►
From YouTube: BasingstokeGov 9/11/2022 - Development Control Committee
Description
If there is buffering on the YouTube stream, the webcast can be viewed through the council's website https://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/webcast
A
A
Foreign
for
the
benefits
of
members
of
the
public
watching
or
participating
in
this
meeting
I
would
like
to
explain
who
everyone
is.
My
name
is
councilor
Nick,
Robinson
and
I
am
chairman
of
this
committee
to
my
right,
our
counselors,
who
will
be
making
the
decisions
on
the
applications
on
this
evening's
agenda
to
a
immediate
right
and
left
our
officers
who
will
be
presenting
the
applications
and
providing
advice
to
the
committee.
A
The
development
control
committee
is
a
regulatory
committee,
not
a
political
meeting.
The
committee
will
be
considering
the
published
papers
examining
the
evidence
brought
before
us
tonight
and
will
make
decisions
based
on
planning
reasons.
We
are
Guided
by
national
and
local
planning
policy
and
guidance
at
the
appropriate
time.
I
will
invite
speakers
to
contribute
to
the
meeting
in
the
order
set
out
in
the
update
paper
and
I.
Ask
all
speakers,
including
visiting
members,
to
speak
clearly
and
keep
points
made
on
the
application
on
material
reasons.
A
Only
no
further
dialogue
between
members
of
the
committee
and
speakers
will
be
permitted.
Once
questioning
has
finished.
All
speakers
will
be
reminded
of
their
permitted
speaking
time
and
will
be
advised
when
they
have
one
minute
remaining
and
I.
Ask
all
committee
members
to
avoid
repetition
and
keep
any
comments
on
each
planning
application
to
a
maximum
of
four
minutes.
A
A
B
Oh
sorry,
sorry
did
you
hear
that
item
nine
right,
okay,
item
two,
some
months
ago
before
I
knew
I
would
deputize
at
this
meeting.
I
had
a
conversation
with
a
neighbor
to
the
site
and
I
did
Express
to
him
a
concern.
I
had
over
that
particular
development
of
that
particular
site,
where
I
didn't
feel
that
it
was
appropriate
for
the
location
so
I
had
that
conversation
I,
don't
know
whether
that
excludes
me
from.
C
B
I
think
in
all
honesty,
I
don't
have
a
completely
open
mind
on
the
subject.
So
should
I
leave
the
room
for
that
item
or
just
stay
quiet?
Okay,
let
me
know
when
I
can
come
back.
Councilor.
D
Tomlin
item
nine
chair
on
Bramley,
Parish
Council,
so
I
will
leave
the
room.
Thank
you.
A
Urgent
matters
not
urgent,
but
now
it's
an
appropriate
time
from
this
coming
December
viewing
panels
will
be
followed
immediately
by
a
meeting
with
the
officers.
A
So
we
can
ask
any
questions
regarding
any
of
the
applications
and
hopefully,
as
we'll
get
some
of
the
questions
out
of
the
way
and
get
a
few
things
settled
before
we
come
to
the
meeting.
So
we
used
to
have
a
meeting
before
viewing
panel.
We
stopped
doing
that.
We're
now
going
to
start
having
a
meeting
with
the
officers
immediately
after
viewing
panel,
so
that
will
appear
on
your
viewing
panel
agendas
right
minutes
of
the
meeting
held
on
7th
of
September.
A
Is
everybody
happy
with
them
yep?
You
know
if
I
propose
them
could
I
have
a
second
councilor
Frost?
Thank
you.
I'll
sign
those
afterwards
and
right
applications
number
one
Lander
Court
drove
Overton.
E
E
It's
an
application
that
returns
to
committee
having
previously
been
resolved
to
approve
the
application
it
returns
only
because
of
the
change
to
the
nitrates
proposal,
which,
rather
than
providing
mitigation
at
the
site,
looks
to
buy
credits
for
the
East
Liberty
Borough
Council
scheme,
which
is
set
out
in
the
paper
and
a
change
to
the
design
of
the
proposed
dwelling
they're.
The
only
proposed
changes
and
that's
why
it
comes
back
there
is
an
update
paper.
E
Biodiversity
comments,
which
are
then
addressed
through
changes
to
the
conditions
within
the
update
paper,
corrects
a
recommendation
to
remove
the
reference
to
the
1996
to
2011
local
plan,
providing
the
current
local
plan
reference
instead
and
confirms
that
Hampshire
County
Council
have
got
no
objection
as
a
correction
from
the
main
agenda
paper
and
confirms
that
biodiversity
net
gain
has
to
be
achieved
and
also
adds
a
missed
condition
28.
Regarding
the
environmental
construction
management
plan.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
A
F
Post
access,
they
do
not
need
it
and
there
is
no
justifiable
reason
for
it.
If
you've
been
able
to
visit
the
site,
you
will
have
seen
that
the
plot
has
its
own
Double,
Gates
and
driveway
onto
the
road.
Court
drove
the
site
is
currently
home
to
a
tree
surgery,
business
and
we've
never
seen
any
problems
with
their
large
Vehicles
going
in
and
out,
there's
nothing
wrong
with
the
existing
access.
F
Their
plan
proposes,
closing
off
that
driveway
and
creating
a
long
new
road
going,
a
considerable
distance
from
the
proposed
new
house
through
a
green
field
to
exit
opposite
a
primary
school
and
preschool
the
primary
school
and
preschool
have
just
shy
of
500
children
and
staff
attending
their
site
every
school
day.
It's
on
the
no
through
road
with
very
few
parking
spaces,
as
you
can
imagine,
at
school,
drop-off
and
pickup
time
every
day
on
that
road
there
is
chaos,
double
yellow
lines
are
completely
ignored.
F
Parents
park
anywhere
and
everywhere
bollards
that
were
put
in
10
years
ago,
had
all
been
knocked
out
within
two
years.
Why
do
these
applicants
want
to
block
off
the
perfectly
good
driveway
they
have
away
from
the
school
to
exit
opposite
to
the
primary
school?
Their
planning
statement
makes
the
reason
clear.
They
were
unhappy
that
their
previous
application
for
14
homes
was
refused.
One
of
the
reasons
for
a
refusal
was
a
lack
of
safe
access.
F
F
F
If
you
think
you
must
Grant
permission
for
this
development,
please
please
please
place
a
condition
that
they
use
their
existing
driveway
it's
in
the
right
place,
and
it's
perfectly
adequate.
If
you
think
you
should
Grant
permission
place
a
condition
that
they
use
their
existing
driveway
to
help
keep
children
safe.
Thank
you.
A
A
G
Yeah
and
members,
my
name
is
Lisa
Jackson
and
I'm.
The
planning
agent
for
this
application
I
appeared
15
months
ago
in
front
of
this
committee,
with
a
very
same
same
proposal,
very
similar
proposal
for
a
single
dwelling,
which
you
are
minded
to
approve,
subject
to
a
legal
agreement,
and
this
is
material
to
your
decision
tonight.
This
application
follows
a
long
story
of
attempting
to
gain
playing
permission
for
this
allocated
site.
That's
taken
over
four
years.
The
need
for
nitrate
mitigation
makes
the
allocated
scheme
for
14
dwellings
on
viable
undeliverable
at
present.
G
G
The
Nitro
issue
was
not
considered
as
part
of
the
neighborhood
plan,
or
the
local
plan
based
in
Stoke
and
Dean
do
not
have
their
own
nitrate
scheme
and
applicants
must
find
medication
outside
the
borough,
as
in
this
case
the
application
will
secure
credits
at
a
cost
of
over
ten
thousand
pounds
for
this
single
dwelling.
This
is
with
easily
borrow
Council
as
explained,
and
the
offer
has
been
made
and
agreed.
G
Given
the
delay
to
the
process
in
this
application.
Due
to
the
complications
around
the
nitrate
tissue,
the
applicant
has
reconsidered
sensibly.
The
design
of
the
scheme,
the
energy
and
climate
crisis
has
prompted
the
applicant
to
approach
a
more
sustainable
solution
and
he
now
proposes
a
passive
house.
The
design
is
a
replica
of
one
certified
one
of
the
earlier
certified
passive
houses,
England
built
as
a
zero
carbon
home
over
nine
years
ago,
the
house
will
be
airtight
super
insulated,
triple
glazed
and
have
a
mechanical
heat
recovery
system.
G
The
Proposal
includes
a
solar
PV
array.
The
dwelling
will
not
have
a
gas
or
oil
boiler
and
heating
demand
is
extremely
low,
meaning
effectively
it
becomes
Net
Zero
over
the
year.
It
is
the
intention
of
the
applicant
to
build
a
house
on
this
plot
as
a
self-build
as
to
act
as
a
demonstration
for
the
other
dwellings.
G
The
access
issue
raised
by
the
previous
speaker
has
been
considered
at
the
previously
appeal.
The
inspector
confirmed
that
the
access
was
safe.
The
appeal
was
not
dismissed
on
access
issues.
That
is
very
important
to
know.
The
County
council
do
not
support
the
existing
access
as
it
as
it
is
not
safe
and
does
not
support
the
future
development
of
the
remaining
13
dwellings.
G
Importantly,
permission
for
this
single
dwelling
as
a
first
step
does
not
sterilize
the
ability
to
bring
forward
the
remaining
part
of
the
allocated
site.
The
parts
of
the
site
that
can
could
contain
the
dwellings
when
a
nitrate
solution
can
be
found
will
be
retained
as
paddocks
in
the
interim
until
an
affordable,
viable
nitrate
solution
will
be
available
to
the
rest
of
the
houses.
You.
G
I
would
ask
that
you
approve
this
application
that
development
can
commence
on
this
allocated
site
where
it
has
already
been
agreed
by
the
planning
inspector
that
the
form
of
development
is
acceptable
and,
as
the
committee
in
July
2021,
you
resolve
to
approve
a
very
similar
form
of
development.
The
Proposal
is
now
even
more
sustainable
and
could
act
as
an
important
demonstration
of
how
to
build
zero
carbon
homes
with
a
sympathetic,
contextual,
rural,
architectural
approach.
Thank
you.
H
Court
ready,
can
you
just
clarify
what
the
situation
would
be
for
how
you
intend
to
deal
with
nitrates
if
the
overall
development
went
ahead.
G
Council
last
are
looking
for
a
strategic
solution
for
those
parts
of
the
borough
that
need
to
mitigate
their
nitrate,
nitrates.
It.
There
are
a
number
of
solutions
out
there.
All
sorts
of
schemes
are
coming
online
in
different
boroughs.
There
are
ones
in
test
valley
that
can
be
combined
to
the
schemes,
so
there
are
schemes
available
if
land
and
the
ability
to
mitigate
nitrate
is
possible.
But
at
this
stage
I
can't
say
what
that
is,
and
at
the
moment,
at
ten
thousand
pounds
a
unit,
it's
not
viable
for
the
whole
scheme.
B
Thank
you
sorry,
because
I'm
new
to
this,
obviously
just
a
quick
question.
My
understanding
is
that
the
the
change
of
nitrate
mitigation
isn't
a
planning
a
reason
for
refusal
and,
and
secondly,
my
concern
with
this
site.
Having
visited
it
is
the
access
and
I
I
sort
of
I
concur
really
with
the
first
speaker
that
it
does
look
to
me
to
be
quite
a
dangerous
exit.
E
Thank
you.
Chef
can
I
answer
that
through
you.
So
in
respect
of
the
nitrates,
the
proposed
nitrate
mitigation
is
just
that
it's
mitigation
to
the
amount
of
nitrate
that
would
be
put
into
the
site
result
as
a
result
of
a
single
dwelling,
whether
that's
on
site
or
whether
that's
the
easterly
scheme.
They
both
provide
the
same
mitigation,
the
same
nitrate
neutrality
or
an
improvement
to
nitrate
situation.
So
I
know
that
couldn't
provide
a
reason
for
refuse
or
on
the
second
Point.
E
The
access
that's
now
proposed
has
been
the
subject
of
of
an
appeal,
an
appealed
decision
where
the
inspector
found
that
the
proposed
access
would
be
acceptable,
and
that
was
the
previous
resolution
of
this
planning
committee.
There's
no
change
to
the
there's,
no
change
to
the
access
from
when
it
previously
came
in
July.
So
it's
officers
officer's
View
and
members
previous
View,
that
that
access
solution
is
is
suitable
and
it
does
move.
It
does
result
in
the
closure
of
that
existing
access
as
well,
which
is
nearer
to
the
bend
in
the
road.
I
Frost,
thank
you.
Chair
Greg,
just
very
kindly
answered
my
question.
Okay
regarding
the
access,
so
thank
you.
D
Tomlin,
thank
you
chair,
so
just
to
clarify
the
application
in
front
of
us
is
only
for
consideration,
because
the
building
has
changed.
The
nitrates
is
something
that
we
really
aren't
involved
with.
E
It's
a
material
difference
to
the
scheme
that
you
considered
in
July,
so
you
considered
previously
a
scheme
that
included
a
106
to
secure
the
nitrate
mitigation
at
the
site,
whereas
this
proposal
is
the
eastleigh
scheme
which
will
be
secured
through
conditions.
So
the
resolution
of
the
committee
was
something
that
was
materially
different,
but
obviously
it's
officer's
view
that
it's
still
mitigated
appropriately
through
this
alternative.
So
because
it's
material
difference,
you
need
to
come
back
to
committee.
