 Yn gwech o'r cyflwylo cyflwyno gweithio, Feir i'r cyflwyno cyflwyno gweithio a'r cyflwyno cyflwyno gwellan. Fy fawr, mae'n debyg o'r cyflwyno cyflwyno Gwylbwynt Cymru. Gweithio yn ymddangosol i'r cyflwyno cyflwyno. Mae oedd ar gyflwyno'n ôl i'ch wneud o'r canfraer ac ymddangosol oherwydd mae'n gweithio'n cyfrwng o'r cyflwyno. Oherwydd, mae'n gweithio yn y gweithio o'r cyflwyno cyflwyno, gweithio'n gweithio i'r cyflwyno. Mae cymdeithas yn y cwm sydd wedi'u fyddai'r gweithiau, i'r gwaith arall ffawr o'r gweithgau, cyfath i'r cymdeithio, dwi'n ei fyddorol amw'r cwm, yn cy πεau'r cyfath yw i'r gwleithaeth. Gyda'r gweithio, mae'r fân panelwch yn ymryd i ywser maen i'r rhannol, ac ffennol ar wir Meistydd Llywodraeth yng Nghymru, mae'r cyfrifiad yn ardolf yn amlwg. Mae gweithgadau, Merthyr. Feithio, maen nhw'n credu'n cyfrifiad. Cynslau Anna Bradlow. Thank you, Chair. I'm Cynslau Anna Bradlow from one of the members from Milton and Water Beach Ward. Cynslau Ariel Cahn. Cynslau Ariel Cahn, Haarston and Cormarton Ward. Cynslau Bill Handley. You see? Yeah? No, sorry. Okay, sorry. Cynslau Lisa Reddrow. Good morning. I'm Cynslau Lisa Reddrow. I represent Haarston and Cormarton Ward. Cynslau Judith Rippeth. Good morning. I'm Cynslau Judith Rippeth, and I'm one of the local members for Milton and Water Beach Ward. Cynslau Peter Samford. Good morning, everyone. Cynslau Peter Samford, one of the members for Caxton and Puckworth Ward. Cynslau Eileen Wilson. Good morning, Cynslau Eileen Wilson, Member for Poxnham and Rampton. I can confirm that the meeting is quarraged. We also have some members of the offices with us in the chamber. I know it's... Cynslau Helen Leaming. Oh, hi. Good morning. I'm Cynslau Helen Leaming. I'm one of the three members for Camborn Ward, and I'm here as a local member, as opposed to a member of the Planning Committee. Cynslau Jeff Harvey. Thank you, Chair. I'm Cynslau Jeff Harvey. I'm the Member for Bolsham Ward. I can confirm that the meeting is quarraged. We also have some officers with us in the chamber for the duration of the meeting. Rebecca Smith. Good morning, Chair. Rebecca Smith, I'm the delivery manager looking after the DM team for West Area and also the compliance team. Philip O'Kelly. Sorry. Good morning, everyone. Philip O'Kelly, Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service, Strategic Sites Manager. Vanessa Blaine. Good morning, everyone. I'm Vanessa Blaine. I'm the legal advisor to the committee. Lawrence Daimary Hoeman. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. I'm Lawrence Daimary Hoeman. I'm the DM Services for the Planning Committee. And we have our technical support from Democratic Services being provided by Aaron Clark. Morning, Chair. Thank you very much, Aaron, here to do the technicals today. And we'll also be joined by case officers throughout the meeting. If at any time a member leaves the meeting, would they please make known the facts so that it can be recorded in the minutes? We should take breaks from this meeting as and when they are needed and as appropriate. Members should have received the main agenda plaque dated the 3rd of October and the plan's plaque online supplement dated the 5th of October. Now for the apologies. The item two on the agenda is Apologies for Absence. Lawrence, are there any apologies for Absence today, please? Thank you, Chair. Yes. We've had Apologies for Absence from councillors Dr Tim Hawkins, Bill Hanley, who councillors Anna Brannam and Lisa Redrup kindly stepped in the sub. Councilor Dr Richard Williams has also sent apologies and Councillor Heather Williams will be joining us late today. Thank you, Chair. Declarations of Interest. Members, now we come to item three, Declarations of Interest. Do any members have interest to declare in relation to any item of business on the agenda? Any interest subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting? Please, would you like raise it at that point? Thank you, Chair. In relation to item six, TWI in Great Abington, whilst I'm not the member for Abington, I do live in Abington very close to that site and having thought very carefully about this, I think it would be difficult for me to be completely objective about this so I will be abstaining on that vote. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Chair. I have a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item five. When I was still deputy leader, I had a meeting with the leader of the council and also with the Hill Partnership group so I don't feel like I can take part in the debate or the vote so I'll leave the Chamber for the item. Item four on agenda is minutes of the previous meeting. We have the minutes of the meeting held on 12 September. Do any members have any amendments to make these minutes? Councillor Riffith. Yes, I was surprised to read on page seven that I had not voted in the agenda item five of the last meeting on the Orchard Park item. I had intended to vote to refuse the application but I'm assuming perhaps the democratic machine just didn't quite pick it up. Yes, so just to confirm, unfortunately Councillor Riffith's vote was not recorded by the electronic system but the minutes will reflect your intention to vote despite your not going through. Thank you. Any other comments? Can I take these approval by affirmation? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Now we come to item five of the agenda, Camborm. Lands South of the Pond, application 23 stroke, Lands South of the Pond, Camborm Business Park Camborm. Oren Coe is the presenting officer. Please would you introduce this application. Thank you, Chair. The application reference number is 23-00123-FUL. For the erection of 256 dwellings, the change of use of the existing market in suite to a cafe, landscaping, car parking, substations, bin and bike stores. We have an updated officer recommendation on this application which is to defer planning application reference 23-00123-FUL to enable the planning authority to fully review the additional technical information which has been submitted in relation to noise, vibration and electromagnetic radiation. This information has been submitted by third parties and the applicants after the publication of the agenda and the publishing of the committee report. Officers have to have regard to policies SC10 and SC14 of the local plan and also paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Officers need to consider this information to get to conclusions upon the issues raised in respect of noise, vibration and electromagnetic radiation prior to a decision being taken on this application by committee. Thank you, Chair. I would therefore like to go straight to a vote on defer role of the application. Do I have a proposer? Can we take the electronic, please? To defer, you are voting 4. You are voting? OK. The application is deferred. Thank you very much indeed. Now we come to item 6 on the agenda. TWI grant a part. Great Abington. An outline application for the development of the TWI campus. It is an extensive proposal and you can see the detail on the front page of the report. It is a major application with wide public interest called in by the Parish Council with key issues, design, landscape impacts, impact on heritage assets, trees, transport and car parkings. The recommendation is to approve subject to conditions completing section 106 agreement. Michael Hammond is the presenting officer. Would you please present the application? The site visit was held on 4 October for information. Thank you, Chair. I'll just share my screen. So the application is an outline application with all matters reserved except for access. It's the development of the TWI campus. Obviously there's quite a lengthy description in front of you which has been in the agenda pack as well. I'll go through the scheme which provides further detail and explains this each of me reading off all of that. So this is the application site. Let's see if I can get the winter option on. So TWI campus is, as you can see, my laser pointer in here. We've got Abington Hall, middle to the east of the boundary. And then we've got Little Abington and Great Abington to the northeast and east respectively. And then the A505 further to the west. On the existing science park of Granta Park. I've got more detail coming up. So I'll go through the site constraints around the site. So this is again a rough location plan of the site. So firstly you've got the conservation area which borders the site and includes parts of Little Abington and Great Abington to the east. And just for reference, we've got shade lines of development framework of Little Abington and Great Abington again. Then I have got a more detailed list of building constraint map coming up. But again Abington Hall immediately to the east list of building there. St Mary's Church to the northeast. And then you've got St Mary the Virgin Church parish here. And then other list of buildings around as well. There are pockets of surface water flooding as well as outside of the site. Then you've got the fluvial flooding from the River Granta, the flood zones for that, as well as the lake that's on the site. Then there are tree preservation orders, grouping ones. Some are on the site, some off the site. But principally you can see a historic one that runs along here through the site and encompasses some of the oak trees which I'll get to later. And then it carries on along the main route into here across the lake. The River Granta is a county wildlife site. And then this just signifies the extent of the established employment area that is Granta Park. The site sits within that. So I've included some annotations on this based on the committee site visit we had last week just to help members. So starting from I guess within the site you've got Ableton Hall itself. It's building here immediately next to the boundary. And then you've got the Curtinage Listed Cottage which is where my mouse cursor is hovering around. And parts of the wall which are immediately to the south of that. They're part of the Curtinage Listing of Ableton Hall. Then you've got the Parish Church of St Mary to the northeast in this little Ableton which is grade two star. So actually Ableton Hall is also grade two star. There's the Old Vicarage of Ableton northeast. It's grade two. Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin of Great Ableton to the east which is grade two star. There is a farmhouse here which is grade two listed. And then immediately, I'm sorry, right at the bottom of the Granta Park site itself is South Lodge which is grade two listed. So this is a more detailed site plan. So it doesn't include the riverside buildings which will be outside the redline boundary and aren't affected by the location. You'll see in later slides this building, RMCC and the restaurant have since been demolished and are no longer on the site. That was also presented with a member site visit. So the distance from Ableton Hall to the existing B3 building is 95.5 metres approximately. So this is the extent of demolition so it includes the atrium and BBH building in here. Trevor Gooch building here. RJ building, RS building here. And then these buildings are already permitted under a separate consent so their demolition isn't part of this application. A substation in here would also be demolished and be replaced firm to the north as part of the proposals. So the application is accompanied by a series of parameter plans to define the extent of development in terms of heights and zones and where access, for example, would be. So I'll run you through those. Starting at the northern end, there's the north depth carpark zone which would be a multi-level carpark that's partially sunken and would provide additional carparking over the existing carparked area here. There's the B6 building in here which would be, again, research and development. And that's next to the curtain of the cottage here. There's the B5 building in here. Again, research and development. It has a substation immediately next to it in here. This would be a new access route to allow drop-off as well as disabled carparking at the front of the site here. B4, also research and development. Building BBB is an existing building that will be refurbished as part of the proposals. Then there is the B3 extension which goes immediately to the east of the existing B3 building and that would principally be to a company to allow for the TWI engineering hall to be expanded. So the footprint of that is approximately 1,700 metres squared. So that's the footprint, not the total area, for example. And that's just under 2,500 metres for B5, approximately 2,800 for B4, 1,800 for B6. And then the north dead carpark zone will occupy an area of 3,750 square metres approximately. And as pointed out earlier, it's about 95.5 metres to the edge of Ableton Hall from B3. And as a result of the proposal, it would be approximately 72.2 metres. There would be 20 metre gaps as well that stipulate on the plans in between BBB and B4 and B5 to create these fingers, if you would, spacing between the buildings. Another plan is maximum building heights. So the north dead carpark zone will have a maximum building height of 37.5 metres above Ableton and Statham. B6 would be 49 metres. B4 would be 56.5. BBB, whilst being refurbished, would be 45.9 metres. For context, it's currently 44.6 metres to the curvature of the roof. But there is an existing chimney which does go to 47.5 metres. B5 would be 53.5 metres. The substation would be 38.5. And in the B3 extension, we have a maximum height of 49 metres. I have got plans later that also includes potential plant zones and a comparison against the wider grant park site. Again, accessing connections are included. So this route in here would be for vehicle route for deliveries and servicing. There would be a turning area in here for larger vehicles. So the larger vehicles are turning in there. So there is opportunity for a pedestrian crossing to create permeability north to south in these spaces. This would be a drop-off area, including car parking. And then it would connect on to the existing spine routes that runs through the site along here and goes up to the lake and round. There would be a, which is part of the list of building consent application that's coming in after this on the committee agenda, a four-metre gap in the cursor of the list of wall to allow for a vehicle to pass through and connect to the drop-off area. So this is a schedule of the development. So approximately 10,000 square metres worth of buildings would be demolished. That is the BBH building, Robert Jenks. Trevor Gooch and the Renaissance Hall. These buildings would be retained as B1, B2, the refurbished BBB, and then B3, as well as the street element which connects the B3 buildings together. The B3 extension would have 2,000 square metres of additional floor space. B4 is the largest of the buildings with 30,500, B5, 10,000, B6, 6,000. So in total, as a gross figure, it's 31,500 square metres of floor space. When you include the demolitions, it's just over 21,000 square metres. Of existing and new development, it's 63,000 to 64,000 square metres. So car parking on the site, there are currently 1,114 spaces, including this riverside area here. And under the proposal, through the decked car parking that would be going here, as well as some disabled car parking spaces along this drop-off, there'll be a net increase of 107 additional spaces. Following the member site visit, I've provided a bit more information about the tree removals and there is an update at the end of my presentation. The agricultural method statement that was on the file at the time of the site visit showed these two trees in here being removed when, in fact, they are being retained. So there are four trees along this area being retained, not two as I pointed out on the site visit. We're going through them. G50 says group of common limes, category B2. So three of the five would be removed and then two remaining would be retained. There's then this group of two in here, of which the larch would be removed and the hawthorn retained. Then there's this group of two at the back or further west here that would also be removed. This individual tree, T48, an intense cedar would be retained. And then this at the cedar would be removed, as well as these two Norway maple trees that they are category C trees, not category B, just to be clear. The other area of tree removals is around the B4 building, which would be eight English oak trees and two number field maple trees, category B2 and B3. They would be removed in their entirety. They form part of that tree preservation order, historic line that I was referring to earlier. As well as removing trees, obviously they are proposing replacement planting at just under four to one in terms of a ratio. These trees in here would be translocated because they're of a size that they can be done. So they'll be translocated within the wider area. So whilst they will be removed, they will be re-provided as well as some additional planting. As mentioned, these trees need to be removed. They're too large to be translocated due to their size, so there's not an opportunity to do that. Additional tree planting is proposed in the form of cherry trees, 19 of those, 16 apple trees, five malice trees, and some birch and older trees in the gaps, for example, as well. And then around the extension Ableton Hall, there would be a free number of additional trees planted here, as well as another tree here within the actual grassed area adjacent to B3. But there would also be quite substantial additional planting in the area to the other side of the spine road to the east around the setting of Ableton Hall as well. So showing what that could look like, this is an illustrative plan to be clear, just to show you how tree planting could be accommodated around the site as part of the wider landscaping. Again, this is one of the reserve matters, so it's illustrative at this point. Going back to building heights, as I mentioned before, the largest buildings is 56.5 metres, which is B4. There is on the plans that would be permitted effectively a flu zone, which stipulates the maximum heights that flues could be. Not to say that they will be that big, but that is the maximum heights that would be permitted if approved. So approximately six metres, just under six metres above on this one, slightly larger, just under nine metres in this one. And then at BBB, it would be around four metres additional flu heights. And then looking at the B3 extension, it would broadly mirror the existing row of pitched roofs along here. So it would have a 49 metre height with potential for a 52.5 metre if you include the flu. And then again, I've already touched on B4, but B6 would be 49 metres with potential for just over half metres additional flu height. And the debt carpark would be 37.5 metres in height. Obviously, these are parameter plans and the maximum heights, just to be clear. So the north debt carpark would be two and a half storey, partly sunken, as I mentioned before, and then rises above that. It will provide 177 spaces in total. So these are some illustrative graphics to help orientate the new development. So this would be the B3 extension. It would be this end pitch in here. And then you've got BBB, B4, B5, B6 in the north carpark. B1 and B2 in the street element are unaffected. Again, they're the building heights that I've just mentioned before, but there's a slide coming up that compares to the wider grant park, which I think is important, which is here. So I think I have some animations that will come on. So for context, the Illumina building at the south is 56.65 metres in height. The TWI proposal itself is between 45.9 and 56.5, the tallest building being B4. Biomed phase two, which was permitted recently to the southeast, the maximum is between 51 to 55 metres, which is 55.5 metres. The site six is 49.25 metres. The last building is adjacent to the entrance of the site, which is 57.1 metres. Just to be clear, they are AOD. So the scheme would be phased. So the idea would be that the B3 extension would be part of the first phase. As I mentioned before, that is the TWI engineering hall. So this is quite significant part of their development. Then would be the demolition of the buildings around the cottage and the new build of B6. The northern carpark and parts B5 to B4 would then come in part of the third phase. And then the final phase would be the refurbishment of BVB. So these are some illustrative layouts. As I mentioned before, the matters of scale, design, landscape etc. are all reserved. This is just to provide you with. So this is the north debt carpark is in the bottom left corner here for context. This is the B6 building with the cottage. You can just make out the roof, the orange roof in there, the cottage. This would be B5 over here. These are the existing riverside buildings that are unaffected. B4, the large of the buildings here. And this would be the refurbished BVB. The additional wing of B3 would come in here. And then they, on the context, they biomed permission for example over here, as well as the other buildings around. And again, just to introduce you, looking at how B6 might look when looking almost across the lake east from the creek ground, the riverside building existing in the background, and then the edges of sort of B5 in the main entrance there. Going further along, yeah, there's B4, B5 here, and then the existing streets. And then that's the western end of B3. So members who are on the site visit will recall we went round the key views that have been identified, they're the ones in yellow, that the landscape team, conservation and urban design have all agreed are the key views, so they will have been modelled in the landscape and visual impact assessment. So one next to the entrance, 26th from within the site, 16th at the Bourne Road junction, 13th at St Mary's Church in Little Ableton, 12th from the public footpath as it just goes over the river Granta, and 2, which is from Pamsford Road to the south. And then there are some internal views, south-east of the actual site itself near that car park, 22, which is from Ableton Hall, so yeah. So this is as existing from Granta Park, so in the bottom left corner I tried to use this to hopefully help orientate you. So looking to the east with wire frames on to indicate, so you've got B6, for example, over here, B4 being there, B3 extension, et cetera, to signify each building as how it would look. And then without the wire frames, so just the actual building themselves is principally the upper level of B4 here, which is most visible. And then going to the north long-form bridge road, this is as existing, so you can see to the east parts of the northwest of Granta Park. The proposal will be coming in here. Again, it's the top of B4 in here that is principally visible, as well as parts of B5, and without the wire frames, that is how it would look. This is from St Mary's Churchyard, immediately to the northeast of the site. That's existing. Again, you can see parts of B4 coming in here, and then this is how it looks without the wire frame. This is the view from the river Granta Park to the east of the site, so in the foreground are the existing riverside buildings. This is, as proposed, with wire frames. Again, B4, B5, and then with the wire frames off. And then this is view 2 from Pampasford Roads with South Lodge in the foregrounds. The development is screens from here. There is an A building one because there's no difference. Then going within the site itself, this is looking from the southeast, so you can see the existing B3 building here with wire frames showing B3 and parts