tion from our side to those that are proposed in the report so on that basis we would hope that members can support the application and that's all I wanted to say thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have any questions Vice-Chair and thank you very much Nick for keeping within the time. Chair then no one's indicated yet I'll give it a few seconds just in case they're on and we have Councillor Rippith. Thank you. I'm not sure if my classification is for you actually or Chris Carter is that okay Chair? Yeah you just mentioned elements could be single story I would like to know at this stage if we're able to consider that kind of question or whether that would be something for reserved matters. I think it would be good for Chris to come in because this is an outline planning application of course what has been raised within the other public speakers is whether or not the fact that giving outline permission for five buildings would make that possible or not that has been raised Chris. Thank you Chair. No at this stage we wouldn't be able to control that that would be a matter for the reserved matters application that comes later. Okay thank you. No one else has indicated at this stage Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you Chairman through you. I just wanted to check with Mr Moyes you heard my asking for clarification at the beginning as to whether we might add making sure there's ongoing maintenance for the ditch that runs along the front of the property. Would that be an acceptable modification to the conditions? Yes If the application were given approval Yes no objection to that change. Thank you very much. Thank you and I think it was nothing more. Thank you very much Mr Moyes. Thank you and I'd like to invite councillor Jane Williams. Hello can you hear me alright? Can hear you yes I saw you earlier previously are you able to put your camera on?  Just before you introduced but also confirm that you have full authority of the parish council to speak on their behalf. I do Yes I do Can you hear me alright? You're frozen here. We can hear you perfectly yes we can't see you but we can hear you. Right.  Yes I do have authority to speak on behalf of all to the parish council. There are three issues I would like to address. The first is the agricultural occupancy. Could officers actually confirm that it is a requirement for the applicant to seek to formally apply the removal of the agricultural occupancy prior to the approval of the planning application. I did note that the officer said that this would be a requirement once approved but I would just like to ask that question to the process. Because permitting the application as it stands would breach the clear wording of policy H19 4 in the adopted local plan regarding the relaxation of the existing occupancy condition. And then I'd like to move on to drainage there is no evidence from what I can see regarding drainage in the applicant's planning statement for this application page 92 power 4 in the public PAC states the proposals are not in accordance with South Cam's adopted planning policy I'll let you read the rest of that or I'm going to lose all of my time. Condition 18 on page 111 of the public PAC actually mitigates the drainage but without the evidence also there is no evidence that the Water Beach Internal Drainage Board as the regulating board for the management of drainage for the parish has been consulted with capacity for the new development but I don't know why the Old West drainage board has on the council's key list WPC has concerned regarding who is responsible for the long-term maintenance of the ditch and culvert between the road and the property which is a vital part of the village storm water drainage and request that this is clarified and appropriate action taken before any construction is allowed and there has been much discussion between local bodies regarding this matter WPC are not aware of any resolution to mitigate surface water drain as you're flooding which has occurred quite badly over the winter in Bannold Road where the development is proposed and therefore WPC recommends the deferments of this application until such outcome is known as I say it's been a huge issue highways this is the last issue I would like to address the application is for outline planning commission with all matters reserved except for access there is no approved plan for the access list and there is no condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with any access plan WPC understands that this creates total ambiguity with regards to the detail of the access as access is not a reserve matter for this application the question of access is at the heart of the decision on granting outline permission paragraph 109 of the national planning policy framework 2019 requires that development should achieve safe and suitable access for all users and just my last words with regarding to highways WPC request that details to provide a safe and suitable access for all users are specified and controlled by their planning condition and WPC says reassurance the decision to approve without such a condition will not be to the detriment safety of pedestrians and other users of battle road thank you very much thank you very much thank you sticking to the time as well Jane and so and so the last it would be to the detriment yes of safety do we have any questions for cancer Jane Williams not as of yet chairman again I'll give it a few seconds in case there are and we have one from councillor Richard Williams thank you chair this is not actually so much a question for Jane Williams but I did want to pick up on a point that was made in that submission which is about policy h19 for there is a paragraph in the report on a paragraph on policy h19 for but at no point does the report actually say that the conditions have been met it seems to sort of gloss over that so I would like to reinforce what Jane Williams just said it would be useful to hear from the officer about h19 so there is a clarification you'd like clarification as to whether or not that has been or the clarification of the officer rather than yeah speaker Alice are you able to respond to that or or Chris hi yes that was taken into consideration and as I said in my presentation the reason for the condition when it was imposed on the dwelling was to do with the adjacent lands which it served and obviously it appears that that land has been developed and so in terms of need for that particular dwelling and to serve the surrounding agricultural land it renders it slightly what's not as needed in that respect I think the question from Dr Richard Williams is whether or not that policy has been met you know the conditions for that for the change have been met Chris Carter sorry I don't want to speak in your yes sorry Councillor Williams yeah it was that particularly point K about marketing for 12 months but also the point about the condition needing to be removed before this planning application is approved which I think was the point that Councillor Jen Williams from water management if I can try and help so policy H 19 relates to proposals for permanent dwellings in the countryside for full-time work is an agricultural forestry etc this application isn't for it doesn't propose dwellings for such workers it proposes new market dwellings and the demolition of an existing dwelling that is tied in that respect so when that dwelling is demolished it's my view that the tie the agricultural tie will fall away with that and the new commission would override therefore I don't consider that they need to meet that requirement of 4k of a marketing marketing exercise because this isn't an application for either removal of the tie because the dwelling would be demolished and therefore that tie would fall away with that demolition sorry to come back again would not the tie be tied to the land not the building the land will still be there and the land will still have the tie it's not just the building it's the land well policy H 19 relates to proposals for permanent dwellings in the countryside as opposed to the use of land as I'm reading it quickly here therefore my view is that it relates to the occupation of the building and if the building is no longer there then the occupational tie would fall away it's an agricultural building thank you Catherine Williams have you a follow up question I'm sorry I've taken up a lot of time here but I'm actually looking beyond this policy now about the nature there is a condition attached to that land through previous planning permissions and surely I would imagine that condition on the land has to be released it wouldn't necessarily disappear just because the building goes can we have a legal response to this or Chris or Steven chair I don't know if Stephen Reed wants to add anything to the discussion the application in front of us is a proposal for market willing so it's not a proposal for agriculture use the use of the land would be changed the agricultural tie would fall away Steven did you want to add to that no I will leave that to the planners to give their planning view on the condition thank you I don't really have anything additional to add to that council Williams other than it's my view that the new planning commission should it be granted would override the existing agricultural tie which would fall away on the demolition of the property thank you Alice I see you've come in would you like to add anything yeah just to add something on Chris's explanation there the agricultural occupancy condition specifically talks about specifically relates to the dwelling not the land just to clarify so what Chris was saying is when the dwelling is gone and demolished that falls away because there is no longer dwelling there okay thank you Councillor Dr. Williams is that okay we can move on to a further question I think I've had my say for the time being I might come back to it in debate do we have any other questions two chair one from Councillor Heather Williams and then Councillor Bradman thank you Councillor Heather Williams my apologies to Councillor Jane Williams because I think my question is more directed to officers as well and Councillor Jane Williams referred to a lack of consultation with the internal drainage board it went to an old board I just want to clarify what we've signalled the greatest at times and if I could confirm that's correct and then from officers what implication does that have do we have to consult with them what confidence do we have that the consultation process can't be challenged thank you Alice can you respond sorry there's a slight delay of my computer my bandwidth isn't coping very well in terms of drainage obviously that's something that has been considered and appropriate conditions have been attached to the outline consent for which further detail will come in the reserve matters and that will be addressed through those conditions on the outline consent I think Alice the question was around the consultation around that which consultees did those include the internal drainage board or have they been satisfied that consultation has taken place with those responding on drainage I would have to triple check that to confirm but when writing the report we were satisfied that all the correct consultations were carried out would you like to follow up to that Councillor Williams yes and this time I'll direct it to Councillor Jane Williams could you just clarify in your three minutes you mentioned about consultation to an old board as opposed to a current board could you elaborate a little bit more on that please and then in the meantime if officers could double check and triple check that would be appreciated thank you I think I'll mute still sorry come on hello yes obviously I've done some homework and looked at the planners pack and looking at the consultations it's not clear who has been consulted if you look on the planning portal the front page the consultee the highways and also the IDB are shown under general comments i.e. and so is the parish councillors mixed up with everybody's consultation so the lead flood is on front but basically going through the IDB and because of the issues that we've had in flooding in the pan or road area it's really imperative they have the last say or they say the advice as to how much capacity there is in the storm drains and the drainage that they are responsible for it and should be consulted with looking at the planning portal it only shows the IDB the old west and drainage water has been consulted with but not the water beach internal drainage board which is my concern because of the issues that I've raised about ricarian responsibilities but also about flooding as I say the manhole covers have been lifted with this rain so it's really important that we sort this out and it's done in the right way so this is why I've raised that thank you and if we can move to the next questions while officers are looking up if there is any more information on that we can send the breadman next thank you chairman so two things and again I just wanted to point out that my understanding of paragraphs 113 and 114 address the issues that councillor Jane Williams brought up about the agricultural occupancy in the sense that there is no longer long term need for a dwelling with restricted occupancy to serve the need in the locality I think that's the ground clarification questions at this moment the other point was that for clarification sorry I'll wait till the debate thank you do we have any more information coming back from the officer on the consultation sorry I'm having technical difficulties accessing that information so my manager Toby Williams is just going to chat for us now that can perhaps come to us as we're getting the rest of the speakers thank you very much guys thank you very much Catherine Williams for your time you can join via the webcast thank you very much bye and now we turn to local members councillor Braden and councillor Judith Ripper would you like to councillor Braden would you like to speak now as local member at the end of the debate yes I'll speak now thank you chairman just one moment councillor Jane Williams are you able to leave the meeting or turn your camera off I still seem to have you on the screen perhaps Liam can you help us with that chair yeah I would advise to leave the meeting and come back in I will watch the participants list to admit them thanks thank you yes councillor you'd like to speak now thank you I just wanted to as local member I'm familiar with this location and you'll recall that I asked the same question that councillor Ripper asked about the distance between the boundary and the front windows of the neighbours properties because I'm mindful of the distance involved and the aspect of those dwellings the point I was going to make is that my understanding of the condition around the agricultural occupancy in addition to what Mr Chris Carter has said is that under H 19 section 4B my understanding is the part of the reason is in addition to the fact that the agricultural occupancy condition relates to the dwelling not the land that at section B there is a clarification that it can be relaxed when there is no longer long-term need for a dwelling with restricted occupancy to serve the need in the locality so that's my understanding that that's reasonable the other point I wanted to point out with regard to the Water Beach internal drainage board is that Jane Williams is quite right that that ditch is within the Water Beach internal drainage board area but it is not itself an internal drainage board drain it's a right and proper to check that they have been consulted and the reason they are is because anything that goes into that drain does eventually go into the internal drainage board drain for the award drain at the eastern end of Bannill Road and