 Good morning, Members, Officers, and any members of the public who are joining us. Welcome to this meeting of the South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee. My name is Councillor Peter Fane. I'm the Vice-Chair of this committee. However, our Chair, Councillor Martin Cahn, has sent apologies to this meeting, so I will be chairing this meeting. I'd like to propose that Councillor Peter Sanford assists me as Vice-Chair for this meeting. Do I have a seconder for that? Councillor Bradman, thank you. Can I take that by affirmation? We all agreed. Thank you. I wouldn't ask for any against or abstentions on that one. Thank you very much. I'll just let Councillor Sanford get settled and then we'll start. Thank you, Councillor Sanford. Just a few announcements from me. I would ask those who are joining us remotely to ensure that camera and microphone is switched off unless they're addressing the committee. And committee members present in the Chamber, I will now, each one of you, to introduce yourselves. Members, after I call your name, please turn on your microphone and confirm your presence. As I said earlier, my name is Councillor Peter Fane. I'm Member for the Shelford Ward and my Vice-Chair is Councillor Peter Sanford. Thank you, Chair. No, I'm just trying to join the committee, so I'm not. No. Councillor Anna Bradman. Good morning, Members. I'm Councillor Anna Bradman. I'm one of the Members for Milton and Water Beach Ward subbing for Councillor Judith Reifers. Councillor Bill Hanley. Good morning, everyone. Bill Hanley, one of the Members for the Villages of Over and Willingham. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Jeff Harvey and the Member for Gautran Ward. Councillor Dr Tumie Hawkins. Good morning, Tumie Hawkins, Codicot Ward. Councillor Mark Howell. Come back to Councillor Howell in a moment. Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Good morning, Chair, Richard Williams and the Member for the Whittlesford Ward. And Councillor Eileen Wilson. Good morning, Councillor Eileen Wilson, Member for Cottenham and Rampton Ward. And perhaps Councillor Mark Howell will like to have another try. At last, yes, Mark Howell, Member for the Caxton and Papawford. Unless I'm very unobservant, that is, all of us, and we are quarried, I can confirm that. Members will have noted that Bill McIntosh has left us, and there will be a new delivery manager, senior planning support for this committee in due course. I'll introduce her in the future. But for the moment, Philippa Kelly, who is delivery manager for strategic sites, is stepping in to be our senior support officer for item five. And then I will introduce to you, you know, already Jane Rodden's, interim area development manager who will be our planning support for the rest of the meeting. And we also have with us today Vanessa Blaine, our senior planning lawyer. Lawrence Damari-Homan, who's the Democratic Services Officer. And I'm glad to say we have Erin Clark back with us to provide our technical support from Democratic Services. We will be joined by various case officers throughout the meeting, and I'll introduce them as they join us. If, at any time, a member leaves us, leaves the meeting, would they please make that fact known to my vice chair so that it could be recorded in the minutes? We'll take breaks as and when they're needed. I propose to take a break at 11 o'clock and between items if it seems that it's appropriate to combine those two, we will. Now, hopefully, members will have received the main agenda pack, which is dated 1 August, and the plans pack, dated 2 August. Two supplements were published on 7 August, which contained the minutes of the previous meeting and an update report amending conditions for item five, which the planning officer or case officer will refer to when we get to that item. Could you just confirm that you have or make sure that you have received all those papers? Thank you, members. So, item two on our agenda today is Apologies for Absence. Lawrence, any Apologies for Absence today, please? Thank you very much, Chair, for Apologies. They, the regular Chair, Councillor Dr Martin Carn, also Councillors Ariel Carn, Judith Ripiff and Heather Williams. Councillors Anna Bradlin will mark how kindly joining us is substitutes today. Thank you. Thank you. Members, we now come to item three, Declarations of Interest. I'm going to start with a declaration in relation to item six relating to Cotnam. Members will recall we made, took a unanimous vote to refuse an application on this site on 19 January 2022, as discussed in the report. Quite a lot has happened since, as the case officer will explain, and I declare that having been a member of the committee on that occasion, I come to this with a fresh mind. Other members may choose to make the same declaration, or we can take that for granted for those who are present. Councillor Anna Bradlin. Thank you. I made the same query to Vanessa Blaine, and I was surprised, we're coming to this as a new application, and so I come to this matter a fresh, but I was part of the committee that gave unanimous refusal last time. Thank you. Councillor Eileen Wilson. I too was a member of that committee, and I'm also a member for Cotnam, but I do come to this approach. Right. We seem to have started a trend here, as I say, but I think this is a general declaration, which covers all of those who were present at that meeting. So unless members want to make any further declarations of interest, let us move on. So we then come to other interests to declare in relation to any item of business on this agenda. Can I take it that there are no other interests to be declared? No. Item four on our agenda, as usual, is the minutes of the previous meeting. And we have before us the minutes of the meeting held on 12th July. These were published as a supplement. Councillor Wilson. My name is missing from the councillor's present, but throughout the minutes I'm there as voting, so I was there. Thank you for that direction. Councillor Sanford. I've notified Lawrence of a couple of changes needed, including my name missing from voting on one of the applications, so I'm happy to just authorise the minutes. Lawrence, I will quickly apologise. There are a couple of errors in this. I will share my screen just to clarify what is being updated there with me. So as Councillor Wilson stated, your name will be included at the start. Apologies for that. Item six, the number in the vote here is correct. Councillor Sanford's name is not included. That is an error. I do apologise to Councillor Sanford. So approval will be with an amendment to include that. And then further down, apologise. And just in this line here, the insertion of an of to read, responded to a number of member questions. I believe that is it from me. Thank you. Right. What I'm going to ask you to do, if you would, is to keep those minutes on the screen and we'll just go through them page by page, only to affirm that we are consent and that there are no other amendments. So if we could call up page one, which hopefully members have before them in the supplement, we have to do that. Page two, I think I'm confusing us with the numbers at the bottom of the page or slightly different. This is page two of the minutes, maybe page three of our papers. Page three, page four, page five, page six, page seven, page eight, that is the end of those minutes. Can we therefore confirm that we approve those minutes by affirmation? Subject to those changes. I propose that we... Councillor Bradman. I would stay because I wasn't at that meeting. I suppose I'd better have a seconder. Thank you, Councillor Sanford. Can we then affirm that we approve those minutes? Councillor Jeff Harvey, I assume that's the sign of affirmation or did you have a question or a comment? Thank you. So we've approved those minutes and we come therefore to item five, which is land at Welcome Genome Campus, Cambridge Road, Hingston. It is before us because the Parish Council have called it in. This is the construction of two bridges and all associated structures and enabling works and demolitions. The case officer will give the full description at some point. The key issues here are the principle of development, the transport and highways impacts, trees and landscape, drainage and the impact on the conservation area and heritage assets. The recommendation before you is to approve and the presenting officer is James Tipping. I would just remind members before James gives us his presentation that the committee met publicly for a developer briefing on the design code for the wider development and that was on the 19th of May. And there is, of course, as referred to earlier, the update sheet amending some of the conditions which James will refer to. So, Mr Tipping, the floor is yours. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, members. I shall just share my presentation. Hopefully that's come up for everyone. So, yes, this is the full planning application under reference 23 slash 00482 slash FUL. Land at Welcome, Genome Campus, Cambridge Road, Hincston. This is for the construction of two bridges and all associated structures, ramped walkways, stairs, lifts, boundary wall, footway and cycle paths, lighting, utilities, construction access, construction compound, hard and soft, landscaping works, planting, tree removal, earthworks, drainage infrastructure, service water drainage features and all necessary works and demolitions. Hopefully that's the only time I have to say that description. Thank you. As you refer to, Chair, there was a supplementary sheet which updated a condition. That condition was condition eight, early article impact assessment. That just updated a revised or updated assessment. So, it's just a change of date to that particular condition rather than any other wording that is clear. Also, I have other updates in particular to three conditions which were amended post a publication of the committee report. So, as you can see there on the slide, that's the four wording of the proposed condition. So, this is a condition three and this covers biodiversity net gain and the dilemma landscape environmental management plan which is shortfall. So, that's the four wording. I don't need to read it out, Chair. Thank you. And as you can see here, conditions 18 and 20 with a report have been amalgamated and now read as follows as you can see there, the four wording is now condition 18 which is the wall details. Condition 19 remains the same wording as within your pack. And then, a new condition 20. This is related to the detail of materials. Again, that's the four proposed wording. So, I'm just moving on to the presentation. Just starting with the site location plan and the block plan. I will use my pointer for this. So, if you see there on the site location plan, you see that the full extent of the redline boundary covering a site area of 3.09 hectares. On the right-hand side, you should be able to see the block plan there of the proposal. You'll be able to see the two bridges. So, this is the northern bridge and then below is the southern bridge. You also have a series of additional footpaths which then link into the ramp detail and the staircases and also the lift which is just about located where my cursor is. Similarly for the southern bridge as well. More widely, here's the existing construction access which is existing for the current construction that's going on with the existing campus. And then there's the link road through the existing road which links through to this existing car park which is referred to as Car Park D. This will be used... James, can I just stop you a moment? Can I just check with the numbers that you can see the cursor? Do you all see that right? Okay, please, carry on. That's fine. Thank you. Yes, so that the car park will be used as a storage compound or construction compound or part of it will be as part of those works but would turn to being used as a car park for the foreseeable future. I think it's just important just to highlight the wider context that the site sits in as well. So you see here the bottom of this sort of wider plan map. You can see where the site sits. So on the right-hand side is the A11 which runs north to south. You have Cambridge to the north there and the surrounding villages. On the right-hand plan, this shows the movement strategy associated with the wider development. I think this is an important plan because it shows what's existing in terms of cycle and pedestrian movements that are also proposed as well. But also you can see the villages of Hinkston and its relationship to the site and also the villages of Epleson, Buxford and Wittlesford there just to the north. So I just want to go through some of the planning policy and site constraints associated with the site. As you can see, we have Hinkston's settlement boundary to the north there. We need looking at the site allocation plan and then you see that the site, although it's not overlaid on that particular image, so the site is partially located within an established employment area. It's partially located within the Hinkston conservation area which is that pink line. Hinkston Hall, which is a great two-star list of building, highlights that