 You're now live chair. Hi, good morning everybody. Welcome to South Cambridge District Council planning committee. I'm John Bachelor. I'm chair of the committee. And my vice chair is Councillor Haylings. Councillor Haylings, would you confirm you're with us please? Good morning everybody. Good morning chair. Good morning. Members, could you all mute for the time being please? There's a bit of background noise. Thank you very much. We're supported on the top table by the following officers. Chris Carter, Delivery Manager for Strategic Sites. Chris, would you Yes, good morning chairman. Good morning members. Thank you. Steven Reid, Senior Planning Lawyer. Good morning chair and members. Thank you. And Ian Senior from Democratic Services who we're taking the minutes today. You're with us Ian. Good morning. Thank you very much. I would introduce the individual case officers when I invite them to speak. First just for you, speaking announcements. Please make sure that your device is fully charged and switched. Switch your cameras and microphones off if you're not members of the committee. If you are members of committee please keep your cameras on, microphones off unless you're going to speak. When you're invited to address the meeting please make sure your microphone is switched on. When you finish addressing the meeting please turn off your microphone immediately. Speak slowly, clearly and please do not talk over or interrupt anyone. Please ensure that you have switched off or silenced any other devices you have so that they don't interrupt proceedings. The normal procedure at planning committee is to take recorded votes and we will continue with this tradition unless there is a clear affirmation. When we move to a vote on any item and there is not clear affirmation I will ask for a roll call to be taken. I will then ask committee members to speak so that their vote is clear both to the committee and those watching the webcast members should respond for, against or abstain when their name is called. Committee members present I will now invite each of you to introduce yourselves members after I call your name please turn on your microphone wait two seconds to say your name and the word you represent so that your presence may be noted. Please remember to turn off your microphone after your introduction. My name is John Bachelor Committee Chair and I represent Linsen Councillor Bradman please would you introduce yourself. Good morning chair I'm Councillor Anna Bradnam and I'm a ward member for Milton and Water Beach. Thank you very much. Councillor Cahn can't be with us today and so he is being substituted by Councillor Daunton would you introduce yourself please. Yes thank you chair my name is Claire Daunton I'm a ward member for the Fendton and Folbourne ward. Thank you very much. Councillor Peter Fein is Peter with us this morning. Good morning Peter Fein representing Shelford Ward All right could you put your camera on please Peter okay thank you Councillor Halings please Good morning everybody I'm Pippa Halings and I represent this ward in Bington and Orchard Park Thank you Councillor Milnes Good morning everybody Councillor Brian Milnes from the Sausten Ward Thank you Councillor Ripeth Good morning everybody I'm Councillor Judith Ripeth and I represent Milton and Water Beach Ward Thank you Councillor Roberts please Good morning everybody Deborah Roberts, Foxton Ward Thank you Councillor Heather Williams please Hi Councillor Heather Williams and I represent the Mordans Ward Thank you and we have a new member of the committee Councillor Richard Williams I'd like to welcome him to the committee if you'd like to introduce yourself please Richard Good morning Thank you very much chair I'm Richard Williams and I represent the Wittlesford Ward Thank you very much and I would say that Richard is replacing Sue Ellington and I'd like to I'm sure we'd all wish to thank her for the contribution she's made over the years to this committee Councillor Wright please Nick Wright, Caxton and Patworth Good, thank you very much so I can confirm that the meeting is quiet or at all present Right so we can now go on to say that at any time if at any time a member leaves the meeting would they please make that fact known to me if they can appreciate that we have had some technical difficulties in the last couple of meetings where people have dropped out so if I see that I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes to see if we actually get the person back on but obviously we do have to continue the meeting the point here for the benefit of the public is that if a councillor is absent for any part of the presentation or of the debate about an agenda item then they may not vote on that item we have several public speakers today and I'd just like to explain how public speaking will work this meeting is being broadcast live via the council's website and public speakers are reminded that by participating in this meeting you are consenting to being broadcast and to the use of the images and sound recordings for webcast and training purposes you will each have three minutes to address the committee when you start speaking we will start the timer and when you are three minutes are up I would advise you to wind up your presentation if you continue to speak you may be muted I'm able to continue once you have finished speaking you may wish to ask questions so please be concise in your response if there are no more questions you may leave the meeting via public broadcast committee members are reminded that any questions to speakers should be for clarification purposes only and the process for this shall be as follows I shall ask if there are any questions if you do have a question please speak to the chat function so when you want to speak simply type in that you wish to do so and the vice chair will control the list of speakers for me the committee can only consider reasons for or against the application the committee cannot consider general observations about the development site the committee cannot consider comments from public speakers made outside of their allotted speaking time therefore request that those registered do not interrupt outside their time I as chair have the ability to mute or remove participants as necessary once the committee has heard from all speakers and planning officers to use on the application the planning committee will then vote the outcome is decided by majority votes and in the event of a time I as chair have a casting vote when planning committee members vote please can they ensure that they identify themselves and speak into the microphone so that the vote is understood by committee and those watching on the webcast members are reminded that they should indicate whether they are for, against, and staying whether they are for right I'm sorry it's a bit of a long-winded introduction but it's apparently necessary so we're about to get on with the business of the day Peter Fehm would you put your camera on please with having all members how's the Fehm's visible to us John is he he only appears to be a circle on my one we can see him in his we can see it's a handsome profile right fine we're moving on then to the business of the day we start with item two which is apologies this is senior do we have any apologies please yes chair we have one apology from councillor Martin Carr and councillor Clare Daunton is here as substitute right thank you very much for that decorations of interest item three do any members have interest to declare in relation to any item of business on this agenda if an interest subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting please would you raise it at that point yes we have three people would like to make decorations starting with councillor Bradman Bradman please thank you chairman and so this declaration relates to item eight the hotel at the imperial war museum Duxford in my capacity as southcams district councils representative on the board of trustees to Denny Abbey and the farmland museum I know another trustee on that board who is the retail and admissions manager for the imperial war museum at Duxford whilst we have discussed the generalities of museum finances and strategies for the future I can confirm that I have not discussed this application for a hotel at imperial war museum Duxford with him at any time that is a non-pecuniary interest obviously and I come to this matter afresh thank you very much that who else have we got yes chair so we have got councillor right councillor right please thank you chairman non-pecuniary interest on items six and eight both sites were discussed when I was planning portfolio holder but I am coming to this meeting completely afresh thank you very much councillor daunton councillor daunton thank you yes thank you I am the ward member for tebusham and penditon which are items 10 and 11 and councillor melons councillor melons thank you chair yes I declare an interest in item 6 the former spices site as the local member for sourcing and clearly this has been a matter of significant discussion locally but I confirm that I come to this meeting afresh thank you very much for that and councillor richard williams councillor richard williams please thank you I would like to declare non-pecuniary interest in items 6 and 8 as well as a member of the Wittlesford parish council I have discussed both of these applications obviously the sourcing site is partly on my ward as well so that has been a topic of discussion but I confirm that I have come to both matters afresh thank you very much and councillor fein councillor fein please chairmen as ward member for the neighbouring ward I declare a non-pecuniary interest in item 6 I have been involved in discussions and attended exhibitions but I come to the matter afresh thank you very much and councillor braddenham again chair councillor braddenham again please sorry thank you I will put out a non-pecuniary interest in item 11 I am the county councillor for fein ditton ward but I come to this matter afresh thank you is that all the declarations yeah right I also need to make a declaration on item 7 linton I'm the local member for linton have been present at parish council key meetings where this has been discussed but I approach this afresh so I think we've done declarations of interest no more thank you very much we now move on to item 4 which is the minutes of the meeting of the 26th of May 2020 are there any issues of accuracy on the minutes nope no chair okay can I sign these minutes as a true record of the meeting held on Tuesday 26th of May agreed anyone against that no good okay so the minutes are accepted we now move on to the business of the day and we are on agenda item 5 this is planning application s2423 stroke 19 dc this is at long stanton and okington and the proposal is for the discharge of condition 14 of planning application s201 1 stroke 14 outline plan for the town centre strategy so this is a north stow phase 2 town centre strategy the applicant is Holmes England the recommendation is to discharge condition 14 subject to implementation of the strategy the key material considerations that we have to take into account are the condition and the outline planning permission the submitted strategy the phasing of the town centre assessment against the requirements of the condition the committee hasn't made a recent site visit here it is not a departure the application is before us as the applicant application in the view of the joint director requires the resolution by the planning committee presenting officer is Andrew Thompson strategic sites team could you give your presentation please thank you councillor good morning everyone trust you all can hear me could you turn your camera on as well please yeah I have done yet have you all right can you see the presentation councillors not yet yes sit with us now okay so to go back this is the just to clarify this is the town centre this is phase 2 of north stow members may recall in February they considered the application for phase 2a which is the in purple we're now talking about the area to just to the south of that which is outlined in red on this plan this is a plan from the from the approved design code of north stow part of the application there was a town centre strategy that was submitted and it was around 10 principles so in effect there was some elements that we wanted to see obviously that it was attractive connected to nature offering something different attractive and clear in terms of how it would come forward and marketing the town centre strategy also included a town square some flexibility refining the ability to refine itself with when engaging with people who come in to live and work and relax in the area integrating clean technology and being flexible for the new ways of working that said we needed or we felt that it was appropriate as part of that outline plan to provide more detail in terms of how it's going to be delivered in particular in terms of the early stages and that's the first part of the condition that is important to this consideration and the next phases then obviously are about how the town centre strategy would be implemented throughout the process. The strategy as now brought forward includes three basic principles and to ensure flexibility so that we are moving forward in a modern environment and that there's opportunity to address matters that were unforeseen at the time of the outline play application a destination in effect attracting making sure it's the landmark and an important place for both the residents of North Stade but also providing facilities and a regional centre for the surrounding villages and indeed promoting enterprise supporting local businesses and providing opportunities for the growth of business and the town centre. This is what the completed town centre would look like in accordance with the strategy. You can see a commercial core around the centre with residential towns around the outside. The pitch just to the outside is worth highlighting. This is the education campus councillors and this is phase 2a just to the north and this is Rampton Drift and this is Rampton Drift play area again just to the north. A wide range of uses and an opportunity to really build a strong commercial and residential environments. Obviously it doesn't happen all at once and one of the key things is of this strategy and important things of this strategy is that it needs to be delivered. We need some things to be built early on and importantly the start of the town park is one of the first bits and this is the town gardens as we're calling them. It's going to be the first bit, the market hall which will have commercial elements and the civic hub which will provide library, commutative cities and health facilities within the actual building itself. That is being built by ourselves under the terms of section 106 agreement and again early work has begun on building that process. As it goes forward then the town centre in terms of stage B again further leisure and commercial activity comes in the first residential building start to be appear. The dates underneath so 2023 to 2026 approximate dates obviously if things are going well then obviously things may come quicker and also if the strategy is approved then obviously commercial marketing will start in earnest and interest will be sought in terms of a wide range of facilities including a development partner. We then move on to 2026 again elements of this make and earlier but it's thought that we'll move then to the north of the town centre to complete the links to phase 2A phase 2B is also anticipated to be completed around about that time and the education canvas of course will also be complete hopefully by then but again it shows two surface level car parks to provide facilities for the people visiting the town centre but primarily it's focused on delivering or people coming from Nourstow, Longstown in Oakington, Cottenham by walking and cycling but also by the guided busway and it's this stage with the guided busways anticipated to be complete as it goes through phase 3 and the formal bus stops will be potentially opened up for use. That's not saying that the guided busway that runs around the outside of Nourstow that will also continue and other bus services are likely to come in at this stage it's not earlier and the final stage will be replacing the surface level car parks with multi-storey car parks but obviously we will at that point consider whether or not those are needed the new technology may come along that multi-storey car parks are not needed and that will provide obviously an opportunity to provide further commercial use or further other alternative uses in terms of this again it's looking at completing in Circa 2031 but obviously again these dates are approximate the elements can come earlier or later depending on how things are coming along some visual images of what we're anticipating the market hold in particular to look like this image on the left is well known this is one of the images that has been produced showing the retail and cafes on the ground floor workspace above and again that's market hold that's based on promoting small independent users and getting Nourstow as a different field and predominantly based on enterprise and new types of business the Civic Hub we were still at design stage but I thought we'd take three images from the strategy that are being used to the top is Grant Council's Civic Hub just by Wembley Stadium if you turn around 180 degrees you'll see Wembley Stadium behind you and also Lepford and also Lambeth Civic Hub and what these places show is that these are large buildings they can be of a different design and very often they are landmark surrounded by Civic space and public realm and those are some of the principles that we're starting to build into Nourstow's vision in terms of movement and access it's important obviously that people can get in to the town centre and you have the guided busway running all the way through the centre of the town centre and then there are several informal kind of accesses for vehicles so you can service the unit, the commercial units sorry but also pedestrian permeability is also sort in terms of getting people again and the full range of activity and of course Nourstow sits on the guided busway and the additional of the guided busway running through the town centre is part of that plan in terms of story heights we're looking at a range of three to six stories but obviously when we go above that six stories that will be obviously design led the tourist buildings being the Civic Hub and the hotel building which is frame each end of the town centre or the high street obviously that's not been named yet but if we call that the high streets then around that these are five story buildings in the light blue colour three story buildings are primarily the school but again we're looking at other three story buildings here in relation to this and the grey buildings are four stories or anticipated to be four stories again it's a dense and compact area but also it's worth noting there is some a large area of green space and public realm that's been proposed and obviously the guided busway and there's areas around the guided busway in the centre of the town centre that will provide further public realm in terms of floor space at the time of the outline planning permission we didn't anticipate home working as part of the solution to providing jobs and the focus is on providing jobs rather than floor space but of course one of the things we want to see is how that floor space will evolve and come forward so one of the things we want to see is obviously a level of commercial activity and commercial floor space and you'll see that we are trying to keep that high in terms of the opportunity for employment in terms of retail members will be aware of the wider macro impacts that's happening in retail with the growth of online shopping resulting in massive levels of closures on the high street so what has happened since the outline planning permission is we've reviewed or the view of the retail has been reconsidered but obviously the market hall will also provide an element of retail and leisure cafes and the like so in total we still think there's still going to be a well over or around 2500 jobs and that is dependent within the town centre but that is primarily the level of home working is an estimate at the moment so certainly there's one lesson out of this pandemic that home working is becoming more and more, will become more prevalent but obviously the ability to meet and provide meeting spaces is also going to be important so the next steps we will be if the strategy is approved we'll obviously set up a town centre delivery group with ourselves, Homes England and other interested parties such as the NHS and County Council and also include in that as much as we can the local residents in terms of getting sure that those are delivered the early delivery of the community facilities and employment and the public realm of the town park are absolutely essential and that is what we have secured and then there's the flexibility to take account in the changes of working practices but two elements of that are that the design is at the core of this and there's strong links to the education camps so that is me done I'll leave that to you now in terms of any questions or points of clarification. Thank you very much Members any points of clarification you'd like to make here bearing in mind that this is a discharge of condition and so the main issue is does this meet the requirements, the outline planning permission anyone wish to speak to this or ask a question of clarification so Councillor Heather Williams right Councillor Williams please Heather Williams I just asked to see the slide again around the employment because it looks like the maximum figures were lower than the outline so I'm just wondering if I could see that again please and some clarification around those total figures whether expecting it to be less employment than outline. Thank you Can you point that out please Andrew? Thank you Councillor, well the main reduction in employment will be around the retail changes but again the actual anticipating numbers of jobs so if you take £892 off the outline planning permission because we weren't anticipating that it was around about 2,000 jobs but with the changes in working practices we're still anticipating within the B use classes the same level or approximate same level of use class of jobs and job creation of course these are indicative figures Councillor and we think obviously that we have at that level from the original submission that's why it's been through three or four iterations but we will continue to try and key that level as high as possible and create as many jobs as possible Thank you do you want to come back on that Councillor Williams? No I think obviously I'll touch on in the debate Chairman but thank you for the clarification Just as we were looking at that then you were saying that there's an emphasis going towards more home working that's not actually reflected in the figures here is that you're using the same home working numbers is there some strategy in that? Again we didn't want to overestimate and we didn't want to underestimate as I said the home working was not anticipated as part of the outline plan permission but we have inserted it within the table this is a table from the actual strategy itself so we have anticipated it now and with the three figures there what we're saying is that that level of home working is what we're anticipating but that can go up Thank you Councillor Fein Chair Councillor Fein please Thank you Chair Mr Thompson you referred to the effects of the taking account of the effects of the pandemic in relation to home working just in relation to the market hall and community to the Civic Hub Looking at the first of the photographs on the left I appreciate that was just indicative to what extent do you think that needs to take more account of the need for public open space directly outside buildings particularly restaurants and so on so that there can be service outside not just in relation to this pandemic but planning for future pandemics too that seems to me rather a restricted pedestrian space in that particular example wasn't clear to me from the plans whether that has been taken into account Thank you Councillor Yes again these are indicative designs I'll scroll up through the so these these images is an indicative design obviously we haven't had the actual detail and that's something we're going to have to work on we're in the middle of the pandemic and obviously we're all aware of how things are going to need to change and designs are going to need to alter but there is a high level of public realm in and around buildings so if you're looking at the opportunity within the spaces so it may be that the buildings become more compact and actually the space around it becomes more bigger but that is something as I say we will start to look at in terms of detail design of the buildings these are indicative footprints at the end of the day and that is something as I say we want to certainly we are aware of and certainly that's something that commercially we have to discuss with Homes England and there's lots of practice from RTPIC, Town and Country Planning Association Civic Voice all these people now are looking all researchers are looking at how this is going to impact the high streets so we will obviously take account of best practice and with ourselves obviously we're delivering the Civic Hub we'll obviously take account of that in the design of Civic Hub making sure that the shared space and the outdoor space is equally well designed Thank you Councillor Milnes Councillor Milnes please Thank you I'd like to actually follow on from that so we've got a very changing face in retail obviously and we've got a lot of talk about town centres as destinations or as venues so if we pick up on what Councillor Fain was just asking about is there going to be space for congregations so I'm just thinking about for example British Library which has quite a big open platzer it's got Starbucks similar around and it's a location where people like to congregate and I just wonder whether you can say something about your consideration and how right now I know you've talked about being flexible but how are you looking at accommodating, emerging best practice not just previous best practices if I can put it that way Thank you Yes Councillor we're well aware obviously as I said the situation we are working on detail designs for the Civic Club or we started those designs that's been done with the new built team and also again the market hall we haven't really had a lot of discussions about this but we have had some discussions and yes the market hall the Civic Hub will be based on having that ground floor certainly maybe further floors of meeting space shared space but in with the capability of adapting to that and that's important thing is we're not designing the buildings now but we're keeping that as flexible as we can I think I was thinking more about creation of open space which I think was Councillor Fain's question that there seems to be thoroughfares, high streets and so on and I see you pointing towards the green area but for example in front of the market hall and or in front of the Civic Hub is there going to be a place for people to congregate Short answer is yes Councillor so this is quite a large scale plan so when we're looking at the scale of the space in front of you looking at 20 maybe 30 metres of space in front of those buildings okay thank you thank you Councillor Wright Councillor Wright please thank you Chairman my question was two parts to it I would certainly agree on the importance of the open space and strategy talks a lot about events and also an outdoor marketplace so we really do need that space to hold those events and the outdoor marketplace but one thing that is glaringly missing from this town centre and if you look at any town centre over the country is faith buildings you cannot you know it's a job to imagine a town centre anywhere without a major faith building of whatever sort in it and what is the thoughts around that thank you Yes Councillor there is actually a faith building within this and that is this building here that again is the detail that is secured through the section 106 there is a faith strategy group who meets and are discussing the requirements of north stone not just across phase 2 but also across phase 1 and phase 3 and what is needed in terms of space there is another obviously there is a space available on phase 1 that is probably going to be delivered first but obviously we are including faith buildings within this proposal and that is secured also by the section 1 section 1 Thank you Councillor Bradenham Thank you chair I had two points that I wanted to ask clarification on the table that Mr Thompson put up referring to the 892 square metres of space for home working can I clarify was that for people as it were who might share that space when they are working from home so that they could have a shared hub to work from that is the first question Thank you Councillor it is not 892 square metres it is 892 jobs anticipated the home working capability will be within the actual within people's homes there will also then be the opportunity within the civic hub the market hall other community uses as well potentially also cafes, restaurants those are meeting spaces two grades additional floor space where people can meet The reason I was asking that was because I will bring in the second point I was hoping that we might have some allocation of space for people to meet in when they are working from home so they might just hot desk for a while and catch up with some other people or they might use it as a meeting point or a place to have a meeting so it is for home workers but it is a shared office space so that is the first thing and the second question because I think that is really important for people who are working at home becomes isolated so I wanted to check whether we had any provision for shared space for people who are working at home and the second thing was I know you have said in paragraph 72 that there has been a significant reduction in floor space and that Savals had agreed with that but that big drop in retail from 35,000 to 12,000 I just wondered if any of that space could be used for such a purpose to give home workers somewhere to congregate and meet Yes, the short answer is those used the shared business space and the shared work space will be within either a range of kind of activities so yes we are looking at that planning for that and certainly that has been part of the discussion as to what the office space and work space includes but also obviously we are also looking at the leisure and cafe retail and those kind of things as also opportunities for people to meet our business meetings and all those kind of things as is frequent at the moment so the short answer is yes we are looking at that shared meeting space and all sorts of opportunities and it's across all use classes councillors not just obviously within the work space it's also across other work space so the Civic Hub certainly if you look at Clay Farm has a function to provide work space for people to come and have quick meetings I think that's one of the lessons that we are learning and adapting from is as I said that people will still need that opportunity to meet and discuss matters face to face or on as we are doing now online and in an environment where that is comfortable sorry the second question councillor can you repeat that please well it was it was just whether any of that retail that was outlined at 35,000 square meters and is now dropped to 12 that's a big drop 25,000 square meters of retail I just wondered if any of that space could be used to provide dedicated space in just the way you are describing for people to have meetings who are otherwise home working like a hot desk area yeah again I think that will be more within the retail provision obviously that has dropped quite a large level but the retail provision is about actually the sale of goods and obviously we are seeking to secure a level of retail where people can meet their dates if they need I think as I say it will be across to use classes rather than a specific sorry what I'm getting out of that is it doesn't sound to me as if there is any allocation for this shared workspace that's all I'm saying I just wanted to check whether there was any but it doesn't sound as though there is any it's being relied upon within cafes and no I think it's yes there is awareness that we need to provide it but it is not in a single use class yeah okay thank you I think we've got as far as we came on that one and it's myself Councillor Haylings please thank you and thank you Andrew I have too and I was just looking at the mention of third place working which is on page 12 in paragraph 10 and I think in some ways that addresses slightly what Councillor Bradnam was saying which is where those are working from home can go in and SMEs can go in so I have two questions Andrew one is around just what looks like might be a bit of tension within the report and it's about this flexibility and the possibility in this new world that a lot of people will be looking at doing startups working from home and perhaps trying to offer new types of things and this town centre on page 11 and paragraph 7 is really talking about how to capitalise on this flexibility to enable people to do a kind of pop up things, test things out, try things out and I think that's very very important right now in this particular stage but I note then that on page 17 the design quality panel had said that we better have a small number of occupied commercial units than a greater number of half occupied so I just want to know is there a tension there between enabling this sort of incubator type for people to work out they may have lost their jobs or they're trying to work out a different type of retail or offer to entertainment by using these spaces and trying things out compared to that comment from the design quality panels, my first question and then the second question is around cycling and in the sustainable transport section you do mention the bus way and the parking and the design is that the bus way goes through the centre of the town it's moving away from private car transport but there's no mention of cycle ways and segregated cycle ways and cycle storage