And thank you very much and good morning, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of South Cambridge district councils planning committee. My name is councillor Henry Bachelor. I'm the usual vice chair of this committee, but given the regular chair, councillor Pippa Halings has sent apologies today. I'll be chairing the meeting for today. Just a few bits of housekeeping before we go into the main body of the meeting, please, and I will start by obviously given the vice chair sitting in the chair. ac mae'n bwysig gyda'r petrfynol o'u cyflawndio gyda'r methu yn y rai chi hannol yr un biadrach. Do chi'n gwneud i lling uch chi? Mae'r petrfynol yn gallu gyda'r petrfynol yn Llunig. Berth gwrs, werth gwrs, roi'n gwirio eu bod yn gwneud. Felly ond petrfynol yma rai'r petrfynol yn olwg siarad, dweud mae roedd o hofau o sphysglwg i'r petrfynol i gael. Felly, can everyone in the council chamber please note that everything on your desk, including your laptop screen, is likely to be broadcast at some point. The camera follows the microphone after it's switched on, so councillors and officers are requested to wait a few seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up. If the fire alarm sounds, please do you leave the chamber and make your way down the staircase? Do you not use the elevator? The safe assembly point is next to the marketing suite halfway down the business park. Could those participating in the meeting via the live stream please indicate you wish to speak via the chat column? Please do not use the chat column for any other purposes other than requesting to speak. Please make sure your device is fully charged and that you switch your microphone and camera off unless you're invited to do so otherwise. Please ensure you switched off or silenced any other devices you have so they do not interrupt proceedings. When you're invited to address the meeting please make sure your microphone is switched on. When you've finished addressing the meeting please turn your microphone off immediately. Members in the room please note if we need to vote on any item we should do so via the microphones in front of us. Only those members present in the chamber today will be able to vote. Committee members, we're now going to take a roll call. So after I've called your name could you switch on your microphone and introduce yourselves please. So as I said earlier my name is councillor Henry Batchelor. I'm one of the members for the Linton Ward and I am the usual vice chair of this committee. Can I ask councillor Peter Fayne to introduce as well? Good morning Peter Fayne, councillor for Shelford Ward. Thank you councillor Dr Martin Cahn. councillor Martin Cahn, Member for Heston in Pigton and Orchard Park. Thank you councillor Dr Clare Daunton. Yes hello good morning Clare Daunton. One of the members for the Fendit and Fullborn Ward substituting for councillor Halings this morning. Good morning councillor Sue Ellington. councillor Sue Ellington, I'm substituting for councillor Richard Williams and I'm normally district councillor for Swayfstead Ward. Thank you councillor Jeff Harvey. Yeah councillor Jeff Harvey, I'm the member for Orchard Ward. Thank you councillor Dr Timmy Hawkins. Good morning chair, good morning everyone. Timmy Hawkins, Member for Codicot Ward. Thank you councillor Judith Ripeth. Good morning, I'm councillor Judith Ripeth, Member for Milton and Waterbeach Ward. Thank you councillor Deborah Roberts. Good morning chairman, good morning everybody. Deborah Roberts, I'm the district councillor for the Foxton Ward. Thank you councillor Heather Williams. Good morning all Heather Williams and I represent the Mordons Ward. Thank you and last but not least councillor Eileen Wilson. Thank you chair, good morning everyone. Eileen Wilson, councillor for Cotinham Ward. Thank you so I can confirm we have a full slate so we are quarates so the meeting can proceed. I'll now do some introductions for the officers we have with us today who are supporting the committee starting with our joint directorate. No sorry, Nigel Blaisebyld gave you a promotion there but Nigel if you could introduce yourself. Thank you chair for that. Yes Nigel Blaisebyld delivery manager for development management morning. Thank you very much. Mr Stephen Reid. Morning chair, morning members. Morning chair, morning. Michael Sexton please. Michael Sexton and all three items of mine so it's nice to be with you in person this morning. Thank you for being with us in person. We also have Clark in the meeting today who is joining us virtually Mr Lawrence Damari-Hulman. Lawrence. Thank you chair, good morning everyone and welcome to all our public speakers as well. Looks like a busy meeting ahead of us but as you say Lawrence Damari-Hulman, Democratic Services Officer. Thank you very much. So those are several that we have in the chamber with us. Members just remind that if you do need to leave the meeting at any point please do indicate so that can be recorded in the minutes. We'll be taking regular breaks dependent on where we are on the agenda but if you do need a break sooner then please do indicate and I'll try to accommodate. Members I think with that one more announcement I do want to make. I'm not sure if she's online or not but some of you may know that Julie Eyre is actually leaving us in a I think this week or next week. So if she needs to take part at all this will be her last ever planning committee meeting. She's been at South Cams for I think 17 years and is a very long standing well respected member of the planning department. It's not only amongst officers and members but also I know parishes as well and residents of South Cambridgeshire. So without trying to embarrass her too much it's just a thank you from the committee. Julie I know other members and officers have spoken to you directly but just if we could just record our thanks for Julie for all her service over the years and for supporting this committee so ably during that time. So thank you very much to Julie. Great. Okay well with that we'll move on to Apologies please Lawrence. Yes so we've received apologies from absence from the usual chair Councillor Pippa Halings. Councillor Dr Clare Daunton is kindly substituted on her behalf and councillor Dr Richard Williams has also sent apologies with councillor Suella to him substituting. Thank you. Item three members declarations of interest. Do any members have any interests to declare non-disposed disclosure will pecuniary or non-pecuniary items please councillor Hawkins and then Harvey. Yes thank you Chairman. Just to say I am the local member for Caldicott and have been at the meetings where the item number the first one has been discussed. I did not take part in or I did not take part in the vote but I was at the discussion but I'm coming to this matter afresh. Thank you. Thank you councillor Hallaby. Thank you chair. I'm the member for Borshamwood. I actually live in Greater Abington and so I have had some informal discussions on the bankroll farm item on the agenda so I will come to the matter afresh. Thank you and one from me as well. Non-disclosable interest on item six, Little Abington. As the local member for Little Abington I've obviously been at parish council meetings when this application has been discussed but I'm coming to this matter afresh so I'm able to take part. And councillor Williams please. Thank you chair. It's in the appeal section. I'm the local member for some of the cases that are stated and obviously have had discussions with officers around those. So it's item nine. Thank you very much. Any more interested and clear members councillor Wilson? As always on the report, the enforcement report. I'm the local member for Cottenham and I've had discussions with officers about Smithy Fenn. Okay, that's noted. Thank you very much. Okay, councillor Carnaghee. I was just going to comment that I think quite a lot of people here may have been involved in the previous application on the bankroll farm but we're all going to, I think we should all be saying that we're coming to the matter afresh. Yes indeed, this is a new application so obviously we're coming to it afresh regardless of what's happened before. Thank you. Chair. Councillor Daunton. Yes, thank you. In relation to the final item at Land East of Tewisham Road full born, I'm one of the members of full born and that's reported on. Okay, thank you very much.  If you could switch your mic off please. Thank you. Okay, with that members we'll move to item four on the agenda. First minutes of the previous meeting, these were circulated to us electronically yesterday and I know a few of us have got paper copies. So do any members have any issues with the minutes, any corrections? Nope. Okay, so we'll take those as agreed and I'll sign those at the end of the meeting as a correct record. Okay, we move into the main items of business on the agenda today members beginning with agenda item five, which is an application at the land east of Highfields Road, Caldercott. The application in front of us is a full application for the construction of 74 dwellings with associated infrastructure, open space and landscaping. The applicant, sorry, is Linden's LLP. We have a raft of chemical material considerations in our papers and the reason is coming to us today because it's a significant departure from the development plan. We have a major residential development outside of the framework boundary and the officer recommendation is in contradiction to that of the parish council. The officer recommendation is approval. The presenting officer who's going to be quite busy today I think is Mr Michael Sexton who's in the room with us, Michael. So I'll hand over to you if there's any updates to the report and to introduce the item please. Thank you chair, good morning members, good morning everyone. Just one update to the recommendation on paragraph 340 of your reports. I was in correspondence with the agent yesterday who would just like to refine some of the wording on conditions E, F, G, T, W, B, B and C. The substance of the conditions isn't being lost it's just refining for example condition B, B which secures an ecological report that's being submitted. It's just refining the wording for clarity to reference particular sections of that report. So if members were minded to support the application I would perhaps ask that we could tweak the recommendation to include final wording of conditions to be agreed with chair and vice chair rather than running through eight slight revisions today. And just also to make members aware that we do have Harry Pickford from the lead local flood authority on the call this morning. Drainage has been a sensitive issue on this site for many years so Harry is here to support and answer any technical questions that may arise on drainage. That's it for updates. I will share my screen. If you're there with me I'm used to having multiple screens at home. Excellent, and I don't need to ask if you can see that chair because I can see it myself. So thank you. This is a full planning application for the construction of 74 dwellings together with Associated Works, Land, East of Highfields, Highfields and County Cops. This is the site outlined in red and the east side of Highfields Road. The reason you've got the blue line is because there's relevant planning history. In 2015 there was an outline application for all of this area and this is a small section of land here which has allowed appeal in July 2017 for the construction of up to 140 dwellings. There was a 2018 reserve matters application that was approved in November 2019 in which granted permission for 66 dwellings in the northern parcel of the site. That image there is the approved master plan that was granted and that's currently under construction. The areas in the blue were to be phase 2. Unfortunately reserve matters application didn't come forward within the timeline consent. And therefore members have today in front of them a full planning application for 74 dwellings which would in effect have been a second reserve matters application. But it's not, it's a full application so it's assessed in full but weight can be given to the planning history. For context this is a view and the site is tucked in here. This is the roundabout over Highfields Road and Clare Drive. Properties on the west side of Highfields Road. How they got typically range from a single story, one and a half story with the occasional two story property. And the bottom image is just a view down Clare Drive. We can see again the single story properties and one and a half story and two story properties. Again just a view of some properties, typical properties is on the west of Highfields Road opposite the site. And then the bottom image just shows the northern parcel that's currently under construction by Minden Homes. So this is the proposed site plan for the erection of 74 dwellings. It has the green wedge coming through the centre of the site that was part of the previous scheme. And that's been incorporated into the layout of the application site before you. There's a provision of 30 affordable dwellings within the layout which is 40% as required by national policies. And it's very much a continuation of the northern phase as you'd expect. Just a few housing examples, there's quite a few house types, I'm not going to display them all. But this just gives you a sense, typically they're two story properties throughout the site in detached and semi-detached forms. As you can see from these examples. A notable construction to highlight is Flat Block C which is a three story apartment building. It is reflective of a flat block that has already been consented as part of phase one reserve matter scheme, which there's a slide later on just to illustrate that further. And these are some illustrative street scenes just to show us all variation in materials and house types. And the predominantly two story scale of development as you can see there is the larger apartment block in the central section there. And this is just an initiative landscape scheme to show how it connects in with phase one and the softer edges along the eastern boundary and southern boundary of the site and a secondary area of open space and soft landscaping in the centre of the site as well. Connecting on to the big open space and the leak which is within phase one development. Key constraint and obviously main reason why this is before members today is that the site is located outside of the development framework boundary of Caldechol which I've denoted with this dashed black line. So the application site is this southern parcel here and phase one is the consented that's currently under construction. As you can see set out in the report the application site is bound on the southern, western and northern boundaries by residential development. So therefore the degree of encroachment which is part of what policy S7 seeks to protect is mitigated somewhat as set out in the report. Again as noted in the report Caldechol is a group village in council settlement hierarchy. It states that within frameworks 8 dwellings is typically the quantum of development accepted or 15 on the brownfield site. So clearly 74 dwellings outside the framework is contrary to that policy and again why it's before members today. But the material planning history that is relevant to material and the inspector in 2017 founds 140 dwellings to represent the sustainable form of development hence officer recommendation today. Caldechol has a village design guide SPD and there is an element of the design of the scheme which is in conflict with the village design statement. That is guidance note 6.1 which sets out that development should be typically 1.5 or two stories in height. So this comes back to the apartment building which I highlighted earlier. The reference is marked by this yellow star here which is almost identical to the consented apartment building marked by the yellow star. Up there so again set into the site. The orange star just represents a sort of 2.5 or 3 story apartment building as well within the consented scheme. So there's a range of a large range of material considerations as set out in the report. The principle of development is contrary to the local plan which is why we're here today. Officers are satisfied in terms of housing provision market mix of all the housing etc. And that the character is responsive, landscape is appropriate. There is a 10% neck pain in biodiversity because of an off-site contribution that we made towards the lower valley farm projects in Fourbourne. And yes there's no technical objections to the other issues listed unless I write both of them internally or set out in the report. Thank you chair. Thank you for that Michael. If you could just keep your presentation open on your laptops I'm sure it would be needed during the debate to refer back to. Members are going to go to public speakers now. We have a raft of them at the back of the room by the looks of things. The first one we have is Ms Mary Ann Claridge if she's with us. Good morning.  