I'm that's all I wanted to say at this point thank you thank you and we know that you are also considering proposing a motion that you will bring later in the debate I'm sure we also have local member Councillor Judith Rippus would you like to speak now at the end of the debate I'd like to speak at the end of the debate thank you thank you first one member so I think we'll continue with the debate and at half past one sort of have a rain check where we are as we said that we would have a short break for lunch at around half past one so we're opening now to the debate I don't know if we have any more information on that consultation yet Alice just before we go into the debate sorry Toby Williams is still checking that and checking the areas for jurisdiction in terms of internal drainage boards as well just to then be able to come back to you fully on that members so that is an issue that we do want to bring into the debate we can open the debate now do I have any speakers we have Councillor Rippus chair Councillor Judith Rippus it was only to suggest if we do lunch now whilst all that information is being collated obviously that's your choice this chair and we have somebody else Councillor Bredin Councillor Bredin and obviously pending the information that comes back I wanted to this is sorry a bit iterative and I apologise chair I just wanted to ask that we I would like to propose we amend regardless of anything else we do that we consider an amendment to condition 18 on page 111 so that it should read and I'm reading from it and I'll point out where I'm putting the amendment in no development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of surface water and fell drainage that can be maintained for the lifetime if the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority I would like to add in including ongoing maintenance of the piped ditch and if you remember Mr Moyes said he would be happy to accept that condition so that would just be if the committee is minded to approve then at least that condition would protect maintenance of the ditch for the life of the development good and so we have some information outstanding for them to look at we have also just to for officers to double check on that the wording of that condition so it could be that we have the break now and then come back and we would have hopefully have that information and the clarification do we have any other questions we have a question of clarification from Councillor Heather Williams thank you Chairman it was just to reiterate part of my clarification earlier which I fear has been forgotten I actually did ask not only have the right people been all consulted but what are the implications if they haven't as well I know that's a small add-on but it's quite important that's fine, okay thank you very much what I will do then if everybody's okay with that I've got it 11-13 if we come back at 11-45 and if I can speak to officers during that period just to make sure that we have got answers to that and also that the proposed conditioning the wording of that is all clear as well and then we'll go into the final debate on this Liam as we've got a half hour break what do you propose I will put up a slide in a moment thanks but everybody should also turn off their cameras and their audio microphones yeah they can do it it doesn't matter as it would be being streamed but I would be on the safe side I would mute yeah thanks thank you everybody we'll be back here at quarter to two thank you okay we're now live thank you thank you welcome back and welcome to everybody who's watching this this is the planning committee of South Cambridgeshire District Council we are resuming after a short break over the lunch period with a gender item 7 which is for 95 panel road Water Beach I'm just going to do a quick roll call of the members of the planning committee to ensure that we're all here and present. Councillor Henry Batchelor present here Councillor Anna Bradnam present Councillor Dr Martin Kahn present present Councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins present Councillor Judith Rippeth present Councillor Deborah Roberts present chairman Councillor Heather Williams present chairman Councillor Dr Richard Williams present Councillor Nick Wright hello hello thank you everybody and we're resuming and as you all remember we were waiting to have clarification regarding whether or not the internal drainage boards are statutory consultees whether they were consulted and also whether correct one was consulted and what implications are there for the planning process if they weren't consulted is it Alice or Chris who's going to give us response on that chair I'll respond to that thank you colleagues have been looking at this again up to the very last second so I'm happy to advise that having interrogated the back office consultation system the consultation was sent to the generic email address which covers both the Old West and Water Beach levels IDB so whilst it lists only the Old West on the website I'm afraid that is slightly misleading in that it was sent to both the email address that covers both but no consultation response has been received so the correct consultation has been undertaken I can confirm thank you okay and we also wanted to know in terms of the wording of a proposed motion by Councillor Braden in case committee was minded to approve yes chair thank you this is the amendments condition recommended condition 18 I see no issue with the amendment as proposed by Councillor Braden should members wish to support that thank you and this is around the maintenance management of that said ditch that's correct Councillor Braden would you like to move that motion yes thank you chair so I have not not predetermining my decision but certainly I would like to propose that condition 18 should include wording would you like me to read it or would you like me to I'll read it so condition 18 should now read no development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of surface water and fell drainage comma including ongoing maintenance of the piped ditch along the sorry Chris can say the right word of the frontage of this curtailage that can be maintained for the lifetime of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority right so I can see I'm looking at condition 18 and it's it's inserted within there so we understand the spirit and essence of what you're saying would anybody like to second that proposal I'll second the council Hawkins thank you councillor doctor to me Hawkins so this is in the event that when we come to the vote around that if it were committee were minded to approve it would be with this condition so could I now is there anybody that would can I take this by affirmation I'll say that what can we take this condition by affirmation that if committee were minded in terms of voting to approve this that this condition would be added agreed is there anybody against anybody abstaining thank you so we have approved that condition thank you very much I'm happy that the officers tidy up that rather clumsy one thank you we'll go back to the main debate now on the merits of the application itself vice chair do we have anybody ready to open the debate I'm using no one I can see as of yet chairman but I'm sure something will pop up in a second or maybe not or somebody would like to propose a motion voting on this one we have a couple of speakers requesting now chair thank you starting with cancer Braden cancer on the bread and thank you chairman and I want to point out that I have I accept the point that the officers and indeed the manner in which we've been advised about the environs in which this planning application finds itself the surrounding area has changed around it and I am satisfied that that has covered the concerns that people had about whether this was actually going to be planning as it were in the countryside which I don't feel it is anymore the advice the comparator of the appeal next door I think that has convinced me however for myself I feel that five dwellings on this plot represents an over development of a plot which and the building out of that means that those have to go very close to the boundary and I feel that's inappropriate so I'm very glad that you've accepted the condition should the committee wish to approve this application but I am minded to vote against this thank you thank you chair we also as a local member at the end of the debate but I think we have some other speakers who have requested we do the next one being councillor right thank you chairman councillor Braden I'm sorry councillor right can you turn your camera off councillor Braden I'm sorry chairman it's showing us off on my screen I don't know why it isn't off thank you councillor right thank you chairman I'm I'm minded to refuse this application and from what I've heard from the parish council and local member I'm not happy that the trees being removed without um you know two quality trees that you know we've given good planning and good good eyesight could be saved on this scheme there's only two class A trees you know there's there's ways of saving those um so that comes down to poor layout I think of what's proposed and not only does the poor layout damage the trees it damages the neighbour's amenity from what we've heard as well so now I appreciate without a visit to site this is very difficult to judge uh and the neighbour has made some clear points from what he sees and how it damages his amenity um we've not heard the distance it is actually from that neighbour's home from the planning officer which would you know give us some idea of you know how damaging to his amenity it is but it gives the impression that the house is on there a shoehorned onto the site um which also concerns me so poor layout and design not saving trees and damaging neighbour's amenity I'm concerned about H19 and that I'm not sure we've interpreted that correctly and it's I appreciate it's not a farmhouse although on the previous history it does call the house a farmhouse rather than a farm workers house um so I'm not quite sure there how that goes but even as a farm workers house it still has that tie to agriculture and in this day and age that is a big demand for any houses where small holdings can be built um you know with the acreage that's there around this house it is an ideal small holding for somebody in that area and there are others in Water Beach in that area as well it would make an excellent small holding for still to stay in uncultural use so I don't think till the proper procedures have been followed to remove the agricultural tendency the uncultural holding the tie on it that we should proceed with this development at all if you don't follow the correct process you lay yourself open to challenge all the way through so you know we haven't had legal advice on that we've had planning officers opinions which isn't the same and I think we need to look particularly at this being advertised for the 12 months to give people who are looking for small holdings and we know there are more and more to have the opportunity of purchasing this as an uncultural development at a fair price because that's what it is as it stands at the moment so you know I am minded to refuse that with those reasons and I'd be interested to hear what other local member and other members say Thank you Councillor and what I'll do is bear with me as I'm learning my chair role as well on this one but as I understand it's a scale and layout would be part for reserve matters but I'm hearing from you it's definitely around the principle of development visual amenity and the agricultural occupancy conditions are the reasons that you are putting there That's correct. Thank you Vice-chair who do we have we have some more speakers but Chris Carter would like to come in I think it's pretty prudent to speak Thank you chair just to clarify one point and before the debate moves on too far this is an outline application with the matters of layout scale etc reserved so we don't know that the impact as on the neighbours would be what they're concerned it may be it's an indicative layout that's been provided and I think indicated there is the potential for alternative house types to be proposed at reserve matters stage if an outline permission was granted it would be the reserve matters stage where concerns around the scale layout etc should be correctly raised so I just wanted to be clear with members that in my opinion to refuse this outline application based on an indicative layout would not be a sustainable position for the council to take Thank you chair so that kind of kind of confirms what I was saying there but I think as therefore what I heard from for example from councillor Wright were the issues around principle of development visual immunity and the agricultural occupancy conditions but not the issues of layout and scale or appearance yeah Thank you Who do we have next? We're back to councillor Richard Williams Thank you councillor Dr Richard Williams Thank you very much chair I read the the officers report on this and listen to the presentation very closely because I really wasn't sure how I felt about this and which way I would go so I've listened to all the arguments and read the documents quite carefully I am concerned about over development we're just densifying areas more and more with these kinds of applications so I do worry about over development of this plot for five homes through in whatever configuration they're eventually brought forward so excuse me over development is key concern for me I would echo what councillor Wright said about H19 as well I'm not at all convinced that that's actually being followed H194 talks about the relaxation of an occupancy condition it's not about a new condition it's presupposing a condition is already in place and it sets out three criteria for when a condition should be relaxed and clearly one of those hasn't been met and that's about property being marketed for four months now taking the logic that demolishing the property would mean that the original condition would lapse then essentially what we are doing in this application is deciding to relax a condition because we would grant a plan and permission that would in effect override it so I would see that as exactly the same as relaxing the condition because we would take an action which would mean it would no longer exist so on that basis I think H194 is applicable because as I say we would be replacing a permission with a condition with a permission that doesn't have a condition so we would be effectively relaxing it and I'm not content to do that because I don't think those three points in H194 have been met thank you thank you Councillor Hawkins next thank you chair thing for me I was I mean what Mr Carter said earlier on actually took away some of the things I was going to say because it's outline and that's what we need to be looking at now everything else will be sorted at the reserve matter stages the question is, is the principle of development right or allowable on this side and bearing in mind the appeal decision that we had in February my feeling is yes we would lose this if it went to appeal on the basis that we turned off we refused an application for outline with everything else reserved so on that basis I would be leaning towards actually putting in for this application thank you so if I understand that what you're saying is in terms of the principle of development you're accepting that significant weight of the appeal decision on a similar site in the same area means that you think there isn't a reason for refusing that principle of development yes that is correct I mean it's the site right next door and all our reasons of it's in the countryside it's at the framework everything else has been debunked with a site right next door to