►
From YouTube: Adur Planning Committee - 7 February 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,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
welcome
to
this
meeting
of
ada
planning
committee
on
monday,
the
7th
of
february,
just
to
let
everyone
know
in
the
public
gallery
and
obviously
members
that
we
are
being
live,
streamed
and
sound.
Recording
which
has
just
commenced
at
the
start
of
this
meeting
will
stop.
When
I
declare
the
meeting
closed,
just
read
out
the
chairman's
notice
welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
ada
planning
committee,
please
note
that
this
meeting's
been
filmed
and
linked.
A
recording
of
the
meeting
is
available
on
the
council's
website.
A
The
recording
will
begin
at
the
commencement
of
the
meeting
conclude
when
I've
declared
the
meeting
closed.
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
objectives,
and
supporters
have
three
minutes
each
to
speak
as
do
district
councillors
and
parish
councillors
if
you've
registered
to
speak.
A
I
will
announce
you
at
the
right
time
and
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
I'll
just
hand
over
to
laura
in
terms
of
reading
the
health
and
safety
notice.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
good
evening.
Everybody
I've
been
asked
to
give
the
the
fire
safety
announcement.
If
you
can
familiarize
yourself
with
the
fire
exits
from
this
room
from
behind
there
and
one
here
and
those
are
the
refuge
points
at
the
top
of
the
staircase.
B
That's
why
they're
marked
for
at
the
top
of
the
staircase
for
mobility,
vehicle
users,
there's
no
fire
alarm
scheduled
for
tonight.
So
if
it
does
sound,
please
leave
by
the
fire
exits
to
the
assembly
points,
which
is
the
far
side
of
the
car
park
by
the
flint
wall,
which
I'm
reliably
informed
by
the
checks
this
this
side.
B
B
The
balcony
over
here
there's
no
way,
there's
no
return
into
the
building
until
advised
it's
safe
to
do
so,
and
there
is
an
evacue
chair
here
as
well.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
we
move
on
to
the
agenda
number
one
is
substitute
members.
I
have
to
declare
that
I'm
substituting
as
chairman
this
evening
for
councillor
carol
aubry
council
mcgregor.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
No
further
substitute
members.
I
can
see
declarations
of
interest.
Do
any
members
or
officers
have
any
disclosable
pecuniary
interests
in
relation
to
any
business
on
the
agenda.
Declarations
also
be
made
at
any
stage
of
such
interests
become
apparent
during
the
meeting.
A
Thank
you,
council
coins
understand,
you'll,
be
leaving
the
room
at
that
time
as
well.
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay.
Public
question
time
there
should
have
been
submitted
by
thursday,
the
third
of
february.
Do
we
have
any
pre-submit
questions
we
do
not.
Thank
you
and
number
four
is
confirmation
of
the
minutes,
which
is
to
approve
the
minutes
of
the
planning
committee
meeting
on
the
10th
of
january
2022.
A
Thank
you
very
much
item
number
five
is
items
raised
under
earth's
revisions.
Are
there
any?
There
are
none,
so
we
move
on
to
item
number
six,
which
is
the
planning
applications.
Our
first
planning
application
this
evening
is
awdm
1831
and
I'm
handing
over
to
mr
appleton
sorry,
my
brain
nearly
went
there.
Thank
you
james.
E
E
There's
the
site
very
familiar
to
two
members,
and
as
I
move
through
this,
this
is
the
proposed
site
and
what
I
intend
to
do,
because
I'm
conscious
that
some
of
the
committee
would
not
have
been
involved
at
the
outline
application
when
this
was
considered
in
detail,
is
just
to
run
through
some
of
the
key
elements
that
influence
the
design
codes.
So
the
outline
planning
permission
was
subject
to
quite
detailed
master
plan
and
design
codes
and
perimeter
plans
which
effectively
set
out
the
principles
for
any
reserve
matters
application.
E
This
first
plan
indicates
some
of
the
key
elements
and
that
was
a
12
meter
landscaping
zone
along
the
river,
a
further
landscape
zone
to
the
north,
particularly
talks
about
denser
planting
with
the
planting.
That's
around
the
ricardo's
car
parking
to
the
north.
E
Just
going
back
to
the
plan,
you
can
see
the
car
parking
there
and
the
planting
around
that
particular
car
park
and
then
to
the
south
of
the
site,
a
a
a
bund
which
is
to
provide
filtered
views
and
to
to
provide
some
screening
to
the
development
when
viewed
from
the
airport
buildings
and
the
towpath
along
the
the
river.
E
So
this
next
plan
sort
of
indicates
the
sort
of
discussions
at
the
outline
stage
about
the
extensive
area
and
the
local
plan
originally
earmarked
the
site
for
fifteen
thousand
square
meters
within
the
blue
edged
area.
The
red
edged
area
is
the
current
approved
outline
application.
So
some
of
the
area
was
effectively.
E
This
blue
area
was
moved
that
was
taken
out
of
the
the
the
plan
because
of
concerns
of
the
safety
and
the
proximity
to
the
airport
and
effectively
that
was
moved
to
the
south
to
this
green
hatched
area,
and
then
there
was
also
a
40
no
build
zone.
E
Now
these
sort
of
parameters
also
looked
at
the
potential
layout
of
the
site
and
the
outline
design
code
had
a
number
of
different
options,
including
one
single
building
or
separate
buildings.
What's
described
here
is
the
multiple
building
layout,
so
this
is
from
the
approved
design
coder
outline
stage,
which
shows
the
proposed
landscaped
areas,
the
bund
I've
mentioned
and
a
possible
layout
for
the
site,
and
that
was
particularly
to
secure
views
through
the
site,
with
buildings
positioned
in
a
approximate
sort
of
east-west
access.
E
So
there
was
also
this
document,
which
talked
about
again
the
bundling
the
principal
views
and
where
planting
should
be,
and
particularly
that
planting
along
the
eastern
boundary
of
the
site
with
the
river
should
be
groups
of
trees,
not
straight
line
trees
and
also
refers
to
the
the
grass
bund.
E
So
some
of
the
supporting
images
indicated
the
the
this
is
again
images
that
were
with
the
initial
environmental
impact
assessment,
the
the
desire
to
have
that
earth
bun
to
screen
views
from
the
towpath.
This
is
obviously
quite
an
old
photograph
before
the
ada
tidal
wars,
but
was
submitted
with
the
outline
application
also
picks
out
the
ricardo
building
there.
E
As
part
of
the
outline
permission,
heights
of
buildings
were
also
fixed.
The
building
height
maximum
height
was
13
meters.
The
application
before
you
tonight
is
a
maximum
height
of
12.5
meters.
So
lower
than
the
parameters
approved
at
outline
stage
and
then
from
other
viewpoints.
E
Clearly,
a
lot
of
the
discussion
at
the
outline
stage
was
around
views
down
from
the
the
national
park,
as
well
as
views
from
the
airport
back
up
to
the
national
park
and
to
lansing
college
and
also
looking
across
to
the
site
from
the
other
side
of
the
river
and
from
the
toll
bridge.
This
photograph
shows
some
of
the
dense
planting
adjacent
to
the
ricardo's
car
park
and
then,
obviously
up
to
the
the
listed
lancing
college.
E
Some
views
along
cecil
pashley
way
with
the
now
earth
bund
and
the
the
aida
tidal
wall
scheme
was
specifically
mentioned
as
part
of
the
assessment
of
noise
and
impact
construction
and
operational
noise
and
the
benefit
that
this
higher
bund
would
have
once
constructed
along
the
eastern
boundary
of
the
site.
E
These
are
some
images
at
the
design
codes
and
really
we
come
now
to
the
application
and
the
as
a
report
indicates
quite
a
lot
of
discussion
about
colors.
The
design
code
set
a
palette
of
different
colors
from
greens,
browns
to
the
grays
and
blues
indicated
here
now.
E
As
the
report
indicates,
the
application
originally
proposed
the
grays
and
blues
showing
here
the
anthracite
gray,
the
pure
gray
and
merlin
gray,
is
a
mixture
of
colors
to
to
to
pick
up
the
design
code,
colors
and
some
artists,
impressions
of
the
proposed
buildings
and
the
grey
colours.
E
So
the
application
has
been
amended
and
I'll
come
back
to
the
colors,
but
we
have
effectively
a
range
of
colors
that
reflect
the
design
code
colors
in
terms
of
the
the
layout
of
the
site.
You
see.
The
report
has
clarified
that
the
the
number
of
car
parking
spaces
is
262,
the
the
144
bicycle
stands
and
the
applicants
highway.
Consultants
have
provided
further
justification
for
the
car
parking
layout.
I'm
just
flicking
through
some
of
the
elevations
showing
the
green
and
brown
pallet
of
colors
in
terms
of
the
highway
comments.
E
That's
the
the
layout
of
car
parking
and
shows
the
proposed
planting
on
buffers
in
terms
of
highways.
National
highways
have
raised
no
objection,
they're
happy
with
the
additional
supporting
information,
but
I
haven't
as
yet
had
confirmation
from
west
sussex
they're
happy
with
the
justification
for
parking
and
the
number
of
ev
charging
points
so
you'll
see
the
recommendation
is
to
delegate
to
see
the
satisfactory
views
of
west
sussex.
E
I
have
just
got
a
close-up
here
because,
as
a
report
indicates,
there
is
a
a
bit
of
a
conflict
between
the
original
drainage
strategy
and
requirement
for
a
12
meter,
landscape
buffer,
which
is
clearly
important,
adjacent
to
cecil
patley
way,
and
it's
also
important
natural
england
and
in
environment
agency
and
sussex
wildlife.
Trust
were
particularly
keen
to
have
a
strong
landscape
buffer
along
the
eastern
boundary.
E
As
this
plan
indicates,
the
landscape
buffer
also
incorporates
the
sustainable
urban
drainage
scheme,
and
these
swales,
as
you
can
see
from
this
plan,
do
limit
the
scope
for
planting
now.