Need to switch it on to make sure it's working. Yep we've got you. So I'm not sure if it's a planning committee before but we offer speakers three minutes to address the committee after which if you can stay seated in case there's any questions committee members have for you to clarify any points you've made during your comments. So yep you can switch your mic on and whenever you're ready please. Good morning. I'm speaking on behalf of the neighbors on the southern boundary. As a planning officer said in his report this proposal is outside the development framework of the group village and it is against your local plan. Reading 74 houses as infill seems to me quite a long stretch. Mr Claridge will detail how the proposal is also against the Caldercott VDS. The only argument for it is that it was once permitted against the criteria in the 2013 MPPF. Conditions have changed since then. You have a valid local plan so the MPPF no longer trumps all arguments. The village has fewer services. The shops shut and the access to public transport which was a key factor in the public inquiry has reduced with no buses through the village. The only bus stop is more than 800 metres away and is scheduled to be moved even further away. And our district councillor told a parish meeting that Caldercott is known to be a village that's hard to serve. Allowing this proposal to go ahead would set a precedent for development that is counter to your local plan making it very hard for you to defend against other non-compliant proposals in the future. If you still believe this should go ahead please pause it until the boundary treatment is sorted out especially on the southern side of the site. While the plans say in general terms that the boundary landscape buffer is to be retained the detail specs don't. In one section in the area marked as buffer is also the main boundary road. The remaining area is to be cleared to allow the drainage ditch to be dug as close to the boundary as physically possible. They've only actually specified a strip of foot wide to replant a new hedge to replace the established hedging which is not just Bramble as shown but Elm, Mates, O, Elder, somehow all the various surveys even managed to miss a 30 foot tree. When I read the ecological appraisal and saw how important the boundary is for birds and bats including protected barber stels for foraging and commuting I hoped it might be retained but all plans show clearers. We appear to be in a green area but with the monocultures around us we need established hedging such as this. Your own biodiversity SPD stresses the importance of keeping wildlife corridors and supporting protected species on site. Exporting our biodiversity to the other side of Cambridge will not help wildlife here. The boundary position is not clear all the neighbours on the southern boundary have severe concerns that we will come back one day to find our hedge gone. All previous groundwork has appeared very enthusiastic in clearing any vegetation that isn't explicitly protected. We're concerned that if this is only decided by condition as soon as permission is granted it will be open season on ground clearance. The hedge will be cleared before any enforcement could be taken. Please refuse this. If you allow it please set a minimum depth that must be kept unclear. Thank you. Thank you to the second. I appreciate your timing. Members do you have any questions of clarification for Mrs Claridge? Councillor Ellington please. Thank you. I wonder if you could tell me when the design code was agreed. I'm afraid I can't give you the exact date. I believe it was January 2020. It was immediately after the phase one was given permission and before this submission. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members any further questions for our speaker? No I can't see any so just leaves me to say thank you very much for taking the time to actually come to us today. And again thank you very much. So members we'll move on to one next speaker now who is speaking on behalf of the applicants. Do we have a Mr Andy Moffat? Thank you very much. Good morning. Good morning. So you've probably heard the rules before three minutes to address the committee. And obviously if you wouldn't mind staying seated at the end in case there are any questions of clarification for yourself. So whenever you're ready please. Thank you Chairman and thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. We'd also like to thank the case officer for the comprehensive report you have in front of you. To assist your consideration this morning we felt it would be helpful to highlight four matters. Firstly we welcome the conclusion that the presence of phase one means that the second phase is now considered a form of infill development. We also endorse the relevance of the previous decision on this site to set out in the report. And the more recent appeal decisions that have been allowed for comparable developments on sites outside development frameworks in the district as also referenced in the report. Secondly it's important to note that the benefits of development are greater now than in 2017. It will secure a 10% biodiversity net gain in advance of the implementation of the Environment Act 2021 through collaboration in the Innovative Counter Council initiative at Lower Farm Foreborn. Which in itself will link to the Cambridge Nature Network delivering habitat enhancement connected to its wider surroundings, facilitating wildlife movement across the landscape, enabling plant and animal populations to occupy sustainable ranges and adapting to a changing environment due to climate change and other pressures. Furthermore whilst the requirement is that 5% accessible and adaptable homes are proposed, more than 70% of the affordable units as well as 5% of the market homes will be accessible and adaptable homes. And all dwellings will comply with national described space standards. A greater quantum of planning obligations are also now proposed than previously secured. Proposed obligations now secure offsite contributions towards outdoor sports, additional allotment space slash delivery of cold-cocked peace garden, indoor community space, indoor sports hall improvements, swimming pools, green infrastructure at Hardwick, Wood, early years places and library facilities. Thirdly, the site is an allocation in the council's local plan first proposals. The report states that no weight can be afforded to that allocation at this time. We would have to disagree. It is material. To quote the first proposals, it sets out our, i.e. the council's, preferred approach to the level of growth that should be planned for and where it should be planned. At the end of last year, and as part of that very carefully considered plan, the council itself identified this site as one of the sites it preferred to meet the identified need. Fourthly and importantly, we do recognise that drainage is a key issue and concern within the village. As confirmed to paragraph 330 of the report, a meeting took place between council officers, the LLFA and local residents. And the LLFA's recommendation to raise no objections subject conditions is made with the benefit of a full understanding of those local concerns. Thank you. If you could wind up now. I'm just finishing yet. All of this reinforces the conclusion set out in your officers report that the proposal is sustainable development. And we therefore respectfully invite you to approve the application, subject the extensive conditions which include drainage, landscaping, boundary treatments and the obligations outlined in the report. Thank you. Thank you very much. Speaker's members, we have councillor Williams then to Hawkins then Roberts please. Thank you through yourself chair. My questions are around some things have been raised by by local residents. Particularly about the heights of the building being in contrast the village design guide. I'm just wondering if there could be a reason given for why those heights have been taken other than financial benefits obviously because that's not material consideration. And the other thing is about the landscape buffer that's referred to that it's not really adequate. Just wondering if if any sort of reasons, material reasons have been given for why those requests and guides have not been adhered to. Mr Moffert, so two questions there I think some justification on the building heights and also the reduced landscape buffer. Yeah, but first one first I think has the case officer referred as well. I mean, there's a predominance of two story units within the development. There is one building, the three story one that the case officer showed you on the plan. There are two already in phase one. So I think what we're seeking to do the design guy talks about replicating the prevailing development but having regard to that. So we've had regard to existing development in the immediate locality. I think the other thing worth emphasising is the location of that building well away from the central within the development away from the boundaries. So it will be seen in that context. So as I said, we've had regard to what is now part of prevailing character of the area. But as I said, just to finish, it is predominantly two story and particularly two story around the perimeter of the site and the landscape buffer. And on the other one, I think you saw a screen that shows the landscape in the green areas around the edges. You know, there is a condition recommended which requires the precise agreement of those details. So we would expect to be looking at those as part of that. But certainly the intention is both to retain the hedge insofar as it's beyond the boundary and enhance that with further planting. OK, thank you. I think Councillor Williams would like to come back. Thank you. Just what you were saying there about obviously the buffer could change as things evolve and go forward. You would then be in a situation that you would have to reduce something in order to create more space. So how would you foresee that? Would you be reducing the number of housing to give you more landscape buffer? Or would it be a case of reducing gardens or private emergency space? I didn't say change. What I've said, what the conditions will do is we'll find and clarify exactly what's going to happen on those boundaries in terms of the details. But that detail is shown on the plans. I think we need to judge it on what we have in front of us now today. OK, thank you for that. Councillor Hawkins, please. Thank you very much, Chair. Can I just check with you? Did you actually talk to the parish council or present this to them or consult with them before you brought this to the authority? I think there was an extensive liaison as part of the phase one development. Did you or did you not consult with the parish council on this particular application? Not this particular, actually. It carried forward the principles that we discussed with them on the original proposal. OK, so you didn't? That's right, yes. On this particular application, but it did previously carried forward those principles. Just establishing that. Also, the Village Design Guide has been mentioned. You seem to make a very specific reference to the alleged three-story building. Does that comply with the spirit of the Village Design Guide regarding tall buildings? And whilst I'm at it, your two-story buildings are not two-stories, are they? Not when you've got skylights in the roof of some of them. Mr Moffett. I was going to say, I think that the second bit of sort of statement. So in terms of the first part, does it deal with the spirit? I mean, very much that the design guide is about reflecting what is characteristic of the development of the village. And I think what we're saying is in part, in small part, the existing three-story developments as part of phase two are now part of that character. So it is reflective of that. The second part of my question. In terms of the two-story. Again, I think the case was to show you the plans there. So in terms of the scale, the eaves are all two-story eaves. So the scale of those developments are two-story. As I said, some of them do include accommodation within the roof space. You saw that on the plans. But in terms of the scale and their impact on their surroundings, they are of two-story scale. Can you tell me what the ridge heights are for those two-story buildings? I'm afraid I don't have that information. I think we should clarify that with the case officer during the debate a bit later. One more thing if I may. Did you think to take this design enabling panel where you asked to? We certainly took the first, as I said, the first one. This one? No, this one didn't. The first one did. And as I said, we carried forward the principles as considered by the panel previously. Okay, that's fine. Councillor Roberts, please. Thank you, Chairman. Through you, Chairman. Good morning, sir. In your presentation, you made quite a lot of, as you saw it, benefits to the wildlife and your design of this. Now, looking at it, I can't see an awful lot of green spaces being put on. It seems to be filled with would-be dwellings, and I say would-be, rather than that. So you then explained that it would benefit the animals in the way that you've designed it so that they would be able to transfer and get through in spite of the changing scenery of the place. Now, unless you're going to give all the birds and the animals sat-navs, can you tell me how it can be beneficial to animals? What you see is the design values here that can be actually beneficial to the creatures who, presumably, often use an open green field. I'm not sure if you can answer that, but... There are two aspects of that. I mean, certainly, I think it showed on the plan, there are networks, there are linkages, corridors for the wildlife through the development. But more particularly, in terms of ensuring that there's a 10% biodiversity net gain, there's a contribution towards the lower valley farm scheme at Fulbourne. I think when I went through those, that was in reference to that quite innovative initiative there, and the benefits that that would deliver. So through the obligation that's being proposed, all of those would be delivered partly off-site, but we have demonstrated through the biodiversity metric that there is a measurable 10% net biodiversity gain. Just quickly, Chairman, I presume that from what you've just said, there's going to be signage through your site for the animals. I don't think you need to answer that, Andy. OK, thank you for that. Councillor Rippeth, please. Good morning. You mentioned the local plan's first proposals in your presentation.  