All right, I think we can start. Welcome. I'm Klaus, and this is Mark. And we work at a company called Oticon, the company located in Copenhagen, Denmark. And we design hearing aids. I think most of you are familiar with the SIFIER project. If you're not, here's a super short version. SIFIER is a real-time operating system optimized for resource constrained devices. I was saying something like a hearing aid, which I'm holding here. It's a resource constrained device. It's almost an understatement. I think most people are familiar with hearing aids. They know somebody who has a hearing aid. And just from looking at it, you can see that physically, obviously, it's constrained. It's one of the only devices that I know of where the size of the chip inside actually dictates the size of the product. So if you were to make the chip just a little wider, you'd also be making the hearing aid a bit wider. Now, due to all these constraints, it's also computationally constrained. I know a lot of the other platforms in the SIFIER project, they have many megahertz processors running in cortex, something, something. We have a much smaller. But I would still say that for the size of a hearing aid, it's still quite capable. Obviously, again, due to the size, the battery that you can fit in here is quite small. So battery life is, of course, almost everything when you're designing a hearing aid. Now, when we saw the SIFIER project with its focus on the resource constrained devices, we thought that was a great fit. And we were happy to join that effort. Another thing that's quite interesting about something as little and small, but still very complex and pretty expensive is that despite all that, it's still a commercial product. And it is sold in volume. It's sold in millions. That makes it an interesting product, which gets us to why this talk. We think that with all this custom stuff, all this special stuff that is inside a hearing aid here, it makes it pretty complex. And you could say that if you have an open source project that you can make run on a hearing aid, well, then you can pretty much run it anywhere. This talk will not be about how we ported SIFIER to our specific architecture. There's already been talks on that. I think there was one last year called Enabling SIFIER on Your Hardware. You can go look in the ELC archive if you want to see that. They'll document all the stuff where you write all the assembly code for the task switching, the timers, and all that. This talk is not about that. In summary, you can say that it was quite uneventful. The API was good. The hooks were there. The documentation was good. Not much to talk about. What this talk is about is the challenges, the other, the more general challenges we faced when porting SIFIER to something as specialized as a hearing aid. Now, a hearing aid, a lot of people, when they think of a hearing aid, they think just of a glorified amplifier. They think it's something that just takes the sound from the environment, amplifies it into the human ear canal, and that's pretty much it. It might have used to be like that. It's a long time ago. Modern hearing aids are a lot more advanced than that. A modern hearing aid will analyze the sound environment many times a second and do a lot of heavy digital signal processing. It's something that is going on constantly, so it's an always-on process, always draining the battery life, like I say, is key. A modern hearing aid will also include something as a wireless 2.4 gigahertz Bluetooth low energy. Enables you to make connections to your iPhone. It even does audio streaming directly from the phone to the ear. Also, it actually enables communication with TV, so you can stream TV audio directly into your hearing aid. It also has actually a magnetic link, data link, between each ear, so that it can sync up stuff like volume, program selection, stuff like that. And it does that with a battery of the size of an Altoids mint, a tiny battery, and it has to have a battery life of multiple days. Now, how do we do that? If you pop the hood of a hearing aid, you'll find that there's three custom ASICs inside. There's a DSP, digital signal processor, the RF, the one that enables us to communicate with the iPhone, the TVs, and there's an analog front end. And on these chips, there's a many-core system. So I think we're actually up to 11 cores on this current generation of hearing aids, all optimized for their specific purposes. Some will be analyzing sound, some will do power management, all very power efficient. These cores and all the peripherals, they're communicating using a network on chip. If you're not familiar with a network on chip, a network on chip is as opposed to a bus-based system. It's a routed network on the chip, just like your ethernet. This enables, first of all, it's lower power. It helps with routing congestion. It helps with timing closure. Also, under the hood of a hearing aid, there's, of course, a Bluetooth baseband. That's what enables our 2.4 gigahertz communication. And yeah, like I said, a lot of custom processors. And the custom processors is where the first real challenge comes in. Because obviously, a custom processor will be having a very specialized tool chain also. So Sefir, when we joined, it was favoring GNU-like tool chains. We needed to have our special tool chain also be supported. So it might sound like we're trying to push something specialized into an open source project. That wouldn't be very nice. But what we were actually doing were we're abstracting the tool chain. I think that's very important for a project like Sefir that is focusing on the edge of the network. So we've moved away from the general computing where you have all the normal processors, all the GNU-like tools, and out to the edge, where you'll find something like a hearing aid with very specialized tool chain. Yeah. So as Klaus mentioned, Sefir was limited by GNU assumptions, both in C code and in CMIC. Sefir uses the CMIC build system. So you would find things in the root CMIC file that was basically a mixed bag of flags that the tool chain had to support. So you would find things like hardcoded, verbatim, dash g, and warning all, and iMacros, and freestanding. And these are flags that our tool chain doesn't support. Of course, it can implement similar things, but they're written in a slightly different and tactical way. But the intent is the same. And of course, we want to adhere to that intent. So maybe that's what we should make the CMIC build system do. That's what we have been doing. So we have abstracted all of these hardcoded flags into basically a tool chain API. So a tool chain can implement these, and you will port GNU, GCC, and the GNU-LD, and the linker, and the bin utilities into these macros and provide the same kind of interface. And we would simply do the same. So it wouldn't be special GNU. It would just be abstracted. So we have them by intent, and we have them categorized. So we have the CC for the compiler and LD for the linker, and bin tools for the bin utilities. Yeah, and that's been quite a long pathway underway. It's been slow moving, but it's nearing completion. So there are still some rough edges, especially user space and memory separation in CEPHR. It's a bit long and hardcoded in the CMIC system, in CEPHR's use of the CMIC system. You can still find remnants like dash L in the EXT modules. And yeah, you could use a general cleanup of the CMIC group file still. That may happen. All right, another challenge when you have a specialized system like a hearing aid is that most of the code that you'll be writing is proprietary. So you have a system where even something as simple as timers or the SPI or I-square-C driver will be specifically aimed at our version of that particular core with fixes for our silicon box and stuff like that. So all these drivers that are proprietary become a problem in the CEPHR project. We'll see why later. There can be multiple reasons why you would want to have a proprietary code. Of course, ideally you try to upstream as much as possible. First of all, it could be that it's secret, of course, but it could also be that it's just of no use to anyone else. It could be that it's third party license or that you are keeping it in a separate version control system that you don't want to share with the CEPHR tree. So the problem was that CEPHR, when we joined, only supported to keep code in the tree. So if you were writing a proprietary driver, you would have a giant diff up to the upstream. If you want to follow the upstream as much as possible, then you would need to always look at this diff. So there's some common solutions. Of course, you could just use your .gitignore. But then again, that's also a version controlled file and you would have to maintain your own branch and it doesn't really scale well if there's a lot of files scattered across the system. And we thought maybe we could use something like SimLinks, but then again, that's never really the solution. It's always a bit of a hassle. It's a recipe for disaster. Build systems, should they follow, should they not, all these problems that come along. We also thought about taking our proprietary driver code and copying it in during the build, but that's really also just asking for trouble. All kinds of race conditions. When do you clean up? When do you not? The elegant way, I think, would be to have some kind of overlay where you could overlay the SIFIER file tree with your own version and then have SIFIER pick the overlay. But the build system, as it was, as it is now, doesn't really have the infrastructure. It would be a major change. So the solution we came up with was adding some command line options. You can see them here. Where we can now say, well, if you have a proprietary code, if you have a lot with these commercial products, you can just specify that your architecture, instead of taking it from the SIFIER tree, you'll be taking it from somewhere or some other place on your file system. Same goes for the board, the tool chain, the SOC. We're also working on doing that for drivers and for subsystems. Yep. So that was basically building. So CMake and locating source code. A few changes was also needed to the SIFIER Bluetooth link layer stack. Fortunately, SIFIER was already out of the box, pretty much ending as portable. However, not the Bluetooth link layer. So we still had to find the endiness issues and correct those. We have done that before. It's not a new thing for us.  