►
From YouTube: Adur Planning Committee - 8 August 2022
Description
For more information, please visit:
Facebook: http://fb.me/AdurandWorthingCouncils
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/adurandworthing
Website: https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk
A
Good
evening,
everybody
and
welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
ada
planning
committee
committee
on
august,
the
8th
2022,
my
name
is
councillor
carol
aubry
and
I'm
chairman
of
ada
district
planning.
Please
note
that
this
meeting
is
being
live
streamed
and
a
link
to
a
recording
of
the
meeting
is
available
on
the
council's
website.
A
The
recording
will
begin
at
the
commencement
of
the
meeting
and
will
conclude
when
I
have
declared
the
meeting
closed.
The
recording
of
the
meeting
will
be
available
to
view
for
one
year
and
will
be
deleted
after
that
period.
The
council
has
advertised
all
the
planning
applications
to
be
considered
this
evening.
There
is
actually
only
one.
Some
people
have
applied
to
the
council
to
speak
either
in
support
or
to
object
to
the
planning,
application
objectives,
and
supporters
and
counsellors
have
three
minutes
in
total
to
speak.
A
If
you
have
registered
to
speak,
I
will
announce
you
at
the
right
time.
You
must
keep
your
comments
to
planning
matters
and
speak
within
your
time
limit
following
the
representations.
The
committee
will
discuss
the
planning
application
in
turn
and
vote
on
the
application
to
reach
a
decision
this
evening.
B
Thank
you
and
please
make
yourself
familiar
with
the
fire
exits
from
this
room.
There
are
marked
refuge
points
at
the
top
of
all
the
staircases
for
mobility
vehicle
users.
There
is
no
fire
alarm
planned
during
this
meeting.
Therefore,
if
the
fire
alarm
does
sound,
please
leave
via
the
fire
exits
to
the
assembly
point,
which
is
the
far
side
of
the
car
park
by
the
flint
wall.
A
A
A
C
Good
evening
everybody
I
represent
tonight
aydah
flood
watch
group
and
lancia
manosathi's
residence
network.
C
This
business
is
forecau
for
periods
of
time
at
angle,
deep
flooding
across
pretty
much
all
their
site.
This
is
the
first
time
this
has
happened
in
the
three
years.
They've
been
there.
So
what
changes
have
taken
place
to
cause
this
well
change?
One:
a
long,
12-foot
heim
earth
mound
has
been
created
east
of
the
adjoining
mashband
lane.
This
may
be
temporary
until
the
ground
is
reprofiled
for
the
school
site,
when
we
assume
it
will
be
brought
back
to
the
original
levels.
C
Change
to
the
north,
lansing
drainage
ditch
runs
from
the
horsey
fields.
West
of
mashbarn
lane
have
been
diverted
now
into
the
northern
channel
which,
over
pumps
into
the
river,
the
ditch
into
which
that
drainage
originally
flowed
from
the
horsey
fields
into
the
new
monks
farm.
Ditch
network
has
been
filled
in
in
order
to
make
ground
for
the
commercial
area
originally
designated
for
ikea
and,
lastly,
change.
Three,
the
first
phase
of
the
carla
homes
development
has
taken
place
and
we
understand
that
it
too
is
having
winter
drainage
problems
requiring
specialist
attention.
C
We
are
certain
that
this
first
phase
development
has
contributed
to
the
flooding
in
the
horsey
fields.
Last
winter,
despite
the
low
levels
of
rainfall
and
groundwater,
this
also
was
reported
obviously
to
aid
a
drainage
engineer
with
photographic
evidence
last
march
and
as
required
by
the
national
planning
policy
framework.
Paragraph
167
developments
should
not
cause
such
flooding
problems
elsewhere.
My
question,
with
the
autumn
months
approaching,
can
planning
committee
confirm
that
these
issues
will
be
attended
to
as
a
matter
of
urgency
assessed
and
remedied
before
the
heavy
rainfall
months
of
november
to
march
are
upon
us
now?
C
I
understand
that
the
officer
was
is
not
been
around
to
answer
that
question
and
that
there
will
be,
I
believe,
chair
a
response
within
the
next
three
days
coming
from
from
the
authority.
C
What
I'd
like
to
do,
if
I
may-
and
this
is
totally
relevant
to
the
the
point
I've
just
made
the
thing
I've
just
been
discussing,
I'd
like
to
add
a
complimentary.
You
know
question
if
I
may,
which
I
think
normally
you're
entitled
to
a
supplementary
question.
C
Sorry
in
the
in
the
past
three
years,
the
current
officer
has
done
an
excellent
job
in
that
regard.
To
help
keep
the
community's
feet
dry.
C
However,
with
great
concern,
I've
just
learned
today
that
the
current
engineering
officer
is
leaving
the
council
in
early
september
autumn
is
nearly
upon
us
only
about
a
month
and
a
half
away,
and
we
need
those
ditches
maintained
and
issues
like
the
mana
car
sales
problem
resolved.
