ved in 2015 as part of that outline planning commission and the approval of the reserve matters in this case as Mr Sexton highlighted relates to the details of the rendering of that planning commission you're not granting a new planning commission and understandably there continue to be concerns about transport and traffic and so on but the consideration of the transport effects of the development was part of the planning commission and it's not a matter that you can effectively consider at this stage provided that the submissions before you correspond and fall within and as they say legally within the ambit of the outline planning commission you might have heard that term before and my understanding is that in terms of the car parking numbers for example and in terms of the fundamental layout built for heights and therefore the relationship with the historic building the grade star listed building those matters are beyond your consideration at this point the matters that you're considering are landscaping arrangements the elevational form disposition yes scale and layout are part of the considerations in front of you but you have to constrain yourselves to within the parameter plans that the planning permission has set so you cannot the applicants indeed cannot deviate from those parameter plans in terms of sighting and there was a lot of consideration given to building heights visibility indeed landforms of that outline stage that resulted in those parameters so it's really just to kind of caution the committee in terms of the extent to which they can stray into some of those issues given that the outline planning commission as Mr Sexton identified is is actually incredibly rigid in terms of the parameters before you today I think Councillor Cahn did you want to ask a question or does that answer it? Right well before we get to the debate then we will take a few more questions to officers starting with Councillor Cahn if you may it's basically about the concern about access to the site and the footpaths and so on I was wondering how much this is a material consideration because I would have thought that it would only be a consideration to the extent that the actual development constrains access that it is and I'm wondering where it is actually beyond consideration in terms of dealing with this particular planning application could we have some clarification? Thank you in paragraph 130 of my report I have gone into a bit more highway and transport detail than I perhaps would have done since I've spoken to you it does highlight that there are three section 106 agreements associated to the outline permission that do require various financial contributions and the provision of new footway and cycleways within the wording of one of the 106 agreements it requires an initial payment to be made to the council prior to commencement of development it then requires to construct a pedestrian and cycle routes within the development existing grants part carries on prior to first occupation so there are going to be a raft of additional accessibility measures to come forward they are secured through the section 106 agreements part of the outline consent but as Mr Kettys just highlighted it's not a matter really for all members today but just to assure you that was thoroughly considered and the 106 secures funds and time scales for when funds have to be paid and works have to be carried out to improve the accessibility Right to councillor Bradman Thank you chair As a matter of clarification on what Stephen Kelly has told us I recall there being very strict requirements around the number of total number of car parking spaces on the site and also very strict travel plan arrangements which are already in place on the site so what I wanted to clarify is there is a perception as expressed in the concerns that there's an additional 1,300 car parking spaces can you confirm because we have a paragraph 135 on page 113 reference to the approved outline consent identified a total number of 1,018 car parking spaces et cetera so is this really an extra 1,300 car parking spaces or is this part of the original outline plan was it covered by the original travel plan or is this additional provision Through you chair the car parking proposes within the reserve matters layout is the quantum of parking that was agreed at outline stage Thank you very much Right, I think that deals with all the questions of clarifications I'll bring it back in one more Councillor Joe Sayers Thank you chair Through you I could do with some advice here chair as to whether this is the appropriate point to ask the question it's to do with the access across the site Ask it anyway and we'll tell you afterwards whether it was appropriate Thank you very much It's to do with the access across the site that the parish council raised that have been shut off since 2017 and then the applicant made the statement with regards to the burglarism what have you and people access in a building and I just wonder whether or not there was any leeway within the decision making that we do today for requests for additional security measures for the buildings themselves to be put in place If you cast your mind to this building along the back we have a fire escape which is secured from the inside so it's secured from the outside but you can still use the fire escape so I'm assuming that could be put onto the buildings here so that then essentially secures from the public access that would then allow the public access back across the site with the security for the buildings themselves Either that or if the site was to remain shut to public access the parish council put up a map of the red lines and it said red lines where the roads have no footpaths I would imagine that it would be a big stretch to ask the developer to put your footpaths all the way around to allow access around the site if you like and leave it shut so there is a question in there for the offices if you understand what I'm getting at here there's a kind of a uneither all in my book one is a dam site cheaper than the other I don't think it is within the gift of this application to do that unfortunately clearly it can be noted in the minutes following the meeting and the applicant is here and the meeting is broadcast so I think the concerns of the members is quite evident but I don't think there's any mechanism certainly within the reserve matters application before you to seek any of that I'm afraid OK thank you for that a question from me if I may to officers as was clear earlier on this is a different application some of us visited the site in relation to site one on a previous occasion could we just have for the record what is the situation in relation to the master plan for the overall site yes through you Joe I thought you'd ask me that question so I have it prepared I'm just going to bring up one of the pages from the 98 design guide so this is figure one from the 1998 grant park design guide sort of the phase one of grant park is this I can't do my point chart but is this sort of western area so the 1998 design guide relates to the phase one phase two that's before you today is this green area to the east south east of the site so there's no guidance within this 1998 design guide though I would say is directly applicable to the applications before you today which has clearly been very well set out in the outline permission it also helps in terms of the restricted covenants that was mentioned just for clarity that was brought up in relation to site one and the trees that are around the western edge of the site to my knowledge there's no covenants no similar covenants on this part of the plan so again that reference is relevant to the site one application not the application for four members that's very helpful to the extent that the master plan is relevant it's not to this site and it's the 1998 master plan that we were looking at then so Mr Mead would like to contribute thank you Chair just to say that Birkits who wrote the letter about the covenants are taking instructions with a view to withdrawing that part of the letter that referred to the covenants it not being a material planning consideration thank you that's helpful shall we then start the debate and as before I think it would be helpful if we could address ourselves to the key material considerations as on page 91 who wants to cancer brown rules just a quick comment really as we're being directed to restrict ourselves to the matters in reserve matters context I've not seen this before at all and I'm struck by what we're described as architecturally significant developments but thinking they look very concretey obelisk like and I'm just minded that when we see such imagination as Bosco verticali in Milan where the greenery flows down from the balconies of every apartment if we didn't more of that more widely and here specifically it might just address some of the concerns that local residents have because clearly the massing that they referred to is significant and although there are screening by use of the land contouring the land it will still add to a significant impact on to the this formerly rural surroundings which is now clearly a commercial business park of some repute and it seems to me that it was always intended that this site could grow in the manner that we're considering now Thank you Can I just check did you use the word obelisci was that the word you intended? Perhaps we have a different understanding of an obelisci I could do some wordling on the use of my vocabulary I'm sure on flat concrete edifice perhaps Is that business? Thank you, that's much clearer Okay I think in that case we'll go to our other local member in the workshop Thank you chair a bit confused now as my main concerns I was going to voice in the meeting mainly revolved around level of parking the possible impact upon the listed building on the site and also the access to the site the presentation I understand those are now no longer issues that we can discuss at the reserved matter stage because they've already been agreed at outline, albeit they are listed as key material considerations within our agendas so I feel we're actually quite blinkered as a committee into what we can and actually can't discuss because 90% of it has already been agreed so we're pretty much talking about how the building looks and whether we feel that is appropriate or not and given I feel no concerns around the appearance of the building have been raised by anyone so far as far as I can see I feel in a position where my concerns that I have regretfully aren't really relevant at this stage because as we've heard from officers they've already been agreed so I mean with some regrets that I can't talk about them now I mean I feel I'm not in a position to refuse this so we'll likely be voting to approve the chair Thank you Yes we did have guidance on that as you say some of these matters are listed amongst the key material considerations I think possibly if we look to the planning balance on page 117 that may be helpful to directors going to clarify this Just to clarify particularly around the issue of setting on historic buildings and so on it's not that you're not entitled to consider those matters but you have to consider them in the context of the parameter plans that have been determined acceptable so you'll notice that the so the impact on the historic building of the details submitted is a material planning consideration and the historic England you'll notice and these conservation officers have commented on that and deemed it to be acceptable the point I was trying to stress was that in considering the merits of the proposal you in a sense need to have regard to what's come before in terms of that analysis and certainly from an officer perspective those fundamental elements of impact and so on particularly in relation to transport which I think Mr Sexton's also clarified you need to see the whole of the planning permission and its mitigations rather than just the particular matters before you today but it's in that context that you're entitled to consider the impact on the historic building but you would need to do so having regard to the parameters that have been determined previously which we can see to turn around Right You have asked the councillor and Bradenon next Thank you chair so I might be one of the few people who did actually take part in the consideration of the outline plan so I've witnessed this from the start as it works Thank you So and also I have looked at this application when this section segment was considered because I remember hence the comment about the car parking so one of the things as I understand it that we can comment on is the appearance of the buildings because what slightly alarms me I mean actually I think the layout I remember we worked quite hard to ensure that the suds were going to be acceptable within the location what strikes me about the building in the design and access statement section one just as an example I actually think well I sort of have some sympathy with what councillor Milne said about the appearance of the building I find them very white and very striking and very square and very uncompromising in their shape and I know it's too late to do anything about that but what slightly concerns me is that the overall appearance isn't very attractive and I just notice if that's to do with and I will quote you from our officer report paragraph 89 perhaps that is because the material palette includes twice fired two coloured white glazed ceramic baguets and window head profile and I'm not being and I'm sure that's appropriate wording for what it is I'm just trying to work out the ceramic baguets but I suspect it means it's something white anyway which is what I'm sort of objecting to in this there's no attempt to try and let the buildings you know they're working really hard in this visualisation with this lovely pond ponds and open water occupied space but there's really not much in the way of compromise on the structure of the buildings to make them blend in with that green um that green environment you know what I'm talking about here and I'm a bit disappointed that there's not more effort to make these look a bit less white is there any way we can do is there anything we can do about the surface treatments the materials to you know I don't appreciate that they want to as councilor John bachelor pointed out this is a an excellent this is a centre of excellence and I appreciate there's a wish to make this this um like one coherent design but it's very harsh and I just wondered if there's some way it could be softened thank you perhaps the director would like to comment on that I think it might be helpful for Michael to share the slides I think the ambition and the use of tiles or effectively these ceramic tiles on the building will actually give it a more textured look than perhaps is becoming apparent from some of the imagery and I think it's a deliberate attempt quite probably to introduce a degree more texture than large single flat planar panels which characterise much of what we might have considered in the past to be office park architecture and I think the design review panels comments and their view about that response in terms of the materials and the landscaping in combination led their conclusion to be that it's a very positive absolutely understand and indeed I think councillor a parish councillor over his comments around urban design I wouldn't say it's necessarily purely urban in terms of its form you have to see it in context but these are quite large structures and I think it's probably the renderings and so on are not particularly effective but trying to give some sense of that texture as opposed to the very crisp and clean lines that we've seen but I mean it's a matter for members to consider whether it's unacceptable