Oedd yn gwirionedd, ymddangos, ymddangos i ddeni i Roedd Paedlaeth, ynglyn ôl yn gweithio i'r Gweithaseth Cynllun Cynllun. Mae'n gweithio i'r Cyflogodd Llyfrgell, ac rwy'n eu cyfrifol o'r cymweith! Rwyfodd hyn yn cael ei gynllun. ar hynny- buffer oherwydd y camera amddai unrhyw sgolwg yn ymwiel. Aso, y cyfaintolau a oficioddau o'r achos, ychynig ychydig cyd- ychydig ychydig yn wneud os ydw, neu oedd y cwmru bai'r cynghreig. Rhyygfieithiau yn gwneud yn ddiwedd y viaf iawn, ychydig yn ddigwydd y cyd- ychynig ychydig fel ychydig yn ddigwydd ar gyflym. Rydych chi'n ddim yn ddigwydd ar y cyfaintol â gwaith- maen nhw. My advice chair here will be making sure that we've got all those who request to speak in order as he always does, which is wonderful. Make sure your device is fully charged and you switch your microphone off unless you're invited to do otherwise. Please ensure you've switched off or silenced any other devices so that you don't interrupt proceedings. Please use a headset of available when speaking and hold the microphone close to your mouth. When you're invited to address the meeting please make sure your microphone is switched on and when you finish addressing the meeting please turn your microphone off immediately. Speak slowly and clearly and please don't talk over or interrupt everyone. Please note if we do need to vote on any item we shall do so via the appliances, the microphones here. Only those present in the chamber can vote or propose or second recommendations. So committee members present in the chamber and I invite each of you to introduce yourselves. So my name is councillor Pippa Haleings, chair of the planning committee and my vice-chair. Councillor Henry Batchelor, vice-chair of the committee. Thank you councillor Dr Clare Daunton. Yes, I'm Clare Daunton and one of the members for the Fenditon and Fullborn Ward. Thank you, welcome. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Yes, I'm the member for Hawkins Ward. Thank you very much councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins. Good morning everyone, Toomey Hawkins, a member for Codicot Ward. Thank you. Councillor Deborah Roberts. Good morning chairman, good morning everybody. Deborah Roberts district councillor for Foxton Ward. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Heather Williams, my represent in the wardens ward. Thank you and councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you, chair. I'm Richard Williams, I'm the member for Wittlesford Triploke Field in Newton. Welcome and councillor Eileen Wilson. Good morning councillor Eileen Wilson, a member for Cottenham and Glenton. Thank you very much and we also have two officers in the chamber. Chris Carter, delivery manager. Good morning chair, good morning members. Thank you very much and my name is Reid. I was seeing your planning, Lloyd. Good morning chair, good morning members. We just have to adjust that whenever you would like to speak, Mr Reid. Thank you very much. Good, we'll go on to agenda item two, which will be apologies. Ian, are you with us Ian senior? Hello Ian. I am indeed. Please introduce yourself as well Ian. Please introduce yourself. Yes Ian senior, notionally democratic services officer but scrutiny and governance advisor as well. Yes. Apologies for today. We have apologies from councillor Dr Martin Carr and councillor Judith Rippeth and a substitute councillor Dr Claire Dawson is here for councillor Carr. Thank you very much and I've just been informed also we've received a message from councillor Peter Thane who's unable to make the meeting today and sends his apologies too. Thank you Ian. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll move now on to agenda item three, declarations of interest. Do we have any declarations of interest members? Councillor Eileen Wilson. Thank you chair. I'd like to declare an opportunity interest in item six which I've discussed with one of the local members but I come to the matter afresh. And also item nine which refers to the ward that I represent. I've also discussed that very briefly with the other local member, councillor Goff, that I come to the matter afresh. Thank you very much councillor Eileen Wilson.  Thank you. And councillor Eileen Wilson. Thank you very much chairman. Sorry, item eight which is the Falmere One. I am a member of Falmere Parish Council but I come to this matter afresh. And at item nine it's obviously to do I think with the Smith event traveller site so I work to participate in that either. I will participate in the Falmere One. Thank you. Thank you very much. And councillor Heather Williams. Thank you chair. A gender item 14. I'm a local member for one of the cases that's referred to. Is it for me to say on a Wednesday morning? Thank you. And I don't know if it's me. I'm rather going deaf. You're very quiet there as well councillor. You never normally accuse of being quiet. I know, I know. So I don't want to miss any of that. So I don't know. A little bit louder I'd perhaps bring the microphone a little bit closer to us. And councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins. Thank you chair. Agenda item number five. This is a historical relationship. I used to be the member for TOFT. Not anymore. And I'm also familiar with the sister development on the adjacent sites to this, which I discussed before, but I'm coming to this fresh. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's no more. Very good. Thank you. And now we go to agenda item number four, minutes, which are in our report pack. We have any comments on the meetings? Councillor Williams. Thank you chair. Page two, it says that councillor Dr Richard Williams took part in a debate that he didn't. He was the same as myself and didn't take part. And then later on, there's a typo, which says nor rather than not on page five on the number eight. Nor where was that? Sorry. If you look at the Haarsson application, the local plan did nor designate. Good. Thank you very much. Any further? No. And I would just like to make one on page three, which is in the item five, which was on the Water Beach application. And it said that the travel plan was commended as innovative and comprehensive. And I think several of the members also commended the excellence in terms of the Bream standards and the energy efficiency and renewable generation. So I think we should also have that minute it because these are the kind of standards of buildings that we would like to embrace and encourage. So thank you very much. No more comments on the minutes. Good. Thank you very much. Members who will now move to the substantive items on the agenda starting with agenda item five. This is application 20 slash 01992 slash full application for Toft, Bennell Farm, West Street Toft. The proposal is for the erection of 41 dwellings, including two self-built plots and associated development. The applicant is Bennell Developments Limited. And for us this will be repeated by the case officer, but our key material planning considerations that we will be looking to debate the balance around on this item is principle of development, housing and open space provision, character and appearance of the area and adjacent green belt, highway impacts and parking, residential immunity, flood risk and drainage, landscaping and trees, biodiversity, contamination and the developer contributions. This is not a departure from application and I'm confirming this is not a departure. And the reason this has been brought to committee is to allow consideration of the local parish council objections. Our presenting officer is Richard FitzJohn. Are you with us, Richard? Hello, chair. We can see you clearly. That's very good. Thank you. And if you have any updates in the summary of the application. Just a matter of housekeeping has come to my attention that condition 19, which is recommended in the report, it references dwelling. It should reference dwellings. So if members are minded to approve the application, I would just request that that condition 19 can be amended to say dwellings rather than dwelling. Just one moment. Can I stop? Timmy Hawkins. Thank you, chair. Looks like the only view that we have of Mr FitzJohn is on the back. Do you want to change seats? I think I'm probably going to have to. Why can't I see him on the other? Is that okay, Tom? Or can both screens be sure? Thank you. We're going to have both screens, it looks like. Thank you. Just one moment, Richard. Perhaps you could be pulling up your presentation. Thank you. For anybody viewing live stream, what we've just done is made sure that the screen is available and visible for everybody in the room, for the members in the room. So we now have that. Count to Dr Timmy Hawkins, you can see. Okay, that's fine. Thank you very much for that support. Richard, yes, please go ahead. Thank you, chair. Could I just confirm that you can see my screen? You can, yes. Thank you. Okay, so this is, the application site is Benwell Farm, West Street in the Parish of Toth, the Development Framework of Comberton. The application site is outlined in red on this plan. The blue line represents land ownership of the applicant surrounding that. This slide shows an allocation site within the local plan. It's reference H1H. The application site for this application comprises the western section of this site, just here. So the west of this existed the previous access road here. And the site to the east of that previous access road is under development for 90 dwellings at the moment, which forms the allocation within the local plan. You can see also on here that the black-died line around the site is the development framework. So the site is within the development framework. And then the green represents green belt land, which surrounds the application site to the north, the south and the west, but doesn't include the application site. So this is an aerial image. It's a bit outdated now because of the progress of the site. It's the most recent one available, but it's just to give you an idea of where the application site is. So the application site for this application is this section of land here. And this larger section of land is the site that's under construction for 90 dwellings at the moment. So the application is for the erection of 41 dwellings, including two self-build plots and associated development. And the slide here shows the proposed layout of the site. So you can see the approved access comes in here for the development to the east with 90 dwellings. It would serve also the proposed development of 41 dwellings here. There's a drainage basin down to the south of the site and some open space. There are some apartment blocks so to the southern edge of the site, the southern end of the site, sorry. And then it's houses further north within the site. So this is a story height plan to show the heights of the development. So you can see its major dwellings are sort of two and a half story. This is an example of the proposed elevations for one of the two-bed house types. I'll flick through some of the house types so you get an idea of what they would look like. I'll show some site sections. And then this is just some montages of how the development would appear from the street that's been provided from the south of the site. So this is an example of how the development would appear from the street that's been provided from the agent showing the existing landscaping that's around the site at the moment sort of how visible it's likely to be. So the key considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of development, housing and open space provision, character and appearance of the area and adjacent green belt, highway impacts and parking, residential amenity impacts, flood risk and drainage, landscaping and trees, biodiversity, contamination and developer contributions. In respect of the principle of development, the site is located within the Cumberton Development Framework where Policy S7 supports residential development in principle. You can see that again within the black dotted line here. The proposal is for 41 dwellings which exceeds the indicative maximum scheme size of 30 dwellings which is out in Policy S9 of the local plan. However, 30 dwellings is an indicative figure to indicate the upper limit of housing development likely to be suitable. So I mean that that is indicative. The application site forms part of an allocated site for residential development and given the context of the adjacent development and proposed development of a greater number of dwellings than the indicative scheme size is justified by the designate approach. The location of the proposed development conflicts with site reference H1H of the local plan which is the allocated site that I mentioned. However, this conflict with site reference H1H should be balanced against other local plan policies and material planning considerations. On balance, due to the application site being located within the development framework, the contributions in the loop being provided for the allocation site and the compliance of the proposed development with policies S7 and S9 of the local plan is considered the residential development of the site is acceptable. In terms of housing and open space provision, the proposed development of Pride 16 affordable dwellings which are caused with Policy H10 of the local plan would be provided in a cluster of 16 units which exceeds the cluster size within the greater Cambridge housing strategy by one unit which says the maximum should be 15. However, this conflict is considered to be very minor. It's been discussed with the affordable homes department of the council who remains supportive of the scheme despite that. It's got acceptable informal open space provision and contributions in loop would be provided for children's space, outlaw sport and allotments and community orchards in accordance with the Heads of Terms document that's included in appendix A of the report. In terms of the character and appearance of the area and the adjacent green belt, this just shows some of the photos of the development that's under construction to the east of the site within the allocation site. The proposed development would be of a similar character and appearance to the development that's being built out at the moment and obviously accessed off the same main access road into the site. So it's going to appear as an extension to the larger development to the east. By virtue of its location layout access arrangements, scale and appearance, the proposed development would be viewed as an extension to that larger development and it's considered to be in character with the area on that basis. The sites located within the development framework its adjacency, the existing larger development it responds appropriately to the local visual context and is compatible with its location and would be appropriate in terms of scale density, mass, form, sighting and appearance. The application site is also located outside of the adjacent to the green belt. The proposed development provides a landscape buffer between the built form of the development and the green belt to the south of West Street. There's also a buffer between the application site and the green belt to the north where there's existing commercial buildings and there's also a substantial tree belt between the application site and the green belt to the west which would significantly screen the development on the green belt. You can see the existing trees on the photo here. There's also quite a lot of trees to the front of the site as well so the site is quite well screened. Additional landscaping can be skewed by the planning condition if the planning permission has to be approved. The site is highly impacting parking. The local highway authority has no objections. The proposal includes adequate current cycle parking. There would be the provision of two new bus