think whether this is refusal or acceptance of the recommendation and I wouldn't be supporting an emotion for deferral so we're being told technically we have grounds for acceptance we have heard the concerns around the fact that this was pre commencement and it wasn't pre commencement and yet it was so sensitive we all know it's such a sensitive site so there's a timing issue around that and compliance with it and the fact that on the outside of all this there is a lot of legal context for me the fact that we are looking at in flooding conditions what I'm finding very hard is I know we have to deal with the rules we have in front of us and if not then somebody could appeal and win the appeal against us but I do think the rules are not keeping up to date with climate change I know there's a government consultation out there will be changing the rules I consider but we don't know that yet so we cannot yet base our decisions on what we think should be the rules I don't know if that's being very helpful members but this is where my head space is right now and I would like to say that I can hear that there has been considerable engagement both from our case officer and from the lead flood authority and they did pause and stop and they did go and review so you know that is a good thing but there has been that engagement I wish I would have seen more of it on behalf of the applicant yes we're in the debate out there the Williams that's what I was kind of framing for our debate that's alright thank you chair so I've just been doodled on by councillor Robert so I might have to do some distance there if I start to flinch but yeah I think you're right deferral is a yay or an a today we're at that point now so I think the suit various things I think we need to clarify so for me yes deferral is gone I need to take the illegal advice that we've got that we can can make a decision today on it and it does feel that we're sort of in a minefield of like say a legal minefield that one way or another somebody else is probably going to decide but we often get into this conflict of technical advice and local knowledge and it's a constant frustration of mine and I'm sure it is of everybody that we have local residents that literally see it they see it for example flooding twice a year and then they're told it's a one in a hundred event given everything that is that is going on and given the level of knowledge and local knowledge I'm minded to refuse and I appreciate very much that we're going to be told about the technical advice and everything else but I do feel on this one we need to give local knowledge a chance and for me I will be minding that way we've got evidence of the flooding we know of the problems in the area and like you say it's rare to have pre commencement conditions so it's a recognised issue in the area so it's I'm going to give local knowledge a chance on this one and I'm minded to refuse Thank you Thank you chair this one was a decision that was due to be taken by the 18th of June the Outline Planning Commission was granted in September 2017 whatever the process was the reserve matters was granted 15 November 2019 we have just been advised by our legal advisor that that has not lapsed we asked the parish council I forgive me I forget exactly who asked whether this was something that was capable of resolution we had rather a long answer but I wasn't satisfied that it amounted to the word yes we had a very persuasive representation by forgive me I'll call the senior local member by the local member it seemed to me the gist of that was that if it hadn't lapsed we should defer it until such time as it had lapsed I'm not entirely convinced that we could go along with that we then look at the advice we have received from our statutory consultees on this and we heard from the LLFA this morning and we're informed that that advice takes account of a meeting of all parties including the LLFA and I believe I'm going to water with the parish council on 26th of July that is since the heavy flooding which I believe occurred on the 20th of July in the light of all that evidence when we're faced with the question do we agree to the condition submission of details required by condition 10 on surface water drainage we've been advised this has been separated from the foul water drainage I find it very difficult to say that we should not now approve that and that we should again defer this matter or fail to decide it we are not here to say whether we think we would grant a planning application in the first place we are not here to say whether we would have approved the reserve matters we are here to confine ourselves to that particular question in the light of the evidence we have heard today I don't believe we can come to any decision but to approve the meeting of that condition Thank you cancer doctor Taking the points that cancer fame has had in broad term diamond agreement this is the site that obviously we would not have approved in the first place but you have decided on appeal but as you have put explained we have gone through various reserve matters which have already been approved I as I obviously explained would have been happier if there was one meter between the lowest floor level and the highest flood level as predicted and there is only 700mm so the question really comes down to whether I consider 700mm acceptable the flood authority seem to consider that acceptable I don't think in terms of the examinations that they have done that I can see that we have grounds like cancer fame that we have grounds to refuse it however much I might not have wished this development not to have taken place in the first place so I think that I come around to the opinion that we should approve the application No other speakers Thank you chairman Right Oh you did want to speak Yes I did Yes chairman I mean we have a huge responsibility where flooding is any sort of a threat and we know around the district we have various places where there is a big water problem and one can think of Swayze one can think of Tumihawkins Council of Tumihawkins on area where we have seen huge flood areas over the time when we have been into that patch and visited them and Linton I mean it is practically notorious for the amount of flooding that it gets and how regularly it gets them and on page 425 of the paper copy paragraph please it is sort of it says during storm conditions service water down the site and into the battle road regularly described as running like a river and I'm quite sure that that observation is absolutely correct now we have two country legal opinions that's not unusual and we've had legal opinions ourselves in the past which actually haven't stood up to actually investigation so I think we've got a situation now where we have two differing legal opinions and I think the word that councillor John Batch will use was that it would be reckless well I actually think it would be irresponsible of this authority to go along with this situation and approve it given that there are so many various and variant opinions and I cannot believe for a moment that any parish council in South Cambridge or even the larger ones would go down the route of judicial review if they hadn't had advice that it would be worth their while doing so judicial review is a very serious matter to take on board it's very expensive they will have to take I'm sure council and planning consultants on board to argue their case now they wouldn't be doing it if they didn't believe that they had a strong case to argue and I'm afraid I'm beginning to think that actually they are probably correct that the approval has fallen by the way and if that is proven to be right and we don't say that into account today I don't think we're going to be in dire trouble and I think quite rightly we would be in dire trouble for ignoring that I think it's one of those that really we do have to be safe rather than sorry and I think that really I agree this is a yes or no today deferral wouldn't I don't think anything because I think that the differences are so large that it's actually what is needed is a new application to see how that would run now given what we know but I'm afraid I have to say I think it would be entirely irresponsible and very dangerous for us could be very expensive for us to go down this route and if we do give it approval and there is what is envisaged by the residents of Linton if that happens how could we actually sleep at night knowing that today we had a chance for it to be really reconsidered but we gave it and we let their homes flood I can't go along with that thank you chair thank you ymgyrchewd I know that sometimes we've had data from applicants especially with flood calculations that have not been quite accurate and in fact in one of my cases it's been local residents who've torn it apart and made them go back to square one so to speak but I'm also concerned that we seem to have statutory maps that don't take into account what's actually happening now and what that means is we potentially will be making decisions based on inaccurate information I know what's before us we've seen what's before us but I'm still not convinced that the flood maps being used are accurate enough and I know that Linton have gone to a lot of trouble actually to raise their concerns and I do salute them for what they've done can't have been easy I say it's a tough one we need to determine this I still haven't made up my mind but that's hard and we have to the fairness both to the case and the parish council is there are a set of rules that are out there are a set of published maps this is how all kind of things are determined but we're concerned that they're not they're not right I am concerned that they're not right and that is from personal experience in my ward whilst I know there's no objections and there's no objections but we know what sort of goes on potentially this is one where we probably need to throw it back at the flood authority to go what the heck are you doing how do they update it where's the feedback do they get feedback from residents and they update their maps on that or they just leave it and go it's okay I don't know Council of Dr Timmy Hawkins has said my thoughts probably far more eloquently than I can so yeah I think I will be voting to abuse this application yeah Thank you chair I too am member for a ward where we have sovereign flooding where it's not in the flood zone awful problems and I'm very conflicted over this because on the one hand we have the first hand experience on the ground and on the other hand we have a set of maps and rules that says that isn't happening so the experience that people have come to talk to us about I think we need to listen to them and I too I don't feel like I can support this at all because of them I've got Council of Dr Timmy Council of Dr Richard Williams Thank you chair like other members I find this a difficult one I'm putting all the legal dispute to one side and not considering that given what was said earlier so just looking at this on the ground I do share the concerns of other members I think it's very important that our decisions don't become entirely about reports and preset maps and that we do take account of local knowledge and I do find the evidence that's been put by the parish council and actually by the local members as well quite persuasive and I think it is important that we do take account of real world information and not just become an automated