 RheDIn gweithio i allan i'i dynol gyda'r dymreithio gyda'r ddweud o holl yn wirthyn nhw'n meddwl ar y llifoedd sydd wedi'u llиков sydd wedi'u llifoedd y gallwn Hyffordd. RheDIn gweithio gyda'r ddweud yma, Henry Batchelor, mae'r cyfeirgynig unig wedi'u meddwl i'r cyfeirgynig gyda'r chi'n lleodraethawr Cyfeirgynig. Cymru'n gyfer hynny, ac hefyd yn ni'n fnug a yma i'r llezi i'r llei. Gwlad yma fel byddwn yn ll neighbourhood hwnnw y dweud i ddiwrddio cyd-feyddwyr i ddin,車 i'r bywch gweithgofaint yma yn ddod hynny, boeddiwn i gaelSaerth. Dw i'n ddechrau i'n ddod hyn yn y ddysgu'r hynny'n hyd weithio bod gweithwyrbarthol rydych chi'n ffordd ar yr ystyried? Reidio'n datblygedd. Roedd hynny'n ddod hynny yn ddod hynny'n ddod hynny. You like to make your way up to the top table? While councillor Fhane is getting ready, I'm going to run through a few brief housekeeping announcements. Firstly, can everyone in the room note that everything on your desk, including your laptop screen is likely to be broadcast at some point? The camera follows the microphone after it is switched on, so councillors and officers are requested to wait a couple of seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up with the mic. If the fire alarm sounds at any point, please do leave the chamber and make your way down the stairs. Do not use the lift. The safe assembly point is next to the marketing suite, halfway along the business park. Can those participating in the meeting via the live stream indicate you wish to speak via the chat column? Please do not use the chat column for any other purpose other than registering to speak. Please make sure your device is fully charged and that you switch your microphone off unless you're invited to do so. Otherwise, please ensure you've switched off or silenced any other devices you have so that they do not interrupt proceedings. As requested yesterday by email, please use a headset if possible when speaking and hold the microphone close to your mouth. When you're invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched on and after you've finished addressing the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched off. Members in the room, please note that if we do need to vote on any item, we should do so via the microphones in front of us. Only those members present in the chamber can vote or propose or second motions. Committee members present in the chamber, we're now going to do a roll call, so I will invite each of you to introduce yourselves. After I call your name, please switch on your mic, wait a couple of seconds and introduce yourselves. So as mentioned earlier, my name is Councillor Henry Batchelor and one of the members for Linton and I am the regular Vice-Chair of this committee. I would now ask Councillor Peter Fane to introduce himself. Peter Fane, shelf award. Thank you very much. Councillor Dr Martin Cahn. Martin Cahn. This is an infant in an orchard park ward. Thank you. Councillor Joe's Hales. Councillor Joe's Hales Melbourne Ward. Thank you. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Councillor Jeff Harvey, I'm the member for Borsham Ward. Thank you. Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins. Mike. Good morning everyone. Timmy Hawkins, Member for Caledricot Ward. Thank you very much. Councillor Judith Rippeth. Good morning. Councillor Judith Rippeth, Member for Melton and Water Beach Ward. Thank you. Councillor Deborah Roberts. Good morning Chairman. Good morning everybody. I'm Deborah Roberts and I'm the District Councillor for the Foxton Ward. Thank you very much. Councillor Heather Williams please. Morning all. Heather Williams and I represent the Mordans Ward. Thank you and Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Morning Chair. I'm Richard Williams, I'm the Member for the Whittlesford Ward. Thank you. Last but not least, Councillor Eileen Wilson please. Good morning. Eileen Wilson, Member for Cottenham Ward. Thank you very much. So the meeting is core eight so we can proceed. We also have two officers supporting us in the room. To my left we have Stephen Kelly who's the Joint Director of Planning. Stephen, if you'd like to introduce yourself. Good morning everyone. Yes, Director of Planning. I might have a tea for the officers. Thank you very much. And we have supporting us from a legal standpoint Mr Stephen Reed. Morning Chair, morning Members. Thank you very much. And we also have joining us online our Democratic Services Officer who'll be clarking the meeting today. Lawrence Damari-Hulman. Lawrence. Good morning everyone. Yep, Lawrence Damari-Hulman, Democratic Services Officer. Thank you very much. Members, if at any point you need to leave the meeting do indicate that so it can be recorded in the minutes please. We'll be breaking regularly as possible given where we are in the agenda. If any member feels they need a break sooner do just put your hand up and I'll do my best to accommodate. Okay, Members, we should have the main agenda pack. Sorry, Councillor Roberts please. Thank you very much Chairman. As we're expecting probably that this is going to be a long meeting can I have your permission not to wear my mask during the meeting because my lungs are a bit winter, winter affected at the moment. I've brought my inhaler so if I start coughing I'll do something about it but it's a long time probably and I won't be able to keep up with it. I will wear them when I go out of the room and in the building. Thank you. That's fine, thank you. I'd rather no one kills over during the meeting that's absolutely fine. Members, you should all have the main thick agenda pack that would be sent out but also a number of supplements which I believe Lauren has just handed out hard copies of. Do all Members have all the relevant bits of documentation? Councillor Hales, are you shaking your head? No. Do we have any more paper copies of the supplements for Councillor Hales? No Chairman, we can get more copies printed out. Lawrence if you're listening would it be possible to print some out and bring them for Councillor Hales please? Yes Chair, I will get on that right away for you. Thank you very much. Members, before we start the meeting given the extraordinary nature of the two applications we're looking at today I would like to formalise the structure of the meeting and also given the fact that there is a lot of public interest in this I would also like to initially propose a motion regarding public speakers given the fact we usually only have one public speaker but as I said this is a very sensitive application so I feel it's probably more appropriate if we allow every member of public that has registered to speak that chance to speak I think that is the best way forward so that is a proposal I would like to make to the committee to see if that's agreeable. If someone likes to second that Councillor Roberts. Members are we all in agreement for that? Great, thank you very much. Also members in terms of trying to formalise a structure for today again I would like to make a proposal that we structure it in this way so we have the officers introduction of the report first of all which we roughly around 20 minutes will then at that point have questions of clarity for the planning officer and then also any supporting officers that we have with us i.e. drainage environment agency etc we then go to public speakers and after that we then go to the debate which members I think you may have seen from an e-mail a couple of days ago has been grouped for ease so we grouped into four different groupings in the report it will be sections one and two then three then four five six and finally seven to ten again that is just for ease of trying to run the meeting in a fluid way so again I would like to make that proposal I didn't know if anyone would like to second that Councillor Hawkins Members are we generally in agreement for that? Agreed, thank you very much. Okay we'll move on to the agenda then so we start with item two, Apologies for Absence please Lawrence. Yes Chair, only Apology for Absence today is from the usual chair Councillor Pippa Halings and Councillor Joes Hales has kindly stepped in to substitute in her stead. Great, thank you very much and welcome Councillor Hales. Agender item three, Declarations of Interest Members does anyone have any declarations of interest they wish to declare at this point? I don't see any but of course if anyone becomes aware of any please do raise that during the meeting. Okay Members we're about to move into the substantive items on the agenda we start with item number four which is on page one of our agenda it's an application for North Stofaise 3A Wellington Road, Long Stanton, Cambridshire the proposal is four amongst other things four thousand homes, two primary schools a local centre, community retail and associated services food, drink, community leisure residential use is another accommodation and a raft of other things which would take me too long to read so I will skip over that the applicant is Holmes England we have a raft of key material considerations in front of us the reason it is in front of us today is because the proposal is a very large scale development and it's of strategic importance to the district the presenting officer is Mr Paul Ricketts but before I invite Paul to introduce the report I believe Mr Kelly would like to say a few words before we jump in Thank you chair and I'll be very brief it was really just to highlight the availability to members today of technical resources that are not in the room including from my planning team Mr Ricketts, Mr Huntingdon and Miss Brown and Miss Kelly the environment agency highways officers, the education service the lead local flood authority the sustainability officer and the housing officer are available to you online we're also joined by the councils that legal advisers obviously used to read but also our adviser from Dentons in respect of planning with all matters Thank you chair, with that I'll hand over to Mr Ricketts Thank you very much, Paul, good morning Good morning chair Good morning members of the planning committee and ladies and gentlemen, I've got to set back so I don't mind the screen Before you start actually, could I just make a request to councillors handling Mr Ian Rawls would you mind switching your cameras off please we'd just like to see Mr Ricketts at this stage Ian Rawls, are you able to switch off your camera please Nothing personal, we'd just like to see the presenting officer Thank you very much, sorry Paul, back over to you All right, now lovely, okay so I'm going to open up my screen and hopefully have a powerpoint on here Let's see what we've got, yeah here we are Is that coming up for people? Yes, we can see All right, excellent, okay Now, thank you chair, you've already and so Stephen set up the what the application is for and how it's going to be structured there are a few things that I will be saying just really to set the scene in terms of the proposal I won't read out the full description of proposal as you say, it's rather lengthy is an application that's been subject to environmental impact assessment and that environmental statement has been assessed thoroughly by officers involved with third party and statutory consultees regarding these matters and this is just an ear or photo showing the the rest of the site of phase 3A Phase 3A, I'm just going to go through some of the site description and surroundings, I won't read the entire thing but nonetheless it's a site that comprises 210 hectares of land that mostly consists of the southern part of the former Ocantyn earfield and barracks and the proposed access routes the proposed access route, which is referred to as the southern access road east connects the south east next end of the application site to Dry Drayton Road the phase 3A application site is largely bound to the north by north so phase 2 to the east by the Cambridge to guide the busway and to the south by the village of Ocantyn and to the west by arable farmland sorry for the second sorry chair, is it possible for the cursor to be changed and indicate exactly what it is referring to please I think if you can activate the laser pointer feature that will be handy for us can you see my cursor at all? we can, it's not hugely clear if you could change to, there is a laser pointer function now you're reaching my, I think I'm going to get some assistance here I'm going to get some assistance I see there's technical support coming so yes, technical support we'll give you a second current slide, lovely right click pointer options much better, thank you very much ok thank you very much so we're on my now we have here in terms of the key elements of the site we've got Longstanton here the village here Military Lake in here which is going to be retained with a centre around it the Ocantyn just here and phase 2 is just here ok, where am I now I need to now go to the next slide sorry can you see that now so it's generally flat a land occupied by the former military airfield and a mixture of open grass land, arable land and fields interspersed with woodland belts and groups of trees and small water courses the lake known as the military pond is located in the south-west part of the site the north stale phase 2 access road known as southern access road traverses approximately north south across the south-western part of phase 3a ok that's the east road the west road sorry part of the former airfield perimeter road within phase 3a is currently used as a haul road as part of phase 2 let's get phase 2, it's in here all I want to do now is just go to the description of the proposal can I get the sorry about this, I'll try to get rid of the laser now so I can get back to the printer sorry about this, I'm just trying to navigate through these different screens I think it's easier for take it off the slideshow to be honest yeah if you could please yeah ok so I've gone through just a brief description of the of the application site this application completes the main site of so I'm going to go now to the description of proposal the planning application also completes the main site of Ockentham barracks which was originally identified in the north south era action plan and early development plan documents the application proposes a further 4,000 dwellings which would total 9,000 dwellings being delivered on the main form of barracks site a further one sorry the applicant is the master developer upon phase 3b which is subject to a later report in this same agenda it is considered that proposal comprises a sustainable development having regard to paragraph 11 of the national planning policy framework and is therefore recommended subject to necessary safeguarding conditions and the prize signing of the section 106 agreement the application proposed up to 4,000 homes in a mix to be agreed with the range of additional works and facilities being proposed to support the creation of a new town the additional works include the creation of a local centre and mixed used employment zone which support the town centre in phase 2 the secondary mixed use zones are located around the perimeter of the local centre along a central boulevard up to the military lake and the other anticipated key activity nodes the total potential capacity for these uses at ground floor in the secondary zones is approximately 13,000 square metres two primary schools are proposed both the three forms of entry and with the appropriate level of sports pitches the approximate locations of the proposed schools are shown on the parameter plans will just go to the parameter plans as long as I can navigate to this other screen yeah there it is yeah sorry just going through the plans yeah won't this space it's a narrow case okay okay thank you alright thanks so we've got two just one for you the location of the primary schools um yeah detailed sighting and design would be determined in conjunction with the county council's own planning processes included in the proposals would be 67 hectares of open space broken down as follows outdoor sport outdoor sport 13.5 hectares formal children's play space just over 4 hectares other children's play space just under 4.5 hectares allotment and community orchards just over 4 hectares and informal open space 41 hectares included within the normal sorry included in the informal open space our proposal to retain the military lake I'm using that too that's my money that's my transcript to see yeah sorry included in the informal open space our proposal to retain the military lake in the lake and include a new lake capable of supporting outdoor swimming on the position of the former runway initially named as the runway lake the total area of these lakes and water bodies is estimated at just over 3 hectares three buildings are proposed to support the views of formal open space for sport and recreation north and sport hub change in social facilities a western sport hub storage and toilet facility and the northern sport hub change in facility to the south a new link road is proposed known as the southern access road east we'll just come to here between the application site to the south of oklinton which would also connect to the southern access road west the proposals are set out in three parameter plans building heights movement and access open space and land use land use is one that you're seeing right now then you've got movement and access and then you have building heights the application is accompanied by the following supporting information which is listed in paragraph 37 of the main reports I won't be reading through that the design access statement and development principles seek to establish the overall principles underpinning the proposed development whilst allowing sufficient flexibility to enable the subsequent reserve matters application to respond to the detailed considerations associated with each element of the proposals this allows the general disposition of land uses across the site, layer of routes and infrastructure and key development parameters such as building heights to be assessed and determined at the outline application stage within the site there are four cantilevered pillboxes which are grade 2 listed these world war 2 pillboxes are present on periphery of the former ear field which occupies much of phase 3a the southern northern narrow portion of the site includes oklinton brick which flows to this part of the site in a northeasterly direction the village of oklinton is located south of phase 3a and is separated from the site by a tree cover on the hedros around the site periphery beyond this towards the south west liars farmland and the A14 the A14 is a key strategic road and joins the M11 motorway two kilometers further to the south oklinton business park is adjacent to the south eastern site boundary lands to the eastern northeaster phase 3a is bound by the Cambridge guided busway beyond which liars farmland, Beckbrooke is located to the east of the guided busway phase 2 is located to the north of phase 3a and this ear includes a number of vacant buildings associated with the former oklinton barracks together with graze land and fellow land awaiting redevelopment of water tower and apple farmland further to the northeast land to the west of 3a boarded by the B1050 sorry B1050 which runs in north south direction and connects with the A14 approximately 500 metres south of the site and electricity substation is located adjacent to the B1050 and 40 metres away from the site bar farm and cottages are located approximately 400 metres north of the site boundary adjacent to the B1050 the village of Longstanton board is a northern section of phase 3a as well as phase 2 are the heritage assets in the area include the village pump all saints church and St Michael's church and the manner together with the important village setting between Longstanton all saints and Longstanton St Michael's in oklinton parkland setting of Wetic Hall is an important heritage asset Longstanton and Oklinton also contain conservation areas to the links between Rampton Drift and Longstanton to the south west to Rampton in the northeast the right of way this right of way crosses the temperature guide busway via that grades crossing and also links Rampton Tiston and a footpath running adjacent to Cotlandam load the byway routes through this phase 2 site and is currently closed due to construction of the primary road and secondary school but it's due to reopen in spring 2022 a sheared footway cycleway crosses over the guide bus route to the south at Westwick this cycleway forms part of the national cycle network route 51 Sleeter Cymru to the south and Huntington by over and Swavesy sorry to the north there's a public byway which routes south of Longstanton and runs south towards Bar Hill this does not provide a crossing over the A14 a byway links byway link to the north west via bridleway routes along Overroad and Rampa Road acts as Swavesy and the Oose Valley way to the north west the eastern section of Rampa Road from the Overroad junction towards Utternstrove is marked as part of a long distance footpath where there is no provision for pedestrians section one the principle of development is established through paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework which addresses the issue of presumption in favour of sustainable development and decision making it seeks to ensure the promotion and delivery of sustainable development which covers economic, social and environmental objectives the application proposal is required to meet the up-to-date development plan policy of the era which in this instance is the SCDC local plan and the NAAP relevant policies for the local plan is S6 the development strategy is 2031 which states that major site allocations within south Cymru to local development framework 2007 to 2010 together with the e-reaction plan for Northisto except as amended by Policy SS5 are carried forward as part of the development plan to 2031 or until such time as the developments are complete Policy SS5 is a Northisto extension which states that the reserve land identified in the Northisto e-reaction plan is allocated as an extension to the site of the new town of Northisto it will help provide the 10,000 homes allocated in the e-reaction plan at an appropriate density and design and will not increase the overall number of homes NAAP policy NS1 division for Northisto sets out that Northisto will be a sustainable and vibrant new community that is inclusive and diverse with its own distinctive local identity which is found on best practice urban design principles drawing on the traditions of fenn edge market towns which encourages the high quality traditions and innovation that are characteristic of the Cambridge sub region NAAP policy NS2 the development principle sets out to deliver the 10,000 homes and other uses in a distinctive tank character well NAAP policy NS3 the site for Northisto defines the boundaries of the site the site is an established part of the development plan and the council's growth strategy and has been for a number of years it is noted that third party comments have been received relating to the principle of development and seeking the reconsideration of the allocation and its return to previous master plans which are based on lower numbers of housing to deliver Northisto the current proposal is however consistent with the adopted local plan and the current Northisto ear reaction plan the proposals are seen by office to be in accordance with local plan policies are set out above and as such the principle of development is considered to be acceptable the three submitted parameter parameter plans are based upon the following topics movement and access, open space and land use and building heights its purpose is the purpose for this mission is to detail the key elements of the development proposals and to show how they respond to the environmental constraints of the site and the assessment of the site set out in the environmental statement local plan policy NH1 conservation ear and green separation at Longston, at Longston the state's ears of countryside with the conservation ear at Longston will form part of the green separation between Longston and Northisto other relevant policies are NS4 NS12 NS13 and NS25 Objective C2A of the NAAP to create an appropriate setting for the new town minimising any adverse visual or landscape impact on the surrounding area including the setting and character of the surrounding settlements in particular the closest villages of Longston Okington and Westwick and the conservation areas as well as more distant neighbours at Rampton, Willingham over and Barhill The applicants submitted a design and access statement in support of the application proposals it sets out an illustrative master plan and landscape strategy and establishes a framework of key design principles and is intended for formal endorsements part of the outline consent the key defining principles of the design for phase 3A are as follows A. Reflecting sites history by using alignment of the main airfield runway and historical route such as Mill Road to structure the master plan Muck in the site with key gateways and open spaces creating a strong sense of transition and arrival into the town and towards the town centre in phase 2 C. Creating confident development edges that achieve a clear distinction between countryside and town D. Retaining appropriate landscape green space between the new development and existing settlement edge of Okington E. Retaining the ridge and furrow landscape within Longstanton Conservation Era Facilitated local distinctive buildings and landscape with a sense of place and character that is recognisable from the local context G. Establish a network of green and blue routes and spaces which draws the wider landscape through the development Safeguard the existing tree belts creates formal and informal spaces for recreation encouraged biodiversity and enabled sustainable drainage H. Introduce to the local centre with the neighbourhood park, shops, community facilities and employment in the most accessible and visible location complemented the town centre in phase 2 I. Creating distinct character areas and variation building forms, heights and densities across this large site J. Incorporating significant existing views and vistas and creating new ones K. Arranging housing to create strong frontages and positive overlooking of streets and open spaces L. Creating a highly permeable movement network which integrates phase 3A with the rest of the town and surrounding area promotes active and sustainable travel choices walking, cycling, public transport M. Promoting innovation, flexibility in car parking provision to accommodate future changes in travel patterns and car ownership and N. Establishing a robust but flexible framework to enable the development to mitigate and adapt to climate change to the location, form, orientation and design of buildings and spaces Heter phase 3A in the overall north side development is its relationship to Longstanton and seeks to reflect the principles established with phases 1 and 2 outline permissions and the requirements of North Salt Air Action Plan policies NS4 and NS13 In particular it seeks to ensure that historic landscapes are protected, that uses are open land uses that protect privacy and amenity with views of St Michael's Church maintained Continue the principles that were established in phase 2 The Longstanton Ridge and Furrow Fields which lie at the northern edge of phase 3A will be protected. This will enhance the views of St Michael's Church from the site. Jason to this will be near sports pitches which will be adjacent to the western primary school sorry to the site of western primary school Alongside Longstanton Road the existing tree belt will be maintained and enhanced On the basis of this evaluation it is considered that the relationship of the development with the Longstanton Conservation Area and St Michael's Church are considered to be acceptable in accordance with the relevant policies NS4 and NS13 of the North Salt Air Action Plan In regards to relationship to Okington this is based on green separation defined by tree groups to shield views but also through a green corridor which will aid the sense of openness The use of active open spaces outlined as supporting and retaining a separate identity of Okington while ensuring that routes and access are created by the facilities and services in the new town Aspirations for greater separation are paid as a result Paul, sorry to interrupt Paul I mean we do have this verbatim in our reports I think we should assume that we have read the report there is no need to read it out word full term I appreciate the enthusiasm but I think assume that we have read it but if there is any other highlights in any of the other sections I think it would be good to draw our attention to it to save yourself more than anyone at the time of reading it I think you can assume that we have read the report OK, I think what I'll do then is moving away in the sense in terms of the section that we were talking about as key is going through that first section then I don't think there is, if we've read it and we've accepted it key things in terms of transport is that we've had to look at the detailed transport assessment and seeing that in terms of its impact they are acceptable there's been concern I think in terms of the I think there's a trigger in the southern axis road east in terms of and the junction with Dry Drayton sorry Dry Drayton Road Let's go through this Yes, and it's the concern that Oakins and Parrish Council had guarding the previous scheme which had a project junction to the southern axis road The detailed design of this junction is still under way and opportunities are optimised which in choices of motorists so as to avoid local roads is still to be explored In either event properties of popular villas on Dry Drayton Road to South Oganton would be affected by a new road layout Gertran Parrish Council has also commented on the nomenclature of the SAR The name relates to the geographical relationship to the application site with the approved southern axis road west further to the west The SAR will be smaller in scale likely to be a single carriage road with cycling infrastructure and other associated works It is considered that this would create an easier and more convenient route to Cambridge than travelling through the villages of Oakins and Gertran The TA sets out sorry the transport assessment sets out measures to discourage traffic travelling through Oakins and there is also a trigger in terms of occupation for dwellings prior to this road being looked at and designed some like 3000 dwellings and that could be some like 10-15 years it could be that when we review this matter it is something that may not be necessary in the long run and this is what we are hoping for in terms of modal shifts The delivery of this SAR will be secured by planning condition 17 southern axis road east Just going to go through Yeah, based