 Right. Good morning. My apologies for the slight delay in starting this meeting. But welcome to Members' officers. And of course, any members of the public who may be following us on the livestream. This meeting of the South Cambridgshire district council planning committee. I'm Councillor Peter Faen and I'm the chair of this committee. Mae'r mewn ydyn nhang ar gwrth mor hwnnw, ac roedd yn cael ei ddweud i'r gweithio. Roedd y gweithio yn debyg fwy o'r meddwyd yn dde'ch pas, mae'n symhin o gweithio yn Lovloc, gyda'r gwasanaeth rhagor i weld yn lly多 am y newid yma. Mae'r tawch o'r gweithio'r gwaith yma eich gweithio'r Lovloc a'r effeithio'r gweithio eich gweithio ar gyfer Ieithas, sy'n ei ddweud i fynd a'r gweithio a'r rhagorau, ymlaen, wrth gwrs, yn fwy o'n fwy o'r cymryd. Mae'r gweithio'n gwneud hynny, ond mae'n gweithio, ond mae'r cymryd yn ei wneud i gael y gwaith. Mae'n mynd i gael'r gweithio'n gwaith ar gael y gwaith, ond mae'r gweithio'n gweithio yn ymlaen i'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio ar gyfer. Roeddwn i'n rhaid i'n mynd i'n rhaid i ddiweddoleth gyda'r gweithio'n gweithio ar gyfer y gweithio'n yn ystod yn ychydig y gallwch chi i'n ymddangos i'r ymddangos, dwi'n ddod i'n ddweud ar hynny i'r gafod ydych chi'n ymddangos, a'r hynny'n ddweud ar hynny i'n ddweud ar hyn cyffredinol i'r ddweud ar hynny. Rwy'n ei wneud am y gweithio ar hynny i'r ddweud ar hynny. Rwy'n ei ddweud ar y ddweud ar hynny i'r gweithio ar hwnnw i'r ddweud ar hynny. ar gyfer y cypryn ymddun gyda'r cyffredinol. Dwi'n dweud hefyd y cheych 신� iddyn nhw. Cymru. Mae'r cynllun yng Nghymru yn ôl allan eu cyffredinol. Roedd rydym yn ddifwg. Trin, rhydych chi fan gwasanaethau a wneud yn rhaglu beth sy'n fynd i'r dyfynidol yn gweithio. Mae hynny'n gweud â hyn yn yr bydau. Mae'r ddesg yma fel y gweithio, ar gyfer y gweithio, May be broadcast at some point on the cameras. Of course rove. And follow the microphone being switched on. Wood councillors and other speakers waited a couple of seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up. If the fire alarm sounds then please leave the chamber, make your way down the stairs, don't use the lift. And the safe assembly point is next to the marketing suite half way along the business park. For those participating in the meeting via the live stream, please indicate that you wish to speak if you wish to speak via the chat column and please do not use the chat column for any other purpose during the meeting. Please make sure that your device is fully charged and you switch your microphone and camera off unless you're invited to speak. Please ensure that you have switched off or silenced any other devices so that they do not interrupt proceedings. Please use a headset if available when speaking on the contributing virtually and when you're invited to address the meeting please make sure your microphone is switched off. When you finish addressing the meeting please turn off your microphone. Please note that if we do need to vote on any item we shall do so via the electronic voting system on the microphones which means that only those present in the chamber can vote or propose or second recommendations. Now if the committee members present in the chamber I'd invite each of you to introduce yourselves and after I call the name please turn on your camera microphone wait two seconds and say your name so presents may be noted in the minutes. As I said earlier my name is councillor Peter Fane and I'm a member for the Shelford ward and my vice chair is councillor Henry Batchelor. Good morning chair councillor Henry Batchelor one of the members for the Linson ward and acting vice chair for today and also present in the room we have councillor Ariel Kahn. Ariel Kahn councillor for horse and councillor Dr Martin Kahn and councillor Martin Kahn a member for Hysden and in Peter Sandford. councillor Peter Sandford. Good morning Peter Sandford councillor for Cuckston and Pappworth ward. councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you chair I'm Richard Williams I'm the member for the Whittlesford ward. I think we will be joined shortly by councillor Heather Williams. I think we have councillor Lisa Redrop Redrop is joining us virtually. I don't see any other members present. Ah councillor Bill Handley. Yes hello it's Bill Handley a member for the villages of Ove and William and councillor Heather Williams. Can we take it for the message councillor Heather Williams is present? So I can confirm that the meeting is quarried. We also have officers present in the chamber for the duration of the meeting and I'll just ask to introduce themselves others I will introduce as and when they come to speak. Phil Macintosh interim delivery manager. Good morning chair good morning members yes Phil Macintosh interim delivery manager for the west team in the shared planning service. And Vanessa Blane. Good morning chair good morning everyone Vanessa Blane legal advisor to the planning community. And I'm glad to say on this occasion we're joined in the chamber by our planning officer Lawrence Murray-Hulman. Thank you chair good morning everyone Lawrence to Murray-Hulman Democratic Services Officer for the Planning Committee. And Aaron Clarke is of course known to all who will keep the IT and so on in order. If a member leaves the meeting would they please make the fact known to me or my advice chair so that can be recorded in the minutes. I intend breaking for about 10 minutes at 11.45 and if the meeting is still going on we'll break about 3.45 plus we plan a 45 minute break for lunch at 1.30. Now you should have the main agenda pack dated 10th of January the outline plans pack supplement also dated 10th of January and a supplementary update report for item five which is the application in board officers will of course introduce these items in due course. Members should also have received a written submission from one member of the public regarding item six and two councillors for that board and division also for that item. Item two on our agenda today apologies for absence Lawrence any apologies for absence today. Thank you chair. We have apologies from the usual vice chair councillor Jeff Harvey, councillors Dr Tumi Hawkins and William Jackson Wood have also sent apologies with councillor Dr Lisa Redrup substitute councillor Jackson Wood virtually. Thank you. Thank you. Members we now come to item three declarations of interest. Do any members have interest to declare in relation to any item of business on the agenda? Well I shall declare myself that in relation to item six I have taken a strong view in relation to a related application and as I said earlier I will be withdrawing from the debate. I think councillor Williams. Thank you chair I just wanted to note on item six I don't have a disclose of interest but I'm familiar with the area but obviously I will approach the matter afresh. Right minutes of our previous meeting item four on our agenda. If you have in front of us the minutes of the meeting held on 14th of December we're not going to look at the restricted the minutes of the restricted item of the stage but so if you have any comments on that please withhold that till later but in relation to the publicly available minutes do any members wish to make any amendments so can I take it that we I see none no can I take it that we approve these minutes by affirmation? Right thank you. We then proceed to item five on your agenda so item five on the agenda is case number 22 oblique 03957 hful in 62 high street no I'm sorry that's a it's the wrong one here it appears so forgive me start again item five on the agenda is case number 22 oblique 03561 hful which is the borne quarter borne airfield certainly at roads in borne it's the proposal for the direction of just over 15 000 square meters of commercial space following with the news classes E and B8 together with landscaping access and associated infrastructure works this forms now part of phase two of the borne quarter and this application is also the subject of the environmental impact assessment and that is on page page nine of your printed agenda and our case officer Kate poiser is here with us today so Kate if you would like to just introduce this item and give us any updates that would be very helpful thank you chair good morning everybody I'm Kate poiser principal planning officer you will have already received some updates in relation to two amended conditions that's conditions two conditions four sorry and 22 in addition to that I do have some more updates for you before I commence with the presentation in the officer's report paragraph 3.3 says the application is for six units this is incorrect it is actually for seven units in paragraph 1.2 it says the hybrid planning application was granted permission in November 2020 it was actually granted permission in January 2021 um the comments of anglium water have been received and no objections are raised it is noticed that the surface water disposal is to be via suds used water is to be connected to the sewer in restrive via the pumping the pump rising man main established under phase one anglium water will take the necessary necessary steps to ensure the born water recycling centre has sufficient capacity should permission be granted there are five informatives that have been recommended the first two relate to the notification of intention to connect to the public sewer three and four relate the need to contact for the applicant to contact anglium water of any building while affecting an existing public sewer and the final one gives advice to the applicant on the process for a sewer adoption agreement it is recommended that these informatives are attached to any permission granted I now have the written confirmation from county highways major sites team that there are there are no objections they are satisfied that the proposal is acceptable it takes into consideration the relatively minimal increase in trips combined with the works already planned for the area under the born airfield planning consent and the GCP led proposals for the C2C and camborn to Cambridge sample where I shall start the presentation hopefully I'll start the presentation I'm not sure why it's not showing showing on my screen we'll just pause a moment while the screens catch up press your microphone press your microphone again here I'm sorry about that everyone in january 2021 a hybrid planning commission was granted for born quarter business park and included full details for phase one and outline commission for phase two with the eventual use of phase three being unknown but included for storage of construction material this application is for the full details of all the remaining land originally referred to as phase two and phase three this is the proposed land use plan for born airfield new village and I'm including this in order to put the application site into context right you will see here this blue area this is the application site it goes up to the right line it's as you can see it will be more or less encompassed by the planned new village and the orange area here is intended to be for residential use the green areas here and over here are to be open spaces and informal recreation the the pale ground here is allotment and orchard right this is the location plan of the site phase one is shown in detail here and the application site is here you will see that the access road which is known as wellington way comes in off the roundabout the high fields corticot and then comes in through the phase one site here and over here you'll see that high fields corticot the village is over here the existing woodland is here and this is the the ball plc existing business here this is an area area orpheus a little blip blood sorry about that it was taken earlier in the year as you can see phase one here is almost complete the application site is this brown area here running along just there um you can see the existing woodland over here and then beyond that is high fields corticot this is an illustrative layout um it shows where the units are this is the application site here these sort of pavy ghosted um area is the phase one uh you can see here the the units the carved rock thing areas and the landscaping if i can just zoom in on this you'll see it a bit better you can see that the cycleway the existing cycleway in phase one will continue through phase two and then beyond into the bore new village down here and also a cycleway footpath running along the edge of the site coming out here and then joining up with the phase one units this is unit 16 and unit 17 is to be occupied by cambridge design partnership which will also be occupying units two and three of phase one now overall the application shows is for an increase from the original hybrid application of about 16 percent of floor space so that's 4373 square meters moving on to the next slide this is just examples of elevations you've got the front elevation of unit 11 and then the floor plans below and then the front elevation of unit 17 um with the floor spaces below um i've included these because unit 11 is at the southern end of the site so it'd be the unit perhaps most apparent from the new village um and this is the unit in the the top north east corner that would then link on to unit three the um the design and appearance and materials of the buildings would match those of phase one and the heights of the buildings would range from 12.1 meters to 13.9 meters which is pretty much the same as the the phase one site and then these images of what are what the the development would look like as viewed from the south of the site the filled in the foreground rail in time with the open space and the residential development of the planned new village and then finally moving on to the last slide this is a photograph of phase one it's looking south and you've got units one and two in the foreground it's intended that phase two would be a continuation of the style and finishes of this phase that's all thank you thank you very much uh members will allow any brief questions of clarification of this phase so that we can separate that out from any debate later on any questions of clarification to Kate Boydor our case officer Councillor Sanford thank you chair um Kate could clarify the reason for condition 33 on page 45 which talks about gas fire boilers that seems in contradiction with clause 1130 on page 24 which says renewable energy is proposed in the form of intake panels and air source heat pumps take a conflict there i think right i'll be with you in a moment 33 page 45 bottom page right this is recommended by our environmental health colleagues it's a fairly standard condition um this is in the event that the applicant does decide to use uh or or future occupiers who may not yet be known this stage do decide to use gas fired combustion appliances it gives the authority an elemental control over that matter and it relates to air quality thank you for that any other questions no we'll then we'll then move on and we have two public speakers who i'm very glad to see are in the room with us today and they're going to share their time this item so i'd like to welcome Jeremy Acheson of Acheson Developance and he'll be followed by Mike Beadman of Cambridge Design Partnership so the floor is yours three minutes and if you would any answer any questions that may arise afterwards good morning chair and members my name is Jeremy Acheson and my company is the developer of born quarter on behalf of the owner the Diageo pension fund the application before years for phase two phase one having been completed in july last year phase one provided 170 000 square feet and 15 units and i'm pleased to say 92 percent of those units are either let or under offer when we designed the units on phase one we were targeting technology-based companies in the Cambridge area and for this reason the units are made to be flexible in the time and space they offered i'm pleased to say that the level of demand has been very strong and all lettings by one have been to companies in the fastest growing sectors in our economy other than our major lead tenant Cambridge design partnership from view of here shortly we have a battery technology company a vertical farming company other medical companies a company specialising in pumps used in agriculture and most recently a drone technology companies these are all expanding and exciting businesses and offering a range of job opportunities for the community we continue to receive new inquiries from local companies wishing to expand and phase two has been designed to accommodate both these new requirements and more space for existing tenants such as cdp our aim is to start on site in q2 this year that's in june and have the units completed 12 months later born quarter has been an incredible success so far and a development that we should all be proud of we now need to carry on that success and I would therefore urge members to approve this application so that we can continue to provide a space that these companies require thank you i'm mike beadman i'm a director and co-founder of Cambridge design partnership um and i i spoke to you a couple of years ago when we were still based in Toft so Cambridge design partnership has grown consistently at about 20 per cent per year since it was founded in 1996 we've adapted and diversified our engineering consultancy offering and now we make use makes us one of the top four consultancies in the Cambridge area today we employ about 325 people 290 of those are now based in born quarter we were based in Toft from the outset and we've now moved to the first phase of born quarter it offered us the perfect opportunity to regroup from five farm buildings and an extra office that we took on in Barton and from that's now become our unit three which is the innovation centre it's 56 000 square feet of building and even before moving we took a second adjacent unit unit two on the site as a pilot