system as I say but preset maps and on that basis after having struggled with this I think I am minded to refuse as well Council of Dr Clarend Clarend Dr Clarend Thank you chair Yes it's a very difficult one we've had a lot of information I want to pay tribute to the people who have spoken this morning to the case officer to the parish council to the local authority providing us with such clear information I think that as other people have said those on the ground those experiencing flooding those living with it on a very regular basis we have to pay attention to what they've said and to balance that with the other evidence that we've been given and I'm coming down on the side of refusing I was trying to work out what the initials ME were Thank you chair your indulgence I share the council of dawnhans concern indeed that of other members the importance of taking account of local knowledge and the detailed assessments in this case however I'm a bit worried that we are saying I think this came up from what councillor Hawkins said followed by councillor Ifith and councillor Wilson that we have doubts from our own wards about the accuracy of the environment agency information here they are a statutory consultee that is assessed by the local LLFA and we have heard from them today and I'm just a bit concerned that if we take the view that we never get accurate advice from the environment agency sorry I know nobody actually said that then it would be very difficult for us to resolve any planning applications we have to take advice from our statutory consultees and assume that they have assessed the concerns that we may have about the accuracy of the data and now it's ME so I'm very much chairing this I don't want to go now into every single planning application around every single application that is in a flood zone one or two that we've got local experience of flooding because we all have and therefore we don't trust the statutory consultee and that's what I was saying we've got evidence in front of us that statutory consultee not only have they done it they stopped everything and they reviewed their information together with the local community as well so a huge amount of effort has been put in not just maps I think it's much much more it's been about how does the system work and looked at what were the causes of this on the 20th of July my concern my concern is a bigger one because I think the rules will change and this is a big big application and I think our statutory consultees will soon be catching up with climate events because the rules and the guidance will change around that and up until then things that are subject to things that haven't caught up with that but where is my greater concern my greater concern was that this was a pre-commencement condition and it was supposedly to be done pre-commencement and together with the local community now what's in front of us a pre-commencement or done without it being as they're doing at the moment they're discharging to already it looks like it would have been the same thing and it would have been approved by the by our statutory consultees so that in some ways the timing isn't different because it's what's in front of us that those are technically acceptable my concern was such a sensitive site to have not complied with the pre-commencement condition is what is on something that is so sensitive is where I'm very very concerned about this now if we, is that enough to say refusal it's kind of what's going around in my head is a concern but I'm still not decided on where I am actually so Councillor Richard Williams Councillor Cairdon, then I think we'll move to a vote yes, thank you chair just, thank you for taking this as I jump in just on that last point I sort of put that out of my head because I was under the impression that breach of material consideration breach of the planning condition could not be material consideration but I just welcome some clarification whether I'm right on that because I put that out of my head I could put it back in Thank you chair through you I think as summarised by the case officer we've amended the recommendation to reflect the fact that they've started on site so we would be agreeing the details as being acceptable but not discharging the planning condition given that they have breached the trigger which was recommencement albeit of course it was due to be determined some time ago and I understand that the breaching of that trigger only occurred very recently but yes, thanks chair but the question was is it material did a material plan consider a breach well, I don't think it's in my opinion what we're looking to decide is whether the technical details of the surface water drainage scheme are acceptable and in that sense the breaching of the trigger doesn't really affect whether or not that scheme is acceptable as a solution to deal with surface water drainage Thank you Caz Clare Dawn to then count the dots to me Yes I just want to go back to someone else that's got a microphone I just want to go back to something that was alluded to earlier I wanted to make it clear in my remarks that I it wasn't that I didn't have any faith in the information that was provided by the Lead Local Blood Authority or by the Environment Agency in my view it's a balance and that's what I was trying to get across as I said in my previous remarks we've had very good reports from the case officer if I thank him and also from the other statutory consultees but it is a balance Thank you and that's why it's before us Yeah absolutely Thank you Chairman Supposing this was approved but the conditional cannot be discharged How does that affect the permission then? It is being discharged already No? I know that we can approve it but it means the condition is not discharged it cannot be discharged ever again I think that is what's been advised In that case does that mean this site still then does have that information or not because when it comes to people buying anything on it it can still show that this condition was not discharged so how does that affect the plan information of the road? Thank you Thank you Chair through you Yes sir, correct Council Hawkins that we would be agreeing the details but not discharged in the condition the condition would remain undischarged or not discharged, one to best term but what we're saying is that the technical details are acceptable and therefore we wouldn't be taking any enforcement action because the technical details meet the requirements of that condition albeit they have only been discharged provided after the event At what point do they get discharged? They won't be discharged we're just agreeing the technical details but not discharging the condition because the trigger was pre-commencement and they have commenced But then what's the implication of that? The implication is that we wouldn't take the enforcement action but the condition would remain undischarged and that would flag on any search that a subsequent purchaser may do but there would be a letter there from the local plan authority saying that the details were acceptable but the condition was not discharged because of the timing issue Did you want to come back on that? Yes, I bring this up because I have had a query like that referred to me in the past where a self-builder went through this exactly the same situation but they couldn't have a certificate at the end of a build because they didn't discharge pre-commencement a condition which was found okay So you might end up with people buying properties on this development that is not lawful or does not have a lawful certificate to say that it's been built to all the conditions Chair, through you I think that's a risk for the developer to have born in mind before they made the decision to start on site and I'm sure they did and then for any subsequent potential purchaser to also take a view on it But you want to show on the search results when properties are being bought Yes, as I described earlier that will be there but there will also be a letter assuming it's agreed from the district council saying that the details were acceptable Well, Councillor Williams Thank you chair I just want to clarify because I feel I may have got confused and we had some interesting interaction with the microphones which meant it sounded like we had sweep from city and sweep on this side of the room for a minute lots of squeaky so I just want to make sure I've understood this bit correctly Is the advice that if we can refuse it today but essentially we then wouldn't take important action so in which case there is no like what's the purpose of it Through you chair what I'm saying is if the application was approved we wouldn't be discharging the condition we would be confirming that the technical details are acceptable but the condition wouldn't be discharged if the committee decides to refuse the application then the next step is for the district council to consider whether or not the important action is required as a result of that decision Thank you chair I just thought it might have been both way round in which case I thought what's the point in this but yes, thank you for the application I think we moved to a vote members on terms if it was to be refused Yeah so I'll put my heart at on for a moment it would be remiss of me not to highlight as councillor Bain has done that clearly we have no technical consultee objecting to the details that have been provided notwithstanding I've obviously heard what the committee has had to say I think a reason along the lines of the scheme being that's been provided not providing satisfactory evidence that a method of surface water drainage or a satisfactory method of surface water drainage can be provided and that would be contrary to policies CC7, 8 and 9 of the local plan It's satisfactory that's the point so you're saying policy policies CC7, 8 and 9 and this is the hard thing if that was then taken to appeal and we have no evidence to show except for local knowledge that this is not technically sound that's putting the council there so that's one of the things we have to take really seriously, I know I'm just saying this seriously yeah there is case law to that effect yeah there's well established case law to that effect it was actually highlighted in the planning advisory service report that was done for the council as well of the clearly it's for the decision maker to make their decision but the significant way should be given to the advice of technical consultees but it is ultimately a matter for the decision maker okay yes we're ready for the vote oh I'm not sure no I think we're going oh so we're moving to the vote and the vote is in terms of the recommendation on yes exactly we've already voted mine didn't vote yeah it's still around but it's not the blue so you've registered it's just not accepted your actual selection so just be did it tell me I'm wrong what can we kind of vote for you then if you press that again it should there we go yes okay so that is refused with seven votes against two, four and one abstention it's one, 37 and I think we have a break for lunch and until said put from it should we say quarter past I think it's easier to say but let's start at quarter past two hello and welcome back everybody to south Cambridge district council planning committee we've just had a little break for lunch and we are now back in session and starting with agenda item seven which can be found on in the paper pack on