Thank you very much. Good morning everybody and welcome to this meeting of South Cambridge District Council's planning committee. My name is Councillor Henry Bachelour and I'm the chair of the committee. We have quite a full agenda today, so I'll do my best to get us through it as best as possible. But we do have a few housekeeping, bits of housekeeping to go through before we start, so please do bear with us and we'll start the meeting proper as soon as we can. So I would like to remind all those who are present in the Chamber that everything on your desk, including your laptop screen, is likely to be broadcast at some point. The camera follows the microphone after it's switched on, so councillors and officers are requested to wait a few seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up with the microphone. If the fire alarm sounds at any point, please do leave the Chamber and make your way down the stairs. Do not use the elevator. The safe assembly point is next to the marketing suite halfway along the business arc. Please, with those who are participating via the livestream, indicate that you wish to speak via the chat column. Please do not use the chat column for any other purpose other than requesting to speak. Please make sure your device is fully charged and that you switch your microphone and camera off unless you're invited to do so otherwise. Please ensure you are switched off or silenced any other devices you have so that they do not interrupt proceedings and obviously that goes for members in the Chamber as well. When you are invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched on. When you're finished addressing the meeting, please turn your microphone off. Speak slowly, clearly and do not talk over or interrupt anyone else. Members, if we need to vote on any items today, we're going to be using the electronic microphone keypads in front of us and it's worth noting only those who are present in the Chamber are able to vote. Committee members, I'm now going to do a roll call so everyone that is watching the livestream knows who we are and that we're here. So, after I read your name out, if you'd just like to switch on your mic and then give a quick introduction of yourselves. So, as mentioned previously, I'm Councillor Henry Batchelor, one of the members for Linton, and I'm the Chair of the Committee. I'll ask the Vice-Chair, Councillor Peter Fane to introduce. Good morning, Peter Fane, Shelford Ward. Good morning, Councillor Sue Ellingson. Good morning, Councillor for Swabsea. Councillor Bill Handley. Good morning, Bill Handley, Councillor for the villages of Over and Willingham. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Yes, thanks. Jeff Harvey, I'm Councillor for Bullshamward. Councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins. Good morning, everyone. Timmy Hawkins, Councillor for Caudiwcourt Ward. Councillor Peter Sanford. Good morning, everyone. Peter Sanford, Lord Councillor for Caxton and Pappworth. Councillor Richard Stobart. Good morning, everyone. I'm Councillor Richard Stobart, one of the members for Gerton, and includes also Dry Drayton and Medd. Last but not least, Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you, Chair, Richard Williams, a member for the Wittlesford Ward. We're also joined by some officers in the Chamber. To my left, we have Mr Stephen Kelly, who is the Director for Planning. Good morning, everyone. Vanessa Blane, our Senior Planning Lawyer. Good morning, everyone. Michael Sexton, who is the Area Development Manager. Good morning, everyone. We'll also be joined by some case officers who are independent of each application. But also joining us online, we have Lawrence Demari Homan, who will be clarking the meeting today. Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much. So those are the introductions done. Members, just to make you aware, if you do need to leave the meeting at any point, please do indicate that to myself or the Vice-Chair so that that can be recorded in the minutes. We will be breaking regularly, dependent on where we are on the agenda, but if any member needs a break prior to that, please do again indicate to myself or the Vice-Chair and then we'll do our best to accommodate. Members, you should have the main agenda pack dated 2 August and the online plans pack supplement also dated 2 August. Members should have also received a written submission regarding item 10, number two, duck and Gertan. Does any member not have any of those documents to hand? No? Okay. With that then, we'll move on to agenda item number two on our agendas, which is Apologies for Absent. Over to you. Chair, so we have Apologies from councillors Ariel and Dr Martin Khan, as well as councillor William Jackson Wood and councillor Heather Williams with councillors Richard Stobar and Sue Ellington kindly stepping in at substitutes. Thank you very much. So we move on to agenda item three, which is declarations of interest. Do any members have any interest relating to any items on the agenda today to declare councillor Richard Williams? Thank you, Chair. There are two. So items six and seven, I'm the ward member for Treflow and I've been sort of involved in the procedural side of trying to move that application forward and I spoke to some residents about it but obviously I will come to the matter afresh today. Item eight also, I am the chairman of an organisation which is a tenant of the neighbouring property where this application, or the land that this application relates to and as the possibility of spillover into the neighbouring property is an issue, I'm going to sit that one out so I won't take part in item eight. Okay, thank you very much. councillor Ellington, then Harvey. Thank you. I am a trustee of care network who is a neighbour to the property under number eight in St Ants Road, Hardwick and I don't feel I have any pecuniary interest but I do wish to establish a passing interest. So a non-pecuniary interest and you're planning on debating and voting on that item? I'm planning on stopping. Good, okay. Thank you. councillor Harvey, please. Yes, in relation to item nine, I'm the local member and requested this item to be called in and I'll be stepping aside from the committee for that item in order to make a case supporting the applicant. Thank you councillor Stobart. Yeah, concerning item ten, I have been approached and I have expressed an opinion. I've taken legal advice and the legal advice is that I should step back from both the debate and the vote but I would like as local member to express a view. Yeah, that's fine as your right as local member. councillor Fane. In relation to item six and seven, I had some correspondence with the agent three years ago about this which I passed on to the local member. I used to work part-time for the agent's firm but that's over ten years ago and I have no pecuniary interest in the matter. Thank you and two for myself as well that also relate to item six and seven. So I have a pecuniary interest as my employer has an ongoing business relationship with the applicant. So I'll need to step aside for those two items and councillor Fane will be taking the chair for items six and seven. Members, any further, any further interests members need to declare? I don't see any but if anyone becomes aware of any as the meeting progresses please do indicate. Members, we're on to agenda item four now which is the minutes of the meeting we held on the 29th of June. Any members that were present to that meeting, do you have any omissions or comments or if you see any errors in those minutes? Nope, so in the absence of that I will sign those as a correct record of the meeting. With that members we move to the substantive items on the agenda which begins with agenda item five. This is on page eleven of our, oh sorry, I've missed a set of minutes, apologies members. Councillor Fane has just drawn my attention to page seven which are the minutes of the planning meeting on the 13th of July. Same question, any members that were present have any comments or see any errors with these? Nope, so in the absence of that I'll sign those as a correct record. Okay, now we're on to agenda item five. Page eleven of our agendas members. The application is at the former Barrington Cement Works, Haislingfield Road in Barrington. The proposal in front of us is for the erection of 36 dwellings which is a replan of the eastern parcel of the development site and includes an increase of three dwellings from the approved scheme which is already in place. The applicant is Red Row, the presenting officer is Michael Hammond the reason that the application is before us today is because it's a departure application. So I see Michael Hammond is with us online, good morning Michael. Morning, can you all hear and see me okay? Yep, we can see and hear you fine. So I'll pass over to you Michael to give us any updates to the report we have in front of us if there are any and then to introduce it for members please. Thank you chair. I'll just share my presentation. Can you confirm that you can see the presentation okay? Yes we can. Yep, so the application is for the erection of 36 dwellings. So at former Barrington Cement Works, Haislingfield Road in Barrington it relates to a previous permission, 2018 reserve matters and it's effectively a replan of part of that site for an increase of three dwellings. In terms of updates, I will go through them later in my slide but there is a drawing correction in condition number two, the refuse strategy missed a bin on one of the sites plots. So that has been updated, it's a minor amendment so I request, I'll go to that later request that. And also the recommendation again which will happen for my slides, we're posing to remove the elements relating to the section 73 permission and waiting for that. We've since taken legal advice and we don't actually need to wait for that in order to potentially grant permission if you're minded to approve. So I'll go through the slides and they'll be at the end as well those points. So site location plans, so the red line here is effectively the south eastern parcel to which the application relates. The wider site, I'll put the pointer on sorry, it's clear up. The wider sites which is marked in blue sort of extends round in this triangle here but that doesn't form part of this application. So it's housingfield road as it turns to Chapel Hill here. This is the train line running into the landfill, Semex site up here. And to the south is the actual village of Barrington. The site's outside the development framework which is why this is a departure application. So in terms of site history, there's quite extensive site history but of most relevance are these two. So the 2014 outline application that came in for 220 dwellings which was approved in 2016. And then there was a follow up preserve matters which was allowed at appeal following non-determination in 2019. The image on the right is an iterative master plan so it's not the actual final plans but I just thought it shows a site in context. So just to hopefully try and explain further about why this is separate this bit here. So at the moment work has commenced on site. I believe phase one is well underway and phase two may have commenced as well. The application relates to this corner over here. And you may note from the history there is a pending application for the northern parcel for that auto to be reconfigured. However that's at a much earlier stage and it's recently gone out to re-consultation so that doesn't form part of this application or have any bearing on this part of the site. So these are views from the main road outside the site so you can see the construction entrance on your right there. The poser will be coming in roughly in this location so it's well screened by trees along Hasingfield Road. Michael sorry to interrupt your screen had frozen but it's moved on. Please carry on. And this is a view from further south. So from further south you can again see where the site will be coming in again. Quite well treated what's there already. So on the left is the approved layouts relating to this parcel and on the right is the proposed layout. Ignore the yellow and green highlighting of the buildings. This was the only plan that I could get at this sort of context scale. So I'll just show you the next slide which explains it more easily in terms of what the actual changes are. So the main changes are previously approved. There were two free story apartment blocks. One here and then one right at the southern edge of the site. These are proposed to be removed and replaced with more traditional two story housing. And the other element is this area of informal open space including a footpath. That is to be removed and effectively the development footprint to extend over that to facilitate more two story houses and some maze nets. But overall it's an increase of three dwellings compared to what was approved. Just to compare the dwelling mix. So previously approved on this part of the site. There were 33 dwellings, 32 of which were one or two bedroom homes, many of which were flats. Under the proposal there's more of a mix. So it's 17 while two bedrooms, 14 free bedroom homes and five, four bedroom or more homes. To make a total of 36. And affordable housing wise, two of the three additional dwellings would be affordable. So it'd be a total of 13 affordable dwellings on this part of the site. And they are located in this courtyard area here. There is a cluster and also at the northern end of this part of the site, which sort of relates to the other affordable housing just outside the site, not part of this application. They would be shared ownership, those two. So in terms of parking, all the houses on the edge have on-plot parking. Typically two bedrooms and we'll have two spaces. There are only the maze and nets have one space each. And there is a courtyard here with one visitor space, but the rest are all designated parking. So just to show it in context with the originally approved parameter plan. The red here is the area of approximately the area of open space to be removed. But as you can see there is quite a substantial amount of other open space on the site, which quantitatively equates to approximately 18 hectares in total. So the loss of this informal open space is still well in excess of the standards in the local plan in terms of what we'll be looking for. So I'll just run you through some of the house types. So there are all predominantly two stories, different house types, but many have been approved on the wider site, so they sort of blend in with the other ones that are there. But yeah, this for example is a four-bedroom dwelling. These are three-bedroom dwellings. And in the bottom right corner here, so I should make clear before, I've tried to roughly show where they are on the site. These are two-bedroom dwellings located down here. These are three-bedroom ones. Again, more four-bedroom ones, more spread out across this part of the site. Three-bedroom ones here and on this southern tip here. And four-bedroom ones along the main street as it comes in. And the maze and nets are located adjacent to the courtyard. So there's one building if you would. So two maze and nets there. And again on this edge here. And then these are the two-bedroom terrace properties, which also form the affordable housing proposed as well. So this is a street scene just showing the different house types along this section here and this section here just showing the variety in housing types. I've included an example of this is the larger apartment block that's proposed to be removed. So they were three-storey apartment blocks. Like what I just pointed out earlier, located on two parts of the site, they're proposed to be removed just to give you an idea of what was approved there. So as I mentioned at the start, one of the updates was that the refuse strategy was missing the location of the bin storage location for plot number 46. So the plan has just been updated to add that yellow circle in the garden there. So it's a very minor amendment, but it would be replacing the relevant drawing in condition number two. So in summary, the extent permission on the site is a material consideration, and it has already been determined that development of 33 dwellings as part of the wider development of 220 dwellings would represent sustainable form of development. The proposed additional three dwellings to bring this parcel up of the site up to 36 dwellings would not in the view of officers result in the level of development becoming unsustainable. The level of harm arising from the proposal is considered to be very limited and is outweighed by public benefits, including the affordable housing, the replacement of three-storey apartment blocks with two-storey houses and masonettes, financial contributions towards local services and facilities, approval was recommended subject to completion of a section Y6 agreement conditions, including updates to condition number two informatives. Just to reiterate, paragraph 10.201, we no longer need to wait for the section 73 application to also have a resolution at committee. That's all. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Michael. That was very thorough and helpful. Members, we do have some public speakers on this, but before we move to them, I will offer any committee members an opportunity to ask any questions of clarification of the officer in case anything wasn't clear in that presentation. Councillor Williams. Thank you, Chair. Just a quick one that jumps out at me. The officer mentioned clustering of the affordable homes. I didn't notice, maybe I missed it, a conflict with policy identified, but would the clarification whether that would be compatible with the local plan if I thought we had a rule against clustering? Michael, can you answer that? I can. Yes, I'm just trying to find the right paragraph in my report, which I think deals with it. Sorry, bear with me. I think paragraph 10.59 to 10.61 covers that, but ultimately there is a policy relating to clustering, but I think it's a maximum of 15 units, and this doesn't exceed that. So the strategic housing team are satisfied with the level of clustering proposed. Thank you. Members, any further points of clarity for the officer before we move to our public speakers? No? Sorry, Councillor Stobart launching himself in there. Thank you, Chair. Just very briefly, the motivation of the developer to make this change, is it based on a perception of business, of demographic? Just very briefly, I think, to satisfy my curiosity, why has the developer changed the shape of the development and the way you just described? We are actually about to hear from an agent of the developer, so maybe that might be a more pertinent question for them, as opposed to our planning officer, who just judges it on what to put in front of them. I think we are now about to hear from them. Do we have Liz Fitzgerald? If you'd like to take a seat in front of the mic, if you press the large silver button on the right, that switches the mic on and off, and it's currently on. I'll let you know you have three minutes whenever you're ready to give your comments to the committee. At the end of which, if you can stay seated in case there's any questions of clarification for you, and I think you might know you've got at least one. So please, three minutes whenever you're ready. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everybody. I don't intend to say too much, but thank you for letting me speak this morning. The officers report is a detailed report, and obviously you've heard a detailed presentation this morning from Michael Hammond. There are recommendations we obviously endorse. We've worked alongside the officers to ensure that this development is as robust as is possible, and hopefully that's reflected in that report. The application itself presents an opportunity to remove some of the flattered development elements from the scheme and make more efficient use of land and increasing the dwelling numbers by three. It is noted that all statutory consultees have raised no objections following a series of amendments to the scheme, including the Parish Council. The comments from the Urban Design Officer are addressed within the officers report, and the scheme has been designed very carefully to ensure that we integrate with the wider scheme that's coming forward on Barrington itself. This obviously ensures that not only are we increasing the contributions and allow elements that we're providing to Barrington Village itself, but we're also looking at ensuring that all of the benefits that come forward as part of the Barrington scheme, the footpath links, the connections through to Foxton Station, et cetera, are also still delivered as a consequence of this. I hope that you are able to support us here today, and obviously I'm more than happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Only use half your time, which I thank you for. Councillor Stobart, I think you wanted to ask a question of the applicant. Thank you for your presentation. So it was really just to reiterate what is the prime motivation for making this change, because the original design looked okay. The new one is a little more crowded, and the green space in front of the development has gone. So what motivated this change? There's two factors. Firstly, the open space area that's shown has to be dug up anyway. There are sewage tanks, septic tanks underneath it. So there's a lot of work that goes into that. I also understand it. Obviously I'm not involved in the nuances of red row, but I understand that there's a sales aspect and there's been a greater demand for the house types that are proposed over the flooded development. Thank you. Members, do you have any further questions of clarification for the applicant's agent? Thank you. Liz, can you just clarify what I think on the officer's report? There is just one parking space for every dwelling in the replan. Not quite now. Most properties have got at least two. It's only the two masonettes have got one each, and there are two bed masonettes within the centre of the site, and they are also adjacent to the visitor's spaces as well. Okay, thank you. Councillor Ennington. I just wonder whether you've done any work on the housing need in terms of one or two bedroom accommodation, because it seems to me that the flats would house more single accommodation, whereas the masonettes will hold two or more. And I just wonder whether that was a motivating factor or just commercial. To a certain extent, I think the way we lay out figures for one and two beds is slightly misleading. There was no one beds proposed on the extent planning permission. They were all two bed flats. So we've actually not really shifted the mix in the sense of moving away from one beds. What we've done is rebalance the mix in accordance with the housing mix set out within the local plan. Thank you. And Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you, Chair. For reference, page 36, paragraph 10.76. The garages, it seems, do not form part of the parking strategy and are intended for storage only. How come I thought garages were for cars? Is this your design strategy? The issue isn't that the garages aren't suitable for cars. They just don't meet the size standards that are required internally when internally measured. So we don't include them within the calculation for car parking. We ensure that there's sufficient car parking outside. And that's a lot to do with the fact that most of them are integrated garages into the building as opposed to standalone garages. And it's about making sure that we're not trying to count garages as parking spaces when, actually, they don't quite meet that standard. I'm sorry, what is a garage for? A garage is for parking a car. So why aren't you building garages to the right size so that you can put a car in and get out of the car? All I can say is that what we're doing is it doesn't prevent people from using the garages as car parking spaces. Yes, it does, because they can't get in and get out. They can drive in, but they can't get out of the car. Because they can't look on the door. They are of the sufficient service. Any further questions for the applicant? No? OK. Well, thank you very much for taking the time to come in and speak to us this morning. With that, members, we'll move on to our final public speaker on this item, who is the local member. I believe he's joining us online. Councillor Aidan van de Waier. Aidan, good morning. Hello, good morning. Thank you very much. Can you hear me OK? Yes, we can hear and see you perfectly. You're familiar with the system. Three minutes to give us your views, and then there may be some questions at the end, so please whenever you're ready. Thank you very much. I also support this application. I think there are reasonable changes that have been made in terms of the design of the whole scheme, but obviously the increase in affordable housing and the mix is better. There is this loss of open space, which has been addressed. Michael mentioned that this development does have a very large informal open space very close to it. Obviously it's on the other side from these houses, but the distances are quite small, and I think that's quite reasonable as well. Obviously this is a replay on the existing development. It's quite a significant change, but the huge quantity of information that we, and especially the Parish Council, have to deal with on a change like this is almost as much as the original application. The officer's presentation was excellent on this. Thank you very much, Michael. It would have been useful to have that excellent summary right at the start. The other particular point I wanted to make is about the section 106 contributions as it's set out in the report. There will be increases in most of the areas where there are contributions already from the development of the whole, the original application, the original permission, and broadly these are sort of prorated according to the extra three houses, and I think that's a very good approach for this development. And I think I would like to invite you to support that sort of principle of prioritaring up the S106 contributions for the increase in size. Obviously there's a bit of variation in something that's clearly unnecessary, but a lot of these things, even three houses will cause extra demand on the facilities of the village and their entirely appropriate to increase the section 106 in that way, in a prorated proportionate way. But thank you very much, and thank you in particular to Michael for the excellent presentation. Thank you councillor. Members, do you have any questions of clarification for the local member? No, I don't see any. Aiden, that was very clear. Thank you very much for your comments and taking the time to speak to us this morning. Members, that concludes the public speaking element of the process, so we are now in the debate section. This is where members have the opportunity to ask any further questions of the planning officer or equally start formulating a view on the application. So I will throw it open to the committee. Councillor Hawkins will be kicking us off. Just a question of clarification if I may please. Page 14, 1.15. I'm not sure I understand why we're hearing this now if we can't as it says because we're trying to grant the planning permission it will not be determined until another application comes through. Why are we doing that? Please. I think that was one of the alterations the planning officer was asking to make at the beginning but I think Mr Kelly was asking to come in on that hopefully to clarify. Yes, you're quite right. Councillor Hawkins, obviously reviewing the recommendation and you heard Michael Hammond outline a change to it. You're obliged to deal with this application on its merits. You shouldn't be predetermining the outcome of any other application associated with it. Because it's a full planning permission and Michael rightly highlighted that the other application was an outline with the reserve matters they're separate planning commissions and you do not need to create the outcome of resolution of the outline until you determine this application. There is an issue that clearly the approved plans of the outline show a different form of development on this site but until such time as the planning commission, this planning commission where it to be implemented is begun there is no breach of planning and the history and the report makes clear that there are proposals to adjust those reserve matters that are currently before the planning authority and will be determined in due course so we're actually intending to simplify it precisely for the reasons you've identified. Thank you very much. Members who'd like to chip in next. Councillor Hawkins, back to you. Thank you. I mean understand why it's come forward to us because it's outside the village framework but of course this is a revision of an existing as we call it, extended planning permission I note that the parish council does not object and the local member has spoken in favour of it and I can understand why I mean I for one excuse me kind of I guess happy to see that a three story what looks more like a four story building or buildings have been taken out as many villages do not want or like or does it fix to have that many story buildings in the villages so that is a positive and although there is some objection about the fact that it's going from once it's 30 to 36 or 33 to 36 with an additional three properties is an advantage even more so because two of those three are affordable housing so that's in my view another positive for one negative which a question was not having garages that are big enough to put cars in why the heck are we granting planning permission to build garages that do not actually take cars it just seems sorry irrational to me but I guess a storage it's useful I personally don't see that there's any material reason not to grant this so I'll be putting in favour of it thank you thank you councillor our next speaker is councillor Williams thank you chair I suppose I have a similar sort of view to councillor Hawkins one thing I would flag up though I think we should be all aware of is yes the number of houses are only going up by three on this side but if we look at the housing mix change that is quite significant on page 32 it was on the officer's slide but it's paragraph 10.47 we talk a lot about the ability of people to get on a housing ladder we are actually dropping if I read these figures correctly from 13% 172 bedroom homes it seems down to 4 and 3% so underneath the surface of what looks like a small change there is actually a significant change because this is moving to a development of higher of larger and therefore more expensive housing I would imagine the markup the commercial consequence of that I would imagine is quite significant but it does mean what we are actually doing is providing significantly fewer starter homes on the open market so that concerns me and I don't really like it I don't like the loss of green space I take the point about the removing the block of flats I suppose that is a positive but I don't really like this but I might struggle to find a reason to oppose it I think the points have been taken councillor Sanford then Ellington please thank you chair to councillor Hawkins earlier point I suggest the developer renames these garages as storage lockers to avoid all doubts that they can accommodate cars notwithstanding this is reassurance is earlier I have my doubts whether there is adequate parking on this site three and four bedroom houses tend to generate three