Ddweud i amser. Fy fawr, mae'n fawr, ac mae'n fawr ar gweithio ar dweud y cyfnodau. Fy nid o gweithio gweithio am y Gweithbeth Cymru. Peter Fyne, rydw i'r cerddau'r cyfnodyni, rydw i'n ddweud i angen i'r cyfnodyniol, a rydw i'n ddweud i'r cyffredinhaith Henry Batchelai. Rydw i'n ddweud i'n ddweud i'n ddweud i'r cyfnodyniol ar gyfer yw mwyaf. Just a few notes before we get started. If you're in the council chamber, you need to be aware that everything on your desk, including your laptop screen, is likely to be broadcast at some point. The camera follows the microphone being switched on. So councillors and officers are requested to wait a couple of seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up. Obviously, if the fire alarm sounds, then please leave the chamber and make your way down the stairs. The exits are clearly marked. Don't use the lift, of course, and the safe assembly point is next to the marketing suite halfway along the business path. For those participating in the meeting via the live stream, please use the chat column to indicate that you want to speak. And please don't use the chat column for any other purposes.  You may want to ensure that you've switched off or silenced any other devices so they don't interrupt proceedings. And you may want to use a headset if available when speaking. When you're invited to address the meeting, please make sure that your microphone is switched on. And when you finish addressing the meeting, please turn off your microphone immediately. Speak slowly and clearly. Please don't talk over or... Please note that if we do need to vote on any item, we'll do so via the electronic voting system using the microphones in front of you in the chamber. And that means that only those present in the chamber can vote and incidentally propose or second recommendations. To the committee members present in the chamber, I will now invite each of you in turn to introduce yourselves. So, members, after I call your name, please just turn on your camera and microphone if you're at home. Wait two seconds and say your name so that your presence can be noted. As I said earlier, my name is Councillor Peter Fane and I'm the member for the Shelford ward. My vice-chair is Councillor Henry Batchelor. Good morning everyone. Councillor Henry Batchelor, one of the members for Linton and vice-chair of the committee. And we also have in the room Councillor Martin Carn. We'll come back. Councillor Dr Clare Daunton. Good morning everyone. I'm Clare Daunton and I'm one of the members for the Fendit and Full Born ward substituting for Councillor Haylings. Councillor Joe's Hales. Good morning Councillor Joe's Hales. I'm one of the members for Melbourne. Thank you. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Councillor Jeff Harvey, I'm the member for the Bullsham ward. Councillor Judith Rippeth. Good morning Councillor Judith Rippeth, one of the members for Milton and Water Beach ward. Councillor Heather Williams. Good morning Heather Williams and I represent the Mordans ward. My apologies Councillor Deborah Roberts. I think you did it on purpose Chairman. Good morning Chairman. Good morning everybody. I'm Deborah Roberts. I'm the district councillor for the Foxton ward. Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you chair. I'm Richard Williams. I'm the member for the Wittlesford ward. And councillor Eileen Wilson. Good morning Eileen Wilson, councillor for Cotton ward. And now we'll go back to Dr Martin Carn. Councillor Martin Carn, one of the members for Hysden, Impington and Orchard Park. Are there any other members present please? Right, and I can confirm that the meeting is quarried. We also have four officers in the chamber. Nigel Blaisby, delivery manager. Good morning chair, good morning members. Stephen Reed, senior planning lawyer. Good morning chair, morning members. Michael Sexton, who is the area development manager. Good morning chair, good morning members. And Rebecca Dobson, who is the democratic services manager. Good morning chair, good morning members. And I'm sorry to say that Lawrence is not well today, so he's not with us today. If at any time a member leaves the meeting, would they please make that fact known to my vice chair so that it can be recorded in the minutes. I intend breaking for 15 minutes about 11.45 and if the meeting is still going on, if the meeting is still going on about 3.45 and I propose we have a 45 minute break for lunch at about 1.30 if that's all right with members. Hopefully members have the main agenda pack dated 1st of March and also the online agenda supplements. So you should have the plans pack supplement dated 3rd of March and the planning appeal supplement dated 4th of March with the restricted papers in pink. If any members aren't able to access the restricted supplement there are pink copies available. So do we have any apologies for absence? Chair, the apologies as noted already via the fact that there are substitute arrangements for councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins and councillor Pippa Haleings. Thank you. Thank you. Declarations of interest, can I just make it clear that if there are declarations specific to item 12 we will come to them later. So if any members have declarations in relation to any item of business on this agenda please let us know. Dr Clare Dalton. Yes, thank you chair. I want to declare that I'm a councillor and also for item 9 I'm one of the local members. I've been present at discussions but I come to the matter afresh. And Heather Williams. Thank you chair. Just to declare that because projects in relation to the GCP are mentioned I'm a member of the Greater Cambridge Park Ship Assembly and local member I believe some of the appeals. And I think that's right. Myself, thank you chair. Item 5, I'm the local member for Great Abington so I have had visits around Granter Park but obviously that will in no way affect my decision making today. Thank you. And councillor Jeff Harvey. Thank you chair. I'm a member for Palsham in my capacity as councillor. I'm actually a resident of Great Abington but I haven't had any discussions on item 5 when I come to it afresh. Right. And councillor Eileen Wasson. Thank you chair. I'm not sure that this is required but I'm also a member of the Greater Cambridge Park Ship Joint Assembly. Right. Thank you. I think that is all the declarations of interest at this stage as I say we will take any declarations separately under item 12 if that's relevant. Minutes to the previous meeting. I'm sorry to say the minutes to the previous meeting not being finalised in time so we will come back to that at a future meeting that will be considered when available. Item 5, Granter Park. So coming to the main business item 5 on our agenda is the Granter Park application. 21 slash 03822 full and ask the area development manager Michael Sexton to present the report. Thank you chair. There's quite a few updates. I'm going to do the updates on the screen just so it's clear to everyone. Let me share my screen. Oh I've been a part, sorry. Could I possibly ask that people do speak directly into the microphone please. Thank you. Thank you. So updates on this item. Apologies for the text heaviness but we have since the publication of the planning committee agenda last week there have been 10 further representations of objection made to the application received from Fergus Legal, Cambridge, past, present and future CPRE which is the campaign to protect rural England countryside charity. There is produce for winds, Hammersmith parish council, wild country organics, 37 Westfields, one new market road and one from an unconfirmed address. A lot of the representations contain a material that has been raised before and is covered in the officer report but just to try and highlight this to members as best I can. The representations are either on the website or will be on the website shortly because they have come in last minute and there is redaction required by our sporting. In summary the following concerns have been raised in those additional comments biodiversity impact which is set out in the report. Concerns by issues of flooding and potential effects on the river grantor again set out in the report. Development appears to be speculative with no declared tenants again set out in the report. Heritage impact included the listed arboretum and gardens which I will come on to during the presentation. Hammersmith parish council would like to make it known that if they were formally consulted they would almost certainly have requested refusal of the application. Reference has also been made to previous applications for masts, telecoms towers adjacent to the site which were refused or dismissed at appeal for being prominent and discordant features within landscape. Again I will come on to that a bit more during the presentation. The voting itself being prominent that would have a negative impact on the countryside and landscape character that would not be screened. Restricted covenants relating to the woodlands that isn't set out in the report that is something that has come in very recently but covenants are slightly separate to the planning process and would be a legal civil matter to resolve separately and traffic impact which is well detailed in the report. Perhaps an appropriate time just to make members aware we will be joined by Tam Parry from the council this morning probably from 1045 onwards so should we have any questions on transport impacts Tam will be here for members. Again just to clarity members would have received some of the above material directly either from the objectives themselves or via the council's democratic services team. There was also a letter dated the 7th of March titled campus for the state updates to 21 slash 03 double 2 full which was circulated by an objector who is speaking today so members should have had sight of a 12 page document in advance of this meeting. That's it for updates so I will move on to my presentation unless there's a need for anything around the updates in particular. So this is a full planning application for the erection of a research and development building and associated deck car park, landscaping and associated infrastructure at site 1 Granter Park in Great Abington. The site is outlined in red with the wider site areas of the wider site outlined in blue so it is on the western edge of the park adjacent to the main access and the A11 running along the western boundary. For context this is an aerial view of the site so you can see that Granter Park is based around the central open space the site in question is site 1 here which is one of the last development parcels to come forward on the site again at the western edge of the site adjacent to the main entrance. In terms of key constraints attempt to draw this to members' attention there is, I appreciate it in my little commentary particularly clearly, a light purple line all around Granter Park which identifies it as an established employment area under policy E15 as the local plan the site outlined in red. The park is surrounded by tree belts on all boundaries which are covered by tree reservation orders which are denoted by the blue polygons. To the north of the site the red line is the river Granter which is a county wildlife site and you can see areas either side of that are identified as flood risk but the application site itself is not west in flood zone 1 low risk. Abingdon Hall which is a listed building is located to the eastern side of the park and within the conservation area of Great Abingdon which only extends marginally into the park. West of the site is Pampford Hall another listed building with a registered parking garden surrounding it denoted by this brown line. In my report the heritage section does set out an assessment of the impact of the proposed building on those heritage assets. Just to draw members' attention to this registered parking garden because my report doesn't explicitly say that the separation between the site and this designated area is 570 meters so four reasons set out in the report akin to the impact on the list of buildings and the conservation area of the separation distance is such that the officers will be satisfied there's no adverse harm. This is the proposed site plan the main research and development building is this building here in the southern part of the site and the proposed multi-storey car park is this building here located to the rear of the existing Franklin building within the park and again the site entrance right to the south. This is just a typical floor plan of the building it will deliver just over 11,000 square meters of research and development space with areas of lab and office and that occurs over the four floors these are the elevations of the proposed building it will be the tallest building within the site as set out in the report but as you'll see as we go through this it's a very high quality design building it will be delivering pream excellence the detail which is secured by condition and potentially around 450 jobs depending on the tenancies This is the multi-storey car park which is a smaller building compared to site 1 and you can see this building here in the bottom left that's the existing Franklin building so the height of the car park is no higher than the Franklin building other than potentially areas where the staircase is enclosed so that should be relatively well screened within the park. Just to draw members' attention to a few extracts on the design actor statement coming back to the height of the building the right hand side is a section planned through the proposed building which is located here on the western edge of the site comparing it to existing buildings within the park so the Illuminal building which is actually located slightly off this screen here and the Gilead building which is located here just as a comparison to other buildings on the site and again just in visual so members can see the design quality and aesthetics qualities of the building and it's an opportunity to have a being located at the front entrance of the site it's an opportunity to have a signature building at the site entrance This is a view taken from the across the cricket ground across the open space back towards the site so you can see how it will sit within the context of the existing buildings in the park you've got the Gilead building which I just showed you a section of on the right the Gilead building and to the west Portway building and then the proposed site one This is a section through the site just to try and show to members you've got this tree belt to the west and to the south so the building will sit slightly above the height of that woodland belt to the west and as part of the application there is a woodland height section study which again just confirms that the building will sit above the existing tree lines but when perceived from ground level looking over the trees that impact of the building is reduced There is a verified views document and I suspect this will be the main part of the debate or keep up the debates today which looks to see demonstrate how the building will sit within the wider context outside of the site so the photos on the right hand side are from viewpoints 2 and viewpoints 3 which show the building dashed sitting within and behind the existing tree belt these views where the buildings will be a largely transient views which you'll appreciate on approaching the park The most evident location for the building will be on approach over the bridge across over the A11 and into the park so this is a visual of how that building will sit there's a verified view of how the building will sit within context so it will be visible and that sets out in the report The verified views also incorporates Hayden's acroltraws of understanding the study of how that tree belt will