s block a and the link section across the bridging element would provide 100 self-contained rooms with desk study space en suite cooking facilities with communal television games rooms at ground floor level block b would provide 38 cluster rooms whereby individual rooms benefit from desk and study space is non-sweets but cooking facilities with occupants of this block utilizing they'd have shared kitchen facilities and so there'd also be three accessible rooms there'd be a reception area at ground floor and a separate management and warden's office at ground floor level so this is a sui generous use meaning that if the owner wanted to change the use to residential for example the negative full planning application in order to do that they couldn't just change to a residential use from student accommodation there are seven car parking spaces proposed and these are all at ground floor level so there's no basement car park as there was with the recently approved scheme there'd be 145 secure cycle parking spaces and there will be a footpath provided to the self the scheme includes landscaping and the development will provide accommodation for local educational institutions in particularly sorry in particular CRC Cambridge Regional College who have written a letter indicating an interest in the proposals and who have been involved in formulating the proposals as far as I understand so by way of background this scheme is one of two resubmit resubmit schemes on this site so as members will be aware the two previous schemes one for a built-in rent and one for student accommodation were both refused last year for reasons pertaining to design landscaping and ecology the applicant had appealed the previous decisions and these were to proceed by way of a public inquiry however as you may well know planning commission has recently been granted on this site for 80 built-in rent flats under S slash 4191 slash 1 9 slash FL I believe that was in August upon the grant of planning commission the applicant withdrew the appeals so those appeals are no longer proceeding so this current scheme is the remaining resubmit scheme that still needs to be determined and should be determined on its own merits as well as the chair alluded to the design of the proposed development is very similar to the previously approved built-in rent scheme and officers consider that all of the previous reasons for refusal have been addressed as was the case in respect the recently approved scheme so there are a lot of similarities between this presentation and the last presentation but I will go through all the design issues again so this is an extract from the Orchard Park design guide SPD which shows the Comfort site it envisages heights of 12 meters of between 12 meters and 15 meters for the areas of land to the east of the site as you'll know there's no prescribed height for the application site which is this area to the west although the SPD itself the text refers to nine meter height for other blocks so the only reasonable conclusion is that the nine meter height relating to Comfort can only reasonably relate to this area here this slide shows the proposed layout on the left and the previously refused layout on the right as you can see there have been significant revisions to the design of the proposed development so now we've got an east west orientation as opposed to a north south orientation so that was previously one of the reasons for refusal we weren't happy with the orientation of blocks purely for design reasons because most of the development fronting the A14 is orientated east west so with the introduction of this bridging element they have overcome that aspect to the reason for refusal as far as offices are concerned there's also a significant increase in the width of the pedestrian link so the plan on the on the right hand side showing previously refused development clearly has a much narrower pedestrian link whereas this has been widened significantly and the distance between the development and the residential dwelling to the south has also been significantly increased as you can see given the revisions to the design of the layout there's significantly increased area available for planting and landscaping as well so previously the scheme was refused partly on the basis of landscaping and the fact that we didn't think that the applicant could achieve a high quality landscaping scheme that was viable we we no longer think we think they've addressed that reason for refusal and that the landscaping proposals can be required by condition and and that actually now they are able to achieve a high quality landscaping scheme which is viable previously the previous scheme would have required significant revisions to design so you don't they'd actually have to move the buildings so so we couldn't have conditioned it previously whereas now we're happy that they've overcome that reason for refusal this slide shows a section looking west with the proposed development at the bottom and the previously refused development at the top as you can see the setback from the neighbouring properties to the south has been significantly increased as I referred to earlier there's also been an increase in setback at fifth floor level which is well as I said the height parameter in the SPD is nine meters for this plot and this this development is approximately 14.2 meters but we as planning officers consider that that impact the impact of the height has been mitigated firstly by the increase distance between the blocks and the residential development to the south but also with this increased setback at the floor level which mitigates the impact so you can see the height is actually fairly similar between the residential development to the south and the four story element of the development earlier I referred to the orientation of proposed development this slide shows how the revised orientation translates when viewed from the south so the slide at the bottom is the revised proposal and the slide at the top shows the previously refused development with two blocks which were orientated north to south you'll note that the development now has an east west orientation as required by the SPD the bridging design that they've used serves to also create more active frontages to the south where the pedestrians drawn in to the entrances below there's also there are increased well an increased amount of fenestration which creates natural surveillance for the pedestrian link which we think is also an improvement to the scheme these are the proposed elevations no northern elevation facing the A14 includes additional windows so that's that's an improvement previously they were quite blank elevations so they've improved that slightly as well as you'll be aware all park community council objected to the proposed development the objections are very similar to the objections made in relation to the build rent scheme all the objections are addressed in the committee report of particular note the current scheme does not include any viability evidence so there's no affordable housing requirement so the applicant hasn't submitted any viability evidence so all the all the points relating to viability aren't actually relevant to this proposed development in addition many of the objections centre on parking in transport however there would be a clause in the section 106 agreement which would require that the tenancy agreement includes a restriction on car ownership with the exception of disabled students so none of the students would be able to own a car and that is a common approach taken for proposals for student accommodation elsewhere in the UK including in recent appeal decisions so it's not an unusual approach and it's enforceable as well with regard to the area of the pedestrian pedestrian link which falls within the ownership of the community council this is not part of the proposed development and is therefore not within the red line boundary albeit the developer is committed to providing the funding for this part of the footpath link the LPA will make these funds available to the parish council should they wish to develop this part of the link in accordance with the design guide spd so this slide just runs through the differences between the refuse development and the current proposal so there's been a reduction in the number of rooms for 151 238 as I mentioned there's been an increase in the distances between the blocks and the residential development to the south quite significant increases 5 to 11 meters and 9 to 21 meters and there's also been an increase a further increase at the fifth floor level as a result of decreased distances the area around the footpath link has been been increased as I've discussed we've got the bridging element which creates the east west orientation improved active frontiers and elevational treatments an increased area available for landscaping so these are the key material considerations in the determination of this application in terms of the principle of development it's considered that the principle is acceptable planning commission has recently been granted as you know for residential development on this site with regard to design landscaping and ecology the reasons previous reasons for refusal have all been addressed I haven't mentioned the ecology but the previous application was refused on partly on the basis that the required survey work in relation to a population of lizards which are a protected species had not been undertaken that has now been undertaken and the survey has been submitted so the ecologist is satisfied subject to conditions that the ecology reason for refusal has fallen away so all of the other considerations relevant material considerations are discussed in detail in the committee report so in terms of officer conclusions we consider the proposed development accords of all relevant development plan policies as set out in the committee report I think with the built rent scheme we we did identify some minor conflicts I know it's a bit of balancing exercise whereas this scheme we consider that all development plan relevant development plan policies are complied with there'd be a conflict with the orchard park design guide SPD in terms of the height parameter but we consider that's mitigated by the setback of fifth floor level which you know is exactly the same situation as for the build to rent proposal which was approved previously so in terms of design this is actually almost identical to the previously approved scheme is probably actually an improvement because I think block B is smaller than the previously approved scheme so it's actually it's actually better in terms of design than the previous scheme officers consider consider that there are other material considerations which were in favour of the development which include the social and economic benefits associated with the provision of student accommodation and the provision of 55 units towards the council's housing land supply just because we mentioned housing land supply it doesn't there's not an issue with that it's obviously a relevant consideration to consider the benefits associated with the provision of housing and there's a requirement to continually monitor and update the housing land supply that's why we're mentioning it no other reason there would be a as well there'd be various section one I six contributions and these are set out in the appendage agreed heads of term so they will be agreed in principle with the with the applicant they include contributions to open space indoor meeting space and a cycleway a contribution to the cycleway link on Histon Road I noted previously in relation to the build rent scheme there were a lot so there was quite a substantial debate about contributions and viability that isn't the case here we don't have a viability case and the applicant has committed to making all of the required contributions in relation to this proposed development as I've mentioned there'll also be a car ownership restriction which would be with it controlled and outlined in the section 106 so on that on that basis officers consider that the development complies with all relevant development plan policies and there aren't any material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan and therefore we recommend that the planning commissioners granted subject to the conditions in section 106 contributions as set out in the in the officer report thank you all right thanks very much um points of clarification please Chairman we have councillor Roberts wanted to speak to him councillor Roberts please thank you very much chairman and through you chairman to the officer um I have a sense of deja vu here um during our last month and I'm sure the officers feel a bit the same however um can you just have clarification on first one thing the uh community council is still objecting is that right because I I thought I heard at the first that community council wasn't objecting now but I mean all the paperwork is there saying that they object to it second point is um haven't been on the south camps for long enough to have remembered the idea behind Orchard Park uh the officers agree that actually we are getting a very disproportionate and unbalanced community now here with the various applications and I'm not at all sure how we can ensure that the implementation of no cars um to the students who would be there can actually happen because this isn't a building that's been built by one of the university colleges is it um and therefore it's a private uh development seemingly going to be used by colleges and and given all the problems that Orchard Park is already suffering from in um parking problems how is that actually going to be police thank you very much chairman thank you okay uh thank you councillor the yeah yeah the first point you raised is about the community council that yes that they are objecting um it's the it's Hisston parish council who aren't objecting um yep thank you when a clarification um that Hisston obviously objected to the previous proposal but they didn't comment on this so they're not supporting but they didn't comment um the I I'm not really sure what your your point is in relation to you said the development would be disproportionate to the community I think yeah I assume you're talking the community council is pointing out very much that um whereas um they are looking to be having much more family homes um what is happening there is you are getting more and more and more applications being approved for single occupancy you know rooms basically okay um well I don't I don't really see how that's necessarily an issue I mean in policy terms I don't think we have any policies which require um certain 10 years in certain locations as such um I would also say that actually um this will take some of the pressure off some of the um traditional residential development in auction park um which probably presumably accommodates um some students um so this provides purpose built student accommodation so it's going to actually take some of that pressure away from from auction park which would potentially um be be beneficial in in the terms which you suggest um because it'll free up some of the housing stock for potentially families um so yeah I don't think there's a policy basis for uh refusing on on the grounds that it's out keeping in social terms um I think yeah policy HQ one has provisioned for social and some of that so with me you're suddenly having a bath well I I've got a policy in front of me but there are there are aspects to policy HQ one which allow for um well require consideration of social cohesion I don't think that's how it's particularly out of phrase but um you could hang something on that if you if you wanted to but as far as I'm concerned I'm satisfied that the development is in keeping and there's no