Saun iawn, ddechrau o'n rhoi a ddechrau yn cyn Bobby Cymru. Felly mae'n gweithio'n nhw'r gweithio'r bottles a'r gweithio'n cymryd ag y Maergylch G Og. Mae'r gweithio'r gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'r gweithio. Mae eich hynny sydd i'w bobl i morch, ond o'r eich rhan o'r rhwng yn gyntaf mewn. i'w eu lleidio i'ch wych yn wirio yn y llai, oedd yng Nghymru i maes gwybod ac zieodd yn bwysig yn yr yrwnt o gymaint rydw i'n creu eu cynllun. Rydw i'n bwysig felly rydw i'ch ffordd Ionathan, bod yr hwn oerdd hyn yn byw. Rydw i bawb og%, dywedodd yn fawr yn iawn, dywedodd yn fawr hynny. Rydw i'n fawr, a dywedodd yn y ddeddydd i'r fryddiud iddo, i'r fryddiad deithas rydych yn y bydd ynglyn i'r fryddiad yma. Yn dweud dylai excessonol ddweud â'r ddweud. Ta-wy'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud? Rhyw hwnna rhaid ddweud o addysg ar y tro, fel angen o'r llawg- cognitive-i. Ddweud dylai'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud? Felly rhaid o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Yn ydych chi'n gweld iddyn y gwirionedd cyfoedd. Adegwyd levelol yng Nghymru wedi bod etynodó. I move the approval of those minutes as a correct record. Is that seconded? Councillor Jimmy Hawkins is seconded, isn't it? And are there any issues? Sorry, I was just waving at me because you wanted to speak on the minutes, but you can second them as well. Councillor Hawkins, would you like to speak to the minutes please? Sorry, Llyda, it's not to the minutes of the meeting to acknowledge in other councillors who might be in the Chamber and online. Yes? We've not done that. Sorry, what haven't I done? Acknowledging members who are either in... You want me to acknowledge them by name, do you, the people who are online? And in the Chamber. And in the Chamber. Oh, I'm sorry, I beg your pardon, sorry. My apologies. Councillor Anna Bradnam is present in the room as well and everybody else is online. So my apologies, Councillor Bradnam. Right, going back to the minutes. Are there any issues arising from the minutes, please? No. So I shall move that the minutes are approved. Is that seconded, please? Councillor Jimmy Hawkins is seconded. Do you members agree to approve the minutes? Does anyone wish to vote against? And anyone wish to abstain? Okay, so Cabinet therefore agrees to approve the minutes as a correct record by affirmation. So moving on to item five, public questions. So we've received four public questions and the first of those is from Mr Daniel Fulton, who is attending in person. Mr Fulton, would you like to ask your question, please? Yes, I would. I'd also like to correct the record and say that the council received five questions, one of which you have unlawfully refused to allow the member of the public to ask in violation of her right of freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Commission on Human Rights. And I would appreciate if you could please acknowledge that chair. Mr Fulton, we emailed Mrs Williams, who submitted the question on the 6th of January, explaining why her question could not be accepted. And this email was recent to her at 6.52 this morning when she emailed late last night to request that you would be asking the question on her behalf. So would you like to ask your question now, please? It would have been nice if you would have given reasons. There was a reason given and the question was refused on the basis that the council was made aware that the matter may be the subject of legal proceedings. That is not a legitimate grounds to refuse Mrs Williams to ask the question. That is completely unlawful and this council has unlawful legal problems as it is without you further wasting public expenses on needless legal proceedings. Councillor Smith, this is not acceptable. You need to allow Mrs Williams' question to be asked. And what is the harm of allowing her to ask the question? I'm going to refer what you've said to the head of legal services. Thank you chair. So Mr Fulton, the council does have a very clear public speaking protocol and you're simply wrong in the comments that you've just made. And the chair did have the lawful authority to refuse the question. Point five of the public speaking scheme says the chair, having regard to the advice of the proper officer, may reject a question or statement if it refers to any matter which is or may be the subject of legal proceedings. Now as you well know that there was a Zoom meeting organised last Thursday night in which you gave a presentation about it. And so on that advice to the chair that is the reason why the question was refused. Thank you chair. Through the chair, thank you for that response Mr McKenna, but as you know the council's constitution must be interpreted in accordance with the statutory laws of the United Kingdom. And Parliament has seen fit in 1998 to enact the Human Rights Act, which made the European Convention on Human Rights part of the statutory laws of this country. And this council is subject to the constitutional laws of the United Kingdom, whether you like it or not. Mr Fulton, I'm not prepared to debate this now. Would you like to ask your question please? I will proceed. Thank you. My remarks today considering how this council has systematically and intentionally violated the civil rights of the residents of South Cambridgeshire for the political advantage of the majority political group. I was speaking with a barrister recently who has many years of experience in dealing with local authorities and he told me that there are two kinds of local authorities, member-led authorities and officer-led authorities. And I think he almost got that right. But in fact there are two kinds of local authorities, officer-controlled authorities and member-controlled authorities. And I very much regret to say that this is undoubtedly an officer. Mr Fulton, could you please stick to the question that you've submitted to this council?  I have three minutes to state my question. Councillor Smith, I have freedom of expression. I have a right to say what I want to say in this meeting. Mr Fulton, on treating you with respect, I would please request that you treat me with similar respect and modulate how you're talking to me please. Thank you, Chair. On the 8th of September, moments after serious allegations of misconduct were made against this council, the audio of this council's planning committee was abruptly terminated. Last week I met with the council's new head of HR and corporate governance who indicated that he had not carried out any investigation into the events. Despite the fact that these allegations have been made to the leader of the council, the chair of the planning committee and the executive councillor for planning, in addition to the chair of the council who is here today and the chair of the council's employment committee. Why there has been no investigation into this completely boggles my mind. If there has been an investigation done, it has only been done by the officers who apparently took part in the misconduct and that is simply unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that this council has threatened the honest law abiding members of this council with trumped up code of conduct proceedings if they seek access to information that relates to the misconduct that occurred on the 8th of September. That is completely unacceptable. This council has always had governance problems, but in the past four years it has deteriorated to the point where democracy is unable to function. There is so much concealment and cover-up of public information that it has become impossible for councillors to do their jobs. It is a shameful scenario and it is frankly unacceptable. Thank God there is an election coming up in May. Question number one, Councillor Smith, if you would like to answer it. Thank you, Mr Fulton. So you have previously asked for information regarding the planning meeting on the 8th of September 2021 and we have provided responses for three requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Now, while we are not obliged to inform you whether or not the data is held, as explained in response 10130, it was made clear to you in our FOIA responses 9704 and 9779 that we do not hold the data you seek as this is an outsourced service. With regards to your reference to the automated logs, again I refer you to the previous requests you've made on this topic under FOIA requests 9779 and 10130 and our outstanding requests that you clarify, you clarify the nature of the data you are seeking in FOIA 10154. In order to determine whether we can confirm the existence of data or disclose it, we need to understand if it falls within the category which could represent a security risk to the organisation. We have previously asked that you make it clear whether you are seeking messages relating to technical information or general communications and we await your reply. Please also note that we have informed you and reiterate this now that further requests concerning technical information from council systems regarding the meeting on the 8th of September 2021 will be classed as vexatious and not responded to. Clear explanation and reasoning for refusal or exemptions has already been provided on several occasions. Do you have a supplementary question, Mr Fulton? I do. I have a supplementary comment and question. Firstly, the exemption under section 311A of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is not applicable here. This is a complete nonsense. The fact that you have been advised to say this calls this council into serious disrepute and there is no basis for that. Secondly, yes, some tasks have been outsourced to VP AV Limited. However, I very much doubt that the personal device in use by the head of paid service on the 8th of September is a device owned by VP AV Limited. If it was, I would invite the council to clarify that. Secondly, what you have called responses under the Freedom of Information Act do not actually constitute responses as defined under sections 1 and 10 of the Act. This council needs to get serious legal advice about the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act. You also failed to mention that this council failed to comply with lawful obligations under the duty of disclosure. If your intention here is to waste the resources of the Fuse Lane Consortium so that they cannot be used in political activities, that is a complete abuse of process and is an abuse of your position as leaders of this council. That's all I have to say. We're reaching the point where we are soon to have to call for resignations. Even if no one resigns, I trust the voters of this district will do the right thing in May. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Vulton. I didn't detect a question there, so thank you for your time. Right, moving on to the next question, which is from Jenny Conroy, who I believe is attending the meeting remotely. Sorry, can't keep glasses and masks on while it wants. Something keeps giving. Ms Conroy, would you like to pose your question? Thanks very much, Chair. Can you just confirm you can hear me clearly? We can. Thank you very much. Thank you. So this is a statement I've put forward in relation to Agenda Item 8. And it's a statement in support of a vote today to postpone agreement of the proposed submission of NECAP at Reg 19. I've also included in my statement, which has been circulated supporting evidence. I appreciate councils have a tremendous amount of paperwork to get through. I'm assuming today, Chair, that I don't have time to read through the supporting evidence, but I do want the Cabinet to be aware that there is further information supporting this statement. So the statement itself, National Planning Policy requires developing local plans to be flexible to accommodate changes in circumstances. What appeared to be the most appropriate course of action to attain a planning objective in one year may be less apparent a few years on. It is also a requirement that all reasonable alternatives have been identified and considered, that the plans are achievable and reflect both national and local planning policies. There have been a number of changes and new circumstances since South Cams voted to support Angliam Waters application for HIF funding that enabled Angliam Water to start the process of seeking a viable alternative site for their water treatment plant in order to release that brownfield site from which it currently operates for housing. This is also relevant with regard to the objectives of the timetable specified in the local plan development scheme. In this case, to progress to formal agreement by the councils of the proposed submission of NECAP at this time, two years ahead of public consultation, with an explicit objective to facilitate a successful DCO examination. I quote, the formal agreement by the councils of the proposed submission AAP will be an important factor in the DCO examination process to demonstrate commitment to development of the area. The size and scale of NECAP as currently presented and the now proposed relocation of the large scale industrial wastewater treatment plant into open greenbelt in close proximity to Cambridge City and principal conservation areas will have significant impact on Cambridge itself. However, it will be the population and electorate served by South Cams that will be most affected. In particular, Milton from the high population growth on its doorstep and impact on existing green infrastructure and of course particularly Milton Park. As a result of the relocation of the wastewater treatment plant, the villages of Horningsey, Fendin, Stoke and Quay and Lode. It is argued that the changes that have occurred, those that remain uncertain and new information that has come forward since the initial support behind the relocation project and as I say supported in the attached further documentation are such that it would be in the best interest of South Cams and the population it serves to postpone agreement of the proposed submission until after the outcome of the DCO and also the outcome of the public consultation Reg 18 on the emerging local plans. It's important for South Cams to retain flexibility and influence in the planning process with regards to kneecap, its size, scale, etc. and also to retain effective scrutiny and influence over the design and mitigation measures Anglian Water put forward for the new plant at Reg 19 of the DCO and for South Cams to be open to alternatives within the developing local plan that are achievable, most compatible with proposed local planning policies and in the best interest of the population South Cams serve. In keeping with sorry that this will be best achieved to postpone the agreement of the post submission to allow the DCO to be examined on its own merits without further direct influence by South Cams and for South Cams to remain open to alternatives and outcomes from the public consultation from the first proposals. This would also reflect the guidance received from the greater Cambridge shared planning services that the DCO application is not a project or proposal within the scope of the emerging local plan or area action plan to influence. And clearly the objective behind pushing the vote through today two years ahead of a public consultation is in effect to make to have an influence. Thank you chair that concludes my statement. Thank you very much indeed miss Conroy and carefully considered peace. I think we will be discussing many of the points that you've brought up when we get to that part of the agenda. So I hope you'll stay to hear what said then but in the meantime cancer to me Hawkins will respond directly to you. Thank you. Thank you leader. Mrs Conroy thank you very much for your statement seeking the postponement of the AP at this stage. Having considered your statement I believe that your concerns break down into a number of specific areas and I will seek to address those and respond to them here. I understand your request for postponement is based upon concern around the full impact of the proposals contained within the AP being considered notably the effects. Councillor Hawkins so it's getting slightly muffled. I wonder if you would mind removing your mask just for this. I'm happy to do that. Thank you very much. With your permission. I understand your request for postponement is based upon the concern around the full impact of the proposals in the AP being considered notably the effects of the relocated water treatment works on the communities close to the proposed site in Honeyhill. As the report has tried to set out however the two processes of plan making and the consent process for the relocation are handled separately. The council's local plan evidence base makes clear that the NEC is one of the most sustainable locations for future needs to be accommodated. The argument in favour of the funding provided to allow for the relocation is that it enables sustainable growth to be delivered on that site. From a process started in 2014 both Cambridge City Council and Southcams have been exploring ways in which this area can be developed effectively. And this is because we know that if we cannot develop the area effectively we will need to meet that need in other ways on other sites in other locations which are likely to include Grimfield sites elsewhere in the district. You have highlighted how densification development at Cambridge Airport and options for development elsewhere in the Grimfield such as the biomedical campus might meet that additional demand. But we are already considering development in some of those locations such as Cambridge Airport. But each of those options also has consequences for those local communities and we already know from my evidence base work that North East Cambridge is the most sustainable location for future growth. Now SCDC is meanwhile committed to the thorough and robust examination of the proposals for the new wastewater treatment plan. That examination takes place through the development consent order process and given the long term ambition for the NEC area I do however believe it is right for us to continue to quantify and shape the redevelopment of the NEC area and set out clearly how the potential of this site can be realised as part of the AAP process. The AAP as you know will not progress to consultation until the DCU process including its identification of impacts has concluded. And likewise we will not be able to finalise our special strategy for the whole of Greater Cambridge until the outcome of that process is known. But I do think it is important to progress our work on this in parallel to the DCU process. Not least to provide a context for proposals that may well come forward ahead of the adoption of the AAP on those parts of the site that are less impacted by the wastewater treatment use. Thank you leader. Thank you councillor Hawkins. Ms Conway have you got a supplementary question you'd like to ask? Well yes thank you. I mean difficult to formulate one so immediately so if you'll just allow me just to clarify something. I think what I completely respect the response that I've just received. I think what's disappointing however is that we find ourselves in a position where there's apparent lack of transparency about what the outcomes of the development process are. I think that the point of NICAP will be on other parts of Greater Cambridge in the local documentation is qualified and I totally accept the legal situation that the two planning processes are separate. And yet what's absolutely clear and that the local councillors aren't in a position to interfere or influence the DCU. And yet what's absolutely clear is that today's vote two years ahead of the public consultation. The singular objective is to actually support that DCO application. And I'm disappointed really that that isn't being well I suppose I'm appealing to cabinet to take that on board is that in one respect, you know things have been kept separate because of legal process. And yet today however in order to support the application which is clearly having a direct it will have a direct influence it's being proposed. So that's just a comment to finish on that. Thank you. Thank you. So we had a pre-muting and we discussed exactly the point you're making and of course there are always you know there's always consequences to delays. And I'm going to ask Mr Stephen Kelly to share with you the explanation that he shared with Cabinet earlier today about what the consequences could be of delaying this decision. Because actually I mean I hope you will see that actually they have potential to be very undesirable indeed. Thank you Mr Kelly. Thank you leader. Actually just to clarify firstly the point about supporting the DCO process. In many respects the purpose of the council's decision on the area action plan is to clarify what the opportunity at NEC is as part of the area action plan. The assessment as to whether or not the benefits of development of the area action plan outweigh the impacts on the green belt that I know that a number of people have expressed as a concern is obviously a matter for the inspector in that separate legal process. The decision of the council essentially seeks to confirm and clarify the council's ambitions for the NEC site which is inevitably a consideration for the inspector in due course in the event that the DCO progresses. But the request for delay as Ms Conroy has highlighted the council's local development scheme sets out the basis upon which the local authority will bring forward its development plans. And that's quite important because local authorities are required to have an up to date local plan which is defined by the NPPF as a plan that's less than five years old. Now the timetable because of the development consent order process is already extraordinarily tight on that and puts the council in a position where its plan may not be less than five years old by the time we're able to replace it because of the development consent order process. Now at this stage our advice has been that preparing the local plan, joint local plan and recognising the sustainability criteria of the NECAP site justifies perhaps extending the deadline for the local plan beyond that because of the significance of the site in meeting the future needs of the greater Cambridge area. But obviously further extension of the timeline for the development consent order process that might arise will a council not to quantify its position in respect of the quantum of development for example the type of scheme that comes forward on NECAP may well have implications for the development consent order process