 Rhaid i chi'n golyb i'r fath yma, ond yna yn ymwneud yn gweld yn ymgyrchol iawn iawn, felly rwy'n cael ei wneud â'r gyrraeth yn ymddangos i South Cams district council. Rydym yn ymddangos i gydig i gydig i Ymddangos 9. Mae hynny yn ymgyrchol hwnnw ddweud o'r cyflawn sydd hefydol ac mae'r cyflawn i'r cyflawn i'r cyflawn i'r cyflawn i'r cyflawn i Llongstandsyn sydd ym Gwyrddol, The applicant is South Camershire District Council, and the reason we have this before us today is because South Camers District Council is the applicant. The presenting officer is Mr Mike Huntington, who is with us physically in the room today. Welcome, Mike. I believe you should be able, well, you should be presenting onto our screens for us. Mike, if you could use the mic. So, everyone online can hear you as well as us in the room. And then if you'd like to give us any updates to the report and then to introduce the report for us, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Hopefully, this will work. You're all consistent by coming in person. I understand Aaron Coe has passed around a date sheet from an objecter. You want me to read this out or do you want me to set all the members to... No, not quite yet. If you could just introduce the report first, we'll take the public speakers as they come. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Right, a planning application for the access appearance, landscaping and layout and scale for the construction of a single storey pavilion building to provide changing facilities for the sports pitchers at North Store Western Park, together with a club room for community use in accordance with that one planning commission for phase one at North Store. Key issues to address are whether the application is in accordance with the Outland Planning Application, the Section 106 agreement, consideration of those reserve matters that I previously highlighted and then impact on neighbours. If members context, this is a site plan showing the... Let me just get the pointer options, the laser pointer. Right. So, this is a phase one of North Store. I'll show a better colour plan in a moment. The site refers to a location for the change facilities here and the car park here. So, this gives a bit of the wider context. So, to the west of the site is a long-standing village. Immediately to the northwest of the site are the allotments that are currently under construction, some of them. This is a housing parcel called H2, which is all occupied from about four years ago original application. Immediately to the east of the site is a parcel called H7 and that's mostly occupied as well. The grey area in the box here is the car park proposed car park. That is Barrenland at the moment, just waiting to be built on. And then this is the area of the site for the changing rooms. This is the multi-use games area, which has already been finished. And then the playing fields further south and they've been finished along. So, that gives a bit of context. This axon metric, it's not an axon metric, it's actually an aerial, shows in more detail the site. So, this is the site for the building and this is the site for the car park. So, if you go back, your view from about there, looking in that normally direction. This plan is in a bit more detail showing the location of the car park. Now, the car park works, remember, is the car park already has planning permission as part of the wider playing fields permission. What the applicant is doing is some minor tweaks to the car park. So, the car park has been brought into the new reserve matters planning application. So, that is the fallback position for the car park. This is a photograph just showing where the car park will be surrounded by houses that have been occupied for two to three years. I should think this is another photograph looking towards where the building will be and the multi-use games area is just there with the black fencing. This general arrangement plan shows the car park in more detail and the location of the building in more detail. So, the building frames the bowling green and the internal arrangement of the building are changing rooms along here with a corridor along here. The main entrance there and various office uses in here and then the main community hall space is there. These are the elevations. So, if I go back actually. So, the first elevation I'll show you is that elevation. So, there were elevations facing the car park. That's this elevation. This elevation here is the eastern elevation and that is that elevation. This one faces out onto the bowling green. So, that's that elevation and that elevation together. This elevation here is that one. That one. My presentation. Thank you very much. Not for the moment. No, we're going to take our public speakers first. But during the debate, I imagine there'll be some questions for you. So, if you can have the presentation ready to re-display in case any members have any questions that require that. Members, move to our public speakers now, of which we have three. Firstly, we have a member of the public who I believe was online earlier, but may not be anymore. So, I'm going to ask if Mr Darrowwala is online still. And if he is, can he switch his camera on? No, I think not. So, in that, I know, or is it? No, it's Geraldine. So, members, we do as in Mr Darrowwala's absence. He has submitted written comments to us all, which I think have been circulated physically to us. I'm not proposing running through them all now, but obviously if any member wishes to refer to these during the debate, then that's absolutely fine with me. I'm going to move on to the next public speaker, then, which is on behalf of the applicant, and it's Mr Martin Lindus. Martin, are you with us online? Chairman, I am here. I'm hoping you can hear me now. Yes, we can see and hear you perfectly. Okay, thank you. Yes, so if you'd like to address the committee, as usual, you have three minutes, and then if you could hold on at the end in case there's any questions of clarity for yourself. Okay. Thank you. I'm Martin Lindus from Sons Boston Architects speaking on behalf of the applicant. I think just as a reminder, as you've already heard from Mike Huntington, this is a reserved matters application. It was originally approved back in April 2014. So what we're looking for is approval for the pavilion and the alterations to the parking only. The site consists really of those two elements with a linking pathway through the centre that then joins up with the adjacent spaces leading through to the pitches and the rest of that overall network that runs through the development. The building itself is designed around the existing bowls green that's already in place, as is the artificial turf pitch and the green pitches that you've already seen in place. This building provides some huge meanity value for that community that's actually seeing from the photographs is already in place, and that comes through the original section 106 agreement. So we have a building that fundamentally has six changing rooms, community and club room space and 99 parking spaces. We recognise the need for a building that is very sensitive. We've tried to follow the north snow design guide everywhere we can, although that's primarily designed for residential, but our building has a combination of masonry and artificial timber finishes reflecting the different use within the building. In terms of neighbour consideration, which is a very important factor. We have low level lighting throughout the scheme. So the car park has a series of low level ballards. We have bulkhead lighting to the building itself, which is not only good for neighbours, but is also good for the ecology. We have set noise levels and carried out a noise impact assessment. So that covers not only the outbreak of noise from plant, but it also covers the outbreak of any sound or noise from the activities within the building. We know sustainability is very important. I've been listening to everything else that's been talked about today and we have a photovoltaic array on the roof of the building. We do have air source heat pumps. The ethos for the building was natural ventilation, which you've integrated into all the spaces we can. We have heat recovery on showers. We have EV parking spaces. To give an idea of that commitment, in terms of our renewable contribution, the set level is 10. We're actually above 15%. We also have a 40% reduction in CO2 against part L of the building regs. We've tried very hard with this building to make sure that it is as sustainable as possible. It takes into consideration the surrounding neighbours and other amenities and design the building that we believe is sensitive and responds to all of those. Thank you very much. Very much. Right dead on three minutes. Congratulations. Members, do we have any questions of clarity for Mr Lindus? Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you, Chair. Just there's one or two concerns about lighting for the pavilion, I think, for the car park. Can you just talk us through what you're proposing for that, please, and hopefully that it doesn't affect neighbours? Yes, I think quite often neighbours do have concerns about high level lighting, but in this particular scheme on the car park, we have low level bollards. So they are typically round about 1200 millimetres or three or four foot high. So everything is low level. There are no large lamp stands on the building itself on the pavilion. There will be some bulkhead lighting. So that is the lighting that is fixed directly onto the outside of the walls. And that's to make sure that when people are visiting the building, there's sufficient light for health and safety in terms of accessing the building and aggressing it. But the minimum amount of lighting so that it doesn't disturb either the ecology or the neighbours. Okay, thank you for that, Chair, if I may come back. As I know, having a pavilion in my village, it tends to be a point of congregation for young people who have nowhere else to congregate. And sometimes this starts to show behaviour. Is there any way, are you proposing to provide, I don't know, like CCTV or some sort of monitoring of that area to prevent it becoming a magnet for that kind of behaviour? We don't have that proposed in the scheme as we have it at the moment. Do you be willing to consider it? We can certainly talk to the applicant in terms of considering that, but it isn't part of the scheme as it stands at the moment. Councillor Daunton. Yes, it's also a question about parking. Presumably there will be planting in the parking area. And will the planting be arranged so that it can stop joyriding using the car parking areas of joyriding space? The car park itself is divided up and between the parking bays there are some areas where we have planting areas as well. So it's not one large monolithic car park. It is broken up by features and bays. And I wouldn't have thought it was a particularly attractive space for joyriding, certainly. Congregating is always a challenging issue in any space. Thank you. Coming back to the lighting again, you talk about short bollards to provide the lighting. Will the lighting be directed up into the sky or will they be reflected to spread the light evenly on the ground? Because there's a problem when you have lighting pointing up to the sky that it provides glam into the sky and provides problems for wildlife. That's a very good question. The light fittings and everything aren't specifically specified at this stage, but we're not interested in lighting upwards. We have a lot of ecology in this area that we need to take care of. So bollard lights normally light out from the sides so that there's enough of a spread to low level so that we have a safe building. So that when people are using it in the darker evenings, they can actually see the curbs and all of the other features that exist. The fittings on the building itself, the bulkhead fittings, they do also point out to the side as well, but none of these will be up lighters. So the key word is I think believe is faceted reflectors in this instance is what we use to spread the light. Thank you. Thank you. I don't lose any further questions for yourself, Mr Linders. So thank you for taking the time to address us today. And we're moving on to our final public speaker on this item, which is Councillor Paul Littlemore again from Northsdale Town Council. Hello, thank you again, chair. Good to see you again. And yeah, as as per last time, the usual three minutes to address the committee, and I'm going to assume that you do have the permission for Northsdale Town Council to represent their views here today. So yeah, whenever you are ready, away you go. Excellent. Thank you. Yes, I can confirm that I do. So Northsdale Town Council supports the application as this is an important community facility unlocking the full provision of facilities in the western part. We made written comments on the application in a number of areas. Firstly, car park lighting specification. It's reassuring to see that the officers report seeks to impose a condition on the detailed lighting plans being submitted before development above slab level. And I also note the representation from the applicant earlier about lighting using low level bollards. The car park provision to contain noise or litter. The application doesn't detail the boundary treatment of the car park. However, in some of the indicative images, there are small wooden fences shown. We've reviewed the previous application for the original application for the car park along with the discharge of condition six, which is fencing for that car park as well as part of the wider western park scheme. And can't see any form of boundary treatment for the car park. There's also no detail of litter receptacles for the car park, which is deemed by the town council to be of a sufficient size to warrant at least one. Our comments on impact assessment sought to ascertain details of a construction environmental management plan in advance of any work taking place, given the construction site is directly adjacent to two development parcels, which have been complete for some time. There's no reference to this in the officers report and to a site specific SEMP being condition. And we would like to see clarity on whether the outline consent requires this. Our comments on excess electricity generation was that the town council were concerned that too much emphasis was being put on the use of just PV cells. The town council would appreciate the applicant considering battery storage under the required condition eight in the officers report if you were to approve this application. Thank you. Thank you very much. Cancel a little more members. Do we have any questions of clarity for council a little more? Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you. Just very quickly. It's to do with your, you have your impact assessment point here. I didn't understand what you required from that. What are you looking for? Thank you, councillor. The construction environmental management plan, which would detail deliveries into the specific site, haul routes, hours of operation, whether piling would be necessary to construct this. I assume it would be discharged through a condition. So just some clarity on whether that would be a condition of the outline, the previous outline planning commission, planning permission, or whether it would be something that should be considered as a condition on this particular application. Okay. Thank you very much. I don't think there's any further questions for you as a little more. So again, thank you for being patient and waiting all this time to speak again. With that members, that concludes all of our public speakers. So we'll now move into the debate. And again, this is obviously an opportunity to ask the case officer any questions of clarity. Councillor Heather Williams first, please. Thank you, chair. I just want to clarify around. Sort of what's within our remit and not here. Just because a lot of bins reflect a lot of what's been said has been reflected in the concerns around potential anti social behaviour and things like that. Now my understanding is as committee members, we have to take a decision on the basis and not assumption but on the premise that people will be law abiding and reasonably behaved. However, we do sometimes have a consultation response from the police and I haven't been able to find one in here. And I'm just wondering if we've had that. And if so, what did it say? And if not, is that something that we perhaps should seek to do before determining and just a bit of a from officers some guidance as to how much we can give weight to those things? Because obviously we we'd be giving weights on the assumption that people won't be doing what is reasonably told. And while I think all of us have experiences in our wards of anti social behaviour, it's not necessary so that we can give weight to as sympathetic as we may be. Absolutely. And I think Mr Carter is going to answer that for us. Thanks, chair. So the principle of the pavilion and the carpark as set out in the report was established in the outbound planning commission. There's an obligation in the SETCH 106 agreement that accompanies that outbound planning commission to deliver these facilities in this location. So in that sense, the principle of its location has been established. What we're considering today is the reserve matters as set out in the report. I think we have to work on the basis that if anti social behaviour were to occur, then there are other legal mechanisms to deal with. Up in the planning system, notwithstanding, I think it is in the committee's remit to consider whether or not this potentially there's any element of this scheme which might exacerbate that risk. My advice, I think the case of the advice would be that that's not the case. It's a well designed scheme that accords with the principles that were set out in the outline permission. We haven't, I don't believe had a response from the police liaison officer on this. Can, so to clarify, we've asked but not had a response to that. No, we've not consulted them. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Richard Williams, please. Thank you, chair. Mine is a clarification question for the case officer. It picks up on something the Parish Council mentioned. It's about boundary treatments for the carpark. I wonder if we could have a little bit more detail on that because a carpark could be a potentially quite bleak feature of the land. So I would like to know a little bit more about that, please. Mike, please, Mike. Sorry, yes. I keep sliding back in his chair. Just show the plan again. Right, so the plans don't appear to show boundary treatment. However, a condition could be added. There's a materials planning condition which can include, which can be added, boundary treatment can be added to that. If I can, I would like to propose that because that plan does look very bleak, that there is just a tarmac carpark that has no boundary treatment at all. I would like to propose that. That's condition two. I'll second that, chair. Members, we have a proposer to add that as a condition which has been seconded. Members, do we need a debate on this? Was everyone happy to accept that? Councillor Hawkins. Sorry, chair. Before we do that, I'm not sure whether the material for the carpark is supposed to be permeable or not, or how this surface water is going to be dealt with from that carpark. I mean, I would imagine that that would be included in the materials condition that we're about to potentially add. Is that correct, Mike? Thank you, chair. We can up that to just be absolutely crystal clear for both boundary treatment and hard surface materials for the carpark to include brackets permeable material. So, with those two additions, again, is everyone content with that? Or do we need to debate on this, Members? Are we agreed? Agreed? Good. Okay. Stephen's going to dive in now and tell me if I've done something wrong here. I think I thought you were going to come back to the comments from the public speaker who was online, but we haven't looked at his written comments. If we have, if Members wish to address those, now is the opportunity to do so. If Members wish to raise anything that's in the written comments that have been circulated before this item. Councillor Daunton is waving at me. Use your mic, please. Sorry, in the written statement from Mr Darawala. On the second paragraph, the paragraph beginning my property, he raises issues about cooking noise and smells. Could we have some comment on those issues, please? Sorry, which part of the comments are you looking at now? He is indicating that his property is within 800 metres range. And he's asking about the, or rather concerned about the kitchen area to the northeast of the planning and mostly the currents. So this is the second paragraph in the written comments we have in the process. I don't know, do any officers want to comment on cooking? The environmental health officer was consulted and made no comments on the application. No issues to concern environmental health officers. Environmental health on don't see it as an issue. Members, we're still in the debate at the moment. So if any other members wish to make comments, Councillor Hawkins. Thank you. I think the two issues I want to pick up on were to do with the point I asked the Nostow Town Council about which is impact on neighbours. And their clarification was they wanted something to do with the construction and management plan. And there is nothing in any of the conditions that I can see that actually requires that to be submitted. So if we cooled, that would be helpful. The other point I wanted to raise was on the issue of security and which also goes back to potentially monitoring and social behaviour. And whilst we might say this is anecdotal and I do not like that word, it is a fact from places that already have things like this that the issue does arise. And I know that in my village we had to install one retrospectively. And I think it would make sense if it was considered as part of the original installation rather than trying to go back and do something about it. But this again is one of the issues that was picked up by Mr Darrowwala. Chris, do you want to take the first point? Yeah, thanks chair. I'll refer members to paragraph 10 of the report on page 256 where the report sets out that it refers to a number of conditions of the outline consent including the construction environmental management plan. And that those details have not been considered at this stage. It then goes on to suggest that if members considered it appropriately could be added. So I think if members would like to see a construction environmental management plan condition that could be added to the recommendation. With regard to the need for or otherwise for CCTV. That's tricky one because I think you'd need to define the scope of that system. What's it covering? Who's going to monitor it? Who's going to pay for it? And we're not really in a position, I don't think on this reserve matters application, certainly in my view, to make those decisions at this stage. But I might look to Mr Reed, his knowledge of the section one six agreement on phase one and whether or not there's anything in that respect in that in that agreement or not, if he knows. To my knowledge, no, there's nothing in the 106 agreement which deals with security or CCTV in under the 106, the outline. Respect to you. Yeah, so in those circumstances, I think it would be given the applicant is south chemistry district council. I think it would be a incumbent on the council if issues were to arise to take any necessary steps at that stage as a local responsible local authority to look to manage that situation be that with CCTV or by other means. But I'm not sure it's something that we can easily control at this stage because of the the detail that would be required. And I'm not sure we're in a position to set out that detail here. Heard the around the so the construction management plan issue. Obviously, we tell we can if we want to as a committee include that as a condition. I think I heard that you were proposing that as another additional condition. Thank you. Is there a seconder for that motion, please? I said I would second. Counselor Heather Williams seconding. So members again, if we were looking to include a condition around having a construction management plan in place before before construction begins. Members, does anyone do we need to wish to debate this or can we take this by affirmation members? Is that agreed? Yeah. Okay. So we've now included that also as a condition. Should this be approved? Counselor Heather Williams, do you want to comment on another part? Yeah. Thank you. It just sort of leads on to do the antisocial behaviour issues. I was going to say as South Cams, obviously we're sitting here from South Cams as the planning authority. But as the district council itself, perhaps an informative to ourselves that says which we don't need all the information. But you know, from a planning authority point of view, perhaps we just pop an informative that we do as a planning authority. That we do as a planning committee have concerns about it and expect ourselves to deal with it. It's because I appreciate with the planning authority right now, not the council. So it's trying to differentiate. So maybe an informative would give some reassurance to residents that we will take it seriously. Can I ask for an officer's view on adding an informative? I don't see a problem with that chair. Again, members, another question for us. Do we wish to add to that as an informative? So not an enforceable condition, but an suggestion essentially to ourselves that we do manage the security around the building should approval be granted. Are we agreeing that? Yes. Good. Thank you very much. So that's three things we've added in Chris, if you can make a note of that. Members, I'm not closing the debate at this stage, but I've just been told that the public speaker, Mr Darywala is now available online. Mr Darywala, are you are you there? If so, could you switch on your camera? Mr Darywala, if you are there and you can hear me, please do switch your camera on a few seconds. OK, well, I don't have to carry on with the debate members. But if Mr Darywala, if you do are able to switch your camera on at some point, please just do. And then I'll cut back to you to address the committee. Here he is. Mr Darywala, welcome. Please feel free to unmute. Good afternoon. Hello there. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us and I'm glad you could join us. I understand you wish to address the committee regarding the proposed sports pavilion at North Stowe. We have received your written comments, but as your withers now virtually, I'm happy to take your comments verbally. And then, obviously, if any of the committee members who are making the decision today have any questions of clarity for you, if that's OK with you, I will allow them to ask them. So as with all public speakers, we allow three minutes to address the committee. So please, whenever you're ready, Mr Darywala. Brilliant. Good afternoon, everybody. Apologies, I'm running from one meeting to the other. The change in the times. I believe people have circulated my concerns and I just wish to bring few highlights of those one rather than taking any further time. My main concern would be around the wildlife issues with the lighting pollution, where the lights are going to be on and things, especially where we have the Kingforshire Pond, which is just meters away from my house. Unfortunately, the developing builders and the Gallagher estate have washed their hands off of maintaining that pond and the wildlife has suffered and more lighting pollution and more noise pollution is going to cause further issues to the wildlife. So I see we need to consider these things very carefully by the Kingforshire Pond. We already have an issue about the antisocial behavior and having this sports rebellion, which is going to serve alcohol and with about 100 cars parking space. Generally, I understand we don't need that many car parking space because it's for local resident. They can actually walk in and out of the north to area or use local public transport. It's not right for the size and which will have a greater impact on the environment. There's a lot of water logging issues because of the clay around it and already the car park going on to near the allotments and coming all the way within 500 meters of the property. We already had seen some water flooding conditions running through our street at world close. So I'm not sure what's going to be done about it. It's kind of falling on deaf ears and any further more constructions and concrete road paths is going to make the issue worse. We already said about the noise levels. I've read the application and the noise levels. It's going to be more when there are going to be that many people sitting in there and with the COVID conditions and future to expect. It's expected that we will have to have our windows open and things. It was going to be too noisy for the time it has been allowed to be open up to. So we need to reconsider on those timing areas as well. So those are my major concerns and how is the car park going to be controlled because already where the walking path and cycling path people are using it for with the motorbikes, which is making it unsafe. And this is going to add further to the nuisance what we have already. So any any thoughts on that one would be really helpful for us to understand as a immediately affected residents on that street. So I'll rest my case. And I'm happy to listen to everybody else what they have to say. That's great. Thank you very much. And if you don't mind holding on the line for a few more minutes just in case any of the committee members have any questions of clarity for yourself. Members, do we have any questions of clarity? Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you, Mr Darwell for that presentation. And yes, for your full statement. Just to be clear, are you saying that there's currently antisocial behaviour near or at the Kingfisher pond and the area of the car park? What sort of behaviour are you noticing? I think it's probably by the tennis courts and the football pitches in the western sport area and the Kingfisher pond. People are coming up in the sunset and there's smoking weeds and things. We have tried to raise the concern, but it's not been addressed yet. Sorry to say that. On our local north store Facebook page is photographs of the pages where people are throwing the rubbish, breaking the glass bottles, beer bottles, using the open space to live fireworks and living the things rubbish behind. And it's just getting more and more to a point where we think this needs to be addressing much more nice away and opening it for another 200, 250 odd people. I'm not going to say that everybody does that, but it's going to add to the agony what we are going through at the moment. Clarification. Great, thank you. Members, any further questions for Mr Darwell? Okay, well again, thank you for joining us, Mr Darwell. I appreciate it's a big ask to ask you to take time out of your working day to address us today, so I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Members, we're still in the debates section of the process, so are there any further points members wish to make at this stage? I think we've had a good ffleshing out of it, but Councillor Rippeth and Harvey. With the extra three conditions, or one, sorry, two and one informative, I feel in the position to support this. And some of the points which have been made to me sound like they're points for the police, you know, indeed if crime is taking place and the CCTB certainly should be something we keep a close eye on, so I pardon that pun. And this to me seems like an amenity that is needed quickly. And for something to do, for sports facilities, that might actually lower any kind of antisocial behaviour because there are activities which I know this is generalisation, but youths can be, teenagers can be involved in a purposeful positive manner rather than just hanging around. With nothing to do. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Harvey. Yeah, I'd like to withdraw my question, so thanks. Okay. Members, unless there's any further debate we need to have, I think we're probably in a position for Councillor Cahn. It's not really a debate, I was simply going to comment that the location of the car park here surrounded by housing is not one that I would have chosen, but it has already been determined and we're lumbered with it. In those circumstances, with the conditions for the lighting, so that the satisfactory solution to prevent a glare and light pollution, there seem to be the optimum solution that's made possible at the time, present time. Great, thank you for that. I think we're with Councillor Hawkins. Just a comment. I'm not sure if Mr Darwell heard some of the debates that we had before he came on, but just, you know, so he's aware that we did take into account the concerns that he raised. Whilst the issue of artificial behaviour that was raised cannot be dealt with as a planning issue, we do have or have proposed an informative to us as owners of this facility, not as a planning authority, to do something about that. Conditions now for the constitutional management plan, which should hopefully help with knowing when things will be happening. We also had another condition, didn't we? A boundary treatment for the car park, which I think also addresses one of his concerns. So we have listened and we have heard, and we're trying, you know, I think this will go a long way. And I do think, as has been said, it is a good step forward, considering where we were, you know, some months back. And I'm happy to support this application with those conditions and informative. Great, thank you. Thank you. So, Members, we have a recommendation on page 264, which is to approve. I'm just going to ask Chris Carter quickly to read out the conditions and informative that we've added ourselves, if you don't mind, Chris. Yes, thanks, Chair. So there's an additional recommended condition requiring the submission and agreement of construction environmental management plan. There is the additional wording for condition two to include details of car park, boundary treatment and surface material. And then an informative setting out the committee's expectation that the applicant will take appropriate steps to manage the risk of antisocial behaviour associated with the development. Great. For me, that covers everything I think we've decided. So, Members, I think we're in a position to make a decision on this now. I haven't had any dissent on the application. So can I ask, does anyone wish to either vote against or abstain on this recommendation of approval? Nope. So can I take it by affirmation that we're all in agreement? It should be approved. Agreed. Agreed. Thank you very much, everyone, so that application with additional conditions and informative is approved. We're now on to item 10 on our agendas, which is on page 269. And this is an application at the Piggory Hayden Way, Willingham. The proposal is for stationing of caravan for residential purposes for one number gypsy pitch together with a day room ancillary used to that. The applicant is Joseph Rooney. We have a number of key considerations in our papers. The application is before us today because Willingham Parish Council requested that the application is determined by this planning committee. And it was also, and then it was then decided that it should be heard at planning committee at a delegation meeting. The planning officer presenting this to us today is Michael Sexton. Michael. Hello again, Chair. Hello again. So, as usual, if you wouldn't mind giving us any updates to the reports and then to introduce that report for us please. Nick. So, a similar update