So, but this time around, we have actually come up with a clever, generic, semi-automated way of doing that. That is not SIFIER specific, so other projects could use this. So, endiness bugs, right? It's the byte order interpretation. That's kind of a subtle thing. So you need to be very careful when you read the code. You need to follow the data flow. You need to track the flow of it and with special glasses on, can it be interpreted in a different way? Is it cost to an array of Uint16 at some point and used? Well, that takes time. So you need to review. And when you have found your sources, hopefully they're kind of following the same pattern and you may easily fix them.  So we want something that is suitable for a regression test. So, yeah, we had to do a bit of work in the controller, but how do we find them? Because we don't want to invest a lot of time in just reading through ever-changing code. So, static analysis, we have tried that. Doesn't really work well. If you know about any static analysis tool that can do that, then please come talk with us after the talk. So the traditional way of simply been review in this kind of empirical discovery. But how do we do a better or quicker empirical discovery process? Could we accelerate that somehow? And it turns out that we can. So for us, for Ultricon, one of our contributions is this Babosim project, which is Sefer agnostic, but largely built for Sefer. It is a physical layer simulator. So you can simulate Bluetooth traffic using that or any kind of traffic, but specifically we use it for Bluetooth, any kind of radio traffic. The neat thing is that it's reproducible. It's very fast. It's super real time. So you can run orders of magnitude faster than real time. That's good for debugging and doing it quickly and running it in regression. It's also deterministic and reproducible. So you don't have to worry about stochastic wireless behavior. You don't have to take all your boards, physically run them for hours. You can actually run all your tests in minutes, which is a neat thing. So could we take that and then, let's say in an ideal dream land world, could you take your Bluetooth test case, set up your topology? Could you run that in a big Indian target and a little Indian target of some test case that produces some logs and maybe that set of logs you can diff and you could detect if you had Indianess issues. And it turns out that we can because Babosim and another Autocon contribution, native POSIX architecture in Sefer, allows us to build Sefer as a Linux binary, just a user land binary and let it connect up to Babosim. There's an NRF 52 Babosim target board in Sefer. So you can take the constellation of any kind of topology, Bluetooth test case. You can run it and they're all Linux user land processes. And since they're just Linux processes, you can capitalize on all the wealth of open source tools. So you have GDB, you have Coxinel, you have Docker, Valgrind, and QAmo. But you can see because we had some... We use RR instead. It's the reversible debugger. Nothing against GDB, GDB is fine, but RR is even better. But you can see that we have highlighted QAmo and Coxinel. So we will explain. By QAmo, we don't mean the board simulation. So it's not a full board. We use the, in this context here, we use the user mode emulation. So you can run a foreign binary under the same kernel. QAmo user mode will intercept the system calls and issue them on your behalf. So you can run, you can take a MIPS binary and run it on x86 under the same kernel. It will appear the same. And that goes for entire user land. So you can actually install, let's say, Debian, as we will see, completely foreign. And that's what we're gonna do. So we're gonna compile Babosim and Sefer for native projects, for MIPS, little and big, under the exact same software versions and just run it twice. And that will give us air logs, thanks to Babosim. And then we can diff those logs. But that will basically just branch out very early. And we will just see, yeah, there's at least one NDS error, but not tell us where. So that's where the location comes into play. And if we instrument, so the code that we suspect to have some NDS errors, in our case, the controller, we may write a semantic patch with coxinell to inject some source level tracing into that code and simply do another run. And then we get more very verbose logs and a much earlier branch out point. So to facilitate that, we have contributed another small project, Debian foreign, you may find it down there. And it basically just provides a for each architecture thing. And the payload is whatever Linux executable script or whatever you may, your hot desire is. So it's just to facilitate the setup. And making it, so it's a Docker image. And it comes pre-baked with these two Debian foreign environments. So it's a MIPS little Indian and a MIPS big Indian. And within them, what you want to run is of course two instances of suffer. So in our case, it's the basic connection test. So there's a peripheral and a central and you want to connect those up to Babel sim. So the air scheduler and that will produce this set of traces, a set of logs. And so you take these two sets of logs and we will diff those logs. Since, okay. So before the demo, let's look at how we inject these traces. So normally Cox NL is not used for this kind of thing. It's more like what meant for retroactive. You have identified some bug and now you need to patch that in across a million lines of Linux kernel source code. But here we actually use Cox NL in a slightly different way as an active debugging tool to instrument code. So one thing is just basic control flow. And these are written up in unified as a kind of unified diff. You have an optional name and the qualifiers that you want to match for. So a type and identifier. So this is like a C specific SED, grep and replacement thing. Just knowledgeable about C and the abstract syntax tree of C. So you want to match for every function, you want to match every expression in every function. And when you encounter that, you want to put in a trace statement just before that. So this my trace will then be some kind of macro. And for us, we put that in a globally included POSIX cheat for Sefer. So it's always defined. And we just define it to some print F function, print K function that stringifies the argument and just print it out. Yep. So that gives us control flow, but for NDS, we actually want to have differences in these logs for data, for the actual values. So then we also do the same for scalar quantities. So for any kind of UN 8, 16, 32, 64, any kind of scalar value except pointers and arrays and nanana structures, we trace those out. So again, every function, we have any variable X that is updated. It's assigned something. E. And then we trace out the new value of this X. And we do something similar for initialization and return. Okay. So when we have all of those patches written up, we also want to include a remove traces in the very top. Because if we apply the same semantic patch multiple times, then it's also gonna trace the trace statements, which is not so nice. So we want to first remove the peel those out again. So that allows us to reapply it multiple times. And that is the definition of item potents. So that's a bit, makes it a bit more easy or yeah, a bit easier to work with. Then as another convenience is just a small bash function called instrument, we're gonna see that in a moment. And it just takes the path to a file that you have a suspect and it will produce a temporary file. And to the original file, you will apply the semantic patch. And we are gonna review the difference. So then you actually get the option of selectively including or just merging all the instrumented traces over. Maybe you know there is a false positive that you don't want. Then you have at least the option through meld or any kind of diff editor to do that. All right, demo time. So this is unfortunately recorded because otherwise the build times is about 30 seconds each every time. So that's a bit too much. Yep, so we are first of all in a workspace here. So this is a fully furnished, pre-baked Debian foreign Docker image. This is actually the host, but we already have a separate workspace. And this workspace has been mapped through in Docker and in the secure change route all the way through. So this is fully visible for everybody, the workspace path. So it's the same source. And we are using here a old Sefer, something, something from second of January that actually contains these NDS bugs still. And then we have a few hacks on top just to make sure that it actually native projects can compile on this kind of specialized mutes thing. And so we enter into the Docker and we will, we get the for each command and it's simply a secure route for each of them. And we have the fetching and the building and running phases, pretty standard. And then we will proceed to fetch and build now. So we first fetch and build, now build, this is build. And it's building twice, right? So it's building for MIPS and MIPS, big and little onion. And it's building to Sefer, the peripheral and the central. And then we're running BabelSim twice and we get this, as you can see, the