We are looking at this in the light of the current local plan. What you need to be doing is looking at this in relation to the development plan and any other material planning considerations. And certainly it is our clear view that that is a material planning consideration. So the Act requires you to look at both, start the development plan, but also take account of any other material planning considerations. Can I get that confirmed to your mind from the officer about actually, I see it as looking at what's the current local plan at the moment, and indeed that's kind of jumping the gun, but perhaps the officer could confirm. Sure, perhaps that might be... Do you want to confirm now, Michael, that we can wait till all the debate? OK, go ahead. I would go as set out in my report that in my view it's not something you can attach weight to at this time. It was more there as a point of reference to the highlights members. It is in there, but it's an inversion document that in our view doesn't have any weight at the stage. So it's an inversion document indeed. Thank you. Thank you, councillor Jeff Halby. Yes, thank you. And through you, Chair, you've made appeal both to the previous inspector's decision in 2017 and then, as we've just discussed, cited the first proposals as supporting the case. But, you know, so I suppose in a way you could sort of sit on your hands and wait for this to kind of be presented again when the new local plan comes into force. But if you were to do that, you would then find substantially higher energy targets in the new local plan if the consultation carries on in its current trajectory. Is there a question going? Well, the question is really and also we have upgraded building regulations coming through this year. I'm just wondering if it's fair to sort of recognising those two things, continue on with building regs past 10% energy target, given that you're making appeal to the future local plan, which would demand higher targets and whether you shouldn't be kind of aiming a bit higher. And also like clarification, because I was a bit confused as to whether this is going to be using fossil fuels for heating or something like air source heat pumps. So I wonder if you can clarify that to a second point. Mr Moffitt, if you've picked up those two questions. Yes, I think we're looking back because we were talking about the relevance of the previous appeal decision and as part of that, the inspector of that time determined it was sustainable development. I think we're also citing in support of our proposal, the first proposals, but not relying on that for support in our view for the scheme. I mean, in terms of the other aspects, we did submit an energy statement as part of this application as we have on phase one. We're looking at PV. There is a condition recommended, which ties us to the various measures set out in that energy strategy. And as building regulations develop over time as well, we'll need to meet those as part of that as well. Does that answer your questions, councillor? Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Walson, please. Thank you, Chair. And through you. The first speaker mentioned the fact that there's a reduced amount of public transport coming to this side. So that's one concern that I have because as we know, things have moved on and there is more of a focus on active travel cycling and walking and for people not to be using their cars. So how would you suggest that the people who move into these dwellings reduce car use? I'll say that there is continuing work on the corridor here, on the western corridor through this site and onwards, and beyond. So I think we'd look to link into that. I mean, those measures are continuing. Those schemes are being explored further. There are measures we can do within the site itself. We can have a travel plan which seeks to promote some of those measures as well. There are measures like car clubs, things like that that we could look at. So certainly that's something that we could look at as part of a scheme. So have you got those plans? No, those are the sorts of things that can be done by condition. We put in a transport statement as part of this application, but those measures could be, if members were so minded, secured by a condition. So I think that it could be something we could ask for during the debate to be included should we vote to approve this. Two more speakers. Councillor Ellington and then finally Councillor Williams. Thank you, Chair, through you. I just wondered what steps you are taking. Given that Angliaw Water say that there isn't capacity at the sewage plant to cope with this development, what steps you are taking to reduce the amount of outflow from the site? Are you thinking of grey water systems for all of the accommodation? And what other steps are you taking? Or are you just saying, not us, Gav, it's somebody else's problem? Thank you. Certainly some of the both surface water and foul water, there was sort of strategy submitted as part of the application. And also again, there's conditions which sort of set down the detail to ensure all of those measures are actually sort of finalised and then implemented. So no, certainly we're not. We've put the strategy and the details will be controlled. That's great. Thank you. Councillor Williams, please. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for letting me come back, Chair, because I'd missed something off my list. I'm just wondering if there's any response to the objection by the definitive maps officer. Have you seen the objection from the definitive maps officer? Well, certainly. I mean, there's a separate application which I think has been referred to, if that's what you're referring to, in terms of sort of the bridleway footway provisions. That will be looked at as part of that application. Perhaps we might be able to get some clarity from Mr Sexton when we come to the debate on that one. If you can make a note of that, Michael. And finally, Councillor Cahn, please. On Monday, the biodiversity planning guidance was adopted by the Cabinet and it's come into progress. I'm glad to see the proposal for off-site compensation. I think this is a progress, a way that we should be going forward, but I can understand the concern that it's rather far from the site in which we're looking at. Had you looked at other sites closer to the development for compensatory? I believe there's an SSI, for instance, in just south of the Court, called the Court, but it's perhaps might have been amended or added to. Have you looked at that as a possibility, or have you just gone to the one? No, quite the contrary. Local or perhaps a case officer will reinforce this as well. We've spent a lot of discussions with your biodiversity ecology officer on some of those options. I think we're still fairly new as an industry in terms of the biodiversity net gain, the off-site provision. So what we want to do is provide the scheme with certainty that it had been developed, the scheme that we had a scheme. We knew exactly what it was going to deliver and we knew how it was going to deliver it, so we knew that the contribution would be effective. But no, certainly we started the other way round. We started local and those conversations were had with the ecology officer. I think they were quite keen that we finalised with a scheme which we knew would be effective and deliverable. Thank you. Well, Members, I think we've given Mr Moffitt a good grilling there. So thank you very much for taking the time to join us this morning and for fielding all the questions. We'll move on to our next public speaker now, please, which is I think Mr Phil Clarridge, who's not a member of, but speaking on behalf of the Parish Council, as I understand. Thank you, Chair. I'm speaking explicitly with a motion that was authorised by the last Parish Council meeting and was notified being mailed to the representative officer. I have a lot of knowledge here. Okay, so you do have explicit permission from the Parish Council to represent their views today. Correct, and I will be clear on any answers I give to you whether they're in the Q&A, whether they're my own opinion or the Parish. Okay, inside. Okay, same as the other speakers. Three minutes to address the committee, at which point there may be some questions of clarification for you from the members of the committee. I see you might have a presentation for us as well. There are three slides. It's not...  Thanks. Okay, so three minutes, whenever you're ready, please. Apologies, Chair. If I may, can I just clarify that you can see the slides on screen? We can. Mr Clarridge, please direct me as to when you would like me to change the slides. Thank you. I think just the next slide will be sufficient in the usual format. Thank you. We have a village design statement that's not been complied with and which will be eroded by precedent for future applications. Building height is limited by VDS condition 6.1. The character of the village is 1.5 high story buildings. This change will... This then becomes a warring precedent that will continue. The boundary treatment is a keystone of the VDS, in particular VDS condition 8.4. The original application included both a landscape buffer, and a ditch on the southern boundary. This was extensively discussed at the appeal. Next slide, please. Retention in the screen space was documented in the VDS development with South Cambridge. The ditch and landscape requirement was discussed with Lyndon at a parish meeting in 2019 for phase one that I attended. The landscape buffer is shown on the Lyndon design statement drawing that the officer has shown us. However, in December, we finally got the first drainage plans with the ditch clearly marked that's on the bottom edge. The ditch obliterates the landscape buffer. I'm sorry. Follow the red line on the slide, condition 8.4 is broken. In fact, condition 8.4 is not even referenced in the officer's report. It gets worse as described by Marianne. The boundary is not a dilapidated hedgerow. It's a 10-metre wide biodiverse corridor. It's not just brambles. It's bushes and trees have been admitted. Photos have been submitted in other objections evidencing this. Marianne said the plan is to remove all the vegetation within Lyndon's boundary. So the only biodiversity on this southern boundary is what is in the neighbor's gardens. VDS condition 8.4 requires biodiversity. There's a 62% loss on this site. The VDS working group intended that biodiversity should be retained on the site. This is consistent with your own biodiversity SPD. That SPD also says that hedgerows should be retained, and no exceptional case has been demonstrated as required by a biodiversity SPD to export diversity out of the village. In fact, the biodiversity assessment may even be null with this boundary stripped. The sustainability has changed as covered by the other speakers and there are 200 more houses. The bus service will be on the plan of record 1.2 kilometres away once the bore and airfield development is complete. It's more than 800 metres at the moment. On the precedents, I don't accept that nine infill houses in Meldrith is precedent for 74 houses in Caldercott or that other comparisons with Water Beach are valid. This is an infill. Slide three, please. The VDS developed with you even drew out some of our design expectations. The key design VDS priorities have not been met. I urge you to vote against this development. Thank you. Thank you very much and well under the three minutes, so I appreciate your promptness. Members, do we have any questions of clarity for Mr Clarridge? I can't see any, so that's straight to the point and very concise, so I appreciate that. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. Members, we do have a local member with us in the Chamber, Councillor Hawkins. Do you wish to say anything now as a local member or do you wish to say any comments to the debate? Okay, so Councillor Hawkins, say any comments to the debate. Which we are now in. Members, I'll throw it open to you. Obviously we can ask the case officer to pull up any slides from his presentation and ask any further questions of clarification at this stage. Councillor Williams first, then Councillor Daunton. Thank you, Chair. With your discretion, I'll ask my clarification and then I might voice my opinion now or wait later in the debate. So one of which was the Village Design Guide if I could ask officers about its implementation and my recollection of the other side just to sort of be mindful of consistency what stage was at when those building heights come in, sort of were we able, did we give weight or not at that stage? My recollection is we didn't but I just want to clarify where it was at then. So that's one thing. If we could just clarify, I don't know if it's possible on the map sort of this hedge retention issue and the entrance into the site so we can visually see exactly how much loss there will be. Where the map, the route goes through because obviously we've got the objection for the definitive maps officer and on the biodiversity it was just mentioned about 62% loss on site so is that something that we've recognised as well? And yes, I think the other things are things that are more my views so I'll leave it there off my list. So I'm sure Mark has got something to share with us but I think what I heard was three questions there some clarification around the definitive maps officer's objection and clarification around the building heights and also some clarification around the offsite biodiversity net gain. Sorry chair, I did also want to see about the spread of the affordable housing. Okay, and the clustering of the affordable housing please Mark. Thank you chair, thank you Councillor Williams for a range of questions. The Village Design Guide was adopted in January 2020 the first reserve maps application phase one was approved in November 2019 so it was a fairly advanced stage. I wasn't the case officer it couldn't be given full weight because it wasn't adopted but it would have been able to be given some weight because it was an advanced stage unless I wasn't present at the committee members may say otherwise but that was my understanding. And clearly it's highlighted in the report it does get full weight as part of this application and I have highlighted the conflict of the three-story apartment building that weighs into your judgement today and if I can clarify the heights I think that was part of your question or Councillor Hawkins earlier I've just updated the slides on my presentation so if I share that again I've added some annotations which are on the plans already but just for clarity. So this is one that has been detached type B it has a ridge height of 8.9 metres and an east height of 5 metres that's a semi-detached similar in terms of size this is a becky detached 8.1 metre ridge height 4.7 metre eaves another detached house type 8.2 metres 4.7 metres eaves and then the apartment building with the 11.8 metre ridge and the 7.3 metre eaves so I hope that that provides some clarification on the W2 story but a range of two-story heights you asked about the buffer this is the landscape plan there is a landscape condition that would require more detailed plans of this buffer but the buffering question is this green strip of land along here adjacent to the road I don't believe there's any intentions to not provide that buffer it has to work in conjunction with the drainage scheme so I don't believe there's any intentions recommended as part of the consent that would deal with that fine detail the public right of way I can stop sharing this and I'll share a different screen so this map is taken from the section 106 obligation that was attached to the 2015 outline permission which shows the blue line shows a creation of a new bridal way that has to be provided with the developments as