►
From YouTube: Planning and Regulatory Services Committee on Wednesday the 2nd of June 2021 at 3.00pm
Description
Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council Planning and Regulatory Services Committee on Wednesday the 2nd of June 2021 at 3.00pm in the Council Chamber at Craigavon Civic and Conference Centre.
B
C
Thank
you.
I
tell
you
well,
firstly,
you're
all
very
welcome
to
the
june
planning
and
regulatory
services
committee
and,
firstly,
I'd
just
like
to
start
off
by
welcoming
councillor
cosby
to
the
committee
country,
salvage
backfield
committee,
following
this
term
as
lord
membership
is
both
very
good
to
be
back
on
plan
and
to
thank
the
outgoing
councillors
for
public
committee
country
killing
and
alderman
mccrum
for
their
service
over
the
year.
So
move
on
to
jadam
item
1.0
apologies
or
any
apologies
from
the
floor.
I
don't
have
any
currently.
D
E
C
F
And
during
that
period
the
performance
on
the
business
plans
has
been
kept
under
review
at
a
directorate
level
and
with
the
heads
of
department,
and
it
was
agreed
that
an
end-of-year
report
would
be
brought
through
to
committee
and
the
progress
report
in
the
appendices
outlines
the
performance
of
the
planning
and
building
control
departments
against
the
agreed
objectives
for
the
2021
year.
And
there
is
an
amber
rating,
a
red,
amber
and
green
rating
in
relation
to
those
where
items
are
either
in
progress
or
behind.
C
I
don't
see
any
lights
up.
Members
are
just
as
item
for
information,
so
we
don't
need
any
proposal
or
seconder.
Okay,
we'll
move
on
to
agenda
item
4.1,
which
is
a
notice
of
opinion,
consent
to
demolish
in
the
conservation
area
and
believe
in
hunting
over
to
russian
hamel
who's
joining
us
very
zoom.
Hopefully,.
G
Thank
you,
chair
members
will
recall
at
a
meeting
of
the
planning
and
regulatory
services
committee
in
february,
a
planning
application
for
the
demolition
of
two
existing
footbridges
and
construction
of
two
replacement.
Foot
bridges
at
the
same
location
with
new
paths
and
ria's
boardwalks
and
remora
town
park
was
presented
with
a
recommendation
to
approve
members
accepted
the
recommendation
of
officers
to
approve
the
application.
G
If
the
council
does
not
accept
the
notice
of
opinion
or
any
of
the
proposed
conditions,
a
written
request
must
be
submitted
to
the
department
for
an
opportunity
to
appear
before
and
be
heard
by.
The
planning
appeals
commission.
In
this
case
it
is
recommended
that
members
accept
the
notice
of
opinion.
The
consent
to
demolish
in
the
conservation
area
should
be
granted
subject
to
the
conditions
outside
and
the
attached
notice.
Thank
you
chair.
I
I
In
september,
21
sony
will
publish
the
inaugural
shaping
our
electricity
future
roadmap,
and
this
consultation
is
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
range
of
options
proposed,
so
the
shipping
or
electricity
roadmap
consultation
sets
out
a
range
of
options
to
make
the
renewable
ambition
of
70
of
northern
ireland.
Electricity
from
renewable
sources
by
2030.
I
Favoring
locations
where
the
grid
is
already
strong.
Their
report
states
that
it's
more
most
likely
to
come
late
to
more
offshore
wind
generation
close
to
major
cities
with
less
need
for
new,
onshore
renewable
energy
sources.
The
approach
proposes:
700
megawatts
of
offshore
wind
150
megawatts
of
onshore
wind
and
350
megawatts
of
solar.
The
estimated
cost
is
120
million
and
the
report
states.
This
approach
is
likely
to
result
in
a
grid
that
allows
at
least
70
percent
of
northern
ireland
electricity
to
come
from
renewable
sources
by
2030..
I
The
report
report
states
that,
with
this
option
based
on
assumed
capability,
new
infrastructure
cannot
be
delivered
in
time
to
meet
renewable
ambition.
In
2030.,
the
approach
proposed
350
megawatts
of
offshore
wind
700
megawatts
of
onshore
wind
and
350
megawatts
of
solar.
The
estimated
cost
was
361
million,
and
the
report
states
that
taking
this
approach
means
it's
very
unlikely.
The
grid
will
make
the
70
target
by
2030.
I
third
approach
technology
led.
This
approach
uses
technical
solutions
to
make
the
grid
more
resilient,
so
it
can
better
handle
variable
nature
of
renewable
energy.
The
approach
proposes
approximately
700
350
megawatts
of
offshore
wind
700,
onshore,
wind
and
350
megawatts
of
solar.
The
estimated
cost
is
535
million,
and
the
report
states
there's
a
high
degree
of
technical
uncertainty
in
this
approach.
I
I
I
For
that
reason,
the
officer,
the
initial
officer
response
does
not
select
one
preferred
approach
on
the
state
set.
Instead
sets
out
the
material
considerations
that
should
be
taken
into
account
by
sony.
Irrespective
of
the
chosen
approach.
However,
after
since
the
sony
committee
report
was
issued,
a
further
review
was
undertaken
by
officers
and
we
have
concerns
in
relation.
It
has
raised
potential
concerns
in
relation
to
approach.
Four.
I
I
C
H
Yeah,
thank
you
sure.
Like
yourself,
I
I
I
read
the
report
on
a
war
is
concerned,
and,
and
if
you
share
the
concerns
by
the
plan,
novel
says
that
you
know,
potentially,
the
development
could
be
moved
towards
very
much
the
northeast
or
the
north
west
and
on
our
area
would
be
obviously
not
included
in
that
which,
which
wouldn't
be
very
good,
going
going
forward.
H
Carl,
I
suppose
my
question
is:
we've
got
four
options.
I
know
they
didn't
ask
us
to
choose
one.
Is
there
any
one
that
sort
of
stuck
out
to
you
that
would
be
more
suitable
that
we
would
be
sort
of
in
in
favor,
of
a
in
and
and
in
relation
to
the
developer
layout
approach
anymore?
There's
any
more
detail
on
that
as
in
what
what
form
that
that
that
takes.
Is
that,
like
public
private
partnership
or
what?
What
what
way
does
that
kind
of
work
on
on
the
the
delivery
of
of
of
this
option?
I
I
H
Thanks
thanks
for
letting
me
back,
I
suppose
that's
something
that
would
obviously
because
obviously
approach
one
approach
four
is
is
is
again
not,
I
suppose,
beneficial
to
our.
If
you
know
what
I
mean,
it
really
does
become
this,
and
I
I'm
wondering
you
know,
is
this
a
tech
box
exercise.
You
know
the
the
they
consult
with
with
councils,
but
it's
really
strange
that
not
asking
for
you
know
what
you
preferred
or
or
what
you
think
is
best
for
your
council
area
going
forward.
So
it's
I'm
happy
enough
to
propose
the
letter.
H
I
think
it's
it's
open
enough
that
allow
them
to
come
back
and
allow
more
questions
down
the
line,
but
I
think
there
is
more
questions
to
be
asked
of
this,
because
a
a
this
could
be
a
major
direction
for
technology
and
business
and
and
and
locations
for
development
going
forward,
and-
and
we
just
need
to
be
very,
very
careful
that
we
don't
sort
of
vote
for
something
that
would
be
us.
So
thanks
chair.
C
J
Yeah
thanks
sure
and
yeah
concerning
it
isn't
picking
up
on
your
point,
I
suppose
you
know
from
the
council's
perspective,
we've
got
very
strong
concerns
about
particularly
prior
the
option.
Four
that's
set
out,
because
this
has
potential
implications
for
investors
coming
into
northern
ireland
who
could
be
swayed
to
go
outside
of
abc
other
parts
of
northern
ireland,
so
we
lose
out
in
terms
of
trying
to
grow
our
area.
K
J
The
only
thing
I
would
say
in
response
to
that
sorry
through
the
chair
is
that
some
councils
may
see
this
as
potentially
beneficial
to
them,
and
not
all
councils
may
sign
up
to
raising
concerns
about
what's
involved
and
there
are
some
areas
I
would
expect
that
could
benefit
from
industries
one
thing
located
in
their
jurisdiction
and
we're,
unfortunately,
one
of
those
where
we
could
lose
out,
and
so
I
don't
know
where
that
would
leave
noga.
But
it's
certainly
something
that
we
could
consider.
K
Thank
you,
damien
yeah.
I
take
your
point
depending
where
the
councils
are
all
located,
but
would
button
for
their
for
their
own
sort
of
a
particular
area,
but
I
do
think
that
nilga's
there
to
represent
all
the
councils
in
a
fair
and
proper
manner
and
everything
should
be
concerned.
So
maybe
we
should
consider
something
that
we
would
look
at
that
and
I'll
be
happy
to
step
on
the
proposal
a
lot
better.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
alderman
anderson,
and
thank
you
for
checking
that.
Maybe
you
had
something
that
officers
could
reach
out
to
noga
and
contact
them
about
this,
because,
certainly
I
know
in
our
bar
we
do
have
clean
energy
potential
and
certainly
we
need
to
fight
our
corner.
Okay,
so
we've
got
proposer
and
seconder
philadelphia
in
the
business
around
item.
4.3.
J
Thank
you,
chair
and
good
afternoon
again,
members
and
members.