production centre to support our current expansion looking to the near future we've always seen the second phase as key to our development and our investment in born quarter obviously we've invested a lot in the first two units and that's really i ask you to draw your your remarks to a conclusion please yes and that well that supports our plans in the long term thank you very much uh now members does anyone have any questions of clarification or said just now for our speakers i think not thank you both very much indeed appreciate you coming along so we have i think no other public speakers so let's now move into the debate who would like to start us off on that well let me just say that we have here on page nine the three key issues i think i'm right in saying the principle of the development is in relation to the proposed 16 percent expansion of what was already the principle of development for the site itself i think was covered by the hybrid application in november 2020 um cake boys and it carefully helpfully showed us this on the overhead on the plan i think it's worth noting that to the immediate east of this between here in the garden there's a high field cul-de-cotte there is i think quite a substantial belt of trees perhaps it would be would you mind very much calling that first one up again so we can now i'm meant well we can see it there can't we um so the belt of trees is where your pointer is now and that was also shown on the plan i don't need to call up the plan separately to the south of this uh where it joins on to one quarter residential development i think you said that much of that land was going to be open space in the current plans perhaps it would be up there yes yes that is correct um the green area is here it's informal open space and recreation here um and then the orange is intended to be residential also you can just about see on here there's a very narrow edge of green running through here so there would be um a swath a green swath with a cycle way and footpath that runs through the Bourne airfield um new village site before it would then join on at around about here to the cycle way and footpath that runs north south through the application site thank you that's very healthy now um council of sanford you raised a question earlier on in relation to one of the conditions heating system did you want to comment more broadly on this application thank you chair um obviously concerned that this is an environmentally sustainable development and that does appear to be a case um the other remark i would make is that we have this concept of a 15 minute village where um your place of employment um your retail facilities should be within 15 minutes of your um place of dwelling and i think this supports that concept with the new Bourne airfield village that there will be employment opportunities very close to the new houses thank you for that council Heather Williams uh thank you chair so um one of the things that i think is is quite clear we think is that there's no objections which those of us at this committee i almost doubled triple checked um because it's not something we often see um and i think given given the fact that there was obviously an issue with the urban design originally but that's been you know overcome um i can't see why we would be out of out of kilter with absolutely everybody else that's been consulted um so i would have no issues in supporting this application chair thank you and i think i've asked your councillor bachelor wanted to forward thank you chair yeah just to reiterate what councillor Heather Williams has said um i can't see any reason in the document or from my own mind um as to a strong enough reason to refuse this um or any reason at all to be honest so for my personal view unless someone sways me very strongly the other way i'll be voting to support this application councillor Martin um just to support this and the comment in fact uh it's very desirable that we have employment in our satellite uh settlements that we have uh in fact the set of the um problem there's been a problem with the uh industry of the industry commercial area in um in campground itself which has been has not been uh rapidly taken up so it's something to welcome that there would be actually more employment there close to the proposed uh c2c uh route um so so it's a good access also for people coming out from Cambridge to employment so generally i think this is a very desirable development and the increase in employment is actually probably a desirable thing i don't see others wanting to contribute to the debate we have the recommendation on page 31 which is to approve subject to the planning conditions and subject to a reasoned conclusion of the significant effects of development on the environment um and we have also the thank you we have also the amended conditions which were on the briefing sheet and were drawn to our attention earlier on by the case officer and some additional informatives um do i have a proposal from anyone in the committee i have a proposal councillor Heather Williams yes the proposal that we approve i think seconded by dr martin carne uh i am actually rather than asking for affirmation i am going to take a a recorded vote on this um all procedure applies press the blue button and then press the green button if you wish to approve uh i forget what colour it would be if you the next one if you wish to pose so i think i can announce that we approve that unanimously there being eight members voting in favour thank you and thank you very much to our speakers for for coming along um a very interesting development so very often i'm now going to leave you and um pass the chair for the next item to Henry bachelor councillor Henry bachelor has agreed earlier on so there'll be a slight pause while we swap a few chairs okay so members uh as um as acting vice chair for the meeting i'll be stepping into the chair for this one item as councillor fein has declared an interest that means he needs to leave the meeting and can take no part um you'll be seeing councillor sanford who was it was agreed at the start of the meeting to take the temporary vice chair for this one item is now with us so welcome councillor sanford um members we are on agenda item six in our papers which begins page 55 this is an application at uh seven defrevel house high street great shellford the application in front of us is for change of use um and external works to the premises the applicant is the co-op food group limited the reason it's before us today is because it has been called in by great shellford parish council whose view differs to that of the planning officer um the presenting officer i'm hoping is joining us online nick yeiga um before you start nick could i ask mr price to turn his camera off please if that's possible we will we will call on you mr price but um we just need to hear from the planning officer first um hi chef um good morning thank you hi nick um yep so nick i'll hand over to you any updates on the application and then please present it to us thank you thank you chair um so firstly this application um that we have received an amended cycle plan sharing additional cycle storage this was provided yesterday on the 17th of january from the applicant um i will go through the merits and i have the the amended plan to hand so i will um i will explain that through my presentation a second update is in power 8.21 of the committee report um there is an error that um that states um the entrance or appears only entrances on grem's road um in fact there does appear to be an entrance on um high green high green road as well um i will explain both of those updates um throughout my presentation so thank you i'll just now um bear with me and i will just share my screen uh nick sorry to interrupt no no don't worry we've thought we had a technical issue but we don't so please as you were okay thank you um so yeah this is the change of use to class e and external works at seven the real house high green great shelford according to myth committee by great shelford parish council who support the application the applicant is to co op food group and the officer's recommendation is to refuse um following key objections and request to refuse the application from the highway authority these on the grounds of highway safety parking and cycle storage um this is the update to members an amended cycle plan um just get my pointer um so an amended cycle plan was received yesterday which contained an additional six spaces um which could be conditioned if the application was recommended for approval and therefore providing 15 spaces in total this is the area that shane and red um where the applicant proposes additional cycle storage in addition to nine spaces shane here um i will discuss the merits of of this a bit further for the application so the location plan the application site is located on the corner of high green and grams road um the ground floor of this area is unit seven and this is a car parking area located here this area located outside the red line so not part of the application is currently occupied by two businesses ny wines and brian turner kitchens please note there is a mandatory cycle lane that is shane here which long lies in front of the site there are also residential flats um units wonderful located on the first floor here the surrounding wider context is mostly residential um in a residential setting so site constraints um the application is located within the development framework it is also located within the conservation area and there are listed buildings located opposite the proposed external works are minor and include a new steel handrail sainum security door cycle stand plant plant louviers and sliding entrance store the in principle in the in principle of this application is acceptable and there's been no harm identified to design design and context conservation area listed buildings and residential immunity therefore the key issues remain that are the highway safety parking and cycle storage there was a tpo located in the rear car parking area showing this little blue circle however this was removed under this previous consent so the existing site plan um the existing use is a furniture showroom this was granted permission from a previously um previous public house while once when when this was granted permission it was restricted to just a furniture showroom um and therefore restricting any other uses permission has been granted for the wine bar um however and the kitchen unit is located here however this unit here remains vacant permission is 220 was granted for various uses but this has not been implemented the existing rear car park has 18 spaces and there are two spaces located to the front however these are located within the public highway so moving on to the proposed site plan um again this is the mandatory cycle lane located in front of the site on high green road um proposed cycle stands located here two parking spaces located here for Brian Turner kitchens one for ny wines one two four um for the residential properties and then the remainder are for the retail unit for the proposed co-op which will be located in unit seven located here there is an entrance it appears located here and one here um I did say in parra 8.21 of the report um the applicants would need to walk around the site to gain to the entrance this still applies there is no rear entrance for for customers to use which could use to draw people to use the car park instead applicants would have to walk out on walk around here car parking allocations so as you can see on the plan and as I've spoken through they're all allocated for the proposed co-op use the proposed retail store would extend to the entirety of the ground floor of unit seven allowing for a total floor space of 373 policy ti three of the local plan requires one space for 14 square meters of the gross floor area of a retail food shop those floor area is 327 and 327 divided by 14 is 26 therefore the proposed retail unit would require 26 car parking spaces based on the parking standard set out in ti three of the of the local plan however 15 car parking spaces are proposed including one disabled space we then factor in that there are the residential units so four spaces and we're also allowing for an additional visitor space which was previously provided one space for ny wines brand turner kitchens two spaces and and then the co-op 26 spaces providing a total of 34 spaces if we acquaint the the other uses on the site and some submitted block plan shows that there is 22 spaces therefore there is a shortage of 12 spaces when assessed against the parking standards of ti three um so as I mentioned earlier an amended cycle plan has been provided which has shown six additional spaces to be located here concerns are that this is located within a reasonably cramped area um this area provides okay back here um entrance to the flats that are at first floor level and there's also a back of house entrance here so the cycle storage would be located in this area here next to ny wines and these would be in sheffield stands it appears and not in a secure cover the remaining nine spaces still fall outside the land and the applicant's control it is noticed the applicant has stated that the nine spaces approved as per uh the previous application however that application also contains cycle space um safe and convenient cycle storage of um in the corner here which allowed which meet them which met the needs of the site also included a slide on the deliveries so what the highway authority have also stated is that there would be in addition to the under provision on site some of the spaces will be um will be um will be um out of out of use during delivery um so the applicant has stated that there will be two deliveries by hgv vehicles and these would take up due to the manoeuvring two of the spaces during the times of delivery and then three spaces when they're maneuvering the highway authority has said that this increases the um lack of concerns with the lack of um or the under provision of cycle storage on site the hgv vehicles would take place as i said um twice a day the applicant has stated that they could manage this by installing installing parking restriction measures during these times and a condition could be applied to restrict um the hours of use however um the highway authority has still said this increases the um concerns of um of the under provision of ums of car parking they also say that um the applicant has stated that they will also have frequent deliveries from smaller lgv vans which will go through um different times of the day um as you can see from plan provided this can be achieved without causing any disruption um to the parking allowances existing elevations um so that application site as it currently proposed this area is um used by the winds and this is for the kitchen store so the application site is this area here this is the area shown elevation c which would face into the um into grams road and this is the area that faces within within the um rear car park on elevation b so proposed elevations the general changes are minor in nature um with some some minor nature here there's the bicycle stands um a single sliding door and then there's some also some alterations to the rear here that would face within the car park these will not impact on the conservation area or the character of the site or the listed buildings opposite as confirmed by the conservation officer so here's some photos of the site um ny winds is located here and this is the application site the ground floor in question here the mandatory cycle lane is located here and the entrance to the car park is here here is unit seven on the ground floor located here on the corner and the ny winds and the mandatory cycle lane there are some existing bollards here but they do not continue on further towards the winds or further down the unit here further shot so going further down high green road and another shot showing along grams road here and a further shot showing um this is on grams road here so unit is here this is a um shot showing the rear car parking area yeah the space is here that would be where the bin storage is located in a similar location that is currently in use for bin storage and this this is the kitchens located here the entrance to the flats i believe is here and there would be an entrance as well to the back of house up the co-op there and here's a further shot of the site so there have been four addresses have been received objecting to the scheme and eight objectives have been received and supporting to the scheme um objections mostly relate to um concerns with the parking congestion and harm to the public highway um the support has been received in the relocation of the existing store away from the current location where it is in the village centre um the parish have supported and commented in support of the um the location of the new store as it reduces risks with the current location and support the applicant's offering to provide bollards yellow lines armadillos or something similar to deter public within the public highway the highway for every note a separate approval um process for traffic traffic regulation order which is not required um and the same enforcement would be given um necessarily enforcing illegal parking within the mandatory cycle um even if um granted um to install though and then any physical barrier is considered to be a danger to cyclists and will not be appropriate over such a short distance within the cycle a and finally um the planning balance and conclusion um the reasons for is that it will contribute to the local economy and the vision of employment jobs um a larger convenience store to serve serve the village and additional local spend and the proposal would contribute to the reuse of building that is currently vacant within the development framework of Great Shelford however the reasons