Transcript

[ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ]

Good morning, everyone. My name is Councillor Smart and I am the Vice Chair of this committee. I would like to welcome you all to the Chemistry Council's planning committee meeting taking place at 10 a.m. on 24th of April. Other members of this committee, I'd like to introduce themselves from the Councillor. Katie Thumber of Peter's Field. Robert Dryden, Cherry Hinton. Sam Carlin from West Chesterton. Mary Bennett, Abbey Ward. Katie Pora, Market Ward. David Levine, Trumpington Ward. Thanks, Councillors. Officers permitting a table for this meeting are delivery manager, Toby Williams, legal advisor, Keith Barber, committee manager, James Goddard, and producer, Chris Conner. Other officers and public speakers will join us throughout the course of the meeting. I will introduce them at the start of relevant agenda items. I have to keep in. The agenda can be found on the seats to the right of the dias. Copies are also available on the City Council's website under committee meetings, minutes, and agendas. Please try and refer to specific page numbers within the agenda if you are approved with specific paragraph or plan. And I remind all of those present of the importance of using the microphones at all times when speaking. Please speak close to and clearly into the microphone. Please ensure you're 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 finish addressing the meeting, please turn off your microphone immediately. Speak slowly and clearly, and please do not talk over or interrupt anyone. If anyone has any problems hearing me throughout the meeting, please alert me by waving their hands or advising a council officer. We aim to take a 45 minute lunch break between noon and 2pm. Please Conner's present in the council chamber and notice that everything on your desk, including your laptop screen, is likely to be broadcast at some point. The camera follows the microphone being switched on, so councillors and officers are requested to wait a couple of seconds before speaking to allow the camera to catch up. Please raise your hand if you wish to speak. Please Conner's participating in the meeting via live stream indicate you wish to speak via the chat column or raised hand option. Please do not use the chat column for any other purpose. The meeting chat is neither confidential nor private and can be subject to an FOI or DPA request. That's freedom of information or data protection act requests. Make sure that your device is fully charged and that you switch your microphone off unless you're invited to speak. Please use a headset if available when speaking and hold the microphone close to your mouth. Could public speakers turn their cameras off until we come to the application we have registered you to speak about? If a report officer drops out from the committee to support broadband signal, the senior officer present will take over their presentation or report and respond to questions. The case officer will give a brief introduction to his or her report. Registered public speakers will be invited to have their say. There will be three minutes to those speaking in support and three minutes to those speaking against unless have advised otherwise. The committee manager will ring a bell when you have 30 seconds remaining. Once public speakers have addressed the committee, their speaking time is over. Public speakers are unable to join in with the council to debate. The committee will then discuss and debate the item and may ask questions in the case officer. At the end of the deliberation, I will ask members to vote on the officer recommendation by a show of hands. The council has a convention for major planning applications known as the adjourned decision protocol where there is a majority resolution that is minded to make the decision. Contrary to the officer recommendation, the decision to determine the application will then be adjourned and the officers will be prepared a further report which will come back to a future meeting of this committee. Only those present in the chamber can vote or propose or second recommendations. For the comfort of councillors and officers in the public, I may choose to call short breaks, join the proceedings. If councillors or officers require a break at any point, please indicate to me that all proceedings are the next convenient opportunity. Moving on to agenda. I see a roll here at the council for the second. That is the move on to agenda item three. Decorations of interest. Anybody? Councillor PORTER. Thank you, Chair. Just a note for item seven, Brookmount's Court. I realised my partner used to work in this building several years ago, but the company was just renting it had no financial interests and I have not had any prior discussion. Just to declare my discretion is unfettered. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, so agenda item four minutes. I've got the minutes of the meeting or sixth of March. Can I sign this as a true record? Yes, thank you very much. Okay, so moving on to agenda item five, as you may know, councillors, we have a briefing before we start planning items. So item five is updates on biodiversity net game. Officers, are you ready? Thank you very much, Chair, the board members. I will now give a brief presentation on biodiversity net game. I'm the natural environment team leader for Greta Cambridge. Today I have with me my manager, Jane Green, and online we have two ecologists. I built you from the city and Daniel Weaver from Southcans. So I'll just share my screen. Okay, I believe you can all see the screen. So biodiversity net game, I suppose the first question is what is it? Biodiversity net gains a new approach to planning and development that seeks to enhance the natural environment as a function of development. Rather than simply replacing what is lost as a function of any development. Biodiversity net gain seeks to go further and seeks to, it's about stepping beyond into conservation of the natural environment, rather than simply putting back what is what is lost through development. Why is it important? Well, if we look at a Greta Cambridge, city of Cambridge, then the middle, the district of South Cambridge around the edge, you can see the kinds of development pressures that we have. We live in a very nature depleted part of the country, the county of Cambridge. The district of South Cambridge is very, very low in terms of the amount of land managed for nature. And combining with that, we have a lawful lot of development pressure. And so we have a perfect storm in a way of not much land managed for nature, high development pressure. And so we have a need really to protect and enhance the biodiversity that we have. On the screen, there are just some points there. We've got water beach in the north, north stove to the west. We've got Campbell West, Campbell, and then of course around Cambridge Fringe, there's an awful lot of development taking place. If we were to look at this map in a slightly different way and look at the spatial footprints of these developments, you can see that they're quite considerable. There's a lot of managed land going under development and therefore we really need to have good policies in place to ensure that that biodiversity is not lost but enhanced. The kinds of development we're all familiar with are... ...the city of Cambridge, this I think is opposite the station, the station road. We have urban fringe development, this is Edington to the west of Cambridge. I think predominantly a Greenfield site when it came forward. And of course we have the new towns, as I said, such as Campbell, not quite new, about 30 years old, but certainly north stove and water beach. It's a different types of development offering different challenges when it comes to protecting and enhancing any biodiversity that's lost. And when we think about biodiversity net gain or BNG as we could call it, we're thinking about replacing that lost habitat three different types. I think about on site, I believe this is a picture of Edington in the west, and the kinds of net gain that we can achieve on site, somewhat limited. And as much as you'll have, I think this is a pollinator corridor. So you've got a green corridor running through urban development. And obviously that's a forming part of the green infrastructure as well. It's important to say that the quality landscaping and the green infrastructure that you'll imagine is part of any good development within this side. It will include elements like this. So that's on site. We should also think about off site, because not all developments will allow us to deliver biodiversity net gain on site. I think it's important to say a couple of things about this. This is within the city for landscaping. And I could reel them off, I probably shouldn't reel them off, but you have a number of policies that ensure your green space is protected within the city of Cambridge. That's the first thing to say. The second thing, and we'll get to the measurement of BNG later, but the way that the calculation works is that the further that you go from the site of that development in terms of delivering your biodiversity net gain, the more penalties you accrue. And so it makes sense to get your net gain as close to the site of the development as possible. But we will entertain off site because sometimes there's just a need to develop off site. And then of course there's a combination where some of your net gain can be delivered on site, possibly through the pollinated corridors that you've seen, but some of it can go off site into different places and enhance the natural environment in strategic locations. So strategic locations are places where we lost the feed to the big screen. Strategic locations of sites which have been identified typically within the district, which can include a habitat banking element. You've simply losing the. Have you got that? Okay. Okay. Having a bad day. My connection, isn't it. I'll keep this up in a minute. It's afraid it may be the Wi-Fi. We do have an HDMI lead so we can show it in the room, but it may not be open. But we can show in the room. Shall I persevere or what do you like to do? Persevere for the minute because I presume we've got residents watching. Yes, absolutely. Perists, any thoughts? This is my popping out of control work. I have. Okay. I'll carry on my presentation. We'll try it for a minute. It's too long. If not, we can essentially change the HMDI. Okay. Fab. So habitat banking for offsite mitigation is an approach which seeks to create advanced habitats in strategic locations. And those strategic locations are identified as private districts or indeed perhaps in the city to come forward. Advanced habitat creation seeks to offset habitat loss from a development site at a site that's at a distance. And biodiversity credits sold on those sites are purchased by developers to pay for the creation management monitoring those habitats over a 30 year period. As I've already said, they're strategically located for the best outcomes for nature. What does that mean? That essentially means that they're not just placed anywhere, anywhere we can find a field. These places are ideally, well, they meet certain criteria that ideally more than 40 hectares in size. They may be proximate to existing county wildlife sites. They can act as stepping stones or they buffer existing wildlife sites so that there's a rhyme and reason as to where they are where they are. And they create opportunities for businesses to facilitate nature restoration through different partnerships. As I've already said, they must be registered with Natural England on a national database. So this isn't a map, you know, that's something that's very closely monitored by Natural England. So they can't just be set up willy-nilly by anybody. The sites will need to create enhanced habitat and manage monitor over a 30 year period. They should be at least 40 hectares in size of smaller proximate wildlife sites and should be within habitat priority of where possible. What do I mean by that? These are the handful of sites, we've got about half a dozen already. Either we have Section 106 agreements with these sites already or those agreements are currently being drawn up. And they're given indication as to where the existing sites are spatially in terms of their proximity to the city of Cambridge. You see that predominantly they're in the southeast of the district. There was one out to the west, we haven't quite got that Section 106 together yet with Cambridge past present and future. But as time goes on, we anticipate there will be more. And in fact, there should be sites within the city of Cambridge at some point. So they're not all going to be within the district. These are just the early adopters. These are the ones that have come forward first of all. If we look at the Cambridge data network map, you can see that, obviously to the southeast, you've got that blue area. It's the Gold and the Gold, Gold and the Gold, excuse me, Hill's priority area is predominantly Scotland. And many so low valley farm. A couple of the wildlife trust sites are within that area. The CPPF site, which I mentioned earlier, is out to the west. And that would be on the bolder clay. And so again, intention is with these strategic sites that they are located within areas, which have already been identified as priority areas designated for nature restoration. And that will feed into the LRS, the local nature recovery strategy that will be coming forwards over the next few months. Just a quick visual on biodiversity net gain, before we get into the business of how we measure this, because that's a very important piece to imagine the green blob at the top left is your, let's say it's your green field site. And we plop the development in the middle. In the old model of no net loss, what would happen is we'd say, okay, we've lost that amount of land to development. We're going to simply replace it, hence no net loss. But that model typically didn't work because of various reasons. The way that things were measured was inconsistent. Developers, Chocora, did not always do what they promised to do. And so invariably, we would end up with a net loss to biodiversity. The new model of biodiversity net gain, following the same approach, have your land, your development is taken. You have your mitigation loss, but then BNG goes beyond that. And what the government have said in the Environment Act, and what's come forward in law over the last two or three months, is that biodiversity net gain shall be set at the minimum of 10% above baseline. And that differs from what was in the national planning policy framework. Up until recently, it just said net gain. The Environment Act now says it must be at least 10%. And of course, we're very aware that some members have aspirations to go beyond 10% and we're checking the viability of those models at the moment. Broadly speaking, this approach follows what's called the mitigation hierarchy, where at first you try to avoid any damage. That's the first principle, where you can avoid, you can't avoid, you can't avoid, you minimize the damage you do to the natural environment. The next step is to rectify any damage. Beyond that, you reduce, and then finally offsetting. And it's this offsetting piece that biodiversity net gain seeks to achieve, to go beyond just putting back what's been damaged, to offset whether it's onsite, or whether it's offsite, or whether it's a combination of those two, to go further and actually begin to enhance the natural environment. I'll hand over to Dan Weaver, who's our principal ecologist, to take you through the NG is measured. Thank you. Good morning. Hopefully you can all hear me well. So, first and foremost, biodiversity net gain is measured through what we call the, the biodiversity net gain, biodiversity metric, or the small sites metric. These are spreadsheet, Excel spreadsheet based algorithms that have been developed by the Department of Environment and Farming, Rural Affairs, and Natural England over the past sort of 11, 12 years or so. They use habitat size, or habitat length, depending on whether you are looking at, say, a grassland or a riverbank. We are measured separately. Each of those have to deliver 10% separately as well. We look at things like habitat distinctiveness, how diverse is that habitat? Is it immunity grassland? Is it wet woodland? They would score differently where woodland, obviously, scoring higher. What is the condition of those habitats? Do they have, you know, unwanted plants within them? Do they not have enough plants in them? Is there lots of bare ground? What condition are those habitats within? And then also, what is the strategic significance of those habitats? This is more of a sort of a political strategic multiplier that we could apply through our local plan policy or through the L and RS as it comes through. When looking at creating habitats, again, this is, this multiplier depends on how far away your created habitat is. Is it within the LPA boundary or the same national character area? Is it outside? Is it next door? Is it one or the other? So, there's a couple of different ways those multipliers can work within the algorithm. Next slide, please, John. There are, of course, exemptions from mandatory biodiversity net gain. These look at permitted developments and urgent crown developments. Sites with exclusively sealed surface. Now, this basically means that it scores zero in the algorithm and 10% of zero is zero, so they effectively are exempt from 10% minimum. Impacting areas below the de minimis threshold, so that's 25 square metres of area, so, you know, grassland or woodland, or five metres of linear habitats, that's riverbank habitat, or hedgerow habitat, or three separate measures separately. Householder applications are exempt, and small scale, self-build or custom-build houses are also exempt. We were not given the definition of what small scale was until November this year, small scale is now nine or below units. And also, biodiversity net gain sites themselves. So, where we are, there is a change of use, for example, well, from agricultural land to a biodiversity net gain site. Those sites are also technically exempt from biodiversity net gain, although they are obviously providing a very large amount. Next slide, please, John. We have some both national and local policy, which has been helping us along the way, so John mentioned the MPPF earlier on this was up until 2018, only relying on no net loss, which, again, was very difficult to measure. It wasn't really, there was no quantitative way of which that was asked to be measured. Then, in 2021, we have the Environment Act, which brought forward the mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain, which we are now working with that was sealed in with secondary legislation at the beginning of this year. Locally, we have our Biodiversity supplementary planning document, which we brought forward jointly between both districts in 2021. We have our developing local plan, which is looking and trying to seek out whether or not that 20% net gain is feasible. I believe in the city, you also have your Biodiversity strategy, which I know guys have been working on very hard. Next slide, please. I never see the elected members are very important in this process as well, because you have to look at these applications at planning committee. Now, Biodiversity net gain must be a minimum of 10%. Now, if it is below 10%, this technically should have been invalidated before the application even came to officers, let alone to planning committee. But there are some exceptions, especially in things like outline applications. So, again, it's a little bit of a variation that you must be aware of. We have to check that the mitigation hierarchy has been used, that we've looked on site first, really, that all potential biodiversity on site has been found. The smaller the site is, the harder that is going to become. The larger the site, the more public open space, the easier that becomes. If they do have to provide Biodiversity gain off site, where will it be provided, how will that be secured? And also, where they are providing those Biodiversity gain habitats, whether they are realistic and deliverable, whether they're trying to provide high, you know, high condition, Calcareous Grassland in the middle of the playing field is not a realistic prospect. So, we have to make sure that what is being provided is realistic and can be delivered. Next slide, please, John. We're then looking at how we secure Biodiversity net gain. First and foremost, within the red line boundary, we'd likely to be securing it through a pre-commencement planning condition. So, this would require applicants to provide their final Biodiversity net gain plans, plus if they are purchasing units from off site, they would have to provide the proof of purchase effectively of those units, the agreement, or whatever, to us to make sure that those units have been sought. A second way of doing that would be through a section 106 agreement. We have several section 106 agreements with developers for on-site applications of on-site Biodiversity gain as well. We look for places like Gerten College, or, I'm trying to think somewhere else, the Granta Research Park as well, have section 106 for within-site Biodiversity net gain. We also have off-site Biodiversity net gain section 106 agreements with places like Lower Valley Farm. And finally, there is what is called a conservation covenant. So, this is a mechanism that has been brought forward through the Environment Act, whereas a body, not necessarily an LPA, can become a responsible body through application to Defra. And they will hold the legal agreement for the delivery of Biodiversity net gain on that land. So, it is like a section 106, but the responsible body does not have to be an LPA. LPA's can apply to become a responsible body, but they don't have to be. It's not a case that you can incorporate a company on a Tuesday and become a responsible body on a Wednesday. You have to show a proven track record of working with nature or working in environmental services to show that you have that application you can do. So, there are a few caveats to becoming a responsible body. Next slide, please, John. One of the things we have to look for is how we are going to monitor Biodiversity net gain. It must be monitored over a 30-year period to make sure that those habitats have been created in the way that they should be, which means that we have to regularly collect monitoring data for those sites. Whoever holds the agreement is responsible for monitoring. What we should mention at this point in time is that Natural England will have no enforcement powers on this. They will hold the National Register for off-site Biodiversity net gain, but they will have