two sets of logs. So you have MIPS as big Indian and little Indian MIPS. And these are the participating device or processes. So there's the central and peripheral and the BabelSim schedule itself. And then we will look at the, we will pick for the peripheral. We will just inspect the diff and there is a diff but it's quite short and it was just in the host thing here. So nothing that much to see. But let's instrument with the coxinell patch. So we instrument the controller and then meld pops up and we can see what the patch did. And then we get to see that, yeah, there are some UN-8 and we just merge all over, save, build again and run again. And in the run, here we run, then you get to see we have a lot of output. But this is captured in the log files and we have data values, right? So this is interesting. So then we get to look at diff and what, lo and behold, we actually get to see like 65,536 becomes a one, at line, I don't know, 12,000 something in control.c, in role disabled function. So there might be an endiness issue there that you wanna look at and you can look at other things. So you wanna fix that first and redo, rinse and repeat. You may not trust the further down you go, that could just be derivative effects but you can be pretty sure that the first diff will be a source of endiness issue. Yeah, you can see all the places here. Yep, all right. So this is by no means the only things that Otagon has contributed. Just to summarize, we have done a lot of portability pipe cleaning. So C99 stuff, the tool chain abstraction, the out-of-tree, Bluetooth, a lot of stuff on Bluetooth. So we have split the link layer. So you can have a common part, an upper and a lower link layer. So you can actually port more easily to custom radios or other radios. So there's a common and lower part. All these endiness issues, how we serialize the Bluetooth settings, vendor extensions because we need proprietary protocols to be possible. We need to support audio as well. And then there is the native POSIX, which is the port of SEPHR to POSIX threads. So yeah, it becomes a Linux executable. And then you add in, for instance, some transaction-level models of well-known hardware, example the NRF 52, and then you can run that within BabelSim, as a complete test case. Just exclusively on Linux. Then we have tracing. We have a common trace format backend in SEPHR. We're gonna work and extend on that in the future. Tracing is very important to us. We wanna have it more graphical. And we also wanna investigate the kernel shock too when it's actually released. Yep, more Bluetooth, more optimization. We are hearing aid after all. We need to be efficient. The tool chain abstraction is close to completion. There are still these minor things left. We want to improve this graphical presentation such that anybody, not just people with an on real-time tracing framework and SEGA, RTT can actually do graphical debugging and visualizing of all the kernel context switches and locking and stuff like that. Yep, and then also SEPHR as a component, having SEPHR more not as an owner of the entire platform. That may have been kind of the assumption of SEPHR until now, at least for us. And then more modularity and house. Then, yep, links in case you want to dig in to some of the stuff here. I think we have three minutes for questions. What the difference is, there are many differences. So first of all, the most visible thing from the build system is of course the flags, right? So of course we need to provide flags that work. And our compiler uses very different flags. GCC works and our compiler works. I mean, you would have to dig into. So the difference is that ours has a clang frontend and then there's a custom like middle and backend. But it is clang in the frontend, but with different, just for the password, not for the command line switches. In case that, yep, yep. You think something could build your, oh yeah, I'm just gonna throw it out there. I mean, because you're using Yachto and obviously not for Linux, but Yachto is able to build you and talk to you. Right? You can build, there's a meta-separate layer that you can use. And thankfully, you can build your and talk to you. You can use that, so you have control over that. Build separate and talk to that. And I guess that would solve the overlays as well. It's helping talk a bit. I know about Yachto. But this is a hearing aid. It doesn't run Linux, right? No, no, no, no. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Like just for the tool chain. Like Yachto, it is, it's meant to build Linux. Yeah. But that doesn't mean it's just able to build it. So there's a part of Yachto that could be relevant. And you can build separate and talk to that. Okay. We can pick this up. Yeah. Also the compiler is very special. It has to be our compiler. Sure. So yeah, okay. But yeah, we can talk. The battery life of? Can you repeat that? The battery life of a hearing aid? You're hearing it. Of our hearing aid. It's, I think it's about 60 hours, right? Yeah. A couple of days. Yeah, so a couple of days of use. I think the battery is 160 milliamp hour.  So it depends on what you're doing.  But I mean, it's meant for kind of a week. Right. It's kind of it. That's the range. It's definitely been thought about, but I don't think it's feasible at this point. I think it's, you just don't get enough out of it. The energy harvest. Is it, I know there's different types. Is it one of like, you know, there's a bond structure, one, there's a. Bone anchored. Yeah. Okay. Yes. So we support that. We have that. We also have cochlear implants where it's actually like embedded inside. These typically run out of cadence that is like delayed because of medical certification, more strictness. But yeah, sure. Under FDA. So it's, I can't remember, class something. Yeah. Yeah, there are strict things. I mean, all the source code that we have, we need to document, prove that everything has been reviewed. So yeah, that's labor intensive. And there are risk assessment and stuff like that also. We need to guarantee or at least document that it cannot be possible to blow a person's eardrum out. All right. Thank you.


I'll do mine and then I'll get up to yours and then I'll do yours. I'll start recording. I'll just launch in. So this is briefing for you guys as DM team or west on the gambling a neighborhood plan that was made in November 2022. So just a brief introduction. It has the same weight and status and decision making as the adopted South Cams local plan to meet the basic conditions necessary to make it through the neighborhood plan. Making process has that regard to national policy and advice and it's in general conformity with the strategic policies in the local plan. So therefore the two when you read the local plan and MPBF and the neighborhood plan they should all be consistent but should you find any areas of conflict between the policies in the neighborhood plan and the local plan the more recent plan takes precedent. So the neighborhood plan because it was most recently the neighborhood plan has a set of it has an aim it has a vision and it has a series of objectives and from these the policies were created. So the aim of the neighborhood plan is to ensure that the future development of the parish is carefully managed in terms of its scale and design. The vision flows on from that and the objectives flow on from that and obviously these are all in the neighborhood plan so I'm not going to read them all out to you now but just to give you some context I probably should have said I'm Jenny from I probably should have introduced myself at the start and I'm Jenny from the policy team so leading this briefing at Kerstin Boehner from the parish council the clerk will do a bit after me. So there's 10 policies in the neighborhood plan the first of those policies is one for any new homes and employment uses in the parish and the policy is about ensuring a mix of housing sizes but particularly one in two bed houses and seeking to incorporate renewable energy generation and water saving measures within new developments for housing or employment. There are then two site allocations in the plan one for residential development of west road which has already got permission but is allocated in the plan in case of any issues with that permission and equally there's one for the reuse of the former first school buildings in green end which particularly supports educational and community use. So the centre policy for local character which is kind of referring back to the village design guide and about protecting the hamlet gate and its satellite hamlets from kind of joining together and preserving that kind of uniqueness of the village in that aspect. There's policy for employment sites so the specific area is identified that this policy covers in relation to station road, church street, green end. Specific policy on this one there's an extra in paragraph 4.47 in relation to drove roads the drove road sites where it says it's a general rule extensions of up to 25% of the existing buildings have the potential to be appropriate. So there's a bit more than what's in the policy on this one that it would be helpful for you guys if you've got any permissions in applications or in drove road. This is just the map that goes with those employment sites so the red ones on the map are the sites that are covered by the policy and the pink which is showing another existing business area that did in an earlier version of the neighborhood plan to have a specific policy through the examination process was taken out by the examiner so it's on there to show you that this is a business existing business use in that area but it's coloured differently to be clear that it's not covered by the policy. There's another policy for supporting sports pitches. There's two policies then relating to