Thank you very much, Chair. You are now live. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to South Cams District Council Planning Committee. I'm John Batchelor. I'm Chairman of the committee. My Vice-Chair is Councillor Haylings. Would Councillor Haylings make a presence known, please? Thank you very much, Chair, and good morning, everyone. Thank you. We are supported today along the virtual top table. We have the following officers, Chris Carter, who is Delivery Manager of Strategic Sites. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, everybody. Stephen Reed, who is a senior planning lawyer. Good morning, Chair and members and guests. Thank you very much. And Ian Senior from Democratic Services, who will be taking the minutes. Good morning. Good morning, Ian. Thank you. I will introduce individual case officers when I invite them to speak. First, just a few housekeeping announcements. Please make sure that your device is fully charged and switched your camera and microphones off unless you're invited to do otherwise. When you're invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone is switched on. When you finish addressing the meeting, please turn off the microphone and cameras immediately. Speak slowly and clearly, and please do not talk over or interrupt anyone. Please ensure that you have switched off or silenced any other devices you have so that they do not interrupt the proceedings. The normal procedure at Planning Committee is to take recorded votes and we will continue with this unless there is clear affirmation. When we move to a vote on any item and there is not clear affirmation, I will ask for a roll call to be taken. I will then ask committee members to speak into the microphone so that their vote is clear, both committee and those watching the webcast. Members should respond for, against or abstain when their name is called. Now, committee members present, I will now invite each of you to introduce yourselves. Members, after I call your name, please turn on your camera and microphone. Wait two seconds and say your name and the word you represent so that your presence may be noted. Please remember to turn your devices off after your introduction. My name is Councillor John Bachelor, Chair of the Committee and Member for Linsham. Councillor Bradman, please. Good morning, everyone. I'm Councillor Bradnam and a Bradnam and I'm the Member for Milton and Water Beach Ward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Cahn. Hello, I'm Martin Cahn. Hello. You're very quiet, Councillor. Hello, I'm Councillor Martin Cahn. I'm the Member for Histon and Impington. Thank you very much. Councillor Harvey, I believe you're substituting today for Councillor Fain. Would you confirm that, please? Yes, that's correct. So, yes. Councillor Geoff Harvey, I'm the Member for Portion Ward. Thank you. Councillor Dr Hawkins, please. Good morning, everyone. I'm Tumi Hawkins and I'm the Member for Coalicot Ward. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Halings. Good morning, everybody. I'm Pippa Halings and I'm the Member for Histon, Impington and Orchard Park. Thank you. Councillor Ripeth. Good morning, everybody. I'm Councillor Judith Ripeth and I'm a Member for Milton and Water Beach. Thank you. Councillor Roberts, please. Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, everybody. Deborah Roberts, District Councillor for the Foxton Ward. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chairman. Heather Williams, I represent the Mordons Ward. Thank you. Councillor Richard Williams. Thank you, Chair. I'm Richard Williams, I'm the Member for Wittlesford Treplo, Heathfield and Newton. Thank you. And Councillor Wright. Good morning, Councillor Nick Wright, Pat Wittlin-Cagston. Thank you very much. So I can confirm that the meeting is quiet. If at any time members leave the meeting, would they please make that fact known to me so that it can be recorded in the minutes? So that members of the public are aware if a Councillor is absent for any part of the presentation of or debate about an agenda item, then they may not vote on that item. This includes technical issues. We have had various occasions where members have dropped out because of that. If it's immediately seen, I will hold the meeting for a while to try and get members back. We have several public speakers today, and I would just like to explain how public speaking will work. This meeting is being broadcast live by the Council's website. Public speakers are reminded that by participating in this meeting, you are consenting to being broadcast under the use of the images and sound recordings for webcasts and training purposes. You will each have three minutes to address the committee. When you start to speak, we will start the timer. Please ensure that you have switched off your microphone on before you speak. When your time has elapsed, we will ask you to conclude your speech. Once you have finished, we may wish to ask you questions, so please be concise in your responses. If there are no more questions, you may leave the meeting and continue to watch via the webcast. Committee members are reminded that any questions to speakers should be for clarification purposes only. And the process for this shall be as follows. I shall ask if there are any questions. If you do have a question, please ask to speak using the chat facility. The committee can only consider planning reasons for or against the application. The committee cannot consider general observations about the development site. The committee cannot consider comments from public speakers made outside of their allotted speaking time. Therefore, we request that those registered do not interrupt outside of their time. Once the committee has heard from all speakers and planning officers, we will form a view on the application. Planning committee will then vote. The outcome is decided by a majority vote. In the event of a tie, I as chair have casting the vote. When planning committee members vote, please can they ensure that they identify themselves and speak into microphones so that the vote is understood by committee and those watching the webcast. Members are reminded that they should indicate whether they are fought against or abstained when their name is called. At the end of the introductions, we can get on now with the minutes. We are on item 2 of our agenda. Apologies. Mr. Senior, do we have any apologies? Thank you, chair. We have one apology from Councillor Peter Fain and his substitute is Councillor Jeff Hargis. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. We are on item 3, which is decorations of interest. Does any member of the committee have any decorations of interest? If so, put your name in the chat area. Let's give you a moment or two to see if that's working. Right, so Councillor Ripeth, you wish to speak? Yes, I've got a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5. I have a daughter in year 10 at Impton Village College and she has an education health care plan, but I come to the matter of fresh and we'll look at it from a non-predigious position. And also item number 11, Water Beach Recreation Ground, which is just the member for that ward. Okay, thank you very much. And Councillor Cahn, please. I have a non-pecuniary interest in the sense that my two children were studied at Impton Village College and I was formally on the parents' committee for the village college, so I'm no longer on. Okay, thank you very much for that. Councillor Bradman. Thank you, Chair. Like Councillor Ripeth, I am a member for Water Beach, so I'm aware of item 11, the Recreation Ground proposals, but I haven't been involved in any discussions about it in a prejudicial way and I come to the matter of fresh. Thank you. And Councillor Haggling, please. Thank you, Chair. For agenda item 5, I would just like to declare that I have been present at several meetings between the project management team, the applicant and officers to seek ways to address some of the issues that have arisen, but I'm coming to this application afresh. Right, thank you very much. And Councillor Heather Williams, please. Thank you, Chairman. Just for clarity on the appeals section, I'm the local member for one of the appeals, so just to confirm that, obviously, we won't be making any decisions on that. But for clarity, I am the local member. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, I don't have any other speakers. So that's Decorations of Interest. We now move on to item 4 with the minutes of a previous meeting. These can be found on page 1 through to 6. These are the minutes of the 13th of May, 2019. So I believe eight of us were present at that meeting. Does anyone have any points of accuracy that they would like to raise? No, I can't see anyone asking to speak. Councillor Williams, Heather Williams. Councillor Heather Williams, yes, sorry. Apologies, Chairman. I tried to do that earlier, so it's come through twice. OK, thank you very much. My chat function may not be working. Right. We have that in mind. Thank you very much. So members, can I do we accept these as a true record of that meeting? Councillor Ripper. Chair. Councillor Ripper, please. Sorry, just one typo on page 4 of those minutes. Trailer is spelled O-R rather than E-R, but everything else looked correct to me. Right. Thank you very much, Chairman. We note that. So members, are you happy that this is a true reflection of the meeting of the 13th of May 2019? Agreed. Yes. Now on the gates. Thank you very much. We now move on to the main business of the day. Before we get into that, unfortunately, two of these items are being proposed that they are deferred. These are officer recommendations. Mr Carter is going to explain why we need to do that. Mr Carter, please. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, members. As the committee was informed on Friday afternoon, an issue was identified by officers on Friday regarding additional consultation periods that had been instigated automatically by the planning department's IT system. This error affected a number of planning applications, including several on the agenda for today's meeting. Members were advised on Friday that officers would recommend that three of the items on the agenda for today should be deferred to a future meeting, as it was anticipated that in those particular cases, the likelihood of additional representations received, potentially raising new issues, was quite high, and so it would be prudent to wait for the additional consultation periods to expire before the applications are considered a committee. For the remaining affected items, officer advice was and is that the committee can make a resolution to grant or refuse planning commission subject to no new material issues being raised during the outstanding consultation period. The only change to this advice that I would wish to highlight is in respect of item 9, 130 Rampton Road, Willingham. On this item, I was advised by colleagues last night that following a detailed review of the IT system, it is apparent that this item was not in fact subject to a further unintentional consultation period, and I can therefore advise that there is no reason why the committee should not consider this item today. In the interest of clarity, therefore, it is the case that officers recommend that items 5, 7 and 12 can be subject to a resolution of the committee today. Items 6 and 8 are recommended to be deferred to a future meeting, and items 9, 10 and 11 can be determined today. I hope this is clear, but happy to answer any questions, Chair. Thank you. Right, thank you very much. For that, so we need to decide whether or not we're accepting these deferrals. So I will deal with those first. So this is item 6, reference S4 207 stroke 19, R, M at Cotnam. So the proposal is that these are deferred to a later meeting. I'm proposing that. Do I have a seconder, please? I'm happy to second that, Chair. And are you including item 8 at Long Stanton, or are you doing them? We have to do this separately. OK, but I'm happy to second item 6 at Cotnam. Thank you very much. Members, does anyone wish to speak to this item? Chair, can Stephen Reed would like to speak? Right, OK. Mr Reed, would you like to advise us? Thank you, Chair. It applies to all items where members decide that they can proceed today. You've heard Mr Carter refer to new representations. I have emailed all members to indicate that in fact there are various options you can take in terms of delegation. Clearly the you can decide that where no representations are made that the matter can be subject to delegated authority to the Director of Planning. There is a question that members will need to consider and that is that if representations are made whether you wish to delegate to the Director of Planning for him to use his judgment as to whether they are indeed new representations raising matters that have not been considered by Planning Committee today. Thank you very much for that. I think that applies to the ones that we will be processing so we will come back to that shortly. We are on the deferral of the Cotnam Item 6. I think I have some speakers. Councillor Heather Williams please. Thank you Chairman. Obviously the situation we find ourselves isn't very satisfactory and it's not the first time we're going to have to have this situation. We've had other ones which have had to be deferred because of consultation or come back to Committee 2 and sometimes 3 times. Around the deferral my issue is from the advice that we're being given which I respect officers are there to give us advice but it's down to us to decide what advice we take and what we vote on. I don't see how it is fair to the parishes to be cherry picking ones that we will defer and ones that we will leave open for us to come back. So that leaves me in a situation where I'm happy to vote for deferral if we are going to defer all of them equally and treat our residents equally because I don't see how we can say that somebody's view in Cotnam and Longstanton is more important than somebody's view is in one of the other parishes which we're going to determine today and not wait and while I appreciate that's probably not the intention but I think it's an absolute ridiculous situation to be quite frank that we're in. So I think as a committee we need to decide to treat everybody equally and that means we either determine them all under the proviso that we've been informed is legal and compliant and we do it all that way or we defer all the ones that have been affected but I think this situation of we'll do some and we won't do others and actually people want this to come to committee they want councillors to determine these applications that's what we're here for and actually as a member we sit and we listen to all the representations that are made and I don't see how we can make informed decision taking to views of the public if we haven't heard from them and they've still got a chance to respond so I think as a committee chairman we need to decide if we're going to defer all of these or not and I would propose that that we defer them all, let the consultation even though it was an IT glitch for whatever reason but it's just pure chaos if we start cherry picking and ranking some higher than others that's not what we're here to do we're here as a committee to take everybody's views into consideration and use that in our determination of applications and I don't feel we can do that till the consultations finish to be quite honest. Right thank you very much for that so you made a proposal, do you have a second term? I will second it Chairman. Right Councillor Roberts you're down to speak as well, do you want to speak to that? So we're speaking to the Councillor Williams proposal that all those affected by the IT issue should be deferred Yep. Thank you Chairman yes I would like to speak