against is that the proposal will lead harm to the highway safety within the under provision of on cycle power and cycle parking it's considered this would lead to incriminate parking within the public highway including a mandatory cycle lane this will result in undue risks in cyclists one of the more vulnerable highway users when legitimately using the mandatory cycle lane on the adopted public highway therefore the proposal fails to provide appropriate cycle parking um and um to encourage sustainable means of travel to and from the site while the benefits of the seam they carry limited weight and do not outweigh the harm identified and therefore the officer's recommendation is for refusal and that is the end of my presentations so i've stopped sharing the screening and go back to the chair thank you nick thank you very much that was very thorough and i'm sure greatly appreciated by the committee i'm members i'm going to ask um if there any brief questions of clarity aren't from nick on his presentation um and then we'll move on to our public speakers so we have a question straight away from Councillor Richard Williams um thank you chair i've got two two questions um the first is a question about the extent to which the original planning commission is relevant here i know this is obviously a change of use application but planning motion has been granted for a fairly large site which i think fairly obviously was likely to be used for retail so to what extent is the original planning commission for this for this very large extension which has I think been vacant ever since it was built relevant to us the second one again and I'm maybe thinking more about potential appeals here but there is a Tesco store not very far away from this on on uh Woolard's Lane in Great Shelford that has no parking at all now there is a public car park near it um and there is some public on-site parking but there is certainly no car parking within the control of the Tesco store and it has the the public car park is shared by boots and various other shops in the local centre so it in my mind I'm trying to square the fact that there is already a Tesco store which was grant permission within the last 10 years with literally no parking at all versus this store which has some parking but is being recommended for a fusel so how are we to square those those things are they relevant at all or or not and if not why the great force and clarification did you get both of those questions nick um yes thank you council Williams thanks for that um so firstly the question I think um if you're referring to the permission in 2020 for the mixed juice um that permission required all of those uses to be to be present so what we have in this case is just for retail um so it's considered a higher intensity I believe of of the uses it is just for retail rather than a split I think it was a1 a2 um there was a d1 use and I believe an office I just yeah so um the permission that was granted in 2020 was from a1 um granted a1 a2 b1 and d1 so there was a mixed use which was a lower intensity than just having the retail um unrestricted a1 which we have in place and this is consistent to the history of of the site um when it was granted from a public house to a furniture showroom under the permission in 87 um a furniture showroom was granted and they restricted the condition to just furniture showroom on the grounds of um on the grounds of that application site does not um have adequate car parking to sustain a a retail use and then in 2017 there was an application to remove that restricted condition um which was refused on the grounds of of highway um highway concerns and the under provision of car parking um I hope that that explains that question with regards to the test goes along the road um I think this site is there and the concerns of this site is their site pacific issue um and it's the concerns I believe of of the under provision in it of cycle story um um of car parking that that would lead to people then pulling up on bleeding to harm upon the cycle lane um and yes and therefore it's a sort of very sort of site specific issue um we are we do have the highway authority here with us um today I believe so I can help to um John Finlay if there's anything to add on those points hi John um I was hoping to bring you in a bit later actually but um as you've been summons I will ask if you have anything else to add I just very brief good morning members and currenty my name's John Finlay um principal development management engineer representing the highway authority um next description is quite right this is very much a contextual issue um obviously the wood eyes lane high street is an area where you don't have a mandatory cycle lane for starters it is an area where there are large number relatively high number of commercial units therefore you would expect there to be relatively high numbers of on street car parking et cetera as you drive through um high street high green sorry is not it is much more a movement corridor as Nick has always said described it's much more residential in character therefore you are less likely to expect uh on street car parking your regular on street car parking and also as Nick has quite rightly pointed out there is a mandatory cycle lane running along the front of the building again it gives it a different context within its use class thank you very much is anybody that I'll stop now if I may I'll you know that call me in later yeah thank you John I think yeah this section we're just trying to get any questions of clarity from from Nick at this stage um we will have John obviously for the whole item so if anyone does have any specific highways questions I think we should save that for the debate if possible council head of Williams please chair my question was highways so you may want me to hold off on that if you could put a pin in that that would be great um council a martin cun please I don't know whether this will become from highways or from from planning officer but um I just wondered that I live in the village of Hysdem uh well impigdable Hysdem where there is a Tesco store and a co-op store which have smaller numbers of parking places than the sort of number that are recommended here um the reason to really a problem though there is it's very crowded in the Tesco store one thing that probably is different that is important there is the fact that a large proportion of people attending go into the store go on foot it's close in the center it's accessible in the center of the village uh and therefore if this does affect the the demand I don't know whether any estimate has been done about the proportion of people that will go by car and foot in in Shelford it appears to be a rather similar situation in the village but um is there any evidence for instance for the existing store what proportion of people go on foot and what proportion of people park probably one for the debate but as as we've got Nick on the screen uh Nick I don't know if you've got that answer to hand if not we can take that later if you need some time um yes if we if we could include that to debate there has been information provided within the transport statement um upon that um so that the highway authority have and have analyzed so perhaps that's one for the debate um in due course thank you okay thank you we'll come back to that Martin um okay members if there's no further questions of clarity at this stage for Nick um we'll move on to our public speakers of which we have several um we're going to start with a member of the public Dr Martin Stephen who I'm hoping is joining us online Dr Stephen good morning good morning so we can see and hear you fine so the public speaking protocol is you have three minutes to address the committee with your comments at the end of which if you can stay on the line in case any committee members have any questions of clarity for yourself in uh from your comments as well so please three minutes whenever you're ready thank you very much indeed my name is Dr Martin Stephen I'm a resident of one of the properties opposite Newcox store and I wish to raise the following new items in my opposition to the development a recent survey of Great Shelford for its neighbourhood and development plan of which I'm on the committee showed a significant majority of respondents in favour of more retail outlets in the centre of the village the proposed new store is very much on the outskirts um as far as I'm aware that Paris council conducted no survey and no consultation of local opinion before pronouncing its support for the proposal I think crucially it's not possible to judge visually from the main road whether there are car parking spaces available in the proposed car park for the store coupled with the existence of inadequate turning space the likelihood is that cars finding a full car park or indeed a lorry delivery will be forced to reverse out over the cycle path and onto the main road cars already regularly park on the tarmac drive leading to the four properties opposite blocking entry for residents blocking deliveries access to network rail infrastructure and seven acres of land used for grazing sheep the proposed development would almost certainly increase this the co-op cannot in fact manage the number of cars parked it has no legal right to insist its own employees do not come by car it has no control over its own customers residents of the flats above all the customers who are ny wines and Brian Turner kitchens the paperwork for the meeting mentions obviously the risk of cyclists for the proposed development I believe that the cycle lane the mandatory cycle lane outside the proposed development is actually below the recommended two meter width and it's actually already quite a dangerous situation item 816 mentions one car park space for north ny wines I've regularly counted between seven to eight customer cars parked in summer and in winter in this area when in 1987 as has been stated permission was granted for the site to be used for carpet sales and storage it was stated the site is not of sufficient size to accommodate car parking facilities for general retail use there has been a massive increase in traffic on the road as a result of the trumpington meadows development the adam books biomedical campus not to mention access to outlying villages and saffron warden to the trumpington park and right I would respectfully respectfully suggest that the site is even less suitable now for retail development than it was in 1987 thank you for letting me speak Dr Steve thank you very much and with 30 seconds to go which I appreciate so thank you if you can stay on the line Dr Steve it actually just in case there are any questions of clarity from committee members on your comments members do we have any questions for Dr Stephen I don't see anything obviously that was extremely clear Dr Stephen so you can still hear me thank you very much for your time this morning our next public speaker is speaking on behalf of the applicant do we have Mr Chris Edge on the line yes hello hi mr Edge good morning we can see and hear you fine so welcome to the planning committee as with the previous speaker three minutes if you please to address the committee at the end of which there may be some questions from committee members for yourself so if you can stay on the line after you've finished that'll be great so please whenever you're ready okay thank you good morning chair members my name is Chris Edge and I'm a planning consultant for Pegasus planning group speaking on behalf of the co-op co-op currently trades from a small shop in the village which is cramped and cannot be extended there is no off street car or cycle parking and there is very limited on street parking or space for delivery vehicles to park as a result co-op customs and staff say there is a pressing need for something much better in Great Shelford given these problems and customer demand co-op's wishes is to relocate a vacant unit at the application site and provide a bigger better and more sustainable shop for the local community if approved this new shop will have a 50% larger sales area double the storage area and provide off street parking and servicing it would allow residents to do more shopping locally as the planning officer confirms in his report the principle of retail use at the application site is acceptable however the recommendation for refuse is based on an objection from the highways authority there are no other statutory constancy objections and the old planning officer has confirmed that there is more local support than objection to the proposed development the parish council supports the application and has called it in for your consideration today the co-op have been an extensive dialogue with the highways authority to try and deal with their objection including commissioning a parking survey the co-op is confident that the car park is big enough for both their customers and other occupiers needs this is based upon their experience operating several other shops in Cambridgeshire and recognising the short duration of their customer visits which are typically five to eight minutes meaning that each parking space can be reused several times each hour modeling has shown that even in a worst case scenario the car park will be at capacity for just one hour across the whole trading week or just one percent of the total opening hours co-op's experience is that there when their car park is full shoppers leave and come back another time where shop bells wear rather than parking illegally as the highway authority suggests nevertheless to offer assurance co-op have offered to provide physical protection to the cycle lane meaning cyclists will be protected in relation to the second reason for refusal we have submitted a plan to the planning officer which is outlined this morning identifying an area within the co-op's control where additional cycle stands could be installed together with other cycle spaces approved or proposed within the highway and next to the co-op's entrance the total number of cycle spaces required can be achieved if planning permission was to be granted a condition could be attached to the decision requiring further details of these cycle spaces to be submitted and approved prior to the co-op opening as a result we respectfully request that members reject the recommendation for refusal and instead approve the application securing investment into Great Shelford enabling co-op to stay in the village relocating into larger premises and providing a much better shopping offer for the residents thank you thank you mr age that was to the second so i appreciate your promptness um so members we have uh mr age of speaking on behalf of the co-op does anyone have any questions of clarification for him councillor richard Williams please um thank you just a short one something that came up in the officer's presentation i think i'd be grateful to hear why the entrance to the store can't be at the back to draw people into the car park thank you yeah thank you um it's it this question has arisen during the application process as well via the planning officer and the response we provided them was really to do around the design of the internal space within the building effectively the only way in which an entrance could be put a fate in the car park would be through the back of house area so it's you know it wouldn't be possible certainly what co-ops asset plans are saying is it wouldn't be possible to reconfigure the building uh to provide an entrance into the car park as it currently stands without going through the back of house that is which obviously wouldn't be desirable okay thank you for that members any final questions for mr edge don't see any hands sorry uh we did have one from councillor heather williams please thank you chair i'm just looking at the sort of google earth imagery um which has been taken on different days because sometimes it's got big boards outside it sometimes it hasn't and i'm just wondering on what councillor richard Williams was saying about the back entrance to the car parking the the access points is there any other alternative access points other than what's proposed i appreciate you saying don't want to go through from the car park but could you provide or i'll make it more a dominant to Graham's road as opposed to high green is that is that possible um i think the way that the the the internal out of the building is the moment is that um certainly the accessing from the car park wouldn't be achievable without a complete redesign certainly something we've not looked at or the coops asset plans haven't looked at um if i just pull up the plan i just want to make sure that i think the sales floor space does continue around Graham's road so i'm just checking the plan once i speak to you um in i mean i don't want to put words into the asset planners mouth but you know the way that the sales floor space wraps around high green and Graham's road um is possible whether that is a commercially desirable thing for cob to to agree to i don't know whether it you know satisfies that sort of ability to get in and out of the store from a car park any quicker than the existing or the proposed uh entrance i don't know it potentially is achievable uh an entrance off Graham's road but i wouldn't want to commit to it here without sort of clarifying that with coops asset planners okay thank you mr edge i don't think there's any more questions of clarity for yourself so just leaves me to say thank you very much for taking the time to join us this morning and to give us yours and the applicant's views thank you thank you our next public speaker is a representative of the parish council we have councillor greg price so i'm hoping is joining us online we did see him a bit earlier on i'm hoping he's still with us good morning chairman here is good morning councillor price good to see you again um so before we start i do have to ask