►
From YouTube: Adur Planning Committee - 6 June 2022
Description
For more information, please visit:
Facebook: http://fb.me/AdurandWorthingCouncils
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/adurandworthing
Website: https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk
A
Good
evening,
everybody
I'd
like
to
welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
planning
committee
on
the
6th
of
june
2022.
My
name
is
councillor
carol
aubry
and
I'm
chairman
of
aida
planning
and
I'd
like
to
welcome
all
the
committee.
Most
of
them
are
new
here
this
evening,
so
I'd
like
to
welcome
all
of
them
to
this
meeting
and
to
the
public.
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
heard
this
evening,
and
some
people
have
applied
to
the
council
to
speak
either
in
support
or
to
object
to
a
planning
application.
A
Objectors
and
supporters
have
three
minutes
each
to
speak.
District
councillors
and
parish
councillors
also
have
three
minutes
each
to
speak.
If
you
have
registered
this
evening
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
the
decision
this
evening.
A
B
Good
evening,
I'm
safe
to
notice
is:
please
mirror
eyes
yourself
with
the
fire
exits
from
this
room.
There
are
marked
refuge
points
at
the
top
of
all
the
staircases
for
mobility
vehicle
users.
There
is
no
fire
alarm
planned
during
this
meeting.
Therefore,
if
the
alarm
does
sound,
please
leave
via
the
fire
exit
to
the
assembly
point,
which
is
the
far
side
of
the
car
park
by
the
flint
wall.
B
A
A
C
Thank
you
chair,
I'm
councillor,
buxton
from
churchill,
ward
in
lansing,
I'm
also
the
chair
of
lansing
parish,
council
planning
committee.
I
don't
see
that
anything.
We
agree
on
that
parish
conflicts
with
here
we
don't
usually
have
contentious
issues,
but
if
there
is
anything
that
I've
previously
we've
previously
agreed
on
at
parish,
a
lot
of
the
information
provided
at
these
meetings
is
far
more
in
depth
than
what
again
parish,
and
I
am
open
to
listen
to
all
information
provided
at
this
meeting
before
I
make
up
my
mind.
A
Thank
you
very
much
councillor
baxton
item
number
three
is
public
question
times
and
we
have
no
public
questions
this
evening.
Item
four
is
item
raised
under
urgency
provision,
and
there
are
none
of
these,
so
we
go
to
the
first
of
the
planning
applications
this
evening.
The
first
one
is
sir
robert
woodard
academy.
A
D
Yes,
thank
you,
sir
item
one.
I
have
one
further
representation
to
report
to
the
committee.
That
is
a
letter
of
support
from
shawram
rugby
club
who
state
that
they
have
previously
had
to
use
portable
flood
lighting
on
buckingham
park,
but
have
been
able
to
use
this
facility.
Instead,
the
club
has
expanded
using
these
improved
facilities
and
at
the
increased
hours,
would
allow
the
rugby
club
to
offer
midweek
training
to
more
age
groups
within
their
wider
organisation,
as
this
is
an
application
for
the
variation
of
conditions.
There
are
no
plans
for
me
to
show
you.
D
So
the
only
part
of
the
presentation
I
have
is
the
overhead
views,
and
this
one
is,
is
looking
north
straw
members
attention
to
nearest
residential
properties
to
the
west
and
the
east.
There
that's
one
looking
north
and
then
just
looking
across
from
the
other
side
again,
the
residential
properties
nearest
are
to
the
east
and
the
west
whistling
further
across
the
upper
brighton
road
to
the
north
of
site.
So,
therefore,
the
recommendation
is
just
printed
in
the
report.
Thank
you.
A
C
Chair,
I
believe
in
the
original
application
for
this
one,
the
conditions
was
maintenance
of
the
grass
areas
and
planting
of
trees
to
help
block
the
view
for
residents
on
boundstone
lane
and
to
reduce
the
noise
that
has
never
been
done.
The
grass
areas
along
boundstown
lane
are
incredibly
overgrown,
not
in
a
nice
way.
They
are
just
dead
grass
and
it's
very,
very
unattractive.
C
I
would
like
to
see
a
condition
put
in
that
as
part
of
this
application,
that
the
original
agreement
for
the
green
spaces
was
carried
out.
Thank
you.
D
Yes,
thank
you
f
for
that
question.
Clearly,
this
is
an
application.
Just
relates
to
the
hours
of
use
of
of
the
pitch,
but
when
there's
a
second
permission
in
addition
to
the
first
commission,
is
it
possible
to
reimpose
those
conditions
unless
they've
already
been
discharged
now,
as
you've
picked
up
on?
What
I
note
from
the
agenda
is
that
landscaping
condition
hasn't
been
reimposed,
the
normal
reason
for
that
would
be
to
suggest
it
has
been
discharged
by
the
council.
D
I've
not
been
able
to
check
that.
Obviously,
given
the
questions,
so
I
I
suspect
the
the
correct
thing
to
do.
Therefore,
if
members
were
minded
to
grant
permission
for
this
development,
it
would
be
delegated
for
me
to
resolve
that
issue
that
you've
outlined
and
clearly
if
it
hasn't
been
completed
in
accordance
with
the
original
commission
and
the
condition
not
discharged,
then
we
can
reimpose
it
in
that
circumstance.
A
Thank
you
for
mentioning
that
council
bucks
and
I
too
would
like
to
see
that
done
and
completed
very
much
so
make
a
big
difference
to
the
residents
and,
as
you
say,
that
was
part
of
the
original
agreement.
So
thank
you
for
that.
Any
more
questions
or
anything,
any
more
clarification
that
you
need
from
gary.
A
E
Thank
you,
jeff
yeah.
Can
I
make
a
proposal
that
we
approve
the
application
and
get
the
officer
to
carry
out
the
check
on
the
planting
and
so
on
from
there.
A
Thank
you
cancer
panel,
and
do
I
have
a
second
up
for
that?
Yes,
councillor
buxton,
so
in
that
case,
if
no
one
wants
to
further
debate
this
application
at
all
and
you're
happy
everyone
to
go
to
take
a
vote,
we
could
do
that
now.
So
we
have
a
proposal
and
we
have
a
seconder,
so
all
those
in
favor
for
the
robert
wood
academy
and
the
hours
extended
if
we
could
have
a
vote
on
that.
A
A
D
Yes,
thank
you,
sir
item
two.
If
I
can
just
go
through
some
further
comments
and
representations
that
have
been
received
since
the
report
was
written.
Firstly,
we
received
further
comments
from
the
environmental
health
officer
who
states
that
there
have
been
no
record
of
any
noise
complaints
from
this
use
previously,
given
the
small
predicted
increase
in
two-way
trips,
limited
opening
hours
and
controls
in
place
within
the
noise
management
plan,
it
is
considered
unlikely.
A
significant
noise
disturbance
will
occur.
D
They
do
request
an
additional
requirement
in
that
noise
management
plan,
though,
to
include
monitoring
of
the
use
of
the
additional
units
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
plan
that's
been
submitted.
There
have
also
been
three
further
letters
of
objection
to
the
application
on
the
grounds
of
adverse
impact
upon
wildlife
and
that
the
surrounding
area
is
already
over
developed.
D
So
if
I
go
onto
the
presentation
now,
we
can
see
on
the
screen
the
application
site,
just
where
my
my
cursor
is
at
the
moment.
The
existing
storage
unit,
location
members
may
be
aware,
is
to
the
east
here
where
the
cursor
is
at
the
moment.
It
currently
has
a
slight
l
shape
here
will
be
extended
in
the
westerly
direction,
with
a
further
area
beyond
for
the
ecological
improvements
set
out
in
the
report.
D
So
that's
the
view
from
the
top,
and
this
is
the
actual
application
site
in
outline,
so
the
extents
of
where
the
storage
units
would
go
against
about
where
the
cursor
is
here
at
present
and
I'll
show.
You
further
plans
just
to
demonstrate
further
this
blue
line
that
shows
that
the
adjoining
land
is
in
the
ownership
of
the
applicant.
D
So
again
we
have
a
closer
up
view
on
this
particular
plan
here
so
again
we
can
see
existing
units
to
the
on
the
eastern
side
and
then
here
is
the
application
site
here.
So
this
is
the
part
where
the
extra
storage
units
would
go
located
here
and
here
you'll
see
on
this
picture
below
an
example
of
those
units,
and
this
is
the
fence
that
would
go
across
the
boundaries
beyond
the
railway
and
to
the
neighboring
residential
properties.
D
So
that's
location
of
the
storage
units
and
then
this
further
plan
here
it's
a
bit
detailed
to
flick
up
on
the
screen.
But
this
area
shows
here
this
is
also
in
control
of
the
applicant,
but
it's
not
proposed
for
any
storage
units,
so
this
would
be
the
parts
where,
as
I
stated
in
the
reports
regarding
ecology
and
biodiversity,
this
is
the
area
that
would
be
provided
so
that's
further
to
the
west
of
the
main
parts
where
the
buildings
will
be
provided.
D
So
that's
looking
some
photographs
now
to
finish.
That's
looking
in
towards
application
site
from
within
the
existing
units.
That's
looking
in
the
wesley
direction
and
then
this
is
the
site
itself.
So
if
you
like,
we've
just
advanced
forward
of
that
at
that
point
where
the
units
were-
and
this
is
looking
in
a
westerly
direction,
the
railway
line
would
be
here
on
the
left-hand
side.
Nearest
residential
properties
would
be
on
the
right
hand,
side,
and
this
area
foreground
here
would
be
the
part
that
would
be
for
the
storage
units.
D
A
F
Can
I
just
ask
in
the
report
there
seem
to
be
quite
a
lot
of
varying
opening
times
and
in
one
of
the
history
of
of
planning
it.
It
does
actually
say
no
working
on
a
sunday,
but
the
the
latest
thing,
I
think,
does
include
sunday
and,
as
they
have
said
somewhere
else
in
this
report,
that
there
will
be
traders.
F
I
feel
that
the
traders
will
be
coming
into
the
area
on
a
sunday
more
often
than
during
the
week,
and
it
worries
me
that
also
it
hasn't
said
how
high
the
acoustic
fence
will
be.
So
there
are
quite
a
lot
of
things
as
far
as
I'm
concerned
that
have
got
question
marks
and
also
the
other
final
thing.
The
important
thing,
in
my
opinion
is
they
are
taking
out
some
trees.
D
Yes,
chair:
if
I
just
try
and
answer
a
couple
of
those
questions
for
you,
but
firstly
the
planning
history
section
that
you
mentioned
actually
sets
out
the
consecutive
sequence
of
events.
That's
happened
over
the
course
of
the
of
the
business
being
operated,
as
you
rightly
say,
when
it
started
the
hours
are
used
more
restricted
than
they
are
now.
D
So,
if
you
follow
that
line
down,
you
can
see
that
each
application
varies
the
the
previous
permission,
some
quite
some
time
ago,
but
for
example,
if
we
look
at
the
one
that
says
1272-18,
that
was
an
application
that
was
granted
to
change
those
hours.
That's
when
the
sunday
use
became
operational
that
I
think
was
in
connection
with
one
of
the
previous
users,
but
then
it
was
changed
again
last
year,
so
that
has
been
something
that's
evolved
over
time.
D
So
that's
a
sort
of
life
story
of
the
of
the
application.
The
acoustic
fence
is
subject
to
a
condition
at
the
end
of
the
report
in
condition
18.
So
if
there
was
any
particular
concern
about
height,
it
could
be
controlled
by
that
equally
in
terms
of
the
landscaping.
If
we
wanted
to
be
more
specific
about
that,
we
could
reword
the
condition,
but
basically
in
conditions,
16
and
17,
where
the
applicants
set
out
what
they're
going
to
do
in
respects
of
tree
replacement
and
ecology
improvements.
