 Mae angen i'r wneud, mae angen i'r mynd i'r lleidwyr. Mae gennych i'r edrych ar y cyfnod i'r ysgrifennu. Mae angen i'r lleidwyr. Mae angen i'r lleidwyr. Mae angen i'r lleidwyr, mae oedd o'r gwaith o'r byw i'r gweithio'r myfyrdd, a'r gweithio'r rymocl o'r ysgrifennu. Mae yna'r gweithio'r Cabinet Gwyddiad Cymru. Yn ystod, mae fyddwch chi'n gweithio'rcaf hybrif mwyaf, mae weithio'r gweithiol yn y gweithio, ar gyfer gweithio'r newydd, ddiddordeb, ac yn gyfnod oherwydd mae'n gwneud yn ymddylliannol. Felly yno'n gyfaint fel gwirio'r gweithio, ac rhaid i'r ffordd iddo gwybod yma yma sy'n ei ddweud yn ymddangos, a yna'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio. Ond rhai dweud hynny yn unrhyw hynny'r cymryd, a hefyd yn cael ei bod fe gweithio'r gweithio'i gilydd, mae nid yn gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio, ac mae'n cyfwyr o'r cyflwyngau â'r defnyddau yn yna'r ffwrdd. a nid o gweithio, mae'n gyflwyngau o'r cyflwyngau ar y c roaming, ac yn y ffyrdd cymoed awrfaf, o'r ffyrdd, y ffordd y Llanwyll yn cyd-synol, i'w ffyrdd y byddai yw'r ffyrdd yn ychydigwyr ymlaen, y Llywodraeth Cymru, y Llywodraeth Cymru, y Gweithgwr Llywodraeth, y Gweithgwr Llywodraeth, y Llwyng Galyri, ychydigweith ystafell ym Llywodraeth, gyda'r eich ddaf i'r gwaith, yn y gweithfawr yn y gweithgwr y gyrfa a'r gweithgwr ym Llywodraeth, ond y staf wedi'i gweithgwr, If you feel unwell or need first aid, please alert a member of staff. So my name is Councillor Bridget Smith and I'm the leader of South Cambridge District Council and I'm the chair of this Cabinet. So for the information of members of the public, the Cabinet, which is made up of myself and seven lead Cabinet members, is responsible for most council services for preparing a budget and the council's major policies and strategies for consideration by full council, which consists of 45 members. The normal procedure at Cabinet is that votes are taken by affirmation and we will continue with this tradition. When we move to a vote on any item, I will ask if members agree with the proposal. If any member wants to either vote against a proposal or abstain, then a roll call will be taken. I'll then ask Cabinet members to speak into the microphone so that the vote is clear. In fact, we'll be able to do that by raising hands, won't we, now that we're in person. So ignore that one. We will raise hands. I'm not going to introduce all the Cabinet members because when they speak, I think their names will appear on the live stream. They'll be identifiable. May I just check whether we have Council Grenfell Chamberlain participating in the meeting is away? I don't think that we've received a report from scrutiny, so I think that's fine that they're not President's Birkhead. I hope Council Chamberlain is enjoying his well-earned holiday. I think any Cabinet members who are participating remotely just like to identify themselves, please. I can see Councillor Neil Goff speaking, but I can't hear him. Okay, so Councillor Neil Goff, we know you're there. We're just trying to sort out the technical glitch, which means that we're not hearing you, but we'll sort that out so that when you want to speak in the meeting, you will be able to do so. So we have a number of members of the Council participating in the meeting, but would those members of the Council who are participating remotely like to make themselves known? Is it possible to see everybody who's streaming in on the screen at once if they put the camera on? Okay, so if people streaming in put their camera on, then we can see them. Okay, well that's, that's, oh, marvellous, jolly good. So is there anybody, so I'll identify you for that ease's sake, is there, are there any members of the Council participating remotely who haven't been able to turn their camera on? You'd need to put into the chat, I think, and Councillor Bill Handley, who is subbing as deputy today, will be able to pick that up. So I can see on the screen Councillor Nick Wright, Councillor Neil Goff, who's already been identified, Councillor Bunty Waters, Councillor Aidan Van Derwire, and Councillor Richard Williams. Welcome, well thank you very much all of you for taking the time to participate and I look forward to seeing all of you in this Chamber before too long. We also have various officers from our senior leadership presence, Liz Watts, our chief executive is here, our chief legal officer is present and streaming in remotely is our director of shared planning as well. So moving on to the bulk of the meeting, sorry I should say we also have democratic service officers very much involved, without them it would all go horribly wrong. So going on to item number two, apologies for absence, Liz are there any apologies for absence today please? No, no apologies to her. Chair, I believe it. That's Councillor Peter McDonald, has he said? Sorry, yes Peter McDonald. Rebecca, thank you. I was just going to confirm, as Liz has said, from Peter McDonald, I understand. Thank you. Erin, can I just confirm, do I need to switch my microphone off when other people do mine can stay on all the time, can it? Excellent, thank you. Okay, so apologies from Councillor Peter McDonald. Moving on to item three, declarations of interest, do any members have interests to declare in relation to any item of business on this agenda? If an interest subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting, please would you raise it at that point? Councillor Toomey Hawkins. Thank you, leader. I'm not sure if I need to declare one here, but East West Rail, its preferred alignment is going through Highfields Caldicot, which is where I live. I'm working with the Action Group in the village. Thank you, that will be noted in the minutes. Councillor Anna Bradnam. Thank you, leader. In a similar way, the text report of East West Rail does not refer to a route through my villages, but I'm interested nevertheless. Thank you. Any other declarations of interest? Thank you very much. Moving on. The minutes of the previous meeting, members are asked to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 19 April 2021. I move approval of those minutes. Councillor Handley, will you second those? Thank you, second those. Does anybody want to comment on the minutes, which will take us a whole? Do members agree to approve the minutes? Anybody wish to vote against or abstain? Thank you very much indeed. Cabinet therefore agrees the approval of the minutes as a correct record by affirmation. Item five is public questions, and we've received no public questions ahead of this meeting. Can I just confirm, Rebecca, that's still the case. Nothing's landed late. No public questions? Time aware of, leader, thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Moving on to the main substance of the meeting. Item six is liaison meeting update, and Councillor Bill Handley is going to introduce a report and move the recommendation. Thank you, leader. Cabinet agreed last year to set up five liaison meetings in the villages of Sourston, Barrington, Hardwick, Swayze and Caldicott. These meetings allow a dialogue between village residents and developers with support from planning and communities officers. We embarked on these meetings listening to and engaging with our communities is vital to this administration. That's why this was a key action in our business plan. The villagers were chosen because there was, is or will be, significant growth taking place in them, all because there are multiple developers building homes there. The concept of parish liaison meetings was developed in Cotnam initially, and a trial there was considered a great success by all involved. As the report describes, these meetings have been a tremendous success. All liaison groups have met at least twice, and they've been positively received by all parties and have seen as a good way to encourage discussion, avoid misunderstandings, and to give a chance to avoid disputes from developing. I think it's worthwhile drawing Cabinet's attention to the comment from the planning director at Bloor Homes, who said, in my view, the liaison meeting was useful because it deals with communication around the delivery of development projects as they are happening. In my role, I deal with 22 different district and borough councils in the planning process, and South Cams is the only authority where significant efforts have been made on post-planning liaison in this format. All too often the planning stops and the construction starts, and that's where communication starts to break down. So, in summer 2020, Cabinet agreed to review the meetings within the first year to ensure they were working as intended. In the report, you'll see that it says that no changes are proposed, but in actual fact, we will be reviewing the villages that are a part of this scheme. So, really, it's for Cabinet to note and comment on the report. Thank you very much, and to you, Councillor Handley. Do you have a seconder? Councillor Tumihawk, is that something? Do you want to speak now or speak at the end? Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much, leader. These liaison meetings, at least the one in my village, has certainly been very useful. We had three sites, which together will have created nearly 260 new homes, 74 of which is currently in Abayans. I chair the meetings and I have found that it has been a good way of airing issues that have occurred, may occur, and get information out of the developers as to how things are going and when they expect to have work that will be destructive to the community. But also, I find that, obviously, if people can talk and there's a means of getting issues resolved very quickly, that works for all concern, and that has been what I have found with the call the court liaison meeting. It started off a bit shaky to begin with, but we've had the third one now, and I think we've settled into understanding each other. I definitely would recommend that where we can, if we have the resources too, we should add some more villages to it who will be subject to a lot of development. Thank you very much indeed. I've got Councillor Brian Mills first, and then Councillor John Williams. Thank you very much indeed, Councillor Mills. I've got Councillor John Williams. Thank you, Leader. Well, that's Councillor Hadley said that it will be reviewed as more developments happen, and there is the potential for a 330 new homes in Fallbourne as a result of two developments that will be coming to Planning Committee for determination. So I welcome the fact that we will be looking at more of these happening as the developments come on stream. Excellent. Thank you very much. Anyone else from Cabinet wish to speak on this item? Thank you. Councillor Anna Bradman. Thank you, Leader. I just wanted to say I was slightly startled to see that there was no mention of the liaison meetings that we've been having very successfully about Water Beach Newtown since its inception. These did pause during the pandemic restrictions, but they have been very useful with the community, enabling the community to ask the developers directly their questions. And of course it's particularly important that these continue at Water Beach Newtown because we have two developers and two halves of the site. The first urban and civic is developing out already at space one on the western part of the site, but we do still have quite a lot of clarifications and explanations to be had with the RLW who are building out the right hand east side of the site. So I'm fondly believing that we will continue to have liaison meetings at Water Beach Newtown as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. I participated in quite a lot of meetings about that particular development. Do you want to comment on that? Thank you. So it was just to clarify the two meetings. This report covers the new liaison meetings that were set up as part of the business plan action. So these were in villages where more growth was taking place. But as Councillor Bradman said, there is also the community forums such as at Water Beach and there's no plans to stop those. They're really valuable. So just to give that clarification. That's lovely. Good. Thank you very much indeed. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, leader. Just wanted to clarify on the reviewing process that that means an expansion of the programme and just some reassurance to the villages that are already receiving it that that will continue. There's no plans to review who gets it. Thank you. I'm going to refer to Councillor Bill Handley for an answer to that. Yes, when I say to be reviewed, I think it's to be expanded. But the one the villages that are already enjoying these days on meetings will continue to enjoy. OK. OK. And it's really important when we established something that we review them for, you know, to find out how successful they are. To see if there's anything we should be doing differently in order to make them even better. So you know, given resources, unlimited resources, I'm sure we'd have lots, lots more because these are undoubtedly very successful. Any is anyone who's streaming into the meeting wishing to speak on this? Just give everybody an opportunity just to put in the chat that they wish to speak. What people with a camera on could always wave, because I think I can see you now. Councillor Nick Wright is smiling. Councillor Aiden of Andawire. It's a thumbs up. Jolly good. OK. Thumbs up. Thumbs up back, Councillor Andawire. OK. So I gather that we don't actually need to vote on this. This is to be noted for information. All right. So thank you very much, Councillor Handley. And thank you to those officers who have made a huge success of this. And actually, if anybody would like to invite me to come and participate in one of them, I'd be really pleased to do so because I'd love to see them working. So, you know, just invite me and I shall rock up four to more than one. OK. Moving on to item number seven, which is the Pioneer Park Licence Agreement. And Councillor Bill Handley is going to present this again. Yes, thank you, Leader. There's quite a bit of history to this item. And I hope you will just bear with me while I summarise the important points connected to it. Pioneer Park North Stow was brought forward as part of the open space requirement for phase one of the development and has been designed with equipment both for older and younger children. The community's team was very keen that the provision in phase one would be as progressive as the elements planned for phase two. They were very keen to avoid one phase having superior provision to the other. The outdoor gym and table tennis tables that we are discussing was the result of their efforts, which augment existing provision in Pioneer Park. The council installed the equipment using its permitted development rights. It should have been installed in April 2020, but because of the coronavirus pandemic and the lockdown, this was delayed. The park was opened in October 2020 and the gym equipment installed in January 2021. Unfortunately, the topography of the site meant that the equipment could not be installed in precisely the correct place as defined in the licence plan and with installation workers on the site. The small change to its location identified was agreed between officers and the landowner's site director. I'm told that this kind of small adjustment, which is made necessary by the practicalities of installation happens quite frequently on sites such as this. On this occasion, although the installation of the equipment was generally well received by residents, householders in some of the neighbouring properties raised concerns and formally lodged complaints to the council. Last week, we received a letter signed by several residents and addressed to the Cabinet, but this won't be changing the council's position on this today and I will be responding to those people formally in the next few days. As you'd expect, the council conducted resident engagement and the plans were presented to the community. Unfortunately, the consultation couldn't involve the residents who now lived close to the park because the house hadn't been built then. They weren't built or occupied. In response to the concerns raised by residents however, the council