Neu. OK. Hello, everyone. Welcome back to this meeting of South Canadian District Council's planning committee, so we've had a few technical difficulties there, so we're actually going to go back to the member introductions. Members, we're going to have to introduce ourselves again as I'm unsure how much the public were able to see in here. So my name is Councillor Henry Bationshawn, I'm one of the members for the Linton Ward and I'm the Chair of the Committee. Councillor Peter Fane is the Vice-Chair. Peter Fane, Shelford Ward. itwyd. Yn gwrthod, ydych chi'n bwylod eich télidol, a eich ddweud yw mewn gymhwythol i'r leidornyddaint hynny, a mwyn fydd wedi eu traffordd yr unigodd yn ôl hefyd. Mae'r ddweud eich ddweud eich ddweud. Mae'r ddweud eich ddweud eich ddweud, i pethau atgofodd na'i gyrddion a ddwyng nhw i'n bwylod eich gyrdd hwn. Mae'n ddweud eich pethau i Gerdd, a mae'n ddweud i'r morning. Thank you very much. Also joining us in the room we have a raft of officers at the top table here, so to my left we have Phil Macintosh, who's the interim delivery manager. Good morning chair, good morning members, yes Phil Macintosh, interim delivery manager, great at Cambridge share planning service. Thank you, and Michael Sexton, the area development manager. Good morning chair, good morning members, Michael Sexton area development manager. gofynnig eu cyfan. Ydw i'n gweithio'r byd cancelu gyda'r fawr cBl storid angeniad mor iawn gan, oherwydd, ni i hefyd i'w byd. Cyfit combinellol ei nifer fewn yn cy Aujourd Madam, mae nhw'n ei unClass acab union sector sy es Math Ishawn a mae'n ddweud o'r methu o'u gweithio. Dweud am y ddweud, roi'r iawn, Lloran Stymari, ac ysgolodau Ysgolig Ddewis ym Mhwylwyr. Ddweud. Dweud o'r Ddweud o'r Ddewis, a mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddechrau'r cameraol, ac mae'n ddweud o'r David Roe, roi'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Fe, mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, Felly, mae'n rhaid i'n ddweud y byddai i chi'n rhaid i ddweud y rhwng ar y rymd, byddai'n ddweud fan i ddweud i eithaf i ddweud â'r ddweud yn ddweud, felly roedd yn gweithio it. Byddai'n ddweud y brifau cyflwyntol i gael y byddai'n ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud a'r ddweud i'n ddweud i'r ddweud, fel y brifau yng Nghymru yn ddweud, byddai'n ddweud i'r ddweud i ddweud a we'll do our best to accommodate. OK, Members, before we move into the main agenda I'm going to hand over to Phil Macintosh who wishes to talk to us about one of the items on the agenda today, agenda item number six. Phil, over to you. Thank you chair. Yes, in relation to item six, which is for a bicycle shelter at Walkling Way, it Mae'r cyflogio wedi nodi arferwyr y cwymreidio'r cwymreidio. Mae'r cyfle ar gyfer yn dde�ch yn gwahoddiol ac mae'n mynd i gweithio'r cwmreidio'r cwymreidio yn cael bod ein tro i hynny'n mynd i d deposited ag yr hyn o'r cwymreidio'r cwymreidio. Rwy'n pryd gan amlwyddo i'r m ADF i'r oes iawn i'w gwneud y ddifesiaid yw'r ddatgani'n gweith hi, would anyone care to second that? Seconded Chair. Thank you. Members do you wish to debate this, or can we agree it? Agree. Agreed? Thank you okay. So we've agreed to defer item six. Okay, with that we'll move on to the main agenda which beginning with item two. Apologies. Lawrence, apologies please. Mae ddodd, mae'n ddweud o gwbl argynslwrs ariol y Tom Martin Caerran ac yn olygon o gwbl mae'n rhanom fel Jeff Harvey ac Heather Williams ddoddd. Os ydych yn gyffredinol, yma. Mae'n olygon. Mae'n ddidech chi'n ddodd o gwbl argynslwr William Jackson Wood. Mae'n ddodd, yma. Felly, siaradau. Elpa'r meddwl â diredd, Ie, mae'n ddodd, mae'n ddodd o gwbl argynslwr Jackson Wood ac yn olygon o gwbl ar gynslwr. Yna, gallwn i wneud cyfreidio na ddim ymmer 그다음en, Do any members wish to declare any interests, pecunary, discloseable pecunary, non-discloseable pecunary, or other? Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. I'm not sure if this is of relevance, but just to mention that I did go to the Hotel of Felix when he was still operating some years ago to have afternoon tea. I think what most of us have at some point, but yes, that has been noted. No further declarations of interest, then we'll move on to item four, which is minutes of the previous meeting. So, members, we're looking at the minutes which were sent round subsequent to the agenda, and this is relating to the meeting on the 16th of June. Do any members that were present wish to make any comments on that, or can I sign them as a correct record? Councillor Fane. I wasn't present, but I thought perhaps I'd better mention that since I'm listed as being the Vice-Chairman at the top. Okay, I think that's been noted. Obviously, Councillor Jeff Harvey stood in as Vice-Chair for that meeting. Pretty worth miniting that. Okay, well, with that one small change, are we content that we accept those as a quick record? Agreed. Thank you very much. Okay, with that, members, we'll move on to the main business on the agenda today, which starts on page one of our agendas. This is agenda item five, and it's a planning application at the former Hotel Felix site in White House Lane in Gerton. The proposal in front of us is the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a care home with associated works. The applicant is Cassell Hotels, and the reason it's before us, it's been called in by the local member, is a departure application, and the application raises special planning policy or other considerations. The presenting officer, as introduced earlier, is Mary Collins, who's joining us in the room. So, Mary, I'll hand over to you for any updates to the report in front of us, and then an introduction to the reports, please. Thank you, Chair. So, in terms of updates to the committee, an additional objection has been received from the owner-occupier of 9 Marksway Gerton. So, to summarise the additional objection, there's a strong objection against the demolition of a fine, beautifully appointed, and well-equipped building in good repair and full of historic importance, and the proposal that it is raised to the ground and replaced. Not only was this the historic home of the Cambridge Don mentioned in documents on the history of Gerton and the book Gerton History, but it was also the country centre for many years, a seat of enriching educational learning and courses for Cambridgeshire teachers. Apart from this, it is a beautiful, gracious and fascinating building, and which many of us are extremely fond as a special local immunity. The trees, particularly the large sequoia, were used by course leaders at the country centre to demonstrate nature activities and created ideas for teachers to use in the schools. The details of the proposed new build also questioned the need for a new care home opening in this location. We already have a number of such homes for the retired and elderly in the village. I would prefer the present building being converted into a care home rather than being demolished. There is a far greater need in this area for a hotel. If the Felix Hotel was crumbling, damp, dangerous, or beyond saving, or even ugly, and I saw this would be a different matter, I must see no rhyme or reason for demolishing the building. It can easily be adapted to a high standard. It is special, unique and irreplaceable. We have also had an updated response from a contaminated land section. We have received some further information regarding contamination of the risks. They have recommended three conditions, which are already part of the report. These are recommended conditions, numbers 9, 10 and 11. The only difference between the recommended conditions from a contaminated land section and the proposed conditions is that the first condition, number 9, the trigger for submission is prior to development, taking place with the exception of demolition. I hope everyone can see the first slide, so I will start my presentation. The application is at the former Hotel Felix at White House Lane in Cambridge, although actually within the parish of Gerton. The application site is situated at the southern end of the village of Gerton to the north of White House Lane and to the east of Huntington Road. The site lies outside the Gerton Village Development Framework and within Open Countryside and the Green Bend. From here you can see the location of it, so you have got Gerton Village pretty much here, White House Lane here, Cambridge there and the Hotel Felix there. The site has numerous protected trees within it and on its boundaries the site lies within Flood Zone 1 with a public footpath running north south along White House Lane, which also forms a cycle route down in Green. Immediately to the east of the site lies the boundary of Cambridge City Council. The application site is currently, sorry, I'll just show you some views. This is a current view from Huntington Road. The actual site is behind here, so I think you can just about see where the existing building is. This is the view currently along White House Lane of the proposed site. This is another one just showing the context of White House Lane and these are views towards the site from the public footpath. So the application site is a large 52 bedroom hotel with a restaurant setting landscape grounds and access for a drive from White House Lane. The building is now permanently closed. It's comprised of an original Victorian main house with laser extensions in the form of a single story and two story wings to the side and rear. The site lies adjacent to the rear garden's neighbouring properties to the northeast in Thornton Place. There's a separation to the northeast in Thornton Place and there's also properties here in the brambles. So the proposal would involve the demolition of the hotel and restaurant and the construction of an 80 bedroom care home facility with associated recreational spaces, clinic facilities, back to back house facilities, kitchens and recreational facilities. The proposal includes a dementia research centre that can in-house care to professionals working at Adam Bricks Hospital and the wider community. The siting of the proposed care home would be largely in the same position as the existing building, slightly to the west and further south allowing sufficient distance to provide a level of amenity to the adjacent residents and respect the green belt and views to and from the site. The replacement structure would be predominantly two stories with a localised three story feature to mark the entrance to the care home. So in terms of the design of what is proposed, oops sorry, let's go back to this bit. So the existing hotel feel exists to be demolished as part of the proposal. So I'm just going to show you some pictures of the existing building. This is the one that's to the southwest. This is the original elephant building but this doesn't form the main entrance to the actual site. This is the existing entrance to the site and this is the northwest facing elevation. So the existing building doesn't benefit from protection against demolition through listing status or through being located within a conservation area. Demolition can be carried out under schedule to Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2015 through the submission of a prior approval. However, officers consider that the building is an