E
J
Thank
you,
chair
I
was
just
concerned
with
the
sighting
on
quite
a
large
site,
as
we
walk
down
to
it.
J
E
Thank
you
chair,
so
this
is
the
previous
site
plan,
the
one
that
was
previously
considered
by
committee.
So
you
can
see
it's
at
the
members
resolved
to
approve,
so
you
can
see
it's
cited
in
largely
the
same
location.
It's
just
a
different
shape,
the
obviously
the
differences
are
outlined
in
in
within
your
reports.
E
This
is
the
proposal
before
us.
Obviously,
we
need
to
consider
the
application
before
us.
It
is
cited
in
near
proximity
to
the
existing
pair
of
dwellings.
There
it
had
another
proposal
come
forward
for
a
dwelling
Elsewhere
on
the
site.
We
would
have
had
to
have
considered
that
in
its
context,
but
the
proposal
here
is
for
a
dwelling,
that's
neared
to
other
dwellings.
It's
not
considered
to
be
harmful
to
Captain
appearance
of
the
area.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you,
Council
ratican.
We
haven't
got
to
the
debate
stage,
yet
we're
still
in
question.
Okay,
thank
you.
We've
been
no
more
questions.
We
will
move
to
debate
and
Council
ratigan
has
already
proposed
it.
So
is
there
a
second
death,
councilor
Court
anybody
anything
they
want
to
say
in
debate,
foreign.
K
Just
quickly
I,
don't
see
any
reason
to
disallow
it,
but
I
do
not
like
buying
credits
from
other
places.
I
think
we
should
be
mitigating
things
in
our
own
Borough
I.
Don't
see
why
eastleigh
should
get
the
benefits
of
nitrate
mitigation.
We
should
be
stealing
and
and
then
we
have
an
overload
I,
don't
see
how
it
works.
I,
don't
like
like
I,
don't
like
credits
like
that,
but
I
can't
see
a
reason
to
refuse.
I
Frost,
thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
chair
I
have
to
say
that
Council
Freeman
for
for
one
time
this
evening.
There
is
a
lot
of
cross-party
support
in
in
what
you've
just
said.
I
I
too,
don't
like
the
the
the
credit
scheme
down
at
eastleigh,
but
that's,
unfortunately,
the
one
that's
being
presented,
and
that's
the
one
that
that
that
we've
we've
gone
with
I,
don't
like
it
and
I'm,
not
a
big
fan
of
this
this
scheme,
but
you
know,
I,
I,
read
the
papers
and
I
can
see
that
the
the
previous
scheme
was
effectively
basically
the
same
as
this
one:
okay,
just
with
a
different
design
house
and
and
the
same
entrance
I'm,
not
a
big
fan
of
you
know,
building
any
more
houses
on
this
site,
because
that
will
put
more
vehicle
movements
out
into
opposite
the
school
but
I'm
in
full
agreement
with
councilor
Freeman
on
this
book.
A
A
E
L
Thank
you
chair.
This
is
an
application
for
the
election
of
two
five
bedroom
dwellings
with
garage
and
cycle
storage
and
also
includes
the
erection
of
a
replacement
double
garage
for
the
existing
property
at
bridles
View,
and
the
officer's
recommendation
is
for
approval
and
there's
nothing
on
the
update.
Thank
you.
A
M
Thank
you,
chairman
I'm,
the
agent
for
the
applicant,
the
applicant
relate
the
application,
relates
to
a
rural
site
with
a
60
meter,
wide
Frontage
set
on
the
north
side
of
bise
Lane.
It's
located
within
a
small
ribbon
of
residential
development.
In
between
a
newly
built
dwelling
to
the
West
at
Burgess
farm
and
an
established
dwelling
Bridal's
view
to
the
east.
The
site
already
has
planning
permission
for
the
erection
of
a
large,
detached
dwelling
and
triple
garage.
So
the
principal
of
residential
developments
already
been
established.
M
We
think
the
approved
dwelling
is
over
large
and
wasteful
of
space
since
the
site's
easily
capable
of
accommodating
the
two
family
dwellings
that
are
that
are
now
before
you.
These
both
have
a
designer
layout,
that's
more
in
keeping
with
local
character
block
sizes
and
the
newly
built
dwelling
to
the
West.
M
There
are
no
objections
from
HCC
highways:
Natural
England,
your
landscape
officer,
your
biodiversity
officer,
environmental
health
or
the
joint
waste
team
and
silchester
Parish
Council
raised
no
objection
to
The
Proposal
the
applications
being
considered
by
committee,
because
the
owner
of
the
new
dwelling
to
the
West,
that's
Burgess
Farm
suggests
that
garage
one
serving
plot.
One
might
block
light
to
her
living
room
window
now.
Burgess
Farm
has
a
north-south
principal
aspect,
so
the
Eastern
living
room
window
is
in
fact
a
secondary
window.
M
They
look
towards
the
established
shared
boundary
hedge
that
already
filters
their
View
and
which
could,
if
necessary,
be
replaced
by
two
meter
high
vents
under
PD
rights
as
along
the
existing
boundary
to
Bridal's
view
a
two
meter.
P
defense
would
entirely
eliminate
the
objection,
but
we
would
prefer
to
keep
the
established
heads
since
it
is
much
more
attractive.
M
M
The
proposed
weddings
themselves
are
Chalet
Style,
with
a
rural,
slightly
Barn
conversion
type
character
they
fit
in
well
with
the
local
building
styles
and
character,
and
both
dwellings
measure
15.06
meters
wide
by
10.23
meters,
deep
with
a
bridge
height
of
7.5
meters.
You
have
one
minute
remaining.
Thank
you.
They're
sighting
design,
amassing
Accords
with
the
established
pattern
of
development
on
the
Northern
side
of
buyers
Lane.
M
So
it
fits
in
well
with
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
surrounding
area,
and
it
wouldn't
result
in
significant
impacts
on
either
local
landscape
or
the
scenic
quality
of
the
area.
There
aren't
any
Highway
objections
and
the
proposal
includes
a
net
gaining
habitat
biodiversity
of
16.51,
there's,
no
adverse
impact
on
trees,
no
flood
risk
and
the
site
location
is
already
assessed
and
sustainable.
M
A
N
M
There's
an
existing
hedge
in
between
the
proposed
garage
and
the
secondary
windows
to
the
house,
we're
not
suggesting
putting
a
fence
there.
The
point
was
that
if
a
two
meter
fence
were
to
be
erected
under
permitted
development,
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
see
from
those
windows
into
the
applicant
site.
D
Thank
you,
chair
condition,
14
about
the
archaeological
program.
Can
you
put
some
flesh
on
the
bones
there?
If
you
would
about
what
we
expect,
how
you
would
expect
the
applicant
to
manage
that
what
would
be
acceptable.
L
And
I
can't
give
any
details.
It
was
something
that
the
county
archaeologists
requested
for
the
single
dwell
in
and
whilst
he
hasn't
committed
on
the
current
one,
bearing
in
mind
it's
exactly
the
same
site
and
it
has
the
same
implications,
we've
taken
the
his
recommended
condition,
and
that
would
be
something
that
we
would
agree
with.
The
county,
ecologist
archaeologist,
but
I,
don't
know
the
details.
I
have
don't
have
that
information.
D
Sorry,
just
just
just
to
clarify
we'll
come
back
on
that
is
I
mean.
Would
that
therefore
be
if
it's
the
county?
Someone
would
be
monitoring
it
rather
than
we
just
rely
on
an
applicant
to
have
presented
something
and
implement
it
without
actually
checking,
because
it's
it's
a
fairly
important
condition.
If
they,
you
know
that
we
want
them
to
complete.
L
Yeah
I
mean
that's
something
that
it's
for
the
applicant
to
submit
that
information
and
for
the
county,
archaeologists
to
consider-
and
you
will
either
have
the
county.
Archaeologists
will
go
on
site
at
various
points
during
the
development
or
they
might
have
a
consultant.
Who
equally
will
be
recording.
L
N
Yes,
so
in
terms
of
the
potential
damage
to
trees
and
the
tree
protection
plan,
where
is
it
in
the
conditions
that
the
trees
have
to
be
protected
from
their
tree
roots?.
A
L
Thank
you
chair
that
the
application
is
approved
according
to
the
the
officers
report.
O
Thanks
chair,
the
third
item
before
you
this
evening
is
for
Wildwood
Farm,
Newnan,
Lane
old
Beijing
at
the
proposal,
six
full
Planning
Commission
for
the
demolition
of
existing
buildings
and
Redevelopment
of
the
site
with
the
erection
of
seven
seven
dwellings.
If
I
take
the
members
attention
to
the
update
paper,
the
site
was
subject
to
the
viewing
that
took
place.
Last
Friday
and
members
can
read
the
aspects
of
the
viewing
within
the
paper.
O
Also
within
the
update
paper,
reference
has
been
made
to
the
appeal
decision
for
20
forward:
slash
03374
forward,
slash
ful,
which
was
an
application
on
the
same
land,
but
with
a
larger
area
for
nine
dwellings.
The
decision
was
made
on
the
7th
of
October
with
the
inspector
allowing
the
appeal
and
permission
being
granted
and
the
inspectorate
considered
it
acceptable
on
landscape
grounds.
There
were
fewer
conditions
applied
to
the
appeal
decision
and,
as
such,
it's
recommended
that
some
conditions
are
removed
from
the
recommendation,
as
well
as
some
conditions
amended.
O
I've
also
included.
Measurements
have
been
given
within
the
update
paper
on
comparisons
of
heights
and
footprints
in
the
existing
approved
and
proposed
scheme,
so
condition
13
has
been
removed
and
then
condition.
Six
relating
to
landscape
works
and
trees
has
been
amended
to
specifically
include
which
shall
result
in
the
net
increase
in
canopy
cover
at
maturity.
O
The
agent
has
also
confirmed
their
agreement
to
the
pre-commencement
conditions
and
the
application
is
recommended
for
approval.
Subject,
conditions
are
set
out
in
the
agenda
before
you
and
within
the
update
paper.
Thank
you,
chair
thank.
A
P
Good
evening,
thank
you
chair.
Forgive
me
if
I
make
hard
to
play
on
this.
This
appeal
decision,
which
came
in
after
the
after
the
report,
was
written
by
the
by
the
officers.
It's
obviously
a
material
consideration,
a
great
weight
which
you'll
have
to
factor
into
your
consideration.
P
P
So
we'll
wait
and
hear
from
the
Ward
counselor
and
and
see
how
councilor
tuck
addresses
the
appeal
decision
when
she
addresses
you
so
I'm
just
going
to
explain
the
the
background,
the
difference
and
remind
the
ones
who
were
here
of
what
happened
previously
and
the
new
ones
I'll
tell
them
how
it
all
panned
out.
You'll
remember
with
the
previous
scheme,
it
was
nine
houses,
three
affordable
units
and
an
off-site
contribution.
P
This
was
refused
against
officer
recommendation,
a
judgment
influenced
by
mainly
the
two
Ward
members
who
made
a
compelling
case
to
the
committee,
and
it
was
based
around
the
landscape
objection
at
the
time.
The
landscape,
rejection,
which
didn't
factor
in
the
existing
development
on
the
side
and
I
think
that's
something
important
for
you
to
consider.
The
committee's
decision
was
not
one
a
principle.
There
were
no
technical
objections
and
that
was
a
deliberate
conclusion.
After
a
long
debate,
the
sole
reason
for
refusal
was
Visual
and
Landscape
impact
for
development.
P
You've
got
the
comparative
footprints
on
your
on
your
committee
paper
as
well.
All
of
these
are
considerable
concessions.
P
Of
course,
the
unintended
consequence
of
the
refusal
was
that
we're
now
below
the
threshold
for
affordable
housing
in
terms
of
the
site
area,
then
the
appeal
decision
came
through
this
was
received
after
the
committee
report
was
written
officers
already
accepted
that
the
site
was
all
previously
developed
land
and
that
it
fell
below
the
affordable
housing
threshold.
But
obviously
that
was
endorsed
by
the
inspector
and
I'm
going
to
read
you
a
few
of
the
inspectors
conclusions,
which
I
think
are
important
to
your
consideration
here.
P
One
I'm
satisfied
that
the
appeal
site
would
be
properly
described
as
previously
developed,
Land
Two.
The
development
would
sit
comfortably
within
the
wider
landscape,
reflecting
its
rural
qualities
whilst
delivering
housing
for
the
area.
Third
quote:
I
find
the
proposal
would
replace
existing
unattractive
site
structures
with
dwellings
in
keeping
the
local
vernacular.
P
Four
The
Proposal
will
replace
existing
structures
with
a
more
considered
arrangement
of
housing
designed
to
mimic
in
general
terms
of
cluster
of
plant
buildings,
varying
in
scale
and
height,
whilst
it
would
change
the
long-term
views
from
within
the
conservation
area
and
the
scheduled
ancient
Monument
through
an
introduction
of
a
different
built
form.
I
am
satisfied
that
the
proposal
would
not
be
harmful
to
the
setting
of
the
conservation
area
or
The
Wider
important
views
from
the
monument
the
Paris
Council
never
really
got
its
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
appeal
decision.