The
purpose
of
this
report
is
to
update
you
on
the
project
to
replace
the
planning
portal.
You'll
note
from
the
report
that
there
has
been
some
slippage
in
the
project
which
is
due
mainly
to
the
process
of
extracting
and
transferring
data
from
the
current
portal
to
the
new
one,
and
the
project
has
slipped
by
about
three
months
and
is
now
expected
to
go
live
in
spring
of
next
year.
J
C
Thank
you
damian.
It's
good,
certainly
good
to
see
that
reduction
in
costs
and
any
questions,
members
or
points
on
this
item.
There's
just
nothing
for
information,
so
I'm
not
saying
any
likes
on
so
we'll
move
on
to
item
4.4
and
update
them
planning
case
loads
and
again
heading
over
to
head
of
planning
gaming.
J
Thank
you
sure
members
you'll
see
from
this
report
that
the
number
of
applications
received
by
planning
during
the
period
first
of
april
to
21st
of
may.
We
have
a
new
reporting
period
members
due
to
the
movement
of
the
deal
to
the
planning
committee.
So
during
that
period
we
received
300
applications,
which
is
114
more
than
for
the
same
period
last
year,
so
significant
rise
and
82
more
than
the
same
period
from
the
year
before,
which
was
pre-covered.
J
So
I
think
we
can
take
that
as
a
very
strong
indicator
of
how
application
numbers
have
risen
over
the
last
12
months
and
the
number
of
applications
decided
during
the
period
first
of
april,
the
21st
of
may
it's
178.,
which
is
129
more
than
for
the
same
period
last
year
and
only
76
less
than
for
the
the
year
before,
which
was
precovered
and,
and
that
was
back
when
the
department
had
a
full
complement
of
staff
and
when
case
loads
were
significantly
lower
significantly
lower.
So
it
needs
to
be
seen
in
that
context.
C
C
L
Thank
you,
sir
good
afternoon
members
item.
5.1
is
a
request
for
naming
about
development,
36
dwellings
located
off
castle
hill
road
and
to
the
rear
of
dunbarton
house
and
guilford,
and
details
on
the
palace
one.
The
applicant's
preferred
emphasis
development
is
dumbarton
lane,
and
the
applicant's
reason
for
the
proposed
name
is
that
the
approach
development
lands
are
within
the
grounds
of
dumbarton
house,
which
was
the
former
home
to
the
founders
of
tombardenville
back
in
1800s.
E
K
L
Thank
you
chair.
This
report
is
to
keep
members
informed
some
of
the
workloads
been
undertaken
by
the
department
during
the
last
two
months,
and
notably
as
members
of
state
appendix
2.
In
the
last
two
months
alone,
we've
received
593
applications
with
a
notional
construction
value
of
just
over
50.5
million
and
worth
of
investment.
L
L
So
during
this
two-month
period,
we
undertook
364
plan
assessments
and
started
decision.
Numbers
were
issued
on
all
of
these.
The
departments
also
completed
just
over
2
500
site
inspections
in
the
last
two
months,
currently
with
the
influx
of
applications.
Our
turnaround
times
are
not
quite
as
fast
as
we
would
like,
but
we
will
bring
members
our
reporter.
I
will
bring
members
report
later
in
the
meeting
which
hopes
to
address
this
issue
and
hopefully
get
us
back
on
track.
L
I'm
happy
to
report
that
we
have
our
new
systems
are
in
place
and
up
and
running,
and
we
have
no
backlog
at
this
point
in
time
and
we
are
turning
over
and
over.
90
of
these
applications
are
being
turned
around
within
the
ten
working
days.
Thank
you.
Supporters
for
members
information
but
happy
to
take
any
questions.
Members
may
have.
C
Don't
see
any
lights
on?
Thank
you.
Now
I
move
on
to
item
six,
which
is
confidential
report.
I
need
a
proposer
and
a
second
order
to
go
on
the
confidential
business
I
proposed
by
a
country
mclean,
so
I
can
buy
country
at
cosby.
Okay,
I
just
need
to
read
out
the
following
statement:
members
and
online
viewers,
in
accordance
with
schedule,
6
of
the
local
government
act
exempt
information.
We
will
now
be
moving
into
a
confidential
session
of
a
council.
This
means
that
we
will
be
turning
off
the
public
fade
of
the
meeting.
C
C
Okay,
that
should
be
the
live,
feed
restarted.
Item.
Eight
is
correspondence.
There
isn't
correspondence
item
nine.
I
haven't
seen
any
of
our
business.
So
that's
what
started
finished
the
first
part
of
the
meeting
and
when
I
have
a
short
recess
until
consideration
of
the
planning
applications
commence,
we'll
say
a
quarter
ten
past
five
or
ten
past
four.
Sorry,
ten
pounds.
B
B
B
C
Okay,
that's
us
back.
Okay!
Thank
you.
Members
we'll
start
on
agenda
item
seven,
which
is
the
applications
just
have
to
read
out
the
following
statement.
Members
of
the
public
are
advised
that
the
planning
and
regulatory
services
committee
is
being
held
in
the
council
chamber
in
crigallon
civic
center.
However,
due
to
covert
restrictions,
the
number
of
persons
who
can't
physically
be
facilitated
in
the
chamber
is
severely
limited.
M
Officers
have
taken
that
members
have
read
the
report
in
full,
so
this
will
be
a
synopsis.
Only
policy
cty-1
of
pps21
identifies
a
range
of
types
of
development
which
are
considered
to
be
acceptable
in
principle
in
the
country
site.
The
applicant
has
indicated
that
this
application
is
to
be
considered
under
policy
cty-2a
clustering
and
policy
cty-8
enfield
development.
M
For
these
reasons,
officers
would
say
there
is
not
a
cluster
of
development
in
the
area.
In
this
instance,
there's
no
crossroads
associated
with
the
site
and
the
community
building
on
crowley
lane,
given
the
separation
distance
and
intervening
in
intervening
vegetation
is
not
associated
with
any
defined
cluster.
M
Furthermore,
due
to
the
size
of
the
site
and
his
relationship
with
the
host
property
at
number,
101
blurry
road
officers
would
be
of
the
opinion
that
site,
if
approved,
would
significantly
alter
the
existing
character
of
this
area.
As
regards
to
infill
policy
officers
are
of
the
opinion
that
a
site
is
not
within
a
substantial
and
continuously
built
up.
Frontage
officer
of
the
opinion
that
the
lobby
is
structured
to
the
southeast
of
the
site
is
not
considered
to
be
a
building
and
has
no
plan
history
associated
with
it.
M
Having
regard
to
all
above,
therefore,
officer
of
the
opinion
that
opposed
development
is
unacceptable
and
the
proposal
is
contrary
to
the
spps
cty1,
cty2a,
cty8
and
cty14
of
pbs21,
and
is
recommended
that
this
application
is
refused
taking
on
to
the
powerpoint.
To
give
you
an
understanding
of
the
of
the
site.
M
And
we've
just
just
taken
you
on
yet
and
that
just
shows
the
location
in
the
general
area
so,
as
I'd
say,
the
development
limit
of
beer
bleary
to
the
southwest
within
the
countryside
next
slide,
please
that
is
an
aerial
view
of
the
opposed
site.
So
there
are
a
number
of
buildings
in
the
immediate
area.
M
Next
slide,
please,
the
applicant
gave
us
a
concept
as
regards
to
infill,
so
basically,
the
the
building
to
this,
the
southeast,
the
existing
garage
within
the
site
and
the
host,
probably
at
number
101
and
his
interpretation-
that's
substantially
a
built
up
frontage.
Is
that
just
gives
you
an
understanding
of
where
the
applicant's
concept
was
coming
from
next
slide.
M
M
That's
the
applicant's
a
concept
with
regards
to
cluster,
so
they
have
highlighted
an
area
of
25
meters.
You
can
see
right
around
a
circle.
There
identified
the
hall
of
crony
lane
yeah
and
that
is
their
definition
of
what
the
defined
cluster
is
and
and
that's
for
the
for
their
interpretation
next
slide.
Please
officers
consider
the
gap
regards
to
policy
cty
and
it
are
to
be
the
yellow
because
you
have
to
discount
the
existing
building
within
the
site,
because
this
is
the
gap
you
have
to
look
at.
M
The
red
star
is
roughly
the
location
of
the
global
leader
structure
to
there
and
we
do
not
consider
that
to
be
a
building.
So,
therefore,
we
would
be
of
the
opinion
that
there
are
two
buildings
and
due
to
the
size
of
that
site,
it
is
extremely
small.
You
can
only
a
look
at
the
14
meters
width
and
that
would
be
out
of
character
with
established
pattern
along
this
area
of
development.
M
Next
slide,
please
the
obligations,
examples
of
says
of
sites
approved
of
a
similar
say,
so
he
kindly
actually
gave
us
examples
which
are
not
too
far
from
the
site.
Look
at
the
first
example
that
is
just
over
20
meters
wide.
What
you
looked
at
is
the
entire
red
line
sitting
side
by
side.
The
gap
in
that
case
is
over
43
meters.
M
There
are
two
sites
actually
approved
in
there
but,
as
I
said,
alluded
to
the
previous
slide
at
number,
eight
we
have
to
look
at
the
gap
in
the
gap
is
the
yellow
bit
that
I
have
identified
highlighted
in
in
yellow
and
therefore
this
red
light
is
actually
a
lot
bigger.
