Fel ydych chi, mae'r yrwyr ydych chi arall i'r cyfgaredd yma yn ysgrifennu i'r gweithio y bydd yma. Gweithio i'r gwerth o Gweithrannu Cymdeithas, ac mae'r gwerth o Gweithrannu Cymdeithas a'r Gweithrannu Cymdeithas ac mae'r gael o'r gweithrannu. Mae'n gweithio'n gweithio pa'r amser yn gynghwylwyr yma, yn cyflawni'r amseriddau ac yn gymhwyddol, yn cymdeithio'r cymdeithio. If anyone has any questions on how proceedings for this meeting work, please ask now and democratic services will advise. Committee members present in the chamber, I will now invite each of you to introduce yourselves. Members, after I call your name, please turn on your microphone and say your name so that your presence may be noted. As I said earlier, my name is Councillor Martin Cahn and I am a member for Hysdan and Llympin to the Ward. My vice-chair is Councillor Peter Fane. Good morning, Members Peter Fane, Shelford Ward. Councillor Ariel Cahn. Ariel Cahn, Hysdan and Cormarton Ward. Councillor Bill Hanley. Good morning, Bill Hanley, Over and Winning and Ward. Councillor Tumey Hawkins. Good morning, Tumey Hawkins, Codicor Ward. Councillor Lisa Redruff. Good morning, I'm Lisa Redruff. I'm one of the Members for Hysdan and Cormarton Ward. Councillor Peter Sanford. Good morning, everyone. Peter Sanford, one of the Members for Caxton and Papworth Ward. Councillor Richard Williams. Thank you, Chair. Richard Williams, I'm the Member for the Wittlesford Ward. Councillor Mark Howell. Good morning, Chairman. Mark Howell, I'm the Member for the Caxton and Papworth Ward. Councillor Eileen Wilson. Good morning, Councillor Eileen Wilson, Cotten and Ward. I can confirm that the meeting is quarred. We also have some officers with us in the chambers for the duration of the meeting. Phil Macintosh, Interim Delivery Manager. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Members. Phil Macintosh, Interim Delivery Manager for the Shared Planning Service. Rebecca Smith, Area Delivery Manager. Vanessa Blaine, Senior Planning Lawyer. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Vanessa Blaine, Leader of the Finder. Laurence Damari-Hulman, Democratic Services Officer. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Laurence Damari-Hulman, Democratic Services for Planning Committee. We have our technical support from Democratic Services being provided by Patrick Adams. We will also be joined by various case officers throughout the meeting. Phil, this is your last meeting with us. We would like to thank you for your time with us. Thank you very much for your very helpful support. If any member, if at any time a member leaves the meeting, would they please make that fact known so that it can be recorded in the minutes? We shall take breaks from this meeting as and when they are needed and as appropriate. Members should have received the main agenda pack dated 4 July and online supplements containing the plans pack dated 5 July and the minutes of the previous meeting dated 11 July and the minutes of the previous meeting dated 11 June, that must be. Three written submissions have been distributed regarding Item 5, Ellsworth, and one for Item 7, Wittlesford. Members, please state now if you have not seen any of these documents. I would also like to note that site visits were conducted on Tuesday 11 July for Item 6, Lord's Bridge Barton, and 7 Wittlesford. The Ellsford-Eisen site 5 was visited on the June site visits. Item 2 of our agenda today is Apologis for Absence. Lawrence, are there any Apologis for Absence today, please? Thank you very much, Chair. We have three Apologis for Absence today. Councillors Jeff Harvey, Judith Riffith and Heather Williams of St Apologies and Councillors Dr Lisa Revderup and Mark Howell have kindly accepted their substitutes today. Members, we now come to Item 3, Declavations of Interest. Do any Members have any interest to declare in relation to any item of business on this agenda? If any interest becomes apparent later in the meeting, please would you raise it at that point. Councillor Lisa Revderup. Thank you, Chair. I'm a local member of Haston and Cometham Ward. I have been approached by a local resident in respect to agenda Item 6, the solar farm. I come to the committee with an open mind ready to hear the presentation of speakers. For completeness, I am a former student of the applicant Cambridge University. My partner has also had previous associations with the university, both as a student and as a research fellow in his work there in 2010. His association has no connection to the application and no bearing on any decision I will come to. I think a number of people may have links to the university, and general links to the university from past being past students. I think we just take that as a general announcement of an intro. Councillor Peter Sanford. Thank you, Chair. Item 5 of a new business park. I'm one of the local members and have received several communications from residents regarding the application, but I am coming today with an open mind and listening to all presentations. Councillor Tumi Hawkins. I'm not sorry, it's Councillor Mark Howell. Councillor Mark Howell. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, with regards to agenda Item 5 in Ellsworth, I know all the applicants or do know all the applicants. I have not spoken to them in any sense, shape or form, with regards to pro or against this particular application, and I come to it completely fresh. Thank you very much. Councillor Bill Hanley. Yes, thank you, Chair. I have deferred Item 5. I will withdraw, as I did at the previous meeting, and for the same reason. Councillor Richard Williams. Thank you very much, Chair. There are two. On Item 6, obviously the application by the university. I am employed by the university, as is my wife, so I will be withdrawing for that application and handling of the room. On Item 7, in Wittlesford, obviously, I'm the local ward member. I'm also the chairman of Wittlesford Parish Council, which has made representations to the committee, and I have been approached by local residents on this, so I will speak on that as the local member, and I will not participate in the debate or the vote. Thank you. Minutes of the previous meeting. I will now go through the minutes of the previous meeting. Let me see if we have any comments. Here we are. The first page, page number three, page number four, page number five, page number six, page number seven, page number eight, page number nine, page number ten. Thank you very much. Can I take that approval by affirmation? Thank you. Sorry, which meeting was I... That was the previous meeting of June. Yes, just to clarify, chair, so the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 14th of June 2023. Archon number five, Ellsworth Business Park. This is application 22050654, 24 West Street, Cumberton, called in by local member in the parish council, the creation of a mixed juice food hub with additional parking. The recommendation is to approve subject to conditions. We've had two written submissions from residents and an email from the business support have been circulated and published. That would pass over to Phil for more details. General comment. Thank you, chair. I'd just like to provide an update to members to clarify certain matters in relation to this application, to enable them to be in full possession of the facts prior to determining the application today. At the previous committee in June, a member expressed concern that Council of Donald was being allowed to address the committee. At that point, the legal officer who had been asked for advice by a member asked the case officer whether the economic development team on whose behalf Council of Donald was making representation were a consultee. The initial response to the legal officer was no as the case officer advised that he interpreted the query as being in respect of a statutory consultee. The response given to the legal officer was therefore not factually correct. The economic development team were a consultee and did discuss the application with the case officer. A written record of their discussion was provided to the case officer by the economic development team. That written record of the discussion has now been published on the planning register and has been circulated to you all as well. It needs to be made clear that the economic development officer's written record of the discussion is a material planning consideration in determining this application. Thank you, chair. OK. I will now pass over to the presenting officer, Tom Gray. Thank you, chair. Just share my presentation. So the application is Avenue Business Park for the creation of a mixed-use food hub of additional parking. Before I carry on my presentation, the first representations have been received in the last few days from the Ellsworth Community Shop which refers to the proposed development having a significant adverse impact on the viability of the village shop. In addition to third representations and third parties, citing additional card movements and air pollution as a concern. Third party comments also dispute the number of people employed when the unit of offices and other objections concern my pollution currently on site. These third representations are available on the planning register. So let's say the proposal is a creation of a mixed-use food hub with additional parking. The site constraints are shown on the screen. Development site is here. The application site is here. The application site is located within the conservation area denoted by this pink line. Development framework is to the north and the east of the site denoted by this black dashed line. The number of statutory protected trees on site denoted by these blue areas and the application site is subject to surface water flooding. The current use is offices within Class Aeg and is restricted by condition under the previous planning consent to office use, but it can also be used as research and development and industrial processes. It is an aerial image of the site showing the buildings. The proposal is to change the use of the current UNX to a mixed-use food hub which would comprise retail, sale of food and drink, industrial processes and non-institutional education. It comprises several awesome food businesses such as bakers, biscotti, pasta maker and deli. Several businesses would also provide educational classes. Initially the goods would be sourced from the local area as much as possible and in the long term it is the intention of the applicant to produce some of the food within the agriculture holding or the applicant controls. The proposed UNX would comprise different uses in terms of occupiers, say bakers, cafe, butchers and cakeery and other occupiers as shown on the screen. The proposal is to sell our sun goods and provide educational classes and additional parking would be provided to the south of UNX 8 and 9 in addition to retention of parking within the site itself. The proposal would make use of the existing access from broccoli roads to the south and parking, as I say, additional parking so that would be 24 additional spaces to the south of UNX 8 and 9 would be provided. This would be comprised of grass creek and permeable grid system. Conditions were recommended in terms of hedging along the western side of that parking area to minimise any visual harm whilst to the south east of the sites it is proposed that as part of the condition to extend the footway into the village is the application science. So on the left hand of the screen that is taken from a proposed area of parking towards UNX 8 and 9 and then the other one is then taken again from the parking area towards the other UNX. So in terms of the planning balance while there would be an inevitable increase in car movements as majority of the travel would be by car and there would be a potential increase in hospitalised shop there was no, as discussed in the report there is not the shop to the sales majority of goods and essential items as opposed to high value gids and arts and gids. In terms of approval it would the office buildings are vacant to the moment so it would provide employment so it would make use of a vacant building in the countryside so it would provide food as much as possible and in the long term provide food from the farm and agriculture holding itself support small businesses and increase biodiversity and landscaping. The officer's recommendation is for approval subject to conditions. Thank you very much. Do I have any questions? Points of clarification. Richard Williams. Thank you chair. I've just got a couple of questions. The first one relates to what's stated in the report on paragraph 9.49.5 that's page 20 of our PAC. Policy E14 is referenced and I just would like a bit of clarification on why the report says E14 doesn't apply. 9.4 it says that E14 states change of use of existing employment sites to non-employment uses within or on the edge of a development framework will be resisted unless certain criteria are met. 9.5 says in this instance existing site is either within or on the edge of or adjacent to the elsewhere development framework. Now I take the point that there is a degree of opinion there but it's very very close to the elsewhere development framework and I would regard it as being on the edge. It's not literally on the edge. I think it's about 70 metres away from the edge but I would regard that as on the edge. So is the submission that E14 does not apply turning on the fact that there's been a decision that it's not on the edge because it's not literally on the edge or is there another reason why E14 doesn't apply. I wasn't very clear on that. And then secondly my second point the report so we're talking around paragraphs 9.14 here. It's mentioned at various points. It talks about 18 employees having been in that office in that area when there were offices and it talks about 20 new jobs from the shops. That does seem a very low figure 18 people too. I think it says somewhere two people per unit when it was in employment or office use. Has anyone checked that? Have we got any objective evidence of where those figures come from? I know information has been supplied by the applicant but has there been any effort to check that? It seems oddly low to me. Thank you councillor. So in terms of E14 part 1 refers to the edge of development frameworks there is a bit of distance in terms of from the application site to the framework itself. Part 1 in my view doesn't apply but part 2 does in terms of although there will be a loss of certain employment uses in terms of the office use there would be continued to provide employment on the site even though it's within the retail sector rather than within offices. In terms of number of employees 18 employees, the applicant provided that information to me. There is some disagreement amongst the parties about how many there was employed previously when the offices were in use but unfortunately we don't have any data objective data to go on. To understand what level of employment that provided. Any other? Can I just come back on that first point with regards to the E14. So what you're saying is a purely judgment call with regards to how close is close to the development framework. So if it's 70 metres because that's the figure that's given me I would say that's still on the edge. You are saying that's not on the edge. Am I right on that? Am I reading that correctly? Yeah it's a judgment call in terms of distance wise to the framework itself. There is a gap. There's other uses to the north so there is office uses to the north. There is agricultural lands to the northeast. To the framework itself. So it's not, that policy is subjective. You could argue what is on the edge or adjacent to the framework. It's not adjacent to in terms of the boundary doesn't stop by the application side itself. Thank