and four cars there will be creative parking I suspect okay thank you for that councillor Ellington please thank you I find the whole layout very very tight and it does seem to me yes that there is a shortage of car parking and a shortage of places where visitors can park and also where they can turn round if they have found their way down a rabbit hole but again I can't think for good reason to oppose what I would like just a mild clarification on I'm sure everybody else knows but I've forgotten the affordable housing is this just housing which is at a lower cost or will it be housing association rented accommodation Michael I don't know if you're online and you can answer that I think I'm still here yep yep so it might be helpful if I share my screen again sorry my computer is being a bit slow so yes four of the masernets will be what's called affordable rent so that's typically 80% of the market value is the usual way it's done and shared ownership is a bit bit different that I believe is where you buy a share of the property and then your mortgage is low as I understand it but ultimately there are housing associations on the site who have taken over part let's have a look see if I can get the larger for example on these parcels outside the site you can see for example the some affordable housing here I know there's been discussions with a housing association and they have got a commitment to provide sort of a portion of that and I think there'll be a similar sort of discussion on this part of the site as well but also being able to agree for section 106 but yeah there are housing associations who have purchased some of the properties yeah Can I just clarify then that means there are no one and two bedroom first time buyer houses Not necessarily because the shared ownership part I believe would facilitate that so those ones that are up here I think under the shared ownership sort of umbrella if you would that would fall under the first time buyer part I think that is inadequate on a site such as this Members who have had some comments and people have put forward some concerns they have albeit no one has indicated a reason for refusal but if anyone is minded to refuse this and vote against then it would be good to hear the reasons why that would be but Councillor Stobart will come to you as you had your hand raised My comments don't fall into that category chair so I don't believe so anyway so just looking at the sustainability design so that's paragraphs 1096 through 10101 and I'll come back to electric vehicle provision in a moment but there is when you consider a change like this issues of how do you heat buildings what's there overheating performance and so on so simply going from some apartment blocks which arguably are more energy efficient because you can provide centralised heating and cooling to a number of individual dwellings that are more efficient more distributed in a sense harder to manage thermally so there is that to be considered I think it's not a reason that we would reject this proposal but it is a consideration which really I don't think has been outlined sufficiently well so there are implications on sustainability of just changing the structure of the housing the housing type so distribution of solar PV becomes probably a little more difficult when we're going for the structure that's being proposed as opposed to what previously the ability to plant trees that would shade again that I think is probably diminished by the choice of the new structure on PV provision which is under car parking so 10138 10140 on page 44 it seems very soft the statements made here about provision of vehicle charging and so passive provision and when you think about passive provision for electric vehicle charging what exactly does it mean does it mean that the distribution board in the associated housing has enough capacity for a charger and we talk about putting ducts in but it's not really the ducts, the ducts help but actually the cost is around mounting the EV charger point putting the extra provision into the distribution board so I'd say this feels a little soft and that's something if it's within the scope of the plan process to be firmer in the direction that's given or condition could be applied to make sure that the risks around EV provision are more firmly stated good points, we're going to hand over to Mr Kelly hopefully have a response for us I think we acknowledge that the current development plan policies don't really allow us to insist upon some of this infrastructure it is interesting talking to the house builders in general though that particularly these are family homes that there is actually it's a sales requirement almost now that they embody certainly around Cambridgeshire, certainly the house builders that we've spoken to almost every client is asking and I can't comment for red rose but certainly the conversations of the house builders they are installing fast charge facilities as a matter of course because simply that's what the competition is doing so an example I think we understand and you'll see the sustainability officer as broadly drawn a conclusion that the arrangements are acceptable but the increasing emphasis around the heating and energy costs of homes which are due to escalate rapidly I suspect will overtake our own policy ambitions in terms of consumer behaviour shortly so although we can't insist upon it I wouldn't be surprised by the time these homes are constructed if they get consent that you'll find they have almost have to have this type of infrastructure at first occupation I hope they offer some reassurance councillor that's very helpful thank you Mr Kelly thank you very much members does anyone wish to put forward I mean I've heard lots of comments as I said concerns have been voiced albeit none would warrant a refusal in members opinion from what I've heard does anyone wish to put forward a contrary view to that is anyone debating voting against this and wishes to put their reasons forward for that I don't see any can I take it then that we're ready to make a decision on this members is anyone not ready to make a decision no okay well members as we haven't had any opposing views could we take it by affirmation that we do approve this the recommendation is on page 55 and that is to approve as per the paper councillor Williams before we move on I wouldn't oppose affirmation chair but I'd like to abstain when we record it okay thank you so members we have the recommendation on page 55 which is to approve and we've also had the amendments which essentially deletes the element regarding or worded the planning committee's future resolution regarding application and then the number so is everyone all clear on that the officer did outline it in their introduction good okay well with that members with the one abstention so far is everyone content to approve this application agreed agreed so that is unanimous with the one abstention from councillor Williams so that application is approved thank you very much everyone members we're now on to the next agenda item which has mentioned at the start I have a pecuniary interest in so we'll have to withdraw for item six and the following item item seven so I will have to leave the room unfortunately but I'll leave you in the hands of councillor Fein the vice chair and I'll be watching so no one's return so thank you very much and I'll see you shortly so I'll take over as chair for these next two items I'm going to suggest that I ask councillor Jeff Harvey to stand in as vice chair if you would is that agreed by the Gribble tool even to councillor Jeff Harvey who has had known this before yes thank you thank you councillor Harvey let's move on to item six then this is reference S 3975 18 FL in relation to in relation to Rectory Farm Middle Street Thrip Llo we're looking at pages 73 onwards I would just emphasise that we're looking at the planning consent in item six we will then under item seven be considering a listed building application just item six we're considering at this stage the case officer in this case is Karen Pelcockins who I think I saw online Karen would you like to just give us your update and a brief introduction on this on the assumption that we've all read the papers thank you chair I have no verbal updates so I will share my presentation with you can you hear me okay we can excellent so starting with the full application this is an application for part demolition of existing barns extensions alterations and conversion of three barns to dwellings erection of four new dwellings and widening of an existing access so the site is located in Middle Street Thrip Llo to the west of Middle Street which is outlined in red here basically on the site you have just looking at the constraints you have a grade two listed ties barn which was listed in 2017 which runs from the eastern frontage of the site onto Middle Street into the site area the site is wholly within the conservation area part of the site is within the development framework so the dash black line here is the line of the development framework so to the eastern side it's within the development framework and to the western side it's outside the development framework and it's what we call white land so it's not green belt but it is countryside the green belt wraps around the western side of the site so you have residential properties to the north east and south of the site around this area it's within flood zone one there is a small there's a pond on the site just here so there is a small area of surface water risk and there's a public footpath which is this purple line which runs along the top of the site to the north so just going on to show you an aerial photograph of the site which shows the ties barn just here and the sort of existing buildings on the site some photographs so I'll go on to them so this is photographs showing the site from middle street so you can see here to the left hand side is the listed ties barn with an existing wall along the frontage and then you have the entrance to the site there's a tree, a scots pine tree in the garden of the neighbour you can just see there's a little building sort of white render building clay plantiles which will be retained as part of the development this goes on to internal views of the site from the courtyard so this is the existing ties barn which is listed not in a particularly good state of repair but that will be obviously upgraded as a crucial part of this application so this is an internal view of the ties barn and then just going on to show the sites of a bit more in context so this is the entrance the ties barn is to the left as you're coming and this will be where plots 1 and 2 are so where the white building is this will form part of plot 3 and there will be a new two story building behind that which will be in the position of this building here and then beyond that I'll show you the site plan in a moment there will be plot 5 then these existing buildings here will be removed so all of the buildings around here will be demolished and plot 6 and 7 will be on this side of the site so plot 4 so this is an existing building that will be removed where plot 3 is plot 4 is an existing building which is beyond this gate across the field to the west this will be retained and converted so again just some photographs of the buildings at the back of the site and this is the area beyond the buildings still within the site area but the green belt boundary is slightly further here and then you've got a zoomed view from the public foot path so you can see sort of outlines of the buildings so this is plot 4 plot 6 sorry plot 5 would be here plot 7 etc so just to give you an idea of the demolition plan the buildings which would be retained would be the ties barn here the extensions to the ties barn can I just ask is it possible to change the pointer so that we can see more clearly I don't know if you've got access to a laser pointer oh sorry I thought I'd done that so apologies so sorry the ties barn here will be retained so these two extensions will be demolished this building here will be retained and form part of plot 3 and this building down here will be retained and form part plot 4 so just going on to the proposed site plan so sorry the orientation has changed so plots 1 and 2 are down here so the existing extension with demolished that will be replaced by a cart lodge to serve plot 1 which is here the extension to plot 2 will be demolished and replaced with a very similar extension which is an L shape obviously plot 4 will be retained this building to plot 3 will be retained and this will be plot 3 plot 5 is new plot 6 is new plot 70 is new so just moving on specifically to the ties barn which is plots 1 and 2 so the works that are proposed to the ties barn so it requires a real statement of the original roof which will increase the height of the building it will require strengthening of the timbers to obviously ensure it can be converted to three floors etc it will be subdivided to create two dwellings plot 1 is this side which will be a three bedroom dwelling and plot 4 plot 2 is a four bedroom dwelling so there will be some internal works to enclose some of the bays within the barns at ground floor level so just for example plot 1 this is at ground floor there will be two bedrooms here which will be enclosed and the remainder will be open plan and again at plot 2 here these will be enclosed and this will be open plan just going on to the first floor there will be certain gallery areas at first floor so there will be a bedroom but then obviously voids at first floor level to retain the open plan feeling of the barns and just going on to the elevations of plots 1 and 2 so trying to retain the original materials which is render and start staying tin for boarding but with a new roof which will be clay plain tiles so there's obviously new openings and glazing within existing openings to provide the accommodation so I have got details of all of the other plots if you would like me to go through them so just for example so that's the car lodged plot 1 so very low key simple traditional building so this is plot 3 just for example so this will be the existing building that will be retained and this is the elevation of that building so again quite simple design but trying to sort of replicate the character of the agricultural barns on the site I'll just go on now to show you some sections of the site I have got details of all of the different plots and etc so sections of the site so this is from the access road so you're looking at so middle street is just to the left hand side here this is plots 1 and 2 which comes over here plot 3 and plot 5 site section of plot 4 so this is from the rear boundaries of the neighbouring properties at 22 22 and 24 middle street so this is the view that they would see so there's an access across the field and then this is plot 4 which is retained and this is a new extension to plot 4 this is plots 3 and 7 so through this from the rear of the site so this is looking back on the ties barns just behind to the right hand side here this is existing dwelling this is plots 7 and plots 3 so this is the view the view sort of from within the site and then plots 5 and 6 which is from the again within the site looking to the rear of the site towards the green belt so plots 5 and 6 and then we've just got plots 6 and 7 which is to the north side and this gives you an idea of the perspective plan as the access middle street so the landscaping plan shows that three trees will be removed within the centre of the site which is within the garden of plots 3 there will be some works to raise the crown of the pine adjacent to the access and there's some works here to remove part of this tree so it wouldn't overshadow plot 4 so the key considerations for the full application are the principle of