it so I don't see that that will stand up it's an appeal thank you the head of Williams is next chair thank you chairman can you turn your camera off please sorry so I think I agree much of what all colleagues have said however I too am not satisfied that H19 isn't applicable I feel that the demolition is almost an attempt to circumvent that but I think when it comes down to it that policy is in place and the criteria haven't been met so I'm not comfortable with us making a decision on that basis I think they're on the principle of development five houses on that site does seem excessive and over development I'd agree with Councillor Bradnam and others about that in relation to the appeal I can understand why that appeal decision would make members nervous but every application is on its own merits as we're told time and time again and over development is something that we need to take particularly serious and the densification on an area that is already seeing quite high development so I think we have to have the courage of our convictions and I think we have to do what we think is right and not not make a decision today based on fear of an appeal and in later days I think that it's over development H19 does come into that case and there is harm to the visual immunity and character due to the amount of housing that would then be put into that plot of land and it does need to be advertised thank you Chairman we have some other speakers but the case officer Alice would like to come back in so we'd better take her next hi thank you I just wanted to come back on issues to do with density over development because I think it's really important that I emphasise again that the density of development the quantum is compliant with the local plan in terms of it's under 30 dwellings per hectare that's not over development we can't call that over development in my professional opinion I would not say that it is over development of the site considering that it is below what is required of stated in the local plan whilst this is outside of the framework as I said in my preceding presentation we have used that as a guide to given the site constraints and the site context as a guide to suggest that it's not over development within the density within the planning application but it's also been considered that if you don't take that context and the significant weight of the appeal decision people are saying just having another development another application another development in that area for them is outside development framework is over development that's what they're saying so they're challenging with principle of development so yes okay yep thank you next please councillor Fein Chairman I'm very influenced by what councillor Hawkins was just saying in relation to an appeal on the next door site whilst it might appear that the circumstances are very similar there are some significant differences if we talk about the objections which are being proposed now but in relation to policy S7 which was the one which the inspector was looking closely at in that case furthermore the inspector drew attention to the advantages of affordable housing on that site whereas in this case we're seeing a site with no proposed affordable housing on what would otherwise be considered to be an exception site I'm not convinced by what was said earlier that sufficient consideration has been given to treating this site as an exception site I accept that it may be appropriate to remove the agricultural occupancy tie but that should be done in the right way not by giving consent to demolish the property and making it redundant and I don't think the proper procedures has been followed for that so I'm inclined to say we should refuse this application thank you I also listen to what the various people have said I've also listened to what Councillor Hawkins has said I tend to sympathise more with Councillor Hawkins I view the site now as de facto an urbanised area whatever the location about the perimeter I think we have to treat this as an urban area and having a house which is limited to agriculture using an urbanised area seems to me inappropriate and I think that if any appeal the inspector would just wave the condition by de facto the situation that you find on the ground rather than upon policy I think it's an overriding factor on policy so I'm not worried about the condition in terms of the density development I had another look at the aerial photograph which was shown up in one of the size and looking at it and taking a different alignment with different types of housing I'm pretty sure that you could minimise any impact on the joining of the site and it's within the prescribed density so I do think the fact the experience on the joining site is that the fact that one couldn't impose the new affordable housing on this site I'm afraid is not our choice it's imposed upon us and therefore we have to work within the frame within and while it might be desirable I don't see that we could insist upon an exceptional site on a site which by the presence of the previous site application now will be considered an urbanised and developed area so I'm afraid I would support and approve with it this application. Thank you do we have any other speakers or we could move to the local member It's just the local member left here Thank you I timed that correctly I'm guessing how many more people there would be I find this really really difficult because when I first joined the planning committee we were told you know it's really pointed out to us to view every application on its merits and really focus in on that but in this case we have been told to put significant weight from the appeal which we lost on the site that is next door so we can't avoid that we can't sort of step away from it and on balance having heard like every representative and the whole debate I really do think that any concerns that I have can only be addressed at the reserve matter stage so I'm not going to go on for ages because you know everyone else has made the points the dwellings per hectare although you look at the site and you think how do those fit in they can fit into the site and we can't say it's over development of the site because it isn't anywhere near the percentage that wouldn't be allowed so I will be voting to approve okay thank you and if there aren't any more I think what we'll do now is move to a vote and I think we have very different opinions that I've heard in terms of where people are leaning on this so I will do a roll call and this would then be on page 107 oh sorry Chris sorry chair just for you you do get to a vote I just wanted to be clear obviously if the committee is voting to refuse the reasons why so I've heard obviously discussion about the agricultural tie and I've drafted some wording in respect of that beyond that I think I need a bit more guidance if there are additional reasons that some members may wish to cite yes I think what I said and we can hear back from others so I think we have principle of development is a consideration and I think we've had several that have questioned the principle of development right and also the visual amenity so the tie the agricultural occupancy condition and the tie the principle of development and visual amenity are the ones that I and also the housing provision Councillor Peter Fein I think his point was around the housing provision okay would you mind if I just commented on those so as we've just heard from Councillor Rippith and it would have to be my advice that the refuse principle having regard to the very recent appeal decision on the site would be would be at risk and likely to be overturned at appeal in terms of visual impact given we're an outline I think I need to understand a bit more about what the visual impact is that is unacceptable to some members and then Councillor Fein's point I think I understand which is in relation to the site not coming forward as an exception site so I don't know if there's anything other members may wish to add to those points please Vice-Chair does anybody want to add to those yes Councillor how the Williams would like to expand on the reasons for refusal mm-hmm I just think one thing that's not been picked up and I'm sure I've heard other members say as well is that we're talking about the harm from this development so what we're saying is the five houses on that the harm that that creates is on the visual amenity of the area given the quantity of housing that are being proposed and that's due to the lack of affordable housing and the fact that this is a departure application that the harm is not outweighed by the benefit so if there was affordable housing as was in the appeal application that we lost then there could be an argument of the harm being outweighed by the need for affordable housing however this is not the case in this application so we need to be very clear why this is different to the appeal application and that I think is a very large large part of it that it is only harm there is no benefit Chair we also have Councillor Bradnam asking to speak Thank you Chair The request to speak was purely because the case officer has asked to speak and I didn't know whether you had seen that, that was all I think that's an old request No, it was just before Councillor Heather Williams Sorry, I'll leave it to you to decide It's been picked up, thank you Stephen Reed would like to speak then Thank you Yes Stephen Reed Reference has been made to the affordable element on the adjoining site The adjoining site was not brought forward as an exception site it was only brought forward with 40% affordable housing and I think that's something that members could be mindful of so we're under the threshold here yes members may decide that all or some of the five dwellings should be affordable but I just wanted to highlight that the appeal site next door was not brought forward as an exception site Hmm Thank you Stephen Reed So that basically is what you're saying there in terms of the numbers this is under the threshold where we could oblige and therefore use that as a reason for refusal if that's what I'm understanding Chris, I see you are Yes, thank you chair So just to come back on the reason that Councillor Heather Williams was expanding upon so I've got that the applicants failed to satisfy that the harm created by the additional five hazardous site has been adequately mitigated but what I don't what I need to understand is and I'm not trying to be difficult here what is the harm that members are identifying of these five dwellings is it a visual what's the visual impact harm that these five dwellings might create bearing in mind that this is an outline application with those matters reserved Thank you chair Councillor Heather Williams I think we refer to the visual immediacy the street scene is sometimes referred to and that's a break and also it's a departure application and we can't forget that or ignore it just because of the appeal next door and I know it was 40% affordable housing it was an exception site but that's still more affordable housing and this offers nothing to the residents and it's a departure application and surely in that case it's important that the harm is mitigated and we managed to outweigh that that is our policy is it not Chair if I may through you and obviously it's my role to explain the risks to the committee so I will just quote from the inspectors appeal decision with regard to the cost application on the site next door where the inspector says that the council failed to consider the layout and appearance of recent housing nearby and failed to have regard to the schemes overall appearance in this context so that's why I'm asking if we can try and identify what the visual harm is that may be resulting from this proposal that's the reason I'm laboring that point just because that's clearly an issue that was identified by the inspector next door notwithstanding that that was of course a separate site in that case with your permission chair and I suggest it's a significant change of the street scene it's developing land that currently has a rural nature to it and is of agricultural use and that in itself is harmful to the character of the street scene and Water Beach is a village it's not a town we have the new town coming up the road but it is a village it is not urban and that character with the new town coming is even more so important I think to the residents of Water Beach and we should take that into consideration okay thank you and so obviously we're about to move into the vote members and just as chair I think this is a difficult one I think as several have pointed out this is in terms of having a everything's taken on its merit but this one we do have and often we sort of said consider if this what are the implications of the decision thinking now about the implications of the decision and the case officer has shown us that this by virtue of the decision from the inspector the character of this area has changed both she said in terms of physically and functionally and that was the inspector's opinion and I've heard everything and I think what's difficult in for me is that saying you know we don't want two wrongs make a right so it was upon the fact we didn't have a five year housing land supply that then laid had some of the building we as a committee refused that application that came on an adjacent area an area that was near to this and that was defeated at appeal and we do have to take that quite seriously and in that appeal decision the inspector said that the character of this area has changed and this is more now of a suburban not urban but sort of suburban outlook in my where I am minded to go with this is because of those conditions those this context I finding it very very hard to come up with reasons therefore for approval although I'm disappointed with what's happening with the area but I'm finding it very hard to find enough sufficient reasons for approval myself as a voting member of this Chris did you want to speak again sorry I just saw just very briefly chair just so that members know what they're voting on so I've got three reasons for refusal if members are minded to refuse one relates to the agriculture tie then the lack of affordable housing as a rural exception site and then thirdly a reason around the visual harm and change to the street scene and the character of the village of Water Beach as highlighted by Councillor Heather Williams thank you and what we're voting on members is on page one and seven in our sorry we have councillor Braden wishes to speak on reasons for refusal as well councillor Braden thank you chairman it was just the reasons described by Chris Carter I don't object that's fine but the specific point was that there's a potential for loss of light even if those houses are put in the middle of the plot there is a potential for loss of light for those properties to the east so it was a loss of light to what's the word visual amenity it's loss of light to visible rooms but I appreciate it on this one those are reserved matters I think on that one I think we've heard from case officers that would be a reserved matter of and you said you're happy with the three reasons that Chris has given if you were minded to refuse with that members are good page 107 paragraph 137 so what the recommendation is that this is approved subject to the following conditions plus the condition that we approved as committee members as well which is about the maintenance and management of the ditch I'll now please as I do a roll call say this is to approve so either you are Anna can you turn your camera off please Councillor Bradenham this is you answer for approval against or abstain Councillor Henry bachelor Councillor Anna Bradenham against Councillor Dr Martin Kahn against Councillor Peter Fane for Councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins for Councillor Judith Rippith for Councillor Deborah Roberts against Councillor Heather Williams against Councillor Richard Williams against Councillor Nick Wright against and myself against which I think very much reflects the debate that we've just had quite a complex application thank you everybody for your time on that one members we're now moving to agenda item eight in your agenda pack page 255 this is for sorry Falmere Foxton Mill Farm Falmere Road the proposal is for the construction of a single story dwelling the applicant is Mr Timothy Poulsen of Poulsen architecture and the key and this is a very interesting one for us is the key material considerations principle of development character and appearance of the area residential immunity ecology drainage and highways there was no site visit it is a departure request for the decision date and this has been brought to the committee because Falmere parish council has requested that it comes to the committee the presenting officer is Jane Rodin senior planning officer Jane are you there Hello Jane thank you do you want to give a presentation there can you confirm that you can see my power point slides yes can hear you perfectly and can see your slides perfect the part of a verbal update before I begin the determination date of the application this should read the 28th of September 2020 and the further extension of time has been requested the condition pollution control is to be removed this is a duplication of pollution control water the conditions implementation of energy strategy and water efficiency have also been duplicated in the list of conditions it's suggested that the duplications are removed an email has been received from a resident who is not speaking at committee they raise no new issues but their comments are summarized that this applicant is a member of the DUP and the application should be considered by an independent panel they also have concerns over the access to the site and the delivery of materials okay and here's my presentation so this application is for development of one dwelling on Mill Farm Falmill Road this application is referred to by the Parish Council and deferred by delegation panel on the 9th of March this year the application is located in the countryside as it is outside the development frameworks as indicated on this map which shows the closest development frameworks to this site this constraint plan shows the proposed site it's located to the south of three dwellings which are Mill House and Springfields the RSPB SSI is the south east of the site this plan shows the flood zones the river Shep along the north east boundary the Guildenbrook along the south west boundary and footpath 11 to the north of the site this dwelling is located in the south east corner of the site as shown on the block plan the proposed access is to be from the north east corner of the site and will lead through the centre to the building this area plan shows where the location of the building is to be and access road these are the moan areas shown on the plan in front of you in relation to the block plan so this application has been submitted under policy H15 of the local plan and paragraph 79 E of the MPPF where it's to be considered as a dwelling of exceptional design and quality so this application has been reviewed and commented on by southcams urban design officers southcams design enabling panel this was on the 19th of November and the 17th of December last year where it's considered that the design of the dwelling has met this high standard it has been raised that the applicant does sit on this panel but not for this application the terms of reference for the DEP dated the 15th of April 2014 state the terms for the panel members that attend the DEP as if they were an applicant for their own planning application it was acknowledged at the start of the panel meetings that the applicant has been on a panel before and that there was no conflict of interest at the time this was covered in the subsequent reports from the DEP the planning officers and the urban design officers are satisfied that this does not preclude the panel from considering this application so the dwelling itself is single story in height there are three areas to the building to the left this is where this to include the car parking and the energy centre the piazza in the centre which is open includes that water feature sorry and then the main dwelling which is to accommodate all the living space the dwelling is three metres in height and will be simple in its form the elevation plans show the layout and the structure of the proposed openings which are also to be simple in their nature the external fabric of the building is core 10 steel there is a central water feature that runs through the site and inter drainage ditch so here are the south west and north east elevations and then a 3D model at the bottom here are the south east and north west elevations with the same 3D model at the bottom and so here are some 3D plans taken from the applicant supporting information at the site the first two on the left are internal views same with the bottom one on the bottom right and the top one is an external view of the site so the setting in the landscape is raised in policy H15 and the MPPF the location of the dwelling is to be on the highest part of the site out of the flood zones its relationship with the river ship the gildenbrook, the adjacent nature reserves and the current wetland have been part of the consideration of this application this has been reflected in the landscaping that's being proposed as indicated on the right hand plan which includes informal park land meadow domestic landscaping tree planting wetland, grassland area and a ditch for the link between the water feature and the dwelling because planning committee can't do the site visit I've taken some videos of the site as you might need to bear with me for this one so in all the videos there's a plan on the right hand side the star in the centre is where I was stood taking the video the arrow is where I started and then the arrow shows where I've panned round so this first video shows the access track is facing south along the access track this is towards the access these are the properties that share the common boundary with the proposal site that's the boundary to spring fields these posts in the ground mark the dwelling the first post to the outbuilding and this would be the piazza in front of you and the dwelling to the rear that tree in the middle is where the courtyard would be I refer to that quite a lot through my videos that's the boundary with the RSPB site and panning round further to the western boundary and then finishing back on the access track where I started this next video I'm facing is with the boundary of spring fields I'm stood near the far corner of the site this is facing the RSPB boundary as you pan round there's a tree showing the internal courtyard this would be the piazza in front of you now and then the external outbuilding that centre of line of trees I was referred to later and then the continuation of the boundary with spring fields this video is to part way down the real ditch I mentioned a minute ago facing northeast with the spring fields boundary in front of me there's the courtyard tree just in front panning round this is spring fields boundary there's the RSPB boundary facing the western boundary and there's the continuation of the ditch behind me towards the access the common boundary with the other properties and back to the beginning this video is facing the access this is the proposed access through this head row found near road panning round to the common boundary and then this is myself walking along the at the proposed access every so often facing the western boundary I'm following those road arrows on the site plan stopping in a second at that second star towards the development site in the background spring fields boundary there's the common boundary in front and then back towards the access where I've just come from this next video I'm stood on the edge of the part of land that's not to be included in the site facing towards the courtyard tree which you can see in the middle there there's the RSPB boundary in the distance the western boundary the access track would just be in front of me past those paths of logs there's the access in the distance these are the properties that share the common boundary with the development site there's the centre line of trees and then the development site and the courtyard tree in the centre so this video I'm stood at the bottom of that centre line of trees facing the courtyard tree in the centre it's towards the southern boundary the RSPB the western boundary there's the access there's towards the access through the hedge you can see the cars just in the distance and then background there's the common boundary and then back through the centre line of trees spring fields in the background background to the beginning this video I'm stood in the centre of the site with my back to that courtyard tree I'm facing the centre of the line of trees where I stood a second ago at the furthest point you can see the posts there the outbuilding coming backwards and forwards as the outbuilding the energy centre the part in between would be the piazza and the post-closest would be the boundary of the dwelling this is where all the rest of the living accommodations are going to be and then walking around the tree in the centre this is the boundary where spring fields you can see the moan area is the proposed dwelling location that's the boundary with the RSPB site that's the western boundary in the background and then background to the beginning this video I'm stood in the far southwestern corner of the site facing towards the access that's the western boundary that's the centre line of trees that I stood at a moment ago that's the southern boundary of the site and then this is the view out of the corner of the site looking out of the site and then background for the beginning again this video I'm stood at the centre the bottom of the centre line of trees facing towards Mill Farm there's a tree in the middle there's the RSPB site this is the proposed access the moan area the western boundary there's the rest of the access going towards family road and then background you can see the buildings in the common boundary and then background to the centre line of trees and then my final video I'm stood in the corner the far south eastern corner of the site this is the common boundary where spring fields you can see the courtyard tree in the centre so I'm walking into the site you can see the courtyard tree in the centre and then in the second I stop and turn around towards the boundary where spring fields and then this is the view out of the corner of the site towards the RSPB site there's the rest of the boundary of the RSPB site that's just stood and then background to the courtyard tree in the middle so this is the area of heads that's being proposed to removed from looking outside the site this is looking east along family road and then west along family road and then the key material considerations in front of you as previously read out thank you chair thank you very much Jane Vice chair do we have any questions for clarification of case officer we do chair we have three so far councillor Roberts is first up yeah thank you very much chairman and miss rodens can you give me the following information can you firstly tell me they can you agree that the drawings show as spring fields and then also show as the other two dwellings which is mill road and can you confirm that spring fields is actually under an agricultural reason and policy compliant in that it is a category in the open countryside and it is also a small farm and can you also confirm that the other two buildings one of which is in the ownership of the applicant were put up to replace very small prefabricated houses when it was a pig in the insemination area and can you also confirm that and I don't think you showed us maybe you could go back to the video there's no sign of where the stream is you didn't actually show us a stream which is an important issue here as well and runs along the site so if you could show us and somewhere on the video where actually that that is situated and could you confirm how far away in distance the nearest other dwelling is there those things and also that due to how far away from the other present dwellings in that area it is that actually there is no light pollution whatsoever on this very still very wild country area thank you chairman thank you so in regards to the site history of Springfield I'd need to have a look at their site history to confirm if they are an agricultural holding I do believe they are an agricultural holding in regards to the cattery I would have to look at their site history to confirm that but I can come back to you on chair if you wish on that one in regards to the replacement of things from Mill Heights and no sorry Mill House and Mill Farm again I'd have to look at their site history to see how they were replaced and how they were given planning permission that might take a little bit longer I would need to come back to you on that one chair as well I could save you on that Jane both those are the correct situations Springfield is a cattery and it is a farm and it's just had recently had a barn put up and it has sheep there and the other two dwellings were prefabricated small prefabricated dwellings when they were the employees of the pig insemination unit do you still check or are you happy with if you're happy with your own answer definitely I'm happy Jim but I just wanted it to be made clear exactly what we are talking about here rather than a clarification question you're bringing new information well bringing some information to the members so there are those two questions distance to the nearest dwelling and you mean beyond those dwellings that you just mentioned Councillor Roberts no I think to those dwellings that I've just mentioned Chairman okay I can start with the stream one first if that helps that was the next question if I can share this slide again sorry I didn't take any videos as such of seeing can you see that chair I didn't take any videos of the streams itself it was a little bit tricky to take them at the time but the river shep is the boundary to the northeast and the Guildenbrook is the west of the site I will see if I have another might come back on me on that other one for a picture of it Chairman could I get Jane to say can you confirm Jane that actually the streams are very close up to the application site and where the dwelling would actually be yep so probably the best one would be this plan here can you see yes it's very smooth so the best one would be this plan here the blue lines are the streams the east of the site and the west and as you can see the dwelling is the closest this one at the top okay thank you very much that was established and in terms of the distance to dwelling would you need to have you got that I need to measure that one I need to come back on to that one in a second alright I can get measuring on that one now okay thank you very much is that okay Councillor Robertson if we continue with the other questions thank you very much Chairman appreciate it thanks we have councillor Bradnum next year councillor Bradnum sorry I just had a telephone call just at the moment when my name was called it's supposed to be turned off Anna I can't turn it off I don't have any way about turning it off sorry what I wanted to ask was yes when we were panning round the buildings in the distance were they Paddlesworth Mill Farm and Mill House yes Mill House were those the ones that we could see so in other words was one of them Paddlesworth