 Mae'r gwrs yn fwyfodol, i'r ddiwedd, i'w ddwylliant, i'w ddiwedd, i'w ddwylliant, i'w ddysgu'r gwaith. Fy gydag yma ar y ddweud yng Nghymru. Mae'r ddiwedd erinwyr, i'w ddweud yng nghymru. Mae'r ddweud ar y ddweud yng Nghymru yn y ddweud yng Nghymru. Mae'r ddweud yn yr ymddangos yn y cwm, i'w ddweud, i'w ddweud. eich ddynion ychwaneg o gwyllwch i'r parw mor cyntafol. Felly mae erbyn amdano o wahanol ac arddangos o g levechyn. Mae gweithio achos gweld i'n ddweud eu bod ymu bod y cwmletwch, rydych chi'n ddweud yn cymwytiol. Fyddai'r llei hon yn rhan, iddyru'ch hynny'n meddwl y cefnod ac yw'n rhan i'n ddweud yn cyfwydiol. Rwy'r ydych chi'n gweithio diogelu'r ardal am 18.30 am, Os ydych chi'n gawr i'r gweithio ar y baith yn ystafell, byddwch ynglyn â ddod, wrth gwrs, yr hynny weld hynny wneud wedi gweld pethau ddoeddurach ac ystafell ar y gweithio cael y cwestiynau? Yr cyfyrdd Cwysylltiad Rhywr Eir varieddol, dylai'r hyn sydd bod y Cwysylltu'r lleithiau ar y cyfeirio ond mae'n gwneud bobl yn yr hyfforddiol am gweithio'r cyffredin. A, i ddim yn dda i'r cyffredin, mae'r llwyll vidéos yn yngrifetig ffordd o'r cyfeirio. If any time a member feels leave the meeting, would they please make the fact known so that it can be recorded in the minutes? Before we move on to the rest of the business, I would like to propose a variance in the order of business to take application 23.03311 for Roseville and Gamlegea as the sixth item of business. Effectively swapping it in application 23.03642H4 Whitehall Falmere in the running order. Do I have a second idea for this proposal? Thank you. Can I take it by affirmation? Thank you members. The variance in the order of business is agreed. Now, item two on the agenda. Apologies for absence. Lawrence, are there any apologies for absence today? Thank you very much chair and good morning everyone. Just one apology for absence today from Councillor Jeff Harvey. Thank you. Declaration of interest. Members, we now come to item three, declarations of interest. Do any members have interest to declare in relation to any item of business on the agenda? If interest subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting, please would be raised at that point. Councillor Hanley. Yes chair, I'll declare a non-perfuniary interest for agenda item five, the Campbell on the agenda. I'll withdraw and won't vote. Councillor Hawkins. Thank you. Non-perfuniary interests. The item at Born is in my ward. I have attended meetings that was discussed at the parish council, but I come to be my fresh. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you chair. On agenda item five, there is reference to the Great Cage Park Ship for our sixth Assembly member, but there's been no discussion about the application there. Thank you. Councillor Sanford. Thank you chair. Item seven, I assume it's taken as given that we're all familiar with councillor Dr Ho Bro who's the applicant. Thank you very much. Item four on the agenda is the minutes of the previous meetings. Firstly, we have the minutes of the meeting on the 13th of December 2023, up for approval, which were published as a supplement on the 10th of January 2024. Do any members wish to make any amendments to these minutes? Can I take the approval of these minutes via affirmation? Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. I was not at the meeting. Thank you members. The minutes of the meeting are held on the 13th of December 2023. I agreed as a correct record. We also had the minutes of the meeting held on the 18th of December 2023, up for approval, which were published as a supplement on the 15th of January 2024. It was also a restricted minute that was published on the same date. The contents of the restricted minute are not for discussion in an open session, but members, I will ask if we are happy to take the restricted minute as a correct record now, and if any amendments are required, we will move to defer the approval of these minutes. Is everybody happy? Okay. Can we take the restricted minute as a correct record? With that, do any members wish to make any amendments to the public part of the minutes? Thank you. Can we take the approval of these minutes by affirmation? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you members. The minutes of the meeting held on the 18th of December are agreed as a correct record. Now, we have come to item five on the agenda. The application number 23 stroke 001234 lands south of the Pond, Cambron, Business Park and Cambron. The erection of 256 dwellings. Sorry. As a cabinet member, I cannot sit on this, so I'll be excusing myself. Thank you. Eirection of 256 dwellings and change of views through the existing marketing suite through a cafe, landscaping, car parking, substation, bin and bike store and associated works. The application is being brought to committee because south Cambridgeshire District Council has a direct interest in the application as part applicant. There were a number of key issues and the site was visited on the 4th of October 2023. The recommendation is to approve subject to conditions and the Section 106 agreement. Lauren Coe is the presenting officer. Lauren, can you take us through? Thank you. Thank you chair. I'll just share my screen. Laser pointer. The application site is land to the north of Lower Cambron. We slide to the south of the Cambron Business Park Road. The application reference number is 23 slash 00123 slash FUL. The scheme proposes the erection of 256 dwellings and the change of views of the existing marketing suite to a cafe, landscaping, car parking, substations, bin and bike stores. This is a regulation 3 planning application which is submitted by South Cambridgeshire Investment Partnership, which is a joint venture between South Cambridgeshire District Council and Hill. This was set up in 2020 with the main objective being to deliver high quality homes in sustainable locations. Just before moving into the presentation, I have a couple of verbal updates to make members aware of. Firstly, following the publication of the report, a typo has been noticed in the wording of condition 23. This condition should require the details of the energy strategy to be fully implemented and thereafter attained in accordance with the approved details. As you can see on this slide, the reference to a prior to the occupation of any dwelling has been striked through and removed from this condition. Secondly, a further representation has been received from representatives of ZYT who are the occupiers of building 1030 on the business park to the east of the application site. This representation has not raised any new issues that have not already been addressed in the published committee report and the representation requests the engagement and collaboration between the applicants and ZYT continues through the discharge of condition process in respect of noise, vibration and electromagnetic interference. The last of the documents will be submitted in respect of the relevant conditions that are recommended. Moving into the detail of the presentation now, for context, the red line location plan shown in this slide shows the application site. The site is located to the north of Lower Camborn and the site is bound by the Camborn Business Park, which includes the district hall where we sat today immediately to the north of the application site, as you can see. For wider context, this slide shows the aerial view of the existing three linked villages within Camborn and the most recent development of Camborn West, which remains under construction. As existing, the application site is an undeveloped area of open space, with the exception of the temporary car park located in the north-eastern corner of the site. For context, this slide shows some existing site photos. Images one and two show you looking westwards along the business park road towards South Cambornshire Hall, and the development will be situated behind the existing street line trees shown in image one. You have a continuous built frontage that's running along the business park road. Image three shows the existing foot and cycle path that runs along the southern boundary of the application site, and existing and new footpaths from the proposed available connect into these surrounding links. Image five shows a public square adjacent to the office building, and image six just shows the views across the application site itself. So moving on to the proposal, the application proposes 256 residential units, 102 of which will be affordable homes, and the change of views of the existing marketing suite. So the site is allocated under policy double S8 for the development of a sustainable new settlement, which will be linked to Camborn. An additional parcel of land immediately to the north of the allocation was put forward for development as part of the outline application, and was granted for 2,350 dwellings with employment, education and community facilities. So the application site being discussed today falls within the same allocation within the local plan 2018, but is outside of the red line boundary of the approved outline consent for Camborn West. So you can see here the application site forwarded in the allocation, and this is the red line for the Camborn West development. So the applicants have been through an extensive pre-application process with the local planning authority. The scheme has been presented to Cambridgeshire Quality Panel twice at pre-application stage, and through good engagement with officers, proposed character areas have been established to bring identity and positive placemaking to the scheme. And the next few slides will go on to talk through these character areas that have been established. So as you can see on this slide, we've got the business park road frontage. A more urban character is proposed in this area, a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terrace properties, and the townhouses are designed to incorporate two-storey elements between the three-storey forms, with the design intention being to express the roof form and create a continuous rhythm along the business park road frontage. Three-storey elements of these houses have pitch roofs, and with flat roofs proposed to the lower two-storey elements, which will also include roof terrace spaces for the use by future occupants. And this slide just shows street scene elevations for further context along the business park road. And then we have the backs character area. This area is located to the rear of the dwellings at front onto the business park. These units are proposed to be served by a rear access arrangement and seek to serve a functional purpose by enabling servicing to both the dwellings front and the business park to the north and to the south as well as you can see on this area highlighted in red. The backs road will run east and west along the site, and servicing arrangements will be enabled from the rear of the properties. And this slide just shows again the elevations in the north and the south when viewed from the backs area. Moving on to the apartment blocks in the development, there are three apartment blocks across the scheme. As shown on this plan, we've got A adjacent to the square, B adjacent to the commercial building, and C in the southwest corner of the site. So the two blocks A and B are proposed to be four-storey in height, and block C is proposed to be three-storey in height. The four-storey apartment blocks have been located at landmark points adjacent to the commercial development camborm business park, which helps provide a transition between the larger scale commercial development to the north and east and the proposed residential development. Apartment block A, shown on this slide, is proposed to include 15 units and is located immediately adjacent to the public square and South Camershire District Hall. It's been positioned to provide enclosure to the public square and form a vista stop along to the business park road. This just shows apartment block B, again another 15 units within this apartment block, and this is the block that will be adjacent to building 1030, you can see in the background. So the relationship in design is considered acceptable and well-related. And then we've got apartment block C, which is a three-storey block and provides a more rural edge development in this location in the site. So the park, we've got a large multi-use green space which is proposed right within the centre of the development of the future residents. The finer details of the hardened loft soft landsca being proposed to play equipment, the street furniture, all of these details will be secured by condition. As you can see, a number of homes will front onto this space so there will be good natural surveillance of this area. This shows the street scene elevations of the properties that will front onto the park. And then we have the muse street, it's located to the east and west of the central park, shown on this slide again highlighted in red. There will be two-and-two-and-a-half-storey detached and semi-detached units. The materials detail and reflect the appearance of the dwellings to the north and south of the park and they've been designed to create this determinations and carefully considered the street corners. We've got features such as corner windows, contrasting brick detailing, which have been introduced and considered appropriate. The finer details and materials again will be secured by condition. The dwellings within the muse street have on-plot car parking between the units and our access via a shared surface space. And then we have the courtyard along the southern edge of the development adjacent to Lower Campbell, which is a lower density area centered around open courtyard spaces and proposed to be two-story in height. These units, as I've said, have been designed to achieve a rural character with larger gardens and appropriate materials are proposed. During the course of the application, additional soft landscaping has been introduced and tree planting has been introduced in the courtyard spaces to help break up the hard landscape space. The final details will be secured by condition 10 of the planting. So the housing mix, this slide shows the tenure plan. A policy compliant provision of affordable homes at 40% is proposed. And this is shown on the plan here. So we've got 71% rented, 29% intermediate within the 40% affordable housing. The unit sizes offer a good balance mix of unit types and are considered policy compliant. So as you can see on this tenure plan, the units in yellow are the private market homes and the blue and the green are the affordable homes. So we've got 72 affordable rent, 30 intermediate which we shared ownership properties in the 40% policy compliant scheme. So moving on to the key material planning considerations. These are listed on this slide and have been addressed within the published committee report. Principle of Development has set out within paragraphs 9.2 to 9.53 of the committee report. The principle of development for the usage proposed are considered acceptable. As I've just mentioned, the housing provision and appropriate mix of market and affordable has achieved policy compliant 40% affordable scheme. Character and landscape, strong character areas and landscaping have been developed through engagement with officers at the pre-application stage. The scheme is supported by the councillor's specialist urban design and landscape teams. Respective by diversity, the net gain of 20% is targeted. This will be achieved through an off-site provision and the details of this will be secured through planning condition and the Section Mono 6 legal agreement which will also require the details of management and monitoring for a 30-year period. In terms of trees, the proposal involves the removal of four category B trees, two category C trees and small groups of trees along the edge which will enable the provision of the connection points to the walking and cycling infrastructure. The proposal has introduced 318 additional trees as part of the development. Flood risk and drainage, the details have been agreed with the LLFA and will be secured by relevant planning conditions. Highways and transport, in consultation with the county highways engineers and the transport assessment team, the scheme has been considered acceptable. Car and cycle parking, the application proposes 808 cycle parking spaces which exceeds the cycle parking standards as required by the local plan. For the dwelling, cycle parking spaces are proposed to be located in stores, within rear gardens and within the garages. All of the dwellings along the business park road frontage are proposed to have on-plot visitors to the cycle parking in the form of sheffield stands. The proposed blocks of flats will also have one cycle parking space per bedroom which are proposed to be located within communal stores at ground floor level. There will also be general public visitors to cycle parking spaces across the site. The final details of this will be secured by condition 9. In terms of residential amenity, the nearest neighbouring properties existing are located within lower Canbourne, and the development is not considered to impact the amenity of these properties with the closest property being 55 metres within Acley Drive. Given this extensive distance, the impact is not considered to be harmful on the existing properties. All dwellings are proposed to have external amenity spaces that meet or exceed the council's district design guide in terms of size. The scheme is considered acceptable in this regard. Sustainability, the scheme is proposed to be a gas-free development and deliver the council's first net-zero carbon council rented properties. These units have been designed to passive house principles through a fabric first construction and will include the use of air source heat pumps, mechanical ventilation and PV panels. The proposed development will reduce carbon emissions by 72% site-wide, which is compared to the part L 2013 in which baseline, which significantly exceeds the minimum 10% as required under local plan policy. 100% of the houses are proposed to have active EV charging spaces and a minimum of 50% active chargers are proposed for the apartment blocks. Water resources, the local planning authority issued a screening opinion on 18 February 2022. Since this opinion was issued, circumstances have changed and new evidence has emerged relating to groundwater abstraction and the potential increased risk of deterioration of water courses caused by the level of abstraction. The screening response that was issued has been reviewed by officers, specifically the potential impact on water resources, and officers maintain the view that given the scale of the development, the fact that proposed site was allocated and the development would therefore not constitute EIA development. The applicants have committed to 99 litres per person per day in terms of water consumption, which is a betterment on the adopted local plan policy requirement of 110 litres. An overview of the specifications of sanitary wear and appliances proposed to be used within the development have been submitted and the details to ensure 99 litres per person per day is achieved is secured by planning condition 23. In terms of open space, officers are satisfied that having regard to the wider site context, the proposed element provides sufficient quantities of on-site open space to achieve the objectives of the local plan. The layout of the development incorporates a range of open spaces, including a local and equipped area of play, a lap, a local area of play, and other incidental open spaces. I set out within the report the provision of on-site, high quality open space and off-site contributions towards community facilities and sports provision. Overall, the proposals are considered acceptable. Moving on to the impact on neighbouring buildings and businesses. Paragraph 193 of the MPPF 2023 states that decisions should ensure new developments can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities. Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of the development after they were established. Following the defer of the application at the October Planning Committee, the applicants, ZICE, and local planning authority officers have engaged in collaborative meetings and have been informed by technical input. These meetings have resulted in the relocation of the substation along the eastern boundary to a position further away from the commercial building building 1030, which is occupied by ZICE. The revised location of the substation is now proposed to be more than 30 metres from the eastern boundary and the detailed locations of the cable runs propose to serve the apartment block B, the houses along the eastern boundary and the EV charging are going to be secured by planning condition. Also, the outcome of these technical meetings has resulted in the preparation of three strategy documents focused on implementing the development in a manner that delivers and agrees effective mitigation measures relating to noise, vibration and electromagnetic interference. ZICE design standard limits have been agreed and the mechanisms for monitoring these limits to ensure ZICE can continue to operate without unreasonable restrictions have been achieved. So, subject to the imposition of these conditions, the development is considered to meet the requirements of paragraph 193 of the MPPF. And the applicants have committed to continued engagement with both the LPA and ZICE in the preparation of these final strategy documents which will be submitted to satisfy the relevant conditions. Lastly, developer contributions. So, there are a raft of developer contributions being secured as set out in Table 1 of the committee report at paragraph 9.145. These include contributions towards education, transport, community and sports facilities and amount to a total financial contribution of £3.3 million and these will be secured by way of a section 106 agreement. So, to conclude the planning balance for this case, for the reason set out and as detail within this presentation, officers consider the benefits of the scheme to significantly outweigh the harm and the planning balance in this case is considered to fall in favour of the approval of the application subject to the recommended planning obligations and conditions. That's all from me. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Do we have any questions of clarification, please? Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. I have a few of them. First of all, on page 11, 6.6 in relation to transport, it says the network appears to be operating in a satisfactory manner and I'm just conscious that in local government sometimes are words like satisfactory or good or they have a technical sort of grading of what you can meet. Is that just a subjective view of somebody or is that a technical term? Chair, would you like me to take them one by one or list them? How many of them? Good question. I have three others. Can you do two and then do two? Yeah. So then on page 12, 6.12 it refers to the no longer required contribution towards primary school places. At last committee we had a similar secondary school, there was no contribution needed but what we saw was a consequence then of later on down the line pupils would be forced to travel further. So in relation to this is it a case of there is at least a significant period able to accommodate or are we in a similar position here where it's okay in the immediate term but overall people will have to travel as a consequence of not having this contribution and then I have two more chairs. Can we have the other two? Thanks Councillor Williams. In terms of transport, the transport assessment team have considered the arrangement to be satisfactory. They have viewed the modelling that has been submitted to the transport assessment and the highways can seem to be capable of accommodating the development. Obviously the Campbell West development has been included within the modelling that has been reviewed. With the measures proposed the transport assessment team have advised the details acceptable their technical response. I just want to check because sometimes there are a scale where the satisfactory good is sometimes we find that satisfactory is actually the top one. Sometimes it's the middle so I'm just trying to get an idea of the scale. Shall I just come in? Obviously we can't speak on behalf of the transport engineers of the County Council but I think one needs to read this in the round in that their conclusions are that they raise their objection to the application clearly they probably have in their minds the further works to improve the network that are part of the Campbell West Planning Commission obviously some of those works haven't yet been completed so I think you need to draw your own conclusions based upon the fact that there's no objections we can't obviously comment on whether or not the word satisfactory implies any kind of form of specific judgement as Aaron said the technical appraisal supports the conclusions that they've reached. You asked a question about contributions as well we're not the local education authority and clearly the County Council operate a model for forecasting school places and child yield and so on from developments they've obviously drawn that conclusion and I think in the absence of anything else available to you as playing committee would be unsound to preempt an alternative form of modelling or outcome in their comments OK Can we have the last two? Yes I'll go for the next two so on page 13 6.29 I can see that the waste services have requested information is there conditioning to deal and secure with the information that follows I was sort of looking at their lists but couldn't quite see how the response was to the wording but on everything else we've kind of got this is what was said this is what's responded we didn't seem to have that there so I'm just wondering whether that's been satisfied and then on page 17 in relation to paragraph 6.67 designing out crime officer it does say it's good to know it works chair it does on the last two bullet points say there are still remaining concerns and do officers feel that this is something that could be addressed with the hit and miss fencing proposed and foot path locations between the plots I take it they are still remaining concerned but what sort of severity is that what weight would be attributed to that So yeah in response to your waste waste question so during the course of the application the applicants have submitted an updated refugee strategy which shows the vehicle tracking the reasons for the capacities proposed the reverse distances of the bin lorries and that's considered acceptable and to be in line with the guidance document of the shared waste service have and on the designing out crime officer so the last two points the designing out crime officer position hasn't changed but for design reasons for connectivity reasons the benefits of having these connections in these locations and the hit and miss fencing sort of on that rural edge development that's quite a common feature on developments that have hit and miss fencing officers support the design choices by the applicants Okay, councillor Richard Williams Thank you very much chair I've got two two points one is just to ask for some clarification on the design I think as has been referenced a few times we had a new NPPF in December so after this was first scheduled for committee NPPF excuse me NPPF now talks about the creation of high quality beautiful and sustainable buildings planning policies and decisions should ensure that the developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping that's paragraph 135b 2023 NPPF I think gets a short mention just at the end of the design section but can I clarify that this the design of this development has been assessed against the new NPPF because I'll be honest I struggle to find it beautiful I find a lot of bland beige brick buildings but it would be useful to have clarification if it's been assessed against that my second point was about condition 23 which was mentioned earlier and this condition that all units shall and I'm quoting achieve potable water use of no more than 99 litres per person per day can I just ask for some clarity about what that actually means particularly the word shall now I'm assuming in a beautiful type of clarity that there are not going to be meters on these houses that shut off the water supply if more than 99 litres is exceeded you can't stop people having long showers if they want to so when we say shall achieve what does that mean and how is that actually enforceable if the people who live in the houses have a nice long shower every day and they use more than 99 litres what does it mean if I just respond to that I mean I think certainly obviously one of the considerations of the planning committee is the extent to which the proposal meets the NPPF in terms of the appearance and quality of the design certainly I think it's officer's conclusion that it is a high quality design scheme and it does contribute positively in the context of the NPPF revisions and the applicant in this case one of the applicants has obviously a track record of delivering award winning high quality development that gives confidence to the implementation of detailed design in that regard which is why we've reached the conclusion that we have in terms of condition 23 you are absolutely right there is no facility for authorities to impose a kind of shut off valve or some form of limitation in terms of access to water it's a fundamental right for me to expect for any individual but the way that the calculation is made is to go into some considerable detail about the fittings within the properties particularly sanitary wear but also all water consumption fittings the use of things like water butts and so on to reduce the need for watering from the mains in gardens in order to come up with a calculation that equates to a normal occupation pattern per dwelling the wider work that's going on at the moment across the Great Cambridge area looking at this point places significance on the design parameters and what the condition 23 aims to do is to make sure that the specification of all of those internal fittings for the dwellings corresponds with the assumptions that are in the submission that's been made so that although we can't control the number of people living in a particular property or indeed as you say it will take long or short showers the fittings and the limitations in terms of flow rates within those fittings should correspond with the figure that's stated and of course Secretary of State's recent written ministerial statement means that such measures are justified as well as is the condition in circumstances of high water stress that we sustain in Great Cambridge. Thank you. Sorry. Councillor Eileen Wilson. Thank you. On page 37 paragraph 991 it refers to increasing biodiversity and it mentions an off-site provision. Could I have some explanation of that please? Thanks Councillor Wilson. Off-site provision will be within the district the applicants are working to commit to which site that will be and making sure it's close to the application site to achieve net gain. That's as submitted the net gain information and surveys have changed through the course of the application after doing a re-survey. The wildflower that's been planted on the business part road has increased the baseline to make it more difficult to achieve that net gain percentage. The applicants have read on that work submitted the survey information and are working to get that 20% net gain. So the actual policy requirement at the moment is for the 10% but they are going for the 20% above and beyond. Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Sanford. Yes, thank you chair. Returning to water resources plan committee will no doubt be aware that the environment agencies hold on major developments in Greater Cambridge concerned about the water supply. Could I ask for clarification as to whether this site is affected by their actions and if so, is it a material consideration for this application? Thank you. Thank you and sorry if people couldn't hear me earlier on. The development in this case is not EIA development. The discussions that we've had with the environment agency are around the environmental impact assessment developments and the objections that they've raised. Indeed there's a public inquiry going on today around water supply considerations relates to their position on EIA development. What the report aims to do is to highlight that but the scale of this development and in comparison with those large substantial water using schemes that I've referred to is less. They mean that it's not a material planning consideration to bear in mind but the weight because the environment agency's objection is based upon the risk of deterioration of water bodies as a consequence of abstraction. When one traces through the scale of this development and considers it in the context of the planned growth the significance on the risk of deterioration is not because everybody existing properties this building has an impact on that risk of deterioration but what we're arguing in the report in the planning balance is that it's not determinative in this case. Clearly in other cases where there are much more substantial issues of water usage are born airfield is a case in point of three and a half thousand dwellings, water beecher four and a half thousand so forth they have raised wider concerns that there is a sufficient significant enough concern around that impact to justify their objection. They haven't sought to effectively impose an embargo on all development of this momentum in time and that's a matter that the water scarcity group is continuing to explore and in which this council is participating. Councillor Fane. Thank you chair. The case officer referred to the two pre-apps with the quality panel and in particular to the landmarks and showed us a this is a photo of block A which I think is a particular landmark site and 8.3 in the report I note that the design and appearance of the apartment blocks was frequently discussed at pre-application workshops I don't know whether the panels came to a view any specific suggestions and whether those suggestions have been incorporated by the applicants in this case. So the design and appearance of the apartment blocks would have been considered by the panel I'm just going to see if there's reference to that in the submission documents The design and quality panel have obviously given feedback the urban design team reviewed this feedback and discussed it with the applicants and overall the design and location blocks have been considered acceptable in line with policy HQ 1 and sort of respond well to the surrounding context both the commercial buildings and the existing residential development within Lower Canborn and Canborn West and have been considered acceptable designs as I mentioned the materials sort of detail will be secured by condition for these blocks. Chair, if I could just clarify certainly obviously given the nature we've had a closer involvement because on behalf of the planning authority to ensure that there's sufficient rigor to it but I'm aware of a number of design studies particularly on a block that related to the square opposite of this building which have determined a number of changes I think following submission of the application to improve the articulation and detailing of that building on the back of the urban design officers initial concerns that were expressed we've reached a conclusion on that and you will do the same in terms of your own views that the proposals are acceptable having with God to Council Williams' comments on beauty as well as design quality in your local plan. I'll ask a question myself regarding water which seems to be one of the big concerns at the moment is the are we restricted to imposing simply a limit and the number of a design limit for the number of litres or can we recommend individual actions being incorporated to achieve that. What's the position as a local planning authority in trying to reduce what actions can we take in trying to reduce the actual usage on site for instance reuse of grey water within the building I know that you can't supply grey water to a network but individual buildings for instance will be using their grey water I think we need to be careful as a planning committee about straying into designing buildings our job is to assess the merits of the schemes that have been submitted and it's on that basis that particularly through our sustainability officers participation in quite detailed exploration of the issue of water efficiency in buildings and the submission of details from applicants that quite clearly in this case and in other cases is increasingly going beyond the council's adopted development plan standards I would urge caution about specifying particular measures because it would then firstly there are time issues so if the building regulations are as the Secretary of State indicates changing then is a risk that specifying particular measures will be at odds with national regulations when it comes to build them and as I said particularly in the context of where we are right now there is a significant amount of work going on to explore every single option to improve the resilience of our environment through water management and the design of buildings that it would seem inappropriate to come up with specific individual design responses to developments that may risk undermining or contradicting some of that work that should render itself through the water resource management plan and the strategies of Cambridge Water and the second issue linked to this there is a strategic plan in place to try and improve the water supply in the area to reduce the pressure on pumping it's been suggested that they're going to pub from the Grand Union Canal via graphon water to the local area I presume at the moment this area is supplied by Cambridge Water by pump water well over the financial use from graphon how does the development how is it anticipated that the development of this site will relate to that the poor the new supply comes on or will some of it is it anticipated that some may be developed once the new supply is already available the timing that's a long question in some respects to answer briefly but effectively obviously the planning commission if granted then has a period when it can be implemented the water resource management plan process on going at the moment and as yet not finalised seeks to have a roll out of a series of measures the new water supply infrastructure that Cambridge Water are suggesting is part of the solution the time frame for that is approximately 2032 for enhancements from the graphon and transferring water from graphon into the Cambridge Water area I think it's largely the vast majority is pumping there's some small supply options from from ground water that doesn't have the same consequences on the eastern side of the district and then a much more substantial reservoir being proposed to be brought forward I can't comment on how quickly these homes will be built even once a start on site has been made but it's probable that the given the limited number of homes a large strategic sites that the majority of these should be completed on the back of water efficiency measures that Cambridge Water are promoting to mean that the existing supply can be stretched further and without the need to increase abstraction which is Cambridge Water's proposition rather than based upon new supply but the subsequent supply route for homes from the surface water to the reservoir water which properties across Great Cambridge may well use reservoir water as opposed to ground water is something that's not yet been determined thank you any further questions I see none thank you very much now we go into the the objective chaircoats from Campbell and British College are you here you have three minutes and we will tell you when it's up and we will ask you then to wrap up quickly so can I hear what you have to say thank you very much I have a slideshow which I understand is being loaded but if I can introduce myself as Claire Coats I am the former principal of Campbell and Village College and today I'm speaking on behalf of the Village College and also the Hardwick and Campbell community primary school all of our stakeholders I'm speaking in objection to the lack of an all motor link through the business park to the schools site a solution is needed to the schools traffic issues which will be worsened under the proposed plans the schools access route is already heavily congested at peak times the car park gridlocks as soon as there's a blockage in the access road motorists seek to avoid the congestion by using swansley lane the main pupil access route there is no cycle path for our 600 plus cyclists a fatal accident to a child is waiting to happen next slide please the current plans will also create even more congestion and negative environmental impact our current route from the dual carriageway is estimated to generate more than 430,000 grams per mile of CO2 on current traffic use the planned route through the development sends traffic along narrow winding residential roads with on-road parking this is estimated to generate more than 436,000 grams per mile of CO2 and to avoid complete gridlock at peak times the schools will be forced to implement a one-way route through the site so cars exiting by west camborn will generate even higher emissions of CO2 next slide please much of this school generated traffic is unavoidable most staff live out of town parents drive their small children to school on their way to work note the nursery school on the primary school site multiple coaches access the site on key dates multiple deliveries are made throughout the day and we are community schools we are open 7 days per week until 10pm forcing traffic to drive through the housing estate will not reduce driving but it will dangerously increase traffic congestion including on Swansea Lane the problem will worsen as the schools continue to expand from the current 2000 plus daily users to more than 3000 by 2028 including the new sixth form next slide please there is an obvious solution to allow all traffic to use the proposed business park road, bus and cycle link this is the shortest route it is wide and direct from central camborn it will prevent congestion through the housing estate it removes the need for the schools one way system and thus the incentive to park on Swansea Lane it will generate less than 323,000 grams per mile of CO2 that is 25% less than the current rate and 66% less than the peak time emissions predicted on the one way route through west camborn next slide please so to conclude of 96 comments submitted to the public consultation 87 directly objected to the lack of an all vehicle route by the business park road on to Sheepfold Lane this is seen as the safest and most environmentally friendly solution to the schools access problems the cost of providing this road should not be prioritised over the safety of our children the quality of our air and the negative environmental impact of the current plans thank you thank you have we any questions for the effect for the scope thank you very much can I move on to the parish council is the next person sorry sorry we have the agent Paul Belton to speak first then we will have the parish council thank you for the opportunity to address the planning committee on behalf of the Cairnborn Town Council sorry I've gone wrong I've had a mistake in the procedure we have a procedure of order and the next person to speak should be the agent and then the parish council I'm sorry about that you have three minutes to speak we'll reach that point and ask you to close rapidly thank you very much indeed many thanks Jim we are pleased to be able to present this full application to you this morning that's been prepared following extensive and collaborative discussions with a variety of officers the site forms an important part of the allocated Camborn West area specifically reallocated for employment to residential use to create active communities and deliver new sustainable links that will integrate the new fourth village of Camborn West with the rest of Camborn the development is delivering a broad range of housing types and sizes including a policy-compliant provision of affordable homes as you've already heard sustainability is at the heart of this development and the new homes will be gas-free highly energy efficient and sustainable the affordable housing is to be delivered to net zero carbon standards at first for the district and we are far exceeding the policy requirements at Business Park Road the existing square about outside of the council officers will form a new landscape social meeting area in place of the highway dominated space that exists presently further to the east the existing marketing suite is to be converted to a cafe to create a sense of place and add to the social cohesion of the area following this deferral following the deferral of this item from committee in October the applicant has continued its collaborative discussions with Zeiss whose premises are located to the east as you know, Zeiss has a series of sensitive operations that occur within its building and in recognition of that defined strategies relating to noise vibration and electromagnetic interference have been agreed to ensure these measures that are also being secured by conditions are effective continued communication with Zeiss will be key and that is something Skip remains committed to in terms of Big Business Park Road very careful consideration has been given to all of the contrasting comments that have been received on this issue while some have commented that it would be preferable to open up Business Park Road to war vehicles providing a more direct and convenient connection such a change would significantly increase the amount of traffic along Business Park Road rather than it forming a quiet and pleasant route for residents workers and indeed pupils to walk and cycle along we estimate that creating an all access link would result in at least a five fold increase in the number of vehicles along Business Park Road with the number of movements perhaps ranging from increasing rather from two thousand two way movement today to over nine thousand with the increase in traffic new bus services that are planned to travel along Business Park Road as part of the wider C2C scheme will be likely to get caught in traffic with journey times delayed Business Park Road cannot be modified to create a bus link alongside the road and such congestion would adversely impact on the attractiveness of sustainable connections for these reasons creating an all vehicle link would undermine the efforts to create efficient and attractive sustainable connections that encourage people to travel by means other than private car and this is a key requirement of the allocation we fully acknowledge and understand the concerns that the school has in terms of its travel to and from the school but these are matters best out with through the implementation of its travel plan and the proposals of opening up the access road along Business Park Road will not a comfort break to ten minutes while we sort the we're back so yeah but I think it might be a useful point to have get the questions we'll have the questions and then we'll have a comfort break on that okay thank you just a short question just on that point about access to the school would you accept though that even with a pedestrian cycle route between the new development and the school there's nothing to stop parents driving into the new housing area driving along the Business Park Road parking up and then walking with their children to the school yeah that could occur and this is something we debated quite a lot of length with officers the decision was that we shouldn't design in a provision for a drop off to the school and the roads have been designed to discourage that some may choose to enter Business Park Road and travel on foot but that is not something that is being positively planned for and we think that's the right solution right sorry councillor Heather Williams thank you so through yourself chair I'm looking at page 31 paragraphs 9.61 I don't know if you've got the copy of the agenda there but this section covers about clustering and about the affordable housing and it says there won't be a maximum you're not going to breach the maximum of 25 units but I was wondering and I'm sure we could display the site plan where the affordable housing and how many of the clusters there will be because it's a big difference if it's the 25 lots of 25 or perhaps as a 4 or a 2 just so we can get an idea of the clustering and where in the site it will be dispersed thank you councillor that may be a question that the case officer wants to deal with I think earlier on in your presentation you did have the 10 year plan that's it there yes I think that shows the distribution of the different 10 years you've got the different forms of the affordable homes my eyesight is not the best from this range but the affordable is great through you chair if I may it's 15 units the maximum cluster have we any other questions thank you actually in the light of what's been said and I think it would be useful to know from the officers if it had been decided that you wanted a through route would it have been possible to impose such a condition and require that in the 106 if you decided to do so because I wonder whether in fact it's not necessary for the development but it's rather for benefit for others so I just wonder what the legal position is and I'd like some advice on that chair I think the one note of caution I would put to that is you've heard the applicants representative indicating a substantial increase in vehicle flows down the business park access road Campbell and West has a mitigation strategy including a section 106 that requires works to the other access arrangement and there is no modelling that would allow that is a sense would justify you avoiding that those works in favour of this so the effect of imposing a condition one would have to have regards to the consequences for both this development which are likely to be marginal but in fact the consequences for the road networks performance from altering access arrangements to a 2350 home development and I don't think you have that information in front of you or indeed you have that information from the highway authority to conclude that the arrangements that the Campbell and Roundabout are acceptable to effectively shift the emphasis in terms of that so the modelling I don't think has been done, you do not have the highway