now if I may I support the deferral on the grounds that have already been put by Councillor Heather Williams and I think to address it as cherry picking is quite right the very fact is that all the ones that we have in paper form today have already been through a process of deciding that it was important that they came to the committee for consideration and decisions and therefore I would utterly go again to the fact that it's been suggested by Mr Read that this could be deferred then to an officer clearly they were classed as important enough or sensitive enough to actually come before us for a decision making and I think it's quite right we can't be arbitrary here if they're important to come to us then we have to come to us with all the information and it just looks so bad if we say well some of the ones today we can make a decision on them and if something comes in reconsider it that's not our job our job is to make sure that people's concerns whether they be their parish or individuals are properly considered and that the full allocated time be it might have been a mistake is actually strictly adhered to everybody not picking some and saying that they matter less so we can all look at them today what may be important to us may not be important to somebody else and I think we've got to always consider that but I always remember a previous legal officer telling us that we have to remember how it will look to the man on the Clapham Omnibus and I would say that to the man on the Clapham Omnibus or the stagecoach to Covenham it's very important and we need to make sure that the public feels confidence in this council are not being seen as some choosing picking choosing group of individuals who care about some parishes but don't care so much about others that's not true we know it but that's how it will be perceived and I also fear that this will be challenged that what we are doing is not right my understanding is that it is absolutely mandatory that a consultation period should be strictly adhered to and if we go off on one saying no then I think God help us we're going to be up at the high courts again and I think it's probably questionable in actual government guidelines and rules that we can pick and choose or as Councillor Heather Williams said cherry pick so you know what is the harm chairman of just waiting a little while longer they will come to us but please let the public believe in us it's as simple as that thank you very much I think Mr Reid wants to have a word again please thank you chair if I may I have advised members in writing that if no new representation are made then members can have the confidence that they have heard all matters on which to make a decision there is no question of making a decision prior to the end of the consultation period right thank you very much for that thank you thank you right thank you very much for that Councillor Bradman thank you chairman I just wanted to say that I think the accusation that we'd be making a judgement ahead of time or picking and choosing is not correct what we've been recommended to do is to make a decision pending the consultation period and if no further representations are made then our decision goes ahead if a representation is made then that will be considered again and I don't think it's a question of picking and choosing after all the people who might wish to have made representations have had an opportunity to do so during this first period and if they then wish to do so they still can in this further period and if they make a representation then those thoughts can be taken into account so I don't subscribe to the argument proposed right thank you very much and I mean you're quite right there the resolution that we would vote on would actually say that should there actually be any more material consultation data coming in then it would come back to this committee so Heather Williams you want to speak again is this a new point I just wanted to clarify that I can reply as it's my motion and councillor Richard Williams has also requested speak I'm happy to go at the end fine okay councillor Richard Williams then please thanks thanks very much chair there were just two points I wanted to make following off what councillor Braden said I mean I think my first preference would be to defer everything just because it is fair and it looks like we're treating everyone equally but I think councillor Braden made the point that if we didn't she was envisaging that we would say the delegated authority was subject to no representations being made which is different I think to the proposal which was no material representations being made now I would be much more comfortable with a delegation that said no representations being made therefore there could be no question about us treating different parishes differently so any we will hear every representation that's made in relation to the ones that we do differ and we should hear every representation in relation to ones that we don't if that's the decision that the committee makes but my first preference would be to defer everything thank you very much councillor Kahn can you speak I have a point of view of accuracy I would like a reference to the parishes having their say I would like to point out that the Impington application the parishes have not raised an objection the matter has been brought to committee because the men officers thought that it was a matter of importance and there's been a long period of consultation so I think this point is not quite so relevant in that particular application thank you very much councillor Bradman you want to come back again do you a new point thank you chairman yes it is a new point the other sorry I meant to say it before I apologise for doing it in two iterations and that is that many of the applicants will not welcome a delay and I think we need to where it can be seen that we can make a decision in a proper and reasonable way I think we should do so and I think if we were to be delaying unnecessarily as in the case that councillor Kahn has mentioned I think that would be deemed unreasonable so I think the advice we've received from the officer is reasonable and I think I'm quite happy with the adjustment of the more precise wording that councillor Richard Williams has suggested if there are any representations I think we should be it would be reasonable to look at those I wasn't being so precise to assume I just felt that if there's the decision is being made pending final comments as it were thank you councillor Wright please Chairman just picking up that we have once already this year been found guilty of making a decision while the consultation period was still running in the High Court and we don't want to find ourselves back again there already when the spotlight is on us and just it is transparent and open whether it is an accident or not the consultation period has been triggered again let's act evenly and precisely and defer these till that consultation period is over thank you thank you very much that's the end of our speakers councillor Heather Williams do you want to come back now? Chair, Stephen Reed asked to come in again for clarification I had noticed that alright sorry chair I fully respect the comments of councillor Wright but they are not what is being put forward today so what what happened in the case referred to by councillor Wright was that the planning decision was made before the end of what the public might have perceived to be the end of the consultation period that is not what members are being asked to do today they are being put to members that if any new representations come forward then that the item would come back to members that is completely different to the case that councillor Wright has referred to alright thank you very much for that advice councillor Heather Williams thank you chairman just to sum up my motion and to bring members back to what the actual proposal was I think some members may have misinterpreted my reference to cherry picking is the fact that we are not treating every application the same that has been affected we are suggesting two different types of treatment and the others to go through this other process and I said right at the start when I moved this suggestion this motion that it's one or the other we have to be consistent in our decision making which if we decide to do one treatment for deferral for two of them why are those two in the eyes of the public for somebody that lives in Harston why are the views in Cotnam and Longstanton more important than theirs that is the issue here so if you want to take that direction as a committee and we want to determine things in a timely fashion then they should all be receiving that treatment not just picking two out to defer and not the others and that is why I'm suggesting that we defer them all so every single application that has been affected is treated the same otherwise I don't think we are being proper we're not being reasonable and we're not being consistent which is what we need to be as a committee for the public to have any faith in us and the actual answer is to make sure that this doesn't happen again and we don't have applications keep coming around because we shouldn't keep being put into any possible decisions like this sorry Chairman but they are my thoughts on the matter okay thank you very much so we've got a motion before us that is that we should defer all those items which are affected by the IT issue before we vote we should bear in mind the very clear legal advice that we have been given which does not support that view now I'm sure there will be a vote on this so I'm going to have a roll call so you know Chair if I may are you sure you need to Mr Reid I think so Chair if I may go on then I understand the force of the argument made by Heather Williams and if that is a point of concern to members then members can decide that actually all cases will be treated the same so that Water Beach and Longstanton are debated but you heard from Mr Carter I'm going to stop you there Mr Reid because that isn't what is on the table at the moment so I would like to concentrate on dealing with what we've just been debating so thank you for that input but I'm going to put the motion to the vote and you'll understand if you vote in favour of it that is to defer all items today that have been affected by the IT element and if you're against that you vote against if you wish to abstain you abstain so Mr Reid would you turn your camera off please thank you okay we're going to start the vote now then Councillor Bradman are you for against or abstaining against Councillor Cahn against Councillor Harvey against Councillor Hawkins against thank you Councillor Halings against thank you Councillor Ripeth against thank you Councillor Roberts for thank you Councillor Heather Williams for thank you Councillor Richard Williams for Councillor Wright for thank you and my vote is against so that is four votes four votes to seven so that motion falls so we're back to the original position where we are asked to defer two items item six and item eight so I go back now to the Cotlam item six and would like to put to you that this is deferred to a later meeting I will propose that I believe I've already had a seconder in Councillor Bradman. Chair I'm sorry I'd like to move an amendment to that an amendment to it so my amendment is the fall back position I mentioned earlier which is that we now delegate subject to no representations being made rather than the propose I think it was subject to no material representations being made I want to make it delegate subject to no for the representations being made. Hang on a minute could you put your camera on and Councillor Hawkins would you turn yours off please so that the public can actually see who is speaking right could you start that again then please. I'd like to move an amendment chair that the committee agrees to delegate the decision in these applications subject to no for the representations being made. Right I understood from Mr Reader that's precisely what we were going to do I thought the proposal was it would be no material representations so I'm removing word material Well I think we've already done that actually with the wording that I've got in front of me which is subject to no new issues being raised during the amended consultation period. The issue is the word new chairman it should just be no issues Well don't forget we've already done the consultation Chairman I think if we've already dealt with it Chairman I think we've got to be absolutely strict here we've got to get the I mean we are very careful usually about wording and I think it's imperative that we actually have an amendment voted upon because there's an awful lot of difference between material and not everything. Alright thank you I noted that I would yeah it's an amendment we will pursue with that amendment before we do so I just ask Mr Carter for his advice on that is there any issues about just changing the wording for that. Thank you chair two things I'd like to say firstly I believe at the moment you're moving to a vote on deferring the two items to a future committee separately to that I'm hearing that members would like for the remaining items for which I've suggested a resolution to grant or refuse could be made today that that is subject to no new sorry no representations no further representations being received previously I had suggested no new representations but I'm hearing now that members would like that to be no further representations of any kind so that's that's my understanding I believe that was also included in the advice provided by Stephen Reed earlier in the week. Okay so there's no problem with that element of it. No chair. Okay thank you very much. Okay I'm not sure we need the amendment because deferrals we're only talking about Cotnam and Long Stanton Chairman? Yeah I'm just I'd like to take some advice on what the proper procedural process here is Mr. Reed perhaps you could advise us clearly the deferrals and the matter of the wording of the delegation are two separate matters should we take those separately or can we take that as an amendment? Mr. Reed? Is Mr. Reed muted? He is muted and Mr. Reed can you hear us? Doesn't look as though he can I'll try one more time Mr. Reed All right thank you Mr. Reed can I take a card to advise on that? Yes chair I think I can help yes they are two separate matters I believe that you can take the two cases of deferral separately and then for the other items if members so wish that they can make their resolutions subject to no further representations being received in each of those cases that are affected. Okay thank you very much Councillor Richard Williams are you happy with that? Thank you chair yes I'd be happy that at the end of each item we resolved to delegate subject to no further representations. Fine we can just simply do the wording on each one of those. I'm happy with that. Okay so I can proceed then with the delegation votes the deferral vote so we have a proposal to defer item 6 at Cotnam this is reference S4207 19 R.M. Is anybody against that? Yes chairman I have registered to speak three times on it to deferral Okay thank you Councillor Heather Williams please. Thank you chairman I'm against the deferral because if we defer Cotnam or Longstanton we are treating it different to the other ones that was the whole point of the motion we've chose not to defer them all so now we should determine them all under the same clause so I don't think the deferral you lost that one so no no no this is completely different chairman we lost the fact of deferring them all therefore now we should determine them all as is requested so I'm against deferring this item it's complete reverse chairman and I'm against it and I will have my say ridiculous thank you Councillor Roberts