as a white tile building rather than I'm not sure that colour would make a dramatic difference to it to be honest with you Mr Sexton show that picture it's one of the first one thank you it um if you notice the building in the background I don't know if it's greyed out deliberately but it just hides itself a bit more and these look very shiny white and I think they're going to be visible from a very long way away I think the point about the parameter plans though is that there were view impact assessments undertaken which determined those parameters so that the visibility of the buildings was limited beyond the size I'm just objecting to the materials used because it's very white you know even if some of the buildings are just different surface treatment that might be might make it less or overbearing Can we ask Councillor Bradlin whether you've I'm sure you have considered the urban design officer's comments on those points paragraph 92 and particularly the end of that paragraph page 107 and I recognise that this is whilst it's a rural location the park itself is is quite urban but um I just felt it was rather uncompromising and given that they're doing such a good job I mean if it does work out like that it would be great but I just thought the buildings within that are a very samey which is probably deliberate but I don't like and b very um white I quite like it if some of them are a different colour I think I need to ask the case officer just to put this in context of earlier decisions just to draw members' attention condition 5 of the outline consent does actually require the submission of materials prior to works above ground level I don't imagine that they would seek to bury too much from what's before you today because it is whilst creating its own identity it is reflective and responsive of some of the other buildings within the park but just to draw your attention there is a condition condition 5 that would need to be discharged in terms of the materials so we can take some of the concerns away if it's a consensus for you whether it's just council wrap names I quite like the materials in the influence but that's where design is subjective and some of us would like it and some of us won't but there is a condition for materials on the outline consent that we can take concerns away In response to that through you chair I just noticed that paragraph 89 refers to twice fired two coloured white blazed ceramic a baguets I assume means tiles and a reflective blazed base set behind exposed columns blah blah blah all of that talks about white and I just wondered do all the buildings have to be the same white I know that there's a reference to the palette drawing it in part from existing buildings within Grand Park while also establishing a distinctive identity and language to the buildings in this phase so I sort of understand that they want to make this bit distinctive in its own right but I just find it a bit it's kind of oppressive in white in the same way that that would be it would be quite anyway that's my view I'm not going to vote against it I just think it would be nice if it was a bit less impressive Councillor Mills wanted to come back and then Councillor Cahn off to that Yes because I think Councillor Rudman and myself are sharing the reservation about a large number of large buildings with large faces of principally white and how that sits in context of the business park of the commercial park and its impact on neighbouring villages particularly and it's that aspect and it's why I mentioned Bosco vs Dali because that impact lessens the dramatic nature of all these white surfaces Okay before we have further discussion on this point I just want to emphasise that we are not a design panel this has been referred to a design panel and there's a limited amount to the extent to which we can impose our own what must inevitably be subjective role and objective views on that Councillor Cahn Well just to show that it's subjective actually a rather opposite view I think the bright light is actually quite nice in terms of integrating into the park I think it creates a distinctive feature which will be interesting and visiting I'm not so worried about the massing from the joining villages I think that it's something new which is probably worrying people but I think it's a sufficient distance to become part of the landscaping time with the sense of landscaping I think modern buildings which are simple and designed like this basically their features are determined by the setting and the way that they're arranged in the landscape and the landscape around them that's what makes them otherwise it's just concrete and urban it really does look awful but in this case I don't think it will I think actually it would be something that people would want to visit and in this sense I don't agree with this concern about the white I actually rather like it I agree with this objective view but that's the way I feel Thank you Thank you chair and an attempt to move a slightly away from the colour of the buildings chair from the advice that we've had from Mr Kelly it's very much on a lot of these yes we consider them but we consider them as to whether they're compliant to the outline as opposed to any changes or anything so on that basis chair I can't see anything of fit with the outline planning commission I might as others have reservations and disagreements but on a matching crosscast exercise it fits with the requirements when it comes to the scale and the massing I won't linger chair on the colours of the buildings I think whether it's our preference or not I think there is a argument for them being where they are because it's gone through those panels one thing that when we had the site visit that I was particularly impressed by was with the car parks, their living walls and the way that did help things blend in but we know that they require a lot of work to have vertical growing of plants so I just would like some reassurance chair before we go to the vote and I think we're getting to that point soon that there is some maintenance because given that obviously that does require significant maintenance that there is that in the conditioning that we can because I think that would have a significant impact obviously having luscious plants and landscaping is great so long as it stays that way because then the impact would be changed thank you chair we could ask just with fabrication it's not a carpark in the same manner the ones you saw on the site visit this isn't three or four story carpark it's just a simple one deck carpark that is built in the earth is being oh the landscape as a whole is certainly covered by conditions what I'm saying is there are lots of things like this on site are we ensuring that these things as a whole our landscaping is maintained going forward and I just use that as a reference point as to you know there's a lot of landscaping commitment on site how sure are we that this can be managed and continued sorry if I wasn't clear chair for you chair I think it is set out in the report but there are a number of landscaping ecological conditions on the outline which would include details of management and maintenance so that is covered yes right perhaps I would if I may just comment in passing that when we made that site visit I think some of us were impressed to the extent to which those had been maintained not that's a relevant factor here I think council judge hails wanted to contribute to the debate thank you chair you're going to be delighted to under the stigma or in on this one but I've been disting intently whilst googling and many many years ago I had the privilege of working on an award-winning building in Basin stoke and this is just a point for the future because all the things that have been said with how a building looks from a distance and what have you, Mount Badden House in Basin stoke has just been listed by English Heritage and it was the one that I helped to refurbish it is essentially green on every single level it looks gorgeous so you could have a look at that and then that might be something that future developers of these types of sites might want to consider thank you thank you very helpful contribution I would urge members to have a look at that after Robin before we come to our decision on this as Councillor Heather Williams just said I think we are approaching the point where we are able to come to a view before we go to a vote if necessary is anyone proposing to oppose the recommendation on page 118 officers recommend that the planning committee approves the application subject to the conditions as set out is this something we can see anyone is this something we can approve by council hails is about to oppose it is that right? Absolutely not it was just one thing I was going to say if I may taking in what Mr Kelly said about and Mr Sexton that reserved matters the pits that I raised about access through the site perhaps it might be that officers could mention what was said and that can be given some consideration from their perspective rather than from our perspective to reopen that access for the community as was for the last hundred not years that's the only thing I would like to say to that suggestion which I think we have to understand cannot be a condition does anyone wish to I'm moving to the vote does anyone wish to I'm proposing to move to the vote would you wish to postpone the vote so that you can make a further comment please it's clearly we can't affect the number of car parking spaces that's fixed that's numbered but there isn't any really good effective sustainable transport for the moment but some is proposed in the future I would suggest that maybe some comment in the informative is that one would hope that the provision might be reviewed in accordance with future developments of sustainable transport that's just a comment but it's feasible what you think is common something like that I'm not sure that actually you could construct a condition around that because obviously you'd have to have regard to circumstances at that time and both the county you'll be aware that the combined authority are reviewing the transport connectivity plan which will help shape the county highway teams responses and our local plan itself is going to a review process so I think it's probably something that the applicants will have heard obviously we're very acutely conscious of the ambitions around that and the importance of more sustainable means and of course the Greater Cambridge Partnership also looking to try and affect change in that space because I can't really think of that Councillor Cahn, I'm now proposing to move to the vote Do I need a proposal to that effect? Or can we just move to that right now? I was always just going to say I wonder whether it could be put in the informative rather than in condition Right, I propose now to move to the vote Do I have a... Yes, I think I have a seconder for that I'm never going to put the matter directly to the vote In view of the further suggestions I am going to go to a recorded vote straight away rather than seeking to do this by affirmation so if you could press your blue button and then vote green in favour red if you oppose and we have it would seem we're unanimous in approving the accepting the officer's recommendation and approving the application subject to the conditions I said we'd break for lunch at 1.30, I'm sorry failed in that ambition but I still suggest that if we could manage to come back at 2.15 I hope that will allow members enough time for their lunch Thank you Welcome back everyone to this meeting of the South Cambridge District Council Planning Committee You know who we all are At this point or quite shortly I will need to get my finalisation agreement to the committee to continue over the four hour deadline my vice chair healthily points out that we've already covered two of the nine issues on our agenda so perhaps we won't need to but I think we ought to just can I take it by affirmation that we may continue beyond four hours and we get to that point I think that should be a personal affirmation by each of us I'll take the recommendation and would you kindly stop interrupting me Councillor Roberts Right, so we now move on to what is listed here you will recall we agreed to change the order of the agenda slightly so listed here as being item 12 land off horsey throat Linton we have made a site visit page 243 in your papers and I think some of us know that he's surface water drainage and flood risk data members decision due by May and the presenting officer in this case is Steven Kelly Thank you chair I'll be supported by Karen Pell Coggins who's the case officer and as you identify this is an application for approval of a condition requiring details of the surface water drainage scheme Members on the site visit on Monday visiting both the application site and Lonsdale the adjoining area Karen can have the next slide my way of the screen and put it into full screen thank you I'll keep going I wave backgrounds as the report makes clear on page 244 this item was deferred from consideration at the meeting last month for a number of reasons the first was for the lead local flood authority to publish their report into a flood event that took place adjacent to this site within Linton on the 20th of July and that has now happened to provide further details of the drainage solution particularly details of the exceedance flows from the drainage basin which I will address shortly and to provide clarification of the applicant's land ownership and the ability to deliver elements of the proposed drainage strategy and I'll deal with that as we progress through the presentation there have been a number of late or later representations since the publication of the report I'll perhaps run through the presentation and come back to those presentations those representations because I suspect it may well make a degree of sense but Karen if you can move to the next slide please so the surface sorry the surface water drainage proposals essentially comprise four key elements in line with principles established at the outline stage and referenced in condition 11 the main elements of those proposals can be found in the report and are shown on the plan and they essentially are set out on page 257 and 258 but talking to the plan the surface water drainage measures will capture all of the rainfall falling on to roofs and roads the pale blue areas that you can see are areas of permeable paving so the rainfall will fall on to those and also be captured and directed towards the infiltration basin located at the bottom left hand corner of the site which corresponds with the lowest part of the site at the site access with horsey throat a one in 40 gradient will be created for the first four metres to create effectively a lip at the site entrance way to reduce and prevent surface water that currently in high rainfall conditions passes along horsey throat from entering into the site and then flowing down the hill into the infiltration basin and overwhelming it there are also I think if you could move to them the next slide please Karen so this is the infiltration basin which includes it is dug to a depth to accommodate one in 100 year plus 40% for climate change design standard a few parts to it what's called a four bay area on the left at the bottom of the drawing effectively where all of that surface water will travel to and providing an opportunity for silt and so on in that to settle before it passes into the larger basin area if you can go to the next slide please the permeable paving is essentially a contained system with a drain that holds some of that surface water that falls onto the onto those permeable paving areas in essentially the materials in the paving area itself before discharging into the infiltration basin through