 Yr eistedd gael gweithio. Mae hyn yn gofyn nhw'n fanyl nhw'n gweithio. Rwy'n gwneud i'r Ysgol Lleidio Cymru, mae'r cymdeithasol maes yng Nghymru, Dr Martin Cahn, ac rydyn ni'n gweithio'r cymdeithasol. Yn credu, Peter Feini, y tfad erbyn yn y ddegweddol, mae'r cymdeithio ymddynt yn cael ei ddegweddol. Felly, mae'n rhaid i'r ddegweddol ydegweddol. Yn y teimlo'n ddegweddol, Llywydd, yr AMFodd yn y dynol ardal... Ynw'n.... Can we do this by affirmation? Thank you. Okay. I ask those who are joining us remotely to ensure that their cameras and microphones remain off... ...unless they are addressing the committee. For those of us present in the room, please ensure that your microphone is close to you... ...and speak clearly when addressing the room. I'm advised that there will be a brief fire alarm test at 10.30am, so we'll briefly pause the meeting at that time. Felly mae'r Cymru yn unig, mae'r cymiandol dw i gefnodd yn cael ei ddweud mewn hwyl wedi'i cyflwyno. Ymwygedd cyfwyr gyda'r cymiandol yn y Cymru, ac wedi amlwg wedi dwy lowest y cyfanyddol yn blynedd ar suc y byddol. Felly mae'n cynghraifft, maen nhw'n gwych chi'n rhoi'r pethau i gynlleu yma ac yn ei gynhyrch amser yn cyfwyr edryd rhyddol? As I said earlier, my name is Councillor Martin Caen, and I'm a member for Histon and Impington Ward. My vice-chair is Councillor Peter Sanford. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Peter Sanford, one of the members for Caxton and Pap with Ward, and temporary vice-chair for the day. Councillor Ariel Caen. My name is Councillor Ariel Caen, and I'm the district councillor for Horstyn and Cormarton Ward. Councillor Bill Hanley. Good morning, Bill Hanley. I'm one of the members for the villages of Over and Willingham. Councillor Lisa Redrop. Good morning. I'm Councillor Lisa Redrop. I'm one of the members for the Horstyn and Cormarton Ward. Councillor Judith Rippeth. Good morning. I'm Councillor Judith Rippeth, one of the members for Milton and Watwych Ward. Councillor Heather Williams. Good morning, Chair. Good morning all Heather Williams, and I represent the Mordins Ward. Councillor Eileen Wilson. Good morning. I'm Eileen Wilson, one of the councillors for Caughtonham and Radden. Councillor Peter Fane online. Good morning, Chair. Good morning members. Peter Fane in Shelford Ward. Just arrived, Councillor Richard Williams. May I take a second to sign in? Sorry? First of all, Councillor Anna Bradlam. Thank you, Chair. It's Councillor Anna Bradlam. I'm one of the members for the Milton and Watwych Ward, and I'm here to speak on item six. Thank you. Councillor Richard Williams again. Thank you, Chair. It's working now. Councillor Richard Williams, I represent the... I can confirm that the meeting is quora. We have some officers in the chambers with us for the duration of the meeting. Councillor, sorry he's not caught. It's Rebecca Smith, delivery manager. Thank you, Chair. Members, I'm Rebecca Smith, delivery manager for DM and Compliance. Vanessa Blane, senior planning lawyer. Good morning, everyone. Vanessa Blane, legal adviser to the committee. Sorry, Laurence Downway-Hulman, Democratic Services Officer. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Laurence Murray-Hulman, DM Services for the Planning Committee. And we have our technical support from Democratic Services being from our own clerk. Thank you, Chair. Good morning. We'll also be joined by various case officers throughout the meeting. If at any time a member leaves the meeting, would they please let the fact known so that it can be recorded in the minutes? We should take breaks in this meeting as and when they are needed and are appropriate. The main agenda pact was published on the X of December with the online plans pact supplement being published on the 10th to 12th of December. Before we proceed on to our business today, I would like to propose a variance in the order of business. I propose that we take the applications in Gildan Morgan, currently listed as items 8 and 9 as the first applications we hear today, and us such take them as items 5 and 6. Do I have a seconder for this proposal, please? Sorry, can I take this by affirmation? Thank you, members. We will now proceed on to our usual business. First item is apologies. Do we have any apologies for absence? Thank you, Chair. Two apologies today from councillors Dr Tim Hawkins with Jeff Harvey, and councillor Dr Lisa Redder Ops, currently set in the sub. Thank you. Declarations of interest. Members, we come to item 3, declarations of interest. Do we have any interest to declare in relation to any item of business on the agenda? If an interest supplement becomes apparent later in the meeting, please raise it to that point. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. In relation to items 8 and 9, which are now 5 and 6, I'm the local member, and you'll see that the application has been there for a period of time, and I have had conversations with officers, so I will remove myself from committing speakers, local member, on those items. Thank you. Councillor Judith Pippas. In relation to agenda item 6, as printed on the agenda, I'm one of the members for Milton and Walter Beach, and I come to that matter afresh. Councillor Eileen Wilson. Thank you. For item 5, as it was written on the agenda originally, I've had discussions with various people about this application over the years, and I will stand down for that discussion, but I would like to speak as the local member. Thank you very much. Minutes of the previous meeting. Item 4 on the agenda is the minutes of the previous meeting. You have minutes of the meeting held on the 8th November. Do any members wish to make any amendments to these minutes? Can I take the approval by affirmation? Thank you very much. Item 5, as amended on the agenda, Gildan Morden. This is item 21056424 Hooksmill Potten Road, Gildan Morden. This involves the demolition of three existing curtillage-listed bounds in the erection of three replacement buildings to be used as four units of holiday-less accommodation. It's reported to the committee due to the demolition of the curtillage-listed buildings. The key issues are the demolition of curtillage-listed buildings and the setting of the listed building, the impact on trees and highway safety, the design and appearance of the replacement buildings. The officer's recommendation is to approve. I would like to note that the site was visited by members on the 6th December. Mary Collins is the presenting officer. Mary, can we have your presentation? Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Let's get my presentation. Let's get it set up. So, yes, everyone can see the presentation on the screen, so that's good. Okay, so the first application, well, I just noticed my slides a bit inaccurate, but basically the first application is the full application to dismantle the three existing curtillage-listed bounds and to replace those with three buildings to be used as four units of holiday net accommodation. So, this is the location of the site. These are the bounds in question. This is the access from the Potton Road into the site, and there are a number of other buildings in close proximity to the application site. So, Hooks Mill is situated within Open Countryside and is located centrally between the village of Wreslinworth outside the district and Gildon Warden to the south. So, it lies outside the development framework of Gildon Warden and extensive open fields in all directions surround the site. So, the bounds in question are curtillisted, and that's because within the setting of the site, we've got Hooks Mill, which is a grade two listed building. We've got the Millhouse, which is grade two. We've also got a little tiny water, Calstone Water Pump, which is listed, and also we've got separately listed Terranill, and these are all grade two listed. So, the application site, the setting of it, is within the current nature of many listed buildings. So, you can see its context is very rural and with the river coming through, which obviously served the Water Mill. This is just to give a bit of context of the listed buildings that the bounds are curtillisted to. I'll show you a picture of the bounds in a minute, but this is the Mill and the Millhouse. To the rear, that's the view from the rear. So, they're obviously very significant listed buildings. So, the bounds in question, this is quite an old photograph of them, but this just shows you an idea of their context, their condition, that this barn here, which I think is barn one, that's now knocked down. Members would have noticed the gap in the site when they visited last week or the week before. This just shows the existing bounds in relation to the house and the mill and the engine shed. This is just to give members an idea of the condition of the barns at the moment. So, a structural report has been submitted assessing the existing conditions of the barns and following other sort of assessments, barns have been assessed as being significantly damaged and so really cannot be repaired at all. So, as I say, that's existing barn one. This is existing barn two. Yeah, so sorry, it was barn three, it's the one that is now not there. So, the proposal is to replace with visitor accommodation. These will sit on the same footprint as existing barns and utilise existing materials where possible. The proposed short-term holiday accommodation units will have a footprint area of 341 square metres. So, yeah, exactly to match the footprint that will be already there. So, this building has also been sought to dismantle and replace existing barns with holiday legs. And this is subject to the following committee item that will be discussed later. So, the proposed redevelopment will create, yeah, four-term short-term holiday accommodation units. Unit one contains two bedrooms and the remaining units each have one bedroom. So, they are all self-contained with separate kitchen, dining and living areas for guests. So, I'm just going to show you what the proposed elevations are for the replacement barns. As you can see, they've got, they still retain an agricultural character and appearance and very similar to what they are replacing. And, yeah, this is just showing the ground floor layout. So, as you can see, there's four units over three barns or perhaps two barns, but, yeah, these two are attached, but that's the arrangement that is proposed. And some of the units have, first, more accommodation as well. So, in terms of the principle of development, the site is outside of the framework, as I've mentioned, and is situated in the country side. However, the policy E slash 20 of the South Cambridge District Local Plan 2018 deals with tourist accommodation. And this states that outside development frameworks, development to provide overnight visitor accommodation or the day accommodation and public houses will be committed by the change of use slash conversion slash replacement of suitable buildings and by small-scale new developments appropriate to local circumstances. So, in view of what this is, the proposal is an acceptable principle in accordance with policy E 20. So, the demolition replacement can be supported subject to other material planning considerations. So, the structural engineering is, as I said earlier, advised that barns have been so damaged that they cannot be repaired. So, owing to this state, they're not really suitable for