you. I will likely disagree. Chancellor Fane. Just to seek further clarification on that point I'm assuming that policy E141 would apply if there was a change of use from an employment site to non-employment uses. I find myself confused as to how this could be regarded as non-employment uses in which it is not a judgment call. It's very clear. I have a question as well. The issue of providing local source food on adjoining land is the ownership of the applicant. Now as I understand it the applicant is not a material matter in planning terms and therefore the site could be passed on to somebody else. So presumably that's not really a material matter. The fact that the applicant owns adjoining land is not really a material matter. Whereas the fact that any applicant could supply food locally is a material matter and could be considered as an issue in the application. Am I right on that? Yeah, that's correct. The applicant does hold a number of farm lands and the intention of the applicant continues to own up the units in the land but there's potential that it could be given to other people. The main key point is that it would source locally produced food. Can we any further points? Sorry. If it's a judgement call, how local does it have to be to be called local? There's a lot of different figures that you could say is local but again it's initially they'd be providing as much as possible food within a certain radius and the figure that there's been other figures bounded around a radius but it's a judgement call but in the long term the applicant is intending to use a north-east area of the land for harsher land for cattle and the south-west of the application site for arable fruit and veg and a lot of that will go into selling on the site in the Delicatessen so initially there'd be a larger area I'd imagine that there'd be sourcing food from and over time there'd be sourcing it more locally that's the intention the applicant suggested is given to me. Chairman, on that point I just want to remind everybody at Cotein Garden Centre which they have a large radius map which goes up to 50 miles which is local so that is local as far as most garden food producing shops are but thank you for that. Councillor Richard Williams. Thank you chair, thank you for allowing me to come back. I just want to clear up this C14 point because actually but Councillor Fane's point is what I was getting at although he was a bit more direct than me. So can I just clarify just before we move on so we all know this with E14 are we saying it doesn't apply because this is not a change from an employment use to a non-employment use or are we saying it doesn't apply because of this judgement question about a framework because if we're saying it's not a change from an employment to a non-employment then E14 is out and the village framework issue then becomes an irrelevant point. I think the issue we've got here is when this policy was written and obviously adopted in the local plan employment land was historically associated with B class uses so class B1, B2 and B8 and so that was deemed to be employment land and with the advent of class E that has come forward now where there's been a melding and a meshing of various use classes that has widened out what you could be deemed as employment so when this policy was written there was a clearer line between employment and non-employment because of that use class but that has now changed and obviously that is probably where the waters have slightly been muddied here in the way we're now looking at employment because as Tom clearly articulated there is still employment associated with the proposed use and so I think the issue here is that the judgement that has been made is that we don't consider it is to be on the edge of the development framework and as we've heard that's a matter of judgement for those making the decision where you draw the line in terms of an edge but yeah I think the other slightly confusing point here is that he's around what's employment land and that's as I say because of the way the use classes have moved on and the way this policy was written at the time that the use classes were in place so I hope that perhaps gives a bit more clarity Sorry, councillor Wilson first. Thank you I don't know if this is an appropriate question at this point but I'm trying to gauge the potential impact on the village shop and because we don't have a map of the whole area where the houses where people are living in relation to this site and where the village shop is in relation to the houses so I was wondering is this a destination where people would normally drive from the village or is it within the easy walking distance compared to the village shop or would the village shop be somewhere where someone could just pop out of their house too? Thank you councillor, I can show you a map where it is in relation to the village, is that useful? So the application site is these two buildings here the village shop is to the north here and the village extends the east, is that helpful? Okay, councillor Hal Alasdair Thank you chairman, you've been very kind to me just two things, one thing you'll have to remember about the village shop of course it's on the way to and from the school that's what makes it so convenient, not the only reason that location was it was very kind and random and allowed us to put it there it's one of the reasons. Chairman, with regards to the thing, you did say that there was the employment has been changed over the time and I understand that, I understand where you're coming from but then so that change over time meant that there was a strict E14 application that it had to be right next to the boundary because it was said it was a judgement call is that what happened at the same time because this is quite the fundamental part of it? Through you chair the point I was making was around the reason for that policy was to protect essentially the class uses and provide criteria for assessing whether they were going to go away from that use that you had to meet certain criteria which would effectively been deemed an appropriate way of losing employment land the location element is part of that policy but a separate entity and as we've said, the edge is a matter of judgement for the decision maker around whether you believe it is on the edge or not of the village and we've made a judgement that we don't consider it to be on the edge and that's why the report rules out part one of that policy OK, have you finished questions now? OK, now we move on to the public speakers. I would like to remind speakers that they have three minutes to make their representation and we will ensure that you are made aware of how much time you have remaining and normally when three minutes are up I will ask you to finish your sentence to see what you are saying The first speakers are the the objectors. Now we have three objectors normally we allow one objector. If you have three objectors you have three minutes to apply to all three of you just to warming so that you manage your time so that you can do it within three minutes. Now the objectors are Richard French, James Howe and Paul Solon. Who is going to speak first? Thank you, welcome Mr French. Chairman, I should say I have no relation to James Howe because we have both this one time zone and no relation. Ladies and gentlemen at the committee this development is unlawful because it is in the countryside in clear conflict with the local plan and will cause unjustified harm. The case in favour is flimsy but the presenting officer recommends approval are you confident it is safe to follow their recommendation? The presenting officer's report says that cabinet member Macdonald is supportive, C power 8.2 why single out his view has councillor Macdonald still got his thumb on the scales is there subconscious bias at play? You will know that this case is being followed keenly by many residents who objected on the grounds that a conflict with the local plan has proper weight been given to the local plan. The report cites key policies but then ignores them is it safe for your approval? Has proper weight been given to the harms? The report says it is inevitable that the food department will increase private car usage estimated in the tens of thousands this is far from minimal and a trivial quantity of the goods will be sold will be local most will be brought in by vehicle adding to the road miles Has proper weight been given to the harm that this will cause to the environment, to air quality authorities policy of reducing reliance on the private car? Has proper weight been given to the fact that to get to Ellsworth by car motorists will have to travel through surrounding villages? Has proper weight been given to the safety of pedestrians? To the vulnerable youngsters walking to primary school in the village from the food park at times when deliveries are being made in the morning or at 3pm when the offices are in use? Has proper weight been given to the fact that the same developer has permission to expand the office space by 30% attracting yet more cars and following them through the food park? Has proper weight been given to expansion in opening hours to include weekends intensifying use still further? Is it safe for you to approve? Has proper weight been given to the harm to villages caused by loss of the shop? To those who have relied on it for more than 10 years to the 70 volunteers who work there to the old folk who walked to the shop and their walk was their one daily outing deterred now because of heavier traffic on the narrow village streets Mr Howell, shop treasurer, is here and he can bear witness to the welfare benefits of the shop. Has too much weight been given to employment and economic benefits of the food park? New jobs, net new jobs created is only two. Is that really sufficient justification? Are you satisfied that the current use of the units is really not viable? I think that the developer has a tenant for its new office on site suggests there is no lack of demand for offices in the area. Mr Solon, who is here on my right has lived next door to the business park for more than 20 years. He can bear witness to the fact that the units in question formally provided continuous employment for at least 30 people. So in conclusion the question I put to you is is it really safe for you to approve? Thank you. Thank you Mr French. Now we have questions to the objectives. Have we got any questions? Thank you for your presentation. I was just wondering you said about children walking from the food hub to the school. I just wonder what you meant by that please. Yes, the applicant developer who owns the site has an arrangement with the village school whereby parents can park at the food park and then walk their children through the streets to the village school and back. So you are saying that that will be more dangerous with this application. Is that what you are referring to? Yes, because of the intensification of use because of the increase in traffic in and around the area attracted by the food park because of the fact that parking at the site is going to be expanded is going to be more traffic and also deliveries of various foodstuffs to the food park. Councillor Howell. Thank you Chairman. Through you but I will face the question. Could you tell me a bit more about what you think the impact on the village shock which is run by volunteers I believe? Thank you Councillor. The village shock has been operating for 11 years. We have got 70 volunteers and over 200 people made a financial contribution to setting up the shop buying a share in it. Your own council has given us financial support as well as has the parish council. There is a lot invested by the community in the shop. Our contention is even if the food park is banned from selling convenience goods what are convenience goods? We sell bread, we sell milk, we sell coffee, we sell eggs we sell Scotch eggs and sandwiches. If any of these sales are affected by the food park then the viability of the village shop is called into question. I have with me a copy of our accounts from last year and for the current year. Our total because we had to buy a new air conditioner for the shop this year over the last 18 months were actually in deficit by about £3,000. That is fortunately we have got a grant through your council for COVID relief which has helped alleviate that but it is just there to show you the fragility of the village shop. If we lose sales the only thing we can do is put up prices. If we put up prices we discourage people from using the shop. It is a very difficult balance. We deliberately try to keep our prices as low as we possibly can. We do not aim to make any money but the viability of the shop will be damaged if we have to put prices up and I cannot see any way of avoiding having to put prices up if we were to lose any sales at all. Chancellor, Samford. Thank you chair. I wonder if Mr Saan could explain why he has come up with a different number of employees on the site when it was offices as against the ones used by the officers report. Thank you. Certainly that is simply my own personal knowledge and observation of the site over 20 years so that to give examples Thompson media publications which occupied where the cafe is going or part of where the cafe is going to be during this period had a minimum of five and very often 10 employees working from that office Cambridge brick and paving company had at least six and whilst I don't have a total count of the all nine certainly I would say a minimum of two two is the minimum basically and depending on how you extrapolate the figures I think it was a conservative estimate of 30 and certainly there is no evidential basis for suggesting it was as low as 18. It's in my view economically a net loss of several jobs. Chancellor Hawkins. Thank you very much chair. Thank you gentlemen for your presentation and answers to your questions to the questions that you've been asked. One of the things that this is trying to do from what I've read is to create a different type of shock to what you have already. I know you said there was a difference between a convict and a food hub but my question is I'm going to show how to phrase this surely there is a demand from other residents it's probably a balance isn't it that some want it and some don't and from what I've read there seems to be a demand for this type of shock. Thank you for your question. If I may say there is a difference between demand and need in the planning context specifically spatial strategy policy number seven your local plan the local plan it says in the countryside there will not be development of this type at all unless there is need. A need is something that this council would identify which is different to demand as a consumer myself I of course accept that there is or will be demand for some of the products that are proposed to be sold in this food park it would be absurd for me to reject that proposition there is demand however that is different to need and what matters in the planning context is because this site is in the countryside because this change of use is happening in the countryside it's changing from a business park or part of the business park is changing to a retail park there needs to be demonstrable need and there is no evidence you haven't heard there is no evidence being presented today or previously that there is actually identifiable need and that's the important thing it's different to demand. Might I add a comment to please namely that there is simply insufficient demand from or need from the community of Ellsworth for shops of this nature over the life of the community shop it has aimed to sell what Ellsworth residents want and if they do want it the shop sells it the fact that the applicant estimates an extra 40 or 50,000 vehicle