if you have the permission of your parish council to represent their views here today i do i speak on behalf of the council good thank you very much um i'm sure you're well versed in this process but just to be clear three minutes to address the committee at the end of which they may have some questions for yourself so you can stay on the line that'll be super so please councillor whenever you're ready um i would like to start by saying that we support this proposed application wholeheartedly the co-op is a valued local resource within great Shelford um and we note the concerns that highways have but feel that they lack some local context the existing co-op shop is on a very busy road which is a major school route it has no off street parking either for cars or for cycles and the new shop will have that off road parking as well as access to formal on-road parking within you know a matter of seconds walk from the store itself um it's noticeable that the new premises will have much better sight lines for those who are entering and leaving the parking than those who are currently parking on road outside the existing site um and relocation in the view of the council will likely reduce the risk to vulnerable road users and we note that the existing site is a major cycling to school route um and it is an area which cyclists try to actively avoid because with the parking on road the relocation would also in our view better serve the whole village whilst the golden triangle within the heart of the village is the current commercial area the village has expanded significantly and there is a large linear bit going down Cambridge road towards trumpington which is not well served by the current setup relocate um and we we believe that relocation may actually reduce the number of people driving to the co-op as it will make it more walkable for a lot of a lot more people particularly some of the older communities that live around the new site so there are several areas just over the railway bridge at the beginning of um Cambridge road and also off Granham's road where there are significant numbers of elderly people who at the moment may drive to the co-op or may have difficulty accessing it the relocation will also allow um the restoration of a lost asset to our village which is the allow us to have a cash machine um in store and this in itself will potentially lead to a reduction of traffic movements as at the moment if you need access to cash you actually have to drive to trumpington or sourced and to access a cash machine we note the concerns of local residents but we feel that the co-op as a responsible business will take steps to address these um and we are aware that they are actively exploring steps to encourage to encourage non motor vehicle access um and we note that having nine or 15 parking cycle parking spaces will be nine or 15 more than they currently have they are they have clearly said that they are happy to support appropriate highway changes for example cycle lane edge hogs um to protect to protect cyclists and pedestrians further and the decriminalisation of parking that is coming in the next year or so will also allow some enforcement if this is necessary. Councillor Price if you could wrap up we are over time yeah so I I would like to to simply wrap up by urging the committee to approve this application that's great thank you very much um I'll now if you can stay on the line please in case there are any questions of clarity of which I do myself have one um you mentioned um the current location of the co-op uh can be dangerous for vulnerable road users ie cyclists obviously one of the concerns of the highways department has about the the application we're looking at today is that people when the car park is forward park in the cycle lane um albeit illegally I mean is that uh does one of those I just wanted to get your views on that potential concerns of vulnerable road users I don't believe that that is actually a reality I know that junction very well I use it every day um it there there is on-street marked on-street parking a little further down the road and across the road I think it would be extremely unlikely that people would park in a mandatory cycle lane um it's right next to a junction you know it's a busy junction people I don't think would do it okay no thank you that's that's clear um members I don't think there are any further questions of clarity for the parish councillor so councillor Price leaves me to say thank you very much for taking the time to join us and with that we will move on to our final public speaker who is joining us in the room that is the local member councillor Peter Fane I hope you haven't forgotten how to use the microphone councillor Fane so we're just getting councillor Fane set up with the technology here we go so welcome I um I won't explain the process I'm sure you're very familiar but I will be cutting you off at three minutes so um please whenever you're ready thank you chair um yes I I speak in favour of this application and I would ask you to note you have also uh support before you from councillor Will Jackson Wood and also from councillor Brian Mills writing us the county councillor for this division I just want to make a brief comment on the context of this application and then to focus on two aspects the the parking and the effect on the cycle lane this is an important gateway or signpost building the entrance through the traditional part of this village as you come from the north um it has been empty for six years now uh the it has been explained to you why it is important that the court wants to which is a very valued part of this community wants to move to a site which would have some off street parking um which is not currently the case uh the co-op has not made the point that the existing store is in danger but having looked the delivery and uh arrangements and also the very narrow aisles there the lack of cycle parking you have to question uh whether co-op will continue in the village should this application not be granted so then to focus on the specifics of this application firstly the car parking we're talking about additional car parking here uh whether it is 15 extra spaces I leave it to others to consider but there are in addition four spaces in high green on the same side of the road bear in mind the post office used to be located there has since closed so those spaces are effectively located there are three spaces in a what was formerly the bus lay by opposite it is now dedicated to 30 minute parking there are five spaces on what used to be Lloyd's bank which has closed just up the way connected by a pellet and crossing and whilst that is now a very good uh nursery the times of use of that car parking space are different during the daytime there is of course the existing car parking which is available to the current co-op site which is on the street and very restricted but that is still available and it is within 600 meters so I would emphasise that this is additional car parking space which is available um there are organisations even relatively close to here who've managed to manage to manage without it even a car park at all for some period um the issue of cycle safety is very important on this site and I would not contest those who say that cycling on that cycle path is not safe but not at this location just up the way is the bridge over the railway line with a very narrow cycle path and it is no doubt about it unsafe at this particular location I would argue it is not unsafe there may be concern that cars might turn across it they have been doing so ever since this was first a public house they did so while it was a furniture showroom um and the the question of whether those two additional car parking spaces at the front in what used to be the uh the pub front garden are to be counted I just want to assure the committee that those do not affect the site lines on entrance and exit they exist whether they happen to be um adopted highway doesn't affect their existence so I think I would argue that whilst there is a danger a danger to cyclists using that path it is not from this location and I do not see that people are likely to park on the cycle way because of the available parking space in the area in addition to that at the bank thank you chair council ethane thank you very much uh members we have an opportunity to now ask council ethane any questions of clarification uh we have one straight off from heather williams then I have one myself and then councillor martin carne heather thank you chair and you may be humouring me here so I'll accept rain back if required um so councillor you know obviously the area better than us and I you'll have heard my question earlier to the applicant about Graham's road um because a big issue seems to be about cycling and that cycle um path that's in front on that side if there was a secondary access on Graham's road do you believe that so people would be more likely to park on that side that side of the shot do you think that would create a different problem or would that help relieve um people's pressures and concerns if you could use your mic please councillor chairman I wonder whether it would be possible to call up the location plan so that I can answer that is that uh nick if you have that to hand I think that might help answer the question if it's going to take a minute or two just let me set off any way to answer the councillor Williams question um the proposal the question is whether there would be benefits to having an additional access on Graham's road um which as you will see on there is to the north and west of the of the site uh the additional parking that is available here is on high green the side where the access is proposed if people were to come out of the car park and go round the front of the building to Graham's road they would actually have to go further than to the existing proposal the only question that might arise is whether there is actually a side gate from the car park onto Graham's road to the north east of the building and it might be possible but I don't really think that mentions on Graham's road would help okay I think councillor had the willing to have a slightly different question but I'll let her I'm sorry thank you it was about an additional so the concern seems to be about parking on the cycle lane parking on the road if the car park's full etc so what I'm saying is you would have that entrance on for the car parking to come round but if there was a possibility let's say a gate from the car park round an entrance in or if people were going to park on the road they would park on not on the high green the cycle lane but on the other road whether that would alleviate on the basis that the applicants already said that they may potentially be amenable to that chairman I mentioned the side gate to the north east coming out onto Graham's road that would only be possible in my view for pedestrian access it is too narrow to get cars through there and the proximity to the adjacent property means it would not be possible to have an additional entrance to the car park I think that people going past the site on high green were the car park to be full would tend to go to the additional parking just further south on high green and opposite of the and indeed the car parking has always been available rather than going up Graham's road and parking up there although there is some possibility of parking in residential areas inevitably okay thank you um I think my question was next on the list so you've obviously mentioned these additional areas to park that was the answer part of this application today but it might be helpful for me certainly if you were to give us an estimate as to roughly how far from the proposed co-op these actually are so we can get some kind of indication as to the distance from these existing parking spaces if we could keep that location plan up that would help me um there are three car parking spaces just on the edge of the southern edge of that plan on the west side of high green with a 30 minute limit just a little bit further south to the south of the studio on high green there are four car parking spaces when I parked this morning two of them were vacant but they are of course used by residents then within 250 meters there is the turning into the high street and on that corner there are five car parking spaces outside what used to be Lloyd's bank there are in addition of course the car parking spaces on uh high street itself this site is I would say 625 meters from the former site sorry from the current site where people seek to find Parkie at the moment I don't know that helps you gentlemen it does thank you so I just had a question is one of the car parking spaces near a telephone box sure thanks sure so people online probably can't hear this but there's a debate going on about where the where these are but I think can I just say I'm looking at google maps and it's actually quite helpful would be really helpful we can get that up on the screen because it is it just shows what's going on sure I think in terms of the general context of the application area albeit those spaces aren't a part of this application we need to remember that but I think it might be helpful for committee members Nick I don't know if you have access to google maps or street view or whatever it might be just to show you the context of these existing public parking spaces yes just please yeah thank we can see you working away so um we'll we'll give you a minute or two okay thanks so to be clear this is the application site with the hoarding around this is the junction in question on the left is the red cycle lane uh so if we could um sorry councillor phane it might be easier if you asked Nick to direct us on street view to show us where these spaces are please uh thank you yes Nick we're currently facing north I think that it would be more helpful to face south if we can so that we can show where the nearby parking places are right beyond the uh the little vw beetle there um and just beyond that tree there on the left um there are some residential car parking spaces beside the road four spaces just ahead of that car you can see now that's marius green past the entrance to marius green there are parking spaces on the left now unfortunately the lorry is in the way but there are parking spaces behind the lorry there um and then you can now see on your right just beyond the telephone box that was referred to a lay by was once a bus stop um where there are three arguably four spaces um I've often seen four cars park there but usually three spaces there and then if you continue south along high green you'll get to the pelican crossing where the old post office used to be um and on your right now behind those lights is where Lloyd's bank used to be and there are five car parking spaces you can just see them now uh where the uh the food van is and to the left of that and then if you turn right there you end up in high street which is a street in which the current co-op is located and there is a certain amount of residential parking along one side of that I don't think we need to tour down the high street but I think we get the uh you know what your point is around the additional parking off sites councillor Hanley thank you Nick for that yeah thank you Nick don't can you stay with it um could I ask you to go back and give the view of the the car park onto uh onto the main road because I think that will look that gives a good idea of uh yeah keep going whoa there there's a cyclist coming look I just thought that was a good idea thank you okay I think yeah Nick thank you very much I think that's been really really helpful to use uh use google um yes sorry so I think that's answered the question my question anyway about the parking spaces um we did have a question following that from councillor martin carn please for councillor fein I just wondered if you could uh one of my biggest concern is actually rather than the actual number of spaces of the fact that doesn't appear to be any restrictions on the road outside the building and that it's referred to the fact that there's no guarantee that that will be granted um my experience from Histon whether similar numbers of spaces for two convenience stores is that the whether it's a restriction on the road outside there isn't actually very little parking even though we don't have civil parking enforcement that people do tend to respect that uh but that if it wasn't my fear is that if it wasn't uh if there isn't any restrictions then people might might might not obey um so I just wondered what existing restrictions there are if any um outside the existing store and in the nearby area well chairman as um members will have seen from the google earth the statutory cycle path outside is very clearly marked it is actually also a different colour and no doubt if people are uncertain of the status of the statutory cycle path further signs could be put up if required um I don't know whether that helps but I would just reference was made to enforcement uh you'll have seen in the papers that the co-op have their own enforcement arrangements their own enforcement agents uh so it should not be necessary to call others referred to the cpa cpe arrangements to call on the local authorities own new enforcement arrangements but uh no doubt enforcement might be an issue one can't guarantee that people will not park anywhere whether or not to but I'm not just in terms of high green but I was also thinking granums road um the picture there showed quite a long queue on granums road trying to join into high green so presumably there are there are queues that speak times on that on that road and there doesn't it didn't appear to me though with any restrictions on granums road are there any restrictions there as well because that clearly parking outside the front of the co-op would not be a satisfactory solution because of that chairman