The
other
one
is
is
much
bigger
again
if
the
two
sides
to
the
right,
it's
well
over
a
22
meters.
So
it's
it's
bigger
again
in
relation
to
it.
M
So
the
critical
assessment
for
regards
to
cty
is
the
gap,
and
this
gap
is
only
14
meters
wide.
So
it's
substantially
smaller
than
the
examples
provided
by
the
applicant
next
slide.
Please
a
photo.
One
is
a
view
of
the
site,
so
basically
the
site
is
in
there.
It
includes
the
guards
to
your
right
hand,
side
there,
and
we
are
discounting
that
so
it's
basically
the
rear
yard
of
number
101.
M
There
are
glimpses
of
the
building
to
the
north,
which
is
what
we
are
saying
is
identified
for
the
closure
and
when
you're
on
the
site,
you
can
actually
see
the
top
of
the
roof
of
the
dwelling
at
number
103
blurry
road,
so
officers
were
both
opinion
that
the
dwelling
of
101
a
clearly
road,
the
dwelling
at
103
blurry
road
and
those
two
structures
are
what
is
the
defined
cluster
and
everything
else
is
just
crowded
next
slide.
Please
that's
a
photo
of
the
structure
beside
the
site
with
no
plan
history.
It's
heavily
overgrown.
M
It
is
quite
a
celebrity
as
state,
and
we
would
be
of
the
opinion
that
it's
not
actually
a
building
for
the
purposes
of
the
policy
next
slide.
Please
so
there's
the
view
from
the
site
entrance
up
towards
bali,
durgan
road.
So
you
can
see
you
can't
even
appreciate
the
dwelling
at
number
five
valley
duggan
road,
which
is
on
the
right
hand,
side
due
to
the
mature
screening
along
the
boundary
of
the
that
particular
host.
Probably
so
that's
been
discounted
next
slide,
please.
M
This
is
just
at
the
end
of
the
junction
of
bali,
dugan,
road
and
blue
road.
You
see
looking
at
that
there's
no
appreciation
of
the
buildings
along
that
road.
They've
all
got
substantial,
mature
heads
and
around
them,
and
it
is
quite
a
real
feel
you
get
rather
than
a
comb
compact
urban
farm
next
slide.
M
Please
lots
of
you
just
looking
up
towards
cranny
road
so
again,
given
the
setback
of
the
dwellings
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
road,
there's
not
a
defined
cluster
of
development,
immediate
area
next
slide,
please
that's
just
103
blurry
road,
the
objectors
property.
The
site
is
just
without
airways
in
behind
number
am
101..
So
for
those
reasons
we
would
be
off
the
opinion
subject
to
conditions
if
members
were
managed
to
overturn
that
a
dwelling
could
be
conditioned
to
not
cause
any
detrimental
impact
on
their
immunity.
M
C
Thank
you,
sinead
also
joining
us
very
soon.
As
mr
timothy
duke
the
applicant
timothy
you're,
very
welcome
to
the
planning
committee
today,
I'm
now
going
to
bring
you
in
to
make
a
representation
and
support
of
the
application.
You
have
three
minutes
and
the
clock
should
be
appearing
on
your
screen
shortly.
Yet,
can
you
see
that
time
yeah.
N
N
The
planning
officer's
assessment
has
confirmed
many
of
the
positive
attributes
of
my
proposal,
including
its
ability
to
successfully
integrate
into
the
landscape
and
that
they
have
no
concerns
in
terms
of
residential
immunity,
access
or
parking
provision.
With
regard
to
the
officers
concerns
under
cty2a,
the
planner's
report
suggested
that
the
site
did
not
fulfill
criteria
1
and
two
due
to
the
dense
vegetation
in
the
area.
However,
under
a
2017
pac
appeal,
the
commission
determined
that
a
cluster
can
be
a
visual
entity
despite
being
well
enclosed
by
mature
vegetation.
N
The
planet's
report
also
suggested
that
the
community
building
shouldn't
be
considered
as
part
of
the
cluster,
as
it
is
190
meters
from
the
site.
However,
under
a
2019
bac
appeal,
the
commission
determined
that
a
focal
point,
which
was
250
meters
from
the
appeal
site,
would
fulfill
the
requirements
of
cty2a.
N
If
the
committee
are
still
not
satisfied
in
this
regard,
I
would
ask
them
to
consider
a
2017
bic
appeal
in
which
the
commission
determined
that,
despite
the
application
site
not
meeting
the
focal
point
criterion,
the
other
five
requirements
had
been
met
and
therefore
the
site
complied
with.
The
overall
thrust
of
the
policy
and
that
it
should
be
approved,
the
planner's
report
also
had
concerns
with
regard
to
the
size
of
the
pub.
N
With
regard
to
the
concerns
under
cty-8,
the
planet's
report
stated
that
the
site
fails
to
meet
the
requirement
of
a
substantial
and
continuously
built
upfrontage,
due
to
the
condition
and
local
status
of
the
shared
conservation
of
the
site.
I
would
ask
the
committee
to
consider
a
2015
pac
appeal
in
which
the
commission
ruled
that
a
derelict
building
should
be
counted
as
forming
part
of
a
substantial
and
continuously
built
up
frontage,
and
the
lawfulness
of
the
building
was
not
a
consideration.
N
However,
on
measuring
the
other
plots
within
the
close
area,
it
is
found
that
the
average
width
is
only
30
meters
and
that
the
proposed
plot
frontage
would
in
fact
be
larger
than
three
of
the
smaller
spots
in
the
close
area,
and
so
would
very
much
be
in
keeping
with
the
established
character
of
the
area.
I
suppose
that
the
precedence
and
information
presented
clearly
sure
that
the
site
satisfies
all
of
their
requirements,
both
under
cty2a
and
ctyat,
and
should
therefore
receive
approval.
N
C
O
E
Savage
sorry
chair
before
we
start
considering
us,
mr
duke,
has
just
asked
us
to
consider
three
different
plan
on
appeals,
commission's
decisions
which
we
haven't
signed
off
here
at
the
minute.
You
know,
and
it's
just
a
question
that
would
ask
the
committee
such
as,
should
we
really
ask
for
this
information
now
above
so
it
can
be
considered
by
the
planners
or
we're
going
to
have
it
to
be
it
and
then
ask
for
this
on
deferred
again.
C
J
C
M
No,
they
haven't
been
submitted
so
far,
and
mr
jerk
unfortunately
didn't
even
give
me
the
full
reference
number,
so
I
wasn't
able
to
take
it
down
and
took
at
my
ipad
as
opposed
to
to
give
an
indication
of
what
it
is,
but
I
I
would,
I
suppose,
would
say
that,
as
regards
to
clustering,
it's
very
much
a
visual
assessment
and
there
is
a
a
difference
in
opinion
between
the
officers,
a
defined
cluster
and
the
obligates
to
find
cluster.
So
on
that
reasons
you
know
it's
a
degree
of
vegetation
around
it.
M
It's
not
critical
in
some
stages.
If
our
arguments
seek
the
topography
of
the
land
was
such
that,
no
matter
what
the
vegetation
is,
you
can
clearly
see
a
close
net
of
development,
which
is
what
clustering
is
about.
As
regards
to
its
elaborated
shade,
I
did
look
at
more
recent
appeals
in
regards
to
what
would
be
an
outbuilding.
I
have
a
few
2019
now
appeals
myself
were,
the
psc
commissions
would
not
would
discount
those
for
the
purpose
of
the
policy.
There
wouldn't
be
a
kind
with
a
current.
As
regards
to
the
definition
of
a
building.
M
I
know
mr
duke
had
said
the
2015
appeal,
so
this
was
considerably
updated
as
regards
to
a
clustered
not
having
a
focal
point.
There
is
one
out
there.
It
has
been
a
provided
as
regards
to
other
clustering
examples
we
have
had
through
this
planning
committee.
It
was
a
one-off
in
regards
to
there's
a
very
different
site
than
it
was
here,
given
the
fact
that
that
particular
site
it
could
never
accommodate
any
other
development.
If
that
was
accepted
here,
there
would
be
numerous
other
opportunities
throughout
this
area
for
a
clusters
of
development.
C
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
conscious
salvager
is
a
very
important
point.
It
was.
It
was
a
2017
pac,
recluster,
2019
refocal
point
2015
re-out
building,
and
I
suppose
I
would
want
to
make
sure
that
full
consideration
would
be
given
to
the
evidence
in
relation
to
those
to
ensure
that
we
are
factored
in
the
material
factors
and
not
because
they
sound
to
me
as
being
material
considerations
and
junied
has
not
seen
those,
albeit
she
has
said
that
some
were
updated
once.
However,
there
might
it
might
just
not
be
like
for
like.
C
Thank
you
country,
cosby.
I
hear
the
points
being
raised
and
just
conscious
that
we
do
have
a
protocol
for
the
operational
committee
and
do
we
see
all
our
lights
on.
So
I
think
I
have
to
take
those
other
lights
in
before
we
go
to
a
discussion
on
on
that
kind
of
issue.
So
we'll
just
take
the
next
person
in
which
is
council
nicholson.
H
Yeah
thanks
sure,
and
thanks
everybody
for
the
presentation
and
like
the
previous
two
speakers,
these
could
be
material
consideration.
