►
Description
If there is buffering on the YouTube stream, the webcast can be viewed through the council's website https://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/webcast
A
A
A
B
E
B
A
You
thank
you
right.
Urgent
matters,
I
have
none
so
minutes
of
the
meetings
held
on
the
8th
of
March
and
the
29th
of
March.
Is
everybody
happy
with
those
could
have
a
proposal
please
counselor
McCormick
and
secondary
by
councilor.
Frost
I
will
sort
those
out
after
the
meeting.
Thank
you
right.
Applications
for
right
application,
number
one
land
to
the
west
of
Roman
Road
at
Basingstoke
and
Patricia.
If
you
could
introduce
it.
F
The
outline
planning
permission
was
granted
on
the
20th
of
December
2021.
The
full
description
of
development
is
given
on
page
107,
but
in
summary,
it
was
a
mixed
use:
development
that
had
a
maximum
of
3520
homes,
local
Center,
two
primary
schools,
space
for
a
secondary
school
Countryside,
Park,
neighborhood
parks,
sports
facilities
and
other
infrastructure.
That's
detailed
on
107.
the
three
access
points
obtained
full
planning
permission
at
the
outline
stage.
F
The
structure
of
the
outline
planning
permission
is
different
from
a
typical
outline
planning
permission
with
the
layers
of
control.
It
was
granted
subject
to
conditions
in
a
section
106,
and
the
structure
of
the
conditions
requires
a
Cascade
of
approvals.
The
first
level
is
the
site-wide
approvals,
which
are
conditioned
five
and
all
bar
one
are
approved.
F
B
F
F
The
it
doesn't
really
show
the
primary
access
Works,
which
have
full
planning
permission
or
the
dark
blue
arrows
I've
got
some
off
which
are
shown
to
the
north
on
Roman,
Road,
winklebury
way
and
two
on
wirting
Road.
If
you
just
pan
down,
please
Haley
yeah,
that's
the
approved
Junction
for
the
339.
That
does
not
have
to
be
delivered
until
1500
houses
are
built
and
the
occupation
of
the
1500
house
depend
on
the
next
star.
F
Yeah
condition
18
of
the
outline
planning
permission
also
requires
a
third
access
to
be
constructed
on
the
working
road
to
serve
the
south
of
the
development,
the
south
of
the
working
Road
between
the
railway
and
working
Road.
It
also
requires
an
additional
access
to
be
delivered
on
Roman
Road,
which
would
link
go
back
to
the
Roman
Road
Junction.
F
As
you
can
see
from
this
plant,
the
roundabout
to
the
right,
Roman
Road
will
be
blocked,
so
you
will
not
be
able
to
come
off
the
Ring
Road
and
turn
left
into
Roman.
Road
you'll
have
to
travel
onto
the
many
down
roundabout
come
into
the
many
down
estate
and
then
travel
back
onto
Roman
Road
through
the
access.
That's
required
to
be
delivered
by
condition.
18.
F
That's
the
sort
of
end
of
the
briefing
on
both
applications,
so
I'll.
Now
we're
only
we're
now
considering
item
one
only,
which
is
a
full
planning
application
for
the
creation
of
temporary
construction
access
from
Roman
Road
in
connection
with
the
many
down
development
site,
including
widening
and
alterations
to
the
existing
Highway,
along
with
other
Associated
Works,
including
drainage,
landscape
and
utility
works.
F
F
F
Our
response
to
this
is
is
that,
although
it's
triggered
by
this
application,
it
is
separate
from
it
and
is
not
for
consideration
through
the
application,
which
must
be
considered
on
its
own
merits,
and
then
there
is
some
amendments
to
conditions
condition.
14
is
to
capture
delivery
as
well
as
construction
and
condition.
19
is
to
capture
scheduling
of
Works
in
relation
to
other
planned
Highway
works.
The
other
alterations
to
conditions
are
very
minor,
but
they're
just
listed
there
for
completeness
foreign.
A
A
H
The
first
thing
I'd
like
you
to
consider
that
in
1991,
plans
were
submitted
for
a
comprehensive
service
station
area
at
the
top
of
Roman
Road,
an
hgv
cars
leaving
the
service
station
via
an
exit
and
turning
onto
Roman
Road
to
return
onto
the
a3329
at
a
public
inquiry.
The
planning
inspector,
Basingstoke
Council
and
your
predecessors
turned
the
application
down
because
of
the
dangers
and
the
conflict
of
hgv
vehicles
and
other
vehicles
turning
left
onto
Roman
Road
and
the
potential
for
accidents
that
could
occur.
So
the
president
had
already
been
sent
to
reject
completely
traffic.
H
Turning
onto
Roman
Road
on
your
site
visit,
which
I
believe
Pete
you've
done,
you
would
have
seen
how
dangerous
it
will
be
for
hdv
construction,
traffic
and
other
vehicles.
Turning
left
for
on
the
a339
onto
Roman
Road
traffic
from
Wellington
Terrace
only
has
a
few
seconds
to
turn
left
or
cross
Roman
Road
as
a
sight
line,
is
very
short
to
see
Vehicles
turning
from
the
a339
and
has
already
been
accidents
and
fatalities.
H
Please
stop
and
visualize
how
dangerous
this
Junction
will
become
because
of
the
increased
construction
traffic,
especially
hgv
and
other
construction
vehicles
and
I
would
like
you
to
visualize
a
40-ton
six-axle
lorry
traveling
at
40
miles
an
hour
with
a
stopping
distance
of
120
feet.
With
that
in
mind
on
your
site
visit,
you
would
have
seen
the
sweeping
s
Bend
at
a
bottle
of
Roman
Road
and
the
position
of
the
site
construction
entrance
on
the
S
Pen.
H
250
to
300
dwellings
per
year,
that's
approximately
one
car
per
20
dwelling,
please
stop
and
visualize
just
for
a
moment
and
imagine
hgv
glories,
other
construction
vehicles
and
private
cars
entering
and
exiting
onto
Roman
Road
onto
the
s-bend
and
at
the
other
side
entrance
at
the
top
of
Roman
Road
for
residents.
This
will
be
a
major
issue
with
rat
runs,
increased
danger
to
pedestrians
pollution
levels
and
vehicle
noise
and
what
I'm
finding
out?
What
I
believe
that
each
of
us
in
this
room
tonight
has
an
obligation
of
Duty
to
care
to
protect
other
people.
H
A
A
I
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
support
of
this
application,
I'm
Rebecca
Smith
communities
and
Communications
manager
for
Evelyn
Civic.
My
colleagues
and
I
are
here
this
evening
on
behalf
of
the
partnership
delivering
money
down
joining
me
from
Urban
and
Civic
are
David
Ainsworth
and
Barry
Crabb
and
from
The
Wider
project
team.
We
have
Joe
France
transport
consultant
from
acon
and
Charlie
Brown
planning
consultant
from
David
Locke
Associates,
since
outline
planning
was
granted
at
the
end
of
2021.
I
I've
been
working
closely
with
the
local
community
on
a
range
of
topics,
including
residents
concerns
around
traffic
and
in
particular
that
of
construction
traffic.
On
this
point,
iron
colleagues
have
spoken
regularly
with
local
community
groups,
Parish
councils,
Ward,
councilors
and
individual
residents.
I
Insights
from
these
conversations
have
improved
our
understanding
of
concerns
and
allowed
us
to
build
relationships
which
have
informed
our
strategy
to
minimize
disruption.
We
would
like
to
thank
all
of
those
who
have
engaged
and
worked
with
us
on
this
and
other
matters
to
date
and
look
forward
to
maintaining
these
conversations
throughout
delivery.
I
It
would
be
wrong
of
me
to
suggest
that
we
can
build
a
community
the
size
of
money
down
without
causing
some
disruption,
but
we
do
believe
our
experience
and
approach
allows
us
to
minimize
disruption
to
neighboring
communities
with
seven
comparable
sites.
Now
in
delivery
around
the
country,
we've
learned
the
importance
of
maintaining
separation
between
areas
of
development
and
completed
parts.
I
I
The
physical
constraints
of
money
down
creates
this
need
for
multiple
access
Junctions
to
the
site,
to
enable
the
separation
between
completed
homes
and
areas
of
construction.
Importantly,
we
believe
that
our
approach
facilitates
an
accelerated
delivery
of
much
needed
homes
for
Basingstoke
and
The
Wider
Borough.
I
The
location
of
this
Junction
has
been
carefully
selected
to
minimize
impact
on
local
residents,
deliberately
positioned
to
avoid
overlooking
existing
homes
and
designed
to
minimize
disruption
to
the
free
flow
of
traffic
on
the
Roman
Road,
a
detailed
assessment
of
the
application
has
been
undertaken
by
all
stakeholders,
statutory
stakeholders
to
include
assessment
and
traffic
levels
and
Highway
Safety
by
the
County
Highway
Authority
and
noise
impact
by
the
borough's
environmental
health
officer.
No
technical
objections
have
been
raised
and
the
application
is
recommended
for
approval
by
the
local
planning
Authority.
I
I
We
will
continue
to
work
with
local
communities
and
the
ward
councilors
throughout
the
delivery
of
money
down
to
minimize
negative
impacts
and
maximize
the
opportunities
that
come
with
the
development
of
this
size.
We
support
the
office
office's
thorough
consideration
of
this
application
and
for
all
of
the
reasons
we
have
set
out,
we
would
respectfully
ask
members
to
support
the
recommendation
before
you
this
evening
and
Grant
permission
for
this
important,
enabling
infrastructure.
J
K
I
think
we
can
confirm
that,
if
the
excuse
me
the
application
before
us
now
was
not
consented,
it
would
cause
a
delay
understanding.
Quite
what
that
delay
might
be
is
difficult
to
comment
on,
partly
because
we'd
have
to
look
at
how
we
were
able
to
deliver
the
phase,
so
it
would
be
I
think
it'd
be
meaningful,
it'd
be
more
meaningful
for
how
we
approach
the
delivery
of
the
first
phase.
L
Thank
you,
but
councilor
Tomlin
was
actually
before
me,
so
I
will
defer
to
him
first,
okay,
thank
you,
Council
Tomlin,
and
thank
you
chair
just
very
quickly.
Why
were
these
two
access
points
not
applied
for
okay
back
in
2021,
in
the
outline
planning
permission
when
all
the
rest
of
the
exits
and
entrances
were
were
applied
for?
Why
now.
M
So
what
we
have
brought
with
our
experience
of
other
sites
is
the
phasing
and
the
Practical
knowledge
and
ability
to
bring
this
forwards,
and
since
the
termination
of
that
outline,
we've
been
working
on
that
phasing
and
the
construction
access
strategy,
as
well
as
other
things.
Hence
that
is
now
coming
forward
as
a
full
planning
application
to
support
that
outline.
N
Thank
you
Chan
good
evening.
Our
residents
who
spoke
to
us
earlier
pointed
out
that
Roman
Road
is
a
40
mile,
an
hour
Road
in
your
consultation
with
highways.
Was
it
ever
discussed
a
temporary
speed
limit
of
30
miles
an
hour
in
terms
of
road
safety?
I'd
be
interesting
to
know
what
the
comments
were
if
it
was
discussed
or
whether
it
could
be
discussed.
Thank
you.
O
P
A
P
You
chair,
obviously,
we've
heard
from
residents
this
evening
about
their
concerns
and
specifically
raising
safety
issues.
Obviously
we
see
before
as
a
report
that
there
are
no
technical
objections.
Could
you
please
address
the
resident's
concerns
from
your
perspective
on
how
you
think
your
proposal
addresses
the
points
that
have
been
raised?
I
would
like
to
hear
that,
if
possible,.
