►
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
For
the
benefit
of
members
of
the
public
watching
or
participating
in
this
meeting,
I
would
like
to
explain
who
everyone
is.
My
name
is
councilor
Nick,
Robinson
and
I'm,
chairman
of
this
committee,
to
my
right,
our
councilors,
who
will
be
making
the
decisions
on
the
applications
on
this
evening's
agenda.
A
The
development
control
committee
is
a
regulatory
committee,
not
a
political
meeting.
The
committee
will
be
considering
the
published
papers
examining
the
evidence
brought
before
us
tonight
and
will
make
decisions
based
on
planning
reasons.
We
are
Guided
by
national
and
local
planning
policy
and
guidance
at
the
appropriate
time.
I
will
invite
speakers
to
contribute
to
the
meeting
in
the
order
setup
in
the
update
paper
may
ask
all
speakers,
including
visiting
members,
to
speak
clearly
and
to
keep
points
made
on
the
application
on
material
reasons.
A
Only
no
further
dialogue
between
members
of
the
committee
and
speakers
will
be
permitted.
Once
questioning
has
finished,
all
speakers
will
be
reminded
of
their
permitting
speaker
permitted
speaking
time
and
will
be
advised
when
they
have
one
minute
remaining
and
ask
all
committee
members
to
avoid
reputation,
repetition
and
to
keep
any
comments
on
each
planning
application
to
a
maximum
of
four
minutes.
A
A
Apologies
for
abstinence
and
substitutions
I
have
two
I:
have
apologies
from
councilor
godison
I'm
from
counselor
Harvey
Declarations
of
Interest?
Are
there
any
Declarations
of
Interest
tonight
nope?
Thank
you
very
much.
Urgent
matters.
I.
Have
none!
No
okay
minutes
of
the
meeting
held
on
the
29th
of
March
and
of
the
on
the
12th
of
April
I
move
the
minutes
are
correct,
could
have
a
second
to
please
councilman
McCormick.
Thank
you
right.
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
I,
guess
it's
a
full
planning
application
for
the
construction
of
two
Gypsy
and
traveler
pitches,
both
independently
serviced
with
an
emergency
building,
large
trailer
and
touring
Caravan
with
parking
Landscaping,
an
engineering
Associated
works.
This
is
a
full
application
with
the
outline
permission,
15
forward,
slash
zero,
four
five
zero
three
forward,
slash
out
for
up
to
750
houses
and
Associated
land
uses,
including
the
allocation
for
two
Gypsy
and
traveler
pictures.
Having
previously
been
granted
in
terms
of
update.
B
B
Clarification
has
also
been
received
from
the
agent
regarding
the
extent
of
engineering
works
as
follows,
which
is
for
the
creation
of
the
new
access
onto
trenchard,
Lane
creation
of
passing
Bay
on
the
lane
laying
of
hard
surfaces
and
general
Earthworks
within
the
site
and
provision
of
drainage
and
Associated
utility
infrastructure.
All
of
these
would
fall
within
the
term
engineering
operations
for
the
purposes
of
the
planning
application
that
were
further
objection.
Letters
which
have
also
been
received
raising
similar
concerns.
Amongst
other
matters,
which
are
detailed
in
the
update
paper.
B
A
C
Right
good
evening,
the
application
you
have
before
you
is
a
result
of
A
Dysfunctional,
Planning
Development,
with
a
constant
churn
of
planning
officers
that
has
cynical
development
who
never
wanted
these
pitches
and
did
not
accept
your
policy
cn5
and
his
responsibilities
under
that
policy.
The
developer
waited
for
years
until
the
new
planning
officer
was
appointed
and
approved
the
final
housing
allocation
before
bringing
this
application
to
committee,
it's
an
application
that
minimizes
the
impact
on
the
developer
and
harms
everybody
else.
C
C
It's
a
concern,
the
the
the
relative
ground
height
on
this
sleeping
site,
the
it
endangers
pedestrian
on
the
local
footpaths,
the
Wayfarers
walk
and
the
Camino
de
Santiago,
and
for
The
Travelers
and
gypsies.
