 Thank you very much, Members and Members of the Public, and welcome to this meeting of South Cambridge District Council's Planning Committee. My name is Councillor Henry Batchelor, and I'm usually the Vice-Chair of the Committee, but given the fact that the regular chair, Councillor Haylings, is absent today, I'll be sitting in the chair for this meeting. Given the fact that we now have a vacancy in Vice-Chair, I would like to invite Councillor Peter Fein and ask the committee if they will be accepting of him sitting as the Vice-Chair for this particular meeting. Agreed? Thank you very much, Councillor Fein. Down you come. Whilst we're on chairs and vice-chairs, as seems to be part of the course today, I have a conflict on one of the items today, so I'll have to step down from being the temporary chair. The temporary vice-chair will have to step into the chair, and we'll need a temporary, temporary vice-chair. With everyone's indulgence, I've asked Councillor Ripith if she would mind sitting in for that one item, which for clarity is item 7, Sheprith. Sorry, Members is that acceptable to everyone? Agreed? Thank you very much. Okay, just a bit of housekeeping before we start. Can everyone who is present in the Council Chamber please note that everything on your desk, including laptops and papers, is likely to be seen by the live broadcast at some point? The camera follows the microphone when it's switched on, so councillors and officers are requested to wait a few seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up with your microphone. If the fire alarm sounds at any point, then please leave the Chamber by the door near the top table where we're sitting up here and make your way down the stairs. Please do not use the lift. The safe assembly point is next to the marketing suite, halfway back down the road along the business park. Those who are participating live via the stream, please indicate if you wish to speak via the chat column. Please do not use the chat column for any other purpose other than requesting to speak. Please make sure your device is fully charged and that you switch off your microphone unless you're invited to do so otherwise. Please ensure you've switched off or silenced any other devices you have so that they do not interrupt proceedings. As requested yesterday by email, please use a headset if available when speaking and hold the microphone close to your mouth. When you're invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched on. When you finish addressing the meeting, please turn off your microphone immediately. Speak slowly, clearly, and please do not talk over or interrupt anyone else. Please note members, if we need to vote on any item, we should do so via the electronic microphones in front of us. When only those present in the chamber can vote, so those members participating virtually will not have a vote. Committee members, I will now ask each of you to introduce yourselves. Members, after I call your name, please switch on your mics and give a brief introduction. As I said earlier, my name is Councillor Henry Batchelor. I'm one of the members for Linton and I'm chairing the meeting today. I now ask the vice-chair, Councillor Fane, to introduce himself. Good morning, Peter Fane, Shelford Ward. Thank you very much, and Councillor Bradnham. Microphone troubles? Okay, we'll come back to you, Councillor. Councillor Martin Cahn. Councillor Martin Cahn for Easton and Picton and Orchard Park. Thank you very much, Councillor Timmie Hawkins. Timmie Hawkins, Gordicott Ward. Thank you very much. Councillor Judith, representing Milton and Water Beach Ward. Thank you very much, Councillor Heather Williams. Good morning. Heather Williams, I represent the Mordins Ward and hoping for no more technical problems, Chairman. Yes, Councillor Richard Williams. Thank you, Chair. I'm Richard Williams. I represent the Wittlesford Ward. Thank you very much, Councillor Eileen Wilson. Good morning, Councillor Eileen Wilson, representing Cotson and Rampton Ward. Thank you very much, and we'll, Councillor Bradnham, we'll try again. Thank you. Good morning. It's Councillor Anna Bradnham, one of the members for Milton and Water Beach Ward. Thank you very much. The meeting is court, so we will proceed. We also have some officers in the chamber with us supporting the committee today. We have Mr Chris Carter. Thank you, Chair, morning members. Chris Carter, delivering manager for strategic site, supporting committee. Thank you very much, and Mr Stephen Reed. Glad to introduce you, please. Good morning, Chair. Into the microphone in front of you, with a red light on. Sorry, everyone, we're having a few microphone issues. Morning, Chair, morning members. Stephen Reed is our legal officer, who will be advising the committee of any legal issues we may need advice on. We also have with us virtually Mr Ian Sr, who I understand is moving on from supporting the committee soon, but Ian, you are here today to support our new Democratic Services Officer, Mr Lawrence Damary-Homan. Ian, as you're on the screen, if you'd like to say hello. Hello. Yes, this is Democratic Services. Thank you, Ian, and that's it. Thank you very much. Clear and concise, that's what we like. Lawrence, if you're online, if you'd like to switch on your camera, microphone and a quick introduction. Okay, well, if we get Lawrence to let us in, then you're in. Apologies, Chair, President, here. Thanks for the welcome. No problem, good to see you. I'm looking forward to having you on the committee with us. Thanks very much. Thank you very much. So, before we start, members, just a few more housekeeping, then we'll get going. If it's any time a member leaves the meeting, would they please make that fact known so it can be recorded in the minutes? We'll be having regular breaks throughout the day. We'll have to make a decision to depend on where we are on the agenda, but if a natural break comes up, we will be taking one. Members, you should have the main agenda pack dated 5th of October and an agenda supplement which was emailed round only. We do not have a paper copy of that dated the 8th of October containing an update for the report on the shepherd item. So, with all the housekeeping out the way, we'll move on with the agenda starting with item two. Apologies for absence, please, Mr Senior. It's me again. So, I've got three apologies. Councillor Harvey, Councillor Halings and Councillor Roberts and one substitute, which is Councillor Brightman. Greg, thank you very much. Thank you. We move on to item three, which are declarations of interests. Members, do you have any declarations of interest for any items of business today? Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. Just the huge one on the enforcement report, but on item number 11, that's in relation to a property of Councillor Sue Wellington. So, it doesn't forbid me from taking part, but just declaring that interest. I suppose we all know Councillor Wellington. I think most of us know Sue. But no, thank you very much for that. As mentioned earlier, I do have on myself item seven, Shepruth. I have a pecuniary interest as my employer has an ongoing business relationship with the applicant, so I will have to withdraw for that one item, and then I'll be returning for the following item. Members, if there's no more declarations of interest, we will move forward to item four. Minutes of the previous meeting, we don't have any minutes to sign off today, but we will be having the minutes of the last meeting from the 29th of September at our next meeting on the 10th of November. So, Members, we move into the substantive business today, starting with item five, which is an application in North Stowe, albeit, I think, originally in the parish of Lomstanton. North Stowe phase two, B, Lansel, the Rampton Drift, North Stowe. The proposal is a reserved matters application for 300 dwellings, including affordable non-provision, non-residential floor space, landscaping, open space and associated infrastructure for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. The applicant is Keep Moat Homes. We have a raft of key material considerations, which you can see in the agendas. It's not a departure application, and it was brought to the committee because it's been called in by the, I think, newly formed North Stowe Town Council. We have a presenting officer, Andrew Thompson. Mr Thompson, I'm hoping you're online. I am online, Councillor. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for being with us today. Andrew, I'm going to throw straight over to you to introduce the item, please. Sure. That's no problem. Right. Good morning, councillors. Hopefully you can see the slides. As stated, this is the application reserved matters. It's the second parcel on North Stowe phase two for 300 dwellings, approximately 197 square metres of commercial floor space, unscaping, open space and associated development has set out in the description. Imagine the title phase two B. The application site, it looks currently like a field and not much around it other than Rampton Drift. This is North Stowe at the top of the screen there. That is the secondary college, which has now been built or the first phase has been built of it and is open for students. Hopefully they're all there this morning. In the context of phase one and two, you can see here there's phase one, which is and now has all the residential parcels approved, and a number of other kind of reserved matters that are going around. The What Western Park is now in completion and the application site here is shown in red and again outlined in red here on the right hand side. This is the town centre, which will be the next elements to come forward and the next residential element is here. Phase two A sits here, which is the main part. As you can see, this is a bridging scheme between the town centre and the western primary road with further landmark buildings. There's no landmark buildings within this proposal. Again, another context to the proposals and again how this all fits into the wider master plan. The moment the site looks like a field, there are construction obviously going on. This is an area of photograph from the design access statement and you can see here that some of the buildings that have been demolished over the course of time that were the old airfield buildings. This is the proposed site plan, the Landscape and Greenway to the south. This element here will then also include elements of a town park, which will then be delivered further by Homes England. A grid pattern, as I say, it's a bridging scheme between a number of elements and it does include elements of the town centre character area in this location. This location, the majority of it is within Okington Barracks character area as defined by the design code and the southern bit is, in addition to the greenway, is the Muse quarter. Again, the landscape strategy takes forward all the design code elements and how that will come forward. It's anticipated that the construction will start in the top right of the scheme and move forward down to this and then the top left corner and then in the bottom right quarter. This is where the construction access will be as well, so the construction access will come through there. Again, these are being managed by Homes England in terms of the strategic access and there are separate aspects of that. With regard to just again, just to give you an idea of the scale. Andrew, sorry to cut you off there. We just had a request. Is it possible to use the laser points of function so we can see your process more clearly? Absolutely, no problem. Point of options, laser pointer. There we go. Sorry, there we go. Yeah, that's much better, thank you. Great, wonderful. Again, two story next to Rampton Drift. This is just showing that, as I say, the scale. Two story next to Rampton Drift. This is as per the design code and the parameter plans, three and four story next to within the town centre and again a central spine of three story and three story development running through. The greenway and leaps are all again shown there and as I say, the town park runs off to the south and southeast. In terms of housing mixing, again, it's well distributed across the site. We negotiated as part of the pre application inclusion of three and four bedroom affordable rent properties into the actual properties. So 60% of this scheme is in effect what we call is affordable housing. 20% in accordance with the section 106. 20% is affordable rent and those are primarily the yellowy colours. The pinky and red colours are what we called are actually north stone starter homes. Those are capped at £250,000 for five years and are in effect a discounted market sale and then the bluey colours are the market properties. The distribution of these were agreed with housing colleagues across the pre application engagement. In terms of the lifetime homes assessment, you should be noted that obviously lifetime homes has now been replaced by building regulations and forward to both in national policy and also in terms of local plan policy. In terms, but obviously lifetime homes was conditioned as part of the outline plan permission. So an assessment has been carried out. This is what is that was submitted as part of the design access statement. I note the town council did say that they've only seen this assessment as a typical assessment, but obviously all the floor plans and all the layouts have been provided further to that. All the houses are and flats are all compliant with the national and local space standards are set out, which is part of the principal elements of lifetime homes, making sure the circulation space and appropriate space within the dwellings to adapt to future needs. Some images again of the development. Some images are better in quality than others in terms of how they've been rendered, but it's still pretty difficult to do trees and landscaping accurately, but you can see here a Cambridge style, a buff brick with dark materials associated with it. Materials are conditioned as part of the, if you agree, the approved reserve matters and those discussions will take place. Similarly, the construction environmental management plan, that's yet to be submitted, but is a condition of the outline and so we will have those details being submitted and considered normally. In terms of the highways, again a lot of those will be looked after by highways and in accordance with the strategic management, the any private roads or other aspects will go to Homes England or a management company to look out who look after the whole of phase two. In terms of the delivery of the, again, some more images here and I'll get to this one. In terms of delivery of the leap, these are matters that will come through the section 106 so and I can detailed within the 106 about specification and details, so these are matters that will come again in further detail and the town council will be part of those discussions, but as it's detailed by the section 106 there's no need for a further plan condition at this time. The renewable energy and sustainable construction I've considered in the report that is and set out for you in terms of that it meets not only national policy but sorry local policy but also actually exceeds it in many ways with options actually to go further if the purchase of the property wants to add further options and again the greenway is seen as a route obviously that not only east west but also north south and what we're trying to do is ensure that that is that but this gives a in terms of the report there is no commercial sharing within the parameter plans so we've had to consider that one separately and within the report I have outlined why we think this is acceptable it is right next to the town centre so it would be considered an edge a centre location and actually aids the early delivery of commercial space and healthy living opportunities so we have considered the cafe and commercial or slash commercial space within the application proposals this is the rampant drift edge as you can see two storey very traditional homes giving a good separation to two rampant drift to ensure that again those are gaps between to ensure that that continues to be a landscape and well thought out proposal and again the central street is much more formal and you can see here some of the renderings gone on the on the landscaping but again greenverges front gardens again of a formal central street and this is demanded by the design code as a formal grid pattern of regularity so in terms of the principal the key issues the principal and the relationship to outline plan permission it's a adequate appropriate reserve matters submission it is does form the outline plan permission nothing has changed in terms of national or local plan policy that would change the considerations it does form part of our the skin wood form part of our five-year housing land supply and does form part of our housing five-year housing land supply in terms of the consideration of reserve matters are set out in the report the scaled appearance layouts and the access have been considered acceptable the relationship to rampant drift we consider again is in accordance with all the parameter plan set out sustainability and construction again we've set out in the report why we think that's acceptable and a number of the conditions of the outline plan we should have been satisfied and as I said with exception obviously of principally the construction environmental management plan which will come in the near future that's it council I'm happy to take any questions Andrew thank you very much very concise presentation of the application there council of Williams I see you did have a question is it for the officer now we tend to leave those to debate but if it's quick we can squeeze one in thank you chair it's more because it might require the slideshow I thought that says putting that up twice okay it's just wondering if you could show on on one of the diagrams where sort of any informal green spaces will be some areas of grassland so I see from the photos we sort of see more um hard landscaping um within the site if there's anywhere that you know of thank you yes yes cancer there are three um three laps within the actual proposals as well so there's an informal green space in this location there is another lap here and there's a further um I've forgotten where the other one is but obviously there is also green space along the northern boundary with ramp to drift um and um as I say so yes there are three laps within the proposals and I've forgotten where the third one is up in the head that's if we go back on that shows the landscaping a little better again the images are it's difficult to render 3d landscaping still but yeah their side the third lap is within the lead there we go okay thank you and I'm sure we can I'm sure we can I'm sure it's not beyond us to bring the maps up again in the debate if we need to thank you very much um with that members we'll move on to speakers who are going to address the committee on this item um I believe we have mr Nigel Jarvis for the applicant that's right chair and you if you wouldn't mind turning your camera off and mr Jarvis even by turning yours on councillor do you mind if I run through the speech from a an it continuity point in case it breaks up and turn my camera off as soon as I've finished is that okay that's absolutely fine as long as we can hear you is the important thing well that's what I'm worried about I'm just nervous that you hear it all and then and then happy to show my face and if it breaks up then then I can always turn it off again okay if we're having trouble hearing you I'll let you know yeah please thank you it seems okay so far great okay and just to remind you have three minutes from whenever you start so whenever you're ready mr Jarvis okay thanks again good morning committee and thank you chair and members for this opportunity to speak in support of the application by our client Keep Moat Homes I'd first likely first like to commend the officer's report and of course support the recommendation on successfully being chosen as development partner by Homes England in the autumn Keep Moat's key priorities were clear first secure good quality pre-application discussions with the council ensure thorough engagement and communication with the local community and all the stakeholders and ultimately submit a high quality scheme and secure approval for it by meeting goals and objectives of the outline planning permission adopted design code and all of the other approved strategies and details. Our team have worked really hard to achieve these by entering a planning performance agreement working closely with your officers and key agencies through six months of pre-application by submitting proposals to the Cambridge equality panel and taking on their feedback by undertaking a public exhibition and collecting community feedback over several weeks and by involving the local community further through stakeholder briefing sessions including to North Stoke community forum, long stands and parish council and to ramped and drift residents. Engagement with officers and technical consultees has continued during the application process now as a consequence there have been very few concerns raised and almost no objections to this scheme at all including from any of the 150 plus properties that the council's consulted on this application. We've noted very carefully North Stoke Town Council's initial response and their recent comments which clarify in principle they are in favour of the proposals. North Stoke Town Council were of course not incorporated until May just as we were submitting the application and meaning they weren't part of the pre-application process that we undertook. North Stoke is a really complex project overall and many of their points raised are dealt with by the outline permissions, many planning conditions and obligations. Others are not relevant to this particular application and the remainder such as on affordable housing or lifetime homes have misunderstood the proposal slightly. We regret North Stoke Town Council felt that we should have made amendments but as your officers quite rightly concluded the proposals do meet with the outline framework and all of the parameters that that entails. We're proud of these proposals which embody high quality sustainable design principles throughout. They include 300 homes on the doorstep of the proposed New Town Centre making them highly sustainable and with close access to its many facilities and range of transport choices and of course includes areas of strategic open space as well. They comprise an appropriate mix of housing and will contribute to creating sustainable mixed community. They promote pedestrian and cyclist movement and well-planned public spaces that realise healthy living objectives and provide excellent opportunities for community building and well-being. They comply with the outline parameters, the approved design code and other important strategies for North Stoke. We hope members will agree and are able to support the officers recommendation today and endorse the application based on the above qualities. Finally in closing we'd just like to thank all those who've contributed to engaging with us during the process up to this point. Thank you, chef. Mr Jarvis, thank you, almost spot on three minutes, so well done. If you don't mind hanging on the line for a second in case any members have any questions of clarity for you, members can go around. No, I think that was all clear and concise, Mr Jarvis. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much, your time today. Okay, members, we don't have any members of the Town Council or local councillors speaking, but you'll see they have submitted comments, both the Town Council and the two local members, on page six of our reports. Members, those are all the public speakers we have, so we're going to move into the debate, so we also have an opportunity now to ask any questions of clarity of the officer as well. And as I said earlier, I'm sure Andrew wouldn't mind bringing up his presentation again should we need it. So, members, over to you. We'll start with Councillor Bredinham, please. Thank you, Chairman. I wanted to draw our attention to paragraph 39 on page nine, comments from the Old West Drainage Board. It's not clear to me that their concerns have been addressed. I know elsewhere it says there's no need to worry about this, but I just wanted clarity on this point that the Old West Drainage Board raised. In other words, they say it is therefore vital, in the view of the Board, that surface water discharge from phase two is rigorously controlled. I just wanted to check what the understanding was about this concern from the Old West. Okay, thank you. Andrew, is that one for you or? Yeah, I can answer that. I noticed how do we... Alice has just joined in the white front of the bus, just with regard to this one. Clear, Andrew. Do you mind holding the mic a bit close to your mouth? Absolutely, sorry. I'll answer this one. So, Councillor, if you will go up to the planning history on the proposals, you will note that condition 18, which is the telemetry and details. In principle, the surface water drainage strategy has been agreed under a previous discharge condition, and the submission has been submitted to discharge parts four and five of the condition. This is part of the strategic drainage strategy by Holmes England. This is paragraph 14 of your report, Councillor. In terms of that, we are satisfied and we are aware that a scheme has been agreed by the Flood Authority Environment Agency and South Cam's only drainage engineer. We're just waiting for the details of what has been formally agreed before that has been the details of what's been agreed by those three bodies before discharging that condition in relation to part four and five, which is the telemetry. So, it's under control. It is a matter that will be dealt with by Holmes England, and by the looks of things, we are very close to signing off the strategic discharge, which will hopefully mean that some caught them on the Old West Rangage Board, which has become a pretty standard consultation response, but I will say those comments are taken seriously, and it is a matter we are well aware of and dealing with. Councillor Wilson, please. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to point to paragraph five on page two, which says the applicant has not submitted a construction and environmental management plan, but this is a requirement of the Outline Planning Commission prior to the commencement of development. It's a bit ambiguous. Does this mean that it has been done as part of the Outline Planning Commission or that it hasn't been done? Yeah, condition third. So, it needs to be submitted before keep moat if you approve the reserve matters. That is one of the condition 32. So, there's been a strategic site-wide, sorry, not on within your paper, sir, Councillor, sorry, of the condition 32 of the Outline Planning Commission requires of a site-wide construction management plan in each phase to deal with a construction management plan. We haven't had that yet, but that will come in prior to the starting of development on site and will be consulted on with North Stairtown Council and the usual aspects. So, it's to come for sure if reserve matters is approved. Okay, thank you. A jest story of mine. Members, or sorry, Councillor Wilson, is that, did you want to follow up on that? No, that's fine, thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Dawkins, please. Thank you, Chair. I must admit to being very disappointed that North Stairtown Council are not here to speak because this application has come before us because they have called it in. And we do always encourage town and parish councils when they do have applications that come to us to please present themselves or even a statement and that hasn't happened in this case, so I would like that to be acknowledged and noted, please. Because I would like to ask them questions and now I can't. Looking at the comments that they've made, I mean, having read through the paperwork, I can see that a lot of those issues have been addressed, but the question to them will be, has it been sufficiently addressed to their satisfaction? We don't know, so we can only go by what we have before us today, of course. Frankly, I think a good job has been done here and I want to commend the case officer on a very good report and a very good presentation to us this morning. I am happy with what I see in front of me, and unless I hear otherwise today, I shall be put in your favour of this. Thank you very much, Councillor. Councillor Rippeth, please. Councillor, Dr Tumie Hawkins has just really summarised what I wanted to say, that I wanted to commend the officer and also have been working together with the applicants and with local people to work towards getting what we've got in front of us today, and I think it looks like a very good application. Thank you very much. Members, I have no one else requesting to speak, so can I take that as everyone is ready to make a decision on this? Yes. Yes, okay. Members, I haven't heard any need to unspeak against this, can I? Well, actually, before I jump into that, the recommendation we have is on page 40 of our agendas. So, the officer has recommended that planning committee approve the reserve matters subject to the below conditions that are then listed below. Members, I haven't heard anyone speak against this. Can I take this by affirmation? Everyone's in favour? Agreed? Well, that is then approved, everyone. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you for your time, Andrew. Appreciate it. Thank you, thank you, Councillor. I think your presentation was longer than the debate on that one, but thank you very much. No problem with that, to talk, Councillor. Okay, so we'll move on to our next application, which is on page 47 of our agendas, and this is an application on the land east of Tewisham Road in the parish of Fullborn. The proposal is an approval of matters reserved for appearance, landscaping layout and scale following an outline planning permission which has been granted. That was for 110 dwellings with areas of landscaping, public open space and associated infrastructure. The applicant is Castlefield International Limited. Again, members, we have a list of key material considerations in our agendas. It is a departure application and the application is brought before us today because Fullborn Parish Council requested that the application was determined by the committee. The presenting officer is Mr Michael Sexton. Michael, I'm hoping you're online with us today. I am. Good morning, Chair. Good morning. Good to see you again. I will pass over to you to introduce the report, please, and then if you would like to hang in on for any questions of clarity. Thank you. Yeah, certainly just before I do the presentation, just a quick update as a point of clarification. Members would have received individually, I think, some documents from local residents, but we're aware that it has been sent to all members of the committee yesterday. I've also received a copy of those documents this morning, so just to flag that, and I'll move on to my presentation. Chair, if you could confirm that my presentation is displaying in the chamber. It's visible. Excellent. Okay. Yes, so this is application 329019RM, and it is a reserve matters application for appearance landscape layout and scale following outline plan commission for 110 dwellings with areas of landscaping and public open space lands the east of Tavishon Road, Fullborn. So this is the site in the context of Fullborn. It's quite a large site that's located to the northern edge of the village of Fullborn. Just as a quick cover, I just realised that the reference number at the top of that is the incorrect outline reference number, so please ignore that reference number. It is 0202 of 17. It's a reference number, but that granted outline commission for 110 dwellings on 26th of October 2017. There's a number of conditions from the outline consent that are very relevant to the reserve matters application that's before members today that's set out in part of our 6280 officer of the officer report, which include the submission of the reserve matters, details that were secured as approved plans at outline stage, the requirement for the submission of housing mix, including market and affordable. The reserve matters needing to be in general accordance with the approved illustrative layouts, some conditions relating to noise because of a light industrial estate to the north of the site, and a condition that sets out that the reserve matters would determine the heights of the development. Again, apologies, the reference number is incorrect at the top, but this is the parameters plan that was established at outline stage. It shows three development platforms highlighted in the yellow and orange colour, various areas of landscaping and open space in the various greens. It secures the main point of access from Tavishon Road to the west of the site and an emergency access to the east of the site. The hashed areas here and here are the points that define the vehicle routes joining the platforms. There's one route across here and then there can be up to two routes across this area here, so it's quite a prescriptive parameters plan. Again, outline reference is wrong, this is apologies for the copy and paste. These are the access plans just for reference that were secured at outline stage, so this is the main access from Tavishon Road on the west side of the site, and this is the emergency access that was secured at outline stage onto Coxidrog on the east with the arrangement such that only emergency vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists should utilise this point of access. This is the exclusion zone which was secured at outline stage. This is the Breconwood Industrial Estate to the north west of the site. Clearly it was considered that it could be a noise impact on any residential properties and gardens located in this area. Therefore, there is a condition requiring a noise insulation scheme to be provided and approved before any residential elements could be located within this area as per condition 20 of the outline consent. That was submitted and approved and therefore it is acceptable to have residential properties and gardens within this area because there will be noise mitigation and insulation measures put in place to protect the immediate spaces of those properties. This is the approved outline initiative master plan which conditions six, again incorrect reference number, secures and requires a reserve matters application to be in general accordance with. You can see the three development platforms and how the 110 units may be accommodated within the site. Central Meadow Park with the leap that needs to be provided and a linear park and various routes for ease of permeability in and around the site. Just for context, in terms of the constraints of the site, again much of this was obviously covered at outline stage but to the north of the site is the Cambridge Greenbelt and open countryside. The site is outside the development framework boundary which is indicated by the dashed black line. It is a five-year housing land supply site. There is a protective village immunity area to the south of the site which is the poor well area and a local green space which covers the pump house gardens. This is the pump house building that falls within the site but there's no development point of the near beyond some enhanced landscaping. You also have this pink layer denotes the boundary of four wall conservation area so this area to the south of the site is largely within the conservation area and the blue lines indicate areas of surface water flooding. The site itself was in flood zone one, they have all the risk but there are, as you can see, areas of surface water flooding identified. Just for a brief context of the area, these are just a couple of street views of the Tevesham Road junction with Hinton Road. The two stories, the prevailing scale that are in the area and the top images, is some properties on Calvane with the site. Beyond the naturally just to illustrate the prevailing two-story scale with single-story unsavory buildings. Views from within the site, it's a green and open site with various bits of mature landscaping as you'd expect. These are from the design and access statement looking towards properties on Tevesham Road, Breconwood Industrial Estate to the northwest, properties on Calvane and again these are views I think to the north and to the west which would show the context of a fairly open and undeveloped area with trees and hedgerows establishing the main boundaries. On to the reserve matters application, this is the site plan that has been provided. As you can see you've got the three development platforms here, the connecting routes through and then one connecting route but a turning head so in compliance with the general provisions of the outline consent and you can see again various routes through the site enhancing the permeability and ease of movement through the site for pedestrians and cyclists in particular. You have affordable housing located here marked by the blue and orange stars, another set here and another set here. It is for 110 dwellings, 77 of those are market properties and 33 are affordable properties which equates to a 30 per cent provision of affordable housing. The provision for 30 per cent was secured as part of the 106 outline stage so it is obviously below what local plan policy requires but the outline consent established a 30 per cent provision based on a viability assessment carried out at the time so that has been carried forward to the reserve matters. In terms of housing mix, as set out in the report there's a wide range of housing types that have been incorporated within the development and that is to provide a mix in terms of scale of the appearance which we'll come on to and to add variety and address to the design of the appearance of the site in line with local plan policies and the full board village design guide. This is a mix of one, two, three, four and five bed properties. In terms of scale, the majority of the development, vast majority of the development is of a two-storey scale which is denoted by the orange colour with a single-storey yellow and silly structure so garages. There are two elements that are two and a half story which are these two central apartment buildings which frame the Meadow Park. I'm sure that's an area which will be subject to debates later on and for predominate is a two-storey development. These are some street scene or section used through the site so the top section is taken through village lane character area which is taken along here and you can see you've got prevailing two-storey and then you do have the two and a half story element of the apartment building here. Section B is taken running north south through the site looking across the linear Meadow Park and Linear Park and again you can see the two and a half story element of this unit here and then another tree view cutting across the southern boundary of the northern parcel and again you can start to see the slight variations in appearance and material finish of the properties to add interest and variety and again some more section plans so the top one is taking across looking south across the southern parcel EE is taken from the southern boundary of the southern parcel and then F is taken looking from the the industrial estate towards the site of the apartment the two-storey apartment buildings on the north of the western parcel. Just by way of some examples and many of these were provided in the plans pack this is one of the elevations for the one of the apartment block buildings that does have the taller two and a half story elements which you say it's a rising rigid steps away into the site so the mass is taken further away from the southern boundary. This is just an example of one of the two-storey apartment buildings on the western platform house type A in the village lane character area house type C. I've just picked a few of these just really to show how the design and architectural style varies throughout the site rather than showing you all of the house types. Landscaping wise there's going to be a lot of landscape enhancement going on to the pump house garden which I think is a positive in all respects and make that more accessible to the general public and residents. As you can see there's sort of a general southern area of landscaping a northern area. Lots of soft landscaping in the front under your properties and additional tree planting. You've got the central leaf area leading into the Meadow Park again further areas of planting. A landscape buffer around the northern boundary of the site and along the eastern boundary again with further planting and area of landscaping and various basements along the southern boundary. Obviously very important to highlight the four-borne video design guide SPD which was adopted in January 2020. It sets out very much at the the relationship of the village the countryside is a defining feature of four-borne and something the community places great value on. The application site is located within the poor world character area for the design guide defines various character areas within four-borne. The design guide has a section all about integrating larger developments within the village a lot of that is obviously set out in the report and I'm sure will form part of the debate. There is also specific guidance on the template specific guidance on the Tewisham Road site itself in the design guide in figure 46 which highlights some of the key issues that need to be considered again as a green edge out to the countryside. The importance of this view across the poor world natural area which is not to be used for access and is not used to access to the development. The chalk stream and the wildlife corridor the importance of that which you can see running through the centre of the site which leads us on to a lot of key material considerations and compliance with the outline consent as set out in the report where officers are satisfied that the reserve matters is in general importance with the outline. Housing provision again is as secured at an outline stage and an appropriate mix of affordable and market housing has been provided at the reserve matters stage. Open space provision is in line with the provisions of the section 106 agreement reserve matters as we've touched on. There are elements that do certainly comply with the video design guide. There are elements which certainly cause areas of debate as set out in the report and I'm sure we will be discussing this morning. I'm also satisfied that in terms of the local green space and a protective vision easy area to the south of the site that there's no infringement on those policies. In terms of biodiversity again I'm sure we will come on to this just to be clear the site does not provide a measurable net gain in biodiversity but is not without its notable biodiversity positives and enhancements which are set out I think in Paragraph 202 of the report. Flood risk and drainage again I'm sure we will discuss this at length and we do know that that is a particular concern from the parish council and local residents and we do have the lead local flood authority here today to help answer any technical questions. Then highway safety, residential and amenity heritage and other matters again officers are satisfied that the reserve matters is acceptable in those respects so I think that is it. Yes it's all right quite a long presentation to accompany quite a long report so happy to take any questions. Thank you very much Michael yes you could hold on that sort of thing I believe you had a question. Thank you chair you referred to the village design guide now adopted it is suggested that the proposals do not achieve the aim of the full born village design guide don't take into account the design guidance in the full born village guide what is your assessment of that? Sorry just a second Michael I think I've jumped the gun a bit here I think we should really be observing questions for the debate for the officer if that's okay members apologies I forgot the process there. Yep so yeah apologies so if we could hold the questions off the debate at the moment please members I'd appreciate it thank you. We will move on to speakers now though so do we have a Dr Elizabeth Solier with us in the chamber at the back thank you doctor if you'd like to come forward to the desk in front of you you should have if you press the right hand button on your microphone that should enable the speak the microphone and if you're not aware you have three minutes to address the committee at which point if there's any questions of clarity from committee members you'll get the opportunity to answer those thank you. Thank you there are seven valid reasons to reject this rma all of which would remain valid at any subsequent appeal process one despite further unlawful modification of the design following our legal challenge in January 2021 the OPP development platform still not respected as five designated parking spaces lie outside it two cc nine of South Cambridge a local plan is still breached as the finished floor level should be 300 millimeters above the levels of roads they've been assessed against the incorrect figure of 150 by the LLFA and at least 16 buildings fail even that three cc nine also mandates buildings should be 300 millimeters above flood levels and at least eight buildings fail that the developer predicts flooding within this part of the development so this is an unacceptable flood risk to the development properties paragraph 42 of the planning officers report is thus completely incorrect on both these points relating to cc nine four local policies are not respected as discussed the development conflicts extensively with full bonvilla's design guide in the council's district design guide it is wholly inappropriate to position effectively three story urban flats roughly 20 meters from four well a wetland conservation area or blocks of urban flats adjacent to open countryside five there's a net loss of biodiversity conflicting with adopted policy and guidance and there's no compensatory off scheme details six multiple unlawful substantial amendments have been made since the october 2019 rma deadline changing house positions building heights and the slope of part of the development and adding a 30 by 10 meter basin yet still failing to solve any of the problems including flooding seven failure to provide any evidence of in perpetuity management ownership and funding for the surface water and ecological schemes which was a key reason for ejecting the OPP at the last appeal and remains unfulfilled regarding flooding you're being offered advice by the same LLFA team who said horse eathroad linton was safe from flooding eight weeks before the catastrophic floods as in linton there is sustained data driven local opposition as in linton the advice you're being offered by the LLFA isn't data driven in that they acknowledge the modelling down is based on inaccurate groundwater levels and may underestimate flood risk particularly to eight adjacent properties in kaolin they do not comment on the impact of missing groundwater data including a mission of one high reading borehole from the modelling done by the applicant at no stage in the nine iterations of the drainage plan has it been shown that surrounding properties will not flood the LLFA is plainly wrong in asserting that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the layout of the site could accommodate a suitable drainage solution it's a swamp it can't in fact the current documents from the applicant show a severe flood risk to multiple surrounding houses with water 20 to 30 centimetres above their floor levels we therefore have no confidence in the LLFA's ability to scrutinise such plans and strongly object to the LLFA's approval of the rma and the intention to resolve all the obvious concerns during the non-public discharge of condition stage just to remind you members of the planning committee under the national planning policy framework you cannot lawfully approve any application that will increase the flood risk elsewhere i have sent this information or my one of my neighbours has two members of the committee you do have this information in your email accounts thank you so much for your attention no problem thank you so much if you wouldn't mind staying in the seating for a second in case there's any questions from members of the committee any questions of clarity for the doctor please councillor Bradman thank you i'd like to ask uh dr sirio in your experience of living presumably in fullborn um can you tell us how many times you have witnessed standing water on those fields thank you that's a very good question so there is standing water in the field on the field behind my house probably most of the winter i would say for five or six months of the year you can find standing water in the field sometimes to a depth of maybe 10 or 15 centimetres and at other times to a lower depth perhaps four or five centimetres i should say we are so concerned about this we've dug a borehole in our own garden right next to the edge of the development boundary and we can measure levels which are far nearer the surface than anything the developer has told us about and indeed the level that we measured was 40 centimetres higher than the development the developer measured it and used in the modelling in the borehole nearest to our property so in summary we have no faith whatsoever in the modelling that's been provided but it already shows that it will flood our house 20 to 30 centimetres above our floors thank you a follow-up councillor thank you um i should point out um i do know the site although there hasn't been a formal site visit i visited it as a member of this planning committee in 2016-17 when it was first considered i'm also a modest amatobotonist and i can see that the vegetation on that those fields is characteristic of a very wet permanently wet grassland so i just wanted to reassure you i'm very concerned about that uh is there a question councillor the ecology officer no sorry okay well thank you for that um members if there's no more questions of clarity i'm sorry one more councillor Hawkins please thank you chair thank you very much for um your very comprehensive statement to us um i do note your concerns um but one question i want to ask you is about the biodiversity net gain um i know the report has addressed that i just wanted to find out what your view is of what how it's been addressed because the outline planning permission was granted before the current policy for net gain was adopted and as it states it's then we can't retroactively respectively apply that to this application because it wasn't required at the time is that an answer enough for you so i'm happy to take that thank you for that question um in terms of biodiversity while i would agree with your comments that the requirement for net gain is a recent requirement the requirement for preventing loss is not and what we see here is a major negative impact on biodiversity just to put it in very simple terms if you concrete over 80% of a beautiful wild landscape full of all kids waterfalls where you've got bats and many other species what you find is most of those species die and go away they don't really live under concrete and therefore we know that there's clearly going to be a massive net loss of biodiversity i should say in addition that there is a chalk stream and we know that chalk streams are part of our heritage they're part of our environment here in Cambridgeshire and we're very proud of them and we wish to preserve them because they have waterfalls and so forth living in the banks which are a rare species so the problem we have with the chalk stream area they have left a little wildlife corridor i would grunt them that but it does have a couple of effectively three story flats kind of bunged into it it's far too narrow to act as an effective wildlife corridor and you know we do see wildlife all the time my garden's tooming with it we get we get monk jacks water bowls salamanders all sorts of wonderful things these things are all going to disappear and so i would urge members of the committee not to vote this through because it's going to have catastrophic effects on what is essentially a conservation local wetland and wooded area thank you thank you Councillor Heather Williams please thank you through yourself chair um i was just wondering if if clarify a couple of points you mentioned about in your submission to us that our lawful substantial amendments um is that since october 19 how many amendments have been you i think you've been consulted on amendments since january because when we had the meeting we were told there wasn't going to be further amendments back in january so if you could clarify if you've been consulted on those amendments have come forward since and how many they've been and the other was i i caught you saying about perpetuity and management in perpetuity not perpetuity it's very early for me i'm afraid um but yes if you could just expand a bit on that through yourself chair that'd be great thank you those questions clear doctor yes thank you very much so i'll take the um the first one about the amendments as i understand it there've been two substantial amendments um since this came to committee and was rapidly withdrawn from it in january 2021 because of the draft high court legal papers that have been received and also my own submission about the legal risk of flooding um to sdc if they approve this as i understand it there've been two substantial amendments so the second of the amendments i think was the one that led to the consultation there certainly was a re-consultation because of the scale and scope of the amendment but the key issues of course have always been about amendments to try and take account of the flooding so i think the um other than the other reason of course the amendment was that the submission in january was well outside the development platform that had been defined in the outline planning commission it was completely um inconsistent with that and had been missed by the planning officer then in january and that was the substance of the high court legal challenge papers um it now only um fails to meet the outline planning permission in one area which is an improvement obviously houses had to be moved substantially more than a meter to bring them within that um outline planning permission area that had been defined for the houses we've checked on local authority sites across the country as to what would be defined as a substantial