Q
Thank
you
so
well,
the
obviously
the
application
is,
as
Rebecca
indicated,
has
been
particularly
located
in
terms
of
its
positioning
along
Roman
Road,
to
reduce
conflict
with
existing
properties
as
much
as
possible.
So
that's
that's
been
a
primary
consideration
and
obviously
the
application
itself
has
been
subject
to
quite
intensive
technical
consultation
with
Hampshire
highways.
As
you
note,
and
in
respect
of
undertaking
quite
a
detailed
safety
audit
as
well
and
Associate
designers
response
has
been
submitted
as
part
of
the
application
foreign.
Q
So
there
is,
there
is
a
proposed
condition
in
terms
of
the
the
time
limit
for
the
the
backstops,
the
removal
of
these
access
Junctions,
which
is
1750
which
aligns
in
terms
of
aligning
with
the
delivery
of
the
a339
access,
which
the
officer
indicated,
which
needs
to
be
delivered
before
1500.
So
what
that
requires?
The
condition
is
a
scheme
to
come
forward
for
its
closure
at
1500,
so
to
I
to
follow
the
intention
of
the
original
outline
construction,
Environmental
Management
plan
to
deliver
construction
traffic
via
the
a339.
Q
K
A
R
You
chair
members.
We
are
all
well
aware
of
the
history
surrounding
the
many
down
development.
The
land
has
been
the
cause
of
much
concern
when
we
talk
about
development
and
developers
within
our
Borough.
This
frustration
has
felt
considerably
by
the
residents
of
winklebury,
particularly
those
living
close
to
the
land.
For
many
years,
residents
have
been
promised
that
their
lives
would
not
be
impacted
too
much
by
the
development.
Many
welcomed
the
developer,
working
with
them
to
try
and
minimize
any
significant
impacts
at
various
early
stage
meetings.
R
They
were
told
site
traffic
would
enter
to
the
north
of
the
site
along
the
a339
and
the
outline
construction
Environmental
Management
plan
written
in
July
2018
seemed
to
confirm
this
by
stating
that
there
are
four
assumed
strategic
construction
access
routes
for
All
Phases
of
the
development
and
one
access
route
that
would
only
be
used
until
an
on-site
construction,
Hall
Road
is
completed.
It
has
envisioned
that
the
Hall
Road
would
link
a
junction
on
the
b3400
wording,
road
to
a
junction
at
the
Northern
end
Roman
Road
of
these
five
routes.
R
R
R
As
the
ward
member
for
winklebury
many
down,
I
know
that
for
roughly
1
100
people,
Roman
Road
or
way
is
their
sole
means
of
Ingress
or
egress
to
their
homes.
They
have
no
other
alternative,
but
to
use
these
roads
which
have
significant
traffic
traffic
flowing
due
to
their
nature
and
location
residents,
are
more
than
aware
of
what
happens
when
traffic
builds
up
along
this
route.
Building
site
entrances
will
any
further
endanger
those
living
nearby
by
causing
rat
running
through
quiet
housing
Estates.
R
This
is
already
known
to
happen
as
seen
when
work
was
conducted
at
the
bottom
of
Roman
Reign.
This
significantly
increased
the
number
of
vehicles
using
roads
such
as
Wickham
drive
to
avoid
lengthy
delays
to
top
it
off
when
the
developer
recently
conducted
Works
to
remove
foliage
opposite
Winkle
relay
prior
to
commencing
the
residential
entrance
queuing
traffic
was
seen
to
use
first
way
and
Kenilworth
road
to
avoid
congestion
and
even
more,
concerning
conducting
three-point
turns
into
oncoming
traffic
to
reroute
their
journey.
R
R
R
It
would
seem
illogical
to
place
an
entrance
where
we
already
know
that
moving
vehicles
are
built
up
speed.
You
have
one
minute
remaining,
so
thank
you.
Nothing
in
these
plans
is
proposed
to
mitigate
this
or
any
of
the
other
potential
issues
that
could
arise,
such
as
rat
running
or
construction
traffic
using
other
local
roads.
Rather,
they
feel
that
they
want
to
be
reactive
to
issues
than
proactive
to
stop
them
from
arising
is
a
potential
loss
of
another
life
worth
this
risk
now.
I
think
that
I.
B
R
There
are
alternatives
to
gaining
access
to
this
site
in
conjunction
with
the
next
application,
which
wasn't
in
the
original
patterns.
Residents
have
been
promised
a
different
way
in.
They
could
build
this
roundabout
to
start
with
and
they
could
build
the
whole
Road
north
to
south
I.
I
can't
understand
why
they're
not
choosing
to
do
this.
It
seems
that
it's
a
quick
way
to
start
the
building,
rather
than
actually
serve
the
residents
of
basins.
Thank
you.
N
Taking
up
that
advantage
that
we
have
of
a
member
of
hcc's
Highways
with
us,
could
you
explain
why
you
feel
that
whenever
you
seem
to
see
roadworks
in
this
country,
we
reduce
the
speed
limit
and
we
have
a
particularly
interesting
situation
of
a
40
mile,
an
hour
road.
As
you
heard,
the
local
resident
said
about
vehicles
coming
expecting
a
40
mile,
an
hour
limit
they'll
be
going
faster
as
they
enter
the
roads
and
also
the
fact.
We've
got
hgvs
with
the
stopping
distance.
N
G
Thank
you
chairman.
The
the
change
of
the
speed
limit
not
only
involves
the
Hampshire
County
Council,
who
would
have
to
carry
out
the
procedure
of
a
traffic
regulation
order,
but
part
of
that
consultation
is
with
Hampshire
constabulary
and
it
is
Hampshire
constabulary's
reluctance
to
change
the
speed
limit.
That
is
preventing
it
from
being
changed
and
the
reason
for
that
is.
They
require
speed
limits
to
be
self-enforcing
rather
than
call
upon
their
services
to
enforce
them.
G
So
if
Roman,
Road
and
Roman
way
were
to
be
changed
in
character
to
the
point
that
Vehicles
generally
drove
at
a
lower
speed
of
30
miles
an
hour
and
I'm
sure,
the
police
would
be
supportive
of
a
change.
But
at
the
moment
it
is
a
spine
Road,
although
it
doesn't
actually
go
through
the
middle
of
development,
but
it's
in
historic,
Highway
terms,
a
local
distributor
road
and
it
is
expected
to
carry
speeds
or
vehicles
of
speeds
off
in
the
order
of
40
miles
an
hour.
As
we
all
know,
Roman
Road
is
very
straight.
G
L
You,
chair
generally,
to
officers.
We
obviously
have
these
these
two
new
entrances
that
you're
asking
us
to
to
approve
how
much
quicker
I
know
that
other
members
have
have
have
have
asked
this
of
of
urban
Civic.
But
how
much
quicker
will
this
actually,
you
know,
bring
in
development
and
will
it
enable
us
to
achieve
a
five-year
housing,
Supply
quicker,
yeah.
F
There
would
be
a
delay
if
these
were
refused.
Therefore,
if
there
is
a
delay,
then
the
other
side
of
it
is
if
they
were
approved,
it
would
be
quicker
in
terms
of
delivering
I
have
fight
resolving
our
five
year.
Housing
land
Supply,
if
there
are,
is
that
construction
is
taking
place
in
more
than
one
location
on
the
site.
Then
you
have
to
assume
that
you're
building
more
houses
than
if
you've
just
got
one
location,
that's
building
on
the
site,
but
they
aren't
paired
the
applications.
F
They
are
freestanding
an
individual
and
each
has
been
assessed
as
being
the
only
application,
so
in
terms
of
safety
and
construction
and
traffic.
They
are
freestanding
and
independent,
but
I
think
in
the
last
phrase
of
my
report
that
says
that
the
county
are
happy
with
either
or
but
would
prefer
both,
but
they
are
freestanding
and
independent
applications.
F
Just
times
of
how
long
it
would
take
to
deliver,
there
is
a
it's
going
back
to
councilor's
question.
If
you
go
to
page
72
on
on
the
report
with
the
phasing
that's
proposed,
the
temporary
nature
of
it,
which
is
that
the
Beautiful,
the
two
purple
blobs
the
1200
houses,
the
339
access
has
to
be
delivered
at
1500
houses
it.
It
has
to
come
forward
earlier
if
a
dwelling
that
is
dependent
upon
it
is
built.
F
But
the
backstop
is
1500
houses
and
then,
at
that
point
of
the
delivery
program,
when
they
are
building
or
have
built
out
the
339
access,
they
will
know
when
they
want
to
close
and
what
the
time
scale
is
for
closing
the
temporary
access
and
that
then,
and
then
that
would
be
closed
after
1.
750
dwelling,
so
there'll
be
another
250
dwellings,
maximum
from
the
construction
of
the
339
access
and
the
closure
of
the
temporary
access,
and
that's
at
a
build
out
of
250
to
300
dwellings.
A
year
is
somewhere
between
5.5
and
7
years.
P
Harvey
thank
you.
Chair
can
I
thank
our
colleague
from
Hampshire
for
being
here
this
evening.
We
don't
often
have
the
opportunity
to
ask
a
highways
expert
in
the
context
of
these,
and
thank
you
to
our
officers
for
standing
in
on
numerous
occasions.
Could
I
ask
you
in
terms
of
your
County
Council
position,
you
are
not
objecting
to
the
applications.
You
are
saying
that
this
is
a
safe
proposal.
G
Okay,
thank
you
chairman,
I,
think
I'll
say
to
that.
First
of
all,
they
can
be
absolutely
no
guarantee
that
there
will
not
be
a
collision
between
vehicles
on
Roman
Road,
whether
they'd
be
involved
with
the
construction
of
the
development
or
not
all
I
can
say
to
you
is
that
the
two
applications
before
so
we'll
deal
with
the
Roman
Rogue
one
first
but
effectively.
This
is
for
both
accesses
and
I'll.
Happily
say
it
again,
but
I
may
not
use
exactly
the
same
words
in
the
same
order
later
on.
G
Part
of
that
consideration
is
a
review
of
the
implications
of
that
access
in
Road,
Safety
terms
and
the
developers
provide
at
the
request
of
the
County
Council,
an
independent
road
safety
audit
of
The
Proposal,
and
that
has
been
carried
out.
It
is
sent
back
to
the
developer
and
all
the
consultant
and
the
designer
of
the
scheme
is
given
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
road
safety
Auditor's
recommendations,
if
indeed
there
are
any
and
it
is
then
submitted
as
part
of
the
package.
G
The
road
safety
auditor
has
not
raised
any
issue
specifically
about
either
of
these
two
Junctions
and
the
visibility
splays
for
traffic
emerging
from
the
sites.
Accesses
has
been
based
on
recorded
speeds
along
Roman,
Road,
so
I'm,
confident
that
there
is
sufficient
land
being
made
available
for
the
visibility
displays
to
enable
vehicles
to
turn
out
safely.
G
G
The
there
have
been
a
number
of
other
incidents
where
people
have
turned
out
of
the
side
roads
into
the
path
of
vehicles
going
along
Roman
Road.
Sometimes
these
things
happen
because
people
misjudge
other
vehicle
speeds
and
there's
there's
nothing.
You
can
do
to
prevent
that
because
that's
just
down
to
Human,
Action
and
and
judgment.
G
N
Tomlin,
thank
you
chair.
Another
general
question
concern
is
whether
we
what
will
happen
given
that
we've
just
learned
that
this
is
quite
a
lengthy
temporary
period
and
no
doubt
there
will
be
a
considerable
number
of
vehicles
involved
and
many
of
them,
obviously
turning
right,
slewing
across
the
road,
heavy
Goods
Vehicles,
fully
loaded.
The
condition
of
the
road
surface
will
deteriorate.