This
matter
is
still
being
discussed
between
engineers,
the
applicants
and
the
council's
engineers
and
a
number
of
suggestions
and
alterations
to
the
drainage
strategy
to
ensure
that
we
can
have
appropriate
space
for
sufficient
and
groups
of
trees
rather
than
a
line
of
planting.
E
At
the
moment,
the
scheme
does
generally
propose
a
line
of
planting,
rather
than
actually
the
groups
that
was
suggested
in
the
design
code,
so
that
matter
is
also
still
being
discussed.
Certainly
some
of
the
corresponds
correspondence.
I've
seen
suggest
that
that
matter
can
be
resolved
and
there's
ways
of
redesigning
swells
to
provide
more
space
for
planting
in
terms
of
additional
representations
to
the
application.
E
We
have
had
some
further
consultation
responses.
I
should
say
that
one
of
the
responses
was
received
about
half
an
hour
ago,
but
I've
been
able
to
extract
the
comments
and
historic
england
have
just
now
provided
their
consultation
response.
E
They
did
suggest
in
their
original
consultation,
to
the
outline
the
serious
concerns
regarding
the
harm
that
the
proposal
would
cause
to
the
airfield
listed
buildings,
lansing
college
and
tollbridge,
but
in
their
last
letter
they
confirmed
that
they
felt
that
this
was
less
than
substantial,
albeit
albeit
at
the
higher
end.
E
They
then
concluded
that
it
fell
to
the
council,
as
required
by
government
guidance,
to
weigh
the
harm
against
public
benefits,
and
that
was
part
of
the
outlying
considerations.
In
terms
of
the
detail
of
this
application.
The
historic
england
pick
up
on
a
number
of
matters
in
the
report.
They
feel
it's
important
to
deliver
the
bund
that
at
the
moment,
it
feels
like
there's
relatively
thin
landscape
buffers
and
they
feel
there
should
be
a
greater
planting
within
the
parking
car
park
areas
and
that
has
been
addressed
with
the
amended
plans.
E
They
feel
that
the
the
dark
and
lighter
brown
detailing
helps
reduce
the
visual
impact
and
they've
also
made
comment
about
the
the
lack
of
planting
need
for
greater
planting.
They've
also
indicated
that,
with
large
expansive
roof
areas,
they
hope
the
opportunity
is
not
lost
to
provide
pv
panels
to
reduce
energy
demands.
E
Although
cpr
still
holds
its
objection
to
the
location
of
the
development,
they
feel
it
should
be
further
south.
We
believe
the
applicant's
endeavors
to
create
development
is
sorry,
the
applicant's
endeavors
to
create
a
development.
Does
everything
it
can
to
blend
into
the
visual
aspects
of
the
airport?
E
E
E
Certainly
a
number
of
things
and
I've
been
given
a
list
of
things
that
they
would
incorporate
passive
design,
low
carbon
technologies,
water
use
reduction
and
a
number
of
matters
to
secure
brian
excellent
and,
as
part
of
that,
they've
also
talked
about
that
there
would
be
a
noise
pollution
and
light
pollution
measures
to
reduce
any
impact,
as
well
as
ecological
considerations
and
improvements.
E
Briem
does
cover
a
very
wide
number
of
measures.
They
talk
about,
ev
charging
points
to
be
and
that
one
of
the
buildings
will
be
designed
to
have
a
an
occupier
to
charge
a
fleet
of
electric
vehicles.
They
also
talk
about.
The
offices
within
the
buildings
would
have
an
epc
rating
of
a
for
energy
efficiency.
E
I
think
the
applicants
are
very
keen
to
promote
a
sustainable
development
and
they've
indicated
that
their
occupiers
future
occupiers
would
expect
that
level
of
sustainable
construction
there's
one
more
informative
to
be
added
in
relation
to
flood
defense
measures
that
the
emergency
planning
officer
has
suggested
as
an
informative.
E
And
they
also
indicated
that,
whilst
noise
matters
were
dealt
with
at
the
outline
stage,
they
are
happy
specifically
for
noise
management
plan
in
relation
to
noise,
from
industrial
processes,
details
of
extraction
and
fixed
plant
and
appropriate
mitigation,
and
clearly
that's
more
linked
to
the
individual
design
and
subsequent
alterations
for
any
fixed
plant
or
or
extraction
that
might
be
required
to
the
buildings.
E
I
think
that's
all
in
relation
to
the
additional
comments.
I
think
this
then
leaves
the
the
nutty
problem
of
what
color
and
certainly
there's
been
quite
a
lot
of
discussion
between
landscape
consultants
and
the
the
choice
of
sort
of
grays
and
blues
or
the
the
later
plans
which
incorporated-
and
this
is
a
bird's
eye
view.
The
sort
of
greener
olive,
green
and
darker
green
has
been
an
interesting
sort
of
detailed
discussion.
E
The
national
park
strongly
favor
the
light
grey
blue
palette.
They
feel
that
the
lighter
colors
would
mean
that
the
buildings
would
have
less
visual
impact.
The
national
park
don't
feel
that
the
sort
of
the
the
timber
the
mock
timber
would
be
appropriate
and
to
try
and
get
some
sort
of
considered
view
on
this.
As
I
said,
the
the
council
has
engaged
with
our
landscape
consultants
and
they
have
conf.
E
They
have
agreed
with
the
national
park
that
actually
the
grays
would
be
slightly
more
appropriate
and
in
particular,
I
think
the
view
that
was
was
one
that
was
looked
at
was
the
view
from
the
national
park
looking
southwards
and
the
the
last
lighter
gray,
particularly
the
gray,
would
be
the
lighter
gray
for
the
roof
would
have
less
visual
impact.
E
Looking
southwards,
in
terms
of
the
view
northwards
you
would
have
the
backdrop
of
the
downs,
but
I
think
landscape
consultants
have
indicated
that
trying
to
get
a
gray,
sorry,
a
green
that
blends
is
very
difficult
and
actually
you're
safer,
going
with
a
a
lighter
gray
and
grays
quite
often,
and
dark
greys
are
reflective
in
shadows
and
trees
and
would
probably
be
better
than
trying
to
mimic
grass
and
natural
colors.
E
It
isn't
something
that
naturally,
your
officers
felt
that
actually
would
be
better
to
have
greens
and
browns,
and
I
think
this
was
a
view
that
your
officers
particularly
were
conscious
of
of
the
backdrop
of
the
the
downs
and
the
ricardo
building,
which
is
a
very
light.
Color
was
something
that
gave
your
officers
some
concern
to
have
something
similar,
but
the
the
more
muted
greys
are
darker
than
the
ricardo
building.
That's
approximately
10
meters
high.
E
As
I
say,
your
officers
are
happy
to
recommend
the
greys
and
blues
as
originally
submitted,
but
the
decision
to
be
delegated
to
await
the
further
consultee
comments:
west,
sussex
and
natural
england,
and
also
to
resolve
the
landscape
drainage-
that
I
should
say
that
landscape
and
drainage
matters
are
covered
by
conditions
on
the
outline
permission
as
well.
So
it's
something
that
is
already
conditioned
by
the
outlying
permission.
Thank
you,
chairman.
A
Thank
you
james
we'll
hand
over
to
the
committee
for
any
questions
you
may
have
for
clarification
on
the
presentation.
Yes,
council,
mcgregor.
C
Thank
you.
One
of
the
things
that
concerns
me
is
that
we
don't
know
who's
going
to
be
occupying
the
building
and
it
sounds
like
the
bund
would
only
be
put
in
when
prior
to
occupation,
which
means
not
prior
to
construction,
so
there'll
be
an
empty
building
sitting
there
with
no
bund
to
lift
the
eye
line.
So
I
wonder
if
the
bun
could
be
put
in
on
completion
or
within
a
certain
amount
of
time
rather
than
prior
to
occupation.
Thank
you.
E
Yes,
this
is
something
that
has
been
discussed
with
the
applicants.
I
I
think
the
applicants
were
very
keen
to
agree
a
position
with
the
the
operators
of
the
airport,
so
there's
a
a
a
a
sub-list
from
the
applicant
to
the
airport
operators
and
they
felt
that
it
would
be
better
that
the
the
bund
was
very
much
something
that
was
constructed
at
the
same
time
as
the
buildings.
E
That's
where
the
obvious
point
here
is
that
it
will
be
spoiled
from
the
development
that
will
be
forming
the
bund,
and
I
think
that's
why
the
applicant
has
agreed
with
the
officers
that
the
the
detai
finer
details
of
the
bond
be
submitted
prior
to
the
construction
slab
and
then
effectively
the
bund
will
be
formed
as
the
buildings
are
going
up.
So
I
think
it's
appropriate
that
we
allow
some
flexibility
there.
A
F
Nicholas,
thank
you,
chad.
There
are
several
references
in
the
report
and
you
touched
upon
it
yourself
and
your
presentation
about
solar
panels.
I'm
not
sure
we
got
a
clear
answer
as
to
whether
the
applicants
were
likely
to
install.
I
suspect
there
might
be
some
issues
as
far
as
airport
and
planes
coming
in
are
concerned,
but
do
you
have
any
more
update
on
that
for
us.
E
Yes,
chairman,
it
is
something
we've
discussed
with
the
applicants
and
and
it's
something
that
really
appeared
in
the
design
codes
that
actually
the
buildings
lend
themselves
in
this
location
to
reduce
the
impact
by
having
these
curved
roofs,
and
that
does
then
cause
some
difficulty
in
terms
of
them
putting
solar
panels.
E
So
what
the
applicant
has
said,
although
that's
not
something
that
can
be
accommodated
on
this
development,
they
are
very
keen
still
to
secure
that
briem
excellent
and
there
would
be
significant
measures
to
address
the
thermal
efficiency
of
the
building,
and
particularly
the
offices
but
pvs
for
the
reason
of
the
roof.
Construction
would
be
difficult
to
accommodate.