with a red star. That's just a bug where it says E slash 15 to E. And then the parish church of St Mary and St John, the evangelist in Hinkston, which is the further red star to the north there. There are existing trees within the site and the site is in flood zone one. So I think it's important to understand that the wider context that's this particular proposal sits within as members will be aware. Planning permission was sought and gained for outline planning permission for 1,500 dwellings, commercial uses, hotel conferting measure and education facilities on land that sits adjacent to Hinkston Hall and at the junior campus. As you can see, the parameter plan is shown there, which is an amalgamated parameter plan. It's important to understand the relationship between, as I say, the application site, all those two particular bridges and the proposal elements, which will come forward within the expansion land. So the expansion land is the land east of the A1301, which runs slightly diagonally north to south there on the plan. As you see, Councillor Hawkins, sorry. I just wondered if you could use your cursor to actually communicate. That's a very good idea. So this is the A1301, just from my cursor through there, which links on to the A11. So it's part of the parameter plan or the amalgamated parameter plan shown here. We have the indicative crossing points which there are several of. And as you can see here, so there's a broad location for that northern crossing, which is obviously indicated as part of the application as a bridge, and then the southern crossing point, which again is indicated on the application for the application as a southern bridge. As part of that, I would also say that we have the A1301 where the realignment works, which has been approved as a reserve matters, which I'll come on to shortly, but that shows the proposed northern and southern roundabouts, although there is an existing roundabout that serves the existing campus that will be a much larger roundabout that serves that wider development. So again, part of that context is important to understand how the bridges fit and align with the wider development that will come forward. So there are development parcels within the wider development. So development will parcel A, which is located in development area 1, as you can see here. There's a relationship or connection to that northern bridge that's proposed. Similarly for the southern bridge, which is linked to parcel D, there's also a relationship to the existing campus. As you can see there, within both images, to do with the northern section and the southern section, there is an existing relationship to those existing facilities, whether it's the existing conferencing facilities to the north or the existing campus and commercial activities that are occurring in the south. So this is the illustrative layout plan for the wider site. This sort of gives a bird's eye view which is coming up here. As you can see here, we have the village of Hingston located here. I'm circled the two bridges. So this is the northern bridge integrated here and the southern bridge located here. And you can see that there's this relationship to the expansion land and the built form and the activities that will occur within those buildings and the wider residential parcels as well. But also again, just emphasising the existing campus and the activities that occur on site. I've just highlighted where north road is because it's not particularly clear on this image, but the north road junction is where my cursor is hovering. Just for context. So I'm looking at the bridge detail. Just with that particular north, that's sort of the image at the top there, that is a sort of cross section so that's normally it's full width just to be clear. But as you can see there that the proposed bridge has planting across the entire deck which is a feature of this particular bridge. And some of the makeup of that bridge. I'll just give some details in terms of again, this is in section 3.3 within your report. So the bridge width spans between 6 metres at its narrowest point to 10 metres. So it spans 63 metres across its length. The height underneath the bridge comes a 5.3 metre height and the overall height of the bridge to its office around about 7.3 metres. It's slightly similar for the Southern Bridge although the span at its length is 50 metres. Whereas the width and height are relatively same. So this is the ramp detail. I think that's all clear there. So this is for both pedestrians and cyclists. And it's mainly constructed of a steel composite. Although the precise details will be something that is conditioned. The ramp gradient is 1 in 22 and that's been an acceptable gradient with stash tree, non-stash tree consultees in this regard. And this is the proposed stair detail. Again, it's sort of a composite. Steel material of those details will be required to be provided in detail as a condition. There's staircases for both the Northern and Southern Bridge sort of located within the wider landscaping as well. We'll get onto that shortly. And this is the proposed lift in terms of its detail. So in terms of the height of the lift I believe that the Northern lift reaches a height of around about 10.5 metres. Whereas the Southern lift gets to a height of around about 12 metres in its full height. In terms of the precise details of the lift that will be conditioned but the external would be green. So it does some soften its appearance slightly. So this just gives an idea of the cross-section of the bridge and its entirety. And this is for the Northern bridge. As you can see here so this is the view looking north. So you can see here the lift structure the ramp detail as it comes round and the staircase detail just at the back there. And to say this the bridge itself will be fully landscaped. On the image on the right hand side with the block plan you can see there that the proposed landscaping and how that sort of is intertwined I guess within the bridge structure certainly with the ramps off so it creates a softening of that appearance as opposed to trying to hide the structure in any way. Again just looking at the landscaping elements of the bridge you can see there the northern image that will sort of top image just shows dictatively what the landscaping could appear to be like and there's a CGI image to the south there. Landscaping on the bridge is quite a feature of the bridge and it does emphasise its appearance and design terms and also does assist in terms of its biodiversity in that game. Again looking at the wider sort of landscaping elements of the northern bridge you can see here the additional landscaping although there is a loss of trees within as part of the development and certainly as part of the ramps there will be additional planting or tree planting and other landscape features that forms part of this development. I would also say in terms of the approved realignment of the A1301 existing linement does run sort of where that I guess where my cursor is so actually there's only a small part of the development which you would see some of that sort of tree removal so there's a lot of additional landscaping that would come forward and this then would be the realigned A1301 which the bridges would assist upon. Similarly for the southern bridge and its sort of interaction I guess with the existing campus buildings to that point the top image there is looking north so you can see here we have the the lift structure and the staircase and then the image to the bottom just shows the ramp detailing just collectively and the image on the right hand side is therefore just showing again the additional landscaping that would come forward as part of that proposal so again this is sort of showing the landscaping elements of the ramps off and how that sort of interacts with the southern bridge structure itself I thought it would just be helpful to identify some of the wider benefits in terms of biodiversity net gain but also the other aspects of landscaping so as you can see there is 57% in biodiversity net gain although there is a removal of a number of trees there will be a significant addition in terms of tree and other landscaping planting as part of this proposal the planting upon the bridge decks will be drought resistant which is quite a benefit and as mentioned earlier there will be sort of the greening of the lift structures in terms of climate and on the Serpentine wall so I think it's just helpful to look at the movement or the anticipated movement for the bridges as you see for the left hand side there is to be around 3000 excuse me new residents as part of the wider expansion land which will come forward as well as 7000 workers but also there will be visitors and delegates to the existing confidence facility which needs to be taken into account in terms of the amount of people that we are using certainly the northern and southern bridge and I think it's important to highlight this interaction or connectivity to what will be the proposed development but also the existing development or existing facilities that are identified as part of the northern southern separation which you get from the proposed green but also the existing greening the existing green areas and the events accommodation area to the southern research facilities so this just identifies some of the relationship between say the existing village of Kingston and the northern bridge and that sort of access strategy as part of the outline plan permission there will be a requirement under condition to open up access or public access to the campus so as part of that you'll see some of the movement which will go through the site from the existing village whether it's a new footpath or existing footpaths which then link into the existing facilities such as conference centre or leisure facilities which will be located near to the northern bridge and I think it's just understanding excuse me there that distance between the northern bridge and the village of Kingston there is some distance to the nearest dwelling certainly within the Kingston of around around 220 metres so there's a good separation distance between the village and the proposed development it will also reiterate that we do have the 8131 realignment preserved matters approved which propose to say that's northern and southern roundabouts with the northern roundabout being quite substantial quite an urbanising feature so I think this image helps to understand some of that context around how say a new road and the village of Kingston interacts with say the northern bridge but also some of the aspects to do with the southern bridge as well certainly there's a change in appearance because of the realignment of the 81301 works which makes it more urbanising to some extent and I'll just show some of the images around a bit closer up excuse me so you can see here that this northern photo so that's the existing arrangement which is at the junction of north road and the 81301 so that's looking south and to the south here the image to the bottom the CGI image shows how the realignment of the 81301 moves the existing road away from certainly the junction and the existing fence line if you like which is sort of demarcated by the new serpentine wall so there's a shift away again from the existing road and then you have a new roundabout which I've just highlighted there on my cursor and then in the distance you will see the northern bridge similarly for this image on the top there this photograph which I'll just show you as a separate CGI again you'll see that the road has moved away from the existing junction and creating effectively a new junction and you get this sort of long view so you have the roundabout the new roundabout here and then you'll see the northern bridge and some of that ramp detailing as well as the new serpentine wall which feeds through waterway down to the southern bridge so this just gives a bird's eye view and it's a CGI image of what's the northern bridge would appear like again just reiterating this is not the approved roundabout as part of the realignment of the A1301 this is the proposed developments that will come forward in due course it's part of the expansion land you have the bridge deck which is landscaped the ramp detailing you can see there my cursor that's the lift detail and then the associated landscaping as well some of which is existing and that will feed all the way down to the southern bridge so this is northern bridge still sorry so this images the CGI images relates to the southern bridge you can see there is the east lodge which is part of the Hinks in the state so there is a relationship between the east lodge and obviously the bridge ramp off including the staircase you can see there there's the image showing the southern bridge actually I think that's looking north rather than south again you can still see on the extremities the lift detailing but also the landscaping detailing as well on the bridge deck it's important to understand also the context of the lighting strategy and how it appears at night as you can see here the bridge deck and also the bridge ramps but also the lift detailing that the lighting is quite soft understated I appreciate there