on the north side of the road thank you very much that's what I wanted to clarify thank you very much next one please next is councillor Rippeth councillor Rippeth sorry this isn't a question it's just are we supposed to after four hours of the meeting agree to carry on procedurally yes okay I was just looking at my watch and realised with lunch and breaks we were over four hours that's alright Ian are you with us Ian senior yep I'm here yep so that is right after four hours you need to just vote to continue can I do that by affirmation everybody agree to meet okay thank you anybody is abstaining thank you thank you very much councillor Rippeth we were sort of hitting so yes next one please vice chair is councillor Richard Williams thank you councillor Richard Williams thank you chair sorry I'm having a bit of trouble in my videos is it okay if I keep my video off okay the stream keeps breaking up yeah I just had a quick question about this issue of curtailage and policy h15d I think it is the report sort of asserts that it's not in the curtailage because a red line is drawn on the site on the application form I was wondering if we could just hear a little bit more about that because that seems odd to me because it seems that anybody could therefore say something is not in the curtailage of their property by just submitting an application for say half their garden so what is the basis for saying that this site is not within the curtailage of the existing dwelling okay so it's in the ownership of the applicant site at the moment which is in the blue line we said it's not in the curtailage because it's not used as their consistent residential garden of the site so the curtailage would be the most private part of your garden that you use consistently that's kind of the main approach that we take to curtailage we would say quite rightly this bit's taken out it's not used as a main residential garden at all times it's just land either associated or in the ownership with the applicant site at the moment also because of the boundaries we could say that it's not a residential curtailage it's got quite clear defined boundaries which is both the stream and the trees on either side Jane we just lost you that little bit can you hear me now yes we just got to the streams bounded by the streams and the hedges no problem everybody went glitchy then that's fine so we would say that it's got it's going clear defined boundaries as well through the streams and the trees where I ended there okay thank you and thank you that's useful clarification thank you very much and then Councillor Fein that's the beautiful useful to have those videos a lot of time and trouble put into that saved us perhaps doing a site visit bearing in mind there's nothing on the site at the moment it does seem to me however that this one stands off all principally on 79 E of the NPPF I wonder if I could ask the planning officer to put up that particular paragraph again so we had a slide where you both policy H15 and 79 you had them side by side that's not a problem can you see that one yes maybe if you come can you make it a bit bigger it's a bit smaller so if I unshare and share again sorry that might make it easier is that better yes thank you that's helpful and if I'm right that the key question is whether this should be allowed in the countryside as an isolated home despite the plan of exceptional quality and our local plan policy H15 goes a little bit further than 79 E does did it's slightly different in that respect I'm just looking at the you showed us a picture presentation of what it might look like and I believe this building is to be coated in cotton steel and it's not a material I'm familiar with but it's highly recommended by the look of it from the design enabling panel and notice that the applicant refers to it being reminiscent of Dutch barns well I've got a lot of Dutch barns in my years I've never seen one quite like this do we have a debate do we have a question for the officer sorry yes is it appropriate is the design enabling panel referring to this as being like a Dutch barn is this cladding material something that will last so it would last it's a highly sustainable material so from my understanding it would come into the site pre-weathered it would be as it that mottled effect to it as it comes in already in regards to the design of it I believe Bonnie's on the call as well she may be able to answer a few of your specific design questions if that's easier thank you yes I'm happy with that reassurance as the impressions that you showed us how it will continue to look often with wooden buildings that's not the case but on the design the applicants do make something of a fact that it looks or suggests that it looks like a Dutch barn I'm wondering where that impression comes from I believe that's more to do with it's colouring more than anything more than the design of it so this design's taken as you've seen through the progression from quite a few different stances really it's set low into the side so I wouldn't say it's a Dutch barn due to it's height probably more to do with the colour of the material thank you okay thank you for the answer that surprised me rather more but there we are okay is that okay councillor Peter Fain so I was going to say there's no further speakers but we've got councillor Roberts who wants to come in again please chair yes councillor Roberts many thanks chairman chairman could I ask can we just go back to that policy statement that we've just had up again please because I would like to point out something on that particular and ask the officer as long as it's a question and not something that you want to tell people in debate but yes yes chairman can you see that one I can thank you very much Jane on the left hand side and the pink block one of the things it says that this has to comply with is significantly enhancing and the nature size of the site the design of the dwelling is landscape and location of sight are sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area and to wider views in your opinion would you say that this design has would actually comply with that is it like in any shape or form and the other dwellings in that area in simple it isn't in design and forms as the other dwellings in the area but that's kind of how we take a paragraph 79 house these are the grand designed houses if you want to take that approach on it the Kevin McLeod sort of houses and as I said in my office the statement they are they can be considered my my might and they are very subjective so we've taken the views of from the design enabling panel and our design colleagues as well as landscape officers to have their recommendations on whether there would be any impact on the landscape from this particular dwelling in this setting and it's been considered by all those three parties that there would be at the minimal harm subject to conditions of course on this site again to you chairman and Jane I think you and I have only spoken once about this application some weeks ago when I was just sort of seeing how the thoughts process was going on and at that time my recall is that you said that this was a fine balance and that the the position and the allocation and the style and the area and the unspoiltness were also a big factor in the decision making along with the views of basically the design panel. That correct? Yeah so every application is on a fine balance especially considering this one they have to meet such a high standard and a high bar that's why we asked our design enabling colleagues to comment on the application that's why it went twice as well with additional information okay thank you very much thank you very much yes and I'm keen for us to move on to the other speakers that we have do we have any other clarification questions we have one more chair from Cassava who just raised a lot of the points but I'm interested in this word exceptional and what it means in terms of exceptional quality you've taken the advice of the design panel how much how much importance do you think needs to be put to the fact that people generally like it and how much importance do you have do you need to put to the fact that how it would be considered in 30 years time it will be moved into a different era and otherwise how do you accept what the meaning of exceptional is it seems to me a very difficult thing to do I can I agree exceptional is exceptional at the time is considered by the design enabling panel that at this moment in time this building is exceptional of course it has to meet the test with its truly outstanding design innovative and landscape qualities whether that may change as you say in 30 years time something may come along and trump it but at this moment in time the design enabling panel and the other quantities on this say that it meets that standard Thank you Thank you Councillor Khan Good now thank you very much Jane and I understand that you're still just looking at the issues of distance is that okay Councillor Roberts if that continues to be looked for while we move on with the other public speakers I'm very happy with that thank you Chairman Thank you I would now like to invite on behalf of the applicant David Grech Grech are you with us Yes Good afternoon Apologies how is your name It's David Grech As if it's CK C-H's And David do you just want to introduce yourself before the three minutes start Okay yes and my name is David Grech I'm a qualified architect and some of you may remember me from my time as this council's design and conservation officer between 2003-2008 I subsequently worked for Historic England and while I'm now retired I still sit as Vice-Chair on Cambridge City Council's design and conservation panel and often joined the South temperature design enabling panel I've ever believed I'm quite well placed to talk about design issues I must confirm that also though that I wasn't on the design enabling panel that considered this particular proposal And do we have the applicant who's available as I understand to answer questions if there is needed is that right Hello Mr Pillson yes so you're here and could answer questions if need be I understand yes I can but you're the three minutes will be taken by David Grech they will Thank you very much You may start David Okay thank you The application before you is for a new house that is to be considered under paragraph 79 of the government's national planning policy framework which allows for new houses in the countryside where and I quote their design is of exceptional quality reflecting the highest standards in architecture A little while ago Tim Poulsen invited me to undertake an independent review of his proposal for Mill Hyde and to test whether I considered it to meet the criteria of paragraph 79 of the MPPF In order to ensure my conclusions remained fully independent I've not accepted any fee for this work At the outset I first needed to establish where the bar might be set on designs for this type of house and I did that by reviewing a range of 20 different paragraph 79 houses that have been approved across East Anglia including the only one currently approved in south temperature. That particular scheme at Mainz Farm was first allowed on appeal back in 2009 though the project has not yet been built More recently there was another appeal decision for a paragraph 79 house in the Cotswolds and again I took a careful examination of that particular proposal Through this work that enabled me to establish a benchmark for the design excellence as required by paragraph 79 When I reviewed Mill Hyde against that benchmark I concluded that it passed the bar and indeed was significantly superior to many of the other schemes that have been approved So today you're being asked for your judgement on the design merits of this proposal Assessing design excellence can be challenging You're not being asked whether you like the scheme or whether you'd want to live in this house I suggest you need to ask whether it displays a design integrity that is founded on a valid architectural concept that is then being developed through a rigorous process of examination and testing The architectural concept behind this proposal is founded in the work of the Italian Renaissance architect Andre Palladio and in particular his seminal design for the Villa Rotunda outside Vicenza But this is not a near classical proposal Instead Palladio's ideas are developed in a striking contemporary manner and adapted to specifically relate to this site I consider this to be a design of merit that would contribute positively to the quality of the built environment here in South Cambridgeshire Furthermore, I believe it will be from designs such as these that in 30 years time Historic England will make its selection of buildings from the early part of the 20th century that are to be added to the national list of buildings of architectural or historic interest I therefore commend it to you Thank you Thank you for keeping within the time as well Obviously very experienced at that Do we have any clarification questions for David Greck We have one from Councillor Roberts, Chair Thank you Thank you again Chairman Hello Mr Greck I do remember you at South Cams Hello Yes, you talk about it being in your opinion a fine new example in the built environment but this isn't in the built environment is it this is out in the open countryside can you tell me what considerations you took to that and obviously the policy is very pertinent and very careful because it's concerned about protecting the natural environment and as being said on numerous occasions during the early discussions here there was a talk about the bar is set very high How can we be talking about it being part of the built environment when it clearly isn't I think what I meant by the built environment is I actually said the quality of the built environment because it is a building and it's adding to those range of buildings that exist in South Cams it's not part of the urban environment but it is a building that is part of the ranges the suite of buildings if you like that exist across South Cams and those buildings can be in the rural area can be in the urban area but the point I was trying to make is that in 30 years time when one is looking to add buildings to the list of national buildings of architectural and historic interest it is these type of buildings that will be being looked at rather than the sort of more run of the mill if you like types of buildings that exist and in terms of the setting of the bar and things I looked at 20 different schemes that have been approved across a number of district councils plus ones approved at appeal and the appeal decision ones I think are particularly pertinent because obviously the planning inspectorate has looked at it in a very forensic way if you like and when you see what the planning inspectors are saying about design the issues and things that they're talking about I do believe this does meet that criteria it's a building that is relatively modest in its scale it's not tall it's single story so it's the Cortaine steelwork is a hue and colour that actually I believe complements the natural environment and I think it sits into its site which will be changed I mean the site is not going to be urbanised or anything but it will evolve and the way the building relates to the site the use of the water the rail and the enhancement of the existing trees and things like that the site will be changed but I think this building will sit in it and it will actually enhance the area and I'm going to say can I come back on a secondary then chairman about that I don't think actually my question was answered about the other how much interest you've taken in looking at the area around about but clearly and you're talking about the national policies but the policy age stroke 15 is very