reason to consider that student accommodation in this area would would um be out keeping in sort of social terms um in terms of your other points in relation to the car parking the um that is that can be controlled because the section one and six agreement will require that the tenancy agreement which which students sign up to stipulates that they can't own a car unless they're disabled um that is a common approach taken to student accommodation um nationwide so in in many instances um section one and six agreements are used to control car ownership in that way um so it's it's not uncommon and there's a recent appeal decision in Southampton where the inspector took the same approach um so it you know that as far as we're concerned that's enforceable fine good thank you very much uh next is the Bradenum please thank you chairman yeah I'm sorry I'm with you um so two things um one was I just wanted to seek some clarification on sort of principles uh and the other was a particular one so given that the previous approval for the bill to rent has already been approved I just wanted to clarify if this were also to be approved for student accommodation could the applicant simply choose which which uh application they chose to deliver that's the bottom oops is now exiting thank you and the second question was um at the um southwest of the corner of the site uh there's reference on the site plan to the pedestrian link outside the applicant's ownership for indicative purposes only can you just clarify I'm sure it's in the papers somewhere but is there some uh confirmation somewhere that that will be um secured as a as a route act onto I think it's chieftain way isn't it yes um so firstly yes the developer uh can implement either consent um secondly the the section 106 agreement uh includes provision to provide funds to the orchard park and the council in relation to that part of the um pedestrian link should they wish to uh construct it in accordance with the orchard park design guide spd but it's false outside of the applicant's ownership um so that they're only responsible for the development which falls within their ownership so that piece of land is in the ownership of orchard park so it's for them to develop if they want to okay thank you thank you yeah well I think I'm probably next and then Councillor Richard Williams after that okay what's that saying then my question related to the uh the setback um I think the my impression is that this has been setback significantly to the south from the buildings to the south on the fifth floor but actually these that refused application I'm not quite clear because I haven't done the comparison whether that setback is any different from the uh from the other application which has now been approved and indeed coming this today your sound was breaking up there uh Councillor did you get that no could you would you like me to repeat Simpson thank you yes you could yes my question related principally to the setback to the north which used from that which was shown on the original it's not quite this setback is different from that in the I'm sorry I'm having trouble with my mute button going on and off I will try one more time if I'm my may chairman concerns the setback from the busy a 14 to the north which has been reduced as against the refused application I think it may be the same as in the alternative application I'm just wondering whether uh that is an issue which is relevant a material consideration here given the amount of work that's been going on beside the a 14 and the lack of access to that edge of the a 14 other than by taking this this land here is that a factor that we should consider I are you I firstly the setback from the a 14 is very similar to the previously refused application I think it's slightly increased but that relates to the an issue with the application site boundary so it's had to be revised very slightly but um we're we're perfectly satisfied that the proximity and relationship between the development of the a 14 is acceptable in in policy terms um that's that wasn't hasn't cropped up previously um as as an issue and it certainly wasn't a reason for refusal in relation to the uh refused scheme and I think the uh orientation of the building relate buildings well is one building in relation to the a 14 is very similar to uh if not identical um in terms of proximity to the previously approved built a rent scheme as well thank you for that chairman I think next we have councillor Richard Williams thank you very much councillor Williams please thank you very much chair I've got three points um of clarification for the officer um the first is about the orientation of the building again so this north south east west issue on the diagrams we were shown I just just want to sort of clarify that of course there's the bar going across between the two buildings running north south but of course the bottom of that would be opened I think on the diagram it was it was shaded in gray but of course it will be open and looking at the building from the a 14 the north elevation um it was a one-dimensional drawing we got but of course given the perspective and the depth the link would actually look a lot smaller in in in reality than than it did on on that drawing um so I I I just still have a an issue with this being classified as definitely east west when there's a strong north south element to it um okay on the on on the question of parking and just to note a couple of points I mean seven spaces doesn't seem very much I know students well students are not supposed to have cars but students often do but on travel days um when students are arriving and leaving 155 students will create quite a lot of cars um so I'm not quite sure where they'd go and just to pick up on my final point on what councillor Roberts talked about um I think it was in the presentation this social benefits of student housing more cited as a material consideration well I I would ask the question what about the social benefits then to Orchard Park because of social benefits of the development are a material consideration and I think we have we can legitimately look at the social benefits or disbenefits to the community in Orchard Park from having a large transient um population centre okay uh on the I suppose on the orientation point uh I'm not really sure if that's a question or not but I think the way I see it is that the uh the bridging element introduces um a building which has the appearance of being east west orientated as opposed to north south so it's a significant improvement um what you know most of the development fronting the A4 well backing onto the A14 is orientated east west um that's that's the reason why we wanted the east west orientation in the first place that's that's the reason part of the reason why the spd envisages it envisages it um but it also envisages east west orientation for noise attenuation purposes but there is no um noise um issue here and and there never has been so so the only reason it was refused previously was on character grounds and I'm satisfied that the the bridging element is a significant improvement and and it does result with a development which is in keeping with that predominant east west character um in terms of the parking uh yeah valid point about um end of term beginning of term uh we would well we have proposed a condition in relation to a drop off pickup management plan and I think that was requested by the local highway authority so so there is um a mechanism to control the impacts associated with um the beginning and end of term and moving on to your final point which is a good point um yeah this economic environment on social impacts of development um are often material they are material considerations in the determination of finding applications and they can um go either way uh so there could be environmental benefits or um this benefits so in terms of the social benefits I I I think there are social benefits through um supporting um local education institutions and I think that are in providing housing for young people involved in those institutions and I think that's a significant benefit associated with the scheme I don't see any social disadvantages um but you know something for members to consider um and if they do then yeah they need to weigh that um do do those disadvantages outweigh or warrant a decision other than in accordance with the development plan policies that's a that's a difficult question but I certainly haven't identified any so um hopefully that answers your question all right thank you very much gentlemen we have one other speaker listed it's um oh Councillor Bradman Councillor Bradman you already had the speaking thank you very much yes it is a new point thank you um sometimes these things um evolve as you hear what other people say um so my concern was uh as it is for any development at Orchard Park is to do with the car parking and I wanted to clarify um whether there who would so who would be responsible you you said there was a management plan for pick up and drop off days but who will be responsible for monitoring the car parking and also how will that be enforced because if it falls to for example civil enforcement um or the police that's not going to be done and I just I just wanted to check how it's you know it's rather difficult it's rather different to a situation in Cambridge colleges where there are sanctions that they that can be applied because the people are in the college I'm just wondering how you think that might be uh done because it would not be appropriate for that to fall to the parish count the community council okay yeah so as I mentioned there's um the reason it can be controlled by a section 1 and 6 agreement is because we can control the content of the tenancy agreement which applies directly to the site um so what we're saying is that there should be specific uh clauses included in the tenancy agreement which would require that students don't own a motor vehicle unless they're disabled and set out the implications which are also specified in the section 106 agreement um should they reach that requirement so I without I don't know the specific detail let me just have a quick look sorry my point was that if they simply say no I don't have a car and then park it somewhere else on Orchard Park there's very little way anybody could monitor that well it's the same as any enforcement issue so if someone raises it as an issue with us then we would approach the management company um and refer to the Y6 agreement and um action should be taken in accordance with the contract which should set out the implications for not complying with um with that requirement okay all right thank you very much um okay members I've got two public speakers uh to call um once we've done that I'll be adjourning for half an hour for lunch um so just so you're aware so um can I call Mr. Fulton is Mr. Fulton with us please yeah hello afternoon so good afternoon uh councillor Bradnip has already addressed the point I was going to raise and that is that the uh the application under consideration today does not actually improve a functional pedestrian link between yield drive and shift in lane yeah okay okay hang on a minute uh because we you know we have to deal with this but process uh process uh Mr. Fulton can we call him so uh is now exiting uh sorry about that uh you know the process don't you so we've got three three minutes and uh whenever you're ready you can start that please thank you sure thank you I would just say that councillor Bradnip has already addressed the point I was going to raise that the application before the committee today does not actually provide for a functional pedestrian and cycle link between yield drive and shift in lane but I think that's been adequately covered by officers um that was my chief concern um and um I don't think it complies with the requirement in the SPD but I'll thank the committee for the time and I'll let you move on to other speakers uh well well thank you very much for that uh Mr. Fulton thank you uh uh uh second speaker is on behalf of the applicant and it's Mr. Watson it's Mr. Watson with us please yes thank you chairman hello Mr. Watson hello afternoon welcome um you know the the uh process you've got three minutes so whenever you're ready thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity to speak um as members are aware through the presentation um a proposal to deliver 80 built rent apartments was approved on this site in August like that proposal this application for the student accommodation is also a resubmission following an earlier refusal which had raised concerns over the scale and massing of the buildings the quality of the landscaping and a lack of a protected species survey in approving the amended built rent scheme in August the committee agreed that an appropriate protected species survey had now been submitted and that demonstrated that there was no harm the reduction the length and the footprint of the buildings and the increased separation which results between the proposals and the buildings to the south as it's been walked through today and the presentation had improved and that was now acceptable and subject to appropriately word and conditions the committee agreed that an appropriate landscaping scheme could be delivered as is noted in paragraph 75 of your austere report and again as has been presented this morning this scheme is very similar to built rent scheme the main differences are that the eastern block built block b is actually said even further back from the seven boundaries and the previously approved built rent scheme there are more windows facing south addressing the footpath link and of course the building is said divided to provide student rooms rather than flats as with the built proposal therefore officers believe these changes have addressed the previous concerns and it's recommended for approval whilst car parking provision was not a previous reason for refusal it was debated at some length when we considered the built rent scheme in August and it's been raised again this morning um by its nature this scheme is quite different in terms of the need for control of side parking there's a much lower demand for parking and there's a far greater ability to control the behavior of the tenants in this case a section 106 agreement is proposed as you've heard that will ensure that the tenancy agreements which are entered into the institute by the students before they can take a residency makes clear that they are not allowed to own a car and bring a car to the site as is noted in paragraph 138 of your office report the county council's transport and highways development management teams are both very happy with its approach and its approach which is is used elsewhere in conclusion paragraph 61 of the NPTF advises that it's necessary for local planning authorities to have regards the need to provide housing for a range of people including students who do form an important part of local community this proposal would provide much needed high quality dedicated student accommodation at the same time it would assist in easing the pressure on and loss of family housing to the multiple occupancy market we really do therefore hope that the community will feel able to support the officer's recommendation and to grant permission for this scheme thank you very much right thank you thank you Mr Watson hang on hang on a minute there may well be some questions I think um do we have questions councillor thing councillor may well be having some difficult question from councillor Roberts all right thank you very much councillor Roberts please um thank you again chairman and through you chairman I would like to ask the applicant um in your previous encounters with South Cams about these sites um you were going to go to appeal and