G
Thank
you.
It's
just
really
a
query
about
the
fire
hydrants.
It
says
that
it's
associated
terrorism
is
270
meters
away,
180
meters
more
than
a
required
90
meters
distance
for
commercial
property.
G
D
D
Yes,
thank
you.
Yes,
that
is
a
valid
point,
although
I
would
just
advise
some
caution
on
the.
Although
the
county
council
was
entitled
to
comment
on
on
fire
hydrants
and
not
something
normally
that's
controlled,
specifically
under
under
planning,
but
but
clearly,
if
necessary,
we
could
again
impose
a
condition
to
ensure
that
was
satisfactorily
ameliorated.
I
suspect
it'd
be
easily
done
because
there's
an
existing
use
on
the
site
it'd
be
more
concerned.
If
there
was
no
user
when
we're
coming
in
without
an
existing
building,
you
know
straight
off
the
road
and
270
metres
deep.
D
H
Yeah,
sorry,
could
you
just
explain
a
bit
more
about
that,
because
I,
how
would
that
be
ameliorated?
And
it
it's
quite
a
major
concern
if
there's
a
fire
in
one
of
those
units
at
the
back
of
these
houses
and
the
fire
service
can't
get
water
to
it.
So
I'd
can
I
just
have
a
bit
more
detail
on
your
answer
to
that
and
why?
D
Well,
ordinarily,
it's
not
uncommon
to
have
backland
sites
that
are
some
distance
away
from
a
road,
and
I
think
that
the
points
being
made
is
that,
because
of
the
narrowness
of
the
units,
the
turning
nearest
turning
circle
is
around
this
location.
Here,
where
my
cursor
is
at
the
moment,
I
think
that's
that's
the
points
being
made
and
therefore
from
here
to
here
is
greater
than
the
recommended
distance.
So
where
that
happens,
therefore,
you
would
need
to
find
some
method
of
saying
well,
if
you
can't
get
the
the
vehicle
up
there.
D
How,
therefore,
do
you
get
water
down
to
that
air
now,
in
a
sense,
we're
straying
outside
of
planning
legislation,
because
that
may
well
be
a
building
regulations
matter,
but
nonetheless
we
could
get
further
information
on
that
if
members
required,
so
I
suspect
that
the
applicant's
agents
here
they
may
be
able
to
comment
on
that
as
well.
A
If
I
could
just
go
back
to
the
point
made
by
councillor
barton,
the
issue
number
17
does
seem
quite
wishy-washy
on
actually
how
we
would
get
some
enhancements
done
and
it
says,
approved,
bought
in
accordance
with
a
timetable
to
be
submitted
to
an
agreed
in
writing
with
a
loading
planning
authority
which
obviously
be
yourselves,
but
I
mean,
if
wanted
to,
we
could
put
a
condition
on
trees
and
some
definite
planting,
because
it
seems
a
very
sort
of
open-ended
paragraph
there
on
what
is
you
know
having
taken
out
trees,
etc.
A
There
is
nothing
there
to
actually
say
what
they're
going
to
do.
Thank
you.
D
Yes,
chad,
I
understand
that
point,
albeit
what
both
conditions
are
saying.
This
is
this
is
difficult
and
we
don't
have
the
four
surveys
open
in
front
of
us,
but
they
are
on
on
the
website
and
so
on,
but
but
both
of
those
conditions
are
basically
saying
the
development
should
be
carried
out
in
full
accordance
with
the
recommendations
in
versus
section
six
of
the
tree
report
in
section
5
of
the
ecology
report
now
within
those
are
various
recommendations
that
if
the
developer
doesn't
follow,
then
that's
potentially
breached
the
condition.
D
So
I
can
understand
just
looking
at
the
black
and
white
texts.
You
say
that
probably
doesn't
tell
me
very
much,
but
if
you
read
it
in
conjunction
with
section
five
in
section
six,
then
there
was
a
fair
bit
of
detail
in
there.
But
if
you
wanted
to
be
explicit
about
any
particular
element
such
as
those
that
council
barton's
mentioned,
then
then
certainly
we
can
be
a
bit
more
prescribed
if
you
like
in
the
conditions
and
just
reword
that
to
make
sure
those
particular
elements
are
emphasized.
Okay,.
I
Thank
you
chair.
Sorry,
thank
you,
chair
on
on
on
time
scale
should
this
be
approved
if
planning
is
approved,
as
I
understand
it,
a
detailed
drainage
scheme
would
then
have
to
be
drawn
up
and
submitted
for
approval,
and
part
of
that
would
involve
groundwater
monitoring.
D
Thank
you,
mine
doesn't
come
on,
that
can
be
quite
an
extensive
period
and
this
is
going
to
be
if
you
like,
the
situation
for
the
applicants.
Ordinarily,
my
understanding
that
involves
winter
ground,
water
monitoring
as
well.
So
that's
obviously
some
time
from
where
we
are
at
the
moment.
D
But
that
comes
with
I'm
sure,
as
members
have
seen,
that
the
technical
services
report
was
saying
well,
ideally,
we'd,
like
all
this
information
upfront,
but
if
you
can't
have
it,
then
you
secure
it
by
condition
now
the
implications
that
condition,
to
my
mind
are
to
comply.
It
will
take
some
months
because
there
is
a
fair
bit
of
detail
in
that,
and
there
are
other
developments
in
the
town
have
been
held
up
because
of
that
now.
Clearly,
we
have
to
be
proportionate
because
we
have
a
proposal
and
it's
deemed
acceptable.
D
I
As
a
kind
of
follow-up
to
that,
presumably
then
the
ground
groundwater
monitoring
is
done.
I
The
drainage
report
is
submitted,
and
you
say,
and
if
it's
acceptable,
what
then
happens
in
the
sense
of
can
the
developer
then
just
start
chopping
down
trees,
because
often
in
can
we
often
we
put
conditions
in
on
when
trees
can
be
removed,
to
avoid
nesting
seasons
and
and
that
sort
of
thing-
and
I'm
not
sure
I've
seen
that
here,
because
what
you've
just
described
kind
of
pushes
things
to
spring
next
year
and
that's,
I
would
imagine
not
a
good
time
for
chopping
trees
down.
D
Yeah,
yes,
absolutely,
but
firstly,
there
is
the
controller
over
the
trees,
in
condition.
16
and
condition.
17
does
specifically
require
a
time
scale
to
be
submitted
to
and
approved
by,
the
local
plan
authority
as
well,
and
it's
for
that
very
reason
is
that
quite
clearly
there
is
you
know,
felling
of
trees
and
and
the
light
that
can
take
place
at
completely
inappropriate
times.
That
is
another
restriction
that
has
to
be
done
and
that's
why
the
timetable
works
on
there,
and
I
again
I
can
appreciate
from
a
sitting
here
the
room.
D
It
sounds
a
bit
sort
of
vague,
but
the
point
is
that
has
to
be
set
out
for
that
very
reason,
so
that
would
then
go
to
both
our
tree
officer
and
our
drainage
officer,
in
tandem
as
technical
experts
to
agree
or
not
to
agree
to
those
details,
and
I
I
can
certainly
assure
members
that
our
technical
services
services
officer
is
particularly
detailed
in
that
respect
and
does
not
allow
conditions
to
be
discharged
easily
unless
she
has
the
appropriate
information,
and
certainly
the
tree
officer
is
quite
simple
from
his
perspective.
D
Is
that
he
knows
full
well
when
trees
should
be
failed
and
when,
when
they
shouldn't
and
we'll
quite
quickly
point
out,
if
something's
unacceptable
in
the
planting
season,
so
that
is
a
safeguard.
That's
on
the
planning
condition
that
can
be
held
and,
of
course,
if
there
is
a
breach
that
separately,
then,
of
course,
that
is
an
offence
under
that
condition
which
a
breach
condition
notice
could
be
served
on.
A
J
J
J
The
government
has
also
encouraged
local
councils
to
build
green
corridors
to
celebrate
the
queen's
jubilee,
not
destroy
existing
ones.
The
proposal
goes
against
that
eight
trees
are
being
removed.
We
are
all
aware
of
the
need
for
trees
to
aid
in
carbon
capture,
and
even
the
council's
own
tree
officer
has
criticized
the
removal
of
so
many
trees.
J
Excessive
pruning
is
also
proposed
to
the
trees
of
neighbouring
properties
overhanging
the
site.
A
number
will
face
decimation
of
their
foliage
and
50
percent.
Of
their
root
protection
area
will
be
covered
by
tarmac.
This
is
unacceptable
planting
a
few
saplings
does
not
mitigate
against
the
destruction
of
mature
trees,
pockets
of
untouched
nature
are
essential,
and
this
is
one
of
the
last
in
the
center
of
the
town.
J
The
abundance
of
different
species
means
it's
also
a
valuable
wildlife
area.
The
ecology
report
states
that
four
species
of
protected
bat
were
recorded.
A
breeding
population
of
protective
slow
worms
was
also
found
under
the
wildlife
and
countryside
act.
1981
all
bat
species
are
protected,
which
makes
it
an
offense
to
intentionally
destroy
access
to
bat
roosts.
The
proposed
mitigation
steps,
such
as
log
piles
and
bat
boxes
are
no
substitute
for
real
natural
environment
where
species
can
start
to
thrive.
J
A
K
Good
evening
I've
been
a
resident
of
gordon
road
for
nearly
50
years.
It
is
a
busy
residential
street
which
is
also
a
bus
route.
There
is
enough
traffic
already
and
it
is,
and
it
is
being
used
or
going
to
be
used
as
a
car
park
by
the
over
spill
of
vehicles
from
by
newly
approved
housing
developments
and
businesses.
Ie
focus
the
proposed
development
will
result
in
loss
of
privacy,
light
spillage
and
more
noise
for
the
residents
to
cope
with.
K
There
will
be
increased
noise
from
vehicles,
goods,
trolleys,
people
shouting
on
their
mobile
phones,
playing
car
radios,
opening
and
closing
the
unit,
doors,
etc.
The
noise
from
the
existing
railway
will
be
able
to
travel
further.
At
present,
the
sound
is
absorbed
by
the
vegetation
and
trees
will
be
affected
by
more
floodlights.
They
already
have
existing
lights
shining
brightly
all
night
in
their
yard,
spilling
out
into
nearby
properties.
K
This
will
be
a
huge
security
risk
to
our
properties.
These
units
will
make
it
easy
for
intruders
to
access
our
gardens
by
either
climbing
over
the
fence
or
from
the
roofs
of
these
units.
An
additional
concern
should
be
should
be
any
of
the
units
be
used
to
store,
flammables,
I.e,
fireworks
in
the
event
of
a
fire.
K
What
would
the
efficient
way
for
fire
engines
to
gain
fast
access
outside
company
normal
operating
hours?
Will
they
have
to
obtain
the
code
for
the
gate,
and
where
is
the
nearest
fire
hydrant
to
this
site?
The
placement
of
these
units
leaves
them
open
to
misuse
by
law.
Breaking.
They
are
very
much
hidden
from
general
public.
The
company
currently
have
24
hour
access
available.
It
is
unclear
if
this
extends
to
the
new
proposed
units.
K
This
exact
same
type
of
development
was
first
proposed
in
1980,
where
they
wanted
to
build
storage
units
all
the
way
down
to
number
58
gordon
road.
The
ada
council
of
the
day
rejected
this
on
the
grounds
that
gordon
road
was
not
wide
enough
to
accommodate
additional
traffic,
as
it
is
a
residential
street
and
due
to
the
additional
noise
and
disturbance
the
development
will
cause
the
residents.