I have to admit I'm not quite sure what the restrictions are on parking on the first 50 meters of granums road I've never seen anyone parking on either side there and I assume that it is clearly marked but I have to admit I I can't recall okay no thank you I think we've probably got as much as we can out of council of fame this morning so um council of fame thank you very much for um for giving us your views there and as I think that the councillor did mention at the start of his presentation to us we do have written representations which we should have had as an update sheet from the other local member councillor Will Jackson Wood who is also writing in support as well as the county councillor for the area councillor Brian Millans who also writes in support and for completeness there was also a submission from a a neighbour who is writing in opposition to the proposals in front of us so that's just for completeness there so councillor fame thank you very much um members before that completes our public speaking so before we move to the debate we did say 1145 for a break so we'll have a 10 minute break for for comfort and then we'll come back and restart at 11 56 by this clock up here so thank you very much we'll pause the meeting there Aaron welcome back to this meeting yourself came as your district council's planning committee we're currently at item number six which is the application by the co-op in Great Shelford we've heard from the officer all of our public speakers and we're now moving into the debate section of proceedings so as we saw early we do have Dr John Finney who's um who's representing the highways department here so if there are any highways or traffic or parking related questions obviously we do have a technical officer on hand to assist we obviously also have Nick who's the planning officer available to answer any um more general planning related queries through the application but um if we could move into the debate now with a view to coming to a decision on this one please councillor Khan's going to kick us off Martin Khan I wanted to ask a question actually of I don't know this planning officer of the highways officer but uh I just wondered whether it is possible in planning terms to impose a condition that the permission only go ahead if further parking restrictions are put on the on the road I suspect that it is not possible but I just wanted to find to clarify the exact position on that so were we to require for instance the uh double yellow lines were proposed on outside to prevent parking in certain areas would that be a possible restrict a planning condition or is it does it effectively reject the application okay so I will hand over to officers but I think the question is should approval be granted would a condition regarding uh around uh firmware for parking strategy be approved before building takes place um would that be acceptable as a in planning terms as a condition I think is the question through chair thank you um the issue we've got there is that any restriction in the highway would require a traffic regulation order which is uh separate to the playing process and we can't guarantee what the outcome of that um traffic regulation order request um would be so if we were saying the traffic TRO was acquired to make the development acceptable in planning terms and for whatever reason that wasn't granted then effectively where the highway authority would be almost beholden to the decision on on the planning permission so I would advise against any condition in that in that regard uh John Finney might want to add anything on that but that's that's my my view as a planning authority sure thanks uh John I see you've appeared on the screen do you have anything to add to that just very briefly as as um Phil has rightly pointed out if you were to be in post such a condition it does in effect or could in effect make the highway authority the final arbiter of a planning application which is a situation we do not wish to find ourselves in and I'm sure you do not wish is to do so either okay now I think that's that's very clear thank you both for that um council the head of Williams very much thank you you had a um a question a bit earlier on in the in the item about highways I think probably now is the time to ask thank you chair um it's just in relation to the understanding of concerns about the cycle way um but one thing I'm sort of conscious of is people's um response self responsibility in that it seems to be we're really worried that people are going to park illegally and I'm just wondering how fair that is in in balancing that for the applicant that we are sort of penalizing him for the actions that others may take who know that the rules so I'm wondering from the highway's point of view how much you're able to take in sort of people ignoring the law in the sort of recommendations if that probably was a well winded way of saying that I think I think we've got it essentially is it the highway's responsibility to um predict how people would poorly park because obviously it's the police or the local enforcement team that would have to enforce illegal parking um but john I don't know if you had any comments on that question okay I mean firstly the the mandatory cycle lane outside the the the existing existing mandatory cycle line along high green is enforceable only by the police as stopping or entering that lane is actually a moving traffic offence not a traffic regulation order offence so even if local parking enforcement were were introduced as it would like it to be in october this year in south canberish the lake offices of the local parking enforcement officers would not be able to enforce any parking any parking in that lane um in terms of people parking if you might say hazard dangerously stroke in a hazardous location some years ago the transport research laboratory did a series of exploratory tests associated with this and it is an unfortunate fact that a significant proportion of the population will rather park dangerously stroke illegally than walk more than 30 meters to a shop or similar I find that quite a frightening concept 100 feet less less less than 30 or 40 paces and people will park actually illegally or dangerously so while there is obviously the existing cycle lane the unfortunate fact is from the unfortunate view of the highway authority is that the proposal will increase the likelihood significantly increase the likelihood of irregular stroke illegal parking within the cycle lane to the detriment of highway safety so to clarify the answer to my question is that the county council does take into consideration human behaviour as opposed to just what's within control of the applicant yes we do unfortunately we do the highway is is obviously nothing without humans so we do obviously take into human human behaviour quite right council rules and we do okay thank you for that john um we have next councillor sanford thank you chair um I live within 100 meters of a co-op local convenience store in another village and from my observations the majority of customers do either arrive on foot or in many cases in wheelchairs or in mobility scooters right okay sorry everyone we're just having some um technical issues councillor sanford isn't invisible we're just um just having some microphones slash camera issues so uh if you could bear with us while he logs in here we go I have two microphones it's overwhelming okay apologies for the repetition for those in the room um I live within about 100 meters of a co-op local convenience store in another village from my observation the majority of the customers are local and arrive on foot not in cars or in wheelchairs or in mobility scooters a little disappointed that a quick scan of the application doesn't seem to have made any allowance for mobility challenged customers otherwise I support the application um yeah don't know if any officers have any comments on mobility provision within the application um it the application does hold a um a disability um a single disability space um um for the retail for the retail unit um I'll just get the correct paragraph of the report up I think that's just or equally you could give us a a reference number and we could look it up ourselves yeah thank you this yeah I did see the provision of a parking space but my question is kind of followed on from the parish councillors um remarks that there are a lot of um elderly people in the area and I suspect they are more likely to arrive in wheelchairs or in mobility scooters um so that was my concern um uh there's the one um disability blue badge holder um within the site that's dated on paragraph um 8.19 of the report other than that within the submitted block plan there is no other um mobility scooter or um disability um um accommodation as such sure but presumably being a co-op you know all doors will be the right width etc etc so I mean I'm pretty sure we can take that but I don't believe as I think we said within the report as well I don't believe there is a requirement for them to provide that um as as I've said between 8.19 um with reference to inclusion mobility best practice guidance department for transport 2021 for existing employment premises 2% of the casting capacity to be um provided for blue badge holders with a minimum of one space the proposal is therefore considered acceptable in this regard okay I've now found the section thank you for this to you that's that's appropriate thank you very briefly if I may councillors um please respond to the no one the NY Yutwine's application um the applicant um our submission from the highway authority to provide a ramp to the front door because the highway actually runs up to the front of the building and we've we've granted that under section 278 license so they are the applicants are aware of the the requirements and I said in the past have um quite happily accommodated that within the highway which we didn't have any significant problems with so that wouldn't be an issue for highways in this particular case no no it would not we we're getting the design it's appropriate design that we've said we've done it before and I can't see any reason why wouldn't we wouldn't commit that if grant the plan of telling us you were granted why we wouldn't allow that to her again thank you John councillor Richard Williams please thank you chair um sort of share of high point on uh highways um the reasons for refusal we've got so the recommendation on page 80 talks about indiscriminate parking mentions it a few times but from highways what I'm hearing is a specific concern about that that cycle way so I'm really just trying to clarify what the highway's objection is is it just about parking on that cycle way which I must admit knowing that area very well I'd be amazed that very many people have talked about parking on that cycle way on that cycle way it'd be truly bizarre thing to do um so is it just that cycle way or actually is it a is it a broader point about indiscriminate parking in other places as well because I'm not quite sure what the what the objection actually is at the moment John I think you're probably best placed to respond the highway authority primary concern obviously is highway safety as you quite rightly point out councillor Williams it's what I would call irregular parking rather than indiscriminate parking um unfortunately I worked great down the city of Cambridge and there is there is a certain level of parking within mandatory cycle lanes for convenience the proposal is for a co-op store but also I believe Nick when you need to correct me here it's effectively an unfettered a1 use while the car is the applicant there is no guarantee that that would continue in use in perpetuity so we have to look at this in a broader context as well the issue is would somebody is somebody likely to stop what they would probably perceive for a short period of time in a mandatory cycle lane to access a convenience store from experience elsewhere and I print the moment period experience that is likely to occur what effect does that have on highway safety clearly there is a mandatory cycle lane a cyclist would not necessarily expect a motor vehicle to be parked in a mandatory cycle lane they would obviously then potentially take a diversity movement movement out into a live section of carriageway where motor vehicles are in obviously traversing it and again a motorist may not necessarily expect a cyclist to make such a manoeuvre that is a conflict also in Cambridge there is a colloquial term which is dooring which is where a motor vehicle opens its door out into a cycle lane or into the path of a cyclist it is such a common occurrence to say it does actually have that colloquial term that is also a concern so while at the present moment I have although I have seen photographs of vehicles parked in the mandatory cycle lane I can't find them at the moment I don't disagree with you at the moment I think parking in that mandatory cycle lane is unlikely that's partly because you have no one young's wind which has parking to the rear and ample parking to the rear for the size of their development Brian Tyler uses two spaces within the adopted public highway and the existing store is unoccupied and or was a furniture sales plate unit where it has to be submitted irregular or short term parking is unlikely you're much more likely to make an organised visit to such such a facility it is the nature of the store unfortunately that drives our request the application be refused on the ground of highway safety okay thank you John next we have Councillor Hanley thank you chair um if I was a resident of Great Shelford um I'd want to co-op here uh you know I get it I understand why the parish council are doing what they're doing and what other why other people are supporting this however the the the advice from the highways authority is is clear and I do not feel that we should ignore it so my view is that we should support the officer recommendation okay thank you very much so we're getting a split view here which is healthy so Councillor Martin Khan please um I agree with uh Councillor Hanley that uh I can understand the need and the desire for the store uh I am concerned my general feeling is that people do park in cycle lanes they don't regard this as a particularly severe constraint unfortunate because I agree with it it is very dangerous so I think it is likely that there would be some parking on the cycle lane unless but I don't I think in doubly wedi lines is a much more severe restriction particularly if we have civil parking enforcement and a few people were prosecuted for it uh the message will soon get across so I am unhappy about not having a parking strategy for the parking on the roads outside a constraint I might take a different view if there were previous if an application had been made beforehand a parking order had been put in place but it hasn't and clearly one can't impose it as a condition so at the current situation I also feel that he's is necessary to have an access from the car park directly to the store and if that requires building works to increase the storage area and reassign the area interior that I think would be a desire very much an important thing because otherwise people will be discouraged from parking in the car park because of the long walk around I think the parking constraints on Granham Road are also serious it's clearly from the views that we saw there are there is queuing on there and it's much in fact it's more likely that people will park on Granham Road and also cause a problem so unless a parking strategy can be prepared in constraints I feel also that I would tend to agree with the Ross office's recommendation with the note that with if the if something was done about the parking constraints I might take a different view thank you councillor conne next up with councillor Heather Williams please thank you chair and I think this is this was the right application to come to committee and and it is very challenging one for us from myself I find it particularly challenging that from a planning perspective we're always told about what's in control of the applicant when we ask for for changers or anything else it's what's in control of the applicant and yet here it does feel like we're being sought out to penalise the applicant because of the action of other people and I think that's a very sad and sorry state of affairs that we're in and I appreciate why the counter council takes in sort of the the people that are just going to park recklessly and I do feel that that proportional society no matter what we did even if there was a car park of 30 40 100 cars would still if they want to park right outside the door would still do it and I I would just caution that we cannot we cannot make for a situation or be ever be able to address those individuals that choose to do that so there is further parking further down as councillor fein has shown to us and it really is a short a short distance obviously I've asked questions about the having a secondary access be it from car park would be ideal or sort of pedestrian walkthrough but that's not what we've got in front of us so I'll still I'll keep listening chair um but it does it does feel like I understand why there's such support from the village because if we think about it what we've currently got is a shop with no facility and no parking so this is an improvement it might not be the optimum the ideal um but it is an improvement so I think it definitely deserves a lot of consideration from ourselves thank you chair absolutely and obviously we say this most every meeting but planning is a balance so it's whether members see the benefits that this application would give to to Great Shelford outweigh the obviously harm that's been identified by the county council has been vocalised by by Dr Finney here um so that is a decision for members to make we have next councillor Richard Williams um thank you