 Rwy'n cael y gallwch chi'n mynd i'r ffordd o'u cyfrifio ar y cyfnodau yn yr ystod yma. Rwy'n cael ei fod yn fwy o'r gweithydd, ac yn ffwrdd yr ystod yma, ac yn haith y cyfrifio. Rwy'n cael ei fod yn cael ei gweithio. Rwy'n cael ei fod yn cael ei cyfrifio i'r ysgol, mae'n cael ei fod yn cael ei ffordd o'u cyfrifio. Mae'n fwy o'n cael ei ffordd o'u defnyddio chi'n effaith yn cael ei wneud. The camera follows the microphone being switched on. So, councillors and officers, if you would wait a couple of seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up. Obviously if the fire alarm sounds, please leave the chamber. Make your way down the stairs, not the lift and the safe assembly point is next to the marketing suite. Halfway along the business park. For those participating in the meeting via the livestream, please could you indicate, if you wish to speak, rather chat column. Please don't use the chat column for other purposes. Obviously make sure your device is fully charged. Switch your microphone and camera off unless you're invited to do otherwise. And make sure you've switched off or silenced any other devices. You may like to use a headset if available. When you're invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched on. And when you finish addressing the meeting, please turn off your microphone immediately. Obviously speak slowly and clearly. And please do not talk over or interrupt anyone else. Note that if we need to vote on any item, we'll do so via the electronic voting system. The button on your microphones. Only those present in the chamber can vote. Only members present can propose or second recommendations. For those present in the chamber, I'll now invite each of you to introduce yourselves. So members, after I call your name, please, for those at home, turn on your camera and microphone. As I said earlier, my paedifane, I'm a member for Shelford Ward. My vice-chair is Councillor Henry Batchelor. Morning, Chair. Morning, everyone. Councillor Henry Batchelor, one of the members for Linton and vice-chair of the committee. And then other members, if you would, just introduce yourselves. Councillor Anna Bradnam. Good morning. I'm Councillor Anna Bradnam and I'm one of the three members for Milton and Water Beach Ward. We'll stop here as a substitute for Councillor Eileen Wilson. Thank you. Thank you. And Councillor Dr Martin Kahn. Hello, I'm Councillor Martin Kahn. I'm one of the three members for Dyson in Pington and Orchard Park. Councillor Joe's Hales. Good morning, Chair. Councillor Joe's Hales, one of the Councillors from Melbourne Ward. Thank you. Councillor Dr Chumey Hawkins. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Chumey Hawkins Codicott Ward. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Good morning, everyone. I'm Councillor Jeff Harvey and I'm the member for Borsham Ward. Councillor Brian Milne's. Morning, Chair. Suspiciously, loud Ryan Milne's from Sortsdon. Thank you. Councillor Deborah Roberts. Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, everybody. Deborah Roberts, Foxton Ward. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Morning, Heather Williams. I represent the Mordins Ward. And Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you, Chair. I'm Richard Williams. I represent Wittlesford Tripler. He feels the newton. And just in case it wasn't obvious, I was inviting members to introduce themselves in alphabetical order, not in any other order. Are there any other members present, please, or present online? And I can confirm the meeting's quarrate. We also have three officers in the Chamber. Stephen Kelly. Good morning, everyone. Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. Stephen Reid, our senior planning lawyer. Morning, Chair. Morning, Members. And Michael Sexton, Area Development Manager. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Members. And our Democratic Services Officer is here in the building, but he's joining us virtually. Lawrence, please introduce yourself. Chair, good morning, everyone. Yet Lawrence Damari-Hoban, Democratic Services Officer. Thank you. Now, if at any time a member leaves the meeting, would they please make that known to me, or my Vice-Chair, so that can be recorded in the minutes? I intend that we should break for 15 minutes at 11.45. And if the meeting is still going on, break again this afternoon at 3.45. We have a 45-minute break for lunch at about 1.30, if that would be convenient for Members. Hopefully, Members will have the main agenda pack dated 5 April and the online agenda supplements. That should include the plans pack supplement dated 6 April and a supplement also for item 5, as listed, Sourston. Also dated 6 April. Members should also have received two documents from Linton Parish Council. If you haven't received these various documents, do indicate and printed copies will be available. And officers will introduce those in introducing items later. Members, we have a big agenda today that I propose to alter the running order of today's meeting. What I'm going to propose is that we hear items 12 and 13, which are the two Linton applications, immediately after we've dealt with item 6. So items 12 and 13 and our agendas would become 7 and 8. That's for the convenience of a lot of people following or contributing to our work today. Do I have a seconder for that, please? Thank you. Councillor Henry, that should have seconded that. Can we agree that by affirmation? Thank you very much. Right. Apologies. Apologies for absence. Lawrence, are there any apologies for absence today, please? Yes, Chair, we have three apologies for absence today. Apologies have been received from councillors Pippa Halings, Eileen Wilson and Judith Ripper, with councillors Hales, Bradnan and Milne's kindly substituting for us today. Thank you. And then declarations of interest. Do any members have any interest to declare in relation to any item of business on this agenda? Councillor Hales. Thank you, Chair. Item number nine. Having taken advice, I will be leaving the Chamber. I think councillor Jeff Harvey. Yes, thank you, Chair. Though I'm the member for Borsham Ward, I'm actually a resident of Abingdon, so in relation to item six, but I've had no discussions on that. And I come to the matter of fresh. That's a declaration of interest. Martin Carn. In regard to the item eight, former Bishop's site, my wife is on the Parish Council in Hysden and Ampington. She may have been involved in the planning committee, I don't know, but there have been no discussions on this, and I come to the matter of fresh. I'm just going round the rolling matter order, sir. Councillor Branwell. Thank you, Chair. So in reference to item five, I am a Parish Councillor for Salson, a local member for Salson, as I mentioned earlier, and I would just like to state that I come to this matter of fresh this morning. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. I'm a local member for some of the applications or the appeals on item 15, of which I have had conversations with officers, but it's not a decision-making item. I think, Councillor Timmy Hawkins, were you indicating? Thank you, Chair. Just a clarification item seven, but your earlier state, at the count is Mr Hawkins, no relationship whatsoever. Just a clarification. I think, Councillor Batchel. Thank you, Chair. Item number six, Grant of Parking in Great Abington. We have had visits to Grant of Park as a local member. That will in no way affect my decision today. Right. Thank you, Members. One more. Sorry, I missed you. Just to clarify, my wife is on the trip, a coach at the moment coming back from Poland. I've clarified with her that she was not on the planning committee to deal with this particular application when it came to. Thank you. Right. Minutes of previous meetings, a number of minutes to deal with today. Starting with our meeting on 28th of January. Yes, we'll start with the 19th of January. Quite right, which is on page one of your agenda. Do Members agree that that is a correct record of the meeting? Agreed? Thank you. We'll move on to the minutes of the meeting on 28th of January, on page nine of your agendas. Does everyone agree that that is a correct record? Councillor Bradman. Chair, I will abstain because I didn't attend that meeting. But otherwise, can we take that by affirmation? Thank you. Then, 9th of February, on page 15 of your agendas, your papers. Does everyone agree that that is a correct record of Councillor Bradman? Understood. With the exception of Councillor Bradman, can we take that by affirmation? Those minutes are approved. Then we come, I think, to the minutes of the meeting on 9th of March, on page 27 of your agenda. I think I may have missed some, have I? 28th of February, yes. Page 21, quite right, thank you. Yes, so the minutes of the meeting on 28th of February, on page 21 of your agendas. Agreed. Councillor. Thank you, Chair. It's just relative to item 12, which is the one that was done in the closed session. Just in the interest of trying to clarify. Sorry, can I just clarify that the minutes of the meeting held in closed session. I'm not going to mention anything. We're going to come to those at the end. Sorry, carry on. I wasn't going to mention anything about that. I'm just going to mention the public part of the minutes. Which date? It's 9th of March, last one we did. We're just doing 28th of February. Can you come to the moment? Sorry, I thought we were on March. Let's do 28th of February again if we haven't already done it. My apologies, I'm too far ahead. We're usually ahead of us, that's all right. So, can I take the, that we approve the minutes of the meeting on 28th of March? Agreed to agree that, thank you. And now we come to the minutes of the meeting on 9th of March. Yes, sorry, thank you, Chair. Just on item 12. I wanted to propose really to see how the committee would feel about putting the reference for the planning appeal that we were talking about in the public part of the minutes. Because when we go into closed session in other committees, we do usually give some indication of the nature of the business to be transacted. So, I wondered if in the interest of some transparency we could just put the reference number for the planning application under item 12 in the public part. I understand that the details have already been publicly disclosed. I haven't seen it myself. So, the point you're making is can we at least say in relation to which case we agreed to... The director says there's no problem with that. So, can we all agree that Dr Hawkins? Chair, I was not at that meeting. So, I'm abstaining. And I was not at that meeting. We seem to have lots of abstentions in relation to past minutes when the meeting is coming up. Thank you, Chair. I don't think it's recorded here that we had to leave at short notice at lunchtime on page 32 at the bottom of the first section. It says the councillor hardly did not vote. So, it's actually technically incorrect because I wasn't any longer in the meeting. Do you want the minutes to be corrected to reflect that, or are you happy that that fact is actually recorded in sufficient detail here? Yeah, I think I'm happy with that. Having taken those points into account, can we all agree to the proposal by Dr Richard Williams? Do we need a seconder? There, there. Can we take that by affirmation? Good. Okay, thank you very much. Sorry, Chair, but with the abstentions of myself and other... We'd like to thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, and this might need to be checked, but just to in the interest of Councillor Claire Daunton, I believe she didn't vote as opposed to abstained. That might need to be checked. Okay, well, I'm sure that the committee would agree to that being corrected if necessary, or left as it is if cancelled on. Thank you for that suggestion. Okay, I think we're now in a position to move on to the main body of the meeting. So that brings us to Item 5 on your agendas, which is on page 33 onwards. Land south of Babrum Road in Sourston, reference 2103955 for application. This is a proposal for the erection of 280 dwellings, including the 72 affordable dwellings, and other matters. Applicant is Red Row Homes, key material considerations are set out on your agenda, and the decision is due by 15th April. There is in fact an extension if that were needed. So, on this, the case officer is I believe Mr Sexton, am I right? Right. Mr Sexton, please lead us through this view. Thank you, Chair. There's no updates on this application, so I'll fly straight into the presentation. So yes, this is a full planning application for the erection of 280 dwellings, including the 72 affordable units, associated accesses, pedestrian cycle access, open space, landscaping, service water drainage, and infrastructure. Land south of Babrum Road in Sourston. This is the site location plan, so we're on the eastern edge of Sourston, and the site is one of the council's housing allocations in the local plan. It is H1C south of Babrum Road, and as you can see from the aerial photograph, you've got H1B to the north, which is currently under development. The housing allocation for H1C was the 260 dwellings. The developer has come forward with 280 dwellings, there's absolutely no issues in that increase, particularly noting that H1B to the north was allocated for 80, and in fact delivered 158 dwellings. Just for context, that is the approved site layout plan for land to the north with the application site for members to the south. For a bit of context, a few Google Street views, this is Babrum Road looking towards and across the existing site towards the existing village edge here, and then this is the junction at Dale's Manor Business Park, looking down towards Linson Way, and you have the application site sitting in this part of land here, and Linson Way recreation grounds to the right hand side. This is a view from Stanley Webb Close, which is some of the existing developments to the west of the site. The former development around the area is typically two-storey detached and semi-detached and teres properties, and there's a view of the application site, and this is one of the potential points of connection in the site, and again to the image on the bottom is a view along Plantation Road looking across to the site beyond, and you can see the prevailing form of development. So the site plan, so there are 280 dwellings laid out. The site comprises three character areas which help add identity to the site and seeks to respond to the source and design guide. We've been through extensive engagement with the developer and the parish council and a range of amendments and satisfied that the layout is responsive to the video design guide and there is a condition for materials which will further enhance that response. In terms of the indicative 10-year affordable housing, there are going to be 72 affordable houses delivered as part of this site which is a 26% provision. That is obviously less than the 40% that is required by local policy, but there are material planning reasons for that which I've set out in the report in a complicated mathematical formula because the previous exception sites to the west here, there was a section 106 that said if any of this lands here comes forward for housing then these accounted towards the affordable contribution. So there's a material reason and officers are satisfied that the 72 affordable units are the appropriate number to come forward. This is a master plan just to show how it responds. There are some key assets out in the report, some key parts of housing allocation that the site had to have a strong eastern landscape buffer to obviously soften the impact of development on the edge of the village which has been incorporated. The vehicle access is solely from Babrum Road with pedestrian and cycle access to the west to add connectivity to the site. You can see the existing public rights of way denoted in the blue line how the site seeks to connect into those through the new and enhanced routes again secured by condition in consultation with the county council. We have a central Leap area towards the north of the site and a lap towards the south. Because the site is over 200 dwellings it's technically required to provide a neeper neighbourhood equipped area of play but because such an area already exists on way recreation ground we are looking at an offsite contribution to enhance that area because it is within the guided walking distances that was agreed with sourced and parish council. Again this just shows a landscape strategy which I've already touched on. You have the strong eastern and southern boundaries to the site. Some attenuation basins with strong landscaping around and as you can see a range of trees planted down the key avenues of the site so a lot of additional planting going in. Just a few house type examples just to show the prevailing scale is a two story development with the three or four two and a half story and some single story and scenery buildings. Unfortunately these are in black and white but clearly there will be a mixture of materials and pallet of materials of brick and render and snakes etc coming forward which we will have secured through condition to be submitted but it's really just to give you a context of the house types. There's a range of house types on the site as you'd expect for 280 dwellings and there are some maintenance as well. So key material considerations are as set out in the reports I won't spend too long. Officers are satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in principle and it accords with the specific development requirements set out in the policy housing provision. We have the appropriate mix of market housing and affordable housing on the sites. Character landscape is responsive and in line with the design guide of Sourston. By diversity there will be a net gain of 4.65% delivered on the site with some off-site enhancements around the edge. There's been a lot of trees being planted. Flood risk and drainage is all agreed with the local flood authority secured by condition. Highway safety again all in consultation with the technical constates is being satisfied. Residential immunity is appropriate for the future occupiers and the existing occupiers adjacent to the sites. Renewables again secured by condition. Open space provision is in line with policy. There are a raft of developer contributions which are set out in paragraphs 280 to 296 of the report and that covers contributions towards education, highways, infrastructure community facilities and they will all be secured by way of a section 106 site alongside any consent. That's it for me, Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members, because of the nature of some of the proposal we will be discussing today and proposing a slight change in procedure in Chairman's discretion we normally take any questions to case officers later at the start of the debate but I think it would be helpful today if we could take them while the slides are up and so on. Not so much in relation to this application. You'll see the purpose this later. That may encourage us all to separate out the questions from the debate so that when we get to the debate we will be quite clear. Councillor Brandon. Thank you, Chair. I have three. One is at page 49 paragraph 6. We have four separate groups of affordable units and I note that the officers say that they feel this is appropriate dispersion but it looks quite closely clustered to me and I wondered what discussions had been had with the developers about possibly diffusing those clusters a bit more through the site and is there any room to do that. The second question is about the area of play which was up on the slide the southern area and it appeared to be a link because the offsite provision was going to be provided at the Linton Recreation Ground and I wanted to ask what the walking route to that would be because it looked as if there was a spur path through but I think that's actually into the back of the school so I just wanted to be sure there was a short link and they didn't have to go all the way up around the top and then back and the other thing, sorry, on the affordable housing was which house types are the affordable housing so that if we could be shown that that would be useful because that would give us an idea of whether if all the house types are very similar then it wouldn't make any odds that they're together but we need to be 10-year blind and also if there's a fourth point and it again relates to affordable housing is could we just have some narrative around the less than 40% provision on why that was deemed okay, thank you Are you able to perhaps help them to bring up a slide in relation to the leak of you then? Yes I will reshare my Thank you So taking the issues in turn the clustering of affordable housing that has been subject to extensive discussions with the council's affordable housing team you'll notice that the key has got John Huntington charity that's a local provider within the village they have been involved in those discussions as well clearly there's a need to balance dispersing with management the council's affordable housing team and the John Huntington charity are happy with the layout that has been provided it is in line with the council's greater Cambridge housing strategy and the annex that the appendix looks particularly at the groups of clustering that is appropriate so officers are fully satisfied that the layout is acceptable there is a mix of 10 years this is an indicative mix it will be 10 years sorry we will be delivering the 70-30 split but there's ongoing discussions with again with the John Huntington charity about which units they will take those discussions are continuing with the affordable housing team the house types there is a mix of house types it will be 10 years blind they're built to the same architectural quality as the rest of the site so obviously it's much more evident on the map that the single is out of the affordable units but in reality there won't be distinguishable notably between them then you asked about the Neath sorry council over sorry it may be that I'm colour blind but I was just wondering if the officer could indicate with a pointer where the intermediate the green houses are because I'm really struggling to see where they are so there's some green intermediate units in all the grouping so in the western there's one unit and two maze and nets then you have this is indicative there are still discussions going on with the John Huntington's charity but indicatively you've got a mix of intermediate and rented all within the same each individual cluster so they are dispersed and mixed it's an awkward shape of site to display on a screen for you and that's one of the things we've zoomed out but yes there's a mixture in each of the four groups the point about the justification for going on yes so that is set out in the report and I'm not going to try and do that because it's quite complicated we did have pre-application discussions and we agreed the methodology with the housing team and the developer and our legal team we have secured the maximum percentage that can be secured essentially in its independence one these existing properties to the west of the site were delivered as rural exception sites back in 2003 and 2004 within those 106 agreements this sort of southern two thirds of the site were delivered within the 106 agreement which stipulated that should any of this land that we're looking at today come forward for housing then the council would be required to count the provision of the rural exception sites towards the calculation of the affordable housing to be delivered on this site which is why we have the 26% rather than the 40% but there is material planning reasons in the section 106 agreement that requires that and we're all happy officers in line with what's required by the 106 Thank you Mr Six, that's very clear before you ask your question can I just clarify, I think as local member you'll be speaking in the debate while we're on a separate presentation is that right? Thank you for that Can we have a further question? No, my question about the leap hasn't yet been answered Yes, okay, quite right can we just see that on the screen here? Yes, hopefully this will help with some clarity so the leap local equipped area play has been provided in the northern parcel developments of over 200 houses are technically required to provide a neighbourhood equipped area play which is aimed at the older not the older but the sort of 8 to 14 year old the upper age group of children there is an existing leap on Linson Way Recreation Ground so through pre-app discussions with the developer and the parish council I think the parish council expressed concerns about having two neeps in such close proximity because the walking distance required an RSPD for a neep is to be within a thousand metres or a 15 minute walk so it wasn't deemed appropriate to have two neeps in such close proximity all of these properties are within that 15 meter walking route there is a potential route across the site at this point here so people can walk through there will be connections here and to the south so there's multiple ways that residents could go through the western site or indeed if you're living up here you may go up to Faberham Road and then across so it's all within a distance regional distance and that's why we were satisfied an offsite contribution was appropriate to enhance the existing leap. Thank you Mr Sexton after seeing that connection in the middle makes sense and I was concerned that the other connection appeared to go through the school can I take if that deals with the full range of your questions Councillor Mills Just a couple of questions on housing density obviously slightly more than was originally anticipated but have you got a figure for the housing density handy please and the other thing very cognisant of full council in the last couple of weeks we've had a motion put forward by Councillor Sue Wellington about looking up to trees it's very important to this development to maintain a barrier or a landscaping with the trees that the officer already mentioned so I just wonder whether there was any provision in the conditions for managing the trees after they're planted so that they become well established and something like the A14 where a lot of the trees that are planted have died doesn't happen here thank you Thank you and through you chair in terms of density that's set out in paragraph 73 of the report 280 dwellings across the 12 hectare site is 23 dwellings per hectare which is slightly lower than our requirement 30 once you take out the fact that the site will be providing 2.47 hectares of public accessible open space 280 dwellings across the remaining area is 29 dwellings per hectare so it's fully in line with the council's policy in that regard in terms of the management of the trees there are a range of landscapes and ecological conditions including landscape management plans recommended as part of this consent if the landscape buffered on the eastern edge of the site particularly concerned we could also look at the wording within the 106 agreement just to draw that particular element out further if that's something that you would want us to take away Thank you and just one question to you chair are the developers here are we going to be able to ask the questions of them Yes I think the developers will be speaking shortly I think we have Alice Kirkham in your more online yes Councillor Heather Williams Thank you chair through yourself is it possible to see the affordable housing sort of colour coordinated map and then could I see the you have to indicate the area that it falls within this clause 8 and the area that isn't please I'm just going to bring up appendix 1 because that shows the area clearer than that plan so this is the plan from the 2004 section 106 agreement the application sites that is you can see the cursor moving slowly so the southern boundary of the application site follows this line here the eastern boundary follows the line of the 106 agreement and then jars off to the northeast because this area to the top right is included in the application site so it's only and again as set out in the report it's only tentative land that is within this area of the application site that is liable for the reduced contribution so we've done quite a complicated calculation that the number of dwellings delivered in the top third of the site is liable for the full 40% the bottom two thirds of the site is 40% less what's already been provided so it's all set out in the report and we'll articulate any better without reading that word for word check if I can what I'm trying to ascertain that might help is whether that's what I was asking to have that sort of line drawn or overlaid onto the affordable housing is whether the affordable housing in relation to the non clause 8 area is actually within that site or whether it has been put into other parts of the site so I'm trying to add that onto the affordable housing no I know but I'm looking for the dispersement through the site how much is in that top area so I'll reshare this plant so the section 106 line effectively cuts across there so that northern section isn't isn't affected by the section 106 agreement clearly while that 106 agreement affects the amount of affordable housing to come forward the dispersion is across the site as a whole so there is affordable housing being delivered in the northern parcel that's not subject to the 106 but I wouldn't say that's sort of directly relevant in that regard the 106 affects the number that has to be delivered across the site as a whole and then clearly the layout should disperse those affordable houses across all areas of the site has been shown there so these two clusters to the north are outside of that section 106 area and then you have two further groups that are within that 106 area if that's helped councillor thank you my own view is that that's a very clear answer are you happy that you've had the answer you needed I'm happy I've had an answer to my question not particularly happy with that plan members we have got a lot of business to get through today so I'm hoping that we can keep our questions not only essential our very in mind we have all the papers in front of us but also short and direct and I'm sure Mr Sexton will know that the mind in relation to his answers too so councillor Dr Tumie Hawkins please thank you chair and I'll be very brief one of my questions was to do with the affordable housing well that's been clear now and I understand exactly why it's the way it is I noted that there wasn't any one beds in the market housing I wonder why that is it's just two beds, two to five beds it's proposed to have cycle parking in the garages now the question is are the garages big enough for cycle parking and cars and I don't know why we are proposing to have cycle parking in garages please because we know what tends to happen in terms of heating there's proposal for gas boilers for those that built up to 2025 and then heat pumps after but surely we should be looking at heat pumps going forward anyway I just wanted to understand why we've agreed to that and in terms of design I think it's paragraph two to nine talks about one of the two windows being obscure glazed but it's a bedroom window why is the design such that we have to obscure glazed a bedroom window thank you thank you and through you chair in the cycle provision condition 23 requires that of effort to provide details of secure and covered cycle parking to meet our policy requirements there was an indication of design and access statement that it wasn't quite up to our policy standard so officers satisfied with that condition would address your concern about making sure there's adequate space for the parking whether that's in a garage or in a separate shared beach unit would need to provide x amount of parking in one space per bedroom so we can make sure that comes through the condition in terms of the boiler question unfortunately we can't at this stage say no because the change hasn't come in there is an energy statement that's been submitted that's been looked at by our sustainability officer who's satisfied with the details clearly you may wish to ask that question of the developer when they come forward shortly and paragraph 229 in the obscure glazed window it's a secondary bedroom window so it's a dual aspect bedroom the south western aspect looks towards a neighbouring property so because a bedroom is a houseable room it's a safeguarded immunity to the existing properties of the south west we have added a condition that window be obscure glazed but the occupants would have a north west aspect that's not obscure glazed it's accessible to obscure glazed a secondary bedroom window if it was the only bedroom window then we would have had to look at a design change because of the impact because it's secondary that's why the condition is imposed sorry yes the council's policy requires 30% one or two beds 30% three and then 30% four or more so albeit there are no one bed market properties there are over 30% two bed properties so it complies with policy my short answer counciller right we're going to take counciller Richard Williams question next please thank you chair I've got a couple of questions about this 106 agreement which I would imagine none of us like can I just clarify what would the total affordable housing provision then be if you unite that site with the site that's subject to the 106 so what would we get overall it is 40% overall okay that's useful can I just get a clarification that the land is still this land is still in the ownership of the parties who signed the 106 because the 106 says should the owner be able to develop it will be counted towards now the applicant's obviously different here different housing company if we just get clarification it's still the same owner and that 106 is still relevant and if you wouldn't mind just formally for the record answering the first question even if councillers would have been satisfied by indications from elsewhere in the room okay thank you if I could come back to the first question so I just have to actually know isn't the report there with me I can do some quick maths in terms of the second point about land ownership there's multiple landowners involved in the site and as far as I am aware the ones that are relevant to the 106 that you've referenced still own this this site and the agent may be in a better position to clarify that but my understanding is yes that ownership is still applicable just scrolling through the planning history there with me you bring up more information on that point I'm just doing some maths on the calculator to not embarrass my mental arithmetic so this site would deliver 72 units then the two exception sites are 30 and 36 which gives a total of 138 a four-wheel units when you include the two road exception sites to the west and that will be out of just to make it add up to you I think councillor Williams is asking for different calculations the one I've set out in the report so if I understand the question correctly there are 138 four-wheel units when you include the two existing road exception sites when you take that 66 and add it to the 280 dwellings it's 40% because we have 138 four-wheel overall across 346 which is 39.8% right if we could try to avoid challenging our case officers mental arithmetic too far I think that's a very satisfactory response councillor Roberts thank you chairman I'll try to be very short it's one question only can I have a look again please chairman can we all have a look again at the the map that shows the open green spaces because my concern is that given the amount of housing that we have got here I find it's a little bit short in my opinion why is it that we haven't pressed for more open spaces because to be quite honest the houses are going to have pocket handkerchief size gardens and there's an awful lot of them and really why are we not pressing for a much more open space on there I mean um there's a lot of the areas on the edge that are not going to be any use other than a visual benefit but actually for use of the people I mean is the amount of land that we've been given which I think is about 2.5 hectares of green is that really what we would have really been expecting our site of this site thank you chair thank you councillor through you chair the amount of open space that's been provided on site is in line with our policy requirements in conjunction with the off site contributions that's set out in the report the eastern boundary is quite sizeable boundary it's not just there for a landscape buffer it is a functional area it will be a multi-purpose recreational route so people will be able to get out and walk around that would be quite attractive route which may be more beneficial to having small pockets areas of open space within the site which aren't perhaps as usable so this was looked at again through pre-app with our landscape officer and