upon an assessment of the submitted environmental statement and transport assessment and associated proposed mitigation measures and taking all other comments into account it is considered that the developments provide the appropriate provision to encourage future residents to use modal transport other than the car and subject to monitoring will satisfactorily mitigate the impact of the development on the surrounding villages in accordance with the NPPF and policy T12 of the local plan I am going to fly through the employment assessment as we said it is something that the members have had a chance to read through key thing on the employment is that this is about job numbers rather than just a land provision we are talking about 20 hectares of employment land but really this is about how many jobs that we can create and deliver in accordance with NAP policy NS8 and D4 The affordable housing is a local centre that will be provided which will identify the number and scale of local centres across North Soe and the role these play in the wider town that is policy NAP policy NS6 The proposal for local centre are considered to contribute towards meeting the aims and objectives of NAP policy NS6 and delivering a local centre close to local busway with reasonable walking distance for local residents which will meet day-to-day needs of local residents for convenience shopping and service provision will also act as a focus for small-scale local employment complemented by the provision of outdoor space and appropriate design principles the local centre should also assist in supporting community development activities across 3A As regard housing delivery the scheme will deliver a mix of units and provide 40% affordable housing. The mixes to be agreed will be at a density of 40 dwellings per hectare overall and meets the policy requirements of housing mix and the different kinds of housing that we will require. Policy H9 requires at least 30% of the dwellings to be 1-2 bedrooms 30% at least to be 3 bedrooms and at least 30% to be over 4 bedrooms That's the market housing mix for market homes There's a 10% flexibility allowance included in any of these categories taken account of local circumstances There will be housing provision for older people and a housing delivery statement will be provided as part of the scheme The affordable housing statement seeks to deliver 40% and that's 50% affordable rent, 20% shared ownership 10% to discount market sale and 20% rent to buy. These 10 years fall within the definition of affordable housing as defined in the national planning policy framework that's been accepted by the council's joint housing development officer The proposed affordable housing provision will meet the policy target of 40% affordable housing and has an agreed mix of housing tenures in accordance with policy H10, 1A and 1B of the local plan All the internal and external space standards are accepted to meet the council's adopted standards I'm just going to go through now to the key element which is the conclusion of the scheme Sorry everyone that's trying to summarise It's rather linty scheme Just to reiterate we do have a lot of the information you're reading out in front of us word for word so if there's any highlights for any particular sections you want to draw our attention to I think that will be a lot more time saving Sorry Sorry again I think Mr Kelly wants to come in Thank you chair I think to assist the committee really and I'm conscious that we've got public speakers here so we'll want to comment perhaps if I could just hopefully move things on for your benefit Clearly what Mr Ricketts has done has outlined the principles of the development the guiding design principles that are set out in the report which he has referred to and reinforced the point around the 40% affordable housing and the housing mix I think the report we've walked through the three parameter plans that form the cornerstone of the planning commission and what the report does is highlight the key elements in those plans around the current one that you can see on the screen is the scale but the movement framework and Mr Ricketts has referred to the relationship with the southern access road east but also the existing and indeed nearing completion access road west which is currently the main and considered to be likely the main source of access into the site has also highlighted the interplay with the phase two development immediately adjacent and started to summarise some of the infrastructure facilities that are associated with it I think where the report obviously goes to and members will be familiar with this is on top of what the proposal is there are a number of substantive material considerations which are summarised at the beginning which Mr Ricketts hasn't had a chance yet to cover but which in the interest of brevity perhaps I can just walk you through for your benefit and clearly you can see clarifications through the questions they've asked what the report does draw your attention to is the environmental assessment and the associated technical appraisals that have been done and we have today the transport team from the county council who have been closely involved in that but more significantly and particularly having regard to the concerns addressed by a number of residents and in the representations and I'm sure some of the representations you'll hear today are the environmental consequences that have been explored and the environmental issues that have been explored as part of the application itself those elements are covered and forgive me a second I'll just refer you to the they start being addressed in the assessment on page section 7 and boil down towards concerns that are highlighted not only about conventional this is page 69 sorry not only the conventional concerns associated with construction and the impacts on that you will all be familiar with around the construction activity and the impact upon local residents through noise dust and odour etc but more specifically and the heritage but more specifically the concerns around the sensitivities to drainage the management of water including the implications for groundwater which the late representations but also the representations that you have received in the packs and concerns about the wider demands that the development will make on for example water abstraction across Greater Cambridge and water quality now what we have sought to try and do and and to assist you I'm just trying to find the page reference number but what we've sought to try and do is to draw those threads together for you in the assessment of the planning balance which takes place on page 114 and members simply your role having considered and I'm sure you're familiar with the report but having considered the elements of compliance with the development plan that Mr Ricketts and the report have highlighted but also the environmental and physical consequences of the development what the report seeks to do on page 114 onwards is start to play in the balancing exercise which is an important part of the pros and cons one could say but important part of weighing up the overall merits of this application having regard to the development plan and the wide range of material considerations that the report highlights Chair, I think that's probably I'm conscious of wanting to hear from public speakers and from members in terms of clarification but I hope that's helpful to you That's very helpful, thank you for that Stephen Members, as we agreed at the start we now have an opportunity to ask any questions of clarification for either the case officers or equally any of the consultees that we have online joining us today so members obviously if something does come to us later on in the debate as you can ask it then but if there's any questions of clarification at this point now it would be a good chance to ask so I have one straight away from Councillor Heather Williams please Thank you Chair a few questions initially just about the affordable housing what contribution this gives us on the whole of Northstow because it's obviously come in parcels so I just want to know where our figures are there The other thing and looking at the consultation paragraph 95 issues being raised about housing heights is there anything in what's been put forward that would be considered out of policy There's numerous objections but one in particular is one from Gertran Parish Council about access the Southern Access Road if we could just have perhaps some support on why where that conflict is and what's been proposed by themselves at a viewpoint on that I think that's all I've got for now Chair there may be more throughout the day We've got three questions there one on the percentage of social housing over the entirety of Northstow if we include this application today a question around housing heights and concerns raised there and then all certain clarity on one of the parish council's comments on the Southern Access Road I'm not sure who wants to take those I think Mr Kelly is volunteering Thank you Chair if I perhaps just deal with the question about affordable housing in the first instance just for your information the affordable housing levels are obviously quoted in a report and are 40% on this phase of development and the previous phase too also delivered 40% but as part of the government's initiative there was a substantial portion of starter homes as part of that in accordance with the guidance at the time phase one provides 20% affordable housing and the exploration of the justification for that through viability took place at that time what that means in numbers terms is phase one should be delivering 300 or so affordable units phase two 1,400 affordable units and a consequence of the size of phase three taken together with phase 3B I should say is in the order of 2,000 units so 3,700 units across the 10,000 units in north Stowe are at this stage and visage to be affordable and by my O level maths that equates to around 37% I think the question around building heights and so on I think the report does cover the issue about the sensitivity of the relationship with Oakington particularly and the stair casing down from three to two stories in the parameter plan which Mr Rickers might be able to display there are elements within the site in the indicative parameter plan around particularly the proximity to the military lake which is suggested to be up to seven stories in height reflecting the kind of fundamental important role of that amenity but also that feature will play for residents in phase three I think if I could ask someone from the county highways department to comment in relation to the access road issue that would probably assist you better than me commenting Thank you, do we have someone from highways? Mr Tuttle? Yes, I'm here Good to see you, yes we can hear you quite faint I don't know if you can lean any closer in Is that better? Yes, that's better, thank you very much Did you hear the question around the southern access route? Yes, the southern access route Yes, so the southern access route is intended to take traffic away from the B1040 because we know that the 1040 junction with the A14 may at some point reach its capacity so it gives another outlet for the north stone development traffic to come on to the Drydoateon Road and then on to the 1307 so that's its intended purpose to avoid congestion at the Barhill interchange Now I understand that the Gertan Parish Council query is that they think that maybe some of the traffic will go north into Oakington turn right and then come into Gertan and come into Cambridge through the village of Gertan and on to the Huntington Road As a measure to prevent this happening we don't think it will happen because the distribution we've looked at doesn't indicate that that will be the case but just in case there was some problems we have a pot of money for traffic calming measures or traffic management I don't like to call it traffic calming but actually deter traffic from doing that should it be found that traffic does start to move through the villages rather than on the main routes as intended Councillor William Jones, come back Thank you I think we're all familiar with traffic calming but you say traffic management could I sort of understand because what you mean by that because there's no point in having the money if you can't actually do something that's useful thinking of a dinner with people's characters here and they're going to, by essence, want to take the shortest route that's your natural instinct just wondering how you manage that and deter them from that while also not making it difficult for people that need to use that area That's precisely the reason why I didn't want to call it traffic calming because whenever people mention traffic calming everyone always has the vision of humps in the road which I know aren't popular with residents of villages because when larger vehicles go over them they tend to make a noise it would be environmental enhancements so it might be sort of horizontal sort of deflections the type sort of give way not barriers but the give way systems that you see in some villages rather than traffic humps reductions in speed limit and basically maybe some slight sort of narrowing of roads just to make it clear that this is a village environment and not a through route and we've worked on some of these schemes before and we've implemented them in other places and they do work but I didn't want anyone to get an impression we were just going to bolt humps to the road it's going to be something more holistic than that it's going to be something more fluid Okay, thank you Jess Sorry, a question from Councillor Roberts Thank you Chairman I don't want to take up a lot of time at this particular time of the meeting because we've got a lot to get through but there's a couple of things that strike me immediately that I'm concerned about The first one is at page 29 paragraph 140 about the strategy about phasing out fossil fuels in a year's time and then it talks about the most appropriate technology unlikely to be I mean it seems here that we're getting rid of all the things that work and they're talking about things vaguely that may or may not work and I told them to my understanding and we've got a heat pump in our garden and it doesn't work in the winter and so these people are going to be frozen stiff as they say up north and I just think it's a bit light in detail of exactly how this scheme is going to be heated and really a bit unfair to people because even an air sourced heat pump is a great deal of money and then secondly to go on to page 116 I'm so disappointed at the lack of real strength there about the environmental impacts it doesn't seem to focus at all on the concerns that we've all been getting over the last few days from either parish councils or individuals or groups and it just seems to say well everything in the garden is going to be rosy and there's no identification here of the things that people have been sending us about their concerns about the impact just talks about how it will look basically well I want to know how it's going to function you know the information we've been receiving basically says that there are since north star since 2015 there's been a much decline in the chalkstream systems and the ponds there and people are very concerned and yet there's not that I can see there's nothing here that gives me any information or satisfaction that it's actually even been thought about Okay so I think two questions of clarity there the first was a bit more detail on how the scheme will be heated which relates to page 29 and a second question of clarity around the functionality of some of the environmental impact suggestions I'm not sure who would like to take that Mr Kelly Chair perhaps if I just if I start and colleagues might assist and perhaps if I deal with the second point first which relates to the issue around the chalkstreams I should prefer obviously members will have seen in the update sheet an additional seven representations that highlight concerns about that we've also received since that representations from Mr Colin Hayes Claire Driver, Helen Older and Mary Cooper that make fundamentally the same concerns as Councillor Roberts has drawn attention to I'm sorry if you feel that the report doesn't properly cover that point the text should highlight but perhaps draw out further the way in which the planning authority has approached this issue we have as I think Councillor Roberts has acknowledged consulted the statutory agencies about this and because the site is within the development plan so it's a long standing site allocation the environment agency and others have recognised that the project has not objected on the basis of the issue of outground water supplies now some of the comments have questioned whether or not the local planning authority should have gone further and in fact the planning authority have and you will be aware of the work that we have been doing we employed stand tech to look at water supply issues associated with the new local plan but that work also included both substantial engagement with the social authority with Cambridge Water, Anglin Water and Water Resources East and the feedback from the water companies and indeed from Anglin Water and others was that the future growth of Cambridge or Greater Cambridge can be appropriately accommodated. The stand tech report that accompanied the local plan evidence base had regard to and forecast not only future growth in potential demand but also the series of mitigation measures both short and long term that could be put in place to avoid the concerns that people have highlighted around continuing growth in abstraction and environmental consequences and indeed trying to think about ways in which current abstraction levels could be more effectively managed now some of those measures that they saw in the long term you may have heard about in terms of future new water supplies in Fenzredewa that Anglin Water are currently promoting some of the shorter term measures included the effects of for example increased water metering currently Greater Cambridge only has about 70% which has been shown to reduce levels of consumption but also management and leakage control behavior change some of the things such as the policies that we have but also the conditions that we put into this planning permission to reduce from 140 or so litres per day per person down to 110 and a strategy to try and deliver that but also what is termed bulk water transfer which is about connections to for example new trunk water transfer systems that will currently but go past Cambridge heading south to on the east and west sides of south Cambridge which are deemed to be capable of providing something to fill in between for example the new reservoir coming forward in the mid to late 2030s and the growing demands that are associated with growth so I'm sorry that the report perhaps didn't go into as much detail as the work that has been going on by the councils with the water providers but I want people to be assured that certainly the concerns that residents have expressed about abstraction are most definitely not being treated flippantly but they are being dealt with at an appropriate strategic level rather than a side by side basis and on this point I just want to finish with the government's guidance on how water supply, wastewater and water quality should be approached in terms of planning applications that guidance from the department of levelling up and housing and communities from the 22nd of July 2019 makes clear that planning for necessary water supply would normally be addressed through strategic policies which can be reflected in water companies water resources management plans and we've been pushing into those water resource management work to try and exact that. It says water supply is therefore unlikely to be a consideration for most planning applications with exceptions that might include large developments and importantly not identified in plans and obviously North Stove has been identified in plans for a number of years, significant works that are required to connect water supply and where a plan requires enhanced efficiency as part of the strategy. Now we have under conditions in the permission or in the recommendation seek to deliver enhanced efficiency. Sorry that's a long answer. Thank you. Just quickly if I may come back and I'm not criticising the planning department here actually but I am very concerned about what I think I've just heard is to be that the people who are supplying the water are just doing a general all over plan they've got this strategy for development but it's not going to be focused on particular plans well I'm sorry I'm here this morning to focus exactly on a particular plan and I don't think that they the water people are doing us any service here because I think there is every likelihood that there will be serious problems and they'll dump the problem on you because they'll say that you're good. Just to respond to that I think the as I said the consultations that have taken place for example with the environmental agency have encouraged us to engage with Cambridge Water and we have done that. I think at this point in the process obviously the contribution that North Stove will make is significant on one level but it's not significant in the overall needs of Greater Cambridge which have to be dealt with at a strategic level and indeed at a level even above South Cambridge so this is a kind of a regional issue which is why we've spent so much focus on working with Water Resources East about the next Water Resources Management Plan which will inform the investment programmes of Cambridge Water and Angliam Water to try and address those concerns. Questions of clarity. We're back to Richard, Councillor Richard Williams please. Thank you very much. I've got three questions obviously it's a long application I'll have more to say but just to start us off. So on three points. Firstly in terms of housing density we're told paragraph 317 that the average density here is 45dph. Could we be told what the density or the average density would therefore be across the whole site of North Stove? We've got figures for this particular phase but I'd be interested to know what that will mean for the development overall. One very specific question on foul water and here I'm on paragraph 484 paragraph 484 references the drainage boards continuing concerns and then goes on to talk about Utton's Drove. Now I may be missing something but the only representation from a drainage board I could find in this pack was from the Old West drainage board which didn't refer to Utton's Drove talked about Reynolds Drain. Now there is an objection in the second application we're looking for looking at today from the Swavesy drainage board which refers to Utton's Drove but I'd welcome a bit of clarification on which drainage board we're talking about in 484 and exactly what the nature of the concerns were because as I say I couldn't find any drainage board representations relevant to Utton's Drove in the pack. And then on the water point obviously we'll say a lot more about this and what was discussed which was partly what I was going to talk about but just on a point of clarity the Arcadis groundwater note that's on the website and that was provided I think in August 2021 that suggests that the final water table on the site will be about two to three metres lower than it currently is. Now are those figures that the planning service accepts and recognises is that what you expect and I'll probably come back to this later in debate but in terms of condition 39 which talks about monitoring groundwater it doesn't actually set out for us any detail on what the minimum levels of water would be it all seems to be left to a drainage strategy to be agreed. So I think there's a bit of advance notice this is perhaps more a point for debate I'm not really happy to leave it with that condition in such a vague way and us having no idea as to what the actual limits the maximum and minimum will be but for the time being I just like clarity on those figures and are the figures in the Arcadis report what you're accepting and expecting from this development. Thank you. There are three questions there the question on the figures in the Arcadis report questions around the housing density across all of Northstone not just this phase we're looking at today and clarity around the representations from the drainage board that is referenced in the report. Mr Kelly are you going to attempt those? I shan't on all of them I think Councillor Williams if we can come back and because we'll need to go in just confirm the densities across the development we will certainly aim to give you those during the course of the meeting in terms of the clarification about the drainage board perhaps I can ask one of my colleagues whether they can clarify the nature of that comment I suspect it's referring to the Swavesy IDVs concerns which form part of phase 3B as you rightly identified but perhaps a colleague can comment. In respect to the point about groundwater levels the planning authority hasn't challenged the conclusions of the note it's got no reason to do so but I'm sure we'll discuss that as you've highlighted further in the course of the meeting and I'm very conscious that I suspect some of other comments will be made about that so we do sensible chair to perhaps defer that to the discussion at that time subject to obviously my view that we I think we recognise the work in that technical note and the consultants, Arcadis are also I think potentially available to comment if that was the committee's request to clarify their work, thank you I think that would be useful indeed but in the meantime if we could have one of our officers who's online joining us just to clarify the question around the representations from the drainage boards that have been referenced please I'm not sure who that would be precisely but Thank you council that's well thank you chairman I've been asked to comment on this the IDB did not object to 3a they made an objection to 3b so in 3a it was referred to in the wider context but their objection was to 3b and not 3a and the IDB the IDB down as a speaker for 3b Okay was that did that turn on to your question council it's the internal drainage board I think was being referenced Potentially so there is no objection then to from the swavy drainage board about relevant to up and stroke it because it's not going to up and stroke the position the far water is going to up and stroke perhaps Mr Island from the environment agency might be able to help out with up and stroke but my understanding is that the IDB are not objecting to 3a and the far water going to up and stroke they're objecting to 3b and the additional far water going from 3b to up and stroke but if Mr Island is is on the call he might be able to help out morning Mr Island hopefully you can clarify this for us certainly thank you chair and thanks Mike as well just wanted to check you can hear me we can answer you thank you thank you yes in relation to up and stroke itself we've been in liaison with members of your committee and also Anglin Water and Swaves the IDB over the last few years now this relates to concerns from the IDB about increased levels of far water flow being directed to up and stroke and not so much in terms of a water quality issue but more relating to potential for increased flood risk downstream from the discharge point of the water recycling centre itself so it is something that we are aware of and as I say we are in negotiations and liaising with Anglin Water about the future use of it it currently it has drove the water recycling centre currently has a permit to discharge however Anglin Water are seeking to do improvements to the works itself to increase the capacity and as part of that they will require a revision to the permit from ourselves which they will receive which they have to discharge itself as part of a previous land drainage solution which some members may be familiar with there was modelling carried out which identified a specific flow rate which the downstream receiving watercourse would be capable to accommodate without risk of flooding and it is our understanding that the initial application for the changing the permit for the discharge from the water recycling centre there's two scenarios being investigated one which will be looking at that maximum discharge which is possible to accommodate within the watercourse itself and then a slightly lower one as well there's still at the pre-application stage in terms of the discussion about the permit for those changes so we are in liaison with them but initially it's still anticipated that the water would be able to be accommodated in terms of the discharge of the treated water would be able to be accommodated within the watercourse based upon the previous land drainage solution now as part of the revision of the permit itself we will also be requiring angling water to undertake an updated flood risk assessment so we have we're reassured that that will be the case that there will be no increase in flood risk from Mutton's Drove itself Adam thank you for that I hope that's partially at least answered the question and as you said we can come back in the debate if we need to touch on this topic again yes thank you chair I am a bit perplexed as to why there would be an objection to an application for a thousand houses but not an application to an objection for a thousand houses but maybe we'll come back to that thank you thank you point noted councillor Hawkins please thank you chair I will stay on the issue of the groundwater councillor Williams has actually asked the main question for my concern is a game paragraph for it 5 where it is acknowledged that the watering needs careful management given the potential for disruption to existing water movement patterns how is this going to be managed and what happens if the water movement underground is disrupted Steven or perhaps one of our officers online might be the best place to answer if I can just touch upon that obviously I think someone has already referred to it there are proposed conditions and indeed the addendum report seeks a slight modification to condition 39 around groundwater management recognising there has been some work done already which has been referred to in terms of the technical note but recognising the need for monitoring of the development through the construction phase and through those dewatering activities that may be required as part of the development chair as I said there are the applicants consultants are on available perhaps to consider this further because I'm conscious that perhaps also some of the speakers may want wish to raise similar points so I wouldn't propose to draw them in at this stage if that's acceptable to wouldn't yourselves wouldn't Chairman can I suggest that actually pulling them in after