I
asked
the
same
council
some
42
years
later.
K
What
has
changed
since
the
storage
business
opened
in
2016?
There
have
been
attempts
by
the
company
to
change
terms
repeatedly,
including
the
opening
hours
more
being
the
operative
word.
There
have
been
problems
with
brightness
and
angles
of
their
floodlights
in
summer
2017,
the
company
hired
heavy
duty
machinery
to
start
clearing
the
ever
the
area
without
forewarning
to
residents.
K
A
L
I
don't
have
a
lot
to
add
to
kevin
and
goodwin's,
but
a
few
points
when
the
focus
building
went
up
a
few
years
ago.
I
believe
there
was
mitigation
that
the
green
barrier
there
that's
shown
would
help
the
residents
of
that
area,
and
I
don't
understand
why
that
green
barrier
would
be
taken
down
now.
It
does
seem
that
one
decision
has
been
made
based
on
a
fact
and
that
fact's
now
being
changed.
L
Also
I'd
like
councils,
if
anybody's
ever
stood
at
the
railway
gates
at
the
bottom
of
gordon
road,
when
it's
lunchtime
they'll
see
how
many
cars
there
are
queued
up
around
mcdonald's,
it's
actually
getting
quite
dangerous
there
with
those
gates
coming
down
people
queuing,
I
think
we're
going
to
increase
that
traffic
flow.
If
we've
got
more
people
coming,
especially
if
they're
trades
people
so
I'd
say
that's
another
point
to
worry
about.
L
Overall,
I
think
that
the
town
is
getting
bit
more
concreted
and
I
think
we're
just
going
to
increase
that
really
green
areas
are
helpful
for
mental
health
and
physical
health.
It's
worth
remembering
that
some
of
the
members
of
residents
of
gordon
road
are
thinking
of
leaving.
Because
of
this
really
important
point
here
is:
what
does
this
proposal
benefit
the
residents
of
shawroom
in
what
way
as
a
resident?
Can
we
do
it?
L
L
Looking
on
the
internet,
you
can
see
there
are
17
storage
companies
in
the
surrounding
area,
so
we
could
really
ask.
Is
there
a
need
for
this
extra
storage?
Is
there
really
a
need
for
it?
And
finally,
if
you
watched
the
television
yesterday,
the
queen
was
wearing
green
and
the
royalty
are
all
about
looking
after
the
country,
so
I
can
hold
us
back
on
jubilee
just
one
more
day.
Keep
on
that.
Okay,.
A
M
Plus
activity
levels
are
negligible
when
compared
again
to
a
conventional
warehouse,
resulting
in
only
small
effects
in
terms
of
matters
such
as
traffic
generation,
noise
and
smell.
In
this
case,
the
extension
involves
an
overgrown
surplus
site.
It
is
tucked
away
not
being
visible
from
public
roads
with
no
access
from
the
public.
M
M
M
Indeed,
as
demonstrated
by
a
detailed
assessment
submitted
with
the
application,
the
proposals
will
bring
forward
netbio
biodiversity
gain
of
over
50
percent
well
above
the
required
10
standard.
So
the
claims
that
the
proposals
will
result
in
ecological
harm
are
simply
not
true
in
terms
of
residential
amenity.
The
site
is
largely
screened
from
properties
to
the
north,
with
the
units
being
barely
visible
from
adjoining
gardens,
as
stated
previously.
M
By
their
nature,
the
new
units
will
not
generate
noise.
However,
the
applicant
is
prepared
to
install
an
acoustic
fence
on
the
site's
northern
boundary,
which
will
provide
both
screening
and
noise
attenuation
plus
they
will
agree
to
the
hours
conditions
are
set
out
in
the
report
and
also
an
update
of
a
noise
management
plan.
M
A
H
Yes,
I
do
have
a
question.
That's
just
come
up
from
in
the
last.
H
A
H
I
understand
the
last
speaker
is
employed
by
the
rps
group.
We've
got
four
supporting
statements
that
were
commissioned
as
part
of
this
application.
I
think
the
tree
survey
report
the
preliminary
ecological
appraisal,
the
ecological,
the
ecology
survey
report
and
the
noise
management
plan
that
we're
told
our
independent
commissioned
report.
H
N
H
Agent
for
the
applicant
employed
by
the
same
company
and
I'm
concerned
that
there
seems
to
be
that
that
may
compromise
the
so-called
independence
of
those
reports.
If
we
have
four
supposedly
independent
reports
from
the
same
company
as
we
now
hear
the
agent
of
the
the
developers
works
for,
could
somebody
explain
that
to
me.
Thank.
A
D
Yes,
I
think,
if
I
understood
the
question
right-
it's
probably
probably
getting
slightly
confused
on
on
the
term
independent,
because
clearly
the
applicant
is
going
to
submit
information
that
is
by
them,
so
that
that's
that's
not
independent.
That's
in
support
of
the
application,
then
the
various
aspects
are
checked
by
the
various
technical
consultees.
D
So
if
we're
talking
about
the
reports
that
have
been
submitted,
for
example,
a
tree
report
will
be
submitted
by
an
applicant
and
checked
or
assessed
by
the
tree
officer.
The
ecology
report
has
been
assessed
within
the
council
independently
or
by
the
council
consultant,
and
then
they've
they've
come
back
and
submitted
further
information.
D
So
I
think
that
the
idea
of
independent
reports
is
not
quite
as
I'd
understand
it,
because
they're
in
support
of
an
application,
so
they're,
not
independent
in
the
sense
of
of
that,
but
the
consultees
who
have
listed
out
in
their
responses
are
are
within.
The
report
would
be
the
ones
who
would
assess
the
the
relevance
or
or
correctness
of
those
reports
and
so
on.
I
think
that
answers
the
question.
C
I
was
trying
to
think
how
to
wear
this.
This
is
a
beautiful
green
area.
It
is
full
of
nature,
trees,
plants,
animals,
insects
and
we've
been
told
that
they
will
improve
the
remaining
green
area.
To
compensate
for
that,
you
can't
compensate
for
taking
away
a
huge
chunk
of
land,
but
what
is
to
stop
them
in
future,
applying
to
have
that
part
of
the
land
removed
and
turned
into
storage
units
after
they
promised
to
keep
it
as
a
biodiverse
area?.
D
Well
I'll
just
answer
the
the
second
bits
and
the
first
bit
is
probably
for
the
associative
members
to
resolve
that
that
part.
The
second
part
is
that
it
would
need
planning.
Commission,
that's
the
first
thing.
There
is
nothing
to
stop
any
applicant
applying
for
anything
and
that
that
that
applies
to
across
the
whole
town,
but
I
would
have
thought
that
in
any
future,
application
were
to
be
submitted.
D
A
very
strong
consideration
in
that
would
be
how
this
application,
if
it
were
to
be
approved,
was
approved
and
given
what's
been
said,
and
I
think,
runs
through
reports.
If
this
area
here
hadn't
been
included,
then
that
would
be
clearly
unacceptable.
So
it's
my
mind,
although
it
be
opens
an
applicant
and
submit
a
fresh
application.
I'd
suspect
it
would
stand
very
little
chance
of
success
when
you
refer
it
back
to
this
one.
D
However,
that's
a
future
question,
so
I'm
not
commenting
on
on
the
first
part,
what
six
that's
the
members,
but
yes,
the
second
part
would
require
planning
permission.
My
view
would
be
that
if
this
were
allowed
to
be
highly
unlikely
to
gain
permission,
but
that's
a
subsequent
thing.
Thank.
H
D
D
H
D
A
G
It's
been
spoken
here
about
by
one
of
the
representatives,
but
the
problem
are
in
golden
road
by
wrecking
arrows
considerably
adjacent
to
eastern
avenue,
and
it
says
here
the
width
of
a
row
of
5.8
meters
could
accommodate
two
cars
passing
each
other.
G
A
C
Again,
I'm
going
back
to
the
bio
diversity
and
nature
side
of
things.
As
has
been
pointed
out,
we
are
in
a
climate
emergency.
At
the
moment.
Ada
council
at
the
moment
is
promoting
rewilding
green
spaces.
Green
comet,
sorry
cut
my
teeth
back
in
corridors.
C
Lansing
is
involved
in
creating
a
pollinator
corridor
from
the
seafront
to
the
downs.
We
are
supposed
to
be
promoting
saving
these
kind
of
areas
once
they're
gone,
they're
gone,
and
I
really
feel
that
I
don't
know.
I
just.
C
C
O
A
I
I
I
do
just
struggle
with
this
concept
of
having
the
size
of
this
green
lung
and
suggesting
that
if
we
move
enough
items
into
it
and
cordially
invite
the
bats
and
the
hedgehogs
along,
they
will
have
a
better
time
in.
In
that
area,
I
mean
I'm,
I'm
just
I'm
rather
skeptical
about
that.
I'm
skeptical
about.
I
have
concerns.
I
should
say
about
tarmacking
this
end
of
that
area
over
both
for
the
effect
of
what
it
will
do
for
biodiversity,
but
also
what
it
will
do
for
drainage.
This
is
one
of
the
lowest
parts
of
showroom.
I
There
is
occasional
flooding.
There
was
relatively
recently
on
gordon
road
itself
just
near
these
houses,
because
it's
they
got
pretty
inadequate
drainage
there.
I
I
I
think
it
says
in
the
report
that
for
I
for
many,
they
won't
really
notice
the
sheds,
because
they've
got
trees
and
they've
got
buildings
in
in
their
sheds
and
so
forth
in
their
in
their
gardens.
I
But
these
units
are
2.8
meters
high.
That
is
pretty
high
to
be
right
up
against
defense,
and
we
don't
have
information
about
the
acoustic
fence
and
I'm
not
an
expert
on
acoustic
fences,
but
I
would
imagine
they
would
actually
need
to
be
even
taller
in
order
to
have
some
kind
of
effect,
so
we're
talking
about
an
unknown
but
something
pretty
tall
right
up
against
their
their
back
walls,
their
back
fences
where
they
now
have
a
view
of
of
of
greenery.
I
So
I
think
on
all
those
issues
I
I
really
am
not
impressed
with
this
application.
A
O
You
yes,
I'm
there
are,
I
have
to
say
many
aspects
of
this
that
I'm
uneasy
about.
I
think
one
is
the
fact
that
this
came
originally
without
any
indication
that
they
might
be
wanting
to
expand.
Take
councillor
buxton's
point
that
what
is
there
then
a
couple
of
years
down
the
line
for
them
to
say?
Okay?
Well,
let's,
let's,
let's
make
the
whole
thing.
53
self
storage
units
is
an
awful
lot
of
units
on
this
area.
O
As
someone
has
said,
there
is
plenty
of
capacity
around
I'm
not
sure
we
need
them
on
this
vital
green
space
in
the
centre
of
shawroom.
I
think
that
there
were
very
good
points
made
about
the
safety,
the
the
security
aspects
for
the
local
residents.
O
The
fact
that
producing
something
that
is
so
high
could
actually
encourage
vandalism
and
they
certainly
the
idea
of
of
the
worry
about
whether
you
would
be
able
to
get
a
fire
hydrant
down
there
when
you
actually
have
no
control
over
what
will
be
held
in
these
buildings,
I
I
think,
is
extremely
risky.
O
So,
on
those
points
alone,
and
obviously
the
traffic,
those
of
us
who
know
gordon
road
know
how
difficult
it
is
already
and
you
you're
not
even
ruling
out
those
heavy
duty,
goods
vehicles-
you
say:
okay,
they
might
be,
they
might
be
fans,
but
you're,
not
ruling
out
the
idea
that
you
could
have
heavy
vehicles
wanting
to
come
in
and
deposit
their
their
west.