is these street lamps but they're associated with the A1301 upgrade works and it's part of that reserve matters application and not part of this application so the lighting is solely focused on the bridge the bridges and the say the ramps off and just turning to the other elements of the development the proposed serpentine wall as you can see here this runs the entire length say from pretty much the southern bridge to the northern bridge and just beyond and linking up to north road the serpentine wall is made up of various materials and various heights and sort of intertwined as you can see demonstrated within this image below intertwined in between proposed and existing landscaping to give a varied appearance again using various materials and where it does interact say with the east lodge that will use a traditional material, walled material again this is some of the serpentine detailing and again some of the CGI images and how that interacts with certainly the bridges and this is the central access point which would then cross the A1301 so again just given a bit of viarity to the serpentine wall again these are just CGI images showing the traditional walling that comes against say east lodge and some of the other serpentine wall details so that's the presentation and the offset recommendation is for approval and in accordance with the conditions set out in section 12 of the report and the amendments set out also thank you thank you very much Mr Tipping for that very comprehensive presentation that last slide there on the planning balance I may ask you to keep that handy in case that is useful to us during the debate later on now we have a number of speakers before we come to to that are there any questions of clarification for Mr Tipping? I should explain that when it comes to our speakers I would not expect members to be asking questions of our speakers unless that is essential clarification of what they have said rather than expansion of what they might have said Councillor Wilson I think he's first of the night thank you on paragraph 1.7 on page 8 of our pack the second right the proposals are broadly in line with the outline planning commission could you explain that please yes thank you yes so the parameter plans identify as I say several crossing points just when we look at those and that the amalgamated parameter plan so there were a number of assessments made in terms of what the crossing point should be as part of the outline plan permission and some of that assessment was made whether it should be accurate crossings or indeed bridges so the crossing points refer to informal and formal crossing points but where the locations are for the northern and southern bridge they do relate to those identified crossing points so in my view they are broadly in line so they don't go outside the perimeter of the outline planning commission then not in that sense thank you chair Mr Tipping some but not all your CGI seem to show seating on the top of the bridge can you confirm if there is seating planned and if so is there sufficient space for cyclists and pedestrians to pass safely yes thank you yes there is seating and it's identified along the entire length of the deck of the bridge deck so I think just going back to the width of the bridge it does vary as I say now it's pointed six metres to ten metres so there's sufficient width both say pedestrians and cyclists thank you thank you chair Mr Tipping thank you for your very full presentation I just wanted to ask the cross section of the bridges two things one was is the north bridge the same cross section of the south bridge and secondly I can't see in the conditions any long term condition for maintenance of the planting along the site on the edges of what was illustrated on the southern bridge because that looks quite complicated thank you yes in terms of the cross section for the bridge that's an initial image that I showed it's perfective for both bridges essentially in terms of long term maintenance there is a requirement for and I just need to check my conditions again long term maintenance for sustainable drainage but I couldn't see anything about the maintenance of planting on the bridge it's possible that that might come under the yes sorry condition ten relates to landscaping that's to do with replacement it's not to do with long term maintenance of the planting across the bridge sorry the reason I ask that is because in strong wind events for example if the trees have become too tall they could blow in the wind and then fall onto the A1301 worst case scenario but I'm just wondering is there a maintenance plan to maintain the height of those trees as proportionate to the amount of root security that they've got because you see where I'm driving it would be food to have a very tall tree in a root pot that wasn't very deep but then blew in the wind and fell over there are landscaping details associated with the bridge decks and it's a specific landscaping schedule when none of those it doesn't identify some trees as such all the trees tend to be located off the decks themselves along the boundary not over the actual sorry not over the actual carriage work no no this is all related it's more there are some particular planting that gives height I guess but there are not some trees in that context councillor Harley yes thank you chair I wonder if it could be clarified that the chronology of the quality panel report in relation to what we've been presented because I know quality panel do sort of take issue with the planting along the bridge so has that been sort of considered and declined as a recommendation I wonder and also well that's the first point second they seem to be quite concerned about bad behaviour sort of what they described sort of muddy tracks exit from the bridge and I just wondered if you could explain where I couldn't really understand from the text what they were saying in relation to the muddy tracks I wondered if you could point that out on the on the graphics that you have can I interject I wanted to also ask the question on that and I think it relates to informal crossing people not going over these bridges just literally crossing at grade ending up on the east side of the road and then walking up the side but it's the same point that council Harvey has made sorry can you just repeat those points again just for reference yes of course first point was I wondered if the quality panel having taken issue with the planting I think they would rather it was seen as a bridge rather than I suppose a concern about the scale of the planting in relation to other natural features so that's one thing has that been sort of considered and rejected in bringing forward the application as we've had it presented today but that was the first point and then the quality panel also council Bradman just reiterated seemed to have a concern about people not using the intended route and I think at one point they were concerned that people would head off presumably taking a shorter route and create sort of muddy tracks and I think I can't point to the exact paragraph but I wondered what they were talking about there yes no thank you for that I think in terms of the first point that yes the quality panel comments in relation to the planting on a bridge there was some discussion around the sort of interaction between the existing campus and proposed the expansion land and that has been discussed and discussed with also the landscape officer and we came to review actually that the proposed planting is sufficient in terms of its appearance and as I say the planting schedule that's proposed is sufficiently detailed to give enough I think that's sort of linking certainly between the existing campus land and proposed campus and the expansion land so yes whilst it seems like it's sort of negated those particular comments we're sort of trying to structure them in but incorporating let's say that the landscaping on the bridges is a feature as explained earlier and I think it's sufficient in terms of what it proposes in my view in terms of the second point the the serpentine wall will direct because there are only certain breaks within the serpentine wall on the existing campus site so you are directed within the existing footpath structure and proposed footpath structure to the bridges or at the at-grade crossing the central at-grade crossing which has been approved as part of the A1301 so I don't perceive there to be that sort of reference there's no muddy tracks in my view I think there's sufficient footpaths and psychopaths that would suffice and in my view that's sufficient Chairman my question I don't know if it's actually for Mr Tiffan or for the applicants so shall I wait or do you wish me to ask him now? No try both I'll go for it so that you're not satisfied with the first ones Thank you With regards to the ramp on both bridges I looked on the agenda and also I've looked at the plans the ramp seems to me to be a straight without any rest areas for people who are mobility problems or wheelchair users to use traditionally the stairs but the ramp doesn't now that causes problems when you are a wheelchair user because when you're going up there's no where for you to stop unless you put the brakes on so is there rest areas on that? the rest areas are quite a common feature on these ramps we have one in Patworth we've had it there for 20 years so I can't see it on these ones Thank you Chairman Thank you for the question there aren't any particular rest areas as far as I'm aware on that ramp so there is the lift facility that provides that access for wheelchair users we've also had this certainly through the pre-application stage discussed this with the access officer and they've been content with that ramp detailing so I think the assumption would be that there would be more use of the lift there would be obviously handrails on that the ramp detailing Thank you that really doesn't cut the mustard you should have rest areas you have rest areas for people who have got normal access with regards to the stairs you've got several and noticed and therefore they should be on the ramp for people therefore you're saying to people if you're a wheelchair user you have to use the lift or pull yourself up that's just not good enough they've been a design feature for the last 20 plus years perhaps in answering that you would just deal with the question of whether there is flexibility should the applicant's wish to build in such rest areas I guess there could be flexibility within the ramp detailing it's quite a long ramp I guess and it's a gradient which is again an acceptable gradient so 1 in 22 so it's a lot more achievable for more users essentially Councillor Harrell I suspect that's a question you might want to come back to after the presentation by the I'll wait until the answer Thank you very much Councillor Bradlin, you wanted to come in again is this a separate issue? I wanted to ask if you would be so kind to explain what is 1 in 22 in percentage terms and second is that 5% because I'm looking at gradients about what's suitable for cyclists it says in the quality panel document that the gradient looks challenging for cyclists and the second point following on from Councillor Howe is on the Jane Costin bridge over the A14 at Milton it has a similar gradient which is actually really rather steep it does have rest areas that are buildouts so you can even if you don't change the principle of the bridge you can make a flat area and then go down and another flat area on one side in the pedestrian bit which is the purpose of that is to provide a rest area for wheelchair users Mr Dipping I think you've dealt with most of that do you have anything to add nothing to add to that I mean the ramp detailing has been worked through with the access officer and we've had other statutory responses in relation to which accepts the ramp detailing but now I take the point on board in terms of the 1 in 22 gradients I'm not entirely sure what that is certainly find out 4.5 4.5 Thank you Members I said that we would take a break at 11 o'clock we have two speakers and indeed the local member to speak to us on this one and therefore I suggest we take a short break now I was planning to use it to work out what in 22 was but we've hopefully had the answer to that so I won't need to do that if we come back at 5 past 11 if we may right or we are live again welcome back to this meeting of South Cambridge a district council planning committee we're on item 5 Hinkston and welcome to you on campus so that concludes the officer presentation and we now have some public speakers and a welcome Nigel Hughill who I don't think I need to give any guidance as to how the system works you will understand that you have three minutes and I would be most grateful if you could keep time the floor is yours you may want to just press the button on your microphone Thank you very much indeed and just before we start we will confirm with the officer and with the technical office but there are landing areas to your point I think it's not clear the drawings so I think we need to just take that away and confirm that for you so if I could start thank you and good morning to all committee members it's been my