develop over the next five or ten years so it's anticipated in five years time trees will have grown a few metres higher and will add further screening to the building There is a landscape and visual impact assessment and I appreciate these might not come through to clearly on screen which is sought to again look how the building will sit in the context of the park and it's wider surrounding so again you will see elements of the building but it will be akin to some of the existing buildings in Luminar here but I don't think you'll be able to make it out too clearly on screen This is a view from Bournbridge Road which is to the north of the site so you've got the existing Gilead building just sitting above the tree line here and then the proposed building will be located in this area so again that built form will edge slightly above those trees Key material considerations there's quite a lot as all set out in the report there are a lot of benefits that the building would bring it as one of the last plots to be developed on the site clearly it will be visible but I don't think the report hides away from that but officers' view is it's not sufficiently harmful to warrant reviews, to get a refusal of the application particularly against the benefit so those are the key material considerations as set out in the report Thank you chair Thank you Michael Now, at this point we progress to public speakers but exceptionally on this occasion it may be helpful if members have any questions arising directly out of that presentation we take them now while the slides and so on are easily available to us Do we have anything? Was everyone prepared to postpone questions and clarifications until the debate later on? Right We then proceed to our public speakers and first I'm happy to welcome Kerry Newell This is Newell I suspect you know the rules of these events we will give you three minutes I think you know how the microphone works and if you wouldn't mind staying at the end in case any members have particular questions of clarification after your presentation So start when you're ready please Good morning chairman and members and thank you Can you please refer to pages four and five of the illustrated letter that you were sent on the seventh I was principal conservation officer both case officer and statutory consultee on this site from 2008 to 2013 It is one of the special allocated technological sites the local plan allows in open countryside tightly controlled by a master plan to minimise its impact on the landscape and local environment Part three of this policy E15 states permission will be refused where there would be a negative impact on surrounding countryside or landscape character The master plan dates from 2008 based on an outline consent for the site in 2003 for an enabling development expanding the welding institute Consent was given in 2006 for technologies as well as welding provided it remained in the same ownership unit. The physical development, management and enhancements of the outline remained the same The report refers to a master plan of 2015 that is for an adjoining site outside the blue line which is open farm land in the Grantor Park consent Two planning inspectors have dismissed development of public benefit on the basis of the high quality of the landscape here Grantor Park is part of the 85 acres of Abington Hall designed by Humphrey Ratten in 1803 and is on the Cambridgeshire register of parks and gardens It adjoins Pampasford Hall an internationally important arboretum on the national register of parks and gardens listed grade 2 star They adjoin the green corridor designed by Alan Mitchell It is therefore a valued landscape The key views affected are from the entrance from the direction of the A505 the parkland and the public playing fields on Bornbridge Road which are also part of the rector landscape photos show the views are permanent and extensive It is concerning officers refuse to publicize the 2008 master plan It is clear from this and from the descriptions in the report that the application does not comply with the restrictions on height, massing, footprint parking, floor area, lighting drainage and positioning of development All of these changes have an adverse effect on landscape The proposed main building of four stories plus plant story plus Can I ask you to wind up his two stories higher than the master plan and one and two stories higher than any other building The overlays show this will be well above the wooded skyline and into the TPO woodland The multi-story car park is four stories higher than the master plan and will also project above the trees The proposal is for three buildings within the space allocated for one building and open landscape The main building is designed as a landmark statement and to be floodlet to emphasize this This is large scale urban design imposed on the countryside and a precedent for doing so This does not comply with E15 with S2B and with HQ1 and it's both a negative impact on surrounding countryside and on landscape character Thank you very much members for listening Thank you for your presentation Do members have any questions of direct clarification arising from that? No, I don't see any This is your thank you very much for your presentation Thank you Our next public speaker in a moment is George O'Glu O'Restis is Vice President for Development at Biomed Reality Realty, sorry the applicants here You will have heard my earlier guidance Please start when you're ready I think your microphone is not switched on You just need to press the right hand button Can you hear me now? Thank you Granser Park has been a scientific centre for excellence of international significance for more than 20 years The amazing work undertaken here has recently been seen during the pandemic of COVID-19 The proposals before you today represent the culmination of extensive design engagement and consultation with offices, statutory consultees are tenant based in the local communities The feedback has been informing our proposals and we are very thankful for that Granser Park has played an active role in the local community for many years and hosts regular events such as the great Abington 10K run and maintains a very strong relationship with great Abington primary school as well The site sits within an established employment area and the proposed building makes best use of the land available The proposed building is located at the front of the park therefore set further away from the adjoining villages and residents and we have undertaken a detailed visual impact assessment including very quite views to demonstrate the limited appreciation one has from the surroundings We have also undertaken detailed discussions and modelling with the highways agency at Cambridge County Council The proposed building is bringing forward 303 additional car parking spaces representing a 60% of single car mode share This also helps with the overall reduction that we have seen at Granser Park over the last five years The park has a very robust travel plan in place which includes shuttle bus services to and from Cambridge and Whitlepool stations That's the second most popular transport mode that we operate out of the campus It is in our interest to maintain a very robust travel plan to make sure that the tenants that work here can continue attracting top talent Cambridge has experienced a significant shortfall of lack of available laboratory space We are currently tracking 850,000 square feet of pent of demand and we are in detailed discussions at the moment with the tenant for a preload of 100% of the proposed building before you today The scheme delivers a building of exemplary architectural design quality of the highest standards and seeks to bring forward technologies that address the climate emergency, the results of which we are experiencing daily Some of the scheme parameters here that I'm going to outline at 27.4% overall reduction of carbon emission reductions Ream excellent a well gold 10% provision of EV charging stations securing 50% containment infrastructure This is the first scheme in Cambridge to deliver this There is also a net gain in biodiversity 450 new jobs across the scheme I'd like to thank Members and very happy to take any questions Thank you very much and very good timing Now, do you have any direct questions I see Thank you through yourself chair It was just in relation to electricity capacity because we know that something is being discussed at the moment whether there is capacity for the building and the car park to be charging so many electrical vehicles Did you hear that right? Thank you Yes indeed, there is a significant shortfall of electricity capacity within Cambridge We have been in active discussions with UKPN and about four years ago we secured 7.4 mba of additional capacity that represents a £4 million investment that we have undertaken In addition to that we have recently secured 1,850 kba that addresses the issues of this particular scheme including the building and the car park I think it's worth noting as well going back to my point about the climate emergency in particular Yes, there is an issue with the electricity but we are challenged to do more with less We need to start making a building more efficient which is what this building is doing We need to start using electricity in a more efficient way running the buildings better and introducing new sustainable technologies such as aeroshoepund and PBs Which is very much what we are looking to do here A question I think from Councillor Griffith Good morning You mentioned your travel plan and you mentioned shuttle buses Can I just ask a little bit more detail like how frequent do they run throughout the day do they bear in mind that nobody goes to work at 9 and comes back at 5 Just a bit more detail please Thank you We are very keen to continue promoting alternative transport modes and the shuttle bus service is one of those initiatives We run 13 buses in the morning 9 of which go to Cambridge station so there is Cambridge station There is one stop outside I want to get this right Homerson College One at the roundabout at Adam Brooks and then it heads over to Granthe Park The journey takes about 24 minutes I am a regular user myself of the service It runs at intervals between 6.30 in the morning and I think the last bus departs from Cambridge station at about 9.30 There is also three shuttles that run to Whittleford station and that is 13 services in the morning 13 in the evening As I said, it is the second most popular mode They are very popular We are looking at increasing those as it comes over the time alongside other initiatives that we are promoting in campus I am ystod With Cambridge South I presume when that comes forward you would also run a shuttle bus service from there Absolutely Going back to my earlier point about being a regular user of the service myself from the station If we think about the station to Granthe Park and we think that the distance from the Cambridge station to the Adam Brooks roundabout that takes on average 17 minutes because of the congestion on Hills Road The rest of the journey takes about 8 minutes We think that strategic initiatives such as the new station that is being proposed in Cambridge South and indeed the C-set that is another great example of alternative transport modes will certainly help to increase to your point supplementing that Cambridge South which makes that journey even more reliable and perhaps more desirable as well given the limited time it takes to get from where to be Thank you Do you want to see Councillor Harvey? Yes Thank you chair I just want to raise a matter of accuracy really I don't know if the other members received this document from the developers which obviously promotes the development or seeks to and it says in the second paragraph Granthe Park is open and accessible to local residents who often use it for exercise and dog walking That's not my understanding I think it used to be and that was kind of part of an informal compact with the village residents going back to 2003 but actually for about 20 years now we've had security gates and you need an access code to So I wonder if you can clarify that Forgive me chair, is that a question that I can answer? Let me just first establish that is the document you're referring to perhaps you could confirm that is from yourself if Councillor Harvey just shows it to you again Yes no I recognise the document thank you Councillor Yes indeed that is a point that is in our consultation with them I think it's worth noting to members that Granthe Park is owned by two different entities you know there is the element that we are you know controlling to the front of the park which is the bi-materiality ownership and to the rear of the park the welding institute still controls a significant proportion of that land the gates that the council is referring to sit on land controlled by the welding institute so unfortunately you know it sits outside our direct control we have no control over that it's worth noting that from the front of the campus the entrance that we control at the roundabout anyone that has got a need to come to the park or wishes to come to the park can continue doing that we are open a lot of the villages actually use the nursery that we provide there is a number of villages also using the gym the natural gym that we have on site and we keep I appreciate if it's further away from the villages and obviously that is not desirable perhaps because it's a longer journey but yeah you know as grant a park and bi-materiality we are still very much open and we wish to continue engaging with TWI to come to a solution where we could in the foreseeable future reopen those gates in a way that preserves there or addresses their particular concerns of security and come up with a solution that addresses the desires of both parties we want to play a mediating role to ensure that can happen right thank you for that I'm sure all the president will have noticed what you say about wish for the future but for the moment also councillor Deborah Rott has a question for you I think thank you chairman and through you chairman good morning I found your explanation there a little interesting because to be writing to us all telling us that there's free access it wasn't actually correct was it and I would like to ask you some questions I'm not quite clear in my own mind how the buildings that you have put forward have you actually got tenants for them yet because during the and in the paperwork there is talk of people being concerned that it's a speculative application and my next question is I'm sure you carefully listen to the previous speaker who referred to the master plan which this application does not seem to be compliant with did you read the master plan and if you did why have you chosen to ignore the thrust of that master plan which is concerned about bulk buildings and height of buildings and number of buildings so if you did read that master plan which would have restricted lots of the things that you put into your application why therefore have we got such an application in front of us today is it just a try on and a speculative application right thank you council there's a few questions here that I'll try and go through the first one is again going back to the access point I come back to the point that on our ownership the land that we control that is within our absolute control that is open to the public and I want to make clear that obviously we are in discussions with TWI on the access on their land but as you will appreciate it's not something that we can control it sits outside our direct ownership in terms of the tenant question I've got a list here of requirements that we're actually tracking very happy to make it available to members it represents 825,000 square feet of active requirements