Ieisio arall, mwyaf, cymdeithasau, ac roedd yn gweithio y webcast, a byddwn yn edrych i sicrhau y ddechrau. Mae'n ddefnyddio gweithio'r cyllid a rwy'n ddau'r cymdeithasau. Mae'n cymdeithas yw'r cymdeithas Pippa Halings, ac rwy'n dechrau i chi'n gweithio'n gweithio'i ddechrau dros y Cymru, i gyfnoddiadau Cymru, a'r gweithio'n gweithio. I can confirm that the meetings for it, because we've got at least three of the planning committee members here present. Following the end of temporary legislation, allowing public meetings to be held entirely by video conference, all voting members must now be in the same room. However, while there are two officers present on the top table, other officers and councillors will be joining us through the online provision. I want to make it clear to members of the public that a committee member proposing, seconding emotion or voting must be in the room. So all issues around decision making, proposing, seconding or voting on emotion, everybody must be in the room. Public speakers and others may be present in the chamber addressing the meeting by video conference or watching the webcast. So please be patient as we learn to use the new technology and this morning we've lost the function where the camera zooms in on whoever is speaking. So I'm just going to remind all committee members and officers that we speak slowly and clearly so that anybody watching can hear us. When we vote on any item and there is not clear affirmation, members will not vote electronically in the moment unless we get that function back. What we will do is we'll go back to the old system of raising hands. So you will raise your hands for, against or abstain and Vice-Chair Councillor Henry Batchelor will be Chris Carter, his head of strategic planning, who will give me the final result and we will then record that result. And in terms of speaking and asking to speak, again we'll go back to raised hands in the rooms members and that's where my Vice-Chair Councillor Henry Batchelor will let me know. And he will put you on the list and please do trust him that you're in order. Some final housekeeping rules, we still need to follow the government's advice on indoor gatherings and social distancing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. So please always wear a face covering when in this building and in the chamber except as now one was sitting at the tables and that will minimise risk to each of us and to others. Make use of the hand sanitizer on the table in front of you and at the sanitising stations on the way in and please observe the one way system in place into and out of the chamber. So we're entering the chamber through the door there and then we're exiting the chamber through the door on that side of the room. One exception to this and that is in the event of fire alarm sounding and in that case you just go out via the nearest exit and use the stairs please and the fire doors and as always don't lose the lift during an evacuation. This meeting's been webcast live and a recording will be available after the meeting. By being present and contributing to the meeting participants agree to their images and voices being broadcast and used for training purposes. Attendees may also make their own audio and video recording so long as they don't interfere with the meeting. Please turn off mobile phones and other alarms set to silent. The toilets are available next for lift opposite the chamber and please when you re-enter the chamber use the hand sanitizer dispensers. If at any time during the meeting anyone feels ill or unwell in the chamber please let a counsellor or another officer know and we'll do all we can to help you. Now this isn't a well ventilated room and because of the absence of windows both doors will always remain open. This will assure some airflow and it will remove the need to touch door handles. I tend to take a 15 minute break at about 11.30 to allow you to get some fresh air and I also intend to break for 30 minutes at about 1.15 and we'll double check with all of us where we are on the agenda at that time because I do think hopefully with today's agenda that we should be able to finish before lunch. So in addition I know I've just checked now everybody has checked in through their NHS Covid app those that do have it on their phone and please ensure obviously we do get back to functionality but any papers on your desk or on your phone don't show any personal information because that could be picked up by the camera. Ditto any conversations as you are exiting the chamber room. Thank you everybody and welcome. As I said I am counsellor Pippa Haleings, Member for Histon and Bington and Orchard Park and I am chairing this meeting and present I have with me my vice-chair counsellor Henry Batchelor. counsellor Henry Batchelor, one of the members for Linton and vice-chair of this committee. And also in the room I have counsellor Dr Martin Kahn. counsellor Martin Kahn, Member for Histon and Bington. Thank you and counsellor Peter Fane. Peter Fane Shelford Ward. Thank you counsellor Jeff Harvey. Jeff Harvey Member for Orchard Park. Thank you counsellor Dr Tumi Hawkins. Good morning Tumi Hawkins Member for Codicot Ward. Thank you and counsellor Judith Rippeth. Good morning and Judith Rippeth Member for Milton and Waterpeach Ward. Thank you counsellor Deborah Roberts. Good morning Chairman and good morning everybody. Deborah Roberts District counsellor for the Foxton Ward. Thank you counsellor Heather Williams. Good morning Heather Williams and I represent the Mordens Ward. Thank you counsellor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you very much chairing Richard Williams under them before the Whittlesford Ward. And counsellor Brian Milans. Good morning Brian Milans from the Slawston Ward. Thank you as I understand that you're standing in a substitute for counsellor Eileen Wilson. Thank you. Good and on that point I think to the head table we have with us Chris Carter who is director of strategic development. I think you may have overstayed my position slightly there chair but Chris Carter delivery manager for strategic design. Good morning everyone. You're my boss I think. Pretty senior for me. And we also have our senior planning OEM. Morning chair, morning members. Thank you very much and we also have Ian Senior from Democratic Services who's attending virtually. Good morning. Morning and very important person who takes the minutes as well. And Ian do we have any apologies? Just one apology that you just found out about counsellor Milans instead of counsellor Wilson. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. And we now go to a gender item three which declarations of interest. Members any declarations of interest? Councillor Williams. Thank you chairman. Just on the enforcement report one of the applications that's in there is one well on the local member. Thank you. One of the applications is one where I'm a local member and my wife is on the parish council planning committee but I'm a question that's matter of fresh. Thank you doctor. As myself chair I've got two to declare one on item six Linton. I've given one of the neighbours of the site advice and procedure but it hasn't precluded me from taking part today and I'll be coming to the matter of fresh. And item nine I'm a member of Cambridge County Council and now the applicant but again that doesn't preclude me from taking part. And next we have counsellor Richard Williams. counsellor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you chair. It's item five. I'm not actually a member for where this is but it's about a hundred yards outside of my ward and I'm a member of Woodlands and Parish Council which has discussed this previously but I've come to the matter of fresh. Thank you. Councillor Roberts chair. Thank you chairman. Item five Duxford. I was the committee when we looked at it before but I come to them after a fresh. I should write them that's most of us. I think so. I think we will note that all those of the planning committee who are members present at that meeting are coming to this meeting of fresh. Thank you very much counsellor Roberts. Thank you very much. We go to now minutes of the previous meeting. Do we have any comments on the minutes of the previous meeting members? Oh thank you very much. I was looking for them. Thank you very much counsellor. Chair. Thank you very much. So those will be presented up and we do obviously accept that that's quite natural given that it was only two weeks ago that we had the last meeting so we fully understand that those aren't with us yet at the moment. Thank you Ian. So that takes us to the substantive items on the agenda members. So we are on agenda item five which is Duxford, page one of our agenda pack. This is application number S-Strope 2896-19-FL in the parish of Duxford. The proposal is for the construction of a 168 bedroom hotel with ancillary facilities, associated access, gates, car parking including reconfigured conference centre car parking, cycle parking and landscaping. And this is at the Imperial War Road Museum in Royston Road, Duxford. The applicant is property hotels Duxford limited and the recommendation is for delegated approval subject to section 106. Members of the key material considerations before us today even though this has been before us is again the principle of development, character and appearance of the area, heritage assets, trees and landscaping, biodiversity, highway safety, flood risk, neighbour amenity and safety. It's not a departure from policy. The presenting officer is Karen Pell Coggin, the senior planning officer and it's being brought to the committee on the basis of the officer's assessment of the sensitivity and significance of the proposals and of the level of local interest that there is in this application. And Karen, as the presenting officer, are you with us? Yes, I am. Hello. Good morning. Hello. Nice. Thank you. Karen, yes. Do you want to give us any updates and also summary of the process? I'm not sure who you are. Just hold on. Everybody who's there waiting in teams seems like our streaming has crashed. Are we back? Hello everybody. Hello everybody. Just one moment Karen. Thank you everybody who's watching this live streaming. We're having a few glitches this morning. We broke off for a couple of seconds. We're now back. We're now back with the presenting officer, Karen Pell Coggins, who is going to give us any updates and a summary of the application. Thank you Karen. Thank you chair. So before we start, I do have a verbal update. So just bring your attention to the planning, listening buildings and conservation areas act 1990 legislation in relation to heritage. Section 66 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects the setting of a listed building or its setting, local planning authorities shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Section 72 states that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of that area. Three additional letters have been received from various parties which have been sent direct members, one on behalf of the red line and holiday in express hotels in Wittlesford, one from Imperial War Museum and Property, and one from a third party. In relation to those representations, officers would just like to bring the members' attention to the decision should be made in accordance with the development plan unless any material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a material consideration and there are two specific policies in the NPPF which relate to this proposal with regards to economic development and heritage. So paragraph 80 states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. Paragraph 196 in relation to heritage states that where a development proposal will lead to lessened substantial income, so the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. With regards to other matters, they have been covered in the main report, but I do have some comments with regards to safety security and the cladding. The Imperial War Museum has advised that it has been audited by the Civil Aviation Authority in May this year and the hotel site was considered to be outside the licensed airfield area and not material to the safety of the airfield. The CAA is a regulatory body which will only come in on an airfield building that will create a hazard. The hotel would be outside the airfield security fence and be separated by that fence along with mitigation measures for potential vehicles and CCTV cameras. IWN has qualified security experts in this field and they regularly undertake security reviews on the airfield. They also work with Cambridge County Terrorism and the General Police. With regards to cladding, it will be in accordance with building regulations for the fire and safety risk. Thank you. Thank you very much Karen. If we have any further questions for you, we will come back to those as part of the debate as the debate develops. Unless you've got anything else you want to say to us. Yes, sorry. I'll go on to my presentation now. Thank you. Thank you. Have you just disappeared? I thought, well, that's it. Good. Thank you. Can you see the screen? Yes. Excellent. Bear with me a second. So, this is a proposal for an 168 bedroom hotel at the Dutch Imperial War Museum site in Duxford. It's a site that's outside of any development framework and in the countryside. Duxford IDUM is a special policy area under policy E7 of the local plan. The site is in the conservation area. Bear with me. Site is in the conservation area, which is the pink line on this plan. And also has a number of listed buildings, which is the pink shaded areas. So these three listed buildings here are grade two star listed World War One hangars. The American Air Museum has recently been grade two star listed. And this is the control tower, which is a grade two listed building. And these other buildings here are grade two listed. The proposed site is over here. This is the airspace building, which is the large hangar, which you can see when you go around the roundabout on CM 11. And down here you have partner hangars. The runway is down here. And this is the general airfield area. The building would be sighted on the eastern part of the site to the south of the airfield. The building would be sighted on the eastern part of the site to the south of the air505 and to the west of the M11. It will be positioned between the existing airspace building and the partner hangars. There would be six stories in height, slightly lower heights than the airspace building to the north. The accommodation would provide 168 bedrooms, a reception area, lounge area, restaurant and external bearing area on the top floor. With a gym at ground floor level. The hotel has been designed to take account of its airfield context. Materials would comprise metal cladding, aluminium panels and glazing in pale colours. It would provide accommodation to spot the existing tourist facility, confidence and events at the site, as well as other businesses in the area and tourist certificates. I'll just go through the plans now if it works. This is the key constraints. Aerial photograph of the site. This is the airspace hangar. The site for the hotel will be here. These are the grade 2 stylistic buildings. The existing aerial photograph of the site. The existing site plan with the hotel site over here. The existing photograph of the site. The building on the right hand side is the airspace building. The green buildings behind are the partner hangars. The area of grass is where the hotel will be going. There is an existing small single story building on the site for services. The proposed site plan. The hotel will be an L shaped building. The access to the site will come around the back of the airspace building. You will enter in here with a car park to the left hand