Thank you very much. Good morning everyone and welcome to this meeting of South Camershire District Council's Planning Committee. My name is Councillor Henry Bachelet and I'm the regular vice-chair of the committee, but members we had a recent change in chair. Councillor Pippa Haling stepped down from the role, and Councillor Peter Fane took the role on. Obviously Peter Fane is not here today, sent his apologies so I will be sitting in the chair as the vice-chair. But what that does mean members we do need to appoint a temporary vice-chair for this meeting. I've asked councillor Judith Ripiff if she would mind taking that on and she's willingly agreed. So, Members, is it acceptable to everyone that councillor Ripiff takes the Vice-Chair for the Meeting? Agreed? Thank you, councillor Ripiff, if you'd care to join us at the front. I would like to thank councillor Pippa Haleyings actually for her time in the chair, because it's quite a very demanding time-consuming role and she did it very ably and very professionally. And, you know, from the committee, I do thank her for her time in the role. Okay, just a bit of housekeeping members and then we'll get started. Members, please note that every, sorry, those present in the council chamber, please note that everything on your desks, including your laptop screen, is likely to be broadcast at some point. The camera follows the microphone after it's switched on, so councillors and officers are requested to wait a few seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up with the microphone. Please ensure you have switched off or silenced any devices you have, so that they do not interrupt proceedings. And if the fire alarm sounds, please do you leave the chamber and make your way down the stairs? Do you not use the elevator? The safe assembly point is next to the marketing suite halfway down the business park. Can those participating in the meeting via the live stream please indicate you wish to speak via the chat column? Please do not use the chat column for any other purpose other than indicating a desire to speak. Please make sure your device is fully charged and that you switch off your microphone unless you're invited to do so otherwise. When you're invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone and camera are switched on. When you have finished addressing the meeting, please turn off your microphone and camera immediately. Speak slowly, clearly, and please do not interrupt or talk over anyone else. Members, please note that if we need to vote on any item, we'll be doing so using the microphones in front of us. Only members that are present in the room are able to vote. Okay, committee members, so now I'm going to take a roll call. So, members, I'll call your name if you could turn your mic on. Wait a few seconds to introduce yourselves, please. So, as mentioned, my name is Councillor Henry Batch. I'm one of the councillors for Linton and I'm the usual vice-chair of this committee and the temporary vice-chair for today, Councillor Rippith. Good morning. I'm the temporary vice-chair today and a local member, sorry, councillor Judith Rippith, a local member for Milton and Ward to Beach Ward. Thank you, councillor Anna Brydman. Thank you, Chairman. I'm councillor Anna Brydman, another local member for Milton and Ward to Beach Ward. Thank you very much, councillor Dr Martin Cahn. Hello, councillor Dr Martin Cahn, one of the members of Hysdan Input in an olddrib park. Thank you, councillor Joe Sales. Thank you, Joe Sales from Melbourne. Thank you very much. Councillor Jeff Harvey is planning to be with us all, be it I understand he's running a few minutes late, so he will be joining us shortly. Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins. Good morning, everyone. Timmy Hawkins, a member for Codicot Ward. Thank you, councillor Deborah Roberts. Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, everybody. Deborah Roberts, district councillor for the Foxton Ward. Thank you, councillor Heather Williams. Morning, everybody. My name's Heather Williams and I represent the Mordans Ward. Thank you, councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you, Joe. Good morning, I'm Richard Williams. I'm the member for Wittlesford triplo heathfield and Newton. Thank you, and finally, councillor Eileen Wilson. Good morning, thank you, councillor Eileen Wilson. Member for Codicot and Mampton Ward. Thank you. So, we have a quarat meeting member, so we will be proceeding today. We also supporting the committee today. We have some officers in the room with us. On my left, Stephen Kelly is the joint director of planning. Stephen. Good morning, everyone. Thank you. We have Mike Huntingdon, who's a principal planner. Morning, everybody. Thank you. And Stephen Reed, who's our legal officer. Morning care, morning members. Thank you very much. And also joining us online, we have our democratic services officer, Lawrence Damari-Hulman, who will be clarking the meeting today. Morning chair. Yep, Lawrence Damari-Hulman, democratic services officer. Morning to all our members and officers, and thank you to our members of the public who are taking the time to speak to us today. Thank you very much. Members, if you need to leave the meeting at any point, do indicate to me, so that can be recorded in the minutes, if you would please. We'll be taking regular breaks throughout the day, dependent on where we are on the agenda, but if any members do need a break, please do indicate to me, and we'll do our best to accommodate. Thank you. Okay, members, we should have our main agenda pack, plus also a supplementary document that I believe we have paper copies of in front of us, as well as electronically. If members feel they're short of any documentation, any time again, do indicate, and we will do our best to make sure you're up to date. Okay, members, given the nature of the application we have in front of us today, I would like to propose two motions to you, if you would, and those are the same motions I proposed at the last meeting, where we looked at the first North Star application, Phase 3A, and one of those is to give them a high level of public interest in this, and the number of public speakers we've had registered, I would like to put a motion that we allow all public speakers who have registered to address the committee before us today. So I'll propose that, Councillor Heather Williams, you second? Yes, Chair, I'll second that. Thank you very much. Members, can we do that by affirmation? Great. Great, thank you very much. And second motion is the same one that we put forward last time, which I thought worked quite well, and that's how we structure the debate today. So usually we don't have questions of clarification for officers during the debate, but given that there's quite a lot of information in front of us, some of it detailed, I would like to offer members the chance after the officer's presentation to ask any questions of clarification. Also then, I would like to try and group the sections in the report when we get to the debate, so that we're a bit more focused in our discussion rather than jumping from one point to another. So they will be sections one and two, which is principle of development, land use and parameter plans, then section three, access and transport, then sections four, five, six, which is employment assessment, housing delivery and social and community infrastructure, and finally sections seven to 10, which are environmental considerations, cumulative impact, financial obligations and the planning balance. Sorry, Chair. Could you just give your whisk through those so quickly? I'd just like to mark them up. Could you just get those again? Sections one and two? One and two, yeah. Three. Three. Four, five, six. And finally, seven to 10. Thank you very much. Okay, so I would like to propose that motion to the committee, please. Would anyone care to second? Councillor Williams. Happy to second, Chair. Thank you, Members. Members in agreement. Agreed. Thank you very much. Okay, with that then, we'll move on to agenda item two, which is apologies. Lawrence, please. Thank you, Chair. We've received apologies for absence from Councillor Pippa Hailings and Councillor Peter Fane. And their subs are? Apologies. So Councillor Joes Hales and Councillor Anna Bradlam have substituted today. Great. Thank you very much. Okay, declarations of interest, Members. Do any Members have any interest to declare pecuniary or otherwise? I don't see any. Obviously, if Members. Sorry, Councillor Heather Williams. Just to say, I think last time the Greater Cambridge Park Ship came up, so just in case it does again, that I'm a member of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Assembly. Great, thank you. I think that's noted. Okay, well, Members, if any other interest become clear to you while the meeting's going on, please do indicate. And we'll take those then. Okay, with that, we'll move on to the substantive item on our agenda today, which is item four, which begins on page five of the printed agenda. And the application is North Stofaise III, be on station road in Longstanton. Excuse me. The proposal in front of us is an outline planning application for the development of North Stofaise IIIB, which comprises up to 1,000 homes, a primary school, secondary mixed use zone with associated infrastructure around it. The applicant is Holmes England. We have a raft of key material considerations that we need to discuss today, which are detailed in the agenda.  And the planning officer who'll be presenting it to us today is on the screen in front of us now, Mr Paul Ricketts. Paul, good morning. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Members. Good morning, everyone. So if you'd like to introduce your report and then hold on the line for any questions and clarification, if you would please. Thank you. We'll do. As you can see, I'm the case officer for the planning application. It is as described by the Chair, but I'll read it out now. The applications for is in outline and has been submitted by Holmes England for permission for the development of North Stowe Phase 3B comprising up to a thousand homes, a primary school, a secondary mixed use zone, which will include the following uses, retail and associated services, food and drink, community, leisure, employment and residential uses. There's also approval requested for open space and landscaped areas, engineering and infrastructure works, all matters of detailed in terms of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access are reserved for further submission and approval. This application is subject to an environmental impact assessment and has been underpinned by three parameter plans and the site plan. Phase 3B is edged in red, is approximately 47 hectares inside and is located in the northwest of North Stowe, Newtown, Phase 1. The site is bounded to the north by the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. To the east, immediately joining are the approved digital park and Endurance Estates development schemes. Further east is the Long Stanton Cambridgeshire Guided Busway station. The B1050 bounds the site to the south, beyond is the northern edge of the village of Long Stanton. The surrounding area is predominantly occupied by farmlands to the north, west and southwest of the site. The application is accompanied with the following parameter plans, land use, movement and building heights. These will now be taken in turn. Open space will be provided at the northern edge with the guided busway and to the west with the joining farmland. There will be a central area of open space focused on the existing central cops and hedgerow. A secondary mixed use zone shown hatched is proposed north of the primary school location which is shown by the star. The residential uses, coloured grey, are located throughout the site. There is proposed to be a single vehicle access point in the north, in the south, sorry, in the south eastern part of the site from the roundabout junction of the B1050 station road. Land is safeguarded to allow potential access for emergency vehicles, pedestrian and cyclists to the east into phase one. This is shown by the orange arrows. Pedestrian and cycle links and access are proposed throughout the site, again shown in orange arrows to the north and to the east at the adjoining digital park and adjoining state residential schemes. The building heights within phase 3B will be predominantly two and three stories. These are shown in yellow. A two story zone is proposed along the south eastern edge with phase one. The southern edge of the B1050 will be up to three stories. It is envisaged to provide different heights here to help with eligibility. There will be two areas within the scheme that will be up to four stories in height, a set piece green space shown in the orange circle and then more rectangular secondary mix use zone close close to the school. Site density is proposed at an overall 40 dwellings per hectare. This will be achieved using best practice urban design principles to ensure variety, interest and the sense of place. The development will secure a range of financial and unfinancial contributions to ensure that the scheme is policy compliant. Key deliverability here is the forward housing of 40% of dwellings. The planning benefits from the application proposal have been evaluated as set out in paragraph 567 to 589 of the main report. These are primarily economic, social environmental benefits. Officer recommendations that the committee agree a delegated approval to the joint director of planning and economic development of outline permission 20 forward slash 02142 forward slash out as amended subject to the planning conditions and section 106 planning obligations are set out in the committee report and amendment update sheet. This finishes my presentation. Chair, thank you. Thank you very much, Paul. Members, as mentioned at the start, we now have an opportunity for any questions of clarification for the case officer. Equally, it's probably worth noting we also have a representative from the highways department on the line and also a member from the environment agency on the line as well. Should we have any technical questions that are better placed, better directed to them. So members, over to you for any questions of clarification for the officers. Councillor Bradman, please. Thank you, Chairman. I wanted to ask two questions. One is on the heads of terms on page 111. There's reference to village traffic. It just says village traffic schemes. Initial payment for design of £10,000. But I just wanted to check how many villages does that refer to? And is it all of the surrounding villages or just one? And is it referring to the villages outside or the town itself I think it's the villages outside? And there's another question. Is, well it's, but if you feel this strays into debate that's fine. I'll ask it in debate but I just wanted to ask there does seem to be a conflict of view between for examples what the Swavesy Internal Drainage Board has said about what's adequate with drainage and elsewhere the lead local flood authority and the environment agency have said. And I just wanted to know whether we've got any clarification about which of those is to be relied upon. Okay, well I think the first one's best, the first question is sorry, is best placed. Put to Tam Parry from Highways who believes on the line. Tam, good morning. Hi, good morning everyone. Are you there? Okay. Did you manage to catch that question? Tam, you've got my heads of turns. I did thank you. Yes, yes. So it does refer to 11 villages around North Day and the money split into two portions. One for the design. Sorry Tam, one second. Sorry Tam. We've had a request for an increase in volume. Okay Tam, sorry, as you are. Sorry, is that better? Yes it is. Good. Yes, so the money is split into two segments but it's for 11 villages around North Day and there's a design sum and then a sum for measures themselves. So between phase 3a and 3b there's 900,000 in total for traffic calming in surrounding villages. So my aim is to get the money for the design early on. So on page 111 it refers to village traffic calming schemes in the plural and it refers to £180,000. But then in the comments it says village traffic schemes initial payment for design of £10,000. So does that refer to 11 villages? So that is the design money so that we can work with the villages to see what they need. So that would be an initial sum and then the remaining 180 would follow. Sorry but that is for 11 villages. In other words, rather less than £1,000. Yes I I can't find page 111 or at least the 111 I'm looking at is different to yours. Yeah. It's the third page of the heads of tomes. Okay I'll do my best to find that. I'll hand you the B tam if that helps. That does help. Let me whilst you carry on to the next item if you like shall I just find that and then dig it out? Yes please if you can come back for it. Okay we'll take your second question about the difference of views between the various drainage authorities. I'll think Mr Kelly's going to take that one. Thank you. Yes thank you chair. Um we've got the IDB here to speak later on and obviously there are questions to them. There is a an objection from the IDB. There isn't an objection from the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority. I think it's probably a matter for debate rather than clarification at the moment. I think it's probably helpful to hear from the IDB and indeed the applicants on this before we discuss it further. That's fine. Thank you. I'll save it for debate. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams please and then Hawkins. Thank you chair. I think it's safe to talk now. It was just if we could have perhaps a slide up again because one of the things that lots of local members are raising is around the heights along the B1050 I believe. So just wondering because it's quite difficult. The colours are very very similar. On things. So if we could just have highlighted where the two story buildings are in essence. Is this the diagram? That's this. So I don't know who's sharing that Lawrence or Paul if you could just maybe indicate roughly where the two story buildings will be. It is in the yellow chair members. So where the indication is it so along the B1050 going a bit too high there Lawrence. Come down. But it's where the yellow is. So there's two different colours here. The yellow predominantly or I'm calling it yellow. You may call it something else. And then there's like an orange peach. So there's two into the two areas that that rectangular and then the circle is four stories up to four stories. And the rest is two to three stories. Does that help? I think Mr Kelly wants to come in on this as well. Yes. So so the vast majority of the site is fair to say is up to three stories. And what you perhaps doesn't come across so well in our screens is that the area bounding the previously built phase one development that you can see in the bottom right hand corner both the northern side of that and the western side. So where that red cursor is now are two stories. And then the two kind of brown darker colour areas are up to four stories. But hopefully that's helpful. The area along the 1050 is three up to three stories in terms of its form, which is where obviously you've seen comments in the report where people are concerned about that. Thank you, Tam. I saw you appeared a few seconds ago. Are you ready to respond to the question from Councillor Bradlin? Yes. Yes. So the money from phase three B works very much together with the money from phase three A. From everything that I understand from the applicant, three B is following from three A. So we've got 40,000 from three A for the design work with villages and 10,000 from three B for the design work with villages. So that sum of 10,000 is correct. OK. 10,000 is for three B. Yes. Is for three B, yeah. Yes. Thank you, Tam. OK. Next question of clarification. Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins, but before it's probably worth noting, Councillor Harvey's now joined us and that was at 10.20 just for the minutes. Thank you. Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. Through you. Actually, my question kind of relates to the first question that Councillor Bradlin asked and is on paragraph 441 on page 76, which talks about impact of surface water. Arrangement being undertaken and agreed with the IDB, the EA and the LLFA. But then there's objections from the IDB. So, sorry, I just had this big question mark on this paragraph. I don't understand what it's talking about. Paragraph 441, page 76. Thank you, Chair. I think there are two issues here. The IDB are here. This morning. I think in terms of the surface water scheme, so the scheme for designing surface water discharge, I think there is broad agreement about the system that's being proposed. I think where the fundamental, there is a question mark about whether that surface water disposal normally you hold water onto a site to manage runoff rates. But I think the hydrology of the swavesy drain is such that there's a question about whether or not it's better to actually discharge water faster whilst those other effectively held bodies of water elsewhere that feed into the swavesy drain happen. I think the purpose is the drainage conditions to try and manage that discussion and the further design process. Where the IDB differ, I think, and the basis for their objection, I'm sure Mr Willisbyn can help you when he gives his presentation, is in the issues surrounding up and strove and the consequences of foul water treatment for the management of the waters in the swavesy drain. So I think that's the reason for the difference at this moment in time. Okay, thank you for that. Next question from Councillor Cahn, please. The question for Pam, really. It's about highways. The proposal is for a single access of a roundabout, which is on the B1 and 50 nearly at the main north-stow end of the development. There's also another roundabout at the other end. I just wondered what the considerations were and why they had chosen not to have two accesses and including an access, direct access to the roundabout which might provide for those people that are using a more direct access and produce less traffic. I just wondered what the considerations are. I can see the 1s plus and minus and I just wondered why you thought about that. Okay, well, time's appeared on our screens. Hopefully you'll be able to respond to that. Fingers crossed. Yes, we did discuss that with the applicant, but where the first roundabout is, which I think is the one you mean to the left-hand side of the site, that's not actually the land between there and the site isn't within the ownership of the applicant. So it wasn't possible for them to put a vehicle of access from that roundabout into the site. So that's why there's the one access from the roundabout proposed. In terms of the internal layout, would it be possible to provide provisions so that one could perhaps be put at a future date if it would be necessary? That wouldn't be outlined, but I just... I don't think the parameter plan allows for that because the parameter plan has an area of green area to the left-hand side, I think. So I think that's ruled out. Dresden's appeared. Okay, I think Mr Kelly does want to have a brief comment as well. Thank you. Hello. Yes, just to highlight that obviously the current parameter boundaries of phase 3B are consistent with your local plan policy. The area of land that Tam refers to is outside of the local plan boundary for the development and obviously would be a departure to bring that land forward from your local plan. And I think that's the reason why the parameter plans at this stage would not reflect because they would imply an extension of your local plan, which isn't necessary in our view, but obviously limits the access options Thank you for that. And we have Councillor Richard Williams, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. A couple of questions. They are slightly dependent on each other. The first is it concerns the hydrology and particularly the impact on the River Terrace deposit. The representation we've got from Longstanton notes the 1-2m drop in groundwater levels, but it notes also that the baseline data that's calculated from dates from a time after dewatering of North Stowe. So my first question for clarification is is it there for the case of that 1-2m drop that I think we talked about in the other application we dealt with on this site relatively recently is on top of the dewatering? And if so, could we get some figures on the total level of fall in the water line on the River Terrace to deposit as between its natural state and what it will be afterwards? And then I think that the environmental impact assessment seems to regard the impact as not significant or I'm not sure it looked specifically at the impact on the River Terrace deposit. So could we get a bit of clarification as to what exactly the environmental impact says about this and whether it in fact looked at it at all? Thank you. Thank you. I think we're going to come to Mr Kelly first then we'll probably throw over to the environment agency after that. Thank you, chair. Yes, so the significance in terms of the environmental impact assessment it did look at the underlying ground conditions in this site which are different to the case for 3A in terms of the boundaries of the River Terrace deposits and the River Terrace deposits in this part of the site I understand are in a different relationship with the ground so that they're they're in cases deeper. What the application and environmental assessment has done is it's considered monitoring it's currently undertaking monitoring of groundwater levels on the site and they have produced a piece of a report that was a supplement to the planning application that discusses effectively the implications for groundwater. Their conclusions at this moment in time is partly because only approximately 40% of the site is underlain by the River Terrace deposits the whole western end is not and the depth of those River Terrace deposits are different. They're between they're much closer to the surface in relation to 3 into phase one and elsewhere they're a bit deeper in this case. They do come relatively close to surface is that the impact will be less significant and it certainly won't extend beyond the boundaries of site 3a sorry 3b What the conditions propose on the basis of that and Mr Ireland might be able to come in from the environmental agency but what the conditions propose is based on existing monitoring and I know there's some comments have been made about well is that monitoring information up to date and so on but based upon the existing monitoring that is pre-development any implications from de-watering will then be able to be assessed and although it's quite the ground is quite impermeable and the water flood risk assessment the water assessment concludes that the conveyance of a lot of that water from that impermeable area away from the site in formal surface water drainage will limit the amount of recharge of the groundwater aquifer. There is a perceived limited impact beyond the site boundaries and as I said there is a monitoring regime in place to make sure that any de-watering and the implications on groundwater in the river teres deposits is addressed. I don't know if Mr Ireland can comment further I'm sure the applicants will also be able to give further clarity on this when they speak. Sure. Adam, good morning. Good morning, chef. Good morning everyone. Good morning everybody. Any comments on that particular point? I was nodding as Mr Kelly was speaking there really in terms of being a lot different to the 3a site that we discussed the other week notably in terms of the hydrogeological connectivity between the various deposits across the wider area and very much is in more more isolation and hence the the conditioning requirements for the monitoring on the site itself but no Mr Kelly is correct in terms of his assessment there and in terms of the yes the ongoing monitoring and obviously addressing that through the conditions going forward. Is that, I couldn't remember is that covering your questions or no? Well all very helpful very useful I don't really get an answer to the two direct questions I asked but whether it is the case that that fall in the water because I know those comments do relate to 3a I'm sure you're right about that. Does that apply to 3b that the one to two meter drop would be from the dewatering level or not or does that not apply to 3b it only applies to 3a? I don't think in fact for the purposes of Mike Mark correct me for the purposes of this environmental assessment they make the same conclusions as they do for the previous 3a. One of the important distinctions between this site and 3a is that in fact the groundwater and water flows in a different direction so the water flows north westwards from all of 3b and it flows in a different location. I think the previous report that was referred to an accompanied application for 3a indicated a one to two meter impact from dewatering in this case because the river terrace deposits are deeper there's a question mark about whether there will be a need for dewatering in quite the same way because of the level river terrace deposits go down to around five meters before you hit them and so my understanding is that there isn't a forecast of a reduction in groundwater levels although perhaps it's a question to ask the one of the speakers who is the drainage specialist for the applicant when they speak. Okay thank you for that we have councillor Wilson please Bridget. Thank you chair. Bridget. I'm looking at empyrograph 331 on page 58 about the gypsy and traveller provision at new communities and it says that an assessment was carried out in 2016 and identified no need for gypsy and traveller pitches during the plan period but we've seen several times year after year unauthorised encampments setting up on people and travellers and gypsies being shunted from place to place and I'm quite concerned that we're saying that there's no need to make provision for them we had an encampment in our village last year and it was quite distressing to the travellers themselves being pushed from pillar to posts and I wonder how no need was identified when this is something that happens on a regular as a regular column Thank you. Thank you I think Mr Kelly is going to take this one as well. In relation to gypsy and traveller needs across the district as a whole the 2016 survey didn't identify a substantial need partly because you might recall the government changed the definition as part of that needs assessment we're in the process delayed unfortunately by Covid at the moment of identifying need for the next local plan process what our policies say for the accommodation of gypsy and traveller need and obviously we'll work closely with the housing team once we get the study is that in certain circumstances some of that need might be met on strategic sites as well as in locations across the district at this moment in time there's no policy requirement to make explicit allocation on the back of the needs assessment that we have obviously as I think the report sets out this site is not expected to come forward until some time towards the end of the decade and obviously we're working with the housing team on the housing mix and the housing needs we may well need to incorporate future need into either this or any of our other strategic sites but right now there isn't an identified need that we would suggest means that we need to safeguard land in this site Do you want to come