G
G
G
E
Yes,
so
lighting
is
a
condition
of
the
outline
permission,
so
it
is
controlled
through
that
and
and
the
whole
point
of
that
condition
was
to
ensure
that
subsequent
occupiers
didn't
add
additional
lighting
that
didn't
have
the
leds
and
the
the
sort
of
various
directional
elements
to
them
to
ensure
that
lighting
points
down.
So
certainly
from
a
point
of
view
of
lighting
that's
covered
and
there
would
be
an
element
of
lighting
for
safety
and
security
purpose
within
the
operational
yards,
but
very
much.
E
The
desire
and
the
the
scheme
that's
evolved
has
been
to
try
and
reduce
the
impact,
particularly
on
the
triple
si
and
on
the
the
the
sensitive
estuaries.
E
So
from
point
of
view,
the
river
and,
from
a
ecological
point
of
view,
the
lighting
as
far
as
possible,
is
directed
away
and
it
down
to
the
ground
within
the
areas
around
the
buildings,
and
I
suppose
that's
another
reason
to
making
sure
we
get
a
a
good
landscape
strip
and
that
12
meters
to
to
provide
some
buffer
to
the
to
the
river
and
the
triple
s
I,
but
also
for
residents
on
the
other
side
of
the
river
looking
across
as
well.
Has
that
benefit
so
yeah?
Hopefully,
that's
answered
the
question.
G
I
think
it
does.
The
other
one
was
on
travel
plans,
the
those
that
the
the
the
businesses
that
occupy
these
buildings
will
they
be
required
to
produce
travel
plans
and
give
them
to
the
planning
department
to
consider.
E
Yep,
so
the
travel
plan
that
was
submitted
at
the
outline
stage
was
a
sort
of
a
framework
travel
plan
which
had
a
number
of
sort
of
generic
measures.
But,
as
you
say,
the
operational
requirements
are
very
much
dependent
on
the
nature
of
the
occupier
in
terms
of
how
they're
going
to
be
ensuring
compliance.
E
So
the
travel
plan,
condition,
and
I'm
just
trying
to
to
find
it
again
on
the
list
of
conditions,
would
be
a
requirement
that,
prior
to
occupation,
the
travel
plan
is
submitted
now,
whether
that
can
be
for
more
than
one
occupy.
It
just
depends
on
how
many
occupiers,
but
it
would
be
to
try
and
ensure
that
all
occupiers
then
seek
to
reduce
a
future
travel
requirements.
A
No
okay.
In
that
case,
we
do
have
some
registered
speakers
on
this
item.
The
first
is
a
mr
paul.
Is
it
gaulet?
I
I
I
did
wonder
and
I
apologize
for
murdering
your
nose.
I
do
apologize,
mr
goulet,
if
you'd
like
to
come
up
and
just
you'll
have
three
minutes
when
you
sit
down
and
you
start
get
yourself
comfortable
and
again-
apologies
for
murdering
your
name
there.
So
I'm
sorry.
H
Good
evening,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
it
gives
me
great
pleasure,
like
it
normally
does
on
a
serious
note,
I'm
speaking
from
a
very
personal
level.
I've
lived
in
my
house
in
the
old
shoreham
road
at
the
amsterdam
end
for
over
40
years.
H
During
that
time,
the
traffic,
as
we
all
know,
has
increased
to
unbearable
levels.
Yet
we
still
have
some
magnificent
views
from
our
upper
stories
and
have
a
protected
nature
reserve
on
our
doorstep,
with
bird
and
aquatic
life
around
the
river.
That's
what
we
have
currently
this
proposal
will
threaten
all
of
the
aspects
of
my
home.
H
The
traffic
will
increase
to
even
more
further
congestion
and
pollution,
and
my
wonderful
views
will
be
blighted
with
the
block
on
the
horizon
and
five
huge,
noisy
warehouses
complete
with
40-foot
articulated
lorries,
which
nobody's
mentioned
so
far,
and
your
marvelous
figure
of
300
cars
plus
visitors
going
in
and
business
people
plonk
right
in
front
of
my
home.
H
In
conclusion,
my
house
will
be
vastly
devalued
due
to
losing
views.
That's
why
I
bought
it
for
for
over
40
years,
affecting
the
wildlife
to
be
disturbed
or
even
obliterated
with
all
the
extra
vehicles
and
people
movement
near
the
river.
Therefore,
if
this
proposal
goes
ahead,
the
reason
I've
chosen
purchase
my
home
will
be
non-existent.
H
A
Thank
you,
mr
goo.
I
must
apologize
for
the
noise
as
well
slight
technical
issue
with
the
with
the
laptop
for
the
presentations,
but
thank
you
very
much
if
you
just
press
the
button
in
the
middle
there.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
we
now
have
all
councillor
gabe
crisp
for
saint
nicholas
ward,
councillor
crisp,
I'm
sure
you're,
aware
of
the
procedure.
I
Well,
thank
you
very
much
for
having
me
to
speak
at
this
meeting.
I'm
representing
a
lot
of
my
residents,
mr
goulet,
is
one
of
them,
but
other
residents
on
my
road
have
emailed
me
and
asked
for
me
to
come
along
and
speak
tonight
on
their
behalf,
like
mr
goulet
they're
very
worried
about
the
view,
but
also
specifically
about
the
noise
of
the
construction
and
the
beeping
of
the
lorries
as
councillor
mcgregor
said,
we're
not
sure
who
the
tenants
are
going
to
be
or
the
terms
of
operation.
I
We
don't
know
if
it's
going
to
be
24,
7,
beeping,
arctics
or
if
it's
going
to
be
more
light
industrial
units.
So
those
are
significant
concerns
in
terms
of
the
colors.
I've
got
my
own
opinion
I'll,
send
mr
appleton
my
photo
later
on,
which
shows
which
colors.
I
think
it
should
be
more
significantly.
I
Sorry,
what's
my
piece
of
paper
now
yeah,
so
the
solar
panels
is
a
concern
to
me,
because
this
is
a
fantastic
opportunity
to
really
acknowledge
the
climate
and
biodiversity
emergency
that
we
face
locally
and
to
do
something.
Bold
ada
is
known
nationally
for
some
of
the
bold
steps
it's
taken
on
the
climate
and
by
diversity
emergency,
and,
if
we're
not
going
to
use
this
site
as
an
exemplar
to
others,
that
does
concern
me.
I
The
travel
plan
is
a
further
concern,
given
the
a27
is
likely
to
be
subject
to
significant
gridlock,
at
least
for
the
next
six
years,
but
possibly
longer
whilst
the
roundabout
is
built
and
all
the
concerns
we
have
about
that,
I
think,
but
putting
another
build
on
there
with.
Potentially
lorries
will
significantly
detract
from
people's
quality
of
life.
That'll
be
a
mash
barn
over
the
road.
I
From
me,
the
idea
of
the
swales
I'm
very
pleased
to
see
that
and
the
development
of
the
clumps
of
trees,
but
I
think
there
are
real
issues
about
masking
the
building
given
the
height
of
the
new
tidal
wool
scheme,
which
is
approximately
four
meters
above
the
ground
level.
That
will
cause
a
totally
different
view
and
people
will
be
able
to
see
right
into
the
building.
I
And
finally,
I
want
to
come
on
to
the
sort
of
purpose
of
the
units
the
given
that
there's
all
this
facility
available
in
worthing
there's,
there's
some
hundreds
of
meters,
thousands
of
square
meters
available
in
worthing
the
need
for
the
uni.
I
know
that's
already
been
addressed,
but
this
is
a
pertinent
issue
and
lastly,
of
course,
we've
got
to
talk
about
the
wildlife,
the
dark
skies
issue.
I
A
J
Thank
you
chairman.
My
name
is
elena
overton,
I'm
a
chartered
town,
planner
and
agent
for
this
application.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
the
opportunity
to
address
the
committee
this
evening.
I'm
delighted
to
be
able
to
be
before
you
to
present
the
first
phase
of
investment
in
brighton
city
airport.
Throughout
the
course
of
this
application.
A
positive
working
relationship
has
been
established
with
your
officers,
and
we
have
worked
together
to
address
all
matters
raised
by
consultees,
resulting
in
a
sensitive,
yet
commercially
viable
scheme
in
this
unique
location
as
set
out.
J
This
application
seeks
approval
for
matters
of
scale,
appearance,
layout
and
landscaping
relating
to
an
outline
approval
for
up
to
twenty
five
thousand
square
meters
of
mixed
use,
commercial
floor
space
to
clarify
the
in-principle
acceptability
of
this
development,
along
with
technical
matters
relating
to
noise,
drainage
and
flood
risk,
air
quality,
ecology,
heritage
and
ground
conditions.
Highways
and
transport
impacts,
along
with
various
environmental
considerations,
have
already
been
considered
and
found
acceptable
under
the
outline
application
and
therefore
cannot
be
reconsidered
during
the
determination
of
this
application.
J
In
brief,
this
scheme
proposes
the
construction
of
five
commercial
units
split
into
two
development
parcels
separated
by
parking
and
servicing
areas
to
aid
assimilation
of
the
development
from
the
north
and
east.
Significant
landscape
corridors
are
proposed
planted
with
shrubs
and
trees.
The
materials
selected
are
in
accordance
with
the
colour
palette
agreed
at
the
outline
stage,
and
further
interest
has
been
added
through
the
incorporation
of
timber
panels
and
glazing.
J
The
outline
consent
was
subject
to
a
design
code.
The
intent
of
this
was
to
define
parameters
against
which
to
develop
the
reserve
matters.
This
code
was
considered
necessary
to
ensure
an
adequate
form
of
development
in
the
context
of
the
national
park
and
the
significant
heritage
assets
and
to
address
concerns
raised
by
specific
consultees,
including
the
park
authority,
english
heritage
and
national
england,
among
others.
J
The
scheme
as
presented,
is
well
within
the
defined
parameters
permissible
under
the
outline
consent.
The
building
heights
are
lower,
the
quantum
of
floor
space
is
less
and
the
sustainability
credentials
have
been
enhanced,
meaning
that
the
scheme
will
now
be
developed
to
a
brian
excellent
standard.
