►
From YouTube: Adur Planning Committee - 7 March 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
A
A
The
recording
of
this
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.
Some
people
have
applied
to
the
council
to
speak
either
in
support
or
to
object
to
a
planning,
application,
objectors
and
supporters.
Both
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
applications
in
turn
and
vote
on
each
application
to
reach
a
decision
this
evening.
A
A
C
A
A
I
am
the
award
counselor
for
for
this
ward
and
I
have
been
written
to
had
many
emails
about
this
application,
but
I
am
have
not
predetermined
on
item
number
three.
This
is
the
beach
huts
again,
I
am
a
parish
councillor,
but
I
have
no
pecuniary
interest
and
I
have
not
predetermined
on
this
application.
Thank
you.
C
Okay,
yes,
I
have
a
interest
in
application,
three
of
the
beach
and
foreshore
application,
so
I'll
be
abstaining
from
voting
on
that.
A
E
Yes,
good
evening
chair,
I
have
a
recruiting
interest
in
item
two,
so
I'll
be
leaving
the
room
in
that
time.
Thank
you.
A
F
A
Right,
apparently,
you
did
that
last
time,
so
there
are
no
minutes
to
confirm.
Thank
you.
An
item
raised
under
urgency
provisions.
There
are
none,
so
we
go
to
the
first
of
the
planning
applications
tonight,
which
is
application.
Number
a
w
d,
r
m,
0
1,
two
three
two
two
and
this
is
twenty
lancing
close
lancing
and
I'll
hand
you
over
to
gary
to
talk
through.
Oh,
I
beg
your
pardon
we're
going
to
actually
take
item
two
first,
because
there
are
speakers
for
this
item,
and
so
everybody
doesn't
have
to
sit
through
the
other
items.
A
G
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
I
have
three
further
letters
of
objection
in
relation
to
the
amended
plans
which
bring
up
a
number
of
points
I'll
just
go
through
those
for
members
purposes.
Now
three
third
letters
objections
and
they
state
that
the
issues
previously
identified
by
the
committee
have
remained
unaddressed.
G
G
G
G
As
some
members
will
be
aware,
this
item
is
coming
back
to
the
planning
committee.
So
I
know
some
members
were
here
when
the
matter
was
previously
discussed,
but
others
weren't
so
I'll
make
the
the
presentation
just
update
members
as
to
where
we
are,
but
for
members
who
weren't
here
last
time.
The
application
site
is
where
the
cursor
is
at
the
moment
on
the
screen
site
on
the
northern
side
of
old
fort
road
number
51.
G
So
that's
the
the
sites
there
and
then
a
wider
street
sing
picture
here
again
where
my
cursor
is
at
present,
showing
the
application
sites
in
the
run
of
varied
properties
that
are
on
both
sides
of
the
road,
but
generally
closer
together
on
that
side
and
below.
That
is
an
example
of
a
more
recent
development
in
the
road
now
I'll.
G
Take
members
through
the
plans,
as
were
previously
considered
by
the
committee
and
then
what
has
come
forward
now,
we're
starting
with
floor
plans
and
then
move
on
to
the
the
elevations
and
the
difference
in
some
of
the
plans
is,
is
fairly
slight
in
terms
of
what
you'll
see
on
the
screen,
so
I'll,
try
and
put
them
out
as
best
I
can
to
you.
G
The
second
plan
has
a
firmer
indication
here
of
the
outline
of
the
proposed
building
and
existing
buildings
at
that
point
and
also
demonstrates
the
the
pullback
that
has
been
achieved
since
committee
last
considered
the
application,
but
that
come
up
more
on
the
elevations
that
I'll
show
in
a
minute.
So
that's
the
the
plans
in
in
general
terms.
The
layout
remains,
as
was
the
case
previously,
members
will
notice
the
reference
in
the
reports,
the
garden
sizes
which
are
here
as
we
can
see
the
subdivided
plot
across
the
boundary
with
those
gaps
remaining.
G
G
Oh
sorry,
this
is
the
floor
plans
of
each
one,
so
the
lower
ground
floor
here,
first
floor
plan
and
the
roof
plan.
So
in
terms
of
that
element,
the
development
remains
the
same
and
we
can
just
see
again
here
the
parking
area
in
front
of
the
lower
ground
floor.
The
bay
windows
here.
This
is
the
element
that
was
pulled
back
previously.
So
I
come
down
here
and
here
these
members
concentrate
on
the
first
floor
plan.
G
So
in
terms
of
the
front
elevation
and
again
going
back
to
those
representations
that
was
made
a
moment
ago,
this
was
the
proposal
as
originally
submitted
and
is
the
case
now
we
can
see
there
is
a
change
in
the
the
roof
profile
here
compared
to
what
was
original.
So
again,
that
was
the
original
I
mean
coming
back
to
that
one.
There
are
slightly
different
scales
on
the
on
the
screen.
You
can
just
see
that
difference
there
again.
G
The
point
has
been
made
in
representation
that
the
actual
profile
is
little
difference,
but
there
is
a
alteration
in
the
roof
form
there.
We
can
then
see
the
balconies
at
the
front
so
again
from
the
proposal
to
the
amendments
at
that
point
and
then
again,
just
where
the
cursor
is
here.
That's
the
important
part
of
what
members
were
discussing,
who
were
here
last
time,
just
where
the
cursor
is
that
front
projection
was
considered
important
where
the
cursor
is
at
that
point,
and
then
this
pool
back
here
there
is
now
the
balcony.
G
And
then
again
the
the
other
three
elevations
again,
these
are
the
original
plans
and
then
the
proposed
plan.
So
again,
if
we
concentrate
on
this
one,
primarily
because
from
the
previous
meetings
front,
projection
was
spoken
about
there
there.
It
was
previously
with
a
more
of
a
juliet
balcony
and
it's
pulled
back
a
slated
report
with
the
balcony
at
that
point.
G
So
that's
the
plans.
The
the
photos
were
for
members
who
were
here
previously
would
have
already
seen
these,
but
for
members
who
weren't
this
is
the
same
photos
that
were
were
displayed
last
time
to
the
application
site
on
the
screen
at
presence,
and
then
some
wider
street
scene
views
of
adjoining
properties
which,
as
is
normally
the
case
in
in
old
fort
road.
G
This
is
one
of
the
neighboring
properties,
looking
back
towards
the
the
application
site
and
the
view
pulled
back
further
from
there
and
then
one
from
an
apron
garden
as
well
and
again.
That
demonstrates
the
relationship
with
neighbouring
properties,
but
going
back
to
the
streets
and
again
with
the
application
site
on
the
screen
at
first.
G
A
H
Sorry,
I
will
jump
in
at
this
point.
I
suppose
the
obvious
question
gary
is
in
the
office's
view,
what
is
the
material
change
so
last
time
we
were
recommended
to
refuse,
apart
from
the
obvious,
but
there's
a
material
planning
reason
here,
why
you've
gone
from
a
recommendation
to
refuse
to
a
recommendation
to
approve.
G
Yes,
joe,
it's
it's
finally
balanced
either
way,
I
think
was
probably
said
to
you
previously
and
again,
it's
finally
balanced
here.
There
was
always
an
issue
about
whether
the
the
site
is
over
developed
and
that's
been
reflected
in
the
representations,
and
it
is
a
close
call
to
make.
I
think
that
there
was
concern,
rightly
expressed
last
time
about
the
upper
floor
projection
and
the
bulk
of
that
and
how
it
added
that
amendment
has
been
made.
It's
been
pulled
back
by
a
stated
report
just
over
a
meeting
the
balcony
replaced.