My
question
is-
and
you
probably
can't
answer
it
tonight,
can
you
please
guarantee
that
a
similar
caliber
officer
has
been
recruited
to
provide
smooth
continuity
with
the
same
knowledgeable
and
effective
standard
of
work
to
ensure
that
drainage
conditions
do
not
revert
to
the
desperate
problems
we
had
10
years
ago?
D
A
E
E
The
job
developments
have
so
far,
not
included
high
quality,
open
spaces
or
quality
play
areas
for
the
children
developers
seem
to
get
around
that
by
stating
they
will
make
s-106
contributions
to
enhance
green
spaces
and
play
parks.
Some
distance
from
the
developments,
meaning
children
will
have
to
cross
a
polluted
busy
a259
to
reach
those
areas.
E
E
So
our
question
is:
will
you
seriously
consider
using
your
power
to
insist
that
current
developments
revise
their
plans
to
include
quality,
play
areas
and
green
spaces
and
ensure
that
any
future
developments
follow
the
medical
by
divide
evidence
the
nppf
and
requirements
in
the
plan
and
include
high
quality
public
open
space
and
play
areas
in
their
plans
as
the
local
planning
authority?
It's
up
to
you
to
enforce
and
implement
these
regular
regulations
and
give
the
residents,
and
especially
the
children,
the
affiliate
facilities
to
have
a
safe,
active
and
healthy
life?
E
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
just
to
clarify
the
joint
air
reaction
plan
as
well
as
the
policy
you
quoted
to
us
does
actually
have
a
policy
specific
to
the
western
harbour
arm
and
I'll.
Just
read
an
extract
from
that.
It's
from
policy
ca7
of
the
joint
air
action
plan
that
states
where
open
space
requirements
cannot
be
met
on
site
development
will
be
expected
to
contribute
towards
the
creation
of
the
proposed
green
corridor
along
the
a259
and
or
existing
open
spaces,
such
as
the
ham
and
kingston
beach.
F
A
range
of
open
space
provision
has
been
secured
from
developments
within
the
western
harbour
as
follows.
The
free
wharf
development
includes
a
range
of
green
infrastructure,
including
planting
beds
throughout
the
site
with
public
access
and
kingston
wharf
includes
four
areas
of
communal
gardens
and
play
space.
F
F
With
reference
to
your
second
point,
a
review
of
the
shurham
harbour
regeneration
area
hub
western
harbor.
Iran
will
form
part
of
the
wider
ada
local
plan
review,
so
this
will
provide
an
opportunity
to
look
at
the
provision
of
open
space,
the
western
harbour
arm,
as
well
as
the
local
plan
policy
for
open
space
provision
to
inform
developments
coming
forward.
Thank
you.
A
F
But
if
you'd
like
to
afford
me
the
details
of
that
question,
a
specific
document
you
you
you
you
referred
to
we'll
certainly
have
a
look
and,
of
course,
as
I
mentioned
before,
we
are
undertaking
a
review
of
the
aids,
a
local
plan
and
we'll
be
looking
at
these.
These
issues
more
widely.
Thank
you.
A
E
The
areas
that
are
included
in
the
other
developments
are
not
areas
where
children
can
actually
run
around
and
genuinely
play.
There's
no
play
equipment
at
all
in
those,
and
the
only
one
that
has
made
a
semblance
of
putting
in
play
equipment
is
frosts
and
they
put
in
some
mounds
of
earth
and
some
balancing
boards.
I
just
think
it's
unfair
on
the
children.
A
A
We'll
now
continue
with
item
number
four,
and
that
is
confirmation
of
the
minutes
and
are
all
members
happy
to
agree
that
this
was
a
proper
recommendation?
Sorry
proper.
Whatever
of
the
minute?
Sorry,
are
you
all
happy
to
agree?
Yes,
okay,
agreed
and
item
number
five
item
grades
under
urgency
provisions
say
are
none
so
this
brings
us
to
item
number
six,
which
is
the
planning
application
this
evening,
and
this
is
awdm
093022.
A
G
Some
members
will
be
aware
of
the
previous
application
at
the
end
of
last
year,
that
was
decided
in
december
and
the
application
site
is
circled
in
red
here.
So
it's
on
the
western
part
of
the
school
playing
field
close
to
the
boundary
with
seaside,
close
and
seaside
avenue
in
terms
of
the
presentation
itself
much
this
is
is
in
your
reports
already,
as
there
are
some
elevations
within
there
at
present.
So
this
was
the
scheme
that
was
granted
permission
at
the
back
end
of
of
last
year.
G
You
know
just
by
way
of
comparison
and
as
you
can
see,
in
your
agendas
as
and
indeed
as
I'll
show
in
a
second,
the
the
bulk
of
the
scheme
basically
is
very
similar,
but
it
is
actually
slightly
smaller
in
terms
of
floor,
size
and
height.