pipes next drawing please and then what I propose to be buns on the eastern western boundaries an element of the southern boundary the one on the image on the left hand side is a bund on the eastern side of the site the levels fall from the right hand side of that image to the bottom left hand side and the purpose of that bund is to intercept water that might flow from the adjoining land currently part of that land as those were on the site is used as the site compound area to the application site itself and then on the right hand image there is a small effectively a lip on the western edge of the site shown in the sections and in the southern part of the site that contains surface water into the site and prevents it in normal circumstances from flowing beyond the site boundaries so that it is contained within the infiltration base and you go to the next image please the construction of the development means that on the eastern side particularly there has been a concern expressed about the ability of the developer to contain within their application site within land that they control the eastern and southern bund so this drawing seeks to demonstrate and the applicants seek to affirm that they are able to construct the bund in its entirety as detailed in the plans and so it's one of the reasons for deferral for members who are on site on Monday they were able to see an indication of where that boundary is and where the extent of the bund exists relative to the boundary fences of the properties that were constructed it moved to the next slide and then the other reason for deferral addressed this point so the prevailing ground levels as you can see are to the bottom left of that image with the contours that you can identify the applicants have provided details in this diagram of an exceedence flow rate that essentially follows that prevailing ground level now if I can apologies I just need to check back with the the drainage features if you can go forward to two slides please that's right the basin that is proposed in the bottom left hand side and the exceedence flow the arrangements that members were able to see on site during their site visit showed the partially completed basin with a temporary bund around it and then you were able to witness by going into Lonsdale the difference in levels between the properties to the south referred to in a number of reports as being Martin's Lane but actually not it doesn't exist at that point to the immediate south of the site but particularly to the western side of that basin and we've got some photographs that we can show you shortly but if you can go back up to the exceedence flow slide one more thank you you'll see that in an extreme event in the event that the infiltration basin proves to be overwhelmed the exceedence flow the applicants are indicating will take place to that bottom left hand corner which corresponds for those who are on site with the gardens of houses on Lonsdale now the applicant has provided information which is contained in the report which seeks to justify not only the design parameters of the one in 100 years plus climate change event but also has further calculated the performance of the basin in more extreme rainfall events based upon modelling that they've done up to one in a thousand year event the section 19 report published by the League Local Flood Authority suggests that circumstances in Linton in July 2021 amounted to I think between one in 250 and one in 600 year event so depending upon what data source you rely upon but the applicants comments around that are contained in the report and seek to suggest that although the exceedence would take place into properties in Lonsdale and again we'll see the photographs about and members saw the way that that water is conveyed when it enters the gardens the circumstances under which such exceedence happens are in excess of the design parameters and the council and the League Local Flood Authority design standards for a surface water drainage scheme and in fact suggests that that level of tolerance is significant and sufficient to justify the scheme being an improvement over the circumstances of a no development scenario so if there was no development on the site Karen if you can just go down further in the presentation as I said the key parameters of the scheme I've detailed in that slide if you move to the next slide there are maintenance arrangements set out on this slide so the areas covered by the blue will be adopted highway including the lip or the entrance the grading of the entrance at the site access point and the areas in brown will be covered by the management terms set up for the site move to the next image please the development is for those of you on site and if you've read the report is well underway and as a consequence the measures that are proposed have not yet been fully implemented what the applicants have done is to provide a program of implementation detailed on this drawing which sets out the phasing of the implementation of the drainage solution in the event that it's approved by the council it's important to note that the existing circumstances on site and indeed the conditions on the 20th of July 2021 the drainage solution that was in place was not a scheme that you're being asked to consider it was not fully implemented clearly at that point including key elements of the access prevail water inundation measures to prevent inundation of the site from the east and from horseyth road and the infiltration basin at that time the lower did not have its embankments fully rendered in the way shown on the submitted scheme so I think the next slide should identify one of the other reasons why the application was deferred was there was a question about South Cam's land ownership interests you can see in the right hand image Fowlwater connection to and anesment that's granted over South Cam's land into Lonsdale as part of a Fowlwater connection but the extent of South Cam's district council's land along that western boundary I think is there another slide that's it okay thank you are there some photographs I think that we have received a number of photographs following Monday's site visit that we've sought to sought to try and capture thank you and this is for those of you who weren't able to visit the site hopefully this provides a degree of context so this photograph I think is taken of the area of land behind the gardens and properties on Lonsdale and at the southern boundary of the site beyond the southern boundary of the site in an area which is being marked at the moment by the cursor Karen if you've got another image scroll down this is the edge of the application site is off to the left hand side this is number 29 Lonsdale and the infiltration basin is to the media left of this on that image on the site and what the photograph and members saw on site is the difference in levels and clearly the difference between ground levels that exists which dovetails with the anticipated pathway of that exceedence flow routes the next image this is the view beyond that the boundary of number 31 which is the house next to number 29 that you've just seen which points to the congested nature and the overgray nature of the site next door which prevents water from flowing down Martin's Lane to the next image and this is the it's actually quite hard to see in some ways but you can see the infiltration basin in the midground the development of the rear the boundary fence of the garden number 29 which I think you've just seen showing the relationship of the infiltration basin with site boundary and with the residential boundaries off to the left hand side it's important to make the point that the infiltration basin that as constructed there effectively the embankment of that the raised section is temporary and would be taken off and rebuilt with a concrete core as a piece of reinforcement to that basin and then that core would be backfilled with material and planted and would naturally colonise with vegetation another photograph I think that's a similar image but maybe gives you a greater sense of appreciation the next photograph please through that gap you can see again the houses but the infiltration basin is in the area beyond that chain link fence that you can just about make out I think this is taken on the boundary with number 31 it shows the slope absolutely this is the garden of number 31 which is and the fence that you can see at the top of that photograph is approximately where the previous photo you've just seen was taken or clearly the continuation of the ground levels falling into those gardens in Lonsdale is something that members were able to appreciate next photograph please one of the elements that forms part of the existing fabric of properties in Lonsdale is that there is a substantial you can see it here in the photograph brick wall the consequences of that is a continuous wall along most of the southern part of Lonsdale consequences of that is that if water enters into the gardens of properties in Lonsdale it's conveyed westwards along that wall and into neighbouring properties that's what happened in July 2021 and ultimately ends up at number 36 where it passes through a gap in that wall down to a property at number 2 to Baker's Lane and so the concern of local residents around the application articulated in some length in the representations and through correspondence is around the risks to their property from effectively an overflow of that infiltration basin and a concern about the significant implications for property and their well-being arising from that. As the report sets out the flood event in 2021 and the report on it has now been published we've provided details of the easement the applicants have provided confirmation that they are able to fully implement the scheme within their demise it's fair to say that remains contested and the Lead Local Flood Authority have confirmed that both through their technical assessment of the scheme and we have a representative from a from Capita who peer-reviewed on behalf of the Lead Local Flood Authority the technical assessment work done for the surface water drainage design the Lead Local Flood Authority have confirmed that they're now satisfied not withstanding their earlier comments that you can see reported in the report that the scheme put forward is acceptable and satisfies their requirements before I finish however I do need to update members to a number of further representations received since the weekend or just before the weekend and around the site was it so from the applicants we've received emails on the 6th April and the 30th of March addressing matters of the bund construction and revising the details of the concrete plug to be a more substantive reinforced piece of structure on the 30th of March they provided new sections for the infiltration basin and identified responded to points made by the parish council about exceedance flow on the 12th of April they provided a response to Linton parish councils concerns and they've also provided on the 12th structural calculations for the concrete bund itself which was a matter that you'll see has been raised in representations the lead local flood authority provided further comments on the 11th of April on Monday confirming their position that they are satisfied with the assessment undertaken and with the exceedance flow provisions and the applicants' calculations are making clear that they continue to have objection to the approval of the condition we've also received a letter from the local MP on the 11th of April raising concerns about the implementation of the development ahead of these works and the failure of the applicant to discharge the conditions in advance and concerns about noting the concerns about the parish councils that you'll hear from in terms of exceedance flow infiltration rates and the performance of the drainage scheme overall and asking members to seek to ensure that checks are carried out on what has been built ultimately and that monitoring takes place should the conditions be discharged to ensure they're implemented as approved Linton parish council will be hearing from have made comments on the 8th of April as I said the applicants have responded to those highlighting concerns about the section 19 report from the lead local flood authority expressing surprise about Anglia Morta and the environment agencies view on that report querying calculations undertaken as part of the service water drainage design process questioning why no comments from land sketching and highways have been raised and expressing a concern about the impact of the scheme on the hedge questioning entrance levels and the arrangements of the site access and making clear that the parish council continue to object to the proposals but you'll hear from them we've also had representations from Baker's Lane highlighting concerns about the flood report and from Lonsdale 36 Lonsdale querying whether a structural engineers report has been secured regarding the stability of the bund as recommended by the LLFA as I said we've also received photographs from number 31 Lonsdale and from Baker's Lane Corey Newell I think has written to all members separately in a letter that we're conscious raises a number of points and chair that's that's probably all for me Thank you Is there a point of clarification I am much concerned about how much extra information that there is and we're all pretty busy at the moment and I've seen things coming in onto my laptop in the last sort of 24 hours I just have not been able to read them I just haven't got time and I think my fears are that we're really making a decision here that could have could be good but it could have horrendous consequences and my own feeling is that this meeting actually should defer it until the next month to give everybody an opportunity to really consider I honestly feel that if there was a flood and I'm sorry I don't go along with all these 100 years et cetera nowadays the weather is so changeable these days and we get more and more rained and I'm ancient as you all know and I can't remember whether quite as wild as it is and so much water when it does come down and I actually would move that we defer this Chairman I just don't think we've got the we haven't got the knowledge we haven't been able to I think take in and I think it's premature and highly dangerous and I actually think there would be a call on this council to have responsibility of something to happen in the next couple of years and I don't think we ought to be putting ourselves in that sort of predicament and I would move that we we defer this right so I take that as a proposal do you have a seconder for that right so when I have a short debate on that emotion that we defer does anyone want to speak for or against that I will speak briefly on that then I am aware that there have been a lot of additional documents and also that there are parts of those documents and submissions that are directly relevant to the decision for us today there are other parts which are not which is why I asked indeed I'm sure it doesn't line in this in the beginning I asked the director rather than circulating more documents to summarise the relevance of the documents that have been received as a clear summary I think that in considering the question of deferal we need to consider two other factors ready one is that there are people waiting on this decision it's not directly relevant as a planning consideration for us this afternoon but there are people wanting to move into houses there that if you like is the responsibility of the developers the second question is that because the amelioration works the works that should prevent a future flood can't be completed until they have been approved there is a continuing risk to neighbouring householders until such time as this