Mr Moffat alluded to that is currently the subject of a separate section 73 application that is looking to provide a public footpath because the land available isn't wide enough to meet the county council specifications for a bridal way it is wide enough to provide a footpath but that's subject of a separate application I don't believe that the layout of the site will preclude the provision of the public footpath as indicated on this map as set out in my report but for clarity the site before members is this southern parcel here so you do have the that's the bridal way that's being referred to yeah just looking at the maps we've got the different areas there so if it can be a footpath not a bridal way are we actually creating a stop and an impossibility for those on horses to be able to get from A to B if that makes sense or is there a nearby alternative route so that question might be more applicable to the section 73 application I'll be bringing it to members next month and I can show where the network is but this bridal way I've shown on here doesn't currently connect to an existing bridal way the pink line is an existing public right of way which continues down to the south and then 400 metres on from that there is a bridal way but those two blue lines as shown there wouldn't connect to an existing footpath if that's helpful so given the fact that we do have an objection for the diffusive maps officer on this is this actually relevant for this application then can we give any planning weight to that I suppose you could because at the minute the conditioner stands on the outline consent that a bridal way is to be provided but the practicality is a bridal way can't be delivered on site there is a section 73 application that will be coming to members next month through a decision that seeks to provide a footpath as it currently stands a bridal way is required but it's like that subject to members endorsement and that situation will change Do you want to come back? Yeah it was just the spread of beautiful housing but also my question around the height was there locations within the site if we could see that again please particularly so not anything that's one and a half or two story because we know that's within the design guide but anywhere that's over that just to see where it is Yeah so I think the two and a half and three story buildings are what we'd like to see Yeah I think you should give me a moment to get the relevant plan up So whilst the map's coming up members just to make you aware we've got councillors Daunton Hawkins, Ripth, Roberts and Thane to speak to anyone else wish to councillor Hardy and councillor Khan I'm not sure off the top of my head if there is a layout plan that would clearly show the heights of development looking across to Andy to correct me if I'm wrong I've just typed in the word height but I can certainly share one that shows the class screen I mean we can come back to that point so it's going to take a while to check Yeah if we can I can do the affordable housing share a plan for that so I'm not sure how clear it will be on the screen but the green and purple stars represent where the affordable houses are located I'm not in power points unfortunately I can't but so on the north east of northern boundary I don't know if you can see where my cursor is at all there's a row of affordable rented properties then to the south there's a group of affordable rented and social houses the three storey apartment building in the centre of the site is rented affordable and on the western boundary five purple stars you've got another group of shared ownership affordable housing I think that's all set out within the report in terms of the cluster in the mix and the tenure that all complies with our housing strategy and the council's housing team are happy and the officers are happy that they've been integrated within the site Thank you chairman can I have my thoughts for the debate and then I'll thank you so thank you very much for the clarification I realised I had a list of potential other members but as well sorry you asked about biodiversity oh yes the 62% thank you for keeping me straight and narrow Michael sorry so this yes we've had extensive discussions with council's ecology officer the starting point was obviously to look at whether net gain could be achieved on site and it couldn't and the report reflects the findings of the metric I did contact Caledicote parish council to ask if they were able to identify any land in their patch that they may wish to put forward there's a site in Hardwick where the parish council suggested a part of land where offsite net gain can be achieved as part of the development unfortunately I didn't receive anything back from Caledicote parish council to identify land discussions continued with the council's ecology officer we looked at various options with the wildlife trust off site but the lower valley farm scheme that's referenced in the report is a scheme that has been there will be a financial contribution too as part of this development if approved that is a scheme in our district and as Mr Moffat said we're still grappling with how offsite contributions are managed and how far a field can be but our ecology officer is very satisfied that the financial contribution towards lower valley farm would tick all the boxes in terms of achieving a biodiversity net gain although I do appreciate it's not within the same village but that's not necessarily something that's unacceptable in the family terms ok, you want to give your thoughts on the debate thank you so having heard that where the status of the village design guide I do feel that obviously now we can give it full weight that's just going on the neighbouring phase one as a sort of it's there already so we carry on you know I don't feel that that's an argument that we should be giving weight to I think we should give more weight to the design guide I think we should give more weight to the design guide because the lowering of the properties other than a potential financial indication it's not adding anything to the site as such we're not sort of setting it's not creating what we call sort of a monument building or a focal point or anything like that it's just simply scale of housing so I do have concerns around the height of that and that boundary in between when you factor in the ditch because of course we didn't have a site visit for this application but many of us went on site for the first one so we are familiar with it and have seen it and I remember walking around in Welles some many years ago now and I am concerned that by the time you've sort of factored that in that boundary is incredibly tight and incredibly small so I do have concerns from landscaping grounds that really we won't get anything meaningful achieved there I appreciate about the bridal way that is going to be looked for a footpath but if we've given a condition of bridal ways I think that probably is a valid reason for objection if it's something that was required at Outline and I think it's important that we see these things through we should be looking at all non-motorised users pedestrians and cyclists on the infill I think there's plenty of policy to support refusing this on the infill basis of the category of the fact it's a group village we've acknowledged in advertising it's a departure site that means it's not part of current plans and the appeal while we do give it weight I would say that from looking at it it wasn't a case of this was great it was a case of it was the lesser of two evils because we didn't have the land supply so I don't think there's anything additional for myself in that appeal decision that gives this site anything other than numbers to be gained from it in relation to the biodiversity you know I know we can talk about it in Jess but actually I do support it going out it doesn't have to be the same parish and I think particularly of some of my parishes the 20 houses also so they're very small so there will naturally be sort of borders if it had been anywhere in the location you know you could relatively say that because and I just and I sort of made this mention cabinet actually about what biodiversity means and a lot of people don't actually understand and I myself I started up when I became a councillor but biodiversity is all the different kinds of life you'll find in one area plants, fungi microorganisms like bacteria and animals each of these species and organisms work together in an ecosystem so having it you know these animals and organisms and things aren't going to be relocating to full form it's just not it's too far away if it was nearby then if it was hardwick my view on it would potentially be different on biodiversity grounds but I do have real concerns that this isn't actually achievable and so with all that in mind and balancing having looked at the appeal potentially to me this is the wrong application for this site obviously if it comes as an exception site for example then we may be saying there's more benefit than harm but as we have the land supply the harm outweighs the benefit in my view chair thank you no that's very clear thank you very much councillor Daunton please thank you chair a couple of my questions have already been asked and more or less answered thank you for the report Mr Sexton for the detail in the report on page 13 paragraph 61 you mentioned that house types meet residential space standards do the apartment blocks meet residential space standards yes all units meet national space standards right could you remind us what the national space standards are please I can share it on screen it's quite extensive depending on the house type number of stories that's current national space standards yes then I've got it I can share that now I was particularly concerned about the apartment blocks and also could you just unpack a little the paragraph in the middle of that page where I think the third sentence first floor bedroom inside elevation of plot 125 only 15.5 meters from the rear elevation of plot 126 which is below recommended standards that's a density standard isn't it I can yes I can answer both of those points so on screen now is the policy for residential space standards as you can see it's quite extensive in its detail and it talks about how bigger single bed space needs to be and how bigger double bed space needs to be and if you've got a certain number of bedrooms have a certain number of double bed spaces where you can and can't count head space if it's in a roof and it goes on to this table about how much internal floor area is acquired for one bedroom, two person that so I won't go through each house type individually but certainly the development before you complies with what's set out within this policy which is quite complex I think it's just useful to be reminded of that particularly for the apartment blocks and then if you could answer the question about the density is given as 28.46 dwellings per hectare but there seems to be a discrepancy between that and what's being said yes so the separation distances aren't directly related to density or I appreciate they do in a way and the council's district design guide sets out recommended separation distances to provide a reasonable quality of immunity to occupants so if you've got two storey properties back to back the design guide recommends a separation distance of 25 meters to allow a reasonable amount to protect from lots of lots of privacy and overlooking when you've got a side facing window a rear elevation and a side facing elevation that distance is reduced down to around 15 60 metres I've got the exact figure I think in the particular plot that you've referred to there is a first floor window on the side elevation of one of the plots facing the rear elevation of an adjacent block but that distance can be mitigated by fact it's a bathroom window or it's a secondary window that can be obscure glazed and fixed shut so it doesn't strictly comply with the recommendations of the district design guide but the harm can be mitigated through a condition and obviously the obscure glazed and fixed shut condition would prevent any significant loss of privacy so that's satisfactory in planning term Are you saying this is a one-off or does this occur in other parts of the site? This is where it occurs inside this is a one-off in terms of within the site there is a property on the southern boundary that does have a first floor bathroom window facing towards existing properties but again that's conditioned to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to protect neighbourhoods Thank you Councillor Hawkins please Thank you very much chair I will speak now that's acceptable That's all I just want to say thank you to Michael for this report It's detailed, it's clear I don't think many people know this but when Gladman first brought this site to this council it was Paul Sexton his dad who was the case officer at the time so we're looking at a dynasty of planners I imagine my dad was probably chairing and your dad was exactly family business is going on here the fact that we're actually here talking about this site it's entirely a developer's fault for not bringing the reserve matters in at the right time for this 74 but the situation is now different to what it was then and if I may chair because reference has been made to the appeal decision now the decision notice paragraph 47 it says this proposal does not comply with all our policies but the weight to be attached to the conflict with these policies is reduced because of the ongoing shortfall no five-day land supply policies were out of date and that really was why this site got planning permission samples situation now is we do have a five-day supply we do have a current local plan and really that is what we should be judging this application against and whilst I take the points that Mr Moffat has made I think as far as the inclusion of this site in the first proposals go you cannot attach weight to that it's a first proposals we haven't even drawn the draft proposals yet so how can you give weight to it I am disappointed I must say that Mr Moffat didn't even think to come and talk to the parish council or talk to me as the local member because I recall the team that did the previous phase did talk did go to the DEP but on this occasion I'm sorry but they seem to be sticking to fingers up at us pardon my first but that is what seems to have happened and I also must remind the committee that when phase one got planning permission was on the casting vote of the chair I remember swearing for the first time in my life in public and he got in the papers you don't forget that easily so we need to be very careful here when all is said and done this is an application to build 74 houses on land outside the village framework off a group village to policy and I'm afraid this thing about it's like an infill development as paragraph 59 alludes to is just not right I don't buy that and I don't think we should and the fact that we have a four story building masquerading as a three story building oh come on please the discussion on the three story buildings in phase one was a long one I remember that and the fact that most of the third story was put into the roof in this case that's not even been done it's not nearly the same as what is there now at all and frankly you know when we have a big village design guy that was Codicott was one of the eight villages selected for this program because it was going to get a lot of development so the VDG is there to actually guide the development that was coming in this case we have three story buildings masquerading as two stories a four story building masquerading as a three story building I'm sorry but it's still sticking to fingers up at the VDG and it wasn't given the weight it should have been at the time but that's