►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
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
coach
to
contribute
to
the
meeting
in
the
order
set
out
in
the
update
paper.
A
May
I
ask
all
speakers,
including
visiting
members,
to
speak
clearly
and
keep
to
points
made
on
the
application
on
material
reasons.
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.
A
I
ask
all
committee
members
to
avoid
repetition
and
keep
any
comments
on
each
planning
item
to
a
maximum
of
four
minutes.
We
have
eight
items
on
the
agenda
this
evening.
So
hopefully
about
three
hours,
I
understand
that
planning
can
be
a
motive,
and
I
see
everyone
remains
polite
and
professional
through
this
meeting.
Thank
you.
A
B
B
I
hope
that
my
distribution
of
a
letter
of
objection
from
sarah
mulpi
plus
my
conversations
with
former
councillors,
jeff
poland
and
claire
caneer,
indicate
that
I
have
come
to
this
meeting
with
an
open
mind
and
will
question
both
the
applicant
and
the
parish
fully
to
come
to
a
decision.
So
thank
you.
C
Thank
you
chair,
as
we
discussed
at
the
viewing
I'm
a
member
of
the
campaign
for
real,
but
I
do
not
see
this
as
prejudicial
to
the
application
in
which
church
before
us
tonight.
D
E
Thank
you
chair,
so
item
number
one
which
we
found
on
page
57
of
tonight's
agenda
is
a
full
planning
application
for
the
direction
of
14
dwellings
and
associated
parking
that
land
at
inheritance
cottages
in
hurst
lane
boar
curves.
E
A
Thank
you,
and
our
first
speaker
is
a
member
of
broadcast
parish
council.
Whoever
that
is,
we
don't
have
a
name.
Could
you
come
forward
right?
A
B
Of
I
may
I
I
handed
round
the
letter
from
mr
mrs
maltby
and
to
the
committee
members
through
their
mail
as
they
come,
unfortunately
can't
make
tonight's
meeting,
but
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
their
words
at
least
were
expressed
to
the
committee.
So
hopefully
a
number
of
you
did
get
that
letter
and
received
it,
so
I
just
they
will
not
be
here
tonight.
So
I
just
want
to
make
that
point
to
you.
Thank
you.
F
Mr
chairman,
I'm
mike
silvan,
I'm
a
fellow
of
the
society
for
radiological
protection
and
I'm
the
author
of
the
race
logical
impact
assessment
on
the
proposed
development.
I
make
a
few
points.
Firstly,
the
development
only
lies
within
the
detailed
emergency
planning
zone
because
that
zone
has
been
made
larger
than
the
minimum
required.
F
F
F
Overall,
residents
of
the
proposed
development
would
be
subject
to
negligible
risk
and
there
would
be
almost
no
effect
on
the
development
on
accident
response
requirements,
and
that
applies
to
other
developments
in
the
area,
and
you
will
be
considering
items
two
and
three
on
your
agenda,
which
have
similar
type
developments,
for
which
no
objection
on
grounds
of
being
in
the
dp
said.
I
understand,
have
been
raised.
Thank
you.
G
So
turn
into
the
other
reasons
for
refusal,
one
of
which
is
the
five-year
land
supply,
and
I'm
sure
I
don't
need
to
tell
you
all
about
the
lack
of
that.
The
officers
have
described
the
area
as
open
fields
and
generalised
the
area
as
a
rural
kind
of
openness
to
the
to
the
to
the
site.
But
horgas
hill
to
the
west
has
over
30
dwellings
committee
approved
a
new
dwelling
at
the
top
of
the
at
the
top
of
the
hill
down
in
in
april
and
described
the
area
as
being
a
clustered
development
pattern.
G
The
site
is
very
much
contained
and
will
only
allow
for
small
glimpses
of
houses
where
right
now,
you're
seeing
shipping
containers
that
are
stacked
two
to
three
high
and
therefore
we're
of
the
view
that
a
high
quality
residential
development
will
have
less
impact
on
the
on
the
area
than
the
commercial
yard
does
right
now,
especially
if
it
was
to
be
expanded.
There
are
trees
and
vegetation
that
are
around
the
site
that
are
being
retained
and
there
were
concerns
that
were
raised
in
terms
of
shadowing
of
gardens.
G
This
is
incorrect
because
those
streets
were
on
the
northern
boundary
and
will
not
cause
shadowing
remaining.
Turning
to
the
social
housing
side
of
things,
there
are
currently
43
people
that
are
on
a
a
waiting
list
for
social
housing.
In
and
around
august,
nine
people
have
expressed
an
immediate
interest
into
shared
ownership.
Our
scheme
is
providing
five
homes
made
up
of
two
three
and
four
beds
that
will
be
finished
to
the
same
high
standard
as
the
market
homes.
G
All
of
the
other
consultees
in
terms
of
biodiversity
highways,
environmental
health
and
the
flood
authority
have
raised
no
objections
subject
to
conditions.
One
of
those
conditions
will
be
regarding
in
terms
of
construction
phase
and
where
materials
and
vehicles
will
be
housed,
they
will
be
on
the
site.
G
So,
to
conclude,
this
site
will
provide
a
good
range
of
high
quality
market,
affordable
homes
in
an
area
that
does
have
good
transport
links
with
buses
to
woodlands,
road,
every
20
minutes
we'll
make
efficient
use
of
the
land
and
will
make
a
considerable
contribution
to
the
five-year
land
supply
and
the
waiting
list
for
affordable
homes,
and
I
therefore
ask
you
to
please
approve
this
application.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you.
I
just
I'm.
Obviously,
there's
highways
concerns
from
a
number
of
objectives.
How
would
you
ensure
that
that
lane
is
not
blocked
during
construction
period?.
G
Thank
you
for
your
question
there,
council,
and
so
in
terms
of
standard
conditions.
Obviously
we
have
the
construction
method
statements
that
is
standard
for
for
all
new
housing
sites.
One
of
those
things
will
obviously
be
put
forward,
as
as
a
condition
with
from
the
officers
so
to
ensure
that
we
will
obviously
put
hoarding
around
the
site.
We
will
make
sure
that
all
the
materials,
all
the
deliveries,
staff
that
work
on
the
site,
all
the
materials
are
going
to
be
housed
inside
the
sites.
G
There
will
be
a
banksman
on
the
site
which,
obviously,
that
person
will
be
responsible
for
making
sure
if
there's
any
dirt
ends
up
on
the
road
for
cleaning
things
down.
G
One
of
the
things
you
just,
as
I
said
mr
dorin
does
run
a
very
large
construction
company,
so
so
doing
these
things
in
terms
of
reinforced
concrete,
you
know,
motorways
that
type
of
thing
thames,
water
and
things
noel
is
very
very
up
to
speed
in
terms
of
how
to
look
after
a
construction
site
and
that's
exactly
what
would
be
applied
here,
the
same
methodology.
G
B
There
was
concern
that
from
those
residents
that,
obviously
they
got
noise
at
the
moment,
but
how
are
they
going
to
be
protected
with
a
new
development
right
on
their
side,
because
those
two
houses
look
at
at
the
moment
as
though
they're
standing
isolated-
and
I
was
there
today
to
as
bernie
asked,
which
pub
did
I
go
to,
but
it's
not
true,
I
didn't
go
at
any
pub,
but
it
was
there
and
noticed
how
isolated
those
two
cottages
are.
Are
you
are
you
protecting
them?
Are
they
in
your
ownership?
G
So
in
terms
of
the
actual
two
cottages
that
you're
seeing
there
now
they
they
actually
are
owned
by
mr
doing
as
well.
They're,
currently
housing
some
of
his
workers.
What
one
of
them
actually
is
they're
in
a
poor
state.
We
actually
currently
have
an
application
and
I'm
looking
at
roof
at
this
point
for
applications
to
to
be
able
to
refurbish
those
buildings
and
turn
them
into.
G
You
know
slightly
more
usable
houses,
because
at
the
moment
the
stairs
are
increasingly
steep
they're,
not
they're,
not
the
nicest
nicest
houses
inside,
but
they
are
in
knolls
ownership.
They
will
be
fully
refurbished
to
the
same
standard
as
the
as
the
houses
on
the
rest
of
the
site
and
then
obviously
they
will
be
retained
by
by
mr
doing
to
be
able
to
be
rented
out
as
well.
So,
okay.
H
Thank
you
chair.
You
mentioned
that
this
area
was
in
the
dpz
zone
or
just
in
it
have
you
made
any
consultation
with
the
relevant
authorities
to
see
if
that
could
be
moved.
F
On
this
and
all
the
other
developments,
I've
looked
at
both
in
the
area
of
awe
old,
marston
and
aw
burfield
I've
consulted
with
west
park
here
effectively
they
their
position
is.
I
think
that
the
dep
said
zones
are
what
they
are,
that
they
have
made
numerous
visits
to
the
area
and
they
have
done
what
they
are
perfectly
entitled
to
do,
which
is
to
draw
the
dpc
larger
than
the
minimum
required
from
the
sites.
F
The
argument
for
this
is
that
you
don't
want
to
divide
communities.
The
downside
of
it
is
that
you
place
substantial
numbers
of
people
in
the
deep
you
said
and
give
them
that
the
impression
that
they
are
in
an
emergency
zone,
whereas
what
you
have
done
is
created
that
zone
for
for
convenience.
So
I
have
had
that
dialogue
and
I
continue
to
have
that
dialogue
as
the
opportunity
arises.
H
So
my
concern
is
that,
for
whatever
reason
they've
drawn
this
zone
up
and
if
we
were
to
give
permission
to
you
tonight,
it
would
create
a
precedent
for
further
development
which
would
have
an
impact
on
their
safety
procedures.
Within
the
awe.
F
I
think
this
is
an
important
point
and
I
I
think
the
pr
the
issue
is
that
such
incremental
developments
are
perfectly
legitimate.
F
The
problem
that
I
see
is
that
the
standard
response
to
each
of
the
years
is
that
it
cannot
be
accommodated
within
the
emergency
plan
and
the
argument
for
that
has
to
be
that
there
is
some
significant
increase
in
resources
involved
in
incorporating
in
the
plan,
but
in
fact,
for
any
development
in
the
wider
part
of
the
dvz
doses
are
sufficiently
small
that
you
would
not
do
immediate
evacuation,
which
is
meters
from
the
boundary
fence.
F
You
would
not
do
urgent
evacuation,
which
is
acknowledged
to
be
no
more
than
600
meters
from
the
fence,
the
residual
doses
for
much
of
the
rest
of
the
area.
Deep,
he
said,
are
low
and
therefore
I
cannot
see
because
essentially
all
you're
asking
people
to
do
is
ensure
that
they
shelter.
F
So
all
you're,
trying
to
all
you
have
to
do
in
the
emergency
plan
is
make
sure
that
there
are
routes
of
communication
to
people
to
residents,
so
they
know
to
shelter.
So
I
think
that
there
is
not
a
problem
with
incremental
increases
within
the
dpz,
but
there
is
a
problem
with
the
perception
that
there
should
not
be
such
incremental
development
in
the
wider
part
of
the
dvd
sorry,
that
was
rather
a
long
answer,
but
it's
it's
a
tricky
subject.
G
Can
I
just
follow
up
on
that
as
well
to
say
that,
obviously,
in
terms
of
precedences
and
all
those
things
to
quote
officers,
all
planning
applications
obsessed,
obviously
on
their
own
merits?
So
just
because
you
know,
if
you,
if
you
were
minded
to
approve
this
one
tonight,
doesn't
mean
that
it
will
suddenly
open
up
the
floodgates
and
every
single
one
will
will
just
be
a
carp
lunch
off
you
go.
Have
you
have
your
approval
all
right,
so
I
like
quoting
people
councillor
harvey.
I
Thank
you,
chair
you're,
asking
us
to
flip
an
officer
recommendation
for
refusal
and
in
the
context
of
affordable
housing.
We
see
that
you
are
not
providing
policy
compliant,
affordable,
housing
and
further
than
that,
there
is
no
section
106
agreement
currently
in
place
for
the
on-site
provision.
So
there's
no
guarantee
that
you
provide
the
five
in
the
first
place
anyway,
so
no
viability,
no
section
106
you're,
not
policy,
compliant.
I
G
Thank
you
very
much
so
in
terms
of
the
the
way
that
the
design
process
has
happened,
we
were
fully
compliant.
We
had
six
affordable
homes
in
our
first
original
design
through
the
actual
design
process.
I've
worked
with
with
the
offices
and
also
with
the
housing
officer
to
go
through
in
terms
of
our
design
and
along
the
way
things
obviously
do
change.
The
housing
officer
is
in
full
support
of
this
application.
They
requested
that
we
we
put
in
one
four
bedroom
home.
G
So
when
you
look
at
what
we've
done,
although
yes,
that
you
know
you're,
saying
obviously
we're
non-compliant,
but
there
are,
there
is
room
within
the
policy
where
it's
demonstrated
that
if
you
don't
meet
the
full
requirements,
you
can
you
as
long
as
you
have
the
support
of
the
office
of
the
the
housing
officer.
You
know
you,
you
can
deviate
from
that
and
I'm
trying
to
find
the
actual
wording
that
the
the
housing
officer
actually
said
it's
in
the
report
it
does.
G
It
does
make
yeah
state
that
in
there
and
and
that
is
the
overall
wording,
so
I
would
say
we
we,
the
the
section
186
side
of
things
again
that
that
can
be
brought
forward
as
a
condition
and
legal,
informative
should
approve,
will
be
agreed
tonight
and
obviously,
legally
correctly.
Speaking
from
a
planning
point
of
view
in
terms
of
conditions,
I've
not
seen
any
conditions
as
yet
because
obviously
the
application
was
was
recommended
for
refusal,
so
the
process
will
happen.
G
Obviously,
if
it
is
approved
tonight,
then
officers
will
put
those
conditions
forward.
We
will
go
through
those
conditions.
We
will
look
at
agreeing
to
those
conditions
and
then
any
legal
information
that
we
need
to
do.
Obviously
we
will
put
that
in
place.
I
believe
no
no
has
has
already
made
contact
with
a
couple
of
the
housing
association
companies
vivid
and
whoever
else,
it's
very,
very
early
doors
right
now,
obviously
in
in
talking
to
those
people,
but
in
terms
of
go
just
go
to
my
waiting
list,
I
told
you
about
earlier.
G
You
know
there
are.
There
were
43
people
waiting
for
you,
know
housing
or
social
housing
in
broadcast
they're
on
a
list
waiting
for
that
there
are
nine
people
that
have
expressed
an
immediate
interest
in
the
shared
ownership
or
the
the
the
social
renting
schemes.
The
the
the
numbers
of
what
they're
looking
for
is
based
on
three
four
and
two
threes
and
four
bedroom
houses,
which
is
obviously
what
we're
looking
to
provide
all
right.
I
So
just
to
confirm,
then:
will
the
four
bedroom
house
be
an
affordable
unit?
What
is
the
split
for
shared
ownership
that
you're
proposing
off
to
propose
affordable
housing,
and
how
do
you
intend
to
manage
the
shared
ownership?
Will
they
be
managed
by
an
rp,
or
will
you
seek
to
manage
them
in
any
way,
shape
or
form
yourselves.
G
Yeah,
so
the
four-bedroom
house
is
is
down
for
an
affordable
unit
in
terms
of
the
actual
split
in
terms
of
whether
it's
shared
ownership
and
all
those
types
of
things.
The
way
that
that
we've
approached
this
is
that,
in
terms
of
speaking
to
vivid
look
at
what
the
requirements
actually
are.
G
So
some
of
these
people
that
are
on
this
list,
you
know
they're,
saying
that
there's
a
a
requirement
for
some
some
to
be
shared
ownership
and
some
to
be
for
the
renting
scheme
in
terms
of
what
vivid
would
like
to
do
or
whoever
it
goes
I'll
keep
saying
visit,
whoever,
whichever
one
it
goes
towards,
they
will
be
taking
those
on
board.
They
will
be
looking
at.
You
know
how
they
do
that
split
and,
I
believe,
that's.
G
J
Thank
you,
chad.
I
just
have
one
really
and
that's
with
the
the
number
of
consultees
that
we've
that
are
actually
outlined
in
the
report.
We
have
objections
from
poor
coast
parish
council
with
various
objections.
We
have
objections
from
the
urban
design
officer
whose
initial
comments
were
objection
and
the
the
final
comments
were
rejection.
The
historic
environment
officer
objected
initially
and
also
finally
objected.
Okay,
the
landscape
officer
objected
initially,
and
these
final
comments
were
still
objecting.
J
Okay,
the
the
waste
officer
says
the
term.
It's
got
standing
advice,
the
tree
officer
was
objecting
okay
and
the
local.
The
lead
local
food
authority
was
saying
that
further
information
is
is
is
needed
with
all
these
objections,
including
the
emergency
planners,
which
I
think
you've
answered
correctly.
J
Why
should
we?
We
flip
okay
planning,
officer,
recommendation
and
and
approve
this
application.
G
Do
you
have
to
turn
your
mic
off
to?
Does
it
sorry?
So
so
in
terms
of
the
objections
like
you've
just
done
there,
so
I
can
go
through
them
in
terms
of
the
parish
council
they're,
not
here
tonight,
to
obviously
defend
their
position
in
terms
of
how
they
are.
There
is
a
lot
of
objection
that
comes
from
from
the
parish
council.
G
I've
got
various
views
on
that
which
I
won't
go
into
urban
design.
We've
we've
working
with
philip
on
the
on
the
actual
case
and
going
through
the
designs
that
things
were
changing
as
we
were
going
and
I've
got
to
a
point
where,
with
the
urban
designer,
I
think
we
were
pretty
much
95
there
and
I
think
that
that
they
would
then
philip
can
confirm
that.
G
But
in
terms
of
the
the
extra
bits
it
was
to
do
with
some
of
the
materials
and
and
what
brick
we
were
going
to
use,
what
time
we
were
going
to
use-
and
the
overall
finishing,
rather
than
the
layout
of
the
site,
is
the
way
that
my
understanding
is
and
obviously
again
because
we've
not
agreed
conditions.
That
would
be
a
condition
for
us
to
put
forward
which
brick,
which
you
know
for
the
overall
finish
of
the
style
of
the
houses.
G
So
I
think,
from
that
point
of
view
we
weren't
working.
You
know
to
come
to
a
conclusion
on
that
one.
I
think
we
would
obviously
get
there
with
the
materials
in
terms
of
the
historic
environment.
There
is
obviously
the
the
the
existing
cottages
they
are
in
a
poor
state.
You
know,
as
I
said
to
you,
you
know
we
are
looking
to
increase
those
to
a
much
better
standard.
G
Here's,
the
historic
environment
team,
again
they're,
looking
at
an
application
that
we
have,
for
other
other
little
extensions
and
stuff
on
there.