the public speakers might be better because then we'll have a more picture complete I would have thought Indeed I think this is a point for our officers to ask any questions of clarity of so if after the public speaking in the debate or actually when the applicant themselves addresses us we can perhaps ask questions of their consultants then Council Peter Fane Thank you chair Yes my question rather follows up the question from Councillor Roberts earlier on we have I suspect it may be a question for the environment agency very helpful to have Mr Arlandon available to us the environment agency response is a paragraph 158 and 159 no objection subject to conditions and I think the points in 158 already in relation to Utton's Drove and so on have already been dealt with in respect of water supply the response deals mainly with the question of who will be responsible for that whereas of course the key question that may emerge is is there enough and is that on a sustainable basis now that is dealt with in more detail paragraph 610 which is on page 105 so we understand that Cambridge Water has confirmed it has adequate water resources to serve the proposed development but it does go on to say there is insufficient capacity in the current infrastructure and therefore we are rather dependent on reinforcement to that the final paragraph of that section paragraph 613 on page 106 officers are therefore satisfied that sufficient available resources will be available in the longer term to serve the site and that the availability of water is not a constraint for development I think the concern must be is the sustainable availability of water a constraint for development now I take on board the points that our director Mr Kelly made earlier about the need to address this through strategic policies particularly as this is covered in the local plan but I think I follow Councillor Roberts in saying that when we are faced with an application for 5,000 houses even one approved in the local plan we need to seek reassurances on these points whether from the environment agency or from officers I think it's probably a question for the environment agency I'd imagine and I see Mr Islands jumping back in sorry yes sorry I should await the invitation first but I think Mr Kelly was correct in terms of yes his initial summary as just referred to as well it is correct that the water resource management plans that are prepared by water companies are much more strategic as opposed to a singular site and also long term they relate to the housing numbers as a whole within the local plans I would have said water catchment area but it is much further afield as strategic water supplies are being are being developed again as alluded to earlier with the the trunk networks for wider water transfer and that's across East Anglia as a whole so in terms of the sustainability based upon the water resource management plans and the current scales of development across East Anglia then yes that is still considered to be sustainable and part of that is relates to the required condition or the proposed condition 31 which related to the 110 litres per day design from design of properties for the for the water usage so with that yes with that management of the design we know we can't change people's habits in terms of their own personal use of it but that is yes with the design code we're confident that current water supply is able to to be met for the needs of the development itself and I'll just elude also that was mentioned towards also demand management which is led through Anglia water themselves a lot of that will be relating to metering and efficiency measures and promotion of that to their actual customers I can't speak too much I can't speak for Anglia water themselves but no in terms of the sustainable supply then yes that is considered appropriate at this moment in time and as I say with more strategic solutions also being being planned across East Anglia as a whole that's fine thank you we have too much speakers Councillor Cahn and then Williams again Martha there's two concerns first of all I'd like to know some information about the actual ground conditions on the site it's lying on gawk clay and yet we're talking about ground rule the gawk clay is basically very impermeable so I'm presuming there must be superficial deposits and I'd be interested to know what sort of what the superficial deposits are and what sort of capacity for groundwater how deep they are because obviously if they're very thin the site is going to be very susceptible for all the groundwater to be building up after a long period of time and excessive discharge of water on to the outside now I'm not aware of what that situation is I just would like to know if somebody's got information on that and so we know what the actual likely risk is secondly in terms of the I accept that you can supply water in the current situation but it appears to me that the long term supply of our portable water to the site depends upon the achievement of the strategic water plan not just the fact there's water a strategic plan in place and we know that this will clearly involve quite major investments for the region now that may not proceed as fast as we expect and I'm wondering whether consideration has been given to phasing or having review points during the actual development of the site which is going to be developing over many years to check that actually the supply is predicted will actually be coming on to the site I think that will be useful information I want to know whether that has been considered OK thank you so two questions there are one on some clarity around the current ground conditions of the site and two around whether any consideration will be given to phasing of the site again not sure who wants to take either of those questions Can I just suggest in terms of the ground conditions there is actually a sly an image that might be helpful in exploring that now obviously I'm not sure that we have that in our current presentation but perhaps we can bring that forward as part of the into the debate because I think it's an important point to be helpful for clarity in respect to the supply point I think the scale of the interventions that are associated with addressing the abstraction challenges it becomes quite difficult to assign that to a particular development or a particular site reasonably in planning terms because obviously the demand is a consequence and in fact the abstraction on the chalk aquifer is a consequence of the whole of the great Cambridge area and parts of Huntingdonshire and in terms of the reasonableness particularly of a proposal within the development plan of preventing the progression of that I'm not sure that's appropriate but the environment agency might wish to comment because obviously associated with the abstraction is a requirement for licensing from the environment agency to maintain or indeed change abstraction levels and those licenses are reviewed and associated with the environment agency's clear position of seeking to try and manage down current abstraction levels so I don't know whether Adam Ireland can comment but the concerns about continuing to draw substantial quantities a way is something that and the consequences for the chalk streams and the special environment in that area is something that it may will be helpful for the EA to comment on because they oversee that environment Let's see if they can Adam are you still there? Hello I'm a bit limited as to what I can say relating to this at this moment it's time Stephen Gell is correct in terms of the license capping for abstraction and we are currently going through a review of abstractions across the whole of East Anglia and as part of that we have indicated to the abstractors both private abstractors also water companies as well of the intention for a certain capping levels now these will be specific to each individual abstraction the reason I can't go into that a lot further is it's part of a judicial review at this moment in time in terms of our process what we've undertaken so there is a legal process being carried out at this moment in time but yes that is it's obviously our role and duty to ensure those abstractions are managed so both the use and supply of water to commercial and also ensuring that there is no detriment to the environment but I'm quite limited unfortunately as to what I'm allowed to say at this moment in time That's fine I understand the belladdon but I think you've answered as best you can so thank you for that I just wanted to comment that I understand why you feel that one particular element is difficult to regard the need for a review but the problem is here that we have a number of large developments over the next few years water beach camborn norso which cumulatively will have a big effect and for each of them the same situation will apply individually it's difficult to justify and I want to know if there's any solution to this problem because obviously it's going to be a concern I think Mr Kelly's he gave permission to order these when they were stuck unless we have some means of review during the presentation I think Mr Kelly wants to come back on that One of the things that in the widest study indeed it's referenced even in the recent publication from Water Resources East and I've touched upon it is this effectively short, medium and long term responses to the challenges that the area faces what the Water Resources East work highlights is that in fact recognising there is a right to be provided with water enshrined in the legislation for developers there are nevertheless and Adam has referred to issues about further abstraction the Water Resources East work and the conversations that we've had with Cambridge Water Anglun Water and Water Resources East suggest that in the medium term there are potential interim bulk transfer options that exist both from planned infrastructure to the west of South Cambridge and indeed from the east of South Cambridge that can deliver between 2 and 3 million litres I think of additional capacity per day now obviously in a dispersed pattern so if you're trying to service individual villages that might be difficult for sites like Northstow those bulk water transfer potential options may be options that form part of an interim strategy but they're not part of, we won't know for sure about that until the Water Resources East Final Water Resource Management Plan is published late in 2023 but the program and the delivery of Northstow is as you're fully aware a kind of long term program of delivering implementation and I suspect coupled with the environment agency's obligations about further abstraction or the issue of abstraction a very clear stated desire of everybody to reduce levels of abstraction from the short streams those projects are feasible in technical terms and are the subject of the Water Resources Planning that is ongoing at this moment in time such that we wouldn't point towards a need to cap on the growth of Northstow which as I said is within the development plan process as an existing commitment but as we go forward with the local plan I don't need to remind members of the statements that we've already been quite clear about in terms of further additional growth beyond the development plan framework at the moment Chair, I'm sorry to just jump in if I can, just to help me go on on the first question the site, not my area professional expertise but it's River Terrace deposits overlying the clay is the sort of geological situation in the area Okay, thank you for that clarity and finally Councillor Heather Williams please Thank you chair first of all a plea from us to members and officers that are working with the paper free version our page numbers aren't the same as yours on the paper so if we could use paragraph numbers because or at least give me a few minutes to find the page that would be grand, thank you on something a bit more substantive I just wanted to clarify whether I heard correctly about the Swayze internal drainage board because on paragraph 184 I've got the Swayze drainage board object and then and Swayze on 130 their parish council objects supporting the internal drainage board and it's probably my hearing it's quite difficult with the screen and everything I thought I heard somebody say that the internal drainage board had objected to the second application not the first but this suggests to me that they have objected to this application as well as the other even if they've not requested to speak on this one thank you chair and on Utlandsdrove sorry the other one before I forget because many of us have heard about Utlandsdrove and Utlandsdrove and Utlandsdrove and Utlandsdrove and Utlandsdrove and Utlandsdrove because many of us have heard about Utlandsdrove from councillor Ellington particularly councillor Hawkins will be familiar with Utlandsdrove I'm sure does this take into account the calculations that have been made about Cambridge West going there as well because I think that's important the dates because I know there was a change in the way Cambridge West was going to be going and now it is going to Utlandsdrove I believe not Patworth so making sure that the responses we've got here are post that decision thank you chair thank you very much might be better if we invite Mike Huntington into answer at least the first one so Mike some clarity on the IDB comments on this application not the next one and whether they are either not raising any objections or they are raising objections absolutely clarity on that would be handy thank you chair mind stunning is the IDB sorry the IDB are one of the speakers about this application but mind stunning is it's the objection to 3B because 3A was always factored into the Utlandsdrove works but I think the best is to hear it from the IDB when they comment on the application I've also got a plan that you asked earlier on that councillor Richard Williams asked for or councillor Martin Karnas for in relation to the River Terrace deposits should I share this on the screen yes if you can quickly I'm not a geologist but this plan is the area red line is the area of phase 3A and you can see in faint hang on we can't see your screen you're not sharing your screen oh I've got a red line round it we can't see it in the room oh okay that's strange chair this actually seems to be issue on our end as opposed to on Mike's end can I just try to quickly resolve this for us yes okay sorry councillor Williams do you want to come back on the IDB point while that's going on yeah no I think it's on the online version but the way the bookmarking and everything works it's showing part of phase 3B in as 3A so I think my question chair while we're waiting do you mind if I make some suggestions hang on let it finish it might be a technical issue on how this is presented on the online like I say we do sometimes get different numbers and things but they can confirm it again with what I've got on this version Mike I'm not sure if you heard that I think it might be a discrepancy between the way the reports presented on the online version as it is in paper so I think just for absolute clarity some clarity around the comments from the IDB on this application I appreciate they are speaking down to speak as well but if we could if you could for absolute clarity help us with that that would be useful Mike lots of people jumping in Lawrence sorry did you want to say something earlier oh here he is run into the room Mike I think we lost you just after you started speaking when you were responding to Councillor Williams on the drainage board so again sorry to rehash all this if you wouldn't mind very briefly going over for clarity and I think actually whilst we in the interim there was a concern raised from Councillor Williams that the online version of the agenda doesn't marry up necessarily with the paper version so if you could just give us a couple of sentences saying if the IDB has commented in one way or the other in support so the IDB have not objected to 3a but they have objected to 3b okay that's fine thank you Mike okay one final speaker Councillor Wilson please thank you chair I'm going to ask something not about water or drainage on page 71 paragraphs 402 403 refer to the it's the the strategic environmental management plan which includes arrangements for construction vehicles now this refers to requiring the construction vehicles to use the O14 and the B1050 but as I'd like to know whether any further research has been done or whether there's any further intelligence about the provenance or the destinations of these construction vehicles and what happens after they've got onto the O14 in particular what concerns me there's a gravel pit at Water Beach where gravel is extracted and spoiled and soil from construction sites is returned to backfill the land that's where the gravel's been dug out and I would like to know whether any thoughts have been given to requiring those construction vehicles to actually use the A10 and not go through the intervening villages because they could quite easily get on the A14 and then cut a corner to get to instead of using the A10 and I'm sure there are other places that these construction vehicles are going to and coming from and whether the routes that they could be taken should be set out so that they avoid the small villages in between thank you probably best to direct that one to our colleague from the highways department if he's still with us hi good morning can you hear me okay yes we can hear and see you fine did you manage to pick up that question in full there I did yes very interesting question raised not considered that before but definitely can consider that as part of the camp so the construction environment management plan when that comes in as a condition then I'll look at that in some more detail and make sure that they they definitely specify the A14 around Cambridge and not joining the A14 at the very last moment having gone through all the villages thank you appreciate the brevity, do you want to come back councillor Wilson I'd like to come back on that I was thinking more this is just an example that the construction vehicle would join the A14 at around Dry Drayton and go along the A14 but then cut back through Okington and cotton them to have a quick route through to Water Beach and what I would what I was suggesting is that they should be required to go along to the A10 at Milton and then use the A10 to go to Water Beach and this is just an example I don't know what other destinations or provenances the construction vehicles will be using other routes I think Mr Kelly might be coming back on that but just a thumbs up from Tamer sorry it's just to say that the technology and the kind of solutions that are being looked at not just for this site but for other major sites about vehicle routing are is fair to say evolving so historically we've just had published routes and so on but certainly vehicle monitoring and the ability to monitor individual vehicles and not only their origin but how they get to their destination is something that I suspect working with the county highways team similar projects of this scale is something that we will evolve we recognise the problem of it's not just where they come into the site but the distance in between and it's something that as Tamer has highlighted I think he's going to be an important part of the construction environmental management plan process recognising that technology for example GPS tracking of individual vehicles and so on is something that is now available let alone by the time construction starts on a project like phase 3a in event of permission is granted ok thank you for the response there members no more questions of clarification for officers members I'm going to break us there before we go into the public speaking element of the application the time now is quarter to 12 we come back in 10 minutes so 5 to 12 in our seats ready to start and then we'll go straight into the public speaking thank you very much ok thank you members we're live again now so welcome back everyone to this meeting of south camps district council we're still on item could we've quiet please thank you we're still on the first item of the agenda which is north stone item 3a and we're about to go into the public speaking element of the meeting the first public speaker is a Mr Keith Wilderspin from the swavesy internal drainage board Mr Wilderspin welcome obviously quite timely given the discussions we've just been having so I'm not sure if you've been to the committee before but you have 3 minutes to address the committee at which point if you wouldn't mind staying in your seat in case any questions of clarification for you so whenever you're ready please thank you gentlemen before I start my statement could I clear up some of this business that was going on before the adjournment swavesy hang on if you give us your statement first then I'm sure there'll be some questions of clarity for you at the end no but this isn't a question of clarity it's a question of whether swavesy IDB has objected to 3a and 3b we have objected to 3a I have the letter here and I have Andrew Thompson's letter back to our drainage engineer with his comments on our comments and we have had an objection in whenever you're ready please my statement then north stone 3a 3d water is to be discharged to the swavesy drain system this is a drainage channel susceptible to flooding and is tied locked at times of flood periods of up to four weeks four weeks to cater for the increased fall water flows from Canbour 950 north stone phases 1,2 and 3a's 10,000 houses a total of approximately 11,000 houses a scheme called the LDS has been installed over the last 10 years this has a design capacity to receive the 239 litres of second flow modelled that was needed subsequent to this and without agreement from the EA Anglia and Ward to have more than taken up this capacity with plans to add approximately the 6,000 houses from Canbour and West and Bourne airfield this all was originally planned and stated in their statements at the time to go to Parkless Water Recycling Centre in a letter from the EA to Anglion Water 19 April 2021 copied to Chris Carter and myself among others we share the concerns of SWEIBSY Parish Council and the IDB relating to discharge being directed to Art and Strove from additional development other than those previously agreed through the LDS this leaves big questions beyond 2027 with seemingly no strategic plan or urgency to establish what infrastructure options there may be that do not increase flood risk or cause environmental harm to SWEIBSY please note that we will not be delivering any future LDS or similar the flooding experience in this part of the great ooze catchment this winter just demonstrates how important an issue this is and with climate change and such ambitious house growth plans there are unlikely to be many if any solutions that will be simple to deliver and quick to expedite we will be sharing this letter with other interested parties unquote this obviously will increase the problems of flooding to SWEIBSY catchment therefore the IDB objects to North Stoke 3A and 3B until such time as the over capacity discharges to SWEIBSY drain with its serious consequences to SWEIBSY are addressed thank you Chairman thank you very much for that members are there any questions of clarity for Mr Wilderspin councillor Heather Williams thank you you made a quote from a letter I didn't catch who you said the letter was from the letter was from the EA to Anglian Water that was only part of the letter I'll have the letter to hand if it's any help to the committee any further questions of clarification Mr Wilderspin councillor Roberts please thank you Chairman and through you Chairman good morning sir can you tell me that in layman's terms I do often wish that councillor Mason was here can you tell me in layman's terms what do you feel would be the effect if this application was to go through with things as they stand currently the consent that the LDS was designed for as Adam Ireland said was 239 litres a second this was designed to cater for the things I've mentioned if well because the Camborn West and Bourn airfield are now going to be discharged into that system it will be it will seriously impact on the pump that we have installed at Wedd's Old Sluice to pump sewage water out it will seriously impact on that's ability to cope and keep the drains down to a reasonable level that they the level that they would have been at if this extra sewage charge hadn't been discharged it's a bit like Armageddon coming isn't it Honestly the situation ongoing with what is going to happen we have Northstone and Camborn and we as I understand it we now have Northstone Camborn is the likely place for any further expansion still if this all goes to the up and straight sewage treatment works we are in big big trouble and believe me what's happening at Swayvesy or likely to happen at Swayvesy keeps me awake a lot more times than my business or my private life does Thank you very much Thank you very much I actually had a similar question to Councillor Robert so I won't go over that again but could you just if you could just tell us or give us a bit more clarity on the situation at Uton's Drobe now is your case that it's now basically at or over capacity without anything additional At the moment it's not over capacity at the moment the Anglian War to have a a licence to discharge 122 litres a second they have on their own admission this spring exceeded that already this 122 litres has been an increase from the 40 litres a second that was that they had before the building that's taken place at the moment so that extra 80 litres a second has just come from the 950 at Cambron which has been finished and I don't know if the 1500 have been finished on phase 1 of north stone but that has put that extra capacity into that system and they only have another 100 or so litres to go 120 litres, sorry Thank you for that Councillor Griffith please Thank you, I think you said this I just don't want to I want to check I didn't miss here so you said there's big questions beyond 2027 so basically from what you're saying next five years is kind of okay but from that point on you think it will be over capacity and not able to cope am I correct? That is exactly what we think Okay thank you that's very clear Thank you very much members no further questions or clarification from Mr Will to spin so we say thank you very much for taking the time to address us and we'll move on to our next public speaker which is Mr Daniel Fulton from Fus lane consortium Mr Fulton Thank you chair I think the committee has sort of lost track of what's happening here today there were 34 pages of updates sent at 8 o'clock yesterday evening and one of those pages on NXD it indicates that there have been further conditions proposed and have been accepted by the applicant these conditions have not been provided to this committee it also says that in accordance with the report recommendation the final wording to be agreed and consultation with the chair will be delegated to officers what you're being asked to do today is to grant planning permission without approving any finalized wording of the conditions and as you know when it comes to implementation the conditions are absolutely everything all you're actually approving today in theory are the plans submitted and the description of the development I've been coming to these meetings for four years I have never seen anything close to the development of this scale being approved by this committee with no specific wording of conditions if Mr Clark could go ahead and play the video there's a Councillor Conn just a moment ago hit on one of the key issues and this is the actual geology of the site and the fact that we have localized groundwater impacts that have not been addressed in the officers report and I've submitted a brief video this is from the National Charity the Aquifer Alliance a talk given by nationally recognized sustainable drainage expert Joe Bradley on the 19th of December and if we could go ahead and play this video it summarizes the concerns in Longstown Lawrence do we have a video yes the video is ready and waiting do I have your permission to share it go ahead very much bear with me one second can you see this on the screen now we can hopefully the sound works as well sorry Lawrence we can't hear the sound what you will need to do is stop sharing there's a little tick box on the top right hand corner that says include computer sound and that will get the sound of the video to work thank you very much Aaron I see that I'm just getting to that now let's try again please let me know if this is all working still no sound I'm afraid my tie would it be proper to ask Mr Fulton if the sound is necessary or will the subtitles suffice we do have subtitles the sound is necessary gentlemen sorry could you just repeat that for me it is necessary there's a request for the sound if possible yes okay please bear with me and I will do my best to get this sorted as soon as possible actually Lawrence my friend I can actually get there it's a slight issue with the headphones that we have as well I will just pop it in now from the start up in Longstown and I picked this up in the press it was on Twitter I think we're there if you want to start the video again Lawrence or Aaron whoever's got control so this is a development called North Stowe and they did masses of de-watering for the residential development big residential development and all the funds dried up in Longstown and I picked this up in the press it was on Twitter and it was on Facebook and LinkedIn and something like that it's so easy to do by mistake I can't imagine they did it on purpose but the impact of that for Longstown is enormous not only is it aesthetically not very nice to have rivers and ponds that put no water in them this was in the summer and you imagine you're a terrestrial mammal living in that local area there is nothing for you to drink anywhere because all the springs and all the rivers and all the streams have dried up so that's it that's curtains for all terrestrial mammals unless local people are putting water out reliably every day and we should be ashamed of ourselves as a species I don't mean you personally because that's just it's awful that we allow things like that to happen and that was an accident it wasn't nature that did that that was an accident of ours so on the 30th of November a group together with a group of pond owners in Longstanton met with Stephen Kelly to discuss our concerns about the loss of groundwater from the River Terrace deposit aquifer we asked Mr Kelly to give us data on what has happened to the groundwater level since March of last year we also asked for borehole data that we know for a fact is in the possession of Homes England that they have refused to turn over to the local planning authority and Mr Kelly refused to ask for it we want to see the data we have