amendment because obviously that has implications for case law and we recognise that moving any property more than one meter constitutes a substantial amendment and many of the properties were moved substantially further than that the other thing that of course happened was the angle of the development platform for the southern platform was tilted because the development was going to flood the southern platform bearing the houses was tilted so that the water would flow from the north to the south rather than the other way round which means it flows directly into my property um so we were we were consulted about at least one of these amendments so i'm a bit confused about which amendment it is because we're on version nine of one of the plans um but i should say there have been at least two substantial amendments the second of which added a 30 by 10 meter um flood basin directly behind my house separated from my house only by a hedge which as you will understand is not waterproof when the basin overflows um so there have been two substantial amendments to my knowledge that we take issue with since the january meeting and i um taped your point um councillor williams that you were the one who spoke very clearly that there should not be any more committed amendments and that was the whole point of the deferral was for the planning office to take legal advice about their legal risk and to try and look into the flooding in terms of taking legal advice i've no idea whether they've done that but obviously in terms of the flooding no further detailed flood modelling has been done since then we have some back of an envelope calculations from the developer which indicate levels of water 20 to 30 centimeters above my floor levels and no other form of modelling which is a it's a real disappointment to us when potentially my house could become uninhabitable uninsurable and unestalable as a consequence of this going through so that's the first point your second point was about the perpetuity the imperpetuity management scheme so as far as we understand there are no details of any form of um proper management scheme that's going to go forward and look after both the flood risk mitigation scheme which is incredibly complicated as um planned it's got various culverts which like those in stives could easily block and lead to the kind of catastrophic flooding that did occur on christmas eve in stives um and furthermore you need a proper management scheme for biodiversity i mean we already know there's a big negative impact here but by not having any scheme to manage the biodiversity particularly along that chalk stream um there are major problems with not being able to maintain the species that we would wish to have in this area which is slap buying next to a conservation area so we don't have any evidence that there was a proper imperpetuity management scheme thank you okay thank you very much for that councillor carne please um washam it's down to the area the fields but uh that currently how are they managed is the grazing are they are they regularly uh cut for hay um what is the management because obviously that will have an implication upon the ability of the any future management to maintain uh the interests of the translocated for instance in the area thank you um sir at present the fields are not managed in any particular way to my knowledge they are simply wild um and we've got quite a lot of brambles around the edge those um tall grass and various um i guess mulch type species that you tend to get in very wetland areas and a number of mature trees um and i suppose i've been in full born four and a half years now and i haven't seen anybody managing any aspect of the fields presumably because of the fact that they're owned by the developer and they've been trying to get planning commission through as you know application was put in in 2015 or 16 and was rejected and that was upheld at appeal um on various grounds so the developer has been trying to get this through since about 2015 and i think nothing much has been done with that land since that period thank you do you never follow up councillor sorry i didn't catch that so it hasn't been grazed at all um no it hasn't been grazed and i don't know whether it'd be too wet to graze i don't know whether the um animals would actually get some kind of foot rot from standing in standing water you don't know whether it was grazed prior to the application even if you're on application i'm really sorry actually i don't i haven't been in the area long enough to know i'm afraid thank you that's that's sorry uh councillor brandon again please thank you for letting me come back chair i just wanted to ask in Syria what is her um does she hear noise from the industrial estate uh at her house and what is the nature of the noise in that area from that industrial estate thank you um i'd have to say in response to that question i'm obviously i'm a medical doctor in a university research group leader so i'm actually not at home during the daytime um so i wouldn't really know whether there's noise from the industrial estate but it's not i don't think that's a major concern to be honest it's a fairly small number of things that go on down there the only thing i would say is that sometimes there are very bright lights on the industrial estate at night and i don't know how that would play out with respect to adjacent housing thank you very much members it's no more questions of clarity we'll thank you very much for your time today and we'll move on to our next public speaker which is a mr poor dairy who's speaking on behalf of the applicants mr dairy are you with us you can see you but can't hear you i'm afraid no still can't hear you i'm afraid and you disappear from our screens okay i don't mr dairy if you can hear me we'll move on to the next public speaker and if you're able to uh to sort this yeah sorry here we go i think if i don't put my thing in my uh video on you can hear me by the sound of it for an unknown reason we can certainly hear you so i'd leave your video off it seems to be solving the problem yeah so mr dairy you're speaking on behalf of the applicants and after the previous speak you have three minutes to address the committee and whenever you're ready yes thank you chair and good morning members and members will be aware that an outline planning permission was granted by this committee for 110 dwellings on the site establishing the principle of development and the access points into the site number of units born part of the council's housing trajectory and contribute towards calculation of the five-year housing land supply this application seeks to gain approval for the outstanding reserve matters in this case scale layout appearance and landscape we've worked alongside officers at the council through the pre-app procedure including two design workshops and a session at the design enabling panel to ensure the detailing within the reserve matters is adequate further amendments and meetings with officers took place during the course of the application further improved the scheme and ensure its acceptability as specified within the outline parameter application the layout is based upon development in three specific parcels on the site the land surrounding these parcels therefore form the open space areas this allows a spacious low density development with significant levels of green space within the application site as includes the pumphouse garden provides an opportunity to bring this pleasant area back into public use given a key benefit to the local community case officer report provides a full and robust summary of the application comments received and the amendments made to ensure an appropriate development is being considered today and they have touched on some of these matters raised so despite the site being within flood zone one flooding is a key local concern as a result the application strictly adheres to the outline parameters approved with all built form being situated in three development parcels supporting system proposed follows lengthy discussions with the lead local flood authority and sustainable drainage officer and and the reserve matters application demonstrates that the system works with the full details to be provided for the future discharge of condition eight of the outline consent the application is informed by the aims and policies of full born village design guide in terms of building heights the design guide seeks to avoid three story properties unless they can be justified apartment blocks a and b have been designed with taller elements in order to frame the meadow park with the rest of the building being two story four two and a half story properties within the site were reduced to two stories through the amendment process the design guide also seeks to retain views northwards from poor well water through the site to the surrounding countryside and the application includes green space adjacent to the chalk stream allowing longer views from poor well water apartment block b has been designed to reduce its visual impact from this identified view the application provides a successful balance between the development on the parameter parcels and retaining views through to the wider countryside the outline consent include a 50 meter noise exclusion area around the breckenwood industrial estate where development would only be allowed within it if it's demonstrated that no noise nuisance would result details have been agreed and built form is considered appropriate within that area so to summarise the application provides appropriate detailing to allow the approval of the outstanding reserve matters to support the approved outline and this follows significant pre application with council officers and discussions through to the dissemination period thank you thank you very much mr dairy members any questions of clarity for mr dairy councillor Hawkins please thank you Jen for you good morning mr dairy good to see you briefly earlier on again um two things if i may you mentioned that the design has gone through the design enabling panel can you tell us how many times that occurred that was the final design uh in in line with the recommendations of the panel and number two considering you've had this going for a while why don't we end up today modelling for the drainage scheme that actually can show that this site can be mitigated thank you yep thank thank you councillor Hawkins so just to take your your two points separately um the the application went to crane my memory back because it was over two years ago um went to a design workshop first and then i think it went to enabling panel and then went back to a workshop before it was submitted um and i think the takeaways from that um were all based around location of dwellings heights um and design um from memory over two years ago um we'd incorporated as much of of the feedback from that that we could um to inform the development that was then submitted and the second question um relating to drainage i think i think members need to be very aware that this is a reserve matters application um so drainage was all agreed in principle during the outline and so therefore the the modelling was undertaken during the outline planning application which was subsequently approved drainage isn't reserve matters for consideration today other than um obviously members will no doubt discuss it in their debate next however and when the scheme was amended to have development outside of the development platforms it was remodelled um but subsequently all the development was put back on the platforms so wish we are we do um line up exactly with the the outline application which was modelled now we do need to discharge condition eight of the of the outline consent which is um providing detailed surface water drainage and we'll do that and should should this be approved today any comeback council thank you for your answers so what i can gather is this on the first point of the design you only went this application rather this proposal went to the design panel just once so the design panel did not actually see the final version of it am i correct that's my understanding yet we certainly only have one that thank you thank you second point is that the issue of drainage you know very well is of major concern to residents in the village so you're telling us that the modelling that was done two years ago is still what is there now knowing fully well that things have changed and what that says to me is as a potential developer you don't care about the concerns i think we've i think we've had the question there if you wouldn't mind answering Mr Derry yes there was a question but maybe i'll just leave that to i'm sorry i've made my point okay i don't think there's any need to answer that Mr Derry thank you um councillor on the head williams please thank you chair through yourself i'm afraid i might have a little list here um so i'd like to ask about a response that was just given to councillor Hawkins about um the drainage and i think that might be more of an actually one for officers about because it's quite clear in our report that a key material consideration is flood risk and drainage so i want to clarify is the applicant sort of challenging that um the other thing was about i'm going to say it correctly i think this time the perpetuity management um could the applicant chair please say why why this is this is missing um and i think uh i'll i'll leave it there and see what the response is chair thank you Mr Derry yeah i don't think we're challenging the fact that drainage is a a matter that certainly local people um have got a obviously um an important consideration to them and i think what we're saying is that the matter of drainage was determined through the outline planning application and so while reserve matters application accord with our outline i think that's the point i was trying to make so again whilst we're aware that local residents will will be very much um scrutinising the information it's also important to note that the information that we have provided goes way beyond what we should be providing to a reserve matters application um we've been providing detailed drawing that would come usually through the construction phase and the reason we've done that but i think that demonstrates the point that we're not ignoring it we've provided information way over what we would normally do for reserve matter application um and that's been in discussion with the llfa um and this is daniel drainage officer two um second point he raised with regard to future maintenance in perpetuity and that is as per any scheme really in so far as it will be offered to enghiel water and for their adoption if they don't adopt it they will go into a private management company which is pretty much the same for anything that you will be considering in this committee i would imagine thank you mr dairy did you want to come back i think it may have just um increased my list of questions for officers chair okay uh council of braddon please drainage i particularly wanted i have two questions one is um the officer mentioned development platforms i wanted to understand how much higher than the current ground level are those development platforms going to be at there is a second question but that's on a different matter is this question for the applicants is okay mr dairy i may if allowed defer you to my colleague um we've got on the call um james howard from cannon consulting engineers um who has been working on this project since the original outline application the appeal and then the subsequent resubmission can i defer that to him if he has the information and please bring him in good morning all sorry i haven't got a um a separate microphone can everyone hear me okay excellent um something that was just put forward uh yes i was just hunting for it um i mean it will be it varies throughout the site um but it will be between sorry i'm just yeah looking at the topo survey 900 mil something around that sort of order up to 900 mil depending on where you are inside actually the the topography varies okay i'm a little bit informal i'm afraid yes so they'll be in the order of up to 900 mil above um the important it's the number sorry 900 millimeters 900 millimeters is that the highest or the lowest point uh these that's around the highest average again depending on detailed design as it as it progresses it might vary 100 200 mil something like that okay so i think the answer is up to 900 millimetres not necessarily a question for the applicant i think but it's just under a meter exactly thank you very much of course yes of course it's just under a meter now that sounds quite a lot to me okay so the second question yes please is um the reason i'm concerned about that is because i'm concerned that anything on a new site or anything on any site you're not allowed to do anything which increases the risk of flooding for neighbouring properties so how confident are you that this will not cause an increased risk of flooding to neighbouring properties and i still have a second question okay is that yourself is that one yes chair yes uh yes i mean as as confident as i ever am um so very confident there's two things happening there's um the central storage area between so um between the two parcels in the east is being designed to accept the predicted surface water into the site and hold it so it's not released downstream at a faster rate um in combination with this the southern boundary so the the the boundary with cow the cowland properties that we're all particularly worried about we're interested in um will allow flow to continue on to our site and then past westwards um the addition of the basin which is uh just a sum that sits below the existing ground level is to accommodate the i suppose the the worst case predicted increase in flood water to the south of the site does that make sense i appreciate that's a quite a lot of of uh yeah councillor brenner is that second question which is to do with the um affordable housing which is clustered into apartments um next to the industrial estate and i just which is why i asked the question of the local resident as to whether the industrial estate produced noise this may not be a question for that gentleman um but i just wanted to understand to what degree um those apartment blocks are being used to screen it actually says in the um development uh in in the report uh that these properties effectively could screen the rest of the development from the industrial estate now i wanted to know did that mean visually or in terms of sound okay so i think the question for either mr dairy or mr howard is how much of the apartment is going to be used as screening and in what capacity so the there's a condition on the outline consent which um mr sexonon had put on his presentation slides at a 50 meter zone around the industrial estate the condition on the outline sought us to demonstrate that we needed to provide information to make sure that if any residential development was to be within that area the future residents of that site would not be affected by noise um and we've done that and that's been signed off by the environmental health officer hence why there are residential development within that um within that 50 meter protection zone and so that therefore in itself demonstrates that the buildings are not a noise screen for all the others thank you um and the other point i wanted to check was will all those apartments have fully opening windows or is some of the mitigation being achieved by having non-opening windows at the second part of the condition on the outline consent requires us to assess it upon completion so do noise readings from inside buildings basically um so won't know the absolute know the correct answer to that question until they're built um but yeah we um i think we're relatively confident that full window openings will be possible um the mechanical ventilation weren't necessary thank you i raised that point because in paragraph 33 it says with suitable mitigation these buildings provide a shielding effect to the rest of the development whilst providing the residents of these premises with an appropriate level of protection that sounds to me like these apartments are being used to protect other buildings on the other residents on the site thank you thank you well we've heard from the applicants anyway in response to your question councillor wilson please thank you chair um i just wanted to ask whether the um predictions on surface water um take account of current um provisions of that the LLFA um use or whether it takes account of potential increase in surface water um because of climate change we've we've seen this um on a couple of other applications that um the current um prediction of surface water doesn't take account of potentially increases in the future well let's ask Mr Derry i'm potentially going to defer to change again sorry James back in the spotlight back on i shall leave my camera off if that's okay um so i can get closer to the microphone without looming in um yeah the surface water modelling has been run for the 100 year event plus 40 climate change and also the 1000 year event which is higher first the 35.4 inches imperial question um there you go got love google um and the other thing was i just wondering if there's a railway line very close by could the applicant just confirm whether that's one that's still in use and if so how far away are those affordable apartments from the the railway line Mr Derry yep the railway line is still in use and the noise condition that we have discharged related to that as well as reckon with industrial estate um the affordable dwellings are not located next to it it's all private dwellings that are closer to it and i don't have a distance off my top of my head um and typically my plan is not going to load um what they must be 20 meters that's a guess until maybe the case officer can share a plan um join the debate ask the case officer for for more clarity in the debate yeah yeah so i think the question was around the closest property to the railway lines yeah i think it's um it's about 20 meters yeah so there's a tree belt next to the railway um and then we comes into our site and there's a and a grass area around the exterior of the buildings and then it's um the dwellings so thank you i think i think michael's sexton if you're listening if you could try and find that out for the debate please that'll be useful um councillor braddon your microphone is still on thank you very much uh councillor dr timmy hawkins please uh thank you chair um i note in paragraph 239 on page 97 of the printed paper that uh highways will not seek to adopt the proposed development um but does not seem it doesn't mean it's not going to be acceptable in highway safety terms so can i ask you directly are you intending to build the roads to highways standards and why wouldn't these roads be adopted by highways if you can just explain that please and yes we are moving to highway standards um and i don't know the answer as to why they don't want to adopt it that's not good enough he's the agent if you're telling us it's been built to highway standards and yet highways isn't going to be adopting it there's got to be a reason so i'm asking you again please well we we we design things for adoption it's obviously up to the local highways authority if they want to adopt it or not and so it's a in fairness it's a question to them rather than i they will obviously have their reasons for it and again it's it's not an uncommon situation for them not to adopt something just becomes a private road and councillor we sorry if i may a second question going back to the flooding um we heard earlier on that the uh the flood um the calculations were good enough that mr deri's colleague i'm sorry i forgot your name is quite confident um that you know flooding wasn't going to occur however um and i'm referring here to one of the max uh plans that shows floor levels and highways levels and the um it's showing here that some of the finished floor levels are less than 150 mil higher than the highways levels which means there will be potential flooding in those houses so how can we be sure that your calculations are correct when even your own plans are showing that um there's breaches and there's potential flooding mr deri i'm sorry i'm going to refer again sorry james um sorry could you i'm not quite sure i understand the question um the i mean it might help to explain that the we're obviously not talking about it it comes across the question again maybe that might help i've got here a um a diagram one of your plans uh bravo 411 Papa Lima SK Sierra Kilo dash 320 uh version p09 on that you've got finished floor levels uh proposed finished floor levels in orange you've got uh road finished levels in green you've got one in a hundred floor level uh flood levels in pink and you've got one in a thousand flood levels in blue if you look at the orange which shows the proposed finished floor levels those numbers show where the level of the house will be the green is the footpath the road in front of the house now according to your calculations the orange should be at least 150 mil above the green but in a lot of those it is not which means you're not even proposing to build to the right levels and there's potential flooding going to be happening to those houses how can that be right how can you say that you're confident of your calculations because that would mean there'll be flooding in those houses so a question around the floods compared to the floor levels there jones i've just had another look at the plan i think i understand the area you're talking about uh we're talking about the the central flood storage area i think so the um the 10.44 10.45 flood level in the central um sort of storage meadow area that is essentially a flood management basin so those levels those flood levels are managed flood levels we have created those managed flood levels to hold them in a basin that then spills into the basin to the west de facto basin to the west where we get these lower levels at the 9.98 and 9.89 that then flows out into the water course so whilst some of the levels are lower than the highest flood level at the whole across the whole site those flood levels are are separated by roads banks the the development so there's no way for water to get from the area of higher flooding to the lower levels does that make sense nope but i'll live it there for now okay thank you um sorry going back to the issue around adoptable highways chris i think you wanted to clarify uh thank you i was just going to highlight paragraph 238 on page 97 of the printed report which includes the comments about the local higher authorities stating they would not seek to adopt phase development in its current form commenting that suitable intervisibility big sorry interveical visibility for all axes is serving more than one dwelling should be shown uh and various other comments so just uh was just a direct members to that point in response to that question okay thank you very much chris um members i don't think there's any more questions for the applicant so sorry councillor carnau see waving um you um one of the objectives was commented that um the uh commented on the fact that the there was a net loss of biodiversity on the site um um suggested that you that's needed off site compensation i know that it's possible to insist upon that but had you considered that um because all along the time we were always uh it's always been an obligation not to reduce the biodiversity ecology different from the online commission was granted and which is why the sign that that's been made isn't really how i'm tracing it was to demonstrate by the net gain in being the opposite of all student zero in um ar y sgol o'r ffordd o'r cynhyrchu. Felly dyna'n greu'r cymdeithasol ac mae'n amlwg ar y cyfnodol o'r cyfnodol yma. Rydym yn cymryd â'r cynhyrchu. Rydym yn unig i fynd i'r rhywbeth, o'r cynhyrchu a'r cynhyrchu, o'r cynhyrchu yma, a'r cynhyrchu sy'n gwneud i gael y gofyniad yn unig. Ond mae'n mynd i fod yn ddweud, mae'r cyfnodol gyda'n gweld y drafnodol hynny. Mae'r cyhoeddio yn gwneud o'r cyhoedd. Mae'r cyhoedd iawn yn gyfan eu proffesiad? Gwyn o'r par Mundi Gaelig, 지금 yn gwneud y cyfriddio'r cyhoedd sy'n gyflogol. Mae'r cyhoedd iawn yn egôl sydd yn gwneud, ond dyfodol yn bro dancing, a'r cyhoeddiaid yn edrych yn mynd i ddwy'i wirio. Roedd yna lle bod gael ar y cyfnith. Roedd y cwmennol. Byddai, fel gwirionedd yn ei oedd bwysig o'r cyhoedd. Ac rwy'n ei wneud iddynt o'r cwmennol i amhwyntau. pan oeddaf gyda'r ynghyd o'r ffordd ac mae'r sgwylwyr yn ffordd, mae'r ymddiffyn yn ei galw i mfwrdd, mae'r cyfoedau a'r peth a'r perudd, mae'r cyfoedau o ran ffwrdd, yw hynod, mae hwn yn barfodd ychydig i fynd ar 15 o cihwm, a bobl hyn yn i gweithio ffwrdd ar Embryd Cyswyl a'r ffordd gwasanaeth o'r Goll Llywodraeth yn ganod ychydig i wneud. Rwy'n eu gwneud wrthawe yma i'ch eu hwn o'u besiwch. Thank you very much everyone. We are now live again and the meeting has restarted. So we're still in the middle of the public speaking element for the foreborn application. I'm now going to invite a member of the parish council, Councillor David Smith. Councillor Smith, if you come forward to the microphone please. And so it should be the button on the right hand side to get your microphone on. There we go. And as with other speakers you've got three minutes to address the committee at which point if you could stay seated in case there's any questions of clarity for you. Whenever you're ready, councillor. I'm ready. Thank you very much so far. It's been very interesting. I'm a parish councillor, chairman of planning for my sins. Just to put through points I'd like to bring up about the agricultural use of that building, the land. I mean it was occupied or used for cows, hence the name Cow Lane. It did get plowed through times but the farmer gave up because there was areas where the crops just rotted. You get these brown dead areas. The other point I'd like to bring up is that poor well there's a flood drain there that nobody seems to have mentioned. That does about 40% of the village drains and I hope that the people concerned have taken that into consideration. The other point is the railway line. Nobody's mentioned about decibels. Now we're talking 20 metres. I don't know anybody's mentioned about the decibel rating of the railway line making a noise and vibration as well. That hasn't been mentioned either as far as I know. Another point of concern with the village is Cox's Drove about this emergency access. I hope it doesn't get used for contractors access and the same with Tewisham Road. It's very important that the contractors build an area on the existing land that they do not block Tewisham Road. The residents around there are rather concerned. Another point is what they call the pump area which is a pond shown on the drawing. Security is it going to be locked because at nine time it might not get used for recreational purposes that we understand. That's my finish. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much councillor and before I go to questions of clarity I should have asked you this before you started speaking. Do you have the permission of your parish to represent their views today? Yes I do. Good thank you very much. Glad you said that. That is my job. Questions of clarity for you if that's okay. Start with councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins. Thank you chair and through you. Thank you for your very succinct presentation. Can you just clarify it? You said that there's a flood drain that serves some of the village. Can you explain that please? Is there poor wealth? Yes I can. If you look at that area of poor wealth it's on the, as you've faced poor wealth from Cal Lane, it's on the left hand side and it discharges into the main short stream. Now with some of the exceptional weather we've been having it doesn't really flow there but nobody seems to have mentioned how much volume of water does that add to that development as well. Has anybody surveyed that area? We can explore that. Go ahead please. Thank you, thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Fane I have you done this. Thank you chair. Looking at the parish council's objection, full born parish council objection refers to the full born village design guide which I think has been approved since original planning permission and it states that the proposals do not achieve the aims of a full born village design guide don't take into account the design guidance in the guide. It's not very specific. I wonder if you could be a little more specific as to how it fails to meet the objectives of the design guide, the developer claim that it had been adjusted to take account of that and to what extent the concern relates to the original approval and to what extent it is a matter of the concern about on the reserve matters which we are considering today. I'll see if I can answer some of the questions. I wasn't really involved on the full plan but it's referenced mainly to the design of the higher buildings. I know some of them have been reduced and some of the other properties are not in keeping with properties in full born. That's what was the concern of the full born plan. I'm sorry I've been a bit vague on that question. That's fine. Thank you very much. I don't think we have any other questions. Sorry, one more. Heather Williams, please. Thank you chair, through yourself because I am very familiar with this particular area. I'm just wondering if I could ask that in relation to the heights and things like that is it, would you say it's fair to say that there are areas where this design in full born probably would be in keeping but not in this particular stretch because I am aware of there being flat blocks and other things. Would that be a fair reflection of your comments just then? It does the higher buildings and do cut out the view from other properties and the other thing is why are the affordable houses all seem to be conjugating one area? I mean, I believe in diversity of types of dwellings. I know we shouldn't mention this but the Ida Darwin development have been a lot more considerate between social housing and the heights of the buildings where this development seems to date can't blonch with some of the areas. I'm a bit concerned about the social housing falling one area, answers your question. Do you want to come back councillor? Thank you chair. That's okay, thank you very much. I don't think there's any further questions for you councillor so again thank you very much for your time and for your comments today. Thank you. Okay, we're moving on to local members now and yeah, members, councillors Daunton and Williams we thank you very much for being patient. I'm sure you can appreciate you're not new to this process so you know how timings can always be a bit up in the air with these planning committees but thank you very much for holding on. Councillor Daunton, I'm going to come to you first if you're online. Yes, I am chair. Thank you very much, can you hear me? We can hear and see you. Thank you and good morning chair and members. Should I start now? I think you're familiar with the process by now. Three minutes whenever you're ready councillor. Yes, thank you very much. Fullborn is fortunate in having a village design guide a conservation area appraisal under neighbourhood plan in its final stages. The conservation area appraisal refers to Paulwell a large wet area adjacent to the development site being the source of the springs which feed the talk stream you've heard about. I quote, the open space and extensive tree planting here creates a very silver character and the glimpsed views of fields beyond emphasise the thin edge quality of this area. With the building of 110 dwellings there will be a significant detrimental effect on these important attributes. Noting that this council has championed village design guides it is important that full material consideration is given to them. In the office's detailed report at paragraph 125 it is acknowledged that there is a conflict between the guidance of the village design guide concerning the existing view northwards through the site to the open countryside beyond and the introduction of development. The office indicates that conditions 4 and 6 of the outline approval make it, quote, inevitable that the existing undeveloped view will be lost. But given that a reserved matters application is for the approval of the details of the site layout and given that the outline approval was for up to 110 dwellings the loss of the important setting to Paulwell is not inevitable. The village design guide identifies a wide green link from the back of Paulwell providing an uninterrupted wildlife corridor along and on both sides of the chalk stream. Ignoring this the applicant has placed two large apartment blocks in this corridor together with some houses further back. The raising of the leap by 640 millimetres to avoid flooding further impacts the view. The urban feel of these blocks is completely incompatible with the rural location and the blocks are for cramped affordable housing some close to the industrial area as you've heard. Further I suggest that the design quality of these and other dwellings does not comply with the presumption of the village design guide that new development should meet standards of contemporary architecture compatible with the character of the village while respecting the immediate surroundings. Approval of the scale and appearance of buildings is one of the material considerations to be determined under reserved matters. The government's house building design guide envisages tree line streets as an aspiration which is reflected in the guidance of the village design guide. However the applicant scheme on its raised platforms is largely devoid of any significant trees or hedgerows creating a hard aesthetic contrary to the village character particularly that of the conservation area. This development does not respect the defining open views it does not respect the rural character and diverse architecture of the village and it does not provide the high quality design that this council promotes. Thank you very much. Members, any questions of clarity for Councillor Daunton? I think that's all clear. No, I think that's everyone. Councillor Bradlin were you indicating? No, okay. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the second local member Councillor John Williams. John, are you there? Yes, hello chair. Good morning committee. Good morning. I was going to say I think you're familiar with the process three minutes to address the committee and then if you could hold on for any questions of clarity that may have for yourself. Sure, okay. Good morning committee. This application fails to meet the government's national planning policy framework as adopted in 2012 which applied when the outline permission was granted in 2017. The 2012 NPPF states that council should look for a net improvement in all dimensions of sustainability. This includes the natural and local environment. In my opinion, there is therefore an expectation that reserve matters arising from the 2017 outline permission should deliver a net improvement in biodiversity. Can I remind you that biodiversity net gain is at the heart of this council's green to its core policy? Yet here we have an application which doesn't even attempt to achieve any biodiversity gain either on or off site. This council has declared a climate emergency and that's the aim of doubling nature. That the proposed development results in a significant biodiversity loss has been clearly identified by the applicant's landscape and biodiversity management plan in Appendix 4. This biodiversity loss has been confirmed in paragraph 204 of the planning officers report adding to the outline consent report which stated, officers are of the view that the loss of this grassland without appropriate compensation and mitigation would result in substantial harm to ecological interests. No means of offsetting the loss of biodiversity is proposed. The ecology officer says that without reduction in housing density or increased building heights no mechanisms are available for further biodiversity gains. However, a reduction in housing density is possible. The outline permission which was granted on the 9th of August 2017 was up for up to 110 dwellings. These wet meadows, the last remaining fenlanding fullborn, are an important carbon sink help protect the area from flooding and the valuable ecological site of biodiversity with enhancement potential. The farmland and the chalk screen are rare and endangered habitat according to the Wildlife Trust could with proper management achieve wildlife site status. Ecology, the priority for the site is retention of the semi-improved neutral grassland and its water courses and wetland habitat. The scheme fails to prioritise these issues and indeed cannot with a large development and artificially raised ground with complex infrastructure requirements particularly surface water and flood management. To conclude, the outline permission does not bind the committee to accept a scheme of 110 dwellings. The application fails to satisfy national and local legislation, even that legislation which applied back in 2017 regarding biodiversity it increases the flood risk to neighbouring properties against local and national guidelines contravenes the fullborn village design guide and adversely impacts the conservation area particularly important setting of poor well and its springs. This application can and should be refused and can I just add a lot has been said about the height of the dwellings. Don't forget, it's now been confirmed that on average they will be about a metre higher than a normal dreading. So therefore you need to take that into account when you're talking about the height of the dreadings. So a dreading of 2.5 stories is actually on this scheme a height a dreading of 3 stories. Thank you. Thank you councillor. Members, do we have any questions of clarity for councillor John Williams? Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins, please. Thank you chair and through you. Thank you councillor Williams. Just to kind of clarify the last point you were making. Now the actual platform to be built on is 0.9 metres above the ordinance datum and then the height of the building will be on top of that. I think that's what you're trying to say. Standing, yes. So a building that's 2.5 stories high normally would in this development because of that platform be more like 3 stories high. Thank you. Thank you very much councillors, no further questions. No, thank you very much councillor Williams. Thank you. The third local member is councillor Graham Cohn who has sent in a written statement which Mr Chris Cart is going to read out for us now. Thank you chair. I'll read this verbatim. The statement says, those of you that have served on the planning committee for a number of years will I'm afraid be bored from my comments because they are the same as every other time I've spoken on this particular application. I would like to start with the fact that it is my view that this reserve matters application was only pulled from the agenda in January for the flooding risk to be assessed and legal advice to be sought not to allow the applicant to make large amendments to the application having had more than ample time to get their application in order. My biggest concern on this side is still the risk of flooding. It has been on previous attempts of the reserve matters application and in my view is still a huge problem in the application we have in front of us today. This rushed revision of how water will be dealt with on this site does not fill me with confidence at all that surrounding dwellings will be protected. I believe the concerns raised by local members, the parish council, residence groups and individual residents are very valid. I would like to remind the committee of the following points. The reserve matters application does not meet the council's criteria for affordable housing. Nearly all the affordable housing on site is comprised of flats which are not pepperpotted across the site as I would expect from an application of this size. There is clearly a social housing area to the new estate and a private market area of this new development. I also think it is very poor that the affordable housing has been put adjacent to the industrial area where district and parish councillors have expressed concerns regarding the noise. Given this site will be raised due to the water table I think two stories as a maximum should be required across the site. It is noted that some of the properties are still two and a half stories despite amendments. I still believe that the access under Cox's Drove will be a problem unless more measures are put in place to stop through traffic. I do not believe there is enough information on how this site will be managed in perpetuity. I remain worried that the future for residents on this estate or the local authorities may be burdened with a really difficult site to maintain in the long term. I do not think enough attention to detail has been given to this within the reserve matters application. In summary, as district councillor, I object to this reserve matters application and it is clear to me that there are still a number of problems about developing this site, probably the biggest of which are the issues surrounding flooding and the water table. It is clear to me also that district councillors, the parish council, local residents and residents groups are all very concerned about what this development will mean for the village of Bourbon in the way it is currently outlined in the reserve matters application. Thank you, Chris, for that. Members, we've heard from all of the public speakers now, so we'll very shortly be going into the debate. Members, just to be reminded, this is also an opportunity to ask questions of the case officer. We also have, as I think Michael Sexton mentioned, we have two members of the lead local flood authority with us as well. Members, with that, we'll move into the debate now, starting with councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. I'll go through my clarification questions and then digest that before speaking in the debate, if that's okay. Thank you. So, through my list, we've heard reference about the adjournment about legal advice, you know, was that obtained, because there was some ambiguity over whether that had happened or not. We've also heard about potential, the amendments and the potential unlawfulness and what have you, so it'd be good to know our own legal advice on that, please. With the affordable housing as well, I just wondered if it's possible to see that diagram again, making it very clear. I do find sometimes the colour, we sometimes have it where it's blocked out colours of affordable and not, which is quite helpful. I don't think we've got that, but still seeing that again would be very beneficial. I'd like some officer advice on relation to drain is given what the applicant said about, you know, being reserved matters and everything else, so just some clarification from officers on that, please. And also whether the adoption of roads, the reasons that the Highways Authority, the applicant wasn't able to answer that question, but hoping that we have an answer ourselves, and if so, could we hear that. I'd also just ask, and this may be more a request for yourself as chair, and maybe actually leave Member for Planning, as she's with us today, that I really wasn't very happy about deferring this at all when it first came out, and I did seek reassurance as to the purpose of deferral, and as we've heard, there have been two substantial amendments, which feels very irregular given the advice that we know has been emailed out to agents by Mr Kelly, and given the time lapse. So I would appreciate if members would look into why that has happened in this case. There may be reasonable reasons for it, but it does seem irregular, so I think residents and ourselves have a right to know those reasons and why that's happened, because I do remember saying that I agreed only to deferral if it was to give the authority more time, but I was not agreeable if it was to give the applicant more time. I think they've had more than enough time on this. And then I'll then digest that information shared before I give my opinion. Okay, thank you very much. So I'll probably start with the legal advice, please, on the amendments that came in. I'm not sure if either officers or perhaps our legal officer could help us then. I was satisfied that it was within the gift of the applicant to submit amendments. Okay, so we've had some advice by legal officer on that. And I think now we're going to come to Michael, if you are still on the line, Michael. I think we have three questions from what I gathered. One, we'd like to see the affordable housing layout again, please, if you could bring that up. And some clarity around the drainage and the adoption of the road from the highways department. Okay, I've just been annotating a plan to hopefully highlight the location of the affordable housing. So this is a very quick markup of the site layout plan. I appreciate Council Williams' point. It might not be that easy for you to see the little marks on the screen that denote affordable housing, but there's a unit, a block of affordable housing in this part of the site. And then a group here and a group here. In respect of clustering, it's set out in my report that the Section 106 agreement does allow for up to 20 affordable units to be cited in a group, although no group should be joining. And the Council has obviously recently taken on its Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy, which provides updated guidance on the clustering of affordable houses and compared to the affordable housing SPD, which was adopted some years ago. So as set out in the report, the location of the affordable housing is acceptable and in line with the 106 agreement and the new Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy. The application has been subject to extensive consultation with the affordable housing team who are happy with the location, the tenure and the size of the units as set out in the report. But hopefully that plan on screen, Council Williams gives you clarification on the location. Did you remind me of the second question, please, Jen? I've got a question around drainage. So, Council Williams, would you mind repeating that for me? Yes. So, the remaining questions is that we were told by the applicant that we didn't really need to worry about drainage, but our understanding is that flood risk and drainage are for this application. So, if we could just have advice as to whether that, our understanding is correct, it would seem very bizarre if it's not, and the other one was if we had reasons why the highways weren't adopting the road and whether we did get some legal advice ourselves. I had a response in relation to the amendments, but not whether we did get what was referenced in January. Michael, can you pick up the highways drainage? I can. So, in respect of drainage as set out in paragraph 208 of my report onwards to the end of the drainage section, it's my view that flood risk and drainage is relevant to the reserve matters application. I think they do fall within the realms of the definition of what layout and landscape constitute, which is set out in paragraph 54 of my report. As I alluded to in my report, it's relevant insofar as a reserve matters application needs to provide sufficient level of information to demonstrate that the layout and landscaping of the site could accommodate a suitable drainage solution. The more the full details and the technical calculations behind that are reserved by a conditionate of the outline consent alongside details of its long-term maintenance. So, my advice to members is that flood risk and drainage is relevant to the reserve matters application. Insofar as a reserve matters application needs to demonstrate that a suitable scheme can be accommodated within the landscape and layout arrangements. In terms of the adoption, there is obviously a condition recommended on the report about future street maintenance. That's there as a safeguard. The comments of the local highways authority. Perhaps if I share these on screen just for clarity. So, these, hopefully you can now see the comments of the local highways authority, which start off by saying that they confirm they will not be adopting any part of the development and recommend the condition. They do then go on to state that they would want to see suitable inter-vehicle visibility displays within the sites and details of proposed SUD arrangements. So, basically they're saying that they would not seek to adopt proposed development until this additional information they've asked for has been submitted whether that's after, that could come through after the reserve matters decision was made and if the highways authority were then satisfied with displays that were shown as part perhaps of two seven eight works or whatever the relevant section is, the highways may well adopt the development if they're satisfied with future information, but at this stage on the information available they wouldn't adopt hence the conditions. So, that gives protection as part of the commission that there would be suitable management arrangements in place. And apologies, I've forgotten the other question, but I think it was a legal one, to Stephen Rees. Thank you, Michael. I'll pass over to Chris regarding the defer that we had in this application in January. Thank you, chair. Yes, just in terms of any legal advice taken that was internal legal review of the draft judicial challenge which was provided the evening before the planning committee and obviously referred to as part of the reason for deferring the item at the time. So, it's reviewed internally with legal officers from 3C legal and planners. Thank you. I think that clears up any ambiguity that residents had about what was about to happen. Great. Thank you very much. Next speaker, we have Councillor Dr Hawkins, please. Thank you very much, chair. Through you. And I will try not to be grumpy or woman today. So, this side, really, we are where we are, but I think it's unfortunate that it was granted outline planning commission because it is obvious to everyone that it is going to be a problem. So, hopefully for this committee in future we can think about those who will succeed us in committees and how they might be able to implement the things that we give permission for. I note all the concerns and I thank the residents, the parish councils, the district councillors for expressing the concerns as they have done. Let me start with the affordable housing. I must admit to being surprised that we agreed to 30% affordable at outline. And this has been raised by quite a number of people, but on that score I'm afraid we are stuck. There's nothing we can do about it now. 30% was what was agreed at that time and 30% is what the applicant has provided. However, we also have a policy where we want affordable housing to be tenure blind. And I think I've said this before, putting them all in a block of flats or however many blocks of flats does not make them tenure blind. All it does is say, oh, that building, that's where the affordable housing is. It's not tenure blind. One thing that's not been mentioned is the self-uncosted builders, of course. We always want on sites like this to have either self-builders or custom builders, but we don't have that on here. And I think paragraph 92 refers to that, we would have light to happen, but we can't because, again, there was no requirement for such a provision back at outline stage. 