So
there
was
a
joined
up
thinking
from
that
point
of
view,
but
again
it's
to
do
with
the
impact
on
those
cottages
in
terms
of
what
the
historic
environment
team
we're
all
about.
Now,
as
it
stands
right
now.
Obviously,
it's
a
commercial
site.
G
You
you've
all
seen
what
goes
on
in
there
you've
seen
the
equipment
you've
seen
the
things
that
are
in
there
and
there
is
no
in
terms
of
restrictions
to
that
site.
It
is
a
site
that
can
be
24
7.
G
and
you
know
if
you,
if
you're
looking
at
it
quite
bluntly,
is
it
better
to
have
the
commercial
yard
there
or
or
other
residential
units
going
to
actually
bring
the
then
these
two
cottages
back
to
a
residential
area
and,
like
I
said
in
my
speech,
I
think
that
you
know
from
from
a
commercial
yard
point
of
view.
I
think
that's
the
one
that's
out
of
keeping
with
the
area
and
I
think
that's
out
of
character,
landscape
officer.
G
You
know
there
was
an
objection,
obviously,
from
from
the
landscape
there
talking
about
the
character
of
the
area
most
of
borghurst
and
in
and
around
that
area,
with
the
wolverton
description,
it
basically
covers
most
of
august
to
be
a
leafy
tree,
lined
rural
kind
of
area.
Well,
that's
not
necessarily
the
case
in
every
single
part
of
broadcast
and
then
around
that
area.
You
know
when
you
go
to
woodlands,
road
and
around
there.
Obviously
it
becomes
urban.
G
G
My
view
is
that,
because
there's
the
existing
trees
and
all
of
the
vegetation
that's
around
there,
I
believe
residential
units
of
a
high
quality
will
be
you
know
better
than
than
what
is
there
and
the
the
local
flood
side
of
things
again
that
there's
actually
an
error
in
the
report
and
it's
in
the
update
paper
to
say
that
their
actual
comments
were
no
objection
further
to
some
conditions.
Wasn't
it
in
terms
of
where
they're
at-
and
I
think
you
know
from
that
point
of
view.
G
I
think
I
think
we
are.
We
are
there
with
the
scheme,
I
believe
and-
and
I
think
it's
it's
come
together-
quite
well-
the
the
highway
side
of
things,
just
just
one
more
thing
that
chairman
sorry
in
terms
of
the
access
point
highways
didn't
want
us
to
use
the
existing
access,
which
is
why
we've
had
to
to
move
move
the
the
access
to
putting
a
new
access
point
to
get
the
suitable
distances
from
stoke's
lane
and
that
also
changed
the
layout
of
the
site.
G
C
Thank
you
chair,
so
I
was
just
looking
at
the
drawings
on
pages
82
onwards,
so
I've
gotten
a
rough
idea
of
the
the
height
of
these
proposed
properties.
The
ridgeway,
probably
between
the
roof
ridge,
is
about
four
to
five
meters
high
approximately.
How
high
are
the
existing
facilities
that
we
saw
on
site
visit,
the
containers
and
and
storage,
and
that
sort
of
thing.
G
Yeah,
so
a
normal
shipping
container
is
around,
I
think
it's
getting
on
for
three
meters:
isn't
it
and
and
they're
stacked
two
to
three
free
high,
so
they're
between
six
and
nine
meters
and
again
there
there
is
no
restrictions
in
terms
of
what
knowledge,
if
you
were
on
the
site
visit,
but
you
saw
the
big
crane
and
the
things
that
were
there
and
all
the
other
equipment
you've
seen
on
the
overhead
projector,
you
know
this:
that's
being
stacked
up
and
being
moved
around,
so
there's
no
restrictions,
so
yeah
right.
J
Frost,
thank
you
chair.
I
just
want
to
move
back
to
to
to
my
my
previous
question
and
I
understand
your
view
is
that
that
this
this
application
is
significantly
better
than
an
industrial
site.
Okay
and
and
to
be
fair.
I
do
have
some
empathy
with
that.
Okay,
however,
you
didn't
answer
my
question.
Okay
about
well.
My
question
is
that
here
in
this
report,
which
we
you
are
asking
us
to
make
a
decision
on,
okay,
we
have
objections
from
the
urban
design
officer.
J
You
say
that
we
know
you're
there,
but
our
report
doesn't
say
that
our
report
says
the
final
comments
were
objection.
Okay,
it
says
from
the
historical
environment
officer,
okay,
I
know
you
cover
that,
but
it
says
here
find
comments,
objection,
okay,
it
says
here
the
landscape
officer,
okay.
I
know
you
covered
that.
It
says
final
comments,
objection
and
we
have
all
these
objections,
including
the
the
the
the
six
or
seven
objections
from
the
parish
council,
who
will
be
representing
their
their
residents
locally.
So
why
should
we
okay,
ignore
all
that
and
approve
this?
G
Right,
okay,
so
in
terms
of
again
back
to
the
urban
design,
although
their
comments
at
the
moment
say
obviously
in
the
report
as
an
objection,
it
hasn't
made
that
forward
to
one
of
the
six
reasons
for
refusal
in
terms
of
where
they're
actually
at
so
so
going
back
to
each
individual
point
in
terms
of
where
we're
at,
which
is
obviously
what
we're
here
to
then
discuss.
G
Isn't
it
in
terms
of
the
six
reasons
for
refusal
right
now,
so
putting
a
rebuttal
back
to
that
item,
one
in
terms
of
the
policy
ss6
we're
actually
a
five-year
land
supply,
so
tilted
balance
and,
and
all
that
which
obviously
you
know,
we
won't
go
into
a
five-year
later
place,
we'll
be
here
all
night
item,
two
being
dpe
zed,
which
which
obviously
we've
presented.
G
That
kind
of
position
number
three
is
about
the
the
actual
character
in
terms
of
the
pattern
and
the
development
in
the
surrounding
area,
well
in
terms
of
their
their
housing
positions
and
the
hard
standing
and
the
over
urbanizing
of
the
area.
G
Well,
that's
again,
that's
that's
down
to
a
subjective
kind
of
view
in
terms
of
whether
you
believe
that
those
houses
are
you
know,
right
in
that
area
or
not,
is
is
kind
of
my
take
on
that
talking
about
the
established
pattern
of
development
again
going
back
to
august
hill
in
the
top
of
august
hill
and
the
and
the
clustered
development
in
terms
of
the
way
that
it
was
described
at
the
top
of
there
there's
a
lot
of
houses
crammed
into
a
kind
of
small
area,
which
you
know
that's
kind
of
to
me
that
that
is
almost
dictating
the
the
kind
of
the
area
itself.
G
I
know
there's
one
or
two
open
fields
along
in
hurst
lane,
but
I
I
can't
see
that
you
know
the
the
from
a
character
point
of
view
that
this
is
out
of
character
and
the
the
the
commercial
yard
is
more
in
character.
If
that
makes
sense,
number
four
is
obviously
to
do
with
the
the
the
the
housing
mix
which
I've
gone
through
the
housing
mix,
and
I
believe
you
know
in
terms
of
the
the
mix
of
the
houses
that
we're
providing
is
right
for
that
area.
G
If
we
were
to
to
follow
policy
in
terms
of
where
it
requires
that
we
have
smaller
houses
well
again,
then
into
smaller
houses
means
more
houses,
which
is
then
contrary
to
other
policies.
So
it's
that
to
me
is
that
it's
that
balance
and
act
between
getting
the
the
the
right
scheme
on
a
site-
and
I
believe
that's
where
we're
at
we're,
obviously
providing
the
affordable
homes,
which
is
you
know,
a
key
part.
G
You
know
fought
for
development
in
the
area
and
you
know
I
believe,
we've
covered
that
in
terms
of
the
trees
again,
you
know
it
talks
to
here
about
the
pressures
to
remove
some
of
these
trees,
because
they're
they're,
potentially
over
shadowing
of
gardens
and
when,
when
you
look
at
the
tree
officers
objections
it
talks
about
overshadowing
the
trees
on
the
northern
boundary.
Well,
you
know
for
me
the
sun's
to
the
to
the
south
and
it's
the
house
that
will
overshadow
the
gardens
and
not
the
trees.
G
So
I
I
can't
see
you
know
as
to
why
that,
in
my
eyes,
why
that's
made
her
to
be
a
reason
for
an
actual
refusal.
So
I
know
I've
sort
of
rambled
a
little
bit,
but
I
think
I've
kind
of
making
my
my
point,
I
don't
know
if
I've
you
look
confused
as
to
whether
I've
actually
answered
the
question
or
not,
but
I
don't
know
if
I
have
a
lot
better.
K
Just
a
quick
one,
how
many
of
the
houses
that
you've
got
planned
have
have
you
plans
for
things
like
solar
panels
on
the
roof,
air
source,
heat
pumps,
etc?
Environmentally
friendly
building
plans.
G
Sorry,
I've
got
a
bit
of
a
cold
so
in
terms
of
the
actual
houses,
although
that
doesn't
form
part
of
the
actual
planning
here
it
is
proposed
that
all
the
houses-
and
we
did
put
that
in
the
design
and
access
statement
and
the
and
the
planning
statement
mr
joining-
is
currently
building
some
houses
in
ireland,
which
are
completely
a
rated
and
in
terms
of
how
they
work.
Their
solar
panels
got
the
air
source
heat
pumps.
G
G
Excuse
me,
I'm
gonna
cough
and
all
the
other
bits
that
are
that
will
be.
You
know,
electric
car
charging
points
and
and
all
those
things
from
a
sustainable
building
point
of
view.
But
again
that
can
be
that
can
be
secured
by
way
of
conditions.
It
should
the
officers
you
know
to
decide
that
they
want
to
go
down
that
route.
B
Thank
you
chair
and
when
we
were
on
the
viewing
panel,
I
asked
if
we
could
see
where
the
rings
of
extended
to
from
the
from
the
dp
the
dep
z
zone,
for
the
three
planning
permissions
that
we're
looking
at
tonight
in
the
tavi
area.
I
was
assured
that
we
would
get
that
so
as
we
could
see.
If
they
were
on
the
perimeter
or
not,
they
are
perfect.
So
we
can,
we
can
see,
we
can
see
where
they
are
and
what
they
do.
B
I
presume
that
red
dot
in
the
center
is
is
where
the
nuclear
explosion
would
happen.
Is
that
right,
possibly
not?
No,
I
I
just
wanted
to
I
mean
the
reality
is
that
it
does
seem
particularly
bizarre
that
we
have
three
applications
all
within
the
dpz
zone,
and
yet
only
one
has
got
a
a
likely
objection
from
from
aw,
and
that
does
seem
particularly
odd
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
I
would
wish
to
test
this
with
the
subjective
few
in
front
of
this
committee.
So
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out.
Thank
you.
K
Just
further
to
my
question
to
the
applicant
really
is
that
right
we
can
put
conditions
in
to
insist
on
environmentally
friendly,
build
or
not.
L
Obviously,
the
application
is
recommended
for
refusal,
but
if
members
are
minded
to
recommend
the
application
for
permission
and
they
think
you
have
the
opinion
that
that's
necessary
to
make
the
development
acceptable
in
planning
terms
to
tip
the
planning
balance,
then
you
could
impose
such
a
condition.
Yes,.
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
have
two
questions.
Firstly,
page
61.
The
parish
council
mentioned
that
this
site
is
within
the
impact
risk
zone
of
a
site
of
special
scientific
interest.
So
what
is
this
site
of
special
scientific
interest
and
how
far
away
is
it
that's
question
one
and
question
two
on
the
following
page
62
relates
to
the
highway
officer,
who
initially
objected
twice
and
then
didn't
have
an
objection.
I
managed
to
pull
up
one
of
the
letters
from
hampshire
highways
that
didn't
seem
to
be
very
objecting
at
all.
C
E
Thank
you
councillor.
We're
we'll
find
out
the
distance
from
the
impact,
so
my
recollection
is
not
within
triple
si,
but
we'll
just
confirm
on
our
mapping
system
and
come
back
to
you
in
terms
of
the
highways
and
the
objections.
E
M
Thank
you
on
page
57,
the
second
power
it
says
very
clearly
as
such,
the
proposal
will
be
contrary
to
the
requirements
of
policy
ss7.
M
E
Thank
you
councillor,
so,
throughout
the
course
of
the
application,
further
representation
was
received
by
the
applicant
from
mr
thorne
as
a
as
a
report
that
was
sent
to
the
emergency
planners
and
the
onr.
E
The
report
was
reviewed
by
onr
and
they
objected
to
the
proposal
along
similar
arguments
that
have
been
presented
here
this
evening
on
that
basis
as
their
position
as
experts
and
council
t,
we
take
their
views
and
given
that
we
would
support
the
current
reason
for
refusal,
that
is
contrary
to
ss7
so
yeah.
Despite
the
what
we've
heard
this
evening,
the
reason
for
refusal
would
would
still
stand.
N
H
Thank
you
chair.
My
question
was
on
the
similar
lines.
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
had
approached
awa
regarding
this,
this
zone
for
this
or
any
other
development
and
what
was
their
reaction
and
did
they
give
you
any
any
sort
of
information
on
why.
E
Thank
you
chair,
so
I
I'm
not
aware
of
we
discussed
the
d
p
e
z
with
them
specifically,
but
I
have
asked
the
question
with
regards
to
this
site
and
the
difference
between
this
and
others
on
the
agenda
tonight.
From
from
the
response
I
received,
it
largely
comes
down
to
location
and
scale.
It
seems
to
be.
This
is
of
a
sufficient
scale
that
they
were
objecting
to,
whereas
the
other
schemes
are
that
much
smaller
and
within
the
more
populated
areas.
E
L
Jeff,
I
could
just
add
to
that
from
philip,
when
the
onr
are
looking
at
any
planning
application
and
as
was
mentioned,
they
do
look
at
each
site
on
its
own
merits.
They
look
at
its
location
relative
to
each
sector
that
they
break
the
zone
down
into
and
they
look
at
the
population
and
population
density
within
that
sector,
and
they
look
at
the
access
routes
into
and
out
of
that
sector
too.
L
So
if
there
was
an
emergency
and
even
if
it
were
to
shelter,
some
people
may
choose
not
to
shelter
as
well
or
if
there
was
an
evacuation.
L
They
look
at
the
impact
that
an
additional
population
and
any
additional
movements
that
may
come
with
that
in
the
case
of
an
emergency,
may
have
on
their
ability
to
deliver
the
offsite
emergency
plan,
so
the
emergency
responders
actually
being
able
to
effectively
evacuate
people
and
actually
attend
any
emergency
on
the
actual
site
itself.
So
they
do
look
at
the
precise
location
for
every
application
relative
to
the
population
and
the
access
routes
into
and
out
of
it.
Thank
you
chair.
B
Thank
you
and
to
the
points
made
by
cursed
court
and
cousin
gaskill.
I
I
was
on
the
appeal
for
the
little
supermarket
site,
which
the
which
is
much
closer
to
all
the
martin
than
than
this
site,
and
there
was
a
standing
objection
from
the
atomic
weapons
team
in
west
berkshire
and
I
have
to
say
there
is
no
restriction
on
how
many
people
you
can
get
into
a
supermarket.
So
it
does
seem
slightly
slightly
odd.
But
my
point
is
about
that
triple
s
I,
which
somebody
has
picked
up
the
triple
s.
B
I
is
in
my
ward,
which
is
down
the
hill
into
ashford
hill.
It
is
the
water
medal
there
and
there
is
a
big
distance,
the
whole
length
of
hawhurst
hill
to
if
there
was
any
runoff
or
any
flooding
chances
into
that.
I
just
want
to
make
the
point
that
the
triple
s
I
is
not
in
this
ward
or
is
in
the
war,
but
not
close,
close
proximity.
A
O
Thank
you,
chad.
Well,
I
have
a
question
about
the
emergency
planning,
but
the
first
one
is
just
a
matter
of
dotting
the
eyes
and
crossing
the
t's
page
63
principle
of
development.
The
very
last
word
on
the
page
is
referring
to
the
bramley
neighborhood
development
plan
being
relevant
to
this
site.
I
I
think
there
must
be
a
misprint.
Would
it
be
broadcast.
O
E
O
So
my
another
question
just
just
for
me,
the
emergency
planners,
so
the
office
of
nuclear
regulation,
but
who
are
the
emergency
planners.
J
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
want
to
go
back.
We've
obviously
heard
from
from
three
gentlemen
who
are
in
support
of
the
application.
Okay-
and
I
just
want
to
double
check,
please,
okay,
on
the
accuracy
of
the
report,
we
have
in
front
of
us,
okay,
the
urban
design
officer.
Their
final
comments
is
that
still
objection,
historic
environment
officer
is
their
final
comment.
Still
objection,
the
landscape
officer.
Are
they
still
objecting?
J
Okay,
the
tree
officer?
Are
they
still
objecting?
Okay
and
what
was
the
other
one?
Okay,
there
was
another
one
that
I
saw,
but
that
will
do.
E
Thank
you
councillor,
so,
yes,
they
are
still
objecting
to
that.
One,
as
as
the
agent
for
the
application
said,
the
urban
design
officer
was
largely
content
with
the
new
layout,
but
there
were
details
that
were
still
missing
and
he
also
did
have
concerns
in
terms
of
landscape
impacts,
which
were
supported
by
the
landscape
officer.
I
think
the
other
one
you
may
have
were
referring
to
or
looking
for
was
the
lead
local
flat
authority
as
it
was
referred
to
in
the
update
paper.
E
Yes,
it's
correct
that
additional
information
was
submitted
through
the
course
of
the
application
and
they
were
content
subject
to
conditions,
so
that
should
read
on
their
final
comments,
there's
no
objections
subject
to
conditions
if
I
could
also
come
back
to
councilman
cormac.
Just
on
the
point
you
raised
earlier
about
the
impact
zone,
we've
had
a
look
at
the
mapping
system
and,
yes,
it
does
fall
within
one
of
the
outer
rings
of
the
triple
si
impact
zone
and
it's
approximately
270
meters
from
the
triple
si
itself,
which
is
further
to
the
west.
A
J
Thank
you
very
much
chair.
I
I
studied
this
paper
with,
with,
as
I
did
with
all
the
other
planning
applications,
but
that,
as
this
is
my
ward
okay,
you
know
I
I
stood
at
it
really
hard.
Okay,
and
I
have
to
say
that
that
you
know
I
I
really
quite
like
the
development,
but
but
you
know,
with
all
the
objections
that
are
coming
through
from
from
officers,
okay
and
also
the
emergency
planners.