our ponds in Longstanton have no water and Mr Kelly did nothing to address that this is ecocide I'm not sure that you appreciate this this is not something that will be fixed if it is not fixed when planning permission is granted for 3a and 3b this is what our ponds look like in the summers in Longstanton Fuselin consortium has an entire library of these images they are available for free for free public use for any candidate for council do you want your picture on a flyer next to the picture of one of our destroyed ponds this is what this council is doing please this doesn't need to turn into a political knife fight we're all good people here the council is not ready to grant planning permission on this you have to defer it there's no question about it you have to defer this application you're not ready to approve it thank you members do you have any questions of clarification if any questions of clarification for Mr Fulton I don't think so thank you very much for your time this morning okay next speaker we have I think we saw him earlier online Mr Ian Rawls Cambridge friends of the earth are you with us Mr Rawls hello everybody hello councillors and officers hello you're very quiet Mr Rawls there's not many people say that to me is that better yes that's better oh great thank you so as with the other speakers three minutes to address the committee then they may have some questions for you at the end so if you stay on the line for us so with regards to both phases of the development Cambridge friends of the earth would like to raise a few issues start with we'd question which members of the electorate decided that the thousands of new houses for sale are needed or wanted in the region how many of these will be available for genuine social rent as opposed to the more rather nebulous affordable housing category how likely is it that the proposed development will significantly reduce south camp's district council's council housing waiting list moving on to slightly more environmental issues if you like we also strongly question the glide over overall assumptions suggested in the national policy planning framework and given form by the region's growth agenda that growth in quotes is inevitably a good thing for the region and question new benefits from this the rising tide may well lift our votes but that seems everyone can afford a boat on a more practical level there's no mention in the local plan of realistic ways to provide the necessary water for the planned quantities of new housing development such as this development on the 1st of July 2021 DEFRA announced that chalk streams will be given enhanced environmental protection and published the environmental agency document titled water suggest areas final classification 2021 which included on page 6 the supply areas of Cambridge water and Anglin water are areas of serious water stress additionally according to appendix 3 of this report Cambridge water needs to reduce abstraction by 22 million litres of water per day from current levels or from levels current at the 1st of July 2021 Anglin water needs to reduce abstraction by 189 million litres per day from levels current at the 1st of July 2021 surely given these facts water stress and shortage in itself should hold any further development we see that whilst consideration of this application is taking place now the consultation for the regional water plan is not due until the summer of this year perhaps councils in greater Cambridge region I hope that no one notices small detail what the sound of cans being kicked down the road which has the potential to slow down the development jugnaught after all greater Cambridge planning seem to have chosen to exclude any mention of environmental harm from DEFRA's report for north-state development greater Cambridge planning has not sought the water company's assurance that it can meet the needs of growth without causing deterioration this seems to have said to have gone out of its way to obfuscitate fundamental water supply issues this is glaring water shortage can be sold by proposals such as pumping water from also water stress north Lincolnshire or building reservoirs in the fence whether we vulnerable to salt water intrusion and flooding as climate change advances is fantasy greenwash at the highest order and that these plans are big enough and bold enough to distract you the decision makers from having to address the fundamental issues surrounding this development for further months and perhaps years approaching this issue literally from the other end that appears to be precious little attention have had the resulting sewage we dealt with decades of underinvestment in water treatment infrastructure by privatised utilities that have left the system unable to cope with current levels of sewage leading to far too frequent discharges when to seek to create sewage into the river cab and yet further pressure has been put on this ramshackle system by ever increasing demand from further development Friends of the Earth therefore councillors to recognise the proposed development in north-stow will cause further unacceptable deterioration of the Cannes Valley chalk streams and endanger the Cam herself We ask you to reject this development on the grounds of unacceptable and unprecedented environmental harm Thank you very much Thank you very much Mr Rawls If you would mind holding on in case there are any questions from councillors for you One from councillor Roberts please Good morning I think we all know that the organisation that you stand for and speaking on behalf of has done a great deal of good over maybe 50 or so years in particular when you've got to worldwide attention the deficits in how we treat the world I wonder can you just tell me I'm sure that you've read the mission statement of this council What do you think of its mission statement that the environment is at the heart of this council and that we are green to our roots I think there's a great word and I'm sure many of the if not all of the members of the council would go along with that unfortunately it does seem that pressures from outside or maybe financial pressures are forcing the council in directions that it's not entirely happy with maybe I suspect there are very good people on the council I mean you yourself have made some very good statements in this meeting regarding water supply issues I think outside pressures are maybe having a malign influence should we say on the decisions made by this council Thank you, any further questions of clarity please Councillor Hawkins Thank you chair and through you Thank you for your presentation Are you aware of the water resources east's consultation that's ongoing and are you going to be taking part in that We are aware of it and we will be making a contribution at some point Okay, I'm aware that this consultation is the plans for the water supply companies to actually provide the water that they are legally lawfully obliged to provide to all the public users and agriculture and all that We appreciate that but they're also legally obliged at the moment they seem to be failing in that task to a large degree. We will contribute to the consultation but as is the way with such devices should we say consultations they're often a way of brushing over fundamental issues as we said piping water from elsewhere in the country is not a solution it will be coming from already water stressed areas I mean throughout history mankind has moved to where fundamental resources like water and agricultural land are we seem to be trying to bring the water to where we are and this is in a very rich area, a very wealthy area that's perfectly capable of looking after itself financially it doesn't need further growth it doesn't need investment there are other areas of the country far more in need of investment investment and hope basically I was from Wolverhampton originally and I went through there on the train recently and it's devastated that place needs investment it's like I say it's perfectly capable of looking after itself and it's just development seems to be attracted here it's like a honeypot obviously investment money breeds money and we all seem to be suffering from that I hesitate to use the word greed I think the point's been made but if there's a question of clarity around what he's been saying thank you very much there are no further questions of clarifications so Mr Rawls we thank you for your time this morning thank you for the opportunity and we will move to our final public speaker and I believe he's in the room with us this is Monica ooh the jock home is that right? yeah, jock maybe Monica if that's okay it is in my list for objectives we have parish councils as separate sections so don't worry we haven't forgotten about you Monica as with the others three minutes please and then if you hold on for any questions of clarity okay some of what I plan to say has just been covered by Ian I'd just like to also feedback on what I've heard this morning this concept of presumption in favour of sustainable development this is clearly patently not a sustainable development and I think everybody knows here that we don't have enough water I was absolutely incredulous at what I just heard from Adam Arlen from the environment agency he clearly hasn't read the literature that has come from the environment agency in August 2020 they said any increase in use within existing licence volumes will increase pressure on a system that is already failing environmental targets it's already failing right this isn't going to tip it over it's already being tipped over many water bodies in 2020 did not have the flow required to support the ecology evidence of the pond in Longstanton, low flows too much algae in the water everything is just collapsing and they also recommended that the council the planning authority should seek the water company's assurance that it can meet the needs of growth without causing deterioration I've been unable to find any evidence that the planning authority did that in fact it would appear that everything possible was done to avoid scrutiny so they came up with a clever little plan Anglion water would supply Cambridge water would abstract that way Anglion water needs to be consulted Cambridge water doesn't so of course Anglion water say oh it's absolutely fine we've got no problems with supply Cambridge water do the abstraction and it seems that they're getting away with it but on the first of July last summer on the first of July the Secretary of State for DEFRA accepted environmental agency advice and determined that both Cambridge water and Anglion water are now areas of serious water stress and chalk streams on top of that were given enhanced protection and based on this new information in order for our rivers to be sustainable in order for our rivers to be just sustainable Cambridge water needs to cut abstraction by 22 million litres of water per day and Anglion water by 189 million litres per day in the meantime we are just adding more tabs constantly adding more tabs we are doing nothing to cut abstraction and I would also argue that this new classification basically would invalidate any responses received prior to the first of July last year from environmental groups and water companies to the consultation on this application because it means abstraction licenses are now out of date and they need to be rewritten and in fact that is happening licenses needs to be reduced the license quantities and I'd like everybody just to think about what is at stake here right this is the reality what is at stake here Cambridge without the can so my question is finally I just very quickly did the planning authority seek assurance from Cambridge water who they know is bulk supplying Anglion water and they certainly know now that it could meet the needs of growth without causing deterioration and in view of their needs to make sustainability reductions following this new information from DEFRA on the first of July and if so can we see it how are they going to supply and reduce abstraction by 22 million litres per day to save the can Thank you very much for that Members any questions of clarification for our speaker Councillor Hawkins please Thank you chair and for you Thank you Monica for your presentation you asked if the authority sought assurance from Cambridge water and I think the answer is in paragraph 610 on page 105 Yes it did and Cambridge water has confirmed that it has adequate water resources to serve the proposed nostal development Can I ask if they have answered that question Are you aware of that paragraph I wasn't aware of that but I would like to know when they sent that response was it after the first of July I think that might be a question someone might like to ask in the debate potentially If there's no further questions of clarification for our speaker we thank you very much for your time this afternoon and we'll move on to our next speaker who is I believe an agent of the applicants Mr Michael Bottomley-Tibboards who's joining us virtually Michael good afternoon Hello good afternoon Okay Michael it's the same as the other speakers three minutes to address the committee with any comments you want to give them and then if you hold on for any questions of clarification please Okay thank you very much So thank you for the opportunity to speak today I'm a planning consultant for Tibboards representing Homes England Homes England are a non-departmental public body sponsored by the department for levelling up housing and communities Homes England's role is to accelerate the delivery of housing across England to ensure that more people have access to better homes in the right places this means as a public sector master developer Homes England is seeking to deliver north stone in the public interest The design for north stone phase three has been in development since early 2018 and we have engaged extensively with the community council counter council and other statutory consorties We have arranged three rounds of public consultation and held 17 pre-application meetings and workshops prior to the application submission in April 2020 We have continued to engage and refine the proposals over the last 18 months and the result of the scheme that meets or exceeds policy requirements and is of very high quality The application has been accompanied by a full environmental impact assessment Water extraction permits for phase two have all been secured from Cambridge Water and the environment agency has confirmed that it has satisfied the suitable consent and permissions that are in place for the development The proposals are based on a master plan that will deliver a vibrant 21st century settlement with strong local identity The master plan aims to promote sustainable transport creating a highly permeable movement network which integrates phase three A with the rest of the town and surrounding area as well as promoting active and sustainable travel choices such as walking, cycling and public transport Homes England is committed to ensuring that North Australia is a balanced and sustainable community and recognises that an approximate mix of homes is crucial an appropriate mix of homes is crucial to that objective 40% of the dwellings on the site will be affordable housing containing a variety of affordable tenure types to meet local needs Throughout the design process for phase three A there has been a commitment to ensure that healthy new town principles are applied to all aspects of North Australia's development and to ensure that the new town is a positive lifestyle choice Over one third of phase three A is open space in green infrastructure retaining groups of trees and other landscape features including lakes and users that are characters drivers in new neighbourhoods To support these measures the section of six package includes a community infrastructure contribution of £68.5 million The technical team who worked on the proposals are on hand to answer any questions you have including Janis Hughes the technical, environmental and transport matters an expert on drainage and water matters Dean Harris the planning manager for Homes England Philip Harker, the infrastructure lead for Homes England and Katya Silla, the urban designer and master planner Thank you very much Thank you very much Michael and if you could hold on a second in case any questions of clarity for yourself starting with councillor Roberts and then Richard Williams please Good morning If it is still morning No, on beyond Gosh it sounds like utopia doesn't it However you must be aware of what the conversation has been this morning the debate has been and the great concerns for people at the sharp end especially the drainage board people What have we got to say about the problems related to the chalk streams the ponds the permeability of the land etc please So I'll pass that question over to Janis Hughes Thank you Mike So I want to speak on behalf of our technical teams and draw your attention first of all in terms of the groundwater issues and the concerns over the ponds in Longstanton So we submitted a technical note in August 2021 to explain further what the drainage strategy includes and what the impacts are likely to be on groundwater So firstly to explain that the reason why we are predicting a reduction in groundwater levels is because once developed the site will allow less infiltration so we've taken a very much worse case assumption that in the surface water drainage strategy that there will be limited infiltration and that will go into the surface drainage network however as the development builds out we'll be under condition and looking for all opportunities to enable that infiltration so the assessment is first of all very much a worse case that was set out in the EIA chapter as well on ground conditions and hydrogeology and summarised in that groundwater note and there was a question earlier about the nature of the ground conditions and do I have the chair's permission to share a diagram from the groundwater note would that be acceptable? Which question is this in response to? So this is regarding the issues around groundwater and our response to that is that acceptable to explain? If it is helpful please do My apologies I think it froze there So in terms of the groundwater conditions we have provided diagrams which show a cross section of how the site drains and within those figures we give you an indication of what the clay and the river terrace deposits are so in various cross sections you can see that the site is Cambridge clay overlained with river terrace deposits in locations the section which goes between phase 2 and phase 1 and the Oakington end of the site what you can actually see is that the river terrace deposits are in the middle and affected by groundwater changes but actually because the clay is on either side there is no actual flow between what's going on on phase 3a and phases 2 so just to draw your attention that the note that we prepared explains that the direction of flows of groundwater are such that there isn't really an interaction with what's going on in Longstanton and the flow actually goes two-thirds towards the northeast side and into the Beck Brook through the attenuation ponds that have been constructed on the other third towards the Oakington area so Sorry, can I just quickly interrupt Chairman, can I ask it's just been noted or stated that the note, what note are we talking about here and also I'd like to ask as well you're not answering my question about, I think you said at the start of your presentation, you were talking very quickly about you'd been doing a survey following on the problem of Longstanton ponds being empty and you haven't actually told us why they are empty Sorry In terms of why they are empty, there's been an HR Wallingford report that looks separately at that, that's related to what's gone on in North Stowe phase 1, that report does not make reference to phase 2 or 3, the phase 3a site conditions are different nonetheless Homes England will be committed to monitoring the situation so the construction management will enable that situation to be monitored as it goes on and also since the time of that work, the EA now require a licence for dewatering so there are many, there are controls in place to ensure that that can be controlled going forward and the site conditions are different Okay, thank you I think that's answered the question as best as can be Question of clarity please from Heather Williams Thank you So my question was about on the affordable housing so we've heard that there's 40% on this application but over the whole site when you factor in all the phases we're not at 40% overall I'm just wondering whether it's something that would be considered by yourselves I know we can't ask for more than 40% but whether if balance sheets allowed you would actually release more houses to make it 40% overall as you're in a different position to many developers and have that flexibility Thank you I'll pass that over to Dean Harris Hi, I'm Dean Harris, hello councillors Just a point of clarification in phase 2 we're providing 50% affordable housing so across north stove the affordable housing provision is in excess of 40%, it's 41% of north stove as a whole so we're meeting policy in relation to phase 3 and half the affordable housing is to be affordable rent which meets policy requirements so that's the proposal, thank you Thank you chair, I think members may know why I asked the question and yeah, thank you Thank you very much, and councillor Richard Williams please Thank you very much chair It was useful to share that one of the speakers shared that report because that's exactly what I'm looking at here so I'll assume from that that the applicants do accept that we're looking at a reduction in the water table of 2-3 metres because that's what those figures are, those diagrams that we were just shown indicate I would also think of a question of clarity or make the point, this report does not say that these indicated final water tables are the worst-case scenario it says these figures show the anticipated reduction in groundwater in the area of the site which is a very different thing so I don't think it shows the worst-case scenario that's not the way that it's raised it talks about anticipated and then a final point it was just stated that the Kingfish-upon system is different but in the phase 3 report from HR Wallingford the first thing it says is that the Kingfish-upon is situated in hydraulic continuity with the underline river of a terraced deposit Aquifer and that's exactly what we're talking about here so we know that what happened to Kingfish-upon was not intended to come back in the phase 1 reports nobody thought this was going to happen and now we're being told that actually even though there's going to be a 2-3 metre reduction further in the river terraced deposit that won't affect the streams at Oakington I find that difficult to accept I don't know if anyone wants to come back and I don't think there's a question there but if anyone does want to come back there's an opportunity for a clarification yes it is also river terraced deposits on phase 3a but the clay sort of interrupts those so it's not a continuous drainage system the drainage flow within phase 3a is going to that point to the north and northeast and the south okay thank you for that with that there's no more question sorry one more question of clarification from Councillor Hawkins please thank you my concern is about the construction management plan and having had to convene meetings with those who were building out phase 1 to resolve issues of construction there is going through over willing on routes that they were not supposed to according to the management plan that was in place how do you propose to ensure in this case that the construction is actually keep to the management plan once it's been agreed and it should not be going through our villages Michael a question around the enforcement of the construction management plan anyone can they hear us on if you can hear apologies chair I'll just make one quick point just a statement of fact which is phase 1 isn't a homes England development I suspect a number of members know that in terms of the the routing we're happy to look at this by condition and work with councillors district council to get this right going forward as part of the construction environmental management plan to be conditioned I don't know if Janice shoes has anything to add to that I think it's worth noting as well that phase 3a has access from the southern axis road west your carriageway so it's a different situation and phase 1 has to be served from the existing roads so alongside what's happening with phase 2 at present that's fine I think you've answered thank you as a comeback from councillor Hawkins I'm very concerned because it's not just your construction vehicles it's your suppliers as well and it was the suppliers who were actually causing serious problems for phase 1 so whatever it is you would have to be responsible for that and make sure that it works thank you don't need to respond to that thank you ok we thank you very much everyone who's contributed to that we're going to move on to our next set of public speakers now which are representatives from local parish councils first on my list I have is councillor Dan Dillamair Lyon who's representing Longstanton parish council would you like to take the seat please and you'll probably hear this a lot now but as usual three minutes to present to the committee at which point there may likely be some questions for you at the end thank you chair before I start I'd just like to mention that I'm joined by a remotely by one of our other members of the parish council Andy Wichely one I'll present will cover both the 3A and 3B phases unfortunately I can't stay with you after this presentation I'll have to leave I will try and reach on remotely I want to reach my destination but councillor Wichely can fill in anything in the meanwhile if you have any questions ok that's great thank you ok so before we go too much further I'd assume that everybody's familiar with this famous document and I did ask for it to be circulated to you beforehand because it's a very important part of the decision making process I'd like to thank Mr Ricketts for his presentation where he mentioned the environmental impact assessment and a number of you have questions just for clarity would you mind just stating which document it is we can't all see oh sorry yes ok that's the HR1 input report ok thank you so that's the two phases of the report ok that's clear thank you thank you so yeah Mr Ricketts mentioned the environmental impact assessment and stated that that have been reviewed by all I think you've probably proven to yourselves this morning in the debate that you've had that there is doubt over the nature of the environmental impact assessment and whether or not it holds true for today if we look at the impact on Longstanton you've seen some video you've seen some pictures worse than the pictures tell I've speaking with residents yesterday where they've had to have tons and tons of material shipped in because their garden is sinking the house is disappearing we have a section 106 application in for funds to contribute to solving our very real impact of that in the parish council in that our village institute building is collapsing due to subsidence and the cracks in it you can actually put your hand in so they're not small and insignificant and this has all happened since the dewatering has started for phase one so we would suggest that based on the material and based on the HR Wallingford report that there is doubts to be cast over the basis of the scientific decisions that are being made and the recommendations that are being provided here and it was worth a point of note that the environment agency have made no mention in any of their material about any of the available data that shows that there are things going on here that have not been factored in so from the point of view of the parish of Longstanton it's a very real effect that we feel and I'm sure that my colleagues from North Stowe will tell you more about this from their point of view and from Okington the Kingfisher pond is just one part of it please do not focus on the Kingfisher pond although the report says it on the front it's about a much bigger structure that provides our community provides our water and affects us massively and you've mentioned a farm land around we have farmers with no water in their wells that they can draw where they have a license to draw it they can't draw it to water their crops and run their businesses so from my point of view I'll keep it very brief and sum up if you're going to make a decision I would expect it to be based on believable and credible scientific information I think we've called that into doubt today we would ask that that scientific basis is reviewed set correctly and decisions and plans are made on that I know this report suggests that there should be more work done I'm pleased to see that we have some engagement going on and I know that Stephen Kelly has been involved in that as well to look at what has happened it probably is accidental you don't design things like this to happen but we need to get to the bottom of what is happening there so if you're going to make a decision and you're going to move to approve the development we would ask that there would be conditions put in place that there is a fully understood costed and importantly funded plan to remediate the damage that's been done with the work from foot excuse me from phase one and that that is done on a basis of no impact to the further development in terms of section 106 contribution and community facilities it's all too easy to spend a fortune on these things and then take that out of the cost of the development that is taking place and in addition Mr Fulton mentioned monitoring we'd ask that in the spirit of transparency that monitoring is installed to keep tabs on what's going on with the water levels as this development progresses we're very focused on today we've heard about 2027 and beyond where water becomes a challenge it's obviously a point of such contention that we need to have data available and transparency of that data to allow us all to see what's happening as the development on North Stoke continues thank you thank you very much for that before we go to questions of clarity one thing I should have asked at the beginning was can I just confirm you got permission from Longstowns and Parrish Council to represent their views here today correct I'll do it good thank you very much have to cover that off of course Councillor Roberts please chairman through you chairman good afternoon sir can you just remind me again you're talking about some properties and including your own Parrish building I think can you just explain again to me what people are now having to to deal with and I've more people got concerns about their properties and when did