J
Whilst
there
are
a
number
of
minor
issues
identified
as
outstanding
within
the
committee
report,
we
are
confident
that
a
mutually
acceptable
solution
can
be
achieved
and
we
are
working
with
your
officers
to
resolve
this.
Overall.
This
application
proposes
a
high
quality
scheme
in
accordance
with
the
parameters
defined
by
the
outline
consent.
It
will
address
a
significant
market
demand
and
will
act
as
a
catalyst
for
further
development
and
investment,
and
so
will
secure
the
future
of
brighton
city
airport.
Thank
you.
A
Okay.
We've
had
all
the
speakers
on
the
item.
If,
unless
there's
any
points
of
clarification
any
wishes,
I
will
open
it
up
to
debate
for
members.
E
Sorry,
just
clarifying
one
point
about
need
just
page
26.
It
was
something
we
did
discuss
and
there
has
been
a
significant
level
of
interest
in
this
site
for
new
commercial
floor
space
and
just
the
point
that
suggests
that
is
set
out
there
in
the
third
paragraph
or
second
paragraph
is
that
there
is
actually
very
little
in
terms
of
vacant
floor
space
across
sussex
and
actually
that's
a
an
issue
across
the
southeast
that
there
is
a
significant
demand
for
new
commercial
floor
space.
E
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
point,
and
there
was
one
other
point
I
was
just
in
relation
to
travel
plan.
It
was
condition
22..
I
couldn't
find
it
before,
which
particularly
talks
about
no
units
of
commercial
floor
space
should
be
occupied
until
a
travel
plan
has
been
submitted.
So
just
to
clarify
that.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
I'm
wondering
if
we
get
to
choose
the
the
color
scheme,
so
yes,
it's
having
grown
up
on
raf
bases
around
the
world,
they're
all
olive
green,
and
I
always
wondered
if
those
hangers
were
there
as
a
target,
because
you
couldn't
miss
them,
they
really
do
stand
out,
and
I
also
think
that
the
planting
of
trees
will
will
merge
nicely
with
the
downs
rather
than
expecting
the
buildings
to
merge
with
the
downs
once
those
trees
have
grown
up
a
little
bit.
E
Just
to
clarify
so
after
much
debate,
your
officers
are
coming
down
in
line
with
the
national
park
for
the
greys
and
blues
and
not
for
the
olive
green.
That's
before
you
now,
so
it
is
the
that's
the
suggested
color
and
interestingly,
in
terms
of
large
buildings,
and
the
report
makes
mention
of
of
many
warehouses
that
have
been
built
along
motorway
corridors
that
invariably
lighter
colors,
do
reduce
the
overall
scale
and
impact,
and
so
your
offices
are
suggesting
that
it
should
be
the
scheme,
as
originally
presented.
A
F
Nicholas,
thank
you
chair.
Just
going
back
to
the
travel
plan.
Obviously
you
mentioned
condition
22
regarding
travel
plan,
but
the
condition
which
refers
to
noise
management
as
well
and
also
the
travel
plan
on
page
32
suggests
that
I
wonder
whether
we
should
tighten
that
up
a
little
bit
as
so
that
there
is
a
travel
plan
for
each
unit,
which
I'm
not
sure
that
condition
22
says.
E
One
unit
and
one
travel
plan,
then
you
would
comply
with
the
condition
rather
than
for
each
occupation.
Of
I
mean
it
is
something
that
certainly
I'm
discussed
with
the
applicants
during
the
delegation
period,
but
certainly
it
would
be
very
difficult
to
write
a
generic
travel
plan
without
knowing
the
occupiers.
I
think
it's
appropriate
that
we
have
a
travel
plan,
that's
specific
to
the
occupation.
E
Indeed,
so
I
can.
I
can
amend
that
in
relation
to
the
noise
management.
The
applicants
have
agreed
that
a
noise
management
plan
b
can
be
added.
I
think
the
only
point
of
discussion
was
that
it
would
relate
to,
as
I
say,
that
the
matters
I
mentioned
not
as
of
working,
which
is
something
that
would
have
had
to
have
been
dealt
with
at
the
outlying
stage,
but
they're
happy,
certainly
for
fixed
plant
and
other
equipment
that
might
create
noise,
be
covered
by
a
noise
management
plan.
F
Thank
you.
I
just
also
just
on
that
point
and
there's
been
mention
again
a
couple
of
times
about
reversing
beepers,
for
example,
which
I
have
the
greatest
of
sympathy
for
for
people
that
are,
you
know
it's
particularly
late
at
night,
and
you
know
again
it
refers
to
that
in
the
text
at
35,
so
on
page
35,
I
assume
that
will
be
part
part
of
that
noise
management
plan
as
well.
E
E
So
that's
where
it's
difficult
to
then
start
conditioning
the
operation
of
the
site,
because
that
wasn't
something
covered
by
the
outline
permission,
but
certainly
the
the
the
details
of
extraction,
fixed
plant
and
mitigation
measures
is
as
per
condition
one
on
the
agenda,
but
you're
potentially
going
beyond
what
we
can
impose
at
a
reserve
matter
stage.
A
K
James,
could
you
just
clarify
for
me
if
this
is
already
being
done
previously
in
terms
of
the
timings
for
travel
on
the
site?
Obviously,
we've
heard
from
councillor
gay
crisp
and
she's
made
reference,
and
I
don't
recall
seeing
anything
here
within
the
report
that
said,
there's
any
limitations
as
to
whether
any
of
the
occupants
in
a
future
could
have
arctic
glories
going
24
7..
K
E
Yes,
I
mean
this
was
something
that
was
covered
in
some
detail
at
the
outline
stage
and
with
our
environment
health
officers
about
whether
it
was
appropriate
to
restrict,
but
certainly
the
noise
assessments
that
were
carried
out
at
the
time
indicated
that
I
wouldn't
be
appropriate
to
impose
an
hours
of
use,
condition
and
therefore
effectively
has
allowed
24-hour
use
of
the
site,
given
its
location
on
the
airport
and
distance
away
from
residential
properties.
E
So
that
was
the
assessment
carried
out
and
I
think,
over
within
the
report,
you
can
see
some
of
the
extracts
from
the
environmental
impact
assessment
carried
out
at
the
time
that
suggested
that
would
be
appropriate
and
that's
partly
because
of
background
noise
levels.
The
relationship
between
the
development
and
residential
properties.
E
I
should
add
that,
as
part
of
the
applicant's
commitment
to
briem,
one
of
the
brienne
requirements
is
specifically
to
look
at
noise
pollution
as
an
issue
and
that
briem
assessment
would
require
a
baseline
assessment
of
noise,
and
then
that
would
be
worked
into
the
design
to
ensure
that
operational
noise
is
kept
as
close
as
possible
to
the
baseline.
So
there
are
other
matters
and
I
suppose,
as
committee
will
be
aware,
there's
other
legislation
if
there's
been
potential
noise
nuisance
for
a
particular
occupier
under
the
environmental
protection
act.
G
Council
gardner,
I
can
see
that
this
development
is
important
for
the
finances
and
future
of
the
airport
and
it
will
bring
jobs.
G
But
I
also
have
great
sympathy
for
mr
goulet
and
other
people
who
live
on
that
street
and
indeed
the
thousands
who
walk
up
and
down
the
downs
link.
I
think
it's
a
great
shame
that
we
have
not
had
any
illustrations
which
show
what
this
development
will
look
like
from
the
downslink
side.
There's
been
little
arrows,
showing
where
it'll
be,
but
not
actually
I
mean
that's
a
bird's
eye.
G
You
know
we've
got,
but
we
got,
we
got
what
have
a
seagull
we'll
see
it,
but
not
how
human
beings
will
see
it
from
the
downslink
and
from
old
showroom
road,
and-
and
I
think
that
is
a
pity-
I
think
I've
heard
the
arguments
and
I
hope
the
grey
design
will
at
least
soften
the
blow
a
little.
G
G
Is
there
anything
we
can
do
to
encourage
them
further
and
make
sure
they
actually
do
that
because
it's
it's
easy
to
say
we'll,
make
it
even
more
sustainable
than
what
we've
put
down
in
our
application
so
far,
it's
easy
to
say
that,
but
it
may
cost
money
to
actually
make
it
even
more
sustainable.
So
is
there
anything
we
can
do
to
encourage
them.
E
Gemini,
it
is
something
that
I've
discussed
with
the
applicants.
It's
a
difficult
one,
because
it's
already
conditioned
by
the
outline
that
it
should
be
very
good
and
therefore,
to
put
another
condition
that
contradicts
an
outlying
condition
would
be
difficult.
E
I
think
probably-
and
I
I
do
understand
the
the
where
the
question's
coming
from
it
would
be
perhaps
appropriate-
to
reflect
what
the
applicant
submitted
in
an
informative
which
encourages
the
the
applicant
to
pursue
what
they've
indicated
and
and
to
seek
briem
excellent.
I
I
have
been
reassured
by
the
applicant's
agent
that
actually
in
the
market
now
occupiers
are
seeking
that
standard
and
therefore
it's
it's
in
their
interest
to
to
seek
that
higher
sustainability
measure.
E
So
a
chairman,
I'm
quite
happy
to
put
an
informative
that
that
does
encourage
that
going
beyond
the
outline
requirement.
L
Thank
you
chair,
I'm
just
thinking
about
councillor
crisps
mention
this
is
a
lost
opportunity
for
having
solar
panels.
I
mean.
Obviously
we
I
was
not
involved
in
the
outline
application
when
it
came
before
this
committee,
but
is
that
is
the
shape
of
the
roof
design
is.
Was
that
something
that
was
actually
passed
at
that
original
stage.
E
Yes,
indeed-
and
it
was
something
I
remember-
the
discussions
with
the
national
park
in
natural
england
about
particularly
wanting
to
have
that
barrel
shape
and
particularly
given
the
sort
of
the
airport-
and
I
suppose,
the
surrounding
sort
of
downs
felt
that
that
was
the
most
effective
way
of
of
reducing
the
impact
of
what
are
large
buildings.