J
I
I'm
I'm
siding
with
the
the
with
the
the
the
conclusion
and
and
in
the
planning
balance
that,
whilst
I
believe
the
dpz
needs
to
be
challenged
and
it
does,
it
does
need
to
be
challenged,
because
I
I
think
that
does
absolutely
nothing
for
for
the
for
my
ward,
okay
and
also
the
the
town
of
tadly
okay.
I
don't
believe
that
this
is
the
site
to
do
it
on.
Okay,
I
really
don't.
J
Okay,
I
think
the
conclusion
of
planning
pounds
on
page
79
is
is
fairly
very
succinct.
Okay,
we
still
have
objections
from
the
landscape
officer.
We
we
have
objections
from
a
tree
officer.
We
have
you
know,
objections
from
the
urban
design
officer
at
this
moment
and
also
the
historic
environment
officer,
I'm
just
really
struggling
to
to
understand
how
they
can
be.
J
You
know
how
we
could
overturn
this.
This
application.
Okay,
against
you
know,
planning
officer,
advice
of
refusing
the
application,
so
you
know
I
I
understand
we
don't
have
the
five-year
land
supply.
I
I
I'm
also
aware
that,
whilst
there
is
no
objection
from
the
the
housing
officer,
I
I
I'm
not
convinced
that
this
this
application,
okay,
complies
with
a
lot
of
our
policies,
as
laid
out
in
in
the
report:
sd1
ss1,
ss6,
ss7,
em1,
em-10
and
cm1,
okay,
amongst
others.
A
J
A
Thank
you,
council
frost.
Is
there
a
second
councillor
court?
We've
got
a
few
more
speakers
before
we
go
to
the
vote
so
councillor
freeman.
K
Thank
you
now
see.
I'm
minded
completely
away
on
this
one
because
I
happen
to
think
that
a
small
housing
development
on
the
site
would
be
far
more
in
keeping
with
a
rural
setting
than
a
walloping
great
construction
yard,
all
the
noise
or
the
dust
or
the
shipping
containers,
which
are
quite
frankly,
aren't
exactly
the
prettiest
things
and
I
think
it'd
be
more
in
keeping
with
the
rural
setting
to
have
a
small
housing
development
there.
The
point
has
been
made
and
we
know
we
don't
have
a
five-year
housing
supply.
K
It
seems
that
the
issues
with
the
dep
said
could
possibly
be
worked
out
and
and
any
other
details
that
are
lacking
here
could
be
sorted
by
condition.
So
so
that's
my
two
cents.
I
I
think
we
should
go
against
the
officer's
recommendation.
I
think
we
should
be
approving
this
because,
like
I
said
it's
far
better,
it's
going
to
be
quite
in
the
end,
once
construction's
finished
it's
going
to
be
a
bit
more
peaceful,
it's
going
to
be
a
lot
more
conducive
to
a
rural
setting
than
a
walloping
great
construction
yard.
B
Thank
you
chairman.
I
thank
my
fellow
councils
and
the
applicant
and
the
officers
for
for
the
detail
that
they've
put
into
the
debate
that
we've
had
tonight
as,
as
was
obvious,
I
hope
I
was
predisposed
to
development
on
commercial
sites
rather
than
predetermined,
and
I
think
the
loss
of
greenfield
sites
is
an
issue
for
us
all
and
I
think
genuinely
brownfield
sites
should
be
the
first
place
to
be
developed.
B
If
I'm,
if
I'm
perfectly
honest
about
it-
and
I
look
at
the
officer's
report
now
and
from
what's
been
said
tonight
from
from
philip
richards
that
they
have
tried
to
make
this
the
best
they
can
be.
So
my
view
is
that
this
is
a
firstly,
a
sustainable
site.
You
can
walk
to
the
earth
school
you've
got
a
bus
service
that
there
is
the
most
profitable
in
stage
coaches
world,
the
number
two
that
takes
people
from
beauhurst
all
the
way
to
the
hospital
and
to
the
railway
station.
B
The
fact
that
it
is
sustainable
should
be,
in
your
mind,
a
positive,
the
fact
that
we
don't
have
enough
social
housing
in
my
ward,
that
we
are
going
to
clamor
for
the
big
houses,
small
houses,
any
sort
of
house,
because
the
level
of
software
surfing
in
tatley
is
huge.
I
can
tell
you
that
right
now,
because
I
had
a
phone
call
this
morning
about
that
very
subject.
B
We
need
to
test
the
dep
zed
we
need
to.
We
approve
it
tonight.
It's
still
got
to
go
through
that
process.
We
can
do
that
with,
while
the
officers
work
out
as
council
freedom
has
said
some
of
the
details
within
it
like
the
like
the
materials
to
be
used.
The
fact
that
we've
had
no
highways
objection.
Let's
do
that
for
15
minutes
today
and
not
and
not
just
one
car
went
past,
but
only
a
van
which
was
delivering
amazon.
So
they
get
that
that
urban
feel.
B
Would
it
be
incongruous
to
the
current
environment?
I
don't
think
so.
If
you
look
just
up
the
road,
there
is
a
row
of
houses
on
stokes
lane.
That's
just
there.
They
were
ex-council
houses.
People
seem
happy
enough
to
to
live
in
them.
Is
the
urban
environment
encroaching
on
this?
No
because,
as
we've
all
seen
as
we
went
out
on
the
on
the
viewing
panel,
the
trees
all
remain.
B
The
idea
that
a
a
garden
is
blocked
in
by
the
trees
is
is
rubbish
frankly,
because
we
know
that
the
houses
sit
to
to
that
side
and
they
will
be
the
gardens
will
the
loss
of
sunlight
will
be
from
the
their
own
house.
People
will
purchase
on
the
basis
of
what
they
want
and
the
need
that
they
have
so,
I
think
genuinely
we
could.
We
can
absolutely
flip
this.
It
is
in
character.
There
are
large
developments
within
two
or
three
hundred
yards.
I
think
there's
nearly
40
houses
on
whole
house
hill.
B
This
is
this
is
a
small
expanse
of
an
urban
area,
but
the
benefit
of
the
to
those
two
houses
that
sit
there
of
losing
a
commercial
site
that
is
noisy
all
of
the
time
and,
as
we've
seen
on
friday,
has
the
ability
to
put
huge
cranes
in
there
without
any
restrictions
at
all.
This,
in
my
view,
is
the
right
sort
of
development
and
the
right
one
to
be
tested
in
regard
to
awe
and
under
zones.
So
I,
if
council
freeman,
is
so-minded,
I
am
happy
to
to
move
approval.
A
Again,
you
can't
move
for
refusal
when
there's
already
a
motion
on
the
table.
We've
got
to
take
the
vote
on
that
you
can.
J
A
point
of
order:
okay,
can
you
please,
I
just
remind
me
or
clarify:
did
councillor
ratkin
say
that
he
was
predetermined?
Okay,
please,
I'm
speaking
to
the
chair,
okay,
pre-determined
okay,
to
build
on
sites,
or
did
he
say
that
he
was
predisposed.
A
H
You
chair,
I'm
just
going
back
to
this
dep
said.
I
have
concerns
about
that.
It's
been
it's
been.
It's
been
drawn
up
by
people
who
are
far
more
educated
in
this
area
than
we
are
it's
not
for
us
to
sort
of
override
that
really,
and
for
that
reason
I
can't
vote
to
vote
for
this
development
tonight.
Thank
you.
I
Chair
the
point
about
the
affordable
housing,
I
think
is
worth
making
that
we
don't
have
an
rp
on
board
at
the
moment.
What
we
have
is
an
offer
of
affordable
housing.
We
don't
have
clarity
of
to
which
of
the
properties
is
going
to
be
rented,
which
of
the
properties
are
going
to
be
shared
ownership.
I
So
there's
a
number
of
legal
aspects
that
would
need
to
be
clarified.
Were
this
application
to
be
approved
that
they'll
easily
sit
in
a
section
106
agreement.
It
would
sit
at
an
agreement
that
would
have
been
reached
prior
to
this
application
coming
to
the
committee.
That
officers
would
have
negotiated-
quite
rightly
in
some
detail.
They
haven't
done
because
they're
recommending
refusal
for
very
good
reason.
I
Understandable
reasons
has
argued,
so
my
concern
would
be
yes,
it
can
be
conditioned
and
we
can
stick
a
section
106
agreement,
but
what
you
cannot
do
is
box
a
rp
into
the
sort
of
things
we
would
want
to
see
in
more
detail
to
secure
that
affordable
housing
for
the
benefit
of
the
residents,
who
would
eventually
live
in
it.
So
that,
for
me,
is
a
concern.
It's
still
outstanding.
A
E
E
Thank
you
chair
item
number
two,
which
we
found
on
page
96
of
tonight's
agenda
is
a
full
application
for
the
direction
of
six
dwellings
comprising
of
two
four
bed
and
four
three
bed
with
associated
access,
parking
and
amenity
space.
If
I
could
draw
members
attention
to
the
update
paper.
E
A
P
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
this
opportunity
to
express
our
points.
As
you
would
have
seen
from
the
committee
report,
there
were
26
letters
of
objection
to
this
development,
all
of
which
I
appreciate
have
been
answered
within
the
report,
but
answered
with
a
tick
box
strategy,
primarily
based
on
black
and
white
information,
and
my
aim
today
to
try
and
show
some
of
our
concern
is
reality
as
a
resident
within
taddy
for
pretty
much
all
of
my
life,
I've
seen
the
village
grow
into
a
town
and
continue
growing.
P
I
am
someone
that
understands
things
need
to
change
or
to
keep
up
with
the
times
that
new
houses
will
need
to
go
up
in
places.
Not
everyone
will
be
happy
with.
However,
I
believe
that
if
our
town
needs
to
grow,
it
should
benefit
those
already
in
it.
Tabby
has
already
has
recently
seen
some
large
developments
of
which
include
affordable
housing,
something
of
which
is
in
desperate
need,
especially
in
the
current
climate.
As
a
resident,
I
don't
feel
unaffordable.
P
This
pot
of
land
used
to
have
one
property
years
ago,
as
a
butcher's,
with
the
lower
sections
of
the
land
used
for
castle
to
be
slaughtered.
Following
the
house
being
knocked
down,
the
land
became
no
man's
land
home
to
various
wildlife.
Then
came
along
the
bees
and
the
chickens.
This
area
was
a
wonderful
asset
to
the
neighbouring
allotments
which
benefited
from
this
wildlife
to
encourage
the
growth
of
our
crops.
P
Whilst
the
report
can
provide
answers
to
why
this
application
should
be
approved,
we
too
are
able
to
provide
reasons
to
counteract
these
responses.
Now
the
question
is
whose
response
is
more
important,
I'll,
try
to
answer
some
of
these?
We
don't
agree.
The
properties
will
be
in
keeping
with
the
area.
No
other
section
within
tadley
hill
has
so
many
properties
in
such
a
small
space
living
on
tadder
hill.
P
P
They
are
not
equivalent
to
six
properties
which
could
be
over
14
cars
anytime,
as
I
exit
my
driveway,
I
fear
for
any
pedestrians
that
I'm
unable
to
see
not
because
of
mine
or
their
carelessness,
but
just
the
positioning
of
us
both
as
I
try
and
exit
onto
the
road,
especially
if
I
turn
right
a
kind
soul
may
allow
me
to
cross
the
road.
However,
I
cannot
see
what
traffic
is
further
up
the
hill
as
the
cure
of
traffic,
and
here
it's
my
view,
I
don't
believe
in
being
reactive.
P
If
you
deemed
six
properties
were
to
go
ahead,
we
asked
there
will
be
a
concession
to
have
these
two
plots
switched
to
road
facing,
as
the
other
four
are,
which
may
go
some
way
to
at
least
alleviating
our
concerns.
I
wonder
if
there
was
also
any
consideration
to
the
lay
of
the
land
and
that
our
properties
also
sit
considerably
lower
than
those
of
plots.
Five
and
six,
there
has
been
a
large
number
of
objections
for
a
reason
and
verbally,
a
great
deal
more.
P
Even
the
town
council
have
stressed
their
concerns
to
all
I
mentioned,
as
those
of
us
living
in
this
area
can
see
the
reality
of
the
impact
and
having
this
number
of
properties
at
this
actual
site.
I
think
we
can
all
agree.
There
is
a
definite
case
for
two
properties
to
be
built
in
place
of
where
one
stands,
but
why
remove
the
area
of
nature?
P
P
I
come
here
today
hoping
that
you
may
understand
that
living
with
the
reality
of
six
large
family
sized
properties
on
such
a
busy
stretch
of
road
can
only
cause
more
problems
that
it
will
solve,
but
I
sadly
do
not
think
our
concerns
will
be
heard
more
likely
to
shrugged
off,
because
this
application
ticks
boxes
and
provides
houses.
The
borough
is
much
needed
of,
as
I
mentioned
at
the
start.
Yes,
we
need
houses,
but
we
need
houses
for
people
that
are
affordable
and
in
place
that
are
in
a
safe
residential
pedestrian
for
all
users
and
roads.
A
A
Q
Very
much
chairman
I'll
start
with
what
the
previous
speaker
finished
on.
Yes,
we
need
houses.
This
is
a
site
which
is
in
the
settlement.
Boundary
of
tadley
tedley
is
a
as
we've
heard,
with
the
debate
on
the
previous
application,
a
site
or
a
town
I
should
say
which
has
not
taken
its
fair
share
of
development
over
the
years.
Despite
what
we've
just
said
because
of
the
au
awe
giving
artificial
should
I
use
that
word:
yeah,
probably
artificial
protection
to
it
and
stopping
developments
coming
forward.
Q
This
is
a
development
which
is,
in
principle,
acceptable,
and
I
find
it.
I
find
it
strange
that
objectives
and
the
parish
council
also
town
council
have
an
issue
with
with
the
development
of
the
site
and
they're
trying
to
push
it
down
to
a
smaller
development.
I'm
going
to
deal
with
their
concerns.
That's
probably
the
best
way
to
deal
with
it.
Highways
we've
just
heard
concerns
about
highway
safety.
Hcc
have
looked
at
the
two
access
points
to
the
site.
Q
They've
considered
the
speed
of
the
road
outside
they've
considered
the
visibility
they've
said
it's
acceptable
for
both
of
the
proposed
entrances.
Obviously
30
miles
an
hour.
Is
the
the
least
visible
least,
visibility
requirement?
I
should
say-
and
we've
even
we've
even
heard
from
the
town
council
they've
got
concerned
about
the
density
of
traffic
at
school
times
that
just
slows
traffic
down,
so
that
makes
it
safer
rather
than
less
safe.
Q
Q
The
town
council
made
a
point
as
well
about
demand
for
two-bedroom
houses
and
bungalows
in
the
settlement.
I
think
this
is
a
sort
of
way
of
pushing
us
towards
a
reduced
development
on
the
site,
not
least
because
they
don't
subsequently
say
just
as
we've
heard,
the
site's
suitable
for
two
houses.
So
what
we're
talking
about
two
two
small
bungalows
on
the
site
with
two
bedrooms?
We
know
the
housing
needs.
Q
We
know
the
requirements
in
the
borough
as
a
whole
for
new
houses,
we're
having
rural
parishes,
approving
new
houses
on
greenfield
land
outside
of
settlement
boundaries
to
help
with
the
housing
numbers.
And
yet
here
we
are
being
told
well
actually,
we've
got
this
site
in
tadly,
which
we
can
get
a
couple
of
small
bungalows
on
it.
We
did
start
at
eight
houses
on
this
site.
We
produced
it
to
six
to
improve
the
development
with
the
officers
recommendations
and
that
helps
the
street
scene.
Q
It
pushes
development
back
on
the
site
and
it
all
it
all
fits
comfortably.
Making
best
use
of
the
available
land.
Q
We've
heard
about
overlooking
18
and
18
a
tadly
hill,
their
their
properties
to
the
north
are
the
ones
quoted
by
the
town
council,
and
I
think
that's
what
I
picked
up
from
the
previous
speaker,
they're
separated
by
the
app
from
the
application
site
itself
by
a
20-meter
buffer
zone
with
trees
on
it
full
of
mature
trees.
I
should
say
there
you
go,
and
even
without
these
trees
face-to-face
distance
between
the
proposed
properties
and
those
existing
ones,
you
can
see
in
the
background
we're
talking
a
good
30,
30
plus
meters.
Q
I
can't
see
how
overlooking
is
an
issue
town
council
talk
about
affordable
housing,
we've
heard
more
about
affordable
housing
again
and
the
need
for
it.
That's
wonderful,
but
we're
below
the
threshold.
Here
there
can't
be
any
suggestions:
we've
deliberately
got
it
below
the
threshold,
given
that
we've
been
squeezed
from
eight
to
six
houses
in
our
negotiations
with
officers,
it's
still
below
the
threshold
for
affordable
housing
and
all
we
can
do
is
apply
the
policy
and
advise
our
clients
on
that
on
that
policy.
Q
R
Good
evening
councillors
as
a
child,
my
father
used
to
have
allotments,
and
so
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
growing
up
in
and
around
the
area
in
which
the
proposal
site
falls
in
those
days.
The
land
which
is
proposed
to
be
built
on
today
was
a
piece
of
well-established
native
woodland
back
then
the
land
wasn't
known
to
belong
to
anybody
in
particular,
and
it
complemented
the
allotments
providing
a
haven
for
wildlife
and
insects.
R
My
father
was
a
councillor
when
the
land
was
fenced
off
by
the
applicants
and
then
the
beehives
arrived.
He
questioned
the
ownership
of
the
land,
which
seemed
to
be
being
gradually
fenced
in
and
possessed,
and
I
understand
that
there
has
continued
to
be
a
question
over
the
ownership
of
this
land
amongst
local
folk
land
registry
is,
of
course,
a
separate
matter
to
the
planning
which
we
have
in
front
of
us,
but
I'd
still
like
to
mention
this.
R
R
We
need
a
mix
of
homes
to
include
affordable
homes
and
we
need
homes
with
safe
access
that
do
not
destroy
what
is
left
of
our
green
spaces.
Every
day.
For
the
last
11
years,
I've
made
the
journey
to
tadly
school,
with
my
children,
often
traveling
up
past
this
stretch
of
the
a340,
both
on
foot
and
in
a
car.
R
I've
watched
as
this
stretch
of
road
has
become
increasingly
congested
at
rush
hour
times,
the
roundabout
close
to
the
site,
cues
from
all
directions,
as
people
try
to
make
their
way
towards
basingstoke
or
older
marston
or
across
tadley
to
one
of
the
local
schools
in
tadley.
We
are
hugely
impacted
at
rush
hour
by
the
awe
and,
of
course,
the
a340
is
the
main
route
in
and
out
when
you
do
make
it
over
the
roundabout
to
pass
the
proposal
site
during
busy
times
of
day.
R
You
will
then
often
creep
up
the
hill
in
the
queue
of
traffic.