development the housing density and mix character and appearance of the area heritage assets trees and landscaping bio-diversity highway safety flood risk and aimer amenity, thank you thank you Karen any questions of clarification of the stage from members is Councillor Williams thank you chair Karen a few minutes ago you showed us a perspective of the view from plot 4 of plot 4 can you give us an idea of the distance from the proposed dwelling that that drawing is drawn from if you see what I mean because having stood in the back guns of 24 and 24A it's nothing like that to my mind that perspective is standing on the other side of middle streets as if the houses weren't there looking at plot 24 right I think the distances are set out in the report I need to find the exact the neighbour amenity section so bear with me a second I mean someone's quite close but obviously the building is existing at the moment it wasn't so much the distance that I'm asking about it it's that drawing because to my mind that drawing was drawn as if the houses in 24 and 24A were not in fact there it's not a reasonable representation of what you actually see if you're standing in the back garden of those houses because it would be a pier closer much closer yes so yes I was going to say it doesn't specifically say where that perspective is taken from but yeah it would be closer but that's the view that you would get from those rear houses thank you a question from me if I may Karen in relation to the comments on the conservation officer and from listed building here we have Historic England am I right in thinking that this is pretty well opposite to the grade 2 listed manor house it says yes and yet we have no comments from Historic England I don't know whether you're able to clarify paragraph 612 page 84 um cppf say that several statements in heritage statement are not correct are you able to clarify that for us sorry what paragraph was that of the report paragraph 612 on page 84 can I read me yeah I think that relates to the road names etc so I think that was addressed in the report but just for assurance the there is no concern expressed about the implications for the grade 2 listed grade 2 star listed manor house no concerns have been raised that's correct and then second if I may the comments of the parish council um who are not I think a florist today uh they objected on this but then here we are parish council on page 78 objects to the application but it seems what they were really saying was that it wasn't possible to scrutinise it uh on page 79 and they went on to say parish council is pleased to see the listed building will be converted ensuring it's survival hearing from the parish council today but they do say that um by a majority they're opposed to it for seven houses principally because some of the houses are outside the village envelope have we had any further clarification on the parish council's position we haven't I'm afraid no I think the parish council has changed recently so we've not heard anything further from them thank you for that right um sorry further questions two further questions yes Councillor Hawkins first thank you chair two things can you just clarify please Karen how many of the properties proposed outside the village envelope so there are four new dwellings outside so four new dwellings outside the development framework one converted dwelling outside the framework okay thanks for that the second thing is paragraph 8.144 where it talks about plots 12 and 4 not being subject to space standards yes because they are converted buildings surely space standards means space standards so we can live in a place properly space so the obviously the policy policy H12 in relation to space standards doesn't refer to converted buildings because obviously they're existing buildings and they may not be able to be extended etc but yeah unfortunately that's something in policy that is not yeah thanks right Councillor Ellington thank you I'm not sure whether you've just answered that as I was thinking of my question as that came past and that's paragraph 8.27 on page 89 where it says that the new dwellings in the countryside would be materially greater than the height of the existing agricultural buildings and would it be intrusive have we any diagrams or pictures that we can look at to see how much we think that might actually affect the visual output bear with me can I go back to my presentation okay can you see that we can see your presentation I don't know if you're able to show us the elevations concerned yes so I it's probably easy visually rather than the elevations to be honest so just for example so I'm waiting for my okay so these are the so these are the buildings which are on where plot 5 would be which is one of the new dwellings and these are the buildings so they're clearly obviously single story whereas plots 5 and 6 and 7 so plot 5 just for example would be two stories so you would have probably an extra 3 metres in height maybe so I have got the heights so the heights of plot 5 better with me a second is nearly 8 metres whereas the height of the existing buildings is probably 4 metres maximum so you're looking at 3-4 metres increase in height there does that help quite intrusive I would say and who would that affect have those neighbours been given the opportunity to comment so in terms of yes so the neighbours have all been notified this is the property that property I just showed you is property 5 which is here which will have an increase in height also this would have an increase in height which is next door to number 22 who has been notified and I've had conversations with plot 4 will not be increased in height so and these will be increased in height but certainly all the names have been notified notification is different from getting acceptance I haven't seen any comments from them Karen I think the director would like to comment on that unless you'd go in first of course it's just to make the point and the report tries to be clear part of the the entire premise which the proposal is based and I think the chairs referred to the parish council's comments around the settlement boundary this is quite a complex case the report sets out because the prime objective sitting behind the recommendation is to secure the long term sustainable feature for the grade 2 listed asset and there is recognition in that purpose that there is additional impacts associated with these new dwellings particularly the dwellings beyond your normal policy of building within settlement boundaries in villages and the report goes into some depth about the viability and the financial modelling that's been done to in many respects draw offices to the conclusion that that balance and the objective of safeguarding that precarius heritage asset that you've seen the photographs of justifies some of those consequential effects on both the views from into the village from the countryside or from the open area beyond but also some of the changes and indeed some of the effects of those changes on the setting of the building itself because it domesticates that setting from its kind of rural form so I think we would acknowledge that there is a greater impact in terms of visibility of the site and the buildings on it from the countryside but the overarching benefit associated with safeguarding that listed asset justifies that harm and clearly that you see in the report a number of representations from the local people who are wrestling with that dynamic as I think people have recognised the benefits of securing the asset but as Councillor Williams has highlighted that there are also impacts on existing properties that will be an appreciable change for them as well Ellington I hope that clarifies your point I would stress that we may come back to this as a matter of debate later on and Councillor Sanford I think you had a question of clarification no any other questions of clarification no well in that case I think we can invite the applicant to talk to us I believe we have Rob Hopwood from Bedwell's some suggestion you might be going to share your time with the applicant some of the large or will you cover this yourself you'll cover it fine I think you know the system looks like you've sorted out the microphone when you're ready as you know three minutes and then if you would hang on for any questions after that that would be helpful Thank you chair, just before I speak can I just make a couple of introductions because given this is quite a complex proposal I've got the benefit of some of the colleagues on the project team I'd just like to introduce should the members have any questions after so first of all on my right in the room we have the applicant the MD of Lara Holmes Simon, some of all large who's going to say a few words on the vision for the redevelopment and what benefits will be derived via the build and secondly right introduced Richard Coombs also in the room a partner of Carter Jonas who has undertaken the viability appraisal required by the council and Bedwell's head of heritage Chris Surfleet who is hopefully going to be on the screen who has advised on the impact of the development proposal on the heritage assets including the listed barn and the conservation area so as planning agent myself I'll just start from now on so members may have noted that this application was submitted in 2018 and this was after nearly three years of pre-application discussions through the spring and summer of 2017 we embarked on detailed officer meetings and with two public presentations for local residents and the parish council with many follow up meetings with local residents in their homes thereafter in seeking to make a number of amendments to meet with their requirements a meeting was also held with local residents regarding improvements to local drainage which was mentioned by locals in addition the isle barn which was unlisted but at the start of this process was then added to the statutory list in November 2017 requiring further adjustments to render the conversion acceptable to the now listed building eventually through many meetings we reached agreement of the no harm impact of the scheme having reached that important level agreement on design the applicant then invested in the costly financial viability work to support the case for enabling development revised plans were submitted in July 2019 officers eventually confirmed that the revised plans would result in the optimum viable use for the site being the minimum development required to address the conversion deficit and justifying the works to ensure the future of the listed barn having established the application proposals represented enabling development it should also be noted that this application meets many of the policies within the local plan in terms of design, amenity and sustainability and repairing and refurbishing the barn for the long term. Triplo is a group village where normally up to eight dwellings would tend to be supported in terms of scale the officers report states that the landscaping proposed would soften the impact of the development on the countryside and surrounding greenbelt the highway authority also raises no objection to the application so I'll pass over to Simon to do the final leg, thank you and if you would just introduce yourself again and then I'll give you a couple of minutes but we are very in this moment, sorry yes, I'm sorry is that working? Good morning I'm Simon, some of the large I'm the MD of Lyra Homes business, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this morning as we've all worked incredibly hard to present this important scheme to you today after many years and much problems through Covid it has been very difficult for everyone involved but I'm pleased to have got where we are Lyra Homes has been developing quality homes with bespoke designs around Cambridge for the last 15 years and I'm very proud of our good reputation this site at Rectory Farm is clearly a sensitive one in a central location within Tripoli which has required the skills of our talented and award-winning architects Noel David and the whole team including everyone else here today to design the sensitive conversion of the listed tyth barn and the careful development of the old farm yard this will enable the extensive work required to restore and preserve this important grade 2 listed tyth barn that dates back to the 14th century the supporting enabling development is all within the areas previously developed by assorted barn buildings many of which were much larger than the ones that are actually there today and this will restore the sense of place and also remain subordinate to the tyth barn standing proud back to its original height for this new roof and a key part of the village for the future this proposal will preserve this important building for future generations to enjoy for the reasons stated above them Rob said earlier as recommended by the case officer we hereby respectfully request that the application be approved thank you if you would just hang on there we may have some questions which could be directed to you or indeed to colleagues um councillors yes councillor Hawkins thank you chair um thank you too so Mr Hopwood and some of the large for your presentations I think the question I have release to do with the viability assessment um I was looking through the reports um that were submitted but I couldn't actually match the numbers in that with the number that's on page 82 the very last paragraph we talked about ah reassessment of the scheme and generated a negative area will be of just about one million your figures don't seem too much with this or this your figures I'm confused that you clarify that point for us I can yes viability assessments quite some history to this and the assessment was put forward and then checked by the council's own consultants BMP Parable um we felt that some of those points that they raised were incorrect and the assessment of the case was not exactly correct so we were then in various debates and discussions with the council and it was decided that independent quantities of air should check it again so we employed a company to do the numbers again and to submit those to both parties through the council that was then checked and this is the number they came up with so there are other numbers around previous to this one but this is the final result which is what I can't remember their name Roe consultants came up with the quantities of air anyway there were independent quantities of air who did the assessment any other questions from councillors I think it's fair to say that can you come to councillor Williams whether you wanted to ask a question or to reserve your comments as speakers local member question please councillor Williams I was wondering if you could just say a little bit to us about plot 4 we didn't see a picture of plot 4 but it's a sort of open barn for the other members how much of that existing structure is likely to be maintained I know you're moving it back from the boundary but it's in quite a bad state of repair that one yes thank you for the question we're hoping to preserve the important timbers but structurally it needs a lot of work so until we've actually taken it apart and checked all of the timbers it's actually difficult to tell how many of those are salvageable but we obviously the aim is to salvage as many as possible but we have reduced the length of the barn to take it away from one of the neighbour's boundaries as well thank you for that I think councillor Hawkins is considering whether to ask another question so she might as well anyway I might as well yes I mean I again looking at the figures that you've come up with obviously things have changed in that time and the fact that you're proposing to build so many new properties to pay for the refurbishment of the time