another matter entirely you've heard about biodiversity so I will leave that be but there are sites closer to the village that we could have this biodiversity net gain on I'm afraid that hasn't been explored properly I mean I know of one that I'm working on with one of the local youngsters which is right in the middle of the village that we want to do something with we've got the peace garden we've got the triple SI site that the village we just mentioned we've got handwick woods are we saying that we cannot get the gain in any of that are we? Okay members we're live again now so thank you everyone for your patience we're now resumed this meeting of the South Cambridgeshire District Council's planning committee we are currently on item 5 on the agenda which is an application for 74 dwellings at the land east of Highfields Road we're currently in the debate section of this item we've just heard from Councillor Hawkins who I think we managed to just about cover all your comments before the live stream dropped out so there's no need to repeat any of them I think we get the gist anyway of where you're leaning with this particular application so okay Councillor Hawkins if you'd like to continue if there's anything else you'd like to add? Yes there is I'm not done um the issue of drainage as you know is quite an important one um and what I would like clarification on from the LLFA is that on the the um the calculations that um were submitted a lot of the um there's a lot of saw charging going on um which seems to me that if they're submitting something like that to us at this point in time and there's a lot of the manholes I'll find it in a minute to spare with me it's part of what the um the parish council's response was actually right 45% of the drainage nodes are flood risk I'd like them to clarify that just how that is acceptable um and currently actually phase one site the water from that site is flowing onto the main road and I know the the site manager has said that they're looking at it and um you might be that some drains are blocked but what we know is that it is happening already so having 45% of the nodes at flood risk by their own calculations is acceptable and you may also recall that the actual drainage scheme had to come back to a committee for phase one for approval so drainage on this site is a big big big issue um now as far as the design goes and following on from uh councilor daunting's questions we see that the design doesn't meet industry design guides um and the urban design office still has concerns that there are further areas of improvement in the design of this phase two and I'm concerned for the amenity of the houses on clear drive and especially dams pastures which is kind of downstream from this site um I've not convinced that they've done the best they can in terms of the design for this so yes to finalize my comments this is the wrong design for this site it's not compliant with our own policies and it sticks to fingers at our VDG and should therefore in my opinion be rejected, thank you thank you um I think we'll take your questions of clarity around the drainage I believe we're joined by Harry Pickford from the LLFA Harry are you with us there you are morning good morning can you see and hear me okay we can see and hear you fine Harry yes um did you pick up the questions that councilor Hawkins had around the drainage nodes I did yes um so in terms of the the calculations that have been submitted um yeah as you point out there's there's quite a range of surcharging and the note which states flood risk in the calculation results now I think it's important to point out at this point that flood risk is kind of a high level of surcharge so in the calculations it sets out that for the the system to be showing flood risk it means that it's within 450 millimetres of the cover level of the manholes themselves so the water is sort of it's not exceeding system um and you know that that is in line with the kind of stunts that we look for within calculations so um the kind of I think the wording that is within the kind of guidance we look at is uh no water is outside the system in the one in 30 year return period storm and um you know kind of acknowledging the flood risk is still within the system albeit within the 450 millimetres from the cover level um so that's that's kind of I don't know if that answers your your question councillor Hulkins No it doesn't if I may chair um nowhere does it say that being at risk means it's at within 450 millimetres of the surface um at flood risk means at flood risk it will more than likely uh flood and the fact that we already have water from this phase one actually flowing onto the road high flows road shows that perhaps you need to really look at this Yeah so the 450 millimetres from the cover of the manholes detailed within the calculations um it's kind of a line within that I have it on my screen if it's possible for me to share I don't know if that'd be useful just to show you where that is in the report If it's handy Harry please I don't have the ability to share I've just realised I don't know if it's possible so to give you a message Yes bear with me don't answer that for you Is this going to take a while to pull up Harry No I think we're there Yep happy If you just let me know once you can see my screen We can see If you can zoom in a bit that might help Yeah absolutely So the bit that I'm looking at in the calculations is this line right here and that's sort of setting out the margin for surcharging flood risk um so this is is setting up part of the model detail I believe the scroll out soon down a little bit because I'll make it quicker um the part of the report that you're looking at is this surcharging which is seen this is a 30 year term period so obviously there's a lot of surcharging here and then it's picked up a little bit more in the 100 year which is this part here showing the flood risk so that's just stating that it's within the 450mm as set out further on in the calculations to answer your question So what's the difference between surcharge and flood risk um the difference between surcharging flood risk is how high the water level is within the drain network so it's the flood risk is noted as the water is within 450mm of the cover of the manholes Okay we're getting to a lot of technical detail now I think the officers have said that their view is the scheme is acceptable how much weight we put on that as a committee is obviously up to us so we've heard from the flooding officer there um councillor do you want to make any further points or are you you here okay no appreciate thank you very much next we have councillor Ripeth please I don't know if the officer would be able to Michael if you could put up the more kind of green photos you had in your presentation think of Highfields Road Cordercox and if you've got any further more expansive photos which show the location as it is currently Is that possible Michael Was there a question around those images when they come up? Yeah it's more um yes thank you that the top one I think helps with what I want to say really um on page 19 of the reports you reference power graph 91 the planning appeal on Banold Road Water Beach and I mean sadly certainly from my perspective I felt that they came back it was allowed on appeal and one of the reasons given was that the area had become more suburban in nature as opposed to rural as it was previously and what happened so I don't want to go on about this too much because I do want to focus obviously on the application here but I think this is helpful what happened was like a domino series effect of 5 year housing land supply sites which I understand were refused the planning committee before I joined the council and it went kind of one by one and by the time we got to the end because I can't think where else they can put houses now um we were left with a section which you know sadly is now a kind of building site and some more homes it wasn't accepted as an exception site um and the amenity is you know not really there all those extra houses in my opinion um with doctor surgery um capacity etc and yet we could all throw in the towel and say right we'll just let this happen because there's been previous 5 year housing land supply sites but we now have a local plan which is adoptive the current one we have a 5 year housing land supply Codacot has its Village Design Guide and I don't believe this is like an infill site and it's certainly way above the quantity of what infill should be for a group village and looking at that photo it still looks like a place which is semi rural and it's got a certain beauty and if you look at the heights of the buildings they're quite low and that seems to be something about the village um sort of lay out to the village atmosphere and I think that's something worth keeping and therefore I will be voting against this application thank you very much next week we have councillor Roberts thank you chairman through you chairman this application is arrogant because it ignores everything he hasn't spoken to the parish council it hasn't spoken to the local member it's completely ignored the design guide it ignores the fact that we have got a local plan a 5 year housing supply and it seems completely reliant on the only argument it's giving is that will appeal appeal when we didn't have those things was passed and therefore we are entitled now to this district council and claim that we've got every reason to have it how can it possibly be an ill infill at 74 we're not talking about one or two houses or even a dozen or 20 we're talking about in the 70s and it is arrogant I mean it's as for the designs of the houses I think what an aberration on design guides I've never seen anything that looks actually quite so ugly in recent months brought to this council they height of them they utter boring design of them there's no attempt here made to have this as an attractive and wantable design for a village to have to put up with I mean just talk about taking it off the shelf that's exactly what they've done there's no effort here there's no effort whatsoever in anything that they have done here and absolutely we should throw it out on its heel and and absolutely make sure that they understand that we're not going to be putting up with this okay thank you very much with council of fame you're next to speak thank you chair like other members clearly I have some concerns about this application the first relates to the compliance with the village design statement I accept that there are two tall buildings already in the village but as council Hawkins has pointed out the two tall buildings are rather more than three story and some of the other buildings including the door windows are clearly rather more than two story the village design statement has become come into force since we last considered phase one so I think that is a new fact we have to take into account in passing I would say that the apartments do not appear to have balconies it's a factor that is important for those who don't want to rely on tumble dryers for drying their clothes and so on but I'm not going to put particular weight on that also in relation to the VDS is the concerns about biodiversity and clearly we do encourage developers to consider local first where they can it isn't just that it's off-site but it's much of the biodiversity is some way off-site and indeed there's a substantial reduction in biodiversity on-site as part of this I suspect that if we were looking for if the developers were looking for more biodiversity on-site they might be dealing with the ditch and what I gather is a 10 meter strip rather differently I don't know what contribution that would make but clearly that would increase the on-site biodiversity however having said that I am aware that the biodiversity net gain is to develop this becoming obligatory although the environment act has passed is dependent on amendments to the local government act and that won't happen probably until next year and indeed the proposals are technically compliant as has been pointed out there are a number of issues on the VDS also relating to drainage but I think those have been more than adequately covered by others I think what we have to look at however this is a departure from our local plan but considering the appeal back in 2017 and I accept what councillor Hawkins says that it's the developers responsibility that the reserve matters were not brought in time but considering that appeal and the development that has taken place on the northern part of this site since I think we have to consider whether this is just infill I think in this case the scale of infill is less important than the question of the eastern fringe which is this site does bow out into the countryside beyond just infill having said all that I'm not convinced I'm not going to make my judgement on this but were this to go to appeal again I'm not convinced that our concerns would stand up you know we do have an obligation under the MPPF the presumption in favour of sustainable development admittedly in approving an up to date development plan was not there at the earlier stages and so I think that probably we do not have sufficient reason giving the officers advice to refuse this application therefore despite my concerns I come to the conclusion that probably we ought to accept the officer recommendation and approve okay thank you for that members I've got one two three four more speakers to go just to clarify the concerns I've had raised so far and I've noted down are related around contradiction to the village design guide issues around landscaping issues around non-compliance with the bridalway condition the fact it's outside the village envelope the offsite biodiversity net gain isn't near Caldacot and Drainage and the five year land supply is now in place so members so those last speakers obviously those points have been covered so if there's anything new or additional you would wish to raise or if you wish to give a view then please do but I will obviously still come to you in turn and we will carry on but just to reiterate those points have been covered Councillor Harvey there was also the amenity of the residence on play drive and Gramsbasture which I raised and neighbouring amenity as well Councillor Harvey please just a concern really that the logic whereby we can't make the biodiversity net gain onsite and therefore seem to switch to abandoning all attempts to retain any biodiversity on that hedgerow and take it all offsite that seems a rather clunky logic because we should be trying to retain where we can by diversity and only then the deficit is exported okay thank you Councillor Cahn please I found this very difficult application I found it very like the officers I found it very balanced I take the point about the biodiversity onsite the problem here is that you have an initial application which was done when we didn't have a 5-year land supply when 140 houses were proposed at quite a high density in the first phase all the main opportunities of biodiversity onsite were used and so you have a small area left and if you're going to get the remaining 74 houses then it's going to be very dense so it's very difficult to get it you could get a bit more to get the numbers but now in a situation where the initial argument of 5-year housing land supply doesn't apply so it should be going for 74 houses does the 140 house number actually act as a bank if we had 60 houses we might be able to do much better and we also had the problem that the when you had a housing land supply the issue of transport and accessibility was overwritten because of the shortage of housing now we have a situation where you're quite away from the development and the Camworld Cambridge housing transport hub has not been made and we don't yet know where it's going