This
road
is
the
main
bus
routes
that
carry
stagecoach
buses
and
school
buses.
These
buses
don't
fully
fit
under
the
bus.
Lay
by
that
you
approach
as
you
leave
tadly,
with
a
constant
flow
of
traffic
coming
towards
tadley
during
the
busy
times.
R
I
grew
up
in
a
house
on
the
west
side
of
the
a340
just
over
the
road
and
up
a
little
from
the
proposed
site.
I
lived
close
to
the
traffic
lights
during
rush
hour.
My
family
would
go
out
and
press
the
traffic
lights
before
jumping
back
in
the
car
in
order
to
be
able
to
pull
out
onto
the
road
without
sitting
for
a
very
long
time
trying
to
wait
for
a
gap.
R
R
A
C
Thank
you,
chair
just
really
on
the
highway
safety.
Have
you
actually
been
on
the
site
and
seen
the
proposed
visibility?
C
And
you
know
when
we
went
it
was
it
was
kind
of
difficult
to
see,
but
it
looked
like
it
might
be
made
safe,
but
I
don't
know
what
your
take
would
be
on
that,
because
you
were
very
strongly
opposed
to
it
on
safety
grounds.
R
Would
disagree
that
it
will
be
a
safe
access?
I
think
people
are
coming
from
in
in
busier
in
sorry
in
quieter
times.
I
think
people
will
be
accelerating
up
that
hill.
I
do
not
feel
that
there
is
going
to
be
good
visibility,
obviously
that
the
access
isn't
there
yet.
So
I
can
only
stand
at
the
site,
but
but
no,
I
don't
feel
it
is.
K
Thank
you
chair.
Could
you
expand
a
bit
on
the
the
disputed
land
because
I
I'm
not
sure?
Well,
I'm
not
I'm
not
familiar
with
with
the
site,
obviously
apart
from
from
the
paperwork
so
that
the
land
dispute?
What's
that
about.
J
Thank
you,
chair
welcome
councillors.
I
just
want
to
just
pick
up
on
councillor
mccormick's
question
about
highway
safety.
Okay
and
you've
discussed
okay
traffic
coming
up
the
hill,
leaving
the
roundabout
okay,
but
you
haven't
said
anything
about.
You
know:
traffic.
J
Coming
from
the
allen's
garage
over
the
crest,
okay
and
accelerating
down
the
hill,
I
used
to
be
a
resident
of
tabby,
okay,
and
that
was
always
known
as
as
an
excellent
black
spot
around
swedish
okay
houses,
and
I
just
want
to
know
from
your
experience,
okay
of
living
just
just
over
the
road
or
on
that
road.
You
know
how
you
know.
You've
obviously
mentioned
traffic
coming
up.
What
about
the
traffic
going
down.
R
So
so,
therefore
same
with
cyclists.
Anything
like
that.
You
can't
pass
at
that
point
in
the
day,
because
people
are
continually
coming
from
beijing
stoke.
So
it's
absolutely
both
directions
at
that
time
of
day
and
at
busier
times.
C
N
C
Of
beehives,
but
you
know,
what's
what's
the
likely
impact
of
this
going
to
be,
I
mean
you've
got
owls
on
the
other
side
of
the
road,
but
you
know
if
it's
going
to
have
a
visual
impact
that
would
be
cause
for
concern.
C
R
As
far
as
I
can
see
from
the
road
sign
side,
it's
not
going
to
have
an
awful
lot
of
impact,
I
think
from
the
surrounding
properties.
I
think
it
certainly
could
have
and
will
have
an
impact,
particularly
when
you
look
at
the
the
fact
that
the
ground
is
not
flat
there
and
I
think,
when
you're
stood
over
at
the
allotment
side.
Again,
it's
going
to
have
quite
a
visual
impact.
At
the
moment
you
look
across
and
you
can
just
see
a
space
really
obviously
you're
going
to
see
houses.
R
So
for
from
one
side
it
will
definitely
have
a
visual
impact.
I
think
a
negative
one,
but
that's
my
view.
K
Again,
it's
it's
on
the
land
dispute.
Were
we
aware
that
the
land
was
in
dispute?
Has
that
been
cleared
up
at
all.
E
Thank
you
councillor,
so
ownership
of
land
in
itself
isn't
necessarily
a
planning
issue.
This
correct
notification
process
has
gone
been
gone
through
from
the
planning
application
point
of
view.
As
explained
within
the
officer
report
on
111.
E
certificate
notice
was
served
on
the
landowners
of
registry,
and
that
was
submitted
to
us
as
part
of
the
application
process,
and
that
was
considered
to
be
sufficient.
So,
yes,
it
wasn't.
We
were
aware
of
it
because
of
the
representations
received,
but
yeah
the
application's
gone
through
the
correct
process
in
terms
of
notification
and
certificates.
K
E
C
Hey
thank
you
chair.
It's
more
a
question
of
access
because
I
think
this
is
something
those
of
us
who
the
site
would
have
a
concern
about
how
far
back
should
the
gates
be
set
for
safe
access,
because
when
we
were
on
site
it
didn't
look
like
there
was
some
very
much
room
at
all,
and
cars
would
have
to
get
virtually
to
the
road's
edge
to
be
able
to
see
out.
E
Thank
you
counselor.
So
I'm
not
sure
if
you
talk
about
the
gates
existing
on
the
site
as
part
of
the
proposal
there
aren't
any
gates
proposed
and
as
part
of
the
verbal
update,
a
new
condition
is
being
recommended
to
avoid
any
gates
being
across
the
access.
O
Page
100,
sorry
to
harp
on
about
this,
but
the
emergency
planners
again
their
comments,
I'm
a
little
confused
by
what
they
actually
have
said
in
terms
of
how
this
paragraph
reads:
it's
suggesting
it's
a
significant
burden
and
then
what
was
that
from
the
onr
or
or
who
was
it
from
we've
then
got
hcc
said
providing
they've
got
a
telephone
line
or
something
did
west
berkshire
say
anything
I
I
it
doesn't
sort
of
read
as
the
previous
application
in
terms
of
consultees
comments,
it's
a
little
bit
I'd
like
to
understand
it
more.
E
Thank
you
councillor.
So
the
sexual
report
highlights
the
the
comments
received
by
the
emergency
planners.
I
believe
it
was
west
berkshire
for
this
one
and,
yes,
they
did
set
out
that
they
did
have
some
concerns,
but
they're
not
objecting
to
this
proposal,
and
that
was
supported
by
the
onr
on
the
basis
of
their
standing
advice.
E
So,
yes,
in
terms
of
clarity,
they
did
raise
some
concerns,
but
they're
not
objecting
to
the
proposal,
and
you
know,
subject
to
a
telephone
line
being
in
place
on
a
condition
in
that
regard.
We
considered
the
condition
we
don't
think
it's
necessary
in
planning
terms.
Hence
why
there's
no
condition
in
place
for
it,
but
in
speaking
to
them
again
today,
they
hadn't
raised
any
concerns
following
those
further
discussions.
J
You
chair,
I
just
want
to
move
on
to
page
110,
please
where
the
report
mentions
contaminated
land,
and
I
just
like
clarification.
Okay
is
the
line
contaminated
or
is
it
not
contaminated
because
it
seems
to
be
quite
a
binary
thing
and
to
be
considered
potentially
contaminated
or
not?
I
find
a
bit
wishy-washy,
so
I'd
like
to
try
and
understand
a
little
bit
more
okay
and
to
also
have
a
little
bit
more
clarity.
Is
it
contaminated
or
is
it
not
contaminated?
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you
councillor.
I
think
that
forms
part
of
the
environmental,
health
office's
sort
of
concerns
or
hesitation,
we're
not
sure
at
the
moment.
Hence
their
recommendation
for
conditions
to
find
out
that,
in
their
search
of
the
historic
maps
and
from
their
records,
they
couldn't
see
a
contamination
source
on
the
site,
but
it
can't
be
ruled
out
due
to
the
need
for
underground
work
to
take
place,
so
they
suggested
a
condition
to
seek
if
there
isn't.
E
If
there
is
contamination
and
if
there
is
what
can
be
done
to
correct
it,
to
make
it
acceptable
so
that
they're
quite
content
with
a
condition
for
contamination
and
then
subsequent
verification
on
the
site.
D
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
I
wasn't
on
the
site
visit
on
friday,
but
it's
the
old
chestnut
we
at
the
start.
There
were.
There
were
two
outstanding
comments
from
biodiversity
and
htc
highways.
C
Chair,
I'm
minded
to
refuse
it
on
the
highways
access
issues,
because
that
seems
to
be
a
recurring
theme.
Those
of
us
who
visited
the
site
could
see
it
for
what
it
is.
We've
had
the
ward
councillor
mention
it,
we've
had
residents,
mention
it
in
terms
of
the
highways
authority.
Well,
look
at
it
this
way.
C
Those
of
us
who
know
tadly
hill
when
I
go
down
there
on
a
daily
basis
when
I
go
to
work,
know
how
bunged
up
it
can
get
in
the
morning,
there's
a
school
off
the
top
of
the
hill
there's
a
swimming
pool
at
the
bottom
of
the
hill.
With
a
roundabout,
I
just
think
that
if
we
have
another
couple
of
access
roads,
there
that's
going
to
make
things
even
worse
than
they
are
it
congests
at
the
drop
of
a
hat,
there's
also
acceleration
down
the
hill.
You
know
it's
actually
looking
at
that.
C
When
we're
on
the
site,
I
mean
that
that
to
me
was
was
the
defining
moment
that
looking
at
how
difficult
it
was
to
see
out,
admittedly,
we
were
on
foot,
but
when
you're
on
foot
you
actually
get
better
visibility
than
when
you're
behind
the
wheel
of
a
car.
So
I
would
be
inclined
to
turn
it
round
and
say
that
it's
some
country
to
policy
cn9
and
the
m10
based
on
the.
C
Parking
arrangements
and
visibility
and
highway
safety
and
it
is
a
marginal
thing.
Obviously,
the
the
comments
from
hampshire
highways
don't
help,
but
I
just
can't
help
thinking.
We
would
have
all
sorts
of
problems
not
not
least
with
people
also
parking
on
the
road.
If
there
were
any
issues
trying
to
get
inside
where
the
six
houses
are.
J
Thank
you
chair.
I
am
minded
to
to
second
the
motion
having
lived
in
tadly
for
24
and
a
half
years.
Okay,
it
was
always
this
this
part
of
of
the
a340.
I
I
always
used
to
do
my
utmost
to
avoid
okay
at
at
the
school
times,
I'm
really
torn
on
on
this
okay
application,
but
I'd
I've
come
down
on
the
side
of
of
refusal
on
on
the
grounds
that
council
mccormack
has
has
put
forward
for
his
motion
and
I'm
delighted
to
second
it.
J
However,
reluctantly,
okay,
I
I
will
second
it,
but
you
know
I
know
that
sadly,
needs
houses,
okay
desperately,
but-
and
I
know
we
need
to
challenge
the
the
dep
zed,
okay
and-
and
this
I
I
thought-
could
potentially
be
a
site
where
we
could
do
it,
but
not
with
the
ground
on
the
grounds
of
of
highway
safety,
which
is
the
motion
that's
been
put
forward
for
for
refusal.
So
I'm
reluctantly
with
heavy
heart,
you
know
I
I
agreed
to
second
this,
okay
and
and
second,
the
motion
proposed.
K
S
A
A
I
know
that
piece
of
road
very
well
and
it
will
increase
congestion
on
that
piece
of
road,
but
I
don't
think
it
would
compromise
road
safety.
I
think
somebody
said
earlier:
if
the
traffic
is
going
slower,
it
makes
it
safer
and
there
is
that
point.
So
I
will
take
councillor
freeman
and
then
we
will
go
to
the
vote.
Councillor
freeman
thank.
K
You
the
report
actually
says
that
hc,
the
highways
officer
considers
the
visibility
displays
should
be
provided,
and
it's
considered
that
it
can
be
secured
by
way
of
condition.
It
didn't
say
that
that
that
it
could
be
provided,
it
said
it
should
and
it
needed
a
condition.
So
I
I
I'd
still
support
the
motion.
A
E
Thank
you
chair.
The
application
is
approved
as
an
outlined
for
the
following
reasons
and
on
the
officer's
report
and
the
conditions
listed
at
the
end.
Thank.
T
So
this
is
an
application
at
tadley
hill
and
the
proposal
is
for
the
erection
of
one
dwelling,
which
would
be
positioned
to
the
south
of
existing
property
with
access
obtained
to
its
southern
boundary
along
swedish
houses.
There
is
an
update
on
page
four
of
the
update
paper
to
amend
condition
10..
This
was
to
refer
to
one
single
property
and
its
cartilage
as
opposed
to
properties
and
their
cartilages.
G
All
right,
thank
you
very
much.
Oh
yeah
he's
good.
G
Oh
yeah
yeah
good
evening,
I'm
so
in
terms
of
this
application
and
uncharacteristic.
For
me,
I
don't
really
want
to
say
too
much
other
than
and
the
way
this
has
gone
tonight.
Hampshire,
county
council
highways
point
of
view.
No
objection,
waste
management,
no
objection,
hampshire,
county
council
in
terms
of
the
emergency
planning,
no
objection,
environmental,
health,
I'm
sure
you
can
work
out.
This
is
going
no
objection,
o
r,
no
objection,
biodiversity,
no
objection!
So
in
terms
of
the
way
that
the
officer
has
actually
approached
to
this
application.
G
I
believe
that
the
officer
has
covered
everything
off
the
yeah.
So
again,
it's
a
very
good
report.
Rich
done
a
very
good
job.
It's
covered
everything
there's
the
the
the
one
concern
there
that
people
were
talking
about
is,
is
swedish
houses
and
the
way
that
that
lane
actually
is
there's
only
four
houses
that
are
actually
on
swedish
houses
and
the
host
dwelling
actually
uses
an
existing
access
out
one
to
swedish
housing.
G
So
in
terms
of
trap,
you
know
that
the
trip
generation,
as
was
stated
earlier,
hampshire
county
council,
have
said
it's
not
of
significance
and
no
objection.
So
I
don't
really
know
what
else
I
can
say
other
than
no
objections.
J
Thank
you.
I
just
noticed
on
the
plans
for
for
this
item
that
the
access
is
on
to
sweet
swedish
houses.
As
I
understand
this,
this
is
an
adopted
road.
Okay,
how
do
officers
feel
about
creating
access
onto
what
is
already
an
unadopted
road.
T
A
T
T
Thank
you
chairman.
So
this
is
an
application
atlantic
adjacent
to
cottage
farm,
new
road,
pamber
green.
The
proposal
is
for
the
erection
of
a
single
story.
Three-Bedroom
dwelling
following
demolition
of
the
stable
blocks,
the
dwelling
would
be
cited
fronting
new
road
with
the
parking
area
to
the
front
and
private
guard
into
the
rear.
There's
no
update,
since
the
agenda's
been
prepared
and
the
application
is
recommended
for
approval,
subject
to
conditions
located
at
the
end
of
the
report
on
pages
174
and
177
of
the
agenda.
A
A
Q
You
chair,
sorry
guys
me
again.
Let's
hope
the
familiarity
doesn't
break
contempt,
but
so
what
do
I
have
to
say
on
this
one?
It's
a
pleasant
sight.
It's
on
the
edge
of
the
built-up
area,
far
from
being
isolated,
pamber
green
is
all,
but
in
local
plan
designation
a
settlement,
it's
recently
been
established
plenty
of
planning
commissions,
as
the
as
the
paris
council
has
said,
for
accommodating
new
houses
in
a
sustainable
manner.
Q
Indeed,
there
are
two
approvals
right
next
to
this
site,
just
to
the
west
of
it
where
houses
have
been
approved,
one
through
the
conversion
of
an
outbuilding
and
one
on
the
same
basis
is
this
for
the
replacement
of
stables
under
ssx
previously
developed
land
argument.
Q
Q
A
couple
of
things
for
the
parish
council
I'll
deal
with,
and
the
third
party
objections.
One
is
some
concept
raised
as
it
being
green
space.
This
isn't
a
planning
definition,
local
green
space.
I
suppose
is
that's
in
the
mppf,
but
I
don't
think
bayes
and
stoke
have
any
local
green
space
designation,
certainly
not
in
this
area
that
I'm
aware
of,
moreover,
by
being
previously
developed
land,
it's
obviously
brownfield
land
rather
than
rather
than
greenfield
land.
Q
It's
flood
zone,
one
it's
upstream
of
the
critical
drainage
area
and
therefore
we've
done
the
duly
obliged
flood
risk
assessment.
It
doesn't
suggest
that
there's
any
issue
with
flooding
or
drainage
of
any
any
issue.
The
drainage
on
the
site
has
been
fully
addressed,
and
this
has
been
accepted
on
those
two
sites
I
mentioned
previously
to
the
west
as
well.
Q
This
is
one
dwelling
on
the
highway
taking
on
average,
I'm
going
to
say
what
one
movement
every
few
hours
not
grounds
for
refusing
a
planning
application
in
isolation,
let
alone
in
the
context
of
a
previously
developed
land
which
used
to
have
what
still
does
have
vehicles
and
horse
boxes
etc.
Going
to
it
it's
more
than
capable
of
accommodating
the
site.
Final
point:
the
parish
council
raises
the
the
question
of
local
need.
Q
A
No
thank
you
very
much,
mr
cobble,
and
in
that
case,
questions
to
officers,
counsellor
tomlin.
O
H
Yeah
in
the
public
observations,
obviously
there's
57
letters
of
objection,
which
is
quite
considerable
but
bullet
point
three
says
the
land
is
dangerous
for
the
pedestrians
and
cyclists.
Could
you
just
clarify
why
it
is
dangerous.
T
I
think
that's
referring
to
no
street
lighting
or
pavements,
but
that's
not
uncommon.
For
rural
areas
like
this,
a
new
housing
has
been
approved
down
the
road,
particularly
namely
next
door
to
the
site.
So
I
think
that's
what
they're
referring
to.
A
A
T
Thank
you,
and
so
the
application
is
approved
as
per
the
as
per
the
agenda.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you
chair
item
number
five,
which
can
be
found
on
page
184
of
tonight's
agenda
is
a
full
application
for
the
change
of
use
of
an
existing
building
from
public
house,
restaurant
and
residential
accommodation
to
two
number
dwellings:
a
direction
of
a
single
story,
rear
extension
to
replace
the
existing
associated
internal
alterations,
car
parking
and
landscaping.
E
A
Good
evening,
councillor
buckley,
you
have
four
minutes,
we'll
warn
you
when
you
have
one
minute
remaining
and
the
microphone
button
is
on
the
deck
in
front
of
you.