walking, cycling and horse riding routes so proposals for the improvement of public rights of both cycling and horse riding to encourage the use of non kind of car modes within the village and to kind of join up the existing routes. The accompanying map that goes with it kind of shows the routes and the possible routes that will leave others to explain what might need to be secured through the planning application process to meet with that policy. Then there's the two final policies or for landscape and natural environment so there's a kind of more general policy to enhance landscape recreation and natural environment features and then there's a specific policy that covers the area around gambling gatewood and although the policy doesn't have a specific wording within the policy itself in terms of what it means by the immediate vicinity then there is a map in the neighborhood plan which is the little map on the right that shows the kind of 200 meter cordon buffer around the area which is referred to in the supporting text as to what the immediate vicinity and so yeah that's just the map showing all the different landscape recreation and natural environment features they're covered by no momentum and then there is a policies map in the neighborhood plan that has all of the different designations on it but obviously you need to look at alongside the local plan policies map and any other things. We don't currently have neighborhood plan designations shown on the same map as all the local plan designations so that's me I just get so I don't want my screen to show. Okay my name is Kirsten Rainer I'm Clark at Gambling Gate Welsh Council I'll see the main aim for me to come and talk to you today is for you to have an understanding of the anyone who will show in the last seven years to create this pass and also just to identify some main issues that I think is important for you to understand the context of where the policies have come from and I hope that will help you inform your looking at planning applications in the future. I think there are some beautiful slides of Gambling Gate shortly but you'll just have to listen to each other a little bit. So Gambling Gate parish council not only we respond to you on planning applications but we're also the burial authority we own and maintain open spaces we're responsible for community buildings such as the old Methodist chaplain we also own the UK park although that's at least a separate charity our process is to raise a precept every year to service the needs of the residents and we own five part-time employees so handyman there's me and my job share colleague Leanne and we also have a library manager and my role is the parish clerk. Where am I? I basically cover the planning aspects of the at the parish council I've got a degree in studies in a postgraduate plan for internal regional planning a very long time ago. My work experience comes from initially social housing development with a registered social landlord. I then became went over to the other side and joined self-beverage district council and became local government housing strategy manager and I worked also for Sport England developing green spaces programs. I've worked for Gambling Gate parish council in part-time capacity for the last 18 years part-time with my colleague Leanne Bacon. I take the lead on planning matters and long-term planning issues among other bits and pieces. I've been a member and secretary to the neighborhood plan team between like 2015 and 2022. So I've done that one. So what is Gambling Gate? Is that funny thing that sticks out on the phone? I left a green. So we're right on the edge surrounded by obviously Huntingtonshire and Central Bedfordshire and North Hertfordshire I think almost North Hertfordshire to the south. So a bit of a strange anomaly on the side of South Cambridgeshire but that's where we are. We have about population about 4,000 and as always you discussed described by Jenny, our vision was to continue to be a thriving and sustainable community and attractive for any place to live and work. We wanted to conserve the distinctive character as Gambling Gate is a radial village so we're a core urban centre with very small satellite collections of properties surrounding it at a certain distance and we wanted to also nurture growing local employment and community facilities to ensure quality of life for all residents. So we aren't a dormitory town. We very much have quite a large amount of local employment. Gambling Gate traditionally has suffered due to its location and being isolated from main services and provisions. That's meant that the population haven't had perhaps access to higher education as much as perhaps living in other areas of South Cambridgeshire. So there's quite a lot of white collar and blue collar jobs in Gambling Gate so we wanted to try and preserve what we have there to make sure the village still stays vibrant in the future. So that were the main objectives. There are six objectives. These came out of consultations with the community over a period of time. Housing and housing growth, we wanted to meet the needs of the community by supporting new housing that's appropriate inside affordable and adaptable. We want high environmental standards for these properties and when we did our housing needs survey there's a significant demand for one and two bedroom starter accommodation or smaller accommodation bungalows for people to move into when they retire. But what we're consistently getting is four and five bedroom detached executive dwellings which no one can afford and this is basically becoming more and more of a problem. Existing properties or small village voltages are being continually extended to make into four bedroom, five bedroom dwellings and the local population is struggling to get on the housing market. So effectively that's why you've got policy one which states that we want one and two bedroom houses coming forward as part of new housing developments. So we do have a large proportion of expensive houses and that local people can't actually afford. We want small affordable to buy and heat and adaptable homes. So the second main part of the plan is about local character. This is supported wonderfully by the Village Design Guide. It was adopted in 2020 and it built on that really. So we wanted to maintain the integrity of Gamminge is a radial village with its satellite hamlets and protect the open countryside and its landscape setting. England Gamminge are really pleased and fact that they can access countryside very easily within two or three minutes of walking out their front door. New buildings reflect and contribute to the strong character of the built heritage and from the expressed in the Village Design Guide. So people born here love living in this rural area. They want the right kind of development and the right places. It's been keeping with its surroundings and the right place for new homes is within the boundary of the village. So about I mean I've been monitoring applications in Gamminge as I said for the last 18 years. I know to say 80% possibly 90% of all applications that are coming forward now are outside the village envelope. That's consistent. So it's a concern that we have about development in the countryside. Okay, other objectives. We really wanted to try and maintain and preserve our local economy and employment. As I said, quite a large, we haven't got any reasonable service. So people are relying on car for travel and they access the Bevershire services as much as they access Cambridge services. So we have an issue where we want to keep our jobs in our local areas. So we want to keep those jobs closed to residents. As I said, we have issues for training for young people and making them having access and to stay in education and training and those barriers. Obviously, if there's local jobs or local opportunities for them to gain work experience, that's all there. So that's what we wanted to do from a local economy and employment perspective. We've also lost quite a large proportion of our employment land developed from employment land to housing. That's the Downing Gardens development. If you know that it's currently being built at 90 dwellings, we've lost I think five or six businesses had to leave the village due to that. So there are issues relating to trying to maintain the existing employment within the village centre or any close proximity. The other thing is community amenities and facilities specifically were concerned in the neighborhood plan about preserving the open space adjacent to the old first school. The first school is now redundant in its entity by the county council. We wanted to preserve the open space adjacent to that but the developer removed that policy. So the whole aspect of the vision and the objectives here was relating mainly to that and preserving other facilities in the community. So if you see quite a lot of references to the first school field in our objectives, that's what it was relating to but that policy was to be divided inspector. Okay, so what we get about is the other main aspect to Gamma Gay neighborhood plan. We wanted to try and encourage people to walk and cycle more. Gamma Gay, if you talk to any cyclists will say that it's the most dangerous place to cycle in the whole of Cambridge here. It's very fast moving traffic, lots of parked cars on the side of the road, it's uneven surfaces, lots of pot holes, lots going on in this village centre and it's not a safe place really to cycle. Quite significant portions in the village don't have footpaths, none of the hamlets surrounding Gamma Gay have any footpaths or street lights. So effectively Village Centre has gaps in its footpath network as well. So we wanted to try and make it easier for people to walk and cycle to school, access the main shops on Church Street. So we produced a