part of your appeal argument was going to be that South Cams District Council does not have a five-year land supply is that still your stance and would you use that again um if we refuse this and it went to appeal um now come on we have to only ask questions which are relevant to the actual planning application where man it's terribly relevant well I don't think that's given pre-meeting advice a little while ago well indeed I mean but you know there's no response the applicant can give us an answer or can Mr Watson if he wishes to give an answer I'm happy to answer if you'd like me to yes councillor um this application as I think your your officer pointed out is in accordance with the development plan so where applications are in accordance with the development plan we don't need to try and run other arguments that would support the application the five-year land supply argument was to do with specifically with the appeal where the council was arguing that our proposal did not um accord with all of the development plan policies and as is a often used approach where land supply is let's say a question um if a councillor is found not to have a land supply a five-year land supply then it would um assist an inspector if we were to appeal um to be able to say well even if I take the view there are some harmful impacts from this development it doesn't accord with all the council policies the fact you don't have a land supply um would outweigh that now this is a total different position and we haven't made that case in respect of this application because it's fully in accordance with the development plan to answer the second part of your question if in six months eight months time we happened to be down the the road and we were at an appeal at that point we re-looked at this and the council you know didn't have a land supply it had an adverse appeal decision in the intervening period it's quite possible we would raise it you know we would have to raise it but it's it's not a part of our case at the present time it's not what you said before though is it you said thank you thank you very much for that thank you okay um do we have any more speakers councillor saying I have no other speakers listed oh wait a minute uh councillor Richard Williams all right okay councillor Richard Williams please thank you chair um just a quick one for Mr Watson um just picking up on the points I made and and councillor Braden have made can I just ask Mr Watson how he would imagine the um plan for pickup and drop-off management and traffic to be enforced yes certainly um well depending on if if this scheme went forward and it was for example taken up and it was wholly used by Cambridge Regional College it's likely they would be managing it and as part of the um condition that that Luke Simpson referred to would we either we or the college or the management company if it wasn't being run by the college would have to submit details of how they would cover these points now when I went to university many many years ago even then this was a big issue and you actually had to book a time for your parents to arrive with your car packed up and they would say we've got 10 spaces or we've got five spaces and you have to be there over the weekend whether it was the Friday the Saturday Sunday so I would imagine something like that would be done where it would be managed so people arriving and leaving would be staggered and if people you know you're just going to get the odd person who who who um causes the problem and arrives at the wrong time but that that's I believe the way they do it all right thank you very much I've councillor Khan and councillor Braden right okay and then that's the end of that after that thank you so councillor Khan please um just whilst I've got you councillor Khan are you going to want to speak as a local member or are you happy for the debate no I'm not intended to speak as a local member thank you very much sorry I really wanted to there was I am a local member for for Orchard Park but I was going to say that the local council community council was concerned about where the students were coming from what sort of students are proposed you haven't had you any clarity about who would be where the students would come from what the arrangements would be who would be the management or is that completely open at this stage uh yes or cans that the application was put together with support from Cambridge Regional College and you'll have seen there is a letter of support with this application that they prepared um they're not obligated to take this if we get planning commission today we hope you know we hope they would still want to do that and they would be down to that uh the owner of the the site to decide whether he goes ahead with the bill to rent scheme or or this but assuming it was um Cambridge Regional College my understanding is very much that they are trying to boost overseas students to a degree who will come over and when people are coming from overseas they expect um a proper standard of accommodation I think what I was in discussion with them was told that many years ago you could you could get someone one of the lecturers would would give someone a room and they would have a shared property but that doesn't work anymore if people are coming and paying fees for a course they need proper accommodation so I believe the majority of people would be would be coming from further afield okay thank you very much and uh Councillor Bradman thank you chairman um I wanted to moot possibly with Mr Watson or well I'll try you to begin with um you mentioned about the fact that the parking would be controlled by means of the tenancy agreement and as you described you said I think I heard you correctly saying um that it would they must be they must confirm that they either don't have a car or they won't bring it on site now of course of course they're not going to be able to bring it on site because there's only seven car parking spaces the concern is whether they bring it on to Orchard Park and I'm just wondering is there any scope to say that to extend that exclusion zone because otherwise the police or whoever chooses to enforce will not be able to enforce it yeah that's a good point it's probably the way I I spoke what I meant was that they should not be coming and taking a tenancy at this building if they are proposing to bring a car with them and whether that's on site or in the road next door they shouldn't be bringing it with them it's it needs to be framed in such a way that it's enforceable if they choose to park off-site but on Orchard Park yeah I suspect there will be a radius of how far away they may be allowed yeah okay well they're not allowed a car at all oh that's the point actually if they've got one at home at their parents' house and remind them indeed but yeah you haven't got the answer to that obviously okay so thank you very much Mr Watson thank you let you go now and members I think we'll take a break now for lunch so we'll take a half an hour and we'll be back again in action at 10 past two please Chairman can I ask have we not got anybody from the parish council? No the parish council chose not of the community council chose not to speak thank you Chairman they were invited obviously okay Aaron are we closing down please Aaron have you confirmed closure is Aaron still with us sorry chair I've been having issues with my microphone thank you very much chair we are now live again thank you very much welcome back to South Commons District Council Planning Committee we're currently dealing with the application at Orchard Park we've already heard the officers report and the contributions from members of public and interested parties we're now moving on to the debate on Orchard Park so members over to you who would like to start the debate do we have any speakers sorry Chairman I've registered to speak yeah it's with Councillor Thane you can I just check if Councillor Thane is operational who's he's been having trouble with you I'm not sure if I'm operational okay fine noted Councillor Bradley on them please thank you thank you Chairman I just wanted to acknowledge the fact that we've had one application for one sort of thing back in August which was approved and now we've got this application and in many ways I feel this application looks preferable to the previous one we had but I think it still has the potential to visit quite a lot of problems on the community at Orchard Park and I think it's a shame that they haven't been able to attend I quite appreciate they give their time you know voluntarily and this may not be a convenient time and they've given such detailed objections on this site in the past I think it's not unreasonable that they didn't attend again but I just think it's a shame because what we know is that last time they spoke very powerfully about how much they how hard they have tried to build a community at Orchard Park and how difficult that has been when the developments that have been approved have encouraged a development of transience and you know they make a little headway with something like Marmalade Lane and they've worked so hard on the community council and then this sort of application could damage that community again not for any bad wishes of the people involved or living in the development but just because they won't have a commitment to the community so I think it's a great shame having said that I don't think that now there are sufficient reasons to refuse this application and so I and because I think it's actually preferable to the one we looked at before I think I'm still holding my judgment but I'm hovering in the middle thank you leave you hovering there I can't see any more speakers so I think anyone else can come on again perhaps as local member yes I'm commenting the this application in terms of its physical structure and relationship and the problems and the previous appeals which were withdrawn meets all the requirements in the same way as the one that's approved in August in terms of which are retracting from the development to the south its size and its location and it's having a different orientation most of the concern appears to be the fact that it's student accommodation and yes we have the alternative of either independent accommodation or for small small studio flats for working people or student accommodation which is a larger number both of these are potential problems to traffic but we've been told from experience elsewhere that the sort of condition they plan to apply to it is acceptable so I don't think we've got a grounds for turning down the application on the basis of the type of development that the proof in terms of much better than his landscaping than even the previous one which has been approved and the social type of students you might have is not something that really is an issue in terms of planning consideration so I don't really see what grounds one would have to turn it down I think it's one that we would be wanting to approve even if the local community is concerned about it and I know they are concerned about it so that's my view on it. All right thank you very much. We have Councillor Roberts and then Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you Councillor Roberts please. Thank you Chairman my sense of deja vu continues and grows I'm sorry but I'm just amazed that it's quite clear that this is going to cause a real bad slant to Orchard Park and I've been on the council long enough to remember like you Chairman when Orchard Park was basically just still in dream shape and it was certainly not to have it as a you know lots and lots of very tiny apartment type one room being you know the bed it sits it was to have a community and I'm just I'd be absolutely amazed that members are going along with this sort of application it's going to cause problems and that I absolutely no doubt just by the very numbers of students and I'm just wondering how many students will actually go here because if you ask any of the private schools who've got boarding in Cambridge now all their overseas students most of which are Chinese I think are not coming back they have no idea when they're going to come back so actually what happens to these flats should the student population decrease and I mean the university is concerned about this who is going to get these places and because it's not university owned and controlled it's an it's a it's an open area isn't it to do anything and anything with they will fill them this developer will fill them and he will have to fill them but exactly with whom is he going to fill them if he isn't students and the parking we already heard we heard at the last much time which was for the other application when it came back to us about the huge amounts of parking problems in Orchard Park now I don't care what anybody says about oh well the restrictions on students they will have cars they they need to go and see their parents they need to go and see their friends they need to go up to London and they're not all going to get on bikes or buses or trains and and we are going to have a problem so it seems to me it's horrendous that a district council can actually not realising the harm that is going to be done with this against any perceived good I mean it's it's a nightmare we are going to turn Orchard Park very sadly and it's all there on the in the ruins we are going to turn Orchard Park into the ghetto of the future and it won't be very far many decades down down the road that we do that I mean we just shouldn't be allowing this okay thank you very much councillor Payne do we have councillor Heather Williams all right lovely Heather Williams please councillor hello thank you chairman um so I've listened very carefully to the representations that have been made um and and I think the officer's done a good job of putting the case together for us um but I for myself I don't think that significant amount has changed in well not enough has changed since we originally looked at this and I'm looking at page 113 paragraph 72 of our reasons for the refusal last time and one of which was that it didn't fit in the surrounding area because of its height the three-story residential development directly to the south of the application site and obviously this is still a still a very large dominating building for that area and it's there are lots of things that are are undesirable in it for example odours and other things that are referenced with the drainage concerns and and what have you um you know the students having to deal with this just having to deal with the smells that have been warned about that's that's undesirable but they're probably not material um I'll take your steer on that chairman about noise and um levels etc that have been raised through the report but it it's just it hasn't changed enough it's not good enough in our representation last time we said that it did not represent high quality design um and I still stand by that personally in in my view and I will be voting against um and not putting this on the residents there thank you very much councillor Richard Williams councillor Richard Williams please thank you thank you very much chair um I speaking for myself I I still have concerns about the orientation of the building I'm not convinced it's it's really north-south or um east west rather I think there is at least as strong a case so I'll give it to north-south as east west it really is a matter of judgment and I I I make the judgment that it's still predominantly north south um just to go back to a point that that we've already discussed but to pick up on something that councillor Khan said I mean the you know the impact of a development on the occupiers of neighboring land can be a material consideration it clearly can be um and that can include the impact on the the neighboring community