privilege to oversee the development of some of the most successful new places in England over the last 25 years including notably Stratford City which formed the basis of the 2012 Olympic Games in all cases one starts with the fundamentals recognising logical desire lines prioritising access and accessibility establishing gentle and unobtrusive changes to ground levels emphasising pedestrian and cycling amenity these are the basics of good placemaking to be addressed before a single foundation is poured when last before this committee in May to which you referred chair and previously over a two day session with the quality design review panel we specifically endorse the two bridge strategy we reiterated the joint determination of urban and civic and welcome to achieve global excellence the GM campus at Hingston is set against major research centres elsewhere in the world we simply can't afford model thinking the report and this morning's presentation and the recommendation are fully clear I want only to reinforce two aspects first to Councillor Wilson's question the outline planning permission did not fully resolve the rather tricky issue of the best way to connect the two sides of the campus having worked with your officers and with those from the county we are now bringing forward a fully complete solution through this application there is no argument that a single bridge sorry there is no argument that bridging is very obviously the safest option the contention from Hingston Parish is that a single bridge could work just as well it would not the four other local and larger parishes with whom we also regularly consult have not objected and I do not believe that future generations of Hingston residents would thank us for effectively encouraging resort to the crossing of a busy road second there are many developers who would actively leap at the prospect of losing a costly bridge that is subsequent up from infrastructure savings believe me if we could manage with one bridge we absolutely would a moment's reflection brings to mind the inherent short sightiness of that approach the Hingston campus will come to host an estimated 10,000 employees and residents as we've heard plus the visitors to the conference centre highly qualified scientists many will be but they are also humans to take the shortest route between two points an absolute preoccupation of ours is the fostering of serendipity and inter-organisational co-operation the collaboration of fine mines there is there would not be much chance of that whilst running a gornbund across the traffic of the A1301 so far from constituting an architectural indulgence the two bridge strategy is part of a bedrock or thoughtful and careful master planning being progressed with your office as you've heard endorsed externally by the design review panel and delivered by Wilkinsonair one of the foremost design of bridges in the world meticulously planned design lines I'm within 15 seconds yet meticulously planned design lines are axiomatic to that strategy facilitating movement across a consciously integrated campus with maximum consequent utilisation maximum humidity and above all maximum safety a single above road crossing could not feasibly achieve the same outcomes two bridges that is what is required I commend this application to you Thank you very much for your presentation very mind what I said earlier do any members have any questions Councillor Eileen Wilson first Thank you through you chair I'm wondering will this be a shared part of the pedestrians and cyclists or will there be a separation between the two I know if you're looking at a number of crossings and also school children using this part is it a good idea for the cyclist and pedestrians to be mixed or should there be a separation They're wide enough for both and there'll be cyclist calming measures in place to ensure that cyclists are not going fast Yes, I would like to give the gentleman opportunity to explain what land in areas I might pass that over to some of my technical help sir Good morning committee Julia Foster from David Locke Associates a planning consultants for the application It is not entirely clear on all of the plans that I concede If you want to find the detail on page 53 of the design and access statement you'll see an explanation of the approach to inclusivity So we are not required to put landing areas on a bridge at this gradient it is shallow enough not to require them but we have done so in any case so you'll find on both bridges that there are landing points which will allow for the rest and that is identified on a plan on page 53 of the design and access statement and is clear on one of the levels effectively when you look at all of the other plans you'll see they're segmented one of those segments is level so people can stop Thank you young Thank you chair and through you Thank you I just wanted to draw your attention to the I'm sure you're familiar with it the quality panels report and it says it was noted there was only one way along the A1301 but that muddy tracks this is the point that Councillor Harvey was making could emerge on the other side of the carriageway because human nature does not always follow intended routes and later on in the next paragraph it refers to whether at grade paths to and around the roundabouts have been considered and so I think it's my question is is the purpose of the serpentine wall to actually stop those informal at grade crossings over the A1301 so that you don't get pedestrians just crossing at grade or and do you think there is any risk of people not going over your lovely bridges but actually just going straight across the 1301 So it is a purpose of that wall the quality design view panel those comments were more in relation to whether or not we should put some further pedestrian walkways at grade level that was what they were worried about in relation to their muddy tracks and the famous now the now famous muddy tracks comment it was whether or not we should put in some additional paper we're not proposing to because of the fact it just encourages it would encourage at grade crossings which we're very determined to do our best to stop for the obvious reasons Thank you Thank you chair and through you on page 51 of our agenda item right at the top there's the question will there be walking maps available to future users to show the various routes in and around the site very in mind the discussions we just had Thank you Absolutely there will and one of the key considerations for us is the various different users and part of the reason for the strategy as we have it is to make it very intuitive most particularly for visitors to the conferences we're very conscious of the fact that there's a combination here of residents and scientists who work on the site in the normal course but also considerable international and national visitors and so as well as the maps we start from the point before that which is to make sure that everything is very intuitive there are maps available for the Barbican but I challenge anybody to find their way into it in the first instance so we're very conscious of that goes back to that starting with the fundamentals of getting the design line straight Mr Hugo thank you I'm sorry we have one more question for you from Councillor Eileen Wilson Sorry my apologies this is a supplement to my earlier question I was wondering have you consulted with any cycling campaigns like the Cambridge cycling campaign about the shared use I've seen it come up before where I know that cyclists don't like coming in with pedestrians but mainly for the risk to the pedestrians I'll interject again yes camcycle have been closely involved in developing this application and consulted you can delve into the big pile of consultee responses and find their position for fast cycling for commuter cycling there is always a preference for segregated routes but we're very deliberately taking a view here that this is a campus community these are people working and living on site and this is localised movement essentially within the site and for it to be shared is beneficial to slow everyone down we've got very generous wide corridor across the bridges so it's not that we're dealing with a tight space there are segregated routes onward from the bridge and through the site to allow cyclists to be separated from pedestrians if they wish to be this is a relatively small site to be dealing with this and having an over-engineered solution to lots of segregated routes everywhere was not the preferred approach for the county, the district or indeed for us as the applicants right I'm going to draw a close there Mr Hugo thank you very much for your presentation and to you and your colleagues for the comprehensive answers to questions I'm now going to move on to the parish council I'd like to see Councillor Sam Nichols in person Councillor Nichols you're proposing to refer some of the questions to your colleague or would you be dealing with any questions yourself we'll deal with them together thank you that's fine you will have heard me say earlier you'll have three minutes can I just ask you a question I have to ask you whether you have the formal consent of your parish council to present on their behalf okay yes if you agree some sort of a signal if you just wave at Lawrence here then he will move it forward right the floor is yours first slide please morning everybody we would say that James Tipping's presentation someone didn't address two key issues one is movement it didn't explain the movement of peoples between the expansion land, the campus and the village second, it didn't explain why two bridges are really necessary and not one from the villagers perspective we have five key objections objection one, urban and civic made the application without any further engagement with the village as previously promised objection two, there's no need for two bridges they're midway sized, they're not on the outline permission, objection three the bridges are significant over engineered structures which do detract from the rural character of the village objection four the bridge is too close to the village it's close to New Road, Hingston Hall and the Hingston Sherps they're both listed, objection five the bridge positions don't reflect a likely pattern of movement to and from Hingston to the expansion area, slide please urban and civic made this application without any real engagement with Hingston village slide please we say that's a repeated pattern of behaviour the same process took place in relation to the A1301 upgrades in August 22 urban and civic have a track record of presenting their developed design to the village on the cusp of the planning application with no real intention of making adjustments slide please the bridges are significant over engineered structures, they do detract from the rural character of the village, they're motorway sized bridges they're over engineered urban type structures that are being introduced into an essentially rural landscape city in the countryside the feature lighting on the bridges is also visually intrusive to the village, slide please picture of the northern bridge, too close to the village slide please there are incorrect assumptions about movement patterns if you look at the drawing there the marker mark B shows the upgrade crossing, a leaving new road Hingston, north of the northern roundabout is much quicker to cross the road there than it is to walk another 130 metres 130 metres south to get on to the northern bridge marté you would just walk across the road slide please shows the upgrade crossing on the northern roundabout again, we say you would cross a point A and not across the bridge, slide please Urban and Civic say that pedestrians and cyclists will rely on the northern bridge to get to the school if it's built that's not within their discretion of course, we say that's not right we say the vast majority will neither use the bridge nor the DA1 crossing rather they will take the central path from the village across DA3 which is shown on their own drawing there to the north slide please wider urban and civic dismiss a central bridge we say a single central bridge is preferable that it would soften the visual impact from the village, that it would create a more legible diagonal route through the campus and up the green spine of the development we've shown it there, mark pink slide please we're disappointed by the lack of consultation and engagement with the parish council on the bridges we say they're over engineered urban type structures in a rural landscape they're motorway sized they have feature lighting on them there's no convincing evidence that the bridges need to be this large for the number of pedestrians and cyclists using them they're not on the outline permission the northern bridge is too close to the village and if anything a single central bridge would suffice thank you for keeping your presentation exactly to time I appreciate you had to us a little bit to get through it but we appreciate that do members have any questions? I see councillor Bradman has a question for you thank you chair and you're right it was a very swift presentation so swift that I could barely get my head around the