these are tenants that are currently in the market and as I mentioned earlier in my summary there is also one party that we are in direct discussions with to take a privilege on a 100% of this building again worth noting that the Portway building which was a recent refurbishment at Granthe Park we completed in December of last year that had 90,000 square feet that was indeed a speculative development as a refurb at the time we had terms out to 270,000 square feet worth of demand we ended up pre-leasing the space within four weeks from it coming to the markets a lot of these tenants that were local businesses said to go elsewhere like Stephen and Jon Oxford but they were certainly a tenant as I said that we are in advanced discussions with unfortunately I can't disclose the name because of SCC reasons that the raising funding in New York at the moment and we are strictly bound to not mention anything on the front but again you know I'm very happy to make this report here available to members to look at all the various requirements that we are looking at and again going back to what Granthe Park has got no availability you know 100% least in fact the welding institute is converting the restaurant into tenant space because they have nowhere to put their businesses that are seeking to grow your point about the master plan to be perfectly frank I'm not 100% sure which master plan the previous speaker was referring to we have gone through a very detailed review through our planning consultants and our officers of the local authority here of all master plans and original consent stating back to 1993 that are relevant to this parcel of land you know there is obviously various applications around Granthe Park the previous speaker may have been referring to the land that is again owned by TWI the welding institute which is further east of our site and they had put forward a scheme in 2008 to expand their own operation as a welding institute through three new buildings that were actually open in 2014 but that is slightly different I say another welcome again the case officer can perhaps provide a bit more detail on that but the master plan that goes back to the area Paris scheme relating to Granthe Park and the design guide that was devised back in the early 2000s I think is perhaps more relevant as far as this site is concerned Thank you very much for that I think there has been a number of questions asked and answered there I should say that before we come to the debate there will be a chance to see clarification from officers on any of these points so thank you very much Thank you and our next speaker I think is Tony Borgie I think on behalf of Great Abington Parish Council perhaps in introducing yourself you just clarify whether you are also speaking on behalf of Little Abington or whether you will be sharing your time on that Tony Borgie welcome you know the procedure I know Thank you Little Abington is joining us through the web and I'll be speaking and then via Archibald make some comments I am speaking on behalf of Great Abington Parish Council and thank you for letting me address you The proposed site one building is tall taller than any other on the Granthe Park site and is located on the highest part of Granthe Park In the parish council's view the proposed building would be an overtly dominant feature of the landscape being 22.5 metres the top of the building excluding those and would rise substantially above the tree belt between it and Newmarket Road the tree belt is 12 to 14 metres so you see how high it is The parish council has been concerned for some considerable time about the cumulative impact of successive planning applications on the Granthe Park site including the traffic consequences of the proposed buildings This application refers to had 450 new jobs and an additional 301 car parking spaces thus providing parking for about 67% of the additional jobs The transport assessment gives an arrival figure of 143 cars in the morning peak and 107 departures in the evening peak based on 301 car parking spaces. Consider how many additional peak time arrivals and departures would be likely to arise from the car parking spaces in the current reserve matters application for Granthe Park phase 2 site 2 I should say that local experience pre-pandemic was a peak time hold-ups of the roundabout outside the entrance to Granthe Park with on occasions traffic queuing back onto the A505 in both directions The 2017 travel plan stated an intent to promote walking routes no 5 years later there are still no footways on the roads leading to or from Granthe Park so although people can access Granthe Park as the resty says through the front entrance there's no footpath they can walk on to get there Is the parish council being nimby by opposing this application I would argue not so One of the most recent other applications was the Portway Building which has just been referred to which is immediately to the right of the Granthe Park entrance and one that we're talking about immediately on the left The great Anton parish council response to the Portway Building was great Ablington parish council recommends approval of this application So why the difference in the parish council's response The two buildings are quite different in terms of scale and massing The Portway Building is two-storey does not rise above its surroundings and is well screened whereas the proposed site 1 building is dominant, overtly dominant would have a severe and negative impact on the surroundings and landscape and I'd like to conclude by two images One image is the image shown on page 36 of the applicant's design and access statement part one and the other is sorry what's being shown of poor slides performed by little Ablington if we could just go to the first one of those That's the view from Bourne Bridge Road and Via Archer should be joining us on the link Yes, I'm here, thank you Can you hear me? Yes Thank you First of all, good morning chairman and members and thank you very much for this opportunity to speak briefly I'd like to say that little Abington parish council also recommends refusal and we support the points made by great Abington parish council regarding the mass and the visibility of the building and therefore the harm to the local environment and the harm to the village setting and again this first slide shows where the proposed building would be visible above the tree line We also have concerns regarding the increase in traffic both from the proposed site 1 building and the reserve matters application for phase 2 site 2 in particular the lack of pavements on the roads around Grante Park were to shown on slide 3 and again here and therefore the difficulty of the pedestrian cycle access further discover to use of alternative forms of transport to car use that includes people who will be trying to travel in addition to the Grante Park bus we will be trying to travel via public bus coming from the route 13 coming from Haverhill in particular where often in the morning the bus does not stop so people would have to walk along one of these access roads to get to Grante Park I think that is all the time that I have so again thank you very much for your attention So could we just show page 36 of the design and access statement part 1 please I am using my chairman's discretion to allow a little more time because we have two parish councils here while we are looking for that Doctor Archer can I just ask you to confirm that you have the formal consent of the parish council to represent them today Yes I do Yes thank you So you are looking for one more Yes it's this Page 36 it's called View 4 and it's of the design and access statement part 1 It's actually a view from just across the Grante Park roundabout Is that the one you are looking for What's the title of just above the That is View 4 That's the one View from the A That shows You are well into your time limit Can you be somewhat briefly on this point please Basically parish council's concerns are about the height and massing of the building and the traffic consequences of the developments Thank you very much Thank you both very much for those presentations I don't know whether you have any questions of clarification on councillors No So Ms Georgie thank you very much and Doctor Archer also Thank you Thank you I think local member councillor John Bachelor is now going to join us online Are you there John? I am indeed I won't insults councillor Bachelor by asking if he knows the procedures Please the time is yours Okay thank you very much I am here to agree with those objecting to this You've heard the arguments so I won't rehearse them all again I'd just like to say that clearly as you've just seen in the last illustration this building is simply too large too imposing and too dominating it clearly has a negative impact on the surrounding countryside and the landscape character so that is against policy ETH 15 the height and scale and massing of it is also against policy H15 Perhaps I'll just bring in a new element to this late yesterday we had a letter from the solicitors of the previous owners of the land here and they point out that when they sold in 1996 there was a whole series of legal covenants on the surrounding trees and woodlands They are now claiming that the existing parking area next to this site is already encroaching on the woodlands and the proposed multi-story car park would encroach further They are raising the question of whether there exists the legal right to impose to encroach into this woodland They are suggesting that it is against the existing covenants and I think that legal issue needs to be sorted out so I think it would be very unwise to proceed today with this application until such time as these legal matters have been dealt with Even without that element the fact that it is against policy and the extraordinary size of this thing in the most prominent position possible on this on the site then I think this justifies refusal so thank you chair I think councillor Williams has a question Through yourself chair chair Is it on this particular site if we put the covenants to one site because I think we were advised at the beginning that that's a civil matter Mr Reid is smiling at me which means I've normally got something right very rare occurrence but in relation to the building itself do you think that there is potential for something of the right size in that area or is it just shouldn't be built on full stop just around the principle of the development issue Well as we heard from the first speaker that the master plan was for this to remain a green area and not to be built on if we are going to build on it then it's it's a simple matter the tree line should hide it so it can't be more than two stories high in those sort of context I would imagine that it may well be acceptable Thank you Do we have any other questions to councillor bachelor I think at this moment we should also perhaps direct that question to officers Michael you want to comment on that Which particular part of that part about it not being a development parcel Yes there's no restrictions on the plot it's not designated to remain as an area of open space it is identified as a plot of land to be developed within the 1998 master plan so there's no there's no reason something can't be placed on that site no Right I think we now proceed to the debate but before we do that I think there are a number of opportunities for clarification including on points raised I'd like to just start off before I go to others asking for clarification of which master plan now applies and what its status is in terms of this application Thank you chair If it's helpful I can share a copy of the 1998 master plan on the screen and it is summarised briefly in my report in Paragraph 74 to 76 Chairman sorry could I just ask a question wasn't there some comment as well about master plan 2008 That's why I ask which master plan we're referring to this reference doesn't state of date I think Perhaps you could deal with that as well Yes so the master plan I believe is relevant to the application as this 1998 master plan which I've got on screen here and I'll just scroll to a few key highlights to address points that have been raised so this is the plan in the master plan the areas in red are in effect development parcels where buildings are expected to be built and you can see that that includes the site one before you today there is information here about building guidelines again it's drawn out in my report so here you see another map which identifies a northern building zone a northern parcel and a southern building zone again site one is included within that building zone yes I'm just coming to that Councillor apologies so obviously this is going so it talks about the amount of floor space that would be expected in those northern and southern parcels which is set out in the report prime site lines and frontages to those particular parcels building set backs, building linements building heights and that's set out in the report yes so the guy says buildings and grounds part will be two stories unless otherwise agreed buildings of the greater height may be acceptable where it is appropriate to vary the silhouettes or provide key landmark features subject to planning approval and that particular element is drawn out in between paragraph 74 and 76 of the report so this is guidance and it is acknowledged within the report I can't carry on through this document if you want but I don't think that's very helpful I don't we need to go through the whole document and some of these are points that we will come to later no doubt in the debate I think we also have a question clarification from Councillor Riffith no it was the same question that you'd asked although I'd like to have some idea of how much weight we can apply to this it seems quite open can you give some guidance on the weight that we applied that particular paragraph 25 there I would say it's obviously guidance for the park and then you have the local plan policies which talk about scale being appropriate so it does say will be two stories and typically buildings are two stories and then the park but that's probably worth noting that two stories in the context of a research and development building is not necessarily the same as a two story residential property because the ceiling heights are higher because of the use but there are buildings on the park as visiting such as site 6, Gilead and the Illumina building which are already in excess of two stories so as the guide highlights it two stories can be exceeded where acceptable and I would say that's when you imagine for judgement for us as set out in the local plan policies including the established informant area policy which does make reference to landscapes I think Councillor Heather Williams has a point of clarification yes mine isn't relation to this document though chair so if you want to can you ask the document first we have others who have questions anyone want to see this particular point in relation to this document so we'll come back to Dr. Michelle Williams yes I would just really benefit from some clarification about the status of this document I can't find any mention of it online I've got a planning application for this site from 2015 I can't find any mention of it there so is this a master plan of the same type as we look at master plans for the North East Cambridge site or whatever was it agreed by I'm just unclear what the status of this document is so if it helps it's not an adopted document in the sense of being part of the development plan it's not an SPD like an affordable housing SPD my understanding is it was a plan a guidance document that was devised around the time of the original outline permission for the site as a whole so it's not part of our development plan but nonetheless it has relevance to