it was approved in 2021 if the reserve matters application were not which is currently for the district council if that were not approved then that outline would fall presumably because it would be more than three years old so the fall back is not guaranteed so whilst we could put some weight on it i think we need to bear that in mind that fall back is not certain um need i did ask a question earlier i'm prepared to let it go up on this occasion but i think given we're being invited to weigh um you know need for laboratory space give that significant weight in the context of green well i think we are going to need as time goes on more information um and about what actually this need is because at the moment it's asserted there's a need everyone assumes there's a need um but i think we'll need some more evidence of that but i will i will be prepared to accept that for this application um i am very concerned about contamination with this planning application i would much rather have seen a letter from the uk health security agency saying all of their points have been addressed we don't have that evidence the answers i got to my questions have not entirely satisfied or have not satisfied me um that those points raised by the health security agency have been adequately addressed i accept that we have conditions relating to remediation but once we approve this application the trainers left the station and then it's just a matter of haggling over details i am not actually satisfied that the um points of concern raised by this application have been adequately addressed i would much rather have seen an independent report where i would have certainty that the concerns raised have been satisfactorily resolved to say that there'll be an ongoing dialogue once we've approved this we've approved it um and i don't think we should be in a position where we we approve things without being sure that some fairly serious points raised by this health security agency which were not addressed um have not been subsequently addressed i think um council handling said it was prepared to take remediation on trust i'm afraid i'm not prepared to take that on trust i would have liked much more information about the discharges into the cam the potential environmental and health impacts of this i would want much more um reassurance on that so um whilst i haven't fully made my mind at yet how i will vote on this application accepting all the benefits accepting the parish council's in favour these are all good things these are all way in favour i'm not satisfied about remediation um council leeson riddrup thank you chair um just one quick point um to follow doctor williams um if if the if we're saying that the fallback position of the residential outline application is not guaranteed and we're saying that this one is not guaranteed i guess we're putting back the chances of remediation for this site in both in both ways so i just just raise that as that was a strong benefit of of the application um what i wanted to raise was to come back to councillor braddon about hazing field wastewater treatment plant because obviously that is a big concern for the community it is an area of large large spills but my understanding was that we're not able to consider that because andi and water have said that they will they will provide adequate treatment um i'd just like to check if that's that's correct because that's that was my understanding um also the re one of the reasons i voted to continue the debate was i thought we were going to talk about conditions a little more before before we came to the vote so i'd be grateful if we could do that before the next vote thank you well i think that if you want to talk about conditions this would be the time to do it because i'll then ask the delivery manager to comment before we actually proceed to the okay so there was the cycling parking condition about the numbers and i guess whether we need to include a clause about future expansion of cycle parking that was in the original condition 39 that was deleted and then for the cycleway condition if there could be something to say a temporary route will be put in before the main route um to be to be in there for initial occupation um i'd be very happy with that if everyone agreed thank you i'm not going to say a few words myself about this in summing up where i understand we've got to and then i will come back to rebecca as our delivery manager um i think we have one or two technical questions you may want to respond to there is the question of economic uh the value plays on the economic regeneration um and then of course as i've said earlier she may want to comment on that the condition point and i've said earlier i will ask her to um just reiterate where we are with the amendments um i haven't actually heard anyone say they would be inclined to any of the concerns that have been raised would be grounds for objection both councillor dr Richard Williams and councillor Anna Braden and we're considering their position but that again is a matter which rebecca may want to deal with whether we are clear as to what the grounds for any refusal might be where the committee to be minded that way as to my own comments i want to reflect what has been said by a number of councillors earlier how refreshing it is not only to hear the positive engagement to the developers with the not just the parish council but with others but also particularly the positive response of the parish council that is not something we always hear on planning applications the question is often whether to reject or oppose and it is sometimes refreshing to hear that following that sort of engagement parish councils are prepared to support an application i want to just deal briefly with two of the matters set up on the planning balance i think there are two key ones that affect us the first is that whatever we may think of the value of this remediation that is proposed this is as is stated inappropriate development in the green belt it's technically the case that is the reason as i understand it will go to the secretary of state whatever our decision may be so the question then is are there very special circumstances that would outweigh that and i don't want to repeat all of those because members have already referred to them but to my mind the the key one is the delivery of a comprehensive remediation scheme of a contaminated site and in my view that and the other items listed on the approval side do count as very special circumstances that would outweigh the fact that this is inappropriate development in the green belt the other one that i wanted to comment on and i don't think much comment is needed on this but i think it is a critical critical issue whenever we face a formal objection from the environment agency on the question of water it is clear to me that with an existing planning consent uh on for residential development which would involve the use of more potable water than this proposal that it is reasonable for us to put our own to take our own decision on this and to decide whether the uh the potable use proposed here um would be ground's refusal in my view it is not i think we should assess that against the full bank proposal what we have here is effectively a reduction in the use of water on this site as against what would otherwise happen uh so on that basis my view for what it's worth would be that we should approve this but before we proceed to a vote i want to ask the delivery manager to comment as said earlier i'm always reluctant to take further comments at this stage but councillor braddon did you want to make a further comment thank you chair it's a question um and it relates to the fact given that we've i think we dealt with questions earlier on is this a consideration for debate before we go to the vote um it relates to wastewater and normally wastewater management of is a condition but in this case it only appears as an informative and i suspect that's because i don't know why that is normally one would want the treatment of wastewater to be handled as a condition that could be enforced against whereas this is only an informative and i just wanted some reassurance from the delivery manager that that is felt to be adequate yes i'll ask the delivery manager to address that in a minute just before i do that two members have said that they are it is in the balance for them as to whether they have grounds for refusing against the officer's recommendation councillor braddon have you come to a view on that now i will do when i vote right but you have nothing that you would like the delivery manager to assess in setting out the possible reasons for refusal the matters that concern me we've discussed they relate to water sufficiency and contamination councillor dr ridgid williamson do you have anything to add to your previous position i would reflect the same concerns right and i'm sure the delivery manager will pick those up can i now turn to rebecca as delivery manager to deal with the the outstanding points before we come for a vote on this i'll try and capture them all chair apologies for not coming back on the question of need councillor williamson that you asked earlier i think it's um we set out in i've got two no staples today um parent 9.45 up to 9.5 in the report um about um the area and the budget statement and the need for life sciences um we have a greater Cambridge employment and housing evidence update report from 2023 um which was commissioned by the shared planning surface that actually this isn't contained within the report apologies identifies as an anticipated future supply of about 9.8 million square feet of office and lab space required in the area of 2041 um in terms of the demand over the same period it identifies as a need for approximately 13.5 million square feet um so there's a net need of approximately 3.7 million square feet that's not already been accounted for through previous permissions so we do have our own report which sets out this high demand for um employment floor space within the greater Cambridge area so that's in addition to um the spring and autumn budget statements um setting out the need for life sciences in this area um with regards to foul water the condition 36 relates to um onsite foul water drainage including disconnection points and discharge rates to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and there are various conditions relating to surface water as well um I can clarify the various amendments to the conditions though if you wish me to at this point so the office of recommendation is for approval subject to conditions and the completion of other section 106 legal agreement the heads of terms of which are set out in paragraph 9.221 of the report this then includes amendments to the conditions are set out in the update report which are to conditions 1 2 3 14 17 26 31 39 and 46 in addition amendments to the condition wording 14 and 47 are set out on the slides on Katie's presentation further amendment to condition 15 the cycling condition to include the wording that was set out in the stroke out condition 39 referring to the 306 cycle parking spaces and also the capacity for expanded and additional cycle parking if required and and further amendment I think I've got four different amendments to condition 14 now as well to include um a temporary cycle route through the site as early as possible in the phasing which will also be picked up in the site wide phasing plan as well so um prior to the um main cycle route going through the site to link the two greenways thank you thank you now before we proceed to the formal vote I want to do two things firstly I would like to suggest that we accept by affirmation the amendments to the proposal that had been outlined most of which we've seen on the screen can I have a proposal to that effect council to me Hawkins council to Sanford are we happy to take that by affirmation before we move to a formal vote and the second thing I just want to get assurance from delivery manager that were the committee inclined to go against the recommendation you refuse this do we have a clear understanding of the possible reasons for that yes or no we'll survive I could do some clarification that's right right my understanding is around water consumption and the environment agency's objection and a potential second reason around insufficient information about the remediation a nod we'll do on that thank you okay let's we'll see whether we come to that point later I think it's time now for us to proceed to a vote on this so we're voting on the officer's recommendation as per the amendments just outlined obviously bless the blue if you are in favour of the officer's recommendation and approving the application then you press the green if you're opposed then you press the other color red I'm not very good on colors so we now proceed to the electronic vote bear with us members right well I think we have all voted now usually I call on the officers to announce the result and I think you can all see it on your screen there so we have approved that application by eight votes one opposed and one abstention that application is approved thank you to all who've been involved in that I had intended to finish at one o'clock so we'd have our lunch I apologize for being a minute late but if we could come back at 145 to consider our proceedings and I'm sorry to those who were hoping to get through another item before lunch there are no facilities here so I'm afraid if you haven't brought lunch you need to go down the road if you're coming back to us after lunch 145 members right welcome back to this meeting of South Cambridge District Council planning committee on 10th of April we have resolved item six we move on to item seven which is an application in Sauston application 2303654 full for westway Sauston direction of three employment and research and development units with flexible again the use classes are listed um with ancillary offices for a total of 8 000 square meters and 18 square meters together with service areas car parking and landscape a number of key issues the application is being brought to committee as it is a departure application and some members of committee visited on 3 April presenting officer is Alice Young this application is on pages 113 onwards in your printed notes Alice thank you chair let me just share your screen brilliant thank you so the application is about Cambridge south on westway Sauston and it is for the direction of three employment research and development units with flexible class EGII and EGII and the eight uses with ancillary offices for a total of 8 000 ish square meters together with service areas car parking and landscaping at Cambridge south so the site is located on the northwestern side of westway um within the Dale's manor business park um on the eastern edge of Sauston village the site falls within the development framework with the green belt and framework boundary to the north and northeast to the east there is a