of the roof there of B4. That principally is the B3, which is nearest to here. Sorry, just for clarification. The wire frames go across the mound of soil right in the foreground, but actually the ground in the foreground would hide it. Exactly, yes. So, yes, as filled. So, yes, you wouldn't see it because that's raised this ground level here. So I've got a view from this view. There's a wide lens view, so I thought it split into two. So this is to your Ableton Hall immediately to the west, to the left, sorry, on this plan here. Again, B3 as existing here with the wire frame. And then underneath is as proposed filled in. And then orientate yourself slightly to the right from that. So looking almost directly westwards. You can see B3 coming in here and then B5 in here. And then this is just to show with potential mitigation planting. So if I just go back the context, see that there, it's cashed up, yep. So you see there aren't many trees, for example, in here. So this is just to show what it may look like with additional tree planting. Then similarly from this view with additional tree planting. And this will be difficult to probably read, but it's showing, as I mentioned before, there were buildings, a building, sorry, next to Ableton Hall here, which has since been demolished, as you can see on the bottom three images. And just shows the different layers, if you would, with mitigation planting at the bottom, for example, versus with just the proposed development and then with wire frames. Then heading to the northwest of the site looking across the lake. These are the oak trees in here that were referred to. This is the existing BBB building with the cottage roughly in this location here. And the bottom image is with wire frames. So showing the extent of development. And then these are wire frames as well as being filled in with tree mitigation. So you can see, for example, this is how it would look filled in at the top here. And then this is how it would look with potential additional tree planting. So, as referred to earlier, there was an update to the agricultural method statement. I'm signing the second bullet point first, just because I've already brought that up. You'll see previously, most of my shows had all five of those trees being removed when, in fact, two are being retained. So, just to make that clear, it's a removal of 23 trees in total, not 25, as I've stated in paragraphs 3.4 and 10.87 of my report. The first update bullet point wise is that members may be aware Cambridge Southeast Transport Phase 2 is referred to in my report as a potential transport mitigation measure. Since my report was drafted, the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly met on 7 September, the minutes of which were only published last week, which confirms that work on Seaset Phase 2 has now been paused. While it's been paused, our feeling is that, as this development is going to be phased over approximately 8 to 10 bus years, it's not considered this affects the financial contributions requested in the relevant paragraphs. In addition, the report makes clear it could go towards Seaset Phase 1 for the Greenway as well, so the financial contribution doesn't need to change. So concluding, in terms of the plan balance, in terms of, I'll start with potential refusal reasons. Members will note that there are objections from conservation regarding less substantial harm to heritage assets, those being the conservation area of Greater Little Abington, the setting of Samarys Church to the North East, and then the Abington Hall itself. Officers agree that there is less and substantial harm to these heritage assets, and that's set out in my report for detailed reasoning behind that. Officers have also concluded that there is a lower level of harm to the visual quality of the landscape, principally through the removal of those oak trees, but that level of harm is very low, in our opinion, and similarly, again, harm to the character of the area through the loss of those oak trees, those two into one. And then in terms of material considerations that were in favour of the scheme, the principle of development is acceptable and the effect was on an established science park. Officers consider there will be significant economic benefits through the creation of circa 1,500 additional jobs and 21,000 square metres of net additional law space. The sustainability performance of the buildings will be greater than the buildings to be demolished and will have long-term benefits in that regard. There's extensive replacement tree planting, which we feel compensates the loss of some of these trees on the site. There would be financial contributions towards local sustainable transport infrastructure, as mentioned, and there's an opportunity for biodiversity net gain on the site. So, for the reason set out in the report, the officer recommendation is one of the approval subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Sorry. Now we come to questions of clarification. Councillor Williams. Hello, Williams. Thank you, Chair. Just before I make my questions, I just need to declare the interest in one interuptual presentation that I set on the Great Cambridge Partnership Assembly and obviously there's reference to that through the report. I've just noticed, well, the assembly didn't make the decision to pause. That was made on the 28th by the board because the assembly isn't a decision-making body, so I was part of the consultation and scrutiny of that, but not the decision. So just two things. At the board meeting, it was said that after a certain time there might be alternatives or alternative plans to see set. So if we could make sure this does go ahead that alternatives are included, I say it won't make any difference the amount that's there, but it's future-proofed, as you say. It's a long-term thing. The other thing, if I could just get clarification on, is that you might want to stop sharing your screen now. I don't know. It's lovely that you are making notes on what I'm saying, but yes. So obviously through the report, from the parishes, understandably, there's a lot of concern about heights of the building and the changing, and I appreciate within the outlines what the design parameters, but scale is something that will be dealt with later on. Is there potential at a later stage to look at ground levels and about we have had it on other sites where actually we ask for the building to be dropped to a certain sort of excavate and dig in? Almost we've had some buildings actually look very much like Lord of the Rings, a hobbit base, because it's built into a mound. Obviously that's quite pretty. Is that something that if this were to go forward today, could be sort of compromised, be found with the parishes, or be at least be able to, although they'd get the building height, which I appreciate they need to get the commercial space, but be able to lower the ground levels? Or is that something that this outline would that fall into design parameters rather than scale? A clarification there would be very helpful. For you, Chair, if permission was granted there would be nothing to precludes options of being explored that were sunken into the ground, for example, these would be maximum building heights effectively, so they couldn't go above that height. We would need to assess the impact on the character, et cetera, as part of any future reserve matters application. So in short, there's nothing to preclude that option being explored, but that would be subject to reserve matters at a later date. So just to clarify, so everyone's clear and included myself, today we're capping the building height, but not it's above ground height. To be clear, it's the maximum height above ordnance datum, is what we're through the parameter plan. That would be if permission was granted. To clarify, I can say to William just saying do we have any indication of the actual height above ground level? Because perhaps more clearer to members. I don't think we have a plan that shows the ground levels in that regard. It says above ordnance datum on the parameter plans, for example, that's listed on there. But there's not a separate plan that I understand that's focused on that. Yeah. Councillor Harvey. Thank you, Chair. I wasn't going to be taking part in the debate. Do I have your permission to leave? I think we're a quorum without me, so. Okay, thank you. So, Councillor Fay. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I did have a question. Clearly one of the issues is the effect on grade two star Abingdon hold. The conservation team in their second comment say that they make no further assessment of the proposal on the setting of St Mary's and the conclusions on assessment of harm remain as previously set out. That's paragraph 637 on page 92. So that is set out 630 with the overall level of harm is considered moderate, less than substantial. However, they do say in both their first and second comments further information and or amendments required. And I thought it would be helpful to know whether any such further information or amendments have been put in. And on the same subject, looking at Abingdon Hall, perhaps I've missed it. I was surprised there was no comments from English Heritage. For you, Chair, starting with the second part. Historic Englands were consulted and their advice was we defer to the advice of your local specialist officers. So they have been consulted, but they didn't make any substantial comments. Which I think is paragraph 6.70 of the report. In terms of conservation teams request further information, part of this was about heritage addendum, which I think is referred to in their second comments. They didn't feel it went far enough was their view. And the other aspect is about whether potential more tree planting could be done between St Mary's Church and, for example, around the Riverside buildings. That wasn't feasible and to be honest, it wouldn't have made a significant amount of difference is the view that we took as officers. So we felt we had to assess it as what's been proposed. Councillor Bradner. Thank you, Chair. I took the opportunity to go back again after our site visit and I went on my own and had a look at the arounding area and what became apparent to me was that there didn't seem to be very much recognition of St Mary the Virgin Church in Great Abington identified it on your heritage, on your identification of heritage assets but there seems to be a degree of confusion between the two because St Mary the Virgin in Great Abington is actually closer than St Mary in Little Abington. It's a slightly further distance. However, the views to St Mary the Virgin Church which is due east are somewhat obscured by trees and so because it's lower. I just wondered in the report and indeed the view from St Mary the Virgin Church you can actually see the side of the Riverside buildings you can't actually see Abington Hall from there but I just wondered whether you felt that sufficient weight had been given to the views from that church as well. It's sort of in the area of the farm that you referred to as well. For you chair. This application I think has been clear in my report perhaps has been through quite extensive pre-application process as well as the design review panel. As part of the pre-application process we had to agree the views from that landscape and visual impact assessment. The conservation team again did not request that view I know they may not have explicitly said exactly why in their comments for example but it was never requested by the conservation team in terms of that impact so my understanding would be that they're comfortable with the relationship between that list of building and the site that there isn't going to be harm otherwise I'd like to think that they would have requested it. Thank you. Okay, if there are any more