We're now live. Good morning, Members, officers and any members of the public joining us today. Welcome to this meeting of the South Cambridgeshire District Council planning committee. I'm Councillor Peter Fane. I'm usually vice chair of the committee. However, our chair, Councillor Dr Martin Khan, has sent apologies for today, so I'll be chairing this meeting. Members, in view of that, we need to appoint a vice chair for this meeting, and I'd like Felly, mae'r ddau'r ddau hynny yn fawr i'w pryd ar yr unigol, oes hynny'n gynllun â'r ysgolio'r iawn? Ynrych. Ynrych, ddau'r ddau. Rwy'n ddau'r ddau yn ddau'r ddau? Rwy'n ddau. Rwy'n ddau'n ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau. Rwy'n ddau'r ddau'r ddau'r ddau. Rwy'n ddau'r ddau, rwyf, yn ychydig ar y cyfan. mae mentioned that the meeting is being live streamed by your presence here in the Chamber and also that our video conference you're deemed to have consented to being filmed and to the use of images and sound recordings for the webcast and for archiving. Those joining us remotely have already turned their cameras off. For those who are present in the room, please ensure that your microphone is刻dwyd di, ac ei bod yn gallu'r cwm yn hollb am yr amwyloedd, ac mae'r hollb yn cwm yn hollbarth y dwych chi'n gofio cais i ddweud yn rhan o'r gweithio'ch dweud. Yn y gwybod, mae ydw i, mae'n rhaid i ao'r amdwyloedd o Benning Cymru, fel sydd yn credu rhan o'r bwysig, felly yna wneud i chi'n rhan o'r gweithio. Mae'n rhaid i ddweud i chi'n gofio ar maes o addyn nhw體m y dailig. Rwy'n gofio amdoedd i'n gweld ar gweithio'r gweithio. â'r cael ei oddi, wrth gwrs, y ddon i'n ei gweithio llawer o'i cyffredinol â y tro cyflwynnys sefydliadau pwydigol, sydd yn y gwneud cyffredinol. Rwy'n dechrau am yr aelodau sy'n meddyllai, rwy'n meddylio arall. Yr apoglŵs. Elor�, arall, rydyn ni'n ddiddordeb ar gyfer apoglŵs o'r apoglŵs oedden nhw? Rydyn ni, dyma. Maeки'r roi gwrs,i'r adliad. If you Yn yourbeth nesaf, Fel ydych chi yn ddiddordebfa ar gyfer y pethau? Mae'r ddiddordebeth ym hwn yn ysgolion hwn yn ei ddiddordebeth o'r writeraeth yma y mae'r sprin iawn i fyngau bobl yn hollion y bydd ynddo gweithio arhaidd hefyd. Mae'n ddiddordebeth, mae'n unrhyw gwerthifth, bydd y dyna'r ysgolion, mae'n hollion rheiddiad yn y pethau ar gyfer y dyna'r y pethau i fynd, ychydigem yn unrhyw rheiddiad ar y pethau ar gyfer y pethau? Rwy'n credu i am y maen nhw'n ddweud fel yr adref a'r adref a'r adref ddweud a'r adref a'r adref gref fawr hwyl. Roeddwn i'r adref ddweud fel yr adref. Roeddwn i'r adref a'r adref i'r adref a'r adref sy'n gweithio. Roeddwn i'r adref yn ddweud. Thank you. Item four minutes of the previous meeting, we have minutes of the meeting held on the 13th of March for approval. That was published as an online supplement. Do any members want to make any amendments to those minutes? So can I take the approval of those minutes by affirmation? Thank you members. Minutes of the meeting on the 13th of March 2024 are therefore agreed as a correct record. Our next item, item five, is an update on biodiversity net gain. So item five is an information report relating to the recent changes to biodiversity net gain legislation. And we have this morning a presentation from John Cornell. And then I will invite members to ask questions afterwards. John, are you happy that we will try to take questions at the end of your presentation, but are you happy if members signal that they want to take questions? So if we can keep questions to the end, but there may be matters that you want to ask as we go through. John, would you like to give us your presentation please? Thank you very much, Chair. I will begin this presentation with Dan Weaver, who is our principal ecologist, who is online. So we are going to do a bit of a double act, but I will kick it off by sharing my screen. I think there is a cost that the technology is going to work. Absolutely, how is that? Better? Okay, so biodiversity net gain, brief update. Biodiversity net gain is a new deliverable for councils and developers. We will be talking through this presentation a little bit about how we measure biodiversity net gain and why it is still important and of course we can take questions. So straight in, what is biodiversity net gain? It is an approach to development that seeks to go further than we have before, rather than simply replacing what is lost as a function of development. Biodiversity net gain seeks to enhance and add to biodiversity and that is really the game changer. So it is about enhancing the natural environment as a function of development and not simply replacing what is lost through that development. If we were to look down on where we are, Greater Cambridge, South Cams, 940 square kilometres, 300,000 people, it looks very green. That is mostly agricultural land. We live in a part of the country that is very nature depleted. So it is deceptive when we drive around and see lots of greenery and trees. It is not very good, it is mainly monoculture. So we are already behind the curve when it comes to our baseline for nature. If we were to look at where we are doing development, we can see major developments, new towns, Water Beach, North South, a lot going on in Cambrill West and of course there is a lot of activity around the Cambridge fringe. So we know that we live in an area not just depleted of nature but also has an awful lot of development pressure. 51,000 new homes agreed between now and 2041 and so we have a challenge in this regard. If we were to look at that same map and put in some spatial context, you can see the footprints of Water Beach, North Sto, just outside the green belt and of course the urban fringe which I alluded to earlier. The development, much like anywhere else, takes the form of urban infill, like this. I think this is the railway station central Cambridge. We have got Eddington, quite a large development on the urban fringe which is mainly greenfield site and then of course we have got the new towns like Cambrill. This is upper Cambrill from the air and one of the interesting things about this picture is that vast green area in the front middle of the screen, I believe it should have been a golf course but it wasn't ever turned into a golf course. So it is now a wonderful country park which benefits not just the people but the nature and that is what we are trying to get to find that balance. If we think about delivering by the western net gain, we have got essentially three different models. We can deliver by the western net gain on site within the development. This becomes increasingly difficult as you move down in size so smaller developments will really struggle to deliver quality by the western net gain. We should be able to of course include green infrastructure and the sorts of green amenities, amenity grass and trees, soft edges, all of that kind of stuff you will still see but by the western net gain of any kind of quality on site, on small sites is going to be very difficult. This I believe is this picture is Eddington, that is probably a pollinator corridor right there. We can talk about off site and nature responds to scale. When we go off site we can talk about the kind of opportunities that scale affords to enhancing and preparing our natural habitat. That is one of the options. Of course we can do a combination of both where we do what we can on site and we go off site for some of that by the western net gain too. If we are thinking about off site we are talking really about habitat banking. Habitat banking is something which we are seeing in Greater Cambridge now and it involves the advanced habitat creation for essentially mitigating the habitat loss.  The credits purchased by developers pay for the creation and the management and the monitoring of any habitat that is lost over a 30-year period. So there is no financial burden on the council on the public purse. This comes from the developers. These sites ideally are strategically located for the best outcomes for nature. We cannot just plop things on bits of farmland willy nilly. They need to be carefully thought about. Of course there are good opportunities for business to facilitate this nature restoration for partnerships. It is important to say that BNT sites must be registered in natural England on a national database. They will need to create and enhance habitat and manage for 30 years. They should be ideally at least 40 hectares in size if smaller. They should be proximate to wildlife sites or other natural habitats and they should be ideally again within habitat priority areas. What we mean by this, if we look at this map, these are advanced habitat creation sites that we already have either agreements with or are in the process of finalising the Section 106 agreement with. So this is how they look in terms of their spatial context within the district. They do align broadly. This is the Cambridge Nature Network. These are the nature priority areas, the designated sites. The map that I have just shown you broadly aligns with what is going on here. Most of those sites are in the Government Hills priority area with one out to the west in the Boulder Clay. Then we are going to talk about measuring BNG because this is a very important point. How do we measure BNG? Dan Weevill is going to come on next. He is going to tell you all about the details of the biodiversity metric, but just as an infographic, very, very simple infographic, if we take the green blob there at the top left, if that is your development site and we develop away in the middle, the old model of no net loss sought to simply replace what was lost. That model never really worked. It didn't do what it said on the tin. But of us in that game goes further than that, so we replace what has been lost by the development, but then we go further. In this instance, the Government is telling us 10% minimum, so that 10% goes above and beyond what we have lost. There are aspirations to go greater than 10% and those discussions move forward with regards to the new local plan. But the model that is being used broadly aligns with something called the mitigation hierarchy, which tells us that at first we should avoid. If we can't avoid, we should minimise damage. If we can't minimise, we should rectify. If we can't rectify, we should reduce. Finally, we offset and that's the concept of offsetting the biodiversity net gain. We go above and beyond simply replacing what's been lost as a function of that development. I'm now going to hand over to Dan Weaver, who's going to talk us through how we measure the baseline and how we measure enhancement and the creation of new habitats for biodiversity net gain. Thank you. Thank you, John. Hopefully, everybody can hear me. Move to the next slide. Thank you, John. Measuring biodiversity net gain, we do this through the use of an algorithm, a mathematical tool based in Excel spreadsheet called the standard biodiversity metric, which is developed by both DEFRA and Natural England since around about 2012. It breaks down the measurement of habitats into certain different aspects. First of all, we look at the size of the habitat or the length, depending on what sort of habitat we've got. Grasslands, forests, we would look at the size, the area, the number of hectares we have. If we're looking at hedgerows or we're looking at riverbanks, we look at the length and all three of those are measured separately. All three of those must provide 10% net gain separately. We can't offset one against the other. We can't have 9% net gain on an area and 25% net gain on hedges and call it done. It's not the way it works. Each individual element must provide their 10% net gain. We then look at something called habitat distinctiveness, how distinctive, how biodiverse is that habitat? Is it aminesi grasslands or is it ancient woodlands? There are different ways of measuring each one of those. We'll have a multiplier, which will create more value to that particular habitat. Then we look at the condition of that habitat. How is it functioning? How well is it functioning? How diverse is it? What sort of species do we have in it? Do we have any undesirable species in it? Do we have bare ground over management, that kind of thing? All of those aspects are calculated through use of the UK Habitat criteria, which is a specific way of assessing habitats. Lastly, we look at the strategic significance of those habitats. Are they a local priority? Are they a priority habitat by Natural England? Have they been shown to be or broadcast as a priority habitat within a local plan policy? Are they part of the LNRS that we have at the moment? Also, when we are creating habitats, we can also look at that strategic significance. Again, if you are creating your habitat within an area that the LNRS has provided as a positive area, that will provide a higher value to it. Additionally, I think we were talking about this earlier on between myself and John, the further away from the LPA or the natural character area that we are within, the less value those habitats have. So there was a diminishing response if you are getting further away from the actual impact itself. Next slide, please, John. Next slide, John. Thank you. Additional to what we would call the main metric, there's also what's called the small sites metric. Now this is mostly going to be used for, I would say, minor development sites. So where we've got sites of nine or less units, less than one hectare or less than half a hectare, if they haven't decided how many buildings they want to put on it. Additionally, again, with non-residential, less than 1,000 square feet, sorry, square metres feet, or where it's less than one hectare, again, if they haven't decided on the number of square metres. Next one, John, please. Of course, there are always going to be exemptions, so these are being brought forward through guidance and the secondary legislation that was we saw in January. So anything that is permitted development or urgent crown development is exempt from mandatory biodiversity net gain. Anything that is exclusively a sealed surface, so anything that is just concrete or is just houses, there is no elements of greenery within that surface at all, it automatically scores zero, so it is technically exempt from biodiversity net gain because 10% of zero is still zero. There is also a de minimis threshold, so anything that is less than 25 square metres in terms of area or less than five metres in terms of length, so that's again, that's our hedros and our river habitats would be exempt from a mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain. Householder applications are also exempt from 10% mandatory biodiversity net gain as our small-scale self-build. Now, we weren't given the definition of what a small-scale self-build was until November last year, so we were kind of rooting around in the dark a little bit on that. We've now been given that definition, and this is nine or less units, is now small-scale self-build or custom-build development. And then again, biodiversity net gain habitats themselves are exempt from biodiversity net gain because the principle is they are biodiversity net gain anyway, so again, they are sort of exempt by the fact that they're doing it anyway really, as far as I can tell. Carry on please, John, next one. So, we have some policies and guidance that we sort of backing this up, so you'll all be very aware of the National Planning Policy framework. From 2012, we had what was called no net loss, as John explained earlier, then there was a distinct change in the MPPF from 2018 onwards where it now starts to ask for measurable net gains on all development. I think that's quite an important point to make. It doesn't distinguish between different types of development, it says all development should pursue opportunities for securing measurable gains for