and timeline or indeed its outcome that cause the council to have to review its own local plan timeline further or indeed to have to consider alternatives to north east Cambridge in meeting the need that we've identified through the process. And Ms Conner has identified in some of her representations other potential locations but of course we've discounted some of those options, members will recall we discounted some 600 plus sites that were advanced for development across the district because we were able to focus on highly sustainable locations such as NEC. So there is a reason for progressing with the AAP at this stage. Quite rightly there is a process in the development consent order examination which will consider whether or not the council's ambitions set out in this document justify the harm to the green bell that I know is a cause of concern amongst other things around the water treatment works relocation. But by making the decision today you allow the full and proper consideration of that to happen in the development consent order process in a reasonable timeline if we defer consideration of that item today. There is less certainty and indeed less clarity about the respective council's positions on the NECAP area and that can't be properly and fully considered by the appropriate inspector. And of course the document in front of you today is an evolution quite substantially evolution from the previous document which is the only position that would be in front of the inspector at that point. So our advice is noting the concerns that Ms Conner has highlighted that it is appropriate to proceed. We're not supporting that process in the way that I think she's suggesting. We're clarifying the council's position on what NECAP contributes to Greater Cambridge and that will then form part of the inspector's consideration. Thank you very much Mr Kelly. Council Hawkins, is there anything you want to add to that before we move on? No, thank you very much indeed for your question. So moving on to Mrs Catherine Martin, who I think is also attending remotely and has a related question. Morning. Morning. Can you hear me? We can, loud and clear. Thank you. Well, I've got a question. I'm quite concerned about the NECAP development in terms of traffic and misery for existing residents. The AAP proposes introducing 15,000 jobs into the area, bearing in mind that many people will be travelling from locations where there is poor access to public transport. How many people do you estimate will be travelling to the area by car? There will also be 4,500 densely packed homes. Your transport studies concede that the roads are already at capacity and local residents really don't want any more traffic misery. How much confidence do you have in the ability to control the development by the notion of a trip budget? I just don't know how you can introduce so many extra people into such a small area without a massive impact on existing roads and residents. Thank you. That's a very interesting question. I think you're going to respond. Thank you, leader. Thank you, Mrs Martin, for your question. It is an interesting one. But it is clear that the only way that the comprehensive and sustainable delivery of the northeast Cambridge site can be achieved is if those sites significantly reduce the number of people in the area. Now, as you will know, the Cambridge County Council Highways Authority is responsible for highways matters. It has moved away from the traditional approach of traffic management towards a vehicular trip budget model. And the principle of the trip budget is to identify the maximum level of external vehicular pick our trips allowed for the development when it's fully built out, which would not result in a deterioration in the performance of the surrounding highway networks over the existing levels. And to achieve this, developers will be subject to a strict trip budget and will need to show how they can meet those with measures to limit the number of vehicle trips allowed to and from each site. And development will not be permitted if proposals cannot demonstrate how they will achieve that budget. And also there will be traffic monitoring actually to ensure compliance with those trip budgets. Now highways has undertaken traffic modeling to help inform the assessment of the proposals in the AAP and to define how the trips will be shared amongst the various sites. Now, on the basis of the modeling and to ensure there is no net increase on what they consider as the baseline, which is the 2017 network, their calculations showed that the AM, the morning peak from 8 to 9 AM, the MVSH 3900 two-way trips. And for the afternoon peak from 1700 to 1800, ie 5 PM to 6 PM, the estimate 3000 two-way trips. Now the morning budget modeling suggests that the inbound employment base trips are roughly 2882. And with most of this inbound and that 1018 residential with most of those outbound. So recognising that the AAP adoption is some years away and some development is already happening in the area. The South Cams and Cambridge City Council's Joint Development Control Committee has agreed some development principles based upon applying those trip budgets to help inform how we assess all new plan applications coming forward on that site. Officers from our Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service and the Highways Authority are therefore already seeking to address the concerns that residents have on this issue. I mean, there's a lot more information that you can find in the transport position statement, the high level transport strategy document and the transport evidence base, all of which are available on the Greater Cambridge Planning website. Thank you, leader. Thank you very much indeed, Councillor Hawkins. Mrs Martin, do you have a supplementary question you'd like to ask? No, thank you for that. I'm still not totally confident that there will be this control over these, you know, over the developers and over the years. I'm just also wanted to say that NICAP and the local plan do deal with the long term vision for Cambridge and by not discussing the loss of the Greenbelt at Honey Hill at the same time as a value-beating NICAP, how can you claim to be looking at the whole future of Cambridge? It doesn't just, they just don't make sense to me, but that's just my statement really. Thank you very much indeed. The minutes will include all the full response that Councillor Hawkins gave, it was quite detailed, so hopefully you'll be able to study it in more detail then. And again, this will all be debated later on in the meeting. Thank you very much for your time in asking a question. So our fourth questioner is Mr James Littlewood, and is James online? Hi Bridget, yes. Hello James, nice to see you.  Thank you. I'm aware that has been circulated here, so I will abbreviate slightly to spay going for that again. I wanted to say firstly that as much to commend in this AAP, the environmental aspirations, but the provision of natural green space, unfortunately, is not one of them. The amount that's being proposed is really the minimum required to meet the council's policies, but two thirds of the green space will be on a business park. And I'd certainly ask you as councillors to wonder whether you would want a visit of business park for your leisure and recreation. And also that green space is not a new green space, it's existing space already. Only a third of the green space that's being provided is actually in conjunction with the housing. And most of that is provided as linear green space or pocket parks. In other words, small areas of green space that will be adjacent to very high rise buildings. There is one larger park. The size of that's not provided in any of the documents, but we estimate that to be around about three hectares in size. And figure 20 in your report compares that with other parks in Cambridge, which is a bit misleading really because the other comparisons are actually parks rather than bits of green space. So if you consider the three hectares for 16,000 people in comparison with some of the other parks that you're given in that document, you'll see that it's actually very small space indeed. So as a bare minimum, the proposals might provide for the day to day open space needs of residents somewhere for them to children to play, what the dog kick a ball about. But what it won't do is provide the kind of green space that people in high density developments very much need access to, which is large natural green space somewhere they can go for a long walk or run, experience nature and escape the pressures of urban life. And there is, of course, somewhere for them to do that. Milton Country Park is a subway proposed under the A14 so that the 16,000 people can get to it. And of course that's exactly where they can go and that will be great if not for the fact that the country park is already at capacity and can't cope with 16,000 more visitors. In hundreds of pages of text that you've got in front of you, there's almost no mention of Milton Country Park at all, let alone about it meeting the needs of the development. There's been no assessment of whether the country park has the capacity to cope and what mitigation might be required to enable it to do so. And we can see no requirement for section 106 contributions to support the park, only a rather vague paragraph on page 54 of the open spaces and recreation topic paper. So that you are aware, natural England's accessible natural green space standards would require the development to have a large hundred hectare site of accessible natural green space within five kilometres, especially as this development is to be car free. But there isn't one. And to make matters worse, to the north of Cambridge you will see also 20,000 people at North Stowe, 22,000 people at Water Beach. So where will these 58,000 people go to meet their green space needs is the question. And this area has been highlighted, as you're probably aware, in the evidence base of the next local plan as suffering from a deficit of green infrastructure. And that report highlights the Northeast Cambridge to Water Beach area as a priority for green infrastructure with its enhancement, marked as a critical importance. Officers have suggested, when I presented this to the scrutiny committee, that funding for that critical green space could be provided through a new requirement in the next local plan. And if that's possible, then that would be very welcome, and it would alleviate the concerns of Cambridge PPF and Cambridge Sportsfake Trust. However, as yet, there's no proposal in place for such a scheme, and it would need to be improved by a planning inspector. So in short, at this stage, it's an if rather than an agreed solution. And if that does not prove possible, then it would be essential that section 106 contributions are secured from the NEC development towards this critical strategic green infrastructure. So my crest cabinet is, please, will you recommend that the AAP is not progressed until there's a commitment within it for development contributions towards mitigating the impacts on Milton Country Park and providing a larger scale green space that will be desperately needed by the future 58,000 residents of Northeast Cambridge Water Beach and Norstow, either from a new mechanism in the local plan or failing that through section 106 contributions. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much, James, and for all your constructive comments. I'm going to ask Councillor Toomey Hawkins to hopefully allay some of your concerns. Thank you, leader. Thank you, James, Mr Littlewood. And especially thanks for your commendation of our environmental aspirations in the NEC AAP. And yes, I do note your disappointment related to the provision of natural green space, but I do hope that today's response does go some way to alleviating your concerns in that regard. Now the AAP requires development to bring forward 27.6 hectares of new informal and children's play space across the area. And that is equivalent of around 34.5 football pitches, or around three times the size of Parker's Peace. Now, in combination with the existing open spaces at the NEC, including existing and redesigned spaces on the employment parks, the plan will meet the informal and children's play space requirements. In the adopted local plans on site. And this means that all residents will have access to open space within a five minute walk of their homes for day to day informal recreation and access within the Northeast Cambridge site and to a range of different types of spaces for people to enjoy. Now, some of the proposed open space areas are substantial in size and altogether actually the spaces on the NEC site account for an area that is comparable with Milton Country Park. The new large green space is 4.1 hectares, which is around the same size as Christ's pieces or five football pitches. And similarly, we have the main, the linear park, which is between 70 metres and 100 metres wide, and is, which is, I'm told, the length of the football pitch, and it's over 1.3 kilometres long. Now, as required by the AAP, a landscape-led approach to designing the spaces will ensure that there will be opportunities for individuals and families, residents and workers to go for walks, run, play, and experience nature on their doorstep. And that includes the spaces in the business parks. Regarding on concern, I'd like to point out that we've set out in policy BG stroke G1 green infrastructure in the first proposals of the emerging local plan for which we've just finished the consultation last month. Now, the council, both Southcams and the city are seeking to bring forward new strategic scale green spaces in that area. So the nearest area identified, of course, of the NEC is that area that we've identified in the policies map as area six, North Cambridge green space. And this area could provide the new opportunities for open space to serve not only the new developments, as you mentioned, the NEC, Water Beach and Nostel, but it could also serve existing communities. Now, these water proposals, of course, fall outside the AAP area, and due to their most strategic role, will be considered further as the councils prepare the greater Cambridge local plan. Now, policy eight of the area action plan already requires plan obligations to be applied to ensure delivery of on and off site provision of open space linked and effectively phased to the delivery of new homes. Therefore, the AAP already proposes to seek contributions towards off site open space where it is necessary to support the development. And whilst we note that the planning permission for the extension to Melty Country Park has lapsed, airmarking such contributions solely to that project will at this stage not be sensible given that the delivery of that additional space is not yet assured. Instead, through the AAP proposed policy, there will remain scope to invest in delivering new off site infrastructure to serve the NEC and other communities for more open space needs. I hope that helps. Thank you, leader. Thank you, Councillor Hawkins. Mr Littlewood, have you got a supplementary question? Only that. Obviously my point is that the AAP doesn't specifically require that, and that's my concern is that the wording that's in here is if it can be shown to be needed. And I think we all agree, probably I hope we all agree on the thing, that it is needed and therefore I don't understand why the AAP can't just clearly state that there will be a requirement for off site provision from section 106. And that makes it clear rather than having to have a battle every time an application comes forward to secure that section 106 funding. Thank you. So, I mean, I don't envision us having any battles at all. I mean, I hope you accept that we work very closely with your organisation and that you're a very important part of the process for us. And we will always do our best to accommodate your concerns, which are as well motivated as ours are to make this an exceptional development where nature is at the fore and where people's health and wellbeing is absolutely critical. I'm just going to ask Mr Kelly, Stephen Kelly, just to comment. Thank you, Mr Kelly. Thank you, leader. And as Mr Littlewood knows, obviously there's a kind of relationship here between the wider local plan that Councillor Hawkins has tried to highlight in terms of establishing these strategic green infrastructure assets in locations outside of that proximate to the city and to new settlements that is something we've just finished consultation of. I think in terms of the semantics about a requirement versus an expectation set out in the current draft policy, my own expectation is that subject to the responses that we've received to the first proposals which identify those strategic locations as the plans in parallel progress forwards, we will have greater certainty around some of that infrastructure. But that infrastructure and certainty around it is important in order for the plans to be found sound at examination. And so I suspect we will continue to keep under review the precise terms of the AAP having regards to the certainty of those strategic allocations that are in the local plan and their acceptance and proposals that may or may not emerge around locations proximate to the city including country park. But at this moment in time, as Councillor Hawkins has highlighted, those proposals are not definite. And our advice is that it wouldn't necessarily be sound to make that requirement explicit at this stage. Although we fully expect to explore that further, recognising, as I think Mr Littlewood has highlighted, the clear ambitions of the plan to address both biodiversity emergencies and well-being as a cornerstone of what we're trying to achieve. So hopefully that offers at least some assurance that officers I know and I'm sure the organisations of the city and South Cairns district are committed to get the very best outcome from this. Thank you very much indeed and thank you James for all the effort you put into this and we look forward to continuing to work constructively with your organisation jointly with Cambridge City Council. So that's the end of our questions. It's always nice to have questions from the public so thank you to all of those who've taken the trouble. So moving on to the next part of the meeting which is the report from issues arising from the Scrutiny and Overview Committee. I don't think we've got the chair, Councillor Grenville Chamberlain here, but I think we've got Councillor Judith Rippard. Is that correct? Hello Councillor Rippard, so hello there. So do you want to speak to your report now or do you want to pick it up later on in the agenda? Can I pick it up later on in the agenda please? Thank you very much indeed. We'll come back to you. Okay so moving on to item 7 which is Cambridge South Station and I thank the officers for the considerable efforts that they've put into our response on this. Obviously as a council and as a political group we've been hugely supportive of a new station at Cambridge South. But what we're doing here is articulating our concerns about the detail, the things that we have reservations about and I'm quite sure that we are representing what our residents would want us to say. So Councillor Neil Goff is going to present this. I will be making the recommendation, since I'm in the Chamber and I think Councillor Bill Handley is going to second it. So if I start off with Councillor Neil Goff who I'm sure is got quite a lot to say on the subject. Thank you Councillor Goff. Thank you leader. So as you said this Cambridge South Station is a critical piece of infrastructure in our area which will significantly improve connectivity to the biomedical campus. And it's a piece of infrastructure which as you say strategically we are very supportive of. But equally we need to make sure that it is done in a optimal way and we've been very clear on our expectations on projects such as this that we expect mitigation of the impact to the best of the developers ability. Particularly on the environment. So this particular item and recommendation is to reconfirm our position which was agreed at Cabinet in July of last year. In the light of the public inquiry will be coming next month. So since July various discussions have taken place with Network Rail. And the key correspondence which I think is very helpful is attached to the item which indicates that on many items there's been significant progress and the officers have been satisfied that either issues have been addressed or that they will be addressed within the parameters of the subsequent process. But there are two matters which are highlighted in the report about which we still have significant reservations. And these relate to mitigation of the loss of trees and assurance on the biodiversity net gain. So this this recommendation basically confirms that while we're supportive of the overall project we will maintain our objections pending insurance on those particular two issues. And that is what we're asking Cabinet today to do is to reconfirm that position in anticipation of representations which we will be making at the public inquiry next month. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed councillor Goff. Right. Do any members of Cabinet wish to speak on this item? Anyone any other members present in the room? Oh sorry. councillor Brian Mills. Can't hear you yet. I unmute myself. Thank you. Sorry for the delay. I just wanted to make sure that we put across that we're very much supporting this. So these are particular objections. We've been campaigning for this Cambridge South Station for decades now. It will represent a really important and sustainable connection point to the ever growing CBC campus and particularly as well. As a regional health centre. And I think that we should just make sure that everybody understands that we're very, very supportive of this development. And I think the only reservations that we have that haven't been mentioned here is that the local transport connections between the station and particularly the accident and emergency sites will be well made and a regular frequency service. So that particularly those that are in firm and unwell can have easy access into the appropriate departments in the hospital, which aren't within walking distance. So, yeah, just wants to confirm that we're very supportive of this development. Thank you, leader. As chair of the County Council Highways Transport Committee in December, we did make a submission on Cambridge South Station. And I'm pleased to see that the components that we have here are fairly consistent with that approach. In other words, we're raising issues about biodiversity net gain that was also raised by the county. And as council mills mentioned, whilst we're very supportive overall, we just want to make sure that the deliverables are set out and the submission really do come to pass. So I would welcome and support the submission. Thank you. Thank you very much. Right. Any members wish to speak? Councillor Bradman. Thank you chair. There are a number of things I'd like to seek clarification on. And I raised them at scrutiny and overview and I can see that some have been picked up and referred to in the officer report. I'm sorry. I'm referring to the wrong way. I'm not talking about Cambridge Station. Sorry. You're getting ahead of yourself. You're so keen, Councillor Bradman. Okay. We'll forgive you. Okay. So if I just summarise, then I'll ask Councillor Handley to comment if he wishes. So I think Cambridge Station is going to be a complete game changer, both for the health providers but also for all the businesses around location where it's going to be. It should have been delivered years ago. That's why we've worked really hard. I absolutely commend the letter from the principal planning officer. It's an excellent piece of work. The reservations that this council have highlighted, which I understand is very much reflect the concerns of the county council as well, are absolutely the reservations that our residents would be raising with us. And it's about trees and it's about biodiversity and it's about making the most of the opportunity to enhance nature rather than denude nature. So, you know, our residents expect us to be holding Network Rail to account on this. You know, we're setting really, really high standards for nature and biodiversity in this council. And part of our job is to hold other organisations to account to make sure that they share our really high ambitions about this. So, you know, whilst we are very, very keen for this station to progress, it's got to be really, really good. And I think the report that our officers have presented here, and actually, you know, much of it has been very positively responded to already by Network Rail. So, I don't think it's going to take us a lot to get us over the final hurdle. So, thank you for the considerable work and for the clarity in which it's being presented in this paper. Councillor Handley, do you want to add anything? I don't think I need to add anything. Thank you. I support and agree with everything that's been said. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Handley. OK, so if nobody else has got anything to say on this. Oh, I'm sorry. I think we have scrutiny groups today. Did scrutiny want to comment on this? I don't think it went to scrutiny. Did it? No, OK, fine. So, the recommendation is set out at paragraph six of the report. Hang on, no, no, I've got ahead of myself now as well. And Councillor Bradman has thrown me as well. The recommendation is set out at paragraph three of the report. And that's that we can confirm the council's position as set out in the statement of case for the public inquiry brackets Appendix A and note the delegated authority to the joint director of planning and economic development to approve and submit the proof of evidence and statement of common ground on behalf of the council. Do you members agree with the proposal? Does anyone wish to vote against the proposal? And does anyone wish to abstain? OK, so cabinet therefore agrees the proposals by affirmation. Thank you. So, moving on to item eight, which is the Northeast Cambridge Area Action Plan, which we've had quite a lot of debate about already in this meeting. And Councillor Tumie Hawkins is going to introduce the report and move the recommendations and I will be happy to second the recommendations when we get to that point. Thank you, Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, leader, and once again to everyone. The report you have in front of you today is a culmination of years of work by both South Cams District Council and Cambridge City Council. The adopted 2018 local plans of both councils include policies which allocate their respective sections of Northeast Cambridge Area for Development. And this policy states that the amount of development, the site capacity, the viability, the time scales and phasing of development will be established through the preparation of an area action plan for the site. And that is what we now have. This is our proposed submission, Northeast Cambridge Area Action Plan. The site itself is a 182 hectares Bramfield site on the edge of Cambridge. It's only a 15-minute cycle into the city centre. It benefits from existing transport infrastructure like the Cambridge North Station, the guided busway, the Chisholm Trail and there is more to come including the Water Beach Greenway and the Water Beach to Cambridge public transport corridor. Obviously, the proposed relocation of the wastewater treatment plant is a, what I call it, once in a generation opportunity to comprehensively regenerate this site and to coordinate development across the many different landowners. We've talked about this already this morning. The relocation has been advanced by Anglia Water through a development consent order process after winning funding from Homes England. And the proposed submission AAP will be an important factor in that DCO exam process. As we've heard, it demonstrates the two council's commitment to developing the area. It clarifies what Northeast Cambridge means to the councils and how we expect it to provide sustainable new community for the future of Greater Cambridge. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, Northeast Cambridge site is the most sustainable location in Greater Cambridge for development. Because of its location, it helps in minimising carbon emissions from transport which we know is one of the major contributions to carbon and it gives opportunity to maximise travel by non-carnals as we have identified in the evidence collected. And that's why it is one of the major sites proposed to deliver homes in the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan. The scale of development here means we are positively planning for not just the next 10 to 20 years, but beyond that. It's an opportunity to create a meaningful legacy for this part of the city. So, what do we have? What is proposed is 8,350 homes of which around 4,000 will be built before 2041 and 40% will be affordable. Around 15,000 new commercial jobs, five new centres providing shops services within a five-minute walk of people's front doors, reprovisioning of the existing industrial floor space to protect those important uses, and provision of open space so every home will be within a five-minute walk of an open space.  And very importantly, biodiversity net gain is now at 20%, which is in line with the emerging local plan and the wider corporate biodiversity objectives. And no fossil fuels will be on site, will be focusing on renewable energy. Taking on board all the comments that we received from the last consultation, building heights and densities have been reduced based on further evidence which was undertaken. And also further work has been undertaken with landowners to ensure development can come forward without exceeding the trip budget, and we heard about that earlier on as well. That's very important to us. And improved working and cycling connections are proposed throughout the area to make sure it is integrated with the surrounding area and to make journeys by active non-car modes easy. I would like at this stage to thank all our planning policy officers who have worked continuously and tirelessly on this area action plan. For me it has been a privilege to work with such talented professionals. I also want to say thank you to the scrutiny committee who put us through the mail last month, and I'm sure we'll hear a bit more from Councillor Bradnham. However, at this stage I propose the recommendations in paragraph 6 on page 54 of our papers to Cabinet, unless you want me to read it all out, leader, I think I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Hawkins. That was all very clearly articulated. I'm going to come initially to Councillor Rippeth to talk about, as you say, the very thorough review that scrutiny and overview gave this, and we're very grateful for the attention to detail. So, Councillor Rippeth, if you would like to make the points, please, on behalf of scrutiny and overview. Good morning, and perhaps I should have done this earlier. Can I formally pass on Councillor Chamberlain's apologies, the chair of scrutiny? First of all, I'd also like to make the point on behalf of the scrutiny committee, thanking the officers for the tremendous amount of work they've put in to date, and I'm sure everybody would support that in trying to make this a truly sustainable development. You're right, we did go through it with a fairly fine tooth comb. One point, and also the officer who's written the update, I think really clarifies quite succinctly the main comments that the committee made. One, however, of the recommendations 3A, can I again stress the Milton Country Park issue that it is at capacity. I know that's been stressed by a number of people already, but that needs to be taken on board today, and financial contributions will need to be made to extend that park. I think that is, I don't want to go through all of this because you've had it, it's written in front of you, and I think that really summarises all the points that were made, and the recommendations A to F. If I think of anything later, I might just ask to speak again if that's okay. You'll be very welcome to, Councillor Ripper. Thank you very much indeed. I'm actually going to ask, so you mentioned in particular Milton Country Park and the fact that it's at capacity. This isn't a simple issue at all, so I'd just like to bring in Mr Kelly just to talk about what the limitations are of putting all our eggs in the Milton Park basket and what the alternatives should be. Thank you, Lidia. I referenced this just a little earlier, but we are aware obviously of proposals that existed previously to expand Milton Country Park, but the planning commission for those proposals has now lapsed. At the time that we were exploring that proposal further, the costs of delivering that extension to the Country Park were very substantial running into many millions of pounds. The AAP does reference off-site contributions and the scope for off-site contributions to deliver necessary green infrastructure, but we don't yet have a certain position in terms of where and how that will take place. For the reasons that I highlighted, that the north of Cambridge green infrastructure proposals in the emerging local plan have been subject to consultation, but we haven't yet considered the consequences of that. There isn't in front of the council at this stage a concrete funded or even proposal that is clearly deliverable for the expansion of Milton Country Park. Those circumstances may change and over the journey of this document through to adoption, and we will obviously keep that matter under review, but our advice is that in the absence of certainty, which goes to the test of soundness of this plan when it's examined and all elements of