concrete batching plant um with the recently consented um R&D buildings um here um which are currently under construction which members would have seen on the site visit um to the south um is industrial kind of employment buildings um within phase one of Cambridge south development which characterised the business park um and then residential properties approximately 80 meters um away the new Cambridge City football club is is to the northwest and then to the north um further up here which you can't see because it's so far away is a residential dwelling um which is over 100 meters away to the north um and then the C sets um Cambridge southeastern transport link is proposed to be along here um along the northern boundary so um the application site is part of an approved scheme um 27 units for B1C B2 and B8 uses which has been partially implemented um so this scheme is extant and can be fully implemented and is a material planning consideration this is the layout of the extant consent and the red line denotes um the application site boundary for which we're looking at today but you'll see that the development includes this area here and members will remember that this has been built out um as um already on site and this is an aerial photograph um of the application site which is here and built out extant consent here concrete batching plant um Cambridge City football grounds and then that residential property which is up here this again is photos of the application site um is behind this wind turbine um which was erected as part of the extant consent and you'll see it is predominantly kind of scrub lands um with tree belts um along the north western and northern boundaries so this is the proposed site plan um for the three units one detached and one kind of semi detached um which is unit two and three and there are outdoor working areas um to the north um west of unit three and to the south of unit one alongside cycle stores um in these locations as well and then car parking to the to the south and southwest of the units in a similar layout to the extant consent so this one hopefully is a little bit clear on the separation distances so the built form is set off the boundary um approximately here is about 7.6 meters and then um goes to 11 meters up here and then the distance between the um existing units here and the proposed is about um 73 meters so um the proposal is in two stages and this is um a bit complicated but bear with me so they will be constructed um in phase one fully constructed with a laboratory space um on the first floor here which will be extended potentially in phase two if um demand uh allows it so they're adding um additional mezzanine space within the existing fabric of the proposal um in phase two so this is the roof plan and these are the proposed um south elevation and west elevation of unit one so this is the detached unit north elevation and eastern elevation of unit one and then it's the same for unit two and three there will be an extension at mezzanine level in phase two to these the roof plans and the elevations so this is the south elevation and the west and then the north and the east so these uh this is a section which is um section a um which shows the concrete batching plant here um unit one two and three and the amenity space between that and the boundary you'll see that um the height is um approximately 35 meters and this is section b which goes across the site and shows units um two in relation to the existing um extent consent on the other side um the existing industrial building and it shows that it's slightly shorter than um the ridge height of the existing building just for clarification if we go off that could i just ask to understand that is the left hand side of that lower drawing the northern point on the section diagram yeah it's yeah it's just here um these are some 3d visuals of the proposal so this is the southern elevation this too and then this shows the kind of view from westway and that's the view further down westway towards the trap towards the residential property and then this shows the visual in its context on westway and this is the existing um extent scheme um when we were out on site i took um members to the footpath which is to the east of the site um and uh you you'll remember that um this was a viewpoint that we that was used as part of the other schemes um on dale's minor business park so this is the existing baseline and then this here is the proposed development you can just see it coming over the tree line boundary so in terms of um the planning balance um the site does form part of the housing allocation um h1a um despite this the site has an extent approval for employment use um several parts of this um larger housing allocation have been developed for employment use and there is uncertainty regarding the delivery of the remaining allocation due to this and due to these consents um being partially implemented um the council does not wish to carry this allocation forward um in the emerging local plan and does not rely upon this allocation to secure its five year housing land supply as its current supply is 6.1 years the proposal would develop um brownfield land um delivering employment in a sustainable location within an existing business park in sourston village and within close proximity to other r and d uses enhancing the cambridge cluster the employment uses within the development um have changed to reflect the needs and demands of the employment market compared to the extent consent and the scale of development would be um in keeping with the uh category of um village of sourston as a rural centre in accordance with policy e 12 as a local plan the development is considered um high quality sustainable and to conceptually appropriate by virtue of its renewable energy and water efficiency measures uh the siting scale and sympathetic character of the development and would sit comfortably within its context um not adversely impacting upon views from the countryside or green belt the proposal would therefore preserve um the character and appearance of the area within its wider context and comply with nh2 and hq1 um residential immunity would be preserved given the significant separation distances between the site and the development despite its scale there would be no adverse impact um to trees um protective species or trip to our sides and the additional traffic generated um along bay bram road which leads into the dale's manner business park would be offset by contributions to public transport routes to encourage sustainable and active travel to the site so um when weighing it in the planning balance um officers there will consider that the recommendation is one of approval subject to conditions some of which um along this screen and section one is six contributions towards the strategic active travel improvements in the area thank you chair any uh questions of clarification on that presentation councillor Lisa redrup thank you chair and thank you for the presentation um i just wondered about the phase one and the phase two um was the roof the roof diagram showing different extents and solar panels and is that something that's necessary to happen if they expand the lab space inside please did you get that all right sorry i didn't know whether you were collecting them up or um oh sorry i think we'll take questions one at a time it's probably easier unless we uh start going over time so um thank you um let me just share my screen again so in terms of um the solar panels um as per the different phasings i believe they're actually staying the same as far as i can um i'm aware this scheme is not something that i've been a part of since it's um submission um i'm taking it on from um Karen our colleague um so i might not be 100% accurate on that but i can come back to you in a bit more detail after a few more comments um but my understanding is that the um roof and the PV panels are going to stay the same um from phase one to phase two thank you if you do find out anything more about why the lines look like they changed the red to the red and what that means i'd be grateful thank you so these lines are just showing um where the first floor is going to be expanded to the mezzanine level um it's just to show the different phase in um it's not to show kind of changes inside the panels or anything thank you my misunderstanding come to la alun wilson i think you had a question there's on page 116 about impact it's um there's a table setting out the use of the various parts of the of the unit and each of each of them has a ground floor warehouse i was wondering what sort of warehousing this will be and whether it's likely to lead to um a number of hgv movements thank you so there will be um some floor space given over to kind of storage and distribution um as part of the development um this is the use that was approved previously on site um so some of the the floor space was previously used uh well was previously considered as b8 use um which is the same use um in terms of hgv movements um it will be um that you know that impact has been assessed by the county transport officers um they are satisfied that the development would be acceptable in terms of the impact on the highway and um the site is located a significant distance from um residents so um neither of them or um planning officers were concerned about the impact um to surrounding residents with regards to noise and disturbance um the surrounding business park um does have um a few uh units that are in b8 use so storage and distribution and the roads are regularly used by that type of um uh vehicle um so i don't we didn't consider that that would be a significant impact uh i'm not quite sure that we heard the last thing you said there but you hear the answer right yes okay sorry uh council that and then for you thank you chair um i just want i'm sort of slightly i sort of understand it but i'm slightly puzzled as to why this application has come to us because at um 1.2 uh an it's a departure application it says the site's allocated for residential development under policy h1a of the local plan however there's an extent consent for employment use of the site under classes light industrial and general industrial and storage or distribution so i'm sort of slightly wondering why why we're querying it now but maybe if there's an explanation that'll be helpful um so the application came because it's a departure from the allocation um you're right in saying that obviously there has been an extent consent on site and that does give the material um weight that is that should be given material weight um just to add as well there is um a condition which um restricts the amount of floor space used for the eight use um so that that kind of um restricts the whole of the unit's being in one use councillor rhetoric thank you chair um it was just about the cycle parking i can see it's um a condition i just wondered what sort of what sort of things we look for in checking that it's suitable um our policy says convenient secure and accessible and i see that it's got the double layer a two tier one um shown in the in the listed on the portal and i just wonder if that is classed as convenient i mean i've struggled with one before so that's why i'm raising it because you pretty much have to crawl under to put your bike in on the level of the council red drop i did not find two-tier cycle racks convenient or easy to use and i don't think most women do is it a female thing i didn't know that anyway i just wondered if that was deemed acceptable in our policies and so i'd be grateful for any guidance on what our minimum standards are thank you and um and i appreciate your your comments um with regards to cycle parking we have conditioned it because we want further details um in terms of um what it says in our policy um ti three um looks at parking provision um and it states that um it should be um just bear with me last i get it up um secure uh accessible and convenient cycle parking um which is what it says in ti two actually so apologies for that um so members obviously have to consider whether um the cycle parking in their opinion is secure accessible and convenient officers um consider that it is in a location which is convenient and accessible and it can be secure um in terms of whether it's a two tier or a single tier um we have accepted two-tier cycle parking um on other sites and um whilst it might be difficult to for some people to get there like on the top tier they can use the bottom tier and that's 50% of the provision that they can access yes so if i don't think you're satisfied with that can i just come back because my doctor's does have a two-tier one now and unfortunately a car is generally parked in front of it so you can't use the top um and then also the bottom layer i did find very difficult and i'm an active able person so i just wanted to raise that because i could barely get it under i had to kind of bend down double and there wasn't the provision to lock it as i would normally like to with the frame because i had to just do the wheels so i'm just concerned and i just wanted to raise it so thank you for letting me right uh councillor Bradliff just on that same point um what i was saying wasn't flippant um as county councillor i went and had a look at cycle parking near a railway station recently in a county council car park or actually some time ago because it had been raised with me as how difficult this top two-tier racking is for people to use so they're demonstrated in front of me was somebody easily putting a racing bike upon the top tier and i support can i try that and when i tried it because i'm shorter and um i'm sure i'm not as fit as councillor redrop and i certainly wasn't as fit as the gentleman who showed it to me i found it impossible to get the bike up onto the top tier and also people raised the fact that some two-tier cycle racks do not have suitable locking points and in fact all of the ones that i've seen used where bikes are in them they're actually locked to the superstructure not to be actual racks for individual bikes so i think it's something at a general issue that we should be aware of that um provision for cycling the numbers of cycle parking spaces is very easy to concentrate into two-tier racks but it's actually not very easy to use and i think as a council we ought to be seeking sheffield stands or the like wherever we possibly can thank you councillor heatham thank you chair not not seeking at all to take away from the questions been asked but i think at this point it's probably important that we ask officers to to clarify weight in relation to cycle racks my understanding is there is provision for x spaces and that's what we can take into consideration however officers may have a different view but it might be wise for us to have some advice on that chair thank you so um we've just had a look at the details that they have submitted and they are proposing gas assisted and double tier so it is assisted the racks that