which will be some of the key things that we're needing right now as a kind of lockdown and will be the preference going forward if you could just clarify where the cycling provision has been provided First and foremost the quality panel comments were making sure that obviously you had whilst they wanted to see those uses there's nothing a dead town centre can build up a negative no matter how well you design it can build up a negative opinion so what we will the town centre want to the design quality panel wanted to see was maybe a bit better to have a few early kind of landmark occupiers and be that cafes and that's where the civic hub comes in in many ways is that there's a function to the town centre there's a reason why people go there rather than just oh it's there's nothing there at the moment there's a reason for people to locate there so that's what the design quality panel I understand that it might be there's a tension but I think that's something that's resolved largely by putting in place civic hub early on will allow us to have a function to that town centre that other things can then feed off in itself and a reason for people to go there and that will certainly attract a lot of other uses for example with the health centre that will attract pharmacy obviously with the civic function there will maybe also be a cafe function a quash function and all those kind of things turning to cycling facilities yes we have factored that in I'm just trying to remember so we have started to look at those kind of functions and you'd see there's a cycle way that runs alongside the bus way that's already part of the existing design and that's a strategic function but also getting these routes capable of putting of being cycle and cycle friendly and cycle storage again in these are indicative locations of where cycle storage will be but that's more detail that we're going to have to go into in the next stages to ensure that we do actually ride all this space that we want for that storage and that will come into the design of the buildings the design of the parks and the open space making sure that that is well catered for and obviously one of the other things we're looking for looking at as well as the electric cycle provision as well so that people those cycles can be charged up without without problem within the town centre function itself as well thank you councillor daunton councillor daunton ladies yes thank you chairman I'm very pleased to see on the plan here marked out a museum and gallery building I think it's one building for the two but I'm not sure so that's a question but then that leads me to ask about provision for music making are you expecting that to take place in either the museum and gallery or in the civic hub and also I just hope that some thought has been given to dual use spaces when music is being made I know from clay farm on a Saturday for a meeting when a choir was rehearsing next door and there was no sound insulation made both very difficult so I just wonder what provision there is for music making. Thank you councillor yes the museum gallery is more about the archaeology finds in the heritage centre that we are that is currently being built by Homes England's office that may relocate to this place alongside Homes England's office as well but these buildings at the moment we haven't discussed the final use and how we integrate that but that's something we can take away into the design team and the delivery group certainly the provision of music will be something that we will obviously look at both in the civic hub and in other kind of buildings as well. Thank you. Alright thank you very much I think that's all our speakers but Mr Carter I just like to ask you a question please just on technical points given that this is a discharge of condition it's clear that in order to allow the flexibility that's already being explained as required it's fairly clear that this doesn't actually meet the outline planning permission conditions could you give us some clarification on whether or not that's an acceptable thing? Well the outline planning permission obviously dates from 2011 which is some time ago and it's perfectly appropriate for the committee to take into account changes in the retailing and employment environment that have taken place since that time so the committee can consider in my opinion can consider the strategy that's been put forward Andrew Thompson's obviously explained how that position has evolved particularly in terms of retail floor space but the overall picture in terms of jobs as well looking to maintain those at levels similar to those that were envisaged nearly 10 years ago so I don't think there's any issue for the committee in determining what's in front of them councillor. Okay thank you very much for that does anybody wish to comment on this bearing in mind discharge of condition are we happy that this meets at least the principles of the outline planning permission? Councillor Heather Williams please. Thank you Chairman I I'm assuming we've got no speakers and therefore you're asking us to talk about in a debate. Sorry can I just clarify that then yes indeed there are no public speakers thank you for that I shouldn't mention that. So I just wanted to clarify so I'm going to speak as part of the debate. I do understand that significant time is passed between outline and this but I'm looking at the figures and with home working being brought in I can understand how that wouldn't have been a factor and it's more now but we've got five best 5,000 less square meters and now if the home working meant that the job level was the same then I wouldn't take issue the square meterage it's the quantity of jobs I think that we have to have our four month forefront of mind as opposed to the amount of geographical space required for those jobs but home working in itself at the whole main purpose of it is it can happen anywhere it doesn't people aren't going to move to north stone to home work I do it myself and I can do my job wherever I was in the country so and given the climate obviously as a planning authority it's going to be really important that we help facilitate as many jobs as possible so looking at the overall figures at best it's going to be 500 less than outline and I'm interested to listen to the rest of the debate I'm not wholly set up but I have to say that reduction is of concern and does you know this is meant to be delivering employment this section in particular you know the floor space might provide more residential property it's not about about that the employment figures concern me especially in the current climate and so at the moment I don't feel possibly that that meets the aspirations of the outline permissions I think we we need to on today's terms be trying to facilitate more jobs than we foresaw in 2011 not less and the 500 is on best case the scenarios have been put to us but like I say interested here that what I was thinking still on the fence okay thank you very much Councilor Rippeth Councilor Rippeth please I think one of the key points from what Andrew was saying the flexibility is so important especially with what's happened last six months and we don't know how things are going to progress which I think is something that Councilor Williams just touched on my main issue the whole design I mean I think it looks quite favourable but that we do not build a sort of white elephant building and that everything is kind of kept a little bit open to change in its use and just really want to put that across and also the need for maybe added green space some of the issues that Peter Fain mentioned about needing that extra space be there any subsequent pandemics all right thank you very much for that Councilor Fain Councilor Fain please Thank you Chair to my mind in some ways the key paragraph is on page 13 the town centre will be the main defining feature of Northstowe by which it will be judged it's crucial to create a town centre where people want to be aware when the shops are shut because it has the best environment now I think looking to the future we know we have to not only cater for pandemics that's taken but also for climate change expect people to want to spend more time outside in front of buildings in squares not just in green spaces and I think we need to not only ensure that we have the space for that and Mr Thompson has answered my question on that but also that we make it attractive space and one of the features that we have to take into account that I think there is plenty of flexibility to cater for here is the roofscape we have to make an interesting roofscape as well as an interesting frontage to the buildings if those open spaces are to be attractive from the outside rather than just from enjoying the facilities inside the buildings right thank you very much Councillor Roberts Yeah Councillor Roberts please Thank you Chairman I'm just a little concerned at the emphasis that we seem to be placing on the situation as it is today I think we're giving far too much attention to what is a temporary problem and this is a long we're building something here for decades and decades and decades hopefully to come and I would I'm not happy to think that we're losing four spaces for commerce that we're losing apparently losing employment I don't think people are going to work at home some people will but I think most people just want to get back to their normal work position going in meeting people what have you so I'm a little a little wary now at the backing and not being realistic here this is a temporary situation and all this business about everybody in the world is going to get on a bike no they're not all the cycling stuff is quite ridiculous all the people won't do that nobody wants to do that yeah lovely to get on a bike in this weather but not in the middle of winter for God's sake so I'm not happy about how it's going thank you Chairman Right thank you very much for that thank you very much I don't I don't think we want to get into any issues on cycling do we no what I just like to say chair is chair I'm not made to looking at this I think and it's responding to Councillor Heather Williams I really do think this is well thought out and as she said the emphasis is on job creation and the flexibility this allows I think the whole focus has been on job creation and this is a place that people want to be it's a place where it's linked in as a travel hub to other places if they need to go as well for work it enables them to work locally it has all of the sustainable transport options with the bus way and the roads it has both car provision and car parking provision if that's needed as well as the public transportation but more it's a place to be to enjoy being and it draws and as I like to say as well it's about bringing people from outside north stone and not just for local people it's drawing people in as well because of the provision of leisure and and entertainment as well as retail and finally I think the the it's calculated to be a place that comes England as a curator as well as the town centre delivery group and this is what gives me the confidence that we're not just leaving a town centre to try and deliver itself and be hostage to fortune it's actually being curated and that is incredibly important I think within the proposal being implemented here and and I feel confident that this is enabling us to provide the job employment that is critically needed going forward and that north stone will therefore be the landmark feature that we need it to be with this town centre so I would be supportive so I'm minded to support this proposal. Thank you very much I can't see any more speakers there so I'll be ready to move to a vote on this now so what is before us the recommendation is the discharge of condition 14 of planning application S2011 stroke 14 O L subject to the implementation of the strategy are we all in favour of that? Agreed is there anyone again? Councillor Roberts did you want to vote against? I'm going to abstain chairman You're abstain all right I think that means I have to do a roll call then to make sure that we've got everybody so we have a roll call for the votes so you know what the recommendation before you is I will call each member by name and you just tell me if you were four against or you wish to abstain so there's Councillor Bradnam Four, Chairman Thank you Councillor Daunton Four Thank you Councillor Fein Four Councillor Halings Four Councillor Milnes Four Thank you Councillor Roberts I'm abstain I'm abstain all right Councillor Heather Williams Against it's not enough employment sorry Against thank you Councillor Stephen Williams Richard four Sorry Richard Yes Excellent Councillor Wright please Four and Councillor Batchelor my vote is four so the outcome of the vote is two four six eight nine four one against and one abstention that condition is therefore discharged Thank you very much for that Can we have a five minute break Sorry Can we have a five minute break I was just about to Thank you Chairman So we have a 12 minute break please be back for 11.20 11.20 Thank you Okay Chair you are now live again Right thank you Welcome back We're now on agenda item six on your agendas this is page 25 Can I just check with members of the committee that they have had the supplementary element for the agenda and they have that with their papers Yes I can see all nodding Thank you very much So this is application S0158 stroke 20 FL it's in the Parish of Salstom and the proposal is for the demolition of 528 square meters of storage building and the erection of 50,445 square meters of research and development accommodation Your agenda does break that down into the various units that that overall amount represents but I won't read through the log I'm sure you've got it. So the site address is the former spices site at Salstom bypass Salstom The applicant is our way research and development limited the recommendation of the case officer is for approval of the full applications subject to completion of the S106 agreement and conditions The case officer will take us through the key material considerations We haven't been able to have a site visit this isn't a departure program The application is before us as it is significant and or strategic importance from the area beyond both specific site and parish Also Linton Parish Council requested the application be considered by planning committee The presenting officer is Yole Mbilius So if you'd like to do your presentation I'll go over to you Sorry chair Chris Carter here just before Yole gives her presentation I'm just going to make a brief comment for the committee's benefit That's okay thank you Members of the committee will be aware that there has been considerable local national and international interest in this proposal over the last week or so Much of this attention has been focused on matters of security and international relations I would like to remind members that in considering this application the council and not the proposed occupier and user Members should consider the proposed use and whether that is acceptable and any material considerations which flow from that use and the proposed buildings This may include but not be limited to issues such as landscape impact heritage, ecology sustainability, transport and others The proposed user of the development is not a material planning consideration for us here today The decision that the committee takes today should as always be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations which indicate otherwise In particular members should focus on the requirements of the South Cambridge District Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework Thank you chair Right thank you very much Mr Carter Okay case officer would you like to take your presentation please Yes thank you chair If you bear with me I would like to share my presentation from my screen Can you just confirm you can see the presentation on the screen please That's fine Thank you chair This is a site location plan on the slide where you can see in red outlining red the application site itself and outlining blue the wider Huawei State Sauston villages to the Apologies let me just turn on the pointer Sauston village would be to the east of the wider states via Mill Lane with links to Cambridge into Cambridge via Cambridge Road outside the slide Apologies for that and also via A1301 to the north towards Cambridge and to the south towards A505 The Cambridge to Liverpool railway line runs across the wider states as well and the nearest stations is south of the site Wittlesford Parkway Wittlesford Road runs west of the wider state towards Wittlesford village in the south and staple forward to the north and the axis to the site is via an existing vehicular axis at the priority junction at the A1301 followed by a railway level crossing and from here via two routes to the internal part of the application site the two routes are also part of the red boundary therefore the application site this encompasses as well the area to be demolished with this one that I'm pointing at the moment The immediate context of the application site is formed by existing warehouses to the east woodland to the north agricultural field to the south and I just point your attention to the schedule ancient monument the Borough Hill that's bounded with this thinner grain line here and also the dirt for Fenn I'm going to be referring to during my presentation which is north east of the site approximately 400 meters this is the River Cam a non-designated county wildlife site and apologies there for Fenn Fenn is a site of special scientific interest a triple a sigh as we call it this is the site plan including the total of 50,445 square meters of B1B as pointed by the chair many commercial research and development floor space which is distributed into this larger building which is a fab we call it the fabrication laboratory which also encompasses office space this is the central utilities building the cub as we call it and some storage north west of the application site this is a service yard and this is the northern access road this is the courtyard fronting the south of the building where the entrance for employees and staff in general will be located and where you also have a landscaped entrance to the site this separation of circulation helps with security and considering also health and safety principles so logistics will be in this north part of the site and with access also to a loading deck which will be in the basement through this ramp a fire lane circulating the whole of the building and said before sorry in the south of the site there is just entrance to the car parking visitors a courtyard for pedestrians and cyclists and a ramp to access the basement car parking access for cyclists and pedestrians are going to go to take place along this route the southern access route all the plans I'm going to show from now on will be in the direction to your right hand side before the the woodland that bounds the site to the north will be located in this area and also to the west in this area this is the ramp to access the loading dock as mentioned previously and here is the access ramp to the car parking in total there will be provided 300 car parking spaces 284 of them at the basement level with 16 ground floor which is much below policy indicative maximum number of car parking spaces and I consider this is in line with sustainability measures to reduce private car dependency in total the scheme includes 16 disabled spaces which represents just about 5% of the total space part of the space disabled spaces will be located in the basement plan part of them will be in the ground floor plan in the car parking visitor area this is the ground floor plan where the sub fabrication area is located which is mainly a central open area with surrounding circulation and laboratories and plant rooms and for the employee facilities including the cycle storage with 80 cycling spaces for staff with direct external access as well as shower rooms for employment use this is the part the office part of the fab building with the reception entrance via the courtyard as I mentioned before and a colonnade leading to the cafe which has also an external terrace fronting the wooden belt to the west of the site at the first floor the offices are more open plan like aligned with the clean room level this is the clean room sorry these are aligned in this level so people can actually see from the office building what the research is taking place within the clean room area at the second floor you will see that above the clean room there will be a void used to allow for the air circulation that is necessary for the operation of the room in more open plan offices this is the age room that goes above the link between the two parts of the fab building in the east west section you have a clear representation of the fab spaces I referred to with a sub fab at the ground floor the clean room with 3.5 meters height and the void above it useful air circulation which is in a bit more detail in this insert in the slides you can see that air handling units will be also located in the space created by the vaulted roof which has determined the archer's design and ultimately the final height of the building at 21.5 meters at roof peak with flues above rising a further 4.5 meters is it the east and south elevations where you can see the illustrated finishing materials on the east and west facades the finishing materials will be bronze and metal louvers bronze metal panels and limestone in the bottom with window strips allowing for some natural light entrance and for a minimal light in this part of the building where openings do not favour the building process this is a vertical glazed curtain wall that generates a rhythm with the articulation of the roof in dividing the more rigid mass of the building if you like giving it a bit more rhythm which has been welcomed by the council's urban design officer I have to mention the southern facade which will be the office element of the southern facade is perhaps where the sustainable design features of the proposal is a bit more visible as balance has been achieved with the glass curtain walls and features to mitigate solar gain as well as even in light spillage such as stern louvers and some mechanised shading system and openable windows on this facade other features were included on the design it won't see in any slides of the presentation here but it's important to mention that the design of the building aims to reduce energy demand such as heat recover with heat recover from the operational process to provide all heating and hot water demand for the building with an overall 25% reduction on building emissions which is equivalent to a dream excellent accreditation in all topics of energy use in carbon reduction there is a beast bulk sustainability assessment matrix that has been proposed with this proposal with the application and that has been accepted by the council sustainability officer and this will be recommended to be secured by condition it's just relevant to say that in these they've run a brim assessment in spite of having also the beast bulk matrix presented these are some of the details of the facade treatment that I mentioned there's some features to control the entrance of the solar gain especially on this side towards north this is the main laboratory facade treatment the roof will also have a matte colour metallic finishing which is shown in the bottom right hand side following the approach the other materials used in fab as this is a key element we're helping reduce the landscaping visual impact using the sustainable design approach photo hold take will be located or PV panels PV will be proposed in the roof there are high efficient panels with some of them with a gray field applied they will be located also in the central utility buildings and the external storage as well the PVs help generate 11 and other features of the building or mainly the PVs will help generate 11% of the energy consumption of the building and the reminder will be used will be energy from the grid and with the UKPN confirming that there is it is possible to meet that demand so the design of the PVs have been carefully proposed chosen to help minimise the landscape and the visual impacts from the building however further details not only for the PVs but also further materials will be secured as proposed to be secured by condition the approach to the colouring of the PV was accepted by the council design officer landscape advisor and the condition as I said will be is recommended image from the proposed fab looking from the south-eastern corner of the site with the cup the CUB building using the same approach to the design but of a lower height considered as an agricultural outbuilding in a farmyard like setting overall the council's urban design officers of the view the proposal for a more constructive building that responds to both its setting and constraints on the site for me my presentation this slide is just to show that in terms of the wider context it is relevant to highlight the position of the application within established employment area that is surrounded by greenbelt which is mostly formed by farmland between the villages of Wittlesford and within the wider landscape of East England Chalk National character area I make reference also to the SAM mentioned before the Borough Hill Schedule Ancient Monument as well as the River Cam CWS the context of this location of is within the river Cam valley it makes it more visible from the wider area mostly in the northern arc you can see by the blue areas these are where the building the buildings are likely to be more visible and which is from the northern arc from the south it is generally filtered by existing trees not only it will be visible from the near viewpoints this is within two kilometers radius but also for more distant places such as Margaret's Mount and Magok Hills Landscaping visual impact assessment therefore supports the application including photo montages of the years 1 and 15 of the development and the proposed mitigation mitigations when being the case this is a photo montage showing one of the conclusions that although there will be a moderate impact on the buildings are going to be visible this is from A1301 and this is from the views from the national cycling route and Cambridge Road although there is a moderate impact in the immediate context the proposals positively consolidate this employment area and will be as visible as the existing warehouses those ones more visible from A1301 but also still visible in these viewpoints and understanding that this is going to be with high quality and sustainable design and being responsive still to the rural context where it's located from the distant views from Magok Hills and Magok Hills Mount the proposals will be located here you can barely see and that's exactly one of the conclusions that indeed will cause less impact if compared to the existing warehouses which are the white parts of this the photo montage from the St Margaret's Mount from the Oblisk it wouldn't be visible therefore the photo montage was not the building would not model to this photo montage Whittlesfield Road at Lee Grove Portage is and Brideaway for the Northwest the conclusion is that the building would have a moderate visual effect again this is visible here and it will be visible here from the Brideaway nevertheless it's our view that the undulated root silhouette is sympathetic to the countryside built a natural context and again the development is considered to positively consolidate the established employment area all the photo montage that are shown are representative of year 1 where mitigation measures are not fully established to help filter and reduce the visual impact from the development therefore this will be the worst case scenario if look in this way overall the council's landscape advisers satisfied that the mitigation measures will in a considerable extent mitigate the visual impacts from the proposed development and as such it is recommended that the final draft version of a landscape an ecological management plan we're going to call it LEM from now on is secured by section 106 agreement with the management management for a period of 30 years landscape and ecological mitigation plan or LEM has been developed to integrate the landscape and ecological measures including those to offset the loss within the red boundary the loss in biodiversity within the red boundary with achievement a significant offsite biodiversity gain of over 20% through the creation of important habitats clearly listed here so you see that there are proposals offsite proposals all within who are always estate, land holding so Chair could I just interrupt for a second Councillor Rippers has just had an issue just had to drop out slightly can we just pause for a minute so that we can get her back in and then maybe she could catch the rest of this item absolutely we'll hang on for a couple of minutes thank you very much chair everybody's heard that agreed can I ask if you can hear me chair yes we can thank you sorry I was just muted can hear you does that mean you haven't got a camera now then I've got a camera on can you see me okay am I allowed to still participate so I think you have missed the very end we stopped the proceedings thank you alright we can go back to the case officer then have you got more to tell us yes I'll continue to share the presentation and perhaps pick up from the lamp yeah go on carry on so as I was saying this is an image showing the mitigations that are included within the landscape ecological mitigation plan we'll call it the lamp for ease inside the site you would have a biodiversity net loss with the proposals therefore if you can sit considering all actions to mitigate not only the landscaping visual impact but also biodiversity you'll achieve effectively a gain of over 20 percent which has been noted by white left supporting the proposal as well as the council's ecology officer and natural England who in particular supports the management measures for the dental plan as triple aside all included including sorry also the woodland management plan which now is has been included within the lamp the lamp is proposed to be secured by section number six with the details to be submitted and approved by the local authority before commencement of the development in terms of the water environment we had a few comments on that therefore I thought it would be relevant to point out to councillors that there's a number of conditions to ensure pollution control measures given the existence of a source protection zone that underlaying the site England water has confirmed that no risk to portable water will take place as a result from the development the proposed development Cambridge water has confirmed that there is existing capacity to meet the water demand for the development also Cambridge water has pointed that there is a cumulative impact from the wider area considering including development within the Oxford to Cambridge arc and that's to be picked up from the company's business plan to from year 2025 onwards as proposed the level of the groundwater will be monitored through a generic quantitative risk assessment with relevant verification reports as well if necessary any risk is identified and following Cambridge water recommendation and obviously policies referring to sustainability in general the proposals include water reuse and recycling methods which with a 40% target water recovery which equates to a Bream 3 water efficiency credit which is above policy requirements for transport a transport assessment has been submitted in support of the application and has been reviewed by the county council as highways authority who have accepted the transport assessment in terms of methodology and findings the approach that was given was to consider the extended permission for the same application site for 15,000 square meters of warehouses which has not completed to date but has allowed for a level of impact and with this approach the transport assessment concludes that there will be additional 14 cycle trips and that there will be an impact in particular to the A1301 A505 junction with all parameters worsened on the northern arm of the roundabout in the PM peak the highways authority however is satisfied that this relative impact generated by the development can be mitigated with a package that includes a flare to the roundabout the northern arm of the roundabout to be secured by section 106 as well as an east west foot and cycle way also to be secured by section 106 it's outside the red boundary the application site the travel plan to be further detailed and to be secured by condition in terms of highway safety the highways authority have pointed out that part of the enhancements to the pedestrian and cyclist safety that was linked to the extended permission have not been implemented therefore this is again recommended to be reimposed as a condition to if permission is granted to the development which will then be carried out by a section to submit agreement directly with the highways authority this is just an image showing the proposed this is an indicative route to the east west route foot path and cycle way which is to be secured by section 106 the developers will have to apply for that permission and service regarding ecological matters as long as as well as all these documents following the local validation list for south Cambridgeshire will have to be submitted to support this application the timing for the application to be submitted for this route and for the routes implementation is also going to be the expected to be included on the section of six agreement I just like to point out that the route links Wittlesford Road to the west to the existing public foot path towards south and Wittlesford Church Garden which is also part of the national cycle route number 11 and go across to into Mill Lane and then Cambridge Road into Cambridge as part of the route an important feature of the proposal is in relation to the existing Borough Hill fort the schedule ancient monument and with historic England concluding that the proposal would cause a less than substantial harm to the the SAM reason to why in discussion with the historic England and the county archaeologists during the course of the application applicants have prepared a draft archaeological conservation management plan and a community outreach plan to be secured also by section 6 agreement the management