irrelevant to this application as it is for district and not local housing semantics doesn't change the fact that this development is over a year late and I'm not allocated to the public as of today I have little faith in this developer let's break the planning policies let's set precedence for other developers with the helisites queuing up to breach Bahamas policy borders such as how Agent Gaden Village Can you please wrap up now? But maybe let's uphold planning policies and protect the rural edges of the southcams I know and to love please reject this application Thank you Thank you very much Do we have questions for the objective please Thank you Thank you very much Next we have the applicant Mr Colin Blundell Would you please come forward and speak In the same way as the previous speaker you have three minutes and I will warn you if you reach the limit Sorry Can I just make a clarification on the officers update if I may please? Just regarding the pedestrian link It's an approved plan on the document so I was just wondering why it was said it wasn't That was all The speaker is limited to three minutes You can do it if you do it in three minutes Okay Dear committee members Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the application you found here The crux of the argument is whether you think the benefits of the application outweigh the harm as per the slide It is our belief that they clearly do Please be aware that as per the officers report that the provision of affordable homes is a substantial benefit which is balanced with the policy conflict that is also deemed to be substantial It is then the case that whether the other benefits outweigh the moderate benefits of the application the potential of the application the potential of the application and the potential of the application and the potential of the application in the case of whether the other benefits outweigh the moderate harm of the effect on the rural character of the site Looking at the slide you can see that the significant identified need for affordable housing in the village of Falmyr is substantial weight due to delivering 26 affordable homes against a need of 34 Supporting local facilities has been attributed minor weight by the officer in his report yet I feel the residents of Falmyr would disagree with this and not be best pleased by this weighting Based on dwindling primary school numbers there is a threat of closure and that 500 jobs have been generated in the village through Gen2 without provision of housing for these employees we believe the weight attributed to this should be significant The fact that the development is zero carbon and would be the only such development on a rural exception site in the UK carries significant weight as opposed to minor weight given by the officer The fact as per the report that there are no alternative sites in the village either inside or outside the framework that will provide any number of affordable homes is a material consideration that carries significant weight It is disappointing that the officer has chosen not to include this weight in his planning balance The support of the parish is also a material consideration that carries significant weight and the environmental benefits economic benefits, highway benefits and that our HA is on board and ready to deliver are also material considerations that carry more than minor weight which have not been given any weight in the case officer's report On the other side of the scale the 32 dwelling is deemed to be excessive yet the number of units is based on an identified need and the fact that there are no alternative sites to take care of this need Recent appeals in the last few months in Flabrory, Hallow and Dorsey have allowed rural exception sites of 40, 34 and 28 units under local policy and NPPF under the definition of a small site This was based on the inspectors concluding that a 9% increase in the housing stock was proportionate to the settlement and therefore fell within the scope of a small site This proposal would result in a 5.6% increase in the housing stock To note, those appeals were in villages with smaller populations and less facilities than found here so the definition of small site would be applied irrespective of the settlement hierarchy whether it be an infill village or a rural centre Locally a rural exception site was permitted and completed in 2012 in Barrington for 39 units This scheme is advertised on the council's website as an example of what a rural exception site should be along with the scheme in Foxton Barrington is a group village with 350 houses at the time of planning resulting in an 11% increase in the settlement Barrington was granted permission by councils despite being a departure from the development plan in reference to scale and the character of the village on the basis that it provided affordable housing to meet an identified local need In regard to the location and not being adjacent to the framework three very recent schemes have been granted permission on the same basis in Foxton, Newton and Fourbourne Two of these sites were also in the green belt but were judged to be in the spirit of the policy up to 70 metres from the framework Can you please Our site is 100 metres Both the NPPL and the emerging local plan refer to sites being adjacent to the settlement not the framework which this site clearly is Thank you Thank you Do we have any questions for the developer please Councillor Wood Thank you through yourself chair I don't know if the applicant has a copy of the report but I'm looking at page 58 specifically the housing officer objection We can see based on the slide provided and also in the note that has now been looked at and has been referred to by officers in the comments about the support of two housing associations and who says a housing association Could we we've been told we haven't provided evidence of that claim Can we know who the at least know who the housing providers are that you're referencing Yeah so one is Stonewater and the letter for that is on the council's website that has been published there's quite some time going on but it's one of the earlier documents they also have delivered the site next door so they're on board to deliver this and the other one is NTBH which I think we delivered correspondence against the officer but maybe not the letter but we did mention it in a recent correspondence but the letter from Stonewater is in the application Any other questions or a copy of the letter Thank you very much Thank you Councillor Councillor Steve Leicester from the community sorry no community supporter Steve Leicester is joining us online Can we would you like to speak Mr Leicester just to remind you we have three minutes to speak Okay great as long as you can just confirm you can hear me Yes we can hear you thank you Super thank you thank you for the opportunity to speak supporting the planning application as a bit of history I've lived in the family for over 33 