Goed afternoon, our first item of business this afternoon is time for reflection and our time for reflection leader for today is the Reverend Dr. Jacko Boonsire, who is the Minister of Brock'sburn Parish Church, Reverend Boonsire. Presiding officer and members of parliament, thank you for the opportunity to be with you. Today is All Saints Day, also known as All Hallows Day, following on from All Hallows Eve, or as we more commonly know it, Hello Ian. In several Christian communities today marks the day when we reflect on the lives of the saints, past and present. This time for reflection among Christians dates back to the 4th century AD. In fact, even earlier than the 4th century AD, we find the reference in the New Testament that we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, encouraging us, according to Hebrews 12, to lay aside every obstacle to allow us to run the race of life with endurance and purpose. To this end readers are reminded of the life of the historical Jesus. Through his life, death and resurrection he demonstrated unconditional love and unrestricted acceptance of all people. On the 30th of November we shall celebrate St Andrew's Day, year in Scotland as well as in many other countries worldwide. This will be an opportunity to remember the life of the Apostle Andrew, who is generally accepted to have been the first follower of Jesus. Through his life Andrew demonstrated humility and service. Andrew is regarded as the first follower of John the Baptist and the first disciple of Jesus. According to scriptures he witnessed to his brother Peter and led him to Jesus. Andrew was the person who brought the boy with a fish and bread to Jesus before the feeding of the thousands. After Jesus' ascension Andrew continued to serve him with humility and dedication, being a missionary to areas in modern day Turkey, Greece, Hungary, Russia and as far as Poland. Til the end of his life Andrew never wavered in his commitment to his master and to serve those where he ministered. Today thus marks an opportunity to reflect on the saints and our calling to be saints in the communities where we live. Whether we identify with historical root for being saintly or not, we have the opportunity to serve with humility and dedication. We have the opportunity to speak out for the voiceless, to empower the powerless, to provide shelter to the homeless or simply just donate a food parcel at one of the many food banks nationally. May we on this first November reflect on the plight of the deprived as we consider our countless opportunities to be saints to those who need our help. In our society, I thank you.


Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE, covering UiPath Forward Americas 2019, brought to you by UiPath. Welcome back to UiPath Forward Three. This is UiPath's third North American conference. We're here at the Bellagio Hotel. You're watching theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. We go out to the events. We extract the signal from the noise. We pick the brains of experts. Kevin Crone is here. He's the financial services intelligent automation leader at PWC. Kevin, thanks for coming on theCUBE. Thanks for having me. You're very welcome. So financial services has always been kind of a leading indicator of technology adoption. I presume that automation is no difference. You know, you're in the New York area. You're belly to belly with the financial services companies, the big whales. What's going on in FS these days? Sure. So as we look across the financial services industry, they were one of the leaders with automation more because the overarching business environment really forced them as we looked at the regulatory burden that a lot of our banking clients were under over the past decade kind of post crash. That really has kind of forced two things.  It's also forced a lot of margin pressure and having to think about differently how they can run their business at a much lower and more effective price point. And so that's driven automation to the top. And we've seen tools like UiPath and kind of the broader RPA ecosystem becoming kind of the right technology at the right time of being able to really kind of embrace that right sizing agenda in the financial services sector. Yeah, and financial services at the macro level, they're a little bit out of favor right now. What we thought was this rising interest rate environment and that's reversed. And so that's not necessarily good for them. So they got to look for other ways to sort of drive the bottom line. So maybe you could talk a little bit about generally where you're seeing automation, back office, front office. Think about the maturity curve. What are the leaders doing? What's the sort of best practice right now for intelligent automation, RPA? Sure, so as we look at intelligent automation right now, I think one of the interesting things, financial services was an early adopter. So a lot of the big banks and asset managers and insurance companies really started investing in this class of technology four, five, six, seven years ago. And so we're actually seeing the early returns from those which is informing how this topic goes to other industries. But I think as we look at those returns, we see a couple of major challenges. There's challenges with getting this scaling technology. There's challenges with getting the right return on investment and proving the business case. And there's challenges of really thinking through kind of change management and what impact that this is going to have on the workforce. And getting maybe taking down a level to the policy place. I think one of the challenges we've seen is there's almost a split happening and how our clients are thinking about this. In one end, it's really around solving some of the media's hardest end-to-end process automation challenges. And that in a lot of cases means having to leverage RPA but also means having to leverage other technologies, really embracing artificial intelligence, looking at things like intelligent data extraction and conversational interfaces and really thinking through both how do you re-engineer a process and then how do you automate it end-to-end. On the flip side though, that only covers a certain portion of the organization. We're only kind of going after called the whale processes within the organization. We see a second channel which is really, how do you think about changing the nature of work and everything else that you do? And the concept of citizen-led innovation is really starting to take off and be embraced. And kind of put simply that's putting some of these tools in the hands of business users that are clients, not the technology departments, and letting them actually drive automating some of the mundane things that they do on a day-to-day basis. And so you're seeing kind of this enterprise channel and the citizen-led channel kind of emerge as the two-track approach to automation. So that's interesting. Okay, so the ladder changing the nature of work is you're seeing largely automating existing mundane processes kind of paving the cow path as I sometimes say. However, if it's not the most efficient process to begin with, they need to sort of re-look at that and that maybe falls into the former category. The enterprise-led. And so where are people investing in both? Are they just hitting the low-hanging fruit? We're seeing an investment in both. And PNBC has used that a well-functioned automation program should have both channels and each channel should be informing the other. So if citizens are coming up with ideas of things that they can automate themselves, that's great. But those should also be contributed into the kind of broader ecosystem and there may be what's called grander ways to solve that problem both from a technology perspective and from a process-re-engineering perspective. Is there an automation ex-officio? Is there a chief who's sort of looking at all this stuff or is it more organic? It's one of the, I think, interesting things we've seen and learned from our clients over the past couple of years is we thought there would be an emergence of a chief automation officer or something like that. Really, the automation agenda's owned in so many different places within our clients and it's not consistent client to client. In some cases, it's really a CIO-owned topic. A lot of cases, it's more of a chief operating officer, chief digital officer, chief transformation officer. We're also seeing a push at the chief HR officer level because this is really, there's a big question certain terms of thinking about kind of skills and how you equip your workforce with the right digital skills for the future, which is now putting HR at the table for this, which is the place where I think traditionally with big technology transformations, they've never really sat. So in thinking about ROI, you've laid out this sort of bifurcated paths, two vectors, the hard sort of end-to-end problems and then the sort of low-hanging fruit changing the way to work. I would presume the second one gives you the quick hit, faster break even, but probably lower net present value. And so maybe you could talk a little bit about the ROI equation and how people are looking at that. Yeah, it's interesting because I think, to your point, I think an enterprise-led initiative, you're going to want to define a business case and say this is why we're doing it and what we're looking to achieve. Going down to CISNLED channel, that's a harder thing to do because you don't want to stifle innovation in your organization. One of our views is that the people that sit closest to the business process are the ones that should be coming up with the right ideas if they were given the right upscaling, the right tools at their disposal. But it's a bottoms-up exercise. And so again, going back to the concept of having kind of an ecosystem with both an enterprise channel and a citizen channel is important because at the enterprise level, you're going to need to understand what type of benefits are actually being created at the micro level and figure out two things. One, are there things that have we built enough that we can start to release capacity from the organization? Or is there something else that, if I put in, will allow