P
So
on
your
paper,
you
still
got
their
their
lingering
objections
from
before
the
appeal
decision
came
out
as
I
say:
we're
waiting
to
hear
what
the
what
the
ward
councilor
says
and
whether
her
approach
will
be
influenced
by
the
by
the
appeal
decision,
but
in
my
mind,
I've
got
no
doubt
this
is
a
better
scheme
than
the
one
that's
been
approved
already
in
terms
of
what
you
were
looking
for
previously
in
terms
of
the
visual
impact
and
reducing
the
the
overall
impact
of
the
development.
P
That's
the
only
issue
really
for
your
determination
here.
There
is
still
no
technical
issues
and
there
were
no
objections
before,
as
I've
already
said
so.
I
trust
that
you'll
understand
that
approving
this
application
is
an
improvement,
has
a
lesser
impact
on
the
landscape
and
that
you
can
grant
permission
now.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you.
Are
you
saying
that
if
we
approve
this
application
here
tonight
you
this
is
the
scheme
that
you
will
take
forward
and
you
will
not
be
relying
on
the
permission
that
you
already
have.
P
That
will
be
something
to
work
out
as
and
when,
and
if
we
get
planning
permission
today,
we've
got
the
comparison
to
make
at
the
moment.
We've
only
got
one
accident
permission.
Therefore,
there's
no
comparison
to
make.
At
the
moment
foreign.
Q
Thank
you
chair.
You
stated
there's
no
technical
issues
brought
up.
Last
time.
We
discussed
the
fact
there's
no
main
sewage.
We
discussed
that
there
was
an
issue
with
the
bin
storage
and
it
would
end
up
on
Union
Lane,
because
they've
been
Lori
can't
turn
around
on
the
site,
and
there
was
also
an
issue
raised
with
surface
water,
drainage
onto
newnam
Lane,
which
ponds
down
at
the
bottom
and
I
believe
it
was
pondy
last
last
week,
so
I
I
just
wondered
if
you
could
address
those
issues,
those
technical
issues.
P
Candy
I'll
start
with
the
third,
because
it's
rested
in
my
mind.
The
drainage
is
there's
a
full
drainage
report,
which
has
been
submitted
with
the
with
the
application
which
addresses
how
it
will
work.
There
will
be
a
management
of
the
of
the
surface
water
drainage
through
the
through
the
scheme,
which
will
be
a
betterment
to
the
existing
situation
because
it's
managed,
whereas
at
the
moment
it's
not
a
managed
system,
I
think
the
the
mishap
there
was
a
misunderstanding
last
time
about
refuse
collections.
P
There's
no
reason
why
the
Refuge
collection
cannot
go
up
to
the
site
and
collect
the
bins,
and
that
was
always
always
the
intention.
From
my
perspective
and
sorry,
what
was
the?
What
was
the
first?
The
first
issue,
the
first
question.
P
No,
there
is
no
veins,
so
it's
the
sewerage,
though,
that
would
be
a
managed
system
on
site,
as
as
it
was
previously.
Q
Yep,
so
so
so
back
to
the
bin
storage,
we
did
discuss
that
and
he
actually
says
in
the
document
that
the
bin
Lorry
won't
turn
around
in
that
site.
It's
it's
going
to
be
an
access
problem,
and
then
we
did
raise
a
concern
about
the
sewage
if
it's
on
set
it
tanks
and
it
leaks
they're,
not
empty
and
empty
properly,
it's
suggesting
to
the
chalk
stream
and
it
will
just
flow
into
the
chalk
stream.
So
we
were
concerned
about
that.
Q
A
Q
Q
A
mitigation
against
the
surface
water
drainage,
how
that's
going
to
be
done
and
managed
and
can
he
address?
Oh
the
bin
storage,
particularly
on
bin
collection
day,
is
going
to
be
addressed.
Q
P
Yeah
I
can
do
sorry.
I
will
just
clarify
what
I
said.
I
said,
there
were
no
technical
objections
and
reasons
for
refusal
to
the
previous
application.
That
was
that
was
my
words.
They
I've
just
been
informed
that,
from
my
mistake,
there
is
Maine,
so
we're
up
there,
so
the
main
service
can
deal
with
with
the
with
the
far
waste
in
terms
of
the
bin
lorry.
P
My
understanding,
a
genuine
understanding
is
that
a
bin
Lorry
can
go
up
to
site
and
turn
on
site,
and
that
is
how
it's
always
been
always
been
designed.
I'm,
not
quite
sure
where
the
idea
that
it
couldn't
has
has
come
into
into
consideration.
Certainly
tracking
has
been
provided,
showing
how
the
bin
Lorry
will
come
up
to
sites
and
from
memory.
P
I
do
recollect
that
the
council
and
the
committee
actually
acknowledged
that
and
and
eventually
came
to
that
conclusion
previously
as
well,
but
I'm,
obviously
going
back
a
year
in
my
memory
and
lots
happened
in
that
time.
Foreign.
A
N
I'm
a
little
confused
Mr
cobbled
about
your
reference
to
affordable
homes,
because
I
understood
that
the
previous
applications
for
nine
and
I
was
unaware
of
any
affordable
homes
being
included
in.
That
is
that.
R
P
No,
that's
not
correct
the
right.
The
the
approved
scheme
allowed
on
appeal
had
three
affordable
homes
on
site
and
it
had
0.6
of
a
home
delivered
through
as
a
as
an
off-site
Financial
contribution.
Why
was
that?
Because
the
was
the
number
of
houses
was
below
the
threshold
of
10
for
affordable
housing.
P
The
site
area
was
above
0.5
of
a
hectare,
so
it
trips
it
into,
and
then
this
we
we
acknowledged
that
all
along
that
was
always
part
of
the
offering
at
that
point
by
forcing
us
back
to
previously
developed
land,
but
in
the
previous
refusal
it
brought
the
site
area
under
the
0.5
of
a
hectare
which
is
the
threshold
for
affordable
housing
and
therefore
the
seven
unit
scheme
which
you've
got
in
front
of
you
does
not
trip
the
affordable
housing
threshold
and
need
to
deliver
affordable
housing.
Okay,.
N
Thank
you,
Mr
in
terms
of
the
landscape,
because
you
said
there
wasn't
any
real
valid
reason
for
rejecting
the
previous
application.
I
mean
it's
pretty
explicit
in
all
of
the
landscape
studies
that
we've
got
that
this
is
on
the
crest
of
a
hill
and
that
site
has
always
been
deemed
to
the
east
of
Beijing
as
wholly
inappropriate
for
development.
Nonetheless,
we
are
where
we
are
with
regards
to
the
inspector.
In
your
view,
why
could
you
explain
to
us
the
committee
why
this
is
preferable
to
the
impact
on
landscape
than
the
original
one
is.
P
I
think
it's
a
logical,
a
logical
conclusion
to
make
if
you've
got
a
got
a
development
of
let's
not
talk
about
the
unit
numbers.
Let's
talk
about
the
heights,
so
the
majority
in
the
nine
unit
scheme
were
9.8
meters
high.
These
are
now
no
more
than
7.8
meters
high,
so
you've
got
two
meter
lower
and
the
main
one
of
the
main
considerations
was
the
height
of
the
development.
Last
time
we
had
a
long
debate,
I
remember
it
well
about
the
comparative
Heights
between
the
existing
buildings
and
the
proposed
buildings.
P
So
obviously,
you've
got
that
reduction.
You've
got
reduction
in
floor
on
not
footprint
on
floor
areas.
1972
approved
1148
now
proposed,
so
a
reduction,
quick,
Mass,
850
square
meters
give
or
take
reduction
in
floor
area.
That's
a
that's
a
42
reduction.
All
of
those
add
up
a
must
do
to
having
a
better
visual
impact
compared
with
the
one
that's
been.
That's
been
approved.
A
A
S
You
obviously
I
disagree
with
the
planning
inspectors
findings
and
do
not
reach
the
same
conclusions,
but
as
that
boat
has
sailed,
my
comments
are
directed
at
the
planning
conditions
for
this
application.
I've
got
seven
points
one.
How
will
the
tree
buffer
surrounding
the
site
be
legally
protected
in
perpetuity
for
screening
and
ecological
reasons,
especially
since
it
is
not
contained
within
the
application
site?
S
2.
the
tree
buffer
needs
to
be
of
mixed
native
trees
and
to
include
some
evergreen
trees
such
as
Holly
and
you
if
the
screening
function
is
to
be
effective
for
more
than
half
the
year
and
I've
been
bitten
on
other
applications.
If
I
don't
look
at
the
detail
of
the
planting
plans,
three,
the
required
visibility.
Splay
on
Noonan
Lane
looks
to
me
as
though
it
will
result
in
loss
of
Hedgerow
or
dwarfing
to
one
meter
of
the
Hedgerow.
What
biodiversity
compensation
will
be
required
for
this
loss
or
reduction.
S
Four
skylarks
were
recorded
in
this
area
this
summer.
They
are
suffering
dramatic
population
Decline
and
are
red
listed
house.
Martins
are
also
in
this
area.
Please
see
that
they
are
added
to
the
ecological
plan.
5.
surface
water,
runoff
watch
provision
has
been
made
to
prevent
the
hard
surfaces
from
contributing
to
runoff
into
the
Lord
and
chalk
stream
at
the
bottom
of
the
hill.
S
Six,
the
applicant
states
that
there
is
existing
foul
drainage,
which
is
doubted
by
nearby
residents,
given
the
increased
load
this
connection
will
bear.
Can
we
have
a
condition
that
ensures
it
is
correctly
connected
for
sewerage
and
a
mechanism
to
check
this
and
seven.
Whilst
materials
are
reserved
items,
they
must
comply
with
the
old,
basing
and
lichpit
neighborhood
plan
and
Village
design
statements,
for
example,
in
this
rural
setting
to
include
bricks
matching
the
colors
of
historic
brickwork
of
the
village
clay,
tile,
Stone,
proper
Timber
and
not
PVC,
for
example.
S
In
summary,
I
acknowledge
that
this
application
has
made
some
effort
to
be
of
a
more
appropriate
scale
and
proportions
than
the
nine
dwelling
application,
and
with
careful
selection
of
materials
that
can
be
improved
upon
the
choice
of
trees
and
shrubs
around
this
plot
will
be
important,
as
it
will
either
look
like
a
well-placed
extension
of
the
adjacent,
ancient
Woodland
able
to
contribute
positively
to
the
Ecology
of
the
area
or
a
bnq
bargain
sale
of
everything
nobody
wanted.
Thank
you.
N
Well,
first
question
is:
why
have
they
changed
the
two
conditions
that
they've
changed?
That's
the
first
question
6
and
13.
Please.
O
Condition
13
was
already
partly
covered
by
condition,
six,
which
is
the
Landscaping
condition
for
trees
and
shrubs.
So
then,
we've
amended
six
to
just
make
sure
that
it
includes
a
net
increase
in
canopy
cover
at
maturity
within
that
condition.
N
This
is
the
same
question.
Please,
chairman
I,
I
I
need
a
bit
more
clarity.
Does
that
mean
if
you're
incorporating
13
into
six,
you
will
be
requiring
supported
drawings
that
there
will
be
Clarity
I,
I
I'm,
just
wondering
whether
we
as
members
ought
to
see
the
amended
condition
number
six
before
we
agree
to
the
amounts
of
the
conditions
of
tonight.
O
It
is
in
the
update
paper
so
and
it
does
require
a
scheme
of
landscaping
to
be
submitted
and
approved
by
the
local
planning
Authority
before
any
Landscaping.
Work
commence
on
site.
L
So
if
so
on
page
nine
of
the
update
condition
six,
which
is
this,
is
the
amended
one
on
the
fifth
line
down.
It
says
here:
The
Works
approves
which
shall
result
in
a
net
increase
in
canopy
cover
at
maturity.
So
that's
the
addition
of
it.
That's
the
change!
That's
that's!
What's
merging
the
two
together!
Thank
you.
L
Any
Landscaping
scheme
that
comes
in
has
this
comes
in
as
drawings,
together
with
a
list
of
schedule
of
all
the
species.
That's
going
in
the
size,
Etc,
so
yes,
there'll,
be
drawings.
That's
all
covered
in
a
normal
Landscaping
condition.
N
Second,
question
relates
to
the
comments
of
councilor
tuck.
N
Can
we
incorporate
her
requests
in
relation
to
tree
buffers,
visibility,
splays,
skylarks,
Provisions
reference,
the
runoff,
the
foul
drainage,
more
certainty
and
specifically,
and
most
importantly
of
all,
in
view
of
the
comments
of
our
landscape
officer
and
the
statement
that
it
is
very
Urban
in
its
context
and
in
view
of
the
fact
it
breaches
all
of
our
landscape
capacity
studies
to
date
because
of
its
views
from
ancient
monuments
and
goes
against
and
flies
against
all
our
policies
in
relation
to
landscape
capacity,
that
the
materials
and
the
design
adhered
to,
the
old
Beijing
Village
design
statement
and
the
old
blazing
neighborhood
plan.
E
Thank
you,
chairman,
obviously,
there's
a
range
of
conditions
within
the
gender
paper.
There's
27
conditions
covering
a
range
of
Matters
from
landscape
controls,
conditions
set,
but
drainage
matters
to
tree
protection,
control
and
leaven
to
biodiversity,
enhancement
and
management
is
obviously
a
very
important
condition.