authority engineer here either unfortunately to offer a view about that so I think that would be unwise from a planning perspective I mean to institute a change of that magnitude for a condition thank you we'll have a 10 minute break now thank you thank you very much thank you very much I'll get this right now the town council John Victory we look forward to hearing from you it's three minutes and I will ask you can you confirm that you've got the authority of the town council and in three minutes we will ask you to round up at three minutes if you're still going thank you very much yes I can confirm I've been given authority by Campbell Town Council to speak on them we had a meeting last night where it was confirmed the proposed development sits in the heart of the town just a few hundred metres from the town centre and adjacent to key employment opportunities the sites location is critical to the integration of West Canborn with the rest of the town as it is the only location where a direct road link can be provided between the two and does not involve a concertuous route out of Canborn to then drive back in again the importance of this connection is recognised in the committee report for West Canborn application which frequently refers to the importance of an all-vehicle route it is also recognised in paragraph 9.37 of the supporting text to policy S8 which specifically states a requirement of the proposed Canborn West development is that it includes all-mode bus pedestrian cycle access to the village via a remodelling of the business park access the committee report for the application at 9.37 is misleading on this point as it states the supporting text only suggests the access should be all-modes the local plan does not suggest all-modes access it requires all-mode access for the more it requires a master plan that seeks to integrate West Canborn with the rest of Canborn the business park and Canborn Village College West development completely fails in this respect not only does it fail to provide a vehicular link but the layout turns it back on West Canborn what was envisaged as a tree-lined boulevard leading from a new public square in West Canborn through the business park into Canborn Town Centre has reduced to a narrow bus connection that terminates at the centre at the rear parking court of an apartment building this layout hardly serves to promote a feeling of connection between the two parts of the town the land required to deliver the required road connection is in the district council's control but the road has not been included in the proposal as it would require an expensive upgrade to the business park road to adopt a standard this raises a further issue as it is apparent that the road on the development will remain private the future residents will be burdened with expensive maintenance costs this is clearly not a public interest the town council also objects to the loss of employment land on the site that will not be re-provided elsewhere policy S8 allocates land at West Canborn including the current allocation site for 1,200 dwellings and provision of 8.1 hectares of employment land despite this the district council approved the application of West Canborn for almost double the number of homes required by the allocation just 77% of which required employment land this decision was made with a clear expectation that a mixed use development would come from this business park to meet the shortfall your office's report to the paragraph 9.21 recognises that the current proposal represents a clear conflict with policy S8 with respect to the employment land but then states that as Canborn continues to grow the employment offer and opportunities for employment will evolve such that the loss of employment land is not considered at ease here I think the key requirement is the aspect of employment and the all vehicle access is not provided and we would be concerned about signing any 106s without this being included Thank you very much Are there any questions for Mr McCree? Councillor Heather Williams Can I just through your self-check clarify the last thing that was just said about 106 I didn't quite catch what was said there I was concerned section 106 about the business park being signed without the inclusion of the access road because I know all parties should ensure the requirements of the policies that were in place in the local plan should be met with making an approval of an application Thank you, are there any other questions? Councillor Eileen Wilson Mr McCree has raised the question of the residence paying ongoing maintenance costs Could we have an explanation about how all of this will be managed if the maintenance is signed? That's really a question for the officers Yes, so we've got a condition that requires details of the maintenance arrangement for the streets within the development which was recommended by the highway authority so for the open spaces within the 106 we'll have a cascade mechanism where the open space can be offered to the town council but then we'll need a full back position that if that agreement isn't reached then it would be a private management company and a cost on the residence Can I ask a bit of elaboration on that? We have no policy basis on which to object to the provision by management companies Can we insist upon that? I just wondered what our position is in planning terms That's correct chair there is no policy basis as much as we encourage to try and avoid management companies where we can there is no policy basis for insisting on this Thank you Are there any other questions? I fear this may also be a question for the case officer but I'll put it to the town council first I think in relation to paragraph 937 in front of us you said that where in the text it suggests that the business access road is to provide all-mode access the local plan requires all-mode access I hadn't noticed that previously and I wonder whether I could ask you and possibly the case officer to just confirm that because it's a key factor for us the extent to which this is in compliance with the local plan The local plan document does actually say it's a requirement although the report says a suggestion and the original report it actually said it was an idea rather it's gradually got stronger each time the report for the committee has been written Chair, just a comment I don't think there's any dispute between the town council and officers the scheme clearly does not satisfy that provision of that part of the policy in the summary that Aaron provided in the slide I thought we've made that clear if that's not clear it is an area in which the scheme does not apply to correspond with the policy requirements of the local plan in those circumstances you're required to have regard to whether there are any material considerations that justify reaching an alternative position from the presumption in favour of the development plan document Thank you Any other questions? Thank you very much Mr McRae Now Can we have the local members present? Is Mr Drew present online? Councillor Drew Hello, yes I am Can you go to Councillor Leaming in the first instance as she's in the room? Can you repeat that? I can't Sorry, I was going to suggest that if you can go to Councillor Leaming first as she is in the room and then I will follow on from her Okay fine, Councillor Leaming Thank you chair Thank you I'm speaking here as a local member in objection to the scheme as proposed My objections are not about the principle of the development or the design which has many good features especially the carbon zero policy My objections stem from the impact that this development will have on the connectivity of West Camborne and the school site to the rest of the existing town It's important to me that Camborne functions as a community and the connectivity of development is a little bit like pieces of a jigsaw that have to fit together This is one piece of a jigsaw it's one parcel of land but it has to work with the whole to make Camborne the whole vision for Camborne work properly Although Camborne is obviously an area which has been allocated as an area to help meet the need for housing in our area we are trying to build a community here not just houses on land parcels I think the fact that the non-vehicle access along the business park is critical to how West Camborne will connect to the rest of the town We are talking about Firstly, my first concern is to do with the idea of traffic and the reduction of traffic by the proposed measures as it stands I'm not sure this is the case I suspect that there will be traffic diverted that would have gone down the business park road it will be displaced down Sheepford Lane or as councillor Rich Williams mentioned there will be an alternative kind of rat room down the business park road with people driving to drop their children off down this road that we are on here which will be an unadopted road I listened with interest to the comments of the developer this has not been designed as a place with drop-offs so there will not even be part of the design that will help to coordinate the behaviour of people trying to access the score sites in West Camborne and because it's an unadopted road that comes with the problems of all unadopted roads and the normal traffic rules are not enforceable so I can imagine a situation where the residents of this new development will have to live with a sort of drop-off rat run down this road without the ability to put any traffic measures in place to manage that carefully as Claire quotes the head teacher of the former head teacher of the secondary school pointed out this is a huge education site in what is effectively West Camborne it's not only the secondary school there's a primary school with capacity for 700 children there's a secondary school with capacity for 1,650 children there's a sixth one which will open hopefully in the autumn which is 350 children can you round up please I can try okay so the residents of the existing of Camborne would wish to visit the school site as part of the village college model it's not just going to be a school it's a place where many community activities will be taking place the existing residents of the future residents of skip will have to make a choice about whether they wish to purchase a flat or a house with a liability of maintaining a road this road is not just going to be an unadopted road which is common for unadopted roads for residential development but not a road of this scale this is a road that will have a massive bus route and this transport to the secondary school and they will have public liability to maintain this road so if they're going to buy a property there they have a choice about whether they choose a different one in Camborne if they wish to live here or whether they would like to buy a property with a residential road liability and thanks Stephen can you can you present yes the three minute or less if possible indeed so no problem at all okay thank you very much I really wanted to round up really what other Camborne colleagues have said so as councillor Leanne referred to we've heard from John Vickery as the clerk at the town council referred from Clare Coats as the former head teacher Camborne welcomes this development Camborne has for many many years welcomed new houses the west Camborne development wasn't originally intended to be part of Camborne we now have around two and a half thousand houses added the people of Camborne welcome this they welcome the facilities that come with it they welcome the extra residents within the new local plan we have 1,950 additional houses which at the moment are unallocated in terms of location this is not something that residents of Camborne are opposed to they are more than willing to see their town grow I have been surprised by the reaction in many ways of residents in Camborne to this proposed development because it is the first time that I've experienced residents in Camborne expressing great concern about the building of new houses in their area and when you consider there is a relatively small number of houses considering the west Camborne development we have to reflect upon why this is the case and I would like the planning committee and the District Council to consider the fact that Camborne is rightly used as part of the local plan for the development of houses and we as the local members and residents support this however as Councillor Leaming has outlined in her bit there about the concerns related to residents within the skip development as John Vickrey the town clerk has talked about in terms of matching up with the local plan and the road access as Claire Coats has talked about in terms of the approaching 3,000 students on the site the people of Camborne I think are entitled to expect their District Council to ensure that their community and place building is done in the most appropriate and sensible way possible as John Vickrey referred to the route through the business part from west Camborne is the only opportunity to provide that right through to the town centre and residents are rightly concerned about the fact that the skip development and the failure to build the road linking through is something that's going to cause great problems I've heard about the fact and read about the fact there are intentions to mitigate the traffic coming out of Sheetfold Lane onto Camborne Road but the traffic is still going to exist so we would like the planning committee to consider whether or not this intended development of the skip development and the plans related to the road really suit the people of Camborne and really suit the planning applications being made and I would just finish by saying that the people of Camborne welcome development we welcome new houses being built we support the district council's actions in that regard but in terms of the skip development we would fundamentally ask the council and the planning committee to reflect and think again about whether or not this is being done in the right way in the right place at the right time thank you thank you are there any questions for the local members thank you now now we come to the debate and I look forward to hear who would like to which kind of members would like to continue to debate please Councillor Wilson I have enormous sympathy with the question of people being able to move between the different parts of Camborne and we've had a similar issue in my village where we have pockets of development where there's no easy access between them and I think for the sake of community cohesion and for the sake of not having isolated pockets of residents who don't feel like they belong that there should be a better way for all these various pockets of development to interact with each other have we had that? sorry Councillor Witte Williams please okay thank you chair I'll just go through my concerns really I am concerned about this link road issue particularly with the conflict with policy SS8 it is a huge missed opportunity to link up these communities it's all very well to build Camborne West and say they're all part of one town but the route between them extremely difficult to navigate so I think for community building it's a shame we don't have that link I am worried about the school issue I think the idea that traffic on business park road will not increase is wishful thinking because as soon as there is a link there people will stop coming along and either parking a car in front of houses on streets or actually there's a rather large unused car park over there most of the time attached to the district council building so there's ample car parking for people to come and park their cars and walk their children the last 100 yards or so 200 yards to school so I think traffic will increase down this road and you'll get the problem but you won't get the possibility of a solution because you've not turned it into a proper through road I am as I think you've gathered from my previous comments very concerned about the design this is not a beautiful development in my view it completely jars with the predominant architectural style of great Camborn and the existing Camborn settlements which are very very different so it doesn't fit there it looks actually to me like it would fit better in north Stowe and it looks nothing like the architectural style in Camborn as well as I said before at least to my mind as being just another blank beige brick wall of buildings I think we really need to get serious if we're going to have significant development in great Cambridgeshire I think we really do need to get serious about what the building because I think the idea that seems to come through to us as well design beautiful places is significantly at variance with the views of virtually well in fact everybody I speak to in this community so I think we do need to get serious about that the water point I'll just say that briefly and the condition I think it was condition 23 take on board what Mr Kelly said in response and that's exactly what I thought I do slightly worry about the wording of that condition where it says shall which is it's not actually what we mean we're not really saying that the water use in these houses shall be a maximum of 99 what we're actually saying is we're put in place measures to try and minimise and try and meet a standard but the way the condition is worded it looks actually like you're imposing a limit and that's not what we're doing so I do slightly worry about the wording of that condition thank you Heffey Cansor Sandford Thank you chair looking at this application in isolation it looks excellent state of the art in terms of sustainability unlike Councillor Williams I don't find them not to be attractive I'm very concerned that the lack of a motor vehicle link is being used we're using this application as a stick to get a motor vehicle link I hear there's a problem but it's not going to be worsened by this development and I've actually walked from SDC carpark to the village college for the Christmas fair and it takes 10 minutes I don't think parents and students will do that regularly it's not the best road and it's quite time consuming so I don't think that's an issue I really ought to take this vehicle link issue away considered separately there are a lot of questions to be asked why for example would we provide 300 cycle parking facilities on the new development and then give everyone a motor vehicle link through to the business park so yeah I think that needs to be examined in the round not as a part of this application and yeah with regard to water I hear Mr Kelly's comments but the idea of an arbitrary restriction on the amount of water usage it's not going to work is it unless there's a metering way of increasing the cost substantially if the particular residents goes above their limit on balance I'll go with the officer's recommendations but yeah I have concerns around the two areas for the material refusal thank you Mr Kelly would now like to make some comments I think to clarify some points which have been raised I just sorry I'll ask more questions after this I just really wanted to respond to the point around policy and the linkage because a number of people have highlighted the fact that there's a concern about the implications for community cohesion about the interplay between the various places to explain how we've approached the assessment of this particular issue the as the town council made clear as we've sought to try and make explicit in the report the development does not provide an all vehicles access point but it does provide an access route for public transport it does provide an access route for cycling and walking and in association with the design and layout of the scheme it's certainly not because with the connections that have been indicated it's not our assessment that the scheme is not well integrated as part of Greater Campbell and I appreciate that for those people that wish to drive around greater Campbell and there's a distinction there between people who choose to drive very short distances to from one place to another and I appreciate the reasons that people do that it is more this proposal does not engage with their desire to drive straight to the school but the link road through West Campbell which is the primary route for public transport will take buses past the other entrance to the school through the open space area and of course that's not available at this moment in time so we acknowledge that we're experiencing short term impacts on the on sheet fold lane and the kind of congestion that I've witnessed that I'm sure everyone here has witnessed the school access to the school was raised as a reason why the proposal is unacceptable and the departure from the policy is unacceptable the school's travel plan has a series of objectives to it because what we have sought to do as officers is to consider the question whether or not the access issues to the school and the breach of policy amount to real harm such that the decision of this committee should be to refuse the application there is we've heard already no technical reason why the access arrangements are not acceptable and so we've given particular thought to the issues about the access to the schools and the schools travel plan objectives which are set out online unfortunately I couldn't access the county council but looking at the schools travel plan objectives they're quite clear in terms of their ambitions to actively encourage pupils and staff to walk scoot or cycle and to they have a whole series of measures that they're undertaking including bike ability, pedestrian training, cycle parking facilities, scooters and so forth and their transport their travel plan assessment indicates or suggests that 86% of pupils travelling to the school are using non-car modes Primarily and admirably includes significant numbers of pupils walking and cycling to school and using scooters and the school itself through its travel plan has an objective of reducing car trips to the school from currently indicated 130 trips or 11% to 9% Now in considering the harm that the policy failure results in officers have had regard to whether or not that harm would lead to the school failing to achieve its travel plan objectives and indeed at a broader level whether that harm would result in an unsustainable form of development or work counter to this council's the local plan the highway authority and the government's drive to take people out of vehicles to adopt more sustainable means of travel in the interests of the planet Now as officers we've drawn a conclusion that the opening of that link and you've heard the applicants transport modelling would in fact increase the ease of access to the school you heard the speaker say that that was absolutely the intention of the proposed move to improve the ease of access to the school by private cars that is not the school's travel plan objective it is not your local plan objective to prioritise car traffic over walking and cycling or indeed public transport and if we are to continue to promote car traffic over and above those priorities then clearly the local plan will need to work really hard to try and manage the amounts of traffic that's going to drive on to our roads So as officers we've taken a view does the failure to provide that link compromise the school's ability to achieve its travel plan objectives result in technical failures in terms of junction capacity for private vehicle use or in other ways undermine the achievement of local plan policy framework or any other planning objective and we've drawn a conclusion that it doesn't that does not mean as Councillor Williams has pointed out there are some challenges in how we manage that and how we implement that drive towards encouraging children and young people and adults to be more active in the movement around short distances we had in this room almost a year ago with representatives from across the town council around how we can improve the connectivity by those means and the safety of children, young people and all people of all ages as they move around Cambor by foot or on bicycle or by public transport and that is still an ambition that we've got but that objective in officers view in drawing this recommendation will not be achieved by improving the free flow and ease of movement around Cambor and by private cars to the detriment of other modes of transport and it's on that basis that we've concluded there is no harm to the departure from policy SS aid in this specific regard there are ongoing and important issues about how we manage and support communities and the drivers of those cars to shift out of them and support those wide objectives I thought I'd clarify that Can I raise a point of order, please, chair? No, yes, okay Thank you chair I completely and obviously respect Mr Kelly's views and I know that the planning department is staffed by experts who are doing their very best but this is a debate for members longer than any contribution that any member would be allowed but we basically seem to have been told that all our views are wrong and I am just conscious that this is supposed to be a debate for members not lengthy contributions basically telling us we've got it all wrong I am concerned that we should know the implications of any decisions are from the planning background and legal point of view particularly the legal point of view so we don't get into any contortions we have to take that into