undesignated heritage asset of moderate significance and is therefore material consideration in the determination of this planning application. Although the reuse of buildings is favoured over demolition, wherever possible, demolition and new construction may be acceptable where the original structure is no longer fit for purpose and the replacement building produces a more sustainable development. There are no policies within the Adopted Local Plan, MPF or the Council's Sustainability SPD that seek to retain existing buildings on the grounds that it is not a sustainable approach to development to demolish. So this is the proposal, this is what is proposed to replace the existing building. The proposed design has been inspired by a neoclassical aesthetic. The principal external materials are plain grey brick and the pitched roof is slate. As I've mentioned before, there will be a landscape scheme that's accompanying the development. This will consist of a century garden, private terraces, ground floor bedrooms, a residence garden, an associated parking court. The north-western end of the building is approximately in line with the adjacent to end to the north, and as I've mentioned before, has moved marginally third towards the north-western gyrton. I'm just going to go through some slides showing the design of the building. This would be the one that faces one of the open spaces to the south-east. This is just a CGI showing the material effect of what it could look like. Again, this is another one showing it in relation to its landscape grounds. This just generally shows the elevations showing, as I said, the neoclassical design to it, some more elevations which were in the drawing pack. This is another CGI showing the potential courtyard, what it would look like. With respect to the design and appearance of the care home, officers are at the opinion that this is acceptable, and the proposed building and its surroundings would provide a high-quality living environment for future occupiers. As such, it's in accordance with policy HQ slash 1. There are a number of trees on the site, which are covered by tree preservation orders. It's proposed that a number of trees are to be removed to make way for the development, and also that a number of trees are to be relocated. Here we've just got an indication of existing trees on site. The trees in yellow are the ones that are supposed to be relocated and planted elsewhere in the site. I will show you a slide of that later on in my presentation. As I mentioned before, the application site is within the Cainbridge green belt. It is situated in the finger of the green belt, which separates the village of Gerton from the city of Cainbridge. This shows the green belt. Here you've got the village framework of Gerton. This in grey is the city of Cainbridge. This sliver of green belt is known as the Gerton Gap. This area is bounded by Huntington Road to the north west by residential properties. In Foulton Road and the Brambles. The development framework, as I say there, to the south east by White House Lane. On the opposite side of White House Lane is the Nair building in the city of Cainbridge. This area of land includes the house close sports ground to the north-eastern end of the site. The playing fields in the south-west end are both used by England Ruskin University. This area of land clearly separates the edge of the city of Cainbridge from the suburban part of Gerton. The existing Hotel Felix is located within this gap and appears to bridge the gap. Maintaining this gap is important in terms of the evolution of both settlements. It should be important that they are not seen as merging into or substituting one another. Officers consider the main issues of the impact on the green belt, openness and the purposes of the green belt. PolicyNHslash9 of the local plan states that redevelopment of previously developed sites and infilling in the green belt will be inappropriate development. Except for the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites, whether redundant or in continuing use. Which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development. Paragraph149 of the MPPF states that the construction of new buildings in the green belt should be regarded as inappropriate, though there are exceptions. The first assessment determines whether the development would be inappropriate or not. Paragraph149G is relevant to this application. Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt than the existing development. The application site does comprise previously developed land of wise knowns brownfield land, which would be redeveloped. An assessment is made on whether the proposed development would have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt than the existing. This shows the existing footprint of the hotel and the proposed footprint of the care home. As I showed you earlier, the elevations do show the detailing of the building. The proposal would result in an approximately 13% increase in built footprint and an approximately 33% increase in associated volumes, which are largely derived from the overall increase in the building height. This is a result of modern architectural standards, which require greater floor to ceiling heights across the whole scheme compared to the existing building. However, there is also an approximately 16% decrease in perimeter development with the reduction in hard surface car parking. So when considering the impact of the openness of the green belt, this is not affected by natural screening as these are not permanent features. Openness means the absence of buildings or development. Although the harm to the openness of the building is not considered to be significant, given the increase in footprint and volume and the visual perception of being closer to properties in the brambles, on balance officers consider that the spatial and visual harm would have greater impact on the openness of the green belt and the proposal would therefore constitute. Inappropriate development, which is by definition harmful to the green belt and should not be approved except in various special circumstances. The proposal would therefore conflict with policy MH9 of the local plan and would fail to comply with paragraph 149G of the MPPF. In addition to the harm by reason of inappropriateness, the proposal is also considered to result in harm by virtue of the loss of openness to the green belt and conflict with the purposes of the green belt. With respect to impact upon landscape character, the application site is in the countryside but is not identified as being located within a valued landscape with the subject of any statutory designation. Although the proposed built form is volumetrically larger and has a slightly larger footprint, its visual impact in terms of the building seen in the context of the wider landscape will be broadly similar. The landscape officer has not raised an objection in regards to the impact of the proposed building in the wider landscape and as such a proposal is not considered to conflict with the MPPF or local plan in this regard. The MPPF states that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The applicant has advanced a number of matters which they consider amounts of very special circumstances and which they consider clearly outweighing the harm to the green belt. These are laid out in paragraph 10.32 to 10.40 of the report on page 28. These very special circumstances are, as follows, the critical need for housing for older people, critically needed dementia care facilities, improved choice of care bed spaces, the developer will indirectly contribute to the housing land supply within the district, the site would provide economic benefits by generating jobs in the construction and operational phases of the development and by residents spending locally. There would be social benefits in specialised age-friendly housing and the scheme would deliver significant environment benefits. This is considered the proposal would meet an identified need for specialist C2 housing with a focus on dementia care and provision of a dementia research centre. The proposal would provide economic benefits including additional employment through the construction and operational phases. The site is also previously developed land within the green belt. These factors are considered to carry significant weight as very special circumstances. The other benefits such as the release of existing housing stock, improved choice of bed spaces, social benefits, biodiversity enhancements within the green belt and economic multiplier effects, increased expenditure, a less outstanding and carry moderate limited weight. But nevertheless, these also contribute as very special circumstances. Nevertheless, taken together, officers consider these factors do amount to very special circumstances which act way what is a balanced assessment regarding harm to the green belt. The identified circumstances have been assessed against identified harm. Paragraph 148 of the MPPS states that very special circumstances do not exist, sorry will not exist unless potential harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The proposal would result in the loss of a non-designated heritage asset which is considered a modest appearance. Significance. The building is not protected by virtue of being listed. It is immune from such designation or located within a conservation area. Furthermore, the council has not identified any other buildings of local heritage interest within the local plan. As such, officers attach limited weight to this in terms of a harm caused by the proposal. Given these circumstances, officers of the view that the loss of non-designated heritage asset carries limited weight, this loss is balanced against a replacement building which is of a high architectural quality, highly sustainable and would provide a high quality care home built to 21st century standards and with a high level of immunity for future residents. To conclude, all identified harm has been weighed in the planning balance against the very special circumstances that have been identified. It is the officers judgment that the case for very special circumstances would clearly outweigh the identified harm that would arise as a result of the development, even assigning harm substantial weight as per the national policy. Having taken into account the provisions of the development plan, MPPF and MPPG guidance, the views of statutory consultees and wider stakeholders, as well as all other material planning considerations, such as the very special circumstances, the proposed development is recommended for approval subject to a section 106 requiring various contributions to the parish of Girton. To conclude, the application is recommended for approval. Thank you, chair. Mary, thank you very much. That was very thorough. I'm sure members fully appreciate the full description of the application you've given us there. Members, we do have a number of public speakers on this, but before we move to them, I'll offer committee members a chance to ask any questions of clarification they might have for officers at this stage before we move on. Councillor Richard Williams, then Hawkins. Thank you very much, chair. I just wanted to ask some questions around this issue of critical need for housing for