our design officer and this was the design that came forward it is policy compliant thank you for that answer I suspect that's a matter we may come back to in debate later on councillor Harvey yes I was looking at the Abraham Parish Council comments on page 36 and their concern about additional traffic and that's covered I think there's an analysis of the traffic impact in paragraph 197 on page 60 and also addressed in paragraph 204 I wanted to make sure that those analyses take into account the fact that at the end of Abraham High Street you can no longer turn right in the direction of Haverhill you have to have a two mile detour via the research park around about and if you google map for example how you would get to Norwich from the sighting of the proposed development it actually takes you the other way in other words you would go towards Abraham turn right and then have to negotiate a rather awkward kind of reverse turning left onto the A505 and as they state a particular piece of road is very narrow I just want to make sure that that's all been taken into account so have we taken into account how you would get to Norwich short answer yes thank you thank you Dancer Martin-Carn many years here four to five years ago I actually lived in Saarston for a couple of years so it's an area I do know one of the things I've come back to Councillor Roberts comments about the lack of open space which it does seem to strike me this has been countered by provision of support to one of you Can we Dr. Ghan, is this a question? No you will be, yes to one of you which is some distance there is, I found when living there that there's very little accessible open space from informal accreation in the vicinity one of you is some way away because there's a limit to the amount of land you can provide one of the things you have got there is footpaths has any consideration been given to improving the footpath access and improvements of footpaths in the surrounding area which is the main access informal access you've got in the area in addition to the support from on the bridge thank you to you chair there are contributions and there is a requirement for footpaths to be operated along so there will be improvements in the immediate vicinity there are also enhancements being made to the existing public rights of way that are going to be integrated in and around the site so the development will be enhancing certainly footpaths and public footpaths in the immediate vicinity I'm very keen to move on to our witnesses who have been very patient with us we have a number prepared to present but councillor Bradlam I think you had a further question very quick one please and that is the issue of windows and I just wanted to ask at paragraph 231 on page 64 it refers to plot 86 and I'm really sorry and please can we change this if it's at all possible it refers to 86 does not result in significant loss of privacy to number 66 and 68 plantation and road and a condition that restricts the first floor window to be obscure glaze and fixed shut is considered appropriate now this is a bathroom fine to have it obscure glaze but please can we not have it required to be fixed shut that's horrid in a bathroom and I'd rather we didn't do that if we could possibly avoid it please certainly we can look at that that condition if it doesn't already we can say a part of many top hung vent is the standard wording so to approve them perhaps we can have that delegated to agree with chair we can also condemn people to damp dampness in their houses please thank you right thank you members I think we now move on to public speakers our first public speaker on this one I think he's online Paul Shelford are you with us hi good morning I think you know the rules we will give you three minutes and by in case any members have any brief questions of clarification on what you're actually going to say but yes please we can hear you fine okay so we live on the very end number 58 standing web close there's a small section of land between us and the existing primary school now big big concern is that they're going to try and put two houses on that piece of land and that's extremely small to be fair the problems we're going to have is that they're literally going to barricade our back garden in which in itself serious lack of privacy a lot of overshadowing so are concerned because we're going to have a house right up the back of our rear garden and also two to the side obviously this piece of land if you really look at it they're trying to obviously trying to squeeze as many houses in as possible and plus it's so very close the proof it is close to the the school itself the playground so there's a big concern there that really in all honesty we can't understand what we're trying to put two homes in between us and that school now obviously listening to you guys this morning me and my part I really think that in itself could be used as a green space it's quite a large area for a piece of green space or even maybe a cycle path or a through path through to where we live at the present moment so there's a good access something really really worth thinking about because that is present moment if they build what they're intending to build we are literally going to be barricaded in from all sides and it's we just think it's just not good enough anyway there's no consideration whatsoever to the occupants especially of us and our existing neighbour and to the existing primary school so I think this piece this particular piece of land really needs to be looked at because of the way they're considering building the two homes and actually turning them around and we've had an extension literally less than a year and a half ago we didn't know this was going to happen and it's not on your plans anyway so the actual perimeter of our building to the perimeter of the proposed buildings are far too close in our minds but as I say I think it would be better looked at as maybe a through walk away or a cycle way which is badly needed because there's a lot of existing occupants often come to our end of our cul-de-sac thinking there is a walk or through road to plantation mode so it's something really seriously worth considering to add to the link between existing properties and the new Mr Shelford thank you very much for that point thank you Mr Shelford we take it into account by members and may well come back to it in the debate it may be that some members have brief questions on the basis of what you've said I think Councillor Bradman wants to ask you a question if you have a moment with us thank you very much chair is Mr Shelford still there are you still with Mr Shelford yes I am could you just describe to us Mr Shelford where you are are you at the southern end of Stanley Webb Close yes we are there's a small section of the plan if you see the can you see the problem we're going to be up the plan thank you very much okay so there's two there's a section there to the exactly where Mr Shelford is now there's two homes being proposed to be built if you look at the existing plan of our house those two houses will literally almost being built in our back garden so you can understand the lack of privacy we're going to have with those two they're not going to be low rise buildings which in itself maybe would help however the land the drawing doesn't really show the scale of what it needs looking at because the land it's gobsmacked me to be fair that they're considering even putting two buildings in this space because it's going to be wedged in between us and the primaries will which isn't shown there but their playground will be exactly side by side to those two homes which on this day and age I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing but the privacy for us in general is going to be lost because as you can see we're going to have a home at the rear of our garden as well and if you were to actually come and have a look and see what I'm talking about we are literally going to be barricaded in by huge goblins of brickwork Thank you Mr Shoford we take your point as I said that may be raised by members in debate I would emphasise that at the end of the day we will be considering the application as submitted and that is based on which we will be determining this in due course Thank you very much Mr Shoford for your time and your contribution very helpful I'd like to call on Alice Kirkham who is I think the speaking for the agents Redrow who I think is online are you with us Mrs Kirkham Yes can you hear me okay? We can hear you clearly you know as you have the usual three minutes please go ahead I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person with you today we've got Covid in the family unfortunately so I thought it was safer to stay away I'm Alice Kirkham a senior planning manager at Redrow Homes and speaking in support of the application The full planning application relates to an allocated site and will deliver 280 new homes including affordable housing as agreed with offices and set out in detail within the report. The scheme also makes provision for a local charity to take on the management of some of the affordable homes which would ensure they were available to local people in addition to the village At Redrow we're really proud of the homes we build and have a strong focus on place making and architectural quality The design of this development focuses on delivering a well-connected neighbourhood which will successfully integrate with the adjacent existing development and the wide village at Sourston We've carefully considered the Sourston Village design guide in drawing up the proposals and the scheme positively responds to the guidance contained within it in all aspects including building heights, character areas connectivity, landscaping and materials The provision for pedestrians and cyclists has been designed so that it can be integrated into the wider network and provide links to the existing village and its amenities It's worth noting that the existing public right of way that crosses the site is proposed to be redirected on the advice of the county footpath officer rather than being lost altogether There's a significant amount of public open space proposed including two children's pay areas A number of financial contributions will also be provided including to improve the facilities at the existing Linton Wave Recreation Ground which is in close proximity to the site A wide range of biodiversity enhancements such as a new orchard and a swift tower are proposed on site and in combination with a range of measures proposed on the adjacent agricultural field to the south the proposal will result in a net gain in habitat and hedgerau units in line with local policy We've engaged with local stakeholders throughout the process including attending parish council meetings participating in the council's design enabling panel and a youth engagement workshop with the local school The proposals have been amended as a result of the comments and sourced and parish council have now confirmed their support for the application The proposals have been discussed in detail with officers and statutory consultees at both pre-application and application stage with the result being that officers consider the proposal would provide a high quality scheme that would make a strong and positive contribution to the local and wider context of the site and to the character of the area The principle of the site for residential development has been tested through the example of the site for residential development that has been tested through the examination of the local plan and found to be acceptable The scheme positively addresses all of the allocation policy criteria and there are now outstanding objections from many statutory consultees On this basis I would respectfully request that the committee resolve to grant planning commission in line with your planning officers' recommendation Thank you Thank you very much Mr Scott We have, if you advise a question from Councillor Heather Williams Thank you chair And through yourself you reference the support from Souls and Parish Council I just want to quote what we have on our agenda paragraph 17 page 37 The houses had no character and you're talking about the efforts on design and things Is there a way that you can argue your case as it were of good quality design in the face of that? Yes thank you I have to say we're actually really proud at Redbro that we do pay a lot of attention to detail in terms of the design quality of our homes I think, I'm not sure if the Parish Council spokesperson is due on later but I think in honesty they were perhaps hoping for a bespoke design across the site which in honesty for a scheme of 280 dwellings in this case it's not really feasible but it's practical There's a strong housing need both within the district and as we know nationally and those sorts of housing numbers will not be delivered through bespoke design on every site What we have done is ensured that the scheme design here really draws upon and reflects the provisions of the Village Design Guide So we've got a lot of linear terrace runs which is noted within the Village Design Guide being characteristic of this Village particularly So that's particularly within the Central Orchards character area which is closest to the existing development to the west In terms of detailing and materials we're also looking at drawing upon the same pallet of materials as can be found in the Village already So for example the use of red and buff brick and render and design detailing like brick detailing in runs and brick plints all of which draw upon the existing character and ensure that this development will sort of seamlessly sit alongside the existing the existing Village Edge Thank you Chair So how many different types of design will be used so it's not bespoke but how many variations of design will be used Sorry I'm not sure I completely understand the question Do you mean how many different house types or Well Reference some of the things Are all houses going to be identical or have you got different variations how many types of design will there be for these houses Yeah as I say I think as reference within the officers report there are three character areas proposed on the scheme so the northern avenues is perhaps a more formal arrangement with formal tree trees and it seeks to have a reasonably low density along the countryside edges and along the approach along Babrum Road into the Village and then we come to the central orchards character area which sits alongside the existing Village to the West and as I say that's characterised by a higher number of these linear simple terraced runs both in affordable and market housing and then we've also got the eastern greenway character area where again we're looking for more low density more detached form of dwellings in order to provide that softer edge to the countryside so I mean as I say it has been carefully considered through PREAP and through the application in terms of how we can make sure that this scheme sits comfortably alongside the existing Village but also brings a distinct character of its own. Councillor Brian Mills wanted to ask your question I think. Thank you, yes. So I'd like to ask Alice who has made several visits to the Village in the past I know and has made some accommodations to issues already raised today but I'd like to ask how many of the properties come with mechanical ventilation and heat recovery systems how many come with solar panels how many come with air or ground source heat pumps and how many are fitted as standard with gas central heating, thank you. Yes thank you and we've given a lot of thought to this as well in terms of the application so there is an energy strategy that's been submitted as part of the application documentation that strategy outlines two options essentially based on the changing nature of energy provision for new housing I mean the application was submitted back in August last year and things have already moved on a pace and so the options that are currently being considered and going through feasibility testing are the first option being that the homes being provided with high efficiency gas boilers and photovoltaics to the roofs and then the second option would be for the units to be provided with air source heat pumps for their heating and hot water both options would achieve in excess of the 10% carbon emission reductions required by local policy it's fair to say we are currently favouring option B so the rolling out of air source heat pumps to all of the units but it is, as I say, going through feasibility testing because the technology is recently new to us as sort of national house builders and we also have to check the sort of electricity load in the area and that sort of thing, whether it can work but certainly that's our preferred option at the moment Thank you Councillor Roberts Thank you Chairman through you Chairman Good morning two questions really to ask you because I don't think you answered Councillor Heather Williams I think she asked you a very straightforward and easy question How many designs are you going to put on to this site because we all know you have you have houses with ridiculous names that make themselves like palaces but you must know how many actual design names you have in mind for this site and therefore how many different designs of properties you are going to have so I'd like a proper answer on that and I would like you've talked about strategy on objectives it looks to me as though the strategy and the objective is to fill the sites of the gunnels and I am very concerned at it appears to me to be a lack of forethought for the quality of life of the people in that area in the future because there really is very little open space when you think of 280 odd houses so have you not at any time felt conscience driven to give a site for so many people to live on more open space Thank you Two questions Firstly on house types and if the number of different house types we are proposing then yes there is a simple answer to that it's 18 and then secondly in terms of open space provision we are currently showing that our scheme shows an amount of open space that is in excess of your policy standards 2.47 hectares as proposed I believe when it is totaled up that the policy standard would amount to 2.08 hectares so we are in excess of it and as I say we as a house builder are very focused on providing high quality places and communities and a lot of that comes down to making sure that the landscaping is of high quality and sets the scene from the outset so we put a lot of attention to that in our designs and setting out the site so there is a large amount of landscaping proposed it does meet policy standards and we are quite comfortable that it will create a lovely place to live Thank you very much If you can bear with it we have three more questions and I stress they will be questions we are not attempting to enter into debate with you here but we will come later Doctor Richard Williams Thank you chair, just following up on the point that I made earlier can you confirm to me in whose ownership the southern part of the site is vested? Yes, Red Row Homes have a contractual agreement with the existing landowners so the landowners do remain the same as those who signed up to the original sexual 186s in relation to the neighbouring rural exception schemes Thank you Councillor Annem Bradman Thank you chair, I'll tell you two questions to you Could you confirm I notice at in various sections that the local highways authority has no objection but could you confirm that the internal roads will be built to adoptable standards and secondly without prejudging our decision if we as a committee were to be minded to approve this would you consider removing the two dwellings at your plots 72 and 73 and making an access through to improve the site permeability with Stanley Webb close? Just before you answer that I think we can't really enter into negotiations with our witnesses that is something which we would have to enter I'm just simply asking Councillor Bradman, I'm sorry is there anything that advice from the director is that is a matter on which we would have to consult if it were to be considered this is the proposal before us today Yes, could I also simply ask if the developer would be minded to consider that? Thank you Councillor Bradman So the first question on highway standards I think we've liased closely with the highway authority in bringing forward the scheme and all of the key spine roads are all proposed to be publicly adopted in consultation with them we have submitted a plan that shows the proposed adoption arrangements which they are content with there are a range of technical approvals that will still have to be gone through post planning as is the case for development on the matter of connectivity and permeability I think the case officer did note that there is an existing access proposed into Stanley Webplace which personally I think is in a more appropriate position for permeability rather than right down the end of the cul-de-sac and again there are further connections proposed into plantation roads and again onto Church Lane as well as at the top of Abram Road so the scheme really does concentrate on making sure that existing and new residents alike can move freely and easily between our scheme and the existing village edge of Saurston Thank you for that and last question I think from the council Dr Julie Hawkins for you Thank you very much chair two questions if I may on the cycle parking issues you are proposing to have some cycle parking inside garages for the houses that have garages and in shades for those that don't are your proposed garages actually even large enough for cars to go in and the doors to open and then add cycle storage in it or not because we know there are some houses that are like that would you consider having cycle parking not in garages second thing is to do with the heating system how many houses do you propose to build by 2025 that will have gas boilers engine and why are you not using I know you've mentioned something about that before but why aren't you actually just considering putting air source heat pumps in them what the future Thank you Mrs Kirkham you did give us your explanation on those points earlier but if you'd like to elaborate on that in response to Hawkins question that would be helpful Yes certainly so on the first question of cycle parking yes cycle parking is proposed within garages we're actually not proposing that the car parking allocation is provided within garages for the simple fact that we are aware that in reality garages very often don't get used for car parking and more often for storage so there is sufficient car parking provided outside of garages and then in that instance we're proposing that the cycle parking would naturally be within the garage and as I say we've got sheds proposed in gardens of properties that don't have garages I think Michael Sexton mentioned that there is a condition proposed that would allow further approval of cycle parking arrangements so if the case is that all units need sheds then that can be looked at through that condition approval but our view is that that's not required The matter of gas boilers and how many might be provided on this scheme as I say my comments earlier are that our preferred option would be to roll out air source heat pumps for all of the units on this scheme but it is just subject to that feasibility testing at the moment so ideally there will be no gas boilers provided on the scheme and that's the solution that we're looking at at the moment but a fallback is if required for feasibility reasons that we would implement gas boilers in combination with both voltaics if necessary but as I say first and foremost our attentions are on seeking to roll out air source heat pumps if I may thank you chair through you if I understand your answer to the cycle storage first what you're saying is you don't expect garages to be used for storing or packing cars that seems to be what you're saying so why are you actually bringing to us a design that includes garages what's the point sorry am I okay to answer yes the truth is garages are a very marketable asset to any home so despite people not necessarily using them for parking they are nevertheless a key element of housing that people are looking for when they come to buy a new house that's I suppose the simple answer right Mrs Kirkham, thank you very much not only for your presentation but for dealing in such detail with a number of let's call them questions or concerns just before you go Doctor Khan did you really have another question yes if you would bear with us one more question it's a very brief one but basically the provisions for work on footpaths like you referred to earlier on is basically just to cover on the existing footpaths increased wear did you consider looking at your footpath improvements because I explained there's poor access to the open informal space in Saarston it would have been an opportunity to improve foot access to the countryside by looking doing more than just replacing repairing footpaths but improving and providing improvement to the network in the vicinity yes thank you we have currently got an application in with the county council regarding footpaths which includes the creation of a new public right of way as well as the improvement and upgrade of existing rights of way so what we're trying to do is make sure that there's a complete link which would be situated on the eastern and southern edges of our site that allows people to easily get between Baberham roads and Church Lane and would provide a sort of attractive recreational route as well and then that route also will then link into the existing rights of way that spares off to the east into the fields beyond we're not proposing upgrading those footpaths in surfacing or anything like that largely because people who like to use footpaths through fields are generally recreational walkers and don't necessarily need it to be a paved surface but those within the site will be upgraded so that they can be used by cyclists pedestrians and also equestrians as well as looking at suitable surfacing for all users Mrs Kirkham, thank you very much indeed I think we are at that position there and we have further witnesses to consider, thank you for your contribution Thank you We then moved to the Parish Council and I think we have Councillor David Bard online can you hear us David are you with us David Bard we'll just give a moment or two Can you hear us David Bard Yes, we've established that David Bard is in the meeting, I think there may be a problem with your microphone David means communicating David if you can hear me the suggestion is it might help if you were to leave the meeting and come back in again and then we might be able to hear you so we'll just give you a few moments to try that Sorry, the unmute symbols just come up, am I unmuted now Am I unmuted We can hear you clearly David you may like to activate your camera if you would like us to see you Yes Yes Okay Can I just confirm, I think I suspect you probably know the rules quite well but can you just confirm that you have the consent of the parish council to speak on their behalf I do indeed, yes Yes, please the floor if you can call it that is yours Thank you Well, Sawston parish council recognises the extensive discussions and hard work which has gone into making this mediocre development just about acceptable we particularly appreciate the work of the urban design team in getting as much compliance with the adopted Sawston design guide as they are able to provide a severe constraint to an architectural approach to the standard house type which appears to be informed by interwar metro land with a nod to the last gasp of the arts and crafts movement We recognise that probably as much has been achieved as good reason to be asked for and for that reason have withdrawn our objection We do still however have concerns about access to the site and request that some provision can be made via S106 and minor highways improvements and in particular traffic calming measurements in church lane which is proposed to become a major cycle and pedestrian route between the site and the centre of the village Church lane is poorly lit and narrows to just over three metres on the 200 metre section approaching the high street and lacks a clear pedestrian walkway There are two access points on to this sites and there is church and the car park at the rear of church court have limited visibility displays and further to the east the church hall entrance also has limited visibility displays and the hall is used almost continuously including evenings and the second request is the introduction of a 40 mile an hour speed limit on source of road between the end of the built up area and the junction with Babrum high street This proposal has the support of both Babrum and Pampasford parish councils We assume that since the traffic calming work in Babrum high street has already been completed that the request in paragraph 203 to 4 for an S106 contribution towards that falls away is that correct We also have concerns about the very limited thought which seems to be given to access to public transport If a seaset, a Cambridge South East transport goes ahead the problem disappears but at present the nearest bus stop for the northbound Cambridge City 7 service is some 900 metres from the site The transport assessment team comments on the date of the 18th of October 21 refer to a 20 minute service has since January reduced to two buses per hour 30 minute service We don't consider a miniscule bushel to 900 metres from the site an acceptable sustainable transport solution and have asked in the event of seaset not proceeding for a tapered subsidy to support an extension city 7 service to the end of Babrum road I fear that otherwise would have created a newb town estate more typical of the 1960s It is tacitly admitted by the relatively high number of predicted traffic traffic movements in the paragraph 196 of the officer report Having said that we accept that the development will provide much need to affordable housing and hope that not too much of the market housing will go to the buyers at less investment We would like to request that the parish councillors consulted over the lighting scheme landscaping scheme drainage scheme and the construction environmental management plan before they are finally improved Thank you Thank you Just before we get into questions I think we might speed things up Can I ask Sir Sexton There was a question there in relation to the section 106 part of it falling away Is that correct? I don't believe so now that 20,000 contribution is requested as a result direct result of this development so I don't believe that would fall off if it would be carried forward for further improvements in paper Yes That's not really a question that's just the officer's response but before we get into questions from others here I think you confirm that you have withdrawn the parish councillor has withdrawn its objection so these are questions that might possibly be dealt with at conditions or at reserved matter stages which we will come to later on than today if you'll forgive us I think we then had a question from Councillor Heather Williams Thank you chair and through yourself to Councillor Bard It's just on a comment you made in your representation about mediocre just about passing I'm just going to read the words of policy HQ1 All new development must be of high quality design with a clear vision as to the positive contribution the development will make to its local and wider context I'm just wondering in light of your comments Councillor Bard whether you would believe this complies with that high quality design or merely the best of a bad lot I think given the given the constraints outlined by the developer having to work with standard house types which are not characteristic of the area as I said I think they are more characteristic of 1920s metro land have given that I think they have done probably about as best as they can within that constraint Right I have no further questions for you so thank you very much for your presentation and for dealing with those that come into a question I think we are now ready to move on to the next stage which is the debate on this Councillor Milne's as a local member do you want to go first on this or your reserve your comments then right so who do we have can I just say that in debating this I hope that members who have made points of debate during the questions whether to officers or to witnesses will be able as a result to keep their contribution on those points relatively short and I think it would be helpful if we could all relate any comments in this debate to the key material considerations as set out on page 33 so with that I think we start with the Councillor Roberts please Thank you very much Chairman and through you Chairman then I will try to keep it brief because I am quite clear in my own mind where I am going What a disappointment where there is a will there is a way but I am afraid that the developer hasn't got a will so therefore isn't going to give us away 280 yard houses it's a very great deal of new development there and when you look at this site layout I'm afraid we see the getters of the future being built we have a policy and surely it's upon us to make sure that we comply with that policy that we in our decision making we take it seriously and when a parish council says that's what it's going to be it's not going to be a community it's going to be a great big estate has no character and the design is mediocre and didn't I have a hard job getting out of the applicant exactly how many designs it could of course still be designed in a pleasurable useful empowering all those words that we use nowadays but they just haven't wanted to do it because it's all about profit and take a design off a shelf and bang it up it's a quicker profit and a bigger profit than having to work a little bit harder so this is exactly the sort of thing that we should be refusing quality of life in the future there is going to be abysmal there is no real open space if you looked at that picture at the start the green area map you could quite clearly see where with a little bit of consideration and a little bit less greed you could have had a really nice open space on that top quarter but instead they put a housing block literally four sides of housing with three sides of roadway around it my goodness that's going to be pleasant living isn't it it's a disaster this design for Saustern is the disaster of the future it's going to be an appalling quality of life it's going to have tinky tiny gardens that nobody will be able to actually play in but they won't have a lovely big open space where the children can go and kick a ball if they want to walk around the edge of the estate they might be able to do that but you know small children don't want to just walk around the edge of the estate they want somewhere that they can go and use their energy up and as I say especially if they gardens aren't big enough to throw a cat around so I will not be going along with this it's time that we told these developers that we are the rule makers and they will not be allowed to be the rule breakers it's time to say enough is enough they haven't done a good job and I'm not going along with it thank you very much thank you councillor Roberts councillor Henry Williams thank you chair I have to say that I have been concerned about some of the representations that have been made to us mediocre isn't what any of us should be striving for I don't think and this brings me back to this policy HQ1 and there's a few areas where for me this proposed development doesn't fit I don't believe it preserves or enhances the character of the area but looking more to actually 1D in there it must be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale density, mass form, sighting design, proportion materials, texture and colour in relation to the surrounding areas and we were shown a layout of the site which showed the surrounding areas and the surrounding houses which are actually much more spread out than what is proposed in this site that we've got today so for myself it doesn't seem to be keeping with the houses in the surrounding area I do have real concerns about the two houses that have been put between the score as was made in the objective remarks it does feel that actually those two houses will not be part of that development or part of sight it's an odd thing to just sort of cram those houses in that way and I think has an impact on as well the location and the street scene from the other side of the road so I'm not I understand that what's been said about the constraints but they do feel self-imposed constraints by the wishes of the developer for their own internal issues and their own internal designs and off the shelf easy going arrangements as opposed to actually getting the right design out