the site and we have had regard to it in the report but if I don't think you could refuse the application with solely referencing the master plan you know clearly it's then the local plan policies which it's a relevance but it's not part of the development plan there's more code for the site Councillor Heather Williams I'm not sure if Councillor Hales had something on this document his hand went up before me are you on this document Councillor Hales I think so right so this is a point of clarification if I may ask it was Miss Neill in her presentation made reference to the 2008 I believe master plan I mean are we able or allowed to ask Miss Neill just to clarify that and where she might have got that information from I think that would be pertinent that obviously with your commission sorry you addressing this question to officers or to Miss Neill who has now completed her presentation I was asking you had an opportunity to ask her questions at the time yes it was but it's kind of come up as an anomaly now so it's just something else is really ahead and Mr Saxon has said he's the 1998 master plan which is 20 years give or take 10 years difference okay thank you Mr Saxon Miss Neill I'm going to use my chair's discretion to invite you to address that question are you clear what the question was or do you want us to repeat it how about if you retrade it where everybody is clear well I think the question is what is the case officers referred to the 1998 master plan the question is the 2008 master plan how do you see that as relevant and what you see as its legal status thank you members the 1998 master plan you have seen is part of the 1998 application it and the section 106 agreement attached to that required a master plan to be set up in more detail and after a number of renewals of the various applications it was finally done in 2008 so that is why you have a 2008 master plan I have referred to as opposed to the document that was with the original application Miss Neill thank you very much for coming back to clarify that for us just before we proceed I would like to ask the case officer if he wants to come in further in the light of that explanation I don't need to say that I don't have a copy of the 1990 sorry the 2008 master plan before me so it's difficult for me to answer but if we were able to sort take a short recess I would have to look through the planning history and try and find this I think this would be a good moment for a short recess and perhaps we can clarify this point when we return are you happy that we knew that at the moment because your question good right let's come back at 11.15 okay we're live again welcome back to South Gams District Council planning committee my apologies that we extended that break a little longer but we're live again just to resume where we left off we had a question of clarification in relation to the master plan and the status of any 2008 master plan that was mentioned earlier on so I'd like to go back to is it the case? Thank you chair so we are not where as officers of the existence of a 2008 master plan but the third parties have preferred to a document that they haven't seen either but there is some confusion over this and we want to be clear as officers that we are providing you with all of the information that you need to come to a decision so I have to tell you today that we are not certain we don't believe this document exists but the third parties are adamant that such a document does exist neither of us can find it and that leads us into a difficult position and I suggest therefore that you may want to consider deferring the item so that we can go away and explore this further thank you thank you can we have a seconder for that Williams can I take that by affirmation we don't need a vote on this are we all agreed on that yes I think that is unanimous anyone take a different view my apologies to all concerned for the need to defer this but we can only determine it if we are absolutely categorical uncertain and I'm afraid we are not at the moment I think it would be helpful at this point to take over from our legal officer too chair I think in addition to the issue of the 2008 master plan I would like to explore with Mrs Burkitt's their suggestion that in fact the covenants as to the woodland are such that the planning commission should not be granted their client has a right to apply to the court to prevent implementation of the planning commission but I'm sure it would be helpful to members for them to see an updated letter from Burkitt's clarifying whether in fact they are saying that their right to apply to the court to prevent implementation would be prejudiced were you to consider granting planning commission in this case? Will it be helpful clearly to have that information before us when we come to look at this or an application again? Councillor Williams Do you want to add something? Yes, I was just going to suggest that anything else that doesn't need to be explored on carpets et cetera is there was one thing and just thinking of might be helpful going forward that I was going to propose it's just in relation to the references to C-set when it comes forward with the conditioning because I think it might need to be consulted on Okay, we're going to break off there and come back in a moment when the live stream issue is resolved we're now going to resume I think we can reinstate the live stream we're going to be running some diagnostics and if that proves to be of an unacceptable quality we may have to come to a decision shortly but for the moment we're okay to proceed now we've just concluded item 5 and just for confirmation we've just concluded item 5 and I know there were other some who wanted to make further comments on item 5 those comments will be noted and taken away for future consideration I don't want to revert to item 5, I'm afraid so we now move on to item 6 which is and east of Highfields Road Highfields Cwlda Cot page 57 of your written agenda and I think we're with Michael Sexton again Thank you chair I think it's always me just by way of updates on this application occupations have started on site so there are recommended conditions within report conditions 18 and 20 which I would just seek agreement that you gave delegated powers to officers to refine the wording to require the works to be undertaken prior to the occupation of the 25th dwelling that is to reflect the situation that residents are moving into the site and are due to move in shortly so I'll just ask for, I'll show it in my presentation how those wordings would change and following discussion with the council's legal officer, officers also request that if members are minded to support the application that the delegated authority is given to officers to refine the wordings for conditions 1 to 4 which are A to D in the report and to include wording in the deed of variation such that the section 73 application does not allow any development relating to phase 2 site to come forward in any new reserve matters application so sorry I just want to say that we need to be able to hear clearly within the hall so there are other discussions I've been most grateful if they could be suspended or right so the question of that point will be do we give delegated authority in relation to those conditions do you want to come back to your main presentation on this don't we need a decision on that at the station thank you chair, I will share my screen there we go so as we'll become evident as we move through this is a site that has been before members before Highfields Road, Caldecott this particular application seeks to vary conditions 18 and 20 of the original outline commission although that was varied by a separate section 73 so technically it is varying that section 73 but this is the site which is no doubt familiar which in 2015 there was an outline application for 140 dwellings on Highfields Road, Caldecott last month we considered full application for the southern parcel but the northern parcel phase 1 is under construction and being occupied the issue before members is that the conditions on the original commission talk about highway improvements in condition 18 it's not practical to deliver those improvements on the ground the highway is not wide enough and the land within the atmosphere is not wide enough so the application is seeking to vary that original condition as you can see at the top which requires a shared use footway cycleway on the western side of Highfields Road to the revised condition which as I mentioned in the updates we would seek prior to occupation of the 25th dwelling that the highway works are carried out in accordance with drawings that have been submitted to this application which I will show in a moment which shows a provision of a new footpath in a section before it then becomes a footway cycleway hopefully to illustrate the issue this area sorry this area here in in the red box is the area where the new footway cycleway is applied to then extend all the way up to the roundabout at the top of the county but the area in this red box is physically not wide enough to deliver a footway cycleway which would need to be three metres to meet standards therefore they're seeking to provide a footway in that area where that can be provided the footway cycleway would then continue from here so there's about 250 metres strip where the footway cycleway cannot be provided but a footpath can be provided and then the footway cycleway will carry on which is why the condition is split into parts A, B and C Highways Authority are happy with the plans that have been submitted sorry I have a little more zoomed in version so yes again this is the area where it's not wide enough to do the footway cycleway cycleway and it then becomes wide enough within the highway to deliver it similarly for condition 20 which requires the developer to provide a public bridleway to the east of the site the land within the redline boundary has never been wide enough to provide a bridleway county council requirements are for bridleways to be four metres wide the land simply isn't there to be able to do so so there's very very seeking to deliver a public footpath which has a requirement of being two metres wide so members are being asked to consider whether the provision of a public footpath rather than the public bridleway is acceptable to help with context this is a plan from the original 106 agreement with the blue lines indicating where the new public bridleway would be where an upgrade to an existing public bridleway would be it's worth noting that this new public bridleway wouldn't connect to an existing public bridleway it would connect to an existing public footpath but as that's out in the report the land is simply not available to deliver the bridleway as required by the condition so the principle of development has been established and indeed implemented for the phase one development be issued before members are the alterations to the shared use footway cycleway condition and the circular public bridleway condition thank you chair thank you Michael very clear the recommendation of officers is paragraph 117 on page 72 do we have any questions of clarification yes councillor Heather Williams and then councillor Dr Richard Williams thank you chair through yourself I could just ask officers to confirm that actually if I recall rightly that's the area that they're saying isn't the space actually is garden there is some garden for those properties beside it it's just wanted to check that that's the case and also forgive me if it's in the report but the surface material that's going to be used for this footpath what sort of material is it going to be because that also while it might not be a bridleway the surface material would potentially give riders the ability to use it thank you chair and through yourself yes so the area to the west of the highway footwork highway and bridlework there are residential properties and front gardens and the bridleway the wording of the condition actually requires the developer to submit a scheme for the design and materials to be used so the developer would still need to submit that scheme and that would be considered in consultation with the county council who would obviously set out the requirements for the surface material required for a public footpath to meet their specifications so if members are minded to support the application the developer will need to discharge condition 20 and supply those details that you've just referred to you're getting this thank you I'm just wondering if we're able to so we're not able to specify ourselves that we would like it to be a natural footpath rather than a sort of road map one is it possible to see the layout with the houses to see where the garden is I'm just trying to appreciate whether it's a case of the gardens that are the issue or actually houses built on it because I'm pretty sure they could probably just remove a little bit of the gardens to make way for them to then be able to comply so is that possible before you answer that would I really suggest that that is not the aspect of the bridal way of footpath that we're considering do we need to confine our consideration to the policy background of not the surfacing or is that a matter we can bring in at this stage I would suggest that the surfacing is dealt with through the fact that the developer has to submit a discharge of conditions application which will then need to meet the specifications of the county council and their rights of waiting I don't foresee that that would be a tarmac surface extending across countryside it would be a more natural footpath and one that because it will connect into an existing public right of way it will be one that is akin to that network in that you would expect to see in the countryside in terms of the highway works I can share a plan if that's helpful that shows the position of existing residential properties so if it helps clarify the situation the site access is actually conveniently where this boarding is shown on this photo and then some of the footway works after this some of the some of the to extend along this western side of Highfields Road and you can see that you then get into boundaries with residential properties which is why there is insufficient land available to deliver that footway and maintain the highway to the width that is required so that is why the developer is seeking to deliver a footpath for this first section and then when the land becomes available it will then be the footway cycleway as originally required it's just a 250-metre section where the land isn't available for a footway cycleway OK Doctor Richard Williams Thank you chair actually that last comment may have answered my question but I'll ask it anyway just to be sure so on that condition 18 I was going to ask the reason why land isn't available so presumably the answer therefore because there are residential gardens that side have we seen any evidence of any attempts to acquire sufficient land though Through you chair in terms of the highway works or the bridalway in terms of condition 18 for the cycleway I'm not in a position to answer that that would be a question for the applicant I don't believe has attended the committee this week but these discussions are the culmination of conversations between the developer and the highways team in terms of what is practically deliverable on-site I think that the case officer has explained to us very clearly that as things currently stand this aspect of the conditions 18 and 20 is not practically deliverable and I think we have to accept that for the moment I think Councillor Henry Bachelord Thank you chair my question has actually been answered subsequently so next speaker Councillor Eileen Wilson Thank you just for clarification the original condition was that there be footway cycleway