E
That's
already
been
allowed
to
appeal
for
nine
as
we've
as
we've
heard,
the
conditions,
the
one
Amendment
to
the
conditions
from
your
order
paper,
which
is
in
the
update
paper,
has
been
amended
to
reflect
the
condition
conditions
within
that
appeal
decision,
where
the
inspector
didn't
agree
with
the
tree.
Canopy
cover
condition
and
Amalgamated
it
with
condition
six.
E
So
it
reflects
that
so
their
proof
scheme
for
nine
could
be
built
with
the
conditions
that
are
very
similar
to
the
conditions
that
we've
got
before
us
and
I
think
any
which
is
a
wide
range
of
conditions
in
itself.
But
any
additional
conditions
wouldn't
meet
the
tests
that
any
condition
must
meet
to
make
a
development
acceptable
in
playing
terms.
A
Q
You
chair
really
I've
got
some
concerns.
That
seems
to
be
a
lack
of
clarification
on
sewerage,
also
on
the
bin
Lorry
coming
up
there
and
I
guess
the
surface
water
drainage.
But
my
question
really
is:
is
there
any
sort
of
provision
we
can
put
in
in
place
to
make
sure
that
it
is
main
sewage
and
also
my
concerns
about
wheelie
bins
on
newnam
Lane?
Q
If
Lori
can't
get
up
there,
then
there's
going
to
be
potentially
24
bins
there,
plus
the
two
houses
which
aren't
shown
on
the
plans
which
have
been
built
built
on
the
corner,
so
there's
potentially
30
bins
on
that
lane
and
it's
just
not
it's
just
not
satisfactory
place
to
put
them.
So
is
there
any
anything
we
can
put
in
place
to
make
sure
something
is
done
to
to
ensure
that's
safe
and
you
know
sort
of
done
well.
Thank
you.
E
I'll
take
your
first
question.
First,
in
respect
to
the
main
strange
The
Proposal
is
for
Main
strainage,
that
that
is
what
their
proposals
for,
if
they
wanted
to
do
something
different
to
that
at
some
point
in
the
future.
E
That
would
constitute
development
and
it
would
need
a
planning
application
in
its
own
right
and
that's
not
what's
before
us
in
terms
of
the
bins.
The
waste
team
have
raised,
concerns
in
terms
of
a
waste
story
being
able
to
access
the
site,
and
so
that
is
what
would
happen.
The
bins
would
have
to
be
left
potentially
on
newnam
Lane,
and
that
is
a
situation
for
the
scheme
for
nine
dwellings
as
well.
So
there
will
be
less
bins
with
this
scheme
than
there
would
be
for
the
for
the
newnam
lane
scheme.
E
Obviously,
the
waste
officer
has
made
the
comments
that
they
have
made
and
if
the
site
weren't
able
to
be
serviced
by
a
council
waste
Lorry,
then
they'd
have
to
arrange
for
a
private
collection,
there's
no
reason
that
that
couldn't
be
added
as
an
informative.
If
that
was
a
concern,
the
member
said:
Thank
You,
chair.
I
Thank
you
chair.
It's
really
a
question
to
officers
that
if
the
the
previous
application
like
it
was
a
was
allowed
on
appeal,
okay,
I
I,
like
officers
to
clarify
why
this
is
a
better
scheme
in
their
opinion,
okay,
bearing
in
mind
the
fact
that
we've
we've
effectively
lost
social
housing
from
this
particular
site.
I
Okay,
could
you
please
give
us
the
the
professional
opinion?
Thank
you.
O
So
the
trigger
was
housing
on
this
application,
so
it's
not
considered
within
the
report,
but
in
terms
of
why
it's
a
better
scheme,
it's
the
reduced,
Heights
and
and
bulk
and
scale
on
site,
so
the
footprints
as
well
have
reduced
as
well
as
the
height,
so
the
impact
on
the
landscape
is
lesser
than
the
previously
approved.
D
Thank
you
chair.
Well,
it's
actually
on
that
subject.
Just
just
please.
Could
you
just
clarify
that
the
decision
allowed
at
appeal
did
not
remove
any
106
conditions
about
affordable
housing,
in
other
words,
that
excellent
Planning
Commission
at
appeal
would
provide
social
housing,
sorry,
affordable
housing.
B
Thank
you
just
your
point
of
clarification
really
so
tell
me
to
shut
up
if
I've
got
it
wrong.
I
thought
I
heard
the
first
Speaker
say
that
if
this
is
approved,
they
then
have
a
choice
of
two
applications
they
can
choose
which
one
to
go
with.
B
O
K
Having
been
on
the
site
visit
now,
there's
a
lot
been
made
about
the
Landscaping
packs,
but
what's
on
there
at
the
moment,
isn't
particularly
pretty
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
storage
containers
and
the
place
really
is
unattractive
and
I
think
that
putting
houses
up
there
would
be
infinitely
preferable
and
Far
More
in
keeping
with
the
area
than
the
sort
of
industrial
bits
you
can
see
up
there.
It's
it's
not
pretty
and
I
think
that
either
scheme
would
be
an
improvement
and
I'd.
Much
rather
have
this
one
than
the
slightly
larger
one.
That
already
has
approval.
K
So
after
the
debate,
I'd
like
I'm
quite
happy
to
propose
a
motion
to
approve
the
their
officer's
recommendation.
A
I
Thank
you
chair.
It's
really
difficult
one
this
because
you
know
the
the
previous
site
of
of
nine
drawings,
of
which
we
had
affordable
homes
in
there.
Okay
has
been
allowed
on
appeal.
Obviously
this
is
a
a
small
development,
so
I'm
I'm
struggling
to
understand
how
we
can
possibly
refuse
it,
because
if
we
do,
it
will
just
go
to
appeal
again,
okay
and
and
therefore
reluctantly.
I
Okay,
it
gets
my
my
support,
but
it
is
very
reluctantly
because
I
I
prefer
the
first
game
where
we
had
some
social
housing
on
there,
but
that's
not
in
in
the
purview
of
this
particular
application.
Thank
you.
Council.
T
T
T
It's
a
great
example
of
the
officer's
professionalism
and
attention
to
detail,
because
basically,
every
single
concern
that
has
been
raised
has
been
already
addressed
within
the
report,
so
I
I
I'm,
fully
in
favor
of
approving
this
and
I'm
happy
to
put
it
on
the
record
that
the
officers
have
done
a
great
job,
despite
some
members,
insistence
that
the
report
isn't
under
scratch.
So
thank
you.
Thank.
D
You
really
it's
actually
reiterating
what
council
Frost
said.
I
mean
what's
in
front
of
us,
is
basically
a
sort
of
it's
an
odd
Choice
of
words,
but
a
win-win
in
the
sense.
If
you
go
with
the
one,
the
first
one
you
get
social
housing
and
if
you
go
with
the
second
one,
we
get
smaller
development.
D
So
you
know
that's
that's
what
I
see,
but
what
I
wanted
to
just
to
add
that
please,
the
informative
that
great
Chapman
announced
and
some
of
the
conditions
that
were
mentioned
by
councilor
tuck,
but
through
councilor
Cubit
that
we
make
the
proposer
ask
them
whether
they
would
want
those
put
in.
Thank
you.
K
E
Jack
and
clarify
that
that's
an
additional
suggested
additional
can
element
to
condition
24
with
regard
to
skylarks
biodiversity,
enhancement
management
plan,
specifically
I
suppose
it
should
say
J
to
include
Skylark,
so
vision.
K
A
O
U
U
U
This
highlights
there
were
some
late
or
additional
plans
submitted,
which
just
stepped
with
the
technical
issue,
with
two
with
scaling
on
the
plans
that,
as
a
result,
that
shows
that
plot
B
retains
its
height,
as
originally
proved
in
my
case
office
report,
that
it
was
a
mention
of
a
0.2
increase,
but
that
was
incorrect
and
that
was
due
to
a
scaling
issue
and
there
were
further
topographical
errors
corrected
and
the
conditions
were
then
updated
to
reflect.
The
amended
plans
submitted
and
reference
to
those
plans.
Thank
you.
A
V
V
A
A
O
W
You
I
would
like
to
say
that
I
can
understand
two
families
excitement
of
building
their
dream
homes,
but
I
should
point
out
that
the
owners
of
the
neighboring
properties,
scribblers
and
Hollington
Corner
also
considered
their
properties
their
dream
homes.
Until
faced
with
the
proposals
before
this
committee
tonight,
our
concerns
have
been
raised
several
times
with
the
planning
officer
and
we
have
suggested
Solutions,
which
would
make
the
development
more
bearable
for
us,
but
still
achievable
in
a
satisfactory
way
with
the
applicants.
W
W
We've
had
a
surveyor
who
specializes
in
planning
to
report
on
sight
lines
and
Shadow
lengths,
and
it
is
worrying,
particularly
in
the
winter,
when
the
shadow
length
actually
reaches
over
44
meters.
He
stated
in
his
report.
I
cannot
see
any
reason
why
the
house
on
plot
a
could
not
be
moved
even
further
away
from
scribblers
and
Holland
and
Corners,
as
there
is
12
meters
between
the
proposed
house
and
the
Southwest
boundary
of
plot,
a
with
Block
B,
so
move
in
the
house.
W
Also
in
the
latest
version
of
plans,
extra
windows
have
been
added
both
in
the
first
and
second
underground
floor
of
plate
house.
Why?
We
acknowledge
that
the
future
occupants
want
extra
windows
to
allow
light
into
their
kitchen
walk-in
wardrobe
Etc.
Could
not
all
these
windows
use
obscured
glass
to
balance
the
increase
in
height
and
the
extra
windows?
W
A
A
X
X
X
X
We
have
found
ways
for
both
houses
to
join
the
main
sewage
to
alleviate
our
neighbor's
concerns.
We
do
propose
that
the
planning
team
review
and
agree
any
external
lighting
plan
to
protect
the
dark
skies
and
to
alleviate
these.
The
neighbors
concerns
raised
as
we're
building
on
forever
home
on
plot
B.
We
want
to
make
some
alterations
to
meet
our
family's
needs.
X
The
house
proposes
a
little
smaller
than
in
the
x-stamp
permission
and
is
No
taller
But.
It
includes
the
downstairs
bedroom,
so
we
can
accommodate
our
parents
as
they
age
and
the
glazed
entrance
way
that
has
moved
from
the
Northeast
elevation
to
the
southeast
elevation
and
that
actually
improves
privacy
for
all
of
the
northern
neighbors
and
it
better
addresses
the
street
scene.
X
X
The
proposed
window
configuration
on
plate
on
the
northeast
boundary
has
been
redesigned
to
show
greater
consideration
to
our
neighbors
with
two
eye
level
windows
on
the
ground
floor,
rather
than
the
four
and
two
roof
lights
rather
than
three.
In
the
extant
permissions,
we've
proposed
a
tall
mature
hedge
on
the
northeast
boundary
of
plate
and
have
offered
to
protect
the
Silver
Birch
Tree,
which
our
neighbors
have
said
is
important
to
them.
X
We
hope
you
agree
that
the
requested
amendments
proposed
do
not
significantly
deviate
from
the
extant
permissions.
Nor
do
we
request
an
increase
in
the
size
of
the
houses.
We're
a
family
who've
really
enjoyed
living
in
Wilson
Hill
and
we're
really
Keen
just
to
get
on
with
building
our
forever
home.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
H
Thank
you.
We've
just
heard
a
comment
from
the
applicant,
the
guards,
the
revisions
to
drawings,
to
accommodate
some
of
the
neighbors
comments-
probably
best,
but
are
the
drugs
we
have
here.
Do
they
properly
represent
the
most
recent
recent
drugs
that
have
been
provided,
foreign.
U
H
Just
to
clarify
those
are
the
amendments
that
the
applicant
has
made
to
address
the
neighbors
observations,
yeah.
U
I
believe
so
so
that's
the
drainage,
which
we've
cleared
details
on
the
drench
details
to
the
main
sewers.
We
I
think
the
rich
height
on
the
area
of
concern
did
drop
by
300
mil
from
the
original.
So
there
was
a
concession
there.
Although
I
know
the
neighbors
still
concerned
and
I
think
we
made
some
design
changes
to
plot
B
during
the
application
course
so
I,
the
drawings
you
have
in
front
of
us
are
the
latest
drawings
include
all
the
changes.
H
Those
also
accommodate
the
issues
to
do
with
Dark
Skies.
U
U
I
Thank
you,
chair,
just
looking
through
through
the
conditions
and
I
and
I
may
have
missed
it,
but
is
there
a
condition,
removing
permitted
development
rights
to
help
protect
the
houses
to
the
north.
U
Yes,
so
there
is
condition:
19
states
that
class
A,
B,
C,
D
and
E
of
part.
One
chapter
two
of
the
PD
rights
is
removed.
So,
yes,
we
have
removed
them.
A
U
Thank
you
chairman,
so
that
is
approved,
subject
to
the
conditions
and
recommendations
at
the
base
of
the
officers
report.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
It's
five
to
eight
we'll
have
a
five
minute,
Comfort
break
back
before
eight
o'clock.
Please.
A
When
I
did
the
minutes,
I
only
proposed
the
minutes
of
the
28th
of
September
I
missed
the
ones
for
the
12th
of
October
I'm
not
going
to
propose
them
because
I
wasn't
here
so
could
I
have
a
proposal,
please
councilor
Frost
and
a
secondary
councilor
ratigan.
Thank
you
very
much
item
number
five
yep
number
five
land
adjacent
to
the
a339
Headley
Luke.