I've
seen
this
in
so
many
developments,
not
just
in
this
Borough
but
in
other
boroughs,
I
have
an
issue
right
now
with
with
one
where
the
road
is
just
being
completely
torn
up.
N
Now.
The
situation
we
have
is
the
local
highways.
Authority
may
not
wish
to
repair
it
because
it
will
be
continually
eroded
because
of
the
works
and
sorted
all
out
at
the
end.
Is
there
a
way
that
we
can
make
sure
that
this
road
surface
is
maintained
throughout
this
whole
application,
be
it
through
the
applicant
working
with
the
highways
authority
to
maintain
it
such
that
the
benefit?
Sorry,
the
immunity
of
all
the
residents
and
the
users
of
that
road
is
maintained.
G
N
Sorry
I
think
you're
missing.
My
point
is
that
this
is
going
to
go
on
for
several
years.
So
it's
no
really
good
measure,
it's
good
to
see
at
the
beginning,
but
it
needs
to
be.
We
need
to
somehow
condition
that
this
is
done
more
often
because
it
will
be
probably
pretty
wrecked
in
seven
or
eight
years
time
and,
and
that
seems
really
unsatisfactory.
L
L
You
know
I've
traveled
down
that
particular
Road
numerous
times.
Okay
over
over
the
last
10
15
years
and
I
have
to
say
I
I
find
the
the
fact
that
we're
going
to
have
you
know
40
mile
an
hour
limit
on
there
with
40
40
ton
arctics
going
down
there,
I
found
it
daunting,
I'm,
a
a
big
motorcycle
fan,
and
you
know
that's
one
of
the
the
cutthroves
that
I
I
tend
to
use.
L
I
shouldn't
really
announce
this
to
everybody,
but
it's
one
of
the
cut
throughs
that
I
actually
use
okay
to
get
onto
the
upper
part
of
the
Ring
Road.
You
know
and
and
I
have
to
say.
Sometimes
it's
it's
daunting
enough.
You
know
with
just
with
local
traffic,
let
alone
the
potential
of
having
all
these.
L
These
articulated
lorries
delivering
to
sites
so
I
I
I'm
a
bit
confused
about
that
and
certainly
torn
into
I,
can
understand
the
locals
argumentation
in
the
fact
that
the
the
spine
Road
was
was
going
to
be
built
first
and
now
it
seems
that
it's
not
going
to
be
built
first
and
I'm,
also
a
bit
concerned
with
the
fact
that
you
know
we
don't
seem
to
get
an
answer.
Okay,
when
we
ask
about
it,
you
know:
is
this
entrance
or
both
entrances
going
to
increase
the
speed
of
build?
L
Okay,
you
know,
I
I
know
it's
very
difficult,
but
I
I'm
I'm
struggling
to
justify
okay,
the
creation
of
one
possibly
two
more
entrances.
If
we
take
both
both
applications
together.
Okay,
if
it's
not
going
to
actually
increase
the
the
building,
the
role
out
of
the
build
because
I
I
just
don't
see
the
point
so
and
it
just
upsets
residents
and
ruins
the
road
so
I'm
I'm
interested
in
what
everyone
else
has
to
has
to
say
but
I'm
struggling
to
see
the
benefits
of
of
this
application.
P
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
think
without
question.
The
residents
have
got
concerns
that
they've
raised
this
evening
of
their
anecdotal
and
life.
Experience
is
something
that
is
important,
and
we
need
to
hear-
and
we've
heard
that
this
evening,
and
then
we
have
to
set
that
aside
against
the
technical
information
that
we
have
in
front
of
us,
we
have
an
application
in
front
of
us.
P
We
might
want
to
reduce
the
speed
limit
to
30
mile
an
hour,
but
that
isn't
before
us
and
it
isn't
on
the
table
this
evening
as
part
of
this
decision,
that's
the
matter
that
we
may
all
want,
but
it's
not
in
front
of
us
this
evening.
We
may
all
want
to
have
a
different
design.
That
is
not
on
the
table
in
front
of
this
evening.
We
may
have
an
alternative
that
is
not
on
the
table
in
front
of
us
this
evening.
P
What
we
have
in
front
of
us
this
evening
is
the
application
that's
been
submitted
by
the
applicant.
Is
that
application
in
front
of
us
in
any
way
technically
flawed?
It
is
not
from
the
evidence
we
have
in
front
of
us.
This
is
technically
sound.
The
officer
from
County
highways
has
said
as
much.
Yes,
there
are
many
issues
to
do
with
many
roads
that
will
relate
to
Road
Safety
that
we
would
all
see
differently
in
each
of
our
Wards.
P
We
would
have
those
particular
issues
are
those
matters
that
would
change
a
decision
in
front
of
us
that
stand
up
to
scrutiny,
Beyond
this
committee
and
I,
don't
believe
they
would.
They
would
not
stand
up
to
scrutiny
in
front
of
an
inspector,
nor
would
they
stand
up
the
script
in
front
of
the
police,
because
we've
heard
that
that
is
not
even
a
consideration
in
front
of
us
this
evening.
P
It
is
just
the
application
the
junctions
have
been
designed
with
displays
with
distances,
with
appropriate
extra
lanes,
they've
been
designed
in
such
a
way
by
the
applicant
that
has
met
those
technical
tests.
That's
what
we
have
to
judge
yes,
opening
up
two
Parcels
of
land
in
the
context
of
this
design
will
result
in
speeding
up
housing
delivery.
By
its
very
nature,
it
will
result
in
speeding
up
housing
delivery
that
isn't
in
front
of
us
this
evening.
P
P
It
is
technically
sound
and
therefore
I
would
move
the
officer's
recommendation
based
upon
that
I
can't
see
with
all
due
respect
to
the
residents
concerns
and
with
all
due
respect,
to
what's
been
said,
that
there
is
a
technical
planning
reason
within
policy
or
within
nppf
or
within
Hampshire
highways
consideration
in
the
278
act
or
any
of
the
other
elements
of
Acts.
That
would
stand
up
to
further
analysis.
It
is
sound
and
therefore
I
would
support
it
on
that
basis.
That
would
move
the
recommendation
as
such.
A
N
You
chair,
I
I,
was
going
to
second
this.
Obviously
it
was
a
race
to
fingers
get
on
the
in
the
air,
but
what
I
wanted
to
say
was
that
I
would
ask
that
we
within
our
power
when
we
require
a
construction
management
plan,
which
is
part
of
the
condition
that
we
have,
that
we
add
into
this
questions
on
how
the
applicant
will
manage
queuing
of
lorries,
because
we
will
end
up
with
cues
because
they
will
all
come
at
10.
N
N
So
it's
those
sort
of
things
I
think
we
need
to
embellish
and
require
of
the
applicant,
but
I
fully
agree
that
this
is
a
an
important
strategic
application
to
allow
this
site
to
come
forward.
So,
anyway,
it's
been
moved
and
it's
been
seconded,
but
I
would
ask
them
movers
whether
they
would
consider
my
request
for
this
construction
design
management,
councilor.
S
Chip,
so
Jeff
I
could
just
add
to
that
from
Patricia
as
well.
The
app
the
application
that's
before
us
at
the
moment
isn't
in
itself
traffic
generating
development
other
than
when
it's
being
constructed
for
itself
and
Patricia
is
entirely
correct
that
the
outline
construction,
Environmental
Management
plans
and
the
Escape
mechanism,
for
that
is
the
appropriate
time
to
review
that
kind
of
information
or
that
kind
of
information
and
so
informative
to
draw
the
applicant's
attention
to
that's
the
kind
of
information
that
local
planning
thoughts.
S
A
The
highways
or
the
police
are
going
to
object
to
an
absolutely
obvious
Road
Safety
measure,
we're
forever
being
told
the
the
injuries
to
people
at
30
mile
an
hour
are
something
like
half
or
even
a
quarter
of
the
injury
at
40
miles
an
hour.
I
just
can't
believe
anybody
would
actually
not
want
a
30
mile
an
hour
speed
at
a
temporary.
You
see
them
regularly
temporary
30
mile
an
hour
speed
limit
and
it's
a
construction
site,
so
councilor
Harvey's,
agreeable
I
would
like
an
informative
on
that
we're
looking
to
getting
that
done.
S
P
Councilor
Harvey,
thank
you
Chet
just
to
say
it's
moving
the
motion
I'm
happy
with
that
I'm
informative
if
cancer
Gaskell
is
to
in
the
context
of
if
Hampshire,
listening
and
clearly
you
are
because
you're
here
so
in
that
sense,
you're
saying
you
don't
have
an
objection
to
it.
If
the
only
objection
is
the
constabulary,
maybe
the
prime
commissioner
might
do
something
for
one's
amazing,
Stoke
and
pay
attention.
P
If
the
landowner
is
here
and
they
are
and
they're
listening,
let's
get
around
the
table,
let's
sort
it
out:
let's
not
leave
it
hanging
because
dabbling
need
to
be
moved
and
brought
on
board
with
this,
so
that
residents
can
be
given
some
confidence.
There
should
be
no
reason
why
the
police
are
objecting
and
we
need
to
move
them
on
this,
and
if
we
can
that's
great
the
other
points
on
the
road
surface,
the
informative
about
queuing,
the
issue
with
sat
navs,
taking
in
certain
directions
for
construction,
traffic
and
I,
know
this.
P
Well,
whichever
companies
you
choose
to
use
will
use
their
sat
navs
and
not
necessarily
use
their
local
knowledge
or
Mouse.
So
we
just
need
to
get
on
top
of
that.
In
terms
of
queuing,
I'm
sure
you're
listening
to
that,
and
can
we
have
a
you,
have
a
point
about
the
applicant
listening
to
the
local
residents
in
the
context
of
consultation?
Are
you
continuing
that
quality
so
that
we
don't
lose
that
if
you're
saying
it's
quality,
that's
good,
if
they're
edited
to
say
they'd
like
more,
you
need
to
give
them
more.
P
A
F
I
can
confirm
that
the
application
has
been
approved
as
per
the
written
papers,
with
the
further
edition
of
informative,
seeking
to
reduce
the
speed
limit
down
to
30
miles
an
hour
as
soon
as
possible,
so
that
not
necessarily
after
construction
and
then
adding
to
the
camps
and
documents
that
come
forward
about
Lorry,
queuing
monitoring.
The
road
surfaces
and
consultation
with
residents.
F
This
is
item
number
two.
It
is
a
full
planning
application
for
the
creation
of
a
temporary
construction
access
from
Roman
way
in
connection
with
the
many
down
development
site,
including
widening
and
altering
to
the
existing
Highway,
along
with
other
Associated
Works
included,
drainage,
landscape
and
utility
works
just
to
draw
attention.
F
The
applicant's
stated
reason
is
given
on
page
113
of
the
main
papers
to
construct
construction
of
the
western
side
of
phase
1A,
including
the
creation
of
a
new
traffic
control
Junction
with
Roman
Road
and
Winkle
brewway,
the
school,
the
first
primary
and
phase
1A,
and
at
the
access
to
a
whole
route
that
would
feed
one
b
and
that
would
be
a
reserve
matters.
Application
under
condition.
Four,
and
this
access
would
also
serve
the
land
between
phases,
1A
and
1B.
F
There
is
an
update
on
your
update
papers,
which
starts
on
page
seven,
just
confirming
that
members
visited
the
site,
consultations,
councilor,
Abigail,
Compton
Burnett
has
updated
her
comments
and
has
withdrawn
her
objection
again.
The
planning
history
on
page
on
the
main
papers
to
further
conditions
have
been
discharged.
The
other
matters
again
that
the
applicants
have
responded
to
the
proposed
alternative
route,
but
the
officers
confirm
it's
separate
from
and
not
for
consideration
through
this
application,
which
must
be
considered
on
its
own
merits
and
again,
then
conditions.