You
found
it.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
U
They
stated
their
scheme
developed
with
beijing's
death
planners,
protects
and
secures
the
future
of
a
red
house.
As
a
listed
building,
a
community
asset
and
a
business
permission
was
granted,
the
houses
were
built
and
sold.
So
what
changed
promises
were
not
kept
deterioration
set
in
creating
quite
a
lot
of
local
anger.
U
U
U
U
This
goes
about
goes
against
gd8,
which
highlights
the
importance
of
increasing
prosperity
by
encouraging
tourism,
particularly
in
rural
areas
and
gd5,
which
refers
to
the
importance
of
retaining
economic,
vibrancy
and
vitality
for
the
town
centre.
You
have
one
minute
remaining.
There
has
been
limited
marketing
and
offers
refused.
U
U
A
C
So
would
it
be
fair
to
say,
having
visited
the
pub
in
the
viewing
that
considerable
notwithstanding
this
holistic
building,
considerable
investment
is
required
in
this
building,
but
that
there
is
a
community
needs
demand
for
it.
So
it
could
be
a
viable
prospect
going
forward,
and
on
that
note,
what
would
what
would
you
like
to
see
this
building
being
used
for
in
the
future.
U
Would
say
that,
yes,
there
is
a
need
for
it,
and
it
was
certainly
a
wish
for
it
from
the
nearly
400
objections
that
went
in.
I
do
believe
it
would
take
considerable
investment.
U
There
are
other
public
houses
that
have
been
in
reasonably
similar
situations
that
have
been
developed
in
different
ways
that
have
incorporated
different
uses.
Mixed
uses
and
the
like
every
example
of
perhaps
retaining
a
small
licensed
area,
a
retail
area
and
accommodation.
W
W
W
W
W
An
approval
of
this
planning
would
rob
the
town
of
a
much-needed
community
asset
am
pleased
that
the
planning
officer
agrees
that
the
applicant
has
not
demonstrated
that
the
facility
is
no
longer
needed.
It
clearly
is
now
regarding
viability.
It
is
here
where
the
applicant
has
had
a
u-turn
on
previous
planning
claims.
W
W
I
also
note
that
the
pub
did
not
close
due
to
unviability
trade
was
not
lost.
It
was
halted.
The
applicant's
final
facebook
statement
in
october
2018
said
the
main
reason.
The
pub
closed
temporarily
was
due
to
the
necessary
refurbishment.
Work
on
the
toilets
and
kitchen
any
claim
by
the
applicant
of
unviability
is,
after
the
fact
and
disingenuous,
and
a
disingenuous
trick
to
support
their
planning
application.
W
W
on
to
the
overage
clause
not
mentioned
in
the
planning
application
or
in
the
florets
report.
The
applicant
relatedly
admitted
to
this
clause
stating
that
if
they
intended
to
run
a
successful
community
pub,
then
an
overage
clause
would
not
have
mattered.
This
is
deliberately
misleading
and
ignores
the
circumstances.
W
W
W
C
Thank
you
chair,
so
you
mentioned
that
there's
three
houses
that
were
built
on
the
site,
part
of
the
cub
parker
and
when
we
went
there,
london
road
obviously
is
hideously
afflicted
with
parking
issues.
So
how?
C
How
is
a
pub
going
to
operate
if
it
has
a
very
limited
parking
in
an
area
that
has
parking
problems?
Would
you
expect
people
to
be
walking
to
and
from
the
pub
and
hardly
anybody
driving
there,
because
I
think
that
would
be
a
really
key
consideration
in
terms
of
it
continuing
as
a
pub.
W
So
when
the
community
were
looking
to
purchase
the
pub,
we
had
a
lot
of
conversations
with
the
owner,
even
with
the
houses
being
built
on
the
current
piece
of
land,
there's
still
15
spaces
remaining
for
the
pub
which
is
actually
considered
bigger
than
any
other
pub
in
town.
Most
of
the
other
parts
in
town
have
actually
taken
over
their
outside
space
through
kovids
and
now
use
it
as
kind
of
hospitality
areas.
W
So
I
think
the
white
heart
now
only
has
five
spaces,
so
it
will
still
have
by
far
the
biggest
parking
of
any
pub
in
town
and
actually
it
used
to
operate
fine
as
a
pub
and
and
it
didn't
have
any
issues
on
the
local
area.
So
I
don't
see
why
that
would
be
an
issue.
O
Tomlin,
thank
you
chair
good
evening,
so
if
we
tonight
did
refuse
this
application,
what
do
you
think
the
community
could
do
to
make
it
happen?
Because
I
guess
the
applicant
is
not
going
to
just
carry
on
and
put
it
back
as
a
pub.
So
what
what
plans
is
it?
Is
it
realistic
that
the
community
could
come
to
its
rescue.
W
So
we
had
a
full
business
plan
in
play
and
the
offer
was
genuine
when
we
put
it
through.
It
was
rejected
on
the
basis
of
it
being
below
asking
price
we
later
found
out
about
the
average
clause
which
also
derailed
us
on
another
area.
W
The
community
is
still
much
behind
the
pub
and
there's
an
awful
awful
appetite
in
town
to
make
sure
we
can
save
it
if
the
property
was
to
come
back
on
the
market,
an
asking
price
that
was
near
the
350
000
mark
that
we
offered,
which
we
think
is
reasonable.
In
fact,
it's
deteriorated
as
a
property
far
more
in
the
last
two
years,
and
the
overage
clause
was
not
a
thing,
then
absolutely
the
community
buyer
could
still
be
an
option.
W
I
also
note
fellow
councillors
will
be
speaking
later,
but
there
has
been
renewed
interest
in
town
from
from
two
other
very
credible
local
businessmen
seeking
to
potentially
move
in
to
buy,
buy
the
property,
and
so
there
are
other
options
on
there.
It
hasn't
been
on
the
market
for
a
long
time.
I
I'm
going
to
ask
in
terms
of
the
community
asset
and
the
value
element
to
it.
Why
is
this
so
important
to
the
community
in
which
church?
What
is
it
about
this
book?
You
have
all
the
choices.
Obviously,
but
what
is
it
about
the
red
house
that
has
just
generated
this
level
of
interest
in
the
community.
W
I
think
there's
two
things
here:
I
moved
to
which
church
about
15
years
ago
and
there
were
like
seven
pubs
when
I
moved
there
in
the
centre
of
town
alone,
and
there
were
far
more
before
that
they
seem
to
be
dwindling
all
the
time
we
have
a
very
limited
now
amount
of
pubs
compared
to
local,
local
villages
and
towns
nearby,
and
I
think
the
red
house,
particularly
it,
has
heritage.
It
was
much
much
loved
by
many
people,
because
it's
quirky
it's
different.
W
It
had
an
awful
lot
of
people
that
considered
it
as
their
local
and
it's
been
missed
ever
since,
and
I
just
don't
think
that
we
have
other
pubs
in
town
they're,
all
doing
really
well
they're
thriving
you
can't
get
into
them
on
some
of
them
on
a
friday
night.
There's
plenty
of
room
for
the
red
house
to
exist
and
people
would
welcome.
It
back
is
one
of
our
kind
of
flagship
establishments
in
in
the
town.
It's
really
missed.
A
A
W
I
wouldn't
like
to
speak
for
all
of
the
pubs
in
town.
I
do
know
that
I
forgot
the
pubs
a
lot
and
they
are
busy
on
most
nights
of
the
week.
Obviously
it's
slightly
quieter
on
the
monday
tuesdays
as
you
would
expect,
but
the
pubs
and
the
establishments
in
town
are
busy
as
to
why
the
other
pubs
closed.
Each
pub
has
a
different
story.
It'd
be
wrong
for
me
to
to
make
an
assumption
that
it's
because
of
one
thing
or
another,
one
of
the
railway.
W
You
know
we
would
have
very
different
reasons
for
closure
to
the
harvest.
Home
was
the
other
end
of
town.
The
pubs
were
spread
all
over.
I
don't
think
that's
any
indication
of
pubs
not
being
viable
at
all.
W
So
the
the
railway
in
is
now
housing
at
the
harvest.
Time
is
now
housing,
I'll,
try
and
think
of
the
pubs
before
that
but
closed,
I
don't
think
those
are.
Those
are
the
two
that
are
primarily
whispering
to
mind
and
yeah.
They
both
both
were
turned
into
small
housing
developments.
X
Okay,
I'm
going
to
do
the
initial
presentation,
but
gary
is
here
as
the
applicant
to
answer
any
questions
if
needed,
applicants
agent,
sorry
to
answer
any
questions,
but
really
what
I
just
want
to
summarize
is
my
first
involvement
in
this
property
was
actually
in
2014
and
we
subsequently
applied
for
the
planning
application
for
the
three
houses
in
2016
which
and
got
sorry
got
the
planning
permission
for
those
in
2016,
and
it
was
absolutely
fully
the
intention
of
the
applicant
at
that
time
to
reinvest
any
money
raised
from
that
development
back
into
the
pub.
X
The
pub
closed
in
october
2018
and
subsequently
there
was
over
two
years
of
marketing.
That
is
over
four
times
the
requirement
that
the
council's
guidance
note
has,
and
we
subsequently
took
an
instruction
that
actually
the
marketing
had
failed.
Floret
said
we
cannot
continue
to
market
it.
It
just
makes
us
look
bad.
We
know
we're
never
going
to
be
able
to
sell
it.
We
need
to
stop
and
you
need
to
do
something
else.
We
made
a
pre-application
request
in
march
21
and
finally
made
the
application
for
this
scheme
in
20
november
21..
X
The
applicant
always
intended
to
run
the
building
as
a
pub
that's
what
they
purchased
it
for
they've
taken
many
years
trying
to
to
make
it
work,
and
they
have
not
deliberately
run
it
into
the
ground.
There's
a
lack
of
local
support.
If
there
was
truly
local
support,
they
would
have
been
spending
money
in
that
pub
and
they
weren't
the
ownership
details
and
the
change
of
situation
and
finances
over
the
time
has
all
been
transparently
provided.
X
The
previous
speaker
made
reference
to
a
spurious
interest
of
one
person
we're
aware
of
that
has
suggested
they
might
want
to
buy
an
opener
butcher's
shop,
but
that's
not
a
pub.
That's
not
going
to
return
it
to
a
pub
and
we've
got
no
suggestion
that
that's
actually
a
serious
interest.
It's
just
something!
That's
come
up
to
try
and
derail
this
application.
X
We
really
just
want
to
say
to
you:
what
do
you
actually
want
to
happen
to
this
building?
It
was
originally
built
as
two
houses
we're
proposing
a
sympathetic
conversion.
The
only
opportunity
we
can
see
to
secure
the
optimum
viable
use
of
the
building,
going
forward
to
protect
its
heritage,
to
protect
its
status
as
a
list
building
and
ensure
that
it
is
maintained
and
protected
in
the
future.
X
We've
got
conditions
in
place
to
secure
a
schedule
of
works,
as
was
requested
by
a
councillor
earlier.
All
of
the
conditions
on
the
planning
permission.
X
Cover
all
of
the
things
that
are
required.
This
was
a
community
asset,
but
it
was
neglected
by
the
community
which
led
to
its
decline.
The
asset
community
value
listing
has
expired.
We
fulfilled
all
of
the
requirements
of
that
and
it
did
not
result
in
any
actual
precedable
interest
from
any
purchaser.
X
A
A
Z
I'll
answer
that
question
I
spoke
to
rupert
on
the
monday
and
that's
the
first
contact
that
I've
had
from
him.
He
states
that
he
tried
to
make
contact
with
me
previously,
but
that
was
not
the
case
as
far
as
I'm
aware,
and
he
was
very
vague
about
his
intentions.
He
said
he
was
looking
at
it
as
a
to
compliment
his
butchery
shop
that
he's
that
he
has.
Z
Z
I
gave
him
the
option
to
come
and
look
at
the
building
for
himself
on
today,
because
I
was
actually
away
monday
and
tuesday.
I
wasn't
in
whit
church
and
he
declined
that
offer
to
come
and
view
the
building.
So
he
could
get
us
because
he
he
said
he
couldn't
confirm
to
me
that
he
had
an
interest
in
it
without
doing
more
investigation,
and
I
said
well,
the
first
thing
you
need
to
do
is
to
come
in
and
have
a
look
at
the
building
and
he
declined
that
offer
on
the
basis.
Z
He
was
too
busy
today
because
he
had
a
planning
officer
coming
to
see
him
about
something
he
was
doing.
I'm
also
aware
that
planning
officer
attended
his
premises
yesterday
as
it
happens,
but
so
I
honestly
don't
know.
A
Okay,
thank
you
yeah.
I
was
there
with
the
planning
officer
yesterday,
anyway,
any
other
any
questions
from
anybody
else.
I
I
There's
the
exact
country
position
to
the
very
words
you
just
use
and
how
could
the
community
have
neglected
the
building?
Well,
it's
not
theirs
in
the
first
place
because
you
won't
sell
it
to
them.
So
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
the
context
of
the
words
you've
used
in
your
representation
to
us
this
evening,
I'll.
Z
Answer
that
your
counselor,
the
the
the
whole
of
my
last
13
years,
involvement
with
the
red
house
has
been.
Z
A
trial
of
tribulations
and
we
engaged
with
the
community
group
in
great
detail-
I
opened
the
doors
to
them.
I
gave
them
every
piece
of
information.
I
encouraged
them
to
try
and
buy
the
premises,
because
what
the
overage
clause
that
they
speak
about
was
actually
a
standard
overage
that
I
said
we
would
put
on
any
sale
to
anybody,
because
it
was
a
an
uplift
of
90
percent
of
the
of
any
increase
in
value.
Z
Z
However,
they
came
to
us
after
a
period
of
complete
quietness,
with
an
unexpected
out
of
the
blue
letter
that
arrived
on
the
last
day
of
the
acv
monetarium
period,
making
an
offer
of
350
000
pounds.
Z
Z
Z
They
also
told
us
that
they
couldn't
raise
the
money
to
do
the
full
building
survey
that
they
needed
to
do
to
be
able
to
take
the
next
step
forward
with
their
offer,
and
I
did
everything
I
could
to
try
to
facilitate
it.
For
them.
We
haven't
run
the
building
down
we.
Why
would
anybody
do
that?
We
we've
lost
a
fortune
myself
and
various
other
investors
over
the
time
in
the
red
house,
and
if
it
had
been
a
viable
business,
it
would
still
be
there
and-
and
it
just
failed.
X
I
think
it's
also
worth
bearing
in
mind
the
the
bruton
knowles
report,
which
has
been
commissioned
by
the
planning
department
to
test
all
of
the
evidence
that
we've
provided.
We've
provided
extensive
information
about
every
aspect
of
the
business
and
the
history
of
it,
and
that
report
has
done
its
own
independent
assessment
completely
outside
anything.
We've
we've
had
any
control
over
and
concluded
that
they
agree
with
everything
that
we've
said
that
there
is
no
future
for
this
building.
X
As
a
pub
they've
test
tested
the
sort
of
financial
viability
of
the
business
model,
the
the
opportunities
and
they've
agreed
that
actually,
its
future
is
in
an
alternative
use.
A
A
You
have
four
minutes
each.
So
what
we'll
do
we'll
do
the
speaking
one
at
a
time
and
then
we'll
do
all
the
questions,
if
that's
all
right
with
all
the
questions
collectively
at
the
end,
so,
council
williams,
you
have
four
minutes
I'll,
warn
you
when
you
have
one
minute
remaining.
AB
AB
The
church
has
delivered
houses
through
the
current
local
plan
distributed
distributed
through
the
neighborhood
plan
process
is
going
to
be
allocated
possibly
310
more
through
the
next
local
plan
and
even
more
if
speculative
developers
have
their
way
but
as
which
population
is
has
and
will
grow.
What
it
has
to
offer
has
not
increased
and
will
be
further
diminished
should
we
lose
this
valuable
public
house
and
community
asset.
AB
This
is
contrary
to
based
on
dean
policy
em3,
which
states
that
any
development
that
would
harm
the
vitality
and
viability
of
such
a
defined
center
will
not
be
permitted
nationally.
Mppf
paragraph
84d
states
that
decision
makers
should
prioritize
the
retention,
development
of
access,
accessible
local
services
and
facilities.
AB
Council
john
buckley,
here
tonight
from
wichita
town
council,
has
detailed
contradictions
to
the
church
neighborhood
plan
policies.
However,
there
seems
little
point
in
trusting
presidents
to
shape
their
own
community
with
neighborhood
plans
and
their
policies.
If
these
policies
and
the
aforementioned
local
plan
policies
are
ignored,
much
has
been
made
of
the
economic
viability
of
the
business,
which
has
also
been
covered
by
others
and
will
be
in
more
detail
tonight.
AB
However,
the
community
never
left
the
support.
The
pope
didn't
give
the
support
to
the
community
decor
and
maintenance
deteriorated
over
time,
which
deterred
customer
footfall
once
the
business
closed
voluntarily
long
before
covert
hit.
I
assume
the
business
will
benefit
from
covert
support
measures,
especially
in
terms
of
rates
relief.
AB
A
Thank
you
who
wants
to
go
second.
AC
Thank
you,
I'm
going
to
start
by
picking
up
on
a
couple
of
points
that
the
applicant
made
just
now.
He
mentioned
a
condition
that
was
made
by
the
community
group
to
make
good
some
repairs.
That
was
actually
I
understand
a
condition
of
when
the
three
houses
were
given
permission.
It
wasn't
a
new
condition.
AC
The
applicant
also
mentioned
that
the
community
group
did
not
could
not
afford
a
survey.
They
actually
acquired
a
full
rick
survey.
It
was
the
overage
clause
which
made
any
offer
impossible
for
them
to
deliver.
I
don't
believe
the
applicant
saying
that
the
overage
clause
was
to
ensure
the
red
house
remained
as
a
pub.
The
applicant
told
me
himself
last
week
that
if
anyone
was
going
to
make
money
at
building
the
houses,
it
would
be
him.
AC
Last
friday
night
I
spent
the
evening
in
the
king's
arms
in
which
church
it
was
really
busy.
On
saturday
night
I
couldn't
get
into
the
new
bistro
909
because
it
was
full.
So
I
had
a
drink
in
the
bell,
which
was
very
lively
before
being
squeezed
into
the
blue
ginger
for
a
curry,
lots
of
people
are
out
in
large
groups
and
couples.
We
made
it
back
to
909
for
a
couple
of
cocktails
after
that,
but
had
to
sit
upstairs
because
downstairs
was
fully
was
full.
AC
My
point
is
that
there
is
a
very
active
social
scene
in
which
church
it
just
requires
those
businesses
to
be
sensible,
innovative
and
community
minded
our
population
has
grown
and
continues
to
do
so.