no enforcement. Whoever holds that legal agreement will be the enforcer on those sites, so if things fall foul, we will have to work out how we work through that process. Next slide, please, John. Some of the things that we are considering at the moment is how much we should charge developers or habitat bank providers for monitoring. We are trying to make sure that we are covering all of our costs, so that any additional resources that are required, whether it's officer time for myself or my team, or through enforcement, or through planning officers, or Section 106 officers, is covered by that fee. How often we need to collect that monitoring data to make sure that the habitats are progressing the right way, and how do we collect that monitoring data? Do we require a PDF from every single provider to be sent to us every year, or do we find a smarter way of doing that? These are the questions we are asking ourselves at the moment, and we are trying to work through. Next slide, please, John. But in essence, by the way, it is a very significant new legislation. It does change the game. It does mean that the developers have to assess their biodiversity on-site before they make their plans. They have to look on-site first. Hopefully, this means there is going to be some kind of sea change in the way the development goes forward, and we hopefully get more green sites within development as well. That's the hope. Thank you very much. I think the last slide is just questions, I think, John. Thank you very much for the presentation. I'm sure it will throw up a few questions. I've said to officers, I want to be done by 11 o'clock at the latest, perhaps including a short break. Thank you very much, John. I've seen some of this presentation before, but I learned every time I see it, so I've got some questions. So one is, will committee members be able to see how the net game is being delivered? So could we go to, if there is a site for off-site BNG, can we go and see it early to see where there's very little BNG? And actually to understand how the BNG is invested in this and what's going to happen, so could we maybe do an annual visit? And I also think that the developers might be interested. I know one comment from developers who put money into public art is where does our money go to? So I think if they're putting, if they're doing this, they'd like to see the benefits of their contributions towards BNG. One site on the map that you've showed, John, was a site, it was a privately owned place. I think it was the south, the further southeast. How does that not cause a conflict of interest if it's a private, what does the owner get some benefit from all of this investment? When you choose the off-site locations, do you take into account pesticide use that might be around nearby that's being used in farming that we know has some severe detrimental effects on bees and things like that? So would that be taken into account? We don't want to invest something that might be affected by something around that location? Sorry, there's a lot of questions. And then the other point that I think this committee was raised before was on-site versus off-site. So if there was a site where it was all the investment on BNG's on-site, so the site gains 10% BNG, and then in 20 years it's redeveloped, then all of that additional biodiversity would have to be taken into account for the next development, which would be another 10% on something that's been improved. But if the BNG is all off-site, my understanding is that when the first site is redeveloped in 20 years, that the off-site BNG is excluded from the increase in the BNG. So this is a huge argument for keeping it on-site because it will be a gain on net gain on net gain. And finally, what about the soil on the site? We know soil is incredibly important, and there's a huge amount of BNG in soil. So this is the soil test done and included in the calculations. Thanks. Okay, thanks, Councillor. That's quite a few questions. I think I'll go back to officers. Just before you answer, Councillor Thorneborough's questions, can you tell us, especially for residents, what BNG or biodiversity net gain is, so define it, and also can you explain what LPA is, please. Thank you. Apologies there. I thought that was my second slide, but I will try and explain it. Because I missed it, sorry. No, not at all. I could, actually. I can zoom back to the slide. Oh, dear. Lots and lots and lots going on. So biodiversity net gain is, it is an approach to development that seeks to go further. In the past, when development has taken place, we have sought to, the standard model has been to replace what's been lost. Net gain does essentially what it says on the tin. It intends to gain and therefore go beyond what is lost. So biodiversity net gain seeks to replace or enhance above what was lost to the baseline as a functional net development. Thanks, John. Sorry I missed it. So it's like more trees and flowers and plants and things on the site that wasn't there before, so just to be absolutely clear. Essentially, we're talking about habitats, and of course, habitats are where our species live. So the idea is we replace the habitats and therefore provide a home to the birds and the bees and the water bowls and whatever it is that we're trying to replace. And your second question, again, apologies. LPA stands for local planning authority. The local planning authority in Greater Cambridge is made up of the city of Cambridge and the district of South Cambridge District Council. That's the LPA. I'll now have a go at your questions. I might indeed use some of my colleagues here. So the first couple of questions about members going to sites. Absolutely. We plan this summer to once we've got dates, once we can finalize dates to take any interested members out to these sites. It won't just be lower valley farm. The wildlife trust have have sites out there in the district and others are coming forward. So we anticipate putting together with a help of colleagues. Some some day trips, if you like, so you can see what's going on. And of course, what you'll see is very early works. And hoping, because we've already been out to low valley farm, you'll have an explanation of what's going on, how it's going to work, how it's being monitored. Our ecologists will have no doubt come with us and you can have a full explanation. So that's absolutely planned. And of course, your second point about developers, a great idea, I think, wouldn't it be nice if we could indeed bring them along and show them where that money is going to be invested and how it's going to make a material difference to enhancing our local biodiversity. I believe your third question was about private land. So privately owned land. I think providers coming forward, whether it's the county council, whether it's the wildlife trust, whether it's a land owner that happens to have all the hectares of land. I think the regs are a blind to that. If they're doing the right thing on that land, they're following the regulations, they're undertaking the monitoring, they're providing the local planning for those monitoring reports on an annual basis. It really doesn't matter. In terms of conflict of interest, I would scratch my head on that. I'm not quite sure. There may be clear conflicts of interest in some cases, but if someone coming forward with some land, we view that from the perspective of, is it an appropriate location for that biodiversity? Can they create the biodiversity that they're suggesting on that land? I think as Dan said earlier, are they looking to create a chalk grassland on a recreation playing field? So all of those things would be considered. Your next two questions, the first one was pesticides taking into account. And I believe investment on site in 20 years, I'm going to ask our ecologists online to take those questions because they could probably make a better job. I'm not sure whether we want to ask Dan or Guy or which one of those chaps want to put your hands up. Okay, so Guy, do you want to take a shot at that question? Thank you, John. Morning Councillors on Guy Bell to the biodiversity obviously came to City Council. I work in city service teams managing some of our sites, but also give technical advice to the planning service. Councillor Formbrough on the, probably not in order, but on the soils on site, and not specifically looked at. However, all habitats are dependent on soil type and to sort of create a good habitat would require that sort of in good condition. But it takes many years to do that, but we'd expect a biodiversity net gain plan to be looking at getting those habitats to a better condition, which would invariably mean improving soils. Also on the pesticide use, I think that really comes down to the question of scale and why they're sort of setting its minimum 40 hectares for decent offsite biodiversity net gain sites, because that provides an appropriate buffer for agricultural drift. The majority of our habitats are surrounded by by arable land. So that is an intrinsic risk. So again, doing things on scale rather than small disparate sites does effectively buffer against that risk. Dan, I don't suppose I could pass to you for the onsite officer question. No problem guy. I think there's, I mean, it is a, it is a complicated question. I can understand where you're coming from. So as a, the mechanics of it would be, is that within 20 years, the site that you are looking at already has a much, much higher biodiversity value. Therefore, to provide an even higher biodiversity value on a redevelop site, the biodiversity net gain would essentially cost a lot more to do. So the viability would be a question in my, in my first thoughts. In terms of the, the offsite biodiversity net gain, the habitat has already been created. Therefore, if the new development comes across, we have a blank state almost that blank slate becomes that baseline becomes the higher level that has been achieved on site. And if they then have to provide more, then they will have to buy additional units from another, from offside. If that is there, the way they're going to do it. So I think it is, it is a stacking system. So you're mounting, you're mounting, you're mounting on top of it. I, I don't think the, the units that have already been bought would count in that case because there's a new baseline measured when the new development goes through. I think that's right. I hope that's answered your question. I'm just going to answer in case these questions. I was also just going to add to that, if I may, is that obviously you're suggesting us looking at what happens on site versus offsite. If it can happen on site, it should be happening on site in the first place. So that's a fundamental principle. So it's not a choice necessarily that anybody can have. You've heard about the mitigations. If it can happen on site, if it can happen on site, if it can happen on site, it should be happening on site in the first place. So that's a fundamental principle. So it's not a choice necessarily that anybody can have. You've heard about the mitigations. If it can happen on site, that's where it stops. You know, if it can be done. And so that's what your officers aren't looking to achieve. And I'm sure members will be expecting that to us. So that's always the starting point. There isn't a choice of, oh, a little bit here, if it can be done on site, it will absolutely be all done on site. And therefore, absolutely what you, the scenario you're painting would, would stay the same. Thanks very much. So maybe you come back and cancels on. So, can, am I right? So if you had a, if you could only put, if you could only do 50% on site and 50. So you have 50% off site. And then in 20 years, you will want to redevelop the site. The net gain for the developed site would only take into account the 50% that's been increased on the site. The off site is excluded from further calculations for what needs to be provided. So, so basically, if you have, if you have a site and you have like 100% on site, and then in 20 years, you need to increase it. You increase this one, this 100% that's been developed on site. But if you have a site where you do 100% off site. When you redevelop, all of the off site is excluded from the calculations for going forward. So just, just in our mind, so we know what's what. Yes, just before you answer that, John, can I just say for residents. So many people don't understand percentage is at all, but you've talked about a percentage of a percentage. So what comes before it is referring to is, when she says 100%, you mean all of the stuff on one site, you mean all of the trees, whatever on one site, and the percentage of that. So just to be clear, we're not talking about 100% net gain or increase. So thanks, John, over to you. Thank you. I just want to clarify again and maybe take a tiny step backwards, which is when we're talking about part of us in that game. Of course, we have to remember. We have to remember that all of the usual green infrastructure, landscape policies, all the stuff that gives you your amenity, grass and your trees, the soft edges, the kinds of stuff that make a place pleasant to live in are already being undertaken by the rest of the net gain goes above and beyond. It's specifically for biodiversity and it seeks to create habitats where species can thrive, which is why it's so challenging to do on site. And in fact, I've said this before, but the smaller your development footprint, the more challenging it is to develop or deliver any kind of meaningful biodiversity. This is why we have thought very carefully about the offsite options. I'm not answering your question, though. I think the answer to your question is that Dan's already said it that any on site biodiversity gains after 20 years will be so good. We would hope, if they've been done properly, that redeveloping that site would cost an enormous amount of money for a developer to then go. Would it be 10%? It might be 20 above that existing baseline. So it would act as a huge barrier to viability for that site being developed. So it's a hypothetical, but I think it's an unlikely hypothetical in terms of the on site. Of course, I don't have a crystal ball, but this is the point and I guess we can reflect on the offsite as well. After 30 years, after 20 years, those sites are going to be in such good shape for biodiversity. There's very, very little possibility that they would be developed, sold off or whatever. And I think as I alluded to in the past, we already have existing county wildlife sites out there in the district, which are in very, very poor condition. Very poor condition. They've not had investment. They've not been, for whatever reason, been loved and looked after. What we're talking about now are sites which are going to be invested in, monitored, measured, reported on every year for 30 years and have some very, very nice sites in 30 years. So you're trying to imagine that after that time period, they're somehow more going to be developed or die off. It's very, very hard to imagine. Thanks, John. That'll do. So, I mean, we can't foresee the future, I don't think. I mean, national planning policy framework can change from day to day, government has changed, legislation changes. So that's it to here and now. Had all Councillor Thorpe's questions been answered? I believe so, yeah. Yeah, OK. Right. Councillor Pura, please. OK. Councillor Bennett, whichever. Yeah. Councillor Bennett, first. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, also, Katie, for allowing me to go first because I wasn't actually and didn't have an opportunity to put questions there. I have three questions. The first is, if we have a situation where a developer has overdeveloped their site and their plans, such that they cannot do all those things. They cannot do onsite BNG. Do we have any freedom to redesign that scheme or reject that scheme because they have taken the design choice that means they cannot do onsite BNG? That's question one. Question two is that residents are very concerned about retaining some of the other benefits of vegetation, which is its role in natural flood resilience and also in mitigating against the urban heat island effect. Clearly, an offsite BNG gain in west ratting is not going to help worried residents in riverside who are concerned about flooding or Peter's field residents who are concerned about urban heat island impact. Is there anything we can do as a local planning authority to encourage developers to plan their BNG work so it also has a positive impact on urban heat island and flood resilience? Do we have to follow the central government rule slavishly? Sorry that took me quite a long time to get to the end of question two. And question three is what should we be doing as a local planning authority to incentivize developers to go beyond the minimum 10% and the reason why I asked that question is I was told a horrible story. About a developer whose first proposal would have actually provided round about 15 or 16% BNG who then cut back the BNG provision to 10% because that was all they had to do. And this is not behaviour I want to see as a planning committee councillor. Thank you. I'm sorry those are quite long questions. Councillor, thank you. Let's do them then. Please John. I didn't make a stop. First question over development. I suppose one thing we want to emphasise is this is simply another tool you have members. It's not the only tool so you've got a huge number of policies in the local plan already. So if things are over development we need to think about the character of the area and you think about the tree of all of those things you've got existing policies. So this is over and above that. So actually, even if you didn't have biodiversity net game coming in, things like over development are still going to be material considerations. You're used to doing and considering applications on those those very nature. So actually in some respects nothing changes in that regard. This is just another tool specifically to look at nature. So I don't think we as officers are concerned. And in fact, I mean we are looking. So we have got some sites where dare I say developers might perhaps under develop sites. You know, if they want to minimize that 10, there's a policy that requires if you go 10 and above you have to do affordable housing and all the other things. So some developers are doing, you know, yes, they're designing it in a particular way. We will be looking at our ecologist and looking at planning applications to make sure they're making the best of the site. Be it to do with character or be in Jesus. That's what your officers are here to do. So hopefully answering your first point. Mitigation in relation to again, I suppose your second point in relation to heat island effects flooding, et cetera. Again, it's a similar sort of answer for myself and it's anybody else wants to chip in. But, you know, we have those all considerations that we have. VNG is but one, but we are simply, you know, we've got the sustainability officers that are looking at things like heat island and giving developers advice. I suppose getting in very early on with pre-apps and the conversations you have as members and our officers have making clear what your aspirations are. So yes, they can do 10%. The good developers out there will want to do more and have been doing more for quite some time. And if they can, we will be encouraging that. I'm sure you will be at your pre-application meetings and when you're involved in surgeries or development control forms and the like. And we as officers are very clear what your aspirations are. We hope most developers won't go down. If they can do more, they will do more. Getting them involved early in engagement on all sorts of issues, be it VNG or community engagement and actually understanding what local communities wants and developments. It's really important. So again, we've got to continue to do that, continue to have those conversations. But you've got the existing policies to help with heat island, tree retention, et cetera. And officers are there looking at that. So when we're looking at those original, you know, baseline surveys that come in, we will be looking to keep trees on site wherever possible, et cetera. So we will continue to do that. Incentivizing, I'm not sure if we can at the moment, incentivize, we can have conversations and discuss and negotiate. Obviously, John mentioned earlier, through our next local plan, we are doing work in that regard. We're looking at the evidence base. We will have to have an evidence base to go beyond the national standard of 10%. And your officers are working on that at the moment. We can ask for that. And that will be part of the basket of the boss we have when we look to negotiate and get involved with early pre-up discussions. Thank you. Can I start recording? Thank you, Councillor POIRS very kindly or frankly your first because she was a JDCC. Thanks very much. This has been a really interesting presentation. And I'm glad that Councillor SMART sort of asked for a bit more detail earlier on about the definition of biodiversity because it is something that we struggle to articulate a lot to resonate with. Especially given when you look this sort of thing up, you get the very sort of purest biologist definition that I'm used to is that's going to my area of work. Rather than the planning focused one, we get the one out specifically, you know, what it means about the diversity of species in an area so it makes it a little more complicated. And I think the Point Councillor Thormer raised about conflicts of interest was quite important as well. In my mind, there is a bit of issue there around you could have a private landowner that sells lots of B&G credits, develops really great, you know, biodiverse areas and then says, right, I'm going to charge for access to that now. We'll make that into a nice privatized public area that people need to pay to get into. You can imagine all sorts of scenarios that may be of concern to us. And though obviously it's very hypothetical and likely in practice. In relation to sort of questions and points, I was interested at the end of the sort of things to think about that I think Daniel brought up. And I would perhaps advise you have a look at what we've done at the City Council recently in terms of our new play area strategy, which may seem like a weird thing to say. But I'm talking about the kind of question you asked about, you know, hundreds of PDFs versus a smarter system. So we brought in a new system more recently to track the quality and provision of different play areas in the city using an online system or the kind of can see them all the time and it's working really, really well. And I might just suggest that there might be some transferable learnings that we've made there that could be