Okay Chair, you're not alive, thank you. Thank you and good morning everyone, members, officers and any members of the public who are viewing this live stream of this meeting of the South Camber Chair, District Council Planning Committee. My name's Councillor Pippa Halings and I'd like to welcome you. But before the meeting, I would just like to open with a short period of reflection following the sad news that is Royal Highness the Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh died on Friday. And we'll have that moment's silence for reflection now and I will let you know when the minute is complete and then we'll introduce everybody and start the agenda. Thank you everyone. We also have other news just before we go into the meeting proper and that is that Councillor John Bachelor has resigned as chair of this Planning Committee and as a member, full member of the Planning Committee. The good news is this is so he can take up his new responsibilities, the lead cabinet member for housing and we know that that will be in very safe hands with him. But as his vice chair since May 2018, I really want to thank him for the calm, assured, informed and professional way that he has chaired this committee and especially during the last 12 months challenge for everyone to take up the technological challenges of that. And John really did do that and made sure that this was a very fair hearing and for all given the new technological challenge. And I also want as vice chair to acknowledge just how supportive and wise advice he gave to me ever since taking up the vice chair role. And I've really, really appreciated that and it's enabled me to be in the position I am, which is as you'll soon find out, taking the interim chair of this Planning Committee. And I'm sure that committee members may want to join me in thanking him, acknowledging everything he's given. If anybody would like to say anything now, then we can do that before starting the meeting. I have Councillor Anna Bradenham. Thank you, Councillor Halings. I just wanted to say that as you have said, I thought John did a brilliant job of actually picking up on the technology when we all had to in March and handling the Planning Committee with the same aplomb and correctitude that he did when we were in face-to-face meetings. And I think that was a great credit to him. And I think he handled the committee at a time when it's been going through a considerable challenge and I think he's done it extremely well and I thank him for that. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Just to echo that we wish him every success going forward in his new role and that he has been chairman of the Planning Committee in a very difficult time and that his nickname for me was affectionately Trouble and that I will continue being Trouble for you, Councillor Halings, as well, in true traditional form. I'm sure Henry had the same treatment as well, being referred to Trouble on more than one occasion. Thank you. And Councillor Toomey Hawkins. Thank you, Councillor Halings. Just to add my thanks, I would like to officially to Councillor Batchelor for the great work he did with the Planning Committee to date and I look forward to his participation in the new role in the cabinet. Thank you. Good, thank you. Do I have anybody else? So, as I said a moment ago, my name is Councillor Pippa Halings and I'm vice chair of the Planning Committee and until full council appoints a new Planning Committee chair, which is in two days time, I'll be chairing this committee in the capacity of vice chair in the chair. I've asked Councillor Henry Batchelor to be vice chair for this meeting. Again, until final council confirms his appointment and I would love him to be the vice chair of this committee, so that will be put forward to full council. And then I was happy to confirm that Councillor Henry Batchelor is vice chair to do that by affirmation. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Against that? No, lovely. Thank you very much. In that case, Councillor Henry Batchelor, could you introduce yourself, please? Yeah, thank you very much, chairman. Morning, everybody. Councillor Henry Batchelor and happy to be vice chair of this committee. Lovely, thank you. So if everybody could turn off their videos, please. Just now, all members and all guests. And we're supported along the virtual top table and I ask each of you, please, to switch on your camera as you introduce yourselves by the following officers. Chris Carter, who is the delivery manager of strategic sites. Good morning, chair. Good morning, members. Thank you. Stephen Reed, who is our senior planning lawyer. Morning, chair. Morning, members. Yes, I hope we don't have to count on you too much in this meeting, Stephen. Thank you very much. And Ian Sr. from Democratic Services, who does the very, very important task of making sure we have the minutes today. Thank you, Ian. Nice to meet you. And we do have other case officers with us and we'll work through the agenda. I'll introduce them as we work through the agenda. Thank you very much, Ian. So just a few housekeeping announcements, everybody. Please make sure, given these technological advancements, that your device is fully charged. Switch your cameras and microphones off unless you're invited to do otherwise. And when you're invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched on. I think everybody knows that the phrase of the last year has been, you're on mute. So please make sure that your microphone is switched on when you're addressing the meeting. And if you speak slowly and clearly and please don't talk over or interrupt anyone. And that's especially for those who are viewing this meeting so that they can clearly hear everybody's contributions. And then please ensure they've switched off or silenced any of the devices so that they don't interrupt proceedings. We do a recorded vote and we're going to continue with that tradition. And so I would like to propose that we record each of our votes for each of the agenda items. Would anybody second that proposal? I'll second it, Chairman, if you want. Thank you very much, Councillor Deborah Roberts. Can we take that by affirmation? Agreed, agreed, agreed. Good, thank you. So when we move to vote on any item, I will ask if there isn't a clear affirmation, then I'll ask for a roll call to be taken. So each committee member to speak into the microphone so that their vote is very clearly heard, both to committee and to anybody watching the webcast. And members should please respond for, against, or abstain when their name is called. And I'd just like to remind, as I did when I last shared, this isn't a moment for another reference to your opinion on that item. It's just for, against, or abstain. Committee members, I'd like to now ask each of you to introduce yourselves. After I call your name, can you please turn your camera on and your microphone? Say your name and the ward you represent so your presence may be noted. And then turn your camera off when you're finished. So I'm Councillor Pippa Halings and I represent Histon, Impington, and Orchard Park. We have Councillor Henry Batchelor. Morning, Chairman. Councillor Henry Batchelor, one of the members for the Linsen wards and also Vice-Chair. I'm Councillor Martin Kahn. I represent Histon, Impington, and Orchard Park Ward. Thank you very much. Councillor Peter Fane. Martin, if you turn your camera, thank you, Councillor Peter Fane. Peter Fane Shelford Ward. Thank you. Councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins. Good morning, everyone. Toomey Hawkins representing Cordicott Ward. Thank you. Councillor Judith Rippeth. Good morning, everyone. I'm Councillor Judith Rippeth and I am one of the members for Milton and Water Beach Ward. Thank you. Councillor Deborah Roberts. Good morning, everybody. I'm Deborah Roberts and I'm the district councillor for the Foxton Ward. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. And I represent the Mordens Ward. Thank you. Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you, Chair. I'm Richard Williams. I represent the Wittlesford Ward. And Councillor Nick Wright, who'd like to be present when everybody's presenting. I look at Councillor Nick Wright. Good morning, Councillor Nick Wright, representing Caxson and Patworth, and we're there, I think. Thank you very much. Since I can confirm, we're all here, the meeting is court, yes. Are there any other councillors present, please? Thank you. I'm going on a little bit with the housekeeping, and so if at any time a member leaves the meeting and that could be because of a glitch or any reason that they need to leave the meeting, please make that fact known to me as Chair so it can be recorded in the minutes. So members of the public are away. If a councillor is absent for any part of the presentation or debate about an agenda item, they may not vote on the item. However, if a member is having technical problems and lets either me or the Vice Chair or Democratic Services know immediately, I'll adjourn the meeting for a short while so that an attempt can be made to get the member back into the meeting without missing anything material and they can vote if they want to, and we make all of that publicly known. We have several public speakers today and I just want to confirm how public speaking works. This meeting has been broadcast via the council's website and public speakers are reminded that by participating in the meeting you're consenting to being broadcast and that the use of images and sound recordings for webcast and training purposes, they may be used. You will have three minutes to address the committee either individually or together with one another. I would like to highlight that using that three minutes of public speaking, we do expect all public speakers to address the application and not any individuals, but the application itself and the merits or not of that application. There is a protocol for public speaking and I hope we don't have to recall or remind anybody about that. When you start speaking, we'll start the timer to please ensure you switch on your microphone before you speak and I'll talk to you about that and we will remind you if you need to conclude your speech if you're going over the three minutes. Once you finish speaking, we may wish to ask some questions for clarification so please be concise in your response and if there are no more questions, you may leave the meeting and continue to watch it via the webcast. Committee members, please just to remind you that any questions are for clarification and that we will leave all discussion then for our debate. And so what I'll do is I'll ask if there are any questions. If you do have a question, then you put it in the chat function saying you have a question or you'd like to speak. The committee can only consider material planning considerations for or against the application. We can't consider general observations about the development site. We can't consider comments from public speakers made outside of their allotted speaking time so we request that everybody registered, please don't interrupt or try to come in after your allotted speaking time and it's not possible for anybody but members of the planning committee to use the chat function and the chat function is for requesting to speak only or to let us know that you have a problem with technology and connectivity. Once the committee is heard from all speakers and planning officers, we then have debate and we form our views on the application and we will then vote. The outcome is decided by majority vote and the invent of a tie then chair as chair I would have the casting vote. It may be a long day. We have multiple agenda items so I just want to let everybody know that we will have some breaks. I intend that we break for about 10 minutes around 11.30, 30 minutes at 1.30 and 10 minutes at about 3.30 if we are still in session at that time. Thank you everybody. Now we will go to the matters of the meeting and the agenda and we go to item number two of the agenda which is apologies. Do we have any apologies? Thank you chair. I'll turn my mic on this time. No apologies from me for today. Thank you very much. Now we move to declarations of interest. So members, do any members have interest to declare a relation to any items of business on this agenda? If you could put in the chat that you would like to speak that's how we will conduct this and the vice chair will let me know if anybody is requesting to speak. If an interest subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting, please just let me know in the chat and raise it at this point but we'll try and acknowledge all of them at this moment. Vice chair, do we have anybody who has any declarations of interest? We have several chair. Councillor Bradnam. My interest is regarding item 10 which is a pecuniary interest because my employer has an ongoing business relationship with the applicant so under advice I won't be taking any part in that item and I'll be leaving the meeting for the duration of that item. So Councillor Batchel you will physically, virtually physically leave the meeting at that point as I understand. I will. And therefore we will move to put somebody else as vice chair during that time. You will then rejoin the meeting for the following agenda item. That right? That's right chair. Thank you. Next. Next is Councillor Bradnam. Councillor Bradnam. Thank you Chairman. I'd like to make a declaration of non pecuniary interest for item 7 which is the application of Water Beach. I have had discussions with the one of the residents in that area and advised how they might address the matter if they wish to. But I come to this matter myself afresh. Thank you. Thank you very much. We now have Councillor Rippeth and then right. Councillor Judith Rippeth. I too have a non pecuniary interest in item 7 just as local member and I come to this meeting afresh. Thank you. Councillor Nick Wright. Thank you Chairman. I have a non pecuniary interest in item 10 over the seven years it's the development to be talked about and proceeding. I've met with developers Alia and cash council and planning officers and but I come to this meeting completely afresh not having determined myself at any point. Thank you. We next have councillors Roberts and then councillor Heather Williams. Councillor Deborah Roberts. Thank you very much Chairman. Non pecuniary interest and item 8 the Milfong Falmere Road Falmere and I am a member of Falmere parish council who have considered this application but I come to the matter afresh today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Williams. So I have a non pecuniary interest in agenda item 6 I'm the local member so have been present at parish council meetings but I've not taken part and not given any opinion so have not predetermined myself in any way. Thank you. Next we have councillors Fane and Hawkins. Councillor Peter Fane. Thank you Chair. I have a non pecuniary interest in item 5 as the local member. I've taken part in discussions in parish council and with the developers who I know but I come to this meeting afresh on this matter. Thank you very much. Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins. Thank you Chair. I wish to declare non pecuniary interest in item 5 I know some members of the development company have had meetings with them in the past but not about this application and I come to this matter completely afresh. Thank you. Thank you. And then we have two more members that have already spoken, councillors Roberts and myself again. Councillor Debra Roberts. Thank you again Chairman. Yes I will declare a non pecuniary interest again in item 9 which is the Piper's closed family application. Again I'm a member of the parish council and I consider it but I come to the matter afresh today. Thank you Chairman. Thank you. And Councillor Henry Batchelor. Thank you Chair. One just occurred to me. Item 13 as the applicant is Campershire County Council. I am a member of Campershire County Council but that is a non pecuniary interest so I intend to continue to discuss and vote on that item. Thank you. Good thank you and I assume we have a meeting. So all of the members who were at the January committee meeting I would understand Ian therefore that we're all coming to this afresh. We do have another one. Sorry Chair from Councillor Bradnam. I presume it's the same as the other one. Exactly Chair. Sorry Councillor Batchelor has reminded me of course that I ought to also declare a non pecuniary interest in item 13 the proposed legislation of the public footpath because I'm also a county councillor but I've come to this matter afresh. Thank you. Thank you. Is that all Vice-Chair? That's everyone Chairman. Good thank you very much and now we come to item agenda item 4 which are the minutes of the previous meeting. This on page 1 to 12 of your agenda pack. The minutes on the minutes. No one's showing Chairman. Sorry Councillor Heather Williams. Councillor Heather Williams. It's just on page 3 it's a favour of the notion I think it's meant to say motion. A notion remotion. Not to be confused with the hairspray some. Ian is that okay? Is that noted? I've got that. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Can we take by affirmation that we approve the minutes of the previous meeting? Agreed. Anybody against? No. Thank you very much. Chair forgive me for interrupting just to confirm there are two sets of minutes there to be approved from two previous meetings. Thank you. We'll take by affirmation the minutes of the first meeting which is from the 29th of January. By affirmation please. Agreed. And then by affirmation the minutes of Wednesday 10th of March the minutes of that meeting please. Agreed. Thank you Chris. Committee so we now start with the main items of the agenda which are the applications that we have. We start with agenda item 5 which is on page 13 of your agenda pack. And this is for land between Imperial Road and Hinton Way in Stapleford Cambridge application 20 stroke 02929 stroke OUT the proposal is for outline planning for the development of land for a retirement care village in use class C2 comprising housing with care, communal health, well-being and leisure facilities, public open space, landscaping car parking, access and associated development and public access countryside park with all matters reserved except for access. The applicant is access land partnerships with DMW chalk and Trafford and chalk. Key material considerations would be the principle of development in the green belt, green belt openness and purposes, character experience of the area, landscape biodiversity, trees highway safety and parking flood risk and damage drainage, heritage impact residential amenity renewables and climate change contaminated land loss of agricultural land other matters and very special circumstances. Given the situation with the pandemic there has been no site visit it is a departure policy and there has been an extension of time agreed for a decision on this application to the 20th of April 2021. This application is before committee because of the objection from Stapleford Parish Council that came through the chair's delegation meeting referring with a request to refer this to planning committee. The officer recommendation is for refusal and the presenting officer is Michael Sexton. Michael. Sorry Chair, before we start we do have a declaration of interest from Councillor Heather Williams. Yes, Councillor Heather Williams. Apologies, one I missed on my list from the next page. It's a non-becuniary interest in that I'm a member of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Assembly and they do have a holding objection in this application. But you're coming to this afresh. Yes, it's not been discussed at the Greater Cambridge Partnership. Thank you very much. And as I said, the case officer is Michael Sexton and Michael, would you like to provide? Thank you very much. Good morning Chair, thank you. Good morning members. Just a few updates before going into my presentation. Since the publication of the committee report I've received four further representations to the application two of which are from local residents who have already commended. No new issues raised within those comments that haven't already been addressed and considered within the report. Primarily those four representations talk about Greenbelt and Highway Safety which are all within the report. Turning to the report and to say obviously those public representations have been available on the website since receipt. Turning to the report, paragraph seven that's a screening opinion application which was submitted to the council. At the time of publication of the report that application is pending decision. I can confirm it has now been determined it's not EIA development so that would be updated and there would perhaps just be one extra line within the report confirming that this is not EIA development. Paragraph nine refers to a 2006 application being approved that was in fact withdrawn. Apologies for that error. Paragraph 22 refers to the comments from the British Core Society and just to clarify because I don't think it is clear in the report there is no loss of route or access or public right of ways. You'll see when I show some constraints to that that sort of objection is relatively unfounded. And then jumping all the way to paragraph 314 of the report where it's discussing the planning balance. Paragraph 24 should include references about the officers are giving limited weights for the release of housing stock. The issue of limited weight housing stock is addressed in full in paragraphs 296 to 299 It's just an omission from 314 so apologies for that. There are the updates to the report. There is one further update before I go into my presentation. Members will be aware that the agent for the application circulated two documents to members of the committee and then to myself on Friday the 9th of April. Those documents were published on the council's website yesterday and I sent a copy to the objectives who are registered to speak today so that they had sight of that ahead of the committee. Chair before I go into my presentation I don't know if there's any need to discuss that point any further. I think we received quite a flurry of different representations sort of yesterday and even up until the evening and what we've done with all of them and as you said earlier is to make sure that they're available as much as we can to all and I understand that what you've done Michael is upload those as well and they have also been circulated so thank you for those efforts. I'm going to move on to my presentation Chair if you could confirm you could see a PowerPoint presentation please. Yes thank you very much Excellent okay so yes this is an outline application with all matters apart from access for a retirement care village in use class C2 comprising housing with care, communal health well-being, leisure facilities, public open space, landscaping, car parking access and associated development along with a public access countryside park between Haverhill Road and Hinton Way and Stapleford. So this is the planning application boundary and just to put it in context with the village we have Stapleford here and Great Shepherd over here so it's on the north eastern edge of the two villages and currently comprises open agricultural land in terms of constraints it's not a wonderfully wonderful looking map but it's just to highlight that the site is outside of the development framework boundary and located entirely within the green belt which is the green wash across the plan there's some listed buildings to the north of the site and a few to the southwest of the site within the village framework the Stapleford conservation area is denoted by this pink line there is a scheduled ancient monument and little trees to the northeast of the site beyond which you've got Wandelbury Countryside County Wildlife Site further to the northeast public rights of way are denoted by these blue lines so just returning to the common and secure British law society there are no public rights of way within the site it's not accessible to the public in its current form and the site is located entirely in flood zone 1 low risk you can see there's no blue washing across the site it's quite a difficult one to put into context in photos but I will try my best this is a view looking north along Haverhill Road with properties on the eastern side Stapleford Recreation Ground on the left and development along Government of Way and Short Kills to the north the application site is in here beyond these properties which is shown slightly clearer in this photo taken from the junction that we've got and Haverhill Road again the application site in behind these houses and the countryside part beyond in front of those trees moving to the northeast corner of the site this is a view looking down towards there so you can see those properties we just saw in the previous image down there to the southern boundary of the site and the countryside park element to the north side you can see the topography rises north out of the village and particularly to the northwest of the site. This photo is taken from the landscape and visual appraisal that currently the application and is a view from little trees held scheduled each monument you saw on the strength map looking down towards the site you can just about make up some houses there so the application site is in this field here. This is a view from the northwestern corner of the site from Hinton Way looking across the site so you'd have the retirement coverage over beyond this you can't really see it from here and again just the rising land levels to the north sites. This is a site photo again from the LVA that is taken from within the site looking east across the area on which the retirement coverage would be cited just to give context to the existing open agricultural nature of the site which is bound by head roads along Haverville Road and then possibly along Hinton Way and again two further photos within the site this is from the western edge of the retirement coverage element looking back towards stable for the village where you can see those properties along the northern edge of the village and short kiln and then this is a view from I suppose a central point within the proposed countryside path again looking down back towards the village and you have those properties this is Haverville Road running along here and then short kiln properties in the Goggway again. Just a very brief bit of context on the retirement coverage and I'm sure if members have any particular questions of clarification on this then the applicant would be very well suited to answer those. It is used class C2 residential institution as set out in the report and the description and that is for the use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need. The model proposed within this application comprises combinators with full care facility which is still standard care which we're probably all very familiar with and retirement accommodation with care linked packages which is often referred to as assisted living or extra care and those elements can provide a range of services to the individual care needs and cater for the level of dependents required which can be adapted as the needs of the applicants change and retirement care also includes several onsite facilities some of which are available to members of the public and can include dining, leisure, gym, swimming, hairdressers, activity rooms and gardens but those aren't fully known at this stage because it isn't outlined in the application. These there are four, three or four parameter plans that have been submitted with the application you would have seen in the plans pack again you have the application boundary a single point of vehicle access from Haley Hill Road into the where will be the preferred retirement care village three pedestrian points of access, one to the south west of the site one to the east and one to the north west and this does show in grey the can or autonomous metro routes and I'm sure we will come onto that in a bit more detail the parameter plan for land use and building heights gives a sense of likely division of the land so you have the retirement care village in the southern portion of this L shaped site and then the countryside park filling sort of a 19 hectare space along here it gets outlined only when this is a parameter plan it gives an indication that does talk about heights of buildings with that sort of set out in the report in terms of how much we can consider that particular element and again a landscape plan which just emphasises that you have a large 19 hectare countryside park to the north of the site and then some structural planting and landscaping around the retirement care village element and then that is all drawn together in what is an illustrative master plan it has to be stressed that this is illustrative but nonetheless it provides a sense of how the development may well be accommodated on the site going back to the central care home building and then the retirement living spaces in different forms but again this is an illustrative plan Key materials considerations as Chair has already read out there's quite a lot to consider hence the long reports so I won't dwell on those too much the key is obviously the principle of development in the green belt and the MPPF is clear that the government attaches great importance to the green belts, the fundamental aim of the green belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open the essential characteristics of the green belt are their openness and permanence the green belt serves five purposes to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas prevent towns from merging into one another to safeguard the countryside from encroachment preserve the setting of special character historic towns and to assist in urban generation by encouraging recycling of derelict or other urban lands so in the context of this application paragraph 143 of the MPPF states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt and should not be improved except in very special circumstances paragraph 145 and 146 of the MPPF clearly define development that should not be regarded as inappropriate the two elements of this application and quite clearly the retirement care village could not align with any of the provisions of paragraphs 145 and 146 of the MPPF and is therefore inappropriate development the countryside park however would represent appropriate development but nonetheless the proposal as a whole constitutes inappropriate development it's therefore necessary to consider whether the development of retirement care will result in further harm beyond that caused by an appropriateness and to consider the justification but forward in support of the proposal and the extent to which those matters constitute very special circumstances and the final slide is my attempt to summarise a 54 page report in one diagram so the paragraph 144 of the MPPF states that when considering any planning application local planning authority should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the green belt very special circumstances will not exist and less substantial harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations in the report officers have identified obviously substantial harm through by virtue of inappropriate development to the green belts there's also significant harm to the openness of the green belt given the amount of belt form that would be introduced and encroachment into the countryside conflicting with the purposes of the green belts officers also