older people, which quite a lot of emphasis is laid on in the planning balance. So we've got a representation or a submission from the county council, which says there isn't a critical need. It was quite clear on that. Then a slightly separate but related question of paragraph 16.4. We have a submission under the heading of policy, which sort of discusses the different figures that are around. Can I ask, as I say, a separate but related question within my broader question, who is that statement from? Because at one point it refers to the councils and talks about we. Just at the bottom, she's on page 15. It says the councils have requested further information from the county council so we can better understand how their estimates relate to the GL Hearn Study. So is that policy statement a statement from the council, or is it a statement from the NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough clinical commissioning group? Because I wasn't really very clear who was actually making those comments. But yeah, my broader question really is around this issue of need, because we do have evidence here actually from a statutory consultation, that there is no need. We seem to be putting a lot of reliance on the applicant's own assessment, which they wouldn't have submitted if it didn't demonstrate need. So can you say a little bit more about that issue, please, about the difference between those two figures? Sure, so I think whichever officer wants to answer, I think there's just a question around the discrepancy between what our statutory consultee, the county counciller, is saying regarding need and this report that the applicant has commissioned from Carterwood. And again, I think there's a question again around section 6.14 policy. Who authored that? Three chair, I'll pick this up. So the comments at 6.14 in the report are from our policy team, and the specific point you asked there at the end of that comment is from our policy colleagues in terms of wanting clarity from the county about the not. So just to clarify it, so that is not evidence from a health authority? No. Okay, thank you. And in that same paragraph, there's a highlighted section which states that the county council has undertaken its own analysis, which finds a much lower level of need. And this discrepancy is due to the county council estimates being strongly led by proposed change in their commissioning strategy. So the county are looking at their provision of responsibility for provision of care, and they are looking at obviously how their need going forward in terms of what they feel is going to be required and the strategies that they've got in place for delivering the care needs into the future. And those numbers don't correlate with the need that have been identified by our own policy colleagues, plus those that have come forward from the applicant themselves. So that is my understanding as to why there is a lower level of need from the county in the figures that they have then produced. Okay, so just to come back on that then, presumably you would agree that that's a relevant point for us because if the county is changing its policy and that change in policy will affect the need, then that's a relevant consideration for us when it comes to the planning balance. Following on from that, I suppose what is the advice from officers? What should we give more weight to? The county council's response based on their emerging policy or our own policy team in-house? I suppose that's the question about which figures or which calculation of needs do we rely upon. The fact that our own policy colleagues' comments are effectively corroborating with the numbers that have come forward and the applicant are aware of the view that they should carry more weight than what the county has said at this point. Because our own policy colleagues are questioning the numbers that they've come up with and so far have not been given an answer as to why the need that they've identified is so much lower than our own policy position as well as those of the applicant have identified. Okay, we have a few more questions. Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you very much, Chair. I think I've got a couple of questions. The first one is on the fact that I think this particular property is, if you look at paragraph 1058, sorry, 1059, the conservation officer is of the opinion that the modest significance of this particular building indicates that it can be categorised as a non-designated heritage asset. I think our planning policy, I think it's NH15, also refers to that, but somehow we seem to have given little weight to this non-designated heritage asset. Why have we done that? My second question is on paragraph 1039, which is only by the Vasidine Edwin assessment that's been prepared. I recognise that this was done perhaps a few months ago, but there's now a metric 3.1, and metric 2 was what was used. Has there been an update on that or not? I'll leave that for now. I've got other questions, but... Did officers catch those two questions? Yes, thank you, Chair. So obviously a non-designated heritage asset doesn't have the same level of weight as a designated heritage asset. And as Mary's pointed out in the presentation, the assessment from our conservation colleges is that it has a modest significance, and I think it's described as a typical example of Victorian villa. It's not been identified as something that has a particularly exceptional architectural or historical interest, even as a non-designated heritage asset. And as Mary's pointed out as well, it has been assessed as to whether it can be considered as a designated heritage asset. It hasn't been given that level of protection. It's got a certificate of immunity for that assessment. Therefore, officers are saying that it has annuals of a modest significance in the context of looking at heritage assets. And the MPPF talks about, obviously, the assessment and significance of non-designated heritage assets, and that they obviously are a material planning consideration in weighing those material considerations up when you're looking at the proposals. And that really, when you're looking at those assets, there's a balanced judgement to be made having regard to the scale of the harm. Obviously there is a harm because it's obviously been lost totally, but also in the context of the significance of that asset and we don't consider there is a high significance and that's why we've come to that decision. In terms of the biodiversity metric, yes, it's been done under the old metric. I think the tidiest application came in, that was the metric that was in use and I'm not aware that a revised metric has been carried out under the subsequent version that's come forward. Thank you for that. And we have a question from Councillor Stobart who's online, Richard. Yes, thank you, Chair. So my questions were twofold. First of all, regarding the building performance and by building performance I'm thinking about energy performance. And secondly on the mechanical services, obviously heating ventilating and air conditioning. So first of all on the building performance I didn't note in the documentation any specific reference to building performance. So I would be expecting to see some metrics and perhaps officers could point out whether I've just overlooked those things. So we'd be looking for example performance as a fraction or percentage of say passive house standards. Bear in mind this building will be functioning for about 50, 70 years. And we're already aware that the number of hot days in the summer and potentially in the future cold days in the winter is set to increase is this building adequate for those likely changes. I'm particularly thinking about summer performance where the number of 30 degree plus days is on the increase. So that's the first part. Is the building performance adequate for the lifespan of the building? And secondly in relation to mechanical electrical services I found the references to energy quite vague. I mean there are some good aspects such as a proper management strategy which is vital. So that meets some of the passive house standards. But there is no mention for example of solar. This building does lend itself I would suggest to inclusion of quite a significant amount of solar generation. And secondly the report that's part of the package documentation on the planning website. The justification for a combined heat and power scheme which is I think decidedly old school, old fashioned is based on energy tariffs of 2020. So bear in mind that those tariffs will likely have doubled or even more by the time this building is commissioned. I think that needs another look. There is no mention, no justification or comparison of what I would call sensible modern heating schemes based on heat pumps. Councillor Ston, I'm sorry to interrupt. Is there a question of clarification for the officers? We're going to have a debate on the application later. We're just questions of clarity on the officer's presentation at the moment. Is there a question specifically you had for the officers? No, forgive my misunderstanding chair of the process but the clarity is where are those, where is that information? Okay, so I think it was just a more of a general question about where in the report or wherever else it might be sitting is the information regarding building performance green energy, energy tariffs, et cetera. Three chair, thank you for that clarification. Paragraph 10.64 through to 10.69 on page 34 talk about carbon reduction and sustainable design and it is in this section that referenced the applicants energy strategy is made and that's at paragraph 10.68. That sets out a number of points where the sustainability credentials of the building are outlined with regard to a fabric first approach for the structure, high fabric efficiency as a result of that, efficient building services, targets of performance parameters, better than notional part L requirements, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery and low energy lighting throughout the building. So there are a number of points that are picked up there and I would say that under the requirements of the new part L there are now more stringent energy conservation requirements as of that and this building will be required to meet those part L requirements. There is also a condition requiring renewable or low carbon energy performance to be demonstrated and that needs to be demonstrating a minimum of 10% carbon reductions from the building through those low energy, sorry, low carbon or renewable sources. So officers are satisfied in that regard and at 6.20 in the report on page 16 the council sustainability officer has been consulted and noting those points that I've just raised has not made any objection to the application in regard to sustainable design. In terms of the point around overheating, again there's a new requirement under part O of the building regulations that is now being picked up with regards to overheating and obviously this building will be required to meet those requirements as set out on the building regulations so that is sitting outside of the planning process now given the introduction of part O under the building regulations. The last point was around, sorry, I've missed the last point. Oh the energy tariffs, yes. Obviously