G
It
is
a
fine
balance
either
way.
So
I
think
in
the
sense
that
I
use
the
words
material
which
reflected
the
recommendation.
G
It's
it's
a
judgment
as
to
whether
those
amendments
given
the
context
what
members
said
previously
as
well,
is
sufficient
to
to
overcome
the
concerns
that
were
previously
expressed
in
officers
view
it
is,
but
it
was
a
finally
balanced
recommendation
last
time.
It
remains
the
case
that
it
is
this
time
as
well.
I
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
so
you
you
just
mentioned
in
one
of
those
objections
that
you
read
out
there
that
there
was
someone
quoted
some
infringement
of
some
rule
is,
is,
would
that
have
any?
Would
it
be
worth
looking
at?
That
does
it
have
any
claim.
G
Yes,
there
was
a
concern
about
planning
policy
which,
in
in
some
senses,
is
not
really
materially
affected
by
that
in
terms
of
some
of
the
issues
have
been
raised
by
the
objectors.
Now
there
is
a
general
planning
policy.
You'd
expect
that
any
development
must
be
in
keeping
you're
in
character
with
with
the
area
which
I
think,
as
as
all
of
us
know,
has
dealt
with
the
area
for
a
while.
It's
always
a
difficult
judgment
in
old
thought
mode.
It's
very
subjective,
so
I'm
not
going
to
sort
of
preach
on
that.
G
It's
a
matter
of
judgment,
but
there
is
the
issue
about
garden
areas
as
well,
in
particular,
has
been
quoted,
which
I
think
was
was
mentioned
last
time,
the
previous
debate,
and
that
is
again
a
difficult
argument
in
the
sense
that
we
do
have
standards
for
garden
sizes,
which
we
we
try
to
adhere
to
where
possible.
G
But
equally
you
have
to
take
into
account
what's
around
it
as
well,
and-
and
I
think
that
a
difficulty
for
for
planners
and
committee
alike
is
that
we
have
these
standards
that
are
in
actual
fact
are
quite
difficult
to
meet
and
often
when
inspectors
come
along
and
look
at
that,
they'll
also
have
an
equal
consideration
to
what's
around
as
well.
So
there
are
certain
areas
in
the
town
where
garden
sizes
can
match
up
quite
easily
and
meet
the
standards
in
other
cases.
That's
not
the
case.
G
Now
again,
that's
a
matter
of
of
judgment
and
I
think,
probably
is
also
linked
to
whether
the
site
is
is
over
developed
as
well.
It
is
a
limited
size
and
of
course,
there
are
again
it's
a
matter
of
committee,
because
I
think
we
could
all
depending
on
which
side
of
the
fence
you
sit
on
point
at
various
plots
on
old,
fort
road
and
say
that
one's
bigger
that
one's
smaller
that
garden's
bigger
that
one's
smaller,
it's
a
very
difficult
judgment
to
make.
G
So
we
have
standards,
it's
the
matter
of
weight
as
to
whether
members
feel
that
those
standards
should
be
adhered
to.
In
all
circumstances,
when
there
are
clear
breaches
in
the
locality
but
equally
garden
sizes
that
are
higher,
it's
a
matter
of
judgment
and
obviously
I
can
leave
that
to
the
committee
to
decide.
A
D
Good
evening,
I'm
here
this
evening
to
further
object
to
the
planning
application
for
51
old
fort
road.
I
would
also
like
to
make
a
further
objections
on
how
this
application
has
been
handled.
In
particular,
I'd
like
to
ask
a
direct
question,
but
unfortunately,
mr
james
appleton
isn't
here
this
evening
as
to
why
he
directly
instructed
planning
case
officer
hannah
barker
to
automatically
approve
this
revised
design
without
any
further
work
or
input
from
her
or
reference
to
the
planning
policy,
or
the
further
objections
that
have
been
submitted.
D
Council
mcgregor
has
written
at
length
online
last
week
about
doing
the
right
thing
and
a
great
deal
about
pre-determination
of
decisions,
which
I
find
incredible
due
to
the
fact
that
I
believe
the
council
is
already
decided
to
approve
this
application,
even
though
my
neighbours-
and
I
have
repeatedly
given
you
valid
material
planning
grounds
to
reject
those
planning
grounds,
are
robust
enough
to
withstand
the
scrutiny
of
an
appointed
inspector.
If
there
was
an
appeal,
I
believe,
there's
been
a
disregard
of
the
ada
local
planning
policy
and
I
feel
with
so
many
questions
unanswered.
D
This
committee
must
reject
its
application
on
the
grounds
of
insufficient
effort,
has
been
made
to
review
all
the
facts
and
details.
Although
revised
plans
have
been
submitted,
it
appears
that
one
of
your
key
criteria,
as
requested
by
yourselves
at
the
last
committee
meeting,
has
not
been
addressed.
Councillor
edwards
had
concerns
about
the
forward
projection.
D
Whilst
the
first
floor
has
been
moved
back,
it's
been
replaced
by
the
same
size.
Balcony,
therefore
negating
the
change
plus
the
single
story.
Projection
is
completely
unchanged
and
therefore
clearly
fails
to
fill.
Your
specific
request,
also
discussed
at
the
last
meeting,
was
not
only
the
full
projection,
but
the
side
elevation
and
the
very
limited
width
and
dimension
of
the
plot
in
question.
No
attempt
has
been
made
to
address
the
profile
and
the
height
remains
unchanged.
D
I
would
ask
the
councillors
here
tonight
to
answer
this
question:
how
can
you
in
good
conscience
approve
a
building
of
this
size
and
projection,
and
if
you
do,
then
why
do
you
feel
you
have
the
power
to
overrule
the
planning
policy
that
you
yourself
should
be
upholding?
Otherwise
what
are
the
point
of
these
policies?
Thank
you.
A
F
For
sam
tanya,
actually,
no,
I
think
I'd
like
sam's
question.
If
gary
is
able
to
comment
in
terms
of
the
policy
issues,
the
question
that
she
would
have
put
to
james,
because
I
think
you
actually
half
answered
it
just
before
sam
spoke.
Actually,
I
just
wondered
if
you
could
concern.
G
G
The
case
officer
is,
as
listed
in
the
in
the
report,
which
is
which
is
hannah
barker
and
she
has
dealt
as
the
case
officer
on
her
own
with
the
architect
following
the
committee's
resolution
last
time,
and
then
that
report
that
she
had
made
would
have
come
back
to
james
appleton
and
indeed
myself
for
approvals.
There's
no
instruction
from
someone
to
say
it
will
be
done,
and
equally
council
hasn't
already
decided
to
go
on
permission
because
you're
sitting
here
now
determining
it.
G
So
it's
you
can
make
whichever
decision
you
wish,
you
can
grant
it,
you
can
refuse
it,
and-
and
that's
that's
the
point.
Yes,
if
I
did
half
answer
the
question
about
planning
policy,
that
is
the
the
key
judgment
and
he's
partly
linked
in.
I
think,
with
what
the
speakers
just
said
about
inspector
will
will
definitely
overrule
or
side
with
the
objections.
G
Certainly,
in
my
experience
in
the
recent
weeks,
I've
no
confidence
and
expects
it
will
do
anything
in
any
particular
direction.
That's
that's
for
sure.
We
have
seen
varied
appeal
decisions
in
old
thought
road
and
I
think
I
would
say
in
all
consciousness
if
this
went
from
the
bill
would
go
either
way.
That's
a
very
difficult
argument
of
this
one.
The
the
idea
that
every
policy
is
adhered
to
strictly
by
inspectors
will
come
along
to
say:
oh
well,
the
garden
size
fails,
irrespective
of
anything
else
in
the
locality.