there are no site constrictions in my mind to why we could not achieve what our policy says of high quality design we only have the constraints that the developer is putting on this and it's their duty to comply with our policies not vice versa so I won't be supporting it chair Thank you and lastly I think Councillor Brown will say that I commend her Thank you chair mechanical ventilation and heat recovery zero ground source heat pumps zero a possibility of solar panels combined with air source heat pumps I just hope that the commercial realities that are now existing around the utility market and particularly the cost of gas and electricity will coerce the developers into providing sustainable power to this development it's really disappointing that they didn't do this as standard in anticipation of the ban on use of gas I'll reuse that term mediocre because the nature of the problem with 280 houses even if you've got a dozen different house types is that it will become relatively unexciting it's almost impossible to build a housing estate with so many variations of design types that it becomes inherently interesting it's a relatively it's a relatively dense development 29 houses building units by hectare but we're desperate for housing Sawsam is effectively a dormitory town for the many science parks around and we need to have people located close to where they work this will provide that and the developers have made significant efforts to adjust their design to meet with the design guide so with reservations I've got to say and despite the sound bites from our colleague in the meeting I think the answer is that we need this development and as local member happy to support it thank you I don't think we have any further contributions to I must keep a closer eye on you I'll make a comment no it's a I've sympathised with comments of councillors both councillor Roberts and councillor Milms in the sense which is a complicated situation the I think the as he said I think the development is uninspiring the improvements have been made the question is whether this is sufficient that we should refuse the development that's the key issue I'm unhappy about the amount of open space I think there could be more I'm glad to hear there are some improvements getting made to the football system I think that is necessary to reassuring but there is a lack of informal open space near to the existing Linton Way recreation ground is basically open flat green area it's not really got any particular interest in itself for informal recreation it's for formal recreation so the existing adjoining development is uninspiring the old Linton Way area is not exactly existing area at all in fact the new development I think would be an improvement on the adjoining area so that's one context I think in terms of and the visiting for housing perhaps more dense than one would have desired might have produced a a lower density might have produced a better landscaped area but we do need housing and it's within the approved density that wouldn't expect in that sort of area so I don't think all of you are opposed to it that we would have sufficient grounds to refuse it and therefore on the balance I'm going to be in favour of supporting it Councillor Bradman Thank you my feeling is that yes this isn't a perfect development but we understand the developers have made changes to the plans as to the designs yes they are rather retro as it were but many people live happily in such houses and they are going to be providing much needed affordable housing on the site and so my feeling is there is insufficient grounds to refuse this application so I should be supporting it thank you Thank you and Councillor Dr Hoot Thank you chair yeah we don't have any major objections from any of our major consultees and I take the point by Councillor about that the parish council had withdrawn its objections in terms of the design it's not great but there's there's no objection really I mean our design team does support it it's not what we would like what is what we've got and there are reasons for that one thing that still concerns me is this thing with trying to put cycles in garages it just doesn't work is it possible to look at condition 23 and make that a bit more specific in that the cycle storage should be provided outside and not try and determine how people use their garages before the things have been built yes I will be supporting this we do have a need for housing as local member has explained but not ideal it's the best we can do at this point in time but if we can look at condition 23 whether we can make this a bit more specific so I think that is a proposal that we amend condition 23 can you just help us out where we find that save time thank you so do you have a revised wording in mind for condition 23 I think it will be helpful to have a comment from the director on this please I understand the sentiments that Councillor Hawkins is highlighting but I think it will be unreasonable for the planning authority to seek to prevent people putting bicycles and garages that would seem to go far beyond the extent of our lawful powers in terms of enforcement and so on so I think the applicants have heard and obviously the officers understand the sentiments and concerns about it but I think we're starting to intervene in areas of controlling people's lifestyles that I think probably planning is not intended to cover I think the condition 23 which requires details for cycle parking and will no doubt make distinctions potentially between those houses that have double garages for example and those that have single garages where there may be greater constraints is probably sufficient Councillor Hawkins do you have are you prepared to allow this matter to be dealt with at reserved matter stage if you don't have any specific wording sorry it's full application but the point is the details are still to be submitted so there is scope for a certain amount because I'm not sure that we have an exact wording that we could place as a condition I appreciate that and thank you but the thing is looking at the size of a single garage is about 3 metres wide or 3.5 metres wide to grab a car in and that's what can't even get out of the car might be people who want to use the garage for cars so where are they going to put their bikes yes well I'm sure that's a matter that can be taken into account in these discussions that are outlined in the existing condition 23 and the only reason I'm emphasizing this is because we're trying to get people out of their cars onto bikes and active travel and stuff like that but let's do it correct okay I'm not sure we can progress that point any further at this stage councillor Brad Bloom thank you officers kindly pointed out that they were happy to accept the change to the wording at paragraph 231 about the top hung vent can we just confirm that that will be taken on board in the bathroom it was about the bathroom window that shouldn't have to be fixed shut yep perhaps I'll ask Michael Sexton through your sheet yes that would involve slight tweak to condition 26 which we can certainly make sure that wording makes its way in if that would form part of the delegated house of members that would be great and now I think councillor Deborah Roberts and councillor Heather Williams both wanted to make a further contribution can I just say that perhaps I could ask you in doing this I can appreciate that there is some feeling that this should be termed out refused and I don't want to go into a detailed debate on grounds of refusal but it would be helpful to just say the exact basis on which that might be proposed chairman of the I must pull this one out we had an objector a gentleman who actually lives there in that area now right at the start and councillor Bradnham did ask the developer whether they would be willing to take those houses out clearly the answer was no and we I think we need to actually can you clarify I am very concerned that we don't appear to be taking any notice of what somebody who bothered to come on to talk to us brought to our attention is there any way that in giving if you give approval and by the number of councillors that's going to be the case that gentleman is not going to be having the disbenefit of being surrounded can those houses be taken out or are we giving approval for anything and everything here including destroying somebody's quality of life who came and asked us not to just before I am going to refer that to officers I am not sure if this is for the director or for Mr Sexton before we do that I think it's just fair to Mrs Kirk and she didn't actually say no to that understand that she was not in a position to negotiate with us during the committee session I don't know if the director would like to comment on that the application in front of you is the proposal that you're required to vote upon in certain circumstances and you can see a condition concerning elements of the garage but the number of dwellings is at the centre of the planning commission in terms of the description and it includes those two properties I think there was also a suggestion that it might be replaced by a right of way and that clearly would have implications that you would need to consult upon as well so I think it's safest given the nature of the potential change that was being advocated for you to consider the application in front of you if that is acceptable then obviously the matter is determined in that way if it's not acceptable then clearly it would be a matter for Redrose and the planning authority to consider further as a part of a resubmitted application because it's a full application and the description is for 280 homes or so I think you're bound to determine the application submitted I think we're coming to a conclusion on this but I'm still not quite clear on what basis those who would wish to refuse the application would make that case can we just which particular policy do you feel is not compliant with Councillor Heather would you please Chair so just a couple of things I did quote HQ 1 as the policy earlier well I won't re-go through that it was the issue with the windows now my understanding from reading this was the reason the windows was fixed and neighbour amenity I understand the issue of damp but there are ways of having bathrooms without opening a window to resolve that issue you can ensure there's good ventilation the lights which building quality I'm sure would understand I do not support the changes of not having fixed windows without that being consulted with those neighbours because that might have been a determining factor for them that actually yes there was a window that was facing them but it was going to be glazed and it was going to be fixed as soon as you allow a window to be opened you are removing the purpose of the fixed glazing there can be top vents which can be slid there are lots of ways you go to a hotel or the bathrooms in the middle there are no windows it can be achieved so I was just saying on the proposal I do not support that because I think there would have been a reason why they have been asked to be fixed and without knowing that it should not be making that change I see your point clearly we need for further consultation but I don't think we're going to be determining this application today on the basis of whether some of the windows are fixed or not that can be resolved at later stage if there is good work directly yes please perhaps to assist me at the meeting condition 26 I think council Williams is quite right the building regulations don't make provision or require any windows bathrooms because there is a requirement for mechanical ventilation in accordance with the building regulations condition 26 talks about the requirement for submission of for certain elevators for certain properties on their elevations to be fitted with obscure glazing and shall be fixed shut or have restrictors to ensure the windows cannot be open more than 45 degrees beyond the plane of the adjacent wall so the objective is to ensure that those even if they are openable windows are restricted in terms of the plane of opening I think the condition doesn't itself require further submissions but if you were seeking to have greater assurance about that you could specify that details were provided because clearly in some circumstances the fix of the window opening of windows to restrictors would not represent an impact on amenity or privacy and it may well be appropriate to require those details to be submitted rather than necessarily because without having been said I would request members that we focus on the principle of development because I think we are ready now to determine this one way the other. Councillor Bradlin if you would like thank you very much chair I just wanted to clarify so we are saying that we are not talking about internal bathrooms we are talking about where there are already windows and we are saying where possible if they have got top hung vents they can be opened to the maximum 45 degrees and I would be happy if that does actually cover up 86 because in 86 it is specified that it should be fixed up so where it is possible and courteous and not overlooking not causing disruption to other neighbours I would appreciate if we could ensure there are top hung vents and then move back I think I am not seeking to take further contributions at this stage I think everyone has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate I am just going to very briefly remind us of the officer's recommendation on the planning balance and conclusion that this is a site already allocated for development I think the officer and others have dealt in some detail with the question of affordable housing I think there was a fair bit of debate about the number of design styles I think 16 different styles on three character areas within the estate I think Councillor Milne's stressed the amount of consultation that has gone on I would just remind you that the principal parish council involved two parish councils involved here one is a number of comments sourced and parish council state that they support this application and appreciate the effort to referring to the village design guide so taking all of that into account we come to paragraph 318 on page 75 officers recommend that the planning committee grants delegated approval subject prior completion of section 106 agreement and the conditions and informatives set out on which we have had fair bit of discussion today so I would now like to move to a vote and I think we do need to do this on the basis of our on our machine if I could put it that way are we ready to take a vote so if we press the blue button before voting I think that is yes perhaps we could take down the screen for a minute but ignoring what was on the screen I think we have 11 present in the room what's happened to our votes just about to read them out and they've gone do we need to take the vote again or so cancel out the vote that is in front of us and if we would all start again please we now have only nine in the room voting is that right I think we now have 11 voting and that will probably do us on that basis we have 18 favour two against and one abstention so that is agreed delegated approval on that now I said we'd have a break at 1145 but I was keen to conclude that matter so can I suggest we come back into the room for 1215 if we may so the meeting is adjourned for 15 minutes we're now live so we're resuming the meeting himself game district council planning committee I think you know who we are we have resolved item 5 and we're now moving on to item 6 which is phase 2 land zone 2 at grant a park great Abington reserve matters application for research and development buildings and associated car parking yes council Hawkins sorry I thought you were going into the LinkedIn ones no we're going to come to those after this item what we agreed was to I think that's what we proposed so and this is application 21 05165 REM on pages 91 onwards in your papers today I would just say in considering this that whilst most of us have gone into this in some detail on previous occasions we are considering this a new today so I think we are the key material considerations are set out on page 91 the officer's recommendation is approval presenting officer Michael Sexton Michael thank you chair one brief update on this application we have received representation of objection following publication of the committee report raises concerns of heritage impact landscape impact including from the wider surroundings the extra vehicles that will be visiting the site references a 2004 outline for phase two development just on that point to say that this application is pursuant to a 2015 outline application that's now in the report and the injection concludes that the development would be contrary to policies HQ1 and E15 of the local plan design guide and master plans but most of the most points you will cover in the report so I'll move to my presentation thank you very much now I did say earlier that we were allowing questions to officers at this stage I just want to emphasise in case there is any doubt about it that it is not compulsory particularly for those who have read the papers and may be aware of the circumstances we appear to have no questions to officers right we'll then move on to our public speakers right okay I go too fast thank you so yes presentation is a reserve matters application at phase two relates to research and development buildings landscaping the reserve matters being layout scale appearance of the buildings and the landscaping associated to those buildings so this is the site this is grant park as a whole phase two land is in the south east corner any members who attended the site visit last month for the application is the entrance of the site we'll recall that we've walked this area so this is currently undeveloped from parts of the land could Mr Sexton perhaps change his pointer to the later one so we can see him thank you just to repeat I don't think councillor Brandon was on the site visit but we did have a site last month that was deferred the entrance of the site we did walk the site so members may recall we did walk past this area of the site as well that's just an aerial view of the existing park and again phase two land relates to this larger parcel the reserve matters application before members today is in this undeveloped area that you can see in there with the Illuminaw centre south there is outline planning permission for the development of the site it's quite a detailed outline consent condition for listed a number of approved plans which I've set out in the report which in effect do include layout and scale of buildings because these are parameter plans that have to be followed through into the reserve matter stage so there's just an example of an approved master plan site layout in the bottom left and the approved vertical parameter sections of the five buildings that you'll see later on so quite a lot of detail was approved in the outline stage so this is the proposed site plan you have the five main research and development buildings, the central area of landscaping with some of the attenuation works and the carpark to the east again with an extended landscaping to the east of the site as you head out to the villages which are on the right this is an example of elevations of buildings A and B with the recessed plants above to reduce massive scale of buildings as you'll see when we come to some of the visuals the design and architectural quality of these buildings is fantastic and it's a very high quality scheme a section plan through buildings A and B to show that these are three story buildings with the plants above fully in line with the section plans approved outline stage building G again these awful sort of follow a similar design theme three stories of plants above building H which is the northern most building and the closest building to Abingston Hall which is a grade two star Mr Building is a two story plus plant that was reduced in scale in response to that heritage setting and again just to emphasise the landscape strategy there's a large amount of landscaping going on to the east of the site significant amounts of landscaping going on in and around the buildings very positive contribution towards the scheme and then some visuals of how this will sit within the park with the central landscape open space the three three buildings this building here is the short one this is looking south out of the park again just a visual within the park and that central open space which is intended as a communal area as much as anything else people will be able to spill out and interact and how we'd like to see these things on business parks and again just another visual as you can see a lot of new plans in going in it's obviously not currently there to integrate the building with the surroundings and the buildings have these terraced areas that sit above the plant which again provide extra amenity space for the occupiers of the buildings so key material considerations compliance with the outline commission has set out in the report this is fully compliant with the outline commission the key matters before members today are the reserve matters of layout scale appearance of landscaping although a lot of that information was secured at the outline approved of plans there will be a 40 42% net gain in biodiversity as part of this development there are conditions on the outline consent they are sort of of their time being five years old but the developer is seeking to aspire to greater than the conditions necessary require blood risk and drainage again it's reserve matters but the LFA are satisfied with the details we have and there are conditions on the outline consent highway safety highway network and parking were largely dealt with or effectively dealt with the outline stage access was covered with that point as was the traffic transport implication in the site and there are section 106 contributions tied to that outline consent heritage impact is considered acceptable it's in line with the considerations of the outline renewables and climate change again the conditions on the outline of their time but the developer is seeking free and excellent on all of these buildings matters of noise lies in residential and meeting other matters are all considered acceptable has set out in the report thank you chair thank you very much I apologize for mishearing you earlier on I thought you said that concludes your presentation when you said you would move to your presentation so a significant difference do any councillors want to ask any points of clarification based on that presentation councillor Tumi Hawkins thank you very much chair and through you it's about trees one of the points in the parish council objection was about 47 individual trees and one of the trees should be removed and that also goes into paragraph one of two on page 108 it's just I have a big business please clarify what exactly is going on with the trees please thank you councillor Tumi Hawkins thank you councillor through you chair I believe it is set out in my report there are some existing trees within the site that are to be removed I think it's paragraph 102 as you referenced the trees to be removed sort of the lower quality tree there's no objection to their removal from the council's landscape officer or trees officer and hopefully as you appreciate it from the visuals there's a significant amount of planting that's going in so the number of losses is negligible compared to the number that are going in but those are lost and have been identified as being moderate quality at best and the majority of category C trees very low quality answer to the question dear kind of I think the thing is when people look at this they are moving all these trees but I know there's going to be more planted however it's whether or not we really have to go I think I don't know where they are yeah I can if it helps I can bring up the agricultural report but I think some of those trees have to be removed to accommodate the footprint of the building so there is a necessity it's not removal for the sake of it it's necessary to accommodate the development thank you thank you I just wanted to ask about sorry I can't find it the heritage impact because I know we had when we looked at this in Outline there were concerns related to protection of the historic building which is on the site could you just explain to us what's happened there let me share my screen again sorry just thinking about it I remember it was to do with the vista both to and from the building thank you so Abingdon Hall is located to the north of the application sites which is the greatest artistic building these are the details approved outline stage the response to the proximity of the northern most building to the setting of the hall was that the building would be of a reduced scale which is identified in the bottom right hand corner so there's a detailed heritage assessment submitted at outline stage which considered the impacts the response was that the northern most building would be reduced in scale that has been approved at outline and that has been taken forward to reserve matters stage so I think the heritage impact was largely dealt with at outline stage to secure these parameters nothing's really changed in that regard so in terms of heritage impact we've satisfied this no further harm there's already been accepted and there was another question yes I do thank you and that was to do with the arrangement of the carparking on the eastern side and I think some of that there was a suggestion that some of that carparking would be also inset or with banks to protect the view from the village towards the site was that correct or? Yes that is correct again I can open up a more detail picture if necessary but there are a significant amount of earthworks that are being done over here to reshape the land so it gradually rises to conceal this area of parking this is a decked carpark but it's just a two layer that's all recessed into the ground so I can pull up a more detail plan if you'd like to see how the earth is shaped why I just might need a minute to do that that's fine just to be reassured that the ground is being reprofiled to protect to obscure the view it might not be clear but these grey blue lines just to show the contour so it will rise up towards the carpark so that will be screened right and I think we had a question from Chancellor Williams thank you chair it's just a very quick one just to clarify a point page 98 it says sustainable drainage engineer objection we've got some text below which looks more like a condition than an objection but apologies Michael if I've missed it I couldn't find any specific reference to that flood and drainage section so has that issue that the sustainable drainage engineer been dealt with because it's still listed as an objection it has been yes that the lead local flood authority did originally raise objection to the application as well both consultees did that have ever submitted further drainage information that came in and satisfied the objection of the lead local flood authority unfortunately we didn't get a response from our drainage officer but as this is a major scheme the leads drainage consultant is the lead local flood authority so I have absolute confidence that as the FA has satisfied the council's drainage engineer would have been as well and just to highlight members there are conditions attached to the outline consent that require those details okay thank you okay councillors I'd like to now move on to the presentations firstly we have Isabel Smith who's also I think a member of Little Abington parish council I think online are you there hello yes I'm here hello thank you for coming yes three minutes when you're ready I do have a some slides I don't know if Lawrence has those ready thank you Little Abington parish council agrees with great Abington parish council's objections to the proposed phase two developments which you will hear shortly we also objected the proposals as the grant a park travel plan has not been updated since 2018 and therefore the application cannot be decided for example there is no new delivery date for the on-road cycle lanes along new market road despite the 2018 plan stating they were to be implemented implemented at the earliest opportunity there is no update on what we're called future initiatives which included a three meter wide access point for pedestrians and cyclists at the main entrance to occur when site one is developed we would like the travel plan to accurately reflect the state of access to the site it does not mention that in May 2017 TWI and Biomed Realty decided to stop residents of the Abingtons from walking across grant a park this fundamental change to pedestrian access has never been included in any of the grant a park travel documents the government's guidance for travel plan states that they should address the transport impacts of development promote sustainable travel including walking and mitigate the negative impacts of development yet the grant a park travel plan does not address the harm to the community of withdrawing access to the site next slide please grant a park is built on the park land around Abington Hall Abington is an estate village and the northern and southern access routes are the old estate roads that led to Abington Hall residents of the Abingtons had walked these roads for over 150 years they had also used the path from the high street despite appeals from the village access to grant a park along these paths has remained closed since 2017 next slide please villagers and visitors now have to walk along the rough road verges on Pampersford Road Newmarket Road and Bournbridge Road there are no tarmacked footways and no street lighting on these roads and in many places traffic passes at 50 miles an hour the removal of walking routes across grant a park has affected children walking to Abington school from the land settlements and has impacted residents who enjoy walking and running around the village in the future it will make it difficult for residents to walk to the seaset to park and ride bus services leaving from Bebraham we are asking for today's decision to at least be deferred so that the travel plan can be updated and we would like planning conditions added that address the negative consequences of blocking access to the site to the community thank you William yes thank you for that presentation if you hold on a moment we may just possibly have a short question of clarification from councillor we have councillor Heather Williams sorry chair it was actually I can't remember if I declared an interest as a member of the grace king's partnership assembly which I don't think I did at the start and I should have done so I'm just raising that and then I would like some clarification from officers around this 2018 issue so apologies not a direct question so not a question to officers are you happy to take a question for the Williams at this stage or would you rather when we get to the debate later yes sorry chair I did wonder whether it would be better suited for the debate because I think there will be other speakers who will talk about highways and access we come back to your question later and I think also councillor Joe's hails thank you chair it was just that Isabelle Smith mentioned a footpath that used to go through the site which has been shut since 2017 I just wonder whether through you Mr Sexton could actually if he has that information show us where it ran in conjunction to the roads that are marked in reds that don't have footpaths now is there another one that would be useful to come to at a later stage I think so yes I don't have that to hand but I will do some digging councillor to me Hawkins he okay I'll ask the question but the supplement to that is did little other than for who did they talk to about getting this path back available to them is that a question to Isabelle Smith yes yes so I'm sorry to the parish council talk to the authorities responsible for the path to get it back so yeah you have can I just answer that yes so both the little and great Abingdon parish council regularly meet with Biomed Realty and we have had public meetings with both Biomed and TWI about the state of access and unfortunately we have had no progress on those issues so the three entrances remained closed off to residents of the village right thank you for that I think I think I next have councillor Martin Karn it's linked to the previous thing how many you state that the piles have been used for a very very many years have you considered putting making the application for the definitive map how it puts on the definitive map yes I have spoken to the footpath officer about having them designated as rights of way but unfortunately if Grant Park do not want that to go ahead they can apply to have the footpaths blocked up whilst we are applying to have them opened so unless there is a will I don't think that's a possibility and councillor Adam Breddon thank you chair my question was to the officer on the same point and it was what was the previous designation of those footpaths before in other words were they informed or were they public rights of way before the development at Abington proceeded right well if I may we'll come back to that question also when we get to the debate it may be covered by other public speakers we'll see councillor Brian Milms yes but I can just ask Isabel on what grounds TWI gave for removing the permissive pathways across their land so I wasn't actually privy to most of those discussions so this is also what I've heard so what happened is there was there was burglary at TWI as I understand it the robbers actually cut the ffencing on the perimeter and broke into the TWI buildings and this happened on two consecutive nights and the insurance company then recommended that access to site was restricted this may be a matter on which it would be helpful the next speaker may choose to deal with this in which case I'd be happy to grant a little bit of extra time so I think that covers the questions in the room no further questions Mrs Walsworth thank you very much indeed for your time thank you right, our next speaker is the rest is Georgia Glew for Biome and Realty welcome you know the rules three minutes and as I say if you choose to address the issues which have just been raised it would give you a little bit of extra time to do that thank you yes I'll get you back to starting the presentation and then I'll come back you know to address the issue of the good parts thank you chairman thank you members Granthe Park has been a scientific centre for excellence for international significance for more than 20 years the proposals before you today represent the culmination of extensive design engagement and consultation with statutory consultees again and based in the local community and the valuable constructive feedback and input into this process has helped shape the scheme Granthe Park has played an active role within the local community regularly hosting events such as the 10k Great Ableton run use of the cricket field by Linton and Ableton teams access to the site nursery instead of the R gym and a close link with Great Ableton Primary School the Reset Matters application is in full compliance with the parameters agreed and set out under the original Outland Planning Commission granted in 2015 in working closely with officers and consultees our design team has managed to substantially exceed targets set out under the original parameters and introduce additional scope that materially improves sustainability and biodiversity metrics which demonstrate the firm commitment of bi-materiality in delivering truly sustainable buildings of the highest quality that bring about positive change in summary the scheme will deliver over 34,200 metres squared of laboratory and office accommodation across five buildings with associated car and cycle parking set out within a beautifully curated landscape the development middle in addition will provide a premium rating of excellent across buildings a well rating of gold a wide score rating of gold it will be an electric only scheme so no gas here the introduction of on-site renewable technologies will help reduce the carbon emission reductions by 32.7% which is significantly in excess of the planning policy and there is a net gain in biodiversity as the case was mentioned earlier well in excess of 40% 40 there is also introduction of the charging stations 10% active 40% passive and 264 cycle parking spaces with associated facilities the Cambridge market is experiencing significant shortfall in supply of laboratory accommodation there is currently no available space at Granter Park and Cambridge has zero vacancies as a whole we are tracking in excess of 800,000 square feet of pent of demand and are in ongoing discussions with a number of talents that are expressing interest in these buildings this follows the most recent delivery of