G
So
that
was
what
was
approved
previously,
and
perhaps
you
can
see
it's
more
clearly
on
your
agendas,
but
just
where
my
cursor
is
at
the
moment,
and
also
on
page
eight
of
your
agendas,
you
can
just
see
the
dotted
red
line
of
the
profile
of
the
approved
building,
just
where
my
cursor
is
going
at
the
moment
and
up
here.
G
So,
as
stated
in
the
report,
the
building's
height
has
been
reduced
by
300
mil
so
there's
a
slight
reduction
in
that
members
who
were
at
the
committee
previously
recall,
there
was
some
discussion
about
the
height
of
the
building,
so
the
other
changes
as
part
of
the
application
set
out
on
page
seven
of
your
reports
and
later
on
primarily
relates
to
the
the
grills
on
the
side
elevations
of
the
building
and
some
external
wall
lighting.
If
we
just
go
back
to
the
original
one
again,
you
can
see
the
comparison
on
your
plans.
G
The
the
areas
to
just
concentrate
on
are
around
here
in
terms
of
the
grills
and
here.
So
those
are
the
elements
that
are
changing
and
there
is
the
lobby
area
here
as
well
also
changes
and
also
the
enclosure
for
the
air
source
heat
pumps,
which
is
there
so
we've
just
flicked
down
to
those.
We
can
see
that
the
grills
here
on
this
elevation,
for
example,
have
become
less
in
number
but
greater
in
size.
G
So
they're
the
changes
and
the
technical
consultes
response
and
the
officers
assessment
is
set
out
in
the
report,
but
just
to
remind
members
again
of
the
ground
area,
the
floor
area
here.
So
there's
the
properties
in
seaside
clothes
immediately
to
the
west,
the
school
being
to
the
north.
But
this
is
the
same
sighting
as
previously,
but
with
that
reduced
area
of
the
lobby,
and
then
these
are
the
photographs.
G
A
H
Thank
you.
Thank
you
chair.
It's
it's
a
question
about
the
level
of
noise
breakout
from
from
the
sports
hall.
Forget
forgive
me
if
the
answer
to
this
is
in
the
technical
documents
somewhere,
but
in
the
the
environmental
health
officer
in
their
initial
comment,
recommended
a
condition
which
was
that
the
level
of
noise
breakout
from
the
sports
hall,
when
in
you
shall
not
exceed
37
decibels
at
the
nearest
noise,
sensitive
facade,
the
condition
that
we've
actually
got
in
here
is
not
for
37
decibels.
H
G
I
think
the
answer,
probably
isn't
the
technical
information
council
gardener,
which
I
will
try
and
look
up
well,
while
perhaps
council
mcgregor
is
speaking
and
come
back
to
on
that,
because
there
is
a
difference,
I'm
sure
that
37
is
better
than
53,
so
I'll
just
make
sure
that
so
we've
got
the
right
conditional
at
number.
Six,
as
you
point
out,
thank.
H
You
counselor
my
apologies
for
throwing
a
technical
question
in
it.
At
that
point,
the
the
other
one
was
simply
one
of
the
concerns
by
local
residents
is
the
addition
of
high
level
lighting,
which
would
be
above
fence
level.
H
G
Yes,
you
are
correct.
I
suspect
the
resident
has
just
looked
at
the
description
that
assumed
it'd
be
much
higher
up
on
the
building,
but
as
as
we
saw
again
from
here
and
with
that
high
hedge,
that
that
is
alongside
the
properties,
you'd
be
right
in
that
conclusion,
council
gardener.
Yes,
thank
you.
I
Your
pardon,
I
thought
that
was
on
is
that
better
yeah,
sorry,
this
is
the
email
in
the
papers
from
the
environmental
health
officer,
and
it
just
talks
about.
We
would
recommend
that
a
noise
change
method
should
be
followed
when
setting
the
threshold
noise
levels
for
construction
activities,
and
I
just
haven't,
got
a
clue.
What
a
noise
change
method
is.
Is
that
anything?
That
means
anything
to
you.
G
I
like
questions
about
noise,
as
you
can
tell,
as
I
understand
it's,
an
assessment
from
an
existing
situation
to
the
proposed
sport
will
happen
in
the
future.
G
So
you
have
an
existing
noise
level
at
the
moment
and
there'll
be
a
noise
change
as
a
result
of
the
works
and
and
the
usage
to
be
carried
out,
and
therefore
that
needs
to
be
assessed
to
ensure
the
difference
is
monitored
and
checked,
and
then
there
will
be
a,
I
think,
there's
conditional
they're
saying
there
needs
to
be
a
subsequent
test
and
and
so
on,
so
that's
effectively.
What
it
is
is
to
ensure
that
there's
a
measure
of
what
the
existing
noise
levels
are
and
what
will
happen
in
the
future.
I
understand.
D
Hi
gary
for
you
chair
has
there
been
a
an
over
spill
light
survey
on
the
on
the
people's
gardens,
with
the
lights
being
up
so
high.