G
I
don't
think
it's
as
simple
as
that,
but
inspector
may
well
come
and
say:
well,
that's
a
standard!
You
should
stick
to
it.
So
there's
there's
a
balance
of
judgment
there,
but
I
think
the
thing
stresses
this
is
a
committee
resolution
from
last
time
that
deferred
the
application
and
we're
here
again
to
hear
those
arguments
and
see
whether
the
amendments
are
sufficient
to
overcome
committee's
concerns.
So
there's
certainly
no
no
decisions
made.
That
decision
will
hopefully
come
either
way
in
the
in
in
the
coming
minutes.
D
Very
much
can
I
just
ask:
I
just
had
that
direct
from
hannah
barker
herself
she
was
instructed.
That
was
the
exact
word
she
used.
A
A
J
J
They
did
cut
a
bit
of
a
notch
out
of
the
first
floor,
but
largely
filled
it
with
a
substantial
balcony,
but
they
then
moved
the
ground
floor
bay,
windows
close
to
the
road,
hardly
addressing
the
problem.
The
net
effect
is
little
change,
so
I
am
surprised
that
the
officers
change
of
recommendation,
but
what
the
problem
is.
They
drew
their
conclusions
before
they
received
our
objections.
J
So
it's
difficult
to
see
how
our
objections
were
taken
sufficiently
seriously.
I
wrote
to
mr
atherton
with
a
number
of
questions,
but
unfortunately
I
failed
to
receive
a
response
from
him.
My
objections
are
based
on
hard
data
from
the
planning
system.
So
if
I
could
ask
you
to
look
at
the
drawings
that
are
provided,
which
are
based
on
mr
brackles
and
the
blue
is
my
markup
on
drawing
a
the
dotted
lines
illustrate
the
average
setback
for
the
entire
road,
the
solid
lines
top
and
bottom
represent
the
setback
for
five
properties,
either
side
of
number
51..
J
It
doesn't
actually
matter.
If
you
go
to
10
properties,
then
the
argument
is
essentially
the
same
worse
though,
although
it's
set
back
set
forward
an
awful
lot
more
than
the
other
properties.
The
ground
floor
element
is
significantly
higher
than
all
of
the
other
properties
in
the
road.
Again,
there's
an
illustration
there
and
there,
the
five
properties
or
the
entire
road.
The
numbers
are
exactly
the
same.
It's
significantly
higher.
J
J
The
local
plan
suggests
a
need
for
smaller
houses.
This
doesn't
fit
with
that.
It
also
suggests
it
also
suggests
a
density.
This
this
proposal
is
34
denser
than
your
plant.
Your
your
target,
yourselves.
I've
illustrated
the
failure
to
comply
with
dms
3.5
regarding
garden,
size
and
it'd,
be
nice.
If
mr
peck
could
confirm
that
the
actual
size
requirement
here
is
a
hundred
square
meters
based
on
the
floor
area
of
120
square
meters.
J
Also,
I've
illustrated
with
part
m
that
it's
very,
very
difficult
to
comply
with
that,
because
the
front
door
is
elevated
up,
a
compliant
ramp
is
almost
impossible.
I
think
this
is
an
illustration
of
a
project
impossibility
in
principle.
Everything
else
adds
up
and
trying
to
jam
something
on
a
12.7
meter.
Wide
plot
illustrates
that,
and
there
have
been
rejections
and
sustained
appeal
for
that
kind
of
development.
So
I
would
please
ask
you
to
reject
this
application.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
A
A
K
We
are
direct
neighbours
of
the
proposed
development
at
number
49.
So,
looking
at
the
original
plan
with
the
left
of
the
proposed
asset
left
of
the
proposed
property,
we
do
believe
it's
a
an
overdevelopment
of
of
that
particular
plot.
But,
most
importantly
for
us
it's
the
building
line.
We
believe
it's
far
too
far
forward,
even
in
its
revised
form,
if
you
like
than
we
really
would
like
to
accept.
K
Our
own
thoughts
are
by
about
1.5
meters
will
actually
bring
the
ramp
back
visually
to
us
as
well,
but
it
is
that
element
of
privacy,
we're
really
concerned
about
as
well,
but
the
manner
in
which
it's
designed
at
the
front
with
the
cars
looking
so
very
neatly
parked
in
the
access
ramp.
We
would
almost
question
if
you
could
even
open
the
door
on
a
car.
It's
been
really
shoehorned
into
that
particular
plot
and
and
those
where
our
concerns
from
our
points
of
review
really
stand.
K
As
I
mentioned
in
my
email
today
and
as
chris
has
confirmed
it's,
although
they've
pulled
the
top
floor
back
slightly,
it's
the
bay
windows
that
have
gone
forward,
and
I
must
finally
say
we
chris,
has
put
in
and
sam
a
phenomenal
amount
of
time
into
the
fine
details
of
this
based
on
current
requirements
and
regulations,
and
we
fully
back
that
up
and
really
appreciate
his
input
as
well
on
that.
So
we
do
ask
for
this
to
be
amended,
rejected
and
given
very
respectful
thoughts
on
on
planning.
So
that's
it.
A
H
It's
not
so
much
to
the
speaker
actually,
but
it's
just
a
point
of
clarification.
It's
been
referenced
now,
a
couple
of
times
to
the
windows
on
the
ground
floor
being
moved
forwards,
which
I
can't
actually
see
in
the
report.
G
A
L
Okay,
thank
you
good
evening
councillors
and
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak,
so
I
can
hear
me
yeah.
Sorry,
okay,
I
am
the
applicant
and
I
probably
don't
need
three
minutes
this
time
around.
L
L
L
In
my
opinion,
there
are
not
many
people
who
wouldn't
want
to
live
in
these
beautiful
houses.
Every
inch
has
been
carefully
thought
out,
giving
the
homeowner
quality
and
spacious
living
in
a
delightful
setting
a
stone's
throw
away
from
the
beach
again.
I
thank
your
officers
for
changing
their
recommend
recommendation
to
one
of
approval.
Thank
you
for
listening
to
me.
L
A
A
M
Councillors
and
chairman,
thank
you.
Can
I
just
start
by
correcting
one
of
the
things
that
gary
has
said.
You
said
that
it's
only
been
brought
forward
pulled
back
at
first
floor
by
one
meter
it
was
1.53
meters.
M
M
M
M
In
practice,
the
applicant
is
the
least
important
detail.
Planning
applications
are
determined
on
the
quality
of
design,
a
presumption
in
favor
of
development
and
whether
the
development
is
supported
by
policy.
In
all
cases,
the
local
authority
officers
have
found
it
reasonable
to
recommend
a
recommend
approval.
M
We
understand
that
it's
important
for
neighbours
to
air
concerns.
It's
also
important
to
see
when
those
concerns
have
been
overcome.
We
thank
the
planning
department
for
working
in
a
collaborative
way
and
to
change
their
recommendation
and
again
we
thank
this
committee
for
deferring
this
application
and
allowing
redesign.
Thank
you
I'll
stay
seated
for
any
technical.
A
H
M
I'm
I'm
really
sorry
to
have
to
correct
the
objectors,
but
as
a
professional
architect,
I
have
to
present
this
committee
with
factual,
detailed,
accurate
plans.
If
I
didn't,
I
could
get
sacked,
I
could
get
sued
the
the
front
boundary.
The
front
window
has
not
come
forward.
It's
set
out
on
the
front
of
the
existing
building.