took the decision to remove the table tennis tables as these had been installed slightly closer to homes than the original licensed agreement area. We are now engaging with the community, including the Newtown council on the best location for the eventual reciting of the tables. People have got until the end of May to give us their views on that. The outdoor gym remains in situ, although the council chose not to open it to the public until the deed of variation had been discussed at Cabinet. This equipment is very close to the original site location and it's approximately the same distance from the homes as originally envisaged. A revised plan has been prepared to reflect the actual location of the outdoor gym and Ellen Cew, the landowner, has offered a deed of variation to formalise the agreement they have with us for the actual location. It's therefore felt that the revision to the licence presented to you today is needed so that the outdoor gym can be opened as requested by the majority of the residents of Northstone. Cabinet is asked to accept and approve the deed of variation proposed by Ellen Cew, which regularises the licensed area described in the agreement with the actual location of the outdoor gym equipment. The report does give Cabinet's options, but I recommend that we agree to accept the deed of variation proposed by Ellen Cew and proceed. Thank you very much indeed, Councillor Handley. Do we have a seconder for that, please? Councillor Tumi Hawkins, thank you very much indeed. Right, so it's obviously very important that we get this sorted out. Northstone is after all a healthy towns initiative and the COVID pandemic has highlighted the importance for people to stay healthy and well and to be able to exercise, so it's important that we get this sorted out very quickly. Are there any Cabinet members who would like to speak on this item? Does Councillor Gough want to speak remotely? He's not indicating so. No, okay. Any other council members? I'll cancel Heather Williams. Thank you, leader. I've just got a couple of questions. It's been sent to Cabinet. I'm just wondering whether that will be shared with all members of the council so we can see what the concerns of the residents are because we've been told there's no changes, but that's hard to judge when you don't know what the changes are that's been requested. The other is how much the change of this equipment, which, as we know from full council, has provided a bit of controversy, how much has the new licence and the deed of variation cost the council to make the changes, please? Thank you. I'm going to come to Councillor Handley for the first part of the question. I suspect we might have to come back to you on the second part. I suspect we probably don't have that information. Yes indeed, Councillor Williams. We'll let you see the letter as no secret and the leader is correct. I'm going to have to come back to you with some figures. I suspect we do that once we've got this fully resolved and then because otherwise we'll give you a partial figure. So once this is resolved then we will share that information and we will arrange for that letter to be shared forthwith. Good, lots of nods all round. Okay, any other comments or questions on this item from anyone else? Not in the meeting? Nope, okay, thank you very much. So thank you Councillor Handley. I know there's been a considerable amount of work gone into this on your behalf and Gareth Bell's behalf and another of the office as well. Sorry Liz, so I can't hear you. Yes I know, we're going to. Yes, I know that. I was just doing the thank yous before the vote. Yes I know there's been a considerable amount of effort gone into resolving this hopefully to the satisfaction of the vast majority of people. So I thank Councillor Handley and I thank all the officers who have put in a lot of time and effort. So we're coming to the vote on this. Cabinet is recommended to agree to accept the data variation proposed by L&Q which regularises the licensed area described in the agreement with the actual location of the outdoor gym equipment. So do members agree with this proposal? Does anyone wish to vote against? Anyone wish to abstain? Thank you very much. So Cabinet therefore agrees the proposal by Appamation. And moving on to item 8 which is East West Rail Bedford to Cambridge route alignments and station locations consultation response. So a complicated and thorny issue and Councillor Neil Goff is going to present this and I'm hoping that we're going to be able to hear him now from his car. Oh no, he's not sure where he is. Still can't hear you Neil. Still can't hear you. You can hear on team. All right, so people on teams can hear but we can't hear in the chamber. Speaker, have a go. Let's just take a breather for a moment to see if, because we have to have this resolved. It's worked in the past, it's just not working now. There's a gremlin, it's fine. Take your time and sort it out. Can I just ask Stephen Kelly just to speak, turn his microphone on and speak, see if we can hear him. No, I'll hear you either. Case for subtitles or sign language. I'm just leaving it up to the experts. Neil, would you like to have another go, see if we can hear you now? Tiny bit. Not good enough though. Try again Neil. Can you hear me Neil now? No, he can't hear me now. OK, try again Neil. Can't hear me. Right Neil, can you hear me? No, he can't. Can you hear me now Neil? I can hear you. Ray, we can hear you. Crecon, quickly. Oh, we've lost a picture of you now. You're back, you're back. Right, Crecon Neil. Infrastructure that's going to come to our district in the next decade or so. The project that recognises how this is done will directly impact many of our residents substantially over a period of time through both construction and operation. This response to the consultation sets out our expectations of East West Rail, focusing particularly on those areas that this council has a responsibility towards on behalf of its residents and where those plans interact with our own plans. So looking at issues such as impact on heritage, air quality noise and so forth and the relationship to growth plans. We've very much seen in the past from the experience on the A14, the importance of becoming very engaged and actively involved as a council in these plans and we will very much do so with East West Rail. I think this paper clearly sets out our expectations as a key stakeholder on behalf of our residents. We will be active and involved with East West Rail as these plans develop. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Sorry, we're doing, is this just noting? No, no, we're actually approving. Councillor Hawkins, are you seconding this item? Thank you. Would you like to speak now or later? I will not speak later. OK. Councillor John Williams. Thank you, leader. Of course, the East West Rail doesn't stop at Cambridge. It goes on to Ipswich. I'm very pleased that in our response we have picked up on the fact that it will go east of Cambridge to Ipswich and use the new market line. At the moment, East West Rail have provided no information whatsoever on the impact it will have on the existing new market line. So I'm very pleased that on page 39 under other points, we do raise this issue with East West Rail, particularly as that line is single track and has quite a lot of level crossings and public right of way across it. And obviously East West Rail will impact on that existing rail line. So I do hope that East West Rail, take that into account and that we are able very soon to hear from East West Rail what impact it will have on the new market line, which obviously goes through Fendinial. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Williams. Just for clarification, I'm told that I need to be the proposer of this with Councillor Hawkins as the seconder. Thank you very much. Thank you there too. Yes, Councillor Milnes. Yes, he has pressed it actually. He's up on page 39 now. Is that any better? Oh, thank you. Continue please. Yes, so as I was suggesting, louder than I expected, it's a personance issue. It's a huge issue for people in the area, which is under our consideration. So the villages of Haarston, Hasingfield and Hawxton particularly. The issues of severance are particularly germane to those residents. And I applaud the officer's response in this regard. It's a very comprehensive report, but of course it's entirely limited by the nature of the proposals from East West Rail, which are very insubstantial. And until they come forward with a much more substantive case, we'll only be able to respond in the general manner. So I look forward to seeing more firm proposals from East West Rail that we can respond to appropriately. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Milnes. Points well made. And like you, I applaud the response that has been prepared by our officers, which I think is very good. And I have received many, many dozens of letters from residents and parish councils on this. And I have been sharing those with our officers so that the response that's come from this council reflects the concerns of our residents as much as is possible. And I will continue to do that. Are there any other cabinet members wishing to speak? No. Councillor Bradlin. Thank you, leader. I draw our attention to Section 2 on page 29, which refers to the fact that the response notes that the consultation indicates that there is a preference for a southern axis. I would like officers to consider adding in some wording along the lines of any deviation in the preferred route might impact other heritage and landscape sites. And we request that if variations are considered, East West Rail evaluates the potential for other important sites to be impacted. Thank you, Councillor Bradlin. If you could pass the wording of that on to Rebecca, that would be helpful. I'm just going to come back to Councillor Goff and just ask if he wants to comment on that. I think that seems to me very sensible and is in the spirit of maintaining engagement and active engagement with East West Rail. If their plans change, we want them to come back to us and we would expect them to do so. Thank you very much, yes. For information, the Arc Leaders Group and the Arc Cleanery Group, which is all the leads because the arc have written to East West Rail and ministers appealing for East West Rail to be electric and not to be diesel. Yes, now I've got a list here, so in order as well, thank you. So, if there's nobody else in the room who wishes to speak on this, we will come to those people who are remotely participating. And first on my list is Councillor, are you sure? Okay, sorry, I missed you. If you're sure, I'll come back to you after I've done the three people on my list here. Thank you very much, Councillor Williams. Councillor Aiden van der Weyer first, please. So, can you hear me? Can I just take that you can hear me? Yes. So, I just wanted to go to the single point. You just said that councillors in the room have, you go to councillors in the room first. I was wondering whether some more actual means of some of the people who speaks could be found. Because that doesn't seem very satisfactory that councillors in the room have preferential treatment. Point taken. Thank you, Councillor Williams. Councillor Richard Williams. No, I wanted to speak. Okay, so, sorry, I had, I was, people in the room had indicated they wanted to speak before I was handed the list of the people wishing to participate remotely. And as you'll be aware now, councillor, the Williams has deferred until after the three speakers who are participating remotely have indicated they want to speak. So, this is our first meeting. So, I'm making a point that surely people should be allowed to speak in the order they're requested, regardless of the means of their request. No, I'll just leave it there. I'm just going to address it. A second point I'd like to make before, before I get into actually speaking on substance, is that, as you said, the report was prepared by officers. It doesn't mean, I think, generally to imply therefore that it is the sort of, we're just seeing this essentially for the first time. I mean, the, this has been, I think, shaped by discussions. I'm sure many people have discussed with the officers previously. So, I'm speaking as a local member for Great Anatol Episton, which is one of the villages, some of the villages are most affected by this. And in particular, they are sort of halfway between the stations that are being proposed and therefore get all of the downside and none of the benefits. So, I'm sure you understand that my villages are particularly concerned by this and have been very, very useful discussions with them, some of which shall be reflected in what I'm saying now. I think we need to say very clearly, and this report does, that we agree in principle, that a railway line going from Cambridge Oxford and well beyond in both directions would bring huge benefits in terms of sustainable transport, getting people out of their cars and also taking the focus of our transport system away from London, which has a range of really beneficial implications. This is, as we've all seen, going to have a huge impact on us, on our residents and on the future development of our area. And we need to, one way or another, get it right. This report is a really big step in expressing the views of South Pembrokeshire, our residents and I sort of thinking about the future development of the area to East West Rail and Government. And I will emphasise that point. This is not just about East West Rail Company, this is about the government listening to what we say and how the government is thinking about the shape of the future of this area. I think I might come back to ask a specific question of officers in particular about what we as a council can appropriate and appropriately and effectively say in response to this consultation in this. It's been a few people who have raised with me and I'm sure with others that we could possibly have gone further in some aspects and I would like to ask for some advice on that. The main thing that I think this report does show is how little information we've been given in order to come to a view on the route options, choices between them and whether they're good or not. And this isn't just about the fact that it makes it hard for us to have a view, it undermines confidence in the government's decision making process if we are not given the information that we need. It is absolutely clear that all of the information that East West Rail has and Government has has not been shared with us. Government and East West Rail have made choices and have expressed preferences based on information that we do not have. And therefore, they have not been open and transparent in them. So, I'll put in a, if you can't hear me very well, I'll try and speak more clearly. So, the, I've said publicly that we should this project should not be delayed. We should not be doing things that delay the project and and there are really serious problems with the information we have that we have been drawn out in this report. And that is apparent that East West Rail Government are not doing the job properly now, and that is storing up huge risks for delay in the process and the impact of these problems is going to be amplified if they're not dealt with now. It is up to Government to address, and East West Rail to address these problems and engage with them better, engage better with residents and their representatives. So, one of the major issues is around the engineering and the sort of scale of the proposal that have been made out. I don't think anyone could have imagined what they would look like in advance. And these huge embankments and viaducts, the kind of, I mean, sort of have a huge impact on the landscape, cause noise impacts across a wide area. We don't have really a lot of information about how those choices were made to propose those engineering solutions, particularly engineering solutions. There's been a lot of discussion about other options that could be deployed along this route, this route or other routes. So the only specific thing I'd like to comment on in relation to the report itself is whether that we could have something about the sort of