and bridalway and I understand that the bridalway isn't possible because of the width of the road but would it still be a cycleway as well as a footpath my concern is if you have two three segments of footpath but one segment can't also be a cycleway what happens to those cyclists if they can't continue cycling and will they come into conflict with the pedestrians Through you Geoff I may just share a plan to hopefully clarify because I think the footway cycleway and the bridalway are two separate areas so for clarification the bridalway that's required by condition 20 would extend to the eastern edge of the site and in this rectangle and then come back round as you can see the red line is very narrow there's not 4 metres in width to deliver it the footway cycleway relates to highway improvement works along high field road up here so the footway cycleway and the bridalway are two separate issues the existing situation is that cyclists obviously have to cycle on the road along this section because there isn't a cycleway the development will bring forward a footway a cycleway shortly after a roundabout down to I forget the name of the road in Caldecott but at this point here the cyclists would then be able to get on to a cycleway a shared footway cycleway which then extends up to the main road main roundabout at the top of St Ian's Road so there's still improvement works delivered it's just the cycleway can't start until slightly further north of the site if that helps I think that's very clear do we have any further questions of clarification anybody who hasn't so far intervened Councillor Heather Williams I wouldn't call it an intervention chair more just seeking clarification it's just on my question about space and just on the comments we've shown last because when we saw the sort of garden issue that was in relation to the cycleway wasn't in relation to the with the planned for the houses in relation to why the bridal path can't fit what I'm trying to seek is is it a case of the land in control the applicant could be re-purposed or where the garden is going up to we're already by putting the cycleway in that place we're already creating a bit of a dangerous area for riders because essentially if you've got a cycle path from the horses on the road you've then got the cars and what you do is put the horse in the middle and it can cause issues so having an alternative when you've got that going on is very important to riders so just want to see why we haven't got the space for the bridalway so my understanding in discussions with the developer who are Linton Homes when they acquired the site they acquired everything that was within the redline boundary that included the strip of land that runs in the rectangle to the east of the site which was not four meters wide they have approached the adjoining landowners but they are unwilling to sell the land or make the land available for Linton Homes to provide four meter wide bridalway I can't confirm the reasons for that but I can confirm it through my conversation with Linton they have asked that question but the land owner is not willing to provide or sell to them further land for the bridalway Right I think we've attained as much clarification on this as we can you've seen the officer recommendation of BW7 is there anybody who wants to debate the merits of this or are we able to proceed to a decision on it in termination to council hails Dot Shrews debate Please forgive me chair you're telling me I cannot ask this question Heather Williams was asking with regards to the land Mr Sachs has answered the question about the private land owners offsite if you like I was looking at Heather and thinking that you've mentioned what about the onsite i.e. the developer themselves giving up some of their own land to make sure this byway was big enough to do whatever it was on the plan without plan for this condition 18 I suppose that was the question that we were driving at as a committee if you would allow that to be answered Certainly allow that to be asked but I think we need to clarify whether that is in relation to this particular section where the question is whether these conditions are in current circumstances capable of being implemented So it may be helpful if I displayed to members what has been consented and is currently being built out on site This is the approved layout plan from the phase 1 development of 66 residential properties so if a bridalway were to be provided it would only be provided around this edge here as soon as you get to this point you can see the red land that's within the control of the applicant the bridalway would cease the land here is not wide enough for a bridalway to be delivered so feasibly you could have a bridalway for a few hundred metres but it wouldn't really go anywhere My understanding is you can take horses across a public footpath but you can't be riding on them at the time I don't think there's merit in seeking part of the footpath to be a bridalway I think it's either all public footpath or not Going back again to the recommendation at paragraph 117 the recommendation is that the planning committee grants delegated authority to officers to issue a new revised planning commission subject to the conditions set out here and I would emphasise that that would be conditional on the completion of a leader variation so there will be a further stage of consideration of some of the details that have been referred to Councillor Heather Williams again Thank you chair I've got old clarification Thank you to Councillor Hales as well for that one So for myself I'm not happy in relation to the bridalway I think even if they were giving that one section I appreciate it, it looks like you're not getting anywhere but as you said riders need to disembark as it were and they need to get down or dangerous then on that section of bridal path particularly if you've got young riders they'd be able to get off and then walk through the footpath area so I'm not happy to relinquish them of all responsibility I think they should provide what they can and we should condition to say that they need to provide that bit within their control and then that would create at least a safer environment for riders but understand with the cycle lane and the capacity there Councillor Richard Williams Yeah similar point chair I'm not happy with either of these things I think they're already being required to provide a cycle path on land that's not under their control it's outside the red line boundary I'm not really I mean I don't know we're being told that land isn't available to do what was conditioned but I don't know what efforts have been made to acquire land so actually I'm not happy to agree to either of these things Any other who remembers the committee Art, cancer and other other people Thank you Chairman through you Chairman I'm not going to be supporting it either I think it's quite inexcusable these developers have lots of people who do this work for them did they not come to I mean it says at page 67 at paragraph 76 originally they knew they had a problem when they bought this site but you know the way it's all now to come to us and then want it changed and I'm getting more than a little sick and tired of developers in South Cambridgeshire actually always pleading that they can't do this, they can't do that they can't do the other when they know right from the start that they have a obligation and every time they want us to buckle down to them and give in and let them get away with it I'm not doing so, thank you Chairman I see no other hands raised yes I do how can I do this? Thank you, two points on the screen there's a hand up on the plus six thing and my question is actually in relation to Councillor Williams Heather Williams regards to the dismounting of horses and what have you done on the road is there any ability where the path comes to an end on the road to have a wider section there where people can dismount safely if the rest of the path whatever if that can be provided that then does give the rider the chance to dismount without being on the road that's my question if that can be a question through the officers if they can deliver that I think committee it might be helpful we have we have Tamperey from the county councillers I was authority standing by perhaps we could refer these issues to him for some guidance if you can that would be helpful Good morning committee, yes very happy to help particularly with the cycle path condition on high fields roads my colleagues in high race development have worked very closely with the applicant to see what would be possible in terms of riding the footway to retrieve a set footway and cycleway on high fields road unfortunately we cannot ask the applicant to do work outside of the highway boundary it's just not still compliant for us to do that or reasonable for us to ask that so the applicant could only work within the limits of the highway boundary and unfortunately it came to light through the detailed design work but there wasn't enough for it to be possible to achieve the 3m path that we were looking to achieve so that's the reason why they're just riding the path to 1.8m to achieve a footway only it's regrettable but it's the best that they can achieve at that location so I hope that's helpful Helpful explanation it puts the decision for us in context councillor, back to you now Thank you chair I think in light of the comments I think we're probably in a position now to make a decision on this for me so I would move that we do take a vote on it please I think I don't see any other comments that are reasonable to move to a vote Do we need to take this vote by electronically? I suspect we probably do No we clearly don't have unanimity here so and I think officers have noted that if we were to be inclined to refuse that I think officers have noted the reasons for those refuse Do you need to elaborate on that? I suspect if members were to refuse then we could craft a reason related to policy TI2 and planning for sustainable travel which does talk about protection and improvement in existing cycleways and more from roots so we could have a reason which we would have to probably agree separately that delegates powers to agree that with yourself but I think I understand why members may seek to refuse it and if I may just remind Chair that through my updates we did ask the other recommendation as I tell the report to be amended slightly to include delegated powers to just revisit conditions one to four and include additional wording in the 6106 such that there was no opportunity to come forward with a further reserve matters application it's just being overly robust I think we now proceed to a vote I think the vote is in front of you I think we all know how these work if we're in favour of the officer's recommendation of 117 we press the green if we're against we press the the red so the vote is now open right so that do you want to announce that? Certainly can Chair that is four votes in favour six votes against and one abstention right so that is refused I'm quite sure that leaves us but that is now refused Thank you Chair if I can clarify so that's refused and as officers we will go away and draft the reasoning refusal around policy PTI2 as Mark Sexton said and we would refer that to yourself Chair and Vice-Chair for your consideration thank you Thank you for that that concludes item six we now move to item seven I'm very glad to welcome our Director of Joint Planning Group of the Room so we move on to item seven Land of Horsheath Road in Linton this is on pages 81 and subsequent in your papers and myself so the applicant in this case is Crowdy's Homes key material considerations outstanding surface water drainage and flood risk in this case and it's brought to the committee because the applicant the application is one that in the opinion of officers should be determined by committee because the complexity of the application and the applicant officer in this case I think he's online is Karen Pell Cookins Chair it will probably help if I introduce this item and then pass to Karen for assistance if required thank you I apologise for as yours when you're when you're already second whilst I make sure I've got the presentation up yes thank you thank you chair item is but in front of the committee partly because of the consequences of events on the 20th of July last year 21st of July last year when substantial flooding arising to neighbouring properties in Longstall took place if I can just I will share my screen with them meeting if you can just bear with me one second hopefully members can see that the application site is situated off horse he throws and is a site that many members may well recall because it was a planning commission granted when the council didn't have a 5 year land supply for 42 dwellings and it was granted on appeal condition 11 of that planning application that required the approval of details in accordance with a surface water and required it to follow a set of principles set out in documents that weren't that weren't immediately part of that appeal but which had been submitted to the council for and the inspectorate for consideration the drainage proposals surface water drainage proposals involve several elements are set out in the report but fundamentally result in a captured surface water drainage system that leads to an infiltration basin you'll forgive me where my cursor is moving where the arrow is now so the objective of the drainage system is to capture and hold in those purple areas sorry in the pale green areas they are permeable paving areas but to effectively capture both the surface water from houses and roofs and from the highway and to convey it to this basin at the bottom left hand corner of the site the other elements of the scheme include a sorry I'm moving around here other elements of the scheme include on the eastern side a bund and on the and on the western side of the site a further raised area to reduce what is currently a situation where surface water flows overland in peak flood events from the top of the site to the bottom of the site so I'm just trying to find you the most appropriate slide so there is an existing history of water flowing across the site from the top right hand side of the stream to the bottom left hand corner and the site is currently under construction what happened in May last year was that the surface water that passed into the site from both the public highway passing down the main site access road from a temporary site access road which is currently where that square is entered into the site conveyed substantial material filled and then overwhelmed a preliminary version of that basin and then was conveyed the water then overflowed that basin into the properties to the west particularly because that is the I like that on the stream inundated a number of properties in this corner the scheme and you have seen a number of representations that have been made both from the parish council and from local residents and indeed submissions that have been also made in the last few days include photographs of the flood event itself as a consequence of that event and not the standing earlier advice from the lead local flood authority who are our consultees on surface water drainage schemes a process of review took place the lead local flood authority employed consultants to review the performance of the drainage scheme that was being put forward and begun engagement with the planning authority and some local residents who expressed concerns and indeed still expressed concerns about some of the calculations employed about infiltration rates but particularly about the principles and whether the development satisfied the principles that were set out as a requirement of the planning condition that process has taken place over the period since July last