they have submitted drawings of do secure um the wheels um so you can secure it via the wheel it seems not necessarily the frame um but condition eight we are requesting all details of all of the cycle parking um to be kind of covered and secure and all the details to be submitted prior to occupation um all the use commenced so i think it's something that we can um review at a later stage via the discharge condition process in terms of the amount of weight that we should give to it obviously it's got to comply with policy um officers consider that the location is considered acceptable um we don't typically have all of the details to hand at this stage and the condition does secure um further details to be submitted to us and approved so i consider that um we could put on a informative if members were wanting to um to kind of reinforce that members wanted the cycle parking to be secured via both the frame and the wheel and potential to look at other options thank you i think we've expressed the views on i think informal doesn't have you we've got to be consistent we haven't done it in other areas but i'm sure officers will appreciate these committees as it goes forward so you're suggesting council Williams that an informative would not be appropriate because we haven't done so in other cities that i'm saying that to apply conditionally informatives on the type of cycling racks is not something for this stage that there is a condition attached to deal with that and they did data is not necessary and wouldn't be reasonable but there already is an informative at number 13 peculiarly entitled external cycle staff i think that means external cycle parking or store or something um but it does have some description in there about what would be desirable and it may be yeah that was my point we don't need further informatives okay and prescript or we don't have to be prescription at this stage members i think the concern here has been noted i think i would accept what councillor the William says and what councillor Bradner was pointed out that we already have an informative on this so shall we move on to other points i think that's probably concluded our questions of clarification to the officer thank you and we have now a public speaker i think uh Roland Lee who will pale architecture is in the room so thank you for coming in just tell i think you know how the system works you have three minutes to present your case and um afterwards it may well be that members have some questions of clarification so if you wouldn't mind staying on for that thank you the floor is yours thank you chair thank you members um my name is Roland Lee i'm an architect and we are the agents for the application um a lot of the things have been covered by the officer but i'll try not to bore you uh by repeating too many of them but um the site as you mentioned is uh phase two of of an existing development which we've taken on and tried to look at producing three high quality employment buildings with flexible uses that address employment needs around the area with the total area of eight thousand and eighteen square meters um i have to say during the process through pre and through the application itself in fact very good engagement with officers um and work to address all the concerns resulting in no objections at this point of the process including support from the parish council um we exceed the the biodiversity net gain requirements we're contributing to the local transport network including the c s uh et we've upped our briam credits uh according to achieve excellent we've got ev charging live ev charging to 20 of the total car parking spaces and passive charging to all of the remaining spaces which is a little bit ambiguous in the wording of the report um we're very pleased with the end result uh our client's very keen to get on with this and uh i'm here to answer any questions but we'd appreciate your support and take this forward thank you mr lee any questions of clarification on what mr lee has just told us i thought that was extremely clear to our councillor Anna Bretman thank you i just wanted to clarify whether any representation had been made by the resident at the end of westway wondered whether you've received anything from them see that may be more of a question to officers have we had any objections or representation from the residential premises i think we referred to it in the report don't you yes there's two residential third party comments um one of which is um the house um to the north of the side north of the side yes mr lee thank you very much your comments anything to add no good right uh okay i don't think we have any other public speakers on this one um so let's move to the debate we don't have a local member here today but councillor heather williams uh thank you chair so with this application in a similar with the parish council why have you i can't see any real sort of outcry of of opposition to this um i think as well i think it's probably just a general exception that that site is going to be developed in somewhere or another so and with the departure isn't it's not as if it's a site that was planned to be preserved and kept and not built on we're just talking about what it is and i said earlier on the previous application about the importance of employment to make life more sustainable i mean i think sourston is the largest parish now the canvons of town and it's it's quite a substantial well established it's got a lot of housing so and um so i think some more employment space and using it for that purpose is not it's not a very bad a bad thing um and so i do think it was right to bring it here because it is a departure but the departure is not quite as extreme as we've seen in in other situations so um so yeah um i think there's a lot going for this application at this stage though i await to hear my colleagues who may argue differently councilor redmond you wish to argue differently um thank you chair i the reason i asked the question about um had you had a representation from the resident house north of the site is because they're the ones most likely to be affected and it's not evident from paragraph 7.2 on page 121 whether the of the two representations you've received whether one of them was that site because um strangely enough i actually have visited this site on a many years ago our completely different application but so the point i made earlier on was you know this is already although it's allocated for housing it's already the principle of industrial use has already been um kind of considered in principle and and established um so i don't think there would be any objection on those grounds and so i just wondered if the resident had made any objection on in terms of because there is one at point three residential amenity impact noise and disturbance and i wondered if that was coming from the residents in terms of the area to the south where lorries would be going through or whether it related to this house on its own at the north um however uh all in all i i can't see any reason why one would find a reason to object to this because it's already an established industrial estate uh the uses have been well established for some time it's actually with some exceptions it's relatively remote from most of the residential area and i think anything closer to the to the southern residential area is likely to be adjusted according to the proximity to those residents whereas this site um is further north and out of the way so i can't see any reason to object but i was just wondering if we could have some clarification as to whether um any objection has been received from the residents at the north right uh i think we've attempted to deal with that question already answer that to the hawkins i asked the question because i wasn't really curious the same question that we addressed earlier on wasn't it you were not satisfied with the answer you received correct i what i was asking you is has had any of those um is are any of these representations at seven point two from the resident at the north do we necessarily reveal the identity of those whose objections you've mentioned in seven point two so typically we um list the number of objections or representations um i do think that it's okay to disclose that um the neighbour to the north did um right in objection um i'd just like to reiterate the separate separation distances is over 90 meters so it is a significant distance and there is an extent um commission on site for similar uses um of a similar scale that's very helpful thank you very much miss right then i think we have councillor to be hawkins thank you chair um we did visit the site last week and we actually had a walk sort of northwards to go see the building that's been referred to the residential building and the separation distances is much more than um is required to not have an effect on it um again i mean looking at this uh it's unusual to have two successive applications come through where little objections on it but with massive benefits um and all for this there's no one going to speak against it can we move to a vote we'll agree to move to a vote i think we should still take this by an electronic vote so if we can set that up so again if you are in favour of the application accepting the officer's recommendations you press green you oppose press red and i think we have all voted that is unanimously supported that consent is granted thank you all so to just confirm um this recommendation is for delegated approval subject to conditions and section 106 agreement and we have agreed to that recommendation now uh we then move on item eight which is at allwell this is on page uh 161 onwards of your papers application number 23 02966 outline land of ledden hill allwell um we have had updates circulated i don't know we have a paper if anyone hasn't seen that we Lawrence has paper copies if you want them uh the key issues are as set out here principle of development impact on visual amenity residential amenity highway safety and environmental impacts and the application is being reported to committee as a departure application um at the request of allwell parish council uh some members have been visited on third of april and as i mentioned about some members will have seen an update report um and our presenting officer is charlotte spencer charlotte with us um we're joined by councillor van derire who i think is probably the local member yes who will know once three days later thank you charlotte thank you chair just bring this up sorry if i think it's just frozen hang on go back to the start i can just confirm you can see my presentation and can hear me clearly yes charlotte by thank you thank you so this is an application for nine self-willed plots with access and associated infrastructure with sun matters reserved except for access it's been brought to committee as it was called in by the parish council and it represents a departure from the local plan uh just to highlight the amendment sheet where an additional third party representation had been received it has been summarised in the amendment sheet but the full comment that can be found on the council websites so moving on to the locations of the application relates to a plot of undeveloped land located to the north of ledden hill ledden hill is a private unmade road that runs southwest from the junction with hurdle ditch road and town green road the site is generally flat in nature although there is about one meter change in level between the north east and southwest the site is surrounded by tall hedges to the southeast southwest and northwest beyond which lies agricultural fields to the northeast lies the garden areas of numbers 22 to 26 ledden hill the road is semi rural and character and appearance with the built form being located to the northwest with open views across the countryside the buildings which line the road predominantly comprise a single story and one and a half story dwelling houses which vary in design scale this secondary photograph demonstrates the relationship of the site to the village and its services here's the site here some of the services are not just notes so we've got petersfield primary school just here we have the pub up here the post office is just opposite and then one of the churches is here just moving on to the constraints the site is outside but adjacent to the orwell development framework this is shown by the black hashed line the site lies within flood zone one which is low risk and whilst there are no surface water risks on the main part of the site here there are some along ledden hill as you can maybe not quite see but the blue along here in addition a public right of way as shown in purple runs along ledden hill leading to the open countryside so this is the indicative site plan submitted by the applicant members are reminded that layout is a reserve matter so is not to be considered as part of the application however this plan demonstrates how nine dwellings could be laid out on the site with potential options for landscaping as well as a suds pond this is the indicative management plan which whilst is also indicative only demonstrates the potential landscaping that can be done on the sites some of the existing trees would be removed however they would be placed with new trees to outweigh the loss the details of which can be dealt with under reserve matters so this just shows the rule of development put forward by the applicant some points to note that the two storey dwellings which would be limited to the front of the site along ledden hill would not exceed seven meters in height and the dwellings to the rear closer to the open countryside will be limited to single storey this also refers to the five meter landscape buffer around the boundary of the site and these rules have been conditioned this is just to show some example of the designs that that may come forward just showing the different schemes that potentially happen but again this is indicative only moving on to photographs of the site so this is the entrance with ledden hill so just here's the access to the houses at twenty two to twenty six and the proposed access would be approximately here within the hedge this photo is being shown from the driveway to the new houses it's about here looking across the site this is from the southeast corner as you can see twenty two to twenty six just here and the view looking up ledden hill from the junction of tangring road and hurdle ditch road as well as some other views that show the neighboring properties so we also have some wider views and these views were shown within the landscape and visual appraisal and demonstrate the longer views of the site and so this first one here is view four this has been taken from cambridge road just here to the site here uh there may be partial distant views of the rooftops and i don't know how clear it's showing on the screen but there is you can just about see the neighboring properties of twenty two to twenty six to the