reuse for agricultural purposes or for any alternative employment purposes due to their isolated position and historic character. The proposal would entail the demolition of existing curtainage-listed barns. But again, which we will discuss later with the list of building application, the principle of dismantling the barns is an acceptable subject to sound justification for the loss of the buildings or for their replacement, preserving or enhancing the setting of the listed buildings. So, the reconstruction is pretty much in a life-like manner to maintain the historical character of the site. It would have facing brickwork, backstain timberboard, enclave tarrews, and conservation-style roof lights. So, this would ensure that rustic nature of the barns is retained and complement and enhance the setting of the heritage assets. So, around the units would be little areas of amenity space which would be for the benefit of the visitors. This area would be retained as an open, predominant open with views out of the site. The site would have sheep mesh fencing just as a boundary treatment on that section. There would be very small areas of planting just to give each individual occupant of the time a degree of privacy. So, to sum up really, the proposal would, in office's view, enhance the setting of the listed buildings. All bolt design materials used together with the retention of the existing scale would reflect the agricultural character and appearance of the buildings and rule setting for locality. And there was also safe vehicular access. So, yes, it's considered it's appropriate in the scale to that setting. In accordance with policy-e-slash-20, the use of any units permitted would be restricted by a condition both in terms of use and length of occupancy and would be retained as tourist accommodation to ensure compliance with policy-e-20. What I haven't said is that we've got a separate cycle store for visitors there and a sort of central bin storage area there. And we've got the details that those have been submitted because they in themselves need permission being within the cottage of the listed building. So, we've got these details. That would be the approved details. So, yes, this is a recommended approval. Thank you, chair. Thank you very much. Have we any questions for the office, please? Councillor Ynys Gwella. Thank you, chair. Thank you for your presentation. I have just a couple of questions on the conditions. I was wondering about condition 22 and if that applies indefinitely or if there's any sort of time limit or if it should say retained as tourist accommodation like you just said. And then I was wondering if we normally have a condition about the timing of provision of the cycle store and I just wondered if that's something that might be added. Thank you. So, in relation to condition 22, I think the wording of the condition sort of implies that it would be in perpetuity and that if they were to be used as anything else we would need that condition to be varied in some way. And with the cycle storage, as I say, these are the approved details but we could, I don't know if we've got a condition to say that they should be read prior to the first occupation of the holiday units but we could add that because obviously that is integral to the permission. Thank you. I was reading another application where they didn't say retained as such or something on a condition and so then it might be overturned or something like that but if you're happier with the wording than I am, thank you. That's fine, Councillor. It's best that the condition is to be as tight and as robust as possible so thank you for pointing that out. Councillor Thamford. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the presentation, Mary. Can you just confirm that car parking for all these units, proposed units, is at the entrance to the site off the main road, is that one space per unit or more than one? Yeah, so I think it's one space per unit. Yeah. So the reason for sighting it away from the list of orders is obviously to retain the rural appearance and also the it's very narrow access to the site of a bridge and is very close to the mill itself and the millhouse so that was the reasoning for putting that there. Visitors will be allowed to use this access for dropping off purposes but during the duration of their stay, parking will be there. Yeah, so there's eight new parking spaces that would be two per unit and I think we've applied a similar thing we would do for a residential when in this case two spaces. Thank you. So, councillor Fave. Thank you chair. I wonder whether it might be relevant. Bond 3 was referred to Mary Collins and also in paragraph 3-2 where it said there are four existing residential sites. Am I right in saying that that fell down in a gail rather than being demolished without consent? Yeah, so that has collapsed through wind damage and just failed and collapsed. Yeah. Thank you. Are there any more questions? Thank you very much. I mean I come to the applicants Adrian and Gina Lewis are speaking in person. You'll have three minutes to keep you to the three minutes. Thank you. I'd like to hear from you. Hello, thank you for seeing us today. Really this whole sort of site is revolving around the mill itself. I think Jordan Warden don't quite realise how lucky they are to have what they have tucked away. The mill house or the mill itself still has all the existing features inside where the miller put down his tools. I think that was back in 1932. He was cutting a millstone and everything is still there. The plan is obviously to try and leave that there and to contact Historic England. We've been a bit preoccupied trying to deal with problems within the cottage itself. Going back to these buildings the current agricultural buildings those that are still standing have an extremely high threshold. I'm quite sure that the actual threshold on one of the buildings comes above my knees so to carry anything or to use anything agricultural in those buildings is almost impossible to do it safely. These days with health and safety the way it is, it's not something we can approach. We looked at the buildings that we had and unfortunately the beautiful one right by the house we did lose in the last lot of wind. She'd already lost half of her roof previous to our purchase but the last lot of wind actually polished off completely and we've actually managed to try and store some of the beams in those buildings that we could get into but to get stuff in there as I say with the high threshold. The reason of the higher threshold was because the water used to originally come through underneath the cottage or no a grepper underneath the mill building. That all changed when the Dunton water station was built and it redirected the water from the can so it took the flow because the mill was an undershot mill it wasn't a conventional mill where it comes over the top the water used to hit it from underneath so the whole water system around us has changed dramatically so there was no need anymore for the higher threshold on the buildings because the water even when we have extensive flooding now the water doesn't come up anywhere near these buildings so we're sort of left without there but I think the demonstration of the last one blowing down and the few beams that we did actually have to bring to a safe position we actually managed to do with our vintage tractor and a cotton lead rope so we didn't have a great deal of resistance from the building itself our structural engineer has had a look and he's actually told us not to go in the buildings and the insurance company which is NFU will no longer cover the building. Thank you, that's a few minutes. Have any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much Now we have the local member Councillor Heather Williams You're all good Aaron You're all good Good morning again members So That's a three minutes up Just I think it got covered earlier but just about the car parking in the eighth space it doesn't make it two per property and that was questions asked In relation to the application itself you'll see through the agenda that there have been no objections there was an issue in relation to originally with highways but that has been resolved and you'll see they no longer have an objection Also for the parish council and that's been reconfirmed to me that the parish council at their meeting supported it so you can see that on page 137 and also what I'd like to draw your attention to is that on page 140 there is no objections for historic England either The officer recommendation on page 133 is for approval and I would strongly suggest that committee follows the officer recommendation and members of this committee will know that's not always my approach However that you'll see from the data this application obviously this has been going on for some time and I think you can see actually through the resolution that's been found in relation to highways how there has been a lot of will on the applicants to try to address any concerns that have been brought to their attention The listed building itself I think this proposal will actually improve the situation as you've heard there are safety issues on the site and policy E20 does support the proposal which is on paragraph 10.4 for the report on page 141 We are very lucky in my part of the world which I'm very proud to represent that we do still have a lot of our pubs in Guild & Mordden those community pubs and another pub This will help support that local economy We've already lost the shop in Guild & Mordden We do technically Farm Shop is technically in Guild & Mordden although people think it's steeple but it's technically Guild & Mordden so we do have facilities I think it would make a lovely place that there was adequate cycle provision adequate parking and I do think generally this would enhance the site as well for the listed building so I'm happy to take any questions you may have for myself but would strongly suggest that committee agree with the officer recommendation of approval Thank you chair Do we have any questions for the local member? Thank you very much, we now come to the debate Chancellor Hand Thank you I was one of those members who attended last week and you know the poor condition of the buildings of the sheds to be demolished was plain to see it's clearly not needed for agricultural purposes or indeed for another purpose and the style of the proposed building seems to me to be in keeping with the historical buildings which is absolutely essential it won't be attracting I think it will enhance the overall appearance of the site I'm heartened to hear that there are conditions limiting the occupation to holiday accommodation I think that's clear what the applicant has in mind so my feeling is that unless someone comes out with a killer argument this is as close to a flam dog as there will ever be Thank you very much Any other comments? I will comment that this was one of the most fascinating site visits that I've ever been on it was really interesting it's a real gem of a piece of our local history and as Councillor Handley has said the buildings clearly were not convertible in their current condition and will create a valuable holiday accommodation resource it seems to be a very good solution to the problem and I'm very much in favour of approving it Councillor Sanford Thank you