stop shelters and the provision of solar studs to the park between Fennel Farm and Toth. There's a help within the planning conditions. In respect of flood risk and drainage the site is located within flood zone 1. The application demonstrates that surface water from the proposed development can be managed through the use of permeable paving over private drive areas and will be attenuated in attenuation basin in the south of the site before discharged to the adjacent water course. The local authority has no objections subject to conditions and the council's drainage officer stated that the surface water drainage pressures can be skewed by planning condition. There's no objection from the environment agency or Anglia Mwater in respect of drainage. In respect of landscaping in trees the majority of trees within or adjacent to the site will be retained however the support quality trees which had to be felled more centrally within the site and the council's tree officer has no objections to this. The council's landscape officer has considered that the layout scale cell build plots protection of existing vegetation soft landscape specification and boundary treatments were acceptable. She did raise concerns about the one in three slopes of the attenuation basin saying it's too engineered and that the head wall detail should reflect the rural location and precast concrete scenery should be replaced with an alternative but she's confirmed that these details can be conditioned appropriately. In respect to developer contributions there's a number of developer contributions included within the heads of terms which are considered sufficient to mitigate the impact of the proposed development. There's a full list of heads in terms including details and projects which the financial contributions will go towards the set out within in full in Appendix A of the Committee report. I just want to sort of flip back to a slide near the start terms of sort of covering developer contributions so the site to the east which forms the allocation site where 90 dwellings were approved that was first approved in 2015 an outline application was as part of that 2015 outline application for the 90 dwellings it included the area where the current application site is was to be used to provide football pitches changing facilities in car parking in 2017 another outline application was submitted to the council and approved which removes the provision of the football pitches parking and changing facilities from this section of the site and provided financial contributions in lieu that was all agreed those financial contributions were secured and the result of that was that basically this site for the current application is was to be retained as agricultural lands not built on but there were the financial contributions in lieu which were provided from there subsequently the allocation of the site within the local plan because this was all going to be an allocated site obviously included this area of land within the development framework so it's now a piece of land within the development framework which is currently not built on the conclusion screen sorry, in terms of other matters in terms of residential amenity there's noting different impacts on existing residential properties and the proposed buildings would have a high quality of amenity in terms of biodiversity the impacts are considered acceptable subject to conditions contamination the site has been assessed for contamination and there's no further investigation required and archaeology and evaluation was carried out previously and no further evaluation is required for that so in conclusion the proposed development would provide an additional 41 dwellings to the district's housing supply including 16 affordable dwellings all of which would be located within the development framework both development would reflect the character and appearance intensity of the development of 90 dwellings immediately to the east would preserve the character and appearance of the area there's notes outstanding objections from technical consultees and subject to conditions the proposed development would have acceptable impacts in respect to highways parking, residential amenity flood risk, drainage landscape and trees, biodiversity and contamination in addition the proposed development provides a number of financial contributions towards services and facilities and competent and soft and have a regard to applicable national policies and local policies officers recommend that planning permission should be approved by the Department of Education 106 in accordance with the heads of terms set out within appendix Iably committee report thank you chair thank you very much thank you very much and what we'll do is we'll take questions as part of the debate as we're going in to clarify the debate as we go forward rather than doing them separately now and so I'll move forward to the public speaking part and we have Ed Derent with us in the chamber as the applicant Mr Derent here with us thank you very much and you've got your microphone there have you can you just test it so we'll see if you're visible when you speak can you hear me can just hear you yes and we can see you now as well which is the tiny part of that screen on the screen thank you very much and Mr Carter here to my left will help in terms of the timing of that I think you're very well accustomed to the protocol in terms of the three minutes that you have so thank you very much Mr Derent the proposed development will deliver 41 new homes for the district including 16 affordable homes and two self-built plots through the continuation of the successful development to the east of Benel Farm accordingly this application is supported by planning and housing offices as the site is in a sustainable location and the new homes will help maintain the council's five-year supply of housing the development will complete the build-out of the land allocated through policy H1 for new homes this allocation released the site from the green belt and extended the development framework for Comberton in accordance with policy H1 the proposed development delivers a design-led approach that continues the design themes of Benel Farm East which is already delivering market and affordable homes for the district Comberton is one of the most sustainable rural settlements in the district and the new homes will be within walking distance, schools, shops and public transport the layout and landscaping of the site has been designed so that the new homes are not visible in distance views from the green belt the new homes will be set back from west road behind a generous landscaped buffer that will form part of the ecological enhancement of the site and provide amenity for new and existing residents as part of the application process we have engaged with Toft and Comberton parish councils the package of Section 106 contributions including payments towards health education and public transport and planning conditions will secure measures that ensure the new homes successfully integrate into the fabric and community of the area as a result of comments made by the parish councils and other statutory consultees the application has been amended to reduce the number of dwellings and provide more space for new planting and green space the reduction in building heights and additional landscaping will also further limit views of the development from the approach into Comberton there are no outstanding objections from the technical consultees as they propose measures to provide water attenuation within the site promote public transport and enhance the ecological value of the site are all acceptable we welcome the opportunity for members to consider the application process and enable the delivery of 41 new homes for the district including 16 affordable homes and two self-build plots in this sustainable location if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer thank you very much members do we have any questions Mr Darren councillor Dr. Mullins thank you chair good morning Ed good to see you you mentioned the inclusion of two self-build plots where exactly are these self-build plots they are quite centrally located on the western side of the site so I don't know whether if Richard could perhaps bring up a plan but they are essentially I've tried a plan to show it essentially you have apartments to the south and then as it kind of moves further north the heights decrease and you've got dwelling houses and the two self-build plots are just where Richard is indicating there great box here second question if I may on page 25 we have a statement that says that there will be a significant impact on the healthcare provision which if unmitigated will be unsustainable now I know there is a contribution towards provision of healthcare my question is where is this provision going to be in combatant or elsewhere because there is no space to expand in the current surgery in fact the table shows there is spare capacity a negative 148. 11 square metres the spending of section 1 and 6 contributions is very much down to the NHS and we as on behalf of the applicant couldn't possibly kind of give a response on their behalf but clearly that is the money that they requested from the application to mitigate the impacts and that money will be secured through the section 1 and 6 I will come to that in the debate if I may chair because we discussed this when the 90 was also done and still nothing has been done there is no space there's nothing has been allocated sorry sorry thank you thank you chair through yourself and you mentioned the advice of professionals but ultimately I'm sure Mr Durham will understand that it's the democratic process that will decide this and so the affordable housing in one particular area can I just understand from the applicant the decision making process that they've made to do that because although he says there's no objection obviously 40% from the affordable housing he does say that small clusters would be preferred from our housing officers so can you explain the thought process behind why they want to put all the affordable housing in one corner thank you chairman thank you it's essentially a large part of the provision of affordable housing is through the apartment blocks and that was at the request of southcams so it's worth noting that southcams housing also has the affordable housing on the eastern side which is all located to the south of the site and obviously where you have apartment blocks it's difficult to have mixed tenures so part of the reason to deliver all of the affordable housing is the fact that they're coming forward at the request of the housing officers as smaller dwelling units as apartments thank you chair can I just come back to something you said so you said that on the other side you've also put all the affordable housing in one place I don't know if it's possible to bring that up to see because obviously we've got two applications on one site overall but are you suggesting then that you've had different advice to what's in our report where they say they would have preferred small clusters so the original application does there is some breaking up of the affordable housing but the majority of it again is delivered through apartments and again the fact that you can't have the mixing of tenures or most local or registered providers don't once take on housing where you've got mixed tenures within apartment blocks and the majority of the affordable housing for Banel Farm East is accommodated in the apartments to the south of the site in the same way that it will be accommodated on Banel Farm west thank you chair you say about the apartments and I can understand why you're saying that but there is other thing that's other affordable housing outside the apartments why are they allocated so closely why is it all together I don't feel I'm getting my question in terms of a cluster there is an element of grey area about that because the affordable dwellings that are being provided or affordable houses in addition to the affordable apartments are actually accommodated to the other side of the access road into the site so there is a form of physical separation and obviously there will be a mixture of tenures the further separation of them I think from a management point of view most of the registered providers we deal with although they recognise the desire for clustering or not to have too large a cluster they generally from a management point of view prefer them to be as close to each other as possible in this instance we are only one dwelling over the cluster and we are providing apartments where we can't mix the tenures and a pair of semi-detached houses so it would be very difficult for us to provide that one single dwelling that there wasn't in a cluster I think it would for the kind of conflict of only one dwelling over the cluster it's a very minor conflict with the policy of the local plan I think we should take the rest of the debate I think because that's what you've got there Yeah Councillor Eileen Wilson Thank you chair I was wondering about this was originally designated as recreation in green space and now it's the application is for 40 plus homes has other land been earmarked to replace that green space that's being lost instead of 90 homes with a green space now it looks like we're going to have 130 homes with no recreational space so could you just explain where the recreational space for all those homes will be So obviously the history of the application site is that the application that was first approved by the council included the recreational space in accordance with the emerging policy at the time however it turns out that Neaver Parish Council wanted to take on that space so at the request of the council another application was submitted which dealt with the requirement for open space by way of a section 106 contribution to provide enhancements for Cometon and Toft so public space and sports facilities in Cometon and Toft all of this went through before the local plan was adopted Richard mentioned that there was a conflict with policy H1 slash H that conflict was already carried out at the request of the district council when the application was submitted to essentially to remove the public open space from the development that went through the application process that came before members of the planning committee and it was approved on that basis Yes Richard, a case officer can you see your screen as you're scrolling through you're probably looking for something that's helpful or you think it's going to be requested but we're watching your thought process as you're looking for the documents so yes, not sharing the screen so thank you very much councillor I think that's going to be a key point within the debate councillor Wilson so is that fine that you've answered the question there yeah Thank you Councillor Dr Clare Daunton I'm going to see the apartment blocks Could you just confirm Mr Durant that they are at the entrance to the site Yes they are indeed to the south west corner of the site That's the first thing that one will see the apartment blocks Yes and essentially it's a part of the site where you've already got some quite significant mature trees that block views from westward as the CDIs that Richard put up show Also could you please confirm that all the dwellings can form to national space standards They do indeed as part of the last amendment we ensured that they all meet national space standards I've heard you correctly They do indeed and also at the request of the urban design offices we include balconies within the apartment blocks which is funny enough something that wasn't included in Bonnell Farm East but as it was a specific request of urban design the scheme was amended to include balconies for the apartment blocks Thank you Councillor