please thank you chairman that's absolutely right isn't it we cannot have a situation here where we are using our fancies on one and our fancies differently on two we either look at none of them today or we look at every one of them today I think we've had that we've had that chairman just let me just please finish chairman let's say something new then please then oh gosh chairman would I love to if you'd give me the opportunity the situation is becoming hilarious we are being so inconsistent now this council has an obligation to be consistent we are told that on numerous occasions on numerous applications by these officers who will keep interrupting here to try to get their point across the situation is we are obliged to do things properly in this council not at the will of a officer certain officers to contradict ourselves make ourselves a complete idiots in the eyes of the public and thank you I think we've got the point okay I don't have any further speakers I mean this is not democracy John I'm sorry you are not being open governments you are choosing which ones you will go with just because the officer tells you that his opinion is right we've heard your argument and it's up to the committee to decide if they support it or not so thank you I don't Councillor Brednum do you really need to speak on that just briefly chairman I just wanted to object to Councillor Roberts criticizing the officers I think it's completely unfair under these circumstances we are advised by our officers and we trust their judgment and I for one believe that what we have been advised to do is perfectly acceptable thank you very much that was the same thing we lost in time we listened to the officers then and they weren't right then they may not be right now you cannot Anna think that officers thank you Councillor Roberts yet again I say we're doing item 6 it's the proposal to defer to a later meeting this is S4207 19 RM Cotnum I'm going to do a roll call so are we ready for that so if you're in favour of deferral you're for it if not you're against it and the option of abstain is also there roll call Councillor Breddon please for you're for deferral correct four deferral Councillor Harvey four deferral thank you Councillor Hawkins four deferral thank you very much for Halings four deferral thank you Councillor Ripeth four thank you to Councillor Roberts in the case of consistency against against right thank you Councillor Heather Williams against thank you Councillor Richard Williams against thank you Councillor Wright against thank you my vote is four so so that's seven four in favour of deferral so Cotnum item six is deferred to a later meeting we now move to item number eight which is Longstanton reference S3215 19 DC I propose that this is deferred to a later meeting do I have a second please thank you very much that's Cotnum item wish to speak to this one yes Councillor Heather Williams thank you Chairman I won't seek to repeat the arguments you can imagine it's the same as before however I will say that the fact that I'm voting against this isn't a sign of my thoughts about officers or anything else it's the fact that I respect that as councillors we have a different role in this to officers and it's us that takes this decision we can take advice but we can equally choose a different course because we represent the public right thank you very much that's okay I don't think I've got any other speakers have I alright we go to the vote on that one then so you're voting to if you in favour of deferring it you go for if not you're against otherwise you can abstain and this is item 8 S321519 DC at long stand do the roll call Councillor Bradlam please four deferral thank you Councillor calm four deferral four deferral thank you Councillor Hawkins four deferral Councillor Halings four deferral alright Councillor Ripeth four deferral Councillor Roberts against Councillor Heather Williams against Councillor Richard Williams against the gates here and my vote is four so again that will come out as seven four so the motion is passed and item 8 is deferred to a later meeting we will now move back to the agenda and get on with our first substantive item which is item number five which is Impington Village College this is on page seven to 58 of your agenda papers so the proposal is for the erection of one two-story building class D1 for educational use and erection of one single-story building class D1 for educational use associated landscaping, car parking and replacement ground storage facilities the applicant is the Morris Education Trust the case officer will take us through the key material considerations this is a departure and the application is brought to the committee because this application has been referred to the committee on the basis of current assessment of the sensitivity and significance of the proposal because it is of local interest and represents departure from the development plan the officer recommendation is for approval and the presenting officer is Karen Pell Coggins so Karen if you would like to take your presentation please thank you chair for the little verbal update before we start obviously the recommendation of the application now is a delegated approval subject to no further representation being received during the consultation period couple of points the conservation officer has put in some comments a new flu has popped up on the building which there are some concerns with regards to the flu but this can be dealt with by condition so an additional condition is requested to agree details of the form construction and appearance of the flu through the submission of 1 to 20 scale drawings in addition it's been brought to my attention that condition why has been repeated in relation to the screen storage of refuse in condition a1b so the proposal is to delete condition a1b thank you I'll just do my presentation now so the application as previously advised by councillor Batchelor is the erection of a two buildings for educational use one is for a new school called the Cavendish school for children with higher function in autism spectrum conditions ASC and the second building is for additional accommodation for impington village college so the key constraints with regards to the site is greenbelt and countryside grade one listed building adjacent to the conservation area flood zone one a tree preservation order along the mature trees on new road and partially plain fields so this is a map to show you so the site for the new school building will be down here see my cursor and the site for the additional accommodation for impington village colleges in this area so the green is greenbelt lands the dashed line here is the edge of the development framework the pink line is the conservation area boundary which is this side of the line and this pink area here is the grade one listed building there's another pink area here which is a protected village amenity area and the blue lines along the frontage are tree preservation orders so this is a location plan which just outlines the site on the site at the moment there is a number of single story buildings I've got some photographs so you can just see here so this is the site for the new school so there's existing single story brick building in the centre point here with a single story brick ground store and then there's a mobile classrooms two large mobile classrooms in this area there are a number of trees on site the trees along the eastern boundary will be retained but the others will be removed this is the tennis courts the sports centre to impington village college these are obviously part of impington village college classrooms and again this is a two story building here which is a classroom building so just some photographs to give you an idea of what's on the site so to the left this is the brick building that's on the site at the moment the ground store which gives you a view just looking down park drive towards the entrance again this is the brick building from the car park which is just here and then you can just see the mobile classrooms behind the tree there this is the view towards the existing classroom buildings for impington village college and the new one of the new buildings will go in this gap just here and then there's just an example of the existing view from new road so this is view from new road along park drive and you can just see an outline basically the new school will be down that behind the trees and this is an example of the existing design of building of impington village college so just going on to the site layouts we have the new school building here which is a two story building there is access works to the park drive along here and you will come in and there's a sort of turning turning area one in and out section oh sorry bear with me 20 parking spaces included in one disabled space there is a drop off area with 6 additional spaces 34 cycle parking spaces so cycle parking is here and over here Karen we have lost your presentation okay bear with me Karen you seem to be sharing your team screen rather than sharing the presentation sorry bear with me Karen if you just go to the top right next to leave and go to the box with the X in it that will stop you sharing your team screen just next to the red leave button I think we have lost Karen I think we may have Karen may I speak who's that sorry it's Stephen Reed yes Stephen Karen I was only able to see the top half of the of the slides can I check that everybody else could see all of the slides I saw them yeah could see them yeah so it's just you Stephen that's fine sorry right I think I pressed the wrong button next one Karen bear with the X in it just next to the microphone button and the leave question can we just tell Karen can you see the presentation now no okay sorry sorry I'm just trying to get you back let me try and go out of perhaps whilst perhaps whilst you're doing that Karen give you a couple of minutes we'll have a five minute break thank you all right members so we're closed down for five minutes thank you very much chair you're now live again thank you very much welcome back to south camps district council planning committee and I think we've sorted out the technical issues now so we're returned to the officers presentation just to remind you that we are on item five Hamilton village college thank you thank you chair so the new school building is down here which will be a two story building as proceeds revised it is 2800 square meters of floor space on two floors the building is 56 meters long and approximately 32 meters wide with a height of 7.65 meters the building would be cream multi buff bricks with red brick details and a single prime membrane roof in grey there's also a replacement ground store which is just here to the east and a horticultural room the new building for Hamilton village college would be single story in height have a floor space or approximately 350 square meters and would be for classrooms it would be constructed from the same materials as the main school building so I don't know if you can see that very well but just an example of the ground floor for the new school so we have hall a hall we have classrooms we have sensory rooms and obviously ancillary facilities just gives you an idea so just going on to the elevations so the building has been now being designed to reflect the sort of character of the existing listed building at impington village college so just with details so for example there will be tiles around the entrance which will match some tiling on the original impington village college building so it's taking sort of details and materials from that building along with the sort of flat roof form and just giving it a modernist contemporary approach to the historic building going on to the school elevations so here's some perspective views just so you get an idea of what the building will look like so it is fairly sort of flat roof and sort of a box but with some features to break up the mass of the building so going on to the impington village college building so there will be three general teaching areas an office and communal area again flat roof design so again with materials to match and this will be single story in height so there will be a feature at the entrance of the building to direct see people to the main entrance so again this is the same materials will give you an idea of the perspectives of the building just an example of the ground store so single story brick building very similar to the existing building and it will have a funded area for the side for an oil tank and again details of the horticultural room for the children at the school so they can do some work outside the key considerations are the principle of development in the green belt education use protection of open space basically the site is adjacent to playing fields for impington village college architecture and appearance of the area heritage assets trees landscaping and biodiversity transport and highway safety flood risk and drainage neighbour amenity and whether there are any very special circumstances thank you right thank you very much okay members any points of clarification please Councillor Bredman thank you chairman I just wanted to clarify I may have been looking at an original site plan do I understand it now from the plan that you showed us that the grounds storage building has been moved closer to the school building was off at the northern boundary and it's been moved in now hasn't it that's correct yes it was originally near the dwellings on Perture and Close and it has been moved next to the new school building now thank you thank you very much Councillor Heather Williams please thank you chairman sorry my mute seems to be stuck which may be fortunate you may feel but I just wanted to congratulate Karen on it's very very informative report and there's a lot of very useful information in it I just wondered if in future I can see and on other items we've gone to some sort of new style on the front page which from a public perception view I really don't think is as accessible as the old one so I'm wondering if in future we could have the other style that you know you can find your recommendation but it's sort of buried in the executive summary in the parish those sorts of things and I think that'd be really helpful my clarification on the application itself is around and the green belt the processes just so we need to establish that it's in the green belt there's harm and the very special circumstances is that that's the test that we need to go through I just wanted clarity and for the public as well because we've not gone through that for a while so the process around the green belt please thank you yeah so firstly you would need to determine whether the proposal would represent appropriate development in the green belt or inappropriate development in the green belt you would then need to determine whether there's any other harm as a result of the proposal so for example character and appearance of the area heritage assets by way safety etc if that is the case so say for example it is inappropriate in the green belt and there's other harm any very special circumstances would need to clearly outweigh the harm through inappropriateness and any other harm for us to be able to approve the application right thank you very much for that I don't see any further points of clarification from members so I'll now move on to the public speakers we have a number of public speakers on this is Mr. Kelso with us please for the applicant Kelso would like to put on your camera thank you welcome good morning sorry to keep you that's quite alright you know the form do you you got your three minutes and then there's members may wish to ask questions so when you're ready I'd like to start by thanking members of South Cambridge the planning department, the