back? No, thank you for that explanation Thank you Councillor Bradman I've got a question mark next to your name Do you want to come back on anything? Thank you chair I was refraining because of the suggestion that this would be better covered under debate but I just wanted to clarify that there is a discontinued there's a disagreement in the report because in paragraphs 185 to 187 the SWEVC IDB object to the application that's on my paper page 38 but in paragraphs 163 and 164 the lead local flood authority basically say it's okay and in paragraph 175 the environment agency says it's okay but then when you go on as Councillor Hawkins does a paragraph 441 the IDB there's this weird statement that well no sorry it's a perfectly acceptable statement but I don't understand it that the IDB would prefer to see water discharged quickly this is 441 paragraph the IDB would prefer to see water discharged quickly into the SWEVC drain such that it can enter the river grey two system in advance of peak flows so presumably what Mr Kelly was saying the peak flows would come when the suds basins were full so what they're saying is initial surface water needs to go off into the drain so it can go out to the grey tws but the problem is and has always been that at websholes loose if the river is high because of the tide or because of prevailing weather conditions it can't get out there so I know there are monies in place to improve the websholes loose but the concern would be how is that going to work that the IDB would prefer to see it discharged quickly in conditions when it can go out but what about when it can't go out and then presumably the slower impact of water from the sud systems would come when it's been held on the land for a while and I can see it says Swaybacy has generally Swaybacy internal drainage board has basically agreed that with the EA and the LFA but it just says should such a solution not be achieved due to for example the maintenance of the off-site watercourse then it's proposed that existing greenfield run-off rates are currently you know are maintained so there's a huge need to get this right and I'm not sure I understand how it's intended to be done there's a disagreement within the report about whether it's okay or not I'm sorry if this is really kind of debatish stuff but I think Mr Kelly's going to come back I think there are there are a number of I mean I think you might want to ask some of these questions to the applicants but in essence you're right there is broad consensus around the surface water drainage strategy between the IDBEA and LLFA and the applicants and the conditions that I think we've put in in place seek to recognise that the decisions about whether it's rapid discharge or it's effectively slowed discharge can be made in due course the difference between the LLFA as I said earlier and the EA and the IDBEA relate fundamentally to concerns I think around foul water so in this respect in terms of surface water management but there is broad agreement you're right there may well be investments required as part of the surface water strategy for Webtoil's Loose as well as for the Swavesy Drain and that's a matter that the IDBEA and Angli Water and EA will need to explore us as they go forwards we can't offer certainty around any more certainty around that and that's the purpose of the planning conditions I think is to try and make sure that that solution in due course is is a solution that is addressed that yeah that's sorry the applicant can also set out how they're approaching this with those parties if necessary because in here we know don't we and it repeats it in a number of places but most notably in the reason for 33 surface water infrastructure works is you know we're not allowed to increase the risk of flooding downstream to you know by the virtue of any development we might or might not give approval for so that's the concern that if the drainage system was not able to release the water into the great ooze that's the problem isn't it look I'm sure we'll you're entitled to rely upon the advice of the agencies in this in this matter because it is a very technical issue and what what the report highlights is that on this point there is unanimity in terms of there is a appropriate resolution to account I can see the conditions are very comprehensive okay thank you thank you for that and councillor Khan please a lot of the points were brought up actually in what the council random said but something that just worries me is the the fact that the site is only four and a half meters above sea level which with the sea level range in wash I think it's something around between five and seven meters which means that you're not far off high tide level we're predicting by the end of the century a sea level rise around a meter maybe wall which means that you're talking about reducing the the ground water level by one and a half meters so perhaps two and a half meters you're talking about quite a long period of time actually the water levels the ground water levels being below high tide level is there a question of clarity no yeah there is the question I wanted to know is of what to what extent the problems of rising sea level and have a what period of time the provision is being made to talking about houses which are likely to last probably 150 years you're talking therefore problems in the future may be quite serious it would be that the period of time of which you are unable to discharge could be really very long period of time if the tide level is that much higher because you're raising the base level at which the river goes and therefore the period of tide the water backs up the river having more deep position problems are clearing than we have had so I just wanted to to the extent to which that has been taken into account okay I don't know who wants to take that one Stephen or maybe Mr Ireland Adam are you online hi sorry yeah did you get that around rising sea levels and have that been taken into your consideration it will have done in terms of the fact that the the surface water drainage from the site itself and again hopefully the applicants will be able to address this later on as well but there'll also be the requirement for the surface water drainage system to effectively consume its own smoke in terms of have sufficient capacity to deal to accommodate the volume flood water that comes from the impermeable areas to be discharged so within the site itself there will be that need for for those appropriate areas and volumes of retention also factoring in the issue of climate change as well you're right in terms of the amount of and the rates of discharge and also was alluded to by councillor Bradnham there as well that there will be issues relating to how it's engineered in terms of how quickly we can get away what's the what's the formal engineering which will be addressed believed via the via the conditions thank you for that Adam okay Members that concludes all our questions of clarification for officers so we'll now move Stephen sorry chair just to say that as councillor Harvey joined following the initial presentation my recommendation is that he's not able to vote in relation to this matter I suppose that's down to councillor Harvey ultimately whether he does or not but yeah you've heard a recommendation but you know please do feel free to so join in with the debate regardless the the presentation was relatively brief and councillor Harvey didn't miss very much of it and will have read most of it if he's read the papers I mean it is completely up to councillor Harvey whether he feels in a position to be able to vote on it or not I trust him to make that choice himself so yeah welcome anyway Jeff okay with that members we'll move to our public speakers we will start with Mr Keith Wildersbyn who's from the IDB so all those questions we had a second ago might be might be an opportunity to ask the IDB directly Mr Wildersbyn good morning good morning so I think you're probably familiar with the process by now three minutes to address the committee and at the end of which I'm sure there'll be some questions for yourself so if you wouldn't mind staying seated at the end that'll be that'll be helpful thank you so if the IDB has responsibility for the drainage of the eternal drainage district in Swayvesey we also manage the maintenance of the environment agency drains in Swayvesey including the up and strove on Swayvesey drains we therefore believe we have the best understanding of the drainage system government planning policy is that cumulative impacts of flooding on local areas which are susceptible flooding should be taken into account that advice from relevant flood risk authorities such as IDBs should be taken with regard to proposed 3Bs sorry according to joint EA south council district council flood risk assessment study Swayvesey has 195 properties at risk from flooding with regard to the proposed 3B surface water discharge into the Swayvesey drain which joins the great ooze at websholes loose please note that websholes loose can be closed for periods of up to four weeks on a regular basis no discharge can be made at these times from the Swayvesey area into the river therefore any extra discharges of water from the development will impact on Swayvesey village this will obviously get worse with climate change as a minimum we believe that the north stow 3B development should be conditioned in the same way as two sites in Swayvesey village this provides for onsite storage for the extra site generated volume of water while websholes loose is closed the EA have agreed that a telemetry system for this will be installed at websholes loose this telemetry has a capacity at four six sites the strategy on the two sites was conditioned by the greater Cambridge planning authority and subsequently by a government inspector on dealing with appeals council Hawkins has knowledge of this condition Adam Island it appears did not later this week I have a site meeting to look at issues around the discharges into the Swayvesey drain with the great regional flood defence manager and I believe Adam will be in attendance and also in attendance will be a member of the regional flood defence committee the applicants gave assurances that a planning application would not be submitted before the IDB had signed it off there have been no meaningful discussions with the developers or their agents since January 2019 the sustainability officer and the lead local authority have stated the IDB should agree with the discharge rate and the EA have expressed concerns about the proposed scheme members will have seen their objection document dated 18 February 2021 I hope they will also have seen the document stated dated 19 June 2020 and 16 July 2020 Can you start concluding please? Sorry? If you could come to a conclusion please We believe in an Austo fleet 3B flood risk assessment is flawed I expressed our concern with the far water discharges from this site into the Swayvesey volume limited channel Stantec quoted that figure not me at the north Sto3A planning meeting on Friday the 28th of January note please 3B houses were not modelled into the LDS 239 litres per second capacity this needs to be addressed Thank you we near the end In conclusion we believe the drainage proposal from the developers are flawed and should be rejected until further work is done with consultation between developers the EAE the planning authority and the IDB the same was undertaken on phases 1, 2 and 3 of north Sto to enable more sustainability proposals to be worked on The extra flood risk to homes in Swayvesey is a grave concern we believe far too important to leave the delegated powers Thank you for your attention Thank you very much Okay members questions or clarification for the IDB councillor Hawkins and then Ratnam Thank you chair and through you Thank you for your presentation A couple of questions for me at this point you said that the sluice is closed for about four weeks Is that four weeks I mean how often does this happen and why It happens dependent on the river levels the Great East River levels if the river levels are high the sluice is closed and therefore the levels in the Swayvesey coming in to down the Swayvesey catchment flood over the Swayvesey area and until those flood levels raise as high as they use the doors can't open until the use drops Can you give me an example say last year 2021 how often that happened Over the Christmas period it happened on two occasions but both for approximately four weeks the environment agency could give you the exact figures of the opening closing of the doors Okay so this is what causes the risk to the 195 houses as you mentioned Yeah Second question for me is there was this meeting that should have occurred which said was agreed will take place Have you been given any reason why it hasn't between all the organisations I don't know that wasn't that wasn't the decision I could make We have pressed for these meetings of all this these organisations but they haven't happened Thank you Councillor Bratton please Thank you chair and thank you very much Mr Wilderspin I also wanted to pick up on that I wanted to understand what was the agreement you said that the developer said promised that they wouldn't submit the application until an agreement had been come to between the SWAVC IDB and the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency and can you just clarify again for us what that agreement was supposed to secure The agreement was supposed to secure the fact that any discharges from this site wouldn't make matters worse in SWAVC The developers have have taken the early discharge of water out of context This was to be aligned with an exemplar management system of the SWAVC drain so that the waters could get out early which isn't there at the moment especially down at the discharge end near Webb's Hole and we also said that once that discharge had taken place because we could have further precipitations while the doors were closed that the site should be capable of retaining all the water from that site until such time as the doors opened again In other words we wanted to clear as much water from the site as we could so that it didn't have to store all the original storm but then the doors then they wouldn't be able to discharge until the doors opened again Yes and I'm very aware that during 2020 we had a similar problem where it was possible but only because of pumping to discharge into the river Cam from my area because the river of course you'll know folks is higher than the surrounding land so do you know if any agreement has been made for this storage basically this would be deliberate flooding of land because you cannot pump it out at the Webb's Hole's Loose do you know if any discussions have been had about that at all making provision for that online storage No all it appears that the developers wish to store is the normal rate that would happen on the site that wasn't constrained as far as it is and I think that's all they're prepared to store Thank you very much Mr Wildersman Thank you very much We have a question of Councillor Roberts and then Harley Thank you Chairman and through you Chairman to our participant Can you tell me I think you said that it was something like nearly 200 houses in the village had the potential for flooding Is it across the village or is it in one specific area of the village that you think that that possibility could occur please It is actually through the middle of the village and it doesn't only affect the 198 properties it also affects electricity substation gas governor and the sewage pumping station which would affect a far bigger area than 195 houses Thank you and then Councillor Harvey please So Just interested though in terms of a long-term climate change mitigation is it feasible to install a pump at the point so that we can clear the water when