pages four five one to five three zero about now this is application 21 slash zero zero six two nine slash seven S73 and it's land to the north and south of Parklow Road Linton the proposal is for S73 variation of condition 11 of foul water drainage of the outline planning permission S stroke one nine six three slash one five slash outline for the residential development for up to 55 dwellings of the landscape buffer and new vehicular accesses from Parklow Road for revised wording to refer to the foul drainage design the applicant is Abbey developments limited the key material conditions foul water drainage this is the departure yes because of the application being a departure from development plan and this is being brought to the committee because it's departure and a referral from the council's shared planning service delegation meeting and Paris council objection and the presenting officer Michael Sexton are you still with us Michael hi hello there don't give up on us you still I know I'm here on back again next time as well with other items for you so excellent thank you very much good do you have any updates on this particular one I do obviously it does quite closely to the updates I provided for the previous item but I think just for transparency I'll run through those again if that's okay chair so again further to the update reports members were provided yesterday with a copy of 3C legal services for more response to the pre-action protocol letter that we've received there is actually an update to the main report as well paragraph 10 refers to a discharge of conditions application which sought to discharge condition 11 as was imposed originally that was approved by the council on the 17th of September it says pending in the report but that has now been approved as we've discussed on the previous item the terms are raised about commencement of works on site which the enforcement team have investigated and the agent was also emailed to confirm that works have indeed commenced on site that doesn't necessarily have direct impacts for the variation of the condition that's before members in this application an email was sent to all members on the 24th of September from Linton Parish Council with an attached letter that just reiterates their grounds for the judicial review and their preliminary outline and reserve matters consent have lapsed and again an email was sent yesterday by the parish council with various attached letter and two plans from the plans pack about discrepancies between the submissions and again just to confirm going through the points of the parishes letter the plans do have the same plan number but they are made to two sets of applications the plan submitted to surface water drainage is in colour and highlights the relevant areas of animal paving etc for that particular condition whereas the foul water drainage application has the plan that grays out anything that's not relevant to foul water drainage and just highlights the foul water piping and associated annotations and again to confirm the drawing number reference in that letter from the parish has been publicly available on the website and the parish were formally consulted on this section 73 application on the 8th of March and the 7th of June no other plans have been submitted this part of the application so that is the only one available and again just to remind members we received a letter from Lucy Fraser this morning primarily raised the horsey throat sites but there is reference to the Bartlett Road application before committee today it doesn't raise any new issues it just raises issues of judicial review and any other matters that have already been covered so I appreciate quite a lot of that I was repeat but I thought it would just be helpful to clarify so I shall move on to the presentation if you could confirm and share please that you can see a presentation on the screen yes thank you excellent so this is a section 73 application to vary condition 11 about one consent 196315 OL which granted permission outlaw permission for residence permit of up to 55 dwellings with landscape buffer and new vehicle access and the application seeks to revise wording to condition 11 which I will come on to and again the site is land to the north and south of Bartlett Road which is this site outlined in red parcels to the north, parcels to the south and it's on the south-east corner of Linton outside of the development framework boundary so the outline consent imposed a condition that prior to the commencement of any development a scheme for foul water drainage that connects to manhole 7501 via a pump regime shall be submitted and approved by the LPA I'll just jump back a slide manhole 7501 is located to the west of the development over roughly roughly around here sorry my cursor is jumping around because the reference 7501 is quite a way to the west of the site the section 73 application is seeking to vary that condition such that the developer could connect to the existing network on Bartlett Road at manholes 1501 and 2501 or via a manhole 7501 via a pump regime so it's giving the option there's a bit of complex history to get head around on this one as set out in the report so the outline application was considered by the council's planning committee in September 2016 I'm not sure how many members on the committee today were on that one some may recall two extra conditions were agreed by the committee relating to foul water drainage and surface water drainage so including condition 11 that's before members today the committee minutes set out that the Linter Parish Council went into the report by an independent drainage consultant that advised connection to manhole 1502 at Bartlett Road was not acceptable there was no technical objection from the manhole water to connection to the Bartlett Road system but notwithstanding that lack of objection the committee resolved to grant permission with the condition that specifically required connection to 7501 via a pump regime set out in the report and again the application is seeking to vary the condition so the developer has the option of connecting to Bartlett Road system or manhole5701 again just for context this is the technical drawing for the foul water network coming down the northern parcel into an area of new piping which heads west off the plan continuing along connecting into the existing Bartlett Road system and as you can see the foul water connection from the site would also come up and connect into the Bartlett Road system or the developer has the opportunity of pumping it through this pumping station along to manhole7501 off to the west so the key consideration is the foul water drainage because that is the condition that is being sought as being varied under this application the concerns of Linter Parish Council with third parties in relation to the scheme and noted again the specialist advisers and statutory consultees consider the foul water system to be acceptable and provide a satisfactory scheme and officers are there for review given the lack of the technical objection the recommendation that the condition should be varied is the one that is presented to the members today that is it for me chair I believe we have Hannah Wilson from Agnan Water with us thank you very much for letting us know about that and I do have some information that the parish council would like to be displayed so if they could let me know when they want that to pop up happy to provide once again that's very very useful thank you Michael so we will move now to Kazethir Williams thank you chair it's just in the interest of transparency obviously I do correspond and work alongside Lisa Fraser at times that I haven't had any communication in relation to this application at all yep okay good thank you very much and we'll now so we have somebody with a video on and the name is as Steve Webb can you just turn your video off please thank you very much yes I'm sorry welcome that's myself that's fine good so we'll now move to the public speakers and we have the parish council again and I don't know if the three of you are there to talk to us again which is councillor Kate Kells the councillor in-evolved and Corrie Maywell as well hello hello the same excuses as before regarding my lack of long but I have put on some pleasure so I don't look quite like a zombie anymore thank you very much should I start now I have some permission from the parish council right do you want to have the pictures displayed as you're talking could you display the pictures please I have repeated as we should do that you have full authority on the parish council to represent them so thank you right this is not a minor but it is a major change from the approved outline either the drainage can join the specified manhole 7501 or to go to Bartlow Road and through the village where the drains are old in poor condition and already overburdened the wording of this amendment is neither precise nor enforceable it is also clear the developer had no intention of implementing the condition this application is not a revision of wording but is required to be a new application this needs to be considered the new application should be made and need and to be considered under the laws and policies that apply now not the current development plan confirms the development is unacceptable in principle the need for this condition was properly considered in the outline knowing the need to use a better section of the system this was agreed by council the applicant and Andrea Water all accepted the parish council consultant's report the outline condition to go to manhole 7501 was clearly thought out to reduce the risk of water pollution and flooding to the village we can see what happens when Bartlow Road sewer overflows it's coming out down by the river all as we see and the next photo as well please thank you this is water coming up through that manhole like a fountain into the river this is what happens when the manholes at Bartlow Road overflow the protected drop stream is polluted and the village centre is flooded the sewage system at the eastern Linton was in powerless condition when our consultant wrote his report in 2016 much more so now with all the additional housing that's been added to it just a note I'm near water assess each manhole individually and not for their cumulative burdens on the 20th of July the system was overwhelmed following a burst of heavy they are not in precedent to drain for and near water has confirmed that the Bartlow Road sewer is shared between surface water and sewage it's too much for the system and not preventing flooding CCC put a moratorium on development related to drainage in Linton excuse me a moment this investigation into the causes of the flooding has not been reported this application is premature decisions should wait until the review of surface water flooding and the sewage system has been completed and reported upon such a review was considered necessary outline and now again following the recent flooding events following outline it was never done I'm so pleased the fire and surface water conditions go to the heart of planning consent and need to be fully considered following review legally it's also a mess and solicitors acting for parish council have served a pre-action protocol letter you cannot lawfully vary conditions using S73 when the outline consent has lapsed it is unlawful to remove the RM condition and it's time-scaled but it's not been fully