G
I
don't
think
there's
been
a
survey
councillor
mansfield,
but
my
recollection
is:
we
have
a
a
plan
showing
they
are
to
be
directed
downwards
onto
the
pavement
and
not
across
the
gardens.
I'm
just
rereading
my
conditions
here
very
quickly.
G
We
could
add
that
on
specifically,
if
you
wished
counsellor
to
condition
11,
which
I
think
says,
in
accordance
with
the
approved
plans,
I
think
my
understanding
would
be.
The
approved
plan
apply
that,
but
if
we
wanted
to
specifically
ensure
there's
no
light
over
spill,
we
could
do
that.
D
If
I
remember
rightly
when
this
planning
application
went
through,
the
the
hedgerow
was
quite
close
to
the
the
footpath
on
the
building,
so
I
can't
see
there
being
any
way
that,
if
there's
light
shining
down
that
you're
gonna
get
light
going
through
the
through
through
the
the
hedgerow,
if
you
like
into
the
into
the
the
back
of
the
people's
properties,
especially
one
or
two
of
them,
I've
got
swimming
pools
and
things.
You
know
it's
yeah,
it
wouldn't
be
pretty
very
nice
for
them.
J
Thank
you
chair
at
the
original
when
this
this
application
was
originally
presented
to
us.
I
think
there
was
a
criticism
that
there
wasn't
an
artist's
impression
of
how
it
would
look
from
the
from
the
the
nearest
residences
has.
Has
there
anything
like
that
been
produced
of
the
building,
as
it
would
look
projected
onto
the
site.
G
No,
so
basically
you
have
the
plans
that
you've
got
before
you
now.
I
think
the
the
difficulty
with
that
is
is
probably
that
most
of
the
building
would
be
actually
obscured
by
that
hedge
and
then
the
problem
with
that
is,
it's
a
you
know
it's
a
a
projection
above
the
hedge.
It
was
an
issue
last
time.
A
K
Thank
you.
Thank
you
chairman.
The
approved
application
really
gave
no
regard
to
the
concern
of
the
neighbors
and
they
all
went
away
very
dissatisfied
with
the
outcome,
and
now
the
neighbors
are
being
expected
to
take
accept
changes
which
increase
the
amount
of
noise
that
they
will
have
to
tolerate.
K
K
So
if
there's
a
increase
in
decibels
of
10,
that
is
10
times
the
intensity
of
the
noise,
so
6,
an
increase
of
6
is
6
times
the
intensity
of
the
noise,
and
we
are
being
asked
to
accept
that
there
will
be
an
increase
in
noise
and
but
it
won't
be
above
the
existing
noise
levels.
But
noises
don't
block
each
other
out.
They
add,
cumulatively,
so
that
that
noise
will
be
added
to
the
existing
noise
levels,
and
then
we
are
asked
to
approve
the
ground
source
heat
pumps
because
they
are
significantly
below
background
noise
levels.
K
G
K
So
we've
got
a
whole
load
of
extra
noises
in
this
application,
which
will
add
up
to
an
increase
in
noise
levels
and
the
applicant
steadfastly
refused
to
move
those
louvres
onto
a
different
wall
saying
there
had
to
be
a
through
draft.
Of
course,
there
is
a
possibility
of
using
ducts
to
carry
the
air
from
the
back
of
the
hall
to
back
to
the
front,
rather
than
just
expanding
it
from
the
rear
of
the
hall.
K
So
what
I'm
suggesting
this
committee
does
is
defers
this
application
to
give
the
applicant
time
to
move
those
louvres
onto
a
different
wall
or
come
up
with
a
better
scheme,
with
less
noise
being
added
to
the
the
noise
in
the
approved
application
and
failure
to
do
that,
I
suggest
you
just
reject
the
application.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Councillor
mcgregor.
I
don't
know
sorry,
council
mcgregor
one
minute.
I
don't
know
if
there
are
any
questions
that
the
committee
would
like
to
ask
council
mcgregor,
having
just
heard
what
he's
said.
No
then
thank
you
very
much
council
mcgregor
in
that
case
committee.
I
open
it
up
to
debate.
L
Thank
you
chair.
One
question
which
I
can
understand
by
reducing
the
height
of
the
building
is
gonna,
reduce
the
build
costs
someone
from
there,
but
they
got
what
they
wanted
on
the
original
planning
application,
and
now
they've
come
back
with
all
these
amendments,
but
what
they
originally
wanted.
They
got.
So
it
was
just
a
little
bit
of
a
confusion
there
how
they've
come
back
with
so
many
changes
with
the
ventilation,
the
height
and
so
on
from
there.
That
was
just
the
the
thought
I
had.
G
Not
specifically
on
that
one
chair,
but
I
did
have
councillor
gardner's
earlier
question
to
come
back
to
which
we
will
need
to
to
clarify-
and
I
think
the
confusion
is
from
the
report.