account we are able to take a decision on the basis of the information before us we may decide not to ignore the planning officers comments on that but I think it is important in this case so I was very keen that the context should be placed now we have comments now from Samford have you comment yet so Councillor Ffain thank you chair could I ask that the planning balance be put up on the screen again please thank you clearly the committee members of the committee have some real concerns about this which have been raised by the local members by the representatives of the village college and of course by the town council and I will come to the principal one in a minute but I just wanted to address some of the issues on the planning balance before us so we have before us an application which we are sure does meet the terms of the local plan and the particular concerns about SS 8 have been addressed a number of times this proposal meets a number of our objectives in relation to particularly affordable housing 40% is very important we don't always achieve that it's important also the sustainability issues that this will provide for the first time net zero passive house standards for social housing it will meet the 20% biodiversity net gain some of us may have concerns about the extent to which that may be met offsite but it is impractical to meet it on site in any case those provisions have yet to come fully into force there are significant contributions towards the local community and as councillor Drew said this is not a local community that has objected to the planned increase in its scale I think the question of the water environment and water supply has been a concern to all of us in this case because it's non EIA we don't have the comments of the environment agency who have objected to all the concerns but we have heard some detail about the requirements to reduce demand at least and I don't think we have grounds to refuse it on that basis so we come back to the lack of an all motor vehicle link through Cambor and Business Park I rather accept the point made by councillor Richard Williams this may be a missed opportunity I accept the point made by a number that whether we like it or not this Business Park will be used to get to school and there will be a certain amount of parking whether in our own car park at the back or in other places which may not be so convenient but I think we have to accept that the primary problem is that whilst we could have this development could have helped to relieve the problems on sheepfold lane and swamley lane where it is the safety of cyclists that is the primary concern for the lack of cycle path that is not within our gift to do in this particular application so while we may feel that the developers could have done more to keep Cambor West connected to meet the very real concerns that Mrs Coats raised on behalf of the village college that is not something which we can do as part of this application or one that we can use as grounds for refusing so I think that since this is broadly speaking in fact it is in line with our local plan except in relation to that one word that was debated earlier on we know that where this is sustainable development it's our duty paragraph 11 MPPF to approve it without delay and I think we should also perhaps take account of the non statutory guidance of the Secretary of State in his recent speech concerning councils who I'm just actually going to read out his words so I think it's important there are too many instances where planning committees overturn their planners recommendation for approval of new development even when the proposal is he said entirely in line with the local plan and its policies it is our job where a new development is in line with the local plan to approve it without delay and I think that whilst I share many of the concerns I feel we would be right to accept the officer's recommendation and approve this application Councillor Heather Williams Thank you chair Sorry about that Okay so there's been lots of debate on different things and I'm going to start off by saying what most of us know but doesn't help to remind that planning like everything can see scales there it's trade offs so when we talk about sustainable environment just because something the house that's being built is to good environmental standards and helps to carbon zero doesn't necessarily mean it's good for the environment as a whole because there are other impacts so I just would like to remind members however they're going to decide on this to bear that in mind there is no civil bullet there's no that's 100% great for the environment there are trade offs at play so when it comes to policy I think there's an admission that policy SS8 and its item G says vehicle access to be provided through enhanced that cannot be met I think that's been made quite clear to us so that's one area going back to what you said from the Secretary of State about planning committees, overturning recommendations that are entirely in line with the local plan well there's one instance where it's just not so I don't think that that applies to us here whatever decision is made there are reasons as you can see there are reasons to support and there are reasons for refusal in my view it's up to us then to subjectively weigh those up and I think a lot of these things are subjective to the decision maker so while planning officers may see in one side that's not wrong but it's just that we may in our judgement on those subjective grounds form a different view that's the reason we're here isn't it not just to rubber stamp what goes through so that is in relation to policy SS8 Council Richard Williams has mentioned about the new PPF but I've also looked at policy HQ1 which is our own local plan design principles and there's a few areas where I fear that this proposal is in conflict one of which is to preserve or enhance the character of the local urban and rural area and respond to its context in the wider landscape now at the moment and the way things are going and I do agree actually that the style and materials of the houses I don't feel fit in with the design code as it would be for west or for the current camp on it it does actually feel very akin to north stone and some will say that's because it's modern and everything else but we have seen actually applications that it can be achieved to get that beauty whilst also meeting environmental requirements and it is a subjective thing preserve or enhance that's something that's going to be through the eyes of a decision maker it's not something like access which is technical and for me I don't think it is compliant on that and I don't believe on B that it conserves or enhances the important natural and it says historical assets of their setting and I'm going to focus on the natural element and if I can ask members to turn to page 18 paragraph 6.74 which is from the wildlife trust response that they're disappointed that there is no landscape buffer along the wildlife trust land and obviously I'm sure as we said about the environment and nature it's something that's very important to all of us and I feel that the design could have been done in a different way perhaps it meant less houses but that that would have been a possibility to create that buffer to make sure that it doesn't have such an impact on the natural environment and it does say that this will increase pressure on the county park and that's why it's asking for a contribution and those sorts of things and the natural environment I know we talk about net gain but I really wish we were talking about preservation because just offsetting the risk nature lost and we need to try and keep it where we can so I think that's not an unreasonable thing for the wildlife trust to request and I don't think the lacking of that buffer means that we are conserving the natural element of that. On G from policy HQ 1 G says about providing safe and convenient access for all users and abilities and on page 17 paragraph 6.67 from the designing out crime officer we do know that there still remains concerns it says about the hit and miss fencing proposed but also the concern with the locations of the foot pass between plots and for me I think we often don't see those sorts of responses that's quite a strong sense of feeling about safety where you live and if we want that modal shift was referred to earlier and getting people out of their cars they have to feel safe on the journeys that they are taking so for me it also doesn't comply with G about providing safe and convenient access we can see from the report on page 20 paragraph 9.4 it is very clear the number of dwellings within the original allocation has already been exceeded by Campbell West there is no policy requirement for housing on this site to meet the local plan and the local plan housing need from this site we know already that there are more houses in Campbell West than was planned that's in our report so then when I look at the change I think it's really valid on environmental grounds about the argument about the principle of employment use because we know that if we want sustainable communities it can't just be houses it's got to be employment uses with that itself and so I think that's a really valid argument that's been run by many local residents and I think we should give some weight to that one thing we've not touched on at all is the marketing suite becoming a cafe and I just think for completeness I think it's a shame that that's part of the same application because that I could see potential and it would actually help a lot of people from here morrisons isn't that far away but for people with accessibility they are driving getting in the car to drive to morrisons to get some lunch I'm sure there's plenty of planning committee members that have done that in the very short time that we have so for me the cafe just to give the balance there's definitely merits to the marketing suite changing there as I say it's balanced it is positive about the housing and the style of development but for myself the harm outweighs the benefit so I'm afraid I'm a bit more on the right of the planning balance I'm not saying that anybody else is wrong the office is wrong in their opinion that's my assessment of the situation and I hope chair I've clearly referenced which policies I don't feel that this complies on and I will be supporting refusal of this application thank you now as it comes to my my turn to make some comments in terms of the link which is the I think strongly expressed your concern through the business part to cambourne west the development of cambourne west was associated itself with the with development and a traffic management proposal plan the link is basically the benefit cambourne west I feel very concerned that we might impose a condition on this we have to deal with the application as it's presented to us we might impose a condition on a development for which it is not as I would say a necessary requirement of that development to make that development acceptable it's the time to have done that if we wanted a link if we wanted to impose it on the private sector to provide that link would it be when we did cambourne west was approved and that's not been the case we have to deal with the application we have I cannot see that even if we wanted it and I can see the arguments in favour of not doing it even if we wanted it I don't think it would be an acceptable condition we might get ourselves I feel in real problems if we did that I personally think it's probably also detrimental to the the development if you had a link because you would increase traffic on the area going through the area and therefore would be I don't think that I feel it is a desirable also for this development so I can't see that okay fine okay the second item that I would comment is on the attraction or the ability or the beauty of the development I personally there is a difference in style preferences cultural differences across Europe if you go to Belgium every house in the individual inspiration of his master and everything is different and I like that I think that's appropriate for the traditional in British terms or certainly of the state development we tend to go for a rather uniform we've done this since Georgian times when people have done uniform sort of matching designs this policy I would prefer a more different style but it's been to a design design panel sorry present it's been to a design panel it seems to be conforming to a current what you might call current fashion in terms of design and it's well landscaped I can see that as generally therefore acceptable I can't see reason from my point of view to refuse it on that basis even it's not necessarily to my subjectively most favourite design I think it's acceptable it has to be considered acceptably good design in terms of the crime comments in terms of links within the development the reason why crime the crime often don't like having links is because it gives ease of people competing with fests or burglary or attacks to escape rapidly if there's link football links within a development but we also have the design of trying to improve accessibility linkage and I often get complaints that there aren't links between new developments that tend to be located not pedestrian links we have a direct opposition between the two motivations here I would prefer the greater accessibility and I'm afraid so therefore I would tend to not worry about that I don't lack of employment land well the existing there's already an existing site on the employment park here which is not developed has not been developed so it's not a matter of great pressure I can't see that we could easily impose that upon on the development therefore generally I feel that I'm in favour of accepting that the development as presented to us is acceptable that we if there are things which people feel unacceptable they're not things that we could normally impose we don't you know planning works within the frame of accessing the development that is acceptable within the concept of a planning precedent and planning certain regular guidelines and therefore I would and there are some very good points about the development in terms of the the net zero so I'm generally I'm sorry I'm the 20% by diversity net gain so I'm generally in favour of this I shall be voting to approve this the other speakers yes Councillor Richard William Thank you chair for indulging me and I'll just be brief because it's my second go I would just say to you I'd encourage you to have the courage of your convictions if we don't start objecting to the design we're just contracting out what's good design to a design panel which is probably made up of people with a very similar view and a view that I think is universally not shared by everybody outside and nobody thinks new developments in Cambridge are well designed they're awful most of them and I think it's time we started to try and fix that and we've now got the tools in the MPVF so I would encourage you to have the courage of your convictions and say no but just to clarify having listened to the debate on the basis of my previous concerns I will not be voting to support this application I think it's a great shame that this particular application has come forward without the support of the local community without the support of local members and I share their concerns so I will be voting to object Have we got any further comments? I think it's time to go to a vote okay Sorry I have proposed that we move to a vote and accept the recognition of us as you may wish to seek a seconder I will second that Will we agree? Do we agree by affirmation that we go to a vote? Yeah Sorry Chair that's not what the motion was the motion was that we go to a vote if the recommendation of the officers approval obviously some of us I think we all agree to go to a vote but not the motion that was actually put forward by Councillor Fane I think I need to clarify what we are voting for If we are voting in favour we are supporting the officers to approve the application if we are voting against we are voting to refuse the application Sorry Chair Yes That's right that we take the vote now I think the optimum words we are discussing here is to vote for the officers recommendation I think the proposal should likely be to vote on the officers recommendation I think is that acceptable to you Councillor Fane One more No that's all Thank you we have a result Can we have the result please? We have the time Thank you chair So by a vote of 5 to 2 the officers recommendation is approved Okay Thank you very much So we are now the time now Sorry Councillor Wilson Do you want to break now? Are you happy? Can we then move on to the presentation on the item 6th application 23 stroke 033114 Roseville a little hip and gamle game demolition of agriculture buildings an erection of five dwellings with associated access and landscaping The application needs to be brought to committee as it has been called in by the local member Councillor Bridget Smith and the third party of representations the site was visited on the 10th of January The key issues are the impact on the character and appearance of the countryside the impact on biodiversity the recommendation is to approve subject conditions Mary Collins is the presenting officer We are waiting for the officer's change Chair, might I suggest a brief five minute adjournment as we have got quite a high turnover in officers and letting members set her back in Okay, well we will return at quarter past and we will return at quarter past and we will return at quarter past and we will return at quarter past and we will return at quarter past Susan Connicker, have the presentation please Just to remind you we are on item number six, gamle game we reorganised the sequence so that the family application is now being dealt with after this one Is there a problem with the thing? Apologies for that I was trying to get a laser point to appear but I have been able to manage it so I don't know if anyone can see my pointer Okay, the application that we have got before us at the moment is six planning permission for demolition of three agricultural buildings and direction of five new dwellings with associated access and landscaping The site is at Roseville Little Heath in Gamle Game The Lispers United the location plan with the red line of the application site and a blue line of any other land in the ownership of the applicant This is just a google image just showing the context of the site so if you can see my pointer one of the barns is here and there's two other barns here and here This is the lane into Little Heath and across here we've got the Potton Road which is the leading of the Gamle Game south west Potton So the application site is outside the development framework of Gamle Game which is in the Hamlet of Little Heath So this is a Little Heath extends to the south east sorry south west of the village It consists of a long unadopted track and it's to the south of Dennis Green which is another small cluster of settlement off of Heath Road and the access of West Rain Little Heath itself is the site of former brickworks and clay pits and is characterised by residential and agricultural uses The main lane led to the former bell of brickworks So this picture just shows you one of the barns to be demolished This is known as Barn A in the report This shows a view from Little Heath showing the existing dwelling at Rose Villa and the two other agricultural buildings subject to this to be removed and replaced So here is the post site plan This is the existing dwelling here at Rose Villa This is Plot A So it will replace the barn that's on that site and we've got two other new builds to replace the existing other two barns here So we would have a new access track from Little Heath The two dwellings or the four dwelling in the two buildings here would have sunken gardens so they would be to the south of each of these properties and in the centre here would be a parking area and a sort of courtyard for parking to the front there So in terms of background the application site does benefit from a past Q change of use so that's where agricultural buildings can be changed to a residential use So this prior approval has been obtained and as I say this is a four back position So the applicant is now seeking floor consent to replace these agricultural buildings rather than converting them and to increase the internal floor areas by excavating underneath some of the buildings to create a lower ground floor So they would pretty much maintain the existing footprint of all the existing three barns So this just gives you an idea of the revised replacement dwelling for Ploté It kind of keeps the same sort of profile as the existing barn So not a linear single ridge but one with more of an articulated roof This would be a four bedroom property and this just gives you an idea of the layout of it and first floor sorry This is an indicative design showing what it may look like So barns being c This is just another illustration of what they may look like So from this angle which is north elevation they still attain a single story appearance From the courtyard view you can see that in natural fact the building is over two stories and is sunk into the surrounding landscape So here we've got the north and south elevations So as I say the north elevation would have the appearance of a single story or a similar appearance to what's already there With the south elevation being over two stories but again only the top path would be largely visible in views Again just the end elevations of those two buildings This gives an idea of the size that we're talking about So with the barns there is a slight increase to the existing height the barns that could be converted Proposed barns being c approximately 4.8 metres in height measured at the northern elevation and the northern elevation would be a similar height as existing Barns D and E are also 4.8 metres in height and they would be 5.4 metres so that would be an increase in approximately 60 centimetres Barn A which I've just mentioned before also has an increase from approximately 4.2 metres to the highest part of its roof to 4.5 metres So again quite an increase but quite a minimal one of about 30 centimetres So as I mentioned before both plots B and C and D and E have a basement floor with mostly the bedroom accommodation at this level and there's just another plan showing the elevation stuff so this would be the northern elevation so again we've got this quite small low profile southern elevation over two stories but it would be sort of submerged into the landscape that's the small measurements there so this is another indicative plan showing how this unit which is two properties there would be sunken so there would be some sort of boundary treatment round here which would really help to have the impression that it is really over one story ground floor plans as I say are just bedrooms this is another illustrative view which shows them that there are three replacement buildings so barn A so that's five bedrooms this is barn B and C barn D and E as you can see this view is from the little heath the lane three little heath so you've got the narrow end of the buildings facing that view this is another indicative one just showing how they are set into the landscape which is their visual impact so in terms of views the actual barns sorry I'll just go back to the earlier slides the barns are set behind the existing dwelling at sorry at Rose Villa and it's not considered that they're going to really impact on any views dramatically or link the hamlet of little heath with any other development and I think that's it at the moment okay do we have any points of clarification from members please yeah counciller counciller thank you Sharon and thank you Mary for your report the site is accessed from little heath which apparently is an unadopted road in frankly Gredford state I was trying to find in the report if there's any intention to allocate section 106 money to at least provide a safe footpath or cycle path to the site it seems strange that the applicant is offering to provide cycle parking facilities these properties but there's no safe way to cycle to the site can you tell me if I overlook something please right okay well as part of the planning application contributions are required through the neighbourhood plan this is to provide bridleway and cycle links but I'm not sure if it would actually relate to little heath itself but that would be up to the parish to allocate that money to improving that if there's to be a cycle link through there thank you yes chair briefly a question I didn't quite hear in relation to plots B and C which I think are the more sensitive ones for landscape looking at the northern elevation I was just trying to clarify the difference between the ridge height as proposed and the ridge height as currently which is of course also the same ridge height for the class Q consent is it the same or is there an increase in ridge height well having carried out measurements the with farms B and C it's a similar height at about 4.8 as existing and as proposed from that elevation sorry councillor Wilson thank you I would just like to ask the officer if the applicant went through a pre-application process because there seem to be a lot of facets of this application that are being left to conditions rather than being included in the