it, it's not a position that we can definitively link Milton Country Park and the allocation of green infrastructure contributions to its expansion at this moment in time, but in answer to the question or the comments from Mr Littlewood, as I said, I'm sure we'll be keeping this under review as we progress over the next few years. Thank you very much indeed, Stephen. Okay, so I'm going to open up to Cabinet for questions initially. So, Councillor John Williams at first, please. Thank you, leader. I want to pick up on the point that was made earlier by a previous member of the public on this issue about why we have to make the decision now. And I think we have to bear in mind that the current local plan was adopted in 2018, and therefore the review that's required under the NPPF has to be done by 2023. And I wouldn't want us to cause any delay in the DCO process, which would mean that we would go back to the speculative developments that happened around our villages because we didn't have an up-to-date local plan. I'll take your mind back to pre-2018 when our villages were averaged by developers, speculative developers, including my own village, who got planning permission for quite unsights that were not appropriate and were in the green belt for housing development. And I would not want to go back to that position. And therefore I think it's very, very important that we do take the decision today to recommend the AAP to go forward so that we are able to have a DCO decision that is within the timescale that's been set for us by the government's planning rules. Because I do, as I say, I do not want us to see people building homes on the green belt all over the district because we delayed this very important decision today. Thank you, Councillor Williams. And I think actually Mr Kelly articulated the risks of delay in his answer to Mrs Conroy's question. I don't know whether Councillor Hawkins or Stephen want to add anything. Okay, so next question from Councillor Neil Boff, please. Okay, thank you, leader. So I just wanted to say, look, I think this is a very exciting kind of prospect in development. This is a site which is sustainable in a way that no other site really is in the area. And it really offers the prospect of a really exciting kind of enhancement to this area. I think it's all about balance, isn't it? It's about getting the balance between the various objectives right, and I sort of know that a lot of attention has been paid by officers to reflect the comments and the adjustments and the balance between the sort of density, the heights, the green space and so forth. And it's never going to be perfect because there's always constraints, but I'm sort of comfortable that the balance of this is right. I think that scrutiny raised, and we've discussed already quite a lot the importance of sort of access to open and green space. Obviously that can't solely be within the development, but it's all about the sort of connectivity and the open space and the sort of general north area of Cambridge. Much of that is also sort of contained within the sort of vision of the emerging local plan in terms of the connectivity and the open space. And I think that's a really important sort of concept is that this area action plan sort of sits within the broader context of the emerging local plan. And that's an important area for me in terms of the enhanced connectivity that we see to the site, not just into Cambridge, but also out from Cambridge to the north of the city for the provision of that access to open space, including, for example, the river and so forth. So that is really, really important. And I'm very pleased that that's a large part of our emerging local plan too as well. And I think that's, for me, is important. I just don't know whether Mr Kelly would like to make any comment about, we've talked a lot about this green space, we haven't talked so much about the connectivity to this site and how that is the vision in the local plan relates to this sort of AAP and how they integrate in terms of that concept of connectivity to the broader open space. Sorry, Mr Kelly, would you like to come in there please? Thank you, yes. I'll try to be relatively succinct. Quite rightly that we've highlighted, and Councillor Hawkins raised the fact, that our assessments have identified this as a very sustainable location for growth. Of course, there's a difference between the location and the type of development, but what we have tried to do, Councillor Gough raised the point about balance. You'll recall that one of the, not only alongside the environment and ecology, but climate change and well-being are important threads in the local plan. And what we've tried to do here in striking that balance, even to things such as making sure that we have a mix of uses so that from the concerns that have been expressed about traffic, people can live, work and play in this location and not have to travel. It's good for their well-being, it's also very good for the climate, for carbon emissions, and it's also important that others around the site and the connectivity points that Councillor Gough has raised, both within Cambridge City but equally in the communities of South Cambridge nearby and we've got the greenways from GCP, we've got the cycle connections and the interplay with Water Beach, but also through the busway and the railway connections to those communities, both South and North and West of the city, that may well wish to either be working here or indeed may well wish to live here but connect back to their families in the villages and so on surrounding the area. So we have tried to strike that balance. Mindful not just of absolute housing numbers but actually the transport effects, trying to get a mix of homes and jobs to reduce the pressure on the road network that people have expressed concern about, but really importantly in terms of the design and layout, thinking around the local plan themes of well-being and climate change, trying to make sure that it isn't some form of enclosed, highly urbanised and impenetrable kind of community. It's an open, inclusive part of not just the city but of Greater Cambridge and in due course people will express their views on the consultation around the quite substantial changes that the report makes clear have been made in response to all of that feedback that we've tried to strike. Thank you, Stephen. Yes, and to me, you know, successful look like an area where people choose not to own a car because they don't need one and that would be great. Councillor Bran Mills now please. Yes, I was going to say more on the subject but you've just both yourself, Leader and Stephen Kelly have mentioned this and it was really this point that I think it was Mrs Kath Martin earlier public question asked a question about whether or not we could reduce the car traffic and I think it's really important that the public and including Mrs Martin understand that that's a really critical part of the development of the site and I know at the County Council Highways Committee we've talked about ensuring that not only LTN 120 standards are adopted but for example there is provision for secure storage of cargo bikes and e-cargo bikes on the site so that actually we don't need vehicles, delivery vehicles attending on site when it can be done with bikes rather than motorised transport and so this low car usage across the site is a really critical part of that and the proximity of people to their jobs is a critical part of the development and I think that can actually provide the reduction in car traffic that we're hoping to achieve. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Councillor John Batchelor. Thank you, leader. I agree with everything that's gone before so I won't repeat all that. This is a huge opportunity for us all to actually create something new, something innovative and from my point of view as lead member for housing I will underestimate the significance of delivering some 3,000 plus affordable houses out of this project so I'm fully in favour let's push on to the next level. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Batchelor. So if there's no more cabinet members to speak, I've got Councillor Richard Williams. Thank you very much, leader, for the opportunity to speak. There were just two points I really wanted to raise on this. I'm a little concerned that the impression seems to be being given that this progressing this action plan is relevant to our five-year housing land supply and the current local plan. I'm sure Mr Kelly would confirm that it's not. In terms of the review of the local plan this is not relevant to the housing delivery test. It's not relevant to the five-year land supply and the land supply projections that we published in April last year which apparently showed a six-year land supply which is great, do not rely on the North East Cambridge site at all. So this is not about our five-year land supply and somehow the local plan falling down. In fact, this is about the next local plan. It's not about the current local plan as I think is pretty clear that there is no allocation of housing on this site in the current local plan. It's all for the next local plan. If we look at the action plan document itself which is quite explicit, figure 45, there are 650 houses possible at Chesterton sidings between 2025 and 2030. This site is post 2030s, 2030 to 2035 and in fact the large proportion of the housing here is not even going to be in the period of the next local plan. It's going to be in the local plan after the next one. Not even the current one, not the next one, the one after. So I am rather concerned that the impression seems to be being given that we have to progress this today or that the five-year land supply is somehow in danger. That is not correct and I'm sure Mr Kelly would confirm that. Just in terms of delay, I mean I think you've all heard the public speakers. I think they've made some very good arguments for delay. I would urge the cabinet to delay. I suspect it won't but I would urge the cabinet to delay this and I would just add finally one other reason. That's about the water supply. The area action plan is itself quite explicit that this project could not be delivered by increased abstraction from the water supply. At the moment there is no water supply for this. It's not deliverable. We are going to get the regional water management plan soon but until we have that we have no idea whether any of this is deliverable at all. So I really can't understand why the cabinet and the council leadership would not delay this at least until we get the water management plan and we know if and how any of this is deliverable and we may not have very long to wait for that. Thank you very much leader. Thank you. I'm going to bring in Stephen Kelly. I suspect with five year housing land supplies one has to plan in advance. You have to think well into the future about how you'll maintain them. Stephen would you like to comment on that and also on the water supply which I think we've been perfectly clear and we're well aware of the limitations. Thank you leader. Yes just to confirm yes it's not part of the five year land supply and the way that it sits in the next local plan housing trajectory means that it's not currently a calculation that factors into the housing delivery