left here view one is just taking a lot closer to the site and you can see how high the hedge is that faces the public right of way view three is just from here and again they've just shown where the extent of the site would be and again stating that rooftops may be visible so view two just being shown down here you can see the existing built form along the road and then the hedge which kind of covers it and just to point out here again i'm not sure how clear it is for you um you can just about see the rooftop of members twenty two to twenty six um and just to point out that the proposed dwellings as per the design code state that's the maximum height would actually be lower than this here charlotte sorry to interrupt but just while you're on that photograph where you have the laser pointer at the moment there are some words written above the on the screen above the red line which you may be on to read we can't and it might be helpful to know what he said there it says extent of site where proposed rooftops of dwellings might be seen above the hedge top if you talk about this here just move on to view five so this is from hurdle ditch road looking across the field kind of a similar position to where we looked on their site visits again the extent of sites being shown here and again you can just about see number twenty six shown there um the last few are from further afield so view six is from toot hill which is about a kilometre from the site um it is considered that if any new buildings were visible from this view they were difficult to discern from the rest of all while view seven it's taken here again and about one kilometre from the existing sites and the trees and buildings here would essentially block the view of the development from this view and view eight which is about one and a half kilometres from the site um this is this is saying southeast and hedge visible with taller conifers beyond and it's stating that these features are not easily discernible with the naked eye so the material considerations of the principle of development impact on visual amenity residential amenity highway safety and environmental impacts so officers consider that whilst this is um also proposal is a departure from the local plan the level of harm is limited to low to moderate in the short term and after time for any proposed planting to mature it will be negligible to low oh it's considered that significant weight can be given to the provision of self-build and officers consider that this outweighs the harm in this case officers recommendation is for approval subject to conditions and the completion of a section 106 agreement thank you chair thank you Charlotte i think we may have some questions of clarification for you uh starting with councillor Anna Bradlam thank you chair through you um and thank you Charlotte i just wanted to understand the principle um by which we were we're receiving an application for nine self-build plots which inherently are the intention is that they're for individual build and yet we're receiving the application from hawks are unlimited so not from the individuals i just wondered could you explain the regimen around that and is that normal um i would say it would be pretty normal for a scheme of this size of up to nine for a self-build that they first come in as outline um and then i believe they would then go on to sell the plots to when the individuals will come in with the reserve matters it was because is it normal for a developer to seek permission for self-builds on a site and then to sell them off to people who want to build self-build because i thought the principle was that you had a plot and you wanted to build a house on it to your own design but i may have misunderstood that um i see somebody has sort of organised the land but right if i was going to if i had um a plot of land i could apply as a self-build and you know i know as a as a planning authority we are obliged to make available plots of land for self-build but this appears to be a developer applying not nine individuals who want to build individually designed houses i just if somebody could explain that that'd be helpful i mean i'm not sure if the agent is there who's probably better placed to answer that question to matter of district council policy so rebecca is honorable manager thank you chair um it's not unusual to get an outline application to establish the principle of self-build plots on a site and then the reserve matters applications are likely to come in individually by the individual applicants for their individually designed self-build properties thank you very much thank you chair your microphone draw my attention to other people wishing to speak um lots of fingers pointing in all directions around the room merely adds to confusion so if people want to speak if they'd kindly put hands up and draw the attention of the vice-chairman then i shall bring them in otherwise i should ignore all pointing fingers in the future councillor heather williams i sorry chair i think the lots of the point of fingers there with your microphone because it was playing some sort of i don't know just going on and off so i think that explains some of the point of fingers anyway um i don't know where i have a question now i think i know right um looking at the planning balance scales that's what i'm looking for that you displayed earlier it's a lots of grade two agriculture land is lohan but grade two is very good land uh it's it has some minor imperfections but it is class as very good agricultural land so i'm just wondering is is there a a scale that's been used to classify it as lohan because if it was if it was a lesser grade maybe but grade two i bet some farmers would be quite happy with that grade two land anyone like to address that question yeah thank you and just bringing the relevance for port um so it's explained in paragraphs 8.17 to 8.20 so um yes it is classed as best most first tile land um and it the proposal would result in its irreversible loss i'm but it's considered that the the land is not is currently used as a paddock rather than for any crop growing and due to the size it's relatively small so the loss of this degree would have a minimal impact on food production um and this is why we stated there is harm but we consider it to be lohan in the balance i hope that answers your question thank you i appreciate the words my my issue was on on the planning balance of it being lohan and in that case the the fact that it's it's got to be surely the potential of the land not just its current usage otherwise every farmer in the country could just stop creating food and then suddenly be you know come under this which i'm not advising they do um but you see it's got to be about the potential where that paragraph suggests oh well they're not using it at the moment so we don't classify it so is it more the size rather than the potential because my worry is we should be looking at it as what's the potential of that land and that sentence kind of suggests that is because of the use of that land at the current time hope that makes some sort of sense there yeah so it is a mixture of both i think the size does have um a greater impact and then each kind of case is is based on its own merit um and so it's up to to members to kind of take the the level of harm they think it is in terms of loss of agricultural land into into consideration when you consider the balance yourselves uh councillor to be hawkins did you want to ask a question uh not on this at this point my my lifting of my hand was to do with previous question okay and then i think councillor Lisa redrop had a question i think you chair it was um around the appeals that we we have listed in 8.32 and 8.33 and it was saying that there's there was an appeal for all well where the they decided that the facilities were too far away um for for the application to be able to go through um it says then 8.3 the distances to services have been noted for this application i just wondered if there was any if you could give me any idea of the difference in distance between that appeal site and this site because it looks to me like the pub's quite central in the village so i just wondered if there if it was a significant difference thank you yeah let me just bring back up um my presentation i can just point out where previous appeal was i'm so the appeal referred to in all while um if you can see this if it's come up is leave with this plot of land here um and whilst i can't really speak for the the inspector who made the decision um just take into account that they would have to walk down believe this is westcroft and across then to get to the services but this is this was where the the appeal plot was is that to help thank you i think does that john deal with your question councillor rhetoric thank you i just wondered um there's a condition about keeping the hedge at the frontage to six meters i wonder if the applicant has control of that so for example is it going to be covered by the management company thank you uh yes they do uh that condition was checked with the agent um prior to adding it because we just wanted to check what the current height of the hedge was at the moment um and they are open to that condition and they have control okay thank you very much right councillor raddan i think you want for the question thank you very much yes uh at 4.2 in our report it refers to number 22 and 26 leaven hill which lie directly to the northeast of the site were recently approved and have since been constructed i just wanted to check are those the ones referred to in the table immediately above um which was obviously approved in 2019 item yep i was picking up yeah thank you sorry i was just scrolling a lot there uh yes that is for the because it's pointed out it's the relevant neighbouring site history um and with those the black barn like buildings that we could see in the previous photographs that you showed us yes they were so so did they sit where the where if you look at google maps there is a barn presently i can see councillor band of ire nodding yes yes i just mean that yes they sit where that um building is on the google um aerial photograph yes okay i don't see any others but i have a few questions myself i may um on the plans there is a strip of orchard um to the east south east side uh which as currently shown would be retained except for the access strip through them um we noticed on our visit some of those were quite old trees and probably quite valuable from the point in view of biodiversity and so on uh but of course that is a matter for reserve matters later if we were to um let's say to approve this as as put before us is there anything to stop those trees from being uh put forward for ripping out later and they are not protected in any way and so the fact that they may have been indicated as being retained at this stage would not have any validity when it comes to the reserve matters stage i don't know whether the delivery manager might want to comment on that or indeed the legal advisor thank you so go on sorry to say that um we've got a landscaping condition on the outline i'm just trying to find it as we speak number 16 i believe condition 16 uh 194 meaning that it doesn't say anything about retaining those particular trees it just says a landscape plan shall be submitted that's just to do with replanting if trees fail yes the so the end of paragraph of section b might that be relevant uh do you know i'd like to comment is that possible i was going to say if can i jump in sorry i promise i wouldn't keep doing this on this one um so um there is actually nothing the trees aren't protected as charlotte has outlined so actually those trees could be cut down tomorrow so yes although they've been indicated on the plans to show that they would be retained we actually have a condition relating to a proposed landscaping plan for the site as a whole which is something that we could then ensure was retained going forward right could we put it as a condition now though chair if we wish to retain that bank even if it wasn't exactly the same trees but if we wish to retain that strip of trees and green space for this development could we put that as a condition and protect that area i think the indication is yes we probably could could we consider whether such a condition might be drawn up and come back to that later brings me to my next question um haven't heard much mention of biodiversity net gain of course there are exemptions and i assume that because of the the scale and the number of self-build houses this would be exempt from and the data course application am i right i think that's confirmation that is correct um the views that were shown i think it was view number four which would be from the general direction i think of wimpoll um would it be possible to show that again because it did seem to me from that view that there might be some landscape impact but uh again i couldn't read the words i may have got wrong number wrong number of the view this was on this page of the that that's the the right set of views yes i'm not quite sure which would be the most appropriate from the direction of wimpoll or indeed if wimpoll is relevant in this context to be this before you're saying right and again there are those words above the view which i imagine are the extent to the possible impact is that right yeah it says extent of sight it's just outlining where it would it would be but the hedge there which masks the possible future buildings is not in any way protected is it where is that affected by the landscape condition um so we've um requested the hedge at the front um to be protected because currently that um provides enough screening whereas the ones at the the two at the side um they do need a bit more enhancing so that will be dealt with under the reserve matters and the landscaping conditions to enhance these edges and this is also where the five meter landscaping buffer would be thank you lastly you have referred to there are a number of inspectors findings in rather similar cases of in fact exactly the same number of self-build houses i just wonder if anyone is positioned to give the committee some guidance as to the weight we should put on the inspector's findings in similar cases and to what extent the circumstances are seen as being different i'm not sure if that's one better for um Jane or Vanessa at this stage um is anyone able to give the committee some guidance on that the weight to be put on those inspector's findings that will depend on the circumstances application before here so it would very much depend on the circumstances and you've got a particular appeal in mind uh well i there are a number of cases referred to here one of which i think was for quite a nearby development of nine self-build houses and it's tempting to take put a lot of weight on the inspector's finding in that case in considering this one given the similarities but there may be reasons for not doing so i don't know whether anyone