that representation was sent to Democratic Services last week. Again, it doesn't raise anything that hasn't already been considered in the report, but just to summarize. Members, the representation refers to the SCDC accommodation needs assessment. And the local plan not identifying a need for new sites and this potentially setting of precedent that the site size of gypsy travel pitches is somewhat nonspecific. But the site plan includes overhaven track, which ends on Hayden Way. There's a lot of construction already in process in the village and concern about the cumulative impact and pressures on the facilities in Willingham. But again, all those matters have been addressed in the report. So I will move on to the presentation, Chair. If you could confirm that you can see a presentation on screen. So yes, this is an application for a gypsy pitch on the Piggory Hayden Way, Willingham. The site is located to this road here, sorry, is Hayden Way, which ends here and then becomes an unmade road, which then leads down to the access, takes the access down to the site, which is located here. And it is on the southwestern edge of the village of Willingham. The extent of the redline boundary extending this far is to show means of access to the edge of a public highway as is required. The context of the site, so this is just a Google Street View of Hayden Way, where it ends and then becomes this unmade road or track, which carries on down and then provides access to the application site, which currently comprises some Piggory buildings and areas of planning, which would be removed as part of the proposal. This is the site layout plan. So the dash red lines of the existing buildings, which are to be removed, and the application proposes to sites, a mobile home, which is denoted by the purple rectangle, a touring caravan in this already orange block here, and then a day room to the site. And again, you have this access onto the unmade road of Hayden Way. The day room is a simple, single story structure comprising a day room, a bathroom, a kitchen. And then yes, key material considerations, the principle of development and compliance in particular with local plan policy age 22, which is set out in some detail in the report. And then the other criteria in terms of the character biodiversity impact, the application is supported by the biodiversity report and there are various conditions recommended that relate to biodiversity. Flood risk and drainage, as always, highway safety and parking, residential immunity and site design, given that there is a specific policy in the local plan about the site design of gypsy and traveller pitches. Officers are satisfied with the proposal, according to the local plan policies on balance, and is therefore before members today with a recommendation of approval subject to condition. That's it for the presentation. Thank you very much, Michael. And as usually, if you don't mind holding on for the debate in case there's any questions for yourself. Members, we'll move on to public speakers of which we have one on behalf of the applicant. The question is, do we have Matt Green here today? Mr Green, would you like to take a seat where the microphone is in the empty chair then? I'm sure you've probably been here all day, so I sound like a broken record, but as usual, we've got the usual three minutes to address the committee. And then if there's any questions or clarity for yourself. If you don't mind holding on after your three minutes. So whenever you're ready please. Thank you chair. Good afternoon. Daniel Green, I'm speaking on behalf of our client Mr Rooney in support of this application. This committee is here to decide the matter on planning issues only. And the application is for a single gypsy pitch is recommended for approval subject conditions. Approving this application will help the council meet its statutory duty in this regard and accorded policy H planning policy for travellers sites. As you can probably tell by its date, this application has been running for some time and we have been working proactively with the case office in order to bring it to you today. The officers report accepts that recent appeal decisions have indicated that there is likely to be significant levels of unmet need. And it is estimated by South Cambridgeshire District Council there is a recognised need for extra permanent gypsy pitches. The site lies some distance of private access track. And the amount of additional traffic from that site that it would produce is not considered to be significant in the context of the existing vehicle movements along the lane. The highways department has raised no issues with regards to highway safety. The site is invisible from the public road and the visual impact is therefore negligible. Committee will also need to be aware that the unmet need for additional pitches within South Cambridgeshire is a significant material consideration that outweighs any effect on the rural character of the area. The additional landscaping that is to be conditioned should ensure a minimal impact on the local area. This is in addition to the existing mature soft landscaping. Noise pollution is considered to be negligible from a single pitch and as a single story development will not over dominate the nearby dwellings. Notwithstanding the protected species concerns, the removal of the three derelict buildings should be an overall enhancement to the local area. The recommendation for approval comes with 12 conditions and a requirement for a European protected species mitigation license. Our client Mr Rooney is happy to comply with all of the conditions. On this basis you are urged to approve this application and in doing so you will help to reduce South Cambridgeshire's shortfall of gypsy sites and help to reduce the unmet need. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Members, do you have any questions of clarity for Mr Green, please? Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you, Chair, through you. Mr Green, thank you for that. One of the concerns that's been raised is that this site could end up being used by more than one multi-pitch site. Right. What do you say to that? You will see that the suggested conditions say that it is for one gypsy pitch. If any more goes on then it's in breach of condition. You cannot, at the end of the day, you cannot legislate for the future, only set rules. If they're broken then they're broken. Then your enforcement officers deal with it. I believe my client fully intends that it is just for him and his family. As well aware gypsy families can expand in themselves, but as far as we're concerned right now we're talking about the single gypsy pitch. Thank you. Members, any further questions, Mr Green? Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you. Through yourself, Chair, I just wanted to clarify and it might be more for the officers. I'm directed in the wrong way, my apologies. It was just so it's one family, but there was one touring pitch as well referred to. So can I just clarify if that's all interlinked with the same family connection? Sure. I think Mr Green is probably in a position to answer that. I can clarify. A standard gypsy pitch comprises a mobile home, or otherwise known as the static. And also a touring caravan, which recognises the fact that gypsy families are often on the roads to find work as they are by the nature, by tinerums. And so they are like they will have a fairly fixed base in the form of a mobile home, but they will also have the touring caravan so when they're out visiting fares or working or whatever. I think it's just because of the day room as well, so that's the day room isn't linked to a touring caravan. The day room is if you look at the PPTS, which gives out the guidance for the design of gypsy pitches. The reason you have a day room is to supply a safe area, which is away from caravans, because it will safer area where bathing, washing, cooking can take place. And that's the whole point of the day room, which is not intended as a place where people sleep. Thank you. Councillor Cairn, please. I think it may be more for officers, but I just wondered what the position is regarding the pygory buildings that are existing on site. Could they be converted under permitted development into a dwelling with a suitable proposal prior approval? Or are they not considered under that system? And would we be advisable to withdraw permitted development rights? We're going to grant permission. It's probably a question for the officer, Michael Sexton, I think. So I will ask him that during the debate section of the proceedings. Members, any further questions for the applicants? OK, so Mr Green, thank you very much. Appreciate you waiting all day. And yeah, we'll be moving on now, members. That's our final public speaker, so we are now into the debate. So Councillor Cairn, I think it's probably a good time to ask Mr Sexton if he can answer the question around the potential conversion of the pygory itself. Thank you, chair, and through you. I suppose that is a potential avenue to development. It's not the application that is before members today, nor is there any, has there been anything in the planning history where such an application has been made. The intention is to demolish the pygory buildings of which there's no objection from the council in doing so. Subjects the ecological conditions to protect biodiversity interests. But it's not the application that's before members. Those buildings are to be removed on the site to be used for the gypsyn cover pitch. I think so, yeah. OK, members, as I said, we're into the debate now. So obviously we do have the opportunity to ask the case officer any questions as well during this stage. So I will throw the floor open members coming forward immediately. I know we haven't yet debated fully, but to me this looks like a perfectly sensible location and, you know, a good juice of that land. And it would provide a need, go towards providing a need. OK, very small one family, but it could help the situation which we know is an issue across the district. Thank you, chair. As we know, we are working on our emerging local plan and gypsyn travel needs. It's one of the things we're looking at. Unfortunately, that's been delayed because of COVID, but we do know there is a need. It's the extent of the need that we're not sure of. Site looks to me like one that is a good site for this. I have read the actions and the council notes, but I feel that the conditions that have been proposed are sufficient. I know that enforcement, if it's required, is down to people observing, you know, being broken and all that. But what we have before us in my view is a good application to meet a need that we know we have. So I will be supporting this application. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Heather Williams, please. Chair, sorry, sliding back again on these seats. So I think, look, we can see from the report that obviously, you know, there's a lot of interest in this application. But I think it was, I apologise, I've forgotten the applicant's agent's name. But it was made clear that it is on planning rules and regulations that this needs to be looked at. And, you know, and that's to being fair to all parties. We must look at the policies and everything around it. I do think the conditions are strong enough to alleviate some of the concerns that have been raised by members of the public. And it has been made clear that, you know, if that is breached, then that becomes an enforcement issue. And it will be planning authority that will need to enforce that. And, you know, not on this particular application specifically, but in general, I think, you know, it should be the policy of us that if rules are breached in any way by anybody, then, you know, we send out enforcement and it should be put into line with the permission that is given. So looking on a policy basis, I think I will support the application. But I'm very clear that any, you know, any breaches of any application that we see our enforcement teams should be looking into. And it will be, you know, should be reported. Absolutely. Thank you. Councillor Dawnson, please. Yes, thank you. This is really a question for Mr Sexton. I mean, amongst the objections are comments concerning the previous use of the land and that it was only ever used for agriculture. And this is a change of use. And I wonder, Mr Sexton, if you could comment on that. Michael, if you can. Yeah, through you, chair. And the policy is specifically in place to deal with this type of development outside of a framework. So quite often it would be on a potentially agricultural use. So there's no policy objections to the change of use of land from its existing status into the proposals before members. Calm, please. Generally, I agree with the previous speaker that seems to be on planning grounds. This seems to be a desire of supposed to be supported, but I am concerned the fact that although it is proposed to demolish the buildings, there's always the situation that they might put in the, put in the mobile home and then not demolish the buildings, which then would have a right to be conversion. One of the advantages of this development is that it removes an ugly and slightly building. Nobody can say that the figure is an attractive building and it's removed and the potential to conversion is lost. I think as I look at the conditions, there is no obligation to demolish. There's only what you would do if it is demolished. I think there should be a condition with drawing permitted development rights should it not be demolished or requiring the demolition of the, not allowing the development to take place until demolition takes place. So that we secure ourselves that the buildings are demolished. Unless the officers suggest that an alternative way to ensure that. I don't know if officers want to comment on that. Michael. Through you share and the site layout plan, which is listed as an approved plan, clearly shows the positioning of the mobile home within the site and clearly annotates that the buildings are to be demolished. And there are conditions as an ecology relating to demolition. So in my mind, I don't think we need a specific condition about demolition. I think that's secured through the approved layout plan and clearly any failure to accord with that plan would be. It would be a breach of condition, but alternatively potentially we could put a condition on if members considered it necessary. But in my view, I'm not sure condition is necessary. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to bring in Councillor Hawkins at this time. Thank you. It's a very valid point that Councillor Cahn actually made. And I know that for a fact because there is a case in my ward right now where a bungalow was supposed to have been demolished and it was not demolished. And that was a condition of allowing another building in its place. So I would definitely propose that we put a condition in there that states that the piggery buildings must be demolished prior to going on the site, please. Because otherwise it just causes more problems for enforcement officers and our planning officers when the problem starts. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you, Chair. I mean, when it comes to the other units, I understand the need to take away the permitted development rights, and I am supportive of that. However, I'm not convinced that demolition, if you can fit what the applicant needs on there without demolishing the buildings, I'm kind of not of a mind where I feel very strongly that they have to be demolished. And I also think that's potentially something else that would need to be enforced. So I'm in agreeance around permitted development, but not necessarily in the requirement of demolition. Okay. Members, so well, I think we've got a mix of opinion here about whether we include a condition that requires the applicant to demolish the piggery before any other work takes place. Can I just go through the motions? Can someone please propose that if they still wish to do it? Chair, can I ask we separate the permitted development and the demolition just for those of us that are in favour of one or not other? Can I confer between officers? Sorry, Chair, through you. The world of permitted development gets ever more complicated, as I'm sure Members know. So once the site becomes a Gypsy and Trafford site, it loses its permitted development rights for the prior approval conversion of those agricultural buildings. So that wouldn't be possible. That leaves Members with the consideration of whether or not you still want to require the demolition of the buildings prior to occupation. I think as Michael Sexton has said, you'd be, if you're approving this application, you'd be approving a plan which shows the demolition of those buildings. So from an office perspective, we're content that that is secured, but if Members want that further additional control, then an additional condition requiring their demolition prior to first occupation could be included. So that's the officer advice. I'm going to ask again if Members would still like to have that condition included, if someone could indicate that they would like to propose that, please. Thank you. And seconded as well. So Councillor Hawkins to propose and Councillor... Other way round, Councillor Cahn proposing. Councillor Hawkins seconding. Okay Members, I think there's going to be some... I'm going to have to take a vote on a show of hands by this please. So all those in favour of including that condition, can you raise your hands please? One, two, all those against seven. So that motion has fallen. So that will not be included in that as a condition. When the problem arises... Sorry Members, one second. Members, we've had written representations from a member of the public regarding this application. I'm not sure if Members have had sight of this. I believe it's probably one of the pieces of paper on your desks. Yes, that is it. So I think