to be and it's been a constraining factor on all the new development that's been proposed on the hardware west camborn site it seems to me that we ought to be this is 70 houses it's going to make an impact we ought to be considering that and we ought to perhaps be waiting until we know what's going to happen about that before we make a decision on the basic principle that you've got development to the north you've got development to the south which is dense, quite dense I mean if you go to the I had my son had German lessons for about 6-3 months on the development immediately to the south and that is very similar it's not more dense than the one that's going on here the density in itself is a problem the problem is that there's not enough left for the biodiversity within the site and there appears to be concerns about the drainage which might perhaps be more you might have a larger margin if you had more land to play about with if the first phase of this development had gone on the southern part of the site then I think the argument would have not stood as it was in full to the north to the south you've got one boundary you've got the the record of a previous application which has been approved I think you're going to find it difficult to appeal in principle to accept that there would be development here my question is what about timing should we really be waiting to see if this site goes in the local plan which I think is a very good chance that it will in the final local plan and then set different standards in terms of density or which will give more opportunities or should we just think or maybe we'll get a worse deal then maybe we won't get the same deal should we accept what we've got is perhaps the best we can go to get and that's what's been tormenting me in fact because of this application and I find it very difficult to come to the decision but I think possibly I'm going to come around to the decision that it's premature to think about the transport infrastructure to know whether we're going to be able to get out of that transport infrastructure and we should wait for the local plan before we decide that it probably will be in the local plan but at this stage it's perhaps premature for decision making So are you coming down on the side of a refusal or deferral? At the moment I'm tempting towards refusal but it's very margable Thank you Councillor Wilson please Thank you chair I'm like everyone else I see we're here almost through a series of unfortunate events We didn't have a five year housing supply, we didn't have a local plan there wasn't a village design guide but here we are now with all these things and I too have concerns about biodiversity, about the transport so I'm very uncomfortable with this application and I'm coming down on the side of refusal Okay, thank you Councillor Ellingson please Thank you chairman Most people have said all the things that I was going to say I was going to wrap it on about biodiversity and the fact that if you have a design plan and you have accepted it then you have to stick by it and various other things but I think the new thing that I want to bring to this discussion is that we're talking about a population I believe of being about 714 and we're talking about introducing another 74 houses to that I know in my village I've got 1100 houses and I've just had 200 lumped on me and to bring those new people into a community when you are a very small community is significantly bigger than the challenge that I'm facing and on those grounds we have a 5-year land supply, we do not we have a group home village here a designated they shouldn't have more than 12 houses built on them and we're talking about putting another extra 74 I cannot believe that that is right I will vote against Thank you if you could pop your mic off Thanks Councillor Rippeth I saw you indicating earlier I didn't know if it was about something earlier or something new I just want to re-emphasise I promise I'll be really quick because you're giving me a second go you've got quite a good list of reasons for refusal and I just want to say why have policies why have design guys if you're not going to really implement them and take it and not say oh it might get refused I think I'm sorry it might be allowed on the peel I don't think that's what we're in the business of doing we're in the business of looking at what's in front of us and deciding on its merits or otherwise and I just want to really emphasise that point about immunity it is absolutely crucial because if you have people moving into a village and there aren't the immunities there to support them and to support the whole population it becomes incredibly difficult and it has a really negative impact and the sustainability of the site at the moment I frankly just don't think it's sustainable currently there isn't a transport and I have finished so don't worry I won't put my hand back up again that's fine it's a point well made okay members those are all the speakers I think most members have given a view one way or the other so I think we are in a position to be making a decision on this I'm going to pass over to Mr Sexton who I think has been beavering away writing up the reasons for refusal based on the debate so Michael I don't know if you could share that with us on the screens I can John I will need clarity on a few of the reasons that have been cited by members please and I may need to draft this further following this discussion so certainly picking up from members aren't happy with the principle of development as set out in the report it does conflict with a lot of the councils core policies so I've drafted a reason for refusal that is outside the framework of a group village and represents an understandable form of development and I'm also picking up that members would be of the view that it would represent encroachment into the countryside as well which is why so I can take that highlighting out so that first reason is sort of to catch yet the sustainability in the countryside encroachment after after the reason on scale that with particularly reference to apartment block C that by virtue of that scale it's inappropriate and incompatible with its location contrary to local plan policies and also guidance notes 6.1 of the county coverage design guide which is one that specifically recognizes 1.5 in two stories council Hawkins you began to talk about the general design concerns I think council Roberts also started alluding to those so clarity on where the members feel the design as a whole is not suitable would you welcome that I can draft something so that effect if that is what members would want to I'll get some nods from around the room generally the committee or we agree that that is a reason we have concerns around and should be refused upon anyone nods? No okay so I think that's clear Would members be happy with a standalone reason for the apartments and then a separate reason as I've sort of got here for design or would you want it? Thank you and then the landscape buffer the southern boundary has come up a few times so I just appreciate some clarity on the particular issues with that and I've draft I think from what I understood and correct me members if I'm wrong actually I'll throw it to council Hawkins Go on The issue is that there is currently a biodiversity border along there which has been removed and sleight of hand trying to use the ditch as the as landscape buffer which it's not there is no space there to actually have a proper they should leave the border that's there now do the ditch and then put their roads I think it's a loss of landscaping Michael I think it's the concern there okay I've also picked up the public right of way which yes you can give weight to because it's an existing condition so I'll just draw to the fact that the layout doesn't make provision for the bridal way that's required as part of condition 20 of the outline consent that's part of the wider development and in terms of linking that to policy policy TI2 of the local plan has a couple of criteria that talk about the provision of new and cycle and walking routes to connecting to the existing networks so that I think would be the policy so again just confirmation for members that they would want to include public right of way that was raised as a concern during the debate members is that does that encapsulate what we're what our concerns are yes no yes okay I'm getting some nods from around the room sorry councillor Roberts did you want to thank you chairman if I could add I think we were also concerned and councillor I think actually mentioned this about the density that it's it's only going on the sort of previously agreed numbers which were at a specific difficult time and that no consideration is being given now to have a much lower number here and that density of 74 is just unacceptable and I think we need to put that somewhere in here that you know that density is is just not on could that be captured in the design element Michael I can add something to the general design reason obviously just to highlight the first region fusel will be a reference at 74 dwellings it's not suitable for an understandable form of development but if you see density as an issue then I can incorporate that into part of the design councillor Hawkins if I may the applicant reference to the inclusion of this site in the first proposals and perhaps what people don't realise is the number in the first proposal as a 64 not 74 so it's a lower number which reflects what we're talking about in that it's too dense for what it is so Michael what I get gathered in that would be better included in the first region for a fusel around the physical number of dwellings yep that's the Williams thank you chair I don't disagree and I think that is a thing but just guidance as to whether perhaps the numbers qualify rather than not being happy with the density because looking at the DPH but actually over development of the site as opposed to sort of the density whether that would be a better ground for yes the fact that there's more housing is over development rather than if that would help square the circle the question is around the wording whether we actually specify the number is an issue or just we think it's over development I don't know if the office has had a view on that I would probably suggest it members feel that the number is a design issue that I'll incorporate that into the second design reason for a fusel I think obviously we've stated 74 in terms of quantum it's the first reason but I can draw up something about the density in the second design I think that'll be handy I think you had some others at the bottom of your list I do yes, I just appreciate, I know drainage has been a concern for many years and it's like whether members I know council Hawkins raised it and we heard from Harry Pickford there's obviously no technical objection to the scheme and there are details from the outline have been approved keen to understand if members saw grounds for a fusel on drainage my opinion is that there isn't a view on council Hawkins if I may, we had something similar with the first phase where the calculations were showing a lot of flood risk or at risk at flood risk nodes and one of the reasons it's one of the reasons why the condition was given to bring back the revised design to the committee because of the concerns that we raised and as I said we already have water coming off phase 1 I know it's not finished but we already have water coming off phase 1 on to Rytlers Road so as far as our experience goes drainage just it needs to be tighter if for example we had only 10 nodes at flood risk you might go okay but you brought 45% of the nodes in that design at flood risk I'm not a flood engineer but I'm sorry but I just feel to see how that cannot be of concern at flood risk you'll be minimal not nearly half How would we tackle that one If I can come back I think it's my first involvement when I brought back the section 73 on drainage on the first side that was to do with the fact that it was used for testing my understanding is that testing has been done correctly this time around there are a number of conditions including a condition about how surface water would be managed during the construction phase which I think was probably absent from the phase 1 and the outline we've realised needs to happen so again I'm not sure I'm crafting a reason for refusal that would stand up but happy to Members I think the question is given that advice do we really want to include drainage as a reason for refusal getting the fact it's unlikely to hold up obviously we can that's a gift up to us Do any members have any views Councillor Roberts I think stick to the ones that we feel will actually we can stand up I think we've all seen that field and I'll remember going some years ago and seeing the area and it's very very wet I mean there's huge amounts of water on there but if we don't have the professional support maybe let's have a fewer but really strong ones and I think we've got some really strong ones I think there was more of an argument about sewage if I remember and maybe the local member can remind me I wouldn't push for that this one in particular for me I think the reasons we have so far are concrete I don't think there's any I might be wrong but I don't think there's any argument against those Michael we have biodiversity and neighbour amenity as well on your list Yeah so on biodiversity obviously we have what the developer has demonstrated but there will be a 10% net gain and biodiversity will be it through an offsite contribution that's not within county cop but it would be fully policy compliant so I'm unsure whether we'll be able to draft a reason for a refusal and then defend a reason for a refusal that was along the lines of members not being satisfied that net gain was within the village or within the parish so again just a clarification debate around that would be helpful Okay, Councillor Hawkins We do have a hierarchy of achieving biodiversity net gain and I think in my view we've not explored that properly on this occasion we have lots of places around the village that we call that gain can be achieved and frankly it seems bizarre to me that we are the ones taking the pain potentially of 74 new homes but with none of the biodiversity benefits when we have areas that we could use and I don't know why the parish council didn't get back to you I can't explain that but I know of four sites where we can actually achieve biodiversity net gain to legal advice on that one I can see Mr Reeds wants to come in with some legal advice I might say if they had come and talked to the parish council we wouldn't be in this situation I think the point has been made I think the preference for more local biodiversity gain could be addressed in terms of the delegation to officers to deal with the planning obligation so I don't think you should put all of your eggs in the basket of saying that's the reason for refusal because you could address it through a planning obligation were you minded to grant Members that's the advice we've had from officers and legal advice so given that do we want to include this or no Councillor Williams I know you indicated earlier I was just going to ask if there's a cascade in the policy in relation to biodiversity you know like we have affordable housing on exception sites like a cascade of areas can we say that we don't think it's relevant to the cascade if that is the case Michael I don't think we have a policy at this time that would allow us to refuse the application on that basis I think certainly the preference will be as emerging to look on site first and then in the local area similar to what we do with affordable housing but my recommendation to members is that we don't have a policy basis to refuse application on that particular reason