So
I
think
I
I
have
been
fairness
to
say
that
these
are
the
things
that
I
am
concerned
about
with
this
application.
H
I'm
new
to
this
committee,
one
of
the
things
that
I
was
told
at
the
training
is,
is
to
read
the
ada
local
plan
that
people
said
to
me
that
that's
where
a
lot
of
these
applications
and
the
policies
start
and
end
so
I've,
given
that
some
reading
and
there's
two
particular
areas
of
the
ada
local
plan,
two
policies
that
I
think
are
contravened
by
this
application.
H
This
is
not
in
a
designated
industrial
area
and
it
says
outside
of
designated
employment
areas
where
new
development
for
extensions
to
b1,
b2
and
b8,
which
this
is
a
proposed.
Such
applications
will
only
be
permitted
where
it
is
demonstrated.
They
will
not
have
an
unacceptable
impact
on
adjacent
residential
properties
and
they
comply
with
other
policies.
In
this
plan,
I
think
the
evidence
is
that
this
does
cause
unacceptable
income
on
residential
properties.
We've
heard
about
noise
impact,
we've
heard
about
changes
to
the
visual
immunity
that
have
been
mentioned.
H
That
actually
does
that
not
in
itself
say
this
is
unacceptable
and
the
second
point
I
just
want
to
make
about
the
the
later
local
plan
is
policy
30,
which
talks
about
green
infrastructure.
H
I'm
going
to
read
two
bits
out
of
here.
The
council
will
work
relevant
partners
and
developers
to
facilitate
the
creation
of
an
integrated
network
of
green
infrastructure
within
beyond
data,
and
it
also
says
conserving.
Biodiversity
is
not
just
about
protecting
rare
species
and
designated
conservation
sites.
It
also
encompasses
the
more
common
and
widespread
species
and
habitats,
all
of
which
make
up
an
important
contribution
to
the
quality
of
life.
H
Now
I've
been
to
this
area,
I
went
to
the
weekend
and
had
a
look
at
it,
and
it
is
just
what
that
says:
it's
not
got
rare
species.
Okay,
the
reports
say
they're,
not
particular
trees
of
interest,
but
these
are
mature
trees.
This
is
a
dense,
ideal
habitat
for
nature,
and
one
of
the
things
that's
been
mentioned
is
about
the
concept
of
green
corridors.
That
is
also
within
policy
30.
H
H
H
Excuse
me,
because
it
is
a
beautifully
rich,
useful,
dynamic
site
and
not
something
that
should
be
destroyed,
and
the
last
point
just
to
say
against
all
this
I've
tried
to
balance
well.
What
is
the
actual
community
benefit
of
this
development
if
it
was
for
housing?
Well,
that
would
be
another
matter.
We
need
housing
if
it
was
for
industry
that
was
creating
specific
new
jobs.
That
would
be
worth
thinking
about,
but
this
is
basically
category
ba.
It's
warehousing
it's
space
for
people
to
put
stuff
in,
I
would
say
the
economic
benefit
of
that.
H
A
Thank
you.
Everybody
gary.
A
A
A
No,
in
that
case,
gary
peck
would
just
like
to
say
a
few
words
first
before
we
take
a
vote
on
this.
Thank
you.
Gary.
D
Thank
you.
So
if
committee
are
moving
down
that
line
councillor
shin
mentioned
that
he'd
read
the
local
plan
and
quoted
a
couple
of
policies
there,
which
will
need
to
be
within
any
refusal
reason.
Members
will
see
that
policy
4
is
in
your
reports
there
specifically,
and
that
is
a
relevant
policy
that
members
can
take
into
account.
So
that
would
be
one
potential
policy
to
include
councillor
shin
also
mentioned
policy
30,
which
is
also
relevant,
so
that
could
be
included.
D
There
is
another
policy:
it's
not
specifically
referenced
in
the
report
policy,
15
of
the
local
plan,
which
has
various
bullet
points.
If
members
are
aware
of
it,
but
one
of
it
does
say
that
development
should
respect
the
existing
natural
features
of
the
site,
including
landform
trees
and
biodiversity,
and
contribute
positively
to
biodiversity.
D
So
if
I
hear
what
members
are
saying
correctly,
I'm
assuming
that
members
would
feel
the
proposal
also
conflicts
with
that
particular
policy.
So
if
members
are
moving
towards
refusal,
then
it
is
just
clear
to
outline
those
now,
I
think
his
contract,
those
policies
in
terms
of
its
effect
upon
the
general
cuts,
the
area
in
terms
of
the
the
immunity
in
the
the
green
space.
I
think
that's
the
the
gist
of
it
so
just
to
clarify
for
members
of
policies,
4,
15
and
30
would
need
to
be
referenced
in
any
refusal.
Reason.
H
D
A
C
Chair
I've
been
keeping
notes
and
I've
written
quite
a
list
of
reasons.
They
do
include
the
policies
that
we've
just
been
told
from
gary
peck.
C
Policy,
34
and
15
on
the
grounds
of
development
over
development
loss
of
green
space,
the
impact
on
wildlife
loss
of
privacy
and
light
sound
vehicle
pollution.
The
traffic
it
is
against
the
majority
of
things
outlined.
The
aid
of
local
plan
and
under
the
consideration
is
the
surface
water,
drainage.
D
Well,
yes,
most
the
first
bit
was
what
we
were
talking
about,
specifically
in
terms
of
the
policies.
Just
until
you
mentioned
traffic
and
surface
water
drainage,
the
traffic
would
be
a
separate
matter
in
a
sense
and
yeah.
That's
absolutely
fine.
I
would
guide
members.
I
appreciate
their
concerns
on
traffic,
but
our
technical
consultancy,
which
is
the
county
council
highway
section,
is
not
objected
to
that.
So
for
a
specific
refusal.
Reason
on
that
basis,
I
think
would
be
risky.
D
I
I
would
say
the
the
drainage
matter
is
something
that
members
can
take
into
account.
We
did
consider
as
officers
that
could
be
controlled
by
condition
it
may
be.
That
could
be
incorporated
into
the
wider
reasons
that
you've
just
stated
in
respect
to
those
policies
and
I'd
add
the
31
that
council,
as
she
mentioned
as
well,
so
you
have
4
15,
13
31..
I
I
think
that
can
then
cover
it.
Refusal
reason
chairs
were
not
got
the
precise
wordings
here.
D
I
propose
that
if
the
vote
is
carried
that
I
advise
you
of
that
refusal
reason
before
decisions
issues
and
just
make
sure
it
reflects
the
debate,
but
I
would
just
caution
members.
I
think
on
traffic,
particularly
something
have
to
be
careful
of,
because
we
don't
have
an
objection
to
that
specific
point
from
our
consultant.
A
A
Thank
you.
So
in
that
case
I
have
councillor
baxton,
who
has
put
forward.
Is
there
anybody
that
would
like
to
second
that
motion
yes
counselor
panel
and
so
all
those
that
are
voting
to
refuse
this
application?
A
D
Yes,
thank
you.
Chair
item
three
there's
nothing
further
to
add
to
the
report,
so
I
can
go
straight
into
the
presentation,
so
the
application
site
is
circled
in
red
on
the
screen
here.
It
currently
consists
of
this
single
t-shaped
bungalow
and
has
a
set
of
garages
just
to
the
rear.
There's
this
single
plot
here
adjacent
to
the
former
car
sales,
petrol
station
site
to
the
west
and
residential
properties
in
all
other
directions.
So
that's
the
the
overhead
view.
D
And
then
this
is
the
layout
of
the
development.
So,
as
stated
in
the
report,
it
is
for
four
houses
in
two
pairs.
We
can
see
here
that,
in
the
dotted
blue
is
where
the
existing
bungalow
building
is
that's
the
l-shape
there
we
can
see
the
access
is
as
present
on
the
eastern
part
of
the
site
and
the
parking
spaces
will
be
provided
to
the
rear.
Here,
where
the
cursor
is
a
more
closer
up
view
there
of
the
layout,
showing
partly
the
context
with
the
adjoining
site
to
the
west.
D
One
thing
for
members
to
notice,
we'll
see
on
the
elevations
in
a
moment
is
that
the
fronts
of
the
properties
facing
upper
shawn
road
are
here,
but
the
front
of
the
rear
properties
is
effectively
the
back,
so
their
front
doors
are
actually
facing
northwards
and
partly
the
reason
for
that
is,
as
mentioned
in
the
report,
as
I
mentioned
again
in
the
moment,
is
that
dormers
facing
each
other
here
was
felt
to
be
unacceptable,
but
there
are
two
roof
lights
instead
facing
that
parts,
and
that
part
there.
D
So
the
dormers
facing
serving
each
property
are
facing
to
the
south
in
each
instance.
To
see
the
gardens
are
set
here
and
here
so
in
terms
of
the
street
scene,
the
application
site
is
where
the
cursor
is
at
the
moment,
the
joining
site,
as
we
can
see,
which
is
remember
to
be
familiar,
the
site
does
have
quite
high
steeply
pictures
that
will
be
higher
than
the
proposal.
D
It
has
been
reduced
slightly
during
the
determination
of
the
applications.
You
can
see
the
dotted
red
line
here,
and
so
the
proposed
buildings
would
be
lower
than
those
to
the
west
and
the
reason
for
that
part
is
this
neighbouring
property
one
two
four
sort
of
chalet
bungalow
is
low
in
itself,
so
it's
intended
to
try
and
provide
a
transition
between
that
development
and
the
one
further
to
the
east
and
that's
just
a
longer
view
there.
As
I
say,
the
access
would
be
where
the
cursor
is
at
the
moment.
D
So
this
is
the
front
pair
of
units,
so
in
terms
of
the
bit
facing
upper
shawn
road.
It's
that
part
there,
where
the
cursor
is
facing,
so
one
small
door
on
each
roof
slope
that
the
back
roof
lights
high
in
the
back
roof
there
and
then
the
back
plots
are
exactly
the
same
in
terms
of
their
design,
but
this
is
facing
north
this
time
into
the
south,
and
these
two
dormers
these
face
south
towards
the
back
of
the
front
two
properties.
D
The
layout
of
all
four
buildings
is,
is
more
or
less
the
same.
So
as
we
can
see
here,
the
living
kitchen
area
on
the
ground
floor,
two
bedrooms
on
the
first
floor
and
a
third
bedroom
in
the
roof
space
and
then
onto
the
the
photographs
of
the
of
the
application
site.
So
this
is
the
the
building
to
be
removed
here
the
cursor
is
neighbouring
development
immediately
to
the
west.
At
that
point,
next
photograph.
D
So
therefore,
within
the
site
itself
again
showing
this
this
building
here,
some
of
the
site
has
been
cleared
over
recent
years.
It's
it's
varied
in
terms
of
its
coverage.
Sometimes
it's
been
almost
invisible
but
has
been
cleared
more
recently
again.
There's
the
application
site
a
neighboring
site
to
the
west,
and
then
here
is
standing
on
the
point
of
the
access
alongside
the
bungalows
who
are
in
effect
in
between
the
front
two
blocks
and
the
rear
two
blocks.
D
That's
existing
garage
block
which
will
be
removed
as
part
of
the
proposal
and
the
parking
spaces
will
be
on
there
and
they're
going
to
just
show
that
building
greater
detail,
nearest
properties
to
the
back
are
in
rosemary,
closed
there
and
the
relevant
overlooking
distance
in
that
respect
is
met.
That's
the
the
garage
block
there,
but
just
going
back
to
the
the
point,
that's
in
members
reports-
and
this
is
one
of
the
key
issues
and
respect
this
application.