the timing application came in which was around 17 months ago. Obviously those tariffs would have been much lower as you pointed out at this point but again for the reasons I've just explained we're satisfied that they're meeting policy requirements with regard to sustainable design. There's no policy requirement in terms of passive house provision that they would need to meet although I understand that yes they are sort of exemplar standards but at this stage there's no requirement that they need to demonstrate passive house requirements. Thank you chair. Thank you. And councillor Slaidbot, obviously there will be another opportunity to debate which follows our public speaking to raise these points again should you wish to. Members, I've got no one else wanting any questions or clarifications so we'll move on to our public speakers who I believe are all joining us in the room. First up we have Mr Tom Bygot. Those of you who don't know Tom was a district councillor so I'm sure you're familiar with the process. Good to see you again by the way. So three minutes to present your views to the committee at the end of which if you would mind staying seated in case there's any questions or clarifications for yourself at the end. So please whenever you're ready. Thank you Chairman. This application is for the demolition of a magnificent and much-loved Victorian villa formerly called How House. Built in 1852 as a private home it has been renovated to the highest standard as a luxury hotel. Capturing the exuberance of the Victorian age its unusual design combines a Dutch gable with bow windows. It is an essential part of Gertran's heritage. Had it been built 20 years earlier it would be grade two listed. But sadly Victorian buildings are not as well protected as Georgian ones. Victorian architecture has been seen as unfashionable and this prejudice still remains in the listing rules. How House is locally listed in the Cambridgeshire Record. This is the most recent list of heritage assets as Southcams hasn't yet created a register. Paragraphs 1804-202 of the MPPF set out the planning basis for preserving local heritage assets, non-designated ones as do policies NH-14, HQ-1 and DP-1 of the local plan. So next slide. How House marked in red is a small building on a very large plot of land. The new building would fit as designed on either side of it. There is also ample room to build around it as the hotel had been. If floor heights are an issue there is no reason why the care home needs to connect with How House on the same level. It could be used for staff or visitors or even for an unrelated purpose. It is not necessary to demolish How House to build a care home on this site. A design preserving it has never been publicly considered. It is the duty of this council to insist that such a design is considered. The wrecking ball should always be the last option. Never the first. The green belt and the curtain gap were defined long after How House was built. So the next slide. It is the only reason this land can be used commercially. Otherwise it will be public park land. The developer assumes that demolition is necessary to include the floor space. This assumption is wrong. Paragraph 202 of the NPPF says that it is possible to depart from other policies in order to save a heritage asset. Preserving How House is sufficient reason to allow an increase in floor space. This council has set itself the vision of being green to the core. It is not sustainable to continually demolish and rebuild buildings, especially those in excellent condition. How House is irreplaceable and not just because of its outward appearance. It was built of long lasting materials that can, with proper maintenance, last forever. Modern buildings, however much they superficially resemble traditional ones, use obsolescent materials and to typically have a design life of 75 years. Some, like the hotel extensions, are demolished after only 20 years. To demolish How House would be an act of cultural vandalism and also of environmental vandalism. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Members, does any member have any questions of clarification for Mr Bygott? No, I don't see that. It's obviously very clear. Thank you very much for taking the time to come to speak to us this morning. We'll move on to our next public speaker who is speaking on behalf of the applicant, Mr David Rowe. Good morning. As with the previous speaker, three minutes to address the committee at the end of which, if you could stay seated in case there are any questions of clarification for yourself. Please whenever you're ready. Good morning. I'm David Rowe, the Land and Plumbing Director for Kin, the care operator. This application has numerous and significant benefits and offers very special circumstances which are indisputable. We are meeting a need for carebed spaces by proposing to create a modern, best-in-class nursing and dementia care facility providing round-the-clock care for 80 elderly and vulnerable local residents. The need was crucially noted and a recent appeal decision in South Cambridgeshire. The new dementia excellence centre will provide training and research into this condition between staff and leading professionals from Adam Brooks and NHS Foundation Trust. There will be on-site provision for healthcare and GP services. There will be a significant biodiversity net gain. A number of trees on-site will increase from 84 to 139. A 16% decrease in the perimeter of the development would enhance the gyrtin gap and increase the area of landscape grounds. The new home will create around 115 new jobs, relieving pressure on the NHS and local public health services. The scheme will positively contribute towards the council's housing requirements unlocking under-occupied larger homes for families. The new building will enable the delivery of expert care in a purpose-designed and built environment that offers standards and will never about the need for quality accommodation, including full-wet room provision and higher standards in building design. Not only is there an unquestable need for more bed spaces, but also a critical need to provide better care accommodation. The first task undertaken was an assessment of the existing building to determine its suitability for retention and then looked to provide services deemed essential by the CQC. The current building is not DDA compliant, has poor building fabric, has both internal and external levels issues and also suffers from some stipends. Whilst attractive in small parts, the building has been heavily altered through demolition and sympathetic extension and alteration. In short, the existing building cannot provide excellence in terms of sustainability or offer the best quality of life to its residents or visitors. The location is highly sustainable for care. Ideally located for staffing, transport and amenities. This new state-of-the-art home would serve those elderly residents and their families at the most vulnerable time of their lives. In summary, we believe that our proposed redevelopment represents the most compelling opportunity for this previously developed site and provides excellent fabric first, sustainability and green credentials, including CHP. We believe this is a high quality, elegant design that offers a perfect opportunity to help improve the lives of local people with the most complex needs. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm perfectly timed, so I appreciate that. Members, do you have any questions of clarification for the applicant Mr Rho? I've got three speakers starting with Councillor Hawkins, then Williams and then Handley. Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Mr Rho, for your presentation. Let me start with the trees. There is a TPO on the site, I understand. And you mentioned that, I think, it's in... I beg your pardon, there's somewhere where you are going to... some trees. How do you propose to move? These are already semi-mature trees without killing them? Well, we're actually proposing to plant semi-mature trees as well in addition to what's existing there, so the removal would be using what's, especially this removal tool called a spade, and basically goes around the trunk and digs an area of the root protection ball that is suitable for moving these trees and then relocates it into a large, whole suitable for those trees to go into. So this is a practice that has been done many times before. Successfully. Okay, thanks for that. Now on to the building itself, that is of concern. You mentioned that you had a look at the fabric and all that and this poor fabric and there's an element of subsidence. Can you explain just how much subsidence? When you say poor fabric, I'm sorry, but I don't understand how poor that fabric is and why that fabric could not be improved. Essentially, the building is suffering from lots of different issues, subsidence within the building itself, not just the cartilage off the walls, so internal staircases, basement foundations, the structure of the actual building itself. If you looked at some of those photos and zoomed in, you'll see that there's lots of cracks around windows within the brickwork itself. So the whole building is unstable, a presence, and the fabric itself is very old. It's a Victorian villa. The sustainability credentials are keeping it heated and keeping it cool, and the amni requirements that would need to go into it on fit for that purpose with floor-to-ceiling pipes as well. Sorry, can I come back? I know a bit about subsidence. I know a bit about subsidence. Cracks by windows and stuff like that. That does happen, yes, but the type of soil that that building is on is not one that causes subsidence. As far as I know, I might be wrong. There isn't anything that I can see that would cause the subsidence that you seem to be referring to. I visited it yesterday. I saw it yesterday. This is not me professionally telling you. This is structural engineers that have carried out this and the site reports. Lot of convinced. Thank you very much. We have Councillor Williams, please. Thank you very much for your comments. You said in your presentation that there was an unquestionable need for extra care, so you can probably guess what I'm going to come on to. A couple of questions on that. What's your response to the submission we've got from the county, who are the experts here on the statutory consultee that there is no need? A related point, you've obviously submitted your report from Carterwood. That report I think is dated December 2020. That's certainly the figures or that's certainly the data on the report that's listed online. Lot of emphasis is laid in this application on the appeal decision in Stapleford. By definition, the Stapleford Care Centre can't have been taken into account in coming up with these figures if they're from the 2020 report because it hadn't got planning commission there. What impact would that development have on this? Presumably that's going to meet some, if not quite a lot, identified in your report. So it would be helpful if you could explain what the impact of the Stapleford decision is on the need figures that you've put in. Then just one other point. You mentioned at one point in your presentation that this development would relieve pressure on the NHS. Again, one of our statutory consultees, the