and the outreach plans recommend 12 policies for the conservation and increase in access to the designated assets including the finalization of the plans such as this one I'm going to talk about in a minute but also regular review every five years of the plans the removal of the agriculture which is shaded in green which is a potential it's a risk current risk to the SAM and with a proposal of a 20 meter buffer for any physical impact to be to require written permission from historic England some of the users such as the agricultural user for example to not have such requirement but the proposal is that this is included in the one of as one of the 12 policies this the the 20 meters buffer will be for information five meters away from the closest point of the development just look at it in the basement the draft plan has been welcomed by both historic England and the county council and the archaeologist officer who are satisfied that the draft plan represent potential to permanent improvements to the assets management and conservation with corresponding increasing knowledge about the asset by the public in general the management plan and outreach plan are recommended to be secure by agreement as previously mentioned my recommendations for approval of the planning application subject to conditions outlined in my report and completion of a section 106 agreement with additional condition apologies for that I'd like to if I may request to add a condition for development to begin no later three years from permission being granted thank you chairman thank you very much members any points of clarification please yes we have councillor Milnes councillor Milnes please thank you chair so in the material material considerations we're asked to be looking at sustainable travel network and I know that there is a condition being applied for a three meter wide cycle track into across the plot across the curthledge of the so that people can cycle in but unfortunately this doesn't really connect to much of a cycle network to either the east or the south although there is a cycle way and a relatively new cycle way that going into Wittlesford village but the cycle way from going to the east and then along Cambridge road is two sides of a triangle and one of the common features of the parish responses of the three local parishes Sauston, Stapleford and Wittlesford was to ask that a cycle way went along the Aether 1301 bypass so that we've got a more immediate route into the site and if I could ask the officer to go back to transport assessment and mitigation slide we can see that there is an existing formerly metal road on the eastern field so if you could go back to that slide and perhaps if you could go to the entrance point and then go roughly north you'll see that there is a track mark on the other side on the field to the east so a little bit further so following a little bit further to your right you can thank you that's it so that's the former metal road that was the access to the site before the bypass was built and if you see it goes up towards the SSSI the councillor what are you actually asking for so what I'm asking is why when all three parishes have asked for cycle access along the 1301 was the transport assessment saying we don't need to do it when we are asking if you're asking for something which isn't actually in the application well actually it's referred to many times but it's not actually in the proposal is it what we have to do as you know perfectly well is to actually make a judgement on what is before us you know that route isn't actually a part of the proposal is it no so my question is why is it not alright let's have an answer to that then please yes chair so this is the cycle route that councillor was referring to that secured by condition this internally to the development will lead to this route which is not a cycle way it's unpaved as well and what the proposal what's been proposed is this east west footpath and cycle path with the design to be proposed with an appropriate full application for that purpose and as I said which also has to be supported by several services and other documents following the local validation list so this sorry I think the question is why haven't you used this existing arrangement is there some reason for that yes because we can only ask for mitigations which are relevant a proportionate to the development in front of us and I followed the highways authority review of the transport assessment and they have concluded that these package including this east west the travel plan and the northern arm for the roundabout at the junction at a 1301 and a 505 would be sufficient to mitigate the impact from this development okay thank you that's the answer to that one you want to come back councillor yes please because we've got 350 to 400 staff expected to be on staff on sites and so I just have a question about where they will live because that reflects on the whole sustainability of the project and what we're saying is that we want to encourage more use of sustainable transport methodologies and particularly by bike so where will those 350 to 400 people live and how will they get into the site thank you if I may clarify we have an analysis of that yes so that is modelled that's what normally is modelled by the transport assessment again that has been agreed and accepted by the highways authority and it's my view that anything further would be disproportionate to the building then against and national guidelines and legislation for that matter I understand that's the answer then isn't it yeah thank you very much chair we have councillor Roberts who's next Chris Carter has asked to speak that's it okay on this Mr Carter would you like to speak please thank you chair just to try and help on on this particular point members will have noticed from the application material that this is anticipated to be a first phase if you will of redevelopment at this site within the employment area for the applicant so there will be further opportunities to secure additional mitigation potentially proportionate to those schemes that come forward in the future in terms of that additional sort of cycling infrastructure that councillor Milnes is is describing so the case officer is correct to say that we have to consider the mitigation necessary for this particular proposal but I suppose what I'm advising the committee is that there are likely to be further opportunities as that master plan plan approach is developed and that's certainly something that as officers we're looking to engage with the applicant on in those discussions thank you thank you very much sorry chair could I I'm sorry but I'm just shouting out well you didn't ask me if I wanted to come back you wish to make another point could it be very brief please so my question was about charging points for both cars e-bikes and potentially e-scooters I think that's a good comment on that please thank you yes thank you there is provision for charging points 15 charging points this is going to be secured by condition as well as part of the low emission strategy for the development thank you very much for that councillor Roberts please thank you very much chairman and I think maybe my questions will be to Mr Carter in light of what he's actually just said rather than the presenting officer personally I'm very concerned about the claim that Cambridge water are okay with it because that's not what they are saying they are basically saying that for now they think they've got the capacity but it's it's dependable on other things happening up to 2025 now very far in the future and there is a lot of interesting information in the report about the amount of water that is going to be extracted here so I'd like a little bit of clarification on that but my real clarification today is why is this coming forward today Mr Carter has just talked about future applications in both the comments from past present and future and the Cambridge quality panel on page 40 and 41 and Linton's comments as well they actually are saying that we ought to have a master plan only a couple of times why this has been put forward today in the manner that it is because it seems to me it's part before the horse any application like this I understand they have 500 acres that they bought or more now Mr Carter has just talked about their future plans so they obviously have future plans what the applicant lately has been allowed to come with those having that knowledge an application forward without also explaining to us what their master plan actually is all about now I'm sorry let's get an answer to that then one last word I do not like virgin horses being wheeled through gates whoever they are being followed by the idea that the third we should have been having proper presentations we should have had the applicant coming into us explaining where we could have you can make that point we are only doing clarification at the moment Mr Carter could you enlighten us please thank you Chairman just on that last point there was a presentation made to the committee last year on this particular application in advance of its submission but with regard to the master planning approach that's a fair question to ask but they actually were true in their application it's nice to get fresh here why the heck Chancellor just speak quiet please and let the officer answer would you like me to address that point as well or if you would like to Mr Roberts is correct there was an initial planning application that was made and later withdrawn following that the applicant entered into a lengthy period of pre-application advice with the council and that included a presentation to members which was held whilst we were able to do so in person at South Camperture Hall with regard to the master plan approach that's a fair question to ask and we are encouraging the applicant to produce a master plan for further phases of development on this site but it's important that the committee bears in mind that this is an allocated employment site and this is an application for an employment use so it's perfectly appropriate that we should be asked to determine this application at this stage any further employment on this site we are encouraging the applicant to enter into a master plan or to develop a master plan for our consideration because there is potentially more significant impact from that scale of development but the proposal that's in front of us is in principle an employment use on an allocated employment site and there's no issue with the council considering that on its merits today in my opinion thank you chair thank you very much for that we have a list of speakers I think Councillor Bradenham Councillor Bradenham please clarification only please am I unmuted now I thought it was being very reluctant I just wanted to in fact do you know what I'm going to withdraw my comment and come back in the debate if I may lovely thank you very much for that and we have we've got further speakers Councillor Fane, Councillor Haylings and Councillor Richard Williams Councillor Fane please thank you chair my clarification relates to water resources touched on briefly by Councillor Roberts just now in particular paragraph 41 on page 36 this is a very sensitive issue of course because the river came just to the north of here right up for a significant period of last year due to over abstraction largely so the question relates to the comment by Cambridge Water therefore on-site water reuse and recycling should be a major consideration for the proposal to the extent of planning officers satisfied that request from Cambridge Water is met by this application thank you for that can you deal with that please consider that they are going beyond policy requirements of achieving credit I am satisfied with their proposal yes thank you very much for that Councillor Haylings please thank you and I think this is such a key issue which is about water scarcity and management and I'd just like to come back and the case officer a bit more clarification on Councillor Fane's question which is in the conditions so if we pick up the paragraph that Councillor Fane has just mentioned which is specifically and it's mentioned both on page 36 and on 56 which is specifically around reuse and recycling now I also recognise that they've gone beyond policy in terms of the 40% and the three credits for the Breen but when we look at the condition in the bespoke sustainability assessment on page 82 I'd just like to ask because as I understand in your slide you said that they had the Breen but they're not going to use Breen it's equivalent to Breen because they're using their bespoke sustainability assessment so it's not Breen so therefore in the comments it was therefore make sure that in the condition this is really nailed down because it's not Breen and it does say in the conditions specification shall demonstrate the achievement of a minimum of three credits equivalent I would like to see that we can is it possible to explicitly mention the reuse and recycling because it mentions rainwater and reuse of pure water but it doesn't mention the reuse and recycling as mentioned in the prior comments is that possible for the reason why that's not right thank you I don't see why it couldn't be inserted in here I do believe my colleague Emma Davis is with us in the meeting I'm not sure whether she would like to add anything to that point Emma Davis if I may chair yes I think we could add some wording with reference to water reuse and recovery into the condition wording and the specification that they will need to submit will set out the approach it will basically be the same sort of information that would be submitted to the BRE for full certification but yeah we can get some wording to add to that condition okay thank you very much one more point just on that same just to felt embraces if we are going this is that in the generic quantitative resist assessment is the second condition which is related to this which is around the fact that as Roberts mentioned we won't get the Cambridge water reassessment until 2022 or 2025 so therefore we do this one in the comments from in the report the recommendation is that's done and includes natural England because it's the cumulative effect of water abstraction and the impact on the ecological system can we include explicitly that natural England would be part of that because they're not and that's on page page 8 no no that's on page 74 I'm looking at the wording of the condition councillor if that helps condition 6 yes condition 6 could we include natural England as part of that as is mentioned in the report I don't see any problem with including they will be consulted whenever the documentation is submitted to us as local planning authority we'll consult with natural England but I can explicitly say that on the wording and can you come back to us at the end then so that we can decide whether or not we want a beefed up condition because we will have to vote on it at some point okay councillor more speakers councillor Richard Williams please thank you very much chair I've got two points of clarification the first relates to the updated documents we were sent so the update to the trigger agreed by highways authority paragraph 195 this refers to the east west cycle and book it seems this has been to my mind weakened a little bit we've now got this two stage trigger process instead of it being a condition this is implemented prior to occupation the first condition talks reasonable endeavours to secure consent within 12 months but of course that's not guaranteed so I was wondering if the opposite can clarify why precisely that's been changed and then to my mind I'm weakened somewhat the second point of clarification is perhaps more straightforward and that refers to the fuel storage tanks of page 142 sorry paragraph 142 143 I know that there are conditions attached to that but I was wondering if the opposite could just clarify for me the information that had been received in a little bit more detail convince the officers that the concerns that were initially raised about the fuel tanks being below the water level could be satisfactorily addressed so a bit more information on that would be very helpful thank you thank you councillor we have initiated discussions about the implementation of east west route with the highways authority so along the process of the assessing the application it it was clear then that further service could be carried out to specifically detail accurately detail the design and the tracing of that route and therefore an application I saw that it would need to be submitted to the council for approval I'm sorry if I didn't record that properly but this has been agreed with the highway authority and the definitive map team as they were requesting also that the maintaining the number of issues that needs to be further discussed with the highways authority as well in terms of maintenance of that route if it's to be publicly accessible that's why you see the change on the two phase trigger on the other point about the fuel storage tanks this is being also along the process in assessing the application there's been further discussed with environment agency so they are the ones carefully looking into any risk to potential or the main ones I should say statutory consultees looking into the risk to pollution for controlled waters the underlay in the site and technical note has been provided by the applicants at a later stage which then again has been reviewed not only by environment agency but also the local fleet flood authority and the council's sustainable drainage engineer but mostly the environment agency satisfied that to this stage the information demonstrates that any potential risks could be controlled however they would like to see further detail as if permission is granted as the development progresses OK thank you any more speakers I do have public speakers so we'd like to get on with that soon I think was wanted to come back Councillor Bradlin have you found another question thank you chairman a number of my questions have been addressed by others which is useful but I too was worried about that storage tank and I which is for diesel fuel for their backup generator and I and indeed spokespeople from villages ask the question why why does it have to be underground because I just wanted to ask I know you've just said that it's been resolved to the satisfaction of the water authority but did anybody ask whether it could be stored above ground because most places would have a bonded storage to ensure that the any potential overflow didn't go into the ground and particularly as this is chalk catchment and a source of water for drinking water I think we've got the point sorry the other thing I wanted to ask was where does this site sit relative to the nine wells springs because they are just over the railway to the north aren't they I'm sorry apologies I'm not sure I can respond that last question but I can open a map if that that's useful following the first bit then please further clarification yes in terms of the fewer storage I cannot characterize all the technical details but we have arranged the meeting with the engineers both from the applicant side and also from the environment agency this is a specific team within the agency to look into that the technical note that has been provided by the applicant included this is one of the requirements in the first consultation response from environment agency sorry rated by second including and given that we've arranged a final meeting to ensure that the environment agency was satisfied with all alternatives being studied by the applicant so indeed they have studied all the alternatives to justified the choice for the underground tanks the location of the tanks underground I trust the environment agency view on that and I'm following they removed their objection based on that technical note and meeting for the meetings and I am satisfied that this has been addressed a note is also important that Anglin water has also reviewed the development in terms of the risk to that source for public consumption and has stated in their response that there is no risk from the proposals at this point all right thank you very much for that okay the other one can I'm sorry yeah do you want me to come back to that later if you could find something Councillor Daunton is the last on the list all right there's an answer on the chat Councillor Bairdnon um thank you um chairman my question's been answered oh good excellent thank you very much then in that case I will move on to public speakers um um and I is Mr Koopmans with us please is representing the applicant I am thank you chairman we'd like to put your can you hear me yeah thank you very much Mr Koopmans um excellent thank you it's only a three minutes I realize that thank you I would you when you're ready then I'll let you know in my three minutes thank you my name is Hank Koopmans and I'm the CEO of Huawei Technologies Research and Development UK I've lived and worked in this area for more than 30 years so the exciting plans are also relevant to me on a personal level as well as professionally I'm delighted to be at this meeting this morning to represent Huawei and present and brief our application to bring to life the former Spice's site with a state of the art research and development facility along with new office space Huawei is a long-term major investor and partner for the UK for more than 20 years we have invested and operated in the UK providing 3G, 4G and now 5G products and we plan on continuing to do so for many years to come we currently employ 1,600 people in the UK across 20 UK offices it's our intention to generate several hundred jobs through the creation of our proposed R&D center in Sausten at the council designated employment site this will be a mix of new jobs and colleagues relocating to the site bringing with it a further boost to the local economy we're delighted the application has been recommended for approval we've taken a great deal of time to gaze with the community including parish councils through face-to-face briefings a public exhibition and a dedicated website and many of the proposed changes to the application originated from our public consultation for example the transport assessment details the proposed east-west pedestrian cycle path has just discussed and the fact that this will be publicly accessible the application has been carefully considered for transport, ecology heritage, visual impact, noise and air quality issues as explained by the case officer and again the council officers are content with the plans the planning officers have also noted as you heard earlier that it would qualify for Bream and three Bream water efficiency credits which is well above the policy requirements furthermore following discussions with officers over our earlier withdrawn application we have addressed the comments received of the visual impact and biodiversity and ecology through an enhanced landscape and ecology management plan which as a report before you state will add benefits to the offsite biodiversity gains of important habitats in addition we will continue to work with the community and the county historic environment team and also welcome their recommendations for section 106 to include long-term management and conservation plan for the Iron Age hillfort on the site we will always listen to feedback and ideas for improvement and such as future cycle paths and our provision for future charging points and we welcome the officers report for recommendation and also the additional conditions that was just discussed particularly on the water resources I'd like to clarify that our proposal does include does not include any direct abstraction of water just for clarification but we are supportive of the beefed up condition as just discussed earlier on and described by the chair thank you right thank you very much any points of clarification members yes from councillor Milnes and just to clarify to councillor Cuthcart chair that I don't think you'd be able to make a question no I think he was just joining the meeting okay so councillor Milnes and then councillor Roberts it's a thank you to the applicant for mentioning the alternative cycle routes as he picked up on that was an issue for the local Irishers but I didn't get an answer from the officer to a specific question which was where the employees are likely to live where will they be coming from unless this is back to my desire to ensure that we maximise sustainable motor transport thank you all right thank you I'm Mr Coogman having a response I was addressing the councillor the officer well as I just said we're very happy to engage when we look at the future with you and other parish councillors being at future cycle paths and future improvements to the entire site it was indeed as the case I've explained not part of this application but definitely we definitely engage with a community for all future improvements and developments so also this question I was asking specifically was where are the employees likely to live so we've got 300 or 400 new employees coming to the site where will they be coming from I can't guarantee that existing employees will all move to the site but we think we're very happy with our current employees and they're happy to work with us so we assume that of the current employees maybe about several hundred jobs will be created in fact I will jump to some information and I had here I'm happy to take this information later on in a meeting if that's going to help yeah I mean where those new employees of course will live yeah that's difficult for us to say we want to create local jobs of course jobs for local people it's councillor Roberts thank you chairman sorry just before councillor Roberts speaks it's Chris Carter sorry have we still got councillor bachelor with us yeah I'm just back again I did drop out there for a few minutes councillor Roberts councillor Roberts please thank you chairman to the applicants agent you also as Mr Carter earlier speak about your future plans and I've got your delightful propaganda and I would like to know where is your master plan and you are talking about future support of this area you've been in it for all these years however whatever you call them are talking about being here for the long term future you have got 500 odd acres of land where is your master plan okay in short first of all on the 500 acres thank you for your question as you heard in the introduction most of that is green belt and as the current application also shows we have no intention to build on the green belt there is plenty for us to build on the brown field side in terms of the future development that we will do of course we will work closely together with all the stakeholders on what that will to be we don't want this to be a bigger presence for Huawei innovation if I just may speak from an R&D perspective it is through collaboration and we want this to be a facility for Cambridge and for the UK and in that respect the local team the UK team of course is in close discussion with the company how we would like to see that to go that forward and we will develop that into a master plan as soon as we can and as soon as we can as soon as we can I do not believe that a multi international business like yours can that's what's in front of you you may not come in the future there is if you are just as satisfied you have a vote later ok, thank you very much any other comments Councillor Bradenham. Thank you. Councillor Bradenham, please. Good. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr Kumpas. I just wanted to ask you, you mentioned in your explanation of when you were answering Councillor Milne's response about where staff were likely to come from. You mentioned staff coming from another site. Are you actually, as I recall, you have a site in Cambridge, do you not? Are you planning to, sorry, can you explain, do you have a site already in Cambridge? And if so, how many people are currently employed there? And if so, what proportion of those people, you know, are you planning to move wholesale to this new site or will you leave your site in Cambridge? As far as this planning, the specific development that we're looking at here, the technology involved. We are a team from Ipswich, actually, that will move across. We hope that most of them will move across, and that would mean that looking at the numbers in front of you, we would create about 200 additional new jobs. We also have a site in Cambridge, that's correct. That's on the Science Park, but that's not part of this current application. Okay. Thank you for that explanation. Thank you. Yeah. Right. I'm going to come in, Chair, which is Councillor Heather Williams. Oh, a late entry again. Right. Okay. Councillor Heather Williams. I thought I said something wrong before, Chairman. Sorry. It's around these employment figures. I just want to make sure because there's been several questions on it. So what we're saying, you're saying is that this is essentially a relocation from Ipswich, which will mean that there's about 200 people that are moving jobs from Ipswich, but you don't know what proportion of them will physically move, so there's potential commuting from wherever they currently live. I suppose so the question is, how many people within the 35 mile radius of the site do you think will actually be living within the 35 mile of the new site, and how many jobs will there be additional for local people, if that makes sense for them relocated jobs? And I feel that might help all of us that are asking questions around employment. So how many people will be living within the go to work area, the 35 miles? How many relocating and how many extra jobs for local people currently here? Thank you. Yep. Sure. So just on the number of new jobs, so that's clear. I mean, clearly, I can't guarantee that every current member will come with us, but we hope that will be more or less everybody and that means a creation of an additional 200 new jobs to operate the site will require 367 jobs. In terms of where will they live with respect to your 35, we would very much like everybody to live locally. We have already worked with officers and continue to work on how we can create a travel plan for sustainable travel and traffic. And yes, just like you, we've all been working from home and we try to see if part of that could be continued into the future and minimize as much as we can any traffic. Clearly, we can't force people to move within the 35k radius, but we will encourage people, of course, to live close, to work and to minimize long journeys. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. I think that's no. Chair, there is Councillor Braden-Mazaf for further clarification. We do need to get on, so please be quick. I will. Thank you, Chairman. I wanted to ask Mr Koopmans, has the travel plan been drawn up on the basis of the information of plus 200 jobs or has it been drawn up on the basis of the 367 jobs which he said were required to operate the plant? I don't know all the details, but the whole travel plan has taken into account all people on the side that takes the entire operation on the side. Thank you because I hadn't appreciated it was 367 to operate. I thought it was plus 200, but thank you. All right. Very much. All right. Thank you very much, Mr Koopmans. Thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Thank you. If we can move on to the parish council representatives, then please. I have a representative from Staple for the parish council, councillors, people. Are you with us? Are you? Yes, it's Katel. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Good. Thank you. Right. In terms of what I've been hearing, I would first of all like to say that the local councils have had many presentations which have been very informative and the company have been very open in the discussions that they have had with the parish councils, which is a positive about them. The problem is that on every consultation there has been, they have ensured us that the majority of the people who are working there will live close enough to be able to cycle into the site. And therefore, if they are close enough to cycle into the site, my question is why have they not included cycle paths that would enable that connectivity from the local environment? The other thing is, if they're all going to cycle into the site, why do we need so many car park spaces? And I'm really confused as to what is actually being presented here, because it does not meet with the consultations that we have had in the local villages. Can I just clarify, we've still got our chairman, so he appears to have frozen and dropped off of my screen. Yep, let me try and contact him to get him back. I'm sorry, Petra, what we'll do, Barbara, is make sure that you have your time. Thank you. I'm happy to second to the chairman if it's required. It's OK, I'm back again. Sorry, lost contact there again. We need some new technology somewhere. I'm sorry, Mrs. Councillor Kettle, are you with us now? I am. Do you want me to repeat what I said? I think I'm probably barred from voting anyway, since this is the second time I've dropped out of it. No, we've paused. So do press on. OK, well, I will begin again, because it was quite short and sweet. I wanted to thank the company for the many presentations that they have given to us as the local villages and local communities, which have been very clear and have been very helpful. But in every consultation there has been, they have made the point that their employees that are coming will be local and will be cycling. Now Ipswich is not cyclable from nor the environments around Ipswich. There are two local stations, one of which is at Great Shelford, one of which is at Wittlesford. If people are coming across, they need to get across either by car or by train. And they need to link in with cycle paths, which we have been assured would be there. They promised there would be connectivity to the local villages, for the local people to be able to be employed. They instead are building several car park spaces. I didn't catch the number, but it seemed to be quite a lot of car park spaces. And it doesn't seem that cycling is now what they are actually putting forward. I know you said it's not part of this, but it was part of all their consultations. And therefore I'd like to know why it has dropped off the Richter scale. Right, thank you very much for that. Members, any points of clarification you'd like to raise? No, none, Chair. None. Well, thank you very much for that. Thank you. We have a statement from Little Shelford Parish Council, which Mr Carter is going to read to us. Mr Carter. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'll read this verbatim. Whilst supporting the principle of the redevelopment of the former spices site, the parish council object to the current proposals on the following grounds. Firstly, insufficient protected species survey data provided. Whilst acknowledging this work is in progress to accord with BS42020, all survey information should be available prior to determination. The PEA was undertaken in February and ruled out broad nesting bird surveys and invertebrate surveys. Given the mosaic of semi-natural pioneering habitats present within the development footprint, this decision requires clarification as brownfield sites can include open mosaic habitats of importance to scarce invertebrates and extensive scrub areas are increasingly important for declining farmland and woodland birds, including nightingale, turtle dove, spotted flycatcher or former breeders in the surrounding area. Second point, no biodiversity offsetting baseline provided or assessment as to how the proposal would deliver a minimum 10% mandatory net divide of SD gain. The proposed loss of habitats is significant on a local scale. The wider campus vision has potential to increase the value of existing habitats across the land holding. However, without an approved site-wide master plan, there is a danger that individual lot planning applications will come forward and not realise this potential. The ecological surveys, sorry, this is the third point. The ecological surveys have not included the river and therefore not assessed the impact of the proposed riverside walk on existing habitats and species. Similarly, there are loose suggestions of public access to the lake, but no detail as to how this might function and impact on the existing ecology. Whilst supporting the proposed principle of pedestrian and cycle access from Wittlesford Road, Riverside Walk and Lake, these are effectively offsite of the proposed development and it's not clear if their provision is binding or the level of proposed upgrading, for instance, will lighting be proposed in what is currently a dark river corridor? Next point, lack of information on proposed woodland management of the retained tree belt relied upon for screening. The Arbora Culture Report states that the woodland is dominated by ash, the majority of which may succumb to ash dieback and therefore requires additional planting to retain a visual screen to the river valley. The tree line is relied upon for screening, but the proposed exhaust stacks appear to be significantly higher than this feature. Next point, proposed use of horse chestnut in the landscaping scheme. This species suffers from a host of pathogens and are unlikely to establish and mature into the desired specimen trees. A better alternative species should be chosen. And finally, concept of positioning sports pitches along the river valley. This is not consistent with a floodplain landscape and raises issue of associated infrastructure, including flood lighting. Thank you. Chair. Yeah, looks as though our chair has gone AWOL again. I think he's frozen, hasn't he? There's this picture, Lance. I have a matter of clarification around some procedural matter. If I can raise that with you, Pippa, the Spice Chair. I was going to just wait until we had these speakers and I was probably going to raise exactly the same one, Heather. If Councillor Catel is still here, I'm not sure if we asked if she had the permission to speak in part of the parish council, but it could be. I might not have heard it for technical reasons. Given the importance of the site, I think we need to make sure that box is most thoroughly ticked. Absolutely, thank you. Have we got? Yes, I'm still here. No, sorry. Sorry, Councillor. Just one moment. I'm just checking if the chair is still with us. He doesn't appear to be. Would you like to take a break while I can attempt to reconnect the chair? Yes, I think that would be important. We could, Joan, for now. I agree. Let's just wait until he's back online. Do you wish me to clarify at this point? Yes, please. Yes, I am speaking for Stapleford Parish Council. And you have authority, they've given you the authority to speak for them. Yes, I am a councillor on Stapleford Parish Council. Yeah. Thank you, Barbara. Aaron, how are we? Hi, Councillor Hillen. So I'm just on the phone to him now. He's attempting to reconnect as we speak. Did you catch that? Yes, I did. Thank you. Yes, it's, Councillor, I was going to say that. Thank you. We've just had a note. Stephen Reed, who is our legal support. Stephen, would you just like to mention your comment and address that to Councillor Kettle, as well? Councillor Kettle, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Just for the record, we need you to confirm that you have the authority from your Parish Council to speak on their behalf today. The fact that you are a member of the Parish Council of itself does not give you that authority. I have the permission of the Parish Council to make the comment today. That's great. I've been agreed by the Parish Council. And in three copies, thank you very much. Sorry, everybody, for raising that, but I think we all want to make sure that we dot the i's and cross the t's. Absolutely, no problem. Back in. Are you back in, Chair? Hang on. Yes, yeah, I'm with you again. Although, I mean, obviously my connection's very unreliable. It was seen at the moment, so I do stand by Vice-Chair to take the reins. Where are we now then? Well, we've just had the confirmation from Councillor Kettle that she does have the authority from the Parish Council to speak on their behalf. We've obviously just had the reading out from Parish Council of Little Shelford. And the question is now whether we continue or there is a break for lunch or what you're planning around that. Perhaps we could also just confirm, Chair, if you don't drop off for any moment going forward, are you still able to vote or not at the moment? What's your... I think I'm not able to vote because I've actually missed some of the elements. So I won't vote on this, but I mean, I'll keep soldiering on as long as I've got the connection, if that's all right. We haven't quite finished the public speaking because I just need to check with Councillor Milne's as the local member, whether he would like to speak now or is reserving his comments for the debate. Thank you, Chair. I'll reserve my comments for later in the debate. In fact, I'll leave them to the end of the debate. Debate, debate. That's absolutely fine. All right, then. That means we can move on to the debate then. And do we have any speakers? So, no, Chair. So we're just going to keep going. I think everyone wants to know in terms of timing. Here you go. I anticipated stopping for lunch about 1.30, because hopefully we're all at the end of this item. Sorry, Chairman, to jump in, but I would think that it's quarter to 1 now. We've finished off the representations. I would have thought, let's break now for three quarts of an hour at maximum, maybe only half an hour, have lunch and then come back. I think it's going to be... Is that what you want to do, members? Just nod if you want to take a break. I'm happy either way. OK, then. Chairman, it might give your internet connection time to recover a bit. Did it work like that? Anyone? All right, thank you. It might even make us feel less busy after lunch. All right, let's be clear. So we are taking a break now, 30 minutes, let's say. So we should be back 20 past 1. OK, is that it? Thank you, Chair. You're now live again. Thank you. Welcome back to South Cams District Council Planning Committee. We've just had the public speakers for the Item 6 at Thorston. We're now moving to the debate. So would somebody like to kick off, please? Yeah, Chairman. Yes, please. I'm advised that I should make it known that my husband, Martin Daunton, is a commissioner for Historic England. All right, OK, thank you very much. I'm sure Mr. Senior has noted that. Good. We've got any speakers? Yes, Chair. Councillor Bradman. All right, Councillor Bradman, please. Just before you start that, given the the erratic nature of my internet, I'm going to turn my camera off for the time being to preserve some juice. Thank you, Chairman. So picking up from the point that Councillor Roberts made, and in fact, I was going to make earlier on, but deferred to the debate. I'm very concerned about the water supply. I appreciate that the applicant pointed out they are not abstracting on the site. They're simply taking water from the public network. But we have been advised in various locations that the use of water is likely to increase in future. So referring first to page 35, paragraph 41, Cambridge Water has no objection, and as Councillor Roberts pointed out, but notes that Cambridge Water's current management plan indicates it would be able to accommodate the proposed demand now. However, maintaining this condition is dependent on Cambridge Water supply side options for 2025. That's only five years from now. They're being completed as planned and meeting Cambridge Water's management commitments. And the final plan for that, so the determination of whether they have got adequacy of supply, we won't know until 2023 when they publish that plan. The second thing is that Cambridge Past, Present, and Future have raised at paragraph 62 on page 40 and 41 their concerns about the high volume of water required by the development and the lack of clarity about the available water supply to meet the development's requirements and the incongruence between the proposal for a water-intensive factory and the location in the designated water-stressed area and the concerns about that for the surrounding, well, both for the local wildlife sites, in the general sense, but also the ambient water table. And then further, we go on to page 53, which is Natural Environment's Concern. Natural Environment. Sorry, I think this is the officer's report, but under the heading Natural Environment. And at paragraph 122 on page 53, the ecological impact assessment highlights the increases in extraction rates, generally, and changes to the water table could cause a deterioration in the habitats for which the area is designated. So even if the site itself doesn't abstract directly from the water table, the fact that they use this process uses a lot of water. And I think I'm not quite sure. And I wanted to sort of ask, what is the process that uses a lot of water? But I think it's the air conditioning process. And then finally, the point that Councillor Halings picked up in the generic quantitative risk assessment, there's obviously a recognition of the risk to control waters. And obviously, that is trying to make sure that any use of water on the site is being very closely monitored. But I am worried about this, because the concern is that this catchment is quite fragile, and Councillor Fain is right. The river here did dry up at one point because there was no water in the aquifer to support the stream flowing over the top. And if people thought I was asking a strange question about Ninewells, people will be familiar with the Ninewells springs that are to the north of the hill, which faces the biomedical campus site. But if you remember, chalk in an anticline will also have a spring line on the other side. And this is the other side. That's what Donford Fenn is. It's the other side of the clay cap, which allows the water to come to the surface. And I'm really concerned that we are going to be damaging the water table in this area indirectly by the abstraction of a lot of water. So I sort of maybe want some clarification from the officer about the quantities of water that are likely to be used and how soon we can expect Cambridge water to be clearer about whether they can supply it or not. Is that possible? We have aired this quite a bit. Don't forget, what we're doing is deciding the planning application before us. The water authorities have accepted their responsibilities, and they have a legal obligation to actually deliver what they say they're going to deliver. So I'm not sure that this actually goes anywhere. We will consult with Mr. Carter, if you like, and see what his view is. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, you're absolutely right, as members will be familiar with officers often saying, when we have responses from our statutory consultees which say that either mitigation can be provided or that they are comfortable with the impacts that would result from a scheme, in planning terms, as planning officers, that is sufficient for us to make the recommendation that you have in front of you. I understand the broader concerns that Councillor Bradenham raises, of course, but those are broader issues than just this site. And so we have to rely on the advice that we're given by the specialists in those areas who have statutory duties of their own to meet. And that if they're saying that this can be adequately dealt with, then we should rely on that. Thank you. All right, thank you very much for that. I think that's quite clear. More speakers? We have Councillor Fein, then Roberts, more after that. OK, Councillor Fein, please. Thank you, Chair. Well, while I do share Councillor Bradenham's concerns about water abstraction, I am satisfied by what was said earlier and the explanation that's just being given to us by Mr. Carter, that we, this is no doubt an issue that we will come back to in the future when reports are presented in 23 and decisions taken in 25, but that is not a matter we can look at further today. The turning to the issue specifically identified, there has been concerns about the appearance in the landscape, particularly from CPPF in their written submission. I am satisfied that due to the design, the officers are right to say that the landscape impact will actually be less than the current buildings. And specifically, the assurances in relation to paragraph 7 and 107 about the views from may go down, which is, of course, the highest point locally. The question of cycleways, again, I share Councillor Milne's concerns on that as raised by Stapleford Parish Council, but that is clearly something that there will be scope to come back to in the future. What we have before us in this application does set out some east-west cycleways, some significant improvements to what is there at the moment. Similarly, the biodiversity concerns, which were set out by Little Shelford in their written submission, I think that we have to be satisfied by the response of the statutory consultees, the fact that the 10% is more than met, well exceeded. And again, consider that as a broader issue for the landholding as a whole rather than for this site. This particular site is not in the green belt. It is in the existing employment area, the EEB, as set out in paragraph 70. And I think that at any time this number of jobs on a site that has been sadly neglected for some years is a crucial consideration. At the current moment, as we seem to be entering this, may not be technically a planning consideration, but as we seem to be entering possibly the deepest recession for many years, the question of nearly 400 jobs has to be taken very seriously. And ultimately, I think that the innovative design of this building, and I can't judge the technical requirements, that is a matter for others, but the innovative design does respect the location as set out by officers at paragraph 78. So my inclination will be to approve this application. Thank you very much. And the next speaker is... Councillor Robert. Is that William? Oh, Councillor Roberts, yes, please. Thank you very much, Chairman. My view remains the same, that this is premature and it shouldn't have been brought forward to us today. I think there are far too many unanswered questions. Anybody who knows this area at all, this side of Cambridge and our aquifer, knows what is happening at the moment. In the last something like 10 weeks, we've had one day of rain. The streams are dry. There is a stream at the bottom of the field by and by house here. It is completely dry. It is completely dry. That is common to around here. And it's quite clear in this report that this is going to take abstract huge amounts of water. Now, Southcams, not that I'm always 100% on board with it, but we make a lot about the climate change, et cetera. And I think that this is one of the effects that we can see is happening. And we are now talking about this application taking huge amounts of water out of what we are already struggling with. And I think I do not think that Cambridge Water is saying that everything is fine. They are certainly putting warning signs in there and indicating to us that it's not guaranteed that there is going to be a supply. It's going to be upon lots of different inputs here. Also, again, I go back to the page 41 where the Cambridge Quality Panel made it quite clear that they are of the opinion it should have a master plan. It should have a master plan. There is an awful lot more around here. We've been told that there are future plans here. What about the impact on travel? What about the impact on housing? This area is being like everywhere around Southcams pushed and pushed and pushed. We have no real plans to accommodate this sort of growth and that this business is likely to be bringing. They're not going to go to Northsville to live. They're going to be pressing and pressing around here for the beautiful valleys that we've got, the Hayden Valley where there are ambitions to put 8,000 houses. That is going to be pressed and pressed and pressed. There are too many things here that are not being considered and we're not actually looking at the bigger picture. And in my opinion, it's foolish to go along in this way. The underwater diesel containment in this area with the type of aquifer that we have, I don't think it's the recipe for the disaster. And now again, why is this being pressed so fast with us? Now, I tell you what Councillor Fain has just said about employment, we all know that this country, like the rest of the European Union, is going to be in dire situations because of the pandemic that we're just going through. So that's going to be worldwide. It's not just going to be in this country. We're going to have to grasp the metal and do something, but I don't honestly believe that this particular application is going to make really that much difference to it because it's going to be over years to come and by then, we may have this country in the government might have got it's acting to get into gear and actually be making sure that we are producing again. But I'm really unhappy about this. I would move a deferment because I think it's premature. I don't see what the hurry is here. And I think the hurry is because then we don't get all the information. It's a corrosion horse and corrosion horses are highly dangerous beasts. And I don't think we're familiar with it. Well, we'll probably get too poetic. Are you actually proposing a deferral? I am, yes. Do you have a second of that? Would anybody second the proposed offer? I will second a deferral, Chairman. So, Williams, okay. Do you want to speak to that? I will. My reason for deferral is that I think we do have a lot of unanswered questions. That's been clear today so far. My particular concern is around the cycle ways issue. And we've heard the discrepancies that the parish council have had with what they have had it put in front of them. We've heard not from the local member in the debate yet, but from the line of questioning about the issues around the cycle ways. So for my, and I'm looking on page 25 at the key material considerations. One of those is sustainable design and construction, about being sustainable employment, improvements to sustainable travel network. And I think that there has been enough concerns raised around that and some of the water issues, although I'm not going to pretend to be a water expert. So I'm coming at this more from the cycle net and sustainable travel network perspective. That I think it does need to be taken seriously because this is potentially a lot of jobs in this area, but we need to get it right. And therefore I think deferral, which would perhaps enable more of this work to be done and the answers of the committee given, particularly around cycling, would give that a chance and a fair chance. So I think deferral is sensible so we can have the most information when determining what is a controversial applications. There's no getting away from that and what potentially could have a positive outcome. If we get it right or if we rush in today, we could get it wrong. And I feel that there's too many unanswered questions and also around the master plan. I mean, that would be nice to see, but we'll see. So then my reasons, Chairman. Bye, okay. Mr. Carter would like to speak. Okay, Mr. Carter, please. Thank you, Chair. Just with regard to the proposal for a deferment, we'd need to be clear what it is that the committee would like officers to do during that deferment. We have an application in front of us which is supported by statutory consultees and we're talking about this application. We're not talking about things that may or may not come in the future, although we're aware obviously that the applicant is looking to produce a master plan for further phases of development on this site. So we need to be clear what it is about this application in front of us that we would like further work to be done on. In terms of the cycleways and the sustainable transport network, I would just comment that the requirements for this application need to be proportionate to this application. As I mentioned when I spoke earlier, as and when master plan proposals come forward, there is further opportunity for us to secure additional mitigation at that point. Members will be aware of the Greater Cambridge Partnerships Greenways project which includes cycle connectivity in this area. And there is potential if further applications come forward on this site for contributions to be linked to those projects. Just on the water issues again, we have no objection from the relevant statutory consultees in this area. So if we're deferring for more information on water issues related to this specific application, we would be going back to them asking for further comment. We need to be clear about what it is that we're not happy with in their existing commentary that they've provided. Thank you, Chair. All right, thank you very much. Chairman, if I could make a quick comment. What's the message that you want to provide then? What I would hope is... Yeah, Councillor. What I would say is what I would hope what would happen between now and the deferred is actually like on other applications, we would have a briefing for the things that you've just mentioned in relation to the GCP and everything else. I should read what that has to have to make in this decision. Chair, we've got Councillor Mills wants to speak to the deferment option. Motion. Okay, Councillor Mills, please. Just very briefly, Chair, thank you. I don't support this deferment. I'll speak later about the issues that I raised in terms of the sustainable traffic network, transport network. But I don't believe that there's anything that we've heard so far today that justifies deferments with the possibility of that we get an appeal on non-determination. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. So, Councillor Richard Williams to the deferment, Chair. I don't want to drag this out too long because I think we can deal with this very swiftly with a vote. But Councillor Richard Williams, you want to make a comment? I'll be very brief. Just to say on the transport sustainability point, which I think is an important point, I think the question of proportionality is relevant to this application. I don't think it necessarily has to be the committee commenting on some future application. If we don't think the transport plans are sustainable in the context of this application, then I would say that it's perfectly valid grown to the request for the discussion. Thank you. Right, thank you very much. Now I'm going to go to a vote then. I will have a roll call. Right, so the proposal is to defer for the arguments that Councillor Williams and Councillor Roberts have made and Councillor Richard Williams as well. So if you're in favour of deferral, you vote for. If you're against, you're against. And if you want to abstain, you abstain. So can I have Councillor Bradlund, please? On the grounds that the presenting officer explained that what had been offered was proportionate and anything else was disproportionate, I will vote against deferment. Okay, thank you. Councillor Dorbenton, please. Yes, I'll be voting against deferment. Against. Councillor Fein. Against deferment. Yes, Councillor Halings. Against deferment. Councillor Milnes. Against. Thank you. Councillor Ripeth. Against. Councillor Roberts. Or. Or. Councillor Heather Williams. Or. Or. Councillor Wright. Against. Against. Councillor Richard Williams. Or. Or. And my vote is against. So the outcome of the deferral vote is three, four, and eight against the deferral forms. We proceed now on to continue the debate. Can I speak up, please? Yes, I have both Councillor Heather Williams and Councillor Richard Williams had requested. So I just want to clarify, do they want to, on their original points and not on the deferral? So who's next, Heather? Councillor Heather Williams, if she wants to speak. Do you want to, do you have further comments, Councillor Williams? I think that it's a shame about the way the deferral went. My comments were that I was going to discuss for the rest of the debate, particularly what the local member had to say around the Sustainable Travel Network, because that is something that is concerning me at this time. I'm still on the phone, though I don't, this time I'm not sure how I will vote. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Councillor Richard Williams. Richard Williams, yeah. Thank you very much. Yes, I just really wanted to make a few comments to support what I think Councillor Milton said. Previously, in terms of the Sustainable Transport issue, obviously it's important that we bring employment to the air. I know that's a direct concern here, but I don't think anyone underestimates that. But I think there is a lot of employment planned on this site in this phase, and there is no improvement to Sustainable Transport corridors that actually link to settlements where workers may live, or indeed particularly enhances links to travel hubs, like Wittlesburg Station, where people may live. So connectivity to Cambridge, I think again is an important issue which isn't addressed here and would be with that cycle path of the A1301. I know the Greenway is in the background to all of this, but I would have liked to have seen more specific proposals on that basis, given that substantial employment is planned, and people aren't going to have to get there, and it would be better if we had sustainable transport options in place from the start, rather than at some other stage in the future. And I would just, as my final point, just note again that this has been a concern of the local parish councils, and I think they're quite right to raise that concern. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. We have Councillor Rippus. Councillor Rippus, please. Really to say I'm finding the balance of this quite tricky at the minute, and I realise quite importantly, there's roughly 400 jobs here. However, 200 of those are relocation as has been described from Ipswich, and I know the applicant said he was hoping that the majority of those people would relocate into the area, but we do have to bear in mind how feasible that is, and there might be quite a few car trips coming into the site because of housing costs being here are far higher, and okay, there's an extra 167 jobs available, but I did feel that the question's really been answered on how those people get to work and where they live, but on the other hand, these are key jobs and plenty of people going forward who might well apply for them. I'm finding it extremely difficult to balance out those two things. We have Councillor Rippus. Councillor Wright. Now, Councillor Wright, please. Chairman, having read the report and listened to what's been said, it is a job to find a material planning reason for refusal on this application, very, very hard, and there's been concerns about the transport which aren't backed up by the Highways Authority. The applicant has said that it can be dealt with, and the cats officers said it can be dealt with in the future and should be. And that's subject to future negotiations. So, I feel without a material planning reason for refusal, we should move forward to a vote on this, and soon, please. Thank you. Doing my best, Councillor. Councillor Fain. Councillor Fain. Councillor Fain, did you want to get on to Walter again? No, I wanted to keep up it, which is good. You're muted. I've lost you. I was correctly quoted as saying that the river came and dried up. That was, of course, wrong of me. It had stopped flowing at the critical point, but as of three days ago, despite the dry period, it is flowing again at the Weir at Stapleford Bridge. Okay, thank you very much for that. Councillor Milnes would want to speak at the end. I'll let you have the last word, Councillor Milnes. So, I'll just make a comment before we proceed to that. As far as I'm concerned, this looks like an excellent use of a brownfield site. It's fully in compliance with our local plan. There's clear and significant benefits for the local area and wider, particularly in terms of improvements to infrastructure, the creation of jobs, and the protection of landscape. I will certainly be voting in favour of this. So, Councillor Milnes, please. Sorry, there was also Councillor Daunton and myself before you came in. Was there? Yeah, sorry. Right, they've only just appeared though, okay. All right, Councillor Hayling, please. Yes, and I'd just like to echo what Councillor Wright has said as well, and I've been listening very, very carefully to some of the concerns that have been raised. I raised the water issue early on to look at how we could really nail down within the conditions that are there. And I want to make sure that we do nail down two amendments to the conditions to bring it on. And what that will ensure is that all evidence about availability of water has to come up within those two reports, especially the generic quantitative risk assessment. And knowing that as South Cams we are already doing for the new local plan, a water assessment, I think those should be actually bringing that new evidence base to bear as well when that happens. We should have those two bodies of information there. And that's a condition in terms of planning. I'd also like to note that on the travel plan, on page 821 in the conditions, there is a condition about the travel plan, which means that that has to be read. And I would like to urge the applicant working together, again, with the planning officers and the local councils that that travel plan does get to the quality that's needed in terms of proportionate support in terms of sustainable transport. But I'd like to say this is established employment area. This has been waiting a long time. This is nothing being rushed through. This has been waiting for many years for this to be brought forward. It's been delayed because actually, there were enough comments around this that they withdrew the application, went to pre-application, went to consultation, we had briefings, and then it's come forward. There is nothing rushed about the nature of this application. And in terms of the biodiversity, this is a brownfield site. And I take on board the comments by Cambridge, past, present, and future. However, Natural England have looked at this very carefully. This is the one example where a developer has used together with the officers the biodiversity calculator and has been transparent about what impact the development has had and has gone to 20% biodiversity net gain offsite. And we've also seen what they've done things on site too. And the sustainability in terms of having a groundwater, ground source heat pump, so that all of heating and the energy for heating will be supplied by that. And going beyond the 5%, the ridiculous pathetic 5% that's obliged and required in our plan for renewable, they're going to 20%. So these are things that I say, not only is it good for the employment at the high skill end of research and development that we have said we need in this area providing those local jobs, but it's also dealing with the sustainability aspect. Therefore, I will be supporting this application. Right, thank you very much. And one from last speaker then, Councillor Dalton. Thank you, Chairman. I'm sorry, yes, my keyboard was sticking and I couldn't actually type the word speak please. And in fact, actually, Councillor Haling said much of what I wanted to say, I really wanted to concentrate on the travel plan. And I agree wholeheartedly with what Councillor Reiter said. I can't see any material considerations upon which we can refuse this. And my concern over the travel, I think he's taken care of in the travel plan, as pointed out by Councillor Haling's. All right, thank you very much. We have Mr. Carter, Chair. He was asleep before we vote. Thank you. Is that okay, Chair? So I've got Councillor Milne's to speak. My apologies, my apologies. Okay, Councillor Milne's, please. Yes, I didn't know whether we wanted to say Chris Carter's comments first or no? I suspect that's about the condition. All right, so with regard to the reservations I've expressed, everybody's, I think, sharing to some degree or other are our concerns so for the sustainable travel network. We've had the comments and it's no, sorry, we've had the comments from the Parishes, of which I'm a member of the Sausten Parish Council. We're quite clear that we want alternative modes to be actually disproportionately considered. That's the mode of the day, the government is trying to encourage us to put new cycleways in. And actually I've got a suggestion for Huawei if they want to take it away from today because they can, on their own land, within the kerthage of the site, build a cycleway that would meet up with the existing 1301 cycleway at Dunford Farm. So they could do it in a voluntary way and provide us what we were looking for. And actually