 I ask people to make sure that the mute is at least. I think we've got some background noise coming in. Thank you. Okay, we're now live. Thank you. Thank you and good morning members, officers and any members of the public who are viewing the live stream of this meeting. This is the South Cambridgeshire District Council planning committee. My name is Councillor Pippa Halings and I'm the vice chair of the committee as the chair, Councillor John Batchelor, cannot be here today. I will be chairing this meeting and I've asked Councillor Henry Batchelor to be my vice chair. Are members happy to affirm this appointment please? Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Lovely. And anybody against? No, lovely. And so we'll take that by affirmation. In that case, Councillor Henry Batchelor, could you please introduce yourself? Morning everyone, Councillor Henry Batchelor covering the Linton Ward and surrounding business. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we are supported along the top table, the virtual top table. And if this moment could everybody switch off their videos and their microphones and we will introduce each of the members of the virtual top table and ask them to introduce themselves. So first of all, could I introduce Chris Carter please? Good morning chair, good morning members. Chris Carter, delivery manager for strategic sites and supporting the committee today. Thank you. Thank you very much. And Stephen Reed. Morning chair and members. And Stephen Reed, our senior planning lawyer. Yes, thank you very much. And Patrick Adams, please. Good morning, my name is Patrick Adams and I'll be clocking the meeting. Thank you, I'm a very, very important person taking the minutes from today. So as we go through, I'll introduce the case officers we work through the agenda. So first, just a few housekeeping announcements. Please make sure your device is fully charged and switch your cameras and microphones off as you all have kindly done unless you're invited to do otherwise. And when we're invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched on. And when you finish addressing the meeting, please turn off your microphone immediately. If you can speak slowly and carefully and clearly and don't talk over or interrupt anyone. This being a virtual meeting, it's really hard for people to be able to follow what everybody's saying if we have anybody interrupting. And please ensure that you've switched off or silenced any other devices. Councillor Fein, so that you don't interrupt proceedings, both your video and audio, please, Councillor Fein. If you could switch those off. The normal procedure planning committee is to take recorded votes. And we will be doing that today. Would anybody please like to, I'd like to propose that. Would anybody like to second that we record the votes in this meeting as normal? Councillor Tumie Hawkins, Dr. Tumie Hawkins, thank you very much for seconding that. Can we take that by affirmation? Agreed. Good, thank you very much. Wonderful. When we move to a vote on any item where there is not clear affirmation, I will ask for a roll call to be taken. And I would ask that during that roll call, you answer only four against or abstain during the roll call so that we can have clarity around any of the decisions being taken by committee. And I will be asking each committee member by name too to answer to that. So now committee members present, I'm going to invite each of you to introduce yourselves. So after I call your name, please turn on your video and your microphone. Just wait a couple of seconds for it to come through so everybody can see you and say your name and who you represent. Thank you very much. So I'm Councillor Pippa Halings. I'm the member for Histon, Impington and Orchard Park, Vice-Chair but chairing this meeting. And I would like to introduce Councillor Henry Batchelor. Morning Chairman, Councillor Henry Batchelor, member for Linton and Surrounding Villages. Thank you. Councillor Anna Bradnum. Sorry, Anna Bradnum, sorry, no, Anna Bradnum is part of the meeting today. She will be speaking as a local member. So I'll invite you to come when you speak as a local member. Thank you, Councillor Bradnum. Councillor Dr. Martin Kahn. No, Councillor Peter Fein. Good morning, Peter Fein, Shelford Ward. Thank you very much. Councillor Dr. Toomey Hawkins. Good morning everyone, I'm Toomey Hawkins and I represent Codicot Ward. Thank you very much. Councillor Judith Rippeth. Good morning, I'm Judith and I represent Milton and Waterbeach Ward. Thank you. And Councillor Deborah Roberts. Good morning Vice-Chairman, I should we say Chairman this morning. Sorry, my video camera isn't working but it's Deborah Roberts, District Councillor for the Boxston Ward. Thank you very much. And Councillor Heather Williams. Heather Williams, I represent the Mordens Ward. Thank you. And Councillor Dr. Richard Williams. Thank you Chair, I'm Richard Williams, I'm the member for Wittlesford-Triplo Heathfield in Newton. Thank you. And Councillor Nick Wright. I am substituting for Nick Wright. I'm Sue Ellington and I represent Swavesy Ward. Thank you. And do we have a substitute as well for Councillor Anna Bradnum? Yes, Councillor Jeff Harvey substituting for Councillor Bradnum and I'm the member for Portion Ward. Thank you very much. Are there any other Councillors present? Councillor Anna Bradnum, I think you're present and you'll be addressing the meeting as local member. Yes, Chairman. I'll be addressing the meeting as local member. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good. And also just to the finishing of the housekeeping, if any time a member leaves the meeting, can you please make that fact known to me so that we can record it in the minutes? And so if a member of the public are aware, if a councillor is absent for any part of the presentation or debate about an agenda item, then they may not vote on that item. Given that we're doing this virtually and there are often technological issues and technical issues, then we will often hold and wait for people to be able to rejoin so that doesn't disrupt the proceedings. We've got several public speakers today and I'd just like to explain how public speaking will work. This meeting's been broadcast live via the council's website. Public speakers are reminded that by participating in this meeting, you are consenting to being broadcast and to the use of the images and sound recordings for webcast and training purposes. You'll each have three minutes to address the committee, each of the slots that are given, either individually or together with one another within those three minutes. When you start speaking, we will start the timer and please ensure you switch the microphone on before you speak. And when your time has elapsed, we'll ask you to conclude your speech. If you continue to speak after we've done so, we may mute you to enable proceedings to continue. Once you've finished speaking, we may wish to ask you some clarification questions. So please be concise in your response. And if there are no more questions, you may leave the meeting and continue to watch the meeting via the webcast. Committee members are reminded that any questions to speakers should be for clarification purposes only and the process for this shall be as follows. I shall ask if there are any questions and if you do have questions, please ask to speak in the chat function. This committee can only consider planning reasons for or against the application, the material planning reasons. Today, in one of the applications, we do have various members from the police and the Constabulary Services and there may be given it's a complex application, quite a few clarification questions. What I'm going to ask when we get to that agenda item is that you really prepare to ask those immediately after the three minutes public speaking as it would, we won't be able to ask those later on in the meeting. So please, you do have questions, get them prepared and make sure that they're used in the clarification section. The committee cannot consider general observations about the development site and it cannot consider comments from public speakers made outside their allotted speaking time apart from that clarification question that we said. I, as chair, have the ability to mute or remove participant necessary and once the committee is heard from all speakers and planning officers, we'll have the debate and form views on the application and then the planning committee will then vote. The outcome is decided by majority vote in the event of a tie, I, as chair, have casting vote. When planning committee members vote, please can they ensure that they identify themselves, speak into the microphones that the vote is understood and by those watching the webcast too. And members once again remind that they should indicate whether they are for, against or abstain when their name is called. And with those housekeeping notes, we'll move now forward to the agenda and agenda item two is apologies. Patrick, do we have any apologies for today? Yes, chair. We have apologies on Councillor John Matchler, Councillor Henry Batchel is substituting. Councillor Anna Bradman, Councillor Jeff Harvey is substituting and Councillor Nick Wright. And we just heard that Councillor Silverington is substituting. Thank you very much. And we move to agenda item three members which are declarations of interest. Do any members have interest in clearing relation to any of the items of business on the agenda today? Chair. Sorry, I think, yeah, I did have one. Then I think, I think it was Councillor Rippers had one as well. But my interest chair is on a member of Cambridgeshire County Council who I mentioned in the report. Lovely, they also own the Park and Ride site which is adjacent to the application site. Thank you. Thank you. And who was next, sorry? I believe it's Councillor Rippers, if my ears didn't deceive me. Councillor Rippers. Yes, it's Councillor Rippers. Sorry, the chat was working slowly for me. Just to say that I'm local member for Milton and Walter Beach, as I've just mentioned. And I come to this matter afresh. Thank you very much. Anyone else? I don't think so, Vice Chair? No, Chairman, that's it. Okay, thank you very much. And now we'll come to the substantive items listed on the agenda. And we go to item number four, which are minutes of the previous meeting, which we can find in pages one to six on our agenda. Do we have any comments on the minutes of the last meeting? I'll go through the pages, Chair. Yeah, so I'll go through the pages. Judith Rippers, just come in with a late one. Thank you, Councillor. Hi, I will try and get that to work more quickly. Just to abstain, because I wasn't present. Fine. I think that's it, Chair. I should probably abstain as well, as I also wasn't present. So members, can we accept the minutes of the last meeting by affirmation? Agree. Anybody against? Thank you very much. And so we've accepted the items on the agenda. And we'll now go to the substantive item, which is agenda item five on page seven in the printed report pack. This is for application 20, stroke 04010, stroke FUL as a full application, the land southwest of Milton Park and Ride. The proposal is for one and two story building containing offices, custody suite and associated facilities, new access, internal access roads, hard standing, car parking areas, landscaping, drainage attenuation features, lighting, and means of enclosure. The applicant is the Cambridgeshire Constabulary. And the key material considerations for us today, members, is include the principle of development as this is outside of the development framework for Milton and within the green belt, loss of agricultural land, landscape, layout, scale, appearance, biodiversity, flood risk and drainage, highway safety, management of roads and parking, residential immunity and any other matters. We have not had a site visit given the situation with the lockdown. It is a departure given that this is outside of the development framework and within the green belt. And it's been brought to committee because the officer recommendation of approval conflicts with the recommendation of Milton Parish Council. And the officer recommendation is to be found, is approval and our decision today can be found on page 38. And the recommendation is to approve the proposal subject to a consultation within confirmation from the secretary of state that the application is not to be called in for his determination and be the planning conditions that are set out and are agreed by this committee. So that will be the decision that we will be voting on after our debate. The presenting officer is Lewis Tomlinson. And Lewis, if you could now help us with your presentation of this application. Thank you, chair. I'll just share my screen. Could I just confirm that you can see that on your screen now? Yes, we can see your opening page on that. Yeah. Thank you. So good morning members. The site in front of you today is Land Southwest of Milton Park and Ride as defined by the red line on the site location plan. You can also see the site location plan includes a strip of land adjacent to the A-10, which includes a ditch. So the site is located outside of the development framework boundary of Milton in the open countryside and within the Cambridge Greenbelt. The area of the planning application is 3.44 hectares. What is currently arable farmland? The northern and eastern boundary site marked by a hedgerow and the western boundary is marked by a dry ditch. To the south and the west, the remainder of a large arable fields just here. The site sits to the west of the village of Milton. So Milton is across here and is separated by the A-10 trunk road, which runs along here. The site is to the northeast of the city of Cambridge, so Cambridge is down this way. To the west and northwest of the site, beyond the established tree headline is Milton-Lamphill Waste site. The associated landfill wraps around the west and also to the south of the site, so along here. To the north is Milton Park and Ride, which is just here. And to the south is the A-14, which runs along here and it's interchange with the A-10. That's an aerial view of the site. So just to point out the key parts of the context. So you've got Milton, the village of Milton here. Got Milton Park and Ride here. Got Milton Recycling Centre here. The landfill wraps around here and the site in question is in here. A-14 to the south, city of Cambridge to the south and the A-10 running along here. That's just a further plan, just showing that context in a bit more detail. So this is the site entrance. So you've got the A-10 here. Entrance to the Park and Ride and here is the site entrance. Again, another photo looking towards the site entrance down here. These are photos taken from within the site. So this is the existing tree belt to the east of the site with the A-10 in the background. This is looking south of the site and as you can see, you can see the landfill in the background. Again, this is taken within the site and this is looking towards the west. So towards Milton Recycling Centre. Again, you can see the landfill in the backgrounds. This is just a photo of the Park and Ride showing that the CCTV within the Park and Ride. This is a photo for the access to the bridge across the A-10 from the Park and Ride, noting that there's clear signage saying cyclists to dismount and to walk their bikes across the bridge. This is a photo of the bridge across the A-10 and this is a photo from the Milton side. So this is the access shown how to access the bridge from Milton. Again, just to point out, clear signage saying cyclists to dismount. So the proposal in front of you today is for a new Cambridgeshire Southern Police Station. This application seeks approval of 5,131 square metres of floor space in a part single and part two-story building to accommodate all the functions of a modern police service, including office, technical and support areas, welfare and custody rooms. The layout of the site includes provision of accessways, parking, storage and circulation areas, vehicles, plant areas, landscaping, external lighting and service water drainage areas. The proposed building, as I've stated, would be for a new Cambridgeshire Southern Police Station. Key elements of this proposal include so two-story office building with attached single-story custody facilities, including the provision of 24 cells. A detached property store and a detached scene of crime office store. 304 car parking spaces, 30 cycle parking spaces, new access from A10 Milton Park and Ride and the pedestrian access into Milton Park and Ride, which also acts as an emergency vehicle access. So I'll just run through this in a bit more detail. So this is the overview of the site plan. You can see the access road coming off, the access to Milton Park and Ride. I'll just zoom in so you can see some more of the key features. So just to run it through, so here you have the building. So the two-story element is this here with a single-story element attached. As mentioned, the single-story element serves the custody suites. You've got two detached buildings. One is the property store, which will be accessed by the public for such as stolen bicycles. Another one is the Soco storage. So that's the scene of crime officer storage. So now looking at car parking is split into a public area and a private area. The public area, you have 10 visitor car parking spaces here and you have a further 10 here visiting for custody. You have past this blue line here, which becomes into the private realm. So you've got the operational vehicle parking area here. Beyond this orange line again in the public realm, this is for the staff car parking. Please note you've got cycles parking here and there's also allocated space for future cycle parking if the demand increases. That would be through the travel plan. This purple line dictates the high security area of the site, which is around the custody suites. And this element of the car park is an overflow car park to enable future demand to be met. So it's worth noting for members, there's a number of strict functional considerations that have to be taken into account when designing this scheme. The proposed layout of the custody suite must strictly follow the home office design guidance, which states that all custody suites must be on the ground floor. The proposed scale of the building has been reduced down to its core needs in accordance with comments received from landscape and design officers, which are both now satisfied with the proposals. So I'll just go through the plans in a bit more detail. So this is the proposed ground floor plan. So the public realm entrance is this element here. And I'll point that out on the elevations. We've got a projecting bay, so it's clear legible entrance to the site. You've got office accommodation for the different functions of the police force. And you can see here, you've got the custody suites with the main office, the main desk in the center with fingers spreading out. So there's clear surveillance of what's happening in the cells. So this is the proposed first floor plan. Again, you can see this is the two-story element here with the projecting gable. Looking at the proposed elevations. So just to point out, here is the access. So this is where the public will access the building with a projecting bay. Again, you can see the two-story element here and a projecting entrance here with the single-story element of the custody suite's deraille. So this is just a plan highlighting the proposed landscaping scheme. This will also be conditioned in consultation with the landscape officer. So the scheme proposes to retain existing