It
is
an
isolated
site,
dangerous,
especially
for
their
children,
because
of
the
commuter
traffic
on
trenchard
Lane,
there's
no
provision
of
footpaths.
It's
remote
from
schools,
shops,
public
transport
and
other
facilities.
Despite
the
long
gestation
period,
this
application
is
incomplete,
there's.
C
This
is
partly
due
to
the
fact
that
the
location
was
and
these
Dimensions
were
changed,
but
it
doesn't
explain
omissions.
There
is
no
indication
of
the
leveling
required
or
whether
the
the
retaining
or
retaining
wall
would
be
necessary.
There's
no
mention
of
the
unshielded
high
tension,
cables
that
run
over
the
site
or
the
pole
that
supports
the
low
voltage
Supply
to
The
Cottages
that
stands
inside
the
site
and
it
stays
in
the
Hedge
that
appears
to
stand
in
the
in
the
visibility
space
area.
C
There's
no
indication
of
the
route
for
foul
water,
the
foul
water
sewage,
on
on
its
way
across
the
easement
area
of
the
of
the
oil
pipeline,
there's
no
clear
specification
of
the
acoustic
fence
and
it
mentions
the
sweat
paths-
do
not
indicate
how
Caravans
would
actually
maneuver
into
position.
The
work
is.
Incomplete
conditions
will
not
resolve
all
these
shortcomings.
Policy
cn5
is
meant
to
benefit
Travelers
and
gypsies.
This
application
feels
fails
to
achieve
that
and
I
urge
you
to
refuse
it.
A
D
Thank
you
good
evening.
I'm
will
Jones
I
live
at
the
entrance
to
Southwood
Farm.
The
hearing
question
is
a
very
popular
walking
and
cycling
spot
with
public
footpaths,
no
more
than
20
to
30
meters
from
the
proposed
entrance
used
by
dog
walkers
for
families
with
young
children.
Despite
this,
no
measures
are
proposed
to
improve
cycling
or
walking
walking
facilities
in
the
area,
which
only
increase
the
dangers
to
them.
The
pedestrianization
of
the
area
will
continue
to
increase
as
the
local
development
grows
and
people
seek
the
countryside
footpath
as
their
Leisure
Time.
As
mentioned.
D
Not
only
does
this
pose
a
danger
to
pedestrians,
but
also
to
the
residents
of
the
proposed
development,
which
is
locking
them
into
vehicle
dependency
and
further
segregating
the
residents
on
that
site.
The
traffic
survey
that
was
carried
out
in
trenchard's
Lane
did
it
take
into
account
things
such
as
icy
conditions,
torrential
rain
or
the
increase
in
traffic
due
to
local
annual
festivals.
D
With
the
recent
beanie
part
of
the
driving
license
now
being
scrapped.
This
will
broadly
mean
that
anyone
with
a
car
license
will
be
able
to
tow
a
trailer
weighing
up
to
3.5
tonnes
along
this
small
unsuitable
road,
with
the
need
for
difficult
Maneuvers
in
the
best
of
driving
conditions
which
are
not
taking
into
account
inclement
weather
or
high
traffic
volumes,
even
at
low
speeds.
Three
and
a
half
tons
can
cause
a
lot
of
damage
to
other
Road
users,
less
alone
pedestrians
and
cyclists
they're
35
miles
an
hour.
D
There's
a
one
in
three
chance
of
pedestrians
will
be
killed,
which
is
a
recorded
which
has
been
recorded
on
the
survey.
Is
this
development
suggesting
that
it's
an
acceptable
risk
to
the
local
pedestrians
who
have
had
no
provision
considered
to
keep
them
safe?
The
obvious
increase
in
pedestrians
having
to
use
the
road
as
a
footpath,
along
with
the
increase
of
large
Vehicles,
will
mean
it's
a
matter
of
time
before
the
serious
incident
occurs.
Thank
you
good.
E
So,
despite
this,
the
site
is
still
recommended
for
approval
and
parts
of
policy
have
been
ignored
situated
at
the
far
end
of
Hanson
Fields,
with
its
1.8
meter,
high
surrounding
fence
and
its
own
access
onto
the
Rat
Run
of
trenchard's
Lane
The
Traveler
site
is
completely
isolated
from
the
shop
school
and
play
areas.