that's more or less where it brings them into the summary of this, which I think the applicant has been particularly accommodating to our request. The original plan that came before us or was presented to the council was for a very mundane, anodyne piece of building. And despite the fact that the existing buildings are of a similar style to that, in fact, probably even worse, the applicant went away and came back with, as Councillor Fain called it, an innovative design, which will far lessen the impact on the landscape. It's in fact really very attractive, I would suggest, for an industrial building. And we've got this application before us in a brownfield site, not impacting the green belt. And there is a master plan, albeit a positive one in the application documents that shows where their other buildings would be built. So they've done that work. And this represents a really substantial inward investment for both our village, for the district, for the region, and is nationally significant. The semiconductor fabrication plan would put the brownfield site back into production. Spices was a benefactor of the village when it operated from that site. Highway could be of a similar nature. And they've certainly given indication that they want to consult and work with the local residents, with the local communities to bring them on board. And that also reflects Councillor Cattell's representation to us today. So there's a huge improvement in architectural merit. You know, the gardens and landscaping with decorative trees is going to really make a substantial difference to that site. And all in all, I believe that despite reservations, that we should back this application. And that's how I'll vote today. Thank you. All right, thank you very much indeed. So just before we do that, we need to sort out the conditioning. And Mr. Carter wants to speak to us. Thank you, Chair. It was just to see clarity on the proposed amendments to I think it was conditioned six and 25 that Councillor Halings had put forward earlier. Just so that we're clear precisely what it is that you're looking for then. Then maybe I can comment on that further if needed. Yes. I thought the case officer was doing some work on that. So if I can help there, Mr. Carter. So on condition 25, all we're looking to do is to include natural England explicitly that they are working together and it's approved by that bespoke sustainability assessment methodology as per the report. Okay, if I may just on that point, by all means we can include specific reference to natural England. We just need to be clear that ultimately the local planning authority will make the decision. It won't be a decision for natural England. So we will of course take account of their comments and we can add some wording to that effect, perhaps to be finally agreed by the chair and vice chair if the committee is happy with that, but it will ultimately be a decision for the council. Thank you. And then the other one, which is around the bespoke sustainability assessment which was for the controlled water. So that's... Where are we? Don't you mean the generic quantitative risk assessment? Number six. Sorry, so number six is to include natural England. Number six is to include natural England. And number 25 is to have explicit mention of reuse and recycling of the water as per the report. Yes, through you chair, that's fine. And if the committee is happy, can we agree the precise wording following the meeting? Yeah, okay. Well, I'll put that to the committee now. Are you all in favor of these small changes to the conditioning? Anyone against? Anyone want to sort of stay? Can't see anyone? Chairman, is this an actual vote for the schema? Yeah. Now, this is a conditioning. Are you okay with that? Yeah, I'm fine with that. I'm gonna vote against it. No, fine, all right. So that's by affirmation then that as outlined by Councillor Halings, those two conditions will be adjusted. We now come to the substantive vote. Obviously, just before that, I need to check my position. Mr. Reed, the legal officer, could I just check with you whether I can vote or not, given that I've dropped out at least three times from Lee? Chair, I think I'm afraid you've already advised everyone that you would not be voting having regard to having dropped out. So I'm afraid I think you've already made your decision and I think you need to stick to it. Right, thank you very much for that then. So I'm not voting, but you are. So can we do this by affirmation or does anybody wish to? No, Councillor, you said you wanted to vote again, so you need to do the roll call. Thank you. Okay, roll call them. So the proposal is or the recommendation before you is approve the full application subject to the completion of the S106 agreement and the revision to the two conditions that we've just dealt with. Right, so if I can go through the voting list then. So can I have your vote please, Councillor Bradnham? Four. Councillor Dauntam? Four. Councillor Fein? Four. Councillor Halings? Four. Here, Councillor Milnes? Four. Councillor Ripeth? Four. Here, Councillor Roberts? Against Chairman, I want my vote recorded and I consider still that this is wish throw. All votes are recorded. Councillor Heather Williams please? Four. Four. Councillor Richard Williams? With the slight reservation with the transport, four. Four. And Councillor Wright? Four. Thank you. So that's one, two, three, four, five. So that's nine one in favour. It's approved. Thank you very much. Chairman, can I propose that we continue the meeting as we've gone over four hours now? Right, do you want to take a short break or are you ready to carry on? I wasn't that, it's just I know we need, once we get to four hours we have to vote to carry on. And I'm happy to carry on. Well, we're not four hours yet because you take out the risk periods. I'm aware of this. 15 minutes left then. No, it's 2.30 in fact. Then we're up to that. Okay, we're moving on. Yeah, I'd like to take a break if I may. 10 minutes. Who is that, sorry? It's Reid. So you want to take a break. 10 minutes then, back at 2.12. Okay, thank you, Chair. You're now live again. Thank you very much. Welcome back to South Cams District Council Planning Committee. We are now on item seven, page 91 of the agenda and we are at Linsen. The application is S441819 Reserved Matters and the proposal is for the approval of Matters Reserved for Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale following Outline Planning Permission S255316OL for the erection of 42 dwellings including the provision of 0.45 hectares for allotments. The site address is that of Wheat Sheep Barn. There's a good deal of background noise there. Now could you turn your microphones off when you're not speaking please? So it's Layen South of Wheat Sheep Barn, Horsey Throde. Chair. Excuse me, Vice-Chair. Yes. Councillor Fain has sent a message. He doesn't seem to be connected yet. All right, okay. Another technical issue. So is Aaron's dealing with that matter? Hi, Chair. Yes, I'm just contacting Councillor Fain right now. Right. Okay, we're suspend Matters for a minute or two. As you see, I have put my camera on again at risk, but let's see how we get on. Councillor Fain states his laptop is coming back as we speak and he should be with us any second. Good, not with us yet. I'll meet on a beach somewhere, Chairman. Sadly not. Councillor Fain, are you with us yet? We're all welcome to come around, Mark, some info if you want. Push. Councillor Fain, please. I think we need to press on. Okay, we're at Linton. We're now, the applicant is Crowdace House. The recommendation is delegated approval. The case officer will take us through the material considerations. We haven't had a recent site visits. This is a departure. The office... Sorry. I'm back on. I can hear. You're back on. Good. You haven't missed anything. I'm going to need to do an introduction. So the Office of Recommendation and Approval conflicts with the recommendation of Linton Parish Council is the reason that's come to the committee and the presenting officer is Michael Sexton, Principal Planner. If you'd like to do your presentation. Thank you, Chair. If you could confirm you're now seeing a presentation, please. Well, yeah. Yes, but... Lovely. Yeah, so this is a reserved matters application for the approval of Access Appearance Landscaping Appearance Layup and Scale following Outline Planning Permission at Land South of Wheat Sheaf Barn. So for context, this is the site location plan outlined in red and up here is just a little map showing the whole of Linton Village. So you can see we're on the eastern edge of the village. No, Chairman, there's nothing on. There's no plans. I'm seeing plans. I know is everyone else seeing plans? I'm seeing plans. Thank you. Yeah, I'm afraid it's just you, Councillor Roberts. Are you seeing anything now? Councillor Roberts. He's just come up, Chairman. OK. Chairman, it's just come up, thank you. OK, good. Do you want me to jump back a slide for Councillor Roberts' beneficiary? Carry on. OK, so for context, Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved for up to 50 dwellings and allotments of not less than 0.45 hectares was allowed at appeal on the 14th of March, 2018. Within that outline consent, there are three conditions which are pertinent to the reserve matters application. Condition five of the appeal decision stated that the development here by permitted shall comprise no more than 42 dwellings. Condition six stated that the total area of allotments to be provided shall be not less than 0.45 hectares. And condition seven of the outline consent required a design code to be submitted with the reserve matters application setting out the overall guiding principles for the development and its relationship with the countryside. Just for a little bit further context, the outline consent also included a number of pre-commencement conditions, just to skim through those. That includes details of allotments, construction method statements, a scheme for archeology, surface water scheme including the arrangements for future management, foul water drainage scheme and again including future arrangements for management, contamination of the sites, a survey of all existing trees and those to be retained, restriction on when heteros could be removed due to breeding birds, further ecological surveys in the form of a badger and common reptile survey and a scheme for ecological enhancement. To provide a bit of context from the area, I'm sure members would have visited the site to outline stage, but the site is outlined in red and to highlight the residential areas near to the development. The areas highlighted in green indicate areas of two-story residential development and the areas in orange indicate areas of single-story residential development. So there's a large single-story element to the rear, south of the site, two-story to the west and a mixture to the north. To help put that in context again and just a few Google Street View images, this top image is taken from the A4-1307 looking across towards Linton. These properties that you can just about make out here are the roof line for Lonsdale and you have the single-story properties on this side here. This image just shows the development opposite the site so you've got the two-story and single-story buildings at the Weak Sheaf Group and then the two-story properties on Holly Bush Way. These are both north of the site. To the west of the site, the top image just shows the streets in view down Lonsdale so you can see that these are all two-story properties with single-story garages and the image to the south is on Harefield Rise which is to the south of the site so we're looking up towards the site here. These are all single-story properties. So the reserve matters application that's been made is for the erection of 42 dwellings and the provision of 0.45 hectares of allotment space as required by the outline consent. The application is supported by design code, again required by a condition on the outline consent and it picks through, these are the chapters from that code that set out the design rationale and architectural language of the site and how that relates with Linton. The first main matter of the application is access. This is the plan submitted for the access which is taken to the north of the site onto Horse Heath Road. The area of access is in the 60 mile an hour zone. The 30 mile an hour speed limit comes in about here but this plan demonstrates the satisfaction of officers and to the local highways authority that the site can provide the suitable visibility displays for that stretch of road being 2.4 by 90 meters. Moving on to the layout of the site, very much a few key themes take where the layouts come from. There's a large central area of green space here with the leap and a lot of the development is focused around that provision of the area, open space area and then these two routes within the site. You have a primary route shown in purple which is the sort of more traditional road with footpaths either side leading down south into the site. There's more informal secondary routes which has got a sort of a more rural context to it as we'll come on to later on. This is an image from the design code that's been submitted. In terms of layout and just touching on the distribution of affordable housing, there are four groups of affordable houses provided within the site. You have a terrace of three properties here fronting onto the green space, two terraces of making up six properties in this area here again looking across the road onto the area of open space. A second, a third group here of four properties and a fourth group here again of four properties. So in terms of distribution around the site we're happy as officers and as other affordable housing teams that they're well distributed and well integrated within the site. Looking at scale, there's a mixture of properties within the sites. The light blue properties are your two-story properties which is the prevailing character within the scale within the site. The darker blue areas are the one and a half story elements which is mainly these two sort of one and a half story projections and a one and a half story property on the southern portion of the site. The gray properties are single story properties. They're very much in response to the contours of the site and the fact that you have single story development to the south of the site. And this area here is a slightly raised element of the site so it's to protect views out towards the countryside and into development as we'll see on a section plan later on. So the layout and appearance of the site, the design code details that there's three key character areas within the site. Character area one which forms the main spine road into the scheme has been informed by the styles and features found in the center of Linton, particularly the high streets. The central node which is the yellow properties here is designed to create a transition into character area two which is made up of the red and the green. So two slightly different areas within character two and that becomes a more intimate rural area over the bit more sort of rural architectural language. I'll take you through these areas fairly quickly but the design code details how each of these areas has got its own sort of scale and legibility. How the use of materials varies through these character areas same with the architectural features. So in an area one, you're looking at the sash windows, brick walls, render coloring. And in area two which is the sort of transition area of the key three key vista buildings starts to bring in details of Flint into the development which you can see in these images here which are taken from the village of Linton quite a common material. Sorry, Michael. Can I just put it to you, Chairman? Oh, I've just printed me out. What's the matter? Well, the matter is, Chairman, I'm not seeing anything that's been described. All I've got in front of me is the original maps which says context of the area. So that's my problem, Chairman. I can't see what the hell we're blanking. All right, okay. I have the same problem. This is Enid. Okay, fine. But it only really is an issue if the members of the community are here, if we don't mind. Aaron, can you see if you can help Councillor Roberts, please? Of course, Chair. Chairman, the picture... We're five minutes whilst we try and do that. Chairman, the photographs have now turned up. Oh, right. Because I've given you a bit of a kick. Good, excellent. I mean, what I would say, Chair, due to the extremely hot weather today, obviously a lot of people's internet connections are struggling. We could either take maybe slightly more time to go through these, but I appreciate the committee's already been running for a while. There is also an option to turn off people's incoming videos. It means you won't see the other members of the committee, but you may have an easier time with your internet connection. And if it's all around then, Chairman. Well, if you would like to turn off the incoming video, if you click the three dots on your central bar where you control your mic and video, there will be a button that says turn off incoming video. If you are struggling with your internet, it should help. Sorry, but forgive me, Chairman, if we turn off incoming video, we won't be able to see the presentation. You'll be able to see the presentation. It's just other people's videos, as far as, yeah, because I've got it off on mine, you see, and I can still see the presentation. Okay, all right, we've got that. We're all coming after you, Aaron. Okay, thank you very much. Chair, do we need to have that presentation? Can we continue with the presentation, please? Chair, would you like me to continue from where I am, or would you like me to bounce back a few slides? No, it's fine where you are, I think. And Chair, sorry to interject. Yes. Do we need to vote to extend the meeting? There's four minutes to go, yeah. Okay. I'm trying to actually get the thing moving along. Okay, I will claim to complete this in the next four minutes for you, Chair. Okay, if you will remind me, that's fine. Thank you very much. Chair, stop it, so press on, please. Thank you, I will move on to the next slide. Again, just detailing character area three, which is the properties captured within this central area, and the ones just here as indicated in red. Again, this is where the single story and one and a half story dwelling starts to come in. You've got a more informal road, so more of a rural character drawing on some red brick elements, cottage style windows, again taken from the context of the village. And then finally, the second element of the third character area is this row on the south of the site, where you have the single story properties, predominantly going to be red brick with natural slates, and again, cottage style windows. Some example plans from some of the properties in the site, so this is plot two, which hopefully you can see in this red circle at the top, is towards the front of the site, so you have the main face elevation fronting the road, and then this sort of active side elevation fronting the street scene, get with a mixture of materials. This is an example of the affordable housing terrace that's just to the north of the open space, which the design is sort of reflected again in the design code showing how that pallet of materials and detailing, including these little brick features that are built into a number of properties really reflect the architectural language of Minton Village. Plot 20, which is one of the sort of vista buildings, transitioning into the next area is where you can see, again, two active elevations to address the street scene, and the use of flint detailing here just to enhance the appearance of that particular property. And then the properties on the southern portion of the site, the single story cottages, not cottages, sorry, single story bungalows, and again, brick detailing drawing on the vernacular of the village. Can't see any of them. The apologies, Councillor Roberts, but Chair, do you wish me to continue? Chairman, I think it's time. Leave it with me, please, Councillor. Mr. Reed, could you give us some advice? The fact of not being able to see these slides, is this crucial to being able to take part? Mr. Reed, please. Yes, sorry, Chair. I'm afraid my view is that you would risk a challenge if somebody who can't see the slides were to vote. I mean, we have had most of this in the documents sent to us. Yeah, but this is the presentation, Chairman. This is what we're actually looking at deciding. I mean, suddenly, it's come up, I've now suddenly got a street scene plan number one. But, you know, I'm not keeping up with this because Mr. Sexton, quite rightly, is making his presentation. Have you turned off the other bits? Oh, I'm not going to turn off anything, for God's sake. I'll never get it back again. No, the three dots business. No, no. If I could just say be cooperative, at least. Turn the thing off and it should encourage the machine to work better. Listen, you might be Mr. Technology. I am not. If I do just press the three dots, that comes at the bottom line. Turn off incoming videos. Just press it. No, be quiet, Chairman, please. Just leave me alone. I want to know, you know, we're not seeing it. We're not seeing it. I don't think other people probably are as well. All right. Then you will have to withdraw on this one. Let's press on. That is absolutely appalling. You can't turn the number off and say she can't make it. Because your technology isn't bloody well working. It's up my fault. All right. Thank you very much. If the slide circulates, then Mr. Sexton can refer to the slides and we can independently look at them, perhaps. Mr. Carter, you've got any views on this that you're going to help us with? Chair, I suppose a solution could be to circulate the slides. We've been attentive to that for all the other presentations, but they're still to come as well. But I can seek to make arrangements for that to be done if you wish. Alternatively, I would have to defer to the advice of Stephen Reed, although I do have some experience of members rejoining on telephone only. So I don't know if Mr. Reed would comment on that. That doesn't look good either, is it? Chairman, may I make a suggestion or an observation? Well, if it's helpful. I'm trying to be helpful. It sounds to me as if Councillor Roberts' connection is slow, and that's sensibly why you're suggesting that Councillor Roberts turns off the incoming video. I think, Deborah, it might be helpful if you did that because it would be a shame if you couldn't vote. So can we just... You know the grey bar in the middle of the screen? In the middle of that, there's three dots that says More Actions. So if you click on that, the very last text on that bottom of that box is Turn Off Incoming Video. Anna, I'm going to turn off these three things, and then will I still be able to hear you? Yes, you will. If you click on the three dots, the last line of offerings of things to do is a little camera and it says Turn Off Incoming Video, and if you just click on that, it should improve your connection to this meeting. Okay, and after that, do I need to press it again to come back or something or not? We'll bring you back later on. That should help. I'll do that as long as the Chairman will stop being a bully and ordering me about and telling me he's not... No, I'm trying to be helpful. At least do what you're asked. Thank you. Thank you indeed. All right, turn your microphone off please. So Deb, can I just confirm you can now see the presentation? Yeah. Good. If you carry on like this, this is Roberts, you would not be allowed on the committee. So please remember you're in public and the world is watching you and hearing you. Yeah. Okay, so please turn your microphone off now please. Okay, so would you continue your presentation? Thank you, Chair. So there's just three final slides before you, since you've all been continuing the committee. These are the street scene plans. The plan is just to show looking into the site with the main entrance here. So we're looking south into the site. Street scene B is taken along the main spine road. So you can see how the site does slope down to the south. And then street scene C is just looking from the public open space and attenuation pond area on the west of the site over to the east. And you can see the use of different materials here and architectural detailing. Street scene two, the top one is street scene D, which is taken along this top of the secondary route. And you can see how with the site rising up, the developers responded to that by placing those four single story properties here. So they're not overly unduly prominent within the wider setting. Similarly street scene E, which is the bottom of the site. We're looking at the single story properties here, again somewhat in response to the contours of the site. And street scene F, which is the affordable units before. The final sort of main reserve matter is landscaping. This obviously is an edge of village site on the northern boundary of the site on the entrance. Properties are set back. And there's some additional planting going in to have this green frontage to the site on the main public highway. You then have what is effectively a six meter buffer of 90% of this area is a six meter buffer with quite a lot of tree planting to really spring the site and integrate it with its surroundings. That planting is more intense where the residential development is slightly more informal where you have the open space. And obviously you have the allotments forming the other part of the eastern boundary of the site onto the open country site. There's then areas of planting within the site, the western boundary, there's an area of public open space and additional planting and a suds feature and green corridors stemming down the primary route into the site all the way down to the south. And again, the design code sets out some key objectives for landscaping which are just there on the right hand side. So the key material considerations is compliance with the outline plan permission, housing provision including affordable housing, open space provision, the reserve matters of access, layout, scale, appearance, landscaping, biodiversity, flood risk and drainage, highway safety, management of roads and parking, residential immunity and heritage assets. That is the end of the presentation check. Thank you very much. Just before we go to points of clarification, our four hours are now up. So can I take it that members are happy that we continue this meeting? Agreed. No one against? Agreed. Right, no one against? Good, that's done by affirmation then. So we're open to points of clarification. If I could start with one, Michael, the strip, the landscape strip, three metres on the southern part. I just, I couldn't see where there's any conditioning about maintaining that strip and maintaining the public areas. Does that actually, could you point me in the direction of the conditioning for that please? Stephen Reed, I'm sure we'll step in. I think that that particular detail will be secured within the section 106 agreement of the outline for future maintenance of areas of open space rather than by planning condition. Right, I couldn't see it in the outline. It's not in the outline because that'll be within the outline section 106 agreement. Right, okay. We're happy that we're sure that is actually there then. I believe so, yes. It's sort of a fairly standard part of an outline consent. Okay. Points of clarification then please. The mills and Councillor Bradman. Right. Thank you. Yes, am I on the right one where there was some boundary and land ownership issue? And if I'm on the right application, I'm not on the right. I am on the right application, aren't I? Yes. You are. Yes, Councillor. Sorry. Michael, would you just point out on the slide which boundary that refers to please? So it's the western boundary. There should be an appendix two with the committee report which actually has that. Okay. But it's the western, is the whole of the western boundary? Yes. That's fine. Thanks very much. Thank you. Councillor Bradman. Councillor Bradman, please. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to clarification from the officer. Following the concerns raised by residents about the proximity of the foul sewage pump and the suds infiltration pond, could the officer explain where that infiltration pump is likely to be moved to? Sorry, not the infiltration pump, the foul sewage pump. Where is that likely to be moved to? Certainly, Councillor. I think it's always likely to remain in that southwestern corner. This is a point that was raised by our Sustainable Drainage Engineers quite late in the day. So it is a condition on the reserve matters consent, condition D, requiring details of the foul pump including its location and design and means of enclosure. So obviously protect residents from noise because there are details reserved by condition at the outline consent relating to foul water and surface water drainage. The full extent of the suds feature is not known. It may be smaller than is shown on the plan, depending on what is required. That would in some way influence where the foul pump is positioned finally, but it will be in that southwestern corner to details our conditions to make sure there is sufficient protection for residents against noise. And obviously we'll look at the design in terms of its visual impact, but it will be in that southwestern corner, but perhaps not the exact location or the uncertainty that you've pointed out and was in the report about it's not known what the eventual side of the suds would need to be. It's possible, is it not, that the suds might need to be considerably larger than they are at the moment and therefore I'm just wondering is there a risk that there wouldn't be enough room for the foul pump given that it has to be 15 meters from any infiltration pond? I don't believe so council, although reserved by condition there was a drainage strategy that was submitted with the application that does very much inform a lot of the surface water drainage detail. So I think the way the suds feature has been illustrated is fairly accurate because it is backed up by that document. However, those details are reserved by condition and they haven't been signed off yet. So I anticipate if there is any variation to that suds feature it will be very relatively minor. So locating the foul pump in that area within the set distance required from residential properties and drainage features is highly likely to be acceptable. Thank you very much. I don't think we've got any more items of clarification. So we can go on to public speakers then please. Is councilor Borg with us please? Hello. Hello. I can hear you. Good stuff. I have got permission from the Irish council to speak. Right. Put your camera on so we can see you. We can see you. We can see you. Thank you. We can hear you. Okay. When you're ready, three minutes. Do I need to press another three buttons? Just wait a bit, Deb, since she'll probably come up. I couldn't make a comment there. Deb, incoming videos. So all incoming videos you won't be able to see unless you turn it back on. I told you it wouldn't be me. What do I do now? So Deborah, all you need to do, forgive me Chairman, through you, is go back to those three dots. Just listen to it. It doesn't matter necessarily. And then turn on incoming video. Sorry, press. The three buttons. And then turn on incoming video. Thank you very much, Anna. Right, thank you. Can we get on then, please? All right, should I start? Yes, please. Right, we really appreciate that this developer has engaged with us and the residents and that plans have been amended to address some concerns, including the designs. The effect on the landscape is significant, requiring protective screening for planting and to set the houses into the rural village edge. The retention of these hedges, trees and planting and the planting of sufficient and suitable screening is vital, especially along the roadside where we do not want it to degenerate into an urban style. This should be secured by conditioning and the importance of maintaining the hedges and trees in gardens must be made clear to occupants and be part of their deeds. The surface water drainage scheme is inadequate, as we explained in our comments and it's too important to be left to conditioning. The contours outside the site send water into the site and the scheme does not deal with the water flooding onto the site. The suds pond is already in the damp area and overflow will flood down Martin's Lane through its Bartler Road. This is not a water course, it's a proposed connectivity path. The sewage pump is too close to the housing and it brings a lot of noise but the major concern is the possible pollution of the aquifer which is just below. In fact this pump might be within the aquifer. These issues have been raised by sustainable drainage engineer and they did not support the scheme. This is a known archaeologically important site and the development should have reflected its historic landscape. We expect findings to be remembered and significant structures to be retained. There is still no archaeological report nor any heritage report. The sustainability of the site has not been considered with too few school bases and insufficient services. This was not given sufficient weighted outline nor in section 106 agreement. We agree with the conditioning and require proper consultation prior to discharge of these. We have also raised errors in the officer report particularly regarding ownership. Linton Parish Council do attention to the ownership issue but we do know that that is a civil matter. What the Parish Council disputes is whether it was lawful the South Cams to make a planning decision which they themselves partly owned and which they knew about when certificate B was signed in November 2017 but which was not made clear to us until September last year. We would ask for further conditionings such as the path should not develop behind hairfield rise and the cars, cycles and bins should be kept within properties and the trees and hedges to be retained after occupation. Particularly we require that connection should not be made to send more sewage or flow water into the pipeline on Bartlow Road. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any points of clarification there please? No, you're all happy. So councillor Bould, thank you very much. Chairman I have tried. I can't type. I can't type either. Chair, can we just because the things turned off for the three jobs? No, no, no. Chair, can I just try if people if members does the hand raising the hand work on the bar in the middle? It does. Shall we use that as a way instead of putting speak in the chat? It means I won't be able to get the order necessarily right but at least we can catch everyone because it seems that maybe with the hot weather the chat is sticking. I think it's caught up a bit. Chair, can I just make a comment as well? Erin. The hands up will actually order for you so if you go into the participant list it does actually order in terms of who put their hand up first so those who did it earliest will be at the top. Although I do understand you'll see yourself top if you do put your hand up. That's how I like to see things anyway. Thank you. Please do remember members to put your hands back down after you finish speaking. Thank you. We all got that. Yes, so Councillor Heather Williams isn't at the top but I'll put her at the top. Was that for clarification? Councillor Williams? Yes, Chairman I think I've got my hand down right. I'd just like to gather some clarification around because there's a series of conditions that were being requested by the parish council. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed anything in what was said. So the conditioning read the trees to the entrance the path and the bins, cars and bicycles to be kept within and I take it you mean sort of sufficient parking and no sewage as at Bartlow Road. Have I missed any conditions and yeah, that was my clarification. Are you still with us Councillor Bold? Yes, I'm here. Can I speak? Yeah, please do. The conditions were really the hedges and trees all along Horse Heath Road because this currently a mature hedge which effectively screens a lot of development and also Lonsdale and we would like to retain the natural hedging. We don't want the hedge to be chopped down and turned into berberus and that sort of thing an urban hedge. We'd like it to be retained as a rural hedge and we'd like sufficient screening around the whole site. I think that's enough on the screen. We would like it to remain nice and thick please. Councillor Williams, are you happy? Yeah, it was the part that was something mentioned about a path. Sorry, because it was a bit intermittent for me. I got certainly not all of them, my apologies. Right, where the suds is at the south-west corner if that is going to overflow it would overflow down the little lane which leads towards Bartlow Road. This is not a water course. It is actually an area which has been proposed as a connectivity route. So our problem is potential overflow of the suds system which would Yeah. Alright. Okay, is there any other further points? Councillor Bredlin please. Thank you Chairman. Yes, hello Enid. I just wanted to ask that was really, I wanted to clarify that point that if the suds pond was put where as proposed we know from many looking at the previous application that this is the location of flooding from surface water which has previously come over the field that this is proposed for and my understanding is that water from that not only floods down into that pathway that you described between Martin's Lane and the next road to the west but also into the houses at the bottom of Lonsdale, is that correct? That is correct. It also would flow into a house which is actually on Martin's Lane. Yes, beggars roost. Beggars roost and a couple down there. For other members who may not have visited the site I'm aware that that is literally a sheer drop from the bottom of the field about a meter and a half or two meters down into their garden and the house is very close to that sheer drop. Yes, indeed. And the job onto Heffield Rise there seems to be nothing done to take account of water which floods onto the site from the higher ground over Hors Heath Road and down through the contours to that corner. Yes. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? Mr. Sexton, can you throw a map to clarify the issue around the path? Yes. Thank you, Chair. If it helps members if you could confirm that you can see a plan on your screen. No. Agreed. I can. So I believe the reference to the footpath, Martin's Lane is just off this plan to the south. Obviously, Policy HQ 1 of the local plan talks about achieving permeability through the site. At this stage, there is no formal provision for a link through to Martin's Lane because it crosses third party land. But the developer has put a footpath in here which winds around the subfeature that has the potential to link through if that was desirable in the future. And that's just in line with the policy of seeking permeability through the site. But there is no connection at this stage and it's not within the ownership of the full extent of the ownership of the developer to do that. So no footpath is proposed. There is just the potential should that desire come forward in the future. Right. Thank you very much. And could you comment on the landscape issue as well on the hedge on on Halsey's road? Yes. So elements of the hedge or a lot of the hedges removed to achieve the visibility displays that was very well established when the set was granted because the access was always going to have to be taken on to Halsey's road. So to achieve the visibility displays, most of the hedgerow is to be removed. As you can see from this plan they are the developer has been keen to keep a soft green frontage to the site. There are elements of a small hedgerow to the front. Some good tree planting to the front of the site properties set back with these green open spaces. So what I appreciate some of the existing hedgerow is being removed. There's quite a lot of planting going back in to make sure that there is still a soft entrance to the site rather than a harsh boundary from Halsey's road. And this plan is listed as an approved plan as are other landscape plans. So the approved conditions would secure a lot of the landscaping details. Okay. Thank you very much for that. Could I comment upon that at all? No, you had to be asked a question though. So any other points of clarification open up? Chair, can I ask Councillor Bradnham to lower her hand? Yeah, though your hand please Councillor Bradnham. Councillor Milnes would like to ask a question. Right, Councillor Milnes please. Yes, thank you. It's just about this issue. I'm just to clarify that the request from the parish council is to not replace the hedge but the question I guess is if it needs to be removed for visibility to play is it possible to actually move it rather than remove it? I don't know. A question for the officer perhaps? Yes. Can you comment on that then Mr Sexton? Thank you Chair. I believe unfortunately the majority of the hedge does need to come out to achieve displays even if you were to move the access point slightly a few metres one way or the other to achieve the required visibility space given that it's a 60 mile mile. I'm talking about moving the hedge. Well there are within that plan that I had of a moment ago there are elements of a hedge put back in which is a native hedge. I don't believe it's the existing one being retained. I think it does need to come out. So it's not clear how to provide more clarification on that. Right. Okay. Do we have any more? No, Chair. Well I think you see a hand for Councillor Williams. Sorry Councillor Williams. Heather Williams. You're muted some. Working now. So given the importance of the hedge of how things are can I ask a clarification of the parish Councillor Bald as to what it was she wanted to say when the display was shown. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Bald. Hello. Yes. A very large rural hedge is being replaced by a very urban small puny hedge with lollipop trees which doesn't strike me as being a fair replacement. I would also regarding that map the post council did send in a map giving a showing how water comes onto the site and flows down. I wonder did you receive that? Yes it's in the agenda papers today. Right. Thank you. Just to be clear about the extent of wetness. And Stephen Reed the legal support. Okay. Please. Chair it's the question whether you want me to address at this stage matters raised by the parish council as to ownership. If everyone's finished with their questions which I think they probably have. Sorry. Just before Stephen Reed addresses that issue Councillor Rippus wasn't able to see the plans that Michael Sexton popped up on the screen just recently can Stephen Reed advise as to whether or not she can vote on this item or if she needs to withdraw. You have your advice for years? I think it's opened for Michael to produce that slide again so that the member can see it and in those circumstances I just think I wouldn't be opposed to her voting provided she satisfies she's got the relevant information on which to do so. All right let's try and do that can we? Chair happy to share the landscape plan again so if you could confirm I suppose Councillor Rippus if you could confirm that you're able to see this landscape plan now. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Can you see it? I can't see anything I have been able to hear what's been said but any message I send hasn't gone through and I still can't see it. So shall I withdraw for the item? Oh no it's here it's suddenly arrived okay. I'm happy just to recap on the points you've covered on that slide if that's helpful. That's really quickly thank you. In respect of the footpath link that was mentioned on to Martin's that's in the south west corner of the site. The developer is not proposing a formal link through to that area because it would cross third party land. There is simply this footpath here which is in to go around the south feature and has the potential to link through should that be required at a later date or desired locally. Again that's all about permeability of the site in line with local policy and then I will move up. Can you now see the top half of the plan? Yeah I'm talking about there is an existing hedgerow along the front of the site which does need to come out to achieve the visibility displays. There is a small native hedgerow going in on the front of the site on both sides and quite established tree planting to maintain a soft green frontage to the site rather than a harsh boundary and with the residential property set back. Thank you. Can you call me back? Can you put your microphone off wherever that was? Okay Councillor Rippith have you seen all that? Yes thank you. All right so I think you're all right on that one. Stephen Reed do you want to address us on the question of ownership? Yeah Can everybody hear me? Yes. So an application for reserved matters is not an application for planning permission Article 7 of the 1995 order relates the importance of that point is that it is not necessary for an ownership certificate to accompany an application for reserved matters. I raise this because there's no requirement therefore on the applicant in this case to have given an ownership in relation to what's before you the time has long passed in relation to issuing any judicial review proceedings as to whether a wrong certificate was given on the outline application and therefore there is not in my view a legal issue as to legal ownership in the context of determination of this reserve matters application at the ultimate decision whether to grant outline planning permission was taken on appeal and had Linton parish council wished they could have sought to challenge the appeal decision on the basis of what they alleged was an incorrect certificate given on the outline application but they did not do so that there are numerous examples of where the district council makes a planning decision as to land which they themselves own in full or in part and provided that the correct certificate was given it's not the case that it's not awful for the district council to make a decision where that is the case so members you'll see many applications come before committee where members are advised that the district council own all or part of the land which is the subject of the application and you have made a decision notwithstanding that that is the case you are not precluded from making a decision simply because the district council is not only the local planning authority but it's also the owner in whole or part of the site. I'm happy to invite questions. OK, thanks very much for that. I hope you don't need any too many questions because that seemed perfectly straightforward. Am I allowed to ask a question? I'm afraid not, no. So Stephen, can you put your hand down and turn your mic off as well? In fact, there's no further clarifications. Yes, there is. That's council bride name. You didn't put your hand up them. No, I put speak in chat. I thought that's what we were still using. No, we're now doing the hands up Anna. I did try to do it. You have had a couple of goes at this. I mean, is this essential? Yes. I just wanted to point out that as I stood it, the applicant has agreed not to include that. Let's call it ransom strip on the west side of the site within the cartilage of the properties that are part of the development. So I just wanted to clarify with Mr Read that in view of that, is that considered to be too informal or is that something that we can as it were hold them to say that it's written in the report? Mr Read, do you have a view on that? Sorry, you're saying that the developer said that they won't include the ransom strip within any part of the plot of individual plots. And Mr Sexton can show their plan. Correct. In the report that's what they've said that they won't include that strip in the cartilage of any of the properties they're developing. Thank you. I'll just bring up a boundary treatment or enclosures plan. I'll give it a moment to make sure everyone can see it. Anyone not see it? Okay, so the stripping question that's shown on Appendix 2 is down the western portion of the site, very narrow strip. When the application was originally submitted these fence lines were on the left-hand side of the hedge and did enclose that but Mr Read has obviously said in terms of the galaties we did speak with our surveying officers to confirm their view on this development moving forward and the developer has relocated fences to the eastern side of that hedge. So the development which would become residential cartilages does not include any of the land that is within the ownership of the council and that has been done to the satisfaction of our surveying officer who raises the objection to it. So this plan is listed as an approved document and that will secure these treatments on the eastern side of the hedge road. Good, all right, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay, if we can move on then to thank you very much, Mrs Bould Councillor Bould. I would love to say some things. I can't allow you, I'm afraid. We have to move on. Is Henry Batchelor with us? Councillor Batchelor are you with us? I headed down to speak as a local member. Can I read to Mute and his fan? Chair, Councillor Batchelor did send over his statement to me earlier on in case he couldn't connect so I can read that out for the committee. Yes, please if you would, that'd be great. Of course. So it states, while the approved outline application was vociferously opposed by many, including myself, there is now an acceptance that there will be houses built in this site. The developer Crudest Homes has bucked the trend and has been extremely forthcoming and willing to engage locally and not only that but credits needs to be given to them here. Large credits should be given to Linton Parish Council who have successfully negotiated with Crudest Homes and the scheme coming before you today does look very different from the initial proposal which was tabled last year. This is down to the Parish Council very ably working with the developer to come up with an acceptable scheme for all. I do have concern about drainage and would ask that if it isn't already a condition of building be that a suitable drainage scheme is drawn up and agreed before construction can commence. However, I don't see this as a strong enough reason to refuse the application so I believe that the officer recommendation should be followed and approval granted. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. I'm the other local member for Linton with the rules of my comments until the debate. Right, I think we can now actually move on to that then. So who would like to speak to this item? Are you going to put a hand up? Yep. Councillor Heather Williams. Councillor Heather Williams please. Thank you. I just wanted to possibly take some officer's advice following the representations that have been made to us around these conditions that were being asked about particularly with the hedge because I think there while we can condition, if I recall from other applications, that only what is necessary for the visibility displays is removed, anything that's not a requirement for the visibility display could be maintained. And whether that's something that is possible to condition as being requested. As I am minded as the local member has said, you know, the issues that have been raised don't quite warrant a refusal. But I think that would be they're not asking for a lot by wanting to have that as much that maintained as possible. So whether that is possible I think on the other other requests the officers would have noted down if there's anything we can do, but I'm assuming that there's adequate bin storage and things like that within the site that if they could have clarification that would help me in my determining application. Thank you. OK, thank you very much. I've got a note of that. We'll come back to that then. Fain. Sure, yes, the principle of development on this side is not of course in question. We have here a developer who as Councillor Henry Batchelor said have engaged with the parish council and indeed Councillor Bold said that as well in passing I think those of us who've come across this developer would expect nothing less. This proposal does respect the local vernacular. We've heard of the efforts on window design on Flint the variation of heights of the building was a small question raised in relation to emerging within a 60 MPH zone. I think that one could be easily resolved at a later stage with the County Council agreement. When we look at the concerns about flooding and the SUDs none of the statutory consultees have raised an objection to that and there are various conditions set out which it seems to me would deal with those issues. As to the question of design, our urban design officers have said this is a high quality scheme which would actually make a positive contribution to context. When we have an application like this where a developer has taken great trouble as all parties have agreed to engage with the local community to make amendments where necessary, it is very important that we respect that not least although that's not a matter of this application because developers will not otherwise seek to engage in the way that CrowdACE have done in this case and I think the time has come to take the recommendation of our officers and approve. Right, thank you Councillor. Councillor Roberts. Councillor Roberts please. Thank you Chairman, thank you Vice-Chairman. I'll try and keep it quick. I agree with the two previous speakers I think that an awful lot of effort on all sides has come into play here and it's to be well commended. I'm always impressed by Linton Parish Council and whichever effort they make to detail the developers. However, I go on with Councillor Williams' header that I think that we do need to improve on what has been put forward for the frontage, for the hedge. If it's a very substantial hedge now it's obviously an important character and I think to just destroy it all and put something very small and intellectual there would be wrong so I'm going to have to go along with it but I want that splashed out in strength and I think that that hedge should be kept and only taken down where it's for the visibility players but I'm not happy with a very tinky tiny thing. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you Chair, can I ask everyone to put their hands down and that's everybody on my list. Councillor Branham did have her hand up but I think she's put it down again. Right, okay. And that's me then so just a few words. It's essentially the same as Councillor Henry Bachelor. I mean we've been extremely impressed with the way that the parish council has successfully worked with this developer really we're down to the matters of detail. My own concern is still about the sudden boundary those of us who visited the site will remember that the existing houses are at a much lower level than the field is one is between one and two meters actually lower. So I'm a bit of a concern they've done what they can by putting in a three meter landscape strip to give us some protection to that but there's a fence that will be at the end of the gardens that would be two and a half meters high with the trellis so that might well still be overpowering. I'm confident that I don't think we need to actually it's already conditioned in the landscaping so I hope for that as with the hedge I think the developer will have heard these things and is likely actually to be cooperative so I think we just need to keep on talking. This is a five year land supply site none of us wanted it in the first place and we did our best not to get it but it's here and it's much better now than it was initially so I don't feel I've got any option but to support it. Thank you. Right, so is that everybody spoken then? Is Mr Reid asking to speak again? Yeah and that's Robert can you lower your hand if you can? Mr Reid did you want to speak? No? Chair, thank you if I may can we ask Michael Sexton to put up the last slide he showed but showing the extent of the plots on the southern boundary? Sorry, did you want a slide or I can have a plan that I can zoom in? It's the same plan you showed showing the western boundary and pulling the curtain in for the plots but I wouldn't see it in the context of the southern boundary I've looked at the 106 agreement on the outline whilst we've been on this item and in order for the southern boundary to be governed by the section 106 agreement the plots must stop short of that 3 meter buffer so can you confirm that's the case? Yes so hopefully everyone can see the enclosures plan again this purple line denotes the boundary for the curtain edge and there is a 3 meter strip the red line boundary for the site follows this black line here there is a 3 meter width retained there and that is in response to the fact that these properties are set back at a lower ground level so that has been fully considered as part of the application there is a landscape strip and chair so I can confirm that that 3 meter strip is the subject of the 106 agreement in relation to the maintenance of landscaping within that area okay thank you very much that's okay thank you for that I think we've completed the debate was somebody trying to speak or move the recommendation chairman okay I would say that he could help on the condition if there is any clarification around the conditions there because potentially we could condition that was the point so yeah I'm happy to speak to the points and please add if I didn't jot them all down council Williams you talked about the retention of the hedgerow on the northern boundary condition 14 of the outline consent does restrict any clearance works until a survey has been undertaken of all existing trees and hedges within the site and that needs to identify any trees and hedges that are to be retained so I expect that that outline condition could capture that element on the hedgerow on the front of the site so that's already in place in terms of cycle stores, bin stores and car parking there's ample provision within the curtsledges of each property you may have noted on the plan showing the rows there's no designated off-road parking spaces everything will be confined within private driveways or garages I think they were your two key points please let me know if I've missed anything that was it thank you chair I just wanted reassurance that we could we have some lever to retain as much hedgerow as possible chair we have councillor Braden I think on the conditions right thank you councillor Braden thank you my understanding was that the front hedgerow, lovely and luxurious and ancient as it is unfortunately was obstructing the visibility splay and I understood that was why it had to be removed yes indeed that's what we've been told and we've always said just been will the word in capture as has been said to retain as much of it as possible but maintaining the visibility splay the officer has just told us that they will do that just like that I think perhaps chair please step in if I'm incorrect we could perhaps add an informative to that effect to draw it to the attention of the developer because obviously it is a condition that details the whole site if it's a particular point of concern for members I don't think we can do it as a condition because of the visibility splay issue but I see no reason why we couldn't just add a one line informative agreed the wording with chair and vice-chair about looking at retaining as much of that front hedge as is possible if it is practical I'm happy to propose that chairman okay that's fine are we all in favour I'll step in that if necessary alright fine so that informative then please Mr. Sexton should be added so can we go to a vote now then the proposed recommendation is delegated approval can I take this by affirmation are we all in favour no one against no thank you very much that's to approve them thank you very much do you need a short break five minutes to grab a drink please chairman all right we can have 10 minutes it's 3.20 now we're back at 3.30 Anna can you lower your hand okay and Aaron can you let us know when we're off you're now live again chair thank you very much welcome back to south camps district council planning committee we are now on agenda item 8 on your agendas that's page 165 and we're at Duxford so this is application S289619 FL the proposal is for construction of a 168 bedroom hotel with ancillary facilities associated access gates car parking including reconfigured conference centre car parking cycle parking and landscaping so the site is at the imperial war museum Royston road Duxford the applicant is proper tier hotels Duxford limited the officer recommendation is delegated approval subject to a section 106 agreement the presenting officer will outline the key material considerations this is a departure application and the application is coming to us as it has been referred to committee on the basis of officers current assessment of the sensitivity and significance of the proposal and it is of local interest and a departure the presenting officer is Karen Paul Coggins senior planning officer Karen if you'd like to do your presentation please thank you okay thank you chair first before the presentation I'll have a small update to paragraph 80 of the report in relation to heritage assets the decision needs to be made in relation to the following legislation section 1922 of the town and country planning listed buildings and conservation areas act 1990 states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the special character and appearance of the conservation area furthermore section 66 of the town and country planning act listed buildings and conservation areas act 1990 states that special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings all their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest officers considered that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the listed buildings on the site I'll just get my presentation on the screen now can you see a slide yeah nothing inside no okay bear with me can you see a slide now yes perfect everybody can is everybody got this on the screen so no one's saying no good okay off you go then okay thank you Dutch Imperial War Museum is the major tourist and visitor attraction an educational and commercial facility based on the Ducksford airfield it's considered the finest and best preserved example of a fighter base of the period up to 1945 in Britain it's located adjacent to junction 10 of the M11 I will point to the various areas on the map the M11 runs along the eastern boundary of the site and to the north and south of the A505 so the A505 runs in between two parts of the site to the north and south it's located outside of any development freight work and within the countryside it is a special policy area excuse me the site is in the conservation area and within the setting of three grade 2 star listed World War I hangers so I'm just pointing to those on the screen and a grade 2 can I just interrupt Councillor Rippith is having some issues viewing the slides again how would you wish to deal with this issue well is it correcting itself is it just slow it doesn't appear to have corrected itself yet no well we're waiting could we ask I think it might be no hang on that P let's deal with one thing at a time please that's Councillor Rippith you see what's down the you still got sound Councillor Rippith no I can't hear anything which is fine sorry yeah okay so there is an ability to hear but obviously it's not an ability to see so it's essentially like being dialed into the meetings Councillor Rippith right now right we have had copies certainly a site map I Karen are you likely to be using things that we haven't seen previously hello there is some visuals that we haven't seen previously that weren't in the plans part but they are from the landscape and visual impact assessment which is a public document which is online alright Chairman Councillor Rippith the Bradman I just wanted to ask the presenting officer if she would or if whoever is BC would lower the box that's giving a timing on it there's a on our screen we can see a planning committee so that's on Karen's screen because she's presenting that's it it was an obscuring part of the screen thank you Councillor Rippith have you got sound so yeah she's got sound I can confirm that she can hear everything that everybody is saying alright but we need to get on I think it's just appeared okay yeah it just appeared okay good Councillor Bradman will you put your hand down please no problem thank you right Karen press on please Karen's muted sorry the site comprises three grade two star listed hangers from world war one which is as shown on my screen now I'll make it larger there's a grade two star grade two sorry listed control tower to the south this is the airspace building which is the large hanger which you see from the roundabout on the M11 there are some partners hangers in this area to the south of the site including a new building which is replaced this smaller hanger which is an aircraft restoration hanger the airfield runs to the south of the site so the key constraints are as follows special policy area which is policy E7 of the local plan countryside listed buildings conservation area and the site is in flood zone one here is an aerial photograph of the site which gives you an idea so the historic core of the site is to well it's centrally so you have modern buildings to the east where the airspace building and hangers are and to the west where there's the American Air Museum and we have recently granted permission for a large object store along that side of the site just show an aerial view of the site which gives you an idea and the hotel will be going approximately where the arrow is pointing in the top corner with the M11 that runs behind the site so the proposal is for a 168 bedroom hotel on the eastern part of the site to the south of the A505 and to the west of the M11 it'll be sighted between the existing airspace building and the aircraft restoration buildings and partners hangers it'll be six stories in height but slightly lower than the airspace building which is 22 meters in height. The accommodation would provide in addition to the bedrooms a gym on the ground floor and the top floor will have a reception area, restaurant lounge and external viewing terrace. 