NHS Cambridge and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group has told us that the local GP service simply couldn't serve the needs of another 80-bed care home. They describe it as simply not tenable for the local primary care providers to be able to service the need there. So I'd be interested in your response to that as well. No problem. There's quite a few things there. Just on the Stapleford and the Carterwood report and the submission dates, the Stapleford scheme was taken into account in the report because, as part of those reports, Carterwood would take into account any submitted applications and the Stapleford site went to appeal so the actual application was included. The numbers of those units were included within the Carterwood figures, so those have all already been counted. To my knowledge, the Stapleford scheme is also now not looking to have an element of care, time and housing instead, with discussions with the latest developers there. I think all the reports I've seen, including the County Council, state there is a demand for care beds and it's how you interpret the level of that. So some are very high and critical, some take midpoints, some take low points. The County Council's view to looking at providing care at home, which is cheaper than providing care in care homes, skews them towards using a lower figure, but still that figure represents a need. What none of those figures in any of those reports really show is the, well, they show that there's a quantitative need for those care beds, but what they very rarely show is the qualitative need for those care beds as well and the lack of en suite facilities that are provided within a lot of care homes. During the COVID-19, there was a lot of care home debt issues because people were sharing bathrooms. People have a small bedroom sharing bathrooms and they couldn't contain the spread. What this building offers is a design that has everyone with their own private space and or even on top of that smaller communities within the home so that we can restrain any infection control to a very localised area if not a single bedroom. When it comes down to the CCG comments, so we would be a private care home operator, private paid care home operator, which would employ our own carers and nurses. We would retain the local GP surgery, but what happens is that most of our residents' needs can be paid for by our own carers and nurses, reducing hospital stays with the NHS, but also reducing the number of call-outs from local GP as well. That retain that would enable the local GP to come into the care home to do their rounds on a much 16th smaller time basis rather than having to go out to individual people's homes. Obviously that accounts for their time and cost. What I would say is that the reports have been produced, assumed that we would be opening and operating this thing up in 2023. As the officer said, 17 months now are passed on this application and that timeframe is now probably pushed out to 2025 and the care requirement is only going one way with regards to the number of people requiring bed spaces. This will be a delayed response to that need that is currently there. Thank you. I just want to come back on two points. It's referenced in our report and you sort of made the point that it's a private care home, but it was referenced somewhere in our report that this would be on the luxury end of the care home market. Is that correct and would that not mean that you're actually servicing a very particular market, not the sort of general market for care beds if you're operating at that luxury end? So if you could just confirm whether that's the case and really therefore whether that does limit the number of people who would be able to use the facility and then just very quickly another one. Obviously the location of this is right on the boundary between Cambridge and South Cams. A lot of the figures have been cited about South Cams, not Cambridge. But is it not the case really that a lot of the demand for this or this is going to service people really from Cambridge, not from South Cams. I mean it might service people along the A14 corridor, but not for the majority of South Cams I would say given its location. Taking that point first, the South Cams requirement and the need base of beds is to fulfil any demand and supply from this care home. On top of that there is Cambridge figures, which yes they were able to, but overall in nearly doubles the demand for care home beds. As regards to the luxury element I would say that this is a private pay purpose built high quality scheme that in fact if possible if local authority rates would enable that every care home should aspire to. So it's really the latest thinking and latest design. Future bringing the care needs of residents going forwards. CQC standards are probably well, well, well, well, it should be at the moment and we believe people should have more space, more accommodation and more communal facilities. On top of that we've got like as communities within it catering for dementia care. I would say this is at the upper end of the market but I call it luxury. I just call it fit for purpose. I think private pay residents what they should deserve. Thank you sir. Ron councillor, handily, please. Thank you. Yes, related to the last questions on Councillor Williams really, could we foresee that some of the clients. Hello everybody, welcome back to Cambridge Accounting Council's planning committee. We are still on the agenda item five, which is the former hotel Felix site in Gertan. We've just concluded the public speaking element but before we move on it's probably worth noting for our committee members. We have received a written report from one of the local members, Councillor Karine Garvey. Members have had their email to them and also some members now have a paper copy in front of them. I'm not proposing on running through that but if any members wish to reference that during the debate, that's up to you. We also have the other local member, Councillor Richard Stobart who's joined us virtually and is joining us as a member, a non-voting member of the committee today but I understand he wants to reserve his comments for the debate rather than speak specifically as local member. Councillor Stobart, if you could just confirm that very quickly for us. Yes, chair, I'd like to confirm that as you just expressed it. Thank you very much. I believe we also have two declarations of interest, one from Councillor Hale and one from Councillor Williams. Yes, thank you Chairman. Chairman, I, like several other members of the committee, already know former councillor by God and I'm a friend of his and have socialised him since the mayor elections. However, I'm not that close of a friend of his because I would have known that he would have been here and he would have known I would have been here so we haven't discussed this matter and I'm approaching this matter fresh. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Williams, presumably something similar. Yes, although I won't cast suspensions on my level of friendship with you. Tom was in my group. I know Tom, but obviously approaching this matter fresh. One other point, chair, did you want me to raise my clarification points about the numbers in the debate or now? I suppose we are in the debate. We'll move into the debate but I'll come to you first. But before we move off declarations it's probably worth noting all returning councillors also probably no councillor, former councillor by God at some point as well because we've been noting that in the minutes just as a general blanket declaration. Members, with that we'll move into the debate now. Councillor Williams, I believe you wanted to raise a point around the projected need numbers. Yes, I did. I've just checked the numbers. In my exchange with the applicant I asked if the Stakelford beds were included. I've checked the 2020 report and the numbers that are used in that report are the numbers from table T17 in that report. They exactly replicate what's in 10, 12 of our agenda pack. Adding up the numbers in appendix 2 or 3 of that report I don't think that those numbers do include the Stakelford development because that's done down in a different category. The table in the report talks about plan delivery. If you add those numbers up in the appendix it comes to the numbers in our report. That doesn't include the Stakelford numbers. If I could get some clarification on that that would be very helpful. Through you, Chair. The Stakelford decision is referenced in the applicant's needs assessment. The point of the need that is being assessed here is saying that this site would have been available at 2023 to be delivered. The need in that year has been assessed. The Stakelford decision is listed as coming forward in 2024 so it would have fallen outside of that period. It's acknowledged that there is an application at the time that was in. It's now been the subject of an appeal which has been allowed but in terms of its delivery, it was going to be beyond the timescale that this care home was coming forward. Is that clarified? Thank you, Mr Duz. Thank you very much. Members, we're now into the full debate section of the procedure. Members, if you wish to make any further comments or if you have any further questions that will help you come to a decision on this now is the opportunity. We have Councillor Sanford and then Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. On page 29, paragraph 1037 and subsequent locations, there's reference to a dementia research centre and I think Adam Brooks' name was thrown in later in the document. I do not see any representations from Adam Brooks or medical professionals on the need for this. In fact, Google tells me Adam Brooks already has its own dementia research centre in Cambridge and Hills Roadside. Is there actually a demonstrated need for another dementia research centre in the area? I don't know if any officer wishes to tackle that one regarding the need for dementia facilities. I'm not aware that there is a need for it if Adam Brooks have already got a facility whether this is complementary because there will be dementia patients and residents within the care home that there is some synergy with providing a research centre as part of that. That's as far as I know on that point. Thank you. Sorry, I skipped over another name on my list. Councillor Feins next and then Hawkins. Thank you, Chair. If I may, I'll make one point of clarification as we're in the debate a couple of points on that. Just to confirm, immediately before we broke we were assured that there was a structural engineers report on the state of Howell House. I think I'm right in saying we haven't been able to find that so I assume we won't be able to take that into account but it's reasonable to take Mr Rose's assurances on that point. I think there are a number of key points about this application. The first is obviously the green belt status of the land and I think the key question is relating to paragraph 149G of the NPPF as to the openness of the land. I think the Gertan gap is of significant importance to Gertan in particular. It isn't just the green belt question but as to the extent of the buildings I think it's clear looking at the footprint that the current buildings which would be demolished extend further into the gap to the southeast than the proposed new building but nonetheless we are very dependent on the question of very special circumstances. I don't propose to go into this because I think Councillor Williams and Councillor Sanford have both raised points on that no doubt others may too but I think I would just say that I'm not entirely satisfied that the very special circumstances which would be required exist in this case but my primary concern in determining this is in relation to the non-designated heritage asset which is how, house, not the extensions and so on. Clearly there are, we are satisfied, problems with subsidence and so on but I think my impression on Milius of Erbult my impression would be that they are not such as would not normally be found in relation to a Victorian house of that era in which given the soil type would not be capable of reparation but I may be wrong on that. I just think that as the NPPF paragraph 204 in particular says we have to give very special consideration to the protection of non-designated heritage assets and so I won't state a conclusion but I am yet to be satisfied on that point and I would be inclined to say that since it seems to me not impossible to incorporate how, house, the protection of that non-designated heritage asset should be a key consideration for us. Thank you, Councillor Fein. Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you, Chair. Actually my first point follows very nicely from Councillor Feins. I am quite concerned about the non-designated heritage asset and its importance to Gertran community and actually without seeing a structural report allegedly that talks about subsidence at this property, I am afraid. I cannot take that as a fact and we know that the fabric, I mean we are already working with some owners of older buildings on how they can make the fabric of their properties more green and so for me, I know that there's ways of doing that and therefore the fabric of the building it's not crumbling, it's not pulling down. I think something can be done with it and in fact that asset itself sits within the section that will be used for the new building so it's not outside of it, it doesn't extend into the gap it's within that section so as far as I'm concerned it can be incorporated. I'm not convinced that the special circumstances are heavy enough to provide that balance. Second thing for me is, again I mentioned this before by the trees and the net gain, the fact that we have TPO on the site and there's potential to move certain trees what we've not been shown is which ones are being moved and where are they being moved to and I think also if you've read Councillor Garvey's response that's one of the things that she's worried about too. So if we can be shown that, that would be helpful and yes you might plan some more semi-mature trees and all that as the applicant's representative has said but at the end of the day we've not seen that we've not seen any proposals for where those will go. So at this point in time I am not convinced about this application just yet but of course I'll listen to what everybody else has to say. Thank you. Would it be, I think we're trying to so I think we're trying to find a slide to help explain the tree question I think we're just searching for that so while we're looking for that we'll move on to our next speaker but we will come back to the specific point around the trees. Councillor Handley, you're next on the list. Thank you. Just a couple of points if I may chair. The first thing is and I think a key part of our report can be found in the last power of page 13 our quote, we're talking about GP services locally and it says, regardless of whether or not additional GPs admin and clerical staff can be recruited to cover the additional need there is no space to accommodate them at the workforce. The practises patient list already exceeds capacity. That gives me real concerns. We're often accused not taken into account when we make decisions whether or not medical practises can cope with the extra numbers. I'm afraid I think often unfairly but we are criticised. Here we've got it in black and white and I think we ignore it at our, I think we should not ignore it. The second thing I would make comment on is the house and the surveyors report and call me cynical but I think if it was falling down we'd have seen a report. Thank you. I wonder if we're making any progress with the tree question. If not we can go on to our next speaker if you need a few more minutes. We're bringing up a slide to everyone so I hope to attempt to answer the question around trees and moving trees with TPO's etc. Thank you. This is the existing cultural impact assessment showing the trees on the site. These ones here in green with a blue. Yeah, so these here, yeah these ones here in green with a blue outline of these little lines to be proposed to be relocated elsewhere in the site. The ones in blue are trees are going to be retained and any in red are ones that to be removed. The proposed landscaping shows the position of the relocated trees on this boundary here. These are the relocated ones. There's one there. So, yeah, our landscaping plan would show that. This is the other half of the site showing the landscaping. Right, yeah. This is the proposed site plan just showing the trees to be retained. To be retained. So we have got the details of where the trees. And for clarity, which, if any, trees to be removed have protection orders on them? Well, Chair, I didn't think any are protected of tree preservation orders that are going to be. Okay, no, that's good, that's clear. Thank you, Mary. Our next question is Councillor Stobart who's online. Richard, if you'd like to contribute to the debate. Sure. So, I'll just go back over some of the ground that I introduced during my, as a work clarification question which went a little too far, but if I could just start with the business model for the camp, I know this is not our immediate concern, but here we are looking at a building which will be part of a business, and therefore we need to be sure that we may want to satisfy ourselves that it is sufficiently future-proofed that it will continue to function in the role for which it's being built into the foreseeable future. So, well beyond our time, but in 50 years time, will this still be viable? And is there enough potential in the design to do retrofits that might be typically for energy and environment? And is it basically fit for that kind of long-term usage? So, I did highlight one or two things when I was speaking earlier which was an energy architecture which is sufficiently adaptable and flexible that it can meet those future concerns. The answer I got from Phil, thank you Phil for pointing those building regulations out and the fact that they will be changing, but it just felt from the energy analysis that had been done was really achieving the absolute minimum. And I know there will be some changes, but given the presentation on the architecture which was, yeah, this is a progressive architecture. I mean it's obviously addressing a certain period style, but it is good architecture. Are the mechanical services sufficiently backing that up? I think that there is quality throughout this development. So, it's more a comment and I appreciate that the regulations and the building controls requirements are being met in the current design. But should we be concerned? Can we reflect on this for a moment? Is this a building that is sufficiently future-proofed given likely climate change and increasing energy prices? That's my main point. OK, thank you very much for those comments. Members, I don't have any further speakers on this. Does anyone wish to ask any further questions or make any further points? Councillor Williams, please. Thank you, Jess. Sorry, I was just waiting for others. So, in terms of general debate, to catch the chase, I'll say obviously I agree with what Councillor Ffain said. This is a green belt application. I accept the principle of harm to the green belt. Therefore, the real question for us is whether very special circumstances exist. I have to say for me, I'm not at all convinced that the threshold is meant for very special circumstances and that largely but not exclusively revolves around this question of need. Emphasis is laid in particular in our report and was laid in the presentation earlier on need. What we usually have is a submission from the county saying there's no need. We have the local GP services saying they can't cope. Simply not tenable for the GP services to be able to manage this. We have the applicants assessment of need but that doesn't take into account the most recent planning permission. I would also make a comment as well about the GLHERN study that we've got that's cited in the report as, broadly speaking, supporting the applicant's case. Now, actually, that GLHERN report, what it does is it models, I think, about five different scenarios of standard method growth 2011, medium growth, 2011 commuting, medium growth one-to-one commuting, maximum growth, etc. It actually models five different levels of need depending on how much we grow. The point of it being to inform the local plan I'm not actually clear which one of those estimates actually supports what the applicants have said. Which one is being relied upon to support because there are five different measures of need in that GLHERN report which, as I say, was drafted to inform our local plan on how much we grow going forward. It wasn't really designed to look at the need now. It's all about projecting forward for the local plan period. So, you know, I think at best what we can say is that the need here is disputed. It's unclear whether there's need or not. We have comments from our policy team, but I don't think the policy team is really a statutory consult team. Really what the policy team submission we've got here at 614 Remounts took is them saying, well, the county have come up with this different estimate. We've asked the county to give us some more information. So, for me, at best, the need is in dispute. And I don't think that's sufficient to meet the very special circumstances test. I do also have concerns about the non-designated heritage asset, but for me the key issue is this issue of need. Thank you. Members, I'll give you my view on this now as I don't have anyone else to speak. Notwithstanding the comments Councillor Williams has made, I actually do have some concern with the comments of our conservation team. Whilst they don't actually specifically say whether they support or object to the application, they do raise significant concerns through their comments in our report. The ones that stand out for me is that they specifically identify that the proposals will not comply with the local plan policy NH14, i.e. the destruction of a non-designated heritage asset. And then in the following paragraph, they say this destruction would cause substantial harm. And in my view, if we're talking about a green belt site, that for me wouldn't particularly sway the balance in favour of development. So, I do have other concerns as well, but they have already been vocalised. But for me it's the loss of the heritage asset that I have the largest concern with. So, yes, unless I hear any moving comments the other