A
A
I
Cancer
o'neill
yep
can
I
just
ask
a
bit
for
clarification
on
the
number
of
objectives,
because
we
had
three
objectives
here
this
evening
and
gary
mentioned
that
there
were
three
others,
so
I
think
according
to
me,
that
might
make
six
objectives
rather
than
the
maximum
of
five.
That
would
thank
you
different
process.
G
Yes,
I'm
glad
councillor
anil
has
raised
that
point
because
I've
just
said
about
five
objections
and
and
delegation,
which
is
not
something
that
that
happens
at
this
council.
It
does
happen
in
some
other
places,
but
not
here.
So
that's
nothing
to
to
to
be
concerned
about
there
and,
of
course
the
application
was
deferred
by
this
committee.
G
If
an
application
is
deferred
by
this
committee,
there's
no
delegation
rights
for
officers-
it
comes
back,
doesn't
matter
if
there's
one
objection
or
100
if
it's
deferred,
it
comes
back,
that's
the
point,
so
it
is
for
committee
to
determine
and
it's
not
something
that
can
be
dedicated
to
officers.
So
it's
committed
decision
that
that's
that's
the
key
thing
to
say.
G
G
Just
one
thing
to
touch
on
that
that
mr
grayson,
I
think
I'll
just
mention
that
why,
in
passing
as
well
when
an
application
is
deferred
that
takes
it
outside
of
of
of
government
targets
in
terms
of
time
scales
and
therefore
the
applicant
has
the
right,
the
non-determination
appeal
to
the
planning
inspectorate
as
of
any
particular
day
if
a
decision
isn't
made.
So
that's
why
we
have
to
sometimes
bring
applications
back
to
committee
before
a
consultation
appears
expired,
and
that's
why
I
have
to
report
verbally
to
you
on
the
day.
G
Now
it
is
possible
a
recommendation
can
change
in
the
interim,
it's
unlikely,
but
it
could
change.
But
unfortunately,
if
we
delay
this
too
long,
the
decision-making
power
could
be
taken
away
from
us
to
the
planning
inspector
and
that's
not
something
that
I
would
like.
It
should
be
a
committed
decision
and
therefore,
unfortunately,
we
are
duty-bound
to
bring
it
back
as
soon
as
we
can.
Even
before
a
report
is
written
ten
days
before
the
meeting,
and
sometimes
that
means
it
has
to
be
done
before
the
consultation
period
has
expired.
H
It
was
it
was
as
gary
mentioned
earlier,
it
was
a
fine
line
last
time.
It's
a
fine
line
again.
Some
of
the
objections
that
we've
heard
are
a
bit
subjective.
H
I
think
in
terms
of
over
development
of
plot,
and
whether
that's
I
mean
our
officers
have
now
determined
that
they
feel
that
this
is
is
something
that
we
should
approve,
that
the
amendments
that
have
been
made
have
tipped
the
balance,
if
you
like,
because
it
was
fine
previously
I'm
sensing
around
the
room,
we're
still
not
overly
sure,
because
there's
no
one
really
with
a
real
determined
view,
either
way
it.
It
is
fine,
I'm
not
swayed
by
the
arguments
about
the
street
scene.
H
I
think
old,
fort
road
is
a
very
eclectic
mix
of
properties
of
all
different
shapes
and
sizes.
I
think
the
issue
is
the
same
one
here,
as
we
had
last
time
that
the
plot
is
a
little
narrow
for
the
two,
which
is
why
there
is
this
issue
about
it
being
slightly
further
forward.
The
architect
has
told
us
categorically
that
it
hasn't
come
any
further
forward
at
the
ground
floor.
I
guess
the
committee
members
need
to
make
a
decision.
Therefore,
whether
the
amendment
on
the
first
floor
is
sufficient.
C
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
I
wasn't
here
on
the
previous
time
it
came
up
for
application,
but
listening
to
the
comments
and
things
made
by
people
and
reading
the
reports
and
stuff,
I
think
the
the
problem
is
with
shawn.
Beach
is
not
many
of
the
properties
are
alike
and
if
you
judge
it
on
sort
of
appearance
and
stuff,
you
can't
because
there's
so
many
different
variants
of
different
sizes
of
properties,
bungalows
houses,
so
on
from
there,
and
also
in
shoreham
beach
and
also
around
ada
as
well.
C
There
has
already
been
a
president
set
where
people
have
knocked
down
one
house
and
built
two,
and
I
feel
that
looking
at
the
application,
there
is
a
similar
one.
I
think
it's
in
the
midway,
which
was
one
house
down
to
two,
like
I
said
I
think,
looking
at
the
reports
and
stuff
going
through
it
and
that
I
think
most
of
the
stuff
that
was
a
concern
by
any
of
the
authorities
has
all
been
addressed.
C
C
N
I
know
there
are
many
comparable
buildings,
sorry
buildings
of
a
comparable
size
on
the
beach,
but
never,
but
many
of
them
are
actually
in
larger
spaces
and
and
there
is
something
about
the
size
of
a
building
having
to
be
related
to
the
size
of
the
plot.
It's
on
and
therefore
how
it
relates
to
to
neighbours
and
so
forth.
N
So
I
do
recognize
that
a
change
has
been
made,
but
I
still
do
have
concerns
about
the
size,
which
also
has
a
knock-on
effect,
obviously
or
an
effect
on
the
size
of
the
garden
as
well
and
yeah.
We,
we
can
say
it.
There
is
a
variety
of
styles
on
the
beach
and
this
house
is
of
a
good
quality
design,
but
I
still
do
have
simply
concerns
about
whether
it's
in
the
right
place.
F
I
think
when
this
first
came
to
the
committee,
as
you
know,
I
asked
for
a
deferment
because
I
had
concerns
about
the
design
and
it
being
far
too
further
forward
first
floor.
Having
seen
the
revised
designs,
I'm
minded
to
consider
approval
on
the
basis
that
there
has
been
compromise.
It's
met
many
of
the
issues
raised
in
the
first
report
by
the
different
agencies
and
the
planning
department.
F
A
B
Going
to
share
the
views
of
councillor
edwards,
it
seems
at
the
last
meeting,
a
number
of
issues
were
raised.
They've
been
considered
and
adjusted
on
the
plan,
it's
very
difficult
to
say
in
old,
fort
road,
whether
it's
in
or
out
of
character,
and
I
think,
along
with
the
points
that
countered
was
made,
I'd
like
to
move
approval.
E
G
Yeah
yeah,
so
sorry,
charles
it
just
occurred
to
me
just
while
members
were
talking,
there's
one
specific
question
that
mr
grace
addressed
to
me
that
I
was
looking
up
while
talking.
That
was
about
the
garden
size
because
of
the
looking
up
the
development
management
standard,
and
I
should
draw
members
attention
that
where
it's
three
bedrooms
is
85
square
meters
normally
as
in
the
report.
But
there
is
another
element
underneath
it
says:
four
bedrooms
or
up
to
120
square
meters.
G
You
require
a
size
of
100
square
meters
and
this,
I
think,
comes
out
at
130.
So
in
theory
you
could
then
use
the
100
square
meters
garden
size.
What
I
would
say
again
is
a
balance,
though,
in
terms
of
the
character,
the
area
and
indeed,
I'm
afraid,
the
age
of
the
guidance
that
we've
we've
got,
because
in
my
experience
given
that,
since
that
guidance
was
written,
there
is
a
far
greater
ambition
to
redevelop.
G
If
you
like
brownfield
sites
and
look
at
existing
sites
of
redevelopment,
I
suspect
that
if
we
went
to
an
appeal
on
that
basis,
we
might
be
in
in
some
some
difficulty.
G
So
that's
to
address
that
particular
that
that
specific
question
but
as
members
are
moving
on,
I
won't
add
too
much
further,
but
also
just
members
purposes
before
they
come
to
decision.