years so effectively a generation and over my time in the village I've set up and run a youth club which ran for a couple of years I've been a school governor of the village school for about eight years currently chair of the Dynamo Foxen football club and also coach by Angus Sun I'm a committee member of the Uniform Family community bench which we've set up jubilee celebrations, coronation celebrations and have the sound attract to things weekend and I also help with the data gathering data for community oil buying scheme that we have in the village so just as a bit of background to say kind of the stuff that I've done in the village and my involvement with it over the years I think there have been massive changes in people's lives probably some of the biggest things has been the cost of living technology, family dynamics and working habits which working habits have changed dramatically given Covid recently my main reason to support this particular thing is to try and prevent the village from what I consider to be a bit of stagnation happening I know many people understand what that means or fossilisation of the people use and most people know what that means but from my story and actually I feel that I myself are part of the problem just to give you a bit of history I moved into the village said years ago had children in the village they've grown up going through the school and for greater or lesser extent we've actually been involved in supporting many of the businesses, the shop that used to be in the village the post office used to be in the village and the pubs that used to be in the village that are now moved down to one my daughter's university, she worked in the local pub and my son actually works in a business in the village, Iron Science although he splits his time between myself and his mum who lives north west of Cambridge when he tends to say with us he always walks to work when he stays with me which is using a sustainable means in the future I see myself quite likely staying in the village in which case I'd like to probably stay where I live rather than move which means that this is where I say where I'm part of the problem I'm going to stay in what was a three bedroom house converted into a four bedroom house but I'm taking out of that chain effectively a house that would be suitable for a younger family with younger children that would support and basically be part of all the community but if we take my son for example his 24 works in the village can no longer afford to stay in the village because there isn't any places for him to stay although he is house trained I'm fairly keen that he doesn't stay with me forever the specifics of this particular pan which I feel strongly enough to reserve time from work to attend because I'm not retired I still have a full-time job I also mean that I think that it's a measured thoughtful considered expansion of the village what I think about the development plot near the edge of the village brings in to state the village hall which is of course yes thank you very much I think access to the state seems logical the fact that there are 26 affordable houses should hopefully help the fact that children who have grown up in the village and want to stay in the village may have that opportunity in the future in summary having more houses in the village is well considered well thought out, laid out spaces with green spaces for children and happily safely play will allow me to live out my sunshine years and finally pop my clogs in my own home as I enjoy it thank you Elizabeth and a recently retired examining inspector for nationally significant infrastructure projects to govern is to choose as you know planning decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise in this case planning policy is clearly not entirely met but the material considerations do indicate otherwise so you should grant permission your officers report recommends refusal claiming that the material considerations are not sufficiently weighty but councillors the weight to be given to material considerations is a question for you you have the opportunity and the duty to exercise your own judgment in how much weight you give to material considerations there's a choice to be made today Falmer Parish Council chose and it resolved in June this year to support this application so what is that material consideration which carries so much weight it is simply the need for affordable housing in Falmer and the lack of places in which to cite it let me explain table 3 of your officers report explains the local housing need and table 4 shows how this application meets the need please don't turn it up for the moment summarise it in overall terms there is a need for 25 social or affordable rented dwellings and the application provides 18 of those 25 there is a need for 9 shared ownership properties and the application provides 8 in the words of the officers report the proposal would fulfil the vast majority of the need for one and four bedrooms social or affordable rented properties and fulfil the need for three bedroom properties I have a question for you if you do not meet the local need the Falmer need at this site where will you meet it there are simply no sites within the development framework so provision of affordable housing is going to have for local needs is going to have to be outside the development framework and yes that is what keeps on being proposed in dribs and drabs nibbling away and not getting anywhere but here is an application before you now which would meet a substantial part of that need I have two final comments the report you have before you says that occupiers would rely on the car to meet day to day needs as the village has no shop so that would be true yes I will wind up absolutely but that would be true also for new housing within the framework and the report approves connectivity layout, heights, appearance tree impacts, residential amenity broadband helps it I could go on but my time is up it's pages 72 to 81 nine pages of the report I have confined myself to the main issues time does not permit me to deal with more let me remind you the government is to choose and so I invite you to stand shoulder to shoulder with found mayor parish council and to approve the application thank you for your time if you have any questions I would be pleased to try to answer them thank you do we have any questions please from councillors thank you very much indeed thank you councillors now we move to the local member councillor James Hobbro welcome James can you give us your view yes thank you chair so I have seen this application as a parish councillor in found mayor and also as the ward member and I'm speaking now as the ward member so this application clearly carries considerable merit the housing would address a demonstrated need for affordable housing and found mayor which has been demonstrated by the housing need survey from 2020 and also the numbers supplied by the housing stressory