questions I'll have councillor. Thank you chair. I was just wondering about the principle of development policies. If we look at 10.1 it says that maybe 10.2 sorry about policy E15 with the local plan established employment area. I had a look at that and point 3 of that policy was that commission will be refused where there would be a negative impact on surrounding countryside or landscape character. I just wondered how that ties in because the report does mention landscape character harms. I'd be grateful for the guidance on that. Thank you. For you chair. If for example officers were minded to refuse it in terms of that harm being sufficient enough to warrant refusal then we would quote that policy and that criteria specifically in this case as part of the application the application versus that harm which obviously set out in conclusion chapter 10 sorry of my committee report our feeling is that we have identified there is some harm to the landscape impact but that the significant economic benefits as well as the other public benefits that will arise in terms of the way that harm so I understand that it says if there's harm it's unacceptable but as officers we have to make that assessment in the conclusion. So if members or officers were minded to recommend or members are minded to make a recommendation of refuse or hypothetically then that policy could be used as part of that argument but in this case we're comfortable that the material considerations outweigh the council abandonment and then I think we'll move to the thank you chair for letting me come back a second time I knew I meant to ask something else and that was at 6.94 the paragraph on page 99 the report says there is no account of the acoustic surveys that have been carried out and anecdotally I understand there's been quite a lot of problems with noise from the site for residents in Little Abington and I just wondered why there isn't any account of the acoustic survey you know because if there's been correspondence for a long time between the residents and the site at TWI then why isn't there any weight being given to that and I was having a quick look at the health impact assessment and I see that there is a report there but I haven't had a chance to see whether there is a detail about noise I wondered if you could clarify that please again for you chair there is a noise assessment that's made with the application this looks the existing background but as the because we don't know what type of plant for example would be on there it's not going to have details about this plant will cause this much decibel etc so there has been a noise assessment and the environmental health team have been consulted they are happy that in principle is okay subject to a noise assessment condition which would then mean that once the reserve matters come through and there's more detail about the plant this will help but as I understand it there may be a question for the agent when they speak there have been ongoing dialogues with the parish council and local residents about noise will help from a statutory news perspective have also been involved I don't know the outcomes of those discussions but it might be something that the agent may be able to clarify as they've been more directly involved in that side of it sorry I'm coming back on that I can see there's a condition 8 conditions noise at 8f for demolition but is there also a condition relating to noise on the site when it's when buildings are in use or will that not come until later that's on page 142 and 143f is at the top of a page 143 but that relates to construction it doesn't relate to when the site's in use for you chair sorry to interrupt condition 18 would be the one that would cover that matter thank you very much now we move on to the applicant can I ask Mr Justin Bainton to present the application you have three minutes and we'll report to him thank you chair thank you for the opportunity to speak at the planning committee TWI is one of the UK's leading independent research and technology organisations and have owned the site since 1946 the campus features a number of buildings which are outdated inefficient and no longer fit for purpose this outline application will enable TWI to repurpose and redevelopment the estate to meet their changing requirements to provide new lab science accommodation to which there's significant need together with providing a platform to meet their ambitious sustainability agenda with a wider aim of being carbon neutral at the end of 1935 fundamentally TWI cannot afford to carry inefficient dead space which will fundamentally compromise the efficiencies of their operation and ultimately the sustainability of their business the outline application has been subject to extensive pre-application discussions with local authority and key stakeholders and has led to the evolution of the scheme this has resulted in a number of points which I want to make this outline application is supported and a master plan which sets out the framework of future development for the next 10 years and beyond which is supported by officers the tallest building within development B4 is no taller than the alumina building but is also below that of the most recent consent being site 1 the building is located within the centre of the site and it's bookended by the existing Brethren Braithway building to the west and building B5 to the east which steps to down the height it's important to note there's a split change in level within the site so buildings B3, B4 and B5 will read as being a little story lower when viewed from the south and overall the height of the scheme is very much in sync with existing development within the site as explained in the committee report the approach of making sensible but not excessive use of building heights has allowed the applicant to reduce the footprint of development and enhance the opportunities for landscaping an approach supported by the design review panel existing curtain listed wall and cottage are fundamentally compromised by the older buildings on the site and their removal creates opportunities for landscaping and open up connections and creates a focal open space to the development around the lake grant park is surrounded by an established woodland belt and this plays an important role in inscrating the park with its surroundings in terms of longer distance views contained within the site whilst the upper elements of the proposed development will be perceptible from a limited vantage point outside the confines of the site there will be considerable distance from the site to these viewpoints and the visibility will naturally diminish over time with the growth of planting trees within the site and the development of the reserve matter scheme would also respond to the site context as well the scheme will deliver a net increase in 63 trees as a result in the removal of 23 trees however the scheme seeks to plant 86 in total a ratio of just under 4 trees for everyone tree removed this is a significant level of tree planting the scheme will facilitate re-planning of the campus provides TWI with the opportunity to review access arrangements and security and in doing so the applicant has promoted a public access condition which will provide a mechanism to review site access strategies this is referenced in condition 20 of the committee report Please can you wind up now because it's a few minutes to go Thank you. I would just like to say that the scheme also will contribute to the Cambridge region in terms of the national region of local playing and economic objectives generating additional employment this is reflected in the Cambridge employment and housing evidence update 2022 which identifies as a significant shortfall of lab space accommodation in terms of the development plan national playing policy framework Thank you very much. Have you any questions for the applicant? Councillor Wilson Thank you. I just wanted to ask what size of trees would you be replanting and how long do you think it will take for them to achieve the size of the trees that are being removed? Within the landscaping strategy we're proposing a good proportion of trees to be good stock sizes so they're not small width that I haven't got I can't give you the precise number now but there is a good proportion which are good size trees we feel that they're going to start normally within looking at the LVIA process the assumption is within 10 to 15 years those trees will start to make meaningful impacts on the wider landscape setting I'm just going to add to that in terms of the precise figure there will be generally in the 20 to 25 centimetre girth range so there is a new larger specimen trees and tree species have been included that provided diverse and resilient pallets that can thrive in challenging urban environments currently being impacted by climate change that's from their agricultural method statement I presume therefore that there will be tree spade and four vice trees spade yes it does Councillor Williams Thank you chair and through yourself I've got a couple of questions first of all it was said about the extensive key stakeholder engagement we can have an idea of with the parish council as a particular how much engagement has been and over what period the other thing is in relation to the heights obviously that's something of concern so some sort of reasoning or you've probably heard what I was saying about digging deep is that something that's been considered at any point and finally there is throughout the report from the parishes of concern that the access for the public isn't formalised wondering whether it will be agreeable to have that as a condition that there be some sort of public access arrangements solid to the public know where they stand unless I've got to find me something in the conditions it's condition 20 in that case you might not need to answer that one sorry there's a lot of conditions to like the way through Mr Hammond can you can you just on that condition condition 20 has a public access plan as part of that so just to come back on that point but any other questions were for the agent I believe Mr Bainton Thank you I mean in terms of pre-application engagement we're probably working on the scheme for best part of 10 months prior to submitting the application which involved consultation we had a PPA plan performance agreement in place with the local authority which was also involved a series of meetings discussing the scheme also with county highways and the like we did have a meet a public meeting with a great Anilita Levington parish council where we presented the scheme and discussed the proposals and I think it's fair to say from their perspective and they'll be speaking I think shortly after me so they'll be able to correct me if I'm wrong but I think that the key messages were about public access which obviously we just commented on and we I think we feel that the reserve matter scheme which will be coming forward provides an opportunity to actually look at all the security measures within the site and how the site functions and circulates and it's a prime opportunity for us to actually actively engage in looking at public access it's not going to the site isn't a public park but I think there's obviously an understanding on the applicant's part that there's a degree of concern and frustration with the lack of access currently which is born out through historic reasons but that's something which we see this application at the reserve matter stage being an opportunity to address in terms of the public consultation as I said we did speak and discussed the scheme the other appointment I think was concerned about building heights which obviously have been discussion so far today I'm sure there will be a debate about that later Thank you chair and to clarify the extensive key stakeholder