biodiversity. So, we have moved away from that no net loss and finger in the air have they done enough kind of stuff, too. We actually want you to show us that you're not actually making a loss of biodiversity on your site. Next slide please, John. And the big one, as again, all of you will be well aware of. The Environment Act from 2021 is what brought measurable net gain through into legislation, and then it was backed up by the secondary legislation that was passed in January of this year. So, this gives all planning permissions except those that we've already said are exempt to deliver at least a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain, and that's from applications that were submitted, a major application submitted post the 12th of February of this year, and from minor applications submitted post the 2nd of April this year. So, from last Tuesday on basically. It's given us as an LPA an enhanced duty to enhance biodiversity and report on their actions. So, that tells us we're supposed to be monitoring and collecting data in order to give reports to central government. We have to comply with that above duty and look to the nature recovery strategy to look for those strategic gains. So, I mentioned earlier on that sort of political element, the strategic importance of that site that will be mostly driven by the LNRS process, which will inform our local plan of what we believe is strategically important and where we want those large and more strategic sites to be placed. And then, yes, we are in terms of delivering that local nature recovery. There are responsible authorities have been appointed by government. Our responsible authority is the combined authority, but they have delegated the job to county council. So, county council are putting forward the process for working out and delivering that the LNRS at the moment. Next slide please. And obviously we have our local plans and our local policies. Again, our doubling nature strategy, which you will all be very well aware of, and the biodiversity supplementary planning document, which we brought forward in 2022 and our emerging local plan. So, again, we are looking to see if we can go beyond that 10%, if we can move towards 20% how feasible that is, what the viability studies are on those. Other areas and other districts have already brought forward a 20% minimum within their local plans. We are looking to see whether that is something that is possible for us to do as well. Next slide please, John. And so we come to the very, very important planning committee in you guys and what you really need to be looking for in applications where biodiversity net gain is required. So, again, we are looking at making sure that things are a minimum 10% and above. And I think that's the point we have to go with. It has to be a minimum. We can't really say, oh, it's 8.5, it's 9.5, we're almost there. It's got to be a minimum of 10 and we would want them to look beyond that to push towards 20%. Make sure that they are looking at that the mitigation hierarchy has been used.  It'll be fine. That's not the point we're trying to do. We're not trying to greenwash here. We're not trying to create concrete jungles. We would like them to do the hierarchy properly and to look on-site as best they can. So, four per site on-site B&G must be explored. This must also be a reasonable way of delivering biodiversity again, as John stated earlier. There are certain restrictions that we have been given by governments in terms of guidance. So, for example, somebody's back garden is a private garden and we don't have a reasonable right to impose any kind of way in which they should manage their private garden. So, we can only measure it as vegetated garden, which has about the same value as arable land. Unfortunately, that's what we've been told to do and that's what we have to deal with. So, as John said, the smaller the development, one dwelling, two dwelling, three dwelling developments will struggle to provide biodiversity net gain on-site because we can only measure those back gardens as vegetated garden. So, quite often developers will be proposing biodiversity off-site, especially on those smaller ones, and we've got to know how it's going to be secured. Can we do this through condition? Do we do it through section 106 or conservation covenant, which I will come on to you later? And then at the end, we've got to ensure that any of those proposed habitats for enhancement of creation are realistic and deliverable. So, for example, if you have a public open space that's going to be used by people for playing football, having picnics, running around, all that kind of stuff, can we really think that that's going to be quality calcareous grassland? I don't think we can, so we have to make sure that those assumptions are realistic. It can be calcareous grassland, but the condition maybe have to come down to poor condition or medium poor condition because we don't think it would be realistic to impose a high condition on a well-used piece of grassland, for example. Okay, next one please John. So, as I said before, we've got three different ways in which we can secure our biodiversity net gain. So, first and foremost, we've got our planning addition, so next slide please John. We all know what a planning addition is. They're fairly simple. We tend to standardise them as best we can. We can't impose any fees on those conditions. In terms of biodiversity net gain, we can only really apply it to what is within the redline boundary. There was a train of thoughts earlier on in the process two, three years ago that we could also apply it to the blue line. So, if it was within the ownership of the developer, but I think since then the thinking has been that no, it must be within that redline boundary. So, planning conditions for biodiversity net gain should only really be applied to what is on the inside, to the redline boundary itself in terms of management anyway. Next slide please John. Then we have our section 106 agreements. Again, you will all be very aware what a section 106 agreement is. We're trying to use a template, so we've sealed and signed our first 106 agreement with Lower Valley Farm back last summer in August, and we're using that as the basis for agreements going forward. We're trying very hard not to modify it too much. Vanessa Bain, who we all know very well, is helping us immensely with this process, and she is working very hard to make sure that we are on track in getting these things through and not taking too much rubbish from other people's solicitors in the process. One of the advantages of 106 is that we can ask for a monitoring fee in terms of ecology monitoring fee, so that we can make sure that there are resources in place to gain that information, to make sure that information is correct, and to go to sites if necessary. The LPA has a lot more control over those sites within the 106 agreement. They can be complicated, and as we have found out, they can also be very admin heavy. Next slide, please, John. Finally, we have what is called a conservation covenants. Now, this is a new form of a new mechanism that has been brought forward with the Environment Act from 2021. It's a very kind of woolly grey area that not a lot of people have a lot of confidence in at the moment. Again, much like a 106, it can be fee generating. It's probably slightly more flexible than a 106, but the process itself is less transparent. One of the reasons is that anybody that is eligible to become what is called a responsible body can become that responsible body through application to DEFRA, and then they can be the arbiter of that legal agreement on the land, if you see what I mean. They can play the role of an LPA with a 106, but not be an LPA. They have to show that they are a company that has had an interest or has been working within the environment sector for some time, so you can't just incorporate a company on a Tuesday and apply to be a responsible body on a Wednesday. You have to show that you've got interest in the area that you've been working in that area. The LPA itself could become a responsible body to arbiter over conservation covenants, if necessary. At the moment, it doesn't have a lot of officer support because, again, because it's just so woolly and cloudy and it hasn't been done before. We also believe we would need to go through a member process with you guys because it would be an additional responsibility on the LPA and we would need agreement and an input from the members themselves on that subject. At the moment, I believe, I think there are a total of three responsible bodies in the country at the moment. The first one was Natural England. They have stated very clearly that they will not be a backstop responsible body and they will only apply conservation covenants on their own projects where it is beneficial to them. That's the kind of level that we're at at the moment. I think one other LPA, I think Warwickshire, I think, are applying to become a responsible body and I think there's one other that I can't remember at the moment. At the moment, very few bodies are taking up the process of becoming a responsible body and I think it's because it's not been tested. It's new and everyone's a bit scared of it, which is fine. Next slide please, John. Like I mentioned before, we will have to be monitoring a lot of this stuff for a total of 30 years, so each of one of those biodiversity net gain plans must be for a 30-year period. So, we will have to collect regular monitoring data from each of those sites and whoever is the legal holder of that agreement in terms of one of sixes or conditions, it will be us. So, we will have to collect that data, we will have to store it, we'll have to monitor it and we will have to report on it. Natural England will have no enforcement powers on sites that fail to provide those required units. So, it will be down to us as the holder of that legal agreement with the landowner to enforce that legal agreement. So, again, there is additional cost and responsibilities that we must take on in terms of that. So, again, having that ability to gain a fee from the 106 means that we can resource these sorts of actions if necessary. Next slide please, John. One of the things that we are working on hard is how much do we charge for monitoring, how do we work that out. At the moment, we're doing it on a combination of officer time, complexity of habitat, complexity of delivery, that general thing, on how many officer days do we envision per year that we require monitoring, will it take us to work with that landowner. How regularly do we require monitoring data? So, for example, setting up a grassland, we would probably want monitoring data a lot in the first five years, so years one, two, three, four, five, and then less as we go on with woodlands because it takes quite a long time for woodlands to establish, we probably don't need those initial monitoring years, so we could say first year, fifth year, fifteenth year, twenty-fifth years. It will depend a little bit, but again, we have to take that into account when looking at these sections. Sorry, Dan, can you just pause for a second, we've got a fire alarm going in here. Yes, please carry on, thank you. Lastly, we're looking at how do we collect that data. Do we want hundreds of PDFs per year, or do we want a more automatic way of delivering that data to us into a database for us to be able to query directly? So, again, there are certain issues that we are looking at at the moment we are trying to work out, the kinks trying to work out the most efficient way forward in terms of monitoring those post-decision considerations. Next slide please, John. So finally, we're sort of looking at what it might bring. So again, it's a very significant new legislation and it will create a very large amount of new habitats over the next few decades, which I think is a very important thing to remember. The GI on site, where you have large sites with GI, that GI will probably become better quality biodiversity kind of area. So you will have more grasslands of quality, you will have more woodlands, you will have more trees on site. Urban trees score very highly in the metric, so I would have visions you would see a lot more trees in more dense urban developments as well. So hopefully this will help green those areas a little bit more. But again, it does bring new responsibilities to the LPA that we are working very hard to get through and hopefully we'll get there in the end. Thank you very much. I think that's the last slide. Thank you very much, Daniel. There is now time for questions. I would just mention we have also with us today, Jane Green, Head of Natural Environment. Members, I would like us to move on to the next item before too long, so I'd be grateful if Members would keep their questions reasonably brief and likewise of course officers in their replies. I would say that if Members have more detailed questions and would like to submit them in writing, then the written replies will be given uncirculated to the committee. I think we started with Councillor Bradman, please. Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much to both Dan and John for their presentation, which was very interesting. Two questions I'll confine myself to. I'm just thinking that we're conscious that there's a wish to deliver as much biodiversity net gain within sites as possible, and that's obviously an ideal situation to keep it where the development is, but obviously there's that conflict between needing to provide good quality biodiversity net gain habitat, and that sometimes requires us to deliver it off-site. What I just wondered is whether you feel there is going to be a conflict going forward where actually we end up with all our net gain being delivered off-site because that's the best quality habitat, and we end up with not very much in our developments. So I'll ask that, and then do you want to come back for the second afterwards? Okay, the second one is there is a problem with developers who tend to chop down all the trees on their site before they announce an application. So is there any way that we can report an as-was status of a site before? There are a lot particularly in this area. We have a lot of people who record biodiversity. I just mentioned Cambridge Natural History, of which I am a member. I make a declaration, but there are lots of amateur naturalists and the monitoring people whose name escapes me at the moment, who are doing a lot of monitoring of urban sites. So is there any way we can register an as-was condition of a site before an application comes in? So we get a real recognition of how much biodiversity might be lost in the process of development, and therefore what we really need to provide as in terms of a replacement plus 10 or plus 20. Thank you. I can answer those questions if that's okay. I'll answer your second question first because that's probably the simpler one to answer. Within the Environment Act 2021, there is a clause which states that if habitat or trees have been removed prior to the end of January 2020, that when we assess the baseline, we have to assess the baseline prior to January 2020 through aerial photography or other ways in which we can do that. So this prevents clearance of land prior to assessment. So if people have taken down trees or cleared land or they've browned the sites before you've got anywhere near it, we can look at aerial photography from 2020 to say actually you had lots of woodlands, you had scrublands, you had trees, you had grasslands, we will have taken a view that that is what we would like as our baseline. Now when we are making that assumption, we are told within the legislation to be cautious in that assumption, in which means is that we should be cautious not to lose biodiversity. So we should basically think that