chair yeah I'd make some general um remarks on this at this point um I agree um with what councillor Heather Williams has just said um that if we had a 50 space car parking car park behind some people might park in a cycle lane of course some people might um but I am concerned about the extent to which an opinion and it is frankly at the moment just an opinion you know as these things often are but you know it's been described as a matter of judgment a balance um you know knowing the area very well what we're what is proposed here is a new site for a shop with uh 15 more car parking spaces and there currently are in the shop which has zero car parking spaces um I think the number of hours in the week where that car park is likely to be full are very very small if you drive past the co-op on high street at any point in the day other than very early morning or or very late in the afternoon there are plenty of on-street spaces opposite that that shop um we've heard um from the local member and from other representatives that there are further parking spaces just a little bit further down with an easy walking distance on the same side of the road there are the parking spaces opposite um Lloyd's bank um so I am very concerned that we would turn this down on the basis that somebody might park in a cycle lane with you know I think that that's a reason to turn down any application um by a site which is adjacent to a cycle lane is always that risk um but I think the likelihood of it happening here for me um is is very small um and I put considerable weight on the views of the parish council of the two local members of the county council that will all know this site well and don't feel that is a significant risk so I weigh that quite quite strongly against yes an objection from highways um but but as I say these these things are a matter of context it's a matter of judgment um and ultimately ended it's a matter of opinion so I'm minded to approve this application okay thank you very much so we've heard some members speaking in favour some speaking against the application um I feel like most members have come to a decision on this now do any members wish to make any further points ask any final questions that will help make their mind up or I'm trying to steer us towards making a decision on this one if possible so can I ask any members final final opportunity to put forward a view or ask any final questions I can't see any so in that case obviously we have got a difference of opinion for judging from what people have been saying um so before we make a decision I will hand I will ask Phil if he wants to add anything at this stage before we do go to a vote um obviously the recommendation is to refuse so if you were to go against that I think there might I would offer officers the opportunity to give us any advice should we want to go that way thank you thank you chair yes if the members obviously are minded to grant any permission for this application we would need to look at a series of potential conditions which would make the development acceptable in planning terms and also I would advise that members give reasons as to why the decision was against obviously the offer officer recommendation there have obviously been challenge legal challenges in the past where members don't give reasons as to why they're coming to a different conclusion when there's a recommendation before them and particularly where you're approving planning permission so I would just advise that we consider reasons as to why planning permission may be granted if that is the way the vote goes but I'm happy I'm happy to put something together on on those points but might just need some you know 10 minutes to do so if that's the way the decision goes chair so what are you asking from us Phil? I think you need to I think you need to take your vote and then okay fine so we don't need to thrash out the reasons for approval should it go that way now but should approval be granted officers can verbalize that and then sign off post decision is that correct? I'm happy to take taking a job and just to put some conditions together do you need to do that now or post post decision post vote? That's fine. Danson? Through you chair let's go to vote take the decision and then the decision is conscious the officer's recommendation then I would like 10 minutes to put some conditions together and reasons for granting a dispatch of recommendation. Okay would we then need to come back and agree those as a committee because presumably we would have we would have already agreed. Councillor Williams? I appreciate that we're sort of trying to have a vote to see if it's if it's a requirement to do however the practice of this committee would be the adjournment taken before the vote and everybody clear as to how they are and why they are voting and I would be nervous about breaking our normal status quo of having the adjournment pre-vote. I mean that was my what I was trying to get at I mean we've been a bit premature in taking a decision before we know exactly what we may be approving an application against officer recommendations on so I'm looking at Vanessa now would it be more sensible to take an adjournment now Phil goes away writes up some reasons for going against the officer recommendation we then present those to the committee if those who want to vote to approve agree we can then move forward with the vote if not we'll have to go back is that fair? Yeah we can do it that way absolutely. Okay so we're going to have a how long do you need 10 minutes okay we'll have a 10 minute adjournment then so at 12.35 on this clock up here we'll be back and hopefully be in a position to make a decision thank you very much. Thank you very much thank you welcome back everyone to this meeting of South Cambridge District Council's planning committee we're currently on agenda item six we've had the public speaking the officer's presentation and also a debate from committee members we are just on the verge of taking a vote on this but before we do I'm going to hand over to Mr McIntosh who's going to run through the conditions that will be applied to the application should members vote against the officer recommendation and approve this so Phil please over to you. Thank you chair just be with me while I bring up my as a result of the debate and in during the adjournment we have just put together a draft list of conditions that if members weren't mind to grant planning permission that we would suggest the following conditions be imposed on to the planning permission so condition one is the standard time limit condition condition two would be again a standard condition regarding the development being carried out in accordance with the approved plans condition three ensuring that materials and finishes were carried out in such a manner that has been submitted with the application condition four that the parking layout shown on the plan provided is implemented and retained thereafter condition five notwithstanding the submitted plans we've suggested that prior to the first use details of cycle parking provision be submitted to an agreed in writing by the local planning authority and that those cycle parking facilities that are then carried out in accordance with those approved details condition six proposed that prior to first use a delivery and servicing management plan be submitted to an agreed in writing by the local planning authority to ensure that deliveries are carried out in a suitable manner and that would pick up on some of the concerns highways had raised around timings of deliveries and also our environmental health colleagues around noise management on the site condition seven we would look to restrict the hours of operation in accordance with those provided by the applicant set out in our application form again around amenity based issues given that there's residents on the site living above the existing commercial premises and final post condition eight that the use class be restricted to class ea within class e of the town and country planning use classes order as class e is quite now a significant suite of uses we feel obviously this would essentially allow a retail use to operate from the site but no other use within class e and finally one informative regarding statutory noise nuisance which is a standard informative we normally receive from our environmental health colleagues so that is the draft listed conditions thanks for so i think the first couple are standard conditions we attach to every application but the ones more specific are think number four onwards from what i've seen and actually the one relating to submitting a cycle parking plan was something the applicant actually themselves suggested and they'd be open to as that obviously was a concern of the highways department um okay well can i ask those members who are um minded to vote it vote in favour of this sorry before we do that councillor handling yes i'm sorry can i just make sure that the number four drawing number includes the recent the very recent changes to cycling storage provision something is we've got the right one in there three through your chair the additional plan that was provided would be included when the approved drawing under condition two condition four relates to the car parking layout but yes that additional plan will be included under under those okay so we're including the the most recent plan that has more cycle parking included than originally okay members so those minds did to vote in favour please take a look at these in any comments councillor i'm just wondering whether it were worried to be voted for approval would you be able to put an advisory asking for parking management application under the highways regulations for management management or is that not possible um obviously i'll let officers answer that but i mean i'm sure we can put as many informatives as we like obviously they're not enforceable but it's a nice to have essentially in planning terms but um i'll let officers answer uh through you chair yes we could have an informative suggesting that um the applicants consider a traffic regulation order um but yes we obviously we can't enforce and to do that as a condition that we discussed if it didn't occur would the highways authority be able to do it itself or not i think it would depend on the the operations once the once the stores up and running whether there were serious concerns from the highway authority about um traffic movements in and potentially parking in their locality um so that would be something that they would need to monitor uh whether John's still there uh he might have to give a bit more clarity on that but i guess they would need to have monitoring data to justify introducing a tiaro in answer your question customer yes the highway authority obviously has powers to introduce waiting restrictions if it feels necessary however um the unfortunate fact he's given our limited funds that would probably be in response to an accident occurring um which is obviously something we're trying to prevent okay so i hope that answers your question councillor come and councillor are we okay on please i would just like to say i would also support adding an informative uh regarding applying for a traffic rule okay um well can i ask members that are inclined to vote in favour then is everyone uh does anyone have any issue with adding that as informative as uh relayed by councillors can i don't see any objection to that so um if i could pass that on to officers to include that as an informative on the understanding informatives on enforceable um okay i think we're sorry okay so before we take the decision on this i think Phil's going to outline the reasons in his view that we would be going against the officer recommendation yes so through you chair uh as i said to before the adjournment we need to have regard to reasons that the committee may wish to grant planning permission uh in the event that obviously that is going against the recommendation before you and having had regard to the debate with the committee or presented by the committee uh the following i have suggested as reasons as to why members consider that planning permission could be granted and i'm happy to read that out chair if you'd like me to read through those quickly uh yeah if you could summarise rather than read the debate and i think they'll be helpful okay uh so reason one essentially that uh members consider that securing a tenant within the vehicle commercial premises uh which has been vacant for number of years would have a significant positive benefit to the character of vitality of the village uh that in regard to reason number two that members were satisfied that the level on street parking was sufficient uh notwithstanding obviously the comments that have been made by the highway authority uh and noting that there is ability to enforce against uh parking through statutory requirements uh members considered that um they did not agree essentially with the conclusion raised by the highway officer and uh reason three is essentially that although there was identified some conflict with the parking standard in terms of them not meeting the indicative standards in policy ti3 that in weighing the overall planning balance members were satisfied this did not outweigh the benefits of the proposal uh in relation to the provision of gaining a tenant in a long time vacant commercial unit and the impact that would have on the vitality of the village and therefore members considered that to be uh appropriate in planning terms subject to conditions we've just discussed here sure okay i think that probably encapsulates the debate that i've heard um those minded to vote to approve this um can i ask if anyone disagrees with any of that that's still just read out in some ways councillor sanford in addition um reason two for refusing uh was in adequate cycle storage and we should probably note that the applicant has now come forward with a high level proposal that would satisfy cycle storage needs subject to more details uh phil any comments on that i think in relation to that reason uh officers have identified that the cycle parking provision isn't provided within the site uh some of it is provided in the public highway but that's not within the applicant's control some additional parking was proposed being six bases at the rear uh but again that wouldn't be meeting the 15 spaces required on site so although there's some additional parking it's not to the level that officers consider would be appropriate uh under the under the cycle parking standards so if members were minded to refuse planning permission uh my advice would be to retain that um that reason for choosing okay that's where you councillor sanford thank you yes okay remembers let's have a vote so we've so obviously we have two reasons for refusal in the agenda which is the officer's recommendation we've just been through the reasons for approval should members be minded to go against that recommendation and approve um and we've gone through the conditions and informatives that will be attached to that approval should we vote that way i can i judging from the debate we are going to be split on this so i'm going to ask democratic services if they could load up a vote for us um okay i need to word this carefully because the recommendation we have on page 80 is to refuse the application so what the way we need to vote on this is do we agree or not with that recommendation so if we wish to refuse the application we need to vote four so we need to vote green if we wish to approve the application and go against the officer's recommendation we need to vote red so red is to approve green is to refuse just to confuse things and obviously yellow is to abstain is everyone abundantly clear on that okay so if i could ask everyone to vote luckily we have an odd number of councillors voting so i won't be needed to use my casting vote uh one more uh no we've got one two three four yep correct so here we go so we've had all seven votes in we have one vote is there a problem councillor come on so red is to approve the application and refuse the officers yes that's right so we're voting on the officer's recommendation before the vote is still open so if anyone needs to alter their vote now is the time so to be abundantly clear we're being asked by the officer to refuse the application if you're in agreement with that press green if you're against that recommendation and want to approve the application vote red and of course you have the option to abstain as well so before we close the vote is everyone has everyone voted the right way is there uncomfortable good okay well Aaron could you close the vote please i think that's clear so okay members we have two votes in favour of the recommendation to refuse five votes against the recommendation to refuse so that application is approved with the conditions and informatives as agreed with officers so yep that application is approved thank you very much to all those that took part in that that was a very healthy debate i feel um and i'd like to thank all the public speakers as well that took the time to come and give us their views today so thank you very much everyone for your input there okay members with that i will need to hand back over to councillor peter fein to chair the rest of the meeting so thank you to councillor sanford for stepping in as vice chair and i'll resume my role as number two thank you very much everyone now resume um and we come to item seven which is a resubmission of a previous approval uh when change was to a green area i'll bind in red on the plan to additional parking area this is on page 83 of your papers and the recommendation is to approve this subject to conditions the case officer presenting on this is Nick Yeager Nick um there he was there he is um these go ahead give us a an update somebody perhaps to this and uh an update on new factors to be taken