worth looking into. I wanted to ask for views about the percentage metric because it does mean, of course, that sites that are already very biodiverse have a higher requirement to deliver more additional biodiversity. Which is a good thing. But then it also means that sites without a great deal don't have to provide a great deal. And I wondered if it might be possible for us to look in the emerging local plan of introducing some kind of floor measurement, where we basically say basically to cover those sealed sites where you say that's to be 10% or X number of habitat units, whichever is higher. And I don't know whether that's something that we could legally explore. So essentially, you know, just basically to try and capture those sealed sites and you would set a very reasonable number. You wouldn't require most developments to go above and beyond 10% through that, but just something to think about. And my other question was in relation to off sites habitat provision and that I think there was a point raised in the presentation about habitat about the 10% gain having to be almost applicable to different habitat units. So if you had two different types of habitat on an application site, you'd want to see a 10% increase in both separately. And that just got me thinking of when we're talking about off site provision, do you have to have like for like habitat replacement, or could we perhaps say maybe there's some species that really needs new habitat provision that benefits from larger areas. So we could instead use some of the offsite BNG funding to fund some of that in one of these larger areas. Hopefully, I'll take you to that. Okay. Thanks, Councillor. Mostly not questions, but any, any answers or comments. It's absolutely I'll give you a brief conflict of interest, pay to get into sites that the first of these sites that we've set up with low valley farm. It's a county farm. They're very much of the view that they want the public to come and have access. It's close to what's actually proximate to the Roman road. Wanda Berry, that we have not had any indication that providers are against people coming, except if they're going to come and trample the bluebells and bring their dogs and cats and everything, football, and everything else. Obviously, there's a balance there, but I don't think for one minute, these sites are going to be fenced off and sort of behind, behind paywalls. That's not the sense. I would say it's early days though, and so, you know, we just have to see how that develops. Good point, though. Systems, we've just purchased a bespoke system to track and monitor biodiversity net gain, had some training on that, and the ecologists have access and access. They're the ones that are going to be driving it. So we're well on top of the systems, percentage metric and local plan policies. I'm not sure what we can do with local plan other than. It's obviously being developed at the moment, still a couple of years out, and I'm sure there will be opportunities to refactor in all kinds of things that go above and beyond the 10% net gain that's mandatory in the existing environment act, and then for different types of habitat. I will defer to my ecology colleagues. I'm not sure which one of you wants to take this question, but you're a better place to answer it. Is it Dan off you go? Yeah, I can answer that question. So within the metric, there exists what are called trading rules. So this means that a habitat that is lost can only be replaced by a habitat of equal or higher distinctiveness. So I talked about distinctiveness, whether it is a low level of distinctiveness, it's a piece of mean to grassland or a high level of distinctiveness, it's a wet woodland. The habitat that replaces those lost can only be equal or higher than what is lost. So there is already an in-built trading system within the metric that makes sure that we don't, what would be called, green wash site. So you can't lose, say, one hectare of wet woodland and create nine hectares of amenable grassland to compensate for that loss. So it is already in-built within the metric. So when you are buying off site, that metric has to be satisfied in the fact that you are buying the correct units of the correct habitat being made. So each of those providers will be creating a variety of habitats within those banks to account for all of the different distinctiveness levels that could be lost. So everything from scrub to woodland to Calcareous grassland or other neutral grassland in quite a lot of cases. So hopefully the trading system is already built in and that I'm hoping answers your question. OK, John? Yep. Thanks, officers. OK, Councillor Forre, thanks for waiting. No problem. Just to get a couple, because I did raise some at JCCC on different issues. This to me, it really means that outline will have to be really, really clear when we do an outline commission that we have conditions that encompass any future change. Otherwise we'll have reserve matters coming in five years down the line and we'll get caught out, which we've seen happen. And I think we do definitely need very regular officer updates because we as a committee will be finding our feet as well officers, we need to know where we've done good things or bad things. And question, one of the advantages of X106 is it attaches to the local area, so you can kind of say to your resident that build here paid for this park here. So are we particularly in the city able to indicate that we would prefer the BNG to be nearby? I mean, obviously, I appreciate we don't have city sites at the moment, but I think there is a real benefit for the residents to see that happening. You know, and rather than being like, we're going to buy it elsewhere or miles away. I know you said it doesn't incentivize being nearer, but I would wonder if we could even give kind of a hierarchy of where we think is good. My biggest concern, though, is paragraph 3.13, which I raised before. So this basically says that any private garden is only grass. So if I concrete over half my garden and then plant 50 trees, none of those trees count, I have to buy it off site. And this is for us in the city, I think going to mean that officers and us need to be completely changed the way we look at backland development, for example. So we've relied very heavily previously, if you build a big extension, a big new house, and we say we can't get BNG on site, that house is too big. Actually, this legislation has just buy off sites. So, and I personally feel we haven't previously given enough weight to like the scale, the massing, the immunity, the conservation area, the greenery. So I'm thinking of a few we've done in the more verdant ward, where we've rejected on BNG grounds, whereas now we can't do that. And I think I have a concern, particularly, for those that are in the pipeline in the last year, where these have been assessed under the old BNG. If these come forward saying, oh, the BNG is off site, so it's fine. I think officers need to be very, very robust in engaging those other policies that Jane talked about, because if they don't, and if we don't, my feeling is inspectors haven't given a huge amount of weight to some of those concerns, like this idea that if the area is already very green and lovely, you would put your trees elsewhere, it would damage the character of the area. I always feel that's, to me, it feels always a slightly weaker reason than some of the BNG ones. And I'm generally concerned in a city where we are so vegetatively poor, as you might say, particularly in some of the pieces of ward, everyone says that's got the least green. You know, anyone making development in their back garden now will now have no reason to put trees in, because they get no credit for it. It costs them money to do that. So I suppose it's just to us, Toby and Officer Colleagues, to please please please consider that now, particularly for the ones that are halfway through being written up, because that really causes me concern that we could end up with all our biodiversity going out of the city and into the county, which is great on the bigger sites. But for small sites, this seems a perverse incentive to remove all your trees and not replace them. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Officers? [INAUDIBLE] Okay. So very briefly, conscious of time. I would remind, Councillor Pera, that you have policy 68, open space and recreation, policy 59, landscape and the public. I won't go through them. You've got a huge tranche of existing landscape policies upon which conditions, main conditions for hardens off landscaping will be hung. I think in terms of the specific question about back gardens and how they're being dealt with differently, we do keep hearing about this. I do wonder if I can ask Guy not to put you on the spot, Guy, but as the City of College is, if you have a particular view on the particular conditions within the city and the fact that back gardens are essentially not counted as anything other than vegetated gardens for the metric. Thanks, John. Yes, I agree with Councillor. It's certainly a frustration, the paragraph 3.13, that we haven't got. It is an additional sort of policy driver. But we still have the mitigation hierarchy. B&J is just one element, a new tool for us to use, and so we should be looking to seek to retain tree and vegetation cover where we can. I guess it is about us as officers and as a committee being strong on that to retain these green corridors, which are not going to necessarily be seen as strategic within a true biodiversity net gain sense, but within a very dense urban environment in vegetation is sort of strategic. So, yeah, it's not that the system we have is not perfect at the moment for really sort of dense urban areas. I think the other thing perhaps just says that DEF, obviously this is still quite new. It's in transition really. So DEF are also asking for feedback as to how we're implementing, and there will be lessons learned as we go back, which we can feedback as local authorities as well. So does that to bear in mind? I think the other thing to say in Cambridge, I mean, guys on the call, but he's ensuring he and his team are ensuring that there are baseline service being done of all the air in the land that you own as a city council. So, you know, with a view to actually being available for biodiversity net gain in the future. So there will be further opportunities coming. We're in discussions with the university. There will always be, and it's still quite early days, although it's quite big to check the changes. So, although you've seen a map where there's an awful lot happening in Southcams, there will be more coming in the city. We can't direct people by their office. However, if opportunities are available, they can be referred to in particular ways, particularly, you know, as a city council corporately, you know, meeting your corporate objectives. You can explain that, you know, but planning, technically, we can't direct people. So just because, but there will be further opportunities coming. Thank you, officers. See another hand up. I'll go next. We'll go a little bit later, I think, after level, and then we'll have a five minute break. So, my mostly comments, rather than questions, so relax officers. So, I just sort of gained for who. I suppose it's the planet and people probably both. In terms of, I would try not to repeat what other people have said, but in terms of putting stuff somewhere else, that's more to do with the planet, I guess, than people really, especially if it's on private land that not many people have access to. That's my concern on that, that's already been mentioned. But in terms of people, I think that relates to LPA, local planning authority. So, we have a joint planning authority with South Cambridge Shire. And I would, this is a city planning committee. I would want arrow trees and things to go in our city. I wouldn't want them miles away in South Cambridge. I would want our people to enjoy the benefit of all of that next to them not far away. That seems just hopeless bureaucracy, really. I think it needs to be next to us so that we can enjoy it. So, that's a thought. But in terms of what I just said about the game, I mean, it's a net loss on the balance sheet for developers. It's a shame that we can organize a system whereby they feel they've gained rather than feeling they're losing. And we get the situation as we've had in this committee where developers come forward and we get questions allegedly about developers destroying biodiversity on their sites before the measure is made. So, it seems that there's less so than there actually was and we can often argue with that. I find there's zero, a difficult one to deal with. When there's no biodiversity on sites, it's just a solid patch of concrete that then we can't get any addition. It feels to me like, shouldn't we have a local policy which is an adjunct to this national legislation that we want something everywhere, not just nothing somewhere which seems to be the case on those sites. The thing that I think Councillor Thalbrough referred to in terms of the game over the years, it's compound interest, isn't it really? So, we're going to get gain on gain and potentially you won't have any buildings on any sites if you go far enough into the future like just be trees and things. So, I don't know quite how that'll panic. And finally, my final point is the bottom line. So, you said officers, you said we are trying to lower costs. I don't like the word 'trying' personally, I think we should be lowering costs. Sorry, lowering costs, so getting the costs back from developers. So, I would want you to use zero-cost accounting and I would want you to, you know, you said you purchased a system. I want all costs of officer time, everything to be calculated, so we get everything back from developers. We don't need to make a profit, but we do want to get everything back that is cost to us as a planning authority. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Levine. Yeah, thank you and I'm aware of the time, so I'll be brief. This is my second time through because I was at JGCC last week and I had to say it was well worth going through it a second time. Thank you very much. I just had one question. How do you measure 10%? Am I repeating Councillor Cawling's question? How do you measure 10% and who decides? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you for the question. The 10% is measured using the biodiversity metric. That's something that our trained ecologists, who are competent people, that's something that the government make very clear that if you're going to use this biodiversity metric, it has to be used by a competent person. A competent person, someone who's a trained ecologist who has that experience, have that knowledge to go out into the field and make the determination. But in terms of how's it measured, we, as a function of this process, will be getting reports at the providers on how that habitat is increasing over years and how it will get to eventually, after 30 years, the climax habitat that they have suggested. In their calculations for 10% or more, I probably completely messed that up. So, again, look to my technical specialist. I don't know whether Guy or Dan, one of you, wants to do a better job of what I just destroyed there. Okay, I'll give it a go. So, I think, essentially, you're asking, how is the 10% calculated? So, essentially, the ecologist will go on site, they will look at the habitats, and they will assess the habitats using what is called the UK habitat categorization system. So, this is a way of assessing how good that particular habitat is. What that habitat is, in the first place, is it other neutral grasses, and is it calcareous grassland? Is it shrub-like? Is it heather? There's lots of different categorizations that you can use, and ecologists are trained to be able to do this. Their botany skills are at a point where they are able to identify the species that they are required, and they look for the condition assessment of that habitat. That habitat is then given a score through the multipliers within the metric, and those scores are accumulated for the entire habitat itself, and then you reach the number of units that that habitat is worth. You then look at your post, what we call post-intervention habitats, what happens after the development, how much of it will become sealed surface, how much of it will become buildings, what will happen to those habitats, will they be transformed into something else, will they be enhanced as a natural habitat, and then those calculations are scored are added up as well. Then the difference between those two is your loss. Essentially, what is the difference in units? You started with ten, you've ended up with five, you've lost five units. The 10% is the 10% of those five units, so you will be required to provide 5.5 units of biodiversity net gain, either onsite or by buying offsite. I hope that answers your question. I think that was the basis of it. Okay, thanks for being okay. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, thanks for a good question. I'm to end on. I think we have ended yet. Okay, well, thanks so much. Very good presentation. Thanks, you know, excellent officers. Good presentation, Jane, John, Dan, and Guy. Thank you very much. So let's have a five-minute break now before we get on with any items, so come back a quarter past 11, please, latest. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Now, the application is located within the Cambridge local plan, it is allocated within the Cambridge local plan 2018, and it's referred to as GV1. Now, I'll just get my, I can point things out to you, here we are, so it's this site here. It lies north of the GV2 site, which has out on planning permission, and two of the zones, two of the phases have got detailed permission. Also, other areas to notice, we have the Biomedical Campus over here. We have the Babylon Park and Ride over here. Walt's Causeway runs along here between the two GV sites. We have got Ormana's Avenue over here, and Beaumont Road runs along to the north. And the green area is the green belt. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Yeah, good point, can you do that? Yes, my apologies, I'm sharing the wrong screen with you. Let me see how I can swap that over. [BLANKAUDIO] If I just send a slideshow and try again. [BLANKAUDIO] My apologies, I will get it right, personally. No, that's definitely the wrong one. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] I want to share this screen that's over there, rather than my laptop screen. [BLANKAUDIO] My apologies for that. Thanks for pointing that out, Councillor, thanks for your help, okay, when you're ready then, let's go, Kate. Okay, do you want me to run through this slide again or should I move on? I think we just carry on. Thank you. All right, this is a figure from the local plan. It shows the green edge to the green belt boundary. Coming along here, green space. It's a landscape buffer, buffers with existing housing over here. Drainage work is required to the north and the county wildlife site is noted here in the hatched area. This is the outline planning commission, it was granted for 200 dwellings in January 2022. This is the approved land use parameter plan. And if I just get my pointer. Let's get the laser pointer up. This is the vehicle access from what schools were into the site. It shows a principal street that comes northwards and then ends in a loop. We have various other tertiary streets that come off that. We have here a local quick area of play. And also we have some SODs. Drainage areas and a pumping station up to the north of the site. We'll just go over to the next slide. Now, this is the building height parameter plan and the pale yellow is two story. The mid orange color is nine meter height is 11.5 meter high to and a half story. And then the dark orange is 12, 12 meters maximum height three story and the post game is in compliance with this. And onto this slide, this is a colored up master plan of the post game. And you can see here we have the principal street running up through the site and then coming round in the loop at the top. We also have a road that comes in here and leads to what's called the fondstead area. And these are mostly apartments with some used housing along here. And then we have over to the east of the site is the 30 meter green buffer, which there is a passing cycle way running through there. And the house is facing onto here are quite loose knit larger properties. For the principal street on the east side of it, the houses face on to the road and then on to the rest. Some of them face on the road, some of them are end on. We have a green area that runs through the center of the site. And to the east here is a local area, local equipped area of play. And then we have a local area of play, smaller one here, and then a second local area of play down in the south here. We have a emergency access can run up through here. Now, this is the Nether Hall farm, the existing buildings, which are mostly in residential use. We have the properties in Walts Causeway here. This is number 30, this is number 31 Walts Causeway, which is closest to the site. We have ominous avenue up here, and then the properties in Roman Road have the long rear gardens back into the site. Move on to the next slide. This is a tenure plan. So the red are for market houses and flats for sale. The orange are affordable rent, the yellow for social rent and the blue is shared ownership. Now, this is the cycle strategy. It's not that easy to see because it's pale blue, but I will try and zoom in, which will make it easier. These blue lines are shared cycle raising footpaths. There are a lot of them about the site. We've got a path here that runs parallel with the principal street. We have an all important route that runs to the south of the site over here and then comes up and joins up with Walts Causeway. There is an intention to provide an additional widening of the path along here as an agreement with the highway authority for three meter wide shared cycleway footpath that will then lead on to filled avenue. The cycleway running up and around creating a western path, and then we have lots of routes throughout the site. We have shared surfaces, so the dotted lines are shared surfaces. And then to the north of the site, we have the cycleway then finishes at the end and any cyclists will cycle on the carry tray here, but of course, at this end of the site, there would be very little traffic there. And then of course, we have a meandering cycleway that runs pleasantly through the eastern edge of the site. I should move on to the next slide. This is cycle parking. It's just an example of cycle parking. It's provided in various roles. So the cycle parking areas are in purple. And as you can see here is provided to the front of the site and close to the western cycleway footpath. The same here. Some of the proficient will be behind the parking spaces so that cycling cyclists will then gain access to the side. There's a one meter gap there. And then of course, the car wouldn't actually be at the full width of a cycle space. So there'd be a bit more than one meter to get to get a bike through. Over here is a bit blurred, but we have a cycle proficient to the front and some to the rear. So that's broken up for the larger house there. On to the next one. Now, these are elevations that front on towards causeway. You can see here over to the left is the news houses. And then we have the apartments with several cladding that looks like where the boarding button isn't. And that is picked up here and other houses that front on to the horse causeway. And here we have elevations facing the eastern edge, the green buffer overlooking the agricultural land to the side. These are two story properties, mostly quite loose knit larger properties. And in the center here, you can see that green sword that runs centrally through the site. And to the edge here is where we have a row of terraces to the north of the side. And these are either side of the principal street. We have on this side is the western side of the principal street. Some properties front on to other properties, a corner properties where they have two facings. The green sword through the center of the site. This is an alternate. This is a block of flats that's within the loop towards the north. And down here are properties on the eastern edge of the principal street. The mostly two and a half story houses at that front on to the street. And we have as the consistent material that started about through the site, we have some of the several cadding again. On to sustainability, a few main points water resources, there's a potential to achieve 98.3 liters per person per day. That's achieved through the addition of minimizing the size of the boss and restricting the amount or flow of water through showers, etc. Air source heat pumps for all houses and individual exhaust air heat pumps for apartments. Carbon reduction exceed requirements under condition 10. That's of the outline commission. Use the timber framed construction. There's an intention to achieve home quality mark level four, which is of a high quality. 