chair what the previous two speakers have said the existing barns are obviously a lost cause and need to be removed for safety purposes the proposed holidaylets from the illustrations we've seen this morning are well designed and should be a sympathetic addition to the site so I'm also inclined to support this application Councillor Ripas Can I propose that we go to a vote or we or even we need none to see to this? We've got two seconds Councillor Handley second it so can we have a go to a vote please Can we do it by affirmation? We seem to have lost into that at the moment so I'm not sure if the stream is up and running we may have to move on First of all do we agree with the need to provide the cycle store before occupation? Yes Can it be taken by affirmation? Just to go back again with the cycle store agree before affirmation can we confirm that we want to approve when it is against the application it wants to refuse any abstentions? Now can we approve it by affirmation? Can we pause and let this be sorted? Just pause for a second while we sort this out Just for the clarity of those we're just going to pause the live stream briefly while we deal with this application thank you We're coming now to the second application which is a list of building application for the same proposal it's a list of building consent corresponding to the application Mary will also present that application Can we review the presentation please? Do we need to go through this formality? Can we just move to a vote? I'm sure our legal will have something to say Thank you chair for not to move to a vote OK, I'll do the presentation so as mentioned before the application site falls within the setting with grade 2 listed millhouse and the engine house so we're considering these currently listed buildings and so section 66 in the planning list of building conservation act says that we've got to consider the important features that the building would have so in terms of significance of the site members are aware we've got hooks mill the engine house we've got significant heritage assets in that setting so the buildings are considered to be currently listed but all of them have quite simple design principles and they're probably not of any great age so they have some significance and they're considered because of pre-1948 and they're adding to the setting of those listed buildings but as as architectural interest and historic interest in themselves is actually quite low so given that the historic fabric is already in a poor condition and that the benefits of the replacement buildings and their impact on the setting of the heritage assets outwey any harm to the loss of the historic fabric offices of opinion that Mr Building consent should be granted thank you chair do we have any questions for the officer can we have the applicant do they wish to make additional our plan is to maintain what we can and keep what we can but with the one that's blown down itself the basic description really behind those agricultural buildings is they have been hugely abused over the years and they've not been treated with any amount of respect that really a cartilage building would have been treated with had I think people have realised pre-1986 when they were listed probably what they were fortunately though the engine shed the mill itself and the cottage certainly the cottage around to work on at the moment those are the most important so I think that's where we've been we've had listed officers before we purchased to come and look they bought the enforcement officer with them which was something we requested and we're just trying our best to keep it as a site that pays tribute to the mill house that's sorry the mill building that's actually there is that answer thank you thank you do we have any questions for the applicant local member councillor Heather Williams do you wish to add anything thank you Erin just to reinforce that any materials that can be reused and re-purposed from the historic buildings the applicants have expressed their desire to reuse those materials to the best abilities they can subject to the quality of them and I feel that given the situation barns are in is the best that as a council a planning committee we could ask an applicant thank you do we have any questions for the councillor no so now we come to the debate do we have any additional points councillor Wilson thank you it seems to me that these barns are in the state of total disrepair and there's nothing else that can be done with them and they present a risk to people so I think we ought to just go ahead and agree that the demolition thank you I have only the comment that in terms of I emphasised the point about so I'm sorry councillor Ariel Cahn I just want to comment that I think it's pretty evident that the barns are in as councillor Wilson said the state of complete disrepair one of them's already fallen down so I think it's good that safety is seen as a paramount and that the barns, the buildings that are being replaced with fit really will be suffering and I think it will really improve the character of the area thank you I would simply comment that I'm everybody's emphasised the need to be telling what materials there are I know that there are a lot of pantiles which are rather interesting and valuable so I think that's an important element but otherwise I would echo what other people have said are we ready to go to a vote thank you is anybody proposing to refuse the application anybody proposing to abstain can we take it by affirmation great thank you very much indeed ok, thank you the application is approved now we move to item number seven on the revised agenda 2004906 outline agricultural building and land to the rear of this 38 Histon Road Cottenham the application referenced 2004906 outline is an outline application for 34 new units all matters reserved except for access which the committee resolved to grant on 14 September 2022 the matter is before the committee today to determine two subsequent amendments for previous resolution of the committee the amendments to the original redline application boundary and an amendment requested by Cambridge County Council as the education authority to the education contribution secondary education and the section 106 Heads of Terms the recommendation is approval subject to conditions and the completion of a section 106 agreement cwma Ahmet is the presenting officer can we have details thank you very much, cwma thank you chair, thank you can everyone hear me can you hear me we can hear you, thank you ok, so just quickly just to represent the reference number planning application bearing reference number 2004906 4 slash 0, sorry OUT relates to an outline plan pros of 34 new dwellings including new pedestrian footway all matters reserved except for access on land to side and rear of 38 Histon Road in Cottenham there's since been no new fur party matters race since what's been published just to quickly remind members of the actual site itself that was the subject of the previous resolution in September 22 the majority site is located on the edge of Cottenham as you can see here on the PowerPoint slide edged in red we haven't got a slide on screen at the moment seems to have detached itself just bear with me there we go that's up and live with us thank you fantastic let me just move you over apologies so ok just ask again so the summary majority site is located on the edge of Cottenham as you can see here it's edged in red and it's also including the proposed first part of the amendments to the previous resolution the access and first 18 meters are within the development framework rest being within the green belt the site currently obviously as you can see there forms are filled with a single structure located barn and shed over here to the south east side as can be seen the boundary site run along residential curthillages and are made up of mature vegetation trees and fences going to move to the first members may recall the site is the subject as was set out by the chair in his opening comments of an existing committee resolution made in September 22 to grant outline permission under its rules exception policy exception site housing policy that's H4 slash 11 for up to 34 new dwellings all of which will be secured and managed as affordable housing so since that committee resolution was made the scheme has been a subject for the changes that now require the committee's express approval prior to formal permission being given those changes are an extension of the redline boundary as you can see here so that would now facilitate the provision of a new length footway on the west side of Histon Road towards the junction with Cossinton close and the second amendment just bear with me are amendments to the original section 106 terms requested by the counter education authority in relation to secondary school contributions the slide indicates that the majority contributions will be secured including early years contributions that's 0 to 5 years of age the actual just so that members are aware the actual education contributions are dependent on the final housing mix which will be established and agreed at reserved matters stage that will be the end of the presentation quickly remind that there are no further changes proposed to the scheme as previously approved in September 22 those issues previously reported by officers in relation to the principle of development in the Greenbelt affordable housing needs in Cotland Village the type, the mix, the layout of housing, water management and flood risk and highways have not changed and therefore not to be reassessed in this instance plan application is recommended for approval as set out paragraph 9.26 and subject to the amended list of conditions and section 96 heads of terms for information those conditions indicating the bulk type are to draw the attention members to where new and or updated wording are now proposed compared with those previously reported and agreed that's the end of my presentation thank you thank you have any questions for the officer please councillor Richard William thank you chair I think this is a question um can the officer say a little bit more about the secondary contributions because I find it bizarre that the county council acknowledging that there was a shortfall in places in Cotland Village College says he doesn't want contribution towards secondary education I mean I have obviously read the report but I just find that a bizarre opposition for the county council to adopt so um in the process of the previous resolution being given officers sat down with the applicant and our attention was drawn to the contributions in respect to secondary contributions being made and in terms of the size of those contributions and the way they were calculated the conversation proceeded further with our officers at the education authority which is county council who proceeded to further advise us in terms of their that they wouldn't be actually required I mean in terms of why they're not required I mean it's not really for us to actually decide whether as an authority I mean it is the county education authorities position to comment on that I mean I'm not going to repeat what was already been set out in the report between paragraph 9.8 and 9.13 because I think I've made it fairly clear in terms of what the county council's view is on secondary school