year and has resulted in the lead local flood authority and their consultants concluding that the surface water drainage scheme is now acceptable and within the parameters for their consideration against the temperature flood and water guidance SPD which they assess developments of this nature now not the standing of the views of the lead local flood authority you will have or you may be aware that the local MP has written to the planning authority this week and we have also received a further six representations from numbers 11, 19, 31, 34 and 36 Lonsdale who the properties largely impacted as well as two Bakers Lane in Linton that were also impacted and they raise several key concerns the first is that the lead local flood authority have not yet published their report into that flood event and as a consequence local residents and they believe that the community are largely not able to determine this proposal or comment on this proposal in light of the findings of the lead local flood authority the second concern that they highlight is that in the drainage scheme and indeed if I move to this slide there is no identified route from the basin in this bottom corner in the event that the flood event or a rainfall event exceeds the capacity of the basin so in other words the application suggests that that route would flow down Martin's Lane which is to the immediate south but the experience of local residents on the event in July last year was that it flowed westwards through the gardens of those properties and indeed into a number of the properties in that area so they've highlighted a concern around the exceedence flow or the route for exceedence flows in future the lead local flood authority's view is that the scheme if the pond over tops will continue to result in water within the site but it is acknowledged within the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event that represents the design parameters but it is acknowledged that that route is not shown in the current iteration of the scheme previously shown in an earlier iteration of the scheme as flowing westwards the third concerns that have been identified are arise because the development has been started indeed a number of dwellings have been occupied and a concern about whether the development itself and the drainage scheme itself will be implemented or can be implemented in a way that is outlined in the technical design that as the report makes clear there is a proposal for a post completion testing regime but it clearly concerns have been expressed around that and there is also a concern around the performance of the basin and its infiltration rate which the lead local flood authority have tested and considered in some death over recent months the final concern relates to whether or not the bund and there is a bund proposed and I'm sorry to move you around on this drawing there is a bund proposed along this eastern side edge and along the allotments to prevent water flowing which would naturally flow in this direction flowing on to the side in future you may hear concerns this morning that this bund shown in green on this plan has not been formed at this moment in time and is currently in the location of some landscaping works that have been carried out and a concern that the there is not sufficient land in the applicants control to be able to deliver that bund what you see here this drawing here is a phasing plan referred to in the committee report which identifies areas of works that will need to take place which are referred to in the report including the formation of this bund along the eastern edge including alterations to the site to address the gradient and the ability of the site access road at the moment to prevent water flowing down it from Horsie Road at which require further works and the completion and implementation in full of the works for the infiltration basin in the bottom corner of the site which has not yet been constructed and completed fully so the local MP has requested that the council defer the item and local residents representations requested that the council defer the item and from an officer perspective we've been advised by the League Local Flood Authority and their consultants throughout this process and the League Local Flood Authority are responsible for producing the report based on the findings of the events in July last year and are satisfied that the proposed drainage scheme accords with their requirements for surface water drainage schemes in terms of design and overall performance although they have not yet shared the report of the flood event with the planning authority either Chair, I think I'll probably stop there and allow for questions Yes, I think we should proceed to questions now rather than later in the debate Can I just check that the officer's recommendation is still as at paragraph 49 in view of the fact that we do not have the full report available for us The report, the section 19 report is not a planning report it's not a report within the gift of the planning authority Our view is that given the report is prepared by the League Local Flood Authority and the League Local Flood Authority are the consultees that we've worked extensively with over the last 10 months especially since the unfortunate flood event that there isn't a reason from an officer perspective to differ consideration for that So the recommendation is the same Right, we have some good questions to you which you may choose to bring in the senior planning officer as well I'd like to start with Councillor Heather Williams Thank you chair and it's probably more of a suggestion than a question just around the report I suppose there is potentially a question there of when we're expecting this report to become public and I do understand officers are telling us what we can do what we could do but sometimes as councillers our decision is to decide yes we can but should we and I think that's an important distinction should we be looking at this until we've seen that report in our judgement which I have to say I think many of us would feel more comfortable if we did have that report and also we are here for public interest that's why it comes to committee so I can understand why residents would be very nervous at the moment and would want to see it so when can we expect it to be public I think is my question and chair I am more inclined to suggest deferral until that has been made public just in case you want to know so we don't carry on I remember being the questions of clarification to officers we will have an opportunity to have a debate later on but Mr Kelly would you like to address that question my understanding is the draft report is prepared but it has not yet been finalised by the League Local Flood Authority and shared with us when I've inquired about the report the League Local Flood Authority have said it is a matter of weeks in which it could be made available but it hasn't yet gone through the approval and sign-off process yes yes I think there are others who want to ask questions and then perhaps we'll come back to it but also I think it would as a matter of courtesy make sense to hear from the public speakers we have lined up I've taken off the recommendation on that in a minute but in the meanwhile we have a question from Councillor Batchernay thank you chair on the information around two of the local concerns that have been raised that you referenced in your introduction Stephen one, so the lack of information on the exceedance flow i.e. where the water will flow if the if the filtration basin is full yes so I just want some clarity around what do sorry what am I trying to say when do we think we might have that information because clearly that will be of some comfort to members to local residents who live in the estates surrounding the new development and second one there was also a concern around the proposed buns on the northeast side of the site I know there was a concern about land ownership and actually being able to fully build these out as designs given the fact that the land in question isn't in the ownership of the applicant so yes just two points of clarity around those things thank you in terms of the exceedance flow route the representations have highlighted and indeed earlier iterations of the flood risk of the surface water management scheme included an indication that the exceedance flow would be westwards as I said the report however from the applicants implies that the exceedance flow will be southwards down Martin's Lane the events in May in July last year nevertheless didn't support the suggestion that the exceedance would be down Martin's Lane because the waters themselves flowed westwards there is no current detail on the application around that although there has been discussion with the lead local flood authority and for the design year exceedance in terms of the performance of the basin the applicants have been clear that it stays within the site it doesn't leave the site but we don't have details beyond that in terms of where the exceedance flow would take place the suggestion I think local concern on this is that it would be westwards into Lonsdale rather than down Martin's Lane that information isn't information that has been contained within the current applications but if the committee were finding it certainly is something that could be sought by suspect relatively quickly in terms of the information around the buns this has been a point that's been raised with the with the applicants they believe that they can form those buns and to the as well within the land that they control we have not as officers been out to survey land in detail I'm aware that third parties have undertaken some preliminary assessments in which they feel that the drainage ditch part or the ditch in front of the bund cannot be accommodated within the application site when we've challenged the applicants on this their view is that that area that the ditch can be formed but I haven't got a survey to confirm the details of that in front of you today sorry we will come back to an opportunity for questions before we have the debate at the end and we do have some speakers lined up to speak to us so I would like to move on to that quite quickly but we have firstly councillor Deborah Roberts Frank and Gem I'll keep it very short can you just tell me please Mr Kelly was the the lead authority were they aware that it was coming to committee today and if they did why didn't they actually hurry it up and get it through to us if you know that thank you I can't answer the process unfortunately behind the LLFA they're aware of the concern around the section 19 report and local residents have asked that question too councillor can you think a bit of information about the geology of the area I'm presuming that it's based it's chalk covered by boulder clay or perhaps clay with lint for more likely boulder clay I'm just wondering what depth there is and whether the infiltration pond goes right through the boulder clay to the chalk underneath exactly and how in that case they would prevent clay being washed down and seeding the bottom of the pond in flood events Chair if it's helpful your correct councillor can the calculations and the assessment of the performance of the infiltration pond is something that the lead local flood authority have scrutinised quite carefully I'm conscious that Hilary Ellis from the lead local flood authorities in this meeting will potentially to answer that question that would be very helpful thank you Mr Ellis Hilary Ellis are you able to answer that yeah I'm here thank you very much in terms of the geology there have been two different sets of infiltration testing undertaken by the developer so they did some as part of the outline application and then later on as well we requested further testing to demonstrate that the ground is suitable for infiltration also what they have offered is to do some further testing if and when the site is finally approved once the basin is constructed to kind of demonstrate that it does work if that testing found that it didn't work they would have to then seek an alternative solution or look to kind of adapt the system somehow and in terms of the effect on the basin of a flood event they have submitted a maintenance plan which includes actions to take after any kind of flood event to clear out the basin and make sure it's clear of any debris thank you for that then proceed to Councillor Hales thank you chair Mr Kelly you said in your presentation that it's accepted that the water runs to the west yeah and that the the resident said no it doesn't in the flood it ran south and then hence flooded the gardens and what have you and the properties I seem to remember on a previous application as last week or last month whenever it was that there was technical information that said when water flows it can be underground ie it flows underground and is that what the applicant is referring to when it flows west because we wouldn't see it when we have a flood event does it actually flow south which would be much more of a worry if you like than what goes west thanks just before you answer that Kelly if I have you next, is your question related to that it might be possible to deal with both at the same time or is yours a different question it's slightly different just to clarify I'm sorry if it wasn't clear the applicant's information suggests that water flows southwards into what's called Martin's Lane although the Martin's Lane doesn't connect to the application site the experience of local residents and indeed the indication from the environment agencies own data suggests that the water flows effectively diagonally across the site and certainly the experience of residents in Longstall was that in the recent flood event that we referred to which is a substantially greater flood event than one in a hundred years which is the design year for the scheme in terms of rainfall intensity and so on was that it flowed westwards over the boundary into the gardens of homes in Longstall and then through the lower part of Longstall continued westwards and then ended up in Baker's Lane I think council hails wanted to follow up on that so sorry I just caught me west in the south on my way round but essentially though my question really was about where the experts say the water generally flows is that underground or above ground but we know from the pictures that the flood water was across the ground and it went in a different direction so it's that point of clarification do we have the confidence that the people given us the information are giving us the correct information above or above ground I think the predominant in peak rainfall conditions is that it flows overground and that it flows westwards I don't know whether Hilary Ellis is able to comment on this point Yeah no thanks Stephen I agree with you there yet definitely water can flow above ground and underground but in the events that we saw in July if they were to be repeated that water would flow overland So I have a question from council Judith Liffith before I take that if there are others considering questions can I just remind you we have speakers lined up to speak to us and you may want to consider whether to put your further questions later Council Liffith It was a clarification one and I thought you'd seen my hand earlier This isn't directly flooding drainage but how many properties are occupied already is the sort of effect of the time we've got is kind of quite short I'm quite surprised how many are occupied already and I'm assuming they're at the northern part of the site if you could just give that information So my understanding is that there are seven properties that have been occupied that arises from there was a transfer to Bedfordshire pilgrims of some homes and there was a single home sold it is slightly surprising