so so I think the concern about um student accommodation and the development of orchard park the councillor roberts and councillor brandon and various others I think have flagged up I think it was councillor brandon as well um these that can be a material consideration and that is a consideration for me um I think it's a very important consideration thank you chairman I have no other speakers listed right lovely thank you very much uh in that case we are chairman I now have councillor nick right oh councillor right please thank you chairman and I just wanted to add like councillor roberts I've sat on quite a lot of these applications at orchard park and she you and myself all remember the point of the buildings at the front of the development against the a14 which is they were to have industrial use to screen the residents behind now you know putting students in this is not it's not that sort of use and they will have to suffer the air pollution from the road the noise pollution from the road and the argument that CRC have expressed an interest baffles me slightly as most of their students come from the village colleges locally and I don't understand why they're looking for uh you know accommodation which you know which is slightly baffling so I have my concerns about this application too and we'll be voting accordingly thank you very much all right thank you very much there is our last speaker yes thanks well perhaps I might have a word then um members you have to keep in mind that this has already been through a refusal process and the officer is very clearly telling us that uh the grounds for a refusal that we had previously in their opinion has been have been met um on that basis it seems very difficult to actually find uh actual grounds now a number of you are saying that you want to vote for refusal um I'm not clear on what grounds that refusal would be so if somebody would like to give me some flesh on that I'm assuming in part we've had the issue of the height which you you still feel um is um the material here yeah height council williams has come up you go ahead thank you chairman um I think paragraph 72 page 113 I think what you're hearing from a lot of us and I'm sure members will correct me if I'm wrong is that not there hasn't been sufficient change from the application in our view to actually deal with the problems that we faced last time um and our last time we stated in the opinion of the local planning authority the scale siting amassing of the proposed five-story development would not be in keeping the surrounding area and in particular the three-story residential development directly to the south of the application site it then goes on to reference page 34 the orchard park design guidance spd and policy hq one of the design principles now I appreciate that others may have a different view and and officers have a different view that that actually that has been suffice but for some of us it hasn't been and therefore I'd say the grounds are very very similar okay thank you got that I'd agree with that and I don't know whether we could add parking chairman because I think the parking is going to be a huge huge problem well I don't think we can actually the highways people are raising no objections and yeah we've been through this a number of times today uh there's clearly contractual uh arrangements in place that's that says people cannot have a car there so it's very difficult you know we can't second guess that if it's in place it's in place um so hang on uh mr carter perhaps you could give us your advice on this yes thank you chair um Stephen Reed may be uh looking to make the same point but um I think we need to think about consistency in the decision making and as the case officer set out this scheme uh whilst there are minor differences is uh very very similar to the build to rent scheme that has been approved by this committee on the same site and the case officer may be able to advise further on the original reasons for refusal of that scheme and and how they were overcome and whether or not the similarities with this scheme are such that um you know a similar approach should be taken but it may be worth hearing what mr Reed has to say on that point as well chair if you wish okay we'll hear mr Reed uh chair and I was going to make exactly the points that mr carter has made real concerns as to consistency in relation to the uh the the design and massing it uh what what you've heard from the case officer is that the um in terms of design in terms of height uh this is near enough uh I won't say identical but it is in all material aspects very similar to the application that you approved as recently as uh august so consistency will need to be addressed all right thank you very much chairman if you're prepared to take any further discussion I have councillor heather williams councillor richard williams and councillor roberts want you to speak further well I didn't really want to open up it all again because please make brief councillor heather williams we wish to speak thank you chairman and yes so I wasn't present at the meeting I didn't vote on the previous one my understanding is that we we treat everything on its own merits um and that we are here to make our opinion as local members or planning committee members or whatever position we may hold at that moment in that time and and members do change on committees um the important thing is we judge it surely on its own merits and therefore if we're not happy we can't use it but we have to be clear on what you know if you want to refuse this you've got to be very clear that it stands up legally chairman my understanding is that I have been very clear for this in it's exactly the same reasons as last time you've got hg strength one the design 834 spd 2011 all right thank you uh councillor richard williams thank you chair I will try and be brief I just want to say these are matter of planning judgments I I mean I don't doubt the good faith of officers at all but we seem to be being told we've got no choice that we have to vote the way that we're being told we have to vote that's not the exercise here there is planning judgment reasons have been given and members of the planning committee might just have a different planning judgment and we can't be told that we aren't basically not permitted to make a different decision I'm sorry well nobody has said that those words have not been uttered they're merely pointing out the in their their terms what the options are so I think I've got one more I said is it councillor Roberts chairman trying to be quick and yeah I mean the inference is that we we have no choice but we clearly do have a choice there and we are always well reminded by by officers in very good faith that we must reach each one on its merits now as far as I am concerned it hasn't been improved on what was before us for a refusal it doesn't matter about that other application we forget that we look at this one and actually we could say that if we give this on top of that other one if we were going to have a bigger joining we're going to have a bigger problem now with this it's an accumulation actually of problems you know the bulk of it the height of it the effect on the community that are already there the parking problems that we know are there and a moving continually moving group of residents and I think all those with this application become ever more serious that is the whole problem here thank you yeah thank you we've got that Jim we also have modern councils council modern council local member wanting to speak again last word on this there's only a point of clarification I want from the from Mr Carter or Mr Reed the the main the point today make about consistency is understood that we this application is physical form is very similar to the one that was previously approved in August in August and that is a big criterion we are going to be hammered at appeal if we go to appeal on the basis of factors which we've already decided and acceptable so the big differences are really that we're having we're trying to impose a note don't bring the car and is that going to be enforceable and is it acceptable to have students obvious is it a social impact an acceptable reason for refusal and I would like some indication from from us planning staff whether in previous situations it has been considered acceptable to refuse applications on the basis of the type of user students and their impact on whether that's something which is normally successful it's failing because otherwise we'll spend lots of money fighting an appeal which we're bound to lose so I'd like to find some information on that okay thank you very much Mr Carter could you help us there thank you chairman thanks thank you Councillor Khan firstly apologies to Councillor Richard Williams if you felt I was trying to dictate a decision that certainly wasn't my intention simply listening to Councillor Heather Williams reasons for refusal citing those set out previous in paragraph 72 they seemed to relate to the design aspects of the building and I was simply pointing out the similarities between that and the scheme previously approved by the committee Councillor Khan is is absolutely correct there are clearly other differences between those schemes and members are perfectly entitled to take those into account in their decision making I the only word of caution I would express there is that those issues I don't believe were cited in the previous reason for refusal of this student accommodation scheme on this site so we would need to be able to explain what the differences are are now that would suggest that students occupying the building is is a problem at this stage that that wasn't last time so that would be my only sort of words of guidance in that respect I think okay thank you very much excuse me chairman is it possible sorry it's Councillor Anna Braden and I do apologize for interrupting but I'm joining you by phone my internet connection dropped out I just wanted to let you know for the record right but I dropped out while Heather Williams was speaking I think I missed Chris Carter's statement and I came back in when Councillor Roberts was speaking at 2 30 so but can I just have some clarification over whether I can still vote all right I think the only thing might be what Chris Carter said okay let's check with Mr Reed do you have a view Mr Reed thank you chair unless you want to rerun the last five minutes my recommendation should be that in line with the comments you made at the start of the meeting council Braden has missed parts such that my view is that she shouldn't but she shouldn't vote but if you wanted to rerun the last five minutes then I would withdraw that comment all right thank you very much okay so who have you actually missed them it was I it was uh Heather Williams was speaking so I missed the last part of what Heather said and uh I think I missed Chris Carter if he spoke between Councillor Williams and then Councillor I came back in when Councillor Roberts was speaking right okay so what do you want to do what's your preference um well I would very much like to hear what Councillor Heather Williams Chris Carter and Councillor Roberts said please if that's possible Chairman Councillor Heather Williams has asked to speak again no doubt she could repeat her conclusion and perhaps Chris Carter might also repeat what he said briefly okay yes we'll do that then so you're with us on the phone now are you uh I am I am chairman thank you all right um Heather Williams please Councillor Heather Williams would you just repeat what for the benefit of Councillor Chairman sorry sorry not to interrupt but I seem to have rejoined you online so I'll do that and get rid of the echo okay great okay Councillor Heather Williams shall I go or should I wait yeah no she's with us now I think is now exiting and are you there I'm here thank you Heather I'm here online now thank you very much Chairman um so I'll turn the cameras off please that's Mr Reed and Councillor Cohn so I'll I'll summarise and then Mr Carter's response left me in a in a quandary of clarification required so I'll start with what I said which was that I felt that there hadn't been significant change from the previous um application that was refused by the planning committee and I referenced page 113 and paragraph 72 and I read some from that I don't know if Councillor Bradlam needs me to to reread that no that's fine thank you I've got that thank you so that that was that and then following Mr Carter's response about um the need for consistency I just I have clarification that I think is important before I vote that as a member sitting here today is that suggesting that I am bound by the decision of other members on previous days because it's not a case of me me having voted one way one day and one way or next I wasn't on the other one so if Mr Carter could please clarify that's um um inference which I have perceived from his statement I appreciate that okay that makes sense but my understanding is I'm not bound by other members as long as I'm inconsistent myself yeah fine uh Councillor um Mr Carter please thank you chair um could you repeat your advice first and then uh deal with that one well I don't I don't believe that I spoke between Councillor Heather Williams and Councillor Roberts um I did speak afterwards um just to explain that I thought that Councillor Williams uh suggested reason for refusal which followed paragraph 72 as she's just outlined um uh it was important that uh we were um consistent in our decision making uh in relation to matters of design and then Councillor Richard Williams uh commented about other factors such as the effect of students on the local area and I was um commenting that I felt you know that was perfectly appropriate to to take into account as as something different but that it wasn't cited uh at the time of the original refusal um coming to Councillor Heather Williams uh final point I acknowledge you you weren't on the committee as you say um clearly you can you can make your own mind up on this application without wishing to prolong the pain I don't know whether Mr Reid could offer any um advice on on that point given that Councillor Williams wasn't present for the the previous decision sorry I can't offer anything further there right thank you very much so are you up to strength there then thank you so much chairman thank you so much um I in fact it seems perhaps I missed less than I thought so I did come back in as Chris Carter was giving his clarification so thank you very much indeed for going through that thank you and Mr Reid do you have any further comments no additional comments chair no additional comments thank you very much all right let's draw this to a conclusion then um the recommendation before you is for approval subject to conditions and the 106 agreement um obviously there's going to be some difference of opinions so I will have a roll call so if you're in favour of approval you are for it if you want refuse or you're against it uh and if you want to abstain you abstain so that clear so um Councillor Bradlam how do you wish to folks for what Councillor Khan back for oh thank you thank you everybody should mute all right thank you Councillor Fein please for or Councillor Hawkins for or Councillor Ripeth for or Councillor Roberts against chairman thank you Councillor Heather Williams against thank you Councillor Richard Williams against and thank you Councillor Wright against chairman thank you and my vote is four so it's one two three seven four and one seven and four against so that is approved thank you very much and we now move on to agenda item seven agenda item seven is on page 165 of our agenda and uh this is application 20 stroke 02881 stroke ful is at Wittlesford it's a factory 84 Duxford road Wittlesford the proposal is