anything in there has a condition of moderate or good rather than poor to make sure that we cover everything. So that actually puts the developer at a disadvantage because their baseline survey will probably be much higher than it would do if they'd done it properly. So without being sneaky, shall we say. So hopefully we have enough in the legislation to stop that from happening. I don't know whether many developers know that yet, but they will do very soon. Your second question was the within site off site question, which is a hard one and it's difficult and it is going to be a balance, you're absolutely right. What I think we hope is that we're going to get a mixture of different types of habitat banks. Yes, big strategic lower valley farm type habitat banks, excellent, bigger, better, more connected, really, really good. But what we also hope is that parishes and other landowners, local landowners, might take it on themselves to make something slightly smaller within parish boundaries. So for example, if you have county wildlife sites in your boundary and they want to have some kind of buffer around them and the landowner is agreeable, that is something that could be done locally through the parish or through that landowner. So we can move smaller sites closer to parishes, which would be more accessible and more beneficial to smaller development if necessary. So there are ways and means it's a way we have to kind of stimulate the market. We have to give people the ideas and they have to kind of move forward and try and do that themselves. But yeah, it is going to be a balance and we were trying very hard to push as many of these as we can. I hope to answer your questions. We have a number of others. Would you perhaps bear with us and see whether they might deal with your question as well? I would just remind the members I would be most grateful if we keep our questions relatively short. I think next we have Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. Mine is quite simple. The third way of the conservation covenant that you explained, that sounds like a quite uninteresting one, bearing in mind that we have one of the lowest biodiversity stuff here in Greater Cambridge. I was wondering if we couldn't become one of the forefront leaders in taking this on as a responsible body. We're used to being out there in the forefront might as well. An interesting suggestion, Daniel. I don't think we're expecting a firm commitment from me today. I wouldn't dare give one.  LPAs are almost automatically eligible to become responsible bodies. That is the way that the criteria has been written. So the process for us sort of admin-wise in terms of applying to DEFRA is probably not going to be too in-depth. It may take some time but not too in-depth. I think it's really a matter of balancing new responsibilities, how we manage those responsibilities internally and to be able to make that work properly. So, again, I'm not against it personally, but others officers have more opinions than I do on it. So, again, I think it's a discussion that we need to have and see whether there is a way forward. Thank you. Then Councillor Sampford. Thank you, Chair. Apologies for the feedback. Just could you clarify the basic process? I assume planning officers will push back any application that doesn't achieve 10% per the algorithm. But if there is a discussion between the applicant and the planning officers, the application may come to planning committee even if all the other boxes are ticked just because 10% isn't achieved, will that be correct? So, this would be a planning balance question, I would imagine. From my point of view, we would not, as ecology officer, we would not recommend approval of anything that is required to have mandatory 10% by law. But I believe if that's a planning balance question, that might be a planning officer question. I was going to come in there. I mean, it's one of a material consideration that you, as a planning committee, or we as officers have. So, it won't necessarily come before his planning committee, because there's a scheme of delegation which already sets out what doesn't, doesn't come to committee in terms of the nature of the applications and the issues and the like. So, it's another material consideration that you, as members, need to take into account. You're aware it's mandatory now, so that's about the weight you choose to give it. But nevertheless, it is one of a number and it's not inconceivable that you might have a scheme that does have something that is in the balance and something else is slightly higher priority to members. So, it's not inconceivable that that happens, but it's being aware that, you know, the status it has, the additional weight, and you need to be aware of that when you're making your decisions as do officers. Hence, this briefing is for yourselves. Officers have had the same. And we've done a lot with development industry and with age parish councils and residents groups. It's still very early days for everybody across the country, and I'm sure we will learn as we go through the different metric may well develop over time. Lessons will be learnt. But you can see the clear intention of what the legislation is trying to do. Thank you. Next, Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. It's just, we talk about a lot about net gain. Obviously, preservation, biodiversity preservation is probably more important than that. And I'm just wondering if there is anything in the algorithm or anything that would help give weight to perhaps relocation of things. So, for example, when what we normally see is large substantial trees that are actually doing the job that we need them to do, removed, and lots of whips put in place, which will take, they do count, but they will take so long to actually get to a point where they're as much benefit as the older tree that's gone. Now, there have been some sites and some some developers that make a point of relocating that I appreciate. You can never guarantee that a tree or hedgerow or whatever it is that's moved, can be. But also, we do have some sort of quite unique habitats and scenery and what have you. And it's just wondering whether there can be that weight attached to relocation rather than just destruction and then putting in something new. Sometimes it's nice to keep the old stuff. Well, I mean, I think in terms of trying to sort of keep it and make it better, there is the enhancement option within sites so you can enhance habitats within your red line boundary, which would create better habitats within there. You can also do that outside the red line boundary so you could say have a woodland as part of your biodiversity offsite solution and they could be enhancing that woodland to make it a better place to be. So there is that option. Relocation and translocation of trees. I think this one is being debated by ecologists at this moment in time on many, many Facebook page. So again, we're still trying to get to grips with the with the ins and outs of how we would measure that at the moment. What I would say is I believe there are sort of size restrictions on what trees can and can't be relocated in terms of cost analysis benefit. When they're too big, they just become too big. You lose too many branches and their chances of success diminish. So there's sort of a sweet spot you can hit in terms of size of trees that you can translocate. I know, welcome trusted, an incredible job on translocating quite frankly over 100 trees, I believe, into a new area. I don't think we've counted that as enhanced forest. I think we counted that as new woodland when they relocated it. Planting larger trees with bigger db8, so like over 30 centimetres as a new tree scores much higher than a tree that is less than 30 centimetres. So again, relocating the trees would have a much higher impact to the metric than a small tree itself. So I think there are ways and means. Again, I think the complexity of translocation relocation trees is still a grey area for a lot of ecologists who don't work out the kinks in that particular one. Members, I am keen to move on to next business. I have another question to myself, which I'll be submitting in writing so the answers can be circulated. I think it was important that that session has been held in open sessions so that, because we will need to engage with developers and others as well as with this committee, it's very important this committee be informed. Now on work, Councillor Bradman, you had a further question. Do you want to put that now or put it in writing later? I just wanted to ask, given that we have this new responsibility, are we, as a local planning authority, considering designating any new areas for green space and for, like for example, lower valley farm, but maybe on a slightly less grand scale, but are there any areas that we're considering designating for that purpose? I can take this. I think if you mean, are we, let's say designating, low valley farm wasn't something that we designated, it came forward as a county farm, a county site managed by Bidwell, so that's a whole commercial free market operation that we have no control over. Other than, we can send our ecologists out to check what they're telling us is fit for purpose, is actually fit for purpose, but that's the only control we have, really. What I really meant was, are we thinking for the future and designating land in our local plan to recognise that we need green space? Jane, I think perhaps this is one for you. Yes, I suppose there's two things. There's the local nature recovery strategy, so we'll have this county-wide document which will come through members, and if members are interested, I think the Climate Environment Committee have got a briefing on it this Thursday, but you'll see that and that'll become part of our evidence base for our local plan in due course as well, so that will tell us where the priorities are, both for us that are making planning decisions, but also in terms of landowners, in terms of giving them opportunities. In due course, we will have that on one hand, which tells us where it's really important for nature, where we're trying to prioritise. On the other side of things, we'll have our local plan, our current local plan, our emerging local plan, and that will set out, it will make reference to the LNRS to actually, there's a clear link there, but obviously green open space has a slightly different function, so there might be an element of biodiversity net gain in there, but other uses have to take place, you know, recreation, dog walking, you name it, etc. So it's a combination of documents that we will be using as a planning authority, yourselves as committees. So in terms of, I suppose the other thing to say, the off-site mitigation, the habitat banks that you've heard about this morning, the intention is that once they're there and monitored and are there for 30 years, the aim is to really make those incredibly high value and I understand they may even be getting to almost like SSI type status because it's almost things to follow through. So in the fullness of time, there may well be further designations, but that's for the future and this is of the start of that process. Thank you. All Members, this is an issue which we will be coming back to, not only in relation to the local plan and other work, but also of course in relation to particular applications that we consider, including possibly today. With that, the committee is invited to just note the report that is before us. I think we can do that by affirmation. I don't think I even need a proposal for that. I agree with your decision. Thank you. Let's move on then to item six, which is application number 3203080, outline, the former waste water treatment facility at Cambridge Road, Hawxton. Members will be aware that we've had a number of updates, two particular updates which were sent out on emails. If anyone hasn't seen those and would like a copy, I think Lawrence has some spare copies if you'd like. This is an outline application for demolition of existing structures and redevelopment for employment, both office and laboratories floor space. The use classes are set out there alongside a new amenity building, extension to the country park, associated infrastructure with all other matters reserved for future determination, apart from access, layout and scale, which we will be determining today. There are of course a number of key issues and the application is being reported to committee as it is a departure application. We visited this site on 3 April, so on this at least, and members have received the two updates I referred to. The presenting officer in this case is Katie Christopher Deledys. Katie, would you like to give us your report? I should say that this is of course on page 11 onwards of your printed papers. Katie. Thanks, Chair. I'm just about to share the presentation. Okay, so as Chair has said, the application is that the former waste water treatment facility Cambridge Road in Hawxton is an outline application for demolition of the existing structures and redevelopment for employment, office and lab floor space alongside a new amenity building, including a country park, associated infrastructure with all other matters reserved for future determination, apart from access, layout and scale. Members will have received an update report on Friday in which there have been some deletions and changes to the report wording and some minor changes and deletions to condition wording. A key point is that Hawks and Parish Council support the proposal. The report had stated no objection. A second update report was published on Tuesday in which two late representations were received and the responses to these representations and the issues raised are covered within this second update report. Just a verbal update today at committee, condition 14. As you can see on the screen, there's slight changes to the wording of that condition just to ensure that it complies with condition 14. Then condition 47 has been a slight change to the wording there just to ensure that it complies with the report and the proposed EV numbers. The site extends approximately 20.3 hectares. The central portion of the site, which is marked here as you can see with my cursor here, forms the redundant wastewater treatment facility associated with the former bear crop site. This houses silos, tanks, plant and also the recreation building for the former bear site. The wastewater facility was closed in 2005. The site is heavily contaminated and designated as contaminated land under part 11a of the Environment Protection Act 1990. The site also includes the Hawks and Sports Ground, to the east, which is formerly the sports field belonging to the Bear Sports and Social Club. This is now owned by Hawks and Parish Council. This has passed pitches and two tennis courts and is used for organised sport. There's also a small pavilion marked here with my cursor on the west side of the pitch. The site is bordered by the A10 to the east. There's the A10 here. And the River Cam, which is to the north and then agricultural land to the south and west. Access to the site currently is here from the A10. Surrounding site, you have the redevelopment of the former bear crop site to the east, which forms residential and commercial. This bit here. And then to the north of the site up here is the South West Travel Hub, which will provide 2,250 car parking spaces, 80 velo box cycle spaces, a cycle parking coach hub and public transport routes to Cambridge into the Biomedical Campus. The site constraints, the site lies outside of the Hawks and Development framework within the open countryside in the Greenbelt. It's previously developed land, which as defined in the MPPF is Lawn, which is or was occupied by a permanent structure. The site is heavily contaminated. It was