There
is
not
a
nearby
bus
route
or
a
safe,
walking
path
to
Everyday
facilities,
which
necessitates
Journeys
by
private
car
policy
cn5.
E
A
E
The
entrance
onto
trenchards
Lane
has
other
implications.
It's
very
narrow.
The
site
design
needs
a
large
open
area
for
a
vehicle
and
trailer
turning
Circle
similar
sites.
This
extra
space
is
used
up
by
four
or
five
extra
visiting
Caravans
or
a
business
setup.
It
will
be
overcrowded,
and
this
is
the
reality
of
an
isolated
large
site,
which
was
only
intended
for
two
pictures.
The
site
will
be
sold,
Freehold,
a
very
undesirable
outcome
for
nearby
residents
grade
two
listers
Southward,
Farmhouse
and
Wayfarers
walk.
E
The
developers
should
be
encouraged
to
take
for
an
ownership
of
the
problems
of
integration
and
access,
rather
than
placing
them
onto
existing
settled
residents
where
successful
integration
has
not
been
demonstrated.
Policy
cn5
and
finally,
a
strategic
bathing
suit.
Gateway
plans
are
not
yet
finalized.
It
would
seem
a
little
unwise
to
set
a
potentially
large
non-integrated
traveler's
site
at
its
heart.
Please
vote
against
the
recommendation.
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you,
I'll,
try
not
to
repeat
what's
already
been
said,
but
I
will
just
say
at
the
beginning
that
whatever
highways
may
say,
this
is
a
dangerous
proposal,
especially
with
the
increase
in
the
uses
of
trenchard's
Lane
as
Oakley
increases.
F
F
Here
we
are
nearly
six
years
later
following
multiple
approvals
of
phased
Reserve
matters.
Applications
left
with
the
last
hurray
the
Gypsy
traveler
pitches.
On
the
leftover
bit
of
land,
I
wrote
to
the
planning
officer
two
years
ago
flagging
up
this
very
possibility
that
the
whole
site
might
be
filled
with
houses
and
all
that
is
left
for
the
Gypsies
and
travelers.
Is
this
far-flung
place
that
has
no
connection
with
the
main
estate?
F
The
intention
is
clearly
that
we,
the
planning
Authority,
have
no
choice.
What
did
the
outline
say
so
the
parameter
plan
here
the
parameter
plan
included
in
the
approved
outline
application,
shows
a
brown
hatched
area
adjacent
to
the
neighborhood
center,
which
and
I
quote,
denotes
the
location
for
residential
uses
and
the
provision
of
gypsy
traveler
pitches
there.
It
is
right
in
the
middle
of
the
site,
the
access
parameter
plan
included
in
the
approved
outline
application
shows
vehicular
access
only
along
the
a30.
F
There
is
no
vehicular
access
on
trenchard's
Lane,
so
I
leave
it
with
you
to
decide.
Therefore,
if
this
application
that
we're
considering
is
in
substantial
accordance
with
the
outline
permission
and
looking
at
our
own
policies,
I'm
sure
you
know
policy
cn5
only
too
well,
but
let's
just
look
at
the
word
integration.
F
If
the
families
who
occupy
this
site
want
to
access
the
school,
the
shop,
the
facilities,
everything
that's
on
the
handsome
field,
settlement
of
which
they're
supposedly
part,
they
have
to
drive
out
onto
trench
yards
Lane,
they
have
to
go
up
a
branch
of
the
a30
go
on
to
the
main
a30
and
then
access
the
site
via
the
main
roundabout.
Do
you
think
they
might
feel
a
bit
marginalized
having
to
do
this?
There
isn't
even
a
Road
between
their
site
and
the
estate.
They
are
cut
off
from
the
estate.