F
A
I
Thank
you
again,
chair
being
respectful
of
everyone's
time
this
evening.
I
won't
repeat
the
advantages
of
our
strategy
that
I
set
out
earlier,
but
they
apply
equally
to
this
application.
The
temporary
Junction
at
Roman
way
and
the
connecting
on-site
Road
Network
reduces
construction
traffic
along
Roman
way,
the
Roman
way,
roundabout
wirting
Village
and
the
B3
400..
I
A
A
C
Thank
you,
chair
members
of
the
committee
now
I
this
application.
Far
more
than
the
first
one
is
just
unsafe.
There
was
a
fatality
very
close
by
only
in
January
last
year.
There
is
a
public
footpath
that
leads
just
up
from
it.
I
know
these
are
dealt
with
in
the
conditions
to
a
certain
extent,
but
it
still
does
not
make
I
mean
Crossing.
That
road
anyway
is
dangerous
as
anything
and
it
will
just
increase
traffic
will
just
make
it
more.
So
this
out
of
both
those
applications
are
really
the
worst
ones.
Safety
wise.
C
There
is
a
double
Bend
there,
which
people
do
tend
to
speed
around
I.
Just
I
can
see
that
very
quickly,
there
being
a
fatal
another
fatal
accident
there.
If
this
access
is
allowed
to
continue
and
again
as
with
the
last
one
which
I
opted
not
to
speak
on
out
of
quickness
I
I,
just
think
it's
not
fair
to
blight
residents
lives
for
a
good
seven
years
with
this
sort
of
scheme.
N
C
It's
actually
classes
of
public
right-of-way.
It
is
used
extensively
by
dog
walkers
and
by
Ramblers,
and
they
say
the
the
main
access
point
for
it
is
straight
across
the
road
there
and
to
increase
the
construction
traffic.
It's
just
it's
going
to
be
a
nightmare,
but
yeah
it's
dog
walkers,
it's
Ramblers
and
it's
used
very
frequently
on
a
regular
basis.
A
R
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
I,
won't
use
the
four
minutes
and
I
appreciate
councilor
Harvey.
You
know
we'll
probably
mention
again
that
there's
no
technical
reasons
why
this
should
shouldn't
be
rejected.
What
what
I
would
say
is
that
this
entrance
wasn't
considered
as
part
of
the
original
plans.
It's
a
it's
a
new
consideration
that
is
a
hundred
meters
away
from
the
site
of
the
death,
whether
that's
the
cause,
the
junction
or
the
defend,
was
the
cause
or
not
yeah.
R
That
is
a
risky
Junction,
because
people
move
from
the
roundabout
at
the
bottom
of
Roman
way
at
speed,
and
they
also
come
down.
You
know
it
being
a
straight
road
lends
itself
to
a
lot
of
people
using
it
as
a
quarter
mile
race
track,
so
they
are
already
at
speed
before
they
hit
that
that
junk
that
turning
if
they
then
hit
the
bend
and
see
you
know,
lorries
turning,
you
know,
people
panic
start
start
swerving.
There
is
a.
R
No
consideration
for
those
on
Roman,
Road
and
Roman
way
when,
if
they
use
the
now
approved
entrance
at
the
North
and
constructed
the
whole
road
to
the
South
on
the
the
southern
entrance,
that's
already
approved
as
part
of
the
outline
planning
application.
This
would
remove
in
total.
You
know
any
need
for
for
hdvs
to
move
north
to
south
along
Roman
Road,
and
they
could
still
gain
access
to
the
back
of
both
phase
1A
and
1B
through
that
whole
road
and
through
offshoots
onto
that
temporary
offshoots
that
are
then
away
from
residential
use.
R
The
this
application
and
the
other
one,
interestingly,
also
don't
take
into
account
any
rise
in
traffic
from
that's
generated
from
the
many
down
development
itself.
So,
on
top
of
the
residential
sorry,
on
top
of
the
construction
traffic
on
top
of
the
existing
traffic
that
that
already
uses
it
add
to
that
the
residential
traffic,
that's
then
going
to
be
generated
from
up
to
1,
500
or
1750,
depending
on
which
number
we
look
at
on
which
page
plus
then
the
development
at
winkleberry
regeneration,
construction
traffic,
that's
going
to
be
used
there
as
well.
R
R
I
I
guess
I
was
going
to
add
it
at
the
time.
Is
that
that
footpath
itself,
if
you
imagine
that
there's
Saint
Thomas's
church
at
wirting,
Road
that
footpath
links,
Roman
row
or
Roman
way,
sorry
to
that
church
to
the
top
end
of
that
church?
So
it's
a
safer
access
than
going
down,
Roman
Road
to
the
B3
400
turning
right
and
then
going
up
the
lane.
So
it's
used,
you
know
quite
frequently
by
people.
I
use
it
myself
as
a
runner,
so
so
I'm
well
aware
of
that
route.
N
G
So
the
largest,
also
the
longest
I,
should
say
every
Goods
vehicle
we
get
in
this
country
is
16.5
meters.
Long
I
I
cannot
tell
you
from
just
looking
at
that,
drawing
just
how
long
the
right
turn
lane
is
and
I've
read.
I
haven't
got
a
detailed
drawing
in
front
of
me,
but
I
would
suggest
that
you
could
get
two
vehicles
of
that
sort
of
length
in
there.
G
So
the
first
section
of
the
road.
You
could
very
well
get
a
number
of
lorries
turning
up
fairly
close
to
each
other
and
assuming
everything's
working
okay.
They
will
have
to
be
arranged
probably
by
the
the
lead
contractor
to
stop
and
telephone
in
to
say
when
they
be
arriving
and
they'll
be
they'll,
be
called
in.
G
So
you
don't
normally
get
vehicles
stopping
out
on
the
immediate
Highway
network
very
often,
but
occasionally
you
just
might,
but
generally
speaking,
for
the
vast
majority
of
the
time
once
the
initial
bit
of
road
has
been
constructed,
there'll
be
the
ability
for
the
lorries
there
for
the
next
section
of
road
to
be
constructed
to
park
within
the
site.
So,
generally
speaking,
this
will
only
happen
once
in
each
of
of
the
accesses
and
that
will
be
for
a
single
day,
and
so
all
I
say
to
you
is
the
right
to
online.
G
Has
the
length
of
it
has
been
judged
to
accommodate
I
won't,
say
the
maximum,
but
the
vast
majority
of
instances
where
lorries
will
be
turning
to
the
site.
Also
remember:
it
will
be
there
to
accommodate
the
operatives
who
drive
there
in
the
morning
before
the
deliveries
arrive
to
to
start
work
on
their
particular
trade.
Whatever
that
might
be,
and
again
you
normally
get
the
groundworkers
in
there
first,
because
they
do
the
drainage
and
the
roads
and
then,
as
you
get,
they
should
develop
the
site.
F
If
it
were
to
be
approved,
there
would
be
a
reserved
matters
for
infrastructure
come
forward.
So
at
the
moment
you
have
a
red
line
and,
and
it
stops
it
sort
of
falls
into
a
Wilderness,
If,
This
Were
to
be
approved,
or
if
we
talk
about
the
northern
one
that
has
been
approved,
there
will
be
a
reserve
matters,
application
that
comes
in
that
creates
a
whole
route
from
the
access
into
the
site,
and
that
would
require
Reserve
matters.
F
So
this
is
just
an
access
and
it's
sort
of
a
very
small
red
line,
because
everything
else
would
be
captured
by
the
reserve
matters,
infrastructure
applications
that
will
come
forward,
which
are
all
then
tied
to
the
outlying
conditions
relating
to
the
the
Kemps
and
the
construction
managements.
The
details
of
the
reserve
matters
that
come
forward.
They
will
also
consider
if
a
reserve
matters
has
been
approved.
What's
the
impact
of
construction
and
Hall
routes
on
on
built
development,
as
opposed
to
just
you
know,
a
red
line
around
a
site
with
nothing
on
it.
F
So
it
does
look
like
it
stops
there
and
that's
that's
the
end
of
the
world,
but
there
will
be
more
development
that
comes
forward
and
that
will
need
as
a
reserve
matters
approval
under
the
conditions
of
the
outline
application
and
and
things
such
as
where
lorries
will
pull
in.
Where
contractors
will
park
where,
where
the
construction
hook
will
be
for
the
for
the
t's
and
the
that
that
will
all
be
considered
in
the
future.
G
Chairman,
sorry,
forgive
me
for
interrupting,
but
can
I
just
come
back
and
talk
you
specifically
about
this
one,
and
it
is
equally
relevant
to
the
previous
application
we've
discussed.
Whilst
these
works
are
being
constructed,
the
traffic
on
Roman
way
would
be
controlled
by
temporary
traffic
signals
so
that
you
won't
have
continuous
two-way
flow
past.
These
works.
You'll,
basically
just
have
traffic
signals
that
stop
One
Direction
of
traffic
to
allow
the
other
one
through,
and
then
it
will
clearly
change.
T
Thank
you,
chair
I
have
two
questions.
The
first
one
is
to
our
County
councilor.
We've
raised
a
few
issues
today
regarding
traffic
safety
and
Royal
conditions
blind
spots,
so
there's
obviously
risk
there
that
risk
will
need
to
be
managed
by
the
contractor
on
site.
Can
we
have
your
assurance
that
you're
going
to
supervise
or
monitor
that
and
make
sure
an
employee
is
enforced
correctly?
So
that's
my
first
question.
The
second
question
is
to
Beijing
stock
and
Dean
officers.
We've.
T
A
G
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
I
was
going
to
correct
that,
but
it's
it's
an
easy
mistake.
I
can't
tell
you
that
there
is
a
blind
spot
specifically
on
this
network.
There
is
a
Bend,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
drawing
fact,
there's
two
beds,
of
course,
but
I
drove
the
road
today
and
there
is
a
wide
Verge
on
the
inside
of
the
bend,
which
provides
adequate
visibility
for
for
motorists
that
use
the
road
at
the
present
time.
G
The
the
other
aspect
of
of
the
works
for
this
scheme
and
on-site.
We
will
have
an
inspector
inspecting
the
works
all
the
time
and
the
thief
considers
that
anything
to
be
unsatisfactory.
It
will
put
it
out
to
the
contractor
or
she
to
ensure
that
the
The
Works
are
carried
out
in
a
safe
way,
and
this
is
at
the
the
control
of
the
traffic
using
Roman
Way
by
traffic
signals
should
prevent
any
incidents
occurring
whilst
these
works
are
underway.
G
But
of
course,
you
cannot
tell
or
guarantee
that
some
people
not
jump
a
red
light
because
they're
in
a
hurry
and
that
causes
frustration,
because
somebody's
could
potentially
start
coming
in
the
other
direction.
But
normally
the
signals
are
set
such
that
they
allow
for
a
vehicle
to
pass
through
the
road
works
or
the
constrained
length
of
road
before
the
other
direction
goes
green.
So
it
should
not
happen.
But,
as
I
said,
you
cannot
account
for
stupidity
in
drivers
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
that's
everything
that
you
asked
but
I
mentioned
blind
spot.
T
S
If
I
could
just
come
on
back
on
the
question
in
terms
of
when
delivery
is
planned
for,
obviously
we
have
a
continuous
dialogue
with
all
developers.
It's
a
question
that
is
regularly
asked,
but
in
terms
of
how
that's
formally
reviewed
that's
through
the
authority
monitoring
port
and
our
colleagues
in
policy,
so
I
can't
put
a
direct
date
on
it,
for
you,
I'm
afraid.
L
Thank
you,
I
do
actually
have
well.
One
question
two
questions.
First,
one
is
to
the
Hampshire
County
Council
official.
You
mentioned
that
the
that
the
roadwork
is
going
to
be
protected
by
by
traffic
lights.