movements a year as a result of this development indicates that it is the intention to attract custom from all over and that will impose the economic and social and pollution burdens on the village that we have referred to in our representations there may be a good case for another food park in South Cambridgeshire but Ellsworth is not the place to put it Thank you very much indeed and now we'll move on to the applicant Thank you very much for your clear presentation Mr Anthony Davidson I remind you again can you restrict yourself to three minutes which is the standard time we allow for presenters and it's applied to all presenters together in total time Thank you very much The food park will be a place where local people the school, farmers and food businesses come together to trade, communicate and celebrate seasonal foods and in the process build a sustainable, healthy inclusive, enlightened community around food We have spoken to most of the people in the village and the vast majority want the park to open as soon as possible Some have helped plant an asparagus bed as well as signed up to help grow and be paid in fruit and veg I have also been teaching food and farming at the schools since last year and making videos to help other schools follow The school will grow food for their kitchen and the park and vice versa We already have three wholesale food businesses on site four more are ready to open with more to follow as we attract a viable number of local customers In time we want everything sold at the park to be grown locally Within hopefully after five years even have avocados, lemons, oranges, olives and wine We will do everything we can to make the community shop more viable We want the food park concept to be duplicated all over the UK and share back best practice All helping increase farm incomes, diversity soil regeneration, food security food knowledge, health and well-being crucial to combat the horrific increase in food related disease and declining food security over the last 30 years My great grandfather bought the farm in 1924 when farms grew food powered by horses and people This proposal takes us back to growing healthy food for local people using a mixture of people power, machinery and technology Most people would prefer to see this approach to farming instead of the intensive and soon GM production of commodities for unhealthy processed food I'm now going to hand over to Paul who's going to read a piece from Peter Newton who can't be here Peter and his wife have lived in Ellsworth for 10 years They welcome the development of the food hub This is really to embrace the 21st century environmental imperatives that so many struggle to adopt Now the Ellsworth community shop has been nurtured for many years by the generous volunteers of the village In tandem with the food hub, the village shop may be better able to resolve the tensions that exist between customers wanting to support it but being forced to use distant supermarkets for fresh and freshly made goods giving the village shop a different lease of life A well run cafe where we could meet friends and chat over food and coffee is the perfect community addition As we've heard from Anthony already shares his horticultural skills with the schools and children Furthermore the residents of the village have had the cost of free use of the village green, the playground and the sports pavilion for many years thanks to the generosity of Anthony's family who own both the pavilion and the village green land This historical generosity supports to them that Anthony is interested in running an effective farm business not wishing to exploit us or the community in which we live Can I ask you to finish that please? That's it, one more but fine Sorry, have we any questions now from councillors? Thank you chair I've got two questions actually if I may My first question is you said you would do whatever you can to make sure that the community shop remains viable and I would like to know what you would do to achieve that and what you propose My second question is about the employment profile Who were people employed in the offices local people or did they come from farm wise or was it a mixture and would the food hub employ local people or would there be people travelling in from other places to work there as far as you can tell at the stage Thank you, first of all the community shop The problem that a lot of community shops have is that they can't get a product because they have such a small sales so what we want to do is be able to provide anything from the food park at wholesale prices that can be either collected by the community shop or we can deliver and they can then have a much wider range of products for local people and the community shop is closer to the village than we are so we're expecting a lot of people just to walk to the community shop buy a wider range and then go home and because in the food park you'll have to go to three or four shops to buy your products the community shop might actually offer a more convenient way of picking up those products we're developing all kinds of things like the Elsa sausage for instance that at the moment the community shop buys from Ten Stanton so they will be able to buy products from us so we're also hoping to get all the veg that we grow on the farming area the community shop can have that I'm hoping that we will be selling veg things like potatoes, onions and carrots actually cheaper than morrisons so the community shop can also do that and that I think will make people think and that will get a lot more people coming to the community shop so anything we can do to help make it more viable we want to do as far as employment's concerned I had a little tot out of who was employed in our nine units that we're proposing in 2021 and it comes to actually twelve and a half people things like units 10 and 11 we used as warehousing and one person turned up about once a week to fill up a van most of the other units either had one or two people and as far as unit five was concerned that poor was told, sorry unit four was told that poor was done there was only one person in there in 2021 and occasionally he had another person come in and help him so that's gone from 10 down to one person so yeah, twelve and a half we're hoping that every unit will have at least two people in it a cafe might have up to 15 people and it certainly makes sense that we employ as local people as possible in everything that we do and that's not just the units but as far as the food growing around the units is concerned I'm hoping that we'll have a cow dairy producing milk that will employ one or two people we'll have poly tunnels and food growing so I'm hoping that will employ quite a few more people as well so the number of people will be growing all the time I hope as we build up this local custom and as far as I'm concerned all my cool employees are the better Any more questions? No Thank you very much Chancellor Howell Just two very quick questions please First of all, could you tell me please with the exception of the village where do you see the majority of our customers coming from and approximately, it might well be in this and forgive me if it is, how many traffic movements do you see coming to the actual Well I'm hoping that a lot of people will come from the village especially if we can provide produce that's cheaper than Morrison's but apart from that I'm hoping a lot of people will come from the Camborn area so they won't go into the village at all but I suppose a few people will come from Cambridge because what we're doing is quite different to places like Cotun and Burl Wash Manor in that we want to be all about food and be as locally as possible and to be telling the whole story of the food but I hope it will all come from that Camborn road where it won't go through the village My second question I really... it's unknown almost Thank you Councillor Hawkins Thank you very much Just following up on Councillor Howell's question really because this is going to be part education place so in terms of the education side of things who will be or what is that area who will be that customer OK, well, as I said I already go to the school every week and teach about food and farming and whatever we grow at the food park I want to have a polytunnel at the school and be growing the same kind of produce that hopefully they will use in their kitchen and we found already that wherever the kids have grown the produce they want to eat it so they've been proudly taking potatoes to the kitchen and the dinner lady has gone oh wow, yeah, fantastic, I'll cook those and the kids have all wanted to eat them we then make a video on whatever we've done during the week and we make a video about it so that other schools can follow and we'd love to have as many schools come and see what we're doing from all over the country and the BB's documentary which is going to get wider if that's your plan again Just on top of that also what we want to do is teach people how to cook teach people how to use food we would like to run butchery courses so people understand how to actually make their own sausages things like that it would be great to have the opportunity to look at apprenticeships so butchers apprenticeships look at the cafe the whole hospitality retail side of things there's a lot of opportunity for people to come and learn and do it in an efficient way and that's something we're very keen to do Thank you very much indeed I'll now move on to the parish council there's a representative from the parish council Mr Peter Dier Are you present here? Can I ask you first of all to say whether you have the approval of the parish council to speak on their behalf Yes, I'm the chairman of the parish council and councillors have agreed that I speak on this matter to the planning committee Thank you While appreciating what the food hub might bring to the village the parish council has long drawn attention to residents' concerns regarding the proposal Concern about traffic not from those coming to work on the site but from the change in use from offices to retail premises Ellsworth is not big enough to sustain the hub by itself and it will only be viable if customers can be attractive from outside the village and the vast majority of visitors will reach the site by car Of course that raises concerns about the volume of traffic the attendant pollution how the site is accessed and on-site parking The numbers visiting are unlikely to be offset by significant reductions in the number of residents visiting local supermarkets for their normal weekly shop because of the limited range available These concerns were recognised by the applicant who proposed making a second access to the site to lessen the number of vehicles entering the village However, that proposal has simply been abandoned and this will force all traffic coming from the west to come into the village along Smith Street which will be the main pedestrian access to and from the food park but which does not have a footpath of 50 metres of the site Recent information made available about events is relevant conceivably some events could see several hundred cars being drawn to the village which would exceed the car parking space is available Therefore, its conditions off street over spool parking should be identified and there should be restrictions on the events themselves in terms of the numbers each year The planning house officer notes in his report that the site is currently poorly connected to Oldsworth Village Centre and further consideration is safe pedestrian access To achieve this, extending broccoli footpath is necessary However, this will do nothing for the majority of residents who will be visiting the hub or those parking there are walking into the village to get to the community shop via Smith Street which, as I've already said, will be taking the traffic coming from Roeg Lane If a permission is going to be granted it is respectively suggested that it is incumbent on the district council to consider what might be done to make access via Smith Street safer So in summary, should you be minded to approve the application the parish council will urge you to also consider what might be done on the application adopting the proposals for conditioning in the planning office's report but requiring further consideration to be given to pedestrian safety via Smith Street to the site Thank you Thank you very much indeed Do we have any questions for the parish council? Councillor Wilson You mentioned the safety of pedestrians going from the sites to the village but we've heard earlier from the applicant that people actually park their cars there now, I think that's correct So how is the pedestrian safety at present when people are using the site to park their cars to access the village school? Well, the village shop and the sports field has its own car park What's happening is that some parents are now parking on the business park and walking children to the school because of the problems of accessing the school by vehicle It's down a narrow road and frequently gets blocked up But not all parents use it but I mean if that continues of course you're looking at more pressure on the car parking on the business park itself As I say we're not just looking at people coming to work on the units we're looking at visitors coming to enjoy the retail opportunity that's going to be provided and if special events are on as well it seems frankly inconceivable that unless you have over spilled parking the site's going to be able to cope and on street parking is not practicable in that area at all Erill Cym Councillor Howell I think it's very easy to make that claim if you knock on people's doors and say here's a nice idea don't you approve of it and people naturally will tend to turn around and say oh yes that sounds quite a nice idea Fact of the matter is the parish council held a public meeting back in September a year ago there was nearly 100 residents turned up the vast majority of the questions being asked the points being put related to the concerns that I've already expressed particularly about things like traffic the prospectus that the applicants had put round the village talking about providing a second access point on Rogues Lane but as I've said that's gone out of the window talking about support for the village shop as far as anybody was aware the chairman of the village shop committee was there and said there'd been no discussions about this whatsoever I mean that there's a different time of fright between the aspiration which I think is laudable for many of the things the applicant wants to do but the reality in practice unless you're there at that meeting and experiencing it then you're not really getting the full flavour of things I'm afraid Any more questions? Thank you Now I propose to have a 10 minute comfort break before we go into the debate I turn here at the thank you pass, thank you very much Welcome back to the planning committee we're now into the debate Councillor Councillor Toomey Hawkins Thank you very much chair This is an interesting one but if I may make a few points I hear the objectors on the issue of local shop need versus want and as you know a couple of them mentioned traffic, increasing traffic and all that but let's not forget we are a rural community a lot of us live in villages even in my village that's now to drive up somewhere to get a pint of milk so we I mean one of the things I tend to say like the RTPIs and the TCPA is you always talk about urban planning but let's talk about rural planning because we're in a rural area now if I can refer us to paragraph 9.23 I think yes 9.23 on page 23 which refers to paragraph 55 of the MPPF which says that planning policies and should recognise sites to meet local businesses in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements and of course you know there's all the rest that goes with it which means you know the issue of traffic yes we hear it yes there will be a lot more traffic because it's going to be potential if you give the planning permission a shop but then we expect that in a rural area Burwashman was mentioned by whom I use it there's this farm there are similar places this is an interesting as far as I'm concerned an interesting type of farm shop and in terms of pedestrian safety there is a condition 36 condition 6 which states that within six months of the date of the decision pedestrian footway link should be you know the details of that should be sent in now obviously that is looking at the safety of pedestrian users as well as car users there is no objection from highway safety as far as I can see what I do take note of 9.6 which says there will be less additional trips to the proposed development I don't take that but the fact that there is no objection from highway safety and there is a condition for creating a footpath a thing for me sort of mitigates that objection the the education side of this I think is going to be a very interesting one and it's going to help those in Ellsworth as well as hopefully if we granted that information could be a much wider audience for that particular side of the proposal and the applicants are taking a risk anyway it's their own risk that's not a planning that's not for us to determine but whether it works or not is down to how they work with it and what they do with it so as far as I'm concerned I'm turning towards voting for this because it's something that is useful for a rural community it's not just for Ellsworth there will be others from other villages useful but thank you Councillor Sanford thank you chair question was raised about what the local community felt about this application it's totally unscientific but last time I looked at the planning site there were 31 responses 24 objections and 7 in favour I've had 12 individuals email directly to me none of those are in favour so the supporters are obviously very quiet let's put it that way when I reviewed this application I came up with 4 areas of concern the rear entrance to the site I'm pleased to see that's gone and the reasons it's gone being documented it would have been a potential black spot being on a 90 degree bend screen by trees so I'm pleased to see that has gone parking I've been convinced there is adequate parking on the site for day to day business particularly with the extra parking spaces of the applicants proposing however I do share parish councillor D is concerned over the special events which are mentioned on item 13 on page 38 for those that haven't found it we're being asked to review an application for a food hub not an event venue I do appreciate that South County's licensing would have some control over the nature of these special events but I think a lot of us have seen the TV coverage of special events at Jeremy Clarkson's site and how those can go horribly wrong particularly in terms of parking so that will need to come out before I be able to support this application and yes traffic as we've noted there's minimal scope for active travel there's no cycle path to the site yes the footpath could be extended but it's quite a hike uphill particularly the older members of Ellsworth community so it would be realistic to assume that practically all customers would come by car I notice section 915 talks about 53 vehicle movements which to me seems unfeasibly low considering we're talking about 9 separate businesses I guess it would depend on the nature of the business but I would expect each of those units to require 10 to 20 customers a day to make a profit in addition to that there would be delivery vehicles I know it's mentioned somewhere that the butcher is coming out of Cambridge so you can do the sums yourself that could be up to 200 visitors per day particularly on busy times weekends the Christmas period and it would be two ways so you can double that number in the three to four hundred that's a lot of vehicles those of you who are visiting Ellsworth know that it's reached by three country lanes there's not an A road as there is with Boo Wash Manor next to it those lanes are crumbling for reasons we all know lack of maintenance and I hate to think the state will be enough for a few years of two to three hundred extra vehicle movements beyond that is the environmental issues we have over our door green to our core we green to the core if we're inviting two to three hundred extra vehicle movements a day over country lanes personally I think it's a great idea it's just the wrong location it would be great if it was in Campbell or Ellsworth sorry North Stoke but Ellsworth is probably the wrong location for it and I'm tending to vote against thank you chair Thank you chair I see no others thank you chair I see no others want you to participate turns out already I'm wrong yes chair I come from a village represent village Stakeford where there is a farm shop and also a convenience store it's a convenience store that doesn't have any benefits of vegetables below retail prices and I haven't noticed much in the way of conflict it is not of course a food hub as we're proposing here we had some discussion debate on E14 it's not clear to me whether the employment on this site the future employment indeed the past employment has been overstated or understated whether the future employment has been understated or greatly overstated that will become clear only in the future what is clear is that this is an employment site and so I'm satisfied that there is not grounds to use E14 as a reason for refusal I broadly support what Councillor Hawkins said and I just wanted to address some specific points raised by the objectors firstly the objectors said this was unlawful it would be unlawful for us to approve this that is a very serious allegation which we have to take seriously it is why we have a senior legal officer here and I will pause for a moment just in case our senior legal officer wishes to advise us this is unlawful and we should stop consideration which is not unlawful nor unsafe being to take the main decision on this I'm sorry but then you'll give to determine this application the application before you is not unlawful nor is it unsafe thank you I thought it was important that allegation having been made to deal with it directly it was also alleged that the assessment showed signs of bias I reject that out of hand we were asked whether it would be safe to approve this having heard the arguments of this in relation to all of the relevant aspects of our local plan and the NPPF yes I am satisfied it would be safe to approve this the key planning balance issues are the inevitable increase in car movements I accept that may well be the case but of course we have to remember this is already has research and other uses a question of the extent of the marginal increase in relation to special events I'm afraid I don't share concerns about well known special events on other open sites I don't think we're quite in that league and clearly that is a possibility but it will be covered by licensing and I don't see that as a grounds to refuse there is also a condition in relation to that so I think that we come back to the key issue which is the potential impact on Ellsworth Village Shop and that is very hard to assess there are other examples that we can draw on the proposals of the applicant to make available below cost produce is interesting but is not I fear a basis on which we can decide this but I do not see that this is likely to lead to the loss of the village shop in itself which is an assumption I think was made by the objectives it might cause harm but as we've heard this council has been able to give assistance the food hub may be able to give assistance and certainly intends to do so so taking all of that into account I am inclined to approve this application as recommended Chancellor Howells thank you chairman chairman I have listened carefully and I have read the documents that you all have but also I got the added bonus of being copied in to all the emails which have been to and fro in primarily to my colleague here who has taken the lead very much on this I have not received any emails in favour I might have missed one or two but I have not received so I cannot agree but the majority of the village are for this particular application however the biggest thing that I am concerned about are the traffic movements now if we do say 53 traffic movements it will not include employees but if we do say 53 traffic movements it will set a week well if you multiply that up that is 371 a week 53 a day 331 a week 1484 a month 17,000 a year that is 17,800 actually a year but the biggest thing is unlike Cotin garden centre which has got the shop and we have also made reference to Burwell and we have also made we should not forget the one down in Melbourne as well they are just off the road they are just off that main way that people go people will have to make a deliberate approximately three and a half miles in Cambourne to the village shop so if you multiply that and that is seven miles each way we then talk in an extra 124,656 miles so when we look at our own values about reducing traffic movements we are actually creating a lot of traffic movements over a lot of miles and that is what my concern is we are going against our own values with regards to being a green council and reducing our own traffic movements by accepting this planning application we are actually going to increase traffic movements for a considerable amount as was said if this was putting somewhere closer to a main thoroughfare maybe the 428 or A14 or one of the other A roads that would be more suitable but where it is is unsuitable also the true experts here are not myself or my colleague Councillor Stanford with regards to the representation of Ellsworth but the people of Ellsworth we feared from the parish council we feared from objectors we did have a letter read out to us from somebody who was a proposal so if the people of Ellsworth are also very much against this as well cos it doesn't fit the village environment and what the people want I'm going to have to move to mind it at the moment to vote no to this particular application the reason being is what I've outlined and primarily because I can't see how this will be within our values and with the traffic movements that are done. Thank you Chairman Councillor Wilson sorry Thank you I've listened to all the arguments and I've listened to the objectors and those and the applicant my concern has been about the impact on the village shop but also and in some ways I've been reassured by the proposals that the applicant has to help the village shop but on the other hand we've heard that some of those discussions haven't yet taken place so how much can we rely on that I too am concerned about the traffic movements and the pedestrians and I can see the benefits of having that food hub with the fresh foods being made available and the other benefits that the applicant is proposing on balance I think I am going to oppose the application Councillor Williams Thank you very much Chair, I'll try and keep my comments as brief as I can because I will cover some ground that other people have covered so there's no need to go over it in great detail. I just did want to say one thing at the start we were sent an email yesterday which was by the economic development team I did just want to put on record that I'm not attaching very much weight to that in planning terms the email that we were sent yesterday does talk about the proposal aligning ticking boxes from the south camps core values I don't regard the council's political core values as a material consideration so I'm not attaching much weight to that I just wanted to put that on record that I'm not attaching weight to my two concerned about the traffic impacts of this and I am not reassured by the data that we've got in the officers report so I am concerned about traffic impacts I think they are likely to be significant and may not be policy compliant also concerned about the impact on the village shop E22 policy I won't go over that again I did want to say one thing though I am also personally concerned about the compatibility with E23 and of course the problem with a lot of these policies is they turn on very well they turn on questions of judgement but E23 says planning permission for sale of goods in the countryside will not be granted except for sales on farms on nurseries where the majority of goods are produced on the farm in the locality that's the judgement question that we have to decide but I am not convinced that this application is compatible with that policy which does say very specifically will not be granted permission except for there isn't clear to my mind evidence in the report in the documents that the majority of the goods will be produced in the locality and I interpret locality to mean the near locality not east of England or Cambridge and that seems to my mind to be the clear intention behind the policy and there is also a paragraph 825 which talks about sporadic development in the countryside resulting in unsustainable patterns of development which could harm the vitality and the viability of village centres so I may attach weight to that as well I'm not convinced that we've been given sufficient evidence to show that this is compatible with policy E23 so I'm leaning towards refusal at this stage thank you are there any other people wish to speak okay it appears that we're likely to that's about I've waited until the end well I'm near the end I guess because I've been trying to listen to everything and try and make a decision I guess I think I've been leaning towards approve the environment is very important to me so I've been listening to the arguments about traffic to me there's perhaps two ways of looking at it I'm not sure how you balanced them is that if you haven't limited facilities in a rural area then you're it's taken for granted that there's transport to get out of the village to go and to go and seek goods and so to me it's how much does that does this reduce that how does that balance against the people coming in to use the facilities environmentally there was also the applicant saying about how they're looking to farm on their plot and the values that they they have in that farming and how sounded like they were coming from from an environmental perspective in wanting to maintain their farm and maintain local workers so so I'm just trying to say it's not it doesn't seem a simple argument to me it does seem that there are there are complexities in that and I'm not sure if we're putting enough weight on providing facilities within a village environment within a rural environment so yeah I think it's a difficult one and I'm on the cusp but I think I'm just about leaning towards it thank you well we've got it's clear it's going to be very divided but I think we need to consider what the reasons for refusal if a vertical refusal might be I would ask the advice of the they would find the most strongest reasons for refusal if we go ahead thank you chair listen to the debate from members two main issues here really is as I see it and have heard which is around the retail impacts of a development of this scale in a village of this size and the nature of the goods for sale in the countryside and whether they are really being produced locally or not and whether they're therefore compliant with essentially policies E22 and E23 of the local plan and the second issue is around the level of traffic impacts from the proposal increase in vehicle movements I think we need to be clear about what we are saying those impacts are because there's no objection from the highway authority around