Point
of
view
is
the
environmental
health
office
at
one
point
says:
can
I
have
the
conditions
from
the
past
decision
repeated
and
that
past
decision
did
say
53?
I
think
it
was
so
that
was
the
previous
condition
he's
now
specifying
36
or
whatever
it
was
37.
G
So
I
suspect
the
condition
6
in
your
report
is
an
error
and
that
the
new
one
should
replace
it.
So
I
think,
there's
a
confusion.
I
imagine
the
first
bit
says
repeat
all
the
conditions
which
they
are
repeated
at
the
end,
but
then,
of
course,
there's
a
condition
suggested.
So
we
need
to
clarify
that
chair.
So
if
the
decision
were
made,
I
suggest
we
would
have
to
delegate
that
part
to
confirm
the
precise
wording
of
condition
number
six
to
you.
D
Is
there
through
your
chair
gary,
has
there
been
a
a
noise
survey.
G
Yes,
that's
all
in
the
environmental
health
comments.
Reports
on
page
starts
up
on
nine
and
then
goes
down
to
ten.
As
you
can
see,
they
did
actually
comment
twice
on
the
application
in
in
in
july,
because
there
were
some
issues
still
outstanding.
G
So
the
the
issue
of
this
application
really
is
councillor
gregor
has
just
highlighted
in
his
comments
is
that
the
noise
level
does
increase.
That's
that's
clear
from
what's
written
in
the
report,
but
it's
the
question
for
this
committee
is
whether
that
is
to
an
extent
that
would
justify
the
refusal
of
planning
commission.
You
can
see
the
environmental
health
officers
conclusions
and
raising
no
objection.
Hence
that's
the
reason
for
the
recommendation.
I
I
just
wanted
to
check
my
understanding
of
of
the
grills
and
the
heating
system,
so
the
grills
are
not
a
mechanical
device,
they
simply
they
allow
in
and
out
of
the
building.
That
was
one
part
of
my
question
and
then
just
there
was
concerns
about
the
heating
system,
but
am
I
right
in
understanding
that's
not
on
the
side
adjacent
to
the
residential
housing,
but
actually
on
the
other
side,
which
is
adjacent
to
the
the
rest
of
the
school
playing
field?.
G
Yes,
as
I've
got
the
plan
up.
The
second
question
answering
first,
that's
on
the
eastern
elevation.
So
that's
the
the
bit
away
from
the
neighbours,
because
the
western
elevation
is
the
part
close
to
it
and,
as
I
understand
it,
your
understanding
of
the
first
question
is
correct.
That's
the
reason!
Yes,.
I
So
just
to
come
back
I
mean
I,
I
appreciate
the
noise
concerns.
One
of
the
things
I've
taken
into
consideration
is:
this
is
actually
a
school
playing
field.
So
I
imagine
there
is
a
lot
of
noise
from
children
playing.
I've
lived
next
to
school,
playing
fields
and
they're
noisy
venues,
but
in
a
sense
it's
had
that
purpose.
B
I
I
What
it
there
are,
some
extra
grills
that
will
allow
some
noise
from
inside
to
come
out,
but
then
it's
been
a
school
playing
field
for
some
years,
so
I
I
personally
find
it
difficult
to
understand
the
noise
issues
that
have
been
expressed
by
local
residents
and
and
there's
some
quite
strict
parameters,
time
parameters
and.
E
I
Of
the
year
that
have
been
placed
on
the
use
of
the
of
the
sports
arena,.
D
For
you
chair
gary,
are
we
right
in
saying
that
these
heat
pumps
will
be
going
24
7.,
oh
they're,
gonna,
cut
out
at
six
o'clock
and
then
come
on
the
next
day.
D
So
they'll
be
cut
off
at
the
decimated
time
which
I
think
was
six
o'clock.
Seven
o'clock.
G
A
Thank
you
any
more
wishing
to
debate
anything
for
further
before
we
go
to
a
decision.
J
Thank
you
chair
again,
just
going
back
to
our
previous
discussions
on
this
application.
I
I
got
the
feeling
that
there
was
quite
a
lot
of
pressure
to
get
this
past
and
through
because
of
the
the
fact
that
they
they
needed
this
space
for
the
children
at
the
school.
J
So
I'm
surprised
to
be
honest
with
you
that
this
is
still
being
debated
and
still
being
planned.
Can
I
ask
if
any
construction
workers
started
on
this
site?
Please.
G
No
because
they'd
be
breaching
the
previous
planning
conditions,
if,
if
so
be
very
concerned
about
that,
I
think
that
it
is
just
a
a
consequence,
partly
the
times
we
we
live
in
at
the
moment.
I
don't
think
it's
gonna,
be
a
surprise
that
some
building
plans
will
change
over
time
because
of
costs
and
so
on.
Certainly,
committee
should
never
feel
under
any
pressure
to
decide
an
application
in
a
certain
time.