county council environment department and the education department and local councillors for working diligently with us as a trust, a DFE and McAvoy is the developer supreme of Cavendish school development to this meeting today for planning approval the school needs to open in the academic year 21-22 the Cavendish school will provide education for a large number of students with autism diagnoses many of whom are currently not receiving appropriate education or are accessing extremely expensive private provision at significant cost to the council at a time when the high needs education budget in Cambridge is already approximately 18 million pounds in deficit there are currently over 100 young people in Cambridge who should be being educated in special schools who are not failure to open the Cavendish school in the academic year 21-22 will mean that these young people will continue to be unable to access educational provision they require deserve and are entitled to by law throughout the free school application development and planning process the Cavendish school has received and retained significant support from the local authority the local community via parish and district councils and the wider send education community there is clearly a desire from all stakeholders to ensure that this school opens delivers on its vision for fantastic education and opportunities for young people with autism in Cambridge I've mentioned the very special circumstances and much need is specialist education provision a building of excellent sustainability on a sustainable site clearly delivers benefits that outweigh the harm of this development in the green belt in planning policy terms additionally being a complex development we have worked with officers through multiple consultations and amendments so it can be of the highest standard overcome the concerns raised by residents and statutory consultees I would like now to explain why approval of the application today is so important these are not material planning considerations but they provide very important context we face the challenge of building an opening a school in less than 12 months if approval is not secured today this will delay the improvement of the head teacher and staff will mean that young people in need of this provision will not be able to access it until the academic year 22-23 and this will incur significant further cost to the Learning Alliance Trust formerly the Morris Education Trust the DFA in Cambridge Accounting Council moreover it will cause further anxiety trauma for families and vulnerable young people our significant experience as a trust working with young people and families with special educational needs makes us to determine to our community school as soon as possible as we are acutely aware of the negative impact in appropriate and inadequate provision can have on the development and life chances of the vulnerable conversely we are also aware of the transformative impact that the right provision can have on the lives of young people with special needs and their families as a trust we are committed to delivering excellent provision for those most in need we would ask your support in doing so by approving the planning application for the Cavendish School today thank you thank you very much and the Consulate Professional is exactly three minutes well done any points of clarification that you would like to pursue no we are all happy are we Councillor Bradnan chair Councillor Bradnan please thank you thank you Chairman I don't know if you can see me can you see me okay good I just wanted to ask are you confident that there is sufficient parking for staff in the provision that you've made Mr. Council yes we do that's sorry I put my camera on as well yes we are that's something we've considered as part of the wider site management process and we're retaining significant existing parking and also they'll be parking for the school the school has a small staff body initially and will grow over time okay thank you very much any other points members I can't see anybody asking no Mr. Council thank you very much thank you if we can move on to the parish council representative then that's Councillor Payne Councillor Payne are you with us yes chairman I should be but I appear to have a problem with my video we can hear you very well may I proceed then do proceed please thank you thank you chairman good morning I'm sorry just a procedural matter I have to confirm that you have the permission of the parish council to speak on their behalf yes chairman I was granted that permission at our parish council planning committee last night excellent thank you very much so when you're ready just the three minutes thank you chairman good morning thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee on this application my name is Dennis Payne I sit on Histon and Eppington parish council and I'm currently the chairman of the council and vice chairman of the parish council's planning committee we have met with representatives of the county school on a number of occasions that includes meetings with the chair of the governor's attendance of public exhibitions and attendance of the project team at all our planning committee meetings covering this matter in addition when details of the application associated with the ground storage facility received negative inputs from the community the project team went out of their way to meet with concerned residents and representatives of the council and explore options and produce a solution to meet those concerns the parish council's planning committee has been totally supportive of the plans and ambitions for the county school throughout this process in addition at the first meeting with our planning committee the project teams ambitions to meet the highest possible sustainability and energy efficiency standards were discussed the committee was supportive of those ambitions and encouraged the school to plan to make the best possible start we therefore wish to support the school's ambition to achieve dream excellent standard we sincerely hope that the committee will support this application thank you thank you very much any points of clarification members I think it's just a statement of clear support there okay there's a councillor Payne that's thank you for your contribution we move on then to local councillors do they have councillor Halings wants to speak at this stage we have councillor David Jenkins I have him on my list I'm asking you first I'll reserve my speech for the end alright fine and councillor Carn I take it that you also will reserve your speech and we have Willis and councillor Jenkins who is the county councillor for this area councillor Jenkins are you with us yes chair good morning and good morning committee good morning three minutes when you're ready okay I'm county councillor for Histon and Impington I'm also a trustee on the board of the Morris Education Trust the multi-academy trust which will run this school from a county council perspective I strongly support this application there is a shortage of places in Cambridge for children with autistic conditions and the Cavendish school will address this there is a need for extra provision now and this school cannot open that's why I would like to see this planning application approved today bringing this application to this meeting has been a challenge and I'd like to recognise the role of the South Cairns officers concerned in making this possible they've been very professional they've rightly challenged the applicant to an appropriate and they've persisted and not wavered in ensuring that the due process will be followed however when it was appropriate to expedite the last steps to enable the application to come to this meeting today they did so the effort was matched by similar commitment on the part of the county council officers I thank them all for what they have done and have every confidence that they have done it right and without compromise there is broad support for this project in the community and I urge the committee to approve it subject to the conditions already proposed thank you chair right thank you very much any points of clarification members from councillor Jenkins no I think that's perfectly clear endorsement there so thank you very much councillor Jenkins we can move on then to the debate local members will no doubt wish to speak I just say that the report makes it very clear that all the statutory consultees are supportive of this proposal and all the speakers we've heard are equally supportive so perhaps you just bear that in mind and can we see who would like to speak now councillor and the Bradman leaders thank you chairman yes I think this is an excellent application I'm so pleased to see that through negotiation and discussion that matters have been changed which improve the application and I think it's an example of how people have worked together for a very positive result and as a councillor also not for this area I'm very aware of how short we are of this specialist school provision and so I'm very pleased to see this happening right in the area where it's needed we have very many children who are being taken very long distances by taxi to appropriate schools so having it here would be wonderful the other thing I wanted to say is that I'm really pleased that the building does reflect the architecture of the Walter Gropius building and I think it reflects it appropriately and it's showing respect for the original building so I have no hesitation in supporting this application wholeheartedly thank you thank you very much councillor Halings local member please thank you very much chair and yeah so being local member obviously we're very very interested in ensuring that this application gets a proper debate and we do weigh up the potential harms and benefits that it represents because of its sensitivity and the significance of this being a departure from our policies because of it being a development in the green belt however we've just heard such endorsements from the education trust and from county councillors around the need the urgent and important need for state specialist provision for high functioning autism and so it's not just a benefit to the local ward but also for many families across the county and we're very proud that this is being built on as such an excellent track record of this kind of provision given locally already and in terms of weighing up that balance I've been extremely impressed this is how things need to happen where when we do go out to consultation and I would like to insist here there have been multiple consultations for this application and when they've received concerns about some of the key material planning considerations that we've been asked to weigh up in the balance they have been addressed in the time that's needed to take to address them one of those is neighbour amenity and urban design and character appearance where many residents living close to that area were quite concerned about the location of the ground store and oil tank and with the amended plans and the relocation both the urban design officer and all of those residents have now withdrawn any objections that they had despite perhaps the case officer showing this as I think what it she mentioned was that it was a flat roof and box type aspect I think councillor Bradenham has just said that she as the urban design officer says this does capture the modern approach of the architecture which is famous to Gropius and which has led to that being a grade one listed building so a lot of work has also been done to make sure in the next couple of minutes that does respect the setting and the character and appearance another issue was around flooding and drainage and it was excellent to see that in this last stage County officers for flooding and for drainage together with the case officer together with the project management team and the education trust were able to come together to make sure that they had everything secured in terms of the drainage aspects which are now in condition are we're in place for everything to be addressed all concerns to be addressed this is time critical we have to ensure these students can get the kind of education they need for September 2021 which is why this application is time critical but we can't approve it just on those grounds urgent I've been witness to the fact that this has gone through multiple consultations that every single concern has been addressed and they are now in the conditions however I would like to move to committee in support of Councillor Dennis Payne who is the chair of the parish council this motion that we add an informative and in the informative we strongly encourage the applicant to adopt Bream excellence in all energy aspects and in all other relevant areas too and chair that's a motion that I would like to put to the committee before any final decision is made thank you right thank you very much that's a proposal which is noted we are just getting the speakers do you want a seconder for that chairman not at this stage I'll come back to that thank you Councillor Heather Williams please you like to speak thank you chairman so reading through the application obviously we have a balance we always do and you know it cannot be in doubt that obviously this is outside of our policies and policies that many of us including myself hold very dearly because they are protection but quite rightly in special circumstances in situations such as these I think it is appropriate that we make a conscious decision to support an application against our policies and this is the right place for us to do it because you know we're councillors we set the the local plan is up to us if we want to deviate from it and I'm minded having to do care and attention to the report and listen carefully to our local member that just spoke that that is the appropriate recommendation and I'm very happy to offer my support to this application I know how important these issues are my daughter doesn't have autism but she does receive special educational needs and the support she gets is brilliant in her special educational needs plan but they need more facilities for other areas and I'm just more than pleased to support it and on the motion that councillor Haley's made I would be happy to support as well but I would like some advice as to whether it would meet the six reasonable tests thank you chairman thank you very much councillor Ripeth please you're muted in my opinion this far outweighs any harm to the green belt and it's a proposal that we need to support today and cannot come soon enough so I hope everybody else would like to support it right thank you very much and councillor Khan other local member please sorry sorry get the camera on again okay my comment really here is that first thing I would say additional declaration of interest my wife is on the planning committee of the parish council and also I did see some of the presentations before the application so I'm approaching this refresh on these matters as well so I really just wanted to support what councillor Hainings has said but also in addition comment about the impact on the green belt in terms of the fact that the existing buildings on the site are unsightly really a bit of an eyesore and you are replacing this with a fine building it's actually quite although it follows the modern line of the gropiest building it's actually quite distant from the building and there are other buildings in between but I want to draw attention to the comparison between that and K block which is also in the green belt in the new building within the school which doesn't follow in doesn't have the same following of the gropiest design this is a much better a much more sympathetic design in those terms so I think in visual terms it's actually proving an enhancement of