the Portway building at Granter Park where we had experienced in excess of 300% demand on the space available we held a design enabling panel meeting on the 16th of December 2021 and I wanted to quote specifically from the response that this is a large and significant site within an extensive campus the design presented at the meeting reflected the detail and historic knowledge of the architects the proposals have the potential to be worthy and positive addition to Granter Park in closing I'd like to thank all officers and consultees that have helped shape this world class new setting for Granter Park that concludes my speak Mr Chairman I'm very happy to pick up on the point about the footpaths very briefly on that so yes indeed the footpaths that have been in use for a number of years were closed in 2017 as a point of order the footpaths don't sit within the ownership of of biodealty they sit within the ownership of our adjoining owners the welding institute that have been on site since 1947 I believe it follows an event I think the previous speaker made a comment about a break-in that happened in 2017 on the back of that the insurers visited site they went through a number of records of the extensive CCTV footage that was available and they found that in the weeks leading up if you like to the event unrelated to the event itself there were some residents coming in from the footpaths and climbing up some of the staircases looking at some of the noise supposedly the noise that's coming out of some of the equipment chillers and fans of the site now that is an issue from the insurers at some point climbs up on the tall building falls or trips or it's a hazardous matter so the recommendation the rafter from the insurers was that they need to take better security around the footpaths to manage public access on site given the impact I may have on the cover we are trying as an adjoining owner to help mitigate the issue we have been in extensive discussions in recent times with TWI to see if there is a way to find a solution that addresses the concerns of the insurance company but at the same time allow some level of controlled access I don't think we will be able to go back to the fully open accessibility wherever we are hoping that we will be able to come up to a conclusion that allow some level back to the site in a controlled and ordinary way Thank you for dealing with that Do I have any questions we have a question from Brian Mills first Thank you Just to pick up on this question of security and the insurers suggesting they need to close public footpaths and I think it's something that I would like to see pursued as clearly accessed through this very much improved environment would be beneficial to the local residents Councillor Brandon I don't think that was a question was it No, Councillor Brandon Thank you I wanted to ask I appreciate Mr Tawthoglu has said that the footpaths are not in the ownership of the current applicant for this site I wonder if I can interrupt you Councillor Brandon I have a suggestion to make here Can I just ask a question What I wanted to check was does he know were they permissive or were they public rights of way Before you answer that I don't think this is the basis on which this application is going to be determined clearly there is a feeling in the room that it would be helpful if the issues raised by were pursued further we're all aware because you've stressed it of your community relations you've addressed these issues and I think it would reassure the committee if you were to say that you intend to pursue those discussions however I do not want to see the debate focus solely about this issue when there are other issues on which we need to be determined Is that acceptable Councillor Brandon No Chairman, I just wanted to ask does he know whether they were public rights of way or were they permissive Would you like to answer that or should we come Yes thank you I think it's the 1833 act that relates to easements in general and there was no permissive matter under that act arising Sorry with your permission Not a matter which is going to be resolved in this chamber today Sorry I just didn't understand was gentlemen saying that there were no public rights of way and no permissive rights of way Because there are two different things So in terms of the first part the registered rights under the act the permissive one I can answer that question I'm not aware of the point Thank you very much One more point I wanted to raise on a matter that Councillor Hawking raised about the trees just to be clear on that one So yes some of these trees will be removed from the current position which is a nursery to the real besides I've got a letter here which I can make available to the members to review by and a work culture list that we've employed to look at that and our intention is to translocate the vast majority of the trees that are fit for translocation on other locations on the campus so it's not a matter of removing oblique destroying the trees it's more about removing them to another location within the campus that's the intention of the moment and again the letter is available Thank you for that and for mentioning the letter but I won't seek to put that into circulation today I think we have plenty of information for us I think you've helped us with questions including on other issues I think we'll thank you for your time and move on Next we have too late Next we have Councillor Tony Orgy who is chair of Great Abington Parrish Council Councillor Orgy speaking I think on behalf of the Parrish Council and I'm sure you have their consent to do so Yes I can Yes please I can Okay thank you very much The Parrish Council is concerned about the statement and the response from the urban design team that officers are generally supportive of the proposals in urban planning terms Grantor Park is not situated in an urban area or environment and developments on the Grantor Park site need to reflect its rural setting in design terms Initial buildings on the site were limited to two stores and the existing buildings on Grantor Park mostly fit reasonably into the rural landscape However the cumulative massing and proximity of the proposed buildings to one another will in the Parrish Council view lead to structures that increasingly dominate their setting The Parrish Council notes that it is proposed that 47 individual trees and one group of trees would be removed as a group of trees being presumably that group covering an area of one hectare Parrish Council is very much opposed to the loss of existing trees and especially on such a scale as it is proposed Parrish Council is also concerned about traffic Pre-pandemic, there were already problems with the existing traffic to Grantor Park using the site with traffic in the morning peak particularly curing back as far as the A505 in both directions This congestion not only caused delays into the site but also the associated tailback caused delays to traffic on Newmarket Road both to local traffic and to traffic exiting south from the Forwentway service area In living with the pandemic traffic levels to existing businesses fell very considerably but if they regain their pre-pandemic levels then it's likely that congestion problems to Grantor Park entrance will re-emerge and that's before the addition of the additional over 1000 car parking spaces that are proposed as part of this scheme However if traffic levels do not return to pre-pandemic levels from existing businesses then is there really a need for as much as over 1000 new car parking spaces Mitigation of traffic movements is necessary and the Parrish Council's view is that there should be substantially improved active travel means of travel between Grantor Park and Sauston and Cambridge not building more car parks Finally we are aware of the presentation by Little Ableton Parrish Council that you've heard from Isabel Smith and share their concerns about this reserve matters application So Grantor Great Ableton Parrish Council does not support this planning application Thank you Do we have any questions transfer for you? Thank you chair and for you Thank you councilorgy for your presentation I think there's a couple of things I think you have heard that the 47 streams were being moved from where they are now elsewhere on the side Will that confirmation be sufficient to remove that objection from the Parrish Council What I've heard this morning is the first I've heard about trees being moved I thought the original documentation suggested that the trees weren't of very good quality and would be taken out I do accept that the planning application that's in front of you does include the provision of a substantial number of new trees and probably more than the trees will be moved out Is there a need to take these trees out as well? Right OK, but actually hopefully that kind of addresses that specific issue and the other thing I just wanted to clarify with you if I may chair through you is on your comment about the design Obviously we have urban design officers and the idea is that they look at the design of buildings but the design here if you look at paragraph 92 talks about design of appropriate quality which follows some of what is already on the site anyway Again I mean would that address what the Parrish Council things should be an objection really? I think the Parrish Council's view was summarised by the second visual that was shown the first visual if you remember looking at these sites was an area of you looking down the second visual was at human height and I think the feeling is that these buildings are closely clustered particularly buildings A and B which are close together in a sense gave a massing and a dominance in that part of the development So the quality of the individual buildings is one issue the impact of them as they're situated I think is what the Parrish Council is concerned about Right I see no further questions Councillor would you thank you very much indeed Thank you Now we have two local members one of whom of course is present in the room but the other one Councillor John Bachelor I hope is going to join us online Are you there John? I'm here yes The other members We can hear you Yep okay So the first thing to say is that Granted Park is a world class research facility which we're very proud to have in our ward So I'm very supportive of the work that's on there and it's important work but it's also important that any new development there actually meets the requirements of the planning policy So the first thing to say I would agree with greater Abingdon Parrish Council that the size of this building is massing and its influence on a very sensitive area is actually not acceptable This is sitting right on the edge of the developments It's well above the tree line and will be very intrusive in terms of the view from outside of the research area So is that element which I think in planning terms would mean that it doesn't meet the requirements of HQ1 Landscaping We've already heard a number of comments about the trees I mean there's a further complication here as you recall from the last meeting that the previous owner of the site believes that he has a covenant that the current owners agree to that would mean that it would be impossible to actually remove these trees I understand you've had legal advice that this isn't material to this particular planning application but it's worth bearing in mind that it may it could possibly prevent this project from going forward So trees are still an issue and it's also been mentioned is the car parking and this proposal and an associated one is likely to produce something in the order of a further 1300 car movements into the site 1300 that's a significant number and in those terms I don't believe it actually meets the requirements of TI Stroke 2 which is for sustainable travel I think much more effort should be made to reduce the car use So cumulatively I believe that it doesn't actually meet three of our main policies and on that basis I think it should be rejected Any questions to Councillor Batchelor Councillor Bredman Thank you Councillor Batchelor Which building were you referring to that was close to the edge of the development? It's the one that you were discussing the largest one which is effectively four store is that's right There are five or six buildings isn't there? Is it eight you're talking about that's closest to the I don't know which one it is It's the one The one that's actually on the floor Please Perhaps Mr Sexton could show us Not numbered on there Does that help you to Yes Is Mr Sexton pointing out which one he thinks is Because sorry Councillor Batchelor you said there was one close to the perimeter of the site and actually my observation is that the one on the top right of the three buildings on the right of the sustainable drainage columns where you've got your cursor was actually the one where the height was being reduced to avoid to reduce the impact on Abington Hall whereas the other four so I think that one is two storey whereas the four buildings to the south are three storey but notwithstanding that they're all within the body of the site they're not near the edge of it as far as I can make out unless Mr Sexton could explain Councillor Batchelor I think you're muted I can't place myself on this at the moment where's actually the way into the site right so we've got this roundabout here aren't we okay when the proposed area is immediately to the left of it as you come in isn't it Councillor Batchelor that's why I asked the question the site that we're talking about is in the south eastern corner in other words at the opposite end of the site from where you enter and it's an area I remember seeing on a site visit some years ago when we were first looking at the outline and that's why I couldn't understand why you mentioned it being on the edge of the site because none of these buildings to my understanding are actually in the sense of being on the edge of a site and therefore intrusive to the amenity of the neighbouring village Councillor Batchelor would you prefer that we put that back to the case officer if you recall that we did see some mock-ups which showed the tree line and how the building would appear from outside of the site Councillor Batchelor is referring to an application that has performed members last month for site 1 which is where I'm indicating now of the entrance to the site there were visual shown of how that would sit from outside of the site that is not the application it is before you now the application before you is in the south-east corner it's an entirely separate application that's helpful thank you for that clarification right any more questions to Councillor Batchelor I think not thank you okay so that ends our public speakers and we can now move to debate yes before we do that perhaps you will come in and debate in a minute Councillor Batchelor would you take one more question please no I want to ask a question of officers Councillor Batchelor so before we start the debate I'd just like to ask the director to comment on some of these I think it's probably helpful just to make a broad comment because you've heard a number of speakers refer to planning application this of course is not a planning application and the planning commission for this development has already been granted and the terms of that planning commission including the quantum of car parking spaces, the means of access the heights of buildings, the siting of the buildings by and large the disposition of the buildings and their width and so on are approved they were approved in 2015 as part of that outline planning commission and the approval of the reserve matters in this case as Mr Sexton highlighted relates to the details of the rendering of that planning commission you're not granting a new planning commission and understandably there continue to be concerns about transport and traffic and so on but the consideration of the transport effects of the development was part of the planning commission and it's not a matter that you can effectively consider at this stage provided that the submissions before you correspond and fall within and as they say legally within the ambit of the outline planning commission you might have heard that term before and my understanding is that in terms of the car parking numbers for example and in terms of the fundamental layout built for heights and therefore the relationship with the historic building the grade star listed building those matters are beyond your consideration at this point the matters that you're considering are landscaping arrangements the elevational form disposition yes scale and layout are part of the considerations in front of you but you have to constrain yourselves to within the parameter plans that the planning permission has set so you cannot the applicants indeed cannot deviate from those parameter plans in terms of sighting and there was a lot of consideration given to building heights visibility indeed landforms of that outline stage that resulted in those parameters so it's really just to kind of caution the committee in terms of the extent to which they can stray into some of those issues given that the outline planning commission as Mr Sexton identified is is actually incredibly rigid in terms of the parameters before you today I think Councillor Cahn did you want to ask a question or does that answer it? Right well before we get to the debate then we will take a few more questions to officers starting with Councillor Cahn if you may it's basically about the concern about access to the site and the footpaths and so on I was wondering how much this is a material consideration because I would have thought that it would only be a consideration to the extent that the actual development constrains access that it is and I'm wondering where it is actually beyond consideration in terms of dealing with this particular planning application could we have some clarification? Thank you in paragraph 130 of my report I have gone into a bit more highway and transport detail than I perhaps would have done since I've spoken to you it does highlight that there are three section 106 agreements associated to the outline permission that do require various financial contributions and the provision of new footway and cycleways within the wording of one of the 106 agreements it requires an initial payment to be made to the council prior to commencement of development it then requires to construct a pedestrian and cycle routes within the development existing grants part carries on prior to first occupation so there are going to be a raft of additional accessibility measures to come forward they are secured through the section 106 agreements part of the outline consent but as Mr Kettys just highlighted it's not a matter really for all members today but just to assure you that was thoroughly considered and the 106 secures funds and time scales for when funds have to be paid and works have to be carried out to improve the accessibility Right to councillor Bradman Thank you chair As a matter of clarification on what Stephen Kelly has told us I recall there being very strict requirements around the number of total number of car parking spaces on the site and also very strict travel plan arrangements which are already in place on the site so what I wanted to clarify is there is a perception as expressed in the concerns that there's an additional 1,300 car parking spaces can you confirm because we have a paragraph 135 on page 113 reference to the approved outline consent identified a total number of 1,018 car parking spaces et cetera so is this really an extra 1,300 car parking spaces or is this part of the original outline plan was it covered by the original travel plan or is this additional provision Through you chair the car parking proposes within the reserve matters layout is the quantum of parking that was agreed at outline stage Thank you very much Right, I think that deals with all the questions of clarifications I'll bring it back in one more Councillor Joe Sayers Thank you chair Through you I could do with some advice here chair as to whether this is the appropriate point to ask the question it's to do with the access across the site Ask it anyway and we'll tell you afterwards whether it was appropriate Thank you very much It's to do with the access across the site that the parish council raised that have been shut off since 2017 and then the applicant made the statement with regards to the burglarism what have you and people access in a building and I just wonder whether or not there was any leeway within the decision making that we do today for requests for additional security measures for the buildings themselves to be put in place If you cast your mind to this building along the back we have a fire escape which is secured from the inside so it's secured from the outside but you can still use the fire escape so I'm assuming that could be put onto the buildings here so that then essentially secures from the public access that would then allow the public access back across the site with the security for the buildings themselves Either that or if the site was to remain shut to public access the parish council put up a map of the red lines and it said red lines where the roads have no footpaths I would imagine that it would be a big stretch to ask the developer to put your footpaths all the way around to allow access around the site if you like and leave it shut so there is a question in there for the offices if you understand what I'm getting at here there's a kind of a uneither all in my book one is a dam site cheaper than the other I don't think it is within the gift of this application to do that unfortunately clearly it can be noted in the minutes following the meeting and the applicant is here and the meeting is broadcast so I think the concerns of the members is quite evident but I don't think there's any mechanism certainly within the reserve matters application before you to seek any of that I'm afraid OK thank you for that a question from me if I may to officers as was clear earlier on this is a different application some of us visited the site in relation to site one on a previous occasion could we just have for the record what is the situation in relation to the master plan for the overall site yes through you Joe I thought you'd ask me that question so I have it prepared I'm just going to bring up one of the pages from the 98 design guide so this is figure one from the 1998 grant park design guide sort of the phase one of grant park is this I can't do my point chart but is this sort of western area so the 1998 design guide relates to the phase one phase two that's before you today is this green area to the east south east of the site so there's no guidance within this 1998 design guide though I would say is directly applicable to the applications before you today which has clearly been very well set out in the outline permission it also helps in terms of the restricted covenants that was mentioned just for clarity that was brought up in relation to site one and the trees that are around the western edge of the site to my knowledge there's no covenants no similar covenants on this part of the plan so again that reference is relevant to the site one application not the application for four members that's very helpful to the extent that the master plan is relevant it's not to this site and it's the 1998 master plan that we were looking at then so Mr Mead would like to contribute thank you Chair just to say that Birkits who wrote the letter about the covenants are taking instructions with a view to withdrawing that part of the letter that referred to the covenants it not being a material planning consideration thank you that's helpful shall we then start the debate and as before I think it would be helpful if we could address ourselves to the key material considerations as on page 91 who wants to cancer brown rules just a quick comment really as we're being directed to restrict ourselves to the matters in reserve matters context I've not seen this before at all and I'm struck by what we're described as architecturally significant developments but thinking they look very concretey obelisk like and I'm just minded that when we see such imagination as Bosco verticali in Milan where the greenery flows down from the balconies of every apartment if we didn't more of that more widely and here specifically it might just address some of the concerns that local residents have because clearly the massing that they referred to is significant and although there are screening by use of the land contouring the land it will still add to a significant impact on to the this formerly rural surroundings which is now clearly a commercial business park of some repute and it seems to me that it was always intended that this site could grow in the manner that we're considering now Thank you Can I just check did you use the word obelisci was that the word you intended? Perhaps we have a different understanding of an obelisci I could do some wordling on the use of my vocabulary I'm sure on flat concrete edifice perhaps Is that business? Thank you, that's much clearer Okay I think in that case we'll go to our other local member in the workshop Thank you chair a bit confused now as my main concerns I was going to voice in the meeting mainly revolved around level of parking the possible impact upon the listed building on the site and also the access to the site the presentation I understand those are now no longer issues that we can discuss at the reserved matter stage because they've already been agreed at outline, albeit they are listed as key material considerations within our agendas so I feel we're actually quite blinkered as a committee into what we can and actually can't discuss because 90% of it has already been agreed so we're pretty much talking about how the building looks and whether we feel that is appropriate or not and given I feel no concerns around the appearance of the building have been raised by anyone so far as far as I can see I feel in a position where my concerns that I have regretfully aren't really relevant at this stage because as we've heard from officers they've already been agreed so I mean with some regrets that I can't talk about them now I mean I feel I'm not in a position to refuse this so we'll likely be voting to approve the chair Thank you Yes we did have guidance on that as you say some of these matters are listed amongst the key material considerations I think possibly if we look to the planning balance on page 117 that may be helpful to directors going to clarify this Just to clarify particularly around the issue of setting on historic buildings and so on it's not that you're not entitled to consider those matters but you have to consider them in the context of the parameter plans that have been determined acceptable so you'll notice that the so the impact on the historic building of the details submitted is a material planning consideration and the historic England you'll notice and these conservation officers have commented on that and deemed it to be acceptable the point I was trying to stress was that in considering the merits of the proposal you in a sense need to have regard to what's come before in terms of that analysis and certainly from an officer perspective those fundamental elements of impact and so on particularly in relation to transport which I think Mr Sexton's also clarified you need to see the whole of the planning permission and its mitigations rather than just the particular matters before you today but it's in that context that you're entitled to consider the impact on the historic building but you would need to do so having regard to the parameters that have been determined previously which we can see to turn around Right You have asked the councillor and Bradenon next Thank you chair so I might be one of the few people who did actually take part in the consideration of the outline plan so I've witnessed this from the start as it works Thank you So and also I have looked at this application when this section segment was considered because I remember hence the comment about the car parking so one of the things as I understand it that we can comment on is the appearance of the buildings because what slightly alarms me I mean actually I think the layout I remember we worked quite hard to ensure that the suds were going to be acceptable within the location what strikes me about the building in the design and access statement section one just as an example I actually think well I sort of have some sympathy with what councillor Milne said about the appearance of the building I find them very white and very striking and very square and very uncompromising in their shape and I know it's too late to do anything about that but what slightly concerns me is that the overall appearance isn't very attractive and I just notice if that's to do with and I will quote you from our officer report paragraph 89 perhaps that is because the material palette includes twice fired two coloured white glazed ceramic baguets and window head profile and I'm not being and I'm sure that's appropriate wording for what it is I'm just trying to work out the ceramic baguets but I suspect it means it's something white anyway which is what I'm sort of objecting to in this there's no attempt to try and let the buildings you know they're working really hard in this visualisation with this lovely pond ponds and open water occupied space but there's really not much in the way of compromise on the structure of the buildings to make them blend in with that green um that green environment you know what I'm talking about here and I'm a bit disappointed that there's not more effort to make these look a bit less white is there any way we can do is there anything we can do about the surface treatments the materials to you know I don't appreciate that they want to as councilor John bachelor pointed out this is a an excellent this is a centre of excellence and I appreciate there's a wish to make this this um like one coherent design but it's very harsh and I just wondered if there's some way it could be softened thank you perhaps the director would like to comment on that I think it might be helpful for Michael to share the slides I think the ambition and the use of tiles or effectively these ceramic tiles on the building will actually give it a more textured look than perhaps is becoming apparent from some of the imagery and I think it's a deliberate attempt quite probably to introduce a degree more texture than large single flat planar panels which characterise much of what we might have considered in the past to be office park architecture and I think the design review panels comments and their view about that response in terms of the materials and the landscaping in combination led their conclusion to be that it's a very positive absolutely understand and indeed I think councillor a parish councillor over his comments around urban design I wouldn't say it's necessarily purely urban in terms of its form you have to see it in context but these are quite large structures and I think it's probably the renderings and so on are not particularly effective but trying to give some sense of that texture as opposed to the very crisp and clean lines that we've seen but I mean it's a matter for members to consider whether it's unacceptable as a white tile building rather than I'm not sure that colour would make a dramatic difference to it to be honest with you Mr Sexton show that picture it's one of the first one thank you it um if you notice the building in the background I don't know if it's greyed out deliberately but it just hides itself a bit more and these look very shiny white and I think they're going to be visible from a very long way away I think the point about the parameter plans though is that there were view impact assessments undertaken which determined those parameters so that the visibility of the buildings was limited beyond the size I'm just objecting to the materials used because it's very white you know even if some of the buildings are just different surface treatment that might be might make it less or overbearing Can we ask Councillor Bradlin whether you've I'm sure you have considered the urban design officer's comments on those points paragraph 92 and particularly the end of that paragraph page 107 and I recognise that this is whilst it's a rural location the park itself is is quite urban but um I just felt it was rather uncompromising and given that they're doing such a good job I mean if it does work out like that it would be great but I just thought the buildings within that are a very samey which is probably deliberate but I don't like and b very um white I quite like it if some of them are a different colour I think I need to ask the case officer just to put this in context of earlier decisions just to draw members' attention condition 5 of the outline consent does actually require the submission of materials prior to works above ground level I don't imagine that they would seek to bury too much from what's before you today because it is whilst creating its own identity it is reflective and responsive of some of the other buildings within the park but just to draw your attention there is a condition condition 5 that would need to be discharged in terms of the materials so we can take some of the concerns away if it's a consensus for you whether it's just council wrap names I quite like the materials in the influence but that's where design is subjective and some of us would like it and some of us won't but there is a condition for materials on the outline consent that we can take concerns away In response to that through you chair I just noticed that paragraph 89 refers to twice fired two coloured white blazed ceramic a baguets I assume means tiles and a reflective blazed base set behind exposed columns blah blah blah all of that talks about white and I just wondered do all the buildings have to be the same white I know that there's a reference to the palette drawing it in part from existing buildings within Grand Park while also establishing a distinctive identity and language to the buildings in this phase so I sort of understand that they want to make this bit distinctive in its own right but I just find it a bit it's kind of oppressive in white in the same way that that would be it would be quite anyway that's my view I'm not going to vote against it I just think it would be nice if it was a bit less impressive Councillor Mills wanted to come back and then Councillor Cahn off to that Yes because I think Councillor Rudman and myself are sharing the reservation about a large number of large buildings with large faces of principally white and how that sits in context of the business park of the commercial park and its impact on neighbouring villages particularly and it's that aspect and it's why I mentioned Bosco vs Dali because that impact lessens the dramatic nature of all these white surfaces Okay before we have further discussion on this point I just want to emphasise that we are not a design panel this has been referred to a design panel and there's a limited amount to the extent to which we can impose our own what must inevitably be subjective role and objective views on that Councillor Cahn Well just to show that it's subjective actually a rather opposite view I think the bright light is actually quite nice in terms of integrating into the park I think it creates a distinctive feature which will be interesting and visiting I'm not so worried about the massing from the joining villages I think that it's something new which is probably worrying people but I think it's a sufficient distance to become part of the landscaping time with the sense of landscaping I think modern buildings which are simple and designed like this basically their features are determined by the setting and the way that they're arranged in the landscape and the landscape around them that's what makes them otherwise it's just concrete and urban it really does look awful but in this case I don't think it will I think actually it would be something that people would want to visit and in this sense I don't agree with this concern about the white I actually rather like it I agree with this objective view but that's the way I feel Thank you Thank you chair and an attempt to move a slightly away from the colour of the buildings chair from the advice that we've had from Mr Kelly it's very much on a lot of these yes we consider them but we consider them as to whether they're compliant to the outline as opposed to any changes or anything so on that basis chair I can't see anything of fit with the outline planning commission I might as others have reservations and disagreements but on a matching crosscast exercise it fits with the requirements when it comes to the scale and the massing I won't linger chair on the colours of the buildings I think whether it's our preference or not I think there is a argument for them being