2017, I think, was when this outline was granted. So, again, on that, we are stuck. Now, in terms of highways, I did ask the question why wasn't the... I wasn't highways wanting to adopt these roads. And now we know. And frankly, the fact that they've talked about the visibility displays and the proposed SODS details of those being required shows that they have concerns. And we must take that into account. And the SODS is also part of the drainage scheme and the flood risk assessment that we have to make today. So, please, colleagues, bear that in mind. I did ask about the design of the site and the design of the panel visit. It turns out to be just the one. And I've had a look at the response of the urban design team. And they also have concerns. And as far as they're concerned, there could be improvements made to this design that we have in front of us. So, really, there's many more question marks. We're not stuck on that one, so let's do something about it. For me, the big issue is the flood risk and drainage. And as we've heard, we need to assess whether there's sufficient information in front of us today that gives us confidence that whatever scheme comes forward if we grant this, when it comes instead of conditions, can be accommodated on this site. And for me, that is a big question mark because I don't think that it can. We've heard that there's a flood drain that drains part of the site or some parts of the village and there's additional water that potentially has not been taken into account in the drainage scheme that we've had. And, frankly, I would also like the LLFA officers to please just explain to us why in the world are we deferring additional modelling to a later stage when we are having to assess this scheme based on what could be put on the site to drain it properly. We need to see that. We need to be sure that this site, which we know has surface water on it for potentially five to six months of the year, can be sufficiently drained. It sits on chalk strings. If you're going to put surds in, if you're going to put tanks in, you're going to have to dig into those chalk strings to fit those tanks. You're going to destroy the chalk strings. There's a lot that could be done by the applicants that they, in my opinion, have not done. I still recall a development in my village which didn't even include risks like this where the developer created a drainage plan completely off their own back, presented it to this planning committee, maybe not this one here, but to the planning committee in this council, had that looked at, discussed, before they actually brought their application in. So they knew that when they came in, there was no issue with drainage. That is a considerate developer. Why can't we encourage developers to do that? I'm sorry, but in my view, I don't see that this site can be properly drained with what's in front of us. And as things stand, I'm not lucky to vote for this. Thank you. Thank you, councillor. Going back to one of your previous points, we do have the LLFA on the line. I don't know if you'd like to pose your way a question to them at this stage, would you? I think we have Hilary and Harry from the LLFA. I don't know if either one of you could pick up on the question around drainage, please. Good afternoon. Can you hear me? After that, yes, we can see and hear you. Excellent. So regarding the modelling, this was something that we have requested in the past. And through a sense of discussions with the LPA and the planning officer, it was kind of decided that this is a reserve mass application. It's something that is reserved for the detailed design. So we are going to be requesting it under the application for condition 8. Yes, yeah. Okay, thank you very much. Well, if you want one hanging on the line, I'm sure there'll be further questions for you coming up. No worries. Did you have a supplementary, councillor? Yes. I mean, I'm not sure if Michael can bring up the... There was a... Dan Ramkey showed us which showed the extent of the flood lines on the site. Can we see that, please? Michael, is that possible? Because for me, that is a red flag that says if that is where the resting line is for the flood or surface water, whatever you want to call it, we have to be sure it can be mitigated on that site properly with our damage to the chopstreams. I think, Michael, we're wondering if you could bring up the flood maps again for us. There you go. So this was one of my slides to my presentation, so I assume this is what Councillor Hawkins is referring to, with the blue areas denoting the surface water flooding maps from the Environment Agency. Is there a question? Councillor Hawkins, is there a question relating to this for the office? There is. Is that there's extensive surface water flooding? And so that, for me, is indication that we need to consider the potential solution to this within this discussion so that we're satisfied that whatever that solution is can be accommodated on that site and will not harm, A, the buildings on that site and B, especially the neighbours. And we have heard directly from the neighbours just how bad it can get. So I'm not happy with the LLFA's response, is what I'm saying, because you have a responsibility to the residents. We have a responsibility to our residents and we have to fulfil our responsibility. I'm sorry, but I'm not happy with what I'm seeing here on this application, not at all. I'm saying that somebody said and the other person said it's not good enough. LLFA, you need potentially perhaps even look at your processes and encourage applicants to actually submit reasonable village plans. I think your concerns have been noted. Can I comment on where we are, chair, in terms of the applications for the members? Yes. Obviously, I think there is a shift in the general planning process now that there needs to be more information up front, but clearly the outline application was granted in 2017 based on a flood risk assessment and drainage information that was submitted at the time. You then get the process of considering reserve matters and there's still then the process of the discharge of conditions which has all the technical details, so it's quite a clunky process. I will accept, but the principle of development on this site, which would have shown areas of surface water flooding in 2017, has been accepted. The information submitted as part of the reserve matters application in consultation with relevant technical trustees does provide enough evidence to give confidence that a scheme could be accommodated and that's part of the members will have to obviously take in time to take their own view on that, but the recommendation in the report is that there is enough information there. You will see that there's several informatives attached to the reserve matters application that do require groundwater testing and modelling to be undertaken as part of condition 8. Condition 8 is a fairly bland, non-specific drainage condition, but there will be a lot of owners on the applicant to provide the calculations that are fully required and then they're highlighted on the informatives that have been put in as part of this reserve matters recommendation. Acknowledging is a very sensitive issue, but because it's that three-stage process, that's where we are at this moment. It is for members obviously to take a view if they feel they're not satisfied that there's sufficient evidence here that a scheme could be delivered. OK, thanks a lot. I think that is. Thank you very much. I'm going to move on to the next speaker now, which is Councillor Rippith, please. Thank you to everybody who's contributed today and for your time, and it's been very interesting and informative. I am quite aghast, really, at this little wing and prayer attitude of the applicants that we can just put these things in later, and I'm not happy with the modelling being up-to-date enough for the flooding risk. I think flooding and drainage is a massive key material consideration on this application. I'm also not happy with the layout of the affordable housing. It appears that it's been used to shield the rest of the site and also the fact that they may not be able to open their windows, and yet that's something for later. I will not be voting for this application. There are just too many things which make it something which is not, frankly, good enough. Thank you, councillor. Thank you, chair. I think we've all noted some very significant concerns about this reserve matters application, and I think the issue that we have to have regard to is whether those are concerns about the reserve matters, that we are considering today, or whether those are actually concerns about the principal development that was determined in 2017. Looking specifically at the three issues that particularly concern me, the Village Design Guide, I didn't actually quite hear what the case officer said on it, but on the other hand, this is set out quite clearly at Para-133. Officers do acknowledge there is a degree of conflict with certain aspects of the Village Design Guide. However, they consider that the layout has sought to retain the key views along the chalk stream, which I think was one of the key issues in the Village Design Guide. Then my second area of concern is, of course, biodiversity, the extent to which biodiversity net gain is achievable on this site. Whilst I see that as principally a matter that was considered at the outline stage, I accept what councillor John Williams said, is that it would be possible to greatly improve the biodiversity within the constraints of that original approval. On the question of flooding, this is obviously one not to be underestimated. Not only is this a particularly sensitive site on the chalk stream, but there is potential here quite obviously from the plans that we have seen for significant flooding to neighbouring properties if it's not got right. I'm not entirely happy that the local LLFA answered the questions put by councillor Hawkins earlier on, but their assessment, again, is quite clearly set out in the report. I refer in particular to paragraph 214. They refer to the reserve matters application being subject to several rounds of consultation and robust scrutiny. At 226, officers in consultation with the LLFA acknowledge that there are questions remaining relating to groundwater levels provided by the applicant and the modelling that has been performed. I think that to approve reserve matters with that degree of uncertainty on such an important issue would not be acceptable. So I am on those grounds inclined to say that despite much of this being a principle approved back in 2017, there are sufficient issues outstanding to give good rounds for refusing this approval of matters reserved. Thank you councillor, councillor Brandon, next please. Members, you will have heard some of my views earlier on. Interestingly, I believe I was part of that committee and I was very unhappy that this site was finally approved. I'm really concerned. These are in no particular order, but I'm really concerned. I think this is a very unpleasant application. For example, the whole area is subject to a flood risk. The open space around these one metre platforms is pretty much all sustainable urban drainage systems. In other words, that means it's not flat land that children can play on. I appreciate there is green space outside the development that I feel that for a very large proportion of the time this area is going to be even wetter than it was before. The areas between these now one metre platforms will be even wetter than they are currently. When I visited the site, it was a reasonable average day and it was squelchy underfoot and very wet, particularly in the western field of the two. There was sedge and rush growing there. That means that's a long standing presence of water in those fields. This is not a passing thing that comes and goes. It's always there. I'm not happy about the biodiversity aspects or the scant regard they've given to the chalk stream. I would remind members that the poor well is the source of that chalk stream. It's where the chalk, the water up wells over the clay beneath and provides the beginnings of that chalk stream. I note with appreciation that in the application it says that the construction phase shouldn't take great care not to pollute that chalk stream, but we're talking right about the headwaters of this stream and there is absolutely no way in a million years this will not change the character of this chalk stream and in fact the previous ecology officer at South Cancer Street Council made that point when we looked at the site all those years ago. Housing density on paragraph 31 on page 7 the ecology officer notes in my view this is a paragraph of despair. It says given the housing density approved within the outline application can see no way in which further gains in measurable biodiversity can be provided without either a loss of housing density or increased building heights. But as Councillor Daunton pointed out the outline application permitted up to this number of dwellings it didn't prescribe that number of dwellings nevertheless I think the attempt very little attempt has been made to improve the biodiversity which they could have done by reducing the number of dwellings on this site if they had tried to do that we might have felt more sympathetic to it and also I am extremely concerned that with those very large platforms or one metre above the current datum that will inevitably increase the risk of flooding to properties which are neighbouring this site. Right so then I'm also really unhappy about the distribution of the affordable housing as I said when I spoke to the Lady Dr Sirio it seemed to me that these floods are being used to protect the rest of the development from the noise of the industrial estate she was unaware of whether there was a great deal of noise but certainly an environmental officer mentioned noise in their report and I'm not happy about that. Going back to water on paragraph 37 I draw your attention to the facts that the Lead Local Flood Authority at the top of page 59 referred to the fact that the documents submitted demonstrate that surface water from the proposed development can be managed through the use of tanked permeable paving throughout the private and shared access areas in parking, blah blah blah surface water will be shared across basins around the development and created attenuation below permeable paving before discharge from the site at a rate of 0.3 litres per second per hectare. How can you put created or indeed tanked permeable tanks underneath when if we are to believe the resident the water level is already only 0.4 metres from the data. So I'm just not happy with that and I don't think it will work. Also we know, I know from the ecology officer that when water sits in created accommodation in crates like that when it finally discharges it is stagnant and it does pollute much more than water that has flowed naturally in from elsewhere. The other point that the gentleman from the parish council spoke to is about the railway. Now I don't know if I'm remembering this incorrectly it is a while since I've been to the site but as I recall the railway is slightly higher than the site which means that these houses would not only be what was it something like 10 or 20 metres from the railway but the railway is going to be higher as well which means just at bedroom level you're going to get a lot of noise from the railway. I know that houses do exist quite happily quite close to railways but it seems unwise to build them so close and so with all of these concerns and the fact that I feel that there is a present risk and we have no evidence actually on paper now that this will be properly addressed as others have said I would have felt more confident if I had seen a proper drainage scheme in front of us as we were considering whether we wanted to approve this application I would have felt happier but since we don't, I'm afraid I can't. OK, thank you very much I covered a lot of points there councillor Members, we do have another one, two, three, four speakers we could try and not cover points that have already been covered if you share those concerns that would be appreciated by myself councillor Heather Williams please Thank you chair I mean, I think from start to finish really although the flooding issue others have mentioned that in great detail I'm not convinced that it can be fitted into the scheme especially for the 110 dwellings but even if you put that to one side and left it to condition 8 I think there's still a lot that comes up wanting in this application and I just wanted to actually read policy H101C on the affordable housing it says in small groups or clusters distributed through the site so no one's saying there can't be small groups no one's saying that clusters but I don't think we've really looked at that distribution and we do need to be consistent and I recall an application I think it was in Saarston where there was some of the site was one side of the road and some and the other and actually because there wasn't affordable housing on the other side of the road we saw that as a reason for refusal because it wasn't distributed through the site now there are clearly three separate areas within this development and we were shown them very clearly with some in-connectivity and one of the areas one of the three has no affordable housing in it whatsoever very much like that application that we have before so I do not agree in my assessment that it is distributed through the site there are three clusters two in one section, one in another there could be at least one in each and also on the design as I referenced knowing the area pretty well there are areas where a two and a half storey building for flats and forward and I think probably would fit into the character thinking maybe somewhere like Cambridge Road and that section but definitely not this area it's not fitting to the design of this development it's not fitting at all to Tevesham Road and the site that it's in and I think actually residential amenity and perhaps we don't speak about this enough but obviously when we sat here we're not just thinking of the current residents we've got to think of future residents and the residential amenity of the people that will be moving into those houses and that has been referenced that's why I asked about the railway station if it was still in use because I live some miles away from a railway line yet if the wind's in the right direction we still hear the trains coming through so being that close I'm not convinced that there's enough measures in place and my recollection is that it's slightly higher as well so I'm not convinced that the residential amenity for the future residents will be something that we would want residents of South Cams to experience nor for the current residents hopefully not doubled up chair but I do think that on that alone even if you took the flooding out it's a no for me so the concerns I'm hearing so far are revolver and biodiversity loss the layout of affordable housing the drainage and flooding modelling urban design deviation from village design guide a general lack of information housing density and amenity of properties that are close to railways and on the border of the site I'll carry on with the list of speakers but if there's any new concerns that members would like to raise those should be the first ones please thank you very much chair I will be brief because all of the concerns I think about it quickly being set out I was concerned about this application on reading the paper report my concerns have not been all of the points you've laid out I share and I shall not be voting for this application not be voting to approve thank you Councillor Cullen my particular concern is biodiversity I take all the points that other people in particular Councillor Bradman have said but my particular concern is the fact that that there is a lack of biodiversity loss or the come up which is being promoted by this development which doesn't conform to the existing indications where existing the policy that was existing at the time when the application was approved there seems to be a conflict here as the people commented the application was up to 110 houses and it seems to me that I mean I think you could have an application which improved biodiversity on the site but it would have to be there is a conflict to either have to provide compensation off site or you have to reduce the density and so there are two alternative ways that that might be achieved neither has been achieved neither approach has been achieved furthermore there is no clear indication of how the site will be managed biodiversity on that site is wet meadows particularly of interest of the areas along the stream if you drain the site you are going to reduce the area which is wet therefore it is of interest if you don't graze it which has been indicated it was initially grazed by cows you don't graze it you are not going to maintain that interest you can translocate the plants but if it is not managed right after they will disappear there is no indication of how that will be managed I don't see therefore we can't insist that they provide off site compensation we can't insist it's up to the applicant to come with a satisfactory solution the solution that has been provided to me does not seem to me the requirements that we wanted in policy at the time and therefore I cannot see how it can approve this application for reserve matters unless the satisfactory scheme is put forward thank you councillor and we have one final speaker councillor Wilson thank you chair all the other concerns of the other members of the committee I would just like to add to it that I'm very concerned about the fact that in its present form the application highways would not adopt the roads and I'm concerned about the future burden of cost that this would place on residents of the local parish council in maintaining those roads as I share all the other concerns on biodiversity everything else and so I can't support this application great thank you I think our legal office I would like to have some input chair can I just ask councillor Wilson to repeat that because Chris Carter didn't hear the initial part about the highways issue I was just saying that I did to all the other concerns I have a concern about the fact that in its present form the highways are not likely to adopt the roads in this development and the extra cost that this could place on future residents of the parish council okay have you heard that Chris yeah thanks chair thanks Mr Reid I think you thought I might want to comment on that I'm not sure if I do but other than to say that the higher authorities at this point in time it's not that they won't adopt so I think that's just a point of clarification if I may go on chair yeah please there's all the speakers we've had so thank you so obviously there's been quite a few reasons for refusal floated and we've been making notes of those through you chair I'd like to at the appropriate time request a shorter German just to draft those reasons up with the case officer the reason with regard to design we've had discussion from members about the issue of the height of the two and a half story buildings in key views which are identified in the village design guide it'd be useful to know if there's anything more than that in terms of design that members would cite in their objections just so that we can ensure that any reasons are as robust as possible okay members to assist officers were there any further concerns regarding the design of the scheme just the heights council Williams I was going to say it's the height and the sort of dominance of flats in that area which we're saying is is more suitable in other areas of full form but but not in this location okay councillor Hawkins thank you chair and the as mentioned in paragraph 125 there's as the view there was a very important view not once which the flats will be blocking it's in conflict where the thing is template paragraph 125 and whilst I have the floor if I may chair this village design guide step back Fulburn was selected as one of the villages to have the village design guide precisely because it was going to be having a lot of developments come through because of the failure land supply issues that we had before so it is important that these are taken into account thank you very much Chris is there anything further you need before we adjourn for a few minutes? No I think I've got everything thanks chair just a few minutes to draw up those reasons Members what do you think about taking a lunch break now we can come back in say half an hour's time we can run through the potential reasons for refusal then have a vote and then we can move on is that acceptable to members yes I think that's the majority so okay we'll break for lunch now we have half an hour so we'll come back 25 to 2 so that is 135 Members we'll restart we're restarting the meeting now please so we are on agenda item 6 Land East of Tewisham Road Fulburn Members we've concluded the debate now and raised some causes for concern that we believe the potential reasons for refusal should we vote that way Mr Chris Carter is about to or maybe perhaps Michael Sexton is going to display the reasons as set out in the debate on the screen now Members we need to decide whether this covers all of our concerns as a committee so Chris if you wouldn't mind displaying them on the screen or an officer would mind displaying them on the screen Sorry chair my teams are just having a bit of a moment so Michael if you don't mind could you put them on the screen Yes I have the two just reloading them but you don't need to see me for this so I'll tell you Okay while they're being put up Chris if you don't mind running through them please Certainly chair so the first reason is around designs quite a long reason but obviously there was a lot of discussion around that so it reads as follows the proposed developments by virtue of the scale and sighting of the two and a half storey apartment buildings located centrally within the site and within a key view north through the site across Pawell and along the chalk stream towards the open country side beyond would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and would significantly erode the existing wide open view and green space which provides a positive connection between the existing village and adjacent countryside Furthermore the adverse visual impact of the apartment buildings is exacerbated by