the green belt compared to what is there now and so on those grounds I would like to support it in general very much in favour of this application of this development Thank you very much I can't subred them you want to come back again do you? Thank you Chairman it was just I forgot to mention before that this planning committee has previously looked at applications in the green belt and weighed up whether they were appropriate to approve or not and the example I'm remembering is the Arthur rank hospice and in that case this application has done a similar exercise of doing a search for sites and they have identified this as the most appropriate site and I just wanted to confirm my view that the approach to finding a suitable site has been appropriate and I think the benefits that would be preferred by this application do outweigh the harm to the green belt and for that reason I think we should approve it I'm happy to propose if any or second that if anybody wishes to propose it We have an amendment first which I'm just going to go back to now so thank you very much for that Councillor Breddon if I go back to Councillor Haylings could you give some words around your informative please Thank you chair and I'd just like to give it a bit of context which is you know we have declared a climate emergency we do have a zero carbon strategy and just as this application has shown excellence in the way that it's dealing with consultation and the design we want to be able to support everybody in ensuring that it's exemplary also in terms of sustainability now our local plan the existing one does not enable us to put a condition to require green excellence but I have been advised by officers that an informative that strongly encourages and this is the wording I would like that we have an informative additional which strongly encourages the applicant to adopt green excellence in all energy related aspects and in all other relevant areas and I'd just like to confirm that I have received reassurance from the project management team that the applicant would be able to adopt such measures if the committee were moved to approve this Right thank you very much for that just before we move on to any discussion on that I would just like Mr Carter to make sure that there's no issues that this raises which may complicate anything in particular Thank you chair now I'm happy to advise that we're okay to proceed on this basis just quickly in response to Heather Williams point as this isn't proposed to a planning condition it's just an informative that she decided there thank you thank you very much for that okay members does anybody want to speak to that I think it's perfectly straightforward I'm happy to second the amendment if you wish that okay thank you so we have a proposal and a seconder and this is to strongly urge the adoption of green excellence standards can I take this through affirmative yes agreed agreed no one against no one abstaining okay so that's agreed by affirmation we therefore now move to the main recommendation which is on page 49 of your papers paragraph 213 so that would now be as delegated approval subject to no issues being raised during the amendment amended consultation period subject to referral of the application to the secretary of state as a departure together with the conditioning which the officer has already outlined so are we in favor of that agreed agreed right no one against no that's that's passed so we approve that one thank you very much item 6 has already been deferred at Kotlin and so now members we're moving on to item 7 this is arston pages 137 through to 172 so it's arston the reference is S4057 19 OL the proposal is for outline planning permission for the demolition of an existing buildings and provision of up to 16 dwellings up to 120 square meters of office accommodation access public open space and landscaping including details of access and with all other matters reserved the applicant is access land partnerships the case officer will take us through the material considerations this is not a departure and it's coming before the committee because of the request of the local member and the parish council the presenting officer is Karen Paul Coggins if you'd like to make your presentation please Karen thank you chair with regards to the recommendation it will be a delegated refusal subject to know the representations being received during the consultation period just to note members in your plans pack there is a couple of elevations of buildings of houses and an annex which doesn't actually relate to this application apologies I'm not quite sure how that managed to get there but go on to my presentation now so the site is located outside the Haarston development framework and within the green belt the key constraints are green belt and country sites the site is previously developed planned it is within flood zone 1 low risk and there's a railway line along the south eastern boundary and mature trees along the north western boundary so just an example the site is down here which is wholly within the green belts the this is the rest of Haarston village so the dashed line is the village framework there is a listed building just here the railway line goes along the to the south east and this is station road along here so the existing sites has a one and a half building along the south eastern boundary adjacent to the railway line which has a use of storage warehouse purposes in addition there's a two storey office building within the site just here to the rear of the that's probably an easier plan to see to the rear of the office building there is an open storage area which has permission for storage up to 2.4 meters in height again there's hard standing to the back and then there's a range of single storey buildings right at the bottom of the site on the boundary so the mature trees are alongside the boundary with the residential property known as Ticktock to the north and there is a Leylandi hedge along the south south eastern boundary adjacent to the railway this is station house which is a residential property which does not fall within the application site so the just examples of buildings which are on the site at the moment so the first one this is station house in the corner with the warehouse storage building to the rear and then you can see the office building and then just looking from the rear of the site back towards the back of the office building and the storage building so shows the open storage and then again another photograph looking towards the rear boundary with single storey buildings on the rear boundary this is a view of the site from Newton Road so to the east I believe so this is station road obviously the level crossing is here and then the land rises up to a hill on Newton Road and you can see the existing Leylandi screen on site with the railway line just in front of that so the proposal is for the erection of up to 16 dwellings and 120 square meters of office space the buildings would be two storey in height so in a layout at right angles to station road so just an example residential development is this pale orange area just here and then the employment development is the darker orange area just here to the this side there is details of the public open space which will be a local area okay access roads through the site will be down here and there will be two small turning areas and this will access the some garages to the properties that from station road so again building heights it will all be two storey in height across the site so the illustrative master plan it's an outline application so the current plan is illustrative only but it shows again this is the employment building here with parking next to that and then you've got various terraces of properties a terrace of properties along the frontage station road and then a linear form of development at right angles station road coming down here with again terraces and semi detached properties and then you have the larger detached properties at the back and here is an axonometric view of an example of what the development may look like so again you've got the two storey buildings this is the employment building here the existing station house and tiptofs house the open space and the detached properties down there so the key considerations are the principle of development in the green belts loss of employment location and scale of residential development housing density, housing mix affordable housing developer contributions the character and appearance of the area heritage assets trees and landscaping and biodiversity highway safety flood risk, naver immunity and whether there are any very special circumstances thank you thank you very much members any points of clarification please officer see you needing them okay good thank you very much we can then go hello thank you how's the bread mum thank you very much chair I just wanted to ask miss pal Coggins whether the fact that this is a brownfield site in the green belt needs to needs to weigh in our obviously it weighs in our how it should be weighed in terms sorry whether it represents a different presentation sorry I'm not being very clear whether we need to take that into account the fact that it's a brownfield site in the green belt rather than just say green belt per se so the policy and the paragraph in the MPPF is slightly different in relation to brownfield sites that is in the report but I will just read it out to you it says when determining whether a development is appropriate or inappropriate partial or complete redevelopment previously developed land which would not have a greater impact upon the openness of the green belt than the existing development or not cause substantial harm so the openness of the green belt whether development would contribute to meeting and identified affordable housing need within the area so that's when determining whether a development is appropriate or not in the green belt so it's slightly different test for previously developed land than what it is for land that has not been previously developed so it hinges on the perceived harm compared to the existing harm that is yes and whether that's substantial or not but then you also have to take into the balance of the affordable housing needs as well. Thank you very much Councillor Hawkins Thank you chair I think Karen just mentioned now that we also need to take into account the need for affordable housing that was what I wanted to clarify in that the requirement for affordable housing should also bear significance in how we weigh up this application Is that correct? That is correct yes Thank you Thank you very much I think that's all the members comments can we now move on to public speakers we have a number of public speakers here is Mr Cosgrove with us please Yes good morning chair Good morning Mr Cosgrove Can you you can see and hear me okay? I can hear you can't see at the moment Yep okay we're all there Thank you very much sorry to keep you No problem at all good morning thank you very much chair for allowing me to speak today Okay The drill will do you three minutes and then they may well want to ask questions so whenever you're ready Hopefully I won't need the full three minutes I'm here to represent Mr and Mrs Norman who are the owners of Tiptoff's house the dwelling immediately to the north west They don't object to the principle of the application but they do have very great concerns about the impact on their trees that run along the boundary These trees have been assessed as being worthy of a TPO and an application for a tree protection order has been made I'd just like to make the members aware that just inside the boundary those trees are covered by about a meter thick concrete plinth and none of the tree protection documents or the details dealing with the trees have addressed how that could be removed without causing substantial harm or loss to the trees and because the application is an outline that's not really something that could be addressed satisfactorily as it is part of the reserve matters application we need to know now and there could be very substantial costs to that which would have an impact on what level of affordable housing could perhaps be provided on the site and there could be a scene of liability assessment that has addressed that so I think that's a question that's still very much open in the air Further issue is although the outline is only an indicative outline showing where the houses are you'll note that the rear gardens are very shallow and some of the dwellings particularly the ones to the front sit within the tree protection area and would lead to harm to the trees and those shallow gardens would lead to a lot of pressure for any for future residents of those houses to have those trees cut back or removed entirely which would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area because those trees are a very important landscape feature then there is a slight further issue but one of much less importance which is to do with drainage the field immediately to the rear to the west of the site has a network of pipes running through it to drain it because the land is very foggy and admittedly the quantity of this development would lead to the quantity of hard surface being substantially reduced but we don't really know from the documents submitted how the actual water flows would be affected by this and it's interesting to note that the land level because it is concrete concrete plant between the application site and tiptox house changes by about a meter and there are drainage holes drilled in the concrete plant so they do have some concerns about how the water flows would alter based on if this development were to go ahead so really our comments just entirely hinge around the impact of this proposed development on those trees and really don't think that what's been submitted so far adequately addresses how those trees could be protected long term so thanks very much for your time today thank you very much I'm sure all those points are noted by officers and as you say this is outlined at the moment and I know the tree officer who has already made the initial report and I'm sure they take that on board Councillor Hawkins do you want to point of clarification yes please thank you but I think councillor Kahn was before me I I simply wanted to speak to the officer and that's finished now so we can continue with councillor Hawkins carry on councillor thank you thank you for that I just wanted to because I'm not quite sure I understand the issue you raised about the concrete plinth the concrete plinth surely is in the application site is that correct it is indeed but the trees themselves are not the roots run under the concrete plinth and if that was to be removed that would lead to potentially the loss of the trees and certainly severe harm to them the way of doing that there possibly is an engineering solution but we need to know that now at the outline stage how they propose to do it it's not something that could really be left to the reserve matters because it's unsure how if it can be done at all and if it can be done we need to know how okay so your concern is the damage potential damage that you reckon the removal of the concrete plinth will do yes and whether that can be done at all and if it can be done what harm would result in it and then the secondary issue is the houses being too close to the trees that would really overshadow the gardens of those houses and lead to a lot of pressure from the residents there to cut them back so does that mean that the canopy of those trees actually protrudes into the application site okay thank you thank you very much I haven't got any other questions so Mr Postgrove thank you very much indeed thank you very much for your time Jack thank you and could we then move on to our next speaker