is able to give the committee any guidance on that okay so of members will have to make their own decisions on that uh councilor Bradnam i think you had another question yes i do thank you i just wonder whether any consideration has been given to providing a footpath down here because with an additional nine dwellings i'm sort of doing a quick tot up along that road and bear in mind we're trying to encourage people to walk not drive so if you add nine and then there are it was 26 was the highest number so that would be 30 something it's 35 dwellings without a footpath down the road admittedly not a heavily used road but um if we want to encourage people to walk rather than use their car to go everywhere particularly to facilities in the village should we not be thinking about trying to make sure there's a path along here and i'm sorry sorry what i'm meant to say was have we given any thought to that in the s106 um so firstly to clarify i believe there's 18 dwellings currently served by that road i think the numbers is just odd numbers um and secondly the uh ledden hill is a private road um so the local highways authority we we can't kind of control anything that happens on that road because it is a private road okay next question councillor heather williams not a question and i don't wish to beat councillor Hawkins to it but but anybody's been down there it's a track yet it's not it's not an adopted road it's a track so i think uh i might have i appreciate the enthusiasm that was being shown by that side of the room but just to be clear and and i do think there may be merit to what cat's brand saying in the debate just as a point of information ledden hill road is actually well maintained gravel road it's definitely in better state than most of our a roads so it's owning the last 10 meters or so that would need to be made up and it's not adopted it's not adopted but correct but the residents are obviously maintaining it no councillor Hawkins you were referring just now to say you're in the future so somebody get in with your question before you um no i think you know this is an application in front of what's that we need to consider on its own merit yes you know there have been there has been a previous application that was turned down by the inspector but then again that was on the merit of that application um the relevance of it to what we're looking at now is questionable maybe so can we move on with well i'm going to follow councillor Braden's good example and ask a further question which is um how the waste away vehicles would leave the site and whether that is covered in the conditions it's a private road and the private road is owned by the various owners of land of properties along there that is a civil matter it's not a planning matter so to confirm from officers there are no conditions that would cover the um access or address for waste away vehicles and others no good okay do we have any further questions somebody said which i think means no i shall take it as a no and move on we have got we have got a number of speakers um and thank you for your patience uh our first speaker is sam cotrall speaking i think on behalf of a number of residents am i right perhaps you'd explain that uh sam cotrall i see you on the screen you know you have three minutes and i think you want to show us some do you want us to show some slides to you yes we have that set up so please go ahead i'll just get my transcripts prepared thank you chat um paragraph references are from the case reports next slide please see image one the site is an island outside the development framework not adjoining it paddocks are between the proposed site and the development line the site is therefore bound on all sides by countryside the northeast boundary should have the same buffer to comply with nh3 4.1 22 to 26 were built to replace demolished buildings in the development framework these are not the land use adjoining the site 7.3 westcroft appeal disagrees with support given as provision of housing quote authorities can demonstrate a six and a half year housing land supply for period of 2022 to 27 therefore full weight should be afforded to the development plan policies 8.7 quote some of the day-to-day basic requirements can be met residents would rely on car travel as stated all well is a group village and so s10 applies to this less sustainable site 8.8 quote not contrary to second purpose s7 westcroft appeal disagreed and it's also contrary to s7 2.51 and 2.53 8.10 and 8.11 the proposal is against s2 and s6 8.20 argument is made on the size and current land use it is not relevant to nh3 and supported by the westcroft appeal quote policy nh3 does not however include the size of land as a factor to justify the irreversible loss of quality agricultural land 8.27 quote it is noted that the provision of nine self-built dwellings would make a limited contribution to the demand identified on the council's register contrary to t1 slash 2 and mppf section 9 paragraph 110b the transport statement submitted incorrectly stated that there is a footpath down the south side of town green road 8.31 contrary to sc4 other sites suggested in the call for sites proceeding the local plan provided more homes per land lost and safer access to amenities next slide please see image 2 8.85 the application is based on the misconception that the site is chalk land according to the survey by the environment agency it is clay water management and flood risk is not compatible with cc 7 8 9 or nppf advice next slide please see image 3 8.63 the depth of development and revised lvaa appendix 2 is far greater than shown on the site plan so it's difficult to decide if the proposal is compliant with hq1 or nh2 8.109 concludes regarding residential immunity without any survey next slide please given this and the factual errors and emissions in the application which appear to have had a material impact on decision making this application should be rejected by the committee and it's also worth noting that the biodiversity question that was asked earlier was wrongly answered and in 8.77 you'll see that it quotes however to be in accordance with the council's biodiversity spd a measurable net gain is required and that will be offsite purchase thank you chair and members give your presentation i think we have a question for you from councillor to me hawkins please thank you chair thank you mr cotrill just i think firstly correction 8.77 i know it states that but the new guidance that been released recently exempts self-build nine or less anyway so there's no requirement for biodiversity net gain here so there is no contradiction there i quite appreciate you pointing out the you know the various policies that um so you know go against this but the point i want to make or the question on to ask is this yes um even if if this got planning permission uh it's nine self-build properties very in mind that south cams is a um self-build vanguard that's the word i was looking for thank you and we have a shortfall we have to meet that shortfall so don't you think that you know this nine will at least go some way in helping us meet that shortfall um so um firstly just just just to um clarify um the the statement i made about the biodiversity has come from the the case report from shellet spencer being a layperson um i've taken that on face value when it says that it is required under a different policy so i'm sorry for making that error um with regard to the the nature of the self-builds of course nine um also is always going to go some way towards um that target um i guess the case is is this the right place for those nine self-builds and should we really be sacrificing so many planning breaches in order to fulfil that nine self-build requirement um based on sc4 does it really provide what the community needs um and and once we've gone forward with an application um there is no going back that land is developed and it currently is open countryside as i explained it's not just adjoining the development plan it is an island outside of it and as you could see from my first image the paddocks that are attached to 22 it's 26 evens are paddocks and as the the the landscape officer quoted um as per landscape officer paragraph 6.27 paddock is countryside use and so there is a buffer of um of countryside before that development or potential development and it worries me what could happen if we were to allow development in open countryside um you know what precedent does that set for future developments because it it doesn't adjoin the development plan um the development framework that that's all i have to say about thank you very much for your responses to that uh next we have um Peter McCann I think for the applicants thank you chair good afternoon members the proposals within this application as noted will deliver nine self-build building plots there is a need for additional self-build accommodation within south cams and as noted by councillor hawkins you are a vanguard authority as of october last year this shortfall was 332 plots the site we feel occupies a sustainable location on the edge of the village in close proximity to services such as the primary school village shop and pub none of the statutory consultees are objecting to the application and this includes drainage highways and ecology additional information was submitted post submission to address concerns which were raised initially regarding landscaping and ecology the site is well enclosed by existing vegetation and this will help to limit views of the proposed development the new dwellings closer to lean hill would not exceed seven metres which is lower than the adjoining dwellings the dwellings to the rear would be single story a couple of landscaping conditions are proposed to ensure that the impacts of the proposals can be managed as sort of outlined by the chair the applicant is also happy for you to attach an additional condition regarding retention of those orchard trees which were referred to I'm going to just sort of we've sort of been around the houses possibly in this requirement for biodiversity net game and it is correct and saying that on on minor planning application there is no requirement for bng but the fact in this instance the site area exceeds half a hectare so there is actually this does trigger the requirement for bng so that will be met sort of partly on site and also through the purchase of offside credits the half a hectare area point also triggers the requirement for a section 106 agreement and there are a range of financial contributions that will be secured through that mechanism and those will go towards open space facilities and community spaces as well that is outlined within the officer report the access arrangements are acceptable on the highways authority are not objecting as noted lean hill is a private road there is also a private road sorry a public right of way along it and that would remain open and unobstructed at all times there have been a couple of recent appeal decisions in the district for similar size developments as you have discussed the two sort of probably most relevant are at Caxton and Kneesworth both these schemes are closely linked to the village and we're not considered to cause significant harm to the character of the village of the countryside and coming to the decisions here any harm was outweighed by the very significant need for additional self-built properties we acknowledge that every application should be determined on its own merits whoever in this instance the site isn't in a sustainable location well located to existing services and facilities and we do not feel that it would cause any significant harm to the character or setting of the countryside and yeah i picked up on a couple of points that have been made earlier and yeah so as I said the delivery of nine self-built dwellings here will help to address the identified shortfall of 332 dwellings and we feel it should be attached significant weight thank you thank you for that I should say I did allow you a little bit of discretion on the timing because you had taken the trouble to answer some of the questions addressed to others which was helpful so do we have any questions of clarification to Mr McCann I think first is Councillor Heather Williams thank you chair through yourself what engagement has the applicant had because you can see this very strong objection from the parish council and yeah no no direct engagement has taken place with the parish council councillor Williams councillor Tumi Hawkins thank you chair and through you thank you Mr McCann what engagement have you had with the owners of the private road the applicant has been in discussion with the one of the adjoining residents and has been discussing matters on the access with him as far as they understand and then also with the owner of the application site as well but then if I may chair there are many houses along there so speaking with just one surely is a big shortfall yeah well those discussions with all of the residents haven't taken place to date but should planning be granted this afternoon the applicant would be happy to to sort of engage with them and meet with them to discuss the proposals further and any sort of implications that that future development would have that's not satisfactory I think there's many of you know developers who've heard me say this you need to engage with the local communities when you're actually putting something together and today we had an exemplar um um you know engagement presented to us in our very first application where the parish council was in full support understood the issues and now we have this which is the complete opposite very disappointing my feelings are exactly the same as my colleagues that you should have engaged in some consultation um with the parish council and with the owners of the private road since it's their road down which your construction vehicles will need to go as well as any ultimate residence so just for what it's worth I would um I will throw out into the ring a suggestion that we might defer this and ask uh for it to be deferred in order that the applicant can consult properly with the parish council and with the owners of the private road so sorry can I can I I will ask you to respond yeah yeah and then after that I will take invite our legal advisor to comment uh in the light of the date submitted but Mr McCall that is a question to you may not have been as such but it is yeah and on that sort of point my understanding Leedon hill it is actually on registered land so as as part of the application process we put a notice into the Cambridge news inviting owners off the road to come forward I am aware that a couple of the existing properties on Leedon hill have registered a small parcel of land to the front of their properties but as far as the entire road goes it is actually on registered so within that application our red line runs to the public highway so of those people one of which was Mr Kruger who we have been in