matter is properly resolved now I don't while it's also a risk to the householders the ones we met on site yesterday which was acknowledged by one of them at a previous meeting now I appreciate that councillor Williams wants to second that you wished to second it now would you like to hear others on this point first you go ahead and second the motions I don't see anyone else want to speak at the stage and the vice chair would also like to speak on this perhaps that's helpful here councillor Milnes thank you chair so I'm minded that we have a development in Saarston of 40 ex houses by the same developer and they have a system in place a very similar design percolating pipes underneath the permeable paving going off to a first of base a tank underneath and so on I have photographs in front of me of bonding on top of that permeable surface that was immediately after the site was constructed so I have some hesitation when we're discussing such property developments and the nature of these flood defences I'm minded to agree with councillor Roberts in terms of the additional information that we've got when in December 2019 we had a water event that was the highest or the third highest in recorded history so we are getting these very severe events more frequently now I know that Stephen mentioned 1000 year events but it seems to me that we're reliant on a system that is untested with severe rainfall events and I'm thinking particularly of situations where you've got quite a lot of high rainfall over a proceeding period and then get a large amount of months worth in a few hours which was the case in July 2021 so I'm just expressing reservations about the information in front of us and the ability of this proposal to cope with Right, I wonder if for 42nd emotion I could ask Henry Bachelor to answer three comments again whilst I agree with the two speakers before about lack of a full set of information in front of us I also on the other hand I do agree with the chair that we we do have to come to a decision at some point on this because you know this has been rolling on for a long time and there are people waiting not including homeowners who have had houses ruined and are waiting for a conclusion on this matter to put in some kind of defence themselves but on the flipside whilst I'm not against a deferral I would like to hear from the public speakers before we make that decision because including people such as Capita and I'm hoping the applicant themselves they may answer some of the questions that we still think are outstanding and then when we get to the debate we may still feel that there is information missing that we would like to defer this application for so I'm not against a deferral on this stage of the proceedings I see we're now gathering other speakers before we take other speakers I wonder if you would agree to be inviting the director to comment on some of the implications of this because I think that would be helpful to us yet okay hold on because it's your right speakers, a second is the motion thank you thank you because there might be something that I say that Mr Kelly then might want to advise us so that's my thinking I'm going to jump in front of you Mr Kelly so my reasons for seconding is we've had a lot of information there and I do appreciate this summary and everything that everyone said but also we only have one chance at getting this right if we approve something so yes we need something to protect and it was the images and the images that we've been sent of the flooding is horrific and I remember about how quick it was and if their child had been in the living room it would have been a very different we could be talking about a very different situation here so yes we need to get something done as quickly as possible to protect those residents but also what we can't do is rush it and we have one chance and get it wrong now this is a highly technical condition as well the beauty of the planning committee is that we're not professionals that's a democratic process but equally this is a very technical piece I do feel that perhaps a briefing to go through that technical detail as we've had in other areas would be a good idea on this item because we're being asked to make a decision today that literally could mean the difference of life and death to some people so it is I feel an immense passion I sure we all do that we must get this right and based on a summary and information given I don't feel that we're able to and I appreciate what councillor bachelor said about the other public speakers but equally I think in my mind more support and briefing and more time to digest and get the information would help my decision making as opposed to responses that I may have in the next 10-15 minutes so that's my reason for deferral and I would be happy if it means we have to have another meeting following that briefing to make it work to try and speed things up happy to go with that but I do think that a lot of us are very concerned about the consequences if we get this wrong because we want to be a certain or a certain as we can possibly be Thank you for that I think if the committee would agree it would be helpful at this point to hear from the director before others contribute Yes, I think we agree to that Thank you chair I absolutely understand the concerns about the level of information and the technical nature of it and indeed there are conflicting views on that technical information I think however probably important to and Councillor Williams made this exact point is that the technical assessment of the scheme is not a matter for the planning committee to forensically undertake that is the purpose of consulting the statutory consultees the lead local flood authority particularly and there has been a fairly rigorous process of challenge and examination both the lead local flood authority of the applicants and indeed to address the very concerns that I know a number of members have highlighted the lead local flood authority took the view of a pointing capita to peer review the proposals and draw conclusions on the technical assessment because the calculations involve the assumptions about infiltration rates design parameters and the factors taken account of in those design parameters are matters that I would find difficulty frankly briefing the committee on without necessarily giving a very very extensive masterclass in drainage scheme design that I'm certainly not qualified to give and which would involve a great deal of technical analysis and assessment alongside the requirement for judgment ultimately by those technical specialists and you'll I do wonder whether or not recognising nevertheless a council robbers concern about this it might be helpful to hear from the range of views because around the technical assessment and the scheme design there are there are some areas of disagreement between for example the parish council and the lead local flood authority the lead local flood authority's consultants and the applicant that you need to consider but there are now areas in which there is at least recognition and clarity around what happens if the basin over tops in terms of what that potentially means and members who are on the site would have been able to see that and heard from some of local residents might be useful to hear from all of the speakers in order to be able to determine how much more technical appraisal is required by the committee as opposed to the views and technical appraisals that have been done by the lead local flood authority and others before we reach a conclusion. Before I take other speakers do you wish to press your proposal now so that we could hear our speakers and then press it later if that's appropriate? Chair, I mean it's Councillor Robert's motion my feeling is though that this is an application that's going to should have a good deal of our time given to it because of the severity of it it's three o'clock we've already been going for five hours I don't and we have a lot other things on the agenda so I do think chair we do need to make a decision sooner rather than later but I don't want anybody to be rushed in their representation so mindful of where we're at in proceedings as well here. So can I ask Councillor Roberts to confirm if you wish to press this proposal now? I think we ought to do it now because I think my feelings are that I only need to know whether you're prepared to do it now forgive me I've been advised I ought to assert myself more as chair I did, I said that yes Chairman I think the time is now. So let's move to a vote sorry I think we're going to do this on the system yes if we're being asked to take a vote on whether to defer now if we if that decision were overturned and we proceeded to discuss the application that doesn't preclude us seeking a deferral once we've heard it does it? Yes I had that thought myself but I think we have to take the principle do we defer this to a future meeting bearing in mind there will be no further meetings of this committee until some time later in June new committee or do we agree to discuss it I think that if we reject the idea of deferring it then we have rejected it for the whole of this meeting in my view Chairman if we do know but I now want to proceed to the vote I've had the proposal, I've had the seconder so if you would like to forgive me and Councillor Bradlin we're going to proceed to the vote now and the vote is on perhaps before we proceed to the vote we should take advice from our legal advisor and Chair Knot, withstanding your view my legal view is that there would be a second if the motion was defeated now and there was then a debate and then a further motion was put to defer I think members would be entitled to vote on that second motion right so that's very clear if we reject this motion now we would still be able to consider the same issue at a later stage my view on that was practical the legal one is what counts so let's now proceed to that vote if we're ready to thank you so green is in favour of deferring it now and red is in favour of hearing from the invited speakers I think we have all voted now and the motion for immediate defer is defeated so we will now hear from the invited speakers I see that that sounds like a reasonable request everyone happy that we have a very short agenda yes this is or I think virtual today can I just gently suggest from the chair that it would be helpful if we could just listen to them hear their presentations obviously if anyone doesn't see this on asking questions then I wouldn't I wouldn't be able to stop that I have indicated to other speakers who were waiting to speak on the next item that we will take next item consider what we do about other items so let's proceed item 12 our first speaker virtual on mine is James Fountain do we have Mr Fountain there you are I am here yes I'll be two minutes around about first of all thank you for letting me speak the events of last year have had a kind of profound effect on and lasting effect on the residents of Lonsdale Baker's Lane and beyond and I think this topic has had a great deal of scrutiny and debate certainly by technical people but not necessarily by the committee the residents of Lonsdale did not live in an extreme flood risk area but the Crow days development has now created this for us the narrative I think that's been used to push the development from Crow days homes has not been helpful and I kind of totally reject the idea that the site is somehow saving us from mass flood events that aren't really supported by the facts however I think now we have to realise that the development is in place and we have to come up with solutions on how we can protect our homes for the future according to the planning procedures etc and these mustn't really raise the flood risks to our homes houses so I've got two three topics that I'd like you to consider really as part of the committee so the first one is is the structural integrity of the fund that surrounds the infiltration basin and really is it up to the job so the LLFA have requested in the latest report that the design is reviewed and subsequently inspected by a structural engineer so I know this hasn't been accepted by Crow days to date and really failure of this particular structure is not an option because it's a major part of the design so I really ask that the committee kind of require and request that this LLFA requirement is actually carried out secondly the residents of Lonsdale and beyond actually don't really have a huge amount of trust from Crow days homes and I believe really if you look at the literature that the council is currently being held to ransom so this is quite clear from some of the wording that's on the submissions in the planning portal and also residents have had to track and mend many of the proposals that have come from Crow days throughout this whole sorry affair none of us are flooding experts but and this hasn't really been a very simple or easy process to follow so a lot of us have had to become flooding experts and look at these designs and sometimes we've been the only people the residents to actually come up with finding flaws in the design so these have been residents have been the driving force really for finding these flaws in the design and highlighting them and I think lastly I want to say that I hope that the design that's been put together is actually built so as people will realise when they came on Monday 90% of the houses have already been finished and a great deal of the drainage solution is already in the ground so can these be checked properly I'm not sure they can be but we hope that they will be so this is really an empowerment importance that they are the other thing is wind up if I may I think we've got very clearly what you said and we had the opportunity to one more sentence to say is about the infiltration basin so we hope that the infiltration basin actually performs to the required amount however the data that backs up this data infiltration data is at best flaky I have to say that when looking at the data as a career scientist I don't think I would be able to use that data it is very very dodgy thank you for that that submission committee I consciously gave Mr Fandran slightly more time aware of the fact that we were not proposing to ask him any questions our next speaker is Matthew Harmsworth agent for the applicants of Barton Wilmore I think Mr Harmsworth are you with us hello you'll have to bear with my throat a little bit today I'm recovering from Covid but can you hear me okay yes please go ahead okay thank you I'll start by commenting on the three matters relating to three reasons for deferral from the previous meeting the LLFA's flood investigation report into the July flood event defines the event as a 1 in 211 or 1 in 659 year event depending on the rainfall data used Crow days have provided additional calculations to the authority which show that the surface water drainage capacity for the scheme will be effective for over 1 in 1000 year events well over the capacity required even to mitigate events such as that observed last year and far beyond what is required by policy section 5.6 of the report highlights that developers should not increase flood risk at sites again the surface water drainage scheme proposed does more than this in fact creating betterment to the drainage capacity of the site than that observed prior to construction regarding exceedance flows from the infiltration basin the visual shared with the authority showed that the water would follow the natural topography of the site and slips generally in a south-west direction as it did prior to development let me stress however that the calculations in the micro drainage model showed that even in the case of 1 in 1000 year events the surface water runoff would be contained within the infiltration basin and with