diagrams and what we were looking at before you moved on not your fault so can we go back and look at what you considered to be the more desirable desire line that you described and can we just get our heads around that so the west side of that diagram is the northern roundabout correct and Hinkston is off the bottom left hand corner of that plan is it not? it is the top of new road is sorry the reason I wanted to question that was because elsewhere you said you thought residents were more likely to cross on the let's call it for the sake of argument the left hand side of the left hand roundabout and go up and go up that road to the left so why are you saying you want the one through the middle I'm sort of can't quite understand the logic behind that well because urban and civic say they need a bridge crossing to facilitate their movement between the expansion land and the existing campus we acknowledge that to a point but we say that if you're looking at the relationship between the village and village movements and the campus areas but actually when you come to the top of new road there is an upgrade crossing which urban and civic say little about but the practical reality is when you come to the top of the road you're going to walk across the road it's another 130 metres to get to that northern bridge so why would you walk another 130 metres south to cross the bridge when you don't need to the practical reality is you would just walk across the road and if I could show you the next slide I think it was sorry on your plan you showed people crossing at A which is looking at this it's the left hand leg no yes that's right it's the left hand leg of the left hand roundabout and Hingston is further left and down to the south so to go up the road which is off the right leg of that roundabout so I'm assuming you meant that people would go off the road northbound from the point A on that diagram and if we can go back to the previous plan thank you so in other words off the left hand side of this diagram and up to the school at the top so I'm just trying to work out why well there are two things there is the use of the upgrade crossing north of the northern roundabout there to the left on that slide and then there was a secondary point which related to the use of the school and of course the school is not a given it's subject to the consent of the education authority but what we say in relation to the school is that if you were walking to the school specifically which would be you can just see in the top left corner of that drawing I think the white blob in the top left corner just slightly to the right of the cursor now that actually you wouldn't use either the upgrade crossing there or the northerly bridge what you would in fact do is you would take the footpath across DA3 across the northern expansion land which is immediately opposite the village and we showed that if I could go back to that slide it's slide number right I'll get a point it was slide number 9 please this one so you can see this is Evan and Civic's own drawing so you can see the footpath that runs to the north there immediately across DA3 which is much more convenient if you're going to the school you're not going to walk all the way south through the village down new road down through the campus of the bridge back up in the northerly direction to get to the school you simply wouldn't or does that answer your question sort of yes thank you good thank you now thank you very much for answering those questions so Thalyn for your presentation I appreciate that in this sort of situation various people might want a chance to respond to that but that will come during the debate which is to follow so I'm now going to move on to I'm going to call the local member which is within his ward I appreciate that other parishes are also affected by this but for this purpose local member is Councillor Peter Macdonald who's been following us online we ask local members to stick to three minutes but it's not obligatory Councillor Macdonald thank you chair and I'll do my very best to stick to the three minutes confirm that you can hear me okay we can indeed great and thanks to Lawrence for sending me the link first of all members I'm sorry I'm not joining you in person this morning just having arrived back from holiday and some business commitments as the local member for one of the biggest single developments in south Cambridgeshire I do wish to acknowledge some of the points made by Urban and Civic and the campus but also importantly points in Parish Council let's remember that the residents there will have to be will be living with the development of the campus for the next 10 years to its credit I think Urban and Civic have expressed a willingness to work with the community but this hasn't always been timely with inputs generally just before the submission of the plans and I think this was referred to I think the designs on the A31 landscaping the massive tree removal program and replanting water management all to the credit of the campus and Urban and Civic but with 1500 dwellings on the site and up to 7000 people moving across naturally there has to be an effective way to get from the campus to the existing site and vice versa which doesn't involve cars the two bridges do seem rather ambitious given their size and impact Hingston is a typical picture rest south Cambridgeshire village and having two massive constructions over the 1301 on its doorstep will I believe detrack from the objective of harmonising the look and feel of the new campus with the surroundings the bridges require of course HJV clearance so by necessity the northern bridge I think will have to be 10.5 metres high and the southern bridge something like 12 metres the campus and Urban and Civic assert that people will use the northern bridge but as we've heard from the parish council I think human nature will be to look for the shortest route and an at grade crossing so there is a risk that this bridge the northern bridge becomes a steel white elephant in terms of design we always wanted to avoid the city and the countryside and there are surely many examples where such construction is not distracted from the neighbourhood but added to it so overall it seems to be excellent work undertaken by the campus on the 1301 and the serpentine design but my feeling is somewhat similar to the parish council that that excellent work and the design and the appearance of the bridges does not match the excellent work that has been taken place elsewhere therefore I'd like to respectfully ask for a reconsideration of the need for the two bridges and the design of those bridges thank you chair Thank you councilman I'm not proposing to take any questions to councilman because we will now progress to the debate on this right so the question before us is as set out in your papers you've heard presentations from the case officer from the developers and from the parish council the local member has if you like led off the debate on this who would like to follow him Councillor Bradman Thank you chair right so I've been aware of this development as it's gone through and I've seen the amount of advice we've been given as members of planning committee about it as it's evolved and I've been impressed by the amount of work that the Urban and Civic have done in order to make it as acceptable as possible but I have to say I was quite startled by some aspects of this and particularly by the massing of engineering structure over the road when this is when actually the genome campus has done a really good job of hiding itself from the public up to now I mean there are some stunning buildings on the site but you're not really aware of them so much from the road because there's excellent screening I absolutely understand the need to get people safely from one side of the road to the other particularly with the development of the new residential area which is so important to the site but I am slightly startled by the appearance of the bridges and it does feel much more industrial than I had sort of anticipated and so given that on the south side, sorry the west side of the A1301 currently the campus has excellent car parking underground and that's why it works quite a lot. I do wonder whether any consideration was given to underpasses rather than bridges because it's they are very obtrusive I think excellent works has gone into the design and try and make it as appealing as possible but you can't get away from the fact that they are a very big obstruction in their view and so I just I'm uncertain how I'm going to vote on this at the moment but I just I'm sort of wondering whether any thought was given to underpasses because I think that might have solved, I mean even for one of them. Thank you Councillor Radnan. I just emphasise we will be considering the application which is before us today and that's why I've asked that's why I've asked the case officer to put the planning balance up on the screen so that we can focus on the issues raised in that. Can I ask though chair in the preparation work for this and maybe of the case officer did what were underpasses considered at any point or was it always bridges? Well before the case officer deals with that let me be clear the proposal before us is for bridges and therefore the question of whether underpasses were or were not considered is not an issue for us to decide today. However if the case officer wants to make a brief comment on that I'm happy to introduce her. Thank you chair I have to do that. Yes as part of the consideration party assessment that the applicant made they did consider underpasses as well as a tunnel under the length of the A13A1 as well as the other options of upgrade crossings and obviously the bridges themselves so they were assessed collectively and a lot of that came down to costs in terms of providing such elements but yes they were considered but this is the proposal that's come forward. Thank you very much chair. I emphasise that we are in the debate now does anyone have any other never have any views on the issues before us I think councillors. Thank you. Yes I agree a lot of work has gone into this and they they do look very there's a lot of thought and planning gone into those bridges and the access to the bridges but I'm very concerned by the fact that Kingston Parish Council feel that there is no proper consultation and also refer that from the local member so I wonder whether if that more consultation have been taking place and it had been more timely whether there would be more agreement between Parish Council and the developers. I don't think that's a matter which anyone can answer I would just stress that as I mentioned earlier the detailed members briefing that we had on 19 May was open to the public and that was a presentation broadly of these proposals I wasn't so I appreciate that so these are the matters before us does anyone else take a strong view for or against the officer recommendation? Councillor Richard Williams Thank you chair I've listened to all of the submissions with great interest and sort of changed my mind several times during the course of the meeting having heard the Parish Council in the local member I do have sympathy with what they're saying in terms of the need for two bridges at either end of the campus, the bulk of the campus to my mind seems to be towards the sex to that first roundabout so a central crossing would probably take the bulk of traffic between the two sides of the campus there is I think Mulberry Court and Willow Court at the top in the northern end so I do have sympathy about that northern bridge and I think there's a good point that most people will probably cross at the level of the road if they're going to Hingston raising a question about the need for that but really this is going to turn into a question for clarification really because whilst I can see all of these arguments what I'm struggling to do is map those onto planning reasons so what is the departure from the Outline Planning Commission here as to what the departure is if there is a departure from the Outline I'm not proposing to refer that to the case officer because I think it is clearly set out in the papers that's of course if I can find the point in the papers that the question of access was not determined in the full planning application it is to be determined later by this committee in consultation with Cambridge Accounting Council Yes, thank you, I did say there was a responsibility to Councillor Bradman that raised a question mark in my mind where I think Councillor Bradman or I think maybe Councillor Wilson flagged up a paragraph, I think it was 1.7 where I said it was largely broadly and that then raised a question in my mind as to whether there was something not clear to me from reading the report That question Councillor Williams was raised earlier on and I'm afraid I'm going to leave it to members to make up their own mind on that point in the light of the information we have received and the answers to that point earlier if you'll forgive me Councillor Bill Handley I hope I'm not being naive here in that I cannot believe that an organisation of the Wellcome Trust and Urban and Pacific would build two bridges unless