Eileen Wilson another question Thank you I just have another question I note in paragraph 26 of the report that the surface water from the proposed development can be managed through the use of permeable paving over private drive areas Does this requirement exist in perpetuity Would people have to go through a planning application to change those drives because as we know surface water we've had lots of flooding because of surface water where on places that aren't liable to flood so I would just like to know whether this would be permanent the permeable paving Do you want me to respond I mean if the council believes that it is an issue that needs to be addressed then it can certainly attach a condition to require that no changes be made to the permeable paving or to the driveway details of all the dwellings but it's worth noting the site essentially looks after itself in terms of water attenuation it's got a large attenuation feature as part of the amenity space to the south so during heavy rain events the water within the site will be retained and whilst there have been objections raised by the local parish councillors and neighbours about flooding this development will essentially form a sense of betterment in that it will retain water within the site, within the infrastructure within the site during heavy rain events and only release it at a greenfield rate so it will not increase existing flooding issues within the village Thank you very much Thank you Chairman through you Good morning Mr Durant I'm going to take up the concerns of the parish council that are written down and it's a concern of mine as well given the fact that this was greenbelt and there is a description within the parish council's input of a gentle move into the village and this site is important in that aspect Can you please explain to me how you have totally ignored the number 30 that should be the most we should expect here why this very large percentage increase has been put forward Thank you Chairman Obviously the application has been put forward with the support of planning officers and we went through the pre-application process at which stage we proposed 50 dwellings and officers were supportive of that as a result of the detailed design this number has come down to 41 dwellings but essentially the number that we're looking at is policy H1 slash H which says that is an indicative capacity for the site but the development of the site will be led by a design led approach essentially when the council allocated this site it accepted an urbanisation of the land whether that urbanisation was through the introduction of sports pitches and associated development or through houses the council accepted that the outline applications that went through both went through before the local plan was adopted and the reserve matters for the site was also approved shortly after and no point did the council seek to modify the allocation through the local plan process Thank you, thank you very much No further questions Thank you very much Mr Verrant and now I understand that Chris Carter has a statement from the Parish Council that you're going to read out Sorry, I missed that If it's to do with drainage perhaps we could ask it of the odd case officer Just wanted a clarification from the applicant That was from the applicant It's the last paragraph in paragraph 21 which says that there is increased I'm sorry, plubial flood risk to the site et cetera et cetera and there have to be a lot more work done to establish the finished flood level of the proposed dwellings to protect future occupants from flooding I just wanted to ask if the applicant has actually done any of that work yet and can tell us if the floor levels will indeed prevent flooding Thank you I mean, the area of the site we're talking about in particular is the southern part of the site Our clients drainage consultants have looked after looked at that in response to the consultee response from the drainage officer and they are confident that there will no not be a need for any significant of floor heights and this can be dealt with by condition We've discussed this with the case officer and the drainage officer and they're both content with this matter to be dealt with by condition If I may so the work hasn't been done yet They've looked at it and they're confident that it will not be needed but in the detail design stage in terms of the necessary drawings for building regulations et cetera will not only be carried out once so they haven't Thank you Thank you very much Yes and so now we'll hear We have one more question Mr Friend I think yes Thanks Chair, it was just as a sort of follow up from Councillor Dot to Hawking's question It's just my thought, did you say that the central drainage issues are in the south of the site so where the affordable housing is? There is an area that kind of extends into the south but it's mainly the water attenuation feature the water attenuation feature which will be constructed has essentially been there will be constructed to protect all of the dwellings from flooding and all of the statutory consultees including the local flood authority environment agency are confident that that will be the case Thank you Good and now we'll hear from the statement from the parish council Thank you Chair Yes, the statement reads as follows Unfortunately Toft parish council is not able to provide representation at today's meeting but it wishes to emphasise some of the points made in its original response and to urge the committee to reject the proposal The proposal is not in the approved local plan and the number of houses exceeds that designated for a minor rural centre having spent so much time and effort on the local plan it would seem difficult to justify not complying with it The original proposal was to use the location for recreational space which Toft parish council would support and this would provide a break between the adjacent harsh agricultural greenbelt and the village That's it Thank you very much to Toft parish council and for the comments that they've made throughout the process Local member would you like to speak No, you're not the local member or any more Right, okay Members we will now move to the debate Thank you Chair I'm going to sound like a very grumpy old woman here but I think I'm well within my life to do that I think the last point that was made by the Toft parish council was quite right I have seen the proposals for this site go from oh 60 maximum landscape led to up to 90 and definitely 90 and now we're going up to 131 this just is not right The local plan policy states up to 90 on the east side, not the west side of the access road on that side and there is a conflict there but there is also a conflict in the fact that the number being proposed is much higher than the 30 that is used before the rural centre is combatant so for me the principle of of the development definitely is there's a conflict there and in some ways this whole thing is it's unintended consequence perhaps of the request for a provision of something that wasn't really supported by both combatant and Toft went into the plan then taken out of the plan and rather than actually firming up what we should do with that bit that was left undone in some respects but really should be for recreation not for housing that you know when we say to communities we make sure that that gets done or this gets done we don't do it this is what happens housing the clustering we want to see what we call 10 year blind affordable housing by putting them in blocks of flat in the front of the site how 10 year blind is that none whatsoever we all know that's where the affordable housing is I'm sorry that's completely in conflict with our policy so please don't tell me that we ask for it and we're now going into this situation where we're providing affordable housing in blocks of flats excuse me where are terraces right why do they have to be in blocks of flats and in any event what's the ridge height of those blocks of flats we're saying oh two and a half stroke three excuse me it's a village right you're coming into this village you've got the green belt as you come in the first thing you see are two and a half three story blocks of flats I'm sorry it's wrong for the character of the area and not near the green belt either and it does not respond to the local visual context it certainly does not flood risk I ask that question specifically because that area is subject to what you call surface water water sits there and it's important that when developers come to us you don't leave lots of things to be done discharged by condition we have way too many conditions and when those conditions come the process of discharging those is not the same as actually when you're able to look through all of this information right up front you complain there's too many conditions but you don't do the work that gives us the information we need to actually make the decision please there is a significant flood risk here and we need to make sure that is dealt with you're going to cut down trees what happened to the landscape led design how many trees are going to be cut down on this side you already have cut down trees on the other side and the trees that are being cut down what's going to replace them, how long is that going to take there's no bothers by seeing that again at all in here none whatsoever and all the houses will be car dominated the frontages will be car dominated I mean, I'm sorry I don't have all the pages here but I can go back and give you the page numbers it's going to be car dominated and healthcare provision let me get back to that I know for a fact that the proposal to mitigate the the healthcare is not going to be in combatting itself there is current there's no land allocated for a new surgery the one that's there now is completely full even people from Codicot use it I know that it caters for a lot of surrounding area the only thing, the only place where they can do this is I think it was Little Eversden where they were going to expand that how do people get to Little Eversden from Cumberton for goodness sake and instead of actually helping us making land available on this plot of land you're proposing to build houses on it all of it the statement was that it would be unmitigated would be severe impact on the community I'm sorry guys but we must make sure that the provision is good I'll leave that there's plenty, I'm sorry I'm being very bumpy here but I am not at all happy with this development at all this is a debate here amongst ourselves rather than directed to the African Council but what I have heard and what we are trying to do is make sure that this debate is around this balance so the balance has to say in terms it's saying that the principle is acceptable but we have to look at what the harm is to that and do we balance the benefits versus the harm what I've heard in terms of reasons for concern there are scale the principle of development itself because of the conflict in your opinion is greater in terms of the harm the affordable housing in terms of it not being policy compliant because of tenure blind although it's been seen as acceptable but with concerns by affordable housing character, appearance green belt and the flood risk in terms of not bringing the information leaving it to condition rather than having sufficient information here to understand what we are doing for under flood risk the trees and biodiversity and the section 106 mitigation impacts those are the material considerations that you've brought here so as we go into the debate try not to get repetition but see if there are further reasons for that or additional details of that or where you don't agree perhaps and think there's more debate needed on some of those issues Gatsler, Dr Richard Williams Thank you chair a councillor to me Hawking to help with all of the points I was going to deal with and actually she's answered a few of the questions that I had about where the extra capacity for the NHS would possibly come from so I think that question has actually been answered I have the same concerns so I won't labour the point and I won't speak for very long I will say one thing though it does concern me that the suggestion that 50 houses were suggested here and that was not seen as problematic it does get to the point where I wonder why we've got these policies if the proposals are put forward which exceed them by huge margins and this is not seen as problematic it does make me wonder why we've got the policies in the first place but I do think the policies need to be adhered to and I don't see a case for departing from that policy in particular in this case Thank you very much Thank you for recognising that we had points but that's good, thank you it doesn't reduce your arguments at all or weaken them Thank you very much chairman I was very glad to hear Councillor Hawkins very passionate discussion and debate about it I think she's absolutely correct for a change to me and I are on the same side here I think Mark it down, we'll have cake later to me What worries me about it is the fact that it's so against policy and as Councillor Richard Williams has just said what do we have policies for if we are not going to keep with them clearly because of its placement and next to the green belt and a gentle approach into the village the numbers are on the bottom really to put 41 there against the 90 already happening is just unbelievably bad and I really think we must start as an authority really sticking to digging our heels in and stop allowing developers to try to get away with murder the thought of the three story houses the thought of the poor people all being stamped together in apartments at the front of the site in the manner that it has been and then to be told well it's only one more I think is an affront to our our intelligence and so I shall definitely be voting against it they may go back to the drawing board but it's time that we stop negotiating with them and actually told them what they may be allowed to do but not what they will be allowed to get away with Thank you so what I've heard and that's all with Dr Richard Williams is both in terms of the scale there is the affordable housing both in terms of section 106 as well and character and appearance which of the character appearance and scale on that one which is 2.5 I think Chris Carter is asking to speak and I do think members what we need to do as well is make sure that we're looking at the report so when we say this is not compliant with policy we've got to be very very careful what we're saying as well so if Chris wants to thanks the balance around how much harm is being done in terms of the policy efforts Thank you chair just a couple of points if I may so policy S9 minor rural centres which includes this comment with regard to the scheme size of 30 dwellings being committed the supporting text to that policy does go on to state that sites for new housing development have been identified as extensions to amongst other villages combatant and the development frameworks have been drawn to include those sites the indicative scheme size does not apply to allocations forming part of the overall development strategy of the local plan so whilst I hear what members say it's important to bear that in mind if members are thinking of any reasons for refusal that actually the policy does say that the 30 limit doesn't apply to sites that are allocated in the local plan just wanted to also comment on the health care provision and whilst I clearly don't have the local knowledge and the history that others do the health bodies are responsible for delivering health care locally they seek contributions from housing and other applications and this development is providing the contribution requested how that contribution is spent is a matter for presumably the clinical