 Felly oedd y ddefnyddio mewn ddeithasion, oedod am ddechrau'n ddweud y cyfrifolio ar y cyfrifolio. Felly oedd yn rhan o'r ddweud yma o'r dddorol Cymru. Mae'r ddweud yma mae'r ddweud yma, Martin Carn, a mae'r defnyddio a'r ddweud, mae'r ddweud yma o'r ddweud yma, Peter Fane. Mae'r ddweud yma ar y llyfr yn cael ei ddweud, ddweud yma ar y llyfr yn cael ei ddweud ar gyfer yr ysgrifennu, ac yn gyffredigan ychydig beth byddai'n ysgrif iawn o unrhyw yw teithbeth a sori leafau mewn hwn ar y webcast neu arddangos iawn. Mae'r gwahor hwn yn ddechrau iawn o'r rymotol i gyrhaf i chi ddigon yn cael ei ysgrif iawn i ddodol yr yw'r cyffredigan i gymaint. A gynnig i chi'n cael eu bod i'n gynnig i'n ei gyrhaf i gydag. Rwy'n bod, mae'r staff iawn yma, a'i gynnyddio, fydd rydyn ni wedi arwain cyffredigan i chi ddigon i chi angen i chi gynnyddio er bod yn y rydyn ni'n gydag. 10.30, ond we will briefly pause the meeting at that time. For those of us in the Chamber, please note that we do not have to leave the building during this test. If at any time a member leaves the meeting, would they please make the fact known so that it can be recorded in the minutes? Now, item two on the agenda, apologies. Do we have any apologies to Absence Lawrence? Thank you, Chair. Democratic Services have just received apologies from Councillor Jeff Harvey today. Thank you very much. Members, now we come to item three, declarations of interest. Do any members have interests to declare in relation to any item of business on the agenda? If an interest subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting, please raise it to that point. Councillor Redrup. Thank you, Chair. Hawxton, which is in item seven, is within the Harston and Compton ward. I acted as a liaison between residents and officers regarding the clearance of trees at this site. I come to this item with an open mind, ready to listen and consider the presentations in debate. Thank you. Councillor Ariel Kahn. It's also for item seven. I attended a meeting in which the person who owns the site where the trees were cleared, apologised for the disturbance and had a discussion of the parish, but I also come to this matter completely afresh. Thank you very much. Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. Just on a gender item, I'm the local member for one of the applications, but I haven't had anything to do with the application itself. Thank you very much. Item four, Minutes of the previous meeting. We have the minutes of the meeting held on April 10, 2024, approval. Do any members wish to make any amendments to these minutes? Can I take the approval of these minutes by affirmation? I was not present to the meeting, so I will abstain on this. Thank you, members. The minutes of the meeting held on 10 April 2024 are agreed as a correct record. Now we come to item five, application 24, stroke 00607, stroke FUL, 88 and 92, station road system. Can we have a presentation please by the officer? Thank you, Chair. So this application is here at committee as one of the applicants is an employee of the South Cairns Council. This is a joint application for two properties, number 8892 Histon, station road Histon. This proposal is for the retention of raising the chimney A to the required 1.8 metre height above the new ridge. This is a joint application as the chimney serves both properties. The works have started, hence this application is for the retention of the chimney. The officer recommendation is to approve this application. The application site are two dwellings, number 8892 station road in the development framework of Histon. The properties are part of a terrace of four grade two listed cottages. The site is located within the Histon conservation area, which is outlined in pink on the map. At the properties front onto station road, within the immediate setting there is a fairly mixed character with business and industrial buildings to the south and west of the site. These photographs here show the front and rear elevations as existing. This is prior to the works. You can see that there is some variation in the chimneys. So these are the proposed plans. The existing height of the chimney stands at 0.9 metres. The height of the proposed chimney will be 1.2 metres with a 0.6 metre pot resulting in a 1.8 metre chimney stack. The width and the depth of the chimney will not be altered. Within the terrace, the existing chimneys all vary in height. The proposed materials are to match the existing brick and mortar to the existing chimney. The conservation officer has reviewed this and has recommended that a condition is added to ensure that the brick and mortar match the existing as close as possible. So on balance, the increase in height is considered to be modest in scale and the proposed materials are to match existing. The proposal will therefore not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Due to the scaling massing of the chimney inciting on the roof slope, the proposal will not unduly impact upon residential amenity. The conservation officer has been consulted on this application and considers that the proposal will not cause harm to the character of the histon conservation area or the listed building. The conservation officer has recommended for a condition to be added requiring the brick work and mortar to match the existing. There are no material planning considerations to refuse this application. The officer therefore recommends that the application is approved subject to the recommended condition. Thank you very much. Sorry, I would note also that I am the local member for histon, but I haven't discussed this, so I didn't even know it was coming to committee. That comes to the matter refresh. Sorry, do we have any