us to really think about transforming our business? So it's a lever, it's not the end solution, right? When I tell people that don't know what RPA is, they say, yeah, it's a lot of back office stuff. It is. But we heard today from one of the keynotes that we got to move from the back office to the front office. How much is that happening in financial services and how much of a holistic end-to-end strategy are you seeing? I'm sure you guys are promoting that or fans of that because you're going to get a much bigger business impact. It's transformational, but where are we at in the maturity of that all? Yeah, it's interesting, right? So we, staying on the steam of the enterprise and citizen-led innovation levers, the enterprise innovation levers tend to be focused more in the back office, high transaction volume type processes. I think when we look at the citizen-led channel and a lot of the ideas that have been coming out and with our clients are starting to brace us, they tend to be more front office-oriented processes. There's lots of things, especially client servicing or tasks that are done that are somewhat mundane and the business case isn't necessarily about capacity. It's about client experience and customer service. So you can take the wealth advisor that has to log into five different systems to answer a simple client question. That's a process that being able to actually have an automated way to generate that same thing at their fingertips could be really powerful. And so there's a big push there. I think the interesting part on going back to your business case question from before is that the business case for a lot of those types of automations, it's not just a factor of have we built enough that we think that there's benefit. It's also about adoption. So if I build a robot to automate that wealth advisor process that I just noted, if 50 wealth advisors can adopt that rather than one wealth advisor, it's going to be a much greater business case. And that's a different way of thinking about business case in the RPA sense because most people tend to think here's a process, this process, I have five people who run this on a day-to-day basis. And here's my business case. In this case, I built something really innovative. If I can get 100 people to use this because it takes 10 minutes out of their day, there's real time there, but it is causing a lot of our clients to think differently. So you talked about three things. As challenges scale, the business case, which you just talked about in change management, is that part of the, and they're interrelated, is that part of the challenge with scale? It is part of the challenge. I mean, just building on the last point around adoption, that what we're doing, what we're talking about here at the RPA, I think people that live in the RPA space day-to-day, this dust, this almost becomes second nature and like, yeah, the technology's not that complicated, this is very basic, but you start going out to an entire organization and especially outside of technology, it's new. And so the change management's really important. And it's important, we view from two lenses. One is really thinking about how do you upscale your workforce at a minimum so they know what technology's actually out there. It doesn't necessarily mean you're going to make everyone a bot builder in your organization, but knowing what RPA is and knowing that, hey, I have some tools to go help solve, I give the business problem is really important. But the second point that we think is really important in here is the ability to really think about the, what the long-term impact of the overall organizational model and how that actually adopts to using automation over time. And that ties into change management, which is the other thing, people don't like change. The other thing, we heard this morning, Craig LeClaire, the forestry analyst, talked about how a lot of robots are idle, sitting around idle at the orchestrator. So I was thinking, well, we're seeing SaaS models emerge and UiPath announced their cloud product. And I would expect you're going to see new pricing models as well, kind of usage-based pricing, which is kind of generally not how things are priced today, but is that something that customers are pushing for? Definitely. I mean, I think there's two things we hear from customers in this space. I think as RPA, as a product is developed, I think there was a push with all the vendors towards kind of what's priced for a bot. But the concept of a bot is that it's somewhat ambiguous concept to a lot of our clients. And what our clients really want is to price that value, right? And to understand if I'm building bots that are covering this part of the organization, I'm appropriately paying for this, rather than worry about how much workload did I put onto one bot versus another? I think with the mass adoption of cloud and the fact that the RPA ecosystem is quickly moving from a non-prem solution to a cloud-based solution, I think a lot of this is just going to happen naturally. I'm over time. I think the other really important part in there is not to just make this a technology question about the pricing. It's also a question on value delivered and realizing the benefits case and can you actually tie what those realized benefits are to what the actual price that you're actually going to pay for the software is? All right, you ready for some curve balls? Sure, I love it. Okay, so you're a thought leader. You work for one of the largest consultancies on the planet, global scale. You guys do some really great work. Disruption, we talk about digital transformation. Automation obviously plays in there. Blockchain, AI, RPA, et cetera. Do you think that banks will lose control of payment systems? I'm not, I would say the biggest problems that banks are facing with regards to that isn't necessarily whether they control the payment system or not. I actually think it's how effective they can run the system internally. I mean, I'm an automation guy, right? My goal is to make clients run as efficiently and as effectively as possible. And I look at a lot of the legacy debt that sits within a lot of our clients infrastructure. I think that's the biggest problem to tackle. I think if they don't tackle that and are not successful with topics like RPA and automation, it's going to create the forces of nature that allow some of the broader disruption to happen. So, at least in my mind, it's one of these things that you have your agenda and what you can control. These are the things that you actually should be focusing on. So you're set up to compete with some of the big disruptors in the future. Yeah, interesting. I mean, that's one industry, there's a disruption all around us, but that's one industry along with healthcare and defense that hasn't been highly disrupted yet because it's very high risk. Not only that, they've got very strong relationship with the government, and they're big and they're well funded, but it seems like that disruption scenario is coming to financial services. When you talk to people in the industry, they certainly see it, but there's also a lot of complacency. It's like, hey, we're a big FS, we're doing really well. Thoughts on that? There is, we look across, and I'll just say kind of technology investment in the banking sector, big banks and asset managers, insurance companies are some of the biggest spenders on technology out there. And if you look at a lot of the commentary that comes out of analyst calls, there's a pretty consistent push, A, to talk about a banking organization as a technology company or some form of that, and there's also a big push to talk about how much money they're spending. That's great, but we've also, I think when you kind of look under the covers, there's been a lot of historical challenges with implementing big technology projects and banks. There's a lot of legacy debt that's been built over the past 25 years and complexity, really thinking about this from a front to back perspective, like from the point, taking the trading side of a bank, looking at the point of trade entry through post-trade processing, through finance processing, through kind of every step in the life cycle, it's still run from a technology perspective, probably not as efficient as possible. And I think especially when you get outside the front office area and some of the training areas and look at that. So there's a ton of opportunity for improvement and kind of building on the last theme. I think to the extent that technologies like RPA and automation are embraced, it helps think about that problem a little bit differently and gives us a chance to tackle some of these big, meaty, legacy problems that have been around for a while. If we're successful at this and we can force the ROI to be proved, we can force the change management exercise to happen, I think it sets our clients up for success to avoid some of these disruptive factors. Yeah, so huge opportunity then for UiPath and some of its competitors. Penetration-wise, adoption-wise, what inning are we in? Ending two, we're in early days. I mean, I think we've seen a ton of interest, a ton of excitement from our clients, but our surveys of the financial services industry, most clients will acknowledge they're past the piled and proof of concept phase and they're maybe even past the first 10 bot phase, but they're not at scale, right? And I think until three things happen, I think until we can prove that the technology is being used from an organizational coverage across a much wider swath than it is today, I think when we can prove that there's actually real demonstrable benefit happening from an organizational operating model perspective and to the extent that the workforce is actually embracing this and not posing it, I think we'll be in a much better position to say, hey, we're now getting to inning five or six and this picture's becoming more complete, but it's still early. A lot of opportunities. Kevin, thanks very much for coming to theCUBE. It was great to have you. Thank you for having me. All right, thank you for watching. We're right back with our next guest right after this short break. You're watching theCUBE live from UiPath Forward 2019. At the Bellagio, right back.