Gamma Gay footway cycle improvement plan which is an appendix to the neighborhood plan and that identifies a specific route from Gamma Gay Centre to Potten which is to try and link up Gamma Gay to the nearest railway station which is at Sandy. Potten have their own plan to link from Potten to Sandy so it was just trying to incorporate a link through to that station to allow better public access to transport. So and the final area of objectives is the natural environment. We have a SSSI Gamma Gay Wood and we were very concerned about actual encroachment of development on that SSS. And we also wanted to preserve our existing green infrastructure and then try and encourage people to walk and cycle access to the open countryside. So that was the main, if you like, the main objectives that came through from that work that we did with the residents. Just a quick question, today you've seen a link between Gamma Gay and Potten and obviously the Potten train station is not functioning at the moment. You said there was a link between from Potten to Sandy railway station. Not a wired train. So Sandy is where the local train station? Sorry, what I thought I heard you said was there planning on opening the link up between the train stations again. Is that not, do I hear that incorrectly? No, that's something separate East West Rail. I can cover that later if you like. That's all I could say to Potten. So train station is not even open so. There's no Potten. Yeah, that's what I mean though. Okay, fair enough. And then away is it at Sandy. So I met the cycle link. Yeah, we did now. And got into Sandy. Okay, sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, the next page. So this obviously you've seen this already as a policies map. The arrows actually I'll bring to your attention. The purple arrows are the views which need to be preserved. Effectively, it has quite an important role in regards to keeping the separation between Gamma Gay Central and the small hamlets that surround it. I'll talk about the hamlets separately.  The open spaces are particularly important. And if you'll notice the yellow areas. So that was almost like the land which is under pressure for development, which are the only fields effectively between that and the and the hamlets. So it's just bringing up your attention. Okay, so we talked about the aims, I think. Albert, so you have the housing needs survey. And we're currently building out 90 dwellings actually on green end, as I said, down in gardens, which is providing obviously catering for a significant amount of our housing need. We've also got in the plan itself, West Road, which is yet to start on site in earnest, which will probably start being delivered in 2024. So we don't feel there's a rough in the neighborhood plan that shows the calculations of what the housing need was. And effectively how that's being provided for the next five years. So we don't feel that there is any local housing need in the next five years. And there's a list of developments which are catering for that. Identified in the neighborhood plan. The only area that we do have a deficiency on is small bungalows. So the current supply, as I say, of local homes is identified within policies one and two. Self-build and custom build. So there was a planning appeal on the land adjacent to the development framework, which was permitted for nine on Green End Heath Road, which is now on site. We've also had significant numbers of self-builds come forward when there was a lack of housing land supply in the period from 2017-18 through to 2020. So 15 residents ended up building their own in the open spaces outside the village framework, mainly in Little Heath and on Great Heath. So I would say from a self-build and custom build perspective, we've probably better catered than most villages with regards to that. We've also got these nine that are actually starting on site now. With regards to employment, obviously we wanted to support the expansion of existing businesses and try and keep them in the village. As I explained, the Green End development to housing lost five or six main employers from the village, so we didn't want repercussions or any further loss of employment. So we wanted to support existing businesses on the drove road. I think Jenny showed you the red blobs. So the two big red blobs to the north on drove road, basically are the existing industrial ones, a farm and one's an industrial unit of three or four businesses.  So we wanted to just like to say keep jobs available for local people. So the strong emphasis in the neighbourhood plan is the character. So like I said, the gap between central village core and surrounding hamlets. If you look at the right hand pitch, I don't know actually if you find you a picture and I'll tell you where the V shape of the core of the village is. On the left hand side, this is the view from Green Acres Estate across to Dennis Green, which is a small hamlet and basically it's one field's worth with between the two. So this is what we call the Lupin Field and they have been planning applications on that land in the past. So that is one of the yellow fields that's identified in the neighbourhood plan that it has the character of keeping the hamlet and of Dennis Green and Green Acres separate. Yeah, the issues you'll see on the right hand side, that's the extent of the village core if you like. And you'll just see on the left hand side of that picture, there's a social housing development for South Cams houses of North Street and East Street, I think they're called. And that's the beginning if you like of the sinks, which is a separate hamlet again. The housing built by South Cams sits between those things, but basically is in open countryside. So again, you'll see that there's one or two fields of actually separating the sinks from Gallegos Central in that picture. So it's squeezed most if you like at Green Acres to Dennis Green, but also it's starting to be squeezed between Little Heath itself, which has experienced significant development as I explained of executive housing. And also there's lesser extent at the far south of Mill Street and onto the Mill Hill, which is mixed development industry, there is a gap. So there is a gap there between the village core if you like and a separate hamlet. Now the other main element of the neighbourhood plan is to support non-motorised travel and provide new paths and cycleways and bridalways. We had a strategic environmental assessment done of our proposals for supporting new business in Gamlingay. And the elements of that prove that a significant proportion of carbon emissions will from travel by the private car. And obviously we have very limited other alternatives in our location. So the purpose of the policy and the objective was to reduce motorised travel by encouraging people to out their cars as much as possible and to walk around the central village core rather than getting their cars drive to school in their car drive home. So basically make it safer for people to walk and cycle. And so we did some studies and the brown areas the areas where we wanted to improve links within the parish, but obviously there are also more strategic links to link with neighbouring council areas and neighbouring villages for example Potton, Wearsley and also to Everton. So the brown roads there basically are the ones that we want to try and improve. Okay and the last element really is the protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Just concerned the number of applications that are coming forward in there are outside of the village envelope and what they are and there's quite a lot pressures. So on the left you'll see as I've said we've already seen this picture you're looking towards Gamlingay Wood in the far north and then on the right this is the one of the roads that takes you to Little Heath. It's very a single track road open to traffic but it is under pressure from neighbouring planning development. The first rate development potentially we could border this if there was an application to develop land adjacent to it. So this route in particular I think is very important and is very characterful so I think it's important to bring it to your attention. So our valued local amenities are a bit concerned about what's going to happen on the first school site. As I said this is the only area you can land a helicopter if there's an emergency on the west side of the village to service the people in that area. If it was to be developed there would be nowhere for people to access that emergency healthcare service. The building you see is a fairly new extension to the first school. So unfortunately there is one policy in there about the reuse and I understand that there will be some applications coming forward from the county council to reuse the whole of the first school site in the new future. But as I said we want to improve pass and encourage and motorised travel within the parish and we also need a new football pitch. So particularly on the west side of the village we have the limited amount of play opportunities and sport facilities on the west side of the village. Everything's on the east side near to the eco hub so our idea would be to try and encourage and provide some kind of sports facility on the west side of the village within this plan and one of the policies specifically asks to provide a new football pitch. So the policies in summary, housing growth, housing that's an appropriate size affordable adaptable, local character, protected landscape setting on the open side of the strong sense of character, local economy and employment, nurturing, grow local businesses, protect value local amenities including the first school and grounds, encourage people to get out and walk, network of footpaths to provide walking, cycling and riding for everyday journeys and recreation and to