where they are because it's gone through those panels one thing that when we had the site visit that I was particularly impressed by was with the car parks, their living walls and the way that did help things blend in but we know that they require a lot of work to have vertical growing of plants so I just would like some reassurance chair before we go to the vote and I think we're getting to that point soon that there is some maintenance because given that obviously that does require significant maintenance that there is that in the conditioning that we can because I think that would have a significant impact obviously having luscious plants and landscaping is great so long as it stays that way because then the impact would be changed thank you chair we could ask just with fabrication it's not a carpark in the same manner the ones you saw on the site visit this isn't three or four story carpark it's just a simple one deck carpark that is built in the earth is being oh the landscape as a whole is certainly covered by conditions what I'm saying is there are lots of things like this on site are we ensuring that these things as a whole our landscaping is maintained going forward and I just use that as a reference point as to you know there's a lot of landscaping commitment on site how sure are we that this can be managed and continued sorry if I wasn't clear chair for you chair I think it is set out in the report but there are a number of landscaping ecological conditions on the outline which would include details of management and maintenance so that is covered yes right perhaps I would if I may just comment in passing that when we made that site visit I think some of us were impressed to the extent to which those had been maintained not that's a relevant factor here I think council judge hails wanted to contribute to the debate thank you chair you're going to be delighted to under the stigma or in on this one but I've been disting intently whilst googling and many many years ago I had the privilege of working on an award-winning building in Basin stoke and this is just a point for the future because all the things that have been said with how a building looks from a distance and what have you, Mount Badden House in Basin stoke has just been listed by English Heritage and it was the one that I helped to refurbish it is essentially green on every single level it looks gorgeous so you could have a look at that and then that might be something that future developers of these types of sites might want to consider thank you thank you very helpful contribution I would urge members to have a look at that after Robin before we come to our decision on this as Councillor Heather Williams just said I think we are approaching the point where we are able to come to a view before we go to a vote if necessary is anyone proposing to oppose the recommendation on page 118 officers recommend that the planning committee approves the application subject to the conditions as set out is this something we can see anyone is this something we can approve by council hails is about to oppose it is that right? Absolutely not it was just one thing I was going to say if I may taking in what Mr Kelly said about and Mr Sexton that reserved matters the pits that I raised about access through the site perhaps it might be that officers could mention what was said and that can be given some consideration from their perspective rather than from our perspective to reopen that access for the community as was for the last hundred not years that's the only thing I would like to say to that suggestion which I think we have to understand cannot be a condition does anyone wish to I'm moving to the vote does anyone wish to I'm proposing to move to the vote would you wish to postpone the vote so that you can make a further comment please it's clearly we can't affect the number of car parking spaces that's fixed that's numbered but there isn't any really good effective sustainable transport for the moment but some is proposed in the future I would suggest that maybe some comment in the informative is that one would hope that the provision might be reviewed in accordance with future developments of sustainable transport that's just a comment but it's feasible what you think is common something like that I'm not sure that actually you could construct a condition around that because obviously you'd have to have regard to circumstances at that time and both the county you'll be aware that the combined authority are reviewing the transport connectivity plan which will help shape the county highway teams responses and our local plan itself is going to a review process so I think it's probably something that the applicants will have heard obviously we're very acutely conscious of the ambitions around that and the importance of more sustainable means and of course the Greater Cambridge Partnership also looking to try and affect change in that space because I can't really think of that Councillor Cahn, I'm now proposing to move to the vote Do I need a proposal to that effect? Or can we just move to that right now? I was always just going to say I wonder whether it could be put in the informative rather than in condition Right, I propose now to move to the vote Do I have a... Yes, I think I have a seconder for that I'm never going to put the matter directly to the vote In view of the further suggestions I am going to go to a recorded vote straight away rather than seeking to do this by affirmation so if you could press your blue button and then vote green in favour red if you oppose and we have it would seem we're unanimous in approving the accepting the officer's recommendation and approving the application subject to the conditions I said we'd break for lunch at 1.30, I'm sorry failed in that ambition but I still suggest that if we could manage to come back at 2.15 I hope that will allow members enough time for their lunch Thank you Welcome back everyone to this meeting of the South Cambridge District Council Planning Committee You know who we all are At this point or quite shortly I will need to get my finalisation agreement to the committee to continue over the four hour deadline my vice chair healthily points out that we've already covered two of the nine issues on our agenda so perhaps we won't need to but I think we ought to just can I take it by affirmation that we may continue beyond four hours and we get to that point I think that should be a personal affirmation by each of us I'll take the recommendation and would you kindly stop interrupting me Councillor Roberts Right, so we now move on to what is listed here you will recall we agreed to change the order of the agenda slightly so listed here as being item 12 land off horsey throat Linton we have made a site visit page 243 in your papers and I think some of us know that he's surface water drainage and flood risk data members decision due by May and the presenting officer in this case is Steven Kelly Thank you chair I'll be supported by Karen Pell Coggins who's the case officer and as you identify this is an application for approval of a condition requiring details of the surface water drainage scheme Members on the site visit on Monday visiting both the application site and Lonsdale the adjoining area Karen can have the next slide my way of the screen and put it into full screen thank you I'll keep going I wave backgrounds as the report makes clear on page 244 this item was deferred from consideration at the meeting last month for a number of reasons the first was for the lead local flood authority to publish their report into a flood event that took place adjacent to this site within Linton on the 20th of July and that has now happened to provide further details of the drainage solution particularly details of the exceedance flows from the drainage basin which I will address shortly and to provide clarification of the applicant's land ownership and the ability to deliver elements of the proposed drainage strategy and I'll deal with that as we progress through the presentation there have been a number of late or later representations since the publication of the report I'll perhaps run through the presentation and come back to those presentations those representations because I suspect it may well make a degree of sense but Karen if you can move to the next slide please so the surface sorry the surface water drainage proposals essentially comprise four key elements in line with principles established at the outline stage and referenced in condition 11 the main elements of those proposals can be found in the report and are shown on the plan and they essentially are set out on page 257 and 258 but talking to the plan the surface water drainage measures will capture all of the rainfall falling on to roofs and roads the pale blue areas that you can see are areas of permeable paving so the rainfall will fall on to those and also be captured and directed towards the infiltration basin located at the bottom left hand corner of the site which corresponds with the lowest part of the site at the site access with horsey throat a one in 40 gradient will be created for the first four metres to create effectively a lip at the site entrance way to reduce and prevent surface water that currently in high rainfall conditions passes along horsey throat from entering into the site and then flowing down the hill into the infiltration basin and overwhelming it there are also I think if you could move to them the next slide please Karen so this is the infiltration basin which includes it is dug to a depth to accommodate one in 100 year plus 40% for climate change design standard a few parts to it what's called a four bay area on the left at the bottom of the drawing effectively where all of that surface water will travel to and providing an opportunity for silt and so on in that to settle before it passes into the larger basin area if you can go to the next slide please the permeable paving is essentially a contained system with a drain that holds some of that surface water that falls onto the onto those permeable paving areas in essentially the materials in the paving area itself before discharging into the infiltration basin through pipes next drawing please and then what I propose to be buns on the eastern western boundaries an element of the southern boundary the one on the image on the left hand side is a bund on the eastern side of the site the levels fall from the right hand side of that image to the bottom left hand side and the purpose of that bund is to intercept water that might flow from the adjoining land currently part of that land as those were on the site is used as the site compound area to the application site itself and then on the right hand image there is a small effectively a lip on the western edge of the site shown in the sections and in the southern part of the site that contains surface water into the site and prevents it in normal circumstances from flowing beyond the site boundaries so that it is contained within the infiltration base and you go to the next image please the construction of the development means that on the eastern side particularly there has been a concern expressed about the ability of the developer to contain within their application site within land that they control the eastern and southern bund so this drawing seeks to demonstrate and the applicants seek to affirm that they are able to construct the bund in its entirety as detailed in the plans and so it's one of the reasons for deferral for members who are on site on Monday they were able to see an indication of where that boundary is and where the extent of the bund exists relative to the boundary fences of the properties that were constructed it moved to the next slide and then the other reason for deferral addressed this point so the prevailing ground levels as you can see are to the bottom left of that image with the contours that you can identify the applicants have provided details in this diagram of an exceedence flow rate that essentially follows that prevailing ground level now if I can apologies I just need to check back with the the drainage features if you can go forward to two slides please that's right the basin that is proposed in the bottom left hand side and the exceedence flow the arrangements that members were able to see on site during their site visit showed the partially completed basin with a temporary bund around it and then you were able to witness by going into Lonsdale the difference in levels between the properties to the south referred to in a number of reports as being Martin's Lane but actually not it doesn't exist at that point to the immediate south of the site but particularly to the western side of that basin and we've got some photographs that we can show you shortly but if you can go back up to the exceedence flow slide one more thank you you'll see that in an extreme event in the event that the infiltration basin proves to be overwhelmed the exceedence flow the applicants are indicating will take place to that bottom left hand corner which corresponds for those who are on site with the gardens of houses on Lonsdale now the applicant has provided information which is contained in the report which seeks to justify not only the design parameters of the one in 100 years plus climate change event but also has further calculated the performance of the basin in more extreme rainfall events based upon modelling that they've done up to one in a thousand year event the section 19 report published by the League Local Flood Authority suggests that circumstances in Linton in July 2021 amounted to I think between one in 250 and one in 600 year event so depending upon what data source you rely upon but the applicants comments around that are contained in the report and seek to suggest that although the exceedence would take place into properties in Lonsdale and again we'll see the photographs about and members saw the way that that water is conveyed when it enters the gardens the circumstances under which such exceedence happens are in excess of the design parameters and the council and the League Local Flood Authority design standards for a surface water drainage scheme and in fact suggests that that level of tolerance is significant and sufficient to justify the scheme being an improvement over the circumstances of a no development scenario so if there was no development on the site Karen if you can just go down further in the presentation as I said the key parameters of the scheme I've detailed in that slide if you move to the next slide there are maintenance arrangements set out on this slide so the areas covered by the blue will be adopted highway including the lip or the entrance the grading of the entrance at the site access point and the areas in brown will be covered by the management terms set up for the site move to the next image please the development is for those of you on site and if you've read the report is well underway and as a consequence the measures that are proposed have not yet been fully implemented what the applicants have done is to provide a program of implementation detailed on this drawing which sets out the phasing of the implementation of the drainage solution in the event that it's approved by the council it's important to note that the existing circumstances on site and indeed the conditions on the 20th of July 2021 the drainage solution that was in place was not a scheme that you're being asked to consider it was not fully implemented clearly at that point including key elements of the access prevail water inundation measures to prevent inundation of the site from the east and from horseyth road and the infiltration basin at that time the lower did not have its embankments fully rendered in the way shown on the submitted scheme so I think the next slide should identify one of the other reasons why the application was deferred was there was a question about South Cam's land ownership interests you can see in the right hand image Fowlwater connection to and anesment that's granted over South Cam's land into Lonsdale as part of a Fowlwater connection but the extent of South Cam's district council's land along that western boundary I think is there another slide that's it okay thank you are there some photographs I think that we have received a number of photographs following Monday's site visit that we've sought to sought to try and capture thank you and this is for those of you who weren't able to visit the site hopefully this provides a degree of context so this photograph I think is taken of the area of land behind the gardens and properties on Lonsdale and at the southern boundary of the site beyond the southern boundary of the site in an area which is being marked at the moment by the cursor Karen if you've got another image scroll down this is the edge of the application site is off to the left hand side this is number 29 Lonsdale and the infiltration basin is to the media left of this on that image on the site and what the photograph and members saw on site is the difference in levels and clearly the difference between ground levels that exists which dovetails with the anticipated pathway of that exceedence flow routes the next image this is the view beyond that the boundary of number 31 which is the house next to number 29 that you've just seen which points to the congested nature and the overgray nature of the site next door which prevents water from flowing down Martin's Lane to the next image and this is the it's actually quite hard to see in some ways but you can see the infiltration basin in the midground the development of the rear the boundary fence of the garden number 29 which I think you've just seen showing the relationship of the infiltration basin with site boundary and with the residential boundaries off to the left hand side it's important to make the point that the infiltration basin that as constructed there effectively the embankment of that the raised section is temporary and would be taken off and rebuilt with a concrete core as a piece of reinforcement to that basin and then that core would be backfilled with material and planted and would naturally colonise with vegetation another photograph I think that's a similar image but maybe gives you a greater sense of appreciation the next photograph please through that gap you can see again the houses but the infiltration basin is in the area beyond that chain link fence that you can just about make out I think this is taken on the boundary with number 31 it shows the slope absolutely this is the garden of number 31 which is and the fence that you can see at the top of that photograph is approximately where the previous photo you've just seen was taken or clearly the continuation of the ground levels falling into those gardens in Lonsdale is something that members were able to appreciate next photograph please one of the elements that forms part of the existing fabric of properties in Lonsdale is that there is a substantial you can see it here in the photograph brick wall the consequences of that is a continuous wall along most of the southern part of Lonsdale consequences of that is that if water enters into the gardens of properties in Lonsdale it's conveyed westwards along that wall and into neighbouring properties that's what happened in July 2021 and ultimately ends up at number 36 where it passes through a gap in that wall down to a property at number 2 to Baker's Lane and so the concern of local residents around the application articulated in some length in the representations and through correspondence is around the risks to their property from effectively an overflow of that infiltration basin and a concern about the significant implications for property and their well-being arising from that. As the report sets out the flood event in 2021 and the report on it has now been published we've provided details of the easement the applicants have provided confirmation that they are able to fully implement the scheme within their demise it's fair to say that remains contested and the Lead Local Flood Authority have confirmed that both through their technical assessment of the scheme and we have a representative from a from Capita who peer-reviewed on behalf of the Lead Local Flood Authority the technical assessment work done for the surface water drainage design the Lead Local Flood Authority have confirmed that they're now satisfied not withstanding their earlier comments that you can see reported in the report that the scheme put forward is acceptable and satisfies their requirements before I finish however I do need to update members to a number of further representations received since the weekend or just before the weekend and around the site was it so from the applicants we've received emails on the 6th April and the 30th of March addressing matters of the bund construction and revising the details of the concrete plug to be a more substantive reinforced piece of structure on the 30th of March they provided new sections for the infiltration basin and identified responded to points made by the parish council about exceedance flow on the 12th of April they provided a response to Linton parish councils concerns and they've also provided on the 12th structural calculations for the concrete bund itself which was a matter that you'll see has been raised in representations the lead local flood authority provided further comments on the 11th of April on Monday confirming their position that they are satisfied with the assessment undertaken and with the exceedance flow provisions and the applicants' calculations are making clear that they continue to have objection to the approval of the condition we've also received a letter from the local MP on the 11th of April raising concerns about the implementation of the development ahead of these works and the failure of the applicant to discharge the conditions in advance and concerns about noting the concerns about the parish councils that you'll hear from in terms of exceedance flow infiltration rates and the performance of the drainage scheme overall and asking members to seek to ensure that checks are carried out on what has been built ultimately and that monitoring takes place should the conditions be discharged to ensure they're implemented as approved Linton parish council will be hearing from have made comments on the 8th of April as I said the applicants have responded to those highlighting concerns about the section 19 report from the lead local flood authority expressing surprise about Anglia Morta and the environment agencies view on that report querying calculations undertaken as part of the service water drainage design process questioning why no comments from land sketching and highways have been raised and expressing a concern about the impact of the scheme on the hedge questioning entrance levels and the arrangements of the site access and making clear that the parish council continue to object to the proposals but you'll hear from them we've also had representations from Baker's Lane highlighting concerns about the flood report and from Lonsdale 36 Lonsdale querying whether a structural engineers report has been secured regarding the stability of the bund as recommended by the LLFA as I said we've also received photographs from number 31 Lonsdale and from Baker's Lane Corey Newell I think has written to all members separately in a letter that we're conscious raises a number of points and chair that's that's probably all for me Thank you Is there a point of clarification I am much concerned about how much extra information that there is and we're all pretty busy at the moment and I've seen things coming in onto my laptop in the last sort of 24 hours I just have not been able to read them I just haven't got time and I think my fears are that we're really making a decision here that could have could be good but it could have horrendous consequences and my own feeling is that this meeting actually should defer it until the next month to give everybody an opportunity to really consider I honestly feel that if there was a flood and I'm sorry I don't go along with all these 100 years et cetera nowadays the weather is so changeable these days and we get more and more rained and I'm ancient as you all know and I can't remember whether quite as wild as it is and so much water when it does come down and I actually would move that we defer this Chairman I just don't think we've got the we haven't got the knowledge we haven't been able to I think take in and I think it's premature and highly dangerous and I actually think there would be a call on this council to have responsibility of something to happen in the next couple of years and I don't think we ought to be putting ourselves in that sort of predicament and I would move that we we defer this right so I take that as a proposal do you have a seconder for that right so when I have a short debate on that emotion that we defer does anyone want to speak for or against that I will speak briefly on that then I am aware that there have been a lot of additional documents and also that there are parts of those documents and submissions that are directly relevant to the decision for us today there are other parts which are not which is why I asked indeed I'm sure it doesn't line in this in the beginning I asked the director rather than circulating more documents to summarise the relevance of the documents that have been received as a clear summary I think that in considering the question of deferal we need to consider two other factors ready one is that there are people waiting on this decision it's not directly relevant as a planning consideration for us this afternoon but there are people wanting to move into houses there that if you like is the responsibility of the developers the second question is that because the amelioration works the works that should prevent a future flood can't be completed until they have been approved there is a continuing risk to neighbouring householders until such time as this matter is properly resolved now I don't while it's also a risk to the householders the ones we met on site yesterday which was acknowledged by one of them at a previous meeting now I appreciate that councillor Williams wants to second that you wished to second it now would you like to hear others on this point first you go ahead and second the motions I don't see anyone else want to speak at the stage and the vice chair would also like to speak on this perhaps that's helpful here councillor Milnes thank you chair so I'm minded that we have a development in Saarston of 40 ex houses by the same developer and they have a system in place a very similar design percolating pipes underneath the permeable paving going off to a first of base a tank underneath and so on I have photographs in front of me of bonding on top of that permeable surface that was immediately after the site was constructed so I have some hesitation when we're discussing such property developments and the nature of these flood defences I'm minded to agree with councillor Roberts in terms of the additional information that we've got when in December 2019 we had a water event that was the highest or the third highest in recorded history so we are getting these very severe events more frequently now I know that Stephen mentioned 1000 year events but it seems to me that we're reliant on a system that is untested with severe rainfall events and I'm thinking particularly of situations where you've got quite a lot of high rainfall over a proceeding period and then get a large amount of months worth in a few hours which was the case in July 2021 so I'm just expressing reservations about the information in front of us and the ability of this proposal to cope with Right, I wonder if for 42nd emotion I could ask Henry Bachelor to answer three comments again whilst I agree with the two speakers before about lack of a full set of information in front of us I also on the other hand I do agree with the chair that we we do have to come to a decision at some point on this because you know this has been rolling on for a long time and there are people waiting not including homeowners who have had houses ruined and are waiting for a conclusion on this matter to put in some kind of defence themselves but on the flipside whilst I'm not against a deferral I would like to hear from the public speakers before we make that decision because including people such as Capita and I'm hoping the applicant themselves they may answer some of the questions that we still think are outstanding and then when we get to the debate we may still feel that there is information missing that we would like to defer this application for so I'm not against a deferral on this stage of the proceedings I see we're now gathering other speakers before we take other speakers I wonder if you would agree to be inviting the director to comment on some of the implications of this because I think that would be helpful to us yet okay hold on because it's your right speakers, a second is the motion thank you thank you because there might be something that I say that Mr Kelly then might want to advise us so that's my thinking I'm going to jump in front of you Mr Kelly so my reasons for seconding is we've had a lot of information there and I do appreciate this summary and everything that everyone said but also we only have one chance at getting this right if we approve something so yes we need something to protect and it was the images and the images that we've been sent of the flooding is horrific and I remember about how quick it was and if their child had been in the living room it would have been a very different we could be talking about a very different situation here so yes we need to get something done as quickly as possible to protect those residents but also what we can't do is rush it and we have one chance and get it wrong now this is a highly technical condition as well the beauty of the planning committee is that we're not professionals that's a democratic process but equally this is a very technical piece I do feel that perhaps a briefing to go through that technical detail as we've had in other areas would be a good idea on this item because we're being asked to make a decision today that literally could mean the difference of life and death to some people so it is I feel an immense passion I sure we all do that we must get this right and based on a summary and information given I don't feel that we're able to and I appreciate what councillor bachelor said about the other public speakers but equally I think in my mind more support and briefing and more time to digest and get the information would help my decision making as opposed to responses that I may have in the next 10-15 minutes so that's my reason for deferral and I would be happy if it means we have to have another meeting following that briefing to make it work to try and speed things up happy to go with that but I do think that a lot of us are very concerned about the consequences if we get this wrong because we want to be a certain or a certain as we can possibly be Thank you for that I think if the committee would agree it would be helpful at this point to hear from the director before others contribute Yes, I think we agree to that Thank you chair I absolutely understand the concerns about the level of information and the technical nature of it and indeed there are conflicting views on that technical information I think however probably important to and Councillor Williams made this exact point is that the technical assessment of the scheme is not a matter for the planning committee to forensically undertake that is the purpose of consulting the statutory consultees the lead local flood authority particularly and there has been a fairly rigorous process of challenge and examination both the lead local flood authority of the applicants and indeed to address the very concerns that I know a number of members have highlighted the lead local flood authority took the view of a pointing capita to peer review the proposals and draw conclusions on the technical assessment because the calculations involve the assumptions about infiltration rates design parameters and the factors taken account of in those design parameters are matters that I would find difficulty frankly briefing the committee on without necessarily giving a very very extensive masterclass in drainage scheme design that I'm certainly not qualified to give and which would involve a great deal of technical analysis and assessment alongside the requirement for judgment ultimately by those technical specialists and you'll I do wonder whether or not recognising nevertheless a council robbers concern about this it might be helpful to hear from the range of views because around the technical assessment and the scheme design there are there are some areas of disagreement between for example the parish council and the lead local flood authority the lead local flood authority's consultants and the applicant that you need to consider but there are now areas in which there is at least recognition and clarity around what happens if the basin over tops in terms of what that potentially means and members who are on the site would have been able to see that and heard from some of local residents might be useful to hear from all of the speakers in order to be able to determine how much more technical appraisal is required by the committee as opposed to the views and technical appraisals that have been done by the lead local flood authority and others before we reach a conclusion. Before I take other speakers do you wish to press your proposal now so that we could hear our speakers and then press it later if that's appropriate? Chair, I mean it's Councillor Robert's motion my feeling is though that this is an application that's going to should have a good deal of our time given to it because of the severity of it it's three o'clock we've already been going for five hours I don't and we have a lot other things on the agenda so I do think chair we do need to make a decision sooner rather than later but I don't want anybody to be rushed in their representation so mindful of where we're at in proceedings as well here. So can I ask Councillor Roberts to confirm if you wish to press this proposal now? I think we ought to do it now because I think my feelings are that I only need to know whether you're prepared to do it now forgive me I've been advised I ought to assert myself more as chair I did, I said that yes Chairman I think the time is now. So let's move to a vote sorry I think we're going to do this on the system yes if we're being asked to take a vote on whether to defer now if we if that decision were overturned and we proceeded to discuss the application that doesn't preclude us seeking a deferral once we've heard it does it? Yes I had that thought myself but I think we have to take the principle do we defer this to a future meeting bearing in mind there will be no further meetings of this committee until some time later in June new committee or do we agree to discuss it I think that if we reject the idea of deferring it then we have rejected it for the whole of this meeting in my view Chairman if we do know but I now want to proceed to the vote I've had the proposal, I've had the seconder so if you would like to forgive me and Councillor Bradlin we're going to proceed to the vote now and the vote is on perhaps before we proceed to the vote we should take advice from our legal advisor and Chair Knot, withstanding your view my legal view is that there would be a second if the motion was defeated now and there was then a debate and then a further motion was put to defer I think members would be entitled to vote on that second motion right so that's very clear if we reject this motion now we would still be able to consider the same issue at a later stage my view on that was practical the legal one is what counts so let's now proceed to that vote if we're ready to thank you so green is in favour of deferring it now and red is in favour of hearing from the invited speakers I think we have all voted now and the motion for immediate defer is defeated so we will now hear from the invited speakers I see that that sounds like a reasonable request everyone happy that we have a very short agenda yes this is or I think virtual today can I just gently suggest from the chair that it would be helpful if we could just listen to them hear their presentations obviously if anyone doesn't see this on asking questions then I wouldn't I wouldn't be able to stop that I have indicated to other speakers who were waiting to speak on the next item that we will take next item consider what we do about other items so let's proceed item 12 our first speaker virtual on mine is James Fountain do we have Mr Fountain there you are I am here yes I'll be two minutes around about first of all thank you for letting me speak the events of last year have had a kind of profound effect on and lasting effect on the residents of Lonsdale Baker's Lane and