Britain studies Russian military hardware captured in Ukraine. The United Kingdom has been disassembling and studying Russian armoured vehicles captured in Ukraine to learn more about how to counter these weapons. Antony Radikin, chief of the UK Defence Staff, said it to Sky News. Radikin explained why the UK has been studying Russian hardware captured on the battlefield in Ukraine. It's really important because we're in a club of nations that when we get hold of Russian kit or other nations kit that might be a danger to us in the future, we share that knowledge. Radikin pointed out, he said that the UK has scientists who examine the parts of the vehicles like forensic experts. That helps us to understand how does their equipment work? How can we defeat it? How can we have even better armour? How can we disrupt their communications? How can we ensure that we can penetrate their defences? And that's what we do, he stated. UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace believes that Russia will remain a major threat in the future and is most concerned about the risk of a direct clash with Russia. The United Kingdom is calling for allies to join London in supplying Ukraine with long range weapons capable of wiping out Russian forces behind the frontline.


Okay, thank you Thomas for some theory part about the PID regulators and now some part with developing with our own hardware. Now we have, now workbench supports some ST boards but we need to also use our workbench with some our customized board and how it's work. We can create custom board and select it in the new project inside the workbench. We have to find the example with more pins than we have. We select package which contains all our pins and then we find proper board and we have to check all analog and digital pins if it available in the smaller package. But we found it, we have to have a look inside the QPIMX for the pinouts to the workbench for the setup and find different pins in that and configure to the proper setup. We have to change some pins. Then we generate project with this setup and create QPIMX project and then we have to switch to the new MCU. We will go to the QPIMX and use import function. Import function is possible only if we open empty project with the target micro with the smaller package and then we can open project and import our setup from workbench. Then we select try import and then QPIMX start import and check all pins or pinouts if it correct or not. If yes we will find a status that it's finished. In some cases we have to select RC3 manually and correct it. This is case with RC fold. Then after we correct RC3 we can add all functionality like some communication LCD displays and etc. And save this project and use also with the motor functionality. Additional tips and tricks can be found in the FAQ located on our ST website. So don't hesitate and check it out. I want to highlight one thing that if we use this import and save it as the same name which we generate from workbench and we want to change some setup inside the workbench we have to use update apart from generate. Update option update only motor control part it's mean setup of the startup and all part about the motor control but don't affect setup which is done by QPIMX. Okay thank you very much for your patience and we wish you very successful motor control project. Thank you for your time have a good luck with motors.


because of the fact that this is not reuse or conversion this is a new building and therefore that then comes into conflict with the existing policies even though they accept the fallback position the point who are looking forward to supporting this is because of the taking into consideration with significant material consideration of that fallback position which in itself is this more beneficial to have the one building then fallback position which are the two buildings all are noting a slightly perverse nature of this class Q coming in again before we get the new application who else do we have before I bring it to Councillor Roberts on speakers Councillor Cohn is it a new point on that? yes it's a new point basically there's been a lot of concern saying about this being a conversion I think he's emphasising that this is not a class Q application it's not a, as people have commented it's an effect on new building even though it incorporates parts of the old bounds the reason why one might consider accepting it and I think accepting it as a new building is because it prevents the reuse of the two buildings before in other words it's reduction from one to two I don't think we should get distracted by the idea about it being a conversion I think that's rather irrelevant the real argument in favour of it the only argument that I can see is that you're reducing the number of buildings that can be built on that site from one to two to one thank you it is advertised as a case chair if I can just contribute at this point so just to draw members' attention to paragraphs 74 on page 88 so these paragraphs have been included because of this scenario were members to be concerned that it's not conversion that it's a new build dwelling and really I want to highlight the point there that officers are making is that even if you were to consider it a new build dwelling it's the view of officers at least that it would still be compliant with policy having regard to the fallback position so I accept that the description is for a conversion but if members were minded to agree to defer for it to be re-advertised as a new build that is an alternative that is open to the committee if the overriding concern of members is the description rather than necessarily the conflict and in the fallback position okay thank you Chairman if I may I did also ask that it was outside the village framework and that I thought there was visual harm so I have expanded beyond that if reasons are required thank you very much and Councillor Roberts I think from the end of the debate yes yes Chairman I'll try and keep it brief and I think we'd like him to keep it brief I think members have actually picked the problem, real problem here in that it doesn't comply with a very important policy the policy is there to protect the countryside it's to make sure that we don't get willy nearly speculative applications getting through to warrant it being acceptable it would either have to have a proper use in the countryside for a farmer or a farm worker or some multicultural or what have you use as somebody who is needing to be there in the countryside and it has to be compliant with being able to be actually adapted this is not an adaption this is not a barn conversion it's completely incorrect to have it titled as a barn conversion or a conversion of cowsheds this is a new build in the countryside which is not compliant in fact it's extremely non-compliant with a very important policy of this council I think it's a red herring to be thinking too much about one or two that's not what is in front of us today that would be up to the applicant to consider if this was a refusal today but in fact the parish council I don't know whether I particularly agree with it but the parish council have made the point that if it was two at least would give two families a home whereas this is one very large house with only providing accommodation for one family who've got no need to be there but just wish to be so chairman I very much hope that that we will actually support our policies my god they took some getting through we had all that time where we didn't have a local plan I just want to come on to this one let's please make sure that we actually follow our policies for the sake of everybody many thanks chairman thank you very much and I think Chris Carter what he put forward was if anybody wanted to consider proposing a deferral or you were saying for re-submission of this as a new bill I was just making the point chair that the option is there if members did want to defer the item for it to be re-advertised as a new bill but from the sounds of the debate I was just going to say I'm not hearing that exactly I'm not hearing that from the debate so I just wanted to clarify that I'm going to move to the vote if that's all right thank you chair I just want to clarify what we're voting on so we're not voting on that now we're voting on exactly I'm just about to say what we're going to vote on so this is now on the recommendation in the pact which is that thank you yes please reasons for refusal so a reason for refusal would be conflict with policies S7 and H17 in particular related to the enlargement of the resident's cartilage the increase in height and the bulk and form of the building and the visual harm thank you chair thank you and we are now page 93 is the recommendation on which we're voting which is planning a permission be approved subject to the conditions that are indicated and the informative from page 93 onwards so please members vote we're still waiting for one more Aaron could you help councillor Roberts with her voting please and that application has not been approved with six against and four for approval thank you members and thank you for everybody who's given their time it's ten past one and so I think we now take a break we have remaining two and three I think the next four Paul Van Haasen and Cymru those are all ones that have become because they are the transparency