for the demolition of existing factory premises in the construction of seven dwellings and associated infrastructure including access parking landscaping and auxiliary work resubmission of application s stroke 0029 stroke 19 f l the applicant is mr peter wedd wedd joinery of uh grant a terrorist stagelford the material considerations will be outlined by the um presenting officer this is not this is a departure and the application is coming before the committee has been requested by the parish council and confirmed at the delegation meeting on the 1st of September that was considered that having regard to the planning history of the site the previous refusal at planning committee and the policy considerations associated with the site's location in the green belt that the application does meet the criteria to refer to the planning committee the officer's recommendation is approval the presenting officer is jan rodens so uh over to you jan rodens please thank you chair can i confirm that you can see the slide yes you can see that thank you brilliant so thank you chair this application is for demolition of an existing factory premises and the development of seven market dwellings uh this is the existing site location plan of the site as you can see the access to the site is from ductford road and leads behind the properties along ductford road these are the current elevations of the existing factory unit on the site the building is is a mixture of heights and scale the building is in one main block and there are two smaller separate buildings uh either side of it uh these are the elevations of the separate buildings are currently on the site this is the proposed block plan of the development as you can see the houses are set behind ductford road this is a further detailed block plan of the proposed site there is two blocks of semi-detached houses and three separate detached houses and you can see the purple dotted line on the site plan here is the factory unit that currently exists so here is a site section of the proposal so the top line is the semi-detached houses with the flank elevation of plot five whereas the bottom ones are the detached houses of plot six five six and seven so plots one to four are semi-detached houses they're circled in yellow they're all three bedroom houses plots five and seven are the same design they're both four bedroom houses and they're detached properties uh plot six is a detached house in the center are circled in yellow at the bottom so these are going to be some slides showing the pictures around the site uh in the bottom corner is a map with an arrow showing where i've taken the pictures from so this picture is taken from inside the site looking towards ductford road the dwelling you can see on the left is 84 ductford road and oh sorry sorry this is number 86 ductford road sorry i'm ahead of myself already so this is looking further into the site um facing the bend in the access track the dwelling on the left of the picture sorry is 84 ductford road so this is number 84 ductford road this is looking towards the factory from just after number 84 the building on the left is one of the smaller outbuildings in store and the building the right is the factory this is looking towards the east of the site and out of it to the right is the boundary of number 84 and the factory is on the left hand side this part of the flat roof element of the building to the east which also faces the entrance this is the same area of the building and has access towards the smaller stores this is a picture of the smaller stores that backs on to the dwellings along ductford road here it is again and you can see the buildings behind it so this is the boundary treatment to the back of the buildings along ductford road at the moment these next pictures shows around the rest of the site this one is taking towards the east of the site and towards the main entrance this is part of the larger element of the factory which is on the western side of the site this is the same building you've just seen with its boundary and the fence behind the hedge behind it sorry so this is looking out into the countryside from the west of the site so for a bit of context of the site the site is in the green belt so the north is the development framework of wittlesford and the south is the development framework of wittlesford bridge so this application is for the resubmission of a previous application which was s forward slash 0029 forward slash 19 forward slash fl the design layout form and other supporting information is the same as previously submitted the previous application was refused by planning committee for being contrary to policy s7 and s10 as it is outside the development framework also not in accordance with policy e14 due to the lack of supporting information as part of this application new marketing has been submitted which is in detailed in paragraphs 41 to 49 of the officer report it's considered that due to the lack of interest in the site during the marketing marketing of it the previous reason for refusal has been overcome and hence the recommendation for approval it's the key considerations in front of you that's all from me thank you thank you all right thanks very much just to be clear the previous refusal was largely on on the loss of employment and the fact that the marketing hadn't taken place yeah that is correct was it also the case that it's outside the village envelope and in the open countries yes so that was a reason for refusal so the previous reasons for refusal were the first one was because of the development's contrary to policy s7 and supporting policy s10 of the local plan and then the refusal reason two was the development would involve the loss of employment land and non-employment use and it doesn't include sufficient evidence to adequately demonstrate the site is inappropriate for employment use and it goes on to say this doesn't justify this which is not contrary which is contrary to policy e14 all right thank you very much for that any points of clarification required members you're happy i don't see anything councilor fein have we got anybody i have no request to speak to you oh i i i ritchard williams is asking the council ritchard williams please thank you chair obviously i should say to everybody i'm the local member so um so just just to make sure that that's yeah um there were just just a couple of points i wanted to to ask for clarification on the officers report when it comes to openness of the green belt um the officers report lays some emphasis on the smaller footprint of of the houses versus the factory but i was wondering if the officer could say something about the ridge height of the houses because the ridge height of the houses is is is large if you like because because the the row house at the back is at the same height as the chimney of the existing site so i'm wondering if the officer could say a little bit about that in terms of impact of the green belt um at the larger ridge height um and i did just have one other points of clarification in the officers report when we talk about policy e14 it wasn't entirely clear to me whether the officer was saying that policy had been met or or hadn't um because the statement referred to in paragraph two of e14 where redevelopment which proposes the the loss of employment will need to be accompanied by clear viability or other evidence as to why it is not possible to deliver an element of employment as part of the scheme i think the officers report said that that hadn't been complied with um so so but then the rest of the report seemed to suggest that e14 had been complied with so i was a bit unclear about the recommendationals there okay no problem um i would go with the green belt one first so there will be some height differences between the the factory and the new houses it's a rather crucial meeting we're trying to be part of the meeting can i call you back tomorrow thank you so much okay sorry thanks if you turn your mic off please uh counselor thank you so um sorry there will be some differences in heights that is agreed between the factory and the houses um the factory is quite varied in how in size in size uh the main reason that there hasn't been uh there's been a recommendation that's been okay in the green belt is the overall volume of it so the volume of the factory versus the volume of the houses isn't materially different to itself that's why we've recommended that there's no harm to the openness of the green belt in this instance and then uh policy e14 so there was only one second so part two does go on to say about the needs of viability report for it in the supporting information that was part of this application uh as an estate agent did market the site for 12 months they have very little very little interest in the site and the four people that did come and have a look so that they won't be able to take over the site because they needed a lot of alterations to it so bearing that in mind that's why we took on that it wouldn't be viable for unemployment use on this site that's why i put it forward in my officer report in that way sorry sorry check and i i just come back it was paragraph 48 i was referring to which concludes by saying this requirement for the policy has also not been addressed which seemed to suggest that in part paragraph 14 e14 hadn't been addressed and part a had been addressed but part one a but not part two yeah so they hadn't produced a viability report but they had done the marketing for it so part two hasn't been addressed but because of the amount of marketing that they provided to show that there was no viable interest in the site as it stood that's why i took it forward that it did meet at least part a of the policy i do understand that there will be complete loss of employment on the site but then taking everything else into into duration in balance that's why i was recommending it for approval okay thank you very much can i just say do we have any further speakers or seeking clarification no right councillor carne followed by councillor to me hawkins thank you very much councillor carne please hello is this working can you hear me yeah i'll take my head here sorry um the what i was going to just ask is the land was employment man you're now planning to transfer it to residential will the residential how properties have been built be suitable for home working because that would seem to me the obvious the way of maintaining employee some employment and also in the sort of context the position on that and do we have any policies which would help us in this um they do have quite spacious they're quite spacious internally they do all meet our space standards there could be some bedrooms potentially by the occupants that would be entirely up to them whether they want to reuse them for home working instead instead of a as i am in my third bedroom which happens to be a study for us we don't need it and there is there with me the girls of home working don't believe there'd be a policy that would help in this instance councillor bachelor sorry chairman if i might just just assist on that point um policy hq1 does talk about um ensuring that developments deliver flexibility that allows for the future changes in needs and lifestyles that's point k of policy hq1 page 104 of the local plan so that that may be something that assists councillor carne okay fine thank you very much councillor williams your camera is still on oh thank you councillor Hawkins please uh thank you very much chair um if i can refer to page 172 paragraph 35 um i think the uh the sort of mppf requires um if we look at it uh the view is that if the site would not cost substantial harm to the openness etc etc and contributes to meeting and identified affordable housing need but there is no affordable housing at all on this site so how do we justify that we're recommending this for approval sorry i'm going to get to paragraph 35 only a second so because criterion g is not actually met because there is no affordable housing on the site no there's no affordable housing on the site but there is a limited so part a of 145 the mppf says that limited infilling or the partial complete redevelopment of previously developed land where redundant or a continuing use uh then where it would not have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt is part one would not cause substantial harm that's the part there that i'm saying that uh well that i recommended that it meets that it would be the partial or complete redevelopment previously developed land so this would be the factory site that is currently no longer in use and it'd be redevelopment redeveloped for housing and then as i've recommended in my report that it wouldn't have an impact on the openness because it's not materially larger than the factory that's already there so i do understand that there is no affordable housing on the site uh so it doesn't meet that part but it does conform to part a instead chair if i if i may sorry it's christart again that's a that's an either or if you if you read the wording there it's um it's limited infilling or partial or complete redevelopment previously developed land whether redundant or in continuing use which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt than the existing development that's that's jane's recommendation or the second point so it doesn't have to be both it's an either or okay thank you very much for that thank you can we just be clear jane you said in passing that the factory is no longer operational so there is no current employment on the site is that right yes at the time when i did my site visit and at the time when this application was submitted it was still in use but then by the time i'd done my site visit it was not in use anymore okay thank you very much do we have any further speakers no i think we've done that so thank you very much we move on then to the public speakers and we have a number of those um it's mr tim smith with us please mr tim smith hello yes i'm here um i'd like to decline to speak actually i'm i'm listening but not speaking today thank you okay okay thank you very much as long as you're happy with that um in that case is now exiting is cast later there please who's here on behalf of the applicant hello chairman after you here sorry to keep you and welcome to the committee thank you you know the ropes to you i i do indeed i do indeed well let me read them thank you thank you chairman um this application is for a small-scale residential development on a brownfield site and it follows a resubmission of a refusal of planning permission last year as your officer has said it was refused on the grounds that the site is outside of the development framework and the insufficient information had been submitted to demonstrate that the site is inappropriate for employment use members at that time requested a marketing report the site has since been marketed for over 12 months and no offers were received the agents marketing the site have advised that the building is specialist with low and restricted head height it's been especially adapted to meet the needs of a joinery workshop and is considered difficult to convert for another business user your officers have accepted the findings of this report and now support the loss of employment from this site as you've heard the site is located in the green bell and mppf policy allows for the redevelopment of previously developed land in the green bell where it would not have a greater impact on its openness this is the case here the footprint the floor space and the volume of the proposed development would be smaller than the existing premises and your officers have have agreed this and raised no objection on that basis in terms of the design the layout and the scale of new development your officer's advice is clear that this is