contact with they own part of the land and no requisite notice was served on those individuals but as it said yeah Leedon hill itself isn't it it's an on registered parcel of land it's a private a private track right and before I take the next question from council Heather Williams I just want to invite our legal officer to comment on the suggestion that we might defer the application on those particular grounds or possibly the delivery manager or whoever would like to comment on that it's not a reason for deferral right so the legal advice is that that would not be a reason valid reason for deferral councillor Heather Williams did you want to ask a further question hi I have a question for the applicant that's derived from his answer to approve his question by major easy you're happy to take that question are you Mr McCann yes yes yeah and unless I've heard incorrectly through yourself chair um there was mention about an advert going in the Cambridge news I'm wondering why that work publication was selected given it's an SGA airing and served predominantly by the Royston crow now the readership of the Royston crow um there are free copies at the areas and it isn't actually a free delivered paper and I can can guarantee the readership of the paper copies of the Cambridge news in my ward or of two large villages in my ward is a precise number of three so other than that advert I appreciate there is online sections was there was there a reason was it written that you had to go to the Cambridge news at interest as it was given as an answer earlier it is a procedural matter that if you're serving if it's certificate c of the planning application that is completed that you provide a notice you well you outline sort of means of trying to understand ownership off the site and it was considered that the most appropriate means of doing that was the Cambridge news the application was submitted it was validated by the council and that matter was never was never raised or questioned so in my view the application as submitted was a was a valid submission right Mr McCann thank you do you really want to come back here no no I would say it was just a query derived from a response at the applicant game fair enough now you know the reach of the Cambridge news first and worst in crime always helpful information to have at our fingertips thank you um Mr McCann thank you very much for your presentation and for answering questions so comprehensively uh you will have detected that there is a certain amount of um dissatisfaction with the method of communication with the residents on ledden hill but that is a matter we'll come back to in debate before we do that and thank you very much before we do that uh yes I was going to go to the local member next but do you want to comment before we go to the local member just to confirm that we undertook all the consultation as necessary so the site notice put up and all the relevant consultees were consulted along with the neighbors as part of the planning application so all of the neighbors were consulted now before we progress any further even to the local member who I think wants to address us we do need to just take the standard four hour resolution uh we have gone on for four hours council Heather Williams happy to propose happy to propose do I have a seconder can we take that by affirmation we have agreed to continue um we have the local member with its council of under eye did you want to comment on this do you want to make a solution to us if I right yes please thank you so um all is seen quite significant growth recently um especially at the council of under eye perhaps we can start again we're not hearing you clearly I don't know if there's some technical issue that we might resolve please um I'll I'll try a different speaker is that any better I think it is thank you yes so all has seen quite significant growth recently um especially at this end of the village west cross improvement we've mentioned that's 49 dwellings 40% affordable uh for leaders a couple of years ago opposite that there's oaklands which is an exceptional site of 15 dwellings and then south cams itself built four flats completed this year so that's 70 homes of which over half are affordable you could say that all well is making a major contribution towards housing need um in the area this and there is potential for other exceptions sites to come forward um in the future with local support I fear that speculative proposals of this nature will really undermine the positive support for getting affordable housing built um in in good sustainable locations um as you've seen this proposal clearly goes against our policies on development outside of villages uh the red line uh just touches the development framework and that's really just the access uh in reality this is well outside the built form of the village at the end of what is already a bit of a sort of odd protrusion into the countryside and the the topography of the area um and those uh the image you've shown that you want to demonstrate this um makes this even starker uh the impact on the landscape will be will be quite significant uh this site is on the brow of a relatively prominent hill in the local area uh taking the settlement well into the open countryside um uh visible from the surrounding area well beyond the village uh over to the windbowl estate which um you picked you picked up on earlier so this isn't just a small addition to the natural addition to the village it creates a whole new limb of the village into the open countryside in a very harmful way um as we discussed the need for self-builders there's a major consideration uh but the harms both in planning terms and in terms of the development strategy for the village are really significant uh and the harm here is much greater than in say the appeals of Caxton or or um or the in the Basimon case where they are well integrated into the village sort of development area um and so the planning balance just isn't the same um uh this application just does not have policy support we've got good planning policies that we put in place for good reasons we should stick to them unless we have carefully thoughts through um uh until we have a carefully thought through update new local plan there's no way that this proposal could you bring your remarks there's no way we this proposal would be acceptable if it were not self-build the fact that this self-build alone does not make up for the harm uh to this area and to the damage to uh to our policies so i urge you to um support our policies uh and reject this application now thank you um do any members have any questions for councillor van der Vy? councillor Toby Hawkins uh thank you chair and through you um um the the issue here as you say is the fact that there's a number of local policies that um this application goes against um that is not in dispute um however the only objection that or the statutory objection that is on this application is the landscape and yet we have seen uh the views um you know of what the um site would look like you know from different views from outside of oral and none of that actually uh seems to be at least you know from my viewpoint um significant so um i'm not sure why the fact that we need to meet our our responsibility as a vanguard authority cannot be a substantial reason for considering this in a positive way um councillor van der Vy? So i mean as i said the the the self-build need is a material planning consideration that should be taken into account i accept that um i support the the policy that we have i mean i i i i i don't think it was made clear when he became a vanguard authority that it would be used against us in palling policy to be honest um i i i have no recollection for the supporters at the time and that was not made clear but is now being used against us in palling decisions for locations that would not otherwise be acceptable um on the landscaping um the the the landscape impact they're sort of in pure landscape terms the impact will be mitigated by the by the large hedgerows around that but um although it is clear that it will be visible from the surrounding area and because of the prominent location that will be quite a wide area including sensitive sites like like Wampold um but the the the main issue is about approaching into the countryside in in contrary to our policies and that's not that's not about what statutory consultees say that's about what we say in our policies and we need to apply our policies which are very strongly against this and unless there's the sort of the harms are really limited um uh to to other other beings that i don't just don't think that's the case of this instance you can't hear me councillor vanavard i only wanted to thank you very much for your submission and for your answers hear me now yes so i think we now move on to the debate um and i think councillor heather williams would like to start us off thank you thank you triggering debates today um so i if it if i can be indulged and have displayed the planning balance scales again so do you think that's really helpful when we're making our decision to have that visually in our minds um because when i can wait chair if you want so give us a moment okay i can yeah i'm just bring it up now for you we will lose councillor vanavard but uh i'm sure he'll forgive us does that come up no cool there it has thank you right um so when we when we look at that that really does focus our mind that in normal circumstances this would absolutely be a refusal with with no hesitation and i think there is merit in what has been said about the sort of the way that the becoming a vanguard authority that was for really good reasons and and this is uh you know was not to my understanding is still not a reason why it should be sort of weaponized against this it's a separate thing it's a separate department essentially we are we are separate as a committee to it um we do have an issue with the land supply as a council for the self-filled and we i think are seeing nearly every month now self-filled applications and we're going to see that same ways when we didn't have a land supply on other houses we we saw it then and that's going to put us as a committee in a very difficult position for a long time yet um however on other applications when it's been self-filled there's a lot more balance than what we see up there you know it's it's normally a lot more 50 50 and then that that self-filled provision gives it that you know tilted balance of a little bit more but even if we tilt that balance for me there is still so much more on the reasons for refuse or particularly where it is and i i do actually think that it's we have to hold on to agricultural land for its purpose and actually if we didn't use it you know class it's low harm then people might actually start using it um but and nine yeah this isn't hundreds we've heard earlier the shortfall that we are this nine is not going to make or break it for us i do appreciate that you know sometimes little adds up but i don't think overnight this is going to resolve our our problems um and i do think that there probably are a lot more suitable areas for us to be able to make up that shortfall i completely understand why officers are given the recommendation they have because of essentially that tilted balance towards self-builds but for that's what this committee is here for officers have to give us what it is within the rules that we set them and the policies and the way that that it is and it's our decision if we want to deviate or if we want to make a different choice i will be making a different choice of the officer and i will be voting for refusal because even tilting that there is still all of those reasons for refusal and i do believe it's different it's not it's not a bolt-on to the rest of the village you know it's that in all well there are other places where it'd be more more suitable um and uh and that's clearly my reasons why thank you chair um i have to admit i'm fairly skeptical about the real need for self-build i agree i know there's lots of names on the register but Caxton's has been mentioned a couple of times i'm very familiar with it's one of my villages there've been three sites for self-builds approved in Caxton the first they started building out three years ago it's still only half built out the other two one which was approved on appeal the other which we approved no sign of movement at all so i'd really like to see some sort of statistics maybe from our wonderful planning department on how many of these approved self-builds have actually been built um and i fully endorse all counts of the Heather Williams comments about um if we take away the self-build tag um there are good reasons in front of us to actually refuse this application councillor Anna Bradley thank you chair um my observation as a parish who had a speculative planning application to us was that um it's always much better to consult with the parish council first before the applicants make proposals mainly because sometimes the parish council might be able to offer you a really good alternative for where you're suggesting in this case um one wonders you know at least just outside the village framework i mean i wonder whether anyone considered as an exception site you know with 100 affordable housing um having said that i suspect if that had been the case you might have had even more i don't know or you certainly would have had probably 31 representations from third parties objecting um so i am not convinced by this as a a need or indeed a very sustainable location um and i shall not be voting for it councillor to me Hawkins uh thank you chair and through you can councillor Bradnam switch off her sorry we have a situation um which is that we have a shortage that we need to catch up who is it that says every little helps thank you yes if we don't take the minute steps that we need to take to meet that need it's just going to carry on i will just going to see more and more unless of course we as a local authority can find some piece of land somewhere create all these plots and go back that's it so we'll go build your houses but we can't and the fact is the sites that will be coming along as we've seen last month month before are going to be outside the village framework of many villages so how are we going to ever meet that that's the question we need to consider yes this site um again this is where you need to take a balance it's on the edge of the framework it's not adjoining in the sense that it's not exactly on it because you've got that bit of orchard or whatever it is but it's still on the edge of the village framework now there are benefits which actually have not been put on that balance which is all the contributions that are going to be made to sports facilities health there's 21 000 for this 33 000 for that 9004 you know um there's those benefits which we're not seeing up there and the only reason this is coming forward yes is because it's self-built so i don't