side. The main entrance here is over here. There is parking along this side for the hotel and the conference centre. Overflow parking along here. The proposed site plan. There will be a separate entrance into the shared entrance. There will be a separate entrance into the hotel which will be along here. That will have a key entrance feature. The landscape strategy. New landscaping is proposed within the car parking area around the hotel. Members previously requested additional landscaping. That is suggested as a condition to any consent granted. That was the incorporation of a hedge along the boundary of the slip road with the M11. This is just the proposed ground floor plan. The entrance where we come in will be an entrance lobby. Then lifts up to the main area. There are some rooms on this floor along with plants. There is a gym as well. Typical floor plan of the rooms. The first, second, third and fourth floor. Then an example of the top floor. Coming up to the list you will have the main reception area. A lounge and restaurant area here. Then there will be an external deck here where there will be seating. Then you can look over the airfield. The proposed elevations of the building. The elevations facing the airfield. The elevations facing the M11 slip road will be this elevation here. Then you have obviously got these side elevations as well. Just to go further into some perspectives. With the views from the airfield. This is the airspace building. The existing building and the partner hangars and the hotel. The elevations from the hotel entrance. This is when you come. You will come in around the back of the airspace building. Into the carpark. The entrance will be in this corner here. The eastern west elevations. Apologies, I think I've missed one. Sorry, that was the M11 as well. The elevation from the north. The side elevations which is facing towards the existing airspace building and partner hangars. The materials for the proposal will be pale pladding. Dark grey pladding for the windows. There was concern previously regarding the use of white pladding. Materials would be a condition of any consent. We've asked for it to be not quite so stark in terms of colours. Rather pale grey instead of white. Just to give an example of the views across the airfield. You have on the left-hand side, this is the American Air Museum. Which is now grade 2 star listed. This is the existing view and the picture underneath is the proposed view. You can just see that red line is where the proposed hotel will be. This is further. This is in front of the airspace building. This is airspace. This is airspace. The hotel will be here. This is the partner hangars. This is from the roundabouts on the junction of the M11 with the A505. Come round the roundabout this way. Technically you wouldn't actually be looking this way because the roundabout comes that way. That's what you'll be able to see there. This is from the A505. From the source and direction. Coming up to the junction with the roundabout with Duxford. So you can see you would see the hotel over the top of the trees there. This is from the slip road on the M11. Where the airspace building is here. So you would see the hotel in that view there. Again, this is from Grainge Road, which is a bridge over the M11. It's quite difficult to see, but you would see a bit of the hotel in that view. But it will be at long distances. This is the view from the Hunts Road, which leads to Duxford. Again, you would be able to see the hotel in the view of airspace. The longer distances. So just going on to keeping considerations. I think Councillor Haynes did mention them. The principle of the development. It's a special policy area in the countryside. The character and appearance of the area. Heritage assets. Trees, landscaping and biodiversity. Transport impact and highway safety. Flood risk, neighbour amenity and safety and security. Thank you. Thank you very much, Karen. And as I said, if there are more detailed explanations that we need from you, we'll bring those into the debate. But I do see that Councillor Roberts would like to have something just now. Sure. Yes, I would like to while we've got the ability of having the pictures up. Sorry. At page seven, it talks about the historic buildings office and making comments. That officer has the same interest and concerns, I think, as I have. The proposed location. What other areas on the site have actually been assessed? So, yeah, a large area of the site has been assessed. So in terms of Duxford, they have, they basically, they don't want to put it in the historic centre of the site because that needs to be retained for the tourist facility. That is one of the main, obviously, assets to the site. So they have looked at the more modern part of the site to consider the development. This is the more commercial area of the site. So you have the existing airspace building, which is an exhibition space and conference centre and the visitor centre. The other end of the site permission has been granted for a new large object store for the Imperial War Museum to obviously store their large objects. So that was that part of the site out. And I think further along that side, there's more of an open countryside character than there is on this specific part of the site. Again, they have looked at the northern part of the site as a sort of proposal in 2003 for conversion of existing buildings. But, yeah, I think there was viability issues there in terms of a potential harm to the actualist of buildings themselves. So... Can I just quickly go on to... Point of order, please. It's through the chair, Councillor Robert. And is that a supplementary question on this one? It is, because I'm thinking about the area. I suppose it would be the southern end of the site. Can I raise my points of order, please? I asked very similar questions when this was first raised and I was pointing out that we had to consider the matters before us rather than speculation over other areas that have previously been considered or not. Thank you, order chairman. Actually, we are considering if we ask that question because it's in the report. What we are at this moment and under my chairmanship or what we're asking is, I think the question that can be asked is, have there been, you know, whether we're talking about others, but what we have in front of us, have other areas been considered? Yes. Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah. Do we have any other questions on this one? Thank you very much. I do know that I think when people say in point of order, it's just because they're a bit frustrated with something rather than using it as a point of order. Thank you very much. Good. Whoops, sorry. Can I have that back? Thank you, Karen, very much for that presentation. What I would like, excuse me, thank you. What I would like to move on to is the section where we do have public speakers. Members, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that in our protocol for public speakers, what it says is that we can choose either to have a written representation or a verbal presentation in the actual meeting. We've got very experienced, some of the public speakers are very experienced, with our council and with other councils, and what they've done is both presented something in writing through email to all of the members and they are also here to speak to us. This has actually happened before with people who aren't so experienced as well, who've sent an email sort of to all planning committee members to sort of lobby them or to want to get their point across before they present themselves verbally as well. Therefore, what I'm going to suggest is that we have a planning review working group that we tighten up our protocol around public speaking and make sure everybody has it very, very clearly what are the rules for it. Right now I will allow everybody to do public speaking as they have registered for public speaking. I have also just let you know allowed people to speak today who have registered after the time because we're all up in the air at the moment with all of the procedures and the ways of connecting technologically and whatever. So I'm being lenient, but we will come up through that planning working group of the review of our committee with tightened public speaking protocol just to let you know if anybody challenges that for today. So I will allow those public speakers to speak today that have been registered prior to this meeting and that have been approved by myself. Thank you, Councillor Williams. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to clarify something that you just said about emails. Unfortunately, my council email hasn't been working since Monday morning. So if there's anything that's come through since then that I would need to know to determine the application of officers could make sure I get a copy of that before the vote. Yep, so I think in terms of that, that is the risk when people send things through emails because normally a written representation is actually printed and presented to us in the meeting. Anybody who sends an email, that means it could be drowned in people's one boxes, it doesn't get to them. It is a risk. So all I'm saying is people have made an attempt, but it's not the written representation that is before us. That's why I was explaining, is that okay, Councillor Williams? Thank you. Good, so we'll now move to the public speaking section and we have Sophie Grigoris-Pipers, I think who's on with us virtually. Hello, good morning. Good morning, sir. We're just waiting for you to come up on the screen. Hello, would you like me to start? Just one moment. There you are, lovely. So you do another procedure, you have three minutes. You can just introduce yourself first and then three minutes will start from then. And I will ask Chris Carter who's here with me to help me with the timing of that. So he'll let me know when you've gone to two minutes and then you've got a final one minute to go. But okay. Okay, I probably won't introduce myself because I'm bang on three without my name and it's long enough. Okay, good morning. I'm the owner of the Red Line Hotel in Whittlesford. I should start by saying that I have no objection to a hotel within the grounds of the Imperial War Museum. My objection is with the disconnect between the size of the proposed hotel and the evidence in front of you. Paragraph 85 of the committee report references a viable hotel of 120 bedrooms. All of the supporting evidence in front of you is in relation to 120 bedrooms. Why is it then that you're being asked to approve a 168 bedroom hotel? There is no evidence to support this, especially when branded hotels are viable from 80 bedrooms. The apparent rationale for this hotel is first to provide accommodation for visitors and conference users of the museum. Yet ours and the applicant's own research shows that 96% of the rooms in this 168 bedroom hotel will be occupied by customers unrelated to the museum. The second rationale is to provide an income stream for the museum. But you have no evidence at all about what that level of income stream is and to what extent it helps secure the long-term future of the museum. Or you have a totally bland, unsubstantiated statements from the applicant. So let's call this hotel what it is. It is a very, very large, limited service branded hotel of which 96% of the stays will be completely unconnected to the museum. There is to be an income stream to help the museum, but you have no idea what that is. This hotel will be run by a developer in a location where a hotel would not normally be permitted. The building is large and as your own historic advisor points out will have an adverse impact on this internationally important heritage asset. Yet despite concerns over the size, despite clear evidence, the majority of visitors will be unconnected to the museum. Despite no knowledge about the income stream, about how long the agreement with the developer will be in place, you have not tested whether a smaller hotel would meet the needs of the Imperial War Museum. A smaller hotel would better relate to the actual demand generated by the museum. A smaller hotel would have less impact on the heritage assets. And of course a smaller hotel would have less impact on existing hospitality businesses struggling to recover from this pandemic. One way of resolving matters would be by imposing a condition or section 106 obligation to limit the occupation of the new hotel to visitors or conference delegates visiting the museum only. If the applicant is genuinely confident that the demand from the museum is such that there is clear need for 168 bedroomed hotel, then they could not reasonably object to this sort of restriction. Similar restrictions have been imposed on other facilities in Cambridge. If the applicant protests at this reasonable request, then that speaks volumes and underscores the point that I have made. The permission for this 168 bed hotel is being sought to serve a much wider requirement than policy E7 allows, so permission should be refused. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members, do we have any questions? No, thank you. That was so clear and perfectly timed. You must have put a lot into making sure that was well timed. Thank you very much. We are listening very carefully to what you just said. Thank you very much. Now call the applicant, Mr John Brown, from the Imperial War Museum. Good morning. Just one moment, John, as we make sure we've got you on the screen. Good. We have now you've got you on the screen and we can hear you very clearly. You know the procedure, you have three minutes and if you want to just introduce yourself first and then you have your three minutes. Thank you. Good morning. I'm John Brown. I'm the Executive Director of Operations and Commerce for the Imperial War Museums. Your officers have produced a comprehensive report which supports this application. And since the delegated approval last June, we've met all further requests for additional information. The master planning exercise over the last seven years, undertaken in consultation with your officers and Historic England, considered all buildings on site, concluding that the hotel was best delivered as a new building in our commercial zone. John, sorry. Sorry, I haven't noticed. Just one minute. I'm very sorry. Councilman, you need to be able to hear everything that everybody says during the debate and these public speakers. John, would you halt that just one moment? Can you just repeat that last sentence? I'm sorry. Thank you. The master planning exercise over the last seven years, undertaken in consultation with your officers in Historic England, considered all buildings on site and concluded the hotel was best delivered as a new building in our commercial zone next to the conference centre, thereby maintaining the integrity of the historic core. Indeed, the scheme to convert the officer's mess in 2003 was dropped precisely because the necessary works would be too intrusive. Our studies submitted with the application showed past market performance completely justifies the viability of the scheme. However, it is the case for creating future additional business which is really compelling. The overnight accommodation will enable us to develop new markets by expanding our extensive conferencing facilities to offer multi-day events, promote IWM as a multi-day tourist destination in its own right, and support the development of high-tech aviation businesses at Duxford, which will benefit hugely from on-site facilities. Our plans have been thoroughly scrutinised and consulted upon and are strongly supported, not just by your planning and urban design officers, but also your economic development officer by Visit East England and by Historic England. The economic benefits for