infrastructure in the area and whether this development itself should contribute towards that I do have a colleague officers from the county education authority present today on this call to you know add a little bit more you know to that explanation if needed their name is Alan Fitz and as I say he's on the call and I'm happy to pass across to him to hopefully advise and set out clearly to members why it's decided that they're no longer actually required I think that would be helpful Alan explain to us the reasoning behind it Hello I'm Alan Fitz Can you hear me okay We can hear you Yes I'm the area education officer for city in south camps with responsibility for planning school places Yes it is an unusual situation because obviously we do try and get contribution from new housing developments when we can and the council is correct if you just looked at the situation in the Cottenham village cartilage campus there would be a shortfall but the historic pattern in the area is there's a lot of interchange between impington village college and Cottenham village college and if you look at the across the two schools then there is you know at the moment there's surplus capacity in the local area it gets much tighter for in the few years in the future I think as a report states but then there will be there should be capacity also as a report states we've got new provision opening around Cottenham so we've got north stone extension that will open in this September 24 and two new schools at Darwin Green and Water Beach again nearby which should you know which will provide a number of places in the local area so I think we were asked to look again and traditionally we hadn't sought contributions from Cottenham developments in the past so the bigger developments that have gone before and we found that if we did get a contribution we'd be in practice add in places that we wouldn't need in five years time so I think on balance we decided that we should withdraw our request for a contribution we had made it previously but I think that was made in error and it was made by an officer who wasn't didn't realise we had to look at both Cottenham and in Pinto when doing the calculation of needs so I hope I explained why the reasoning behind our decision to withdraw our request thank you very much other questions thank you very much now we move to the public speakers there's no speaker from the applicant we have the parish council councillor Tim Jones is he present or is it online can we we'd like to hear you from you councillor Jones we are limited to three minutes we look forward to hearing from you sorry councillor Jones are you with us shall we go first of all to the local member councillor Wilson and if councillor Jones is back on afterwards we'll hear him councillor Wilson can we hear from you sorry chair it seems councillor Jones is trying to get through to us so thank you very much councillor Jones look forward to hearing from you you have three minutes and we're keen to hear what you say no thank you thank you at the time chair and good morning everybody I'm Tim Jones and the chair of Cottenham parish council can you confirm that you have the permission of your parish council to present sorry yes I can so yes I'm chair of the Cottenham parish council and a member of our planning sub-committee as well we've looked at this application as it's developed over time and absolutely recognise that this particular discussion is around the two amendments for the extended footway and the S106 funding but I would just like to remind the committee some of the context this site lies in the lowest part of Cottenham and is subject to regular surface water flooding and when we get to reserve matters we will have to take care for scrutiny of how we're going to deal with that on the extension of the footway we're very pleased to see this it was one of the things that we particularly were concerned about and had asked for somebody to look at and the extension to Costington Close is for us is non contentious and we're very happy with it we know however we still know provision for safe crossing of Histon Road to bus stops or to the new cycle path on the east side of Histon Road there's also no footway proposed towards in the opposite direction towards the proposed recreational area and LEAP at Wagfield which is a bit to the south of the site although it's in a 30 mile an hour zone Histon Road is still a hazard it suffers from very high speeds and high usage including some very large commercial vehicles in fact there was an accident in August of this year which pushed two parked cars off the road and into the houses just near the access to the site so this safety pedestrians and cyclists safety in the area needs careful attention I recognise the comments that Mr Fitz made and that they're helpful regarding the S106 contribution however I think I echo Councillor Williams comments that just seems to us counterintuitive to remove a requirement at this stage when we are looking at a shortfall even as Mr Fitz mentioned even if we blend the numbers from Cottonham and Impington together there's still a shortfall probably till 2030 although as he says perhaps Darwin Green and North Stowe will take up summer will take up that slack but it just given that it was approved previously it just seems very odd to give that back and that's really all our comments thank you do we have any questions for Councillor Jones thank you very much Councillor Jones we now move to the local member Councillor Arlene Wilson thank you I'm going to probably cover the same ground as Councillor Jones but first of all with the footpath I welcome the footpath but as Councillor Jones has said it doesn't go far enough because there is no pedestrian crossing from that side of history mode to the village college or to any other village amenities so history mode is a very fast road although it shouldn't be the a 20 mile anall zone has been introduced in Cottonham but it won't cover history road and so there will always be the temptation for people to speed along that road and the speed watch has demonstrated that it is does become quite a fast road so I would want to see some sort of safe crossing for pedestrian cyclists especially students going to the village college on the section 106 for the village college extra pupils the Mr Fitz has cited Impton Village College and Darwin Green both of these would require pupils from Cottonham to travel either by bus or by bike the bus situation at the moment is quite dire buses are cancelled all the time and people get to school late people get to work late and unless we can assure some sort of public transport that reliable we can't rely on Darwin Green which is on the other side of the A14 from Cottonham for people to get there to school Cottonham Village College serves Willingham, Rampton Land Beach, Water Beach and Cottonham so yes there will be Water Beach in time but we don't know anything about the timing of the new school in Water Beach and we don't know anything about the timing of the school in Darwin Green we do know that there's access to Impton Village College and some districts from Cottonham do go to Impton Village College but I would like to know a bit more about the timing to make sure that these exit places aren't needed because this development would come in addition to the 550 homes that are already being built in Cottonham as part of the five year housing land supply that will be back in 2017 and around about then so we already have a lot more people in Cottonham we've got a very unreliable transport system and I would like to know that some of these figures do add up and that they're going to coincide with the building of this development Thank you Do we have any questions for Council Williams? Thank you very much I think it will be useful because people have commented about additional items to have some advice from the officers about the ability to touch these issues in particular the proposal for a footpath south of the site whether that's something that you could include or not refer to or not and whether the pedestrian crossing or are these matters now determined by the original outline application? What's the planning position in terms of additional obligations? I think it will be useful to know that I'll jump in there Jim So outline commission has already had a resolution to grant by the planning committee without the footpath and so this is an alternative if you like scheme to the one that has already been has a resolution to grant by the planning committee it's as Jim has explained it's taken some work with the applicants to provide this additional footpath however it's the scheme that's in front of you rather than trying to make alterations to what is in front of you and therefore I would advise that the resolution to grant excluding any footpath has already been given by the planning committee Thank you that's fairly what I suspected and I think it's useful to have that information before us Can I jump in? Thank you chair If anyone in addition to me was confused by the sequence of the papers page 85 for your pack will show you the minutes of the meeting 14th of September 2022 when this main application was originally approved and the committee requested and approved by affirmation additional conditions dating notwithstanding the details set out in drawing number details of the access road and pedestrian crossing shall be submitted to an agreed in writing with the planning authority I don't see anything that was presented to us today regarding a pedestrian crossing Sorry, yeah Sorry, yes, please do We're arguing between us now But I would just say if you have a look on page 37 that condition has been reiterated and amended slightly with details of the access road and pedestrian crossing should still be submitted so it's still a condition on this proposal as well I could also just point out in paragraph 9.9 so page 20 on the report the targeted opening for North Stowe secondary college in September 2024 and the new secondary school at Darwin Green is targeted for opening in September 2026 if that helps John, was there anything you wanted to add? Sorry for jumping in on you I was just going to say exactly what you have I do have and I haven't shown all of the previous suite of drawings that supported the previous application but I do have an access design submission which is going to be part of going to be part of the drawings referred to in any future decision that's been given and I'll just put that on the screen it was part of the presentation but I felt I'd keep it back so this is the access sign, this is where the previous red line was and that's really about the access but it talks about two these are uncontrolled admittedly pedestrian crossings on either side but as pointed out by Rebecca the previous resolution anyway I'll stop there Thank you very much indeed then I'll come to the debate Chancellor William Thank you chair and I can't remember if we did it start so I'll say we're all coming to this fresh because many of us got on this application not sure if we did that at the start so just in case when it comes to the application I completely agree with everything that's been said about the education not being asked for, money not being asked for by the county council it seems absolutely ridiculous that they wouldn't want money from the development however without them