application and I wonder why the things that waste storage materials use the charge scheme pile in mitigation energy statement hard and soft landscaping scheme of ecology drainage and contamination which have all been left to conditions rather than being included in this application and I wonder whether this was whether it had gone through a pre-application process the application did go through a pre-application process but we can advise the applicant what is needed for the application but very often there's a lot of information that we don't have but we can obtain by condition and that would be the way that we would achieve that on lots of applications where we don't have all of the information I've got a common question myself about the biodiversity this site is the name gives a clue with little heath it's on one of the few areas of acid soils in Cambridgeshire so it is of some interest and in fact I looked at the old landscape map linked to the neighbourhood plan and this area is shown as the boundaries which date back to the pre-enclosure field pattern in the area called the rounds so it seems to have some historical interest I'd be interested in what is actually proposed in terms of the biodiversity net gain and the biodiversity management of the remainder of the land accompanying the development what exactly is proposed and how is it proposed to be managed so we have received as part of the application process we had a baseline plan produced and also a plan of habitats that will be created so the applicant has given us these plans some of it is within the blue line but there are some new trees to be planted in the red line so in consultation with our ecologists we have made sure that a habitat lost is being replaced by habitat of a similar distinctiveness so we are happy that we should provide a biodiversity net gain within the red line at the application site but there are plans for wider outside the application site because it is although it is obviously not necessarily a matter that one could apply conditions of I think there may be an opportunity here for which the applicant should be aware of that is simply just that comment okay sorry, that would be any other comments Chancellor Hawkins Thank you chair Thank you Mary for your report and for arranging the site visit that we had to see this site which was very useful I just wanted to clarify paragraph 3.389 there is already an external planning permission to convert the bounds but on this statement they are not looking to replace them completely and increasing the floor area of the dwellings now any idea by how much just sort of if you know that because I don't think I saw that in here percentage figure is it like 10% 20% how much more bigger are they what are they proposing? Yes so it would probably be 100% more because it's completely another floor underneath the approved footprint Let me describe it so there were going to be just single floors but now that they are going to dig down it's going to be two floors but it's going to be below because of the topography of the man there's a slope so they can sort of sink them in but the ridge height is still it's just about the same The ridge height is very similar to the fallback position Thank you Further Questions? Thank you very much then Can we have an object Gillian Kitchener Can we have your speech, your presentation please, we'll sit you to three minutes and I'll ask you if we reach that point I'll ask you to round up, okay? Thank you very much This development represents further openisation of the handler of little hee It's a very concern that these developers ultimately intend to develop the whole 12 acre site and Little Heath will become a housing estate If granted it would set a president to infill the land that sets Little Heath apart from the village making it a unique distinctive handler It's better suited to becoming a small holding and keeping the current character and rural status Gamnegay updated its neighbourhood plan in November 2022 and this is not part of it Protecting the character and landscape including important green spaces was a key point in producing the plan The village debated and voted for this plan and collective benefit of everyone living in the area This development completely undermines those objectives and represents over development of a site outside the main village with no access to amenities or facilities and no public transport All previous planning applications to build houses on Roseville and Lans have been refused by South Cams Council because it is building in the open country side against planning policy and also because this area is not part of the local plan The government planning inspector also upheld the refusals Council refused permitted development for this site on the grounds that the barn would need too much alteration to be classed as permitted development Then a year later gave permitted development for exactly the same barns that weren't suitable a year earlier and now they're proposing knocking these barns down and for building a further five new houses in the open country side Either the barns are due to bookings for conversion or they're not If they are and benefit from permission under permitted development class Q then they must be converted and meet the current building regulations without substantial works If not then any application for demolishing and building new dwellings falls outside permitted development As has been demonstrated on several occasions new dwellings would not be acceptable on this site they are neither needed nor wanted Since December 2015 19 properties have been built of which four remain unsold for more than a year Planning permissions for these properties were agreed on the pretext that biodiversity would be improved native hedging would be put in, trees planted etc In many cases this has not been done inspected or insisted upon by the council and consequently the natural environments for the wildlife and birds we enjoy here continue to be eroded It's of increasing frustration to us that those responsible for allowing unchecked developments in this area are not noticing the huge proliferation in planning applications in the last five years and the slow destruction of the handler of Little Heath and its importance around habitat and biodiversity The developers submitted a transport statement stating that the speed limit along Little Heath is 30 miles per hour Anyone who lives on Little Heath knows that this is both ludicrous and dangerous In adequate unadopted road in inverted commas has more potholes and flat surfaces and is already a danger to the families and children Can you round up now please? There are no pavements or lighting, construction traffic 12 pass residents and their associated vehicles will only add to the peril The Biodas Diversity reports neglects to mention that barn owls have nested and roosted in these barns for decades as well as several stations of bats Thank you very much Okay, have we any questions for the objective please? The council questions Thank you very much for your comments I just wanted to clarify with you I mean obviously there is an extent planning permission to convert those barns So, if they were converted there will still be buildings in exactly that location In that respect I'm bearing in mind what's proposed now is similar height but they're going to be put in the floor below what is there now Do I then understand from your concern that it still is unacceptable even though the height isn't going to be that much different to what is there now? Yes, yes Simply because our main concern is that if this gets approved then they will build out on the remaining 10 acres and Little Heath will no longer be a hamlet it will be an urbanisation rather than a rural area Okay, so let me just say that it's a fear that this will open the gates rather than the actual I guess impact of this particular site And as Chair has already said this is important Heathland and it's not suitable or it's biodeversity not acceptable to build on Heathland Okay, thank you, it's just that we're looking at what's in front of us today rather than what might be down the line Thank you Have you any other questions? Thank you very much indeed Now we move on to the agent for the developer Mr Mrs or Mrs Fitzgerald please which is online virtually Good afternoon Chair councillors, thank you for letting me speak to you today, hopefully you can hear me Yeah, just to confirm as we can hear and see you, thank you Thank you very much The application before you seeks planning permission for the erection of fire dwellings provided across three buildings following the demolition of the existing farm buildings As has already been mentioned the site already benefits from a prior approval for the conversion of the existing barns into fire dwellings Under the prior approval application there is no contribution to walking and cycling no requirement for biodeversity net gain and no sustainability benefits in terms of construction and other environmental benefits along those lines This is a robust fallback position that needs to be taken into consideration when determining the application today The applicant proposes the redevelopment that comes with all those added benefits to the local area facilities and improved construction incorporating the sustainability features into the buildings and ensuring that the contribution to the parish council is made for walking and cycling In addition the applicant has proposed a planscaping scheme that will soften the site and improve the aesthetic overall I think taking on board the comments chair that you made in terms of BNG and the overall heathland we have actually provided to the council a full biodeversity net gain calculation and layout that demonstrates that this site and that's both the red land and the ownership land within blue land will demonstrate and deliver more than 10% net gain across the area and obviously any further development beyond that which is in front of you today will be subject to a further planning application at a later time should my client have that intent which has not been expressed to me Whilst acknowledging the location of the site outside of the village boundary and within the countryside the development of the site will not set a precedent due to its established fallback position and will come with the added social and environmental benefits over and above that prior approval consent We therefore commend the officers report to you today and are obviously happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you chair Thank you very much Do we have questions for the the agent of the applicant? No, thank you Thank you very much indeed Thank you Now we have the parish council Mr Kirsten Rayner The parish council First of all Can I ask Do you have the permission of the parish council to speak today? Yes I do Thank you very much Again we will keep you to three minutes and I will remind you if we reach that time Thank you Gambige parish council appreciates the opportunity to address the planning committee with regard to this proposed development We have submitted our main concerns and these have been accurately reflected in the comprehensive planning committee report produced by the planning officer To summarise our concerns relate to a housing mix This is contrary to gam one of Gambige neighbourhood plan adopted in November 2022 Namely new housing development should provide a mix of housing sizes in general and one and two bedroom housing in particular B impact on character and appearance of the countryside The development will have an impact Concern express is that the development does not cater for sufficient storage space cycle storage bin storage and there will be associated additional semi permanent garden structures subsequently built by each dwelling owner to hold maintenance equipment and associated domestic equipment needed for outside maintenance There are no garages so cars will be visible in the vicinity of the buildings further cluttering the outside of each of these properties By developing an increased number of five bedroom houses from the permitted queue scheme this has severely limited the ability to provide suitable internal storage space for modern living including garaging within the footprint C Access Access is unmade private trackway already serving significant number of dwellings and is unregulated with no footway, no street lighting no maintenance of road surface D Biodiversity The development does not deliver biodiversity net game within the application site It is difficult, a significant proportion of the site becomes hard standing or domestic cottage It is the parish council's opinion that the queue permitted scheme would deliver more suitable mix of housing types have less impact on the countryside reuse of the existing buildings and be less harmful to the current ecology and biodiversity of the site therefore objects to the proposed development Thank you for considering these views Just as an addition regarding the cycling infrastructure contribution for the current scheme this will give probably about 10 square metres of footpath that will be available so there is no way going to mitigate provide a link from Little Heath to the centre of the village Thank you Thank you very much indeed Miss Rayner Have we got any questions from the parish council? No No, thank you very much indeed Now we come to the debate Do I have anybody any of the councillors present who would wish to make comments in the debate Councillor Fayne In the absence of others perhaps I couldn't lead off Can I ask again that the planning balance be put up on the on the screen for this section Chair, we have to remember that we are judging this against the secure fallback of the Class Q consent for the existing buildings and that the footprint of the new buildings will be the same the ridge height of the certainly of BNC which are the ones that are in my view sensitive will be the same the design, as we saw on the screen will be largely reflective of the existing barn type uses inevitably they will look different from the existing buildings those of us who have visited the site would expect nothing else and I think if we address the concern for the gambling aid parish council which I know are supported by the local member Councillor Bridget Smith and the objection it was stated including but also by the object committee's kitchener that this is not part of the neighbourhood plan now the question I think is whether it is in any conflict with the neighbourhood plan and whether that conflict is greater than that of the fallback approval and if we look at the parish council do not agree that the proposed scheme delivers a higher quality of development to the fallback class Q conversion scheme I'm afraid I'm not persuaded of that it is undoubtedly true that the the class Q would be more in line with the neighbourhood plan in relation to the smaller two bedroom accommodation but then we would be objecting to the creation of a ground floor or basement lair in the barns which seems sensible use of space so having taken account of the objections of the parish council and the fact that there are a number of things which cannot be dealt with within the terms of this application in particular access I think I would accept the officer's recommendation to approve I make comments have you any more comments from other sorry, council wills so to come back to my earlier point I don't feel that I've got enough information on this application to be able to make a decision because there's so much missing of the detail that I would normally expect to see in the reserve matters application so I really don't know how I can vote on this with any justification thank you very much I would comment I would make some comments on my oh sorry, councillor Sanford have you you wish to make a comment yeah thank you chair with respect to hard to protected species and biodiversity being grounds for refusal I've just read section 6.6 on page 93 the ecology officer has no objection he sees no evidence of protected species license will be required so I'm wondering why there's a mismatch there can you perhaps the officer might outline that thank you chair so we have had surveys done to identify there are protected species there so principle of the development is that there would be harm to protected species but we're proposing mitigation that would ensure that it's not actually on balance that is acceptable now do you know which protecting species are involved if I can just jump in chair sorry as part of the ecology officer's comments there's a recommendation for wildlife sensitive lighting strategy to deal with foraging and commuting bats so I believe that's the protected species that's been referred to thank you very much do we have sorry councillor Hanley just an observation we haven't seen any mention on the planning balance of the neighbourhood plan we've been sort of encouraging people to parishes to adopt a neighbourhood plan adopted and I always think of it as a pretty important document can I just be reassured that the points within the neighbourhood plan are reflected in the planning balance so there was a take the bones out of it but that's really my observation councillor Hawkins thank you chair I was actually going to mention the neighbourhood plan policies that are listed on page 92 because yes we encourage communities to come up with neighbourhood plans and it's important that we ensure that we actually consider those when looking at developments and applications in that area now the list here starts with gam3 if I can call it that gm3 not in character with the open countryside I tend not to agree with that simply because there already is a set of buildings there the bounds are there it's in the countryside and those bounds currently have planning permission for conversion so the principle of building there is established gam3 says it's not safeguarding the landscape and not enhancing the natural environment I mean we've talked about the environment and all that nothing is changing in terms of the building's height as it stands and there will be with condition further landscaping of the area within the redline gam8 we have been told by the contributor from the parish council that yes that will that's been seen too but it's not going to provide that much but there is something this is a thing with contributions they are contributions based on the size of what is being built and contributions will add too if there's any further it's unfortunate in that it's not going to provide that much but there is something gam1 talks about land properties not selling within gamlinge parish because of over supply well I'm not sure that is material because it's not a planning thing that we can determine is it that's market forces yes there is the need for smaller to bedroom accommodation but at the same time this proposal before us is looking at improving on what would have or what could be built with the extent planning permission so it's whilst we can't see any reference to the neighbourhood plan in the planning balance it has been built with in the report we have heard the views of the parish castle and the objectors but we need to look at this from material consideration really there is the principle already established those bands can be converted this proposal intends to build better and make more efficient use of what is there now so in my view I think I'm turning to what's I'm proving this one thank you officer Rebecca Smith would like to make some comments if I can just come back on the planning balance sorry I've got the wrong glass my laptop should stay large dwellings do not meet the local need unfortunately that should have said gam 1 in brackets so that's the reference to the neighbourhood plan it's set out in 10.123 in the report on planning balance so the proposal will provide large houses in an unsustainable countryside location rather than the smaller one and two bed dwellings as such it would not meet gamlingale neighbourhood plan so that's tying up it should have included a reference to the neighbourhood plan on the slide thank you for that chair if it's okay just for me to say thank you because I think it's important we make reference to the neighbourhood plans because we have been encouraging people and we should be taking due consideration of their contents of the neighbourhood plan thank you and now I may come to my point on the the issue we're working as other councillors have commented on a situation with the fallback position of converting the existing dwellings the existing buildings on the site and we're not at all attractive building in the current state and it's difficult difficult to see how they would be very attractive even within a conversion but this is some they're not sites that one would grant permission for new development if it wasn't to permit the development under class Q there have been quite a lot of experiences of people putting on applications for conversion under class Q and then later on wanting a permanent much larger or more direct that's the situation that's the law it's not something necessarily we're happy with but that's the context in which we work and there has been permission granted and therefore as has been commented the idea of development has been accepted I would personally not necessarily wanted them to be reduced so much I don't think it's distingly very attractive it might have been better to me a bit higher but it's an interesting way of developing it and thinking it down there will be interesting buildings so they're definitely much better than what would come with the alternative appearance terms set against that there is the undaugured point that there's much larger houses than is proposed in the neighbourhood plan whether you have to set the two these two arguments against each other and I personally feel that it's more important that the small number of buildings involved is more important that we have something in this site which is outside the built up framework we have something which is recently attractive and acceptable and that seems to have been achieved the other point is about biodiversity now clearly it's acceptable to the ecology officer but I think it should be it is an area of interest the wildlife chest has a reserve on the small reserve at the east bank and it would be desirable that the biodiversity interest of this area is accepted it was probably cultivated many years ago because it's among an area of strip fields but it seems to have been unimproved for quite a long period a long period of time so it will have some interest perhaps not very high interest but certainly an interest something which we wouldn't wish to lose so it's important that the biodiversity plan come forward take advantage of to improve the situation and generally it seems to me that this proposal has more than you would have if you had the four back position where you wouldn't have any restrictions any benefits from that so generally I feel that while I understand all the concerns of the objectives I can see the constraints of development there but these are based upon mainly based upon the proposal that you would have at all there and unfortunately because of the context and the position we have acceptance so it's better to have a development which is controlled in which there are conditions which try to minimize harm and take opportunities which is what this provides we have to deal with the element before us not perhaps the most ideal that we would like and to me this seems to be an improvement upon the alternative situation and therefore something I'd be wanting to approve is a recommendation are we ready to go to a vote I propose then that we go to a vote on this application sorry chair can I have a second I want a seconder can I have a second okay fine thank you very much thank you can we have the wait a minute one two three four five six seven thank you that's right thank you very much chair so by six votes to none with one abstention the application is approved in accordance with the officer's recommendation thank you very much I think looking at the time now we'll break for lunch and come back at one forty five a half an hour welcome back to the South Cambridge District Council planning committee we're now on item seven on the agenda the it's item six in the agenda pack it's application 23 stroke 03642 stroke HFUL in white all nine chapel length the direction of the greenhouse summerhouse garden shed and bicycle shed removal of an existing dilapidated shed the application has been brought to committee as it's been submitted by a member of the council the key issues are the design layout and scale, neighbour immunity and heritage the recommendation is to approve subject conditions and Dominique Bush as the presenting officer Dominique, look forward to your presentation thank you chair can I just confirm you can hear me and see the presentation yes Dominique McCann thank you very much thank you yes so this application is at nine chapel lane in Falmyr and is proposing the direction greenhouse, summerhouse, garden shed and bicycle shed at the property as well as the removal of an existing dilapidated shed this is a location plan for the site which shows that the site is accessed from chapel lane to the south it adjoins number 11 chapel lane to the east and number 5 chapel lane is detached to the west meanwhile Rycroft lane runs to the rear of the site here