We
don't
know,
we
haven't
seen
them
and
if
she
hasn't
seen
them
we're
just
gonna
have
to
you
know,
we
need
to
see
them.
There's
a
couple
of
things.
You
know
I
wrote
a
couple
notes,
you
know
in
relation
to
this
application
and-
and
she
needs
kind
of
sort
of
clarified
it.
But
look
you
know
under
policy
2a
a
focal
point
is
required.
H
H
That's
in
the
photograph,
it's
very
hard
to
tell
from
the
photograph
chair.
Is
it
a
building
or
is
it
not?
I
don't
want
to
get
into
a
long,
protracted
debate
and
when's
the
building,
not
a
building
or
anything
like
that,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
that's
key
to
that
policy,
because
that's
one
of
the
three
that
you
know
sort
of
determines
infill
policy
so
like
if
it's
not
a
building,
it's
not
an
info
because
there's
there's
no
three
buildings.
So
that's
a
key
thing
within
it.
H
C
M
As
regards
to
your
building
I'd,
as
I
said,
I
didn't
get
the
full
the
pac
reference,
mr
duke
provided
2015..
I've
had
a
number
since
regards
to
a
what
constitutes
a
building.
Indeed,
there
has
been
a
number
to
this
plan
and
regularly
service
committee,
but
I
suppose,
as
members
have
alluded
to
country,
cosby
and
code,
that
if
they
are
critical
and
assessment,
I
know
that
you
know
we.
We
can
look
at
those
and
it
is
very
much
a
visual
assessment
too.
M
If
for
members
of,
if
they
wish,
that's
I'm
trying
to
say
it,
we
could
go
back
and
there
still
could
be
quite
a
considerable
difference
in
opinions
of
where
the
cluster
is,
is
a
focal
point
of
quantity
laying
is
it
associated
with
the
cluster,
and
indeed
is
that
building
the
building?
So
it
is
very
much
a
visual
assessment,
a
clustering
just
just
supposed
to
put
that
out.
There.
H
Thanks
sure,
I
suppose
you
know,
obviously
I
can
see
the
direction
of
travel,
literature
and-
and
I
suppose
and
I'm
not
saying,
but
you
know
I
think,
women
when
you
see
this
one,
you
know
because
it
is
such
a
as
as
chinese
says,
it's
a
visual
thing
and
I
think
for
the
committee
to
make
their
own
mind
up
whether
this
is
a
building
or
not
or
whether
it's
a
cluster.
I
think
you
need
to
see
it
in
the
ground.
You'll,
never
get
it
from
photographs
chair
and
that's
only
so
in
my
opinion.
C
K
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
junaid
and
mr
jake
for
for
your
presentations,
I'm
coming
on
the
same
thing
there
as
concerns
like
it's,
not
a
technology
note
here.
What
is
that
building?
I
couldn't
make
out
what
the
building
was.
It
was
just
a
photograph
on,
certainly
if
it
means
maybe
going
out
and
seeing
for
ourselves,
maybe
an
opportunity,
but
could
a
six
some
clarification,
sinead
references,
community,
building
or
focal
point.
K
I
think
you
talked
about
that's
180,
90
meters,
away
from
the
agile
site,
but
I
think
mr
duke
may
have
talked
about
inside
the
red,
sir
or
the
circle
it
was.
It
might
be
200,
odd
meters.
So
what
constitutes
of
what
determines
the
community
building,
how
far
it
is
away
to,
because
it
would
be
crucial
if
that
was
considered
as
a
community
building,
so
I
would
like
some
entirety
in
that
and
see
what
could
be
considered
or
could
it
be
considered
within
this
application.
Thank
you.
M
So
there's
no,
it's
not
associated
with
the
cluster,
because
what
I'm
saying
to
you
is
when
you're
out
on
site
the
only
appreciation
you
get
of
the
cluster
is
while
on
bali,
durgan
road,
which
is
the
101
blurry
road,
103,
blair,
road
and
the
associated
buildings.
The
rest,
you
can't
appreciate
it
as
a
a
compac,
a
com
compact,
visual
entity,
which
is
a
cluster
and
for
those
raisins.
M
Now
what
mr
juke
says
regards
to
the
distance
from
the
site
is
absolutely
correct:
it's
not
critical,
there's
nowhere
apart
to
say,
if
it's
over
a
certain
distance,
it
has
to
be
discounted
and
there
are
instances,
no
doubt
in
the
general
area,
not
this
area,
but
in
january,
throughout
the
rural
area,
where
a
building
of
even
more
than
that
could
be
appreciated
with
a
cluster
of
development
in
the
rural
area.
So
what
mr
duke
is
saying
is
correct,
but
in
this
instance
the
critical
factor
is
not
just
the
distance.
M
So
for
that
reasons
I
I
understand
with
the
psc
would
say:
there's
some
messages
that
a
community
or
focal
building
out
with
a
that
particular
distance,
could
be
appreciated
with
and
could
provide
a
focal
point,
but
in
this,
in
this
case
a
officer's
opinion
that
it
doesn't.
I
don't
know
if
that
helps
you
anyway,
anyway,
at
all
ultimate
answers.
K
Thank
you
sinead
your
reply.
It
tells
us
that
it
could
be
the
words
it
may
be
or
could
be
considered
community
building.
I
think
we,
as
a
planning
committee,
have
to
take
that
on
board.
Is
it
a
community
building
on?
Can
it
be
considered
visually
looking
at
it?
Maybe
that's
an
opinion,
not
you.
The
officers
are
taken
here,
but
if
we
have
pac
telling
us
that
there
are
opportunities,
there
are
occasions
where
something
like
this
could
be
considered.
Is
that
a
psc?
That's?
What
we're
trying
to
define?
K
E
Stop
no
catcher
thanks.
No,
what
my
thinking
on
this
is,
I
think
a
few
other
members
have
alluded
to
it
already
is
that
we
need
to
consider
them.
Decisions
and
oceania
has
headached
more
recent
ones,
but
and
for
the
set
of
complete
completeness
on
this
report,
we
might
be
need
to
consider
them.
Pse
decisions
that
mr
duke
raised,
and
also
in
relation
to
that
the
building,
as
councilor
nicholson,
alluded
to
have
afflicted
the
picture,
and
I
think
that's
something
that's
needed
to
be
seen
with
your
own
two
a's.
E
So
I'm
not
making
any
proposals
now,
but
I
think
that's
something
that
we
need
to
consider
that
we
maybe
need
to
go
out
and
have
a
look
at
that
in
the
flesh
just
to
put
our
minds
at
ease
on
what
it
actually
is,
because
the
picture
isn't
that
clear.
So
that's
just
really
made
thinking,
and
hopefully
other
members
will.
C
H
Thanks
chern
and
if
you'll
allow
me,
can
I
ask
you
need
one
more
question
she
needed.
Obviously,
in
relation
to
info
infield
policy,
there
has
to
be
a
substantially
built
up
frontage
and
I'm
just
looking
I'm
just
looking
at
the
map
number
101
a.
I
just
want
to
ask
you
a
question
it
it.
It
appears
from
the
photographs
and
again
it's
a
it
addresses
the
main
blurry
road,
as
opposed
to
the
the
the
minor
road
which
which
this
site
addresses
is.
Is
that
your
opinion?
M
The
building
does
fl,
sir.
The
building
does
flood
one
of
what
the
bowling
does
front.
101
bay
road
for
the
assessment
upper
frontage
and
date
backed
up
in
the
psc,
because
the
site
elevation
of
the
garden
extends
to
the
road.
We
would
consider
101
as
part
of
the
front
edge.
Yes,
your
main
elevation
doesn't
have
to
front
the
road.
The
yards
wrap
around,
there's
no
gap
between
the
building
and
the
road.
C
D
Do
you
have
any
on
file
that
could
maybe
be
added
or,
if
not,
and
probably
thinking
also
that
it
might
be
useful
to
actually
get
out
on
site
and
look
that
direction
ourselves,
because,
if
you're
taking
the
photograph
in
summer
and
when
the
hedge
rows
are
particularly
full,
you
might
get
a
different
view
when
you
then
the
winter.
Maybe
the
hedges
are
cut
back
and
things
like
that
and
the
foliage
is
maybe
just
not
as
thick
and
dense.
You
maybe
could
see
the
hall
from
the
front
of
the
property
as
well.
C
M
There's
there's
a
there's
a
couple
of
points
in
that
I
suppose
members
that
basically
the
community
hall
has
to
be
associated
with
the
cluster.
So
we're
saying
as
officers.
The
cluster
is
only
confined
to
101
and
103
blurry
road
and
their
buildings,
hence
a
and
from
those
viewpoints
it's
not
associated
or
viewed.
M
However,
if
members
were
of
their
opinion
once
a
site
visit
was
done
that
that
the
cluster
there
is
a
cluster
in
there,
it
extends
beyond
those
buildings
and
even
extends
to
the
other
side
of
the
road
or
for
argument's
sake.
You
only
have
to
view
a
the
community
hall
with
the
cluster
and
if
the
cluster
is
extended
beyond
the
site,
then
that
that
is
a
part
of
the
assessment
we
are
saying
node,
it's
not.
M
It
doesn't
go
beyond
101
103
and
on
the
upside,
and
if
I
took
a
photograph
from
the
side
entrance
towards
queenie
hall,
you'd
be
simply
getting
a
row
of
hedgerows
towards.