engagement with the parishes one meeting sorry when I said extensive engagement I wasn't in my speech I was referring to generally the ten months of work which led up to the Splanks mission just to be clear we did have one meeting with the great little Hamilton parish council I know TWI have been speaking to them as well separately but there was one formal presentation and discussion Okay councillor sorry and apologies there were two meetings apologies to be corrected councillor Brandon Thank you very much yes actually public access was one of the things I wanted to ask you about Mr Bainton because in the very distant past I visited this site in a professional capacity and when the site was first being developed with the new buildings that you are now about to knock down and one of the things that was recognised there that was when the footpath from Great Abington was established up to Abington Hall and as far as I'm aware there was always a footpath around Abington Hall and down to the riverside to the River Granta below and then up towards the Little Abington church but I notice on a visit that that gate is now locked with a combination lock and so obviously people who live in Great Abington or Little Abington want to walk that way to work can presumably get through but the public can't and I just wondered I understand the reasons why that's been done I believe you had some damage on the site so you've felt the need to improve the security but I just wondered do you believe that there will be a solution where some of that site can be accessible along that original footpath and that that can be you know some of the site can be made accessible and some will not be the other thing I wanted to ask was to the west of Abington Hall currently well no the other way around on the plans there is an indication of a settlement which you call it a water suds what do we call it attenuation pond to the west of Abington Hall and to the east of the existing road and hence the screening planting on the plans is only indicated around the western edge of that attenuation pond and I just wanted to ask is that the same attenuation pond that currently exists there is a slight dip in the ground there between Abington Hall and the road so is that going to remain unchanged and was the intention that trees will be planted along the west edge of that as well as on the other side of the road to screen the new extension of v3 we're proposing sort of like attenuation area which is adjacent to Abington Hall and we've specifically planted or proposed planting around the perimeter of that zone the site is chalk based so there's a good natural infiltration that takes place so that a lot of the time that area will remain dry but the proposal that was shown on the sort of strategic landscaping plans to kind of wrap the planting around that area I'm not entirely sure which other zone you were referring to is that sorry that's the area I was talking about and I'm always slightly worried about containerisation of surface water because the flush out from those containers can be in question but that's fine it is the area that I was talking about but the second thing was the public access again the footpath I'm going to not be able to sort of answer that directly in that I think the whole access strategy and the point of the condition is to actually look at all the entrance points into the park and how best to get the balance between providing ongoing security for the site but also enabling access and there is already access which is inconvenient to the residents which is on the other side of the park and I think obviously I think the point is that currently there's got some old buildings within the site with protected sensitive equipment and I think the whole reserve matter schemes as they come forward will look holistically at the connections within the site and how security can best be provided so I'm sure all the entrance points will be up for discussion whether or not it's through some kind of electric code system or register I don't know to be honest but that's something which TWI committing to is part of the submission of the first reserve matter scheme Thank you I'm not quite clear from the response whether you're saying that the existing ground form is the final form for the attenuation bond or whether further excavation will be undertaken There's a smaller excavation area adjacent to Avington Hall there will be some excavation part of the development of the scheme itself although the scheme as indicated within the excavation does make use of the natural topography of the site because there is a step-changing level between the existing buildings and the buildings to the rear but specifically the attenuation bond that is the final the form that it is now is the final form it's not going to be further excavated we've shown we would expect full technical details to be presented at reserve matter stage we've provided an outline stage to strategy which has been agreed to by the lead local flood authority to identify those areas but that will be developed again Thank you Thank you very much indeed Now we have presentation by the parish council Mr Tony Orgy Councilman Orgy chair of Avington parish council is here with us you have three minutes can I first confirm that you have approval of the council to speak on the parish council to speak on their behalf Yes I do Thank you Thank you very much Great Avington parish council fully understands and appreciates the need to replace some of the older buildings on TWI to improve their quality and environmental impact however it is important to remember that this is a rural area and not an urban location and what is proposed needs to take account of its location Great Avington parish council's reasons for objections are set out in paragraphs 6.53 to 6.65 in the agenda papers As you've already said the heights referred to throughout this document are above ordinance data heights as opposed to the physical heights of buildings reference has been made to other buildings on the whole site of grantor park The Illumina building for example is 19.5 meters high physical height that's what you'd see if you stood in front of that building The gateway building on site 1 the entrance to grantor park is 22.5 meters high or will be when it's completed its construction Proposed building B4 is 25 26.5 meters high from ground level to the top of the building apart from flues and so on So this would be the tallest building on the whole of grantor park It would be the only building with five stores on the whole of grantor park The parish council's view is that a more appropriate height limit would be set at 39.0 meters above ordinance data that is in line with the adjoining buildings B1, B2 and B3 and this in fact is in accord with the documents which were shared with Great Abiton and Little Abiton and a meeting held on the 19th of October 2022 which showed building B4 with four stores and not five I note from the agenda papers something we haven't seen before was about the meeting and the design review panel which met on the 13th of October 2022 just a few days before the meeting with the parish council and I'd like to ask whether the design review panel saw buildings with B4 with four stores or with five The conservation team was commented that there would be a change in the outlook and setting of the conservation area due to the considerable additional height and cumulative impacts of the development and in their view view 12 in the LVIA demonstrates that the buildings B4, B5 and B6 would be visible over the existing built form and tree line due to the additional height and bulk The parish council also concerned about the loss of mature trees and in particular the group of oak trees which have been referred to already We would also commend the views of our two local parish of the two local district councillers John Batchelor and Henry Batchelor in the representation that they've made and so in conclusion what I would say is that great happens in parish council recognises the need to replace some of TWI's older buildings but considers in particular the perimeter height maximum should be no higher than 49.0 AOD Thank you very much indeed Have we any questions for Mr Orgy? Councillor Orgy Councillor William Thank you for your self-chair The October 22 meeting referred to is that one of the two meetings that the previous speaker referred to or did you get in those two meetings to see it as revised for the new heights and the five stories? Right, the October 19 meeting was organised by TWI and invited representatives from both grades and at Abington parish councils and three members from each council attended that meeting There was a separate public meeting on the 30th of January 2023 in the Abington Institute where the proposals has the applicant had put forward was presented to the parishes and there was a full attendance I think at the meeting and a wide variety of views were expressed almost entirely against the proposals although people could recognise the need for improving the buildings improving their energy efficiency and so on and they could see the need for what was being proposed but not necessarily the detail Councillor Fane had a point I just wondered whether the point that Councillor Orgy just raised about the height of before and what height was being considered by the design review panel last October our case officer was present at that and I wondered whether that was worth clarifying I can probably actually it might be easier for me to share my screen I have the design review panel presentation if you hold on one moment Sorry, with your permission chair it tells us on page 153 about four plus one stories so It's a question the case officer apparently so would you for your chair so hopefully sharing on my screen now that you can see it hopefully this is what was presented to design review panel so you'll notice one of the main changes is actually around what was at B6 the design review panel had concerns about the overbearing impact that that extra wing here would have but yes before it looks like it was what we'd call four plus one four stories and then the roof panel and I think that's out on page 153 of the committee report and the appendix so this is what was presented to design review panel if that helps Relate Other questions Sorry We need to know how the 4.1 relates to the AOD the point that's Sorry in terms of the AOD point I think this plan here should hopefully summarise it at the design review panel stage it was 52.5 metres AOD not showing plant above but that was what was presented to the design review panel and that is the we're now told that the B4 is 56.5 Yeah B4 as proposed is taller than what was shown to the design review panel it again the maximum height it's largely as a result of losing that floor space on B6 I was pointing out earlier where it wrapped around so it was reconfiguring now ultimately sorry going to be our topic here but it was urban design I've also obviously seen this and are comfortable with that extra height in terms of how it sits in the wider grant park but that might be part for the debate rather than now Sorry I think my question is going to try and clarify what the exchange there was so to be clear the design enabling panel was consulted on a lower height than what is proposed Yes the design review panel saw a different scheme as I presented where had three buildings but the layout was different and the heights were different yes I think it is generally the case that our when you presented design review panel the design is reviewed in relation to the conclusions Thank you now I think I think that's all the questions we now have I will now listen to we will now listen to the representative of Little Abbey Comparise Council Jess Orr Ashford and I propose after the presentation by Councillor Ashford