virtue of the buildings being sighted on raised platforms which would increase ground levels by up to a further 900 millimetres above existing enhancing the adverse prominence and dominance of the central apartment buildings within the site and within key views from the surrounding area creating a scalar development that is out of keeping with the character of the area The proposal is therefore contrary to policy HQ 1 of the South Cambridge District Local Plan 2018 paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 which required developments to be a high quality design to be compatible with its location in terms of scale and appearance and to make a positive contribution and wider context and the full bond village design guide supplementary planning document 2020 in particular guidance notes 10.3, 10.10, 10.12 and figure 46 of the guide which seeks in section 10 to integrate larger developments within the village If you could scroll up Michael Drainage reason insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the reserve matter scheme can provide a satisfactory scheme of surface water drainage and prevent the increased risk of flooding The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CC7, CC8 and CC9 of the South Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and paragraph 167 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 which require development proposals to incorporate appropriate sustainable surface water drainage systems and to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere A reason along biodiversity the reserve matter scheme fails to provide a measurable net gain in biodiversity The proposal is therefore contrary to policies HQ-1M and NH4 of the South Cambridge local plan 2018 and paragraphs 174 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 which require development proposals to aim to maintain, enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and minimize the impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity Finally, affordable housing The reserve matter scheme by virtue of the proposed layout fails to adequately distribute affordable properties throughout the site and to integrate those units appropriately with the market housing The proposal is therefore contrary to policies H10 of the South Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2019 to 2030 I presume that is supposed to be which seeks to provide affordable housing in small groups or clusters distributed through the site Thank you very much Sorry, 2023 Sorry, I'm just done a live update on the screen it is 2023 Thank you very much Members, does that capture our concerns that raised in the debate or is there anything further that members thought was an adequate reason for a refusal? Councillor Bradman, please Did we have a concern about proximity to the railway? That's right, there was loss of amenity for the houses closest to the railway Through you chair, Michael may wish to comment but I think there was no concern from the environmental health team with regard to noise impacts from the railway obviously it being quite intermittent I think it's a fairly quiet line in any case but Michael may be able to expand on that further Michael Thank you Chris, yes there were conditions imposed on the outline consent condition 19 was a noise condition relating to the railway line that has been discharged and noise levels found acceptable so I would be reluctant to encourage members to consider that as grounds for reasons for a refusal Councillor Hawkins, please Thank you chair I thought we had a highways issue with the Yes, Chris came back So with regard to highways the parents or present unwillingness of the highway authority to adopt the roads is not in officers opinion a sustainable reason for a refusal because that position may well change should the plan be granted at any point in time plus the highway authority is not objecting on highway safety grounds so simply the current position of not adopting is in avi at least not a sustainable reason for a refusal Thank you Councillor Ripper I don't know if we can see it again on affordable housing I'm not sure if I'm wrong but we talked about the block of flats of affordable housing being used as like a shield Can that be incorporated or is that more to do with just general layout like a shield from the noise and pollution for them So it's probably more general layout to that point Is that something that could be added? Chris? I think that's probably more of a design point if that is a concern for members I would add that the environmental health officer obviously has considered the living environment that will be created within those buildings and found that to be acceptable but through you, Chay, if members felt they wanted to add something to the design reason for refusal that might be something we could add to the precise wording with yourself and vice-chair Certainly one of the members has that as a concern Members, just a quick show of hands does anyone else wish to include that as well as a concern? One, two, three, four I think that's most people Chris, I think that's a clear Chay, so if you're happy members will add some additional wording around that issue to the design reason for refusal and agree that final wording with the chair and vice-chair if that's acceptable we do refuse it, exactly Thank you, councillor councillor Carman In terms of biodiversity it doesn't really express the fact that the ongoing management of the proposals is not really clarified and so does any benefit any compensation or mitigation is provided to guarantee that it will continue I don't know whether that can be added or that's incorporated, but it is a concern I think Mr Reed would like to come in at this point Chair, if I may the future management whether it's a biodiversity green space suds is all dealt with in the section 186 agreement so I'm satisfied that it's fully and adequately covered Thank you very much Members, we now have a list of reasons for refusal should we agree to refuse it I think we've had all the information and debate now so I'd like to go to a vote on this please Members, we have the recommendation on page 107 which is then followed by a raft of conditions and informatives so the recommendation is to approve this application subject to those conditions Members, if we could vote via the keypads so press the blue button to register to vote green if you're in favour red if you're against and yellow to abstain Everyone can vote now please That's everyone's voted and that's unanimously refused so that application has been refused Members, thank you very much We will move on now to item 7 which as mentioned I have a conflict of interest on so I will have to remove myself for this one item hand over to Councillor Fane to chair this item and ask Councillor Ripeth if she'd mind acting advisor chair for this one item so I will exit the room now Members and pass you over to Councillor Fane Right Thank you committee, let's proceed to item 7 This is variation of condition to the approved plans application number 21 02594 oblique S73 and it relates to land to the east of Collins Close in Sheporth planning commission was granted S305216 for the erection of 25 dwellings including 40% affordable The applicant is stone bond properties key material considerations are as set out on page 127 This is brought to us because it is a departure from the development plan and the presenting officer again is Michael Sexton Michael are you with us again I'm still here chair yes Good, I hoped you would be We have of course had the opportunity to read the papers but it would be very helpful if you would summarise and update us Yes, so there's no updates chair so I'll go straight to a shorter presentation This is a section 73 application that is before members solely really because it's caught by our scheme of delegation and constitution that as a section 73 would represent a new plan commission it would be a significant departure from the development plan but there are material considerations against that so it's seeking to vary in a number of conditions as you can see I'm proposed to read those all out following a 2016 plan commission for the direction of 25 dwellings land east of Collins close Sheprith This is the site outlined in red on the north western edge of Sheprith on the railway line running along north west just in terms of constraints and for clarity it is outside the development framework boundary which is denoted by this lap-dash line and you've got the conservation area and the buildings to the east So this is the consented site layout it is currently under construction so the commission has been implemented on this site so you can see it's a fairly simple route through with properties either side of the new road all of those properties are two stories in scale comprising detached semi-detached terrace properties the developer is now stone bond properties who've picked up the site and have found opportunities to make several changes and enhancements to the scheme this is the proposed site plan that's been put forward as part of the section 73 applications they can see very pretty much the same route through and layout of dwelling, same distribution of affordable houses within the sites and again the two story properties throughout of detached semi-detached and terrace properties so no real change in scale a couple of handy visuals of sunny shepherdth and how this site would look once fully developed by stone bonds just by side comparison just really to highlight to members there's very little change in terms of just the sighting and layout of the properties and the landscaping so yes not a huge amount to report on quite a few key considerations because it is a new commission but the principle of development although it's outside the development framework works have commenced on site so there is an implemented permission on this site the housing provision remains acceptable when the same is before getting character landscape it's same situation as before probably important to answer actually this development will deliver a better carbon emissions result and it's also providing electric charging points to every property within the site so there are some enhancements being made in that respect which I think are worth highlighting and again no adverse impacts in terms of flood risk and drainage, highway safety, biodiversity lighting, residential community or other matters so that's it from me. Usually come to questions during the debate but as happened earlier there may be some questions where it would be useful to have those slides anything for clarification? Thank you I just wanted to point out when you gave your introduction about the documents there we had a supplement didn't we about the data variation I said there was no updates I suppose there's no updates following my update report during the course of this application Shepard Parish Council got in touch with the council through James Fisher about whether there was the opportunity to make sure that the contribution that has been directed towards a mugger could be adjusted because there's no longer a desire and in fact they can't deliver a mugger within the site so we've been able to accommodate the parish council's wishes so they're still getting the financial contribution to off-site sports it's just being the wording's being tweaked so they can best utilise that for the benefit of the village so that was just in the update report to make members aware and ask for your endorsement on that but that's the request of the parish council and something that Stonewand have been happy to accommodate Thank you Michael that's very clear Shall we then hear from Stonewand I think we have Sean Martin here Looks like you're ready in place Good afternoon Yes Can you hear me? Yes we can hear you fine Please go ahead Excellent thank you chair and good afternoon members My name is Sean Martin I'm the planning manager for Stonewand properties Stonewand is a family run business that has been developing home since 1975 and we are proud to design schemes that go beyond the standard level of quality that you see on many housing schemes We treat each site differently and do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach As the officers report confirms planning consent was granted on this site in August 2018 Prior to Stonewand purchasing the site we further some subtle changes could be made to improve the scheme These changes would improve the quality design and overall character of the scheme without compromising the improved development The changes we have made are minor and relate mainly to the house types in addition to increasing the quantity of trees and planting on the site The application also seeks to discharge any outstanding conditions to enable the delivery of the development Aside from the above changes in all other respects the scheme remains as consented delivering 25 new homes the same consented mix of housing a mix of one, two, three and four bedroom homes 40% affordable housing electric vehicle charging points for every property solar panels on every dwelling bird and bat boxes brief friendly planting and hedgehog highways and 42 new trees including enhanced landscaping throughout The proposed development will also create 77 local jobs as we will seek to use our local network of contractors to deliver the scheme We have worked closely with your officers following their advice and ensure that the scheme is fully compliant with the council's planning policies The officer's comprehensive report confirms that it's all been achieved with a recommendation for approval There have been no objections from any of the statutory consultees or from the local residents and I trust that the commission will be able to agree with the officer's recommendation to approve this application Thank you for your time Do you have any questions of clarification? Thank you Geoff, through you I was just curious you were quite precise about the number of additional trees and the landscape improvements you were making I don't know if it's possible to have the comparison back up Michael It is councillor I should probably say that the comparison is on the site plan rather than the landscape master plan so I'll suspect you in the question why there are less trees shown on the new master plan that's solely because it's not a landscape plan it's just to indicate but I can put it on the screen and bear with me The purpose of this slide is more to show the layout of the dwellings but I appreciate on here it shows planting that is still there and I can open up a landscape plan if it's required I don't know where the additional trees were going just for more information If you could bear with me councillor I will open up the landscape plan It's additional, it's fine, it's great Thank you very much, don't worry I don't know whether you can hear me Did you want to comment on that question from councillor Hawkins? The trees that have been additionally planted are street trees and in the rear gardens of the proposed properties I think what that master plan isn't showing is the detailed planting plan that has been submitted with the application so there were some trees shown on the previous application again that approved master plan that you've seen on the screen doesn't show the detailed planting we've increased the trees not substantially but slightly from what was consented previously You're very welcome I think we have any other speakers we're scheduled to hear from councillor Bradnol I have seen this site and agreed it in the first place and I think these amendments look sensible and reasonable and as the applicant said I think they appeared to implication Thank you We're sort of entering into the debate here Anyone else wanting to comment to appear to have any other speakers shall we proceed direct to the recommendation then which is on page 156 146 yes so paragraph 168 officers recommend that the planning committee grants delegated authority to officers to issue a new planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out below and to complete and condition on the completion of the deed of variation Any further points or shall we proceed direct to the vote proceed direct to the vote I suspect we may not need to take a vote on here we might be able to do this by affirmation I haven't heard anyone speak against Are we all agreed on that recommendation Agreed Good, thank you I have now a great pleasure in handing back to councillor Henry Batchelor Thank you councillor Thank you councillor for showing me how it's done Okay Members we will continue with the agenda we are now up to item number 8 which is on pages 115 or begins on page 115 of our agendas 115 of our agendas and its application on the land adjacent to 26 Taylor's Lane Swavesy the proposal is a dwelling in associated landscaping to replace an existing workshop The applicant is a miss Sarah Denley It is brought to the committee because it's been referred to the committee by Swavesy Parish Council The presenting officer is Luke Waddington Luke are you with us Hello chair, yes I am Hopefully you can see me and hear me We can see and hear you Luke so we'll hand over to you then for any updates and to present the report in front of us Thank you Thank you chair, I will just share my presentation and if you can confirm when you can see it that would be brilliant We can see it Thank you Thank you chair and good afternoon members as you can see from the front sheet the application site is land adjacent to Taylor's Lane Swavesy The application is the replacement of existing workshop with a single story detached dwelling before the committee because it's being called in by Swavesy Parish Council Moving to the next slide Here we can see number 26 Taylor's Lane an application site outlined in red with the two buildings in question the larger of which in the centre of the site is the building which is proposed to be demolished and replaced by the dwelling Moving to an aerial photograph with some of the key constraints on the site As you can see again the site is here The village development framework is the black dotted line that runs along here meaning the site is outside of the framework The pink line is Swavesy Conservation Area which again the application site falls within and this yellowy green line which I appreciate probably isn't the clearest given the green trees on the aerial photo that denotes the outline of the Scudrid Ancient Monument the Castle Hill Earthworks within which the site is located The site is located where there is access from Taylor's Lane which runs down here via an existing sort of gated driveway and contains two single story buildings the larger steel and block work workshop unit and a smaller open fronted timber barn which you can see here which is a smaller of the two buildings and the dwellings here are two story dwellings within the village framework Just some existing floor plans here before I go to some site photos just to show the the sort of footprints of the barns their elevations fairly simple utilitarian buildings so yeah as the caption says this is a view of the site from the entrance from Taylor's Lane looking towards the concrete block work building which used to be demolished and you can see the corner of the barn as well the site access and then the access to number Taylor's Lane off to the right hand side another sort of shot at a slightly different angle just showing that Taylor's Lane and the vegetation on the boundary a bit more of the access and likewise from the other direction with the access to the sites on the left hand side just where those blue bins are this is looking west along Taylor's Lane the site being behind these trees here the castle earthworks sort of this bank here the site sort of banks up with the trees and vegetation between Taylor's Lane and the site itself then from within the site this is the access looking out towards Taylor's Lane a closer view of the workshop building some of the hard standing and the other building the timber building which is proposed to be retained various sort of storage going on in there so yes moving on the proposal sorry the site has a sort of a quite long planning history the most recent commission which relates to the buildings on the site at the moment is a 1995 consent for use of the both of the buildings has sort of storage of building materials building plants and a workshop and this is a site plan for that commission which shows various uses approved on the site and the divisions of uses between the buildings so moving on to the proposed development as I said it's proposed to demolish the larger concrete building replace it with a single storey dwelling and retain the timber barn the proposed dwelling would be the same height and footprint as the existing concrete barn but would be relocated two metres further to the east away from the existing trees along the site boundary which you can hopefully see kind of outlined on this site planning green to lessen the impact upon those the impact of the development upon those trees and any sort of pressure to remove those trees or to trim them in the future so moving to elevations the proposed dwelling would be clad in a blacks of timber vertical boarding as we've seen there would be a garden to the rear and a driveway and sort of grassed area to the front so I'll just go through again these are side elevations very sort of simple form that replicates the form of the original or the existing should I say building internal floor plans this is a sort of indicative landscaping layout of the site showing again the law to the rear and then sort of landscaping at the front of the site so yeah that's the sort of layout of the site moving on to the kind of assessment officers have noted that the objections there are objections to the principle of development as the site does fall outside of the development framework so obviously this is set out in detail within the committee report however in sort of a brief summary policy S7 of the South Cambridge local plan can allow for development outside of frameworks where it meets exceptions in policy S7 or where it is supported by other policies within the local plan policy E14 being one such policy that can allow for the redevelopment of employment sites for non-employment uses on the edges of development frameworks as we've seen in the site whilst on the outside of the development framework is on the edge of it and therefore being a site of employment use as well can be considered on the policy E14 so under E14 the development must also meet one of three criteria in order to be acceptable and for the loss of employment use to be acceptable the first criteria requires 12 months of marketing to demonstrate that the site is not suitable for employment use no marketing is going to be taken for this particular application so the assessment moved to the second criteria which requires the development to provide a public benefit but outweighs any adverse impact on employment opportunities which would result from the loss of the employment land and the range of available employment land so in terms of the application providing a public benefit the National Planning Practice guidance states that sustaining or enhancing the significance of heritage assets is an example of a public benefit and does set out in the Swabiesley Conservation Area and by the conservation officer in their comments on the application the current buildings and use at the site detract from the character of the conservation area and therefore the proposed development by moving the two buildings and the use is considered to enhance the setting of the conservation area constituting a public benefit as a site is not currently in frequent use of employment directly at the site and given its small scale its location away from major roads and adjacent to neighbouring residential properties as well as the availability of similarly sized units in the area the loss of employment use at the site is not considered to result in a significant adverse impact on the range of employment land and so the proposed development is considered to meet the second criteria of Policy E14 so moving on to the other constraints particularly in terms of the conservation and heritage aspect the conservation officer as well as Historic England and Cambridge County Council archaeological team have no objections to the proposal subject to conditions and as set out in the report officers consider that the proposed development would not result in a significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties to highway safety, biodiversity or trees subject to the conditions that are set out also in the officers report so there are no further updates for consultees and applications recommended for approval subject to conditions. Thank you very much That's much appreciated Members we've got two public speakers on this the first being the agent for the applicant Mr Ed Durant if you'd like to come forward Ed I believe you're probably familiar with the process by now so as you're aware three minutes to address the committee and then if you could hold on for any questions of clarity please so in your own time The redevelopment of the builder's yard at Taylor's Lane will deliver a high quality family home in a sustainable location The sympathetic design and use of materials will transform the site that presently has a negative impact upon the conservation area The parish council's engagement on such planning applications is welcomed but in this case their comments do not reflect the aims and wording of policy S7 These aims are to prevent unnecessary encroachment into the countryside and unsustainable forms of development Policy S7 does not seek a blanky restriction on all development outside development frameworks The final sentence of policy S7 which is omitted from the parish council's response confirms that development outside of development frameworks is acceptable where permitted by other policies of the local plan The committee report confirms the view of your professional officers that the development accords with policy E14 which is one of the other policies referred to in policy S7 Therefore this application accords with policy S7 Notwithstanding the fact that the development accords with policy E14 it is also important to assess whether it achieves the aims of policy S7 Visual encroachment already exists and the dwelling will be located nearer to the village framework than the existing workshop This will provide more space for the boundary trees to thrive and screen the development Therefore the development will prevent further visual encroachment in the countryside Swaybus is a minor rural centre and the new dwelling will be within walking and cycling distance of services and facilities in the village Therefore the development will deliver a sustainable form of development In addition to delivering a family home in a sustainable location the development will also deliver heritage benefits These include a more sympathetic design of built form and landscaping of a prominent site within the conservation area Residential is the only viable use for the site that will ensure the boundary trees are maintained and that it does not fall further into a state of neglect More importantly it will also prevent the extent permission for a tennis club which extends further back into the countryside and would result in disturbance to a larger area of the scheduled age or monument from being completed