the sluice is closed There is already a pump at Webb's Hall sluice but that pump is solely to deal with the sewage discharges from we discussed this at the last meeting The problem is if we have further surface water entering the system while that pump is running it impacts on its ability to pump the foul water flows that it was designed to do and the only way that you could make it better is to put in a massively larger pump than the one that is already there Thank you Fett and Councillor Richard Williams please Thank you chair Thank you Mr Wildersman I just want to ask you a very quick question If this application goes ahead as planned without any of the mitigations you've talked about can you just give us an indication of the likelihood that you think that we're going to see significant problems from certain to very likely to possible I think it is very likely because of the last especially because of the last comment so I made it it's going to impact on the effects of the pump that is already designed to pump the water from the foul water flows of course the foul water flows are complete cross-catchment flows and are not the slavisee system was not designed to take that in the first place anyway Thank you Thank you and another question from Councillor Hawking that's pleased Thank you chair for letting me come back Mr Wildersman when we're making your statement you did mention I couldn't quite write it quickly enough a potential condition that you thought would be appropriate can you remind us what that was In slavisee there are two sites that are conditioned to once the doors at Wedgesoul slues are closed those sites have to store all the water from from that they generate on their sites until such time as the slues opens incidentally this is also what happens on phase one two and three A of North Stoke because they are conditioned that those the system there if the outfall from those systems is in flood they cannot discharge Does that answer your question No Do you want to rephrase Sorry I don't understand if it doesn't answer your question what it is you want to know I think there are two things there you answered a different question Maybe I misunderstood I thought you were requiring us to put a condition on this if we were to go ahead with it Did you? Or did I misunderstand that? Yeah No I did I said that was that was a minimum of what we thought would be required and that condition is that the 3B site should retain all its flows of water until such time as the web's whole slues opens Is that what your answer is? I think that's what he was Thank you Okay thank you Councillor Brandon please But in addition to that Mr Wildersbyn I think I sketched down very quickly I think you also mentioned the following and I just wanted to clarify whether you thought these would be useful additional conditions This was for the telemetry at the web's whole slues you said there was a six site monitoring system but then later on you said it wasn't there yet so that's one thing the telemetry at the web's whole slues you've also mentioned separately perhaps we need a much bigger pump because you said that the existing pump is simply to deal with the foul water sorry the sewage outflow and and then you went on to the fact that the developer had promised that they wouldn't submit their application until that was agreed so do we also need a condition dealing with telemetry and thirdly a very much bigger pump What happened? The two sites in Swavesy village were conditioned as I've described and unfortunately one of those developers went ahead with developing their site without consulting the environment agency on how this the telemetry from their site would work and we now find ourselves in the situation where there is a hold up on the telemetry for the one of those sites so therefore I know the telemetry isn't in site in place at the moment but it is supposed to be being put in place there are legal agreements going forward at the moment I think obviously two of those sites have been taken by the two sites in Swavesy so that their telemetry can link up with the EA's telemetry that leaves four more sites so perhaps what we need to consider is a condition to ensure that the telemetry is in place before this development goes ahead yes is the short answer to that but I mean there was a condition there before on the other side and they just didn't so that the conditions that are already in place are enacted before this development goes ahead yeah yeah okay and what about the very big pump idea my concern at the moment is that as I mentioned cumulative effects is a big concern to us at the moment the IDB on pre-planning applications is talking about further 50 hectares of industrial site the parish council have talked about another site which is another 20 hectares of industrial site so you can see where I'm going we have the plan for the next greater Cambridge plan whatever it's called which is probably going to put the most of their development in the north Stowe area the surface water from that could possibly or no not coming down into the slavisy system could come down the other side of the slavisy system in what we call the covald drain and the foul sewage could come through to swipe through to up and drove in slavisy as well so cumulative effects are going to probably destroy everything we might do now so in the future I don't know what the answer is so if I make sure I'll stop after this so the rain is the same and so the incident rain from rainfall and surface water is the same whether it's developed or not it just depends the speed with which the water goes into the drain is affected by the development but what development brings onto the site is sewage requirements so that will put more pressure on the up and drove system won't it so you're looking to the future about this larger pump sewage flows will put more pressure on obviously but also surface water puts more pressure on if I if I had a plant pot here a big plant pot and I get a glass of water and I pour it in that big plant pot you won't see any effect on this table if I get that same glass of water and pour it on this table that water is going to run straight off the table that is the difference with how water flow comes into an area so it's we're talking about the speed of discharge into the drain relative to ground falling on the ground okay thank you that's fine thank you okay I think that's all the questions of clarification for Mr Wilderspin so we say thank you again for your time and answering all the questions and with that we'll move to our next public speaker who's joining us online Mr Daniel Fulton are you with us Mr Fulton yes chair thank you good morning I believe you're probably familiar with the process public speaking three minutes to address the committee and at the end of which there may be some questions of clarification for yourself so if you'd stay on the line that'd be helpful okay thank you so I've been working on these two north throat planning applications for the past month the local planning authority has created a lot of problems for itself with the poor quality of its officers report which are completely full of contradictions just looking at one paragraph 452 says that the impacts on the local terrorist deposit are not assessed because they're a are assessed as not significant and are not within the not within the environmental impact assessment so it's obviously been recognized that the impacts on groundwater both locally at the river terrorist deposit and in terms of drinking water abstraction in the cam chalk aquifer are material planning considerations the amount of time that this committee has spent debating them at the last meeting is indicative of just how important the primacy of these planning considerations is and yet for key material planning considerations to be assessed as not significant in the scope of the 2017 environmental impact assessment regulations simply just is not it doesn't make any sense how can something that is a material planning consideration and environmental impact not be significant enough to require assessment under the EIA regulations that's the first point the second is that friends of the cam have written to Mr Kelly several times now asking him to clarify a number of factual statements he said about the cam chalk aquifer at the last meeting no response has been received there was a time when this council would engage with groups and try to correct records and try to correct matters that have been mistaken on the records and try to do the best it could to put factual information before the committee um the council is no longer doing that and I don't know if that's because of staffing problems or exactly what the political dynamics are but there are a lot of problems here the last thing I'll just add is I'm extremely concerned by the inadequacy of the assessment for provided by the environment agency the environment agency was has apparently not considered the HR Wallingford reports as part of its review of the environmental impact assessment because they were not provided to the environment agency as part of the environmental impact assessment process whether or not the environmental impact assessment is adequate is first in the first instance a matter for the planning judgment of the local planning authority that is the 11 members of the committee and I think the facts are pretty clear on this I'm also extremely concerned at the amount of influence that Holmes England has with the environment agency it pains me to say this but I just the environment agency seems to be ignoring all of the environmental information that is inconvenient for Holmes England and this is something that will obviously have to be addressed at the national government level but I'm just very concerned thank you for for listening to me today thank you very much Mr Fulton members do you have any questions of clarification for Mr Fulton no I don't see any so yeah just leaves me say thank you very much for your comments this morning and we'll move to our next public speaker who again is joining us virtually Mr Bruce Robjans Mr Robjans are you with us hopefully yeah we can hear you we can't see you if you can't get the camera to work it's not a huge issue as long as we can hear you yeah there we go we've got you okay great so as with the other public speakers three minutes to make your case to the committee and then at the end of which if you'd like to stay on the line in case there's any questions of clarification for yourself okay so I'm Bruce Robjans from sorry Mr Robjans as you were I'm a Willingham resident and the first thing you wanted to talk about was shops or the lack of them all of the phases show shops on their details but with more than a thousand residents in the first phases they still haven't got a shop if they need a pint of milk they've got to get in the car we shouldn't be allowing any more houses without at least a few shops and you can prevail on the developers to do something about that secondly is GP provision all of the residents at present have to use the surgery at Longstanson and this hasn't got any GPs either those GPs come from William we shouldn't be having any more houses without GPs on site I listened to the presentation for phase 3a and like a lot of other residents was horrified what I heard especially when you wave that application through I've heard nothing about sustainable drainage you've allowed the developers to concre over half of Cambridge when this isn't necessary you could be using permeable paving in lots of these areas and then you wouldn't be putting so much water into drains you could be having rainwater harvesting and there could be solar panels on every house if you ask for it but they're just being allowed to do as they like that's mainly what I wanted to say thank you thank you very much for that and there may be some questions of clarification for you members do we have any councillor Hawkins thank you chair thank you very much for your presentation I just wanted to check with really you you are aware that this is not the permanent sort of put it this way this is a planning permission for the development to go ahead as a whole but the details will be with the reserve matters application later on so issues like permeable paving rainwater harvesting solar panels these are details that will come later on with the further planning permission for reserve matters are you aware of that I am but I'm just looking to what you've already allowed to be built and these things are not happening it didn't happen on the on phase one it didn't happen on any of the bits that are where people have now moved into so are we going to make the same mistakes again okay I hear you thank you thank you councillor Brandon thank you Mr Rogers if I hope I've got your name right I wondered whether you'd seen paragraph 164 of the planning application which does reflect a requirement a future requirement for permeable paving in fact it refers to it the other way round it says that the site is split into two catchments which both drain northwards to the swavy sea drain and impermeable areas across the site will be limited to 62% for residential partials so that leaves 38% will be permeable then it says it will be limited to 40% for schools so that would leave 60 as being permeable and then it will be limited to 100% for primary and secondary streets so none of those would be permeable so there is provision for permeable paving and I like you I'm very keen that we should put as much permeable paving in as possible but I just wondered if that reassures you at all well I'm afraid you know what's happened already doesn't give me any reassurance at all that the bits that are permeable are things like claim films the roads and the parking areas are not permeable and they could be I know it's more expensive but developers don't want to do it and you have the opportunity to make them do it and thank you that you're making a point that I was going to make in debate so thank you very much no uh okay thank you mr Reuben I think there's all the questions for yourself so thank you very much for your time this morning and for giving us your thoughts thank you for the opportunity okay we'll move on to the next section of our public speakers which are which is the applicant so I'm hoping we have joining us online mr Michael Bottomley who's the agent hello good morning hi morning mr Bottomley and I believe you're also joined by your drainage consultant from Arcadis is that right yes that's correct I'm going to introduce the majority of our statement and then pass over to Maddie at the end to introduce herself and answer any questions about drainage okay that's great thank you very much so the usual three minutes and then there'll probably be some questions for you at the end of that so if you could both stay on the line that'll be helpful thank you great thank you very much so thank you for the opportunity to speak today my name is Michael Bottomley and I'm a planning consultant for Tibboards representing Homes England Homes England our non-departmental public body sponsored by the department of levelling up housing and communities Homes England's role is to accelerate the delivery of housing across England to provide more people to ensure more people have better access to homes in the right places this means that as a public sector master developer Homes England are seeking to deliver also in the public interest Phase 3B is a fully allocated housing site and will deliver the final 1,000 homes within the new town The preparation of the outline planning application and the prince forces development include a focus on delivering a healthy and sustainable community with affordable housing and open space Phase 3B is located to the north of the B1050 with the sediment edge of Longstanton adjoining the southern edge of the carrot way A