the local area, as set out in the officers' reports, are clear and compelling. The hotel's size reflects an efficient balance of operating costs and the need to feature-proof the building. In addition, the hotel fully meets the council's sustainability requirements and will benefit from IWM's comprehensive strategy. We respect the concerns of neighbouring businesses, but we should keep in mind this facility will not be operational until mid-2023, when markets are growing again, the IWM master plan will be delivering change, and IWM will be advanced in hosting a growing number of high-tech businesses. Currently, the nearest hotel to Duxford is a member of the International Hotel Group, one of the largest hotel groups in the world, and operates in a different band of the market to our proposal, so we would hope to build unique visits to the area with them as the breadth of offer enhances visitor choice. The Duxford Hotel will be a hampton by Hilton, and is quite different from all existing local facilities. Hilton is very supportive of this scheme, the extensive and independent advice, diligence and underwriting that has been undertaken. To conclude, IWM Duxford is recognised as the largest aviation museum in Europe and the busiest general aviation airfield in the east of England, but it currently only has the facilities of a regional museum. To thrive and grow, it must expand its offer and its infrastructure. I need to clarify in my own mind the association here between the Imperial War Museum, because clearly you are talking on behalf of the Imperial War Museum, but the applicant is not the Imperial War Museum, the applicant is Puppeteer Hotels. So can you clarify me, you will not own this hotel will you? It's not your application really, it's the hotel chain's application, you're just acting as a voice for them today, and secondly you will have sure heard the person who came on just before you, the local person, and the statements that she made about how in fact the majority are a very large percentage of the use, will be nothing to do with the actual running and what goes on at the Imperial War Museum. So those two questions please. So as I understand the questions, the first is what's your relationship to the applicant, and the second one is in terms of which business needs to be serving, if I understand those questions. Thank you, I may answer the first question. Sorry John, just one moment, the second question, it was a statement rather than a question, so I just wanted to clarify the question. I'd like to know whether the gentleman agrees that the majority of the use of this hotel would not be in any way connected to the Imperial War Museum's running. Thank you. Thank you. Can you answer those two questions? Thank you. We are the landlords of this hotel and the Imperial War Museums is not a hotel operator. So we have joined with Propertier to produce a hotel and they will build and operate the hotel on our behalf and we have a revenue sharing arrangement to gain benefit from the proceeds which will directly support the museum's input. In terms of question two, I respect and I don't disagree with the analysis that the previous speaker suggested. However, those are old figures based on 2015 and do not reflect the increase in business either on site or indeed in the local area or indeed in terms of the local tourist expansion that is in not only the local plan, but also in the East of England plan and the plan from the Department of Culture. And we are looking at future business and creating opportunity. So we must be able to act commercially and look at searching out and attracting that future market. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have another question. Yes, we have three chair, one from myself, Councillor Heather Williams and then Councillor Milne's. So my question is around the Civil Aviation Authority. Clearly we as a planning committee haven't had any official response to this planning application back from them, but I think in the officers presentation she mentioned that the Civil Aviation Authority had actually audited to the Imperial War Museum site earlier this year. And she had some comments or they had some comments around this particular site that's proposed for the hotel. I didn't know if you could expand on that for us, please. Yes, certainly. The CAA will only comment as a regulator on a hazard. So by default, if they haven't commented, it's not a hazard. But more so than that, it is completely outside the licensed airfield area. If you think about it, it's actually a smaller footprint than the airspace hangar next to it. And therefore, actually the airspace hangar is a larger obstacle than the hotel will be. But the CAA are quite satisfied this has no material implications for airfield operations and therefore will not comment on it. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams had a question there. Thank you Chairman. Through yourself, I'm just obviously a big point of argument in this is about sustainability and to give income revenue stream to the Imperial War Museum, which we do have policy to support. However I think I just heard about some sort of ratio agreement. And I think that is quite important. What is the ratio? Because if it's 5 or 10%, it could have a very different opinion than if we knew it was going to be 50%. Thank you Chairman. And I will after this also ask officer opinion terms of material considerations for us around that. But yes, could you answer the question please? Yes, certainly. The deal is a percentage share of revenue. It is a minority of that revenue. However, it is material to the IWM in terms of our running costs. And of course, what one has to consider is the total here rather than just a small percentage. £100,000 regular income to the museum is a material concern to us. And it's worthwhile. And we expect this to generate far more than that. Other than that, our commercial plans have been scrutinised. They are reinforced and backed by Hilton who will be branding this hotel. And we are confident that we will gain far more than that basic sum. Is it possible to have a figure Chairman? We've heard minority. I mean that could be one person. I'm hesitant because these are commercial issues and of sensitivity to us. And whilst I'm quite keen to cooperate obviously and give cancers a full big joke, is this material to the grounds for the planning application? I'll just ask the officer on that. What I'm understanding is I'm hearing it's minorities. So the question has been answered that that's a minority share. Thank you Chair. Yes, I think the principle of the enterprise in supporting the operations of the airfield of the IWM is material to the consideration. The precise percentage of the agreement in my opinion is not. The applicant has obviously advised us that the contribution will be significant in their consideration of how they operate the airfield. And I think that is as far as the question of precision should go in terms of the amount. Thank you members. I think we take that guidance. Thank you very much. Do we have another? We have two chair, councillors Milnes and then Richard Williams. Thank you. I think we've just touched on my question, which was about viability. It seems to me we've got two issues. One, the viability of the hotel itself and then an associated issue, which is the viability of the airfield. And I just want to check that we can take both of them into account or just one of them. Thank you. That's a question to Chris Carter. Thank you, Chair. The viability of the hotel is a matter for the applicant as the operator of the hotel. It's not, in my opinion, part of this consideration. The case that the applicant has put forward is that the hotel under the terms of policy E7, which supports the general operation of the Air Museum, is that the operation of a hotel will support the general financial viability of the wider operation of the site. That is certainly their case in putting forward an application for a hotel. And just to confirm you're happy that we can take that into account as a material consideration. Yes. If you consider the policy E7, that looks at the needs and opportunities of the site as being material to consideration of any application. Thank you. As I understand, it's a key consideration of our debate today and consideration of that planning application. And councillor Richard Williams. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. This is not so much, I think, a question for Mr Brown, but maybe for Mr Carter. There was a reference made in Mr Brown's submission to the figures that we've got in this report being out of date in 2015. Can I just clarify, given that these are the only figures we've got, these are the only figures we can rely on? Through you, Chair. I don't know if Mr Brown was referring to the figures submitted on his behalf by his consultants or the figures referred to by the objector. It may be that you wish to clarify that with Mr Brown. It is figures referred to by the objector. We have provided Marcus analysis that suggests that there is a vibrant and growing market in Cambridgeshire. And more recently, turnies, our planning consultant, have provided a thorough analysis of the possible economic benefit of the hotel, both of which are very positive. I understood, Dr Williams, this is about whether or not the information that we have in the report is such that we have the latest information to make it. Could I just flag up for the case officer when she moves back, if she could just verify how this has fed into the report that would help me make this. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Brown, for that. We have one more speaker, Chair, before Mr Brown disappears. Councillor Cohn. The provision for access to the hotel is virtually all by road. Many people coming to conferences and hotels and events would normally come by public transport. What provision has been made to facilitate users coming to the hotel by public transport? Chair, would you like me to answer that? Yes, please. I think it's directed at you. Yes, we've undertaken a thorough traffic survey. We have looked at the local transport hubs, especially at Whittlesford. And we are going to provide a rolling shuttle bus service in conjunction with others to facilitate transport to the main railway hubs. And also we are looking at expanding that with other partners to other local businesses. So this is very much part of our agenda to make sure that we manage the traffic flows on the A505 and also to ensure... Thank you. Thank you very much. No further questions. Thank you very much. We don't have any representation from the parish council or from local members this time, although we do have something in the report which is quoted as part of the report from the local member there. So, members, we'll move into the debate and I will just open up with the clarification that Councillor Richard Williams was seeking. And was that to the case officer? Yes, Chair. If the case officer could just confirm where those figures that were supplied by Mr Brown actually feed into this report, that would be useful for me to just get a handle on what he was actually referring to there. Yes, so the figures referred to by Mr Brown were in the Collier's report 2017, which was submitted with the application. There was a further report in 2020 and further information that was submitted in relation to the amount of events that will potentially be on the site in the next few years so obviously a number of conferences that maybe help per year. Sorry, Chair. So, there's a lot of references on the pages, you know... that was providing different figures, so could I find those figures in the report? Maybe me just not reading it right, but everything I'm reading seems to be... I think we're getting a lot of... What Richard Williams would like to know is there's a reference, direct reference to the 2020 in this report, Karen. Sorry, you're in mute. Yeah, thank you. I'm not sure there is, but there is further information that has been submitted that has been outlined in the report in my officer report. Yeah, but Mr Brown might be able to help on that. Now, I think we're just asking in terms of the report that we have in front of us, Karen, that's what we're asking about. So, do you want to direct us to a better certain section in the report? Chair, if I can help. Possibly paragraphs 88 onwards on page 38 refers to 2020 trend report. Thank you, thanks very much. So, members, we're opening to the debate on this. As we know this came to us before and it was proved subject to certain conditions that were put in around the materials after that representations were made, which meant that hadn't been heard, so it had to come back to us again. Then further representations around legal considerations, those were then again reviewed and that's why it's been delayed and it is with us today. So, we are looking at it fresh. So, we are looking at the principle of development. We have the key material considerations that we may look at. We are looking at what is in front of us now. And I think what we're hearing is this balance is between the greater public benefit to the sympathetic to being to the setting and to heritage and appearance, any impact on that and balancing impact on the local economy and businesses and this wider economy and potential new businesses, not just the local area but the wider area. That's what I'm hearing and the viability perhaps of the Imperial War Museum. We've got to balance all of these things together I think now in our debate and see where we land members. So, opening floor. Councillor Heather Williams first. I feel as conflicted as I did last time on this because policy seven is there for a reason. It's because we value the Imperial War Museum and everything that it does for our area and for former servicemen as well. I'm not opposed to the principle of a hotel on the site or its location within the site. However, there are a couple of things that I am struggling with. The appearance of the building in its shape, I do find makes it out of place with the other buildings. I can see what they're trying to achieve. I think efforts have been made and I think it will be difficult because of the amount of glazing that will be required for the bedrooms. But for it to curve up and then just stop and have a completely blank wall looking at it in context with the other buildings I'm not sure that it really fits in as well as it could. It would have been better if actually the building I think had continued and perhaps have been a bit lower. So, I'm on the fence about that but what's more of a concern to me is that E7 does, I'm looking at policy E7 now and viability is a key concern. We don't have a viability assessment as such on the 168 room hotel, I think that's fair to say. I completely understand that any money that this can generate will support the museum and I do understand, despite my probing about the percentages, the issue I have is a minority share can be such a broad thing, anything between 1 and 49. I think without more information, maybe not the exact percentage but without that information it's very difficult to see whether E7 is applicable or not. Or that we're not being used by giving a nominal amount of money to the museum in order for somebody else to obtain a profitable business. And the objective being that as opposed to what E7 requires, which obviously the objective is very clearly to support the museum. So, I do feel that I'm lacking in information to be able to make that assessment reliably. And I feel that actually, as has been said, that money will be so important to that museum that we are in danger of facilitating, trying to be careful with the words I use, Chairman, but in danger of being taken advantage of in that way and therefore our policy being taken advantage of in that way. Thank you, and I'm just reminding members, on page 5, if you look at page 5 down at the bottom which is, if you count upwards 1, 2, so it's 3 and 4 paragraph from the bottom upwards is a transcript of the main part of policy E7. So, there are the two parts of that which are kind of being sympathetic to the particular needs and opportunities of the museum use or non-museum use. It must be complementary to the character, vitality and sustainability. And also, its contribution to the long term future as a vibrant, sustainable and effective visitor attraction, education provider and commercial venue with jobs and investment beyond the direct effects of the museum and its partners. And I'm hearing, Councillor Williams, that for you, where you sort of supported the development in principle and supported the location, but concerns about appearance and sympathetic to setting in terms of appearance, and also about E7 and its application in terms of the viability to provide that vibrant future for it. Is that right? Chairman, yes, and I would say that actually it's the long term viability that I'm concerned about because while the assessment might be for the short term, if we're going to have a building like this, we want to know that it's going to support long term and I don't think we have enough information to adequately assess that. And I'll ask Ms Carton out to provide. Thanks, Chair. I'm conscious of not interjecting in the debate too early, but here I go. It's a really important point that Councillor Williams raises and I think it's key to the debate and that is policy E7 does not require the applicant to provide viability evidence. The applicant has provided quite significant information around how this hotel would fit in with their plans for the site to maintain the sustainable running of the site into the future. What members need to consider is the balance really between that and any other impacts that may result. Any other impacts on other business operation and the economic impacts which may or may not result of that, those are the things that need to be balanced, but it's important to note that the policy E7 does not require them to demonstrate the viability evidence, how this would support the operation, albeit the applicant has provided other evidence to explain how this fits into their wider plans for the site. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Members. So in terms of the debate, this is the applicant saying that it would provide the viability and we're looking at the balance within policy E7 and on these other impacts that we've also heard from the public speakers as well in terms of impacts on the economy as well. Do we have next? A raft of people, Chair, councillors, Roberts, Richard Williams, Milne's and then Fein. Councillor Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would just sort of remind myself again of the first presentation that we heard from the lady who was giving her opinion, and I have to say I think her praise of the situation was absolutely spot on. And following on from Councillor Heather Williams, I too feel that the report is lacking in substance. I've got a feeling that as we all know it's an excellent place and very important, but I think it's tempering our being objective. The hotel is not owned by the Imperial War Museum. We do not know how up against the wall the Imperial War Museum is financially. I know there's sort of general rumours around that part of the district about it, not being as financially good as it was, but things have changed, haven't they? But I think that, you know, I think it's in the wrong place. I can't believe that there are better places on the land that the Imperial War Museum owns that would be less called such an impact. I think it's purely being put there. So, Councillor Roberts, I'm going to try and help you that in that way then it would be the principle of development for you that you would be objecting to. And that you are also the impact on the character and appearance of the area, is that right? Yes, Chairman, but I'd rather wait to just sort of word it by itself. I don't wait to be challenged again because we're not going to look at where else it could have been, because we have to look at what's been done. Well, you know, it is noted in the report by the historical buildings officer that she is saying she hasn't had it proven to her that there are other places on the site that would have been more appropriate. My feelings are that it's been deliberately put where it's been put because that's where it will get maximum viewing. And people will, you know, maybe think, ah, well, there's somewhere we can stop. I think that it is far too large. I don't think we know justification for a building of that size where we seem to be saying that there was a report about five years ago. There might be a report now, but we don't know what on earth it says.  That's bad about planning committee to make decisions of a thing of this size, so out of character, and maybe with really no proven need. And as a planning committee go along with it, you know, we need to be more objective here. We should have had much more details. I understand the sort of commercial sensitivity of some of it, but we really should have had much more than we've got here. I think it's too large. I think it's placed in the wrong place. I've no proof in my mind that the Imperial War Museum will even be able to continue functioning even with this. And if it didn't, and if the Imperial War Museum was to close down here, remove its aeroplanes elsewhere. Thank you, Catherine. So, our hearing is, for you it is the scale, location, the impact on the appearance and character of the area. And for you, therefore, in policy seven, that doesn't, for you, provide enough grounds in terms of the claim that it does for the public benefit of the museum. There's no proven need. It is, in my opinion, a speculative application by a speculative applicant. And it's going to be filled with people who are not trying to do anything to do with the museum generally. Thank you. I'm keeping you to the material considerations, but we hear very much for you. It's not providing for you sufficient grounds to show that the harm for you for scale, appearance and location, there's not enough public benefit for the War Museum to guarantee that. Thank you. Next is Councillor Richard Williams. Thank you, Jet. I'm sort of sticking with the new procedure, and I've actually got some questions on clarification. Can I come back then a bit later with a vague point? Okay, thank you, Jet. So, I've got some application questions for the officer, if I may. Three of them really, they all range around transport. Now, as we all know from the report, the local highways office are in indeed Cam Cycle, and I've suggested that there should be an upgrade to cycle access. I see the officer rejects that at 187-190, but I just want to challenge that and get the officer's view, because that cycle path, that path that's referred to as a shared footway cycle way, is little more than a narrow pavement along most of its length that it exists. It requires you to cross two slip roads on and off the M11. I certainly wouldn't take my children cycling along that path given the need to cross. So, your question is? So, my question is, can we have a little bit more detail about why this has been rejected? Because there isn't a sustainable transport option, in my view, given the inadequate nature of that path from the museum to Wittlesford Pathway Station. So, I'd like some more detail as to why that's regarded as adequate when in my view it isn't. The other point I wanted to clarify is about the signalised junction at the entrance and exit to the IMW. Now, I'm sure as we all know, because we were there not that long ago, when you come out to the Imperial War Museum, there is a traffic light signalised junction, which is referenced in the report. But what I couldn't understand from the report is what impact, if there has been any impact assessment, on the fact that that signalised junction will be used if there's a hotel there 24 hours a day, whereas currently it is not. Currently, when the IMW is closed, the gates of that signalised junction are locked, so it is not used for a significant portion of time.  So, that junction is going to be operating much more than it actually does now, and I couldn't really get from the report whether there'd been any impact assessment on that. And then, thirdly, the travel plan that was just referenced, or was referenced, I think by Mr Brown and is obviously referenced in the report, does concern me, particularly if it's proposed that there's going to be a rolling shuttle bus to and from Wittlesford Parkway. There is nowhere for a bus to access Wittlesford Parkway station safely. There is no bus turning. There are two narrow residential roads. On the one side, Station Road West, is a narrow residential road. There is nowhere properly for a bus to turn around there. The other side, Station Road East, is a very narrow road. And again, there is nowhere for a bus to turn around on that road. So, quite how will the shuttle bus operate if that is what is proposed, because it seems to me not very well thought through and not really adequate and certainly not a sustainable transport option. So, clarifications on those things would be very welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Karen, are you with us? I am. Hello. Hello. Did you get three questions? Yes. So, with regards to the cycle path, we have to consider the, obviously, the users of the hotel. So, some of those users will already be visiting the site for perhaps conference purposes, a tourist facility, et cetera. The other visitors will potentially have luggage and we think it would be obviously difficult to walk or cycle down that path with luggage. Therefore, we do not consider it reasonable to require that as part of the application. In terms of staff members that we have sought a shuttle bus to Wittlesford Parkway Station and other areas that will be able to accommodate sustainable transport measures. So, travel plan will be a condition of any consent, which will look into modes such as car sharing, future plans for additional buses, et cetera. A bus that goes from the Trompington Road Park and Ride to the Duxford site at the moment every one and a half hours, which is an alternative method of transport. With regards to parking, sorry, turning of a shuttle bus at Wittlesford Parkway Station, there is a station car park that perhaps could be potentially used for that at the bottom of Station Road West. Can I just clarify that if you're saying that that's part of the conditions, Karen, in terms of a sustainable transport plan that would include these measures, would that sustainable transport plan that was being presented have to satisfy, you know, quite logical concerns that Dr Richard Williams is bringing up, you know, if he can't turn? But at the moment we don't have that in front of us, but it would be a condition that would have to satisfy those. Is that right? That's correct. So, please note down those concerns. Some of you know the area. Well, that's good. Thank you, Roger. You did have one other question. I don't think it was answered. Is that right? Yeah, it was the signalised junction. What has been the impact of that? So, the Lightful of Highways Authority has obviously assessed the signalised junction, existing junction with the Imperial War Museum and does consider that any new visitors will be within the capacity for that junction. Obviously, it's probably more well used at peak times at the moment. Obviously, if it's open 24 hours, it will be during non peak times where there potentially be additional traffic, which is considered to be within the capacity for that junction. Thank you. Is that fine, Councillor Williams? I'm not sure the questions are quite answered, but that's fine. Next is Councillor Milne's. Thank you. I'd like to support, as a relatively local member, a neighbour to my colleague Richard Williams, everything you said. And I think particularly I would reference the lack of cycleway and a proper cycle journey capability from either Dubsford or Wittlesford or Pampersford or Sorsdon. These are all areas where staff could easily be located and without a proper cycleway, I think that would be negligent to supporting our agenda in that respect. The other issues that were raised earlier, I find difficult to support that there isn't a need for hotel accommodation. If you look at Huawei, BioScience, the grant of heart development and the genome campus, these are all being grown. This is absolutely going to create more demand for hotel rooms in that area. And I think there's a very powerful case for the economic development of IWM, which has suffered, I believe, in terms of its income and profitability. It's struggled. I remember two or three years ago when Andrew Lansley was a local MP in campaigning for additional grant aid for the IWM because it wasn't making money. So I'm very supportive of an opportunity for them to actually become more independently economically viable. And I'm not particularly minded about the visual appearance of this. I think it's marginal at best. But we've got a huge space hanging next to it that dominates that whole area. And it really is tucked away in between that and the motorway junction. So I think the visual appearance is marginal. Thank you. Thank you. And could I have just clarification in terms of what is being provided in terms of the cycleway? Yeah, just on that point, Chair, I think that the key is for free to request a cycleway. It needs to be proportionate to the impact of the development. And the modal split that is indicated in the transport work is such that there's very limited cycle use to the site at the moment. That's not to say that it couldn't be in the future, but in order to justify requiring the applicant to pay for cycle path upgrades, I think there would need to be that evidence to support that, and that isn't there at the moment. Just with regard to the point that Dr Richard Williams made about the junction, I think that is dealt with at paragraph 184, where that junction on to the A505 is discussed. There's comments about the capacity of the junction and whether or not it would still operate within its existing capacity post-development. And I believe the conclusion is that it would. So that's not to say there wouldn't be additional traffic passing through. There inevitably would, but that the junction is currently designed to be able to cope with that, according to the highway authority. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for those clarifications. Next. We have councillors Fayne, Khan and then Roberts again. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I do have some concerns about this application. The issues of sustainable transport have already been addressed, and I think we have to accept that that will be dealt with in the travel plan and will be important for the future to ensure that all the additional modes are addressed, but I accept that that is not essential to this particular application. I had concerns about the cladding, and I'm glad to hear that the change to light grey will be a condition which I assume is acceptable to the developers. I have some concerns, actually, about the extent of renewables. The old 10% rule is pretty unambitious and very old, but, however, it does meet our current requirements, and that will be dealt with in the carbon reduction plan. The question arose as to whether this should be referred to the council's design enabling panel. The urban design officer said it was important that the architect presents the amended scheme to the council's DEP. However, the design officer has no objections to the scheme as amended. So then, turning to the principles, and it was very helpful to have the key considerations set out by our case officer, it is clear to me that in relation to the 1990 Act, the consideration as to the effect on listed buildings, the site of this building is entirely separated from the listed buildings on the site by the much larger airspace, and I don't see the concerns on matters. I think they are satisfied, as in the officer's recommendation. Then, looking at the question of the economic case for this, and the room numbers, it is quite clear that this has been considered as part of a long-term master plan, which incidentally included Historic England as well as ourselves, and I think the development is very much in line with what has been called for, for instance, in the Cambridge and Peterborough local industrial strategy referred to at page 98. The size, I think that the number of rooms relates to the future needs, not only of this site, but also to other businesses around, that were referred to by Councillor Mills, and I'm satisfied that there is a good case to be made for a larger hotel as to the impact on other hotels. I think, as we all were, very impressed and concerned by the points made by, so if you could get, Gregorys of Red Lion. However, looking at the trend report, and the occupancy rates for the period to March 2020, which is the most recent we can reasonably take into account, we're talking about overall occupancy for a number of hotels around the area of approaching in some cases over 80%, which would suggest to me, and I think that is supported by the officers, that the, whilst the exact size of this is very difficult for us to say, there is a reasonable case to be made for a hotel of this size on this site. In conclusion, there are very good reasons why we decided in the previous local plan that this should, special consideration should be applied to this site on the E7, and I think it is quite clear that in line with that, a good case has been made for a hotel of approximately this size on this site, and that therefore we should accept the officer's recommendation and give delegated approval again. So thank you, so I'm hearing, you're heading towards the fact that the public benefit of this and the application of E7 outweighs any of the harms that you have identified and recognised. That's why I referred to that point. Thank you. Next is Councillor Cahn. Many of the points that I wish to make have just been made by Councillor Fane, which I completely agree with, but I will refer back to the size of the hotel I assured you again, which has been raised. Generally, we don't normally interfere in business decisions about viability. That's not normally something that we consider. I think the justification as outlined by Councillor Fane is something that I absolutely agree with. It seems to be the right location on the site with a minimum impact. It seems to me that it's got the attempts to be made at the sustainable travel plan. I was worried about that. We were given a response on that issue. It seems to me that it will make a significant contribution, whether it's a majority or a minority, doesn't matter. It's clear that the IWM thinks it's going to be important to its viability, and that is as much as we can expect, and we have to take their word on trust on that. So the issue that was raised about the size of the hotel whether it should be 168 beds or 120 or what have... First of all, I want to look at the impact of a hotel which is 120 beds in the scale of the buildings of that site area. I don't think the reduction of one floor to make it a 120 bed hotel would make any real difference in terms of the impact. It needs a large scale buildings in the environment, and that won't make a significant difference. Once we've accepted a 128 bed hotel, I don't see any problem at 168 as long as it doesn't rise higher than the adjoining building. So that in terms of the effect on adjoining hotels, probably it's a high occupancy, but I think I understand the concern of nearby hotels, but I think actually it might increase their custom rubble and induce it. When you have a system like this, it's going to introduce new people visiting the area because of the conferences. I often went to conferences from the hotel official... I think we've got your point. I think if you go to a hotel conference, other people go to other hotels which are cheaper in the vicinity. So I think they may actually find... The market segmentation. The market segmentation, they will be custom, it will create new custom, and I don't know that that's something that we really... We are able to be sufficiently concerned about to be able to use as a reason for objecting to it. Consider that as a concern. I think generally that I'm in favour of supporting this application. We have councillors, Roberts Hawkins and Richard Williams, but perhaps councillor Hawkins, as you haven't heard from her yet. It's also 11.30, and we said we would have a 15-minute break. So I suggest that we do that now. Take a 15-minute break, seeing as we have multiple people. It would just be one or two I would have gone on, but seeing as we've got a few people who want to speak. A 15-minute break, Aaron. So those who are live streaming will take a 15-minute break. As we said, there's no ventilation in this room. It is important to take regular short breaks. We'll go out into the fresh air if you can, everybody. And we will go out through that exit and come in through this one. Make sure that we don't close the doors on our way in. Thank you very much, Aaron, again for all your support. And it's nice to see you with themes that we've overcome all the technical glitches. Not us, but IT support and their wider support. Thank you very much for that and for continuing to try. So this is South Cams District Planning Committee and we are on the agenda item dealing with the application for the hotel accommodation at Duxford Air Museum. And we have heard in the debate at the moment issues where there's some concern in terms of the balance between the public benefit to the future viability and thriving of the museum and the wider economy. And the concerns around perhaps appearance, being sympathetic to the setting, the scale, the location of this application, and also the substance, the substantive grounds on which somebody could take the argument that this does balance harm and benefit. And on the other side, we have also heard that members who feel that this is incredibly important for the future sustainability of the museum. So it does, they do see it as adapting and fulfilling policy E7 with some concerns perhaps by different members around the sustainable travel and we've looked therefore at the condition around sustainable travel and I'd like to come back to that just to make sure later members that that really is all captured there in the conditional sustainable travel, which I think is condition Z. I also wanted to confirm that there is recognition that there's been work done and additional work done on the colour and materials for the cladding since the last time that this was presented to committee to take into consideration the concerns that committee had then. I understand that Chris Carter would like to say a few things to bring things into the debate, to make sure that they are given full debate and hearing and then we have four other members who have asked to speak and we're going to give priority to two that haven't spoken but what I'd ask everybody is to make sure that we're not duplicating any issues that we're taking anything additional that will help us in the debate come to a decision members. So not rehearsing any of the things that have already been said. Thank you very much, Chris. Shall I start again? Do you want me to start again? Yes. Sorry. So I was just following on from what Councillor Carn was saying before we took a break around competition and that competition between businesses per se is not a material planning consideration but we should have regard to any potential economic impact from a development. Now my understanding is that the position of the proprietor of the red lion and the hole they in is that there's the potential for this development to result in a negative impact on the red lion. It should be noted that the red lion as a public house is a protected village service or facility under the terms of policy SC3. Their view is that if the hole they in is affected the knock on trade that they receive from the hole they in would have a negative impact on the operation of red lion. So that's just a point for members to consider the weight that they wish to afford to that. The second point that I wanted to make was around policy E20 which is with regard to tourist accommodation and to highlight that there, and as I believe it sets out in the report that there is a degree of conflict that members should consider here around the location of the hotel and its size particularly point two of that policy which states the following. Outside development frameworks, development to provide overnight visitor accommodation, holiday accommodation and public houses will be permitted by the change of use, conversion, replacement of suitable buildings and by small scale new developments appropriate to local circumstances. Now I think it's acknowledged in the officer report that this is not a small scale building but it's for members to consider the weight to be afforded to that conflict having regard to the other considerations that have already been expressed. So I just wanted to highlight those two points chair. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's sort of input into our debate which is important because again it's about sort of proportionality and weight and we just need to make sure that these are properly considered as we make a final decision. Vice chair. Councillor Hawkins may. Councillor Dr Tim Hawkins. Thank you very much chair. I think first of all I want to say thank you to the case officer Karen for the excellent report. It's detailed, it was easy for me to read and understand and follow and I know a lot of work has gone into this. The second thing is I happen to be I think one of two people in this room who was on the planning committee when the Holiday Inn Express was given planning permission and had a feeling of visual view with some of the comments being made about viability and effect on red line and at the time was also a big issue. But in retrospect Holiday Inn Express has come into its own and I think that would be the case with this proposal as well if it is granted planning permission. I think that it is in line with policies E7, 1 and 2. I have no issues with that at all. When I look at the fact that it is a proposal that is actually supported by Visit East of England as well as one or two other tourism bodies it gives me hope that the economic recovery after COVID will be assisted with this particular hotel where it is. It is not small scale but it is in scale with the site that it is at. That is my point and that is why I will be supporting this application. Thank you chair. In order chair, councillor Richard Williams, Harvey and then Roberts. Thank you very much. This will be my debate comments. I do have concerns about this planning application and I do put considerable weight on policy E20. This is not small scale new development appropriate to local circumstances. It is definitely not small scale. 120 bedroom hotel actually is not small scale either in my view. But maybe that would be justifiable. So my concerns are that we do not really have any evidence before us we do not have any evidence before us to justify 168 bed hotel. We have evidence for 120 bed hotel but we do not have any evidence for 168 bed hotel. I am reluctant to go down the road and think that 120 is large so we will increase that by 50% and that is no different. I think it is different because it could have an impact more of an impact on local businesses has been set out. I am also very concerned about the sustainable travel options. I do not really think that condition Z as it is currently worded is viable. It is just not possible to have a shuttle bus at least with the pathway. There is nowhere for a bus to go and to turn and it will cause all sorts of problems if we try to put a bus down that road. That is a viable option at the moment. Now, weighing all of that in balance at the moment I am minded to vote against this on the basis of E20 taking account of E7 and obviously we want to support the MW but given this is 168 bed hotel we do not actually have any evidence about why 168 bed hotel is needed. So in the context of the sustainable travel plan being satisfactory and viable at this point at the moment I am weighing in favour. Now what might sit in the other way is if we can do a little bit more about sustainable travel because I think if we could it might make it acceptable in my mind if we could have some for example increased provision in cycling which I think would alleviate the concerns about sustainable travel in my view but as things stand at the moment I am minded to vote against on the basis that we do not have any evidence just about 168 bed it is clearly in conflict with E20 sustainable travel plans are viable. Thank you. Councillor Harvey next. Yes, thank you chair. Well I generally support of this on the basis that this kind of development facilitates more than a trip up from London kind of tourism that we have been sort of struggling with for many years and I think where I had occasion to visit the American cemetery just to scoot up the road and you can sort of start to see that there is a sort of basis of a two day stay in Cambridge there if you put all those things together I did actually drop my son off at Wittlesford Station about 18 months ago I suppose before the pandemic and I ended up having to give an American couple a lift to Duxford because they'd arrived at station couldn't work out how to get there especially the St Dove real footpath so I think this has a sort of critical mass notwithstanding Councillor Dr Williams observations on the shuttle bus I think if this results in a shuttle bus that would not only add to the viability of the hotel but also the viability of Duxford as an attraction I think this kind of leisure activity is a sort of economic development that we need because it doesn't involve material consumption that's obviously in line with our 2050 zero carbon target so I think very much aligned in that sense the only issue I have in terms of what's before us is I notice in the informatives on page 60 there's a lot of discussion around the additional noise impact from the hotel on the neighbours to the site presumably that includes construction but also operation air conditioning units and so forth but it's puzzling to me that the obverse problem hasn't been given what a noisy environment Duxford is and part of the attraction of Duxford is that it is a working airfield as well as a museum and that's kind of part of this unique attraction I mean I would be concerned that given that the hotel will not uniquely be sort of housing or hosting air or historic air kind of enthusiasm if you like that it would be a shame if commercial pressure were applied to the museum to curtail their sort of live flying you know for example if somebody I think we've got your point you're a bit concerned about the informative which is not a condition, it's an informative but there is within the conditions there are conditions around noise so you just have the concern as to whether or not in the design but we have to look at what's there I don't think we could change that right now you'd have to say whether or not you're in line with the development and all the other issues that we've said but to change the design or the balance of how the commercial balance of that impacts on noise