previously used in relation to the form of bear crop science waste water treatment works. It's designated as contaminated land at the partner level of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The site lies within the flood zone one, low risk, and then the northern partner site lies within flood zones two, medium risk and free high risk, with the river cam running close to the northern boundary of the site. Right away, Haaston 116.1 runs south of the site in an east to west direction, connects Hawxton and Haaston to Hazelfield. The site also lies within zone two of the Imperial War Museum, their safeguarding zone. So outline planning permission was granted on the site in 2021 for fair to two dwellings. A current reserve matters application is under consideration. We've got some existing site photographs here, which shows what the site looks like with some of the tanks and silos and buildings on site. Then some more photographs and then some of the wider sites with this graph. This is the sports pictures. Then some of the wider site photographs, the existing access into the site. You've got the sports field here and then the sports fields and pictures as you go along the A10 and then a bit of context for the surrounding sites. So one, we've got adjacent to the site officers, the residential commercial development, which is marked here. Number two, which is here as you go further into that residential development, photograph three, which is the Hawxton bridge over the A10 and then photograph four, which is the Hawxton well. The proposal seek to demolish the existing structures and for the redevelopment to provide a new life science campus along with an amenity building which will be open to the community, a public accessible country park and associated infrastructure. The new buildings have been arranged to sit broadly within the previously developed land. Better 1,868m squared of gross internal floor space for life science is proposed and this is to provide for start-up and growing companies filling the gap between incubated locations and the large corporates. The buildings have been designed to be flexible and accommodate a range of suite sizes to suit tenants of all sizes and stages in the early development. This would be provided for the direction of six new buildings, numbers one to six marked on the plan here and then an amenity building, which is marked as A there. The amenity building would be provided to include changing facilities, gym, cafe, bar, meeting room and external sitting areas. All matters are reserved except for access, scale and layout, which is to be determined. The proposal will be a fossil fuel free, will meet Bream accident as minimum and achieve five credits for water efficiency under Bream, Watto one and maximum credits for Bream, Watto form, achieve letty guidance used to inform the design code and fabric performance buildings in targets and will achieve 10% of our diversity net gain which will be provided off site. We've got the priority plan here which is the remediation demolition plan. The priority plan shows the remediation and demolition as part of the contamination remediation. All land which is dashed in the green is to be remediated in all buildings to be demolished which is shown in red and then the trees marked in orange these ones here are to be removed as part of the contamination clear up. So the prime time which is land use and layout shows the site, the sixth research and development buildings in pink here and then the proposed amenity building marked in purple, the main car park which is marked here in light green, the country park which is mainly to the west and north in the darker green and then the landscaing surrounding the six research buildings as well. So the priority plan showing maximum building heights, buildings one and two which are shaded in red would have a maximum height of 16 meters, building four would have a maximum height of 14.5 meters, buildings five and six having height of 13 meters, the amenity building marked here in purple and would have a maximum height of eight meters. The buildings would have pitched roofs and the pramptorans identify an area of three meters above the maximum building heights for flues. The flues would be detailed at the reserve matter stage as appearances of reserve matter. The building heights seek to decrease as you go further to the west, further into the site and near to the open countryside and films. So pramptor plan access and connection plan, the central portion of the site is not accessible currently to the public and is closed off. Access to the sports pitches here is controlled by by gating access only at certain times. The proposal would allow the site to be publicly accessible with cycle parking connections in a new country park. The main vehicle access to the site is from the A10 which is here and there would also be a designated three meter wide footpath and cycleway running along the access shown in purple and a primary pedestrian route marked in green running through the landscaped area adjacent to the car park. The car park would provide 330 car parking spaces which should be used for the campus and the amenity building. So during the week the car parking will be for the research and development and then the evenings and weekends for the amenity building when sports games are on. A new cycleway pedestrian route from the A10 running along here would come into it to the west and then a new north south cycleway in orange which is marked here connecting trumpington and the proposed south west travel hub and to the south to the Melbourne greenway here which is proposed. This is run along through the site marked in orange. There are two new bridges proposed across the main channel on the tributary of the river cam to the north. These are marked with these blue circles here so they allow access along to the Trumpson Country Park. Within the centre of the campus highlighted in pink this will be a pedestrian zone only and then a restricted vehicle route in blue in the dash blue here is marked which will go around the perimeter of the buildings to allow vehicles to service the buildings and for the blue badge holders parking only. For cycle parking there have been 306 cycle spaces in total which should result in 257 employee spaces 26 visitor spaces for the life science use 13 oversized spaces then 10 visitor spaces for the amenity building. The proposed highway improvements and general arrangements access to the site would be through provision of a new access arm that connects to the existing junction arrangements on the A10. The new highway improvements are proposed so that vehicles can exit the site onto the A10 turning left and right. Currently vehicles can only enter the site from the south and have to exit the site to the north. The access road will be increased to 6.5 meters wide with a three meter shared user path on the north and south to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. A new four meter wide two can crossing is designated across the site access arm. The existing 2.5 meter wide footway to the south and north of the access are proposed to be widened into the carriageway to facilitate a three meter wide shared footway, cycleway plus a one meter verge. The proposals will upgrade the connectivity to Hawks in the wider area. The proposal is supported by the local highways authority and the transport assessment team subject to section 106 requirements and contributions which are detailed in paragraph 9.221 of the committee report. The parameter phasing plan this just shows the proposed phasing for the development. It should be noted that condition 4 of the reference conditions require submission of a site wide phasing plan prior to determination of the first preserved matters application. So I've just got a couple of proposed CGIs showing the arrival avenue from the A10, the access route and then the pedestrian route. Proposed building to the Gable Reveille Elevation Study. These are just indicative CGIs. This building is free and full so the Gable Bay Elevation here. Who's building five and then a proposed view from the west. So 11 viewpoints assessed as agreed with the LPA. The following slides detail six viewpoints which were identified as key views and visualisations undertaken. The existing and proposed so they're showing existing and then proposed year 15 photo montages. So viewpoint one which is a public footpath number five in Hawxton is here and the site is marked in red. So top photograph shows the existing view and then this is proposed view. You can see the event in here and then viewpoint two which is right here which is from the public bridalway number two Hawxton at Rectory Farm. You've got the existing, the top and then proposed. You can see the rooftops here. And then viewpoint three which is the junction of the A10, the London road, just marked. So existing proposed and then viewpoint six which is from Cantolick Road in Haydenfield. So there's a lot further out. And then viewpoint eight which is the A10 Cambridge Road coming away from Cambridge. You can slightly see some rooftops in here proposed.  It looks like a red trumpet in meadows as you can see. So the applicants, the environment agency have maintained their objections in terms of water resources stating that proposed development may individually or in combination with other proposed development increase abstraction and risk deterioration to water bodies in the greater Cambridge area because of additional demand for possible water use. There the applicant has provided supporting information in terms of a submitted consumption study which details the annual possible water consumption. The biggest detail here is that the waste water treatment plant, the annual possible water consumption of 5,840,000 litres with the approved housing development of an annual predicted consumption of 3,784,320 and then the proposed scheme with an annual predicted consumption of 2,950,486 as detailed in the committee report as the development will result in a decrease in water demand compared to the waste water treatment plant and the extinct approved housing development. The proposals will reduce the strain on water resources and the environment. So principle of development in the green belts, the MPPF paragraph 152 states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 184 and 155 of the MPPF define development that should not be regarded as inappropriate development in the green belt. The proposal for the employment office and lab floor space alongside the new immunity building would not align with any of these definitions and would therefore comprise inappropriate development. As a result it's therefore considered necessary to consider whether the development for the office and lab floor space alongside the community building results in any further harm in addition to that called by the appropriateness and then following on from that is therefore necessary to consider the justification put forward in support of the proposal and the extent to which those matters amounts to very special circumstances. In addition to the harm by reason of inappropriateness which we've considered to afford significant weight, the proposal would have an impact on the openness of the site by the introduction of larger and higher buildings in the green belt. This has been afforded significant weight. The proposal would conflict with the purpose of the green belt and the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area in the landscape area all of which significant weight has been given. Substantial weight is afforded to the overall harm to the green belt however the applicant has put forward a list of very special circumstances for the proposal which comprise of economic social environmental benefits. In terms of the economic benefits the proposed development would provide 31868 square of the lab and office floor space to allow for purposes purpose built space for small and medium sized scientific companies allowing for R&D businesses to grow and leading to economic growth within a cluster. The proposal would support 1190 employees within the life science campus and the level employment would support 26 million per annum in earnings. This has been afforded significant weight as a benefit. For the social benefits the proposal would provide a new extensive landscape country park where significantly improved public access for walking, cycling and informal recreation and the provision of a new meaty building and shared car parking for both the campus and for the local community associated with the existing sports ground. The provision of a new landscape country park has afforded significant weight and the new new immunity building moderate weight as a benefit. In terms of the environmental benefits the proposal would result in the delivery of a comprehensive remediation scheme for the heavily contaminated site which is afforded significant weight. The proposal would improve the visual immunity of the site by removing unsightly existing structures making safe the site which currently poses a risk to human health resulting in planting habitat enhancement and ecological improvements. These are afforded limited weight. Paragraph 153 of the MPPO states when considering any planning application local planning authority should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the green belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriate fitness any other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweith by other considerations. So when wearing the overall planning balance the very special circumstances would unbalance outweith the harm by reason of inappropriate fitness and the harm by virtue of the loss of the openness of the green belt conflict with the purpose of the green belt, detrimental impact on the character of the air and the burst impact of the landscape character as required by Paragraph 153 of the MPPO as which the proposal balance is recommended for approval. So a list of material planning considerations which are detailed in the report and also we've covered a lot of these in the presentation. So officers recommendation of approval subject to conditions and completion of the section 106 legal agreement should the application be approved the application will need to be referred to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning consultation England direction 2009. Thank you. Thank you very much Katie we have an opportunity for questions and I see some hands raised. Let me just say that we have also online I see we're joined by both Tam Parie and John Finney from the County Council but I'll leave it to Katie to answer questions for them if necessary. So I think the first question is from Councillor Hanley please. Did the water availability issues the thing that struck me? But I think the officer said that it would go to the Secretary of State so presumably if the Secretary of State is concerned about water availability which there should be they might you know they they they they made I'm just just I'm asking the question how might this in you know how might this affect what we do today you know the fact that the Secretary of State is involved I mean if yeah so you've got to answer. I'll come back on that one if that's all right so the application so the committee can make their resolution to determine it on the decision today but the application then needs to go to the Secretary of State for consultation for 21 days once the decision has been made on whether or not the Secretary of State wishes to call in the application to make their own decision so we will have to send the committee reports the Council's decision notice and all of the consultation responses that we've received and then if the Secretary of State doesn't respond within 21 days then we can proceed with the