consider there to be significant harm to the character of the area and to the landscape turning to very special circumstances that have been advanced officers do accept that there is an unmet need and that does carry significant weight in favour of the proposal clearly the countryside park has significant benefits and that has been given significant weight there's the environmental benefits the biodiversity net gain and the landscape enhancements that would go hand in hand with that element clearly the social benefits of having a 19 hectare countryside park accessible to the public an area which is not apparently accessible that fits with national and local policies about making green belt accessible where appropriate so again significant weight is given to that element the development would result in about 70 jobs and while obviously officers fully acknowledge the importance of job creation in the context of green belt the side of officers have given limited weight to the economic benefits who also have given limited weight to the release of housing stock the occupants are not necessarily going to be from Stapleford or Great Shelford or indeed the district which is acknowledged within the documents that have been supported by the applicant so even if you took a cautious one to three ratio it would be perhaps 70 to 100 to earn them freed up within the district but again in the context of green belt officers give limited weight to that as a benefit there another benefit put forward which isn't listed because officers aren't giving it any weight the planning statement did list social well-being and cohesion as a separate very special circumstance but officers consider that clearly countryside park has delivered the social the social element of that and the unmet need as well addresses well-being so that hasn't been taken as a separate very special circumstance it is clearly for the decision maker to attach weight that they see fit to the to the arguments this is the conclusion of officers that the the very special circumstances advance do not clearly outweigh the harm and therefore the application is recommended for refusal it is obviously for members to debate the way that they may wish to attribute which may be the same as officers it may be different if our members were minded to approve the application then there would need to be a very lengthy list of planning conditions section 106 agreement and the application would also need to be referred to the secretary of state being a major in appropriate development within the green belt that is it from me chair thank you thank you Michael and I'm sure all of us will have the seesaw balance now as a useful image for all types of you know the balance and the judgment that we have all of these types of applications vice chair I'm opening this up now for any questions of clarification for the case officer for Michael sexton I do note that at the beginning he said if there's anything specific around retirement care home provision and the description of that that would be perhaps directed at the applicant but for anything else given in his presentation do we have any other do you have any questions for clarification from members we have one request chair from councillor fein Councillor Peter fein thank you two points of clarification if I may the first was there was a reference on the plan to the proposed route of the Cambridge to southeast transport busway referred to as being the cam probably cam compliant to what extent is that a consideration bearing in mind that that is just a proposal it would of course make it more accessible if it were to go ahead the second question relates to and I think Mr sexton covered this but I'd still like to ask confirmation referred to paragraph 145 of the NPPF and I just wanted to what extent the proposed retirement village would meet condition F of that which is relation to limited affordable housing for local community needs can you confirm this does not meet that criteria thank you thank you councillor three you chair and in respect to the cam it's a bit of difficult one to answer because it's not at a significant advanced stage or we can attribute it significant weight I think that's set out in the last two three three and two three four the report clearly the developer has acknowledged that there is potential for this to come forward should it come forward he would have benefits in terms of public accessibility to from the site from public transport but that's not known at this stage the developer has some of their best to accommodate that may come forward the route on their indicative plans doesn't entirely match the route that's been suggested by greater Cambridge partnerships hence the holding and I think it is a holding objection because they themselves don't know at this stage fully well you know whether that's going to come forward or not and therefore officers can't really give that weight at this time the second point paragraph one four five of the MPPF where it talks about what are exceptions and what could be appropriate the Greenbelt paragraph F section F talks about limited affordable housing for local community needs and this is not a rural exception the site is not an affordable housing site is being brought forward so no it wouldn't fit within that category provision of one paragraph level five at all thank you Michael Vice Chair we don't have any other questions of clarity chair thank you very much thank you Michael and I'm sure we may come back to you during the debate if there's any other need we'll now go on to the section for public speakers and the first public speaker we have is Jenny Flynn are you with us Jenny? can you hear me okay? can hear you perfectly see you very well too if you'd just like to introduce yourself and then you have three moments yes good morning everyone Jenny Flynn I am a resident of Stapleford and hopefully it will be a great day to reflect some of the 42 objections that you've received from local people thank you Jen we'll start now with your three minutes today parish councillors and your own case officers will be more eloquent and informed than me in telling you how this application contravenes policies intended to protect Greenbelt how 80% of the site would be built or parked on 12m high rooflines would overshadow existing homes and be out of keeping with Stapleford's village design how retirement community residents quality of life would be eroded by poor light over-crowding and reliance on cars how development would remove valuable grade 2 arable land from productivity and how the proposals do not meet the special circumstances required to unlock land from the Greenbelt I'll say it again these are the findings of your own case officers can't tell you though is what it will be like as a Stapleford resident to have such a significant development in the proposed location it will shift our village boundary towards the east further away from local shops and transport links the nearest shopping health and care services are in great Shelford about two and a half kilometers from the site without direct public transport retirement village residents will use private cars and further increase pressure on local roads and parking areas access the site's close proximity to existing community facilities and to Shelford railway and claims the site is well connected and sits in a sustainable location this is patently untrue for other reasons too the sighting of the development is incredibly ill-considered Stapleford is very proud of its connection to McGovern the retirement village will be the closest tallest and densest development in any direction to this local landmark a newly approved county wildlife site this is not a badge that Stapleford residents would wear with honour one of the special features of McGovern is its status as a local high point with uninterrupted views for many kilometers and the retirement village would significantly diminish public views across open land be visible from Stapleford's conservation area and set a precedent for further incursion into the Greenbelt in return for development access has offered two sweetness access to a swimming pool and access to a country park let me knock these both on the head first no elderly person of financial means will want in a post-COVID world to share a swimming pool with lots of local people secondly gaining access to a countryside by giving up Greenbelt is not a trade-off we should have to make if you know the area then you'll know that the site proposed for the country park is too steep for development that's why it's not also been earmarked for housing it's also exactly where the GCP's way plans to pass through this needs a minimum width of 14 meters and will run through a cutting along the full length of the country park add to this way barriers to prevent people and animals from falling into it and landscaping to obscure it compute what then will be left for a country park by all means rewild it but don't pretend it's anything more than a narrow strip of unusable and developable land with many buses passing right through it every hour to summarize then this is not about being anti-change or nimbish this is about respecting the value of the Greenbelt and providing the right development in the right place for the right people on all of these counts accesses plans fall far short of the mark please do the right thing and reject their application my time is up thank you very much thank you Jenny and indeed perfectly timed very very eloquent thank you very much do we have any questions from members of the committee any questions of clarification for Jenny Flynn no one's indicating chair thank you very much for your contribution today Jenny you can turn your camera off and you can then watch the proceedings by the webcast if you'd like to thank you very much and I'd like to now call the applicant and I understand that we have Phil Grant who'll be speaking for the applicant good morning chair can you hear me okay do you have Matt with you as well he is in the meeting I'll be doing the talking but Matt is available to assist with any questions of clarification if needed would you like to introduce yourself first and then we'll start the three minutes yeah sure thank you for the opportunity to speak I'm Phil Grant I'm a director of Axisland Partnerships and I'm the applicant along with the Chalk family who live in Stapleford thank you very much your three minutes thank you I think it's important to explain the intentions behind our application to go with the Chalk family we want to provide something special that being much needed specialist housing for older people it's also environmental benefits for the local community in the form of a countryside park there is no provision or allocation for such accommodation within the council's adopted local plan and officers have confirmed no schemes of this type are being considered elsewhere in the greater Cambridge area I'm sure the main question is but why in the Greenbelt well for a range of factors and the nature of a retirement village it needs to be located close to a rural centre except for Cambor there are no rural centres outside the Greenbelt we found no suitable or available alternative sites outside the Greenbelt for retirement village let alone accommodating the wider benefits of a countryside park it is accepted both locally and nationally in the decades we have been under providing for older generations many people as they get older need support but do not wish or need to live full-time in a care home most existing commissioned care schemes have strict eligibility criteria often excluding those that own their own home which is most older people in the whole of South Cams there are only 76 units of extra care accommodation available for self-funders in the shortage of proper accommodation often older people live in suitable large family homes that rely on external or family help to support their care needs the alternative is to uproot themselves from their homes and communities in which they have lived and move to new care settings away from partners or loved ones in many cases this can be very isolating and upsetting for couples our scheme will provide a range of homes for individuals and couples with services that adapt to people's needs change independently as long as possible even with their pets from the outset we included a 50-acre countryside park as part of the proposals we have an agreement to transfer this park to the McGog Trust for public use and perpetuity along with funding in my view in the light of COVID and the demand for open space the significant benefits of a vast new public park should not even be questioned the intention is to restore the proposed parkland to predominantly chalk grassland habitat bringing more than a doubling of the biodiversity of the site chalk grassland is one of the most threatened but highly rich habitat types in the district linking with existing rural stewardship schemes in the area means that the biodiversity benefits are manifestly multiplied through the strengthening of the ecological resilience of the area this is a special environmental opportunity not to be missed enhancing the quality and access to inaccessible greenbelt land for all to enjoy and delivering the council's doubling nature strategy we strongly believe the significant benefits of our proposals and its unique environmental factors clearly outweigh the harm and do constitute very special circumstances therefore it's entirely appropriate for you to reach a different conclusion to your offices who found a difficult balancing consideration themselves and grant planning permission we do hope you will do so and thank you for listening and I'm happy for any questions thank you thank you very much and thank you for sticking to the time and clearly elucidating you know the issues around from your point which are the benefits that outweigh the harms do we have any questions for clarification from members not yet chair I'll hold on a couple of seconds in case one comes up there we go councillor Hawkins councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins thank you very much chair for you thank you Mr Grant you have focused a lot on the countryside park and the environmental benefits that this proposal is intending to bring which is a good thing however as you've seen from the officer's presentation there are a few issues which I think you did mention on which is you say that this is the only place you have found in the whole of south camps that could be suitable for this I'm afraid I find that difficult to believe how far did you look so we did we looked across the whole district including in the city we undertook an alternative sites assessment which was part of the application which identified 109 sites which we then had to work through to see whether they were suitable or available as I said most of the those that were outside the green belts were either either unavailable because they were identified to development and you will probably appreciate that most edge of settlement sites outside the green belts are preferred to the more lucrative general housing schemes and being put forward in their call for sites and the new plan or being developed already so sites within the green belt would often have to demonstrate this very significant very special circumstances or we would have to demonstrate here combining that with trying to provide the ecological benefits and coming from a genuine place of trying to balance the harm and the benefits to try and find a site that could accommodate the retirement village and vast open spaces we have done there were no other sites there was one site in Camborn that we looked at which is next to your council officers which is part of the west Camborn strategic site so that wasn't available and also unsuitable for retirement living