commissioning group whether that means remodelling existing surgeries if it's not possible to extend them to increase capacity I don't know but I think I would caution against any reason for refusal that went down that line because the applicant is providing what the CCG is asking for in terms of financial contribution in this case I think our IRV should perhaps be directed at the health authority for how they're then going to spend that money and deliver the improvements that obviously members and local communities want to see thank you chair on the basis of that what I'm doing is saying that we are still looking at scale what we're not saying is that it's not compliant with non-compliant with policy S9 but one of the reasons if there were for refusal is the scale of that in which it's being interpreted if everyone's in agreement with that to answer Dr Tomie Collins who wants to come back on that point because I have other people on the list but did you want to respond in that way? I do I'm sorry but I think we probably are being negligent here if the health care authority is asking for contributions we ought to know how they intend to spend that contribution because they're going to make that provision I think it's our duty to because we can't just leave it to them and it will take years for them to do anything we know that and I know that there's no space at all in combatant for I think you've made your point on that I'm sorry when we're going to what we have to do is see what's within our mind that we're hearing that and I think what you're talking about is placemaking and making sure that the mitigation of impacts is real I mean all I would add is that in the heads of turns which is appended to the report it does specify the project on which the money would be spent as either an extension or remodelling the internal layout of Compton GP surgery so that's the project that's been put forward by the NHS to the council to be included in the heads of turns the council has two modes council has two modes well we can't have allegations like that but what we do know is a local reality and we do know about the pressure on this kind of impact on local communities and that's what's being discussed here so I'm still keeping it in terms of the mitigation of impacts we're still concerned about the way these local impacts are being mitigated as one of the reasons next we have Councillor Williams thank you chair I just want to draw members' attention to our story height layout plan Richard could you put up the layout plan please and I just want to get some clarification around we've got single story, two story, two and a half story three story has been referred to but it doesn't have a colour nor actually are the apartment blocks so can we have some as I understood Richard as I understood and also we heard from the applicant that there had been amendments based on comments about the size of the buildings Richard could you give some clarification on that now yes chair so this is the story height layout plan I can run through the elevations again so these are the elevations that are the most recent ones that have been agreed with consultees sorry Richard just one moment I may be misdirecting us I'm sorry if I am Councillor Williams my point isn't about the elevations and things like that on that story height layout plan can I have confirmation that those in blue are the two and a half and then the orange and I'll say single story yellow there's no mention of three story on there yet it's been referred to by the applicant and the case officer yeah if I just go to the elevations of the flat so it's so it's these that are referred to as two and a half so you can see they've got the upper floor within the roof up here so just one moment Richard just one moment sorry what we have to clarify and we've seen many examples of these where it often seems like common sense that that's three stories but we know that is referred to as two and a half stories if it's within the house if it's within the roof can we go back to the so this is two and a half and what Councillor Williams is asking is to see where those two and a half are in the layout plan is there anything else that resembles three stories in any of these buildings Richard no so where probably I've wrongly referred to three story is where I'm referring to these which you know referred to as two and a half sometimes free thank you so can we go back to the layout plan please Richard yeah can you show us where those two and a half that you're talking about two and a half part maybe three are in the development in the plot yeah so so there's the flats at the bottom here the blue ones here and then there's houses over to the north just bear with me oh sorry I didn't miss them ones out I'm wondering if you can see there are some single dwellings weird do you mean to just quickly find the elevations I think we'll just go back to the layout plan maybe what it was was the clarification of what we're talking about whether it's 2.5 or 3 and where those are within the plot that's the question really so we know that front part of the plot there and there's a couple of the single dwellings maybe at the back that's what we're hearing at the moment yes it's all the blue ones thanks Heather Williams thank you chair sorry that my clarification got so complex so I have a few points on this and I'm trying to make sure it's not been already said but it's been a lot said so I might duplicate chair apologies but this is a 37% increase on the indicative so I understand what's been advised to us that you know it's not 30 in concrete so if it was 31, 32 anything like that but 37% over the indicative I think we're and looking at the amount of space that's been taken up I think we are looking at over development of this site I am very worried about what's been referenced in relation to the drainage and not raising the floors in the southern area but I do understand that that's a technical objection which is very difficult with the technical advice on the affordable housing I do think it's while the affordable housing officers have supported it in the 40% they do make reference to that there it's not what they would prefer now so I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that they support it in fact I think it's completely disingenuous and this isn't just affordable housing isn't just apartments there are other mains as well we have actually got mixed tenure in there in that we've got rented and shared ownership which can be sold on the over market you know there's absolutely no reason why this couldn't be dispersed to the northern perhaps less drainage affected areas part of our policy says about distribution through the size small clusters we have to look at small clusters in the context of the whole development 16 properties out of 41 actually is a very very large proportion so although we have this 15 cutoff it's not a case of the extra one it's a case of that being essentially a third or probably less than a third of the site being affordable housing it's 40% and that's all in one patch with the exception of one little house that's slightly further up it's not dispersed through the site it's not tenure blind it's not anything that we should be standing for as a council and I've also one other matter of clarification it refers to the pre-application and my understanding is that that while we obviously have professional advice as referred to by the applicant we are the decision makers as the committee and therefore not bound by any recommendation or actually any pre-application advice given so I'm not quite sure why that was included chair some thoughts around that would be much appreciated but I'm sorry it's not policy compliant I think the significant harm to the future residents particularly in that affordable housing area and I think it's over development site and it's harmed the character of the entrance given that there's going to be two and a half, we want to be technical straight whack-bam in your face as soon as you walk through the village that's a nice soft approach to the green belt isn't it not thank you in terms of the pre-application and it's just something that we've we've asked for in that I think we do need to get to a better understanding of if applicants you know not all applicants they're putting forward a planning commission so if they've had pre-application advice that means they've wanted to be compliant and they've gone through a pre-application process I think it's good for us to know it but it doesn't bind us to anything but we have asked you know I think it's quite good to know if it's gone to the design panel if it's been to pre-application because I think we need to get a better understanding of if all these things are actually pointing in the right way in shaping being shaped by the policies we have so but it's not binding I don't know if Chris you want to add anything to that your correct chair is not binding I'll just draw a distinction between technical officer advice and matters of planning judgment the courts have held that in cases where councils have gone against technical advice so that may be drainage or highways without sufficient evidence to demonstrate the contrary then that's been found against councils in those circumstances clearly there are matters here that are matters of planning judgment to do with design, scale, layout and the like which are obviously fully within the pervy of the committee good thank you yes and I've asked to speak and I do think what I'd like to see is you know this discussion around the balance and so if our affordable housing officers and I've been reading this so they're saying and they've given us the details and I think this is one of the most detailed reports which is a good one I think as well it says they still think it's acceptable because there's a need at a high level of need for affordable housing in the villages so I suppose what they're saying is that's still a need and this could help address the need our judgment is but is that being provided in the right way and what I'm hearing and I agree with others that I don't think it is being provided in the right way because if the affordable office still says we would have preferred something we're hearing what's being said there I'd like to bring up a new issue that's I think been slightly alluded to but not in terms of one of the material reasons and that is the open space provision so when we're looking at scale and density and what's being referred to as over development of an area and when we've seen within the report that there is a deficit of informal and open space and especially as we know during the pandemic how much more important and valuable that has become to everybody so we are more highly alert to this and aware of it and I think knowing that now so we have to be very very sensitive to that and therefore we have to say so if it isn't possible for on-site provision there is the possibility to provide financial contributions in lieu that again is a matter of judgment and in terms of for me my balance in terms of that is there is more harm into a highly you know density than 30 we accept that it can be but in a higher density area to not have either the on-site nor an area where that off-site is it's just going into formal space really in the other areas and I heard the applicants say this was a decision made we've got a planning history here from 2015-2017 before the local plan was adopted when a decision was made to receive financial contributions in lieu of providing decision by the parish councils they didn't want to take on the management of that site so it was left as an agricultural field an agricultural field can provide access to walking to habitat to green space provision even though it's an agricultural field and there can be areas habitats around it so I feel that in terms for me there is harm there that isn't justified because it doesn't give enough provision on-site to balance out that density so that would be one of my concerns secondly in terms of the I'd just like to support the issues around the flood risk we now know given we have just had the latest IPCC report we do need to be more aware of Plubill flood risk the report says that there is concern we've had applications where the local flood authority and drainage officers have said do the hydraulic modelling first so that we can know what kind of conditions are necessary and they've done it before coming to the planning committee so that we have all the evidence we need here so I'd just like to support councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins' point there those are my points but I do think we're looking at this balance again so that's my point thank you councillor Dr Jeff Harvey Jeff Harvey thank you for that Jeff anyway I well two points firstly as an engineer I'm quite troubled by this we have a limit size of 15 or cluster size and then we say well 16 is only one more than the maximum that we've decided but really the maximum is there to be the exception in other words we should be thinking more the cluster size is 12 but if there's a compelling reason to go to 15 then you can because this really is saying well 15 wasn't the maximum and now the facto 16 is the maximum and that's sort of symbolic of a lot of the other aspects of this case but also I would very much agree with what the chair has just said and I I was quite troubled with the representative for the developer sort of kind of implying that it was a parish council was on the parish council having declined to maintain what would have been a green space but now I mean there's no obligation on the land owner that there is a third option which is not to develop this green space just some farmland again that's what I've got to say Thank you and council doctor Dr. Williams Thank you chair, I just wanted to come back to this point about S9 and I'm sorry to be a bit of a lawyer about it but I take what was said earlier about the reference in paragraph 2.61 which says that this 30 limit we're going to apply to allocated sites but the allocated site action in this case is very clear so the allocated site is to the east to the west and the officers report paragraph 43 does not make the case that S9 doesn't apply it accepts I think S9 applies and then it says that the departure is justified by a design-led approach so I did just want to make that point that I don't actually from my mind looking at the construction of H1H and S9 think that S9 doesn't apply I think S9 does apply because S9 is not actually quite explicitly the site sorry the western side is quite explicitly not the site that the local plan allocates for development it's the eastern part not the western part so if I've got my eastern west mixed up there but I think you probably know what I mean so I'm dyslexia hits but yes I just would like to pick that point up that I don't think it's clear that S9 doesn't apply here I think we have said that we it's what we're saying it's not totally policy non-compliant it's the interpretation of that one and as you said in the officer report again they have identified the issues that you've been laying out there good and we have one more person member who is down to speak which is councillor Eileen Wilson I haven't heard anybody who is bringing forward any sort of debate or differences of opinion there and so if not then I think we would we would move to a vote on this previously having a look at the reasons for refusal would be if we were to refuse this so councillor Eileen have you bring something new no thank you very much so Chris would you help yes yes okay yep yep so we'll have an adjournment for 10 minutes it's 20 past 11 which is usually when we have a bit of a break anyway so what it'll do is for 15 minutes have a 15 minute break and we'll come back in again thank you and welcome back to South Cambridge District