reasons aren't they and with some objections as well and then the rest are tree and hedge preservation borders so members do we take half an hour max more thank you very much 30 minutes so that's ten past one so we're back here at 22 thank you very much everybody thank you everybody welcome back to South Cams district council planning committee we are now moving on to agenda item seven page 99 of the agenda report pack this is for application 21 stroke 01390 slash H full of 24 Shelford Road full born the first list of the demolition of an existing rear extension and the construction of a two story side and single story rear extension the applicants councillor Mrs Cohn key material of considerations the character and appearance of the area residential amenity highway matters and green belt it's not a departure application it's been brought to the committee as normal because this is a member of the council so for transparency purposes the offer to the recommendation is approval and the presenting officer is Paul Hunt Paul are you with us good afternoon thank you chair good afternoon and welcome it's your first time to committee so very nice to see you Paul thank you just let me one second to share my screen alright thank you so is that visible for you there it is thank you very much thank you so yes the application is for a householder extensions a two story side and single story rear extension at 12 to 24 Shelford Road and we are recommending approval on the application the site is located on the north western side of Shelford Road indicated in red here the row is characterised by a group of semi detached dwellings and just please note on this map the large area to the south east of the site that is on the open countryside and that is the green belt boundary on the southern edge of the highway indicated here in an aerial map the site itself has a existing detached garage single story rear extension that would be demolished as part of the proposals and a brick front porch you can note here that there's a variety of materials in the street scene between brick and different coloured cladding the site does have existing solar panels the proposal would retain and relocate those on the extensions this is the indicative site plan indicating the hit roof of the two story element and a mono pitch roof to the single story rear element Elevational drawing shows the building to retain that hit roof profile which I noted before is a characteristic of the street scene that was following an amendment that we received the original proposal was for a gable end we consider the roof height to be dropped down sufficiently to make the extension subservient in accordance with the district design guide FPD in terms of the single story rear extension this is significantly screened from the street scene by its small size and location at the back and would project 1.6 metres beyond the rear elevation which we consider sufficiently small to avoid any neighbour harm here we see the simple floor plan showing the depth and width of the extension first graphs here indicate the character of the street scene again there is a level of uniformity however we can see that there are breaks with different porch extensions and also there are examples of two story extensions already permitted further down the street in terms of neighbour harm this neighbour does feature a first floor window as per the reports this window is obscured and serves a bathroom so I consider it to have minimal amenity value and there would be over 4 metres between this window and the new extension so I don't consider that it would create additional shadowing that would detract from the amenity of that neighbour oh I seem to have skipped a slide there apologies yes just a quick photo to show the rear of the house the neighbour has a window set some way from the boundary which leads to me believing it won't that the single story rear extension won't un-july overshadow will be overbearing and just confirm again that single story rear element is proposed to be demolished I've mentioned highway safety and parking in my reports because the extension will technically come out onto the driveway however the existing layout has a fence adjacent to the house and the site plan shows that it would retain two parking spaces in accordance with policy TI3 and also the site is adjacent to the green belt but due to the small scale and location the extensions we don't feel that would conflict with the policy on NH8 and just confirm we are looking to approve and that the only reason the application is before the committee is because it is a member of the council for transparency purposes thank you very much thank you very much and I know that we don't have any representations from public speakers I also know that in your report the parish council recommends support and there have been representations from neighbours about this and I would like to move that we go to a vote is that okay and I do note that two members of the committee have already stated that they wouldn't take part in the vote so everybody else shall we take this by affirmation by affirmation great thank you very much thank you very much Paul thank you if we can go to agenda item 8 members on page 107 this is for application 21 slash 01024 slash outline application land adjacent to 12 church street Haarston outline planning permission for a two-storey self-built dwelling with all the matters reserved the applicant is Mrs Geraldine Roper who is from South Cams district council the housing department the recommendation is approval key material considerations are principle of development impact upon the character and appearance of the area impact upon the adjoining green belt impact upon heritage assets residential immunity highway safety and parking provision ecology and tree matters and other matters it's not a departure being brought to the committee again in terms of transparency because the applicant is South Cams district council third party and the recommendations have been raised as well which is why it's come to committee the presenting officer is Charlotte Charlotte are you with us? Yes hello Charlie I'm here hello there nice to see you so could you give us any updates on the summary of the application please Charlotte nice to have you with us yes absolutely I'll just share my screen there we go can you just confirm that visible please it is now thank you okay brilliant okay yep so my application relates to the land adjacent to 12 Church Street Halston and the application seeks outline planning permission for a self-build dwelling up to two story with all matters reserved okay so I'll just start with some updates because I have been a few changes so firstly I have the description of development has been changed only slightly but just to point this out to members so the description previously was outline planning permission for a two story self-build dwelling with all matters reserved the description has been changed to outline planning permission for a self-build dwelling up to two story with all matters reserved and that has been changed so that with any reserve matters application a dwelling of two story or under could come in rather than just knocking it to two story only I've also had some additional comments since the report was finished so firstly from Halston parish council so the parish council raised an objection to the application on design and appearance materials highway safety issues taking and loss of privacy and the loss of designated allotment land so several of these matters have been covered already in my report including the designer materials, neighbour impact and highway safety and I just want to remind the committee at this point that the application is outlined so a lot of these matters will need to be addressed in full at reserved matters stage in terms of the allotment land the policy NH11 and NH12 can be used to protect designated land under either a protected village amenity area or as local green space this site has not been designated as protected allotment land in the local plan and is not in current use as allotment therefore the development of the site is not considered to conflict with these policies in terms of the amenity to the community also there was a representation received from 12 church street which is the property to the east of the site immediately adjacent to the boundary they wrote in to reiterate their concerns about the impact particularly in terms of loss of light to their west facing windows and particularly they wanted to point out that they have had some new windows permitted recently in an application the permitted extensions would involve the addition of one window which would serve the stairs at the first floor level and a patio door at ground floor level on the west elevation obviously the full impact would need to be addressed at reserved matters stage however the stairs are a non habitable room and the kitchen is also served by patio doors to the rear and likely there would be a significant impact that we would object to at this stage finally number 53 church street which is a little way from the site but along the road has also raised some objections including notice to neighbors height and design lack of parking space congestion on church street and loss of allotment land so the concern about the notice to neighbours was regarding the application