specific and it says that it should be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area and to wider views are you trying to say that this actually complies with that line? So I think Deborah if you don't mind I think I've heard that he obviously does and the applicant does and I think that's very much something for us to debate and I would love you to bring that to the debate because I'd enjoy debating that as well Thank you chairman I appreciate that Thank you Next question chairs from councillor Khan So I was coming back to this term exceptional again and the scene and the point that councillor Roberts was referring to about being sensitive to the surrounding setting when you looked at your other other appeal decisions I mean it seems to me there was a conflict inherent conflict in being exceptional building and being similar to the buildings around it now does that therefore be sensitive not mean similar what exactly does it mean when you look at your other appeal decisions did you find that the successful ones were more sensitive in the sense that they tended to mimic some of the buildings around them or were they exceptional in the sense they were different how does that fitting in come in would you say that your fitting in is to the fact that it's a medium mountain and it's in the natural I don't think anywhere it says fitting in so it says sensitive to Okay Right obviously I haven't got slides of the 20 houses to show you but generally speaking as the planning officer mentioned these houses by their exceptional quality is makes them different to the buildings that are in proximity to them because otherwise they wouldn't be exceptional but I think they need to be aware of their site they need to complement the site they need to fit in with their locality and I think this building does that I say the the Corten steel work if you're not familiar with it it's basically it's steel that has been weathered so it has a rust red colouring and I'm sure you're all familiar with sort of barns and things that exist across south that have corrugated iron that's gone rusty red and things so it's that hue that colouring that you do see in the landscape that compliments nature in terms of the greens and the hues of nature I think this material compliments that in a way that say white painted red or something Thank you David I think what you do is you actually answer the question around sensitive to and what that means in terms of exceptional and similar to. Thank you Do we have another question? Do from Councillor Fain Thank you You've answered some of my questions in relation to the quality of the Corten steel in the way that it will look in perhaps 30 years time you refer to it being a single story building I think there is a section that looks to me to be three stories that's as shown on one of the slides that may be for illustration purposes three stories and I referred earlier to it being resident with generations of agricultural buildings you've just dealt with that and the familiar farm yard Dutch barn Would that be your impression of this building? Right dealing with the scale as far as I'm concerned the building is a single story building and I don't think there's any component of it that is more than a single story but the the relationship to Dutch barn I think it's more it's not a a direct sort of comparison with the Dutch barn it is a total quality of a Dutch barn which has got a curve corrugated roof that is then rusted over time gives you that hue that colour because I think we're having a repetition so I think Councillor Fayne the case officer mentioned it was more the colour and the tone of it and we have just had an explanation of that particular colour and tone from David Gregg and he's about to repeat the the illustration that I'm referring to submitted by the applicants form slide 25 on design report volume four you can put there merely for illustration it would be helpful if that had been explained but it does seem to be three stories that section she said thank you but what we've heard is a single story I've got somebody with a hand raise I can't see that's not the way to raise a hand so I'm not I'm sorry chair my name is Bonnie Cork I'm there hello Bonnie yes sorry I didn't see that hello hello Bonnie yes you want to just introduce yourself Bonnie yeah my name is Bonnie Cork I'm a Principal Urban Designer I'm commented on this I just want to answer the question in relation to the three story element so in volume four of the DAS the three story element is actually a precedent study of another bird hide so it's not related to this application it's just an example to show the quality of the 410 flooding that's all so it was used as an illustration of a different example and the height has nothing to do with this particular application that's correct is that okay Councillor Fein just the explanation I needed thank you thank you very much good as I understand that's all of the questions thank you very much David okay thank you and I'll now invite please from the parish council Councillor Steve Mulholland Councillor Mulholland has had to leave and he's asked me this is Lauren the chairman of the council speaking he's asked me to read his statement in his place can I ask if you have the full authority of the parish council I do I speak on behalf of and at the request of founding parish council thank you very much and thank you for taking his place and I'm sorry that the proceedings have taken this long which meant that Councillor Steve Mulholland couldn't continue with us your three minutes begin now thank you parish council have significant concerns relating to this application that have not been given due weight in the officers report the specific intention of policy H-15 was to prevent existing sites being divided up so as to permit the construction of additional dwellings in the open countryside but this is exactly what this application is proposing the site is registered with the land registry as part of Milfarn and the application is proposing construct a second dwelling within the site the officers report tries to argue that creating separate access and boundary treatments allows us to be treated separate site but that is contrary to the policies adopted the officers report places significant weight on the conclusions of the design enabling panel where the potential for conflicts of interest is a serious concern the applicant is a member of the panel but this was not mentioned the reports of most panel meetings and it was only after it was highlighted by the parish council that a somewhat tokenistic statement was made in the final report members of the design panel are not elected and they're not answerable to voters for this reason the parish council had suggested that it would be appropriate to refer the application to enabling the design panel which would have put the planning authority above reports which was not done leads to unsatisfactory situation where officers are recommending approval whilst drawing heavily on the opinions of the panel of which the applicant is a member whilst the design enabling panel have commented on the quality of the design they actually drew no conclusions on whether it significantly enhances its immediate setting one of the requirements the assertions that this is the case for those made by the applicant and consequently no way to be placed on them the parish council does not see how the construction of a large new building uncharacteristic to local area and next to a site of special scientific interest enhances the setting and simply calling it a high does not mitigate the tests required within policy H15 and the NPPF paragraph 79e deliberately set a high bar and we would argue that this application does not meet the requirements for a countryside dwelling with exceptional quality contrary to policy H15 the proposed dwelling would not significantly enhance its immediate setting the design of the dwelling is not sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area and there is an existing dwelling on the site capable of being replaced in consequence we asked members of the committee to uphold the existing adopted policies and to refuse this application Thank you Thank you very much Lawrence for that. I would as chair I will put forward before members that in terms of design enabling panels such a situation as this has been considered and any member of the design enabling panel has signed up to due protocol which ensures that there isn't a conflict of interest and so that's something that we must accept within this but we do hear I think very strongly from you which is around the setting the understanding of the enhancement of the setting is one of the key issues that you are bringing forward in terms of your comments today and contributions Thank you. Can I just check one thing logistically, Councillor Peterflane momentarily lost connectivity but you did hear the parish council presentation. Is that right, Councillor Fane? That's correct I heard the presentation may have missed half a sentence in the middle I think that's is fine that in terms of you continue to be able to have the vote thank you for letting us know Do we have any other clarification questions? Councillor Bradenham chair Thank you Chairman I just wanted to ask Mr Ragh when you say that there is already a building on the site, are you referring to either Mill Farm or Mill House or are you referring to the triangular site in the red line? I don't have the diagram in front of me but within the cartilage there are surely existing buildings Well not as far as I'm aware that's why I asked the question so to be clear the triangular green site let's call it that the site with houses and with trees and scrub on it that we saw the video imagery from Miss Rodin's didn't appear to show any other building on the site so I can only assume it's about the wider cartilage which includes either Mill House or Mill Farm Councillor Bradenham can I perhaps we just ask the Marifares Officer because I understand it's very difficult for Mr Ragh to answer that question specifically. Jane thank you Mill Farm and Mill House shall I show you the slide would that be for the dwellings to the I think would it be these dwellings at the north sorry well that's what I'm asking is it that because those are within the same ownership is that why Mr Ragh is saying that there is already a dwelling on the site I think that's the point the parish council wanted to make yeah okay right I understand what you're saying now thank you for that clarification thank you Miss Rodin's. No that's fine thank you very much and don't think we have any other questions thank you very much for stepping up and stepping in not at all thank you and we'll now go to if you turn your camera off please thank you and local member Councillor Debra Roberts would you like to speak now at the end I'd like to speak now and follow the normal procedure and at the end as well please Chairman as Heather Williams did earlier on today yes it's an interesting one and I 30 would like to say that the other few dwellings in the area have actually been either replacement buildings or have got agricultural restrictions to them the mill farm is clearly the ownership in the ownership of the land that's in question today and therefore in my opinion it is clearly within the curtailage of a building that is on site already and the way forward would be if the applicant wished to have something different would be to demolish that present residence that he has and replace it because that's what happened before there was as I said small prefabricated house there it got demolished and the mill farm was built so that would be how you could actually satisfy the policies however there are things that we need really to think about here this is a completely at present unspoiled area it's very close to the RSPB reserve it's right next to the site of special scientific interest it's right adjacent next to important streams very close to important streams it's still completely unspoiled and round here at round farm here and unfortunately all over south canons we have very few of these areas left and we as a council have the double greening up policy now because we know that we are in danger more and more as the years go by of losing these sites and I think our intention absolutely absolutely spot on as being to try to actually protect them and that we've put these things within the policies we've got to stick all sorts of stuff over there greenhouses excuse me we have somebody who is should have their microphone turned off thank you very much sorry thank you councillor Robert thank you for limiting me for a moment but the policy of H-15 our own policy is quite right and it talks about design if it was to be allowed it would have to be sensitive and I actually don't think that particularly has to just be about the design I think it has to be sensitive is it right to put something like this in two very unspoiled wild undisturbed area and I think that I'm going to ask colleagues to really think about that because this site has no light pollution it has no noise pollution it has no building that particular area though as I've said it has another site already another dwelling on that site so it's not compliant but in that area I can tell you the deer the deer herds that's one of their rooting areas there are badgers all over that area there are brown trout in that stream there are all sorts of butterflies and invertebrates and all sorts of wildlife that that area is extremely important to and I think that we really have to say that this is not sensitive to any of that it's described within the pages of being a monolithic type building well if we are talking about local designs we're not living on Salisbury Plain with Stone Henge and so you know this idea of this monolithic style building is completely alien it's like a spaceship would have landed on here and we have to protect these places this gentleman could build this anywhere in South Cams within an envelope where it would be seen and might be admired he could do that anywhere there's lots of land that is presently being considered for the new local plan he could build it I'm going to ask we're looking at the application not the applicant so if we focus then on what I'm understanding from you it's about whether or not this is sensitive to and enhances the setting so we can hear very strongly that that is not in your regard I'm sorry chairman I absolutely you've just said but the thing is here that I'm looking at this particular one but this particular design could go anywhere but is it right to put it in such a natural unspoiled rural place which is really important and it seems to me that as a planning authority we have every day we have to make decisions about planning applications which don't run up against this problem but this problem is something that we must focus upon the problem of the loss of these sort of places which we are trying so hard to avoid and I very much hope that my colleagues will think upon these things and I see no way that this can be validated as being a good application a correct application within policies application but I'll speak again at the end if I may chairman thank you very much so we're moving into the debate members and we've had a lot and this is I think really a good test and it's right that it comes here into committee a good test for us in terms of a policy that in my time we haven't had to look at which the only reason that this could be given planning application is because of those two policies that say it's exceptional and outstanding on page 257 at the bottom and page 258 just as we had with the case officers slide we do have the explanation of policy 79e and policy H15 abcnd and basically whatever we decide has to show that we are convinced that this does meet all of