Council planning committee we've just had a slight adjournment for recess for refreshments and also to bring together any of the arguments and justifications for the decision that we're about to take and I've recommended that we move to a vote councillor Garvey can you turn your microphone on video off please please that you've managed to connect thank you so I'd recommended that we move to a vote on this and so what we'd like to hear from now with the support of the officers is what would be any reasons for refusal yep thank you chair so I've drafted a reason here and also as always final wording to be agreed with chair and vice chair it's happy with that but by virtue of the height, scale mass and sighting of buildings in the southern part of the site and the lack of high quality and accessible open space the proposal is not considered to be compatible with the village edge location and would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the rural area contrary to policy HQ1 so we have all of the issues there would be about the mass, the scale, the height the character appearance and the open space that will be within that is that are we okay with the reasons for refusal if we were to vote of refusal members I know that we had two other issues another issue was around flooding so it's these are clear reasons that we would be able to justify if this went to an appeal the flooding it's about again a judgment about whether or not what information comes out because none of the technical statutory consultees have said anything about the flooding and and again we also mentioned about the affordable and again it's about that violence these are clear cut reasons that I think would be defensible for an agreement so if we take that to vote members it's on page 53 which is we will be voting on the recommendation for approval subject the conditions are set out below and completion of a section 1 and 6 agreement in accordance with the head of terms provided with an appendix A of this committee report can I take it by affirmation that this is a refusal thank you thank you everybody so we will now move to agenda item 6 which is on page 73 of our agenda pack and this is for application 20 slash 04754 slash HFUL Reston Huntington Road and the proposal is for the removal of an existing rear conservatory to replace with a larger rear extension with canopy the extension of existing rear and front gables a loft conversion with the addition of roof lights a replacement garage with workshop above and new detached outbuilding with tennis court and gym to rear the applicant is Dr Ajay Kumar the recommendation is approval and the key material considerations for us today are the principle of development visual amenity and design residential amenity drainage ecology tree matters and any other matters it's not a departure and the application is being brought to the committee because it's been called into community by both councillor Bygott and councillor Delacy and I understand that the case officer is Charlotte Charlotte to you with us hello Charlotte good if you have any updates and then a summary of the application please just trying to sort out my screens that's alright sorry I can't get it on the right screen just give me one minute we can see that now perfectly in presentation mode thanks Charlotte ok so the proposal site for this application is Reston Huntington Road in Gerton the proposal seeks permission for the removal of the existing rear conservatory and replacement with larger rear extension with canopy extension of existing rear and front gable loft conversion with the addition of roof lights replacement garage with workshop above and new detached outbuilding so just an update for members hopefully should have received an email about this last night but just to reiterate what was shared so in paragraph 64 page 84 of the report pack I advise that president would not be a material planning consideration for this proposal this is not correct it's well established that consistency is important in planning decisions and therefore previous approvals do form material planning considerations for future assessments and it is considered that light cases should be decided in a like manner unless other material considerations indicate otherwise so just to clarify that point in my report was not correct previous approvals are material to future assessments ok on to the proposal so this is a site location plan alongside an aerial view of the site here north west Cambridge is located at the rear of the site and at the front is Huntington Road this slide shows the existing site with some photographs so in the top left hand corner is the existing garage and driveway area in the bottom left hand corner is the rear of the dwelling top right hand corner is the front of the dwelling and bottom right hand corner is the garden area garden area as existing so the next slide is the existing and proposed block plan and this shows the proposals so the garage at the front here the gable extensions here the rear extension here and the tennis court here so the first element is the outbuilding with the tennis court this has been amended slightly just to simplify the form remove some glazing and also the gym element which was here was removed so it's just a tennis court now you can see on this elevation that this slide indicates that it's set down into the ground by 1.5 metres and this is to achieve the correct internal heights for a tennis court the next part is the proposed garage so this is the existing photograph the proposed garage would be slightly wider than this element and would propose a room in the roof to be used as a workshop by the occupant of the main house this is just the elevations to show the proposal again so you've got the gable extensions here rear extension with canopy element here and the garage same on this side this is the existing proposed roof plan just to show the roof lights and the rear extension and the gable extensions here and these are just the floor plans so again rear extension is here with the canopy element across the rear of the dwelling and the gables extending to the roof to create one additional bedroom at this level so the key material considerations are visual amenity and design including the village amenity area residential amenity drainage, ecology, tree matters and any other matters and my recommendation is approved subject to conditions thank you very much Charlotte and if we do have any questions we'll come to those during the debate so thank you very much for that we'll move to the public speakers and we have Mr Minyong Dominic Minyong Are you with us? Hi there, can you hear me? Yes, I don't know if I've got your name correctly and my pronounciation Thank you very much and you do know the protocols we have three minutes that you'll be speaking and Chris Carter on my left here will let us know when you've got two minutes have finished and you've got one minute left Excellent, thank you very much so I'll just read from my script so we the four sets of neighbours of Reston contacted during the consultation period are unanimous in expressing our objection to the proposed planning application and first and foremost to the proposed erection of an approximately 1800 cubic meter which is 17 meters by 40 meter footprint covered tennis court in the backyard in Reston we understand that your deliberations are based on planning law considerations and believe that a number of the objections brought to your attention by councillors Bygot, the Lacey and Garvey and the professional planning consultant behind Newhaze's objection letter were indeed grounding in planning regulation specifically would like to draw your attention to the following points that are specified in the material planning considerations for council referring to local policy plan HQ1 and district design guide SBD the considerations for scale and massing require the proposal to be the right size for the site relating appropriately to the buildings and spaces around it alongside the consideration for design that requires the design to be appropriate for the context it is in and needed to enhance the local area these together needs to be closely reviewed as the size and structure of the tennis court building is clearly out of character in this residential way of Gertan opposite Gertan College on Hunterdon Road the building is three times the size of the main dwelling or with a warehouse like design attracts from rather than enhances the local area secondly referring to local policy plan CC slash 8 and 9 the consideration for surface water and flooding issues has not been adequately resolved with the drainage survey suggesting that yet unidentified specialist drainage solutions will be required to deal with the relatively impermeable nature of the soil we'd like to remind the members of the committee that a number of our back gardens were significantly flooded last winter not least resting itself and fear that such a structure will significantly increase the likelihood of flooding and we are alarmed and disappointed that no appropriate drainage solution has been proposed or even considered and lastly the principle of development ensuring the right use for the site is of concern to us and we want to ensure that no business or trade be operated from the construction and also the committee to consider including a no alternative use clause in their resolution should they be minded to approve the application similarly we are also asking that a hedge made of mature shrubs of sufficient height be planted to hide the structure from the view of our houses we are appreciative of the opportunity to voice our material and substantive concerns and we would also be grateful for the committee to take into account the precedent this would create on this section of Huntington Road and the implications this would have on future developments in the area thank you very much thank you very much, thank you for addressing those material considerations and for that very clear and articulate presentation thank you very much I will open that to questions I am going to open it up to any clarification questions from members of the committee if they would like to address any questions to you I have answered the dots to me Hawkins thank you chair and through you thank you for your presentation I just want to have some clarification you mentioned the fact that some of your gardens flooded recently can you just expand a bit more on that which side are you on of the proposal I am to the left to the left of Reston if you observe us from Huntington Road and so the houses along us so the house next to me to the left of myself which is Middlefield the entire garden was flooded in under water and I think some of the councillers have seen photos of it it was like a lake Reston itself was half way under water in the back of the garden and my garden personally was actually only minimally flooded at the back but then as you went along the houses another one, two, three even if you went three, four houses along there were flooding issues into the back of the garden we are backed onto by Eddington the Eddington development and there is a belief we believe there has been compacted soil which makes the drainage even harder to go away down towards the M11 was kind of side of the building so it was considerable it was material and it was there for a considerable amount of time thank you thank you and we have the same reaction thank you very much and sticking to the same point around flooding I don't know if you have seen the papers but one of the conditions we have associated should the approval be granted today would be that a full drainage system or scheme needs to be approved by this council before any work is undertaken I just wanted to ask if that condition went some way to alleviating your concerns and the other neighbours' concerns as well yes, thanks for the question unfortunately not and I think listening to the session previous to this I would have expected that actually a review and an actual positioning of the drainage solution would have been designed as part of the design and application if you actually look at the report it actually just tests the permeability of the soil right now and I think it says that it would need some form of drainage solution I can't remember technically what it's called but it's some form of significant side solution which on the size of the property that they have and what's left with the garden in Reston I'm not actually sure where they would put it so I'm not sure where it would be and I'm not sure why it was not considered and they only did an impermeability study of the soil as it stands right now and not the impact of run of water and impermeability of the building okay, that's clear thank you thank you very much, thank you Mr Minyan there are further questions thank you, thank you you can turn off your video and audio now thank you very much we don't have any presentation from the parish council but we do have two local members who are here and would you like to speak now councillor Tom or Bygot thank you chairman I recommend refusal for this item the planning grounds are listed in the calling letter that councillor Delacy and I jointly sent on February the 18th and I quoted in the agenda pack the two parts of the application I want to talk about today are the two storey garage building the front garden and the warehouse type structure in the rear garden to house an indoor tennis court the top end of Huntingdon Road is one of the most magnificent settings for mature trees in a residential street in Cambridgeshire it has enormous value both aesthetic and ecological and makes a substantial contribution to the public realm part of which stems from the generous proportions of the front gardens of the tree to the tree canopy if a garage is necessary and cannot be accommodated elsewhere on site it should be limited to a single storey and secondly the town and country planning general permitted development order 2015 is generous in its allowances for ancillary buildings under class 80 especially when the 50% rule is applied to blocks of land over an acre it is sufficient for many structures including swimming pools, gymnasia, squash courts and stables however it is not sufficient for indoor tennis courts this is because tennis is normally an outdoor sport and because the Lawn Tennis Association recommends a 9 metre ceiling height above netline for indoor courts which is not achievable within the class 80 rules the building is therefore to be used for a home game somewhat approximating but not quite meeting the standard for tennis the design compromise is worse than it seems because the architect has not spotted that indoor tennis courts almost always have transverse rather than longitudinal roof ridges the exceptions are where ceiling height is not the limiting factor the calculations in paragraph 32 of the report are therefore incorrect because this building exceeds the maximum ridge height permitted under class E it becomes a subject to the local plan and district design guides with respect to its excessive footprint excessive volume unsightly appearance and increase to the local flood risk in a way that buildings allowed under committed development are not the council has full discretion in these matters and is under no obligation to grant permission for any ancillary structure greater than 4 metres in height 26 and 27 expressed the concern that weight must be given to what is possible under permitted development rights the best way of dealing with this concern is not to approve the application in full but to exclude the tennis court and apply the applicant to apply for a lawful development certificate under class E thank you thank you very much do we have any questions for council bike nope thank you very much and councillor Corryngarwy who is online with