because of the business park location there are other retirement living schemes coming forward which are not retirement villages and these were sent through to us and these actually see three retirement just basically limited by age housing and do not offer the same care benefits so we did have an extensive site search and by way of trying to demonstrate that this is the suitable location and this is the problem you've got because the maker for the district and all the rural centres which have the key services which can support such a scheme none of those rural services sorry rural centres are outside the green belt so you will face the same problems so the question being if you're not in this location where is the right location thank you do you have a supplementary question I do and I think this is one of the things I tend to ask developers is this I'm not sure how well how much of engagements you had with the local community because looking at the comments that have come back from them there's a lot of comments that actually don't support you so did you actually engage and engage properly not just go this is what we want to do you know like it or not yes so we started engaging with the local community back in 2017 and the first thing we did was attend meeting with members of the parish council and also neighbourhood planning forums with a blank piece of paper to say we'd like to look at bringing development forward in this area and we'd like to work with you for 18 months the parish council wouldn't let us talk to the steering group and eventually after some time of persuasion we were able to speak to the steering group but unfortunately the steering group has discontinued but we have met with them on a number of occasions and we attended a lot of the consultation events and our starting point was to look at some of the aspirations of the neighbourhood plans to try and work with them and those aspirations were to get better connectivity to the countryside and to provide the right type of housing unfortunately Shelford and Great Shelford and Stateful are completely surrounded by greenbelt and they have and anything they bring forward unless it's going to be within the village framework which is very tightly drawn is going to have the same pressures whether it be C3 general housing retirement housing or any of the type of development we have and I think you've got the parish councillors and I think they will confirm along with the ward member that we have spent an extensive time trying to consult with them a number of consultations and follow-up so we've had a very open I would say generally positive although you know people don't support it so it's something which is dear to our hearts and also the family members live in the village and they're keen to make sure that this was done properly thank you chair thank you very much question next question chair is from councillor Kahn you talk about for the country park restoring chalk grassland on the country park area the area that you have a chalk grassland is a developed over many years it's normally a developed a renzino soil a shallow renzino soil what you seem to have there is rather more clay with flints type chalky soil how do you propose to create a biologically valuable chalk grassland on such a heavily farmed land so at the earliest opportunity if we were to be consented with that permission we would look to councillor Kahn still there it's okay he's still there so we have been in discussion with the McGog Trust and who are the experts at restoring this and as you will know have just been awarded county wildlife status so they are the experts and we have a draft agreement in place to transfer the land to the ownership of the McGog Trust at the earliest opportunity along with funding to pay for the setup of this ongoing to return this so we appreciate that it will take a number of years to restore the land from the high intensity agricultural usage just one moment sorry I said that Martin Kahn was still with us councillor Kahn can you confirm you're still with us yes I'm still here I don't know why continue sorry sorry can you hear me councillor Kahn is that alright I hear everything you're saying okay yeah so in talking with the McGog Trust we expected to take around four years to try and restore to its former habitat and it's quite critical that you know that we take the time and we as the developers are not the experts to do that which is why we went to spoke to the most appropriate organisation to do that and they are we walk the site with them and they are very confident that they can return and enhance the area and go back to its original habitat and support also the wide ecological resilience of the McGog down and then linking into the further areas of the Hobsons Park so trying to create a necklace of green spaces all the way out from Cambridge all the way to the McGogs and to Wanderbury thank you very much you have a follow on question councillor Kahn no thank you that's very much thank you very much and can you lower your hand councillor Kahn as well as you've turned off as well Vice-chair councillor Wright next councillor Nick Wright thank you chairman my question is to do with sites that are available and I appreciate from what you said that you've been looking at sites over quite a long period of time and during that time there's been a brownfield site at a mine and rule centre i.e. Pat with Everard the Royal Hospital has come available and been sold perhaps for a scheme similar to what you're looking at building did you consider that site because that was available and for sale during the time that you've been looking at the present site you're on I'm aware of the site it's come to me in a different capacity but not actually as every time we're proposing with quite a significant price tag so it would make it unsuitable in terms of the cost available to it and it's quite a different scheme so again it's not one that we at the time of the application bearing in mind where we've been working on this for a number of years that was available however in my view we need to be looking at the need that's available we need to be looking at multiple sites for retirement living not just a single site and I think we need to be looking at providing and throughout the district I know that's a slight departure from this particular application but I think we've got to be careful that we don't just we don't just look at putting retirement living in one particular place because then you're asking people to move we need to be catering for the the amount of all the ageing generation we've got around the district and around the county so at the time do you have a follow-up question to then? no that's fine thank you very much Councillor Bradnam Thank you Chairman through you to Mr Grant thank you for your explanation of your assessment of need it seems those your assessment doesn't meet with agreement from the residents who said on our page 17 in the agenda as summarised by the case officer that several similar schemes in nearby villages are struggling to fill vacancies and that the provision doesn't match any perceived local need which hasn't been established have you actually done a local needs assessment in Stapleford and the nearby villages? we have we've done a district a market catchment area and we've done a district wide need area and I think the percentage if you look at the research 37% come within a three kilometre distance of the location of the retirement village it's it's not like a housing needs survey in terms of an affordable housing needs survey because of the weather eligibility criteria and as I say again if you have assets of £23,000 or above you are not eligible for social care therefore saying if you own your own home you will then have to be a self-funder and the issue we've got here is that we're not providing accommodation for self-funding and commissioned care dealt with by the cancer council and commissioned care has strict eligibility criteria so it's the difficulties we've got here we're not providing for self-funders so the only way we could do a needs survey is to go around every single residence and say do you require accommodation now and their situation isn't that they might not need it now but in the future they may need it and then it also requires a situation where what you can't do is move as a couple so then you're looking at separating couples where one will need to go into accommodation for care and then you leave somebody at home and that can be very distressing so this type of accommodation which isn't actually accounted for in any of the cancer council assessments and even the Cresa model and the City Council and South Council have done they've purely been looking at shelter accommodation and extra care and they've acknowledged that they need to amend this review but they're not coming forward but if you wait the need is going to get even critically worse and the need hasn't been questioned by your officers they've acknowledged that it's an under provision now and we haven't got the and we haven't got we're not bringing the right accommodation forward and also all that's coming forward at the moment to see to accommodation is care homes which doesn't accommodate for the mass majority that need it so we need to move away from the care home model Thanks, thanks very much Phil, do you have a supplementary question No, thank you Vice Chair We have one final speaker chair which is Councillor Fain Councillor Peter Fain Thank you chair, my question was largely just been dealt with but I also wanted to ask in relation to alternative sites whether AXIS had considered an adjacent site which is available and not for the country park or the retirement village just adjacent to the car park to the proposed country park the other side of Hinton Way Thank you and Councillor Brandon if you could turn your video off please your camera, thanks Thank you Phil I'm not sure are you able to be more specific Councillor Fain about the site Yes, I'm talking about the Waverly Park care home site which is currently redundant and has not been put forward for the local plan at this stage I'm not aware of it I fear if it's just a care home site then the size won't be suitable so the retirement for a full retirement village for the full package of care including the assisted extra care and then the full care home suite nursing condimentary care would need to be at least really it needs to be minimum of 7 acres or 7 to 10 acres if it's just a care home site that's available it would only be available to provide one type of accommodation primarily a care home site Okay, thank you very much Thank you, are there any further questions? No one's indicated chair Okay, thank you and thank you very much for answering those questions as well so fully You're welcome, thank you very much Thank you very much I'd now like to invite the parish council we have Stapleford Parish Council and Councillor Howard Kettle Good morning, can you hear me? I can hear you but not see you Mr Kettle Yes, perfect and if you can speak up a little bit so we can hear you and am I pronouncing your surname correctly? My name is Howard Kettle Councillor Howard Kettle Thank you very much So we have Councillor Howard Kettle for Stapleford Parish Council Could I ask you to confirm that you have the authority to speak for them today? Yes, I'm fully authorised by the parish council to speak on their behalf Thank you very much and you know the rules, you have three minutes to speak now Yes, thank you This is an application for a significant development located outside of the development framework of the boundary of Stapleford Furthermore, this is an application for development in the green belt and we have not been able to identify any exceptional circumstances to justify this development Stapleford Parish Council supported by a local firm of solicitors prepared a statement in 2015 regarding its position relating to the green belt It recognised it is quote, tasked with preserving Stapleford's green belt for the pleasure and benefit of its current residents and as a custodian for future residents The parish council at its duty will consider afresh any planning applications and paragraphs 81 and 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework will be taken into account in its objective consideration of the application and its merits unquote Stapleford Parish Council does not consider that this application complies with this policy statement This is a proposal for a high-class residential and care facility and there is no evidence of this need in Stapleford Furthermore, as a care facility there is no opportunity or requirement for affordable housing to be provided which is a need that has been identified in our village Care homes notoriously command high values and high annual service charge costs which would not generally make the development accessible to people in our village of retirement age It cannot therefore justify as an exception site Again, the dubious advantages suggested of public amenities such as hairdressers or restaurants are already well represented in the village centre and again there is a question mark over affordability and accessibility for what would be on offer If permitted this development would remove land around the village which is regarded as its green lung and would be detrimental to the special landscape and the semi-rural setting for the village itself all of which would be eroded by permission for this development This development we believe is harmful to the green belt Furthermore, the proposed disproportionate in both height and mass of buildings The existing buildings of 7 to 8 metres in height would be overshadowed by buildings up to 12 metres in height The wholly inappropriate dense development would be imposed onto the edge of the village where densities are currently extremely low It is the parish council's view that if permitted this would be a carpenter on the edge of the village and the proposed additional tree planting and landscaping would be wholly ineffective in mitigating the overall impact on the views either from the village or from the extraordinary proposal for a location for a time of village with virtually no public transport access and a good 30 minute walk to the nearest shops with an uphill return journey If you could bring your comments to a close It does not represent a sustainable location and indeed the arrangements with the Magog trust would appear to be at this stage highly opaque In conclusion, we believe this is a development in the wrong location It's overbearing It doesn't serve the needs of the village and it's certainly not presenting any circumstances to justify there's a Greenbelt exception and should be refused Thank you very much Council could tell Do we have any questions for clarification? We have two so far chair the first being from Councillor Rippith Councillor Judith Rippith Thank you so much for that clear explanation I've just got one question In your point of view how accessible is this area of Greenbelt within this red line boundary and on the edge of Stapleford from your very local point of view Do you mean for local people? Yes, for local people I think it's already been pointed out there are no public rights of way over the land so I think it's a frequent walk on the Magog Down and I would walk past this field regularly as I walk up the Haverhill road so it has to be taken within the context not only of the village setting as a semi-rural setting but also in terms of the setting of the Magog Down and the Magog Hill Do you have a follow-up question Councillor Rippith? I think you're trying to get at what it is but so from your point of view it's the openness of it the views which are probably the most important aspect of it Yes indeed it is really a question of we've got the Magog Down which is open to the