Section 106 legal agreement and determine the application. The other I guess the other side of it would be that the Secretary of State could call it in to determine the application itself. Thanks Chia I'm just a bit concerned over the water availability issue because what we may make a decision today to to approve this in line with officer recommendation the appeal goes in the planning inspector puts a much less much less importance on the environment agency's objection and so return we got all the expense this bothers me because it's it's a strategic matter the fact that we haven't gotten water in this area it puts us into a very very difficult position here. Before I call councillor Dr Richard Williams who I think is next on the list of questions I wanted to follow up that question for councillor handy because we clearly have to take the objection from the environment agency at 644 extremely seriously they welcome the water efficiency measures proposed however their objection is maintained as they don't feel their concerns have been expressed but in presenting the case we also had on slide what is effectively para 9.180 on page 57 report which points out this the potable water consumption on site according to the calculation is done earlier this year would be I think a 22% reduction on that from the already approved residential consent if you like the fallback for this so I would like officers to give us some advice on what what weight in those circumstances we can put on the remaining objection from the environment agency in this respect just to give us a moment while officers agree who is to address that question and we'll come back to you. I'll come back but Vanessa might chip in as well if that's all right chair so the environment agency objection is if you look at power 6.47 on page 23 of the report so they acknowledge the water efficiency measures proposed but maintain their objection they've got the water consumption study and they understand it will have lower water consumption than the permitted scheme however the environment agency are solely looking at the scheme in front of them rather than the comparison to the extent permission which could be built out on site in which we're currently looking at the reserve matters application so officer assessment and recommendation is on the basis that the proposed development would use 18% less water than the extent permission if that were built however the environment agency objection is purely on the basis of the current scheme in front of you rather than the comparison to the extent permission in terms of how much weight you wish to give it it's one of the material considerations officers have given their view um and compared it to the extent scheme but the committee could add a different amount of weight if you wish to assess differently okay so that is a matter on which we will have to make our own judgment as to what extent we are considering this as though there were no other application already approved and to what extent we're considering this against the water consumption from the existing planning consent chair now um i have next dr Richard Williams but dr Williams if you're prepared to allow councillor and Bradman to come in first on this point that would be appreciated i will give away to thank you thank you so much that's very kind of you thank you dr Williams i wanted to ask for clarification on that point because i wanted to know the timing of these because i suspect i don't know i wanted to ask was the permission for the extent application given before the environment agency issued their their more general report about concerns about water sufficiency because if that is the case then we maybe need to add more weight to the environment agency advice because it's come out since that decision was made um the residential scheme was a 2016 outline permission the reserve matters is current looking at outline here not reserve matters on the a residential scheme the 2016 was outline the reserve matters is currently in with us yes but was the environment agency concerns as a result of their water resources management plan issued since that reserve matters for the residential scheme was issued so the residential scheme reserve matters application is a live application the outline application was in 2016 so before the environment agency issued their current water residential scheme hasn't been approved it's just the outline has been approved the reserve matters is a current live application right okay so i think that's a fairly clear answer and i'm afraid it's a matter on which members will have to decide for themselves how much weight to put on that answer look at original Williams thank you very much chair um just just just on that point i did actually have the the same questions cancer brandon so i think that's a useful clarification i i just want to make a small comment if i can before my questions i think it's worth bearing in mind what we're talking about here is that this application would increase demand by less than potentially the alternative it's not a reduction and the waste water treatment plant closed 20 years ago so i'm not sure we can put place much weight on what was consumed 20 years ago and the situation is very different but anyway i did have a few um clarification questions um my first question relates to the submission of the uk health and safety agency so on page 26 paragraph 676 of our report the uk health and security agency is listed as not objecting but going back to the documents on the website and reading their submissions there are some quite extensive points they made in their first letter of i think the 19th of september that have not been addressed by the applicants in the second letter from november um they say that they they've not addressed the number of the concerns um so i was wondering if the officer could say a little bit more about that because that does concern me that there are unaddressed issues um the way i read the documents and whilst i mean i think it's fair to say the uk health and safety agency don't object they don't exactly support either um so i'd be interested on some some clarification on on that on the question of the supplementary report we got and the concerns raised by uh cancer thornborough from um cambridge city um i went back and had a look at the documents on site contamination and i may be missing something so again this is my question for the officer um the the base material for the contamination reports to my mind seemed to relate to a number of reports which have been compiled compiled over a number of years some of them related to the previous application so um their reports listed go from 2005 through to 2016 so my question would be has there been a recent new investigation of the contamination of of this site or is the material we're relying on entirely based on those um historic reports because i think that will be quite quite important because the the concerns are are quite um concerning um and then just very quickly final point on this issue of need which we seem to be laying quite a lot of emphasis on in terms of counter balancing the harm to the green belt so um you know the the significant benefit of providing lab space again having a look at the documents the only evidence i can seem to find online but again it may be i'm missing it um about need is a report from bidwells um from 2023 so my question is is there any independent because i'm afraid i don't regard bidwells as entirely independent i'm sure their work is very good and it's compiled professionally i'm not questioning the professionalism of it um but they are they they've got two hats on in in a lot of these cases um so is there any independent evidence we have on need for lab space because as you know many of us here sit on jdcc and we're now dealing with applications for lab space to a month we're doing them here we're doing them in in jdcc and in jdcc at the last meeting um one of the um applicants we had or giving us presentations said there isn't a bottomless pit for demand for lab space um and i think there is some concern now that we're approving so much lab space um that in a few years time there's going to be a glut so my question is is there any independent evidence we're relying on for this significant weight we would attach to the lab space benefit i'm sorry for um thinking of time of those questions chair so i'm just going to kind of answer you in a um in order it's not kind of as you answered the questions um in terms of like the contamination um conditions 18 and 19 of the recommended conditions will require um new information in terms of um the contamination um your kind of first question um i'll defer to the contaminated land officer and Claire Sproats who's online um he'll be able to kind of hopefully help answer um your question in terms of that and then i think we'll come back in terms of your question about the lab space Claire are you able to help us on that uh yes um there was quite a lot of information in the questions there um the so the first question what helped with is the one to do with the comments from the uk hsa was it in relation to the historic reports perhaps you could clarify Dr Williams if the question so my question is about the hs um the security agency is i was really asking the officer to address the fact that they have a number of unaddressed concerns so their second letter um says that a number of the points they raised in their first letter have not actually been addressed by the applicants so really i'm looking for clarification as to why we shouldn't be concerned about those because i assume um the implication of the report and the recommendation is that we we shouldn't be concerned about them so i'd like a bit more detail on why we shouldn't be concerned about those yep that's fine um i think really the uk hsa who are kind of supporting us in looking at these with all their sort of specialist information they um it it's kind of should be regarded as fine details that they're looking for so um it's the information that we're looking for now i don't think we expect to substantially change the proposals for remediation or how they're going to go about it there's just some agreement to be had and some work to be done between uk hsa and the applicant to work out some of the numbers um to be worked to etc and so that's bit of work that can still be done by condition so we can iron out all of those details um to get the sort of the final final numbers and final proposals in before they start any work but that's to material changes and how they go about the work wouldn't expect that to change does that answer that question uh so is the answer that the outstanding points are to be dealt with in conditions yes okay thank you that does answer my question and i think we need to bear in mind barathef got six seven six as you referred to answer Williams uk health security agency their comments still stand but they have no objection oh they don't use the words no objection they just clap for that chair they don't actually say no objection they just set out comments okay and in terms of the other point that you had about historical reports etc um the information we have on the site is or built up of a number of phases of investigation it's kind of builds layer upon layer of information adding more um the the reports that are submitted all ones that we had seen before on the previous application for residential consent and a lot of those had been agreed at the time but given some time had elapsed and there had been some updated sort of advice and guidance etc and plus some new monitoring data of the understanding some of the surface water ground water samples that's all further monitoring has continued in that time and and so we were just looking for those to be incorporated in some new reports so it's quite usual to use historical data in combination with all of your more recent to build like an as much as an entire picture as possible thank you i think we've given as much attention to that particular point as we can i'd like to ask councillor Eileen Wilson for her question thank you um on could we go back to the um the the um amendments to the report and the bits about um cycling i i didn't have time to read it when it was up on the screen and my question is um on the amended report that we've received and it says that condition 15 requires cycle parking therefore condition 39 is not necessary um i'm looking at um condition 39 that does actually state a number of cycle parking spaces um but i didn't have time to see when you put up the subsequent amendment whether that means state of the numbers um so condition 14 um which we're looking to change um just slightly kind of changes the wording of the conditions so that the cycle and walking structures and approve of a one-year first occupation of the first building so so really by um deleting um condition 39 um we don't have the number of cycle a requirement of number of cycle spaces because condition 15 only refers to the need for cycle parking yeah i think in terms of removing condition 9 there was a duplicate um of conditions um so that's why 39 was was removed um yeah condition 15 replaces cycle parking therefore condition 39 is not necessary but condition 39 stipulates um 306 covered secure parking but that's not contained in condition 15 i think what i'm going to do is to the end of the debate i will ask officers to clarify the amendments before we take any vote on this um this may be a matter that we'll have to look at in a little more detail and come back to you if that's all right council Wilson right next we have council Lisa redrop uh thank you chair most of my questions have already been asked um so i guess just just to check will access to the sports field um be maintained for the community during the remediation and construction and will they have access to the parking early on because i know that the main car park comes in and phases three and four in the current plans thank you so the aim is to keep the sports field going needs to be maintained um the in terms of the car parking um in terms of like the construction i'm not quite sure how that would work but um there is exist the existing kind of arrangement how it works now so i assume that would be maintained um during the construction but the other sports would be be kept open i wonder whether that's a point on which you'd want to bring in tam pari or if any if they have anything to add thank you uh i have two further questions councillor sanford and then councillor braddenham and then i'm proposing to take a break can i take it those of both relatively short questions because they're going to be long questions we might want to take a break before we being in that case i think perhaps we'll come back to your questions after the break if we may councillor sanford thank you chair and this would be a question for tam pari um we're looking at a car park with 200 plus spaces um are highways comfortable that the access can be modified to accommodate probably 100 or more vehicle movements at big times without causing congestion down the 810 into hoxton and perhaps back up to the m11 um if that points addressed in the report i haven't found it thank you very you chair am i okay to answer please yes sorry 10 thank you hi thank you um no good morning um committee i'm tam pari came to county council transport assessment team so the applicant has done some detailed modelling of the junction both with the um and with the extant permission and also with this um application and this junction that they're proposing actually performed within the what was accepted um for the extant permission and it shows that um whilst there might be some delay in the pmp for vehicles leaving um but overall the junction works better than what we would have with the extant permission