into account thank you chair um so this is an application um at the resubmission and previous approval for the change of the green area i'll add in red on the plan to additional parking future very limited parking available and neighborhood disputes um this application is that the grass area dulls closed ocean this application is brought to committee because the land is in with the ownership of the council and the application has been submitted by an officer of the council the application is being recommended approval by planning officers and the application that's been entered is a resubmission the past application was approved on the sit for the night 2018 however this was never implemented and the time limit has since lapsed the resubmission is identical otherwise to the previous submission i'll just go start my presentation um so this is the location plan um the application the question of the area that will change to the parking area is this area shown in red here blue line i believe is is the wider land which the count count um which the council own um and and the properties um that the council own as well and they wish to change this green area here to additional parking to um for the neighbors so site overview it's located within um the development framework um application site is here um there's no material harm to the parking of the area it's not considered to impact the character or appearance of the area and no advanced impacts identified to neighboring properties um submitted block plan um showing the area located in red as the new parking bay um the application site would allow for two additional spaces here um an amended plan was submitted through the application um this was due to some queries on the highway priority on the on the gully and and the infiltration materials however an amend plan has been submitted and the highway authority confirmed another objection subject to a falls and levels condition here is the application site located here so it would be along this area as such with my where my point i my pointer is highlighting it would still retain the footpaths that located either side of the site and there is a little footpath that crosses the middle they would be retained so it is just the the green grass area here's another shot of the area so it'll be here um looking looking back towards where i previously taken and here's a a further shot here so it'll be screen area so the screen area here no third party comments received or parish comments received either um this application is before committee has has mentioned as it it was submitted by an employee of the council and is council owner land um the conclusion planning balance and no one who are harmed the parking of the area no adverse impact upon the character the parents of the area and no impact to the neighboring amenities and the officer recommendation is to approve some subject to conditions as suggested within the officer report and on that i will go back to the chair thank you very much any questions of clarification for our case officer yes up in vice chair thank you mic just to be absolutely clear so the only reason this is with us is because the original permission that was granted some years ago has now lapsed because the the district council essentially hasn't done the work so they need to reapply to get permission to do the work is that correct that's correct yeah okay and has anything at all changed in the from the original application to the one before us today no okay that's clear thank you thank you nick that is very clear um so we have the recommendation on page 91 of your report does anyone want to raise any points for debate on this yes councillor martin carl um i just wondered whether the what the motivation was whether has really a parking problem in the in that location because the photos you didn't show any particular parking problem i just wonder whether the what the motivation was and why why it was being proposed yeah um i think the applicant or the housing team um that have submitted submitted this we're just aware that i think it's just to allow for additional parking within um within within the close um it's it's stated on the description that's being made by disputes so um i wouldn't know any more information than that on on those particular issues but presumably it's just to allow some additional parking um within within the closer of doors close and bolsham um thank you councillor Williams uh thank you chair i think what's in front of us is acceptable there's been no changes to it before so i don't see any reason to make um you know a different decision and happy to go to the vote approving it councillor carney you're seconding that proposal sorry why i wanted to make comments i think it's reasonable but we do take uh one or two comments in debate if that's all right so we'll come back to that motion in a minute councillor carney the previous application that was in cotton in which uh where additional parking was provided on green areas um i am apprehensive that green areas are not taken up by hard standing uh unless it's absolutely unless there's actually a motivation and need for it and i don't i haven't really seen and how it's been to me what the need is for this admittedly the area is just plain it's plain it's plain grass of no real biodiversity interest but but it does create a rather more hard appearance to the area um and it would restrict the possibility of putting further landscaping on on on that green area making more interesting so i'm the problem is that we've got a precedent on this so if it was approved but if i was to take an independent view my own view i would be rather unhappy about it and um i might not be prepared i'm still debating whether to vote and play raw against it okay thank you i'll come back first to vice chair and then then back to you just to add a bit of flesh to the bones of this application i'm actually the county councillor for the bolsham so essentially i think the reason for doing this is that parking is very limited in in dulls close there is very little off-street parking so all the houses you saw on the plan the officer showed very few of them have their own dedicated off-road parking space whoever has to park on the street has led to a lot of issues with people not being able to park their cars and some neighbour disputes so i think the motivation of the housing department from what i can see is to try and alleviate that albeit it is only two additional spaces but i think virtually um i don't see there being any objection to these um parking spaces being um being included so from from my own personal point of view i would be um i'll be supporting the application and a bit apprehensive to refuse on the loss of a very small green space thank you that's information that i i wanted to have to receive so i can come back to councillor Williams uh thank you chair i was just going to refer to page 83 on the proposal it does reference limited parking availability in neighbour disputes which as we all know as local members anything we can do to avoid those is is best for everybody um and also say from a planning point of view um while i do take into consideration what councillor marty can has said for a planning point of view i don't see any reasons for refusal using green spaces for parking i would argue is probably a policy decision of the housing department as opposed to the the planning element um so i hope that helps contribute to the debate chair and councillor Williams you had just previously proposed that we move to a vote your right do i have a seconder for that second vote let's uh move to vote do we need to take a uh electronic vote on this can we take that by affirmation is anyone against in the light of the information provided might might be different right now so is anyone else against the recommendation i think we can take that by affirmation we're all in favour of approving this as recommended thank you right now i'm conscious that it is one o'clock we have a number of items remaining on our agenda uh i'm always conscious of the fact that we we do have one uh public speaker on the next item who may have been waiting some time is uh our speaker is with us um would it be acceptable to continue to take this item item seven um or do members want to break his lunch break for lunch as i announced originally item eight thank you that's a little yes would it be acceptable to take item eight before we break for lunch any strong opposition to that let's go ahead then uh so item eight which is on page 93 of your papers and we have an update uh from the film I can touch beside me on this uh i don't know whether the presenting officer will want to speak as well or whether you'll cover that okay that's for my contenture thank you chair uh it's uh just a recommendation on the what a revised recommendation on this uh this item um the reason it's before you obviously because it's a member of staff and and is a household application for for this member of staff um but in in reviewing the the scheme this week after the agenda was published uh it was noted that the description of development which has gone out to our to to residents in the locality doesn't refer to the fact this scheme includes a side extension it only refers to a rear extension and that description we feel should be amended to make reference to this scheme including a side extension it's a small point but I think it's important that that is cleared up prior to a decision being made on the application so my recommendation to you as the members of the committee in considering this item I think it still can be considered but my my advice would be to alter the recommendation to state that uh if members when members are minded to approve it will be delegated to officers subject to the condition set out and a revised consultation on the description of development and that no objections were raised by neighbours in relation to the further consultation period so that that's my thank you for that recommendation so the recommendation is we can continue our consideration but any decision would be subject to procedures I'm going to take councillor Heather Williams first and then I think councillor Bill Handley after that thank you chair um again we've had this in the past um and committee has normally deferred my recollectures we've deferred let the consultation happen and then we make the decision I am extremely uncomfortable making a decision before consultations have finished because there may be something that I would look at in those subsequent consultation responses that would alter my decision but actually I wouldn't be able to change my vote or anything like that so I am incredibly while I take your point it's something minor I just think it's a can of worms and we shouldn't be opening it so I propose that we defer until the consultation is complete and they're more than happy to look at it again right before I take any further comments or questions on that I'd just like to go to our legal opposite for advice thank you chair yes uh through yourself my advice is you defer this application okay that's a clear recommendation based on this yes based on legal opposite advice that is the recommendation are we all agreeing that we defer this application chair may I just come in for one moment just just to quantify that you defer the application till the consultation the re-consultation has concluded and um or all comments are received right that is the recommendation are we all agreed to that Councillor Williams um right you're you're happy to that I think we can take that by affirmation all agreed yes good okay uh so we won't need to put on the applicants for public speaker we have um a number of other items on our agenda but I suggest we come we have a break for lunch now and come back to those after lunch um I know some of those involve lunch off the wood in particular are quite used to having to hold on for us to come back to their items and uh I'm sure we'll cope let's reconvene uh I think 145 40 minutes for lunch is that all right okay 145 thank you welcome back to this meeting of south game chair district council planning committee and my thanks to our public speakers for later item for their patience when we break for lunch um we come now to item nine uh the member site visit protocol which is on page 99 and we have of course discussed this previously I would emphasise that I'm sure the only changes that have been made since we previously discussed it are the ones which this committee requested um so I'll pass over to Bill McIntosh to uh present this thank you chair yes obviously uh thank you for that introduction on the site visit protocol which was discussed at the last meeting in December uh as members are aware we are seeking to introduce a protocol across uh the three committees that the shared planning service operates to ensure there's a consistent approach to site visits by members uh when they're deemed necessary and appropriate to assess planning applications and as a result of the discussions that were had at the last meeting in December there were some suggested alterations to what that protocol included uh and they are now set out in uh paragraph two under the recommendation and there are essentially three dot points there uh which refer to the protocol including a request for site visits to include local ward members so the option that they are able to come and visit the site and point out matters of fact and assist with the planning committee in reaching a decision so they can request site visits on that basis they can also posing to a tender site visit where again that's deemed necessary or appropriate in terms of helping and assisting the committee in making a decision on the plate particular planning application and the final point is just uh any uh minor or changes to the wording that we've got we're obviously reviewing the document that's now been to the city committee and also JDCC so we're just uh looking to allow any minor alterations but no changes to the obviously the substantive content other than what's listed on the two points above uh so that will be the proposal uh now for the members of the protocol chair and we're being asked for our endorsement I think um just one minor comment uh on page 100 um it was suggested that the wording there might suggest that the attendance of local ward members was sort of expected or obligatory it's possible that wording could be tweaked but if so that would be covered I would suggest by item three modest changes to the protocol we would approve this we endorse this subject to modest changes to the protocol relating to points of clarification and textural changes under officer delegation so with that open this to discussion council have audience thank you chair and thank you for bringing the um report back and referring to page 100 the only thing that I can see that hasn't been included which was part of our debate last time um was on the first bullet point request for site visits to include local ward members I believe we did say as well that parish councils would be able to request a site uh site visit we explained like a tick like when they asked for it to come to committee um because otherwise I think you'll find that local ward members will be sort of um having to translate that for parish councils it would seem suitable to just allow them to do it directly but we did say that there wouldn't be attendance by parish councils but they could still request it even if they couldn't attend so that is the only thing that I feel isn't missing from the previous debate in the recommendation here um otherwise I'm happy to go ahead I'm also happy with the wordings I should say to include the local member it doesn't say local member must be in attendance but um I think that is literally what it says we can include the local member make them informed make them aware it's then up to them if they decide to attend or not thank you chair thank you can I just refer to the minutes of our previous meeting which we approved earlier on uh discussions were held over paragraph three five and who could request a site visit committee felt that local members should also have the ability to request a site visit be held and if they wish to do so the parish council could subsequently request a site visit through their local member um so now we're proposing that they should request that directly rather than through their local member chair for my clarify that was part of the discussion but my my view is that parish councils should be able to directly ask for a site visit as they do a planning committee otherwise to be quite honest all that's going to happen is parish councils are going to come to us as local members I doubt very much that local members would would reject the parish council's request to ask them to do it it just seems like unnecessary sort of admin and traffic which ultimately you know could be if if a local member was away or ill you know we've seen times of of leave and what have you that it's um it doesn't provide that sort of fail safe of them being able to go directly um that's that's what I'm just thinking of time we've brought in a sort of a parental leave policy if that person was was off and it's sometimes these things are timely thank you chair yes thinking about the practical situation where a parish council requests a visit that could go to for instance to a delivery manager who is in a position to decide that one way or the other would the delivery manager didn't feel the need to consult the local member before agreeing to such a visit I think in practice not so any other comments on that point is that something that could easily be incorporated under the the officer delegate the officer the delegation requirement on page 100 through your chair um suggested that compromise last time as that it would be directed through a local ward member um that was the intention of the policy that we would expand