So
I
think,
to
depart
from
that.
Now
would
be
really
difficult
in
landscape
terms
and
again
it's
something
that
is
referred
to
in
the
design
codes.
L
Just
just
an
extra
one
regarding
the
color,
I
think
it
depends
on
the
perspective,
because,
if
you're
looking
at
it
from
the
downs,
a
grey
bluey,
color
you're
looking
towards
water-
and
it
therefore
blend
in
that
way.
But
if
you're
looking
from
the
water
to
the
downs,
then
the
green,
the
greeny
brownie
colors-
would
be
better.
So
it
does
depend
very
much
on
on
the
perspective.
I.
A
Think
the
argument
there,
if
I've
understood,
is
that
there's
so
many
different
types
of
green
from
from
looking
at
any
normal
field,
let
alone
a
number
of
fields
that
that's
why
it
becomes
difficult
in
order
to
go
with
that,
but
but
perhaps
I'm
wrong.
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
we've
had
plenty
of
points
of
clarification.
Does
anyone
like
to
move
this
on
with
a
recommendation?
Do
you
have
further
points
clarification.
C
Just
just
one
mr
goulet
mentioned
the
impact
on
the
triple
s
I
and
looking
at
the
document.
If
you
look
at
page
28,
it
says
impact
on
triple
si
and
biodiversity,
and
it
really
only
covers
the
impact
on
the
site
rather
than
the
impact
on
the
neighboring
triple
s.
C
I,
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
there's
been
an
assessment
of
what
impact
this
building
might
have
on
the
actual
triple
s
I,
which
is
obviously
the
river
ada
and
the
and
the
wetlands
associated
with
river
ada,
because
that
really
isn't
covered
in
the
document
we've
been
given.
But
I'm
assuming
this
is
just
a
summary
of
the
huge
weight
of
documents
you've
got.
Thank
you.
A
Just
before
you
come
in
myself,
I'd
just
like
to
remind
the
community
this
evening.
We
are
here
to
look
out
the
landscape
and
layout
and
scale
rather
than
the
the
result.
The
outline
planning
permission
that
we've
had
previously,
but
I
will
defer
some
instructions.
E
Well,
just
to
reassure
a
members
of
this
was
considering
considerable
detail
at
the
outline
stage
and,
to
the
extent
that
there
was
natural
england
objections
right
up
to
the
the
11th
hour,
really
on
the
outline
particularly
concerned
about
the
impact
on
the
pumping
station
and
potentially
intertidal
mud,
and
there
was
a
requirement
for
a
compensatory
habitat
to
be
provided
and
actually
that's
still
being
monitored
and
natural
england
are
still
working
with
the
ea
and
sussex
wildlife
trust
and
to
to
address
all
those
issues.
E
So,
yes,
it
was
very
much
the
wider
impacts
of
this
combined
with
new
monks,
farm
and
the
drainage
strategy
was
looked
at
in
considerable
detail
and
in
particular,
there
was
a
ecological
and
biodiversity
reports
submitted
with
the
outline
and
scrutinized
by
all
the
the
various
bodies.
So
this
is
just
really
looking
at
the
impact
of
the
development
itself
and
what
can
be
done
for
lighting
and
the
layout
within
the
red
edging,
rather
than
the
wider
impacts.
F
Council
nicholas
well,
I
mean
to
sort
of
help
your
request
to
move
things
along.
I
guess
I
think,
there's
always
a
danger.
I
wasn't
involved
in
the
outline
planning
either,
but
there's
always
a
danger
that
we
can
go
over
the
the
thing
from
from
start
to
finish.
If
we're
not
careful,
I
have
the
greatest
of
sympathy
for
mr
goulet.
F
I
really
do,
but
I
think
the
matters
that
you've
brought
up
this
evening
probably
were
covered
the
first
time
round
and
and
so
therefore
I
don't
think
really,
we
have
any
any
any
reason
not
to
support
what
our
officers
have
recommended.
My
only
the
only
thing
I
would
suggest,
as
as
we
mentioned
when
we
were
just
discussing
it
james-
is
that
I
would
just
want
that
condition,
22
to
be
tightened
about
the
travel
plan,
so
other
than
that.
I
would
be
happy
with
supporting
our
officers.
A
Okay,
would
that
be
a
recommendation
as
amended
point
number
22
james?
Can
you
give
us
some
suitable
wording
for
legal.
E
Yeah,
I
I
think
what
I'd
prefer
to
do
would
be
during
delegation
period
to
discuss
that,
specifically
with
the
applicants.
What
I'm
slightly
nervous
about
is
that,
of
course,
if
you
do
the
first
occupier,
then
that's
not
controlling
supple
subsequent
occupiers,
and
it
may
well
be
that
there
are
a
number
of
things
that
could
be
submitted
in
a
travel
plan
that
might
incorporate
a
range
of
occupiers,
particularly
as
the
applicants
get
more
occupiers
signed
and
they
know
who's
going
to
be
occupying
it.
E
Maybe
one
encompassing
travel
plan
might
cover
when
they've
got
a
greater
idea
of
who's
going
to
be
occupying.
So
that's
my
only
slight
hesitation
that
perhaps
I
I
look
specifically
at
the
wording
hearing
what
members
say
and
discuss
during
the
delegation
period
with
the
applicants.
If
that's
okay.
F
I'm
on,
I
promise
you
I'm
not
trying
to
be
difficult.
It's
just
on
page
32.
It
does
refer
to
prior
to
operating
each
unit,
to
encourage
sustainable
transport
to
the
site
and
submission
of
a
outlook
mission
requires
a
solution
of
a
travel
plan
prior
to
the
occupation
of
each
unit,
which
is
what
it
says
on
page
32..
F
In
all
other
aspects,
I'm
I'm
perfectly
happy
it
just.
It
does
refer
to
the
outline
pushing
requires
a
submission
of
travel
plan,
price
location
of
each
unit.
E
Yes,
I
appreciate
that-
and
I
I
think,
probably
in
the
report
assume
that
22
did
that.
But
actually,
as
you
pointed
out,
the
outline
condition
does
say
something
slightly
differently
in
terms
of
no
units
until
a
travel
plan
has
been
submitted.
So
I'm
conscious
that
it's
not
within
the
gift
of
the
council
to
re-work
outline
conditions
that
are
already
established.
E
So
I
don't
think
we
can
alter
it,
but
I
certainly
can
have
a
discussion
with
the
applicants
around
how
that
travel
plan
would
incorporate
the
the
requirements
of
individual
occupiers
and,
of
course
you
could
get
a
travel
plan
just
prior
to
occupation
and
then
that
business
move
out
and
new
business
move
in
and
not
be
bound
by
the
travel
plan.
So
I
think
there
may
be
a
scope
that
we
can
get
a
travel
plan
prior
to
occupation
that
covers
future
occupiers
of
all
the
units.
So
I
sort
of
hear
what
members
are
saying.
E
C
Mcgregor,
thank
you
so
at
the
beginning,
mr
appleton
said
we
are
here
tonight
to
consider
appearance,
landscape,
landscaping,
layout
and
scale,
and
I
think,
based
on
those
considerations
and
on
the
report
before
us,
I
propose
a
motion
that
we
approve
this
application.
Thank
you.
E
A
A
A
A
A
Sorry
about
that
folks,
we'll
move
on
to
item
number
two
application
number
two,
which
is
land
of
the
former
site,
11
to
17,
11
and
17,
to
27
albion
street
south,
which
at
awdm
one
nine,
nine,
nine,
two
one
and
I'm
handing
them
to
peter.
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair.
N
This
is
the
site
council
development,
it's
in
albin
street
southwick.
This
is
an
old
aerial.
Photographer's
work
has
now
started
on
site,
it's
up
to
sort
of
a
slab
level.
Last
time
I
looked
next
door.
We
have
the
montgomery
motors
garage
and
this
application
is
just
to
make
some
amendments
to
the
design
and
layout,
primarily
following
clarification
of
ownership
of
this
strip
of
land
initially
to
the
east
of
the
site.
N
N
N
N
N
You
can
see
the
the
same
changes
there
and
then
some
minor
changes
on
the
side,
which
include
a
a
breeze
soleil
to
protect
the
windows
there
on
the
the
west
side
and
then,
finally,
at
ground
level,
there
was
going
to
be
a
car
parking
space
adjacent
to
the
entrance,
and
that's
now
been
moved
over
to
the
rear
of
building
number
two
over
here.
N
As
you
can
see,
and
also
we
have
some
additional
electric
vehicle
charging
points
put
in
as
well
for
the
car
park.
At
the
back,
so
in
all
these
all
quite
minor
changes
to
the
overall
development
which
we
don't
think
will
harm
its
overall
character
and
appearance
and
the
recommendations
for
approval.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much
peter.
There
are
no
registered
speakers
on
this
one.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
for
clarification
for
the
officer?
G
Council
gardener:
well,
this
building
is
larger
than
buildings
that
are
around
it,
but
it's
not
a
monolith.
I
think
it's
been
designed.
So
there's
it's
to
a
what
I
think
it's
quite
a
pleasing
design
that
breaks
it
up,
so
I
think
it's
quite
a
handsome
building
and
it's
bringing
much
needed
social
housing
to
the
area.
So
it
sounds
like
a
very
good
idea
to
me.
F
A
A
Okay,
we
move
on
to
item
number
three,
which
is
the
sussex
yacht
club,
8589,
brighton,
road,
awdm
209621,
and
am
I
coming
to
peter
or
jet
jam,
mr
upton.
E
Yes,
thank
you
chairman.
This
application
is
only
before
members,
because
the
ada
district
council
is
the
applicant
and
the
only
real
change
here
is
the
the
two
one
of
the
conditions
to
allow
certain
works
to
occur,
percolation
tests
and
enabling
substructure
installations
to
be
undertaken
prior
to
the
construction
of
the
flood
defense
wall
and
just
there's
the
frontage.
E
Obviously,
the
scheme
was
initially
demolished
and
it's
now
demolished
the
existing
clubhouse.