safety so what is it the impacts are that are causing that concern from members is it a noise and disturbance issue that's the only thing I can think of initially that it may well be rather than necessarily a safety matter but if you want to take that back to the committee chair a question is the impact upon carbon emissions a viable considerate considerate you could use that as a potential issue I mean it's not an area where there's an air quality management plan in place so a portion against that issue thank you thank you very much indeed okay sorry I'll Peter Sandberg to speak again chair regarding highways I think the main consideration from my point would be damage to the existing road structure that lanes are so narrow that if two transit bans pass inevitably one's going to put wheels on the the verge and there'll be damage needs repairing in addition to the existing potholes so it's more damage than safety is that a material consideration in planning to ensure I think we'd struggle to defend a reason around damage to the highway from vehicle movements again the highway authority have not raised that and they would identify that as a concern if they felt the vehicle movements were so significant that highway improvements were required to cater with the number of vehicles you're talking about thank you, thank you now with that information I think it's time we went to a vote okay sorry nothing, nothing to add sorry, cancer of health Hawkins right initial thank you very much we do need to be very careful that this sort of traffic issue is looked at properly and considered properly as we don't have any objections on highways so and I think as has been said trying to defend anything to do with that would be difficult the other point is impact on the local shop now bear in mind we had a similar case in Comberton we refused it an appeal it got approved so we needed to be very careful and we refused it because we felt it was going to affect the other shop so I just saw that remind us of that councillor we were sort of asked a question so I'm clear I should respond to that with regards to the traffic movements and I'm going to follow up slightly from what my colleague opposite has said with regards to the amount of traffic movements and I do believe that if this food hub was to go ahead then the traffic movements would from the village going out to the village would be negligible to the amount of traffic movements from the outside of the village coming in Cambron but Cambridge and the surrounding area and the impact on that traffic movements in the village because past the village sign it's in the village would be quite horrendous for the people in the village and the impact then on the people in the village would be quite high thank you okay sorry yeah so that would be largely an amenity issue if you wanted to read some proof you saw the impact on the amenity of the village okay okay okay potential reasons for refusal are going to be displayed okay hold on a second sorry could you read the map okay so reason for refusal one having listened to what the discussion was I've got as the proposal would provide sales of goods in the countryside which has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would result in the majority of goods being produced on the farm or in the locality furthermore the proposal would result in a retail development of a scale which is inappropriate to the function and size of the village and would harm the vitality of the Ellsworth village shop which is not for profit organisation providing day-to-day needs for the local community the proposal is therefore contrary to policies E22 and E23 of the South Cymru local plan 2018 due to the nature of the use and the site's location without easy access to sustainable travel opportunities the proposal would result in a substantial increase in car movements which would have an adverse impact upon the character of Ellsworth due to the unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance upon nearby residents contrary to policies E17 TI2 and HQ1 of the South Cymru local plan 2018 thank you now I think it's now time to go for a vote and will you please agree by the committee that if the application is to be refused that we are content that these are the reasons sorry Henry would you be sorry I need a proposal and seconder sorry councillor Hull's proposing councillor William's second are you just before that are you happy that these were we to be refused these reasons were refused will be sorry is the proposal to go to the vote or to refuse the application I understood chair that we were advised for democratic services that we needed a proposal and a seconder to put the reasons for refusal on the table that's what I was proposing that's what I understood democratic services to be requesting seconding sorry are you all happy can I do it by an affirmation that you have sorry chair through you councillor Hull would you like to put your proposal for floor please thank you very much indeed chairman members what is written in front of us there I would like to put forward as the reason to refuse the application should they call that way and chair again through you so councillor how your proposal is to refuse the application contrary to the officer's recommendation that is correct that's a different thing we have a proposal to refuse we now propose to move to a vote no okay we have a proposal to refuse we move to the vote if you're voting sorry councillor Hull I'm sorry chair but this seems to be a different way of working why are we doing this all we need to know is you know if we go to refusal those are the reasons we either agree with them or we don't this is not a proposal for refusal it's a proposal for this is what the refusal reasons will be chairman may I go to the vote first and then we have to cut the vote I think we need to decide what we're voting on the normal the first thing we need to as I understand it and I the we are voting first of all that if the proposal is refused these are the reasons for refusal and then we will get to a second vote to decide whether we're going to refuse or not so can I first have a can I go by affirmation that you're happy with these as a reason for refusal should the proposal be refused okay can you councillor Hawkins can you explain what don't agree with those reasons okay would you like to explain we're now we're now we'll vote on these reasons for refusal first of all okay should it go to be refused and then we will vote upon how whether we refuse the application or not okay can we go to a vote for clarity we're voting purely upon whether you accept these very few reasons for refusal should it go to should the application be refused sorry if you're voting in favour you're accepting these reasons if you're voting against you're voting against these reasons and you would propose different reasons were it to be refused apology so I will get the results up on screen in one second but just for clarity a green vote of yes is a vote to agree with the proposed reasons for refusal a red vote is to reject those reasons for refusal the reasons for refusal are accepted or approved so would it be refused the application now we need to go to the vote do I need another I propose that we now need to vote having accepted the reasons for refusal your second okay so now we go to the reasons to vote just to clarify if you vote in favour you're voting to approve the application if you're voting against if you're voting to refuse the application I do apologise we have some technical difficulties with the voting just bear with me one second I will go to it thank you chairman, thank you everyone that vote is now live there's somebody who hasn't voted still oh sorry that's okay fine okay the application is approved we'll have another 5 minute break now before we start the next application thank you very much indeed and I we're now going to consider application 22 0051 for a solar farm at Lord bridge in Barton road in Barton the it's a application for the installation 30.457 megawatt hours per annum 30,000 4.57 megawatt hours per annum solar farm at associated infrastructure on land to the east of Lord bridge Barton for an operational lifespan of 40 years departure application because it's in the green belt special consideration we can consider this but because it's in the subject conditions because it's in the green belt any approval will be referred to the secretary of state Charlotte Spence is the presiding officer councillor visual Williams as previously commented is because he's he's an employee of the applicant he's withdrawing from this application from considering this application and what we present during the consideration Charlotte Charlotte sorry, Charlotte would you present the application please hi afternoon chair can you just confirm you can hear me okay and you can see my presentation loud and clear thank you thank you so yeah this is an application for a solar farm on land to the east of Lord bridge on Barton road the application is at committee as it's departure from the local plan there are special policy considerations just have a quick update for you since the publication of the report it's since been considered there should be two additional conditions attached if members are minded to approve the first of these states that the inverters to be used for the development hereby permitted shall follow the specifications in accordance with the details specified within the Ingecon Sunpower Juleby series technical details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority and the second of which states that the substations to be used for the development hereby permitted shall not be installed until the details of their appearance have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details the reasons for both of these is for the avoidance of doubt in the context of their appearance in relation to the wider development requirements of policy HQ1 of the local plan so just to explain the location it's approximately here in relation to Cambridge the site compromises 36.4 hectares of agricultural fields located to the west of Barton road it is approximately 1500 metres south of Barton and 900 metres north of Haslingfield to the east lies Lords Bridge Observatory which partially splits the application site into a northern and southern section to the south lies Brook Farmhouse which is a grade 2 listed building a small part of the west and most part of the site lies within flood zones 2 and 3 the Lords Bridge Observatory lies is a county wildlife site along the north of the site runs a public right of way bridalway the whole site falls within Cambridge Greenbelt and is classified as Grade 3a agricultural land which is good quality and categorised as best most versatile land this is just showing an aerial photograph of the site the site is mostly open with exception to one small cops of trees and a short length of hedgerow present in the central part of the site the eastern boundary is formed by Barton Road and there is a mixture of hedges along this boundary the hedges vary in size but there are some areas which are open which allow for wide views across the site the public right of way runs behind a strong mature headline a Brook Forms part of the southern boundary beyond which lies an access track to Brook Farm however the remaining part of the boundary is entirely open as it cuts through a large field the western edges appear are formed by a mixture of young woodland and thick hedges with some open area the land across the site is level just explaining the proposal so the application is seeking permission for the installation of a solar farm the electricity created would be supplied privately to the university an application for a pipeline will be submitted separately so ground mounted solar panels would be installed across the site five inverter stations would be installed throughout the site one here here here here and here and then two substations would be located in close proximity to the welfare area just one here and then one down here this is just showing the sections of the solar panels and an image of the proposed inverter the panels would have a maximum height of ground of 2.67 metres no with me sorry so new landscaping would be added to the site as shown by this plan it might be difficult to read what these small sections here say so I'll just read them out so here pointing to here states that are buffer of at least 10 metres along Brook and the arrays over here it states that fields will be sown with wildflower grass mix around and below the solar panels there's a 5 metre buffer from the ditch which is down here this is showing new thicket planting on here and then also down here and they're going to re sorry a new hedgerow here added for additional screening along here they're going to reinforce the hedgerow and manage at 3 metres down on the south the buffer there will be a buffer of at least 5 metres to protect waterfall habitats plan is to reinstate former field boundaries with native hedgerows and along here new hedgerow planted to broadly follow historic field patterns this is just showing the proposed landscape sections as well as a typical image of the 2 metre high deer fence which will go around the boundary of the site so a new access would be created from Barton Road and it's demonstrated by these plans also show the sweat path analysis this is a detailed plan of the welfare area it contains generators stores, contractor facilities and parking the orange section to the north will be a hard standing area with one of the substations and then you can partially see the second substation just to the south here so the next few slides are showing the key views as agreed between the applicant and the landscape officer the views show the existing top, year 1 and year 15 just covered the close up views firstly so this is key view 7 it's from the southern boundary near Brook Farm House looking north west this is view 19 which is here it's the view from Barton Road at the entrance to the access track to Brook Farm and it's looking north west this is view 20 and it's a view from one of the gaps within the hedgerow along Barton Road looking south west and this is view 22 here so it's showing the view from the gap in the hedgerow along the bridal way and it's looking south west so moving to the further away views so this is from number 14 which is here it's from a public footpath and it's looking north east just to show also pointing out radio telescope here and demonstrating the approximate extent of the site so view 15 is again looking from a public footpath and is looking north view 16 is also from a public footpath and again looking north and they're showing the approximate extent of the site and finally view 17 again from a public footpath east and in these views you can spot the observatory here so the material considerations are renewable energy, loss of agricultural land inappropriate development within the green belt biodiversity, visual appearance and landscape impact impact on heritage assets, residential immunity and highway safety so looking at the planning balance first of all looking at the summary of the harm there would be a loss of best and most versatile land however this is temporary and the applicants have provided a sequential test demonstrating that this site is the best option for the needs of the applicant the loss of arable food production in three and a half fields would have a minor impact on food security there would be some harm to the landscape character however this would be limited to the site itself and immediate surrounding areas in addition this can be mitigated over time by landscaping inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt it is considered that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the spatial openness