out to obviously members of the the district council to enable that that procedure to take place in parishes which to take a take a view on whether an application is a site visit they could use their their ward member elected ward member in that regard. Chancellor Hanley. Yeah I don't hope we don't have to re-open this debate really we did come to a compromise um you know I was actually if you recall I was actually against parish councils you know allowed to attend because not because but because I give me councillor I think the question here is whether they should be allowed to request not whether they should be allowed to attend yeah but I think that the compromise it was a compromise so he said yeah let's talk that you know let them discuss with the ward district council before uh before attending because it may be that you know the ward parish council a district councillor can um iron out any issues with the parish council so that we don't have to attend but I that's I mean it's I'm not going to hang you know hang on it but uh I I've I've been at I've said before I've been at these meetings where parish councils representatives have turned up and tried to and tried to sway the opinion of the planning group and I don't see they'll have their chance when they come here. Yes I um I don't fancy my chance as chair is being able to control local members but my chance of being able to control parish councillor should they attend um I think we just need to bear in mind on this point I could come back to you now but I think we need to just bear in mind that we are seeking a protocol that could be jointly applied by three committees bearing in mind that city planning committee control committee uh does not have parish councils to consider and that within JDCC there are some parishes and some areas where there is no no no parish but councillor Williams again. Thank you I just wish to clarify in relation to what councillor Hanley said I am not seeking for parish councils to attend site visits which I understand is the crux of councillor Hanley's concern about swaying etc so that is not what I'm suggesting what I'm suggesting you've got someone like myself that has 11 villages that have brought into eight parishes that's eight parish councils requesting site visits and coming through myself when a simple when they've ticked the box to say they wanted to come to committee they can equally tick a box to say they request a site visit it feels like an unnecessary administrative process that that we would then need to email in to confirm the request and the parish council the reason I say this is it's not going to change the outcome because it's still down to the delivery manager to decide which applications get site visits it's just I just think it's a simpler process because they're already allowed to ask if it comes to committee or not it just makes sense to me to have another box on the form for site visit and I appreciate the JDCC but they do have area committees I know it doesn't work the same but this is South Cams we do have parishes and you know a joint service does not mean we have to lose our our own identity or the ability to make our own rules for our own committees so I would just you know I don't think it'd be a big stretch to say if there's a parish it's included on the form that I'm just thinking of the admin because the result won't change it's wording is specific to parish councils not area committees I don't think that city council development control committee would want to request that but I don't want to tempt fate on it but do others have views on this I come back to you if you want in a minute but let's see what views others have on this so the question then I think is if we are to endorse this are we going to request that local members effectively have a veto on the parish council request because it would have to come through local veto local members or are we proposing that parish council should be able to request it directly and the deliverer manager should you wish to would be able to consult the local member before agreeing to that council Andy yet another compromise that all we say is yes parish council is going to request directly just let the park look just let the ward district district council know that they've done so so are you suggesting that the local ward members should have just detail on whether the parish council requested it it's as simple as that can we incorporate that using without starting the whole process again very mind the two other counts counts committees have endorsed this already I'm not I don't want to dine a ditch over it but it's I've seen some issues before that's all I'm just trying to get around those but it's not something I want to hold this process up for well sorry to ask you I'm just going to say obviously we it's possible to include the the question of parish site visit if the members feel strongly about that personally I think we could review it we could leave it as is now and review it if there were a significant number of requests coming in we could we could look to alter it to to include that for I'm reluctant to reintroduce too many procedures into this we're having to cc local ward members and that sort of thing to say that it's part of the protocol I'd rather if it's going to be included we just say that they can make a request and leave it at that there is nothing in this protocol as written that prevents parish councils from making a request directly to the interim delivery manager nor is there anything that prevents the delivery manager from choosing to uh to arrange a visit partly because of the request from parish council do we therefore need to insist on adding this wording which might require the amended version to go back to the other two development control committees I'm willing to vote to endorse this now you know I think I've made my point I just I just think there are occasions to local politics and all that it's just good and as a district council you know if a parish council are going to send a representative to it it's just so I think we have a proposal from both councillor the Williams and supported by councillor Bill Handley that we should amend this to include specific provision for parish councils to request a visit am I right being absolutely clear I'm not suggesting parish council attend this is yeah this is that parish councils when they request an application to be come to delegation meetings to go to committee they're equally exactly the same process they took a box to say they'd like a site visit again that's decided by you know delivery management it's it all it is doing this makes the system they have to come through us and and you're right it essentially gives us a veto over the parish whether the request goes in or not I'd rather they were allowed the independence of making the request and it's simply on this wording request for site visits to include local ward members and parish councils it's three words that's what I'm asking for three words and have it just for our committee not I think we're trying to arrange a single protocol for the field I'm happy I'm happy to add in the parish council request and as part of the protocol whether we need to actually informally report that back to other committees I'll speak to colleagues about that but I guess we could do it without referring back to others because they do not have parish councils and therefore they're unlikely to be worried about the addition of that um those few words at the last JDCC I think it was conceded there that we weren't going to have the same protocol for three planning committees because JDCC undone the amendments and south camps and done I think we've already established we've got different different protocols now okay so we can add in those three words here and without the need to go back for further endorsement by the other two development control committees um that is I think a proposal now from councillor Williams which I think is seconded by councillor Hanley am I right um are we all happy to agree that so that is a small amendment um I'll given that do members want further debate or are we happy to endorse the protocol as now amended I think we are shall we take that by affirmation agreed agreed right thank you good let's move on then to item 10 the enforcement report and I'm glad to see that John shuttlewood is still with us thank you for your patience John uh enforcement report or is it compliance report page 109 thank you very much chair uh good afternoon and good off to committee and all members in the hall we just bring up the reports online for you I'm sure you've got it there in front of you hopefully you can see the screen now I'll take that as yes right so the executive summary so during December uh we closed down a number of cases so there's now 154 open in south camps district council compared to 165 beforehand we'll go to the statistics in the appendix updates the service delivery it's a short one this month uh you will see that in bold I'm pleased to welcome our principal planning compliance manager that been threatening you with in the last couple of months mr McChristopher Braebrook he is online at the moment I will ask him at the end of my short presentation just to reveal himself to members and just to let you know Christopher will be taking on the report and being on the report committee and presenting it in the following months so thank you very much for your time members up up until now and your generous consideration given to enforcement matters thank you to you john very much for all your work in presenting these reports uh is Christopher Braebrook online now uh yeah later uh well I just welcome him in about 60 seconds and uh um uh all will be revealed uh so thank you very much uh so uh yes again breaches continue to be reported online using the new e-form along with the information available on our web page and now the report does say that the uh team email address will be turned off at the end of this month referring to the end of January however we are aware that members have previously expressed some concern with regarding that the e-form is uh vacancy and may not be working 100% of the time and you've commented and we have listened and for that reason uh we're giving the email address an extra stay of uh of execution for another month so it's not now due to be turned off until the end of February there'll be continuing monitoring going ahead and hopefully by the end of February ffb will be ticked with birds and there was a question uh given last month about whether the new online digital planning enforcement register whether you could use the map system in order to find out the enforcements and where the four more enforcement notices had been served I can't remember which member requested that but uh I've had a look at the moment that's not something that can be done at the moment so we're still asking for a reference number or a postcode or a single line of address to try and find the enforcement notice on side uh but I will take that back and I will try and see where it is indeed possibly in the future uh finally uh anybody wishing to make comments on the consultation of the joint planning compliance policy has two days left to do so uh thank you very much what I'll do I will just stop sharing that and go on to the appendix okay hopefully you can see the appendix here so just for the figures for December in south Cambridge here uh eight persons uh I'm managed on eight to navigate the early e-form and submit planning complaints uh we've closed down 19 in total in December uh so that completes quarter three of this year in 2022 uh number of complaints received for the quarter for the last three months year is an average of the previous six months and there's been a slight dip in the amount of cases closed due to the transitional arrangements in signing off investigations whilst Christopher arrives uh and finally in December we served one operational development enforcement notice that was in in Linton ward at both farmhouse for a large amount of earth movements alleged and the creation of a lake okay I want to stop you there and then hopefully you can now see Chris on screen thank you very much welcome Christopher do you want to introduce yourself I don't think sorry about that thank you chairman and members uh yeah I'm I'm Chris uh the new planning compliance manager um I've uh yeah just just started at the beginning of the month just getting my head around the way things work uh at the council and the shared partnership um I've come from North Harfordshire and I was there for Joshi 15 years so this is a new challenge and I'm looking forward to it and there's quite quite a lot on my plate already but I'm I think it's it's going to be a good change for me and I'm looking forward to working with everyone thank you both and I'm sure John will miss his opportunity to wait all day for us to do this report to us but no don't you will enjoy that and we look forward to speaking to you again in the future do we have any questions from the committee I have a brief one if I may I was in relation to the um the new procedure the the e-form I was looking at the number received in December 22 which is eight and then I looked down below to see to what extent that reflected previous patterns and I see that for quarter four which presumably includes December we received nought I assume I'm misunderstanding the table um yes uh chair if I may uh answer the new direct into that one so that is the uh quarters relating to the financial year April to April so quarter four will be the forthcoming three months of January February and March thank you right uh no other questions so thank you very much for that report and Chris look forward to meeting you in future planning committees thank you then proceed to our next item which is item 11 appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action I think so yes thank you chair uh yes it's the usual appeals summary that we would present every month and set out in the appendices one to five which are decisions notified by the planning inspectorate appeals we have received obviously inquiries and hearings that are up and coming decisions we're awaiting from the planning inspectorate and those where statements are still due to be sent out within the timescales provided by to us by pins uh as I say I'm happy to take questions on any of these uh answer them now I will and obviously take away any that's all I can't answer now thank you chair do we have any updates in relation to any of these reported here I think um I'm thinking of the one in Scotland but that's not listed is it no no we have had some decisions come in in the last week or so it may not have gone on to this report as yet but they would be carried over into the report we'd present to the February committee so any of those uh where we perhaps have had decisions since this was published we can we can update those at the next meeting chair okay any questions for Bill Macintosh on the reports and appendices before us none that we can see thank you very much let's then move on to Martin you had a question or comment I just simply want to ask about the appeal which was allowed in Toft were there any issues that uh we should take note of or was this just where the decision went which one are you referring to 72 west feet Toft and which page are we on 117 117 there yes right any answer that I would have to I think I skim read it and I can't remember the exact issues that were at hand but I'm happy to have a look at that and and bring anything back if I feel there's anything that members should be aware of only if it's an important issue that was raised in it that's really I just wanted to find out whether it was one of them quickly so council icon you are raising this in relation to an important issue that arose in the appeal what was that I was just wondering whether it was an important issue because we don't we're not it's not explained why this one was allowed okay I think I think it's useful to know if there are important issues related to it when we lose an appeal right ah I beg you pardon that's a little daughter Richard Williams thank you chair sorry just just a very quick one um just under appendix four appeals awaiting decision page 126 the top one there um Heathfield house vernaldoid triplo that appeal decision came through in october so I don't I don't probably that one's really up to go off the list I think unless I'm reading the list incorrectly okay so maybe we need to prune the list occasionally yeah the report you need yes off the broader point the list might need to prove right are we happy then that having noted that we move on right well we then come to item 11 12 and um we have a restricted minute to approve and in order that we can now address the restriction minute um here we are I just wanted to make sure I was using the right wording um so that is the end of our open session today and we are required to move a motion to exclude the press and public um so as per the exclusion when the topic in question was discussed I propose that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of item 12 in accordance with section 104 of the local government act 1972 on the grounds that it present there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in the ched 12 of the act um and paragraph seven paragraph seven of what never mind um refers to information relating to ah yes paragraph seven of the the document we're about to discuss refers to information relating to any action taken in relation to prevention investigation or prosecution of a crime so do I have a seconder for this proposal I see dr martin carn is seconding the proposal uh can we take that by affirmation we can write so ah yes I'm going to just before we go um private refer to the data the next meeting um which will be the 8th of February um I think we can now move to private session and when you confirm we've done so