protect and enhance the natural environment and biodiversity. There's a quick flash through some pictures of Galilea just to bring the idea of the character areas which are identified in the Village Design Guide that we can quickly go through just to identify the main characters and try and get it in your mind where everything is. Okay we have Church Street which is our main village street where we have mainly our shop and our main pub which is the Cocking and we've also got the Wheat Sheaf pub and the church at the end obviously is Church Street and there's the co-op and a few other little, I think it's a fishing tackle shop in the middle there's just opened up, so a few bits and bobs and I see on the cross where this picture is taken there's also another, I'm McColls and there's hairdressers and just to the left and down Sinks Road is where our post office is. So this is if you like the core centre of the village, Mill Street is the other main old street so there's a garage for court there and it's a fairly narrow straight street which is the B1040 takes you from Biggleswade 3 to A428. Can I just ask in reference to Church Street? Yes. Because there's always cars parked down there. Is that residents who live on that road parking there? Is it other people sort of coming in to use the co-op? Most residents but there are also quite a lot of people who yes travel by car to the shop but to just park and get out get back in and go. Yes so there is an issue there we've tried to address it in the past not really there's not much more we can do about it unfortunately. Other than improve cycle walking or if you've got not to use the car? Yes exactly so if we make it easier for people to walk and cycle we hope that they choose that option. So you'll see here that there's a main triangle of the main central core area so there's the road from from Potton that you see in in the in the foreground they go straight up the hill that's Mill Street and then there's a triangle off that which is Stocks Lane and then obviously the top part of that is Church Street so there's a triangle which is the old historical core of the village and then if you look at then there's got housing estates dotted around the outside so sorry in the previous slide there's that there was the don't worry about it that's Chapel Fields and then you see on the far right that's Poppy Fields and then obviously to the west side we've got Green Acres estate and then we've got numerous numerous other states that are dotted off Mill Street and Wesley Road. So next sorry next one that's so that's an example that's Poppy Fields which very successful development obviously provided a finance to this for this beautiful park yeah the land transfer from the from the land owner to create the park the money from with section 106 and also significant resources to help build the EECA hub. Employment and business so this is Broken Group on Mill Hill.  We have also other employers next slide which are Tipper frame manufacturers so Pinewood structures are based in Gamigay Donaldson's also and they're basically providing obviously supporting the housing development industry large lorries obviously taking these products leave and arrive in Gamigay quite regularly of course in problems obviously on the narrow streets but Roofing Trust is modular housing sections obviously not too far away from Kingspan so the next slide Hamlet so again this shows you on the right hand side you'll see that's Little Heath and as you see it's completely separate from the the main village but coming increasingly developed with executive single dwellings also we're receiving quite a lot of applications for annex accommodation and Airbnb type and so re-accommodation in that area but you can see there also there's an old historical Saxon Walkway that comes off that main road that you can see to the left which takes you across is the Green Sand Ridge basically it takes you all the way to Layton Buzzard and along there is Dennis Green basically which is a very small Pamela I mentioned to you just opposite Green Acres and then you see in the far distance obviously Gamigay Wood and the and the Heathland if you like the sort of Heathland to the left which is the Great Heath this is another picture of the Lupin Field as we call it and in the distance you can just see Dennis Green so Woodlands and Heathlands I think you've just seen the picture of the Heathlands you can see from this picture this is just looking across the recreation field from the Yickel Hub towards the wind turbine you'll see Pottenwood in the distance so Gamigay if you like is surrounded by ancient Woodlands and so this is Pottenwood which is just outside our Irish boundary there's also White Wood which is to the left of this picture right to the edge of the Great Heath which is like an open expanse to the left left of Gamigay okay you can see the Pamela Wood in the distance okay and we've just talked about character hedgerows previously this slide again all hedgerows are marked on one of our plans obviously you have your own records as well relating to hedgerows but it's very important feature of Gamigay Parish particularly even within the urban areas some existing ancient hedgerows still survive and we'd like to maintain and keep those and obviously this the character of this road to Little Heath really needs to be so just to talk about our current issues I've probably done it as I've gone through so we have at the moment significant numbers of our next applications in Little Heath and Great Heath in the open countryside we're just concerned that these are creating additional separate households or holiday-led accommodation which increases pressure on our services and amenities James can talk about whether or not sexual assistance contributions aren't relevant obviously it increases issues on access to play doctors facilities and our footpaths and cycleways and we haven't got any footpaths in the hamlets hardly at all and very limited street lighting if you like our one of our aims for this neighborhood plan is to try and improve and provide at least footpaths in some areas for these for residents who live there so also there's a lot of conversion of agricultural buildings to residential in the open countryside particularly in Little Heath and Great Heath and James will talk about whether or not we're able to provide any additional contributions in that area but I think not I think was the answer but I'll let him cover that so the other thing we have suffered from the past is a drip feed of new applications where we've had applications for two or three dwellings which have been approved and then another two or three and another two or three or another two and three and I think down the bottom of West Road was a prime example of that where the developer got away without any section 106 contributions for anything and we have a development I think of 13 dwellings down there in the end where the parish gave absolutely nothing from it so that is common has happened previously and it's likely to happen again on the new South Build site on the Green End. Little Build is online I've talked about that Station Road so what happened was the lower school moved to our middle school and the middle school was closed and the middle school became Gamming Gate Primary which is on Station Road. That has been very successful and has expanded and is continuing to expand. Unfortunately there was no remediation measures put in the planning application or permission to improve footways and cycleways to the school. Previously obviously a lot of people bring their children because they're of a younger age to the primary in their cars rather than previously as the middle school that the children used to walk to school. Now significant numbers come by car and that's caused significant issues in the Station Road or the whole of the east side of the village at school pick up and drop off times and also obviously the new uses for the old redundant first school site and the potential impacts that might have on residents in the local area. We have some applications converting premises on search streets to take away units and there's just been some issues regarding resident amenity and issues relating to those. We do need a new football pitch perfectly on the west side of the village so if there's any opportunities with pre-apps where there's a site in the west side of the village and there's opportunities to provide sporting facilities we'd appreciate it if that was mentioned at least. And Jenny you obviously covered the issue of the Mill Hill anomaly where we did have a policy a specific policy relating to improving and creating more employment on Mill Hill which was removed by the inspector. Obviously there are some large employers up on Mill Hill but Gam 4 doesn't actually it's not relevant to them or however we would also obviously like to see electric charging etc etc on the Mill Hill site but it's not actually in the policy unfortunately. So hopefully that's covered Gamma Gay in a nutshell. If you've got any other questions you want to ask me about it I know James is going to cover the issue specifically related to Gam 8 and securing finance for improving footpaths and cycleways which is a specific issue that's been identified in this neighbourhood plan and all the details of that are in a Pentax 3 in the make-up plan. If there's anything else anyone wants to ask me? Hello is it Kirsten? Hello Kirsten, my name's Phil McIntosh me interim delivery manager for the west team. Thank you very much for your presentation quite useful to get a rundown on Gamma Gay so thank you very much for that. I just had a few questions and I suppose I'll start with the housing site you've got one housing allocation which you've referred to and I just wondered if there's been any discussions on that site with the parish as