general public for ramping and in any event if access really do want to make this available or the family wish to make it available it doesn't just have to be part of a property speculative deal to open up access Thank you very much Thank you Next she'll have Councillor Hawkins Councillor Dott's to me Hawkins Thank you very much chair and through you Thank you Mr Cattell that was quite that was quite clear but what I want to pursue really is the issue of housing need within the village because you referred to it that proposal doesn't actually provide for any needs within the village did you discuss with the developers you know affordable housing or any other type of housing that you might require as a need within the village and if so what was their response My understanding is that the developer has been proposing a C2 user so there is no opportunity there for affordable housing affordable housing we've been very concerned in terms of consultation with the developer because we basically just needed to stand on our statement that we would not encourage in any way development in the green belt and certainly not in this location Okay thank you Thank you Councillor Brandon Thank you through you chair my question is rather similar to that of Councillor Hawkins but it relates to given that you're on the parish council I wonder whether you could characterise the sort of accommodation that you think would be suitable for the elderly population in your area I appreciate the catchment of this sort of development tends to be wider than that but what is the sort of need for elderly people that you would recognise I think it's obviously been shared but just picking out a piece of development in the green belt which arguably is cheaper than going elsewhere I don't think there has been sufficient evidence of research in this area Sorry my question was are you aware of what the parish council has identified that might be the character of the sort of accommodation that you think might be suitable for Stapleford for example I think you're asking a very focus question in terms of the fact that the presenter of the proposal has explained that this is not a care home facility it's not housing as such it is a very it's a different type of user and at this moment of time the parish council has not deemed it necessary to do any surveying of that nature it doesn't have the resource to do that we simply rely upon the local knowledge we have and the responses that we get from the 40 or 50 people that have written in to say that this is not appropriate in the village okay thank you thank you very much for your time and responses there Howard thank you very much and we would also now like to hear from Great Shelford parish council and we have councillor Barbara Cattel Hello I can see you we can hear you you now know don't you the rules about the three minutes if you also just confirm for us please that you have full authority from the parish council to represent them today I do have full authority from Great Shelford parish council and along with the other things that have been mentioned I am chair of the neighbourhood plan steering group for Great Shelford and Stapleton which is a combined village neighbourhood plan which is in the process of being produced thank you very much Barbara so if you'd like to start now your three minutes okay there's been a lot of talk about the fact that this country park is going to be an amazing facility for the two villages as you are probably aware Hintonway although the part of Hintonway where the access would be is in Stapleton Hintonway is mainly in Great Shelford and so the country park aspect would link from Hintonway across the Haverhill Road the question really is that that is a site that we don't believe is actually necessary but would be valued if it was put in place the country park but it doesn't seem to be being offered as a country park in its own right and it comes with the condition that a large development is put on the other part of the land which again I can only talk from Great Shelford's point of view as to the views across to the McGog down and over to Wargulbury and the the retirement village would be just obscuring so many different views and so many rights of way across because that is a whole area that would be blocked out in terms of privacy it's proposed that we do have access to it we have hairdressers we have a swimming pool at Sourston Village College which is open to the public we have all the facilities that are being offered we have empty restaurants and pubs which are really ideal and have recognition around the country so I don't see the from Shelford's point of view the residential village is of no value whatsoever obscures of use and the country park although it might be useful we don't really see that that is the appropriate place to do it especially with the fact that there may be a bus way disconnecting it from the village anyway and therefore not allowing access across in the normal idea of things as regards the steering group of the neighborhood plan we were approached way back in time by Axis about this the reason I believe they're planning to do this on this site is because they own this site through the Chalk family and that is probably why they haven't looked at other sites in quite the same depth I don't know that for a fact but that would be my view on this and as regards steering group for the neighborhood plan they have brought several presentations and on most occasions if not all we have said this is not the appropriate use of this land we do believe that there is going to be a need in the future possibly already for affordable housing the houses that were shown on the very edge of the development were built as affordable housing unfortunately when they were ready for sale the affordability didn't continue so we do need somewhere some protected affordable housing for local children elderly whoever it may be but that is not what is being offered here and the fact that there is absolutely no transport link of any sort or even maybe with the busway because the busway will be full but it will have to stop so that what we are really saying is that we don't think it is an appropriate place thank you very much do we have any questions for clarification for you no one is showing German thank you very much for your time and for speaking so brilliantly without news can I actually there are a couple I see just one moment sorry it takes a minute to come in in my village there is assisted living care home which is being closed down because it is an economic are there any such care homes already in Shelford and Sable doing the neighbourhood plan you should be aware of them and have they shown to be if there are are they being economic or what is the position of this particular form of development which is what I understand they propose where you don't have a poor care home will have just these people are able to live on their own but just with a little additional help as far as I'm aware there is the development in Great Shelford which was the old BMW site on London Road which my understanding is that it is very expensive and that it is not full because people can't afford to be there there is another development that is about start on the old Shelford oil site next to Shelford station which is to be more of a care home than a residential home in the terms of it is going to provide full medical facilities I understand and that is very much on the beginning of planning at the moment and I mean other than that I'm not aware of anything in the two villages thank you and I think members we have heard from officers about that there is an agreement of an unmet need that's not being questioned do I have any other questions we have one chair from Councillor Hawkins councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins thank you chair through you and I'll be very brief thank you Miss Skethel you mentioned your neighbourhood plan that you're working on is this jointly with Stapleford and do you have or do you have any proposal for the land that we're talking about here right yes it is a combined neighbourhood plan Great Shelford and Stapleford together it did it has sort of paused at the moment due to the fact that the previous chair of Stapleford parish council died and he was very much masterminding it I am the chair of it but it has not met due to lack of personnel to take part in it for probably 12 months or so we're about to reinstate it and to get going on it so far we have done a landscape survey and have recorded the fact that the views from both villages up and across towards the north towards the east all over this site here are the vital views from both ways both directions from the God Hill and from the villages across they are the main views that we consider define the landscape of the villages I don't know if that tells us you Thank you very much Any further questions Vice Chair No further questions Thank you very much Barbara for that as well In terms of public speaking we also now have the possibility for local members to speak Councillor Peter fame would you like to speak now or at the end of the debate Chairman I'll speak at the end of the debate if I may Okay good so members we'll now move to debate on the application Sorry to interrupt you I just wanted to point out are you putting to speak in the chat I just wanted to point out it's 11 30 and you said you thought you might have a break then that's all Do you want to turn your video off Councillor Bradenham Sure Thank you I was just about to say that we would have a debate now based on the full information that we have in the report back and what we've heard just now from the public speakers as well and we're looking at the balance in terms of the harm and benefits of this and whether it meets the special circumstances that would be needed and yes I am going to announce that we have the 10 minute break and that while everybody is making a cup of tea stretching or whatever they consider what they've heard and what they've read and we will be back at 11 40 to have the debate on this application Liam I think you are in charge of the meeting itself how will we conduct this part of the break As it's only 10 minutes I just suggest that everybody turns off their cameras and mute their microphones and yeah I don't think I'll put up a slide for the 10 minutes but for the longer break later I will I think that's the best way to do it Thank you, thanks everybody If everybody turns off their camera and their microphone we don't necessarily need to hear the chatter while you're having your break and we will be back at 10 40 please Thank you Just to confirm we're still live when you resume in a moment Liam thank you and it's 9 40 now Members what I'd just like to do is a quick roll call to make sure that you're all here you don't need to turn your video on just respond to me please by audio Councillor Henry Batchelor Present Chair Councillor Anna Bradnam Present Councillor Dr Martin Kahn Councillor Peter Fein Present Councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins Present Chair Present Chairman Councillor Heather Williams Present Councillor Dr Richard Williams Present Councillor Nick Wright Present Thank you Thanks everybody So as I said we'll open now for the debate and the debate is around exactly this seesaw that Michael Sexton's case officer showed us which is looking at the harm and benefits of the application and whether or not it meets those very special circumstances for an application that's a departure in the green belt Do we have any speakers Vice Chair We did have councillor Wright just before the break I'm not sure if that was to speak in the debate or not It was Chairman So may I start Of course you may thank you Thank Chairman I've been on the planning committee for many years and to be honest this application I cannot remember an application that does more harm than this application It is in not just in the green belt it's in one of the best bits of the green belt for goodness sake and it is so important to the setting of those villages around it The area is well served by country parks already and in these days we need to be thinking about producing food not just country parks I believe there's real harm in this application in the country park and the care home I don't accept that this is the only site available as I pointed out there were other sites available but at a price the most available site at the price the developer wants to pay for it but there are other sites in Southcams there is a need but not here absolutely not here and it has so little going for it Chairman you might consider asking councillors who wish to speak in favour of it to do so because I just cannot see I don't see there's a balance there's real harm here I'll leave that to you Thank you councillor Vice Chair We have councillor Rippers next councillor Judith Rippers councillor Wright has just summarised what I wanted to say I'm not finding the balance difficult on this application I really think it's severe harm and very little that I can think of in favour of this application and it really changes my mind I will be voting against Vice Chair do we have others who have asked to speak Yes we have four chairs and what I would ask is if anybody who has something different from what has been said so far please to use this time to speak or as councillor Wright said if you have a counter argument in terms of the balance then please do speak Who is next sorry We have councillor Roberts next councillor Deborah Roberts I've taken on board what you've said so I'll keep it very brief Clearly the list that we've got in front of us shows Sorry Surely we have in front of us on page 13 the list of things that we needed to consider but the most important one was the very special circumstances In my opinion it has not been shown that this does quantify and qualify under very special circumstances I should be voting against Thank you Councillor Heather Williams next chair Thank you Chairman with your words in mind I would just also like to draw members attention to page 19 from our affordable housing team because one of the things that we do sometimes say is in the right balance of affordability and affordable housing can tilt it but I quote only be suitable for those on high incomes and therefore there is absolutely absolutely no benefits that I can see to this that would outweigh the undoubtable harm as others have mentioned Thank you Chairman Next we have councillor Hawkins Councillor Dr Jimmy Hawkins Thank you chair and through you There is I mean the diagram that the case officer for us I think is very instructive and the balance is just not there but what struck me also was Miss Kettles comment about the hotel mentioning that in the neighborhood plan so far the views looking towards that side is one of the key views that they have referred to in their plan and that indicates just how important that part of the landscape is and building on it is just not right in my opinion so I would be putting it against this Thank you Councillor to me Hawkins and obviously at the stage which in terms of the neighborhood plan it's not a significant material condition but obviously that is very important in being one of their first findings and key findings so thank you for that can I reiterate that if you have requested to speak if you have something which adds to the debate about the balance between how and benefit that hasn't already been said then please do continue with your wish to speak So next chair we have Councillor Richard Williams Thank you Chair keeping that in mind I'll be very brief I agree with everything that that's been said I just wanted to really add that I thought the report was set up very well and the presentation as well both set up the issues very clearly and I think really helped me to make the balance but I will