What
will
be
the
average
length
of
delay?
Okay,
I'm,
passing
through
those
those
traffic
lights
and
then
I
have
a
question
for
officer.
G
I'm
afraid
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
give
you
a
precise
figure
for
that,
simply
because
nobody
knows
at
the
moment
that
the
timing
of
the
lights
that
will
be
worked
out
later
on
all
I
wanted
to
explain
to
you
is
that
the
principle
of
traffic
will
be
controlled
past
these
roadworks,
so
I'm,
sorry,
but
I
can't
give
you
an
answer
that
I
could
honestly
put
my
hand
on
heart
and
say
that
is
correct
because
that's
not
been
character.
The
calculation
has
not
been
worked
out
yet.
L
Thank
you
and
just
my
question
to
officers
with
the
councilor
gaskell's
point
about
the
the
build
update.
Would
it
be
possible
to
have
that
reported
back
to
the
many
down
overview
committee?
Please
because
I
think
that's!
That's.
Probably
the
the
right
place
to
to
put
that
sort
of
of
question
to
thank
you
can.
N
N
F
To
watch
and
to
the
public
right-of-way,
then
that
would
be
adding
to
the
conditions
of
this
application,
because
it's
the
access
that
is
causing
the
obstruction,
not
the
the
detail.
We
are
proposing
condition
17
the
revised
wording.
On
page
10
of
your
update
report,
you,
you
could
add
a
D
to
that
list
of
condition,
17
for
a
scheme
for
signage
and
lineage,
but
I
would
also
draw
your
attention
to
the
main
papers.
F
F
It's
where
the
highway
team
have
commented
that
they
have
consulted
with
the
Hampshire
County
Council
officers,
who
are
satisfied
with
the
before
yeah
page
one,
two,
four,
the
third
paragraph
down
where
it
says
item
C1
Hampshire
County
council's
Highway
services
team
have
been
consulted
on
this
issue:
the
lack
of
a
pedestrian
Crossing
facilities.
There
are
no
pedestrian
Crossing
facilities
at
the
moment
and
they
have
recommended
some
mitigation
measures
for
the
consultant's
consideration.
F
Signing
of
the
exception
report,
which
is
to
do
with
the
278
and
the
highways
agreement,
will
be
partly
dependent
upon
the
mitigation
proposals
and
subsequent
liaison
with
our
chief
engineer
and
Road
user
audit
team,
and
it
is
considered
that
this
issue
can
be
resolved
as
part
of
the
278.
So
that's
the
reason
why
officers
didn't
include
it
because
it
would
seemed
to
be
duplicating
what
was
going
to
be
provided
by
the
278
agreement.
If.
S
I
could
add
to
that
as
well.
Chair,
that's
covered
off
very
well
in
terms
of
what
the
arrangement
is
for
the
temp-free
construction
access
period,
but
I
think
the
question
might
have
been
in
the
future
and
beyond
that
as
well,
when
the
temporary
construction
access
no
longer
exists
and
the
Housing
Development
Reserve
matters
comes
for
the
housing-led
reserve.
Matters
comes
forward
and
you
can
see
on
page
138,
there's
a
kind
of
a
footpath
network
around
the
site
and
the
it's
it.
S
But
it's
indicatively
or
illustratively
shown
on
that
plan
that
it's
the
applicants
seeming
intentional
at
the
moment
that
that
would
be
part
of
open
space
to
the
front
of
that
parcel
and
so
signage
to
direct
people
from
that
area
of
space
to
the
existing
right-of-way
could
quite
reasonably
be
part
of
that
Reserve
matters.
So
we'd
come
forward
at
that
stage.
N
F
T
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
think
it's
just
something
I
I
did
stating
Playing
devil's
advocate
I,
understand
the
the
risks
and
the
concerns
from
residents
and
disruption,
but
stopping
the
developer
doing
what
he
wants
to
do
and
making
it
more
efficient.
There
will
be
safety
concerns
on
sites.
If
we
do
do
that,
you
know
having
more
free
flow
of
traffic
on
site
is
beneficial.
The
other
engineering
activities
won't
stop
because
of
this.
So
it's
just
something.
T
L
A
F
A
A
B
U
Thank
you
chairman.
This
is
an
application
at
one
safety
Cottages
in
free
folk
planning.
Permission
is
sought
for
the
erection
of
one
residential
dwelling,
comprisingly
four
bedrooms
and
is
to
be
sighted
within
the
residential
Garden
of
one
Southview
cottages.
The
application
is
site
is
therefore
considered
to
be
previously
developed
land.
The
railway
Line
running
adjacent
to
the
site
demarcates
the
edge
of
the
area
of
outstanding
natural
beauty.
U
V
Chairman
members,
thank
you
for
your
time
this
evening.
I'll
try
and
keep
things
brief.
This
application
has
been
running
now
since
2020
and
has
been
through
some
minor
issues
along
the
way.
During
the
course
of
the
application,
the
design
was
altered
from
a
larger
four
bedroom
to
actually
a
three-bedroom
dwelling,
just
to
make
the
point
that
it's
three,
not
four
bedrooms,
which
became
acceptable
to
the
officer
at
the
time.
However,
as
the
committee
is
well
aware,
this
application
is
in
the
nitrate
vulnerability
Zone,
which
has
contributed
to
the
delays
with
this
application.
V
Therefore,
if
you
like
it's
a
win-win
in
terms
of
night,
don't
neutrality
and
alleviates
one
of
the
concerns
raises
an
objection.
The
main
issue
has
been
raised
in
relation
to
the
impact
of
the
aonb
by
the
council
landscape
officer,
but
worth
noting
is
that
there
was
no
objection
by
the
aom
officer.
V
The
site
is
on
an
existing
large
garden
visually
enclosed
and
therefore
both
the
previous
officer
and
the
existing
officer
did
not
agree
with
the
landscape
officer
and
as
outlined
in
the
planning
officers
report
before
you
have
afforded
their
comments.
Limited
ways
in
the
planning
balance
worthy
of
notice.
There
is
an
additional
is
additional
planting
along
the
boundary
which
will
be
conditioned
as
part
of
10
of
biodiversity,
net
gain
requirement
and
as
part
of
the
Landscaping
plan,
which
will
further
restrict
views
into
the
site.
The
biodiversity
officer
had
no
objection
to
the
application.
V
Therefore,
the
main
points
and
supports
the
application
and
outlined
in
the
office's
reports
are
the
cited,
hits
the
local
plan
policy
ss6a.
The
proposed
development
has
mitigated
any
biodiversity
or
environmental
concerns.
The
site
will
contribute
to
net
gain
and
biodiversity
in
line
with
the
council's
minimum
10
Target,
which
will
enhance
the
site
area
and
contribute
to
the
air
and
b
the
site
will
be
a
night
to
be
nitrate
neutral,
as
demonstrated
in
the
application
by
the
removal
of
an
inefficient
septic
tank
for
a
new
package
treatment
plant.
V
The
site
will
only
be
glimpsed
from
long
distance
views
by
the
public
realm
and
I
quote
from
the
report
would
relate
to
surrounding
development
and
would
not
result
in
significant
impacts
on
the
local
landscape
character.
Seen
it
quality
of
the
area
or
The
Wider
Northwest
xaonb
the
site
would
make
a
contribution
to
the
five-year
housing
land
Supply,
and
there
are
further
benefits
arising
from
biodiversity
gains
and
in
meeting
both
social
and
economic
sustainability
objectives.
A
V
You,
the
new
dwelling,
will
be
constructed
to
the
highest
standards
of
thermal
and
Energy
Efficiency.
In
response,
the
council's
declared
climate
emergency
to
conclude,
the
benefits
of
the
scheme
outweigh
the
localized
minor
impacts
on
landscape
character
and,
as
such,
we
wholeheartedly
agree
with
the
officer's
report
that
the
scheme
would
not
result
in
undue
harm
to
the
landscape
setting
or
the
OMB
and
ask
the
committee
support
the
recommendation
for
approval.
Many
thanks.
D
You
mentioned
the
property
is
going
to
be
constructs
the
highest
standards
of
Energy
Efficiency,
so
I
have
a
number
of
questions
aligned
to
that
is
it
going
to
have
solar
panels?
Is
it
going
to
make
use
of
great
water?
Is
it
going
to
have
an
electric
car
charging
point
and
what
type
of
insulation
are
you
going
to
have
on
the
property
to
meet
those
high
standards?
What
expectation
can
we
have
in
terms
of
electricity
it
will
take
for
the
grid
and
water
consumption
per
head.
V
I
come
a
building
regulations
expert.
If
there's
any
way,
I
can
draw
the
attention
to
the
reef
plan.
Perhaps
if
that's
possible
at
all
on
the
or
on
page
163,
the
solar
panels,
there
is
a
flat
area
of
the
roof,
so
the
solar
panels,
all
that
one
for
specifically
the
solar
panels,
are
on
the
roof
there,
so
that
will
deal
with
electricity
in
regards
to
gray
water
again
on
that
site
plan,
the
gray
water
is
area
is
close
to
the
garage
which
is
existing.
V
There
is
an
EV
charging
point
to
my
understanding,
nope,
not
on
the
plan,
but
it
would
be
near
the
near
weather.
Car
parking
area
is
and
in
terms
of
insulation
again
with
the
ever-changing
building
rigs
requirements,
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
tell
you
specifically
what
those
would
be
and
I
would
imagine
that
there
will
be
a
condition
of
110
liters
as
the
water
efficiency.
A
E
V
So
there
are
no
public
rights
of
ways
specifically
that
can
visually
see
into
the
site.
There
is
a
road
to
the
to
the
west
of
the
site,
which
I
believe
is
60
about
60,
70
meters,
away,
it's
a
flat
road,
so
there's
no
rise
in
the
road,
so
I
I
think
you'd
Glimpse
it
through
the
trees
to
the
west
of
the
site
there
and
then
obviously
the
access
track,
which
is
at
the
end
of
the
access
track
and
other
than
that
I
think
the
officer
would
probably
agree
with
me.
V
C
V
W
Councilors
I'm
here
this
evening
to
object
to
development
at
one
South
View
Cottages.
There
are
two
key
areas
on
which
my
objection
is
based.
The
first
is
the
sighting
of
this
proposed
development
in
the
north
Wessex
Downs
area
of
outstanding
natural
beauty,
and
the
second
relates
to
sustainability,
or
rather
the
lack
of
it.
I'll
support
my
objections
with
policy
evidence.
W
The
office's
first
reason
for
a
few
for
approval
talks
around
the
lack
of
five-year
land.
Supply,
though
later
acknowledges
this
single
dwelling
would
be
a
modest
contributor,
I'd,
probably
say
insignificant
rather
than
modest.
However,
this
very
argument
that
there
are
no
clear
reasons
for
refusing
sustainable
development
in
accordance
with
paragraph
11d
of
the
mppf
ignores
the
footnote
to
that
paragraph.
W
Crucially,
the
Tilted
balance
caused
by
a
five-year
housing
land
Supply
shortage,
does
not
apply
in
an
area
of
outstanding
natural
beauty,
as
confirmed
by
footnote.
7
to
the
nppf
therefore
adopted
local
plan
policy.
Ss6
new
housing
in
the
countryside
is
relevant
and
has
great
weight
in
decision
making
local
plan
policy
ss-6
excludes
proposals
that
would
which
would
result
in
isolated
form
of
development.
This
proposal
fails
this
test,
as
it
would
be
a
single
dwelling,
adding
to
an
already
isolated
and
small
number
of
existing
dwellings.
W
I
understand
that
Council
has
visited
the
site
and
surely
must
conclude
that
this
proposed
site
is
isolated.