this really start showing its face thank you certainly so the ponds are obviously a very obvious visual indicator and that's been present for well pretty much months after the dewatering first started and it's been a constantly deteriorating situation it obviously takes time for things like the drying of the land to take effect in substance to take effect but certainly we've had notable subsidence in the village institute for two years it may even be three kept COVID makes things a little bit haziest to exactly when we were there when we weren't but certainly talking to residents in and around the village they have seen the effects building ever since the development work started on north stone so it's not something that's happened recently it's been a progressive thing you're welcome thank you very much I don't think there's any please thank you chair have there been any engineering reports done on these buildings to connect the problems people have experienced in the dewatering I'm not aware of those at this point no however the buildings do all sit on top of the structure thank you thank you very much there's any further questions for yourself so we'll move members to our next public speaker who's a representative of north stone town council council Richard Owen who believes joining us online council Owen yes hello can you hear me okay yes we can hear and see you fine thank you for joining us today as we've got the speakers as close to the three minute markers you can and then if you would hold on for any questions of clarity at the end and before you kick off do you have the permission of your town council to represent them today I do good thank you very much so whenever you're ready please thank you very much thank you chair I'm Richard Owen town mayor of north stone and thanks very much for the opportunity to speak today the north stone town council broadly supports the application for phase 3a however this support is subject to strict planning conditions which must be imposed to manage the impact of development on surrounding villages current and future north stone residents and the environment the first and most critical of these as we've already heard many times today is around hydrology in groundwater independent studies and our own analysis based on publicly available data has shown that water levels in the gravel scene which runs under north stone phase 1 and long stanton have been badly affected by earlier phases of development in north stone this has resulted in many water features and ponds drying out with lots of habitats as we've just seen as well as structural damage to buildings and as noted just now by councillor Delamailon phase 3a sits on that same gravel seam further upstream so any impact to groundwater levels here will have a knock on impact contrary to claims here just made by the applicant and as councillor Dr Williams noted earlier the Arcadis impact assessment in the current plans projects a permanent further 2 to 3 meter drop in water levels as a result of the development we note that drafting of a planning condition has been proposed to monitor the groundwater levels through development but we also seek here a condition to mitigate this impact through revision to the drainage strategy and for the impact of the development to be considered beyond just the phase 3a boundaries further lowering of the groundwater levels underneath north stone and long stanton will significantly worse than the impact and damage that we've already seen and we cannot let that happen we must also learn the lessons of development in phase 1 when it comes to phasing of the development so most residents in phase 1 will have to wait until at least 2024 for roads and cycle paths around to be finished which is largely due to the sequence of parcels being built in as well as a lack of access through the southern part of north stone for building traffic residents in future phases must not be subjected to the same mistakes being made so we recommend a phasing plan which allows primary roads and cycle ways to be completed as building is complete and welcome the comments made in the last couple of days by officers to add a condition to that effect we also note that an adequate construction environment management plan must also be in place before development starts in order to mitigate the impact of dust and noise throughout construction on a more positive note we do support the plans for green infrastructure throughout phase 3a and the maintenance of green separation between north stone and Oakington and we believe the planned open space will be of great benefit to residents both from north stone and the surrounding villages in summary we've got the opportunity here to build a green and sustainable town that we can all be proud of but for that to happen the planning committee has to take action and impose the conditions we need to make that happen thank you very much that's great thank you very much councillor Owen members do we have any questions or clarification councillor nope I think that was all succinct thank you very much for your time this afternoon okay members our final public speaker is from Swayvsy parish council sorry I don't have whoever it is his name in front of me but I believe they are either in the room or online is there a representative from Swayvsy parish council not 3a okay fine tick okay members that's all of the parish councillors that wish to make representations to us today so we'll move on to local members I believe we have councillor Handley who represents Willingham and Over on the Line yes thank you thank you chair councillor I think you probably know the rules now three minutes and then if there's any questions for you at the end hold on the line for those thank you yes yes indeed thank you chair yes I'm the district councillor for the villages of Over and Willingham as councillor Hawkins has already alluded Willingham does have a big problem with volume and speed of traffic passing through the village and although not of course not all heavy traffic is connected to Norstow some of it certainly is and it shouldn't be the current construction traffic management plan it's been in place since the early phases has been pretty much impossible to enforce it's really easy to spot construction vehicles travelling to or from Norstow via Willingham it happens all the time but there hasn't been a single successful enforcement case because enforcement officers contact unless they get corroborated evidence of breaches and video evidence and since the construction vehicles need to be shown entering or leaving one of the developer sites we told that simply recording them is not enough and the evidence needs to show that the vehicles driving through Willingham village as well it's ffiendishly difficult to monitor and gather the enforcement evidence drivers know it and they pay no attention to it so the people of Willingham are really being badly affected I get more of complaints about this than any other so I would urge the planning committee to take this opportunity to beef up the transport plan for this certainly for this phase of development and to see what they can do to make sure that technology is used ANPR or vehicle tracking or whatever it is to identified vehicles that ignore the transport plan and to give the council's enforcement team the evidence they need to act I just please use this opportunity to protect the people of Willingham thank you thank you councillor Handley any questions of clarification councillor Heather Williams chair Phil this might be one that might need to be sent to officers but I think many of us can understand the issues that you're raising councillor Handley but when it comes to the evidence and what have you do you think that there is actually ways that would meet the reasonable test for conditioning for the suggestions that you're making or that might be I appreciate you might need officers support to answer that well all I can say is we discussed this a great detail about three years ago with the various developers and it was agreed that an ANPR system would work and LNQ estates have been well there are all kinds of reasons why it hasn't happened Covid being one but you know I think the people of the village of Willingham are really exasperated that it's taken three years and still nothing's been done and they fear that this next phase will just add to their woes and that's the reason for me speaking today I'm sorry I probably haven't answered your question and if I haven't yes I agree it probably needs officer input Chair thank you and I can say we can appreciate the issues so you've had if I can clarify you've had a meeting where an ANPR system could work maybe officers could advise if that would meet the reasonable test because it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for it to be conditioned I think Mr Kelly is going to come in it would be appropriate absolutely in terms of the planning condition as I said in fact some of the conversations and our lessons on things like Adam Brooks Road in Cambridge and ANPR suggest that there might be slightly better ways even than ANPR to be able to deal with it and I referred to that earlier so it's an option if it's helpful we'll perhaps review the condition to make sure that it's dealt with I'm sure that those England are also conscious of practice across the country in terms of this but it's a very serious point and we will be exploring the most effective means possible within reason as you say against the planning test but it would be reasonable to attribute on a development of this scale of that type of obligation Chair can I ask then because we could easily forget things throughout the day can we add that to a list if you're making one of potential conditions it's on the list thank you very much councillor Wilson then Camden-Hales thank you councillor Handley earlier on I asked a very similar question and I was told that there are all sorts of technologies coming online one of which is GPS was that ever discussed with you? No the ANPR was presented to us as the best solution and this was in discussion with our enforcement officers you know technology moves very fast this was three years ago and it could well be that GPS tracking devices are now a better solution and I don't think to be honest all the people of Willingham would mind how it's done as long as enforcement can take place and that we stop the large number of vehicles that pass through the village Can I ask the officers again whether that could be part of the conditions that if the GPS technology is available that destination and provenance is included in the condition for all the construction vehicles just to make sure that they're not running through villages Sure I mean I'm sure your response would be similar to the last one but yeah I mean go on if you want to Absolutely obviously and technology may well evolve even further but I think we're I'm confirming we're committed to do the very best technology solution now and in the future and we'll just review the recommendation that we had on the conditions on this subject to see if there's anything further that could be added to pick up that concern Thank you, councillor Cahn I wondered if you could elaborate on what are the main lorries passing through the village are they mainly gravel lorries are they built as merchant lorries with timber I suspect the gravel coming from the lorries but I don't know I wondered if you could confirm that Yes I gather well yes it's mainly gravel vehicles but not just that also build the supplies as well but I think the gravel extraction vehicles because of the location as you say of gravel supplies are there's quite a detour for vehicles to go via sometimes or wherever on to the A14 the way they should go there's quite an incentive to cook through the village of Willingham and boy do they take it I just wondered whether there might be some means also of therefore coordinating with the suppliers to ensure that perhaps it's impossible for them to go in the other your direction no maybe the officer's going to ask probably a question for the officers I think it's okay council you don't have to answer council hails please thank you Jess through you to Councillor Henry Councillor Henry can you just confirm you said the conditions are already in place for vehicle tracking of some description of another for the current not vehicle tracking no the transport plan for bid construction traffic travelling through Willingham but the problem is that enforcement of that is very very difficult and simply because if you follow them from north Stowe you've got to know exactly where the lorry has come from there may be four or five developers on site and you've got to know where it's come from otherwise the enforcement officers can't act so that makes it difficult from one end and if you want to plot the route for construction vehicles coming through Willingham towards north Stowe you've got such a lot of vehicles coming through you may not actually get on the tail of one that is going to north Stowe it's really difficult to provide the evidence we found and we've all tried in the last three years to do that as I say the lorry drivers know it and thumb their noses really Through you to Mr Kelly I suppose really this ultimately sits with conditions and what have you that have previously been applied to the current build I mean is there anything that can be learned from that now and then perhaps enforced in a better way so that we can learn so that any additional faces and traffic management processes can then be severely beefed up I mean I've had experience in my neck of the woods where the developers have been exemplary frankly and the one next door you could have same situation as Councillor Henry really they come in different different colours so to speak the builders though I've been going into lots of detail about this in the debates if you like but yeah I mean I've been asking officers questions at this stage but all the concerns and comments around conditioning has been noted sorry Councillor Hawkins for Councillor Hamley I checked the meetings that was trying to find solutions to the problem and yes we can learn from that I don't know why L&Q who had undertaken to actually put the system in place didn't do it but we can learn from that but definitely in this case we need to do some which is why I asked the question of the applicants earlier on Thank you. Okay Councillor Hamley I think that concludes all the questions to yourself so thank you very much for holding on so long Chair, just one very quick question Councillor Goff who's the county councillor for Willingham has also asked to speak but he can't be here he's given me some words is it down for me to present those words or I do have that note how long will it take you to read them it would take three minutes to be honest a lot of the points that Councillor Goff makes are very similar to the ones I've made okay if you could if you could edit the risk of annoying Councillor Goff perhaps I could just say I won't take the opportunity but it would reinforce what I've just said Okay, I appreciate that we'll let Neil know Thank you councillor so we have now the two local members for Longstanson councillors Cheung Johnson and Malian starting with councillor Cheung Johnson please Hi, just to clarify myself today but I am speaking on behalf of councillor Malian so this statement is from of both of us so first of all we'd like to begin by thanking Homes England for all the consultations work and engagement they've given us and local residents for phase three and three B they have been very comprehensive as district councillors however we wish to object to the overall development based on the following specific issues I'm actually summarising here our comments in general we made more detailed ones and they are available on the council website for those who want to read them firstly on the green separation and inappropriate development including excessive building heights about the Oakinton edge we'd like to thank Homes England for the modified changes they made but we still feel that the proposed green separation is not sufficient to provide buffer between the development of North Stowe and the village of Oakinton it places it's estimated that this in places or it's estimated that this green separation narrows to 40 metres Oakinton residents and the parish council have raised objections that the boundary of North Stowe will now directly back onto the gardens of existing properties and affect their privacy and we support these objections in addition we are concerned about excessive building heights along the Oakinton edge and the original North Stowe area action plan proposed height restrictions of two stories here so that buildings would be located behind substantial natural buffers but unfortunately this application still proposes three story houses bordering Oakinton and we would argue strongly that if approval is given for housing along the Oakinton edge that those directly facing the village should be a maximum of two story height and we already have precedent with this for Rampton drift on phase two finally we support the concerns raised by residents on station road regarding the removal of trees adjacent to their property without these trees there'd be nothing to separate them from the development and the proposed bus only access to the site the second objection is around the location and proposed design of the southern access road broadly we agree with the parish council's objections on the design and location of the southern access road east if it is required that we would support trying to locate this in a vicinity of the new A1037 existing Drydraithon roundabout rather than feeding on to Drydraithon road nearer to the village we do think that proposed route will lead to an acceptable increase in traffic through Oakinton although we note county council's highways modelling suggesting it won't drainage and flooding is our third concern is essential to Oakinton village and much of it is located on a flood plain so the village itself has suffered several recent flood events most recently at the end of 2020 when many other villagers in the district also suffered unfortunately this updated submission has not alleviated the series concerns so we are asking that should permission be granted that firm conditions and commitments are sought to sufficiently mitigate the flood risk to Oakinton to at least a one in a 200 year event standard plus a 40% climate change allowance and we would further commit to the comments made by the parish council and the Oakinton flood mitigation group and the proposed conditions which they have asked to be attached fourth ecology we note with concern the comments from the ecology officer on a number of issues remain and we would ask that these important ecological considerations are also addressed prior to any approval on the SEMP we agree with many of the comments already being made so I won't go into them in detail but specifically we want work on development and timings strict limits on times of construction specific requirements on noise and dust monitoring specifically we have had problems currently with residents on phase 2 and phase 1 mitigations and routes to resolve issues and limits of construction vehicle movement with no construction vehicle access via Oakinton village we also support north Southam Council comments on phasing that works for residents unlike in phase 1 in our original comments on this application we had not raised the issue of dewatering as we did not have the findings of the independent hydrology report that Longstant and Parish council mentioned and this report links dewatering in the early phases as we are aware we acknowledge the concerns raised by Longstant and Parish council and we share those concerns of those at their local residents about further development and the impact on groundwater levels we note that Homes England have provided an assessment of the impact and we note that the environment agency has not raised objections but we would ask that the planning committee consider this matter carefully and require that monitoring of groundwater levels on the site continues ahead of and throughout any development on phase 3 should the application be approved today thank you Thank you for that Sarah Do you have any questions of clarification for councillor Trun Johnson councillor Heather Williams please Thank you, through your self-chair because it was mentioned in your statements about the rampant drift and I remember from that application that actually the height is there it was a very emotive issue because there had been assurances given that we wouldn't exceed a certain height and then the application did is what you are reflecting here a sort of replication of that situation and then perhaps again this might be more for officers but just to keep in note if it's possible to see the diagram with the heights and again just to give us that clarification so thank you for your self-chair Sarah Yeah so I think what we're saying so for phase 2 just to recap the design guide suggested that two story houses on that runton village edge should be limited what actually happened and what did get approved was that two stories immediately in front of the village were approved but then we had a three story literally just behind it so although technically it met the design guide in spirit it really didn't and I wouldn't want us to be in the same situation in phase 3 where potentially we say yes to no to having only two story houses on the Oakinton edge if you could just put it a few metres behind that would still count I think we need to be very clear that should we propose that houses should be limited on the Oakinton edge that we make it clear that that is adhered to strictly Thank you chair and the diagram that might take time I think there's a request to see a diagram of the building heights I'm not sure if that's immediately available if not we can probably pull that up in the debate I think if it gives officers time to find it In the interim does anyone have any further questions of clarification for the councillor, councillor Roberts please Thank you, good afternoon I'm sure that you've listened in this morning to a variety of people who put their concerns forward regarding all matters related to water drainage etc and I'm a little surprised because I don't think you've actually in your presentation said that you utterly share those concerns because what the people who have spoken to us this morning over a wide variety of people and groups is saying that this application is actually potentially disastrous after 2027 Can I have your views on that Do you not support that information that's being given because it's not just plucked out of air it's being given to us I understand in my view in a very experienced and knowledgeable manner Do you not share that concern I mean one of the things that has been asked is very deferral I'm quite surprised as the local member is knowing what your residents are having to the consequences that are happening already Can you explain to me why you're not pushing that yourself Sarah, up to you whether you answer that or not Yeah, just for clarification Councillor Roberts, we are objecting to this application as a whole and we do acknowledge and support the concerns raised by our residents and the parish council on dewatering but you as a planning committee are looking at phase 3 only and we wouldn't want to presuppose your judgments on that but just for a member of character we do represent our residents' concerns and we represent those of the parish councils and the north stow town council in their concerns We are also aware however that obviously we are talking about north stow as a whole and we are also talking about north stow town council in their concerns Thank you Thank you Councillor Hayworth, please Thank you, Chair, through you Sarah, you talked about the three story buildings behind the two story buildings which was not necessarily within the spirit Would you and colleagues back at the ranch have any kind of distance that you would hope to expect before a three story building that was constructed away from the age? I don't think we have I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of the parish council but I think in the instance that I was talking about the two rows of houses were very close together whereas you'd expect an actual house worth of depth and a garden from your two story before you then started the three story if that makes sense That's clear Sarah, there's no further questions of clarification for yourself so thank you again for joining us this morning and for answering the questions We will Members, that concludes all of our public speakers Members, I'll put it to you whether you want to go into the debate now or if you want to break for lunch Okay We'll break for lunch then it is now quarter past one if we have half an hour and a backyard quarter to two then we can restart so we do have quite a lot more to get through Members, we're now in adjournment for half an hour Welcome back everyone to South Cams District Council's planning committee We have now concluded our public speaking element so we're moving straight into the debate Members, as mentioned at the beginning to try and keep some kind of structure to the debate I think we agreed to try and keep it grouped so the first group we have is sections one and two of the key issues in the planning assessment which refer to the principle of development land use and vision and the parameter plans so Members, I will throw it open to yourselves if anyone has any points they wish to make or questions for officers around those particular sections of the report Councillor Williams Thank you church, sorry there was a couple of things that we asked for for a term for the heights possibly the letter to do with the Swayzing Terms I'm just wondering if they've been found over lunch Mr Kelly In terms of the height I have actually Mr Huntingdon can produce a parameter plan that you can see if that's helpful at the moment because parameter plans are part of this If he could just share the screen it shows the extent of the two-story parameters on the edge of Oakington That's the wrong one It's taking it's time to transfer over I think the important edge point is where you can see it's at 80 meters So just to help councillors a little bit you can see that we've tried to mark on the distances between the existing edge of Oakington that was touched upon earlier in terms of comments around two-story development So those are the separation distances effectively over a tree over the tree belt which is to be retained If we can just go on to the next slide Having a few technical issues Whilst we're waiting for Mr Huntingdon perhaps in respect of the clarification about the IDB's comments Let me check with my colleague whether or not we've been able to locate that on the file I think the IDB did refer to a letter from the Environment Agency from January I'm conscious that there was a subsequent letter which is on the file from the Environment Agency that dates from 25th of August last year in which they indicate that they have been engaging with Anglian Water around the Utans Drogue issue and certainly and I'll read out to you we're assured the operation of Utans Drogue WRC will be in compliance with our drainage solution and therefore advising that the concerns we raised against a number of planning applications including north stone phases 3a and 3b relating to Utans Drogue have been addressed and that there is no material reason in terms of foul water drainage to prevent permission from being granted because you've heard the concerns of the IDB about discharges associated with foul water drainage and the consequential impacts on water and flood risk but certainly the Environment Agency clarified their position of no objection at the moment I can see Sharon Brown Sharon I don't know whether you wish to comment on the IDB point or not Your muted, Sharon That was my understanding as well Steven Kelly We have a map So if we can just explain the colours there you can hopefully see the pale yellow and then a tan colour I suppose on the parameter plan This is one of the three drawings or one of the drawings that would be subject to the permission so approved as part of the permission and form the basis for the design code that would be required but just directly above where it says Oakington that area there where the cursor is now but maximum of two stories or seven metres high that's the parameter that's strip that you can see that the depth of that is about 40 metres or so deep which is potentially sufficient for not just the first house but depending on configuration the house behind it of course the committee may well have a view about whether that's sufficient to cover the concern and you can see the movement network so the grey line is part of the movement strategy it doesn't include two stories along the full extent of that boundary facing towards Oakington Thank you just to try and it does help to visualise these things so from on that map where would buildings above three stories begin The yellow area so rather than the town the yellow area sometimes to go back to analog is for three stories thank you Michael so it says up to three stories 11 metres so that spur is either two stories or three stories maximum the scale and the heights actually increase towards the centre of the site so somewhere away from the edges so obviously the central area and you can see those blobs which correspond with the edge of the military lake those are up to seven stories and the the orange area is up to five stories the darker orange that bit there is up to five stories and the red or the pink area I think the answer to the question was the spur that goes towards Oakington is two and three stories so the yellow section is three and the slightly grey section is two so the depth of that is 40 metres Michael might be able to bring up an indicative layout plan that will give you a feel for what that looks like clearly if you wanted to extend the depth of that two story demise it's a matter for the committee to do my view given that it wouldn't be increasing the environmental effects to reduce the heights in that area is that it's something that would be within the gift of the committee to seek to direct thank you the application conditions and the resolution could provide for an adjustment to that in the event that Homes England were not prepared to accept it they clearly would bring them back to you but there is no greater effect if it was in the committee's desire to see two story elements taken forwards further along the parameter edge to the development come back Helen yes thank you can I sort of add your list chair just in the event that it was brought forward I think that that should spur are we calling it should all be a lower story and I have some a bit concerned of not just the bit that comes out but towards