defined building edge will be introduced along the B1050 to create an outward looking instinctive engines to north stone whilst at the same time incorporating setback elements and appropriate green space and landscaping Primarily access to the site will be a vine improved roundabout and the master plan process proposes a network of pedestrian and cycle paths to provide direct and legible routes across the site and into phase one Biodiversity net gain will exceed policy requirements and green space will occupy a third of the site as well as protecting existing trees and hedgerows Phase 3B has rigorously followed the environmental impact assessment process with the scope agreed with the district council and county councils and other statutory consultees to ensure that the likely effects of the praise development on the environment are understood and taken into account The drainage strategy for the site will result in inherent betterment attenuation provided on site will minimise a runoff to the mean and annual greenfield runoff rates but up to and including a 1 in 200 year rainfall event plus 40% climate change in line with best practice Over and above this the proposals allow for additional storage to include constituency for higher rainfall events In terms of potential groundwater connectivity within the eastern third of the site only management strategies are proposed such as discharging groundwater locally following any license dewatering It is unlikely that the development of Phase 3B will affect groundwater levels on the adjoining land Val drainage arrangements have been agreed with Anglian water and water supply has been secured for the whole of north stay The technical team who worked on the proposals are on hand to answer your questions including Janis Hughes who is the project director for technical environmental and transport matters Dean Harris who's the planning manager for Homes England Philip Harker who's the infrastructure leader to Homes England Katia Sillow who's the urban designer and master planner and I'd also like to introduce Drange expert Madeline Davies Hi all Maddie Davies from Arcadis on behalf of Homes England so I'll be on hand today to deal with all the queries you've got in relation to drainage and groundwater Thank you That's great thank you very much for that Okay members so any questions of clarification for the applicant or their drainage consultants who's on hand Councillor Roberts then Williams Thank you Chairman and to you Chairman Good morning In the public interest Interesting statement really Is it really in the public interest? Have you listened and I'm sure you have this morning to the concerns of the experts the local experts internal drainage board regarding the possibility of major flooding in Swayvesley itself These people are not amateurs They have intense and personal knowledge of the land situation around Swayvesley over Willingham which is a very special situation Can you tell me how much concern have you got with the information that was relayed to us by the internal drainage board I'm not sure who wants to take that but if any odd you want to comment Shall I take that one Mike? I do You're on mute Dean You're muted Mr Harris Apologies Dean Harris from Homes England just on hand to answer questions and direct them to our consultant team I was going to ask Maddie to answer that question please Yeah that's fine We've liased with the IDB previously and we are aware of the concerns with flood risk to Swayvesley On that basis we've developed a drainage strategy that's according to the requirements of the MPPA it's in line with best practice as agreed I think you've previously said with both the LLFA and the EA the discussions we've had with the IDB previously are that they would like water to be discharged out of their wider catchment at a faster rate than the mean annual greenfield runoff rates which is best practice and limiting it limiting runoff to be in line with the current greenfield runoff rates That is something that we've said we can look to explore further and has been conditioned so we can see what the impacts of letting water off the site at a quicker rate could be downstream and that's something that will work with them through the conditions of the site to try and achieve If letting the water out at a higher rates increases the flood risk downstream in Swayvesley that's obviously a concern which is why we have the current strategy of mimicking existing greenfield runoff rates Okay I think councillor Roberts wants to come back You said that you've previously had discussions with the internal drainage board but to my recollection the internal drainage board one of the things that it was very concerned about was the fact that they haven't of late had any meetings at all by and sounds it never mind meetings of any importance Now this is a really serious worry I'm sure to myself and lots of my colleagues who know Swayvesley in that area very well and it seems to me why are you jumping ahead of the gun I mean this has got to be talked about very seriously and in some depth and I would have suggested before you put in this application and started running the air that you should have actually had much more debate with the internal debt drainage board why are you putting this forward now when there is obviously such concern from experts about the impact it seems to me that you're just totally ignoring it you're talking about you know oh best best best means etc but you know in reality and you're not just sort of barging this through So a question around consultation there I think I'm not sure who'd like to answer that Yes me chair the application has been under consideration for almost two years now and the master plan has been in preparation for over four years so there has been considerable dialogue tens of meetings of all the different and stakeholders and so there is a housing crisis which we are working to resolve but we appreciate that development needs to be sustainable and the impact on the joining communities needs to be considered hence that level of engagement and collaboration which has been undertaken over the the last few years and will continue to be undertaken as detailed proposals are put together assuming planning permission is course quaranted Okay So building houses is more important than houses and people who already live there being flooded Okay I don't think you need to come back on that Thank you Councillor Richard Williams please Thank you chair I've got three points really just following on about the internal range board it references made earlier to an undertaking that had been given that plans wouldn't be brought forward until there was an agreement with the IDB I was wondering if you could comment on why that didn't happen Secondly one of the things that's been suggested picked up by a few other members is that it might at least in part be possible to address this through a condition requiring the water to be kept on this site at the points where it can't be discharged I'd welcome your reaction to that and whether you'd be comfortable with such a condition and then thirdly to pick up the point I was talking about earlier with the River Terrace deposits and the aquifer Now the eastern 40% or so of this site is on the secondary aquifer the middle part or most of the western part is on this Amphill play which seems to be unproductive I have looked at the Arcadius report or the note from January and it talks as Mr Kelly ref runs earlier about the water level being 4 to 5 meters lower but can I get a bit of clarity as to where on the site that those readings come from because from reading your report and the different make-up and structure of the clay to the aquifer I would imagine that there would be different readings in different parts of the site if I read your report correctly so a value bit of clarity on that and maybe as well on the question I asked earlier as to whether it there is going to be any what the cumulative impact would be on the water levels here particularly on that eastern side where it's above the aquifer Thanks I think three questions there again I'll leave it up to you three to decide who's going to answer which Thanks Chair They all sound quite technical to me I'm going to leave that to the expert Maddie Davies if that's okay Yeah that's fine Okay so to answer the question about any change in groundwater levels so that we've said the aquifer affects only a small portion of the site and I don't know if it'd be helpful if I show a plan of the site and I can point at that Yes I think that'd be helpful if you could so hopefully let me know when you can see that We can see it So this is the illustrative master plan for the site and the aquifer that everyone's been talking about affects sort of broadly this area of the site and runs sort of in a northwards direction so that area that's the base on the sort of sands and gravels and there's limited connectivity in those sands and gravels for water flow through that area Now we have said that there's a a range of depths of groundwater within the site that is because this end of the site is actually higher than this end of then the western end of the site which is predominantly green and open space At this end of the site levels are at about I think five meters AOD whereas where we've got the school and the site access we've up at about nine meters AOD so a significant level drop across the site The aquifer in this area is actually quite deep and when we did our initial investigations on site at this end groundwater levels were probably about five meters deep The this two thirds of the site the western two thirds that's predominantly clay and therefore you don't get the same movement of water through that media as you might do through the lenses of sands and gravels that affect this end of the site So what we have said is as a result of developments that in line with the requirements of EA licensing If for whatever reason any excavations are significantly deep and may impact on groundwater levels in that area any groundwater that has to be extracted is put back into the ground within the site itself therefore it will not make any fundamental difference to groundwater levels upstream or downstream because it will be put back into the site in the same area Once the site's developed and we have a positive drainage system in that area we have said that we will look to recharge groundwater and have sustainable drainage systems like permeable paving that can look to put water back into the ground in this area if that's feasible as part of the detailed design Did that answer all three questions? I don't think so I think it certainly answered one of them The other two were around whether you'd be open to accepting a condition around holding the water on site and then the first question as I understood it was around again around consultation with the IDB and the understanding that the IDB should be in support of this before it came forward before us so those are the other two Okay, so we did have discussions with the IDB, EA and LLFA at the beginning of this process and agreed an approach to drainage at that time the IDB were keen that we discharged surface water runoff from this site at a higher rate than the existing Greenfield runoff rate that would only be feasible if the downstream network off-site which is not the responsibility of Homes England was capable of taking that increased flow if it has that capacity some a methodology for understanding the capacity of that downstream network was agreed by all parties and an initial assessment has been undertaken as to what that increased rate could potentially be and that has been submitted as part of the planning documents and the FRA Further discussions have had been had with the IDB since that date but as we were unable to come to an agreement on what the increased rate of discharge would need to be it was agreed that at this it was agreed with the LLFA and the EA that working in line with national planning policy guidance and best practice was the preferred approach limiting runoff to three litres a second a hectare which is the mean annual Greenfield runoff rate for all events up to and including the one in 200 year event now the 200 year event is over and above current best practice current best practice is only the 100 year event and we should note that we've made an additional allowance for storing additional runoff due to climate change that's an additional 40% we have also made an allowance for events over and above of that so we have some additional free board built into the design we think that gives us the flexibility to be able to store water for the extreme event that we've been talking about that people are concerned about and provide a solution that is over and above current best practice but whilst also enabling us to work with the IDB going forward to see if their desire for an increased runoff rate i.e storing less water on site is potentially achievable as part of the detailed design so just to note that affects downstream assets that are not the responsibility of homes england can i through you chair thank you can i just ask you to clarify a point because i think in the debate and reflecting on council williams's question we perhaps haven't explained this there is already and on that illustrative plan that you can see there are two large onsite storage ponds for surface water which i think equate to something around 20 000 cubic meters of storage on this scheme can you clarify that for the committee because i think in the flood risk assessment the provision there is a design solution for onsite holding water and the flood risk assessment i think notes that in consultation with the IDB that scheme and the management of the discharge from that scheme either allows for greenfield runoff rates which in many respects are existing rates of discharge therefore should have no impact on the IDB's concerns or on a faster rate of release based upon the storage capacity that is available or indeed the whole and i wonder if you can just clarify that point because i think there might have been some misunderstanding and i recognise that as officers we didn't explain that there are two very large attenuation ponds on the site so i wonder if you can just help the committee with that yes i can confirm so to confirm the drainage strategy includes these areas that you can see here which are strategic attenuation basins and will hold water back and let it out at that low mean annual greenfield runoff rate on top of that before water gets to these features each development parcel will include sustainable drainage systems which will further look to mimic existing greenfield runoff rates and slow water down that could be the permeable paving that was talked about previously could be swales water will then slowly percolate through to these strategic basins and that's where they will be held and let out at that low rate so at the moment if you had 100 year rainfall events you'd probably be getting about 11 litres a second for every hectare of site running off the site and downstream into the swavesy drain we would be holding that back and letting it out to slower rate 3 litres a second a hectare even in that extreme 100 year rainfall event that allows for climate change as well an additional 40% and as I said we've also sized it not just for the 100 year event but for the 200 year event as well Okay, councillor Williams does that answer your questions Sort of chair and just a couple of quick clarification points Just one and I do mean this neutrally the IDB doesn't feel it's been consulted since 2019 so I was wondering if you just clarify as to why you're saying you've consulted them but the IDB is saying they haven't been consulted how can that be just on that point about those attenuation ponds obviously that's not foul for that's just surface