of the green belt and moderate harm in terms of visual openness paragraph 147 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances so turning to the benefits the applicant has provided a case for very special circumstances in terms of reduction of carbon emissions the applicant states that the solar farm would create 26% of the university's consumption which would reduce carbon emissions by 14,860 tonnes of carbon dioxide in terms of biodiversity net gain the submitted assessment has concluded there will be a net gain of 184% 173 biodiversity units in terms of research benefits the university is a world renowned educational institution and they aim to provide an example of what is achievable it is argued that the development will provide an opportunity to develop green technology as well as research and teaching resources and finally economic benefits there will be the provision of jobs for the construction and decommissioning of the solar farm but this would be temporary so only limited weight officers recommend approval subject to the planning conditions as per the officer report and the additional conditions mentioned earlier in the presentation along with confirmation from the secretary of state as to whether they wish to for the application to be called in for determination thank you chair thank you very much we now come to questions for the clarification of the officer have I got any questions Chancellor Wilson thank you I've got a couple of questions if that's all right I noticed in the year one photographs those young trees with them covers on them and I wondered after what we've seen happening on the A14 whether there would be plants in place to require those trees to be looked after properly so they do grow and so we do get the result seen in the photographs of the later years and said that this was the only viable option I just wanted how many other options have been considered and also we're told that this would buy 26% of the energy for the University of Cambridge how do we define the University of Cambridge because is it the Central University is it the colleges what does that 26% encompass thank you so we have attached a landscaping condition for a kind of landscape management and maintenance plan which so that should cover any replacement of trees which have been damaged so the information regarding the options available that was more written within the agricultural loss of land the applicant provided a statement with a list of sites which were in their ownership and of an adequate size to house a solar farm that provide this much energy and it demonstrates that this was the best site as other sites I think all within the green belt other sites had higher levels of agricultural land classification so grade 2 and they had also stated that rooftops within existing University buildings are currently they're looking at currently adding to those if they do not already have them and they stated the University does not own any brine field sites capable of a solar farm of this size unfortunately I'm probably not in the best person in position to explain what the definition of the University of Cambridge is to answer that last question I'm afraid Councillor Sanford Thank you chair obviously on its own solar farm is no use at all, I need to be pylons and caving to take the electricity to Cambridge I didn't see any obvious space in this site where a pylon might be erected can you clarify the situation with onward transmission of power please The connection to the University of Cambridge will be dealt with under a separate application so no details of that have been submitted as part of this application Can I have clarification that in terms of assessing this application the other application of access to Cambridge to material matter consider Yes, through you chair, that's correct Sorry, please Councillor Yveth Thank you chair I was just wondering do biodiversity calculations take into account the temporary nature of the application and would any of the improvements be expected to be maintained after the 40 years lifetime of the solar farm So the decommissioning condition does actually refer to biodiversity mitigation methods so that would be considered when they come in with that information regarding that decommissioning plan Councillor Hanley Thank you I just want to get my I just want to get this straight in my head We've been asked to approve this but not to consider how the electricity is going to be taken by this plant to its ultimate destination so it could be a load of pylons for all we know which wouldn't go down well so if we were to approve this and then subsequently find a load of pylons that we are going across it would be very popular frankly Is that normal? I'm sorry, I'm showing my lack of knowledge here but is it normal? I would ask a comment from Phil McAllister Three chair I think it just does depend on the nature of the application you're being asked to deal with obviously if you're going into the grid normally then I would expect that accessibility is fairly local to the site and may well be less problematic in terms of how this is proposed but the detailed work has been looked at in terms of the connectivity at this point that may be a question for the applicants who I think do speak but we're not being asked to consider the issue of connectivity with this application if obviously when that comes forward that was to come to planning committee you would consider visual impact if that was that application Chairman, I'm new to planning but I do find it incredulous that on the last application how people got there and from there was the whole part of the debate and yet it's not on this one so I can't see why we can't that is not connected to the actual application because my view may change entirely if the cabling is discrete as opposed to not so much we deal with the situation as it is it's a crazy legal process we're dealing with the application that is before us therefore we have to deal with that situation I'm sorry that's the advice we have been given by our officers please take note of it just a small question on agricultural land what type is it please in terms of the classification yes please I've just been told but please carry on okay it's grade 3a classification are we any further questions thank you very much we have no speakers we have no speakers objecting to the application we do have the applicant to speak so Dr Jonathan Guy and Professor Emily Schupper are they available just to remind you you have three minutes to speak I will stop you to ask you to finish your sentence if you reach the three minutes so please put your off points clearly I'm succinctly looking forward to hearing you thank you very much chair climate change is among the most pressing problems facing humanity and the University of Cambridge recognises its responsibility to use its position as one of the world's foremost academic institutions to take a leading role in decarbonising the global economy the UK has committed to reach net zero emissions by 2050 with a 68% reduction in emissions by 2030 and the University of Cambridge has adopted science-based targets for carbon reduction at the University to do so and that commits the University to reducing its energy related carbon emissions to absolute zero by 2048 with an ambition to do so by 2038 the solar farm proposal in front of you is a really important component of that ambitious decarbonisation plans and as you've heard it would generate approximately 30 gigawatt hours per year the development would be on a relatively low grade agricultural land within Greenbelt but we suggest that it does meet the very special circumstances provision that means that it should never less be allowed in particular there are considerable wider environmental benefits from the substantial contribution to decarbonisation both directly and as you've heard in terms of the wider indirect benefits delivered by the associated teaching and research at the University the development will also reduce the stress on the regional electricity grid which is substantial by taking the equivalent of energy to more than 7500 homes off the system thereby freeing it up for domestic use measures to improve biodiversity of the land for example as you've heard through the introduction and maintenance of wildflower meadows on the site by additional environmental benefits increasing pollinators such as bees for example Detail considerations have also been given to the broader impact of the development including as you've heard mitigating the visual impacts with tree planting but also using cradle sustainable solar panels as part of the development The developments are temporary one designed to be in place for 40 years with this site being returned to agricultural land thereafter and just a note because it's came up and some of the questions the intention is for a private wire to be buried to bring the energy to the University So in summary we believe that the development would present a strong positive contribution to the region and therefore should be approved Thank you Thank you Now I have nothing more to add Thank you Thank you very much indeed Have you councillor got the questions of the applicant councillor Thank you chair I just wondered what you meant by cradle to cradle so the panels please Yes certainly I can answer that for you A number of certifications that are available to describe the sustainability in its broad terms of products that are for sale in the market Many of them alas are a significant amount of greenwash to them. We've looked quite carefully at a number of certification processes The cradle to cradle certification process is one which is both transparent, is auditable and meets the objectives of the University's sustainability strategy. So therefore we can use those to ensure that not only are the materials that the panels are made from are fully recyclable could be used at intended purposes We know that the energy used to produce them is next zero that the manufacture of those panels does not involve significant damage to air, soil or water phases such as discharges to water or land or air and that the manufacturing process employs people who are treated fairly within their employment rights and their health and safety provision So that's why we make a choice to use those panels, rather than others that have less good performance on those standards. Okay, councillor Wilson please I'm pleased with my question that I put to the officer You put forward that this will cover 26% of the University's consumption of power and obviously the University has varied sites, varied buildings varied institutions What does that 26% represent please? Maybe I can answer that question, so that 26% is 26% of the of the energy requirements of the University itself which means the University and its academic departments rather than the colleges so that's the difference between the two and the energy requirements that the University itself are particularly substantial given the research nature of the University. So would that also include sites like the North West Cambridge site and those other sort of out of city sites as well? Yes it does, so it includes all of the main teaching research campuses of the University so the West Cambridge campus Siegwick, the new museum site all those normal ones which you would associate with the teaching activities and the research activities of the University are included within that 26% that we've described there that this solar panel would replace that this solar panel would replace the energy consumption of. Okay, Councillor Hawkins. Thank you chair. Just to clarify the equivalent of your 30,000 457 megawatts in terms of buildings, number of buildings or average homes, what is that? So it's the equivalent of more than 7500 homes. The annual energy that would be produced is equivalent to the annual energy used by more than 7500 homes and as I mentioned that's important because there's a real strain on the local energy grid and especially as we're moving to more electrification and by taking that off and into a private supply to the University through this solar farm we'd be releasing the stress on the regional electricity grid and that is an important consideration. Thank you for that and my second question is the selection of this particular site. Can you tell us how you came about this one? Of course the University has lots of land. Why this? Okay, so those are the very sensible questions. So we looked at a number of sites across the University's land holdings where we needed to be able to identify a site that was large enough to support a significant development that we were able to ensure that we'd be able to take the energy from that site back to the University and that was not going to significantly impact the quality of land that was used and so therefore the other sites which we looked at all had much higher quality agricultural land and so this made sense from a number of those perspectives so that we were doing on the lowest grade land that we were in ownership of had the easiest links or easier links to our University campus and that we minimised, if you like, our effect in the broader term on the environment so they were considerations we gave in so this is of those sites given the most especially from an impact on agricultural land quality. Thank you very much, if I may Chair, just one more. Your community engagement was lacking from what I've read here. Can you clarify that please? Why didn't you engage with the community properly? I think that's a reasonable question. A lot of it was caught up within Covid and the communications that went on there and so we were unable to come out and talk to people in the way which we normally would and unfortunately a letter that came from one of the residents got lost in the joys of the University's communication system but we have subsequently engaged with those people more recently and will be going out to visit in the next month to discuss further. There were other other particular residents who we've spoken to and we've been out to discuss the implications of the development on their property and the issues that they had raised and we believe that those have not been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Thank you, if I may you realise that there is this demonoss thing with the University and the rest of Cambridge you really should do better. Yes, we are hearing you there. Thank you now. I have a question. You say that you are reduced the pressure on the network but the solar farm were all predominantly produced in the maximum in the summer and at least in winter when the pressure on the network is highest. So how do you propose to alleviate that? Are you proposing storage links or battery storage elsewhere? How do you plan to reduce actually reduce the network at the peak periods which are the most important from the electrical supply point to do? Exactly, that's a reasonable question to ask and is endemic with any application for renewables. What we are particularly able to do with this application is look to see if we can use the science techniques and science capabilities and research capabilities of the University to look at storage facilities in order for us to be able to store and release energy at a more a meeting with time to reduce load on the grid so that would be particularly important around diurnal changes where we would be able to do that sort of taking in energy and then releasing it at greater times when the demand is highest grid. Councillor Redrop, second time. Thank you. I just want to follow up. You mentioned that the cradle to cradle solar panels were made with more recyclable materials. I think we've heard in the media that recycling solar panels is going to become a massive problem so I just wondered what you were doing to address