The
new
clubhouse
has
been
built,
as
members
will
be
aware,
and
then
a
three
and
a
half
meter
strip
along
the
frontage
of
the
site
to
enable
the
flood
defence
wall.
So
there's
now
with
the
new
clubhouse
sort
of
revealed,
as
it
were,
with
the
whole
clubhouse
demolished,
and
the
proposal
for
the
new
flood
defence
wall
to
go
at
the
back
of
a
widened,
footpath
cycle
path.
E
The
original
permission
runs
out
beginning
of
march,
and
the
main
reason
for
this
condition
is
to
ensure
that
the
permission
can
be
implemented
and
a
trench
can
be
dug
to
carry
out
further
groundwater
testing.
A
Thank
you
james
again.
We
have
no
speakers
on
this
item.
Do
any
members
have
any
questions
for
clarification.
C
C
So
I,
unless
anyone
else
wants
to
speak,
I
propose
we
approve.
Thank.
A
You
does
anyone
wish
to
speak
okay.
Well,
we
have
a
proposal
for
approval.
Do
we
have
a
seconder
council
o'neil,
you
you
shot
your
hand
up
there
very
rapidly.
We've
got
councillor
o'neal,
okay,
we're
proposing
a
seconder
unless
there's
any
further
debate,
all
those
in
favor,
again
unanimous,
so
awdm
209621
is
approved
unanimously.
A
E
Thank
you
chairman.
We
just
have
a
an
aerial
photograph
of
the
application
site
and,
as
a
report
indicates,
this
is
to
demolish
the
existing
chalet
bungalow
and
construct
a
a
pair
of
semi-detached
three-story
three-bedroom
houses.
They
are
two-story
above
ground
level,
I
hasten
to
add,
with
a
lower
ground
floor
which
you'll
see
in
due
course.
E
I
think
the
issue
is
quite
clearly
set
out
in
the
report
and
our
I'll
run
through
some
very
various
photographs
of
the
area.
This
top
photograph
is
a
bit
of
a
street
scene
view.
E
Members
will
be
aware,
there's
been
quite
a
lot
of
change
in
shoring
beach,
with
a
lot
of
replacement
dwellings
and
in
many
instances
one
dwelling
replaced
by
two
and
the
issue
really
is
the
the
the
size
scale,
bulk
and
massing
of
the
replacement,
rather
than
the
principle
within
this
built
up
area
and
the
the
bottom
photograph
just
shows
that
within
the
street,
which
is
characterized
by
a
chalet
bungalows
with
the
eaves
dropping
down
to
single
story,
there
are
two
two-story
properties
further
along,
as
you
can
see
to
the
the
west
of
the
site.
E
Just
here,
as
I
go
through
the
plans,
I
come
back
to
some
more
photographs,
so
this
is
the
the
street
scene
view
showing
the
adjoining
properties
either
side.
As
the
report
indicates,
the
applicant's
a
architect
has
sought
to
reduce
the
scale
bulk
and
massing
by
reducing
the
overall
height
of
the
development
by
0.8
of
a
meter,
800
millimeters,
and
you
can
see
that
that
has
reduced
that
overall
ridge
line
and
is
comparable
with
other
buildings
in
terms
of
ridges.
E
The
issue
of
eve's
line
is
is
sort
of
shown
there,
but
it
it
does
vary
in
the
street.
As
I
indicated
earlier,
this
cross
section
shows
what's
proposed,
with
the
lower
ground
floor.
E
So,
although
the
first
floor
is
raised
up,
slightly
is
essentially
a
a
two-story
property
with
some
steps
up
to
the
entrance
way,
and
then
this
lower
ground
area
here,
but
the
development
does
project
forward
at
two-story
level,
from
its
neighbors
and
before
I
show
you
that
just
the
side
view
showing
the
the
proposed
design,
the
the
set
in
from
the
sides
at
the
rear
and
the
projections
forward
that
I'll
show
in
a
moment
here.
E
So
this
is
the
footprint
with
the
proposed
parking.
The
sites
are
just
just
over
12
meters,
12.7
meters
wide
and
about
33
meters.
Deep,
there
is
adequate
separation.
They've
got
a
meter
both
sides,
but,
as
the
report
indicates,
your
officers
have
been
concerned
about
the
forward
projection
of
the
two-story
and
the
overall
depth
of
the
building
and
its
scale
bulk
and
massing
in
relation
to
neighbours
and
particularly
the
projection
of
the
two-story
elements.
E
That's
just
showing
the
accommodation
and
the
lower
basement
area
underneath
the
two-story
property
and
then
just
looking
at
the
the
surrounding
area.
Looking
at
the
a
number
of
sort
of
chalet
bungalows,
either
side
of
the
property.
E
Obviously
the
eaves
line
is
higher
here
more
like
a
traditional
house,
but
there
is
some
scaling
in
the
the
first
floor
there
which
drops
the
eaves
slightly
and
then
looking
back
westwards,
and
you
can
just
see
that
the
two-story
houses
there
in
the
the
background-
and
obviously
you
can
see
some
of
the
the
larger
two-story
that
have
been
added
to
the
street
scene
in
more
recent
years.
E
It's
just
going
back
looking
at
some
other
photographs
of
some
of
the
other
developments
within
the
vicinity
of
the
site
looking
across
to
or
to
the
the
site
across
the
gardens
to
the
rear.
E
So
the
overall
conclusion
of
your
offices
is
that
this
is
slightly
over
large
for
the
plot.
The
applicant
has
tempted
an
applicant's
architect
to
to
reduce
that
height,
but
there
is
still
some
concern
about
the
ford
two-story
projections,
the
overall
depth
of
the
development
in
relation
to
its
neighbors,
and
therefore
it
is
recommended
that
permission
be
refused.
E
I
should
say
in
relation
to
drainage
matters,
the
applicant's
architect
has
provided
further
information.
That's
addressed
the
environment
agency's
concerns
and
our
engineers
concerns,
and
those
matters
if
this
were
to
be
approved,
could
be
dealt
with
by
condition
but
for
the
ground
stated
in
the
agenda.
Chairman
applications
recommended
for
refusal.
E
A
You
james
do
any
members
have
any
questions
for
clarification.
K
James
looking
at
that
shot
up
there,
you've
got
what
must
be
49,
51
40
47.
At
the
front,
though
the
building
on
the
far
left
of
your
screenshot
that
comes
out
in
the
front
further
than
number
49
or
b.
K
It
just
looks
like
a
little
thing
that
comes
out,
but
I
just
it's
almost
as
as
far
as
the
proposed
51
and
53
55
is
not
in
line
that
comes
out
further,
yet
which
almost
mimics
that
so
what
how
much
of
a
difference,
because
you
you
use
the
word
it
slightly-
comes
out
further
than
some
of
the
lines.
So
when
you
say
slightly,
what
are
we
really
debating
here
in
terms
of
distance,
given
the
various
designs,
some
of
which,
quite
frankly,
on
that
road
are
hideous
and
some
are
beautiful.
But
that's
all
I
can
say.
E
Yes-
and
I
think
it's
a
good
point
to
say
that
this
isn't
a
a
street
with
a
very
established,
fixed
building
line
that
you
might
get
in
some
streets.
But
I
would
just
comment,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
area
of
photograph,
that
a
number
of
the
projections
are
single
story
and,
and
indeed
the
application
property
has
got.
A
single
story.
E
Element
projecting-
and
you
can
see
from
this-
that
a
number
of
those
forward
projections
are
single
story,
and
I
think
the
the
difference
coming
back
to
the
floor
plan
is
that
that
that's
obviously
a
two-story,
the
overall
depth
of
the
plot,
as
you
can
see
from
the
the
side
elevations
here.
It's
that
projection
of
the
two-story
element
and
the
overall
depth,
given
the
fairly
limited
width
and
dimensions
of
the
plot.
A
O
Good
evening,
I'm
here
this
evening
to
strongly
object
to
this
planning
application,
5051
old,
fort
road,
I'd
like
to
reinforce
and
agree
with
all
the
points
being
made
this
evening
by
my
neighbours
chris
and
mark
I've
lived
at
45
the
midway
for
24
years
and
have
seen
much
development
on
shore
and
beach,
but
it
is
this
trend
to
build
larger
and
larger
properties
on
smaller
plots.
That
is
increasingly
worrying.
Not
only
that,
but
to
convert
a
single
three-bedroom
dwelling
into
an
eight-bedroom
double
dwelling
complete
with
a
third
lower
ground
floor
level
is
completely
unacceptable.
O
O
There
is
already
precedent
of
at
least
three
properties
of
similar
size
and
location
along
the
old
fort
road
which
have
all
had
the
applications
for
double
dwellings
rejected.
I
would
draw
your
attention
to
most
recent
43
old
fort
road.
The
bulk,
massing
and
height
of
the
proposed
dwellings
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
existing
bungalow
they
would
replace
and
we
both
unable
and
overbearing
the
development
would
introduce
a
substantial
three-story
element
in
close
proximity
to
the
modest
gardens
and
dwellings
to
the
rear
due
to
its
size
and
sighting.
O
The
building
would
be
dominant
and
intrusive
feature
which
would
be
harmful
to
the
relatively
open
aspect
from
the
rear,
windows
and
gardens
of
the
neighboring
properties
resulting
in
loss
of
privacy.
The
proposal
is
unacceptable
in
that
it
does
not
relate
sympathetically
in
design
form
and
massing
with
the
existing
character
and
locality.
It
therefore
conflicts
with
policy,
ag-1
and
ah2
of
the
ada
district
local
plan
and
the
policies
of
the
national
planning
framework.
O
The
construction
of
the
tanking
structure
required
to
house
the
lower
ground
full
level
would
result
in
massive
excavation
of
native
shingle
and
all
the
noise
and
potential
of
subsidence.
This
would
cause
any
reference
by
the
architect
to
compare
this
with.
Other
properties
is
grossly
inaccurate,
not
least
that
they
are
on
the
south
side
of
the
old
fort
road
and
vastly
larger
plots.