D
So
this
distance
here
is
around
16
meters,
which
doesn't
meet
the
council's
normal
guidance
for
overlooking
between
windows
and
clearly
there
will
be
first
floor
windows
facing
each
other
as
well
as
that
in
the
roof
slope,
so
that
distance
is
below
animal
standards.
However,
some
years
ago,
when
the
adjoining
site
came
before
the
planning
committee
here
and
here,
members
considered
that
the
overriding
benefits
of
redeveloping
the
brownfield
site
meant,
in
that
respect,
an
overlooking
distance
of
a
shorter
distance
could
be
accepted,
and
so
therefore,
permission
was
granted
to
the
neighbouring
site.
D
O
I
just
had
a
question
on
the
the
parking
spaces
because
it
looked,
I
might
be
wrong,
but
it
looked
like
there
were
only
three
parking
spaces.
Was
I
wrong?
There.
O
G
D
Well,
yes,
chair
only
only
simply
before
before
debate
that
this
is
a
always
a
difficult
issue
and
you
will
see
the
slightly
what
I
would
say
hey.
This
was
not
very
helpful,
but
the
comments
of
the
county
council
are
more
or
less
saying.
D
Well,
there's
a
parking
shortfall
here,
but
we're
not
going
to
object,
which
is
a
quite
a
difficult
position
to
to
be
in
and,
as
you
rightly
say,
if
there
were
any
parking
to
be
displaced
in
this
development
is
more
likely
to
end
up
to
the
south
across
the
road
which
residents
there
have.
Certainly
written
in
has
set
out
a
report
that
parking
happens
in
the
adjoining
development
and
the
shops
and
indeed
the
hospital,
and
therefore
they
feel
rather
overwhelmed
already.
C
D
Thank
you.
Sorry.
Sorry
again,
I
mustn't
get
into
the
debate
because
that's
for
members
so,
but
just
to
answer
the
second
part,
the
question
condition
nine
requires
cycle
parking
spaces
to
be
provided
they
are
often
a
post
decision
condition,
partly
because
they
can
be
provided
in
in
various
ways
such
as,
for
example,
within
a
shed
in
the
garden
or
it
could
be
a
purpose-built
block.
It
depends
on
the
site,
so
there
is
a
condition
provision
for
that.
F
Can
I
just
say
that
we
know
we
need
houses,
but
the
chaos
that
these
four
parking
spaces
at
the
rear,
in
my
opinion,
will
cause,
because
everybody
knows
that
for
every
property
you
have
to
calculate
at
least
two
per
property
and
the
fear
of
people
parking
down
the
entrance
on
the
left
and
causing
even
more
chaos
is
just
to
me
putting
a
damper
on
the
whole
thing,
and
I'm
I'm
sad,
but
but
you
you
know,
you've
got
to
have
parking
these
days.
F
O
So
it's
not
a
question.
It
is
part
of
the
debate.
It's
good,
it's
again
to
comment
on
the
distances
just
because
the
property
next
door
at
some
stage
infringed
that
that
I
think
it's
generally
22
meters,
isn't
it
and
we've
had
discussions
here
before
where
things
have
been
passed
that
have
been
this
kind
of
distance
and
slightly
less,
and
it
has
caused
quite
a
lot
of
trouble
when
once
they've
been
passed.
O
Just
because
that
that
development
was
passed
with
with
with
that
infringement
does
not
mean
to
say
that
we
have
to
pass
this
here,
and
so
I
think,
given
that
the
other
comments
regarding
the
parking
it
strikes
me
that
this
is
being
over
developed,
and
so
I
don't
think
that,
from
my
point
of
view,
I
would
not
be
happy
passing
this
when
you
have
that
16
meter
for
all
those
four
properties
I'll
take
it
as
it
would
be
for
all
four
properties
that
that
16
meter
distance
would
come
into
play.
A
D
It
it
varies
chair
in
the
wider
vicinity.
If,
if
you
mean
that
I
I
can't
recall
exact
mix
on
on
the
adjoining
site,
I
don't
think
all
three
bedrooms-
it's
not
much
over
one
per
unit
on
the
adjoining
site.
Basically,
the
parking
is
provided
in
front
of
them.
I
I
That
is
a
problem
for
that
area,
but
I
would
hope,
but
I
would
point
out
that
when
we
talk
about
sustainability
here-
and
we
talk
about
the
the
bus
services
well,
the
number
two
is
not
that
frequent.
To
be
honest
and
the
railway
station
is
26.
26
minutes
walk
away,
seven
minutes
by
cycle,
but
there
isn't
a
cycle
lane.
C
C
So
two
adults,
that's
potentially
two
cars.
Those
children
can
be
teenagers
eventually
and
will
have
cars
themselves
depending
on
the
layout.
I
mean
I
don't
know
if
the
parking
bays
at
the
moment
are
going
to
be
allocated
to
each
house
or
whether
it's
a
free-for-all,
but
the
very
end
parking
bay.
Whoever
parks
in
there
could
potentially
park
another
family
vehicle
in
front
of
it,
but
you
you
couldn't
do
that
in
front
of
the
other
three
bays,
because
you
then
be
prohibiting
access
to
the
feather
on
bays.
C
A
D
Yes,
I
I
can,
it
is
difficult,
and
I
could
certainly
forewarn
council,
gardner
and
others
that
when
you
come
on
the
planning
committee,
you
spend
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
parking,
and
so
so
do
I
unfortunately
I
mean
this
is
difficult.
I
think
that
possibly
one
thing
to
get
away
from
is
sort
of
saying,
or
everyone
has
two
cars
and
therefore
it's
gonna
be
two
spaces
per
unit.
I
don't
think
that's
an
argument
reads
to
go
down.
D
I
think
it's
a
difficult
one,
and
particularly
with
how
national
policy
is
set
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it
does
try
to
say
well
if
you're
near
bus
stops,
however,
good
the
bus,
routers
and
so
on
so
forth
and
near
town
center
forces
and
so
on,
you
can
reduce
those
parking
spaces.
D
I
think
perhaps
more
the
point
which
the
county
council
will
allude
to,
and
rather
just
sort
of,
throw
it
back
to
us
top.
One
of
the
pages
is
the
the
highway
authority
does
not
anticipate
the
potential
shortfall
would
result
in
any
highway
safety
concern.
However,
the
lpa
may
wish
to
assess
any
potential
implications
from
the
means
perspective,
which
in
some
ways
is
perhaps
more
the
point
in
the
sense
of
well.
If
we,
if
they
are
saying
that
nine
spaces
are
needed,
you
end
up
with
nine
here.
D
Where
do
those
other
five
go,
where
they're
going
to
clog
up
that
road
to
the
south
quite
likely
or
park
around
the
back?
And
so
there
could
be
an
amenity
issue,
which
is
something
wider
than
just
saying.
Everyone
needs
two
two
spaces,
even
that's
the
reality.
It's
not
reflected
in
planning
policy,
but
there
isn't
the
meaning
aspect
which
members
can
take
into
account.
Perhaps
rather
the
county
council
say
quite
explicitly.
This
doesn't
comply
with
our
parking
standards
and
therefore
we
object
that
they
don't
do
that,
but
they
have
said
well.
D
A
H
H
I
I
think
I
echo
really
what
councilor
gardner
has
said
about
what
we
need
to
be
doing
is
looking
to
the
future
and
understanding
we
can't
just
keep
relying
on
cars
and
more
and
more
cars,
and
that
we
have
to
move
to
other
forms
of
transport,
and
that
means,
as
a
council
in
other
areas
and
working
with
other
tiers
of
other
authorities
working
on
proper
sustainable
alternatives
to
so
public
transport
and
cycle
lanes
and
and
just
good
pedestrian
access.
I
think
we
really
do
have
to
move
away
from
just
more
and
more
cars.
A
O
There
it
was,
it
was,
thank
you
I
I
see
it
in
here,
but
of
course,
this
is
a
new
development
and
we
are
committed
to
having
electric
charging
points
all
new
developments.
I
haven't
noticed
anything
in
here
about
provision
of
that
yeah.
D
Yes,
yes,
chair
I'll,
just
re,
we
check
past
the
report.
We
are
heading
fairly
soon
to
a
situation
where
ev
charging
points
are
taking
out
planning,
control
and
put
in
the
building
regulations,
so
that
will
be
some
form
of
comfort
to
members.
I'm
just
trying
to
reread
my
conditions
there
to
see
if
it
does
mention
it.
D
No,
it's
it's
condition,
10,
sorry,
it
is
in
the
conditions
at
the
back
sorry,
so
it
is
there
as
a
planning
condition
as
it
should
be
at
the
moment,
but
it
will
before
long
I'll,
be
saying
to
you
as
members
that
it's
covered
under
building
regulations,
it's
no
longer
part
of
planning,
but
so
there
is.
There
is
a
condition
there,
and
this
is
something
where
we
have
the
opportunity
we
do
try
and
provide
it.
F
P
Thank
you.
I
agree
with
councillor
shin
about
our
overdependence
on
cars.
It's
an
argument,
a
massive
argument,
but
something
that's
happening
at
the
moment-
is
the
fuel
price
going
up.
I
have
noticed
there
are
not
anywhere
near
as
many
cars
on
the
road
over
the
last
three
or
four
weeks
as
there
have
been
before.
I
read
today
that
car
sales
in
may
were
down
below
any
for
the
for
the
past
30
years
they've
been
going
up,
but
this
year,
then
they
were
lower
than
they
were
30
years
ago.
P
I
thought
when
we
had
the
covet
thing,
that
cars
left
the
roads-
and
I
thought
maybe
we'll
learn
from
this-
maybe
we'll
learn
that
we
can
cope
without
cars,
but
then,
when
kobe
seemed
to
have
disappeared,
we
went
back
to
them.
I
now
think
maybe
the
fuel
costs
will
force,
not
individuals
necessarily
but
people
who
organize
cities,
towns
to
try
to
make
them
and
we
are
trying
to
make
them
more
pedestrian,
cyclist
friendly.
P
F
As
much
as
we
would
like
to,
I
feel
dictate
to
home
buyers
that
they
shouldn't
have
any
cars
at
all
by
the
sounds
of
it.
We
can't
dictate
to
home
buyers
if
they
want
to
buy
a
house
and
have
two
cars
or
even
three
there's
nothing.
Anybody
can
do
about
it
because
they're
buying
the
house
with
no
restrictions
on
car
ownership.
P
Thank
you,
but
there
may
be
families
who
are
happy
with
that
and
so
they'd
say
yeah.
I,
like
that
house,
there's
only
space
for
one
car,
but
we'll
manage
that
there
are
families
who
will
do
that
and
then
but
people
who've
got.
Perhaps
two
cars
will
have
to
think
about
buying
somewhere
else
that
there
will
be
places
for
them.
E
Yeah,
I
agree
with
the
parking
issue.
The
problem
is,
there
is
a
shortage
of
houses,
we
do
need
houses
and
I
think
that
people
will
find
a
way
and,
like
it
was
pointed
out.
Although
the
bus
stop
or
the
train
station's
20
some
minutes
walk
away.
E
People
would
probably
compromise
because,
like
I
said,
we
need
houses
and
the
plan
I
think
fits
in
well
if
we
can
put
in
like
a
storage
like
as
council
of
bucks
instead
for
bicycles
and
things
like
that,
I
think
the
one
point
was
mentioned
about
new
car
sales.
Dropping
the
reason
that
new
car
sales
are
dropping
is
not
because
there's
lesser
demand
it's
because
of
the
kovid
crisis.
E
E
Can
I
just
propose
that
we
accept
the
application?
Basically,
I
said
we
need
houses
and
the
overall
plan
is
not
too
bad.
It's
like,
I
said
we
need
houses,
so
yeah.
A
And
one
abstention,
so
awdm09721.