group which I think you've just heard the proposals environmental credentials are very good the occupants would presumably include families with young children which would help to sustain the village primary school although this site is on the edge of the village at some distance to most amenities it's close to the village hall it's close to the recreational ground and a children's playground so it's close to some facilities however the scale of the proposal is very large for a village the size of found mayor so what I mean by very large is that it is over twice the size of the largest number of houses exceptionally allowable under policy S10 in a group village found mayor's ability to sustain larger developments is limited by connectivity with sustainable transport currently limited to a bus service to Cambridge at only two hourly intervals significant development in poorly connected group villages is not favoured by the spatial strategy in our local plan I noticed that two examples of successful appeals were supplied in the application however notably both of these were from an area whose five year land supply was well below unlike ours so although there are good arguments in favour of the proposal on balance I support the officer's judgment that it does not meet the criteria in policy H11 that would allow an affordable housing development of this scale outside the village development framework and therefore I support their recommendation for refusal however I would point out that recent development in found mayor has included very little affordable housing and that it is very important that we do find a strategy to meet this need with high quality affordable accommodation these supplies across the district but in particular I'm highlighting the fact that it must apply in group villages such as found mayor thank you very much thank you are there any questions from members thank you very much James we now move to the debate who would like to comment if we have anybody wish to speak councillor Ripeth and then councillor Sanfos that's really interesting to hear all the different views and of course we are on the committee as we've been reminded to balance to always consider what we have before us and on the site before us whenever I come to a committee I always do consider what is in the local plan because that is our basis and the policies within that and the village development framework and I feel I will be refusing voting to refuse because I feel this is on too much of a huge scale for a group village so I am in agreement with that and it could set a precedent and we do have a five-year housing land supply so I think we need to stick with what we have voted on as a council and what the policies are in this scenario and it could be good if there could be some sites possibly that come forward which are of a smaller scale which fit fit in the back better better kind of keeping with the location Councillor Sanford Thank you chair I also share the office's concern about the size of the development from a small group village I believe the population of Falmy is about a thousand and adding almost 50 houses 16 plus 32 seems excessive given the poor transport connectivity lack of local facilities and the development just seems to be creeping down the main road there you might use the phrase concreting over South Cambridge we're so inclined the other concern is obviously the loss of prime agricultural land and this time food security is becoming more and more an issue and I think maybe the land owner should consider using it for crops of some sort rather than yet more housing so yep on balance noting the receive need for affordable housing some of which will be addressed next door by the 16 house development but on balance I think I will go with the office's recommendation, thank you Do we have other questions comments Heather Williams Thank you Crikey, thank you chair no thank you to the noise so as others have mentioned panning is a balance and I think those of us that have sat on committee many of us for many years now know that and there is no perfect site, there is no perfect application quite often we're dealing with trade-offs and this is the classic example of yes there is merits we know the need for affordable housing but equally the scale and the recommendation we've got in front of us so Crikey it is a lot of houses on that site where it is for an exception site now I realise there has been other applications reference but every site must be determined on its own merits in what we see in front of us and there are differencing very different views between different villages and actually that's something that makes self came to a fantastic place is that a lot of the villages have their own community, their own quirks things that work for them and things that don't I respect the argument for more affordable housing and I think it would be fair to say it goes against our instincts this one, the recommendation because that's something that many in our patches we struggle and look for but it is a balance and while the affordable housing is laudable it's not the only factor in play and 32 dwellings is a lot for an exception site particularly where this exception site would be as well so far down throughout the village and then we do also have the fact that there's grade 3a and grade 2 agricultural land which is something that we do have to play into consideration as well that is material and once that land has gone it's gone forever basically so the affordable argument has been run well but it's not enough for me to overturn the officer recommendation of refusal and so I will be voting with the officer's recommendation Do we have any other comments Peter Fein Councillor Fein Thank you chair I wonder if I could ask for the planning balance that we refer to be put up on the screen again please seems to be the key to deciding this one while that's coming up I agree with councillor Ripeth that we should stick to what we voted for and just to put a little bit of policy background to this we should recall that in our business plan we've given a high priority to homes that are truly affordable we managed to complete 53 affordable homes in the district last year that is twice this number broadly speaking and the old thing I would say just before I come to the planning balance is that of course the point about rural exception sites is that they are exceptions to many of the planning policies that should otherwise apply so I think the question that arises is if we are truly committed to delivering affordable housing and meeting the demonstrated affordable housing needs of communities how serious are we about that to what extent can we use the discretion allowed in the planning system the fact that it is for us to determine from the various material considerations to deliver that objective so as stated there there is a significant weight to the meeting of the affordable housing need of the community we have also