if they were to build out the houses on the site so on that basis um i'm happy with with the junction capacity um with the 810 thank you okay right um as i said we'll take councillor Bradham's questions after the break can we take a 10 minute break and be back here at 1145 please thank you very much right we are live welcome back to this meeting of south cams district council we're considering item six and our agenda of the planning committee we've had the presentation from officers and we're just concluding questions of clarification to officers let me just say that at the end of the when we've heard from our public speakers at the end of our debate i will ask officers to just clarify exactly what the recommendations are including the amendment so hopefully that will make it easier for us to come to a view uh next question councillor Bradman thank you chair um so as i said two questions one is about water sufficiency but it relates to the um the water usage comparison made by the applicant personally i found the comparison with the previous usage as a water treatment works it seemed inappropriate to me because the water treatment works doesn't actually use water it simply treats it um as i found that comparison bizarre i understand the comparison with the previously or live application for residential use but as far as i can make out compared to what is actually being used on the land at the moment the nearly three million litres per annum is an addition and i wanted that clarified an addition to what is being used at the moment um shall i come back to my second question when that one's been on no i suggest you keep going right uh the second one is the the matter to do with the contaminated land this may have been gone through um as you know i'm subbing on this committee so there may have been all sorts of discussion at this at the proposal for the residential application but um i've been on this council and on planning committee at various guises for long enough to remember the time when we uh when hawkstone still was the bay of sight and it was still working and then it closed down and and then we undertook to remediate the site in order to make it suitable for the housing that is now there now at that time we dealt with the site on the east side of the a 10 i do not recall um reference to this particular location but what i do remember was that it was a very long and complicated process necessarily because of the nature of the material that was being processed at the bay of plant and so what i wanted to ask is has this particular location had the same rigorous uh assessment and consideration in terms of remediation as the actual hawkstone that the actual bay of sight has because all of the material that would have gone through the hawkstone site would also have gone through this water treatment works and so i wanted to ask has it gone through the same rigorous um assessment of what is needed in terms of remediation has it had that remediation i suggest not since the site is exactly the same as it was except it's um dilapidated but thirdly have we given any consideration to having an independent assessment of the need of of the contamination at this site um prior to development thank you so the site is is not currently in in use um it's not been used for some time um in terms of um in terms of the water um so the water use is in addition to to what it was um in terms of the contaminated land um the um assessment has gone through the same assessment and um consideration as the the site across the road was undertaken and the remediation hasn't been undertaken yet that will have to be undertaken so is there any plan to have um an independent assessment of remediation as i believe there was on the site on the east side of the A10 in the process to make sure that it's been done properly because it was long and laborious and took many iterations and much removal of soil and you know it was a very and replacement of soil in order to make safe soil onto which to build the residential development on the east side of the A10 so i'm just wondering will there be an independent assessment of the residual contamination of the land i can see that condition 18 refers to that but there's no reference of an independent assessment um if i can just jump in on that one chair um so as part of the extant residential permission um there has already been details of the remediation strategy have been approved on the site um so um that has already kind of those stages have been gone through we are requiring the same information to be submitted again um as part of this application because obviously it's a alternative or a separate planning application as such so that we have got um various conditions including the verification report um the remediation strategy and their remediation method statement and verification plan so there's a suite of conditions relating to that um which includes monitoring and so it it will take some time which is why the time limit has been amended because it was originally for three years um we've amended the time limit condition for five years because the remediation needs to happen then will a period of monitoring um so the conditions that are recommended are the same as the conditions that were recommended and have been submitted and approved for the extant residential commission forgive me but did that also relate to the need for piling because obviously these are much taller buildings on the other side of the road i recall a significant depth of soil was removed and fresh top soil was brought in um but here given that the buildings are not residential anymore under the previous consideration which wouldn't have needed piling these buildings will need piling and and i'm just wondering what the uh monitoring and considerate you know the remediation in terms of piling will be just before officers answer that we will be considering this outline application in the light of the assessments which have already been made if for some reason members are not satisfied with any of those assessments that will be a factor to be taken into account i would just add that in relation to paragraph 980 9180 as some members have made clear the comparison i think we should be focusing on is that between the existing residential consent and the proposed consent we are now considering and of course the water usage before 2005 when the plant was discontinued whether or not we accept the figure is less relevant officers would you like to deal with that was that the current residential um uh application would not have necessarily implied the need for piling whereas don't ask officers to address your question so that was what i was trying to see clarification in terms of the remediation works that are required that will be determined by the proposal and so once we get the details submitted about um what the remediation requirements strategy let me start getting my words in the right order um in the remediation strategy will detail the amount of remediation works required which are relevant to the proposal it is in some regard referred to at condition 51 um you know if it's contamination not previously identified so i just wanted to clarify that there is provision for that should more contamination be discovered okay thank you do we have clarification to your questions now in that case i'd now like to move to our i'm sorry council walkins i missed you thank you chair you do not look my way usually somebody has to say there she's saying something i'd like to say something um thank you i think when we have decided to say it and thank you for officers for um actually arranging that um the issue of the remediation was discussed and i'm sure we can ask um the applicants when they come to address us um my understanding was that the remediation was going to be carried out to the same level as was um granted or agreed for the residential um permission which means it's going to be the best that it can be you can ask them directly for that but i just way to point that in and if i may ask my question it's doing the transport and the new um uh junction into the site um i could see that there's drop curves for cycling but it's not clear that there's something across there for them to cycle across and for pedestrians to actually access this sports ground can that be clarified please yeah there's a the two con crossing which is proposed um over the um main access to the site sorry it wasn't obvious on the diagram to me i knew there had to be something but it was okay members do we have sufficient clarification though i think we have one further question council Lisa Redland thank you chair it's just to build on council Hawkins question and we can see there's a two con crossing across the entrance way to the site but i just wondered if there's any way of crossing for pedestrians to get to the hawkston included thank you so the um junction improvements will be improved so there's the existing um crossing there that pedestrians will be able to cross over the site to um hawkston thank you councillor Heather Williams not a question i reassure you chair um i just realised the greenway is being mentioned um which is the greater cambridge partnership project and i'm a member of the great part greater cambridge partnership assembly that's a lot of words and a lot of the same words in different order sorry chair thank you for that declaration right let's now move on to our public speakers thank you for your patience can i firstly call Rob Saddler um i think you're acting as agent perhaps you could just clarify your relationship to the applicants bridgeman land and you have three minutes and then if you would uh members may have some questions strictly of clarification to ask you afterwards thank you um Rob Saddler from foundation capital ventures um effectively we are the commercial partner bridge me a land who are represented here today at the land owner we are the uh commercial partner and we have extensive um experience in life science um spread across the past 20 years um mainly in uk and north america um and there's a bit more about us but i'll wait for the my three my three minutes thank you for your clarification you start when you like and your three minutes will start then hang on put your glasses on don't start don't worry i think we can wait until you've found your glasses before we start the clock i've got this time to two minutes 56 thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak in relation to this application i'm Rob Saddler founding director of foundation capital ventures the commercial development partner working with the applicant personally i am local to the area and i learned to play squash of the site from the age of nine the proposals provide a new life science and innovation campus dedicated to small and medium sized companies a 30 acre country park with links to trumpington meadows and a shared amenity and sports pavilion with a local community we will also deliver the remediation of a contaminated site to which already secured agreements from your environmental health officers and the ea under the previous residential consent we have worked closely with all statutory consultees and undertaken a very helpful public consultation with the local community a special mention is made to hawkston parish council as several workshops and meetings have taken place and we also continue to work with the shepherd conservation wildlife trust in terms of a re-wilding package for the country park the committee will be aware permission was granted in 2021 for 32 market houses but this new application will deliver a far greater package of public benefits and enable the remediation works to take place the buildings are a bespoke design set in a cluster only two stories in height with pitch roofs and plant hidden within the roof structures and focused around the previously developed part of the site car park would be shared between users of the sports clubs and the life science campus and is located close to the sports fields at the request of the parish council the detailed design is secured through the design code fixing heights and locations of the buildings the indicative phasing plan also commits to the early delivery of the immunity building cycleway and shared car parking parking and access to the sports fields will be maintained throughout sorry at all times through close dialogue with the hawkston parish council we will contribute 682 000 pounds towards the melbourne greenways or travel hub 20 000 pounds towards bus shelters and 5000 pounds for waiting restrictions we've worked hard to ensure the proposals would use approximately 22 percent less water than the approved residential scheme and would achieve all five water credits under briam we are targeting briam excellent with a focus to meet briam outstanding the ea did not object to the reserve matters in relation to the residential consent as recent as february 24 the proposals would create around a thousand jobs from entry level to senior positions and we have prepared an employment and skills strategy to support vocational courses for school leavers and others who are excited about getting involved with the innovation sector plus providing a dedicated fitted lab space as part of the scheme in partnership with former future we are pleased officers have recognised the extensive range of benefits and recommend consent we will continue to work closely with the local community through the detailed design construction and beyond phases and for these reasons we would respectfully request the committee approve this application thank you thank you for that now it may be that members have one or two questions strictly of clarification on what you said councillor braddon thank you chair it's not particularly on what you've said but I just wanted to clarify in our amendment to the report referring to 9.65 there's a correction that says that the proposal once operational could create would create and we've had 900 meters squared crossed out replaced with 185 meters squared of ancillary training space which will be dedicated to knowledge transfer activities no wonder who could explain that please yeah thank you the right from the outset we pledged that as part of the the floor space that we were creating we wanted to create an area for training purposes for life science and innovation and we were doing this and we want to do this in partnership with former future um who are effectively doing the same thing but what we wanted to do was actually provide a physical space for school leavers and anybody who effectively wants to get into the industry that perhaps doesn't necessarily have a Nobel Prize but wants to go through that process through vocational skills so it's a cost of the development um and the size of the suite um that we would talk about and it'd be part of the six buildings not in the community building um is approximately 2000 square feet 185 meter squared i'm not sure where the 900 meter squared came from that was was it always going to be that size it's so it's not changed no from day one it's always been 185 and i suspect it's a typo error i signed off on all the documents i suspect is my fault but it but that space is within your research buildings within the research buildings and important to note that it's not part of the immunity building uh councillor redrup do you mind if i ask councillor hawkins to follow on from that i think you were indicating no councillor redrup thank you chair um thank you for your presentation mr saddler i'm sorry through your chair um i just want to say it was great to see in the report and from your presentation about the um the engagement with hawks and parish council um my question is about the the cycle links you mentioned in your in your presentation that you're planning to introduce them early on i just wondered if