requesting it I don't see how we would meet the reasonable test for requesting it if that makes sense would we be deemed reasonable for requesting something that the county council doesn't want so I feel like the county have put us in a bit of a bind really and I don't see how we can really make the county take money so I was trying to think of the right words but that is what the situation would be so I think we have to have to go with the officer recommendation and approve the changes but it's it's very counterintuitive Chancellor Griffith I was going to say similar and a lot of this is based on I'm just, yeah I'm probably really curious but based on school provision that is planned and Water Beach seven to eight years it says in the papers I'm not to tell the county officer that he's wrong but you don't know if that's going to be in that time and also we are surely about providing local provision and Darwin Green is really as Councillor Wilson has said in her comments not that local to this site that we're addressing at the moment but and yet we seem to be in a position where we can't refuse this because we can't force them to take money I just find it really strange and also the footpath pedestrian crossing would make a lot of sense but I don't think we could we can't enforce that so yeah, it's very bizarre Councillor Witton Williams Thank you chair I'm going to go back to the education point again I do find this bizarre I mean Darwin Green is five miles from Cottenham from the centre of Cottenham if you follow the roads and we're talking about people here, we're talking about children we're talking about nine children who are not going to be able to go to school potentially with their friends in the village where they live they're not units we can just move around nine there, six there, four there that these are people and we should be having local provision in Cottenham village college for students from Cottenham and I don't think it's reasonable to say well these people can go five miles away and realistically they're going to have to drive to happen, somebody's going to have to drive these children to school probably given the unreliable bus services and we all know what the traffic is like and I wouldn't really fancy trying to do that in Russia on that junction so I think this is totally unreasonable and I certainly won't be voting to support this I might have stated but I might vote against but I'm certainly not voting to support this it's ridiculous Thank you, happy any other comments I would reiterate sorry Bill, do you want I agree with what's being said I find this quite mystifying I don't think we can do anything about it but it's going to give us a bad name that's the thing the people of Cottenham say what are they doing but anyway I think we're stuck with it we're building in a problem I think which one we can't solve I would make my comments as well that I find this a bit curious I'm also a bit curious that they haven't included Chesterton which is actually probably going to be more accessible than the new Darwin Green School because it will be on quite close to a bus route whereas Darwin Green School will be the other end of this element quite difficult to get to but we know the Brussels problem I reiterate Councillor Heather Williams point I don't see that there's anything we can't force money I don't think we can force money by condition I'm just a local authority that hasn't requested it that's the problem we're in sorry, Councillor Councillor, yeah sorry, Rebecca sorry I just wanted to outline that obviously the County Councillor are no longer requesting this Section 106 contribution so we've had to delete it from the current or from the draft Section 106 because they are not requesting the information and therefore if we didn't approve the current recommendation that's before you today we wouldn't be able to complete the Section 106 on the original version of the application that came to committee with the resolution to grant and so that we may have a risk of running a non-determination appeal then because we wouldn't be able to proceed with the previous resolution to grant because the County have already requested that that one is deleted from the Section 106 I think, have we any further comments? It just sounds like we're completely stitched up here we're completely... I'm sorry we cannot make a decision can we that's sensible on this occasion I'm really quite cross about it actually Okay, I think have we got any further comments? I think we can go to a vote Can I propose that we go to a vote? Can I have a seconder? Okay, I'm going to answer Sam for the seconded Can we affirm? Everybody agree? Okay Just to confirm we have four votes, four approval one vote against and two abstentions one non-vote Sorry, so the application is approved Thank you very much We now move to Shall we have a break? Can we have a break now? We'll have a break for ten minutes and then we'll come back Thank you very much Welcome back to the South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee We're now considering item 32 stroke 73 to 0 stroke 73 of Water Beach Court Denny Enver, Water Beach This is a section 23 application to vary the condition 6 to a certain number of caravans of the planning reference C stroke 64 stroke 949 in addition of nine additional caravan sites with concrete hard standings toilets and stores provision of a central laundry and four showers outline to enable the site to be reorganised and have caravan numbers up to 63 and change from 59 the current maximum to 63 The key issues are the impact on the character and the appearance of the area the impact on neighbourhood neighbouring amenity the impact upon trees and the impact upon drainage This application has been called in by councillor Anna Bradlam and the officer's recommendation is refusal Tom Chainary is the presenting officer Tom, can you give us the information Thank you chair, I'm just waiting for my presentation Right, hopefully showing on two of the three So shall I go three out of three We can see it online Perfect, thank you Thank you chair Yes, as you indicated this is an application at Water Beach Court Denny Enver in Water Beach is a section 73 planning application The numbers of caravans on the site from 59 to 63 and officers are recommending for refusal There is an update on the application This morning I was sent a copy of the site licence by councillor Bradlam This is from Environmental Health This doesn't necessarily relate to planning but it was provided to myself this morning As you said chair, there's a couple of material considerations on the application The main ones being those on the screen now which is character interference of the area amenity of neighbouring and future occupiers impact on protected trees ecological implications flood risk and car and cycle parking On the screen now is the site location plan so the site is located to the north of Water Beach so the site is just north of Denny Enver road caravans are sort of located around a central green space at present with an outer road around the outside there's currently 59 caravans existing on the site In terms of the aerial imagery this slide indicates that the purple dots are the protected trees on the site so they all benefit from tree protection orders to the north of the site is the allocated site of Water Beach Newtown that would directly bound the site there's obviously some residential development to the east south and obviously there's a parcel to the west but obviously that forms the old REF Water Beach this slide just indicates those cycle strengths again so obviously the pink dots of the trees pink, purple the blue around the outside that is surface water flood risk so that just indicates that basically around the outside on the roads that there is a risk of surface water flooding and the orange just indicates the extent of the Water Beach site allocation it is within the development framework of Water Beach just like to have that so there's only really been one plan that has been indicated to officers and this was done throughout the application process it is an indicative site plan so members can see the top right hand corner there's a mixture of blue and red squares that is the proposed extent of the addition of caravans obviously it is located within the central green space and then obviously there's the indication on the left hand side as well sort of where some of the better indication of other places within the site a lawful development certificate has been approved previously which confirmed that the central green space although was required as part of the 1964 planning application the wording within the condition did not require the green space to be retained so the lawful development certificate essentially confirmed that the owner if he wishes to do so is able to place caravans anywhere within the site and he is legally allowed to do so that does fall part of the applicant's fallback position however just like to indicate that although that they could place caravans within the central green it does have to be around the protected trees which I'll provide this map here so in addition to the lawful development certificate there was also a tree treeworks application which sought to remove four of the existing trees all of those marked with the X in yellow and then the replacement for new trees so if I just go back to the previous slide so although they have indicated that caravans can be could be potentially located in this location that that in itself would conflict with the protected trees within the middle and obviously although yes they could place caravans somewhere or anywhere in the site and within the central green space at present that would conflict with those trees so that is one of the reasons that officers consider is unacceptable in terms of site photos so this is from Google Street View just shows the entrance to the site so on the right hand side are dwelling houses which are not associated with the site but on the left are caravans which are associated with the site and sort of within the centre I'm just going to get my points for just to make it clear for members that this is the green space in the middle here and then this image is the road throughout the site so behind those houses that I just showed this just goes shows the sort of southern edge this is the central green space and you've got this tree has been removed as well as this tree and this tree and there is one just covered at the back here so they have all been allowed to be removed and have been confirmed by the tree officer but it's sort of indicated there are trees that are to be located or replanted as part of that tree works application this is another image of the road around the outside and I just thought I'd show two examples of caravans so this is one of the smaller caravans on the site which is typical and then this is one of the larger caravans on the site which is also typical once again this is another view from streets within the site I have sort of just gone around the outer road and then this goes back down towards the front of the site this is the central green space once again so some of these trees have been removed there is an existing road which runs down the outside there are some other caravans that are located to the rear one of the reasons for as stated in the tree works application this