found seems to me that with the level of cost increases now that the building industry is going through there could be a bit of a discrepancy here by the time you get if you get planning permission by the time you get that to go forward thank you for the question yes I mean during the process the figures have changed considerably over the last seven or eight years and that's part of the cycle of the property industry house prices have gone up they peak and they can go down we're seeing the same construction costs at the moment which are actually going through the roof I don't think that's going to last forever by the time the cycle comes round again who knows it is a risk we take as a developer and we are confident that this scheme can work that we will be constructing this ourselves and that we will see it through to the bitter end I'm very proud of all the jobs we do quality is very important our reputation is important and this is a very very delicate site that we want to get right it's very difficult to predict exactly where the figures will end up we can only go on today's figures in development that's all we can do we work on our costs today and what our sales values are today and these figures here are the latest figures we've got to go on which are maybe six months old I hope that answers your question it kind of does but I think my concern is that you know what I don't want to say is that I will get to a certain stage and it's like oh we need to build more just to be able to colour the costs to put this thing back up and it's you know it's good if I can answer that we would like to get on with this project as soon as possible I think that if we don't start building something soon barns likely to fall over it's in such a poor state that we could be in a very very bad way in the next 12 months it's important that we get on and start the restoration work and preserving the barn as soon as possible it needs to be supported internally with a whole new steel structure to support the timbers it's quite a complicated build Thank you for those comments perhaps I can just say that you refer to seeing this through to the bitter end I'm not sure that we'd be bitter as the director said earlier on the primary issue we're talking about here is the conservation of the building by providing a viable future use and while some of us may be a little surprised that the applicants the repairs and refurbishment of the grade 2 tithe barn can only be facilitated that is only viable through the development of 5 new residential units that is not contested I agree between the council and your consultants so not a matter for this committee today Thank you very much to you and to Mr Hopeford for your evidence to us today Right councillors I think councillor Williams do you want to speak as a local member can you just explain your position on this whether you're planning to take part in the debate as well I am planning to take part in the debate but if I could speak as a local member if I can given the parish council is not here without prejudice to my own opinion I will try and talk about some of the local concerns that have been raised Thank you that would be acceptable so that they are articulated Yes I should say that answers have already been made clear this application has been under consideration for quite some time in fact it was discussed in the parish council before I was elected so in that sense I wasn't actually party to the discussions at all it's been around five years it's been a long process I think has already been made clear I will say a few things I have been contacted by a few residents raising some concerns about the timing of when this application has come forward not that I think that's anyone's fault I have explained the process but there are a number of residents of neighbouring properties who are on holiday and have been not able to speak and I think otherwise would have spoken so I think members of the committee probably shouldn't infer anything from the fact that there aren't a local residents commenting because the notice has been quite short obviously in the middle of the summer there is a lot to commend this scheme I think everyone agrees that the barn is in desperate need of something being done to it but the danger of falling down and I think the principle of this development is a good one in terms of making use of a heritage asset that as I say if nothing is done to it probably will fall down in the not too distant future so the principle of the scheme I think has a lot to commend it's supported there are local concerns particularly around block 4 which is quite near to the back gardens of a number of properties I couldn't actually find the distance in the report so if I've missed it it might be helpful later if Karen could clarify what the distance is between the edge of number 24 Middle Street and block 4 that would be quite helpful so there are particular concerns about amenity of neighbours relating to the development of that block now the developers to their credit moved the barn back I think 3 metres from the boundary or they've moved it a few metres back I think to try and address those concerns but those concerns remain other local concerns that have been raised relate to Middle Street and potential increase in traffic on Middle Street and the fact that there is no pavement on Middle Street it is a road without any pedestrian paving along its whole length so there is some local concern around the impact of putting more dwellings there and of course going back to the previous point I made the necessity really of having a car in this location it's essential to have a car if you're living in this area so I think hopefully that gives a summary of some of the local concerns I would say for my own part I'll come back and talk in debate but this is a difficult one as a local member there are lots of positives to this scheme there are concerns about the impact on amenity and neighbours as well thank you Councillor Williams you referred to people who were not able to be here would you say that we have a paragraph 7.1 page 85 a summary of the 25 representations received I think the question of the distance of plot 4 is an additional one does that broadly represent the concerns it's a very clear summary in the officers report of the concerns that have been made as I say I think in other circumstances some localisers may have appeared but they weren't able to right we're now entering into the debate I should say if anyone has any questions for the local member on that as I did myself let's then go into the debate and of course there is an opportunity to ask for further clarification on the officers I wonder whether it would be helpful if we just clarified that point that Councillor Williams has just raised about the distance of plot 4 I wasn't quite sure of distance from what but sorry Jay, yes, it's the distance of plot 4 to number 24 Middle Street I couldn't find that distance actually in the report on the section on amenity but if you're there is something that can easily be illustrated perhaps by the site plan yes I can find that out can you give me a couple of minutes and I'll come back to you on that let's come back to that point give Karen time to find it and move on to the debate I think Councillor Hawkins you want to come in thank you Jay I've just had a look at the plans I mean plot 4 is a single story and the wall that faces number 24 is where the chimney is so it doesn't have any windows just a point of clarification Karen have you managed to find a plan that would help us on that point now we'll give Karen a bit more time on that other points for debate from other councillors anyone else want to join the debate here well actually come back to you in a minute and just first I think is Councillor Williams has said this he's got your microphone working it is on it's a tricky one for him as a local member I mean in an ideal world I guess the barn would be saved by some sort of heritage charity and open to the public and all of those things but that's not going to happen that's pie in the sky so we're faced with a you either go along with this and save it or it falls down that seems to me the way it is and for that reason at the moment at least I'm inclined to approve Councillor Hawkins yeah thank you chair certainly my feeling is the same as councillor Hanley has expressed it's that this type man needs something new internet and this proposal to me seems like a good way forward I appreciate the fact that the parish council opposed to it because for the houses for the new houses outside the framework however the balance of that is that this needs to be done to save this historic building and so I think we said before you have this all fours and negatives but in my view there is a balance here and I think for that reason I am inclined to support this application in that we save a type man and I know what it's like to have to find funds to save something like that right councillor Harvey you want to speak yourself yes I may really perhaps comparing with councillor Hawkins and other members it seems to me that if the primary objective is to save the historic type barn from the pictures we've seen it doesn't seem to me that the other buildings around that heritage asset are particularly wouldn't particularly enhance that asset where it left in isolation and perhaps restored so therefore I think there is a sort of logic to developing the whole site and I'd be in favour of this thank you for that councillor Williams you said you might want to take part in the debate as well this would be a good moment if you feel inclined I'm not actually sure chair I'm going to add anything to what I said before it is a really difficult case there is the principle of development outside the village framework which is obviously also a concern but it's weighing up different factors right councillor Samford thank you chair can or someone else please confirm one of the comments in Paris 7.3 is the farm is disused therefore there will be no okay Mr Kelly is nodding so there is no loss of agriculture assets in doing this work okay thank you councillor Ellington I'm very reluctant in this debate because experience has shown in my own village that having weighed the balance there's a disaster that is around the corner but I think I have to consider this debate in its own setting and its own location and therefore I feel that it should be agreed yes councillor Stobart thank you so a little bit off this track of discussion so I concur with the opinions expressed about the development at the whole I'm wondering in a special development like this there's always the opportunity for an innovation and sometimes the innovation might be because of the nature of the development so it might be for example deployment of materials it might be nurturing of craft skills it might be in decline elsewhere and I was wondering perhaps I could address the officer what stands out as the innovative aspect of this project over the other one of course with such a again not with standing discussion about proximity to boundaries and so on but the potential for things that we often need space for like hesitate to use it but ground source heat pumps would go well on the site like this because it is very open and there is the opportunity to excavate and so on so where's the innovation because it's good to learn by doing and it's not a necessary thing but it would be interesting to hear what those aspects might be yes I think many of us may feel some sympathy for concerns as to what might be included but of course I would emphasise that we can only consider what has been done before us I don't know whether Karen you've been able to find a plan that might help us on councillor Williams earlier point yes I have bear with me yep I was going to say unfortunately the system went down but um so bear with me so this can you see my screen an aerial photograph so this is number 24 middle straight and to the boundary where could you convert the pointer into the laser pointer again if that's possible I don't know if I can on the screen to be honest yep so the distance between the edge of plot 4 to the boundary is approximately 16 metres but I understand there might be another building in there somewhere but then plot 4 is about I think it was 1.2 metres off the boundary so it's about 17 metres councillor Williams does that deal with your yes thank you the point I was really afterwards whether it was more than 15 metres away for obvious reasons I think that resolves that point then so I don't see any other speakers I want to say a few words myself and then before we come to a decision I know the director wants to comment on this I haven't heard anyone say anything that would suggest that we have reasons to turn this down so I'm not posing to spend any time discussing what those reasons might have been for my own point of view I think the key question is how the tithe barn can be repaired that is obviously a key priority for us we are assured and it is not a matter of contest between the applicants and the council but it is necessary to develop these other houses in order to secure that those will have the effect of tidying up what is referred to in the comments of the disused farm and unattractive and indeed I think having seen the designs my own view is that those are sensitively designed to fit in with the framework and to create the feeling of a farm yard to retain the feeling of a farm yard so I'm coming clearly to the view that we should now approve and ensure that this matter which has been ongoing for a very long time can now be progressed and hopefully that barn can be saved but before we come to a formal view on that I think it is right to say something to us. Thank you chair yes and taking on board your comments I was just reviewing the final recommendation and it's clear to me obviously you're giving to the protection and restoration of the Tide Barn that's indeed the position that officers have recommended to you but it's not clear to me that there's a condition requiring that as part of the permission so for completeness I would suggest that we need to recommend an additional condition for your consideration relating to a requirement for a scheme for phased delivery of the restoration of the Tide Barn recognising that actually on a site of this scale the development may well take place in parallel certain elements, groundworks and so on they will take place in parallel but I'd be recommending to you an additional condition number 30 that prior to the placement of the development details of a scheme for that phased implementation of the works to the listed Tide Barn should be submitted that allows the applicant to plan the scheme effectively and then that the development shall be carried out owning accordance with that approved scheme of restoration which makes sure that the sentiments that you've expressed that are reflected in the recommendation of officers and the heritage enabling argument is properly delivered by the permission so with that additional condition to the recommendation yes I have been reminded, submitted and approved in writing I was paraphrasing so sorry about that but with delegation to me to finalise the precise wording of that I think the recommendation should be supplemented with that additional obligation. Are we happy to accept the director's recommendation on that subject to authorization for the exact wording to be drawn up by himself I think we are, that's right I think then we now come to the recommendation I just want to draw attention to the fact that we are looking at the recommendation on page 105 and not the recommendation on page 87 paragraph 812 so the recommendation on paragraph page 105 that we approve this subject to the planning conditions that are set out that includes the additional condition just set out