who's Mr Adams who's representing the applicants I believe are you with us Mr Adams hello can you hear me good morning so I think you know the drill you've got like three minutes whenever you're ready thank you chair and good afternoon members my name's Andrew Adams I'm the senior land manager of access land partnerships the applicant to this application which seeks outlining permission with all matters reserved apart from access the proposals seek to remove existing buildings and structures within the site and replace with new dwelling houses with a 10% of which would be provided as affordable housing employment generating office space would also be provided as officers have made clear the application site comprises a brownfield land within the green belt and is situated on the edge of Haarston we have a respectful working relationship with officers however in this instance I feel strongly that the officer recommendation of refusal is wrong the reasons for refusal solely concerned matters of judgment and it is entirely appropriate for this opportunity to reach an alternative view to that offered by officers on such matters. Officers suggest that the development proposals would comprise inappropriate development within the green belt as defined by national planning policy this is incorrect the MPPF is clear apparel 145G that the redevelopment of brownfield land within the green belt is not inappropriate development except where substantial impact upon openness of the green belt is caused the impact to be substantial the change in openness from the current situation would need to be very great indeed that is simply not the case in this instance. Officers suggest that the development proposals would result in unacceptable loss of employment land contrary to policy E14 again this is incorrect even ignoring the fact that the proposals include employment development which will yield as many if not more jobs in the existing policy E14 is clear that loss of employment land uses is acceptable where the overall benefit to the community outweighs any adverse effect on employment opportunities and the range of available employment land and premises. It is a fact that Haarston is extremely well served by existing employment sites within the village framework more than I mentioned at power 67 of the officer report at the same time there's a significant deficit of affordable housing in Haarston and the development proposals will make a substantial contribution to meeting this need providing a hugely significant community benefit. In addition you've seen that the parish council is strongly supportive of this scheme I cannot think of a better barometer of community benefit officers suggest that it will be less than substantial harm caused to undesignated heritage assets in the area being the former station house and the remnants of historic earthworks. The officer report alleges that both features are de facto undesignated heritage assets and states that the scheme causes harm to both however the paragraph 15 of the report where the conservation officer's comments are set out it is clearly stated the setting of the station house can adequately be preserved by appropriate scheme design of reserves matters and there's also uncertainty as to whether in fact the earthworks are capable of being considered to be non-designated heritage assets. Perhaps more importantly the balancing exercise required by power 197 of the MPPF has not been carried out. Thank you for allowing me to speak to the members. We'll see the significant benefit of this scheme and I hope that you will vote to support the proposals. All right, thank you very much. Points of clarification members, councillor Halings. Hello, yes. Even though this is a brownfield site it is within the green belt as you've said and you've been talking about it being purely about judgment but I would say we have one very very strong policy which is about outweighing harms in the green belt is that it's an exception site and when we're putting forward the arguments for affordable housing specifically to meet local and district need exception sites like this are 100% whereas you're putting forward what is a normal market application for what is normally within the village development framework and not in the green belt for 40% affordable housing. Can you explain why you're not putting this forward as would be policy compliant for an exception site and as the affordable housing office has mentioned in the report which you didn't make any reference to in your three minutes thank you. Yeah, I mean I can clarify well within the report it was noted that what the affordable housing officer said was incorrect in terms of this having to be an application for an exception site for this to be acceptable it's perfectly within planning means to be able to put a market compliant assessment with affordable housing site on the previously developed brownfield site within the green belt which we are doing and we feel given that and increasing and changing the employment capability on the site together with together with the affordable housing remit in Haarston which is completely surrounded by green belt that we feel that that is bringing together impact or positive benefits together with the possibility of some open market housing as well. Can I just ask a further come back on that. Thank you and so you mentioned we have had cases like this in the past where a viability assessment has shown that it's not possible to meet the 100% requirement for affordable housing and recognizing that Haarston does have a housing need for affordable housing and so I didn't see mention of the viability assessment that would say that it would need to be a traditional 40% affordable housing. The viability assessment is done in that regard but it is what we've looked at is the housing mix and bringing forward smaller dwellings which are more beneficial to the population of Haarston rather than in other recent applications on land within Haarston that have gone for large 5-6 detached bedroom houses. We have done a sensible mix that is compliant with officers and through having those conversations. Right thank you very much I've got Councillor Carl please. Thank you two things really I wanted to ask you first of all what precautions you've taken to cater for the noise problem I know that being close to a railway line quite severe noise impacted as close as these houses are being proposed I realise the level suggested is too high. How do you how do you anticipate making the houses habitable I can speak and experience on that actually for a few years right next to the railway line and I know the impact the second thing how do you is there any public transport passing by the the housing development some distance from the village of Haarston the separate open space countryside between it and the nearest part of the village envelope the village perimeter is there any public transport apart from rail line which is on the site of a station which closed in 1963 series unlikely to be reopened is there any public transport because it needs to be affordable housing needs to have good accessibility in other means than car fans sure thank you I'll deal with those in reverse order if that's okay there is the public bus stop is a couple of hundred meters back up station road and in terms of sustainability your two 300 meters walk from the local school and all of the various services that are there in Haarston including shops etc in regards to the noise we have we have liaison with the EHR in this matter and there are no objections raised in terms of noise from the railway there will be various mitigation measures that will be in place and will come through through reserve matters and that's including noise buffering on the railway planting and obviously appropriate materials being used in construction all right thank you are you going to answer your question councillor Karm yes okay we move on then to councillor Hawkins please thank you chair Mr Adams I think you have heard concerns from the neighbour regarding the issues of the trees along the border can you tell us if you have considered this how you see yourself being able to remove the plants without damaging the roots of the trees because I think it's of value and obviously if you're going to be doing that and also for me the fact that a lot of the canopy there's a lot of overhang from those trees into the application site in some ways does reduce what you have available for those buildings so if you're having to spend more to remedy all that how will that affect the provision that you are now agreeing to or proposing for affordable housing okay thank you councillor Hawkins just in answer to that a tree survey was carried out and submitted as part of the application and this was updated following concerns that were raised by Tiptox House the tree officer initially had some concerns and following on from the additional information that was submitted they did remove any holding objection in that regard it's important to know that it is an iterative design at the moment and this is outline we feel and our tree consultants share the same view that would be absolutely no issue with coming across to be able to remove that plinth or to be able to use engineering designs to not cause harm to the trees and in terms of canopying in terms of the garden design that is a simple measure of just some formal cutting back that would need to be taken forward can I come back on that please chair you say simple cutting back can you give us an idea just how much overhand there is in terms of meters and how much cutting back will be required because again too much cutting back called damage those trees couldn't they yeah I mean some of them are rather large trees some of them aren't of particularly good quality and actually some some lopping and cutting back would be beneficial in that regard and the tree officer has agreed in terms of our tree consultant as well that there wouldn't be any long term damage in that regard and in terms of cost that's not something that would have a massive impact in terms of viability thank you thank you very much Councillor Wright please thank you Chairman my issues are the affordable housing which is largely what this site is being sold on and going back to Councillor Haley's point around about the viability study looking at this site and I've got a picture of it in front of me there are substantial buildings on the site a lot of hard covering on the ground the viability is going to be seriously affected by the amount of work you have to do to clear the site not mentioning that one of the businesses on the site is selling roofing and it has a turnip which is asbestos so by the time you've cleared this site up the viability is going to be very seriously challenged and I really doubt it's going to make the 40% or anything like it perhaps you could comment yeah just in return to the comment for that and probably following on from previous camps and comments I think part of the reason why the site wouldn't work as a full exception site is for that basis that we do realise there has to be some demolition and site clearance we propose that this wouldn't cause an impact on viability in terms of trying to reduce the affordable housing element on the scheme and that would be able to be taken into account by the fact that there will be some market housing on the site and that would be taken into account and brought forward as part of any viability concerns which we propose there wouldn't be going forward by the reserve matter stage right thank you and Councillor Bredman do you have a yes thank you Chairman I just wanted to ask Mr Adams whilst we have a report from the trees officer it simply deals with the canopies it doesn't refer specifically to the removal of the concrete plinths which the parish council the gentleman who spoke on behalf of Tiptoff's house mentioned and it's not clear to me that the trees officer was entirely aware of that when they made their report as I say their report only deals with the canopy that's not a question from Mr Adams sorry from the officer I could just clarify that the updated comments from the tree officer were off the back of additional material we put in following on from the objection from Tiptoff's house on those concerns so the officer either considered I believe that that was of not high enough importance to raise further concerns on because it could be addressed from standard engineering design and the fact that this is a indicative layout currently which then can be looked at in more detail reserve matters right thank you very much well thank you Mr Adams I think that's all the questions from members thanks for your time we move on then to the parish council representative is Councillor O'Breen with us please yes can you hear me yes I can hear you good afternoon chair and adjacent gentleman before you start just as a procedural matter I have to confirm that you have the permission that your parish council speak on their behalf as agreed at the parish council meeting on the 3rd of September thank you very much so it's three minutes whenever you are ready okay as I said good afternoon chair ladies and gentlemen my name is Niall O'Breen I'm chair of Harston Parish Council I'd like to take a few minutes to explain why Harston Parish Council strongly supports this development and would like it to take place let me return to Karen Pell Coggins's photos and I would underline to you that this is a brownfield site although it lies within the green belt Harston has a need for affordable housing South Council District Council's affordable homes department states that we have a need for 21 and the 6 in this development would make an appreciable contribution to that need as has been mentioned Harston is tightly surrounded by the green belt and over the years it has been virtually impossible to find building land in the village for affordable house building let me mention in passing that we have not built a council house in the village for over 40 years and none are currently planned in terms of living in Harston this site has several desirable features it is within 200 meters of the local primary school a safe walk along the pavement in station road for children the co-op plans to open a small supermarket next to the school providing shopping at a walkable distance and the bus stops on Harston High Street from the number 915 bus are about 300 meters away so these facets will help to keep people out of their cars and looking further to the future there is potential we are about to bid for funds to do a study on the reopening of Harston Station nearby which would offer further non-car transport links finally ladies and gentlemen I would like to briefly mention that in spite of being asked I have been unable to have a dialogue with South Cams District Council planning about affordable housing in Harston I wanted to propose that a holistic view be taken of our needs for affordable housing and to replace this particular potential development within that context that hasn't happened thank you very much thank you Mr Green any questions members can't see anything coming up so no thank you very much then let's thank you Mr Green we'll move on then to local member Councillor Sollum Councillor Sollum are you with us yes good okay thanks chair Wendy are you ready so I'm really here today I am here to support this outline application but it's really more important to emphasise that I'm here in support of the parish council who you've just heard from and the community that we represent there are clear trade-offs in this application and legitimate concerns about the potential harm to the Green Bay belt about the potential loss of employment sites we've heard from the neighbours on the tree issue and the benefit to Haarston is the other side of their