also acceptable concerns have been raised by the parish council and neighbours about the impacts on residential amenity the proposed dwellings are orientated and designed to safeguard neighbours amenity and to comply with national space standards the proposal has been assessed in detail in the officer report and officers have advised that there would be no significant harm to residential amenity officers have also advised that there would be no significant adverse impact on drainage or trees there are also no objections from county highways and it's noteworthy that the existing access serves an existing business use albeit the building is currently empty and accommodates a range of vehicles including articulated lorries in summary there was no market interest in this employment site and whilst it is located outside of the development framework and this proposal is a departure from the local plan it is on the edge of a sustainable village the residential proposal would make use of a previously developed site it would enhance the openness and the character of the green belt by reducing the amount in form of built development and it would also benefit neighbours by removing an unrestricted employment use that has in the past caused noise and disturbance there's no substantial harm to other interests and the contribution of this proposal to the district's housing supply is considered to be a benefit overall it's considered that these matters are important and outweigh any departure from the development plan and I would therefore ask members to accept your officer's recommendation today and to support this application thank you chairman hi thank you very much in point of clarification required members i have nobody asking for that in chat at the moment i don't know whether councillor bradden wanted to add anything to what she said in chat i think that's just a matter of explanation yes i've got that thank you very much yep just say that it's a shame because i have visited the site and would have liked to vote but i shan't on this occasion thank you okay just to explain that councillor bradden is i t contacts have dropped out for 10 minutes so she's not going to vote councillor carne would like to speak councillor carne please i just wanted to ask whether the whether the applicant had considered a producing a special design work home work restaurant to work homework unit rather than straightforward residential now i mean this is this is not a sort of dedicated live work unit scheme but as your officer said earlier earlier you know these are a mixture of three and four bedroom homes that are proposed and there is flexibility within each of those homes for rooms to be used in any which way they're required so that could well mean home offices and home working excellent thank you very much there i don't have any further speakers so thank you thank you chairman and i'll move on then to the parish council there's councillor winter bottom with us please councillor winter bottom there please no we have heard him coming in and out on his phone that is he on our list is councillor winter bottom sorry chair if i may he's in on his phone but but it is on mute right now if he hits star six and then the hash button that that should unmute him allow him to to speak into the meeting because he does he does appear in the list i hope he's heard that so we'll give him a minute or two to try and make contact alright chairman you have councillor richard williams wanting to speak as local member i don't know if he wants to take him first yeah well we can do councillor williams so did you want to speak at this stage uh well i i just wanted to flag up a few points that you know was the local member obviously you know approaching this um as a member of the planning committee fresh but just to flag up the points i thought were important for committee members to to to bear in mind i think the the green belt and the openness issue um uh the loss of employment i think is is is is still an important issue for us to consider the affordable housing question councillor hawking's raised this has not been brought forward as as an affordable housing site but there is an acute need for affordable housing in the village um policies now exiting policies um s seven um an s 10 i know from the officers um report um are still not met because this is outside of the um green belt um so the these are the points that that that i think are particularly important on this i've already raised the issue about openness um i think affordable housing is is an important issue to discuss as well so i i look forward to hearing um members um discussion of the application okay thank you very much let's just check if uh council winter bottoms managed to make contact yet uh council winter bottom are you with us in the winter bottom i think you might have just left the meeting you might be trying to come back in all right we give him a second or two i mean i think if he rejoins i'm perfectly happy to come back to him during this chairman can i just um make a contribution on behalf of council winter bottom it's not obvious how to unmute yourself when you're taking part by phone so it might be helpful if erin could repeat the instruction that he gave earlier uh erin can you do that please uh yeah chair i'd be very happy to but as as uh council williams stated he he's left the meeting so uh i i mean if he's what if you if he's watching uh and he needs to know how to unmute himself on the phone it is star six and the hash button but uh is now joining uh is that council winter bottom joining us missing winter bottom can winter bottom is your stage if you're with us can you hear me yes good right um well thank you chair for your patience uh i've only got one further hang on a bit it's just a bit of process i have to go through first since you're representing the parish council i have to ask that you have permission to speak on their behalf i have yes i'll be okay um okay you've got your three minutes and whenever you're ready right uh i've only got one further point to add to the wittlesford parish council's objections to this application and uh that is that the emerging wittlesford uh near club plan seeks to increase and preserve employment opportunities in the village and the uh south cams local plan of 2018 uh also has policies which mirror that these objectives with the aim of reducing the need for people to travel long distances to their place of work the granting of planning commission for this application will remove uh a very long established site of employment which goes back at least 70 years and i think near 100 years and will be the disadvantage of the residents of wittlesford i think that's all i've got to say on this okay thank you very much hang on a minute and we'll see if members want to any clarification on that i can't see any comments coming through so thank you council hawkins would like to speak would you okay councillor hawkins please uh thank you chair um i think it's a it's a briefly to um the issue of losing a long-standing employment side but if as has already been presented to us the site has been marketed for employment for over 12 months and there has been no interest in it at all um therefore i just wanted to know um what mr winter bought from his view is or the parish council's view is in you know trying to keep on a site that is no interest for employment and also i don't know whether or not their um emerging neighborhood plan has that's area as being what one they want to keep for employment but i just wondered as to the reasoning to carry on keeping it if no one wants it um i don't know the question of uh wanting a site is often uh judged by how much it's going to cost and i would estimate that the costs uh that were wanted for the site as an employment were equal to those for residential use at about one and a half million pounds uh if that's any uh help for you in terms of information may come up this chair yes please do thank you so what you're saying is you feel that the price that the site was marketed at was too high for the function for which it was being marketed uh the price was too high right okay thank you for that clarification all right thank you very much councillor bradden would like to ask a question all right councillor bradden please thank you chairman um my question is not quite been asked by councillor hawkins this time but um i wanted to ask um if it was uh being envisaged as being included in your neighborhood plan as a um as a site for employment mr winterbottom in the parish view what sort of employment did you think might usefully be located there had you a vision of what you thought might happen there uh not no particular uh type of employment but something we could also fit into a residential uh locality uh uh no uh nuisance to neighbors will be the last thing that we uh that we wanted of any employer okay thank you very much thank you thank you all right i don't have any further speaker so uh councillor winterbottom thank you very much for your contribution well thank you thank you uh and we move on then to uh debate who would like to open debate anyone wish to speak chairman can i seek clarification um it's councillor and a bradnam if am i permitted to take part in the debate if i am not able to vote i believe so yes okay um i'll just check that um um mr carter are you aware of the rules there thank you chair i i'm not certain of the rules there i'm afraid i don't see that there would be any harm but possibly mr reed may be able to advise mr reed chair i would have no objection to councillor brandman uh being involved in the debate okay thank you very much thank you do we should speak then councillor brandman thank you chairman thank you very much for that clarification um one of the things we've talked about is that in villages um i'm sorry if somebody's already mentioned this in the discussion or part of it that i missed but one of the things people need is um offices where they can work from an office but uh not in a great big office block and i just wondered um given the preference that the parish council had for an employment use that would not disturb the neighbours i wondered whether a small as it were what do you call it um touchdown base for working where people don't have enough room to work from home then that counts i'm going to stop you there okay right you can't we we're not creating a new application we can only deal with what's in front of us as always so all i was thinking is that it would be a shame to lose the employment land given that it's been allocated to the neighbours plan that's the point then isn't it so yeah sorry i was thinking that that's the balance that you need to think about yeah okay uh who else would like to speak councillor rippith and then councillor heather williams right thank you councillor rippith please and i think one of the main points about this um going back to page 172 with the either or where obviously the officer thought on point one um about the not having a greater impact on the openness of the green belt than the existing development i'm feeling a little bit more towards point two where it seems an absolute shame if you're going to lose that employment site that there isn't any um affordable housing involved in the development i know they don't have to do that but that makes me feel um slightly uncomfortable right thank you and councillor heather williams please thank you chairman um we i can see how as it's on the edge of the parish how it could be suitable for some form of development if the um if it's been satisfied that there can't be any employment news however the fact that there's no affordable housing i just find unacceptable if this was an exception site then completely different conversation but as it is you know it's seven houses in green belt with no affordable and that to me is is no sorry departure and so it shouldn't be allowed okay thank you very much any further speakers no i don't have any further councillor richard williams did you want to come back at all um well yeah there are no other speakers if i could just just say some things um there is an acute need for affordable housing within the village i mean for the information members there was an acre report in uh 2017 which identified a need for affordable housing of one and two bed unit so that that certainly is a key concern locally and obviously there is no affordable housing here i mean to my mind the policies s7 and s10 are still not met um and there's no no no debate about that and they were the um the first reason why this was rejected last time um in terms of policy 14 i mean we've heard what the parish councillor said i mean i'd also note that a lot of the marketing took place during the the the covid outbreak and i'm not sure it's quite true from the officer's report that there was no interest there was there was some interest that there was no offer made i don't think well certainly it wasn't sold um but but it's not that there was no interest and this was being used for employment up until um late july um so um so on on that basis i i i i do have real concerns about this um it's an unfortunate lost opportunity for affordable housing i also know which we haven't mentioned yet actually there is there is overlooking which the um which the officer's report does note um there's overlooking of the properties um number 102 and 100 um number 100 of duxford road um so so there is a residential amenity um issue here as well but the affordable housing thing and the lack of it is important given that there isn't a need for that okay thank you very much i think i can't okay councillor calm please i feel like the system between by this i absolutely agree we need affordable housing uh uh this is general everywhere i can freely uh need to keep some form of employment use uh i um and there doesn't seem to be any attempt to try and get some employment interest uh adaptability when they design they just submit to the previous presidential development however the the other side of it is i think clearly the rather awkward shape buildings employment buildings beforehand what i believe that what any residential use is likely to be less inclusive or more open and it does appear to meet one of um one of our planning policies very in terms of for the green belt in other words the development of or previously developed land with um so i uh and it's a smaller number of houses that we cannot insist upon affordable housing element so however much in my desire so i feel that i'm happy about the thing the lost opportunities that we have to deal with the application that comes and it appears to me to meet meet our policies um i'm between i still haven't quite decided okay thank you very much i just wanted you're muted sorry but the further point of clarification i would like to know if are there any conditions we could do in post if they did give permission to ensure that adequate position was made for or the adapted adaptation made for homeworking i'm not sure we have a policy for that to do here but uh we come back to that in a minute i've still got more speakers um is it councillor roberts thank you chairman uh yeah i mean it's becoming more interesting as we go along and as we all put in our 10 penny worth but i'm afraid i don't think i can support it either because i think that um it doesn't comply with uh green belt policy really and i'm really concerned again it's outside the village development line we really do need to hold true to that policy um it's it's one that over the years has always been pressed and pushed and i think it's really important that we we keep to it if this had been an affordable housing yet we would have all absolutely loved it and said wonderful nice little group here for this this small and important village but it doesn't and so chairman but you will have to have