U
Thank
you
chair.
This
application
is
land
adjacent
to
the
a339
in
Headley.
The
Proposal
is
for
permission
in
principle
for
the
erection
of
a
minimum
of
one
dwelling
and
a
maximum
of
two
residential
dwellings.
The
application
is
recommended
for
permission,
as
per
the
reasons
provided
in
the
in
the
planning
office's
reports,
and
there
is
no
updates.
Thank
you.
A
Y
You
chair
so
yes,
this
is
an
application
for
permission
and
principle.
So
so
the
issues
for
consideration
are
whether
this
location
is
a
suitable
location
for
up
to
two
residential
dwellings.
So
there
will
be
a
later
technical
detail
stage
and
it
at
that
point
in
time
when
we
will
consider
in
Greater
detail
or
matters
such
as
ecology
and
trees
and
drainage
and
so
on.
Y
If
we
get
that
far
so
I'm
obviously
appearing
for
the
applicant
here
aware
of
the
opinion
that
the
application
is
policy
compliant,
it's
small-scale
residential
development
outside
the
settlement
boundary,
we
say
there
is
a
locally
agreed
need
because
of
the
lack
of
housing
Supply
and
also
it's
not
in
an
isolated
location.
Y
The
council's
officer
has
accepted
that
this
is
not
an
isolated
form
of
development.
There
is
a
bus,
stop
opposite
with
Services
direct
to
Newbury
or
Kings,
clear
and
Basingstoke
in
the
other
direction.
There's
also
pavement
outside,
so
the
ability
to
walk
into
the
village,
so
there's
an
acceptance
that
it's
not
an
isolated
location.
It's
also
in
close
proximity
to
other
residential
dwellings
along
the
a339,
and
the
mppf
recognizes
that,
in
terms
of
sustainable
transport,
there
will
be
a
variance
between
what
can
be
achieved
between
urban
and
rural
settlements.
Y
So,
irrespective
of
the
the
policy
question,
so
we
we
take
the
view
that
it
does
comply
with
policy
ss6.
The
case
officer
has
said
that
it
doesn't
because
there's
no
locally
agreed
need
for
housing,
which
puts
you
into
the
Tilted
balance
here
in
paragraph
11d,
and
so
that,
ultimately,
is
the
question
of
whether
this
is
sustainable
development
and
do
the
adverse
impacts
outweigh
the
benefits.
Y
So
the
officer
has
concluded
that
the
density
which
we
have
proposed
is
appropriate.
We've
set
a
minimum
of
one
and
a
maximum
of
two
dwellings.
The
officer
is
also
concluded
that
this
would
be
acceptable
in
regard
to
landscape.
It
would
not
be
visually
intrusive
or
incongruous
within
the
wider
landscape.
Y
There's
been
no
objection
from
highways
and
I
would
note
that
the
access
is
already
in
place
and
approved
under
a
previous
permission,
so
there's
an
acceptance
that
this
permission
and
principle
stage
does
not
result
in
a
planning
permission
which
is
capable
of
being
built
out
at
this
point
in
time.
There's
a
lot
more
work
that
will
be
needed.
Should
you
be
minded
to
grow
up
this
pip
application
now
and
the
applicant
will
work
with
their
wider
team
to
ensure
that
the
design
which
comes
forward
suitably
addresses
ecological
issues
on
the
site.
I
Thank
you
chair,
and
it's
on
the
application
here.
If
we
can
just
go
back
to
the
site
plan,
please,
okay,
that
one
there!
Thank
you
very
much,
okay,
that
the
access
road
continues
past
the
this
application.
B
Again,
it's
just
my
confusion
here
we
said
we
were
looking
at
this
for
the
suitability
for
the
site
for
development,
but
the
reasons
for
approval
only
really
talk
about
the
five-year
land
Supply,
rather
than
what
is
the
suitability
of
the
site
for
development.
The
two
don't
seem
to
mesh.
If
you
understand
what
I
mean
I
would
have
expected
to
see
some
other
reasons
rather
than
just
five
year,
land
Supply.
U
Thank
you
for
your
question,
I
believe
so,
under
the
Pips
we
get,
we
are
asked
to
look
at
three
main
things
which
location,
land,
use
and
amount
of
development,
and
the
headline
of
that
reason
for
approval
mentions
those
three
items.
So,
from
my
opinion,
the
location
land
use.
The
amount
of
drone
is
acceptable,
which
is
said
in
the
first
sentence
and
then
obviously
we're
building
in
outside
settlement
boundaries
therefore
referred
to
the
land
housing
land
Supply.
As
part
of
that
that
arguments
is,
there
are
two
elements
to
that
reason
for
approval.
I
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
just
want
to
know
how
much
notice
has
the
the
adoptive
neighborhood
plan
for
Ashford
and
Hadley
been
taken
it
into
approving
this,
this
particular
pip,
and
also
while
we
don't
have
any
any
consultation
with
Hampshire
County,
Council
highways.
Okay,
I
personally
know
this
road
and
it
is
extremely
dangerous.
I've
almost
been
killed
on
it
myself
in
the
last
four
months
and
I'd
like
officers
input
into
into
that.
Please.
U
Thank
you
for
your
question,
so,
firstly,
the
highways
they
were
consulted
and
they
are
mentioned
within
the
constitutes
there's
no
objections.
I
also
spoke
with
the
highway
officer,
and
he
confirmed
that
he
was
satisfied
that
the
visibility
met,
the
technical
standards
and
therefore
would
be
safe
and
safe
access
could
be
achieved
and,
regarding
your
second
question,
was
to
do
with
the
neighborhood
plan
that
was
reviewed
as
part
of
the
submission
it's
mentioned
in
the
policy.
Consideration
and
I.
Believe
I
also
mentioned
it
at
the
end
of
each
section.
N
Yes,
thank
you
just
going
further
on
from
councilor
Darren's
comments.
When
we
had
the
inspector
in
for
a
members
panel
meeting,
he
said
that,
just
because
we
don't
have
a
five-year
housing,
Supply
doesn't
mean
that
any
of
our
other
tests
Fall
by
the
wayside.
He
was
pretty
clear
about
that.
So
what
what
I,
I,
I,
I
and
I
do
accept.
The
planning
in
principle
requires
these
three
aspects
to
be
considered.
Location
and
land
use.
I
just
want
to
kind
of
I
understand
a
bit
more
from
you.
Why?
N
U
So,
firstly,
I
think
my
report.
It
sets
out
the
reason
for
me
first
off
that
it
is
outside
the
settlement
policy,
but
it
is
a
sustainable
location.
There
is
a
bus
stop
just
outside
the
site
that
goes
every
hour,
I
think
to
between
Newbury
and
Basingstoke.
So
I
thought
there
was
a
sudden
ability.
Newbury
is
about
three
miles
away,
so
it's
relatively
close
and
there's
tadly
supermarkets
not
too
far
so
I
believe
it
was
sustainable
in
terms
of
landscaping.
U
The
setting
I
felt
it
sat
in
it's
neatly
within
the
the
settlement
pattern
of
the
area,
the
two
additional
complement,
the
two
current
houses
on
site.
So
there
was
a
a
landscape
and
a
character.
The
area
pattern
that
it
would
sort
of
reinforce
and
then,
in
terms
of
the
rest
of
the
details,
the
biodiversity
of
the
trees
side.
U
U
As
the
planning
agent
highlighted,
there
is
a
barn
further
up
the
site
so
that
the
access
was
approved
under
a
2017
permission,
so
the
access
was
part
of
that
and
the
axatrax
follows
the
the
road
edge
up
to
that
Barn.
So
this
scheme
then
seeks
off
to
utilize
the
access
and
that
track,
and
so
the
red
Edge
cut
software.
It
cuts
off
because
access
trust,
then
Carries
On.
U
So
that's
where
we
are
with
it
at
the
moment.
This
is
the
scheme
in
front
of
us.
There
is
no
scheme
for
further
development
on
the
site
and
if
that
were
to
come
forward,
obviously
we
would
consider
at
that
point
go
go
from
there.
J
It's
my
belief,
there's
a
there's
an
access
at
the
top
end.
Where
is
that
not?
Is
that
not
correct?
Is
that
not
for
the
bond.
U
J
U
J
The
basis
you
can't
tell
me
where
the
access
is,
can
we
have
this
deferred
then,
if.
U
J
A
U
I
would
firstly
suggest
this
application
is
for
two
dwellings,
and
that
is
what
we
are
considering
here
today.
It's
not
for
the
wider
development
of
the
site.
This
scheme
has
been
revised.
There
was
a
scheme
one
to
four
which
has
been
taken
down
to
two,
with
the
agreement
of
the
applicants,
they're
happy
to
go
down
to
two
and
I
think.
If
more
development
is
to
happen
on
this
site,
it
certainly
will
be
considered
as
a
planning
application
and
therefore
we
can
consider
whether
it's
acceptable
to
Grant
it
or
refuse
it.
At
that
stage,
foreign.
E
Through
the
technical
details
consent,
even
though
it
is
an
existing
access,
so
in
reality
there
won't
be
another
access
solution
proposed,
but
I
think
what's
more
to
the
point
is
that
we
have
got
no
objection
from
Hampshire
County
Council
as
the
highway
authority
to
this
application,
with
advice
that
it
meets
the
appropriate
technical
standards
and
we've
got
no
empirical
evidence
to
the
contrary.
Thank
you,
chair.
N
Yes,
on
the
basis
that
are
considered
on
location,
land
use
and
amount
of
development,
I
I
I
think
this
application
fails
both
location
and
land
use.
It's
outside
the
settlement
policy,
boundary
and
therefore
I
think
it
fails
on
the
location
and
the
parish.
Council
couldn't
have
been
more
clear
about
the
impact,
the
importance
of
Agriculture,
the
prominence
of
the
landscape
and
the
further
urbanization,
so
I
I
think
it's
a
bit
of
flippant
just
to
say,
because
we
haven't
got
a
five-year
housing
Supply.
N
We
don't
have
to
adhere
to
our
local
plan
because
we've
been
told
we
can
and
our
Parish
Council
in
that
area
couldn't
be
more
clear
that
they
consider
that
it
should
be
refused
and
I
I
think
we
should
consider
the
Pash
council's
views
very
very
seriously.
J
You
chair
as
a
basic
principle:
I,
don't
like
Pips
as
they
as
they
come
out,
but
especially
on
Greenfield
sites,
and
this
is
a
Greenfield
development.
It's
outside
the
settlement
boundary,
and
there
is,
in
my
view,
when
the
reason
for
approval
are
only
a
lack
of
a
housing
five-year
land
Supply.
It
is
a
pretty
poor.
J
A
pretty
poor
show
that
we
could
not
have
better
reasons
for
approval
written
into
this
report
and
I
I
genuinely
believe
that
the
neighborhood
plan
that
was
voted
successfully
through
this
Council
last
month
had
92
percent
support,
which,
which
outlined
the
the
wish
to
have
small
developers.
Well
it
meets
that
that
criteria
is
it
the
right
place,
well,
yeah
I
think
most
people
would
say:
there's
a
linear
development
along
on
the
a339,
but
in
terms
of
of
what
it
does,
it
says,
we're
open
for
business
and
we
cannot.
J
We
cannot
have
a
situation
where,
where
all
we
are
doing
is
red
flagging
my
Parish,
the
Parish
of
Kansas
Frost
to
to
greater
and
greater
development.
Just
because
we
don't
have
a
housing
five-year
lands
by
there
has
to
be
better
reasons
in
it
and
and
therefore
the
the
settlement
boundary
is
important.
The
fact
that
is
open,
Countryside
the
fact
that
the
the
development
gives
us
no
clue
I
mean
that
that
isn't
an
entrance
that
isn't
a
an
entrance
to
to
tend
trees.
J
It's
an
entrance
for
a
housing
estate,
it's
not
previously
developed
land
and
therefore,
in
my
view,
cannot
be
supported
by
me
anyway.
Although
I
take
of
course,
of
course,
the
officer's
recommendation.
T
T
A
E
Thank
you,
Chad
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
Obviously,
I've
had
there's
a
concern
that
the,
if
you
were
to
develop
this
site,
it
would
have
an
impact
in
terms
of
landscape.
I
I
understand
that
developing
any
Greenfield
site
we'll
have
a
an
impact.
However,
the
position
is
that
we
do
not
have
a
five-year
housing
land
Supply,
so
you've
got
to
consider
that
impact
and
it
would
have
to
significantly
and
demonstrably
outweigh
the
benefits.
E
I
Thank
you
chair.
Just
in
response
to
to
the
officer's
comment
there:
okay
about
needing
a
demonstrative
reply,
I
think
the
the
first
time
there
was
an
accident
coming
out
of
that
entrance.
Okay
will
be
a
demonstrative.
Okay
reason
why
this
development
shouldn't
go
forward
in
PIP
stage
or
any
other
other
way.
Okay,
I.
Think,
though,
everyone
acknowledges
that
the
a339
is
an
extremely
busy
road.
I
As
I
said
before,
I
was
almost
killed
on
here
four
months
ago,
looking
okay
at
at
another
planning
application,
which
was
just
a
little
further
down.
Okay
from
here,
okay,
the
the
the
road
is
horrific.
Okay
and
while
you
know
one
vehicle,
maybe
two
could
get
away
with
it.