tree belts that's just outside the site boundary but also to establish a new tree belt around the site. This is one of the visuals of the front access. So this is the public realm area of the site. The access here, again, just another visual. This is a plan just showing the extensive CCTV scheme that is part of the site, showing that all areas of the site are covered. So the key material considerations today are the principle of development, green belt, lots of agricultural land, landscape, layout, scale, appearance, biodiversity, flood risk and drainage, highway safety, management of roads and parking and residential immunity. I will touch upon some of these key material considerations but they're all outlined in the officer report. So as stated, the site falls within the green belts, therefore the applicant has put forward a full business case to justify the proposed development on the site within the green belt. To summarize why this application has come forward, the current facilities at Parkside suffer from the following issues. There's no room to expand the station. There's too few cells, which then affect the frontline service. For example, when cells at Parkside are full, officers have to often transport people they arrest 40 miles to Peaceborough or Kinslim. The location being a city centre location is subject to heavy traffic, which not only has impacts on time but also detracts from other police and tasks due to this delay. It's also not meeting modern standards. A recent review has highlighted a number of issues that cannot be overcome at Parkside, including ventilation and condition of the cells. So the operational requirements of the police force have informed the best geographical location for the new facilities. These requirements are travel time from point of arrest, where arrests are happening, ease of access to the main road network, parking availability for operational vehicles and staff, and transportation links for detainee and release and staff travel to and from work. So one of the key objectives here is to minimise the detainee travel time, and as such, the search area was narrowed down to the north, northwest of Cambridge City within the triangle on the screen in front of you. A sequential, servant approach was adopted to reduce the list of initially identified sites to ensure that only those that could deliver the objectives were carried forwards. So 22 sites in total were considered. Sorry if you can't read that. It's the only way I could fit that on the screen, but as you can see, there's 22 sites there with various comments on why these couldn't be delivered. This process, so a number of these sites were ruled out on functional grounds and those remaining were tested for availability. This process reduced the number of possibility to just three sites, all which stand in the Cambridge Green Belt. So if you just look at the diagram in front of you, I'm just going to go 3D site by site. So these are the three sites that were within the Green Belt. Site A, which is down here, land west of Histon Road and south of A14. This is within the inner Green Belt area, and this area contributes to prevention of sprawl and a limited contribution to the keratin setting of the city. So it was ruled out on those grounds. Site C, which is just up here, that is land north of Buck Lane, has a strong affinity with a flat and open agricultural kerat of the Green Belt north of Cambridge. So it was ruled out. Site B, which is the site in front of you today, recognises being of relatively low value in the Green Belt terms because of the impact of the joining uses, such as the raised area of landfill and its associated tree belt, the waste recycling facility and the park and ride site. I should mention here that the Landscape Officer has assessed the application, looked through the submitted Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, supports the application and has confirmed that development would have a limited effect upon the rural keratin openness of the Green Belt in compliance with local and national policy. This is one of the key views from the A-10 and you can see the site is just here in red and would sit behind this tree belt that currently sits along here. So officers considered that the applicant has demonstrated very special circumstances in accordance with the requirements of the MPPF. The conflict with local policy is outweighed by the public benefits rising from the proposal, which include improved police service for the surrounding communities of Cambridgeshire. So just going through now some of the main issues on the application. So flood risk and drainage, concerns being raised by Milton Parish Council and local ward members regarding drainage. The applicant amended the scheme to address this through the inclusion of a new ditch that run parallel to the A-10 to ensure adequate connection to the 13th public drain, which is an awarded watercourse. So this is the new drain along here, included within the red line. Both the lead local flood authority and the drainage officer support scheme and officers have set this advice. Parking. So to propose the amount of car parking is 304 spaces. The applicant has provided a robust case for this amount of car parking that takes into account shift patterns, operational vehicles and the future demands. The scheme will also provide 30 cycle parking spaces and the applicant's travel plan aims to reduce the number of staff commuting to and from the proposed development site by single occupancy car. Traffic has also been assessed. So transport assessment has been submitted with the application in consultation with the highway team at Cambridgeshire County Council and both the local highway authority and the transport assessment team support the proposal in terms of traffic impacts and highway safety should point out that there are representatives from the local highway authority at planning committee today if members need to ask questions. In terms of biodiversity, so the ecological impact assessment that was submitted with the application has found minimal ecological constraints as it's mainly arable habitats. The ecology officer has been consulted and supports the application subject to conditions to ensure that biodiversity net gain is achieved on the site. So one of the main issues around the application is the fear of crime. So Milton Parish Council residents have raised concerns about the fear of crime. To quote this surrounding areas poorly lit there is a potential for increased antisocial behaviour including drug dealing in but lane, Colson lane areas similar to that currently experienced in the Parkside area which could discourage sighting activity. So the existing police station at Parkside in the centre of Cambridge and the proposed station on the outskirts of Milton not equally comparable due to differences in context. No evidence has been provided either to evidence the claims of drug dealing near Parkside police station nor that is caused directly by the presence of Parkside police station. No evidence being submitted demonstrate new police station to attract such behaviour. The fear of crime is also centred around the release of people from custody into Milton particularly after public transport stopped running and these concerns are understandable. These supporting documents set out that all detainees that are released from police custody are subject to a risk assessment prior to release. The proposed police station would operate 24 hours a day resulting in more movements turned from the site at times where the park and ride is currently very quiet. This would introduce a level surveillance that does not exist at present. It is expected that police presence in the local area should act as a deterrent for crime. If any crimes were committed then that would be a police matter for investigation. The parish council consultation response will also request CCTV which should be monitored 24-7 to evaluate any need for further enhancement. Proved surveillance at the park and ride and other items beneficial to Milton residents. So just to highlight some members this is the bridge across the A10 the site in question we're looking at is just off the screen here and pedestrians would travel along the park and ride across the bridge into Milton where they were travelling to Cambridge. That's just a photo of the A10 bridge just to remind members. So when assessing a contribution it must be assessed against the free statutory tests the seal regs. Officers considered that the CCTV coverage is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and therefore fail to satisfy part A and B seal tests. Concerns have also been raised about the safety of the A10 bridge. Officers have consulted local Highway Authority regarding this matter and they have advised the following the highway and its associated infrastructure is designed in accordance with clear safety and design standards taking into account there are dangers present to anyone wishing to behave in an actively unsafe way. The local Highway Authority considered the existing pedestrian bridge from a highway perspective and does not have reasonable basis to your design modifications based on the predicted pedestrian flows. The bridge also meets safety and design standards and the structure of the bridge means that it's not possible to simply fit higher parapets. Concerns regarding the use of the bridge by vulnerable people would ultimately come down to how the police managed to cite and manage to release the bridge. As Chair highlighted there are a number of people from the police force present today that will be able to answer questions for members. Please note all consultees support the application in front of you today so the recommendation is to approve the proposal subject to consultation with and confirmation from the Secretary of State that the application is not to be called in for his determination and the planning conditions of the bridge. Thank you very much Louis. Councillor Martin Kahn I notice that you've joined the meeting if you just want to introduce yourself and yes having missed part of this I mean that you'd be able to join in the debate and any of the questions but not vote on this. I think that that would be clear. I'm Councillor Martin Kahn Councillor Piston and Impington. Could you turn off your video and audio Councillor Kahn? Thank you very much. And now we have the chance members to ask any tarification questions of the case officer of Louis has done a very thorough job of presenting a summary of this complex case and also addressed many of the concerns that were raised as well. Do we have any clarification questions please Vice Chair? Not as of yet Chair. I'll give it a few seconds in case any appear. We have first up is Councillor Sue Ellington. Thank you Councillor Ellington. Thank you Chair. I just wanted to clarify the landfill site is all around this but historically was this ever landfill? Thank you. Louis? Through you Chair. So this land has previously been used as farm land. Shall I just share my screen just shows an aerial view in front of you just bear with me. I'm assuming that the question is around contamination is that right Councillor Ellington potential? It's about contamination it's also about structure of the building in order to ensure you don't get subsidence and stuff. Thank you. This is just the aerial view of the site. So this site is farm land and hasn't been used as landfill. The landfill stretches around the site. The contamination team at the council being consulted not raise any concerns either. Thank you and in terms of the conditions is there something around the piling I think of that as well. There's also an unexpected contamination condition recommended as well. Thank you. Does that satisfy you Councillor Ellington? Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Councillor Hawkins Chair. Councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins please. Thank you Chair and through you. One I hope is a simple one. Paragraph 89 on page 27 refers to a scheme including external lighting. I'm just concerned about light pollution into the houses across the road in Milton. I don't know how high those external lighting columns or whatever it is might be. If we could just have some clarification on that please. And the second thing is on page 34 paragraph 131. The I'd like some explanation on how those remanded in custody are released. There's an example given as in the case of topwood and Parkside just to make more clarity on how that will happen so that we know at least we can understand how the mitigation against the fail of crime is proposed. Thank you. Thank you very much Dr. Maybe that's a question also for the constabulary but we can ask Lewis and I understand also Lewis we do have a condition 12 around obtrusive lighting. Could you give a bit more clarification on that to answer Dr. For you chair so in regards to the lighting that's been assessed by multiple consultees so we've got the ecology officer who's looked at it for impact upon the environment. For environmental health we've also looked at the impact of the lighting scheme. Both consider it to be acceptable and it's conditioned to ensure that the scheme put forward will be followed. In regards to the release of custody it might be better to leave that question to the police and just tackle that in one go but I'm happy to answer it now if need be. I think if that's okay with you councillor Dr. If you save that question for the constabulary who are here and could help us in terms of their policy around that. That's fine thank you I didn't want to miss it. Yeah absolutely good. Next is myself chair and then councillor Harvey. Thank you. So my question Lewis is regarding the parking. As you mentioned in your presentation that there was an overflow car park for future demand is the expectation that would be an overflow for staff or for public members because I appreciate there's you know 10 parking spaces for the public is quite few at the moment. And a similar question obviously the park and ride site is next door with a new access route between the two sites. Is the expectation that people would get the bus or drive or cycle sorry to the park and ride park there if the car park is full and then walk over to the police station. Thank you Lewis. Thank you chair for you so I'll just share my screen again just to show the site plan. So the overflow car park is just at the bottom here and that's no play car park for staff car parking. There'll be extensive recruitment happening before present and after construction of the station if approved so this is just to ensure that the site can accommodate any future growth and does not rely on the park and ride to accommodate this future parking needs. In regards to public visiting the sites there are 10 visitor parking spaces here and a further 10 here. Most people attending the site will be by appointment only however there is the park and ride to north of the site which members of the public can use and they can also use sustainable modes transport such as the bus service as well. Same with the staff they can also use the park and ride to travel to the site. Thank you chair. Does that answer your question? Yeah that's clear thank you. And Councillor Jeff Harvey please. Yes thank you chair. Yes again on the subject of parking and cognizant of the fact that I think police vehicles particularly don't have a very long service life before they have to be replaced and the ceasing of manufacture of internal combustion engine cars by 2030 and I noticed in the application there doesn't seem to be any mention of electric vehicle charging provision and I apologize if it isn't in there it's quite a long sort of pack of documents and then following on from that in the energy statement to sustainability report it seemed rather surprising and disappointing that such a large area of flat roof has probably only about as far as I could calculate only 10% of it used for photovoltaics and therefore if you put those two things together the lack of on-site renewable energy generation could constitute sort of ongoing significant either you could use a significant cost for the police or a lack of a potential saving there and Ditto of course the large car parking area could have provision for solar canopies to increase that renewable generation capacity so I just wanted what your comments are on that. Thank you Lewis was there any review of those options? Thank you chair and for you so electric vehicle parking hasn't been recommended by environmental health officers however if members feel that a condition is necessary one could be attached in relation to sustainability features of the site so the applicant has submitted a sustainability energy statement Briam pre-assessment and also an output document which has been assessed by our sustainability officer the sustainability officer confirms that subject to conditions regarding carbon reduction from renewables Briam design stage and post construction stage certificates then they can support the application that is in compliance with local plan policies so as the officer I've set to that advice from the sustainability officer who's looked through this in detail Thank you. Thank you very much and Councillor Harvey does that answer your question? Yes it does thank you chair. Thank you councillor Judith Rippers I think I heard what's next. Thank you chair Lewis another question thank you so much for your comments on the safety of the bridge perhaps this question is best for the high race officers actually when was the risk assessment last carried out on the bridge over the A10 Lewis? For you chair I think this would be a good opportunity to bring in Tam Parry from the transport assessment team from Cairnshire County Council Tam are you able to answer this question please thank you. Good morning chair and good morning Lewis I'll do my best yes so the bridge would have been designed at the time of its construction for pedestrians it's not a cycle bridge as such so the parapet height is determined by the requirement for the bridge to cater for pedestrians and therefore that would have been the assessment done in the design and construction of the bridge and following the bridge's completion then that's infrastructure that's there so I don't expect any other assessment would have been undertaken unless design standards have changed and I'm not aware that design standards have changed for parapet heights. Councillor Riffus chair can I ask for a supplementary yes when was the bridge completed and I do also understand that the cyclist dismount sign is advisory so the bridge I would guess was completed in the 70s but I don't know the construction date I'm afraid and and yes the cyclist dismount sign is advisory it's not possible to force cyclists to obey to a sign okay so we're assuming the bridge is designed in 1970s possibly and nothing has been changed with it since it doesn't appear so because of the reasons that would have been designed at the time for its purpose which is a pedestrian bridge the cycle bridge if it was designed as a cycle bridge then it would have been designed to be wider without the 90 degree turns and also with higher parapets thank you very much thank you very much Vice chair do we have any more speakers Martin Kahn Councillor Martin Kahn please you have here basically a proposal for an urban development in an area where there has been previous urban development there's already the park and ride and the refuse disposal area so that it's basically a considerable area of what appears to be keeping urban development being built I'm wondering about the long term what protection we have to ensure the future how would I