You
should
be
of
no
avail
to
you,
but
if
a
site
inspection
was
undertaken
and
members
worth
of
view
that
they
believe
the
cluster
extends
beyond
but
offers
a
review
well
that
that
could
be
looked
at
in
relation
to
further
photos
and
the
presentations
going
forward.
C
C
C
C
P
Thank
you
chair.
This
is
an
outline
application
which
takes
permission
for
a
new
dwelling
and
garage.
The
recommendation
is
to
refuse
and
the
reasons
for
refusal
are
set
out
in
the
planning
report
and
there's
no
relevant
planning
history
and
no
third
party
representations.
There
are
no
objections
from
any
main
consultation
river.
The
natural
environment
division
have
advised
there's
no
accompanying
ecological
information
as
the
sites
within
our
amsterdam
and
asi.
P
The
main
determining
issues
are
set
out
in
the
planning
report
and
in
terms
of
the
principle
of
development.
The
sites
located
in
the
rural
area
close
to
lochnei
and
the
main
planning
policy
is
pps21
and
one
of
the
policies
is
cty2a
to
permit
development
of
a
dwelling
within
cluster
policy.
Cty2A
states,
the
planning
permission
will
be
granted
for
dwelling
at
an
existing
cluster,
provided
all
six
of
the
criteria
are
met,
as
as
you
just
discussed
in
that
previous
application.
P
In
this
case
officers
do
not
accept
that
the
proposal
meets
the
federal
requirements
of
clustering
policy.
There's
a
ribbon
of
development
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
road
to
the
east
and
south
of
the
site,
and
a
cluster
to
the
north.
At
the
crossroads,
however,
officers
do
not
consider
that
this
site
meets
criteria
four
and
five
unfails,
the
spps
cty1
and
cty2a
the
site's,
not
binded,
on
two
sides
by
development
in
the
cluster
there.
P
P
So
the
proposal
fails
the
spps,
c2y8
and
cty14
in
terms
of
access
and
traffic
dfi
roads
and
their
response
state
that
they
have
no
objection
to
the
proposed
access
in
terms
of
impact
on
residential
amenity,
as
this
application
is
for
outline
planning
permission,
all
matters
related
design
and
layout
are
without
prejudice
and
reserved
for
future
consideration
in
terms
of
impact
on
built
and
natural
environment.
Again,
without
prejudice,
search
disposable
under
ct
by
16
could
be
conditioned.
P
However,
the
site
is
within
lochnay
and
lochberg
ramsar
and
an
area
of
scientific
interest
to
environmental
designations.
Short
environmental
services
have
considered
the
potential
impact
through
an
initial
screening
of
of
the
proposal
on
the
special
protection
areas
and
specialize
the
conservation
and
ramsar
areas
and
assess
it
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
regulation,
43
1
of
the
conservation,
natural
habitats
regulations,
and
have
advised
that
the
proposal
would
not
be
likely
to
have
an
effect
on
features
of
features
within
the
european
site.
P
P
P
P
This
is
a
slide
which
I've
marked
up
some
of
the
properties
actually
which
were
identified
as
not
pharma
part
of
the
cluster,
the
visual
entity.
So,
although-
and
even
the
commissioner
has
said
that,
although
you
know
on
by
looking
at
the
map,
it
looks
like
there
is
a
better
relationship
that
it
doesn't
appear
as
a
visual
entity
within
the
landscape,
and
the
visual
link
between
the
buildings
has
do
not
meet
the
requirements.
The
policy
in
terms
of
providing
a
cluster
with
a
visual
entity
next
slide,
please.
P
This
is
another
example
which
I
thought
was
useful
just
in
terms
of
the
fact
of
some
of
the
development
being
separated,
then
not
being
part
of
a
cluster,
and
in
this
case
this
application
site
was
refused
as
well.
Next
slide,
please
this
is
the
view
of
the
site
go
inside
then
on
burn
rampart
just
over
there
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
road
next
slide,
please
this
is
the
crossroads,
so
you
can
see
the
visual,
the
the
cluster
of
development.
P
There
is
clustering
development
around
around
the
crossroads,
but
this
site
then
extends
away
from
that
into
the
open
countryside
and
isn't
part
of
that
next
slide.
Please,
then,
this
is
looking
down
from
the
crossroads
towards
the
site.
You
can
see
that
the
site
then
leads
into
the
open
countryside
and-
and
any
proposal
here
would
just
continue
to
extend
that
further
next
slide,
please.
P
This
is
the
other
side
of
the
road.
This
is,
I
think,
number
29
burn
rampart,
which
is
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
road.
There
is
a
ribbon
of
development
which
extends,
but,
as
you
can
see,
there's
actually
a
gap,
there's
a
there's,
a
side
up
towards
the
crossroads,
but
then
there's
quite
a
visual
break
between
this
house
and
the
crossroads
next
slide.
Please
this
is
the
the
visual
break.
P
C
C
B
You
chair,
thank
you
nichola.
I
suppose
there's
something
similar
to
the
previous
application
on
on
on
saying
this.
As
you
look
at
the
map
and
you
see
the
the
maximum
focal
point
and
you
can
see
the
bare
hall,
which
is
the
community
hall,
and
you
mentioned
that
it
has
to
be
bounded
by
on
two
sides
by
other
developments.
Can
you
maybe
divulge
further
on
this
on
on
this
nicola?
Please
thank
you.
C
P
So
we
accept
that
there
is
a
cluster
of
development
at
that
crossroads,
but
this
site,
then,
is
further
site
that
there's
actually
a
number
of
properties,
then
in
between
it
and
the
site,
and
there
is
only
one
property,
then
I
think
it's
number
30
c,
which
is
immediately
north
of
it,
but
officers
don't
consider
that
there's
any
other
sites
which
are
binding
on
you
know
has
to
be
two
sites
or
development
bounded
on
two
sides
for
it
to
meet
the
requirements
of
this
policy.
In
this
case,
we
don't
consider
that
there
is
another
one.
C
H
Yeah
thanks
sure,
and
thanks
thanks
nicholas
just
back
on
that
point
nicola,
obviously
number
30
c
bounds.
The
site
on
one
side
and
obviously
29
is
is
across
the
road
is.
It
is
the
fact
that
it's
a
crossover
it
can't
be
considered.
Is
that
your
sort
of
interpretation
of
other
polish?
Just
just
just
to
get
that
clarification?
H
P
P
So
there
are
pac.
There
are
a
number
of
examples
in
the
pac,
but
I've
used
one
because
that
was
a
very
recent
one
which
which
explained
that
and
fill
if
we
want
to
go
back
to
the
presentation
and
maybe
just
double
check
that
those
numbers
to
the
aerial
view
where
I
have
indicated
all
of
the
just
to
make
sure
that
I've
got
the
right
numbers.
P
P
H
A
P
E
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
and
nicholas.
Thank
you
for
your
presentation,
michael.
I
just
want
a
bit
of
clarity.
Around
refusal,
reason
number
six
says
it's
essentially
setting
up
because
it's
in
the
ramsar
site,
it's
it
doesn't
decide
for
local
and
international
nature
conservation,
and
I
was
happy
enough
for
that
and
then,
when
it
went
down
and
you
diluted
to
the
shared
environmental
services,
no
significant
impact-
and
I
think
you
alluded
to
that-
there
was
not
enough
information
for
them
to
make
a
decision.
So
a
really
good
question
is
is
number
six.
E
Could
that
change
or
is
that
refusal
reason?
Is
that
set
in
stone?
Is
there
any
information
that
could
come
delayed?
That
would
change
that.
Because
of
note
the
report
says
this
is
in
the
state
and
then
the
addendum
that
came
in
today
stated
that
the
state
lasers
in
two
realms
are
areas,
but
it
does
not
encroach
in
them.
So
there's
nobody
here
from
from
the
applicant
to
explain
that
one.
But
could
you
just
clarify
refusal
reason
six?
Does
that
set
in
stone
or
is
there
information
that
could
come
into
short
and
fundamental
services.
P
Yes,
thank
you
through
the
chart
and
it's
it's
not
information
to
come
through
short
environmental
services.
Shared
environmental
services
have
done
a
screening
exercise
in
regards
to
the
application.
It's
a
desktop
exercise
to
determine
whether
there's
likely
effect
on
a
european
protected
site
and
they've
just
done
that
from
a
desktop.
But
in
terms
of
our
policy
on
pps2
and
nature
conservation,
the
site
is
within
the
ramsar.
There
is
potential
for
protected
species.
P
We
haven't
received
any
biodiversity
checklist
which
is
required
as
part
of
this
application
to
determine
whether
there's
any
potential
impact
on
both
species
and
the
area
and
the
low
ses
have
done
an
initial
screening.
That
really
would
be
expected
to
be
submitted
still
as
part
of
this
application
to
determine
that
aspect
of
the
proposal.
K
P
C
Thank
you,
nikolai.
You
content,
ultimately,
okay,
any
fairly
further
alliance
members,
okay,
I'm
not
seeing
any
further
lights,
so
we'll
move
into
the
debate
stage.
Any
point
of
view,
members
that
you'd
like
to
share
not
seeing
any
lights
on
so
we'll
just
move
into
the
members
decision
phase.
Is
there
any
proposals
from
members
from
the
floor.