with minor amendments to the conditions as drafted delegated to officers I haven't heard anyone speak against that can we agree to that by affirmation agreed right, we have agreed that is approved thank you now I'm proposing that we go straight on and deal with the related issue of the listed building consent before we take a break is everyone happy that we we do let's make a short break then so we'll meet again at 1155 thank you yes we can now resume and we now move on to the related question item 7 which is listed building consent in relation to rectory farm and the barns Karen I don't know if you have anything further to say to us on this hi there probably not really it's the parallel application to the full application that we've just discussed so the works obviously comprised of demolition of some of the buildings and alterations to the buildings to be retained thank you for that I should have said that we're on page 117 onwards do any councillers have any questions for question for you chair having already discussed this in some detail is there is there a mechanism for us to actually go through this quite quickly that's my question yes I think the mechanism is for the chairman to get on with it but I do want those who have come to speak to us about it to have an opportunity to just have their say before we get on to this quite quickly so perhaps I can come back to you as quickly as I can counciller Hanlon you can put a proposal for that effect so I think that deals with questions of clarification I'd now like to give the applicants a further opportunity to present on this I think perhaps Mr Hopwood do you want Mr Surfleet to comment on this or do you not feel the need to add to what you said thank you Mr Hopwood so any questions from councillers on this yes counciller Hanlon I just want you know absolute assurance that the the barn is going to take a priority and will be you know will be renovated in good time as a priority that's the only thing I would ask well that is I think a question seeking an assurance to the applicants Mr Hopwood I don't know who you want to deal with that assurance that's in Somerville large would you mind just coming back to the chair again thank you did you want counciller Hanlon to repeat the question thank you for the question I can give you our assurance of course that we've prioritised the barn it's in our interest to get that work started as soon as possible the longer we leave it the more it deteriorates and the more expensive it's going to be to repair and restore it so it's absolutely in our interest to tackle it as soon as possible and the priority is to make sure that the barn stays up is supported and weather tight as soon as possible thank you for that assurance thank you I'm content of that thank you before we get into what may possibly be quite a brief debate did counciller Williams did you want to comment as local member on this? I'm pleased about the extra condition we've added in in the previous application there's obviously no need to repeat that condition here so no I wouldn't have any further comments right counciller Hanlon I think you may have maybe had a proposal to put to us I will be very happy to second your proposal we now proceed to a vote I suppose we thank you counciller Hanlon for putting it so clearly right unless I don't think I'm cutting out anyone who might have wanted to speak can we take this by affirmation the I was going to just remind you of the recommendation but it doesn't sound as though I need to but let's say that the recommendation on well we have agreed to the listed building on rectry farm so I hope that the applicants are clear about what we have just decided I'm sure that the officers will clarify the failure of my part to make the recommendation is set out on page 127 and is simply to approve subject to the conditions listed in the report so we have agreed by affirmation to approve 127 you say to approve this application for listed building consent now I'm going to hand back to councillor bachelor who is in the next room and then we will progress to item 8 so thank you and thank you very much to those who have taken the time to come and talk to us this morning thank you thank you very much to councillors Feinon Harvey for stepping in there so we're up to item number 8 members which is page 133 of our agendas this is an application at the lander 147 St Neats Road in Hardwick the application is for the direction of 9 self-contained residential flats and associated infrastructure and works the applicant is access the state's limited and the reason it's coming to us today is because it was referred to the committee by officers as well as Hardwick parish council the presenting officer is Nick Westlake I think he's joining us online so Nick if you could give us any updates if there are any to the report in front of us and then if you could present the report to members please thank you chair I'll just get the screen up and share my slides with you as introduced the application is for 9 self-contained residential flats this includes 3 studios 1 one bed and 2 sorry 5 2 bed flats together with associated infrastructure and access works just bear with me my slides doesn't seem to be operating you can see the first slide is that correct everybody we can yes yeah some reason my screen is frozen just bear with me sorry about that everybody I'll restart the programme ok so the reason for the call in as alluded to by the chair was both by myself and by parish council Hardwick parish council the parish council had concerns with the 3 story element of the design suggesting that it was not in keeping with the nearby buildings and it should be a maximum of 2 stories with an apex roof the second concern was the access on to Cambridge road is too close for the busies and neots road Cambridge road junction and finally they had concerns about the building line of the footprint of the development being too close to Cambridge road these comments were agreed with by our councillor Chamberlain who was the ward councillor at that moment in time in terms of report updates paragraph 3.2 that should read the overall footprint of the building is 280 square metres and this equates to a total of 573 square metres of internal residential floor space so the overall footprint would be the external footprint of the building not the overall floor area 10.35 there has been additional plans submitted by the applicant demonstrating that a top graphical survey was undertaken and demonstrating the height of the telephone exchange building to the south is actually 7.13 metres within the report at the time we didn't have a definitive calculation so that was estimated using brick by brick estimation and it was in 7 metres it's actually slightly taller the final update in relation to the report is 10.37 there is an improved development that I'll go on to to the immediate it's actually the immediate west so my apologies there the immediate west of the whole site in the report it says that building maximum ridge height of 8.5 metres this is actually 8.2 metres so 30 centimetres less essentially that error has come about through a slight drafting error on one of the plans and also at the time of writing the report there was computer updates we didn't actually have our electronic measuring device available but that's been corrected so the approved scheme to the immediate west it's not east, immediate west that is not built out a maximum ridge height of 8.2 metres in terms of outstanding consultee responses we did consult with Angliff and Water who have not returned any comments so we would take that as being non-objections it is after all minor applications so that's not deemed to be problematic and finally the parish and councillor Neoto was both consulted for an additional 14 days following councillor Chamberlain's departure but no additional comments have been received okay so there are the updates and I shall get on to the slides so here in we have the constraints and the location plan on the left hand side is the location plan in red is the site there are two accesses one from Sydney Oats Road the other proposed from Cambridge Road the Cambridge Road access is not in existence the Sydney Oats Road access is in existence and it would be shared with both the neighbouring developments to the west of those sites that include the existing office and commercial space named 149 to 151 Sydney Oats Road is a park of approximately 6 units adjacent to the whole site to the immediate west is a building we will get on to shortly that has been fire damaged was previously a restaurant so just briefly going through the constraints the middle image the green hatched area is green belt the red area is obviously the application site the yellow line at the immediate east and north of the application site denotes the village envelope the boundary framework of Hardwick so it is within that framework it is adjacent to a green belt flood zone one there are no heritage assets nearby the site is designated from local authorities perspective as a brownfield site and there are no TPO's however in relation to the TPO's to the immediate north of the site you can see another hatched area that is a blanket TPO known as white pits plantations so there is actually on the other side of the A 428 which is to the north of the site it crosses over that road so the vegetation one sees when stood at Cambridge Road under that blanket TPO there's got some invocations I'll come on to the image on the right just gives you a context of the rest of Hardwick in relation to where this site is proposed main site history the host site has been vacant for over 10 years the neighbouring site was last used as a restaurant this has been more recently damaged by fire we have historic records given to us that there was a virtual filling station on site somewhere between the host site and the immediate site to the west where the restaurant fire damaged current years so in terms of the key planning history there has been an extensive set of pre-application discussions taken place two workshops have taken place attended by case officers and say I wasn't present at the authority at the time but say urban design with the original case officer on the withdrawn application that was submitted two years before was present and the current scheme before you today members is very much a result of the pre-application discussions that have taken place the adjacent site has an approved development for five residential units that was approved in 2021 associated parking and cycle storage and this will be explained in due course images of the site these are taken recently so in the top right hand corner I hope you can see there is obviously the site highlighted in red in Lou an analogy of a torch so if you can imagine shining a torch and the beam of that expanding that gives you a viewpoint from where the photograph is taken from so therein we're looking at Cambridge Road and St Neox Road junction the five damage restaurant is on the right hand side this image is taken back approximately 50 meters from the existing St Neox Road access one can see that in the foreground also on the right on the left hand side you can see two cars parked there is a a lay by there that can accommodate five parked vehicles equally this image demonstrates a bus stop and a cycle lane in both directions this view is taken from Cambridge Road looking north again one can see what we see actually in this instance is the telecommunications building so behind the wooden pole the the darker wooden pole that is with the gable end brick roof ridge that's the 7.1 meter high ridge of the telecommunications building and then on the far left of the building sorry the far left of the image is the beginning of the residential row of dwellings that are bungalows in nature and this is then looking back down Cambridge Road to the south showing these bungalows they are approximately 6.5 meters between 6.5 and one in the middle there is approximately 7.5 range of heights these are photographs taken showing the trees opposite the host site they have a material impact on shielding the proposed development so I've included these for that purpose they're not currently TPO trees they're shown at the top images so I have spoken to the tree officer about these trees and the concept of them being protected and they certainly have suggested that they would look into that and obviously if members are minded to recommend protection of those trees that can be further investigated by the tree officer the views towards the site from the Arts Road are shown at the lower images again they're very limited views because of the Hedge Road equally that existing plantation of trees in what is known as plots one, two, two St New York's Road it's actually within the garden of a residential dwelling those trees so views from further afield officers are mindful of the impact of this development so I think this will help members form an opinion essentially the turquoise blue line is the nearest public footpath so that distance is 0.7 miles approximately 100 1,200 metres so it's a significant distance and obviously the long road to the east is further away but it does appear that the topography is flat but officers have actually walked that footpath and as I say taken an image across so the top right view shows a shot from the nearest public footpath of the proposed development and the red arrow indicates approximately where the development would be there is a slight camera in the ground that you can see there again these views are taken from long road further to the east the top left you can see the plan in red is the host site so again views across would be well nonexistent due to the vegetation in place as we move on to the proposed block plan and ground floor plan there have been some amendments that have been achieved and this related to the provision of the balconies chiefly because the balconies of first floor and second floor in particular would essentially directly look into the balcony space of if they were approved the five flats opposite so what we've managed to do is reorientate the balconies of first and second floor to the eastern elevation rather than the western elevation this being the ground floor that you can see before you includes the flat 3 with a balcony facing west but members should note that there are seven car parking spaces to the north of the site and two to the south east no visitor space is proposed but that's largely because of the five car parking space labors on Wales Road itself it's also noteworthy that the neighbouring development to the west that hasn't been built out yet but if it was this would achieve a turning circle for them if they were not using a car parking space so that there is a benefit to that turning facility in the whole site landscaping again this has been reviewed by the landscaping department who have raised no objections to the scheme subject to more detailed provision but that gives you a realistic view of what is proposed and there are some CGI's that I'll come on to shortly these are the elevations the CGI's probably give a clear indication of materials but we are going to be looking for a buff brick finish which would be keeping with the nature and style of the mixture of both commercial and residential buildings on Neots Road the image at the bottom indicates the approved planning application for the five flats in the central image in colour and then to the right hand side we have the existing block of offices 7 metres in height the approved development centrally is as mentioned earlier 8.2 metres in height to the ridge and then the host development that we've got before you here on the left hand side of the image at the bottom of the page has a mixture of predominantly 9.5 metres in height to the ridge with the service stairwell reaching a