describe it renewal of the area surrounding it and future planned use in the area environment to ensure that the area doesn't become just an area of urban development rather than green belt area separating settlements thank you Lewis thank you chair and for you so this has also been raised by Milton Parish Council and Cambridge past present and future about concerns at the preview of this application could set president for future development on adjacent sites officers do not consider this to be the case this proposal is assessed on its own merits and the very special circumstances have been put forward by the applicant ensures that president would not be set in regards to kind of future expansion of site that's all to be incommendated within this site such as the over spilled car parking and some area highlighted next to the custody suites if required the simple answer is assessed on its own merits and doesn't set a precedent future development thank you chair thank you do you have a supplementary yes I in the context of this I'm wondering what the future plans are for the management of the adjoining areas the setting of it in terms of the former refuse to other plans for restoration how is that the area around it planned to be managed in the future will there be a return from or a more rural sort of environment in the surrounding area or have you got long term plans so I'll ask Lewis but I understand that will be beyond the remit of this particular application Lewis thank you chair and it's just context sorry yes simply it's outside of the applicants control and I don't have the information in front of me today but as with all applications in the green belt there would have to be assessed on its own merits we can't preempt what's going to happen in the future okay thank you do we have any more clarification questions for Lewis not at the moment chairman okay thank you so we'll move now to the public speakers session and members this is complex and it deals with material planning considerations and also issues around fears for safety which are again kind of more complex so what I would like to ask you is that if you have any concerns or doubts or clarification questions that are material to a planning application in this case that you do make those questions make use of the fact that we do have here represented with a few of them as well not all of them obviously will be speaking but after they've had their three minutes that's the chance to ask those questions when we get into the debate and we may then have discussions over this it will be difficult to then bring in them as technical experts because then we would have to be fair now all public speakers to have the chance again to provide some input so please do make sure that you make absolute use of this particular time now especially given this the very special circumstances that are being put forward saying that these do balance against the harm that this application would do to the green belt so hearing that I'd like to now introduce and invite our first public speaker and that is as an interpreter which is the CEO of Cambridge past present and future James Littlewood good morning everyone morning James so you do know the procedure that you have the three minutes and we will be guidance in the chat box always saying how far you've got and I'll remind you when you get to the end of your three minutes I hope I can do that justice thank you so Cambridge past and future strongly objects to this application we ask that it be refused because it's appropriate development in the green belt we disagree with the planning officer that the case for exceptional circumstances has been adequately proven there are alternative sites available to the constabulary but we believe that they've been rejected on the grounds of costs this includes locations on the research and business parks around the city as well as purchasing and redeveloping non-green belt sites for example in para 57 of the officers report the option of redevelopment within the city is ruled out because quote land purchase costs will be high para 22 of the officers report refers to a number of alternative sites that Cambridge PPF had questioned and it seems to us that cost was a factor in rejecting some of these Cambridge North East on Cowley Road an approach was made to secure a suitable site was rejected we assume it was rejected because the financial offer was not comparable with commercial or residential uses the evolution business park in Milton Road quote making acquisitions unaffordable and we'd research park Water Beach there is land availability but this is earmarked for high value commercial development and approaches have been rejected and again we assume it was rejected because the financial offer was not good enough not being able to afford somewhere outside the green belt does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance and therefore this application is contrary to planning policy there are plenty of organizations that can't afford a prime location around Cambridge if they submit an application to be allowed to build on green belt landing instead would that be approved no it would not so why isn't the same principle being applied in this case we have a similar complaint in relation to the car parking the specification that was used in the site search was for a large surface car park one reason being the higher cost of building a multi-storey car park we believe that this requirement has skewed the site search and it is also the reason that the proposal before you does not include a much smaller car parking and the consequence more green belt land is required than necessary we do have sympathy that the constabulary does not have adequate funds for a non-green belt location nor the funds for a multi-storey car park and we understand the public benefit that an effective police service provides but we don't believe these should be grounds for overruling planning policy nor for a giant surface car park located next to another giant surface car park we do not also not believe that the planning authority can ensure that approving this development will not lead to further harm in the green belt and you've just heard Lewis say that he believes that's the case however he's contradicted even with the own officers report which highlights that a lower quality landscape makes further future development more likely the application has used the low quality of this site to justify the location and the landscape officers report also and gives the poor landscape setting as reasons for justifying this approval so clearly poor quality landscape leads to development so the excessive car parking and the unsympathetic high security landscaping will cause harm to the green belt and we don't agree that that harm is acceptable so as you know it takes decades to trees to grow tall enough to screen buildings and cct columns and lighting we all know that development attracts more development and to argue otherwise is to deny the evidence approving this development will result in increased pressure for further development on the range of the site and that will be caused by the harm caused by this police station by way of evidence Lewis hasn't advised you that this site has been included in the call for sites for 400 houses and 5000 square meters of commercial space so that's the remainder of the field. Okay thank you so and just to say you know we'd be very grateful if the committee would discuss the issues that we've raised before making a decision thank you chair thank you very much we can invite now if there are any clarification questions for James if there aren't any yet chair. Thank you very much for that and I'm sure they will be included in the debate thank you very much James Littlewood for Cambridge past present and future and now I'd like to invite the applicant to come and speak and that will be Colin Luscombe who's the director of estates for the Cambridgeshire Constabulary who is also accompanied by one two three four five six others as I understand who are there to be able to support in terms of any clarification questions if they do come Colin are you there thank you I am the area commander is present James Sutherland is actually doing the presentation ah thank you very much thank you James Sutherland good morning chair can I just check you can see and hear me okay can see you hear you perfectly and if you'd like to introduce yourselves and you just to check that you do know you have the three minutes um yep and you're the only one speaking in the three minutes as I understand you're not sharing that speaking no that's correct it's just myself thank you and apologies for getting the wrong person initially but thank you very much and you've start your three minutes thank you I will thank you chair and members of the planning committee for the opportunity to speak to you about our proposals for the new policing station my name is Superintendent James Sutherland I'm the area commander for the southern division which is delivering local policing for Cambridge for South Cams for East Cams and for Huntingtonshire our proposals respond to the changing nature of crime and policing in Cambridge alongside local population and economic growth our current operation doesn't allow us to fully respond to today's needs new facilities are needed to improve our response and service to the public and without them tackling crime will become increasingly difficult Parkside police station was constructed in the 1960s it's now beyond its functional age and the custody facilities need expanding from 12 to 24 cells to meet the demands of the growing population government funding for additional police officers to be recruited over the next few years and put additional pressure on the restricted space available at Parkside Police Station Parkside site is too small to construct a compliant custody and investigation centre making a relocation essential in order to provide a fully responsive police service in the south of the county. When cells reach capacity to detainees are currently transported to Peterborough and to Kingsland which could be over 40 minutes drive each way this reduces the availability of police officers to respond to calls for service and with the growing population in around Cambridge this is not a sustainable position the proposed police station will serve as a base for the neighbourhood policing teams response policing teams public protection, child and adult investigation units and the property store mirroring the northern facility that's up in Thorpewood visitors to the new station will primarily be by appointment and the impact on the local community is not significant this has been demonstrated by the transport assessments. The Milton site was selected following extensive searches by professional land agent the search areas determined by crime hotspots and travel distances and of the 22 identified sites only three met the criteria of these three all are in the green belt and a subject and the subject site located between the parking right the landfill and the tidy tip is considered as the least harmful to the green belt we have undertaken an extensive engagement programme on this project including a month long consultation in June 2020 on the proposals we were pleased that 70% respondents agreed the police station was a good use of the site. Analysis of respondents from Milton also showed around 70% in agreement we know that there are concerns around detainee release. Duty of care is our primary concern and when determining whether someone is the right state of mind to be released prior to release therefore detainees are subject to a full risk assessment they are where they are classified as vulnerable is often the case that the person is released in the company family, friends, proper adults legal advisors or other people responsible for their ongoing welfare should the detainee be showing signs of stress we also have an embedded healthcare professional who is available 24 hours a day for medical advice, triage and support while the detainee is in custody we also work with close consultation with mental health services and with other external support services to support the detainee post release. We are confident therefore that no one will be released from the hub unless they are not at risk themselves and the wider public I believe this facility will ensure we are able to provide the very best service that we can to our community for many decades to come and I am pleased that our team has worked so closely with the planning officer, statutory consultees who are supportive of this application we look forward to your support in delivering this development for the benefit of residents and businesses and the people of Cambridge and I will be very happy to answer any questions that the committee has thank you. Chair you are muted at the moment thank you very much for that and for keeping within the time so if we will now open to clarification questions and I think the best thing would be for you James to indicate which of you or whether it is yourself or others that you have together with you that would be the most appropriate to answer any particular question and then they can introduce themselves at that point Vice Chair do we have any clarification questions? Yes we have a number the first two are councillors Roberts and Fane Thank you councillor Debra Roberts please. Thank you very much Chairman good morning I'm sorry I can't get my camera to open this morning so it's just going to have to be a question by my word. I've got a couple of questions to the please we just heard presentation from past present and future Chairman which was pretty detailed and gave quite a lot of information of their understanding and I'd like to understand is it correct that actually is in the main being led by cost rather than anything else that there were other sites that you could have gone for however they were seemingly out of your financial bidding ability so I'd like to have your take on that is it correct were there others because that would put a very different slant on the whole situation My second query is are around the public car parking and the fact that it is out at Milton I think one of the good things about the Cambridge station has been that it's accessible to every village really because most villages still have a bus service of some kind or people can drive and get into Cambridge and therefore concerned about how far out it is really away from the majority of villages and also the lack of public car parking spaces we were told in an earlier briefing that that was because it was all going to be all visits would have to be by appointment which I found appalling and alarming that a police station isn't going to be open it's one of the things that the public really dislike about police stations these days there are so few and far between that they can literally if they have got a serious problem they can turn up that so there's a mixture of problems there also if there wasn't an incident involving the police station itself which isn't out of the question you are very near to a car park that could have thousands of cars parked in it unattended and something could go on for hours and we could have a situation where the public cannot get access to it's vehicles and cannot go home so I've got a lot of real queries and concerns about this application and I need some reassurance thank you Chairman Thank you and before we go on could I ask John Wildman and Councillor Margin Khan to take off their video and make sure the microphone is off until they're requested to speak when they come to the public speaking please Thank you Yes so there are a series of questions there So Chair what I'll do is I'm going to address all the operational police and questions and I'll let my colleague Colin Luskin my head of estates deal with more of the planning and logistical questions a couple of those I think broached both so I'll probably deal with question two and three first and then I'll hand over to my colleague Colin to address the first question so in relation to the parking situation and police stations being opened by appointment a couple of things to say on that we are still going to be retaining a full time seven day a week city centre police station in Cambridge the Chief Constable has given that undertaking and we are quite far advanced in our plans to find a new location so there will still be the facility for members of public to come into Cambridge and to walk into an inquiry office with exactly the same hours and terms that we have right now and to speak to a police officer directly that is not going to change and our city centre neighbour team will be based there as well so there is still going to be that policing presence and that offering of inquiry office within the new station so that should not sorry within our new station in the city so that facility for the people out in the villages should still be there and in relation to the Milton site and why it's appointment only so increasingly public do not choose to contact us by coming in to inquiry offices the footfall into our inquiry offices has been falling year on year as there are increasing more options available to people either to contact us by telephone or now online communication and our online chat function and online reporting is sort of a sizable part of how people get in touch with us and we only expect that to continue. We of course will always have occasion where we need to speak to people in order to be able to take statements from them view evidence any number of reasons and that's why we have an appointment system but it's not our intention to replicate the inquiry office function in the new station for walk-ins for people without an appointment because we're still going to have that facility in the middle of Cambridge in relation to the third question which was around the potential for a serious incident within the police station impacting upon the park and ride and essentially stopping people from having access to their cars for a continued period of time I think was the concern if I understood it correctly I of course can't entirely rule that out as a risk completely but I can say in my nearly 20 years operational experience the vast majority that based in the south of the county cannot for such an incident a parkside that impacted upon the local community in that way so approximately the same distance from where we are in parkside to where we will be to the park and ride you have a very large multi-storey car park so the same situation could be argued to exist and obviously there is it's a very dense population around us there have been occasions where we've had to evacuate the police station because of fire issues firearms that type of thing and it's not inconceivable that there would be a security issue that would require us to evacuate it but those circumstances would be absolutely exceptional absolutely exceptional and as I say I cannot recall of an incident in recent operational memory where anything of that nature has occurred in parkside impacted upon our neighbors or the wider community but I just say there though that through the chair I think sorry to the chairman to you sorry and can we just have the response to the other parts of your question first Councillor Roberts and then we can come back Apologies chairman yes thank you Chair if you're content I'll hand over to my colleague Colin and ask him if that's acceptable So I understand Colin you're the director of estates at the Cambridgeshire Constabulary that's correct thank you Yes the issue of costs we had a a very extensive valuation criteria some of those covered in the report but site availability