discharged and the unauthorised work has started on the house has started if there was still a live consent this alone would invalidate it thank you thank you very much do we have any questions councillor Dr Tony Hawkins thank you very much chair thanks again you mentioned that the the manholes let me get this right the analysis that was done by Anglian Water was done on a singular basis for each one not on the cumulative impact of one to the other did I hear you right yes okay and the reason again for the condition that it goes through 7501 because the Bartlow Road manholes are a combined system which as you've seen from those photos already overflow when they are stressed with too much surface water okay so to add any further foul water from this site is going to run the risk of again seriously compromising that sewer right thank you I'm quite familiar with the second picture that you showed because we have some that gets like that when it's at surface water inundation so I wasn't surprised to see that if I may the other question I wanted to ask was it's paragraph 90 and on the printed papers is page 467 in that the applicant kind of contests your report and concludes that your august 2016 report was not was not prepared to reflect the implications of development on the Bartlow Road site and uses incorrect methodology what do you say to that I was involved with that report the report was originally commissioned to deal with the Bartlow Road site however Bartlow Road site however it was then transferred to look at the horseheath Road site because the Bartlow Road site had already been approved but it's the same it's the same group of of pipes right thank you chair thank you very much and as I said councillor Dr Martin Kern if they're connected to everything was connected to 7501 originally proposed would that require less pumping than if it was used to the everything was pumped up things as if the other site was used on Bartlow Road I'm not sure that we've calculated that we're looking at the safety of the pipes the one going to 7501 is a long Fleming's field on the flat the one going to Bartlow Road is quite a steep uphill time yes the one going to 7501 is a 375 diameter pipe as opposed to a 180 so as opposed to the old 6 inch it's a larger pipe which was the main reason for choosing it it was a newer and larger pipe and I don't want any more questions so thank you very much for your time thank you for being with us see you again thank you and we also have councillor John Bachelor as the local member I think to speak to it yes afternoon again right ready to go yes please lovely okay again I won't detain you very long I'm here to support the view of the parish council just to reiterate Linton has largely a Victorian sewage system which is part of the Bartlow Road one and is not doesn't simply doesn't have the capacity I'm sure in your papers you will have an independent survey commissioned by the parish council a few years back which shows that the whole system is close or at capacity and any more stress put on the 6 inch pipe is just not acceptable so just basically we should stay with the 7501 should this this project go ahead as you know my hope is that it shouldn't be there in the first place and the condition yes and after your very good decision just recently I hope that this won't actually be relevant so thank you thank you very much and I'm sure we will make use of from Anglia Water to also get their opinion on this do we have any questions or comments or questions to John Bachelor I don't see any thank you very much John okay thank you members so we are now to the debate during which we can ask questions either of the case officer but also we have Anglia Water here with us and it was Hannah Hannah Wilson hello Hannah hello lovely to have you with us if you don't mind me asking straight I'd like to ask a question so yes could you just explain to us why Anglia Water considers that this is technically sound given the concerns that we've obviously just heard and we've read yeah absolutely so first thing just to clarify is that it's not a combined network we're looking at a foul only network that they're proposing to connect to and that means exactly what it says is that that should be taking foul flows only that surface water should be managed and directed elsewhere and not into that foul only system so when we look at a capacity assessment for a development site we look at where that development has the right to connect to and in this instance excuse me this development has the right to connect into Bartlow Road in that foul only system and the assessments that we do is we look at the foul flows that will be coming from that site based on the properties and the occupation and we make an assessment based on those foul flows entering a foul only system now what's happening is that you're getting surface water and ground water runoff which is entering a foul only system that should not be there and we can't take that into account as part of a capacity assessment we have to look at that network as it was built and as it should be running to so what we say is in dry weather flow conditions that network is working effectively and we have been on site and we have looked at our network and we can confirm that it is running effectively for that condition the dry weather flow which is what it's built for apologies if I'm not making sense and please do come back with more questions but basically the technical assessment on both connection points so both manholes shows that there's no mitigation required that the development can connect and the network is capable of accepting those additional foul flows from that development site without any mitigation required does that answer your question that does and when you said that you've been to the site and reviewed it and was that also at the time of the flooding or just after the flooding were you able to review it again yes so we did some reviewing of the site of the area after flooding we also reassessed and just checked calculations after the flooding just to make sure everything was done appropriately and accordingly so we have done that and it came back with the same conclusion that it can connect without mitigation required and can I just sort of it being a Victorian system and can't so that's quite normal for a lot of our networks the age isn't unusual and it's really it's not about the age and a small pipe can actually take quite a lot of capacity it's quite deceiving in that sense and it's more about the velocity of the flow just to be clear even a pumped connection we hold back and restrict flows at a pumped rate so we're not allowing flow flows to come in and I'm intemuated and that's really what the assessment is all about looking at more the technical details if it's a pumped flow do we need to restrict that flow what's the material of the pipe what's the gradient of the pipe how does the actual flow travel and so having that older system isn't unusual at all and actually it works quite effectively it's only when we see those extreme weather conditions and that surface water and groundwater getting into the fell only system that's when we see these problems during flood events okay thank you very much council dot that's Richard Williams oh thank you there were two questions I wanted to ask but I've just asked a clarification of Ms Wilson did I understand you correctly did you say that it's supposed to be a foul only system but there is surface water going into it but you can't take account of that in your assessment did I understand you correctly yeah so I'll just elaborate if that's okay so it's a foul only system so it's built for foul flows only we do not seal we do not have an entirely sealed system you will see the manhole covers they are not entirely sealed therefore when there's extreme weather events that surface water or surface groundwater from the land it cannot seep into our sewers and that's what causes the issue now we in new development sites especially we look to ensure that surface water is managed effectively and therefore not going into a foul only system and we also understand that over the years historically people may have had extensions or new driveways and unknowingly connected those surface water flows into a foul only system and again that's where the problems occur and surface water is very much a kind of multiple organisational remit to manage that so you've got highways authorities and obviously the need for flood authority but when we look at the foul only system we do allow when we have our analysis and assessment of growth we allow for 25% infiltration of surface water so even when we do an assessment we do understand that there will be that slight infiltration of surface water but we can't build our systems to accommodate this extreme weather event and surface water and groundwater flows entering a system that is not designed to accommodate such flows they should be dealt with effectively at source Come back Yes, thank you chair I did have a second question I'll just go straight into that I think this might be one more a question more for Michael but I was wondering if somebody potentially Michael could just tell us why when the conditions originally set it was thought appropriate for the condition that it had to go into sewer 57501 what was the thinking behind that original condition? My understanding I wasn't involved in the outline application is that obviously it brought to members to make a decision on their application as a whole and as part of that consideration there was the independent report from Linton Parish Council and at the committee meeting members took the view that it would be appropriate to for one of the better phrase side with the report of the parish council and imposed the condition that requires connection to 7501 rather than to the Barlow Road system so I think that was a decision made within the committee meeting that that was the specific wording required that was felt appropriate at the time to ensure that the delivered an appropriate system but I don't know how helpful that is Thank you and Councillor Eileen Wilson Thank you I wanted to ask have there been any recorded incidents or how many of the surface water going into the foul road system and the parish council mentioned that it overflows into the chalk streams and pollutes them how many incidents have been of that in the past say five years with the severe weather? Thank you So in regards to complaints or reports of incidents of sewer flooding we did have a look for the parish council in Barlow Road and the reports of sewer flooding there over the past five years were mostly due to blockages or transferred sewers so sewers that were not originally in our ownership then they were transferred to us and potentially there was some maintenance work to ensure that they flowed effectively so in terms of the surface water flooding and extreme weather flooding it's something that we've seen recently that we don't have a loss of historical complaints or records on it it's not to say it hasn't happened sometimes they aren't always recorded or reported to us directly it could be to the flood authority the environment agency there are a number of bodies that people report to in terms of pollutions again no record of pollutions I can go back and check but as far as I'm aware there's no record of pollution and often what happens is when surface water into our found network it can be the case that if