points of clarification? No, thank you very much. Do we have any points for debate? Can I take the matter by affirmation? Do we approve by affirmation? I agree. Thank you. Now can we come? Sorry, I formally I need to propose that we approve it. Can I propose that we approve the application by affirmation? Thank you. Okay, we come now to the second application, please. Thank you, Chair. This proposal is for the listed building consent for the retention of raising chimney A to the required 1.8 meter height above the new ridge at the application site 88 to 92 station road Histon. The officer recommendation is to approve this application. The application site is 88 and 92 station road in the development framework of Histon. The properties are part of a row of four cottages of early 19th century origin listed at grade two. The cottages are timber framed and rendered standing at one story with accommodated attics under a long straw thatched roof. They are located on the edge of the Histon conservation area. This slide shows the existing plans prior to the works. Here are the proposed chimneys. The existing chimney is 0.9 meters. The proposal is to increase the height to 1.8 meters. This height is required by insurance companies for thatched roofs. The conservation officer considers that this type of alteration can now be considered acceptable due to meeting this policy requirement. The conservation officer has acknowledged that the proposed chimney will unbalance the chimney stacks. However, when considering that the existing pots are already at different heights and the stacks are not identical, it will reduce this impact. The proposal will retain similar appearance to the existing chimney as the materials are to match the existing brick and water. A condition will be added to require these to be matched. The planning balance the proposal is not considered to cause harm to the character of the Histon conservation area. The proposal will not cause harm to the character and historic fabric of the listed building. There are no material planning considerations to refuse this application. The officer therefore recommends that this application is approved subject to the recommended conditions. Can I assume that we do not have any further points of clarification or debate? I propose that we approve this application. Can I take it by affirmation? I'll take it, but I'll come for a second. Thank you very much indeed. The application is approved. Now, we come to item 7 on the agenda. This is a provisional TPO number 07 strokes 2024 confirmation of cheap preservation order for a number of trees on the site of 25 High Street Hawxton. Can we have a presentation please? Yes, so good morning councillors. I'm here today to present to you the, to seek your approval, your consent for the confirmation of the provisional TPO which was served at 25 High Street Hawxton, which was on the February of this year. So, just to give an introduction and background to this is that the image shown on the site, sorry, on the slide is of the site once clearance had began. So, on the 29th of January this year it was made aware to the council by members of public that site clearance had taken place and mass tree clearance had happened. Officers attended sites on the next day and confirming the mass clearance which led to the creation and serving of an emergency preservation order. So, the preservation order lasts for six months allowing for the council to consider which trees are worthy of a full TPO and also to allow for mandatory consultation periods receiving any objections or representations and as part of the provisional periods there were no objections received to date. So, the location of the site is kind of described central north of Hawxton, slightly set back from the high street and the bordering of the river can however can be seen from from a public access which I'll explain and show on a later slide. Just this slide here is just to show the tree canopy cover over a span of 20 years. So, from 2003 right to 2023 but it's confident to say there was tree canopy cover beyond obviously 2003. Using aerial imagery it suggests that there isn't much change within the canopy until obviously activities started this year. So, the original order, so the provisional TPO was an aerial protection of all trees to site. So, the final recommendations and modifications of which trees should be protected are highlighted obviously on this slide. If I may, working from top right where you can see T1 and working anti-clockwise just to give you an idea of the breakdown of trees which should be protected or recommended for protection. So, we've got T1 is a sycamore, T2 is a horse chestnut, T3 is a walnut, G1 is a group of beech trees around four to six in the group, G2 is a group of Norway maple around approximately six trees, G3 is a group of field maple and Norway maple consists of five trees, T4 is one ash tree, G4 is a row of poplars along the river, T5 is a willow, G5 is a group of three horse chestnuts, 13 beech trees and two silver leaf maple, G6 is an estimate of 10 beech trees and one sycamore, T7 is an asa species Norway maple. Now, I will mention G7, that was a recommendation from a neighbouring property to exclude these group which are compressors, so cypris trees which are close proximity to property and the residents concern was that they may cause an issue in the future. So, G7 is recommended to be excluded because of the species and proximity to neighbouring property. G8 is 8 to 10 beech trees, G9 is 1 walnut tree and 13 beech trees and T8, which is kind of central within the site, is a whole milk. So, just to recap, it's just that G7 is a group of conifer species that is recommending not to be within