and this is just a GIS map of the site as denoted by the red cross hatching the property is grade 2 listed along with number 11 to which it adjoins to the east and the blue lines on the map show trees protected by tree preservation orders so there's the larger area to the south eastern corner of the site as well as two individual trees to the rear here and this proposed site plan showing the both proposed out buildings as well as the outlet of the shed that's to be removed as you can see the shed is proposed to the south eastern corner of the site in proximity to the TPO trees the bike shed is proposed here to the western side of the site to allow ease of use of the existing access along this side of the building proposed summer house is further to the rear of the site along the eastern boundary with the removed shed or the shed for removal shown here and the green house is then located to the rear of the site behind the existing oil tank and opposite a green house within the garden of number 5 the label existing shed on the plan is just a shed within the site that is not proposed to be removed as part of the application this slide shows the plans proposed bicycle shed constructed using timber logs with a felt roof and is open on the eastern side so it opens into the garden to allow access for the bikes these are the plans for the proposed green house it's would be an off the shelf structure that measures approximately 2 metres in width 3.7 metres in depth traditional glass construction these are the plans for the shed to the front of the property again it's a structure that can be bought and is a traditional garden shed design and finally the plans for the summer house this measures approximately 3 metres by 4.3 metres and is 2.8 metres in height to the ridge it has 2 entraces one shown here on the side elevation another on the corner here this is an aerial plan of the site just showing the approximate locations of the proposed outbuildings so here the shed to the south-eastern corner of the site showing its proximity to the trees the bike store here is beneath this yew tree on the western side of the site and then the green house to the rear of the site here and the summer house here which is further distance from the site and this is just a photo of the south-eastern corner of the site and the trees you can see to the right-hand side of the photo are those that are within the TPO and the shed is proposed to be behind the white gate sorry to the site with the hedging and shrubbery along the boundary to be retained to provide some screening for the shed from the street scene it should also be noted that the trees officer has raised no objection to the proposal and the structures are considered to be of a scale that they were not impact the roots of the trees beneath and lastly this is a photo of the existing shed within the site that's to be removed it's clearly become extremely dilapidated and is not in a usable condition again the council's ecology officer has been consulting on the application has not raised any objection to the removal of this structure finally in conclusion the key material considerations for the approval of the application are deemed to be that that design was to stay in the character and appearance of the area the community of neighbouring properties and they preserved the setting of the list of building the officer recommendation as set out on page 86 the reports back is for the approval subject to conditions thank you sorry chair but we couldn't see the pictures that he was that were being or Dominic was trying to show us there was a lag there was quite a serious lag share my screen you're able to see the photos there we saw that one but not the one after next one next one thank you thank you do we have any questions for the officer the third party representation and objection are concerning the possible use of existing rear access gate for construction and parking is that an issue so I wasn't aware of any gate when I went to visit the site the back rear part of the site is quite overgrown and as far as I'm aware that access isn't used at all and given the scale of the structures we considered that they could be the front entrance of the site could be utilised and they're a lot larger I've got a question is this is the reason this comes to the committee is because I presume that permitted development rights do not apply because it's from a listed building am I right for why has this come why is it not permitted development that's correct so listed buildings don't have classy PD rights for outbuildings thank you do we have any other comments okay Councillor Hawkins I've also thought that this came to us because the application is by a local member by a elected member so do you have any other comments no okay I think we go do we need to go to the debate let me wish to make any comments we have no present presenter Councillor Fane I don't see any other speakers I suggest I should just say I'm concerned about the potential loss of bad adversity due to the removal of that shed we've just seen in the photograph but I have no concerns otherwise I would be voting favour of this do we have a seconder that we should go to the vote okay can we go to the vote no please okay thank you very much thank you chair that is eight votes to none resulting in a unanimous approval of the officer's recommendation okay now we've come to item eight on the agenda 23 stroke 02752 stroke OUT north of Lavage Lodge old north road 4 application for the erection of five cell build buildings with some matters reserved for access off north road the application has been brought to committee as it is a departure application and it's been called in by born parish council the site was visited on the 10th of January key issues are the departure it's a departure application the principle of development highway safety and transport impacts and sustainability location conditions and completion in the section 106 agreement Lawrence Moore is the presenting officer Lawrence I look forward to hearing from you good afternoon my name is Lawrence Moore and today I'm presenting application reference 23 02752 slash OUT which seeks outline permission for the erection of five cell build properties and associated access with some matters reserved at land north of Davis Lodge old north road the slide on screen shows the existing site and associated site constraints as shown on the constraints map the north west of the site is subject to a tree preservation order there are listed buildings north of the site shown in pink hatch the site is surrounding by existing residential premises on the north west east and south axis it is also worth noting that the site sits within a triple SI risk zone due to the proximity of the proposals to Wimpoll woods a verbal update needs to be provided to explain that paragraph 1018 of the officer report incorrectly states that an extended development framework joins the site this was due to a mapping error the image on screen on the right shows the true proximity of the development frameworks of born in the east and longstone in the west the development is acknowledged as outside of the development framework throughout the report and this altercation does not alter the officer's recommendation of approval for the reasons outlined the report and we would like to reiterate that is considered an infill development purely on the basis of residential premises surrounding the site on the north west, east and south axis the proposed access is shown for the site is shown on screen this will allow for a 10 meter wide access from Fox Road accounting for visibility displays the access will sit approximately 37 meters from the existing junction between Fox Road and Old North Road the proposed site is shown on screen this is an indicative layout only and the formal layout, landscaping, parking arrangements and design of the properties will be secured via condition and reserve matters applications the indicative layout provided shows the ability of the site to suitably accommodate five dwellings the yellow highlighted area to the west of the site is allocated for the provision of BNG benefits and will sit completely independent of the residential cursalage of each proposed plot the self-built plot will be secured via a section 106 agreement South Cambridge District Council is a right to build vanguard authority with a statutory duty under section 2A of the self-build and custom house building act 2015 the authority is currently underperforming and the proposals would make a limited contribution to the demand identified of 189 on the council's register for the current base period development consists of an infill development due to the existing residential premises surrounding the site and as outlined within the officer report the development will not allow for adverse impacts on character, heritage assets amenity of neighbours, ecological assets or highway safety and promotes the site as suitable for contributing to self-build targets an example of a recent appeal for the erection of nine self-build properties in Bassingbourne was recently allowed the situation of development outside the framework within the inspector's decision they have noted that national and local policies on sustainable locations does not mean new houses should be limited to places where all the needs of its residents could be met by a choice of transport modes other than by private motorized vehicles this is because there would be few if any undeveloped sites with such a level of accessibility in this rural district with regards to the self-build need the inspector stated that the shortfall in self-build homes should be given substantial weight acknowledging that there is no decisive evidence to show that addressing the substantial shortfall in custom and self-build housing plots for those now on the register could be delivered solely within the development frameworks as a result land outside of those frameworks would be required it is also worth noting application reference 22 slash 02737 slash out which was approved in 2022 by this committee for a self-build scheme outside the framework along Toft Road it is therefore considered that despite its situation outside of the framework the suitability of the site for accommodating much needed self-build properties must be considered the slide on screen shows the proposed access and tree protection plan the proposed access will result in the loss of some trees along the northern boundary to allow for suitable site access to be created however these trees are not considered to be of any characterful or arbore or cultural value or from the council's tree officer to be removed with regards to heritage impacts the conservation officer has stated that the proposals would result in less than substantial harm on the identified listed building situated north of the site shown here in pink hatch the definition of less substantial harms means there will be limited heritage impacts however the MPPF paragraph 207 states where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including where appropriate securing its optimal viable use despite the objection from the conservation officer this site is considered suitably screened and sufficiently distanced from identified heritage assets to avoid harm the case officer has disagreed with the conservation officer in this case due to the siting, screening and conditions associated with this recommendation which together assist in avoiding harm to the adjacent listed buildings with regards to agricultural land the site is currently a pasture land field classed as grade 3 agricultural land officers consider that given the proposal will result in loss of 0.5 hectares of grade 3 agricultural land which is considered a small area of land that the proposal will contribute towards a significant self-build need within the district the proposal on balance is considered acceptable in regard to policy NH3 of the local plan and paragraph 181 of the national policy planning and policy framework the site is considered to be within a sustainable location with adequate access to public transport connections and local village centres the site is approximately an 8 minute cycle from Bourne High Street which provides access to several shop services community facilities and also provides a suitable bus service with hourly buses between St Niets and Cambridge there is also access to bus services serving Old North Road circa 50 metres from the site these buses are less frequent however the site is suitably accessible by means other than the private vehicle the site also provides the opportunity for a 3 minute cycle or a 10 minute walk to Longstow Village Hall a technical plan for the proposed access is shown on screen the applicant has engaged in a formal pre-app with the highway authority to prevent any potential highway safety implications despite concerns over the potential impacts on the adjacent Fox Road and Old North Road junction raised by neighbours and parish councillors the highways officer has provided their support for the proposed development subject to conditions the highways officer will be available for questions following this presentation the information provided as part of this application will allow for approximately 22% biodiversity net gain to be achieved on site the yellow highlighted area is allocated for the provision of BNG benefits and sits completely independent of residential kerthillage this is secured via condition and will also allow for the enhancement of the site along the western boundary the site is within a triple SI risk zone due to its situation within 3km of Wimpoll Woods and has been subject to preliminary ecological assessments the council's ecologist and Natural England have both provided their support for the development subject to conditions the council's ecologist will be available for specific questions following this presentation the planning balance as outlined within the officer report the development consists of a departure application and will result in the loss of some trees will result in the loss of some trees class 3 agricultural land and does not secure development contributions via the section 106 however the benefits of these schemes are considered to outweigh the identified harm the scheme would allow for a limited contribution to demand identified on the council's self-build register through the provision of 5 self-build plots within a sustainable location the site has shown its suitability for the proposed development with the resulting scheme avoiding adverse impacts on character heritage assets, highway safety and amenity of neighbouring occupiers the site will receive ecological benefits through the provision of 22% biodiversity in that gain on site and the development will allow for archaeological work to be undertaken by means of condition for the reasons shown on the screen and as outlined within the officer report councillors are encouraged to approve this application subject to conditions and section 106 agreement thank you thank you do we have any questions for the officer councillor Hawkins thank you chair thanks very much Lawrence for your presentation and for the report which is quite extensive and complete and for the side visit that we had just wanted to clarify one thing I mean yes we have technical description as close proximity sustainable 1.3 1.5 on page 126 development is in close proximity can you explain what that means because as far as I can tell it's 29 minutes to walk to the nearest shop and there are no food parts anyway and also 3.3 says there's 2 bus services within a 2 minute walk from the site unless I'm missing something I don't know where that bus stop is 2.2 minutes away from the site with regards to close proximity to the high street of Bourne it was a approximately 8 minute cycle on-road to the high street this was deemed as as close proximity in my officer opinion and there is as outlined within that presentation there is evidence of similar approvals along Toft Road which were road access only outside of the framework and it's considered that close proximity to Bourne which has several services facilities shops and community benefits available that it was deemed a sustainable location in that sense it worked out approximately an 8 minute cycle on-road from the site along Toft Road to the high street of Bourne with regards to the bus stops I have Is it on the level 98 or is it on the 1046 I'll share my screen again just to show the bus timetable for the 18 service which goes to Bourne High Street at several times a day as shown here and also stops within proximity to the site opposite Toft Road twice a day as well at 6 in the morning and 18 in the evening whilst less frequent it can be achieved and then there is bus timetables for the C2 which again stop near Longstow Rushford Close and opposite school lane both which are within 50 metres of the boundaries of the site So just to clarify so why you referred to the 2 minute walk from the site the bus stop it's for the C2 not the 18 It's for the C2 and the early morning and late evening arrivals of the 18 Thanks for that clarification I have I see you're joining us online Could you kindly turn your camera off until you're due to address the committee please Thank you Any further questions Thank you chair Could you explain the 22% BNG in more detail please I'm aware that there are existing substantial trees on the west and north of the site it's not clear from your illustrations where the game is coming from We have the councillor psychologist Sharon Yarddie online who may be able to clarify further on that point that it has been tested with the standard BNG metrics and what have you got to pass over to Sharon on that front So it's to do with enhancement of the woodland on site so currently it comes out as poor condition so it would be improving that condition of the woodland Okay so it's not actually a gain it's an improvement on the existing trees to the western north Yeah there wouldn't be new habitat it would be enhancing what's there currently Okay understand Thank you Can I have a word with Sharon as well please She's available Yep Okay fine The site is an area of pasture adjoining settlement Often these areas have interest as long unimproved pasture It's difficult at the time when we visited to have any idea of what was in there Has it been investigated and is there any particular interest in the pasture or is it of no particular interest in itself Thank you very much It was mapped as modified grassland which is improved grassland by the applicants ecologists I haven't been to the site myself from the photographs I would agree with that assessment Thank you very much No no further questions, thank you Thank you very much, sorry Thank you I think Lawrence we could hear from the transport Sir afterwards Is he going to speak or she? Is the transport advisor here? Yes I'm here chair Not necessary to present information more to answer questions of fact Do we have any questions for transport officers? Thank you Hi David I presume you're aware of the fact that that junction the staggered junction going from born to Longstow is one that's had issues and accidents and requests for work to be done to it and the locals are very concerned about the fall of accidents then to happen along there The accident history actually at that staggered crossroads isn't as bad as you would expect obviously points of junctions and staggered junctions on the highway network are points of conflict and and do generate accidents are accidents, latest accident stats for the junction shows one serious accident in the last five year period we only use five years of data because circumstances change vehicle flows change speed limits change the nature of the roads change so we only go back five years with our data and as I say our data shows one accident occurring at that junction within the last five years and that's not a bad accident history in all fairness I presume the accident you referred to was in November 2022 which resulted in life changing injuries for a teenager who lives in Calico that's that I don't know the details of the individual involved but yes that would bind the data that I have yes so bearing that in my name in your view then the advice the advice that you give to the applicant is based on the data that you have that that is not as bad as locals tend to think it is it's not considered as significant one injury accident in a five year period so it's not an accident it's not considered as an accident in a black spot site and the traffic generated from this development would not pose any significant risks on the highway in the vicinity of the site even though that's a very busy road at peak times at peak times at the 1198 typically about 7000 vehicles per day being 1046 three and a half to 5000 vehicles per day this site will generate 25 vehicular movements a day on the highway network so that could not be considered as significant thank you for your clarification have we any other further questions thank you very much now we go on to the agent for the developer Mr Ben Alvin thank you very much can you speak for no longer the three minutes please let you know if you'll reach the limit absolutely my best thank you for the opportunity to address you today and I am here representing the applicant the capacity of agent firstly I'd like to take the opportunity to thank your officer for their comprehensive report and for the positive attitude throughout dealing with the proposal it's slightly sad that some criticism has been aimed at officers for being proactive in the process and to me it's to be commended in the light of that criticism they haven't been swayed turn to the proposal itself this is an application as you've heard for self build dwellings your report highlights that the council cannot demonstrate sufficient self build plots to meet the defined and evidence evidence need of the district previous appeals have demonstrated that such a shortfall in delivery must be given significant weight indeed in the Caxton appeal that cited in your report and I quote the inspector found the district is clearly a long way behind in making provision for self build and custom build housing to meet the legal requirements of the 2015 act additional service plots for this type of development are therefore urgently needed to be clear therefore for those benefits to be outweid in any reason to balancing of the key issues that harm must be beyond significant there is no evidence forwarded that suggests that this would be the case there are no objections from the landscape officer nor the ecology officer no objections from natural England nor the tree officer and similarly no objections from environmental health nor the archeological service critically and contrary to many representations made there is also no objection from the highway authority that finds no harm to heritage assets in that context therefore this is an application as a clean bill of health from all statutory consultees specialist consultees the officer correctly identifies this as a proposal for infill development in an established residential setting accessibly located and therefore sustainably cited it delivers housing of the type of district needs a situation that cannot be underestimated but this is not just a speculative development the landowner who is here today has lived in David's lodge for about 30 years his daughters have grown up here and wish to stay here they can't afford to buy a house here but they have been on the self-build register for some time this proposal offers an opportunity for them potentially to have a home in the village to continue to live where they are settled and yes the application is made by a developer they are there to help the landowner with the cost, the application and support the delivery of the development the landowner does not have the necessary finances to do that themselves and therefore the criticism from local residents has the involvement of a developer should be considered in that context that criticism is clearly misunderstood and therefore misrepresent the applicant's involvement and the intention behind the application in summary therefore this is a proposal for the right type of housing in the right location proposed at a time where there is a clear under delivery of self-build homes it complies to the development plan and the MPPF when taken as a whole it is rightly recommended for approval by officers and I hope you will support the proposal today thank you thank you very much do we have any questions sir, council Heather Williams thank you, through yourself chair and I may have misunderstood because I think there was a clarification within it we were said that there had been no objection but I can see on page 131 that there is an objection from the conservation officer or officer of the parish council as well so just wondering where that fitted in the applicant's comments of no objections no, it was quite clear there is no objection from such consultees other than your officer has found no harm to heritage assets so it is the planning officer that has made that assessment not the consultee have any further questions? I would question you were saying that the sites will be used for the daughters of the applicants at least what proportion is it planned to use for family members of the applicant is that of interest it has to fit in with then being a self-build register so