to Mrs Ashford to have a break and then we will come through to the debate after a short comfort break Thank you Thank you Chairman Thank you You have three minutes sorry Okay Little Abbey Comparise Council objects to the application on the following grounds the proposed buildings will create a very urban environment and will be visible across rural surroundings the height of the buildings would also set a precedent across Grant Park site permissions have been granted for a five story building at the entrance to Grant Park but this has no impact on the surrounding villages unlike the proposed application the height is increased by 11.9 meters to be five stories plus additional plant on the roof this is wholly inappropriate in a rural setting and proximity to a historic village the proposed development would dominate the skyline of a rural village the additional materials provided by the applicant to assert that the development would have a positive impact on the area and surrounding villages without providing any justification for this the visual impact assessment submitted continue not to take into account the visual perspectives of the proposed development from the viewpoint of the villages of Little Abbington and Great Abbington therefore presenting only an incomplete assessment this is based on the meeting we had in January the sight lines are all from within Grant Park the addendum to the design and access statement is similarly, sorry I can't speak misleading, it presupposes that the only relevant height metric to be considered is against above ordinance this is an inappropriate measurement and has clearly been selected as it is biased in favour of the development AOD is irrelevant only the actual height of the buildings as used against physical ground level is relevant and by this reference each of B4 and B5 would be materially taller than any of the other buildings referenced in the document the document also fails to take into account the sighting of the reference buildings on Grant Park and the fact that the proposed buildings of B4 and B5 would be much more approximate to the Abbingtons and therefore much more impactful the rural setting of Grant Park and the inappropriate nature of the buildings of that height the established understanding as evidence in the historic decision notices and design guidance submitted that buildings on the site should be constrained in height it remains the case even if similar total square footage of the proposed buildings were to be desirable likely instead be achieved with buildings of comparable heights to those being replaced in building in the gaps between buildings BBB, B4 and B5 there is no account of the acoustic surveys that have been carried out noise levels from residents in little Abbingtons particularly those living on Westfield have been unbearable there has been correspondence between TWI and residents for over five years regarding noise with no signs of this concluding there would also be a considerable increase in light pollution the master plan for the grant park site included agreed walkways and permissive routes for residents master plan has been lost and access has been removed since 2018 this had been an asset for those living in Little Abbingtons as there are very few green spaces to walk in June to having the A11 and A1307 border in the village the council also recommend that the planning committee take all planning applications into account across the grant park site including TWI, Biomid and other agents thank you chairman thank you very much any questions for miss Lashridge no thank you very much indeed now is 25 past 11 I will have a 10 minute break if we can meet him at 25 to 12 thank you very much indeed thank you very much thank you very much welcome back now we come to the debate have there any comments in the debate who would like to open the debate can't say that someone's got go first I don't mind it being me chair I think to me this is it's a difficult one because I agree that we want the employment space we want the more jobs we want more environment friendly buildings and all positive my microphone is playing up now conspiracy in the ranks but yes so for me I think that what here is it's needed and that it could be a very positive thing for myself and I'm particularly looking at our supplement pack page 27 I do think in relation to the buildings, the natural area and the setting that these are walking great big tall industrial units I appreciate it's actually harder I think it would be easier if it was full planning because we've got the flexibility but equally we're already looking at indicative and illustrative things so I hope no matter what happens people are listening to concerns here I don't think that the parish councils are being unreasonable in the 49 meter I think that sounds actually quite reasonable the fact that the local community are willing to support the development here is a really positive thing I think it's a very mature thing something that shouldn't be overlooked by any of us because we know how difficult it is when things do break down and we don't have that I don't think that would be unreasonable but also I can see that the economic argument of wanting that extra floor why we don't have so much land and going up so for myself I don't feel that the current proposal makes enough effort to create that balance which we are seeking between the benefits of this and its impact into the local area and local setting so for me I feel like there's still work to be done here or that actually we get the best out of this I've mentioned obviously for myself about lowering almost four levels above ground basement sort of below ground so you still get that space I think there is potential here to get something that works but I think if we were to approve something with such height at this stage I would feel extremely uncomfortable about the impact some of the visuals that were shown us we cannot get away from the fact that this is going to have a change on the landscape but for me it's just a little bit I think it's more of a compromise to be had thank you chair councillor Braden thank you chair before I would just like to remind you again that this is an application so we consider it in that terms and there will be further detail in the reserve map that's fine thank you right so I've said to members I visited the site twice and I walked all around it in the villages of Little Abington and Great Abington and I went with my binoculars and I went with my eyes and my camera and whilst there are lots of things I don't like about this they are large buildings on high land but if anybody didn't attend the site visit we had they will be unaware that actually the land drops quite significantly between the southern part of the site roughly parallel with Abington Hall and the north part of the site which is immediately north of the B3 building and that is why the applicant is quoting AOD because although these buildings are high they actually do already sit down below the level of the land at B3 so the buildings will be prominent the B3 extension brings it that much closer to Abington Hall the heritage asset there and but having said that actually I think getting rid of some of the rather older buildings around the heritage asset of the Gardner's Cottage and the Curtillage Wall I think will actually improve the situation there very unattractive buildings around it at the moment and I think this could actually serve to improve that environment around that heritage asset clearly in terms of business and wanting to enable not preventing people from expanding businesses is important we need to encourage employment sites and so in principle I think what is being proposed here is not unreasonable the reason I made the point about saying I visited the site from around it is that yes the buildings are tall but actually there is a lot of mature plants, there is a lot of mature trees in the landscape between the villages of Abington, Little Abington and Great Abington and St Mary the Virgin Church you can only see views of the Riverside Building you can't actually see even the B3 which is a tall building on the site and I think the B4 and 5 buildings the tallest buildings will actually be behind so I think the views with some planting could be mitigated I also think I would not like to think that we refused an application for something which will improve employment on the site and will rationalise the functions but but there are a lot of trees being felled here in order to put the B3 extension on there are some significant trees and I'm glad it's not 25 it's only 23 that are being taken out there the ones that my heart breaks over are the eight oak trees which are in the place where B4 needs to be built and so I think I'm minded to consider this I'm still not quite there but I would like to think we would be considering a really serious condition on this that says you need to you need to replant and not mature trees because they don't have a great record of surviving but actually set aside a piece of land on this park to plant eight oaks and two field maples in a place where they won't be disturbed in future and can grow for 40 years and re-establish the biodiversity that that kind of tree has in it just as a little aid memoir an old tree of 40 or 50 years an old oak tree of 40 or 50 years age can house as many as 1,500 different species on it that will be lost as will the microflora in the soil when these trees are felled and so I would like to suggest is that the applicant might want to consider this setting aside a place on the site where they can build trees that won't interfere with their future plans for Granter Park that will in due course in another 50 years might restore the biodiversity that will be lost by these trees that were part of the park that was Abington Hall so I don't know if we can do that but that's what I'd like to suggest Councillor Ffain thank you like Councillor Bratton I visited the site I haven't perhaps paid such assiduous visits to the two churches I see a number of issues before us the first is the effect on the grade 2 listed Abington Hall obviously B3 will be substantially closer and with fewer trees but that has been dealt with by our officers and that is I think accepted by Heritage England Historic England there we are so I think we should accept that the next issue is the trees which Councillor Bratton mentioned yes I'm sorry to see those go and I see that on page 159 looking at the panel's view they said that the oak's located on the site proposal before is an important issue which doesn't appear to have been carefully considered well there's been time to consider that since of course and some adjustments to the plan this well-established group was retained when the previous development proceeded and their removal lacks justification however I would prefer the suggestion made by Councillor Bradman that taking a long-term view the developers might choose to establish another site as to the impact of the development on the neighbouring villages and the viewpoints I wasn't convinced from my visit that was given the very significant distances that was going to have a significant level of harm certainly not such as would offset the economic benefit through the enhancement of the employment floor space at Grant Park and as we know this is a factor which is I mean obviously it is set out in the local plan in MPPF but it's a particular local concern the need for further space not in this case for labs so while I may be disappointed that it wasn't possible to accommodate the suggestions of the design panel when looking at the four-story version of B4 I think we have to accept that there is a need for additional space and that the impact of that on the surrounding area were not sufficient as to justify a refusal we clearly have to consider