over 100mm free board to spare. Furthermore the updated designs add a reinforced base for the bund further to the concrete core which further improves its stability structure analysis demonstrates that the concrete core alone has sufficient strength to act as a retaining wall and providing this structure within the bund will further increase its strength and stability relative to the previous design regarding ownership it's been discussed with acknowledged and confirmed with the authority that all land required to put in place the scheme is within the applicant's land ownership or control I trust that the site visit took place last week and the presentation we've had was helpful in this regard the drainage strategy also sets out maintenance strategy and it in again further expanding this on top of the measures previously proposed the applicant has committed fitting a depth gauge to the head wall of the inlet of the infiltration basin to help monitor the water level regular inspections and maintenance will be undertaken to ensure normal operation of the infiltration basin the principles of the Thomas report of the outline application have been adhered to the peer review of the technical details for the LLFA supports the LLFA conclusions that the proposed surface water drainage scheme is acceptable and the LLFA as the technical expert consultee have noted they are satisfied with all the latest information there is a clear timetable set out for implementation of the scheme with the applicant wishes to carry out as soon as possible in the event of the scheme being approved and the council is free to monitor the progress of this the applicant also advises that this scheme has gone about as far as it can go as have the calculations gone as far as they can reasonably go therefore we respectfully request that the condition be discharged allowing the developer to move closer towards delivering the scheme and thus appropriately mitigating against future events thank you Thomas we won't be asking you any questions today so we'll proceed to our next witness thank you very much councillor Kate Kell of Linton Parish Council and I think you have Cory Newell there with you in support Kate you know we have three minutes can we just confirm that you have the agreement for your parish council to present the case this afternoon yes I can confirm that I have the permission could I just before I start to speak make a comment regarding whatever additional material has been submitted in response to us from the developer so when you're ready we haven't had the opportunity to see it and it isn't on the website so that was my comment thank you now would you like to make your submission then you have as usual three minutes you will have noticed I'm sure that I have shown a little bit of discretion because we won't be asking you questions subsequently but if you could possibly keep three minutes that would be appreciated certainly and could the presentation be displayed please thank you chair councillors thank you for inviting me to speak planning policy requires that no internal flooding should occur on a site in a one in one hundred year event plus climate change it also requires that the development does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere full stop there is no limit to the event intensity in this statement current mechanisms that could cause flooding both on a site and to its surroundings should therefore be fully understood so that any changes to them do not alter the risk of flooding next slide please our concerns are the environment agency surface water maps are inaccurate water entered the site by both the construction compound and main site entrances on July 20th last year the volume of water that over top to the dober top the infiltration base and exceeded its capacity many many times over flooding properties on Lonsdale, Bakers Lane, Bartlow Road and Finchams Close in quick succession once the construction compound entrance is returned to Verge it will direct flood water to the next opening the main site entrance two alterations to the already agreed site entrance have still not been consulted on by highways what will happen if this scheme is not acceptable to them the one in 40 rise was proposed by the 2017 flood strategy due to and I quote the small risk that flows along horseyth road may enter the site along the new access road evidence shows this risk is not small nor hypothetical if overtopped additional water will flow straight to the infiltration basin we understand that the surface water scheme was not complete on July 20th however the extent of the surface water to enter the site from horseyth road has not been considered in the design at all with crowd is arguing that only rain falling on the site itself has to be accounted for we believe this is folly as the site entrance changes the flooding mechanism next slide please paragraph 60 doesn't include how the retesting of the infiltration pond will be controlled on completion and for the life of the development the effects of the silt and compacting of the chalk cannot be undone by rotating should the infiltration test fail what then lessons from previous floods should be heated before water is piped into the village drains four you have no information about the exceedence on the eastern side the damage to hedges and trees and the landscape implications of the bunds, ditches and concrete structures on both sides the scheme is not deliverable because it replaces the landscape buffer approved under conditions one and nine this is over development the site LPC understands the pressure that the occupation of this site developed at risk puts on members and their decision making approval of the details in this condition is based on too many unknowns and deliverables we therefore request refusal as until these unknowns are known the risk of development increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere remains thank you you said you have not seen the reports which were not available to you so you have not seen the LLFA report or the capita review of that report we have seen the latest things that are online on the 12th of April are the Linton Parish council comments and which is also duplicated as our consultee comments submitted online there are no other documents that we've seen from the 12th of April which I think was the developers response to our comments or something the committee has looked at those we were sent a link to those documents which are online I think what I'm going to do is to use Chen's discretion to invite an additional speaker who can talk to the cap we have online capita I don't know whether anyone from capita is present on listening to this who can give us their assessment of the LLFA report because I think it is very important that all parties including the parish council should hear a brief summary of that I think we have Mr Jack Southern online before you speak Mr Southern I just have a councillor who wants to make a comment on this procedure Thank you could you just explain to us what part capita plays in this? Capita will explain that in a moment Mr Southern I'm sorry to bring you in in this way I'm sure you've been listening to what's been said here and I think it would be very helpful to hear from you you will have heard not only what the parish council just said but also what Mr Harmsworth said about your assessment of the LLFA report on the events of last summer and the extent to which the proposals before us would deal with that in normal circumstances the extent to which it would deal with and if you're able to comment on that if you would also deal with councillor Bradley's point about explaining your role in this that would be very helpful Certainly thank you chair and members for the invitation to speak today so my role thank you for hearing me, my name is Jack Southern I'm a Flodros consultant I've been working with Capita for the last five years and a brief consultant for 10 prior to that my role in this has been to provide an independent review of the proposals for this application we support the LLFA on a number of their statutory consultancy responses so either primarily or as an independent review I haven't been involved in the section 19 the flood investigation report that was led by the councill themselves although I do have lots of experience of delivering those for other areas but I can't speak to this specific section 19 report although I've obviously read it as part of our work so to address that first point that has been my involvement we've been undertaken an independent review and then reported back to the lead local authority with our thoughts and our views I've reviewed to have the opportunity to review several revisions of the submission for the discharge of conditions and provided feedback at each stage noting a number of points to review including emissions and varying values used between calculations and plans provided I've also questioned various approaches and points within the report those have over subsequent revisions all been addressed to my satisfaction and in accordance with the guidance documents that we have that apply to drainage schemes of this type to summarise the most recent revision submission by the LFFA which I think was one of the questions there is a comment around the section 19 the flood investigation report that quotes that the flood event that occurred that was subject to the report had a return period of between 1 in 200 1 in 211 and 1 in 659 depending on the measure I can go into why there is a range in those things but I think Hilary described that quite well last last session we the standard for design that we typically look for is the 1 in 100 plus climate change we allow 40% increase to account for climate change over the lifetime of development we have also subsequently received and reviewed and along with the LFFA the submission from CODES which looks at different return periods so larger events than that to understand what the upper limit of the designed termination basis may provide and based on the calculations we can say that that would provide a present day store of a 1 in 1000 year event as I say that's present day so without climate change so over the lifetime of development certainly and then we've also some of the final comments were around the exceedence flow routes we wanted to see those documented appropriately that has been done and then the details around the eastern boundary the final point I should just say is as was mentioned earlier in the day we have reviewed the plans in front of us is the proposed design we have not been able to and to verify what has been built on the ground so is from a principal point of view that we are reviewing design drawings and design calculations and that's what our conclusions are based upon thank you very much okay I would now like to ask one of our local members Councillor John Batchelor if he's available to give us his views on this are you there John? I'm here chair but alright my camera has just been turned back on I've been banned from the camera arrangement okay thanks very much I'll be brief Chairman we've heard all these numbers or the rest of it but there's really one underlying problem in all this project to be acceptable it has to meet the authorities standard and that standard is 140 years as we've heard a number of times so they can so their project can be acceptable but it doesn't actually solve the problem the problem is quite clear that it's the exception exceptional rainfall which is the issue here and I might say that we have had similar downpours from as for July last year at least four times in the last 50 or 60 years and at least one of them was much more serious so it does happen and it does happen more regularly than these random measures numbers actually suggest so there is no answer to this until such time as there is actually a workable solution to how you deal with the basin should we have an extreme situation in other words somehow or other you've got to stop it overflowing and the only way to do that I'm no engineer but I assume there needs to be some sort of pumping system which would safely remove some of the water in order to protect the surrounding properties our concern is simply that we need to protect the neighbours and the wider community and at the moment I'm afraid we do not have the answer to doing that thank you dear thank you John right the question is do we now into the debate with a view to determining this and I'm just before come to you in a moment just going to remind us of the recommendation officers recommend planning committee accept the following surface water drainage details but do not formally discharge the condition because the development is commenced and that is the recommendation before us are we happy to debate that Councillor Roberts thank you chairman through you chairman I'm going to move a deferment again having heard the different representations there is absolutely nobody there that convinces me that they know that this isn't going to flood and the last speaker clearly said he hasn't seen the site itself with what's happened there and he can't give us a solution all that's been repeated by the developer is they won in whatever many years thing well you know we know that already and that would have been as it was before but it happened didn't it it happened last year I think we do need a deferment and I would suggest that we take actually further advice and call a special meeting in there a one off one issue meeting where we actually have a proper pre briefing meeting as we've done with different schemes over the years where we can sit and listen to people giving us information and advice so that we don't clog up the whole procedure when it gets into committee itself but we get people and I would suggest from two sides because there are two sides to this story and then we may be in a better position but I just feel at the moment we are in no position whatsoever and there are so many um guidelines showing us that there is a serious danger here and we have to be as an authority aware of that and not go down that sort of line we cannot okay I think we've heard your proposal we defer do you have a seconder Dr Williams does anyone want to speak against that before I invite Williams to seconder Councillor Milne's it's just a point of clarification so what I think I've heard from the witnesses and the neighbours particularly is they want work to go ahead because they want protecting from the certain event that they had last year happening again and if we defer we risk run the risk of the developers pausing their work and therefore leaving their neighbours unprotected so I'm just clarifying that that's the potential implication of what we're doing okay I'm now going to ask I think Councillor James Helles was it on this point that you wanted to speak Councillor Helles thank you right Mr Kelly following the site visit on Monday which was extremely illuminating you had to be there to see it right so this is my points are from that experience the permeable surfaces or rather should I say every single drop of surface water Mr Kelly that drops can I just clarify that we are debating the proposal which has been put on this now I don't want to do that so okay Councillor Breddon I think that one of the things that I would like further advice on is we know do we not that planning applications are not required to mitigate against against flood risk that comes from outside the site and one of my concerns about this is that prior to the development obviously the same amount of water fell on the site as falls now except perhaps in recent years it has happened more suddenly but the problem is that the introduction of hard surfaces and water management systems so surface water runoff has increased the speed with which that is recharged into the local