thinking behind those choices about the engineering and why this effectively, the choice was made to take the line over everything, rather than somewhat sophisticated solutions that would have less of a landscape and noise impact. Obviously, a further point is around the severance of links for paths and roads in particular that it has become apparent, some discussions with East West Rail, that effectively they have chosen this to take the line over everything, largely in order to avoid severing any links, that there is still a lot of concern about the links that will be affected, how people will be able to get to school, not just the Haaston and Newton one, but in other places as well. If it is the case that East West Rail is saying that no links would be affected, I think they could have done with being more explicit about that, because there's a lot of concern on that. A couple of points that I'd just emphasise that are in the port about freight, which I think is a lot of concern about the potential for the line to be used for freight, especially the timings of that use and the type of traction that's used, whether diesel is allowed at all for freight. I think that we're hugely disappointing. Likewise electrification, I think we've made the point very well that this line absolutely needs to be electrified from the start, we can't be having diesel trains on it in any form. Finally, given the scale of the negative impact here, we do need to know that it is worth it, that they are going to get benefits and also what comes along with it. I think this point is made well enough in the report, but the business case for this line is not clear. The benefits of the local community are not clear, and also the expectations about what development will be brought along with this line are also not clear. When you talk to each of the rail, they say it's not ours, it's not each of the rail's job to articulate that. However, from the point of view of a resident or a district councillor, the government is the government. It is not our problem that different bits of government don't talk to each other, and it's not up to us to struggle in a futile way to navigate the opaque workings of the government and frankly the Conservative party. We say this well, but we need to keep saying to the East West Rail and to government that if you're planning to build infrastructure at this scale with this impact, we need to know what comes with it and what we can get out of it. Thank you very much for that detailed summary of resident's concerns. Is Councillor Gough still available? Does he want to comment on any of those points before we move on? So thank you, Councillor Vandua for that. So I think you raised a lot of good points in there. I think this point in particular about transparency and provision of information being important to bring residents and communities along with East West Rail. And the government on this is particularly well made, and I think that's a point which I reread through the submission, but I think that engagement is really important. And if there's a feeling on the part of residents or communities that they've been kind of denied access to information, that will, as you say, store up potential problems for the future. In terms of doing the work on the business case and so forth, there's a lot, obviously, which East West Rail still have to do. My understanding is that they just have to do that for the statutory processes, and if they don't do it, they will become unstuck subsequently in that, but Mr Kelly might like to comment on that. But I think your point's really about transparency and so forth are very important, and we'll make sure we reflect those. Thank you very much indeed. Can I just bring in Liz Watts? Thank you, and through you, Chair. For members who are dialing in virtually, I think the issue is around your microphones. So if, for this morning, you could just make sure that you're directing your voice directly towards the microphone in your laptop and try and speak slowly and clearly, that would be really helpful. In the future, I think we'll have to ask you to wear headsets. We are hearing you, but it's a tiny bit of a struggle. Thank you very much indeed. Right, so thank you. Thank you, Councillor Gough for your response there. Councillor Richard Williams next, please. Thank you very much, Chair. Can you hear me okay? I'll keep my points brief and I'll try and speak slowly, but not too slowly. Obviously, I welcome the report that the officers have put together. Obviously, there's a lot of work going into it. There are a couple of points though I wanted to ask, mostly on behalf of my community in Newton, if we could actually toughen up. Particularly around, well, the two points are around landscape and around severance of local communities. Now we take a very strong line on electrification in this response. I think that's quite right and I welcome that and I agree with it completely. The language on electrification, as I say, is very strong. It contrasts with the language on landscape. We talk about potentially inclusive structures. I think there is enough information in that consultation to tell us that the structures would be very intrusive. The embankments, Councillor van der Waier has already mentioned, but also the great separated junction around Arston and Newton. That really is a problem, so I would like the language to be tougher there. We are against intrusive structures and they should alter or proposal should avoid large intrusive structures. Also, on severance of local communities, again, I was a little bit disappointed in the wording and I'd ask the cabinet if they would toughen up that wording. We talk about measures to address severance. I would much prefer it if we said categorically that we are against severing local communities. The reason for that is that in the Newton context, I'm sure East West Rail would argue that they're not severing local connections because they're proposing an alternative route to the school, but actually it's a route that cuts across some existing green fields, destroys some farmland and takes you to the A10, which you then have to back up the A10 to get to the school instead of going along the straight road that currently exists. I feel that our language there is a little bit too subtle and gives too much room for manoeuvre, so I would ask the cabinet to toughen that language and say we are against severing existing local connections, particularly where they sever communities from essential services. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Councillor Williams. Stefa Kelly, would you like to comment on whether the language, I mean I feel the language is actually quite strong but just what your feelings are and what Councillor Williams has said? Thank you, Llywydd. I think we can probably finesse it further. I mean I think the only point I would make around landscape impacts of these structures and the reason I think we use the word potentially is of course we don't have the details on the structures or indeed the landscape mitigation measures that will inevitably accompany it, but I'm sure that we can look at that particular element. We're obviously seeking delegation from cabinet today to work with the portfolio holder on the final submission and if it's cabinet's will then I think we can accommodate finesse of language. I would caution against absolutes at this stage because as the report notes we simply don't have all of the engineering information and technical assessments to comment definitively, but if it's cabinet's wish to refine that language then within the time that we've got until June 9 to submit we can certainly do that. Thank you. Councillor Gough, do you want to come back in at this point? It's this point that these impact on landscape and severance of key issues and I'm happy to, as Mr Kelly suggests, see what we can do to uprate I guess our concerns about those points. Thank you very much. I mean if you could keep Councillor Williams informed that would be really helpful. It would be nice to have his approval for the final wording. Okay, thank you very much