A
C
Thank
you,
chair,
I'd,
just
like
to
make
a
declaration
on
this
one.
I
do
know
the
resident
that
has
put
an
objection
in
to
this.
She
owns
business
next
door
to
where
I
work,
and
I,
oh
god
somebody
should
buzz
me
sorry
and
she
does
I
shop
in
her
shop
and
she
drinks
in
the
club
where
I
work.
So
I
do
I
do
know-
and
she
has
spoke
about
this
application
to
me.
B
And
if
council
blacks
can
just
confirm
she's
viewing
this
planning
application
with
an
open
mind?
Yes,
yep.
D
Yes,
thank
you.
Chad
item
four,
there's
nothing
further
to
add
to
this
report,
so
I
can
go
straight
into
the
presentation.
The
the
application
site
is
circled
in
red
on
the
screen
at
the
moment,
laying
on
the
southern
side
off.
D
You
can
see
adjoining
properties
alongside
there
and
further
enabling
properties
to
the
south
in
nelson
close
in
terms
of
the
proposed
building
you've
seen
on
the
right
hand,
plan
here,
it's
going
at
the
end
of
the
garden,
so
just
where
the
cursor
is
circling
here
see
the
existing
situation
at
the
moment
on
the
left
there.
The
cursor
is
with
the
proposed
building,
as
shown
here
at
the
end
of
the
garden,
and
this
is
the
elevation
form
of
it.
D
As
stated
in
reports,
it
is
lower
on
one
side
raising
up
in
height
there,
so
you
can
see
actually
the
eastern
elevations
at
the
back
two
and
a
half
meters
going
up
to
just
over
2.9,
and
we
can
see
the
floor
dimensions
here,
nine
by
five
and
four
and
a
half.
So
it's
not
completely
rectangular
building
and
has
a
sloping
roof
as
well.
Just
on
some
photographs
of
the
application
site.
D
Members
purposes,
looking
from
the
the
subject:
building
looking
towards
the
application
site
itself,
so
the
building
of
29
is
behind
the
picture
and
proposed
building
would
be
in
this
area.
Here
then,
looking
around
back
up
to
the
garden,
so
that's
the
existing
property
here
and
it's
one
of
the
neighboring
properties
on
the
western
side
in
that
photo
and
then
panning
around
the
other
neighboring
property
is
on
the
eastern
side
and
clearly
this
picture
is
taken
just
in
front
of
where
the
proposed
building
would
be
situated.
A
C
C
E
Deep
there
yeah
no
worries
and
one
other
thing
is
when
you
look
back
on
the
overhead
picture,
with
the
red
circling
around
it
that
one
there,
if
you
look
at
the
properties,
either
side
left
and
right,
they're
very
developed
compared
to
that
property,
and
the
garden
appears
to
be
longer
as
well
tapering
down
into
that
corner
sort
of
making
it
longer
so
compared
to
either
side,
it's
probably
still
less.
Building
on
that
plot
would
you
agree.
D
Again
I'll
be
careful
cause,
I
think
that's
for
members
to
to
to
to
decide.
I
think
I
I
I
I
best
not
comment
on
that.
It's
there
I'll
I'll,
really
point
out
it's
not
being
extended
at
the
back
and
the
reason
why
the
dimensions
slightly
vary.
If
I
go
back
to
that
plan,
you're
looking
at
cancel
panel
is
because
that
tapering
the
garden,
because
it's
five
meters
deep
at
that
point
and
four
and
a
half
at
the
other,
and
so
the
garden
does
come
across
slightly.
C
Chairman
a
question
something
I've
picked
it
up
somewhere
in
again
in
the
previous
one,
two
meters
between
boundaries
of
bit
new
buildings.
D
Yes,
perhaps
developing
more
into
questions
I
can
answer
now.
I
can
probably
generalize
these.
The
previous
application
was
for
for
new
housing,
new
specific
housing.
So
some
of
the
points
that
you
are
quoting
are
in
relation
to
new
build
dwellings.
This.
D
It
was
ancillary
com,
accommodation
again
I'll
I'll,
leave
the
matters
for
for
debate,
but
members
would
need
to
be
aware
as
whereas
you
cannot
build
a
new
house
at
all
in
the
garden
of
a
a
rear
property
without
permission,
you
can
build
an
outbuilding
with
as
many
windows
on
as
you
like,
providing
it's
less
than
2.5
meters
in
heights.
That
has
to
be
bought
in
mind.
So,
ordinarily,
a
21
meter
distance
wouldn't
come
into
play
on
something
like
this.
D
Also
bearing
in
mind
it's
single
story
and
there
is
intervening
fencing,
but
nonetheless,
members
can
take
a
a
wider
aspect
of
that.
There
is
no
set
down
rule
about
two
meters
being
away
from
the
boundary.
I
think
that's
more
commenting
from
one
of
the
objectives
on
on
the
previous
application.
The
only
real
reason
when
there
is
distance
to
boundaries
invoked
is
normally
for
to
avoid
a
terracing
effect
where
there
are
lots
of
buildings
in
a
row,
and
you
may
wish
to
have
a
gap
between
them.
D
A
Q
Thank
you
chair
and
members.
Councillor
buxton
referred
to
the
lady,
mrs
sue
ward,
who
asked
me
to
to
ask
you
to
review
this.
Q
I
read
with
interest
the
the
planning
officer's
report
and
I
came
away
with
a
distinct
impression
of
the
that
permitted
development
for
good
or
bad
is,
is
sort
of
being
used
here,
saying
that
if
it
was
a
little
bit
shorter,
this
would
be
permitting
development
and
indeed
the
building
could
be
virtually
twice
the
size
and
but
they're.
I'm
thinking
here
that
there
needs
to
be
some
limits
of
context
and
scale
as
council
buxton
remark.
These
are
fairly
short
gardens
and
at
number
31.
Q
There
will
indeed
only
be
about
five
metres
between
the
front
corner
of
the
this
building
and
the
her
rear
window,
which
you
see
there
plus
okay,
the
defense,
it's
not
much
higher
over
the
fence,
but
I
understand
that
some
some
planting
has
already
started
to
create
a
tall
hedge
over
three
meters
to
hide
the
new
building,
which
clearly
is
negating
the
effect
of
the
the
this
planned
building
of
being
at
no
more
than
I
think
2.9
meters
at
the
highest
point.
Q
And
just
a
general
comment
on
the
the
fact
that
if
this
was
an
extension
on
the
back
of
the
house,
then
you
know
it
would
only
be.
I
think
it
is
only
a
maximum
of
three
meters
permitted
projecting
on
the
back.
So
it
does
seem
to
be
much
larger,
and
I
understand
that
under
permitted
development,
you
know
there
is
not
much
much
account
taken
of
of
this
size,
but
because
it
is
theoretically
permitted.
Q
So
I
would
ask
the
committee
just
to
consider
that
that
there
is
along
with
the
the
the
closeness
so
the
effectively
the
the
loss
of
privacy
and
there's.
No.
You
know
that
the
the
resident
can
raise
a
number
of
emotional
points,
but
I
had
to
assure
that
we,
you
could
only
debate
it
on
planning
issues.
A
C
I'm
going
to
pick
up
my
favorite
subject
parking.
This
property
has
parking
for
one
vehicle,
we're
now
building
an
extra
accommodation.
On
the
back
from
what
I
read
for
a
resident,
a
relative
they're,
not
allowing
any
extra
parking
for
the
extra
resident.
C
It
does
say
on
there
that
apparently
street
parking
is
adequate
in
that
area.
It
really
is
not
adequate.
You
can
only
park,
it's
a
bus
route
and
you
have
to
stagger
the
parking
devices.
The
buses
can't
get
through.
C
Councillor
wilkinson
referred
to
building
a
three
metre
hedge.
That
means
the
houses
on
the
west
of
that
hedge,
their
gardens
until
lunchtime
possibly
early
afternoon,
are
going
to
be
completely
in
shade
from
a
three
meter
hedge.
They
will
not
be
getting
any
sunlight
into
their
back
gardens
if
there
is
a
three
meter-
hedge
built
along
that
boundary,
because
that's
the
east,
that's
west,
so
I
don't
know
what
are
the
rules
on
right
of
light
sunlight
in
your
garden
in
your
property?
I
know
there
is
some
rule
about
it.
D
Well,
hedge
is
not
part
of
the
application.
It's
the
first
thing:
it's
not
development,
requiring
planning
permission.
I
can
only
go
on
the
pictures
we've
got.
It
may
well
be
the
hedges
being
planted
that
comes
under
completely
separate
legislations.
The
higher
hedges
legislation,
most
famously
known
for
leland,
guys,
are
going
up
to
nine
meters,
and
people
have
to
cut
them
down
and
that
that
type
of
thing
you
know
that
that
can
be
assessed
if
the
hedge
was
causing
that
and
that's
a
separate
way
that
the
resident
could
approach
that.
D
A
C
C
C
If
it
was
just
some
house
garden
room
home
office
that
was
being
used,
you
know
a
few
hours
a
day,
a
few
days
a
week,
a
few
months
a
year,
then
it
would
seem
perfectly
okay
to
me,
but
to
be
a
residential
unit
that
somebody's
going
to
live
in
24
hours
a
day.
If
we
allow
this,
what
is
to
say
that
every
other
bungalow
on
that
street
does
not
apply
for
similar,
and
although
it
is
mentioned
in
here.
C
A
E
Yeah,
so
with
the
proposal
of
the
building
for
a
family
member,
some
people's.
Obviously
mines
are
a
little
bit
uncertain
about
that
possible
in
the
future.
It
could
be
rented
out
on
the
open
market
or
something
like
that.
So
if
the
person
that's
putting
the
plan
in
application
and
is
doing
it
solely
for
like
the
family
or
so
from
there,
could
you
impose
a
condition
so
that
it
was
allowed
that
it
would
not
be
allowed
to
be
used
for
financial
gain
in
the
future.
E
So
it
would
not
be
allowed
to
be
rented,
but
only
for
use
like
that,
because
if
they
need
it,
they'd
they'd
be
willing
to
accept
that
term.
N
D
Important
in
any
case-
and
I
I
appreciate
what
what
counselor
buttson
says,
but
to
set
it
off
and
use
it
for
non-answerable
purposes
requires
planning
permission,
that's
the
first
thing,
so
it
needs
an
application
and
the
criteria
against
which
that
is
judged
is
far
different
to
ancillary
accommodation.
That's
the
point
because
we'll
be
effectively
treating
as
a
separate
dwelling
and
if
it
was
a
separate
dwelling.
Well,
the
you
know,
keep
an
obvious
point:
is
you've
got
access
to
it?
D
I
mean
it
has
to
be
ancillary
because
the
relationship
has
to
be
with
them
with
the
main
property.
So
if
this
was
a
a
unit,
let
out,
then
that
would
you
know
I
can
see
no,
no
feasible
reason.
Why
would
possibly
grant
planning
permission
on
your
application?
So
the
point
is
it's
taken
at
face
value
as
an
ancillary
accommodation
application.
That's
the
purpose
of
of
condition
number
one
just
on
on
the
point
of
preston,
which
I
just
just
to
cover
briefly
ancillary
accommodation
in
itself
does
not
require
planning
permission.
D
The
reason
this
requires
planned
position
is
because
the
height
of
the
building,
so
if
they
squared
that
off
to
2.5,
it
wouldn't
need
permission
at
all.
So
in
terms
of
of
whether
someone
can
apply
for
ancillary
accommodation
without
planning
commission,
if
the
building's
of
the
correct
size
or
a
correct
size,
a
size
that
comes
with
implemented
development
limits,
then
they
can
do
that
and
in
fact
there
are
quite
numerous
examples
across
the
across
the
district
that
you
know
put
up
without
without
plan
permission
and
don't
need
it.