85% of apartments would be your or triple aspect. The remainder would rely on probably mechanical ventilation, but would have to conform with part of the building regulations. And then on to biodiversity. This is the last slide biodiversity net gain would be over 17% on the site. Proposed improvement to the condition of the country wildlife site and which would be maintained for minimum of 30 years after Richard go to a management company. And that's the end of my presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much, Kate. Okay, so speakers first off is Noah. Is Noah here or online? Oh, speak. Yeah. Okay. So James is going to read up the statement from Noah Rosen. James, when you're ready. Yeah, thank you, Java. A statement from an objective. This is from Mr. Noah Rosen. The closest bus stop is over triple the amount recommended by the chartered institution of highways and transport. This makes the whole concept of the development unsustainable and is in breach of policy 80 of the Cambridge local plan and encourages people to use private transport. Point two, the current development would overlook into the residence of 31 walks causeway into private areas such as a garden, kitchen, bedrooms, patio and balcony. Whilst trees will provide some screening, they're not high enough to protect the privacy of 31 walks causeway and windows from the development where overlook our house residents of 31 was built with the concept of the green belt and building around it exposes a house to an undue invasion of privacy. The committee report stated that this application must avoid any overlooking onto and or loss of privacy at neighboring properties on quote 8.21 report. Point three, whilst there is the need to build in Cambridge, it shouldn't be done on the green belt in the statement. Thank you. And Simon, you're already African representative of you here. Hello. Good morning. You want to come forward to that speaker on the thing on the left hand side there. That's it. That one. And get yourself settled and then you press the button on the right hand side and it lights up. You do the one in front of you the microphone. Yeah, and you get three minutes and half of it for the end. I'll just let you know comes to the end when you're ready. Thank you. Good morning, chair, members of the committee. My name is Simon Hoskin. I work for Carla Holmes, and we are pleased to receive the officer's recommendation for approval of our reserve matters application that is before you. Carla has earned a reputation for high quality, well designed developments in desirable locations. We take great pride, not only in our product, but also the Lebanon service that we offer to buyers. We received a maximum five star rating in the home builders, federations, national new homes, customer satisfaction survey 2024 for the seventh year running, which demonstrates our commitment to the quality of our new homes. This game seeks to deliver 200 new homes on a site allocated within the Cambridge local plan, which benefits from an outline planning permission granted in January 2022. Our scheme has been carefully designed to ensure that it respects the site's urban edge location and adjacent countryside and to ensure that it conforms to the principles and parameter plans agreed on without the outline planning permission. Extensive open space has been provided and includes a 30 meter wide landscape area along the site's eastern edge, which will help to create an appropriate buffer between the development and the green belt. The proposals comprise a mix of one, two, three, four and five bedroom dwellings with 40% of these new homes to be affordable in compliance with the council's policies. These will be of a variety of sizes and 10 years as agreed with the council. We have undergone extensive pre-application engagement with the council prior to the submission of the application along with public consultation with the local community and stakeholders. In addition, we have worked closely with your officers following the submission of the application to address any concerns that have been raised during the course of the application. Aware of the water resource pressures in the region, we have targeted a water usage of 98.3 litres per person per day, which is below the 110 litres target required by the condition attached to the outline permission. With sustainability being at our core, we will be using timber frame construction for this development, which significantly reduces the amount of embodied carbon over traditional methods of construction. The development will be gas free utilising air source heat pumps and EV charging points will be provided across the entire scheme. Additionally, the development will significantly exceed the requirements of at least 19% reduction in CO2 emissions beyond part L building regulations with a site wide carbon emission reduction of over 40%. The development will also achieve the home quality mark four-star rating. This is a third-party certification scheme for new builds to meet standards that are higher than the minimum standards such as building regulations. It has been developed by the building research establishment and provides independent verification that the property meets the expected level of performance for sustainability and quality and demonstrates Carla's desire to go above and beyond planning policy requirements to create a product of the highest quality for our customers. Our proposals have been sensitively designed to ensure that biodiversity is enhanced with 17% biodiversity net gain on site. There are no consortee objections on the proposals fully comply with the site-specific requirements of policy 27 of the local plan. We sincerely hope that the committee can support these proposals to enable us to deliver a high quality residential scheme on an allocated site. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much, Simon, so you can stay there if you want, or go and sit back at the back, whichever you prefer. Thank you. So I guess, before we get going, let's go ahead and open with it. Remind Councillors, this is a reserved measures application, and so we want to discuss matters permanent to the item reserved item being considered today. I'd also suggest to say that time is sitting there next to Kate, so that'll be handy for any high-wiz issues if Kate wants to refer to time. So, Councillor Bowden, your first. Thank you, Chair. Can I first declare that I'm a member of ChemCycle because I missed the beginning of the meeting, and I wouldn't want that interest to be lost? In regard to the reserved matters, which are about layout, scale, appearance and landscape, could the officer please explain what the word scale means in this context? And the second question, which might easily be dealt with at the same time, what does shared surfaces mean? Is that on the pavement? Is it divided on the pavement? Perhaps we could have some detail on that one. Thank you. Oh, thank you for an excellent presentation. Thank you, Councillor. We'll get a few more questions together, I think, so Councillor Pourer, you had your hand out. Oh, so Councillor Dryden was for us for you. Thank you, Chair. I know it's reserved matters, but I noticed in there that a great show for the parish council mentioned that they were disappointed, but not to see solar panels, grey water and heat pumps, which I noticed later on in the report. You have mentioned, perhaps there is going to be some people detail there. But one thing I've mentioned also with water management, you can put smaller baths in the properties. What's to stop the residents in the future putting bigger baths back in the properties? Thank you. OK, Councillor Pourer. Thank you, Chair. This is one of these frustrating ones where the outline permission has basically tied our hands with a lot of things that I'd like to raise. And I think it's hopefully something we can learn for the future because so many of the concerns relating to the cycle access and conditions 35 are not relevant. I just wanted to note that. And, for example, we've only got one car club space. We've only got, you know, huge distances, the bus stops, things like this, so it's a car heavy development. There are good things. It's gas-free. You know, timber frame is, I think, I'm sure the chair will agree. Normally I ask about this, a positive thing, exceeding part A, L, building standards, 70% biodiversity net gain on site, which you've probably heard the applicants from the previous thing. We're very keen on. So I had some questions. We're talking about the informal, I think, Council of Agent picked it up. At the top of the loop, where cycles will share the space with cars, will we have traffic calming measures? So I know certainly some bits of Trumpington, where there's a lovely loop, it is used as a place to drive about, whether it's on scoot, you know, motorbikes or cars. So I'm really concerned that if we don't have traffic calming measures there, which make it clear there is priority for cycles and pedestrians. So I don't know if Tam might be able to comment on that, which I hope we could still address, because for me that is part of how the reserve matters work. The pathway into our own avenue, I understand it couldn't be widened, because we don't, the counter doesn't own the land. But do we need to look in the S106, whether that just could be improved? I don't know what condition it's in at the moment, but it seems obvious if that is going to be a desire line that it might be. I wonder if the officer or Tam could comment on whether that is something that's going to be considered. I mean, I don't know the condition of it at the moment. So my main concerns at the moment are the housing issues. So we've got 15 fewer beds spaces, so it isn't actually compliant with the housing policies. Though I do understand officers are still recommending that as compliant overall, so I don't know if the officer could comment a little more on that, please. And we talk a little bit about garden size, it says some are very small, if the officer could confirm whether that's the affordable ones or not, because we have seen some sites previously where the affordable home has a distinct lack of amenity compared to the market homes. And again, I think I'm sure others will mention this, but how reassured are we that the management fees for unadoptive roads are going to remain reasonable? I hope, obviously, with their five-star rating and things that would indicate a positive desire to make sure residents aren't charged too much. But again, we have had instances, I think, in Trumpington where there's very high management fees for a couple of dead trees, so we want to make sure that's avoided. I would raise, again, my concern with the distance to the bus stop. I suspect I'm going to be told that's an outline issue, but I would be grateful if officers could talk about that, because for me, you know, it's a car heavy development. It's not great, so I wonder if we have anything to consider under reserve matters there. Water, obviously, it's good that we're coming in below 110 litres. Obviously, it would be nice to see even more that I take out as a driver's point that these things are always difficult, but I wonder if the officer could comment about rainwater and greywater, you know, water butts, all those kinds of things that adding that to each house could have a huge impact on how people can manage the water, even if it's retaining the rainwater for their garden. And the only other final comment, the farmstead view you showed against the end of what's causeway, it was quite an abrupt end to the farmstead bit before the muse. It was very square, so I just wonder if the officer could comment a little bit about that. And obviously, the final point is single aspect. So there's 30 homes here that are single aspect, which is something we have repeatedly said on planning committees. Whilst compliant with the local plan does cause some real concerns, so great. But if the officer could talk about how that will be addressed, I know you said it would comply with the building rates, but I really do have concerns because, and again, are they the affordable homes? Or are they the market homes? Thank you, sorry, that's quite a lot of questions, Chair. Thank you very much. Okay, more coming still, so perhaps we'll stop the backlot and go back to the officer and then we'll come back with some more questions. Just to also say, please kind of refer your questions to the case officer, and the case officer is the person in charge here of the recommendation, and Kate can refer to any consultees as she sees fit. So Kate, go back to you then, please. Thank you, Chair. The first question related to scale, what is scale? That's really to do with size of buildings, height, that sort of thing, really. Shared surface, what is a shared surface? That's a surface that is shared with motor traffic, cyclists, and pedestrians. So it doesn't have a footpath, it's just one surface. And they tend to be designed so that they're short, fairly narrow, and it has the effect of slowing traffic right down because they know that they're in a shared surface area with cyclists and pedestrians. The next question related to smaller baths, what about if residents decide to change it to a later date? Well, they might do, but this is a good starting point, and it is difficult to control what residents might do to later date and trade. The next question related to the loop road and traffic calming measures in the loop road at the very end of the scheme. So there would be very little traffic that would naturally use it. And the design of the loop is a very short, straight area. So that design and really tight bends as well. So that design would quite naturally slow traffic down. Hopefully that's enough to answer that question. The next question related to the path. There is a footpath that joins Almenos Avenue and Boercroft. It's about a metre wide with grasses aside and there's lamppos at either end. And the question was, can that be improved under this application? I think under this application the answer is no, it can't because this is really an access issue. But I think if there's, I mean, the highway authority only owns the metre wide path. They do not own the green grasses aside. So there isn't the ability to widen that path. But if it's felt that it's in poor condition, well, it would be the responsibility of the highway authority to maintain that. And if we're worried about that, I don't see why we can't go to the highway authority beyond this application. Nothing to do with this application, but anyway, seek improvements there. The next question raised the issue of 15 fewer bed spaces. Now, this is in the affordable housing units. Whereby our housing officers intended to try and provide the maximum number of bed spaces for the dwellings. So, for example, a two bed dwelling could provide four bed spaces, but in the majority of cases it's providing three bed spaces. So there is effectively a loss of 15 potential bed spaces. Now, we don't have any strong policy on which to hang this desire to maximise the bed spaces. It doesn't lie within the adopted housing strategy, which isn't a strong planning document. And then we have a draft housing strategy SPD, but of course that's only draft. So for that reason, it doesn't really have much planning rate to it. So there's not really certain negotiations have not been able to achieve an improvement on that. Some sizes now where I have referred in the report to small garden sizes. Maybe if I can share the screen again, see if I can get it right. My apologies. I've got the wrong one again. I'm sorry. I can't get that right, but I sure. I think I can still point nevertheless. Maybe not. Now, if you look at the bottom left hand corner. Where the farmstead area is, there is a row of red terraced houses. They have very small gardens to the front and back, the muse houses. But there's enough space to put table and chairs for four people. There's enough space to put the cycle store and enough space for all the wheelie bins that are required. But they are private. They're not affordable housing. Unadopted roads. There is a condition on the outlying commission that requires the applicant to layout set out for approval. How the unadopted roads will be managed and maintained. But I'm afraid fees do not fall within part of that. That's beyond what we can do here. Distance to the bus stop. I'm sorry, but that is an outline planning application matter. So that can't be taken into consideration with this one. There is a suggestion that perhaps more could be done with regard to water resources, such as water butts and grey water recycling. Yes, I think you know, you probably could add water butts to these properties. Grey water recycling, that's a much bigger issue that would take quite a lot to try and redesign the scheme for that one. The end of the farm start, the abrupt end, I think you're referring to again, that row of red houses, is it at the end? There was a news, they had a slide on view from what's caused with the news houses, and then the farmstead, that was that very sharp corner where they raised up a store in a half. They had a slide with it on, I think. But it helped with the elevations. Yes, that's a good look. So that's not improving it. It's made it worse, my apologies, I can't seem to quite get this right, get the right screen. I should have used one screen, shouldn't I? Sorry, I can't improve on that one. You're going to help me, can't you? Here we go. Have I done it? I've done it right. I've got it right. So, here we go. This is the elevation, the street elevation for what's caused by it. Are you referring to, let me get my pointer. There's a delay. Here we go. Are you referring to this? Yeah, that corner there, it just doesn't step up, it just jumps up. I was just wondering if you could comment on why. There is an increase in height from two stories to two and a half stories. I don't think that's a huge step, but there is a step there. One thing to note is that the houses here are set back for these. It's not a flat elevation there. It does step back. So I think that distance in height won't be as obvious as it is on the streets. And then the final question is 85% of dwellings will be dual aspect or more, meaning that 15% won't. This has been raised with the applicant and the reply is that all dwellings will need to conform with building regulations part O and F. So mechanical ventilation might be required for some of these properties. But this is what's before us today. Can I just ask whether they were affordable or not? Sorry, Chair. You can just let the officers leave a point, Kate. Yes. That's okay. Councillor BORL. Just by question, are they in the affordable blocks, the single aspect? I think they're mostly they're affordable, but I think there's probably a variety there. I can't give you exact figures, but it's within the apartments and most of the apartments are affordable. Please, thanks. Have you done with steps? The last one was not here. Okay, so let's just make some moves. I'll go to people that haven't asked already if that's okay. Go on then. Thank you, Chair. I asked about what scale meant because given that the site has limited access for pedestrians and cyclists to the back streets of the area, is it suitable? Is it a suitable scale that's being presented to us? The amount of people that will be on a site and will be forced to use a main road to cycle, walk, to school. So I think that if we were prevented by officers' recommendations from challenging by rejection, the previous application for outline permission, although we knew and the developers knew that there was an opportunity to provide an alternative route in and out of the site because a house came onto the market and they were informed of it and they didn't take that opportunity. So I had to accept, and did accept, or we did accept, that we couldn't reject the outline permission. But now having been faced with a very restricted usage of exit from the site, are we able to reject it on the basis that the scale is too great? So that's number one. And number two is, I'm not quite sure about what the officer means when she said a shared surface for car cyclists and pedestrians, all in one go, we know that car drivers will slow down because the people might be on the road. No, we don't know that. We definitely don't know that. What we do know is that car drivers frequently bully people on the road by the sheer force of