way, I'm leaning towards the harm outweighing the benefits that I'll likely be voting against. Do any other members have any comments or any additional points they wish to add? Councillor Hawkins, sorry, I didn't see your hand. No, that's okay. Thank you, Chair. I mean, of course, what our policy sees in 652 is that decisions must be based on a good understanding of how the proposals will affect heritage. And from what I've heard today, heritage still seems to be something that is of concern to us. If for any reason, or if for whatever reason it is, this bad information, of course, I would expect that, I think it's 654 or 655, I can't remember which it is anyway, that there will be a record of that heritage asset put together by the 657 asset. There should be a record of the heritage asset if we're going to lose it. I hope we don't, but that's just what I want to add. Thank you. Thank you for that. Members, do anyone wish to ask any further questions that will help them make a decision or have all the points that members wish to raise been covered so far? I can't see any hands. Members, I think we're probably at a point when we can make a decision, then if no one else has any further points to make or questions. We have a recommendation of approval. Members should be wished to go against that. I think we need to vocalise the reasons that we would be refusing this. What I've heard so far, and perhaps officers can articulate this for me, I've heard that special circumstances developing within the green belt haven't been met. The loss of a heritage asset is another consideration. There was some question around the actual need for a care home. The facts and figures around that are slightly ambiguous. Can I ask officers to comment on any of those? Or has that all been... Sorry, Councillor Hanley. I think it's important that we know that we have noted the GP's comments that they cannot cover this capacity-wise. I think it's important that people realise that we do take it into consideration and take it seriously. Can I comment on that? That has been noted. I think Phil would like to come in now. Phil. In terms of the impact on the GP, not the local GP, obviously the CCG has acknowledged that there is capacity issues, but there is infrastructure provided within the building to enable doctors to service the care home. So in terms of the physical infrastructure, there isn't an infrastructure required for this development to mitigate that impact. It's around the availability of a GP to service the residents. That matter really falls outside of the planning process. As the applicant has explained, they will have a separate agreement with whoever the local GP service is, and they will pay for that service accordingly. So in terms of this application and whether there's infrastructure required to mitigate the development, there is sufficient capacity within the building through therapy rooms and a consulting room for that service to be provided. So it's then down to the operator as to how that is managed through the GP service, but that is not a matter really that sits within the consideration of this planning application. Okay, I accept that explanation. Thank you. But I would certainly like to make sure that the minutes reflect the fact that we took this matter seriously. Yeah, I'm sure. I can see Lauren's beavering life. I think that has been noted. Members, other than those, so those three points. So the points around special circumstances for developing within the green belt haven't been met. The loss of heritage, a loss of heritage asset, and the ambiguity around the calculations around need. Have I missed anything members? That's what I picked up from the debate. Are there any other reasons that members who are thinking of voting against this would like to include and can't see anything. I'll offer officers an opportunity to come back before we do go to a decision on this. Thank you, chair. In terms of the impact on the green belt, I'm noting, obviously, the concerns raised by members and whether various special circumstances have been met. Obviously, officers have identified that it doesn't comply with paragraph 149G as an exception, and that obviously the scheme is therefore in appropriate development. However, I would urge members to acknowledge that this is previously developed land within the green belt, so it's not an open site where there's no development, and there is a significant building on the site where the impact of openness is already influenced by that built form. This built form, whilst we have said doesn't satisfy the test as an exception, isn't significantly causing harm to the openness in terms of the proposed built form. So I would exercise caution around whether there's material harm to the green belt in that regard simply because of those reasons and whether it's materially impacting upon the openness of the green belt. Our landscape officers have said they consider there's negligible impact on the green belt. So I think we just need to be careful around concerns around whether there's material harm in that respect. In terms of the need, obviously, we've discussed it during the debate and comments we made earlier that our colleagues in policy accept there is a need. The applicants demonstrated a need. There's some queries around the county and the figures that they have come up with, and that's how policy colleagues are seeking clarity on those, although they've demonstrated that they feel there is a lesser need. So as another material consideration is the appeal decision that we've had recently where an inspector has said that they agree there is a need for older people's housing that includes care homes, obviously extra care housing and that is obviously being delivered through private sector schemes such as this. So that is a material consideration and the need there wasn't disputed. The planning practice guidance talks about provision of housing for older people being critical. So again, in officers' views, there is a need for this type of accommodation to provide for housing for older people. Population is getting older. We're all aware of that. So again, I think we need to be careful around introducing the need as a material concern in relation to this application. And again, the points around obviously the heritage asset. This is again a non-designated heritage asset. It's not a designated heritage asset except that we've identified that it has got some modest and moderate significance. But again, officers' view are main harm to the green belt and any other harm that it should be given limited weight as a non-designated heritage asset. But I take members' view and they're entitled to give that more weight in coming to a decision. But that will be my comments on those points. Okay, thank you. So in terms of the lot of a heritage asset, obviously we do have comments from the conservation team that they consider losing it would be substantial harm. So presumably that particular material reason is a balancing act for members whether they consider that to harm to our weight of the benefit or not. Regarding the other two points on special circumstances being met or not to redevelop within the green belt and also the other one regarding the need. So presumably officers steer would be that those, we as a committee shouldn't include those as reasons for refusal. Obviously it's up to us whether we do or not but that would be the officers steer. Yes, chair, yes, that's correct. Members, we have a decision to make then if we are thinking of refusing this, I don't think there's any pushback from officers on the heritage loss but do we want to also include special circumstances around redeveloping within the green belt and also around the need for care homes would we still like to include those two points as a reason for refusal should we eventually vote to refuse this then if anyone has any thoughts one way or the other on those. Councillor Williams, please. I've gone surprisingly chair. I do want to come back to this point of need because I think this is important. We might all believe that there's a need but as a planning committee we have to deal with the evidence that's before us and the fact are that the evidence that's been put before us is missing. The figures we've got in paragraph 10 12 are out of date. They don't include the most recent planning application. I accept the point about the inspector's decision but we can't take the inspector's decision as being there for its open season on care homes in south Cambridge and we must agree every proposal that comes forward. Obviously we have to take the effect of the inspector's decision into account but that can cut both ways because the fact that we've got the inspector's decision having a new care home does address part of the need that they're trying to demonstrate so just because there's an inspector who allowed an appeal doesn't mean we have to let everything else go through. It cuts both ways. Obviously I respect the views of the policy team but as I said earlier it's not actually clear to me. They cite the GL hern report. It's not clear to me which measure they're using because there are five different measures of need in that report. With the greatest of respect the policy team are not healthcare professionals so they're dealing with evidence that's been brought forward for a local plan. We are hearing from the people who are actually delivering these services who are saying something slightly different so I think we are entitled to take that on board. As I say, the case is really good but I'm not saying there's no need. I'm saying the threshold has not been met for me here because the figures are ambiguous so I would make a case of putting that in. Does anyone wish to put an alternate view to including that as a reason for refusal should we? Can I take it then that we as a committee should we refuse it would like to include the figures around need as being a reason for refusal? Yes, okay. So if we do vote to refuse and we will be including that. Then there's the question around the green belt. Again, should we vote to refuse we've heard the views of officers that the special circumstances have been met to redevelop within the green belt. Obviously I know we have had some debate around that and members including myself have said they don't feel it has been met. Do any members wish to put a view forward as to whether we should include it as a reason for refusal Thank you chair. I mean, what we're looking at here I think for me it's we've got the situation where there's harm substantial harm to the heritage asset which happens to be in the green belt and for me that's a combination. The fact that it's going to be what's plan is going to be similar in square size and same height it doesn't overcome that harm. So for me the harm is still there and it's double because it's green belt and it's heritage asset. So your view is we should still include it. Again, does anyone wish to put an alternative view to that? Does anyone think now following officer advice we shouldn't include that as a reason? Can I take it then that members should they vote to refuse would like that included refusal? I'm not seeing any opposition to that so I'll take that as yes. So members we have three reasons for refusal outlines special circumstances for green belt redevelopment