that those occupations happened despite the failure for the council to approve the planning condition at this moment in time that's a matter that falls outside of the consideration of areas of the scheme We have though as you can see from the report recognising the concern that a number of people have highlighted that in fact the scheme is partly implemented we've sought information which I showed you in the drawing about what works would take place in the event of approval of the scheme because it's not yet completed on the site so the surface water drainage scheme has not yet been fully implemented on the site and there are concerns that I highlighted in the representations that the landscaping works that have been carried out would in fact need to be replaced as a consequence of the needs to form particularly the fund on the eastern site boundary where there is a line of trees planted and shrubs planted at this moment in time Okay, I suppose it was just really a question of great concern, thank you Chancellor Harvey didn't you want to ask a question at this stage or do you want to come back later? Yes, if I may just to any of the expert bodies involved in this have a view do we think on given that we know that water historically flows west and that the recent flood event was I think we just said above the 100 year event I mean would flooding have occurred had the development not been there had it been the original meadow I guess I'm not qualified effectively to answer that question what I can say is that the environment agencies flood maps would tend to suggest that there is a flow of water across the site from east to west a varying depth in certain levels of significance but I don't know whether Hilary Alice can offer a view on this the events in July last year were substantially they were significant in terms of exceeding the design year perhaps Hilary Alice can comment Thanks very much this will be contained in our report and then I appreciate that we haven't issued it yet but we do plan to do that in the next few weeks depending on the type of rainfall data that we've looked at the event that happened in July it's depending on whether we look at rainfall data from a radar from a rain gauge it was between a 1 in 200 year and a 1 in 600 year rainfall event which is an exceedance of anything that the site would be designed for the properties in Lonsdale a number of them are already shown to be at a high risk of surface water flooding and in some cases in a what we call a 1 in 30 year event which is a more frequent event we would expect to see some flooding of those properties but yet there is a flow pass shown across the site and the flood investigation that we've undertaken hasn't found that the development itself caused the flooding and it did play a part in it but we would expect a rainfall if we saw that again that some flooding would have been expected Thank you Heather Williams a new point ok a further question at the stage please Thank you chair it's a new question based on what Councillor Riffer said about occupation so these sorts of things normally have to get sorted before occupation and you can't normally get a mortgage unless planning permissions are discharged or there's some form of confirmation so chair through yourself I'm just clarifying the council's not had to go down that route and give confirmation pre-mortgage has it We don't know the arrangements under which the properties were purchased but clearly you would expect to do diligence of any research to include considering whether or not the development is in accordance with the planning commission So we've not had to give assurances on anything We haven't given any assurances on that issue Not a matter for us I think I think that concludes the officer presentation I'd now like to invite our speakers on this starting with John Wood who's joined us virtually I think Are you there Mr Wood? Good afternoon chair You have three minutes to present your case and if you would stand by for any questions that members may raise with you after that please go ahead Of course I believe there should be some slides to show as well Do we know what slides you want to show I'm not sure that we do They were submitted last Friday to the Democratic Service Chair I think I have a copy of the slides if you can just bear with me one second I wasn't sending the arrangements I will send those to you now as well Stephen They were sent along and that's correct My apologies Mr Wood Unfortunately Doran's who we sent those is not and it's not for today so we just got to transfer them and we will have them up for you in a minute and then you can start That's great thank you very much I'll have them here as well so I'll send them to Mr Kelly now just in case I've got a copy of the slides if you'd like me to do them Yes please Karen Can you see those? Can you see those? Good to go Perhaps you'd like to proceed with your presentation Lovely thank you chair and thank you councillors for allowing me to speak today You'll be well aware that we are seeking rejection or deferral of this application on the basis that we do not believe that it complies with policy CCA to the local plan in particular in relation to the requirements set out in the flood and surface water SPD for exceedence flow routes We do not know why unprecedented flooding occurred on 20 July last year as the section 19 report has not yet been published despite being promised in a matter of weeks in October We don't know what the exceedence flow route would be in the event of rainfall exceeding the design and we don't know whether the applicant owns land that they are presenting will be used as part of drainage features These are matters of disclosure which must be known by the LLFA and the applicant and we would like to see these disclosed prior to consultation and why we are seeking deferral Next slide please This is what the infiltration basin on the application site looked like on 20 July last year and the second photo shows flood water that had exceeded the basin flowing into Longstail Next slide please The first and three of these doorbell images are taken just 17 Sorry Karen, one up please are taken just 17 minutes apart The second thing about this event is that we went from nothing to submersion in such a short space of time In the absence of the section 19 report we do not know why Next slide please Karen This is the location of the basin in relation to neighbouring properties Seven houses in Longstail were flooded Three in Bacon's Laid were flooded and we don't know how many others downstream were flooded also Next slide please This is what our lounge looked like on 20 July The highest ever on our property the depth of the water reached 80cm Our two-year-old daughter was barely taller than that so she could have been submerged The SPD clause 5.2.1 states that management measures are no longer about reducing the risk but about planning for flooding Paragraph 29 of your report does state that the site will reduce the flood risk to surrounding areas but do we need to be planning for this level of flooding again? The report also cites consideration by the courts that expectations that development remove or existing flood risk cannot be achieved and I should be absolutely clear that this is not what we are seeking I, my neighbours and in fact any of the Linton residents that live south of this site need to be able to plan and understand any flooding that will occur We've been told anecdotally by the director of planning and as you have heard today that the rainfall event on 20 July was a 1 in 500-year event well in excess of that which has been modelled and designed for So this is not a theoretical exercise for neighbouring residents there is precedent of rainfall that exceeds the design there is precedent for exceedence from the basin and unfortunately it's totally unreasonable that we have only heard some of this information from the LLFA today despite having requested the report on most occasions in the past Next slide please Karen So the applicant does state in Appendix J of their submitted drainage strategy that in the unlikely event that flooding does occur flows will not pose any risk to the existing residents of the south-west of the site any water will flow down Martin's Lane onto Barlow Road recognising earlier efficiency on the left Appendix A of the drainage strategy put before you today but now removed on the right So Appendix A and Appendix J are now in contradiction Why was it removed? Why did the water flow to the south-west on the 20th of July? What would the exceedence flow be today? The applicant will tell you that the implementation of the design was incomplete on the 20th but this does not negate the requirement for exceedence routes to be known Approval of this application as submitted would actually be creating a future experience Can you bring your presentation to a conclusion Of course In addition the design has never indicated in any region that water would go to the west contrary to the presentation and any consultation Next slide please The application allegedly provides 300 millimetres of freeboard in the basin for storm events over and above that design for That's an arbitrary figure that has not been modelled The image on the right shows the modelling of how the basement will look in the most extreme design for events What is the exceedence flow route and in what storm event will it be utilised? Until such time the section 19 reports being published an exceedence flow route shown No reasonable view can be taken on whether the site increases, reduces or maintains flood risk to the surrounding area Finally, next slide please The application by the applicants on the right shows that half of the drainage ditch on the lower corner of the eastern boundary extends into the joining field Outside the area upon which outline planning is granted and in variations to reserve matters approval Does the applicant own this land? How will this ditch be maintained in perpetuity? And very finely, this submission appears to have been received by the LLFA after the conclusions presented and reported by their consultants Has this matter of land ownership and components of the drainage solution been considered by the peer review In addition, the conclusions presented by the LLFA's consultant states that all previously raised matters have been addressed We do not agree that all the matters raised have been addressed as we have set out and we have previously made this very clear to both the LPA and the LLFA Chair councillors, thank you Mr Wood, thank you very much indeed that was very clear and you could probably see the expressions on some of the councillor's faces reaction in the photographs you showed I wish I had We take what you say extremely seriously There may be one or two questions of clarification for you, if you would Firstly, I think from councillor Hales Thank you chair Mr Woods, thank you Your presentation was probably not to 70 rather than not to 60 so I only got parts of it I'm assuming we've got Mr Woods' presentation and the photographs in document form because I would really like to see that and the technical detail that Mr Woods gave frankly I could listen to Mr Woods slowly for the next half hour right I really mean this chair I know so the photographs speak a thousand words frankly so it was the bit where you had to move the move direction of flow into the pond is the bit that concerns me the most could you just go over that bit again of course would you bring the slides up again please Is it possible to do it without the slides I can try so try and bring them up so this shows the difference between two revisions that have been submitted for this drainage strategy our complete point about all of this is we need to be able to know and understand it's further down please Karen we need to be able to know and understand where this water is going to go if it happens again we need to be able to plan for flood resilience or flood resistance we need to be able to invest in our property and make sure it protects my family so the earlier revision and actually supported by FRAs that have been submitted in relation to this site show that any exceedance flow will go down Martin's Lane to the south as supported by FRAs as well that is what the applicant stated in this earlier revision I believe was part of the previous submission for this for the drainage service drainage system on this site and then the image to the right is taken from the current drainage strategy as submitted for your consideration today so in the past the applicants has said that the water will go south but as we know unfortunately on the 20th of July it came to the west and we need to know which way it's going to go if it happens again as I say there is now precedent for rainfall outside of the design events and there is now precedent of water coming our way so that's what we are trying to understand and we would like to feel that this is not unreasonable for you as councillors to also want to understand that when being asked to discharge this it is information that we believe from interpretation of the SPD is required to show exceedence flow routes in the event of rainfall events that exceed the design and they should be known and appropriate the fact that the application itself is contradictory to itself in two appendices plus it's contradictory to in the past to what happened on the 20th of July to us means that the information has not been presented to you for you to be able to consider this application properly thank you for that councillors wants to come back through you chair saying to Mr Wood it's really a question if I'm made to Mr Kelly with regards to the the two slides there that Mr Wood has up on the screen I'm a little confused that the implication from Mr Woods is that the information provided originally would have been on the left angle this was all fine and dandy but actually what happened or what's going to happen now is it's going to be the right hand one but history tells us that's not necessarily so could you explain those two slides to us and their submission or who provided them me etc etc thanks so these are extracts from the surface water drainage strategy documents but they are not the same they are similar extracts different documents so the one on the left hand side is an earlier iteration of the surface water drainage strategy document and the one on the right hand side is the one before the council at this moment in time obviously there are some differences that have accompanied that over the passing of time but Mr Woods is correct that the implication is is that the surface water where it exceeds the capacity of the site effectively would then traverse southwards on to Martin's Lane and he's included in that slide the extract from the statement on that I think the point he's making is there are no arrows to indicate whether that is the situation and residents experience is not that surface water travel down Martin's Lane in July when there was an exceedance event the applicants and the LLFA consider the matter of exceedance in some depth and believe that the scheme is contained within the site or Mr Woods I think is raising is even in the event of an even greater event than the design specification where would the water go and at this moment in time the application doesn't show that right just to remind members where Mr Woods presentation still so any questions of clarification to Mr Wood from Councillor Roberts I think he's next thank you chairman and through you chairman good afternoon Mr Woods let me first say I am so grateful that you have made this presentation to us this morning and the fact that it's a detailed presentation and it's also about personal experience and I'm sure that every one of us in this room was actually quite horrified at what had occurred in your own