G
It
is
simply
on
its
on
its
planning
merits
and
with
this
one
is
a
comparison
between
what
you've
already
approved
or
what
committee
has
already
approved
and
what
is
proposed
here
and
whether
those
differences
are
material
enough
to
to
to
to
come
to
a
different
conclusion.
That's
that's
simply
the
matter
before
the
committee.
L
Agenda
sorry
and
the
conditions
and
the
mention
of
a
designated
parking
area
for
works.
I
couldn't
see
it
in
there
there's
one
that
no
work
can
be
commenced
until
the
maintenance,
surface
water,
so
on
from
there
and
then
there's
the
external
lighting
and
also
for
the
types
of
windows,
doors,
etc.
But
I
can't
see
that
they'd
be
putting
in
like
a
an
area
for
workmen
and
deliveries
and
skips
to
beats.
So
it's
not
causing
torment
to
local
residents.
G
That
would
actually
come
under
condition:
three,
the
construction
management
plan,
which,
of
course,
she
just
says
three
words
in
it
and
on
your
agenda
there
on
top
of
page
15..
G
If
members
wanted
that
to
be
specifically
referenced
within
that
condition,
because
it's
much
longer
than
that,
the
decision,
notices
wouldn't
say,
construction
management
plan
or
go
through
a
whole
raft
of
things
they
need
to
do.
If
members
wish
that
that
construction
management
plan
included
a
specific
designated
parking
area
to
discharge
that
condition,
and
we
can
certainly
do
that
yeah.
If
that's,
if
that
helps
yeah
perfect.
A
D
So
you
chair
gary
the
sports
provision
for
the
the
hall.
Has
it
changed
from
the
the
last
application?
I
see
it's
from
half
past
seven
till
six.
G
But
no
change
has
outlined
an
application
counselor,
it's
simply
for
changes
that
are
outlined
in
the
description.
G
Yesterday
was
just
to
clarify
in
that
case
that
if
members
were
to
to
to
vote
to
grant
permission,
it
would
be
subject
to
an
amendment
to
condition
three
to
include
reference.
The
designated
parking
area
that
councillor
panel
suggested
and
also
on
counts
condition
six
to
clarify
the
decibel
level
raised
by
council
gardner.
G
L
So,
basically,
if
we
don't
pass
it
tonight,
it's
gonna
be
built
whatever
happens
and
then,
if
they
wanted
to
take
it
to
appeal,
they've
got
the
option
to
do
that.
But
this
way,
I
suppose,
if
we're
putting
the
condition
in
for
the
parking
to
sort
of
keep
the
builders
vehicles
off
the
road,
and
it's
going
to
be
smaller.
L
A
I
think
cancer
panel,
we
can't
suppose
they
have
put
the
planning
application
in
for
reasons
we.
We
don't
know
why.
Although
I
I
think
we
can
guess
why.
So
I
think
we
just
need
to
look
at
the
planning
application
tonight
and
base
it
on
what
they
have
put
in
tonight.
Whether
actually
the
committee
feel
that
they
wish
this
to
go
ahead
or
to
take
the
recommendations
from
councillor
mcgregor.
A
So,
yes,
councillor.
D
I
propose
that
we
refer
it
to
get
more
information,
I'm
not
too
happy
about
the
light
situation,
I'm
not
too
happy
about
the
the
noise
pollution.
So
that's
that
was.
That
would
be
my
recommendation.
B
A
Councilman
field-
and
I
I
think
we
all
probably
feel
the
same
on
that
application
actually,
but
let's
just
get
back
to
you,
put
forward,
emotion
and
you've,
given
your
reasons
why
you
put
want
to
put
that
forward.
Is
that
sufficient
for
you.
G
G
That's
been
granted,
it's
been
made,
so
so
the
the
point
is
council-
we're
not
here
now
to
revisit
questions
of
whether
it
looks
like
a
warehouse
or
where
or
whether
it's
lighting
we
are
simply
looking
at
a
reduction
in
the
height
of
the
building
and
the
changes
to
the
grills
now,
in
effect,
really,
the
only
pertinent
issue
is:
is
those
outlined
by
council
mcgregor
in
his
in
his
speech,
and
that
really
effectively
is
what
the
application
boils
down
to
now.
G
The
difficulty
we
have
here,
I
think
in
in
many
senses,
is
that
the
only
advice
I
can
give
you
is
when
you
have
an
issue
that
effectively
is
the
noise
issue.
That
council
mcgregor
suggested
is
that
the
advice
of
the
technical
consultae
has
to
be
sought.
That's
simply
it.
If
this
went
from
an
appeal
tomorrow,
the
inspector
would
say
well,
you've
got
a
technical
issue.
What
does
your
technical
consultation
say?
G
Does
that
person
object
to
yes
or
no,
and
the
answer
is
it
is
no
so
difficult,
I'm
not
really
sure
where
we
would
go
by
deferring
this
to
get
more
information.
I
I
I'd
be
surprised
again.