having an extension of time the occupier was concerned that a new notice had not been erected following the extension of time a site notice was erected at the beginning of the application process and an extension of time does not require any additional notice to be given in the form of a site notice or any neighbour notification letters the height and design parking congestion have already been covered in the report and I have gone through the allotment land concerns ok so just moving on now so this is a site location plan that's been submitted on the left and on the right here I've just shown the site on an aerial photo so you've got the planning unit in red and the site in ownership beyond this in blue the reason it's been divided in this way is because beyond the rear of the red line is the country sign and green belt so this was a way for the applicant to keep the development contained within the development framework and not impact or not directly impact the countryside of green belt by developing into this land here I've just put together some photographs to show the site and some surroundings so if we just start in the bottom left here this is from church street so looking directly from the front of the site to the rear with number 12 church street to the right and you can just about see number 16 church street to the left there the second photo here is me where I'm stood in sort of the middle of the site looking towards number 12 church street just to show where that sits in the photo in the top at the middle here I've moved slightly further back in the site and I'm looking towards the front of the site which is church street from a similar location I've also taken a photo here of number 16 so this is the rear of number 16 looking from the site and finally in the bottom right hand corner here this is looking across church street I just thought this was an important part of the context for this application so with the application there have been some illustrative drawings submitted so this is the block plan and proposed site plan it does show how a dwelling may be accommodated within the site however this is an outline application this is only for illustrative purposes this is another illustrative image an elevation just to show again how a dwelling here may sit within the site so you've got number 16 on the left and I've attached a photo to show that excuse me and number 12 on the right here again I've shown a photo here this is again some 3D perspective sketches just to help trying to show how the dwelling again would sit in the site but as I've talked about there for illustrative purposes only as this is an outline application with all matters reserved key planning considerations are the principle of development impact on the character and appearance of the area impact upon the green belt impact upon heritage assets residential highway safety and parking provision ecology tree matters and other matters and my recommendation is to approve subject to conditions you have to you have to ask to go through this bit late in the afternoon it's alright so we don't have any other public speakers so we can go straight to questions and to debate again chairman can the officer just go back to the I think it was about two from the end two from the last that we saw which was a photograph of the site looking at the site just to give me an idea of that these if it's possible yep that's fine I'll just go back to my screen is this the I think when you were standing in the on the site apologies yep no further on this one do you have a question about that that's fine so I think just to remind ourselves especially in terms of representations received most of those are would be dealt with under reserved matters I suppose what we have to make sure is the key material considerations per outline application so do I have any yeah Councillor Richard Williams of myself thank you chair can I just press a bit more on this allotments issue which is new information I'm trying to sort of get my head around having had a quick look at the local plan not all allotments I know were designated in that plan because the allotments are right behind my house not identified in the plan for my village so are we absolutely sure that this is not allotment land and therefore I think there is an act about allotment land you can't sell it off for that Secretary of State's permission are we absolutely sure that doesn't apply because I don't think designation in the local plan is necessarily definitive because as I say I know for a fact there are allotments that are not designated in that local plan just a clarification of that point land being used for allotment and what is called designated allotment land and what the status of this I think is that what you're asking case officer yeah so currently it's not in use as allotment land and it's not designated so from our point of view you know it's not currently in use and it's not designated therefore it can't really be protected as allotment land Can I just come back I'm not necessarily arguing because as I say this is new information for me and I'm trying to get my hand around it as well but have we looked at the legality of it all because there is legislation around allotments and obviously I don't have time to go through it all and check what the definition of allotment is in law but there are legal rules about that so can I just have a clarification to whether we have looked into the law the 1922 act there, the 1925 act I think have we looked at those Yeah I can say Chris would you like to comment on that Yeah I don't know if it's been looked into but if it's not registered as allotment land then it wouldn't be subject to any requirement to refer to the Secretary of State before being used for allotment purposes far as I'm aware but unless Richard wants to add a certain thing to that No I think it would be on a register held by Southcams District Councillor if it had that statutory status It was me but one question has been answered so Councillor Cahn is next I would just go to comment that we're looking at planning permission here and it's a separate legal matter they could be given planning permission but then find out they couldn't implement it and that's the way I would look at it but I wonder if there are any comments on that That's true It's all becoming very legal ease our planning community meetings Do we have any other comments So I had a Williams chair Yeah Thank you Chairman Looking at it I think it can fit one dwelling on that site in that respect However I'm not entirely convinced that it's appropriate for a development and a building on that site Under which On material considerations would you say for outline On the principle of development to the character of the area you could say or the street scene I just think it's a green space that breaks up that area So I'm a little torn because while I do think one would fit I'm not sure I think that it's a slippery slope It's a green space We shouldn't be Thank you and Councillor Roberts Yeah I'm disappointed that it's come in as an outline I think that it is a sensitive application actually and I'm not sure on the details of actually how well it will marry in down there There's some very interesting buildings in that area and it looks to me as well also it gives you that through look into the green bells and I'm also slightly wary I've taken part what Martin said which is if we give it and then there's a legal thing then we won't be able to do anything if people seem to think it is allotments whether it's one of those things that an old an old charity situation land or even church land or something it's in church street So I would have liked to have known a little bit more about the why people think it's allotment land and I'm wary of actually approving it because I don't know what we're getting there but in terms I can't really hear material considerations in that normally I can Councillor Roberts but I think what I would say is that all of those things probably would be addressed in reserved matters that's what you're basically saying isn't it so it's kind of but I don't do we have anybody I would From the photo world it appears to be that it's an open land but it's used as public access at present the factor whether it's legal I do the point about green space it seems to be a legitimate concern that people may have because it effectively is a lot of open space even if it was originally allotment land and I think we do need to consider that matter If I may I think we're all struggling with the planning reasons so I think it's going to inevitably we have to be that vote but as the application is ourselves perhaps we could ask the applicant to consider even if they get permission whether they really want to do this and put this building in this space as a work around and I think that the springs up just practicality down at this they do want it because they've made the application it is also supporting self-build policy and self-build infills and being creative in those I do take the piece about green space but in terms of the policy reasons it's not there nor clasped as green space so I'd like to move to a vote quite quickly on this for the outline planning reasons the one reason I've heard in terms of principle of development will actually impact on character and appearance of the area is what you were given if that would