yet about what may come forward what your what your protection I suppose envisaging coming forward because there's no there's no reference to quantum of development about what number of dwellings that site might take and also thinking about you your policy talks about wanting one and two beds but obviously it doesn't exclude the provision of other size dwellings 3 4 5 which I think you've sort of say the village has got enough of but your policy doesn't exclude that. Yes I'm just wondering really what the parish's view is of what they see coming forward on that site. Okay well the planning provision is for 29 dwellings it was it was granted in 2017 right the mix has been identified and they're about three within four or five months of starting on site there is a full housing as part of that scheme which is identified and it's all with local village criteria for all the affordable housing social housing that's rented and showed ownership as part of the scheme there's enough of one and two bedroom accommodations within the site and some bungalows does answer your question. Yeah yeah that's yeah that's fine I hadn't appreciated it's already got a planning permission I thought it was a new allocation for a site to come forward so yeah that's that's helpful thank you. In terms of the James is going to come on to this obviously the tariffs that you've that have been referred to in the appendix of the local plan and you've talked about trying to encourage business and employment in the village but you're then also applying a tariff on sustainable transport I just wondered if the Paris has got views about whether they think that's actually going to discourage businesses wanting to be in the village. I don't think so I think we've had consultation with all the local businesses and that was run as part of the neighborhood plan process and we didn't receive any objections from any of those businesses to the policies identified in the plan so I did specifically do a business consultation as well as resident consultation as part of our process. Okay I suppose that's well yeah I suppose that's existing businesses yeah I'm just wondering yeah around obviously if because it does relate to new business units whether there's yeah we shouldn't see whether there's some concerns around having to apply that to business units but like you say we'll have to wait and see what the outcome of that is. I suppose by any other point is around the infrastructure talking about and you're saying that the village wants a football pitch and footpaths and all that sort of stuff but just wondering how you expect that that is really going to be delivered if there isn't the growth that would suggest that it's capable of being delivered through development as proposed in this neighborhood plan. I suppose the plan is a period of 30 years in total isn't it and but the first five years the housing need is satisfied but that's not to say that obviously there will be new development coming forward in the future so I think that the door is open effectively. Also residents are aware that the football club need a new football pitch and obviously local landowners may be willing to consider provision of a field in the proximity of the village and obviously if they do approach you for pre-app discussions it's just very useful if you alert them to the fact that that is a required what a need in the village. It's just obviously communication at that early stage is really important so that's why it's there as a part of the policy. Okay yeah I don't know if Jenny knows whether there's been any sites put forward I'm assuming there has been under the emerging local plan and whether they've been looked at as yet as part of that process but I suppose that would maybe be early for that yet I don't know if Jenny wants to comment on that. Yeah okay that's great now thank you very much for that it's useful and as you say if we do have landowners trying to promote land or bring sites forward certainly I'm sure they will be wanting to speak to the parish about them we would certainly be encouraging them to do so. That's great sorry I just had a question this sort of piggybacked off what Phil was saying maybe James is possibly going to help so I don't know but I had sort of concerns around contributions towards the cycle and footway improvement plan between Potton and Sandy the sort of has that been costed up as part of the neighborhood plan? There's a detail in the Penjix 3 of how that was that the numbers were actually came about and it's on the model advised by James and the county officer and so basically it's a calculation and then James will be able to explain a bit further but any new development within Gamagay needs to apply that and I think James is going to talk about that. I'm concerned with that because obviously you're saying that the housing need is for the next five years broadly satisfied but when developers do come along and we do secure contributions we only have a certain amount of time to collect that money and spend it before the developer can ask for it back are you confident that there's going to be enough development coming forward to cover the cost of the entire improvement works and deliver the number because you know the contributions that we can ask for need to be sort of proportionate and commensurate to the size of the development. That's the detail that's in the Penjix 3. So effectively Gamagay Parish Council have their own allocated reserves to try and improve footway and cycleways and we also have the access to county council to for the minor highways improvement schemes to develop portions of and we have already delivered I think a 200 meter stretch to the farm shop this financial year which I think is cost about £85,000 so the Parish Council is used to delivering and improvements to footways and cycleways within the parish and it's something that we do so it's not a problem the money obviously gets passed to the parish council we have five years in which to expend it and obviously anything that's not expended will go back to the developer so effectively that that's the safety mechanism for them. As long as you can deliver it in part as the money comes through and not just have to wait until the whole sun is in or delivering. I mean it will carefully manage and obviously we have to monitor all these policies as part of the neighbourhood plan so I'm looking to all of you to help me to do that because I'm not an expert in monitoring and we gain neighbourhood plan policies this is new for everybody but what I can say is we do have a good track record of delivering projects and it's not something the parish council is going to shy away from and the issue of linking with Potton is part of a larger scheme but there's also small stretches of footpaths with you know 20 or 30 meter stretches that are missing within the the main framework of Gamlingay that we can easily deliver and we think we're confident that we can do that. Right so a tiny bit of storytelling here if you bear with me for a second so Southcams as you should all be aware is not a still charging authority so we are entirely dependent on developer contributions to mitigate the impact of development and secure money from the developer for the community. Also you're probably aware that the written ministerial statement made by the government in 2014 introduced a threshold beneath which developer contributions shouldn't be secured towards kind of large-scale projects of which many developments would kind of need or benefit from. Admirably the parish council through the through the neighborhood plan attempted to address this issue by constructing a policy whereby for all new employment space 21 pounds per new square meter was paid into a pot by the developer through a section one of six agreements to provide a fund for walking cycling and horse riding and then for residential development it was 10 pounds a square meter. The inspectors report which you can obviously read basically and this was Gam 10 originally the inspector modified the policy saying that it was now going to achieve two objectives the first of which was to support development of sustainable routes and then the second one it says to provide a context for individual discussions to take place with developers to achieve developer contributions whilst acknowledging the restrictions in terms of the SIL regulations and as you know SIL regulation are 122 provides for three tests that need to be satisfied when lawfully securing a contribution. So the inspector recommended that the level of funding sort is captured in the supporting text and as an indicative figure and then appendix three and he went on to say that appendix three which is where those rates are now contained rather than the body of policy itself he said provides a degree of assurance that any funding sort has been carefully considered. In amending the policy which now is Gam 8 it's slightly more opaque than what the parish council and I and you guys as planning decision takers would probably like. So what it now says is as appropriate to their scale and nature new residential and business units should mitigate their impact in the local road network etc etc and then as I said appendix three is where those rates that were previously in the policy are now contained. I think it's true to say that there is some degree of concern by officers as to how that now gets applied because the certainty that was there in the vision of the parish council is diluted somewhat. Stephen Kelly is quite firmly of the view that it still applies in the way that the parish council wanted to apply. Now it may end up getting tested at appeal but in terms of Southcams issuing planning decisions Stephen Kelly is firmly of the view that a section 106 agreement is required to secure those rates prior to planning mission being granted. So