I
Okay,
they
will
have
trouble
getting
out
okay,
going
either
way
to
to
bains
to
a
quarter
Newbury,
and
if
there
are
any
more
houses
built,
then
you
know
no
one's
going
to
get
out,
because
I
I
regularly
see
okay
cars
coming
out
of
the
junction
further
up
with
Hadley
taking.
You
know,
10
15
minutes
to
actually
get
out
onto
the
339.
A
Thank
you,
councilor
Frost,
but
I
would
remind
everybody
that
access
is
not
a
consideration
on
a
pet
because
that
comes
in
in
the
technical
detail.
Consent
I've
got
two
more
speakers
which
is
councilor
ratigan
and
councilor
Darren
I.
J
Just
want
to
noted
that,
as
a
small
Parish,
we
have
taken
a
fair
share
of
new
housing
and
I
just
want
that
noted.
It
is
in
the
report
and
I
would
ask
you,
as
close
as
to
reread
that.
B
Government,
thank
you
again
just
a
bit
of
clarification
for
me
by
stating
that
the
reason
is
to
do
with
a
five-year
land
Supply.
Does
this
mean
it
would
count
towards
the
five-year
land
Supply
or
because
we
have
other
sites
around?
Certainly
in
in
my
ward,
which
are
similar,
but
they
are,
they
are
classed
as
women
for
and
not
counted
in
the
land
five
year,
land
Supply,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
the
consistency
is.
You
may
not
be
able
to
answer
that
now,
but
that's
that's
my
concern
and.
E
This
is
an
application
which
is
a
pip
only
when
technical
details
consent
is
approved
with
a
full
planning
permission.
Would
there
be
a
planning
permission
for
the
site,
so
not
until
such
time
as
technical
details,
consent
was
approved.
Would
it
count
towards
our
five-year,
announcing
lands
by
the
housing
land?
Supply
point
is
that
it
affects
our
assessment
and
the
balance
that
we
must
consider.
It
becomes
a
tilted
balance
as
I've
outlined
a
moment
ago.
Thank
you,
Jeff.
C
A
Sorry,
okay,
that
motion
has
what
so
mega
proposer
to
Alternative
proposal.
Counselor
ratigan.
J
I
I'm
happy
to
propose
rejected
on
the
basis
of
the
sighting,
because
it
was
in
the
open,
Countryside
and
outside
the
settlement.
Boundary
is
not
acceptable.
All.
A
U
A
E
E
There
is
no
update
to
the
application
chair.
Thank
you.
A
A
R
As
a
Mr
folds,
not
Mr,
sop,
Mr,
Topps
age
and
time,
the
owner
application
is
a
resubmission.
We
took
on
board
the
previous
planning
officers,
comments
and
they're
prepared
and
amended
design
based
on
the
discussions
and
divides
with
the
previous
planning
officers.
R
The
first
floor,
part
of
the
extension,
has
been
moved
away
from
the
neighbor's
boundaries
to
avoid
an
overbearing
impact
due
to
the
orientation
us
been
to
the
northeast
of
the
attaining
neighbors,
there
will
be
no
overshadowing
caused
by
the
extension
it's
worth,
noting
that
the
side
extension
is
not
possible
due
to
restrictive
covenants
on
the
property.
The
Zion
is
in
keeping
with
the
current
appearance
of
the
property
and
overall
development
to
address
some
of
the
comments
on
the
applications
of
the
four
objections.
R
R
Inaccurate
comments
regarding
the
access
to
the
cul-de-sac
is
a
one-way
system.
It
isn't
there's
a
chicane
as
you
come
into
the
development,
but
it
is
definitely
not
one
way
concerns
regarding
construction
disruptions
regarding
access
and
parking.
The
access
to
the
road
is
a
modern
design
and
as
such,
we
would
expect
this
to
have
allowances
for
modern
vehicles
to
use
it.
The
area
on
land
at
the
front
of
the
property
has
off-road
parking
for
four
vehicles.
R
R
A
comment
was
also
made
regarding
setting
a
precedent
with
our
extension
on
this
development
in
2012.
Sorry
in
2010,
a
large
extension
was
approved
and
built
on
at
number
10.
There
were
no
objections
at
that
point.
To
summarize,
we
have
been
working
with
the
planning
officers
at
Beijing,
Stoke
and
Dean
to
reach
a
design
that
is
considered
acceptable
and
we
believe
the
proposals
should
be
approved
based
on
the
above
information.
A
E
E
There
is
an
update
for
draw
members
attention
to
that
provides
details
for
viewing
at
the
site
and
provides
comments
from
the
agent
which
do
address
reason,
improved
views
all
three,
so
that's
now
withdrawn
by
officers
and
provide
the
applicant
context
to
reason
for
refusal
to.
With
regard
to
the
sync,
it
is
noted
that
the
sync
is
being
used
as
a
construction
compound
under
permitted
development.
Currently,
but
permitted
development
does
require
that
the
land
is
reinstated
to
its
former
condition.
Thank
you.
Jen.
A
Z
Good
evening,
chair
as
you've
just
heard
originally,
there
were
three
reasons
for
refusal.
Obviously,
like
number
three
has
just
been
removed,
which
is
great.
The
first
then
reason
the
setting
of
the
listed
building
this
as
I've
said
before,
is
the
subjective
one.
Z
The
views
of
the
listed
building
have
already
been
altered,
but
not
by
the
building
works
that
are
taking
place
right
now,
but
by
the
fact
that
the
owners
of
the
adjoining
dwelling
have
installed
large
fences,
Hedges
and
Gates,
which
has
removed
all
the
views
of
the
listed
building
from
the
public
domain.
This,
in
turn
in
our
review,
has
then
altered
the
setting
of
the
listed
building,
which,
for
those
of
you
who
were
there
on
Friday,
will
have
seen
this.
Z
The
historic
environment
team
have
also
stated
that
the
building
is
for
a
simple
agricultural
workers
dwelling
and
would
have
had
a
connection
to
the
land.
However,
this
is
incorrect.
The
official
destination
is
for
a
general
laborers
dwelling,
which
is
very
different.
It's
worth
pointing
out
that
the
application
site
is
now
already
residential
land,
as
approved
under
a
previous
scheme
for
the
dwelling
that
which
is
currently
under
construction.
Z
This
again
should
have
changed
the
conservation
officers,
views
and
the
level
of
harm
that
they've
identified.
Which
is
less
than
substantial
in
recent
appeals.
Inspectors
have
asserted
that
significant
weight
should
be
given
to
the
benefits
of
even
a
single
dwelling,
so
we
take
the
view
that
the
alleged
harm
does
not
outweigh
the
benefits
that
other
but
much
needed,
Bungalow
that
within
the
borough.
Z
Turning
to
the
concerns
rage
regarding
the
sink
contained
in
the
update
paper
is
a
brief
on
this
matter,
but
in
summary,
this
designation
does
not
provide
a
statutory
protection
for
the
land
the
designation
was
applied
incorrectly
and
all
the
previous
applications
on
this
site
have
not
raised
any
concerns
in
this
regard.
This
is
largely
due
to
the
fact
that
Hampshire
biodiversity
information
center
assessed
this
site
back
in
2019.
They
then
decided
that
the
sink
should
be
applied
to
the
site
as
a
whole.
Z
This
was
actually
only
then
officially
added
to
the
site
within
the
last
few
months,
without
the
current
owners.
Actually,
knowing
that
this
had
been
applied,
the
the
sink
itself
being
being
applied
to
the
whole
of
the
site.
It
doesn't
in
terms
of
the
actual
application
signs.
Z
This
doesn't
actually
have
any
of
the
reed
grasses
that
has
been
identified
by
New
Hampshire
in
terms
of
their
their
actual
sync
approval,
the
officer
States
on
page
323,
that
where
a
development
doesn't
comply
with
the
policy
in
this
regard,
then
they
will
only
be
permitted
if
it
is
clearly
demonstrated
that
there
is
an
overriding
public
need
to
outweigh
the
harm
given
the
site
is
already
residential.
It's
been
cleared
prior
to
the
sync
being
applied,
and
the
proposed
dwelling
is
for
a
bungalow
which
is
much
needed
in
the
borough
again.
Z
We
believe
that
the
benefits
would
outweigh
this
harm
so
to
complete
it
remaining
yeah.
To
conclude
this
site
being
currently,
residential
land
is
for
a
proposed
Bungalow,
which
does
outweigh,
in
our
view,
any
identified
harm
in
terms
of
the
sink
and
the
listed
building
at
a
time
when
the
borough
do
need
not
only
Bungalows
but
housing
in
general
and
I
therefore
ask
to
approve
this
application.
Thank
you.
Z
AA
Thank
you,
chair
good
evening
councils.
Those
of
you
who
attended
the
site
visit
would
have
actually
seen
the
setting
that
the
new
house
would
that
the
existing
Annex
to
pear
tree
Cottage
has
got
at
the
moment.
You
can
only
see
the
roof
and
there
is
a
very
large
fence
around
the
area
which
is
quite
noticeable
pear
tree
Cottage
itself
obviously
was
built
with
permission
and
the
annexes
in
the
in
the
grounds
that
of
that
building.
AA
AA
However,
the
officers
just
said
that,
obviously
they've
got
to
return
it
to
the
condition
it
was
before
and
having
obviously
had
permitted
development
I
do
not
know
how
that
could
be
achieved
and
the
the
designation
was
given
because
of
certain
grasses
and
other
things
that
were
on
the
site,
which
have
obviously
been
completely
destroyed
by
the
fact
that
this
has
been
a
building
site
unknown
to
the
applicants.
So
I
I
think
you
know
forgot
to
be
pragmatic,
we're
basically
shutting
the
door
after
the
say
after
the
horse
is
bolted.
AA
This
particular
part
of
the
road.
Those
of
you
who
know
the
A340
has
had
a
lot
of
development
on
it,
and
this
was
one
of
the
last
sites.
I
think
that
we'll
join
that
up
to
be
ribbon
and
the
house
that
is
already
there
and
being
built
and
is
quite
a
substantial
one,
and
obviously
that
was
given
permission.
So
this
is
a
much
smaller
building
next
door
to
it.
I
cannot
see
how
this
will
make
any
country
to
what
is
being
developed
there.
AA
There
are
other
areas
along
the
road
that
might
come
forward
as
well,
but
I
do
think
that
the
reasons
given,
obviously
the
third
reason,
the
flood
risk
assessments
have
been
overturned.
AA
The
setting
of
The
Pear
Tree
Cottage
isn't
able
to
be
alongside
a
pasture
because
the
passage
doesn't
exist
and
the
posture
that
was
there
I
honestly
can't
see
how
it
can
be
reinstated.
C
A
I
E
N
Yes,
hi
in
in
in
in
in
relation
to
consistency,
I
I,
have
to
say
I'm
struggling
to
understand
how
the
harm
outweighs
the
benefit
with
the
five-year
housing,
Supply
comment
and
the
state
of
the
site
when
we
visited
it,
I
don't
understand
how,
on
one
level,
we
can
argue
one
way
and
then
on
another
level
on
the
same
night
argue
another
way
so
I
mean
it's
clearly
a
building
site
I
have
sinks
in
my
ward
that
have
been
destroyed
by
the
tenant
farmer
right
by
the
river
lodden
and
they
were
never
required
to
return
it.
E
Thank
you
chair,
yes,
you're,
absolutely
right,
it
is
a
question
of
considering
the
Tilted
balance
here.
You
have
a
site,
it
is
a
building
site
at
the
moment,
but
the
permitted
development
requires
that
it's
returned
to
its
former
Condition.
It's
picking
up
on
something
the
agent
said.
It
was
previously
a
grass
Paddock
part
of
a
site
of
importance,
an
H
conservation.
However,
that
came
about.
That
is
what
its
designation
is.
E
So
it's
a
Greenfield
site
that
is
a
sink
and
it
sits
adjacent
to
a
grade
two
listed
building
its
development
adjacent
to
it.
It
will
have
an
impact,
it
will
change
the
setting
of
it.
Obviously
it's
for
members
to
consider
the
degree
of
impact
that
that
will
have,
as
I
said
previously,
for
the
previous
application
that
you
that
you
refer
to.
It
is
a
matter
of
balance.
There
will
be
a
harm
here.
E
N
So,
firstly,
I
I,
hear
what
you're
saying,
but
I
respectfully
disagree
in
terms
of
it
being
more
harmful
than
a
benefit.
But
my
question
is
this:
further
down
the
road?
There
is
also
another
listed
building
and
we
all
live
in
wards
where
there
are
many
listed
buildings
in
urban
environments
where
hideous
monstrosities
are
put
next
door
to
them.
N
This
is
a
bungalow,
it's
on
a
building
site
and
the
precedent
has
already
been
set
with
a
very
comparable
listed
building
further
down
the
road
which
is
immediately
next
door
to
a
whole
host
of
other
houses.
So
how
does
how
does
precedent
square
with
that
comment
with
regards
to
you
and
the
Tilted
balance
no
longer
being
applicable
because
of
the
proximity
of
the
listed
building?
And
how
can
you
square
it
with
the
Hideous
fence
that
you
can't
remove
either.
E
I
think
there
might
be
a
few
questions
there
involved
up
into
one
in
terms
of
precedent.
Each
application
is
determined
on
its
own
merits.
The
situation
here
is
different
to
any
other
one.
The
merits
of
the
listed
building
are
different.