the left as I'm looking at it you know anything that's close to Oakington I think we should have sort of a phasing in of the stories which probably more aesthetically pleasing as well almost creates a sort of mounting type we don't have many hills in South Cams we could look that way maybe okay it's been I think the request for the conditions has been noted anyway it's on my list of conditions Councillor Richard Williams please thank you chair I was actually about to make a similar point but the bottom left but I'm kind of interested in what is over the red line there whether there is housing in that area because we got a line going kind of south ish we didn't really get one going the other angle I think we might be about to see a photo lovely and the other one I had was on the spur I think from memory the measurement from the end of the spur was 210 meters I think that was to the house 110 but that was to the house not to the back of the garden so the distance to the back of the garden to the red line in the top right is actually less than 110 because that's going to the house not the garden good stuff for that clarified okay so yes I think the answer is yes there is to the centre of the property not to the back of the garden so it would be less about 50 or 60 sorry about half by the looks of things and Mike I think Councillor Williams wanted to see what was in the bottom left wanted to see what's there already where you are now that's where we are so that red line indicates the line we saw in the previous picture chair probably just helpful to clarify as well if Mr Huntington could show the parameter for the green spaces because the tree bell that you see there it is to be retained there was some further work done on that edge which resulted in a increase as the report notes of that separation distance but for your assurance the parameter plans retain the woodland the woodland planted bell that you see between the new homes and the old ones you can see underneath them you know the trees are not a total and absolute screen and you can glimpse properties from the site through that area but they do provide a fairly substantial component of the indicative screen this isn't one of the drawings that would be subject to an approval but it is an indicative plan that gives an indication of that relationship can you just lift that up slightly so that we can see the opening to properties thank you okay thank you that was helpful Councillor Hales please thank you chair natural fact I was going to say could you just lead that slide back up keep in mind completely agree with Heather with regards to the heights of the buildings and what have you in that spur 40 metres is practically nothing in relation to this the size of this overall phase I mean more close to home we have a 30 to 40 metre green barrier on one of the developments at home and you could literally trip over it and bang your head on the other side so 40 metres is nothing so the less impact you have on Oakington with the new development the better frankly I would be with Homes England insistent that they think it's a great idea thank you very much and Councillor Khan please I was likely going to go on comment on the same points about the height of the buildings and also the southern most point which was the other area which was close by I did want to ask whether the whether the trees around the in the tree belt are deciduous or coniferous can we answer that from I believe they're deciduous the predominance is because that has quite an impact upon the the screening effect obviously that you can see through deciduous trees so half the year when I was on site in late Alton the mix of trees though means that some of those deciduous trees retain their leaves even though they're not obviously green and verdant a bit more but assume there's a degree of permeability absolutely there's a mix of species okay I believe we have another plan on the screen now members which is whatever we're looking at there I don't know there we go I think that's an indicative overview with the existing trees Councillor Hawkins thank you chair just looking at that I wondered if it was possible to increase the depth of the tree belt just thinking because we had something similar with born in a field and how it feels called a cop and yes you know distances once the things on the ground doesn't look as far as it does when it's when it's blank potentially perhaps increase the tree belt yep that's been noted as well thank you another officer comments just to clarify obviously that's the extent of the parameter plan around the green infrastructure and the development area you can see then the woodlands and the extent of some green space between the woodlands and the development area or near where the cursor is the depth of that was increased the separation was increased through an amendment during the application phase I think if you were seeking to extend further the green space into the development area that would be something that potentially had implications for the content of development and the layout and I couldn't comment on whether that's possible within the scheme but certainly the use of the green space and the planting regime that supplemented the existing tree belt is something that is within the gift of the reserve matters and the design code okay well members I think we've had a good debate on that particular section we'll move on to the second group in which is section 3 and that revolves around access and transport so if members had any comments they wish to make or any further points they weren't clarifying around any elements to do with access to educational highways issues please so Councillor Williams please take it that's me it's only two of us today sometimes it's three it gets very complicated so just to re-emphasise after the comments from Councillor Hanley that if this is approved I think I think we sort of spoke about AMPR and GPS but the reality is we don't know what the technology is going to be so if we could have conditioning that sort of puts in the minimum of AMPR because we've heard that's something that's recognised but that can be updated to some if a modernised as it goes along some wording that enables for change but I think we want to at least put a the sort of backstop in rather than just saying something because I think that's kind of what was being alluded to that they need to get more concrete so a minimum level of giving flexibility but I see Mr Reid is waving that doesn't always bode well for my suggestions Mr Reid I've recommended that in fact we look at dealing with traffic issues and routing matters in the planning obligation rather than by way of a condition and certainly dentins are supportive of that that will allow us one to include a lot more detail and hopefully will give us great certainty in relation to enforcement Relief that wasn't me getting my knuckles rapture No that's a pattern the back Okay members any further points in the debate on traffic we have councillors Wilson and Hales please Just to councillor Williams point I accept that this is being referred later to be discussed further but I would like to know that it's going to look at both the provenance of these construction vehicles and the destinations because once they've gone beyond the site anything can happen and this is the problem experienced by my village in particular where people get onto the A14 and then they take a shortcut when they've got beyond the bounds of the construction site so I think we do need to have both the provenance of these vehicles and the destinations I think that has been noted councillor Hales please Thank you I'm going to say something there Mr Reid may well say no but is it possible to have any kind of encouragement to the main contractor that in the transit of the vehicles delivery vehicles backwards and forwards has been discussed now that in conjunction with any ampr information that there are essentially a penalty clause attached to the suppliers and the transport carriers if you like this is actually taking place as we speak with a big development we were talking about earlier in Melbourne where they have actually dismissed contractors for not obeying what they've actually said in the thing so if we can lay that down as a how we do it for the lawyers Yes councillor I think it's a lot easier to include that sort of provision in the planning obligation because yes you can get the main developer to confirm the action they will take if any of their subcontractors or suppliers doesn't adhere and I'm assuming that under the main contractors and he'll be responsible for not following his own dictate the obligation will be entered into by Holmes England as the land owner and then they will have to covenant in the planning obligation as to what they will do to provide a satisfactory solution and to enforce the obligations Thank you very much councillor Ripeth please I hope that I'm coming in at the right point here access and transport can we also discuss not transport for building the development but also once it's built Yes anything higher I'd gathered I think from the from reading the report and also from the presenting officers presentation which seems like about two centuries ago now and this morning that the second road so south east or south west road may not actually come to fruition as the main access road into north though and that will be based I think on modal shift and can I just check what your kind of parameters will be for that and how that will be tested and indeed do you think that in the end that may not be built and what impact could that have elsewhere on other villages Okay I think Mr Kelly is going to answer this one I'll start but I'll ask Tam in a second So just to clarify obviously the southern access relief road east the modelling suggests that it may not be required depending upon the level of modal shift that is achieved and obviously you've heard some of the concerns about people about the potential for rat running I think it's probably best for Tam parry to comment possibly but the objective is that obviously if it's not required then it wouldn't be appropriate to to install it and obviously that may well have a positive impact on the concerns of Brisbane's Valkington and so on who are worried about that road forming a stream into or a rationale for rat running through their area but Tam can you comment on the monitor and manage approach that determines that? Yes indeed the reason for the southern access road east is because we expect at some point the junction at Bar Hill to become full and to reach its capacity so at that point we then need the southern access road east to relieve Bar Hill of any local traffic that's aiming really for Cambridge or off to the A428 to go off towards St Nears So the trigger point for reviewing whether or not the southern access road east is needed is 2,000 dwellings for phase 3A and phase 3B or 5500 dwellings when you include phase 2 as well so it's an aggregate of 5500 and the trigger point for then building and completing the southern access road east is 3,000 dwellings or aggregated over phase 2 and phase 3 6,500 dwellings so what we're saying is that when we do the review at 2,000 dwellings we might actually say well we haven't reached that point yet where the southern access road east is needed because there's been modal shift on more booking at home or not the amount of traffic that we anticipated in the TA transport assessment to require the southern access road east and at that point we'll then continue monitoring the flows to decide whether or not it is then needed before and after it's completed so the section 106 agreement aims to keep that flexibility there if it is needed but also to have the flexibility to be able to build it if it isn't needed Thank you Tam, does that answer your question? I think so and just to press home maybe not the right place to do it but the guided bus way and the connection to north though that really probably can't come soon enough to then be able to encourage residents to use alternative forms of transport so that hopefully we don't need to build another road to decide Thank you Councillor Hawkins please Thank you very much chair and through you I know Mr Reid was explaining the issue of putting in the same as part of obligations not as a condition but I can't see how we can enforce if it's not a condition because the last thing I want to do is find that we can't enforce but there's no condition that we can enforce so how will that work? Steven do you want to come back? Thank you chair so my experience of putting it in the planning obligation was in fact when born airfield was being used for storage of containers and we put it in the planning obligation there and I never had any feedback from the local residents to express concern that the routing plan wasn't working but nobody came back and told me or asked me to ensure that we took action to enforce the planning obligation I think the question was around how well can we enforce the planning obligation in my view it's easier to enforce the planning obligation than it is to enforce a condition we need to be quite explicit as to what the process should be because most of the time people don't know what to do and so they suffer in silence so if this is going to work we need to be quite clear as to how it's going to work and also I think somebody mentioned one of the speakers mentioned the issue of cycleways and pathways being finished in time and not been blocked and all that stuff we are going to have the level of shift that we need also supposed to be a healthy town we need to make sure that all those pedestrian and cycleways get built on time and properly but I don't see anything here in the conditions that actually helps us to do that in terms of the shift to electric there's a condition for electric vehicle charging but not for electric bike charging and also we're going to be having cycle storage for cargo bikes which no doubt I think we will find will be taken up quite considerably in the new town thank you thank you so I think one was around the potential condition around building out the cycle of footways is there anywhere we can get them to do that on time and then secondly around EV charging from what I understand thank you in respect of the point around phasing certainly in the conversations we've had with Homes England there are two dynamics in that space I think there is an ambition to make sure that the cycle and non car based infrastructure is in as soon as possible from the conversations that certainly I had with Homes England one of the dynamics however is you do not want people parents and children and cyclists mixing with construction traffic and so there is an element to which that needs to be iterated as individual parcels come forward condition nine of the recommendation in the appendix sets out a phasing strategy that's required which has defined will define the key phases but also the triggers as to what comes forward within that and for those the paper version that's on page 144 sorry council Williams someone will help me as to which page it is in document and then there are also provisions within condition 10 about what happens in each of those phases including the management of vehicles public vehicles and so on at 10 the other point around the I think the point that was made around the construction is obviously covered in part in condition 44 is it condition 42 in the appendices but hopefully that's that thank you thank you just on this on paragraph 187 I'm just double checking that this is the same no that's on the next one previously we'll have to get these bookmarks sorted out Erin I'm just going to go with the subject rather than where it is in the document so the one thing to bear in mind is obviously we've got changes and updates that we've got so can we be assured that there's adequate for horse riding and provisions made in I think it's on the next application that they've objected but just for consistency on this one can we have some reassurances that all forms of non-motorised travel if we can refer to it as that are being fully considered and catered for okay it's a question around non-motorised users rather than specifically bikes and walkers yep I'm Mr Huntington has referred me to condition 18 on the on the schedule of conditions which addresses that I'm conscious that there has been engagement around this which page is that please that's on for the paper copy 155 refers to footpath cycle and bridalway links just on the point around footpaths obviously you have had representations that were included in the addendum sheet probably the right point to mention it but express a concern about the footpath reconnections that are taking place but condition 18 is we think appropriate to address that but we know that in the movement parameter plan it recognises the bridalways and the provision for bridalways thank you very much members I think that's all the debate we have at the moment on the access and transport element of the report so we'll move on to the next grouping which is sections 4, 5 and 6 and they relate to employment assessment housing delivery and social and community infrastructure and this much so far but obviously if members have any points or comments they want to make or questions on any of those sections please now is the opportunity Councillor Richard Williams please thank you just a quick one did we get the data on density across the site well reminded officers sorry thank you Chairman phase 1 is 35dph and phase 3b is 38dph sorry phase 1 is 35 dwelling spectre and phase 3b is 38 dwelling spectre sorry just a supplement my understanding is phase 1 is 35 phase 2 is an average of 38dph and then you've got figures for I think 40 for 3a and 38 for 3b thank you very much members if there's no further points to make on that those sections will move on to the final 3 sections which are section 7 to 10 and they encompass environmental considerations, cumulative impact financial obligations slash s106 and the planning balance so obviously this is the section where members can give views on those things and also come to a conclusion if they have heard enough to be able to do so so members I will throw it open to you Councillor Roberts please thank you Chairman and through you Chairman I've not felt I needed to speak on the other matters I have concerns generally about density etc we seem to have lost the idea of garden cities anymore don't we but we are where we are however I think that when it comes to the presentations that we had this morning I think alarming was the least word you could use potentially horrific I think that we would be absolutely seen as absolutely running our own show without any concern of our residents if we went along with this today to ignore the presentations and they came from a variety of people coming in in their own ways but it was all the same message this is not right as yet and I think that's what I feel I think in principle we know that something could and probably will in future go there however we cannot today I think make any move forward with this and I know it was one of the parish councils or somebody said defer it well I don't think it's one for deferment I think it's got to be a straight forward yes or no this development looks as though it's going to have the worst of all worlds with water it's either going to be that residents won't have enough water because the systems are not going to be able to provide it and we heard of that consequences after 2027 or a situation where because of the make up of the land there is going to be terrific flooding now I lived for some years over it over so I know what that land area is like and in winter your back gardens were always covered in water didn't flood our houses in those days that was 30 odd years ago but there is a situation over that particular side of the city and it needs much more than is here at the moment to rectify it you know this could end up anybody remember that dreadful film I think it was called water world where the whole world was covered with water and the few remaining survivors were desperately looking to see if they could eat anything other than fish and find a piece of dry land and I'm struck with that this is going to be the case to hear that now the stream there and what's happening to the land because of the abstraction is very very concerning that buildings are starting a very short period of time showing signs of problems serious problems and yet also this possibility that this whole system is going to collapse we can't be giving planning permissions with this sort of terrible uncertainty it needs now to be refused now and everybody needs to go back to the drawing board and I think the developers need to take on seriously the views that have been put forward by people who do know I look at myself as a complete amateur on this and I'm sure really everybody in this room is the councillors but these are people who do know an awful lot the land drainage people the water people they do know what they're talking about so I will not be voting for this I'll be voting against it I hope that we will do that our reputation will be in ruins if we go along with this we cannot give the apocrisy of telling everybody that we're so committed to the environment we are so rooted in care of the environment and they are listening to all the concerns that have been given us today by the people who will have to suffer ignore it I mean we will be shot to ribbons this council not me because I'm going to vote against it but this council will be shot to ribbons if it goes along with this thank you thank you councillor councillor Richard Williams please thank you very much chair obviously I think I've already made the point I have got serious concerns about the groundwater and the impact on the groundwater I think we've established now that we are expecting a 2-3 metre drop in the level of groundwater on that site I'm not satisfied that we have had sufficient evidence and reassurance about what that impact would be I am no technical expert in this but I would imagine if you lower the groundwater level by 2-3 metres you could completely change the flows of water across that site so I would want to see much more information on that and I'm really not satisfied on that at all I have to say I have two other concerns as well condition 39 I'm not happy with we don't have any indication of what the levels of water that would be set as the minimum in that condition actually are and I certainly would want that before I approve this it's been suggested yesterday that there's a new condition for a site hydrology assessment that could be a very useful thing but I don't know anything about it because we've just got a sentence or two sentences given to us yesterday so what the wording of that condition would be so I can't really be reassured and I do have to say as well I'm also not happy with what's proposed on page 7 of one of the supplements that we effectively delegate all of this anyway so we aren't really setting any of these conditions we don't really know what the conditions are going to be and I also have to say I'm a little bit troubled by the wording of the supplement which says the applicant has reviewed the draft conditions and has confirmed their acceptability and principle for us as the local planning authority to set the conditions it's not for the applicant to tell us whether they agree with them or not and that was my understanding of the process anyway we set the conditions and if they don't like them they can either appeal or seek to get them varied but we shouldn't be in a process where somehow it seems to be negotiating with them about what the conditions actually are that's not a way to go with this I am also concerned about the drainage what we've heard from the swavesy drainage board I'm concerned that even if this proposal could work is it going to work with all of the other proposals I would like much more detail on that so yes I'm not satisfied by the conditions I think they're very vague I'm not satisfied by the fact we don't actually have before us today a statement of what the conditions would actually be we don't really know what we're approving and the risks are just too great given I think the evidence that hasn't been disputed from that report that we've seen a few times about the level, the impact on the groundwater we just simply don't know I'll have enough information to be sure what the consequences of that are going to be and that it can be adequately mitigated Thank you very much Thank you Thank you chair like I think other councillors I have some real outstanding concerns about the impacts of this development I think many of those can be met by conditions or possibly by planning management obligations certainly on vehicle movements and so on and I think we've largely dealt with that the key issue for me in various forms is that of water and I'm not quite clear from this whether they're going to be the future residents are going to be suffering from drought or flooded out I think it was suggested there might be both find that hard to believe but on the serious issue of the groundwater level no I don't see this being water world or disasters or whatever but I am concerned about hearing of settlement of buildings indeed of gardens too because that is an indication of wider problems to come and I wasn't entirely satisfied at the extent to which that is the impacts of that deriving entirely from earlier phases of the development I think we need to be sure of what those impacts will be before we accept that assurance I'm concerned as Richard Williams was on the question of drainage and of course on the question of water supply but on these issues whilst I have real concerns I think we had a very informed contribution from the environment agency obviously somebody who had read all the detail and was fully familiar with it contrary to what might have been suggested at one stage and of course we have to bear in mind the guidance from central government that director Stephen Kelly referred to earlier on that this is a development which is in accordance with our local plan and therefore there is a limit to the extent to which we can impose new conditions I'm not entirely happy that reducing water consumption to 110 litres and the problem is one can never be quite sure how that will be implemented in practice not just by the developers but by of course the future residents of the houses so I'm always reluctant to take assurance on that point but I think the government guidance of 22nd of July that was referred to 2019 is that these issues have to be addressed through strategic policies particularly because they are in the local plan so whilst I am still concerned about many of these things I can't see that I can come up with any grounds for refusal of this application I am tempted towards deferral of it because there are some issues here that clearly have still to be resolved and I'm not quite clear which way I'm inclined to vote at the moment and indeed nobody's put a proposal for deferral but I think I might be sympathetic to that Thank you I think Mr Kelly would like to come back on that Thank you It's a couple of comments really in relation to the points that have been made noting the Councillor Roberts comments it's probably helpful I might call upon the environment agency if they're still here just to clarify but Councillor Williams raised two points that I thought it would be helpful on the point around water levels in the aquifer one of the things that the HR Wallingford report identifies is that actually the pattern of water levels in the aquifer changes with climate conditions it's a shallow deposit and therefore it's quite sensitive to both inputs in terms of levels of rainfall and so on and obviously also the consequences for dewatering and such the modelling that you heard Arcadius explaining that they had done suggests an impact on the prevailing groundwater levels but I think the actual and your request for a baseline I think against which that happens I suppose caution against setting an absolute baseline but one of the things that I think because the climatic conditions regardless of any development factors may well introduce matters that impact that I think however there is probably a point and what the addendum sheet was trying to identify in that in condition 39 where we have set out the parameters for that monitoring regime it is suggesting introducing an agreed baseline as I said not a figure but an agreed baseline against which monitoring takes place under part I of that condition and I think that is a reflection of the recognition about the needs to track carefully those changes that take place rather than to define a particular level you also made the point around agreement of conditions with the developers the government certainly encourages sharing discussions around conditions with the developer not least because pre-commencement conditions have to be agreed with developers and the objective is not to essentially stitch up or do some form of a deal but is to make sure that the conditions are robust and deliverable because obviously the last thing that people want is planning appeals against conditions or indeed the need to vary conditions because they are configured in a way that's undeliverable and this committee has entertained conditions in the past that have needed changing for that effect Councillor Williams do you want to come back? I was just going to comment on that the last point that I wanted to make is absolutely to recognize all of the comments that have been made by third parties today picking up on Councillor Fane's comments around levels of doubt and uncertainty I think the issue and the issue in this particular case around groundwater and to a lesser extent drainage because you've heard from the environment agency but the issue in terms of groundwater is that it is a material planning consideration absolutely I think there is a recognition that the extent to which it was considered in phase one is perhaps substantially less than the debate that we have today but it is a material planning consideration there has been technical information submitted and there have been comments about that information that you've received from third parties the statutory consultees have indicated they're satisfied with the application submitted and the really important matter for members to consider today relates to the point around monitoring because there is still and the HR Wellington work makes this point clear there is still doubt about the precise cause for the variances in phase one groundwater levels but what is important is we cannot identify that definitively you've heard from Arcadis about their modelling and the assumptions that suggest there will be no external impact because based upon their note around where water flows they don't believe that to be the case but the important issue is that we have introduced conditions that