they felt there was a need for two bridges that the plans that they have going forward are for substantially more people and that the movements are going to need two bridges that's my feeling I actually think that it boils down to whether or not you think the design of the bridges you know I think it's actually going to be quite striking now that that's obviously going to be something that some people would say yes that's a bad thing but some others would say actually it's in line with the Wellcome Institute and the Cambridge the nature of the Cambridge area and the biotech industry so I'm at the moment inclined to vote in favour of this because I think the officer's arguments and the planning balance suggest to me that that's the right thing to do Do we have any other speakers for the first time? I think councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins Thank you chair though I wasn't at the briefing back in me I actually watched it back just so I could have a better understanding of the proposal before us and looking at the balance as before us and all the information that I've heard today it seems to me that this is something that we should need to be looking at as what is required for the future of the expansion that Wellcome is proposing it might not seem on the face of it to fit in with what is there currently but this is where we need to be looking at what is before us and what is coming and the fact that they put this together to confirm the feelings that councillor Hanli has expressed is that it is required let's not forget the quality panel that they've taken this to also have agreed with the principle of the two bridges so it might be looking at what we've got in front of us I will be voting for this Thank you I think you wanted to comment on this Thank you chair I have a lot of sympathy with the residents of Hingston the impact on their amenity we have to be realistic we're talking of a plan new town that will house 1500 people and have 10,000 people working on the side it's inevitably going to have some impact on the royal character probably quite a lot I hear what Urban and Civic has said that they wouldn't propose spending money building two bridges if one would suffice so I think we have to reluctantly accept the application and hope the developers will mitigate any impact to the visual amenity of the area Well I think councillor Jeff Harvey and then I will come back to councillor and brand him after that Thank you chair I wish I can add so much that is new to what's already been said but it does seem to me that we have to see this in the context of development that is coming forward whether there's one bridge or two and there's quite a significant development and therefore I feel that one should be trying to make that new development work as well as we possibly could and I do think that we'll mention a psychological point of view that the better the two halves of the expanded campus can be made to work together the more successful it will be given that development will happen anyway and the attention that has been given to this choice I'm really tempted to agree that two bridges is the right solution councillor Braden I think you had a fresh point you wanted to make Yes, thank you As the applicant said they have given a considerable thought and it's referred to in the quality panel thought about routes, desire lines and destinations that people might want to go to and the plans have been successfully safely audited and there had been extensive consultation with the highways authority and so the other thing is that we know don't we, this is going to be a substantial development it's a key development to make sure it works because and I remember in the past we were advised the decisions about who comes to work here are not about whether they're going to work here or somewhere else in the UK it's here or Europe so actually we've been extremely successful in attracting really high class scientific research to this area and we through the planning process we've tried to mitigate the impact of the development and the developer themselves have done a lot of work to make their plans as innovative and as attractive and unusual and striking but also as compatible with the environment of a research campus as they possibly can and I think whilst it's going to be a new thing over the A1301 but then the whole campus will be as well and I'm mindful of the fact that I can see no material reason to object to this so I'm liable to vote for it Thank you members I think we are nearing the point when we should do that I just want to highlight it seems to me that the two key issues we have to make up our minds upon one is as set out on the screen the potential harm to the rural character which is obviously of a concern to the Hinkston Parish Council do we agree that limited weight should be given to that given the nature of the development which a number of members have just referred to and the calculations clearly undertaken by the developers the second one is what is the best practical means of connecting not only two sides of this campus but also the village to the new development do we accept what the parish council say that it would be better to have a single bridge in the middle or do we accept a detailed assessment I think from the developers about the importance of having very good connections between the two sides of this campus so that informal conversations which we've heard of in other sites of this nature can easily take place without people taking risks in crossing the roads so I think everyone has accepted it would not be compulsory for anybody to use these bridges others, some may find other routes but I think the question is do we accept what Hingston parish council says that most will go another way I think principally from the village or do we accept what the developers say about the importance of having these bridges to make sure people can make informal connections without putting themselves at risk on the increasingly busy road there those I think are the decisions before us I now propose that we move to a vote Council to be Hawkins I think maybe seconding that thank you so I think we need to take this vote electronically this is on your screens as members will recall you have to press the blue button first and then either green if you accept and support the officer's recommendations or whatever the other colour may be if you decide you don't want to support the officer's recommendations I should clarify that if you oppose it would be red and if you wish to abstain it would be yellow so I think we have all voted can I ask so the outcome I think is that we are eight voted in favour one abstained and so that is passed and consent is granted for the application before us thank you members it's 11.49 I think it might be wise to take another five minute break before we start into the next item can I express my thanks not only to the officers involved but to the developers and to the Kingston Parish Council for the effort that's gone into the presentations this morning before us which has helped us to take this decision thank you all we can be at 11.55 welcome back to this meeting of South Cambridge District Council planning committee including to any who are still following us live online and I know that some will be speaking to us later remotely so we now come to item six this is in relation to 73 High Street in Coplam it's a proposal for change of use of public house with flat and direction of a detached dwelling the applicant is Gary Jackson this is brought before us because of the parish council objected and asked that it be referred to the planning committee the officer recommendation is to approve subject to the conditions on the presenting officer on mine is Alice Young Alice welcome we are with you thank you chair let me just get the presentation up so the application is at 73 High Street Cotnam the former Jolly Millers pub and it is for the change of use of the public house with flat at first floor to a dwelling the demolition of existing outbuildings and annex and the erection of a detached dwelling creation of immunity space been storage parking and manoeuvring for two dwellings just a quick thing to bring members attention to in paragraph 1.2 of the committee report I stated that the previous application at the address application reference number 21 02117 slash went to planning committee on the 19th of January 2021 I mean to say 2022 so apologies about that since the publishing of the report there's also been slight minor changes to the conditions and this is to change the trigger points of some of the conditions so that the conversion of the public house can take place before some elements are required to be submitted I can go through those in a bit more detail if members want me to do so so the 73 High Street Cotnam the former Jolly Millers pub is located on the south eastern side of Cotnam High Street the site comprises the public house several outbuildings and pub amenity land to the south east the development framework boundary cuts through the site 38 metres from the front of the site beyond the existing outbuildings the site also falls within the Cotnam conservation area and there are two trees on site that are protected as they are in the conservation area but do not have TPO status to the north east of the site is Smith's path which leads to commercial and residential units to the south east of the site aside from these commercial units predominantly the site is surrounded by residential dwellings with large ports that extend beyond the development framework boundary which contain barns outbuildings and some backland dwellings specifically like number 71a just here so the application seeks permission for the change of use of the existing pub with managers flat to a single residential dwelling the demolition of the existing outbuildings located here and the erection of a detached dwelling and associated facilities such as parking bins and bikes existing vehicular access we retained and two parking spaces will be provided on per dwelling within the site and two other parking spaces can be provided out on the roadside so this is the existing floor plan for the pub you'll see that there's the bar at the ground floor annex and store and then at first floor there is an existing manager's flat so the conversion would lead to minimal internal changes and the removal of the annex to the rear for the amenity space for the converted pub so now we're going to have a look at the plans for the rear dwelling so two story about one and a half story two bedroom four person dwelling open plan living kitchen area to the rear and these are the elevations and this is the proposed dwelling within the context of the pub conversion and the removal of the annex structure here so we'll see that the annex structure is set further back within the plot comparative to the proposed dwelling is set back further than the existing annex so there is planning history the plans might look familiar so a previous application 2021 application was refused at planning committee in 2022 for three reasons by members one was the loss of the pub and the harm to the service provision in Cotnam the second was harm to views out to the countryside and to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the third was under provision of car parking and poor visibility from the site access leading to highway safety concerns inspector can obviously this went to appeal and the inspector dismissed the appeal on the potential harm to protected species the inspector concluded that the appeal development did not result in an acceptable loss of service provision in Cotnam harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area or harm to the functioning of the highway due to an under provision of car parking the inspector did in fact conclude that the proposal did however have insufficient information to demonstrate that harm to protected species mainly bats would not arise from the development so the revised application seeks to overcome the harm identified by the inspector through providing additional information regarding a not turn over bat survey the proposed development remains the same as the previous application aside from this additional ecological information therefore the appeal decision carries significant weight with when assessing the application I just want to highlight the timeline of events since the previous application so the Cotnam plan was made in in May 2021 the previous planning application went to planning committee in January 2022 the appeal decision was May of this year 2023 and then the revised scheme is obviously submitted since then so there's been no policy change since the appeal decision so the key material considerations today are the appeal decision and whether the harm identified by the inspector has been overcome by the additional information submitted so the impact on protected species so the inspector in the assessment of the previous application stated that while the bat roosting suitability was low for the building proposed to be demolished that because the building has a moderate habitat links to the wider landscape the inspector concluded that there was