not met loss of a heritage asset and ambiguity around the need. Again before we do go to vote on this officers have we in terms of wording are you clear on should this be refused? Okay we're going to have a quick five minute break while the wording is put together should the committee vote to refuse the application then we'll come back and we'll take a vote on it members so 20 past 12 by this clock up here. Thank you. Welcome back to this meeting of South Cymru District Council's planning committee we are at the end of the debate section of item 5 which is the former hotel Felix site in Gertin. We've had a good debate and we are hopefully we have some reasons for refusal which being articulated by members and now written down by officers should we vote to refuse. So I'm going to ask officers to display those reasons to make sure that members who are inclined to vote against are content. Over to Phil when we can display those on the screen. Here we go. So yeah if you could read it out please I think it's better coming from an officer. Thank you chair. So the first reason that officers have drafted is that the site is located outside of the development framework boundaries of Gertin within the countryside in Cambridge Greenbelt proposed development would represent inappropriate development that is by definition harmful to the Greenbelt in policy terms as the development does not fall within any of the exception criteria within paragraphs 149 or 150 of the national planning policy framework 2021. Proposal is therefore contrary to policy S4 of the south Cambridge local plan 2018 and paragraphs 147 148 149 and 150 of the national planning policy framework 2021 that seeks to resist inappropriate development in the Greenbelt. So that's reason one. Reason two in addition to harm caused by inappropriateness proposed development would result in the loss of non-designated heritage asset loss of a non-designated heritage asset to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area in taking a balanced judgment the loss of the non-designated heritage asset is considered to call substantial harm and the overall benefits of the scheme are not considered to our way that harm are identified. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 203 of the MPPF and policy NH14 of the south Cambridge local plan. Reason three the application has failed to provide very special circumstances including need for specialist housing which taken individually or collectively demonstrate why the harm by reason of inappropriateness in the Greenbelt and other harm identified being the loss of the non-designated heritage asset is clearly outweighed by these considerations. The application therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 147 and 148 of the national planning policy framework 2021. So in terms of obviously the issue around need that has been submitted as part of the very special circumstances for the proposal and therefore we've referred to that in the reason for refusal three obviously we might need to slightly tweak the wording for these chairs so I would suggest that if members do accept these three reasons that we agree the final wording through yourself. I think that's clear to me those three reasons members articulated as reasons for refusal should we go down that path. Members are we all content with those three reasons subjects of specific wording but as a general thrust yes I think we are. Okay well members with that in place I think we are in a position to take a vote on this now I'm going to do electronically give them the nature of this application members the recommendation is on page 42 the recommendation is to approve subject to the conditions that are laid out beneath if members are in agreement with that then you need to vote before if members are against that and wish to refuse for those three reasons we just articulated you need to vote against and if you wish to abstain on the decision it's the yellow button and if members I think we've got a vote in front of us now on our machines you press the blue button to register green if you're in favour red to oppose and yellow to abstain everyone has voted we have seven votes against none for no abstention so that is unanimously refused okay I'd like to thank everyone including officers and our public speakers for taking the time to come and speak to us today and for giving us the benefit of their comments members we've finished that item now so we're moving on to the next which is a gender item it would have been a gender item six but at the start of the meeting we deferred that item so we're moving on to a gender item seven which is page 67 it's an enforcement report sadly we don't have an enforcement officer who's able to join us today so I think that task falls to Mr McIntosh so sorry McIntosh apologies well obviously members we have a report in front of us I don't think I don't think there's anything specific to highlight but I will hand over to Phil if there's anything he wishes to update us on but obviously we can't ask any questions enforcement related at this point Phil thank you chair the report has been slightly updated I suppose just in terms of personnel in enforcement just to note that the vacancy at the principal planning level is still there but we are looking to recruit into that post ASAP that is a process that's still being undertaken I have done some slight updates on some of these items that you would have seen in June and they are identified at the end of each report which are there for members to read but essentially yes if there's any questions I'm happy to try and address those now or take them away as required Members anything specific questions enforcement related? Councillor Handley and then Hawkins it's not a question can I just make a point please there's a comment on the land at Haydenway Willingham on page 70 piling took place on that site when they didn't have the necessary conditions in place and as a local authority we unfortunately were very slow to react I'd just like to make the comment that the bitterness that has come from that was very very deep and there are still altercations going on site between residents and the developer even today that's almost a year since it happened so I think we should learn lessons from that Thank you, I think that's been noted Councillor Hawkins you had a question or comment Yes, thank you chair it's on the Berwyshman of Farm case really this has been going on for a while as well and I noticed that the application reference were 21 03587 was refused on 26 April there is no appeal lodged so what the heck is going on is the question That's a good question Councillor Hawkins again that was one point I picked up that hadn't been updated in June but yes it has been refused obviously they're still within time to go for appeal as far as I understand it but I need to find out from the relevant officer as to whether a notice is now going to be drafted in relation to the breach there Thank you and of course I know we've made some progress on the Smithy Fenn one but I guess the question is when will we have the multi-agency meeting in February so again question is where are we with that Sorry Councillor Hawkins which one was that Smithy Fenn Again it's not one that I'm familiar with but I can certainly seek an update for you Councillor Williams Thank you I know you said that there were plans to fill the vacant post ASAP but could you give us some more detail on the timeline for that and whether it's possible to at least fill it temporarily I've had a couple of things come in over the last few weeks in relation to suggesting that the team might be under some stress so basically when will ASAP arrive Sure I mean are we interviewing at the moment do we have anyone in the pipeline not aware that we're going to use setup but we are looking to at least shortlist at this point but I believe we'll be on an interim basis again so probably a contract type person coming in resource coming in to fill the role and I would hope that would be done within the next few weeks but it's not something that I'm directly involved in myself but that's how we'll make some inquiries about where we are in the process Okay thank you I think that's covered the enforcement report we'll move on then to agenda item 8 which is appeals against planning decisions and enforcement action again I'm not sure which officer will be presenting this Will you chair again forward to myself to to take any queries or questions on any of the items within the report I don't think Vanessa is going to give a quick update on the the JR at Northstone Vanessa I don't know if you want to do that quickly so councillor it's just very very brief and I have to be very brief with these details because the application permission to apply for the JR has been granted there's a one and a half day hearing set down to commence on the 29th November because we are now in substitute you to see that's it that's all I can give you at the moment thank you okay thank you was any questions on the appeals section councillor Hawkins and then Williams thank you just for information we recently received as far as I'm aware a letter before action on the first one on the list the land east of Tewishamrood Fulburn which was refused well the appeal was allowed but then there's now a letter before action to JR the appeal decision so just for information that just came to us very recently in the last few days or in a way you could judicially review an appeal decision but I suppose you can interesting but quite a controversial site from memory so interesting to see where that one goes councillor Williams please thank you I mentioned in the last meeting that the Haarston one just on page 89 the public house demolition it's not in my ward but it's very near my ward and it is an application that's relevant to one of my villages I think it was said in the meeting a month ago that we'd have an update on that I don't necessarily mind if that if that update is today but I think we're kind of useful to understand a bit more and it's fine to give it to me in writing why that one went to non-determination because that is a shame because there was local interest in that application and I was disappointed that didn't manage to get decided by the local planning authority I can give you an update on that councillor Williams we did query with the planning inspectorate why that appeal had been validated because it had been submitted significantly outside of the six month period that was beyond the determination date and pins have now turned that appeal away so the appeal won't be going forward so it's back with us to now deal with the applicant about the application and how it goes forward that's good news thank you Members no further questions on the appeals section so I believe that is the end of the agenda before I close it's worth noting the next meeting should one be required is Wednesday the 10th of August so I appreciate that is middle of the holiday season so if any members can't attend please do try and find a sub as early as possible so again thank you to all the members that attend including those online thank you to all the officers for supporting the committee and thank you to those public speakers that came to address us this morning so thank you everyone we will close the meeting