that please. Exactly, that's precisely why we've chosen to look at different certification schemes for the panel choice and so those are the ones where we're using a, if you like, an auditable and transparent quality certification process. We are able to understand what the recycling capabilities of those panels are. In actual fact, for these panels I believe that they are. There's a level of certification that goes from bronze up to platinum. These are silver graded panels so it means significant proportion of their material is returned back to its intended purpose which is the whole point. We need to try and keep materials held at their existing use and that's why we propose to use these panels. Thank you chair. I'd just like to invite to comment on something that was drawn to our attention by the community's team. This is a paragraph 652 in our papers. Many solar farms provide community benefit farmers to host communities. It doesn't say that this one doesn't and furthermore, it's not a material consideration but I wondered whether you might want to comment on that. Yes, we have considered whether there was an ability to provide those sorts of benefits. Unfortunately for us to provide that we would have to become an energy supplier in our own right as a university as any other energy company and that's obviously not within the bands of the university's normal activities and we wouldn't wish to start to move work in that space. So that's why we haven't done the work that perhaps the approach that some other solar panel farms might propose to operate. Okay, there's two more questions and I propose that we get to debate. Okay, councillor Sanford. Thank you chair. I wonder if the university representatives can explain why they're referring this as a 40-year project, temporary project. Isn't the reality this will become a permanent site given the need for electricity won't go away after 40 years? The approach there is based initially on our business case approach to say how long do we think we need to do this development before so that we can understand whether it's financially viable. The point is to make it 40 years in periods so we understand that we can deliver the program or the project and it will work. So therefore that's our approach and our business case approach to the project at the moment is to say that we will do it for a period of 40 years because that allows us to demonstrate to ourselves and to others that the project is viable. Councillor Wilson. Thank you. I was just wondering, is the land being farmed at present and if so by whom does this mean that is it rented or tenanted or will someone be evicted? That's really my question. Yes, you are correct. It is currently tenanted by a university tenant. Okay, thank you very much indeed. Now we'll move to the debate. Has anybody, do any of the councillers wish to speak? On the debate. Yeah, we'll counciller it over to the local member. Thank you chair. I obviously think that providing solar energy is very important and so I've been looking at this with interest as local member I have heard concerns from neighbouring neighbouring residents since I was very pleased to hear that there has now been communication with them which I hope is what the university people meant because they were concerned about consultation as raised by Councillor Hawkins. Sorry, I've lost my spot. I have a few questions that I'd be grateful for help with from the officer I guess particularly around the level of impact on the conservation assets, the heritage assets because the officer said that there was an impact on the grade two listed heritage property. I just wondered if there was any explanation they could give on that. And I was wondering about conditions and if it was possible to add any conditions about the solar panels being effectively recycled at the end of their lifetime. Also if there was any issues with solar glare on neighbouring residents if that could be remedied and added as a condition. I think there's currently a condition about impact on the highway but not about impact on neighbours. And lastly I just wondered why the biodiversity monitoring plan was for 30 years rather than 40 years and that's for the officer as well. Thank you. These are basically questions for the officer. Do you have any comments on that? I'll ask Charlotte if she wants to come back on those points. That's okay initially. Thank you sir. So in terms of the BNG the 30 year is the requirement of the Environment Act but I do believe that it would not be reasonable to change that to 40 years because that's for the length of the time that the solar farm would be in place. I'm sure Phil can disagree if he thinks that that's the case. Glinton Glare so they have submitted a Glinton Glare study and since actually they submitted the study they have removed some of the closest panels to Brookhouse and the impact of the Glinton Glare to the house will be dealt with by additional landscaping which is covered under the landscaping condition and I've gone completely blank on your other two questions so I'm sorry. Just repeat yourself there. I believe there was one on whether there could be a condition on the solar panels being effectively recycled at the end of their lifetime. Yes and it was conservation. So in terms of conservation the conservation officers comments are available online and they mention that because the main elevation of the listed building is actually to the south whereas the solar farm will be to the north that reduce the impact and they acknowledge that the setting would change but not significant enough because farmland changes over time and they believe they would not have any greater impact and it would also be mitigated by landscaping and in terms of the recycling so again there's the decommissioning condition you just find the current wording of that. So they would no less than one year prior to the expiry of the permission need to submit a decommissioning plan and at the moment the condition requires they detail how the equipment is to be removed from the site and how the land is returned to its former condition but I do not feel that would be unreasonable to add so that it shall detail how the equipment is to be removed and disposed of if that would work for you. Thank you. Yeah, couldn't we say instead of disposed of a recycled or re-purposed or perhaps some better wording there that we could find if anyone has any suggestions? Yeah, through you chair we can pick up that point as part of that condition that we should consider of dementia recycling. Thank you very much Councillor Fein. Before you go I would like to ask the applicants to please remove your video so that we don't get distracted by who we're talking to. Thank you chair. We're in the debate I can say that I am fully persuaded of the benefits of this scheme there are however some other factors to be considered. There is the fact that this is green belt land and of course on that point it is possible the Secretary of State may take a view. I wanted to focus on the land quality question. I wouldn't accept this is a relatively low grade land this is 3A which is best and most versatile land and we face potentially a food security crisis as well as an energy security crisis. However I do accept that the I think the written ministerial statement of 2015 is still relevant that any proposal for a solar farm involving BMV agricultural land would need to be justified by the most compelling evidence and so the question is has that been proven? Clearly meeting a quarter of the university's demand is important I think that was expressed in terms of the energy requirement of 7,500 houses which is evidently very significant. We're also required to take account of this being restricted to a 40 year period whether or not some of us think it might continue after that and I do take account of the fact there's a sequential test which showed that in relation to other land which might be considered this is relatively low value and I assume that's what Professor Schock probably meant in saying this is relatively low grade. So taking into account those factors and the possibility that the Secretary of State may take an interest in it being inappropriate development in the green belt otherwise inappropriate development in the green belt I'm very inclined to support and vote to approve this application Hi Councillor Howe That's very quick, I didn't expect it Thank you very much Chairman I'm minded not to support this because I see this as an industrialisation of the green belt and until I see a solar panel on every south facing roof in Cambridge University and also Parker's Police and also Jesus Green covered in solar panels because why not? That's rubbish land there that's not land that can ever be used for agricultural purposes I can't see why we have to spread out into the countryside into the prime green belt area Yes, it is grade 3a but there are other areas which we can put these solar panels first and therefore I do struggle to see why we should accept this application and therefore unless somebody says anything different I am minded not to support it Thank you Chairman Councillor Hawkins Thank you chair Whilst I hear Councillor Howell's viewpoint I don't believe that the individual installation of solar panels on buildings will actually give the level of quantity of electricity that is required to meet the same objective Having said that of course yes, this is a growing area and it's only going to require more electricity as we go electric and in some ways we have utility provisions in the green belt and there is we have looked at the balance the balance of this provision outweith the harm to the green belt in my view but at the end of the day Secretary of State might decide otherwise but I am minded to support this application Thank you Thank you chair With respect to solar panel versus agricultural and I not convinced it's a binary choice there's a application going through Huntingtonshire at the moment for a solar farm just off the A428 near Croxton they're seriously talking about whether it be feasible to grey sheep under the solar panels I'm sure given the mass intellect of the university they can come up with crops that could be grown in the shade if they're not minded to grey sheep but other than that I think this application has merit Thank you Chairman I was going to say that since there are no other speakers and I've been proven wrong every other time I've said that since there are no other speakers I'm going to propose that we now move to a vote on the recommendation before us I don't know whether I have a second for that We move to a vote on the application if you're voting to approve where if you're voting for we're voting to approve the application if you're voting against you're voting to refuse the application and so we'll have to go to the vote now and see what happens two additional conditions sorry sorry with the two additional conditions that were discussed it's about in favour with the two additional conditions okay wait a minute sorry what's up with the recycling yeah sorry sorry there's what, is everybody voting one, two, three there's one person I've voted sorry have you pressed the blue okay okay the application has approved thank you I now propose to stop for lunch I'm going to allow a 40 minute break because there's some people to make sure they have adequate time some people haven't brought their lunch and we'll be back at 20 to 2 okay welcome back to planning committee we're now item 7 on the agenda land north of 39A station road west west withlthford application 23 stroke 015 150 demolition of existing buildings creation of an access road from station road west and construction of a residential development of 48 number residential units together with associated landscaping car and cycle parking and refuse storage application before us because it's a departure application from the normal accepting number of dwellings in a small settlement of that size recommendation is to approve subject to conditions and completion of a section 106 agreement the present presenting office is Katie Christoli Christoli these and I thank ask you please to present to us the application thank you very much indeed thanks chair the application is at land north of 39 station road west withlthford it's for demolition of the existing buildings creation of an access road the station road west and construction of residential development of 48 residential units together with landscaping car and cycle parking and refuse storage the site lies within the development framework framework of Wittlesford bridge and comprises of 1.27 hectares of brownfield site the site is bounded to the north and west by agricultural land in the green belt and to the east lies the Cambridge to London railway line the south lies Wittlesford road west comprising of residential Wittlesford road and Wittlesford parkway station and the village vet practice the site is currently vacant as a number of former uses including the scrap yard the site lies within flood zone 1 low risk and is heavily contaminated due to its previous uses the two photographs at the top show the existing site and its condition and then this bottom photograph shows the existing bungalow which forms 39a which is to be demolished to allow the vehicle access to the site off the station road west so this photograph which is all two photographs which is cited shows a site within within the site you can see various land levels ground levels the sloping banks at the sides another site photographs there showing the situation this is taken from the LVIA document the top photograph shows is taken from Wittlesford bridge over the railway line and shows the site which is heavily screened by the current trees the bottom photograph is the CGI which just shows what the development would look like so you've got properties here and then some more long distance views which shows the proposal from Duxford road to the existing situation and then the proposed what it would look like and then from the A1301 in Saustin which is north of the roundabout of the A505 looking south west there's a long planning history of the site in which outline consent was granted in 2018 for the redevelopment of the site for residential use with all matters reserved subsequently the reserve matters applications for 67 residential units and a full planning application for 8 residential units which were refused in 2022 by planning committee on the grounds of visual impact harm to landscape and greenbelt and harm to the immunity of future occupies of the development so this screen on the left shows refused site plan which was for the application for 67 units there is currently just for members a live planning appeal for this reserve matters application and then on the right is the scheme that we're looking at today which is full application for 48 units comprising 20 dwellings and 28 apartments landscaping car and cycle parking and refuse storage reserve matters application the application has reduced the number of units down and the density the houses and the blocks are sighted around the central green central green space here and the houses are re-orientated appropriate to the character of the area the blocks of flats which these two blocks here have been reduced to two and there's large central landscape square here and the distances have increased and feather trees and landscaping have been added to the boundaries which has softened the boundaries and also the materials have been softened to the design you can see the access road here which comes off of station road left that's a CGI here just showing what the proposed development would look like you've got the railway line here and then station road west which lies along here this is elevations of floor plans floor block B which is sighted here