be is that right? Yeah chair through you I think there are hooks to that effect in policy HQ 1 design principles which provide proposals among sort of things to preserve or enhance the character of the local urban and rural area and respond to its context and there are also hooks in there in relation to being compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of scale density mass I don't think that we can really use here but I think we need to be clear that we're talking about the principle of a dwelling and if members are minded to refuse them we're saying in principle a dwelling of any kind up to two stories would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the rural area that would be my only suggestion really. Okay I'll move to the vote and I think in terms of green space that's something we need to do in policy terms to see what you actually do with these kind of things but right now we don't have that there so members please if you would vote and the recommendation is to approve recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to the appropriate planning conditions and informative that laid out on page 114 to 117 for this outline planning application and all other matters where we've heard representations would be at reserved matters please vote. Aaron thank you very much we have a result there yes and that is that this has been approved with seven votes in favour and three votes against thank you very much we now go to agenda item nine on page 119 of our agenda pack this is for application 21 slash 0662 slash TTHR in Cottenham land sexual drove and smithy fen and the proposal is to remove ah so the next few applications that we do have committee are about hedgerow and about tree protection orders and it's a bit sort of a strange but within our protocol this is something that South County district council has to go through and do but we do have a doubling nature strategy I just want to say this before we go into all of these so it is important that each of these do go through somebody to make sure that each of these applications are sound and robust but usually we should have all of the relevant justifications for those so this one is for the removal of five seven metres sections of a hedgerow to facilitate the laying of a new sewer you don't have to move it it's fine that you're not voting and this is by Anglia and water services the key material considerations is whether or not the hedgerow qualifies important hedgerows and whether the removal is justified and the applications brought to the committee because all hedgerow regulation matters must come to committee and the presenting officer is Miriam Hill our trees officer Miriam you with us good afternoon hello Miriam can you hear me nice to see you welcome to committee I can just share my screen with you can I confirm you can see my title slide we can do thank you thank you so this is a removal notice that's been served on the council the applicant has to give us notice because they are working on a hedgerow within the countryside area and therefore it is protected under their hedgerow regulations 1997 I'll just give you some information about the location first so we're in the north side of Cottenham at broadly the Smithy Fenbridge the yellow lines are the roots of some new sewer pipes that need to be laid in this particular location the green arrows are the points at which the hedgerows need to have the seven metre sections removed from them so these sections there's three on Smithy Fen and two on sexual growth so just having a brief look at the character of the area and the exact locations of where they'll be putting these gaps in the hedgerows so the most suddenly one is a protected hedgerow it has been there so all the locations would qualify as important hedgerows under their hedgerow regulations for varying criteria so the main crux of the issue is whether there is sufficient justification to remove the sections of hedgerow so just to briefly look at them though so the most suddenly one is your traditional countryside hedgerow and with sheep grazing behind it the second most suddenly one you can see at the top of the screen there, top right of the screen and that's actually already a gap within the hedgerow so technically they won't be removing any of the hedgerow but gaps within protected hedgerows are still of a class as hedgerow under the regulations then the three most northerly two are a more a Cyprus hedgerow and even though they're not a native hedgerow, technically they still would fall under the hedgerow regulations because the location of the hedgerow is pre-enclosure act location of hedgerow so they would still qualify it's an unusual scenario but technically it would still qualify and then the most easterly section of hedgerow is a hawthorn and lwm traditional countryside hedgerow I believe that's all my slides I have the regulations are clear that hedgerow removal should be only for exceptional reasons the hedgerows are being removed to facilitate a sewer at these particular points there is no other method of laying the pipe work such as directional drilling etc and therefore the officers recommend that the notice and the reasoning is reasonable although the applicant didn't mention this in their notice to the council they do do replanting once they have finished on site thank you thank you very much do we have any comments or questions members so just at the end of all that they are going to replace them is that right they are going to remove these and replace them is that what I heard that is correct yes they were not very specific on their specifications but they did clarify that it sounds like that they will replace like for like that's useful for my decision making do we need to condition that is there a way of condition that in any way I'm afraid not these are notices on the councils rather than applications so there's no condition if we find it unacceptable we have to issue a hedgerow retention notice okay thank you very much members I suggest we put this to the vote and this we note then this the hedgerow removal and cut it up by affirmation great thank you very much I think you're still with us Miriam on agenda item 10 which is on page 123 this is the tree protection order 0011 from 1985 in the parish of Eltisly and the proposal is to revoke a TPO which is no longer current in land to the north of Eltisly Wood and the recommendation is to revoke a TPO and the application is being brought to committee because it's required to under the council scheme of delegation Miriam can I just confirm that you can see my title slide yes we can okay so TPO 0011 is land to the north of Eltisly Wood it protected one oak tree in a field the original order was placed on a tree in 1985 and this is an aerial photograph from 2003 so the tree has been not in this this situ for more than 20 years if the tree had only just recently been removed when this aerial photograph was taken the striations of the plowing would look slightly different because they'd still be going around the stump or it would still be a rocked ground from where the stump had been removed so this revoking this order has not come from an application as such we are undertaking an administration of our TPO's and trying to remove or update orders so as there's no longer any tree there and there is no outstanding enforcement issues or anything like that we would like to revoke this order thank you Miriam and I think what we are concerned about is what we don't want to have is a situation where we've heard previously where there's a sort of a perverse situation where people cut something down and then say it's no longer there so can we seek to revoke the TPO obviously you're showing as you're doing this we're going to receive quite a few of these and it could look like we're just allowing that to happen but what you're doing is updating and making sure that the records are correct so in this particular instance that tree hasn't been there for your records since 2003 from that google search that's right yeah so just to confirm at some point between 1985 and 2003 the tree was removed unfortunately our records aren't accurate enough some records were lost due to compute systems and some before compute systems occurred have gone off into the filing ether so it could have been genuinely moved for any number of reasons and as there's no enforcement case I don't think there's some kind of like nefarious tree removal going on thank you I like that one we'll use that one so I'd like to put this to the members that we vote to note and approve that this is revoked can I take that by affirmation committee great thank you and we continue then on agenda item 11 this is TPO number 0016 from 1989 in castle camps to revoke a TPO which is no longer current in old camps castle high street castle camps and the recommendation is to revoke the order Miriam you want to tell us about this one so again this is a very similar issue where a TPO was served on a tree in 1989 this is the location in castle camps this is the main we can't see your screen actually bear with me a moment sorry we can now thank you excellent okay so there's the village layout with the main junction of the village there and this TPO was previously in the grounds of the new inn at castle camps it protected a weeping ashtray and if I now just show the 2003 aerial photography you can see the