there's a pollution incident recorded we have to then inform the environment agency who come and do tests we do sample tests and it could be that actually discharging into the water course was so watered down by the surface water that it wasn't actually a pollution event it's not to say it didn't happen but there's levels of pollution and the environment agency do check those I can go back and double check that because I don't want to give you misinformation but I'm certainly happy to pass that on to the case officer so in the recent floods event there were instances where they were backed up into their gardens and unfortunately into properties but that was on the Lonsdale side of the village in terms of the Bartlow Road I'm not aware and the records that I have show that there were blockages more blockages or like I say transport sewers again it's not something that I can say to certain I don't know if the parish council will potentially know more but I'm happy to share some of those reports obviously I know you need to make a decision today but we can be open and transparent and share those with the case officer if required. I'm coming back again to the issue of the two alternatives 7501 or the ones in Bartlow Road and the energy use for pumping can you give some indication about the amount of energy use for pumping for the one the Bartlow Road solution and the other solution because obviously we're concerned about the use of energy and sustainability and the less use there is of pumping obviously the more sustainable solution would be found. So in terms of that level of technical detail I can't answer that however what I can tell you is that this development have put forward for us to adopt their on-site sewer network so anything that they do build and they want us to adopt they have to build in accordance with adoptable standards and our standards are the national standards that water companies use so we ensure that it's done to a certain standard in terms of energy I can't be specific so I'm afraid I can't tell you that. Okay thank you very much Hannah for for being here because it's really really helpful that you're here and you can answer our questions as well provide extra information. Yes Sorry was that for Hannah? Yes the question is from the water. Sorry. Okay. Thank you it's I guess it's going back to your previous statement about the sewer has been only for foul and not for surface water but you do know that it does happen. Now I'm glad to hear that you have a 25% allowance for infiltration but what we have is a situation now where this is happening more and more and it seems to me that you need to be perhaps taking in this problem into account more than you already are so I go back to the question at the time that the inspector gave the decision for the foul to go through 7501 I presume Anglia Water was present had prepared something so why is it now saying that why are you now accepting that it can be buried because that wasn't part of what was Before we go to that and can we just check with the case officer perhaps on that because I think it was the committee and council that did that rather than Anglia Water at the committee meeting? That was part of the decision notice that condition was part of the decision but it goes through 7501 Michael can you you weren't here I know but can you clarify that? Sorry I missed part of the question because my team froze it could you just repeat councillor Hawkins my benefit that mandated that the foul goes through 7501 that was a condition that was imposed by the planning inspector is that correct? No it was the planning committee who made the decision on the outline application so that was a condition imposed by the committee as per the minutes that are appended in one of the appendices of this report So that's clarification one but there was a reason for that and that reason hasn't changed has it? No it's got potential lack of capacity through the others but it hasn't changed in so far as Anglia Water didn't raise objection to connection to Bartler Road at in 2016 and Ninja Parish Council submitted their reports and obviously members made a decision on the wording of the condition at that stage and we're back here today in a similar situation where Anglia Water are not objecting to connection to Bartler Road has very well explained but again the parish council have submitted their report again so it's again handing it to members to make that balanced decision I presume you are aware of the problem with was it, what's the number? The final broad one the bar whatever the other B mode is you are aware of the backing up and the other flow that has been occurring on Bartler Road sorry yes so again that's the surface water issue which then surcharges the sewer and I just I don't know if it helps but just to touch on a point about the future that you've mentioned is that we recognise that climate change is happening obviously and what we're going to put flow monitors in the village to ensure that the surface water we can understand that surface water inundation more in detail and identify where it's coming from and when it happens so that we can then share that with the lead local flood authority and monitor that closely and it will be monitored over a 12 month period I don't know if that has answered your questions or concerns It doesn't help now because you've not done that analysis have you not done that? It can only do the analysis on what that file network is built for and the file flows that are going in because that surface water shouldn't be there it should be managed elsewhere Thank you I'll be going around in circles if I can Okay, thank you very much and Dr Clare Daunton You're fine Councillor Deborah Roberts Thank you Chairman, through you Chairman just a bit of clarification really here and following on from Dr Councillor Tumi Hawkins Page 40 Page 455 on the paper copies and paragraph 35 Linton Parish Council it actually says then which confirms what Dr Hawkins has just been saying The condition imposed on the OLL approval was that the site drain should link to manual 7501 This is in part of a newer drain near Emerson's Palace The perilous Parallous I can't even say the word The perilous state of the drainage system at the eastern end of the village was understood by South Cam District Council Planning Committee and was the reason for the specific condition that the surge link should be by Manhole 7501 not to Manhole 2503 or any of the Barclow Road That's the Parish Council's report That's in promotion we received and what we took on board That's in promotion we received and what we took on board and so what's changed Thank you And I can't for Dr Martin Cahn Can I ask Angliau Water again Angliau Water is not objecting to connection to the Manholes and Barclow Road but not objecting is not the same saying which would be the better which would be better from your point of view connection to Barclow Road or connection to the 7501 which would cause these problems and be the most acceptable solution not necessarily whether it's not going to be objectionable so different things So either solution both options there's capacity within that network to accommodate those flows If there wasn't capacity we would state that and we manage that mitigation that's required so we have done that assessment either connection point does work in terms of the capacity I don't know if it's okay to bring it up now but just to be clear the developer has the right to connect to the nearest connection point of a pipe that can serve that development site and that is Barclow Road So either option would work in terms of capacity in terms of legislation the developer has the right to connect under the Water Industry Act to that connection point in Barclow Road We take each one in its own rights but we do know that there are connections between these two. We have just said in terms of the surface water drainage that we did not accept that and that is something that needs to be dealt with and as we understand this is about the file water drainage and I'm even though I say I agree with what's changed what perhaps we didn't have water there at the time and I think here so what we've got here is once again it's technically acceptable what's being proposed the developer has the right to do it and yes we do know that surface water has an impact on it and we have just said we didn't accept the surface water because it's not right but actually in this one it is simpler and I have heard the parish councillors I'm thinking about this but I am also listening to the statutory consultee so this is for me a slightly different one to the previous application and I would be and I think in terms of that balance I'm more on the balance on this one and saying that I find it very very hard to find an objection at this moment in time on that and would be looking to move to a vote but once we've heard of the reasons why not Thank you chair. I was just wondering if it's possible. I thought I saw on the team screen something from Councillor John Batchel I was wondering if there's a local member whether we could it might be something that's helpful for our decision making. Sorry? I didn't say I'm sorry didn't you? That's right I'll carry on chivalry a message appeared to pop up from Councillor John Batchelor on the teams and I'm just wondering it might be helpful to our decision making. Well it may or may not be helpful to use the chat and I haven't got it in front of me and I think a certain counciller knows that we're not supposed to be using the chat to have a separate non-transparent debate that's not happening in the chamber so we should actually saying that the chat is only to us to speak and we've passed the moment where we had counciller John Batchelor too OK. I'll try to give a child I'll let you tell him off chair Yes thank you Good No, the other local member is not having any intervention in this aspect so that's where I am and so I don't know where anybody else is but I at this moment would think that we go to the vote on this one Thank you very much and I did write down where the other one was which is on page 472 in the printed pack which is paragraph 129 the recommendation and this is that officers recommend that the committee grants delegated authority to officers to issue a new planning permission subject condition set up below with any variation to condition 10 agreed by chair and vice chair and conditional on the completion of a deed of variation to attach the section 106 from the 2017 oh I see to attach the section 106 from the 2017 outline consent to the current section 73 application correct Michael in terms of that but still the recommendation that is correct just for clarity that obviously this would be a new permission so the deed of variation would make sure the planning obligation attached for the original outline is brought forward Yes absolutely so that's belt and braces Okay members so if could we now go to Chris I don't have a member so that's the emotion if people were voted to refuse that the reasons for refusal Chris so I think the reason for refusal would be very similar to the last item referencing the same policies but in this case that the alternative foul sewer connection is not considered to be acceptable by the council and therefore not accord with policies CC789 Is that acceptable to everybody? Good okay thank you if we go to the vote members okay and we have that has been refused so we have seven refused