road was to be increased in size in order to allow for a greater width for emergency vehicles so in terms of the planning balance officers obviously are recommending for a fusel due to the harm that the proposal would have on the impact on the caravans to the area the impact on the protected trees the harm to any future and neighbouring occupiers the impact upon the protected or priority species on the site flood risk impact and the lack of car and cycle parking I'd just like to just sort of indicate just go back a few slides in the indicative plan there has been no specific plan which indicates exactly where the caravans are to be located so officers have found it very difficult in order to determine the application in a sentence because obviously we can't determine how or where the caravan is going to be there's been no indication of size scale or massing or anything like that it also hasn't indicated as with the impacts on the trees whether they would actually place caravans elsewhere within the site and there's also been no indication regarding car parking or cycle parking or any private immunity space so in the absence of that information officers have to consider that that is not being provided in regards to the reasons for approval however is that the certificate of lawfulness confirms that caravans can be located anywhere within the site the applicant has indicated that all that position but officers consider as I just indicated that there is not enough information within the application which clearly indicates that there will be no harm as indicated thank you chair thank you thank you very much have we any questions thank you councillor Wilson does that certificate of lawfulness allow the owner to go ahead without planning permission no now it doesn't any other questions thank you very much we now have an object here Mr Ross Nicholas Nicholas Ross and that's all excuse me thank you very much indeed you have three minutes what about the local member sorry councillor Bradnan the local member typically follows the object as per public speaker thank you have three minutes we'll keep you to that and tell you when it's up sorry could I just clarify you're asking me to speak chair councillor Bradnan for sake of clarity the object has been called first and the local member will be following I do apologise thank you thank you hello my name is Ross Nicholas I will have about a minute and a half and then I'll pass you on to Diane who will speak as well on behalf of us I just want to voice my objection to the planning commission under quite a few important points to be completely honest one of the main ones that I can see that could be a potential risk of loss of life is a fire hazard all of the houses that you saw on the inside of the green there were four at the top if any of these houses on the green were to catch fire those people in those houses have nowhere to be able to get out we have one entrance and the same is the exit we are surrounded by a nine foot fence all the way around from the MOD with barb wire at the top and those people on the inside would find it very hard to get out very quickly my second point is definitely to do with the drainage and surface water just this October cars could almost not get through the whole of the site there was about five inches of surface water it has nowhere to go the drainage hasn't been done since say the 1950s or something it is so old that the green itself is acting as basically a sponge the trees on the green are helping to get rid of a lot of that water now that some have been felled the water is that we are actually finding that it is staying around a lot more and as you are sure you all know with a sponge if you put any weight on a sponge what happens the water will disperse out the water will rise even more and everyone's electrics is all under the house so as soon as the water rises any of that touches the electrics all the electrics will go out so that is a very, very big point with the surface water there is also a house the very start of the green whose big windows for their living room back onto the green and looking at that plan they can have a loss of privacy a loss of light if any of those new caravans it's two minutes just like that I've had two minutes okay that's fine thank you hello I'm Diana Rai-Gison I reiterate what Ross Nicholls have just said our biggest concern is the safety of the site the access to leaving the site obviously is all down to the green and the little track at the side which to get out onto the main road for people that are mainly on the site are elderly people over 55 we use the green as a recreation area this is very important to us we need it for exercise, fresh air walking, dog walking and to get to the bus stop that's our only way off the site into town so having more houses on the green area is going to feed our freedoms to move around including myself I use a mobility scooter and my own access in and out to my home is the track on the right hand side is going to widen which is only going to be access to the new properties you've reached your time now thank you very much indeed you've reached your time you've reached your three minutes now thank you very much indeed now do we have any questions for the objectives please any questions thank you very much indeed now we have the local member councillor Anna Bradford thank you chair thank you chair and I'm sorry for interrupting before thank you so much could I just clarify that Lawrence Darmory has a few photographs of the site that he's going to display while I speak thank you councillor I'm just pulling them up now I will let you know when they're live in the room while Lawrence is doing that can I just say thank you very much to Tom Chenery for coming to this conclusion and also that I called this in before we knew that Tom was going to recommend refusal so I'm very much in favour of that but with your permission now chair I've got three minutes yes please no thank you very much I urge members to confirm the case officer's recommendation of refusal Water Beach Court was established over 60 years and the 1965 permission established the current number of pitches 59 conditions of that permission included planting trees an area of land of at least a quarter of an acre to be provided for open space play and recreation and that the total number of caravans shall on the site at no time exceed 59 that was the wording at no time these conditions have combined to ensure that for the last 60 years whilst being quite densely packed Water Beach Court has enjoyed an open outlook and sufficient green space for rest and relaxation for residents it's half a mile to the nearest playground and further to the village recreation ground residents who have limited space around their homes use the green for playing with children, grandchildren, yoga barbecues, dog walking as you've heard from Dai this summer we enjoyed coffer mornings in the shade under one of the now four sadly felled cherry trees whilst one resident is just two years old many of the residents have lived here for 25 35 and in one case over 40 years these are long standing residents we know how important green spaces for our health and well being should be completely unacceptable to sacrifice the green to add four more homes when those conditions said that the number should at no time exceed 59 condition for of that permission for a quarter of an acre of land regrettably did not secure it as council a red drop spotted for the lifetime of the development and the certificate of lawfulness confirms that but it also confirmed that the maximum number of homes is 59 please don't change that now page 14 of the plans pack shows there really isn't a way of adding four homes to the site without concreting over the green and compromising the remaining the remaining TPO trees any sketched option is reducing the amenity area I suggest that a quarter of an acre of open space is as necessary now as it ever was in 1965 the current site license if anybody wants to ask me about that I'd be happy to answer some questions but other potential harms caused by those new four hard standings include a severe negative impact on the residential amenity of the existing and future residents the cramp development of the site that the case officer has mentioned harm to the character of the development and a reduction in biodiversity this map that you this plan that you're seeing shows the position of the current drainage manhole covers in black dots in addition there is a risk that more cars on the development are just completely over the top because already there isn't sufficient car parking on site and the visitor spaces are often used overnight I was just coming to the conclusion chair so members please uphold the concerns of the residents of Water Beach Court by refusing this application thank you so much chair thank you very much do we have any questions for councillor Brandon councillor Redford thank you councillor Brandon I was going to ask about license details as Tom Jennery did mention that you'd shared them but I haven't seen them so I just wondered what reason you shared them for and what was most relevant to us thank you well members will be aware that licensing law and planning law must not overlap each other but I just thought you might want to know that the current caravan site license and I apologise to the residents who are here today we have to refer to this because this is the legislation under which these sites are licensed but I know they are your homes and I respect that but the caravan site license dated 2 September 2009 it was originally for Kingsmead but is now named Water Beach Court says it says under recreation space which is item 28 on the license where children live on the site space equivalent to about one tenth of the total area should be allocated for children's games and or other recreational purposes and it's because it says this will normally be necessary because of the limited space available around caravans but may be omitted where there are suitable alternative publicly provided recreational facilities which are readily accessible now I've calculated that this whole site occupies a little less than 22,500 square metres one tenth of that is 2,250 square metres or approximately bingo half an acre so my recommendation is that if this is the current site license which I believe it to be then residents are entitled to half an acre of space on site for the children's games and recreation thank you Councillor Redrup Do we have any other questions? Thank you very much now we come to the debate sorry, Councillor Vippert Yes, that's part of the debate I really just want to say I'm echoing what's been said by the speakers, the two objectives by my ward colleague and also as part of Tom Chennery's presentation please can we vote to refuse this because we don't know what's going on can we vote to refuse this because there is a whole list of reasons why and the main one for me is really the harm to that local immunity and overdevelopment of the site and I just really would plead to the other members on committee that we need to go with the officer of recommendation of refusal Thank you Councillor Heather Williams Thank you chair and just if I refer to page 92 when it starts with page 92 we have Water Beach Parish Council objecting, the lead local flood authority objecting and as we're all aware