like it but it's not whether or not i like it it's whether or not we have material planning reasons uh for this to be to be given permission we have consulted with statutory consultees even highways have no objection though their objection raised on potential conflict or difficulty at the junction um i recall that we had this with the site in Bourne but at the same time um you know we gave the planning permission because it went towards meeting the need that we have so i would ask that we consider this very carefully we might not like how the consultation has taken place or not taken place but we need to really consider the planning reasons in front of us thank you the other comments before we go to a vote yes Dr Widger Williams thank you chair um i'll try and be brief um so i've listened to the debate here with some interest and i think it is finally balanced i completely taken forward the points council Hawkins has just made about the need for self-build it can have provided a more affordable way of people obtaining their own home and i think that is important um for me though i struggled to distinguish this case from the two dismissed appeals particularly um the appeal which is mentioned at 8.34 in our bundle which is actually foulmere sign triplo when i first read this being a ward member for triplo i thought how did i never hear about this appeal um but um it was it's triplo rogue foulmere which i think is significant because foulmere is a more is a larger village than triplo um and that application for nine self-build was turned down for what i perceived to be very similar reasons but for this so the inspector commented about the fact that that application in foulmere even though it's on and in that case it's on an adopted road um the inspector laid some emphasis on the fact that there was no or there were limited facilities for pedestrians and cyclists to access um the site in foulmere um and that um people accessing the site would need to share the road with vehicles um they mentioned the fact that there was no street biting um nearby in that application and this looks like a very similar situation so i think bearing in mind what we were told earlier each case turns on its merits um but i do find it very difficult to distinguish this case from the other case normal the case in foulmere and i think there are sufficient grounds to refuse this application on on that basis and i am leaning in that direction right well members we're coming to the moment when we need to take a vote on this let me say i understand and share a number of the concerns that have been addressed uh some of which related to process which is not what will determine the outcome i think today um i share what councillor heather williams said about land quality that assessment is specifically about potential not its current use um um i had some concerns that i expressed about the application of uh inspectors and i had made it clear earlier that i would expect some guidance on this i don't think we had any guidance on the application of similar um decisions on similar sites that i could interpret that i might have been able to take into account um but i also take very seriously what councillor to me hawkins said about our very significant shortfall in delivery of our commitment to self-build housing of course we cannot actually secure the delivery can't actually go out and construct those houses ourselves and ensure that delivering sites for that actually results in them being built i share a number of the concerns that council of antivirus the local member expressed about the landscape impact in what is a very sensitive site in a sensitive area it's quite clear that we're this not a self-build housing i think it unlikely that we would be approving it even as a rural exception site this is not of course for affordable housing so i am finding it quite difficult maybe it should be difficult for us to come to a decision on these on these applications but i'm finding it quite difficult to see whether the provision of nine self-build dwellings outweighs the material considerations for a fusel i would perhaps give higher consideration to the loss of grade to agricultural land for the reasons i've stated and to the spatial introduction to the countryside as council of antivirus said i think a new spur into the countryside is that low to moderate harm might it be greater so i'm not going to state my conclusions i'm happy to take any further comments if people want otherwise we'll proceed to a vote right shall we do that vote by council Hawkins yes thank you one thing we we actually haven't talked about as a further there's a design code that comes with this application which is the first time i've seen this in a similar application which in some ways goes to show that there is some serious consideration about the impact or potential impact of this proposal on the on the landscape and i suspect that design code is one of the things aimed at actually helping to give some balance to what is before us so we know credit to the the applicant for doing that and probably will be helpful if others did if we're to ever bring something like this forward again in terms of agricultural land it is potential agricultural land it's not it's current use is not that it's not in a place where it's a farm either so in my view i can't see that we you know that is a significant weight in my view obviously that's just one person's view um but yeah those are just the two things i was going to say now i had said we were about to proceed to the vote there is one new issue raised there uh i think before we proceed to the vote i'd better ask the delivery manager whether there are any amendments um and to just clarify what it is that we're voting on or thank you that'd be very helpful so to clarify the priorities for a recommendation of approval subject to conditions and completion of the section 106 agreement um okay right can we then progress to a vote electronic vote if we could set that up if we accept the officer's recommendation which is to approve we press the green if we do not then we press the red so it's telling me to log off some reason to want to uh confirm the results of that excuse me thank you chair so by eight votes to one the application is refused thank you members yes it may be that we need to just clarify the reasons for refusal that arose out of that debate is that clear to officers can we perhaps can consummate up for us so on my notes here i have the reasons for reasons to show is a loss of agriculture land being won outside the development framework and recruitment into the countryside and then landscape impact i think that covers the main concerns that were raised by members in the debate thank you so let us then move on to item nine in our agenda which is number three acorn lane this application number 24 00652 let's take a break welcome back to this meeting of south gameshore district council on 10th of april uh we now come to item nine which is application number 24 00652 full three acorn lane cambrone and the key issues are design layout and scale residential amenity uh this application is brought for the committee because it was submitted by an officer of the council or presenting officers Beth Clark Beth thank you chair yep so as previously mentioned the application for four members today is here because the applicant is a member or officer of the council the application seeks planning permission for a single story side infill extension with front and rear roof lights and entrance canopies front roof lights and rear dorma roof extension there is an update for this application in that the parish council has since commented on the application in support of the proposals provided the extension remains ancillary to the main dwelling so the application site is located on acorn lane in cambrone it's a detached dwelling with the garage it's shown here outline in red on the location plan and in yellow on the aerial view from google images these are the elevations um the top shows the existing dwelling and the proposed development is the bottom image these are the proposed floor plan showing the side infill extension named boot room um on the ground floor and the second floor level plan um and section showing the proposed rear dormas so there have been no objections to the proposed development the proposal will not cause harm to the character and interference of the area normally unduly impact neighbouring lestential immunity yep patient is being recommended for approval subject to planning thank you any questions of clarification councillor and a breadman thank you um i just wanted to ask uh it doesn't look as though there's any likelihood of overlooking from the new dorma windows on the rear but given that houses are quite close to each other in some parts of cambrone i don't know the area very well um is there any risk of overlooking thank you so if i just go back to the plan um where the rear dormas will overlook is the shared parking area um to the front there right any other questions councillor to me hawkins you might be sure that's the question brain is crying um when obviously from what we've seen um there's no planning material with issues here and it's only come to us because it's a member of our office of the council if not it'll probably be under delegated just clarify that that is correct isn't it yes uh do we need to have any seconder for that thank you let's proceed to i'm not proposing to take a vote on whether we go to a vote let's go straight to a vote um yeah should we do this by affirmation agree any opposed um any wish to abstain um the application is approved thank you so we then come to uh item 10 is Chris our Chris your words thank you for your patience i'm monitoring our progress carefully all day uh thank you for your report did you want to introduce it uh yes thank you chair um just uh there are a few um updates here in this report um for the committee um we'll just start with open cases we're slightly more this month we're at 676 open cases with 313 being identified for viable within south cambridge here and we've received 184 compliance referrals across both councils since the beginning of january the statistical data is obviously in the attachment to the report um i do have an update on staffing um i'm sorry to interrupt chris can we just be very clear as to which of the various reports oh yes sorry the agent uh the uh my um my appendix is one two and three is the statistical data so we're talking about appendix one at this stage sorry chris um just for clarity these reports were published as an online supplement and are not in your paper perhaps that's the appeals i do have paper copies if members would like them why don't we see how we manage without the paper copies if chris would like to take us through it okay let's take it through it to you okay so paper copies are available for those who want them sorry to delay you chris but i thought it just important to clarify that sorry chair i wasn't aware you didn't have a visual copies of them in front of you right we're with you again okay um so uh yeah um as i was saying we have six hundred and seventy six open cases um currently three hundred and thirteen identifiable within south kain butchere and we've had 184 compliance referrals since the beginning of the year across both councils that have come in for officers to deal with um i have a update on staffing i have a member of staff who um was on long-term sickers now come back uh to the office and is back with us full-time however our contractor george mineham has now left the authority um he was um backfilling whilst john shudler was on succumban um i can't really give you an update about whether john's coming back to the team or whether we're going to be going out so at the moment i've awakened principal planning compliance posts um but i will hopefully be able to update the committee in the next meeting um so uh moving on um sorry bear with me a second um i know that councillor heather williams requested in the january 24 um planning committee that um i seek to examine the cases that are older six months to see which ones would likely be a priority a case um just with resourcing i've had a look it's probably a couple of hundred um files that we have and i think it would take about a week for one officer to do that i don't really have the resources to do it at the moment but it's something i will then have a look at um once i'm fully staffed again and we we can see what we can do about that i do apologise that this is something that councillor williams has asked a couple of times about uh unfortunately i've just not had the resourcing to to go ahead and do that um and coming on to the appendixes appendix two we haven't served any enforcement notices in march in south cambridge here and the case of those statistics have been updated so cases that are less than six months old we are 238 in total 119 in south cams with a breakdown of the priorities more than six months old we have a breakdown of the numbers again but also now we're starting to see the um cases that are open by priority as well um the priority system's now been in enforced more than six months and as we move forward these numbers will um get updated on a more regular basis so that you can see how many of our priority cases are older than six months due to my annual leave um there are there's only one closure in march 2024 um so it's taking me longer to deal with these all march closures have been processed by me now and these will show up in the 2024 figures as a result um i'm also including cases closed by um priority so those figures will reflect there as well and a new statistic um is the average time taken in days from the receipt of a complaint by the team to the file creation and acknowledgement sent where it's applicable to the customer targets three days um so new referrals priority a priority a cases were made up in basically the same day there are no priority bs and priority c's were all made up within point 36 of the day and that concludes my update any questions thank you i think we might have some questions for you um i think i'll start with councillor heather williams thank you chair i have about three questions um so it's just if i can start on the staffing if i look at um page three and four it sort of goes over and and i appreciate your reference people that have been a second comment on long term six the mindsays people that are on long term six were still included but we've got this vacant situation so is the vacancy for somebody who has been seconded or is it sort of what you described in your dialogue is that on top of this i wasn't quite sure no how it will match together yeah so that that vacancy is a result of john shaft of wood who was um presenting the committee when i started um that's it he moved on to um strategic sites and um he is still on that's a comment till the end of this month i don't know whether he will be going for a full-time role within that team or not that is