96 parking spaces would be provided with the hotel along with an overflow car park of approximately 30 spaces with also includes 20 cycle parking spaces on the site. Hotel has been designed to reflect its location on the site of an airfield so sorry just going back to the presentation that gives you an idea of the site at the moment it's basically just a piece of lawn grassland with a couple of small trees this building here you can see is an energy center and the hotel will be behind that building this is the green building in the background is the aircraft restoration hangers new building and this large building is the airspace building so the layout of the hotel it will have an L shape with the entrance coming from the main A505 from the existing access point to the car park for the Imperial War Museum there will be a gate in that section for occupiers of the hotel who will be able to log in when they arrive as such it will be open at normal times of the day but during the evening overnight you will have to type in a number to be able to gain access to the site given obviously for security purposes so the airspace building is here to the west slightly the overflow car park is down the bottom here this is the conference centre parking area sorry to the west existing these are proposed new parking spaces to the front of the hotel the entrance to the hotel is on the northern side just here obviously people will come travel around the back of the airspace building and then enter the car park up here this is just a plan showing the access to the site so when you come from the A505 you will come through the main entrance and then you will go down this lane here around the back of the building so there is a landscape strategy for the site given the position of the development on an airfield it will be an interesting character of the landscape on the airfield the landscaping will be limited but there will be some additional landscaping in terms of creating an enhancement to biodiversity on site the details will be subject to a condition of any consent so it's just an example of the floor plans so as you come in the entrance is here you will go directly to the left to go up to the top floor where there is a reception area this is the top floor so you have the reception area and welcome zone in this section here restaurant and lounge area and then you have an extra little terrace on this end so just looking at the proposed elevations of the building an example of the elevations but I will go through them in turn the so in terms of the south elevation which is the view from the airfield itself you have sorry the north elevation not south elevation so it's the view from the entrance and the M11 slip road so you see this is airspace building in the corner here the existing large hangar and this does rise in height slightly so there's a 3D image at the bottom which shows the building within the context of airspace so these are the side elevations so this will be the views from the airspace or the conference centre car park airspace building side and the partner hangars and then further on there's details sorry these are the views from the airfield so it shows you so this is the external terrace area up on the top floor with bedrooms and this is an energy building down here and the overflow car park will be down here so the materials for the building it will be pale grey and white cladding for the main building it will have a light grey standing seam roof with windows with dark grey aluminium surrounding the glazing and on the elevation of the airfield there will be some bruselay panels which will be blue in colour for the corporate branding of the hotel so just to give you some views of the site so this is looking views across the airfield so the top photograph is the view as existing and the bottom of photograph is the view with the proposed development so you can just see a small red outline there which gives you an idea where the proposed hotel will be located so this is a closer view from the airfield so just outside airspace so this again this is the aircraft restoration centre hangar in the background with the big airspace building and at the bottom you see the proposed hotel so these are views from outside the site so this is on the roundabout to the M11 this is looking and the footpath to the north of the A505 this is looking back towards the site so you will see views of the hotel in that position when you're actually travelling around the roundabout you will get glimpses of the hotel you will see it but for a very short period of time because you will be travelling around the roundabout in the opposite direction so this is a view from the roundabouts which leads to Duxford on the A505 again you can see the airspace building here with existing landscaping and this is the proposed outline of the hotel so this is the view from the proposed view from the M11 SIPP road so this is probably the most prominent view that there will be of the site excuse me so you can see the existing airspace building and then the hotel will be set obviously in front of that building so you will see that but you would need to sort of turn to see it and it would be a fleeting view so again a view from the bridge over Grange Road in Duxford so the bridge over the M11 sorry but the details you can't really see very well the hotel is actually where my arrow is pointing but the colours kind of blend in with the airspace building so this is from Hunt's Road which is the road that leads to Duxford from the A505 so there will be obviously views of the building again this is quite a prominent view there will be views of the building from Hunt's Road so the key considerations in relation to the development are the principle of development the special policy area in the countryside the character and appearance of the area heritage assets tree landscaping and biodiversity transport impacts and highway safety flood risk neighbour amenity and safety thank you right thanks very much I think we've got a few looking for clarifications who's first please yeah we have councillor Roberts thank you chairman my question to Karen is I looked on the consultees and I can't see Tripple Parish Council Karen and Tripple Heathfield is actually the newer to them Duxford village or Wittlesford so have they been missed out on the consultation I believe they have been consulted but they haven't commented thank you right and the next one councillor I have the Williams and then councillor Milnes thank you councillor Williams please thank you I just want to to discuss something that's on page 117 171 because it seems that the Historic Buildings Officer is really I've read it quite I'm happy about it and says that we should be giving great weight to this and actually says I consider that further negotiation would be beneficial with input for the conservation team so that would lead but they believe there can be a compromise it's just this isn't it and raises some quite serious issues in relation to the Historic Buildings so I was just wondering if we could have some clarification as to why if that's the advice we've got a different route as being given if it's a case of time for non-determination or some reason why we're not taking advice of the Historic Buildings Officer and having these conversations and recommending approval really just seems discrepancy thank you chairman thank you thank you thank you the Historic Buildings Officer has raised concerns in relation to the proposal some of the concerns raised actually well all of the concerns raised should be addressed in the report with regards to the initial concern raised about the location of the site of the building I've been working with Duxford for a long time in terms of we have regular meetings and so on they have a master plan for the site and they have considered the whole of the site for the location of the proposed hotel in our view some of the concerns raised by the Conservation Officer have to be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme in terms of the need for the hotel to secure the viability of the Imperial War Museum and so on so they've concluded that it would result in less than substantial public sorry less than substantial harm to heritage assets and they say there's a degree of public benefit but our view is that there is significant public benefits that outweigh that harm to the assets Thank you very much Councillor Milnes please Thank you chair I've now got three questions because in terms of consideration of the placement you mentioned that this is mess was once considered that would have required a lot of redevelopment but there is quite a substantial space to the north of the northern part of the site was that a location that was considered for this? Now Councillor we have that a number of times now we have to deal with what is in front of us not actually look for other sites could you go on to your next question please Thank you Yes Are there any solar panels? Any solar panels? I don't believe there are at the moment the proposed renewable energy source will be compliant heat and power plants but we can ask for those if necessary Any renewable energy source would be compliant with our policies on that and then the final question of course I'm afraid I'm asking the officer responsible rather than the people who determined the traffic assessment but I'm looking at pages 184 and then 190 with assessment and I don't know if you've got the slide Karen that you showed of the view from the Dutchford 505 which shows a queue of traffic and there we are that's a typical scene of morning and evening traffic the one observation that they made on a Wednesday the 15th of January 2020 might not have given them a true representation and I'm just concerned that we are adding to an already congested road I know the 168 rooms I mean they're talking about 180 car movements a day I think or morning and evening 180 cars but I mean I've seen queues going back the M11 going a mile waiting to get off onto the 505 and this is inevitably going to make that situation worse and it seems to be totally underplayed in the assessment in the traffic assessment right thank you very much any comments on that too oh sorry Karen thank you obviously the existing baseline survey of the 2019 figures have been taken on surveys at the time the proposed figures for the 2020 and the 2025 with and without the development would result in there is a slight increase in the westbound arm of the A505 junction whereas the other junctions are all under capacity there is mitigation proposed as a result of that slight increase in the amount of traffic but again sorry to interrupt Karen but this expression that you just used of under capacity how does that tally with the constant queuing at the various roundabouts particularly the M11 roundabouts and the 505 1301 and do the estimates take into account now that we've got both the genome campus approval and with other references the south Pampasford the new development there and today we've just approved Huawei which will add to all of that thank you yes they do take into account obviously there's an existing situation you know we're not disputing that but the minor it's such a limited increase in traffic as a result of the development and it is considered to be an arms of the currently under capacity so we have to obviously justify there needs to be a significant justification for us to ask for for example works to upgrade the A505 and that's obviously not considered required in this case okay thank you very much yeah thank you who's next Councillor Bradford Chair Bradford William and Spain thank you chairman so couple of things I noticed in the report that questions were asked about had any other buildings on the site being considered and I saw that they had looked at other buildings and didn't feel that they were suitable to be refurbished but I did want to ask if the officer could advise us certainly the the I can't remember if it was the heritage asset officer who said it seemed a very tortuous entrance to the hotel it wasn't legible from the A505 entrance and I just wondered whether oh sorry I'm hearing myself twice I just wondered if the applicant had had any discussion with the case officer about the appropriateness of the site of the hotel within the greater site in that regard in the sense that it was a very legible from the front from the A505 entrance so it was just that and secondly given that the building looks very dominant on the viewing from the M11 offslip northbound I wondered whether we could enhance the condition for landscaping to plant a hedge along that boundary so that it wasn't quite so dominant over the road at that point right thank you Karen thank you in terms of the position of the building the legibility from the main entrance to the site it has been requested that there was some public art at that entrance to the site to aid the legibility to the hotel unfortunately this is also the main entrance to the Imperial War Museum so the thought was that it wouldn't be appropriate to add public art in relation to the hotel as it may conflicts there's an existing aeroplane at the entrance and we wouldn't want it to detract from that because that's the main entrance to the museum but however there will be a sign in relation to the hotel which will direct visitors along the slip road specifically to the entrance of the hotel the second point in relation to the landscaping along the M11 slip road boundary I can't see a reason why we couldn't request that as part of any condition for my own point of view any suggestion of public art is not going to solve the problem and I didn't think that was going to help anyway but I was just concerned that people trying to get to the hotel would find it quite confusing with the obvious signage as to how to get there but also I'm assuming the hotel wants to face the motorway in order to publicise itself basically which is what most hotels do is that your understanding of why they wanted to put it there in my view the site is quite difficult to locate the hotel in a different position there is obviously a commercial aspect to it as well but it is the modern commercial area of the site and the conference centre is actually in the airspace building directly adjacent to the hotel OK Thank you Councillor Dawnton Yes, can you hear me? Yes I've been having difficulty with the mute button I want to take us back to page 171 and the heritage issue of the top of page 171 I just read the sentence that was also exacerbated by the use of brilliant white and inverted commerce cladding which would be out of keeping with the muted and characteristic colour scheme elsewhere on the site has any account been taken of that and also have the other remarks on that page Thank you Yes, thank you Chair Yes, the planning assessment does consider all the points raised by the Historic Buildings Officer in terms specifically of the materials if there is concern about the use of the bright white cladding then potentially this could be addressed by a condition of any consent Will it be addressed by a condition? You say could be addressed by a condition If you mentioned Sorry, character Sorry It's Chris Carter here It's a character, go and help us Provides some assistance here The scheme as proposed has the colour scheme that's proposed With regard to the heritage points that have been made it's the job of the planning officer and now the planning committee to weigh those points in the planning balance Heritage aspects are important The MPPF sets a fairly clear process for determining those issues What we have identified here is less than substantial and in those circumstances it's appropriate for us to weigh any other benefits against that less than substantial harm So that's really the process that we need to go through Karen has addressed the issues raised by the Historic Buildings Officer in her report and it's now for the committee to determine the weight that they afford to those views in the context of the other benefits that this scheme may bring Thank you So, council of fame please Oh, William said There are two questions, the first of which I hope can be easily satisfied by an assurance Referring to paragraph 41 on page 193 and this to some extent follows on from Councillor Dawkins' question It refers to the materials of construction including dark grey aluminium panels and glazing for the walls Now, there is of course new regulations coming in on the cladding of buildings which makes the planning stage one of the three gateways It relates to buildings I believe officers can put me right six stories and more over 18 metres in height and it's not quite clear from the consultation of last June whether it applies to hotels as well that was still to be determined Can we assume that either those regulations do not apply to this building or they will be met The second thing is in relation to page 173 paragraph 13 I was just a little uncertain at the wording of the conclusion there which is whilst the concept of a hotel on the site is apparently established I had expected perhaps rather firm of guidance on that point Alright, thank you Chair, if I can deal with the point about the materials and the building height that's a matter that would be dealt with under the building regulations should this building come to be constructed I believe I don't believe that's material to the planning consideration at this present stage Okay, thank you Right, do we have any others Questions? Sorry Chair Sorry I'm on the list I spoke earlier on I haven't got my hand up or anything Hang on a minute please I'm not sure a council of sayings quite finished yet Sorry, there was a second question there which was the wording of the conclusion I was wondering whether it might be possible to be a bit more definitive but a concept of a hotel on the site is established or not established the word apparently is inserted there Okay Can you comment on that please Karen So the principal of a hotel has previously been established on the site where permission was granted for conversion of the office's mess building which is this building down here that consent has now expired so there is no extent consent for a hotel on the site Right, thank you very much Who else do we have No, no one else Chair Thank you I have put my hand up Council Robbers is on the list Council Robbers Well It's Councillor Daunton first Alright I think we've had Councillor Daunton Yes you have And Councillor Thane Councillor Robbers I believe Thank you Chair A secondary one about consultation I am a little concerned that I haven't had it proven really to me that first of all I found it very hard to believe that they would not have made comment Also I know that there is no comment from neighbours at Heathfield and the previous area that was previously the office's accommodation there is going to be serious light pollution from this a little while ago I sat on a licensing committee for the garage across the road and the neighbours were extremely concerned about traffic movement and extra for just a small cafe there Are we absolutely sure because I tell you something we do not want the few consultium coming down on our next if we have not consulted people have we actually got proven evidence that neighbours have been consulted because those people in the previous office's mess accommodation are going to be the people greatly affected by this Alright thank you Sir please I believe neighbours in Heathfield have been consulted the site Edge Dredd is in this location here and comes along here Trip Play Parish starts over here so we wouldn't necessarily consult Trip Play Parish Council although I believe we have anyway Alright thank you very much for that I have to come in here I think that the officer is not taking my point those people in the previous office's accommodation if they have not been leafleted if they have not received we could be in serious trouble I doubt that they have actually been carded by the authority Alright can we just be clear are we talking about the officer's mess with the officers now I am talking about the off-preview on that block here on the right hand side next to the old office's mess area but that area to the right of it that's it Chairman that is accommodation that was officer's accommodation which is now all private see how close to the road they are I don't think they have been carded and if they haven't we are going to have that on us The officer has just told you that they have been we can confirm that again if you like Karen can you just confirm that please since that borders that area Thank you Chair I believe the neighbours have been carded also a site notice has been displayed at the site which would cover that matter if the neighbours have not been carded Okay thank you very much for that I think that's the clarification Now we need to move on I've got a couple of speakers Okay get a legal challenge you know do we really want any more legal challenges what Karen is saying I don't I mean what more can be said other than what the officer has told you because there is something to be said where on file there must be on file there must be a list of properties that have been carded I'm sure there are and but we're not actually in the office at the moment are we so we need to move on I'm sure everyone's noted your comments All right public speaking is Sophie Payne with us please Sophie Payne for the agents Hello Chair is Andrew Binelech speaking in Sophie's step Sorry I think we lost you Hello Chair Andrew Binelech speaking on behalf of Sophie Could we ask Mr Binelech to speak up a little bit please Can you hear me okay now Yeah if you could share Yeah is that okay Are you rather a long way from your computer Inches away All right I think that's the best we can probably do So you know the form Sorry to keep you for so long and you've got your three minutes now so when you're ready please Okay thank you Chair and members of the planning committee appreciate it's been a long and hot day so we really appreciate your patience and working with us at this time So my name is Andrew Binelech from GJR Architects I'm here on behalf of the applicant as well as the Imperial War Museum in my capacity as their architect The hotel project is seen as a key for the IWM developing the commercial offer at Duxford, an offer which is specifically there to support the operation of the museum and preserve this nationally important heritage site Every aspect of the hotel from its location to the likely users has been considered in a series of studies and plans over the last few years That's included public exhibitions and I can confirm also that we've locally met many of the neighbours at public events and personally delivered collections of those to them In 2017 the IWM commissioned a feasibility study for the hotel at Duxford The study concluded that there was a strong case for a hotel at the site with a focus on the commercial market to support the existing conferencing and events business At present Duxford struggles to attract multi-day conferences or residentials due to the lack of accommodation in the immediate local area We generally have to travel to Stansted for larger conferences and this removes Duxford from a key developmental market In 2018 the conference centre at Duxford saw 27,000 delegates and that rose to 33,000 in 2019 So to continue that level of growth Duxford will need an on-site hotel A positive impact is also forecast on the museum visitors with the IWM being able to attract people who are further afield than the usual two-hour drive time and encourage more international visitors to the museum which will also bring additional spend to Duxford and the local area An economic report commissioned in 2019 by the IWM found that it contributes around 43 million of gross added value and over 1,000 full-time equivalent jobs to the east of England Along with the hotel that should add more money and also 40 more direct jobs The hotel will be key to supporting their role of protecting and conserving the important historic in a sustainable manner While the feasibility study demonstrated the need and opportunity for a hotel recent events around the Covid-19 have further given Duxford an opportunity to develop as more companies look for out-of-town event spaces and with Duxford's open-air location excellent accessibility they have an opportunity to have a strong offer to the world Following the tender exercise in 2017 IWM partnered with Propertier to design and deliver the proposal you see today The proposed location for the hotel was identified as part of the 2016 Master Plan for Duxford which was commissioned to address the long-term development of the museum and this was supported and endorsed by Historic England The idea is the hotel location is in a modern area and will be far away from the historic centre and the design will be sympathetic to the area for both the modern area of the hotel and also the surrounding modern buildings So all the points of the hotel stakeholders have been included, consulted to ensure the project supports all of the INW's key aims and we've ensured that the development will bring benefits to both the flying community, museum visitors and ensure site security is maintained. Thank you for your time Excellent, thank you very much Any points of clarification members? Councillor Bratnum Councillor Bratnum please Thank you Chair Thank you Mr Benelik I just wanted to check with you given that the new hotel would be quite dominant as a structure over the road would you be prepared to agree to improving the boundary putting in the boundary treatment of planting a hedge along the A10 Northbound off Slip Road Thank you for the question certainly we're happy to look at that we are already proposing some limited tree planting through there and some low level features but again we are happy to enhance that if it's useful Thank you very much Any other speakers? No Chair we just have Stephen Reed who I think had an earlier point raised on the leadality of that Right Thank you very much Mr Reed please Thank you Chair I think that Councillor Roberts' concern is with the number of planning challenges that we've seen recently it would be open to committee to give officers delegated authority to approve this permission subject to officers being satisfied that the neighbours in the area identified by Councillor Roberts have been consulted provided that consultation has taken place then officers would proceed with the issue of the permission subject to completion of the agreement I think what Councillor Roberts is looking for is that we've turned out that those neighbours hadn't been consulted then having regard to the belief of the officer I think Councillor Roberts is saying the matter ought to come back to committee so that you are advised that actually the officer's belief wasn't born out by the planning file I think you were looking really to say we can't address Councillor Roberts' concerns but I think we can without upsetting the timetable we've got a 106 to complete in any event and I think we could use the same period to ensure that a check is made of the planning file as to exactly who was consulted Okay that's fine we'll come back to that in the recommendation at the end Are you happy with that Councillor Roberts ideal Chairman thank you Okay thank you very much I think Councillor Fein wants to speak Chair sorry Councillor Dawson has lost connection this time I believe that she was subbing in so do you want me to see if I can quickly get her back on so that she doesn't miss anything Right has she only just died then Yes I agree can we pause while we get connection with her for a couple of minutes is some clarification please Thank you Chair it was in fact Councillor Daunton who raised the concern mentioned by the Historic Buildings Officer about the brilliant white cladding that's at paragraph it's on page 173 paragraph 13 I think there's also the mention on page 193 that I referred to the grey metal cladding white metal cladding and dark grey aluminium panels I wondered perhaps whether Mr Bernalek would like to comment on the appropriateness of that in the life of the Historic Buildings Officer's comments Thank you very much for that Are you with us Mr Bernalek Yes thank you Chair If you wouldn't mind coming up please thank you Thank you Councillor Yes we tried to pick up palliative materials that would blend with some of the surrounding buildings the airspace building and also the adjacent other hangers to make the building appropriate so that's why we've used palliative metals of grays and dark grays in order to achieve that We have also proposed using a white cladding that was to give the building some definition and also identity of its own use from what is in the surrounding area but at the same time we're also happy to work with the planners as conditions to perhaps tone down that pallet materials to make it more suitable taking more of those latest comments Right thank you very much for that Although it's worth noting that the urban design officer wasn't against the current proposed I think that's all questions there No I wanted to speak Did you? Alright Councillor A bedroom Thank you It's a long day You know who you are Thank you I just wanted to observe that whilst the I was worried about the white cladding too but I note that it's actually facing the motorway rather than into the historic site and it wouldn't be seen from the historic site Nevertheless I would like to take up that offer that the officers work with the applicant to see if an appropriate colour can be used My concern was I think also picking up on what Councillor Fein was saying I'm quite concerned about the use of cladding and that it should meet all fire resistance requirements in view of the fact that we've just passed the anniversary of the Grenfell tower disaster I know this isn't quite so tall as that but could we just make sure that any cladding used meets all of the fire requirements Yes we get confirmation on that cladding meets all the current requirements please Mr Benedict I can confirm that the cladding will meet those fire requirements it's a standard condition of the hotel operator and brand and also in consideration of where we are we're surrounded on an airfield which has live airplanes and fuel so the details will have to be very much concentrated on being a very safe planning system Right there and as you already said you're happy to speak with officers on the matter of the callers and so on That's fine thank you Right thank you very much can we please move on them I think we've got a statement from local member that's Councillor McDonald Is somebody going to read that out please Hello has somebody got a statement from Councillor McDonald I believe Aaron has that Does it Aaron have you got the statement from the councillor please I'm sorry chair can you hear me now my my laptop was having a hard time aren't we all the press on Thanks Thank you very much So the statement from Councillor McDonald highlights some of the issues raised by Councillor Dawson and Councillor Williams earlier on and focuses on the sympathetic nature of the hotel it's essentially a new building suited to a town or city location not next to a heritage centre There are two there are sorry there are grade two listed buildings on the site and it seems the heritage officers comments have been overruled I'm worried that this would set precedence for future developments of the airfield and the heritage officer which I know was mentioned earlier but I will read out what is written and whilst there is undoubtedly a potential public benefit to providing guest accommodation on the site in order to increase income to the Imperial War Museum and amongst other things facilitate works to the historic structures on the site it has not been evidenced that the current proposal is certainly sufficiently sympathetic to achieve this without causing harm to the setting and significance of the heritage assets Furthermore it has not been demonstrated that the required facilities could not be achieved with a more sympathetic and appropriate manner which would better respond to and preserve the special historic interest of this nationally important site As was clarified earlier the NPPF is clear that great weight should be afforded to the assets conservation and that clear and convincing justification is required for harm particularly to grade two listed buildings as such I consider that further negotiation would be beneficial and with the input of the conservation team to arrive at a successful scheme which could overcome the concerns raised Councilman Don would therefore like to ask that some condition on the sympathetic nature of the exterior fascia be applied Thank you very much Thank you chair Okay we don't have any other speakers both Duxford Parish Council and Wittlesford Parish Council you would have noted are in support of the application and didn't feel the necessary to come to the meeting so we move on to the discussion Who would like to open Councillor Heather Williams Councillor Bradnam and Councillor Robb I can only take into at the time that's Okay Councillor Heather Williams and Councillor Bradnam Right Heather Williams Councillor Heather Williams please Thank you chair and just for clarification my hand is now not working that's why I've had to use the chat So I think the principle of a hotel on that site I think has been well well argued and I don't have any issues with the principle I do with the design is what has been put in front of us I know the determination date in there for deferral isn't an option because I think if further work was done this could be a really beneficial opportunity for the surrounding area and for Duxford Imperial War Museum and I appreciate what's been said about the works being done after we've given permission but we have to judge it as it is right in front of us today and it is subjective but I have to say that when on balance looking at this I'm minded to agree with the historic buildings officer and this isn't and I appreciate others may disagree with that but I don't think it is in the right state for this to go forward and I think you know it's there's a lot of comments and there is a reason why we give great weight to these sites and these buildings because once they're there we can't change it anything that happens you can't change the impact that it has and I think actually the representation from our historic buildings officer has been very strong it's been very clear and there is an option there there can be a successful development there but I'm afraid this is not it and I won't be supporting it but I do welcome and hope that a better proposal comes forward in the future I think the principle is a good idea thank you thank you yes I draw our attention to paragraph one of the report which says that the site is situated within the conservation area and comprised is a number of listed buildings considered the finest and best preserved example of a fighter base representative of the period up to the 1945 in Britain and I am mindful that many of the things the points that the historic buildings officer has made reflect his apparent view that this doesn't respect that finest and best and I must say I was a bit disappointed with the design of the building and I couldn't see why horizontal fenestration reflected any kind of reference to the RAF or military so I'm somewhat concerned about this still and as has been said we have to decide on what's in front of us which is always very difficult because I'm the first one who has to vote so I'm still undecided on this I'll listen to the debate right thank you very much Councillor Roberts Councillor Roberts please thank you Chairman and if Anna wants me to go first I'd be quite happy to Chairman I'm not happy with it as it is present it's a very sensitive site and I'm a little concerned because I was trying to put a quote into a pint pot or whichever way around it but I think it's not right I think that the building is going to stand out and be over dominant of the rest of the conservation area I think the materials as has been pointed out by Councillor McDonald also give me cause to concern I think the very massive it really pushed into that area is going to not to be good it is going to be very detrimental to the conservation area I've also got concerns about the fact that it's going to be all night that there is going to be a lot of lighting there and I'm very appreciative of what Mr Readers suggested about going back to neighbours to make sure but you know it's going to be very different from what it is now and I think it's going to be too different I think it still needs working quite a lot I think in principle something in that area of course the previous ones which I remember well were at the other side of the