there are five plots here they have two daughters and they are hoping to site two of them on this site but of course that has to have fitted with the whole framework around self-build development and your own register thank you very much any further questions? thank you very much indeed just been advised to note something here there was an objection from the conservation officer but as outlined in the report it was in the opinion of the case officer there is no impact on heritage assets and the recommendation has been put to you but just to note that there was technically an objection from the conservation officer in this case but as outlined in the report we disagree with that with those comments, thank you the members who are on the site visit were then able to judge for themselves the extent of any impact I think that's fair to say so can we have the next person to speak our members of the parish council we've got two parish councils present here first of all councillor Barbara Cooper from Longstall parish council who's online councillor Cooper have you got the approval of your council to speak for them? yes I do thank you you have three minutes so I'll warn you when you reach the minute so thank you very much thank you two to self-filled properties is a commendable endeavour it's crucial we do not overlook the paramount importance of safety for our community the proposed development do you think you can speak up a bit? yes of course we believe that the current development in terms of prioritising housing over the safety of our residents especially at a junction that has actually been identified as hazardous during a meeting on the 5th of October Longstall residents highlighted the safety hazards associated with the current configuration of the junction and the potential risk posed by the BT switchbox the staggered nature of the junction combined with the proposed entrance for the new development and its proximity to the junction which significantly increases the potential of what is already considered by residents in the area as a perilous crossing for accidents and traffic related accidents and whilst we've heard earlier I am aware that some accidents haven't been formally reported nor are still to be reported on the current police records the visibility issues is the primary one the traffic flow implications and pedestrian safety given the gravity of these concerns we urge the council to conduct a thorough safety assessment considering the existing conditions at the junction furthermore environmental considerations should not be overlooked in the pursuit of progress there are existing concerns regarding the impact on the local trees some of which are under tree preservation orders and one would assume that appropriate preservation is in terms of determining potential impact of the development and whilst we've heard today that the land is not usable that is perhaps because muck has been placed around existing trees it's unfortunate and one would hope that any development would give due consideration to the trees the Cambridge Development Plan there is strong emphasis about minimizing carbon emissions reducing reliance on private cars and safeguarding heritage is our understanding that any new development within the region should adhere to those principles however the proposed development raises concerns in this regard carbon emissions and transportation resulting from the development of heritage preservation the staggered junction and the proposed entrance will have implications for some of the local buildings in terms of heritage and the impact on green space we just kindly ask that the council carefully consider these issues during the evaluation of this planning application and that there is due consideration to the Cambridge Development Plan thank you thank you very much do we have any questions for Mrs Cooper Chancellor Hawkins thanks very much hi just on the issue of highway safety which is why actually Mr Lines does his answer make any difference to your view of the issue of safety at that junction not at all and secondly on the trees on the side the ones along the road the 1046 are TPO'd and they are stained the ones that have been taken off for the access are not TPO'd does that address some of your concerns about trees being lifted I'm sure that the tree those representatives that have looked at the trees will be aware that there is horse muck being placed immediately around those trees that have TPO's on therefore their lifespan is going to be significantly reduced because of the acid nature of horse manure and I will strongly just ask that consideration to the area aside from the concerns that are primarily related to road safety thank you have you any other questions councillor Sam thank you chair this is probably one of the case officer but councillor Cooper may reference to the large green BT cabinet I believe there's also a streetlight pretty much adjacent to where the proposed site access is will that street furniture be removed given that it's probably obstructing the view anyone turning out of the development to answer the 1046 I'm under the presumption that they would require removal because of the visibility displays but I'm sure that the applicant may be able to answer with regards to the on-going and in addition to that I would like to defer to the highways officer for their views on that question yes we wouldn't necessarily require the removal of a lamp column from an inter-vehicle visibility display obviously a lamp column being 150mm at its widest point couldn't necessarily be regarded as an obstruction within that inter-vehicle visibility display there is a stay cable for the distribution pole that's adjacent to the new access that may prove problematic for the developer but that stands for the developer to resolve not the highway authority the question I have perhaps for the opposite would one be able to require by condition resolving that problem or would it just be under normal highways regulations I can't comment on behalf of UK power networks it's there their kit it's their apparatus and if the stay is required it's the cable that supports the pole if they require that stay to be positioned where it is and it's within the access then there is a problem and then obviously that distribution pole would have to be relocated actually I think Casar Samford may connect me on this but I think the concern was as much about the pole being within the visibility display as the stay so is that problem or is it okay when you consider the size of the picture of the streetlight and the streetlighting column and the distribution pole that's there that it's not going to obstruct but it's travelling towards the A1198 on the B1046 you will still be able to see a vehicle even though that feature is there with your permission chair the biggest obstruction is actually the BT cabinet which is that kind of wits whereabouts is the BT cabinet just out of interest can we see a plan it's the BT cabinet I think it's been referred to that's on the corner on the A1198 not on the 1046 in which case that falls outside of the visibility display so therefore isn't an obstruction there isn't an obstruction it's only the poles that are near the visibility display these issues that would be dealt with under the planning application or would they be dealt with by the regulations the authority don't consider them as an obstruction within that visibility display any other questions thank you very much can you dismiss sorry I'm going back and forth we now come to the parish councillor Des O'Brien of born parish council councillor O'Brien do you have the permission of your council to speak on their behalf I do as against in three minutes and I'll let you know if we need to shorten born parish council strongly objected this outlining planning application the proposal constitutes a departure from the local plan the original site application for five houses was deemed to be unacceptable in principle in a letter to the applicant from the senior planning officer Charlotte Spencer and several local plan policies do make development on this site unacceptable in principle policy S6 states of the development in rural areas will be limited to rural centres and minor rural centres and some categories of village with local service provision and quality public transport this site is not within such a centre or such a category policies S7, S10 and S11 development frameworks to find the policies where the built up area of settlements gives way to the policies for the countryside this is necessary to ensure that the countryside is protected from gradual encroachment on the edges of villages and to help guard against incremental growth in unsustainable locations the proposed site is a parcel of land that lies outside the development framework boundary for the villages of Born and Longstow and would therefore be development within the open countryside in addition the site is not allocated within a neighbourhood plan and nor does it need to be located in the countryside policy S11 identifies Longstow as an infill village which is considered to have poor range of facilities and services it is often necessary for residents to travel outside of the village for most of their daily needs anyone looking to travel from this site on foot or by bike would need to share the road with vehicles often travelling at 60mph they will be reliant on private cars as their primary means of travel this conflicts with policies S2 of the development plan to provide land for housing in sustainable locations and policy TI2 which states that developments must be allocated and designed to reduce the need to travel particularly by car I turn now to what appears to be the reason that this site is being considered for development at all the fact that the application is for self-build plots the council can clearly demonstrate a joint five year housing land supply so the proposal would be of limited benefit in contributing to the housing supply while the site could benefit from five plots self-build plots there are far more suitable and sustainable locations that could be used for self-build plots already in the local plan namely Westcamborn and Born Airfield policy H9 actually refers to the delivery of self-build and custom build on all sites of 20 or more dwellings rather than on smaller sites the council already has acknowledged to the planning inspectorate that it has up to 325 self-build plots could come forward at Water Beach and that 40 will come forward at North Stone the shortage of self-build plots should not and must not lead to the granting of planning permission in unsustainable rural locations that have been determined by the planning by the local plan finally a number of recent planning appeal decisions made by the planning inspectorate clarified the situation with respect to the preeminence of the development plan in determining self-build planning applications in an appeal decision on five self-build dwellings in Orwell the inspector said that great weight to the resulting conflict should be given to the resulting conflict but the development plan policies in an appeal for six self-build dwellings in Longstow the inspector concluded that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and finally in an appeal decision for up to nine self-build dwellings in Falmyr the inspector concluded that there was no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in the accordance with the development plan Thank you very much Have we any questions for Mr Robert Brown Councillor Brown Councillor Wilson Thank you You mentioned the lack of footpath from the site and the fact that people need to use cars and we've been told that there's a bus stop within two minutes walk are you able to describe that route from the site to the bus stop is there a footpath or there are no footpaths in the area you cross the road to access the bus stop the bus stop referred to which is the 18 we're talking about two buses a day and the other bus stop is across the 1198 if you want to head north and that is a bus stop that takes you up to it is no reasonable there's no way you could describe this as quality public transport basically two number 18s a day and the C2 which takes you doesn't take you to Bourne first of all and they talked about proximity to Bourne the issue of 8 minute cycle to Bourne on the B1046 which is 60 miles an hour with no footpath and no cycle path is frankly ludicrous Thank you Do we have any other questions Thank you very much Mr of Brown Now we come to the debate Can I have Does anybody wish to come Any councillers wish to come to the debate Okay councillers hope Thank you chair I will speak as a local member and start the debate at the same time that's okay with you This of course has come to committee because it's of sensitive nature to the residents of both Longstow and Bourne as you've heard from councillers and of course the fact that the B1046 is one that we know locally is a difficult road quite fast there are no footpaths and there are no cycle ways along it and in fact I've had contact with Weising Arts Centre who have a number of times requested for potentially funds from other developments where we could have footpaths or cycle paths installed So in terms of access in some respects yes you can get in your car you will get there 5 minutes 3 minutes according to Google but it's not a safe road to cycle or walk hence my questioning of Mr Lam's earlier on but of course in planning terms it seems it is okay and of course we're here considering this application on planning terms but it's useful also to know the non-planning situation in terms of its location yes it's at the framework but as you saw where we had the side visit it's got houses north, south, east and west of it now we've had quotes of applications which have been determined by inspectors on self-built houses some outside the framework some are accepted so it seems to be depends on the inspector and I suppose what's out of the bed is that however in material terms other than the objection from the conservation officer who states that there is less than substantial harm the issue of less than substantial harm needs to be weighed against the benefits of a development of five self-built houses on this site the less than substantial I think is mitigated by the fact that we've got the proposal to keep the trees that have a TPO so we've got the vegetation screening it the density proposed is not high I think there's a figure in here so I don't know what it is so it's almost like there's a landscape-led design potentially with this that the urbanisation effect is not as high potentially as the conservation officer might have thought in my view that's the mitigation that we can look at in the balance can we have the balance of the gameplays now of course the main reason why this is here is because the proposal is for self-built not for market housing and we know we have a shortage of self-built plots that is a very significant point and I think that carries significant weight in terms of the adverse effects and the issues raised by the parish councils I completely hear them and as I've said in the past at the end of the day we look at these issues on material planning considerations there's a lot of advantage other than the significance of the contributing to the 5-year sorry to the self-built we're okay with 5-year housing land supply please we've got 6.1 years okay 2023 to 2028 this will go towards providing additional self-built plots the BNG that will be achieved is much higher than we would normally ask for and I think in my view highways for me would have been the big no but we do not have we've heard from the highways officer they have no objections again on material planning terms although I'm still concerned about that but with the way things are the information we've got in front of us I think this should be approved thank you Do you have any other contributions to the debate councillor Heather William Thank you chair just one thing I wanted to clarify before we go a bit further into the debate which we've had on previous self-built plots if this were to be approved in line with the office recommendation what are the safeguards to ensure that as we've heard there's some concern about developer involvement that they are genuinely self-built on a previous site I think it was that there could only be one person registered and that we had some sort of safeguarding in place I'm just wondering if that applies here just because that has been raised if I could have an answer to that and then I'll give my comments in the application welcome so the office of recommendation is subject to a section 106 league agreement that will cover the self-build and the protected there will be a protected three-year period from occupation as well that the residents have to be on the self-build register locally and then they have to live in the property for three years which would be part of the heads in terms of the section 106 thank you because I know there's often a lot of concern and I understand the reason around the self-build and how it could be used in a more commercial basis I think all councillers always have this horrible difficult situation on planning committee where we do have local knowledge we obviously put a lot of steer into local knowledge and then we have the technical advice which council Hawkins highlighted earlier I know there's one in my patch that says there's never any issues across roads and yet we know that pretty much every week a car will end up in a ditch or something just because the police don't get told because the farm goes and drives it out of the ditch or whatever happens afterwards and we've got very busy mechanics in my patch from that area and yet it says no accidents so there is that issue between reporting and what comes through but as you say we're looking at it from a planning perspective which means that it's a frustrating position to be in on that I can understand the applicant's desire to want to make the best use of their land and particularly if you've got family it's incredibly hard to get family on the property ladder I think we all sympathise on that but that in itself is not a material consideration that we can take into play who's going to be occupying the houses in that manner because it could be anybody on that register when I look at this application and I think of it on the basis of it not being self-built or that we had enough self-built plots I think there's a would I feel comfortable with five on that plot of land I think it'd fit but I do think for me that that isn't a particularly nice stretch of road and it does come back to that and would I feel comfortable voting on that if we had all of the we were up to date with the amount of self-builds and I think the answer is no and so then that brings me on to do I then think that the lack of self-build plots available gives significant weight to overcome my concerns on the reverse and that's the really difficult one for me I'm very much firm that I was in other circumstances however I do think a good case has been made on we have appeals for you know for giving approvals from the officer but also appeals where that was presented by the parish council about ways that the expect has gone another way so I think I'm going to vote how I would feel comfortable I have too many concerns we've already heard there's been an accident that's had life changing consequences and it may just be one but it's never a nice experience for everybody that comes from that it's never a nice experience so I'm most likely to weigh it up that I will not support the application Thank you very much Any other councillor Samford Thank you chair and to somewhat echo Councillor Williams' comments there are a couple of things firstly anyone who puts up the number 18 bus timetable as an example of sustainable public transport no I'll just introduce you to a few of my residents who have been let down by that particular service and if it is only one in the morning one in the evening that's their day blown away having visited the site I'm still not comfortable with the idea that 22% BNG can be achieved within the existing foliage as it were happy to be proved wrong but it seems a large gain for what's already a fairly well treed vegetated area but in grand scheme of things five new dwellings infill dwellings amongst the existing buildings isn't going to have a huge impact and likewise it's not going to generate that much extra transport my finger is still wavering over which button to press but those are my concerns this is a tough one for me I've just been driving up and down the roads around this using google maps and it doesn't look to me to be particularly sustainable you go an awful long way before you come to anything that you describe as facilities you know as the councillor said earlier you know there are places on the roads where there is no footpath I think this is this really gives me trouble I mean I'm not always standing in what officers are arguing because of the self build I get that I really do get that but this really tools me and at the moment unless I hear anything, any more killer comments my view is it's probably one I can't support and be in the other comment councillor Fein thank you chair yes I start from the question of self build the fact is we are at present a vanguard authority and we are a long way behind our targets I would say to an unacceptable extent whilst there are proposals on all the sites that might involve a certain number of self build sites being brought forward we considered one earlier this morning where there were just three self build sites on a much larger site and of course there are different responses given by different inspectors but we have to look at the response of an inspector on this site we are in the next door village we are so well behind that we have to give substantial weight to self build proposals including beyond the development framework and this is beyond the development framework I like some others visited the site we met with a case our case officer who by school there only recently and I didn't see a problem with the sustainability it is close to two villages it is not a site where I think it will do any damage to the landscape I am persuaded on the biodiversity question we did after all hear from our ecologist on this from Sharon Yoddi and that also persuades me that the impact on I think it is called Foxy's farm to the north the listed buildings to the north would be insubstantial I know the technical term is used there but I side with the case officer rather than the conservation officer on this point I don't think that damage would be substantial and therefore I don't think we have reasons here to disagree with the officer's recommendation and therefore I would be inclined to vote in favour of this okay well I can there be else? Councillor Hawkins sorry thank you for letting me come back one of the things that I was going to forgot was about the fact that there was no section 106 and that's because the combined square footage of the buildings was going to be less than a thousand square metres the issue is okay that might be the case and then if it does go ahead further down the line then have somebody wanting to extend it is it possible to remove the thank you so that anything that needs to be added or wants to be added would come back if we can just come back on that one so there is a recommendation of the conditions to remove permitted development rights the section 106 is for the build to retain them as self build there are no contributions required because it's combined less than a thousand square metres of floor space including the garages and there is a condition to restrict it to that as well there would actually be nothing to stop future residents putting in a planning application to do extensions because we've removed the permitted development rights and as long as that didn't take it overall to less than a thousand square or to more than a thousand square metres that wouldn't be an issue but if it would result in any of the individual houses being more than 200 square metres including the garages or in total being more than a thousand square metres they would need to come back to vary this original permission and original outline to remove that condition thank you for that I think the very first multi site self build site was in my ward in Codicot and I remember we went through that as well at the time so yes thank you for that clarification okay cancer thank you chair it's just to clarify the response that was just given so we're saying of the site overall because the extensions I mean does that mean that the first couple there's five on there the first two that do it they're fine but the third one when they come to do exactly the same as the other two then get stumped so there's a condition sorry chair there's a condition I'm just trying to find which number it is now that restricts each property to 200 square metres and then plus the site overall to no more than a thousand square metres of floors place including the garages so each one individually can go up to 200 square metres without needing to come back to vary this original permission by removing that condition okay so even if they came back with planning application they could only go up to 200 metres because it was a bit when you said all the thousand then I then thought of the poor person that comes along last and