your final order. So, this slide here is just the viewpoint from the main high street of Hawxton. The left hand image is next to the village sign. The tree canopies you can see are the trees in question behind the houses. So, the right hand image is directly in front of the access to 25 high street of Hawxton. You can see the yellow highlighted area is the poplars in the foreground there's a sycamore and then it's the left of that image as the tops of the beech trees. So, further afield, there is a permissive access which runs from Cambridge Road and windshrew agricultural land to Little Shelford and from this point you can actually see the canopies of the trees from afar and then make your way more central to this permissive access. The trees become more notable with the landscape and obviously complementing to the area. So, to summarise this is essentially to confirm TPO in 2024 with the mentioned modifications and there have not been any objections to this. Thank you very much, Adrian. Do we have now points of clarification? Do we have any points of clarification? Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. Question in the previous where you have the group of trees. You mentioned the T7, but I couldn't find the T7. Did I hear you wrong here? Sorry. Right, sorry. Let me just run for a T7. Yes, it should be as G6, there's T6 and G7, but there's no T7. Yes, sorry, that's T6. It should be the, it's just mismarked at the bottom right, I believe. It's the Acer. Does that make sense? You've got G6 and then T6. Yeah. Yeah. Which, so T7 is supposed to be T6. Yeah, yeah, sorry. Do you mean that T6 is actually T7? Yes, thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. I do have a question. You have an ash on the site, which has been proposed for protection. Is this in good health? Is there likely to be a problem with ash dieback? No fair questions. I'm part of the assessment. The evaluation, when I can see the health at the time of the evaluation tree was seen to be in good health. Well, thank you. Councillor Hamley. Could I ask the, is the G7 that you suggest will be omitted from this order? Yep. What is the address of the property in front of it, do you know? Not often top my head of the actual. Right. I'm just wondering, okay, because I'm trying to find, I'm looking at Google Maps and I'm trying to find where a tree might affect someone's garden and I can't see it. Yeah, so it's meant to be the G7 being so they're the Monterey Cyprus and they can get quite big and so again part of the evaluation system, we've got to take in consideration any recommendations, say part of the consultation period and I think it would not be appropriate to protect these trees because foreseeability of issues related to the property, that makes sense. Okay, well I can't see, as I say, I'm looking at Street View and I can't see anywhere where a tree would affect a property but it would be nice to know what the address was and whether or not there's an access point into the land in the centre of the trees. Ynni, you see what I'm saying? No, the access point to the site, the access point to the site, sorry. Yeah, it's from, so let's say, where T1 is, that's the access point into the site. Okay, thank you. Canceler, Dr Timmy Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. Just further to that, it's the reason because the trees get big by the roots. In terms of groups, what's the actual issue? So Montreau Cyprus, we're talking potentially about a 50 foot in height or more and looking at obviously the image, you can see they're quite close because they're evergreens essentially, it wouldn't be appropriate in the sense because of proximity and the size they would get and yes, there can be potential issues in the future to the adjacent property. To make Bruce similar to say, what do you call them? The root systems. Yeah, root systems. Yeah, the roots obviously do expand but it's not just the roots itself, it's the oval canopy being an evergreen, you know, it will obviously crotch over. Canceler Fein. Thank you, it's been quite a few questions about G7, quite a few questions about G7 and the proximity to the buildings we can see there, which might not be visible on Street View, I was quite well set back, but I just wondered, it's a Montreau Cyprus, I think, but we have any photographs you can show of that or? No, unfortunately not. Thank you very much. Do we have any, now come to the debate, do we have any debates upon? Yes, councillor, Heather Williams. Thank you, chair. I'll just say, I know obviously G7 and I think it might be because if we look at page 32 of the report, it is, if you, I think the T6 square is blocking it, obviously it's quite close to those buildings there, no matter that's probably why particularly the house which T6 is on, I think that would be, I can understand why residents would be concerned about that canopy given how set back that house is from the road. All in all, taking G7 aside, I mean it pretty much is trying to keep everything that is now left and is there and so I think that's probably the right balance, if we've got residents that are concerned about those then fine, the majority is being preserved and protected and I don't see any reason at all why we would not support that and yeah and I would suggest that it is enforced fully and frankly. Thank you. Do we have any other points to debate? I propose that we go to a vote. Can I take this approval by affirmation? Are there any people wishing to vote again? I'll take it by affirmation, thank you. So that application is approved. Now we come to the compliance report. Chris Braybrooke will be presenting to us online, thank you very much. Can I hear your vote please Chris? Good morning