The
fact
that
you
deferred
it
last
time
will
not
raise.
That
would
not
be
an
inspector's
consideration
and
appeal.
He
wouldn't
look
at
the
vats
to
say
you
deferred
it.
So
therefore
the
appeal
must
be
allowed.
This
is
a
fresh
decision-making
process
and
you're
perfectly
entitled
to
look
at
it
on
its
merits.
Tonight.
A
A
I
Will
you
I
oh
sorry,
I
don't
want
to
just
jump
in
and
ask
gary
a
question
about
the
gardens
before
we
actually
took
it
to
a
vote,
because
we're
talking
about
two
gardens
for
two
separate
properties.
So
surely
the
requirement
to
have
a
larger
garden
for
each
garden
would
be
more
than
it
would
be
if
the
garden
were
for
one
property?
Is
that
right.
G
Well,
I
think
yes,
of
course,
the
point
is
if
it
were
a
single
dwelling,
then
that
garden
size
would
would
comply
quite
easily
with
the
standard.
So
that's
that's
a
material
factor
to
take
into
account
and
because
it's
subdivided
it
doesn't
comply
with
that
standard.
G
So
that
is,
if
you
like,
a
a
black
and
white
policy
consideration
you
can
take
in
into
account,
but,
as
I
say,
I
think
there
is
a
balance
I
I
think
I
think
it
is
certainly
my
experience
of
dealing
with
this
is
when
we
insist
on
those
or
try
to
insist
on
those
garden
sizes.
G
The
first
point
you
get
is
how
many
of
the
garden
sizes
in
the
area
can
actually
comply
with
your
own
guidance,
which
is
relatively
few,
but
there
is
a
shortfall
and
there
is
quite
a
shortfall,
and
that
is
something
to
be
to
be
taken
to
an
accountant
outlined
in
the
report.
So
it
is
a
it
is
a
factor,
certainly-
and
it's
it's
one
of
many
in
the
in
the
balancing
act
that
I
think
we've
all
had
to
come
to,
because
there
are
convincing
arguments
if
you
like.
G
I
have
a
way
that
you
can
address
to
this,
and
it
is
it's.
It's
it's
a
difficult
one
that
perhaps
I'm
struggling
to
give
you
a
satisfactory
answer
in,
but
there
is
a
case
of
balancing
what's
around
it
in
the
character,
the
area
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
and
once
we
balance
all
those
things
we
have
to
come
to
a
conclusion
and,
as
I
said
earlier
on,
it
is
finally
balanced.
It's
a
it's
a
funny
balance
case.
A
A
A
G
Yes,
thank
you,
chair.
There's,
no
further
representations,
there's
nothing
further
to
to
add
to
the
report.
This
one
is
perhaps
slightly
unusual
in
the
sense
that
it's
another
site
that
is
coming
back
to
committee
after
a
previous
deferral,
but
this
is
a
different
application.
G
Members
who
were
again
here
previously
will
be
aware
there
was
a
previous
application
last
year
for
surgery
to
the
trees.
Members
deferred
that
to
seek
a
solution.
After
that
nothing
happened
at
all.
There
was
no
further
contact
from
from
the
applicants
and
the
file
more
or
less
stopped
after
you
made
a
resolution.
The
next
thing
we
heard
was
this
fresh
application
coming
in,
which
was
to
pollard
at
two
meters
higher.
G
There
are
actually
photographs
on
the
back
of
of
your
reports
in
the
agenda,
so
you'll
see
those
there,
which
is
a
clarify
where
the
the
red
circle
edged
here
is
the
the
trees
at
the
back
there,
between
lancing
clothes
and
to
the
south
there
and
there's
just
one
of
the
pictures
that
you
do
have
in
your
reports
pack
and
they
are
the
trees
in
question
the
recommendations
as
printed
thank.
A
A
However,
it
would
have
been
extremely
helpful
if
we
had
had
our
tree
specialists
from
ada
here
tonight,
or
indeed
the
tree
specialist.
That
is
going
to
be
doing
the
work.
I
imagine
so
I
do
feel
that
the
fact
that
neither
jeremy
sergeant
or
I
think
it
is
tree
care
that
are
here
this
evening,
which
would
have
been
extremely
helpful
to
the
committee.
A
Instead,
we've
been
sent
back
this
with
a
two
meter
difference
which
is
really
not
very
much
at
all,
but
again
none
of
the
questions
actually
that
we
asked
the
first
time
have
been
answered
or
or
can
be
answered
now,
as
I
know,
gary
you're
not
a
tree
specialist,
and
I
believe
that
is
exactly
what
the
committee
wanted
to
ask.
So
that
is
what
I
have
to
say
and
I'll
now
hand
it
over
to
committee.
Thank
you.
I
O'neill,
yes,
I'm!
I
also
was
rather
surprised
that
there
aren't
any
new
photographs
of
this
tree.
These
are
all
the
ones.
I
think
that
we
we
saw
before
it
would
have
been
nice
to
have
seen
whether
there's
been
any
material
change
in
the
industry.
Thank
you.
H
You
chair,
I
I
just
just
for
clarification
I
want
to.
I
mean
I
don't
the
answer
shouldn't
be
any
different,
but
we
we
checked
last
time
what
the
existing
height
of
these
trees
were.
I
believe
we
were
told
35
meters
at
the
time,
I'm
assuming
that
hasn't
changed
in
which
case
well.
I
suppose,
if
anything,
it
might
be
a
bit
taller,
but
I
shouldn't
think
about
very
much,
but
we
said
at
the
time
that
35
meters
to
14
was
not
pollarding.
H
It
was
decimating,
and
I
appreciate
there
is
a
a
small
compromise
here
to
16.
But
for
me
the
issue
remains
the
same
and
if
you
take
them
down
to
16
meters,
you
will
really
quite
dramatically
change
the
street
scene
and
they
really
are
quite
they're
very
prominent
in
in
lansing,
and
they
can
be
seen
for
miles
around.
H
F
Chair,
I
would
agree
with
my
colleague
on
his
comments,
I'm
very
disappointed,
given
that
three
of
the
four
trees
as
well
are
not
on
private
land,
just
the
one
which
is
from
the
applicant
I'd
have
to
say.
If
the
applicant
hadn't
put
this
application
in
with
the
council
have
been
looking
to
pollard
the
trees
themselves,
because
their
report
doesn't
seem
to
indicate
there's
any
risk,
there's
any
detriment
to
the
trees.
Currently,
they've
stood
this
test
of
time.
F
A
Thank
you,
councillor,
edwards,
I'd
like
to
ask
one
more
thing.
Gary,
and
I
know
you
won't
be
able
to
answer
this,
but
if
you
read
up
anything
about
these
trees,
actually,
it's
not
certain
that
the
amount
that
is
being
pulled
in
on
this
is
actually
that
the
trees
will
recover,
and
that
was
one
of
the
questions
again
that
came
up
before
and
that
we
needed
a
tree
specialist
to
answer
this.
But
we
don't
have
that
here
this
evening.
G
No,
albeit
you
have
the
the
tree
officers
report
with
me,
it's
his
report.
I
think
that
it
is,
it's
always
a
difficult
one,
and
I
think
that
members
clearly
can't
be
guided
by
how
the
applicant
has
acted
in
in
some
ways.
However,
I
think
members
gave
a
clear
direction
previously
that
hasn't
been
adhered
to
by
the
applicants
in
that
respect,
to
give
members
that
they
needed,
so
that
that's
that's.