Okay, well that's the advice we have Councillor Cohn I was just wondering the concern is that we'd like to have would have preferred to have more the net gain on site and any offsite nearer that's the concern I agree with you that it's difficult in grounds but in fact it relates in part to the density and the number of houses that are on site and so perhaps it could be mentioned as an explanation when referring to the number of houses to say that that restricts the amount of gain just mention that restricts the amount of gain on site rather than having this as a separate reason for a refusal which I understand is going to be difficult to defend Is that, will that be possible not to have it as an individual reason but perhaps incorporate it into one of the others? Yeah, I can make a reference in the second design region For me that's probably the more sensible way forward if we are going to vote refusal on this Indeed Councillor Williams Thank you chair, I think it was a long simmer line so I'll just say the landscaping and the design does not enable for any biodiversity retention which obviously is first and foremost the priority I think that's been noted I can see Michael beavering away and neighbour Amina sorry, did you want to talk about biodiversity? And that is what leads to part of the issue on the labour amenity because it's stripped off that planning to strip off all that edgy is then opens clear drive and dams pasture how it seems to be a new development Okay, to Michael I'm guessing you're asking us for some clarity around the neighbour amenity Yes, normally the neighbour amenity would be on grounds of overlooking or lots of lights the separation distances between the proposed properties and the existing properties are in excess of our design guidance so is the view of members that the loss of that existing boundary has a detrimental effect on neighbours and if so what negative impact do you consider that to be in policy terms? Yeah, Councillor Hawkins At this point in time they have greenery behind them so once that is taken off then they'll have this concrete jungle looking at them I don't know how to express that Is it visual? It is visual, so it actually is also character of that existing part of the village so the character is being affected and the amenity is being affected Councillor Williams then what comes to the officer? Thank you, I believe the words we sometimes use the effects of street scene and from the other side for the existing it would affect the street scene for them given the lack of foliage and landscaping so it would be on the existing street scene from that side that it would be affecting their amenity Let's hear from the officers then I think those reasons all relate to design and character rather than neighbour amenity so lots of the view on some material reason for refusal but happy to maybe emphasise a point within the design but I take the point that you lose a greenery you look out to a new development site but I don't think that is harmful in neighbour amenity terms and polish terms to sustain a separate reason for refusal but I can allude to it in the design Could that be incorporated in the design I don't think it would be a stand alone Okay, I think Sorry, Councillor Cahn Are you going to introduce any thematic sensibility and the fact that Cambridge might be premature for the local plan and the fact that we're not sure what's going to happen about the Cambridge to Camborn past transport yet I'm not sure we can allow that but obviously we have to judge it on what's happening today but I will ask officers for opinion on that No, I don't think we can incorporate that into those issues a caption in the first reason for refusal in terms of the sustainability of the site as it stands today so I wouldn't propose anything additional Okay, members we have a comprehensive list of reasons for refusal should be decided to go that way Okay, I think we're at the point now when we can probably have a vote on this please I think we do need a vote because I have a differing views and this is a major application so I think it's more sensible so Aaron if you could fire up the voting system for us please so members as usual press the blue button your screens to register you wish to vote if you wish to support the application and approve press green if you wish to not support and refuse press red and if you wish to abstain press yellow How many of us are there? 11 so it's still one more to vote Aaron if you could show us the results which are on screen now so one vote in favour sorry, Mr Blaiseby wants to come in Yes, thank you chair just for clarity we will draft final reasons for refusal and passed it by chair and vice-chair for final sign up Understood, thank you Okay, members so that application is refused thank you everyone for your input on all of that I appreciate it's taken a few hours to get through that but I appreciate everyone's patience Okay, members I'm going to start the next item now it's item 6 which is on pages 71 of our agendas this is an application at Bancroff Farm Church Lane Little Abington the proposal in front of us is demolition of existing agricultural buildings an erection of five dwellings and conversion of two redundant barns to form a detached dwelling and an office the applicant is Chefinns who are the agent on behalf of the landowner we have again a raft of key material considerations in our papers and the application is before us because the officer recommendation is in contravention to that of the parish council and yes I think that is it so okay, Mr Sexton we are over to you again as the presenting officer so any updates to the report in front of us and then please introduce the report thank you Thank you chair, no updates just closing county court and getting Abington ready so yes this is an application for the demolition of existing dilapidated agricultural buildings erection of five dwellings conversion of two barns one into a detached dwelling and one into an office at Bancroff Farm Little Abington the application is also back before members because previously considered the previous scheme on this site which was refused and I'll come on to that through the presentation so the location this is the site location in Little Abington adjacent to a protected village area which I'll make clearer on the next slide and you can see some existing buildings that will largely be removed to accommodate the proposed developments so in terms of constraints the site is within the development framework boundary of Little Abington and it's also more or less entirely within the conservation area which is this pink line there is a my presentation is wrong I haven't updated it it's not partially within a protected community area it's entirely outside of the village protected community area which is the dark pink so it runs on the edges of the site you've got a great two-star listed church to the south of the site and public rights of way denoted by the blue lines again these are visuals of the street scene so you'll be north along church lane over the site on the right hand side this is one of the existing buildings to be retained and converted there's a junction with west field just up here so this is the view looking across the site fairly open with some existing structures this is a view from the corner of Bournbridge road towards the application side which is down in here this is an open view across to the field behind which is the protected village community area and just a view down towards the church along church lane which you can't see in this photo just to show the general character of the street as it currently stands to the west of the site you have existing single story properties there are also two sort of properties within the vicinity and again this is a view down to the church which is down here and this is one of the existing buildings to be retained and converted and just some more views and this bottom is a view across the public right of way so we're looking across the back of the site and you can see the church over the top this is the proposed site plan so you've got plots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the new residential properties that are being proposed plot 5 is converted and slightly extended existing barn that you've just seen on the photos and barn A is an existing building that's being converted into an office space these were provided in the plans but most of the properties are a single story proposed buildings to sort of reflect an agricultural courtyard this is the largest and the only one and a half story building on the site in plot 2 everything else as you can see is a fairly simple single story units and that's the existing barn that's being converted and slightly extended that's the new plot 6 and this is the existing barn really the only alteration to that demonstration, detailings and internal works to convert it into office space with a section of the barn to be demolished there are some visuals to provide you with this time which I don't think we had last time which to show how the development would sit within the existing street so this is plot 6 or plot 5 nearest to the street key change that I'll come on to is that this has been reduced in height from the previous proposal and also stepped slightly into the site and this is a visual from the public right of way which I showed the photo of earlier and how the development would sit and the church tower you would still see through the development and in context with some of the existing development, two-story development along Church Lane to the south so the previous reason for refusal as set out in detail in the report was on the basis that the development encroached into the protective village immunity area therefore contrary to policy the red line boundary no longer encroaches into the PVAA so officers are satisfied with that reason for refusal has been addressed the second reason for refusal related to the sighting, scaling, massing and development in particular plots 1 and 6 and then being dominant in the street scene negatively impacting the conservation area and setting the church with reference of views from the public right of way as well hopefully this slide is helpful just to give you a comparison the current scheme that you have before you today is at the top and the previously refused scheme is at the bottom so you can see where the red line has been reduced and so to remove the development from being within the PVAA Plots previously there were plots 1 and 2 now you've just got plot 1 which has helped to take the built form away from the public highway to reduce the visual impacts and improve that soft landscape and it can be incorporated and plot 6 although it's in a similar location has been reduced in height by 4 to 500 millimetres and stepped into the site slightly so you then read the existing barna plot 5 as the one being immediately adjacent to the site so I hope that just provides a helpful reminder to the between the two schemes again a range of material considerations also out in the report of asterisk the key ones in my view because they relate back to the reasons for refusal being the protected but easy area character and heritage impact subject to conditions set out in the report officers are satisfied that the proposal is otherwise policy compliant thank you chair thank you for that introduction members we have a few public speakers for this particular item and we're going to start with our first public speaker Isabel Smith who joins us in the chamber Isabel if you'd like to come forward to the mic so to switch it on it's the button on the right press that and press it again to switch it off so yeah thank you for coming in person today to speak to us I know you've probably heard me say this before but it will speakers get three minutes to address the committee and at the end if you could just remain in your seat in case there are any questions of clarification from the committee for yourself so whenever you're ready please thank you I represent the views of 12 households who live alongside Bank of Farm we continue to object to the development plans we feel that the current proposals have not addressed the reasons the planning committee gave for refusal in February 2021 and the development will not preserve the character of the conservation area reason one for refusal was encroachment into the pvaa well most of the garden of plot one is still within the pvaa next slide reason two for refusal said that the siting, scale and massing of the development would significantly erode the undeveloped nature of the site and its rural quality it said that the siting of plots one and six adjacent to the pavement on church lane would represent an overly dominant and prominent form of development which would detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area the new plan show that plot six has only been moved less than a meter back from the pavement the house is five and a half meters tall as tall as the lamp post and taller than the existing flint barns plot six is now one and a half meters longer due to the addition of a new gable so that it extends further up church lane very close to oak tree T4 with the building of plot six we lose the undeveloped rural quality of the conservation area next slide please plot one is side onto the lane its five and a half meter tall gable is only six meters from the edge of the road so the views from the far end of church lane will now be dominated by the new house houses on the other side of the lane are set well back with mature trees lining the lane the conservation officer says the proposals will not harm the character of the conservation area but not harming is not the same as preserving or enhancing reason two for refusal also said plots one and six would be evident in views to the south towards the church a grade two star listed building and so would impact its setting because plots one and six are so large and because they sit on the roadside they will dominate the views down the lane to the church the conservation officer says the development will not harm the setting of St Mary's church but we feel it neither preserves nor enhances its historic appearance next slide please trees we are concerned and disappointed that over 40 trees will be cut down leaving only two veteran trees the beach T7 and the oak T4 even these will be damaged the lower branches of the beach will be sawn off and 20% of the root protection zone will be laid to hard standing the tree officer said that it is unacceptable for the new hard standing by plot one to be so close to the beach the new home owners may park on the grass by their front door further damaging the roots when we are encouraged to protect biodiversity the treatment of the trees is unexpectedly harmful if you could sum up please last slide to protect the undeveloped and rural character of the conservation area we ask you to reject the current proposals and we look forward to new plans which meaningfully address the reasons for refusal that's great thank you very much for that members do we have any questions of clarification for the Smith councillor Hawkins thank you chair and through you thank you for your representation I'm just referring here to our report paragraph 124 which said some balance officers are satisfied that the proposal has responded positively to the heritage harm that was identified in the previous refused application especially with regards to plot 6 now if I hear you correctly you are still saying that that is not sufficient in your view Mariah yes I think the changes that have been made are very modest and effectively the visual effect remains the house has only been moved back less than a meter thank you thank you members councillor Wilson it may come later with the officer but I'd like some clarification about whether it does or