you could clarify if that's all of the cycle links including your plan thank you absolutely what we're wanting to do is is effectively complete the greenways and take the um the cycle way away from the busy eight ten um and there is a commitment from us to provide that in in the very early phases of the development um i suspect that when we work through the detail of it um we may um have to provide a temporary solution to begin with because if you note the um the greenways section that we're providing cuts right through the middle of the development um and i suspect what we have to do is first phase is provide that link on the outskirts of the development so it doesn't interfere with the construction um and then once the phasing is complete or that particular phase is complete then we can complete the the the thing through the middle but um we will provide that link early on but it might be on a temporary basis thank you very much um i'd like to come back to the um the arrangements you have with form the future to um encourage people who may not think that they can work in the life sciences to actually participate in in training um is this going to be a long-term commitment i think that the fact that we're actually providing the space um it suggests that it is a long-term commitment we're providing physical space so this is this is not just a plan and words that we're providing but we're actually providing a figure of physical space so as far as we are concerned it's it's long term and i think this ties into the the the space that we're also providing and it was touched upon earlier that we're not necessarily providing incubator space there is an incubator in Hawkson on the other side of the road nor are we providing huge corporate spaces that can be found at the biomedical campus this is space for for smaller medium-sized companies to grow on so there'll be a you know effectively a cluster within the cluster and as as that park starts to fill up we also hope that the businesses themselves will get involved with that training processes as as well as us as responsible um developers uh thank you chair and through you um i'd like to support uh counselor redrop statement um well done on your engagement with the local parish council and the community and um definitely would like to see more of that thing happening i mean it's it's unusual to see uh statements in the way we've got it in six two and six three but very good thank you water as you know is a is a big issue um i think you said and correct me if i misheard that the ea did not object to the uh i think the reserve matters you're bringing for for the residential is this correct that's correct and and um it the there's been a bit of overlap as you understand between the um the residential and the commercial um and uh that is correct there was a letter on file in respect to the residential um reserve matters um from the ea confirming no objection um to water usage and effectively a week later from the same um officer at the ea writing to us um with holding the objection clearly saying she can only look at the application that she she's in that's in front of her and um what what we were saying is well look we've really worked hard to reduce the water consumption um from the extant residential permission um and so it is it is running now it is running live that residential consent is running live and as i say the ea is recently is last month or month or four um has written in on that basis thank you for that um and my last question chair is to do with the remediation um and that again i mean from the information we got at the um scientific was that it was going to be remediated to the same level as for the residential and to borrow cancer radnams concern does that mean there needs to be piling or not there will be piling um and first of all i can i can say i'm joined here by mr steveggor who is our remediation expert i can answer some remediation questions um but i when i when it gets up in my depth i will refer to um to steve but there will be a piling risk assessment as part of the reserve matters remembering that this is an outline application so there will be a piling um uh risk assessment and certainly in terms of the remediation work that we're carrying out we are mindful of that um piling will come forward councillor dr Richard Williams thank you very much chair um through you um my question remain excuse me uh relates to the remediation um again if i can speak so um going back to the health security agency in the letter of the 18th of september they said that they felt your remedial targets assumed dilution within the river cam and they said in their view a human health risk assessment should be conducted about receptors potentially exposed at the point of entry into the cam on the letter of the 29th of november that point seemed not to have been addressed um it seemed to be one of the outstanding points um because the health security agency was recommending that the district council should should look at this question so i suppose my question to the applicant is um does the remedial strategy assume dilution within the cam if it does was the health the human health risk carried out um or not and if not why not okay can i refer this to mr aga i mean it is a specialist question and i know that i will hi yeah so um the assessments that we've done the risk assessments that we've done does include a factory of dilution into the river cam that's part of the overall technical risk assessment that's done to to assess how the contamination moves through the site and into the river um and that that's factored into those into those risk assessments which set the targets that that is as mr sproats identified earlier a kind of an iterative process that will continue through the assessments that will now be submitted as part of this application so that that is considered it is looked at um and the health aspects of that are considered alongside does that that's that's helpful but just just to cover on that final point so what was a separate human health risk assessment carried out or are you saying it you regard that as being part of the previous assessment so there has been so that so there's there's i suppose there's a number of main kind of risk receptors that we assess through the risk assessment process human health is one construction workers during the development are another and then controlled waters of the third so that's the the groundwater and the surrounding river and the virons all of those assessments have been completed and as mrs sproats said there were some questions some back and forth finer technical detail points between ourselves and the authority and the health health security agency which will continue to be happening throughout throughout the remediation process throughout the submission of documents against conditions and throughout the validation and verification process after the remediation is complete so that dialogue will always continue and is continuously reviewed renewed and updated and that's what a lot of the questions that the the health security agency brought up during their consultation fairs were things that had changed since the original assessment was done members i see no further questions and thank you both to mr saddler and to mr edgar for your presentation yes please provide 306 cycle spaces end of thank you thank you both your presentations a next we have for the parish council julien elwood i think clerk to the parish council these and i think you're going to share your time with council upon ponderig curadi is that right yes so um if you can manage it you have three minutes between you but please we would like to hear your presentation on this can i just ask before you start do you have the consent to your parish council to represent them here today you do yes i thought you might thank you hello to everybody here at the meeting today my name is julien elwood and i'm currently the clerk to hawxton parish council i've been in role for several months the application predates my role but it is a matter of um written consideration that the parish council has worked very closely with the developers they have been very cooperative very informative um there is actually a published document where the carer parish council are actually stated that they support all parts of the application including the vital ancillary arrangements associated with it around car parking sustainability and the proposed immunity centre consultation has again been textbook from the developer as the site is not just in our parish but a neighbour to the community facilities at the sports ground next door the parish council had its meeting last week the 4th of april uh mr sadler very kindly came along updated us as he has continually um about the application and where we stand the um we were quarreled at our meeting and it was resolved again at the meeting that uh nothing has changed we are indeed grateful to them for consulting us and uh we stand in support of the application thank you councillor karate if you would find have i got to your name correctly but uh would you like to supplement yeah so i'm going to primarily talk about the amenities building because i must also run the sports committee within the hoxton parish and the amenities building which which we've discussed in this forum that's a great addition to the village um we have various sports been played on the ground but the amenities building is just going to announce the whole facility um it's going to basically add a lot of value to the to the local community in terms of the users of the ground basically fill the gaps we have in terms of what we can offer to the wider community in terms of the gym the cafe um and just recreational space um the other thing the big thing which we see in terms of as a sports committee member is we have a lot of anti-social issues around that wastewater site and like having a business park is certainly addressed some things those things in terms of 24 hour surveillance security which which is a fundamental thing for us we have repeated cases of anti-social activities in that waste water site and this this particular engagement and arrangement will basically help a lot of these issues as well for us thank you both if you would hang on there a moment i think i have two or three questions for you for members i think we start with councillor annabraddon please thank you chair and through you um so i should before we start i should possibly say that i know jillian elwood through a totally different um uh life uh and it's totally not related to this so i should say that so to my question um are you confident um that so i'll put it bluntly i know you've had um consultation with the applicants but i'll just put it bluntly so it's easy to be something are you sure that the applicant is not just offering you a building which um gives them the opportunity to use your sports ground for all their activities and then in the end of the day you'll find that all the times when you want to use the sports ground they will have booked it um so you know you could look at this provision of an amenity building as simply aware of using your sports ground rather than the opposite which should be enabling you better facilities for your sports ground are you are you happy that you know which way the balance is you can i come i'll comment on this one so so the sports ground the hoxton parish will still have complete ownership of the sports ground will help cricket and football and everything else what we are talking about is amenity's building which obviously we will have access to it the local community will have access to it that's obviously the business park will have access to it so from our sports ground yes the sports ground will still continue to have cricket football tennis whatever we have the amenity's building is the one that basically will be co-shared depending on the arrangement we have with the business park and that's that's where we completely sort of say okay this is where we will have access they will have access in terms of the gym or facilities at that cafe and that will be accessible to the users of the sports ground as well i asked that question that's for you chair because it says the facility the amenity building is intended primarily to meet the needs of the works on the business park and it will be managed by them so you know there is it's clearly going to be a building that's under their management which might be advantageous to you but i just wanted to yeah it's known that they'll be they'll be managing it but we'll have an arrangement with them where the users of the sports facility whether it's cricket or the footballers or tennis can have access to the cafe the gym and we can we'll have a as i said a right level of access yeah and representation as well thank you thank you for that i think i also have a question for you from councillor to me Hawkins uh yes chair through you sorry my question was also to do with the amenity building um i was going to ask if you will have any input into the design of it or if you've been asked to input into the design of it yes we have in fact as has jill said uh rob and his team has been very much actively working with us in defining what the facility should look like what what things might you want to have there because it's a gym what should be the layout um i think that has been happening um and i expect this to continue to happen again to the point that around the arrangement of our access to the facility what time frame i mean in terms of what time during the day we have access to the car park as well as to the facility the weekend weekdays all of this i'm expecting to be working out so they have been very cooperative in this sense that's great good to know thank you thank you for answering those questions i think it is clear that you are satisfied as a parish council there will be mutual benefit from the provision of this facility thank you both we'll now proceed to the debate councillor heather williams did you want to ask a further question or do you want because yes uh as to the debate i think i'm right in saying that councillor Lisa redrop is the local member is that right there's two of us here i beg your part yes of course there are councillor area we can't did either of you want to speak first in this debate um i'm happy to if you'd like thank you um i'm obviously really pleased to hear about all the engagement with hawkston parish council and how confident they are with plans and the involvement that they've had um looking through it all um to me i think that the water issue has been explained it's not ideal but i guess i accept the officers the officers thoughts that this is better than the the extent application um i guess the the landscape officer has given clear clear objection based on the encroachment and the uh sorry i'm trying to think it all through there's a lot to this the landscape impacts um i can see that there are some impacts to that um but i guess i guess i'm leaning towards thinking that they are outweighed by the benefits to the community um and to getting this remediation sorted out um i was really pleased to hear about the commitment to to bringing in the cycle way early and i i wondered if that's something we could bring in on a condition just to make sure that that definitely has to happen um so i think that's most of the points i wanted to raise but if i think something else later i'd hope to be able to come back but thank you so i i guess i'm leaning to support thank you councillor redrop i didn't mean to put me on the spot it is your right as local member to speak first if you wish i get the impression councillor carnaw want to speak later if on this door later now right please i'd also like to reiterate that i was very pleased to see um how well the communication