then they end up with something else but it seems like and can we can do that we can sort of we haven't thank you but I'm saying it's not a case of we've always said that you have permissions and we have conditions but they can be removed at any time or other applications can come in if for example once these properties were established and someone did seek to extend one of their properties over 200 square metres they would need to come in and vary that original condition and in order to vary that initial condition they would need to provide suitable evidence as to why that was acceptable and one of those criteria would primarily be you would need to contribute section 106 just to add on that would be contribute section 106 for the site as a whole not that individual plot so they'd need to work out across the site as a whole which would be a big disincentive so we I just want to make it clear that contributions won't kick in at the moment because I believe this site is 999 square metres once it hits that thousand those contributions will kick in this site cannot go above 1000 square metres without contributions being required that's why those conditions have been imposed thank you Councillor Hawkins still clarify so because it's 999 all 5 potentially if anybody wants to increase that and it hits 101 all those 5 will have to contribute section 106 so at the minute we don't have details of size scale layout etc it's outline for 5 properties so in order to keep it below 999 square metres or below there's a condition to restrict each property because there's 5 condition 13 to 200 square metres we don't know how big the footprint of each property including the garage is proposed to be because as yet we don't have that detail because it's outline only so each property, each plot can go up to 200 square metres including a garage and then if each individual property wants to go beyond that they'll need to come back to remove this condition and then that will trigger a review of contributions required for the site as a whole thank you okay I can find my comments I think if this site had been normal development not market development as it's been commented I think it would be very difficult to approve it, it's outside of the land in the countryside even though it can be looked at as infill because it's surrounded by developments on all sides it's relatively isolated location so the question is whether the key issue obviously is the self-built housing we are way behind as Councillor Ffain has commented on the supply that we should be providing as a vanguard authority and we've been told it should be a high priority other applications where we've lost the expected has gone in favour of for instance one in Leesworth where for nine houses which was actually adjoining the development framework and was refused for arguments that it was outside the development framework and not appropriate have been lost so that we we know that the precedents are not terribly optimistic about being able we've got to really give a very high allocation to this and this site is actually completely surrounded by development which was unlike the one in Leesworth it's smaller and so the other aspects seem to be good we have to accept the college officers advice on that game I imagine from what was said that one of the aspects was removing all the remaining horse manure from the area so that could be planted up so that probably is quite an element by this diversity net game and that would be a benefit so I agree with the officers case officers view regarding impact upon adjoining listed buildings there's a big screener of vegetation on the road it's low density that could be that screening could be augmented during the actual detail design process we're only looking at the outline and the access at this moment so really we have not got the support of the highways officer regarding highways it's not an ideal certainly not an ideal location I can see why they're concerned about it but it is a 40 mile an hour limit at that point so we work upon the illegal framework speed limits when we're assessing it so I have to accept the advice on that that we've been given so I've come to the conclusion that we really have to accept the application before us and the grounds are to me significant I think actually I'm not sure about material planning considerations but I think the fact that you might be providing for family actually might be an issue that we are able to consider but no you don't think so fine we can't I've taken advice on that so that but generally I feel that the the other is a certain degree of unsatisfactoriness about it we're probably not going to get many more suitable sites in the countryside which that we can have which intrigue more into the open countryside outside a built up area and this is a small built up area surrounding it I think I will on balance I come to the view that we should approve this okay are we ready to get to a vote I propose then we go to a vote we'll have the second then seconded by Councillor Fein sorry the vote is to the recommendation to approve is to agree to the the office's recommendations to reject is to oppose to go for a refusal thank you just to confirm it if you're voting in favour you're voting to agree to the office's recommendations to approve the application if you're voting against you're voting to refuse the application thank you chair so that is six votes to one with one abstention to approve the application in accordance with the office's recommendation thank you now has the time doing we've got we have a ten minute break and then we'll come back to the final few minutes okay good fun now we're welcome back to the south country district council planning committee we're now item nine on the agenda a TPO this is a provisional pre-preservation order a 29 station road shepard council has requested a provisional TPO to be served for one early mature oak situated on a private land as for the council's constitution none emergency TPO's must be brought to the committee for permission to serve provisional and confirmed orders just for the committee to decide whether it is expedient in the interest of amenity to make provision for the preservation of the tree and the office's recommendations to approve the issuing of a none emergency provisional TPO is the presenting officer over to you agent oh sorry before we go ahead thank you for reminding me we are now reaching four hours of session we need to have a resolution to extend the session beyond four hours can I have a proposer a seconder from council Hawkins can I do it by affirmation thank you over to you okay good afternoon just to share my screen could you please confirm that you can see the slide show yes we can thank you agent sorry fantastic alright so this is the seat consent for the creation of a provisional TPO on behalf of shepard of parish council of one semi mature oak tree the provisional TPO will give statutory protection to the oak tree for six months allowing for representations and objections in consideration to confirming the TPO the recommendations to serve the provisional TPO based on amenity in an arboreal cultural assessment as evidenced within the TPO tree evaluation reports and information provided by shepard of parish council starting with the location of the oak tree in regards to the shepard of that village setting image one the left hand image is a wider map of shepworth the green arrow indicating the location of the oak tree along the northern access road into the village image two is a close to the arrow imagery highlighting the oak tree as T1 given the trees location and prominence it is fully visible from shepard train station car park and access road to shepworth wildlife park on the opposite side of the road some information regarding tree species and historical information as part of the assessment and evaluation process to determine if the tree qualifies for TPO one particular criteria is the historical and cultural importance historical information was provided by shepworth parish council the image shown on left of the side is believed to be the oak tree in question being planted in 1975 as described in the image the parent tree is believed to be an oak tree planted by Sir Winston Churchill at Churchill College Cambridge the image on the right hand side is the oak tree in shepworth in question known as the Churchill oak from last year in its semi mature state what follows is a collection of photos of the tree within the street setting image show the trees location and relationship immediate along station road given its location trees fully visible immediately to the train station carpark carpark and the nearby wildlife park meaning that it cannot be missed and very noticeable along the main road leading into shepworth the oak tree tree's prominence contributes to the leafy setting of the immediate landscape and with a mind to the tree species it has the potential to contribute to the immediate canopy cover for over 100 years or more given the opportunity in terms of the tree's general condition consider the tree oak tree is within the early mature stage with its life cycle and is of good health excuse me jumping ahead there continuing with the tree's contribution to the street setting images on this slide captured the oak tree's physician along the station road on the approach to the level crossing from the village again the tree's clearly prominent during the summer months the tree's canopy would create a daffling shade along the footpath and the road whilst vehicles wait for the level crossing to reopen the closer image of the tree captures the trunk and the limbs formation forming the tree's upper crown growing from the lower base this is quite unusual to see from a street tree because normally at an early stage through tree management these limbs would have been pruned off creating a clear stem so to summarise Shepworth Paris Council would like to preserve the tree through the protection of the TPO as is evident that the tree has historical and landscape importance to the village and has the potential to continue for years to come this is further demonstrated and supported through my temporary assessment report concluding that the tree has high immunity value and worthy of TPO therefore the proposal is for the consent from planning committee to issue a provisional TPO OK have we any any questions for the opportunity for that Councillor Wilson Yes I was just wondering why it would be provisional and not permanent It's a good question it starts off out as a provisional the provisional allows to collect more information and then we'll come back to get consent for confirmation of the TPO Thank you Are there any other questions? Do we any other debate that people wish to make so we go straight to the vote OK I propose and Councillor Hawkins seconds so we get to a vote please Can I take it by affirmation? Great OK thank you Now we go to the Are there any against OK Now we go to another TPO of Foxton the provisional TPO preservation order at full close adjacent to 57 station road, Foxton Foxton parish council has requested a provisional TPO to be served for one mature road outside of a private property the officers recommendation is to approve the issuing of an emergency provisional TPO Adrian can you your presenting officer to take us through this please Yes certainly so this is to see consent for the creation of a provisional TPO on behalf of Foxton parish council of one mature oak tree located at Hall Close, Foxton the provisional TPO will give statutory protection to the oak tree for six months to allow for further consideration to confirm the TPO order The recommendations to serve the provisional TPO are based on assessment and conclusions within the tree evaluation report Foxton parish council TPO request application So start again starting with the location of the oak tree in relation to the Foxton village setting Image 1 is a general wider map of Foxton, the green arrow indicates the location of the oak tree which is situated north of the village close to Foxton train station and the A10 Image 2 is a magnified map given the more accurate point of the oak tree position highlighted as T1 Hall Close is a non through road primarily used by residents to the street however the tree is visible from the wider landscape especially from the main access road into the village known as station road east of the tree So again, three historical information as part of the assessment and evaluation process to determine if the tree qualifies for TPO one particular criteria is historical and cultural importance historical information was sought in this instance historical OS mapping recorded of the area was found to show an individual tree plotted near to the location of the oak tree which is ringed yellow on the left hand side image the OS the OS map is dated 1886 and potentially the tree was part of the Foxton Hall State So given the estimated age of the tree being around 200 years old and the location is highly likely that the individual tree in fact is the oak tree in question the image on the right hand side is a modern OS map of the same area with the oak tree highlighted So these are photos taken as part of my site visit both images are of the oak tree showing its ground prominence immediately within Hall Close Given its location is immediately visible from public points its crown is seen from a distance along station road Given the tree's size and its maturity is considered to be a landmark with an landscape to those using the nearby train station no travelling to and from the heart of the village The oak tree is a true native species believe to be a peduncle in oak that's English oak Such species have high connection to ecology importance supporting wildlife Furthermore English oak trees are known to be deeply connected to historical and culture important and this tree clearly has historical portents to the village With the mind to the tree's general condition it is considered that the oak tree is within a later stage of its life cycle with the mind to the tree's species and the general appearance tree has the potential to live up to 100 years or possibly more So the tree is located outside of the village conservation area meaning the tree has no legal protection and an air of vulnerability So the tree the oak tree within the wider landscape this image is from the top junction of hill close sorry hall close to the station connected to station road the oak tree's canopy is prominent within the landscape and probably more so in summer months when fallen leaf of being an example of a grand native oak tree So to summarise the oak tree's high amenity value it's prominent within the landscape and it is worthy of a TPO Therefore the proposal is for the consent for planning committee to issue a provisional TPO Thank you very much Have you any questions for Councillor Hawkins Thank you chair Oh that's the one I was going to ask to put up I noticed the fence, can we have the picture back Oh yes certainly I noticed the fence that is right next to it is the because it's got is that concrete basers The here So yeah you've got a fence line with I guess it's what you call a concrete base but in terms of having any impact to effect to the tree it's questionable if that's where you're going with that I just want to clarify whether or not it's affecting the root and if that is Given the tree's age and how long it's been there and obviously we don't know how long that fence has been there but it would be minimal considering actually looking at the tree's vitality and overall health Thank you Councillor Fane Could I ask we go back to the other photograph of the tree and the wider landscape Yeah Is this the one? That's the one yes You mentioned this tree is not protected by being in a conservation area How close is the conservation area I'm just wondering whether the tree on the right in that photograph is either in the conservation area or protected in some other way That's a good question I can't provide the information right now Fair enough, it's not relevant to this application Okay Do we have any comments any debate? Can we go straight to a vote on this I propose we go to the vote seconded by Councillor Hawkins Can we do it by affirmation again Are we all agreed to support, promote, agree with to it Thank you very much Any against? No, thank you very much indeed Okay, that is approved Now we Thank you very much Adrian Okay Thank you There we are now, item number 11 on the on the agenda compliance We will join us online Thank you very much Good afternoon chair Good afternoon Members of the committee Just a quick update this month I think last time that I attended committee myself I wasn't at the last one but when I attended before that I advised you that I thought there would be around 800 new compliance cases for 2023 That figure was actually 798 so I wasn't a million miles off so that gives you the that was the figures for south Cambridge here and Cambridge city So I'm just sorry I'm in the wrong place on my documentation just looking at the statistical reports You asked at the last committee in December I think for the priorities to be added to the report for priority A, B and C and what that means Hopefully you've seen that I've added that to the report that's at page 228 into 229 and I'll leave those on the reports going forward to remind everyone at the priority cases that enforcement have and how we deal with those and then moving on ever so slightly we've been providing you with new statistics going forward and some of those are at appendix three of my report so open cases less than six months old now have 232 I've given a breakdown of the priorities of those where where the priority system came in in November when we first started that so we've got one on priority A 12 priorities and 88 priority Cs we've got 363 cases on six months old and we don't have statistical data for the priorities of those cases at the moment because the system was implemented priority system was implemented less than six months ago and I think that probably covers my update just if there's any questions council council Williams thanks chair so I've just on what you just said about the cases open over six months bless you I appreciate the new system I say you haven't got those priorities but as those are currently in the fifth month to next month will then go over six months will you then give us a breakdown of those before the new period and then the priority rating for those more than six months so eventually we get to a situation where we've got categories for that as well yeah that will happen I believe you may have asked a question council Williams previously about whether we could go back and put in the priorities for the older cases I have had a quick look at that unfortunately I can't do that there is a situation is that in order to put priorities onto the case loads we've had to repurpose part of the database and previously that part of the database was doing something else this is a bit complicated it's about the fields that you fill in and that would mean removing information out so we will just have to wait for those cases to progress, get older and for them to then come onto the statistics naturally hopefully that made sense or sort of you know clear what I was trying to say there yeah thank you it does, I think my question previously was if we could just know if there were any priority A's that were over six months because we did that sort of bit where which I appreciate you wouldn't be able to log them but you may have an idea of what we would now call a priority A that are more than six months old possibly it's not recorded anyway it would require us to go through the backlist and see what types of breaches we've got obviously there might be priority A's but as you can appreciate that some of those do take lengthy periods of time to sort out so it won't be representative of whether something hasn't happened or not but I can certainly have a look to see whether we can provide some kind of information on that without digging too far into it thank you that'd be really good because it just gives us those 363 cases it gives us more scope to be able to gather sort of where we're at if it's lots in priority C obviously priority is important but it gives us a bit of a steer as a committee as to where things are at so I think that's really helpful if you're able to a bit like a bit of a warning my husband always describes as a rain early warning sensor so I'm sort of looking for the same in planning enforcement here I think it's the idea okay no worries nor worry do you have any comments upon the high priority cases that we should be made aware of or do you feel it's relevant particular? I don't know not at this moment in time to be honest with you high priority cases actually few and far between therefore are more serious cases whereby obviously someone is removing a tree preservation order tree or some destructive works are taking place to obviously a listed building we are fortunate that generally speaking our constituents are behaving that respect and we don't have too much of that thankfully thank you very much okay have we for the questions removed one now to item where I put sir you will note the report okay thank you very much indeed okay now we come on to appeals and Rebecca would you please for the appeals report I have nothing further to add really to what's on the in the report there's a list of decisions that we've had recently within the last month in December and then those that we've received or was only one received in December at Tevesham Way but if anybody's got any questions about any particular appeals please do let me know and I can come back to you with them as I did last month the the Watson appeal council thing jump into it now there's a question relating to page 239 near the bottom in 33523 the navigator high street little shelter that is that pub is an ACV has recently been declared an appeal against enforcement because the extraction necessary if the kitchen doesn't have plenty of mission I suspect that appeal may be withdrawn because the kitchens have now closed as a result of this and moved to another site that does draw into question the viability of the ACV pub but I don't know whether it has in fact been withdrawn or whether they're going to continue with the appeal thank you I'll make a note but as yet we haven't had the notice that it's been withdrawn unless Chris has got any more today information than me but he's gone I was just going to ask if there's any further news there was an appeal that I referred to in the previous application about needsworth for for housing self-build housing which what we lost and there was an issue about costs have we had any further information upon that is that one of basing board? land south of the causeway so a JR has been filed by the council with the court but we're waiting an update from the court so we filed a request to judiciary review on the basis of the inspector misinterpreting some supporting text in our opinion in the local plan and failing to take account of material considerations so we're appealing against the decision or the cost decision the decision and the cost award okay thank you it's useful to know councillor Wilson what is my duty I just we just seem to have a lot more appeals than we used to have in the past and I was just curious whether it's people more prepared to appeal or whether there's another reason no sorry I can't answer that one in terms of the actual number of appeals received we've only got one lodged in December but it's the appeals awaiting a decision from the inspectorate that's the ever growing list unfortunately we've got problem it's not just us the whole country has problems in terms of getting decisions from the planning inspectorate they're taking a lot longer than they used to historically so yeah there's only one appeal received but yeah the list is ever growing of those awaiting decisions okay because it just seems a very long list compared to when I was on planning committee a couple of years ago but yeah that explains it thank you the appeal for the Darwin Darwin Green site which is currently going ahead are you happy about that his proceeding can you have any report back on that it only started this way I have not had any chance to look at it I've been in here today rather than being able to watch it but it has been broadcast so we can watch online if we want to but as yet I've not heard anything that is clearly going to be quite a significant appeal Councillor Hawkins oh thank you it's just falling on from what Councillor Wilson said I was just looking at the list here and two on that list waiting decision is on one site in my ward so they put in applications to do two different things they got refused on those two different things and it went to appeal on those two different applications for the single site which is interesting I think one of the ones that I updated on in between last month's committee and this month's committee we actually had to have everything with pins in the middle of July and it took until last week to get a decision from them so it's taken six, seven months to get appeal decisions at the minute any other comments thank you very much okay sorry we're not the report day to the next meeting is on the Wednesday the 14th of February on that I close the meeting and what can you look forward to seeing you on the 14th thank you very much