maximum height of 11.3 metres the proposed ground floor first floor and second floor layout plans again all of the spaces internally reach or meet the required standards for the national minimum floor sizes that is an adopted policy of the local authority equally we've got a policy compliant provision for bicycle storage and facilities the third floor being roof is being used as part of the communal space for the potential tenants residence and there has been a condition to ensure that the privacy of the neighbouring properties needs to be demonstrated in the final designs but again we've got a soft roof finish there with a green roof on one aspect these are the CGI's proposed officers would point out that they're subsequent to the design amendments one would see balconies on that elevation to the left hand side because at the moment the balconies are shown to the rear of that building they've been flipped to take into consideration the potential construction of the residential block next door equally here this is the front elevation a pleasant buff brick finish contemporary in nature and officers are in agreement with the urban design officer that is going to give an uplift to a very run down site that currently exists this is a brief slide to show you the approved development centrally located there is a parking plan there was a slight over provision of parking on that development but again no turning circle was such so although the host development we're assessing today does not have a fully policy compliant parking provision it does provide for that turning arc so cars could leave in a fall gear if all the spaces were occupied some additional images of the site and the local area again we've touched upon it earlier that St Neil's Road is a mixture of residential and commercial in this immediate location we have the commercial block some six dwellings down six buildings down then we have the fire damage building that has planning of permission to be converted into residential only limited weight can be given to that obviously because the construction hasn't taken place and there's no saying it will do but that existing fire damage building has a ridge height of seven meters and again we can see the kind of derelict to preffered state of the host site behind the Harris fencing there okay so the key material considerations have obviously been well documented in the planning report hopefully covers most of the areas of questioning I think I'll touch upon some of these issues in slightly more detail the principal development being obviously one of the key concerns only three objections were received from members of the public notwithstanding the comments from the parish predominantly relating to parking very few if any comments related to the scale or the design of what was proposed although there were comments raised about the cumulative impact of having two residential developments next door to each other offices are mindful of the MPPF direction paragraph 120C that says planning decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements suitable brownfield land where that would support appropriate opportunities to remediate dispoiled grade derelict or contaminated land there's certainly no doubt that the land is contaminated due to the existence of the previous petrol station on site sometime in the past so redeeming to actually make the land good fit for purpose is significant undertaking cost implications etc so that's born into consideration but again it's deemed compliant with policy S7 and S10 that allows units of up to 15 to be considered in group villages which a hardwick is it's not considered there to be a loss of any employment because there's no employment in existing on the site I'll touch briefly on two of the other issues and then I'll wrap up in terms of housing provision the next indicated down there are obviously four one bed flats and five two bed flats the density is greater by some distance that policy H8 requires but obviously this density has come about due to the stacking or the height of the development allowing for a greater density that is deemed appropriate in this instance given the nature of the land that exists also in terms of the housing mix it is interesting to note that there is a shortage across the borough of flats with only 6% of flats being identified in the census at 2011 so this development would help to offset some of that deficiency in that regard and also allow people to recognise and that is also mentioned within policy H9 in sporting text again affordable housing isn't required it's under 11 units it's under a thousand square metres with a total residential floor space of 573 square metres policy compliant in relation to residential standards in terms of character and visual amenity officers have considered this to be making a positive contribution to the local context and the developments deemed appropriate in scale and nature compatible with the locality the other issue which also is a concern for local residents and others in terms of highway safety and parking hearing there is a shortage of parking the standard requirements of the policy however they are indicative figures in policy TI3 and it's deemed that due to the good bus routes the two buses per hour day and evening including a cycle route and a vast propensity of local services shops, schools etc within walking distance which is well documented in the travel statement officers consider that nine parking spaces is acceptable so yes in conclusion the design is deemed to make a positive contribution to an otherwise derelict sites there are some planning balance considerations to take into account I've stressed the environmental improvement of the site socially there is a lack of one bed dwellings smaller units in flats and there is a requirement within the local plan for that so there is a social uplift in terms of provision if approved and economically both during the construction and post development with additional footfall for local people in the local services and shops there are some additional photographs etc but I'll come on to them if required during debate thank you Nick thank you very much a very thorough introduction for members there Members before we come on to our public speakers I will offer members the opportunity to ask any questions of clarity I appreciate we've had a lot of information presented to us there so if anything wasn't clear or we need to go over anything again before moving on this is the opportunity for us members Councillor Ellington please thank you I do know the site quite well I just wondered whether there was access from Cambridge Road onto the site thinking particularly of the building bringing materials on for building and so on which may seriously affect the other residents of that offices and so on Nick if we could just go over the access proposed access to the site again please and any conditions around construction access as well please Yes Members hear me Yes there is no access in existence from Cambridge Road I'll just see whether I've got a photograph Yes so actually that top left photograph indicates that's one looking north on Cambridge Road with St Neil's Road in the distance there so there is no access that is proposed as part of this application and yes within the second point is a very valid point because during any construction obviously there would be quite significant movements of plant materials using the commercial entrance so within the construction management plan so I'll just get the plan in front of me just bear with I'm just Nick is it condition 20 in the report that might cover that Right Yes Actually condition 3 the traffic management plan so we do have a the condition requires that we need we need to assess which aspect which entrance they're going to use can certainly be included in the construction management plan I think it has been mentioned by local objectives so we can ensure via that construction management plan the access for the construction vehicles will be by Cambridge Road only and that would settle that concern Okay thank you Councillor Aikdon does that answer your questions I can't just ascertain then so there will be two or there should be two access routes to the site I think yeah there will be one permanence which is not on Cambridge Road but I think what Nick is saying is a condition can be included to insist construction access is through a temporary entrance on Cambridge Road is that correct Nick? Yes that's exactly correct So there won't be a permanent access construction access will be able to enter and exit the site via Cambridge Road Excellent Councillor Hawkins and then Fane Thank you Chip The plans do show an access of Cambridge Road to parking for two cars when the site is built out Okay is that correct Nick? Yes that's correct I'll just show you the ground floor plan just bear with me so yes there will be two spaces created for residents within the Cambridge Road access Okay presumably that's just the residents that are parking in units 2 and 3 by the looks of it Yes that's correct Just to clarify something Nick said that he might correct me obviously this is on a junction of Cambridge Road and Centinettes Road So I wouldn't want to presuppose that a new temporary access onto Centinettes or Cambridge Road will take place I'm not sure Nick whether or not that's part of the permission I think it's the condition 3 is around traffic management plan potentially utilising the existing site entrance on Centinettes Road I don't know if there's any further clarification on that point because of the proximity and the radius of the junction I'm not sure whether further access is proposed to be created as part of this but Nick can you just clarify that point Yes of course and that's a very valid point The access would only be allowed via the approved access on these drawings before you so any temporary access that isn't in the location of the approved access would need its own permission and its own right So the phrasing of my response initially wasn't as accurate as it should have been what I intended to say was the access that is being created as part of this development if approved would be in the location that you see before you there so that access is created as part of this application and therefore what we would say within the construction management plan is as part of the construction of this development that access shall be the sole access used unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority because there could well be an instance where for what reasons unbeknown to us at this stage they need to use the St New York's Road Access for I don't know getting certain materials to the front-facing flats but that could be potentially controlled in a more definitive way via planning condition essentially what we're saying is all of the construction access could well come if that's what members request from the Cambridge Road entrance only OK, that's good clarity Nick thank you for your help on that Councillor Fane had a question of clarity as well Yes Nick, I don't know if you can help me on this there's obviously been ongoing some time this was called in by the request of the parish council and your report says at 8 1 that Councillor Chamberlain is in agreement with the parish council can I assume that relates specifically to the call into this committee do you recall whether Councillor Chamberlain had any views on the merits of the application whether he supported their objection or indeed whether you've had any submissions from Councillor Neto since Councillor Chamberlain of course is no longer on the council Yes well that's a good question initially I haven't at any stage spoken to Councillor Chamberlain obviously it predated my time but I have read the correspondence on file and Councillor Chamberlain's email were words to the effect of yes I support this calling and in agreement I am in agreement with the parish and support this calling and that was it separately I have consulted with the new councillor councillor Nealt and for 14 days in the lead up to this application hearing and there's been no responses received Okay thank you Nick Councillor Stobart please Thank you chair There is a brief mention of C2C and one of the root options I believe is in the It's Road so we take the busway right by according to that map the top edge the northern edge of the site does that change the considerations around access and timing I think the answer to that would be we have to judge it on what we have in front of us and the root for C2C hasn't been decided so I think we have to judge it on what is currently there as opposed to what may or may not come in the future I think that will be the official response if any officers want to correct me on that I think that's correct obviously mindful of the public transport corridor that's being created I suppose one could have in mind whether or not there are any implications for the development it doesn't go into the development site there's any suggestion that it will and as the chairs highlighted it is not fixed in terms of alignment the only comment I would make is that obviously a higher quality public transport corridor in front of the site would improve its sustainability in terms of the location of this site relative to concerns that I know are expressed around car parking but it would be premature to draw any firm conclusion on the scheme and finally Councillor Ellington please sorry I didn't quite get the clarity on my question I have a site in my village where a construction entrance was agreed but now when the construction is complete the entrance the highways have refused to allow the entrance to become official and as a farmer now can't get to his land that is causing quite a problem and I just wanted I got Mr Kelly's view that perhaps highways wouldn't agree a entrance for those two parked cars after the construction entrance have been agreed so as I understand it there are two proposed accesses to this site you look on the screen there's one off Cambridge Road which is highlighted in grey and one to the north west as well which is the main access but I think as I understood from the office's response a condition can be sought or is included in the traffic management plan condition which is in front of us that all construction access must be bought on the screen on Cambridge Road as opposed to the one from Sydney at's Road that's how I understood it unless again any officers want to but those two parked cars aren't going to be able to park there if that construction entrance is closed after the construction is complete that's a permanent access that's supposed to be a permanent access after construction is complete highways agreed that perhaps Stephen can come in just to clarify the planning permission grants permission for that those two access points obviously one of them is through other land so I think what condition 3 is seeking to do is to make ensure that unless otherwise agreed with the council that is the access the one in hatched engrave that you can see that is the access point used for construction traffic use yes that's absolutely right Mr Kelly sorry to interrupt I was just stating to add to that that I've got condition 3 in front of me and it does say access to the site the construction site shall be via Cambridge Road access unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority so essentially we're approving the Cambridge Road access it's on the right hand side of the screen as part of the application as a whole for permanency but that access will be sole access achieved for the development of construction unless otherwise agreed and as I said there may be the odd occasion where the New York Road access needs to be used and on those occasions the developer or applicant will write to us and ask for permission if we refuse that then