existing flood risk flow pattern as we witnessed from the photographs from ancient parish council which we had sadly very little time to look at or and no explanation of which direction we were looking in but we could see that there was a lot of water there so I am mindful that if we defer this application we defer the instigation of the system which in theory according to the local flood authority and their independent engineer would solve the problem but unfortunately we can't be sure as council bachelor said we can't be sure that would actually protect the people anyway so we're in a cleft stick and so I do feel that other people have referred to the fact of the very heavy rainfall on already recharged soil in December 2020 which I experienced in my division and you know I do think we need to take into account the change in climate behaviour that's happened now it's possible that people are telling us that the lead local flood authority has taken that into account and we're advised in the documents that actually the proposed strengthened and increased height bund around the infiltration pond that is proposed could protect the neighbours from the one in a thousand year incident but there's lots of information that we've only received this morning and I am quite concerned there is quite I'm just wondering is there any way we can require some works towards protecting the neighbours while we consider what the applications are I know we've just got to say yes or no that's a good question look I take that as a speech against deferring it but you have asked a good question which I think we all want to know and I would like to do thank you this is what I'm proposing is that we invite the director to comment on that thank you I think there's a couple of points there is no approved scheme in the absence of this condition detail being approved so there is nothing for the developer to implement other than the approved scheme I'm trying to listen to Mr Kelly so the approved scheme is only a scheme that will be covered by conditioners there's no effective authority to implement anything else the developer has implemented some temporary arrangements following the flood events in July last year to try and mitigate the vulnerabilities of the site as it currently stands but it's construction site and you saw some of those temporary arrangements on site but there isn't anything other than the approved scheme in front of you or indeed that I was advised that you could consider as a kind of interim arrangement I think in terms of the point around the technical advice or the further technical advice that we could secure I'm slightly struggling to know where to go to get that advice the statutory consultee is the lead local flood authority the lead local flood authority have also appointed an independent technical expert on drainage who has also given them advice and so I'm not quite sure where as a planning authority as a planning committee we go to secure any further technical advice on the assessment of the scheme thank you could I come back briefly chair do you members feel that we have heard enough on that could I just seek clarification sorry I think you've had a say councillor Dewi Hawkins wanted to did you have a proposal or did you want to if I may I think it's okay to hear the combat from Chancellor Burnham it might how many I wasn't your councillor thank you what I wanted to clarify was the point I was making was that all of the calculations as far as we understood from both the lead local flood independent from James Sutherland but also from the lead local flood authority themselves was that the calculations add up for the rainfall on the site but what I was saying was that and indeed what the residents said was the trouble is the existence of the site makes the pre-existing known risk worse and I just wanted to get advice whether we can take a get advice from the lead local flood authority about this the risk that it's not mitigating the existing risk of water but it's falling on other land outside the site which then runs downhill seathroad into the site out through its normal natural route which is at southwestern corner and whether we can get any advice from them about that because if a development increases a risk of flood to neighbouring properties that is in our local plan that we shouldn't allow that to be made worse that's my question just a moment I thought you were opposing this being deferred it now seems you are proposing that it should be deferred so that we can seek further advice which the director has advised us we cannot secure as to the point which you raise are you suggesting that the advice which we have had from both the LLFA as I think peer reviewed by capitol I wasn't clear about that it doesn't already deal with that certainly Mr Harmsworth's assessment and I have to say I agree with having read the report was that the LLFA report suggests that the the measures now proposed would make things better I think we may all doubt whether they would they would resolve it but I would remind the committee we are currently debating whether we defer this matter to the merits of the scheme or whether it would resolve all the problems so I am inclined to go back to forgive me I know Councillor Williams wants to contribute but we have a seconder here do you want to speak before Dr Richard Williams seconds the motion to defer thank you chair just to say that I will take advice as to my voting business because I had to take an urgent call but I have heard the debate and I can understand people's concerns Councillor Milne's raised about the existing properties and everything but I would say that we only have one chance to get this right so less haste, more speed or that might be frustrating for today but if we were to agree something today and it doesn't do what it needs to do we will have no ability to go back and I think members are actually just asking for time quite often to just digest everything that was summarised actually see the documents we've heard others so I'm just throwing out that caution Mr Riddle let me know if I can vote on the defer or not that we've got one chance at this Councillor Dr Richard Williams would you like to second your motion to defer yes thank you chair I really will keep it brief because I know one more another we need to get on with business today first I think in relation to some of the points we made before part of the case that Councillor Roberts made for a defer is that we could have a technical briefing where we could explore these issues with the experts in more detail I think that's a very good idea I just know one other thing the parish council said they haven't seen the LLFA report the parish council also said that they haven't seen some other documents which concerns me and gives me other cause for defer and I see there is a letter online which refers to the parish council having been sent the report into the 2021 flooding but there does seem to be some doubt now as to whether the parish council held that anyway that would be my second reason for defer all thank you well I now intend to move to a vote can I just ask Councillor Heather Williams whether you intend to take part in the vote okay is that Councillor Heather Williams should not vote she did not hear all the debate and whilst she may feel confident my advice would be that that would be a ground on which the decision could be okay so again I'm going to take a vote on the machines if you can step that up for us please so again press the blue button if you wish to support the motion to defer then you press green if you wish to oppose the motion to defer press red now as chair I will need to use my casting vote and the convention is that I use my casting vote in support of the original position I might need some legal advice on this but my view would be that the original position is the one put before us in the papers I'm not I think in this position to support the proposal I have to support the original motion can I suggest a two-minute journal please that's what I'm about to take advice on that's not my view but let's have a two-minute committee if we may have a two-minute deferral to just make sure we get this right before I cast my casting vote yes we better I'm afraid I'm sorry please thank you my apologies for that further short adjournment we now come back we have a tide vote and therefore as chair I'm going to use my casting vote I've taken advice on that from officers and the advice is that I am unfettered my casting vote is that we should not defer this we should continue the discussion having heard from those involved and I'm just going to give you a very brief explanation the first is that regardless of the conventions that one votes in favour of the status quo I'm assured that my decision is unfettered I'm concerned that if we fail to take a decision today the improvements which are proposed we cannot be sure we'll take place I do not want a situation to occur in June or July which is the soonest time advice we can consider this at a future planning committee that we have another such flooding event and because we have failed to resolve it the improvements which were intended had not been carried out that is not a responsibility I believe this it's not a risk this committee should put on those who were so badly affected by the events last July we have a duty to decide whether the improvements proposed should now go ahead and that is what is before us so that is my reasoning it's not really a matter for debate I'm merely explaining my reasoning you may or may not agree with it doesn't that mean that the only answer that we can give today is approval and if that's the case why are we making any further debate because you're saying if we don't make a decision today nothing will happen and if it happens and it goes wrong I think you are tying this committee hand and foot to agreeing it today and I can't say that if that's what it's going to be I don't think that's what it's going to be we have a decision before us which is the same decision as we started in front of us at the beginning of the day that this item that has not changed I have merely used my casting vote to ensure that we continue to debate that option we have the same options before us as we had when we first started discussing this so having said that we've heard all the speakers we've heard from experts we've heard the assessment from our director and everyone want to start the debate on whether we should accept the recommendations before us. I think we have Councillor Bradman again first no I gather yes I recall when I stopped Councillor Hales in midstream would Councillor Bradman allow me to restart Councillor Hales and then come back to her is that alright? Thank you Councillor Hales Thank you chair before you change your mind OK Righto I'll go back to where I started or where I started saying before because having been to the site and stood in the back garden at number 31 and looked at the levels and the flow that the water the route the water took that I remember asking Mr Kelly that was this the actual extent of the raising of the edge by 500mm I think it was et cetera et cetera it doesn't look enough and it doesn't look like enough that the ring goes round enough that raised ring goes round enough to actually say it will then hold back any waters of any kind of volume and severity and another point was that Mr Kelly made was that every single drop of water on that site that drops on that site goes into that pond because it's all permeable paving all the routes of the houses go into that pond everything so there is a vast amount of water, let alone anything that may or may not with any kind of rectification of road services in why have you come off the horseheath road and come down onto the site by mistake or whatever right so bearing in mind that others have said here today that our duty is to stop the impact of this development by flooding somebody else so when that was a field the neighbours said that it was a wet field but it didn't come their way, it just stopped so as someone has said earlier I think it was Councillor Bradman that now we've got hard services albeit that they're being sustainably drained it has an effect so my belt and braces would be that we part of the debate I suppose is to say that we need to look at the height of that pond retaining wall they've extended it up they already knew that it was low when they did it before so they've extended it there are gaps in it heading towards Martin vein I think it is, the south of it if you look at it there was something that Mr Kelly mentioned about a ring, a concrete ring was that what they were going to go in so that needs to be about another 300mL on that would do a heck of a job one glaring chair, one glaring thing was that Capita who have reviewed the data from the LLPFA is they haven't visited the site they've done it at a tabletop one of the big recommendations help would say is if someone is going to peer review something they go and actually visit and see this for themselves because that may well have changed that department's view of how they've reviewed so that's what I was asking there are some glaring to me having worked through water for most of my working life I know it has a mind of its own and you need to keep it in check and so for the small amount of capital outlay by the company to put an extra ring and move that ring and completely contain it it's not a big ask thanks there's a question there in relation to the technical specification of the ring in which I know the director has taken advice so in a minute I will if I may ask the director to comment on that point but we have other speakers first councillor Bradnham and then councillor Caelin I think before we debate this any further or at some point I would find it really helpful if we could have just a look at those photographs from Linton Parish Council that was the first time I'd seen them and I would like to look at them and have them explain to me because I wanted to see which way we were looking there was one in particular it was labelled as Hall Seath Road and I couldn't see what it was so that's one thing and the second thing is I would like somewhere along the line it's really sort of slightly along the lines of what councillor Joe's hails is saying is that the which I was saying before the presence of this development make the existing normal rainfall off-site create more of a risk for the neighbours to this site it used to fall and go on to soft land and sink into the ground but now that's caused a much faster recharge into natural flood flows so I would like some advice about how that might be approached but I would like to see those photographs from Linton Parish Council will an explanation please Yes so we're going back to one of our earlier presenters to review the points they were making if we can technically do that we will I'm not quite sure whether Karen is able to put up those photographs again Check chair I wonder whether Lawrence is able to actually share the slides because I think the Parish Council affords them to him particularly like an explanation what are we looking at on the left photograph Chair I think probably the left hand side photograph is the flood event on the 20th of July as it says it is a picture of the basin area Can we ask the people who presented the photographs No we're not going back to the presenters again I think we have knowledge in the room and the local member can tell It says it's horsey throat site from Lonsdale so are we looking eastwards across the site to the development and are we looking across the retention basin or are we looking further up to the local member Those who are on the site visit on Monday we're looking north east across the site across the basin from the two gardens that we visited so that is the basin that is full of water That's where we are That's 31 Lonsdale 36 Lonsdale is the gentleman we visited whose property has been re-devastated Thank you Can we move on through the photographs OK One of the concerns I've had about that photograph was the volume the potential volume and flow of that compared to the size of the infiltration pond and so it says extended properties who reported flooding directly from the site Are you happy for us to take out the speakers?  