Therefore,
in
terms
of
policy
cn7,
I
know
that
the
red
house
is
needed
as
a
pub.
Almost
400
objections
should
also
indicate
the
committee
that
we
want
the
red
house
as
a
pub,
not
dwellings.
At
a
time
when
the
local
plan
update
will
see
a
minimum
of
310
houses
being
developed
for
whitchurch.
AC
AC
The
officer
has
therefore
relied
on
the
third
part
of
cn7
as
justification
for
the
recommendation.
That
is,
that
the
red
house
pub
is
no
longer
longer
practical,
desirable
or
viable
to
retain
it's
clear.
The
applicant
does
not
have
the
desire
to
run
a
pub,
and
it
was
evident
that
the
applicant
did
not
find
it
practical
to
run
a
pub,
but
I
know
that
there
is
genuine
desire
for
the
community
to
run
a
pub.
I
also
believe
there
to
be
credible
interest
from
individuals
in
which
to
acquire
a
pub.
AC
We've
also
heard
we've
already
heard
about
the
the
first
individual
that
was
discussed
just
now,
but
very
crucially.
On
monday
this
week,
two
days
ago,
I
received
a
call
from
a
different
resident
entirely
with
very
genuine
interest
in
buying
the
pub
and
leasing
it
back
to
the
community
on
a
peppercorn
basis.
AC
AC
AC
On
this
report
has
led
to
an
error
in
judgment,
it's
clear
that
the
author
has
not
conducted
any
research
on
the
number
of
households
in
which
church
now
nor
the
projected
number
I
visited
the
red
house
last
week
and
was
saddened
by
the
state
of
it
surprised
that
the
owner
had
let
it
fall
into
such
a
state
when
their
intention
is
to
profit
from
it.
Nppf
paragraph
196
states
that
where
there
is
evidence
of
deliberate
neglect
or
damage
to
a
heritage
asset,
the
deteriorated
state
of
the
asset
should
not
be
taken
into
account.
AC
Policy
cn7
is
to
support
proposals
which
provide
and
improve
essential
services,
whilst
also
protect
protecting
essential
services
from
redevelopment
or
change
of
use.
If
the
committee
approved
these
plans
tonight,
then
we
will
have
lost
the
opportunity
forever
in
concentrating
on
cn7
the
evidence
and
the
the
act
the
officer
has
over
has
ignored
the
evident
breaches
of
cn8
one
man's
failure
to
run
a
business
should
not
ruin
a
400
year
old
pub.
Thank
you.
AA
First,
I
apologize
if
I
repeat
and
reinforce
points
that
have
been
made,
but
I
think
it
is
important
to
drive
things
home
because,
when
you're
listening
to
people
speaking,
you
don't
always
take
on
the
same
points
which
has
a
designated
town
center
in
our
local
plan
and
that
should
afford
the
community
some
protection
for
important
amenities,
such
as
our
pubs.
We
say
that
this
application
is
then
desired
by
the
applicant,
who
has
manipulated
the
planning
process.
Any
sense
of
justice
should
offer
protection
to
a
much
wanted
asset
in
our
community.
AA
The
integrity
of
the
amenities
in
our
town
center
are
vital
for
this
successful
vibrancy
of
the
town.
If
the
owners
of
the
red
house
chose
to
sell
the
pod,
they
pass
on
the
responsibility
for
its
success
to
someone
else,
but
they
instead
have
been
clever
in
the
way
the
planning
system
is
being
used
to
facilitate
the
threat
we
face
with
this
application.
AA
It
is
a
great
shame
that
doubts
about
the
integrity
of
the
longer
term
intentions
were
not
formally
raised
and
greater
commercial
scrutiny
taken
when
plans
were
submitted
to
develop
the
car
park
area
for
three
dwellings.
The
planning,
access
and
design
statement
for
that
application
said
the
aims
of
the
overall
scheme
are
securing
the
future
viability.
The
public
has,
as
a
community
asset,
a
heritage
asset
and
as
a
business.
The
planning,
design
and
access
statement
also
fails
to
mention
the
input
impulses
imposition
of
the
50
over
its
clause,
of
which
we've
spoken
about.
AA
Therefore,
the
marketing
exercise
has
been
fundamentally
undermined
by
the
approach
taken
by
the
applicants
and
therefore
we
say
it
doesn't
meet
policy.
The
lack
of
attention
maintenance
in
the
run-up
to
the
closure
and
since
the
closure
is
tantamount
to
deliberate
neglect
in
line
with
196
mppf
principles,
the
deteriorated
state
of
this
heritage
asset
should
not
be
taken
into
account.
AA
Government
policy
has
been
designed
to
help
save
pubs
like
the
red
house.
The
red
house
is
needed
and
supported
as
a
pub
and
such
a
grand
swell
of
local
support
from
the
community
in
letters
of
rejection
speaks
to
the
fact
that
people
want
the
red
house
retained.
Indeed,
it
was
recognized
by
the
borough
and
as
an
asset
of
community
value,
with
support
of
which
georgetown
council
confirming
its
importance
to
the
town.
AA
AA
The
red
house
is
a
grade
two
listed
17th
century
timber
frame,
building
prominent
on
london
street
and
in
the
conservation
area
it
is
vital
to
the
town's
social
and
economic
community
policy.
Cn7
should
be
used
to
resist
the
loss
of
such
a
key
community
asset.
The
planning
officer
agrees
in
their
report
that
critical
elements
of
policy
cn
seven
are
not
met,
but
then
confusingly
based
on
a
purely
death
report
by
bhutan
knowles.
AA
Knowles
are
unable
to
pinpoint
the
cause
of
the
downturn
in
revenues,
yet
the
community
know
it
was
due
to
the
consistently
poor
management
policy.
Em
11
states
that
all
development
must
conserve
or
enhance
the
quality
of
the
borough's
heritage
assets
in
the
manner
appropriate
to
their
significance.
AA
This
application
doesn't
do
clearly
doesn't
do
that,
and
the
historic
environment
officer
agrees.
Officers
say
that
the
public
benefits
of
the
scheme
outweigh
the
harm
done.
We
say
that
the
harm
done
by
this
application
directly
impacts
the
public
benefits
of
retaining
the
plum
members.
Please
support
our
community
help
us
to
retain
the
future
of
the
red
house
of
the
pub
reject
this
application.
A
H
Thank
you
chair.
My
question
is
to
councillor
ashfield
you've
mentioned
this
clause
which
stopped
the
purchase
last
time.
Could
you
could
you
give
more
details
on
that
on
why
it
stopped
the
purchase.
AC
Perhaps
would
be
a
better
question.
It
perhaps
would
have
been
a
better
question
for
the
applicant.
I
understand
it's
a
clause,
a
covenant
that
suggests
that,
if,
if
somebody
was
to
buy
the
pub
and
run
it
as
a
pub
for
a
certain
amount
of
time,
and
then
it
got
permission
to
turn
into
houses
that
that
that
the
applicant
would
then
receive
and
receive
the
the
sort
of
difference
in
the
in
the
market
value,
obviously
that
makes
it
almost
impossible
to
get
a
mortgage
on
that
kind
of
basis
making
it.
O
Thank
you,
this
one's
for
councillor,
ashfield,
you
were
saying
how
busy
quit
church
is
was
or
the
other
night.
O
The
bk
report
that
we've
got
in
front
of
us
makes
this
model,
which
is
based
saying
that
whoever
takes
it
on
has
got
to
look
at
six
hundred
thousand
pounds
a
year
turnover
of
what
appears
to
be
a
five
day
week
like
crude
mouths.
At
five
pounds
of
drink,
say
500
drinks
a
night,
so
everybody
has
a
couple
of
drinks.
Would
you
say
the
pubs?
You
went
to
had
250
people
in
them
all
night
long
I
mean.
Is
there
that
demand?
That's.
AC
I
mean
one
thing
I'll
say
about
the
brute
and
knowledge
report
is
it
was.
It
was
written
by
somebody
that
never
went
to
a
church
and
didn't
look
at
the
building
and
certainly
wasn't
out
where
I
was
on
friday.
Night
doesn't
spend
their
money
in
which
church,
but
this
isn't
just
about
wet
sales.
The
red
house
has
always
been
very
well
known
for
for
the
food
it
sells
as
well,
and
that's
always
been
a
really
prominent
part
in
the
past
of
its
of
its
business.
J
Thank
you
chair.
Just
a
quick
question
to
officers
on
page
209.
It
says
that
the
inclusion
of
the
red
house
on
the
list
of
community
valued
assets
does
not
itself
preclude
the
development
of
the
site.
It
is
nevertheless
a
material
consideration
that
is
to
be
taken
into
account.
J
Okay,
together
with
all
of
the
I'm
just
wondering
how
much
weight
should
we,
as
councillors,
give
okay
to
the
fact
that
the
red
house
is
a
listed
community
value
asset.
E
Thank
you
counselor.
Yes,
it's
certainly
of
weight
in
the
decision-making
process,
but
it
needs
to
be
weighed
up
against
the
other
local
plan
policies
not
to
be
cm7.
E
I
think
there's
been
extensive
work
done
by
the
officer
on
the
report
to
try
and
summarize
the
findings
of
that,
and
the
retention
of
the
community
asset
is
one
of
those
considerations
that
need
to
be
put
into
that
balance.
So,
yes,
I
think
weight
can
be
attributed
to
that
feature,
but,
as
the
officer
has
suggested,
it's
not
sufficient
to
outweigh
the
other
considerations
that
have
been
laid
for.
You.
J
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
that
reply.
It
almost
answered
the
question.
I
I'm
just
a
bit
confused
how
much
weight
should
we
give
to
the
fact
that
this
is
a
community
listed
community
value
asset?
Is
it
significant?
L
Coach
dad
to
the
answer,
the
phil
gates
and
in
terms
of
policy
cn7
in
particular,
it's
broken
up
into
three
parts:
the
a
b
and
c
criteria.
They
are
all
divided
into
ores,
so
you
only
need
to
meet
one
of
them.
Probably
the
most
applicable
part
to
an
asset
of
community
value
is
part.
L
A
which
is
the
service
or
facility
is
no
longer
needed,
and
the
conclusion
of
officers
is
that
that
part
isn't
met,
so
it
remains
an
asset
of
community
value
and
it
remains
to
be
needed
and
so
part
a
is
not
met,
but
the
policy
is
worded
that
only
one
of
those
three
parts,
a
b
or
c
needs
to
be
met.
Each
one
has
ore
after
it.
L
The
third
part
is
the
proposal.
So
c
is
the
proposals
will
provide
sufficient
community
benefits,
outweigh
the
loss
of
the
existing
facility
or
service
meeting
evidence
of
a
local
need,
and
again
it's
not
put
forward
on
that
basis
by
the
applicant
and
officers.
Don't
conclude
that
the
proposal
complies
with
that
part,
so.
E
L
The
asset
community
value
really
comes
down
to
a,
I
think
in
terms
of
the
service
or
facility
no
longer
being
needed,
but
the
officer's
conclusion
is
that
a
and
c
are
not
met,
but
that
b
is
so.
It
may
be
an
asset
of
community
value.
It
may
still
be
needed
by
the
community.
It
is
still
needed
by
the
community
by
the
representations
but
the
office
of
conclusion
in
terms
of
b,
which
in
itself
is
then
broken
down
into
parts.
L
It's
no
longer
practical,
which
the
officer
report
goes
into
in
in
detail,
concluding
that
there's
not
evidence
of
it
not
being
practical,
but
it's
the
desirable
or
viable
part
that
officers
conclude
that
the
proposal
does
meet
in
terms
of
policy
by
virtue
of
the
two-year
marketing
exercise
and
by
virtue
of
the
amount
of
turnover
that
would
be
required
for
the
property
include
and
in
addition
to
that,
the
amount
of
investment
would
be
required
in
the
pub
the
proposed
result
isn't
concluded
to
be
desirable
or
viable.
L
So
coming
all
the
way
back
to
your
question
is
the
asset
of
community
value
of
material
weight
in
the
assessment?
Yes,
it
is,
but
it
is
in
terms
of
part,
a
I
would
suggest,
rather
than
part
b,
which
is
the
part
that
officers
conclude
that
the
proposal
meets
in
policy
terms
and
only
needs
to
meet
one
of
those
three
parts.
A
Thank
you
craig.
I
don't
see
any
other
hands
up
so
greg
on
the
bottom
of
that
policy.
L
That's
okay!
Thank
you
for
that
chair.
My
reading
of
that
paragraph
is
that
that
relates
to
proposals
that
are
put
forward
by
the
local
community
for
proposals
for
the
reuse
of
essential
facilities
and
services.
L
So
if
it
was
a
proposal
that
if
the
community
had
purchased
the
public
house
and
we're
then
coming
forward
with
a
proposal
to
develop
it
or
if
there
was
a
proposal
for
a
new
shop
or
something
coming
along
that
would
be
considered
and
would
be
processed
and
cons
in
the
consideration
or
application
working
with
then
the
community
on
their
proposal.
J
Thank
you
chair.
I
I'm
still
going
back
to
this.
This
weight:
okay
under
cn7,
okay
and
I'd
like
to
ask
a
question
on
the
viability
aspect:
okay
and
the
fact
that
the
owner
puts
in
a
clause
like
the
overreach
cause
which,
if
it's
as
horrific
and
onerous
as
as
we've
heard
today,
okay,
does
that:
how
can
that
negate
the
viability
okay
of
of
the
community
value
asset
and
if
it
does
not
okay
and
negate
the
community
asset
value?
Okay?
How
much
more
waiting
should
we
give
to
this
issue?.
L
J
Sorry,
chad,
just
just
one
supplementary
and
then
then
I'll,
let
it
go
but
but
surely
if
the
if
the
owner
of
the
property
okay
is,
is,
is
demanding
such
an
onerous
clause
as
to
make
you
know
the
sell
selling
of
the
the
community
the
listed
community
asset-
okay
unviable.
J
L
They're
just
taking
advice
from
legal
colleagues,
the
average
clause
comes
under
property
law,
as
opposed
to
planning
law
is,
is
the
legal
advice
there,
but
there
is
some
discussion
in
the
report
around
overage
clause
on
page
214,
but
in
essence
the
offer
that
was
made
was
350
000
just
trying
to
find
the
relevant
page.
Now,
whether
that's
discussed
for
you.
L
So
the
offer
that
was
performed
was
for
350,
000
so
and,
and
that
offer
then
wasn't.
The
report
follows
through
that
that
offer
wasn't
then
backed
with
the
financial
backing
at
the
time.
Although
we've
had
that,
if
that
would
have
been
the
intention
to
to
raise
those
funds,
so
yeah
the
overage
clause,
isn't
it's
a
matter
of
property
law
rather
than
planning
law?
L
The
offer
that
was
made
was
350
000,
which
is
the
time
was
considerably
below
what
the
property
was
valued
at
and
in
addition
to
that
was
another
time
supported
by
by
the
financial
backing.
So
that
was
the
reason
set
out
in
the
report
page
209
that
it
was
turned
down.
J
Thank
you,
chad.
I'm
sorry,
I
know
I
said
I'd,
let
it
go,
but
I
I
just
have
one
more
okay
and
and
that's
but
surely
the
fact
that
you
know
the
overreach
clause,
is
property
law
really
doesn't
doesn't
matter?
The
fact
is
that
that
overreach
clause
has
a
direct
impact
on
the
viability.
Okay.
Surely
you
know
that
that
has
some
some
waiting
which
we
we
should
consider
or
take
you
into
in
into
mind.
L
Yeah,
I
wouldn't
go
into
it
in
in
more
detail
other
than
I
said
it's
rather
than
a
planning
matter.
It's
a
property
matter.
We
did
hear
that
it
would
have
only
applied
if
the
onward
sale
was
to
do
with
residential.
So
it's
only
been
ninety
percent
of
uplift,
but
then
I'm
straight
into
talking
about
the
property
side.
The
fact
is,
the
offer
was
for
350
000
that
was
below
the
the
amount
that
it
was
valued
at
or
what
was
marketed
at
at
the
time
and
it
wasn't
backed
by
financial
backing.
O
There's
another
question
of
weights:
we
can
offer
like
the
which
hurts
neighborhood
development
policy
or
plan
they've
got
policy.
Is
it
gd8
specifically
highlighting
the
importance
of
increasing
prosperity
by
encouraging
rural
tourism
and
then
policy
gd5,
retaining
economic,
vibrancy
and
vitality
for
the
town
centre?
So
they're
quite
key
in
terms
of
this
as
a
facility,
whether
it's
community
or
not?
So
what
sort
of
weight
can
we
put
there
that?
O
L
I
think,
whilst
phil's
just
hanging
up
the
policy
gt5
and
gd8,
if
I
just
draw
your
attention
to,
it,
might
be
worth
coming.
A
quick
look
at
page
211
and
in
particular
the
penultimate
paragraph,
which
talks
about
policy
gd6,
which
seeks
to
protect
the
redevelopment
of
land
and
buildings
for
uses
that
support
town
centres.
L
The
the
poll
of
that
policy
in
terms
of
trying
to
talk
about
retaining
the
town
center
viability,
talks
about
properties
that
are
within
the
town
center,
as
identified
within
the
area
map
which
is
part
of
the
beijing
stoke
and
dean
local
plan
policies
map
and
confirms
that
this,
the
application
is
actually
located
outside
of
that
area
and
the
policy
gd6
isn't
relevant.
In
that
respect,
I
think
policy
gt5
and
gd8
that
were
mentioned
also
talk
about
the
town,
in
particular,.
L
So
yeah
gd
five
is
talking
about
properties
that
encourage
tourism
and
redevelopments
that
bring
as
like
gda
redevelopments
that
bring
visitors
to
the
town
and
we'll.
Obviously,
the
proposal
is
not
a
proposal
for
tourism,
it's
the
opposite
to
that.
It's
proposal
for
residential.
So
I
presume
that
you
you're
making
a
point
that
that
you
could
take
an
inverse
view
of
that
that
it
would
be
taking
tourism
away
from
from
from
the
town.
That
is
a
conclusion
that
could
be
reached,
but
we
come
back.
L
I
think
it's
policy
cn7
and
part
b
in
terms
of
that
desirability
and
viability
to
retain
it
as
an
ongoing
demand
and
the
pub
being
closed
for
a
number
of
years
and
then
gd5
is
to
encourage
new
commercial
development,
retain
economic
vibrancy
and
vitality
and
enhance
the
frontages
in
the
town
centre.
L
So
it
comes
back
again
to
it's,
not
within
the
defined
town
center,
and
so
that
policy
wouldn't
be
directly
applicable,
but
in
terms
of
retaining
commercial
uses
again
comes
back
to
yes,
it's
a
commercial
use,
but
it's
also
a
community
use
and
that
whole
the
same
assessment
would
be
undertaken
under
part.