water so yeah that obviously that's correct on that one thank you so really it's the first point about the consultation I don't know who'd like to take that Dina you're happy for me to answer that Yes please maybe Yeah, so we have had a number of meetings with the IDB I think the quirks of the matter is that the rate for discharge the higher rate for discharge wasn't agreed prior to planning because that requires a lot of modelling of the downstream network and the rate was not we were not able to confirm that the downstream network would take that higher rate of discharge we have been speaking to the IDB about the wider north stow development as well including the other phases so we have had a number of meetings I'll allow Keith to come back on this but I think their concern is that we have not formally agreed this higher discharge rate that they are keen to have but it is conditioned Okay thank you for that Councillor Bradman please Thank you chair So I have three questions I'll just say them quickly first so that you can make a note Why isn't there more permeable paving? Number two is what happens to suavecy You say you've made provision and you will monitor it Now the problem is if the provision you've made is not adequate what actually happens at suavecy is that those 195 properties look as if they might get flooded and that's one would hope we would do something before that happens and thirdly where is is this are these two attenuation ponds you're referring to are these the storage that is being envisaged or are we talking about additional storage and I might come back with more detail coming back to the first one the permeable paving Mr Rodgent made the point and he's quite right I quoted some figures for impermeable areas will be limited to and various percentages and he quite rightly made the point that that is simply because they're not you're not making any provision for permeable paving on roads or pavements and that would seem to be perfectly sensible The 40% he alluded to the fact that's simply because you're allowing the 60% to be the playing field and the 62% for residential parcels he made the point that the remainder of the 38% is of course the gardens but actually we ought to be making permeable paving the rule throughout a development and I say this with experience because there are two developments in Water Beach one of which has permeable paving throughout the other which doesn't the one with permeable paving never has a problem with water and there never appears to be a problem with water on it and I'd asked the lead brother authority why is it that these two properties are very these two developments are very different and she said well that because that one has permeable paving the other one every time it rains heavily it has two three enormous balancing ponds and when it rains very heavily these fill like huge lagoons right to the top and every parent who has a child you know I think the question's been asked let's see what they have to say can we just think about more permeable paving what happens to Swaybusy and where's the storage okay thank you who would like to attack those three please chair if I can just say a few words on permeable paving happy to accept an extension of the design code condition on this absolutely happy to aim for best practice subject to a couple of limitations I think county will have a view on whether it's appropriate for adopted streets and we have to obviously comply with those requirements and also our technical experts would have a view on whether it's appropriate across the whole site as it were but certainly happy to be aiming for best practice on permeable pavements and surfacing within private parking areas and things like that so chair would it be possible to make a condition on that sorry just when we get to the debate okay so Maddy has you made my mind that's going to pass the tricky questions over to you if that's okay that's all right we're just building on what Dean said there the federal risk assessment and drainage strategy does make reference to the incorporation of sustainable drainage features within all parcels including permeable paving so that is very much a system that is being promoted as part of the development and will slow water down so these strategic basins are simply the last part of the drainage strategy for treating water on site so it's not the only feature it's just the last part so permeable paving certainly will be considered as part of the wider development in terms of water downstream and how that will affect swavesy as we've mentioned a number of times if we're limiting the discharge from the site to the existing mean annual greenfield run-off rates that's the rate of run-off you currently get from this site so we're mitigating that run-off as best as we can within the area that we have control over to answer your questions councillor so and the storage yes so the storage within the basin they have been sized to take the 200 year run-off from the site going back to your points about areas of permeability and impermeability areas with which are permeable greenfield will run off as they naturally do those basins have been sized to take all of the run-off from the impermeable areas so any additional permeable paving would be over an above that and that will store that water for the 200 year event with an allowance for an additional 40% due to climate change and we've built in some residual capacity over an above that it will then let the water out at a slow rate the existing mean annual greenfield run-off rate of three litres a second per hectare for those areas so yes those basins do provide the storage if the IDB wanted more storage over and above that rate that would need to be in addition to what's shown here okay thank you Members I've got one, two, three four more public speakers then I'm going to have a break at that point and then we'll come back with our parish councils who have some comments five public speakers so next we have Councillor Hales Councillor Hales Thank you quite a few of my questions that have been answered and they were going to be mainly around the one in 200 year calculations and I think Maddie has said that the 200 year is more stringent if you like than the 100 year I'll take a word for it I don't understand the calculation behind it but if you get a moment or a week to explain it then that would be nice what I will say actually is Mr Rogers, one of our previous speakers made reference to the developments that have happened already and the house is now occupied and what have you and the lack of community provision shops et cetera and I don't suppose it was a throwaway comment by Mr Rogers but actually it's a pretty worthwhile one if it was I would like to take it up with the developers and that is the provision of PV on the roof so of all housing not just affordable so that would be my question to the developers through you chair thank you so again not sure who wants to take that one up around provision of PV chair renewable energy provision is part of the proposals so there will be PVs across the rooms regardless of tenure as such so I believe that's accommodated within the proposals and the suggested conditions okay thank you for that okay what percentage place that's a good question I was going to suggest I direct it to my colleague Janice Hughes in terms of the percentage I think the percentage is more aimed at percentage of the energy requirement rather than the percentage of roofs as such is that right Janice Yes I think we've presented an energy strategy which seeks to achieve better a sort of target of 19% of energy efficiency beyond the building regulations with potential for it to be considering more and that's based on a mix of solar PVs as well as a source ground heating so that will be dealt with with an energy strategy for each parcel of land in order to achieve those targets and that needs to be dependent on the type of homes and the mix but the aim is that the strategy is all electric provision and solar PVs and a source ground heating on all properties as appropriate so I think it's hard to put an actual percentage on roof space or numbers of units but it will be seeking to achieve that high target of energy efficiency for both building regs Myon Thank you I'll take your point with regards to the if you like the building requirements I know the legislations as we speak but just wondering whether or not this would be an opportunity for you to given the the current cost of energy with the expected increases that we discussed this I think last time they were here in my head um I just wonder whether there's there's any merit in in making this as much of a 100% coverage of roof space so that it doesn't really matter whether it's an affordable mid-range top-end whichever you like home that they have the provision not to take from the grid and provide battery storage within as well but the other part of my question to the chair through you was about provision this was what Mr Rogers was saying is that there are large numbers of people that have to get in a car for a pint of milk and the shops have not either been encouraged or even built forward within the established areas that have already been occupied so my question would be what are you going to do as the developer to make that provision upfront so that the existing population can access areas as well as the next to be built a chair through you I think that's kind of to be picked up as part of the other phases the preceding phases of north Stowe the district council has a role now in delivering the phase one local centre and there are exciting proposals for that and we have our own town centre strategy where we're currently seeking a partner to deliver the first phase of the town centre with proposals including local convenience store and a market hall so these things are coming and in the meantime there are these kind of meanwhile uses of north Stowe foodies that we know about etc that are very successful and working well so I don't know that that's necessarily a for phase 3B to resolve by the time 3B is developed I'm hoping there will be some great facilities at north Stowe okay thank you for that response we'll move on now to councillor Ripeth I just want to yes on their answer to this question have you or have you not had a meeting with the Swaysie IDB since February 2019 I imagine that's for Maddie yes we have had meetings with IDB since 2019 they weren't solely related to the discussion of 3B but they did cover 3B okay so I'm going to have to sort of take it one person says one thing another says another I just want really a comment if I may chair that since has been quite sort of how can I put it drastic flooding in Christmas 2020 in the district as a whole and I imagine quite close from what's been said to Swaysie I just think it would have been perhaps a good idea because obviously the situation is ever changing and has potentially changed since that last major meeting which everybody agrees on did happen I don't think any need to come back on that thank you councillor calm please question of clarity again coming back to the issue of of sea level rise over the period of time and the fact that it was commented that even now sometimes they can't discharge into the river for four weeks at a time so while the I'm glad to see there's a large area of storage on site I just wondered that if the sea level rise is as drastic as it's often predicted being over the lifetime of the housing that will be developed we could see much longer periods when it's impossible to discharge because the sea level if you raise the level at the sea bottom of the river it will back up the river and cause problems the extent of that is not predictable part because it also depends upon development in the whole of the catchment of the river and upstream it may be that actually even being feel right to discharge it is a problem and you might be wishing to close off all the strategy of the store so I'd be interested to know how much period of time you could actually just not discharge at all within the storage that you've got and what if in the future it was necessary would you be able to increase the capacity of your storage ponds so that you could do it perhaps for a longer period Thank you I think I was pretty directed at yourself and Eddie Apologies for that so the two parts there about the sea level rises as we've said we've allowed for climate change 40% that is at the upper ends of the currently understood significant impacts of surface water runoff as set out by the EA they have a range 20 to 40% so we've allowed for 40% that is in line with best practice the second part of the question about how long could we discharge no water from the site that is not something that we've assessed as part of this applications I'm not able to comment on that point Thank you Did you want to come back counciller is that okay No I can understand that it's not actually something one could require it's just that it was a point of interest and I just wonder what the flexibility there was in the site and particularly whether you could increase the capacity were to be measured whether it could be increased at a future date if it was considered to be beneficial Okay Within the space available there is some flexibility this is an outline application we've tried to make a conservative assessment of space required for that attenuation and as we said we've sized it for the 200 year event so it is more conservative than you would have on other developments that are simply limiting to the 100 year event Okay Members we're going to pause for a second while we one of our members has had to excuse myself for a minute so if we give him give him a minute to come back and then we'll we've got set us and we've got two more questions from members and then we'll have a proper break okay Maddie are our members now returned I don't know if it would be possible to very briefly repeat that last point just so you know all members have had all the information at the same time I don't know if that's possible Yes that's fine So the two points that are two queries that were made one is about the sea level rise and effective climate change as I said we have allowed for an additional 40% storage due to climate change and that is at the upper end of the EA's scale of how climate change will increase runoff from developments so that's in line with best practice the second point was can we or for how long can we hold back water on site without discharging any runoff whatsoever as I said that's not something we've assessed as part of this application so I'm unable to confirm that point but what I can confirm is that we have sized that space to allow for the 200 year rainfall events including the 40% for climate change that is over and above what other developments would allow for they would only allow for the 100 year event and we have we have designed it conservatively to take the runoff from all impermeable areas on site so if we do include permeable paving and such that allow groundwater recharge they'll limit runoff that will go down stream and therefore there'll be extra capacity in the space that we've made available Thank you for that again I appreciate it Question of flight from councillor Heather Williams please Thank you chair and maybe to everybody's surprise not a question on drainage I'm afraid so I'm just I'm looking at this the Google earth imagery of the area and on page 161 the map which does show about the heights now in the past it's been important and also many would say necessary to give that degree of separation to long stand and sort of a a divide of green space or something or other and obviously in this area we are very very very close to long stand in itself I'm just wondering is there any reason other than commercial because we don't take that into consideration why there is