those it has to meet all four abcnd of policy H15 not just one or two but all four of them and it must meet in full 79e and they're similar but they have sort of slightly different sort of emphasis I think between the two of those so ready now to open the debate Vice Chair We have councillor Wright first up. Thank you Thank you Chairman I agree with you this is a really interesting application and when I looked to start with looking at the plan from above I thought ah Roman Villa and seeing the pictures of it from the side you could not unfortunately it does not have the grace and the beauty that we associate with Roman Villains because of the lack of pitch roofs and everything else and I thought I was pretty doubtful about what I saw and you know its suitability in its real setting however I am worse than a tin pot expert when it comes to design and I really do value the opinions of David Grinch who not only is an outstanding artist in his own right but also was an outstanding officer for our council and greatly missed can you come back please David so his opinion sort of independently given that it is a building of quality I accept that and to other councillors that didn't know David he has a very good reputation and a very good eye for this sort of development however there is weight in what Councillor Roberts also says in this may be an outstanding building but is it in the right place where it sits is a at the moment is a sort of a green lung between the present housing and the SSIs and for that to be picked up as a planning objection we would need the support of our ecology officer Natural England and the RSPB unfortunately they from my reading of their comments they do not raise an objection that we can latch on to as a reason for refusal as a material reason for refusal so they leave us with a very subjective decision of our own policy without lacking that that definite reason for a refusal that we could latch on to with an objection from the ecologist they all raise concerns but they don't say that there are grounds there for a refusal acknowledging there is nature on the site it's a lovely wetland site and is a green lung so I'm going to be really interested to listen to what other members say and I look forward to that in the debate we have Councillor Kahn next chair thank you Councillor Kahn I've been tossing and turning around decision making on this it's a Councillor like Ray eloquently put the discussion and the issues involved in this and I also Councillor Roberts raised the issue about the area which is where it's being built however I found also I found that Mr Gregg's presentation very illuminating very helpful I was particularly taken by his reference to the Palladian influence and putting a building with Palladian influence in arable farmland which is perhaps the alternative if it's not going to be an interesting site would have nothing Palladian buildings are about setting and in a sense we can see that that makes sense for it being in the setting where it is the building I'm not sure whether I like it but it's interesting as I mentioned earlier on the test is would it be a building of a listed building in 30 years time which is when modern buildings are listed and is it exceptional enough to be considered worth protecting so we would it is really unusual it has a theme and an interest and the setting it would be really very nice so it comes back to the worry about the sensitivity of the site of whether it needs protecting it's been located on the driest part of that site which appears at least from what we can see to have the least biological interest so it's been well set the fear is that the rest of the site might be more intensified there might be pressure on it and that I think can be determined by condition and it may be that we need to look in terms of Article 106 to protect the remaining areas of the site and to ensure that they're properly enhanced and if that is covered there then that term doesn't come in terms of the Kurtleidge I just don't buy this idea you've got a river between the house and the site that's a pretty big division I see them as two separate Kurtleges and I don't follow this argument at all so I think people will be coming to look at this in 30 years time that's the question as an example that they want to see and that to me is a pretty good test of whether it's exceptional so I think I'm coming to the idea that I would support this and it's been difficult and I think it's very important that it can to committee Thank you Next speaker chairs yourself Thank you Yes I think as others I've really looked at how we weigh this but I also have set the bar high for myself in terms of having to meet everything 79E and ABC and D of Policy H15 I have heard about and I'm like councilor right I think that I wouldn't be able to say if something was outstanding in terms of design and I'm not going to apply any subjective opinions on that I would listen to our design enabling panel upon that however what I do when I read the report is I do not find because 79E says it doesn't just say respect, retain and enhance or perhaps as councilor Martin Carnister said now with a condition mitigate the enhancement of the setting it says this is where it would be outstanding it would significantly enhance its immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area which include significant we have very few of them in South Cambridge which are designated protected sites and I was very disappointed to see that in terms of all of the consultees and I'm bit different from councilor right in this it's not about having reasons for refusal if this is about significantly enhancing the setting and being sensitive to that wider location there would have been agreements already with Natural England with the SSI site and RSPB what they're saying is we very much like to be involved in any decision making in the future and to me that would have had to be to say how do we live together with nature if you're going to have some kind of building in this it can be amazingly outstanding exceptional in its design of the building the dwelling but the second test there about how it fits into the setting I'm not convinced that it's significantly enhances the report says it respects, retains and enhances it doesn't say doesn't convince me yet that it significantly enhances and in terms of the energy it does there is innovation in terms of the nano grid that is being put there but I haven't been convinced in terms of significantly and that they've actually ensured that the grid would enable this so the condition that is in there is if it turns out that the grid cannot support what is being proposed then there is almost a sort of a get out close and that's where I'd like to see something outstanding in Southcowns is where the solution is put before us of how we actually do overcome grid capacity constraints with our energy efficiency so those are kind of where I'm at at the moment Next speaker is Councillor Fein Councillor Peter Fein Chair it may be apparent to members of the committee from my previous questions but I am a little skeptical as to whether this meets the very high bar that has been described here However in that regard I was very reassured by the entirely objective assessment of David Grech in this matter and his assessment which is of course backed by the Urban Design Officer who says quite clearly design is considered to be of exceptional quality he may be referring to the views of the design enabling panel is truly outstanding and would reflect the highest standards in architecture in some respects I'm if you like disappointed in that in terms of sustainability I don't see as much as I would have liked to see on that but that is not the criteria on which this is being judged and when we look at those criteria I have to say that it does seem to me to be exceptional I'm not sure whether all of those criteria have yet been satisfied as you said chair in relation to our own criteria so the question might be whether it is ready for approval yet before we have the assessment of its ability to enhance the area but I think I'm moving towards a position where I would say that yes I am persuaded that despite my personal views on the design it does meet the criteria and that it would be good to have paragraph 79 has actually constructed within South Cambridgeshire rather than merely one approved on appeal and that this maybe is the one that as Councillor Cahn said in 30 years time we will certainly still be looking at this one and probably admiring it Thank you Councillor Heather Williams Thank you I do find this application particularly difficult for many of the reasons that others have mentioned but because when we're talking about words like exceptional it's very subjective it's not clear there's a lot of great negotiating it and what one person sees is beautiful is not what another does and what one person sees exceptional is not but if I look more towards page 272 with the policies and paragraph 79 again it is a matter of personal judgment I think this one but I don't see how putting this building in place enhances its setting and the character of the local area so I'm very much minded to refuse if I will listen to others but I can't say personally that the design I do think is exceptional I think it's good I think it's better than some but to go to exceptional you have to really go far I'm not sure if it's quite gone far enough for myself on those grounds and actually I think I think Councillor Ragh made a very good point in that the design enabling panel is very helpful it definitely helps us as members but they aren't accountable and we are so when it comes down to it I think we have to be content ourselves and I'm not content that it's it's it's exceptional enough and I definitely don't think it enhances the setting and therefore doesn't comply. Thank you Chairman Thank you and Councillor Bradlam Chair Good and I think then probably after that we would move to a vote I think Thank you Chairman Sorry Anna You speak obviously at the end Thank you, sorry Anna It's alright thank you Yes how interesting to see such an innovative design come through our planning committee it's quite refreshing to see a modern design and in terms of our wish for buildings to be sustainable with the exception perhaps of the Wi-Fi that Councillor Haylings mentioned and the internet access and the power grid I'm not sure about that but in terms of the building itself I have no doubt that this building is sustainable in that sense but as Councillor Haylings has said it needs to significantly enhance its immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area What I find about this application is it's undoubtedly a striking building and an innovative building but sensitive to the defining area I see it turning its back and its sides on that field which is a rural area close to a SSI and the Wildlife Reserve and I find the reference to monolithic it's not so much that for me it's just that I find it feels as if it's turning its back on the rest of that field of that plot because there are so few, so little windows and fenestration and I just feel as I say it's striking but I don't so there's other things the colour I actually quite like because on an autumn day I bet all that field is going to be autumn colours and it will look brilliant with it but I do find that the absence of visible access I find slightly insensitive if I may say so I still haven't decided which way I'm going to go on this one but I find it an interesting application and an interesting design. So I hope people can start to consider where they because we do have other agenda right so we're going to need to move to the vote but prior to that as the local member Councillor Roberts if you'd like to have any concluding comments Thank you very much Chairman and I'm going to I think probably focus on your comments that you've made because I think that's the absolute star point of all this the bar is a very high one and I think as some of the people have said it's an interesting design beauties in the eye of the beholder and it's subjective as Councillor Williams said one person will think it's wonderful another will think it's terrible but we cannot ignore the fact that the two policies that we are working upon the national policy and the local plan policy are very adamant about that we are trying to protect these unspoiled special places and it seems to me to be quite apparent that this is not doing so it says very clearly as you said Chairman that all four parts of policy age 15 have to be complied with not you know maybe should be complied with could be with complied with it absolutely states they must be complied with and I believe that they do not do so and therefore they are actually undermining if it was to be given approval we are undermining our policies now we have to look at every application on its merits and we can't go out of the thing however this will set up a precedent because everybody now is going to come and think that you can buy a field or own a field and all you have to say is and get some people I think you have done very well up to there and I think what we are saying is there is a very high bar set by our policies and everybody can come and just do it but there is a very high bar and you have just explained why you don't think that bar is met but I think members should also know that even at this moment in time there is another application for the very next field to this which has been argued on exactly the same things and we are in great danger of losing precious and rare resources of open countryside here in South Cambridge we are not the most beautiful county in the world we must never kid ourselves but what we do have is lots of lots of housing in villages and very few areas like this to actually give those houses somewhere that they can see and enjoy in their entirety in their rural nature with all the wildlife please, please members don't put this particular application on thank you Chairman what I need to do is Chris in terms of where people are minded I'm hearing that this is very very interesting so people are minded either to approve or to reject if they were to go against the officer recommendation which is to approve and to reject do you have a comment? I have a reason I've drafted chair I wonder if it might be worth hearing briefly from Bonnie Quok the urban design officer just to address some of the points that have been raised before we just go to that reason that I've drafted if you're happy thank you chair, thank you Chris I would like to just answer some of the questions I heard for example from councillor Brebnam about the building not having a lot of windows or turning this back if I may yes, so basically I think when we look at this application unlike other applications that we've looked at for para 79 for sub terms this house is designed by the architect who has been living in the locality for some time he understands the site really well and this house is something that he really wants to build for his family and the reason for the proportion of the windows and how this is very much to reflect his personality because I believe the applicants when we had the design workshops he talked about he's a very quiet person and a very private person so he felt it's quite important to solve her problem more in clothes enclosed towards two sides of the queue can you take your camera off please so we're not having any requests but thank you and actually if you look at that square plan form two sides it's got four facades basically two facades are quite enclosed two facades are quite open and that's the southeast and the southwest and that sort of reflects the concept of the bird hide which is very much what the RSPB is about it's about the birds and it's about relating to them so that sort of openness