as a district a considerable weight on sustainable construction I see less weight is given to the support for the local facilities and the local economy it's suggested this is excessive scale of development for the size and facilities well of course there is no specific limit on the size of a rural exception site I think that was dealt very closely by Mr Blondel and I agree broadly with his analysis on that in this case the size of this exception site broadly meets the needs almost exactly meets the needs that are set out by the housing needs assessment and that is of course before additional business development is due to take place in this community others have made something of the fact that this is best than most vertical land or at least I think almost exactly half of it is grades 2 and 3a against that it hasn't I believe been used for agriculture for about 10 years now I may be wrong about that but that's my understanding so I think we have to be careful about putting too much weight on that to what extent would it be used for agriculture in the absence of the scheme we can't be sure so from my point of view we rarely get the opportunity to actually deliver what we say we want which is affordable housing that meets the needs of a specific community it's all very well to say that this community may be less sustainable it will certainly become less sustainable if the school is forced to close the shop has already ideally of course we would bring forward additional housing before the shop closes that's gone so we have to consider whether in fact an affordable housing site a rural exception site of this size could help to ensure that that village remains sustainable in the future to reduce the travel needs of people around that village because we're meeting the local needs on one site and for all those reasons I'm inclined to put more weight on some of the factors which would weigh in favour of this and to disagree with the Office of Recommendations Any other comments? I will take or other different view from my vice chairman I'm concerned about setting precedent we generally follow the local plan and the previous proposal for which is now being built for sustainable affordable housing met the requirements in terms of being on the edge of the development framework and surrounded on different sides by housing already this one is going out into the countryside and if we approve this it will create a precedent that you could jump over an existing development exception site to create another exception site and we don't know where it will end so I take that actually as quite a serious consideration in my point of view why we should not make an exception from the normal constraints on this application in terms of the applied for housing the assessment is based without really the previous application that's already been built for 16 affordable houses which already makes quite a contribution to local needs since apparently they can only give preference to local residents the in a sense then the proposal will with the two together seems to me that it will exceed the current demand for sustainable affordable housing whereas a smaller application perhaps where it to be applied might need a bit balance it so my general view is that the officers view this is I think undoubtedly quite a large application that you cannot I know there's going to be an increase in the number of employment with the new gen 2 site but we can't tie the residents of this to the new employment site I find in any case that we make quite a small contribution there most of the people are definitely going to work into the village for that so my general view is that there isn't sufficient argument which is undoubtedly an argument in its favour there isn't sufficient argument for affordable housing that the affordable housing need should override the other planning applications the site as proposed will clearly extend beyond the development creating ribbon development along the Cresor Road and the fear is that with this if the same application is applied to another the next field on you would get a ribbon development developing and I really wouldn't like to create a precedent so my general view is to support the officer's recommendation I really feel like Councillor Hanley should have the first crack at this because I've spoken already it's really just to support what you chair you've just said actually I don't like the idea of an exception site being tacked on to another exception site spreading along a road into countryside it doesn't feel right to me and I take all of the I take all of the arguments about affordable houses and so on but this just does not feel right it feels too big and it feels in the wrong place do we sorry and am I allowed to come back I just wanted to say that this word sustainable is kind of often bandied around isn't it generally and sustainable yes about the place itself and as Councillor Fain said we rather you know this has gone already like the village facilities however it's got to be sustainable as in the people living there how will they get around and it will be in the car because it will be sort of tacked on and that's something else that we are about as a council I feel like trying to make a place which is not just an additional housing estate on without focusing on where those main facilities are going to go so I think the kind of ranking of the villages as in the group village or rural minus centre is quite important in this that's something I just want to emphasize as to why I also agree with the officer recommendation in this case it has to be the very best exception site and it has to fill things and I know it's never perfect but for me this is too big for where it is okay I think we've come to a point now where we can go to a decision can somebody propose okay I will propose it you can second it can we go to the vote can we just clarify clarify the point if you vote for, if you vote green you're voting for the officer's recommendation which is to refuse if you vote red you're voting against the market sorry sorry chair I just wanted to highlight before we proceed to the vote that there was in the officer presentation a suggested update for refusal 2 to include references to grade 3 agricultural land which it's only at 3a sorry so I just wanted to check that that was that's now part of the officer recommendation that members are happy to now proceed to a vote on thank you sorry to repeat again if you're wanting to support the officer recommendation to refuse you vote green positive if you want to oppose the officer recommendation and approve the application you vote red negative okay so that's eight votes in support of the officer recommendation to refuse and one vote against the officer recommendation to approve so that is refused thank you thank you very much indeed the next meeting of the committee will be next Monday the 18th to December thank you very much until then and I close the meeting thank you