a possibility and once i know what's happening there i'll know whether we will be able to advertise that post permanently or whether john will be coming back into that post so so you are not advertising till that vacancy at current i can't advertise until i know whether john's coming back to the role or not because i don't know whether he'll be coming back to the team and i can't fill a role that technically exists for john at this moment in time okay but we have we had agency in that are we able to get some temporary cover yeah that was that was george mine and his contract finished at the end of march and john's the convent was extended by one month for the month of April okay thank you that's my first question um the second question um i appreciate that you've given a response in the papers and the verbal response given but i suppose this is my my in logic perhaps is that there must be cases that we know are higher priority from those old it just doesn't mean i don't quite understand why we can't have a figure of how many of those cases in that 200 are the ones that are high priority and being actively worked on because um yeah because it just seems it just seems very odd that we can't seem to quantify that because if not how how is that prioritisation going for those older applications do you certainly just to our practical point of view there must be some sort of mechanism to and rather than just chronologically going through them by date because obviously somebody builds 10 houses is probably more than somebody moved offence if you like um yeah yeah i understand that um obviously the priority system was brought in late last year as we've kind of spoken about with it being properly in place for november um the the problem that i've got is to give you meaningful data i need to look at all of the cases that we have open and work out really whether their priority a b's or c's i can ask my officers what a priority a is um i wouldn't know what they all are just looking at a list of uh numbers because obviously there's a lot of open cases some of them uh obviously probably proceed my time here as you're probably aware there are some longer longer term open cases and i'd just be relying on them to give me kind of a a lowdown of what they think they have as priority a's where i would rather give you some more meaningful data if it's an exercise we're going to do so that you actually have a list of the actual priority a's the actual proper priority b's and c's so that those statistics are more meaningful so that you can say well actually you've got a lot of priority a's priority b's can you say you know why the majority of these are still open or something along those lines so i can ask officers to include perhaps some numbers for older ones that they've got but i would like it to be meaningful when i report back to the committee and yourself yeah i mean the the important thing is having a comparable right so we just need because i accept with b's and c's i don't want you spending loads but it just seems odd that we can't seem to get the priority a's because there must be some sort of prioritisation happening and if you read the report i know that's not the case but the report sort of implies that we're not priority using a priority system on the other ones so it's just a way to try and you know be more reflective of what i'm sure is actually happening so that's on on that one i do appreciate the new the average time taken to with the receipt i think that's a really positive thing to be putting in and if you can expand that more so that we see sort of average times to you know close a case etc because then that would help with that performance that obviously as councillors is what we sort of want want to be able to see but at least if we had a face mark on your priority a's that we could then count down from even though it wouldn't be everything at least we can see because what's really hard to to distinguish is do we have priority a's that i sat there for years and i do appreciate sometimes that can have really good understandings of why it is when we used to get the list of sites you wouldn't actually be able to see if a site was still on there for a long period of time and we we lost that with the change and i'm not saying the changes are bad but that is something that i miss because it gave you some sort of guidance of longevity of application so it's not i'm not trying to be nitpicker just trying to get back that comparator so i do i do just have a very quick comment on that chair just for for councillor Williams i am looking to introduce a statistic for the time taken to visit a site when it's a priority a b and c site so they're in in line with our policy the five working days 10 working days and 20 i've looked at the statistics we have at the moment there appears to be a anomaly of bringing in much much older cases which actually completely skews the the system where the priority a b's and c's aren't actually listed but it is creating a problem where an initial site visit date is put in and it's pulling through data that doesn't actually technically sit correct by and working on that and hope to give the committee that in the coming months thank you chris um i think councillor sanford had a question for you yeah thank you chair chris apologies if this seems like a very basic question um it was asked by the parish council chair and i couldn't answer um we have a situation where an applicate pending application has been approved but the applicant has not discharged most perhaps all of the conditions is that a compliance issue or does it come back to the original planning officer to monitor those conditions it is it is a compliance issue um and it would be for us to see whether those breaches whether there's some kind of action we can take obviously as you know not all conditions probably go to the heart of a planning permission um we might be able to sort some of those out um you know quite quickly um to get details discharged but if there's something very specific that requires something to be done prior to commencement then we need to know about those quite quickly so that we can double check that that we get those conditions discharged and the appropriate details sorted out we would obviously work with our planning colleagues to get conditions discharged um but it is for us to uh investigate those and chase those okay thank you just for background it was the Ellsworth parish council chair who asked that question thank you chris a question then from uh councilor Bill Handing and councilor Ivan Wilson thank you chair um i i have a couple of points first of all i know that George Mineham was doing a lot of work at smithy fen so i'm really disappointed that his contract has come to an end because i thought he was doing some positive work then and so it would be useful to have an update on on where that had got to and um there's another site that i know is currently under appeal at cheer fen but there are other things happening on that site that were that are being reported all the time and that i'm just worried that it will get beyond the point where it could be manageable to bring things back um into being um yeah in compliance and my third one is um another development in Cotinham where they the builders have not um stuck to the planning permission they were given and those houses are actually on the market so there is a sense of urgency to um actually get that back into compliance before um um people innocent buyers actually buy something that isn't compliant with the planning permission that was given in the first place so there is a sort of sense of urgency there about getting that all back in order yeah i can i can comment on on three on all three of those i think firstly for smithy fen i will um get in contact with you uh and just have a an update conversation with you about that um and where that is in terms of cheer fen in general terms once we've issued an enforcement notice which is subject to appeal any subsequent work will still be caught by that enforcement notice um george has been out checked that site for us and got photos while he was working for us we have a comprehensive record of what's been going on on site up until recently um any new works um are caught by that enforcement notice the requirement is to put the land back to its former condition um and that that is what will have to happen at the end of um any appeal procedure where notice is upheld so um i would not have um too much in the way of concern about the additional works that they've carried out that is at their own risk uh the other cotton um um site that you've spoken about if that is um till your homes possibly um i will um speak to you about that and i will ask that um tovi uh williams also provide you an update of where he's with with some of the highways matters um i'll write you it's not till you but um i'll write you about what is okay right and councillor annan bradley has a question for you thank you chair um thank you chris um on appendix five on page 211 of our agenda pack can you just um explain to me the appendix five is called appeals pending statement and then we've got a column at the end saying a statement due so who is that statement due from is it from the planning inspector councillor bradley i think we need to be aware there are different appendix five floating around these are the agenda pack no they're not it's the next item okay i'm just asking because i know no no i'm leaving i'm up i'm asking because i've got to leave okay well why don't we move on to the next item do we have any further questions for chris he's here no i think not so let's move on and let's start on the next item with councillor bradley who has a question on the next item for which i think rebecca will be responding to thank you very much chris sorry rebecca did you are you there oh yeah sorry okay um do you want to present what does what does statement due mean on page 211 it's statement due from whom the councillor that this is something that's gone to appeal the inspector has made a decision what stage is it at um so it's at the stage where there's gone to appeal um the applicant submitted the appeal pins have accepted the appeal as an appeal and now it's going through a due process so the part of that process is for the council to submit a statement defending its position and so the reason why there's um one that had a statement due date of the 29th of march is just purely because of the date that easter fell so the report would have been published and prepared before the 23rd march so that one would have been the statement would have been done by now right councillor bradley does that deal with your query right um did you want to present the report in any way or have we got it in front of us and we can ask you further questions if we want to yeah if anybody's got any further questions i'm happy to take them away and come back to you if they relate to a specific appeal if there's anything general i can try and so if we go through this one by one first of all on page 205 we have appendix one decisions notified by the secretary of state i've been to take that without further comment appendix two appeals received um i make the two our decision on land to the south of each secretrys all road foul mere it's now subject to appeal right can i just have has the planning committee received feedback about the appeals allowed under appendix one in other words these were refused by the planning committee and they've now been allowed on appeal the first two and i just wondered if the planning committee is is um getting the benefit of learnings from that process um the first two were delegated decisions i'm just looking for they were delegated decisions fair enough okay so the appeal i couldn't see one which had been determined by the planning committee i really was the councillor bradley number where it was determined by the planning committee if it's subsequently successfully appealed we should hear the reasons but i think i miss Rebecca and didn't see that it was a delegated decision that's all i see right councillor Eileen merson is just for clarification on appendix one um appeals allowed appeals dismissed appeal turned away what what's the difference between turned away and dismissed oh okay sorry yep that's an issue in our list but let's not worry too much about the reasons for that so appendix two i think we've dealt with any further questions on that appendix three a local inquiry dates just for information i think appendix four and similarly three three b appendix four a waiting decision from inspectorate well there's not much i think we can usually say about that we just have to awake the outcome councillor bradley i'm sorry i just wanted to ask um the appeals on page 210 there are about six of them across the corner caravan park is that likely to be heard in person or on paper sorry and my pages are in order um it's the very end of appendix four um so they're awaiting a decision okay so has they've been heard then um the parish council would like to um if there was going to be an in-person hearing the parish council would have liked to attend then they're not down as an inform in in appendix three b as an informal hearing date scheduled so i can only assume that they're in writing but i can come back to you thank you yes please right so back to appendix four then um we have land north of cambridge north station non-determination that's just not that imparting um the navigator extraction unit page 208 um the navigator has now closed um claim that the enforcement on the extraction unit was what forced them to close but actually i think planning officers would suggest that they had found a way of resolving that and they may have closed for other reasons but uh in any case the navigator is gone for now um page 209 any questions or comments on those we have another non-determination on darwin green phases two and three would that have been for this committee or would that have been jdcc i thought so yes uh and then of course we have the fenny lane farm halfway down that page awaiting a position on that we have another one relating to uh self or custom built residential dwellings going to appeal following refusal of planning commission that one was in gambling gay on page 210 um i'm just going through the one if members want to stop me if they have any questions or comments to page 211 rebecca anything you want to add to that yeah so we're just to update on the um appeals that i think you're referring to cancer braddon on page 210 at grassy corner um we're waiting on pins to decide what type of appeal it'll be the appellant has requested inquiry grassy corner i was i hadn't spotted that right that would be in person but yeah waiting to hear what route it will go down okay any other comments or questions from members good thank you very much indeed um i think just a reminder that the next meeting is on wednesday eighth of may and i declare this meeting closed at 20 past four thank you