O
I
work
from
home
and
my
office
faces
the
garden
which
adjoins
the
property
in
question.
The
proposed
boxy
design
and
high
walls
would
reach
the
existing
roof
line
of
the
neighbours
even
before
the
roof
to
height
is
taken
into
consideration,
overshadowing
all
the
adjoining
properties
and
severely
impacting
like
and
privacy.
O
Whilst
this
may
be
acceptable
in
a
larger
plot,
in
this
instance,
it's
grossly
out
of
proportion
and
in
congress
to
all
the
neighbors
properties.
I
strongly
object
to
this
planning
application
and
trust
the
impeccable
impartiality
of
this
committee
to
make
the
right
decision.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
P
Thank
you.
This
house
is
massive
with
a
low-pitched
roof.
The
eaves
are
several
feet
higher
than
the
existing
building
and
some
of
the
adjacent
buildings.
It's
totally
out
of
character
locally.
This
isn't
really
illustrated
well
by
the
selective
angle
in
these
photographs,
but
it's
worse
than
is
initially
apparent,
as
each
level
can
to
leave
us
out
above
the
previous
making
it
overbearing
and
encroaching
further
on
space
standards.
P
It's
not
a
simple
two-story
house.
It's
two
stories
on
top
of
an
only
partially
buried
basement.
It
effectively
makes
it
more
than
two
stories
three
stories
which
the
development
management
standards
suggest
means
there
should
be
28
meters
between
it
and
the
property
at
the
rear.
Where
I
live,
I
understand
two
for
ones
on
the
beach,
but
on
such
a
narrow
plot,
it's
over
development,
none
of
the
others
have
been
allowed
on
such
a
narrow
plot
they've
been
rejected.
P
All
the
two
for
ones
that
have
been
allowed
are
on
wider
plots,
mostly
significantly
wider
garden.
Space
is
another
issue.
Everyone
latches
on
to
an
11
metre
minimum
rear
garden.
It
should
be
easy
to
comply
with,
but
they
couldn't
quite
make
that.
But
this
only
applies
where
there's
no
other
relevant
standard,
such
as
garden
area.
These
gardens
should
be
15.75
metres
deep.
P
Where
did
I
get
that
number
from
development
management
standards?
3.5
says
buildings
over
120
square
meters
of
floor
space?
These
are
141
square
meters.
Each
should
have
gardens
of
100
square
meters.
Each
divide
that
by
the
narrow
six
point
three
meter
plot.
You
get
fifteen
and
three
quarter
meters
they're
over
five
meters,
shy
of
that
relevant
minimum.
P
P
Please
don't
condemn
everyone
to
inadequate
space.
The
design
and
access
statement
suggests
that
the
internal
space
is
vastly
exceeded.
Well,
that's!
That's
fine,
but
not
the
external.
Please
up
the
hold
the
standards
being
so
far
below
the
minima
should
be
enough
for
refusal.
Also,
the
basement
is
a
real
problem,
because
it's
causing
this
staggered
level
build.
P
M
Okay,
everything
that
sam
and
chris
have
said
is
we
totally
agree
with.
So
I'd
really
like
to
concentrate
on
one
aspect,
and
that
is
the
building
line
of
the
front
of
the
house
that
building
line.
We
believe
that
any
two-story
elements
should
be
set
back
two
meters
from
the
currently
proposed
building
line.
M
M
The
building
line
as
well
at
the
front,
is
based
really
on
what
was
a
fairly
recent
addition
in
terms
of
a
sun
room.
It's
not
the
original
building
line
of
the
property.
M
However,
all
of
those
properties
we
we
know-
I
mean
ours-
is
actually
a
railway
carriage
and
that
we
have
great
concerns
as
well
about
the
actual
excavation.
However,
that's
a
technicality,
but
we
really
it
to
us.
It
will
be
an
invasion
of
privacy.
As
far
as
we're
concerned,
we
do
believe
it
is
an
unsympathetic
over
development
of
that
site
and
everything
that's
been
said
by
chris
and
sam.
We
totally
agree
with
from
that
point
of
view.
Okay,
thank
you.
Q
Q
This
development
is
not
three-story
four-bedroom
houses,
the
houses
are
a
quarter
two
and
a
quarter
storey
above
ground
floor
level
with
three
bedrooms.
They
are
no
higher
than
some
on
our
immediate
block
and
less
in
height
than
some
others.
On
old,
fort
road
objections
about
privacy
have
been
raised
with
the
greatest
respect.
Our
property
is
divined
defined
by
a
boundary
wall
at
the
rear.
That
is
two
meters
high.
The
plans
show
that
the
lounge
will
be
600,
millimeters
above
ground
floor
level.
Q
The
rear
garden
garden
wall
was
constructed
by
us
at
our
cost
out
of
solid
block
work,
the
cypress
trees
that
border
our
properties
do
not
belong
to
us.
In
fact,
we
gave
up
some
of
our
land
when
building
this
wall.
So
as
not
to
damage
the
trees,
I
have
photographs
with
me
showing
this
and
the
finish
walls.
Should
you
wish
to
view
them?
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
The
idea
of
bungalow
town
is
nostalgic,
and
indeed
I
used
to
feel
that
way.
However,
the
photos
show
that
the
street
scene
has
changed
in
design
scale
and
mass
quite
dramatically
in
this
last
decade.
I
believe
this
design
fits
in
wonderfully
with
the
current
street
scene
and
modern
day
living.
Thank
you
for
listening
to
me.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
finally,
we
have
james
breckel
again
if
I've
pronounced
that
correctly
this
evening
with
names
again
take
a
seat
hit
the
microphone.
You
have
three
minutes.
R
Thank
you,
chairman
and
counsellors,
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation
during
the
course
of
the
application,
a
case
officer
and
I
agreed
on
some
points
and
disagreed
on
others
as
it
stood
in
december
last
year.
I
was
advised
that
two
houses
could
be
accommodated
on
the
site,
but
there
were
concerns.
R
Overall
height
was
a
concern,
so
I
reduced
the
height
by
650
millimeters.
I
also
prepared
this
drawing,
which
is
the
height
comparison
drawing
it
is.
It
has
been
submitted
as
part
of
the
planning
application,
but
not
presented
to
you
this
evening.
These
are
all
the
buildings
that
I've
designed
on
the
old
fort
road.
On
the
north
side,
I've
cut
and
paste
them.
So
you
can
see
that
that
the
approximate
height
in
relation
to
each
other
and
also
the
approximate
footprint
of
various
other
buildings
along
the
old
fort
road.
R
R
R
R
R
A
Okay,
that's
all
the
speakers
this
evening.
Does
anyone
have
any
points
of
clarification
they
may
wish
to
ask?
As
a
result,
council
mcgregor.
C
Thank
you.
I
know
this
road
and
I
visited
it
today
and
took
pictures
and
one
of
the
which
I'm
not
going
to
distribute
because
it's
just
on
my
phone.
Obviously
number
55
and
55a
are
this
two-for-one,
which
is
a
new
term.
I've
only
just
heard
it
where
they're
taking
one
house
and
turning
it
into
semi-detached
houses,
but
that's
a
much
bigger
plot,
but
further
along
not
much
further.
C
59A
is
a
two
for
one
in
a
slightly
wider
plot
and
it's
three
stories
so
and
it's
huge
and
then,
if
we
go
back
towards
fort
to
ferry
road,
there
are
many
buildings
which
are
equally
large
tall,
have
great
massing,
but
the
thing.
So
I
would
not
be
having
a
problem
with
this
proposal
if
it
wasn't
getting
so
much
nearer
to
the
road
than
the
other
houses
in
the
street,
and
that's
the
bit
that,
I
think,
is
the
sticking
point
that
it's
the
precedent
has
been
set
for
two
for
one
in
the
road.
C
E
E
So
that
would
in
invariably
mean
that
the
two-story
element
under
permitted
development
would
be
set
further
back
and
I
suppose
council
mcgregor
sort
of
hit
the
now
on
head
in
terms
of
part
of
the
concern
about
the
forward
projection
of
the
two-story
in
relation
to
what
is
not
a
fixed
building
line,
but
certainly
in
terms
of
whilst
saw
some
photographs
of
obviously
some
dwelling
step
forward.
E
Not
to
the
extent
indicated
here,
and
I
think
the
the
dimensions
of
the
the
plot
and
the
overall
size
of
what
of
the
development
proposed
is,
is
what's
led
to
the
officers
to
feel
that
this
is
too
much
for
this
fairly
restricted
plot
in
terms
of
width
and
obviously,
as
the
neighbors
have
indicated,
you
know,
trying
to
secure
the
the
rear
garden.
Sort
of
minimum
has
also
been
quite
difficult,
which
all
sort
of
indicates
that
perhaps
the
plot
is
just
slightly
too
small
for
the
for.
L
So
I
think
the
thing
that
concerns
me
is
the
lower
room,
because
if
you
allow
it
to
be
built,
you
can
say
it's
not
going
to
have
anyone
sleeping
in
it,
but
if
it
could
actually
in
the
future,
I
think
also
I'm
looking
at
the
flood
risk
there
as
well
and
that
the
extra
work
would
have
to
be
done
in
order
to
mitigate
the
the
problems
that
you
would
have
given
that
it's
on
shingles.
So
I
think
I
say
my
main
concern
would
be
about
that
about
that
lower
room.
E
Yeah,
gentlemen,
just
in
relation
to
that
I
mean
I
think
there
are
concerns
from
a
construction
point
of
view,
but
they're
not
relevant
in
planning.
It
can
be
done
technically,
it
can
be
achieved
and
you
can,
through
party
wall
acts
and
everything
else.
There
are
measures
to
safeguard
adjoining
properties
so
and
in
relation
to
the
condition.
We
quite
often
have
this
problem
of
enforceability,
but
environmental
agents
environment
agency
have
been
happy
with
that
condition.
E
We've
imposed
it
elsewhere,
so
that
wouldn't
be
a
a
cause
for
concern
in
this
instance.
