icer should be asked to deal with that question. Thank you. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Sharon. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, if Councillor Browning was referring to the construction management plan condition. Was that the one condition 50? No, it was condition 57B. Sorry, that's right, construction management. It was on page 189. There's no reason why we can't make that clear as part B, part B of condition 57 now. So I think the wording was without access to residential roads. I'm sure Councillor Smith had some wording which I'm sure it can be captured from the tape. Well, I'm sure Mike and you know what we want to achieve there. I wrote it down when Councillor Smith mentioned it. Good. Can I just have the answer about the neighbourhood plan referenced in the document? That's paragraph 16. Thank you very much. Page 16, sorry. Okay. And we will return to the conditioning. This is page 16, the later stage. So if Mike, you could be ready with some words for 57B. Did you want to introduce the other ones, Councillor Bredman? Sorry, do you mean on the other subjects? I thought you were going to go through theme by theme. Yeah, I'm sorry. So I'd better not... I'll come back later on. ...sell up on it. Okay, are you all right on transport now? Yes, I'm finished on transport. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Chair, you have other speakers. Yeah, please. They're all on transport. So you have Councillor Heather Williams, Councillor Martin Kahn, Councillor Judith Rippus, and... Too many. I can't take on too much at once. Okay, Councillor Heather Williams and Councillor Martin Kahn. Okay, Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you, Chairman. I want to just raise this first before I go into the transport issues, that we've heard from the public speakers, from local members, and I'm sure a big part of our debates and looking at this proposal will centre around the conditions. And I am a bit nervous about that, given the recommendation being delegated approval, and also that it is possible for... We could have a very lengthy debate today, get ourselves to a point of condition being satisfactory on one element or another, and then it could be changed. And it could be changed in a way that we then wouldn't perhaps feel comfortable with it being forward or wouldn't think it was adequate. So I'm minded to propose that any conditions that are related to this application if there becomes need for any of them to be varied, that they do come back to committee, because this is... I think that's in the public interest. And also for us to take all the time that we're going to do today and for the public to be able to make their representations and the requests, I think it's important that any conditions come back to committee. So before going into the transport section, I'm just wondering, Chairman, through yourself if we can deal with that issue. Yes, let's deal with that. Mike, could you just put up the actual recommendation as it stands at the moment, please? And Sharon Brown has offered to speak. Right, okay. We'll just see if we can get the wording up so we know what we're talking about. I'll just find the report and I'll just share it. In the meantime, Sharon, did you want to contribute? Yes, Chair, thank you. I think when you've got a scheme of the scale of this one, there are a very large number of conditions attached to any permission that is granted. I think in some instances, very minor changes can be made to the wording of the condition. That may be in conjunction with the technical specialists that have been advising on those conditions. So I think in terms of reporting any conditions back to committee, it really needs to be those very, very key conditions that members are particularly focused on. It wouldn't be appropriate for all the conditions to be reported back to committee. I would suggest, Chair. Thank you. All right, thank you. Chairman, can I respond to that? In a moment, I'm hoping that we can look at the conditions, the actual recommendation. Can we just double check that this is the latest amended version, Chair? It doesn't look like it. The recommendation, Mike, is now on the supplementary document. Chairman, I was just referring to all the text below the recommendation. So below the text of the recommendation, it says planning conditions are set up below with the final wording of any amendments to these and to include others considered to be appropriate and necessary to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and the Vice-Chair of Planning Committee prior to the issue of planning permission. So that's the bit. That's the bit that adds up where there's anything that Sharon talked about before. That was the delegation. And then it was the line above outline planning permission to be granted. It was delegated approval because that was the same wording that we used on the Urban and Civic planning permission. That's why we changed the text so it aligned with the Urban and Civic one. But the bit below is the paragraph 1113 is the one that gives that bit of extra ability to make some minor tweaks and changes to be agreed with yourself and the Vice-Chair. Yeah. And as Sharon Brown was saying, that clearly the Vice-Chair and myself would not actually agree to anything fundamentally changed. Not. The meaning of any of the conditioning. Not. So I mean the question then, Councillor Williams, is whether or not you're satisfied with that? I'm afraid I'm not Chairman because it's in consultation but ultimately it wouldn't be your decision. And I think the word minor is very subjective to the person and what one person could see as minor and another could see as not. And I refer back to the previous application where something on contaminated land, which I didn't raise at committee because I felt that the conditions was strong enough, then was varied under delegated authority to one that I wouldn't be comfortable with. And I'm afraid I'm a little bit of once, bit and twice shy. And I appreciate some things would be minor, but then they wouldn't take a lot of committee's time if they were so minor. And of course not all these conditions will be trained. So I do think they should be coming to committee given the public interest. It has been explained to you already the practicalities of that. I believe the public interest outweighs the time that it would take. All right, do you want to put that as a proposal then? The committee then decided. So what is your proposal? My proposal is that all conditions that are agreed on the planning application and brought up through the course of the meeting, if they are subsequently requested to be varied, that that there will be a decision made by planning committee at future meetings. All right, thank you very much for that then. So members, have I got a seconder for that? Does anybody wish to second that proposal? I'm happy to second that proposal chair particularly. Does anybody want to speak to it? No, I haven't heard anybody else. And yes, Councillor Peter Fein. Oh, Peter Fein. Yeah, Councillor Fein please. Thank you chair. No, I would oppose this suggestion. I think it's very important to give our planning officers some authority to act on our behalf to proceed with an element of trust, both in the planning officers and in yourself and your vice chair. And not to hinder that capacity. I'm very satisfied with the words that have just been shown to us in Para 1113, which I think ensures that we can get the outcome we need that reflects the views of the committee without hindering the planning officers in their role. So I would oppose this proposal. Thank you very much for that. Next is the Doctor Tumi Hawkins. Councillor Hawkins please. Sorry, thank you chair. I'm not sure I quite understood what Councillor Williams, Heather Williams was about. Is it to make every condition that is applied to this application if it needs to be varied to come back to planning committee? I believe that is the point, yes. Wow, okay. No, I would concur with what Councillor Fein has said. We cannot bring everything back to planning committee. There needs to be an element of letting the professionals deal with issues like this. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Nick Wright. All right, Councillor Nick Wright please. I would like to speak in favour of this proposal. Again, we're seeing another planning application come to committee where councillors are making it up as we go along and officers are altering conditions or not altering. It will be delegated. We have to vote on what's in front of us. If conditions are going to be changed, it should come back to planning committee where they can be duly considered and voted on what's in front of us then. Instead of doing this weird thing of having an application put in front of us and everyone bending over backwards to try and approve it by altering all the conditions, and it's not good planning. It's not clear, it's not transparent and disappointing, so I would support this. All right, thank you very much. Myself, Councillor Richard Williams. Councillor Haley, is that what he is? Yes, I really am concerned that there's confusion and misrepresentation here. Since I've become a member of this planning committee, we have had multiple proposals where we've agreed to not only the conditions already in a planning application, but we've proposed others and any type of wording that's needed in terms of making those viable with the applicant or the consultees. We've enabled that to be through delegated in consultation with the chair and vice chair, and I assume this was practice in the time before our administration as well. When I hear varying a condition, when we talk about varying a key condition, varying any of those conditions, as we heard from Sharon Brown and from the officer, that is different. We do have conditions that come back to committee when a condition is being varied. I think here that seems to be a bit of obfuscation in terms of wording that we've been very comfortable with before. What we have in front of us are very serious conditions, and if we do go down the route to a final determination on this application, they would be the binding ones. And what we understand is it is just the final wording, but the spirit and principle of what is agreed at committee would be part of that. However, a varying of that once approved, I imagine obviously would come back to committee as always. And I fear that we're having deliberate confusion instilled here. I would be against this because it would make the whole planning process unmanageable. But what we will discuss here and what we will agree are the binding conditions. Thanks chair. All right, thank you very much for that. And next speaker was? Councillor Richard William, who's speaking is second, but you also have Councillor Deborah Roberts and Councillor Heather Williams. I'm happy to go after Councillor Roberts. Yes. Okay, thank you. Councillor Roberts, please. Thank you very much, Chairman. Well, your first, Chairman, has actually just laid out the reasons why that this is a good idea to support this, because it's a huge application, very serious considerations to be taken into account. And I really was quite alarmed at her comment, which was that, in consultation with the applicant, we'll discuss the viability with the applicant when we may be thinking about changing conditions. Now, these conditions either are serious or they're not serious. And it seems to me that if they are serious, then if there's going to be changes to them, and come on, we know this happens. We know that we've got parish councils who are absolutely outraged by some of the changes that have been made after approvals been given on conditions, but we're not, you know, we're not out of the deep water here. And we have to remember that report that's just been done about us. And I think it's absolutely imperative. Let's be democratic. Let's be open government. Let's be listening to the people. But, you know, in the end, it's not the officers who make the decisions. It's members. We are guided by officers. They're professionals. But at the end, it is upon us as the members, the elected members, because when it goes wrong, it's us that takes the rap. And you change some of these really serious conditions now. They can have a completely different meaning. And you bet your bottom dollar, the developer will be very pleased to speak with us about the viability of these conditions after today's meeting. If they get the approval, wouldn't you? I certainly would. Okay. Thank you very much. And Councillor Richard Williams. Thank you very much, Chair. I'll try to keep my comments brief. But just to say, yes, I obviously, I support this motion as second. I think there are special factors here. This is a huge planning application. I mean, we're talking about the future of a community, you know, and Water Beach is going to have to live with the build, the construction work of this, you know, for a very long time. And obviously, I think it's already been said once that community is there, it's there forever. It's vital that we get it right. It's an extremely important application. It's probably one of the most important applications that, you know, is likely to come before this committee, or certainly the most important type of application. And as a member of the committee, I want to be sure that I know what I'm approving. And if there's any change, I want to know about that. Now, I'm not sure. I'm not saying there'd be any, you know, underhand motive in changes, but I think the point has already been made. What's minor to some people is not minor to others. So we've heard a lot about where traffic goes and up which road in Water Beach. It might seem a minor point, but it's not minor for the residents of the village. So I think it's vitally important that we do see any changes because the significance of this application, the effect on the community, both the new and the existing community, and frankly, a simple point of democratic accountability. We are the ones who are taking this decision. We are the ones who want to be or who are accountable for it. And I want to know, given the importance of the conditions here, exactly what I'm approving if it comes to that. And if I do vote to approve it. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. And finally, Councillor Heather Williams, to sum up please. Thank you, Chairman. I won't labour the point too much, but I will respond slightly. I think Councillor Richard Williams has summed it up somewhat eloquently than I will. Some of the words that were picked out about deliberately confusing and misleading, I completely object to that. That's not the purpose of this at all. The purpose of this is to remove that because what's misleading is we have a long debate on a condition people leave this meeting feeling satisfied that that condition is in place and then a later date it gets varied and we haven't seen it and everything carries on. So it's not misleading people. It's not attempt to confuse people. It's an attempt to ensure that we see, as has been said, all the details and we see any conditions that are varied. And I will use the example of the contaminated land decision that was taken under delegated authority that changed from pre-commencement to preoccupation. Now, obviously somebody thought that was minor and I completely respect their judgment, but I don't. And that condition didn't come back to committee on over 6,000 houses. And it's exactly that sort of scenario that I wish to eradicate by doing this. And it's too important to get this wrong. Thank you, Chairman. Right. Thank you very much. I'm going to take a roll call then. So the proposal is that any changes, conditions would come back to the committee. So if you're in favor of that, yes, you're for. If you're against that, you're against. And if you wish to abstain, you abstain. So the vote for is for the conditions, any changes, conditions to come back to committee. So I'll start the roll call now. Councillor Bradman, please. Against. Against. Councillor Cardin, please. Yeah, we can hear you. I'm trying to, sorry, having trouble with the new, against. Against. Thank you. Councillor Fain. Against. Thank you. Councillor Hawkins. Against. Thank you. Councillor Halins. Against. Thank you. Councillor Rippith. Against. Thank you. Councillor Roberts. For Chairman. Oh, thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. For Chairman. Well, thank you. Councillor Richard Williams, four. Councillor Wright, please. Four. My vote is against, two, four. So it is seven against and four, four, so that's a motion, four. And having said that, I hope you can have some trust in in Councillor Halings and myself in that we wouldn't ever actually sign off a change to a condition that actually changed the meaning and the purpose of the committee. So if we get back then to where we were, I was with you then, Councillor Heather Williams, and did you have some comments on the transport issues? Thank you, Chairman. And just to reiterate, it's not about trust in yourselves, because actually you don't get the final decision officers do. But on transport, I think it is concerning about the fact that the county have a holding objection on such a large scale development. I would be supportive of the Grampian condition and hope that that wouldn't change. And the conditions that Councillor Hazel Smith also put out and suggested. I would like some further clarification around Cody Road and the construction traffic, because that does seem to be a particular issue. And what we can, what we could really do to relieve that potential pressure, because I heard that if this happened and that happened, then we could avoid it. But what's Plan B or C in any case? And I think that's on transport. And still would love to know what three out of five stars means. It sounds very strictly like. Right. Okay, thank you very much. Have we further speakers? Vice Chair. We did have. And so we had, on transport, as I understand, we had Councillor Martin Kahn and Councillor Judith Ripper. Right, fine. Councillor Kahn, then please. Yes, I really wanted to raise the issue of the article 106, section 106 agreement, where you're saying that any improvement in viability beyond the 30% would all go to transport. The affordable housing is a very big issue. I mean, it really is. So we have a policy of 40%. I think the idea that everything should go to transport is debatable. And I wanted to know whether this was inflexible, whether this was something which we could be looking to perhaps alter. For instance, perhaps any improvement could be divided between transport and affordable, as the housing, which are the two most critical issues perhaps in this area. Or not. We were not able to get more than 30% of the first phase. And again, it's quite a low proportion of rent to the accommodation. I would hope that if, whether to be among better viability, something more favourable might be achieved. That's a comment. Right, okay. Thank you very much for that. Who's our next speaker, please? Oh, Councillor Ripper. Yeah, Councillor Ripper, please. Sorry. Well, I really hope I'm coming in at the right point here. It's more clarification probably for Tam Parry. Going back to picking up on the parish councillor, we spoke as a resident, Nigel Seymark, was asking about bringing forward the signalisation of Carsite Road of A10 to the forefront occupation. And I know in our update reports that we have got mentioned about bringing that forward as a safety measure. Could I ask Tam Parry if that could be at the very beginning of the occupations? Should this go ahead? So if it's approved, could that be improved? Sorry, is that clear? Yeah, who do you ask that question to? Tam Parry. Right, is he with us? Yes, hi. Good afternoon. I'm certainly very content to seek back with the applicant in the negotiations on the Section 106 agreement because I think Mike's structured it as a Section 106 item. So I'm in at the wrong point, have I? No, I don't know, but I'll do my best to answer your question. So I think that I would ask the applicant if that would be possible and certainly try my best to seek the work as early as possible in the development. The thinking up until now was to try and come inside the works with the works of the Civic Redoing to install a 2-concrossing more or less at the same location. But if the work is changed in their nature or if there's tragic accidents that happened here, is there a commitment definitely to seek to bring it forward? Okay, that still sounds a bit kind of open to interpretation, but thanks for your comments. Thank you. You okay without them? Fine, thank you. Thanks, aye. Any further speakers on? Yes, have councillor Nick Wright and councillor Dr Richard Williams. Fine, thank you. Councillor Wright, please. Thank you, Chairman, and I think there's three of us councillors who will remember from the past with the North Star application yourself, Councillor Robinson, myself as the mistake we made then, and we're just looking at doing exactly the same again with the Grampian condition. When the outline of North Star came forward a long time ago, we put a Grampian condition on the upgrading of the A14, and what happened was it looked as if it was going ahead, then the government cancelled the funding because there wasn't any money. Have we been there before? Yes, and it actually delayed the application by seven years, that Grampian condition, and worse than that, we'd approved the outline when we put the Grampian condition on, and it sat there for seven years, so when it came forward to us again under reserve matters, it was totally out of date. Things had moved on, recycled, everything was out of date, and I would urge members, look and vote on what's in front of us. Don't try and alter conditions, it's better to refuse it and have it come forward in a new application and keep it under our control rather than hand it over to the government to rely on Grampian conditions or whoever to come forward in some point in the future. We've got a five-year land supply to think of, we need to have it under control, we need to be able to deliver on this, and let's not hand it to something that's out of our control. Thank you, members. All right, thank you very much, Councillor Richard Williams. Thank you very much, Chair. Really, my comments follow on from those comments. I mean, I have serious reservations about the transport aspects of this proposal. It just doesn't, to me, seem that it's finalised. It feels to me it's come forward too early. It may not be the developer's fault from their Anzatomolia question, but the funding for the railway station seems like it's nowhere near secured. I mean, we've heard earlier that there are discussions, but I really would like more than discussions. With the A-10, again, it's very uncertain. The county has got an objection, so from a transport side, this just feels too early to me, and I have serious concerns. Just one point, Chair. The county objection has been referred to quite a few times as a holding objection. I don't regard it as a holding objection. It's an objection because we're making the decision today and there's an objection in. Holding makes it sound like it's temporary and qualified. It's an objection today, and I think we need to look at it like that, not like it's some temporary thing that's about to be resolved, because today is the day of the decision. Thank you. Chair, we have a couple more. Councillor Annabragana, myself, and Councillor Roberts, but Stephen Reed has asked for an adjournment. Right. Okay, so for the sake of the public, there's been a request from our legal officer to adjourn briefly, so he could advise me on some aspects, which I'm not currently aware of. Chair, if I may clarify, I've asked for the adjournment in order to speak to Sharon Brown and Chris Carter. Right, well, I mean, I'm trying to explain to the public that we are having the adjournment for a particular reason. Thank you, Chair. Apologies. Yeah. Okay, so Liam, if we could have an adjournment. Yeah, absolutely. Could you advise roughly how long you think this will be? Check that with Mr. Reed. I'm hoping no more than maximum of five minutes, but... Okay, that's absolutely fine. I will just stop sharing this meeting to the live event, so the meeting that you are in will remain as is, but the transmission of it to the public will stop for five minutes or... Okay, it's only for five minutes. Yeah, so just tell me when you want it back up, and I'll notify you when we're off the air. Absolutely. Chairman, could I just let you know Stephen Reed appears to be paused? Good. Thank you. A little harsh. Right, I've sent us live. I'm just checking the feed. Absolutely. Okay. Yeah, you can resume as well. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome back. That's a short adjournment. We will continue the debate. Do we have further speakers on transport, please? Vice-chair? Yes, Chair. So I have Councillor Anna Bradnum for myself, and then Councillor Deborah Roberts. All right, thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Councillor Bradnum, yeah. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to clarify with you, we were talking about the recommendation earlier on, and I just wanted to clarify that the recommendation on page nine of the amendment refers to wording at recommendation A, and I assume that to mean that which is on page 158 in our agenda under paragraphs 112 through to 117. I just wanted to clarify what the recommendation, what comprises the recommendation, if you sort of mean, because the formatting in the appendix is different to the formatting in the report. Case officer, can you help us with that one, please? Thank you, Chairman. Yes, apologies. The A in brackets shouldn't be there. So effectively paragraph 112 of the original report on page 158 would be replaced by delegated approval to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development of Outline Permission as amended subject two. So that whole wording would replace what's currently at 112. That's the one, yeah. And then the rest of the recommendation remains. Yes, exactly. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay, thank you. Councillor Halings, please. Thank you, Chair. And I just, we've heard lots of concern around the traffic and transport in terms of construction and then of for the use of the station itself. And I do remember when we were discussing this when we were looking at the approval for the early approval of the railway relocation at Planning Committee, there was the whole issue about the link road access from the A10. And I note that this is part of a section 106 agreement. And on page 260 it talks about, puts into more detail what's called the link protocol. So this is not just sort of linking A10 into the development and across to the station, but also I understand is linking interdependence between the two developers, which concerned us so much at that time because we didn't have the powers to bang their heads together and make sure that they just came with an agreement and put it into practice to enable that access across both parts of land, which would resolve all of the issues for the neighbouring villages and lift as well, alleviate that pressure on the A10. So could I just have some reassurance that in the section 106 agreement, what is the kind of timing when it talks about the timescales? Are those timescales immediate timescales that would enable as well some of that construction traffic as it was devised to go via that road rather than the access through Water Beach? Yeah, thank you, Chairman. I wonder if I could call upon my colleague Michelle Vasse, who's our legal advisor. Michelle, are you about? Hi, yes, I'm here. What the intention is is that this 106 of the RLW site would replicate terms that were agreed as part of the Urban Civic 106, which is, you rightly say, councillor, is what's called the links protocol. And what effectively starts triggering that protocol is the release of the planning mission for this site. So as long as it goes challenge free, it's anticipated that within sort of roughly 30 days there'd be a requirement to sort of issue an invitation to the UNC and also including the councillors part of that process to agree, a scoping for the heads of terms for the commercial arrangements. There's then sort of an indicative four month type programme for then moving on to the next stage, which would be agreeing the detail of those heads of terms. And then a three months on from that to try and agree the actual content of the documentation. That's all contingent obviously on the parties agreeing. If any of those stages don't get agreed between the parties, then there's the ability to go to expert determination, which would have the ability to push those timescales out. But the point is, is there are timescales in the agreement to try and make sure that obviously this doesn't drag on for years and years. The intention is to try and get that sorted as soon as possible. And the district council can also point to surveyor and is required to be kept informed of that progress. So again, has a role to make sure that the parties are actually adhering to the links protocol. And if necessary, attend meetings to try and help resolve that situation as well and also can appear at any expert determination hearing also. So there are some quite detailed provisions about how that would work. And then once the 106 agreement is signed up with RW, they would be tied into the same process. Chair, could I just Thank you very much. You want to come back on that? Thank you. And thank you for that clarification. I think that we also received from, we saw concerns from residents around this and also one of the recommendations that, is there any way in terms of bringing forward that expert determination, the independent support to bring this online earlier? We've heard from our Waterpeach residents as well. We know that the situation on the A10 have resulted in death. And so the urgency of bringing this on even more, is it possible to bring them in earlier or to make sure that this happens within a tighter timeframe, so that we actually do have to use the back road? I think in terms of the, we hopefully the parties will agree this. So there have been no need to go to expert determination. But I think Council's role, given it has a role to play in the links protocol, would be to try and ensure that any expert determination is moved along as quickly as possible. And that's probably the role for the Council's surveyor to make sure that that's clear too. It's difficult to set up, because it's about finding an expert and everything. But I think, given the Council's involvement, there is certainly a level of control that Council can have in ensuring that it's as easy as possible. And that's Council Council. District Council. Okay. Thank you very much. I think I've got Councilor Robertson here. Thank you Chairman. My concerns are that we seem to have muddied the waters between transport and affordable housing. And now I'm at a loss to understand how we can't see that those two things should actually be completely separate from each other and should have been threat with equality, rather than saying we're going to accept only a 30% affordable housing element as opposed to our policy of 40%. And but if anything happens and we get over that 30%, we'll put the money into transportation. You know, where's that idea come from? And where's our commitment to affordable housing? That's what we need in this district. And I'm not sure that what this scheme offers is actually anything like what we need in this district. So, you know, how comes, is it because the questions of financing the transports inside are so precarious, so absolutely precarious, that they will drag money from the other, which would prove to me that actually we probably could have 40%, not the 30% that we're going along with, but there's something a bit fishy here that I don't like. Okay, thank you very much. No more speakers on this. I'm not sure that this is actually working going by these particular areas. I think we'll probably be here. What we could do now is to review the proposals as motions for conditions that come out of this particular section. Yeah, I'm wondering about dropping the sections business, because I mean... Chris Carter would like to speak to the condition. Yes, all right, I knew that. All right, so there's no no further speakers on the transport element. Can I just ask, you know, you did promise us that other things that we're worried about, and I'm worried about the numbers, and I want to talk about the numbers, and it has been shown that they're not, it's not a legal obligation. When are we going to get to talk about that, please? Well, that's what I'm thinking about. It could be next week at this current rate. So be it, Sharon. We'll have the opportunity, Councillor, don't worry. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr Carter, do you want to deal with this transport as far as the conditioning was concerned? Thank you, Chair. Yes, just briefly to offer some clarification for members around grampian condition. We talked about grampian conditions quite a lot. A grampian condition is a planning condition attached to a decision notice that prevents the start of a development until offsite works have been completed on land not controlled by the applicant. So I just wanted to clarify that recommended condition 15 is not a grampian condition. It requires something to happen within the control of the applicant prior to the occupation of any dwellings on the site. So it's not a true grampian condition. I just wanted to provide that clarity for the committee. It doesn't change the effect of the wording of the condition. It still requires that thing to happen prior to occupation, but just to clarify it's not a true grampian condition. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Thank you very much. So forgive me, Chairman, for butting in. Sorry, the clarification is that the condition that was required was not that any of these three options could be available at condition 15, but that only one, only the relocated railway station, was required before the first dwellings should be occupied. That was the change that I think Councillor Smith made quite clear. Well, that is quite dramatic change, isn't it? But that is what she said. Because, I mean, whether or not we think the chances of other options coming forward. No, but Chairman, with all due respect, that is the request that that is the suggestion that Councillor Smith made. That it should be. It doesn't matter what Councillor Smith said. It's what you or any other member of the actual committee now says. If you want to put that forward as a proposal, then you can certainly do so. Okay. Sorry, did you want to talk about conditions for transport then? Well, I think we already have to some consideration. I think we need to have a proposal, John. Okay. Well, I'll make a proposal then. If I can just find the wording. Just figured me one moment. I don't, it's the case officer got some wording that could help us. Thank you, Councillor Haylon. Yes, the, when, when, when Councillor Smith talked about those two transport, transport based conditions earlier on today, she referred to condition 15 and wanted to replace the words. Let me just get the conditional. It's page 170. Yep. So replace the words or the Cambridge autonomous metro or high quality transport corridor. So in effect, removing a line, half of the second line and half of the third line. So it just says no dwelling shall be occupied until the approved railway station, open brackets, planning reference SO79118, FL or as may be varied, comma has been completed and is open for use, et cetera, et cetera. So removing all the Cambridge autonomous metro or high quality public transport and the, the reason for the condition wasn't just about delivering strategic transport intervention. It was also about place making. Addition to the reason as well. Sorry. And, and that's, that's the condition that I, I would be very happy to propose. Yep. And then the other condition was condition, which is transport based, but almost also neighbour amenity, which one of the other issues was condition 57. So 57B was at the end of the line to say, and let me just think of the correct wording into the question. After the full stop, you could say, and, and this would, this would mean, let's try to think the words now. Sorry. Mike, can I, through you, Chair, Chris Carter here, but I can just help there. So at the end of point B, we would say these routes should exclude access from any existing residential roads. Right. And Mr Carter, does that work? I just, can you reason why that addition couldn't be made, Chair? No. Show me, Chairman. It's a dreadful word is should. It leaves it wide open, not ever happening. It needs to be, it must. Will or must. Will or must. Thank you for that, Councillor. Yeah. Okay. So that one's a practical one. If we go back to the Grampian one, that reduces any flexibility in that particular area. So what's the advice from officers on that? Sorry, Chairman. I thought that Chris Carter said that this quick, the change proposed to condition 15 was not actually Grampian. It's not, perhaps Mr Carter, or Sharon Brown. Do you want to speak to us, June? No? I was just going to say, Chair, that as Chris said, it's not a Grampian condition. It's a preoccupation condition. The changes that Councillor Smith has outlined, which Councillor Bradenham supports, do not change that. It takes out the flexibility in relation to the other strategic transport measures and links the condition wholly to the railway station. It is within the gift of the committee to change the wording of that condition accordingly. Is there any advice that is advisable or not? The Council would prefer the wording to stay as it stands. That is their preference, but the decision is for members to make, given other considerations such as placemaking issues that have been discussed to date in this meeting. Right, and can I just clarify with you, that doesn't encroach on the conversations that are currently going on with the Greater Cambridge Partnership, for example? It is something that we did discuss in the meetings, but what I would say to you, if that makes a difference between approving the application, then that is a consideration that members can take into account, along with the placemaking considerations. So it is entirely up to members to weigh that up. Okay, Chair. Yes, I can't see the halings. Thank you. Could the case officer, could Mike please help us putting the wording on the screen? I think that would help the reference to the paragraph and the page. And I am happy to second the motion. All right, let me just get the page up again. It is right at the bottom of page 169 in the beginning of 170. Yep, so just to move up to the bottom. Chairman, I have put a request in the chat that we actually have the new condition typed up. This is very difficult to keep up with what we are actually going to be voting on here. Yeah, that's what I've just asked, Heather. Sorry, I read your comment. That's why I relayed it and asked the case officer. Yeah, all right. Well, there's two things we're dealing with. Which one we're dealing with first? This is condition 15. This is going to be interesting. Live typing in front of the people. I'll just get condition 15. Just to understand if for Councillor Heather Williams, that's OK. So as we've understood, this is not a Grampian condition. This change. Thank you, Councillor Haylings. It was just because we've had, obviously, Councillor Wotherspoon, Councillor Hazel Smith mentioned the conditions. And I don't know if I could just make it really clear going forward. No, I agree. I asked also if they thought it would be. So it's good to have the clarification. OK, that's fine. Bear with me. Bear with. Right, another second. Right, so if I share content document. There you go. Is that working for everybody? Yes, we can see that. Well, actually, it's too small. Let's just expand it. Yeah, that's ready. Is that working? Yeah, that's fine. Is this a revised one? No, that's the one from the report. So that's the bit of text. So it's simply saying take that out there, isn't it? Take that out. And then the other point was about the reason for that condition is not just about transport, but it's also about the place making element of it. So the reason was for the avoidance of doubt to ensure the delivery of strategic transport interventions before the occupation of any dwellings, and to ensure that the site is accessing appropriate commercial money, or maybe you could say. Not there. And? Well, the fact that it's accessible in an appropriate and comprehensive manner is in accordance with policy SS6. Yeah. So you might want to add it. Just there. So you could say comma and to ensure appropriate and appropriate. Chris, maybe you could help me just with this wording to ensure an appropriate place making focus, maybe. Not too sure that means anything. No, it's a bit clunky. So to ensure, can we say for the avoidance of doubt and to provide quality place making and to ensure the delivery of strategic transport, just put it right at the very beginning. Quality place making quality. Ensuring the delivery and to ensure to ensure and to ensure. To ensure the site. Yeah, there you go. That's it. Everyone OK with that? Yeah, thank you for that. I'm not very sure. This is quite the way we should be doing business, but none the less. So, Councillor Bredman, you're the one proposing this. Is that how you want to put that forward? I'm happy with that. Thank you, Chairman. Right. OK. So you've got a proposal in the second that we changed the wording to this. Now, does anybody wish to speak to it? But not that we get on and actually do some business. Councillor Richard Williams, speak to it. OK, Councillor Williams, please. Thank you, Chair. I'm not really very happy with this change. Not necessarily because of the substance of it, but partly because I agree with you, Chair. I don't really think we should be doing business like this in terms of just rewriting conditions in the meeting. But I have broader concerns about this. We're just kicking the can down the road with these conditions. We're saying, oh, you can't do this until the money's there. I mean, how long will that take? We have no idea how long that will take. And we don't know if what the negotiations will be, whether it'll result in changes to the financial viability of the scheme. If there are more developer contributions required, if we left or if we ended up with an application for a variation of the condition, we're just kicking this can down the road. It'd be much better to refuse this application if members are not happy with the fact that the train station is not funded, and then require the developer and others to come up with a proper proposal, then come back to this committee, and then we'll know where we stand. By doing this, we don't know where we stand. We completely lose control of the timing, and all of the other things that are attendant to that. So I'm not in favour of this change. Okay, thank you very much for that. Who else wants to speak? Was that you, Councillor Breddon, was it? Yes, please. Well, yeah, go on then. The reason this is not such an unreasonable change is because this is what the condition was at the outline. This is what the condition said at the outline, that it was predicated, the whole of Water Beach Newtown was predicated on the relocated railway station, and that was eloquently put by Councillor Rippus at the beginning of her presentation as local member. So this is not a new thing. This is what we said at the outset was a necessity for this new town to come forward and to set a habit of using public transport. And if that has the effect of meaning that this application can't come forward, then that's this maybe. But the point is, it's got to have a railway station first. Thank you. All right, thank you, Rhett. Councillor Thames, please. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I do think that it's perfectly sensible for us to amend conditions. We've done it plenty of times before. And what we're doing in this case is to restore the condition, as Councillor Bradnam has just said, to its original state. Indeed, those who've said during the debate this afternoon that they're concerned about officers being able to have some flexibility and a concern to ensure that when this committee decides on conditions those are adhered to, that is exactly what we're doing. We're restoring the conditions that we inserted earlier on and avoiding the uncertainty which arises by the all clause, which is now being removed. I think the wording that our case officer has derived in great haste, and I admire the way he's done it, is very clear. And it conveys the intention that it seems to me most members of this committee have to ensure that station is in place before any houses are occupied. That is what we're seeking to do. That is what this condition would achieve. All right, thank you very much. Councillor Martin Khan. Councillor Khan, please. Just a little observation, basically. If we don't make this amendment to the condition and we decide that this is not satisfactory, we refuse it. If it goes to appeal, we're going to be in a difficult position because the inspector will say, well, you could have dealt with this by condition. If you can deal with it by condition, you should deal it by condition. So I think it actually is quite dangerous not to do it by the condition and refuse it on grounds which could put us in a difficult position later. That's my general feeling. Okay, thank you very much for that. Just to sum up a second thing, Chair, does nobody else? Okay, well, before we do that, I would like to make a comment. As far as I'm concerned, the objective of the exercise is to get a viable public transport system in place. I don't see that actually reducing the number of options that might be considered. It actually helps anything very much. Of course, everyone would want the railway station to be the first option, but should for any reason that not be possible. And one of these other options does become possible. Then I don't see that we're achieving anything by a cat in those off. The upshot of the overall thing is that you can't go ahead with this project and tell us such time as you've got a viable transport system. That is what is needed. I won't be supporting this change because I think it actually reduces the prospects of achieving that end. Councillor Hayling, please. Yes, well, I'm seconding this. I would be supporting it. I think what we're hearing exactly, we are restoring this to the condition that it was when we had a very, very important decision right again, when we first came onto the planning committee, was to make sure that this railway relocation happened in order to ensure the modal shift. We're keeping that being proven to that principle by keeping that as the condition. And as we've heard, this will then unlock multiple things. This will then unlock, which I've just asked about, which is the link protocol. This will unlock the relationship then between the two developers to enable the road from A10, the access directly from the A10. And as we heard from the developer, this will unlock with Planning Commission, the finance options that are going to be available together with the 17 million that was ring fenced for the car park being made available as well. So I think this is a positive proposal, a positive amendment to that condition to make it true to its original intent. Right, thank you. Councillor Bradnan, do you want to? Councillor Heather Williams asked to speak and Councillor Martin Karnaken. Right, I thought we were getting near the end there, but never mind. Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you, Chairman. It may shock the Chairman that I have a lot of sympathy in what he said. We're not always on the same side of debates, but it does seem odd that we're wanting to restrict the amount of vehicles in this conditioning. But I sat on committee as well for the railway station and it is important that that comes first. So I am quite conflicted, but what I'm more concerned about is if that we saw as a committee that this condition was something that we could then rely upon to ease our uncomfortableness about transport in determining the applications as a whole, because we are very reliant on these figures for our five-year land supply and everything else. And there's nothing about timing here. And I do think if one of these options was to, so the high-quality public transport corridor or whatever it was, if one of those was to come first and was proven to be fine and everything else, we wouldn't be able to have those figures coming into our land supply. And that's one of the reasons that Water Beach is receiving a bit of a rough edge of the sword really and taking these houses. And there is no certainty as to when the railway funding would come through. I'm more minded with other colleagues that we haven't got a little way to go. We've got a long way to go and they should come back when they've got these measures in place. So if this goes through it's not going to make much difference, is it? But I would hope that members weren't relying on this to settle their conscience when deciding on the application as a whole, because this is not enough to satisfy those transport issues. And I've been much more minded just to refuse full stop. Right, thank you very much. Now we really must make some progress. So I see we've got two more speakers I think, is it? Councillor Cahn and Ripith, I hear those and we need to actually make a decision, please. Simply to say that clearly one of the main aims has always been that we're going to have a new station as a key issue in developing a new town, then it's clearly one of our objectives. If we weaken the condition it will make it much more difficult to pressure for it having a new station. It will always be open if another one of these methods of high speed transport comes first for the applicant to make an application to amend the condition. So that is always possible. It's not always open or free agents to make a decision. I think it is the right thing to do at this time to try and get this station constructed and the best way to do that is to put this condition in. Right, thank you very much. Councillor Ripith, please. So I just want to be really quick. I am thinking along voting for this, but I'm also thinking of probably voting to refuse the application, but I don't want those other two options really to be built because I think there'll be years down the line and we'll be left with this dragging on for ages. I just want to check with Mike Cuntington. I believe at the moment that this side of Waterbeach Newtown, what we're looking at today, is not part of the five-year housing land supply as yet. Can you just confirm that? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ripith. I don't know if David Roberts is still with us in the local plans team. He might be able to give me some advice or Claire Spencer. I don't know if they're not responding. I am Mike, but I'm missing a question. Could you just confirm whether the eastern half of the Newtown is in the five-year land supply? I don't think it is. I don't think it is either, because we know that they take a long time to actually get the first buildings built, as it were. We have to remember that the five-year land supply is a rolling system, so it might have been now, but the time does go by, and so any delay is important. Yeah, thank you. Thanks. Can I just, while you've asked me the question, I'm just wondering whether it's worth my colleague, Michelle Vass, joining us just to highlight what the urban and civic section one of six link arrangements says about alternative strategic transport measures. Michelle, could you just mention to members what that means? Yeah, within the urban and civic one of six agreement, as well as sort of arranging all the links protocol, which is trying to push the commercial deal to be done, there was also the ability for the council to try and ensure at least both parties commit to designing and constructing their bits of the road when there's some certainty about either the station or an alternative strategic transport measure coming along for something like what's identified in the original condition as the CAM Metro or similar. So it was just a flag that the U and C one of six does allow for an alternative to come forward as well, which might be relevant just in the context of what's being discussed. Okay, thank you very much. I think Sharon Brown wants to advise us on something. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to reiterate the comments that Mr Roberts has made about the five year housing land supply issue, that it's a rolling five year housing land supply. So you need also to think about the medium and longer term. And this development contributes significantly into medium and longer term housing land supply. So clearly this is one of our important site allocations in the local plan. I think the other thing I just wanted to touch on is to just look at this scheme compared to the Water Beach Barracks scheme. And again, if I can cast members minds back to that committee, there was a considerable level of concern at that time about the ability of urban and civic to make progress with that development and a lot of concern as to whether they would be able to start in the funding. One of the issues we have with these very long term phase developments is because of the phased process of them and this being built out over 25 years, we don't have all the answers immediately. We have to sign an outline permission at a point in time. And the Section 106 agreement is signed at the same time as the outline. And that's just at that particular one point in time. So we're trying to second guess some of the funding solutions that were likely to come forward. But what we do know from other outline permissions like Water Beach Barracks is that as urban and civic advisers that Homes England were waiting for the permission to be granted to move forward with the funding. And we also know from other developments such as the Mali development that, again, Homes England funding became available on the granting of the outline permission. We know also that there are other funding sources, obviously with this forming part of the Oxford to Cambridge arc. Nationally, this is a Cambridge who is an economic hub that is very important. We've seen instances of Hifbid funding. So I think we just need to bear in mind that strategic and national context of the focus on the economic importance of Cambridge and the opportunities for funding sources. And I think I remember the words of Stephen Kelly on the Water Beach development site when that was at committee. And he did say it really does require you to make a leap of faith in these types of situations with these very large strategic outline applications. And I would just ask you to remember that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. And finally, then on this element, Councillor Bredlin, would you sum up, please? Thank you, Chairman. What a useful and interesting discussion we've had. And I go back to what I said at the beginning that I want the Water Beach new town to work and I want it to be a cohesive and understandable, you know, readable community across the two halves of the development. And so I'm really pleased we've got something in place for the links protocol. And as I said before, and I've got our local plan in front of me, SS6, and I'm reading from paragraph 3.42. And basically it's talking about it's the principles under which Water Beach new town would be developed. And it says a fundamental requirement for this site is that it will be highly accessible and permeable for all its residents on foot by cycle and public transport to support sustainable transport, recreation and health. The site offers particular opportunities to deliver public transport improvements, including the relocation of Water Beach railway station to a location where it will also be convenient for people living in Water Beach village, making rail travel highly attractive. And as Councillor Khan pointed out, this does not preclude those other public transport options coming forward. If we're so fortunate or if the Cambridge Autonomous Metro turns up sometime or the Greater Cambridge Quality Transport Public Transport Network turn up, then as we've said, the developer could seek a variation. And that would certainly come to committee. But this this is our requirement that it needs a railway station to encourage that initial mindset that we will be that we're going to try and make this a development that uses public transport first. And I think the RLW application does try to do that, as indeed the urban and civic is. So thank you very much for the people who have supported this and will support it. So I'll sum up on my proposal there. Thank you. Okay, excellent. Thank you very much. All right, members. I'll have a roll call on this. So what we're voting on then is the change to condition 15, which essentially makes exclusively deliver the railway station. So if you're for that, you're for. If you're against that, you're against if you want to abstain, you're abstain. Okay, if we can then start the roll call. Councillor Bradlin, please. Councillor Martin Kahn. Councillor Fein, please. Councillor Tumie Hawkins, please. Councillor Dipper Halins. Councillor Judith Rippeth, sorry. Councillor Deborah Roberts. Against. Councillor Heather Williams. Against. Councillor Richard Williams. Against because the station is still unfunded and that's the real problem. This does nothing to resolve that. Thank you. Councillor Nick Wright. Against. Thank you. My vote is against. That's five votes to six in favour of the motion. So that change to the condition 15 stands. Now we're going to deal with 57B as well. We can do. So do we have a revised wording ready for that? Yes, Chair. Chris Carter here. I've got some wording for you. I'll just put it on the screen now. Thank you very much. Chair, and I think we have to vote to continue. Are we now then 342? Yes, we've gone over four hours. So just quickly, members, we've gone past now four hours. Can I have a vote by affirmation that we continue through the fight? Agreed. Anyone against? No, okay. So we soldier on them. Okay, so this is the revised wording. It's just the addition of the red words I take it. That's correct, Chair. I've only included point B of the condition. Obviously, there are other strands to the condition, but it's point B that's being amended. And I've included the additional wording. These routes must exclude access from any existing residential roads. Right, okay. That certainly covers all that. Can we go straight to a vote on this, please, members? Agreed. Anyone against accepting this revised words? No one against? So we've accepted that by affirmation in that case. So that is adopted. So that is 57B condition accepted. Now, I know I did try and have different subject matters, but I think we're going to probably be here for the rest of the week if we continue on that basis. So I'm going to open this up now. This is a free-for-all. You can cover any issue you want, but please do it at one go. I'm going to be very miffed if people want to come back for a second go. So can we start the list? I think Councillor Roberts, you're already there, are you? I think so, Chairman. Thank you very much. I shall be voting against this today. There are far too many ifs and buts and maybes. Too many unsolved questions. I'm very unhappy about the 30% affordable housing and then this madder idea of transferring over to transport. I really think that the financing of this is so questionable, the transport side, that there really is only one thing to say, which is what Councillor Richard Williams suggested, which is to say no now and let this have much more work done on it. We all know that it's part of the local plan. We all accept that something's going to be built on here. It was originally going to be 8,000 houses. Now the two sites together make it 11. That's actually unacceptable. The density has become so much larger. If we're not just talking about a few hundred, we're talking about thousands. The quality of life therefore in my opinion will not be this great paradise. It's more likely going to be paradise lost. Just recently with the COVID, one of the things that has come out is that the density of housing is one of the big factors where disease spreads. When you start packing houses in like sardines in a tin, as they did in Victorian England, that's when you start getting major problems in health, et cetera. I also think stress levels because people don't have the room to actually breathe or be themselves or have space. It's really unacceptable. We should be the planning authority. We should never, ever have gone down that route of giving the urban and civic more than they should have been allocated to them. One doesn't want to be accused of, well, we've given it to the others and it would be unfair on these people. I think it was clearly stated that the 11,000 isn't a legal obligation and I've really no idea how it's been allowed to grow in the way that it has done and come up with this figure. But at present, it's just completely in every way around an acceptable planning application. It's going to be there, well, how long? It all depends how well it's built, doesn't it? But it's going to be there for a long time in the future. I think we have to make sure it's right. Not just, well, it's part of the long term for the five year land supply and I do wonder how much influence that is having on the backstage. But I'm sorry, I cannot possibly go along with this. It's not fair. It's not fair on the village that is there now. It's not on the residents who are there now. It's not fair on the people who are going to be packed into it in the future. We can do a lot better than this and it's upon us, it's our moral duty to make sure that we build better than this. Thank you. Chair, you have Councillor Heather Williams and then Councillor Peter Fain. Thank you very much. Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you, Chairman. So I've made my notes in line with the reports. So number one, the principle of development. Obviously, you know, those of us that voted for the local plan like myself support development in that area. But on the second section, the amount of land use and the parameters, the scale and density, I have real concerns about that. Policy H8, aimed density of 40 DPG. Overall, it's 45 DPG and in some places 100. So I'm not, DPH, sorry, not DPG. So I'm really concerned about that. I think it is high. And particularly given where it sits, I mean, there are some beautiful towns that have been done with a fair nature. And I don't feel that this is actually suitable for that edge and where it sits. I think it's much too high and much too dense. And yeah, I think that's not, it's not good enough. It's not high quality design or what we would wish to see as an authority. We've gone through transport, but on housing delivery, it's not compliant with H10. The 30% affordable housing concerns me very much. It is highly needed. And in paragraph 652, I did have some clarification, but I don't think that the answers to that would change my mind. I was concerned that not all the affordable housing would potentially be in perpetuity. So within a few years, we could be at lower numbers than that. I would, if overall members are minded to approve this, I would like officers to look at paragraph 708 about faith provision. So if this does go ahead, we've seen in other areas where that's somewhere that not gets forgotten, but we've struggled to deal with that. And I think it's important that we do so that those people that currently live in Water Beach and new residents do get that feeling of belonging. So attention needs to be on that. And altogether, there's so many things that are unanswered to me in this. There is so much further for this to go. And I think it's a case of, everyone's put a lot of work and effort into it. I'm sure from parish councils to the district council, but it's not ready yet. And I think it would be a disservice to the current and future residents of Water Beach if I was to vote for this. So I will be voting against it on policies H10 and H8 and the new policies where it's not compliant. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. Councillor Sain. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I was very sympathetic to the concerns raised by the parish council and others, and particularly by the local members. I think those were very, those are legitimate concerns. Clearly, we cannot expect to meet all of those at the outline stage. And where there is scope for later progress, then I do not think those sort of concerns should be an obstacle. In particular, if we want to see the delivery of the railway station, not only have we now changed the conditions that would focus on that, but we also heard from Mr. Goldsmith for the developers and indeed from our own senior advisers that it is only when planning consent is granted that the funding can be released which makes these things possible. So by granting outline consent at this stage, we may make, for instance, the delivery of the new railway station possible. If we were, and I think that would be a bad mistake, but if we were to refuse planning consent, we would put off further the day when that new station could be delivered. And that has impacts not only for this development, but of course also for the development next door. So there are a number of other things. Well, I don't want to go on at length. I just want to say that given the changes to conditions that we have already agreed, I think it is now the time to approve this consent. All right. Thank you very much, Councillor Fein. Any more speakers? Vice-Chair? Yes, Chair. So we have Councillor Nick Wright and Councillor Judith Rivers. All right, thank you. Councillor Wright, please. Thank you, Chairman. And just to pick up on Councillor Fein's point, you know, if we approve this, it is stepping into the dark because you approve it, you lose your control, and you have to rely on other people to come forward with the funding. I think it's much safer to refuse this and watch how people come forward with funding because they will, because they won't see this happen. This application is definitely premature. In fact, for a major application, I haven't seen one as uncertain and muddled as this before. We're not taking the local community with us as we normally do, nearly always with our big applications, North Stowe, Wing and others. The parishes were involved in the design. They were taken with us throughout the application, and this is very much over their dead bodies. It's, you know, we've heard from principally from Water Beach, but the other parishes around are opposing this as well. And I don't think it's nimbyism. I think it's just they have not been involved in talks and discussions with the council and with the applicants. It is really poor planning, not to take your communities with you. And of all people, the local members should be listening to that. And I can't emphasize that enough. You know, you are there to support your residents. And please remember that. We've heard from a lot of them today. They're not happy. I'm not happy with this. And I'll leave it there. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. Councillor Ripeth, please. And I'll go back slightly to what I said at the beginning, and I still have grave concerns that I'm going to vote to refuse this, as I just don't think it is quite good enough. And in Water Beach, I want something that is really, you know, really good. And I don't want to be relying on the umpteenth planning condition. I know it's a huge application we've got before us, but I think I need to feel much more like the actual main sort of crux of the matter is better. And I would suggest that the multi-storey car park is not something which goes with the said green credentials or anything beautiful in this development. And perhaps we can bang heads together by refusing this, because then they're going to have to go the extra mile, pardon the pun, and look at um, funding. Can it be part funded from that 17 million? And perhaps another sponsor might come forward with the Fairbark scheme? I just think at the moment it's not good enough. Okay, thank you. Vice-chair, do we have further speakers? Yes, myself and Councillor Anna Bradman. All right, Councillor Haylings, please. Yes, so I want to go on to the issue of flooding and flood management chair, and I have a question to see if we can resolve something. But before that, I just wanted to clarify, I'd understood that within the current conditions it is proposed that the funding, the 17 million funding for the car park be ring fenced and be apportioned to the railway station. Can I just clarify that and confirm that perhaps with the case officer? Right, please. I know it's a transport issue, but it's just because it's the Conservatives' phrase. Yes, the proposal is that money somewhere in my report is rolled over into the Transport Enhancement Fund. Thank you, thank you. So I thought that was assured. We heard very, very, and we've received in written form as well from residents of Water Beach and also from others that represent housing associations and developers there about the impact of flooding from the flood barriers that are being proposed to be built by this development. And I'm looking at, in particular, paragraph 825, which is on page 120, where the Environment Agency does raise a concern and says that it's satisfied, though this can be achieved through the detailed design required by planning condition, but saying that that detail of design may result in additional areas needed for flood mitigation. And we heard both from Barbara Bull and from Catherine Els who articulated this so clearly, this critically, especially given the recent rains, and we know with climate change that's going to have increased intensity and frequency of flooding conditions. There was a proposal that condition 42, which is on page 182, be adapted to get the reassurance that that detailed design be ready as part of the reserved matters or prior to reserve matters and agreement having been reached and the Environment Agency having signed off on that. So for the case, I was just wondering that proposal, I think it was by Catherine Els this morning, is that covered or is that something that we could tighten up in that condition? Absolutely. I mean, condition 42 was recommended by the Environment Agency and the speaker this morning suggested some amended form of words. I have no problem with that form of words because it's more precise. It adds a little bit more clarity about what that condition requires, which is fine. I heard from her words that I tried to chop them down, but she wanted to sort of revise it to say that the scheme should ensure that the flood risk does not impact, it didn't get the next bit, I think, but it meant the neighbouring settlement, and this would be reflected in detailed reserve matters and determined before reserve matters and considered as a site-wide strategy was kind of the words used. Yeah, I mean, I mean, the thing about this strategy is that it's designed to deal with a brief scenario, which has to deal with protecting the houses of the eastern half of the new town or that particular area when it comes forward, and obviously not all of the houses were built all at the same time, they will be built out over a period of time, so the requirement for the flood defences, if that's the right way to describe it, will only be required as the houses come forward. You don't build the defences when there's nothing to defend, so it would have to be required to be developed over the lifetime of the development. Okay, so it would be site-wide and over the lifetime of the development, so I think the main thing was ensuring that sort of the way it's worded at the moment is at some point this detail guidance there, but she was saying be part of the reserve matters and agreed before the reserve matters comes forward. Absolutely, and essentially the issue is because it's such a fine detail way to describe it, because in the original model that the developer did, it was very much of a broad based approach, and actually the reality of it is that it's only when you get to the very fine detail that you can work out where the flood defences will go. I think the revised form of wordings that Catherine else proposed was an appropriate suggestion. So can I make a motion then for that chair? Can you put that in writing? I made a note of what Catherine else said, which might be helpful. Chairman, if that's permissible, we'll see if Mike needs that. I've got the form of words. So can you give us a form of words? Maybe we can continue while Mike's doing that. We can continue on another speaker, and then when he's ready we can come back with a motion. Does that help? Would we do it now? I'll leave that for you for a minute then, Mike. Yeah, that's fine. Okay, so who else have I got then, please? So I think we've got Anna, councillor Bradnum next. Right, councillor Bradnum please. Thank you Chairman. My concerns are two were around the flood risk. As I say, having spent Mr Christmas Day up there, I was, I am concerned about this, but the point that Catherine else made was that this is a fundamental principle of the site. We know that that area is less than five metres above ordinance datum, and it's very low lying, and for any of us who live around here, you know that the water table is barely below the soil surface for quite large proportions of the year, particularly during the winter. And what the point she made was that it needed to be strengthened so that to ensure that the flood risk is not increased elsewhere, which is the fundamental principle in the NPPF, but also that flood risk is considered properly with a full scheme before the reserve matters are considered. So I would like to see that strengthening in place. I'm still horribly uncertain as to which way to vote on this, because what I'm concerned about is that if we refuse, I think it would be hard to justify refusal properly, but also I think that I actually want to see this development going forward when it can in the way that it can. And as the applicant said, and other people have referred to, the giving of approval is when the money, the investment becomes available in order to invest in the key public transport network, i.e. the railway, the relocated railway. So I'd very much be pleased to see this condition 42 be enforced as well. I'll pause there, shall I Chairman, while we can look at that? Yep, it's just the red piece I think, is it? Ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere, is that element? The wording in underlined is a slight variation. Oh right. So in a scheme to manage the residual risks of flooding, and then with additional words from a river cam flood embankment breach, and then in brackets, scenarios to cover risks both within and outside of the site to inform the development has been submitted to and approved. So that bit in underlining is kind of an expansion of what I do. That's a beefed up. Yeah, beefed up. And then the red bit is an additional bit of text. Can I just also mention that at the very beginning, your first three words are a slight change, aren't they as well? Oh yeah, no development documents. It was no development nights, no reserve matters, which I think is exactly, you know, both what Jeff Nels and also what Councillor Bradlam just said. Could I just clarify, just really seek clarification, that I wouldn't be happy if this condition limited it only to causes of flooding from the cam flood embankment breach, because there's a real risk of the cam river bank breaching as well. Sorry, Councillor, this condition or this issue Chris Swain from the Environment Agency, if he's still with us, might be able to join in, but the issue here is about dealing with the issue of a residual risk due to the river bank collapsing, because the development site itself, 95% of the site is actually not in the flood plane. So it's actually having to do with that one particular scenario. In paragraph 25, Anna, which is where this is derived from, if the river cam defences falls and maybe that's a better wording, would that be? You're talking about 42, aren't you? Yes, condition 42. It's condition 42 derived, I think, from paragraph 825 on page 120. Okay. And there's a reason for the condition, Councillor Bradlam, the reason for the condition is just as important as the condition, it said, to prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage or conveyance of flood water diverted by the site during a breach of the river cam defences in accordance with the NPPS. So it's to deal with flood water from the breach of the river cam. Okay. Okay. So are you happy to put that to the members of them, Councillor Bradlam? I'm just interested in the word the river cam flood embankment breach rather than any kind of any flooding. This is very difficult to make major changes on the hoops like this. I'm very wary of this. What's there appears to cover matters, but... I think it does, Chairman. All right. There's only one river in the area that is the river cam. Okay. All right. Members, are you prepared to accept these changes? Absolutely not, Chairman. Oh, fine. Okay. So shall we have a vote on that, then? Can I ask the Dr Williams to speak on the change? Will you say? Sorry, I didn't catch that. Williams, Councillor Williams. All right. Councillor Williams, please. Thank you, Chair. I mean, I share the fundamental concern and I want to make that absolutely clear. It worries me a lot that if this development increases the flood risk elsewhere, I don't really think that's acceptable, but we cannot make that not the case by simply adding some words to a planning condition. Where's the specialist report to say if this is even possible? Where is the technical assessment? We don't know. We can write what we like in a planning condition. What if it's actually not possible to build this without increasing the flood risk somewhere else? We don't know that. There's no technical report to say that, so we can't really vote this through, because we don't know. The point of conditions is to get to a point where they have to show that they can do it. Don't forget this is a help sign, Councillor. Yes, but we're asking them. But we shouldn't be making, look, Chair, I think you and I may well agree on this point. We shouldn't be making major changes like this in a meeting with no technical reports, with no expert evidence to tell us if this is even possible. I mean, what if it turns out it's not possible if they come back to committee to change the condition again? Why can't we just vote on what we've got if we're not happy with the risk of increasing flooding somewhere else? Don't vote to support it. Don't pretend we can just manage to get away with some words. Okay, all right. Yeah, yeah. Chris Carter to speak, Chair. Thomas Sends. Right. Chair, through you, just very briefly, Chair. We do have Chris Swain from the Environment Agency with us. Can I suggest it might be an opportune moment for him to comment on this point? Yeah, thank you. Yeah, excuse me. Yes, please. Thank you, Chair. There's Chris Swain from the Environment Agency. I've obviously been