We
we
can
try,
but
I'd
be
surprised
if
those
grills
are
going
to
be
moved,
for
example,
and
from
the
applicant's
point
of
view,
why
would
they
when
they
know
that
the
technical
quantity
doesn't
raise
an
objection?
G
So
in
terms
of
of
the
lighting,
as
I
think
I
I
mentioned
that,
that
is
something
that
can
be
quite
easily
controlled
by
condition.
G
Well,
that's
the
matter
for
the
the
applicant
and
whether
there's
any
there's
any
objection
to
that.
So
my
concern
is
that
that's
in
in
planning
law,
the
previous
commission
is
a
material
consideration
and
what
you're
looking
at
is
the
difference
between
that
permission
and
this
that
that
is
what
the
committee
has
to
base
the
judgment
on.
This
isn't
a
this
isn't,
in
effect
a
fresh
decision.
G
Permission
has
been
granted,
so
it's
the
changes
and
whether
they
could
justify
a
different
decision
being
made.
I
appreciate
the
context
and
the
difficulty
of
the
previous
application
and
I'm
sure
we'd
all,
rather
that
just
gone
through
and
proceeded,
and
you
know
we
didn't
have
the
second
one
before
us,
but
the
fact
is
that
we
do
and
really
the
only
matter
up
for
debate
is
the
the
points
that
have
changed
between
the
initial
application
and
this
one
are
set
out
in
the
report
and
that's
the
reasons
for
the
recommendation
to
grant
permission.
A
D
L
One
other
question
as
well
is
the
pre.
I
wasn't
here
on
the
previous
application,
so
I
don't
know
all
the
dimensions
of
everything,
but
would
we
be
allowed
for
argument's
sake
to
like
pass
the
application
through
under
the
old
plan,
I.e
with
the
original
vents
that
were
all
passed
but
then
amend
it
with
the
smaller
roof?
Could
you
do
that
or
you're
not
allowed
to
do
that.
L
I
was
just
thinking
because
the
original
one's
already
been
passed.
We
can't
do
anything
about
that,
but
all
the
original
lighting
has
already
been
passed.
The
original
ventilation
side's
already
been
passed.
So
if
we
were
to
shrink
the
roof
there
allow
that
change,
but
everything
else
had
to
stay
the
same.
Would
you
be
allowed
to
do
that.
G
No,
I
think,
actually
what
you're
suggesting
cancer
panel
is,
is
what
council
mansfield
suggested,
but
in
a
in
a
different
sort
of
way,
because
it,
in
effect,
if
understood,
counselor,
mansfield
correctly
part
of
his
suggestion,
was
that
the
girls
are
moved
and
so
on
from
council
mcgregor
had
said
now
what
you
have
before
you
is
on
the
screen.
That's
that's
the
plan
to
be
decided.
You
can't
you
can't
change
that
now.
If
in
a
deferral
situation,
for
example,
it
was
requested
that
the
the
roof
stays
the
same,
but
the
other
aspects
have
changed.
G
In
other
words,
three
parts
of
the
application
remain
unaltered
from
that
previously
permitted,
but
the
other
two
are
okay,
then
that
that
would
be
something
that
the
applicant
would
have
to
agree
to.
So
that
is
something
that
can
be
done
under
a
deferral.
So
I
think
that's
a
a
different
way
of
of
of
asking
what
council
mansfield
has
suggested,
but
you
know
that's
that's
the
point
that,
in
effect,
if
we
go
back
to
page
seven
right
the
start
of
your
reports,
you've
got
six
bullet
points
there.
G
It
would
seem
to
me,
therefore,
that
what
you're
suggesting,
for
example,
is
that
that
points
two
three
and
four
of
concern
but
points
one
five
and
six
are
not
so
much
now
in
that
respect,
that's
that's
a
potential
reason
to
defer
to
investigate
further
those
bullet
points,
so
you
could
do
that.
But
what
you
can't
do
is
to
say
no
we'll
grant
permission
for
the
bits
that
we
like.
L
G
Well,
that's,
I
think
I
just
need
some
clarity
on
what
the
committee
are
voting
for
before
they
voted,
but
if
I
understand
it
correctly,
then
the
default
will
be
on
the
basis
of
bullet
points.
Two
three
and
four
on
page
seven
at
the
grills
position,
their
size
and
the
lighting
members
wish
to
consider
further.
If
I
understand
that
correctly
and.
A
I
About
that
yeah
yeah,
just
really
I
I
I
want-
I
don't
agree
with
with
what's
being
proposed-
I'd
refer
people
to
pages
nine
and
ten
we
have
from
the
environmental
health
officer.
I
I
The
obtrusive
light
levels:
okay,
so
we
have
got
that
information
in
front
of
us.
Deferring
us
won't
make
that
information
any
different.
We
have
got
information
on
noise
and
light
levels.
I
don't
think
there
is
a
basis
to
defer
it
on
those
issues
and
I
think
there's
a
high
likelihood
that
if
it's
appealed
anybody's
going
to
look
at
it
and
said
well,
the
information
is
there
in
front
of
us.