The
any
proposal
in
itself
is
different.
Any
site
itself
is
different.
E
E
That
impact
needs
to
be
considered.
Members
think
that
the
impact
is
negative
on
the
setting
of
the
listed
building.
It
takes
you
out
of
the
Tilted
balance.
If
you
consider
there's
no
impact
on
the
listed
building
because
of
its
setting
already
being
negatively
impacted,
and
then
that's
within
your
gift
to
consider
that,
obviously
the
nearer
you
go
to
the
list
of
building
the
greater
the
impact.
If
it
was
sitting
cheap
by
jow
with
the
listed
building,
I
presume,
you
would
suggest
there
was
a
greater
impact
it's
nearer
than
the
already
approved
scheme.
E
K
Freeman,
thank
you,
chair,
I'm,
struggling
to
understand
at
the
moment,
because
this
this
proposed
development
is
in
the
middle
and
then
there's
another
house
that
already
has
approval
and
has
been
built
there.
So
if
you
have
to
turn
this
bit
back
into
Paddock,
how
is
that
going
to
impact
on
the
already
existing
building
and
I
I?
Don't
see
how
you
can
square
the
two?
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
that
there's
a
house
just
here,
that's
already
been
approved
and
built,
and
then
this
bit
here
you're
saying
no,
you
can't
build
here.
K
E
Thank
you
chair.
The
submitted
plan
on
page
329
shows
how
the
access
goes
across
the
frontage
only
up
towards
the
already
approved
scheme,
so
there
will
be
a
slim
access
strip
that
will
go
forward
to
the
approved
dwelling,
the
rest
of
the
site
back
from
the
car
parking
area
and
Beyond
towards
the
garage.
A
I
Thank
you
chair,
just
like
most
of
the
decisions
that
come
to
this
committee
this
this
one
too,
is
actually
very
difficult
because
I
I
couldn't
understand,
I
know,
there's
houses
either
side,
okay,
but
I
I'm,
struggling
with
the
fact
that
one.
This
is
a
bongo
with
a
very,
very
high
roof
and
I'm
just
wondering
whether
you
know
once
this
is
built.
I
The
next
step
is
to
actually
get
a
second
story:
okay,
maybe
with
dormal
Windows
in
there,
which
will
match
the
the
garage
okay,
where
you've
got
the
garage
with
the
gym
above
it
I,
don't
like
the
site
Karai,
because
it
is
a
building
site,
I'm
I'm,
struggling
on
on
how
you're
going
to
return
that
to
Paddock
okay
in
to
paddock
Land,
you
know
with
the
sink
so
I
I,
really
I'm,
really
struggling
here.
I
I
appreciate
officers
have
have
got
this
down
for
refusal,
but
you
know
I'm
I'm
I'm
struggling
to
to
refuse
it
because
it
will
just
tidy
up
the
the
area
Okay
so
well.
However,
my
only
concern
is,
you
know
any
any
potential
politic
development
right.
It's
on
the
Bungalow,
which
I
think
you
know
totally
removing
from
from
this
particular
pot.
Should
the
committee
be
minded
to
to
go
against
officer
recommendation,
but
I'm
I'm
genuinely
quite
conflicted
on
this
okay
and
I'll
be
very
interested
to
to
hear
you
know
other
members
debate.
N
Yes,
well
as
our
members
on
view
of
the
questions,
I've
asked
the
officers
I
I,
don't
believe
respectfully
that
it
will
that
the
harm
outweighs
the
the
benefits.
I,
think
it's
clear
that
the
sync
can't
be
recreated
I,
don't
think
it
will
negatively
impact
substantially
the
listed
building
which
would
erase
the
Tilted
balance
and
therefore
I
believe.
In
fact,
the
proposed
Bungalow
would
improve
the
Vista
and
it's
not
a
planning
consideration
to
be
fearful
of
what
might
happen
in
the
future.
N
B
Thank
you
I.
My
concern
over
the
refusal
is
that
I
think
the
listed
building
has
sort
of
lost
its
contact
with
the
area
context
within
the
area.
Anyway,
you
know
it's
almost
inside
The
Stockade
and
it
has
no
real
great
external
view
of
the
area
and
people
looking
in
can't
see
it
in
its
context.
So
I
think
that's
that's
a
little
bit
misleading
to
me.
So
I
I
don't
see
that
the
the
harm
outweighs
the
benefit.
J
J
If
this
who's
coming
forward,
almost
anywhere
else,
we'd
be
we'd,
be
gladly
saying
yes
to
it,
I
have
to
say
that
the
sync
doesn't
exist
in
my
view,
and
the
fact
that
the
garage
sits
to
the
rear
of
it,
and
therefore
is
not
visually
impactual.
I
think
is
a
is
an
additional
reason
for
for
moving
approval
on
this,
so
approval
on
this.
This
application,
as
in
my
view
it
does
not
cause
harm.
J
The
sink
is
no
longer
achievable
and
therefore
the
the
harm
that
is
detailed
subjectively
in
this
support,
and
it
does
not
come
to
pass.
L
I
just
I,
just
like
to
come
back
points
have
been
made
with
the
current
state
of
the
site.
You
need
to
in
some
ways
put
that
Park,
that
to
one
side
they
are
using
the
site
under
permitted
development
as
a
building
site,
but
under
permitted
event
they
have
to
reinstate
the
land.
I
accept,
reinstate
in
a
sink
is
probably
not
going
to
be
achievable.
L
D
And
I
I
would
just
ask
that
we
consider
that
refusal
three
is
turned
into
a
condition
and
that
we
remove
permitted
development
rights.
Thank
you
on
the
building.
We'll
see.
Are
you?
Okay,
with
that
proposal,.
E
E
The
first
would
be
that
there's
reference
to
development
being
carried
out
and,
according
to
the
approved
plans
as
a
then,
a
standard
three-year
expiration
material
schedule,
art
and
soft
Landscaping
construction
hours,
delivery,
hours,
parking,
Provisions
cycle,
storage,
waste
storage,
construction
method,
statement,
water
standards,
garage
and
maintaining
and
ancillary
use
biodiversity
net
gain
demonstration.
E
Given
that
the
proposal
would
result
in
the
loss
of
a
sink,
even
if
by
designation,
only
compliance
with
the
preliminary
ecological
appraisal,
then
the
flood
risk
assessment,
compliance
and
the
provision
of
updated
calculations
and
then
from
what
I've
heard
this
evening.
The
removal
of
Toyota
development
rights
as
well
to
check.
N
Rick
I'm,
sorry
because
I
don't
see
the
committee
very
often
are
those
all
I
mean
they've
sound
boilerplates
here
they
required
because
I
just
think
with
the
Bungalow.
It's
insane
to
require
cycle
storage
on
the
A340.
E
N
E
You
chair,
the
application,
is
approved,
subject
to
the
conditions
that
I
listed
moments
ago
for
the
reasons
of
The
Proposal
having
an
acceptable
landscape
impact
not
having
a
negative
impact
on
the
synchronous,
biodiversity
and
not
having
a
negative
impact
on
the
setting
listed
building.
Thank
you
chat.
U
Thank
you
chairman.
This
application
is
at
29.7
rate.
The
proposal
is
for
the
installation
of
replacement
windows
to
the
front
of
the
dwelling.
This
application
is
part
of
retrospective
with
the
First,
with
the
two
first
floor.
Windows
having
already
been
replaced,
the
members
had
the
benefit
of
a
site
visit.
The
application
is
recommended
for
a
refusal,
as
per
those
provided
in
the
case
officers
report.
It
should
be
noted
that
they
are
subdivided
in
the
offices
report.
U
It
should
be
read
as
one
one
reason
for
refusal
so
ignore
the
subdivisions,
in
conjunction
with
the
reasons
refusal
as
this
is
part
retrospective.
There
is
a
recommendation
for
enforcement
action
for
the
first
floor,
Windows
to
be
removed
and
replaced
with
replica
Windows
to
match
those
originally
in
in
the
building.
There
was
an
update
paper
as
well,
which
just
highlighted
the
reason
why
the
application
was
brought
to
committee
at
the
request
of
the
council
house.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
AB
But
when
you
look
at
the
policy
and
policies,
remember
our
guidelines,
they
are
not
mandates.
They're,
not
rules
they're
there
for
guidance
to
depart
from
them.
You
must
have
justifiable
reasons,
but
you
can
depart
from
them
and
the
policy
states
quite
clearly
unless
you
have
been
clearly
demonstrated
that
they
are
Beyond
repair.
It
goes
on
single
glazing
should
generally
not
much
should
generally
be
replaced
by
single
glazing.
AB
I'm
now
going
to
refer
to
an
officer
report,
that's
not
before
you,
it's
one
that
came
before
as
back
in
June,
and
it
was
an
application
for
Southern
Road
for
upvc
Windows.
AB
AB
AB
AB
And
that
refers
to
a
house
in
Southern
Road,
just
10
doors
away
from
the
one
we're
considering
this
evening,
number
29
just
10
doors
away,
and
if
you
look
at
Southern
Road,
only
one
quarter
of
the
properties
have
got
their
original
wood
frame.
Slash
Windows
75
have
been
changed
same
with
the
doors
either
upvc
or
some
composite
material.
AB
Now
I
actually
agree
with
the
officer's
report
from
from
June
this
year,
it
is
possible
to
achieve
both
conservation
of
appearance
and
conservation
of
energy
with
replacement,
upvc,
Double
A's
windows.
AB
One
of
the
problems
that
residents
have
got
now
is
that
the
policy
prevents
them
from
improving
their
homes,
prevents
them
from
conserving
energy
and
commits
them
to
having
higher
bills
than
their
neighbors.
You
have
got
replacement,
upvc,
windows
and
I
think
with
the
changes.
I
emphasis
on
problems
with
climate
change
are
becoming
more
visible
day
by
day
and
energy
supplies
forcing
being
restricted
because
of
the
Ukraine
situation
forcing
up
prices.
AB
Even
the
government
is
handing
out
money
to
try
to
help
residents
out
of
it
with
a
huge
Buzz
they're
getting
we
are
constraining
some
of
our
residents,
we're
making
them
pay
higher
bills
by
not
being
more
flexible,
like
the
obviously
did
say,
but
in
a
previous
case
that
is
possible
to
have
uvbc
double
glazed
units,
so
I
think
there's.
So
much
has
changed
that
this
policy
was
first
agreed,
but
this
is
now
dated
and
therefore
I
would
like
to
propose
this
evening
that
the
application
we're
determining
for
29,
Southern
Road
Ashley
be
approved.
AB
AB
So
I'd,
like
this
committee,
to
ask
for
an
urgent
review
and
the
third
one
is
the
one
which
I
think
might
raise
a
few
eyebrows
as
an
interim
measure
until
this
policy
has
been
reviewed
and
agreed,
development
control
committee
should
allow
single
glazed
Windows
to
be
replaced
with
double
glazed
windows
and
cast
iron.
Gutters
and
downspouts
are
replaced
with
upvc,
but
I'd
like
the
three
for
positive
considers
separately.
The
important
one
is
that
the
application
with
number
29
I
believe
should
be
approved.
AB
My
colleague
to
my
right
actually
has
photographs
of
the
windows
before
replacement,
which
shows
them
rotting.
So
there
is
some
evidence,
but
what
wasn't
presented
with
the
application
and
I'm
hope
that
we
will
look
upon
this
as
an
example
of
what
we
can
do
for
conservation
of
appearance
and
conservation
of
energy
to
be
bedfellows
and
not
diametrically
opposed.
AB
T
E
E
So
with
that
in
mind,
we're
here
to
consider
each
application.
Obviously
you've
mentioned
another
example.
Looking
at
that
other
example,
which
the
case
officer
had
already
looked
at
and
taken
into
account
that
proposal
there
was
a
proposal
to
replace
windows
that
were
already
modern
windows
and
had
no
architectural
or
historic
merits.
E
E
The
policies
we
must
consider
development
in
accordance
with
development
plan
policy,
as
you
say
in
less
material
considerations,
say
otherwise,
but
the
starting
point
is
the
development
plan.
We
have
a
development
plan
policy
that
respects
the
statutory
controls
and
the
mppf
in
terms
of
seeking
to
preserve
or
enhance
enhance
conservation
areas
as
matters
of
heritage,
Irreplaceable
features,
and
if
we
remove
windows
that
are
of
historic
value
and
replace
them
with
windows
that
are
modern,
then
you
are
causing
harm
to
the
conservation
area
that
harms
the
conservation
area
as
a
statutory
consideration.
E
It
must
be
given
great
weight
in
the
determination
of
an
application,
even
if
less
than
substantial
harm
were
considered.
I
understand
that
there
is
a
conflict
between
Heritage
and
energy
conservation,
but
the
policy
framework
that
we
have
and
the
statutory
consideration
of
Heritage
are
such
that
the
proposal
here
is
recommended
for
refusal.
AB
Yep,
most
of
what
you've
just
said
is
what
I
actually
said
myself
that
the
replacing
modern
wooden
windows,
the
the
one
I
quoted
the
report
from
from
June.
But
the
key
thing
in
that
report
is
regardless
of
what
the
windows
were
before
the
officers
and
it
replies
to
all
of
you,
because
you
all
agree
these
reports.
It
says
quite
clearly
on
balance.
It
is
considered
that
the
proposals
for
upvc
double
glazed
windows
will
preserve
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
conservation
area.