require both pre-commencement monitoring of groundwater levels including on the perimeter of this site and then post-development and ongoing through the development condition around the monitoring and mitigation where appropriate of any impacts that are observed now that simply didn't take place in relation to phase one to the level that is being proposed here and our proposition to you as officers and indeed applicants proposal is that the way to address the doubt about this matter is to monitor before you start to have a mechanism in place for addressing the monitoring as you progress and to have measures that can be taken to address any impacts observed Well Councillor Williams I'd like you to come back on that thank you for that I mean just on the point of the conditions I mean yes of course I completely take the point that there'll be some dialogue but I have to say in all honesty this is such an important application and this issue of the groundwater and you know we've seen the unintended impacts and yes I know a lot more work has gone on in this case but it's so sensitive and it's so important that we have real concerns about approving a planning application where we don't actually know exactly what the conditions are because they could change we have a suggestion of a condition which couldn't actually be quite useful but we haven't seen the text of it and I really don't think it's a planning committee and as a council we're doing our job if we give the green light to a planning application of this sensitivity with these extremely important issues with council of fame I don't think this is ready I would like to see all of the conditions as they will be agreed before the planning committee endorses this application I think that's really important thank you Chair just to respond to that I'm sorry I'm slightly confused because appendix D of the committee report is the full text of the planning conditions that we're recommending albeit that there is a provision for delegated to officers to be able to amend those potentially as we progress forward but there is a I'm sorry if council Williams hasn't spotted that but appendix D is a schedule of conditions that we're proposing be appended to the decision I hadn't seen that that's my point these aren't really the final conditions because it does say subject to further discussion so we do have this hydrology assessment potential condition where we're told an additional planning condition is recommended to secure this maybe I've missed the text of that planning condition I'm sorry I think the reference to the text that you highlighted in the report is to amend condition 39 which is on page 165 I'm sorry if that was not clear and to insert additional wording into that condition that is in appendix D no sorry to come back I do know that no what I'm talking about is on page 5 and it says the representation from the north stone tank council of January 2022 has been further considered by officers the following update is provided by wave response site hydrology assessment the applicant has confirmed the acceptability of an independent groundwater monitoring assessment being carried out an additional planning condition is recommended to secure this what specifically is the text of that additional planning condition so whereabouts is that in the agenda it is the supplement sorry it's one of the supplements numbered but it's the one with 24 pages one with 24 pages and that's on page 5 chair sorry sorry and I'm sorry for the confusion caused there further on and I'm sorry perhaps the wording is not clear north stone town council recommended an additional condition we reviewed their request looking at the condition number 39 that we've got on page 10 of the supplement we then suggested amendments to condition 39 rather than an additional condition and there's not one in front of you that additional condition is therefore not in the sheets because we felt that there isn't an additional one it's the amendments to the thank you for the use of the word additional condition that was confusing me okay we got there alright thank you we have two more speakers registered Councillor Harvey please and then Councillor Khan one more okay thanks chair we just wanted to return to and I think Stephen Kelly touched on it earlier in his commentary the presentation we had from the IDB and the capacity of the watercourse to take the sewage outflow and I think it was a problem and I just wondered if you could sort of clarify how the co-dependences that he described between various large scale developments in the area which are at various stages of planning and implementation actually work and I mean it's a little bit similar to the situation we have with any sort of limited resource for example electricity supply where if you've got say two or three developments contemporaneously evolving and then because I'm a little bit puzzled that the environment agency in the consultation section this report would have no objection in the light of the letter we were that was described from the environment agency to Hanglin Water but I suppose you can see how that would arise because in the absence of the other developments that were described there would be no basis to say that there wasn't capacity there but is there a risk that because of the contemporaneous nature of these developments setting up a situation in which inevitably the capacity of that water course will be exceeded at some point in the future I think it might be good to hear from our officer Adam Ireland if he's still on the line here he is did you manage to pick up that in full yes I did I'll pick up that issue first I might be able to provide another suggestion relating to the previous item which was discussed if you so wish relating to the conditions on surface water and groundwater but specifically in relation to the issue around the IDB when we met with them we met with the IDB Mr Wildersbyn obviously who's presented earlier Councillor Hawkins actually chaired that meeting as well and as part of that we were informed by Angliam Water of other options that they have essentially saying that they will find a solution but it was also the fact that their networks don't operate in isolation as it were and that if it was likely that there would be an exceedence of any permit that they would be able to accommodate elsewhere within the sewerage network via transfer so that was one of the elements which led to our subsequent comment and email through to Mr Kelly relating to our removal of objection to the host of new developments not solely phase 3a So that was your question Councillor I just wondered what the transfer would entail would that be would that be a pipe network or a physical transportation? No that would be done via a pipe network that would be the most sustainable solution Again I can't explain exactly how on behalf of Angliam Water that's outside of tonight Thank you Chairman Through you Chairman we've invited them to come back on can we invite the gentleman who spoke on behalf of the internal drainage board as well please? Does he wish to? Okay if coming forward as long as it's brief There are no ways that we can divert that water in a very short time as Adam Island's letter to Angliam Water stated there is no way that this can be done in a short time I can't remember the exact words now and I've left my paperwork there but there's no way that this can be done in a short time I had conversations to Adam Island after I'd seen the letter where they said what the Angliam Water was saying and I said to him so what are you saying and he said well what we're saying is that once they've reached 239 litres a second they cannot put any more water down up and drain so if they can't put any more water down up and drain and there is no other way of moving it within perhaps ten years what are they going to do? Bring it down up and drive and flood slavery this committee has the responsibility to deal with that it is not to be left to people like Angliam Water who as we all know from the press now are not the most reliable of people Thank you for the input there Members we've had two sides of the coin there one from my concert team one from the IDB so it's up to us to balance that Members I've just been reminded because we've been going for a long time now way more than four hours we need to pass a resolution to continue I mean given the fact we're in the I think the home stretch I hope can we agree that please? Thank you very much I'm going to move to the next speaker please Councillor Cahn I simply wanted to comment I mean we're in a very difficult position because we are dependent upon promises from Angliam Water and the Cambridge Water that they will supply and we have to take we're really obliged in the sense to take them at face value but we have certain reservations because they're different independent bodies and we know from experience that major what they're talking about major capital works and so I'm often a very often delayed and so I am concerned that we we cannot review the phasing of this until such provision is made and I see the difficulties that is one of several developments which contribute to this and there's a certain injustice in the fact that one might have to pay for the other you know the lack of control on others but in principle I feel that we ought to have some provision for review if the problem in years to come because this is over a period of decades that this development rather in a short period of time so that's something that does concern me in terms of the water the drying out a number about 25 years ago my parents were living in Cambridge had a problem which they thought was subsidence and so I learned quite a bit about subsidence at that time it proved not in their case actually to be that but they were lying their building was built on clay ground and basically the problems with subsidence is often very frequently due to drying out of clay because in very warm weather so it's important to know whether whether the provision in this case was due to that was the cause it was notable that people are not talking about subsidence in the new development which is apparently on gravels so I suspect that this is what was happening there and whether that was related to the groundwater level or just general climate it's something I think we're going to be expecting to happen more frequently in the future I don't know but the new development appears to be mainly on gravel with the surrounding development a bit distant so I suspect that the risk of this happening is less but I think it would again I rather sympathise with Councillor Ffain's proposal that we defer it while this is looked at in more detail but I think there is need to have more clear information of how this might happen in the vicinity of the new development if they're going to reduce the level of water I understand the dewatering is temporary during the period of construction and then I would welcome that to be confirmed maybe a temporary phase which then is stopping being the water afterwards so I see we're committed basically to this it's of the development planning well in fact committed by things which had taken many years ago when these considerations weren't so high so it has created problems I'm concerned about I am concerned about the context that has been proposed proposals and I am I would be sympathetic to the deferral looking at these water matters in more detail in particularly the issues of groundwater I think we do need to be examined more carefully OK thank you for your comments Councillor Hawkins please Thank you very much chair and through you I just want to say first of all thank you to everyone who's been involved with putting this together I know it's taken quite a while to get us to this point we are talking about a site that was allocated many years back which is in our current local plan and the issues that we have all been talking about are issues of concern that is true especially with groundwater and water supply and the environment now we have a duty as the local plan authority to ensure that we have the houses and infrastructure that our residents require to cater for the needs and the growth that we are currently going through we also have to rely on statutory bodies to provide some of this infrastructure just as we have our local plan which looks at 15-20 year periods the same goes for the water authorities they also have the original plans and I actually did some bedtime reading looking at the Cambridge water original plan put me to sleep but there we go they also have their plan looking at how they are going to supply this region based on the requirements of our local plans now we are not the water authority they have the legal obligation to us they have provided some information what we are saying we require some more of them fair enough but looking at this they have not raised objections to this outline planning application and I say outline and if I was let me retrace that we do rely on their expertise one thing that has given me some confidence is the condition in condition 39 I think if you recall I did ask the question how they were going to do this monitoring early on now this monitoring was something that wasn't done when phase 1 was being built out the problem that we had with phase 1 actually started as I think you heard from the Long-Stanton parish councillor many years ago and it wasn't actually picked up until 2018 when councillors Malion and Johnston raised it and we then worked with Long-Stanton parish council to get the Wallingford report so we are picking up issues here and we are learning from the mistakes that were made in the past as Mr Kelly said we can have a baseline from which to work but we cannot put a figure on that it's what is in the ground that we can work with and whilst I share the concerns that have been raised and some of these are things that we as a local planning authority have no control over let us control what we can control and we need to hold our the statutory organisations who are our partners we need to hold their feet to the fire Ottons Drove is a case in point the ground water level the environmental agency is going to be doing the monitoring yes they can do the monitoring but they need to also provide us with access to the data and make it publicly available and all that so we can actually see what is going on as this title is being built out now much as I hear the next defer or reject this I don't think we have material planning runs to do so so I will be voting for this thank you chair thank you very much three more speakers I have on my list beginning with councillor Heather Williams thank you chair so balancing through I think the environmental concerns have been raised by many people on committee and public speakers and I would be interested to get advice from officers about deferals and any implications that could have because as we know sometimes actually defering has an unintentional consequence that can be quite then actually take it all out of our hands I have no issue and indeed I think all bar a couple of people in this room voted for the local plan so building in that area there is established that and approved and like I say most of us here voted for that but I do think we do still have an obligation to get it right so yes have these houses but we need to make sure because and when we had phase two you know a ramp to drift the emotion that is attached to it understandably given assurances we broke those assurances so we actually we need to get a bit of trust back from them there as well so that it's not for myself it's not just the environmental impact that concerns me the diagram that we showed and I think officers for displaying it we went to detail and I know so we could sort of extend on that spur as to the levels of the housing heights but for myself that bit doesn't really satisfy my concerns even if we were to put more in it is a very close distance and I appreciate we're going to have some trees but we've also heard that we might lose some coverage from that and I think you know when we had like in in Water Beach where it was almost ringed to sort of bring it into heights in the middle and lower down so I think I think I know officers said that they would sort of speak and come back if it couldn't be agreed but I do feel to support it myself I would need to see actually what it is that's being set it on because just that jointy bit isn't enough I'm also very conscious of the comments that have been made around Utton's Drove you know like many people droves and sleutias until I sat on planning you know was not something I'd come across but it's something that in my time in the council we've heard again and again and again so I can understand why people are concerned about that and there has been a lot of effort in what I've gone into this as without doubt but I don't think I think to have peace of mind and to be able to sleep myself at night I would need to see for myself a bit more concrete guarantees around that and I don't think we have that at the time I do think these things can be overcome but it's not here in what we have in front of us it's not there yet and so with that I am minded for refusal but I'm open to hearing the things on the deferral Okay let's throw to officers for that and what would the advice around deferral be with the BD consequences we haven't considered yet Thank you there's two elements I suppose in terms of the issue of deferral I think there is recognition from all of the comments that have been made that we do not know for definite exactly what's going to happen I think it's and that's a reality because it's almost impossible to lift up everything that's underneath phase 3 and look in forensic detail at every single part of it the HR Wallingford report that was circulated but which underpins some of the concerns that Longstanton shared with you earlier on today and North Tote Town Council referred to also highlights actually the difficulty of being able to identify and understand exactly what happens under a place and in relation to phase 1 it highlights the fact that for example climatic conditions interfere with any attempt or impact the ability to try and understand it so the applicants have done some modelling based upon monitoring that they have undertaken of groundwater and of course they also have been monitoring groundwater under phase 2 and they have put forward a proposition is that exactly what is going to happen I think the difficulty that we face as a committee is that there is nothing in many respects straightforward that could be done to give you a greater level of certainty the work that has been done to date and therefore deferring the item until you increase levels of certainty may well be a considerable period of time whilst long-term monitoring takes place and some form of a suggestion about what that gives rise to now we are in a dialogue with North Stote Town Council and Longstanton Parish Council on this issue and we are as the council taking forward that dialogue to try and understand exactly what is going on on phase 1 but even our own drainage team people like Pat Matthews who have been with the council for 25 years recognise that and we have had positive conversations with the Town Council they have a hypothesis but the exploration of that is going to take as I said a considerable period of time I think people have recognised that the principle of development I think a number of people have said the principle of development is satisfactory and effectively the outline planning commission whilst it puts a number to that a number in your adopted local plan you are being asked to confirm whether under the terms that are set out in the recommendation confirming that principle of development is acceptable to you the important point because I don't think we as officers could identify how we could give you more certainty and certainly the conversations with third parties whilst they focus on monitoring and review of ground water conditions we have not identified a clear route to that other than the process that we have defined in conditions which is to monitor before development commences to monitor as development takes place and to consider both through the drainage conditions and the phasing whether or not mitigation or interventions in the event of an adverse effect can be brought forward that sought that seek to increase the ground water recharge as that development and indeed the learning on phase 2 proceeds and so what I would recommend to you is that refusal on the basis of the current position I think would be hard to justify in terms of having a tangible basis upon what level of certainty you were looking for from this development we've been talking a lot about phase 1 but actually the permission application in front of you is for phase 3 and secondly if you were to seek to defer the item I'm slightly uncertain about when we would be able to bring this application back to you and what level of information would provide the assurance that's necessary and you have heard from and seen in the report that the agencies that we have consulted on this matter including the environment agency are satisfied with the material in front of you so the point around were we to then face a planning appeal seeking to explore that issue is again whilst there is a number of comments that have been received about phase 1 and we have noted them there isn't adverse comment from the statutory consultees and indeed the basis of the assessment that has been done sets forward a credible proposition for consent, monitoring and management of that impact in the event that it arises differently and on that basis I'm not sure that we have or our recommendation to you would be that you have a sound basis for either refusal or deferral on that matter Thank you I think you wanted to come back Councillor Heather Williams please Thank you so I've listened to what you said and obviously for myself I've got the two outstanding issues I think with the heights as well but just in case members are minded to approve I'm just looking back on my notes as the comments made by Longstant and Parish Council and they did put a request in about a condition for the cost of remedial works rather than just monitoring for any damage done that then didn't sacrifice other things in the 106 agreement and asked for information to do that data so I'm just wondering if officer could advise what they've requested there is that already sufficiently covered or is it possible or does something because that's obviously a condition that was asked by them Sorry I mean we've certainly reviewed Longstant and Parish Council's request that there's two things firstly in the event that mitigation costs were required they would be allowable in any viability apprais or to offset other obligations as part of that process so you cannot simply write those costs out in the way that they perhaps suggested the issue that the terms of their representation may raise relates to the reasonableness in planning under the Silregs of effectively requiring this development to resolve other issues that we have already heard exist at this moment in time without the development and so we didn't feel as officers that the obligation on the current application to essentially fix almost regardless of cost all of the issues with the previous application by a different developer would satisfy the tests of the Silregs. What we have done however and hopefully I don't know if people have been able to look at the revisions but also the terms of condition 39 the report provided by Arcadis in respect to phase 3a identifies that if in the process of the application's development ground water levels are seen to depart from what they believe and have modelled then the drainage scheme indeed the drainage conditions also provide for this for subsequent phases can explore means in which that ground water can be recharged potentially by adjustments to the drainage scheme that currently proposes actually the majority of surface water drainage from for example the homes and rooms to be taken off the site the condition and the application suggests that we can look to adjust that so that within phase 3a the recharge of the ground water is something that will be caught by both the monitoring and then the measures in terms of the planning conditions. Thank you chair and my last comments was just I think a lot of us got confused around the essentially sewage transfer because the only sewage transfer I've ever seen is like the empty receptic tank so it was said about pipes and it could be piped out and alternative but I'm just wondering how long would it take to get the pipes in and everything is it something that potentially could see Norris transporting sewage for a short period while the pipes are put in and if so how long would you be looking at roughly just because of the comment that was said and then not being an expert on sewage transfer unless it's inside a nappy. Good question let's see if anyone can answer. Mr Hunting has just referred me to condition 41 which deals with the foul water drainage strategy which does require before any development parcels come forward for this site for foul drainage strategy I think in respect of your concerns about the consequences for Utton's Drove the planning authority are not the regulator around that I think and that's the important point the Anglun water have suggested to the environment agency and you heard the gentlemen of the environment agency suggest that they're satisfied with Anglia Waters response I think the description of the foul water network is something that goes beyond the ability of the applicants to resolve and there is a regulatory regime in place that deals with both the concerns I think for the IDB about exceedence and the collateral effects that I think they were suggesting was a concern in terms of additional water entering the water course which I think Swavesy Parish Council are also concerned about and overwhelming that but as the planning authority those responsibilities don't rest with us clearly the development has an outflow and an impact and we've consulted with the agencies and they've indicated they're satisfied on that there are differences of view that you've heard but the resolution of those are not through the Town and Country Planning Act they're resolved through other provisions okay thank you for that can we have Councillor Hales please thank you I'm kind of struggling a little some of the things that have been said I think that Councillor Cahn said with regards to the the water table repairing itself I think he was he's having a some indication I hadn't heard anybody talk about that or the EA or anybody else like that so that wasn't a thing there just as an example that might be food for thought Shepardith Parish Council have just closed their church yard they wanted to extend into a field to the side and as I believe by law they have to have a dig to see if the ground is suitable to put remains in and the body that came back said that the water table was far too high and essentially that those laid to rest would essentially float which is not good and that then affects the main church yard because it's next door to it so they said it's exactly the same problem there is it is here and so that church yard was instantly shut from your burials and now it still has space and I think if I'm correct in my comments is that in the report that came from the people who did the investigation was that the cement works that used to extract that used to extract an awful lot of water from the ground are now not and so therefore the water table has gone up some substantially which has now caused that effect all over I don't know whether we have any kind of lessons to learn from that small one company taking the water out there as to what's going to happen I will swear comment that Heather made with regards to the spur I too feel it's knocking on the door of Ocanton Ocanton Ocanton is knocking on the door Ocanton is knocking on the door and you could argue I appreciate that we can't change bits and pieces here but I'm sure there are others who own the plan can it could be reduced by at least a third which would make that much less of an impact the comments from Swaithley Swaithley Swaithley with Garcels Otters Drog and all the rest of the outfall of the sewage from the plan is giving me a heartache it doesn't seem to be in front of us even though we're not the statutory body for those things I awards a series of honesty but since they're part of the consultation process it doesn't feel that we have the information before us that says that we can be confident that whatever plan they have in the next 5, 10, 15 years would satisfy us as lay people so that's a worry and I think my last point covers that with essentially the detail plans and AW Anglen Water or Cambridge Water so the level of the extraction how they're going to reduce and I think Councillor Ffain said something on those lines with it's all very well to say we're going to reduce usage down to X, Y and Z but when Joe Bloggs wants to wash his car he will so at the moment I'm struggling to be fair as to whether I would say a refusal or deferral and I appreciate Stephen's point with regards to deferral so I'm definitely in turmoil here so unless Stephen can come back and make me feel a really happy bunny if I could just try and offer a little bit of assurance on Councillor Hale's point our recommendation is based upon the basis of the feedback that we've had from the consultees around this point and on foul sewage and the treatment around Utoms Grove we don't have, Anglen Water I think have not provided to the Environment Agency a definitive plan on how they're going to address that but I come back to the point around that planning authority is not the authority responsible for the management of that that is the Environment Agency and you've heard from them earlier on what I can advise you is when the Planning Authority has consulted the Environment Agency about that matter the Environment Agency initially raised concerns but then have subsequently on the basis of their assessment of the risk and the harm that arises they have advised the Planning Authority that their concerns have been satisfied and refusal of the application on the basis of that impact would be difficult for the planning authorities to sustain given that neither Anglen Water nor the Environment Agency have raised objections the IDB have raised a concern about the level of clarity that they have in terms of those future plans but since you have nothing in front of you around those plans again deferral on the base or refusal on the basis that those plans are inadequate would be at odds with the advice that you've received from the Planning Agency who've indicated they're satisfied the the the second point that you've raised thank you thank you Councillor Hales I do apologize Mr Kelly would you mind repeating the nose a couple of three sentences