everyone has this in front of them. Members, as with the previous item, if Members do wish to raise any questions surrounding these comments, I would encourage them to do that at this stage in the debate. Of course, I do trust you all to read them and take them on board, but if anyone wishes to address anything specifically, then please do so now during the debate. We are still in the debate Members, so the floor is still open. We've just had a condition turned down. So if any Members wish to carry on with any other points of debate, please do indicate. Councillor Daunton. Yes, thank you for drawing our attention to this written representation. And it has within it a question. I think this is for officers. What constraints or monitoring exists to make sure that the development complies to the very loose definition of what... And the definition that the writer is referring to is the size of a site for a family requirement. So basically the size of one pitch. Officers, is there a definition of that? As set out in the report, the site has been designed to the relevant guidance, and obviously the control should this consent be granted would be through the conditions imposed. That does get the approved plans during the layout, and then the conditions that restrict the use of the site to the one over home, the day room, etc. So the control will arise through the conditions imposed on the consent, but the design has been set out in accordance with the relevant guidance for this type of development. Councillor Heather Williams. I may be incorrectly attempting to put your chair on the straight and narrow as it were, but I think I've just noticed the time, I think we might have gone past the four hours. I'm hoping we're nearing the end of this item, to be honest. No, I meant we have to vote to carry on before we can then vote. Is that right? We have five minutes. Okay, we have a five minute window. So I'm not trying to rush anyone, but unless you want to have two votes, getting a sense though we're coming to a natural close on this item. Members, are there any final points people wish to make before we make a decision on this? Nope. Okay, so again, Members, I haven't heard anyone say they would vote against this. I'm going to ask that now. Would anyone like to either vote against or abstain on this particular item? The recommendation is approval. I don't see anyone indicating. So we have the recommendation of approval, which is on page 286. And we have a raft of conditions following that. So can I take it by affirmation then that members are in agreement that we do approve with those conditions? Agree, thank you. So that application is approved. As Councillor Williams has pointed out, we're probably now at the four hour mark. So it is just after half three. Members, do we wish to carry on now? Do we wish for a quick break? I'm getting the break sign from some people. Okay. Members, I'm going to take a vote on whether we carry on now or not. Can those who wish to carry on without taking a break please raise your hands? So we're going to take a break. Okay, so we'll break for 10 minutes. So we'll come back at around about 22. So in about 10 minutes time, please members. Everyone, if we could start in a minute or so, please. I'm so keen. That's the problem. We're live. Okay, everyone. Welcome back to South Cams District Council Planning Committee. We're now restarted again. But before we go ahead, I need to ask everyone if they are happy to continue as we've been going past the four hour mark now. So we do need as a committee to vote whether we're happy to continue. So I'd like to propose that we do continue. Can someone second that if they do agree? Councillor Fane seconded. Can we all agree by affirmation please? Yeah, good. Okay. So we will carry on members with agenda item 11. And this is an application at the land at and Councillor Hawkins. Councillor Daunton has left. So she had a prior engagement. So she won't be coming back. So we are going to continue. But thank you for the reminder. Agender item 11. This is an application the land at and to the rear of 24 High Street Coton. The proposal in front of us is for the demolition of an existing dwelling, garage and stores, and then the construction of four new dwellings associated infrastructure, parking, landscape and scenery works. The applicant is juxtaproperties. The recommendation we have from officers is approval. And the reason it's in front of us today is because the parish council had an objection. The presenting officer is Mary Collins, who I'm hoping is online and able to turn her camera on now. Yes. Yes, I'm here chair. Mary, thank you for joining us. So Mary, I'm going to hand over to you if you could give us any updates to the report and then to introduce the report for committee members, please. Okay. We'll chair. There's no updates on the report. So I'll just try and get my screen shared and I hope everyone can hear me. Okay. We can. Yes. So I just put my points for option on so you can see that properly. Okay. The application site is cited on the north eastern side of the High Street close to the junction with Cambridge Road. Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site, which is number 24. And for the construction of three further dwellings to the rear. There are joining residential properties at 2 Cambridge Road and 8 Cambridge Road also properties on this side of Cambridge Road. We've also had. There's also properties here at 4 and 6 Cambridge and High Street. We've received representations from each of these. These properties have lined there. I don't know why it's not doing. Sorry. Apologies. Right. Okay. The site lies partially within the Cotan conservation area, which is marked by this pink line here. So everything on this side is within the conservation area. And it is within the village framework identified by this hatched line. With the exception of this section here, which would be land to the rear of the proposed plot number three. It is open countryside and green belt. Third party reps have been received, as I mentioned before, from neighbours surrounding the site and opposite. And the parish council have raised a number of concerns with the proposal and requested that it be referred to committee. The main issues of the principle of development. The impact on the Cotan conservation area. The impact on adjacent residential properties and flooding issues. So this just indicates the site plan showing the layout, proposal layout of the site. This is a replacement dwelling that is on unit four, which would replace an existing bungalow. As I mentioned before, these are the neighbours joining the site. In my view, the principle neighbours affected would be this one at number eight Cambridge Road, number two Cambridge Road and 22 High Street. So we've got a replacement dwelling there and three further dwellings to the rear of the site. So this indicates the appearance when viewed from the high street and from the conservation area. This shows number two Cambridge Road, which is on the corner of the High Street and Cambridge Road. This is replacement dwelling here. So I'll talk about this one first. This is the replacement dwelling that will replace the bungalow. So in terms of the principle of development, the replacement of the bungalow is considered acceptable in the conservation area. But the replacement dwelling should make a positive contribution and make at least the same contribution to the conservation area than the existing building would. The street scene plan shows that the ridge of the replacement dwelling wouldn't be significantly higher than adjacent buildings either side. There would be quite a bit of visual space into either side of the building and it's considered that the building would respect the high street frontage. Now in terms of the dwellings to the rear, these would occupy more of a subservient situation. So plot one is cited partially behind number 22 High Street. So there's just an indication of its profile there. Unit two is more directly to the rear of the proposed new dwelling there. And the third dwelling is situated behind some of the single story side of number two, Cambridge Road. So in terms of the view from the high street, we consider that replacement dwelling relates well to development either side. But then the dwellings occupying the backland position are recessive and not highly visible in views from this point in the high street. Now other views will be available for public views would be available from Cambridge Road through the gap between existing properties. So there'd be some views through here, through here of the proposal. But given the location of the dwelling on plot two, sorry plot three, it is set in quite in from that view. So we feel that would have a recessive impact. Now the layout of the site allows views through it beyond to the open countryside and green belt beyond. And we feel this has been achieved by the separation of the dwellings and how to put spacing in between. So this would allow, so we consider the individual dwellings occupy their own space with views through from the conservation area and in towards the conservation area. And the dwelling on the high street in relation to the ones to the rear in the subservient position retains the primary seat of the high street. And this helps to preserve character and appearance of the conservation area. So when viewed from the the open countryside, there would be limited public views from this this direction. But given the orientation of the buildings where they've got their narrower or their gables and more. They've been articulated to reduce their impact and also they're setting by quite a distance from the rear boundary. Officers consider there wouldn't be any detrimental impact on any open countryside beyond or the green belt itself. So shown you this one before showing the relationship of the three dwellings. And this is just showing it in section 4 showing how the dwellings are sighted behind the three elevations on the principal frontage. The proposal also entails quite a high degree of landscaping, which officers feel would help assimilate the scheme within the conservation area and on this rural edge. There's an existing hedgerow here, which we're hoping there's a condition for this to be for the line of this hedge to be retained in perpetuity. Okay, Mary. Yes, I'm just fine. So. Oh, yeah, this just shows an indication of where the proposed dwelling would be in relation to number two Cambridge Road. So the second issue we consider would be the impact on neighbours. So this property is number two Cambridge Road. Replacement dwelling is situated to the south east of this property and is separated by quite a distance there from the boundary, and it would be constructed on a similar boundary line. The proposed garage to this property is also inset from the boundary number two Cambridge Road. So officers consider there wouldn't be a detrimental impact on this property in the replacement dwelling. In terms of the impact on number 22 High Street, again, there's quite a sufficient distance for any detrimental impact to not resolved. Eight Cambridge Road is situated here and the main impact, obviously, to this dwelling would be this proposed dwelling here. This has got some sort of one and a half stories and it's also setting quite a distance from this common boundary. Given the alignment of any windows in the direction you consider, there will be a detrimental loss of outlook from the mate. This existing dwelling as a result of the proposed dwelling on plot three. Much more to go Mary. No, no, no, sorry. It's just situated behind this property. Yeah, there's sufficient back to back distances here. And then the other property we consider that just, you know, in our considerations is this one at number 22. And again, we consider that given the separation that there would be no first floor windows on this elevation here that this would be acceptable. Thank you. I think unless there's anything more material reasons you need to present to us now, I'm sure members can pick up on any specific points during the debate and come back to you if that's okay. Yep, that's fine. Thank you very much. Members, I'm going to move on to the public speakers now of which we have three. The first I'm going to call upon is Kathy Shaw, I think is here. Kathy, just the microphone where the empty seat is there please. That's it. A note here that there are supporting materials with your, is this it on the screen now? Great. So I think as I appreciate you've probably been here a while, so probably heard me say this before, but you have three minutes to address the committee. Obviously referring to anything on screen that you need. Then if you could hold on, stay seated at the end just in case there are any questions for you from committee members. Okay. Whenever you're ready. Okay. Good afternoon. We the neighbours still feel that the size and scale of these properties does not sit comfortably in a conservation setting, nor has a backdrop to the heritage asset at number 12 High Street. We just made that the committee can make a judgment on this without a site visit, which would bring home a huge impact this development would have on neighbouring properties. Our main concern though is surface water flooding. As stated by the drainage office, the proposals are not in accordance with policies CC8 and CC9. Having looked at the report from the planning officer, it's apparent that surface water flooding in the area has not been seriously considered. All developments need to be eco-proof to address the effects of climate change and the same consideration must surely apply to immediate flood risk. Given the Glasgow conference, one would expect Southcams to take this issue much more seriously. Was the environment agency consulted? Surely they should be asked to look at this. They're current mapping for this part of Cotin, which is on the screen now. You can see from the map already has areas of high risk of surface water flooding. And there's also many natural springs in this part of the village, which exacerbate the problem. The proposal to approve this application with a condition requiring submission in the future of further drainage details is just not good enough. If the drainage problems proved to be insurmountable, it would too late to stop the development. Several of the neighbouring properties have firsthand experienced the effects of flooding. Two already have pumps to remove excess surface water runoff, and this will only increase when the higher level land is developed with deep foundations. And mature trees, which naturally taking water, are removed and replaced with small saplings. Number four high street has a pump which activates every 15 seconds during rainstorms to prevent flooding of the house. Number 22 high street has a pump which collects rainwater runoff into a three and a half thousand litre tank under the garden. This is used to flush toilets and is rarely empty. When this pump failed recently, the driveway was quickly under five centimetres of water. Would the members be happy to live with that sort of constant threat beside their homes? There are major issues with sewage systems in this part of the village, about which the officer may not be aware. A recent problem, which I'll not give you graphic details of, but resulted in a garden in the area being contaminated with all sewage. Can you, as chair of this committee, confirm you've received written evidence that the planning officer has given serious consideration to the flood risk on this site, and that you were satisfied with her conclusions? We ask that you please publicly declare that such confirmations before the committee decides this application. Thank you very much. Members, any questions of clarity for Mrs Shaw? Thank you for that, Matt, and your explanation. Now, I think what I'm trying to get my head around is that you said number 22 has a pump that pumps water into an underground tank. Yes. It has a pump in the driveway, which takes the water run-off from the roof and from the land, because the land is at that level, at that angle. So the land behind that's being developed is a lot higher than the high street, and so it collects rainwater, which is then recycled. Okay. Is this the only part of that section that suffers that much? No. Numbers 4 and 6 suffer. If you look on that map, just there, that is number 4 and number 6. One of those is the ones that have the pump. He actually has rainwater underneath his foundation lapses. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Members, any further questions of clarity from Mrs Shaw? Okay. Well, again, thank you for being with us today physically. I appreciate you've probably had a bit of a wait, but we appreciate you taking the time. Thank you very much. Okay. Members, our next public speaker is the agent for the applicant on CAF Slater and Hopings Online, and is able to switch her video on. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Good afternoon. And again, thank you very much for being patient. It's been a long day for all. As with everyone else, I'm going to allow you three minutes to address the committee, after which if you could just hold fire just in case any committee members have any questions of clarity. Do we still need the map on the screen? I don't know who's sharing it, but could they switch it off? That's great. Okay. Thank you, Mrs Slater, whenever you're ready. Thank you, chairman. I'm Cass Slater from Eclipse Planning, and I'm acting on behalf of the applicant this afternoon. You've been asked to consider a proposal to demolish and replace the shallow bungalow fronting the high street and to construct three further dwellings on the land to the rear. All four of the dwellings will be located inside the development boundary. Cotin is a group village, and both the principle and scale of the proposed development accords with your local plan policy. Concerns have been raised by the parish council and neighbours about the development. In terms of the concerns regarding overdevelopment, the proposal equates to nine dwellings per hectare. The dwellings would also have enclosed rear gardens, which range in size from 465 square metres to over 1200 and greatly exceed the 80 square metres required by your design guide. The proposals cannot therefore be considered as overdevelopment. With regards to the impact on neighbours' immunity, I refer to your officer report, which assesses this in detail and concludes that the proposal respects residential immunity in accordance with local plan policy. Furthermore, there are conditions that control the committed development rights, the installation of obscure glazing and restricts the further creation of further openings in the south west elevation of unit one. Any future changes would therefore come back to you under the guise of planning application. The front of the site is within the conservation area, and there have been extensive discussions with the conservation officer, which first started in a pre-app in 2018. Since then, the footprint and height of units one to three have been reduced significantly and verified views have been produced to demonstrate the minimal visual impact they would have on the conservation area. In the plans that you have before you today, the heights of these dwellings have been further reduced and the space between units two and three increased. The conservation officer now raises no objection to the replacement of the bungalow, or to units one to three as proposed. The development will use the existing access from the high street, its design accords with the county council's technical design requirements and parking will be in accordance with local plan standards. With regards to drainage, it's important to note that the site is in flood zone one, and that plan that you've just been shown shows the surface water flow through this part of Cotin. The land to the rear of the site where the three dwellings are is not affected by surface water, as can be seen from that drawing. Your officers have raised no objection subject to condition requiring details of the drainage strategy to be submitted for your approval in the usual way. In summary, this proposal is within the development framework and accords with the development plan. There were no adverse impacts on either the conservation area, residential immunity, highway safety or flood risk that outweith this. I therefore ask members to accept the officer recommendation today and to support this application. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Three minutes bang on. So if you don't mind holding on for a second, I'm going to ask committee members if there are any questions of clarification for yourself and Slater. Nope. Okay. I think that was all from Councillor Cahn. Regarding the drainage, the problems outlined with surface water drainage are evident. The site is on a slope. I'm wondering if what the geological conditions are because it strikes me. Some of the drainage problems may be related to it lying on the spring line between chalk and clay. And whether you've investigated that and whether that may produce problems more building took place. No, we haven't done any geo investigations at this stage, but there is a condition that requires details of the drainage strategy to be submitted to the council. Both surface water and foul and as part and parcel of that, I'd expect that geotechnical work to be done. Thank you for that. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you chair. Through yourself, just as drainage is something obviously of concern to local residents, I'm looking at condition six. I believe that one of the things that's concerned about is the maintenance and just everything around drainage. Would it be agreeable if this was, and this isn't an indication of my support or not? But a rewording of that is not to be prior to, not to first occupation, but prior to commencement of development to have that condition discharged in order to alleviate the concern that it will be too late once things are done. Is this a question for the applicant? Yes, if they would be agreeable to accept that. Yes, if that was something that members felt was appropriate. Thank you. Any final questions for the applicant, please? Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, chair. Through you. It might be a cheeky one. Why didn't you do the Drillage assessment before submitting the application? Because in this particular case, it's in flood zone one and therefore the risk of flooding is very low. It's something that can be and is appropriate to deal with by means of a condition. And in this particular case, that's the advice of your officers and we're happy to accept that. See on the surface water issue. It's linked as part and parcel of it. The surface water and foul drainage would be considered as part of the as part of the condition. Thank you for that. I don't think there's any further questions for yourself. So again, thank you very much for taking the time to address us today. And members will be moving on to the final public speaker we have, which is a member of the parish council. I believe Councillor Caroline Postgate. Same seat as before. Thank you. And again, have another note here that there are supporting materials. Are those going to be displayed on the screen? They're needed at the end of my three minutes, so don't worry about looking at it now. OK, OK. So just before you start, can I just check that you have the authorisation of your parish council to represent them today? As of last night's meeting, yes. Thank you very much. Well, as with other speakers, three minutes for just the committee and then there may be some questions for you at the end. So whenever you're ready, please. The parish council remains strongly opposed to this development and is dismayed that the planning committee is considering without making a site visit to see for itself the adverse impact on neighbouring properties. Despite the statement on agenda page 292 and the long list of recommendations on page 312, the development does not in our opinion comply with the following policies. HQ 1 sections AD H and N H 16 section B subsections 234 and 5 and paragraph 7.62 and H 8 section 3 in paragraph 6.35 CC 8 sections A and C and CC 9 section D. In addition, there is the issue of road safety. A police speed survey in 2016 showed more than 1100 vehicles travelling along Cambridge Road every day. This was during a week when there were no incidents on the M11 or A14 when the volume of cars and large lorries increases spectacularly. The Cambridgeshire Highways consultation report makes no mention of the volume of traffic and the impact the vehicles exiting and entering the development will have on road safety or the safety of the many children who cycle along high street to and from school. Four houses on high street will lose off road parking spaces which lie on the developed land, a situation made worse by the proposed greenways cycle way project along high street, where parking is likely to be prohibited. Vehicles using the driveway will be a major hazard to cyclists on the high street. Page 8 section 4.4.5 of Highway Development Management General Principles for Development, May 2021, stipulates a minimum stagger between junctions on opposite sides of the road. The exact measurement between the proposed access driveway and the existing driveway to St Catherine's Farm, which leads to five dwellings and fields with horses, is 6.9 metres instead of the recommended 20 metres minimum. The distance to the busy and dangerous junction with Cambridge Road High Street on a blind bend when approached from Cambridge Road is only 40 metres. Finally, at a South Cambridgeshire District Council planning training workshop in March 2019, if we could have the slide now that would be good, parish councillors were asked to consider a case study of two dwellings on a backland plot almost identical with this development. The recommendation was a probable refusal based on impact of vehicular movements on the property adjoining the access road and overlooking of a garden. If, in our case, you add serious road safety issues, surface water flood risk, non-compliance with local plan policies and highways guidelines on staggered entrances, can you, chair, please explain why this scheme should not be refused outright? Thank you very much for that. Members, do we have any questions of clarity for the councillor? Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you, chair. Through yourself, if I could just ask and a bit slower the policy references that were made at the start, I did try and keep up and then I lost after HQ one, I think. So if we could have those in turn more at my pace, I'm afraid. OK, well the policy HQ one is the design principles and the sections I thought particularly important were to preserve or enhance the character of the local urban or rural area. Be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale density mass form, citing design proportion materials, etc. And to ensure that car parking is integrated into the development in a convenient accessible manner and does not dominate the development in its surrounding or cause safety issues. And protect the health and immunity of occupiers overlooking, overbearing or resulting in a lost daylight. This is happening to Street number six in particular. I beg your pardon, Cambridge Road number one, number two, I'm getting confused with the numbers. OK, the next one was policy H16, which I don't believe has been met the conditions. This is to do with the development of residential gardens saying there must be no significant harm to the local area taking in account any direct and ongoing impacts on the residential immunity of nearby properties. The proposed citing design scale and materials of construction and the existence or ability to create a safe vehicular access and the provision of adequate on site parking. In our opinion, the provision of on site parking is not sufficient. Especially since there will be no on road parking outside the development. I think just the policy numbers. I think it was the question. Yes, well these, yes, I beg your pardon. OK, then the policy in H8 was mitigating the impact of development to in and joining the green belt, which are significant here because it adjoins the green belt. And policy is easy. And CC nine are to do with managing flood risk and sud sustainable drain systems. Thank you very much. Members, any further questions of clarity for the councillor, councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you, Kyran, through you just on on the issue of policies, you quoted a highways policy. Yes, yes. From a document called Highway Development Management dated May 2021. This is to do with access on to the highway, is it? Access on to the highway in relation to another road joining almost opposite. That was the lack of space between these two. I don't know if it's possible to put up one of the maps of the development so that you can see. Is your question been answered, councillor Hawkins? Is it? Kind of it. I'm trying to understand what that has to do. Entrance to the site at the back. Is that it's that's the relevance to it. It's there to a major junction. That's what I'm trying to establish. It's the it's the the the entrance to the site is on high street. And it's very close to an entrance to a development on the other side of the road and existing development. And the minimum distance should be 20 meters. And it's only 6.9. I guess you can see there, I think. OK, so. The is that where the pointer is now? Is the opposite side of the road to where? Yes, that's correct. St Catherine's Farm entrance. Thank you. OK, thank you very much. Councillor Khan, please. I related to highways, which seems to me an issue. I know, I know relative code somewhat. And when traffic is coming from Cambridge Road towards High Street coming south, it comes around a sharp bend. I believe it's in a 30 mile an hour limit there. But in practice, you come around a sharp bend. What sort of speed are they actually doing when they come around the block? There's a blind bend with no pavement. So what sort of speed are cars actually doing when they come down that? Is that a question of clarity, Councillor? It's a clarity of what information about highways in terms of. So we get some idea of what the real risk is of letting the highway conditions. OK. She knows the situation better than as she lives in the village. OK. You can answer will take it. The survey that was done, the speed survey showed that traffic was travelling a percentage of about 13%. I think it was traveling at over 35 miles an hour in the 30 mile limit along Cambridge Road. They have to stop at the high street in order to carry on around the bend, but they very often don't. So I would say in excess of 30 mile an hour speed limit is a possibility around that bend. OK. Thank you for that. No further questions, I believe. So again, we'll thank you very much for taking the time to come and join us in person today. I appreciate it's a bit later in the day that I'm sure you anticipated. But again, we appreciate you taking the time to join us. Thank you. OK. Members, those are all the public speakers we have. So I'm going to move into the debate now. Of course, we do have Mary on the line as well in case we need to ask her any, ask the officer any questions of clarity or bring up any maps. So I will throw the floor open. Start with Councillor Rippeth, please. It's a question for Mary. Have you any more pictures as in photographs of that area, just the one you showed us? I quite like to, I do know the area a little bit. I know the road and it sweeps round. And I would judge about a 45 degree angle coming down. Sort of down from, I think, west to east. But a few more photographs would be helpful. Have you any? I'm not sure if you have that available, Mary. If not, it's not essential. No, so it's just the photos in the presentation. OK, no more of the houses around that one. I think it's just the images we have in the presentation, I'm afraid. Councillor Richard Williams, please. Thank you very much, Chair. I just want to pick up on this question of policy H16, Development of Residential Gardens. It's referenced once on page 292 of the report, but then it isn't listed on 293. I couldn't find another reference to it. So can I just get a clarification that policy H16 does indeed apply to this application, because it's the development of residential garden? If it does, could the officer say a little bit more about why that policy is regarded as having been complied with, given that it refers to, I think, as, I can't remember, it was the neighbour or the parish council representative. I think it's the parish council representative. It made clear that it refers to much more than just residential amenity. There are a list of things there. And then separately, but not entirely unrelatedly, could we get a bit more detail about what the use is of the land behind the existing property? Because from the satellite view, there are things on that land. It's not just a sort of field with nothing in it. That's a slightly separate question. Thank you. Mary, I'm not sure if you picked both of those up, but if you could attempt to answer those, please. Actually saying that, I think we've got Chris who's about to jump in. Thanks, chair. Yeah, so policy H16, in my view, would apply. And my understanding from the officer report is that the land to the rear is garden land, but perhaps Mary can correct me if I'm wrong there. As regards the other elements of policy H16, clearly it's a matter of planning judgment as to whether or not you think those points are satisfied by the scheme that's in front of you. I think the officer report has addressed those points, but obviously it's a matter for members to determine whether or not they're satisfied with that analysis or whether you take a different view. OK. Councillor Fane, please. Thank you, chair. Rather follows on the previous question. We had Mrs Postgate of the Parish Council saying specifically that this doesn't comply with various policies, not just H16, HQ1 relating to design principles. I think that's dealt with in the report. NH8 relating to adjacent to green belt. I think from the map it seemed to me this site wasn't quite adjacent to the green belt, that is there is intervening land if I understood it correctly. Again, I think CC8 and CC9 are dealt with in the report. I wondered if Mary Collins had any views on the extent to which this application is compliant with those policies. OK. Thank you, chair. Well, we have taken policy H16 into account because it does involve works to a garden, but the main consideration would be that in our view meets policy HQ1 and also the conservation area policy. So we feel that the development itself would not be detrimental to the character of the area and that is one of the aspects of policy H16. So, although we haven't addressed it directly, I feel we've addressed it through other policies that we've taken into consideration. That was your question, councillor. Well, there were a number of policies referred to, including I mentioned specifically NH8. Any officers have any specific views on policy NH8 and whether it's been met or not? Mr Carter. Yeah, through you, chair. So this is the policy which seeks to mitigate impact of development in adjoining the Greenbelt Council. Correct. There is an area of land between the site and the Greenbelt boundary according to the plan that is shown on the screen further. And as pointed out, I think by the agent who spoke for the applicant, this is a very low density form of development, loose-knit spaces between buildings. So, again, mitigating any sort of impact from the built form on the Greenbelt, notwithstanding that is a field away from the boundary of the site. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you, chair. And I think based on this, we'll determine my comments for the debate. If I could just ask to see again in relation where the development is in relation to the listed building that was referred to, that can be displayed. Sure. Can we see that, please, Mary? Based on my viewing of that, I'll give my points for the debate. Mary, if you could just identify which the listed buildings are. I think it's here. Or along here somewhere. I'm not quite sure. Chair, I think some of the local residents might know which one it actually is. If maybe some of the local residents could point on the screen there, possibly. OK. Does that help, Councillor? It's on one. OK. I think we're on the bottom edge as we're looking at the map now. Conservation area in relation to the development. Cos we've got some part saying that it's within it and some. Sure. I think there's a map at the beginning of your presentation, Mary, that outline this. That's it. So I believe the purple line is the conservation area and the black dotted line is the village boundary. Yeah. The houses that are proposed in relation to. They're all inside the development framework boundary. So they're all to the left of the black dotted line. But to the right of purple. Yeah. The three new houses replacement dwelling at the front. Can I give my thoughts of the debate, Chair? OK. So I think that I was trying to wrestle with HQ 1B about conserve or enhance important natural historic assets in their settings. So I think the historic, the listed building is far enough away that the proposal doesn't affect it. However, building in the conservation area for myself, I would see that as a natural asset. And I wouldn't say this development is conserving or enhancing it particularly. So I would feel that it's in conflict there. With policy H16. So I'm going to switch to it on here. With it being a residential garden. The one in no significant harm to the local area taking account of the character of the local area. And this is why I think the conservation area element is of importance here. I think that the character of that local area in conservation, there is significant harm because there's going to be three houses in it. And I don't have an issue if this on the density and everything else has been said if this wasn't in a conservation area. But given where it is, I have to say I'm inclined to vote against on it because I don't see how we're improving this area. And I think it will have an impact for the surrounding properties as well. I'm not convinced that everything on H16 has been met. And given that this is market housing, if we were looking at purely affordable then I may say that the value in that outweighs the harm. But for myself, I don't think this is something that I'm comfortable supporting because I don't think it really complies with H16. But obviously that's a planning judgment and it's quite, you know... Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Cahn then Hawkins. I'm assuming we're on the debate. I generally have no problems having to do with the conservation area status. I feel that the replacement dwelling is definitely much more in keeping, seems to be more in keeping than the existing dwelling. So that seems to me an improvement which is acceptable. And I'm not particularly worried about the intrusion. I think the building houses behind a typical of the sort of village and would be adequate density. But I am surprised about the highways and that the highway authority made no objection. I know the village. Actually the main road I checked on the satellite photo. The main road comes down Cambridge Road and two high streets and that has priority. It's the high street going west, which is a minor road. So vehicles come down Cambridge Road and round the bend, and I know myself doing it, it's difficult because you're going downhill. And to go round that bend you tend to go fast and quite possible to be at least at the speed limit. And you've got quite a short distance of visibility with no pavement. And I would be worried, particularly vehicles coming out and doing a right hand turn that they would be at risk. Therefore I'm really rather surprised that the highways authority didn't make any comments. And I'm debating, still debating, whether I want to prioritise the highway situation, which we might have difficulty defending because of the highway authority, not objecting. And what I do actually see is probably something which the visa site improvement in the conservation area. I'm still not certain. Okay. Thank you for those comments. Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you, chair. Councillor Cairns still in some of my thunder. For me it's the highways. That's of concern. And yep, I know the road. I've driven down it fast. So I'm probably going to be culprits. And can I just clarify? I don't think the houses at the back are in the conservation area. They are between that pink line and the black hashed line. So they're not in the conservation area. But it seems to me now with this new development there's going to be two entrances. One to the garage of the replacement dwelling. And one to the houses at the back. So instead of one entrance into that site, we've got two. Why go in another tangent? The garage to the replacement building. We have additional traffic coming out of that site. And it is close to the dangerous bend. And taking into account the entrance on the opposite side of the road as well, which has been mentioned. And also if I can refer to page. Because it's a statement that talks about some of the houses losing their parking. Oh, I had it. Yes. Paragraph 33. Potentially increased parking from cottages which have lost some of their off street parking. Proposed and land. Sorry, parking for visitors to propose new development. I can't quite understand how that plays into this. But it seems to me that there's parking that is currently on street that will be lost. Perhaps it can just have some clarification of that. But I think for me highways is an issue. And I am also surprised that no objections have been raised. And only 2x2 meters visibility space has been requested. Anyone who's been done that road knows just how bad it is. Thank you just for clarity. Paragraph 33 comments from a member of the public. They're not an officer's comments. So it's a representation from outside of the council. Yes, but it's still something we need to consider. It just isn't clear to me where they're referring to and what is being lost. And since for me the issue is highways, I would, if there's a way of clarifying that, I'll be helpful. Mary, I think it might be useful to look at the map again because I think there are two issues. One around where there's one or two accesses and two where exactly on street parking will be, sorry, off street parking. No, on street parking will be lost. Yeah, thank you chair. There will just be one answer. So that's the only access in and out of the site. And the garage unit four is just here. So all the parking is within the actual site. So presumably where the new access is going is where the loss of on street parking for the cottages next to the site would be. Yes. A question actually is the access shown here. Is this a new access that's going to be created or is this an existing access to the site? Mary, can you take us back to the red line location plan please? The question was, is the access that you just showed us on the previous image the current access to number 24 because will it be a brand new newly created access? I understand that that access is in the location where it is existing that serves the property. But number 24, so I think it is an existing access. Okay, thank you. Chair, just on that. So just in regard to that answer and just in the context of the comments that have been made about highway safety, it's an existing access. We're not looking at an additional access or a new access in different locations. So if members are concerned about highway safety, you would be, I think, hanging your hat on additional vehicle movements which are from three additional dwellings, obviously likely to be fairly limited in mine. No, I'm back, sorry. God, I think I'm echoing in my own mind there. So you think about the impact of three additional dwellings and obviously the test with impacts on highway safety is their significant impact on highway safety. So I just throw that in for consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. That's useful. Next speaker, we have is Councillor Fane. Thank you, Chair. I am, I admit, very sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the Irish Council, but we have to look at the facts on the ground. All four proposed properties are inside the development boundary. It is, as the agent pointed out, a group village, so that is compatible with the local plan. It's not a dense development. The question of residential amenity to neighbouring houses has, I think, been dealt with. We have the views now, I think, of the conservation officer in terms of the impact on the conservation area, which doesn't seem to be significant, and similarly on the listed building some distance away. On access, it isn't that the highways didn't comment. I think I'm rightly saying we don't have a highways officer with us anymore, but it isn't that they didn't comment. They said they had no objections subject to certain conditions, which they set out at paragraph 15, including pedestrian visibility displays, the width of the access, and so on. As we saw from the plans just now, the access is an existing access, which is actually not right on the corner. There is, as was pointed out, another access opposite. I think I'm right in saying that access is actually gated, but I may be thinking of a different one. I'm thinking of a different one, it would seem right. But there is an access opposite, which is to a small number of properties. I believe we were told there were five properties up there. Also, the question was raised as to what extent this was compatible with a whole range of our policies, HQ1H16, NH8, CC8 and CC9. I think all of those concerns were dealt with in turn. So, I have to say that I think this application is in line with our existing policies, and the effect on both the green belt and the conservation area for these developments inside the development boundary would not be, in my view, sufficient to justify refusal, and that we should therefore accept the recommendation to approve this application. Thank you, Councillor Thane. Councillor Rippeth is next, please. I know we're not being asked to consider this today. The flooding and drainage isn't listed. That's for further down the road. I'm just still slightly concerned by paragraph 22, and the proposals are not in accordance with adopted policies, CC7 and CC8, as they have not demonstrated suitable surface water and cloud drain, et cetera, et cetera. I'm just kind of a little bit disappointed that that wasn't sort of given a little bit more detail coming to this committee beforehand, and the surveys haven't yet been carried out. It just feels like we might be just storing something else up for ourselves later as regards to flooding and drainage. However, I'm under the understanding that, if that is the case, that's to be debated at a later date. Is that Mr Kerl? Is that what's to come in with? I'm happy to, Chair. I mean, I think members, we've obviously discussed this before, and it's not uncommon for these matters on smaller scale schemes to be dealt with by condition later on. It's worth, obviously, having regard as well to paragraphs 92 and 93 in the officer report on page 310, which obviously clarifies the recommendation of the drainage officer being that the condition is acceptable in this case. Obviously, if the applicant were unable to comply with the requirements of such a condition, then that condition couldn't be discharged, in which case the development wouldn't be able to proceed at that stage. It does provide some further protection down the line. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you, Chair. It's just, before we go to a vote, you might recall that I asked the agent whether they'd be agreeable to a change in the condition, because it was raised sort of that the horse might bolt it. I think someone just used that expression that once it's done, it's there. So it's not number five. That is prior to commencement development, but condition six, if we could have, rather than prior to first occupation, if we could have that as prior to commencement of development as the agent was agreeable when I asked, and that might at least give residents a sense of security that things will be addressed ahead of the buildings being there if they are approved. OK, so I'm just looking at here condition six, which is on page 312. So I think the suggestion was which the agent was open to would be that the surface water drainage system to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, which is currently raised prior to the first occupation, but the suggestion is to change that to commencement of development. Is that correct? Yes. OK. I don't know if any officers want to comment on that. If not, I'll put it to the committee. No. OK. Members, do we need any debate on this proposed change, or can we agree this by affirmation? Agreed. I'll second it. Sure. OK. Thank you for sticking to the process. So that was proposed by Councillor Heather Williams, Councillor Richard Williams, and I think agreed unanimously by the committee. Thank you. OK. Members, I don't have any further speakers in the debate, so I think we probably are in a position to make a decision on this. As I think we've had a few differing views, I'm going to take a vote on this particular item. We have a recommendation on page 311, which is to grant approval of the scheme subject to the recommendations, and then follow that. Oh, yes. Of course. Reasons for refusal, please. So what I have written down so far, should we vote to refuse? I have concerns around highway safety, concerns around going against policy HQ1 and H16. Is that what officers have? Chair, through you. I've got a draft reason related to scale, height, siting, massing of the dwellings, and their impact on the character and appearance of the code and conservation area contrary to policy HQ1 and H14 and H16. I haven't drafted a reason on highways. I think it would be very weak, but obviously that's for members to determine. I suppose that's the only reason I think based on what you've just said, unless there's other additional comments that members wish to make. I'm going to bring in Stephen Reed at this point. Chris Carter's just beaten me to it. You don't have a highway objection, therefore, if you were to put that forward as a reason for refusal, you're going to leave yourself open to a claim for costs in any appeal on that point in relation to that ground for the refusal. I would express some caution about putting something in as to highway safety. OK, councillor Heather Williams. Charles can say although I sympathise and I have to say the photo was very alarming of that bend, I am in agreeance that our reason for refusal should be on the design and layout and not on the highways due to the lack of technical support and advice. So I'm in agreeance of officers for that reason for refusal. I think we need some clarity on being asked to get on whether it's the reason for refusal, should we grant a refuse, is impact on the conservation area, impact on neighbouring properties or both. Can I have some comments on that please? Heather Williams. For myself, it's mainly the conservation area and I looked at the diagram although there are a couple of local properties, it's not, there aren't sufficient, it's not like it's encompassed in the middle of something. So for myself it really does lay on H16 for myself, for Roman numeral 6 and the conservation area, but obviously I'm one voice. Sure. OK. Subject to final wording being agreed with the chair and vice-chair then nothing I've got on there. Thank you. OK, thank you. I don't think there's anything else members so I think we'll just take a vote on that now. We have reasons for refusal should we decide to go that way. As I say, we have a recommendation from the officer on page 311 to approve subject to conditions. We're going to have to do it by a show of hands members so I can ask all those in favour of that recommendation to raise their hands please. One, two, three, four and all those against to raise their hands please. One, two and abstentions please. Two, so that application is approved. Thank you very much everyone who contributed to that. OK, members, it's 10 to 5 now. We have three more applications left. OK, members, we're on item 12 now which is an application in Orwell. As usual, I've lost the page. Here we go. For gender item 12, this is an application on a former garage site, and we're off-way Orwell. The proposal we have in front of us is for construction of four one-bedge and flats with associated gardens, parking, bin cycle, plant store, et cetera. The applicant is South Camershire District Council. The reason it's before us today is because South Camershire District Council are the applicants so we have to bring it to committee. The planning officer who'll be presenting this to us today is Michael Sexton and the recommendation is approval. Michael, are you there? Yep, still here, Chair. Good, thank you for holding on. So Michael, as usual, any updates to the report and then present the report, please? No updates to the report, but just the transparency. Members would have received an email from Councillor Benderweyer yesterday evening expressing his support for the application that was circulated to all committee members at quarter to 11. Again, a third party representation was sent to our democratic services team. Again, repeating issues that are already being raised during the formal consultation period and that are covered in the report. Those being matters relating to concerns over the access, emergency vehicles struggling to turn in the existing arrangements. There is a video that was attached to that, which I can display to members if they want me to