H
Thank
you,
chair,
I'd
just
like
to
question
this
term
no
longer
viable.
Obviously,
the
the
owner
has
tried
to
run
it
as
a
business
and
and
not
not
succeeded,
but
there's
there
is
a
group
of
people
who
are
willing
to
purchase
it,
and
I
I
assume
that
they
went
to
a
bank
to
put
down
the
offer
of
350
000.
They
would
have
had
to
put
a
business
plan
together
to
do
that
and
the
bank
would
have
had
to
accept
it
as
a
commercial,
viable
operation.
L
Yes,
that's
the
assessment,
the
independent
assessment
that
was
undertaken
by
putin
and
obviously
the
council
commissioned
so
based
on
their
professional
opinion,
reviewing
the
the
evidence
and
the
amount
of
turnover
that
would
be
required.
Then,
yes,
that's
that's
the
assessment.
H
L
A
AD
I
Cn7
is
clear:
taking
all
of
the
matters
into
account
the
councillors
of
the
view
that
the
applicant
has
not
demonstrated
that
the
service
or
facility
is
no
longer
needed,
and
the
application
is
therefore
unable
to
meet
the
requirements
of
criteria
a
of
cn7,
and
I
think,
that's
incredibly
important.
The
point
about
viability
is,
it
is
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder
of
the
person
writing
the
report.
It
always
is.
That
is
the
nature
of
viability.
I
It
is
a
debate
to
be
had
about
the
facts
that
are
in
front
of
you
and
if
you
sit
and
do
a
desktop
study,
rather
than
take
the
time
and
effort
to
undertake
a
thorough,
comprehensive
well-researched
piece
of
review,
then
you
are
going
to
come
up
with
not
necessarily
easy
conclusions
and
I
don't
think
the
viability
is
easily
concluded
in
the
report
or
the
evidence
that
we've
had
presented
this
evening.
I
just
don't
believe
it.
I
I
think
the
argument
that's
made
between
having
two
dwellings
versus
the
pub
and
the
pubs
importance
to
the
community
has
been
very
eloquently
put.
I
think
the
importance
of
that
commercial
entity
in
which
church
town
center-
as
far
as
I
would
look
at
it
being
I
appreciate-
we've
got
a
boundary
that
specifies
where
the
town
centre
is,
but
I
personally
see
it
as
being
in
the
town
centre.
I
think
he's
very
clear
how
important
that
is
to
the
viability
of
the
town
center
is
a
part
of
the
argument
as
well.
I
So
all
of
our
policies
around
protecting
our
district
centers
protecting
the
viability
of
the
town
centre
is
really
important.
I
think
the
community
asset
bit
matters
and
I
would
give
a
lot
of
weight
to
it
to
be
perfectly
honest
and
we
are
entitled
to
under
the
mppf
we
are
entitled
to
because
it
actually,
unlike
other
things,
that
we
would
have
loved
to
have
been
designated
as
community
assets
that
weren't
at
the
time
their
planning
application
came
to
us.
I
This
actually
has
it
at
the
time
the
application
is
in
front
of
us,
so
we
should
give
it
weight.
I
just
think
you
know
it's
the
owners
choice
if
they've
made
it
viable
by
adding
clauses
that
relate
to
property
law
that
relate
to
other
matters
beyond
planning,
that's
their
choice
and
that's
a
matter
for
another
place.
I
The
fact
they've
made
it
unviable
then
has
consequences
for
them
in
the
sense
of
what
they
choose
to
argue
and
the
way
they
bring
it
forward.
They've
still
got
to
satisfy
all
of
our
planning
policy
tests,
and
I
don't
think
they
do
so
for
me
personally,
the
harm
of
the
loss
of
the
pub
outweighs
the
benefit
that
would
be
gained
from
simply
gaining
two
dwellings,
and
I
would
move
rejection
of
the
application
based
on
cn7,
based
upon
the
harm
outweighing
the
benefit
of
two
dwellings
versus
the
pulp.
K
Just
for
my
two
pennies,
I
can
say
from
personal
network
that
the
red
house
used
to
certainly
bring
in
a
lot
of
tourism
from
outside.
I
can
remember
they
used
to
run
a
folk
and
blues
festival
every
on
during
the
august
bank
holiday.
I
know
I
went
to
it.
I
sang
there
for
many
years.
It
certainly
brings
people
into
the
town
on
a
bank
holiday
weekend,
and
there
are
certainly
other
sort
of
there
was
a
regular
folk
night
there.
K
It's
certainly,
I
think
it
brings
in
people
to
the
so
so
the
tourism
clause
certainly
stands.
It's
a
valuable
community
asset,
as
demonstrated
by
look
the
strength
of
local
feelings,
actually
keep
the
pub
as
a
pub,
and
I
think
it
it
deserves
a
chance.
It's
it's.
It's
not
been
managed
adequately
to
to
bring
it
to
what
it
should
be
to
fulfill
its
potential,
and
I
think,
maybe
with
the
community
group
at
the
helm.
It
could
do
that.
I
I
certainly
will
support
the
motion
to
refuse
this
application.
C
Thank
you,
chair,
well,
much
of
what
I
would
have
said
has
been
said
already,
but
certainly
those
of
us
who
went
on
the
viewing
saw
a
building
that
had
been
allowed
to
deteriorate
into
a
dreadful
state.
It
needs
massive
investment,
hundreds
of
thousands
of
pounds,
but
having
said
that,
I
don't
think
the
community
are
phased
by
any
requirements
other
than
the
50
overage
clause,
which
seems
to
be
a
particularly
nasty
burden
to
be
burdened
with,
but
I
think
that
there
has
been
demonstration
of
willingness
to
take
it
on.
C
You
know
hundreds
of
letters
of
objection,
the
fact
that
20
years
ago
there
were
seven
or
eight
pubs
in
winchester,
in
which
sorry
and
now
there's
just
two.
I
think
there
is
a
a
case
there
for
you
know,
and
it's
an
unattached
free
house
as
well,
so
you
don't
have
the
the
brewer
breathing
down
your
neck.
So
I
I
think
it's
got
good
prospects
and
I
think
that
it
is
a
balance.
C
Isn't
it,
but
in
terms
of
would
the
benefits
of
building
two
houses
outweigh
the
loss
of
a
community
asset?
A
pub
with
heritage
that
was
used
was
popular,
but
obviously
if
it's
allowed
to
get
into
a
deteriorated
state
that
impacts
on
its
ability
to
attract
people
in
so
I
you
know,
I'm
glad
that
refusal
has
been
moved
because
if
it
hadn't
I'd
have
moved
it
myself.
H
Chair
yeah,
I
just
want
to
reiter
reiterate
what
everybody
else
has
said
tonight:
we're
actually
looking
at
whether
we
should
be
changing
the
use
from
a
public
house
and
we've
got.
We've
got
potential
buyers.
We've
got
somebody
who
wants
to
sell
it.
This
is
just
a
negotiation
in
my
mind
and
anything,
but
sort
of
refusal
of
this
application
will
stop
that
negotiation
process.
So
I'm
in
mind
to
to
reject
this.
I
I
L
Thank
you
chairman
in
terms
of
the
refusal
just
to
refuse
the
application
is
refused
the
reason
being
for
the
harm
for
the
loss
of
pub
as
an
asset
of
community
value
not
being
outweighed
by
the
benefits
of
the
proposal.
L
If
I
could
just
highlight
members
attention
to
relevant
policies,
policy,
cn7
of
the
bayesian
stoken
team,
local
plan
and
with
church
neighborhood
plan
policy
gd6
as
well.
Thank
you
chairman.
Thank
you.
Greg.
A
We
are
quite
clearly
going
to
go
over
the
three
hours,
so
is
everybody
happy
to
continue,
but
I
take
silence
as
a
yes.
No
anybody
not
happy
to
hear
you.
A
A
Okay,
everybody
is
everybody
back.
Nobody
got
an
empty
seat
where
you
didn't
have
before
right.
Item
number
six
red
house,
but
the
listed
building
approval,
phil.
E
Thank
you
chair.
The
application
on
tonight's
agenda
is
is
recommended
for
approval.
E
Given
the
previous
refusal
on
the
scheme,
the
change
of
use
doesn't
have
permission,
and
by
granting
permission
of
this
list
of
building
consent
for
internal
conversion,
it
could
end
up
in
a
situation
whereby
internal
works
could
change
to
dwellings,
whereas
the
use
would
remain
as
a
pub
and
therefore
it
wouldn't
be
viable
to
use
as
a
pub
because
it's
laid
out
as
dwellings
so
on.
E
On
that
basis,
it's
this
recommendation
of
officers
to
alter
the
recommendation
for
refusal
on
that
basis
and
well
I'll,
read
out
a
reason
for
refusal
that
we
have
written
on
that.
So
the
reconfiguration
of
the
listed
building
as
two
dwellings
is
not
established
through
any
planning
permission.
E
The
reconfiguration
of
a
list
building
in
this
instance
would
therefore
not
be
viable
within
an
approved
use.
This
would,
as
such,
alter
the
character
of
the
property,
not
reflecting
its
character
as
a
public
house.
As
such,
the
proposal
is
contrary
to
policy
em-11
of
the
local
plan
and
the
sections
within
the
national
planning
policy
framework.
A
A
X
Thanks,
I
just
wanted
to
take
this
opportunity
to
just
clarify
one
thing
that
appears
to
have
been
misdirected
on
the
previous
discussion,
just
in
case
it's
of
any
relevance
to
this
decision.
X
The
fact
that
the
acv
is
a
very
specific
designation
listing,
which
has
regulations
which
go
with
it,
and
we
have
fulfilled
all
of
the
requirements
of
that.
The
acv
requirement
is
not
a
prevention
of
a
change
of
use
as
you've
discussed.
It
is
a
material
consideration
for
a
planning
application
or
application
for
any
development.
X
X
The
community
did
come
forward
at
that
point
and
said
they
were
interested.
There's
been
a
six-month
moratorium
period
which
we
had
to
allow
them
to
consider
and
look
to
raise
funds
and
make
a
reasonable
offer.
There's
no
obligation
on
the
owner
to
sell
it
unless
the
offer
is
acceptable
and,
as
we've
already
explored,
the
offer
wasn't
acceptable.
X
X
The
the
recommendation
is
that
the
brew
knowledge
report,
commissioned
by
the
planning
department,
accepted
by
the
planning
department
that
concluded
that
it
met
the
policy
requirements,
was
was
accepted
and
resulted
in
the
recommendation
for
approval.
We
have
satisfied
the
criteria
of
the
policy,
and
that
is
all
we're
required
to
do.
We've
done
everything
possible,
as
we've
already
explained
to
you,
and
I
I'm
concerned
that
you've
misdirected
yourself
in
making
that
decision
based
on
information,
that's
not
correct
and
an
acv
listing,
which
is
of
no
consequence
to
the
decision-making
process.
X
Your
policy
only
requires
us
to
demonstrate
it's
not
viable,
and
it's
not
practical
or
desirable.
We've
done
that
your
officers
have
recommended
approval.
The
britain
knowles
report
has
done
everything
it
needed
to
do.
We
had
no
no
influence
on
that.
We
provided
all
the
information
they
required
and
the
brute
knowles
report,
which
your
committee
regularly
use
and
rely
on.
That
is
what
you
commissioned
you.
You
gave
them
the
brief
and
they've
answered
the
questions
that
were
asked
and
they've
provided.
X
A
A
No.
Thank
you
very
much.
In
light
of
what
council
has
just
said,
I
move
that
we
defer
this
item
for
a
full
report
from
the
officers
as
to
whether
we
should
accept
it
or
refuse
it.
Is
there
a
second
second
of
our
council
of
court,
those
in
favor
of
deferral,
yeah
and
anyone
against
deferral?
E
Can
confirm
that,
thank
you
chairman,
so
the
application
is
deferred
for
a
full
report
to
be
written
with
a
reason
for
refusal.
Thank
you.
T
Thank
you
chairman.
Thank
you
chairman.
This
is
an
application
of
pirates.
Cottage
table
tubs
lane
height
clear.
The
proposal
is
for
the
variation
of
condition,
one
of
permission:
twenty
forward,
slash
one
double
six:
four:
four
tdc
to
amend
the
plan
numbers
to
allow
the
addition
of
an
oak
frame,
glazed
porch
increase
the
single-story
side,
extension
to
a
two-story
side,
extension,
two-thirds
side
extension
and
increases
depth
by
1.3
meters,
a
general
update
to
the
design
and
fenestration,
which
includes
the
addition
of
two
brew
flights
to
the
first
floor.
T
Rear
elevation
reduce
the
height
of
the
and
also
reduce
the
height
of
the
dwelling
by
0.1
meters.
The
bedrooms
have
also
increased
from
three
to
four
there's
no
update.
Since
the
preparation
of
the
agenda.
The
application
is
recommended
for
approval,
subject
to
conditions
listed
at
the
end
of
the
report.
On
pages
two,
six,
nine,
two,
seven,
two,
two
seven
three
of
the
agenda.
V
All
right
good
evening,
everybody,
yes,
this!
This
planning
application,
we
believe,
represents
the
sort
of
smoke
and
mirrors
of
the
planning
process.
The
history
of
it
is
interesting.
The
original
pip,
which
some
of
you
I'm
sure
will
have
visited
the
site
faced:
tremendous
local
opposition.
In
a
small
village,
there
was
significant
opposition
and
when
the
next
phase
came
through
of
the
design
of
the
house,
again
tremendous
opposition
to
that.
V
V
I
also
serve
on
the
high
clear
neighborhood
planning
group.
We
recently
commissioned
a
survey.
Housing
needs
survey.
The
housing
needs
survey
done
by
external
consultants,
concluded
that
what
high
clear
really
needs
is
smaller,
affordable,
downsizable
properties,
not
more
four
and
five
bedroom
houses
of
which
we've
got
loads,
the
size
and
the
shape
of
the
plot.
V
The
shape
is
bizarre,
as
you
can
see
from
the
diagrams
that
were
flashed
up
earlier.
It's
like
a
strange
triangle
and
the
area
of
the
plot
is
calculated
at
0.11
hectares.
Now
this,
I
believe,
and
we
believe,
as
parish
council
included
the
driveway,
which
is
actually
a
track
and
the
driveway
is
not
included,
we
believe
in
the
property
for
sale,
so
the
calculations
are
therefore,
in
our
view,
flawed
in
the
village
design
statement
that
highclere
published
some
years
ago
now.
V
The
orientation
of
the
house
no
windows
face
the
original
owner's
property.
Surprise.
Surprise:
all
of
the
impact
of
the
house
faces
the
four
oaks
close,
which
is
at
the
back
of
the
house,
and
if
we
look
at
en
10
as
a
policy,
how
on
earth
does
this
respect
the
local
environment
and
amenities
of
local
properties?
V
V
V
All
of
those
are
closer
than
pirates.
Cottage
access
is
tight,
it's
a
track
and
it's
highly
angled.
There
are
three
parking
spaces
planned.
I
don't
know
how
you
would
get
a
vehicle
up
there.
If
there
are
three
vehicles,
parked
turned
and
tried
to
get
out
impossible
and
any
emergency
vehicles
bigger
vehicles,
large
amazon
vans
would
have
to
reverse
out.
Without
a
doubt,
the
building
needs
to
be
smaller.
V
If
we
have
to
have
one,
we
need
to
reorientate
it
and
yes,
generally
make
it
a
smaller
scheme,
and,
incidentally,
there
are
about
5,
000
liters
of
kerosene
in
the
tanks
stored
right
up
against
the
boundary
of
the
property
that
is
being
planned.
A
V
House
directly
yeah
for
it's
about,
I
was
standing
next
to
it.
It
must
be
probably
in
excess
of
the
height
of
that
grill.
Above
you
and
it's
a
laurel
hedge
and
it's
been
let's
let
loose
the
back
of
that
dwelling
will
be
extremely
dark,
a
very
small
rear
to
it
and
I
personally
wouldn't
want
to
to
live
in
it.
AE
Thank
you
very
much.
I'm
the
agent
and
james
is
the
new
applicant
having
purchased
the
site
to
build
the
house
for
his
family.
Although
there
are
a
number
of
objections
that
have
been
received,
these
relate
primarily
to
the
of
development.
The
application
put
before
you
today
is
to
simply
increase
above
the
single
story
element.
That's
already
got
planned
permission
and
add
a
modest
porch.
AE
The
increased
number
of
bedrooms
is
a
client
requirement
effectively
for
his
family.
As
the
officer's
report
states,
there's
no
significant
change
to
the
approved
design
and
there's
no
adverse
overlooking
or
overshadowing,
and
the
parking
provision
meets
the
base
18
standards.
Thank
you.
O
Thank
you
chair.
Can
we
look
at
the
proposed?
Oh
in
fact,
the
ones
that
are
up
there
right
I'll
change?
My
glass?
Oh,
look
there.
They
are
right.
I
can't
on
here
see,
but
there
is
a
very
vague
dotted
line.
What's
the
existent
planning
permission.
O
T
A
A
Thank
you,
moved
and
seconded
for
approval
goes
in
favor.
F
E
Thank
you.
Chair
item
number,
eight,
which
should
be
found
on
page
280
of
tonight's
agenda.
It's
a
full
application
for
the
demolition
of
existing
agricultural
building,
an
erection
of
a
single-story
dwelling
and
detached
garage
with
ancillary
use.
E
E
If
I
could
draw
members
attention
to
the
update
paper,
it
summarizes
the
site
visit
that
was
undertaken
and
also
following
the
site
visit.
There
was
a
request
for
an
additional
plan
to
show
the
existing
and
proposed
boundary
lines
that
and
the
location
of
the
dwelling
in
relation
to
those
and
on
page
eight
of
the
update
paper.
That
plan
has
been
provided
for
members.
E
The
application
is
recommended
for
approval,
subject
to
the
signing
of
a
legal
agreement
to
secure
the
previous
permission
not
be
implemented
if
any
permission
granted
pursuant
to
the
current
application
is
implemented
and
subject
to
the
condition
list
is
at
the
end
of
the
officer's
report.
Thank
you.
AF
AF
It's
one
single
building,
231
square
meters,
footprint,
fully
positioned
on
barney
footprint,
the
application
supported
by
a
full
bespoke
lvia,
including
mitigation
proposals,
no
comments
or
objections
from
the
community
whatsoever
application
3502
amendment
to
the
approved
scheme.
824
is
strikingly
different.
It's
as
there
was
a
tsunami
of
comments
over
20
community
comments,
upton
great
parish,
council,
our
walk
councillor,
a
very
high
number
from
a
very
small
community
and
all
saying
in
practice
that
significantly
increased
size,
mass
and
more
prominent
location
of
3502
have
a
harmful
impact
on
the
landscape.