reasons we'll have to give you reasons that because obviously some of us are going to be wanting or refused or thank you chairman thank you okay do we have further right hang on i'm just getting some advice from Mr Reed that um because this has gone so long we have to actually officially have a vote about continuing with the meeting so uh members um we've been going now for five hours i believe um do you wish to continue so this is my affirmation is anyone against agreed agreed all right so no one's against all right we labor on them okay our next speaker chairman i think i'm probably the next speaker okay um yes this is in the green belt it is uh although it is a vacant site although it's a vacant site and so far as we can tell there is no interest in buying it as councillor richard williams pointed out it's rather difficult to be sure about that in the current circumstances given the price being sought um now obviously this would be could be considered as an exception site which would of course include market housing that is not the application which is before us but i think we need to be very careful to ensure that uh all options are considered before sites in the green belt are allowed to be converted um and i'm not sure that those tests are yet met on on this one right thank you so are you uh suggesting refusal if so we'd like some guidance on the grounds all right chairman if we were to refuse it it would be on the grounds that this is located outside of the development framework and in the green belt all right thank you good uh and with no affordable element chairman yeah indeed um well i mean that's no obligation affordable that's uh the next speaker i think is councillor daunton is it it is yes thank you chairman i think um i what i would have said it would be more or less exactly what councillor pete fein has said um i would just i would also reiterate what councillor richard williams has said about the marketing of the site both the time at which it took place the marketing took place and the level at which the site was marketed um taking up councillor winter bottoms remark earlier on okay thank you very much um mr carter can i just consult with you yes chair thank you um so there were two green belt out of the side of the village envelope yeah so there were two reasons for refusal given last time by the planning committee uh and to my reading of them um it sounds like members consider that both those reasons still stand um i don't believe they're set out in the officer report but it may be that the officer can just uh either share them on the screen or read them out for us uh yeah i can share them on the screen over two seconds can i confirm that you can see the screen can you see that one yes we can jane yes okay thank you chair would you like us to read them out are you happy that they can draw on the screen just reading it so it's one that that may still apply is it yes number one is for being outside of the development framework s7 and s10 and the number two would be inappropriate for the loss of employment um contrary to policy e14 right but the market has been dealt with you but we but also there was the point about the lack of affordable housing if this had been come forward normally outside the village framework it should have been an exception site and that would have been 100 100 percent affordable housing yeah but that's not what's in front of us we can't deal with that all right okay so um are we Mr Carter that uh so item one would essentially remain the reason should uh people wish to refuse well well i i think i think chair from what i've heard that item two would stand as well because yes please not satisfied that the marketing information uh is sufficient to demonstrate that there is no uh interest or requirement for the site for employment purposes so i think you would have both reasons still remaining okay all right yeah let's deal let's deal with this then so let me just get that right okay so we're going for a vote then so the officer recommendations approval so if you but those who wished to refuse it we essentially um do not think the current the refusal of the previous one has been met and we would put up the same reasons so if we care about that um i'll do a roll call um so if you want to approve it you are for it if you want to refuse it you're against if you want to abstain you're abstain so councillor brennan is not voting as staying having missed some of the discussion chairman okay that'd be noted in the minutes uh councillor card please again again against councillor daunton against against that's the same against against Hawkins please against councillor rippeth against councillor robert against councillor windows h against uh councillor richard williams against right okay and my vote is against so that is unanimous 10 votes against it is refused thank you very much everyone for that one and we move on to the next application which is agenda item and is now exiting and it is on page 193 of your agenda so this is application s3215 stroke 19 stroke dc uh long stanton the retreat fuse lane long stanton the proposal is discharge of condition four foul water drainage and five surface water drainage of planning permission uh s2937 stroke 16 stroke fl the applicant is mr gary cadu of uh landbrook homes limited key material considerations will be dealt with by the presenting officer um this is not a departure the officer recommendation is to approve both conditions the application is brought to committee because this application has been referred to the committee on the basis of a parish council objection third party objection and the public interest in this application the presenting officer is louis tomlinson so over to you mr tomlinson thank you thank you chair i'll just share my screen thank you chair so the site is the retreat fuse lane on stanton um the application hang on one moment i'm sorry mr tomlinson council robert's can i ask a question chairman um we received um over the last few days correspondence in written paper form about six pages on uh this application regarding this application now the correspondence and stuff is within the agenda i i don't think that this is within the agenda i wonder whether the uh parish council and the objectors have been made fully aware of the content i'm also very concerned about the content thank god i mean i i'm aware that the legal officer has seen all this so get his view on it thank you thank you uh mr reid do you have a view on that uh chair the um correspondence has been seen by the director of planning and he felt that uh it was such that the matter could proceed right okay so chairman can i just quickly about given that in my opinion a lot of the content in it is um very personal um seeming to be um intent on um making comments about the uh people who were against it on a very personal yeah i think well i think i need to stop you there council robert's because we're being told that it's not relevant to this and that they were sent to individuals these are not necessarily public documents so i think we're in that case if they're not public documents we should ignore them completely absolutely thank you chairman absolutely council williams heather williams did that answer your question chairman yes we're um having to ignore them that suits me fine having never received any i was just worried there was something i hadn't received that worry you're not missing you're not one of the chosen then heather no so as you see not everyone has actually had it it's not a part of the presentation here uh so um as far as this process is concerned it doesn't exist all right mr tomlinson if we can sorry to interrupt you i'll back to you now please thank you chair is my microphone muted no we can hear you great lovely okay so the application site is within the development framework boundary of long stanton village lies outside of the conservation area and sits at the rear of the retreat so the retreat is this property here there is planning permission for the demolition of this property and the replacement to dwellings to the west of the application site just here are two recently constructed dwellings and the application site the in reference to this doc is just here so the application site is currently a residential garden which was associated with the retreat and as i said benefits um from a planning consent for two dwellings here but also a single dwelling back here different consents the application site as you can see is um access of the high streets via fused lane non and unadopted access drive and public right of way immediately to the north of the garden lies an existing watercourse ditch which full which outfalls into long stanton brook so ditch just runs along this boundary here it's worth to it's worth to note that the site falls within flood zone one and therefore has a low probability of flooding from rivers and sea the environmental agency service flood water map also shows this site is an area of low to very low service water flood risk and long stanton brook is shown nearby to be a medium to high risk of service water flooding so that's just an aerial view of the site as you can see there's the existing bungalow and the recently constructed dwellings to the west and the brook just runs alongside here so there's a bit of background to this application so previously the plan permission for the erection of the dwelling which is the doc that relates the application that was allowed on appeal back on the 27th of september 2018 the current application seeks discharge of condition four which requires submission of full details of the full of the foul water drainage strategy for written approval by the lpa the application also seeks discharge of condition five which requires submission of full details of the proposed service water drainage both from the building itself and from the proposed driveway area for with for written approval by the lpa both conditions were imposed by the planning inspector on the previous appeal decision and the reason for these conditions was to prevent flooding this application was submitted to and validated by the council on 16th september 2019 delegated decision was issued on the 28th of october 2019 confirming discharge conditions four and five subject to systems in accordance with the approved details this decision was subject to judicial review from an interested third party who wished to submit comments on the proposed foul and service water drainage scheme prior to the local planning authority's termination of the application a consent order was issued on the 12th of may 2020 quashing the council's delegated decision to discharge conditions four and five dated 28 of october 2019 the application has now been passed back to local planning authority for reconsideration and to allow for third party comments to be submitted i can confirm that these third party comments have since been received and are summarized within the officer reports officers can also confirm that this application has been subject to re-consultation including further re-consultation for and receipt of additional submissions from the applicant this application has been referred to planning committee on the basis of a parish council objection third party objections and the wider public interest in this application these are just the approved plans for dwelling in question as you can see these elevations in front of you now and an approved floor plan as well so this is a approved site plan so i just want to point out a couple of points of interest so you've got the area to the front which is the permeable block plavin and the garden to the rear and the attenuation tank we located here which would discharge into a brick but we'll go into that further detail later on so the foul water drainage proposal is to discharge foul drainage into an existing foul sewer infused lane and the service water drainage proposal is to discharge service water into an attenuation tank located in the rear garden of the dwelling which is approximately here a hydro brake flow control chamber is shown at outfall to the proposed storage attenuation tank which discharges to the existing water core stitch to the north which is just here the driveway serving the dwelling it's proposed as a gravel driveway operating as infiltration feature and that is just this element right here so the great cambridge shared planning service has appointed expert advice and drainage matters to allow the local planning authority to fully consider submission of details provided by the applicant also to consider any third party comments and to assess the proposed scheme for foul and service water drainage at the site having full regard to adopted national and local planning policy as well as published and acknowledged approaches and best practice full copy of the report prepared by the appointed consultant san tex is provided at appendix a which also includes details of the qualifications and expertise of the consultant providing advice to the local planning authority that consultants also with us today in the meeting if there's any technical questions that members are required required to be answered so local um the local parish council on stanton objects to the discharge of condition five third party reps have also been received objects into the discharge of both condition four and condition five numerous concerns being raised as summarized in the respect of technical details relating to proposed foul water and service water drainage accordance of the details with this service water drainage hierarchy accordance of the proposals with adopted local plan policy cc slash seven cc slash eight and cc slash nine as well as national policy and guidance lack of information that the proposals will increase water runoff into long stanton brook increase in flood risk also that the proposed service water runoff will be greater than the existing runoff rate for the site as undeveloped and the proposed outfall into the existing water courses outside of the red line application boundary both officers and the appointed drainage consultant are satisfied that the proposed submission details in accordance with adopted national and local policy and guidance which is outlined in detail in the officer report it is considered that's been satisfactory demonstrated that the scheme provides a viable and fully justified foul and service water drainage strategy that will not increase flood risk elsewhere in the officer's judgment the extension if any of the development beyond the red line boundary would be de minimus and in any event into an area within the same ownership as the site even if the development could be said to extend beyond the red line boundary it would not be appropriate or proportionate nor in the public interest to require public to require planning application to extend the red line in those circumstances so in conclusion officers recommend that planning committee approves the application to discharge conditions four and five attached to planning permission s slash 2937 slash one six slash FL as outlined in the officer report it's got a couple more slides to just show you so this is the full wording of the conditions which is outlined in the officer reports the just the drainage details proposal summary which we've already gone over but this is the very kind of basic of it so foul water drainage discharges into the existing foul sewer and fuse lane service water drainage is discharge of service water to attenuation tank located in the rear garden of the dwelling a hydro break flow control chamber shown at the outfall to the proposed storage attenuation tank which discharges to the existing water core stitch to the north and the driveway serving the sites proposes a gravel driveway operating as an infiltration feature so this is sorry it's a bit blurry but as you can