I just carry on looking at the rest of the photographs because I didn't have a chance So is the one on the left that's saying number 36 Lonsdale but looking from the east side is it looking across the bottom of the close? I'll take the local member again Councillor Bradman's question is the perspective of those photographs And what are the two in the middle? I mean those of us who were present on the visit on Monday will quickly be able to see where those photographs were taken That's what I'm just trying to clarify I was there too don't forget and I was just trying to Well do you recall looking at that house I recognise the one on the left which are the two in the middle The two photographs The two in the middle of the close of houses that we visited So if you walk into the close the first house we visited is on the left and the second on the right so that's looking into that small close that small ring of houses in Lonsdale at the bottom of the road So I understand The middle two photographs is the top one looking as it were eastwards across the bottom of the close or is it looking from Lonsdale as you look down the road Is the bottom of the close looking up towards the first house we visited Okay and the bottom one Sorry Councillor Bradman We have had the presentation We've now seen the photographs as you requested I would like the committee to be able to progress We have not only this matter to resolve but other matters. Are you happy for us to now progress Thank you Okay does anyone else want to take part in the debate I think we have Councillor Carn and then Councillor Harvey and then Councillor Milne Right I'll expect my concern I mean we've taken advice obviously about what would deal with the water on the site I'm concerned that if we don't do any action we won't deal with the water that came from off the site and I think this is probably far more important that the water actually on the site the water was coming down forced into the road I had experienced myself in a different area of what happens when water falls on the impacted ground or hard surface like that and gathers other water and can actually turn basically into a river Previously presumably it continued on walls it went down into the village and it went off and went across the site You also have a compound with your compacted ground which is quite a considerable area almost as much perhaps as the actual hard standing on the site which will not be removed into the developments completely. Once it's finished you'll have soft ground there and which will reduce some of it I'm worried that we don't take action and we don't accept what we've got we will not be able to deal with that I'm also worried that the development conditions should ensure that whatever is put in place to prevent water coming off course if it is maintained that's the most important thing of all that can prevent flooding on that site Whether this pond is large enough or not to contain the site does depend upon where the water comes from and what you saw in last July basically is a mixture of two lots and so it's difficult to judge whether that is actually the amount of water that would happen after all these things have been put in place I feel I personally feel at risk if we don't take action I approve this what are we going to do if we put into position the advice we've got are we going to get better advice where from I think we're in a position where we just have to accept that we have to take a decision and I can't really see any alternative but to accepting the best advice that we will receive from experts we can't be more knowledgeable than them that's my view Councillor Harvey thank you chair we do have to keep reminding ourselves that the purpose of the infiltration pond is to kind of equalise the situation to what it would have been had there not been any development tool and I think living within the storm area if you like I mean it was an exceptional amount of rain over an extended period but having said that I think we do really have to assure ourselves that this design as it is on the ground mirrors what it is on paper and I noted that Mr Kel from the parish council picked up on the point I think that we've got this 10 to 1 safety margin for the infiltration rate in the infiltration pond and that means that at the start of its life the infiltration rate is designed such that it can be degraded by factor of 10 and it will still function but my concern is that and perhaps I've missed something in the report here that the last time that the infiltration rate was checked was in 2020 and that was before we had the July 21 event and before we had the settling tank which kind of clears the water before it goes into the infiltration pond and therefore has not some of that 10 to 1 safety margin already been eroded because of the July 21 event and does it not need to be fully tested again before being signed off? Chancellor, Chancellor and then there are some technical questions that have been raised here which is one of the problems of this debate we are making technical assessments well beyond our expertise and I think it's important before we come to a decision we invite the director to just comment on the technical issues that have been raised so come to Councillor Milne I just wanted to make a quick point that all of this work that we're talking about for flood defences relies on the build working specification and I gave the example for the developer's site where permeability, that sort of scheme wasn't working to the specification and I just wondered whether it's possible for us to include a condition here that says the developer should have an insurance policy and should the flood defences we are proposing here not work that they cover the cost of their neighbours so I would be hugely in favour of that although I don't think they go for it but my thoughts are the minimum standard things have to be built to stop a 1 in 100 year flood event we're being told that the proposal in front of us will go above and beyond that but the only issue with that is that is completely untested we've had a flood event in the last year it has the basin which of course wasn't there at the time hasn't worked but of course one of the facts we need to look at as a committee is before any development goes ahead we need to make sure that the flood amelioration works that go with that development shouldn't make the situation worse clearly the developer started building before implementing the system which obviously there are as a different discussion altogether but we've seen that the development will increase the flood risk to that corner of the site and therefore to the neighbours so we are in a position where we have a scheme in front of us that we're being asked to approve and we're not 100% sure if it will actually do the job we're being told by various consultees and experts that it will but the simple facts on the ground is and as some of the neighbours have told us today and at previous meetings they want absolute certainty that their properties aren't going to flood again so personally for me I would prefer to see a scheme that we are going to get a guarantee that neighbouring properties will not flood whether that is building a bigger pond or some kind of piping or some kind of pumping of the pond away that would be my preference albeit I know we're going to be advised by officers that we can't insist on that we've been asked to judge what is in front of us today and we need to do it on planning material considerations but personally for me I wouldn't be comfortable approving something that we aren't certain will stop flooding of neighbouring properties and will therefore make people's lives a lot worse so for me I'm at the moment leaning towards not supporting this OK well we've had a number of contributions some of which made some raise some technical questions which I think is important we ask the director to do it to the extent possible I would emphasise that it is not possible to have absolute certainty whatever is done will be by its very definition untested Thank you chair and a number of points there so the starting point obviously has to be what was the existing position before any development of the site the environment and coming back to the point about how much certainty can you secure and indeed what is the requirement picking up on councillor Bradman's point around the scheme itself so quite rightly and case law is absolutely clear on this point the purpose of mitigating the impacts of development does not mean that it is obliged to make it any better than it was as if there were no development so that's the reference point and what level of assurance can you have around that the environment agency maps which I know the parish contest but the environment agency maps show that this site had before any development an issue about surface water being conveyed across it to the south west corner and that in certain scenarios that could give rise to flooding of adjoining properties and the properties that I identified as potentially flooding were those that experienced a flood event in July last year a very substantial event but when the planning commission was granted for this site and mindful of those provisions the consultants engaged by the applicant at that time put forward a number of principles which were required to be followed by the inspector in order to address that potential flooding issue and to mitigate it. Some of those principles covered the issues that I think councillor Carnes raised around offsite water so the deliberate point of raising the entrance into the site was to ensure that water was not conveyed from horse he throwed in flood events into the site and therefore accelerated down to the bottom and likewise principles about an eastern fund to the development that meant that the higher ground to the east of the site did not result in water being conveyed across that relatively impermeable area captured and conveyed onto the site and then into some form of attenuation or control basin. So the FRA principles that existed in the grant of planning commission were then translated through into the surface water drainage scheme that you have got in front of you now that surface water drainage scheme has been through a number of iterations and has had a relatively cautious set of assumptions in terms of the ground performance of the rates of infiltration and so on and it's also been designed with a greater safety factor than might normally be the case and modelled to be effectively a pessimistic view about infiltration rates and the performance of the system to try and offer a degree of assurance to the League Local Flood Authority that the scheme is no worse than if there were no development or mitigates the impact of the development fully. Now what you've quite understandably heard is that in before that scheme has been implemented and midway through the construction of this site whether that was right or wrong in a sense we need to ignore but midway through the construction of that site a rainfall event happened that resulted in very substantial conveyance of water from off-site and travelling across that site in an unmitigated way into that infiltration basin took place then cascaded from that basin which had a lower level than currently but into the gardens of properties on Longstale it's really important and then to Baker's Lane and others it's really important however not to conflate the two as the absolute effect of what would happen if you granted this scheme is that you would see a repeat of that the assurance the only assurance you can have is that there has been technical modelling and challenge and peer review of a set of rainfall and infiltration rate assumptions drawn by the League Local Flood Authority with their advisors that's the assurance that the planning authority is entitled to rely upon reasonably in a circumstance such as this because across the country at the stage of approving of detail you have no other form of assurance than the assurance that your experts and advisors give you on a technical set of appraisals and it's entirely reasonable to rely upon that now sadly for the residents of Longstale and residents in Linton obviously they've got direct experience of a half built scheme causing very substantial impacts upon their properties but it is important to distance yourself from that. Those residents quite rightly have asked a lot of questions over the last 12 months since the event but in fact we're asking that the parish council has asked questions before that about the effectiveness of any surface water drainage proposal. Indeed the parish council made representations at the planning appeal I understand about the very issue of water conveyance across the site but you are entitled and your assurance should come from the statutory consultee and their obligation to you to provide sound advice on flood risk and the technical appraisal that they've undertaken. It might assist you to hear the assumptions made by Capitor in their peer review which did take my understanding is a sceptical and pessimistic view about the performance of the system and if you want to hear that then obviously there's a representative here of that peer review to provide some assurance that in design terms the model that the micro drainage model that they used did have regard to levels of water that are commensurate with what you should observe as consequence of the scheme but you cannot seek an insurance policy from a developer to that in fact they are effectively liable if they attribute and cause offsite impacts as any other land owner is to the effects on neighbouring properties and so I wouldn't argue that it is reasonable to do that it's also not reasonable in law to require the developer to remove entirely all flood risk from all properties surrounding the site of course it's really clear that that exceeds the requirements of the planning system and cannot be a reasonable action from the planning authority so you're then left with forming a judgement on does the proposal make it any worse than if there was no development there at all and the only assurance we can offer in that case is that notwithstanding the additional hard servicing notwithstanding the potentially increasing runoff rates to the infiltration base and that that gives rise to when compared with a vegetated greenfield the assessment and the assumptions that have been made suggests that you can conclude that the site has no greater impact than it would have done if there was no development and the design picking up on council hails question why can't you just make a basin the applicants have demonstrated that the design of the basin would already accommodate an event over and above the design standard that is applied across the UK across most of the UK Scotland has a one in 200 year flood standard which is the design standard that your council has worked to just a final point to make I think Mr Fontaine raised a point around structural integrity of the concrete plug and at the site visit on Monday we were asked about the integrity of that element of the structure because of a concern from local residents around failure the applicants have provided detailed technical structural calculations for that concrete plug to the bund but obviously the local plan authority those were provided yesterday I have not had an opportunity to