necessity to have the ability to go up to three stories and therefore increasing the impact on the existing residents of long stand term for vast areas of the site with the exception of a little bit of protection for the north stay residents themselves I'm already near the station road so just wondering what the logic is there share chair if there's something that I'm missing if there's a need to have such high buildings and that vicinity so close to that to the border of long stand and thank you chair okay thank you sir to make a question around justification of the building heights please chair we were applying for up to three stories and within the area there will be a range of building heights between one and three stories there are large verges on both sides of the the b1050 and the framework for north day requires kind of confident edges and hence the proposal to allow for buildings in places up to three stories to create that kind of legibility and announce the development if you like I was going to bring in a colleague from tibbles a catcher stiller an urban designer to elaborate on my answer if you think that's appropriate yeah if it's helpful certainly hello everyone I'm Katja stiller from tibbles and thank you Dean as Dean said there will be a requirement for design codes which will set more detail design guidance for that edge and at the moment we are applying for story heights up to three stories which would be up to kind of 11 point meters around 11 point meters in height the distance between our red line our boundary of the site and the buildings on long stand in around 77 meters and we have allowed for a area between the existing road and our first houses of around 29 to 30 meters as set out on the parameter plants and in the design principles documents so we expect to enhance the landscape structure along that edge and create also a kind of five meter minimum of five meter open space on that edge and then there will be a variety of building heights that as Dean said kind of will create and kind of entrance and announce this new town while also respecting the differences and the buffer and the distances to the existing developments the strategy of creating confident edges was set out within the very early planning strategies and design strategies for this new town and we are complying with that so I hope that answers your question at this point Okay, thank you and finally Councillor Hawkins please Thank you chair and through you three things I'd like to highlight on page 89 we talk about gas the last sentence in that paragraph 525 says for phase 3b however it is intended that all dwellings will have electric heating but then at the same time you are extending the gas pipeline to phase 3b what's the point because it seems to me you will end up putting in gas when you know that from 2025 gas heating is not going to be allowed in the country that's the first question the second one is to do with construction vehicles going through Willingham I know that when I had a meeting that was a year and a half two years ago now about the problems we were having with construction vehicles you were not part of it because you weren't part of phase one however we know that there's still problems so will you be making sure that your construction vehicles come into your site don't go through Willingham and third thing is I think it was Mali who said the IDB condition to keep water on this site will be an additional requirement to what is provided now so my question is are you prepared to create that additional space thank you Jen okay Dean three questions for you there one around is the gas line necessary running around the movement of construction vehicles and the third one again around the condition around on-site water thanks Jen the gas requirement I think is just the preference in relation to cooking some people prefer to use gas to cook it will be a low requirement but certainly not related to heating happy to accept lorry routing obligation in the proposed section 106 this was discussed at length in relation to 3a and I can understand would be a concern in relation to 3b so happy to accept that obligation in relation to additional water storage on site I think the issue is to do with kind of practicality and the impact it would have on the master plan the ability to deliver the homes on the site as it were I will obviously pass over to to Maddie to to give you kind of chapter and verse on the practicality of achieving additional storage as kind of suggested by the IDB so I'm hoping Maddie will be able to elaborate yes so I think ultimately it would depend how much additional storage is deemed to be appropriate at all developments coming forward in the wider catchment going to be providing four weeks worth of storage for any rainfall event that might happen in any given four week period so that's something that would be quite difficult to assess and could potentially have an impact on the master plan as as Dean has said okay I think you got answers to the three questions there did you want to come back sure um thank you chair it might be difficult to assess but not impossible are you willing to even consider it because it doesn't sound like that from the answer you've just given I mean you might have a master plan now whether that master plan needs to change because you need to prevent problems for existing communities then surely that should be the best practice shouldn't it chair if I can just answer that initially obviously I think the critical thing is here the improvement on greenfield run of rates there will be improvement as a result of the development and I know that's difficult to kind of comprehend sometimes and imagine but that is the proposal so in a sense the wording that could happen in terms of surface water drainage is the site remains undeveloped because greenfield run of rates will be flashy in the way that Maddie has explained there will be significant variation and at times there will be you know a significant amount of run of from the site that will be managed as a result of the proposals I I'm happy to consider a condition where we look at additional storage on site and Mr Kelly will have an idea as to have practical that is but to some extent it's also the opposite of what the IDB are also asking for isn't it in terms of quick discharge quick discharge requires virtually no storage on site so we are in danger of covering you know multiple scenarios here when I think the the proposal in itself covers the the policy requirement and exceeds the policy requirement as a bottom line okay that's fine I think you've answered the question there okay and our very quick final question from Councillor Bradlin please thank you I'm just skirmishing up a few different things that I wanted to check up on one was to do with health provision and on page 113 there's reference to the health care provision in the heads of terms and I just wanted to clarify there's there's an undertaking to provide space I think floor space as north dough grows apportioned to phase B and there's an amount of 900 000 pounds and somewhere else there's reference to a hectare edge oh no that's right that was the other thing that's faith but I just wanted to check with you is there because the gentleman from Willingham pointed out how very stressed the long stanton surgery is and I just wondered oh and this kind of for the officers but I just wanted to check whether there was any indication that this was going to be dedicated space for a doctor surgery are we or are we just talking about spare shared space for things like injections or whatever so that's one thing what is the nature of that health provision likely to be the other one was it was on para 153 we're talking about faith space at 33 and I just wanted to check there's a provision for 0.1675 hectares of space but there's no money for it and I just wondered whether we have yes here we are a paragraph 153 it says would also like to highlight dedicated faith provision either in phase 3 be itself or an extension to the adjacent phase 1 community facility and then in the heads of terms it's referred to at page 113 I think under community that's right it's just refers to dedicated faith space I just wanted some clarification on what why there is no money associated with this space for faith yeah I think that might be better directed at officers to be honest yes exactly I did wonder that sure so I will ask if any officers want to come back on that and just come back after after the session probably helpful I just want to confirm the position on that okay that's fine all right well with that members we've had all our questions of clarity for the applicant so Dean and team thank you very much for that and for fielding all the questions if you wouldn't mind holding on the line there may be some questions you might be able to help us with during the debate part of our of our meeting this morning so with that members it is coming up to quarter past if we meet back in 10 minutes so about 25 past and we'll we'll move on with the next round of public speakers thank you thank you everyone welcome back to this meeting of South Cams district council's planning committee we are just coming to the end of questions of clarification for the applicant and before the break we had two questions from councillor Bradman in which I believe Mr Kelly was going to come back on and I'll hand over to him now to do so thank you chair yes in respect to the question about faith provision South Cams district council has actually agreed a process for how we allocate faith provision across new developments and understand from Claire Flowers who's who we've been in contact with that in March 2020 we cabinet agreed a process and essentially we ask for the land to be made available for provision and then the council itself goes through a process of bids and consideration of of parties who wish to wish to get that piece of land to which we then allocated through that process in respect of the health infrastructure unfortunately I don't have any further details than that contained in the schedule the expectation is that the phase to the civic hub on phase two is the kind of cornerstone of health provision on north stone the health parties have been that the health authority have been consulted around the proposals and I think indicated they didn't see a need for provision explicitly on phase three b but they are looking at the way that health provision is provided obviously it's a healthy new town across the site as a whole and we're working continue to work with them on that there is scope within the terms of the permissions in fact whether it's on phase one or phases three a or indeed phase two for floor space to be set aside for those uses but we're not making explicit provision other than the financial contributions associated with this as to exactly where that happens because it could happen in a number of locations okay sorry we're going to have to adjourn for a few minutes we have a medical issue thank you very much everyone welcome back to this meeting of south cambridge of district council was planning committee we've just had our lunch break and we are still on the public speaking section of the agenda before we stopped we had some clarification from Mr Kelly on two points that councillor Bradenam raised around faith provision and health care provision Mr Kelly did respond but councillor Bradenam before we had to stop I really wanted to come back on those points and just gather my thoughts yes it was sorry I'll come back later if I remember what it was it was I think it was that the question was it's still only 0.1475 of a hectare and that does that just mean one room for the for the faith provision and a 1.0.1675 hectares but no money and and Mr Kelly has explained that the district council picks that up at a later stage oh I know what it was sorry thank you for bearing with me it was in paragraphs 169 and 170 which in our paper agendas is page 36 this is the the comment about the Cambridgeshire and Peter for clinical commissioning group and it says the justification for a new health centre for north Stowe is well documented and this letter does not repeat these earlier comments blah blah blah but it confirms the need for this application to be responsible for a financial contribution within an S106 agreement towards the construction fitting out and revenue costs associated with a new health facility and in the heads of terms we've got 900,000 pounds but the question in my mind was have we allocated enough space in the community hub to allow that 900,000 pounds to be spent productively I think Mr Kelly is going to come back I'll try and come back on that the simple answer is I can't tell you this second unfortunately on that matter my understanding is as the paragraph makes clear that CCG will work continue to work with the planning authority on that the money is based upon a calculation that they've used just one second and the contributions are set out in the schedule and to my understanding the CCG has been engaged in that conversation as appropriate Can I just clarify is that 900,000 pounds that's on page 113 of the heads of terms for healthcare that's a contribution to the expansion in phase 2 isn't it? It's not provision here in 3B or even 3 No it's not for explicit provision in this particular phase the expectation is that it's part of the civic health in phase 2 and the contribution is proportionate to the impact and the need for additional facilities associated with the population of this Thank you Okay thank you very much well with that we're now after a lot of patience on their part we move to our marriage councillors starting with councillor Warren Wright please who's speaking on behalf of Swavesy Parish Council councillor Wright to be very patient with us as he sat through the entirety of the last meeting just to speak on this item so we we thank him for his patience and for coming back again to speak to us today so So thank you I'm sure you do but I do need to ask if you have the authority of your parish council to represent them here this afternoon Yes I do Great thank you very much so as I said to the other public speakers three minutes to address the committee at the end of which there may be some questions of clarity for members of the committee for you so whenever you're ready please Okay thank you thank you Mr Chair member of the committee and officers Swavesy is an historic linear ffent edge village with just one road running through the village from the A14-1307 services right through to over all the villages amenities are along this road including three working farms and the primary school We're also home to a Mick George waste disposal site with its associated traffic There is also one road coming in from Fendraiton and of course Rampa Road leading to North Stowe and Long Stanton All these roads were designed to basically take horses and cart movements and enable farmers access to the fields Rampa Road is already taking an unprecedented increase in traffic must of which is HGV construction vehicles Official figures for the last week in November and the first in December show an average of 4,500 plus movements daily with almost 5,500 movements on Friday peaks We are currently in discussions with Tam Pari and his team regarding this situation and projections of traffic when the North Stowe build out is complete The carriageway edges are constantly being eroded resulting in many dangerous dips and holes especially as there are drainage ditches alongside the road There are also five brick-built culverts underneath Rampa Road all of which are of an age a lot older than myself and probably goes back to when the Dead Sea was only sick One transfers the water outflow from the Utton Stowe sewage works and the others transfer suds as crucial to the village drainage system The collapse of any one