doesn't encroach on the pvaa because in the report it says it doesn't and our public speaker says it does so I'd like some clarification around that please miss Smith perhaps you'd like to clarify that point you made earlier do you think it does still encroach the pvaa is not straight it actually has a number of of alterations it's not linear but I don't think that's been reflected accurately on the plot on the site plan Michael would you come back to us in the debate if you'd like to try and tackle it now I think we can come back to it I'll pull up your match up to help with that if you could ask that again later councillor Wilson any further clarification questions for our public speaker so just leaves me to say thank you very much for coming in and joining us today appreciate you waiting it's difficult to tell when these things are going to come around but thank you very much for your patience okay next speaker we have are the agents on behalf of the applicant we have Mr Simon Gooderman and also Mr John Jennings good afternoon welcome both of you I'm not sure who's kicking off but is that Mr Gooderman so it's the button on the right hand side of your microphone which is it on and off as with the other public speakers three minutes to address the committee and obviously there may be some questions of clarification for yourself at the end so if you both stay seated that would be useful good afternoon and Simon Gooderman speaking on behalf of the applicants as their agent and advisor the planning committee report prepared by Michael Sexton and clearly sets out the extensive work and the changes to the scheme which have been undertaken to address the previous reasons for refusal it also confirmed there are no technical objections to the development of the site and his recommendations to you to approve the application are welcomed we engaged with the parish council on the 23rd of April 2021 and received some positive feedback to the design changes and these were reported to us on the 30th of April 2021 the responses to the consultation process have been fully taken into account in the new application that is being considered today and just to summarize these include the following significant changes the entirety of the scheme is now outside of the pvaa including both the built development and the gardens of the new properties despite some claims to the contrary whilst the number of dwellings has remained the same as six units the office units have been reduced from two units to one single unit and this has allowed one of the barns to be converted to a dwelling and therefore reduces the scale of new build development on the site one of the main objections to the previous application was the close proximity of plot one to church lane and this plot has now been completely removed to allow the undeveloped character of the northern end of church lane to be maintained it has also been reduced in scale and height and moved back into the site again maintaining the open character of church lane and allowing landscaping to be introduced to soften the appearance of this unit this design change has also ensured that the views of the parish church from church lane are not compromised changes to the eastern side of the site has also significantly improved the views of the church from the public footpath and only one one and a half story dwelling is now proposed plot two to help satisfy the parish council's wish for the site to be occupied by low rise development when they originally sought for this site to be allocated the provision of a wildflower meadow on the pvaa to the east of the site will not only enhance the setting of the footpath and development site but also improves environmental and biodiversity benefits of the scheme the application includes the original and updated information on our bora cultural and drainage matters which confirms that the development can be carried out without compromising the important trees on the site a revised drainage port has also been provided which demonstrates the site can be suitably drained and the applicants are agreeable to a pre-development condition to provide a detailed drainage scheme the application fully addresses the two previous reasons for refusal and a thought to now provide a scheme which responds to the former agricultural character of the site and the applicants have worked closely with the council's professional advisers to satisfy both the technical and design elements of the scheme and deliver a policy compliant development which has an appropriate scale and character for this allocated site I trust these comments are of assistance and you're able to support your office's recommendation and approve the application thank you thank you very much I think we have some questions of clarity for yourself starting with councillor Roberts please and then Hawkins thank you chairman and through you chairman good afternoon good afternoon thank you for the presentation some of the concerns that have been put to us in the agenda are about the commercial building plan and given the fact that you've taken it down from two to one I'd like to understand your reasoning of even keeping one on site and is it not actually somewhat in conflict with dwellings in a site like this to put a commercial office on site so I would like to understand why you haven't just got rid of that altogether and made that barn into a dwelling and cut back on your new build and you talked about retention of important trees I know this site and I'll explain that later to the committee but it is pre-lined is that road and I gathered from the representation from the residents that your intention is actually only to leave out of maybe fourty odd two left again can I have your clarification about why you think only two trees here are important thank you chairman two questions there one about the retention of trees and to the justification for the commercial unit so the first question relating to the commercial unit really was in order to provide obviously a commercial element to the scheme with the move towards more home based working nowadays and potential benefit of having office space nearby to some of the new dwellings it is only a small scale office and in fact it complies with the policy of conversion and reuse of agricultural buildings for employment uses with regard to the trees I can answer some of these John may want to contribute to those but we followed the advice of the aboroculturalists and the trees that are due to be removed and scaled back are of low quality, low value trees and we've sought to maintain any trees that are considered an important value on the site a lot of those trees have reached the end of their basically of their life but as you can see from the site layout plan you can see the major trees which are going to be retained but also there's proposals to put significant trees on the edge of the PBAA to compensate for the loss of those age trees important addition trees quickly come back on that however changing the position of them is not going to compensate for the fact of all those that are presently the entrance into the village on that road are they you're just going to change a character very very strongly I don't think you have to come back on that but I don't think there's a question there Councillor Hawkins please Thank you Chairman and through you the question is on the drainage issue I note from paragraph 28 that the sustainable drainage engineer actually objects on the basis that they're not convinced that infiltration is not suitable for the site and so they're not able to support what's been proposed by yourselves and then we also have paragraph 161 which reinforces that because you've not actually explored suds in your report why not Yeah I think I'm not 100% certain how up to date some of the comments within the report are because we actually submitted a revised drainage report which looked at both the issues of suds and surface water drainage it actually has I mean as a book officer has said the technical objections to drainage but we are also obviously accepting a free development condition to make sure a very detailed drainage scheme is put in. I mean we've got in terms of suds we've got infiltration underneath the highway itself we've also got there will be some drainage into the actual existing public sewer system but I think in terms of the ground conditions and what we're proposing this site can drain in an appropriate manner Do you want to come back? Yes please chair When you say infiltration on the highway which highway? The road in the site of the highway highway What is infiltration underneath the areas of hard standing? Thank you chair Next speaker is Councillor Williams Thank you chair and through yourself I'm just looking back at reasons you say they've been addressed sorry the agency has been addressed but I just want to draw attention to policy F7 which was one of the key things in the refusal last time and 1B is the retention of the site in its present state does not form an essential part of the local character and development would protect and enhance local features of green space, landscape ecology or historical importance. I'm just wondering given that was an important policy that was looked at last time how through yourself chair you would justify the impact it's going to have on where the trees are being removed and on that stretch of road how would you justify that Thank you Yep I'm not sure if you can answer I think that going back primarily to the tree issue we followed the recommendations of advice of the aboroculturist that the trees that are being removed are of low quality and in a number of cases in fact dead Castor Williams I used the trees to describe the stretch of road that has been referred to I didn't ask about the trees themselves chairs to clarify but obviously whether there is some trees less trees the whole point is beyond those it is open it is the character of the road so putting buildings putting houses there can you justify how that would essentially it's development would not would protect and enhance local features of green space and landscape so I'm not talking about the trees chair but how it enhances green space with the proposal I think the questions around the justification of how this development would enhance the area rather than detrack from it The existing buildings on site are dilapidated agricultural buildings and don't really deliver any green space at all so the scheme that's been designed to incorporate areas of public open space there's two areas of public open space on the site within the scheme I think there's very much also within the streets particularly with moving what was block one and two now block one back away from the highway allows that to landscape existing and augmented landscaping along the church lane boundary to be retained and enhanced OK thank you for that Councillor Ellington please Thank you chair Dr Hawkins asked the question I was going to ask OK good and Councillor Khan please It's very big for the area there's been quite a lot of concern about the trees along the road I've visited the site on previous application and I agree that many of the trees along the road are not of good quality but I want obviously if you clear them when they're planted it's going to be slow to the vegetates are going to be slow to screen Had you considered or had you discussed the possibility of copying them and allowing them to be grown which would be much quicker and much more rapid screen Was that considered or discussed at all So that's an option which wasn't considered in the tree report but it could be considered via suitably worded a pre-development condition OK Thank you very much and finally Councillor Harvey please Yes I know the street very well I think it's a shame that the scale of the gable end that we saw on the resident presentation there seems to sort of destroy the notion of a sort of courtyard which is rather sort of charming at the moment and I accept that the scale of that gable end has been reduced and it's been set back a bit but I'm not sure that it's actually been dealt with sufficiently given that that was a sort of major Is there a question in the original refusal Is there a question Well have they looked at doing something a bit more radical than just I think it's one of the points of the debate questions for our guests but thank you very much OK members I think those are all the questions we have so thank you gentlemen for coming in and speaking to us this morning We will now take our next public speaker who is representing the parish council joining us online Richard Smith Richard are you with us Yep Yep great we can see and you welcome thank you for joining us this afternoon Before we click off can I just confirm with you that you have the permission of the parish council to represent them here today Yes I do indeed I can confirm that Good thank you very much Well as with other public speakers you'll have three minutes to present the parish council's views to us and hold on the line in case there are any questions from committee members for you So if you could Yep I see we've got a presentation on the screen as well Which I've been talking to So whenever you're ready please OK fine thank you Well I'm Richard Smith speaking on behalf of Little Ableton parish council to set out some of the reasons for our objecting to the present proposed development of Bancroff Farm To make the council's position clear we believe that this currently untidy site should be sympathetically developed The council supports the proposition that an appropriate number of homes including some that would be the villages recognised need for downsizing properties should be located on it We did not identify and are unaware of any need for offices which we fear may lead to potentially dangerous parking on what is now planned to become the Linton Greenway Indeed our council recently recommended approval for conversion of an existing office building in the village back to residential use Our principal concern reflected in many comments from Little Ableton residents is the impact of this scheme on the tranquil rural character of Church Lane, shown in my first slide We feel that it is still an overly dominant form of development in the conservation area where the dwelling layout access road, car ports and pavement and the loss of trees will destroy the current tree-lined vista This was one of the principal reasons that the planning committee refused permission for the previous plans and even after further iteration the present submission does not address this fundamental objection With the current emphasis on sustaining and indeed enhancing biodiversity and tree cover the grounds for objection are stronger The proposed layout of the Bancroff site is quite out of character with the present housing on the west side of Church Lane where the houses with their own driveways are set well back from the road behind a line of trees which has been in place since 1803 The rural character and sense of tranquility of this Little Ableton Lane are a price this asset that must be preserved is a visualisation what is planned showing the harm that will be done In general the executive summary in considering impact of the latest revisions on the conservation area concludes quote, not sufficiently harmful to warrant refusal these words are repeated in Para 228 We feel that the recognition of a harmful effect should be an immediate reason for refusal Other salient matters are the disputed intrusion into the PVAA and surface water drainage problems on the Church Lane corner to which we've repeatedly drawn attention and the executive summary also includes an objection from the drainage engineer Inclusions about impact on the conservation area in some instances do come down to opinion The parish council asks you to trust that we th