be voting against Thank you Thank you what was different case officer note you were complimented on the report I was complimenting the case officer Yes, yes But in due obviously what we do have here is some I think this come towards us because of the amount of public interest because of this whether or not providing access and to this piece of this countryside park area but at the moment I'm not hearing that for anybody that has changed their view in terms of the balance anybody else who's registered to speak has something additional or to bring to this debate please I got a little comment that I would like to make Sorry no, I'll go to the vice chair Sorry In order chair it's councillors Braden and Fein and then Kahn Thank you Chairman My observation is that I did understand what the applicant was saying and we do need to make provision for elder accommodation it's really important but it needs to be suitable for the people who need it and within their affordability and we need a range of accommodation and I dearly hope we do consider that in our evolving local plan this is not the right place as councillor Toomey Hawkins and councillor Cattel said to build on an iconic view and the local precious area it would be totally inappropriate so I should be voting against Thank you Thank you councillor Braden and also to recognise that as the case officer did say that there is a need we do need to look at this in our new local plan going forward and I think it was very very important considerations that were brought through Vice Chair Who's next sorry? It was councillor Fain but I've just read that he wants to speak at the end as local member so next committee member is Martin Kahn Thank you very much I really wanted to have a couple of mind points I've taken the point about the speech One of the main purposes of Greenbelt is to keep settlements apart and in particular to limit ribbon development and the proposed element seems to be a classic form of ribbon development so it's not just that it's in Greenbelt it's also the type of development in the Greenbelt which does cause reservations Secondly obviously from the comments were made it's clear that it's not a straightforward matter of creating a high quality wildlife short grass that is not an easy thing I think this needs to be taken into account as well So the third point is that the actual location in terms of providing for the elderly is quite isolated for links that strikes me as a very significant factor to take into account So like the other councillors that have commented I am actually voting against I think that it seems to be quite clearly against this development Thank you I think we can now invite the local member to speak and move then forward to somebody who may want to put forward a motion Thank you councillor Peter Fain I would just mention the objection put forward by my fellow ward member councillor Nick Sample and he rightly identifies the potential benefits as well the need for affordable housing suitable for elderly residents the need also for access to the countryside immediately around these villages as well as the very substantial and significant green spaces which we have on the edge of the village and those are important factors however firstly we have to consider whether this will be affordable for local people that is clearly a key factor in any assessment of very special circumstances I'm not convinced that that has been established I think it's worth just bearing in mind that there are 70 sheltered housing units within these two villages of this district council there is however an identified need for more affordable housing and including for elderly residents the question then is whether this is the site for it and I asked the planning officer earlier on for confirmation on those criteria there are certain criteria for the construction of new buildings being appropriate in the green belt but I think it's quite clear from the evidence before us and from the planning officer's response this site does not meet those criteria it would not be limited affordable housing for local community needs nor would it be an exception site although that's not the sole criteria and so when it comes to the balance just one moment Councillor Peter Fein I have just seen that Councillor Heather Williams has dropped out of the meeting and I want to establish her ability to vote on this Liam are you able to help me Hi there, yeah so they've dropped out sorry Councillor Heather Williams has dropped out of the meeting she's trying to rejoin we need to go back have you heard what Councillor Peter Fein has been saying I heard up to the words that Peter Fein said about Nick Sample and referencing the affordable housing in his submission and then dropped out for a few seconds and came back so I've only missed between now and when Peter said affordable housing Peter do you want to just read summarise those there's the positive points from Councillor Sample's part you just want to summarise the last bit that you said about why then it's about where it is Chairman that's the best invitation I've had to repeat myself don't normally do it Councillor Peter Fein I was recognising the importance of affordable housing particularly for elderly people in this community I was pointing out we have in fact got 70 units of sheltered housing in these two villages I would recognise also the chalk family have made provision for affordable housing for local people themselves nearby in the past so this is not a new development however we come to the key question of whether the very special circumstances are met here would this be a local affordable for local people and I'm afraid that has not been established and therefore I think it's quite clear that under paragraph 146 of the NPPF this is not a case where land could be developed within the green belt and I have to say that I will be voting against this Thank you very much for that Councillor Peter Fein and Vice Chair do we have somebody who will be ready to move the motion? We do Councillor Roberts has moved that we go to the recommendation chair which I'm happy to second Thank you very much so the recommendation by the officer on this application is refusal I haven't heard anybody yet that has shown that they would be minded to approve this application so I'm going to ask whether or not we can take this by affirmation as Councillor Debra Roberts is recommending that this be refused as per the officer recommendation can I take that by affirmation agreed agreed Is there anybody who is against that recommendation that motion Anybody who abstains Thank you therefore that's a refusal of that application Members we now move to Agenda Item 6 which is on pages 69 to 84 of your agenda pack I'll just find them myself This is land south of Thompson's Meadow, Gildon Morden The application number is 20 stroke 0 3 1 5 1 stroke for reserve matters The proposal is reserved matters for appearance, landscaping layout and scale following outline planning permission S stroke 3 0 7 7 stroke 1 6 stroke 0 for the proposed development of up to 16 dwellings 8 market and 8 affordable with all matters reserved except access The applicant is Peter David Holmes No site visit given that we're during the pandemic we haven't been doing any of the site visits Is it a departure from policy? No and an extension of time has been agreed with a decision due by the 16th of April 2021 The application has been brought to committee because Gildon Morden Parish Council requested this to be determined by planning committee The officer recommendation is approval and the presenting officer is Aaron Cove as principal planning officer Aaron Cove, are you with us? Chair, we have a question councillor Braden and perhaps it might be worth him what she has to say before Aaron starts Yes, sorry, thank you Sorry that was an error on my part I would say that I have actually visited this site when it was at outline stage but I will save my comments for the debate, thank you Sorry about that. That's fine, thank you very much Aaron I can't cue you Aaron but I can see your presentation Can you hear me now? Yes Brilliant So the application site is the land to the south of Thompson's Meadow which is located immediately adjacent to but just outside of the village framework of Gildon Morden The site is not within the conservation area As you can see from this aerial view the application site is currently undeveloped grassland and eastern boundaries of the site include trees which are protected by a group tree preservation order The southern and western boundary also consist of tall trees however none of these trees are protected The site is in flood zone 1 which is an area of low risk The principle of residential development for direction of 16 dwellings on the site was established through the outline planning consent which was granted in 2016 The outline application dealt with the matter of access to the site and this application comprises submission of matters for approval that were reserved when the outline planning permission was granted and these include details of the layout of the site the scale of the buildings the appearance of the buildings and the landscaping details So this slide shows the proposed site plan and layout As established under the outline consent the vehicular access to the site is on the northern boundary and there's also a footpath link access which is also along the northern boundary The outline permission was granted to include 50% affordable housing So 8 of these 16 units will be affordable So the key issues to consider in the determination of this application are therefore compliance with the outline planning permission, housing provision open space provision and the reserve matters details I've mentioned the layout scale appearance landscaping, biodiversity flood risk and drainage highway safety and the residential amenity of existing and future occupiers The next few slides I'm going to show will show the floor plans and elevations which were included in the plans pack which has been circulated to members I'll just flip through these So moving on to the context of the area this slide shows images of properties nearby to the development site the local character is generally mixed in terms of house types, materials and designs as you can see from the images shown on this slide It's considered the overall the proposed development is generally in keeping with the existing scale of development the character of the surrounding area and the proposed design of the buildings would not dramatically change the overall visual character of the village edge location that the development site is located in A suitable design response has been produced by the applicants and it reflects the scale of the neighbouring dwellings This slide shows a CGI of the proposed development site So as I've set out in the officer report and as shown on this slide of the presentation the key material considerations for members to consider are those listed on the slides and overall officers consider the submitted details to be acceptable and the proposal would provide a high quality scheme that would positively contribute to the character and appearance of the area For the reasons set out in the report officers consider the reserve matters to be acceptable and in accordance with relevant national and local planning policies subject to condition the application is recommended for approval Thank you chair Aaron thank you very much and if you keep that slide up there now just do we have any questions for clarification for Aaron vice chair Not immediately chair but I'll give it five seconds or so No one's indicated chairman Okay and if anyone just makes note that these are the key material considerations in terms of the reserve matters we have layout, scale, appearance and landscaping but we do have these are the issues that will be the material considerations for our debate Do we have some questions coming in? Yeah we've had a few people pop up we've had councillors Bradnham and Heather Williams Thank you councillor Bradnham Thank you chairman through you I just wanted to ask the case officer to what degree the case officer has been involved with discussions about the road layout for this site and is it the case officer's view that this is a satisfactory road layout for this arrangement the reason I'm saying that is because the road seems to whilst it keeps the integrity of the development in the middle yes the road around the north and east side appears to sort of cut the houses off from the green space and I just wondered if that had been a matter of discussion So the applicants carried out pre-application discussion before I came involved as case officer of the reserve matters application but the as I mentioned the access was fixed to outline stages to be located there but the internal road layout was considered to create a acceptable highway environment for the future occupants but also to emphasise the open spaces that are on the site as well so obviously they've got these properties along the western boundary they've got nice views of the open space here and also the filled element in the application here so for the access to be provided in this way is considered acceptable Thank you That's fine it's a better layout than I saw at the outline proposals, thank you And councillor Heather Williams Thank you and I just wanted to clarify with Aaron and or any other officer that was involved in it is that I do believe there was a bit of discrepancy around the original plans to the outline and if you could just give reassurance that that has been overcome and we now have matching matching designs and also if there is conditioning around on the outline to do with operational hours on construction, thank you Are you able to answer or would you like somebody else to it? No I can answer that yeah so the yeah the access issue was resolved highways are now content that the preserve maps plans complies entirely with the the outline plan approved SK1 as shown on the plan here yeah then the footpath link is in the same location and also there was a condition on the outline that ensured that was provided And the second point raised by councillor Williams on the construction hours we have to check the outline consent for that I believe it was covered under the outline permission yes there is a condition that restricts the hours of operation of machinery and deliveries during construction So that's carried over is that your They'll have to comply with that Has that answered your question councillor Williams? Yes thank you Thank you very much And we have councillor Fain next councillor Peter Fain Thank you chair On the question of highways the highways authority concerned about the difference between the conditions in the outline and those and the proposal here If we look at page 84 paragraph 43 Officers recommend that the planning committee approve the application subject to the following conditions there's then a blank Would that condition be one of those proposed? Sorry Can you just clarify the question again I said the details of the access arrangement Do you want to refer to the page Peter or the paragraph number? The page number is 84 The paragraph number is 43 Officers recommend that the planning committee approve the application subject to the following conditions However there is no conditions stated there I wondered whether the one requested by the highway authority is proposed as one of the conditions applicable Chair if I may it's Chris Carter here Thanks Chris The conditions were circulated as a supplement following the publication of the agenda So that's why they're not listed there The condition with regard to construction hours and operation that Aaron referred to is a condition of outline planning commission So that would also bite on implementation of any reserve matters So that would carry forward