show that. Concerns of parking provision and lots of privacy to neighbouring properties. As I said, there are all the issues that are covered in the report. So I'll move on to the presentation. Is that okay, Chair? Yes, please, Michael. If you confirm, Chair, please, you can see a presentation on the screen. You can. Excellent. Yes, so this is an application in Orwell for the development of full flats on a former garage site on Metacrock Way. It is an application made by South Cambridge District Council. This is the application site. It is located within the development framework boundary of Orwell. There are no other significant constraints on the site. The area to the east of the site here is open countryside, but the framework boundary allows the eastern boundary of the site and along this line that you can see here. For context, this photo in the top left is just along the single lane access to the rear of some of the existing properties in the former garage site. It's located in this area here. Historically, there were two ranges of single story garages. They have been demolished and were demolished some time ago. So at the minute it's open, hard standing, scrub land, as you can see from the images. To the north west of the site, you've got a range of single story properties. To the west of the site, you've got a range of two story properties. Then the countryside to the rear. This is the proposed layout for the site. As we'll see in the elevations, it takes on the appearance of a pair of semi-detached two story properties, but it will provide four one bed flats. Because they're one bed flats, we've got a single parking space for each unit. Each unit has its own private garden space. There's also a single story bin saw cycle store and a plant store for the air source heat pump. This is the appearance of the flats. As you can see, it takes on a semi-detached two story form. Which is considered to be in keeping with the character of the area, which is a mix of two story and single story properties. Just to show the floor plans that you've got two flats at the ground floor level and two flats at the first floor level. Again, each has got its own private immunity space. There is a 3D visual of how the development would look with the two story properties, existing properties in the foreground and the single story properties at northwest and open countryside beyond. A range of key material considerations, principle of development, housing provision, character vision of the entity, biodiversity, landscaping trees, water and drainage, highway safety, residential needs, climate change, open space provision and contamination. Officers are satisfied with the development reports with the relevant local plan policies subject to several conditions which are outlined in the report. The application is therefore recommended for approval. Thank you, Chair. Michael, thank you very much. As usual, if you don't mind holding on just in case there are questions for you during the debate. Members, we have two public speakers. I believe we have Mr Peter Kruger, as a member of the public. Do you want to come forward, Mr Kruger? There's a microphone just in the empty seat on your right-hand side there. Thank you for your patience. I appreciate you've been here for most of the day. Again, thank you very much for holding on. You've probably heard me say this numerous times throughout today, but the protocol is three minutes to adjust the committee and then if you could hold, stay seated in case there are any questions of clarity for you. Right, thank you. Draw your attention first to item seven. This is a reference to the previous plan for the site. When this plan was put forward, there were various concerns and various residents about parking. This was partially resolved by suggesting that there were other parking spaces in Meadowcroft which, as it turned out, these were mostly occupied after five o'clock in the evening. This was when the plan was for two properties. Now the plan is for four properties. And the parking provision... In other words, the parking provision is doubled, but the actual concern over parking, the residents before, hasn't been addressed at all. It's been largely ignored. Also since 2017, when the first plan was submitted, the number of vehicle movements in the villages increased because of the preference for people on-line shopping and Amazon vans driving around. So there's usually one visit per house per day. So there's going to be double the number of vans plus the increase in the market for online shopping. There isn't anywhere to park near these houses other than the parking... One and a half parking spaces allotted for each person. Is it access to a pumping station which it has to be maintained on a regular basis? I take issue with 113 in this item on the agenda, that the actual reference in this planning application to the previous planning application isn't of material impact. This is not true because the Geo Study by EPS actually describes the site as it was in 2017 before the garage was demolished and these were cut down, which have impact on the actual drainage of the site and also the demolition itself could have introduced contaminants. I take on Bob what you're saying about the contaminated land will be monitored during construction, but I actually do have to ask whether the Environmental Department of South Cams District Council, whoever does it, the control department has the capacity to do this monitoring. Please don't tell me it's going to be the builders of the site. The local name for meadowcroft or was when I was a child was the mash. It's a colloquialism. It is a mispronunciation of the word marsh. The marsh was drained to actually build meadowcroft. That was some 70 years ago and now the pipe workers actually degraded or being compromised. If you stand at Lotfield Street at the north of the development, you saw on the plan, you can actually watch sewage and storm water because the pipe work to the chalk stream on the other side of meadowcroft and the pumping station have both been compromised. You are now going to build four flats on the land where this pipe work has been compromised. Hence the number of visits to the pumping station. There appears to be no boundary condition attached to this application. There should be a boundary condition that states the boundary has to be confirmed before you get to slab level, I believe. You are also stating that in the plan the actual boundary of the site runs along the centre line of a ditch. Well, this is news to the residents of Orwell because we have never seen that before. If you look at the EPS Geo Study, you will see there is a little mound of land beside the ditch on the site side which obviously at one time had a hedgerow on it. It has now been removed. Is it possible to conclude if possible please? Sorry? Could you conclude if possible please? I would say that actually if someone plants a hedge along that ditch, you will lose it. And then you will lose your drainage scheme as well. I have no objections to actually housing in the village. I campaigned for the building of low cost housing at Brookside. But this plan, despite what you are saying, 111 and 113 regarding references to previous plans, it shouldn't have been done. And saying it has no impact on the plan is a bit like me driving down a bus lane and saying no harm done go. I suggest this plan is rejected, is redrafted and is thought of again preferably with two bungalows which there is a high demand in the village for. And this time really get it right. Thank you. Members, do you have any questions of clarity for Mr Kruger? Thank you, chair. And through you. Thank you, Mr Kruger. I'm not sure I quite understood when your comments about the, is it a foul drainage and it's been compromised and it's on the site. Is it on the site? It must be because the actual flooding is in Loughfield Street at the entrance of Metacroft. The pumping station is just beside this development. So it's somewhere in Metacroft, then the pipe work must be compromised because the actual, neither the storm water reaches the brook or the foul sewage reaches the pumping station probably. Has this been reported to only on water? You didn't know about it? Yes. There's a reason for me asking the question because I've got issues like that in mind. We have residents throughout Orwell because this is the same throughout Orwell. And in fact, the idea of infrastructure-led development seems to have fallen off the plan. We have tremendous problems with mixture of foul water and storm water. You walk around Orwell on a rainy night and you are wading through a stream. We don't have roads. We have streams of water getting into the brook. And it's unfortunate that it's a chalk stream and the foul sewage just runs in straight into it off the road. Thanks for the clarification. No problem. Thank you. Any further questions of clarity for the speaker? Mr Kruger, thank you very much again for being so patient with us. We'll move on now to the next public speaker, who is the agent for the applicant, I believe, who is online and a broadband. Ms Broadbent, are you with us? Hi there. No, I don't think we're required to speak today. Thank you. I think Michael has covered everything for us. But if there are any questions, we're here to help. Well, thanks for hanging on. I appreciate it. OK, well, if we don't have any more public speakers, their members are going to move us into the debate. I can ask the case officer any questions at this stage as well. And of course we can contribute to the debate as well. Simply to ask a question. If the sewer is compromised and not working, but is this a legitimate reason for refusal on the grounds of underwater having to accept sewage on the site? What would be our position in terms of that? I'm not sure. Any officers want to hazard a guess? Hi, chair. Happy to come in at that point and through you. It's an issue that the drains have been compromised. It sounds like it's a maintenance issue. The application has been reviewed by the council's sustainable drainage engineers and there's no technical objection. And you'll see you've got the usual foul water and service water conditions applied. So I don't think there's grounds for refusal of the application on that basis. It sounds very much like it would be a maintenance issue that would fall within the gift of anglian water to investigate and result. Thank you. Councillor Richard Williams, please. Thank you. Just sticking on that point. Can I just clarify with Michael whether anglian water were consulted on this application or not? Because it's obviously concerning if a residents has this sewage flowing down the road. I can't see a representation from them in the pack. Is that because they were asked or because they didn't respond? They certainly have made representation. I can look in the system to see if they were consulted. I'm not 100% sure off the top of my head whether we would consult them on a scheme of four dwellings, whether it has to be a major application for us to consult anglian water. But I can certainly, I haven't received a representation and I can check the system if you can give me a minute to answer the question about whether they were consulted or not. Whilst you're doing that, Michael, we'll take the next speaker who is Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you, Chair. I have to say, looking at the conversion of garages into what's going to be affordable flats is in principle something that I welcome normally in frustration that we're selling it off. So I do appreciate that it's going to add to the affordable housing elements. And I see from the email that we received from Councillor van der Wer that he's in support of the application. I imagine that's the main reason why. I think the parking is a valid issue to raise. I've built up there, it is quite congested and the way the road goes round it, you know, I can understand why there'd be concerns around that. And I'm just wondering if it's possible for us to look at the sort of site plan in relation to the road again, if that's possible. Because I understand the parking reservations, but also, you know, for more affordable housing units is there is a need for it. It looks like Michael is trying to help us out with the map. Yeah, I will multi-task. I can display the site plan if that's helpful. Please. If that doesn't cover the whole area that you're looking to see, I can put up a Google map if that's more helpful. Chair, if it's OK, a Google map might be quite helpful because that shows it's just because of its location in the bend, I'm thinking particularly. Michael, if you could, Google or another search engine provider. This is the site in here. And then this is the single lane track that goes down to the public highway of Meadowcroft. Wait, would you like me to jump on this preview to show you that perspective? Yes, please. OK, I just need to find out where the man has gone. There he is. So this is Meadowcroft way. And then the access to the site is down here, which becomes a single lane. And you'll be able to see that. This was taken when the garage was still on site. This is as far as it will allow me to go. But then this continues to run round the back of these properties, just as a single lane, as you can see it there. So hopefully that's helpful. Can I just clarify as well? Thank you for that. That helps with the familiarity of it. Don't we have an issue with access for people to actually have access to garages on that side that they've built in their back gardens? Have they now got access there to access their properties? Because I believe we had an issue, although it could be somewhere else. And I'm just having a moment because it's gone five, where people have built garages, but they didn't actually have a right of access way. Through you, chair, there are some single story garages here in terms of rights of access. Obviously that's a legal matter. But just to go back to the site plan, you can see that the development, including the parking, is contained entirely within the former garage site. So there wouldn't be any conflicts with existing use of this access road and any potential vehicles that may be using those garages. So officers are satisfied that there's no encroachment onto the existing access arrangements. So I don't think there's any harm in that respect. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Michael. No problem. Thank you for that, Michael. And do we have an answer to the previous question, by the way? I think you're going to look at it, Michael. Yep, we will do now. Sorry, I was doing both at once. Agli and Walter were with me before me. Come on, Michael. Again, I don't believe they would be required, necessarily to be consulted on this scale of application. And we have engaged with the council's sustainable drainage engineer who supported the scheme subject to condition. OK, so sorry, just remind me, said, I think the question was, has Angli and Walter been consulted? And the answer is no. Sort of fame, please, is next. Thank you, chair. I've listened to the debate, of course. It seems to me that there are a number of concerns, all of which can be met by conditions. As to the access, this was previously, I can't remember if it was eight or 12 garages, which have now been demolished. So we have now, there was obviously a certain amount of, presumably some of those garages were at one stage used by cars. So I don't see the access being an issue here. The key point is that there is a need for affordable one-bedroom flats within the district. I don't know about particularly how the needs are there in Orwell. And this is an opportunity to build those flats on a currently derelict site. And I don't think we should hesitate too much in approving that proposal. Thank you for that. Councillor Ripper, if you're next, please. Councillor Fane has just articulated what I wanted to say. I would vote for approval for this, because it's something we really, really need. Okay, members, do you have any further comments or views, Councillor Hawkins? Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the comments that we received from Councillor Van Der Wire. And so, as I've said, yes, we do need small units. Perhaps I don't know who we have an informative on the issue of the compromised foul water. Perhaps someone who's expressed concern based on the fact that it has been a problem and is a problem. That's something that we can do, please. Sure. I'm going to turn to officers to see if that's something they'd be agreeable to. Yes, we can include an informative if I was in the applicant of the need to fully review that situation and if needs be discussed with Anglican Water, a remedial work that may be required to put that on as an informative. Is that a proposal, Councillor Hawkins? Good. And is there a seconder to that proposal, Councillor? Heather Williams, I think you were first. Battle of the Williamses. Members, do we need to debate the inclusion of this informative or can we take that as included by affirmation? Agreed. Okay, so we'll include that informative on the drainage. Members, I don't have any further speakers, but I'm hoping we can move towards a decision on this now. The recommendation we have from the officers on page 334 and it is to approve the application subject to the conditions which then laid out below in the papers. Members, does anybody wish to either vote against or abstain on this item? No. So can I take it by affirmation then that everyone is in agreement to approve? Agreed. Good. Okay, so that application is approved. Thank you very much, everyone that contributed. Jair, I have to leave the meeting now just so it's recorded. Okay, thank you very much. I think we have two items to decide, so I think if we can just note in the minutes, Councillor Richard Williams left a quarter past five. Wow. Members, we have two more items left. We do have a speaker with us, so I don't want to defer these. So if everyone's in agreement with that, we will carry on. Members, we're on agenda item 13 now, which is an application and the barn's adjacent to 20 West Green Barrington. The applicant is M&J Lauterpacht. The application is with us because the proposal is for the demolition of a... Sorry. The proposal is for the demolition of a curtailed listed building that needs to be determined as according to policy by the planning committee. The planning officer is Jane Rodin, so I'm hoping is still with us. Jane? Yes, good evening. Yes, Jane, please, if you could give us any updates to the report and then introduce that report if you could please. There's no updates to the report. Can I confirm that you can see those slides? Brilliant. So for this slides, I've done both this item and the next one together, which is the full application for the demolition of the former stables, play barn and erection of a new dwelling, and then the listed building consent for the demolition of the former stables and the play button. So this application is on the star on that map in front of you. It's within the Barrington Development Framework, the conservation area. East of the site is number 20 West Green Farmhouse, which is a grade two listed building. To the front of the site, there's out buildings number 20 West Green Farmhouse, which are also grade two listed buildings in their own rights. And further to the south of the site is the protected village community area. So on the left hand side, we have a location plan with the access off of West Green. On the right, you can see the block plan of the proposed site. This is the extent of the new ground floor plan versus the current built form. So the red lines you can see on that site is the current extent of the buildings that are to be demolished. And then you can see the new build in between those on that plan. So this is the proposed first floor plan where there's bedrooms, office and guest area. And then the roof plan is in front of you. So south elevation on the top there and the proposed east elevation. Here's the north elevation. The north elevation will face the countryside to the north of the site and the west elevation on the bottom. These are some 3D views that the applicant, the agent provided. So the top one was the north elevation, which faces the countryside and the bottom one would be the south elevation that faces the listed bounds to the front. There's some photos for you next. At the bottom, there's a map that shows you where the photos were taken and the direction. So this is taken from the main highway. There you can see 20 West Green farmhouse. And behind it, you can see the buildings that have been demolished. So there's barns in front with the arch. They're the list of buildings in their own right. So this is looking back out the site towards the main road where the blue car is. They're the buildings that have to be retained. They're the ones that are listed in their own right. You can see this has now turned the other way, looking back into sites. That's West Green farmhouse on the greatest building on the side. And these are the buildings to be demolished behind those Harris fences. That's the listed building to the side. So to the left of the site, you can see on the edge of that, that's the out buildings. And then another barn conversion that's already, which is not part of the site. It's just on the edge of it. These are the buildings to be demolished in front of you. This is moving around the site. This is the buildings to be demolished. As you can see they're in the best condition already. This is the other building. This is looking back towards the main road. You can see the two list buildings. This is looking out into the countryside. So in my backs to the buildings to be demolished. Turn the other way, looking back towards them. You can just see 20 West Green farmhouse in the corner. Moving further around the site. And that's looking into what is currently, there's a pool there at the moment. So for the full application, the key materials are the Prince of Development, design, heritage, protected village, amenity area, residential amenity, trees, ecology, drainage, contamination, highways, and the other matters. A recommendation is approval subject to the conditions. And then the listed building, a key consideration be the heritage impact. And the recommendation is also approval subject to the conditions. Thank you, chair. Thank you very much, Jane. So just for clarity, your presentation relates to both this application and the next one on the agenda. I thought that would be easy to put it as two. Yes, I agree. I'm happy to show plans if need be. If you wouldn't mind holding on the line, we do have a very patient public speaker. Who I believe yet now, if you could walk over to the microphone please. I've got two names here. One is Sir Gis or Michael. Okay, Michael Loutapact is obviously one of the applicants. Firstly, thank you very much for your patience. I appreciate you being here for many hours. So we really do appreciate you taking the time to come down and sit through lots of applications that obviously aren't relevant to yourself. So thank you very much for your patience. As with all the other applicants, you have three minutes to address the committee at which point they may have some questions of clarity for yourself. Thank you. These applications relate to a pair of derelict buildings which were originally part of a farm stood at 20 West Green, Barrington. The buildings in question have not been an agricultural use for around 50 years. Indeed, the swimming pool was built to the rear of what became the play barn in the 1960s. The site was recently sold off in two parts. Works to the farmhouse, which is now separately owned, have recently been approved by the council on behalf of the new owners. We bought the barns with the intention of converting them to a house. However, it quickly became clear that the buildings were so structurally poor that this would not be possible. We engaged a structural engineer to advise and undertook pre-application discussions with your officers who accepted that conversion was not feasible. We and our architects fully recognise the importance of retaining an agricultural field to the buildings where they are seen around the old farm yard together with the listed farmhouse and old farm buildings which front the green. However, as my wife is confined to a wheelchair following an accident in 2018, this has driven the need for a fully level floor plate, lift access to the first floor, space for carer, physio and workspaces, and easy access to and views north across the garden. The latter means that glazing has to be low levels so my wife can see out. Our very experienced architects have embraced this brief for maintaining buildings on a very similar footprint to the original ones, in which have a suitably agricultural appearance whilst also producing a light, airy and highly sustainable building which is suitable for our needs. The conservation team had some concerns about the design, particularly of the glazing, so we modified it in response to comments. We note that the officers report talked several times about glazing being acceptable on balance. However, we would draw attention to the fact that the council's conservation officer, parish council and neighbouring residents all find it appropriate. After we made our application, we saw the comments of the green committee through the parish council regarding construction access. There was never any intention to use the secondary access without first gaining the approval of the green committee, but to avoid any confusion, we have now removed the access to the east from the application. In total, we have received seven letters in support from local residents, including our immediate neighbours. There are no objections from residents or formal consultees. In conclusion, we understand that this application is brought before you because it involves a demolition of cartilage-listed buildings. They're not listed in their own right. We would have liked to convert them, but professional advisors and council officers all agree that, sadly, this is not possible. What we are proposing will provide a memory of these buildings, which will sit comfortably with the other former farm buildings. In doing so, derelicts and dangerous buildings will be replaced by a highly sustainable, convenient and attractive new home, which will enhance the conservation area. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Members, do you have any questions of clarification for Mr Lansberg? Thank you, chair, through you. Thank you for your presentation. Just a clarification. The memory of the old buildings will be kept. Can you explain how you intend to do that? The footprint is the same. The massing is... Sorry, the footprint is nearly the same. It's very, very similar. The massing is very, very similar and is, I don't think it's observant. It's observant to the main farmhouse building. It's long. The building will be timber clad, as the barns are, with slate roofs. Yes, they will mostly resemble agricultural barns. Right, so you're incorporating the barn type look into the new building? Absolutely, yes. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, through yourself, chair. Apologies, I can't further. I'm trying to find it, but my... Going paper-free, I'm afraid, due to the length of the meeting, my agenda has died on me. But if I could just ask about... There was something about the reuse of materials that I came across and just touching on Councillor Hawking's point, that's something that the applicant is still doing and committed to, because that, from the heritage point of view, is obviously something that we would like to see. Mr Love's point. The best of the timber, we propose giving to our neighbours who own the frontal barns front upon to the village green, is that way the timber will be very old timber, but in good condition. When I say the best, there's not a great deal that would fit into that category. The rigidiles and the slates, as far as it's appropriate, we wish to reuse. The bricks, as far as it's appropriate, we wish to reuse. I don't think there's any further questions of clarity. Again, thank you very much for your time and for waiting so long into the evening. I'm sure members appreciate that. Again, thank you very much. Members of the committee, we appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time and for waiting so long into the evening. I'm sure members appreciate that. Again, thank you very much. Members, we don't have any further public speakers, so we'll move into the debate now, please. Again, of course, we can ask the case officer Jane any questions of clarification at this point as well. So I'm going to throw the floor open, starting with Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. I think on balance, I think that there has been significant attempts to help enhance the area with it. And that it will have a positive impact to what's there. Obviously, it's always nice if things can be converted and as much of the heritage contained, but that's not always possible. And I do feel sort of satisfied that lengths have been met to try and address that. And the re-using of the materials obviously will help other buildings in that area. So under those circumstances, given that it is, I think, going to enhance the current area I would be inclined to support. Great. Thank you. Councillor Ritter, please. It's the buildings that are there now can't be retained. I think this is an excellent application and will, as you say, also, Councillor Williams, be an enhancement to the area. And so let's go on and vote for it, in my opinion. Thank you very much. Does anyone wish to say anything to the contrary to this application? Any questions of clarity for the officer, perhaps, before we move to a decision? No. OK. Well, as we've heard no dissent, can I take it that everyone is in agreement that we should go with the officer recommendation of approval? Agreed for completeness? No, no, just one. Hold on. So it's just agenda item 13 at my members. Just for completeness, anyone wish to vote against that? Or abstain? No. OK. So that application is passed. We'll then move straight to agenda item 14, which is the listed building consent set part of that application. So it's the same location, the same applicant. We've already had the introduction from the case officer. Is that related to both the project application and this? So I'm going to immediately open the debate on this, members, and ask if anyone has anything they wish to ask about the listed building consent element of this. No. Can I ask that we go to the vote on this, please? Actually, Chris is going to... Sorry, chair. Don't mean to delay things, but just so that we're clear, this application, obviously the committee needs to be satisfied that the evidence there to justify the demolition of the Kurdish listed building. Case officers report clearly sets out that's the case, but just so that we're clear that that's what we're considering in this case. Thank you, Chris. So with that clarified, members, I'll ask one more time if there's any questions or comments or concerns that would like to be raised at this stage. No. OK. So I'm going to move to the decision then, please, which is that the officer is recommending approval and is on page 373, item 34. Members, can I ask that this... We take this by affirmation. Agreed? Anyone wish to vote against? Or abstain? No. So that application is approved. Thank you very much, everyone. OK. We've come to the end of the decisions we need to make, members. Thank you for your patience. We have the enforcement officer with us, but we have an enforcement report as the next agenda item, agenda item 15. I can... Sure, Chris. Very briefly, the enforcement officer didn't have any specific updates to provide. There's just one from me, which is with regard to the land north and south of Artlow Road, Linton. We received the appeal decision from the planning inspector this week, allowing the appeal in relation to the drainage condition. So there is now an approved drainage scheme for that site. So I just wanted to bring that to the attention of members, because obviously we've spent some time considering those issues recently. Happy to take any notes and questions away, chair. Sure. Members, on the enforcement report specifically, are there any... I don't think we have the enforcement officer with us, but if there's any questions or notes that Chris can take away, it's just on the whiteboard farm. It says the case was reallocated to an officer who has since left the authority. That was... and then it's been reallocated to Alistair Fung. That was sort of on our... that was the report last time. I'm wondering if that's an error, because obviously Alistair Fung is off and it was being reallocated from Alistair. And I believe it's now with Will. So I'm just wondering if that's actually accurate at the moment and whether it's a sort of a copy and paste from last committee not been updated. I think it must be an error, chair, because I recall Will covering that issue last time and that he said it was going to be dealt with by himself, so Will will try and get that updated. If I could have an update on that. Thank you, chair. Councillor Harvey. Yes. So in relation to Cardinals Green the enforcement on page 377, that's in my patch by the way, so I just note that I don't think the text has changed there since it entered onto the list of enforcement issues, but I just wondered if there's any progress being made in terms of organising a joint visit to the site. Sean, not sure if you can answer that. I can't, but I can certainly see an answer and get the enforcement officer to let you know. Please, if they could go back to Councillor Harvey, that would be great. Members, that's item 15, and then finally item 16, which is appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action. Chris, I'm guessing is back over to you. Yes, chair. No particular update from me other than to... I've lost it on my sheet. I was going to explain why. There were some words there that you might not have seen before. So page 385, 29, I have a new great shelf with the decision turned away. Essentially they appealed out of time so the inspector had declined to determine the appeal. That was the only thing I was going to highlight. Thanks, chair. Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you. I'm pleased. I'm led to believe that the land at Mill Lane source and eventually finally managed to make its way in front of a hearing. I'm just wondering how that went and when we would reasonably expect a decision to be made and just wondering in the layout of the reports, obviously it's dropped off the report because the hearing's been had. It might be useful to have a table that shows awaiting decisions or something like that. That might be helpful in cases any others. For example, a flake park happened today so then that would drop off and we wouldn't necessarily know that we've got an outstanding hearing. I think I'm making sense at 26. I'm not too sure. The first question is, is there an update on Mill Lane source? We don't have a decision yet. I imagine it will be a few weeks before that comes through. As regards the items dropping off, they obviously then reappear once we get a decision but we can certainly take away that suggestion and see if that's something we can do. I think we've done it. I think we've got to the end finally. Thanks very much everyone for being so patient with us today. We were due to have a meeting next Tuesday to look specifically to north Stowe item but you may well seen on email that that's had to be postponed due to not being able to get the agenda out in time. Our next meeting is the one that's regularly scheduled which will be Wednesday the 8th of December and as soon as we have a revised date for the north Stowe committee we will of course circulate that. Thank you very much everyone and I'm going to draw the meeting to a close at 5.36. Thank you very much everyone.