Two
pairs
of
semis
and
one
detached
dwelling
isolated
away
from
any
nearby
defined
settlement,
both
physically
and
functionally.
It
is
not
in
accordance
with
paragraph
79
and
80
of
the
nppf,
which
avoid
the
development
of
isolated
homes
which
are
physically
separate
or
remote
from
a
settlement.
According
to
the
Braintree
judgment,
Overton
is
four
kilometers
away
and
which
is
3.2
kilometers
away
in
terms
of
sustainability.
W
The
proposed
development
would
be
entirely
car
dependent
given
its
isolated
location
along
narrow,
single
track
and
unadopted
roads
without
footways.
This
contradicts
the
adopted
local
plan,
cn9
policy,
which
seeks
to
minimize
car
travel
and
promote
the
use
of
alternative
sustainable
transport
modes.
Yes,
there's
a
pub
in
walking
distance
I
would
suggest
only
safe
to
do
so
in
sensible
shoes
during
daylight
and,
yes,
there
is
a
pretty
church,
but
as
much
as
these
establishments
bring
joy
to
many
sustainable
Access
to
Health
Care,
a
post
box
and
schools
are
arguably
more
important.
W
I
urge
counselors
to
very
seriously
consider
any
development
in
the
aom.
A
OMB,
however
insignificant
a
single
dwelling
might
appear.
This
is
supported
by
the
description
of
the
Lichfield
down
landscape
character
area
in
which
it
lies,
which
is
described
as
remote
and
unspoiled
and
which
would
be
eroded
by
the
development
as
set
out
in
the
objection
of
the
landscape
officer.
You.
W
So
we
must
avoid
creep
into
the
aomb
from
houses
like
this
one
with
a
large
enough
Garden.
In
doing
so,
we
are
encouraging
an
unsustainable
pattern
of
car-based
development
outside
of
settlement
boundaries.
It
also
goes
against
national
and
local
planning
policy
and
the
council's
declared
climate
emergency
aumb
is
aomb.
W
We
need
to
uphold
and
protect
it
and
not
get
into
academic
discussions
about
what
is
small
enough
or
screened
enough
to
slip
through
planning
I
remind
the
committee
of
its
unanimous
refusal
of
26
dwellings
in
high
clear
another
aom
site,
the
planning
Specter
comprehensively,
dismissed
on
appeal
at
the
end
of
last
year
and
I
request
that
the
committee
once
again
make
a
clear
decision
for
refusal.
Thank
you.
N
Reading
in
the
report,
though,
this
nitrate
issue,
putting
in
a
package
treatment
plant,
can
you
expand
on
is
well?
Is
it
a
natural
England's
comments
on
that,
because
I
find
it
incredibly
confusing
as
to
what
a
package
treatment
plant
would
do
to
remove
nitrates
it
just
as
far
as
I
understand
it
stirs
the
water
up
mixes
it
all
up
and
the
Clean
Water
floats
off
the
top,
but
I
don't
know
where
the
nitrates
go.
U
So
I
mean
in
terms
of
this
one
with
the
nitrates.
At
the
moment
there
is
an
older
package
treatment
plant
associated
with
the
with
Southeast
cottage,
which
is
obviously
of
of
an
age
and
therefore
doesn't
have
the
ability
or
doesn't
the
technology
in
terms
of
hand,
Mechanics
Work
doesn't
strip
out
or
remove
the
nitrates
as
much
as
they
need.
So
obviously,
if
we
replace
one
with
the
other,
we
get
a
more
efficient
much
more
up
to
date.
U
Obviously,
the
Technology's
Advanced
apps
such
further
that
it
then
has
the
ability
to
strip
out
I,
can't
explain
the
science
behind
it
myself
either
I'm,
not
a
scientist,
but
they
are
designed
in
such
a
way
that
they
do
have
the
ability
to
extract
the
nitrates.
Therefore,
the
clean
water
is
is
flows
through
the
system
and
out,
rather
than
anything
with
nitrates.
U
Reason
so
so
the
approach
assessment
or
the
oppression
we
carried
out
was
based
on
the
evidence
provided
by
the
applicants
which
had
these
I
think
they
had
a
calculation
based
on
what
the
current
loading
was
versus
the
loading
oops
linked
with
the
new
package
treatment
plant.
So
they
had
those
they
were
scientifically
carried
out.
The
new
one
was
lab
tested
and
it's
been
approved
by
Natural
England
they're
happy
with
the
calculations
provided,
so
we
carried
out
our
own
appropriate
assessment
based
on
the
information
provided
by
the
applicants
that
was
obviously
submitted
to
Natural
England.
U
D
Thank
you
chat
question
on
biodiversity,
so
this
plan,
page
152,
proposed
removal
of
vegetation,
including
fruit
trees,
but
the
building
of
a
wildlife
pond
so
I'm
not
sure
whether
that
constitutes
a
net
biodiversity
game
or
not.
I
presume
that's
down
to
what
species
are
introduced
into
the
pond
and
I'm,
not
sure
how
that
will
be
dumb
and
how
we
might
be
able
to
measure
net
biodiversity
gain
or
ensure
that
it
happens.
U
And
so
in
terms
of
the
yes
you're
right,
obviously
we
are
removing
vegetation
from
the
garden
and
the
proposal.
The
suite
of
Works
include
the
wildlife
Pond.
Obviously,
a
wildlife
Pond
attracts
Wildlife,
it's
obviously
taken
as
an
inherent
value
in
the
biodiversity
net
games,
so
there's
obviously
a
set
of
metrics
but
working
that
out.
In
addition
to
that,
we
are
looking
and
it
would
be
securing
further
planting,
so
we
wouldn't
just
be
relying
on
the
pond
in
itself.
U
N
S
E
What
is
produced
from
that
is
something
called
polished
water
that
is
good
enough
to
go
into
the
bohurst
brook
with
EA
approval
and
and
over
20
years.
We've
not
had
any
problems
with
it
until
we
got
to
the
right
level
and
that's
that's
fantastic,
and
there
are
a
number
of
these
packaged
products
going
in
in
Ashford
Hill
for
the
27
that's
currently
being
built
out
and
for
the
35
that
was
previously
built
at
Oakfield.
E
E
As
for
the
car
use,
my
wife
today
went
from
Ashford
Hill
to
Wolverton
to
the
Watership
Down
surgery
there,
and
the
use
of
cars
in
rural
environments
is,
unfortunately,
one
of
the
things
that
we
are
going
to
have
to
continue
to
to
put
up
with
until
we
get
electric
cars
or
or
we
get
jet
packs
on
our
backs.
So
I'm
afraid.
That's
that,
in
my
view,
is
always
going
to
happen.
The
proximity
of
the
existing
houses,
the
semis
and
the
the
single
residents
I
think
actually
add
to
it.
E
So
the
addition
of
another
home
I
do
not
think
is
is
too
much
to
to
ask
in
this
case,
but
it
is
about
being
site-specific
and
I.
Think
you
know,
none
of
us
want
to
see
large
incursions
into
the
aonb,
but
this,
in
my
view,
is,
is
not
material
and
on
page
149,
on
this
occasion,
the
concerns
raised
by
the
landscape
officer
cannot
be
supported.
As
stated,
the
dwelling
would
be
located
within
an
existing
garden
and
the
host
probably
has
already
has
a
defined
residential
character,
I
think
with
additional
planting.
A
A
But,
looking
at
this
this
question
is
it
actually
harming
the
aom?
It's
one
property:
it's
not
a
big
property,
it
sits
low
in
the
landscape
and
even
in
winter
with
no
leaves
on
the
trees.
It
is
very,
very
well
screened,
even
without
any
additional
screening,
it
is
screened,
I,
don't
think
it
is
actually
harming
the
aom
bay,
so
I'm
happy
to
second
The
Proposal.
Anybody
else
wish
to
comment.
Counselor
Harvey.
P
Thank
you,
chair,
hear
what
yourself
and
counciloratican
have
argued
and
and
get
it
it's
interesting,
because
the
debate
on
the
viewing
panel,
when
we
were
talking
about
it,
was
where
do
you
draw
the
line?
Do
you
draw
the
line
at
two
three,
four,
twenty
six
in
the
sense
of
this.
If
it's
in
the
air
would
be
it's
in
the
aom
B,
if
it's
in
a
Conservation
Area
it's
in
a
Conservation
Area.
Therefore
the
Tilted
balance
in
this
argument
related
to
the
mppf
is
relevant
and
those
points
are
well
made.
P
I
guess
it
comes
down
to
a
point
of
principle
as
well,
there's
going
to
come
a
time
when
something
will
come
across
our
table.
That
says
actually
that
one
is
harm
and
it
says
undue
harm
in
the
report.
So
there
is
harm,
that's
clear!
There
is
definite
harm
there.
The
question
is
how
much
harm
in
the
context
of
an
aomb.
P
So
this
was
a
tough
one.
Isn't
it
because
I
don't
not
understand
what
you're
saying,
but
where
do
you
draw
the
line
if
it's
in
the
aom,
B,
it
cannot
change
that
fact.
That
is
an
absolute
immovable
object.
Therefore,
the
policies
apply
and
ss6
applies.
It
is
isolated.
It
is
all
those
other
things
that
are
related
to
the
aimb
policy,
so
either
they
apply
or
they
do
not
apply,
and
if
we
choose
they
do
not
apply.
P
Why
in
the
world
did
we
write
the
policy
in
the
way
in
the
first
place,
because
we
did
and
it's
there
and
it's
in
our
local
plan
and
the
local
plan
applies
because
it's
in
aomb,
so
I
guess
it's
either.
We
stand
up
for
our
own
rules
that
we
don't
and
it's
the
context
of
which
it
sits,
and
perhaps
it's
the
principle
of
the
matter.
So
what
do
we
understand
by
undue
harm?
How
far
are
we
willing
to
go?
How
far
do
we
push
the
envelope?
U
So
this
is
a
planning
application
at
the
land
of
the
rear
of
80
power
down
Oakley.
This
is
an
outline
planning
application
which
is
sought
for
the
erection
of
one
dwelling
alongside
Associated
works
with
all
matters
at
Reserve
matters,
the
site
is
pretty
developed
land.
With
regard
to
updates,
we
received
additional
public
representations
which
have
been
summarized
in
the
update
paper
for
you.
U
In
addition,
we
received
the
boroughs
tree
officers,
consultation
response
which,
in
summary,
confirmed
the
constraints
of
site
in
terms
of
tree
but
considered
that
sensitively
design
scheme
could
be
delivered
whilst
ensuring
the
trees
retentions.
This
application
is
recommended
for
permission,
subject:
conditions
set
out
within
the
officers
report.
X
Last
summer,
their
predecessor,
Curtis
McVeigh,
made
a
site
visit
and
was
very
clear
that
this
land
should
never
be
approved
for
any
building,
and
there
are
four
points
I
would
like
to
raise.
Firstly,
the
design
statement
describes
the
land
as
generally
flat,
where,
in
fact
it
is
on
a
significant
incline.
X
The
planning
officers
report,
0.4
States,
the
development
would
not
cause
overlooking,
or
a
loss
of
privacy.
This
is
incorrect.
Any
dwelling
built
there,
regardless
of
size,
would
massively
Overlook
and
overshadow
the
properties
in
front
of
it.
Standing
on
the
ground
floor
would
enable
direct
line
of
sight
into
the
bedrooms
of
five
homes
below
clearly
significantly
impacting
privacy.
X
X
Secondly,
the
planning
officer
has
failed
to
research,
the
development
history
of
the
area
properly.
They
state
in
the
report
that
number
72,
which
is
adjacent
to
the
site
to
the
north,
is
an
example
of
background
development
being
established,
but
72
was
actually
one
of
the
very
first
houses
to
be
built
on
Pardon
more
than
90
years
ago.