is quite a design issue isn't it so it's a bit big to change at this moment so we'd have to look at what's in front of us do you want to? Do you turn yours? Thanks chair, just to reassure council Harvey I think that informative relates to the operational plans and equipment at the hotel there is a different type of noise to the kind of noise you'd expect with an operating airfield so it's concerned around low level background noise which might be more disturbing to people who live nearby whereas obviously if you see a plane you're expected to have some noise for a period of time and then it goes away again so I think it's just informative to deal with that kind of issue more so than the more short term noise that you get through aircraft for example I think you probably understood that it's a noisy place Good, do you have any other? Two more chair, councillor Roberts Thank you councillor Roberts Thank you chairman, thank you for allowing me to come back but I think you ticked me off balance last time I didn't quite get my ideas in focus it's just I think everybody here wants to see the museum continue and do better than it is at the moment and support some sort of hotel accommodation there on site as I said I think it's far too large and I think it's in the wrong place but I don't think we are giving due consideration to the historical aspects of the museum at the moment it's quite clear when you drive along from any direction there that it's primarily a museum for aircraft and all the buildings there are associated with that and fit in with each other and at page 8 the historic officer is saying the MPP F is clear that great way it should be afforded to the assets conservation and that clear and convincing justification is required for harm now I think that there is harm here because of the size of it because of where it is I think it's a great distraction from what the museum should be and certainly is at the moment about I think to put a hotel of that size of that dimension of that design is terribly harmful in that particular place it's being clearly it's what a developer does he's putting it in the place not to benefit the museum the imperial one museum for himself it's the main place for it to be seen that's all it's about and that's speculative and I don't think we should be allowing that I think we should say no to this but give them the clear understanding that we are supportive of a hotel smaller and a better design and not in conflict with what the museum is about it was there in World War One and World War Two and it's always been clearly defined as but especially for the villages like where I live round about it's for aircraft that's what it's all about it's about old aeroplanes and about history this is a speculative applicant putting in a speculative application for something that will harm all those nearly over 100 years of what that place has been about we shouldn't be playing that game we need to take control we are not there to act as agents for speculative applications we're there to be the deciding planning authority to follow our own rules I think that's very very important it's a material consideration which is about the heritage assets and we do take into serious consideration what the heritage officer has said this is why they're here we have difficult decisions we have to bring these things into balance in terms of the harm versus the benefit where do we fall down on those things and I think what I've heard is there's definitely different opinions there's some people who still perhaps not quite decided yet but I've heard some people who are definitely leaning towards not approving this while some are definitely leaning towards approving it if there isn't anything else I would move oh sorry I was going to suggest shall we move to the vote I feel like I've heard all the arguments we didn't prepare that in advance I hope that was you'd like to move to a vote thank you if everyone's agreed with that and the vote is I think it's me actually chair just if we're going to move to a vote we need to be clear on what any reasons for a refusal would be so I've heard from Councillor Roberts a very clear reason around heritage impacts particularly the size, location, appearance of building harmful impact on a setting of grade I think lighting should also be within the report of concerns about it being the illumination the amount of illumination in comparison to what there is there now it's going to be a very different aspect if it goes through okay so with the addition of lighting chair and that there would be a harmful impact on the setting of the grade 2 star and grade 2 listed buildings as well as the character and appearance of the conservation area that would be contrary to national planning policy framework section 66 72 of planning listed building conservation areas act and our own local plan policy and then I'm wondering if there's another reason from Councillor Richard what we have with E20 policy E20 in terms of scale for the tourism development that was one of the other reasons provided yes okay thank you chair so it's the conflict with part 2 of policy E20 in particular the scale of the operation yep so those are the reasons that I also had down in terms of sustainable travel we have the travel plan which is in condition Z which is there and I think what we've heard from today is as well that we depending on the decision and if that were to move to approval of that be taken to account all of the comments that have been made here in completion of that sustainable travel condition members we're moving to somebody I'll turn mine off I appreciate I was some time ago at the start of it but I did also on my opening remarks in the debate said about the design of the building not being in keeping and therefore creating harm to the setting so I just wanted to make sure that was included thank you thank you chair through you so in my summary of Councillor Roberts sorry just in my summary of Councillor Roberts comments I could include the size, location and appearance as well as lighting is there a design point beyond that and what is it about the design that you would find objectionable my issue was the design and the fact that it had a sheer block face to end the way it came up and the fact that I found that quite obstructive and not in keeping with how we see the others with roof alignments etc through you chair I'd probably pick that up as a third reason then as a design reason rather than it necessarily being related to heritage impacts directly so with approval officers would draft a reason and agree with chair and vice chair associated with the comments you've made councillor Williams around design thank you chair on that point about sustainable travel and as much for the public record as anything else but it may be a reason we could cite I mean that is the crucial factor for me I'm not actually convinced that that travel plan can actually work and that will tip the balance for me given everything else I'm not sure if that can be cited in terms of I'm personally not convinced that that will comply with TR3 but I'll defer to Chris Carter whether that should go as an official read or not my view would be not chair there's a condition that requires a travel plan it's cited in the applicants travel plan and that condition would need to be discharged if they're unable to comply with those requirements of the condition then we would deal with that at that stage okay thank you very much nobody else so we'll now move to the vote and to the recommendation on page 53 at the bottom which is created approval subject to the following conditions and informatives together with a section 106 to secure a commuted sum towards maintenance of the keep clear markings on the M11 junction 10 roundabout and then the conditions follow in the preceding in the following pages so members please if you press blue first of all your blue figure on your controls and we will vote for that recommendation against or abstain can we take yes I'll do that again by hand I think is that okay Aaron we're going to take that down we'll do it by hand can you just take off the screen as well thank you so all those in favour please raise your hand against abstain chair that's 8 votes in favour and 3 votes against so permission is delegated authority granted subject to 106 thank you very much thank you members and we'll move now to agenda item 6 in page 63 in your papers and this is for application reference number 20 slash 05250 slash OUT it's in Linton 35 Bolsham Road the proposal is for the outline planning application for the erection of a single self-built dwelling with all matters reserved an outline planning application with all matters reserved the applicant is South Cambridge District Council so our key material considerations are principle of the development and highways given that this is an outline planning application it is not a departure from our policies and it's being brought to the committee as is our constitution because it's owned by South Cambridge District Council this is for reasons of transparency and conflict of interest that it's being brought before us as usually these types of application would probably not normally get to us do we have the case officer with us which is Jane Lowden good afternoon chair can you hear me okay can hear you very well Jane shall I start with the presentation thank you can I confirm that you can see that presentation yes perfectly okay so thank you chair this application is for outline planning permission for the erection of one self-built dwelling with all matters reserved the offers recommendation as per the officer report is for approval subject to conditions so the application is adjacent number 35 Bolsham Road on the site location plan that's the area in blue the application site is the area in red as part of the application there's been an indicative block plan submitted and indicative elevations which are in front of yourselves there I've taken some photos of the site so currently on the site there's a substation to the front you can see it's that area that's outside the red line in front of my little arrow on the right hand side on the left is number 35 Bolsham Road and on the right is number 1 Ryby Close myself stood the back on the other side of the road looking towards the site number 1 Ryby Close on the right the gates to the substation in the middle and the number 35 Bolsham Road on the left so this is the current beginning of the site the substation is just on the right hand side there Ryby Close in the background and Bolsham Road at the front same photo again there and stood back again across the road looking at the site the substation in the front the sites you can see the grass at the back and then the two properties either side in photo again there's the key material coming considerations already said by yourself are the principle of development and highways thank you thank you very much Dyn and we'll move directly to public speakers if there are any questions from members too you will come to those in the debate I'd like to know if we have Tony Dixon with us hello can you hear me yes can hear you perfectly and as I understand there is also Claire Darling who is also a neighbour who will be here if anybody have additional questions but you will use the three minutes Mr Dixon yes I'm going to be representing Claire's statement as well I'm reading that out if that's okay that's fine thank you very much and so if you'd like to introduce yourself and we've got three minutes and Mr Carter here will help me with the timing thank you very much lovely as mentioned I'm Tony Dixon live at number one Ryby Close which is a neighbour I'll read my neighbour Claire Darling's objection statement first he lives at 35 Pulsion Road it has been stated that all lorries delivering materials onto the site must turn around and exit driving in first gear off the site and not reversing onto the road due to the size and access to the plot this would not be practical safe or in the case of size of some larger delivery vehicles not even possible to enable smaller delivery vehicles to turn around on site they would have to turn in our front garden outside our front door this is causing a serious concern for the safety of our children and ourselves this is also not taking into account where our own cars would be parked at this time and while some delivery vehicles are dropping off materials we won't be able to have access to our drive as there will be no space for access or parking also as it has been stated that workers stroke builders vehicles are to be parked on site this would make it even more unviable for deliveries to be made due to the limited access parking areas and dangerous blind bend in the road adjacent to the site causing much concern not only for the safety of our family but also the general public our other main concern is the amount of light that we lose in our kitchen if there is another dwelling next door we have already lost 50% of our natural light since the fence was erected just a metre away we have often have to have the lights on during the day more so in the winter months due to the restriction in light which will only get worse due to the condition of the proposed building with us having to incur an increased electricity bill for the increase in lighting this area we are also mindful of where any windows may be positioned in a new property and if we are going to be overlooked and lose our privacy that's from Claire Darling my objection statement is my objective is to propose planning application for the following reasons my wife runs a child mining business from home and we are extremely concerned about the noise inappropriate language building dust that could be created during the build and the negative effect this would have on the children and staff especially as our Velux windows run alongside and garden area adjacent to the proposed dwelling due to the position of the planned property it would impact on our light and privacy with the rear windows looking into our back garden and through our Velux windows this is particularly relevant in regard to safeguarding the children we look after Finally our third objection is in relation to the increased risk of traffic accidents during the delivery of materials and or parking of work vehicles offsite and outside our property with parents frequently dropping off or picking up children I'm concerned that this could lead to a serious accident or even worse a fatality Thank you Thank you very much to both of you Members do you have any questions Yeah councillor Spain Robertson in my self chair Yes my question would relate to the impact on the child binding business particularly of deliveries given the limited space I'm just wondering if there is a particular time of day when for instance parents would be dropping off children and whether a condition as to the timing of deliveries to the development of the site might be an appropriate way of addressing this The problem that I have is that with the parents picking up at different times and this varies from day to day it would be hard to allocate set times for deliveries especially having no more deliveries a lot in the self as well they don't always turn up at those set times so that could be quite challenging I think doing that Thank you councillor Robertson Thank you I wonder if the gentleman could tell me how many children are actually attending this facility each day and then to the officers has we had comments made about the effect on lighting could we see the photographs again please of the site which would show us both houses on either side Thank you Chairman We have a number of children attending before school from 7.30 in the future 4 schools from 7.30 in the morning for breakfast club and also nursery children we also do an