chair. Just a short update this month. Currently we have 702 open cases throughout both authorities, 305 identical within South Cambridge here. So far since the first of January we've had 239 compliance referrals come into the team. Staffing update, we still have the vacant post of the principal compliance officer, hopefully that will be advertised very shortly now. We're working on getting that advertised in the next couple of weeks and then once that adverts out hopefully we'll get some interest and someone needs to come and join the team. We're currently also going through the recruitment process for an apprentice within the compliance team. That application is currently open, we've had a strong interest in that which is encouraging and hopefully I should have an update for the next meeting as well on the compliance apprentice. Just an update on the request from Councillor Williams regarding older cases with the priority A, Bs and Cs. We've now asked the compliance team to look at the old cases which they have had since before the assignment of case priority was brought in and we've asked them to add the priority ratings to every case so there will be A, Bs and Cs just so that everything's covered. This process we've requested to be completed by the end of May and then hopefully in the June statistical figures we should be able to show all of the open cases by priority type. I believe a request was made for an update. Sorry Chris, just a test. Right you're all good to go again, thanks mate. Okay and I think a request was made just for a quick update on some of the changes under the recent Leveling Up and Regeneration Act that's recently come into play on the latter part of April. There are some significant changes just for the committee to be aware of around the four and 10 year rules. Just to remind everyone, the four year rule was operational development, i.e. the structures of buildings, where if it had been in place for four or more years then it was immune from action, the same for the use of a building as a dwelling house. That was another four year rule and where all other breaches were 10 years. They've now been brought into line and they are all now 10 year breaches for immunity. However there are some guidance matters that kind of fit in that we need to be aware of whereby if a building was substantially completed before the change over date 25th of April then that still falls under the four year rule. The same for the uses of buildings as dwelling houses if they were used for more consecutive years then they would still be immune. So there's a bit of a sort of a switch over and some dates to be aware of and in the June report I will add sort of text on the changes a bit more detail just so the committee aware of what's happened and the new changes that are now in place. I think that concludes my report. Thank you. Do you have any questions or point to Mr Braybrooke? Thank you. Councillor, hello Williams. Just to say thank you for the handling of the request and also for the update that you gave me which I've not had a chance to get back to you on but thank you for that. I think that might be something that's helpful for a lot of members to see and whether when diaries allow perhaps a workshop you've mentioned that there's some changes but a workshop with members and compliance because that might help us to be able to do things in a way that would support the service so see if that could be thought of perhaps and something because there is quite a lot of changes going on. I think that's noted. Do we have any other questions or points from members? Thank you very much. Thank you. Now it comes to the appeals. Rebecca can you take us through the appeals Eddie? Thank you chair. Significant ones. Just as you can see we've only heard one two three four five appeal decisions this month or in the previous month um from the section notified by pins one um is an enforcement appeal that was withdrawn um and then the other three of the others were dismissed and one was appeal allowed at land to the rear of 51 premiums way in Stapleford. Officers refused it was a delegated decision on the basis of the property being a backland location being out of character because it was mainly a linear development the inspector disagreed and didn't agree with the character argument put forward by members so overturned and approved the application. Thank you chair. If you have any questions on any of the others then please do contact me and I can happily answer them. Do you have any further points? We've got requests or questions. I have a question in relation to the appeal that may not be relevant to this report the appeal on the development of Cambridge North um and the impact of the Secretary of State's decision in this case on the water um I was just trying to find his exact wordings but it is not available to me but I just wondered whether in general terms without me to go into detail at the stage this is likely to have a significant impact on any large developments we may be considering throughout South Cambridge. We are we have had some draft council advice based on the outcome of that appeal and that decision. We are going back to the barrister today I believe with some further questions so and that obviously is one of the questions that we've got we're waiting for a bit more extended advice on so as soon as we have that then we'll be able to circulate to members. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do I have any further questions? Thank you. Okay. Thank you Rebecca. Now we move on to the dates of the next meeting. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday the 12th of June. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you chair.