Significant weight must be attached to these heritage benefits The appeal referred to by the parish council is materially different to this application in terms of its visual encroachment in the countryside and its distance from the village It did not accord with the aims or wording of policy S7 as it was not supported by one of the other policies of the local plan Moreover there were no material planning considerations such as the heritage benefits of this application that outweighs the policy conflict The redevelopment of the builders' yards will deliver significant planning benefits and accord to policies E14 and S7 of the local plan We welcome the opportunity for members to endorse the recommendation of your professional planning and conservation officers and enable the delivery of high quality family home in this sustainable location Thank you Thank you very much and all this bang on time so congratulations Questions of clarity Councillor Hawkins I'm sorry but you mentioned the conflict in the BDG Am I right? I'm not sure if I heard you correctly that's why I'm trying to clarify a conflict in policy which conflict were you referring to? I was referring to the parish council in Neverscoilis mentioned an appeal site which is further outside of the village and I said that in that case there was a conflict in policy S7 because it wasn't supported by one of the other policies of the local plan in this instance the development is supported by one of the other policies of the local plan therefore there is no conflict with policy S7 Right, okay Thank you If I may check a second point I referred to page 169 paragraph 74 where it talks about the cladding the black cladding and its potential the use of the black cladding potential conflict with the requirements in the village design guide Did you consider using something else? Or did you actually look at it in the context of the village design guide? We did indeed in fact the village design guide identifies the site as a farm site which is clearly incorrect and the response in the conservation officer was that he actually supported the use of the black cladding so in discussion with the case officer who was deciding that the application would go forward on the basis of the black cladding has proposed However, should it be an issue that the members have serious concerns about then it could be dealt with by a materialist condition Okay thank you Thank you chair I don't know whether you commented on the impact on neighbouring properties I think the only neighbouring property would perhaps be number 26 and I believe there is a window which would be facing eastwards Would you like to comment on the distance between them and the likely impact? Certainly The application has been amended to remove that window notwithstanding the fact that it is a single story dwelling and any overlooking from a single story window at such distances would be less insignificant let's say Councillor Carlton, please I think I probably know the answer to this but I just wanted to check I went to see the site although it was interesting and it struck me that it would have been simpler to have gained perhaps less inclusive to have gained access to the drive to number 26 you seem to have put a drive parallel, was that a possibility or was it outside to control your control? Great, it's outside of land ownership it would have been dependent on a third party Thank you very much We move on to our next topic which I believe is councillor Will Wright from the parish council I think Karen is going to help you with the technology councillor Thank you, welcome councillor Press the right hand button on the microphone you should be switched on it Before you begin, can I just check that you've got the permission of your parish council to represent their views today? Oh yes, I didn't know until yesterday afternoon that in actual fact we had confirmation that I could appear in person but this has given me a hectic few hours to have an answer You're very welcome anyway So as with the other speakers you have three minutes to address the committee but if you could stay seated in case there's any questions of clarity for yourself in your own time councillor Right, most of you might know a bit about Sway to Seed but it is a very historic village It's actually mentioned in the doomsday book of 1086 at which time it states that it was one of the largest, in the largest 20% of all settlements in the country It later became a large inland Saxon port prior to the drainage of the fence It also had a castle with a large castle mound which in actual fact was immediately behind the proposed alteration of what is in actual fact it's a storage storage building and it has never been a building's yard to my knowledge and also to many other people's knowledge in the village at some stage in the past history maybe not quite so recent the land has been in the ownership of one family for an awful long time the actual barn as it stands there now was actually rotated through 90 degrees possibly on one of the previous applications some time ago so the way we looked at it at the time was well that would be nice because when they get permission to turn that into a house it actually looks over the open land now the proposed development is actually outside the villages development framework as it's already been said and the granting of approval would create a precedent for any future development which would be certainly irretrievable for the parish and the parishioners and it's there for a reason we do have a neighbourhood plan a forthcoming neighbourhood plan it is not in effect yet but the village does have a conservation area which includes this particular site the Swaybacy Village design guide was accepted I believe just over a year and a half ago and the neighbourhood plan is being worked on in addition to the site behind being the old castle mound I believe one of the gentlemen pointed out that a field on the other side there was evidence of earthworks and that is true they have been removed pieces a long time ago on previous investigation that there was in actual fact an iron age settlement on the opposite side of the road so it is probably one of the most historic parts certainly one of the most historic parts of Swaybacy and probably equal with a lot of other places in Cambridge here it would be possible to conclude please the parish council is of the opinion that the proposed materials in the proposed new building would not complement the location of the neighbourhood property and basically we are completely against it because not because of what it is but because of where it is and at the end of the day having had a conservation area and a protected area in the village something like this going through we will create a precedent and we might as well give up and all go into three and a half story townhouses but if you could stay seated please that would be useful because I think there are some questions for yourself councillor Brandon Thank you very much chair through you good afternoon I just wanted to check in our papers at paragraph 13 it says in light of the precedent set by recent developments already granted permission within the scheduled area of the monument in this instance this was the county council speaking they said they did not object to the development could you just kind of direct us to where you know what were those other recent developments I am presuming they are thinking of a couple of developments down Hale Road which is the actual diagrams in the show where Hale Road was but just around the corner from the entrance to this proposed site the actual highways stop and they become two Swaybussy byways one going straight on down to the River Roo's and the other one goes left towards Fendradon and during the open season for developers commission was granted the two houses to be built at a long Hale Road probably about three to four hundred yards from this actual site but in addition there was a further application for dwelling between the two sites which was actually turned down and refused by the council in here because the local plan was in force and it was outside the village development boundary and the castle is that to the north of this proposed property the carport what is going to be the carport the castle is that to the north castle mound is to the north in actual fact when you look at Historic English Diagram it actually draws the castle mound site and then it is kind of like turns left in closing this actual site and then goes to the field where the actual iron age site was Thank you very much Councillor Heather Williams please Thank you through your self-chair One thing that seems in the parish council response to be a particular issue is in relation to the cladding I just want you to be able to expand on that at all why it is in the design guides that the parish council does not want black cladding Thank you chair It was something that came up in the village design guide one thing we do not want was two and a half story townhouse in Slaversea it is a rural historic village and the other thing the general opinion of the majority of people doing the design guide which did also make a reference and ask parishioners what they thought the general opinion was that we do not want black cladding needs to be more natural colours such as various hues and shades of brown that is wood Anything else? No thank you chair Councillor Hawkins please Thank you chair through you I think I need to kind of pick up on that one There's two things here but I just wanted to clarify with you the first is the statement from the parish council that says existing workshop building has not been used previously but it got your own purposes therefore does not consider it to be a barn eligible for conversion or redevelopment but it was used for something wasn't it and I'm just not clear why it's not eligible from the parish council's viewpoint Well to knowledge of most people in anybody in the village it has only been used for storage Storage of building materials yes because the owner of the actual site has done a fair amount of development in other areas but it has never been a workshop not to anybody's knowledge in the village and I'm talking about myself and people that have been in the village for 40 years or more Okay thank you for that but it's still a building that was used for something Okay I'll leave that the other thing is the cladding I mean I thought reading through the issue was that houses that are not nowhere near farms or not farm buildings shouldn't have a black cladding because the cladding is more associated with farm buildings Have I misunderstood Are we talking about wouldn't black cladding For rent yeah sorry wouldn't black cladding The opinion The bulk of the people's opinion is they would prefer to have the hue of a natural wood either light obviously or wood is light some wood is darker but having black cladding that's one thing that when it came out the majority said they didn't want it and to me there's no there's nothing racist or anything like that in there it was just that the general opinion is that cladding on the buildings should be of a various whatever it is a dark brown a light brown an intermediate brown so it gives the impression that it is in actual fact part wood OK but in this case where you already have one of the the ancillary building potentially with black cladding you don't consider that having the main building as a black as having black cladding would be a good idea if it's already there there's nothing we can do about it is there you know what I'm saying there's nothing we can do about it if it's already there it's there and we're not the sort of people that go and set fire to just because it's a little darker I didn't hear that I didn't say it please don't minute that Members this cast is reminding me as well if the colour of the cladding is an issue for the committee then we can condition a different colour simple as that Members councillor Braden at the moment we're just asking questions of clarity for the speaker at the moment councillor Ryfford I was getting ahead of myself if there's no further questions of clarity we thank you very much for your time councillor for waiting all day and afternoon I appreciate it's a long process but so we thank you for your patience Members we've heard from the public speakers so I think we'll be moving into the debate now we'll leave councillor Braden with your permission I may come back later but certainly the legal issues I wanted clarification on Chairman we are very often told as planning committee members that each application is on its own merits and yet in the paragraph I quoted from the county council historic environment team page 13 page 159 there is reference to in light of the precedent set by recent developments already granted permission within the scheduled area of the monument we might be like we do not object so I just wanted to know to what degree do we look at this as a separate new application on its own merits or is that has a precedent set within the scheduled monument area for developments to be allowed so that's the first one Shall we take that one first actually? Mr Reid Are you able to comment or Chris? Thank you chair I was going to pass it over to my planning colleague Thanks Stephen So I read that advice on the parish councillers as being that they have considered other recent effects on the schedule of an ancient monument in reaching their conclusion that this particular development considered on its own is not causing any harm so I think it's perfectly acceptable for them in regard to their consideration solely around the schedule of an ancient monument to consider what other effects there have been on that monument from other developments in reaching a decision on whether or not this is going to cause any harm in heritage terms to that schedule of an ancient monument Thank you So just to clarify we consider this as an application on its own merit Absolutely Right so the second one is to do with the agricultural use because I just want to clarify whether what is being proposed is being considered legitimate one for one replacement of an existing agricultural building for a dwelling or whether effectively if that wasn't an agricultural building whether this would be effectively considered as a new building in the countryside Chris? To ask the case officer to comment but my reading of the report is that we're not citing it as being an agricultural building more as an employment use that will then go to non-employment use but it might be that Luke can clarify And if you could clarify what is permitted in this particular type, this particular location what would be permitted Luke? Hello, yes, happy to take those questions so the Chris Castle is correct the building itself isn't currently a building an agricultural use as I mentioned in the report as well it's a building for a store an ancillary sort of workshop mostly a storage of builders builders goods and plant things like that in terms of what would be permitted I believe there's a policy in the local plan for conversion of agricultural buildings but it's not an agricultural building so we're assessing it under policy E14 which relates to the loss of employment use and to non-employment uses which residential use is a non-employment use so that's the basis upon which it's being assessed or which it's being assessed within the report I don't know if that clarifies the question or not Considering an existing building that's in its own right permitted, the previous building and we're simply saying is it acceptable that we have a potential loss of employment use in order that this has turned into a dwelling we're not making a decision about whether it's okay to have a building in this location No So the consideration is is whether the redevelopment of the site for non-employment use is acceptable under policy E14 Thank you that's clear Councillor Ridder Please Into debate now We're into the debate Looking at this application on paper and also on the presentation and having heard the comments and the speakers I think it looks like a good application and an improvement to my mind on what is there currently and for me the black cladding actually goes quite well with the other building which is there and going to be retained so for me I'm viewing it quite favourably at the moment Okay, thank you very much Councillor Cullen please I was interested to look at this application and I thought it looked interesting but I was rather worried that the building looked a bit bizarre so I went out to look at the site because we didn't have a not having a site visit so I thought I needed to go and have a look I'm very glad I did it's a very interesting site the history of the area which is exposed on a board very close to the building outlines the history of of Swayvesine it's within the old medieval town area the castle is actually bound on the other side of the road beyond the graveyard and you can still see the castle bound it's marked on the map I was worried about the building being rather small rather like an industrial building itself when you come out and look at the site it actually fits in perfectly and that's where I found the site visit was very helpful because having a low building like that which matches with the other building doesn't take the extension of the adjoining two buildings I think these are the new buildings that the previous development were talking to number 26 must be 24 relatively recent buildings will be within the last 10-15 years brick buildings, two-story houses within the development framework but having a low building it doesn't seem to take the extension of the development framework beyond it it's well-screened it doesn't impact on the area around it and it's rather imaginative so I would commend the applicant on this and I'm generally in favour of it Thank you councillor councillor Fein Thank you chair Thank you chair there are a couple of issues here I think the very limited concerns of the historic England on the Cambridge County Council would seem to be met by condition 14 so I think the in the light of the neither having any objection to this that is not to be an issue there's the question of the cladding and whether there should be a condition on that to comply with the village design guide I'm not sure that I think there should be the village design guide states should have a simple and unified material character in keeping with the rural setting while there is a black barn to be retained which is effectively the rural setting furthermore the conservation officer is quite clear that whilst there's a rule in much the conservation area black cladding would bring an alien and artificial element into the streetscape that is not the case on this site and this application is one to which the rule doesn't apply so then I'm left with the key concern or to my mind the key concern raised by the parish council and this is the interpretation of policy DP7 outside village frameworks only development for agriculture, horticulture, forestry outdoor of the etc will be permitted and the parish council says granting of approval for development outside the stated village boundary sets a precedent for future development that may be irretrievable however as Mr Durham pointed out there is actually slightly more to that sentence and I wonder whether it will be helpful to ask officers to clarify how absolute is policy DP7 I think that's the right number isn't it on developments outside the village framework I think it's policy S7 actually but Chris tell if you can clarify for us Through you councillor, you're correct there is a second part to policy S7 which states outside development frameworks only allocations within neighbourhood plans that have come into force and development of agricultural, horticulture, forestry outdoor recreation are the uses which need to be located in the countryside sorry or, well here's the important bit or, we're supported by other policies in this plan will be permitted so that's the the hook which obviously in the officer report then leads on to consideration of policy E14 as set out the report, thank you chair well chair thank you in the light of that response and what I said earlier I would be trying to support the officer of recommendation on this Thank you councillor Fane councillor Heather Williams please Thank you chair so I think I think what that I sort of took from the parish council representation is obviously there is concern around the materials that are being used and there are other ones as well aren't you but and we also know you know the spacey has seen development that it's not wanted in the style of town housing and things like that so I can understand why there would be apprehension I was wondering I think I probably will move it unless I get told I absolutely can't which I often get told to brace yourselves that better condition means that materials that are going to be used as we do in some other applications are submitted and consulted on with the parish before actually being used and implemented we've used this condition in other places I know in my patch where we've had slight sensitive sites where essentially prior to development pallets all this conversation going on will I be allowed, will I not be allowed but so I would like to suggest that we put that put that in in the hope that then through that process we'll be able to get some materials that are agreeable or at least less controversial chair I think we're going to hear from Chris Carson Thanks chair no problem with a condition requiring submission of details of materials it's unusual to include the parish council as part of that process they could be a consultee to that process but the decision would of course have to rest with the district council ultimately but I think that we could do that and clearly the wording of any condition is for the committee to determine so can I clarify chairman I was saying that the parish council could have input through that consultation I didn't say that they would decide obviously they're not a planning authority ok so just for clarity that if you were to propose a new condition it would be that any or the more controversial building materials would be in consultation with the district council I think all external or planning materials yeah materials because it does suggest about using some brick and things which is more fitting so anything visually externally any materials being used on the building itself would go for authorisation from the planning authority through normal consultation process which is what we normally have where an applicant has to provide a sample of the stone being used or the cladding and that way we're not actually agreeing to black cladding or any of those other things today ok understood Mr Carter chair through you just to be clear we're talking about walls and roof not windows so we're talking about cladding brickwork and roof tiles or slates rather than I think those are the ones that I was more concerned around so I think those are the main ones any materials used ok I will come back to that at the end before we take any decision on anything but I do want to continue with a debate for the moment please councillor Wilson thank you chair I've been looking at the observations of the conservation officer and I'm inclined to agree that that is the place, the aesthetic of the proposed building seems to be to enhance the visual impact rather than detract from it so I'm inclined to support this application thank you very much any further speakers in the debate please councillor Bradner thank you chair I agree with the proposal that materials should be submitted for consideration by the local planning authority and that the parish council should feed into that but I just wanted to query perhaps not for me to query what the village design guide says but would always have been treated with tar to keep it waterproof and in good condition which was black I just find it slightly odd but the parish council is concerned about that because it seems the most natural thing in the world to treat with with but the other observation I made was that in the drawings and I cannot pretend to have read that bit in detail but it looked actually to me as if the cladding might possibly have been metal so I just wanted to clarify that issue that obviously that would be covered by the requirements if we do have the conditions that the materials would be agreed with the local planning authority anyway do we need clarity on that now Luke if you could very quickly tell us the cladding is the cladding is intended to be Tim the cladding can I also just point out that condition 3 I think it begins on page 173 of the agenda does state that no development other than demolition should take place until samples of the external materials to be used in the construction of the development have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and I wondered whether that was sufficient in itself to cover the issues that members have just been discussing or not did we get the recommendation in sorry everyone Aaron can we clarify are we back on now ok well just for clarity to summarise what we've just decided for anyone that may have missed it who's listening online a committee just voted unanimously to approve the recommendation with the addition sorry the amendment to condition 3 in the paper which includes the parish council in any discussion around the cladding materials ok so that application is approved members have had a quick request for a break so I'm going to I'm going to adjourn us now for 10 minutes and we can come back at 3 o'clock thank you very much members we are back live again and the meeting has resumed so we're proceeding with agenda item number 9 which is an application at the land north west of 15 orchard close Cottenham which is within the Cottenham parish it's an outline planning for a single story self-build dwelling with all of the matters reserved the applicant is down as Miss Geraldine Roper on our papers but I believe it's actually Southcans who's the actual applicant hence why it's coming before us today the presenting officer is Phoebe Carter Phoebe are you with us yes thank you Phoebe so if you could give us any updates to the report we have in front of us and then present the item please good afternoon there are no additional updates so I'll move on with the presentation so the land is adjacent 15 orchard close is set within a corner plot at the head of Colisec which has been divided from number 15 the proposed plot originally formed garden land of number 15 the built form of the area is predominantly residential comprising a mix of single story and two-story dwellings set around an open green space the site constraints for within the development framework of Cottenham and there are no other constraints on the site as the chair said the application has been bought before the committee as the applicant is a member is a district council the proposed application seeks information with all matters reserved for the erection of a new self-built dwelling and therefore the details of access appearance landscaping layout and scale of the proposed development matters reserved for later approval so the plot of land is just tucked in here and you can see that the property here was approved in 2019 as another bungalow and was built out in 2020 officers consider that the single story dwelling shown on the indicative plans would likely be