test so council Richard Williams is right upon that. The point however around an up to date local plan is that delay of this progression of this project may well give cause for delay to the DCO process whilst the council seeks further clarification on these points and that because of the way that the local plan has quite rightly in my view significant regard to the contribution this site makes to that local plan not only from a housing perspective but also from a jobs perspective and the policy context that it sets for development in line with those objectives for sustainability in low carbon risks the plan, the current local plan so the current planning decisions that the council makes not immediately but in the period after five years from the adoption of the current local plan risks creating a greater period of time after that in which you do not have a plan that is up to date and you will recall in the matter of planning applications for five year land supply which were arguing that the housing needs justified development that what the national planning policy framework does is it renders the current local plan policies out of date and current government at the time MPPF or housing need objectives preeminent in the decision making process so it's not a case that an officers are not suggesting and I don't think the council is that not progressing the decision today would immediately jeopardise the five year land supply or the housing delivery test but if the failure to resolve a position on this document leads to a delay in the development consent order process that has the effect of because of the relationship with our local plan pushing conclusion of the local plan and the AAP process further into the future that creates a risk after 2023 which cannot be recovered of not having an up to date plan and therefore the policies in the current local plan not applying as robustly and preeminently as they do at this moment in time to protect the villages and communities across Greater Cambridge. On the second point around water and clarity obviously there are a number of issues that are justifying why we are not consulting on this document. We spent a lot of time talking around the development consent order process. Councillor Williams is quite right that one of the other elements of soundness that the council has been really clear about is the availability of water to meet the needs of future growth without increasing abstraction but all of the indications that we've had are that in the time scale before we begin consultation so at the conclusion of the DCO process which may be as far away as two years already the water resources east water resources management plan will be both submitted and adopted or at least confirmed identifying and indeed driving the water investment plans of the statutory undertakers and we've been quite clear that on the local plan and likewise for the area of action plan without that certainty on future supply we will not be advocating either the levels of growth or the progression of the current spatial strategy and so we're expecting in fact later this month the initial draft of that plan to be published but all of the advice we've received as officers and as councils from the water resources east organisation are that the plan will be in place and sufficiently well advanced for the councils to be able to demonstrate that it is sustainable and sound by the time we propose in the resolution today to go out to consultation Thank you very much Steve and yes we've always been perfectly clear about our position regarding water and Councillor Brian Mills your hand popped up did you want to comment on this particular point that we've just been discussing? No thank you leader I was just going to declare a potential interest in that I'm a highways committee member on the county council which has discussed this as I mentioned in my comments so I just want to make sure that that's clear so you're declaring an interest as a member of the highways committee at the county is that which I'm going to bring in councillor Peter MacDonald as well on this one Yeah thanks leader although I haven't commented on this I have commented on Cambridge South as both cabinet member and chair of highways so there is potentially an interest to declare thank you So you're declaring an interest as well okay is that right Rory? Okay that's super thank you very much indeed Okay so I've got councillor Claire Daunton next Thank you chair I'd like to make two points please One is in relation to the comments from the scrutiny committee and I think that councillor Rippeth referred to this and it was the comments that we made on the height of the buildings on the AAP and I'm very pleased to see that comments at an earlier stage in discussions were taken into account so that the height has been reduced and I think this is particularly important for some of the communities some of our residents particularly in the villages of Fenditon and other areas around that part of the district the impact of very tall buildings on those established communities not just the height but also potential light pollution so I'm really pleased to see the reduction in height across the site that's one point and my other point is under policy 11 housing design standards I'm very pleased to see the particular mention of whole life housing population projections for Greater Cambridge show a significant increase in the over 65s and this site will make provision for whole life housing as well as the 5% of new homes with wheelchair accessibility so I'm really pleased to see very specific mentions of those two points Yes, I have a number of points that I just wanted to seek clarification on an hour of five so the first one relates to formal open space for sports pitches and recreation grounds I pointed out to scrutiny and overview committee this development seeks to provide homes for 16,000 residents in due course and 15,000 employees all of whom will need space to relax and get out in the open air and if the pandemic did nothing else it showed us how much people actually benefited from and appreciate having somewhere to walk out in the open air but also to play sports and one of the things that seems to be somewhat absent from policy 8 or rather it refers to it all being delivered off site is this formal open space so that includes sports pitches and recreation grounds and the reason I'm concerned about it is because as Councillor Hawkins has said there are green spaces that people can walk to within five minutes from their home but if young kids want to play football on a football pitch then there isn't really very much provision here and that there's a reference as we've heard earlier on to off site provision but as Mr Kelly said with regards to the possible extension of Milton Country Park, I know that's open space but there's no position, not yet a position on where and how far off site green space might be and that applies to formal sports places as well and I would point out, I'll come back if I may to the informal open green space but certainly at the moment for example the village of Milton which is likely to be the go-to place for sports pitches we already are short of two sports pitches for our own population in Milton and elsewhere in the document it referred to and indeed Stephen Kelly has also said this it's important that people live, work and play in this location and yet there isn't formal sports provision of sufficient size in this location for formal sports for pitches but that would include things like in a broader sense tennis courts, netball courts for the employees who are going to be working here as well so I'm very concerned that this development should be seeking to wash its own face with regard, I don't like that expression but it should be seeking to provide within the development so that people can walk to these football games or netball games and not have to go somewhere off site and we've got all the way through there is very vague reference to off site provision somewhere between somewhere to the north, it doesn't really say where so I'm really concerned about that moving, shifting slightly to informal space the concern about the use of Milton Country Park is serious it's really severe, certainly during the pandemic I started to use Milton Country Park because it's on my doorstep and I stopped using it because it got so busy, there were so many people walking around it felt crowded and I know I've spoken to the chief executive who also feels the same that the paths are beaten down by football the paths have got wider and wider the spaces that were available for actually the wildlife and the bird life and the plant life have become smaller and smaller as time has gone on in addition I would add to that the fact that of course the other informal local space although it's a public right of way is the River Cantopas which is very much a circular route for people but also that again feels really very crowded often and so this is another reason why we need more provision of informal open space as well that's the first item the second item is about community buildings and community facilities I can see no reference to or very oblique reference to space for faith and worship now this is going to be a very big population and I raised it at Scrutiny and Overview and I can't see any greater acknowledgement of this in the new plan I might have missed it but I'm really concerned that there should be designated space for faith because there's 16,000 residents going to be there in the future there's reference to shared community facilities and I'm all for that when that's appropriate but actually I do think there should be space for faith the third thing sorry the first one I was talking about formal open spaces policy 48 communal space is policy 14 the other reference I made in Scrutiny and Overview is related to space for cemetery provision we know to our cost that actually cemeteries are needed space for burial or even space for interment of ashes is important to plan for early on and to make sufficient provision now I remember when I raised this earlier on Matthew Patterson referred to a need for two hectares of cemetery space and they were looking to extend existing cemeteries to provide this but actually it's not clear where that would be and again if that's if they're considering extending the Milton cemetery that will require land purchase in excess so we need to make provision for that and also for any community it's nice to be able to just walk to your relatives grave or ashes memorial and put some flowers on or go and see the place you just necessarily want to have to go in a car the final thing I wanted to just raise seek clarification on is there is reference in the officer report on page 59 in the agenda to safeguarded uses and there's reference to of course the aggregates rail head and the waste transfer station but actually what I was concerned about when we were looking at it in scrutiny and overview you will know that there is a plan to put a pedestrian bridge over the railway to the green space by the river on the east side of the railway but I have asked whether we need to be safeguarding space and I know you'll throw your hands up in horror at this but whether we need to safeguard space for a future vehicle bridge crossing