The
houses
in
front
of
it
built
decades
later
72
is
not
an
example
of
background
development,
but
this
proposal
absolutely
would
be.
X
Thirdly,
this
land
sits
well
outside
the
Oakley
settlement
boundary.
The
site
is
towards
the
very
end
of
Pardon,
a
no
through
Lane
used
daily
by
Walkers
and
horse
riders
to
access
the
countryside.
It
is
the
countryside,
the
site
is
an
equestrian.
Paddock
has
been
for
half
a
century
with
no
history
of
any
type
of
dwelling.
X
Finally,
in
her
recent
email
of
the
4th
of
April
Sally
pickworth,
the
owner
of
number
72
and
a
fellow
objector
states
that
if
this
outline
application
is
approved,
she
would
consider
applying
for
planning
for
nine
houses
on
her
land.
How
many
other
residents
will
feel
the
same?
Granting
this
application
sets
a
very
dangerous
precedent.
X
X
If
this
committee
approves
this
outline
proposal,
you
are,
in
effect,
giving
a
green
light
to
all
anyone
with
land
on
power
down
to
make
similar
applications.
We
have
played
our
part
in
trying
to
protect
our
Countryside.
The
ward
councilor
has
objected.
The
parish
council
has
objected,
44
residents,
30
of
whom
live
on
par
down
itself,
have
objected.
X
X
A
X
Y
Thank
you
chair
is
that
working
brilliant.
Thank
you
evening,
members
The
Proposal
before
you
seeks
outline
permission
with
all
matters
reserved
for
the
erection
of
a
single
dwelling
house,
together
with
the
comprehensive
officer
report
in
your
agenda
pack,
which
recommends
approval.
The
outline
application
is
supported
by
the
following
technical
documents
that
a
land
contamination
report
an
extended
phase,
one
ecology,
ecological
assessment
and
the
phase
II
reptile
survey,
a
biodiversity
metric,
a
nitrate
neutrality
assessment,
including
a
management
and
maintenance
strategy
and
an
agricultural
implications
assessment
detailing
how
all
trees
on
site
will
be
safeguarded.
Y
So,
despite
the
fact
that
this
is
an
outline
application,
you
are
provided
with
a
suite
of
documents
that
provide
you
with
full
details.
The
submitted
plans
illustrate
to
a
two-story
dwelling
cited
centrally
within
the
site.
The
dwelling
would
be
located
away
from
any
shared
boundaries
and
would
include
areas
of
parking
and
turning
of
vehicles.
Y
This
current
application
follows
on
from
pre-application
from
a
pre-application
submission
to
the
council,
where
officers
responded
and
confirmed
that
they
would
welcome
an
application
for
a
single
dwelling
on
this
site.
The
site
does
fall
outside
the
settlement
boundary.
However,
it
is
not
located
within
a
within
any
assessed
or
valued
landscape,
character
areas,
The
Proposal
utilizes,
existing
equestrian
land,
which
is
considered
to
be
previously
development.
Y
It
would,
however,
sit
within
the
context
of
other
background
development
immediately
north
of
the
site,
for
example
at
number
72.
this,
together
with
several
other
properties
that
sit
behind
the
development
fronting
that
they
make
up
the
immediate
context.
This
was
found
to
be
the
case
when
this
committee
granted
full
permission
for
the
erection
of
two
dwellings
just
three
months
ago
for
a
site
at
number,
52
pardon
in
terms
of
neighboring
amenity,
The
Proposal
would
be
set
approximately
35
meters
from
the
rears
of
80
and
H2
pardon
being
the
nearest
Residential
Properties.
Y
The
final
design
would
be
such
that
it
would
not
result
in
any
windows
on
Innovations
facing
towards
these
properties,
whilst
The
Proposal
may
be
visible
to
neighboring
properties.
That
does
not
mean
that
it
would
harm
their
amenity
in
planning
terms.
There
are
no
technical
objections
to
the
development,
such
as
highways,
ecology,
impact
on
trees
or
nitrate
generation.
Y
In
fact,
the
proposal
demonstrates
biodiversity.
Net
gains
can
be
delivered
on
site.
The
Proposal
would
make
a
modest
but
meaningful
contribution
to
the
Cancer's
five-year
housing
land
supply,
of
which
there
is
currently
a
shortfall.
As
such,
the
application
Accords
with
the
mppf,
the
Oakland
D
neighborhood
plan
the
local
plan
and
should
be
approved
without
delay.
A
U
U
U
Forecast
planning
permission
is
sought
for
the
erection
of
three
detached
dwellings
alongside
garages
parking
and
Landscape.
The
application
site
is
located
on
previously
developed
land
for
clarity
for
the
committee.
There
have
been
two
recent
appeal:
decisions
in
the
local
area
and
I've,
provided
the
two
decision
site
location
plans
on
the
projector
screen.
For
you,
the
2018
application
was
dismissed
at
appeal,
and
this
was
due
to
harm
to
the
landscape
and,
as
you
can
see,
it
was
set
much
further
back
away
from
Westview
Farm.
U
U
A
Y
Thank
you,
chair
and
hello
again,
members
Planning
Commission
is
sought
for
the
erection
of
three
dwellings
with
garages
parking
and
Associated
Landscaping,
following
the
demolition
of
the
existing
Menage
Associated
yard
and
barn,
together
with
a
comprehensive
office
of
reporting,
your
agenda
pack,
which
recommends
approval.
The
application
is
supported
by
the
following
technical
documents:
a
transport
statement,
ecological
appraisal,
technical
note
to
accompany
biodiversity
impact
assessment
calculations.
Y
Y
The
principle
of
small-scale
new
housing
outside
of
settlement
areas
is
supported
in
policy
so
long
as
it
would
not
result
in
an
isolated
form
of
development
and
would
respect
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
area.
The
application
site
is
not
isolated,
given
its
proximity
to
other
housing.
Furthermore,
it
has
been
found
to
be
a
sustainable
location
and
not
isolated
as
part
of
the
recent
approvals
for
residential
development
joining
the
site
to
which
officers
just
referred.
The
scale
of
the
proposed
development
by
way
of
its
layout
form
and
design
is
clearly
appropriate
to
the
site
context.
Y
It
should
be
noted
that
a
dwelling
has
recently
been
allowed
on
appeal
to
the
immediate
north
of
the
application
site.
In
that
instance,
the
planning
inspector
found
that
the
site
comprised
previously
developed
land
and
that
the
dwelling
would
be
successfully
integrated
into
its
immediate
context
so
as
not
to
give
rise
to
adverse
landscape
impacts.
Y
We
believe
that
would
clearly
be
the
case
for
the
current
proposal,
as
it
is
almost
entirely
surrounded
by
built
form
in
terms
of
residential
amenities.
One
of
the
closest
properties
to
the
proposal
would
be
Westview
Farm,
which
is
located
40
meters
to
the
north
of
of
the
proposed
nearest
dwelling
to
the
southwise
manor
Farm
has
some
45
meters
away
with
the
tennis
court
and
swimming
pool
situated
between
that
dwelling
and
the
shared
boundary
with
the
application
side.
Y
Given
these
significant
distances,
The
Proposal
would
not
cause
any
material
harm
to
neighboring
amenity
by
way
of
overlooking
loss
of
light
or
an
overbearing
impact.
The
proposal
would
utilize
an
existing
access
which
serves
residential
and
equestrian
uses.
The
County
Highway
thought
you
is
carefully
considered
the
proposal
and
finds
that
it
would
not
impact
on
the
operation
of
the
Axis
or
the
local
Highway
Network
and
raises
no
objection.
Furthermore,
a
total
of
13
car
parking
spaces
would
be
provided
is
exceeding
what
is
required
by
the
parking
SPD.
Y
Y
Y
B
Y
L
Thank
you,
chair
yeah,
good
evening.
You've
obviously
got
planning
permission
for
one
house
on
on
this
site:
okay,
I'm,
just
wondering
why
you're
pushing
for
three
houses
when
further
them
earlier
on,
okay
in
was
it
2020?
You
had
three
houses
refused
on
the
site
just
to
the
the
left
as
I'm
looking
at
the
at
the
plan?
Okay,
so,
and
that
was
refused
on
appeal,
so
you've
got
pushing
for
one
house
I'm
just
wondering
why
you're
going
for
three.
Z
Just
to
pick
up
on
on
Council
Frost's
question
I
mean
that
that's
not
really
material
consideration
as
to
why
the
applicant
has
decided
to
make
or
come
forward
with
a
proposal.
You
need
to
consider
that
the
application-
that's
before
you
not
the
reasons
behind
it,
so
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
and
hope.
That's
helpful.
E
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
just
want
to
clarify
are
those
houses
that
are
behind
bethootha
nearest
the
track.
So
if
you
get
to
the
location
plan
yeah
those
two
buildings
closest
to
the
red
line,
are
they
homes
they're?
Not
they're,
not
they've,
not
got
names
on
them,
but
I'm
just
wondering
are
those
homes
rather
than
just
I,
don't
know
agricultural
buildings,
perhaps.
E
U
E
A
E
A
AA
A
AA
U
On
page
217,
where
I
think
I
think
it
came
down
to
a
conclusion
that
actually,
within
a
rural
area,
waste
collection,
so
we
have
set
standards
for
travel,
distance
or
carry
distance
for
bins
and
they
do
exceed
those.
But
in
light
of
rural
areas,
that
is
not
totally
uncommon
and
therefore
wouldn't
be
a
reason
sufficient
enough
to
refuse
an
application.
And
therefore
we
haven't
obviously
taken
that
objection
forward
as
a
reason
for
a
season.
L
Thank
you
chair
all
right.
I,
have
you
know
some
issues
with
with
this
particular
application
and
and
those
issues
are
one
the
fact
that
there
was
planning
permission
given
for
a
house
actually
to
the
the
bottom
end
of
the
site
as
we're
looking
at
it?
Okay,
but
to
the
the
left
of
where
it
says:
D:
okay,
the
DNA.
L
There
was
an
application
there
that
was
refused
for
three
houses
and
that
was
refused
upon
appeal,
so
I'm
I'm,
really
struggling
here,
yeah
I
think
it's
a
Brownfield
site,
okay,
but
I'm
I'm,
struggling
because
it
is
significantly
outside
of
the
the
settlement
boundary
and
you
know
the,
whilst
I
I,
don't
like
the
fact
that
the
office
for
Nico
responsibility
puts
puts
limitations
on
our
building.
Okay,
there
is
an
objection
there,
okay
for
the
dpz,
okay,
which
is
objecting
to
the
to
the
three
houses.
L
So
you
know
so
my
my
real
concern
here.
Okay,
is
that
I
think
it's
over
development
of
the
site
and
you
know
had
they
just
stuck
with
the
the
one
house
which
they've
got
the
planning
permission
for
then
then
fine.
But
the
fact
is
that
they
they
want.
More
than
one
the
Department
commission
for
three,
which
is
just
to
the
left
of
this
site,
okay,
was
refused
on
appeal
and
I'm
really
struggling
to
to
understand.
Okay,
the
the
reasons
for
approval,
because
you
know
I
think
it
does
affect
the
landscape.
L
L
E
It
is
rare
when
something
comes
up
in
our
award
that
we
agree
so
I'm
just
going
to
take.
Take
a
moment
to
contain
my
surprise.
Possibly
so
I
mean
I
think
there
is
an
acceptance.
This
is
a
Brownfield
site.
I
think
the
reality
is
that
the
track
would
have
been
used
by
ponies,
being
transported
or
horses
being
transported
in,
but
I
think.
The
significance
of
a
reason
for
refusal
is
the
impact
upon
the
homes
that
are
so
close
now.