D
So
you
know
in
that
respect,
really
what
you
are
assessing
is:
firstly,
the
impact
of
the
actual
building
itself
upon
the
neighbours,
and
secondly,
can
it
be
controlled
to
be
ancillary
as
councillor
panel
suggests,
and
that's
the
purpose
of
the
first
condition
to
make
a
specific
requirement,
that
is,
for
a
family
member.
Only.
C
You
chair,
I
have
one
more
point
and
that
relates
to
something
you
have
just
said.
You
said:
there's
no
access
to
this,
so
it
could
not
be
a
separate.
It
can
only
be
ancillary,
not
separate.
I've
just
looked
on
google
maps,
there
is
an
entrance
between
the
garage
and
the
bungalow
which
is
narrower
from
this
photo
much
narrower
than
a
standard
doorway.
C
How
is
emergency
access
to
this
building
going
to
be
gained
in
the
event
of
a
fire
or
a
medical
emergency?
If
they're,
the
only
the
entrances,
either
through
the
bungalow
or
through
a
gap
between
a
passageway
between
the
actual
bungalow
existing
bungalow
and
the
garage
which
is
narrower
than
a
standard
doorway.
D
Yes,
I
wasn't
necessarily
talking
in
in
terms
of
aspects
in
terms
of
a
fire.
I
was
talking
more
the
point
that
a
separate
house
requires
its
own
cursilage.
In
other
words,
it
needs
to
have
its
own
dedicated
garden
area.
You
know
front
door,
pedestrian
access,
parking,
space,
etcetera,
etcetera,
none
of
which
would
have
would
apply
in
this
instance.
D
I
think
the
difficulty
is
with
this
is
it'd,
be
very
hard
to
refuse
an
application
for
on
on
this
basis
in
terms
of
fire
access,
given
that
bungalow's
there
already
that
that's
you
know
it's
a
building's
been
put
up,
as
I
say,
if
it
0.4
meters,
less
it'd,
be
completely
out
of
the
council's
control
anyway,
in
terms
of
planning,
so
I
don't
think
that's
an
aspect
we
can
take
into
account
as
a
reason
for
resisting
the
application,
because
they
could
simply
overcome
it
by
lowering
the
roof.
C
C
This
is
going
to
be
an
ancillary
building
that
somebody
is
going
to
be
living
in
a
family
member.
If
there
was
an
emergency
that
building
was
to
catch
fire
or
there
was
a
medical
emergency,
the
access
to
that
building
is
limited.
They've
either
got
to
go
through
the
existing
bungalow
or
through
a
passageway
that
is
narrower
than
a
standard
front
door.
So
how
do
they
get
a
stretcher
down
there
or
fire
equipment
through?
If
that
build?
There
was
to
be
an
emergency
in
this
building
at
the
end
of
the
garden.
C
D
I
I
think
we
do
have
to
be
careful
as
a
committee
to
to
avoid
getting
things
that
aren't
the
remit
of
this
this
this
planning
committee,
because,
as
I've
said
a
moment
ago,
there
are
buildings
like
this
outbuildings
used,
whether
it's
transferring
purposes
for
for
home
gyms
for
offices
or
whatever
at
the
back
of
people's
gardens
in
similar
circumstances
over
which
the
planning
system
has
no
control.
In
effect,
what
we're
trying
to
do
there
is
for
say
by
virtue
this
building
being
0.4
metres
higher
than
the
committed
development
rights.
It
requires
plan
permission.
D
E
With
the
proposal
is
that
during
lockdown
pretty
much
everyone
and
their
dog
was
building
garden
rooms
bars
gyms
prices
soaring
in
the
housing
market
is
making
it
hard
for
people
to
move
to
bigger
houses
through
sort
of
the
cost.
So
a
lot
of
people
are
now
turning
to
doing
these
sort
of
things
to
keep
living
in
an
area
they
would
and
not
a
lot
increasing
price.
So
if
it's
going
to
be
a
member
of
the
family
living
in
this
building,
they
will
have
access
through
the
house.
E
If
there's
a
problem,
a
lot
of
these
garden
rooms
built
around
the
country
are
in
developments
that
don't
even
have
any
access
at
all.
You
have
to
go
through
the
house,
so
I
can't
really
see
they're
a
problem.
As
gary
stated,
if
you
shrunk
the
front
down
by
a
few
a
measurement,
it
would
go
under
permitted
development,
so
I've
got
no
reason
why
we
can't
just
pass
it
this
evening.
So
I'd
like
to
just
propose
a
motion
that
we
approve.
It.
A
A
That
is
one
two,
three
four
five,
six,
seven
eight
and
one
against
or
abstaining.
Sorry
at
one
abstention.
Thank
you!
So
awdm
zero,
three,
seven
three
stroke,
two
two,
the
recommendation
from
the
officers
was
to
approve
and
the
committee
have
agreed
with
the
officer's
recommendation,
so
this
application
is
approved.
Thank
you
all
very
much
on
that.
A
D
Yes,
thank
you,
sir
item
five.
There's
nothing
further
to
add
to
this
report,
so
I'll
just
make
a
short
presentation
before
the
speakers
come
and
speak
so
that
the
subject
building
is
this
one
here
circled
in
red
on
the
on
the
screen
here,
so
we
can
see
that
many
other
properties
have
been
extended
at
the
rear.
This
one
hasn't
at
presence,
that's
looking
towards
the
application
site.
D
Then
we
have
a
back
and
side
elevation
of
the
proposed
extension,
the
dimensions
of
which
are
set
out
in
your
report.
So
that's
it
in
elevation
form
and
in
terms
of
the
adjoining
properties
and
layouts
and
so
on.
Again,
here
is
the
extension
where
my
cursor
is
at
presence.
The
adjoining
property
shown
next
door
there
and
again
in
detail.
The
applicant's
agent
has
provided
the
existing
extensions
on
the
other
properties
in
black
here
black
here
and
black
here,
and
this
is
the
proposed
extension
on
the
subject
property
as
set
out
in
a
report.
D
The
officer's
main
concern
is
in
respect
to
the
effect
upon
number
13
in
particular.
The
window
that
is
located
here,
which
I
just
popped
back
up,
we
can
see,
is
located
there
where
the
cursor
is
shown
on
there.
So
the
recommendation
is
set
out
in
your
report
and
your
agenda
to
refuse
permission.
Thank
you.
A
C
Sorry,
I
just
needed
to
declare
that
this
actually
came
to
lansing
parish
on
the
9th
of
march
and
it
was
passed
lansing
parish.
We
don't
get
lovely
agendas
like
this.
We
just
get
a
number
and
looking
through
the
application
here.
All
the
information
that's
been
presented
today
actually
has
been
put
on
file,
since
this
came
to
lansing,
parish
and
planning,
so
the
information
available
on
there
was
not
available
to
us
at
the
parish
at
the
time.
Thank.
A
R
Thank
you
chairman.
There
is
an
officer
recommendation
to
refuse,
based
on
supplementary
planning
guidance.
This
is
not
a
compelling
rule
that
something
must
must
not
be
refused.
If
that
were
the
case,
this
application
would
have
been
determined
by
officers.
It
has
come
to
this
committee
to
determine
and
use
their
judgment
in
the
supporting
papers.
We
are
told
that
the
recommendation
to
refuse
is
based
on
detriment
to
the
residential
immunity
for
those
living
in
the
adjoining
property
number
13.
R
R
Furthermore,
the
resident
at
number
13
welcomes
the
wall
on
his
boundary.
It
gives
him
the
option
of
using
that
wall
as
a
party
wall
for
an
extension
which
mirrors
the
one
in
this
application
in
terms
of
the
four
meters
to
the
north
side
of
this
application.
This
is
the
same
as
the
existing
rear
extension
at
number
17..
R
R
R
Does
this
approval
set
a
precedent?
Yes,
it
does.
It
sets
two
of
them
that
the
committee
should
support
all
affected
neighbors
should
should
they
support
the
application.
The
committee
should
not
really
reject
the
application
and,
if
the
neighbors
were
to
to
object
to
an
application,
of
course,
the
committee
should
also
object.
R
R
A
S
The
main
reasons
as
to
why
this
application
should
be
approved
a
six
meter,
single-storey
extension
is
not
considered
overbearing
for
a
larger
homes,
extension
under
permitted
development
for
a
semi-detached
property,
or
even
eight
meters,
in
distance
coming
out
from
the
back
of
the
building
for
a
detached
property,
and
it
should
not
be
considered
as
overbearing.
In
this
instance,
there
are
no
public
objections.
S
There
are
no
objections
from
the
parish
council
and
I'm
sorry,
missy
man,
mandy
mandy
burton
boxton,
sorry,
mandy
buxton.
These
images
have
been
portrayed
afterwards
because
of
the
conflict
between
common
sense
and
the
the
planning
process.
S
S
S
The
immediate
neighbours
of
number
13
has
plans
to
extend,
like
almost
everyone
else
has
done
on
this
road,
but
he's
unable
to
do
so
at
present,
and
this
should
not
stop
my
clients
fulfilling
their
ambitions
to
their
property,
providing
a
suitable
space
for
their
family
to
grow.
The
rear
garden
of
the
property
is
over
26
meters.
Long,
that's
85
feet
from
the
rear
of
the
building
and
the
plot
is
wider
than
the
building
to
the
north.
S
The
neighbors
at
number
13
do
not
consider
that
they
will
lose
light
or
be
overshadowed,
especially
given
the
orientation
of
the
sun
and
that
a
six
foot
scent
sorry
cent
fence
exists
already
between
the
two
properties,
as
I'm
sure
you're
all
aware.
Sun
rises
and
the
east
sets
in
the
west
and
we
are
in
the
southern
hemisphere.
S
The
property
is
to
the
north
number
13
would
con
would
contrary
to
the
supplementary
planning
guidance,
welcome
the
extension
and
for
it
to
be
on
the
boundary
as
it
would
enable
them
to
construct
at
a
reduced
cost
in
the
future.
Thank
you
very
much
indeed,
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
A
T
Hello
yeah,
just
to
add
to
the
points
of
robert
and
andy,
is
that
we've
spoken
to
our
neighbours
on
many
occasions.
We've
only
recently
managed
to
put
the
fence
up
between
us,
as
we
only
moved
in
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
so
we
were
bumping
into
each
other
over
the
fence
and
continually
having
conversations
they
actually
keep
asking.
Have
you
got
your
planning
yet
and
they're
really
keen?
We've
stood
in
the
gardens
together
and
we've
watched
the
sun
in
the
mornings
and
in
the
evenings.
T
The
sun
comes
up
over
behind
us
and
sets
in
the
garden
in
front.
Therefore
our
extension
won't
in
any
way
interfere
and
with
that
with
the
light
and
the
the
window
that
has
been
referred
to
is
their
children's
bedroom
as
well.
So
it's
not
a
living
space,
so
they're
not
in
any
way
concerned
that
they're
confident
that
there
won't
be
any
light
disruption,
but
it's
not
a
a
big
living
space
or
a
big
open
plan
kitchen
or
something
like
that.
T
That's
going
to
to
be
an
important
sort
of
outlook
for
them,
and
yesterday
we
went
to
the
queen's
jubilee
street
party.
We
spoke
to
many
residents,
we
had
lots
of
support
and,
as
you
can
see,
we
are
just
set
back
amongst
many
many
properties
on
that
road
which
have
been
extended
and
we
are
really
in
need
of
the
extra
space
for
the
baby
that
we
have
and
maybe
a
growing
family
and
so
yeah.
We
would
be
really
grateful
if
you
would
consider
our
application.