was key to that obviously we can't force people to sell to us so that was very clear that we had to have a site that was available the development and title issues were looked at the time scales for any land coming forward covenants on the land land use, configuration access to road works co-location options ICT issues and connectivity and neighborhood compatibility rule there cost wasn't so the sites weren't excluded on cost grounds so just to be clear about that it wasn't it wasn't us just looking at cheap land options it was a very clear criteria process in terms of getting down to those three sites that were suitable operational operationally Chair I wonder if I could add to what Colin has just said I'm Paul Rowland can you hear me Yes I'm Paul Rowland from Savils I was offering the planning consultancy service to the constabulary and I think it might be unfortunate in some of the responses that we reported on the availability of or non-availability of sites in the vicinity where James Littlewood has picked up on references to high value high value land, high value development opportunities this is as Colin just suggested something of a seller's market if people have land that is capable of being developed for a business park then they will want to make sure that every piece of land they sell further is the objective of the high value business park and it wasn't so much that our client couldn't afford to offer the same price rather that the owners of the land were not happy to have the police station activities the detention centre and staff car parking in what they are seeking to invest in long term as high profile business parks if that's helpful thank you Councillor Devereux did you have a supplementary Yes Chairman thank you very much and again apologies for jumping in earlier too dumb keen I am I am concerned about this parking situation first of all I would also say that the reason that people don't go to police stations nowadays to report is because they are closed it's as simple as that it's not our doing it's not that we didn't want to go into police stations to find a Bobby it's that they closed to us and I think you know it's really not good enough but the second thing about the car parking is I'm really concerned we've seen protesters in Cambridge of late holding up Cambridge for days not just for hours for days and I would have thought that having a almost shared entrance to a police and the major police station next to a public car park with thousands of cars in it would be an absolute dream to some members of society to go and block that you would cause so much aggravation which of course is the name of the game so I think it's been a little bit blasé to say well 20 years it's never happened with living in a very different world from 20 years ago and it could very well easily happen. Thank you cancer Roberts of course superintendent James you can you've answered it and I don't think this it's a question that comes back sort of wondering whether there could be one of these exceptional events that you mentioned but unless you've got anything else to add to your response then we can go on to another question I think it's up to you James would you like to respond any further obviously it's the difficulty of policing is that we're always dealing to an extent with the unknown and like I said it's difficult for me to rule out anything and I certainly can't rule out that a group in the future would consider protesting outside the police station or attempting to blockade it I would say two things firstly that's not a tactic that we've ever seen certainly not locally and I don't believe nationally and secondly we would be extremely confident on our capacities legal authority and skills in order to be able to remove that and remove that risk where it to actually happen okay thank you we have more questions Vice Chair we do councillor Fainas withdrawn his so the next two questioners are myself and councillor Hawkins should I go ahead chair yes councillor Henry bachelor thank you very much and three questions first one and the footprint of this new proposed site how does that compare with the current footprint of the Parkside station that it would be replacing second question would this new police station cover the same area by that I mean so how far away would I need to be arrested to come to Milton police station rather than any other and the third question is obviously there is a concern around the fear of crime more crime being introduced to the area should we approve this is there any evidence that you as the constabulary can give us to you know way lay that fear locally because I mean my layman's view would be that having a police station in the area should reduce crime in theory but obviously I'm no expert so any insight you can give there will be useful so chair if you're happy again I'll answer the questions two and three first because they're sort of more operational and then I'll hand over to Colin for the first question so well actually if I could just deal with the third question first I'll take it in reverse order because this is probably the more detailed answer generally speaking everything that we know around the evidence base around the deterrence of crime and the impact of visible policing suggests that police officers in an area deter crime and deter crime to a considerable degree which is why the opening or more often the closure of police stations tends to be such a hot topic issue with people and rightly so because I think there is a justifiable view and perception out there that a police presence makes people safer and deterred crime and that is probably the impact of police officers and visible policing is probably one of the best and most tested areas of policing studies and of criminological research a police officer in an area stops crime now I'm not aware of any specific evidential study around the impact of a police station as opposed to police officers in an area and how that impacts upon crime rates but I think it is a very reasonable and not very big leap to move from assuming that police officer presence in an area deters crime to a police station in an area with a lot of police officers coming in and out of it will also deter crime so I would say on balance and I'm very happy to answer any kind of specific operational concerns about fears of crime what happens to release persons but on balance and overall a police station in an area should reduce crime and should also make people feel safer in relation to the second question yes essentially it will cover the same operational area as the Parkside Police Station which we're proposing it replaces so if you were arrested today and you would under normal circumstances be taken to Parkside you would be taken to the new area there's always sort of the occasions where people are for particular they're either particularly close to to the border of another of another police station within our force area where they might be taken there particularly if there's if they're particularly violent or particularly problematic but generally speaking the vast majority of people who are arrested who would otherwise be taken to Parkside will be taken to the new police police station I think that addresses questions two and three I'll hand over to Colin Chair if that's okay for question thank you yeah the site area so Parkside is 1.25 acres and the site at Milton is 8 acres early on in the journey of the custody we did look at what we could do on site and under current Home Office design guide it is not possible to construct even the 12 cells that we've got on the 1.25 acres so the design guides now having everything on the ground floor and the specific support functions that are needed and areas of visibility from the cell desks are such that the current site cannot support any form of custody so hence it was needed to move to another site operationally we wouldn't want to move just custody because there's so many support functions that go with it and actually it is the custody that is the hungry part of the land take so probably remember the diagrams that Lewis showed the office accommodation at the front of the block is two-storey and a substantive land take is the custody to the rear so to answer the question it's 1.25 at Parkside and 8 at Milton Thank you very much we have cancer doctor Tumi Hawkins Thank you very much chair for you I really would like to pick up the question what happens to people who are released from custody we talk about risk assessment but it then says in paragraph 132 once they've left custody however the police have no power to enforce their children with home and this I think is a concern of the residence and the parish council of Milton and my second question is how will you know are you going to be doing a benchmarking in Milton area before completion to establish what level of crime there is and then monitor to see if there's any increased level of crime Thank you Yes, James you've got two questions there I do so on the first question sorry I'm just going to kill my camera for a moment so I can continue speaking my device was fully charged chair I promise but I've now been away from the charger for some time so I'm just going to kill the camera and carry on talking to you for a moment whilst I plug in so in relation to the questions around the release from custody this is probably one of the most important aspects of how we manage to tame people within custody and how we manage them afterwards around risk assessments so it's important to note that are legal obligations to say nothing of our ethical obligations to detain people does not stop when they are released from custody under the terms of the independent office of police complaints they will consider a death in police custody to extend to a 24 hour period after people are released from custody so were somebody to die within one of our facilities there would of course be an independent investigation but there would also be an investigation if somebody died 24 hours after being released so that really does focus our custody staff not just on keeping people safe and looking after the welfare whilst they're with us but really making sure that when we release somebody from custody we are as certain as we possibly can be that they will not come to any harm or that anybody else who comes into contact with them will not come to any harm and an awful lot of work and research into safe detention has gone into actually making making sure that's possible so whilst people will sometimes sadly die in police custody or following police custody it is an exceptionally an exceptionally rare event and I believe that it hasn't happened within Cambridge for about eight years in circumstances which I think are quite different from some of the concerns that have been raised in the right to this application but in terms of what happens to people once they've been released from custody there is an extremely detailed risk assessment it runs to approximately I think 30 questions and it considers all aspects of their physical health of their mental health of their family circumstances whether they have any dependence of where they're going to go how they're going to get there and we have a responsibility to make sure that when we release people from custody they get home safely now it is correct that we cannot mandate somebody's particular route from how they leave custody but generally speaking people who release from custody their first priority is they want to get home they've just gone through whatever sort of happened to them however they know from police custody it will have been quite quite a draining experience I suppose I would describe it and most people want to get home to where they live, to their bed, to their family as quickly as they can and we work to to make sure that they get there now sometimes people are capable of leaving under their own steam and sometimes we will make sure that they actually got transport accommodation that might be calling a member of their family to come and collect them if they're a child or a vulnerable person very often we'll take them home we can facilitate travel warrants people can use public transport but all of these are things that we consider when releasing people so I cannot underline enough just how much it is not a case of us opening the cell doors and turning people out on the street nothing could be further from the truth the overwhelming, the primary overwhelming priority of the custody sergeant is to ensure the welfare of detained people during and after they're released from custody and that takes precedence over every other concern, the investigation everything a distant second from making sure that people are alive and well is ensuring that we've got fidelity towards the law and to pace and that is the reason the custody sergeant is an independent officer they're independently investigating officer they're independent of the arresting officer there are really clear safeguards in law and within policy and procedure to ensure the custody sergeant has the independence to make sure that when people are released they are safe that obligation extends to ensuring that nobody else comes to harm following the release of somebody from custody so there is a risk assessment considers is this person likely to commit further crime or to cause harm to any person that will factor into a decision about whether that person is remanded in police custody or not so if simplifying the legal situation somewhat if somebody is charged with an offense following their arrest and following their detention in custody one of a couple of things will happen they will either be bailed to appear at court at a fixed time later on or they will be remanded in police custody and then transported by our contract services to the court in a secure environment and people will be remanded in police custody for a number of reasons but a principal one is concerned that they will go on to commit further crime or cause further harm or intimidate witnesses so the custody sergeant alone is empowered to make that decision and they give very very careful consideration to what the person has done how they've behaved in custody and to make as objective assessment as the risk they present as possible so we give these things very careful consideration the other thing is that when people are released either on bail to go to court or released under investigation or released with no further charge they've gone through that risk assessment process and we can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that they are leaving custody facilities without being in possession of drugs without being in possession of weapons that their intention is almost always to get themselves home and to get themselves home as quickly as they can again I cannot entirely discount the possibility that somebody will not leave custody facility and commit a crime in the immediate area what I can say which is based on again nearly 20 years of operational policing and with an understanding of kind of the criminological research around deterrence of crime is that it is rare and people particularly people who have just been released from custody do not want to get back into custody they are unlikely to commit crime in the immediate vicinity of the police station where they've been released particularly now with the kind of with the risk assessment process which I've just spoken about so I know that these are difficult areas and it's there's always an element of uncertainty so I can't give kind of that 100% guarantee which some people like but I'm sure that we probably understand that and that this is there are difficulties with some aspects of this but I would just like people to be as reassured as they possibly can be just how much thought consideration and kind of professional judgment goes into the decision to release somebody from custody and then the safeguarding is put around them and the local community that was probably two very full answers it was very full but we have got the question which is around the benchmarking because as the report has said I think councillor to me Hawkins says if it's in reaction to any change in the circumstances within Milton therefore you know will there be a benchmarking exercise to set a baseline of the situation at the moment so that is a very interesting question the there is a difficulty around how crime is recorded and this is why it's difficult sometimes I think to evaluate what the impact of a police station in a particular area on crime rates is and the reason for that is that sometimes police stations will be used as a default recording location for certain crimes so for example if the location of a crime isn't known then it might default to a police station or some crime does take place within police stations for example if a member of the custody staff or a police officer is assaulted in a police station that crime will be recorded there often times people will be further arrested in custody for more offences that they've committed or they might be found upon search, being in possession of drugs for all these reasons if you were just to look at a map of crime data police station might appear to be a hot spot for crime obviously we understand that is not the case these are some of the just the operational reality of it and how we have to ethically record crime what I will say is that Milton is a very safe low crime area as the operational policing commander I obviously want that to continue I cannot predict with absolute certainty what the level of crime will be in Milton after the police station everything that I understand around policing and around the deterrent effect of having police officers in the vicinity suggest that Milton is safe and will get safer as a result of this however if there is any particular aspect around the new police station which were to cause any local issue with the Milton around crime or antisocial behaviour we would of course absolutely address that with our neighbourhood policing teams and problem solving teams and we would get a grip of that problem because we want to be good neighbours to the people in Milton I think the question was would there be some kind of baseline that was the question so not yet answered I would say okay so it would not be specifically on that it would not be problematic for me to baseline the level of crime at the moment and it would not be difficult for me to measure the level of crime afterwards there would have to be some detail around the analysis of those numbers reflecting the difficulties I've just I've just explained but I think that there would be no issue with the Constabulary undertaking that and if that did reveal any particular problems around crime in Milton then of course we would absolutely grip it from an operational perspective but I absolutely do not anticipate that there would be any further questions or comments to your audience yes I think if I could be really succinct yes chair thank you thank you very much through your chair I would love for you to be able to do that please and I do take your point that you know police in an area should deter crime that's what I would expect but it's interesting you know to hear the full response that you've given thank you I will leave it at that thank you very much next question vice chair it's councillor Richard Williams councillor Dr Richard Williams thank you very much chair actually most of my questions were answered in the last session but I'll just take the two small points just to further clarification on then if I may just to command Sutherland firstly just a question about the risk assessment and the time limit because I mean I assume obviously I'm you