I
This
appears
to
me.
I
wasn't
involved
in
the
previous
decision,
but
to
be
a
very
important
resource
for
local
children.
I
share
the
concerns
that
the
work
hasn't
started
and
that
it's
come
back
in
a
different
form.
I
appreciate
these
difficult
economic
times
and
certainly
I
don't
support
deferment.
I
think
this
needs
to
be
agreed.
We've
got
the
information
in
front
of
us
and
were
the
committee
wanting
a
separate
motion.
I'd
be
actually
supporting
the
officers
and
approving
this.
A
I
B
A
A
A
F
Thank
you
chair.
The
report
in
front
of
you
explains
that
in
the
past
we've
used
an
informal
working
group
of
members
to
help
steer
the
development
of
the
aid
local
plan
and
associated
planning
policy
work.
F
For
example,
this
might
involve
perhaps
looking
at
the
outcomes
of
key
evidence,
studies,
perhaps
commenting
on
or
guiding
the
style
or
timing
of
consultation
exercises,
commenting
on
draft
development
plan
documents,
supplementary
planning
documents
and
other
similar
policy
work.
F
The
group
does
not
make
formal
decisions
now,
after
adoption
of
the
ada
local
plan
in
2017,
the
members
working
group
was
re-established
the
following
year.
The
last
meeting
was
held
in
in
august
last
year.
The
report
in
front
of
you
proposes
that
the
groups
re-established
with
a
membership
reflecting
the
current
political
groupings
of
the
council.
That
would
be
four
conservative
members,
two
labour
one
independent
one
green.
F
It's
proposed
that
say
the
members
note
the
report
and
the
associated
terms
of
reference
that
the
membership
of
the
group
has
agreed
in
accordance
with
paragraph
3.3,
and
also
that
it's
noted
that
the
head
of
legal
services
can
potentially
make
any
minor
changes
required
arising
from
the
formation
of
that
working
group.
Thank
you.
H
First
of
all,
I'd
say:
I
think
this
is
terrifically
positive,
because
the
current
ada
plan
just
doesn't
deliver
what
many
people
in
ada
want
to
see,
and
I
think
there's
a
huge.
We
have
got
huge
issues
in
terms
of
needing
a
better
plan
to
deliver
social
housing,
sustained,
better
sustainability
jobs.
H
One
of
the
things
also
I'd
say:
I
I'm
really
pleased
to
see
that,
in
the
terms
of
reference,
one
of
the
roles
of
this
group
would
be
to
contribute
to
proposals
for
stakeholder
and
community
involvement
for
the
document
for
this
process,
because
I
think
that
will
be
fantastically
important
and
what
has
really
been
missing
is
proper
community
involvement,
the
community
being
able
to
have
a
say
and
shape
the
future
of
ader.
My
question
is
on
time
scales.
F
We
so
through
you
chairman,
we
are
likely
to
be
reviewing
our
local
development
scheme.
We
have
been
hoping
to
get
a
draft
local
plan
out
around
this
time,
to
be
honest
with
you
for
a
range
of
reasons,
including
resourcing
staffing,
etc.
We
are
likely
to
be
pushing
that
back
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier
in
the
response
to
the
public
question
that
that
work
will
also
include
reviewing
situation
western
harbour
arm
as
well,
so
that
might
have
a
a
knock-on
effect
now.
F
Some
of
our
studies,
which
you
might
be
familiar
with,
do
take
an
awfully
long
time.
For
example,
the
the
classic
example
is
our
transport
study.
Now
the
brief
for
that
is
currently
with
national
highways,
because
we
need
them
to
agree
with
methodology,
then
we
need
to
actually
commission
the
study
and
undertake
get
consultants
to
actually
actually
look
at
the
issues
so
that
so
something
like
that
could
actually
influence
our
time
scales
for
the
actual
draft
local
plan.
F
H
Well,
not
really,
but
by
taking
into
account
the
issues
that
that
have
been
raised.
When
do
you
think
the
working
group
would
start
to
function.
F
Weak
potentially,
obviously,
once
we've
got
the
membership
established
via
the
leaders
of
the
of
the
groupings
we
could
perhaps
obviously
august
is
holiday
time,
perhaps
perhaps
september
we
could.
We
have
an
initial
meeting
late
september,
perhaps
certainly
early
october,
but
I
think
we
can
get
something
happening
by
september
but,
as
I
say,
a
lot
of
the
work
will
be
coming
through
in
due
course.
A
Thank
you
maura,
and
that
sounds
good
if
we
can
get
it
at
the
beginning
of
september
early
september.
I
think
that
would
be
good.
I
think
members
would
all
like
to
see
that
and,
as
mauriz
said
it
will
be
the
leaders
that
choose
who
sits
on
this
committee
any
other
questions
from
maura
at
all
before
we
close
we're
all
happy,
okay,
maura.
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
close
this
meeting
at
200..
Thank
you
very
much.
Everybody.