property can you tell me I think you did give some indication but clearly from what we could see of the photograph of your lounge all the furniture was a flood you obviously had not had time to get it anywhere near safety or propped up or anything can you just remind us please how quickly your house went from being dry to being flooded with that amount of water thank you thank you Councillor Karen if it would be okay to scroll up a couple of slides please and one more to the doorbell photos that's the one thank you just down one please so this is from our doorbell the first image was taken at 1635 the next one to the right at 1645 and the one in the bottom left corner at 1652 so there were 17 minutes from nothing to everything and you can see the image to the bottom right hand corner there it was like a weir basically travelling wherever it could my sister-in-law was almost taken off her feet by this and I was going to say to you previously anyway that she would not appreciate me saying that she's in her 40 so what chance would my daughter have had who's only two at the time so at the highest point yes it was 0.8 metres high downstairs throughout was completely flooded we are in temporary accommodation and have been in temporary accommodation for the past seven months since this happened and our concern is we have this basin looming over us and as I tried to say in the presentation this is not about removal of the risk for residents it doesn't matter if you live on Lonsdale or on Bakers Lane or Martins Lane of course as well this is unprecedented this flooding and I'm fully aware that the environment agency maps do show water coming across from that direction but it is unprecedented it's never happened before from that direction and we just want clarity about exactly what would be happening Mr Wood thank you very much for your presentation that was very clear and as you could tell we were all very concerned about what you described to us I'm now going to move on and invite Matthew Harmsworth who is the senior planner for Barton Wilmore to speak on behalf of the applicants are you with us Mr Harmsworth I am indeed can you hear me I think we can hear you clearly we have three minutes thank you I wish to start by commending the high level of detail provided through the officer report noting the extensive discussions that have taken place to put together what is a rigorous scheme for service water drainage at the site the surface water drainage scheme for the site has been extensively reviewed and is considered acceptable by all technical consultees in addition to a full independent peer review by CAPTAW the outline condition requires approval to management scheme that reflects the principles within the Thomas consulting surface water drainage strategy referenced therein a comprehensive suite of information has been produced which chords with the principles of the Thomas report and measures are confirmed for regular maintenance management of the scheme as shown within the documents reference within paragraph 49 of the officer report including mitigation against flood events the officer report comes to the same conclusion as supported by technical consultees and thus simply put the scheme does exactly what is required by the condition on top of this the applicant has stated that they will commit to a post implementation assessment and monitoring of the scheme with particular attention to works along the western boundary thus giving additional comfort to the authority and to local people regarding implementation of the measures proposed regarding recently reported incidents of flooding it would be invalid to conclude on the basis of these that the surface water drainage scheme is inadequate given that the drainage scheme has not yet been fully implemented furthermore as referenced within the site suite of evidence and the officer report appropriate mitigation is outlined for flood events consistent with what's required through policy as made reference to by the inspector in November 2021 in the case of another Linton site such drainage conditions require that the drainage scheme perform to a level that the development would not result in an increase in flood risk either on the site or elsewhere what the scheme is not required to do is to resolve existing flood issues observed historically generally in Linton as a point of clarity please also note that the technical consultees have previously clarified that the Fowl and surface water drainage systems in Linton are two separate systems is therefore considered that the approach to surface water drainage is not only acceptable but as noted by the LLFA a factor safety of 10 is demonstrated which they state is above and beyond what would typically be seen for a residential site is therefore in the clear interest of the committee to approve the scheme without delay to allow the surface water drainage scheme measures to be implemented to mitigate appropriately against potential future flood events therefore we respectfully request that the condition be discharged allowing the developer to move closer towards delivering this and the wider development approved for the site thank you thank you very much Mr Hemsworth and dead on time yes we have one of two questions for you if you would firstly from Councillor Deborah Roberts thank you chairman and through you chairman good afternoon Mr Hemsworth you I'm sure have just seen the same things that we have just seen and the what in my opinion is my personal opinion is horrific pictures of flooding you appear to be trying to say well what's happened in the past nothing to do with those you as a planning authority need to give us approval for what's in front of you now however you've already started on this site haven't you I think it was said that you've already got eight dwellings actually occupied on this site and one of the things that concerns me is I think that the majority of them were social housing and therefore people who maybe won't be so well insured etc so can you explain to me why you think that the problems of only eight months ago are nothing to do with you now if I can clarify the points on that I mean clearly it's in crowd aces clear interest to make sure that those kind of events don't happen again express sympathy for those we don't disregard them on the point I guess regarding there was a lot of discussion earlier regarding the flows going west why is there a discrepancy between the two drawings if I could clarify that point and hopefully it helps with what you're asking about now the reason for the discrepancy between the two drawings is the original one that there was on the left was before the scheme was altered so that there would be a bond on the southern side of the infiltration basin to direct flows back into the detention basin so that things will be contained on the site that's why it doesn't have the arrows showing going south from there now so clearly we've recognised that there have been issues yes policy requires us to mitigate against one in one hundred year events but we recognise the issues we've tried to work with the LLFA and with officers to make sure that not only like I say do we mitigate against what policy requires us but where we need to and where there's been a need that we go and above and beyond measures like the bonding which I mentioned are intended for that purpose so in short we do recognise resident need we do what recognise what's happened in the past my point was merely recognising what's required by policy and what we're doing in actual fact on the site hopefully that clarifies the point Councillor Harvey yes thank you chair through you what I haven't seen the photos that Mr Wood presented seems to me that obvious that the effect of built as far as that has been built addition to what was there before any construction commenced has been the rapidity of the water flow ending up in the south west corner and therefore I wonder I mean on page H5 about the gender packet talks about this 10 to 1 safety factor I believe that applies to the infiltration rate and the tendency of capture ponds to silt up if you like so the infiltration rate might be reduced by a factor of 10 over time but surely what we've seen a view of the pictures we've shown is not the flow capture that being important but the volume capture and I wondered is this basin intends to be a wet detention basin or a dry detention basin and if it's the former how are you guaranteeing the available volume to capture water that's arriving within a matter of minutes rather than percolating Yeah, thank you for the question in a sense I think regarding technical comments like infiltration I think Hilary Ellis would be probably a well better place with engineering knowledge than me to answer that sort of thing so I would refer to her in a sense there and the discussions they've had direct with crowd ace themselves what I can say is clearly reiterate the point express sympathy and clearly extremely unfortunate what's happened historically with flood events we don't disregard it and we've really tried to work here through the last few months to make sure that we're providing not only the level of detail of the observed for what would typically be discharged for other surface water drainage conditions but making sure we're really rigorous on all the micro drainage calculations and whatever the LLFA have asked for and the peer review has asked for we have sought to provide it and as I say as hopefully it doesn't come across the wrong way I reiterate the point that had this been implemented at an earlier point and I don't fault South Cambridge for being rigorous on this or anyone else for asking the right questions the timing is clearly extremely unfortunate that yes crowd ace accept the point started early on site historically there are flows east to west who can say whether what would have been the result of what flows would have been had they not started on site we are where we are I don't say that callously I just say that as the position that we're in clearly we're trying to resolve this as soon as possible and that as much as anything not wanting residents to be put out to be put out together and I think this to happen is why we're wanting to be able to proceed with things further sooner rather than later on these surface water measures Thank you for that response I have three more questions for you but just to note that you referred you said that the LLFA might be in a better position to answer one question that was put to you now we'll come back to that later if we may I don't want to go to anyone else at the moment so we'll stick with you and I have a further question from Councillor Hales Thank you chair good afternoon Mr Hansworth if I recall you said earlier that you respectfully asked the committee to approve this application so that you could get on and do the flood defences and why have you for the site Councillor Robert says and I think he was also mentioned earlier that there are a number of properties already occupied on the site regardless of their tenure but these are people living on your site so I would have probably waged that those flood defences should have been done at the start before anybody was allowed to live there so may I respectfully say that was a error of judgement on your company's part on the future on the plan that has the yellow road going down the middle and what have you and the three arrows which is the one in the submitted report the bung I think is it the L shaped bung Mr Kelly I don't know what direction that is but the L shaped bung to the top right of your plan that doesn't exist at the moment which is where all the water allegedly came from why why was that not implemented and put in if you believe a bung should be there to protect the site when you've got people living on site and also when you come to answer that that bung is L shaped but it stops at the top of the I believe those to be a lot means and what is there to stop the water coming around the end of that bung and just coming across the site anyway there is nothing that stops it from what I can see here moving perhaps slightly further down the site but still coming westwards or southwards whatever it is across the site thank you are you able to help us with that would it be helpful perhaps if we could put the planning question on screen yes we're just looking at that out at the moment and hopefully we'll be able to bring that up I guess in the meantime it's difficult for me to without sounding like I'm dodging a buck on this one it's difficult for me when I haven't been party to obviously sales conversations in a working of crowdace to comment on the timing of which properties have been sold I accept the point and recognise where you're coming from however whether you can see the plan that is now on screen does that help you to answer the question yeah can we just highlight perhaps where we're referring to so we've got the L shape bung there along the eastern boundary north eastern boundary of the site where are we referring to if you could just clarify that in terms of a point of concern yeah Mr Townsworth if Mr Kelly could move his cursor to the left there in that corner on the outside of the development that's where the Walter allegedly came through it all gathered and then came across the site then it went out I think that's what Mr Wood said so that bung is meant to be in place to stop that happening obviously it's not or it's not big enough that was the question as to why that isn't in place as we speak especially as you have people living on site and the second part to that question is where the bottom of the L comes across to your right hand side where the allotments start what is to stop any future events flood events where the water backs up behind the perhaps then provided bung from coming round that end and coming across the site anyway yeah this is perhaps again quite a detail question regarding flows it's the first part of the first part of the question clearly similar to my first point except the point you make in terms of in terms of property sales and that and those having been sold clearly at first the surface water drainage scheme which Crow days considered would be acceptable for the site, the LLFA and officers express their concerns and measures such as this are part of the response to that and making sure that the defences are in place and direct flows the correct way and again in the first instance perhaps if we hear from Hilary and happy to supplement anything she has to say in terms of flows a lot of the visits part of the context for me saying that is a recognise there were discussions and meetings with Crow days direct on the site discussing the approach to it and I wasn't party to that hence why I'm just giving you a bit of context there in terms of recognising that Hilary will have been party to conversation I wasn't directly there for us and I'll appreciate and I'll ask Hilary Ellis if you're still online perhaps that's another question you might be prepared to address if we come back to that later in the debate so then I have a question for you from Councillor Eileen Wilson thank you chair you mentioned the policy requiring the installation to be to serve for a one in 100 year event but we've seen increasing heavy rainfalls around this area and really I've heard from other people in the past that we really should be looking at one in 200 year events the installation that you're proposing to put in place what sort of event would that serve for I don't think I don't think it's clarified anywhere if I'm not mistaken as to what whether it's one in 200 year, one in 300 year et cetera what I can say is clearly we have the policy there I take the point in terms of you know there's been increasing number of flood events the last one we do have to recognise yes I take the point on that and we have you