F
Does
that
demonstrate
and
I
quote
the
policy,
the
potential
for
successful
integration
between
traveling
and
settled
communities,
or
does
it
demonstrate
deliberate
segregation
by
the
developers
who
would
rather
not
have
Gypsies
and
travelers
in
amongst
their
houses,
as
originally
promised
as
soon
as
this
site
was
resurrected
as
the
place
for
Gypsies
and
travelers
I
arranged
a
meeting
with
Hampshire's
Gypsy
and
traveler
liaison
officers
that
was
in
August
2021.,
and
it
was
very
interesting
to
hear
their
views
on
policy.
I.
F
F
So
what
do
we
have
here
and
I
quote
the
pictures
proposed
under
the
current
application
of
a
private
sale
and
therefore
any
inhabitant
of
the
sites
will
be
responsible
for
their
management
and
upkeep
anybody
who
happens
to
be
there?
Anybody
who
happens
to
buy
it
so
we're
on
the
verge
of
buying
into
another
potential
peacocks
experience,
and
you
all
know
what
happened
to
peacocks
only
this
time,
it's
here
amongst
the
houses
and
cottages
of
Southdown
farm
and
garden.
F
E
F
The
developers
yes
over
to
you
and
I
would
just
say
one
thing
if
you
are
mindful
to
approve
and
I
really
really
hope,
you're
not,
please
do
consider
changing
the
access
from
trenchards
Lane
blocking
that
off
and
allowing
them
to
have
access
onto
the
main
community.
A
G
Can
I
have
a
guidance
in
I've
not
come
across
this
situation
before,
where
on
an
old
application?
This
facility
was
part
of
that
original
application,
but
it
was
never
shall
we
say
enforced
and
now
we've
got
another
application
to
address
what
was
addressed
in
the
original
application
seven
years
ago.
G
Does
this
Standalone
or
are
we
or
do
we
take
this?
These
two
situations
as
one.
H
Thank
you,
Council
Faulkner,
so
in
essence
the
just
the
members
through
the
the
history
I
suppose
the
outline
planning
permission
was
approved
under
the
original
has
some
schemes
proposal
that
included
the
up
to
750
dwellings
and
other
facilities,
including
Gypsies
and
travelers.
The
parameter
plans
that
were
associated
with
the
outline
application
were
part
of
the
conditions
to
the
application,
which
would
mean
that
any
subsequent
Reserve
matters
application
which
follows,
would
have
to
be
in
substantial
accordance
with
those.
H
This
is
a
full
application,
so
at
any
point
anybody
can
apply
for
a
different
type
of
planning
application,
irrespective
of
the
fact
that
it's
on
the
position
of
the
original
outline.
So
in
essence,
this
planning
application
is
not
bound
by
those
same
conditions
and
those
original
parameters
can't
exceed
450
dwellings,
which
is
the
section
106
requirement
which
then
requires
the
trigger
for
the
Gypsy
and
traveler
pitches
to
be
provided.
So
that's
the
link
back
to
the
original
planning
application.
I
Thank
you,
chair,
excuse
me:
is
there
any
way
that
we
can
stipulate
that
the
access
is
changed
so
that
it
runs
through
the
rest
of
the
development
rather
than
out
onto
drenchard
Lane
I
know
there
is
a
pipeline
there,
but
the
pipeline
goes
under
the
a30,
so
it
must
surely
be
possible
to
have
an
estate
load
over
the
top
of
it.
Thank
you.
H
J
Thank
you
chair.
We've
heard
that
this
site
a
Bots,
the
allotments,
is
it
not
normal
that
there
is
access
to
allotments
it?
Would
it
not
be
possible
to
have
a
walkway
through
the
allotments
into
the
The
Wider
development
or
onto.
H
Because
mccormacker
can't
speak
for
the
applicant
in
terms
of
any
reason
why
they've
proposed
it
effectively,
it's
an
application.
That's
been
submitted,
we're
here
to
determine
the
application
as
submitted.
We
haven't
had
any
position
put
forward
as
to
why
it's
been
put
forward
in
the
way
that
it
has.
L
You
sure
so
have
we
the
power,
the
opportunity
to
go
back
to
the
agreed
outline
permission
and
say
if
we
were
to
reject
this
application,
that
they
are
still
obliged
to
provide
another
scheme.