know I take on what you say about the assessments that you do but if you reach the end of the 24 hour limit it's kind of charge your release so I would assume at that point you've got to let people go and my other point so I just clarify that and my other point was you mentioned in the previous answer that that you might have a travel plan and sometimes the police will take somebody back to you know their place of safety if they think they're vulnerable I mean I know I appreciate it's difficult for you to give a precise answer to this so a general answer is fine but how often does that happen that the police would take somebody back to their home thank you okay so on the first question so technically the answer to that is sometimes the generally speaking the police and criminal evidence act which governs kind of all the provides all the statute legislation around custody requires to release people after 24 hours from which they've been arrested so all of the procedure I've talked about the risk assessment and so forth will happen before that 24 hour mark that is not always the case and there are occasions where the people's time in custody can be extended before they're charged and that's either by way of an extension to a superintendent so it's something I'd have to do with some regularity myself or if a further period of detention is required on application to the magistrates but in any case at some at a certain point usually within 24 hours almost always within 72 hours and in exceptional circumstances beyond that for some very particular legal reasons which I shall get into but I could if you wanted but at a certain point everybody gets released so everybody goes through that risk assessment process and we have to sort of be flexible and sort of bespoke to managing the risk that people present it would be extraordinary for the custody sergeant to be releasing somebody who they thought was going to immediately cause crime or cause further harm but were that exceptional case to be there we would respond to it operationally we simply wouldn't stand back waiting the officers and wait for them to go and do something else I think we would be quite close behind them to deter that and to immediately intervene if we genuinely thought that was a risk but again these are almost stretching into the hypothetical because I can't recall the time where that's happened in relation to the question around how often do we take people home I can't quantify it and I I would be hesitant to put any sort of guess in terms of proportion because I genuinely don't know I can say it happens with some regularity but I'm not confident my ability to kind of predict I don't want to give a false impression it will happen it would not be a rare event I can't say it will happen daily and it will often be kind of a last resort because we want our police officers out catching criminals and dealing with crime not ferrying people home but if the alternatives are that we've got a vulnerable person who can't get home or a police officer takes them home we're going to go with a latter option every single time and particularly if that individual was a child so it is not uncommon I'm really afraid I can't quantify it with a number Thank you Dr Richard, is that okay? Yeah, that's fine, thank you Good. Who's next Vice-Chair? Final two, Chairman Councillors Harvey and Ripeth Councillor Jeff Harvey please Yes, thank you Chair I just wanted to ask to make sure this is all being considered and there's no good place to put a station which would have sort of unimpeded access to anywhere but I'm just wondering that particular part of Cambridge is sort of notoriously log jammed when the Science Park is either people arriving at work in the morning or going late in the evening and I'm just wondering what would happen if there was some kind of emergency pass through the city and I'm also thinking about the ways that you would get to an emergency and I'm wondering about Hauntingsea Road the B1047 which would be the other obvious way to go and how safe that would be given it's quite a sort of popular cycle route some of that route has a cycle path albeit I don't think all of it does you know whether you've thought about those aspects or not Colin might want to come in after me because obviously there's been some quite detailed considerations around the site placing these are the calls of service but just from an operational perspective you're quite right Councillor wherever we place ourselves in the county there will be some advantages in terms of travelling distance to some emergencies and some rather than others we've tried to pit a site which reflects our calls of service and puts us in the best place to be able to respond to them but in relation to the actual site of Milton versus where we are at the moment we are in one of the most congested difficult sort of to access from a vehicle perspective parts of the county where we are in Parkside Parkside is not where you would choose to have police officers having to leave the station in cars at speed on emergency response conditions everybody is familiar with what the roads around Parkside are like I'm sure I don't have to detail that but the kind of the experience of being a police response driver in Cambridge you are surrounded by cyclists and you are looking almost with a sixth sense of cyclists because they're everywhere and driving on blue lights in Cambridge is a really almost unique proposition Can we keep it in the application site? So in relation to what you said in relation to concerns around cyclists in the area the police officers who will be at Milton will have more comfort and more awareness of the cyclists around them and of cycling safety than probably any other police officers and they are trained to an extraordinary high and demanding degree to make sure that they can drive safely and drive on response conditions quickly. It's probably what I have to say, I'm not sure if Colin wants to add anything to that, Ger. We have just had a couple of points to do that. We had an organisation called Process Evolution that did the mapping for us. They took account of the road conditions at the point that we would particularly be taking people into custody and reflecting the night time economy in terms of operational support that would more often not be done remotely. So people wouldn't be responding from Milton. They would already be out on their patrols. So the location pull was more about transporting detainees. Okay. Sorry, Chair. Could I just add something on to the end of Colin's response if that's okay? If you'd like to introduce yourself. Yes. Sorry, my name is Will Fares. I'm the principal transport consultant for the scheme. I'm just a bit of support in this from a highway and transport perspective. Just to pick up on issues regarding potential queuing or capacity issues on the local road network that has been assessed fully as part of the transport assessment and in consultation with the Cableshare County Council as well and the highways team there. So we have fully assessed that for a future year of 2028 and assessed any queue lengths or capacity issues on the surrounding junctions to the site, particularly onto the A10, which was obviously the main point of our assessments. All of those junctions are due to operate well under capacity in that 2028 scenario, including all of the commission development to come forward in the future associated with Water Beach and surrounding areas. So hopefully that gives a little bit of reassurance with regards to the immediate vicinity in the highway network. Obviously as touched on by James and Colin, the main pool for this site is the proximity to the strategic road network, in particular the A10 and the A14 in comparison to the existing Parkside site, to be able to access to that strategic road network and get to areas of crime with in a greater time is the reason the one of the main reasons for the location of the police station. Councillor Harvey, that answers your question. I could just squeeze in a further question. Would it be intention to have some control of the traffic lights out of the site so that there was a sort of rapid exit of several police cars would be able to hold the traffic lights to get that right turn safely? Yes. So just picking up on that point as well, we've had on-site meetings with highways with regards to the access arrangements and they've also been part of a Stage 1 road safety audit which is required at this planning stage and the access was found to be safe. As Colin highlights, it's quite a rare occurrence or a very rare occurrence that police vehicles will actually leave on a blue light. They're more likely respond to crime whilst they're out in a very rare area anyway. But we have actually included within our access arrangements a keep clear hatching to allow if there are a queuing which one modelling finds to be very rare that those police vehicles can exit the site effectively through that system. Thank you. Thank you very much. And Councillor Judith Rippers, please. Thank you, Chair. My question is regarding noise pollution and I gather from the reports that you rarely have to go out of the police station on blue light. My concern is for residents at night time when you do have to go out in an emergency with blue lights. Do you at night, I understand rarely use the sirens because the blue lights are more visible and how often roughly would you say you have to do that? So again, difficult to quantify in terms of numbers. What I will say is that the use of the emergency equipment, so the blue lights sirens principally depends very much on the circumstance. But what we don't have, let me give you just the current sort of example of our police stations. Histon Police Station is in a very quiet village. There's a lot of flats and residents who overlook our current station at Parkside. They would get very angry very quickly if the police officers immediately put on sirens as they were leaving police stations. It's just not necessary. They can get a distance before they actually activate that emergency equipment and as somebody who's office overlooks the car park, I'd be getting quite fed up with it as well. And it's normally something which a new probation officer does once and then gets a little bit of feedback on it. So it is not somatic when there is actually nothing within the Road Traffic Law or exemptions that require police officers to put on emergency equipment at certain times. It is down to the training and the professions of the police officer. So we would do everything that we can to minimise the noise pollution that we have when we were leaving police stations or responding to emergency incidents and you put on a siren to make people aware that you're there and to get their attention and to get them to sort of pull over and move we don't need to do that in a car park or as we leave in the car park we can negotiate that separately. The lights is a little bit different and you're quite right councillor there will be occasions where we use sirens at night but it is not all the time and very often because sound travels so much further at night and because lights are so effective that won't be necessary. There will be occasions when we are but it's difficult for me to quantify it because there is something which almost all of our police stations are in residential areas so this is not kind of a unique issue that would come up with this police station and we as a police service are very conscious of our obligations to be good neighbours and to not sort of impede upon people's peace and quiet with constant sirens unless it's absolutely necessary. I can't say that there's no impact to being next to a police station or a fire station or ambulance station around here in more sirens there will be but we obviously do everything we can to minimise it. Thank you for answering my question. Thank you councillor Pesind. Thank you Commander and Vice Chair I think that's at the end of the questions. That's right Chair. Thank you and just to thank you all very much for the thorough responses that you've given to all of the questions and also for your time coming here you all have very important role to play so we do appreciate you being here and being able to answer the concerns that the public and the councillors do have so thank you very much for that and we'll now move on to next public speaker and that is the Chair of Milton Parish Council Mr Don Wildman are you there? Hello I think your mute there Don we got you off the mute I still can't hear you rare yes there we can hear you slightly technically challenged apologies for that Thank you so much for being there it's really challenging for everybody so please just now you're on we can hear you we can see you perfectly so you know you have the three minutes we'll go forward to try your best but thank you very much and thank you Geoff for the opportunity to speak and I accept the challenge of speaking slowly that you gave at the beginning and we'll still try and finish in three minutes fortunately I can save some of my notes by fully agreeing with the presentation made by James Littlewood on behalf of Cambridge Post present and future I can fully agree with every point that he raised there so I won't repeat them but on the topic of Greenbelt I'll just add a couple of points there and note that the initial briefings and consultations that I was involved in all occurred after the preferred site had been chosen there's never been any sort of presentations of the alternate sites no opportunity to compare the suitability or conditions around it it's been Milton all the way as far as the consultations are concerned which is a little bit concerning and it was interesting to hear the representative of Savills noting that some sites are not available because the landowners do not want this facility in their high value business developments perhaps for very much the same reasons that Milton residents are a little bit concerned I don't know but note that the Greenbelt assessment concludes that the Milton site is less sensitive than the others because of the proximity to the landfill site fails to consider that the adjacent landfill ground is no longer in operation apart from gas recovery and according to the original planning approval for the site would have been fully landscaped by now even the distant operational area that's been allowed by an extended license will close in a few years time and the police hub therefore will intrude into the wider green environment arising from the reinstatement of that landfill area which is committed in the planning conditions of the original approval for that landfill site so I think the impact on the Greenbelt around Milton has been understated significantly and does not justify the conclusion that very special circumstances have been demonstrated so please hope the council will take that point and the other sites which have less impact if they were to go ahead could still be considered we have raised the topic of drainage and certainly welcome the addition of the ditch connecting to the 13th public drain but we still remain concerned. The fields in the area surrounding the drain are often saturated frequently with large areas of standing water and even over the Christmas period and local symmetry flooded because the 13th drain was full it was unable to cope with the high volume of rainfall and that's the same drain that flows past the police site to which the ditch will be discharging and the development focuses on maintaining historic runoff levels and so we believe that actually those goals should be revised to take the opportunity of betterment especially given the Met Office guidance that extreme weather incidents will become more frequent and that will bring significant increases in rainfall above current peaks so again please reconsider the status quo that is currently applied in the conditions and consider betterment where possible. And then finally the sort of cycle and footwear footway access which has been mentioned several times. Note that the traffic plan includes a 3 meter wide shared footway and cycle way onto the lane and then terminate at that footbridge which is narrow low parapets as you've heard and of course improvements to that footbridge are out of scope of this development but we would repeat the request that if this development does go ahead that it includes funding for lighting and CCTV on that footbridge because that will improve the safety of all pedestrians and cyclists travelling that route. The either end of the footbridge is a public ownership which I think was questioned in the report so we would propose solutions similar to that operating on the Jane Costin cycle footbridge across the A14 which is good quality CCTV but it's actually monitored in Huntington along with others in the area so again the question of monitoring can be addressed we believe would urge that any permissions include the requirement for that scheme to be evaluated and delivered if this should go ahead this is absolutely essential so nasty little bridge I miss you have come to the end of your speech perfectly and I was just about to thank you for the opportunity to have those comments many thanks. Thank you and I did forget to ask you just to confirm that you do have Authorisation for Parrish Council to represent them Yes. Thank you very much we will now open to any clarifications questions for you also in terms of managing expectations members in terms of asking for a break what I would say is we get to the end of the public speakers which would include the local ward member and then we could have a short break if that's okay. Chairman. Thank you any clarification questions please for Mr Don Mardman Just one at the moment chair Councillor Rippers. Councillor Judith Rippers please. Through your chair hello Don thank you for your comments can I ask a couple more things that maybe you wanted to elaborate on firstly if CCTV were to be installed as part of the section 1 and 6 agreement an amendment to this would that make you feel you know happier with the application secondly do you think the ditch proposed has gone some way towards your concerns with drainage and flooding and thirdly if I may any more detail about the landfill and when you think people might be able to actually access a part of Greenbelt at what time in the future Apologies for the long list. Any other questions clearly we included the comments about the bridge in the original comments from Paris Council and repeated those at the moment when they came back recently the drainage ditch the addition of that ditch so the less reliant on suds is indeed welcome it is a lot better but the problem is only going to get worse I think in any development we really do need to take the opportunity to go for betterment rather than status quo because status quo is causing problems already and not just the immediate area but further downstream as the flow goes towards the cam through the various strains in that area landfill site landfill indeed yes I wish I could answer that one because from the original planning application which includes some wonderful pictures including grazing sheep when they were talking about the future of use that should be in public use by now but the gas recovery is taking longer that's fine, that's technology it happens the method of fill was changed literally speeded up but then extended several times so each time it comes back to council we get the comment that we need a bit longer time and so it's going to take another year or two years, three years before it gets reinstated so the only people who will answer that would be the people in landfill as to exactly how much more needs to be done to give