insufficient information to demonstrate that the impacts on protected species would not arise from the development so to overcome this harm a preliminary roost assessment and a nocturnal bat survey has been submitted the recommended the nocturnal bat survey highlighted that no roosting bats were found the ecology officer has advised that there is no reason to disagree with this analysis and confirms that they do not require any further species surveys to be submitted and therefore officers have concluded that it has been demonstrated that there would be no harm to protected species and adequate mitigations are in place so to conclude officers conclude in line with the inspector's decision that there is less than substantial harm to the conservation area resulting from the loss of the pub through its activity however this is outweighed as concluded by the inspector by the public benefits that the development brings the proposal would reuse an existing currently vacant pub for housing whilst ensuring efficient use of land by providing an additional dwelling which would not result in significant harm to the settlement characteristics or the vitality and vibrancy of Cotman Village this was confirmed by the inspector at appeal the development is identical to the appeal scheme aside from the additional ecological information to address the appeal decision the inspector dismissed the appeal because there was insufficient information provided to demonstrate that no impact to protected species therefore officers' recommendation is one of approval subject to conditions thank you thank you very much the applicant has submitted that additional information and the ecology officer has no objections to the application and considers there is sufficient information and adequate mitigations in place to support the application and protect protected species therefore officers' recommendation thank you very much the last slide that you referred to there the planning balance I will ask later on for that to come up again when we get to the debate meanwhile just to remind you of what I said earlier on whilst we do have some public speakers who will be addressing us virtually I prefer that any questions of clarification be referred to to case officers if possible so if you have questions of clarification now is the moment to cancel a Bradnum thank you very much chair I just wanted to ask on the highway matter I don't know if this has changed but certainly on Google imagery just to the south side of the proposed vehicular access there is a brick wall that appears quite high and I just wondered certainly in the report there is no indication from highways that they are concerned about visibility but I just wondered what was the understanding about that visibility splay because it just looks like as you drive out there is a brick wall and you would not be able to see if somebody was coming along the path I just wondered what your understanding of that part of it was thank you in terms of the vehicular access there is a brick wall to the south that was present that was present in the previous application in terms of visibility splays that's all being considered acceptable by the highway engineer and the inspector did not raise any issues regarding visibility and actually disagreed with the reason for refusal 3 which regarded visibility thank you councillor Dr Tubey Hawkins thank you Jen for you thank you for the presentation I think you said that the issue of the the bats survey that there were conditions attached to the application to make sure that everything gets resolved properly I can only find one condition for so what are the other conditions unless there is just one condition so there is one condition with regards to making sure that works are carried out in accordance with this submitted documentation and then there are there is one condition with regards to biodiversity net gain these are recommended by the ecology officer there is also sorry there is also a condition securing biodiversity enhancement as well and these are the three conditions the ecology officer recommended sorry can you be more specific about what those conditions are I have said that I can see condition 4 refers to bats survey conditions that are listed here just a condition number ok so as you have seen condition 4 is to do with the bats survey condition number 19 is biodiversity enhancement condition 20 is biodiversity net gain Councillor Hawkins are you happy that we accept the guidance on those conditions without actually putting the full wording up ok are the members happy with that Councillor Eileen Wilson thank you I've noted that the conservation officer has mentioned that talks have been taking place to being in state the public sign is it possible for that to be made a condition because that does detract from the character of the high street so originally that was a condition that we recommended as part of the previous application and so I was in talks with the applicant about the feasibility of that condition in light of the passage of time since the pub sign was taken down the pub sign has been taken down and is in disrepair so there isn't a pub sign that is in good health to reinstate hence why that condition is not being recommended I have been in talks with the applicant and agent about potentially having a plaque talking about the previous use of the building as a pub and the historic contribution it had to the conservation area I haven't included a condition on that but if members were minded to approve it I'm sure that a condition could secure that Can I just say I would support that condition if it's possible I'm back to that during the debate Councillor Bradman I think you wanted to ask another question Yes, I had also been thinking about that and I don't think it's appropriate to put up a pub sign because people will think it's a pub and it's not so actually I support the plaque idea which Councillor Wilson has raised Well perhaps that's a point you may like to make during the debate later on I have a question myself which may be of a legal nature as Young said the appeal decision has to be given significant weight and the inspector was very clear that the loss of the appeal of the building as a public house would not reduce community or service provision in Cotnam that the public benefits the proposal would outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the conservation area and that the no conflict on in terms of highway safety now members may or may not agree with that assessment and I wondered if the legal officer would like to comment on the weight to be given to the inspector's report in relation to those matters Thank you chair, through you the inspector's decision carries significant weight has made it very clear on his reasons or dismissing the appeal he was not with you on the reasons for refusal it would be unwise to try and move on going back on his decision so it would be unwise to make a decision based on a previous decision and in those circumstances should that happen should that happen you would put the councillor at significant risk of cost because it would be considered unreason Right, and a second question from me I'm afraid is in relation to the neighbourhood plan which as Els Young pointed out was made in May 2021 before the application on which the inspector has ruled but I raised this because without wishing to anticipate what the parish council may be wishing to say in their objection they raised three possible conflicts between the neighbourhood plan and this application and I'm just wondering since that was not a matter taken up by the inspector what weight we can give to that it's rather difficult to answer without hearing what the parish council may say so if you prefer you might come back to it after at a later stage Thank you, can I Sorry, just to check so the neighbourhood plan had not been made and the inspector made a decision it had been made when he made a decision Well perhaps better if I leave Els Young to remind us the chronology on that So the cotton plan neighbourhood plan was made in 2021 in May the previous application was went to planning committee and obviously was assessed against the planning policy at the time which included cotton neighbourhood plan policies the appeal decision was made in May of this year and against cotton neighbourhood plan local plan policies and the revised plan is assessed against cotton neighbourhood plan and the local plan policies and other policies as well so there has been no policy change since the appeal decision I hope that's clear I've got the timeline of events on screen now That's very helpful In the light of that would you like to come back to that issue later if it's relevant after we've heard from the parish council Thank you Councillor Bill Henley It's okay chair, thanks Right well then let's move on to our public speakers Councillor Hawkins Thank you chair Just to perhaps add a bit more information to your question on the neighbourhood plan if we look on page 88 of our papers and paragraph 19 of the inspectors report it does say as such there is no conflict with policies HQ1 and H2 and H14 of the local plan and policies COH1 to 2 COH1 to 4 and COH1 to 5 of the made cotton neighbourhood plan which I think kind of clarifies Yes So inspector has clearly taken the view there is no conflict our legal adviser may wish to advise us further on that after we've heard from our public speakers but I suggest that we're now in a position to move on to our public speakers starting with agent for the applicant Stephen Barker of Barker Parry you with us Welcome Mr Parry you have three minutes to present your case and then if you would stand by members may have some questions for you after that Thank you good morning or good afternoon as it now is and thank you for the opportunity to speak My name is Stephen Barker I'm a director and co-founder of Barker Parry Town Planning I'm a chartered town planner who's been in practice now over over 40 years I first visited the application premises in 2020 and have overseen the original application the subsequent appeal and this resubmission a process which has taken a very long time planning as you all know can be a lengthy and iterative process the original application was of course recommended for approval but was refused by committee the appeal although dismissed upheld none of the reasons but was critical of the ecological evidence relating to bats as you've just heard from Alice Young the inspector considered that as the building may possibly be attractive to bats that surveys should be carried out this single issue has now been resolved the report before you is long and detailed and the recommendation is one of unequivocal support subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as now revised there are just three matters which I should like to refer to one is the proposed parking something which I know preoccupied members in January 22 the second is the continued objection from camera and the parish council and the third relates to pub signage which we've just spoken about with regard to the two objectors both parties unlike your retained professionals and I'm sure yourselves have paid absolutely no regard to the recent appeal decision and have repeated what they had to say in 2021 and 2022 that is their prerogative but I know that you understand that the appeal decision is an important material consideration which militates in favour of an approval in particular the inspector's conclusions regarding viability the fair edge and vistas need to be weighed against the repeated observations from camera and the parish council on the matter of the neighbourhood plan councillor dr Hawkins has very usefully pointed to paragraph 19 in the inspector's report where of course he refers to the fact that the plan is made and he did have regard to the policies therein on the matter of parking this has probably caused the applicant the most distress previously the highways department at the county council would only withdraw its objection if on-site parking was reduced from two to one for dwelling your office has felt obliged to support the county council and would only recommend favourably to you with this amendment you overturn the recommendation on this point and of course others the inspector however upheld none of the objections parking included based on his assessment of the historic use of the premises the high conditions your remarks to a conclusion please yes you can indeed he was perfectly content with the arrangements despite being offered the option of four car parking spaces on the matter of the pub sign there have been useful comments from members the applicant is amenable to some kind of information board being displayed on the street side of the premises if that is your wish thank you very much for your time I'm sorry if I've overrun I hope you will accept the recommendation before you and approve the application thank you Mr Barker I'm conscious that there may be a few questions from members I think not so thank you for your time I will now move on to the parish council I think councillor Tim Jones the parish council is with us online yes I am welcome Mr Jones just before you start can I just ask