trade-off making those trade-offs is obviously the judgement call that you have to make today but it's my view and it's one that I share with the parish council that the benefit does outweigh the harm Haarston has the need for affordable housing but it's been very hard to get that built within the village framework and with Haarston being so tightly constrained by the Green Belt this is a site that can actually finally deliver an affordable housing contribution to Haarston and it is much needed now we do need to proceed with great care with any developments in the Green Belt but this is a substantial brownfield site and a development of 16 houses doesn't need to cause a great increase in harm to the Green Belt beyond what is already there it's true that it's important to get the details right to make sure that that is actually the case that it doesn't cause harm but this is an outline application and I personally don't see any reason why those details can't be addressed in the usual way they would in taking an outline approval through to development similarly I don't see the trade-off on the employment site it's sufficient to outweigh the benefit so I'm not going to labour the point any further you've heard it from me you've heard it from the parish council but I do hope that you will take our views seriously in your deliberations today and vote in favour of approval thanks thank you very much any points of clarification members yes Councillor Richard Williams please thank you chair can I just ask Councillor Sollum to clarify whether his position is he's supporting this really only because of the affordable housing element to it I'm just trying to get into my head the arguments we've heard earlier about the viability of it so is it the case that you really are supporting this only because of the affordable housing that's the key element for you certainly that is the driving driving element for you for me but and I think it's absolutely right that you consider the viability element within that I am not a planning expert nor do I pretend to be so and I am not sitting on the planning committee hearing these all the time but I think the sense I get from the community in Haarston is the need is to the extent that they are desperate for any affordable contribution and that is an important it's the most important factor in my consideration of supporting this and I think to me it represents an appropriate scale of development on what is a brand field site in the green belt thank you all right thank you very much I don't have any further speakers question yes so Councillor Sollum thank you very much right just before we move to debate I see that Councillor Bradlam would like to ask the case officer a question Bradlam please thank you chairman I've got two one was that whilst we've heard from the agent for the neighbour at Tiptoft's I couldn't see any representation from the neighbour in our report and please correct me if I'm wrong but I just wanted to check whether any written representation was made that has been incorporated the second one was that I was concerned that the tree officer didn't mention this existence of the plinth the tree officer only appeared to refer to the canopy and I just wanted to check whether the tree officer was aware of that matter about the plinth I think those are questions I would like for clarification thank you thank you thank you Councillor Bradlam with regards to the additional information that was submitted to address the concerns from Tiptoft's house that was consulted the tree officer was consulted on that information and obviously came back with the comments that are actually in the report with regards to Tiptoft's house that representation should be noted in the report it's not specifically under an address but it's within the representation section okay sorry I missed that then okay maybe it was well hidden alright thank you okay members we are open for debate I see Councillor Roberts please are you going to open it thank you very much Chairman and it's been a very interesting discussion and a lot of information to take on board and a lot of different perspectives however I am going to go back to the basics really here and the policy of the green belt and I think when we were talking earlier about in Pington and Councillor Bradlam reminded us about the hospice where they were clearly easily available for us to decide that there were exceptional reasons to go with an application we saw it within Pington this morning when I've been listening to the whole discussion this morning I've had no indication whatsoever that there are for this type of application exceptional circumstances it would have been absolutely different my feelings would have been absolutely the opposite had it been going to be an exception site with 100% for affordable housing I think there is an argument in the village clearly being discussed about the lack of this type of housing for local people however this is not going to provide it we haven't really had a serious reason why that hasn't been considered I think that the officer in this application has come up with absolutely the right recommendation for us which is for a refusal and I will be supporting the officer's recommendation thank you thank you very much councillor councillor Heather Williams please thank you chairman I'm going to refer to my notes I've made from the speakers through the representations that have been made because I think a lot of us do identify with the affordable housing issue that a lot of our villagers face and some of the words that we use were need and desperate for affordable housing it's been hard to find sites and the viability isn't an issue and I can understand why feeling that way and as was referenced by the local member desperation would lead to supporting anything that came their way to provide it however I do think that I would be doing a disservice because it's so hard to find sites and I've listened to that very carefully that this is the exact situation where the exception site policy is therefore because if we do find a site where there can be affordable housing it's our responsibility to make sure we get the maximum amount possible of affordable housing in that area and 40% just is not enough. Harston needs more and therefore it needs an exception site and the special circumstances have not been identified as to why that this application before us should be supported and you know we would have the viability assessment if it came forward as an exception site the viability could show if only 40% could be delivered but let's try and make the most of it and I'd encourage the parish council to try and have those conversations with housing officers because they are right, they deserve more affordable housing but I'm afraid that this development in its current way is not the way to achieve it you need more and you could get more in different routes and so I will be supporting the officer's recommendation thank you chairman. Right thank you very much Councillor Bredman please. Thank you chairman yes I'm I remain unconvinced by the well not unconvinced by the need in the village I appreciate that but as others have said I think if that is the case it should follow the rules for an exception site and it should offer 100% affordable housing and secondly I'm concerned that this in no way reflects our normal approach to village approaches in other words when we come in from the countryside we do not expect to see a big long terrace of houses right on the outside of the village we expect a gradual approach to development as you go in towards a village edge and although this does have an existing Leylandi hedge in front of it I don't think that reflects the spirit of the intention of our of our principles around development and also I'm concerned that we've got no evidence of any kind of search for sites within the village prior to the bringing forward of this I appreciate the local member has said there has been search for sites but we didn't see any evidence of that and I think if we had had that evidence we might have looked upon this application or sorry I can't speak for others but I would have looked upon this more favorably but at present I'm still interested to hear the remainder of the debate because I can see a number of people have asked to speak but I'm not feeling very favorable towards it at the moment so thank you Thank you and next speaker is Councillor Wright please Thank you Chairman I'm really concerned about this application as well I think the officer has got its spot on there are clear objections from the landscape officer I see there's harm to the green belt the urban design officer objecting the historic building the officers objecting and there's also objections from Network Rail this is an outline application and I note that the contamination officer has only been a brief survey but not the detailed survey that would in my mind with the demolition works needed on the site which will remove the 40% affordable housing because of the viability argument so for me this is an absolute non-runner and I think the officer's recommendation is correct, thanks Thank you very much and next speaker is Councillor Cahn Councillor Cahn please Sorry I wanted to say come back to the position I talked about earlier on this site lies right next door to a railroad I'm very close I've been doing my research for a doctorate working within about the same sort of distance from a railway line in the field in north Wales and I remember the impact of having a train running at high speed past you very close it's not just the noise level it's the shock level because it's a sudden arrival and it really would mean that you are putting housing in a satisfactory situation for convenience it might meet the official requirements but it won't be very unpleasant to live in and the area I don't see this as a satisfactory solution for affordable housing or any other housing secondly in terms of distance I did a little measurement on the satellite map and it's about 500 metres from the local school and from the main road in Harston it's a bit further than 500 metres depth in the actual site so people at the end of the site will be quite a long way away from public transport perhaps further than desirable thirdly in terms of openness the largest houses are put at the far back end of the site this is beyond the actual back of the gardens of the properties that tree drops in the station house along the main road I might have viewed it a little bit differently though probably wouldn't change by opinion if it had only gone to the depth of the existing properties along the road but this goes right down and the largest houses give the most impact in the openness of the green belt I think it is a significant impact on the openness and therefore in addition to the other aspects that have been talked about I think the pressure towards affordable housing is laudable but this is not the site it would be much better now in the process of a local plan to look to see if the site can be found adjacent to the village for a minute or for an exception site rather than going to some distance from the village in an isolated site not totally convenient for affordable housing and with the risk as councillor Wright has said of it not actually being viable in the final analysis so I should be supporting the office's recommendation for refusal Thank you very much for that I've got three more speakers and I'd like to draw it to a close then I haven't heard anybody speaking against the office's recommendation so if we can move fairly swiftly the next speaker is councillor Haigling please Yes and I'd just like to address sort of my comments to the presentation made by the chair of parish councillor councillor Byne and completely understand the need and desire for the affordable housing and this coming forward to outline planning stage is exactly where we set the parameters for this and I think whether or not this is the site to have affordable housing or any kind of housing at all is still up for debate but I think you are absolutely right seek to have the conversations with affordable housing and under the terms of a viability analysis work out if you can get as much of the affordable housing as necessary but what I'm really reading into the report is not just about harm and benefit in terms of the open countryside which is one of the concerns but we've also heard this is a brownfield site which is particularly it's not very attractive itself at the moment I'm also looking at what type of housing what kind of place making we're doing when all of those who know about housing are saying this would lead to very very dense and cramped housing so even if we want affordable housing we want that of such a style that it would be good quality of life for everybody or whatever the type of housing it is and so I'm really leaning forward to the fact that we're hearing that that number of housing is too dense for this site for lots of reasons and that when you look at the viability analysis there is the possibility to get more affordable housing which is what should happen in a site of this nature and there's still a bit to run on this and I do hope that you can have conversations with the affordable housing officers but at the moment as with others I'm leaning to you know to not support this application all right thank you Councillor Richard with the aim of this thank you chair I'll keep my comments brief because I'm going to agree with a lot of what's already been said I'll just say that I'm a member for a neighbouring village to Haast and Newton is within my ward I agree about the problems of no the objection of the urban design officer I think there would be an impact I agree with Councillor Cahn on the openness of the green belt given the narrowness of the site the railings as just said it could result in rather dense and cramped developments I think those areas are of concern to me with the green belt in terms of the affordable housing I completely understand as a neighbouring member I was a member for a neighbouring ward I completely understand the acute need for affordable housing in the area but it does worry me that this has not been brought forward as an exception site therefore there hasn't been the proper viability assessment there are current applications very nearby to this site not in this ward but there are other applications that are 100% affordable housing as exception sites and I think this should have been brought forward as an exception site so we could have a proper viability review thank you very much thank you and finally Councillor Harvey please yes just to say I'm very familiar with the site and I've sort of stood at the entrance and within the site a few times and I just attest to the fact that it really feels it's a sort of open sky kind of aspect that really at the moment does feel very much detached from the village itself and I agree with Councillor Bradnam's comments that it would seem to me rather in Congress in that position in relation to the village and I just feel there are too many other problems which other people refer to the trees, the fact that it's so close to the train line and the viability should really be aiming for much more affordable housing if we're going to overcome other problems so I just feel on balance it's not the right place okay thank you very much alright so I'm going to wind this up now and go for a vote the recommendation before you is delegated refusal subject to no issues being raised during the amended consultation period so I haven't heard anybody speaking for approval so can I take this by affirmation I agree I agree Chair, I'd like to abstain please Chancellor Hawkins one abstention 10 approve 10 in favour of the recommendation therefore is delegated refusal thank you very much we now move on to next item next