that public access back to that particular area but certainly it can be improved and is for the future a very important part of that green belt separation between Milton, Invincent and Cambridge in the opposite direction okay, thank you so probably that question maybe can't be fully answered today chair unfortunately I do wish the whole village wishes it could thank you very much any other questions? just myself chairman if that's okay thank you very much quick question going back to your request for CCTV to be put onto the bridge is it the suggestion that the parish council would then manage that CCTV because presumably if your indication is for anyone else to manage it it would require their buy in we would suggest that follow a similar route to or method that's used on the Jane Costin bridge that was run by county but it's actually monitored at the sort of central monitoring area in Huntingdon which gives 24 by 7 coverage okay, thank you thank you and I think there are no more questions done so thank you very much for that and for all your contributions today thank you very much thank you very much and now we it's also for local ward member to speak thank you Don if you turn your video off Councillor Anna Bradman as local ward member and said you'd like to speak thank you very much chairman members welcome thank you I'm Councillor Anna Bradman I'm a member of Milton parish council but I'm here today as the local member for Milton and Water Beach I'm asking the committee to agree that CCTV on the A10 footbridge is appropriate and necessary and as described in paragraph 139 of the report to delegate powers to officers to assess the possibility of installing CCTV on or near the A10 footbridge in paragraph 124 I note that the transport assessment team have not supported the request for CCTV but when the Jane Costin bridge south of Milton over the A14 was installed it was recognized from the outset that the risk of suicide and mugging justified installing CCTV it was installed by the county council integrated highways management centre and is monitored by Huntingtonshire and Cambridgeshire shared CCTV services control room I ask members is there a significant difference in risk between the two bridges Milton parish council have not requested any other contribution from this development but they have asked for CCTV to enable activities on the bridge to be monitored anyone leaving the custody suite bound for Cambridge using a root finding app on their phone directed straight down the A10 which has a 50 mile per hour limit and no footpath anyone looking for a safer route to Cambridge might choose the near way to the west or cross the A10 bridge to Milton which also has northbound buses in the village the park and rider course does not really anyone the bridge is extremely narrow as you've seen with barely enough room for two pedestrians to pass each other for a pedestrian to pass someone pushing a bike requires either one or two one or both of them to give way the parapets are low barely handlebar height and below this there is a drop of some 18 feet to the road below for anyone with a fear of heights this bridge is not a good place to be it would be equally be a perfect place to ambush pedestrians the pre-release risk assessment focuses largely I will admit not exclusively the risk to the detainee but as the police have said they have no powers over the detainee once released in terms of the route they take in paragraph 134 officers conclude that a fear of crime does not warrant refusal of the application but in my view it does warrant monitoring of the bridge this is a new site in an isolated location and yet connected to Milton by that bridge at paragraph 137 the S106 officer considers two of the three tests could be met and it only failed the third test because no costings have been submitted in paragraph 139 members are advised that officers consider that CCTV is not necessary but that if members decide that CCTV coverage is necessary then officers would ask for delegated powers to investigate if it would be technically possible whether the land owner agrees we've heard the land is in public ownership and whether securing this mitigation by condition or S106 would be delegated so members if you are minded to approve this application I respectfully request that you do ask officers to explore these matters and delegate the appropriate powers to them thank you chairman thank you very much are there any questions for clarification none yet chair but if there aren't any sorry they're all flooding in now so councillors Hawkins then river councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins thank you chair for you I think I just wanted to clarify the request for CCTV is that based on what fair of crime or safety or both both really councillor Hawkins I'm concerned about the risks to people leaving the site so the detainees themselves I know that the risk assessment does we've heard from Inspector Sutherland that it's very thorough but there is a possibility in my mind that people might leave the site and then be themselves put at risk going over that bridge it's extremely narrow and it's a nerve-wracking bridge to cross at the best of times now if somebody is released late at night there's a combination of risks either for people being approached on that bridge or indeed approaching other people inappropriately on that bridge certainly the parish's request for light and CCTV is of concern the other option is for people using that bridge who might be themselves put at risk thank you councillor Judith Rippers does the question regarding the drainage I'm going to ask you the same as I asked Don Wildman have you any concerns about it now with the additional ditch along the A10 thank you councillor Rippers yes I do have some concerns I'm very pleased that following councillor Hazel Smith's intervention that the need for that ditch on the east side of the field and on to the west of the A10 has been installed and I think that will help enormously but I just wanted to really important that members realise that the 13th public drain in common with a number of ditches in this very flat area runs in two directions from the inner corner of the landfill site it flows south south eastwards towards the A10 and that is the ditch that the new that is the location at which the new ditch will into will feed into it but from that inner corner of the landfill site it also flows north eastwards towards Buck Lane and in the case officers report I notice he referred to that as a dry ditch I just with respect like to correct him on that it's not a dry ditch it is actually the 13th public drain running in the opposite direction and that is the drain that Mr Wildman pointed out had caused flooding at Milton cemetery which further to the north east so I am still slightly concerned I'm not sure and I apologise I should have asked this before but it seems to me it's not clear to me by what means the outfall from the north western part of the site you'll appreciate the drainage for that that the sweet is in two halves there's a half that goes to the east and there's a half that goes to the west and it's not clear to me whether that will be pumped into that ditch or whether it will be just by natural drainage from the swale so I'm still slightly concerned about drainage westward into the 13th public drain running north eastwards thank you that answer your question Councillor Rippus I think so on the debate we can ask for more clarification possibly good and also I'd like to ask you as well as would you like to speak now or later Councillor Rippus I can speak now before the break if everybody isn't too upset by that we do have another question of clarity from Councillor Richard Williams thank you can I just ask you to clarify something given your local knowledge of the area you're dealing with a green belt application and very special circumstances inappropriate development being harmful by definition and benefits must clearly outweigh the harm given the concerns that you've outlined about fear of crime for local residents and indeed the potential dangers to detainees who've been released from the police station given the location near the road and potential difficulties getting back to Cambridge I'd just be interested for your view as to whether you think that benefits of this could outweigh those harms with that CCTV or actually are the harms so would the benefits not be outweighed given the strength of the harms and the green belt and local concerns I think the harm to the green belt is significant and I support the parish council's view and the views of Cambridge Pass Peasanton Future and also the point that Councillor Carn made that this represents a further erosion of the green belt separation between Milton and Impington so my feeling is that it's very marginal and with all due respect Councillor Williams it's for you to decide whether that balance is achieved I feel it's very marginal and I feel that the green belt is precious I'm disappointed but I can see that the parish the planning committee might feel that the benefits do outweigh the harms but I'm not saying that I I agree I think it's a great shame to lose the green belt in this location sorry can I just for one quick clarification I take that point I'm not trying to discharge my responsibilities it was just that point about the CCTV and maybe to be more precise the extent to it that you think would remedy the harms if you like the concerns of local people I'm not sure I feel about it like that Councillor Williams my feeling is that if the planning committee is minded to approve this it's really important that we have the CCTV on the bridge in the same way that we have we have been much reassured and it's been deemed essential to have CCTV on the Jane Costin bridge in the same way I feel with increased use of this bridge because after all don't forget a lot of people will be expected to approach the place on foot so my concern is that with increased use of that bridge in both directions we need to have monitoring because otherwise we cannot do the benchmarking exercise or the benchmarking exercise without the CCTV will not be very informative the CCTV will provide the extra evidence to inform to colour the benchmarking exercise that Councillor Toomey Hawkins suggested and has been accepted as necessary so my feeling is if it's going to be ahead but the CCTV is needed thank you thank you so much, thank you for that and we'll invite Councillor Judith Ripper to speak as local member thank you I'm going to be fairly brief as everybody's already heard and these are my concerns as well so I'd like to suggest in debate that we put forward two amendments to the section 106 agreement because currently I don't really feel the agreement does much for the residents of Milton first of all an amendment to provide active monitors CCTV on the 8M bridge and in time for a wider bridge to be built to coincide with a decision which is made on the A10 and its future direction which would be wide enough to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians with a higher power pet a ledge on the walkway as we saw from the photo it's completely flat so if there were a ledge that could be salted in winter so it's not quite treacherous and I propose that that would coincide with any A10 future development but a substantial contribution towards that and that's all I had to say because I think those are the two main points which I'd like to see incorporated okay thank you any clarification questions for Councillor Rippers and if not we'll take that into the debate and it's 1215 so if we take a 10 minute break if that's okay for everybody so we're back here at 1225 then to open with the debate on these issues Chairman sorry to interrupt so quickly Chairman but I'm just thinking it's quarter past 12 now why don't we have a half an hour break for lunch and then start because otherwise we're going to have to have another break very shortly wouldn't it be best we've lost the short time break anyway this morning should we not maybe could I suggest we have a half an hour now and then start again and continue and get it over you know do the whole thing yep it makes sense can I take that by affirmation yeah agreed agreed thanks yeah thank you Councillor Roberts I agree so 1245 Chairman can Liam stay on with me and maybe tell me what to do to get this picked up Liam can you explain to everybody what will happen in terms of the live feed as well during that time yeah sure I was just going to ask would you like me to put up a slide that's what I would usually do I'm very happy to do that today lovely thank you very much and does everybody so it's are we live still and yeah we're still live I will put up a slide in about 30 seconds and yeah the feed will then be cut for half hour both audio and video okay thank you very much and everybody do turn off your video we aren't done to lose it and can't sustain yours as well please okay we're now live again thank you good thank you I'd just like to check if we could that we have everybody here and so I'll do a quick roll call and if you could just as if we were in class say present so Councillor Henry Batchelor present Councillor Anna Bradnam well she's not on the committee member but I'm not on the committee sorry I'm just saying Councillor Dr Martin Kahn present Councillor Peter Fein present Doctor Tommy Toomey Hawkins present chair present Councillor Deborah Roberts present chair Councillor Heather Williams present chairman Councillor Sue Ellington present and Councillor Jeff Harvey present lovely thank you very much chair but I'm here it's Richard Williams oh sorry I missed you thank you very much good thank you everybody and welcome a short break we're now entering into the session of the debate having had the presentation of the application and listening to the public speakers and any clarification questions and I just sort of want to bring us you know into focus so it's our responsibility obviously as committee with a very large and complex case which by the very nature of its location in the green belt is inappropriate development and that's taken obviously very seriously it's against policy and it's considered harmful so what has to be done is that the application and what we've heard in terms of we've got in front of us in terms of the report and what we heard as well from the applicant today is the very special circumstances that are being put forward to us that are being demonstrated and that it's put to us that the public benefit that they provide does outweigh the harm and those public benefits we've you know we hear it in our report are the provision of a fit for purpose police station appropriately located operationally and fully equipped to serve police functions for the surrounding communities of Cambridgeshire and in the public speaker session we're understanding those we've also heard sort of extensive responses to concerns just amongst some of the ones that I've noted mainly about that process for the sequential process for selecting the location and the evidence upon which that was based the nature of the type of public policing provision why necessary and that public benefit that it provides the impacts of police presence in an area hearing both from evidence and research that it deters crime in an area but also hearing concerns around how it could potentially in terms of perception increase fear of crime and fear of safety and especially unless certain measures are taken into consideration that drainage certain aspects of drainage have been addressed with the inclusion of additional ditch but there are still certain concerns around flooding and drained drainage that have been raised landscaping also and access to landscaping areas in the green belt and the erosion of the green belt area and parking and sustainability so taking a mind to what our job now is to in a very difficult ways to assess this balance between harm and benefit and basing everything on the material planning considerations that we know are what we need to base any decision on I'll open up now this session for debate and if Vice-Chair could let me know who would like to speak please certainly we don't have anyone yet in chair I'll give it a few seconds still nothing chair and first up to bat is Councillor Fein thank you Councillor Peter Fein somebody have to start chair yes I've listened very carefully to what's been presented on this there are various subsidiary issues I should call them drainage safety of the crossing both of which I believe can be met by conditions we'll have to come back to that idea the key question of course is the green belt and the test the very special circumstances but before addressing that I look at the site this is not a site which would lead to urban sprawl between Cambridge City and Milton it is between the admittedly former but still very visible as such landfill site and the park and ride and as officers have explained it has limited impact on the landscape but as to the key test the very special circumstances I was concerned as to whether this was cost driven I'm satisfied by the presentations both by the superintendent and by the director of of estates that that was not a factor that was not taken into account and that there are in fact no other sites available which would meet these criteria except for others which are also in the green belt in my view would if considered be more damaging so with that in mind I do come to the view that the very special circumstances are met in this case and that we should approve this application thank you Councillor Fein Vice Chair who do we have next Vice Chair are you there sorry our thoughts are muted it's Councillor Ellington Chair thank you Councillor Sue Ellington thank you Chair I think I've listened most carefully and my concern is very much that one would have thought that with all the developments that there are in Southcams and South Cambridgeshire that a site which was not in the green belt could and should have been found and I think my real concern is that this application sets a precedent that the authorities in inverted commas are able to get permission where others would not be able to get permission and the suggestion that was made which I to some extent go along with that the cost of land in the green belt is significantly lower than that in other areas that might get planning permission for either industrial or residential development could have played a part and I am very concerned that this is the perspective that the population of Southcams will see and feel that in some way this has been privileged and it's for that reason that I think I shall vote against but I will listen carefully to the discussion Thank you Thank you very much councillor councillor Richard Williams is next chair councillor Dr Richard Williams Thank you very much chair Well my starting point is the same point really that you started outlining in your comments which is that special or very special circumstances will only exist with the potential harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harms is clearly outweighed by the benefits so the very special circumstances test which I think we all agree is the key thing here depends on an overall balance between the good and the bad now there is obviously significant harm to the green belt as you said this is inappropriate development under the NPVF and by definition it is therefore harmful but within that there is obvious harm to the openness of the green belt from this development and I would suggest there is obvious harm in terms of visual impact as well we are talking about lighting fences a very large a large building with a design that is obviously not what we necessarily