and against three who have approved thank you very much members and we move to now item number eight Henry bachelor will rejoin us this is on pages five three one two five six two in your agenda pack hello get warm oh yes make sure that you're logged back in to the respective microphone please yeah good so we are on agenda item eight this is for application s slash two five five three slash sixteen slash condition h and the ward of linton part of linton for the land of course Heath Road proposal for submission of details required by condition twelve foul water drainage of planning permission two five five three slash sixteen slash outline for outline planning application with all matters reserved for up to 42 dwellings and allotments at not less than point four five hectares the applicant is Crowdy's homes and the key material considerations for us members foul water drainage and neighbour amenity it's not a departure from policy and it's been brought to the committee because the application is one that in the opinion of officers in consultation with chair and vice chair should be determined by committee because of special planning policy considerations the complexity of the application which is significant and of strategic importance to an area beyond both the specific site and parish in the presenting officers caron pal coven's are you with us I am indeed thank you chair hello hi there afternoon right just before we start I'll do a short verbal update so in terms of we have received three additional representations since the publication of the report which was a letter from the Lucy Fraser the MP to Chief Executive of South Cams Linton Parish Council and a local resident in summary following concerns from the parish council and local residents in relation to the unauthorised development continue on the site and potential flood risk given the recent flood the MP has requested that the condition in relation to foul drainage is considered at the same time as the planning committee meeting as the condition in relation to surface water drainage basically the development proposes two separate systems one for foul water and one for surface water these are disconnected from each other foul water is proposed by the foul water sewer where surface water is proposed by sustainable drainage systems in the form of an ink filtration to the ground via a basin and permeable paving with regards to foul water drainage anger and water and the drainage officer and environmental health officer have not raised any objections to the scheme the important action in relation to the foul drainage scheme was not considered necessary given that it would not be used until the development is occupied in any case works would rise to stop on the foul drainage connection responses received from all parties are based on the submitted information for the flood drainage application Anglin Ward has advised that parish councils independent drainage report follows similar principles to its assessment however it has overestimated the dry weather flow in the sewer network however it does know that our surface water contributions in the foul only system obviously which has just been discussed previously does not have a lot of complaint history for Linton and to ensure it understands the full extent of surface water in the foul network it is installing flow monitors in the village this will show the dry weather flow baseline and help identify the amount of surface water and the sewer's response in rainfall events is evident from the recent flood that there is also an overland flow issue surface water entering the network from this overland flow and it will work with the lead local excuse me lead local flood authority to share its findings basically in conclusion there is dry weather flow capacity in the current network to accommodate both the development sites without mitigation a connection has already been made at the top of Lonsdale and this has been approved the onsite foul network and foul pumping station has not been spitted to Anglin water for adoption and it will be managed privately we have agreed to adopt the surface water underground onsite pipes network but not the sluts features attenuation bond after the flood event the network at Lonsdale wasn't inspected and an error was recognised in the asset mapping a new assessment was carried out and the site can connect without mitigation to the foul network we've also got a new map which I will show in my presentation shortly also the surface water from Hoss Heath Road site went into the foul drainage they lifted manhole covers in Lonsdale and Baker's Lane and CCT was carried out within the sewer in Lonsdale it was running as it should have been with no damage or connections Anglin water therefore have no objections to the scheme the foul drainage scheme is not required to be redesigned just a little bit with regards to surface water drainage because a lot of issues have been raised with regards to that a temporary stop notice was issued on the site on the 24 February 2021 in relation to surface water drainage as the original application was refused this stopped work on the site for 20 28 days in order for new information to be submitted the applicants have been advised to stop work since the expiring of the stop notice continued but no further formal action has been authorised however works were advised to stop on the surface water scheme a new application has been submitted and at the current time the legal authority have no objections to the application however the parish council still raised concerns and they are currently being taken into consideration thank you so with me I will just go on to my presentation now so can you see a presentation yep I'm just trying to bear with me it's in presentation mode now oh okay I think we're seeing your screen now for some reason oh yeah okay on my screen I've got the slideshow mode before you did whatever you did at the last minute we saw the presentation mode this one no if you're now going to you went up then to presentation mode didn't you and we saw it yep I'm just going to try yep so it's in presentation mode now nope okay sorry I did try there we go don't do anything else okay okay it's not on my screen in presentation mode that's probably why so okay so this is an application for discharge of condition 12 foul water drainage of outline planning application for 42 dwellings and allotments to the lands of the south of Fawcete and Linton but I'm just going to the next slide this is the location plans shown in the site so Fawcete Road goes along the top of the site you have this line here is Baker's Lane running southwards from the south west corner and Lonsdale is the residential road to the west so south just to make it clear southcams do own a strip of land along the eastern boundary of the site which is shown in this next slide which the developers do need to cross that land to connect to the manhole in Lonsdale in Linton the approved sorry approved site layout for the development so you have 42 houses houses on the frontage there which come down and then in the south west corner there is an area of public open space within that public open space is the proposed infiltration basin for the surface water drainage scheme you have a main adopted road into the site which comes down here and then this area to the eastern side is allotments so in terms of the foul drainage that's quite small that plan so I have done a larger plan but basically it's a private foul pumping station on the site which will be in this location slightly larger so this is plots number 31 here the private pumping station will be in this location and there will be pipes to the east of that which will run along the front of the houses and then go along between plots 33 and 34 and then northwards and at that point there will be a holding sort of area before it connects to the manhole in Linton basically the capacity of the pumping station is 24,480 litres which incorporates 150 litres per person per 24 hours it will be pumped 2-3 times per day that's great to be agreed with Anglia and Water which I understand to be 5 litres per second when it reaches Lonsdale it will go into the main public sewer system to the south along Lonsdale so just in terms of the previous map on the site this shows so this is the map that Anglia and Water had originally basically shows so the blue is the surface water pipe and the brown is the foul water pipe and the foul water pipe originally went eastwards from the bottom of Lonsdale before connecting to Bartlow Road which is down here the new basically investigations on the site have been carried out and the new flood water map shows the new route but the accurate route of the foul water pipe which actually instead of going this way to the east actually runs west and then comes along here before going reaching Bartlow Road so just some details of the foul pump system so the actual foul pump in terms of it's above ground it's a manhole sort of cover above the ground but then you do have a telemetry system which is a 24 hour system which basically monitors the levels of such within the pump to ensure it's working correctly etc so that is above ground I do have a photograph if you didn't need to see that so the key considerations in relation to the proposal of foul drainage and the impact upon noise neighbouring meaty in terms of noise and odes thank you which is a different situation compared to in terms of our legal context and that we defer this item so that it is considered together with the surface water drainage so we understand that technically they are separate systems but as we've just heard they were supposed to be pre-commencement and that would affect the design so that committee that committee would be able to consider both at the same time just as today we've considered both at the same time so that's what I would like to move that motion members and I've seen that Williams has seconded that motion and the reasons for that do I need to thank you we're okay to go to a vote on that one can we do that by affirmation agreed glad we came back and to address the speakers who are ready and have been on most of the applications actually today so to the parish council who are about to speak again thank you very much I hope that there is some satisfaction in that proposal to defer and once again I really like to appreciate the work that's been done and we know that there's been constant engagement by the case officer in this so thank you very much and also to Anglia Water and to the lead blood authority to come and to be here so that we can talk with you and understand these things so thank you very much for your time of being made available so that means that we so members we have items on the agenda 9 and 10 both of those are update reports on the section 106 and then revoking a TPO before going on to enforcement and appeals so it's 315 it was you know we were kind of looking at a 330 break but I'd like to suggest that given what we've just happened now that we at least do one more item yep is that okay, is everyone okay that we move on thank you very much so we go to item number 9 which is born airfield pages 563 to 590 in your agenda pack right chair just occurred to me I need to declare another non-brochunary interest my employer has previously had a business relationship with the applicant so it no longer does so I'm not precluded from taking part in this one just for openness thank you