appropriate in terms of siting and overall scale would not amount to over development of the site it is acknowledged that there are properties in the immediate setting and the design of the proposal that comes forward should not overwhelm or dominate this context however regards to third party concerns details of the proposal in terms of overlooking loss of privacy access and parking would need to be addressed within any reserve matters application the indicative plans indicate that access and parking could be achieved in this location the parish council supports the application subject to access being acceptable to the highways authority the local highways authority have reviewed the application and details would need to be submitted at the reserve matters stage to ensure the proposal could be achieved without adverse impact on highway safety taking the above into account officers recommendation is one of approval subject to the conditions and the details reserved thank you thank you Phoebe and just for absolute clarity in terms of the reason why it's becoming before is it's because South Cams are the applicants rather than Miss Geraldine Roper applying for herself yes that's correct okay good just wanted to clarify that we have no councillor Bradlam you're looking I'm looking confused because it says applicant Miss Geraldine Roper yes I think that's incorrect I think Miss Geraldine Roper is an officer at this council who works in the self build department and she has applied on behalf of South Cams so I think that's a typo there it should say South Cams it then goes on to repeat and says applicant works the application has been brought to the committee because the applicant works for the local authority again I think can we clarify whether it is an application for an individual yes I think that would be useful to clarify please Phoebe the application is South Cambridge District Council and Geraldine Roper works for the department who's put the application forward okay so when we have the reason for the application being brought to the committee it's because the applicant is the local authority rather than works for that is correct councillor Fein yes thank you you showed us an aerial photograph showing the two trees on the site I just wonder if you have any other photographs that might give us a better impression of those trees and whether those are likely to be impacted by the developments as proposed I'll just bring up the presentation again so these three trees fall within the site here which are and the blue line around them is the route protection zone for the trees and these are intended to be retained however the site does not fall within a conservation area and the trees have no protection order on them and the aerial show so it's this tree in here and this tree and this tree the rest of the works along here are just low lying shrubs and then sort of overgrown grass area which was the garden land of number 15 please councillor a dwelling does fit it'd be quite a small one but it does fit there so I think from a planning perspective then the outline could be granted whether we should be doing this is another matter I'm not convinced we should I'm not sure obviously a council house being built there rather than sending off the self-build planning point of view it is what it is thank you councillor Wilson please thank you I note that one of the objections is people of express concern about noise and disturbance in the construction and looking at the plan the situation of watch of the coast I can see that this is something that other developments that construction vehicles block up the roads and cause a lot of hindrance to neighbours is there any way that the construction vehicles could be made to actually be on the site and not part of the road I've just been pointed towards condition 4 in our pages give a page Chris 188 number 4 so no development shall start until construction environmental management plan has been submitted so can that be do we have to wait for that to come later so that will come as part of the reserve matters ok thank you thank you councillor Brennan on that same point so frankly so what it's ok it's important that we have construction environment management plan but they're not going to be able to put vehicles on site are they because the access is really quite narrow and vehicles I think it seems unlikely to me that vehicles are going to be able to access the site you know I can just see a whole load of vehicles being parked out on watch of the coast and completely blocking it Mr Castle is coming in thanks chair I think it's just important to note what the scale of this proposal is and of course people extend their houses in locations like this all the time and builders have to park somewhere so to a great extent we're reliant on the appropriate parking of vehicles by trades people and that's not something we can entirely control as you know we can ask for details of any measures to be included in the construction management plan but I think it's important to note that this is a potentially a single dwelling the precise details of which we don't have at this stage because that will come with reserve matters and you know it's at a different scale to perhaps a multiple dwelling site that you might have even more vehicles it's just important to note that point I think okay thank you councillor Richard Williams please thank you very much chair two points really I would quite like to see the map again if the officer can show that because I do have some concerns about quite what we're cramming on this plot and whether we've got you know we can have on-site parking when the house is there and whether there's a safe access or not it seems very narrow that access so I do have some concerns about this I reflect a comment that was said earlier as well this is not a planning matter but given where the council and where the applicant are I will say this is a point of policy I don't like the fact that we keep building on or selling off council land for private housing we could be building some council houses there but that's not a material consideration to the planning application in relation to parking there are two spaces which meet the standards shown on the plan it's quite faint I'm sort of outlining where they are here there are two spaces staggered so they're 2.5 x 5 metres the access between the fence and the edge of the site is approximately 4 metres which is considered acceptable as an access in and out of the site probably worth noting the plans indicative as well to you be yes thank you following on from what people have said I was going to suggest we went to a vote because what we're voting on and what we're talking about is that a proposal yes now we go to a vote second we're council of fame so okay members we've got a proposal to go to the vote is everyone content with that I'm not seeing any shakes of the head so we'll go ahead members we have a recommendation on page 187 of our agendas here that the planning permission is granted and then we have a list of conditions beneath that so members can I take by affirmation that people are happy to approve this or do we need a vote don't wish to vote against this if so we'll go to a vote agreed okay that's agreed unanimously good thank you very much that is approved we will move on to agenda item 10 which is on pages 191 of our agenda it's an application at Fenditon and full born Little Wilbrahim Primrose Farm which I assume is in Little Wilbrahim the application is for the installation of one sun pipe to a kitchen extension it's a retrospective application because what's already happened the reason it's here today because the applicant is a member of this local authority council of Daunton who we heard from earlier Councillor Jane rodens is the presenting officer okay so we have Richard Fitzjohn presenting this application to us Richard do we have you good afternoon chair afternoon Richard yeah so if you could give us any updates to the application and then please introduce it for us thank you thank you chair there's no updates so I'll get straight to the presentation you oversee my screen chair yes we can thank you good afternoon members agenda item 10 seeks retrospective listed building consent for the installation of the sun pipe within the roof of the recently constructed extension to the grade 2 listed building known as primrose farm in Little Wilbrahim planning commission and listed building consent has been approved the extension to the listed building though the permissions did not include the sun tube the application site is located on the west side of primrose farm road within the country side within the green belt and within the Little Wilbrahim conservation area the dwelling to which the application relates is a great listed building though the sun pipe has been installed within the recent extension to it this plan shows the location of the dwelling which is the larger building to the southern section of the site this plan here shows the location of the sun pipe which is the small black square with the small circle within it located just here the elevation plan here shows the location of the sun pipe again it's located on the rear roof slope of the single story rear extension and this slide shows a photo of the sun pipe so the sun pipe blends discreetly and sympathetically with the roof slates of the rear extension and it's only visible from the rear of the property the key considerations in the determination of this application are the principle of development green belt impacts character and appearance of the area heritage impacts and residential amenity impacts officers consider that the sun pipe does not result in a disproportionate addition to the original building does not adversely affect the listed building of the conservation area and does not create any residential amenity impacts which would be harmful the council's conservation officer has no objections to the application and the application is therefore recommended for approval thank you thank you Richard members do we need any debate on this yes Councillor Radden the photographs show that it's invisible pretty much even from the rear of the property I'd like to suggest we move to a vote yep that's where I was going with it so if there's no more debate needed members are we content to go to the vote on this nods, yeah I'll do it properly the recommendations on page 197 the recommendation is for approval so members can I take that by affirmation please agreed agreed superb thank you very much, thank you Richard thank you agenda item 11 members the application for 19 Warmans Lane Swavesy and we're just noting Councillor Richard Williams has left the meeting so as I was saying item 11 19 Warmans Lane Swavesy the proposals for an erection of a four bed dwelling with garage and office applicant is Mr Morby the reason it's bought to the committee is again because the land owner is a district councillor at this local authority the presenting officer is Dean Scrivener Dean do we have you thank you chair, yes I'm here thank you very much so yeah if you could please give us any updates if there are any and then present the report please yep there are no updates so I'll just crack on the presentation if you just let me know when you can see my slides yes we can see them yep so this is an application for an erection of four bed dwelling with a garage and an office the existing site is located off Warmans Lane which runs along here with the access by an existing access we've already constructed and this is the vacant plot at the moment this is just an image of the existing plot which contains grasslands and shrubs and trees so it doesn't really contribute to the significance of the conservation area or the character of the area to the main site constraints so the plot is situated here it's within the village development framework of Swavesy as well as the conservation area which you can see with that purple line there and it's also located in flood zone 3 which is high risk of flooding so there's a proposed site plan so this just shows the location of the dwelling here and the new garage and office then situated here past standing to the front and the access which will be used to access the dwelling and as you can see there will be a generous garden space for future occupants to enjoy these are proposed four plans so the ground floor plan on your left and the first floor plan on the right just circled a new window which is addition amended by the planning application process to create some visual interest within this blank elevation the southern elevation but this is the front elevation here and this is the side north elevation here as you can see it's relatively simple in design character and appearance again that's just showing that additional window which was recommended by the conservation officer visual interest that's the side south elevation that's the rear east elevation this is the floor plans of the proposed garage office so as you can see the ground floor plan area will be used for parking which will allow two cars to park inside first floor is the office and that's the roof plan proposed with two roof lights these elevations of the garage office so that would be the rear elevation that's the front elevation that's the side showing the stairs up to the office at the top and that's the other side of the elevation which is blank so design visual impact as you can see is the street scene cross section the overall height and scale of the building is in keeping with other neighbouring dwellings doesn't see any higher so therefore visual impact is considered to be minimal this is just a diagram of the proposed scheme and the materials would be a buff brick with a natural slate roof and the garage would be oak cladding with a natural slate roof as well which is considered to be in keeping with the conservation area and the swavesy SBD visual design guide so in terms of neighbouring amenity this plan just shows the relative distances from each of the elevations from the neighbouring boundaries and the location of the dwelling is considered to be set at a reasonable distance from neighbouring dwellings to not result in overbearing overshadowing impact and this distance here to number 19 to the south is relatively close however that first floor window which in addition to the scheme will be of school glaze and secured by condition to prevent any overlooking impact on this garden area obviously this garden area here is very large and therefore you would see the dwelling from standing in this garden but in terms of the size of the garden it's not because it's result in any impact to result in any reason for refusal the garage here would obviously be seen from this neighbouring plot here however the distance of 3.2 metres is considered to be a reasonable distance away to not result in any overbearing or overshadowing impacts there was a comment from a neighbour property at the back here on Market Street suggesting that the roof lights would result in any overlooking impact on these neighbouring properties however those roof lights are set at 1.8 metres above floor level and therefore officers are satisfied that no overlooking impact would result access arrangements so the proposal would be accessed while an existing access which is constructed to accommodate these two dwellings here under an application approved in 2016 and highways have raised a concern that the application wasn't supplemented by an inter-vehicle visibility display drawing as part of the application to demonstrate sufficient visibility at this access point however this drawing was submitted as part of the application approved in 2016 and as such this access has now been constructed and therefore officers are of the view that the visibility is sufficient and the proposal would not result in a significant denturement upon the effect of operation of the highway that this is the drawing which was approved under the 2016 application and this is the purple dashed line just showing the vehicle into visibility display which was approved under the application and this is the purple dashed line just showing the vehicle which was approved under the application serving these two dwellings so the main considerations in terms of principle the application site is located in the visibility framework and therefore the principle is supported in this location in terms of visual impacts the post-scale development will be in keeping the naming dwellings within the locality and the proposal material is in keeping the historic core of the village locations of the post-dwelling and garage slash office set a reasonable distance from the naming properties to not result in a significant harmful overbearing overlooking or overshadowing impacts the proposal would use the existing access as approved on the previous application between 2016 and would also provide two parking spaces within the cottage of the site in terms of flood risk the site is located in the flood zone through so high risk the original flood risk assessment submitted in the application has been amended to satisfy the environmental agency in terms of mitigation against flooding and the EAFs removed the objections subject to condition therefore officers are the view that the application should be approved subject to conditions unfold thank you thank you very much Dean members again do we need any debate on this one or questions of clarity for the officer Councillor Bradman thank you chair I just want to check it says at paragraph 12 I just wanted to understand is the Ellingham consulting the district councillor that this application relates to or is that something completely different and it's just coincidental that they're the same name Toby can you Dean can you come ahead on that I believe it's something different it's just going to say the same name Councillor Ripper please apologies if this is I'm particularly picky but why are chimney on a new build I'm just concerned for the environmental sort of elements of that okay not sure what you can ask Dean can you answer that I think the neighbouring properties all have chimneys so it was an element of design that was consistently in keeping with the locality of the area as well as the conservation area so I think it was an element that we wanted to maintain and was also included within the pre-application and the conservation officer didn't want to retain that element so we ran with it councillor can please I would like to look at this site as well because I was in Swayze for the other one the access to the site I understand that it's acceptable because of the existing access on there but in terms of construction access the access from to exit Warlman's Lane directly onto the main road you go between narrow buildings it's absolutely lethal especially impossible to come out safely my fear is that if the lorries start coming out it will be really very dangerous can you control within the construction plan the route taken by vehicles approaching that site number one and secondly there was works going on site when I went to have a look at it I don't know whether that would lead to the existing development on site but I don't know how that relates to this Dyn can you answer this? Yep so we have conditioned a traffic management plan that will assess the type of parking, contract vehicle movements in and out of the site so we will try and control that in terms of safety aspect in terms of the works currently on going I think they're probably associated with the neighbouring development which was approved in 2016 as opposed to this application in front of us now Thank you I was just going to reflect on something in comments from councillor Griffith just that recently I looked at getting an air source heat pump and actually one of the things that they double check is that you have a secondary form of heating and so if you have like a log stove obviously using the right wood and what have you so it can sometimes be actually a requirement that you have a second way of heating before they'll put it in or was the case of what I was looking at so that might help clarify but also I think actually it has an aesthetic purpose as well as a functional one cos most people don't think use their chimneys these days or have five places blocked up but it would give symmetry to the other buildings Thank you very much councillor Hawkins please Thank you chair there was the one question I had on this which was to do with the flood risk and flood risk assessment and I note this the objection has been removed but I did wonder again back to the why isn't the drainage design submitted at the same time why we have so many drainage conditions that we have to discharge, it's silly why wasn't it submitted at the same time Dean not sure if you can answer that but any comment from yourself well the application has submitted a flood risk assessment originally and then has obviously been amended which has satisfied the EA who have also recommended that the application is carried in accordance with those mitigation measures I understand what councillor Hawkins is saying but so the mitigation mitigating that impact we are confident that the proposal will not be liable to flood risk Submission of the scheme for the disposal of surface water Hello, I already have something for flood water I think Mr Carter is about to jump in I'm not sure I was any help but I think as I think Michael Sexton was saying in an earlier item it's because it's part of a process so the application is establishing with the flood risk assessment that in principle a scheme can be designed and the environmental agency said yes it can subject to these further details which will come down the line and on the basis that the environmental agency are accepting the detail of the flood risk assessment I think we can conclude that they are satisfied that these further matters can also be addressed Thank you Chris I don't think there's any further speakers Members, I'd like to go to a decision on this please We have a recommendation on page 204 The officers recommend the planning committee approves following subject to the conditions that are listed below so Members, I haven't heard anyone speaking against this so again can we take this by affirmation Agreed Great, thank you very much so that is approved Thank you very much Dean Members, we move on to agenda item 12 the enforcement reports Do we have Is it Will Who's going to update us Will, good afternoon Good afternoon, good to see you So yeah, we have a report enforcement report members, page 211 Will, if you'd like to present it please Yeah Just some verbal updates regarding Smithy Fenn The report has now been completed by the outside service I've illegal a meeting is to be held this Friday to discuss the options of that report and the way of moving forward which we will feed back on very soon and it will also be discussed on how we can share the report with members and how far we can share that an update on Hayden Way on the development there a meeting was held last Thursday between members and the locals and then also a site visit was carried out to meet the developers seems to be quite fruitful so hopefully we can improve the engagement between the public and the developer on that site and then Bartlow Road site this one is complicated by the fact that we are awaited an appeal decision at the moment before we can take any enforcement action we are chasing this with a planning inspector to see how women in this decision is so as soon as we do have more information because obviously that decision could significantly affect any action that we take so we are chasing that and as soon as I have any more information about our updates on the people that were in contact with regarding this site that concludes my verbal updates Thank you very much Will Members any questions for Will on any enforcement cases please Councillor Heather Williams I didn't see Councillor Bradman very honest of you Thank you chair I just wanted to ask Will there have been a number of recent enforcement looking at properties that each ward I just wonder why they are not in your report maybe they didn't get there soon enough So our enforcement notices are a little bit behind on how we report them before you so you'll have six more so the ones that were all served in September will show up on the next planning committee so these were just the ones that were served in August for these enforcement notices Thanks very much Thank you Thank you Just on page 213 I just wanted to clarify it says it's been reallocated to Alistair but I thought it's been reallocated from Alistair to somebody else because I think you've recently got hurt or something So if I could just clarify Yes So if I could just clarify whether it's moved on again and the house is back in action which I'm sure we all hope he is and the other thing is it's just a thing that if we're going to have the tables and they go over two pages please could we have a repeat on the headers because I've kind of been creating my own drafts Thank you Thank you, I think the second one is probably a printing issue for a Democratic Services Officer more than anything The second one I think hopefully from that side Well the first one yes unfortunately Alistair is out of action for some time But the Arrington site obviously there is a planning application but I have allocated the overall case into my name A little bit of a stick answer Members any further questions Councillor Hawking Page 217 It's very rare to find a callicot in your enforcement report What's this about? Anti-social behaviour I know, high hedge Yes, we do not get very many of them but we do have to deal with the high hedges legislation as part of our remit in planning enforcement where members of the public paid £450 to investigate the complaint regarding a high hedge If it meets the criteria then we serve a notice to state at which heart that hedge needs to be lowered to On this one I can confirm that the hedge has all been fully removed within a week of service of the notice so it's all sorted Thank you Thank you very much I don't see any further questions so if you hold on Will we're going to move on to agenda item 13 decisions That's me chair Just one comment from me Appendix 3 on page 225 Councillor Roberts asked the question last time it hasn't been updated I'm afraid but the date of the hearing for Appalachia Park, London Road, Falmy is the 6th of November No other updates from me chair but I'm happy to take any questions Thank you very much Questions, members No, I don't see any Thank you Chris Members, I think we're at the end so we've covered all the agenda items probably worth noting our next meeting is on Wednesday, November 10 which will be a regular planning committee but there's also another meeting on Tuesday the 16th of November where we're solely considering a reserve matter application for Northstone Is that correct Chris? Outline application for Northstone phases 3a and 3b Can I just note that both of those meetings will be at the Guild Hall rather than here in the chamber due to the fire alarm lighting upgrades currently taking place at Southcams Hall We have a new venue members for those planning to attend those two meetings We're at the Guild Hall in Cambridge so rather an away day More details to follow I think is all to say there Members, thank you for your time today Thank you everyone who's still online We'll call the meeting to a close there and see you soon Thank you