location was in a side garden and sometime between 1989 and 2003 the tree had to be removed again there's no outstanding like enforcement issues or any records as to why the tree was removed at the time okay so so we would ask if it could be revoked thank you that's a recommendation and this is part of an audit so we're actually being able to be better at knowing what's happening with our trees overall is that right Miriam that is correct yes so again I move council can again we have the same situation where a tree has been lost at a time we don't know by somebody we don't know so it's very difficult I really want to if this had happened say in the last couple of years and there was a complaint about it we would normally ask for replanting when a tree is removed we don't seem to have any policy about what sort of delay that we would take up these matters it might be useful but I wanted to ask you say there's no enforcement issues do we need to have an enforcement notice to be able to insist on replanting how would you make sure that somebody replanted are we precluded from requiring replanting if we can't identify the person to serve the enforcement so enforcement cases have to be created within three years of the tree work being undertaken so because these are so old they couldn't even if we thought there was some kind of nefarious reason for the trees removal we couldn't take it up if it had happened recently we do have a very strong enforcement team and they work with me to create things like tree replacement notices etc but I'm afraid this is somewhat older and we can't really raise a case from some time before 2003 so the critical issue is three years three years is the key period of time yes thank you so I move that we take this by affirmation that we revert so Councillor Williams did indicate which it I was only going to make a point to suggest that we went to the vote really because I would say it's hard to enforce I mean Councillor Batch and I were just about alive for this one but we weren't for the last one so I think it would be a bit hard to trace back so happy to go to the vote thank you there's someone revealing good so move to by affirmation to revert that TPO yep good thank you very much agenda item 12 on page 27 this is in Caxton is the same this is a good news so this is to serve so not only we taking away we are creating and serving TPO's and this is on a development conditional on a developments conditional tree planting in first farm St Peter Street Caxton and the recommendation is that a TPO is to be served thank you Miriam so just to confirm can you see my screen yes give me just flick through so this relates to a current development site at first farm in St Peter Street Caxton here is Caxton and the red arrow points out the site and then I've just put in a couple of closer images so that you can get an idea of the lay of the land and the position of the site that's a former farm and now is going to go over to eight dwellings so this item is to request permission to serve a non-emergency provisional TPO on conditional tree planting this tree planting has been agreed to under discharge of conditions associated with the erection of the eight dwellings the boundary trees on the site will be especially important to the setting and with the topic first discussion during the planning application process and most parties agreed that they were quite pivotal to the development soft landscaping is conditionally protected for the five years after installation but the order would seek to extend their preservation over the following decades the focus of the order would be on the external boundary trees rather than the internal streets trees these are the long term structural boundary trees including field maple and hornbeam a provisional order will be served and if agreed to and the interested parties will then have a period of time to give representations or object to the order the council can then consider these issues and choose to confirm with or without modification or not confirm the order thank you I'm sure I will speak on behalf of everybody you have difficult decisions and a landscaping is a key part of that and we want you to see that but then this comes in to be protected so that's good I noticed on the plan that the field to the north a joining field is marked as the menorial earthworks and there's indications of earthworks is this a protected site and will the boundary trees threaten the underground remains that might be there no it is not a protected site and they won't damage the earthworks there was already a row of trees and kind of I think hedgerow is a bit of a grand term for what it was that was in that location and so but it was not of high quality so they removed some of the material that was perhaps more dangerous or was not fit for purpose and so this is strengthening that boundary and then providing more trees going forward thank you, thank you very much and so again continue to retake this by affirmation oh sorry thank you chair, just a quick clarification I noticed where I'm saying it was not an emergency TPO but I mean what I'm trying to understand is if we don't put it on now isn't there a risk that the trees could then be cut down in the meantime by the time we get to put the TPO on it is there a risk I think is my question in this location and time no there isn't because these trees have not actually yet been planted so it is possible to issue a conditional TPO on trees which have agreed to be planted either on development sites or because a TPO tree has had to be removed and we conditioned its replacement we can then condition the TPO onto the new planting even though it hasn't been put in the ground excellent, you're doing brilliantly here this is fantastic can we take that by affirmation that we do agree to serve that TPO thank you very much agenda item 13 this is a review of the local list of validation requirements of planning applications that we've been receiving some information about through council emails as well I think we have Sharon Brown hello Sharon with us do you want to explain this item to us Sharon yes good afternoon everybody hello this is a procedural item so all local planning authorities are required to have a local validation list in place to supplement their national validation requirements the local list sets out the council's requirements in relation to information to be provided with planning applications the requirements need to be related to local plan policies and adopted guidance and be necessary and reasonable the local list has been subject to consultation Appendix 1 attached to the report includes the validation list schedule of requirements Appendix 2 attached to the report summarises the consultation responses and the officer comments on those and whether changes are being proposed a parallel process has been carried out in respect of the Cambridge City Council local validation list and this was agreed for adoption by the city council planning committee on the 30th of June whilst ideally it would have been preferable to have a single joint validation list combining the south cams and city council requirements it hasn't been possible at this stage however there's will be opportunity through the planning service review process which has recently started to reconsider this and to carry out a further update in due course so the recommendation is as set out on page 132 of the agenda papers that the local validation list be approved for adoption thank you very much I'm pretty sure I'm just looking at the consultation responses we did consult with parish councils didn't we on this as well I'm sure I've seen it on agendas but it only lists a few is that because we didn't have anything back from parish councils so we're checking not missing something so that's the first thing and the second one is a bit of a plea it might not be possible that if we're looking at changes it really does help if we've got track changes from the original so we can see what is actually different so just a couple of minor points thank you chairman so the consultation that was carried out was generally an open consultation which is consistent with the way that consultations are carried out on validation lists so the consultation was published on the council's website and comments invited parish councils were advised about it informally rather than formally and I think the only mail out that was carried out in respect to the validation list was in relation to planning agents because obviously the planning agents are the largest group of stakeholders in terms of submitting planning applications so it was more of a general consultation an open consultation so for example Cambridge Pass Present and Future responded as part of the open consultation process and just apologies about the track changes as you can see though was a relatively small number of responses to the validation list consultation as a whole but again this is consistent having looked at the consultations carried out by other planning authorities and looked at their consultation responses again I think given that this is a technical process and more of a procedural process they tend to attract quite a small number of consultation responses That's what we want to come back Thank you, yeah it was just could you just confirm that no parish councils have responded and it got into the consultation