you to confirm that you have the agreement of your parish council to speak on their behalf on this matter I can confirm yeah thank you for that so the floor is yours you have as I said earlier three minutes okay thank you very much for that and thank you for pre-empting my arguments councillor Fein yeah and I think it is probably pretty much as you might expect us to say and our main issues are laid out in our response that's included in the officers report it's very helpful I would like to point out just a couple of things the notwithstanding the appeal decision from the inspector the documentation that appears with this application does not reference the neighbourhood plan and also in places it has inconsistencies and this is particularly around the parking issue that we have a concern about so the latest iteration of the block layout shows one parking space per dwelling as was recommended by the officers at the previous application but the transport plan and the design and access statements still refer to there being four spaces on site the idea of moving two spaces out onto the main road is contrary to the neighbourhood plan policy 1-4H sorry 1-5 sorry I should have written that one down so it's 1-5 F which discourages parking on the highway we all so apart from that we recognise the inspector's comments but we maintain that the loss of the pub of enmity remains an issue for us it's a large village it's a long village the nearest pub after this one is 650 metres away and 900 metres away from the edge of the village it was a popular pub until fairly recently there were successive changes in ownership and management and some issues around the operation that resulted in it dropping in popularity a little the marketing was undertaken during the pandemic when demand was clearly going to be suppressed and also the review of the usefulness of the pub was undertaken at that time and recent experience in one of the other village pubs, the two remaining village pubs shows that a pub business can be viable if managed correctly have you come to a conclusion that no and that is that is pretty much it I think those are our key concerns that we don't think the application has written takes enough note of the neighbourhood plan and also we are with camera that the pub would still be a useful village amenity thank you very much stand by if you would in case there are any questions to you from members of the committee I see none so thank you very much for your time thank you I was going to move first to councillor Iain Wilson who wishes to comment briefly as local member but before I do that I do want to come back to our legal officer on the question of I think the key question is that the inspector concluded that the loss of the building as a public house would not reduce community or service provision in Cotnam to an unacceptable level that is the conclusion that the parish council would play contest and there is the question also of to what extent the new parking arrangements as proposed would conflict with I think this would be COH1 to 5 J of the neighbourhood plan and I wondered if you could give us some guidance as to what weight we should put I think you have already but on the inspector's findings in that regard given the continuing views of the parish council I think the inspector's decision carries significant weight has taken the neighbourhood the conclusion you wish but in doing so please bear in mind that his decision having looked at all of the relevant policies does carry significant weight Thank you for that helpful guidance so councillor Iain Wilson I wonder if you would like to comment briefly as local member I say briefly because that's the word you use to mean up because you're required to be limited to three minutes Thank you I just have one point that I would like to make is that along with the parish council and camera I find the loss of the pub to the village a significant loss this pub was at the far end of the village it's a very long village and it served the residents who lived down that end of the village and was very popular so notwithstanding the findings of the inspector I know that many people in Cottenham find this a significant loss to their immunity and I accept that the inspector has found what he has found but I just wanted to state that make that clear that that's how I and many of the residents feel Thank you I've asked Lawrence to put the planning balance up again so that we can focus our remarks on this as we now enter the debate I don't know whether anyone would like to raise in this point so I think we have council Bill Handley I hate I hate it when pubs close because they are important in our communities and I think that the loss of this one people around the district ought to take need and say look if you can save your pub do but let's be real here let's be realistic we've had clear steer from our senior senior lawyer the inspector's the inspector's decision of appeal is a significant weight the only thing and it makes reference to the neighbourhood plan which is significant too because otherwise we might have argued that it hadn't been taken into account I think that we need to look at the only thing really that's changed is the resolution of the issue with bats so in my opinion in my opinion that's the thing we should be talking about and since it's pretty clear cut I don't know that we need a huge debate here frankly sadly but that's the way I see it Councillor Richard Williams Thank you chair I'll try and be brief I can say very similar things to council Handley yes I don't think we have a lot of choice here given what the inspector has said it is a frustration planning is about judgment planning is about opinion in large part and we have one person's opinion who says no no no to the groans of this committee or some of the council came up with it before and whilst it's one person's opinion versus the opinion of people who are more sort of engaged with local communities there we have it I will just finally say I find the parking situation bizarre and I think we all know parking spaces that's obvious so quite why highways has done what they've done I find bizarre but again it's kind of checkmate on that one so I definitely have a choice here I'm afraid Thank you and then I think it is next councillor Dr Teeby Hawkins Thank you chair I think this is a case where we need to learn lessons as best we can from the appeal inspector's decision the fact that the three reasons that we gave we didn't agree with is a big lesson we might not like it and as someone who's had appeals in my ward that we've not liked and we're having to live with the outcome I say planning is not common sense it's regulations and it's rules and balance one issue on which the appeal was dismissed has also been addressed and we've got conditions to address those so today we need to follow the planning rules and from what I can see there is no material reason really for us to refuse this the inspector's decision carries significant weight we must not forget that but we need to learn from it going forward so I will be voting for this application thank you just to respond to councillor Jones' comments when this premise was a pub I can't imagine that everyone arrived by a bicycle I'm sure there was a lot of cars parked in the area provisioned either two or four parking spaces two probably seems adequate without causing congestion as regard the loss of the village pub yes I'm sure we all regret seeing long standing pubs disappear but no one has actually put forward a commercial case for retaining this as a pub so in light of the fact that the issue with the bats has been addressed I have to agree with my colleague councillor Dr Hawkins that we should go forward and approve this application councillor Anna Bradman thank you chair I agree with my two colleagues who've previously spoken and others it comes down to 10.4 does it not on page 65 that in the appeal decision the inspector concluded that the development did not result in an acceptable level of service provision in Cotnam he went into some considerable explanation of similar provision was provided at the Cotnam village hall which has a licence admittedly that's half a mile away but a little more than half a mile away but they felt the provision was available there it did not harm the character and appearance of the conservation area or harm the functioning of the highway which was the question I asked earlier due to the under provision of car parking however the inspector concluded about the matter of the potential for harm to protected species that has now been resolved so I propose in the absence of any reason or material issues for a refusal I would propose we approve this can I take that as a proposal that we now move to a vote which I would like to second I see councillor Wilson the second did that so let's councillor Wilson I was not seconding that but we have I think had a sufficient debate we have a proposal to move to a vote which is both proposed and seconded sorry forgive me chair forgive me I will then take a comment from councillor Wilson after that we need to take advice from our legal office on this it was just about the condition that was what I wanted to mention it was quite clear that the applicant indicated that they would accept used the word plaque but on the roadside of the building and I would we need to include that as a condition do we have a wording do we need to look at a wording for that we can certainly come up with a condition would members be reassured if we had specific wording on that point may I make a suggestion on the plaque comes down to the local member working with the applicant and the planning officer and FM deal with it so we can do that under delegated authority helpful suggestion thank you councillor Howell members satisfied with that and then I rather cut off councillor Wilson who is going to make a further comment before we move to the vote no it was just about the condition for on the plaque which we have dealt with right well going round in circles so to avoid that I think we'll take up councillor Bradman's proposal that we move to a vote I will for what it's worth second that and we will now take the vote and we'll electronically if we may just having a practice from there so we have one abstention 18 favour so that that application is approved thank you members we now move on to item 7 the compliance report and I'm very glad to say that Jane Roddens is able I think to guide us through this and other matters on our agenda so compliance report on page 91 to 94 of your printed papers did you want to say anything about this or right nothing to add right so just to highlight that should members wish for specific updates on cases perhaps they have involvement in please feel free to contact the principal planning compliance manager on any of these cases does anyone have any points they want to raise at this point councillor Bradman thank you very much chair I wanted to ask about appendix 3 local inquiry and informal hearings that have been scheduled for EN well it's the first of the informal hearings I just wondered if you had an idea of roughly when there's no date proposed as yet for EN 00216 slash 21 I'd be panicked but it's not quite on appeals yet oh sorry we're still on compliance report E17 E17 sorry so any questions on compliance report let's move on directly then to appeals and I think councillor Bradman's question there was do you need to elaborate or have you made the point sorry perhaps let's clarify so what I was asking was on this is hearing dates yet to be arranged or some have been arranged on appendix 3 page 101 I was asking have you appreciate this relies on having qualified inspectors with this particular experience but I just wondered if there was any indication of when land to the north of the old coal yard just in Fen Road Milton was likely to be considered and I'm sure councillor Bradman would be happy to answer on that later if necessary I can come back to you with a date on that one if you have one and let me know an update for that one that's okay right so appeals item 8 any other questions or comments on item 8 councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins please yes item 8 appeals I just want to page 97 we have an application that was used at committee it's one if we could have a copy of that so we can lend the lessons please as a planning committee which application are you referring to just for clarity 21-03039 oh I feel well yes bank off so that was refused following at committee is that committee allowed at appeal so it will be helpful to the committee comment later perhaps writing as to why that was the case so we can learn lessons from it good point that would be very helpful indeed thank you for that offer so I think that deals with item 8 and brings us to the end of our agenda now we have the next meeting of this committee is on Wednesday 13th of September I would only add one thing that when you go downstairs past the street you may find a number of people who have taken trouble to set up there and would be very happy to take any money off you if you're feeling that way inclined so with that I draw this meeting to close at 1247 thank you all very much