G
We
we
looked
at
this
in
a
certain
way
previously
and
it
has
to
be
looked
at
again,
but
that
doesn't
at
all
affect
the
committee's
ability
to
take
a
different
view
on
this,
and
I
think
that
I'm
most
certainly
not
a
tree
expert,
as
you
said
chair,
but
I
think
that
the
point
here
what
this
boils
down
to
is
that
I
think,
as
we
all
know,
pardoning
does
have
a
significant
effect
for
some
time.
G
From
what
I
do
know,
over
the
long
term,
the
the
health
of
the
trees
will
benefit,
but
that
is
a
long
term
and
what
you're
looking
at
now,
of
course,
in
front
of
on
that
screen,
for
example,
will
not
reoccur
for
some
time
subsequent.
So
there
may
well
be
other
ways
of
of
doing
in
terms
of
shorter
term
surgery.
If
members
are
of
that
view,
then,
as
far
as
I
can
see
they're
entitled
to
to
take
that
that
decision,
I
think
there
is,
there
are
different
ways
of
doing
it.
H
You
chair,
I
just
I
suppose
I
should
say
I'm
not
against
the
principle
of
politics.
I'm
really
not,
but
I
am
against
the
principle
of
decimation,
which
I
still
think
we
ask
for
a
compromise.
We
haven't
got
a
compromise.
We've
got
pretty
much
the
same
application.
That's
come
back
so
frankly,
I'm
perfectly
happy
to
put
a
proposal
forward
that
I,
my
recommendation,
would
be
that
we
defer
this
application
until
they
come
back
to
us
with
the
answers
that
we
requested
first
time
around.
G
Well,
no,
I
mean
we
can
give
that
another
go
first
off.
I've
got
it
in
my
mind
that
you
deferred
it
last
time
and
no
one
seems
to
take
any
notices
of
you
from
from
from
the
applicant's
point
of
view,
but
we
can
give
that
another
try
first
off,
because
we,
you
know
part
of
me
thinks
that,
as
I
say,
you're
justified
in
refusing
it
because
then
they
have
the
right
of
an
appeal
and
then
no
doubt
they
will
appeal,
which
perhaps
is
their
intention.
G
Perhaps
it
is
wiser,
first
off
to
give
them
another
chance
to
say
exactly
the
rationale
for
these
works
so
that
members
can
can
come
to
an
informed
decision
and
say
well
here
we
go
again.
We
asked
it
last
time
we
haven't,
got
it
again,
we're
here,
members
don't
feel
they
can
make
a
decision.
You
know
and
again
has
happened
before
on
cases.
I
can
remember.
G
A
A
G
Yes,
thank
you
chair
item
three,
there's
nothing
further
to
add
to
this
report
and
this
this
one
has
come
to
you
already
amended
during
the
course
of
the
determination,
the
application
it
was
originally
for
20
beach
huts
and
that
has
been
reduced
to
eight
beach
huts.
That
was
voluntarily
done
by
the
applicants
before
there
was
any
input
from
officers,
and
but
I
can
say
that
was
my
own
thoughts
myself
and
they
got
there
before
before.
G
I
did
unusually
so
previously,
there
were
a
further
block
of
12
beach
huts
proposed
up
here
between
the
perch
and
the
site
for
the
remaining
eight.
They
have
now
been
removed
from
the
proposal,
as
you
can
see
from
from
this
plan,
and
therefore
it's
remaining
eight
beach
huts
here,
closer
to
the
shelter
band
stand,
and
indeed
this
group
of
existing
beach
huts
here,
which
I'll
show
in
a
moment.
G
So
there
will
be
in
two
blocks
of
four,
so
that
was
the
general
location
first
scene
just
to
demonstrate
they
will
be
in
two
separate
blocks
and
the
plan
here
of
well.
What
is
a
beach
hut,
but
just
to
see
there
are
pitch
roofs,
because
we
don't
have
those
across
all
elements
of
worthing
in
particular,
so
they
are
pitched
roof
in
their
design.
G
So
I
forget
those
blocks
from
it:
they're
just
indicative,
they
all
have
a
little
roof
on
them
and
we
can
just
see
one
of
the
beach
huts
there
that
exists
close
by
to
the
site
just
on
the
left
of
shop
there,
and
this
photo
was
just
an
important
element
more
of
the
problems
that
we
had
initially
because
there
is
a
balance
between
what
is
quite
an
established
demand
for
beach
huts
across
ada
and
worthing
at
the
moment,
but
also
the
need
to
protect
the
openness
of
our
of
our
sea
front
views
from
from
particularly
cherished
areas,
and
this
is
one
I
took
when
there
were
12
posing
here,
and
I
thought
that
was
going
to
be
a
problem,
because
that
would
block
that
open
view.
G
But
as
we
come
up
to
to
this
part
of
the
site,
as
we
can
see
we're
just
on
the
corner
here,
the
shelter's
just
behind
us
there's
the
existing
beach.
At
that
point,
and
going
back
across
here
we're
now
more
in
context
with
not
only
the
surrounding
beach
huts,
but
also
here,
the
green
is
much
narrower
than
the
point
it
is
to
the
east,
as
we
can
see
here,
this
proposal
at
that
point
would
have
had
a
far
wider
impact.
G
A
F
May
I
ask
and.
F
I
just
want
to
ask
the
eight
beach
hunts
it
could.
Could
you
just
explain?
Are
they
for
private
use
for
rental
community
use?
The
report
doesn't
mention
it
so
be
helpful
to
know
what
the
usage
will
be
for.
G
Yes,
it's
not
a
planning
issue
as
such,
which
is
why
it's
not
mentioned,
but
I
do
know
now
that
the
parish
council
would
retain
four
and
four
would
be
for
sale
and
the
fault
the
parish
council
would
retain.
Are
I'm
told
partly
for
community
use
and
and
for
those
in
the
community
who
wish
to
use
a
beach
chat
at
particular
times?
I
I
partied
out
for
information,
because
if
we
put
a
conditional
on
saying
meat
shop,
number
two
must
be
used
by
the
community.
You
know
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
G
That
would
be
an
enforceable
planning
condition,
so
you
couldn't
rely
on
it.
But
the
point
is
that
that's
the
parish
council's
intention
to
keep
for
back
for
communities
and
to
sell
there
before.
F
Thank
you
because,
obviously
I
noticed
that
the
some
of
the
objections
that
came
through
was
were
partly
based
on
the
fact
that
they
felt
that
he
was
likely
to
be
private
entirely
and
they
all
felt
some
of
them
that
it
should
have
some
community
use,
and
it's
near
the
bandstand.
It's
neither
perch.
So
it's
nice
to
hear
that
it
has
dual
purposes
in
terms
of
usage.
So.
H
Only
a
quick
question
on
the
representations
and
the
the
bullet
pointed
representations.
We've
got
there,
I'm
right
in
thinking
that
they
are
not
relevant
planning
considerations,
lots
of
loss
of
view,
an
uninterrupted
view
of
the
sea,
for
example
beach
house
being
little
used.
The
car
park,
often
being
full
parking,
is
not
usually
a
planning
consideration.
So
I'm
right
in
thinking
that.
G
I
I
wouldn't
want
to
just
dismiss
them
completely
in
in
the
sense
that
loss
of
view
is
isn't,
but
I
think
there
is
we've
be
entitled
to
say
that
if
you
blocked
the
entire
sea
front
with
a
beach
hut
all
the
way
along,
then
there
would
be
an
effect
on
the
character
of
the
area,
so
I
could
probably
catch
it
like
that.
I
think,
in
terms
of
the
other
two,
what
I
found
difficult
to
reconcile
is
if
they're
little
used,
then
the
car
parks
not
gonna,
be
full
all
the
time.