That's what I was clarifying just to make sure I missed Thank you That's the whole case Thank you another question I guess it's a statement just to say I'm glad that we've got this here now because it's hopefully going to enable us to get applications that are better and because perhaps we have lots of validation issues ongoing and this is guidance for those who are submitting applications It's good quality applications that can be balised there quickly and enable us to actually process the application efficiently so I do welcome it Any other comments? Yup, I've been through it all and it does seem that you've addressed every single one of the comments they seem a lot but they're from a few people on many points but I do see that they've been addressed every single one of them so that is committee I move that as per the recommendation that we do approve this for adoption this revised local validation list Can I take that by affirmation? Thank you very much Sharon Thank you and we now move to agenda item 14 which is the enforcement report and sadly we hear that Yes chair I'll give a brief update unfortunately the enforcement officer is taking on well this morning so he has emailed me with three updates which I'll just quickly run through related to the items listed in the agenda papers so on the crowd-aise site at Linton a further meeting has been held between the planning officers and the developers to move forward with the matter regarding drainage and planning enforcement are not currently instructed to take any further action at this stage On Burlwash Manor a letter under caution has been sent to the owner advising that a prosecution is to commence and on Whitehall Farm the planning agent for the owner was contacted and they have stated that an application will be submitted by the 19th of July so those are the updates that I've been provided with I'm happy to take away any questions and refer them back to the enforcement team otherwise if members want to approach directly I'm sure that's fine too thank you Thank you for including Whitehall Farm on the agenda and I look forward to seeing the application come in as officers will be aware that has been promised quite a few times so if we can make sure that we're on the ball on the 19th to make sure it actually comes in this time thank you Cantha Ross Just a very quick thank you if it could be passed through to Julia I reported something to Julia just a couple of days ago that had been confirmed by one of my parish councils up in the hills and I got an immediate response from Julia the next month, the next day just really hours to say that she was on to it she was going to get something activated immediately so I think that is superb and very very quick especially in the circumstances that officers are still not working properly here so if it could be passed on I'm grateful and I'm sure my parish council will be very great for when I report it to them Thank you chairman Thank you very much and we do hope that it gets back to us So agenda item 15 Appeals Yeah just one brief update in relation to hearings so I think at the last committee I advised members that there was to be a hearing at the end of last month in relation to the two appeals at land at Mill Lane Sauston that hearing was postponed as the applicant had failed to display a site notice on the form so the planning inspectorate had no choice but to delay that so we are waiting for a rearrange date for that hearing the reason I raised that one is that members are interested in appeals related to FIVIS supply and the other one just to highlight is the appeal at land at and to the rear of 1332 where they are following very similar argument to the appeals at Sauston so just to bring that to everyone's attention as well we don't have dates for those hearings yet though so keep them informed on that Thank you Any questions? Just on the one that was just mentioned you said the abbey group from that 1332 it's gone down as a non-determination that's going through will we be giving a view as to what we would have said I just recall sometimes that application down to committee that have gone through a non-determination but we still give a judgement as to how we would have voted if that makes any sense to all I'll need to refer back to the case officer to ask whether that's happening this particular case it is possible has happened in the past so I'll take that away I don't know it's correct but on the enforcement notices you've got three in May and then one in the calendar year to date does that mean that the does the calendar year to date just mean the months before May or is it just that you transpose the figures Where are you soy? I'm at page 185 at the top You've gone back? We've gone past enforcement on appeals now Notwithstanding chair I'll ask the question Anything else? I just want to check the group set up after the pass report I just want to check it's not met recently because it was I think back in the last meeting somehow I got left off the distributionist and get invited so I just want to check it hasn't met rather than I've just I was on the priority list to re-establish it Can we make sure I get back on that distribution list if it's the date because we don't know I haven't had that date Well we will make sure that everybody gets the invitation Yes Okay That is everything for today's agenda Thank you committee Thank you everybody


Peter Cooper, inventor, entrepreneur and philanthropist, founded the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in 1859. Conceived as a civic-minded institution for education in the fields of design and engineering, today the Cooper Union is comprised of three professional schools, focused on art, architecture and engineering, and also includes a faculty of humanities and social sciences. The foundation building, designed by Frederick A. Peterson and completed in 1859, was the most technologically innovative building of its time. In 2009, exactly 150 years later, the Cooper Union opened 41 Cooper Square across the street to enhance the civic and academic mission of the institution. Just as the foundation building had embodied concerns with democratic access through forward thinking, design and engineering, 41 Cooper Square, designed by Morphosis Architecture, led by Tom Main, presented maverick thinking around concerns of environment, site, programming and beauty. As with any bold statement, the building has inspired both admiration and critique, but most everyone wants a peek inside. Walk in and a vertical piazza forms the heart of the building. It's designed to be the central space for informal social, intellectual and creative exchange. A grand staircase, 20 feet wide, ascends four stories from the ground level. A skylit central atrium reaches to the full height of the eight-story building. Sky bridges connect the top floors. The steel and plaster-gritted lattice that winds its way up not only adds an architectural element, but also further reflects the natural light into the interior. The space improves airflow and the use of natural daylight, which illuminates 75 percent of the workspaces in the building. That cuts down on powered lighting, resulting in energy savings. Around the central atrium, 41 Cooper Square contains world-class academic laboratories for civil, chemical, biochemical, physics, mechanical and electrical research. Classrooms are used for engineering coursework as well as humanities and social sciences classes. The top floor, equipped with skylights, contains studios for students of the School of Art. Among the other sustainable attributes of 41 Cooper Square, the classrooms, labs, studios, offices and public spaces are heated and cooled by radiant ceiling panels that use recycled water. Construction sensors in each room trigger the panels, so they're not heating or cooling an empty room. This is just one of the many advanced engineering and design techniques used to earn the building the first-ever platinum-level LEED certification for an academic and laboratory building. Just outside the building's glass envelope is one of its key environmental and architectural features, a stainless steel mega-mesh skin that wraps around the building. But only does it give 41 Cooper Square its unique exterior. It also acts as an insulator during the winter, while shielding the building from the sun during the summer. It gives you a continuous surface of form that moves you away from the pragmatics of window wall. And then, in this case, it allows us to shape the building and to give it kind of a very unique form that had a dynamicism we're looking for and had an energy which we're looking for. Anything this building was about the energy of its faculty and students, what they do is produce ideas. One level below the street, you reach the public spaces of the building that include a gallery and the Frederick P. Rose Auditorium. The walls are covered in sound-dampening fine-steel mesh that was hammered by hand in Germany to achieve its wrinkled effect. 41 Cooper Square has some secrets, including the egress staircases that add a splash of color to the otherwise mostly white and gray interior. The building also contains the city's only anechoic chamber, a sound-dampening space where you can literally hear a pin drop. Thanks for joining us on this brief tour of 41 Cooper Square. For more about the building, visit our website at cooper.edu.