item is item 8 which has been deferred at Long Stanton so we now move to Willingham Chairman would we request a brief pause time are we yes by all means 10 minutes or 9 minutes shall we say back at 12.50 thank you thank you thank you alright Willingham deferred as well let's back on again Aaron are there you asking for Aaron or Karen sorry I was asking for Aaron I just wanted to check that the live feed was cut okay I'll go away thanks he did he did confirm that Chris okay thank you I was just getting an indication that it may not be the case so just bear that in mind just in case please thank you okay noted thank you Chair can I just let you know that it's Councillor Bradnan here I'll have to leave just before four o'clock so I'll give an indication in chat if I have to do that well I hope we'll be finished long before four o'clock let's hope so fingers crossed hi Aaron one minute to go on my clock yep sorry I'll be back on stream can I ask it while we're still seemingly off what time are you thinking about for lunch sorry chair you're back online now alright sorry thank you very much welcome back to South Cams District Council planning committee we're now on agenda item nine page 321 of our papers we're at Willingham this is reference S0123 stroke 20 stroke FL that's at 130 Rempton Road, Cambridge the proposal is the erection of a five bedroom house and a one bedroom ancillary annex with associated parking the applicant is Mr and Mrs Webster the case officer will take us through the key material considerations we visited the site yesterday it is a departure application and it's brought to the committee because the parish council requested it the officer recommendation is for approval the presenting officer is Luke Simpson would you like to give your presentation please hello chair can you hear you and see the screen okay I'm just trying to play the presentation said that you can't see my notes can you confirm that you can't see the notes we can still see the notes okay let me try that again please bear with me please bear with me we can still see the notes this is a real problem does it matter if we can see the notes just press on would it help if you just went into slideshow yes I have gone into slideshow I have this problem regularly when I'm at committee sometimes it doesn't just share the slideshow sometimes it shares the whole PowerPoint including the notes which is helpful because you can't see the plans properly just let me keep trying sorry is that any better yes that's fine brilliant brilliant sorry about that okay as the chair described the site is located at 130 Rampton Road Willingham the proposal is for the erection of a five bedroom house one bedroom ancillary annex with associated parking as you're likely aware the application was reported to planning committee on 22nd of July 2020 the committee deferred the application to allow the senior planning lawyer to consider the legal arguments made at that committee meeting and the verdict reached in the case of Mansel the Tombridge and Malingborough Council 2017 such that he is able to advise the committee today and the other reason the item was deferred was to enable a site visit which as the chair pointed out took place yesterday so we've been through this presentation before but I'm going through it again I know that some of the members at least one wasn't at that meeting previously this slide shows the extent of the application site so the framework boundary actually falls about here hopefully you can see the pointer towards the rear of 130 Rampton Road so the village framework is along this line here and this is an aerial photograph of the site as you can see there's a proliferation of development to the rear of properties on Rampton Road what this photo doesn't show as members would have appreciated at the site visit yesterday is the two consented dwellings which are substantially complete either side of the application site one at 132 Rampton Road and the other at 124 Rampton Road so this aerial image although useful isn't particularly well it's not up to date as members will have appreciated yesterday as you probably were already aware the app can already have consent under application reference S slash 40 70 slash 18 slash FL that consent remains extent and development must commence before 28 of March 2022 this slide shows the existing consented development on the right so this is the dwelling they already have planning permission for and the slide also shows the currently proposed layout on the left this includes the proposed annex the footprint of the dwelling would increase slightly but this would primarily be at single story level so these two components to the east of the dwelling but it the location and footprint are similar to that of the currently consented dwelling and the plan also shows the change in circumstances since the grant of the previous planning permission and shows the two dwellings which I referred to earlier on the side of the application site to the west at 124 Rampton Road is a large two-story dwelling these dwellings currently under construction members will have noted substantially complete yesterday to the north face is another two-story dwelling which is also substantially complete so that plan is quite useful in showing the proposed dwelling in context these plans show the proposed elevations and floor plans of the proposed dwelling notably whilst this is a two-story dwelling it is no higher than the currently approved 1.5-story dwelling in terms of the maximum ridge height the appearance would be relatively traditional with brick work and a range of tiled pitched roofs proposed now these are the currently approved plans say if I flip back this is proposed this is already approved so just a way of comparison and as you can see the 1.5-story the ridge height is approximately 8.3 meters to provide living space at first floor level so I think it's been quite a bit of correspondence about the dwelling being single-story but I think it's an 8.3 meter ridge height and I'd probably describe this dwelling as a 1.5-story dwelling that's what they've already got consent for so you need to bear that in mind in coming to your conclusions today this slide shows the currently proposed elevations for the annex which is proposed between the existing dwelling and the main dwelling this annex would serve the proposed dwelling and we would condition the annex to ensure that it's only used for purposes ancillary to the main dwelling such that it couldn't be converted to a separate dwelling house without the benefit of planning permission I should also point out that it appears that the north and south elevations are incorrectly labeled and should be swapped so the elevation at the top left of the screen should state north and that below should state south I ask that members please allow officers to address this discrepancy under delegate powers if you are minded to approve the application today just to also point out I don't think anyone well no one would be prejudiced by that because for these elevations well firstly it's a single-story building and secondly both elevations have windows in them so it's not like there would be additional windows as a result we're just talking about the labelling of these two components of the plan these photos show the site to the north and the mobile home which is consented which will be removed as will be required by planning condition prior to first occupation of the new dwelling if approved so this photos towards the rear so this ground site yesterday you'll note that that's the location of the proposed dwelling this slide shows the existing access there's a gravel drive to the front of the existing dwelling there's an existing detached triple garage which will be retained as you can see the existing dwelling at 130 Rampton Road which is here is a relatively substantial two-story dwelling with a traditional appearance in comparison to more temporary designs approved either side more recently so the character is quite mixed in this area by way of providing some context for the decision today this is the dwelling approved at reserve matters last year at 124 Rampton Road as was shown on the earlier site layout plan so the neighbouring site to the west so this is a large two-story dwelling with a more contemporary design so it's quite substantial this is the two-story dwelling approved to the north east of the application site to the rear of 132 the neighbours again more contemporary design two stories substantially complete as you'll have noted on site yesterday okay so since the previous planning committee Fuse Lane consortium limited have made a number of representations to the council's legal officer in relation to this application I'll therefore seek to address these primary issues insofar as they relate to planning matters I think Stephen Reed will address the case law which was previously referred to by Mr. Fulton and was one of the two reasons for the previous item being deferred by way of background on 7 September members will have received copies of the correspondence between Mr. Reed and Mr. Fulton which primarily relates to legal matters deriving from the previous planning committee members will recall that the item was deferred in part to allow Mr. Reed to review the case law referred to by Mr. Fulton these emails and letters were all sent to Stephen Reed and I was not the recipient of the emails nonetheless they've also been circulated to members in any case the issues raised by the consortium during the last committee meeting have all been fully addressed in the updated committee report the reason that the report focuses on the case law referred to in terms of Fuse Lane consortium's comments is because the previous committee item was deferred partly on the basis of that case law and the need for a view of its contents content and relevance the other reason for deferral as cited in the minutes was to allow members cited is it all other matters including reference to H16 could have actually been addressed on the day with regard to the three points highlighted in Mr. Fulton's email dated 23rd of July I address these in turn as follows Mr. Fulton states that the officer report relies on three clear errors of law the first of which he states that the report ignores the key material policy of the development plan policy H16 so reference has now been made to policy H16 and included in the latest version of the committee report but as I said previously in any event had members not deferred the item previously officers would have displayed that policy on the screen and confirmed that all of the criteria complied with and addressed in the original committee report so H16 has various criteria for development of residential gardens for dwellings and all of those criteria were already addressed within the previous version of the committee report but in any case they've been addressed again and reference has been made to policy H16 so that is a correction which resulted from the submissions of Fuselain Consortium Limited the second error of law cited by Fuselain Consortium Limited is that the officer report misdirects the committee or the previous officer report misdirects the committee as to the degree to which the application conflicts with the development plan as a whole the degree as far as I understand the degree of conflict with the development plan is a matter of planning judgments and the committee reports both sufficiently address any planning development plan conflicts with other material considerations notwithstanding of course the reference to H16 which I've addressed at point one above I'm satisfied that the committee reports both provide sufficient rationale reaching a conclusion on the impact of the scheme which in any case is a matter of planning judgment and not a matter for the courts further in order to appreciate the materiality of the conflict with policy S7 as members will have noted yesterday a site visit in this instance is actually really important turning to the third point the third error of law cited by Fuselain Consortium it was suggested that the officer report or the officer completely misunderstands the nature of the materiality of the fallback position in this case officers respectfully disagree with Mr Fulton on this point the fallback position is a material consideration and both of the committee reports sufficiently consider the differences between the fallback scheme and the proposed scheme and they reach conclusions as to the overall development plan policy compliance and they both consider other material considerations so the only other thing I'd add to that is even where a development is more harmful than a fallback position so the fallback position in this instance is the extent planning permission that's what we're talking about when we refer to the fallback position so even where the currently proposed development is more harmful than that development the approved development is still capable of meeting the statutory test at section 386 the planning and compulsory purchase act so it's not the case that if the development is more harmful than the fallback position in some way that directs refusal of the scheme obviously what is necessary is to consider compliance with the development plan and all other material considerations which includes the fallback position as part of the overall planning balance anyway it's a moot point in this case because in this particular instance development is not materially more harmful than the fallback position having addressed those issues I now turn to the other key considerations in the consideration of this planning application so the main issues in considering the determination of this application are as follow the principle of development so there is conflict with policy S7 as the site is located or the site for the annex and the dwelling are located wholly outside of the development framework of Willingham however the existing consent is a fallback position as I've discussed and does establish the principle of residential development on this site planning officers consider that the proposed revisions to the design and the introduction of an annex would not result in a development which is materially more harmful to the objectives of policy S7 and I've explained this in detail in the report indeed it could be considered that the resighting of the dwelling actually results in a less harmful development given that the dwelling would not be in such close proximity to the two recently consented and substantially constructed neighboring dwellings which members will have noted on site yesterday so moving the dwelling further away from those dwellings could actually have a beneficial impact in terms of amenity of occupies of all three of those dwellings policy S7 has two aims the first is to ensure developments located in sustainable locations well there's already an approval for a dwelling on this site and therefore there is no more harm to this aim than there would be in a fallback position the second aim of policy S7 is to protect the countryside against gradual encroachment as far as I'm concerned and my advice to members is that the dwelling is in a very similar position to that already approved parts of the dwelling would be up to 10 meters further to the south when compared to the rear elevation of the approved dwelling but the two story element of the proposal is only around 5 meters further south so taking these factors into account planning officers consider that this would not result in a significant conflict with the aim of policy S7 when considering the fallback position of the existing consent there are other considerations which I went through last time and I'll go through them again now so in terms of character there are two planning questions either side of the applicant's garden which establish a ch