of these culverts would cause absolute havoc to our local transport system not to mention our village drainage system The parish council requests that immediate action is taken to restrict any further increase in traffic using Rampa Road by imposing a ban on any construction vehicles in addition to heavy goods vehicles using this route and that cameras be put into place to enforce this In addition that traffic calming measures be installed on both Rampa Road and Boxworth End in order to improve road safety and to deter and restrict further increases in traffic movements when the North Stowe build out is complete Swaybuses traffic problems are soon to escalate with the development of a further 70 dwellings in the village which will only be able to access middle watch via a T-junction which is some 10 yards from the Rampa Road middle watch boxworth end junction The villages developing neighborhood plan indicates that 75% of our residents use their own vehicles to access their workplace and not the guided bus as so often stated by developers Furthermore 850 plus students are bussed into and out of the village college on a daily basis Plus the primary school in the village which is located by the middle watch school lane junction and with no official road crossing currently has more than 300 plus pupils The parish council fully supports and agrees with the IDB statement as presented by Mr Keith Wilderspin and there is one I do have a question for everybody here something which has recently come alight and I think speaks volumes maybe about the developers and what's going on in North Stowe The secondary school in North Stowe which is in its third year now it's two and a half years in is in actual fact tankering sewage out of the premises twice a week Does anybody know what's going on and why this is happening have they not got the infrastructure in place so far and the school has been open for two and a half years I'm open to any questions if you can answer that one I'd be very much obliged Okay I will ask members if there's any questions a clarity first of all please on your comments Members any questions to the parish councillor No sorry councillor Hawkins then Roberts Thank you chair and through you thank you Warren for your statement I wasn't quite clear about the five culverts that you mentioned and their function in transferring stuff Can you explain that please Okay well the major one is in actual fact up in the strain which takes all the the treated water from the sewage farm the sewage works at up in the strain which is going to have to take everything from all the north so build out in addition it takes everything from Camborn including the two and a half to three thousand houses that will be built there and we've had no confirmation yet but it is I should say it's about a thousand to one on odds that it will also have to take a born airfield site of four thousand dwellings because the bottom line is that all they will have to do is put a connection line in of about a hundred feet underneath the born airfield road and it will link into the existing system and bring it all down to Swaybusy so the cumulative effect on the outflow from the sewage farm in Swaybusy will be absolutely monstrous in a couple of years so that is one of the culverts and the other four are basically just transferring surface water drainage from around the area and what a lot of people don't actually realise if you look at a map of the area from you've got the over ridge which then comes down to where we'll obviously phase 3b Norsdow all the way along the actual Long Stanton bypass up to Barhill back to Lullworth and even water from Boxworth and Collington actually flows into the river at Swaybusy and a lot of that actually comes down the Rampart Road some of it goes the other way into Covelstrain so the amount of surface water that actually flows through the village is a lot more than people would think okay and as I say there are five culverts underneath Rampart Road bringing thousands of gallons of water through the village to go into the great river Great Ooves at Websolesloose Thank you for that Councillor Roberts please Thank you Chairman through you Chairman Good afternoon We heard that something like 194 houses in Swaybusy have got the potential for flooding and I took on board that you've just said that you'll support the concerns of the internal drainage board can you remind me roughly how many houses you have in Swaybusy so we can understand the percentage I would think it's maybe about 400 but if you could sort of give me a clarification of what houses numbers we're talking about and are your residents already aware that they are in a situation of potential flooding and are they finding any difficulty in getting insurance for their properties Thank you Okay thank you I think currently there are something in the region of about the 1200 maybe 1250 dwellings I'm not 100% sure but it is about that figure We have another total development of 70 and another I believe about another 20 it's almost another 100 to go with permission which would take us up to about 13 to 1400 actual dwellings and are people aware people are becoming a lot more aware the paperwork that was sent out regarding the neighborhood plan has made a lot of people aware of it a lot of people have moved in in actual fact that's about 19 years ago we had a big scare and people had moved into a new estate and the doors were ringing and they were asked to move everything upstairs in the village a lot of people people tend to expand their houses if they can in Swaithwyth because they want to stay there you know nicely to say but people are becoming more aware but I don't think at the moment I don't know of anybody that's had to had trouble with ensuring their premises but the problem is as you know if we do get a flood and we get say even 30 or 40 houses that are in actual flat flooding then everybody in the postcode will have serious trouble getting flood insurance and we have had a couple in actual fact we did have three four dwellings on the rampa road junction have been in actual fact seriously under water in the last couple of years last Christmas being the one for a couple of days thank you for that and councillor Wilson please thank you chair you mentioned that you have the Mick George waste disposal site in Swaithwyth is there another route that those hgbs could take that use a roads rather than using the roads in the village no because unfortunately the wastage site is down one of the village byways inside the village it's by I don't know if you know Swaithwyth at all it's by Swampond which was the site of the original inland Saxon port there is no A route that they can come into or B route the only way is either rampa road either through Fendraiton they'd have to come off for the services junction or they'd have to come through over and strangely enough permission was granted last Friday and they have downgraded it to 60 traffic movements a day and they have permission to grade 75,000 tonnes of waste a year now that is only 1500 tonnes a week on a five day week so there you go we'll have 300 tonnes of waste coming into the village and you can imagine the size of the vehicles that are going to have to be doing that and also Swaithwythsy is a nightmare especially at the school run now you can basically queue up at the market street in Swaithwythsy and it can take you 10 or 15 minutes to get down to Dr Surge at the other end of the village okay so it's a major thing thank you okay thank you for that I don't think there's any further questions of clarity I have asked your question to officers around the your question around the school so you're not in a position to answer that fully today but we do have an undertaking for them to take that away and come back to you on that so we don't have an answer today but one will be provided to you thank you Councillor Bradman thank you chair and through you I'd like to ask you sort of a combination of when was the last time the centre of Swaithwythsy flooded and how frequently does that happen it's been the odd problem with odd houses now and again but the last time the major flood in actual fact was 1947 we do have serious aerial photos of that incident and I don't know there wasn't as many houses flooded because there weren't as many houses there now but the sites that were flooded are all developed now thank you so um did you have any serious flooding in winter 2020 sorry that's christmas 2020 um there were five or six yes winter 2020 there were five or six houses around the rampa road junction with middle watch and there were two if not three dwellings further up box within that actually had problem with uh that we were getting sewage coming in because the sewage block is because the lines haven't been flushed out completely and we do have we do have a lot of the modern-day sandbags from the council to to give out and a lot of houses do have them as a preparation that's great thank you very much and there's no further questions of clarification for yourself so thank you very much again for being so patient with us and we will move on now to our next public speaker who is paul littlemore who's speaking on behalf of north stowtown council and should be joining us online council a little more are you with us hello chair I hope you can hear me hello there good afternoon excellent so before we kick off can I just double check that you have the permission of your town council to represent them here today yes I do yeah great um and as with the other public speakers three minutes to address the committee and then there may be some questions of clarity for you at the end so if you stay on the line that'll be handy perfect thank you chair and if you're ready please okay so north stowtown council objects to this application in its current form I've written comments outlined several areas where in our opinion improvements and strict planning conditions are required for this application to be acceptable our principal concern is around site access both for residential and for construction traffic the current plans accommodate only one route in and out for motor vehicles on the b1050 roundabouts the other potential potential entry and exit points identified in the planning documents through either endurance estates or digital park are not guaranteed to be delivered as the applicant does not own these plots we seek clarification of access plans to ensure that this junction does not become a bottleneck and as the only confirmed entry point is not deemed to be sufficient to support a thousand houses we'd also like to see a clear strategy for separation of residential and construction traffic during the phases of construction which wouldn't leave roadways and cycle paths unfinished until 3b is complete in its entirety as we've seen in phase one we're also concerned as to how the new development will affect traffic on the b1050 this road is already in our opinion close to capacity and an extra 1000 houses will significantly add to the traffic already using it we request that an adequate traffic monitoring plan be put in place and mitigation measures are documented which can be imposed if this road does become overwhelmed on the hotly on the discussion points around groundwater and drainage we note the concerns from other consultees about the Swaysy drain being able to cope with the outflows from phase 3b in addition to that of 3a and up and strove given the longstanding concerns in the community around drainage strategy and groundwater levels we would request that agreement from these consultees be sought prior to approval we also agree with long-standing parish councils comments around the building heights along the b1050 that face long-standing village in that these should be a maximum of two stories rather than three to limit the visual impact from long-standing village on construction management we request that there's an adequate SEMP in place prior to the start of any construction in this case with specific restrictions to prohibit construction traffic going through long-standing Willingham or Norstow phase 1 as well as to mitigate noise and dust until these concerns are addressed and conditions put in place to mitigate them Norstow town council cannot support this application and thank you for your time today thank you very much for those comments members any questions of clarification for the town councillor councillor Bradman then Roberts thank you chair thank you very much um I'm sorry I do call it as I can't read little more thank you he's still a little more if we were to seek restriction of traffic so that it didn't go through Norstow phase 1 Willingham or long-standing which route would it use so that would be that would be the B1050 straight out towards the A14 okay so there is there is a possible route. Okay thank you very much thank you councillor Roberts thank you chairman good afternoon councillor little more you said that you would want to see a condition implemented and put into place and implemented regarding the concerns about the water and are you meaning also that that I think you said that agree you know it had to be an agreement before it happened are you including the internal drainage board in that consideration yes I am yeah I think all part or the council's opinion is that all parties should be an agreement prior to approval but if you sought to seek that as a condition personally I would probably find that acceptable but I can't comment on behalf of the council because we didn't discuss that okay thank you very much I don't think there's any further questions for you so thank you very much for joining us this afternoon for your time Members or for those watching it's also probably worth noting long stance and parish council have sent in written comments which committee members have had site of so just because they're not here today doesn't mean they haven't made comments on this application so I just wanted to make that clear and also on that note the local members councillor Trang Johnson and Mallion have also sent in written comments again which committee members have had site of and I trust to take into consideration when we make a decision today okay with that members that concludes our public speakers we're now moving into the debate as agreed at the beginning we're going to try and structure this in sections for I hope smoothness beginning with sections one and two of the report which relates to the principle of development land use and vision and the parameter plans obviously members we do have officers with us in the room and online if we do need any any further questions to on on any of these sections to help us but also we can give points of view across as well councillor Heather Williams please thank you sorry mine my comments relate quite a bit to a section 2 and led to my my line of questioning earlier the I am very concerned with the ability to be able to go up to three buildings so close to Longstanto and I understand what they're saying it's up to they might not but I think we do have to work on the basis of what we're approving is that they could put three story buildings across there you know we can't really say yes but we hope you don't use it although I think I have said that in the past when it when the council's attendant but for this and when you look at the other boundaries you know there's been a significant buffer and I'm I'm thinking to policy NH1 which says a conservation area and green separation at Longstanton and when I heard the representative it's like there's going to be five meters right or 77 meters including the road that concerns me I think you can probably have things closer than what they have been in other areas but it isn't a great deal of green space in between I would have been much happier had there been a sort of tiered approach sort of we can see that obviously it