very much that will be noted I think this is for application s slash 3 440 slash 18 outline for born airfield born when the parishes of born highfields culvert cut the proposal is for an outline planning application with all matters reserved except for access yeah yeah yeah we're not considering the application yes you're absolutely right the proposal is for that but what we're considering is an update sorry got into my stride there thank you very much it's going to be an update report on how we've got on with the section 106 to date because we did ask for a review of that because we're really concerned on our strategic sites what's happening with the section 106 the viability has often been one of these very important issues significant issues so we could move directly to the report by the officer yeah and Kate are you with us yes I am and so this has been brought to committee because you're going to update us on the s106 agreement thank you that's right it is indeed an update report on the section 106 for born airfield new village I can advise you that overall good progress has been made on the section 106 agreement and many items have been tentatively agreed subject to finer detail officers and the applicant have now agreed a revised target date of the end of October for signing the agreement and just for clarification the report is for noting and no decisions are required to be made thank you thank you very much do we have any questions council doctor to me Hawkins thank you chairman just to say thank you to Katie for all the work she's done on this I just want to have some clarification really I'm kind of if we go to page the table on the printed papers 567 where it talks about where it talks about the item six special needs education so the contribution is towards an offside school at north stone that seems to be a long way for kids to go to school with special needs will this be including the transport for them to get there and back that's number one number two is on page 570 item 34 this is the cycle where links to born colicot and camborn I think Katie might understand where I'm going with this because we have had a request from born for a cycle way from the new born airfield village down to born village itself is that included and also 41 paragraph 41 what do we mean by wider improvements to full path network thank you through you chair thank you for those comments with regard to the special needs yes the county council have requested that it should go to the school at north stone I believe that there is consideration for the transportation of children there but I'm sorry I don't know the details off the top of my head I could come back to you at a later date on that the other item you raised was a cycle network there is a condition as well as the section my no six agreement that deals with connecting the proposed new village up to camborn highfield colicot and born now the condition does omit the word born the village born in it and we're looking to see whether that can be included and that's currently under discussion with the highway authority we are looking to provide that connection in the master plan the parameter plans connections are shown good connections a variety of good connections are shown fairly straightforward direct ones that follow Broadway and run parallel to Broadway and through the centre of the site and the highway authority along with the applicant are also looking at a temporary provision because it's going to take about 27 years to develop out the whole site so they are looking at a temporary provision in the section 106 agreement to connect up to those three adjoining villages as I said it is still work in progress and that is what we are looking to achieve thank you the final item my apologies you might have to remind me what your third question was paragraph 41 line 41 of the table sorry the wider improvements to the good path network right it sounds big yes the details of that again are currently under discussion between the applicant and the highway authority so I can't confirm exactly what the details of that will be it's still a matter under discussion thank you I know it's in the second table as well isn't it so it's kind of there we haven't got the details on to that one okay and thank you Cody yes yes I just want to come back on councillor Dr Hawking's point about the special education needs I think and to press that the financial contribution includes transport really important good yeah and just to thank we know often we just don't see when we pull those conditions in and we really really argue section 106 we don't see all the hard work that then goes on prior to that and then during it to make sure it's happening and negotiated out and on these strategic new towns which are it's so so important so thank you very much I'm very glad that we're going to have the reviews of this because it's key so thank you we now go on to agenda item 10 which is the Water Beach New Town East strategic sites section 106 update which is similar to what we've just heard so that's 591-622 in our printed pack and Mike hello hello good so Mike do you yes we're looking forward to the update from you thank you chair my my text will be very similar to Kate so what I can say is good progress has been made on the drafting of the section 106 many items have been agreed subject to details we do not have a completion date yet the report is for no team something I wanted to comment on and hopefully Chris Carter can confirm as well I'm pleased to hear that there will be a further period of public consultation on the draft document before it's signed off so it gives myself others and the parish council another chance to input on such a huge scheme yeah chair through you we have agreed to make a more developed draft available for review by the parish and others I don't know if we're quite at that point yet I'm sure Mike will confirm but once we reach that point we're agreed to do that thank you that's correct thank you chair if I can just confirm what Mr Carter said yes so once we've got to the stage where it's ready for people to comment on it because obviously we don't want people to comment on some of this it's not quite finished yet and then when it's ready for them to comment we'll publish it online so we'll be back in a moment good thank you very much and I think that's an exercise of very good practice I think so that's excellent thank you very much good sorry council Peter Payne thank you chair I'm afraid I'm going to take us back to someone who's been under discussion for a long time the first item of course is 30% affordable accommodation I appreciate this subject to viability I wonder if there's any prospect of some conditionality on that such that if it proves subsequently that the viability test was pessimistic let's say it might be possible to raise the extent of affordability as I understood as we approved it this is exactly how we get more affordable housing and this was really well negotiated by housing but that's exactly what our condition was about but Mike you can perhaps elucidate more thank you chair yes so we've got if members will recall we're both thinking about the new town as a whole because that's obviously one of the things that we're trying to look at the whole is that for the eastern half we were thinking more about both sides of the new town have viability process and the western half the viability process is predicated on affordable housing first and then transport second on the eastern half we were looking at transport first and affordable housing second and then with the target being I think for the western half it was up to 40% of affordable housing then additionality would then go on to transport eastern half transport first then affordable housing up to 40% after that so it was balancing two very important strategic elements affordable housing and transport thanks Mike and I think the communications about this we do need to have better communications about it because as it's written here it seems that it's 30% but we all know as we did those negotiations we have multiple briefings on it this is all to get us up to that 40% that's correct chair and the development over this length of time is at least I know Kate talked about Bourne being 27 years for Water Beach who knows the length of time but it's going to be at least 20 years if not more viability appraisers at various stages during that development will deliver more okay and the preferred options were trying to accelerate it on me that's correct yes okay thank you again apologize I meant to mention this with the public consultation so that's like parity with Urban and Civic so I'm pleased to see that both sides of Newtown have been treated in the same way from that point of view at the end of the day it's one whole Newtown not two separate developments okay we go to agenda item 11 which is to revoke a tree protection order on page 623 in the agenda pack this is for TPO 0005 in 1985 10 Burton and West Wickham the proposal is to revoke tree preservation order which is no longer current and the recommendation is to revoke the order it's brought to the committee as we know as happened in previous committee meetings because it's required under the council scheme of delegation I don't think we've got Miriam with us jave good afternoon nice to have you with us thank you I'll just start then yes please can you see my slide yes perfect this item involves tree preservation order number 5 of 1985 located at 10 Burton and West Wickham the order protected one ash tree the tree was failed wind permission given on the 14th of February 2013 due to the poor structural condition of the tree the decision notice is on file there are no outstanding matters relating to this order and we seek to revoke it and remove it from the register thank you so it was approved so it was just a case that this didn't happen within it wasn't audited at the time in terms of a TPO yep so I think thank you that's a rousing cry of a greed there jave so yes you're having a very different day than most here yes that's right thanks for waiting thank you for waiting an indeterminate time thank you for waiting very much good members we go to agenda item 12 which is the enforcement report on page 625 chair that's actually going to be me now oh the enforcement officer has suffered a power cut in his street and it's not proposed to be fixed into our passport so I'm afraid I've got some updates for you that he's sent through from his phone so if you're okay I'll just I'll read these out so with regard to North Stowe and the recent incident of piling on one of the parcels on phase one a temporary stop notice was served on the 21st of September to cease the piling and the enforcement team are currently collating evidence from residents to commence a prosecution due to them being in breach of the notice all works have since stopped in respect of piling Haydenway Willingham a breach of condition notice has been served on the 23rd of September with regard to piling on site again and the meetings being arranged with members and residents as soon as possible Bartlow Road we've obviously spent some time discussing this afternoon and I think the enforcement team will need to consider next steps following the decisions that have been made today and the same with Horseith Burlwash Manor a ddechrau 21.03587 has been submitted for the retention of two pieces of play equipment and the introduction of an acoustic