G
Because
of
the
the
use,
I
think
that's
the
difficulty.
I
think
it
really
leads
us
to
say
they're,
probably
not
really,
material
planning
considerations
either
way,
because
a
beach
hut
user
can
use
it
one
day
or
300.
If
they
wish,
I
mean
that's,
that's
that's
a
huge
thing,
but
the
parking
issue
on
this,
I
think,
would
be
extremely
difficult.
I
mean
some
people
mentioned
parking,
I
think
in
chester
avenue.
I
think
it
was,
but
given
there's
a
large
car
park
on
the
on
the
green
itself.
I
think
they'll
be
very
difficult
to
substantiate.
N
I
was
just
going
to
say
also
the
the
bullet
pointed
representations
were
largely
against
the
20
beach
hut
clan,
and
I
think
one
can
see
that
some
of
these
may
well
be
real
considerations
on
the
basis
of
a
development
as
it
were,
of
that
scale.
But
I
would
have
thought
h.
Eight
beach
huts
would
be
a
great
deal
more
acceptable.
I
Wrong
wrong
way
around.
Thank
you.
Yes,
I'm
just
looking
at
this
letter
of
comment
about
who
might
buy
them
and
it.
I
think
it
might
be
worth
just
saying
here
that
maybe
there's
a
point
that
maybe
somebody
they
could
buy
them
and
then
they
wouldn't
be
available
to
local
people.
Is
there
anything
that
we
could
do
to
make
them
available
to
local
people
to
buy.
G
Well,
in
theory,
you
could
put
a
planning
condition
on,
but
I
think
I
don't
think
it's
a
justified
condition
in
terms
of
of
government
guidance,
because
it
would
be
very
difficult,
I
think,
to
enforce
it,
because
you
then
get
into
sort
of
private
sale
matters
and
things
like
that.
But
I
think
that
perhaps
these
things
generally
correct
themselves,
because
the
applicants
for
beach
huts
across
adrian
worthing
are
generally
the
council
or
the
parish
council.
G
And
so
therefore,
while
is
it
a
question
that
always
gets
asked
and
we've
had
none
of
these
applications
in
in
worthing.
But
I
think
that,
as
we
have
the
parish
council
as
applicant
here,
there
can
be
no
harm.
Indeed
passing
it
through
the
chair.
B
Again,
on
a
long
time
since
I've
been
sitting
in
this
station-
yes,
we
spoke
earlier
about
balance
and
I
think
that
beach
huts
can
add
their
own
character
to
the
appearance
of
the
beach,
but
too
many,
of
course,
would
actually
block
the
benefits
of
seeing
the
open
views.
I
think
here
the
balance
after
removing
the
additional
12
is.
It
has
got
it
about
right
and
I'd
be
quite
happy
to
see
this
approved.
A
A
A
O
O
So
basically,
the
report,
as
the
chairman
has
just
stated,
is
regarding
the
government's
new
first
home
scheme
and
the
publication
of
a
statement
on
our
position
on
this
on
the
council's
website.
So,
basically,
in
may
last
year
the
government
published
details
of
a
new,
affordable
housing
tenure
known
as
first
homes,
and
the
idea
is
that
first
homes
will
be
a
discounted
market
tenure
and
they'll
be
available
for
first-time
buyers
to
purchase
dwellings
at
reduced
price.
O
Now,
the
key
feature
of
this
scheme
is
that
they
will
remain
first
homes
in
perpetuity
as
long
as
they
can
be
sold
the
government's
made
clear
they're
there.
They
are
the
government's
preferred,
affordable
housing
tenure,
and
that
means
that
when
we
as
a
planning
authority,
secure,
affordable,
an
affordable
housing
contribution
and
development,
the
first
25
of
those
affordable
dwellings
should
be
first
homes.
O
So
that
means
where
we
in
the
ada
local
plan
seek
a
contribution
of
30
percent,
affordable
housing
of
that
30
percent.
The
first
25
percent
will
need
to
be
first
homes,
so
just
run
through
a
few
characteristics
of
the
first
home
schemes,
and
these
are
set
out
by
government
in
their
in
their
guidance.
O
O
Now
the
government
say
that
the
council
can
also
set
local
criteria.
For
example,
we
could
set
a
lower
discount,
perhaps
40
or
50
percent
or
a
lower
price
cap,
but
we've
got
to
be
able
to
demonstrate
need
for
that.
We
can
also
set
a
lower
household
income
caps
or
use
perhaps
local
connection
criteria
such
as
key
workers.
Perhaps
the
issue
is
we
need
to
do
that
through
the
local
plan
process.
O
So
really,
then,
the
local
factors
aren't
things
we
can
address
now,
but
they
will
be
addressed
as
part
of
the
local
plan
update
as
a
council
obviously
we'll
be
involved
in
delivering
first
homes
through
the
planning
system,
but
actually
in
due
course
it
will
be
involved
in
the
the
selling
and
reselling
process,
because
I
say
we
we
need
to
to
affect
and
ensure
that
the
first-time
buyers
really
are
first-time
buyers.
So
various
parts
of
the
council
in
due
course
will
become
involved
in
this
process
in
terms
of
the
developer
contribution,
which
I
mentioned
earlier.
O
O
But
what
we're
setting
out
and
what
is
reflected
in
the
interim
planning
statement
is
that
of
our
30,
affordable
housing
quota.
The
first
25
would
be
first
homes
and
then
we'd
be
looking
for
a
minimum
of
56
social
or
affordable
rent.
We
don't
distinguish
between
social,
affordable,
rent
in
in
the
the
aid
to
local
plan,
and
the
remaining
19
would
be
we'd,
be
seeking
shared
ownership,
so
that
would
be
our
starting
point
for
negotiating
with
developers.
O
The
proposal
in
the
report
in
front
of
you
is
that
an
interim
position
statement,
reflecting
that
is
published
on
the
council's
website
to
set
out
our
approach
to
interpreting
this
government
guidance,
so
that
developers
and
other
interested
parties
understand
how
we
will
apply
that
before
we
review
the
situation
through
the
local
plan
update
and
prior
to
new
planning
policy
being
put
in
place
through
that
process.
A
H
Sorry
cher
me
again:
I
work
in
the
property
industry,
as
people
may
know.
So
there
are
a
few
questions
that
sort
of
spring
to
mind
on
this
policy,
and
I
noted
that
you,
your
one
of
your
phrases,
was
there
was
how
we
interpret
this
policy,
and
I
appreciate
that
that
will
be
considered
probably
more
fully
when
we're
talking
about
the
local
plan.
So
I
understand
that,
but
I
have
some
questions
really,
which
you
possibly
can
answer.
I
suppose
they're
more
observations
and
questions
I
mean.
H
Obviously
we
we
can
set
a
price
at
no
higher
than
250
000
pounds
for
the
first
sale,
but
how
will
that
necessarily
remain
affordable
as
house
prices
rise,
for
example,
because
we
can't
control
the
market?
2.4
d,
for
example,
talks
about
the
first
sale
and
passed
on
at
each
subsequent
title
transfer.
So
does
that
mean
that
therefore,
once
somebody's
bought
that
as
first-time
buyers
when
they
come
to
sell
it,
they
are
also
conditioned
to
sell
it
to
first-time
buyers.
O
Through
through
chairman,
yes,
that's
my
understanding.
So
if,
if
you've
purchased
the
first
home,
you
need
to
sell
it
to
someone
else
as
a
first
home,
so
they
will
have
to
fit
those
criteria
as
well.