focusing on those two facades is his way of relating to that and his willingness to open up his personality so it's very much a house that he wants to design for his family reflecting his own needs and also a response to the surrounding context so that's what I want to say about how the way the windows are sighted and why there are some enclosed areas on two facades and more open areas on the other two facades thank you chair for Bonnie giving that explanation I found it very helpful thank you thank you Chris I've got a single reason drafted should members wish to vote to refuse and that is as follows whilst considered to be of high quality design the proposal is considered to fail to significantly enhance or be sensitive to the defining unspoiled rural characteristics of the local area contrary to the requirements of the South Cambridge District Local Plan Policy H-15C and Paribas 79E of the National Planning Policy Framework I think that matches what the comments that I've heard from others today is there anybody who has an agreement with that being the principal reason if they were minded to refuse thank you so sorry chairman I'm sorry I don't think it's compliant with Policy H-15 where it says that it would significantly enhance its immediate setting what he's just said and the nature and the size of the site it's landscaping and location and site are sensitive it's not sensitive chairman I don't believe Chair would you like me to read it out again yes so the wording I have is whilst considered to be of high quality design the proposal is considered to fail to significantly enhance or be sensitive to the defining unspoiled rural characteristics of the local area contrary to the requirements of the South Cambridge District Local Plan Policy H-15C and Paribas 79E of the National Planning Policy Framework that's fine thank you chairman thank you so members as on page 285 the officer recommendation is that the committee approve the application subject to the conditions that are contained there I will do a roll call so this is to approve so please say whether you are for against or you'll abstain Councillor Henry Batchelor against Councillor Anna Bradenam sorry I'm actually for it sorry okay that's fine I'm fine Councillor Dr Martin Kahn for Councillor Peter Fein for Councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins for Councillor Debra Roberts against Councillor Heather Williams Councillor Richard Williams it's not present chairman gosh I didn't realise when he he'd left okay Liam do we know when Councillor Richard Williams left or was dropped out of the meeting chairman if I may he hasn't dropped out he did say at the start he had a medical appointment and then he'd be back at four okay agreed at four and myself against that's six four and four against therefore this is approved members it's just two minutes to four and we were going to have a ten minute break at three thirty so I suggest that we have a ten minute break now and come back at four ten thank you agreed thank you if you turn your camera and turn off please hello Liam hi there we're still live is that right yeah that's correct so thank you everybody it's four ten this is South Cambridge District Council planning committee meeting and we're continuing with today's committee meeting we just had a short break for ten minutes I'll do a quick roll call just to make sure that we've got all of the planning committee members here and present Councillor Henley Bratula present Councillor Bradnam present Councillor Martin Kahn present present present present good Councillor Deborah Roberts yeah present and annoyed excuse just please Councillor Deborah Roberts Councillor Heather Williams present chairman Councillor Dr Richard Williams so not not present present thank you we're moving to agenda item 10 on our agenda pack if Councillor Richard Dr Richard Williams joins us he'll be able to join in the discussion but not in the voting on agenda item 10 ah Stephen Reed it's item nine chair it's item nine oh my goodness agenda item nine excuse me everybody I've skipped one thank you agenda item nine which is Falmere which is pages 297 in our agenda pack and this is the 28 Pipers Close Falmere and the proposal is for new access from London Road an extension to the existing parking area to create on-site parking and turning the applicant is Mr Sean Gentle the reason it's with us is because this is owned by the Councillor Richard District Council we wouldn't have this kind of application in front of us but because it's owned by the council those are our rules we haven't had a site visit it's not a departure in terms of application decision due by the 15th of April 21 and the presenting officer is Marie Roseman hello Marie I see you and your recommendation is approval and you're going to give us any updates but also a quick summary of the application itself Marie thank you I'm just going to share my screen let me know when you can see I can see that perfectly thank you no problem so this is an application for a new access from London Road an extension to the existing parking area to create on-site parking and turning for 20 a Pipers Close Falmere and as you said this application has been brought to Planning Committee as the site is owned by South Cambridge District Council it's in the Falmere Development Framework so the aerial photo on the left shows the site on a slight bend in London Road with filled opposite and the existing plan here on the left shows that currently 20a and 20b share vehicle access for the land owned by 20b so the property on the below 20a the application site seeks to create a new access and parking arrangement shown on the proposed plan riot in grey this would create a parking area 12m in maximum depth and 8.5m in maximum width a chain link fence would then separate the properties so the photo on the far right is the existing access and the first two photos show the location of the proposed access site and the key considerations are character and appearance area, highway safety and neighbour community so thank you chair thank you very much for that any questions for clarification for Marie? No one's indicated chair I can see a hand raised but if anybody needs to speak could they please put that in the chat box I can't see sorry Deborah Roberts is indicated in the chat thank you thank you chairman good afternoon Marie can you I'm finding this quite a difficult one because I I know the circumstances behind it in a way but can you just confirm to me there is actually which I know there is actually parking allocated spots there already isn't there and the next door neighbour who's a private owner that was bought a parking spot of his own which was what was used to be the front garden so actually there is more than adequate parking in that area already Yes there is I believe that the reason for the application is because 20B and 20A this and some they prohibit them from parking outside their house and that's why they're asking for a new access but obviously we don't get into neighbour disputes No we don't we don't get into the neighbour disputes just what's in front of us and whether or not somebody is able to apply for a change to to have a new access thank you can I talk about the application thank you I'll talk about it in a minute thank you Vice Chair we have any more clarification questions that's one more Chair from Councillor Fane Chair that's Preventure I am proposing to say something on debate thank you and Councillor Bradman sorry thank you very much yes I just was trying to work out what was going on is it that there is already access on the northern property isn't there there is a southern property the existing property is on the southern property and it's a northern property that are asking for a new access okay right so it obviously looks different to what it does on Google maps then so okay I stand corrected by your presentation thank you thank you very much and just reminding everybody this capital application wouldn't normally come before us it's a general issue of public interest or a policy issue it's coming before us because it is the applicant is a member of South Cams District Council that's just due diligence on our part for transparency so I will now thank you very much Marie and I'm going to move to the public speaking section which we don't have any public speakers and this is the local member do you is there a need for you to speak at this moment on it or you speak in the debate I speak in the debate chairman oh no sorry I will speak as local member now if you would like yes I I have a lot of sympathy for the department in this application I can see absolutely no real reason for it but I know that the person that we are trying to placate will and has caused a lot of difficulties I know you've got this local knowledge but as members we have to just look at the application in front of us which is for access so we normally don't go into the reasons why people are asking us for an access I'm a little concerned about the fact that we're getting a new access because it is actually right on that corner itself and we get a lot of cars whipping around that corner and it's quite a risky area so I think there are reasons that I don't think it should be going on in planning terms but I'm being obviously led by the information that I've got which isn't anything to do with planning so we've got no objections from the parish council and not in principle from Highways but they have asked for making to your point they have asked for some specific conditions to sort of deal with the safety issue that you're mentioning there I've got objections to it but not as a planning application then you keep those to yourself thank you very much so we will go to the main debate and I think Councillor Peter Fein you said you would like to speak in the debate thank you chair this is not a departure application it's had no representations from members of the public the film the parish council has no objections the concerns it possible concerns in relation to highways adult with by the local highways authorities in terms of a condition the access is further from the bend than the existing access I would recommend we move straight to a vote yes I would agree with you Councillor Debra Roberts you said you have no objections but not on planning terms if I said that we would move to this by affirmation in terms of the officer's recommendation would you have a different opinion I share your opinion chairman thank you okay so officer recommendation is approval members and can we do that by affirmation can I second pick Councillor Fein's I agree sorry and thank you very much you can second that I jumped it into there thank you very much and is anybody who can I also say no no Councillor no well because just if you take your camera off please thank you sorry in my mistake so I should have allowed you to second the motion the motion was proposed by Councillor Peter Fein it was seconded by Councillor Anna Bradnam we took it by affirmation but I just want to check there was nobody against and nobody abstaining thank you so that agenda item is finished thank you very much and that was agenda item 9 which I put in the chat which is finished so that is now agenda item 9 that's finished members we move on to agenda item 10 in your report pack that's on page 305 just remind you I need to step down at this point thank you very much this my vice chair Henry Councillor Henry Bachelor as he mentioned at the very beginning has declared an interest he will now leave the meeting and I will ask that Councillor Peter Fein acts as my chair vice chair and can I take that by affirmation that Councillor Peter Fein acts as my vice chair for this agenda item thank you very much everybody anybody against going to be astained and thank you very much so Councillor Henry Bachelor has left the building left the virtual building this is agenda item 10 on page 305 application number 20 stroke 02098 stroke S106A it's for the land between church lane and ermine street south and Papworth Everett the proposal is for the modification of planning obligations which concern the building of a community building contained in a section 106 agreement dated 21st October 2014 pursuant to outline planning permission S stroke 0623 stroke 13 FL the applicant being flagship housing development limited and the key material considerations are the principle of development and the section 106 agreement and infrastructure contributions in fact this is coming to committee for a change in those conditions agreed in the section 106 agreement so no site visit for this it's not a departure an extension of time has been agreed until the 20th of April and it's brought to the committee because Papworth Everett parish council requested that Aaron co is our principal planning officer Aaron hello afternoon chair hello again nice to see you thank you for keeping in with us here and would you like to give us any updates or summary of the situation that we have here yeah I'll just share my screen with members first can I confirm everyone can see that yes we can brilliant case yeah firstly I'd like to make members aware of the additional representations have been received since the report was circulated on this item Papworth parish council provided additional comments submitted yesterday which echo similar concerns and objectives objections have been previously raised alia limited to the first beneficiary of the community building have also made further comments raising concerns related to the timings and the modifications proposed and an additional representation from the local resident has been made supporting the data variation each of these representations all now available on the application file via public access so moving on to the application so the application site is the land between church lane and ermine street south which is in the village framework of Papworth Everett and partly within the conservation area this slide here shows the blue and pink land has approved under application reference s 0 623 slash 13 slash FL so this original planning consent was granted in 2014 which was considered as a hybrid planning application the scheme secured outline planning permission for the erection of up to 58 dwellings within the land shown as blue on this image here and then full planning permission for the works of the community building as well as an erection of eight residential dwellings on the pink land here so this slide shows an error review of the site as you can see here so moving on to the details of the application we are considering here today the data variation proposes to amend various aspects of the original section 106 agreement firstly the original section 106 involved the community building being completed and offered to the first beneficiary prior to the occupation of the first dwelling since flagship acquired the site and commenced the tender process for the development in 2016 there have been other matters which have resulted in delays in the recovery of the community building these matters have included a series of issues being uncovered which has resulted in further investigations such as assessment of temporary works structural fabric surveys steel upgrade geotechnical and concrete core testing flagship then decides to carry out pre-application discussions with the district council regarding a new community building rather than refurbishing existing building on site however the pre-application responses by the council did not give flagship enough certainty that revised application for a new building would be supported and therefore flagship made the decision to pursue the delivery of the extamper mission for the community building. Due to the delay suffers whilst considering the options of providing a new building were explored the construction of the dwellings has now surpass