Well,
either
they
do
or
they
don't
it's
black
and
white.
E
Foreign
development
preserves
the
character
of
the
conservation
area
because
it
was
losing
modern
windows
and
replacing
modern
Windows.
What
you
have
at
the
moment
is
a
different,
completely
different
starting
point.
You've
got
historic
windows
that
are
considered
to
be
of
value
to
the
conservation
area,
but
you
would
be
losing
historic
Windows
to
replace
that
with
modern
windows.
So
it's
a
different
starting
point
between
the
two
applications.
Thank
you.
Jeff.
N
Yes,
the
subject
came
up
at
eph
and,
as
the
officers
have
already
said,
we're
here
to
discuss
this
application
and
nothing
else.
But
we
did
discuss
at
eph
and
that's
a
better
place
for
this
further
discussion
to
take
place
in
relation
to
requirements
of
historic
buildings
and
the
financial
pressures
that
it
places
on
some
of
our
more
vulnerable
residents.
But
whilst
preserving
Our
Heritage.
So
I
just
wanted
to
flag
that
up.
A
K
You
chair
I,
do
think
this
is
a
difficult
one.
I
I
think
that
if
with
modern
people,
upvc
Windows,
if
they
can
achieve
the
same,
look
as
the
existing
windows
I,
don't
think
we
should
have
a
problem
with
it,
but
you
can't
really
tell
because
I
went
from
the
site
visit.
You
couldn't
actually
see
what
was
there
before,
because
they've
already
replaced
them
and
it
it
is
difficult.
I
do
appreciate
the
the
the
the
resident
here
is
obviously
trying
to
conserve
energy
and
to
keep
the
house
warm
Etc.
K
But
again
we
do
have
policies
and
reasons
in
policies
in
place.
For
a
reason-
and
you
know,
I
I
really
do
think
that
maybe
he
should
have
come
to
us
first
before
he
started,
ripping
out
his
old
windows
and
and
asked
for
some
advice,
so
I'm
not
entirely
sure
it
should
be
approved.
I
I
do
think
the
policies
need
looking
at,
but
as
it
currently
stands,
if
the
officer's
recommendation
is
for
refusal,
then
maybe
the
the
resident
should
come
back
to
us
and
see
what
he
can
do
to
to
achieve
his
aims.
K
We
also
don't
conflict
with
policy.
It
is
a
difficult
one.
I
do
appreciate
both
sides,
but
again
you
know
it.
You
can't
go
against
policy
policies
that
we
have
and
just
because
you'll
get
people
ripping
out
windows
and
shoving
in
ugly
monstrosities
that
don't
fit
in
keeping
with
the
area.
So
it's
a
hard
one.
B
Yeah
I
mean
I
agree.
It
is
a
difficult
one,
but
because
it's
a
balance
of
conservation
versus
climate
change,
and
this
is
a
council
that
declared
a
climate
change
emergency.
So
it's
very
hard
to
stop
somebody
improving
their
home
to
improve
energy
conservation.
If
it's
sympathetically
done
with
the
original
Style,
then
I'm
struggling
to
see
a
problem
with
that,
because
having
been
on
the
viewing
panel
and
walked
up,
the
street
I
saw
so
many
different
Windows
Doors
and
I
really
struggled
to
see
why
this
person
should
not
be
allowed
to
improve
their
home.
B
A
Thank
you
before
I
bring
councilor
Kirby
again
in
all
sorry,
councilor
howitzer.
T
T
Is
there
really
no
way
that
we
can
exclude
him
from
being
able
to
vote
on
this?
Is
it
really
only
up
to
the
member
to
determine,
because
that
seems
ridiculous
to
me
that
we
have
a
member
that
is
clearly
predetermined?
Has
paragraphs
and
paragraphs
three
different
emotions
that
he
wanted
to
move,
but
he's
not
predetermined,
we're
going
to
let
him
vote
on
this,
that
that's
that's
ridiculous.
A
Thank
you,
councilor
Howard,
Sorrel,
I.
Think.
If
you
look
back
through
some
meetings,
there
are
many
counselors
in
this
room
who
have
done
exactly
that
who
so
I
think
it's
something
that
from
time
to
time
happens,
but
right
now
we're
not
discussing
that
we're
discussing
this
case.
My
input
on
it
is
I'm
in
the
same
position
as
everybody
else,
I'm
torn
between
two
policies,
two
thoughts
that
come
to
mind
is
one
the
less
original
Windows
there
are
in
that
area,
the
more
important
it
becomes
to
retain.
A
So
people
can
see
what
was
there
yeah
the
Rarity
value
of
it
comes
into
it.
The
other
thing
on
the
energy
conservation,
which
I
am
very
very
conscious
of
having
living
living
in
a
house
with
single
gazing.
You
can't
secondary
double
glazing
and
I,
don't
believe
you're
actually
no
planning
permission
for
it.
There
is
a
lot
of
very,
very
good,
secondary,
double
glazing
around
which
will
achieve
the
same
thermal
values
or
very
nearly
the
same
thermal
values.
A
All
right,
I'll,
take
two
more
speakers:
councilor
Freeman,
followed
by
councilor
cubitt.
Please
make
it
quick
and
then
we
are
going
to
the
vote.
K
Okay,
it
is
just
very
quick:
it's
just
a
slight
concern.
The
fact
that,
on
the
viewing
panel,
the
resident
of
house
in
question
didn't
seem
to
be
aware
that
we
were
coming
and
hasn't
shown
up
tonight.
Have
we
given
this
resident
the
opportunity?
Does
he
actually
know
that
we're
here
tonight
to
determine
this,
because
he
wasn't
aware
that
we
were
going
to
look
at
his
house.
K
He
came
out
quite
concerned
that
people
were
peering
into
his
windows,
so
it
might
be
sent
more
sensible
to
submit
that
for
a
deferment
and
until
we
can
ascertain
whether
the
chap
actually
knows
what
we're
doing
here
tonight.
L
If
I
can
just
say
on
page
335,
the
applicant
has
an
agent
acting
for
him
when
they
have
an
agent
action
for
them.
We
have
to
go
through
the
agent.
Unfortunately,
some
agents
are
better
than
others.
That's
all
I
would
say.
U
Thanks
Chad,
so
that
is
recommended
for
approval.
Obviously,
that's
contrary
to
the
recommendation,
so
I'm
going
to
move
it
forward
to
recommend
it
with
conditions
which
would
be
to
build
out
in
accordance
with
the
submitted
details
and
also
to
be
enacted
in
the
next
three
years.
A
Thank
you,
councilor
Hussey,
you
mentioned
two
other
motions,
I'm
told
the
second
one
or
the
third
one
is
of
the
three
we
cannot
discuss
tonight.
Can
you
repeat
the
second
one?
Please.
AB
AB
I
mean
I,
I
can't
mention,
but
there's
one
that's
been
refused
a
couple
of
times
in
checkers,
Road
I
can't
remember,
I
can't
mention
which
area
it
is,
but
there's
a
few
and
a
lot
in
my
they're
in
my
ward
and
I
do
think
it's
time
now
all
policies
have
been
reviewed
on
a
fairly
regular
basis
and
all
I'm
asking
for
is
not
a
conclusion,
but
they
review
the
policy
in
the
light
of
current
circumstances
in
terms
of
climate
change
and
energy
supplies
that
we
really
look
and
if
they
confirm
the
policy
until
it
stays
that
it
is.
AB
C
Sure
I
wonder
if
I
wonder
if
I
could
help
I
think
the
the
policies
will
be
reviewed
as
part
of
the
local
plan,
which
is
temporarily.
AB
A
First,
one
I've
got
councilor
Tomlin
and
councilor
Cuba
we've
got
a
proposal
from
councilor.
Passie
I
want
to
do
this
very
quickly,
so
I'm
going
to.
Let's
take
those
two
speakers.
Is
there
a
second
at
a
counselor
Hussey's
motion.
Q
Sorry
can
I
just
add
that
you
know
we
shouldn't
be
making
people
who
have
got
these
type
of
properties.
Put
new
stuff
in
which
isn't
up
to
standard
materials
have
come
on
a
lot.
Manufacturing
techniques
have
come
on
a
lot.
We
should
be
able
to
consider
those
as
part
of
the
conservation
area.
Look.
D
D
The
recommendation
of
the
task
and
finished
group
was
that
we
would
support
the
review
of
conservation
areas
with
this
particular
sustainability
role
in
the
head
of
planning,
who
was
advocating
that
that
is
on
her
task
list
to
do
and
that
we
would
support
accelerating
it
and
making
sure
there
was
enough
resource
to
do
that,
so
that
link
with
a
local
plan
I
think
we
are
it's
going
to
go
to
Cabinet
to
be
verified,
I
think
it's
already
in
progress.
D
A
Castle
Hussey
either
basis
that
councilor
Tomlin
has
said
it
is
effectively
in
progress
and
I
was
part
of
that
meeting.
So
I
I
agree
with
him.
That
effectively
is
in
progress.
You're
right.
Would
you
like
to
withdraw
the
motion?
Thank
you.
That
motion
is
withdrawn.
The
third
one
is
not
the
remit
of
this
committee.
So
thank
you
very
much.
Everybody.
A
Councilor
Hussey
for
the
benefit
of
the
minutes.
Could
you
repeat
the
motion
anyway.
A
The
the
actual
yeah-
oh
this
one
Ann's
got
a
note
of
it.
Thank
you
right.
Land
South
of
Doric,
Avenue
and
west
of
footpath
Doric
Avenue,
Chino
Jessica.
O
Thank
you
chair.
The
ninth
Ian
before
you
this
evening
is
for
lamb
to
sell
to
South
Doric,
Avenue
and
west
of
footpath
Dark
Avenue
chinam
The
Proposal
seeks
advert
consent
for
a
parish
council
notice
board
which
will
be
used
for
this,
though,
of
notices,
agendas
Etc.
There
are
no
updates
in
regards
to
this
application
and
it's
recommended
to
be
granted.
Thank
you
chair.
A
First,
big
and
only
speaker,
councilor
Durant,
could
you
clarify
as
well
when
you
start
are?
You
are
speaking
as
you're
as
a
Borough
counselor
or
as
a
parish
counselor.
You
have
four
minutes,
I'll!
Warn
you
when
you
have
one
minute
remaining.
B
I,
don't
think
we'll
get
to
that
point.
I'm
speaking
as
a
parish,
counselor
I
was
surprised
by
the
number
of
objections.
I
noted
they
came
from
relatively
few
houses,
but
that's
not
Material.
B
We
need
to
communicate
with
that
area
of
the
parish.
It's
it's
far
to
the
South
away
from
the
the
village
and
where
the
Main
Parish
Council
activities
happen.
B
We
have
in
the
past,
actually
delivered
to
every
single
door.
Notifications,
that's
not
sustainable.
We
try
to
run
a
second
parish
council
meeting
every
month
in
Sheffield
Park,
which
is
nearby
no
one
attended,
so
we
and
we
also
they
have
a
Facebook
page
and
we've
tried
a
number
of
times
to
gain
access
to
that
to
communicate
and
we've
not
been
allowed
to.
So
we
have
a
duty
to
communicate
with
all
parishioners
and
that's
why
we
need
a
notice
board
in
that
area.
B
B
There
are
no
objections
from
highways,
as
in
terms
of
restricting
the
the
sight
lines,
we're
unable
to
move
it
next
to
the
more
desirable
place
near
the
playground
or
the
bus.
Stop
because
they're,
not
in
Bramley
simple
as
that,
so
we
needed
to
put
it
somewhere
where
it
was
visible,
that
people
could
see
it
and
would
would
go
and
read
it.
B
It
is
not
going
to
be
a
metal
gray
monstrosity.
It's
going
to
have
some
rustic
character
to
it.
The
the
I
wouldn't
put
the
drawing
out.
Clark
did
on
my
fridge,
but
you
know
it's,
it
doesn't
do
the
the
thing
Justice.
B
The
other
thing,
I
would
say
is
your
condition
there
for
five
years,
because
of
advertising
is
we're
not
intending
to
use
it
for
advertising?
This
is
for
Community
Information.
Only,
therefore,
that
condition
I
think
is
superfluous.
B
A
I
Thank
you,
chair,
I
counseled
during
touched
upon
it
can,
in
the
conditions,
condition
number
two.
Can
you
please
explain
exactly
what
you
mean,
okay,
by
condition
two
because
I'm
a
bit
confused
where
it
says
this
consent
consent
shall
be
for
a
limited
period
of
five
years.
Does
that
mean
they've
got
five
years
to
actually
put
the
board
up
there
or
does
the
board
is
the
Border?
We
are
now
there
for
five
years.
O
So,
under
the
regulations,
it's
a
standard
condition
that
you
have
to
put
on
every
advertisement
consent
it
the
way
that
it
works,
there's
actually
a
section
within
the
regulations
where
you
can
have
it
for
longer
than
that.
As
long
as
we
don't
require
them
to
remove
it,
which
that
condition
doesn't
so
it
can
be,
it
can
be
yeah
deemed
consent
after
that
time.
Okay,
thank
you.
I
I
A
O
A
Thank
you
very
much
everybody
and
thank
you
to
the
officers
and
we'll
see
you
at
the
next
viewing
panel
and
if
you
remember
there
will
be
a
meeting
with
the
officers
immediately
after
it.
Thank
you.