indeed. Councillor Nick Wright now. Thank you, leader. Can you hear me? Loud and clear. Good. I have real concerns about this as a preferred route. Looking at the history of this, when we started on it, it was to be a fast route from Cambridge to Oxford, touching in at Bedford and Milton Keynes to open up Bedford housing and Bedfordshire housing to Cambridge jobs. So you had a quick route into Cambridge less than half an hour from Bedford and one of the big attractions then was it would take the pressure off housing in south camps. And in the early stages, no one had envisaged a station in south camps anywhere. So I'm mainly going to talk about the station as it falls at Camborn, which is a village well served by stations already. St Niat's being 10 minutes away and Huntington 20. It is a strange choice to have that. Also, you cannot look at this route with a station on it because having been briefed by Stephen Kelly, the station brings with it development around it to possibly up to 25,000 houses. And that is plonk down in an area of some of our best landscape Greenfield site containing two ancient woodlands, which to get 25,000 houses in would be totally enclosed. It also contains a lovely Playland Plateau Valley, Brook Valley right from Camborn down to Ellsworth through grass fields. Absolutely beautiful. And it's, you know, you could not pick a more damaging place to develop in many ways. So that is an area of great concern to me and I believe the wrong side for a station. We seem to have got to the stage of this being the preferred route without consultation. Certainly in, there's been no consultation on this station north of Camborn in any of the previous consultations. So it is it has been a great shock to my villages to find that they're getting a station and up to 25,000 houses and to give context to that 25,000 houses. It is five times the size of the present Campbell. So Camborn is four and a half at present. So it is a massive, a massive town. We do need it is and also with it we will get a housing corporation understand to develop it, which takes it totally out of South Kansas control. I don't understand how East West Rail directors are saying at their meeting recently that this has the approval of South Cams. Hence my question at full council that that's the council not South Cams district generally. So I don't think this response is robust enough and I agree with Aiden and Richard Williams on what absolutely what they've said. I believe we should be opposing a station in South Cams because we don't need the development outside the local plan. We perfectly capable here of catering for what we need inside the local plan. So I think we should be opposing the station and I think we should be taking a route that is quick so that it enables the housing outside of this to be able to serve the new jobs that are coming in Cambridge and that we all support. Thank you leader. Thank you very much indeed council ride and is I regularly walk in that landscape so I know it I know it well. I go to Ellsworth and walk from there and it is indeed lovely. So I'm not aware that East West Rail have made any reference at all to 25,000 houses but I'm going to ask Stephen Kelly who's been involved in more meetings than I just a comment on this and then I will just bring in councillor Goff again if he has anything else to add to it. Thank you leader. I think that reference 25,000 houses comes from the previous consultation and the technical appendices to that. I think that's where council ride is referring it to and certainly we discussed that previously in which East West Rail were looking at the growth implications of the corridor and indicated somewhere in the order of 150,000 homes between Bedford and Cambridge associated with the growth agenda. Now that isn't part of the consultation. It's not part of the specifics in the current consultation that is alive but clearly members are aware that the government's ambitions in respect of the Oxcam arc are substantial in terms of housing growth and economic growth. I think the council is supportive of the objectives of economic growth across the arc done well and with quality. And there's another document that I think we're going to be hearing a lot more of over the summer which is the spatial framework for the arc which the government announced earlier in the year. That document to be produced over the next two years will have not only a vision I think consultation which is intended to start later this summer for the arc as a whole in spatial terms but then will move on to according to the terms under which the government announced earlier in the year. The identification of locations for growth, if not site allocations and a suggestion of housing growth and economic growth figures within it. Now we're currently as officers engaging with people from across government in MHCLG as part of the Oxcam process and they are seeking input around that process. But there are no details at this moment in time in terms of housing numbers or economic growth performance and so on. From a local planning authority perspective we are obviously bringing forward a preferred option to the local plan later on in this year and it will set out the district councils planning objectives for the period of 2014. Now we're not clear on how that will interface with the spatial framework but we are seeking and continuing to engage with government upon it. Just in respect of the point around the station at Canbourne obviously that was part of the previous consultation to this one in which the suggestion was either a southern route via Bassingbourne or a northern route via Canbourne. With a suggestion of stations in both of those locations. So I think council rights correct to say that probably the project has evolved and refined itself but the last consultation round did include station choices at either Canbourne or Bassingbourne. And obviously the council preferred the route I think there was widespread agreement around that of coming via Canbourne in terms of route options but that's really I think the context for the housing numbers and it's a it derives from I think 2018 was the last consultation document from government and the technical appendices to it. Thank you very much Stephen I'm very glad we have you with your encyclopedic memory for all this detail. Councillor Goff. Yeah those comments I think you sort of very eloquently kind of expressed the magnitude of this project really in the reach of its impact and as Mr Kelly said it's got lots of interfaces and interactions with other things. I think for the purposes of this consultation I think what we need to do is just to make sure that as a key stakeholder here on behalf of our residents we are clearly laying out what the issues are we see which need to be addressed and considered in this and I think in that respect we have done so including the issues associated with Canbourne as well so thank you. Thank you very much indeed. So Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you leader. My obviously East West Rail is going to be a big issue wherever it goes and it's very difficult to give a district wide approach and I do recognise that the work prepared by officers on this consultation has been done. Very extensively however as was I think what you said out on the list of responsibilities of cabinet is to give the political leadership what I don't see in this at all is what is the political preference of this cabinet. What route, what leadership has been shown? What do you prefer? Do you prefer Northern, Southern? What is it that you're pushing for, lobbying for and expressing? You know we do know that more information is required and I do thank the leader for now putting the Oxcam Archon for council as I requested. However it was a two page document. I'm sure a lot more goes on at the leaders, arch leaders meetings and that. What about seeing the minutes from those meetings if they're kept and if they're not? What about a condition of our membership being that if we're worried about openness and transparency why aren't we pushing more for it as a council? Housing growth is a key concern