So
yes
that
that
that's
that's
an
interesting
point
as
to
how
the
the
development
industry,
indeed
the
public,
will
respond.
O
Obviously
there
are
a
lot
of
people
interested
in
in
an
opportunity
to
get
to
get
a
home
at
perhaps
a
slightly
discounted
rate,
but
they'll
have
to
bear
in
mind
that
when
they
want
to
sell
that
property
they
will
need
to
be
selling
it
to
to
another
purchaser
who
who
fits
those
criteria.
H
H
O
Interesting
point
about
the
shared
ownership
the
government
has
given
us
a.
I
confess
I
don't
know
the
answer.
The
governor
says
the
government's
given
us
a
definition
of
first-time
buyers
which
is
set
out
in
the
finance
act
2003,
which
relates
to
stamped
due
to
relief.
But
you
may
well
be
right.
I
might
I
may
have
made
an
error
there.
O
You
know
rented
accommodations
that
first
homes
may
give
us
an
opportunity
as
a
new
tenure,
to
allow
kind
of
a
bit
more
movement
through
that
way,
but
but
you're
right
it's
this
is
this
is
untested.
This
is
new.
We're
really
not
sure
how
the
development
industry
is
going
to
respond.
Also
say
how
first-time
buyers
can
respond,
that
there
are
a
number
of
issues
and,
as
I
said,
I've
flagged
up
some
things
about
house
prices
in
the
area,
as
you
say,
due
to
the
caps
etc.
O
There'll
be
probably
only
the
smaller
types
of
dwelling
that
will
be
available
under
this
scheme.
So
I
think
really
it's
a
question
of
sort
of
setting
out
what
our
what
the
situation
is
now
and
as
we
reviewed
the
aids
or
local
plan.
O
Maybe
the
scheme
itself
will
be
amended,
but
we
can.
We
can
look
at
how
things
are
panning
out
and
how
how
other
areas
are
are
finding
that
take,
etc.
N
In
3.2,
once
a
minimum
of
25
of
first
homes
have
been
accounted
for,
the
requirement
is
that
social
rent
should
be
the
next
priority,
and
the
remainder
of
affordable
housing
10
years
would
be
delivered
in
line
with
the
proportions
in
the
local
plan.
What
would
be
the
proportion
for
social
renting?
N
You
know
if
it's
so,
if
it's
first
homes
first.
O
O
O
Of
of
the
overall
proportion
of
affordable
housing
that
should
be,
I
think,
believe,
slightly
less
so
where
we
have,
if
we
had
the
pie
chart.
As
I
said,
between
rather
split
between
two
split
ten
years,
we're
now
splitting
it
between
three,
the
the
government
are
quite
adamant
in
in
the
ministerial
statement
planning
practice
guidance
that
they
absolutely
want,
first
homes
as
their
preference,
and
that
should
be
our
actually
our
starting
point.
So,
as
I
say,
it'll
be
interesting
to
see
how
this
this
pans
out.
O
We
will
be
monitoring,
we
do
monitor
the
affordable
housing
comes
through
and
what
those
tenures
are,
and
we
will
be
monitoring
to
see,
see
how
you
know
what
we'll
be
securing
in
terms
of
first
homes,
but
but
yes,
that
that
there
is
an
issue
there
and
it
may
be
that
first
homes
perhaps
have
become
more
popular
or
more
achievable,
more
of
interest,
some
people
than
than
shared
ownership.
It's
it's.
It's
really
not
clear
at
the
moment
how
it's
going
to
pan
out,
to
be
honest,.
B
Thank
you
chairman.
I
think
we
were
asked
to
note
the
the
plan
here
and
I'm
pleased
to
notice
that
it's
an
interim
policy,
because
the
thing
that
hits
me
immediately
is
that
you
introduce
this
degree
of
complexity
and
you
immediately
raise
issues
of
unintended
consequences
and
that's
exactly
what
councilor
gardner
brought
to
to
the
fore
there.
So,
whilst
we
were
asked
to
note
it,
I
mean
these
discounts
that
are
being
introduced.
B
It
only
means,
surely
that
if
you
increase
discounts,
then
the
properties
in
the
market
side
of
the
equation
have
got
to
be
increased,
to
retain
the
viability
of
the
development
so
you're
putting
prices
up,
on
the
one
hand,
in
order
to
reduce
prices
on
the
other,
so
I
can
see
lots
of
unintended
consequences,
but
until
the
district
plan
is
revised
and
it
we
can
take
a
permanent
view
on
it,
then
I
just
like
to
express
concern.
A
Thank
you,
council
bogus
yes,
councillor,
edwards.
F
Quick
question:
I
I
agree
with
my
colleague
brian
bogge's
comments
there,
given
that
it
is
interim
and
yes
quite
rightly,
you
want
the
policies
to
test
and
see
the
reaction.
Do
we
have
any
idea?
How
long
is
interim
in
terms
of
testing
and
seeing
what
works
and
what
doesn't
work.
O
What
I
would
say
is,
even
if
we
don't
put
this
interim
position
statement
on
the
agreement
on
our
website,
we've
still
got
the
written
ministerial
statement
and
the
planning
practice
guidance
and
they
are
still
they
would
still
be,
in
effect,
whether
we
put
our
position
statement
on
a
website
or
not
so
we'd
still
have
to
follow
that
government
guidance.
O
This
statement
is
really
just
explaining
to
people
what
the
actual
implications
will
be
to
give
a
bit
of
clarity
in
it.
It's
already
help
with
any
inquiries,
but
that
guidance,
it's
still
in
place,
I'm
afraid.
So,
as
I
say,
we
hope
to
have
a
plan
in
place.
Let's
say
end
of
2023,
hopefully
with
the
pheromone
behind
us,
but
yes,
that's
that
that
that
legal
they
are.
You
know
that
those
legal
requirements
are
in
effect
already.
I
You,
yes,
thank
you
just
to
state
the
obvious
we
have
so
many
applications
come
before
us
for
affordable
housing,
which
we
all
recognize
is
unaffordable
for.
Most
of
the
people
on
our
current
housing
list
and
for
those
who
are
in
who
are
social
are
social
renters.
I
There
are
very
few
of
them
that
would
be
able
to
to
to
move
out
from
the
our
social
rented
sector
to
buy
one
of
these,
and
I'm
thinking
about
what's
happening
now.
You've
got
people
who
are
you've,
got
children
staying
at
home
for
longer,
who
might
be
able
might
want
to
actually
have
their
own
property,
but
again
they
can't
afford
it.
It
comes
all
comes
down
to
the
affordability
of
these
places,
so
I
know
that
this
is.
I
This
is
a
government
policy,
but
I,
if
we
can
make
any
changes
at
all,
that
would
make
the
properties
that
we
are
passing
if
there
could
be
more
affordable
for
the
people
that
really
do
need
them,
then
I
think
that
discretion,
maybe
should
should
be
something
that
we
can
consider,
maybe
just
to
to
just
think
about
where
we,
where
we
are
with
our
with
our
social
housing
and
that
that
desperate
need,
that
is
there
to
have
more
socially
rented
accommodation.
H
Just
I
suppose,
yeah
sorry
just
one
final
point:
I
think
that
that's
laudable,
but
market
forces
will
determine
prices.
Unfortunately
we're
not
very
unlikely
to
better
control
prices.
We're
asked
to
consider
the
report.
I
think
we've
done
that
we've
it's
in
the
in
the
local
plan.
We
will,
I
guess,
have
the
opportunity
to
refine
up
to
a
point
or
just
or
determine
exactly
where
we
go
with
it.
As
councillor
bogus
mentions
it,
it
potentially
poses
more
questions
than
it
answers
it's.