their vehicle and for the speed that they drive. So I think that this second issue of the cycling pedestrians and roadway all being in one, and does what the officer clarified also apply to all the cycle routes through the site? Thank you. I will be returning to this, of course. Yeah, thanks, Councillor. So especially the first point there, Councillor Beijing made a statement in terms of us being forced to accept. So is that a true statement to officers once we apply to that? That might be useful to bottom out first. Thank you. Scale does not mean the number of people or the number of dwellings. The outline planning application granted permission for 200 dwellings. So that is set in stone basically. That is what the outline permission is for. Scale tends to be more to do the size of the buildings. It tends to be more architectful rather than quantity of people or quantity of dwellings. I hope that clarifies a bit better for you. Let's move on anyway, we can always come back once we get it done before lunch. So I don't know who's next, to be honest, but Councillor Bennet. Thank you. I can be reasonably brief because everybody else has raised most of the points I wanted to make. So let's get to it. The desire path to Armin is avenue. I think this is going to see very heavy school use. Is there a possibility of looking into having back friendly solar studs to mark a path? Because it's quite dark when children are travelling to that in winter. And I think that would be useful for safety. Maybe that could be an informative. Secondly, I applaud the officer's suggestion of having slow release water buts. We have an informative on that too, please. And thirdly, is there a speed limit on the estate? I think if there's going to be shared surface use, we need to see a five mile speed limit throughout the estate. And I do not know whether we can actually put that in because this is reserve matters or whether we can have an informative. But hopefully the developer is present and listening. And finally, I think access of the estate is going to be very difficult, particularly for children, young people, disabled users. And I know that access is reserve matter. However, that does create some issues for the usage of the facilities on the estate. And my question would be, do we consider that the children's place base is adequate considering it's going to be very difficult for small and unescorted children to access anything else in the area. And considering how large and dangerous the surrounding roads are. Thank you. Yeah, a few questions. So let's go back to the officers again. And for responses on that, I don't need to refer to term on that cake for the speed limit. I think the first one goes back to a bit more explanation about shared surfaces. Shared surfaces here are coldy sacks. They are short coldy sacks. And it is generally accepted through practice over time. That shared surfaces in these circumstances do have the effect of slowing down traffic. I do wonder whether my colleague here would be willing to perhaps benefit us with his knowledge on this one. I will mean some temporary transport assessment team came to kind of council. What I do know is that the shared surfaces of design normally at the end of roads. So as Kate was saying, the small number of houses would benefit from the shared surface area. That serves them. This is designed still for the refuse vehicles to use in those cases. So it can't be kind of very, very narrow. It has to still allow for a larger vehicle to move through. But they do have ramps on them as you enter the surface. The ramp itself slows down vehicles. And their designers, Kate was saying this is meant to be for a slow vehicle environment. They don't prevent children from playing. I think if children play in this place, that's a good thing. It tells vehicles and other very pieces that they have to share that space and that's what it's designed to do. So it's a normal treatment. My high-range colleagues specify it and they have a kind of requirements that they need to be met. And they're happy as a council with this area. Thank you, Chair. Also, we went back to the matter of the path through by Baumaners Avenue and Boa Croft. And could it be better lit? I don't know there are street lights either side, but it may be that it could be improved upon. But I don't think we can do that or achieve that through this application. But I think there's nothing to stop us going to the County Council and raising this concern and seeing whether they can achieve better lighting for this path. Informative for slow release water baths. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. I think we could add that. Thank you. Speed limits. The scheme is designed to be a 20-mile-an-hour development. And I wonder whether Tom, I could call on you again. Is that okay? Yes, by all means. Because of the layout of the various in this development and the fact that there's some of them, that some of them go around serving the northern part of the development, by its very nature, I think this will be a 20-mile development. I don't normally do anything at five miles an hour. It's normally 20. And I think my high-race colleagues considered that this is possible and through the design, they're not happy with that. Thank you. And then the final question related to access for young and disabled, specifically the children's play spaces, are they adequate? We've got three children's play spaces that are dotted around the scheme. One in the eastern edge, one in the centre, western edge, and one to the southern green edge of the site. The details of their play equipment, the details of these spaces have yet to be submitted. So we can have a look at whether that is acceptable from the disabled person's users' point of view at that stage. Thank you. Right. Okay. Thank you. Were you wanting to come back, Councillor? Yeah. Okay. Good. Just a very quick point that if the details of the play spaces haven't been finalised, could we have some sort of informative because what suits one age a child doesn't suit another and just has something asking there can be attention to providing for different age ranges, particularly for children with disability. Thank you, Councillor. Do you want to respond to that for us, Kate, before we go on? Yes, thank you. Just quickly. Yes, quite happy to recommend that we have an informative relating to that. But I would say that there's two different types of play spaces proposed. There's a local equipped area of play which tends to be for sort of school aged children mostly, and then we have the local areas of play which tends to be for the very young children. But happy with an informative. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So, I mean, just to be clear, we can have any information if we want this committee plan. But I mean, obviously, we need to bring forward things that we think we can actually achieve, but I was no point doing it. And I mean, play spaces for this, you know, they're accessible for disabled children is a national issue. Certainly one that I'm pleased to raise here in this planning committee. And certainly if we can achieve that, that'd be good. And just what I'm on the subject of achievements from the developer. We've had developers come to this committee before, who have brought water guts on their developments and it's not a big cost. And it would please the committee to see that, I think. And just also, also one speaking. The other things that committee have been keen to get in the past are a lack of single aspect dwelling. So it's unfortunate to see 15% of a large number of these dwellings having single aspect. And no one has mentioned it so far, I don't think, but also bikes at the front door so you can get off your bike, take the shopping in the house rather than having them stored somewhere sort of remote from the front door. So, okay, so next speaker is Councillor Thorne. Thank you. So, I just want to, this, whenever this scheme comes to the committee, we talk about how there's no access to the community behind. And one of the things which has happened, but we also know that we need to deal with current legislation and both the government, the combined authority and the county council have strategies to encourage active travel. And I believe the county council has an obligation to bring forward a walking strategy for the city and a cycling strategy for the city. And I don't understand why those have not been considered in relation to this site. And if we currently, there is no public porosity to the spaces behind, why can't there be a compulsory purchase of a strip of land so that we can get this link through to the existing roads and then half or more the distance for children to walk and cycle to school. And the connection, the little connection between Almana's Avenue that we were talking about, that was raised by Sam Davies, the ward councillor. The very first time this was brought to, I think, a pre-app to the committee. And I really, again, I don't understand why we can't have an S-1 at Y and S-106 hasn't been arranged to improve that footpath. So at least with a circuitous route, children would be able to better cycle and it would be a safer route through that. So I think those aspects, which are the very current topics, I don't understand why we don't continue to look at this, these access issues. We also know that we now have these ministerial statements about water, stressed area, and particularly in Cambridge. And I think we need to, they are material considerations and I think that we need to apply them to this site. I think that the, if water butts would definitely reduce the use of potable water. So I think they shouldn't be an informative, they should be an expectation. It should be part of condition for, which is materials, which includes rainwater goods. It should be rainwater goods, including water butts. And it should be an expectation that they will be required. I also think that we should put, there is a loophole about swimming pools. They're not included in water calculations. So I think we should exclude the permitted development rights to build swimming pools in the private homes. Unless they come through, get, come for planning permission. Then talking about overheating, there's a lot of black cladding around. And again, it creates overheating. There's an urban heat effect. And I think that we should just not be accepting black cladding in any scheme in Cambridge. We know in European countries where they're suffering more. They promote light materials. Not just for the buildings, it's the surrounding areas. It's for the, not to provide, you know, heating the plants nearby. We should, we should, that should be the expectation. And I think that under, again, condition four, the expectation should be that we'll have no black cladding. And that going to the 15% single aspect homes in the shared, the affordable homes, I think, I don't think that's acceptable. Because if there are single aspect homes, that means that they will, they will be relying on mechanical ventilation in the summer. And these are people where they are, they are, they're probably the least well off in our society. And we're imposing additional electricity load on the homes. And in, we've, we have, there's, I remember an appeal once where we refuse some housing and it was upheld because it was, there weren't many windows. So the, the inspector said that these homes would, you'd have required to put electric light on. And therefore they, they, that would reduce the sustainability. A single aspect home reduces the sustainability because the reliance on mechanical ventilation is increased. And this is on the poorest people in our society. So I don't think that's acceptable. I'm concerned about shared ownership ship generally. I don't know whether that's something we can raise here. There are, there are lots of issues I hear about shared ownership and the people who are in, get into those. Are end up playing, paying all of, they don't, and they pay all of the maintenance costs that that's not shared. They pay their portion of the rental mortgage, but they end up paying 100% of the maintenance rather than a portion of it. Yeah, I think that's, that's it. Thank you. Yes, one other thing, sorry, when you were talking about the two bedrooms and whether that means the two bedrooms for affordable homes and that does that mean four beds or three beds. In our local plan, we have specific sizes for one bedroom spaces and bedrooms for two people. So it's not a matter of option, it's a matter of fact whether these will be three bedroom, three beds or four beds. So I think we need to look at the actual floor plans and areas of the bedrooms in these affordable homes to see whether they're actually compliant with the policies and then do the calculations about whether they're for four beds or three beds. That's a lot. So I think that and the other questions only back to you know, then Kate, if you could just bottom at that last point, especially, which I found quite perplexing as well, the number of beds, number of people in number of bedrooms are beautiful because I thought you were referring to the kind of religious imperative of the way we have to live in couples with children as opposed to the space standards that I think counselor Thornborough was referring to that kind of thing sorry to be so, you know what I mean, but we live in couples with children that's the kind of thing we're talking about. One, two people live in one bedroom sleep in one bedroom and one person possibly to children live in sleep in the other room so I think there's a there's a play there between that approach or the space standard approach which is a different approach I think doesn't really do the same thing. So the other questions as well thanks Kate. I can advise that all properties do comply with the national space standards. So when we're looking at a three person two bed apartment, then the size of the second bedroom would be sufficient for one bed for one person rather than for two people. And then it'd be down to the, the affordable housing provider, the management company, the council as to who they allocate into that property would be considered a three person property so it would be at that who's allocated to that property. You would only allocate three people to that property not fall. So I hope that clarifies that. Can I check I just coming so I think there is some confusion between the standard of the housing officer is is talking about as opposed to the internal space standards that's the difference that the housing officer who said ideally we'd like more. And two bedroom four person properties, but we don't. What Kate said is we don't actually have a an adopted policy that we can kind of use to kind of resist what's come forward from the, from the. So we do have a number of two bedroom three three person properties that meet the internal space standards. Hopefully that's clear. Okay, thanks Toby. And of course you are the executive cancer cancer for and you can bring forward policy on that matter and other matters. That's okay. Right. Going back to the beginning of your questions just to clarify with what is proposed under the section 106 agreement for the outline. Within that, there is a sum of money that will the developer pays to the county council that will go towards providing a three meter wide shared cycle way footpath that would link from the development along walks cause way up to field. There's also would go towards another cycle way further off site and I do apologize I can't remember exactly where it was but there is a second cycle way that that money is would contribute to. Now, when it comes to the section 106 agreement well that's already been signed and that's part of the outline plan in permissions so it. I don't see that we could amend that as part of this reserved matters application at this stage I think it's already been negotiated it would be difficult to get the applicant to agree to amend that compulsory purchase. I think maybe the council could do that separate to this reserve matters application I think if it was still an outline stage you might be able to tie the two together. But I think under reserve matters I don't see how we could tie the two together but whether it could be done as a separate matter that that could be considered I would say though that I have had correspondence from the owners of 39 a ominous avenue, which is perhaps the most obvious potential route if you were to go through ominous avenue, expressing a very strong resistance to wanting to have the path going through their property. A moment to condition for I think maybe we could look at whether that could be amended. Obviously any condition has to be enforceable and we would need some policy backup as to why we're asking for certain information. I don't know whether we can open that towards water but I probably advise that that would be better as an informative because the developer already satisfies goes above and beyond actually the condition that requires 110 litres per person per day by providing 98.3 so we would struggle with policy backup on that one. Maybe give that one a bit more thought. Black cladding it's several cladding which apparently has some the properties of the cladding apparently contribute towards sustainability. I don't know all the details of the properties of several cladding I don't think I can clarify that enough to you. But it is proposed to be black. I don't know whether under the I think maybe under the materials we could have another look at that cladding and see whether there is an alternative shade that might be better I don't know whether you had anything in mind. Swimming pool is your express concern about swimming pools. There is a recommended condition move implemented development rights relating to two story dwellings. I think maybe we could add the PD rights relating to swimming pools to that as well. I don't really see why not. There is nothing more I can add about the 85% dual aspect. When it comes to shared ownership this seems to me to be a much bigger issue than this planning application before us today. And I wonder whether it's something best discussed and looked outside of this planning application for future developments. And I think I can at the end and hopefully that's helpful. Yeah, I think yes on the last bit but yeah thanks Kate. At one point you were saying about the second cycle way and I think time could probably help with that if you wanted him to just make sure we knew everything. Do you mean the cycle way from around this avenue? Not the one, the connection one, is that the one Kate? No, no there was another one in the section 186 agreement which links to a bit. Yes I think that's a planning condition that the applicant needs to provide that cycle way. And I understand they've got a drawing that's been approved by my high race colleagues for that. I will also pass on to my colleagues your desire for the connection route to be improved. So I'll ask them to look and see what they can do but that would be a matter separately outside of this application process. Yeah, thanks very much. More hands up. I've got two of you already down yet. So two more and need. So it's been it again. OK, Toby, you want to say something first? Yeah, it's just really clarified a few points that Kate was responding to because I think officers would recognize that in some respects certain aspects of the scheme aren't ideal. The reality with the 106 is that we can't negotiate that because part of the reserve matters we are where we are. The planning commission has been granted and it was granted without the necessity for compulsory purchase of land outside of the applicants and controls. You know, that is something that would have to be entirely separate to the reserve matters and I'm not entirely sure actually whether they're given the circumstances, whether it would be the best use of public money. In that circumstance, but it's separate to what you're being asked to be to be considering this morning. Just we officers have reiterated this in the Office of Briefing, but with regard to the single aspect units, there is there is not a policy that prohibits single aspects units that we can rely on. But I'm aware of within our local planning or supporting supplementary planning guidance in the form of the Sustainable Construction SPD. It certainly encourages us to move away from single aspect homes, but there's no prohibition of single aspect homes. It does become more difficult when you have smaller units to deliver as part of a part of the blocks, for example, dual aspect for that type of unit style. Thanks Toby, that's useful, so I guess everyone's clear a single aspect is like we have one window in one side of the house, but no windows on the other side or something like that, so there's no ventilation that kind of thing, so it can get hot in the summer, basically. I think they seem to be mostly in the flats in the development, and the flats seem to be not, as they say, pepper-potted, so not spread around the development, the affordable housing wasn't spread around, it was all in one place, pretty much, which is unfortunate because it's meant to be all spread around, so we send you a blind so-called, so you can't see what's what, so the people with less money sit in one place and the people more money sit in another place, and that's unfortunate. As Toby says, we're looking at policy compliance here, what's allowed, and just earlier you said Kate about the weather board, it was like weather boarding, but isn't, so you've further sort of talked on that more recently, and it's what's it called? So that's a brand name, and so it's not wood, it's fibrous cement, so made of concrete cement, we're not concrete, but cement in it, so it's not going to burn, but not particularly a sustainable product, you might say, but I do like the fact that they're timber framed, that's excellent and gas-free, so well done on that. I think that's all my points, so next up is Councillor Corraling. Thanks, Chair, I had a few different questions. I think Councillor Porra raised the non-adopted roads issue, which is one of my particular bug bears, and I was looking at the plan of them, I have here, and it strikes me that very few roads in here are adopted, it's literally just the main path. A bit closer to the market. I was just saying it strikes me that very few roads are adopted in here, and I wondered if the case officer or the highways officer could advise us as to if there's any reason the others haven't been, are they not to adoptable standards, what's the barrier there, because I share the concerns raised earlier, just about the sheer level of cost, people have to pay on these service charges, you know, these are supposed to be affordable properties, some of these, and yet people have rents in the shared ownership, they'll have a mortgage, they have service charges, they have other costs, these costs balloon rapidly, and these houses become very much not affordable anymore. And I appreciate this is not something we can deal with right now, but I'm really keen to just be reassured that the applicant has done everything they can to make as many of these roads adoptable as possible, which I'm not convinced of at the moment. So, I think the question is, can we just have a bit of clarity about why the parish council had an objection about not having many air source heat pumps when later on with there's been information saying they have been air source heat pumps, it's just useful to understand why they were concerned. The other one I want to talk about was visitor parking, so the, I think it's paragraph 10.88 talks about how there are eight total visitor car parking places, proposed for all 200 houses combined. That is concerning to me, in terms of, you know, people may have care as they may have medical staff and such like they need to be visiting. There's a reason we have that policy on visitor parking and so it's concerned that that's not being complied with. And there's a broader trend here around quite a few policies that, you know, you can argue they're quite minor violations of them, but there's so many that it becomes a bit of an issue. We've got the cycle parking where not all of it's at the front, we've had, we've, you know, we've complained about that in person, we have rejected applications for that reason. And I begin to understand just how wide that problem is because I forget which paragraph it is, but oh, it's 10.81, which says the layout of dwelling is such that the cycle stores, maybe to the side of the house summary in the rear garden. And for most of these, most, not all, there is an alternative store more conveniently located. How many are we talking about that don't have that will be interesting to know that. Could I also just check in terms of the play areas who's maintaining those, and that's not necessarily a material consideration, but is it that the city council would take over maintenance of those just because with some of the questions very early about the age range. If we're going to be taking over those players, then it will be useful to, not now, but just later, have consultation with the streets and open spaces team because we've done a lot of work recently around how we look at demand for different players and different spaces so we can, there's probably a lot of work can be done there. This application is approved. Thanks. Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Dryden. The developers there are installing waterbuds to all their properties because it's such a small amount of money to do it. They might as well do it. Very good. So back to you then, Kate, for answers, please. Thank you. The first question related to the adoption of roads and very few of them are to be adopted. It's the principle street and the loop is to be adopted and the culty sacks coming off either side and also the short road, the road that serves the farmstead and not to be adopted. It will all be built to adoptable standards in that a refuse vehicle would be able to use them. But largely, this is down to the County Council, won't always adopt these small streets. There is no specific requirement for them all to be adoptable from a planning point of view, although I understand what you're saying. The next question related to air source heat pumps, why did the parish council say the burnt any? I don't know. Why did they say the burnt any? Because it's been proposed from the beginning. It was complex application, probably quite difficult to find all the information. Visitors parking, yes, there's only eight spaces being provided. It is quite a bit short of appendix L in the local plan, which sets out what is proposed. What the applicant has done is they've provided how they intend to manage parking on the development and they've set that out and that they will get a private parking company to ensure that cars are parked in appropriate areas, etc. But yes, it is short of eight visitors parking spaces and that is one of the imperfections of the skin. Cycle parking, an awful lot of work went into cycle parking. And it's about being more accessible than the car in order to promote cycle cycling. There are quite, I haven't got the figures. I'm sorry. I don't have figures for you here, but a lot of them are located in the front within a porch type arrangement or a separate structure for the cycles. Some of them are located very close to a side door. So we've got the main front door and the side door. So it could be argued that the cycle parking is very convenient to that side door, more so than the parking space. Some cycle parking spaces are in the back garden, but those that are in the back garden also have cycle parking in the front and it's shared. So there'll be a couple of cycle spaces in the front and then some in the back. So there's a mixture. Play spaces. How will that be managed and maintained that that comes under a conditional and outline planning application that by condition the developer has to provide information on how they intend to manage and maintain those spaces. So that has yet to be, that information is yet to be submitted and approved, but it would probably be a management company. I think I've come to the end there. I hope that helps. Thank you, Councillor Veen. Yeah, thank you. It feels to me like this whole development is rather isolated. There's no good bus services. They haven't managed, the developers have not managed to negotiate access through to the north. It's been spoken about a fair bit. Have they really thought through the availability of schools for the local children and the routes that those children can take to get to the schools. GP surgeries. Have they really thought about that? I also noticed that the chauffeur Paris Council apart from the heat source pumps have also been mowing the fact that there's no talk about PV panels here at all. It seems to be a missed opportunity. I think Councillor Dryden referred to it right at the very beginning. So there are a number of disappointments in this whole development as far as I'm concerned. Thank you. I think there's mostly statements, rather than questions. Yeah, OK. So, Councillor Bennet. Thank you, Chair, and I apologise for coming back a second time. I didn't realise I hadn't crossed off all my points. Could people please go to page 54 and conditions 14 and 15, which deal with removal of permitted development rights? Because I've got a query on those. I support removal of the permitted development rights, but I have some queries about how this is going to work out in practice. Because what is to actually draw this to the attention of purchases of property? Because we've had so many issues where people have just assumed and gone ahead, and then we end up in a difficult position where we're being asked to retrospectively provide planning commission for something that we've never have given permission for. And I think it's particularly problematic, not so much for two-story extensions, because normally people doing a two-story extension will consult a builder, and most of our local builders are intelligent people who do actually check these things. But the problem with removing the rights to refit garages is habitable space, because that can often be a DIY thing. I know it's very difficult to police these things. You can't stop people using their garage for storage and never ever using it for parking, which puts more pressure on street parking. But could I suggest we have an informative that removal of permitted development rights is included in the marketing information, and also included in the new home pack, given to new residents, so that we do everything possible to draw it to people's attention, that their permitted development rights have been removed. And also, I'd also like, as an internal matter, to ask whoever deals with the local shared service planning website to put a note on the information given on permitted development rights, to point out that while these are the general rules that some developments have reduced permitted development rights. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Thorneborough. Listen, guys, we're going to have to draw this to inclusion soon, I think. We've been going quite a long time, and yes, we have another break. But, yeah, so Councillor Thorneborough, then Councillor Paula, then Councillor Beigeant. I know that there's been a lot of the design about a bicycle storage, and all of that is to encourage active travel. But the reality is that this site does not encourage active travel, because you have to go on towards causeway, and I, as an apparent, I would not want my children cycling in that. This is basically because of the access, this is a site for cars, really. And there is now, so I don't think there, if this is mainly people are going to be using cars here, there is a problem about deliveries, because people won't be able to cycle to the local shops, they can't cycle to the local shops easily. They can't cycle to the schools easily, they can't cycle to the medical facilities easily, so they're all going to be using their cars. There really isn't, and because of that, the focus on cars is not good enough. I don't think there is adequate delivery space, I think there is not adequate, people won't really easily be encouraged to cycle here either, so I think the lack of visitor parking is a problem as well. So, I also think that the, I would like to, I think that there is re space in the local plan to, to, for about natural ventilation, and therefore it's, well, I would like to suggest that we defer this application and look at the single aspect homes on the locations, and why this hasn't, I would like more information about why it wasn't, why there are only in the affordable homes, and why they haven't actually used parts of the local plan referring to climate change, and natural ventilation, et cetera, et cetera. Thank you, Councillor. Toby is going to say something. Yeah, it's difficult, I think your hands are tied with some of these broader matters that you're referring to, which really are matters that should have been dealt with at the outline stage, so you are going to need to tread very carefully. And then it comes to the recommendation coming forward. I hear what Councillor Thorne was saying about visitor car parking provision, and the officers noted that that is an aspect of the scheme, which it doesn't be called with Holocene, it certainly does relate to what is before you today. Yeah, thanks Toby, I've got you, and just to say, Councillor Thorneborough suggested the option of deferring there. There's also a different thing, but similar thing called adjourned decisions protocol, which applies to this major item. But I haven't heard much from Councillors so far in terms of wanting to go there, but we'll come back to that in a moment, Councillor, if you like. But I've got other speakers, so I think next was Councillor Thorneborough, yeah. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I share everyone's concern. And I do understand, I don't even know if Carla Holmes did the original outline, you may be inherited it, but this is a really depressing one to look at potentially having to approve, because of its own car heavy and it kind of goes against everything we've been trying to achieve. A couple of minor points, I think we're missing the M43 condition, I've just realised, okay, we've got M42 compliance with M43, but we do have four M43 homes, so I think we need to add that into the conditions. Can I also ask where the disabled parking spaces are, because they're not referenced anywhere? And if we've got four M43 homes, which I think are flattered, I want to know that we have those, otherwise it will be the less compliant with our local plan. Also, in informative six, greatly appreciated, you've got the letterbox one in. Can we also add that flattered development should have accessible letterboxes as well, because I just realised I wasn't in there? Or is it a condition? Oh, yeah, I think the important point to the fact it's in our local plan, they have to comply with it. So, but could we just have the flattered bit as well, because A, obviously people are delivering leaflets this time, yeah, but more importantly, whoever's in flat one just gets every single delivery driver buzzing their door, which you can see. Or buzzing their door, which drives people insane, if you don't have a letterbox accessible. I wondered if I'm just coming back on the loop and the traffic calming. I think Tam or Kate mentioned that there will be ramped access to that loop. I just wondered if Kate or with a consent, Tam could point out where these ramps are and how effective they will be. So, for me, that loop, whilst I absolutely take, I think Tam's point that it's a very tight loop, my experience in what I've seen in Trumpington is that's quite an attractive place to enjoy ride around, whether it's on little bikes or something. So, I wonder what we could do within the reserve matters to look at the landscaping, you know, putting in wiggles, or if you could just comment a little bit more on that, because I am still concerned, whilst it might not be a reason for ejection. The developers could be setting themselves up to have not a particularly pleasant area to live in, if that becomes where all the local people want to go and drive their cars around at night for fun. I'm still concerned about single aspect homes, so I know Toby's point. And I am really concerned about the visitor parking, because actually this is going to be a car heavy development. I mean, that's clear, that was agreed. We've only got eight visitor parking spaces, we should have 16, I think I'm right in saying. And the issue, I think Councilor Thormer raised about delivery is really important. Most people, you know, in my area in the centre of town, you see delivery vans all the time, parking up on double yellow lines and blocking the road. And here, we don't even have the minimum number of visitor spaces. So I appreciate the applicant is saying that they're going to enforce, that's fine, that will make some money in parking tickets. But the bottom line is if you're there having your, you know, Tesco's delivery twice a week, and every one of those 200 houses is doing that, where are they going to go? You know, so I am really concerned about the visitor parking. So it's visitor parking, delivery parking, disabled spaces, and also the M4-3 condition and the informative asking about informative for letter boxes on flats. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillors, this, this, just be careful not to convince ourselves of our own rhetoric in this debate. We've been at it for nearly two hours, and we need to confine ourselves to planning reasons on this reserved matters application. And if we, if it comes to the chase and you want to reject the Office of Recommendation, then you're going to need good planning reasons, not some of the reasons that have been given during this debate, which do not apply to this application. Councillor Bajant. Chair, I remain concerned about the cycle rules. The officer did describe the cycle rules and mapped them out for us on the map. But are they just part in general, just part of the main roadway? I mean, that's a simple question. And in the second, I'd like to second what Kate, Councillor, is suggesting that this is a reputable builder, and they don't want to end up with something that is starting off in a hostile situation. It may well be that a lot of these thoughts from the planning committee could be taken on board and dealt with, and we could have a much, much better development. We need these houses, we need these homes, rather. And there's some small issues which have become major issues. And, you know, they sit in their presentation that they are a reputable developer, and I am absolutely sure that they are. But there's a few sort of running ulcers that can become in saws that have been picked at. And will in 10 years time be a major issue when all these vehicles are coming onto the road and cyclists are in competition, and people are living in single aspect homes with the sun shining through, and the climate changing, improving the amount of heat we get. You know, this could all go back. And some of most of these things could be dealt with. So I will second, Councillor Thorne, for a suggestion that we defer this. Thank you, Councillor. Well said on the first part, on the second part, the second thing of, just hold on to that in a moment, I want to let other Councillors, you will proceed on my list to speak to speak first before we come back to that, if that's okay with you too. Councillor Carlin. Thanks. Yeah, I mean, I am extremely concerned about the visitor department, as others have said. I think, as the Board has now said, it would have to be 16, but my understanding, from paragraph 10.8, which says one space is required for every four units, would be 50. And we've got eight. It's really quite a dramatic violation of the policy, and I mean, whether I think 50 may well be excessive, I'm not necessarily going to ask the developers who have gone for 50, and that will be very, very challenging. But we need more than eight in here, otherwise we're going to get parking everywhere. And I appreciate what's being said in terms of what we can enforce, but you cannot have enforcement officers patrolling all day, every day. The much best solution is just to provide the parking that there is a need for, and that's why we have the policy. So, I understand the suggestion is deferral. I don't want to reject this. As others have said, a lot of the issues can be resolved very easily. Precedurally, I think what I would prefer to do at the moment is to, well, to reject the officer recommendation is to join decision logical comes in. We'd have another report of the June meeting or whatever it may be after the developers had time to go away and see what can be done about the violations of policy that we have here. That would be my preference. Thank you for that, Councillor. No. Are there any more hands that went up? I can see. No. Okay. So first off, I'll go back to the officer for any answers to any questions that are outstanding from the backlog. Please. Thank you. I would like to ask, if he can help out on this one, because quite a few of these questions and concerns relate to a car heavy development that you're worried about. So, thank you. So just to note that this is a Cambridge City location, and we do know that the car ownership levels in Cambridge City are much below what they would be if you're in shellford sourced and outside of the city in Southcans. That's a factor to bear in mind. We've got here really, really good cycle storage near the front doors of most of the properties. No, it's not, it's most because if you've got a block of flats, they're in the communal store for the block of flats, what you would expect. This is really good cycle storage. You don't see this in many applications. So what that's really saying to residents is you know, we know you're in Cambridge City. You know your cycle ownership is going to be greater than what it might be if you're in a village outside the city. Therefore, we're providing really good storage facilities for you and your bikes, and we see that in this application. Not everyone's taking their children to school. A lot of people will be leaving their homes on their bicycles and going to work, or undertaking leisure trips using their bicycles. And you see very high levels of bicycle use in Cambridge City. There's no reason why this development is going to be any different to that. So the routes come in along what's caused by enjoying the baby and road to go to a teal's road. That's most likely a very common route that people will be using. And that's very well-catered for through the Greater Cambridge Partnership, Linton Greenway, which has actually been constructed and completed. So that's ready for residents of this development to use. The routes from this development through to the neighbouring parcel, which has also been constructed at the moment that GV-1, that allows for direct movement down to the baby and road. And then you can go alongside a little short distance and then use the two concrossing and then get straight to Adam Brooks. So that's a very good route. You wouldn't interact with any traffic going all the way to Adam Brooks Hospital if that's what you were working on. And so on. There's a very good network of routes in the city, and this development is part of and connected to them. And the facilities in the development are geared for allowing that to be used. On the shared surface streets and the VISTA parking. The VISTA parking base are actual kind of specific parking locations marked as visitor. So, there's eight of those, but it doesn't mean to say that there's other places where you can pull up and park. It's just that they're not allocated, signed, marked as visitor parking. So it's not if you're a Tesco delivery driver, you're still going to have lots of places where you can pull up, park and serve the dwelling. If you're a VISTA VISTA friend, you're still going to be able to pull up and park. It's just that you might not park in a actual bay. I hope that's a bit clearer. Thanks, Tom. So Kate, was there any more? I think that's with most concerns. You did ask for where the ramps on the loop road. If you can see up on the screen there, if I get my pointer again. Oh, come on. Right, you can see some dark grey areas on the corners and junctions here. These would be where the ramps are. And also referred to M4-3 is missing from condition 17. Well, that could be added. And I think that answers all the questions. Thank you. So, I heard a question about the number of spaces for disabled parking. Is there somebody else that I thought, do you know that? I'm sorry, I don't have a figure for that one. So, Kate, can you look forward to something else? I can say, though, that there's disabled parking spaces have been looked at. There's been convenient to the affordable housing apartments, which are within the farmstead area. Okay. Can I look forward? Did you want to come back on something? Yeah, it was just to be confident that the M4-3 flats are next to the parking spaces and there would be presumably four for them, because I couldn't. And the other one I was just about adding the letterbox condition for flats. Yeah, I'd be happy to add that in the informative. Thank you. Thanks for driving. Just to pick up on, you're about Cambridge City Centre and Parking. The places like my representing Cherry Hinton, we're different. We're not in the centre of Cambridge, and we have problems parking. We've been told by the enforcement officers, when people, we