we would sometimes are very frustrated that the lead local flooding authority does not object and we try to get around them normally but they are objecting here and the ability officer is objecting the landscape officer is objecting the ecology officer, the tree officer and there's been 32 representations objecting to the proposal and a 234 signature petition The fact that we have all these objections I think would make it what it is our judgement it would make it very reckless of us to overturn the officer recommendation of refusal and that's how I'll be voting chair Do we have any other comments? Councillor Ariel Cairn Thank you chair I would just like to support what Councillor Rippeth was saying that I think the harm to be me indeed is definitely one of the big reasons why I think we should object to this proposal I'm concerned by the concerns of the local representatives about the flooding and about the fire hazard but it seems like a very serious issue with this application so I think I'll also be objecting Councillor Hamley I'm going to be objecting too and I'd like to thank the local objecters for bringing our attention that weren't in the report I don't know if you want anyone to propose we go through the vote I was simply going to comment myself that my view is that we should object the site visit was very illuminating for those who were there and in the light of the site license it's difficult to see how they could meet the requirements of the site license with an increase in the numbers now they're separate legislation but it does mean that there's a certain inconsistency as I see it in the proposal you propose that we go through the vote we have a seconder okay can we not go through the vote please just to repeat that if you're voting in favour you're voting to support the officer's recommendation refusal or you're refusing the application of your voting against your voting to approve the application thank you very much okay fine thank you the application thank you chair that is a unanimous vote to refuse in accordance with the officer's recommendation nine votes to none so thank you the application has been resused can I say thank you very much thank you very much we've now planned to take lunch we'll be 40 minutes 40 minutes for lunch no, but that's what we'll select, what do you have to do 45 minutes for lunch okay, I'm going to come back the South Cambridgeshire District Council planning committee we're now considering item nine on the revised agenda application 23 stroke 0837 stroke 4 amongst nine lands Sampson Road, Oakington it's the demolition of the existing garage number two bedroom dwelling the key issues here are the principle of development and the flood risk the applications we've referred to committee is that a departure application and the officer's recommendation is to approve subject to conditions the site was visited on the 6th of December Alice Young is the presenting officer Alice can you present the application please thank you chair bear with me a second so the application is for the demolition of the existing garage and the erection of a two bed dwelling including flood compensation works at nine Long Stanton Road, Oakington the application site forms part of the rear garden of nine Long Stanton Road, Oakington on the western side of Long Stanton Road the development framework boundary transex site through the garage and continue south west comes approximately down here the application site also falls within flood zone three the surrounding area is predominantly residential aside from the open countryside to the west Long Stanton Road is unusual as there are several secondary roads you'll see here this just notes where the garage and site is so Long Stanton Road as I've just said is unusual it has several secondary roads and the access to the site is via one of these secondary roads which serves for dwellings in the committee reports has five that is a mistake it is four access is approximately ranges in width with the narrowest point being about three metres so the applications for the demolition of the existing garage and the erection of a two bed dwelling with flood compensatory works the dwelling would be sighted adjacent to number nine with the garden extending south the driveway to the front would have space for two car parking spaces for each dwelling and bin and bike stores would be located to the front of the dwelling so an additional cycle store to the rear which is accessible down the side so this is it's in a bit more detail but zoomed in because I'm aware it's a big site so the dwelling would be prefabricated and comprised two bedrooms bathrooms and studies and a well proportioned kitchen living area to the rear of the property opening out to a patio and a south west facing garden so this is the floor plans here so bedroom one bedroom two an open plan kitchen lounge so this is what it would look like this is the front elevation facing north east this is the rear facing south west south east elevation and north west elevation so some of the dwelling and the garden fall outside the development framework while this is the case policy S7 and H16 supports the development of residential gardens subject to various criteria which officers consider the development complies with the proposal given its siting closest surrounding built form this modest scale similar designer materials to number nine for these reasons officers consider that the proposal would not be our character no heritage assets would be impacted by the development no significant amenity impact would arise either due to the scale massing of the development compared to the existing garage which it replaces and also the orientation of cottage here so as mentioned earlier the site falls within flood zone three meaning there is high probability of flooding in this area and residential dwellings are considered incompatible within flood zone three the MPPF is clear that a sequential test is designed to steer new development areas with lowest risk of flooding and that development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in area of lower risk of flooding the PPG states that high risk areas that in high risk areas development shall only pass a sequential test if there are no reasonably available sites in low or medium risk areas no alternative sites have been assessed whether in the applicant's ownership or not and the council can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply in areas of less risk given this officers consider that the development fails the sequential test however other material planning considerations indicate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on flood risk the development includes flood mitigation measures for the proposed dwelling and flood compensation works to increase flood flood plain storage to offset the dwelling and also provide public benefit to the wider village the flood compensation consists of lowering ground levels of the adjacent lake here which is in the ownership of the applicant to provide additional flood storage the dwelling would amount to a loss of 14.4 cubic metres and the proposal would add 100.9 cubic metres of storage the environment agency are supportive of the application and conclude that the proposal would provide a betterment in terms of flood storage and would minimise flood risk officers therefore conclude that while there is conflict with the MPPF, PPG and certain local plan policies arising from the location of the development in flood 03 the proposed development which includes mitigation and compensation measures is considered compliant with policy when viewed as a whole these flood compensation measures and works are secured by condition 10 so members will have been on site and are very familiar with the context of the site the site is accessible off Longstanton Longstanton Road and opens out into a parking forecore this part of Longstanton Road serves for dwellings as shown on the map and the road narrows in places to approximately 3 metres in width but enlarges to approximately 6 metres in some places this road layout provides some opportunities to pull over when you meet a car coming in the other direction and naturally slows traffic given its curved shape taking these factors into account alongside the number and size of the dwellings currently served by the access and the size of the proposed dwelling officers consider that the additional transport movements would not lead to a significant risk of conflict between vehicles so when weighing the scheme in the planning balance officers conclude that the proposal provides significant benefits which outweigh the minor conflict arising from failing the sequential test and therefore officers' recommendation is one of approval subject to conditions thank you chair thank you very much just to note before we go on that councillor Judith Rippeth left the meeting during the break I was meant to mention that before ok now we come on to questions for the officer who can have any questions councillor Rippeth sorry thank you chair I just wanted to ask about the potential loss of immunity under age 16 could the loss of the garage on number 9 to build the new dwelling be considered that loss of immunity and also I don't know if they've got any other secure cycle parking but if that sort of you lose the cycle parking for number 9 but then we're saying under condition you have that cycle parking for the new dwelling if that sort of makes sense and if there's anything that needs doing on that thank you thank you so in terms of the loss of immunity to number 9 through the loss of the garage there is space for two car parking spaces for number 9 and there is sufficient space to accommodate a cycle parking structure if they wanted to erect one there are conditions which secure the provision of cycle parking for the proposed dwelling if members were concerned about the impact on number 9 through for cycle parking loss of cycle parking for number 9 then that could be conditioned but it is outside the red line the area which would house potential cycle parking for number 9 so it would have to be a special type of condition but it's not necessarily outside the realm of possibility if members were concerned about that thank you any further questions councillor Samford thank you chair and thank you Alice for the presentation the application site is currently screened from the neighbours by fairly large mature trees can you just confirm that the applicant intends to retain those trees bear with me a moment whilst I get up a plan to show you just bear with me so this is an extract from the ecological assessment which shows a lot of the trees within the site all of the trees along here all sorry backer did you want to come in only that we couldn't see the slide you were referring to but it's caught up now okay cool thank you so yeah this is the extract an extract from the ecological assessment you'll see that the trees within the site are sufficient distance away from the proposed development this shows the existing garage and then hard standing here but the development comes out here we also have a condition which prevents materials being stored within 5 metres of any tree trunk so that during construction trees within the site are not impacted by other development in terms of trees surrounding the site which fall outside the red line obviously there's trees