that wouldn't need to be listed again Thank you Chair Does that answer your question Councillor Fein? Thank you yes Thank you Any more questions Vice-Chair? No further speakers Chair Thank you We have no public speakers in terms of objectors, applicants or parish council on this item And Chair we've just said Councillor Cahn asked to speak Councillor Cahn A brief comment and it's not a reason for refusal Can I just no comments, the only we have a clarification question at this point? Yeah the clarification that I was going to ask is it would seem to me whether the fact that it seems to me that a lost opportunity with plots 13 and 16 to benefit from the view that they could have over the field whether that's a consideration that you can do anything about in the discussions that point was considered in discussions with the urban design team and the applicants actually amended the elevations of these properties number 13 and 16 to include additional windows within these elevations so there will be views of the open space Thank you Thank you Good so we've finished the clarification questions to the presenting case officer we don't have any public speakers in terms of objectors, applicants or parish council or local member Sorry chair, I believe we do have public speaking on this item for the applicant and Mr Watson I think Mr Watson said that seeing that there was an objection he said that he didn't want to speak that was the latest I received perhaps the in senior can confirm. Do apologize Yep that's correct chair Thank you so local members Councillor Heather Williams would you like to speak now or at the end of the debate Councillor Heather Williams Do you want to speak now at the end of the debate Heather Well I'll try and do both I'll speak as a local member now if I may chairman Of course, yep And then as a planning committee member Lisa So this is an application actually the parish council had wished to withdraw their request for it to come to planning committee and they asked me to make that clear to members today that's why they're not in attendance and I am pleased that there is a condition in relation to the safety arrangements around the pond and I would suggest that we do look very carefully when the time comes around the construction and access because it is a very constrained site in that respect it comes just at the start of coming from a 60 mile an hour to a 30 mile an hour sort of t-junction to turn in and obviously with the protected trees it can and this is quite narrow so I think we do need to make sure that any plans on that are really done with the protection of the residents particularly those that will be right opposite that access road but I think on page 82 to 83 most of the issues being raised have been dealt with by officers and I thank them for that but I would ask members to include that condition around the safety issues around the pond and that is a particular concern to residents particularly those with smaller children or grandchildren and the fact that it's 50% affordable housing I know is a strong factor into why it has been accepted and supported by many residents and the parish council I think I shall leave it at that if I can Councillor Williams I just want to know whether in terms of that condition Councillor Williams is that something that you've discussed with the case officer who may have wording or has already included or is something you'd like to propose? It's already included in the suggested conditions if very refer to page 82 it says the condition will be imposed to ensure a sufficient boundary treatment is put in place surrounding the drainage features and I'd just ask that members endorse that condition and don't make any efforts to remove it because it is a real concern to local residents that along with the maintenance which it does refer to in section 106. Lovely thank you very much so members we now are open for debate do we have anybody who would like to speak first? Yes we do Councillor Bredin was first up Thank you Councillor Bredin Thank you through you chair thank you very much for the report and as I said I did visit this site at the time it was given outlining planning permission and it has been through a number of iterations trying to improve the layout and improve the amenity of the site I know at the time there was also a lot of concern expressed because there isn't the public transport links are not good in this area and the access via Meadow Lane is out onto a point of the road where it switches from 30 to 60 miles an hour as Councillor Williams has said but on balance I think this is actually a much better proposal than we had all those years ago and I'm pleased to see that there is now much better provision for play in on the site and absolutely I'd endorse Councillor Williams's concern about the swale actually one way of addressing that is actually in addition to what Councillor Williams has said is to make the the slope of the swale very shallow because then there's less likelihood of falls into water it's more likely that with good planting on the outside nobody would get into the water but absolutely I would endorse that care so I shall be voting for this. Thank you Thank you Next we have Councillor Fainy Yeah it's always dangerous to assume that there will appear to be now other speakers however it's clear in this case the principle of development is obviously established if we look at paragraph 42 taking account of the reserve matters the proposal would provide a high quality scheme that would positively contribute to the character and appearance of the area we know that the work concerns to be expressed by the parish council but those it seems to me particularly in relation to highways can be met by conditions which we've heard confirmation will be imposed I was going to suggest that we therefore move straight to a vote since the parish council have not asked for this matter to be referred to us however I see there are now other speakers so I will not make that proposal as intended Next speaker Chair is Councillor Hawkins Councillor Hawkins given the power of speed to Fainy saying that we probably could move to emotion on this one but is there anything else that you would like to say? No Well it's just to actually say to Councillor Bradnam and Councillor Heather Williams that condition 4 in the supplementary paper that we had with this actually states that prior to the first occupation the treatment boundary treatment should be directed around the edge of the drainage ponds within the site will be submitted to and approved so that is taken care of so there really is no reason for them to worry just to assure them and yes I'm happy to second Councillor Fainy if he's going to make that motion again Yes and I think Councillor Heather Williams did recognise that this was contained in the report and she was just emphasising how important they were and but there should be no attempt to remove them which I'm sure nobody would want to attempt to remove those Do we have any more speakers or could we move to the motion Vice Chair Another request from Heather Williams to speak Councillor Thank you Chairman you've echoed some of my reports request to speak is that I did identify that condition in what I said and also to emphasise now as a planning committee member that the eight affordable housing housing units are very much required and that also to thank those residents that you know especially those nearby that have accepted this site as well we don't always see that and I think that shows great maturity and appreciation for their village as a whole so I thought that's worth noting Thank you and so we will now go to a motion which is the officer recommendation is for approval that's been proposed by Councillor Peter Fein and be seconded by by me Councillor Hawkins Chair Councillor Toomey Hawkins I haven't heard anybody that would seem to be saying that they're minded to refuse this application therefore I'd ask if we can approve this application with all the appreciation of the hard work that's gone into resolve all of the concerns can we do that by affirmation members agreed anybody against anybody abstaining good thank you very much so that Agenda Item 6 has been approved members we're now moving to Agenda Item 7 this is in Water Beach the application number is 20 stroke 03370 OUT this is an outline planning application with all matters reserved except for access for the demolition of the existing house and the erection of five dwellings it's Van Old Road Water Beach the applicant is Mr Sanders the recommendation is delegated approval the key material considerations are the principle of development housing provision access highway safety and parking provision infrastructure and visual amenity flood risk and drainage and agricultural occupancy condition there wasn't a site visit to this particular application but we did have a site visit to an application in a similar area and we will hear about the planning history of that one I'm sure it is a departure and that was advertised on the 2nd of September 2020 the presenting officer is Alice Young the senior planner and it's being brought to the committee because it's a departure from the adopted local plan and the officer recommendation of approval conflicts with the recommendation of Water Beach Parish Council and I understand that a date is yet to be agreed in terms of the extension of decision date for this application and Alice if you would like to present the case to us as a summary thank you let me just get my screen up can I just confirm that you can see that I've been having IT issues today we can see it and we can hear you perfectly okay so 9 to 5 Banner Road comprises a detached dwelling with a generous front and rear garden and is located on the northern side of Banner Road Water Beach the application site was submitted to the Water Beach Development framework with the boundary located south of the site the proposal seeks outline consent with all matters reserved except for access the demolition of the existing house and the erection of five dwellings this is an indicative site plan illustrating a potential site layout please note that this is indicative a previous planning application for this site was submitted to the council and was withdrawn prior to being presented at planning committee the current application is similar to the previously withdrawn application but it also includes the access connecting to the site connecting the site to the adopted highway at Banner Road a judicial review pre-action protocol notification was formally submitted to the council regarding the extent of the red line shown on the site location plan as previously submitted and claiming that this should also include the visibility space across the adopted highway after receiving council legal advice officers consider that the red line as submitted is sufficient and that all necessary visibility space as required by the high authority are either within the red line or within the adopted highway land there remains an ongoing dispute as to the red line location plan and whether it includes all of the land to which the application relates attached to the committee report as an extensive correspondence with Fuse Lane Consortium which correspondence remains unresolved the legal officer will be available to answer any questions from members as stated the application site falls outside of Water Beach settlement boundary the location of the proposed residential development is not supported and the location of the proposed residential development is not supported by neighborhood plan therefore the proposal is contrary to policy S7 as a matter of principle yet there are other material considerations relating to the site and officers consider that despite this conflict the proposal should be supported due to the limited harm which would arise from the development this is an aerial view of the site the application site is in red and this shows kind of the site context of this area of Water Beach the aerial view shows that the application site is surrounded and enclosed by residential development to the north and to the east and to the south the sites to north and east are outside of the development framework boundary and gain consent when the council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply consequently the northern side of final road has through the introduction of these dwellings changed physically and functionally furthermore the council recently lost an appeal on the narrow site directly west of the application site so this one just here here is the application site boundary so hang on a second this is just showing the development framework boundary here and this one is on the aerial view as this one does not show the site next door which was also been developed so this is the adjacent appeal which has just been allowed and costs were awarded in this instance the inspector noted that the character had changed when assessing the appeal and emphasised that the appeal site had more affinity to the suburban form that surrounds it rather than the countryside beyond the adjacent developments and surrounding Water Beach Village officers considered that the application site 2 which is the subject of this application this one has more affinity to that of the suburban development surrounding the site compared to the rural countryside which the site is separated from and makes limited contribution to therefore the proposal would not harm the wider character and appearance of the countryside and it is the view of officers that the site and its immediate surroundings cannot be categorised as countryside to which the proposal can encroach to in terms of suitability the proposal is for five dwellings well within the indicative maximum of 30 dwellings which a minor rural centre can meet detailed in policy S9 whilst the application site is located outside the development framework boundary and therefore technically policy S9 would not apply the scale of the development five dwellings a net gain of four is aligned with the quantum of development which is normally permitted within this framework officers consider that a departure from policy S7 of the local plan is justified in this instance given the site context limited harm to the countryside and the relatively sustainable location of the scheme close to services and facilities furthermore there are no other technical issues such as drainage or highways that would render the development unacceptable when taken individually or accumulatively another aspect of the development's note is the agricultural occupancy condition the existing dwelling due to be demolished has condition restricts in the occupancy to agricultural workers policy H19 relates to the new dwelling to support a rural enterprise and supports the removal of agricultural conditions subject to specific criteria the proposal does not seek removal of the condition but demolishes the existing dwelling and redevelops the site however given that the original reason the condition states that the dwelling serves the agricultural use of the adjoining land which appears to be redeveloped into housing now the need for such a condition is no longer evident and thus officers support the redevelopment of the site several concerns have been raised regarding the impact of the development on amenity of neighbours the application is in outline form with matters of scale outline scale layout landscape and appearance reserve for later approval and thus final layout scale and appearance is not known yet officers are satisfied that the fire dwellings can be accommodated within the site without significant loss of light and privacy or outlook to surrounding residents again these matters would be considered further at reserve matter stage in conclusion planning decisions should be taken in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations that indicate otherwise arise this is a clear case reinforced by recent appeal decision of the inspector where officers advise that material circumstances indicate otherwise and the principle of redevelopment of the site for housing should be supported whilst the proposal with the principle limited terms the aims and objectives of the local plan would arise in terms of encroachment onto the countryside or the sustainability of development therefore officers recommendation is one of approval subject to conditions thank you thank you very much Alice Mr. Cadu is it possible to turn off your camera please and your microphone thank you very much thank you very much Alice for laying out all of the issues that we need to consider do we have any questions for clarification for the case officer we do we have a few chairs starting with Councillor Bredinan thank you chairman I just wanted to clarify with the case officer please could you just point out to us given that this is an illustrative plan could you just indicate to us the distance between the eastern boundary and the nearest liveable rooms in the development to the east of this site I don't have that information directly to hand so I would need a bit of time to get that information to you I'm happy to do that if that's desired it's possible to come up but it was just something I would like to clarify the other issue I wanted to ask about was whether I can see that there's a condition relating to a scheme for disposable surface water disposal of surface water and I wanted to and I'm going to ask it now whether we can add in some wording referring to ongoing maintenance of the ditch which runs along the front of the property it's piped at present and I just wondered whether we could add in some wording relating to that and whether the case officer felt that was acceptable when I went out to site multiple times I didn't necessarily see the ditch that you were referring to and there is a ditch on the adjacent sites which has recently got consent however I'm more than happy to attach a condition if that's felt by members I think the reason you can't see it is because it's been piped underneath but it was just simply if we could amend if you would I just wanted to establish whether it would be acceptable to amend condition 18 which says no development should take place until a scheme for disposal of surface water and file drainage including ongoing maintenance of the ditch might be added sorry excuse me Alice you're able to look at that I think during the debate if there's a proposal for that condition to come through do we have other questions is that fine for you councillor now? Yes that's fine thank you Yes we have councillor Rippers next Jen Thank you Alice for that clear presentation Councillor Bradlam could you turn your camera off please You mentioned obviously the site next door which has just been one on appeal for the developers How much weight I mean I'm getting from you is it really significant because this obviously seems to me to have a big impact because this is literally next door How much do we apply in our considerations? Of course thank you for your question Yes it does carry significant weight as does the surrounding context which is what I was trying to illustrate by those visuals I'm happy to get those back up again to show you in a bit more detail but yes it does carry significant weight within the application assessment process especially as in that appeal decision they were awarded costs against the decision that we made Does that answer your question councillor Rippers? Yes it does I mean it's quite difficult at this stage because we don't know the exact layout and it's quite hard to ascertain I imagine how close everything is going to be to surrounding sites Sorry that's a bit of So we do have those considerations that we do have but I think as we're understanding it even though we have to look at each application on its own merit what we're being advised here is given that a decision that we took at an earlier planning committee meeting which was to refuse an application within this area for the reasons that we refused it Southcams then presented those arguments during the appeal and we do have a copy in our report of the inspectors countering each of those reasons So the question that was really helpful for us all is what weight therefore do we have to afford that context, the context of that appeal decision And we've been told that's significant Thank you Next Is councillor Fain here? Thank you chair There is no intention to demand affordable housing so paragraph 71 deals with that would not be sought for residential development for not major developments except of course in the case of exception sites. Now in terms of paragraph 3 the proposal would not comply with the local plan is outside the development framework boundary not supported by neighbourhood plan What consideration was given to making this treating this as an exception site The agricultural occupancy tie is also perhaps relevant here because whilst it is no longer agricultural land or indeed rural that does not necessarily mean it is not still needed for some element of affordable housing so that if it were an exception site we would see a mixture of affordable and market housing rather than just exempting it under paragraph 71 Candice Thank you So It's a valid point obviously this outline consent is for just 5 20 so it falls below the threshold of affordable housing and it's as such we haven't included a condition to require affordable housing on this site I think councillor Fain's point was if it's outside therefore even any kind of what we would say a rural exception site that you would have some kind of affordable housing requirement I think that was the point he was making so was that considered not the threshold of a major development of 10 houses Chris I can see your help with that The starting point for determining the application is the development plan clearly the local plan unless material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be made that's really the consideration that was set out by the inspector and the recent decision on the site next door so the starting point would be this is beyond the development framework and therefore unacceptable unless it was either a scheme for affordable housing as councillor Fain points out or there are other material considerations which indicate that planning commission should be granted and what Alice has explained and what the report explains the context in particular of the surrounding area and how that has changed is in officer's view a significant material consideration which would indicate that planning commission should be granted in the circumstances the applicants obviously entitled to apply for a scheme for market housing which is what they've done and that's what we need to consider so whilst councillor Fain is correct that in normal circumstances you would expect a site on the edge of a settlement such as this to come forward as an exception site for affordable housing in this particular case there's an argument being made that there are reasons not to do that and that a market scheme should be acceptable thank you councillor Fain do you have a follow-up question no chair that's a very comprehensive answer thank you bye chair we have no more speakers chair okay thank you very much Alice for that and I'm sure we may come back to you during the debate thank you very much we'll now move to the public speakers and I'd like to invite Mr Skidmore to speak please are you with us and Dr Ian Skidmore sorry I can just see that and if you just explain introduce yourself before we get to your three minutes can I also say I've asked for some slides to be shared whilst I'm speaking so could those be ready can I ask you if that's possible or Alice okay yeah right yeah so anyway before I start so I'm Ian Skidmore I'm a neighbour of 95 panel road on field clothes thank you so I'm representing several of the neighbours we've joined together for this statement basically thank you very much and so your three minutes begin now and we have these slides as an aid to your point thank you so as I say I'm speaking here on behalf of all four neighbouring properties on barnfield clothes but I'd like you to note that objections have been raised by no fewer than nine neighbours in total amongst more common fauna foxes deer and bats can be seen using the properties gardens the application is to replace a single house and these substantial gardens with five houses plus garages a suggestion that this can enhance restore and add to biodiversity is not credible and no evidence has been provided to the contrary indeed the plan requires the filling of 11 trees including two class A trees and seven mature or early mature trees the development will convert a distinctive local property that offers a small refuge for nature into an additional load on already stretched services one such example is the local open reach street cabinet which is already at full capacity this means that number three barnfield is on a waiting list to receive fibre broadband as will be any new houses built regardless of their internet service provider whilst the submitted plans illustrates that five properties can fit on the land it also reveals that to do so means that they must be pushed close to its boundaries causing the maximum negative impact on neighbouring properties residential amenity so to prove the likely scale of light loss for example my first figure at top left looks across the site from the solar room window of number five the sun is seen setting straight ahead just above the boundary hedge it's irrefutable that any development in this direction will block direct sunlight from illuminating the room my second figure there shows just how much of a sky a house like those depicted in the illustrative plan would block depending on its distance from the boundary indicative plan would have a dwelling blocking the full lateral extent of that image movies dwelling that moves dwelling laterally and it will instead block the light of one of my neighbours you should also note that the illustrative site layout shows buildings occupying nearly 90% of the lateral extent of the plot are we still on the same slide just to ask yes yes yes so next slide now please yeah so daylight daylight loss can be calculated this figure shows a plan of plan view of my living room on the left you see the light level now and on the right you can see the significant impact where the indicative plan to be built similarly the application does not show that five houses can be brought to the land without a significant loss of privacy to residents regardless of the final layout some of the five new houses will have views directly into both the living rooms and master bedrooms of numbers four and five and overlook the gardens of all four neighbouring homes so in summary the building of any additional homes of this land will have a detrimental effect on the local ecology and add pressure to local facilities the application provides zero evidence that five houses can be placed on the land without a significant loss of habitat and residential immunity breaching two aspects of policy H16 the proposed development will irrefutably cause a significant loss of light and loss of privacy for neighbours on Barnfield Close negatively impacting the residential enjoyment of our homes permitting five properties here will push buildings towards the boundaries of the land making the development even more overbearing and out of keeping with the street scene without evidence but the layout which doesn't cause a significant impact on both habitat and residential immunity is even possible this application should be rejected Thank you very much Ian and thank you for all your preparation for your contribution today do we have any questions Yes, jelly of one from Councillor Rithford Councillor Judith Rithford, yes Thank you so much for such a clear three minutes one thing I'd like to ask which I found really helpful with your photographs and I know the plot well because of being a local member how many metres would you estimate those windows are from the edge of the hedge the site boundary Do you mean our front windows? Yeah from your front windows number five I think It's about 15 metres 15, okay thank you that's really helpful Thank you The distance to the house would be 17 I believe on the indicative plan Any other advice chair? No further speakers chair Thank you very much Ian if you close down now you can join the meeting via the webcast Thanks Thank you and I'd like to invite now Mr Moyes applicant Are you with us Nick? Hello Hello, I'm here, thank you Would you like to introduce yourself first before we get to the three? Yes, my name is Nick Moyes I'm an associate partner with Brown and Co property consultants and I act as agent for the planning application so I'm speaking on behalf of the applicant Thank you very much, if you'd like to start now Yes, I will be brief because I think many of the points that I wanted to raise have already been discussed and mentioned Of course it's acknowledged that the proposal is contrary to the local plan because of its location outside of the development framework boundary and of course in many circumstances that would justify a refusal of permission in principle but I think this is one of those quite unusual cases where the particular circumstances of the site would justify a departure from policy Essentially I think in this location as you've seen on the slides the development boundary has been overtaken by events in that there's been quite significant development around the site so it's now bounded on three sides by housing and as you've seen also permission has been granted for development on the fourth side So really the site forms part of Sorry just Mr Moyes Jane Williams councillor, if you could just turn off your cameras please Thank you, go ahead Mr Moyes I think she's frozen but Yes so essentially the site forms part of the built up area of the village and there would be no intrusion into the countryside or adverse effects on the setting of the village and therefore no conflict with the objectives of policy S7 In terms of broader sustainability considerations there's a good range of services in the area all of which would be readily accessible from the development and in terms of its scale, its small scale would be keeping with the council's strategy for growth in villages like this In terms of other planning considerations obviously we have taken note of the concerns about potential over development of the site and impact on neighbours amenities again as you've heard the application is an outline layout is indicative but I think in terms of broad principles our view is that the site is certainly capable of accommodating five dwellings satisfactorily the density of the development proposal would be quite low and what that gives us is I think considerable flexibility in terms of the layout to make sure that the final proposal which would obviously be subject to a further application would meet all of the requirements in terms of relationships with neighbours the application is for five dwellings so some of those dwellings could potentially be single story or elements of the buildings could be single story and there is certainly scope to vary the layout from that shown on the indicative plan to create a satisfactory relationship with surrounding properties in terms of other issues various technical reports have been submitted with the application in relation to matters such as ecology ground contamination and protection of trees and no objections have been raised by consultees in respect of those reports and so we would hope that all those matters can be satisfactorily dealt with by condition and in terms of the proposed conditions there's no objec