don't come out to Cherry, because they've got so much to do in Cambridge. This is like Cherry Hinton's on the outskirts. I don't think the same parking is the same as our area. If we develop it, more than the centre of Cambridge. Yeah, okay. Thanks. It's good to get that comparison, although I'm not quite sure if this development will be enforced by county enforcement officers. It sounded like it was going to be a private agency to me, but I can be corrected by the case officer if need be. Councillor Bajian, hand up. The grey areas that are marked are speed humps, yeah? What sort of speed humps will they be? As a cyclist, as an elderly cyclist suffered from our practice. Every time I go over a speed hump, a sharp pain goes right through the hole of my body. It is possible to design speed humps so that they can have an access through them for cyclists. Could we please put an advisory note or a condition on that, please? Thank you. Yeah, sorry to hear that, Councillor. I believe they were described as raised areas, not humps, but should we get that first and say, okay, what are they? They're just like little vamps. You go from your tarmac up to your couple, up to your paving. So, yeah, you'll be fine. They're designed ground and high-race colleagues know what they're doing. Are you familiar with the type of syrophys, Councillor Bajian or others? I think I am. My experience of whatever they're called is that when the road surface level changes, which it frequently does because the highways committee or the highways officers or the county council can't control the size of the potholes. Speed bumps, which we see all over the city now and all the back streets in Rumsi, which are only a very slight change in surface, same as a pothole, means that I get a ricochet right through my body every time I go up. And I think we can avoid this. This is not a big issue. We can just put a cycle there through the middle of it. I agree with you, Councillor. It's a segregated provision that I believe is the way forward, but I believe what's being talked about here is a sort of one surface is tarmac, the raised bit is made in bricks, basically, sort of concrete bricks, but it's just a slight incline up to the level, is that right term? And then you're on that level, then you drive, you cycle on that level, then you down the other side. It's not like a bump as such, but you disagree, Councillor, so I won't say any more. Right, any more? Yes, Councillor Bennett. Sorry, could I just ask what we are doing in terms of an informative, differential that owners are clear about restriction and limited rights? Yes, quite happy to add that one. It could be useful. I mean, really, when somebody buys a property, you'd expect their conveyance solicitor to advise them of such things. But I don't see that there's any problem with adding it as an informative. Thank you. Thank you very much. So do you accept my informative or is it? Sorry, I missed that. My informative is about the speed clamps, because unless they're a hump, it's not going to slow a car down, they're just going to speed up. I'm not quite sure about that when I'm with the officers. You can put it as an informative, but I don't know what my high-rise colleagues think. So the great respect to John Finney, who was here, would be able to give you a really detailed answer on that. I'm afraid that it's beyond my knowledge. Chair, I'd like to move a condition that a gap is made in the raised areas, the cyclists to pass through without having to... Well, you can say it, Councillor, but the conditions have to be fair and reasonable, so all concerned, and I suppose also practical. So I'm not quite sure if it's going to work, but I'm totally just going to speak on that. So, Councillor Bajan, I think you might have misunderstood the design. So this is not like a sleeping policeman with a bump that you go over and a level that you could continue through as a cyclist. It is a change in level between a lower level and an upper level with a low gradient from one to another. So you wouldn't be able to have cyclists continuing on that lower level. It's not that lower level to avoid going up. It's an integral part of the design. We could put an informative on for the engineers to look at the gradient to ensure that it is sufficient for all users, including cyclists. I don't see a problem with that, but a condition as you've recommended would not be appropriate given the design that's before you. So this is where we get into a difficulty, isn't it? Whatever this is, it's designed to reduce the speed of cars. That's why it's there. Now, if it isn't sufficient difference in level, then it makes absolutely no difference to car drivers. So just drive over it. So to make it effective, it needs to be a proper changing level. And at that point, it has an impact on cyclists. Now, who under the LTM-120 has the right here? Is it back to the cars? The car drivers have got the right or do the cyclists have the right? I'm looking to officers to give a response on this. Chair, I think with respect to Councillor BEAN, we don't agree with the point that's being made in general that this is a standard design feature on many of our estates. And Officer Parry has said that his colleagues are confident that an appropriate design can be delivered. So it is a point of difference, Councillor, we can accommodate your concern as part of an informative. I don't think we can go much further than that. Okay, so if no one speaks against that informative, then that will go forward as an informative. Is anyone going to speak against it? Nope. Okay, so I'm against it. So we'll have a vote on that if we come to that in a moment. Okay, so first off in terms of voting, is this question of whether we want to consider this on another occasion after today? Councillor Zomber brought forward the proposal to defer the item. I just made it clear to all concerned that there is the option because it's a major item so-called, that this could be an adjourned decision protocol, which funnily enough I said to somebody the other day we never use, but there we are, maybe we will. So however, it might be more appropriate to, if we're going to consider an option, that the option of deferral might be more appropriate, and here are many reasons for refusal of the officer recommendation on this so far. But what I have here are concerns about the, it's a different thing. It's a fine line, but concerns about the item. So I'm going to ask Toby just to tell us about the different options, and then I'll go back to Councillor Zomber to see what she wants to do. Thanks, Chair. So, yeah, when you've got three options, and you can vote for the recommendation, you can do a general deferment or we could look at using the adjourned decision protocol. I think my advice in this scenario would be that if the recommendation is not supported, that members would use a general deferral to give officers the scope in discussions with applicants to see if some of these issues can be resolved through amendments and/or further information. What I would say is that prior to coming to this committee, officers have already raised a number of the issues that members have raised in this meeting. So I would hope if we do get to a deferral, which I suspect that's the case from members of saying that we are kind of very, members are very clear on the matters that they want to see addressed. Yeah, thanks, Toby. I mean, that was the point I was going to make myself. So it wasn't quite repeated, but just to say that, you know, as in all cases, officers fight our corner for us all the time, and then we come to committee and we interrogate officers as if they're the ones that are the problem, but it's not, it's the item, you know, brought forward by developers. So, and as Toby said, whether we get what we want in the end is another matter. So the proposal, I think, from Councillor Thalbrough is a deferment. Is that correct, Councillor? Yes, that's correct. But also, I think it's important that the applicants are hearing that our concerns match the officers' concerns earlier. Yes, I would propose a deferment thing. Yeah, fair point. And Councillor Beige and you seconded that proposal. Is that correct? Okay, let's sort of vote on that then. So all those in favour of deferring the item to a future meeting of this committee on the basis of the conversations we've had so far in debates. All those in favour? To support that proposal, Chair. Okay, against? Two against, Chair. Okay, so that proposal is carried. So this item will be deferred to a future meeting of this committee. Just hold on a minute. I'm sure Keith was going to say this, but I think committee members are going to need to specify now the reasons for deferral. I would hope that it's clear already, but I think for the record, it would be good if those issues could be just listed out by members of Councillor Thalbrough is probably the best place to start doing that. Okay, then. So if you just come forward with all your reasons, and then Toby can make a list, and then we'll go from there. So Councillor Bournwright, you go first. Okay, yes. So I think it compliance with M42 in the disabled parking requirement for each block plus also disabled visitor parking across the whole site. I think what Councillor Carlin was talking about, the number of visitor parking spaces across the whole site. I think also single aspect homes. And so reducing water use by putting in water butts. Right, Councillor Borrow. Yeah, I think I'm definitely missing information at the moment about parking. So definitely seeing whether disabled parking is and that's compliant, particularly as they're flat. So I'd like to see the relatively nearby delivery parking and possibly a strategy, because obviously if there's a management company overseeing it, it will be useful to see how they're going to manage deliveries. And I do take town's point that people can park up, but I would hope that quite a lot of the landscaping and things will mean that people shouldn't be parking on verges, because then you just get them destroyed. So again, it would be used to have more information about that, and I think an increase in visitor parking, particularly, or possibly car club, to accommodate some, you know, get rid of some of the other parking spaces. Definitely things about water management. I think whether the applicant would consider things like water butts. I appreciate it may not be possible in every house, but it would be useful to know what could be done and to manage that, and whether there's anything else in terms of the low water use, particularly in the light of the recent ministerial directives and statements on this. Yeah, and single aspect homes. I mean, sometimes when we've had single aspect before, we had a really useful presentation. I can't remember if it's here on JDCC, where the officer actually showed us the ones that were single aspect, which direction they faced in, where the shading was, how it would all work. So if single aspect homes have to be included, I would like to be confident that they're, you know, they're not facing full on to the sun, that we've got adequate shading, potentially more than for other houses. So those kind of, it's just having that extra information to help us decide and obviously preferably reducing the single use aspect. Thank you. Any more? Yeah, Councilor Biesen? Can I just suggest that they review the cycling arrangements, Chair? I'd wack clear it, I don't want to do that again. Do you mean in terms of highways, do you, Councillor? Well, in terms of whatever these bumps are called in the road or the changing surfaces and to give priority to cycling, cycling should have a priority on the road. LTM 120 says that. Thank you, Councillor Kourland. Thanks, so just on the point, Councillor Biesen's making it. I think, did you say earlier you wanted to hold a vote on whether we had that informative? That might be helpful in advising the applicant as to whether that's an issue that the committee shares. Thank you for reminding me, Councillor. Let's carry on with bits and just, you know, Councillor LIVING. Thanks. Can we insist on then negotiating access to the north? Is it Armina's road? Is it? Can we insist on that? Is that, is that, that's one too far, is it? One too far. Okay, I'll withdraw that suggestion. All right. Anyone? Councillor Thumbrop. I know that there was a question raised about the amount of playground space for different ages of children. I would be interested in the number of older children in this space and what is provided or not provided for older children, because it seems that quite often is a provision for very young children. And again, what can older children do on this site because of, because of the relative isolation from other nearby facilities that might not, which aren't that accessible? Great. Thank you. Okay, so the only thing we just need to be clear on is this proposal to not have raised ramps on certain areas of the highway. That Councillor Bajan has raised. So does anyone want to second that proposal that Councillor Bajan has put to the committee that we don't have those in the scheme? I've not exactly said that. What I said was there ought to be an access through them for cyclists that's on a level pathway. But I don't think, I mean, I'll withdraw the request for an informative. I'm sure that people have been listening to what I'm saying. And when they review, hopefully they review some of the things that we've spoken about. They'll take that into account, I'm sure. Yeah, I think that matter can be dealt with by more easily just through better quality plans presented with a reasoned argument about how it works, Councillor. All right, thank you. Councillor Thalbrough. In other areas in Cambridge, there is a gate, school gate, where it's only open at the beginning of school and at the end of school. And could there be a discussion with the county council who own the secondary school next door, which I think actually bounds the boundary onto this site that there may be a gate that's at least secondary school children don't. Okay, maybe it's been asked already. Yes, at the outline stage, this is one of the things that we did investigate, and there's a lot of investigation at the outline stage. That was not possible and afraid. All right, just to say, sometimes I've been told as a politician that things aren't possible, but then they are possible, but we'll leave it at about for the minute. One thing that was raised, I mean, I'm not part of this really, but that was raised by members was the color of the boarding, the cement boarding. So this is an interesting area. We've been through colors before, haven't we, committee? It's a bit of a funny one, although this is slightly different. That was aesthetic. This is functionality. And I suppose not just black, but dark boarding. And I appreciate that the applicant will have used designers or architects to come up with a solution. And I mean, I'm a part trained architect myself. I do appreciate the desire for an aesthetic for all sorts of reasons. And it relates to Fenn buildings and Fenn barns and there was an architect that did the black house years ago, you know, in the black boarding and all of that. But I do feel for a different reason to cancel Thornborough, but I also agree with her reasoning is that, you know, it could actually look quite good with a lighter color, I think. So it's just a thought. I know it's a big decision for the developer, but there you go. That might be on the table, cancel Thornborough. I think that is actually supported in the local plan because it does suggest sustainable materials, pallet, including cool materials to reduce heat gain. Okay, well, if no one's speaking against that, that's one of our list as well. I think anything else can lose. Okay, so I did ask you to go. I didn't quite want to hear what your answer was. What do you want to do with that list? No, do you want to come back to chair vice chair and spoke. So we'll just have the list and that's it or what. Chair, I don't think we need to come back through chair vice chair and spoke. It's that list is clear for officers and hopefully it's clear for the applicants and it can be taken away in the discussions can be held. Okay, so that's been a very robust debate. I hope the applicant isn't too disappointed, but you know, it's got a tough committee. This one, they're always asking these sort of questions, and I think it's useful in the end to get the best scheme you possibly can for everybody, including future users of the houses. And so it will come back to a future meeting of this committee, not necessarily the next one. So that's why we use the form of words a future meeting. It will be a future meeting of this committee. And with any luck, some or all of those things might have been addressed. So that's it for now then. It's time for a late lunch. Now, if you come back at five past one, please, five past two, and then we'll start again. Thanks very much. Thank you. Again, thanks to the officers and applicants and speakers. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] These buildings have been extensively marketed from 2016 to 2018 at half vacant and then from 2018 to present at three quarters vacant. This proposal has been through a PPA process. It's been to the Greater Cambridge Design Review Panel and the Greater Cambridge Disability Panel. The site is located within the protected industrial area of King's Edge Road identified on the policies map. The site is located within the development framework of Cambridge City Council. I just wanted to point out the nearest residential properties are located approximately 45 meters across here. To the east of the site lies none's way, but we can look at the recreational ground here. This is the employment area. And then this is the site in question. So again, the existing site plans. The site has no environmental heritage designations. There are trees located to the front of the site and they will remain as part of the proposal. There are some trees within the site. However, these will be removed, but there is significant landscaping and replacement proposals. As mentioned, these are 1980 buildings that are currently three quarters vacant. I'm just showing a shot again of the current site in colour. So those trees will be remaining. That's the Travis Perkins site next door. And then these trees will be going. However, the site will be located in this. All in the demolition of these three existing buildings. So some context showing the site, the two stories and this is their appearance currently. Looking at King's Hedges Road and then looking at North and Kirkwood Road here. And this is also within the site showing the buildings currently. The context around the site is you've got the Travis Perkins site here. We've got retail units here. Retail units and industrial located here are more retail and industrial units located around here. And these are the three buildings in question. So wanted to mention that opposite the site is the Northeast Cambridge area action plan. So this is in draft form, as I said in the report, it's in draft forms, but it does carry some limited weight. What this shows in this is that the area opposite is subject development. There's three to six story buildings and there's also a maximum landmark building of eight stories. It's absolutely opposite the site located here. I wanted to show you this because it means that the area surrounding the application site is an area that could be subject to change in the future. This site plan, so these three buildings have been removed and instead you've got a singular linear building here. You've also then got landscaping to the front of it. The four trees facing King's Hedges Road remain. This area here is a ramp down to the basement where car parking will be provided and also cycle storage. And then this area here is a service yard. There'll be a total of 250 employees with 179 of these employees on site. We go by 70% attendance, some employees may work from home. So this is just the ground floor plan showing the site. So again, you've got the entrance terrace here. Cycle access is located here and then there's a ramp down. You also have a vehicle access so that would come off the road here and the ramp down. Units, so that would be provided the life sciences and office use unit one and unit two and then the service yard here. There is some landscaping as well located to the rear and there is also some on the edge here. I'll show you that. So that was the ground floor. If you now look at the basement. So that's again the cycle ramp that takes you down to the basement. You would go and go in here. The cycle storage is a mix of. There are some double automatic and double stacked cycle storage shown here. There's also Sheffield stands located and there's also cargo storage here. There's shower facilities as well and I believe there is also areas for bike repair. Wanted to also point out there is also we go back to the ground floor as physical cycle storage at the front here. That's 40 spaces. The four plans. So this is the first floor, the second floor and the third floor. Fairly similar to be rented out for the units. This is a roof plan showing what the site would become. That is the Travis Perkins site as existing. This is King's head road coming along. So the site would lead to fairly significant landscaping to the front and to the side. That is the cycle ramp that would then go down to the basement. This is where vehicle movements would go down also to the basement and to the service yard. On the top you have these are the green roofs shown here. And then you also have a rooftop terrace which is shown here. These areas shown in white or blank at the moment, they are areas that would accommodate the plant machinery. And that is what that condition 51 would say would say that this part machinery wouldn't exceed the height of these acoustic frames. Also on the top they are looking to provide solar panels as well. The building has also just pointing out it has got these green fins as well. So this is the front elevation, the ground floor, floor 1, 2 and 3. And then you then have the rooftop that I was just showing in that last slide. This area here is a glazed area. However the surrounding areas would have those fins located on them. To the rear, again this doesn't have the glazing on the front. This is just to the rear. This is where the service yard would be located and the cycle ramp coming around here on the vehicle ramp. The side elevations, these are the East and West are shown as such. So this is a visualization of the view from King's Head's road looking southwest at the main entrance. That's the rooftop terrace which also includes forms of landscaping. We've got the coloured fins as I mentioned, gaze windows with PPC aluminium frames. Same is still and tensile wire to the rooftop terrace. Rain screening cladding to the envelope. Stainless steel and framed tensile wire to the terrace as well here. Conditions, we've conditioned that they have to be provided. So none of these are set in stone or the colours at this stage but this gives a good indication of what the materials might be. This is a view from King's Head's road looking south along the road with the landscaping here. That's some of the cycle storage at the front. Again you've got the rooftop terrace here. This is a view to the south now, looking north. So this is to the rear. So this is the cycle ramp coming in, which you're going down. That is the service yard and that is the vehicle entrance here. There is some landscaping also to be located to the south into the rear. Just to show you the landscaping plan. So it's just on the visualisation, fairly significant landscaping to the front. Some landscaping as well down the side. And there's the landscaping to the rear that you saw in that last shot. The proposal also includes the top terrace landscaping and the green roofs. It's considered the landscaping will lead to large improvements to the street scene and the public realm. And with this landscaping they've submitted a part of the metric calculation report and it's dated the net gain of 68.9% will be delivered on site. These are just some more visualisations of the entrance terrace as well. So you've got cycle storage here and some idea of the landscaping if you were to stand within it. In terms of transport, so there's actually a reduction of car parking on site. So the car parking was 63 spaces. It's being delivered 63 car parking spaces on site. This is a reduction from the 75 parking on the existing. There's going to be 266 cycle parking spaces to be provided. 