AF
AF
The
key
points
of
the
amendments-
the
site
plan
for
3502,
is
increased
from
eight
to
four
being
extended:
15
meters,
15
meters,
outside
the
red
line
of
0824
to
the
north,
not
six
meters
in
the
in
the
applicant
report.
AF
AF
Their
combined
footprint
is
360
square
meters,
which
is
55
percent
bigger
than
231
the
greater
size
and
mass
seems
to
us
to
be
a
greater
impact
of
development.
The
new
dwelling
is
repositioned
to
a
more
prominent
and
visible
location,
25
meters,
north
of
barney,
and
not
14
meters.
In
the
application
officers
report
no
part
remains
with
the
within
the
footprint
of
barney.
AF
North
elevation
of
the
of
the
dwelling
encroaches
five
minutes:
five
meters
onto
recently
farmed
agricultural
land,
which
has
no
permission
for
residential
building
a
detached,
two-story
garage.
Eighty-Five
square
meters
is
prominent
and
adjacent
to
right-of-way
3,
with
harmful
visual
effects
and
the
greater
size
and
mass
of
the
two
buildings
and
their
more
visible
location
will
be
seen
from
the
landscape's
viewpoints
and
footpaths.
AF
You
have
one
minute
remaining.
Finally,
no
updated
and
resubmitted
lvia
for
3502
has
been
received
and
for
this
application
in
in
the
conservation
area
and
landscape
of
significance,
comprising
so
many
fundamental
amendments
and
generating
so
many
landscape
based
objections.
It
seems
inconceivable
to
us
that
an
updated
lvia
has
not
been
required
and
submitted
for
application.
3502.
AF
AF
A
AG
Good
evening,
chairman
and
councillors,
firstly,
thank
you
for
staying
late
this
evening
to
hear
us.
My
name
is
mark
and,
along
with
my
partner
francesca,
we
are
the
owners
of
whitestack
barn,
formerly
known
as
the
barnes
at
western
corbett.
AG
We
have
now
had
the
opportunity
to
meet
a
lot
of
the
local
residents
and
get
on
very
well
with
them.
The
recent
jubilee
party
at
council,
cubit's
parents
house
in
the
village,
was
a
great
event
to
meet
everyone
and
a
number
of
our
neighbours
actually
apologized
to
us
at
night
for
their
reaction
to
their
to
our
plans
councillors.
We
simply
want
to
move
the
existing
plans
for
our
house
slightly
to
the
north
and
build
a
garage.
AG
This
will
have
no
negative
impact
on
anyone,
nor
will
it
impinge
on
any
views
and
it
will
have
the
additional
benefit
of
saving
nine
trees.
We
love
the
area
and
moved
here,
as
we
have
a
number
of
both
personal
friends
and
close
family
friends
who
live
locally.
We
are
looking
forward
to
building
our
dream
home
and
hope
that
you
will
agree
with
the
planning
department's
recommendation
to
approve
these
plans
so
that
we
can
start
building
our
new
home.
AG
AH
Chairman
members,
thank
you
for
your
time.
This
evening,
four
years
in
application,
the
offices
are
seeking
to
approve,
with
your
support,
the
application
seeks
to
move
the
existing
permission
further
north
into
the
plot
and
extend
the
approved
dwelling
with
the
addition
of
a
garage
with
a
room
used
to
be
used
over
as
a
home
office
or
a
gym.
AH
AH
There
have
been
local
objections
to
the
application,
but
we
are
of
the
opinion.
These
are
due
to
the
misunderstanding.
As
mark
mentioned
earlier,
following
the
site
visit
on
friday
last
week,
we
submitted
as
part
of
the
update
paper
that
you
have
before
you
a
revised
site
and
location
plan
that
includes
further
information
to
clarify
the
scheme.
AH
Specifically,
the
proposed
dwelling
does
not
wrong
run
along
the
northern
boundary,
which
is
part
of
the
the
applicant's
ownership
but
well
within
it,
and
we
believe
this
is
where
potentially
the
issue
has
written
with
the
local
community,
there
are
not
three
new
buildings
being
erected.
The
two
dilapidated
bonds
on
the
site
will
be
demolished
as
per
conditions
within
the
report,
and
the
increase
in
footprint
is
larger,
but
there's
nothing
to
state
in
the
policy
that
we
cannot
do
that.
AH
AD
Thank
you
good
evening,
mr
rebecca.
Can
I
just
ask
you
to
confirm
that
it
says
in
the
proposal
the
proposal
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
retain
the
existing
agricultural
building
for
the
duration
of
the
development,
build
with
all
agricultural
buildings
eventually
being
demolished
on
site
to
allow
for
the
proposed
development.
So
can
you
confirm
that
the
two
bonds,
which
we
noticed
that
when
we
came
on
the
viewing
panel
by
the
time,
the
proposal
if
passed,
is
developed
will
have
been
taken
down.
AH
So
the
first,
the
first,
the
barn
that
the
the
fro,
the
barn
at
the
back
of
the
site
will
be
removed
in
order
to
build
the
dwelling.
The
front
barn
near
the
gateway,
as
you
drove
in
that
building,
will
be
retained
purely
during
the
process
of
the
build
to
store
materials
and
furniture
etcetera
from
from
mr
mcveigh's
house.
So
it's
literally
there
while
and
it's
been
set
as
a
condition
that
it
will
be
removed
once
the
once.
The
actual
barn
has
been
built
and
developed.
AD
O
Thank
you,
chad,
good
evening,
attended
your
the
site
viewing
and
we
had
a
good
look
round,
but
you
made
a
comment
that
the
change
of
plan
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
will
save
nine
trees.
I
could
you,
I
don't
know
where
the
officers
can
help
by
putting
up
a
map,
but
can
you
tell
us
which
trees
you're
going
to
say,
because
I
can't
remember.
AG
Seeing
any
trees
yeah
so
so
the
bar
that's
coming
down
where
the
house
is
actually
going
on
the
southern
side
of
that
barn.
There
are
nine
trees
that
are
littered
around
the
bottom,
mostly
sycamore
trees.
A
couple
of
I'm
not
not
very
good.
On
my
trees
all
day,
I
meant
I'm
a
member
of
woodland
trust
it's
between
the
two
right,
it's
basically
between
the
the
two
barns
but
where,
where
where?
AG
Where
the
existing
plans
are,
if
we
were
to
build
there,
those
all
those
trees
would
have
to
to
come
down
because
there
actually
would
be
in
the
way
of
the
of
the
footings
in
the
building
nine
trees
that
are
scattered
around.
B
Thank
you.
I
was
on
the
site,
viewing
I'm
just
making
sure
that
that
garage
block,
which
looks
quite
substantial,
how
it
looks
like
it's
just
for
two
cars.
Would
you
content
if
we
get
rid
of
development
rights
so
as
that
can't
be
converted
to
a
house.
A
H
AH
AH
So
if
you
see
that
line,
you
come
just
further
further
east
of
it
just
to
the
south.
Just
south
east
you'll
see
a
little
dotted
line
just
above
that
tree.
That
would
then
go
down
this
way
towards
the
towards
the
gateway.
So
it's
a
slightly
very
dotted
line.
It's
on
your
it's
on
your
update
paper,
a
very
slight
dotted
line
that
follows,
but
there
yeah
exactly
so
the
footpath
doesn't
cross
the
site.
A
Y
Thank
you
very
much
good
evening
members.
Firstly,
I'm
very
sorry
I
was
unable
to
make
the
site
viewing,
as
I
had
a
long
standing
diary
commitment
and
secondly,
unfortunately,
the
parish
council,
I'm
most
upset
that
they
weren't
in
attendance
either,
but
they
thought
they
were
not
permitted
to
attend
the
site
viewing.
Y
So
that's
the
reason
why,
unfortunately,
there
was
no
representation
from
either
the
residents
or
elected
representatives,
and
their
upset
is
due
to
the
fact
they
were
unable
to
provide
what
they
would
consider
to
be
a
balanced
commentary
on
the
site,
the
parish
and
the
residents
supported
the
original
application
granted
in
2020,
and
they
continue
to
support
that
application.
Y
So
commentary
about
other
applications
are
completely
not
relevant
to
this
planning
application.
It
is
not
relevant.
The
the
the
salient
piece
of
information
is
that
the
residents
were
happy
with
the
original
application.
Unfortunately,
this
application
is
markedly
different
to
the
previously
approved
application
and
a
new
landscape.
Visual
impact
assessment
has
not
been
undertaken
and
we
consider
that
this
is
and
should
be
essential
to
your
decision
making
tonight
and
since
the
parish
is
content
with
the
existing
approved
application.
Y
I
request,
in
view
of
all
the
comments
made
in
the
paper,
specifically
in
relation
to
the
landscape
experts
and
the
heritage
experts
that
you
refuse
this
application,
as
the
direct
default
is
to
the
original
application,
which
the
residents
have
no
problem
with,
as
its
harm
is
considerably
greater
than
the
existing
application
on
the
views
of
many
many
residents,
and
why
such
a
large
percentage
of
the
residents
refused
or
made
representations
against
it,
or
failing
that,
you
defer
making
a
decision
tonight
until
the
applicant
has
commissioned
a
new
landscape,
visual
impact
assessment,
which
would
theref
by
enabling
you
to
make
a
correct
evaluation
on
the
impact
of
these
significant
amendments
to
the
existing
application.
Y
As
I
said,
the
landscape
officer
and
heritage
officer
both
state
that
this
application
will
result
in
greater
harm
than
the
original
approval
and
the
relevance
of
the
public
benefit
at
wayne.
Harm
can't
be
applied
as
the
public
benefit
exists
from
the
existing
approval.
There
is
no
greater
or
increased
public
benefit
from
these
amendments.
Y
This
application
does
not
produce
produce
or
provide
any
additional
benefits,
but
it
does
produce
greater
harm.
The
impacts
on
the
views,
the
breach
of
em
1,
em,
4
and
em
10,
and
the
impacts
on
the
mppf
paragraphs,
which
15
and
16,
apply
and
are
referred
to
in
the
document,
namely
in
relation
to
203
paragraph
203.
In
the
mppf.
Y
Y
So
one
of
the
themes
that
weaves
through
the
officer's
comment
is
that
the
public
benefit
outweighs
the
harm
and,
as
I
said,
these
amendments,
don't
concur
with
that
and
on
page
296,
it
says,
notwithstanding
the
above.
A
material
consideration
in
this
instance
is
the
legitimate
fallback
position
of
the
approved
application
which,
although
not
yet
implemented,
could
still
be,
and
then
it
then
goes
on
to
say.
Y
Should
the
proposed
development
have
a
similar
or
less
of
an
impact
than
that
approved,
then
it
would
be
appropriate
for
such
development
to
be
considered,
and,
as
I
have
outlined
to
you
in
my
four
minutes,
that
is
not
the
case.
The
harm
is
not
similar,
it
is
considerably
greater
the
views
and
the
impacts
and
the
fact
that
it
is
not
on
the
initial
original
footprint
and
it
has
incurred
a
great
deal
of
residents
who
do
not
support
this
application.
Y
Despite
supporting
completely
the
previous
application,
I
request
that
you
either
defer,
until
the
applicant
commissions
a
new
landscape,
visual
impact
assessment
that
is
relevant
to
his
application
and
not
to
a
completely
unrelated
build
or
you
reject
it
so
that
he
then
reverts
to
the
original
application
which
the
community
supports.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
K
I
feel
that
there
are
quite
a
few
benefits
to
moving
the
house.
Quite
frankly,
the
nine
trees
will
be
most
grateful
and
all
their
little
inhabitants.
I
really
don't
see
it.
It's
going
to
be
too
much
different.
I'd
be
quite
happy
to
approve
it,
but
I'll
I'll.
Keep
the
debate
open
for
a
while
and
maybe
motion
yet.
I
I
Yes,
all
right,
I
get
the
loss
of
the
nine
trees
and
I
agree
with
you
that
would
be
a
loss,
but
is
the
impact
of
moving
the
property
as
far
forward
as
it
then
is
because
the
visual
impact
will
then
have
on
the
rest
of
the
area.
Is
that
outweighed
by
that?
That's
a
good
debate.
I
think
that's
fair
to
think
about
so
yeah
at
the
moment,
I'm
concerned
about
the
movement
of
the
property
as
far
forward
as
it
is
in
the
landscape
impact.
I
Do
we
defer
it
and
go
for
a
landscape,
visual
impact
assessment?
That
would
give
the
evidence
one
way
or
the
other
would
be
formers
in
a
better
way.
That
might
be
an
appropriate
way
to
think
about
it
to
be
fair
to
the
applicant
and
listen
to
what
the
rest
of
the
members
have
got
to
say.
A
Thank
you,
counselor
harvey
I've
looked
at
this
and
I'm
very
much
in
two
minds
on
it
moving
it
forward.
I
understand
why
the
applicant
wants
to
move
it
forward.
It
will
make
it
a
much
nicer
place
to
live.
There's
no
doubt
about
that
much
more
open,
but
it
does
have
a
much
bigger
impact
on
on
the
local
landscape,
and
I
think
the
solution
has
actually
been
put
forward
to
us
by
councillor
kierbit,
which
is
to
get
a
new
another
landscape
assessment.
A
So
I
moved
for
deferral
on
for
another
landscape
assessment.
Is
there
anybody
like
to
second
it?
Oh
take
me
pick
councillor
court
on
that
greg
wants
to
come
in
before
we
go
to
the
vote.
L
Yeah,
just
before
you
vote
on
that,
I
think
a
landscape
visual
impact
appraisal
has
previously
been
asked
for
from
the
but
from
the
agent,
and
it's
not
something
that
we
can
require
and
they've
declined
to
provide
it.
So
it's
not
something
that
we
can
require
of
them
for
a
single
house,
but
also
add.
Obviously,
members
have
viewed
the
site
and
the
photographs
so
we'll
be
aware
of
its
impact.
L
B
Well,
we're
not
completely
happy
that
the
applicant
has
moved.
20
meters
seems
a
huge
amount
of
intrusion,
and
I
have
to
say
that,
in
my
view,
the
officer's
report
is
robust,
because
we
already
have
a
planning
permission
on
this
site
and
it
would
be.
It
would
be
slightly
remiss
of
us
not
to
to
move
the
officer's.
B
A
L
I'm
saying
that
one
has
already
been
asked
for
and
declined
to
be
provided
and
if
you've
already
visited
the
site,
you'll
have
already
seen
it
in
its
context
and
understand
the
what
impact
the
proposal
will
have
on
its
surroundings.
So
don't
think
landscape
vision,
impacts,
appraisal
will
move
you
forward
very
far.
L
If
you
feel
that's
necessary
and
you
know
then
you're
viewing
wasn't
sufficient
to
be
able
to
do
that
or
there
are
particular
other
viewpoints.
You
want
to
be
tested
from
what
you
might
have
seen
or
you'd,
like
the
landscape,
visual
impact
appraisal
to
build
upon
what
viewpoints
and
what
additional
landscaping
might
be
proposed.
Then,
yes,
of
course
you
can
request
one
and
and
defer
it
to
request
one
again,
but
it's
been
declined
once,
but
we
can
ask
that
question
and
come
back
to
committee
with
whatever
the
outcome
is.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Greg
we've
got
a
proposal
on
the
table
which
has
been
seconded.
We've
all
heard
what
greg
said.
So,
let's
vote
on
the
proposal.
That's
on
the
table
that
was
in
favor
of
deferral.
A
One
two
three:
four:
five
and
those
against
deferral;
one,
two
one,
two,
three,
four
right
that
motion
is
lost.
If
somebody
would
like
to
put
up
another
motion,
councillor
ratigan,
I'm
going
to
give
you
the
first
opportunity.
Thank
you,
chair.
B
And
I
apologize
for
my
stupidity,
it's
late.
I
would
like
to
move
the
officer's
recommendation
on
the
basis
that
it
as
it
sits
in
front
of
us-
and
I
hope
someone
will
second,
it
counselor.
O
May
I
be
allowed
to
suggest
a
condition
at
this
stage
and
that
we
I'm
trying
to
read
the
conditions
quickly
in
detail
but
more
landscaping
on
the
to
soften
the
impact,
because
the
the
house
shifting
forward
is
it's.
It's
not
the
crest
of
a
hill,
but
it's
on
a
rise,
and
it
appears
to
be
this
pale
wooden
pale,
fencing
which
leaves
it
completely
open
as
a
field.
Whether
we
could
request
some
form
of
screening
or
planting
scheme,
because
I
don't
see
one.
But
I
could
be
wrong.
L
Thank
you
jay.
Yes,
I
mean
there
are
conditions
already
pace
312,
for
example,
that
require
details
of
soft
landscaping
to
be
provided,
but
certainly
we
can
add
an
informative
note
that
confirms
that
the
expectation
is
that
the
plans
already
provided
are
significantly
increased
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
planting
that
is
is
shown
to
provide
screening
from
key
vantage
points.
B
L
The
condition
requires
details
of
a
maintenance
program,
what
is
usual
and
then
management
responsibilities
as
well.
Subsequent
to
that,
what's
usual
for
those
conditions
is
its
first
planting
season.
After
the
completion
of
development.
L
The
difficulty
with
carrying
out
planting
at
the
same
time
as
carrying
out
the
building
operations
is
usually
the
the
plants
tend
to
lose
out
to
the
mechanical
equipment.
That's
on
site,
so
it
could
tend
to
get
damaged
or
or
materials
kind
of
well.
E
T
Thank
you
chairman,
so
this
is
an
application
at
little
bowling's
goddard
goddard's
lane
shuffled
on
loddon.
The
proposal
is
the
erection
of
a
detached
dwelling.
Following
the
demolition
of
an
existing
cattery
building
and
associated
office.
The
property
would
be
located
at
the
rear
of
little
bowlings
with
garage
and
parking
area
to
the
front
and
private
garden
to
the
rear.
There
is
an
update
on
page
nine
of
the
update
paper
to
remove
the
reference
to
height,
clear
in
the
planning,
balance
and
conclusion
section
of
the
report,
which
is
on
page
342
of
the
agenda.
A
A
Councillor
mccormack
move
the
recommendation.
N
A
Do
we
have
a
secondary,
secondary
council
faulkner
right?
Anybody
wish
to
speak
on
it,
no,
those
in
favor
and
one
two,
three,
four:
five:
six,
seven,
eight
nine
ten,
eleven
twelve
and
those
against
none,
and
I
will
abstain
on
that
one
because
it's
literally
just
around
the
corner
from
me.
Thank
you.
I
think
that
is
everything
on
tonight's
agenda.
Thank
you
very
much
everybody
and
thank
you
to
the
officers
for
all
their
hard
work
quite
a
hard
session.
Thank
you
very
much
and
good
night.