they will be obligated to use the Cambridge Road access thanks Nick I think that's helpful so for clarity that's page 163 condition 3 and you've got the that's the condition we've been asked to approve today regarding construction access okay I think let's hear from the applicant do we have Mr Chris Dyson with us Mr Dyson if you'd like to come forward to the table so you should have a microphone in front of you with two big grey buttons the button on the right switches the mic on and off and as with previous speakers three minutes or as close to thereof to address the committee at which point if you could stay seated in case there's any questions of clarification for yourself so please whenever you're ready right thank you Jen I don't think I'll need three minutes it's just a few short comments I think you're probably all aware that this site has been an eyesore in the village of Hardwick for it's actually about 16 years now since it burnt down and the building which you've seen in the pictures is just part of what was there originally it did extend across our site as well but it was cleared immediately after the fire so we bought the site in 2017 and we completed the design pretty much as you see it today very shortly after that but we time has just gone by we've had a series of planning officers on the case and as Nick has mentioned we've been through the PREAC process twice and we've had consultations with the urban design team so there's been lots and lots of minor changes to the site and I should perhaps say that since Nick came on board as the case officer things have moved very rapidly and he's been extremely helpful during that time that five years that we've been working on it the adjacent site they started their application two or three years after us but they breezed through the process and got their application approved late last year and because of that approval we then had to make some more changes that Nick has mentioned about the location of balconies but that's all been dealt with and I think is satisfactory I want to speak to the objections that have been received the parish council who requested that it be called in we had a previous application in from 2019 which was withdrawn the parish council supported that application and actually if you looked at two images of the two applications you'd struggle to see the difference between them so it's somewhat bizarre that they support one application but now they're objecting to the current one but obviously that's their privilege there's also objections from a number of other objections but three of them apparently are all from the owner of the commercial building next door and his motivation is that he wants to get the right of way of removed because the right of way to both of these developments goes across his land he actually owned this site and the adjacent site long ago so presumably when he sold the site he gave this right of way he'd now like to get rid of the right of way so it's important that we are just over time if you could conclude that's his motivation so just he mentions refugee spins refugee spins are going to be collected from Cambridge roads that's not an issue one important point concerning construction traffic is that we've now after a long time got provisional agreement with BT to use their land the other side of their building for site parking the site office and welfare and so on and materials so we should be able to get all the access through there rather than through the new access one other little point as electric car charging was mentioned in a previous discussion this morning so I'll just add that we will be providing car chargers for all of their parking spaces brilliant thank you very much members do you have any questions of clarification for the agents of the applicants councillor Hawkins please thank you chair thank you Mr Sen for your presentation question really is you commented that the parish council previously supported previous design that looks like this and the parish council time the next one then I'm not supporting it did you actually have a discussion as to what they would have liked to have seen rather than this sorry that was a question for me he was definitely for you I think it was around your engagement with the parish council regarding the scheme yes the engagement with the parish council was through the agents at Carter Jonas so I haven't had any direct conversations with them but that was my understanding that they were in support of the original application that is irrelevant because what we are considering now is something that they did not want that they objected to the question really is why didn't you and your agent find out from them what design they would have preferred to have seen and why didn't you work with them to get something that they wouldn't objected to well their objection as I understand it is primarily that it's a three story block with a flat roof and they don't like the flat roof they would rather see a pitched roof but everything else the urban design team is in favour of it the planning officer and officers have been in favour of it it's a statement considered to be a statement building in a prominent location as you approach hardwick village from Cambridge and well we stand by that thought really that it's a beautiful design and it will be a high quality construction and a benefit to the village Thank you for that Members any final questions for the Councillor Harvey please Thank you chair I just noticed the one of the conditions around where to go if there isn't sufficient grid capacity either for the air source heat pumps or the electric electric vehicle charging and I just wondered if you had any indication there there might be difficulty in obtaining grid capacity and what would be your plans if you couldn't if that's a fair question to ask there's not something we've looked at but we don't anticipate there being any problem we haven't finalised designs for the potential for PV panels on the roof but we hope to be able to do that and what we would like would be to have some PV panels on the roof and the battery system to feed the car chargers but we don't anticipate there being a problem Thank you very much I think those are all the questions for yourself so just leaves me to say thank you very much for taking the time to come and speak to us this morning but we appreciate your patience and you, as I said, taking the time so thank you very much Members, we have no further public speakers so we will now be moving into the debate part of the the session so again we have another opportunity to ask any questions of clarification of officers and it's probably the time we need to start formulating a view on this members so we'll kick off with Councillor Hawkins please anything but what's then that will be an improvement that's for sure it's two things that I think I just want to three actually first of all I notice that there's nothing at all here in this proposal on how much bird of us did not gain that they have assessed that they could get now whether or not it meets the minimum but I do note that there is a condition for the down the line but we must make sure that that condition is met, it's pre commencement because I don't see that they'll be able to achieve that on this side that's my feeling second thing is the parking there is an assumption that's been made that if we live in these flats if they get planning permission we'll only have one car or maybe no cars are we forgetting that this is a village location yes there you know a couple of buses every hour buses going into town it doesn't mean it's going where people want to go villagers those who live in villages have always had issues with getting to where they want to go on time in good time with public transport so for me that assumption is unfair and whilst the potential is there for better public transport in future what is there now as far as I'm concerned is not sufficient and the third point that I want to make is this our first application we consider today took away three story buildings we looked like four stories lower high buildings and here we are being asked to approve three story building which will have uses on the top of it so effectively a four story building in a prominent location in a village I know this site very well I used to go to the take the Indian takeaway that burns the building down it was very good food and it was a loss and the site has been yes looking awful since then but please the fact that urban and this is the other thing urban design says it's great our villagers are complaining that we are turning villages into urban areas they don't want three story buildings next door is two stories with a pitch roof the office buildings are effectively two stories yes it's a prominent location and let me just make a point here when we did the village design guides we now have nine I think three story buildings they would rather have open spaces in prominent locations not significant looking buildings it's a complete difference there's a difference in village thinking to urban thinking and so for me whilst there's no other objections or anything like that I'm sorry I cannot support this three story building in this location no let's give villagers what they want not what we want as planning officers or urban designers owners please I am not supporting this on that basis it's out of keeping it's out of character and frankly I don't even like this one okay so I think there were some concerns raised there but also a question for officers around the biodiversity net gain whether that has or can be achieved on this site Nick or Stephen I don't know if either of you can comment on that element Nick can you comment on biodiversity net gain and I'll come back to the point about urbanism yes well I think the first point to raise would probably be to respectfully remind oneself because the site is in a very kind of decrepit state at the moment with no biodiversity of any stature on site so a clearing of the site and a well landscape plot there is 74 square metres of landscaping and then there is a whole host of additional soft planting trees planted around the outside additional hedging all of which aren't in existence at present so that should quite comfortably be achieved on site bearing in mind what is there in situ and equally that requirement is defined within conditions 13 so officers are confident that a 10% biodiversity uplift will be comfortably achieved in this instance Thanks Nick and obviously on page 151 page 1056 the applicants have prepared a preliminary ecological assessment which has been reviewed by the council's ecology officer who takes a view that a condition is appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances of the current sites condition and the opportunities provided to enhance it so we haven't got a requirement in policy 20% net gain at this moment in time we've got a requirement for net gain we aspire for 10 in fact in the new local plan obviously we aspire for 20% net gain but I think based on the advice that we've got there's nothing to say that the objectives around biodiversity net gain cannot be achieved through the condition I absolutely recognise the comments about character I think your advice would feel slightly aggrieved if it was considered that it's only interested in urban areas and certainly I know that the assessment process and consideration part of which Nick has gone through in terms of both the rural setting of the site but obviously the approach of the site in a fundamentally commercial corner of the village I drove along myself this morning as well to also consider the concerns and objections but noted very much a kind of small scale but very much a commercial focus to the site and the immediate adjoining site when you drive along certainly as road and clearly as you turn into Cambridge Road it breaks down into a much more village sort of feel but it certainly isn't something having regard to your policies that would be prevented in terms of either the form or style or design but contemporary form of the flat roof building particularly in seeing in the commercial premises which are not traditional village forms in terms of their appearance and the broad frontages and car parking areas isn't something that certainly officers have considered to be harmful to the character of the locality which is actually quite mixed but of course it's a matter for members and it's a matter for your judgment in those circumstances OK thank you I think that was helpful we have a few more speakers on the list now we have councillor Sanford then Ellington then Handling Peter Thank you chair first of all I'd like to echo I think it was councillor Hawking his comments about parking there is insufficient parking on the site and off the top of my head I can't see any alternative parking for visitors and the inevitable second car and also concerned about the safety aspects of putting another access albeit for two cars close to a very busy junction I think I've had a near miss at the junction of Cambridge Road in the past so that would be a little concern from my perspective that's St Neil's Road is a mishmash of residential properties and commercial properties of various types some of them pretty shabby at the moment so visually this would be a good enhancement to the area I think I'm trying to balance the considerations that's good to hear your views councillor let's hear from councillor Ellington please I am absolutely on the same page as councillor if you've heard to me Hawking's I agree entirely with what she said and I would again like to thank her for her approach thank you councillor councillor Handley please thank you chair I usually agree with what councillor Hawking says on this occasion I lean more towards what Peter Samford has said this is a mix commercial residential road it's not in the middle of a village of the village and I think we've got to take it we've got to assess it in that context and I agree also I agree with councillor Samford that parking and councillor Hawking's that parking is a worry on here there is insufficient and I can imagine though because sort of parked all over the place basically if it's built but as a three-story structure on this junction I don't find it I'm not as offended by it as a couple of other councillors are clearly thank you very much councillor Stoball please thank you chair well on a different aspect of this development the comments about air source and I'm assuming that means heating but potentially also cooling this is welcome I'm just pondering whether one unit per dwelling is a good way to go I mean it makes for simplicity and it means still means that if there was solar PV to be shared between the EV charging points and the heat pumps air conditioning units then that could be made to work as well so this is potentially a good architecture but I think needs attention in the delivery to make sure that the system is appropriately optimised maybe that means sharing some plants and equipment between different apartments but I think that could be made to work so that aspect I think has the potential to be a good solution good thank you very much and we have councillor Harvey did I see you indicating a ddechrau I just really like to agree with councillor Harvey actually and this used to be on my cycling route to work and cycle past that building very often when before it was burnt down and after that but I think there is a good case for something that breaks the monotony along that road and we'll see if it's slow on a bike then in a car but I think I think sometimes that building is a good thing sometimes it isn't but I would I would be in favour of of it in this case thank you very much I'll give you the benefit of my opinion at this stage then whilst I do have also concerns regarding the number of park