beyond and I think this topic has had a great deal of scrutiny and debate certainly by technical people but not necessarily by the committee the residents of Lonsdale did not live in an extreme flood risk area but the Crow days development has now created this for us the narrative I think that's been used to push the development from Crow days homes has not been helpful and I kind of totally reject the idea that the site is somehow saving us from mass flood events that aren't really supported by the facts however I think now we have to realise that the development is in place and we have to come up with solutions on how we can protect our homes for the future according to the planning procedures etc and these mustn't really raise the flood risks to our homes houses so I've got two three topics that I'd like you to consider really as part of the committee so the first one is is the structural integrity of the fund that surrounds the infiltration basin and really is it up to the job so the LLFA have requested in the latest report that the design is reviewed and subsequently inspected by a structural engineer so I know this hasn't been accepted by Crow days to date and really failure of this particular structure is not an option because it's a major part of the design so I really ask that the committee kind of require and request that this LLFA requirement is actually carried out secondly the residents of Lonsdale and beyond actually don't really have a huge amount of trust from Crow days homes and I believe really if you look at the literature that the council is currently being held to ransom so this is quite clear from some of the wording that's on the submissions in the planning portal and also residents have had to track and mend many of the proposals that have come from Crow days throughout this whole sorry affair none of us are flooding experts but and this hasn't really been a very simple or easy process to follow so a lot of us have had to become flooding experts and look at these designs and sometimes we've been the only people the residents to actually come up with finding flaws in the design so these have been residents have been the driving force really for finding these flaws in the design and highlighting them and I think lastly I want to say that I hope that the design that's been put together is actually built so as people will realise when they came on Monday 90% of the houses have already been finished and a great deal of the drainage solution is already in the ground so can these be checked properly I'm not sure they can be but we hope that they will be so this is really an empowerment importance that they are the other thing is wind up if I may I think we've got very clearly what you said and we had the opportunity to one more sentence to say is about the infiltration basin so we hope that the infiltration basin actually performs to the required amount however the data that backs up this data infiltration data is at best flaky I have to say that when looking at the data as a career scientist I don't think I would be able to use that data it is very very dodgy thank you for that that submission committee I consciously gave Mr Fandran slightly more time aware of the fact that we were not proposing to ask him any questions our next speaker is Matthew Harmsworth agent for the applicants of Barton Wilmore I think Mr Harmsworth are you with us hello you'll have to bear with my throat a little bit today I'm recovering from Covid but can you hear me okay yes please go ahead okay thank you I'll start by commenting on the three matters relating to three reasons for deferral from the previous meeting the LLFA's flood investigation report into the July flood event defines the event as a 1 in 211 or 1 in 659 year event depending on the rainfall data used Crow days have provided additional calculations to the authority which show that the surface water drainage capacity for the scheme will be effective for over 1 in 1000 year events well over the capacity required even to mitigate events such as that observed last year and far beyond what is required by policy section 5.6 of the report highlights that developers should not increase flood risk at sites again the surface water drainage scheme proposed does more than this in fact creating betterment to the drainage capacity of the site than that observed prior to construction regarding exceedance flows from the infiltration basin the visual shared with the authority showed that the water would follow the natural topography of the site and slips generally in a south-west direction as it did prior to development let me stress however that the calculations in the micro drainage model showed that even in the case of 1 in 1000 year events the surface water runoff would be contained within the infiltration basin and with over 100mm free board to spare. Furthermore the updated designs add a reinforced base for the bund further to the concrete core which further improves its stability structure analysis demonstrates that the concrete core alone has sufficient strength to act as a retaining wall and providing this structure within the bund will further increase its strength and stability relative to the previous design regarding ownership it's been discussed with acknowledged and confirmed with the authority that all land required to put in place the scheme is within the applicant's land ownership or control I trust that the site visit took place last week and the presentation we've had was helpful in this regard the drainage strategy also sets out maintenance strategy and it in again further expanding this on top of the measures previously proposed the applicant has committed fitting a depth gauge to the head wall of the inlet of the infiltration basin to help monitor the water level regular inspections and maintenance will be undertaken to ensure normal operation of the infiltration basin the principles of the Thomas report of the outline application have been adhered to the peer review of the technical details for the LLFA supports the LLFA conclusions that the proposed surface water drainage scheme is acceptable and the LLFA as the technical expert consultee have noted they are satisfied with all the latest information there is a clear timetable set out for implementation of the scheme with the applicant wishes to carry out as soon as possible in the event of the scheme being approved and the council is free to monitor the progress of this the applicant also advises that this scheme has gone about as far as it can go as have the calculations gone as far as they can reasonably go therefore we respectfully request that the condition be discharged allowing the developer to move closer towards delivering the scheme and thus appropriately mitigating against future events thank you Thomas we won't be asking you any questions today so we'll proceed to our next witness thank you very much councillor Kate Kell of Linton Parish Council and I think you have Cory Newell there with you in support Kate you know we have three minutes can we just confirm that you have the agreement for your parish council to present the case this afternoon yes I can confirm that I have the permission could I just before I start to speak make a comment regarding whatever additional material has been submitted in response to us from the developer so when you're ready we haven't had the opportunity to see it and it isn't on the website so that was my comment thank you now would you like to make your submission then you have as usual three minutes you will have noticed I'm sure that I have shown a little bit of discretion because we won't be asking you questions subsequently but if you could possibly keep three minutes that would be appreciated certainly and could the presentation be displayed please thank you chair councillors thank you for inviting me to speak planning policy requires that no internal flooding should occur on a site in a one in one hundred year event plus climate change it also requires that the development does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere full stop there is no limit to the event intensity in this statement current mechanisms that could cause flooding both on a site and to its surroundings should therefore be fully understood so that any changes to them do not alter the risk of flooding next slide please our concerns are the environment agency surface water maps are inaccurate water entered the site by both the construction compound and main site entrances on July 20th last year the volume of water that over top to the dober top the infiltration base and exceeded its capacity many many times over flooding properties on Lonsdale, Bakers Lane, Bartlow Road and Finchams Close in quick succession once the construction compound entrance is returned to Verge it will direct flood water to the next opening the main site entrance two alterations to the already agreed site entrance have still not been consulted on by highways what will happen if this scheme is not acceptable to them the one in 40 rise was proposed by the 2017 flood strategy due to and I quote the small risk that flows along horseyth road may enter the site along the new access road evidence shows this risk is not small nor hypothetical if overtopped additional water will flow straight to the infiltration basin we understand that the surface water scheme was not complete on July 20th however the extent of the surface water to enter the site from horseyth road has not been considered in the design at all with crowd is arguing that only rain falling on the site itself has to be accounted for we believe this is folly as the site entrance changes the flooding mechanism next slide please paragraph 60 doesn't include how the retesting of the infiltration pond will be controlled on completion and for the life of the development the effects of the silt and compacting of the chalk cannot be undone by rotating should the infiltration test fail what then lessons from previous floods should be heated before water is piped into the village drains four you have no information about the exceedence on the eastern side the damage to hedges and trees and the landscape implications of the bunds, ditches and concrete structures on both sides the scheme is not deliverable because it replaces the landscape buffer approved under conditions one and nine this is over development the site LPC understands the pressure that the occupation of this site developed at risk puts on members and their decision making approval of the details in this condition is based on too many unknowns and deliverables we therefore request refusal as until these unknowns are known the risk of development increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere remains thank you you said you have not seen the reports which were not available to you so you have not seen the LLFA report or the capita review of that report we have seen the latest things that are online on the 12th of April are the Linton Parish council comments and which is also duplicated as our consultee comments submitted online there are no other documents that we've seen from the 12th of April which I think was the developers response to our comments or something the committee has looked at those we were sent a link to those documents which are online I think what I'm going to do is to use Chen's discretion to invite an additional speaker who can talk to the cap we have online capita I don't know whether anyone from capita is present on listening to this who can give us their assessment of the LLFA report because I think it is very important that all parties including the parish council should hear a brief summary of that I think we have Mr Jack Southern online before you speak Mr Southern I just have a councillor who wants to make a comment on this procedure Thank you could you just explain to us what part capita plays in this? Capita will explain that in a moment Mr Southern I'm sorry to bring you in in this way I'm sure you've been listening to what's been said here and I think it would be very helpful to hear from you you will have heard not only what the parish council just said but also what Mr Harmsworth said about your assessment of the LLFA report on the events of last summer and the extent to which the proposals before us would deal with that in normal circumstances the extent to which it would deal with and if you're able to comment on that if you would also deal with councillor Bradley's point about explaining your role in this that would be very helpful Certainly thank you chair and members for the invitation to speak today so my role thank you for hearing me, my name is Jack Southern I'm a Flodros consultant I've been working with Capita for the last five years and a brief consultant for 10 prior to that my role in this has been to provide an independent review of the proposals for this application we support the LLFA on a number of their statutory consultancy responses so either primarily or as an independent review I haven't been involved in the section 19 the flood investigation report that was led by the councill themselves although I do have lots of experience of delivering those for other areas but I can't speak to this specific section 19 report although I've obviously read it as part of our work so to address that first point that has been my involvement we've been undertaken an independent review and then reported back to the lead local authority with our thoughts and our views I've reviewed to have the opportunity to review several revisions of the submission for the discharge of conditions and provided feedback at each stage noting a number of points to review including emissions and varying values used between calculations and plans provided I've also questioned various approaches and points within the report those have over subsequent revisions all been addressed to my satisfaction and in accordance with the guidance documents that we have that apply to drainage schemes of this type to summarise the most recent revision submission by the LFFA which I think was one of the questions there is a comment around the section 19 the flood investigation report that quotes that the flood event that occurred that was subject to the report had a return period of between 1 in 200 1 in 211 and 1 in 659 depending on the measure I can go into why there is a range in those things but I think Hilary described that quite well last last session we the standard for design that we typically look for is the 1 in 100 plus climate change we allow 40% increase to account for climate change over the lifetime of development we have also subsequently received and reviewed and along with the LFFA the submission from CODES which looks at different return periods so larger events than that to understand what the upper limit of the designed termination basis may provide and based on the calculations we can say that that would provide a present day store of a 1 in 1000 year event as I say that's present day so without climate change so over the lifetime of development certainly and then we've also some of the final comments were around the exceedence flow routes we wanted to see those documented appropriately that has been done and then the details around the eastern boundary the final point I should just say is as was mentioned earlier in the day we have reviewed the plans in front of us is the proposed design we have not been able to and to verify what has been built on the ground so is from a principal point of view that we are reviewing design drawings and design calculations and that's what our conclusions are based upon thank you very much okay I would now like to ask one of our local members Councillor John Batchelor if he's available to give us his views on this are you there John? I'm here chair but alright my camera has just been turned back on I've been banned from the camera arrangement okay thanks very much I'll be brief Chairman we've heard all these numbers or the rest of it but there's really one underlying problem in all this project to be acceptable it has to meet the authorities standard and that standard is 140 years as we've heard a number of times so they can so their project can be acceptable but it doesn't actually solve the problem the problem is quite clear that it's the exception exceptional rainfall which is the issue here and I might say that we have had similar downpours from as for July last year at least four times in the last 50 or 60 years and at least one of them was much more serious so it does happen and it does happen more regularly than these random measures numbers actually suggest so there is no answer to this until such time as there is actually a workable solution to how you deal with the basin should we have an extreme situation in other words somehow or other you've got to stop it overflowing and the only way to do that I'm no engineer but I assume there needs to be some sort of pumping system which would safely remove some of the water in order to protect the surrounding properties our concern is simply that we need to protect the neighbours and the wider community and at the moment I'm afraid we do not have the answer to doing that thank you dear thank you John right the question is do we now into the debate with a view to determining this and I'm just before come to you in a moment just going to remind us of the recommendation officers recommend planning committee accept the following surface water drainage details but do not formally discharge the condition because the development is commenced and that is the recommendation before us are we happy to debate that Councillor Roberts thank you chairman through you chairman I'm going to move a deferment again having heard the different representations there is absolutely nobody there that convinces me that they know that this isn't going to flood and the last speaker clearly said he hasn't seen the site itself with what's happened there and he can't give us a solution all that's been repeated by the developer is they won in whatever many years thing well you know we know that already and that would have been as it was before but it happened didn't it it happened last year I think we do need a deferment and I would suggest that we take actually further advice and call a special meeting in there a one off one issue meeting where we actually have a proper pre briefing meeting as we've done with different schemes over the years where we can sit and listen to people giving us information and advice so that we don't clog up the whole procedure when it gets into committee itself but we get people and I would suggest from two sides because there are two sides to this story and then we may be in a better position but I just feel at the moment we are in no position whatsoever and there are so many um guidelines showing us that there is a serious danger here and we have to be as an authority aware of that and not go down that sort of line we cannot okay I think we've heard your proposal we defer do you have a seconder Dr Williams does anyone want to speak against that before I invite Williams to seconder Councillor Milne's it's just a point of clarification so what I think I've heard from the witnesses and the neighbours particularly is they want work to go ahead because they want protecting from the certain event that they had last year happening again and if we defer we risk run the risk of the developers pausing their work and therefore leaving their neighbours unprotected so I'm just clarifying that that's the potential implication of what we're doing okay I'm now going to ask I think Councillor James Helles was it on this point that you wanted to speak Councillor Helles thank you right Mr Kelly following the site visit on Monday which was extremely illuminating you had to be there to see it right so this is my points are from that experience the permeable surfaces or rather should I say every single drop of surface water Mr Kelly that drops can I just clarify that we are debating the proposal which has been put on this now I don't want to do that so okay Councillor Breddon I think that one of the things that I would like further advice on is we know do we not that planning applications are not required to mitigate against against flood risk that comes from outside the site and one of my concerns about this is that prior to the development obviously the same amount of water fell on the site as falls now except perhaps in recent years it has happened more suddenly but the problem is that the introduction of hard surfaces and water management systems so surface water runoff has increased the speed with which that is recharged into the local existing flood risk flow pattern as we witnessed from the photographs from ancient parish council which we had sadly very little time to look at or and no explanation of which direction we were looking in but we could see that there was a lot of water there so I am mindful that if we defer this application we defer the instigation of the system which in theory according to the local flood authority and their independent engineer would solve the problem but unfortunately we can't be sure as council bachelor said we can't be sure that would actually protect the people anyway so we're in a cleft stick and so I do feel that other people have referred to the fact of the very heavy rainfall on already recharged soil in December 2020 which I experienced in my division and you know I do think we need to take into account the change in climate behaviour that's happened now it's possible that people are telling us that the lead local flood authority has taken that into account and we're advised in the documents that actually the proposed strengthened and increased height bund around the infiltration pond that is proposed could protect the neighbours from the one in a thousand year incident but there's lots of information that we've only received this morning and I am quite concerned there is quite I'm just wondering is there any way we can require some works towards protecting the neighbours while we consider what the applications are I know we've just got to say yes or no that's a good question look I take that as a speech against deferring it but you have asked a good question which I think we all want to know and I would like to do thank you this is what I'm proposing is that we invite the director to comment on that thank you I think there's a couple of points there is no approved scheme in the absence of this condition detail being approved so there is nothing for the developer to implement other than the approved scheme I'm trying to listen to Mr Kelly so the approved scheme is only a scheme that will be covered by conditioners there's no effective authority to implement anything else the developer has implemented some temporary arrangements following the flood events in July last year to try and mitigate the vulnerabilities of the site as it currently stands but it's construction site and you saw some of those temporary arrangements on site but there isn't anything other than the approved scheme in front of you or indeed that I was advised that you could consider as a kind of interim arrangement I think in terms of the point around the technical advice or the further technical advice that we could secure I'm slightly struggling to know where to go to get that advice the statutory consultee is the lead local flood authority the lead local flood authority have also appointed an independent technical expert on drainage who has also given them advice and so I'm not quite sure where as a planning authority as a planning committee we go to secure any further technical advice on the assessment of the scheme thank you could I come back briefly chair do you members feel that we have heard enough on that could I just seek clarification sorry I think you've had a say councillor Dewi Hawkins wanted to did you have a proposal or did you want to if I may I think it's okay to hear the combat from Chancellor Burnham it might how many I wasn't your councillor thank you what I wanted to clarify was the point I was making was that all of the calculations as far as we understood from both the lead local flood independent from James Sutherland but also from the lead local flood authority themselves was that the calculations add up for the rainfall on the site but what I was saying was that and indeed what the residents said was the trouble is the existence of the site makes the pre-existing known risk worse and I just wanted to get advice whether we can take a get advice from the lead local flood authority about this the risk that it's not mitigating the existing risk of water but it's falling on other land outside the site which then runs downhill seathroad into the site out through its normal natural route which is at southwestern corner and whether we can get any advice from them about that because if a development increases a risk of flood to neighbouring properties that is in our local plan that we shouldn't allow that to be made worse that's my question just a moment I thought you were opposing this being deferred it now seems you are proposing that it should be deferred so that we can seek further advice which the director has advised us we cannot secure as to the point which you raise are you suggesting that the advice which we have had from both the LLFA as I think peer reviewed by capitol I wasn't clear about that it doesn't already deal with that certainly Mr Harmsworth's assessment and I have to say I agree with having read the report was that the LLFA report suggests that the the measures now proposed would make things better I think we may all doubt whether they would they would resolve it but I would remind the committee we are currently debating whether we defer this matter to the merits of the scheme or whether it would resolve all the problems so I am inclined to go back to forgive me I know Councillor Williams wants to contribute but we have a seconder here do you want to speak before Dr Richard Williams seconds the motion to defer thank you chair just to say that I will take advice as to my voting business because I had to take an urgent call but I have heard the debate and I can understand people's concerns Councillor Milne's raised about the existing properties and everything but I would say that we only have one chance to get this right so less haste, more speed or that might be frustrating for today but if we were to agree something today and it doesn't do what it needs to do we will have no ability to go back and I think members are actually just asking for time quite often to just digest everything that was summarised actually see the documents we've heard others so I'm just throwing out that caution Mr Riddle let me know if I can vote on the defer or not that we've got one chance at this Councillor Dr Richard Williams would you like to second your motion to defer yes thank you chair I really will keep it brief because I know one more another we need to get on with business today first I think in relation to some of the points we made before part of the case that Councillor Roberts made for a defer is that we could have a technical briefing where we could explore these issues with the experts in more detail I think that's a very good idea I just know one other thing the parish council said they haven't seen the LLFA report the parish council also said that they haven't seen some other documents which concerns me and gives me other cause for defer and I see there is a letter online which refers to the parish council having been sent the report into the 2021 flooding but there does seem to be some doubt now as to whether the parish council held that anyway that would be my second reason for defer all thank you well I now intend to move to a vote can I just ask Councillor Heather Williams whether you intend to take part in the vote okay is that Councillor Heather Williams should not vote she did not hear all the debate and whilst she may feel confident my advice would be that that would be a ground on which the decision could be okay so again I'm going to take a vote on the machines if you can step that up for us please so again press the blue button if you wish to support the motion to defer then you press green if you wish to oppose the motion to defer press red now as chair I will need to use my casting vote and the convention is that I use my casting vote in support of the original position I might need some legal advice on this but my view would be that the original position is the one put before us in the papers I'm not I think in this position to support the proposal I have to support the original motion can I suggest a two-minute journal please that's what I'm about to take advice on that's not my view but let's have a two-minute committee if we may have a two-minute deferral to just make sure we get this right before I cast my casting vote yes we better I'm afraid I'm sorry please thank you my apologies for that further short adjournment we now come back we have a tide vote and therefore as chair I'm going to use my casting vote I've taken advice on that from officers and the advice is that I am unfettered my casting vote is that we should not defer this we should continue the discussion having heard from those involved and I'm just going to give you a very brief explanation the first is that regardless of the conventions that one votes in favour of the status quo I'm assured that my decision is unfettered I'm concerned that if we fail to take a decision today the improvements which are proposed we cannot be sure we'll take place I do not want a situation to occur in June or July which is the soonest time advice we can consider this at a future planning committee that we have another such flooding event and because we have failed to resolve it the improvements which were intended had not been carried out that is not a responsibility I believe this it's not a risk this committee should put on those who were so badly affected by the events last July we have a duty to decide whether the improvements proposed should now go ahead and that is what is before us so that is my reasoning it's not really a matter for debate I'm merely explaining my reasoning you may or may not agree with it doesn't that mean that the only answer that we can give today is approval and if that's the case why are we making any further debate because you're saying if we don't make a decision today nothing will happen and if it happens and it goes wrong I think you are tying this committee hand and foot to agreeing it today and I can't say that if that's what it's going to be I don't think that's what it's going to be we have a decision before us which is the same decision as we started in front of us at the beginning of the day that this item that has not changed I have merely used my casting vote to ensure that we continue to debate that option we have the same options before us as we had when we first started discussing this so having said that we've heard all the speakers we've heard from experts we've heard the assessment from our director and everyone want to start the debate on whether we should accept the recommendations before us. I think we have Councillor Bradman again first no I gather yes I recall when I stopped Councillor Hales in midstream would Councillor Bradman allow me to restart Councillor Hales and then come back to her is that alright? Thank you Councillor Hales Thank you chair before you change your mind OK Righto I'll go back to where I started or where I started saying before because having been to the site and stood in the back garden at number 31 and looked at the levels and the flow that the water the route the water took that I remember asking Mr Kelly that was this the actual extent of the raising of the edge by 500mm I think it was et cetera et cetera it doesn't look enough and it doesn't look like enough that the ring goes round enough that raised ring goes round enough to actually say it will then hold back any waters of any kind of volume and severity and another point was that Mr Kelly made was that every single drop of water on that site that drops on that site goes into that pond because it's all permeable paving all the routes of the houses go into that pond everything so there is a vast amount of water, let alone anything that may or may not with any kind of rectification of road services in why have you come off the horseheath road and come down onto the site by mistake or whatever right so bearing in mind that others have said here today that our duty is to stop the impact of this development by flooding somebody else so when that was a field the neighbours said that it was a wet field but it didn't come their way, it just stopped so as someone has said earlier I think it was Councillor Bradman that now we've got hard services albeit that they're being sustainably drained it has an effect so my belt and braces would be that we part of the debate I suppose is to say that we need to look at the height of that pond retaining wall they've extended it up they already knew that it was low when they did it before so they've extended it there are gaps in it heading towards Martin vein I think it is, the south of it if you look at it there was something that Mr Kelly mentioned about a ring, a concrete ring was that what they were going to go in so that needs to be about another 300mL on that would do a heck of a job one glaring chair, one glaring thing was that Capita who have reviewed the data from the LLPFA is they haven't visited the site they've done it at a tabletop one of the big recommendations help would say is if someone is going to peer review something they go and actually visit and see this for themselves because that may well have changed that department's view of how they've reviewed so that's what I was asking there are some glaring to me having worked through water for most of my working life I know it has a mind of its own and you need to keep it in check and so for the small amount of capital outlay by the company to put an extra ring and move that ring and completely contain it it's not a big ask thanks there's a question there in relation to the technical specification of the ring in which I know the director has taken advice so in a minute I will if I may ask the director to comment on that point but we have other speakers first councillor Bradnham and then councillor Caelin I think before we debate this any further or at some point I would find it really helpful if we could have just a look at those photographs from Linton Parish Council that was the first time I'd seen them and I would like to look at them and have them explain to me because I wanted to see which way we were looking there was one in particular it was labelled as Hall Seath Road and I couldn't see what it was so that's one thing and the second thing is I would like somewhere along the line it's really sort of slightly along the lines of what councillor Joe's hails is saying is that the which I was saying before the presence of this development make the existing normal rainfall off-site create more of a risk for the neighbours to this site it used to fall and go on to soft land and sink into the ground but now that's caused a much faster recharge into natural flood flows so I would like some advice about how that might be approached but I would like to see those photographs from Linton Parish Council will an explanation please Yes so we're going back to one of our earlier presenters to review the points they were making if we can technically do that we will I'm not quite sure whether Karen is able to put up those photographs again Check chair I wonder whether Lawrence is able to actually share the slides because I think the Parish Council affords them to him particularly like an explanation what are we looking at on the left photograph Chair I think probably the left hand side photograph is the flood event on the 20th of July as it says it is a picture of the basin area Can we ask the people who presented the photographs No we're not going back to the presenters again I think we have knowledge in the room and the local member can tell It says it's horsey throat site from Lonsdale so are we looking eastwards across the site to the development and are we looking across the retention basin or are we looking further up to the local member Those who are on the site visit on Monday we're looking north east across the site across the basin from the two gardens that we visited so that is the basin that is full of water That's where we are That's 31 Lonsdale 36 Lonsdale is the gentleman we visited whose property has been re-devastated Thank you Can we move on through the photographs OK One of the concerns I've had about that photograph was the volume the potential volume and flow of that compared to the size of the infiltration pond and so it says extended properties who reported flooding directly from the site Are you happy for us to take out the speakers? Have you dealt with your concerns? I just carry on looking at the rest of the photographs because I didn't have a chance So is the one on the