see this is where the attenuation tank would be just in the rear garden and discharging into the brick to the north and this is a section through where you can see a pipe here that would discharge into the brick thank you chair that's everything thank you very much um just before we move on can I ask officers I understand that the public video has frozen is somebody dealing with that Aaron for example sorry Jack could you repeat that there's a note here that says uh the video for public watching has frozen oh yes that's been that's been resolved thank you chair I apologize okay good thank you very much right sorry about that uh members any points of clarification required here just bear in mind that all we're dealing with here is the discharge of two conditions foul and surface water drainage um Councillor Thane would you like to have some speakers Councillor Roberts would like to speak thank you Councillor Roberts please thank you very much chairman um I would refer you to the officer I mean obviously we've taken uh separate advice ourselves but the uh the input from the long stand and parish council is really um you know really detailed and there's an awful lot of in it um are we absolutely convinced that uh every concern that the parish council have put down in writing has been um put aside as as as okay and no problem all right thank you Mr Thomianson could we respond to that please thank you chair so um we went out to an independent drainage company to review all the information they've come back and advised us that everything is um okay with the application and the complies with local and national policy is there anything in particular Councillor Roberts that you'd like to question no but the long stand and parish council on page 196 they talked about there that they support all the comments that have been made by neighbours now the comments by neighbours are many um and and and often um and go on to you know pages and pages now I'm no drainage expert um but I do need to feel that uh this is not the problems are not going to occur here because um I think that we are setting ourselves up to um have future claims made against us uh so Mr Thomianson I think my colleague I'm sure you've probably don't have a comment on that Mr Carter will probably help us here thank you chair yes as Lewis explained the purpose of appointing the independent consultant was to review both the information submitted by the applicant but also the comments of both the parish council and third party representatives and that's that's what the report does in order to advise the council on the acceptability of the information to discharge the conditions so officers are satisfied that those points have been considered in that report uh hence the recommendation in front of you thank you chair excellent thank you very much thank you uh councilor Braden and wanted to speak council Braden please thank you thank you chairman unfortunately I'm going to have to leave shortly um I don't want to curtail discussion but I'm I'm satisfied by the comment made at number 14 by the independent consultant and so I wondered unless you want to have further discussion whether we could move to the vote no we have public speakers oh sorry I do apologize yes of course we're only on the initial presentation so when when are you going to go councillor I have to leave at about five to four well I'm afraid you won't be here for the vote if I'll I'll write at the point at which I leave but I don't think I'm going to be able to vote on this chairman um chairman it's councillor Daughton here might I come in please I think you do know because I warned you in advance that I have to leave at four o'clock I have a four thirty appointment um so I'll be leaving at the same time more or less okay got it been noted for the benefit of the minutes uh we still got speakers I think councillor Thane uh yes I think we do we have councillor Richard Williams thank you councillor Richard Williams please thank you chair it's a question for the officer I don't know if if long stands and parrot councillor is going to speak so it might be best we should uh direct this to them so please tell me if so but I was just wondering if there are any problems with water courses in the area um I mean obviously you know maintenance of water courses can be an issue in a lot of villages and parishes so I was just wondering if that was if there were documented problems with that in in this area all right thank you mr. Thompson thank you chair it's not something I have in front of me so it might be better to aim this question towards London stands and parish council all right they will be speaking though they're on my list sorry okay thank you is that all the speakers okay we go to the public speaking then um and can I ask mr. Folton to come forward please uh yes thank you chair good afternoon welcome yeah you know yes when you're ready then um as the committee knows um the council's decision to approve this application was quashed by the High Court on May 13th of this year the reason for that was because the council promised to undertake a public consultation it then failed to do so and issued a decision anyway since the decision was quashed on the 13th of May no public consultation has been undertaken since then sending me a letter and sending an email notification to the parish council does not constitute a lawful public consultation I am incredulous as to why officers have brought this to the committee today knowing that no public consultation has been undertaken and knowing that that any decision taken by the committee today will be undoubtedly be quashed in the High Court um the stand deck report frankly isn't worth the paper it's written on I will not miss waste the committee's time refuting it today because the decision can be quashed on other grounds um that's all I have to say thank you very much okay thank you thank you mr. Folton uh anyone wish to ask mr. Folton any questions nope okay then thank you very much mr. Folton can I then call the applicant myself councilor Williams Heather the Williams would now like to speak all right uh councilor Heather Williams please said for such enthusiasm chairman it was just I think the reason my request as in late was because I didn't catch right at the start and I had a bit of breakup of internet connection and to avoid me having to not be able to vote could mr. Folton repeat the start of his um I got everything and then I heard word consultation then it blipped out a bit and then I heard High Court quashing that's about what I got sorry chairman sorry mr. Folton would you mind yes uh the High Court quashed the council's previous refusal on May 13th of this year because the council had promised to undertake a public consultation and failed to do so since May 13th of this year no public consultation has been undertaken or in regards to this application um sending a letter to the fuse link consortium and sending an email notification to the parish council does not constitute a public consultation when the council has published a notice on its website that says that there is no public consultation underway and the comments are not being accepted so I'm incredulous as to why this application is before the committee today um because the committee has no lawful basis on which it can proceed to approve the application at the present time thank you thank you very much for repeating my apologies all right thank you how's the thing do we have any other we have none showing at the moment chair no all right we move on then chairman just to say a time sorry to interrupt but just to save time as that statement has just been made by mr. Folton um I think we ought to get um the legal view of mr. Reed and mr. Carter on this one because I will do I will do I'm intending to do so but I'm giving the other public speakers the opportunity first to make their own points we will come back thank you we'll come back thank you very much is mr. Cadu there please yes indeed I am all right if you'd like to put on your camera please can you hear me yeah well thank you very much indeed um you know the form you've got three minutes I won't even take up three seconds I've just thank you to the address by the planning officer and I think it covers all the points that I wish to raise today so I've got no further comment to make on this application thank you all right okay thank you very much it's sorry to keep you so long today okay um the parish council have um a representative is uh Libby White with us please I am good welcome to the planning committee thank you chairman keep you so long yeah you've got three minutes to address us all right be very long don't worry okay thank you um so long standing parish council have asked me to come today to speak to you on their behalf I'm the parish clerk if you don't know who I am I think I've spoken to you all before the reasons for objecting to the application originally made in September 2019 was to do with the discharge of water surface water drainage into the watercourse and which they felt was in contravention of planning condition five comments from long standing parish council stem from concerns raised by residents and councillors alike and they're based on the limited planning knowledge that they have it's understood that parish councils are statutory consultees and believe this is to help you as a planning authority by being the local knowledge the eyes and the ears on the ground so to speak with this in mind long standing parish council expects that having been consulted on this application no less than seven times they would have been asked to review the expert evidence submitted in the sun tech report especially due to the sensitive nature of this application I would like to stress that at no point has this been made to available to long standing parish council and to understand what the experts are suggesting or to allow local residents the opportunity to comment councillors have asked me to stress their stress their frustration at the number of times this application has come forward and it has wasted a considerable amount of precious parish council time and assumed it would have done the same for the planning team too we would like to ask that the planning authority refuse the application or at least defer allowing local residents the chance to have a say following site of the sun tech report thank you all right thank you very much there may well be some questions for you thank you councillor Richard Williams I think you had a one for the pc yes I'll just ask thank you jail ask the same question to the parish council representative really it's just whether there are problems with watercourse maintenance or there have been problems with watercourse maintenance in long stands and that you know about I was speaking to the pat matty's yesterday actually so we have ongoing issues with them not being maintained and we have flooding a few years ago when there's been heavy rainfall okay thank you so in your sorry Jeff I can come back so in your view with that is that something that affects this this application part of the concerns residents they're very concerned about what what will happen if there's extra water put in thank you excellent thank you very much I don't have any further questions so thank you for your contribution there thank you can I go to Mr Carter I would like to comment on Mr Forton's comments yes perhaps if I say my piece and then Mr Reed may have comments to add so my understanding of the quashing of the original decision was that the council had instigated a public consultation but then made a decision prior to the conclusion of that public consultation so there was a legit legitimate expectation raised that the public would be able to comment on that condition and because the decision was made in advance of the conclusion of that consultation that was the the reason for the decision being quashed as members will know the council does not as standard practice consult on the discharge of planning conditions by way of public consultation and so that there has been no formal public consultation in this case however as Mr Fulton pointed out the fuselain consortium and the parish council have been notified turning to the stand tech report the purpose of the stand tech report is to advise the local planning authority as to the the adequacy of the information provided in order to discharge the conditions it's not a document on which a public consultation was required it's a document that's used to inform the decision making of the council and hence it's been used by us to make the recommendation that you have with you today I don't know whether Mr Reed would like to add anything further to that you may wish to speak to him chair right but from your point of view there's no reason for us not to proceed no I don't believe there is thank you Mr Reed do you have anything to add there chair if I may just a point of clarification in relation to the quashing of the original decision you've heard from Mr Carter that discharge of conditions is not the subject of public consultation but you then heard Mr Carter say that actually we made a decision prior to the end of that consultation so the point of clarification is that Mr Fulton indicated to the officer that he would wish to comment the officer wrote back and advised Mr Fulton of when the period for reviewing the information would run to and then before the date given in that letter stroke email had been reached the conditions were discharged without letting Mr Fulton know that effectively the date had been brought forward Mr Fulton argued that the letter stroke email from the council gave rise to an expectation that he would have the full period referred to in the letter stroke email in which to comment and in those circumstances the council took on board that he had an expectation that no decision would be made prior to the date given in the letter so it's just a few little nuances there in relation to the opportunity for people to comment as opposed to being subject to a formal consultation I hope that's helpful. All right but as far as the committee is concerned are you agreeing with Mr Carter that there's no reason for us not to proceed? I fully support that the planning officers are satisfied that the matter should proceed on the basis of the information that they're able to put forward to you today. Okay thank you very much. All right members it's a debate now then I think we've got some speakers have we Councillor Fane? Just trying to find it very coming up at the moment yes I think we have councillor Roberts and councillor yeah. I think it's Heather Williams first please. Right okay so we have Heather Williams and the graduates left us then councillor Roberts. Okay all right thank you councillor Heather Williams please. Thank you chairman. So I understand what the officers have said but given the representation that's been made and the reference to the parish council I'm going to ask this from a slightly different angle so take on board that what the officer said was that there was nothing to stop us to turn this today okay but given how sensitive this site is and given the views the local views and the parish council's views is there anything that says that we can't just differ and allow people to have a consultation in this situation given the sensitivities of the site because it just feels like unnecessary pain to be putting people through so while it might not be a requirement is there anything that prohibits us from doing that thank you chairman. I think the answer is that the committee can do what it decides it wants to do but you know this has been going on a very long while and it's really unfair that the matter shouldn't be brought to a conclusion so I'd be very reluctant to do other than make a decision today on this outcome. Chairman th