H
C
B
C
C
D
I
I
delight
on
just
a
second
country
nicholson,
but
the
light
went
on
justice
country
magellan,
made
his
proposal
and
is
actually
to
disagree
with
it.
To
say
that
I
think
I
don't
think
a
site
will
change
the
situations
in
front
of
us
because
of
the
evidence,
and
certainly
the
number
of
pac
decisions
that
nicola
has
raised
and
brought
our
attention
this
evening.
I
just
don't
think
a
site
will
make
any
material
difference
whatsoever.
So
I'm
happy
with
continental's
proposal
on
the
floor.
C
C
C
R
C
R
C
C
Okay,
thank
you,
members.
The
result
of
that
vote
was
10
in
favor
of
the
proposal
and
two
against.
So
the
proposal
from
council
nicholson
that
we
accept
the
officer's
recommendation
to
refuse
has
passed
and
therefore
will
not
be
proceeding
on
to
the
other
proposal.
Okay,
thank
you,
members
and
thank
you
nicola.
C
C
It
is
not
as
yet
clear
while
counselor
hanlon
notified
the
applicant
whether
their
colon
has
been
removed.
Therefore,
as
such
in
the
interest
of
furnace,
we
have
to
proceed
and
clear
the
application
and
have
been
advised
as
such
by
the
director
and
head
of
the
department
of
planning.
So
in
terms
of
appendix
four,
it's
lawyer
2020
one
two
year,
five,
oh
members
will
note
there
is
an
anandam
report
and
I'm
heading
over
to
chennai
to
take
us
through
the
presentation.
Thank
you.
Shane.
M
Thank
you,
chair,
yeah,
yeah
members.
What
our
office
has
taken
that
members
have
read
the
report
on
a
date,
the
dander
report
in
full
and
such
this
will
be
a
synopsis.
Only
policy,
cty3
states.
The
planet
mission
will
be
granted
for
a
placement
dwelling
with
a
building
to
be
replaced,
exhibits
the
essential
characteristics
of
a
dwelling
and
as
a
minimum,
all
external
structural
walls
are
substantially
intact.
M
M
The
addendum
report
that
came
in
by
the
agent
seek
to
address
the
the
reasons
for
refusal.
Now
he
first
of
all
sets
out
that
there
was
a
larger
dwelling
built
alongside
this
building,
which
would
tie
in
with
what
the
griffith
map
show.
However,
this
was
removed,
and
that
also
would
tie
in,
I
suppose,
with
our
thinking
in
regards
to
the
plan
history
under
a
1977
approval,
which
is
so
dated
that
we
wouldn't
have
the
fail
now,
but
it
was
a
replacement
for
114
kilmore
road.
M
So
it's
of
our
case
that
the
building
was
replaced
as
regards
to
the
grip
of
evaluation.
We
have
looked
in
detail
of
what
it
states
and
says
houston
land,
it
didn't
say,
houses
and
land
or
dwellings,
so
it
didn't
demonstrate
that
there
was
more
than
one
house
here
so
that
it
didn't
give
us
any
evidences.
Yes,
there's
more
than
one.
The
written
representation
advice
is
that
the
building
has
since
been
adapted,
and
there
has
been
an
additional
window,
an
additional
a
door
put
on
it,
which
would
not
be
unusual.
M
Indeed,
he
has
referred
to
the
lack
of
a
chimney
on
the
on
the
building
shouldn't
be
fatal,
and
we
would
agree
with
that.
The
lag
of
a
chimney
wouldn't
be
fatal.
However,
the
half
of
some
characteristics
of
hearth,
a
some
turtle
subdivision
some
sort
of
interior
and
internal
characteristic
dwelling
house-
this
is
no
external
or
no
internal
characteristics
of
a
dwelling
house
whatsoever.
In
contrast,
it's
like
an
excited
store.
M
You'll,
probably
see
from
the
then
report.
The
agent
submitted
a
photograph
of
what
the
house
could
have
looked
at.
It's
clearly
states
that
this
is
not
the
house,
but
may
example
of
one
that
there
is
no
a
chimney
and
they
there
would
be
no
chimney
in
those
houses,
but
there
would
have
been
an
opening
and
neither
hearth
in
it,
and
there
would
be
some
sort
of
internal
characteristics
of
a
dwelling
house
in
that
replace.
So
we
are
still
not
convinced
that
that
was
this
particular
building
age
dwelling
house.
M
As
regards
to
the
office,
eight
replacement,
the
written
representation
devices
that
the
curtains
of
the
building
is
so
restricted
that
there'd
be
no
provision
for
car
parking
on
a
day.
There
would
be
a
meaning
to
the
space
or
our
immunity
space
for
the
new
dwelling
and
officers
would
accept
that,
given
the
fact
that
the
site
is
so
restricted
and
offside
replacement,
amf
members
were
mounted
overturned
could
be
accommodated
on
this
site.
If
regards
to
the
access
concerns
the
written
representation
advice.
M
This
can
be
overcome,
however,
they've
never
provided
any
details
for
us
in
that
case,
and
they
have
advice
that
such
a
drawing
is
is
not
normally
required
outline
stage.
It's
not
normally
acquired
outline
stage
if
it's
clear
from
the
site
location
map
that
there
would
be
land
within
the
ownership
ie
outlined
in
blue
are
read
that
the
visibly
visibility
space
can't
be
accommodated.
In
this
case,
it's
not
easily
seen
from
its
application
plan
that
the
visibility
display
is
required
because
they're
not
using
any
existing
access
because
there's
no
existing
access.
M
There
can't
be
accommodated,
unlike
the
previous
one
of
blurry,
where
101
was
within
the
control
of
the
applicant,
so
visible
visibility.
Splice
could
clearly
be
accommodated
in
that
case,
therefore,
the
refusal
reason
on
the
ppas
3
has
not
been.
It
was
drawn
either.
Sir,
for
the
new
information
does
not
demonstrate
the
building
was
dwell.
In
contrast,
it
confirms
that
there
was
a
larger
dwelling
in
the
site
that
has
since
been
removed,
also
depending
on
the
post.
M
Developments
unacceptable
suppose
is
contacted
cty
3
of
pps
21,
as
the
building
replaced
does
not
exhibit
the
essential
characteristics
of
a
dwelling
and,
furthermore,
is
contacted
to
policy
amp
2
of
pps3
and
the
development
has
failed
to
demonstrate
that
this
access
would
not
prejudice
roads
safely
or
significantly
inconvenience
the
flow
of
traffic,
and
therefore
we
would
recommend
the
planet
mission.
Our
planet
must
be
refused
and
take
it
through
the
powerpoint.
M
That
just
shows
it
in
the
general
area,
so
it's
outside
a
porter
down
just
south
of
the
small
village
of
kilmore
next
slide,
please
that's
an
aerial
view
of
the
site,
so
what
they
wanted
was
an
off-site
replacement,
so
the
building
is
so
restricted
to
the
front
of
that
property
at
114.
They
wanted
to
set
it
back
into
this
area
of
land
to
the
rear.
Next
slide,
please
that's
the
safe
location
planet
like
outlining
the
area
in
red
again,
there's
nowhere
other
area
in
blue
to
the
south
etcetera.
M
So
it's
difficult
to
ascertain
from
that
location
plan
that
the
required
visibilities
that
we
would
be
required
on
a
decant
15
can
be
accommodated
in
this
case
next
slide.
Please
that's
just
the
applicant's
concept
plan,
so
basically
they've
looked
at
their
existing
apple
form
and
a
livestock
form
in
between
the
site,
but
there's
a
75
meter
radius.
That
could
be
accommodated
to
the
far
end
of
the
site.
M
Out
with
that
to
ensure
that
there's
no
immediate
concerns
for
the
post
residents
and
then
the
building
is
that
small
building
into
the
north
highlighted
in
green
next
slide.
Please
that's
the
photo
of
the
building
to
replace
the
present
time,
so
it's
a
small
structure
according
to
10
roof
on
a
two
opens
next
slide.
Please
that's
a
close-up
of
the
building,
so
a
small
building
there
and
on
day-to-day
part
of
it
is,
was
previously
an
old
stone
building
and
that's
the
close-up
of
the
the
the
window
opening
and
the
door
next
slide.
M
Please
it's
just
views
from
inside
the
building,
so
it
says,
there's
nothing
in
there
at
all
to
try
to
demonstrate
that
it
previously
was
built.
In
contrast,
it
seemed
to
be
an
old
store
or
not
on
a
right
building
that
probably
was
attached
to
a
main
building
at
one
stage,
but
for
the
purpose
of
policy
it
doesn't
demonstrate
that
there
has
been
a
dwelling
as
regards
to
this
particular
building
next
slide.
M
Please
that's
the
map
of
the
griffith,
so
I
was
trying
to
explain
it
as
a
nail
shape,
so
that
building
would
be
the
way
bit
to
the
to
the
north
and
the
additional
written
representation
received
from
the
agent
clarifies
that
the
particular
building
to
the
south
in
the
the
bottom
of
the
l
ship
was
a
dwelling
and
has
since
been
removed.
But
he
alludes
the
fact
that
there
actually
was
two
dwellings
on
this
side
and
so
that
part
to
the
north
was
still
a
dwelling
house
next
day.
Please,
I
said
thank
you,
members.