left that's saying number 36 Lonsdale but looking from the east side is it looking across the bottom of the close? I'll take the local member again Councillor Bradman's question is the perspective of those photographs And what are the two in the middle? I mean those of us who were present on the visit on Monday will quickly be able to see where those photographs were taken That's what I'm just trying to clarify I was there too don't forget and I was just trying to Well do you recall looking at that house I recognise the one on the left which are the two in the middle The two photographs The two in the middle of the close of houses that we visited So if you walk into the close the first house we visited is on the left and the second on the right so that's looking into that small close that small ring of houses in Lonsdale at the bottom of the road So I understand The middle two photographs is the top one looking as it were eastwards across the bottom of the close or is it looking from Lonsdale as you look down the road Is the bottom of the close looking up towards the first house we visited Okay and the bottom one Sorry Councillor Bradman We have had the presentation We've now seen the photographs as you requested I would like the committee to be able to progress We have not only this matter to resolve but other matters. Are you happy for us to now progress Thank you Okay does anyone else want to take part in the debate I think we have Councillor Carn and then Councillor Harvey and then Councillor Milne Right I'll expect my concern I mean we've taken advice obviously about what would deal with the water on the site I'm concerned that if we don't do any action we won't deal with the water that came from off the site and I think this is probably far more important that the water actually on the site the water was coming down forced into the road I had experienced myself in a different area of what happens when water falls on the impacted ground or hard surface like that and gathers other water and can actually turn basically into a river Previously presumably it continued on walls it went down into the village and it went off and went across the site You also have a compound with your compacted ground which is quite a considerable area almost as much perhaps as the actual hard standing on the site which will not be removed into the developments completely. Once it's finished you'll have soft ground there and which will reduce some of it I'm worried that we don't take action and we don't accept what we've got we will not be able to deal with that I'm also worried that the development conditions should ensure that whatever is put in place to prevent water coming off course if it is maintained that's the most important thing of all that can prevent flooding on that site Whether this pond is large enough or not to contain the site does depend upon where the water comes from and what you saw in last July basically is a mixture of two lots and so it's difficult to judge whether that is actually the amount of water that would happen after all these things have been put in place I feel I personally feel at risk if we don't take action I approve this what are we going to do if we put into position the advice we've got are we going to get better advice where from I think we're in a position where we just have to accept that we have to take a decision and I can't really see any alternative but to accepting the best advice that we will receive from experts we can't be more knowledgeable than them that's my view Councillor Harvey thank you chair we do have to keep reminding ourselves that the purpose of the infiltration pond is to kind of equalise the situation to what it would have been had there not been any development tool and I think living within the storm area if you like I mean it was an exceptional amount of rain over an extended period but having said that I think we do really have to assure ourselves that this design as it is on the ground mirrors what it is on paper and I noted that Mr Kel from the parish council picked up on the point I think that we've got this 10 to 1 safety margin for the infiltration rate in the infiltration pond and that means that at the start of its life the infiltration rate is designed such that it can be degraded by factor of 10 and it will still function but my concern is that and perhaps I've missed something in the report here that the last time that the infiltration rate was checked was in 2020 and that was before we had the July 21 event and before we had the settling tank which kind of clears the water before it goes into the infiltration pond and therefore has not some of that 10 to 1 safety margin already been eroded because of the July 21 event and does it not need to be fully tested again before being signed off? Chancellor, Chancellor and then there are some technical questions that have been raised here which is one of the problems of this debate we are making technical assessments well beyond our expertise and I think it's important before we come to a decision we invite the director to just comment on the technical issues that have been raised so come to Councillor Milne I just wanted to make a quick point that all of this work that we're talking about for flood defences relies on the build working specification and I gave the example for the developer's site where permeability, that sort of scheme wasn't working to the specification and I just wondered whether it's possible for us to include a condition here that says the developer should have an insurance policy and should the flood defences we are proposing here not work that they cover the cost of their neighbours so I would be hugely in favour of that although I don't think they go for it but my thoughts are the minimum standard things have to be built to stop a 1 in 100 year flood event we're being told that the proposal in front of us will go above and beyond that but the only issue with that is that is completely untested we've had a flood event in the last year it has the basin which of course wasn't there at the time hasn't worked but of course one of the facts we need to look at as a committee is before any development goes ahead we need to make sure that the flood amelioration works that go with that development shouldn't make the situation worse clearly the developer started building before implementing the system which obviously there are as a different discussion altogether but we've seen that the development will increase the flood risk to that corner of the site and therefore to the neighbours so we are in a position where we have a scheme in front of us that we're being asked to approve and we're not 100% sure if it will actually do the job we're being told by various consultees and experts that it will but the simple facts on the ground is and as some of the neighbours have told us today and at previous meetings they want absolute certainty that their properties aren't going to flood again so personally for me I would prefer to see a scheme that we are going to get a guarantee that neighbouring properties will not flood whether that is building a bigger pond or some kind of piping or some kind of pumping of the pond away that would be my preference albeit I know we're going to be advised by officers that we can't insist on that we've been asked to judge what is in front of us today and we need to do it on planning material considerations but personally for me I wouldn't be comfortable approving something that we aren't certain will stop flooding of neighbouring properties and will therefore make people's lives a lot worse so for me I'm at the moment leaning towards not supporting this OK well we've had a number of contributions some of which made some raise some technical questions which I think is important we ask the director to do it to the extent possible I would emphasise that it is not possible to have absolute certainty whatever is done will be by its very definition untested Thank you chair and a number of points there so the starting point obviously has to be what was the existing position before any development of the site the environment and coming back to the point about how much certainty can you secure and indeed what is the requirement picking up on councillor Bradman's point around the scheme itself so quite rightly and case law is absolutely clear on this point the purpose of mitigating the impacts of development does not mean that it is obliged to make it any better than it was as if there were no development so that's the reference point and what level of assurance can you have around that the environment agency maps which I know the parish contest but the environment agency maps show that this site had before any development an issue about surface water being conveyed across it to the south west corner and that in certain scenarios that could give rise to flooding of adjoining properties and the properties that I identified as potentially flooding were those that experienced a flood event in July last year a very substantial event but when the planning commission was granted for this site and mindful of those provisions the consultants engaged by the applicant at that time put forward a number of principles which were required to be followed by the inspector in order to address that potential flooding issue and to mitigate it. Some of those principles covered the issues that I think councillor Carnes raised around offsite water so the deliberate point of raising the entrance into the site was to ensure that water was not conveyed from horse he throwed in flood events into the site and therefore accelerated down to the bottom and likewise principles about an eastern fund to the development that meant that the higher ground to the east of the site did not result in water being conveyed across that relatively impermeable area captured and conveyed onto the site and then into some form of attenuation or control basin. So the FRA principles that existed in the grant of planning commission were then translated through into the surface water drainage scheme that you have got in front of you now that surface water drainage scheme has been through a number of iterations and has had a relatively cautious set of assumptions in terms of the ground performance of the rates of infiltration and so on and it's also been designed with a greater safety factor than might normally be the case and modelled to be effectively a pessimistic view about infiltration rates and the performance of the system to try and offer a degree of assurance to the League Local Flood Authority that the scheme is no worse than if there were no development or mitigates the impact of the development fully. Now what you've quite understandably heard is that in before that scheme has been implemented and midway through the construction of this site whether that was right or wrong in a sense we need to ignore but midway through the construction of that site a rainfall event happened that resulted in very substantial conveyance of water from off-site and travelling across that site in an unmitigated way into that infiltration basin took place then cascaded from that basin which had a lower level than currently but into the gardens of properties on Longstale it's really important and then to Baker's Lane and others it's really important however not to conflate the two as the absolute effect of what would happen if you granted this scheme is that you would see a repeat of that the assurance the only assurance you can have is that there has been technical modelling and challenge and peer review of a set of rainfall and infiltration rate assumptions drawn by the League Local Flood Authority with their advisors that's the assurance that the planning authority is entitled to rely upon reasonably in a circumstance such as this because across the country at the stage of approving of detail you have no other form of assurance than the assurance that your experts and advisors give you on a technical set of appraisals and it's entirely reasonable to rely upon that now sadly for the residents of Longstale and residents in Linton obviously they've got direct experience of a half built scheme causing very substantial impacts upon their properties but it is important to distance yourself from that. Those residents quite rightly have asked a lot of questions over the last 12 months since the event but in fact we're asking that the parish council has asked questions before that about the effectiveness of any surface water drainage proposal. Indeed the parish council made representations at the planning appeal I understand about the very issue of water conveyance across the site but you are entitled and your assurance should come from the statutory consultee and their obligation to you to provide sound advice on flood risk and the technical appraisal that they've undertaken. It might assist you to hear the assumptions made by Capitor in their peer review which did take my understanding is a sceptical and pessimistic view about the performance of the system and if you want to hear that then obviously there's a representative here of that peer review to provide some assurance that in design terms the model that the micro drainage model that they used did have regard to levels of water that are commensurate with what you should observe as consequence of the scheme but you cannot seek an insurance policy from a developer to that in fact they are effectively liable if they attribute and cause offsite impacts as any other land owner is to the effects on neighbouring properties and so I wouldn't argue that it is reasonable to do that it's also not reasonable in law to require the developer to remove entirely all flood risk from all properties surrounding the site of course it's really clear that that exceeds the requirements of the planning system and cannot be a reasonable action from the planning authority so you're then left with forming a judgement on does the proposal make it any worse than if there was no development there at all and the only assurance we can offer in that case is that notwithstanding the additional hard servicing notwithstanding the potentially increasing runoff rates to the infiltration base and that that gives rise to when compared with a vegetated greenfield the assessment and the assumptions that have been made suggests that you can conclude that the site has no greater impact than it would have done if there was no development and the design picking up on council hails question why can't you just make a basin the applicants have demonstrated that the design of the basin would already accommodate an event over and above the design standard that is applied across the UK across most of the UK Scotland has a one in 200 year flood standard which is the design standard that your council has worked to just a final point to make I think Mr Fontaine raised a point around structural integrity of the concrete plug and at the site visit on Monday we were asked about the integrity of that element of the structure because of a concern from local residents around failure the applicants have provided detailed technical structural calculations for that concrete plug to the bund but obviously the local plan authority those were provided yesterday I have not had an opportunity to confirm the soundness of those technical calculations of no reason to doubt them but I have not had the ability to confirm from a structural engineer their assurance so my recognising residents concerns particularly those immediately joining the site about that risk of failure I would suggest that if you are minded to go with the recommendation today that you perhaps delegate to me that that approval is only issued or agreement is only issued once I have been able to confirm from the council's building control service and its structural advisers that that structure and the calculations for that design would be acceptable but I'm afraid I can't offer any further opportunity for insurances and so on that would be reasonable in planning terms Thank you I'm keen to move to a vote we've had a good debate on it but I know councillor Timmy Hawkins wanted to contribute to the debate councillor Harvey you have already contributed do you want to have a further bash at it after councillor Hawkins councillor Hawkins Thank you Thank you chair I just want to say thank you to the residents that we met at the visit on Monday for sharing their views and their concerns and obviously the scientists did help to understand the lie of the land and how things happened that unfortunate July last year from what Mr Kelly has told us or from what we've heard obviously the LLFA is they are the experts in this and this system that has been proposed has been peer reviewed as we've heard and I just want to refer us if I may to pages 258 and it's under paragraph 42 on the sub paragraph 4 which tells us that this system has been designed to accommodate 100 year storm allowance plus 40% for climate change and you know it's got 300 mil now free board which has been incorporated it will have tank permeable pavement and it's been checked with a safety factor of 10 I know that I was mentioned before but then let's bear in mind that when the rainfall event happened in July the system wasn't fully built what we have now has been tested and if you go to paragraph 49 on page 259 there's a whole lot more explaining what's been done how it's been but it does say the results show that the surface water runoff will be contained within the infiltration basin for all these events with at least a 100 mil free board in the one in a 1000 year event which seems to indicate that even worse than what happened on that day this thing is built has been proposed to us will deal with the situation and it does say that it does say that it will go provide protection that goes well beyond the requirements of planning policy and is also well beyond the severity of the July 2021 event and I can understand why there is though the concern that people are thinking it will not work it might not work but I can bear in mind that the experts, the LLFA peer review they are the ones responsible and frankly they are responsible for this we can't do any more than they've done and it's for me on that basis I will be voting for this because I don't want to see them go through this ever again thank you can I just clarify that paragraph 49 is the applicant's comment not the LLFA's comment right, councillor Harvey I did ask to speak again chair because I don't think Mr Kelly re-asked the number of my question which really is I'm not questioning the design just questioning whether as built at the moment actually corresponds to what the design is and surely it would be the simplest thing to retest the infiltration rate now it is built to check that it actually corresponds to the design rather than design degraded by some factor I think unless I'm wrong because councillor Hawkins seems to imply there that it had been recently tested but in the only model in that case why can we not retest it because surely that is a simple experiment to run right my suggestion is that perhaps we propose a further condition that the infiltration rate should be retested yes, thank you I think councillor Milms you want to come back again very briefly I just think I'm minded to vote in favour of this because of the reservations that the director has told us about in terms of not making it worse than it was previously and it seems to me that we've got a proposal that the experts are telling us will provide that protection actually the resident that spoke to us right at the beginning of this session said we want to be protected and this will allow us to do so and I think we actually have to vote in that way I think we're ready for a vote I'm going to ask one more speaker which is myself I have thought very carefully about whether this will give us absolute certainty will it definitely prevent a flood the answer is no that is not the test so I think the director explained earlier on the question is will it reduce the risk if this work is undertaken if the four specific measures that we looked at yesterday are undertaken because of an approval of this will it ensure that the risk is less than it would have been in the absence of the development and it's quite clear to me that it would ensure that the risk is less we deferred consideration of this principally because we had not then seen the LLFA report or indeed the capital peer review of that report and we have clear advice now both the LFA and capital and now of the view the design of the surface water drainage scheme is sufficient to meet local and national policy and so on but in summary the system has been designed to cater for events up to an including 100 year plus allowance for climate change we've now agreed that we add a condition that the infiltration which is clearly one of the doubts be tested and the conditions that the director mentioned earlier on on that basis it is quite clear to me that we should now accept the recommendations which of course are not absolute thank you very much just in time officers recommend that the planning committee accept the following surface water drainage details but do not formally discharge the condition and I won't read out all the conditions there but I think we have now got to the point sorry one last thing yes sorry chairman we're reluctant to contradiction but it is difficult to add a condition to this to this decision I think what what I on testing the infiltration because effectively it qualifies whether or not the scheme is adequate I think there is by way of a way forwards could I suggest that I was suggesting that you delegate to me agreement or acceptance of the proposals subject to the structural integrity of the design for the concrete plug being confirmed by building control it seems to me that a similar conclusion might be required in able through the confirmation of the infiltration performance of the basin being within the tolerances effectively used for the design parameters set out in the assessment and apprais on by the lead local flood authority I think against those terms if a subsequent test of the infiltration performance fails to fit within those design parameters in the view of the lead local flood authority then I suspect I may well need to bring this back to you but I think that is probably the safest way subject to those two conditions those two proposals we now I think move to a vote do we accept the officer's recommendation on page 263 subject to those terms we can ask for a full vote on this so if we could set that up please usually so if we're in favour of the officer's recommendations we vote green right thank you so there are nine of us voting and the vote is five in favour of accepting the officer's recommendation on page 263 and therefore that is carried we're done it's approved 6-3 right I propose to move on quite quickly to the related item that is carried which is listed as legal officer's request two minute break so we will suspend the so we proceed now to item good we're live so we proceed to what is listed as being item 6 no we don't 13 thank you there we go submission of details required by condition 12 in relation to foul water drainage of the same development page 265 onwards in your papers we do have some potential public speakers on this as well but if we could just hear from the director thank you chair Karen if you're there there's a few slides which I'll enter very much canter through this item was deferred because of its relationship all members wishing to see the foul water scheme treated alongside the surface water scheme that you've just considered it's actually a separate system and it's not a combined sewer in this particular case and when we're on site on Monday you were able to see the location of the pump and storage tank it is a pumped foul sewer scheme with a connection into the existing sewage network on Lonsdale shown on the slide in front of you you can also see the pumping station where the cursor is next to plot 31 and members on site were able to see that relationship from the authorities perspective angling water are satisfied with the calculations of the scheme and have confirmed that they have capacity to receive the foul the foul outfall there were also consultations undertaken with the with the environmental health officer because of the proximity of the pumping installation relative to the house itself at plot 31 and concerns about both noise and odour as you'll see in the report those concerns have been resolved and Chair I think we're going to hear from the parish council you'll have a number of concerns about the foul water system in Linton and you can see their comments set out both the calculation methodology and so forth in the report you can also see angling water's response to that also within the report in which they do not share the concerns in terms of the scheme design with the parish council Chair in the interests of time I don't propose to say any more unless there are specific concerns but I think the main points there are highlighted I think that's very clear can we then proceed directly to our public speakers and I think in this case we don't have anyone from the developers we're going straight to Councillor Kate Kerl again Councillor Kerl are you there yes hello again yes I'd be most grateful for the minutes but please go ahead yep no problem if Lawrence could just sort of a minute on each slide is fine I've not got any points where I'm asking for next slide so Chair Councillors thank you for permission to speak any overflow of surface water from the development will enter the foul sewer on Bartlow Road as occurred on the 20th of July 2021 this is the same foul sewer for connection Angliawn Water has not approved the onsite calculations and have refused to adopt any of the onsite elements of this foul water plan and it's obvious why if you look at the plans but it also means that any problems won't be publicly recorded the plans show sharp S bends in fact Z bends would be more accurate uphill between the pump and Lonsdale these are likely to cause blockages and there's no proper provision for clearing them the foul pipes run almost exclusively through enclosed private gardens with many close to homes where future extensions would be expected the flow route of sewage in the event of blockages, pump failure or downstream surcharge has not been provided the drainage calculations document and the drawings are inconsistent and although the flows have apparently been tested by building control something went horribly wrong on 3 February with intervention required to deal with the strong sewage smells reported on the site and on Lonsdale for less than two months others have pointed out that the houses are much too close and the noise and smell of the pump and the sewage tank no account has been taken of the noise and odour that neighbours have already experienced and when waiting for future breakdowns to be fixed the tanker will be needed to empty the tank according to the sewage sector guidance foul only drains can become septic in as little as six hours sewed tankers with their noise and smell will be needed four times a day to get a better proximity of the pump to the neighbouring dwellings the developer states that as the pump station is private there is no requirement to justify the distance from a habitable building to the pump this doesn't offer reassurance regarding their attitude towards the long term effects of the private foul or surface water drainage schemes they are proposing the backup procedure is to repeat what flooded our village eight months ago anglionwater comments added to the portal sy'n cyffryd am y sraed wahanol iaeth mae'n rhan o'r cyffryd ac yn prooedd o'r blaes iaeth. A yma fyddai sy'n cyffryd, gweithg yn ffrwng i fynd i fynd i ymddangos o'r gwahanol iaeth, mae hynny o'r cyffryd ac yn penodol yw'r prysio yn gyfrinio. Mae'r calculio'n merth inser yn ysgol. Mae'r calculio'n ffordd iaeth fwyaf sydd yn olygu gwahanol iaith yw ei ffordd iaeth dilleydd i chi 10% o'r termsu canfant a'r dynnu sydd o'r tyn. Ynỷ ni'r gwaith yna angen chi'n meddylion argylchedig yn fagorio arlawn o'r gweithio a fadda'i gynnig o'i gweithio byddol. Mae'n meddylion i fod wedi'u gweithio nifer o'r gweithio ar gweithio i gweithio,ill mitafwyr am gweithiol yng Nghymryd Lwyr Fawr, yn ddryniadau gan y dyfodol wedi rhoi petrachau yng nghymru a ddod ar y rhefniddoedd gyda'r gweithio. Ar y ddwy, mae'n meddylion o hoffod amlygarau. 901 a'r opeth o bwysig yw ysgolion mae'n ei wneud o'n sefydliadau a gweithio ar y byddau fel ymatech gyda'r hanfforddau dgwell, gyda'n ei edrychwyr, fel'n dweud. Rhaidd. Rhywodwch i ddweud o'r dweud o'r ddigon. Felly am y ddim yn y ddweud o'r ddigon, rhaid spokei sydd yn ei ddweud. Rhaidd. Diolch i chi, dyma. I think Councillor Cowell has given a very clear opinion on this, which I fully endorse. The only thing I want to add for the benefit of members is just to bear in mind that your technical consultee is Anglian Water, and as you know, Anglian never has any problem with taking foul water from new developments, because they take the attitude there is no point doing work on things until they have approval and they have a statutory obligation to take whatever comes off of those developments anyway. So, I wouldn't take too much notice of Anglian Water, and particularly just to endorse what Councillor Cowell was saying about the fact that they take no notice whatsoever of water getting into the system. I only judge whether or not the system works with the foul element and the fact that the world is entirely different from that appears to take no notice. So, I would also agree that this is not fit for purpose and should be refused. Thank you. So, I think we progress straight to the debate. Does anyone have any further technical questions for the director before we do that? No? Good. So, who wants to contribute to the debate? Who do we have? No? Councillor Bradman. Councillor John Batcher is right, Anglian Water never object because they are obliged to accept connections and flows so that they're not in a position to be able to do so, unfortunately. But, like Councillor Batcher, I observe, and others, page 267 under paragraph 11, they do acknowledge that the flooding was caused by surface water and surface water enters our foul only network which causes surcharging. And they then go on to say it shouldn't be in the foul system, but the fact that it does. Now, I would very much like to know, and they're not here to ask the question, but have they actually gone along and spoken to all the people whose surface water might be being directed into their foul network to ask them to make sure that their rainwater goods do not go into that system? It's academic because, as I say, they're not here. But the fact that they know that it does go in, they know that it caused the flooding, it says, the flooding was caused by surface water which had entered their foul only network, and yet they haven't apparently done anything about it. It's just a comment, really, and it's just grumpiness. I'm feeling grumpy about it that they haven't taken a responsibility for it. Chancellor Mills. Just quickly, we know that angliam water have problems with dealing with flood water, and we also know they have difficulty dealing with capacity issues. Chancellor Hales will remember the situation where a development had to be forced to be unoccupied because the foul system could not cope with the extra demand. And this is a persistent problem. The angliam water system is obliged to take flood water overflows. They can't deny it. But that occasionally causes problems as it did in December 2019 with backflow so that people are getting horrible situations arising through their toilet sewage systems. Chancellor Hales. I didn't expect to be that quick. I'm surprised, Chair, that we have a system that is alleged by the parish council that has an S-bend in such a short distance to the main that it connects to. It would be interesting to see if there's any pictorial evidence for that because why would you put in an S-bend pipe which is under pressure, it's daft. And if anything out of any of this I would ask that the angliam water or the developer comes back and they find the straight route to the drains rather than anything else. Because you have resistance. The minute you put a bend in a pipe you've got resistance on a pipe. As I said, the likelihood of blockage is much greater. Chancellor Martin Cym. It's a loss to really to have to respond to this because as has been said frequently, angliam water never objects, it always has to accept. It's clear there are problems with the sewage system in Linton that generally is being overcharged. Yet in a sense the decision whether we're going to have a problem on the general sewage system was taken when the original application was approved because it's inevitable you're going to have to put sewage in the system. And it's going to work. Presumably the system is designed as we've been told. You won't have surface water going on to the system in the new development. So you're just adding foul sewage into a system which is overloaded. It's not going to help. So what do we do? Do we refuse the system whether or not do they do? Are we going to put in a massive septic tank to deal with it? How are we going to handle it? I don't really. So I find I find myself in a quandary because obviously there is a happiness about it, but I don't really know what happens if we refuse. So I express just express my concern about the conundrum that we put in a quandary we put in. Right. No other speakers before we come to a conclusion. Oh, yes. Yeah, thank you. Well, just quickly, I think I do share some of the concerns of some of the speakers today as someone who has lived in the area. I do know that that foul water system does take water from elsewhere, not just the foul system. So I appreciate we that is not what we can judge it on. And obviously Anglian water only based their calculations on foul water, even though they in our own documents do accept that the one of the reasons for the flooding is because other water got into their system. But I appreciate from a planning point of view. It's very difficult to to go against that go against what our statute consultees are saying. But as someone who does know the area on a personal level, I mean, I can't hear any good conscience vote for something I know is unlikely to be fit for purpose. So in my I'm sure I'll be in the minority, but I will either be abstaining or voting against you. Thank you. I would add my my own comments here. Our only statutory consultees on this are of course Anglian water. I accept the reservations about their previous advice that have been made by a number of councillors here today. But I still think we have to take very seriously what they say. They have confirmed that there is adequate capacity within the system for the foul water flows from development to this site. The proposal would not be detrimental to the foul sewage network or the local area. And it's also been confirmed that the combined impact of foul drainage from this site and the Barlow Road site has been taken into consideration. Now, do we therefore accept the officer's recommendation that the planning committee accept the following the foul drainage details, not formally discharged? Or do we reject this in which case we have to ask ourselves what is to happen in the absence of a drainage system that has been approved? We have some more speakers. Right. So I gather that the first was councillor, the Williams, please. Thank you, chair. I'll keep it brief. So this is the situation we often find ourselves in, isn't it? That we have technical advice, we have Anglian water, we know we're obliged to do something and then we have local knowledge, local experts that have seen it and events have happened. And we seem to be always in this sort of battle of wills of almost mind over heart. And maybe it's the time of day, chair, but I've become a little bit impatient of this battle between us and having the responses and then not going with the local views and local expertise. So on this application, we've done it on one other, I'm willing to give my balance in favour of local people who have seen the damage I've heard from both local members and I'm going to vote against. Right. I think we still have other speakers. Councillor Bradlin, you have spoken before, do you have something you need to add? Yes, please. Thank you, chair. I am looking at the drainage plan and I remember the case officer showed us very briefly on her laptop yesterday when we were on site. And the best bend people are referring to is that the plan takes the sewage directly, this plan is running north, north up the main access road, west between two properties, then north again to the rear of the garden of Plot 35 and then into the manhole at Lonsdale. Now I have local, immediate and experience of this sort of right angle bend getting blocked in sewers and I'm just wondering if there's any room to ask the developer to recreate