E
That
is
why
I
was
trying
to
tease
out
from
the
officers
if
those
were
those
were
homes
or
were
they
agricultural
buildings,
because
I
think
the
traffic
is
going
to
go
straight
past.
The
bottom
of
one
of
those
homes
so
I
think
the
impact
upon
those
and
no
demonstrable
benefit
in
terms
of
the
the
housing
that's
going
to
be
built
there.
S
Yeah,
thank
you
Chad,
for
that.
That
goes
to
the
vote
just
to
clarify
the
planning
history,
first
and
foremost
on
page
203
of
the
planning
history.
Before
you,
there
was
a
refused
application
that
was
dismissed
to
appeal
with
a
reference
number
1803128
forward,
slash
full,
that's
the
one
that
you've
got
up
there
on
the
display,
which
you
can
see
is
one
step
removed.
S
What
we
now
have
is
an
application
for
three.
So
what
we'll
do
is
continue
that
run.
We
can't
obviously
say
that
it's
isolated,
because
it's
amongst
a
group
of
other
dwellings
and
the
planning
inspector
have
already
said
that
there
won't
be
a
landscape
harm
for
the
dwelling
immediately
to
the
south
of
Westview
Farm.
Obviously,
if
members
feel
that
another
three
does
cause
a
landscape
impact,
then
that
is
an
opinion
that
they're
open
to
it's
a
subjective
opinion,
but
it's
officer's
family
there's
a
group
of
dwellings
there.
S
The
inspect,
has
already
found
that
a
dwelling
next
to
the
existing
dwelling
is
acceptable
and
they're,
not
offensive
viewers.
Continuing
that
run
doesn't
cause
any
significant,
greater
harm
to
landscape
and
then,
therefore,
our
recommendation
is
for
approval.
We
must
remember
that
that
is
in
the
context
of
a
lack
of
five-year
housing,
land
Supply
and
that
the
harms
must
significantly
and
demonstrably
outweigh
the
benefits.
S
I
just
want
to
pick
up
on
one
other
point
mentioned
that
you
may
be
voting
on
in
terms
of
a
potential
reason
for
refuse
or
an
impact
on
homes
from
traffic.
That's
not
a
reason.
Profusal
in
offices
view
that
can
be
substantiated,
there's
an
exist.
It's
an
existing
group
of
Residential,
Properties
and
farm
or
equestrian
traffic
can
and
does
use
that
access
to
have
three
dwellings
with
the
vehicle
movements
associated
with
them
wouldn't
be
materially
different
in
terms
of
the
traffic
and
traffic
noise
associated
with
that.
S
L
Certainly
chair:
okay
over
the
apartment
of
the
site:
okay,
yes,
there's
permission
granted
for
one
house,
but
on
previous
occasions
there
was
a
refusal
for
two
and
there's
also
a
refusal
for
three
which
were
just
to
the
left
of
it.
Okay
and
I
I
think
that
three
houses
will
be
over
the
development
of
the
particular
site,
also
more
urbanizing
of
the
countryside.
L
U
B
U
S
S
There
is
an
update
which
provides
details
on
additional
letter
of
objection
received
in
respect
of
concerns
for
overlooking
from
the
storage
area
if
that's
used
as
a
bedroom
and
rehearsing
the
objections
that
are
contained
within
the
agenda
paper
in
terms
of
the
bulk
of
your
extension
and
then
a
response
to
that
from
officers
in
respect
of
the
back-to-back
distances
between
the
rear
extension
and
the
properties
behind
which
is
in
excess
of
the
20
meter
distance.
That's
set
out
within
our
design
and
sustainability
SPD
and
therefore
doesn't
want
a
recent
refusal.
A
AB
I'm
here
today
to
talk
to
you
on
behalf
of
my
neighbor's
presence
about
the
planning
application
for
number
nine
Heath
Road
pamber,
Heath,
Mrs
Linda
Cowans
of
11
Heath
Road
wished
to
attend
also,
but
was
unable
to
do
so.
The
applicant
has
applied
to
do
an
extension
to
the
rear
of
number
nine,
which
will
go
out
from
the
very
top
of
the
existing
roof
and
will
be
the
full
width
of
the
original
Bungalow
that
was
built
on
the
plot
prior
to
the
other
extensions
being
added.
AB
The
original
plans
that
the
app
can
submitted
included
a
first
floor
window
that
would
have
overlooked
neighbors
properties
to
the
rear.
There
were
concerns
amongst
my
neighbors
and
I
that
this
would
lead
to
a
loss
of
privacy,
as
this
window
would
afford
a
view
into
the
private
living
areas
of
properties
at
the
rear
of
number
nine.
AB
AB
AB
As
a
consequence,
number
nine
is
already
quite
prominent
to
my
neighbors
at
number
29,
who
are
situated
to
the
east.
My
neighbors
are
concerned
that
the
current
plans
would
make
number
nine
very
imposing
my
neighbors
at
number.
Seven
also
feel
that
the
extension
will
be
very
imposing,
particularly
as
it
will
be,
the
width
of
the
original
building
footprint.
AB
Having
seen
the
Outlook
from
these
neighbors
properties,
myself,
I
can't
understand
their
concerns
and
I
would
ask
if
the
council
would
consider
visiting
these
properties,
so
they
can
see
for
themselves
how
they
would
be
affected,
which
adds
to
the
objection.
Comments
have
already
been
submitted
by
number
11
to
the
south
of
number.
Nine,
and
this
property
is
also
downhill,
so
I
feel
the
slope
should
be
taken
into
consideration
when
reading
what
Mrs
Linda
Cowans
has
said
in
terms
of
this
state.
AB
Overall,
there
are
76
Bungalows
together,
which
is
unusual,
and
it
also
gives
the
area
its
own
unique
character
amongst
these
Bungalows.
There
have
been
some
extensions
and
lost
conversions
which
have
been
sympathetic
to
the
area's
character
when
we
moved
into
the
estate.
We
knew
that
there
would
be
extensions
done
to
the
Bungalows
and
there
was
a
realisticated.
AB
That
this
would
happen
as
such.
We
are
not
opposed
the
idea
of
someone
extending
their
property.
However,
in
the
case
of
number,
nine
The
Proposal
seems
too
big
for
the
direction.
The
extension
would
go
in
I.E
into
the
garden
in
the
direction
of
properties
backing
onto
it.
I
know
that
there's
been
some
mention
of
number
60
Heath
Road
having
a
similar
extension,
but
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
the
property
to
the
rear,
60
is
actually
positioned,
sideways
on
and,
therefore
a
loss
of
privacy
to
private
rooms
is
not
an
issue.
AB
AB
Up
there
are
some
bigger
extensions
at
the
end
of
West
Westland,
but
these
properties
don't
overlook
other
houses
at
the
back
as
they
back
onto
the
road
and
the
heath
Beyond
and
finally,
I'd
like
to
say,
we
did
not
wish
to
get
to
the
point
of
having
to
come
to
this
meeting
and
speak
publicly
in
opposition
of
our
neighbors
application.
But
we
needed
to
speak
up
because
we
feel
strongly
about
the
points
that
have
been
raised
and
we
want
our
voice
to
be
heard
as
part
of
your
decision
making
process.
Thank
you
thank.
A
AC
Chair,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
for
allowing
me
to
speak
in
support
of
the
household
of
plan,
an
application
at
9,
Heath,
Road
and
I.
Very
much
welcome
the
fact
that
the
planning
departments
in
support
of
the
proposals,
the
existing
property,
is
a
four
bedroom,
Chalet
style
Bungalow,
with
two
bedrooms
in
the
roof
and
two
bedrooms
on
the
ground
floor,
one
of
which
is
used
as
a
study.
AC
The
original
proposal
was
to
carry
out
a
simple
rear
extension
in
order
to
allow
three
bedrooms,
one
being
used
as
a
study
on
the
ground
floor
and
one
bedroom.
On
the
first
floor,
the
remainder
of
the
first
floor
being
used
for
storage.
The
original
proposal
indicated
the
first
floor.
Bedroom
at
the
rear
contained
within
a
Gable
ended
with
a
roof
with
a
rear
facing
window.
AC
AC
It's
felt
that
the
extension
is
sympathetic
to
both
the
neighbors
and
the
neighborhood
in
general
and
has
received
the
support
of
councilor
Joe
slimming
during
the
process
of
consultation,
councilor
slimming
had
told
my
client.
She
would
attend
this
evening's
meeting
to
voice
her
support
in
person,
but
unfortunately,
is
now
unable
to
do
so,
as
she
has
a
conflict
in
engagement.
N
R
S
Yes,
of
course,
I
mean.
Firstly,
we
have
a
the
planning
application
before
us
in
the
proposal
before
us,
which
means
we
need
to
assess
on
it
merits.
Obviously,
there
is
a
full-back
position
that
an
extension
at
the
rear
could
be
erected
under
permitted
development,
and
that's
certainly
the
case
for
a
single
story,
rear
extension
that
would
have
to
have
Eaves
and
ridge
height
no
higher
than
the
high
height
of
the
dwelling.
A
A
S
A
S
A
A
AD
AD
They
considered
that
it
was
covered
by
committed
development,
as
it
was
within
an
area
they
believed
was
their
Garden.
It
was
constructed
in
good
faith
in
line
with
the
requirements
of
permitted
development
criteria.
However,
following
on
an
inquiry
relating
to
another
application,
it
was
identified
as
being
partially
within
the
residential
cartilage
and
partly
within
the
regularized
equestrian
land
Beyond.
Hence
this
full
planning
application
is
made
to
regularize
the
shed
and
the
land
area
it
sits
on.
AD
The
small
L-shaped
shed
is
positioned
behind
the
main
dwelling
partially
on
a
previously
existing
lawn
and
flower
bed
area,
with
the
neighboring
properties
Garden
being
much
longer
in
length.
It
is
easy
to
see
how
the
application,
sorry,
how
the
applicants
considered
the
sighting
of
the
shed
was
part
of
their
immunity
space.
AD
AD
AD
The
partial
sighting
in
the
shed
on
the
equestrian
landed
joining
the
cartilage
has
not
dramatically
increased
the
amenity
space
and
has
very
little
impact.
The
shed
at
the
rear
of
the
main
dwelling
is
in
an
area
with
adequate
screening
provided
by
the
properties
established
large
boundary
Hedges
on
both
sides.
There
are
no
windows
on
the
side
elevation
facing
the
nearest
neighbor.
AD
It
is
not
visible
from
hackwood
Lane
and
there
are
no
views
from
the
wider
landscape.
Therefore,
its
sighting
is
sympathetic
to
the
surroundings
and
it
has
no
detrimental
effect
on
the
main
dwelling
or
the
character
of
the
area,
nor
does
it
encroach
into
open
Countryside
or
have
any
impact
on
the
neighboring
properties.
AD
As
outlining
your
planning
officers
report,
the
sighting
of
the
shed
and
change
of
use
of
the
small
Area
Equestrian
land
causes
no
harm
sufficient
to
justify
any
reasons
not
to
approve
the
application
to
confirm
the
shed
has
no
Plumbing
kitchen
or
bathroom
facilities.
It
is
solely
a
shed
other
opposing
comments.
Mention
a
small
summer
house
style
Building
located
on
the
Northwestern
boundary.
This
building
has
been
in
situ
since
2015
and
its
use
in
relation
to
keeping
horses.
Therefore,
it
is
related
to
the
equestrian
land
use
and
it
is
not
unlawful.
AD
The
majority
of
the
objection
letters
received
are
not
directly
related
to
the
application
before
you,
but
they
are
directed
at
how
the
council
deal
with
applications,
and
these
are
Irrelevant
for
the
purposes
of
this
application.
Therefore,
I
ask
you
to
support
your
officer's
recommendation
for
approval.
Thank
you.