us are you with us councillor Garvey yes can you see me we can hear you you see oh I'm trying to turn the camera on my camera is not coming on we can hear you perfectly so if you're happy to read out or to tell us what your statement would be councillor Garvey councillor Garvey yes I support the objections voiced by Dominic Aminyong and Tom Bygot as soon as I was appointed district councillor in May the residents contacted me the Huntington Road of Huntington Road row of houses are rather special of a similar age and height but with individual designs the residents are a close community who care very much about the environment in which they live their case in objecting to the building of a covered tennis court at Reston seems very sound the neighbours showed me the layout of their gardens mostly loaded out as lawn the covered tennis court would take up most of the garden at Reston being three times the area of the house itself so it would be out of character with the rest of the row in addition there is the flooding problem and a neighbour showed me a photo of his lawn earlier this year which had become a lake the risk of flooding is likely to increase so I recommend the planning committee to reject the construction of the covered tennis court thank you thank you very much any questions for councillor Garvey no thank you very much for that councillor Garvey and we open it to debate thank you very much councillor Deborah Roberts to start thank you very much chairman one feels a little bit lost for words at the thought of this building it really does look more akin to a commercial warehouse and we all do know that part of Cambridge and it is really still one of the most attractive entrances to the village and really quite important and the tree line there is very obvious and it does still have that very rural feel I take on board that this very large part of it is at the back but I am concerned about a two story garage at the front there and would really wonder why you need a two story garage to his own I suppose but I think it is really just the mass bulk and size of that so called indoor tennis court that really I find unacceptable I think it is very detrimental to the area I think it is very detrimental and unsympathetic to neighbours and I shall be voting against it chairman thank you thank you very much and in terms of those reasons that you gave which do echo from the residents and also from the two councillors that we heard so we have scale and massing and the design of visual immunity especially at that sort of sensitive entrance to Huntington Road Councillor William thank you chair I think taking them in sections we have kind of got the garage the extension and then the tennis court and all that it comes with when it comes to actually the house itself I can't say that I am unsupported to it I think it is because you are removing one thing and replacing another so that I don't see it the garage I have to say I think that probably again could be deemed as acceptable but the tennis court and that massive building essentially there is no other word to describe it it is massive it is so much bigger than even the house and I do think it will create a very dominant and unsightly view and I appreciate view is it's a difficult one but I do agree with what councillor I have said about the full back position they obviously have a way of doing things that are within lawful development and that is there that is an option open to them but when we look at this that it is I mean it says 0.7 it is not really material and I actually think that is almost a 20% increase in the heights to me that is material and I just don't see how we can approve something like that and the impact that will have on the local area I think the principle for the tennis court is just in its building is just not there but if this was to go into a different way to what I think I really don't think it's unreasonable for the residents to ask for trees and some form of landscaping to how you would hide a building that's all I don't know but to make some attempt to do so so I would want to move that just in case of the event of committee recommending it but but I would strongly hope that others don't so again we have there scale massing design and visual amenity so we've got different adjectives describing that are dominant and insightful and the impact on this part of Huntington Road so members any other issues that should be brought up Councillor Eileen Wilson Thank you chair My concern is about the size of the tennis court and the amount of rounds it's going through surface water flooding I have experience of this in my own village where people have built on back gardens where the neighbors have been severely affected by surface water flooding that just doesn't go away for most of the winter so I would want to see something much more robust in terms of how that could be mitigated rather than a condition Thank you Thank you Councillor Jeff Harvey Thank you chair Well I'm concerned really that the report has kind of been written in reverse sort of as a way to justify the position that the permitted development rights kind of somehow grant this anyway because when you read for example on page 79 of the gender pack paragraph 30 it says the proposal is a subservient building in the rear garden the design and appearance would be considered appropriate for an outbuilding which often finish in materials that differ from the main house I mean how could anyone truthfully say that that was appropriate I mean there seems to be an exercise in sort of justifying the outcome that's already been decided so I can't really say that I would consider that appropriate but also I'm kind of slightly convinced when I was reading this last night when my presumption as you know councillor I got to that the ridg line would be over the net but it isn't so I mean I just really rather they called it what it is rather than pretending as a tennis court because you wouldn't be able to attempt even the slightest sort of loft on a shot let alone a lob shot and you've only got three and a half metres I mean that's the height or somebody holding a tennis racket it's kind of ridiculous so I think well I can't say it but I just think it's I wouldn't approve this yes so I we need to check our company so I think what I'm hearing from you councillor Harvey is the issue about principle development in terms of ancillary and subservience you know the principle around that it just doesn't seem to be subservient or ancillary in the way that we would describe it I would like to clarify a little bit about lob shots with the case officer and just to as we do the design is down in the ground so it goes down I think it's 1.5 metres into the ground so I just want to clarify if the actual height within the building is as asserted by councillor Harvey Charlotte can you do that for us yep so I think I've covered it a little bit in my report in terms of the heights so on paragraph paragraph 23 sorry bear with me I'll just have a look I think there's another part later on about the size of the tennis court what's recommended and what this would be is that so we've got paragraph 32 yes that's right so we've got paragraph 23 talks about an internal height of 6.2 metres and paragraph 32 that the height of an indoor tennis court should be 5.75 at the baseline and 9 metres at the net line yes but that is at the ridge so the highest internal height so yes the where it slopes to the eaves it would be lower it would be lower than what was recommended in his thank you and I would like to when we're looking at surface what we do have to do is a bit more specific because in fact with the the consultees I've said even though they had concerns they've thought that it is acceptable so we would need to know where our concerns are around around the drainage councillor Heather Williams no sorry councillor Dr Ceddon yes thank you I want to take up the point on precedent setting I think we haven't really we've touched on that right at the beginning of the presentation but surely we have to be mindful of that in this case because it is such a huge building and the effect of that on the neighbours and if we set if we were to approve this it would set a precedent which would affect the neighbouring properties in many different ways not least in terms of potential for flooding so I think we ought to be mindful about the precedent setting here thank you and councillor Heather Williams thank you there's one other thing that I might need to clarify with the officers is I don't know about anybody else but I've played indoor tennis which is why I might have to declare an interest actually because I genuinely can't remember if I'm still a member of the law and tennis association but when you play inside the noise is amplified incredibly so and that's not that noise isn't normally contained to the building itself you know it's when you're when you're serving you're outside normally you wouldn't even really hear other than a slight bout but indoors it really is I was playing in a dome which was an air filled dome so you had all that noise and you could still hear every shot not to mention it becomes when you're speaking it's a very echo there's not much to so my understanding is there isn't any sort of sound boards or anything like that so the issue would be around the noise pollution so I don't know if we have anything from environmental health around noise pollution but I think it also comes into residential immunity in that people having an outdoors that's what noise pollution would be it's very different to indoors so this would be noise pollution which would have an impact on residential immunity of anybody around I don't see anything from environmental health on noise pollution Charlotte do we have anything on that environmental health weren't involved in the application because the nature of an outbuilding is that it should be in scale with the domestic use and that noise pollution shouldn't be over and above what you'd expect in a sort of domestic setting right but we're not looking at a domestic setting I suppose are we? okay thank you if I can say that again if it was if the members were mine to approve we need to do something some sort of conditioning because the noise will be astronomical Dr Tumi Hawkins thank you chair I think the issue of the drainage the flooding for me is still a big one because that building will be taking up a heck of a lot of ground space which would normally be used for infiltration and as we've heard from the local members and the neighbors even that part of the garden has been flooded and if we look at paragraphs 59 and 60 on page 63 where I mean the drainage the drainage officer has kind of like yeah okay the fact that it's going to be set down 1.5 meters into the ground means that it's not it might not my type it floods because it's not sort of habitable but that still says there will be flooding almost so what are we doing looking at it in terms of even considering giving this thing permission and it will affect mostly affect the neighbors so I'm sorry but the fact that it doesn't actually solve this thing doesn't solve the drainage issues or the flooding issues for me is a big no thank you good and so if we're looking at that in terms of drainage so in that paragraph 60 so the drainage officer advise that the building may be subject to flooding it recognises that there could be flooding at the end of that there's flooding in that however confirm that it would not increase surface water risk to surrounding properties but it's not addressing the flooding within that property itself which is what you're contesting your microphone but I don't see that it actually solves the problem of flooding to neighboring properties either and it's on right in there you know will still occur yes good so I haven't heard anything that would suggest that we need to start looking at conditions if this were to move to approval so I would like to hear from Chris Carter if there were reasons for recommending you know refusal I think we've heard scale massing designed visually and we've got to go on. So I've got a couple of reasons here the detached outbuilding by virtue of its scale footprint massing height and utilitarian design would result in a form of development that would not be subservient to the main dwelling and would represent a sizeable intrusion into the rear garden that would be out of keeping with the character of the area as such the base development would be contrary to policy HQ 1 of the south local plan and paragraphs 7.10 7.11 of the district design guide and then we've got to the concerns about drainage the committee could consider the proposed outbuilding would increase flood risk by removing a substantial area of permeable land and due to its load floor level would itself be susceptible to flooding insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that surface water from the outbuilding and other extensions proposed within the application can be adequately disposed of in a manner that is both sustainable and avoids unacceptable flood risk to the site and surrounding properties as such the development country to policy cc 7 8 and 9 of the south came to local plan 2018 couldn't have put it better myself so do we take that by affirmation members that that's a refusal yes thank you thanks members we'll move to agenda item 7 page 87 in your agenda this is application 21 slash 02538 slash H full over 30 Hilton street the proposal is for a two-story rear extension and two additional gable windows the applicant is Mr Paul McNealy the key material considerations for us to consider the character and appearance of the area residential immunity and highway matters it's not a departure and it's been brought for us because a staff member of the south Cambridge district council is part of the applicant's household the presenting officer is Charlotte Spencer Charlotte are you with us hi morning chair morning Charlotte okay just have a brief presentation you look very renaissance I must say lovely thank you we can see it and in presentation mode as well thank you I guess this is for 30 Hilton street in over as for two-story rear extension and two additional gable windows and as the chairs just stated the application to committee of the applicant is a member of staff here to just share the site location the properties are two-story detached dwelling house located to the south west of Hilton street the recommended entire dwelling is set back from the road by a large area of hard standing and as you can see it is set further back than its immediate neighbours at number 28 and number 32 number 28 is a grade 2 listed building and the site lies within the over development framework so the CQ plan permission for two-story rear extension and for two additional gable windows the extension would have a depth of 2.5 8.7 meters and would span the full width for the existing outrigger at ground floor it would also would join the existing garage and which would be converted to habitable space the extension would be characterised by a hip roof with a maximum height of 7.13 meters two new side facing windows be installed on the north western elevation and a first floor side window would be installed on the south eastern elevation just some photos here is the property here you can see it is further back in property 28 and 32 this is the site from Unwin's Lane you can see the listed building at 28 here and its barn building and you can see the property just here and this is just further up Unwin's Lane you can see the property is here so the material consideration for the impact of the character is the area and of the impact on heritage assets and the impact on neighbour amenities the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions thank you chair thank you very much charlotte there are no applications to speak by