H
Yeah
thanks
to
nate
and
thanks
sure,
look
at
the
griffith
map,
sinead
and
and
then
looking
at
what's
on
the
ground.
Obviously
in
the
map
which
is
1807,
obviously
it's
all
one
building.
It
reads
all
this
one
building
one
block
and
then
obviously
the
one
below
which
is
maybe
in
1957,
there's,
obviously
a
dwelling
of
sorts
and
still
this
l-shaped
building
in
in
in
in
the
bottom.
But
then,
obviously,
when
we
look
at
the
location
map,
there's
two
dwellings:
is
there
any
plan
history
or
nothing
on
that
site?
For
those?
H
M
Yeah,
a
officers
can
categorically
say
that
a
dwelling
of
one
two
two
was
granted
as
replacement
dwelling.
That's
undisputed,
because
the
evidence
is
there
in
the
description,
a
one
one.
Four
it
says
said
for
dwelling,
but
it
didn't
use
the
word
replacement,
but
the
dress
was
114
and
normally
with
the
replacement.
You
actually
have
an
address.
So
I
can't
conclusively
say
that
114
was
a
replacement,
but
112
definitely
was
granted
as
a
replacement.
M
The
written
representation
received
from
the
agent
says
that
there
was
a
dwell
in
there
and
has
since
been
knocked
down
and
removed.
But
unfortunately
I
cannot
say
that
one
for
114
was
granted.
Does
replacement,
dwell
and
due
to
the
fact
that
the
history,
it
doesn't
say
in
the
description
site
for
replacement
dwelling
and
contracts,
one
two
two
does.
H
M
Yes,
the
officers
actually
did
go
back
to
the
applicant
needed
to
say:
have
you
anything
for
us
anything
have
to
you
know
to
try
to
aid
the
cause
here
in
relation
to
that
this
previously
was
dwelling.
Now
there
was
a
sort
of
a
blurred
photograph
percentage,
but
it
didn't
demonstrate
air
that
this
was
a
site
and
b.
It
gave
no
indication
that
there
was
a
dwellness
site,
so
it
was
of
no
help
at
all
and
further
that
then
no
further
information
was
given.
M
So
we
did
give
the
applicant
a
an
agent
an
opportunity
to
provide
information
to
to
to
say
that
it
was
previously
a
dwelling
house
and
nothing
and
since
even
the
written
representation
it
hasn't
come
forward
with
any
additional
information,
either
there's
a
photograph,
but
that's
not
the
photograph.
That's
not
the
same
question.
Let's
say
that
perhaps
it
could
have
looked
like
this,
and
so
unfortunately,
no
there
has
been
no
informations
regards
that.
R
R
Number
nine
when
you,
when
you
with
the
pictures
inside
the
dwelling
or
inside
the
building,
and
that
there
is
red
brick
in
the
wall-
and
I
suppose
I
wanted
to
ask-
has
sinead
contaminated
herself,
so
that
wasn't
at
one
time
a
heart
for
a
fireplace
of
some
sort
and
as
if
they
say
the
the
the
roof.
I
assume
has
come
on
at
a
later
date,
and
maybe
that
may
or
may
not
have
been
the
case.
That
might
have
been
something
so
it's
hard
to
tell
from
the
photograph.
Mr
chairman,
thank.
M
Yeah,
those
particular
red
bricks
are
the
inside
of
what
would
have
been
the
outside
of
the
window
led.
So
it's
in
around
the
edge
of
the
window,
which
is
a
common
place
in
the
night
buildings
of
of
that
particular
period.
But
it's
nothing
to
indicate
that
it
was
a
hearth
or
anything
in
regards
to
that
or
you
know
there
was
nothing
as
regards
to
it
in
this
particular
building.
Q
Thanks
very
much
chair,
I
suppose
it's
just
when
you
look
at
that.
Building
remains
drawn
back
to
a
number
of
previous
applications
where-
and
you
know,
based
on
the
the
outlook
of
that
frontage,
with
the
two
doors
and
on
the
roof
as
it
is,
it
did
seem
to
satisfy
planners
that
similar
buildings.
Looking
you
know
visually
and
to
the
one
we're
looking
at
at
the
minute
did
represent
the
fact
that
they
were
considered
as
buildings,
or
there
was
some
element
of
them
that
warranted
planners
to
feel
that
they
were
buildings.
Q
That
fact
that
you
know
if
we're
considering
one
as
a
building
and
another
application,
looks
very
very
similar,
then
how
you
may
not
consider
it
to
be
a
building,
and
even
when
we
go
back
to
the
knock
know
and
one
white
stuff
was
on,
I
think,
as
a
as
a
refusal.
There
was
from
what
I
can
remember
and
planners
saying
that
you
know
it's
the
proximity
of
it
to
an
agriculture
building,
rather
than
the
fact
that
it
doesn't
meet
the
criteria
of
having
to
be
you
know,
associated
with
a
previous
dwelling.
Q
So
that
was,
you
know
passively
saying:
yeah
there's
a
building,
that's
just
it's
too
close
to
an
agricultural
or
it
is
a
dwelling,
but
it's
too
close
to
an
agricultural
building
to
be
for
the
site
to
be
replaced.
So
I
just
like
clarity
in
terms
of.
Why
is
because
it
has
two
doors.
It
looks.
I've
pulled
the
pictures
up,
it
looks
so
so
similar
but
yeah
we're
taking
a
very
different
view
on
it,
and
I
think
there
is
an
issue
in
terms
of
you
know.
Q
If
people
look
at
that
and
make
a
decision
well,
why
did
you?
Why
did
you
decide
the
other
one
looked
like
a
dwell.
You
know
it
had
a
few
bricks
or
a
hearth
or
a
chimney
or
it
doesn't
have
a
chimney
or
it
made
it
had
a
chimney,
but
we
don't
know
because
we
can't
ask
the
person
who
used
to
live
in
it
or
was
it
something
for
blacksmith
and
then
we're
just
assuming
you
know,
based
on
a
number.
I
could
hear
that
it
wasn't
well
and
we're
happy
enough
with
that
and
we'll
replace
it.
Q
But
yet
when
we
come
to
this
one
we're
not
so
it's
just
it's
not
a
criticism,
because
I
know
there
are
other.
You
know
technical
aspects
to
it,
but
just
me
looking
at
it
and
therefore
the
public
looking
at
it
or
this
applicant
looking
at
it,
and
he
would
assume
there
could
be
some
concern
from
him
going.
It
looks
like
a
couple
of
applications
that
he
has
approved
a
few
months
back.
You
know.
C
C
M
Yeah
the
difference
in
the
knockdown
mclean
one
I
say,
for
example,
is
that
there
was
clearly
was
a
chimney
on
that
particular
site.
You
could
certainly
see
that
there
was
a
hole
within
the
walls
which
went
down
into
the
hearth,
and
that
was
the
difference
in
this.
There
actually
was
a
chimney
in
that
particular
one
and
therefore,
despite
the
external
appearances
which
may
be
similar
with
this,
the
key
with
that
one
was
there
was
a
chimney
and
if
there
was
anything
that
got
in
here,
indeed,
we
met
the
applicant
to
try.
M
Was
there
anything,
even
if
he
had
a
stripped
back
part
of
the
roof
or
anything
to
get
to
lost,
so
we
would
see
it
and
we
would
find
it,
but
unfortunately,
in
this
case,
there's
nothing
at
all.
So
in
that
particular
there
is
clear
distinction
between
that
particular
site
and
this
because
there
was
remnants
of
a
chimney
and
then
on
that
basis
we
accepted
that
a
it
was
a
had
essential
characteristics
of
a
dwelling
house
and
unless
one
does
not.
A
Yes,
chair
thanks
for
letting
me
know,
thank
you
cheney
for
the
presentation
and
yeah.
I
guess
it's
following
on
from
alderman
wilson
and
you
know
I
certainly
hear
what
janet
says
in
terms
of
them
asking
are
the
planners
asking
the
applicant
for
some
sort
of
proof,
and
there
was
maybe
one
greeny
picture
produced
or
whatever,
but
was
there?
Was
there
any
verbal
indication
or
was
there
any
claim
in
terms
of
when
the
last
the
last
potential
people
actually
lived
in
the
building?
Thank
you.
D
D
So
even
that's
not
particularly
clear,
but
certainly
from
she
needs
assessment,
and
you
know
I'm
happy
to
accept
in
terms
of
the
points
she's
raising,
but
it
would
be
useful
just
in
terms
of
trying
to
if,
if
we
end
up
looking
at
this
further
down
the
line
to
actually
get
some
more
information.
However,
I
you
know,
I
think
it's
probably
a
difficult
case
to
argue,
but
just
for
clarity
sinead.
M
C
C
Q
It's
just
a
it's
just
really
a
point
of
clarity.
You
just,
I
know
we're
in
the
decision
mode,
but
just
on
the
basis
of
what
you're
saying
about
the
counselor,
you
know
as
far
as
everywhere.
In
this
instance,
is
it
the
only
in
terms
of
the
delegates
less
than
that,
the
only
reason
the
application
is
here
is
due
to
that
calling
and
if
that
counselor
withdraws
that
you
know
I'm
just
looking
for
the
future
for
any
member,
and
is
that
not
taken
as
a
retraction
of
that
right
if
you
like?
Q
C
J
Yeah
thanks
sure.