which is three stories in height would be 9.4 metres block C which is here which is similar height and then the elevations floor plans for the houses along here elevations for those ones and then finally for the semi-detached houses along here floor plans as well the proposal will provide 94 car parking spaces comprising of 48 spaces in the basements showing the basements which is accessed off of the access road and this basement would be sighted under the block of flats B and C and it also includes five accessible spaces then the on-site car parking each individual dwellings will have 20 spaces will there be 20 spaces for the dwellings which will be in garages and then 26 surface spaces just to note that on the committee reports the proposal won't provide 31 visitor spaces as stated in the report and then the proposal meets cycle parking requirements as well just for members to note as well that in regard to the committee report in paragraph 8.83 under car parking the proposal falls slightly short of EB charging points therefore it's recommended to members should approval be sought today that a condition gets added in regards to that so that's the wording of the condition just requiring a lecture of vehicle charging scheme further CGI is just showing what the proposal would look like in the site so the proposal would result in net gain of 22.62% for habitats and 19.6% for head rows that would be in accordance with policy NIH routine so there would be head rows and fully landscape scheme within the site communal kind of open space and play structure proposal is not going to result in landscape calm sustainability the scheme would maximise massing of position of units to south facing improve the fabric beyond compliance with part L building regs, air tightness natural ventilation and low energy lighting electrical appliance and would result in a 54% reduction carbon emissions and ensure that it's no more than 110 litres of water per person per day there's a number of contributions which are sought as part of the section 106 no affordable housing is proposed on site viability study was submitted by the applicant in which it was reviewed by independent assessor BNP Paribas Real Estate since the committee report was published, further comments by this independent assessor BNP Paribas Real Estate have been received in regard to the applicant's viability appraisal BNP Paribas Real Estate had requested further information in regards to remediation costs and benchmark demand value from the applicant this was received and BNP Paribas Real Estate have come back stating that the scheme with 100% market housing would produce a surplus of £234,000 against the viability benchmark as a result commuted some for affordable housing of the surplus of this figure will be sought as a planning obligation through section 106 agreement as part of section 106 agreement a review mechanism was also proposed following completion of the remediation works of site clearance so main considerations are principle proposal conflicts with S10 of the local plan however given the plan of history the reduction the number of dwellings the use of a brand full site in the village framework or balances proposal was considered acceptable affordable housing commuted some sought through section 106 the design is a high quality design that respects the surroundings and the character of the area high risk safety would result in the provision of safe access in accordance with policy neighbourhood acceptable relationship with the neighbouring properties on site biodiversity net gain hubdats and hedgerows rosa wood pride positive impact on landscape and visual immunity of the area and just summarising again the material considerations there thank you chair thank you very much now we move on to questions from councillors have you got any questions thank you chair are we convinced the garages are actually large enough to accommodate a motor car we've had a few instances recently where the garages have been minimalist to put it lightly and there isn't a lot of overspill parking space at least on the side yeah we consider them to be sufficient space councillor Wilson I thought there were the hands up before me I've noticed looking at the apartment block that many of the apartments only have one window windows at one end so there's no possibility of a through draft so what is proposed to avoid solar gain or to provide for ventilation in those properties we were generally happy with what was being proposed in terms of the apartment blocks and the orientation and the impact there it's just that I have knowledge of similar apartments where there's only one side that has airflow and it gets very hot very quickly and impossible to ventilate and especially if any of them are facing south the solar gain can be quite tremendous so what provision is provided within those flats, those apartments to actually overcome that through you chair there is a requirement now in part O of the building regulations which deals with overheating so as part of what they're required to meet under those regulations they would have to satisfy part O on any overheating requirements so in terms of that detailed design obviously that work would have to be done for building regulation stage and if there was material change to the elevations they would probably have to look at whether they need to amend the planning application as well as part of that but until they do that design work they won't know where they are with that part O building regs Councillor Hawkins thank you chair can we actually have the floor plan of the apartment building up again please it's just following on from Councillor Wilson it's if you've got a single aspect there's also lighting issue potentially to habitable rooms and also that glass is back on there's concern about the front of the plot parking spaces 8.87 which when I let's deal with this one first is it possible to point out where the habitable rooms are cos obviously if you've got the front is living room means the bedrooms are the back are you able to move it it needs to be a bit bigger yes so where my point of interest that's west and then that's east so a three chair so the ones in the corner have obviously got aspect of the north north is the one obviously the ones in the middle have got the single aspect for me that's an additional concern really but not to mention we don't have a policy that says we want a single aspect flat in our local plan I accept that it's perhaps not the ideal scenario but there's nothing in policy terms that says we will only accept dual aspect residential accommodation in our policy those ones though will be more subject more to the issue of heating and light all that which is if people are going to live there the well-being, the amenity is important and in addition to that 8.35 there's also concern about the amenity space you know from gardens 8.5 I don't know and 8.87 as I mentioned earlier so there's yes I can see that the design in this case is better than what we had before but there's still stuff that's not right but anyway I just thought I'd point those out thank you Have you got any more questions? We can serve Thank you I just wondered it mentioned that there was a planning and spectra appeal for the application for 67 residential units still pending I just wondered if there was any news on that and if that had any bearing on what we decide today So it's a very recent appeal it's still pending so there's no update in terms of that just to be mindful of the fact that that is a live appeal we're waiting the outcome of that Sorry so does that mean that if we have approved this one, if that appeal was and I'll never get the wording if they were then allowed to do the 67 that could override what we decide today is that right? Yeah through each year potentially yes if the inspector allows it and if this scheme more to be done for the application we'll have the choice of implementing that reserve matters or or this application The question was asked whether that whether we should take an account of that application and that appeal in the decision making but I would sort of keep it separately done independently Yeah through each year it's not a decision that's been made yet so it's not a fallback position for the applicant at this time so now you need to treat this application separately and on some merit So Councillor Fain Thank you chair I had a question relating to affordable housing paragraph 819 onwards Clearly on the site of this size we would normally expect approximately 19 affordable units to be provided and I understand that there are additional costs to developing a brownfield site but there's a very wide range of additional costs and that seems to depend on whether there are existing services to work around whether there's piling, whether there's been landfill didn't seem to me that any of those special circumstances that would increase the additional costs would apply in this case Now there was a figure mentioned in 822 of 100,991 and then I think the case officer mentioned another figure, 230,000 or so and I'm not quite sure where we are on the additional, the surplus maybe left over and how that would be used for affordable Through you chair So there were some elements of the imports into the the Africans viability appraisal which were queried by BMP Parable in their assessment of that appraisal and that was around the decontamination costs associated with this site which are significant and also the benchmark land value and in particular the value that the applicant was putting on the bungalow and in their response to those queries of the applicant they'd come back with a revised assessment based on the additional information that had been provided and have in their view been able to increase that surplus based on a slight reduction in the decontamination cost and a slight reduction in the value that the applicant was putting on the bungalow so that's meant that that surplus has been able to be increased and in terms of increasing that surplus that has meant that you commuted some for a formal housing is able to be increased consequently Yn bryd, councillor Bedrop anymore? Thank you chair. At the site visit yesterday it was mentioned that the required path went in just one direction towards the road junction but I'm looking at condition 16 on page 113 that mentions both the westly and the eastly path I was just wondering which was correct please. You have the condition on the report so it will go both in the east and westly direction that's great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now we move on to speakers we have a little submission from the parish council has been circulated to councillors and it's been published council which Williams I should emphasize has withdrawn from the application who will speak as a local member but first of all would the agent please speak the developer of the proposal Mr Lorenzo Pandolfi from Logic Panning and he is online Just to emphasise your mind do we allow three minutes if it's a end of three minutes I'll ask you if you're sort of speaking I'll ask you to finish your sentence and we'll do this both to proposers and other speaking on this application. Thank you very much. I'd like to. So just remember to keep concise until the point otherwise you might exceed it. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Can you just confirm that you can hear me properly and see me? Thank you. Thank you. I will start now. Thank you for letting me speak. The application in front of you is the culmination of meaningful dialogue with the council's officers and the community and the parish council. We have engaged with all parties through formal pre-application meetings several presentations for parish all and the constructive dialogue with external stakeholders to ensure this is a project that could work for the wider community. We have responded to all the issues raised in the previous applications and those raised during the public consultation. We have refined the project to arrive at the layout, massing and mix of units that could fit in the village and help the council in boosting housing supply in sustainable location. The site has some unique challenges. It's a brownfield site with an historic polluting and noisy use located right next to a train station at a walking distance from the centre of the village. It's currently in a very poor condition as you probably have seen yesterday. Yet it has a lot of potential for biodiversity and landscaping improvements. As you can see in the committee report, all the technical consultees included the landscape and urban design officers support the approval of the application. With us for parish council has raised issues relating to affordable housing access and traffic around the station and we have sought to address all these matters as far as possible through a constructive dialogue with them and obviously the council officers. Access and parking matters within the site have been addressed with condition and we also know that the highway authority supports the scheme. Unfortunately, the applicant has little control over the parking issues affecting the joining streets. However, the applicant will pay a section of six contribution of approximately £42,000 towards the preparation of the Withersforce Station masterplan which will address many of the issues in the area. Finally, the applicant has agreed to a financial contribution towards affordable housing that revised some which we strongly hope will be directed to the provision of affordable housing in the village and we also note that other contributions will be directed towards local infrastructure such as sport facilities public footpaths, schools and the refurbishment of Withersforce Parish Hall. In summary we think we have resolved or mitigated the issues raised by all the consultees and that we will improve the local area with local, with direct benefits. The proposal will create new homes of various sizes for different segments of the community and the new green space. This polluted site will be cleared up once for all. The biodiversity net gain will be doubled that required by law and the energy performance of the new homes will be 10% above Billing Greg's compliant baseline. Withersforce will benefit from a sensible contemporary yet respectful new residential area and that will fit in the local landscape and preserve it as well in the long term. So we hope that you will be able to support the recommendation of your officers and approve this planning application. Thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed. I have any questions from members. Councillor Hawkins. Thank you chair. You've got your design includes flats with single aspect only. Why? Thanks for your question. If we can go back to the drawings or even, I mean, we've seen it. One element which is difficult to resolve which is if we put a block of flats with a rectangular footprint some of the flats will necessarily have less aspects than others. What we try to do to mitigate this if you see the central flats will have a projecting bay window where there would be a terrace but also a part of the living and dining room will project forward with two lateral windows which will not create a new aspect per se because it's not a new wall but there will be more air circulation laterally than in a fully single aspect flat. So in reality what we try to achieve is to something which is more than a single aspect is not, I cannot say it is a double aspect because that will mean having a second wall on a different side but the fact that the bay is projecting will allow air and light to enter also from the site in the main living space which will have very good impacts on microclimates and overeating and also outlook so I think that's what the architect has tried to achieve. Any oth