T
A
E
Listening,
yes,
all
the
parties
speaking
the
first
person
that
I
would
have
fought
would
have
had
a
problem
with
it
was
the
neighbors
and
they
seemed
to
have
a
good
relationship
with
their
neighbours.
E
It
gives
them
a
good
chance
to
extend
their
family
home
for
the
future
yeah.
Basically,
it's
a
single
story,
rear
extension,
like
I
said
it's,
I
think
it's
fine.
D
I
only
very
briefly
changed
and
just
partly
because
we
have
a
a
a
new
committee
this
evening
and
just
going
back
to
one
or
two
points
have
been
raised.
More
generally
and
just
recalling
councillor
shin
saying,
he'd
read
the
local
plan,
and,
and
so
on
earlier,
just
to
say
that
the
the
spg
is
supplementary
planning
guidance.
It
is
part
of
the
development
plan.
So
therefore,
is
a
material
consideration
which
has
to
be
taken
into
account.
D
So
I
heard
what
what
was
said-
and
I
can
understand
why
it's
been
said,
but
looking
at
something
as
being
contrary
to
an
spg,
is
not
contrary
to
the
entire
planning
system.
In
fact,
the
plane
system
relates
on
basing
the
development
on
decisions
that
are
in
accordance
with
development
plan
policies
unless
material
considerations
dictate
otherwise.
Now
the
views
of
neighbours
can
be
a
material
consideration.
Members
may
wish
to
take
that
into
account
and
come
into
their
decision,
but
what
I
wouldn't
want.
D
The
impression
to
be
conveyed
is
that
local
plan
policies
can
just
be
ignored
or
contrary
to
the
planning
system,
because
they
are
of
relevance
and
hence
that's
why
this
has
written
report
in
the
way
they
do.
But,
of
course,
there
can
be
other
factors
that
members
can
be
taken
into
account,
as
councillor
panel
was
just
alluded
to
and
if
members
feel
that
they
override
the
requirements
or
policies
of
the
local
plan
and
of
course,
members
are
at
liberty
to
come
to
that
decision.
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
It
refers
to
the
fact
that
it's
a
large
extension
and
part
of
the
I'm
reading
here
that
it's
the
maximum
of
3.5
meters
for
extensions,
wouldn't
be
considered
acceptable,
whereas
this
proposal
is
six
meters
on
the
cell
of
elevation.
C
That
one,
this
is
a
six
meter
extension
and
you're
saying
it
is
over
the
recommended.
3.5
number
19
is
huge.
That
is
a
huge
extension.
So
how
can
we
deny
an
extension
at
six
meters
when
one
on
the
building,
the
identical
building,
but
in
the
next
block,
is
even
bigger
and
the
one
at
17
is
identical
to
what
they're
asking
for.
D
Oh,
it's
not
quite
identical
in
terms
of
its
relationship
with
with
the
neighboring
property.
That's
the
point.
The
3.5
metres
is
is
guidance
generally
when
there
is
no
other
extension
next
door.
So
right
down
through
the
distances
of
this
in
general,
you
would
draw
a
45
degree
rule
from
the
center
of
a
window
and
then
determine
whether
planned
permission
can
be
granted
or
not.
So
there
is
a
limit
and
it
can
be
exceeded
in
certain
circumstances.
D
I
can't
quite
recall
what
happened
number
17,
but
if,
for
example,
this
was
extended
here,
it
wouldn't
be
beyond
the
realms
possibility
for
that
to
extend
out
a
bit
further
because
that's
of
a
flat
plane
there
and
there's
that
stepped
arrangement
is
normally
acceptable.
And,
of
course,
if
this
were
here,
for
example,
all
that
were
back
then
there'll
be
no
issue
in
terms
of
of
planning
policy.
D
So
that's
where
the
the
decision
or
the
recommendation
is
from,
as
I
say
quite
clearly,
the
material
consideration
I
suggest
on
this
for
members
to
consider
is
whether
neighbours
have
objected
and
ordinarily
neighbours
often
do
object
to
this.
One
in
this
case
is
precisely
the
opposite.
Hence
why
officers,
rather
than
making
a
decision
under
dedicated
power,
support
it
to
you
for
your
determination.
A
H
Yes,
I
suppose
in
in
many
ways
this
seems
a
no-brainer.
The
the
thing
that
worries
me
is
it.
I
mean
it
certainly
seems
in
this
situation
and
the
neighbors
get
on
well,
the
the
from
what
I'm
hearing
of
the
neighbors
and
from
councillor
mcgregor.
They
sound
very
reasonable,
able
people
to
make
a
decision
like
this.
So
I
don't
don't
doubt
in
this
instance:
that's
a
well-informed
decision.
H
What
worries
me
is
people
that
the
setting
a
precedence
for
other
neighbours
when
there
are
people
that
maybe
have
vulnerabilities,
who
may
be
forced
by
neighbours
wanting
to
extend
to
write
a
letter
of
agreement
to
acquiesce
to
it
when
the
systems
are
there
to
actually
protect
people
and
protect
neighbours.
So
I'm
not
quite
sure
in
this
instance,
where
kind
of
what
the
safeguard
is
to
actually
properly
a
judge,
whether
it's
it's
a
fully
free
consent,
that's
being
given
by
neighbors.
H
There
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
system
in
place
to
do
that,
so
I'm
worried
it
could
then
be
abused
by
more
forceful
householders
who
want
to
develop
and
put
pressure
on
her
on
the
neighbor.
So
that's
the
thing
that
that
makes
me
uneasy.
I'm
not
saying
that's
not
a
reason
for
what
seems
to
be
a
no-brainer
as
I've
said
it,
but
that's
my
underlying
anxiety
that
it
could
be
misused
by
other
householders.
A
C
First
then,
okay,
I
totally
agree
with
what
council
shins
just
said
about.
We
have
to
protect
vulnerable
residents
from
people
pulling
them
into
agreeing
to
things
they
don't
want,
which
obviously
is
not
the
case
here.
So
I
completely
agree
with
cancer
shin's
point
on
that,
a
continuation
of
what
I
was
saying
earlier.
C
You
specified
that,
where
dwellings
have
been
built
with
projecting
sections,
it
would
not
usually
be
acceptable
to
build
an
extension
in
filling
this
and
referring
again
to
the
extensions
on
17
and
19,
where
they
both
built
exactly
the
same
time,
because
if
not,
if
one
of
those
is
built
first,
then
we
get
mission
which
totally
goes
against
what
we're
trying
to
use
as
a
result,
as
as
a
reason
to
prevent
this
one
being
built.
A
D
Well,
I
think
you
have
to
look
at
each
application
on
its
merits.
I
mean
the
point
which
I
accept
is
clearly.
There
is
a
precedent
for
larger
extensions
at
the
back.
I
I
fully
understand
that
I
don't
know
whether
they
were
both
from
mr
development
or
if
one
was
under
permitted
development,
and
that
would
generally
then
say
that,
for
example,
I'm
only
speculating
if
17
was
built
under
permitted
development,
then
it
would
be
rather
churnish
to
say
to
19.
You
couldn't
have
an
extension
if
it
needed
planned
permission.
D
It
went
out
that
bit
further
because
it
doesn't
breach
anything
here.
There
is
a
difference
here,
because
the
relationship
between
those
two
properties,
so
you
should
look
at
it
on
it,
on
it.
On
its
on
on
its
merits,
I
perhaps
just
coming
back
to
the
point
that
council
that
she
makes
again,
which
is
another
one.
I
completely
understand,
and
I
think
there
is
always
a
concern
about
precedent.
D
I
think
if
members
are
very
explicit
in
terms
of
the
reasons
why
they've
made
this
particular
decision
under
particular
circumstances,
it
is
made,
then
I
don't
think
there
is
a
precedent,
because
you
can
demonstrate
that
there
was
a
particular
aspect
to
this
decision-making
process
that
would
not
necessarily
apply
in
similar
circumstances
elsewhere
in
in
the
district
and
to
an
extent,
every
scientist
is
different
because
you
know
we
have,
I
think,
fairly
clear
evidence.
Neighbor
at
13
obviously
has
written
in
support
of
that.
D
That
is
something
to
bear
in
mind
and
therefore
I
think
members
are
clear
about
it.
I
don't
think
it
would
prejudice
prejudice
us
if
the
similar
case
comes
forward
elsewhere.
Where
there's
a
similar
aspect,
it
wouldn't
prevent
members
from
making
a
different
decision
if
those
circumstances
were
different.
G
E
Yeah
a
lot
when
you
look
at
number
17
and
number
15
they're
like
mirror
images,
so
I
can
understand
what
council
rashin
has
said
about
like
people's
anxieties
and
stuff
like
that.
But
that
is
like
a
mirror
image
and
if
you
were
gonna
go
down
the
idea
of
a
sort
of
president
set
in
the
area
they've
already
done
it
there
do.
You
know
what
I
mean,
because
it
is
exactly
a
mirror
image
of
there.
E
So
I
can't
see
I
I
can
understand
what
gary's
saying
about
the
window
and
with
the
building
rig
the
oh,
what
you
got
it:
the
legislation
about
the
window
and
the
90
degree
angle
and
stuff
like
that.
But
what
I've
sort
of
been
led
to
believe
is-
and
I
know
we
can
only
judge
this
on
the
application-
that's
in
front
of
us
and
not
that,
what's
going
to
happen
in
the
future,
but
potentially
they're
going
to
build
an
extension
at
number
13.
E
A
Yes,
sorry,
councillor
gardner.
I
Thank
you
chair
now,
I'm
actually
a
big
fan
of
supplementary
planning
guidance
because
I
think
it's
been
developed
in
order
to
show
what
good
practice
looks
like,
and
I
think
it's
absolutely
right
and
commendable
that
officers
should
have
brought
this
to
us,
because
it's
also
about
no.
It's
also
about
what
will
work
in
the
future
to
ensure
that
our
buildings
will
work
well
for
their
residents
in
the
future.
I
Having
said
that,
in
this
instance,
given
the
fact
that
we
have
received
this
evidence
about
neighbors
supporting
this
proposal,
I
don't
think,
although
I'm
a
fan
of
supplementary
planning
guidance
in
this
instance,
I
don't
think
I'm
going
to
stand
against
the
neighbors.
But
but
I
would
also
just
say
this
guidance
is
important
because
it
ensures
good
practice
and
we
have
to
be
very
wary
when
we
stray
from
it.
A
Thank
you,
councillor
gardner,
and
I
think
that's
where
again,
the
committee
is
able
to
make
a
decision
on
based
on
all
the
evidence,
and
I
think
that's
why
to
come
to
committee
was
certainly
the
right
thing
on
this
application.
Yes,
cancer
panel.
E
Thank
you
chair.
I
can
understand
a
completely
unagree
about
the
guidance
and
the
regulations
and
stuff
and
when
gary
makes
his
decisions
he's
making
them
in
a
way
which
is
set
out
in
in
in
the
way
it
should
be.
But
after
listening
to
all
the
evidence
and
all
the
comments
from
everybody,
I
think
it's
pretty
much
a
thing
we
should
just
go
along
and
I'm
proposing
emotion
that
we
approve
it.
A
I
will
take
councillor
shin
as
a
seconder
on
this
proposal,
so
all
those
in
favor
of
this
proposal,
if
you
would
raise
your
hands-
and
that
is
a
unanimous
vote
for
awdm
0285
stroke
22,
the
officer's
recommendation-
was
to
refuse
and
the
committee
have
overturned
this
decision.
Thank
you
all
very
much
for
that.
That
was
a
difficult
one
and
we
understand
the
officers
bringing
it
to
us
and
putting
as
they
did,
which
was
very
good.
Thank
you.
So
that
is
the
end
of
our
applications.