expect to see in the green belt so there is harm to openness there is harm in terms of visual impact and we have to give that significant weight going on to the benefits so actually before I do that I will just address the point of need which Councillor Fain has quite rightly raised in terms of need I am not sure for my part that need has been entirely made out but even then I would say that need on its own is not enough to outweigh the harm to the green belt you do need to look at this overall need is just one factor for me at least so moving on to look at the other benefits I mean there is obviously a benefit to the public in having a modern police station and we have heard from the police the benefits that they would see from having this station with these facilities so there clearly is a benefit but for me the benefits are not clear cut there is the possibility of nuisance for local residents there is the fear of crime which is a material consideration which cut against to some extent the benefits that there are and I think we've also heard about the possibility of harm to those who might be released from custody or at least the difficulties they might encounter of the location here so at the moment for me the benefits do not clearly outweigh the harm given that this is green belt we have to attach significant weight to that and it's a very special circumstances test is an extremely high bar to meet and for me I will listen to the rest of the debate for me at the moment that debate that bar is not met whilst I obviously have a lot of sympathy with the police and I would like the police to have the best facilities possible in planning terms it's a very high bar and I don't think for me it's been met Thank you Who's next? Councillor McCann Councillor Dr Martin McCann I'm making comments I'm not allowed to vote on this but I missed a bit the first little bit of the debate because of technical problems I am concerned also about the green belt I'm concerned about the demonstration and need at least from the report not all the alternative sites were shown only the three special final solution I am not totally convinced that any of the alternative sites could be usable the site proposed is in the green belt it's inappropriate it extends development in an area which is already affected in the green belt which one would want to constrain I need to be convinced if I were voting I'm still not sure how I would vote I think for instance and the three alternative sites it is clearly the best site A might have been suitable being closer to the urban area better footpath access into the town but it would eliminate a woodland and I think that's something in the green belt area which we would not want I do see that as the best of the three sites proposed but I find it difficult to feel that this is the only alternative I don't feel it's totally satisfactory of the sites I really feel that it does tend to give the impression that we are giving priority to the authorities rather than to which private applicant would not necessarily have so I am concerned and I'm not I'm still not totally convinced what I would vote where I have a vote Thank you Will you next have councillor Rippeth I'd like to take up the green belt again as other people have I mean currently it's wrapped by landfill and I wonder if there's anyone I know it's not clarification time with any more knowledge though on when that will be accessible any of that site I mean Don Wildman from the parish council obviously he doesn't know for sure none of us appear to know and because gas is still emitting from it I assume that would it be a number of years because you couldn't have people walking on the landscape and say they dropped a lit cigarette with that cause an explosion I just wondered if there was anybody here with more technical expertise and my second point was the amendments but I presume we'll address them a little bit later So back to your first one what you wanted to understand is what the quality of Yeah and going forward because the quality of the landfill at the moment obviously isn't high quality because of its use but you know how far in the future would it be before that's accessible so maybe we can take that to if I understand the question would be and there's been several sort of rays which is around feelings that the site selection process I'm saying feelings because that's what people have said feelings that the site selection process hasn't been as robust as necessary and so I think understand your question Councillor Ripper this did it consider what the future would be of the landfill site rather than Yes not just the current situation but maybe just five years ahead Yeah I don't know Lewis would you be able to answer that question? I think Chris Carter would like to come in Chair Thank you Chris Thank you Chair, yes if I may on the landfill obviously the County Council is the waste and minerals planning authority and unfortunately we don't have anyone from that team here today but in my experience landfill exploration does take a number of years to be complete principally for the reason of the release of gases as you've discussed and only after that's deemed to be safe would public access be allowed again I'm afraid I can't comment on the specifics of this site because I simply don't have that information in front of me but I would imagine from experience that there will be a point of time in the future where subject to the landowners agreement public access to that land may be achieved again in terms of the there have been a few comments about whether or not to use Councillor Ellington's term the authorities are getting preferential treatment in terms of the green belt location I'd like to reassure members that that is not the case the green belt review and analysis work that's been done by the applicant is as thorough as we would expect to receive from any other applicant and as Lewis said earlier in the meeting we have to consider this application on its individual merits and whether or not there are very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the identified harm to the green belt in any particular application will turn on the specifics of that application the circumstances and the very special reasons will be different depending on each application so that is a matter as Councillor Richard Williams said for the committee to weigh up and in the planning balance so I think that was all I was going to say for the finding I'll be permitted to take the future of the landfill site into our considerations or not really so the fact that it is green belt, it's green belt now and it will be green belt in the future so the test is the same in my view okay so even if it were decades before it could be accessed okay thank you and the next speaker is myself thank you very much so addressing the main item of green belt I tend to find my view mirroring that of Councillor Fane I think I have a different opinion from other councillors I think a fairly robust look at sites has been done and that this site is the best and the other competing sites were also in the green belt as well however this one that we find in front of us today probably offers the the best outcome I suppose my so far I probably would be leaning towards supporting this application however I would be interested to follow up on the CCTV requests that Councillor Ripp was asking about and I did have a question for one of the officers around that paragraph 137 in the report and I think Councillor Braden did touch on this in her local members comments so am I right in thinking officers that the CCTV request meets points A and B or satisfies points A and B in the statutory tests for requiring this but it doesn't satisfy C purely on the costs purely on the fact that no costs have been put forward can I just get some clarity from officers on that please Chris Carter. Thank you chair yes through you yes that's correct Councillor Bachelor having given this some additional thoughts during lunch break and speaking with colleagues I have a suggestion for a way this could be dealt with through condition rather than section 186 agreement if the committee was minded to agree such condition if you just bear with me just a moment so that would be a condition along the lines of the following chair are you happy for me to read this out so it would be prior to development above ground level the applicant shall submit to and have approved in writing by the local planning authority a strategy for the implementation of CCTV or equivalent monitoring and associated signage covering the ATEM pedestrian bridge including landing areas the approved strategy shall be implemented in full prior to the first use of the buildings and maintained in perpetuity the reason I'm suggesting that this would be a condition rather than section 106 is because if the opportunity for the applicant to investigate with the County Council how such a strategy could be implemented what the cost would be and for that to be agreed through a section 278 agreement rather than a section 106 agreement so that would be an agreement between the applicant and the County Council to undertake works on the public highway and yes so that's the recommended condition if members did want to include such a condition for myself I think that would be satisfactory because clearly before this could be implemented we have to get the buy-in of the County Council as well so I will happily have more thought on this when we come to the Council of Rippith's amendments but those are the comments I wanted to make at this stage next we have Councillor Roberts and just to go back I mean Council of Rippith did ask when amendments could come forward and you know there isn't a specific time they could come forward at any part of the debate so Councillor Rippith do you want to mention what those amendments were sorry Councillor Roberts I just realised I hadn't answered her second question there no problem I can re-mention then so the first one as Councillor Batch has just covered active and monitored CCTV on the E10 bridge and I'm personally happy with the condition suggested by Chris Carter and the second one was in in the fullness of time when we have a decision on the E10's future so whether it's dueled online or offline a new wider and in my opinion safer bridge to replace the 1970 structure that is currently there and I mentioned the other reasons for that earlier do you want me to repeat fine so just this is if minded to approve these are the conditions or amendments in some way that you would like to see so condition you'd be happy of that being a condition rather than S106 we can come to that later in the debate I don't know if Chris Carter wants to respond on in terms of looking into the future you know what can we do around what are we able to do yeah thank you thank you chair yeah I think the difficulty here is that we don't have an identified project which we could link this to it's also difficult to in my opinion to justify that the need for a replacement bridge arises as a result of this particular development so I think that given the comprehensive work that would need to be undertaken at some point in the future for the upgrading of the E10 this would be a matter to be resolved through that work rather than through this individual planning application there's no support for a replacement bridge from the highway authority they've reviewed the application and don't consider that's necessary for this development so I think that would be difficult to achieve at this time councillor Rippeth I think it's something that would need to you discuss that at a later date when we know what the E10s future is whenever that is exactly okay that is fair enough in my opinion thank you and could I ask our legal advisor to take the video off please and audio he's on the phone and so councillor Deborah Roberts please thank you very much chairman and I think it's been an interesting discussion actually and we've had lots of clarification on all sides really I'm not convinced entirely that it isn't somewhere down to the cost implications I think it's you know it's pretty to be expected that there will be two very different types of expenditure whether it was just this field and green belt or whether it was on one of the areas that we are actually you know putting high text of etc so I'm not really convinced on that that hasn't come into the decision making of this particular site and you know not having other sites I think a number of people have mentioned it is a very high bar that is set for development in the green belts and the more I think about it the more I don't think it reaches the bar I think that to add this sort of size building and the amount of hard area around it the impact on the landscape there in the green belt next to already that huge car parking area there's a terrible cumulative effect as well on the green belt here which I think actually really can't be very acceptable I think that there are genuine concerns about the safety aspects of it near that road so near to the village so near to that car park area so near to that bridge and we've been told that we can take those into consideration and I think at the end of my thoughts yes it might be very nice for the police to have a nice new police station but wanting something isn't always the same as actually needing it or absolutely needing it at this moment in time we have got a local plan process that is starting up now we're in that and that new local plan is only 10 years away and I really wonder whether we should be even considering something like this in the green belt as we have it now and really it should be something that should be actually been worked upon to be putting into the next local plan as a really appropriate site I don't think it's an appropriate site I think there are genuine reasons for the crime that people have put forward and do stand up but I think mainly it just does not reach the bar that is required and I think more than ever now we have to protect the countryside rounders you know we are as a council saying this all the time to the public how much it means to us you know protecting the countryside protecting the rural nature of South Cans you know we've got to stack up ourselves if we say these things we have to mean them thank you very much chairman thank you with councillor Hawkins next chair could I ask Stephen Reed can he hear me can you turn off your video and audio Stephen please sorry that's fine and sorry we have next sorry it was councillor Hawkins chairman has a doctor to me Hawkins please yeah it certainly has been an interesting discussion so far today about this and I mean the main issue that we all keep coming back to is the fact that it's in the Grimbelt and the harm that is being caused I mean I've heard said that you know a site that's not in the Grimbelt called or should have been found but let's not forget we were shown a list of 22 potential sites site options that were considered and this was then bowed down to three sites which met the design criteria that you know the police federation whatever it is have set down for new police stations so it wasn't a finger in the air you know we think this is okay this has been gone through quite seriously and I hear what the Cambridge past present and future have heard the arguments for you can find something somewhere else but I think we need to bear in mind that there is yes there is a need yes there are specs that have to be met but also yes they have to cut their coat according to their size so I actually am not in agreement with those you know the land they shouldn't have thought about the price of the land they should because everyone has a budget you cannot start building something without actually counting the cost so in my view yes there was I agree with what process has been gone through to get to the the last three now the last three as it happens are in the Grimbelt and in my view this one has been chosen is the least of the I guess you know the least worst of them all and whilst I accept that there is harm caused the question is do the benefits outweigh the harm so in my mind with an ambassador question why is it been put here so that's been answered why now because the current station is inadequate for policing into the next decade and more we have to make sure that our police have the right facilities just as we would want with facilities to work from they need to have that too so they can continue to protect us the harm is there no doubt about it but they need a modern station within the design specs and able to provide for the community that they serve if they don't have that facility now what do we expect it's not going to be the sort of policing that we keep asking them for so we need to bear that in mind I asked if we could have some sort of benchmarking which has been agreed and I think that should also come within into a condition I'm not sure if Mr Carter has actually thought about that because the fear of crying is something that the community is worried about and rightly or wrongly we've heard a lot about how that can be mitigated and the benchmarking the CCTV and the lighting is a set of mitigation measures I think could help with that but also we've heard that there isn't the level of crime that people think exists where the current station is so we've got to weigh this as well in that yes once there might be the fear the question is is it is that strong enough to say no to providing our police service with the facilities they need working into the next decade or more so considering everything that's been said in my view I think the benefits of this station outweigh the harm it is close yes for thinking about the future I think I will be voting for this so thank you chair but if we could make sure that the issue of the benchmarking is taken into account in the condition please chair can we put that to Chris Carter at the moment if yes thank you chair I did give this some consideration as well I think we can construct a condition to deal with that I have noted some wording down which I'll just read out for you to see how members feel about that so prior to the first occupation of the building the applicant shall submit a report to demonstrate existing levels of crime reporting in the parish of Milton following this further updated reports shall be submitted at 6 and 12 months following first use if the data is found to show an increase in reported events it should be accompanied by a strategy for this to be addressed which will then be implemented in the local community that's slightly on the hoof so it would be helpful if members did want to include that I agree the precise wording to be delegated to the chair and vice chair officers agreeing with the chair and vice chair should the vote go that way thank you chair thank you what do you think in terms of that does that address yes I would be happy with delegating the final words to the officers because they know what the intention is but I think the timeline of 6 12 months I wouldn't want that to be a hard limit so that there isn't any further monitoring going forward so my point is shouldn't there shouldn't I'm not sure that would want a hard limit of 6 to 12 months what if it takes longer for that effect to come through is my point I think in order for the condition to be reasonable we would have to put some kind of time limit on it it may be that members consider a longer interval would be more appropriate and I don't know what members think about that but I think that could be flexed in that sense perhaps 12 to 18 months okay thank you very much who do you have next to speak Vice Chair we have two more councillors to speak we also have a request from