for a lot of people and we heard from the earlier agenda item about the growth that's already having on 200 odd houses and they do right. I had an application of two houses and that created significant feeling in one of my villages and this would as has been referenced potentially several communities. There's lots of concerns but I have confidence that you will be heard as a council as a cabinet if you offer, if you wish to offer political leadership in this. I will do what I was saying is I have confidence in council being heard but we need something to be saying and what I would not like to see is what I class as the disaster that happened at Honey Hill where I do not think Honey Hill is the correct site at all. And we actually failed to give a preference as a council so that's not the responsibility of officers. That's responsibility of cabinet members. What is your view and where is the political element of this because I think it's lacking. Thank you leader. Thank you very much indeed. Well I'm going to bring in Councillor Goff to respond on your question about the political view and the right time for that to be established. I will just respond on your challenge on the Oxford Arc. So I am pushing for any papers at any minutes and meetings to be made public because they're currently not and I quite agree with you. It's not satisfactory but the Arc Leaders Group is not a statutory body yet. I think it's unsatisfactory that there's currently no central website but it's government's responsibility and government, MHCLG in particular and Chris Pinscher will be attending the meeting this afternoon is the first time I think there's a lead minister has appeared. And hopefully he will be hearing the message that there needs to be a central repository and full transparency for what government are thinking about the Arc. It is like East West Rail. The Arc is a government initiative and they have to take responsibility for it. So I quite agree with you. If you want longer reports from me on the Arc delighted to give it and also but I'm very happy to give more detailed briefings. There's not a whole lot happening. There's a lot that's been happening on the Arc environment working group but you've seen the outcome of that and that's the Arc environment principles but there's not a whole lot happening. I'm hoping that as of today with the minister attending the meeting that will suddenly start to have more substantive information to share but I do share with you what there is to be shared but happy to pick up the phone at any time. I'm going to come to Council of Goff to answer the main bit of your question. Council of Goff, we've got some interference that's making it really difficult. Has somebody got something not on mute? Is that better? Yes it is. The decision on the preferred route is East West Rail there, the ones who are in possession of the information to enable them to choose that preferred route which will be tested subsequently in the processes. I think at this stage what we must do is make sure that East West Rail are aware of all of the issues which we see associated with the preferred route and any other route, what our considerations are and push them as Council of Van der Waars said to make transparent the basis and the technical information on which they're making their decisions. But I think it's absolutely premature and it's very difficult with us on the basis of the information to really apply information. Thank you so I complete the support what Council of Goff has said is that it's just too premature at the moment and this is the first stage. Do come back Council of Williams. Could we mute Council of Goff please? Thank you very much leader and I don't mean that for muting Council of Goff, I mean that for allowing me a supplementary question. So from what I've heard I believe you will be expressing a preference unlike we did with Honeyhill. Can I have that absolutely an assurance from you leader that we won't be sitting on the fence, we will show leadership as a political body as well. So we will be showing leadership but I am not committing to articulating a preference at this point until we know a lot more about this project. It might not happen, there might be a change of government and the whole thing might be scrapped so we will act in the right way at the right time. Thank you so I believe that Council of Van der Waars wishes to come back and have another question. No, it's not actually another question, it's picking up two things about points I made that were sort of buried in the rest of what I was saying that were sort of asking for a response. Hopefully you can hear me a little bit better with our headset on. So the two particular points were around the engineering choices that led to these high embankments and as well as the large junctions which Council of Williams referred to. At the moment, we don't say an awful lot about that, we comment on the potential landscape impacts. I was wondering whether we could also ask Feast as well to justify those design and engineering choices and what information led them to that. As I said, the effective decision to sort of take the line over everything is going to have a lot of impact on landscape and noise in particular. Having a 10 meter embankment sort of towering above your village, what it will feel like without too much probably, does need justifying and what trade-offs there are as well so that we can understand that better. And then secondly, there's a more general point of advice about what the best scope of this is and there has been a lot of discussion about whether we could be sort of expressing preferences but discussing whether we should be going back on the consultation process to look at the other approaches. My own view is that we're more effective at sort of raising challenges through Israel than sort of telling them how to do their job but some advice on that would be welcome, I think. Thank you, Councillor Vandewa. Stephen Kelly, do you want to just comment on whether we need to be more challenging and questioning about some of the engineering choices in our response? Thank you, leader. I think we can, with a portfolio holder, we can work through that particular question. We thought we had covered it really in terms of the questions and the inquiries that we had put forward around the background information but we can draw that thread out in terms of why over rather than under. This is obviously a non-statutory consultation in terms of the actual process but it is a consultation and so just to offer some reassurance that further stages in the process will include statutory consultation in which the council hopefully will be in a position to be more definitive in terms of its answers at this stage of the process. We're seeking additional information, as are a number of others, I know locally, local residents groups and others and we feel it's important to kind of make that point strongly but we can expand the point around the structures and options for going over or under and make that more explicit if that's helpful for Cabinet and the council. Thank you very much indeed. So, councillor Dewey Hawkins, do you want to speak now? Thank you, leader. Yes. A lot of the notes that I made for myself, I'm glad that a lot of them have been picked up but I must first of all thank the officers for the report that they've done. It is a good report. It has taken in a lot of the concerns that have been expressed to me as well because I have had a lot of emails, especially from Halton. I don't know why it's Halton but there's a lot of emails from Halton. Well, I think one thing that has been not underestimated but perhaps we need to say a bit more is the fact that East West Wales proposes two alignments which they prefer going through the top of Highfields Coal Econ. Highfields, as its name implies, is a high point along the route. It's at 72 metres above sea level. It's the highest point along the route and yet they propose to put a 10 to 12 metre viaduct plus embankment. These two together will also affect Boney Airfield. This council has only just granted the planning committee