L
H
And
input
into
this
as
well,
but
effectively
the
the
only
tie
back
to
the
outline
application
is
the
section
106
agreement
in
terms
of
the
fact
they
are
restricted
for
not
exceeding
450
occupations
on
the
main
site
until
they've,
provided
that
again,
I
can't
speak
for
the
applicant
in
terms
of
what
they
would
do
in
the
event
that
this
application
wasn't
approved.
But
that
part
of
that
106
would
still
stand,
and
it
would
be
for
the
applicant
to
demonstrate
either
compliance
with
it
or
to
seek
variation
to
it.
L
Sort
of
supplementary
there
so
are
we
saying
there
is
no
planning
or
Reason
to
is
that
there
is
no
reason
that
the
applicant
must
comply
with
the
outline
permission
that
was
granted.
H
L
Tomlin,
sorry,
this
one's
in
a
detailed
one,
the
construction
of
the
site
following
our
plan
cm5.
Could
you
comment
on
why
this
site,
if
it
was
to
be
integrated,
has
to
have
fencing
and
security
all
around
it,
because
I
don't
notice
that
security
around
the
dwellings
of
the
houses
that
have
been
built
on
the
site.
H
Okay,
so
again
it's
if
Italy
what's
been
proposed,
so
we
don't
have
a
position
on
that.
The
only
I
would
say
is
that
as
you'll
see
in
the
conditions,
I
think
it's
condition
nine.
There
is
requirement
for
details
of
acoustic
fencing,
so
there
would
be
fencing
of
some
sort
in
terms
of
the
proposal
to
have
it
entirely
enclosed.
That
is
what
has
been
submitted
with
the
application
foreign.
M
N
Personally,
I,
don't
like
it
I,
don't
think
it
serves
the
needs
and
wants
of
the
traveler
community
at
all.
I
do
think
it's
very
isolated,
they're
not
integrated
at
all,
and
our
own
policies
state
that
we
should
be
trying
to
integrate
these
people
into
our
communities,
not
sticking
them
right
down
the
end
of
a
development.
I,
don't
think
it
works
for
the
current
residents.
It
doesn't
work
for
the
traveler
communities.
I
really
think
the
developer
needs
to
go
away
and
do
better.
O
J
Thank
you,
chair
and
I
was
on
this
Council.
When
in
2016
we
approved
the
local
plan
which
outlined
queer
and
when
and
how
we
would
deliver
Egyptian
traveler
pictures.
We
have
subsequently
failed.
The
Gypsy
and
travel
Community
wholeheartedly
the
five
on
money
down
undelivered
the
the
likelihood
of
from
what
my
fellow
conscious
thing
this
site
on
the
limit.
The
only
thing
that
has
leads
us
me
to
think
we've
delivered
something
he's
on
the
one
pitch
on
the
golf
course,
which
rightly
it
is
properly
integrated
and
I.
J
Thank
Greg
Chapman
for
his
work
on
that
to
make
sure
that
that
was
complied
with
on
cn5.
But
my
view
is
that
we
have
failed
so
many
times
in
the
delivery
of
gypsy
and
traveler
pictures.
Our
commitment
at
that
time
was
for
eight
pitches
and
we've
delivered
one.
So
I've
read
this
application
and-
and
the
reality
is
is
not
here
where
are-
are
some
of
the
outlying
areas
to
be
to
be
targeted
for
illegal
encampments,
because
we
couldn't
deliver
on
our
local
plan.
J
I
have
to
think
that
would
be
the
case
and
and
I
refer
to
a
decision
made
last
year.
In
my
own
ward
of
Hedley,
where
a
small
site
has
been
passed
for
the
erection
of
four
much
more
than
is
in
front
of
us
tonight,
the
the
inspector
made
large
points
that
we
have
under
delivered
on
Gypsy
and
traveler
pitches.
Our
requirements
have
not
been
made
that
this,
the
site
that
he
agreed
was
right
for
four
pitches
was
on
the
edge
of
a
settlement
in
Italy.
J
If
we
do
not
do
it
here,
then,
where
when
will
money
down,
deliver
I,
don't
know,
but
all
of
the
counselors
who
are
on
that
full
council
meeting
in
2016
voted
for
a
local
plan
to
deliver
for
our
Gypsy
and
traveler
community.