Mr Read if we can have a two minute adjournment before the vote as I say we have two more councillors to make their comments before we get to that stage chair and the first of those is councillor Harvey thank you councillor Jeff Harvey yes thank you chair sort of two points really I would be interested in we just don't see you there we go thank you yes I would actually appreciate some explanation of the condition in regard to the planning inspector what is expected to happen and why that condition is there just as a sort of background thing but just to more generally about the pros and cons of this I mean I think it's really really a very difficult one and partly that's because one's sort of trying to weigh things that are sort of binary in nature for example is the protection the green belt an absolute you know and I suppose if you read the MPPF you might actually in a very sort of tight reading conclude that that there is harm to the green belt and it's inappropriate but then one's trying to sort of weigh it against things that are harder to really quantify in a sort of binary way which is sort of you know the need and the level of harm and I agree with Peter Fain's point that you couldn't really say that this location is in some way destroying a sort of separation between the city and Milton because it's kind of it's off to the west from that situation so I think that sort of strengthens the case on the other hand you know it is in the green belt so that's a kind of a very serious thing but I think I would really agree with Councillor Hawkins that the problem is that I think we've been sort of shown some evidence here you know we I think we have to sort of accept what we've told that the selection process was robust so therefore we're in a situation where we have three sites that are all in the green belt and I would very much concur that this one is the least worst in that sense so I'm sort of minded to vote for but I mean I am still as I said earlier I'm very disappointed that a public building should have such a low level of ambition in terms of sustainability and it looks to me as though the sort of green rating and the level of on-site renewables has just been set at the minimum that would be allowed and given that we've had that it wasn't a sort of funding issue that led to this site being selected and the fact that failing to provide those sort of on-site regeneration facilities would ultimately cost the service a lot of money and we could talk about this later but I wonder if at the very least we could have a sort of advisory there that nothing in this application should preclude the provision later on of more on-site renewable generation and the provision of EV charging so that's what I've got to say. Thank you Councillor Harvey and I think quite a few people now are saying how difficult, what we're hearing is how difficult it is to weigh this balance you have mentioned the made reference and I think we are now collecting any wanting to understand if it were to be approved, if people were minded to approve this that there would be some conditions and you did mention the EV charging and I think the case officer did say that that could potentially be a condition so it's now to say that if you would like to put something like that forward. Now's the time Councillor Harvey. Okay well should we ask the case officer what that condition would look like if it was about the EV charging within the car park. Yes I think that would be very helpful thank you. Chris or Lewis do we have any support on that? I'll let Lewis deal with that one. Thanks Chris for you chair. If you just bear with me I can draft the condition and share it with members in due course. Okay. Do we have any, thank you very much Councillor Harvey. Thank you. Sorry chair. Just to say unless members wish to see the specific wording I think again the EV charging is one where we could take that away and draft the precise wording following the meeting. I think we've used similar conditions elsewhere so that would be something members would be pretty familiar with anyway I think. Yes rather than sort of trying to draft it on screen I think that's a better way. Thank you and the next speaker. The final speaker chair is Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you. Thank you. I agree with other members this is the least worst option which doesn't always fill you with the most optimism and then voting for it. I think there has been a lot of work done. I do agree and looked at different sites and and I think there is need for the police to have alternative custody suites. Any time that they're spent taking people out there for example to Peaceborough is time that they're not spending serving residents. So I do agree there is a need. The issue I have is probably the same as others is the green belt issue and we've explained how as much as we want to do everything we can to support our police forces we can't give them any special treatment and there is harm that's in its departure but I think when it and you probably can tell by the way I'm speaking that I'm really struggling with it like other members are it's whether there are very special circumstances for it to be where it is and I'm not 100% 100% convinced that there are very very special circumstances that we would normally include in our criteria although there isn't you know with human beings there's going to be an inevitable emotional response and that we want to ensure we do things right by the police and also the neighbours as well because they have concerns which are valid I'm aware from previous issues with Parkside Police Station I think the activity can quite often be a problem with the probation service which is just behind so behind the Parkside Police Station as opposed to the station itself so that does give me some reassurance that the probation service isn't moving with them but overall I think it comes down to that planning balance of is this very special circumstances and I'm not sure the need to relocate qualifies as very special circumstances but yeah wrestling desperately here good and so thank you very much Councillor Williams for that and I think we're hearing need we also have to talk about public benefit as well with that so I hear Stephen Reed our legal advisor is proposing that there's an adjournment Stephen are you proposing that that's before we look at what conditions would be before we go to the final vote or can we move to any conditions first or Chris you know I would understand that we would vote on each of the conditions first rather than wrapping them up all in the one vote I think you probably need Stephen to advise on his request there Chair if I may I would be relaxed about a vote being taken on the conditions I would just like to speak to you and to Mr Carter before the vote itself is taken if you did ask me my preference would be that actually a two minute adjournment even before addressing conditions would be more beneficial than leaving it to just before the vote itself okay and vice chair I don't think we have anybody else to speak that's right chair no one else no and I really thank everybody I think we're all really weighing this up in the balance and we've had some good debate there and all the issues have come through it would in terms of if people were minded not to support this I'm trying to note down what those reasons were now what I'm hearing is that in general it's not seeing that the public benefit outweighs the harms because of harm to green belt openness and visual impact so it's the principle of development and the green belt and the fear of safety are those those are the reasons that I've heard if those who are minded not to approve but if there's anything additional to that please do let me know and meanwhile we can have this adjournment how should we do that Chris the adjournment chair I've just sent a dire appointment to yourself and Stephen Reed which contains a team's appointment to join so you would leave this meeting and join that one momentarily and so should we invite vice chair to attend as well Chris yes the meeting stays live we just have ask everybody to have the video and audio off. Yes we could ask Liam just to put a slide up to say that we'll be returning shortly. Okay so members can I ask that we follow Stephen's advice and just to find out what this is about and have this two minute adjournment obviously we'll come back and explain to you what that is I've just had a quick one cumulative effect I think it is the cumulative effect as well as the building the car park being so very in close proximity to the park and ride sites I don't know whether the officers think that that one would be appropriate but it's one that I think is important thank you. In terms of our key material considerations where would you say that we've got what would that be layout scale or highway safety scale chairman as I say I think because of the the potential of the massing effect of it and then all that concrete area of the park and ride I just think the the overall effect is going to be very very bad. Chair if I may could I suggest possibly if we took a 15 minute adjournment we'll deal with Stephen Reid's query initials to give officers a chance to draft a potential reason for refusal should the committee wish to go that way so that when we return we can present that to the committee as well if that be okay. Be really helpful yes thank you. Thank you everybody so if it's now I've got 135 so if we come back at 150 Liam thank you very much you've put up a slide and everybody take their video and audio off are we live Liam let me know one more live. Hi yeah I just confirming now yeah we're now live thank you. Thank you Welcome back everybody to the South Cambridge District Planning Committee and after a short adjournment we're now coming back having had the debate on this application and now moving forward towards the vote we just had this short adjournment to look at the reasons for either approval or rejection if people were minded either to approve or refuse this and before we go any further there have been recommendations in terms of conditions if the committee was minded to approve and so I'd just like now to go through those three proposed conditions one by one and see whether by affirmation or roll call those would be accepted if committee was minded to approve Steven. Sorry you're just going to take your roll call before doing that. Thank you very much and once again. Yes thank you very much. So a roll call before we go to that which would be very very helpful. Councillor Henry Batchelor Present. Councillor Dr Martin Kahn Present but you won't be voting. Councillor Peter Fein Present. Councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins Present. Councillor Judith Rippeth Present. Councillor Deborah Roberts Present Chairman. Present. Thank you. Councillor Sue Allington Present. Councillor Jeff Harvey Present. Thank you everybody. Good. So taking that so as I said we've had three proposed conditions if committee was minded to approve the application and I'd just like to take those one by one if see first of all if we can do it by affirmation and obviously this is affirmation if committee was minded to approve otherwise we'll go by roll call. The three conditions are as had been proposed in terms of wording by Chris Carter which one would be the CCTV on the A10 pedestrian bridge strategy. The second would be around a crime reporting strategy to have a benchmarking and to help with monitoring. And the third would be an EV strategy for the application to the car park. So I'll take the first one which is around the CCTV A10 pedestrian bridge strategy. Who would like to propose that? If you propose a chair I'm happy to. Thank you and who'd like to second that? Can I second? Yep. Okay. Can I take that by affirmation? Agreed. Agreed. Thank you everybody. Anybody against? Abstain. Okay. So that condition if minded to approve that would be accepted. The second one is around a crime reporting strategy. It would help with benchmarking and monitoring and assessment. Anybody who would like to propose that? Yes, please. Councillor Hawkins. Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins, who would like to second that? Happy to second. Councillor Rippus. Thank you. And committee can we take that by affirmation? Agreed. Anybody against? Or abstaining? Okay. Thank you. And the third one which is the EV strategy for the car park. Who would like to propose that motion for a condition? I would like to propose that. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Yes. Who would like to second it? Happy to second. Hawkins. Thank you, Councillor Tumi Hawkins. Committee can that be by affirmation? Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Thank you very much. And now we come to the vote and members that's on page 38 which is the recommendation and we've had a thank you very much everybody. I think a really good and serious debate where this has challenged everybody to look at weighing the balance between the public benefit and the harm to the green belt. So thank you all for that. The recommendation here is to approve the proposal subject to a consultation with and confirmation from the Secretary of State that the application is not to be called in for his determination and B the planning conditions are set below in the report and that's just voted upon and I know there will be differences in I think in voting as from what we've heard from people during the debate. So if that's okay I will go according to Chris. Sorry chair, sorry Tintin. Would you like me to for those members who may wish to vote for refusal which I think there may be some would you like me to put up on screen the proposed wording that we've arrived at? Yes please. I'll just do that now. Would you like me to read it now or is it okay to read? I think you should quite so yeah. So the applicants have failed to demonstrate very special circumstances to outweigh the harm that would arise from the proposal to the green belt by reason of its inappropriateness. The harm both individually and cumulatively with nearby development would be significant representing a formal development which would fail to assist in the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment and fail to preserve the setting and special character of Cambridge and Milsen. The benefits arising from the scheme would not outweigh harm to the green belt or harm in terms of impacts to the landscape and from the loss of agricultural land. The proposal is therefore contrary to the South Cambridge local plan 2018 policies HQ 1, S4, S7, NH2, NH3 and NH8 and paragraphs 143 and 144 of the NPPF National Planning Policy Framework 2019. Thank you and members is that okay in terms of capturing your reasons for refusal if you are minded to refuse? Yeah, very much so chairman, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Harvey would like to speak chair. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Yes, chair I just wanted could we take it then that the EV strategy which will be prepared later will touch upon the onsite renewable as part of that? No, not as not as worded. Okay chair given the wording but if I may I know Councillor Harvey suggested possibly an informative with regard to wider sustainability measures to be included. I think that would be appropriate. I think a strategy for the electric vehicle charging points we can include as conditioned but I'd suggest perhaps an informative along the lines that Councillor Harvey suggested to advise the applicant that they shouldn't shy away from any further additional sustainability measures in the future if committee were agreeable to that. Councillor Harvey is that does that address your Yes, I think it would. I was just concerned that potentially useful avenue was left unexplored if you like so thank you very much. No, and we've done that in informatives in the past on other applications I think that's fine so committee if minded to approve by affirmation would you approve of that informative also to be included Agreed Agreed Thank you very much Thank you for that Councillor Harvey Thank you chair Okay, so members I will now go to this. So the recommendation is to approve the proposal subject to a consultation with and confirmation from the secretary of state that the application is not to be called into his determination and be the informative and planning conditions are set out below and as voted on just now by committee those three additional conditions please in the roll call answer for against or abstain as I call out your names and I will try and insert in the subs in alphabetical order as well within the roll call. So I'll start councillor Henry bachelor for chair councillor Doctor Martin Carnes not voting chair oh sorry there I go badly sorry councillor Sue Ellington against councillor Peter Fein for councillor Jeff Harvey for councillor Doctor Toomey Hawkins for councillor Judith Rippeth for councillor Deborah Roberts against councillor Heather Williams against councillor Doctor Richard Williams against and my vote would be for that would be six in favour and for against and no abstentions so the application is approved thank you everybody if we now turn to our agenda and we are on to agenda item six the enforcement report and who do we have to take us through that please that will be me how did you appear magically like that wonderful thank you very much had a little elf tap me on the shoulder thank you Alistair do you want to take us through the enforcement report is anything to make us note in the report there's no updates to the report it is as it is if any questions I'll do my best to answer members do you have any questions for Alistair no one's indicated chair so nothing on that one thank you very much Alistair thank you and agenda item seven which are appeals against planning decisions and a report on that recent appeals chair no particular updates we spoke about the appeal decision which is noted on page 57 and the east of Cody road and north of bannled road at the last meeting so I won't repeat that but otherwise the other two appeals were both dismissed which is good news happy to take any questions any questions members please chair councillor Rippers chair councillor Judith Rippers apologies if this has been repeated because I wasn't present at the previous meeting Chris Carter who you chair could you give any more information on the allowed with costs and what the reasons for that were on the bannled road application you're testing me now councillor Rippers I'd rehearsed this for the previous meeting and not for this one but would you be happy to receive a summary after the meeting just so I can refresh myself on the appeal decision if everybody else has heard it yeah that's fine thank you thank you and is there one more question for myself chair if that's okay sorry yes councillor bachelor it's on the informal hearing section I note the hearing for 100 houses society is listed as being appealed because of non-determination is actually appealed against refusal granted by this committee so just just want to correct an inaccuracy in the papers there thank you councillor bachelor that's noted thank you and thank you anything else councillor vice chair no one else chair okay and as I understand the next planning committee meeting is on Tuesday 13th of April is that right Patrick that's right I think I've got it in my notes here so that would be good thank you so thank you everybody for your time today and for all of the contributions that was a difficult balance that was struck today I now declare the meeting closed and thank members of the public as well for viewing the stream leaning stream streaming of this meeting thank you everybody bye