after school collection so we have after school children collected from the schools as well and that's right up until 6 o'clock so again with deliveries being outside those times I think before half seven he's unrealistic and probably after 6 o'clock as well in regard to numbers nursery children it can be anything from 8 to 10 children during the day and within the morning we have some of the nursery children there but also in addition to that we do have school children that we then drop off at school and the same with collection of children after can be anything to 8 or 9 children minimum after school and also taking into account obviously current circumstances with ventilation we are currently spending a lot of time outside and also with the bell-ups windows open so that obviously is a concern as well what the children are there Thank you It would help me to see the photographs again because if this gentleman is talking about 8 children I presume his property must be the one that had I think the sort of side extension single story side extension because the other side was just a blank wall so I would like to see that photograph down there chairman thank you Shall I pop them up? Yes please Can you see that photo there? So there's a right face on the right hand side of the windows there That's the children's facilities that single story Yeah But obviously there is a fence there already so they can't be getting much light I think anyway that's what he said he'd already lost 50% that he said during his Thank you I'll ask the question for the office to get round to the office We've had more questions for either Mr Dixon or darling for Mr Dixon I'm not sure if you've seen the agenda papers that we have in front of us but one of the recommendations where should approval be granted would be that a traffic management plan would have to be in place before any construction took place that would dictate when deliveries are where they park, how they turn round etc etc I just wanted to ask given all the concerns you've raised already do you think that would actually mitigate some of those concerns or do you think that having something like that wouldn't actually help at all? I think if looking at the site and you see the space that's available and the bend in the road it would yeah it would be unsafe for deliveries to be made from the roadside and I don't think looking at the space there is anywhere near enough room for deliveries to be made on site especially a large articulated lorry delivering timber bricks and so on I think that would be highly unlikely that they would be able to make deliveries on site especially with workmen's vans and builders vans and so on thank you Mr Dixon we have councillor Heather Williams through yourself chair I would like to ask Mr Dixon a lot of your representation has obviously been about the construction phase of the development and I do recall that you said about windows if I could just ask on the principle of having a dwelling there if it was to just appear as it were and get dropped in is that something that is of concern or is that something that you're agreeable to but it's the construction and the windows that's the issue thank you chairman in answer to that concerns us even once the construction's made because of all those windows and the rear windows looking at the plans that would face into those and into the garden as well obviously with the safeguarding of the children we look after being precedent we have to be very careful of that so that is a concern as well on the privacy too thank you very much no more questions thank you very much to both of you for coming and speaking we're now here from the parish council in it is it bad I'm sorry I'm sorry you're not bad hello thank you for being no no don't make much of it thank you very much for being with us and can I ask you if you have permission from authority from the parish council to represent them I think a lot of my points have actually been covered but I'd just like to question the principle the parish council had was okay with this but we have serious concerns the first of all is the ownership this was the garden of a south camps house and there is a substation on site and we'd like to confirm that all of the land does belong to south camps and can be handed over to a new owner this is partly because of ownership issues in the future the legal issues regarding ownership particularly on the shared driveway we've already had problems in the village regarding similar issues and the shared driveway is raising concerns also is there any parking on site with the shared driveway we see three vehicles there already and I doubt that there's going to be sufficient parking on the shared driveway also is access and a vehicle tracking plan part of the application that's been raised previously we have concerns regarding the safety of the substation it's an open area it's vented but it is not covered and one of our councillors is an electrical engineer and he raised doubts about the safety of such a structure so close to buildings the visibility displays for cars and pedestrians raised concerns particularly on this corner and with the childcare facility next door we want to see better displays for particularly children running across the access we also when we get the actual design we have concerns regarding the privacy overshadowing lots of light, lots of immunity for the current neighbours I know this will be brought up later but we do have great concerns that might not have been overdeveloped at this site and also we would want a condition that said that the construction vehicles did not come through the centre of the village which is the conservation area we know the difficulties and the damage that this can do so we have concerns great concerns most of which have been raised but we are re-interacting thank you so I will open to questions what I will confirm though and as we have seen in the report that anything about the scale character appearance, impact on amenities we can't look at now because that's reserved matters so impact on the neighbouring properties we can't in those terms what we are looking at is the principle of development itself for an outline planning application and the issues in terms of highways but you did have a couple of questions so we can put those to the officer don't look at the case officer Jane if you are there can you confirm that all the land is owned by South Cambridgeshire the applicant South Cambridgeshire district council as far as best of my knowledge I believe it is that's what was submitted in the red line plan as part of this application and the blue line that's associated with it thank you and including the shared driveway just to double confirm yes the driveway was part of the red plan I'm just getting up in front of me now and application form I apologise I'm having a IT moment this end don't worry Jo what we can do is we can see if there are any questions while you are looking for that red line that's alright I will open to seconds that's fine do we have any other questions to Councillor Milne Councillor Milne's it's related to this issue of that red line I was struggling to see the location of the substation and where the access was going to be made and it looked like that red line went straight in front of the adjoining property so I was quite let's wait till we get the red line on that one shall we come up to your question thank you my question chairs for the parish council same question as I go to the public speaker see we have a raft of conditions that are recommended should approval be granted relating to traffic management visibility splays the driveway itself I just wanted to know what your thoughts were on that if you thought they were enough to mitigate the development we have issues regarding the splays whether they're sufficient considering the childcare centre next door and the fact that this is on the pen we also want a condition regarding deliveries or the construction that they should not go through the building centre the conservation area sorry what else was there that's fine so we'll see if one of the members picks that up in terms of a construction management plan I think there's no construction management plan and there's no tracking plan regarding vehicle movement can we just check that the as I understand it the condition around pedestrian visibility splays is saying 2m by 2m shall be provided that's the condition that's in here in the papers yes it's a difficult site and with the traffic particularly of the small children and drop off and parking on the corner and such like they need to be perhaps rather more than that to give added good site lines thank you Cazette Jane are you still with us I am with you sorry about that chair so with the red line in the applications being submitted it shows that it's owned by Southcams everything that's within the red line I can get the red line back up again if that helps yes please thank you good so this is the site location plan can you see that chair yes so site location plan on the left and block plan on the right this area here would be where the substation is and the green on this plan is the visibility splays the 2m by 2s have been requested in regards of the other visibility splays this application did go back up to consultation with the highways department to revise the site location the site visibility splays and highways have confirmed that there's no objection to those they go across the road either side is that all the questions to myself I'll just check with Councillor Mills yes so I'm just trying to understand the layout of that red line because that would suggest that this property actually is directly in front of the adjoining property to this development is that correct so the property proposed on this block plan would be up here on the right hand side I go to the indicative block plan on here part this would be the potential location for a house here with potential parking to the north of it the red line extends down here to include the spaces that would be available number 35 as indicated on here the red line goes in front there would have to be an agreement between those private arrangements outside planning committees but they were much better growing thank you thank you very much I think that's answered your question don't think we have any other questions for you thank you very much for your time and we local members we'd like to speak now during the debate I'll speak in the debate we're open to the debate now members councillor Hawkins thank you chair actually perhaps through you chair if I might ask the case officer was highways aware that there's a child mind in business door I ask the question because I've had a similar situation in my world where they were not aware of something they shouldn't think which has caused the existing residents some issues so perhaps we could clarify if they were aware of that or not otherwise the principle of development as far as I'm concerned is okay but the highways issues definitely would like answer thank you Jane do you have an answer to that I don't specifically so I'm just going through my emails with highways to see if they were specifically aware of the child mind facilities while you're looking chair through you I think the concern of the highway authority will be whether or not adequate pedestrian visibility at the entrance to the site can be provided they're clearly satisfied that it can notwithstanding on in other properties around it's what can be achieved at that access point so whilst I take the point that council Hawkins is making that there could be children in other neighbouring properties so I think the key thing is can they provide that 2x2 visibility they've shown on the plan that they can the highway authority is satisfied with that and it's controlled by conditions so I think that deals with the issue myself councillor Heather Williams thank you chairman I think on not an IT day for me today I think to be really clear that the building where it is and all of that is completely indicative so there's no guarantees that that will be what comes forward in the next round just think that's important to stress and so not looking at where the building is and that sort of thing I think on highways we've got the response as has been said from council the technical advice which would be difficult for us to object with so we've only really got the principle of development to be addressing I think it will be a squeeze to get a dwelling in there I don't think it's going to be an easy thing to do but I do think it probably can be achieved with some very outside thinking design and I think that it needs particular when it comes to the next round and we're actually looking at the design I think officers really need to take on board its proximity to the other buildings because with the exception of how close they are it is going to be tight but I think it's achievable just thank you myself and councillors Fane and Riffithcher so I actually have two questions for officers one was around the parking spaces I believe the plan is to use the current parking spaces in front of number 35 for the new dwelling I just wanted to ask officers if the loss of parking spaces in front of the existing dwelling number 35 if that was a material consideration we could give weight to today or if that was more for the reserve matters later down the line and the second question was we heard from the parish about the lack of a construction management plan again I wanted to ask if officers would be open to adding that into the list of recommendations we have should approval be granted good, Jane can you hear me okay there so two questions so the first one about parking spaces on the indicative plan that's been submitted it shows two parking spaces for number 35 Fulton Road just had the front of it to the right hand side so there are two spaces for the new dwelling on that site so all four spaces would be within that red line our policy in the local plan says that there needs to be at least one space within the courtesy of the property so there would be two spaces per dwelling for that so officers would be happy in that respect I think the question is whether or not that's material to now to the outline planning also no sorry so if all matters reserved would come under the reserve matters application thank you and in terms of the construction management plan condition that was being recommended by the parish council if this were to be approved is that possible for officers to come up with one which is about no construction traffic going through the conservation area I think that was the request chair if I might take that one in my opinion that's not reasonable the public highway does pass through the area notwithstanding the concerns of the parish council I don't think it would be reasonable to try and restrict the route of traffic to the site in that respect this is an application for a single dwelling and no more than that so I think it would be disproportionate to see two route traffic elsewhere for an application for a single dwelling in my opinion okay that's answered the two questions from councillor bachelor next speakers we have councillors Fein and then Riffer good and I think then we could move to I have to conclude that on the question of highways this would be one development too many on this sensitive corner because short term in terms of getting construction vehicles in and out safely and long term bearing in mind the arrangements with the property next door this as councillor Mills has pointed out would involve shared space in what would otherwise be their front garden but also because of the I think it is a material consideration that there is an existing child mining business next door and a number of impacts on that business but