following the debate and by happy coincidence, the changes to the planning condition that are up on screen are very, very close to the recommendations that the Environment Agency made only last week and didn't quite have time to make it into the report. So I think it's fair to say that we're happy with the condition covering the no reserve matters scenario and we're happy that the only significant risk to the site from fluvial flooding is the breach of the river cam. And I think we will need to think very carefully about how we define flood risk. I think that might be better included in the reason for the condition. Flood risk is defined in government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework Guidance and is a combination of probability and consequence. So in this case, the probability would be of a breach would be very low. And so really we're just looking at consequences that would be so significant that however small the probability they would need to be mitigated. Now, at this outline stage, it may feel uncomfortable that we don't have all that detail, but we do have sufficient detail to show that the increase in flood depths shown in the flood risk assessment are small. And the applicants have concluded that it would not increase the flood hazard rating. And so really, I think we are talking about small risks that the Environment Agency is reasonably content, are attainable through a detailed site-wide strategy. So this planning condition would bring that forward. However, what you won't know at this stage is exactly what residual risks you're going to be left with. And that will feel uncomfortable and it would make it difficult to decide how much weight to put on that residual flood risk in balance with all the other considerations that you have before you. But I would say that we have sufficient information to say that the residual flood risk would be low. And it's fair to say that we've looked at the worst-case scenario of all factors combined, which again may be low in probability in coming to fruition. And in these circumstances, I think it's fair to say that if the worst-case scenario combined is concluded to be a low risk that it should be attainable at reserve matters. And the final point that I would make on flooding is that the main area of development that is driving the flood risk and driving the need to put the flood buttons in is the area to the sort of east of the site, east of Bannel Drain. And clearly, when it comes to detailed design, there is, if you like, too much water being displaced to manage it satisfactorily, then the main implications are that either more compensation areas would be needed or that, you know, that development area could have to be smaller. So that's why we put the caveat in the Environment Agency's advice that it should be dealt with at a very early stage of discharge of conditions if you're minded as a committee to approve it. And then there would be sort of no regrets further down the line.  Well, that's not something that the Environment Agency can advise upon, Sir. Well, I think that as I understood you say, the changes that you were suggesting were very similar to this. So is it something which is something that you might support? Yeah, so in terms of the changes to the pining condition that are in front of us, then, yeah, the Environment Agency, I'd say, would support those. But subject to the bit in reds ensuring that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. I think that would be far more appropriate in the reasons for the condition. Because in a defended flood plain, which is what we have here, the government does not expect for every single flood risk to be fully mitigated. And I think that as it stands now, that condition could be a bit too strict to be attainable. So I think we would need to... Right, so could we simply drop the last paragraph down as an advisory reason then? Sorry, Chris, may I just interject? So what we could do is we could put the text in red in the reason. So the reason to prevent, the current reason says to prevent flooding. And what we should say is to ensure that flood risk is not increased, to prevent flooding and to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. By ensuring the satisfactory storage or conveyance of flood water, diverted by the site during a breach of the river come. So effectively adding that red text into the reason. Yes, so I think that that word satisfactory is really important because that means that we can agree something that is, let's say reasonable, attainable and in line with government and local policy. Yeah. Okay, thanks very much. Mike, could you possibly take the other way and deal with it then? Yes, I can do that. Yeah, I can do that now. So in the meantime, we move on. I think there's more speakers, wasn't there? We've got Councillor Martin Kahn and then Councillor Rick Dritch-Brilliams. Hang on. So it's Councillor Kahn, is it? Have you missed Councillor Hawkins? No, that comes later, Anna, thank you. Right. Okay, Councillor Kahn. Okay. You need to remember this is an outline application for an area which we have agreed in the STP is part of Newtown. The grounds for refusal have to be pretty strong because there is a assumption in favour of development in this area. I'm concerned in particular about the affordable housing. I realise that we cannot insist upon more than what is justified on viability grounds, but I am concerned that in the future, should more viability become available, at least some of it should be used for improving the housing, affordable housing provision, that's the really big, one of the really big issues that affects the district council. This is something which is in the Section 106, and I would want to emphasise the importance of that in the Section 106 negotiations. My county attorney is flashing. I don't know if this means you want to comment on this. Sorry, I don't know what I'm doing. I would like some reassurance that that more provision might be made in the future, but that being taken, I think if we refuse it, I think it's sufficiently satisfactory that if we refuse it, the concerns of what might happen in that situation perhaps worry me more than approval. All right, thank you. Okay, thanks very much. Councillor Richard Williams, we'll be coming back to the conditioning if you wanted to speak to that. Well, I'd originally put down to speak on the whole proposal. I'm happy to do that now, and come back to the amendment. So just in terms of my overall view of this, I mean, there are a number of things that do concern me. The fact that we're building substantially more than is in the local plan, that does concern me. I take on board what was said earlier about material considerations and given the earlier planning application, but this is significantly more than was in the local plan. The SPD doesn't say that 11,000 is okay. The SPD says that it makes no comment on the suitability of the 11,000 number in terms of the overall development, and that's a matter for the committee. So the SPD doesn't apply just to take 11,000 either. So it concerns me that it is significantly over what was envisaged. The density of the proposal concerns me as well. I think some other members have mentioned this. It doesn't comply with our local plan. It's significantly over. I think an average as Councillor Heather Williams said of 45 and in places, we're talking about a density of over 100 per hectare. The height of the buildings confuses me. And to put it bluntly, it seems that we are proposing to build Station Road Cambridge in the middle of the countryside. That's what it feels like. We're talking about six, five, six-story buildings, potentially an eight-story building. I think it's completely inappropriate to have that density of development in a location that is, as I say, in the middle of the countryside. I'm not happy with it on those grounds. I'm not happy with affordable housing. The fact that we only have 30%, given the density and the fact that we're building out, you know, or the proposals to build out 22% over what was originally envisaged for this site, I do not really understand why we can't have affordable housing that's compliant with our normal policies. I think it's really important when we're building new communities that we do make the housing available to residents of all means. So it is really, really very important that we have that in place. So, as I say, given the substantial overbuild over the national, over the local plan, I don't really see why we can't have the 40%. The transport we've already talked about. So I'll try to keep my comments brief on that, but you'll have already gathered. I'm not happy with the transport situation. I am not, I completely agree with the other members who said, we want that railway station built, I want that railway station built. I want it built now, but before I approve this application, I want to see the money. Now, I know other members have said that granting approval will unlock the funding. That's not a matter of logic. That doesn't have to be the case. In the sense that it's a matter of choice. People have chosen not to commit funding until there's planning permission. There's no reason why they can't. There's no reason why they couldn't have given committed conditional funding. And I think we should insist on that. I'm not happy to approve a planning application where it's completely uncertain where the funding for that train station will come from. It should be part of the planning proposal we're considering, because as I say, I do think that that train station needs to move and that needs to be there before any houses are built. But I think it should be properly funded at this point. And we should insist on that. The links to the A-10 and the fact that the A-10, what's going to happen with that is also very uncertain. That also concerns me. And again, to put it bluntly, the county council is objecting to this. So I don't really know what members would want as a good reason to refuse this more than the fact that the highways authority is objecting to this application. And as I said earlier, it's not a holding objection. It's an objection because today we're making the decision. So there are more than ample grounds to refuse it on the basis of transport because, as I say, the highways authority is objecting to it. And I don't know what more we'd want. The flood risk concerns me. Maybe we'll come back to that. So I won't talk about that here. I'm not entirely convinced about the heritage asset aspect of it actually being protected. It does seem to me that I know it's indicative. But some of that development with potentially three-story housing is quite near Denny Abbey. So the heritage aspect concerns me. The local community, I think, as Councillor Wright has said, is not on board with this. And that's a great shame. And I think we shouldn't really be considering proposals like this unless the local community is on board. That concerns me a lot. So I think one, just to pick up on one thing, I think Councillor Radnam said, and if I can offer a visit reassurance about the grounds on which we can refuse it on the transport, I think the ground for me is the county councillors objected. That is really important. And I think members should bear that in mind. But as I say, I also would reject this on the basis of the number of applications, number of houses, which is far over what was envisaged in the local plan and the density, which is completely inappropriate for the location of this new development. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, Vice-Chair, we've got some more speakers. Yes, we do. So we have Councillor Nick Wright who also wants to speak on the condition, but also I think, Councillor Wright, you want to speak before that in general. Councillor Wright? Thank you, Chairman. I did want to speak on the condition, and I just added to it the second time. So I am really unhappy with this. As I expected previously, this is not good planning to do it like this. We do, flooding is so important because if you block a bit of the flood plain up with a bund or anything like that, you need to see the effects that it has elsewhere. And we're not showing the mitigation here. I know the risk is rare, but the flooding is becoming increasingly concerning across the district with climate change and our warm, wet winters that we're experiencing. So we need to see before us the effects of a bund put around this to protect it because you are shutting off part of the flood plain, and it's all right if that condition satisfies the environment agency. But what about the landowner? What about the other landowners who may be affected by flooding and the other parishes? It has a wide knock-on effect, and especially in Water Beach, there might be parts of Water Beach that experience flooding because the new area is being protected. We need to see a clear plan before us, before we make up another decision. So thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. Yeah, we also have Chris Carter before we have a couple of others. I don't know if Chris, did you still want to speak? Chris? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice-Chair. I was just going to make a few comments on the percentage of affordable housing and the density of the scheme, if that's appropriate at this stage. Perhaps we'll hang on to that. I'd like to get to them. And then we have the best of their statements. Dr. Councillor Toomey Hawkins. All right, Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you, Chair. I think I wanted to speak to the flooding condition before the Mr Swing from Environmental Agency spoke. I was going to refer to the letter of the 19th of January in which they actually said, and I quote, the Environment Agency has no objections to the flood risk management design aspects of the development. This is subject to the following condition that requires the flood risk management scheme to be subject, submitted at a very early stage of site-wide design, et cetera, et cetera. And then the condition was quite similar to what we've put on the screen. And I mean, it's a difficult application before us, but at the same time, we need to weigh the balance and what weight we give to the considerations. And if the Environment Agency is the flood risk agency who are telling us that this is sufficient for now until the reserve matters point, then I think on that score, I will be happy to take their word for it because they are the professionals in this case. Just to mention, I mean, the other two areas I'm concerned about, which again, I think perhaps it's a case of how we deal with it, is the affordable housing element. The viability assessment has been done. We have the document and it does show that 30% is a minimum that could be achieved. But what I would like to see if we can is for when we do revisions, stepped revisions or stage revisions, whenever that comes in, is rather than give that to transport, to give it to affordable housing back to 40%, then anything after that can go to transport. That is what I would prefer to see. And in terms of the communities, I mean, yeah, I would like communities to be on board with applications. And it's interesting that Castle Richard Williams saying that we shouldn't decide things when communities are not on board. I do recall him approving permissions when communities were not on board. So I think you should decide which way it is that he wants to sit on that one. I'm sorry, I don't recall any incidents of that actually, but thank you. I can give you an example. I voted against the one in Call to God. You voted for it. Never mind, press on. Yes, stop playing games to me. Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you, Chair. At the end of the day, we do need, I mean, I've read the document through and I would like to see some of the concerns raised by the parish councils to be addressed. For example, in terms of the water mains and the Anglian water carrying the waterway to Milton, I mean, surely with the problems that have occurred recently, we should be able to get some sort of confirmation from them on that issue because that is very important, obviously, to the local community. I mean, if it's possible for us to go through the points they raise in the letter and just see how best, how well the fears have been allayed, that potentially could help. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Nice, Chair. Do we have further speakers? Yes, Councillor Braden. Again, on flood risk, she's saying. Right, does anybody else want to make their statements? On the whole application, you mean? Yeah. Well, that's what we're doing. Chairman, have we got the comment back from Mike Huntington about the flood risk yet? Mike, are you ready for that? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chairman. I'll just put that condition up. So the red text is the new text, and the red text that's not underlined is the new text, and the red text that is underlined is a variation of what was previously in the report. So that's what we discussed before. So we've taken Catherine Elsie's comment at the beginning. No matter the matter's application shall be submitted and no development shall commence, and then additional wording underlined, and then additional wording on the reason for the condition. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to propose this motion then, Chair, for this amendment to the Conditioning Portrait too. Hang on a minute. Can I just clarify one more point for you, please? I want some quality assessment on this, please. Mr Carter, as the senior here, is this acceptable to you? I'm just reading it now, Chair. You also have Chris Wayne from the Environment Agency, I believe, wanting to comment on this. Okay. Chair, I'd just like to clarify with the case officer. In terms of the first sentence, no reserve matters application shall be submitted and no development shall commence. Is that no development on any reserve matters phase or no development at all? That's no development at all. I mean, it was originally a no development shall commence in the original condition, which is obviously a stronger condition as you can have no development shall commence at all. Okay. Wouldn't that be challenged? The no development shall commence beginning is already in the original condition in the report. On page 182. Yes. Okay. In that case, then, Chair, no, I don't have any problem with that. I think it just provides further clarity with regard to the reserve matters applications. If I could just briefly bring in Chris Wayne then. Thank you, Chair. Yes, it was just a minor point in the reason, and this is something that the Environment Agency wrote in our letter 19th of January was in the word reason, it's to manage flooding rather than to prevent flooding. Yeah. As preventing flooding, I'm afraid, is near impossible and therefore not attainable. So, yeah, that would bring it sort of consistent with government policy, local policy and common practice. Thank you. Can I just make two points, Chairman, about the... Hang on a minute. I just want to ask for clarification. I'm not sure if this is Wayne yet. Just wait a minute, you'll get your turn. So, can I take it then that this is acceptable to you, as far as you I appreciate that you have ifs and buts and so on, but there's nothing dramatically unreasonable about any of this. Yeah, that's correct. I'd be satisfied with that condition. We'd certainly satisfy the Environment Agency. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Councillor Bradman, did you have a point? Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted clarification that the phrase in the reason that says during a breach of the River Cam defences actually... Sorry, no, it's not that one. It's in the red wording at the second line of the red wording, where it says a scheme to manage the residual risks of flooding from a River Cam flood embankment breach. Does that simply mean the river bank or does it mean some other funding somewhere else west of the river? All right. Let's find out then. Mike, can you help us then? That's the river bank. Yes, so can we just call it the river bank? Yeah, absolutely. Because it's ambiguous. It implies there's something somewhere else. I can't write this stuff. Chris Swain, I think it would be more ambiguous, my opinion is river bank because the river channel itself is some way from the flood defence. So it is a raised flood defence embankment. Okay, sorry, as you were then. Yeah, I would keep it as it was. Bank reverie. Okay, let's... Right, so we've got that now. Who was proposing this?  So no, I'm proposing chair, Councillor Williams. Yep, so any final words from anybody? Do I see something come up then? You, Councillor Heather Williams, would like to speak to it. Right, okay. Councillor Williams, please. Thank you, Chairman. I do understand the issues and the concerns that members sharing of this flood are making. And now is a more... It couldn't be a better time than the moment to have it at the forefront of our minds of what we've witnessed. However, I am concerned about the new wording now. I don't think it gives any more reinforcement than the original wording. The only difference being that we've made this wording up in a very bizarre fashion through the meeting. We have the developers watching and I feel we are opening ourselves up to probably quite legitimate challenges, the way we're putting this together for something that I don't think is actually strengthening it. It's just changing it in reference in the camp flood embankment breach and just understand why you want to change the reason, but the condition itself, what does it add? I'm failing to see that based on the original, because it still is, shall commence until such scheme to manage a residual flooding, nothing is going to reach out. You obviously will vote against it. So we've got a proposal. I will, Chairman. Yep, good. So the proposal is from Councillor Bradnum. Yeah, okay. And seconded by Councillor Bradnum. Yeah, okay. Let's put it to a vote. I think we're going to have another roll call. There's going to be more than one vote. So if we can open it up. So what you're voting for is the changes in red. If you favour those, you are four. If you don't want them, you're against. If you want to abstain, abstain. Okay, we do that then. So Councillor Bradnum, please. Four. Four. Councillor Cohn. Four. Thank you very much. Councillor Flane. Four. Thank you. Councillor Hawkins. Thank you. Councillor Halings. Four. Thank you. Peter's with the current Councillor Griffith. Four. Thank you. Councillor Roberts. Against because I think it'll be challenged. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Against. Thank you. Councillor Richard Williams. Against for the reasons articulated earlier. Thank you. Councillor Wright. Against. Thank you. My vote is four. So it's seven, four, and four against. That is carried. So that is a new condition or new wording for the condition. Now we were making progress on trying to come into some conclusions here. So most people I think have already declared their positions. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak regarding the overall project and what their view of it is? So Vice-Chair, do we have any further speakers? Oh yes, sorry. Yes, please. I was asking the Vice-Chair actually. Councillor Hannah Bradenham. Sorry. Councillor Bradenham. Those of us who are struggling with paper at home and trying to write in speak, it just makes it a little bit difficult. Just one other, couple of other things I just wanted to ask about. I have a recollection that burials was referred to both in the amendment that we received, but certainly yes in the amendment on page, sorry, the appendix page five paragraph 20. There was a question from the parish council that this development seemed to be taking advantage of the burial provision which the parish council believed had been provided only for the urban and civic side of the application. And I wanted to clarify with the case officer whether that original provision was intended to be for the whole of the site or whether it was only for the urban and civic side because after all that provision was provided by means of an extension of the existing cemetery on the urban and civic site. Okay, that's that one, and you had the second one, did you? Sorry, and the reference on that is paragraph 709, page 100. And the second one was, I cannot now remember, I have a feeling that the IDB, I can't remember if they, I know they've made some reservations in the first place, but I can't remember if those IDB concerns were resolved or not unresolved. There was one aspect was to do with the fencing of the ditches on either side of Bannold Grove, and one of the IDB conditions is that there should be no fencing so that they can get in at any time and clean drains out. And the second thing was, was to do with, I can't remember something else, but I think it was... All right, let's deal with the other one then. Yeah, thank you. For the benefit of the public, this is the drainage board we are talking about now. Okay, Mike, burial was... Thank you, Chairman. The burial ground issue was addressed in the urban and civic planning application. The parish council extended their burial ground into some of the barracks land. They've got an extension of about just under half a hectare. That provides capacity for another 100 years of burial capacity at the current rate of use. But for both parts of the application? No, for the village. If it was for the full population of the whole of the new town and the village, it would provide capacity for just under 40 years. The urban and civic planning application has a, in their application description, space for further burial ground extension if necessary and appropriate. And this is something that the new town as a whole should provide. You don't really want the two separate parts of the development providing their own burial grounds. It's what's going to be one place. And this will be discussed through the working groups between the two developers at the appropriate time. Okay, so I just wanted to be reassured that the provision that's currently in place is sufficient for the proposed, the phased needs of the whole development, both the RLW and the urban and civic side. Yeah, exactly right. And then the IDB have got no objections to the planning application. Okay. And the ditches, the ditch issue was something that I raised with the chair of the planning committee for the parish council. These are the ditches outside of the site boundary running alongside Bannel Drove just next to Middle Old Farm. And I said, I said that at the appropriate time, if there's an increased usage, pedestrian usage along there, then we could look at how we could address that, bearing in mind the bylaws with the IDB. But yeah, it's classic conflict between people walking around and then ditches. I mean, the rest of the development site within the development site, we're going to make sure the ditches will have shallow sides. And sorry, the point about that though, thank you very much for that clarification. But the point about that was that in the graphic that you showed us in your presentation, it showed the ditch with shallower sides, but still the same width of path. Now, obviously, if the current ditches are steep siding, and the path is X meters wide, you cannot make the ditches on both side shallower without reducing the width between them. And my understanding was that the intention was to actually make the footway and shared equestrian and cycle path wider than it currently is. And I couldn't see how that could be done between the existing ditch lines, as well as making them shallower. Yeah. Well, I know the, well, there's going to obviously have to, within the site, there's going to have to be a lot of re-engineering going on. The ditches will be re-engineered. They won't be, they won't, I mean, some of them might follow the exact routes that they currently do, but they'll be re-engineered. So you mean they might take a slightly different route? Yes, yeah. I think we're getting into too much detail there. Okay. Now, we need to actually draw this to a close. Before I do that, I'd just like to consult with Mr. Carter. For those who were looking to vote for refusal, can we just review the reasons there? Mr. Carter? Yeah. The reasons I've seen issues over the density, affordable housing, consideration of whether or not this is a premature application, flood risk, and highway objections. And height of buildings, Chairman, if I may? Well, I think it goes into the density, because that comes under that same policy number, I think. Okay. Mr. Carter, I think it may be sensible to hear from this assistant director at this point before I comment. Sharon? By all means. Thank you. I just wanted to make some general comments, Chair. I think it's really important to bear in mind in consideration of discussions of going down the refusal route, in particular in relation to some of those matters that were highlighted, that we need to bear in mind the decision that was made on the Water Beach Barracks development, which is a significant material consideration in the consideration of this application. If I could just remind members that the Water Beach Barracks application included 30% affordable housing. 30% affordable housing is also quite a common percentage in terms of the affordable housing amount that is delivered on other developments across South Cambridgeshire. So we need to be mindful of consistency issues. In this instance, we have a viability appraisal which shows that the development is not viable on the basis of the position at the current time in relation to that first phase of development and being able to deliver a 40% affordable housing. The summary from Gerald Eve is contained in an appendix to the report. We've had a very, very similar issue in relation to the Water Beach Barracks scheme. And if you recall, there was a significant shortfall of funding also for transport in that instance. That is a very recent decision. So the weight that we have to give to that is quite a considerable level of weight. So I think it's very important that members consider those issues in relation to consistency of approach between the two developments. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much for that. Now I don't want to open up this debate, but I see there's two more requests for speaking. Is there? Do I see Councillor Hawkins? Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief. One that seems to have been missed or mixed up is on the digital infrastructure. I'm looking at condition 72 on page 196, which just talks about broadband provision. But when you look at the discussion in paragraph 926 on page 135, it talks about digital infrastructure. So from there, digital infrastructure, which included broadband and mobile telephony in the condition just goes down to broadband. I would like that clarified or change it to digital infrastructure, whatever it is, but it has to include mobile telephony, not just broadband. And the other thing is, I mean, I referred to this again, which is the review mechanism and using any uplift that is received to get to 40% and then anything after that to the transport infrastructure. Can we actually take this on board? And because I don't see any condition on that, I can't remember how that came about, but I'd like to do something done on that if possible. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Mr. Huntington. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. If we look at the new town as a whole and we look at the urban and civic application, the urban and civic application has a minimum of 30% affordable housing going up to a maximum of 40% affordable housing subject to viability review. Because of the discussion that took place at Planning Committee, well, not because of, but by taking into account the discussion that took place at Planning Committee for the urban and civic scheme or the Water Beach Barrett scheme, the concerns expressed at that time about lack of financial contribution towards strategic transport. We took the view on this application that strategic transport would get a bit more money from any review mechanism. If you add the two, if the Water Beach Barrett scheme went up to 40% and the Owl W scheme went down to the state of 30%, the cumulative total being reminded slightly different sizes would be 36%, which is very, very close to 40%. And we considered weighing up the different issues in relation to strategic transport and affordable housing. It was considered that that's why strategic transport was ahead of affordable housing in that review mechanism, because we were looking at the new town as a whole. And then the other condition 72, absolutely, that's the type of tweak to a condition which was thinking about in the recommendation and additional words such as and additional and digital technology. But that's perfectly reasonable to add things like that. Okay, thank you very much. Now we must really draw this to a close. I've got two more speakers and then that's three is it. So I've got Councillor Hayling's is it, Councillor Whitvins, Richard, and are you sure you want to pursue burial grounds yet further? Yes, please, Chair. Right, Councillor Hayling's please. Thank you, Chair. And this is just about sort of where I am on this. And I think, you know, as everybody said, this is a huge proposal and I do really want to respect the amount of work that's gone into this. And, you know, we have a very weighty volume. We know there have been huge amount of consultation in this. We know that some, you know, many residents aren't happy this, but we also know that there has been a long process of consultation around it. It has been important, not on the hoof, but it has been important to work on the conditions today where we can revise them and often taking into account the recommendations of residents themselves who are, you know, very knowledgeable themselves and put those forward. And we have had the experts in the room all day. We've had the consultees together with us to help on this. And we've had briefings as well. We haven't come to this just today. This has been a long period of time and we have all, as members of the committee, had briefings on this to understand, you know, the complexity and how this is all linked together. I think what we have done is made sure that that key place-making element that from the beginning has been there, that this is a sustainable town because it's built around a railway station that enables a modal shift off the A10 from anyone that starts to move into that looks towards the railway station. And it was very heartening to hear Dr. Richard Williams say that he absolutely agrees it should be there and it should be there now. When this came to committee, there was a lot of resistance from other members of this committee who actually voted against having the railway location there. So I think, you know, there are difficult things we've put in key conditions in here around the traffic and constraint coming through Water Beach, opening up the link route around flooding and around the railway relocation. And I'm minded to approve this because it is outline. And I've heard things say that too much is uncertain as if we've never had an outline application for a very big new town before which we have. Outline means that everything is reserved. Everything is reserved for reserved matters. But these conditions make sure that those reserved matters do respect the high standards that are necessary. And that's what we're looking at for. And of course, there's uncertainty because we need to see them come forward as reserved matters. And that's just to reassure those who feel that, you know, not all the details are there yet. As you said at the beginning chair, this is outline. And so in all conscience, I think as somebody said, in all conscience, I was one of those who voted for the railway station relocation, continue to support that as being critical for the development of this new town. And I'll be voting to support this. Right, thank you very much. Councillor Richard Williams, just before you speak, Councillor Williams, I see that I've got two more speakers. I'm calling it a day after that. So that's Councillor Bradman and Councillor Heather Williams. We will make a decision after that. So Councillor Richard Williams, please. Thank you. Thank you Chair. I'll try to be as brief as I can and it is a new point. I just want to address the point that was raised earlier by Sharon Brown about consistency. I completely accept that consistency is a material consideration, but it is just a material consideration. It's not the only material consideration. And I think there are more than adequate grounds to make a decision for refusal. I say not least transport and highway subjections, but also on other grounds as well. Yes, you know, we do have to take that consistency into account as a material consideration, but as I say, it is just a consideration. And sometimes I don't find it helpful if I'm brutally honest. And I know it's done with the best of intentions. We hear a lot about what we're kind of not allowed to decide, but what about what we are allowed to decide? I mean, we can if we make the judgment turn this down and it would be helpful if interventions also addressed the material considerations which we could turn this down and not only imply that we actually don't have any choice because of a previous application. Now that may not be the intention, but that's certainly what comes across is that the committee effectively has got no choice. We've got to approve it. In which case, why are we here if we've got no choice because it was a previous application? Yes, we have to take it on board, but yes, we can also turn it down. And as I say, I think there are more than adequate material considerations weighing against the consistency argument to refuse this application. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Bretton, please. Thank you. Firstly, I just wanted to check that we had taken on board the request to bring us a condition that Cardite Junction is improved at an early stage. I think Tam Parry took that on following Councillor Ripf's question, but I just wanted to make sure that had happened. Okay, let's do that then. Mike. First of two. Can you confirm that please? Yes, if members will recall, Tam Parry said that when it comes to implementing the Section 106 Detail Drafting, Tam will negotiate with RLW to bring that element of the Section 106 mitigation forward. Good. Lovely to get in. The second one then was back to the burial ground. I just want to refer you to the amendment, the appendix paper that we had at item 20 on page 6. It says this was covered in the Urban and Civic Report, but if required, then this can be covered by an additional preoccupation condition requiring a submission of a scheme to provide a burial ground because every development needs to provide burial space. And my understanding is that the current standing extension that has been allowed by Urban and Civic for the burial ground is for the village. Yeah, if I refer you to the report, the Urban and Civic Report, which covered burial ground space, the cemetery has been extended by 0.44 hectares, which will provide up to 850 new plots. The figures show demand of up to eight plots per annum for the existing cemetery over the last five years. So that cemetery has been expanded, which would have capacity for about 130 years additional capacity. Notwithstanding that for the whole of the town of 11,000 homes plus the village, the demand would be 17, I think it would be 34 years worth of capacity. Notwithstanding that, the Urban and Civic Water Beach Barracks Planning application has, in its development specification, allowance for further burial provision to come forward. And thinking about, and as I said before, the new town will be looked at as a whole. This will be something that come forward between our WR and Urban and Civic in the development in the future. Thank you for clarifying that. Okay then. Thank you. And Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to add a bit of balance to the debate here as well, in that we are meant to be debating this and we are meant to be judging it on its own merits of what's in front of us. I think some members have been very keen to jump to previous votes and flesh things like that out. Every debate is different, every situation is different. Yes, we need to be consistent, but I think we also need to be minded that we look at the application on its own grounds in the here and now. We may have found that other applications were found wanting, but that's like saying you have to then follow this through on some kind of treadmill that it must happen next, which is completely not the case. And I think we need to be clear with people that they do have a choice in this. And I think the choice is that for me, there is too much unanswered at this stage, even though it's outline, I do not feel that we are sufficiently along the road. There's too much in the balance. And for me, that that in my personal judgment outweighs the other benefits of this and things have been said. And I do not criticise any other member that seeks to make a different opinion. And it just be nice if they have managed to reciprocate that. Thank you, Chairman. Good. Thank you very much. Could I just say something about the next steps in this process at the committee? Obviously, listening to the member debate, I understand that a number of members are likely to vote to refuse the application. I think it would be helpful at this point if you could take some soundings on the number of members that are likely to vote to overturn the officer recommendation. In that instance, it would be useful if each of those members could specify the grounds on which they would want to base that refusal. I thought we'd done that already, Sharon. We discussed that with Chris and we have a list of items that will be the grounds for refusal. I just think we need to be clear, Chair, in terms of all individual members. So, I think it would be helpful to go around each member in turn to ask them about how they were minded to vote simply for clarity. And obviously, because this is a virtual meeting. No, I'm sorry. This is Sharon. All right. Thank you. You're an officer and you put no pressure. You're putting pressure on members. It's outrageous. All right. Thank you. Let me deal with the matter. I'm quite honest with you, Chairman, but not her. Quite honestly, Sharon, I don't think that's helpful. I'm going to go through it over. Chairman. No, please. Thank you. Sorry. Officers have sometimes asked us what reasons people might give for refusal. We have done that, Councillor Bredman. Thank you. Councillor Chair, I think it might be useful to ask the legal officer to speak at this point. That might help. I think I know the outcome of the vote. As the Chairman's job to make some notes on these matters, isn't it? All right. So thank you very much. Before we do go to a vote, I'd just like to say a word myself. I have to say that Councillor Halings has summed it up very well, I believe. This is outline at the moment. And it's inevitable that you will not get answers to everything. And in some cases, this will have to be a matter of faith that things can be delivered. But all sorts of checks and balances have been put into the conditioning to make sure that this cannot go ahead without the key elements, the station, the highways arrangements, proper funding, etc. So these are all in place. This matter will come back to us again at the reserve matters time. And we are the ones who will judge if they have met those requirements. So on that basis, I am certainly going to vote in favour. So I'm now going to go to the vote and call a roll call. So can I have the exact wording of the motion that we are voting on put on the screen, please? And Chair, does it need to make reference to the conditions that we've amended? Yeah, I'm speaking about that as well. I just want to see what the actual wording now is. Sorry, that's the wrong thing. Sorry about this. I've got three screens and the mouse is all over the place. Right, so it is. Just sort of like this. Let's get this up again. Do you need any assistance with the screen sharing? I'm just copying the amendment sheet onto the other report. Okay, sorry, no worries. So I'm just giving me about 30 seconds. So it'll be that. Chairman, I've put that up. Is that visible to everybody? Yes, it's a bit small. Sorry, I can expand. Right, so in addition to that, we've agreed to changes to the various conditions. So that would be added. In the meantime, I see Councillor Wright is asking to speak. Is it specifically on the approval? No, actually Chairman, it's not. It's on your comments a couple of moments ago and I'd like to give you an opportunity to clarify. That's alright with you. You said while we were commenting that you already knew the result of the vote. I have an idea obviously because that's not what you said. It's opinion. I mean most people have actually declared their position already. That's all I'm talking about. Yes, but you said you knew the result before we voted. That clearly is an error then, isn't it? Well, I wanted to give you the opportunity of correcting that, but also to ask you with that in mind to make sure that there is no political whip on this vote because if there is no whip it needs to be declared in advance of any vote. Indeed, and there is no such thing. Thank you. Right, and we arrived at the... I've just studied Chairman, I've just studied network rail informatives at the bottom. They're just informatives. Okay, good. So we can all see that. So that's what we're voting on. So it's whether or not other conditions that we didn't change. These are the ones that we've changed. Yeah, but we did change the one about only the network rail, only the relocated railway station. That's condition 15, and the 57B. It's here. It just needs B on it then. It's 57. I mean the condition needs 57. Oh, sorry, sorry. I couldn't see that. Okay, fine. Now I'm going to a roll call. So as you see, the proposal is for delegated approval. If you're for it, you say for. If you're against it, you're against. If you want to abstain, you may abstain. So I'm starting the vote then, and the first one is Councillor Bredlum. I'm finding this extremely difficult, Chairman, but I am going to vote for. Thank you. Councillor Cahn. For. Thank you. Councillor Fein. For. Thank you. Councillor Hawkins. For. Thank you. Councillor Halings. For. Thank you. Councillor Rippith. Against. Thank you. Councillor Roberts. Definitely against. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Against, and we'll reserve matters becoming back to committee because it didn't on the other one. Thank you. And Councillor Richard Williams. Against. Thank you. Councillor Wright. Against, Chairman. Thank you. My vote is four, six, four, five against. Water Beach will decide. This is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you for the officers and all the help. Chairman, the point of order has been raised. It needs to be dealt with. If you please not interrupt me. Thank you. So thank you. It's the point of order. I'm not sure we have points of order in the debate. We do. Well, not unless I say so. We'll try that one. That would be unconstitutional. Chairman, you have to deal with it. Heather Williams, what would you like to tell us? It's Richard Williams point of order. It's in the chat. Well, I can't see the chat at the moment. It's there. Vice-chair, do we have some? So yes, we do have from Councillor Dr Richard Williams point of order raised. Okay. Councillor Richard Williams, please. Thank you, Chair. Could I j