40 visitor cycle spaces are either at the front of the site. And the applicant is providing a new token crossing over King's Hedges Road. And drop curves crossing at Cartwood Road and Kelman Place. So cycle parking is just showing the ramp as if you were to come in from King's Hedges Road. You go on the ramp past the landscaping. You go around the corner and there's an entrance down. And the address route has been designed following the guidance in the Cambridge City Council cycle parking. The width of the upper section of the ramp is 1.8 metres wide. And there's a gradient of 1.13, which meets local pan standards. Cyclists will make the turn at the space wide, which is 2.6 metres on the lower section, which is here. I wanted to also point out the token crossing that is going to be delivered. So across King's Hedges Road, that's what the applicant will be delivering a token crossing, which will improve the public realm. That pedestrians can even walk across and access the site. The application went before the Greater Cambridge Disability Panel. The panel were impressed. I think the access commented on this proposal saying it's one of the better proposals he had seen. I wanted to include this grand floor slide. So sharing the ramps and steps. The ramp here and a piece of access would be here. And also there is a ramp here. A revolving door with equal prominence. Good visual links to the reception desk. Accessible lifts. And an area of inclusive design has all been included. The proposal will also lead to four stable spaces in the basement. So coming to the planning balance, the application has got significant economic benefits. Of delivering the 7175 metres squared of life sciences. It's got significant public realm improvements. It's got the highway improvements of the token crossing. Contributions to Nunsway recreational grounds. It's going to be tied up with the section 106. There's going to be a reduction and travel by car. The redevelopment of a three-quarter vacant building on a brownfield site. The redevelopment of an unfit for purpose employment building within a brand field and protected employment area. It's a fully inclusive design. It's also significant street landscaping benefits and a biodiversity net gain of 68.9%. And it's a highly sustainable building. On the note of highly sustainable building. It's set to achieve all five, which are the water credits in our local plan. And indeed all nine water credits available in Breen. So they're also going for Breen outstanding targets. So it's a significantly highly sustainable building. And there was a 55% improvement in the water consumption to the baseline. High standards in terms of sustainability. In terms of refusal, the scale and massing of those are represents an increase in presence of the building form and the permanent location. However, this is considered to be acceptable. And the site is incapable of accommodating identification of an urban form. The scheme has incorporated, the greater claim you should design review panel feedback and also feedback from the urban designs team. The proposal will lead some of the loss of the trees within the site. So say facing cut road. However, the proposal will lead to significant landscaping improvements, biodiversity net gain, public realm and ecological improvements. Thank you. That is the end of my presentation. All right. Thanks that. Speakers, so, however, we've got three minutes to speak. Welcome. So, I guess, press the button on your right hand side there. You should light up. The front assault, the metaly ones. That's it. Yeah, we've got it. So, three minutes and half of it before the end of the bill goes, let you know comes to the end. It's two minutes 58, I think you'll find. I don't see the speakers on Harold. So, we'll start the time again. Don't worry. That's it. What do I do? Is that working now? Yeah. Good afternoon, Councillors. By way of introduction, I'm Howard Redhouse, founder of Verical Properties and the Retained Development Manager for the applicant. Columbia Thread Needle Investments. Columbia are a leading real estate platform in the UK with seven billion pounds worth of real estate under us, under management. They have a strong supporter of your city and have numerous longstanding investments here. Firstly, we'd like to thank your planning officers for the recommendation of for approval. The planning officer, Nick Yeager and Urban Design Officer Joanne Preston have been excellent counterparties for us. Our pre-application liaison with them over the course of the last two years has resulted in a proposal of the highest quality. It's well documented that the UK as a shortage of laboratory space, Cambridge is no different, given a lack of equilibrium presently between supply and demand. New laboratories are therefore critical infrastructure for the city's ecosystem. We believe that GEO, our marketing name for the proposal, will positively supplement and enhance the northern cluster, which was started nearly 60 years ago. Trinity was a visionary pioneer, symbolic of the city's research mindset and by so many organisations which to locate in your city. Our community engagement has been significant. A dedicated consultation website, mailing to 5,400 addresses, a social media advert which has been viewed over 28,000 times. All coupled to a public exhibition. Moreover, we have sought to provide a meaningful contribution to the wider community. This manifested itself in an improved landscape, inclusion of a changing place's facility for those of severely restricted mobility, which is a nationally a very scarce facility. This is of course alongside the significant section 106 and highways commitments that we've agreed to, which include a new tooten crossing on King Hedges Road. Today's sustainability is of the highest importance. As far back as 2010, Columbia Threadneedle recognised their corporate responsibilities and assembled a team with leading industry leaders to implement their sustainability vision. They were the first fund to do so. Columbia Threadneedle's acquisition at Brookmount Courche reflected their sustainability desires for developments under their stewardship. Its reuse of a brand's field site, location adjacent to multiple forms of public transport were all core validations. Sustainability has been a cornerstone of our design. For example, the installation of multiple PV's on the roof, rainwater harvesting and the utilisation of frugal appliances to ensure water conservation and so on. The proposal before you is designed to achieve the best metrics in terms of BRIAM, well-active score, EPCs, and is also a facility mindful of its occupants, well-being. We've included an abundance of landscaping, a wellness room, a long expansive landscape outdoor terraces. You've had a presentation on BNG this morning. I'm pleased to say that our contribution is 69% over the baseline position. We've reduced car parking by 20%. We plan for the majority of the occupants to arrive by sustainable means, and this is supplemented by an active travel plan. We've worked tirelessly along with your officers. The town of visual impacts supplemented by a highway's pre-app design, review panel and disability review panel. Their expert opinion has positively shaped our proposals. Yeah, that's over your time now, I hope to finish up. We're immensely proud of the proposals before you, and I hope you will resolve to grant approval for application, and if necessary, I'm happy to field any queries. Thank you. Yeah, thanks very much. Cheers. You can sit there if you want, or sit at the back, whichever you prefer. We won't normally be referring queries to you, but we need to, I'll let you know. Before we start, I just wanted to check that the terms of reference for the joint development control committee have an area for North Cambridge, Northeast Cambridge, but I presume it's the other side of the road that that area cover is not this side of Kingsford Road. It looks like it, but the plan isn't very clear on terms of reference, so we are in the right committee with this item. Yeah, we are chair, yeah. Thanks very much. Members, Councillor Dryden. Only question I would ask is that you'll probably have looked at it, but it's a shame to see you could have saved a few more trees. You can't sit, yep. Next, yes, Councillor Bennett. Thank you, Chair. I think there are many positive aspects to this design, and particularly pleased to see a disability panel at work. There's a few things I don't understand, I would like some clarification on. First of all, for you 1.8 metre wide cycle rank, I'm aware that in the morning most people will be going in, in the evening most people will be going out, but I'm a bit worried about what's going to happen at lunchtime when people will be going in and out at the same time. And a lot of us have adapted bikes, cargo bikes, tricycles even, that are a little bit wider, or some mobility scooters, and it's around going to work for two-way access. And if not, how is that going to be managed? Because if people are having to back up long distances, that seems to be a significant collision risk. Second cycle point, I'm assuming that there are charging points for e-bikes, as well as some mobility scooter points in the bike space. So, I'd like to ask how many charging points are there, and what are the fire safety provisions? Then also, on the water use, I note that there is only a slight increase, but at your last JDCC meeting, you said that if you approved the Cambridge Cancer Hospital, we couldn't have any other increase in water use. So, just query, is this good enough? And what more could be done? And finally, heat management. It's a very attractive building, but there looks to be a lot of glass. I can't really see what provisions have been made to manage the heat without using electricity, and whether, you know, the right materials have been used, selected to minimize the heat use, and whether other architectural features should be incorporated to increase shading. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor. Next is Councillor Powell. Thank you, Chair. As Councillor Spence, there's some real positives to this application. It makes a very pleasant change. The Access Officer, very complimentary. I know that you're going for bream outstanding, which I think is one of the first we've seen for an office building. I think they all normally go for excellence, so that is really good to see that it can be done. I hope other developers will take note. Obviously, the water credits and actually having the separate cycle ramp. I mean, I'm going to ask some questions about access to it, but that is a real benefit, because we're forever moaning in this committee when they've got a shared one, how it's going to work. And obviously, they reduce car parking and the BNG increase. So, my questions were, the embedded carbon of demolition, is that accommodated in the kind of carbon calculations that we're using? A minor point, it is the driving test centre at the moment. I'm assuming there's a suitable place for that to relocate on another road. I know that's not directly planning, but I suppose it's quite important to most of the people trying to take their driving test. It's absolutely fantastic to have a changing place as a toilet. That could be life changing for people being able to access work there. I think we had a thing sent around planning committee from the developers. It suggests that it is publicly accessible. Is that something we can condition? Because, I mean, though, having changing places toilets, so these are the toilets that are big enough for an adult to change another adult who might need assistance with that, it is really fantastic. So, I really welcome that. Again, I'm grateful for the officer if you could confirm if it is publicly available when the building's open, because that would be great for anyone in the area. We can go on a map and people can know they can go out there safely without needing to worry about changing. I do note the tree loss. Could the officer reassure us that the trees that will be going in this replacement will be reasonable specimens, have enough space to grow and will be appropriate? Because, obviously, I do understand the loss, but I want to make sure that what we replaced them for are going to thrive. Are the two-tier cycle racks gas assisted? I think you said they were, but I would just like to double check. I know the building life is 25 to 50 years. We've had a couple come through there are 100, so I hope it might go longer than that. And finally, the access, this might be one for Tam as well, by the officer, the access to the cycle ramp appears to cross the carriage way. So we're actually getting in from the main road. I wonder if officers could just talk a little bit about that and whether we could condition some kind of either segregation or something that makes clear that cycles have that priority to cross and mind for pedestrians who may also be walking next. It's great to have it going underground and having its own ramp, but I was just looking at when you come into it. It does seem to have a bit of conflict between various modes of travel. Thank you. Thanks, cancer, cancer-corrin. Thanks, Chair. My only question was about the cycle ramp and whether people could pass through it, so that's been asked already. Okay, Councillor Sombra. Yes, it's really good to see that the all five credits are being designed in for water use, and I'm really pleased to see that the condition we've developed for water in use for the use of the lifetime of the building. Is included here, so I assume that the applicants was accepted that condition, which is really good. I think this is really interesting that this scheme has been designed to so many more standards than we can ask for. And I just, I think it would be really, it's more of a message to the applicant is that we should all be learning from this kind of building. And it would be great to have a site visit during construction, but also when it's finished, it's really good if people can visit the building and see how the water is being saved and recycled and the energy in use, how that's kept low, but also the well-being standards that we really, really want for all buildings, but we can't ask for that. But it's being provided here if we could learn from that by visiting the building and seeing what's happening. That's all really, and I don't think we need to do an informative, it's just this is an opportunity and it'd be really good to work with the developer and the builder to get to continue learning from this. Thanks. Thank you. So I noticed there are no objections from consultees. And as you said, Nick, yes, this officer commented on it being a good scheme. No, one of the best he'd seen. The only thing I was going to ask is it's 7125 square meters of office space. I thought you said there were 215 employees planned to use the building. That seems like quite a low number compared with the square meter per employee. And that is a lot of circulation space or because it's labs or something, maybe it uses more, but that will be 33 square meters per employee. That seemed like very quite a lot. So my concern was it might actually be used by a lot, a larger number of employees, quite a big number of employees that isn't being shown here potentially in the future. So perhaps you can bottom that out. Okay, Nick, perhaps you can please. Okay, just to start, I'm going through some of the points. I think we'll start. So, yeah, I think the question I'll just start with the trees. And two trees in the site for the ramp down to the basement for these trees are identified as category C, which a low value. One tree is identified as category B, which is moderate value. And one is identified as category U, which is unattainable. Although this is regrettable and noticed that we've got to put to lose these trees. We are balanced by the significant landscaping improvement by the diversity net game and public realm and ecological and hardship disposal will bring to the area. And it should also be noted that the four trees set facing on King's Hedges Road, which will be remained and we conditioned that petite tree protection measures and article records and method statement will be applied to ensure that those four trees will will be retained. There was quite a lot of questions on the cycle and the cycle ramp. If the cycle ramp is 1.8 metres wide at the start and then it goes at the bend. And then 2.6 at the bend in the lower section. It is a separate cycle ramp that's separated from the vehicle use. I noted it's concerns about the crossing point. And I can certainly include the condition that a sign on notice should be given to me. Give the cyclist a priority as suggested. The cycle ramp does meet the guidance set in the city and Cambridge City Council's cycle parking SPD. It's understood that people are concerned potentially if crossing, etc. on that 1.8 metre wide ramp. However, people are expected to walk down with them. They wouldn't be expected to ride certainly. And it is also noted that urban designs have commented stating that they think this is acceptable. Also noted about charging points for electric vehicles and electric charging points. I've added a condition for electric vehicles. I can certainly look to add a condition as well for electric charging bikes, etc. So I'll make sure that's included an additional condition on electric charging cyclists. There was also a point on are the other double stackers going to be automated or they are. They're going to be automated or gas operated to make it as easy as possible for users. I also wanted to reassure as a hydraulic assisted stacking cycle parking. I also wanted to reassure members that if you were just to count the bottom tier of the stacks, you still had 87 spaces. And then 62 Sheffield stands and 8 cargo bikes and 40 visitors leading to 188 spaces just on the bottom tier. And then a total of 266 cargo spaces if you incorporated then the top. So I like to think that the schemes got the option for people that they don't have to use that top tier if they didn't feel suitable. There was a question I think comes to the smart said on employees. So it said approximately 250 employees. And this is based on the R&D lab space of one per 28. Me to squared. However, this is just 70% attendance so 100 and 79 employees on the site. That's because of attending some absence or working from home. There was a question on embodied carbon and demolition. And that is noted. And I like as far as I'm aware, I can't to get this high brain standards and categories. I can't imagine that the embodied carbon wouldn't be taken into account that you are demolition of the existing building. That they are achieving. I think it's in terms of too much glazing. I'll just get the percentage of them. I think this 40% of the scheme is glazing. Things can operate, I believe, to change the time so I can hide away from the sun. It's got the maximum bream efficiency of being outstanding. So therefore, I can't imagine that they would be able to achieve that if they're using a significant amount of energy to call the building down. So, I think that's all the points as per but go back to the chair. Yeah, thanks. So, I think quite here again. So, did you say 250 employees, five, oh. That's 28.5 meters per employee. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, chair. I just want to come back for a bit more detail on some of my points. I know the reference to people walking down the ramp. Not all of us can actually get off our bikes and walk. And also, if you do, you are standing beside the bike, so you're actually needing more space. I know that my mobility scooter is exactly 32 inches wide. It is a so-called midi-compact model. Many cargo bikes are wider than mine. So, I cannot believe that 1.8 meters wide enough. And I wonder if the officer who's thought that was okay was looking at LTM 120 and single way psychopaths. I really think that this needs to be a minimum of 2.2 meters wide. And some people may even think that's not enough. I thank you for this, my safety mention. On the heat management, when we've had a look at this previous buildings, they've been assessed at a temperature of 40 degrees. I think, is that correct? And we have gone higher in Cambridge, I believe. I haven't. It's okay. It's 40 okay, Katie. It's just okay. I'll shut up. Don't say that. That's all good. Nick, I'll go back to you on that, because this will get that clear. And also, you never refer to town in the last set of questions, but again with these questions, you might possibly want to do that. The question of the width and so on, yeah, back to you. I'm sorry, can you repeat the last bit? The question of the width that Councillor Benning just talked about for cycle ways. I didn't know if you wanted to refer to town who was here on your left hand side. Highways. Yeah, the ramp at the top of your end is 1.8 meter wide. I do understand Councillor Benning's concerns with that. I don't want the vehicle ramp going next door, but I'm just trying to think if we could think about a way to.