in the case that network rail at some time in the future either make life at Fenrodde Chesterton which you'll appreciate is also my parish impossible because even initially under the area capacity study phase 2 they're looking at closing crossings not the Fenrodde Chesterton crossing but they are looking at closing other crossings because of the increased frequency of trains particularly for freight that they're planning to put through and I'm just worried that in future we might have a situation where they don't close crossing but the downtime is so great as to make life at Fenrodde Chesterton crossing really really difficult we have some I think we have probably approaching a thousand residents and employees on the remote side of that crossing I asked Councillor Hazel Smith because she's good at numbers and she remembers the numbers of mobile homes mobile homes and vans that are there I think it's not far off a thousand now we must make sure that we have provision for those residents and the numerous employees on that side of the crossing in the case that it either becomes impossible to take your children to school to get to work because the level crossing gates are down for such a long time or in the case that network rail ever should decide to close that gateway altogether I know they haven't any plans to do that at present but actually I was seeking reassurance in the papers about that aspect and actually I found it really worrying because somewhere in the papers it said that actually you hadn't had any communication with network rail for a very long time paragraph 40 on page 62 says despite early engagement and discussions on this issue and how options for addressing it could be considered through the earlier area capacity enhancement programme there has not been any direct engagement from network rail for a number of months now I find that really worrying it doesn't surprise me because network rail are quite slow to respond on many occasions but I am worried about this crossing in future seeking to be closed by network rail so I would like your thoughts on those matters please Thank you very much councillor Brad I am going to come initially to councillor Tumi Hawkins to see if she wants to respond I think most of your points were in the scrutiny and overview report and I've had considerable attention already but councillor Hawkins do you want to comment on these and if you want to defer to Stephen Kelly please do Sorry, for completeness of information I will defer to garden Mr Kelly Thank you Thank you leader We have talked about open space but just to clarify there is 1.6 hectares of form of open space anticipated in the current area of action plan now that's in the form of consideration of some of the kind of multi-use games areas and things like that but we're confident can sit within the typology of place that we've identified there are potentially further opportunities for things like rooftop courts and so on to be provided but because we can't quantify that because the detail in an area or action plan or a local plan document is not the same as the detail in a planning application we don't want to essentially rely upon that we have in response to the queries that were raised about formal open space considered what the consequences would need to be and Councillor Bradman will recall that scrutiny committee to for example increase the formal open space provision from around 9% at the moment to for example 20% would require an additional substantial additional areas of open space to be set aside and of course formal sports spaces and pictures generally need to be much more tightly managed so that the safety of the surface for the users can be safeguarded and in this case that would require acres of land within the middle of this site to be effectively earmarked for that purpose only we have proposed a five court indoor sports facility as part of the calculations in the scheme and through the infrastructure study see for example things like faith space as a really important part of the kind of cultural offer provided now we haven't been explicit because we haven't got absolute clarity on exactly what faiths and what their space requirements would be but there is substantial amount of floor space set aside for what is now use class E which includes the very broad monopoly of town centre type uses primarily if you have looked at the document on things like ground floors some of those active street frontages that we're proposing and that class E space includes assembly and leisure so faith activities so the scheme that the site is the plan itself provides something in the order of 12,000 square metres of space some of which will be available I'm sure for faith and community groups and which we can explore as we go through planning applications to see both the types and requirements for early delivery in terms of the cemetery expansion you're quite right that the AAP seeks contributions towards enlargement and extension of those facilities now that's something we've got to look at in the context of the wider local plan anyway with a population increase in the city of Cambridge but also in some of our surrounding communities and so I suspect that the right forum for that to be picked up is through the local plan infrastructure planning process albeit that as you've noted, councillor Bradenham, the document recognises that it is nevertheless an important infrastructure need that we need to satisfy. The only benefit of course from North East Cambridge is that it is so well connected to non-car base transport as well as car base transport solutions that one hopes that that off-site provision is at least more accessible than perhaps from many other parts in respect to the point around the bridge and safeguarded land it is a difficult issue because Network Rail have not requested that we safeguard land and therefore in order to be able to justify safeguarding it and the very very substantial costs in terms of the development value that would be foregone in order to build not just a road bridge but the abutments and the kind of gradients and so on there is no justification being provided from Network Rail to require safeguarding which is fundamentally what would be necessary through the plan examination to offset the and of course there may well be other options for meeting access requirements to Fenroad that would need to be explored as part of an exercise to consider whether a road bridge is the best a road bridge into the site is the best solution in this particular case. As you are aware the AAP does highlight the importance of cycle and pedestrian connectivity between the site and the river but also with access to Fenroad and so on. So I think those are probably hopefully elements of clarification on the points that you raised that we touched upon the informal open space and clearly the design of those open spaces for anyone that's familiar with the kind of wide variety of urban park forms can embrace both frisby playing and football kickabout but actually given things like the size and scale of the linear park space we hope for quiet contemplation for kind of informal interaction and perhaps more gentle pursuits of activities to support well-being so a variety of forms of those parks and spaces across the North East Cambridge area. Thank you very much Stephen. Councillor Judith Ripper if you want to come back in. Thank you. I just want to really stress again more I suppose now as a local member rather than Vice Chair of Scrutiny but 20% biodiversity net gain on site was really good but we had to be so careful that that isn't lost elsewhere that that doesn't have accidentally come to pass and then going back to the recommendations I'm sure you'll take those on board and we'll really look at recommendations A to F as something that's just so important with this going forward. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. 20% biodiversity is no mean feat actually we now know but absolutely we can't lose it elsewhere. Councillor Hawkins do you want to say anything in summary? Thank you leader. A lot has been said already all I can do is reiterate my thanks to everyone who's been involved in this and the other and really just to say that we are progressing with this and I'm still recommending that we accept this proposed submission because it sets out what it is we want to do with the NEC site once we're able to do that and let's look forward to the future. Thank you. Thank you. So as your seconder I'll just say a few words so firstly I would like to commend the officers who have done all the work but in particular produced this report so it's exemplar of clarity and attractiveness. I love the graphics in it it's so easy to negotiate your way round and it's something that's rarely seen in council papers it's now routinely seen in papers from this council but you know it is a really really excellent and enjoyable document and the graphics are fabulous and the information is presented so clearly and you know with really very very little ambiguity that I can find so my thanks to everybody involved in that it's a piece of work that we should be really proud of and going on to excuse me, excuse me, the masquare isn't easy so I am confident that North East Cambridge is going to be an absolute exemplar in its own right of low carbon 21st century living. This isn't a village this is urban living and I think it's what I see in the report here and what I've heard today it gives me huge confidence that this is going to be somewhere which hopefully I'll still be alive by the time it's finished but I can walk round and be really really proud of what this council and its partners have created. A bit like the Cambridge South Station we have to make sure that our high ambitions translate through to delivery and that we are creating a fantastic place for the residents of South Cambridge and Cambridge City to live somewhere they want to stay, somewhere they want to work somewhere where they want to bring up their families and look after their loved ones. So you know with 40% housing that is truly affordable it says in the paper. Jobs that walking distance from where people live, 5 minute walk to get to green space no fossil fuels low carbon districts, somewhere where as I said earlier car ownership is really optional you don't get like living in London there are so many viable low carbon alternatives that why own expensive car. So I am hugely supportive of this. It also protects the countryside. This development will protect our villages from development which is not sustainable. It is the most sustainable site in Cambridge and I am very proud of the work that this council has done. So moving on to the recommendations now which I am not going to read because they are long they are set out in paragraph 6 of the report so do members agree with the proposals? Does anyone wish to vote against the proposals? Anyone wish to abstain? So Cabinet therefore agrees with the proposals by affirmation. So we have now reached the end of the agenda thank you ever so much for joining us to view today's Cabinet meeting or to participate in it and I note that the next meeting of Cabinet is scheduled to take place on Monday the 7th of February 2022 at 10 o'clock in the morning. So thank you very much and if we could end the live stream now.