decided to grant the planning permission, which is now subject to Section 106 agreement. It will take out a full block of a mix used almost 150 units out of Boney Airfield straight away, not to mention the other buildings that could potentially be lost due to the impact, visual impact, noise impact. One quarter is an employment site right next to it. The schools on Boney Airfield will potentially be affected. The whole delivery of that site is something that I think we should make an issue of, which I don't think we have done well enough. Of course, it is also going to sever Highfields. It's not just the Everestons. It's going to sever Highfields or Newton, take your pardon. It's going to sever Highfields. That is the main entrance and exit into another village. I have asked the question of East West Wales. How do you intend to maintain our exit and entrance into the village? I still haven't had an answer. I am extremely, extremely disappointed with East West Wales. The lack of information from them, the prevarication, it's mind-boggling, I think, and yet they expect us to give them responses. What response do you expect us to give? Actually, Chancellor Williams Heather, we can't go one way or the other if we don't have the information that we need. So I just would like us to make a bit more of that, please, if we can. In terms of benefits to local villages, it's obvious that unless you're actually near to a station, there is no benefit. None whatsoever. And East West Wales is not even talking about potentially even giving anything to villages who might be affected. Why can any of the wider benefits, not just for those who are in the area who might, you know, the last mile that you might provide. So there's a lot to think about there, and perhaps we can make that point, too. In terms of future growth, I was actually quite flammagasted when I read the bit about 10,000 houses being proposed near the area they've nominally put the North Cambon Station, because that information was not something that they discussed with us as far as I'm aware. So that's off their own bat, and unfortunately it has given some of our residents the misconception that this has something to do with us, which it doesn't. But then it's been their way of working, which is not talking to us. I am absolutely disappointed. So perhaps, as has been said, some of our wordings could be strengthened. One thing that I'd also like to point out is the biodiversity net gain that they propose is only 10%. That's poetry. I mean we have said 20% should be a minimum, but frankly I think they should be going to 30%. The damage, just the potential damage that this will cause going through their current proposed route is enormous, so I think they should be looking at it a lot more than that. There is a clause in the main paper that talks about East West Wales enabling homes to be delivered, but that the route, if I might find my notes, the route is subject to change if it might cause difficulties. That's it. Paragraph 9.8.10 says the Wuthall I meant a subject to change if it affects housing delivery in the area. It will affect housing delivery on one airfield, on the Linden side in my village, where nine homes have been identified. They're only just building this out, and already nine homes will have to be demolished. So that's housing delivery being affected. Again I would like us please, if we can, to make a bit more of that because they can't build this thing and affect our housing delivery to deliver their own housing. It just doesn't make sense. So I think that's all I'm going to say for now. Thank you. Thank you, and I can see that Mr Kelly is writing notes, so I'm sure we give him delegated authority will incorporate that. So as the nominator of this, I just wanted to pick up what you said on net gain. So I had the only meeting really I've had with, I've been invited to with East West Rail. I was pushing them on net gain, and I made a very, very strong case for it being a minimum of 20% biodiversity net gain, and that aligns with the arc environment principles. And I thought I had achieved that in that meeting because they seemed very enthusiastic. The problem with 10% is that you've only got to go very slightly wrong, and you lose it, and you end up with nothing. So I absolutely agree with you. That's got to be pushed very, very forcefully. So I'm disappointed about that, because it didn't reflect the conversation that I had. So, unless, Council Goff, do you want to just say anything before we go to a vote on this? No, just to pick up on Council Hawkins' comments about the impact on board airfield, I think again we can just make sure we sort of upgrade that in other communities. These are the issues we should be pointing out to East West Rail, so with Mr Kelly we'll go through and make sure we're appropriately emphasising the scale of the potential communities and future communities. Thank you very much, and certainly knocking down newly built houses is undesirable in the extreme. Okay, so Cabinet has recommended to approve the Council's response to East West Rail consultation as set out in Appendix A of the report, be delegate authority of the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to make further technical comments in consultation with the lead Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning of South Cambridge District Council. So, both Council Goff and Mr Kelly have heard some very, very good points from members. So, for Council Bradnum, you want to? I just wanted to clarify that they should read the Council's response to the East West Rail consultation as set out in Appendix A of this report as amended, because you did accept the wording that I proposed. Well, I think that's going to be incorporated in as be, so I think that comes in there, because I think there's actually quite a few amendments, and certainly we've heard some strong messages from Cabinet and from Council members about beefing it up for want of a better word. So, that has been heard, and Council Goff will carry that through. So, do members agree with the proposal? Does anyone wish to vote against? Warab Stain? Okay, thank you. So, Cabinet therefore agrees the proposal by affirmation, and I thank you all for your contributions, which have been very valuable. And I will ask Councillor Goff and Mr Kelly to think about how the many emails that I'm getting, and I sense that quite a few others of you are getting, how we feed that into the process, because there's no point in these emails which people have put considerable time and effort into preparing, because I've had some detailed reports. There's no point in them just landing in my inbox and me reading them, and then it's not actually benefiting from the efforts of our residents to inform us about the impacts on their own communities. So, if you could please give some thought, Mr Kelly, about how we use those to good effect, please. Okay, so moving on to item nine, and we're moving on to exclusion of press and public. So, we now come to the point on our agenda where we need to consider whether to exclude the press and public from the meeting, and this is because the next items contain information which is commercially sensitive. Members of the public are advised that if Cabinet agrees to exclude the press and the public, the video stream will end. I therefore propose that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business in accordance with section 100A brackets four of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that, if present, there would be a disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph three of part one of Schedule 12A of the Act as a Mendy. Councillor Handley, will you second that? Thank you. Do members agree with the proposal? Does anyone wish to vote against? Anyone wish to abstain? So, Cabinet therefore agrees the proposal by affirmation. Members of the public who are watching, this means that the video stream will now end. Thank you very much for joining us to view the Cabinet's meeting. The next Cabinet meeting is scheduled to take place on Monday 24 May 2021 at 10am, and I look forward to seeing you then.