confirm the soundness of those technical calculations of no reason to doubt them but I have not had the ability to confirm from a structural engineer their assurance so my recognising residents concerns particularly those immediately joining the site about that risk of failure I would suggest that if you are minded to go with the recommendation today that you perhaps delegate to me that that approval is only issued or agreement is only issued once I have been able to confirm from the council's building control service and its structural advisers that that structure and the calculations for that design would be acceptable but I'm afraid I can't offer any further opportunity for insurances and so on that would be reasonable in planning terms Thank you I'm keen to move to a vote we've had a good debate on it but I know councillor Timmy Hawkins wanted to contribute to the debate councillor Harvey you have already contributed do you want to have a further bash at it after councillor Hawkins councillor Hawkins Thank you Thank you chair I just want to say thank you to the residents that we met at the visit on Monday for sharing their views and their concerns and obviously the scientists did help to understand the lie of the land and how things happened that unfortunate July last year from what Mr Kelly has told us or from what we've heard obviously the LLFA is they are the experts in this and this system that has been proposed has been peer reviewed as we've heard and I just want to refer us if I may to pages 258 and it's under paragraph 42 on the sub paragraph 4 which tells us that this system has been designed to accommodate 100 year storm allowance plus 40% for climate change and you know it's got 300 mil now free board which has been incorporated it will have tank permeable pavement and it's been checked with a safety factor of 10 I know that I was mentioned before but then let's bear in mind that when the rainfall event happened in July the system wasn't fully built what we have now has been tested and if you go to paragraph 49 on page 259 there's a whole lot more explaining what's been done how it's been but it does say the results show that the surface water runoff will be contained within the infiltration basin for all these events with at least a 100 mil free board in the one in a 1000 year event which seems to indicate that even worse than what happened on that day this thing is built has been proposed to us will deal with the situation and it does say that it does say that it will go provide protection that goes well beyond the requirements of planning policy and is also well beyond the severity of the July 2021 event and I can understand why there is though the concern that people are thinking it will not work it might not work but I can bear in mind that the experts, the LLFA peer review they are the ones responsible and frankly they are responsible for this we can't do any more than they've done and it's for me on that basis I will be voting for this because I don't want to see them go through this ever again thank you can I just clarify that paragraph 49 is the applicant's comment not the LLFA's comment right, councillor Harvey I did ask to speak again chair because I don't think Mr Kelly re-asked the number of my question which really is I'm not questioning the design just questioning whether as built at the moment actually corresponds to what the design is and surely it would be the simplest thing to retest the infiltration rate now it is built to check that it actually corresponds to the design rather than design degraded by some factor I think unless I'm wrong because councillor Hawkins seems to imply there that it had been recently tested but in the only model in that case why can we not retest it because surely that is a simple experiment to run right my suggestion is that perhaps we propose a further condition that the infiltration rate should be retested yes, thank you I think councillor Milms you want to come back again very briefly I just think I'm minded to vote in favour of this because of the reservations that the director has told us about in terms of not making it worse than it was previously and it seems to me that we've got a proposal that the experts are telling us will provide that protection actually the resident that spoke to us right at the beginning of this session said we want to be protected and this will allow us to do so and I think we actually have to vote in that way I think we're ready for a vote I'm going to ask one more speaker which is myself I have thought very carefully about whether this will give us absolute certainty will it definitely prevent a flood the answer is no that is not the test so I think the director explained earlier on the question is will it reduce the risk if this work is undertaken if the four specific measures that we looked at yesterday are undertaken because of an approval of this will it ensure that the risk is less than it would have been in the absence of the development and it's quite clear to me that it would ensure that the risk is less we deferred consideration of this principally because we had not then seen the LLFA report or indeed the capital peer review of that report and we have clear advice now both the LFA and capital and now of the view the design of the surface water drainage scheme is sufficient to meet local and national policy and so on but in summary the system has been designed to cater for events up to an including 100 year plus allowance for climate change we've now agreed that we add a condition that the infiltration which is clearly one of the doubts be tested and the conditions that the director mentioned earlier on on that basis it is quite clear to me that we should now accept the recommendations which of course are not absolute thank you very much just in time officers recommend that the planning committee accept the following surface water drainage details but do not formally discharge the condition and I won't read out all the conditions there but I think we have now got to the point sorry one last thing yes sorry chairman we're reluctant to contradiction but it is difficult to add a condition to this to this decision I think what what I on testing the infiltration because effectively it qualifies whether or not the scheme is adequate I think there is by way of a way forwards could I suggest that I was suggesting that you delegate to me agreement or acceptance of the proposals subject to the structural integrity of the design for the concrete plug being confirmed by building control it seems to me that a similar conclusion might be required in able through the confirmation of the infiltration performance of the basin being within the tolerances effectively used for the design parameters set out in the assessment and apprais on by the lead local flood authority I think against those terms if a subsequent test of the infiltration performance fails to fit within those design parameters in the view of the lead local flood authority then I suspect I may well need to bring this back to you but I think that is probably the safest way subject to those two conditions those two proposals we now I think move to a vote do we accept the officer's recommendation on page 263 subject to those terms we can ask for a full vote on this so if we could set that up please usually so if we're in favour of the officer's recommendations we vote green right thank you so there are nine of us voting and the vote is five in favour of accepting the officer's recommendation on page 263 and therefore that is carried we're done it's approved 6-3 right I propose to move on quite quickly to the related item that is carried which is listed as legal officer's request two minute break so we will suspend the so we proceed now to item good we're live so we proceed to what is listed as being item 6 no we don't 13 thank you there we go submission of details required by condition 12 in relation to foul water drainage of the same development page 265 onwards in your papers we do have some potential public speakers on this as well but if we could just hear from the director thank you chair Karen if you're there there's a few slides which I'll enter very much canter through this item was deferred because of its relationship all members wishing to see the foul water scheme treated alongside the surface water scheme that you've just considered it's actually a separate system and it's not a combined sewer in this particular case and when we're on site on Monday you were able to see the location of the pump and storage tank it is a pumped foul sewer scheme with a connection into the existing sewage network on Lonsdale shown on the slide in front of you you can also see the pumping station where the cursor is next to plot 31 and members on site were able to see that relationship from the authorities perspective angling water are satisfied with the calculations of the scheme and have confirmed that they have capacity to receive the foul the foul outfall there were also consultations undertaken with the with the environmental health officer because of the proximity of the pumping installation relative to the house itself at plot 31 and concerns about both noise and odour as you'll see in the report those concerns have been resolved and Chair I think we're going to hear from the parish council you'll have a number of concerns about the foul water system in Linton and you can see their comments set out both the calculation methodology and so forth in the report you can also see angling water's response to that also within the report in which they do not share the concerns in terms of the scheme design with the parish council Chair in the interests of time I don't propose to say any more unless there are specific concerns but I think the main points there are highlighted I think that's very clear can we then proceed directly to our public speakers and I think in this case we don't have anyone from the developers we're going straight to Councillor Kate Kerl again Councillor Kerl are you there yes hello again yes I'd be most grateful for the minutes but please go ahead yep no problem if Lawrence could just sort of a minute on each slide is fine I've not got any points where I'm asking for next slide so Chair Councillors thank you for permission to speak any overflow of surface water from the development will enter the foul sewer on Bartlow Road as occurred on the 20th of July 2021 this is the same foul sewer for connection Angliawn Water has not approved the onsite calculations and have refused to adopt any of the onsite elements of this foul water plan and it's obvious why if you look at the plans but it also means that any problems won't be publicly recorded the plans show sharp S bends in fact Z bends would be more accurate uphill between the pump and Lonsdale these are likely to cause blockages and there's no proper provision for clearing them the foul pipes run almost exclusively through enclosed private gardens with many close to homes where future extensions would be expected the flow route of sewage in the event of blockages, pump failure or downstream surcharge has not been provided the drainage calculations document and the drawings are inconsistent and although the flows have apparently been tested by building control something went horribly wrong on 3 February with intervention required to deal with the strong sewage smells reported on the site and on Lonsdale for less than two months others have pointed out that the houses are much too close and the noise and smell of the pump and the sewage tank no account has been taken of the noise and odour that neighbours have already experienced and when waiting for future breakdowns to be fixed the tanker will be needed to empty the tank according to the sewage sector guidance foul only drains can become septic in as little as six hours sewed tankers with their noise and smell will be needed four times a day to get a better proximity of the pump to the neighbouring dwellings the developer states that as the pump station is private there is no requirement to justify the distance from a habitable building to the pump this doesn't offer reassurance regarding their attitude towards the long term effects of the private foul or surface water drainage schemes they are proposing the backup procedure is to repeat what flooded our village eight months ago anglionwater comments added to the portal sy'n cyffryd am y sraed wahanol iaeth mae'n rhan o'r cyffryd ac yn prooedd o'r blaes iaeth. A yma fyddai sy'n cyffryd, gweithg yn ffrwng i fynd i fynd i ymddangos o'r gwahanol iaeth, mae hynny o'r cyffryd ac yn penodol yw'r prysio yn gyfrinio. Mae'r calculio'n merth inser yn ysgol. Mae'r calculio'n ffordd iaeth fwyaf sydd yn olygu gwahanol iaith yw ei ffordd iaeth dilleydd i chi 10% o'r termsu canfant a'r dynnu sydd o'r tyn. Ynỷ ni'r gwaith yna angen chi'n meddylion argylchedig yn fagorio arlawn o'r gweithio a fadda'i gynnig o'i gweithio byddol. Mae'n meddylion i fod wedi'u gweithio nifer o'r gweithio ar gweithio i gweithio,ill mitafwyr am gweithiol yng Nghymryd Lwyr Fawr, yn ddryniadau gan y dyfodol wedi rhoi petrachau yng nghymru a ddod ar y rhefniddoedd gyda'r gweithio.  Rhaidd. Rhywodwch i ddweud o'r dweud o'r ddigon. Felly am y ddim yn y ddweud o'r ddigon, rhaid spokei sydd yn ei ddweud. Rhaidd. Diolch i chi, dyma. I think Councillor Cowell has given a very clear opinion on this, which I fully endorse. The only thing I want to add for the benefit of members is just to bear in mind that your technical consultee is Anglian Water, and as you know, Anglian never has any problem with taking foul water from new developments, because they take the attitude there is no point doing work on things until they have approval and they have a statutory obligation to take whatever comes off of those developments anyway. So, I wouldn't take too much notice of Anglian Water, and particularly just to endorse what Councillor Cowell was saying about the fact that they take no notice whatsoever of water getting into the system. I only judge whether or not the system works with the foul element and the fact that the world is entirely different from that appears to take no notice. So, I would also agree that this is not fit for purpose and should be refused. Thank you. So, I think we progress straight to the debate. Does anyone have any further technical questions for the director before we do that? No? Good. So, who wants to contribute to the debate? Who do we have? No? Councillor Bradman. Councillor John Batcher is right, Anglian Water never object because they are obliged to accept connections and flows so that they're not in a position to be able to do so, unfortunately. But, like Councillor Batcher, I observe, and others, page 267 under paragraph 11, they do acknowledge that the flooding was caused by surface water and surface water enters our foul only network which causes surcharging. And they then go on to say it shouldn't be in the foul system, but the fact that it does. Now, I would very much like to know, and they're not here to ask the question, but have they actually gone along and spoken to all the people whose surface water might be being directed into their foul network to ask them to make sure that their rainwater goods do not go into that system? It's academic because, as I say, they're not here. But the fact that they know that it does go in, they know that it caused the flooding, it says, the flooding was caused by surface water which had entered their foul only network, and yet they haven't apparently done anything about it. It's just a comment, really, and it's just grumpiness. I'm feeling grumpy about it that they haven't taken a responsibility for it. Chancellor Mills. Just quickly, we know that angliam water have problems with dealing with flood water, and we also know they have difficulty dealing with capacity iss