So,
whilst
I
I
hear
the
concerns
counselor,
I
think
it'd
be
very
difficult
to
add
that
as
any
any
refusal
reason,
because
we've
certainly
imposed
that
condition
before
on
ground
floor,
let
alone
basement
rooms.
C
You
from
my
point
of
view,
I'm
looking
for
reasonable
grounds
to
refuse
and
the
we
can't
refuse
the
application
based
on
the
number
of
stories,
because
there
are
houses
with
that
number
of
stories
or
more
in
the
road,
and
I
don't
think
we
can
refuse
it
on
massing,
because
there
are
houses
as
massive
in
the
road
which
leaves
us
to
my
mind,
with
the
only
reason
for
refusal
being
it's
a
bit
close
to
the
road
or
the
pavement
or
or
whatever
you
want
to
say,
and
my
question
to
officers
is:
is
that
sound
grounds
for
refusal?
A
Just
just
before
mr
episode
again
comes
in,
I
I
suppose,
probably
the
easiest
thing
I
would
say
to
that
is
that
the
the
officers
have
given
their
reasons,
and
if
you
wanted
to
give
alternative
reasons
and
that
that
be
entirely
up
to
you,
we
can
we
can
approve
with
condition
usual
conditions
or
we
can.
We
can
refuse,
or
obviously
you
can
defer.
I
perhaps
won't
talk
for
office
and
I'll.
Let
mr
appleton
come
in
on
that.
E
Yeah
chairman,
we,
we
certainly
feel
that
that's
a
a
reasonable
ground
of
refusal
that
we
could
defend.
That
appeal,
and
I
I
think
the
point
here
about
scale
and
massing,
is
that
scale
and
massing
is
a
product
of
its
relationship
to
neighbours
and
its
full
projection.
Now,
whether
that's
emphasized
enough
in
the
reason
in
the
report,
then
certainly
if
members
felt
that
that
needed
to
be
tweaked
slightly
to
to
specifically
refer
to
the
extent
of
two-story
projection
forward
of
neighbouring
properties,
then
that
certainly
could
be
reflected.
K
K
J
K
A
Would
I
be
right
saying,
mr
upton,
obviously
if
they
were
to
move
the
houses
back,
we've
got
a
bigger
problem
with
the
rear,
gardens
they're
in
so
we're
going
from
the
size
that
we
have.
We
go
to
then
a
smaller.
That's
my
my
initial
thought
of
hearing.
That
is
that
we
then
get
a
smaller
stylus
of
the
garden.
K
A
Would
it
be
reasonable,
in
this
case,
james,
on
a
deferment
for
further
discussion
with
if
someone
were
to
put
that
forward
as
a
recommendation
to
further
discussion
with
the
with
the
applicant
and
their
agent.
E
Yes,
that's
certainly
a
an
option
for
the
committee
to
to
defer
and
and
further
negotiation.
Of
course,
the
applicant
has
got
the
right
to
appeal
if
it's
refused
or
or
to
resubmit,
if
it's
refused
with
a
revised
design,
so
they're
the
options
available
to
the
applicant
and
to
committee,
you
have
all
options
available
to
you.
K
H
K
A
So
we
have
a
motion
for
deferment:
do
we
have
a
seconder
councillor,
mcgregor,
okay
and
we're
happy
for
the
reasons
they're
in
james
yep?
Okay,
all
those
in
favor.
Please
raise
your
hand.
I
will
as
well
three
four
five
and
that
is
unanimous.
Okay,
so
the
application
awdm
two
zero
zero.
Seven
two
one
is
deferred
and
we'll
just
wait.
An
open
moment,
please
for
councillor
collins
to
come
back
in.
L
A
A
Welcome
back
council
collins,
okay
last
two
applications:
we've
got.
Firstly,
item:
number
five
awdm:
two,
two
eight
two,
two
zero,
eight
two
one
which
is
the
showroom
center
pond
road
peter,
will
come
to
you.
Thank
you.
N
So
you
may
recall
this
mission
last
year
for
the
sighting
of
some
air
source
heat
pumps
on
the
roof
behind
the
building
there.
This
revised
application
now
seeks
to
site
them
on
the
ground
over
here
next
to
the
rear
entrance.
N
A
We
don't
have
council
mansfield
with
us
this
evening,
which
will
be.
I
want
to
be
sorry
to
hear,
because
we
had
great
detail
of
how
much
and
the
the
sort
of
scale
and
what
they
did
and
what
they're
capable
of
does
anyone
have
any
questions?
Okay,
we
have
no
speakers
on.
Oh,
you
do
council,
collins.
D
All
right,
sorry,
I
thought
I
did
that.
Could
I
just
have
confirmation
that
that
fencing
is
a
sound
proof
then
said.
D
We've
had
it
before
on
other
enclosures
for
air
force,
heat
pumps.
S
Sorry,
I'm
not
I'm
not
registered,
but
I'm
the
project
manager.
So
I'm
carol
murphy
and
I
work
in
the
sustainability
team.
So
it's
just
hit
and
miss
fencing.
It's
just
for
visual
impact.
A
noise
impact
assessment
was
undertaken
and
no
mitigation
measures
were
required.
So
that's
what
environmental
health
are
also
aware
of
thanks
yep
just
to
add
I
can't
add
I
I
won't
be
able
to
answer
very
technical
questions,
but
I'll
try.
My
best.
D
We've
had
this
before
with
with
brian,
if
there
was
a
brienne
racing
on
this
building,
which
naturally
we're
going
historically,
was
there
or
wasn't
there,
the
brienne
would
actually
make
sure
that
the
enclosure
for
the
air
force
heat
pumps
was
acoustic.
Now,
is
it
acoustic
or
is
it
not.
N
D
That
does
surprise
me
greatly.
It
really
does
it's
a
busy
center,
they
do
generate
heat
and
noise
and
the
there's
no
noise
assessment
given
in
this
details
here
and
that's
why
I
brought
it
up.
A
Think,
probably
the
only
thing
I
would
add
councillor
collins
is
is
page
68,
he's
very,
very
specific
in
terms
of
the
environmental
office
of
advisors,
which
is
satisfied
will
not
cause
significant
noise
disturbance
surrounding
residential
dwellings.
Would
I
like
and
ada
district
council,
is
the
applicant
here
for
taxpayers
to
have
to
pay
for
something
that
has
not
been
assessed
that
it's
actually
needed
to
do?
I
I
don't
know
enough.
Personally,
it's
a
shame.
Council
mansfield
is
not
here.
Council,
council,
mcgregor.
C
As
you
know,
I'm
not
councillor
mansfield,
but
it
I
think
the
answer
lies
in
what
it's
called
external
air
source
heat
pump.
If
you
want
to
source
your
heat
from
the
air,
you
have
to
allow
the
air
to
get
to
your
pump,
and
if
you
had
a
barrier
to
that
air,
which
would
be
an
acoustic
panel,
then
the
air
isn't
going
to
get
to
the
pump.
As
simple
as
that.
Thank
you.
E
I
I
was
just
going
to
add
that
we
have
previously
approved
them
at
a
higher
level,
so
I
think,
probably
it's
more
effective
on
the
ground
than
previously
approved.
I
really
don't
think
noise
is
an
issue
here.
If,
to
be
honest,
there
was
an
issue
during
the
operation.
Then
it's
something
that
clearly
the
council
could
look
at
at
that
stage,
but
generally
we
have
and
we
will
start
to
get
air
source
heat
pumps.
You
know
on
residential
estates
as
a
requirement
and
they
will
become
commonplace,
so
it
really
isn't.
A
Could
I
perhaps
gently
add
to
that
that
there's
what
29
councillors
that
are
going
to
be
walking
into
this
room
each
for
full
council
meetings
and
should
that
be
an
issue?
I'm.
D
D
D
That
you
know
this
has
been
worked
out
on
on
data
rather
than
actual
noise,
with
with
briana
it's
it's
actually
done
on
them
operating
and
noise
assessment
being
taken
and
I've
I've
been
there
before,
where
somebody's
had
to
change
a
fence
into
acoustic
for
their
small
amount
of
cost
increase.
I
I'm.
A
A
C
I
propose
we
meet
councillor
collins
part
way
and
do
what
mr
appleton
suggested,
which
is
once
the
equipment
is
installed.
We
see
if
it's
noisy
and
do
something
about
it.
If
it
is.
A
A
Planning
condition-
perhaps
I
could
take
some
advice
from
either
side
of
me.
That
would
be
helpful.
E
Yeah
I
I
was
suggesting
that
there
are
other
powers
available
to
the
council
under
the
environmental
protection
act.
If
there
was
a
problem,
but
it's
not
anticipated.
If
there
was,
then
council
could
take
action.
A
Again
I'll
probably
come
back
to
the
point,
and
I'm
just
going
to
make
this
again
that
there's
going
to
be
30
of
us
walking
past
this
on
the
way
to
various
meetings.
If
there's
that
much
of
a
problem,
I'd
hope
the
the
council
as
a
landlord
exception
owner
of
this
land,
would
take
matters
not
to
annoy
the
residents
around
us.
But
that's
just
my
opinion.
Council
mcgregor.
C
A
N
Yes
very
quickly,
this
is
the
leisure
center
in
lansing.
This
glazed
entrance
link
here
between
those
two
buildings
has
some
out
of
date:
glazing
which
needs
updating.
That's
what
it
looks
like
at
the
moment
from
the
other
side,
and
it's
proposed
to
replace
it
in
a
very
similar
style,
but
with
a
darker
frame
and
obviously
a
better
better
quality,
so
recommendations
for
approval.
A
Have
a
seconder
counselor
nicholas,
thank
you
very
much,
all
those
in
favor
unanimous,
so
that
is
passed
which
brings
us
the
end
of
the
applications.
I've
got
a
big
file
on
full
c4
planning
fields.
Item
number:
seven
we're
gonna
have
to
run
through.
I
do
apologize.
No,
we
don't.
We
have
none.
So
I
declare
this
meeting
closed
at
too
much
to
nine.
Thank
you.