parish council or any objectors as we know this is coming to us because of transparency because one of the names of the staff about the household so do you will move straight to debate members they will move straight to vote do we the recommendation on which we are voting is for approval on page 91 thank you very much vice chair which is to recommend planning permission subject to the planning conditions which follow from page 91 and end on page 92 can I take it by affirmation this is approved thank you very much move to agenda item 8 on page 93 of our report pack this is application 21 stroke 02726 stroke full 6 westfield road the proposal is for a single story rear extension replacing existing outbuildings with associated internal alterations the applicant to south council district council key material considerations character visual amenity heritage impact residential amenity provision any other matters it's not a departure and it's being brought to the committee again transparency because this is south council district council as the applicant presenting officer is Michael Sexton Michael are you with us I am good afternoon chair hello good we can see you do you have any updates or a summary of the application no no updates chair happy to go straight to the presentation could you confirm chair that you can see mine yep perfect thank you so yes this is an application for a single story rear extension that is before the committee because south commission district council is the applicant the site is located in balmyth on westfield road as identified by the site it's read near to the prime school over to the east this is the block plan that just shows the single story rear extension that's proposed the dashed line represents the outbuilding and covered walkway that links the outbuilding that's to be demolished to accommodate the proposed developments in terms of constraints the site is entirely within the development framework boundary of balmyth near to the grade 2 listed school building opposite the recreation ground which has a tree preservation order and is also a protected village community area for context this is a photograph of the rear elevation of properties so you can see the existing outbuildings to be demolished also worth noting that both properties on either side have got very large single story additions particularly the adjoining neighbor to the left of that photo and this is just an image of the front of the site and again you can see that the outbuilding in the back should be demolished so the application is proposing a flat roof single story extension as shown on these plans and some minor alterations fenestration windows and doors of the side elevation of the existing property and here you can see the proposed extension sitting in the context of the neighbouring extension as well and just a full plan of the proposed extension is to accommodate the particular needs of the occupants that are now within the site and again this wall here is the adjoining neighbor and their existing single story extension so you can see how it's actually been stepped to accommodate this high level window that's present on the side of the neighbouring extension keeping considerations character and visual amenity heritage impact residential amenity highway safety and parking provision and as set out in the committee report officers are satisfied that the proposal is fully compliant with adopted policy thank you very much and again we don't have any presentations being made do we have any thank you very much chairman and through you yes I have no objections to this quite the opposite and I would say that yes the row of houses were all originally council houses but some of them are now privately owned but this is still a council house it is going to be adapted for upon this specific physical needs and I actually commend the housing department for actually going along this route I think it's very good I think it's very sensitive of them and I'm very pleased and thank you very much housing department and I hope that we'll also accept it thank you chairman thank you do I have any other to speak shall we move to a vote the vote would be to page 100 which is recommended approval subject to the conditions that are on pages 100 and 101 can I take it sorry chairman a little bit of concern just need clarification from the officers it is in the paperwork it's very near the school and parking down there is very restricted so we must make sure that at school going in times and leaving times we don't get a conflict from the contractors vehicles but it is in there condition C is in there thank you chairman thank you very much so we will now go to a vote on page 100 the recommendation is to approve the application subject to the conditions on page 100 and 101 can I take by affirmation that this is in approval thank you very much we now move to agenda item 9 which is on page 103 of our agenda pack and we're now moving into a series of applications which are around hedgerows and trees so this one is application 21 stroke 0794 stroke TTHR in Cotwnum it's the land at the junction of Smithy Fenn and 20 Pence Road the proposal is for the removal of one section of hedgerows 7m long to facilitate the pipeline laying of a new sewer the applicant is Anglian Water Services the key material considerations do the hedgerows qualify as important hedgerows is the removal justified the application is being brought to the committee because all hedgerow regulation matters must come to committee quite rightly presenting officer Miriam Hill doesn't look like Miriam Miriam are you with us nope but I will Councillor Debra Roberts won't is in the room but won't partake in this discussion can I just ask clarification I think last time it was on I was allowed to stay in the room but I took no part okay thank you that continues yes is that Mr Councillor Lovelock if you could just turn off your video just for now and we'll just listen to the case officer first thank you very much Miriam hello welcome it's lovely to see you again we've got you on for the rest of the session so good do you want to give us any update on this or a summary of the application there is no update as far as I'm aware so I'm happy to go straight to the slideshow that's okay with you yes please thank you Miriam so as you have already discussed this is in relation to the hedgerow removal notice in Cotinum this links with the recent removal notice which was to remove five sections of five seven metre sections of hedgerow reference 21 stroke 60662 stroke TT HR the agent is essentially moving one of the sections which was going to be taken out further down the road to gain a better connection to the existing sewer system so here on the screen you can see Cotinum the area we're looking at is on the north side associated by the arrow and the particular section has now been moved from the bend to the junction the agent did intonate that they would be doing this and they were asked to withdraw the one gap from the previous notice and to then submit this new notice with just the one section to be removed but unfortunately that's not the route they took they decided to leave the old notice as was and then submit this so there's not an intention to take two gaps out of that hedgerow there's just the intention to take one gap out of that hedgerow so it's just a bit more of a close-up so the gap will be right on that junction and here is a google street view to just illustrate the gap the gap will be between the street sign and then the other road signage the chevron signs which are to the left the hedgerow is considered an important hedgerow under the regulations due to its age and its location having existed there since pre-enclosure we did receive one consultation response from the parish council who objected on grounds of there was no need for the removal of the hedgerow there's no mention of a replacement and it's detrimental to the farmland landscape on the notice form the application form it does state that it's needed to facilitate the connection of a new sewer pipe to the existing system that's there unfortunately the agent didn't say they were going to undertake replacement but as an organisation they typically reinstate the hedgerow to what was already there so they will be providing replacement planting but they didn't state that on the notice and in relation to being detrimental to the farmland landscape this is actually beyond the purview of the regulations because the hedgerow regulations come out of the environment act and not the town and country planning act in considering removal notice the reason for removal is key unfortunately they can't locate the gap in another location they have decided that this is the best point at which to connect the new pipe work to the existing sewer system and where a set of pipe works changes direction or there's a like a junction in the pipe work they have to excavate and for short runs as well they also have to excavate they can't directionally drill so this is why this section of hedgerow needs to be removed so officers recommend that the reason for removal is reasonable as no other method or location can be utilised therefore we recommend the planning committee do not issue a hedgerow retention notice thank you thank you very much Miriam and again we'll come back to you during the during the debate if there are any questions for that and speakers we do have from the parish council counciller John Lovelluck you are with us we saw earlier hello there hello hi thanks for the clarification Miriam and thanks for the opportunity to speak on this good thank you so you do know the protocol that you've got three minutes and I must ask you to confirm that you've got permission to speak on behalf of the parish council I do I'm chair of the planning committee of Cotten Park Council and we've discussed this at two meetings so definitely do have permission thank you very much so Mr Cards on my left so he will let me know when two minutes are up but you have three minutes starting from now I don't think I'm going to need that long I think it's a very simple statement we're actively looking in Cottenham at ways of increasing biodiversity of the local environment and there's a number of activities in progress and unnecessary removal of the hedgerows is certainly something that we resist and that's important we all know the importance of hedgerows and one aspect of hedgerows which is important is continuity because they do form corridors and wildlife and in this case destruction of I'm pleased to Miriam for it I mean to do some research on the age but this takes back inclusion so it is a very mature established ancient hedge I do have put a couple of pictures in my visual presentation which I sent in earlier which shows sort of slightly more vibrant mature views of the hedgerows than the one which was in the planning application and we did note in recommending refusal of this that SCDC had recently approved five separate seven-meter sections of the hedge to be removed in connection with this sewer I understand now that's down to five in total rather than six in total so it's 35 meters of hedgerow to be removed in connection with one sewer and I found interesting in your acceptance letter you recommend hedgerowing.org.uk as a sort of reference for good management and one of the indicators that website recommends for health of the hedge to ensure there are no gaps more than five meters talking about seven meters with a significant number of gaps for one sewer we also made note that the application makes no attempt at all to justify the need to remove such a large section of hedge I believe Miriam might have given some hint as to why in what I think they want to remove seven meters of hedge but through one sewer pipe but it does seem excessive every time a sewer pipe crosses a hedge line we need to remove seven meters of hedge and I understand real statement will take place but on the other hand real statement of a 200 year old it would like to say except you have old but in excess of 100 year old hedge it takes time to do that way it's quite simple. So I think what we're making clear is that we do not see hedgerow removed hedgerows are not just a barrier to the developer who wants to put something in place and we think they should come on with a solution which does not require removal of seven meters each time they cross a hedge line having said that we're taking over the sewer it's an important piece of infrastructure which we're totally in favour of so we want to make it clear there's no hint of that but we request this particular application is refused Thank you very much Do any of the members have questions? Councillor Lobleck No, thank you very much for your time Councillor Lobleck We now move to local members and I understand that Chris Carter has a statement to read from Councillor Goff That's correct chair Yes, so these are the comments of Neil Goffman for Scotland Ward My apologies that I can't attend the committee in person but I would be very grateful if you would permit me to make some brief comments on this application A full page of Anglian Waters biodiversity strategy is dedicated to Hedros page 24 and includes the statement Hedros provide essential networks across the landscape by connecting fragmented habitats as well as providing a habitat resource in their own right The strategy also references habitat loss on page 6 and includes the sentences the loss of habitat leads to fragmentation and isolation of remaining habitat patches this reduces species ability to move in the landscape and increases the threat of local extensions I cannot have expressed the importance of linear mature hedros any better Cognum has lost a number of precious linear mature hedros with the recent housing developments that is most regrettable While I'm supportive of the overall Anglian Water project I would ask the committee to assure itself in the context of this specific application that a reduction of the hedro of this magnitude is absolutely necessary The parish council has expressed views on the matter and that I urge you to consider carefully I note the comment in the report at paragraph 23 that this route appears to be the optimal location for this work This hardly conveys to me the completion of exhaustive review of alternatives that one would surely reasonably expect to meet the sufficient justification test for the removal of the hedge I also note the article by George Mombio only this week on the particularly special value of complex established habitats that is often lost in haste or truly recovered He wrote Don't lament the old oak where felling will plant 10 saplings in plastic fabric guards in its place then we'll call it net gain He captures the problems of such narrow approaches to biodiversity very well I'm concerned that the reference to a typical reinstatement in the report is exactly that While acknowledging that Anglian Water is under no obligation to replace the full biodiversity loss if no objection is given by the committee I think it is reasonable to expect of its biodiversity strategy and the specific references to hedgerows that Anglian Water would commit to replace the biodiversity loss associated with any hedgerow removed It would be good to hear confirmation of that along with the clarification and recognition that such a mature and rich habitat cannot be simply exchangeable for a typical reinstatement whatever that might be Thank you. The other local members Councillor Eileen Wilson would you like to speak now? Yes I concur with Councillor Goff's points that he makes I'm also very disappointed that if this stretch of seven metres is to replace another stretch that's already been permitted that that hasn't been included in the application I'm also very disappointed that although the applicant has said they would replace the hedgerow and I understand