couldn't quite catch what you said thanks if I've gone too far or please stop me the Planning Authority have consulted with the Environment Agency who are responsible for managing the outputs from Utterms Drove with defined and you've heard the concerns from the IDB who also have a responsibility for the maintenance and management of that infrastructure Anglin Water have met with the Environment Agency and the Environment Agency have withdrawn removed the concerns that they've originally raised not just about this scheme but about other major developments on the basis of their level I'm assuming and Adam is on the call their level of assurance about the ability to resolve the concerns that have been identified the Planning Authority if we were minded to refuse for example the application on the basis of inadequate details centered upon the future strategy for addressing water treatment at Utterms Drove you would be doing so without the ability to rely upon the Environment Agency who is statutory body responsible for the adverse effects that would you wouldn't presumably be arguing a rise without their support and we have already provided for in the extent of the Local Planning Authority's interest foul water management details to be provided on site the IDB I think did recognise that this point in terms of capacity will be reached in 2027 or beyond I think was the idea or before then but it is not an immediate issue and I think the IDB confirmed that it is not an immediate issue at this moment in time it is an issue that needs to be addressed for the investment plans and the strategy of angering water which need to be agreed by the Environment Agency I think we've gone over this a number of times now and I think we've heard the Local Authority's position on it we've heard what the IDB's position is on it that isn't going to change so we need to weigh up as a committee how much weight we give to that that's a decision for us councillor Roberts please Thank you again Chairman and through you Chairman I have a few finishing thoughts that I'd like to share I think it was councillor Khan said well you know this is going to be a stage in the future but it isn't is it we've already heard the date 2027 it's only five years away it's no time whatsoever and we've also heard from the internal drainage board that when emergencies occur they will not be able to sort it out it's a long term situation which requires a lot more work on it at the moment and it's not mandatory the consultees are not we are not mandated to take notice of them they are there as advisors to me seems to think it's funny but I think the residents wouldn't we are there to listen to them but there are always two sides to every story and we've listened to their views but you know you've got two completing organisations here and I'm afraid I don't think it will necessarily go into means but we've got another organisation which is just as responsible the internal drainage board who have told us categorically and read out very very strong evidence of why we should be so concerned here we cannot negate our responsibility we are the first block in this house of building it's up to us not to get negate our responsibilities but to actually put down a marker I don't want to deferment because I think a deferment will as Stephen has said will lead to months and months and then they'll go to a spin-on not determination so I think that's a no go but one of the things that I would be happier about was if this is refused and it goes to appeal then an appeal would probably take two or three days not like we've been today five and a half hours it would take days every bit of evidence would be put in front of inspector every single bit and every bit of evidence would be looked at for its value looked at for its value and the decision could be then take and buy an inspector but I really don't go along with this we haven't got enough things to fight it with I think we have got enough things to fight it and quite honestly what the hell have we wasted five and a half hours of today we came in at 10 o'clock it's now half past three if we couldn't why the hell did somebody say at the start of this meeting well actually chaps there's no good you sitting here all day being hungry because you can't have a proper meal or anything because there's nothing you can do about it I mean that is so uncorrect that is not true we can do something about it we have a responsibility to do something about it if we refuse them they could go to appeal straight away but as I say an appeal is a very different beast I've been to appeals where I thought my little village doesn't have a cat in health chance and actually we've won against the big boys it all depends how you present your case how determined you are and I'm sure that both sides will present a proper case but I think it's for us today to refuse it there's so much hanging on this the quality of our life and I mean I don't have the fear of God in me now if I lived in Longstanton or Oakington I really would of what might be coming we are blighting these properties because now once this gets into the Cambridge evening news as it will this week because they'll be listening once it gets into the Cambridge news and all these stories concerns about the flooding not enough water you'll all have to put a brick in your lavatory you'll have to have a bath with a friend you'll only be able to do it once a week it'll all go in and they will think immediately my God I'll have a hell of a job selling my house because Southcowns District Council have blighted it now that isn't acceptable this isn't a way that open, transparent decent government works we are here for the people we represent we're not here for the developers we're not here for the water authorities we are here first, foremost and primarily for the people we represent and the quality of the life that we can or will not give them it's up to you thank you very much we only have a few more speakers left then I'm hoping we can move to a resolution on this for what it's worth I tend to agree I don't think we should be deferring this today I think we should be making decisions one way or the other that's obviously my view and it's up to the committee what we do on that but I'm going to hear for the rest of the speakers then I'm going to move that we conclude this Councillor Wilson please thank you but the one thing that worries me is the evidence from the Sweibersie IZB having I've I've worked with the Old West IZB and I know how much how knowledgeable these people are how much expertise goes into what they do so have Anglia Mwater on any of the other statutory bodies come back on what the IZB concerns are officers can anyone respond on that it's probably helpful for Mr Ireland from the Environment Agency I think to comment on that all I can say is that the IZB referred to a letter from Anglia from the Environment Agency on this application in which it raised concerns from January 2021 as I said earlier subsequent to that we had a letter from the Environment Agency that removes those concerns and then impediment to development but perhaps Mr Ireland Mr Ireland if you could indulge us please yes certainly as mentioned earlier and was mentioned by Mr Willisbyn from the Sweibersie IZB yes it was very much determined that it's going to be relevant to the discharge permit and the total of 239 litres per second which will be identified as the maximum referred to as flow to full treatment in terms of the discharge from the uns drove itself as well so that will be a bespoke requirement of the permit as will an up to date up to date flood risk assessment and this will be in order for us to review the aforementioned land drainage solution obviously that's quite historic now so we want up to date information to inform ourselves relating to the specific discharge permit I can also let you know that we are also speaking separately with Anglia and Water in terms of ascertaining the current number of homes connected to athens drove what developments are planning to go there so we can build up a better picture relating to the timing of when we expect capacity to be reached there that will also then inform Anglia and Water when they produce their next asset management plan that will then inform them as to what they need to do in terms of looking at the longer term solutions I think it was councillor councillor Williams that mentioned something around the time scale relating to that so yes in terms of the asset management planning then the design and construction I'd suggest you'd be looking in the region of 8 to 10 years for that solution OK thank you I think that's answered the question Martin Kahn please come back in I'd like to first of all thank Mr Kelly for the information provided I found that very helpful and I think it helped to review my position in terms of the new development on 3A this will be done for a period I was interested to hear that through a period or as the individual reserve matters applications come on you can review what was being done you'll be able to review what was being done and revise how you manage the groundwater I think that's a great help because it also comes back to the whole position of the position regarding water supply this development will be implemented to a series of reserve matters applications over a period as its phase so I think it's important to make it clear that we would be needing to look at water supply as reserve matters come on and some way I think it's important that if the application is approved it may be simply through an advisory to say that as information becomes available the position of water supply may affect the phasing and the phasing of the development I say that with a bitter reservation because I remember nearly 50 years ago when I was living in this area shortly there was a problem with water supply in this area then what a shortage is is a persistent thing in this area because we get less rainfall in the east of England and there was lots of talk about transferring water from the west to the east there was talk about what they called the Great Conta Canal which was going to bring water from the west or the Pennines down to this area to supply water so it is a problem and it's not been resolved so I am aware that there may still be a problem during the duration of this so I think we need to have something I realise that it is not our responsibility to supply that and when they say they are going to supply it we have to take the set of body of responsibility but I think situations may change and we have to be aware of that in terms of sewage the position regarding pumping stations and the two pumping stations the total water produced by the two pumping stations will be the same so the amount of water discharged into the use will be the same whatever has happened the problem seems to me the problem that was raised was the problem about the amount of discharge that they pumped into the river and that is a that is a problem the internal drainage ward is worried about the pumps are not large enough to do are not large enough to do more than a certain amount that seems to be an argument between England water and the internal drainage ward not between us and the internal drainage ward they are worried about being able to provide the discharge that they inquire and that is an argument England water said they can do it I don't really I am not sure that we have a say in this it is a concern but it is not something that we really can do through the planning system and I think I agree with that point so again it is perhaps an advisory to note that there is a problem but it is not something that we can resolve okay thank you for that I have two more speakers now and then I think we can probably finish Councillor Richard Williams please I am sorry but with the greatest of respect I don't think we can sit here and say we have an expert in the room who has told us there is a real problem here the Aramd Agency I very much respect their view but they are not the people on the ground so it is obvious from what we have just heard that they don't have a detailed understanding of this problem as the person who actually deals with it and is telling us this is a real problem I don't think as a council we can just say something to do with us we are just the local planning authority we just granted permission for other 4000 houses nothing to do with us what is the point of us these are material considerations we do have a choice otherwise as Councillor Robert said this morning if we really have no choice about this planning application these matters are material considerations we can take a view on them and we have an expert in the room specifically on the point of the foul water drainage telling us that there is a significant problem here and that we cannot be on the expert's evidence satisfied that this development can be approved in a way that doesn't have severely detrimental impacts on the environment for the foul water drainage reasons we've seen as we are perfectly entitled to take the view and as I do take the view I'm not satisfied that the impacts on groundwater have been adequately dealt with I respect the good faith of members to reach different views on this some of us may vote to approve some of us may vote to refuse I will be voting to refuse but I don't think we can do it on the basis that it's nothing to do with us it's just an argument between two other agencies we're just the local planning authority it's not our job it is our job and we have to decide I would respect decisions on either side but I don't think we can pretend they're not decisions for us thank you thank you very much Councillor Harvey please yes thank you chair I think it was our officers for sort of flagging condition 41 because I think that does give me some comfort that these problems are reviewed prior to each phase and I guess addressing my sort of concern that you know have several major developments who might be competing for a limited resource I suppose those are also phased and therefore there is an on-going opportunity to reassess it but could you just confirm that in relation to condition 41 there is this assessment of capacity not only for the subsequent phases but also for the first phase because I think obviously that would give a kind of more confidence that nothing will have changed between today and the next kind of step in the process if you like that we would have then had a reiteration of confidence from the environment agency that capacity exists and that's up back in the water thank you the condition 41 is framed prior to the commencement of the development so it would be expected to address the issues before anything happened on any of the development parcels thank you and Heather Williams thank you chair I'm just going to say on the last representation from EA if you haven't had my mask on my mouth I've been wide open when he said 8 to 10 years that put an element of panic if I'm honest in May which has probably firmed my vote up now to a refusal I'm afraid whereas before I was weighing things up I just wanted to check just in case it is minded and members collectively minded to refuse chair I just wanted to make sure we've discussed a lot about the environment quite rightly so and drainage and everything but I do think that the scale parameter plans with the heights that they really do need to for me that is equally a really big issue and I think I've heard that it is for Councillor Hales as well that's a issue so if I just seek reassurance that that's been noted just as other issues may have dominated it has indeed I've got scale parameters, drainage and groundwater issues and some others as well that it has been noted okay members I don't have any more speakers and I think we've had a very long healthy debate on all of this now I think we are at the stage now when we do need to make a resolution on this I've heard people say they're going to vote in favour, people vote against some people have mooted a deferral as I said my personal view would be that we should come to a decision on this I don't think we should be deferring Jeff McFerrin and I haven't heard anyone propose a deferral at this stage so just for fairness I will offer that opportunity if anyone does think deferral is a good idea at this stage no okay so we are going to come to a decision on this today members it's probably wise if we go over any additional conditions or alterations to conditions should we approve and also the detailed reasons for refusal should we refuse as a committee so I'm not sure how prepared officers are to go through those if we start with the conditions should we approve thank you chair obviously there is a delegation to as part of the recommendation in the addendum sheet we propose an alteration that we've discussed previously to condition 39 to bolst of that and include provisions around an agreed baseline we had the conversation around condition 42 which picked up on the discussions around construction management with your in the event that members are minded to support the recommendation obviously the delegation is to officers on that alongside the completion of the section 106 Mr Reid identified the potential to introduce a construction management routing plan into the section 106 agreement and that may well mean that elements of condition 42 might fall away particularly around that particular point but I'd ask you to note and the matter is delegated to officers the other adjustments to the conditions are contained I believe in the addendum sheet that was circulated I think yesterday I haven't picked up chair any others save for councillor Williams and Hale's comments around the parameter plan and the ambition that if commission is granted that the matter of the two-storey dwellings within that spur be addressed by way of either a condition or an adjustment to the terms. I think how understood it was that I think members were minded should approve will be granted that that particular spur that we spent some time looking at to only two storeys that's how I understood it has that been captured by officers? Good councillor Hawkins Just a quick one I think there was talk about the pump for Swims the IDB was talking about pumping station in your pump I must admit that one passed me by that was a contribution towards the pump at WebSloose That's the pump that texts Is that the one you're talking about? There's something in the heads of terms towards that I don't think it was WebSloose No I think I think if the issue is about a contribution to the pump I don't recall the details of that conversation but certainly that really is a matter for the water resource management plan as a value in water and their capital programme rather than for this development on its own having regard to the wider feeding and catchment for that facility To me? Do you want to come back? It was just something that maybe I misheard It's okay One thing I did pick up actually I think someone at some point did ask for provision to review the drainage scheme should probably be granted at regular intervals to make sure what would be implemented is working I think there was a suggestion around the water supply side My advice would be that I think that needs to be dealt with at a strategic level because effectively in line with the seal regulations it isn't just this development that draws from the aquifer it's every single development in greater in greater and the local plan and the strategic level of the local plan is really the vehicle to introduce policies that may for example require stair casing in terms of implementation rather than a specific site because under the effective regardless of where you are in greater Cambridge each house has the same impact and it would be inappropriate to apply that to a single development which is why I think the local plan and the strategic approach that we're recommending for that is the appropriate mechanism for it Thank you Councillor Heather Williams I think maybe because we agreed it would be an obligation not a condition but just to have it I think we need to vote on an obligation in relation to I was signalling driving and the traffic that's what my hand signals were Sorry I missed that to do with the APR and the monitoring of traffic for an obligation but I think do we need to vote on that to put that obligation on it It's whether or not Members accept Members I think the Heather's trying to keep me on the straight narrow here and remind me that we need to officially agree that should approval be granted that conditions around the traffic monitoring be officially incorporated into into the obligation Thank you very much Are members generally in agreement with that? Agreed? Anyone not in agreement? Good, okay Members I haven't jotted down any further conditions or alterations to conditions as we've been going through the debate but have there been any that I've missed that we should be including? No Sorry, Councillor Hales Do we have the option of moving back the spur by a third? The question was can we move the spur back by a third to move it further away from Oakington? The application in front of you with the parameter plans doesn't propose that there has been an amendment in that because whilst we have spoken about the potential for reducing the height of the buildings a change to the parameter plan of that nature isn't something that I would suggest is appropriate to consider here Okay, well I think we've got the updated conditions should approval be granted members so we move on to reasons for a fuse or should committee refuse I'm hoping officers have been jotting down official terminology as we've been going through I think there are two fundamental policy issues that you've raised in terms of your concerns about the development the first relates to the extent to which the development complies with policy CC7 which is around the quality of ground water not being harmed and clearly that was an element of the concern in terms of the precise wording I think it's probably appropriate I can't offer you an immediate reference form but it clearly set pivots around the adverse effect of the development on ground water quality within the locality and the failure to demonstrate satisfactorily that it would not be impacted by the development the second area of concern appeared to be associated with a concern around the collateral effects of surcharging utterns drove with the additional outputs from this site which would seem to offend policy CC9 in the way that it impacted flood risks downstream from the utterns drove plant and again I think it would be a straightforward reason based upon your belief in the adverse impact on flood risk associated with the unresolved discharge through utterns drove this quantum of development in association with other developments previously consented including Campbell West which was referred to as a cumulative impact reason for refusal consistent sorry I haven't got precise I was listening to you all too intently to give you a precise form of wording but that is my sense of the it would be possible to put into that this is you know this is based on the the professional expertise advice that we received from the internal drainage board I we you are the planning authority making the decision not the drainage board and so it needs to be based on your plan in the event that you were the inspector if this was a matter that went to appeal would have the IDBs comments the IDB could could attend and make representations but the basis that you could indicate your concern despite the environment agencies satisfactory be with this would be on the basis of what you have heard from the IDB but I wouldn't be referencing the IDB in the reason for for refusal it's on the basis of your judgment on the application that was in front of you that all these concerns are now is would this be a material reason I suppose it will but would it be a material reason to say that actually to give approval with so many outstanding concerns will be the possibility is that it is going to blight the area I don't think that's a reason for a refusal it is something that reasons refusal obviously need to be grounded in your local plan policies and you do not have a policy on that I think what we would seek is to explain in the reasons refusal the concerns that have been addressed on groundwater and flood risk and those are the elements of planning on that the decision or the examination of the matter would need to pivot on rather than concepts of blight and so on which are in a sense less grounded in the policies of planning. Jennifer sorry chairman you're just there with me for a second maybe it's a question to Mr Lee if the members of the public if this is approved this afternoon and if members of the public hearing this feel that we have blighted their properties and we're talking about a wide range of properties north stone as it's now being built and Okington and Longston as is would they have any recourse to law for being so blighted by this organisation this authority Stephen I don't know if you have any thoughts I don't think they would have recourse against for an action against local authority One final concern I did pick up was the scale parameters i.e. heights of buildings obviously we have just should we approve we've decided to implement a condition to reduce them on the edge but obviously if we were to refuse that could be a reason for refusal again that's one I'm hoping officers can vocalise for us Yes we could comment on that I mean my only advice to you in terms of a planning appeal is that as a reason for refusal given that every single reason must be developments and decisions must stand on every I've got my focus yes that reason for refusal I suspect is going to be extraordinarily difficult to justify given that the patterns of development in the surrounding villages comprise two and three story dwellings and it isn't something that I suspect we would be able to convincingly sustain that exposes you to a matter of potential costs in pursuing that reason but it's a matter for you as the committee our advice as officers is that I think we would find it extraordinarily difficult to defend an appeal on that reason Councillor Williams Thank you I'm happy to take that advice because obviously the other reasons for refusal are strong but in the past we've been told that if one reason was to fail on appeal that you'd still have another can I just check that is correct so if the if the scale didn't but one other did or vice versa then it's not you don't have to get all of them right so the appeal is always down that are the others strong enough to still refuse so so obviously we've discussed the relative strength of these three matters for a large part of today you're quite right the appeal if there is one would be contested against all three of your reasons subject to the advice of any barrister but the cause or is not able to be contested of course the other reasons still stand however the requirement as a planning authority is that we justify every reason and you are open to claims of costs on the basis of unreasonable behaviour if you cannot substantiate every reason and so partial awards of costs for example have been given to local authorities who for example when they get to the appeal realise they are not able to justify the reason every single reason for refusal because there is seem to be unreasonable behaviour in that respect but of course if ultimately another reason fell away there are three reasons that we have touched upon here each one would remain even if one of them was struck out you just risk cost in that Councillor Williams for me the heights on those edges are really important to the quality of life for the existing residents there so I've been inclined to actually I think it could be defended on those grounds you would hope but but yeah I think I'd rather have more reasons than fewer sure okay so you propose to include that as a reason for refusal yeah I think so okay members we're going to have to decide this as a committee so can I ask members how we do this are members inclined to include that or does anyone not want to okay I'll tell you what Aaron we're going to go to a vote please we're going to have to vote on whether to include this as a reason for refusal because we haven't got unanimity so members we're going to have an electronic vote now on the keypads we're deciding whether to include scale parameters i.e. building heights as a reason for refusal should we refuse if you wish to include it press green if you don't wish to include it press red and of course you have the option to abstain as well we're missing two so sorry press the blue button to register and then one of the colours dependant on your preference one more to go okay so that is it everyone's voted six votes in favour five votes against so we will include that as a reason for refusal should we vote as a committee to refuse thank you okay members I think we're at that point in the day when we can now make a decision on this we've rehearsed the additional conditions should we approve and we've rehearsed the reasons for refusal should we refuse so members we're going to go straight back to the keypads please Aaron if you can set up another vote so members we are now voting on whether to agree with the officer's recommendation of approval if you are in agreement vote green if you're not vote red and of course everyone can abstain one more person needs to register press the blue button first and then the colour oh there we go we're there so members everyone has voted you can see the results on the screen eight votes in favour three votes against so that application is approved members it's four o'clock I fear we shouldn't be going to get through the next application I'm afraid I'm just going to confer members I think I mean I'll put it to you but I don't think we have any option other than to defer the second item as we have no four o'clock now we're not going to have enough time to do this one justice so I mean I'm proposing that we defer the second item item five which is phase 3B of North Stowe until we reconvene at a later date to decide it members not sure I mean I'm sure we can thrash out the detail but I think in theory everyone's shouting at me one so I don't think we're going to get through it in an hour honestly I think we have to finish in a reasonable time so members I'm going to put that to you that we defer to a later date obviously as soon as we can get it in the diary we will so I'm going to put that forward can someone second that please yes absolutely absolutely absolutely okay so that's been seconded members are we in agreement that we defer the second item anyone against okay so that second item is deferred and we now come to the end of the meeting members thank you very much for your patience and for all those who have contributed outside of the committee it's been very helpful so we will now close the meeting at five minutes past four thank you everyone