that's a very kind of very quite quick kind of overview in terms of the actual mechanism that policy or the supporting text certainly envisaged a unilateral undertaking being submitted by the applicants to the council so as not to delay the planning process where the council needs to be party to a bilateral section 106 agreement and then if that is the case if we had a unilateral undertaking which we did we've drafted a unilateral undertaking which will eventually become I mean it's very easy for a developer literally to fill in kind of eight or nine kind of fields you know application description application number owner site address etc but the interesting bit about picking up that last exchange with the unilateral undertaking there is no there is no opportunity for the person giving that undertaking to require the council to return the money if it's not used so Kirsten you talked about five years we often use ten years repayments in the unilateral undertaking there's no obligation on the district council actually to return that money ever so it's it speeds up the planning process but that's the trade-off with the developer they can't ask for that money back so it's almost kind of protected in that sense. That's probably enough from me for the minute. I'll just ask a quick question about that because I think full residential was new to ending this it's £10 per square meter I measured one and it was like slightly so I haven't because it didn't sell part there of I've just done it rounded it down so hopefully that's correct. Maybe he's got our first one. It all means it's £10 less that we're also it's not like a huge amount like you know with the planning fee it's always up there or we didn't specifically say that so I've just rounded it down. I'm sure that's but I think this is probably something where we're going to have to learn a bit over the course of the next few months and possibly years as well because I think this Kirsten and I had an exchange of emails earlier this week where the reality of the policy I think is now starting to hit in terms of exactly how it applies so for example the wording of the policy is new residential and employment and so an extension to an existing premise the policy could be interpreted and it might be should be interpreted that that wouldn't be liable because it's not new but then it's a new floor space so it's whether the new relates to the premise or the business so I think there's I think there's quite a few and luckily I'm not a planning officer so I don't need to but I think there are some that there there is going to be a loss of conversation kind of within the team to ensure that we're being consistent and help hence the the kind of need of benefit for regular kind of meetings with colleagues because yeah I think what the parish council envisaged has been muddied a little bit by what the inspector then actually said and I do I do think at some point possibly in a year or so there will be an inspector's decision that will either undermine the policy or give it strength which is currently kind of a bit lacking yeah but yeah I'm sure Kirsten won't mind you asking for £10 isn't it? Yes what I can say is my email is always there please ask or pick up the phone and speak to me if you've got any concerns or issues or anything you want to clarify obviously we're learning as well as you but you know you understand the principles and the reasons why those those policies now exist and what our intention was for them and I think that's the main thing that you understand the rationale behind why what we were trying to achieve so that's it still all a learning process and yeah like I say please always get in contact could I just make one final point as well unrelated it's something that Phil was talking about in terms of the football pitch in South Cams there in the last few years there have been two appeals allowed for five-year housing land supply sites one for 30 houses in Swayze and one for 49 houses in Orwell both of which secured blue land for recreation ground purposes in Swayze we've got 2.4 hectares which is absolutely massive in terms of a land take where the inspectors in both cases still found notwithstanding the small scale of the developments they were still necessary directly related and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind so what I'm saying is you know a 30 house development extension in the west of Gamlingay could still conceivably reasonably be required to provide a football pitch which would far exceed the land take that policy would strictly kind of require. Can I ask a question on the back of what you said about the business? What is the parish's intention? Is it new businesses or is it extension to existing businesses or do you not know exactly? I think if you're thinking about a large extension which would require a number of employees visiting that site that previously didn't visit that site or visitors visiting that site and you're requiring additional services to support it I think you know a large extension our intention was that that would apply. Okay but obviously like I say it would be a trial and error. What are you saying with residential extensions? Well again you're talking about additional bedroom spaces, additional car parking requirements, additional requirements on the services of Gamlingay, doctors, play spaces, shops, facilities, it's additional load on the on the on the on the parish so the whole purpose of the policy originally was if there was an additional load to the parish we need to provide those footpaths and cycleways to make sure that people don't get in their cars. They walk to them and that was the whole principle. Are we applying it to every household or application? That's what was intended. Sorry I've got to pick on this and I agree with what James has said that I don't see this bit applying to extensions it's for me it's for new dwellings and new units that are created. I hear what you're saying Kirsten but I don't think that's what the inspector is going to do just to define it more for your purposes I think. Yeah I think James is right that what the inspector has done is actually made this policy very opaque in the amendments that he's made at least with what you had before was clear albeit he specifically says it's the de facto seal which is not acceptable and that's why he's taken that out although we're now seeing who you're applying it like a de facto seal so I expect this to get challenged at some point in the way that we are intending to apply it to start with but yes I'm not convinced that it's the way the inspector deemed it to be applied and my view is it certainly shouldn't be applied to extensions specifically householder extensions. I mean there's nothing there's nothing preventing I mean what this policy doesn't do is override local plan policies TI 8 and 2 which cover developer contributions to mitigate the impact of development for transport and everything else so even if there was a large extension or if there was an extension to an existing premises which was demonstrably it was identified that it would cause a demonstrable impact on the local road network then don't rely on this policy have a conversation with Cambridge Accounts Council and say do we need money for roads and for paths and things like that and you know in my experience with Tampere is he'll ask for anything that he can get his hands on so in those instances kind of use the policies that you think are going to carry the most weights in the circumstances. And Jess so I just to be clear on that as well I think if there's an extension to an existing premises which is creating new units then you could there's an argument there that they're not just saying it's an extension to an existing business if it's an extension to an existing building but is going to create new space for new tenants or whatever then yeah that's certainly I think open for discussion but I see it being not relevant to an existing business that just wants to have a bit more full space to expand its business that's already operating I don't see that necessarily being relevant I'm aware we're over time so anything anything else any one question we obviously are very aware of a few little peaks and the growth that's happened in some of the humblest um is that do you want growth in those areas that outside the framework aren't they at the moment? No it just seems that the water has burst forth and then it doesn't seem to be anything to stop it right yeah very nice. Yeah we're constrained a bit by that because a lot of that we think happened when there wasn't that lens so we as a team a lot of us didn't deal with Hemley and Gay before so we're thinking oh what's what's happened and I'm so surprised yeah so we feel like I had the time to play. I've seen things have grown even before I've made versions and yeah there's a lot been a lot of appeals that you've had to deal with really that's the only satellite Hemley that seems to be thank you so much we have a lens of yeah and I'm just concerned that it would come to such an extent that it's merging effectively it might merge with Gamma Gay effectively yeah so as long as we try to retain those fields I mean I don't think we would think now we've got the housing figures haven't we we won't be yeah there should be pressure from my housing yeah housing amongst perspective and we still want to try and respect the character of the original a little if originally was there because it was brick brick fields and brick workers cottages supporting that industry right at the end of the needs so there were occasional you know small workers cottages and one or two slightly larger properties and that's that's why it's there effectively but leave it that and thank you everyone and I'll let you carry on with your meeting I don't know if there's anyone thank you very much