particularly my concern would be safety of children in relation to dropping off and collecting children next door and so reluctant in this case I think it would be I would be inclined to reject the officer's recommendation and refuse the application next speaker chair is councillor and then Richard Williams I think we will then go to a vote on this one yeah councillor Peter Fane has actually just voiced what my concerns were so I think on balance I will be rejecting can I ask a question to Chris Carter in terms of that particular reason for objection and for a few construction phase that leads you to that conclusion or the addition of an additional dwelling in this location and the operation of the access to that dwelling chair if I may my concern related to both both the practicality of getting vehicles in and out from construction without harming safety on the sensitive corner and also the impact particularly on the child mining business next door in the longer term my view chair would be in the light of the comments of the highway authority not rejecting the application that there would be quite a difficult reason to defend there are measures that could be put in place through the condition with regard to deliveries to the site that could be controlled further by the council and agreed under the terms of the condition in terms of the increase in use of the access as the case officer showed on the plan there would be two spaces either side two for the existing dwelling, two for the new dwelling that intensification of use clearly in the opinion of the highway authority is not so significant that it would cause a significant impact on highway safety which is the test after all so I would be concerned that that isn't the strongest reason for a few to not say you couldn't go down that route if you wanted to clearly that's your prerogative but that would be my advice another speaker is Councillor Richard Williams and I think I saw Councillor Deborah Roberts in that council I can't read this is and we need to go to the vote and so I'll finish with that first of all Councillor Richard Williams then I agree with what Councillor Peter Fain said so I will keep things short by just saying that one question I will ask for officers it was policy H16 development of residential gardens why was that indeed not relevant to this because this is a residential garden I'd have to defer to the case officer on that would you like to repeat to hear your sound sorry, policy H16 development of residential gardens then goes on to list a whole lot of factors that can be taken into account in a proposal to develop in a residential garden all of those political points are actually points that were made by Councillor Peter Fain everything he said fits within those factors in that policy and that policy is not referenced at all in the officers report so the question is the policy around residential gardens why was that deemed not relevant it seems very relevant to me it's a question as well as a statement it's a question can I have can we separate out the question there from the debate here so the main question is why was H16 not used in the officers report I just confirm sorry yes so I'm having some sound issues today so H16 mainly refers to residential immunity character of the local area, sighting design materials, vehicle access there are more considerations that will be at a reserve matter stage rather than an outline probably should have referred to it in my committee report but that will be the next stage of the application to refer to policy principal development so S7 and S9 about the new development being within a development framework and then policy H16 would be the next stage of this application process ok thank you very much and Councillor Roberts thank you I'm going to be voting for the application because I can't actually see that we've got any real strong case not to is an outline application the facts that we're concerned about and I agree with Councillor Heather Williams is going to be tight but the facts are they will show at the next part of the exercise and if they can't be proven to be done then it won't get approval but I don't think we can refuse an outline application on this because the details will be there for us to consider later down the road and if it becomes a case of you know the concerns and I honestly don't think the case of the safety of the children actually amounts to anything that we can substantiate the highways have said it's okay and they're the experts on that and after all you know parents could put their cars a little bit further down the road and walk the children rather than have any confrontation at the gates so to speak thank you very much and so I'm now going to go to the vote on this one members and so the vote will be around the recommendation that committee approve this application subject to the conditions which start on page 71 Sorry chair I hate to develop to come back on this but I'm still not convinced that the HxC isn't relevant so the development of land used or last used as a residential garden for a new development will only be permitted where it is for a one-to-one replacement of a dwelling in the countryside under policy H14 or there would be no significant harm to the local area taking account of and it then goes on to list eight factors now I'm not at all sure why that's not relevant at this stage because it does cover the principle of development of gardens surely Thank you chair through you I have to say I'm inclined to agree with council audience that I think the policy can be relevant a question in my mind would be how you would judge the circumstances where we don't have any of that detail at this stage so I think if you consider in principle any dwelling on this site would be harmful then you may be able to cite this policy in a reason at this stage but if you think that those concerns might be mitigated through design and other factors that will come later at the reserve matter stage then that's the alternative I think that's very helpful yes thank you I do when I would you would use it as a reason for I would so if we could just rehearse the reasons for refusal if they were to be refused so I think the reason I've heard is concerns around the impact on highway safety both during construction and post occupation and therefore the principle of a dwelling in this location being unacceptable for that reason the precise wording perhaps to be agreed by chair and vice chair following meeting if that's the case good so members that balance so we now go to the vote which is voting 4 against abstain to approve this application subject to the conditions which follow from page 71 let's try the system so we try the system we press the blue figure and then say whether you are 4 against or abstaining and so there are 7 votes in favour 3 against and 1 abstention and with that members then this application of outline application is approved and we will look forward to seeing what comes forward at the next for reserve matters thank you very much we now go to agenda item 7 which is on pages 75 to 84 in our report pack this is for application number 21 slash 00512 slash FUL to the full application in the parish of Basingbourne and the proposal is for the change of use to a village hall including social activities and as a base for the parish council and ciliary uses include as a community library and for health education and indoor exercise and this is at the Limes community centre on the high street of Basingbourne Cymnysworth the applicant is Mrs Valerie Tookie from Basingbourne parish council the recommendations from the officers is approval the key material considerations for us members principle of development highway safety and parking provision and residential amenity there has been no site visit given the extraordinary circumstances it's not a departure from policy the application is brought before us because this is a minor development relating to land owned by South Cambridge a district council and always if there's been any representation objecting to that proposal it must come before us to ensure transparency and any conflict of interest the presenting officer is Richard Vitscham Richard are you with us yes chair hello hello do you have any updates and then a summary of the application please no updates chair I'll just share my screen can I just confirm that you can see my screen chair yes we can thank you thank you okay so agenda item 7 seeks planning permission for a change of use of the Limes community centre in Basingbourne Cymnysworth to a village hall including social activities and as a base for the parish council ancillary uses include as a community library of health education and indoor exercise the application site is shown outlined in red on the location plan on the screen the application is before planning committee the application is a minor development relating to land owned by South Cambridge district council and a representation has been received against the proposal the representation is an objection this area image shows the location of the application site and the surrounding area the site is located central in a central position within the village Basingbourne and it's within the Basingbourne conservation area the site is predominantly surrounded by residential development with the Limes shelter housing estate located to the north the southern boundary of the application site joins the high street and the site can also be accessed from the Limes to the north these images show the Limes community centre the proposal is solely for a change of use so it doesn't include any external alterations to the building the application site does not include any existing parking provision and the application does not propose to create any new parking version the established planning use of the Limes community centre is communal facilities in association with the Limes shelter housing estate however it's understood from a large number of representations received from the local county councillor ward councillor, parish council and local residents that the building has been used for a number of years as a community library and for regular meetings and events including parish council meetings the applicant has provided a list containing some of the current users of the Limes community community centre which includes sheltered housing residents basingbourne communities with parish council basingbourne community library environmental group village bands Camtad hearing session national childbirth trust over 60s group the lego group disaster emergency response centre and there's a polling station the applicant has also provided a list of prospective additional future uses which they intend would take place in the building some of these include first aid training sessions district and county councillor surgeries MP surgeries neighbourhood police surgeries citizens of vice bureau film club produce market art displays, children's parties men's shed craft groups, private hire and parish council office and after funeral use this map shows the majority of the village is located in one kilometre radius as the crow flies around the application site the majority of the village is also in one kilometre radius of the site when measured along the public highway routes these images show the nearby offsite parking locations which were the subject of the applicants parking survey it is important that the members are aware that the applicant does not own or does not have control over the availability of parking in these locations as they are either within the highway or within land owned by other parties however the images do represent where the availability for on-street parking near to the site was during the period of the applicants parking survey and it is also worth noting there is a bus stop located 50 metres away from the application site the key considerations relevant to the proposal relate to the principle of development highway impacts and parking provision and residential amenities impacts nature thank you very much we will move directly thank you Richard are there any questions that will come to you in the debate if they come up but we have representation from the parish council from councillor Mike Hallott yes good morning chair and thank you I'm Mike Hallott I'm the vice chair of personal companies with parish council and I intend to spend too long just going back over that again there is very strong support in the village for the use of lines as a community hall and that's been evident from the number of representations that have been made and particularly from councillor Susan Van der Ven who is strongly supportive that said there are two specific aspects I'd like to mention one is the impact on the local community is fairly limited because of the size of the hall at the moment there are only 36 chairs in there difficult to fit too many more we have had more people on occasion but basically they have to stand at the back we've had 50 odd people in there but it's tight so the proposed activities which Mr Vince John has listed they are the sort of scale of activities so we're not expecting to have a huge additional impact on the community the more effective use of the hall really comes by using the time that it currently sits empty so a more effective use of the hall the other aspect is parking now because the building dates from 1877 it was obviously built with limited parking facilities the four parking space in the back which belonged to a district council we have been given permission to use and we've also looked at the possibility of taking the wall down at the front to use the court card for parking however that doesn't provide any additional gain because what you lose by parking in the courtyard sorry what you gain from that you lose by lots of parking on the frontage so that's a question of gain three and lose three and there's no net benefit there the parking survey which we did the locations we looked at except one which was just over they were all within 200 metres so they're all within a short parking distance of the hall and very accessible and we concluded that there was enough space available for the sort of activities we're planning so we would be very grateful for the benefit of the village to see this application approved thank you very much chair thank you very much do we have any questions councillor Hawkins chair thank you chair two questions the first one is oh it's disappeared when you said the issue is effective use of the time for the hall what did you mean Mr Haled if you can expand on that and yes certainly on that question the hall sits at the moment empty for quite a long time the number of activities that take place in there maybe only and I'm guessing now but maybe 10 or 20% of the time is effectively utilised now it's obviously it's a building there that doesn't want to sit empty it wants to be sit and be used for community use so basically we can basically fill the calendar ok thank you and the second question if I may chair is to do with the survey that you did for the highways authority because they don't seem to be satisfied what exactly is the problem and can you resolve it it is difficult to to know the detail but obviously I think were concerned whether there was sufficient parking for hall users as well as there being sufficient parking for residents but when we did the survey we specifically looked at areas which didn't inconvenience the residents in other words we were looking for areas that weren't immediately outside their houses so we looked at for example the frontiers of the lines itself we looked at surgery parking space which is available out of surgery hours we looked at areas along highways which weren't in front of people properties so we tried to fit it so that there was sufficient par