No,
that
is
a
good
point
and
I
suppose,
and
the
council
handling
at
a
very
early
at
stage,
reviewed
his
position
and
decided
he
didn't
want
to
call
it
in.
We
then
gave
the
applicant
and
the
agent
the
opportunity
paulina
wilson,
that
also
advises
whether
they
were
happy
for
it
to
be
withdrawn
from
the
schedule.
Today
we
didn't
hear
back
from
them,
so
when
the
business
that
was
at
a
very
late
stage,
we
decided
it
was.
J
Q
I
suppose,
and
some
of
these
situations
you
know
in
the
past
we've
seen,
applicants
and
agents
want
an
application
withdrawn
to
avoid,
what's
termed
as
a
decision
history
on
it.
You
know,
is
by
the
fact
that
we
haven't
heard
from
them
disadvantaging
them
in
any
way.
In
that
regard,
you
know,
if
does
do
they
still
have
time?
Basically
after
say
they
did
respond,
there's
a
delay
in
the
email
or
something
and
something
comes
to
you
tomorrow
saying
no,
I
don't
want
it,
you
know.
C
J
Through
the
chair,
yes,
they
can't
they
can
withdraw
the
application
right
up
until
the
the
point
that
the
decision
is
issued.
Now
from
what
I
understand,
the
applicant
is
actually
content
to
take
a
refusal.
If
that's
the
way,
members
were
minded
to
go
and
then
take
it
to
the
planning,
appeals
commission
and
I'm
I'm
not
hearing
that
directly.
I'm
hearing
it
indirectly
oldham
wilson,
but
if
they
decide
that
they
would
rather
withdraw,
they
can
do
that.
They
would
probably
have
to
act
very
quickly,
but
that
they
can't
do
that.
Yes,.
C
Q
C
Thank
you
all
muslim.
I
was
certainly
frustrated
as
well,
given
the
lateness
of
the
removal
by
council.
Rohan
and
again,
we
did,
I,
you
know
I'll,
stop,
searching
and
do
developments
to
contact
the
applicant
and
agent,
so
unfortunately
they're
unable
to
do
so.
So
we
are
where
we
are
or
any
further
are
any
proposals
from
the
floor.
C
E
S
S
The
application
site,
as
I've
said,
is
located
to
the
rear
from
publix
college
and
the
new
3g
pitch.
The
site
is
within
the
settlement
limit
of
brown
bridge,
as
defined
in
the
local
area
plan,
and
the
site
is
not
part
of
any
zoning,
but
officers
considered
it
to
be
used
as
open
space
in
terms
of
the
principle
of
development
policy
os
one
of
ppsc,
it
states
that
development
will
only
be
permitted
where
it
does
not
result
in
the
loss
of
existing
open
space
or
land
zone
for
the
provision
of
open
space.
S
In
this
instance,
the
accessing
area
of
open
space
will
be
retained
and
enhanced
through
the
introduction
of
the
proposed
new
amenities.
In
this
respect,
it
was
considered
that
the
use
of
the
land
for
open
space
purposes
will
not
be
prejudiced
by
the
proposed
development.
Officers
are
therefore
content
that
the
principle
of
development
is
acceptable.
In
this
regard,
in
terms
of
design
and
impact
on
visual
character
and
immunity,
location
of
their
proposed
works
are
located
along
the
shared
boundary
with
the
klan
obama
gaai
club.
S
Any
views
of
the
proposed
development
from
the
public
vantage
points
are
relatively
long
range
and
the
nets
are
not
considered
to
visually
detract
from
these
views
or
visual
immunity
of
the
area
in
general
officers.
Consider
the
works
for
to
be
of
a
proposed
scale
appropriate
to
the
site
and
sympathetic
to
the
surrounding
environment,
in
terms
of
the
setting,
design
and
layout
in
terms
of
impact
and
residential
immunity.
Officers
are
content
that
the
proposal
will
not
have
an
unacceptable
adverse
impact
on
the
immunity
of
nearby
residents.
S
In
visual
terms,
the
proposed
catchnets
are
located
approximately
85
meters
from
the
closest
to
islands
in
baligan
park
and
approximate
approximately
a
hundred
meters
from
the
dwellings
of
windcraft
heights.
Any
views
of
the
proposed
development
from
the
surrounding
residential
dwellings,
a
game
will
be
relatively
long
range
and
the
nets
are
not
considered
considered
to
visibly
detract
from
these
views
in
terms
of
impact
on
built,
built,
heritage
and
archaeology.
The
site
is
within
150
meters
of
an
archaeological
site.
Officers
have
consulted
with
historic
environment
division
who
have
raised
new
objections.
S
S
This
is
of
out-of-date
aerial
photograph,
but
it's
all
we
could
get.
Obviously
the
the
pitch
the
3g
pitch
is
where
the
old
shield
pits
there,
you
can
just
see
and
extend
it
onto
the
grass
field.
Yep,
that's
basically
it!
Thank
you
next
slide,
please
yeah.
So
this
is
just
our
site
location
plan.
So
you
can
see
the
existing
plan
fails
of
the
local
killer
club
to
the
right
hand,
side
on
our
application
site
for
the
ball.
Stop
fences.
That's
going
to
be
along
that
short
boundary
next
slide,
please.
S
So
this
is
the
side
layout
plan
of
the
approved
3g
pits,
that's
all
already
in
city,
and
you
can
see,
hopefully
in
red
there,
the
position
of
the
two
ball
stub
fences
immediately
behind
each
of
the
two
goals
that
are
already
in
situ
there
next
slide
please.
So
these
are
the
elevations.
You
can
just
see
the
elevations
of
the
of
the
nets
that
are
going
to
be
put
in
place
next
slide,
please.
So
here
we
have
the
view
of
the
existing
two
nets
along
that
shared
boundary
there.
S
C
C
B
C
M
Yes,
application
number
lawyer,
2021
0164:
it's
proposed
discharge
conditions,
six
and
seven
on
plan
application
lao
we
have
twenty
eighteen
one.
Four
four
five
f
condition:
number
six
states
that
all
works
pertaining
to
the
structures
contained
in
in
the
confirmed
risks
such
per
chapter
seven
of
the
demons.
The
environmental
statement
shall
be
implemented
in
accordance
with
the
mitigation
measures
outlined
in
the
bat
mitigation
plan,
as
as
per
the
environmental
statement,
condition
number
seven
states
that
all
black
boxes
shown
to
locate
within
the
state
shall
be
installed
prior
to
the
clearance
of
any
trees.
M
A
demolition
of
any
development
here
by
approved
a
batacologist
was
appointed
to
remove
the
bats
that
were
previously
identified
in
the
olsen
ruling
in
ruins
college
under
niea
license.
The
butter
causes
was
able
to
safely
remove
the
previously
identified
bat
brushed
and
move
it
to
the
already
installed
butt
boxes,
as
outlined
in
ph
30
and
figure
6
of
the
environment
statement
following
the
satan
specs
inspection
officers
are
content
that
all
bat
boxes
are
located
within
the
site,
as
shown
on
the
bat
mitigation
plan.
C
C
H
M
Thank
you
sure
the
application
number
la
will
be
at
2021.
0346
is
for
the
proposed
discharge,
condition
nine
of
plan
application
approved
under
lao.
We
have
20
1909,
999,
f,
yeah,
the
condition
states
that
no
developments
will
commence
until
the
applicant
has
submitted
details
of
quantitative
risk
assessment
in
writing
to
the
planned
authority
for
its
agreement,
demonstrating
that
any
risks
to
human
health
have
been
effectively
assessed
and
the
proof
details
are
there.
M
After
be
implemented,
the
applicant
submitted
the
quantitative
risk
assessment,
which
included
a
desk
study,
a
plenary
risk
assessment
and
intrusive
site
investigation,
arrest,
assessment
conclusions
and
a
remediation
strategy.
Officers
in
consultation
with
the
regulation
unit
and
the
environmental
department
are
content
that
the
information
submitted
is
acceptable
to
discharge
condition.
9
of
lao.
C
Councillor
michael
then,
the
second
shirt,
thank
you.
Thank
you
country,
macklin,
any
any
other
proposals
or
queries,
not
saying
any
of
all
agreed
members.
Thank
you.
Okay,
we're
moving
through
them,
rightly
appendix
see
it's
another
discharge
of
the
condition.
That's
a08,
2021
0498
dc
again
just
recognize
that
the
declaration
of
interest
from
previously
from
councillor
nicholson
again,
I'm
have
no
edition
need.
M
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
This
discharge
condition
is
for
the
same
site
as
previously
discussed.
It
is
proposed
as
george
condition
5
for
that
plan
application
lao.
We
had
20
1909
f,
the
condition
states
that
the
construction
of
the
dwellings
hereby
approach
to
not
commence
until
landscape
and
open
space
management
and
maintenance
plan
is
submitted
and
approved
by
the
council.
M
Ada
architects
limit
has
prepared
a
landscape
management
and
maintenance
plan.
The
implementation
of
the
landscape,
the
implementation
of
the
plan
would
be
by
a
landscape
contractor
proposed
landscape.
Planting
plan
is
described
in
full
in
their
approved
landscape
planting
plan,
and
this
landscape
maintenance
and
management
plan
relates
to
that.
The
landscape
management
maintenance
plan
is
to
be
rare
in
conjunction
with
that
particular
landscape.