those corners. I know that there are people already on site, there's already usage of this, but I'm just wondering if there's any mileage in which we could ask for those right angle bends to be made gentler curves so that they don't block. Question. And it's already in use. Chair, you're right. The scheme before you is the one that you need to consider if you're unhappy with the orientation and alignment of the drainage system and you need to express that view by not supporting the proposals. I would just add that the system has been inspected by the building control team, but obviously I can't comment on individual, very localised elements of that drainage scheme, but I don't think it's within the gift of the committee to condition effectively an adjustment to a very specific element of the scheme in front of you right now. You'd need to reject the proposal. So the proposal we are now about to vote on is the recommendation. Does Councillor Hales want to speak again? Super quick chair, it was something you said earlier when you were reading out the Anglian water. So there was plenty of capacity or slack in the system. The same thing happened in Melbourne. Anglian water said exactly the same thing. They said there was 50% slack in the system. When they did the hydraulic test that we held them to account, there was the system at 100% capacity and therefore they added capacity to the system. I would probably say no more other than I think we have another similar situation. OK. Well, I think we now proceed to the formal vote. If you could set it up for us. Usual thing, if we accept the recommendation of paragraph 40, then we vote green. If we reject it, then we vote red. Well, that is clearly six to one on water vote. Yes, that is clearly refused by seven votes to two one abstaining. So we now move on to, I promise we would get there in the end. Chair, can I just clarify for the committee the reason for refusal of the drainage, the foul drainage scheme? Because I've heard two broad threads. The first one relates to capacity in the local network to receive the foul drainage detail, the effluent from the site. And then I've also heard a conversation around the alignment of the foul drainage system on site. But it would be helpful to clarify. My only concern is that obviously any planning inspector looking at this is going to ask the foul water receiving authority for a position in respect of the foul sewer and you have that in front of you. But is it that the alignment of the foul water sewer on site is the reason for your rejection or is it both? And I'd be grateful if you could clarify that for me please. I think it is both, isn't it? Let's see who put, I think, Councillor Bradner me with one who was concerned particularly about the alignment. And I think others, let's not debate it, but I think others were concerned about the capacity. If you remember, Chair, I did make a point that you might find useful. One of them was the alignment of the sewer and the suggestion that it looks wise to maybe make sure that right-angled bends are made so that they're not right-angled so that they're small curved and they're less likely to block. That's my personal view, I'm not a sewage expert. Are we talking about the reasons for refusal here? Yes, that's what I'm doing. The second one is that Anglian Water admit at paragraph number 11, second part of it, that surface water enters our foul only network. And that I think they should be required to address that. I would say you cannot cite Anglian Water as a reason for refusal when they have not objected and indicated that they have no objection to the proposals. So you are, I'm afraid, you cannot cite a statutory consultee saying something that he's not saying. Excuse me, director. What I was saying was that they have, I quite take your point, they have not objected to the, you know, they've proposed the application, so of course they've worked. But they are saying that surface water enters their foul only network. And I'm just saying it would seem wise to ask them to address the matter of surface water entering their foul water network. OK, I'm not proposing to open a debate here. All we're seeking to do is to find for the director one or two reasons which he can cite as the reason for refusal. The decision has already been taken on this one. And I think so far as is possible the director has a clear understanding of our reasons for refusing this. I think if you can delegate to me, I think there are two elements. You're not cite, but you are maintaining a concern which the parish council have identified about the ability of the foul drainage in Linton to receive the outputs from this site. I mean, that is a problematical reason for refusal because it's got planning permission as I think council can't highlight it. But then the other element is that the horizontal and vertical alignment of the foul sewer detailed in the drawings gives rise to a concern in terms of potential for blockages. Can we delegate it to the director to describe it in broadly those terms? We don't need to dictate the exact wording to him. We can then move on to the next item. Is that OK? Is the director is at? Well, that's my next point is. We're now at five past five. I believe our legal advisor has kindly agreed to defer some other matter so that he can stay with us. And I believe our director is able to stay with us. We have no further meetings until June. I think it is important that we deal with the matters before us. So if we could respond to the chapter that effect and if members will agree, we proceed. Thank you. So we come to list as items seven land to the northeast of Children Farm Children Estate. Page one, two, three in your papers. It's renewable energy led generation station. Applicant Mr Hawkins on the half of solar century. The recommendation is approval. The presenting officer Tom Gray is Tom Gray still with us or? Yes. Tom, sorry to have held you up so long. Thank you for joining us. Please give us your presentation. Bear in mind that we have seen the papers before us. OK, I'll keep it short. Thank you. Just a couple of things in terms of clarification. The first point is in paragraph one of the report. It refers to solar arrays and ancillary structures covering an area of approximately 80 hectares. It should refer to 23.6 hectares of land. That is the area of land covered by the structures. The 80 hectares of land actually refers to the red line area of the site, which also includes landscaping, enhancements and biodiversity enhancements. A couple of updates. Recently, the plan portal has been updated with new plans just clarifying the CCTV layout of the proposal in addition to the inclusion of the AC combiners within the energy farm compound. This is just a matter of clarification. A third party representation has been received in the last couple of days. I can summarise what they said. They are strongly in favour of the proposal. They live fairly close to the application site along Battlegate Road. There's a limited number of places where solar farms of this size can be located, because of the limitations and the location of the power line infrastructure. The loss of the agricultural output from these eight hectares of land will be outweighed, but they are used to land in meeting the urgent need to cut CO2 emissions. It would also enable diversification of the farm business. This third party representation is available on the website. I will now go into my presentation. Can you confirm that you can see my screen, chair? Thank you. The proposal is for a solar farm and then solutions structures located to the north of the Children's Estate, which is going to change my pointer. This is the Village of Children and the estate here. To the north of that is the application site. The site access is gained from the A428 to the south via an access road. The proposal seeks a 37-year temporary consent for the solar farm. This is 50 megawatts of power generated, which could power up to 14,200 homes. In terms of site constraints, the site is bounded on three sides by public right of ways. To the east is a bridleway and the other is a footpath. There is also a historic park and garden to the south and also listed buildings, which are displayed on your screen now, these hatched pink lines. As a previous application for the site is for 2015, there are two reasons for refusal, the first one being the size and scale of the development and the impact upon the landscape character and the visual impact upon the footpaths, and the other one being the lack of evidence. The proposal is for a solar farm, as I just mentioned, with solar arrays and a solar generation generating and solar structures here. The point of connection would be to the west and it would only be 0.7 kilometres away. The solar arrays would have a height of approximately three metres in height with a gap of approximately 3.5 metres between the arrays. The ancillary structures would be quite modest structures. I would range from about three metres to up to 6.75 metres in height, but there would be a significant distance from any public right of ways. The landscape impact has been a lot of work done in terms of the mitigation of landscaping. The landscape officer is content that there is enough planting along the footpaths to mitigate any impact. And substantial biodiversity improvements. In terms of the landscape visual impact, the top image shows it currently, what it looks like. After one year, the middle picture shows what it would look like. And then after ten years, that is the bottom picture. And this is from the northeast of the application site. Again, the same sort of pictures. This is from the southwest of the site. And this is from the south of the site. And these are some other photos and some photos of my site visit. In terms of the agricultural land use classification of the area, as the members would know from previous committee items that South Cambridgeshire has good high quality agricultural land. And this picture, this is from the DEFRA land classification website, which demonstrates that there is a lot of grade two agricultural land, which is described as very good quality. In terms of the grid connection, it would be connected to the grid, to the grid line between Little Barford and the Houston point to connection at a point, as I said, of 0.7 kilometres away from the application site. So the actual site itself is a mixture of mainly grade, subgrade 3a, which is regarded as good quality land. There is some grade two, very good quality land, and also some subgrade 3b, moderate quality. So grades one to subgrade 3a are regarded as the best and most versatile agricultural land, or BMVAL for short. Anything below subgrade 3b is regarded as non BMVAL land. So in total the area has 83% of the land as BMVAL. There has been considered alternative sites using the provider sequential analysis, showing that there is no better developed land, previously developed land, as well as no poorer quality land available for the photolith arm. So officers considered the compelling evidence test has been met in this instance. The key differences between this and the previously refused application, you see the site area has been reduced. The grades two land, the quantity of that has been reduced a portion of that down to from 37% to 22%. The area of land developed, actually developed is from 90 hectares down to 23 hectares. There's more planting and there's actually a reduction in solar arrays due to technological advances during the recent years, and also more setback distances from the past itself. So the top image here shows the previous application. So this is the field to the east, which is included in this application. And you can see that the northern area has been emitted from the most recent application. So in terms of the planning balance, although there would be some landscape character impacts, with a loss of arable farming, this is obviously for a temporary period of 37 years. There would be some minor harm to the heritage assets during construction operation phase, but officers consider the public benefits outweith this. There would be a temporary loss of best and most first agricultural land in terms of food production. But given that the area, the farm, it only contributes 4.8% of the agricultural, of the actual land in possession of the applicant. This is considered to be fairly minor. The benefits, obviously, of the renewable energy considerations, continued agricultural use being the sheep grazing that the applicant intends to utilise, and biodiversity enhancements of approximately 141% by diversity net gain. The key considerations as far as principal development impact upon heritage assets and natural assets, the impact upon the agricultural land itself, on the countryside, landscape character, and cumulative impact of other solar farm developments in the area. A bod yn cael ei strydiadau o bobl, a'r rhai oedd y bydd y cyfnodau yma, a'r rhai o altru'r rhaid o'r bach o'u gwaith. Ddiolch i'n gofynol. Ddiolch i'n gofynol. I'm not keen that we take questions in view of the hour, but Councillor Bradlin. Chairman, thank you. It just occurred to me that I was on the planning committee that refused this on a previous occasion, gan gweithdifetig y pihaeth eich gŵr i gylech gan gydweithio eu maes, a oeddwn ni'n ddod ein ysgol y byrdd. Roeddwn ni'n gweithredu i'r maes o anghylchau eto newid i gydweithio'r maes. Roedden nhw'n meddwl. Roeddwch yn cyhoed. Roeddwn ni'n gweithredu i'r meddwl i'r bobl. Roeddwn ni'n gweithredu i'r bobl. Roeddwn ni'n gweithredu i'r bobl. Roeddwn ni'n gweithredu i'r bobl. We had a comparison slide of the key differences between the previous application and this one with a diagrammatic plan. The difference in area is mirrored in the update that the case officer gave us in paragraph 1, where it went from 80 hectares down to 23.6 hectares. ond mae'r reoedd ffaintllig yn ystod o'r 90 hektarau a 23. Rydyn ni'n gwybod i mi, mae'n fawr o'r cyfle oherwydd y maen nhw'n ysgrifennu'n rhai ddweud y gwrdd newydd. Felly y reoedd ychydig yn ystod o'r gwrdd newydd. Rydyn ni'n ddweud, rydyn ni'n gweithio'n meddwl i'r mwyaf? Yes, it's understood that because I've been using less solar arrays, almost half the amount there of solar arrays, so the actual distances between the solar arrays would be more in this application compared to the previous application. So, that didn't look like it from the proposal, the actual area that's covered the gaps would be more. All kind of acknowledging that it doesn't actually look like it's late. Could we have some explanations? I think, Chair, that the site area is the same, but the actual area of coverage, effectively the surface area of the panels is 23 hectares, rather than 80, the site area is 80 or so, I think is the point. And as a consequence of the density of the panels being reduced, there is less site coverage. So, Mr Kelly, are you saying there are bigger gaps between the panels? I think that's the point, and obviously the scheme also provides for grazing, I'm sure the applicant can actually clarify this point. The two pictures didn't seem to marry up with the two, 90 and 23. It may become clearer. Councillor Hales. Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question. Is there an S106 agreement attached to this tool which would benefit the local community, as has happened in other schemes? Thanks. No, there isn't one. Is there consideration for one then? Perhaps Stephen can answer that question. Thank you for that, Tom. I don't think the proposal attracts an obligation in particular through policies, my understanding at this moment in time, and that's why there isn't a S106 obligation for community payments. Well, recently there's been judicial reviews challenging the veracity of local community cash payments effectively in lieu of wind generation schemes on the principle that it's not mitigating the impact of the development. And indeed, regardless of the Secretary of State's position on that matter, it cannot, the Secretary of State's statement on that cannot replace government policy, as we've all read in recent case law in the last few weeks on the point. So I don't think it's necessary to mitigate the impact of the development, and therefore it's not quite. So if we were to agree to the recommendation and approve this, would it then not be possible to negotiate S106, even if it was shown to be benefiting the community affected? You couldn't give any weight to a S106 agreement. Purposes of S106 agreements in accordance with the SIL regulations are to mitigate the impact of the development. And the courts have determined that cash payments to local residents is not a mitigation for the planning impact of the development, even though you will be familiar with the Secretary of State has advocated that approach in previous cases. Right. Should we have another? Councillor Cym, quick question. It talks about generating and storing electricity, 50 megawatts. Well, megawatts is a power, it's not a quantity. How much actual quantity of electricity will be able to be stored, and what sort of delay will it use? Is that perhaps a question for more than a day's use of? Perhaps you could hold on to that question and see if you, try your luck later, see if you can get that answered. I don't guarantee an answer, but it may be something that can be dealt with. On that basis, I'd like to proceed to our public speakers, who have been extremely patient in waiting for us a long debate earlier on, which we are most appreciative. So first of all, we have Mike Barnard. Mr Barnard, you have... Right, we don't have Mike Barnard, but what we have instead is, OK, a short statement, which I shall read to you, as to what he would have said, and he will certainly not get a chance to ask any questions of this one. Right, I object to this planning application on the grounds that it runs counter to national policy, which for large-scale solar farms clearly states that best and most versatile agricultural land should not be used unless there is the most compelling evidence that justifies the selection of the site. This is a very high planning hurdle. The consequences of allowing it to be circumvented means that the thrust of government policy for solar generation to be on roofs, brownfield land, and lower-grade agricultural land is completely compromised. Why have a national planning policy if you're going to ignore it? If this application is allowed, it will be quoted as a precedent in all future solar farm planning applications on best and most vertical on BMAV, justifying future breaches of the national planning policy. What am I doing on time? Ask yourselves if the applicant has shown the most compelling evidence that this site is vital. The argument that Cambridgeshire has very little low-grade agricultural land and therefore high-grade agricultural land must be used is spurious. If there is little low-grade land in Cambridgeshire, then the potential for large-scale solar farms in the county will be limited, and that is perfectly acceptable. Not every council will be able to accommodate every source of renewable energy to the same extent. The lack of alternative sites was justified on a limited appraisal that only looked along the line of the overhead power lines, because the only reason this site has been put forward is that commercially it makes more money to be closer to the grid. And so what if there are limited local alternative sites? Renewable energy can be generated nationally, not along one power line. The other argument put forward was the fact that although the land is classified as mainly grade 2 and grade 3A, it's not that good really. But no evidence was provided. This is good arable land, and the current situation in Ukraine shows that food security is just as important as energy security. So no most compelling evidence has been provided, and the planning application must fail. In addition, a previous application was unanimously refused by the authority on the grounds of the impact on landscaping community and character. Whilst the size of the farm has been reduced slightly, this proposal introduces large shipping container-sized energy storage units into a highly attractive landscape. This represents significant industrialisation and much greater visual impact than the previous scheme. So if that was unacceptable then this scheme must by definition be more so. Mr Barnard says he has been told by the applicant that the scheme is commercially viable without the energy storage. In other words, the electricity provided, produced, flows straight into the grid. The reason for storage is so that the developer can maximise income by supplying electricity when the wholesale price is high. If you are minded to approve, I ask that you do so without the storage element to reduce visual impact. And he concludes, he refused a similar scheme before, and now with much greater visual intrusion I ask you to make the same decision again. So that is from Mr Barnard who wasn't able to stay on and present that in person. We now proceed to Gareth Hawkins, who is the applicant who is here with us today. Thank you. Please, the floor is yours for three minutes. Thank you, Chairman. My name is Gareth Hawkins. I'm a UK business development manager with StackCraft. StackCraft acquired Solar Century in 2021, and that was to add the solar expertise to StackCraft's 100 years of hydro, decades of wind, and newer technologies like hydrogen and green grid. StackCraft is actually the largest renewable energy producer in Europe at the moment. We're at the forefront of a low energy economy. We currently have investment plans of something around 670 million in the UK for clean energy projects. We're just trying, you know, the two things really are energy security and trying to achieve net zero in carbon. So this project, which we call Stargoos, is 50 megawatts of solar coupled with 40 megawatts of batteries. And it's one of the first co-located projects, batteries and solar in the UK. These are sort of complementary technologies. It allows us to create electricity from the solar, put it into the batteries, and then put the batteries into the grid because the demands in the UK grid are in early in the morning and early in the evening. It's just a smart move. We at StackCraft, I realise there's no section 106, but we do do a community benefit fund, and we do try and separate ourselves for that. And I understand Cambridgeshire has some kind of facility for dealing with that kind of distribution to worthy causes. The sizes of the site, we are much, much smaller than the 2015 application because where as they use three full fields, we are now using two part fields. We've actually given 26 hectares that we are leasing from the landowner and the 26 hectares are just for biodiversity. So I think there's, if you lose a field, you put the 26 hectares on, the modules have moved from 250 watts to 620 watts, so you've reduced the number of panels on site, then a bit more spread out, and I think that's where you see the difference in those hectares. I think the big thing is why have we chosen this site? People think it's great agricultural land. If you speak to the farmer, the fields on these two fields is terrible. The actual farming operation at Shilderley is over 4,000 acres. We're taking less than 4% of that entire farming business. Martin Jenkins, the landowner, will tell you that these are his two worst fields. The fact that we can put the solar on it, leave it fallow for 37 years, grey sheep on it in the summer will probably do more good to the land and try and to farm it and eat every last half a tonne of grain out of it for the next 40 years. The other reason we are there is the pylon line that crosses the site is the Burwell little barfed line. It's a 1-3-2 line, and there's capacity there. It's the reason there was an application in 2015. It's an application now. There's always going to be an application to try and do something with that line because grid capacity is very, very difficult to find. We're trying to get to net zero. I'll wind it up now. I'm trying to get to net zero. There's no one big switch, one magic bullet. This, to get there, is lots and lots of steps, big steps and small steps. I think this project is just another step to get to net zero, and I hope you can approve it. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I'll probably let the time go over there, but in going on a bit longer, you've answered some of the questions as well. We have no representation here from the Parish Council. We could, if necessary, take additional questions in addition to those already answered. Okay, I have additional. Sorry, we haven't got to that yet. So we have, I think, some questions for the applicant from... I'm going to start with Councillor Hales, who's first to ask. If we could keep the questions brief, that would be helpful given the time date. Thank you. It's just very, very quick. The applicant made Mr Hawking to make reference to making a contribution to the local grant funding thing in Cambridge here. Is that right? Yeah, I'm sorry. I can't remember the name of the Cambridge facility that... CCF, I think, is the usual one. I think it's a community fund, yeah. I'm just interested to know what kind of level of contribution that might be. Particularly from this side. Sorry, it's not material consideration. Okay, then we have Councillor Milt. Yeah, just a couple of quick questions on the battery technology. Lithium is problematic for fire causes. Several instances where they've been causing problems and whether you've considered alternative storage such as the iron batteries that have just been recently introduced. And then just a question on the variance, so a 50 megawatt capacity, what was the variance between summer and winter outputs, please? Sorry, this is the last part of your question. Yeah, I'm just interested in understanding how the capacity of the site would change between summer and winter. Take account of obviously the greater server in summer. I suspect that that is probably also not a material consideration. I suspect probably that one or two of us ought to email you afterwards with interesting questions that maybe will not enable us to determine this application. Is that fair, Councillor Milt? The safety of the insulation certainly is... Can you deal with the safety question that was raised by Councillor Milt in relation to possible fire risk? Sorry, I'm not getting the question. Yes, the fire safety. So you can see like a lithium-ion battery and you can see how dangerous they are. The technology has moved on from that and the battery is now an inherently safe. I don't know the chemical composition of them but I know it's not the original lithium-ion. Obviously, you can imagine that there's huge safety considerations when we build these sites. We're dealing with 132,000 volts of electricity. We're dealing with quite a large number of batteries. There's fire safety. There's an awful lot of HSSE stuff that goes into this that I'm not qualified to discuss to be honest. Thank you. I think Councillor Radden, you had a question. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. So, Mr Hawkins, one of the reasons the previous application was refused was because there wasn't sufficient evidence of the sequential test which is required in order to justify putting this sort of development in the green belt and I have the sequential report prepared by Isabel Holland. I note in that under two material alterations compared to the previous application, there is again this comparator between the two site, the two applications, the 2015 one and the 2021 one. If the officer would kindly put back on the stream that comparison of the key differences in the material alterations in the sequential site analysis, but not on this one, it says that the original area of land proposed by the panels in the 2015 application was 90.78 hectares and the area of land used by panels in the 2021 proposal is 62.93 hectares, whereas here it says 90 and 23. It reiterates my question earlier on that the areas that are being displayed on our screen here, the reduction in area, part of the reason that was a reason for objection was because of the huge impact on three public rights of way which run across the southern boundary, the eastern boundary and close by, and yet this current application, although it purports to be a third of the size, it still covers pretty much a very similar area compared to the previous application and I just don't understand how those numbers work out. I just wondered if you could, sorry, I have asked a question of Mr Hawkins. If you look at the figure for 23 hectares against the figure for 62 hectares, the 62 hectares would be the land encompassed by the fence line, the 23 hectares is the developed land which would be the net footprint of the equipment, the roads, the HV compound, the transformers and the footprint they take up which is a measure that's normally used in a planning application for a built environment like this. Right, are you satisfied with that answer? I hear the answer. Okay, that's the best we can hope for I think. Then we have a question from Councillor Carn. I come back again to the issue of power and capacity of the batteries. You said batteries have 40 megawatts, that's a power. Is that the power they're giving out? How much are they going to store and how much time? I mean there's a great use in me because sometimes only discharge or renewable energy which is variable in this generation into a very useful time when it's covering peaking but I want to know exactly how effective that will be because 40 megawatts tells me just what you can generate not how much you can store and how long it's going to last for. I think it's a difficult one Battery financial modelling is quite complex and what you might do is start off with 20 megawatts for two hours and then you may convert that at a later date to 40 megawatts for an hour and it all runs around whether you're doing frequency response or arbitrage or just playing the markets. It's a difficult thing to predict and what we're applying for planning permission for is essentially the number of containers rather than the amount of power. But the usefulness to us from a point of view is the extent to which you can actually provide electricity at the most useful time so it's useful to know that. So you're basically saying it's 40 megawatt hours that it stores or how much does it actually store? Yes, essentially 40 megawatt hours but it's 40 megawatts for one hour so you could use it for 20 megawatts for two hours. Councillor Cahn, do you note that answer? Yes, thank you. Right, I think that is thank you very much, not only for your presentation for your patience and for answering our questions in such detail and we will in a moment start to consider this we have one more speaker to hear. So thank you. We have no representation from the parish councils but I note that you'll see section 13, page 125. Dry Drakeon supports the application but they want to limit the development to the scale proposed by he'll take the same view. Children, there's no parish council, no comments received there. Broadly support the application. But in any case, I'm glad to say we have also the local member online who will now be able to tell us about local views. Councillor Nick Wright, again thank you for your patience and you know the rules. The floor is yours. Thank you Chairman and before I start can I declare a non-cunary interest in that I know the landowners and that I attended the open meeting that box with parish council through for the developers to speak. So let me note that before I start. I think this is a really difficult position for the planning committee. Like all these, there's a difficult balance here between the need for power and power security and the need for food and food security. The report deals very well with the power issues and we've heard a lot about that. I'm more concerned with the loss of agricultural land, 80 hectares, make no bones about this. This is taking 80 hectares out of agricultural production. We saw some pictures of the land which contrary to the landowners views showed some very good high quality crops on the land at the time they were photographed. We need to be aware that this land is best and most versatile of some of our most uncultural land. It's the best quality and it is the best quality grade 1, sorry grade 2 and grade 3 A and B for growing wheat on. It's particular importance. It's not grade 1 because that's vegetables and that sort of thing. This is some of the best land we have in South Wales. The reason this site is chosen is because the power line goes across the site and it doesn't cost so much to get the power to the grid, the national grid. We don't have to have this site because we have a national grid. We have a lot of land in this country of lower grades that could be used for this and the power brought to us by the national grid. Food security, I've said, is so important to us. Within a 50 mile radius of Cambridge we produce at least 50% of the wheat that's needed for the UK. We need to think in South Cams already. We've lost 600 hectares to the A14 upgrade. We're going to lose a lot more than that to the A428 upgrade and that's before we even think of the Oxford Cambridge Ark and the amount of land lost there. When you put house building on top of that you see the large amounts of agricultural land that we're consistently losing in the bread basket of this country. Land is a diminishing resource that we have and as I said before, this application is 80 hectares. We need to look at what that 80 hectares can produce and it is for, if you look at the average human consumption of wheat it's about £150 a year would be sufficient. So on my rough calculations I would say that we would be losing enough wheat to feed 10,500 people. So it's again this need, the balance between food and the need for energy. Also I would like to add that we have seen energy prices over the crisis months that we've had recently increased substantially but we've also seen food prices increased substantially and the price of wheat... That's all right, could you start to wrap up please? I'm getting there, I'm getting there but I'm aware you've been slightly generous to some of the others. I thought I'd have noticed. So the price of wheat has doubled since last harvest and that hasn't reached the food chain probably yet and the reason it's doubled is because it's in short supply. Russia and Ukraine produce 25% of the world's exportable wheat and we need to import 40% of bar food into this country because we can only produce 60% among our farming stock. So my concerns are the loss of our cultural land. There's nothing in this for the local community on offer apart from a vague promise but I would like to see something as the government are recommending for the local community. It's against national policy on this high quality land. It's in the green belt which is there to protect our cultural land and I would like the committee to take note of those comments. Thank you very much everyone. Right, thank you very much. We have of course some questions and if you could keep it brief because we appreciated who we are starting with Councillor Hawkins. It's another question. I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I had a thought that Councillor Wright was the local member. My sincere apologies, Councillor Hawkins is the local member. Do you want to start the debate and would you like to ask any questions of your neighbouring member? I'm the local member for Boxwood. Ah, you see. So we have two local members, we often have this. Did you want to ask any questions as well or we'll come to you as a local member in a minute. Can we just take questions to this local member then? Councillor Cun. Actually all I wanted to comment is to Felicitor Councillor Wright for attending who has been a long time member. This will be his last appearance at committee and I want to thank him for his service over the years. So Councillor Toomey Hawkins, would you like to kick off the debate as local member? Actually before you do that, can I just make a personal statement which is that I am aware that the consortium of which I'm a member does occasionally give advice to farmers on renewable energy issues. I'm not currently involved in that and indeed I don't think we have any projects underway and therefore I propose to carry on in the chair but I will not vote. So Councillor Toomey Hawkins. Thank you very much chair and through you. I just want to say yeah thank you to Councillor Nick Wright for his views and I appreciate his concerns about the amount of land production of weeds that might be lost but I'm coming to this from the opposite viewpoint and actually I have concerns about that. I will be supporting this because for me looking at the information that we've got the land that's been used for this is as I understand it about 5% of children farm estate really so it's not that big a loss. Now I'm not sure how the quality of the production is less than average with that.