was going between the applicant and the parish council that was really great to see i was also happy as the redrop said to to hear about the commitment to um competing the amenities in the cycle palace and all that first was also great to hear about the the water issues and i was also that was also slightly concerning but i think the officers have tended to convince me that there there are some plans in place to resolve it to everybody's satisfaction um and i think it's so it does seem also to me that that results to be positive about regarding the benefits for local local people with this application so i'm also tentatively in support i would say i've asked officers to put the planning balance slide back up on the screen just in the hope that might help us all to focus our comments on this next i have councillor Heather Williams thank thank you chair my microphone's trying to log me off i hope that's not officers giving me a hint um so i've set the planning committee for at least six years now and so people know that i'm uncharacteristically quiet today um and that i have to say is because the applicants have made it very difficult for me to find something to get my teeth into and i mean that as a compliment um because there has been engagement councillor Hawkins knows exactly what i what i mean yeah normally um because because we have a different role to officers right we're here as elected representatives so what the community thinks is really not that it's not important to officers but it's something that's particularly you know we're looking at and there has been and it's just so refreshing to hear a parish council come in support of an application so whatever happens today i think that should really be looked at and i hope others are are looking towards the applicants actions equally when it comes to the scale and heights normally we have people coming here really pushing their luck for a sixth or a seventh for an eighth floor and that does get my goat sometimes as well because it has to be we need to evolve and we need to provide space and housing employment however that is but it needs to be done in a sympathetic way and i think although we've got the planning balance it's very useful one thing that i found really helpful was those views to show the actual impact and also i think but i do think materials and we have conditions those materials in this project will be key as to whether it really does what it says on the 10 or not um because so long as those soft as is in the CGI those soft um materials are used and more natural materials then it won't become an eyesore that we've we've had to balance to and throw with so on on that side all all positive um it is brownfield and we prefer brownfield getting lots of ticks so far there is obviously then the water issue um had there not already been permission given i think the the environment agencies response would have been incredibly strong and all of that you know great fantastic work that has been done could have been a real you know assembling blog but i suppose in a practical me being practical obviously we do have a water issue i do understand the representations been made and i understand where where they come from it's something that concerns a lot of us but the reality is yeah there is still that fallback position which is more um so being pragmatic i don't think it is wrong to accept that there is a water problem and also to follow the officer recommendation i think i'll be honest i think if that position wasn't already there then there could be a different weight attached but but it is there we see how it is now i do appreciate the comments that have been made about the Secretary of State but we have to do what we think is is right um and and there's many times when there are applications that could be called in either to appeal or or for sexual estate so i'm i feel that following the officer recommendation here is a practical thing to do but also um the right thing to do for the local residents because they will they will genuinely benefit so longer as everything we've we've heard i know Councillor Bradlin's raised a point of concern um you know as long as everything is as it's shown there then then it does seem like a great asset and i'm sure it's a way of producing and we know we need to give that employment space we can't get to net zero if we don't have employment in some areas and um i wish they were all as sympathetically done as this that's for certain um please do share with your with your peers thank you next i think we have councillor Dr Tewby Hawkins thank you chair um yes the fact that um this has the support of the community is a very big plus um and i think i will be asking Hoxton Parish Council offline uh some more detailed questions on how that engagement went um for future reference and of course thanks to um Kate C. Christoddolidys for the report which is very good well set out and um a lot of work has gone into this so we're going to the team i'll start with the water issue um yes it is a concern um however as uh we have heard there is no objection environment agency on the residential scheme that um you know they were consulted about but then decided to object um a week later to something else that was you know got to replace that which to me is inconsistent i would wish that they could be just a bit more consistent um but i also want to refer us to the the case for Cambridge 2050 which is on the government website which was issued the same day that the um Jeremy Hunt made his speech um where the government is committed to delivering intervention to save water now through improved efficiency um committed to ensuring that there is uh you know a solution uh longer term for the problem i also said issue a joint statement from the environment agency the greater Cambridge Shed Planning uh D-LOC and DEFRA outlining our commitment to sustainable growth and development on the basis of our water credit scheme this is directly from the document in my view um i would say that yes we are we accept there's a water issue but this for me is not an is not a reason to object um to this application um theory of the objection i think we had was from landscape but then seeing those views that um were provided to us and visiting the site for me actually showed that um this development proposed has been designed in a very good way to minimize impact on landscape um as far as the balance goes yes it's in the green belt it's in the countryside and all that but the the benefits to south canis to hoxton to the community um to me far out ways the fact that it's in the green belt and it's in the countryside and all that so i am definitely going with the um officer recommendation for approval so thank you councillor annabrednig thank you chair um so clearly we can see that having the existing site dealt with um would be very welcome for the people of hawkston um as i say i i i've known that site not that particular location but i've known the hawkston site since it was still functioning as bayer um and obviously that it would be one can see there is a huge um if one puts it in blunt terms there would be a huge temptation to accept any development there if it meant that the contamination were remediated um however i think that the that and there are all sorts of concerns i also think one of the things i wanted to ask about was that councillor katie thornborough from the city council greater cambridge planning arrangements um was concerned about the disposal of wastewater at the haislingfield um water treatment works which we already know is under pressure if not over capacity and the concern that she has raised about that um and i'm we haven't even um sort of discussed that apart from in the response uh that we've received from the uh from the officer um i'm still deeply concerned about water sufficiency which is why i asked about the timing of the approval for the residential site and then the issue of this document sorry it should be green not yellow um which is the uh representation from cambridge water uh on the draft water resources management plan um which i don't feel has really been it doesn't it doesn't lift my concerns um and indeed as we've just said the wastewater treatment works although i recognise in the in the paper it says that there are water treatment works does draw on water my understanding is the vast majority of the water that went through that site would have been what's being treated um one doesn't normally add to water being treated uh by drawing on it um unless there's a something very noxious in there that you need to dilute so i'm i'm concerned about that um in terms of the landscape issues like others i feel that whilst it will be an intrusion on the green belt actually the design of the buildings and the design and layout of the site is uh not unreasonable um given that it's effectively brownfield land um i still would like to see an independent assessment of the contaminated land issue um and if somebody wants to send me a copy of that for the residential site which i haven't seen as a sub on this committee i'd be very happy to see it and i'm also mindful that if we were to be seen as unreasonable um then you know there are all sorts of um consequences of that i i find myself still uncertain how to vote on this um i appreciate the parish council will see this as a benefit and i may end up voting that way but i still haven't decided thank you i think next council sanford thank you chair um i'm rather surprised we're even talking about harm to the green belt um context of this application when we visited the site last week um i thought we'd probably been transported into a post apocalypse urban wasteland or possibly the set of a mad max movie even um Katie Christodoulis's pictures done to the justice there's debris waste everywhere the existing structures are rotting and falling down every single flat space has been covered with graffiti so i've just looked at it as the the ultimate brownfield site and as council Heather Williams already said we we like to reuse brownfield sites rather than green spaces um we've also talked a lot about water um when we discussed the skip development across the road which is 256 houses mr Stephen Kelly told me it was too small to concern the environment agency so i'm a little puzzled why they should be concerned with a small development office mainly development of five buildings which would presumably consume far less water than the skip development not that i'm saying we should keep the skip development into touch um so yeah i'm tending to go with the officers recommendations which i think are sand in this case councillor Eileen Wilson thank you chair um others have mentioned the benefits for the community and the support from the parish council and um i too think um pleased to see this amount of community engagement that's taking place but i'm particularly pleased about the um the commitment to providing training spaces for for the future and to to make a positive step in attracting young people from the area to life sciences people who might think that those sort of jobs are not for them i know there are a lot of people who a lot of young people who feel that way and who feel like the um the science aspect of cambrish is is really not for them and i i really applaud that that commitment and along with all the other community engagement the other benefits of the community i do have some concern about the water but i think the benefit to the community the the betterment of the land from the the waste land that councillor sandford just mentioned i i i'm in time to um support the officers recommendation on this councillor bill handy thank you chair very very very briefly because i think we i think we've covered all the points now um can i also say congratulations to the developer with their consultation with the parish council it is refreshing and on yeah we won't see more of it really um i'm going to take the the the points on remediation i'll trust that i think we're just going to have to trust the people who know what they're doing do the right thing uh water resources is an issue um i think the environment agency need to be more consistent with what they do um and if we're not really careful in the future we might we might end up having the debate about water availability at every single application so i actually think that we need to take this take it up you know we need we need to have a higher level discussion about what we do because otherwise we're just going to make decisions and say no we can't we can't approve this because of the water problem and it's just going to go to appeal after appeal to appeal it's going to cost his council millions so honestly that has got to be sorted at a political level um Mr council sanford said any development on the site is going to be an improvement um so can i venture that we actually move to a vote i'm happy to move that as a motion chair you can do that and uh if before you second it can i just say that there are one or two members who have indicated they still have something to say on this i want to say a few words myself do you want to now press it to a vote immediately on that i'm just saying i think we've covered all the points i think you know people obviously i can have their say but you know if they're not going to say anything that that's already been said then let's move on if you if you are proposing in the light of that that we move to a vote and councillor Hawkins has seconded that then we move directly to a vote on that motion uh and i don't suppose to take an electronic vote on that those who want to hear have a little more time for debate we'd vote against this those who support councillor Handley's motion please show we're taking a vote on whether to proceed to a vote yes chair yes counts those who support councillor Handley's motion that we move directly to a vote please show no i don't think we do have to debate chair's discretion as to whether to take a debate on that if we decide not to proceed directly to a vote then we will hear a few more speakers councillor Handley you have made your proposal councillor to me Hawkins has proposed it i don't think there's any need for a debate on whether we have a debate so would those in favour are moving directly to a vote please show and those prepared to hear more debate please now show i think there is a feeling that we might give a few more minutes to the debate so thank you councillor Handley and thank you councillor Bradlin for your contribution on the procedure but that's the way i'm supposed to take it today now councillor dr Richard Williams you had been indicating councillor Richard Williams are you happy for councillor to me Hawkins to uh i can stop sorry it's point of clarification i don't i mean we have covered a lot of points the question is are those who still want to speak with me the same points we have heard already or are they going to be different points if they're different points then yes obviously i have i have no way of predicting that i take it on trust that members who seek to add to the debate will have some new points to raise i'm sure councillor Richard Williams who is the next speaker will have something new to say because otherwise i have faith he would not otherwise have kept his hand up councillor i've certainly got a different take on things chef from from what's been said before so i won't rehearse all the good stuff i do accept the good stuff of that engagement and all of that i won't go over that again that is good stuff i am concerned about this application um first point the fall back um in terms of the water need now i am i am concerned about the water need i think it is important with very mind that the fall back position of the housing development is not yet certain um the outline planning application as i understand