in dove cottages residential cursage and that material that materials condition will protect those trees in terms of them not being stored within the 5 metre radius of those trees in terms of the impact of those trees as a result from the built form proposed given that it mainly is focused new built form is focused away from the boundaries officers were not concerned about the impact on trees we did consult tree officer but they did not get back to us that is officers opinion so I hope that alleviates your concerns counciller thank you yes thank you any further questions thank you thank you very much I understand there's no public speakers we have understand that the applicant Mr Butler is available should we want to ask questions does anybody have any particular questions for the applicant thank you very much ok we come on to the debate do we have any who wishes to contribute to the debate do we have any contributions do we counciller William I probably ought to debate or give some reference to merits or not of the application chair it is a departure application it's right that it's come to us we don't have we have one objection in relation to the highways but my understanding is that's sort of been resolved and they've been able to provide the drawings if that's correct so that's been overcome the issues around flooding the environmental agency haven't objected we don't have anything for the need of flood authority so it's I think on the balance the officer's recommendation is sensible and and yeah I think so long as 6.2 has been addressed then as committee I think we are in a position what we should be able to approve it counciller I agree with counciller counciller William I visited the site with a number of other members and I had no concerns including the access and the highway issue so I would have no hesitation but for positivity for this okay thank you very much shall I propose that we go to a vote? sorry sorry Alice thank you sorry chair I just wanted to highlight that no further plans have been provided with regards to the local highway authorities comments officers did not have concerns with regards to the highway authorities comments which focused on visibility displays and given that the access already serves for properties and there is adequate kind of space for pulling over if needed and the driveways are in kind of a succession alongside the speeds down that part of long stands would be much reduced taking that all into account officers didn't have any concerns with regards to visibility or conflict between vehicles so just wanted to highlight that before you carried on debating or before you voted so it was clear thank you very much for those comments I know I can speak for myself when I saw on the site and saw the highway you could see that it would manage but it would be perfectly able to manage the junction where the road actually had good visibility because it was on the outside of a bend and you could see enough to be able to manage the access so I wasn't concerned I don't know it appears from what people have said that the other councillors were not concerned that they have their own they must make come to their own conclusion just to repeat does anybody wish to make any questions on that? no okay I repeat so I propose that we go to the vote to have a seconder councillor Ariel Carr so can we go to the vote please to remind you if you're voting in favour you're voting to approve if you're voting against you're voting to refuse thank you very much can we have the result please thank you chair that is I believe 8 votes 2 none against for a unanimous approval of that application so if the application is approved now we move on to the compliance reporter Rebecca would you present it please thank you chair Chris is on leave today so I'm going to try and cover as best as I can as you will be aware last month we updated that the technical support team were taking over responsibility for creating the compliance cases and that the compliance team also we were in the process of setting targets for their performance management of the officers against the compliance policy as a result we propose to bring the data in a new format moving forward the new reporting system has not been fully optimised I think we're going to go as yet and then we're continuing to work on it however we have provided a number of enforcement cases received and those closed for the last three months so the quarter for south Cambridge details of the enforcement notices served and then in appendix 3 details of open cases older and newer than six months as well as the priorities of the open cases that's the priority recording only came into effect at the beginning of November they're only the cases that we've received since November just to update that the figures in appendix 3 reflect all enforcement cases so it's Cambridge City as well not just south Cams but moving forward we're hoping to enhance the reports further so that we can separate out the reporting figures in future and also the breakdown by officers as well thank you chair thank you do we have any questions on the enforcement on the enforcement cases and the number cases received Councillor Williams Councillor Heather Williams thank you chair just appreciate appendix 3 on page 175 because we've asked for the changes it was hard to see what case is going forward I appreciate you said the priorities are new but it would be quite good to know the 361 that are more than six months old those priorities in there because if there was a priority A for example in that section then obviously we'd be more concerned potentially of where they are if I can just come back on that so we've only been attaching priorities to the new cases since they've came in since the beginning of November we haven't done the retrospective exercise of go back to all 600-700 cases and attach priority rating but if members wish to do so we can at some point in the future Councillor Williams thank you I think it would just be good to know if there are any priority I'm assuming that also actually probably key that A is the highest priority if there are any priority A's in there because that would just be a flag for us thank you Councillor Sanford are the three levels of priority A, B and C defined somewhere so we can actually understand why they've been assigned to those priorities yes I believe they were set out in last month's compliance report but if not they're in the enforcement policy and also on the internet if you give me two minutes I can tell you what they are thank you best to keep it in the report I think for us councillors short attention spoons handily I had last month's report open so high priority cases which are category A they include such damage or loss of listed buildings works of TPO's etc medium priority which is B such as when they're assessed they're ones that can have or can cause harm such as adverse effects on conservation areas or breaches of condition and then lower lower priority category C is may cause some harm but could be made acceptable by way of implementing conditions or simple corrective action I'll make sure we've put a definition next to them in future thank you thank you that's very useful we now move on to agenda item 11 appeals this is a summary of the appeals have you got any questions about anyone's in particular if you can let me know or contact me and then I'll be able to come back to you thank you sorry questions from Councillor Richard Williams and then Councillor Heather Williams afterwards thank you chair two points one specific one more general as an award member it would actually be useful to get an update on the outstanding appeal in Wittlesford which is on page 182 at the Lion Works so obviously I don't expect that now but it would be good to know what's happening with that one that leads me to a more general point though which is what I was originally going to make which is that there are 44 appeals listed in appendix 4 some of them like that Wittlesford one seem to have been going on for quite a long time I appreciate it's totally outside the control of this council but is there a delay with the planning inspector because we seem to be racking up a huge number of appeals which I'm sure is going up and up every month when we see it, not our fault like with that in terms of the specific question about the appeal in Wittlesford the only update I can give is that it's with pins awaiting a decision unfortunately and yes my understanding is those that aren't like fast tracked appeals so the householder and some of the small business ones pins are having issues with resources and there's more appeals than they have gotten inspectors that are dealing with them particularly enforcement appeals are taking 6-12 months to get a decision unfortunately so we are in the hands of pins unfortunately so we have our timetable of what we have to do stuff by that really then can a speedy response once we've had to do the bits we have to do by our deadlines I don't ask about the appeal for lands out of the causeway passing born companies for the nine of the self called dwellings which we were there was no water cost can you the appeal was allowed so perhaps you could give us a little bit of an explanation behind that problem awesome if I can come back to members on that one because we have taken some legal advice in respect to that appeal and I will come back to you on that one okay so sorry have you sorry yes it was cancer head Williams wasn't it I think it was I think so I'm sorry I'm losing my track one of which was the appeal obviously where we got awarded costs on the self build but also there were two others that were allowed one of which was a decision of the committee so I'm just wondering if there are any anything that you'd like to draw to our attention as a committee from that and the land rear of 90 high street Melbourne for a new dwelling again sorry I'll have to come back to you on the details of that one okay fine have you any other questions thank you okay now we move on to I would just say that it is my expectation in future I'm not going to put a time limit on myself is to amend the report to members so that we do have more of a summary of what happened at the appeal and also lessons learned so that would be for officers and also the committee I just need a bit of time to get that new format in place if that's okay thank you I think we'd all be welcome that okay thank you very much now we move on to item 12 on the agenda we're going to now we'll be excluding members of the press and public for the item so that we can consider item 13 on the agenda and therefore propose that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item item 13 in accordance with section 100a article 4 of the government act 1972 on the grounds that if present it will be disclosed to them of exempt information is defined in paragraph 3 of part 1 of schedule 12a of the act do I have a seconder for this proposal Councillor Sanford can I take this by affirmation agreed okay as we have agreed to move into private session this ends the public session public part of the meeting I would like to inform all those listening that the next meeting this committee will be held on the 17th of January 2024 in the new year and we will now say goodbye to the observing press and public and the live stream and recording will cease thank you very much indeed