that there aren't any requirements on them to do so I do feel that this will be a great loss especially at that point of the village on the road which is very visible when people are driving along so I would really like to understand much more if there is an alternative to removing this hedgerow and I would like to see a lot more justification for them Thank you. Do we have any questions for Councillor Eileen Wilson? No it's just first of all No questions First of all first of all if there's a question for any of the speakers there isn't so we'll now move to the debate and councillor Heather Williams first It was just to ask if there's any way so they've put through the previous one we've now got this one on the grounds that they're not going to do that other one but I just want to clarify we can't actually stop them taking up six pieces if we grant this can we? They've got permission to take it all up and the argument for the last application was this was the only way to do it well obviously it wasn't because we've now got this and what happens when this isn't the only way to do it we then keep giving commissions and hoping that they don't take them all out it seems Perhaps we go back to Miriam on it Miriam so you know you can understand a little bit but certainly the disquiet that you had where you obviously asked for a very clear removal of the original one to replace it with this and that didn't happen so yes can you do the disquiet obviously you can hear amongst members that this is just being changed without any kind of guarantees being given that this isn't in sort of creep in a way Yeah so there is no guarantee and the reason there's no guarantee is the hedge road recollections are somewhat flimsy in their process requirements then notoriously not quite to the standard of maybe other regulations that are out there They longed you a review Yes regulations came out in 97 and at the time of publishing they actually said we will be reviewing these in like the next two years because we know they're not quite right but politically they had to adopt them at that time unfortunately the review never happened so it is a notice that they give us it isn't an application so it is slightly different it's more akin to a concept section 211 treeworks notice than a planning application for instance They have asked for seven meter gaps but I don't believe from speaking to the agent that they will be taking out seven meters in every location they'll only take out what they need to take out but I think they say seven meters just in case because seven meters is actually wider than the average road and they don't actually need that if they need to access a large lorry for delivery of materials et cetera on site so I think they somewhat over egg the estimation of how much they need to take out Miriam, the question was there isn't any guarantees you've answered that question but not any guarantees but do you want to come back Heather? My question was around we were told last time that this was needed and there wasn't any other way hence we gave we gave approval my recollection is correct but now I've been told no we don't need that bit we need this new bit so in your opinion could they do what they need to do without this they could just use the one they've already got permission for where is the actual need to have this because it runs us at a risk so I believe previously the reason they asked to take out the section further north on the same run of Hedro was they were connecting the sewer into an existing sewer line that comes out of the back of the like this little little industrial commercial unit there but now they want to connect into the main sewer pipe that's within that road system rather than behind the building it's a better connection point Okay, thank you Councillor Dr Kerdon Thank you Is it normal to have just two short paragraphs justifying and reasoning something like this I mean if you're talking I think John Lovelock mentioned pre-enclosure hedge well that's well over 200 years old and yet we just have a few sentences justifying it with no detailed diagrams or anything and it does seem to be very unclear from the response to Councillor Heather Williams and then if we go into paragraph 24 it says the regulations are clear the hedros or sections should only be permitted to be removed in exceptional cases I don't think that we've got sufficient justification just to allow this section to be removed particularly because it's in such a prominent area such a prominent part of the village I suppose just to add to the point that Miriam made we're rather limited by what the regulations say we can and can't consider in these applications I think you've identified that the key test is whether or not be satisfied the information that's been provided is adequate to demonstrate that it's required I don't know if Miriam can say any more about that test and if the councill isn't satisfied that test what the alternative decision is and what the implications of that decision might be for the council and before Miriam comes in so I'm down to speak next and I think given that that sort of legislation as you're talking about this Miriam is lagging behind you know where we are in terms of just policy and need to recognise the sensitivity and value of hedros the fact that is recognised by Anglia Walter because they above and beyond regulation have got a biodiversity strategy in their own documents and in their own policies and we as a council have got a doubling nature strategy so I think what we can do is expect more recognition and respect for that so that they do provide more evidence they do provide the guarantees they do provide a reassurance that if this is absolutely necessary under exceptional circumstances and how they will replace so we have those guarantees in place which is the minimum that we could think for but at the moment to just have acceptable just because the regulations are lacking I don't think is enough so and again I would go back to Chris Carter's question then would be what happens if we say no but for me I would be saying I don't want to to approve the notice Councillor Williams I was just going to say while I agree that there are all these things in place I do disagree that there is no guarantee that there are strategies the implementation of those strategies is entirely down to the third the parties of it at the time there's no requirement for them to do it there's no monitoring that they have to achieve X, Y and Z it's an aspiration those strategies, there's warm words there is no guarantees so just thought that needed clarifying no which is why we would like to say that they don't have to they could tell us that yes to do this voluntarily that's what we're saying so we're setting in terms of the kind of standards we would like even though the regulation doesn't demand it that was more I think a fun thing so Miriam do you want to answer Chris's questions on that so to clarify I believe Chris's question was to just give an indication of what the sort of guidelines on reasons for the test so there is a piece of documentation which gives some clarification about what would be deemed unacceptable reasons so it gives things like the hedgerows too difficult to maintain or too expensive to maintain it blocks light we don't like the look of it they're kind of reasons that are insubstantial or very ambiguous it doesn't give a defined sort of set of lists because every scenario is so different but in terms of what's exceptional it doesn't it just says what's yeah yeah it just gives very broad guidelines of what would be deemed unacceptable an unacceptable reasoning for removal so sort of those things such as we don't like the look of it it's too expensive to maintain those kinds of things and would you think that sufficient justification in your technical opinion sufficient justification has been given I would suggest there is whilst I was undertaking the site visit for the previous notice I did speak to a local gentleman so this is anecdotal evidence but he did say that the sewer system in that particular area is somewhat overwhelmed on occasion and that they do desperately need a new sewer system right but for example we could have something that comes to us that says we understand that five meters we can do it within the five meters because we understand that the importance of this hedgerow tell you that we will definitely include in the statement that we will replace if we have to do that five meter rather than going for the seven meters and we're not going to say whether we're going to take out the other one that we've already got approval for ideally they would have given us that information but unfortunately it's a very low bar the notice that they have to give us and agents often go for the lowest possible quality and what happens what happens if we don't we know that this is just notice or being given notice so what happens if we do not issue a hedgerow retention notice or do issue sorry do issue of a hedgerow retention notice so if we do issue a hedgerow retention notice we need to do that within 42 days of their submission tools I haven't got that date to hand but it is probably in about two weeks time and they then can choose to appeal that notice or reconsider their options okay thank you that's to me Hawkins thank you chair for actually coming in with what we asked them to which is to remove one of the ones that already have and replace that as for replacement for this one and it just seems to me that they're not I can't think of it we said the comfort lowest bar they've gone for the lowest bar but it does not give us any confidence whatsoever that they won't take out that for the big deal and for me that not having that guarantee just makes this a potentially I wouldn't be voting for this sort of thing they really should and there's no reason why maybe I can ask Miriam this when they're proposing to roots the new sewer surely they have drawings that shows where the current sewer is and they propose roots through it that should be presented as evidence of what they intend to do I mean we're giving them licence for something but I don't know what it will give them licence for thank you sorry thank you chair like other members I'm not happy with this I'm not happy with the fact that they could it seems there's nothing to stop them taking out the other hedgerows and this hedgerow I'm also not happy with the evidence that's been supplied apologies if I'm going over something that's already been gone over but can I just ask for a little bit of further clarification on the um limits if any to the discretion that we have under these regulations because I'm in a I'm doing it in the meeting I will admit but I've had a quick look at the regulations it looks like a kind of unconstrained discretion on the local planning authority to issue or not issue a hedgerow hedgerow retention notice I would say maybe missing something but I'd like to just understand the constraints on us I suppose that's why it's before us so it is within our discretion we've just got to provide the grounds for whatever our decision I suppose that's my point is that I can't actually see anything specifying what those grounds could be or in fact I can't actually see anything saying that we need to specify any grounds it just says that you can issue one or not issue one I can't see anything in there myself saying but that's why I'd like to clarify we did just hear from Miriam where she read out what the test would be in a way which is very low bar I think councillor willing to correct that it's pretty broad discretion in these circumstances so just from what I've heard if members are agree with what I was going to suggest that if we do choose to issue a hedgerow retention notice that would be on the basis of a lack of information to justify the removal of such a large section of hedgerow and a consequent negative impact on the biodiversity of the local area and then that would be tested if they chose to appeal it or they could review their position and come back again with the best scheme Yes, thank you Good, I think that's a councillor, if you're happy with what we've just heard there from Chris Carter as a reason why we would give to go to a vote now which I think would be by affirmation to say that we issue a hedgerow retention order then we do do you still want to have a say? Yes, by me Just clarification can the retention order be lifted if Anglia would come back with a more reasonable approach? Miriam can a retention order be lifted if they come back with the I believe it can be I don't know what the process internally would be to consider that I assume we would come back to planning committee if that's not really covered in our processes but that would seem the reasonable approach Yes I think this is a very good test case in a way where we've seen something which is regulations lagging and Anglia Water doing low bar because the regulations are lagging despite the fact that they have biodiversity strategies we have biodiversity strategies and we all know that we've got to take this all much better as a parish council so I look at what you said as well so let's take this to a vote we've just heard the reasons why we would be issuing a hedgerow retention order but the vote would therefore be on the recommendation is that we do not issue a hedgerow retention notice and provide a no objection outcome Do I take it by affirmation that we refuse that recommendation but there's not a double negative thing so can we make sure that we do not that we refuse the recommendation by officers to not issue a hedgerow retention notice and provide a no objection outcome based on the justification given by Chris Carter Thank you everybody We have agenda items 10 11 and 12 and 13 are all TPO's and then we have the enforcement report and the appeals notices so we could have a lunch break or we could have a short break and come straight back in to deal with those items which I think the latter is the better for me agreed so if we have a 10 minute break and do please do get out I do worry I'll make sure you get a better pressure so welcome back everybody to South Council planning committee we've just had a short break before moving to agenda item 10 of our agenda part but before I do I just want to return momentarily to agenda item 9 and clarify for records what our vote was which is that we are voting what we did was to vote to issue a hedgerow retention notice Thank you to avoid any doubt so now we'll move to agenda item 10 page 107 of our agenda pack this is in full born 14 dogged lane is to serve a provisional tree preservation order at the request of another party and the key material considerations is it expedient in the interest of immunity to make provision for the preservation of the trees or woodlands in their area and the recommendation is to serve a provisional tree protection order, preservation order and the application is being brought to the committee because non-emergent CTPOs must be brought to committee for permission to serve provisional and presenting officer of Miriam Hill with us again Miriam Hello Good Yes we can thanks So there are two trees of interest and they stand within the front garden of 14 dogged lane so dogged lane as you can see on this little location plan is on the south side of full born and on a main road The trees of interest are 121 a walnut and T2 a beech tree both trees are mature and appear to be in reasonable health and vitality they stand within the front garden of the property full born is a well-treated village and the village are passionate about their treescape as demonstrated in the full born village design guide a key consideration is is it expedient in the interest of immunity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands immunity is not defined in law and therefore it is left for local authorities