road and there's also I'm also a little concerned because it's only a few months ago that the big hanger to which it would be next to nearly lost all its roof it was actually coming away and that's the second time recently that that just happened and the thought of that happening and that being thrown around Shrapnel everywhere and so near to a hotel with people staying and sleeping in it etc is it gives me a lot of concern and so I think that this should be a refusal today but with the emphasis that something would be very good there we do need some more intelligent accommodation around this area but not at the moment with this one thank you very much Before Mr Carter would like to speak Very good Mr Carter Yes Thank you chair I just wanted to comment on the advice received from Historic England in relation to the application which you'll see starting at paragraph 28 on page 191 and at the top of the following page Historic England advised that in recent years the sites operators the IWM have engaged Historic England in their evolving master plan and we've been a partner in this vision document for the future management and development of the airfield The current proposals for a hotel adjacent to the modern perimeter of the site is in line with the master plan we were consulted earlier in the year regarding the evolving hotel design and raised no concerns I raise that as obviously we've considered quite in some detail the strong views of historic buildings officer as we should but I just felt it was important to raise that advice from Historic England who obviously are a national advisor on heritage matters particularly on grade 2 star and grade 1 list of buildings and I just thought it was important that the committee were mindful of that as well in their considerations Thank you chair Thank you very much for that Was that councillor Milne as we head next? I think it is So I think that I would bring our attention to one of which is the underlying viability of the Imperial War Museum So I know from personal experience that they've struggled financially we know that hotel rooms availability is very limited The Holiday Express that was built next to the railway station, Bittlesford has been able to maintain premium prices because of their high load booking rates are very good because there's a very limited number of hotel rooms in the area and as we've been told the commercial viability of multi-day conferences is limited by that lack of accommodation But the chairman slapped me down for asking whether alternative locations on the site had been considered but I'm going to re-raise that because on the northern site there is space aplenty within the kerthage of the IWM to build a different hotel type Well, councillor Wright is shaking his head but I asked the question because I wanted to know whether that had been considered Frequently we are asked whether alternative sites for projects have been considered So having said that, I understand that the proximity to the airspace where the conferences are held would make that location next to it an ideal location So I think we've got lots of things that have been toyed with here including the mention of the listed buildings but I believe in 1968 one of those buildings was demolished for the purposes of the film Battle of Britain So I'm not quite sure how precious all those buildings are So I don't like it's a bland building with a curly bit of roof and if we do go ahead with it I'll just ask that we condition solar renewables I think it's there because of its prominence next to the road and that prominence I think is upsetting the current view So I'm very dubious about whether we should approve this application today Thank you very much Who's next? Councillor Wright and Councillor Fane Right, Councillor Wright please Just at the right moment I think Chairman Thank you I visited this site many times and it is in a modern part of the site It is a good situation It's right adjacent to the conference centre and that's why it makes so much sense to put it here The northern site is on the other side of the A505 to the conference centre and it is close to all the really important listed buildings So let's look at what's in front of us rather than making suggestions on putting it elsewhere It makes sense here Historic England don't object to this Our urban design officers don't object to this The planning officer has supported it Our historic building its officer has concerns about it and he has not used the word object So there's concerns about it but we have to look at the bigger picture the whole thing and there's no doubt that Southcams has been crying out for a major conference centre supported by a hotel for a long time and when I was planning portfolio holder this was considered a vital thing and even then we were trying to get Imperial War Museum to do it So this to me makes absolute sense it has historic building officers concerns have been outweighed by the economic development advantages to this particularly to the Imperial War Museum and Councillor Mills is right in saying that we should have concerns about that because it is a tourist attraction and it needs our support particularly at this moment and to hear the local member who remember is our economic development champion attacking this surprises me even more when his parish council supported So to me I'm very minded to support this members and I'll leave that with you, thank you Thank you very much I think it's going to Councillor Payne please Sorry Chair but something needs to say I think it's on wrong to attack the local member because he wasn't he wasn't being crashing it he was just saying that at present he can't be very happy with it I think it's very important Thank you Councillor we can all draw our own conclusions from that I'm sure Councillor Payne please Thank you Chair We've heard that the approval the principle of hotel is established on this site I entirely agree with what Councillor Wright said about the location I recall some of the comments originally made about the airspace they weren't all entirely positive I've heard very few negative comments about it now and this building would lie between that building and the motorway it is not in any sense a threat to the listed buildings or the conservation area of the building itself as to the risks of shrapnel from the airspace building I think probably on an airfield there may be greater risks of shrapnel somewhere else where I think the design of this building is suitable to an airfield particularly when beside a motorway the cladding is still to be addressed I agree with what Councillor Milne said about it would be good to see more solar renewables that should not be impossible but that's not for us to decide at this stage I come back to what Councillor Wright concluded on about the viability of IWM and again Councillor Milne supported that and it is quite clear that particularly under the revised NPPF which is referred to paragraph 12 on page 167 there is significant weight to be given to the need to support economic growth and productivity and that is all the more so when as I may have mentioned earlier in the day we face possibly the deepest recession for many many years and I believe this could be a significant contribution to the viability of IWM which is a very important facility for our area and that we should therefore support and approve this application Thank you very much Who's next please Councillor Halings do we have any more speakers Councillor Halings I don't think Councillor Halings can hear you Chairman I think She's back with us Thank you Thank you I really just want to make a brief comment I hear all the arguments about the economic viability and I go along with those this hotel is in a prominent position on a site of national importance I will be supporting it but I'm disappointed that we haven't got a better quality of building in that site but I do hear the economic arguments I hope that there might be some work to be done on the cladding and also some attempt to make the building fit more to fit better into the site it's a prominent position Right Thank you Could I ask everyone to put their hands down please Is everyone spoken I had put my I think a lot of people have put their hands up because they wanted to speak Well you've already spoken Not in the debate Right okay I've got clarification Yeah so we've got Bradenum Councillor Bradenum Councillor Heather Williams That's enough to go along with Councillor Bradenum please Okay thank you Chairman I just wanted to clarify I'm interested to hear the views of my colleagues and I would just simply like to ask if we are minded to approve this can we add to either condition D boundary treatments or condition E soft landscaping that we require a hedge be planted along the well the eastern boundary of the site west of the A M11 slip road please I think we should be wary about making changes on the it's part of the boundary treatment and there is already a partial hedge there it would just be simply filling in the gaps Okay all right when we come to And also the applicant said he would be happy with that All right I've got a note of that we'll come back to that then thank you Chair we've got Steven Reed I don't know if it's now but he wants to talk about the S106 Yes please Thank you Chair I think if I could just invite the planning office to address the 1A6 matter so that members are aware of what's proposed The 1A6 matter being the boundary treatment No Shuffle bus No let's hear from Karen Thank you You've got something to tell us Sure there is a 1A6 requested on the application in relation to the provision of a maintenance contribution for some keep clear yellow lines on the roundabouts with the A505 and M11 So at the top of the slip road obviously if the A505 is busy and it backs up we've asked for so highways England have asked for the provision of keep clear signs so the roundabout can keep flowing and the cars don't back up onto the slip road onto the M11 and then county transport have asked for a contribution for maintenance of those lines for 20 years and that will be within the 1A6 with full payments over each five years basically Okay thank you very much for that Sorry chair I'm sorry to interrupt again Councillor Judith Riffus has just said that she's going to have to drop out of the meeting due to her connection issues and she's got another meeting to attend so she sends her apologies for that to you all but she's had to drop out of the meeting Okay thank you very much Vice-chair do we have any further speakers We do We have Councillor Heather Williams and Councillor Roberts Councillor Heather Williams has already spoken Is there something new It's clarification It's not clarification Well I think it's chairman it's something that you want to clarify that's been brought up in the debate it's difficult to make a decision if you've not had that clarification I thought you'd already made a decision but tell us anyway come on Well my I would like clarification because many people have spoken about the viability of the applicant and I just want to because you know when I spoke and I said opposed it I didn't oppose the placement or the principle of it and I understood the reasons why they're bringing it forward however a lot of emphasis by some members has been put on the viability of the applicant but we have no viability assessment here we have no viability reports we have no financial information about Duxford so therefore for the purpose of the public record keeping and for clarity in the terms application can officers advise whether it is appropriate for us to be taking into consideration the financial stability of the applicant because we are often told that we cannot and I thought it was important that we clarify that for public record thank you very much chairman thank you very much I'm sure can Mr Carter help us with that one please Yes I can thank you chair councillor Heather Williams is absolutely right there is no viability assessment as far as I understand submitted to justify this scheme therefore that's not that's not in the balance weighing in the balance of the decision making here so that is correct unless the case officer wishes to tell us otherwise right thank you very much chair what wish to do so chair I'm asking the commission the case officer at the moment please I'm sorry carry on thank you thank you chair you agree with Mr Carter there is no there's not a viability report submitted with the application okay fine thank you right chair the applicant is property hotels rather than IWM exactly right indeed okay thank you very much is Mr Reid trying to kind of the point when people are referencing the viability of IWM I think we've got the point councillor thank you it's councillor Roberts chair sorry chair I'll be with you in a second but I've got a hand up from Mr Reid I just want to know if he actually wants to speak again nope alright sorry councillor Roberts it's you chairman I don't need council billings brought up exactly the same as I was wanting to make clear thank you okay thanks very much vice chair do we have any further speakers I don't say if I do but no we don't so clearly there's a division of thought here so we need to be clear for those who want to vote for refusal on what what I've heard so far is that you're supportive of the historic buildings officers view that this is dominant damaging to the conservation area and issues over design is that and material chairman yeah well I would come into the design issue I'll just check with Mr Carter if that's he's heard the same sorry chair to be clear is someone moving a recommendation for refusal because I haven't heard that they don't need to against the proposal right okay then I would I would like to have more specificity in the reasons for refusal should it go that way please so what would you looking for so I mean unacceptable in the conservation area dominant position it's dominant mental chairman to the conservation area limited by the material also and the colours used are all quite inappropriate is that they are giving way to those who are giving way to the historic our historic buildings officer in those areas exception number one we need chapter inverse with the policies that they refer to so the design elements will be against HQ one where would the conservation go can I have some assistance there policy the MPPF about great weight afforded the assets in the conservation area that element and the policies as referenced by the historic and the conclusions that they made I think they said MPPF 2019 specifically paragraph one nine four and one nine six and NH 14 is what's referenced by the officer we have the historic officer then that might be helpful if I may so with regard to the heritage in the national policy framework paragraph one nine six of the MPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm which is how it's been described by our own historic buildings officer as well to the significance of designated heritage heritage assets this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including where appropriate securing its optimum viable use so it would be good to know if the committee was of the opinion that the less than substantial harm identified is or is not outweighed by the public benefits because that in my opinion would be an important part of any reason for refusal should that be where we end up with regard to the other comments that have been made I'm hearing that members are concerned about the dominant impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area by virtue of the size and appearance of the building including the materials and that that would be contrary to policies HQ one and a NH 14 yep so just on the point about the MPPF is the committee suggesting that the less than substantial harm that's been identified is not outweighed by the public benefits because that's just an important point to note Chairman I think I suggest Chairman can we suggest thank you Chairman that we use the text of page 170 which the historic buildings obviously it absolutely makes absolutely abundantly clear the things that we are concerned about she has put them all down there very concisely and we ought to be using that fine all right let's get on with a vote I think we've got the so what we've got at the moment then so the proposal we're for us is for delegated approval subject to section 106 agreement um Chairman we're also subject to the notification on well who is it can you put a hand up or something because she has you now I can't I don't have the ability to raise a hand or chat function I'm afraid I'm lucky I get video okay um we did say that it was going to be as previous applications have been where that we make a decision subject to checks being done as to the consultation that was done that wasn't what you read out it was just subject to 106 yeah 106 and subject to the consultation and if there's any issue about the consultation it comes back to this committee right that's what that's what we're but chairman also with the additional condition of the hedge planted along the boundary uh I believe the advice we had that that is actually already in the 106 agreement chair I didn't hear that no it's not wait Mr Carter's going to tell us if I may that can be incorporated into condition E on page 206 and we can add some specific wording requiring that hedge by agreement with the chair and vice chair if councillor Bradlam is happy with that thank you Mr Carter so we add that to the recommendation then that's condition E which will be toughened up as per that would be decided by the chair and vice chair so that's what you voted for if you're in favor if you're against we've been through the issues that the historic buildings officer has raised and been defined by Mr Carter and that would be the basis for your refusals so we're going to go to a vote now um and we start with councillor Bradlam please for for councillor um so councillor Bradlam for councillor dolton yes it's councillor dawnton dawnton and I am for it for councillor Fein for for for councillor Halings for councillor Milnes with reservations for for councillor Roberts Gates Gates thank you councillor Heather Williams reservations means against for me and thank you councillor Wright for for thank you and councillor bachelor myself I am for so two six seven seven two we do have some missing councillor Ripeth is no longer with us and Richard Williams was also absent so that is passed seven two with the provisos that we've entered into that right thank you very much we move on again to number nine we've just passed seven hours and still going that's five minutes so the next item is item nine a gambling gay we're on page two hundred and fifteen two hundred and fifteen okay gambling gay the application S0185 stroke 20 FL we're at gambling gay the proposal is the change of use from public communities based on parking including resurfacing it's in Grey's Road gambling gay the applicant is south Cambridge district council the recommendations approval key material considerations principal development impact on character and appearance highway safety and parking neighbour amenity the is coming to us because this is a south campus district application and there's a third party objection the presenting officer is Luke Simpson so Luke could you give us your presentation please yeah could I just recognise the knowledge that councillor can find okay you're back with us Richard yeah thank you sorry I missed some of the other one which is why I didn't vote okay alright thank you okay presenting officer if you're ready good afternoon all this is loading up the PowerPoint can you confirm that you can hear me yes good name nearly and can you see the PowerPoint presentation yes we can right so hopefully a lot more straightforward than the previous applications the site is located at Grey's Road the proposed development is for a change of use from public community space to parking including resurfacing the applications before the committee today because it's submitted by South Cambridgeshire District Council this is the site location plan as you can see there are two parts of the site the site is located on Grey's Road and we're not seeing that we're seeing the first slide and also Luke we're seeing your window rather than your screen oh there with me the other way around we do have the slides in our packs though don't we hang on let me try and sort this out sorry we should see it now you've just switched over that's better you can see the notes as well can you the next five Luke right is that okay like that yeah that's fine okay fine sorry I should also point out there's an error in the report to start with paragraph 1.1 I refer to the the land being in the ownership of the county council and that's not correct the land is owned by the district council okay if I move on as I said that's on Grey's Road comprises two areas of grass verge which both form part of the adopted highway here's an aerial image of the site the site is adjacent to a public right of way it's not within the development framework of gambling gay there aren't any other significant constraints this plan shows the proposed development so what's proposed is the change of use of these two areas from public community lands so they're currently grass verges two parking spaces so five parking spaces are proposed in these two areas here the plan also shows the removal of a tree here but that tree actually has already been removed so that doesn't form part of this application so it's not planning officers consider that that is not really a consideration as part of this application because that tree didn't require any consent to remove in the first place so just to let you know it's not there Chair, through you could I ask the officer if he put it in presentation view so we could see the detail I did have it in presentation view but for some reason it's not sharing it properly alright we can see it let's press on it's coming is it better? I think it was just a problem with the IT or the connection previously okay so this is a site photo as you can see the two orange arrows indicate the two areas of landing question either side of the existing parking spaces there are nine parking spaces currently so this application will effectively extend the parking either side for residents parking again another couple of photos showing each of the areas in question it's pretty clear so in terms of the principle of development development complies with local plan policy S7 the site is wholly located within the settlement framework of Gamlingay planning officers consider that the development would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area we're only talking about two small areas of grass verge which would be removed and as I've just shown you there's an existing strip of parking directly adjacent so we're obviously effectively extending that parking provision the employees have no objection to the application the work would all be carried out as it's adopted highway land the work would all be carried out in accordance with their requirements in terms of the specification of materials used all of the parking spaces meet the minimum dimension requirements there wouldn't be an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity actually planning officers consider that there would be a benefit to local residents because the additional off-road parking would enable them to park free of the highway right so the tree officer objects to the application because of the removal of the amenity land but planning officers have taken a view on that and we consider that actually there are only two small areas of grass verge amenity land and actually large areas of amenity land will be retained to either sides we're only talking about a very small proportion of the amenity land as I mentioned previously the tree is no longer there and therefore we don't consider it necessary to require that the tree is replanted given that it doesn't really form part of this application and as I said there wasn't any consent required to remove that tree in the first place so on that basis planning officers are recommending that planning commission is granted subject to conditions right thank you very much for that right members bearing in mind that the only reason this is here is because it's the South Cams District Council application and that all the Sederica Consultees are in favour I'd like to move this on as swiftly as possible I believe there's a couple of you who would like to speak is it Council Williams I believe Heather Williams do you want to speak thank you Chairman I just want to clarify one thing and then happy to go to a vote you'll be pleased to hear is page 216 consultation nine Environmental Health Officer it is no response received and there's this out of time does that mean that we receive something late and therefore hasn't been included or have we just not received something because I see that's on the next application as well but just what does that mean we've not received it or we received it late is there anything and if there's not anything of substance then you know people need parking around there it's inevitable with the development so right yeah let's get an answer to that problem say there's obviously a time period in which we expect to receive consultations and that both brackets out time that just means we haven't received a response within that time frame and I can confirm we still haven't received a response from Environmental Health all right thank you is it Council Williams next very quick one thank you chair I just wonder where the poorest pavers considered which would allow you to keep the appearance of grass but give the ability to park over the top of it so therefore not just tar macking and therefore retaining some elements of greenery about this yeah as the land is adopted highway the parking spaces have to be constructed to a specification which you know specified by the local highway authority came to County Council and that's why we can't sort of deviate from from that specification but the poorest pavers are accredited devices for parking areas councils all over the place are using them for that very purpose okay I appreciate that but whether or not those areas of parking are part of the adopted highway is another question all right thank you that's fine right thank you very much Councillor Bradnam I'd like to propose approval or moving to the vote right I'm not sure if anybody else is wanting to speak no are we happy to go to the vote then Councillor Daunton chair Oh Councillor Daunton yes please yes thank you I just want to check but I can't actually access my papers online at the moment because the connection is so slow this parking is related to South Cams owned housing isn't it yes can you confirm that please yeah the district council own the land including the land in question the application site thank you and also a further check is any of this housing sheltered housing I don't know the answer to that question and I don't know if it's relevant to the provision of the additional parking spaces that's fine I am in favour of this but I just wanted to check that very much thank you very much we're moving to the vote then the recommendation is approval can we do that my affirmation please three three just for the record Councillor Roberts left the meeting at the start of this item so anyway that's approved by affirmation thank you very much let's speed on right we're now going to Tevesham agenda item 10 this is page 223 application 20 1 004 4 Tevesham 14 bungalows site address is 1 to 4 17 to 28 Tevesham they're owned by southcams district council recommendation is for approval principle of development visual immunity and climate change mitigation are the key material. These considerations is coming to us because it is a South Cams District Council application. The presenting officer is Luke Simpson, Consulting Planning Officer and just in passing I remind members that we have already passed almost identical applications for this sort of cladding at Balsham and one other place I believe. So, oh to you Luke. Thank you councillor. Okay so the application site is located at, oh can I just confirm that you can see the slides this time? Yeah brilliant brilliant. So the site is located at one to four and 17 to 28 Ferndale and comprises 14 flats and two bungalows. The proposed developments for additional cladding layer to these units. This is an area that measures the site. The units are all counts loaned. The site is located south of Tewesham. It's actually outside of the settlement framework and within the green belt there are no other significant constraints relevant to the proposed development. This is the site location plan and illustrates the units subject to this planning application. These are a couple of photographs of the existing units and their pedal dash render. That render would be replaced with this render which planning officers consider would be a significant improvement aesthetically and it would also assist in carbon reduction through increasing the insulation of the properties. The slide shows an example of what the cladding would look like. The key considerations are the principle of development whilst the site is outside of the development framework. It's necessarily, well the development takes place in the countryside location and that's necessary given that the units are in the countryside. So we don't think there's a conflict with policy S7 and there's no conflict with the purposes of that policy IFAR. The development wouldn't result in any encroachment because there's no extension to the units. In terms of character and appearance, planning officers consider that the units would be in keeping with the surrounding area which is quite mixed. So there's not much uniform character in terms of the appearance of the dwelling surrounding. And actually as I said there'd be a significant improvement to the appearance of the units. The proposals would accord with the local plan policy CC1 on climate change and therefore officers recommend approval of this application subject to conditions. Right thank you very much. Any points of clarification? Hopefully not. You've had a comment from Councillor Daunton who is the local member. Councillor Daunton, do you want to speak now? Yes thank you. Thinking that I wouldn't be present at the committee I wrote a note so really I'm just repeating what I said in the note. The improvement to the appearance and energy efficiency of these apartments and bungalows is long overdue and I recommend it to the committee and recommend the work of housing officers. It has been held up by having to come to planning committee. Indeed. All right that's fine. I'd like to move immediately to a vote on this because I don't think this is anyway contentious but I see I'm not sure if it's old hands or new hands. Is Councillor Milne wanting to speak? It's an old hand. I'm sorry. Is there an old hand there for Councillor Fain? It is good. All right I'm going to go straight to a vote on this then. So the recommendation is for approval. Is there anybody who doesn't read? Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Okay that's approved. But I'll done Luke. I think you're going to get up. I told you it'd be straightforward. Luke's going for a hat trick I think. He's going for a hat. But we'll have. That's a fair couple of two wins. Now keep control. Very short order. Ender 11. Item 11. We're now at Fen Ditten. This is application 20-0-1-005 stroke 4. It's the same principle as we just looked at at Tevesham. It's recladding in insulation and rendered top coats. So the address is 1-3-2-28 Musgrove Way Fen Ditten. It's the Africans in South Campus District Council. Recommend approval. Key material considerations. Visual amenity. Climate change mitigation. It's here because it's South Campus District Council's application. Presenting officer is Richard Fitzjohn, senior planning officer. Thank you Richard. Glad to take your presentation. Nice and short I hope. Thank you Chair. Try to share. All of them are equally important to us. Absolutely. Can you just confirm that you can see my screen? Okay this is application. An application for recladding and insulation from a pepperdash finish to a light rendered top coat. It applies to numbers one to three and numbers two to 28 Musgrove Way Fen Ditten. Again it's come to committee because it's submitted on behalf of the African is South Campus District Council. And it relates to 14 in Flaps and Two Bungalows. As you can see the application sites outlined in red on the plan is some aerial photography showing a rough outline of the two application sites. This is two to 28 Musgrove Way photos as existing. And this is numbers one to three Musgrove Way as existing. And this is the detail of the proposed insulation and render and example of the render finish which it will look like when complete. Thank you. All right thank you very much. Local member Councillor Dalton I think you've got the same comments. I've got the same comments and actually the photographs of Musgrove Way make it look more attractive now than it actually is. It's in sore need of this work to be done and I'm sure Councillor Bradnham as the county councillor for that area would agree with me. So wholeheartedly support this application and getting it done. Lovely. Thank you. I see Councillor Bradnham's got her hand up. You want to end your set? Thank you Chairman. I just thought it might be interesting to note members that the designs and layout of these two developments Ferndale and Musgrove Way are almost identical and they're identically in off-road out in the countryside locations and absolutely I would endorse what Councillor Dalton says these flats when you get inside them are very dank and cold and so this improvement in insulation would be most welcome and I absolutely endorse it and in fact I'll if anybody unless anybody else wants to I'll propose we agree. All right well I'm intended to go straight to the vote anyway. Thank you very much for that. So the recommendation is approval. Can we do that by acclamation please? Agreed. I went against. Agreed. No okay that's great so that's approved. That's our last one and it's seven hours and 23 minutes so far. And can I just say well done to Richard Fitzjohn for being there the whole time until the very end? Yes well done to all the officers as this peak has been immense. Yeah absolutely. Men and ladies you deserve a medal. Okay thank you very much everybody. Thank you. Let's get home. We've got a briefing in half an hour.