fence and so any enforcement action is now on hold pending the outcome of that application Smithy Fen the report by Ivy Legal has been completed and is currently with Stephen Kelly the joint director for review and Cottage Nursery there's a multiagency meeting taking place tomorrow to arrange and discuss interests for a site visit but also to limit the number of people in attendance of that ones moving forward and finally Whitehall Farm application 2103532 has now been submitted and validated so it's under consideration I'm happy to take a note of any questions but I hope members will appreciate I won't have the answers immediately but happy to report good thank you so we have Catsa Heather Williams first not logged out chair is that working it was just on on my one I sort of had a bit of conflicting that they had submitted an application and in here it says they haven't submitted an application and then I've also got something that says that they submitted an application and it was invalid so could I just get a bit of clarity as to where we're at so obviously not from yourself but from yourself that's fine I might be able to help so the report was obviously originally published on the 8th of September the email from the important officer today says that the application has been submitted and validated so it should now be live which is that one on Whitehall Farm and Catsa Doctor Timmy Hawkins thank you chairman Brwishmana this has been going on and on and on and on the latest is that we've had the prosecution filed drafted and then once complete will be reviewed by legal there's no time frame to this is there an end in sight at all is my question can we be given some time skill please because this is now getting a bit silly I'll take that back chair but just to highlight the update I was given this afternoon is that there's now a planning application for the retention of two pieces of play equipment in the introduction of acoustic fence I don't know if that's the same enforcement issue but in the normal course of events local planning authority would be expected to determine that application first before then proceeding with enforcement action but I will seek an update from the important officer and ask them to come back to you council Hawkins thank you but I think the point here is this enforcement should have taken place ages ago we've been dragging this frankly it is a little Alice in Wonderland hobbit house kind of thing isn't it so can I just say something and please do take this to our enforcement team which is they did act on the horsey throat and they did do a temporary stop and pause and I think that was absolutely necessary and I'd just like to say they don't often hear it thank you thank you for taking action and timely and that has helped in the feedback into what we've been considering sorry there was just one small thing so that's my page 627 I have no idea what it is for yours but it's noticed served just that the village is Croydon rather than the ward so the ward is the warden just something somewhere is slightly awry so it doesn't get carried on to the future 831 631 yes perfect thank you and then appeals a gender item 13 no particular update chair but happy to take any questions got to Richard Williams thank you chair this is just a clarification page 635 grade Abingdon test decisions split we are often split but we usually go one way or the other by majority so the planning inspector have the power to issue a split decision if there are two elements of a scheme which are discernible from one another I'll ask that the decision notice is well it will be on the public file but the planning inspector's decision but otherwise I can get it circulated yeah but not useful to put a bit of detail on but the split needs thank you thank you chair and if you could just ask officers maybe Stephen and Chris to give some sort of clarification how far behind are we still on appeals because the the Appalachia Park at Falmyr still hasn't had a date given and it must be a good it must be about 18 months I mean I know we've had the COVID what sort of time thing are we on now please I don't immediately know the answer to that but you are right that one has been around as long as I have here so I'll see if I can find out I know the planning inspector do you publish the planning inspector do you publish their time frame for decision making for different types of appeals so I'll see if I can find that for you and let you know thank you just on the land at Mill Lane sourced in at the last meeting we had some concerns about room venues and stuff like that I take it that's all addressed and as it stands we're good to go on the 18th of October chair if I may it's in that week but I don't think it's actually on the 18th and as I understand it the appeal will be in one of the sports pavilions at Campbell so I can circulate he tells us that something good okay and with that thank you everybody thank you to all those online if you're still with us thank you everybody in the chamber thank you members and thank you officers


Why Min-Min? After months of waiting, Masahiro Sakurai has finally put us out of our misery and revealed which character from Arms is coming to Smash. Turns out it's not the game's most prominent character, Springman, but rather the ramen royalty herself, Min-Min. According to Masahiro, this decision was made not by him, but by Kosuke Yabuki, the producer widely credited with the creation of Arms. So why did Kosuke push for Min-Min's inclusion over any other character? Well, it turns out that Kosuke's relationship with Min-Min is actually something of a joke. In various interviews since before Arms was released, journalists have asked Kosuke about his favourite character. He is not always consistent. He often mentions Springman, having sunk the most hours into playing the character, but he'll often use interviews to highlight other characters as well. For example, he once said that Twintel was his favourite, because her, quote, really strong build is rare for a character in a Nintendo game. As much as Kosuke may love Twintel, though, his most common answer when asked about his favourite is Min-Min. Said Kosuke in one interview, talking about maybe just purely from a favourite standpoint, I would say Min-Min. I've said that quite a few times, I think, in interviews when I get asked that too. Usually Min-Min. I think part of that, kind of the joke answer to why Min-Min, is because I really like Ramen. So apparently, Kosuke just likes to eat noodles and Min-Min reflects that love. But it turns out he's not alone in the Arms development team of thinking Min-Min is great purely because her family owns a Ramen joint. When asked about his own favourite character, art director Masakai Ishikawa said, My favourite character in this game is Springman, but I also have to throw in a vote for Min-Min. For Min-Min, she's got a kind of sharp face, you know, sharper features, and she wears this badge on her chest protection that is the Japanese character for Ramen noodles, and so I think just as a Japanese person, she feels the most relatable out of all the characters. In another interview, Masakai explained that this relatability also comes down to Min-Min's choice of headgear, which reflected a fashion trend in Japan at the time. He said, Back when the character was in development, we saw a lot of women wearing shallow beanies over here in Japan. This was right around the time when we were thinking about a ramen-themed female character. It hit us that maybe we can cleverly combine this beanie fashion with an upside-down ramen bowl. That's how it got incorporated into the design. It's clear that the Arms developers have a special love for Min-Min, so it's hardly a surprise that, when asked by Masahiro Sakurai who should be included in the game, Kosuke didn't hesitate. According to Masahiro, Now, you might ask why Min-Min out of all the fighters from Arms. To be honest, it's because Mr. Yabuki, the producer of Arms, said, I want Min-Min. So it's just that simple. Yosuke wanted Min-Min and Smash Brothers because he really likes to eat ramen. Plus, according to Masahiro, Spring Man is a bit of a dead end from a character branding perspective. Searching for him online brings up a Mega Man villain instead. It's understandable that Nintendo wanted someone a bit more relatable, and apparently nothing is more relatable than liking noodles. Masahiro's other favourite character from Arms is Ninjara, who has been snuck in anyway as a me-brawler costume, just in case one Arms character wasn't enough. In the meantime, it's Min-Min for the win-win. Haha, you did not just make me say that. In the meantime, it's Min-Min for the win-win. Her character design and relatable, ramen-fuelled backstory won her a spot in Super Smash Brothers. The moral of the story, clearly, is that we should celebrate the diverse talents and attributes that make people unique.


We are at the second stop of the Plain Breed Barstool Tour and this time we have the two new flavors from the Ghostbusters collab, Slimer and Proton Plasma. We're super excited to see what the people think. All right you guys, we're giving you our two new flavors of energy drinks. This one's Slimer. This one's Proton Plasma. My god, that's actually really good. Wait, really? Wow, this is like candy. I think it's good. I really like this. It's delicious. It's really good. Actually, it's awesome. Great chaser. It's also giving zero calories. That's our energy drink.


On a similar note, a reporter once asked Muhammad Ali how many sit-ups he typically does in a workout. Ali's answer? 50. The reporter was taken aback, surprised that it wasn't much more. A champion heavyweight boxer surely can do more than 50, right? Ali explained it was 50 because he only started counting after they started hurting. The ones before the pain didn't even register there. Muhammad Ali understood the power of stress. Ali was right. The reps you do after the burning starts are the only ones that matter.


My name is Akilah Manuel Mills and I have a master's in Librarian Information Science from San Jose State University. One of the things I appreciated was being able to pursue my degree online. Before you get thrown in the deep end, you have a course where it's just basically learning the platform and getting competency on how to actually navigate and learn. The beautiful thing is there's a lot of support and so once you get in your rhythm, you enter kind of a virtual world and form a cadence and it's like walking into a brick-and-mortar building, especially if you're disciplined and go to the same room or area of your home or the same desk and build that muscle memory, you shift once you sit down and then you're in school space. The majority of my professors were working in the field that they were instructing in so they were able to leverage their actual experience and it made them more trustworthy and it made me lean in more because I felt like they were teaching from a position of authority. I had already been an administration, I had already been a supervisor, I had already worked in the public sector and in a non-profit but I was not good at team. I was a driver and almost fiercely independent and I found in my career the library space is very collaborative. There are no lone rangers which was fine in my other workplaces but this culture of librarianship is very collaborative so now I know how to be a team and many facets and it served me well.