the application before us the other application might have been put forward and although this is outline this is I think part of the parameter plans so I think chair that I was the last one wanting to speak here I would be proposing that we move to a vote and I would intend to vote Can I just finish what I was saying chair? I would propose that we move no, I'll finish what I'm saying I would propose that we move to a vote and my intention would be to vote in favour I have now finished what I wanted to say Before we go to a vote chair could I request that my request that we ask for an additional condition condition 4 refers to the aborocultural method statement but I would like to suggest that we add a condition requiring planting of the trees as I described I don't know if that's possible but that's what I would like Can we ask advice of the office? Through you chair our response would be is that landscaping is a reserved matter to be dealt with at a later stage if it helps I mean the applicants here in the room anyway so we've heard the discussions but we could add an informative on potentially to suggest that but we couldn't add a condition I don't think to this Would that be acceptable? I would like the informative to be quite specific so I would like it to refer to a minimum of eight oaks and two maples in a location that will not jeopardise future development of the site in other words that it would be planned as part of the ongoing development of the site such that it won't be in the way of new development and get it booted out I'd like to see these grow to 40 years 50 years Can we frame some words around that? Apparently it's possible so we'll take that and Councillor Wilson Councillor Wilson Thank you chair On the subject of trees can we also make sure that those trees are properly maintained because after what we've seen happening along the A14 that there is an ongoing requirement for those trees to be properly maintained or replaced if they die Thank you I have a briefly going to comment because before we go to the vote and I've had requests to go to the vote so following that I will go to the vote I was going to comment that I would concur with Councillor Fane's view that the distance at the distance that you have the impact is not really significant it's already you can see some buildings the effect of the additional buildings even with the site higher at that distance really is only a minor feature in the landscape I don't feel personally that that's a significant a particularly significant issue the impact on Abington Hall however of the extension of B3 is quite significant I think the pressure of the employment argument is strong it's close but the landscaping I will concur will be very important element in the this is an outline application landscaping will be very important on that and that's something that we all need to take concern the other issue raised by the Parish Council of Noise is I'm sure it's significant if it's been problems over a number of years but building new development to a higher standard of insulation may actually improve the noise but it's a factor that we should be taking into account in the detail really taking into account at the later stage in the reserve matters but that will be an issue that I think we ought to make particular attention to and make sure that the situation is improved rather than getting worse just because it's larger it's really a matter of the insulation issues those are the issues that I think but overall my tendency is to think that the advantages in terms of local employment act way the undoubted impact and I shall be tending supporting this application can we now go to a vote please Councillor I was just about to do that to support Councillor Fein but I was just going to say if we could just have it noted about when I said my questions about C-set about the funding to and all have the words for alternative as well which I'm sure should not be controversial room and then I was going to second Councillor Fein's recommendation to go to a vote thank you sorry the application has proved thank you very much indeed now we move to applications I'll get the number right here sorry 23 06 08 06 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 but both, mae'r eich rhaid o'r cyfnod y cyfnod yw yma, ond eich bod yw'n gwybod ar y cyfnod yw hefyd. Mae'r llwy fawr hefyd, ei ddechrau ar y llefydd, a'r llwy fawr hefyd o'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod yw hefyd, ac yn ymdweithio'r gyffredinig i'r fferfynu. Mae'r llwy fawr hefyd, mae'r fawr hefyd yn y sgwyl ym 4 metr. Mae'n wneud amser y cwrdd, yn cael ei ddweud, a ddwy'r cyfnod sefydiao yn gweithio'r cyfnod, o'r ddweud o'ch gweithio. Felly mae'n bod yn cyfnodau cyd-diw ar gyfer cyd-diw, oherwydd o'r cyd-diw, o'r credu y llifio'n gyffredinol iawn i amser ar gyfer ylliannol Ableton Hall. Mae'n rhaid i'r ddweud o'r cyffredinol, rhaid i'n gweithio'n gwych ar gyfer y llai, yn y llai'n gweithio'n gweithio, mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. dwi'n dweud o hyffordd y rheol, ac ydy'r llyw ar y casllig, ac mae'r gwahbwil ar y sgol. Ymgyrch, mae'r llyfr o'r nienau, ac mae'r llyfr o'r nienau, ac yr hyfodol o'r gwahbwile, ac yna'r llyfr yn creu methu i ddod o'r llyfr yn creu'r mihoch? Mae yna'r llyfr yn creu. Ond y prif wedi ar y cyfnod. Mae'r toliad y hoffodd yn y gilydd hyrynbwyddol o'r llyfr yn y cyfnod. no harm has been identified to heritage assets, including this building itself, and so approval was recommended subject to conditions. Thank you, Chair. OK, can I have the speaker, the applicant, please? Mr Justin Bainton. I'm happy for the debate to continue. Thank you, Chair. Got nothing to add. Thank you. Thank you. The parish council, Mr Orgy, do you wish to speak? Thank you, yes. The parish council's views are set out in full in paragraph 6.2 of this particular agenda item. The parish council noted that a considerable part of this listed wall had been knocked down during the construction of the Robert Jenkins building, and the council felt that no further changes should be made to the listed wall, apart from repair and maintenance. In the parish council's view, the applicant should find an alternative access without interfering with the wall. This was one of the issues that came up very strongly at the 30th of January 2023, public meeting held in the Abingdon Institute, and there was widespread opposition from those attending to this particular action. That's what I've got to say. Thank you. Have you any questions for Mr Orgy? Councillor Brown. Thank you. Mr Orgy, could you just remind us when the wall was originally built and whether it is contemporaneous with the cottage? I'm not too sure of the details, but I understand it's part of the wall garden of Abingdon Hall. I presume it was built in the late 18th, 30th, 19th century, but that's a personal view. I can't guarantee that that's absolutely correct. I think it is shown on the 1885 plan, the wall at least. Anyway, thank you. I believe the hall itself was at some major building working in about 1820. Have you any further questions? Thank you very much, Mr Orgy. Mrs Ashwidge from Little Abingdon Parish Council. Do you wish to speak? No, Little Abingdon, I have nothing further to add. Thank you. Have we now moved to the debate? Councillor Brandon. I just wanted to clarify, actually, with the officer first before, the second bullet on page 167 refers to the fact that the section that's being proposed to be removed is a corner section, which would have provided bracing for the remaining section. I wonder whether, in the provision of piers to make the opening, whether there is an intention to provide some buttressing to support, because now you're going to end up with some sections of wall that basically look like this. At one place there's a pier, and then there's another gap. This is going to be vulnerable. It would be vulnerable because it hasn't got this. So is there some plan to provide some buttressing in the provision of piers? I think that's a question for the officers. Thank you, Chair. I'll just share my screen again, because I think the plan is a shot better than I could describe. At the bottom here is the section, so it would be filled in here with potential, so I think it appears to be, yes, just the pier there. The detail would come through in the conservation officer's condition as well, in condition number four, I believe. Can you just tell me, on the lower section of this diagram, I can't read, and don't worry, don't enlarge it, but maybe you can tell me. There's some writing over the left section of the wall, and then there's some writing pointing to a vertical element. Is that referring to some kind, over to the right a bit? Above there there's some wording that refers to that vertical element. It says existing masonry piers at regular centres. So it's relying on that pier to keep it up. To follow on from that, I was just asking whether the conservation officer had any views upon the existing aperture and whether that should be closed, rebuilding using materials from the stuff that would have taken away if it was removed, or whether there was any comment on that at all. I think, for each ear, it would also link back to the previous outline application. Part of the landscaping strategy will have seen the illustrative master plan. Actually, I think there's a copy of that in my slides. Let me share that, because it did form part of that arrangement as well. So I don't think we'd want to necessarily lose that. So you can see that existing opening is still to be utilised. Admittedly, this is an illustrative plan that is part of the wider landscaping and is connecting in with this courtyard area. I think we'd quite like to probably see that retained from a design and landscaping perspective. I think that would be our view on that. Thank you. Councillor Sanford. Thank you, Chair. To be honest, if I wandered onto Granter Park without the amountage of the papers in front of me, I'd have never known this was a heritage asset. It's surrounded by industrial commercial buildings, part of its overgrown with vegetation. I think on the scale of important heritage assets, it rates fairly low. I would have no objections to part of the wall being taken away, provided as previously discussed, the applicant ensures there's no health and safety issues with the remaining wall. It's all secure. Thank you. Councillor William. Thank you, Chair. I'm just going to focus in on page 167, 8.2, which refers to an MPPF. It says any harm to or loss of the significant of a heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. It might not be the prettiest wall. It might not be in the best state of repair, but it is, you know, I feel very strongly that we do need listed buildings and listed items, walls, houses, churches, whatever they be. They're listed for a reason, and they will have a story behind them, and they are protected for a reason, and I feel very strongly about that. Now, there are times when it's needed, and, you know, I think many of us sat on the application of the site in Soughton, didn't we? Well, we actually gave permission for it to be knocked down. It's not a nice day. But here, I think there are alternatives. I don't think it's completely necessary to do what they're doing in this proposal. And so I don't see it clear convincing justification. I think if we don't fight to keep what we've got and what is listed, then what's the point of having protections in the first place? So it might not be the prettiest wall, but I'd like to see it stay. Councillor Fave. Thank you, Chair. I take account of what Councillor Williams said. However, I think on this sort of an issue, we do have to accept the advice of our conservation officers. Paragraph 8.8, it is considered that the physical removal of part of the wall would only result in a very low amount of less than substantial harm to the designated heritage, i.e. the wall. And I certainly wouldn't have the confidence to say that it's not necessary. I think it is reasonable to assume that in designing this scheme it was felt that it was necessary and that we're not in a position to contradict that. However, with that in mind, I would suggest that since everyone has had a contribution who wants it in the debate, I would propose that we now move to a vote. Councillor Brown. We perhaps consider the point that was made earlier on that whether any of the materials from the piece of the wall that's being taken away would be used in the construction of the piers. However, I appreciate the piers are going to be there for a structural purpose and it may be better to use modern materials in order to support the new entrants. But I just wondered whether that might, you know, could they be used elsewhere on the site? Can I ask the officer? Is it possible to have conditions that the material will be retained and used because they are all hand-brake bricks, they are quite distinctive bricks that we use. A short answer is yes, Chair. Condition number four would see to do that. Condition four is the reuse of materials so it's definitely part of our intention and the conservation team recommended that condition. Can we get a bit more of a second and one motion now that we get to the vote? Thank you very much. Can we go to the vote? Sorry, have you got a seconder for that? Sorry, I didn't hear the first part of what you said. Sorry. We're voting to agree to the recommendation to approve the application list of building consent. Thank you. Who's it? It's not working. Maybe. No, that's fine now. The application is approved. I'm going to the compliance report. Good afternoon, Chair. Obviously, hopefully everyone's in the compliance report. I do have some additional bits to bring to the committee's attention. Sorry, is it possible to see the officer? It's a bit strange having a voice coming up. Can everyone see me? Yes, thank you. There's a couple of bits that I wanted to bring to the committee's attention. I'm going to report just because of the summons of submitting the report and the things that have gone on. I just wanted to let the committee know that the online compliance reporting continues to be well used and is now the dominant way that compliance matters are raised with the council. And because of that, we're now sort of pushing to ensure and send a message that all new breaches are reported by the online system. So, if I could just kind of remind committee members that when things are brought to your attention, if we could use the online reporting and I'll come on to why in a second, that would be really good. We are sending messages to customers to say that, you know, to use the online reporting. The reasons behind this are that we've made recent changes to setting up of compliance cases. Compliance cases are now set up by the technical support team to do the validations for the planning applications. This is ensuring that new reports are dealt with in a timely manner. The acknowledgments are sent out as well, which is an issue that has been raised by committee members. And it also ensures that when we get urgent complaints, those urgent complaints are dealt with quickly and we get out on site in a more timely manner. We recently discussed at one committee about people who wish to remain anonymous. And in that committee, we discussed people who want to be anonymous to contact their parish council or their elected members. Wording for this has been agreed for website changes, which is something we discussed. And we'll be looking to point people towards how to contact their parish council or their elected member. We do have a significant increase in reports being made to the council for compliance matters. The online reporting obviously is having a positive effect in terms of people being able to contact us and feel confident in contacting us. There is obviously a high level of workload with officers at the moment, but we are looking to change our working patterns to ensure that we keep on top of the new workload that's coming in. So that's my update in addition to the report that was submitted. I have a question to the council William. Thank you for the update and thank you for the changes. I know I raised that as I was sort of seeing increased traffic for myself. The unfortunate nature of compliance is sometimes we're dealing with neighbours and what have you, and things can escalate quite quickly. With the new report and I understand the reasons why you've changed the report, the only thing I say I can't glean from it in the way I used to be able to is obviously when we had cases on there we'd be able to give a reflection of time and whether certain cases were on there for a series of time. So I'm just wondering while we have the comparatives, which is very useful, what we can't see are these refreshed applications or are they historical troublesome sites or applications. So I'm wondering if we could have some sort of breakdown of how many cases have we got that were entered in the last six months, 12 months and beyond just so we can see whether what we're seeing is fresh applications or still the same ones. We used to be able to see that particularly in relation to one site. Not mentioning which one that was. I will go back on that and seeing how we can produce reports that would do that and then to obviously attach that to the compliance report for committee and hopefully we can sort that out. I'll give you an update on that at the next committee in November if that report hasn't already been generated and that information is not on the report. I'll give you an update as to where we are with that. Thank you. I'm just going to make a general question. There's been a lot of discussion recently about the need to improve the operational planning system. Have you any particular recommendations in terms of what you would make your life easier in terms of the enforcement system so that we can take these into account in any common female? That's quite a question. Would it be possible for me to have a think about that and come back to you at the next committee chair? I think it would be interesting to find out because this could be an issue recently. I'll make a note of that and I'll come back to you at the next committee on that as well if that's okay. Councillor Brandon. Thank you chair. Thank you Chris. I wanted to ask two things. One is about your appendix four if we're including that. So this is appeals awaiting a decision. It's the very first one on page one seven seven land to the north of the old Collier Chesterton Fen. There's an appeal against the enforcement notice. I just wanted to know do we have any idea of when this might be when we might get a decision and I have a second question but I'll wait. So there are a number of enforcement appeals that have been going on for some considerable time. The planning inspector is quite delayed in enforcement appeals. They are experiencing delays due to staffing experienced staff for enforcement appeals certainly for the appeal you've spoken about having relevant staff with experience is a difficulty. At this moment in time. I'm not sure about the figures for this month last month. I think the median waiting time for written reps appeal was around 56 weeks and about 86 weeks for hearings and inquiries. These numbers are slightly skewed because enforcement appeals are figures are put together with appeals on lawful development certificates. They generally are easier for the planning inspector to deal with rather than enforcement. I suggest that enforcement cases are probably taking longer above the medians. The inspector won't give us any updates when we ask about appeals and when we're likely to receive decisions. They just say that they're in progress and will get updates as of when they can give updates. It is unfortunate but there is a large backlog with enforcement appeals. Thank you very much and if I may come back through you chair with my second question. There is an application that's not on these papers but was in fact refused in a similar location to the previous one I've mentioned. I just wondered whether enforcement action will be taken to remove the development at that site. I can describe that to you Chris. I'm sure you know the one I mean but I can give you the details of it. It was refused recently 16th of August sorry 20th of April 2023. It was refused. I can give you the reference 22 slash 03715 slash full and it was refused 20th of April. But I wondered if there's any action going to be taken about removing what's there. I'm not sure I am aware of the site we're talking about but I can come back to you shortly with this later today tomorrow and just let you know what's happening with that outside of this meeting if that's all right. That's fine thank you very much. I'll contact you separately. Sorry thank you any further questions? Thank you very much. Councillor Fane. Thank you chair. Just two comments if I may. This system of reporting I notice that for instance there's no reference to one case in my ward where I've just this morning counted the emails. I think it's 32 emails about half of which are responses from the compliance team. Not mentioned here. I won't mention it by name because I suspect Chris Venez which one I'm referring to. There is listed here under Appendix 2 and forgive me if that's not clear. I'm sure Chris will tell me and I'll elaborate as necessary. At Appendix 2 the top one for July 2023 relates to I take this as an example the navigator. Now I believe there has been an appeal against enforcement submitted so there's a further stage here. There has yes. Thank you. I mentioned this because in that case and I think there may be other cases in order to comply with environmental health requirements. The ventilation is necessary for the kitchen without the ventilation. The Thai restaurant happens Thai restaurant. I don't know what that requires particularly high level of ventilation. I'm not sure what would cease to operate without the Thai restaurant. I am persuaded that the pub which has recently become an asset of community value would cease to be viable and would have to close quite quickly. So it just illustrates why it's important to us to keep an eye on the various stages of these compliance issues. I think I would comment that it's clearly that enforcement, the delays in the enforcement and the process of enforcement is extremely slow and we have lots of problems with it. So that's why I particularly I was asking for comments upon impossible. The ways that you might consider dealing with that without any practical comments on that might help us. Thank you very much indeed. Now we move to appeals. Rebecca would you please comment on. Now I'm squeaking. The item nine, there's a list of the current appeals that we have recently received decisions on as well as those that have been received. And again an appendix for there's quite a list where we're waiting on decisions still from pins. We're experiencing the same delays that Chris has talked about as well. And just by way of an update the Outstone Croft Inquiry I know everybody would be interested even though it's in the city. That finished last week so hopefully we won't have to wait too long to get the appeal decision from the inspector. I note that this month all the appeals that have been made have agreed with us so that's a pleasant result. Have we any other further questions? Thank you very much. Okay. Now the date of the next meeting I've been given the wrong date here because of my briefing notes. I think it must be the 8th of November. We'd like to go and show them that. Okay, the next meeting is later on November and I hope to see you all there. And thank you with that. I close the meeting.