It's
pointed
out
that
trenchard
lane
is
a
busy
Lane.
It
is
no
no
more
busy,
of
course,
than
the
a339
which
abuts
this
the
appeal
site
and,
in
my
view,
reference.
The
Peaks
corpses
is
20
over
20
years
ago.
J
I
think
we
have
to
accept
that
the
Gypsy
and
traveler
Community
are
now
much
better
at
self-management
than
they
were
20
years
ago.
The
help
that
they
get
from
Hampshire
County
Council
ensures
that
they
are
better
integrated,
not
just
in
terms
of
their
physical
position
but
in
their
integration
into
schools
and
the
doctors
and
people
who
will
look
after
them.
I
genuinely
believe
that
this
application
should
be
supported,
and
we
have
already
approved
the
reasons
to
do
so.
When
we
voted
for
that
local
plan.
J
It
is
not
perfect
and
it
is
telling,
in
my
view,
that
the
applicant
couldn't
be
bothered
to
turn
up
today
to
defend
themselves,
but
is
it
better
that
we
throw
away
the
good
in
the
aim
of
it
over
attracting
perfect
I,
do
not
believe
it
is,
and
I
am
happy
to
move
the
recommendation,
as
it
has
not
been
done.
Thank
you.
P
Did
officers
consult
on
this
application
with
anybody
that
represents
the
Gypsy
and
traveler
community
we've
heard
in
the
debate
tonight
that
it
isn't
suitable?
It's
not
interested.
It's
not
that
it's
not
that
it's
not
whatever.
Surely
we
ought
to
hear
the
views
of
the
Gypsy
community?
Did
we
consult
them.
P
With
respect
they're,
not
potential
residents
of
this
site
and
in
fact
they
refuse
to
comment
anyway,
because
they're
no
longer
have
a
strategy
responsibility
according
to
this,
so
I
think
we've
missed
a
trip
there.
We
should
have
had
Fair
views.
This
is
a
very
small
site
and
I
can't
seem
that
there
will
be
any
difficulties.
P
I've
not
read
any
further
I,
don't
know
why,
but
they
were
not
consulted
before
the
the
site
was
completed,
and
it
seemed
to
me
that
we,
as
we've
not
consulted
here,
we're
second
guessing
what
that
Community
needs,
surely
that
their
views
will
wait
till
they
put
words
in
their
mouth
in
this
debate.
Their
views
are
essential,
but
I
agree
wholeheartedly.
What
councilor
aratican
has
said.
P
We
should
go
ahead,
but
I
would
like
to
see
officers
get
in
touch
with
some
representative
body
to
make
certain
that
the
internal
design
of
the
site
and
its
location
is
suitable
before
any
money
spent
on
developing
the
site.
H
And
casasi
just
to
answer
that
particular
question.
Ultimately,
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
then
consider
anyone,
not
least
because
I
guess
they
could
be
essentially
multiple
bodies
who
would
be
involved
plus
the
fact
that
it's
being
put
forward
as
a
private
year
insights.
It
would
depend
ultimately
on
the
individual
user.
The
only
thing
that
we
can
enforce
against
ultimately
is
the
requirements
of
the
original
106
in
terms
of
the
space
requirements,
and
this
site
actually
exceeds
those
space
requirements.
A
Okay,
I've
got
two
more
speakers,
put
our
hands
up.
You
have
seconds
of
it.
Thank
you
that
was
going
to
be
my
question.
Councilor
Freeman.
N
Well,
I
totally
agree
with
the
need
to
provide
traveler
pictures.
We
run
the
risk
of
providing
second
rate
traveler
pictures
that
aren't
going
to
want
to
be
used.
Councilor
harassey
makes
a
very
good
point
that
we
haven't
consulted
anyone
from
the
community
to
find
out
whether
it's
what
they
need,
what
they
want,
which
I
think
is
as
a
massive
error
on
our
part.
But
it's.
N
Why
should
would
there
seems
to
be
like
something
that's
tacked
on
at
the
end
and
after
thought,
no
community,
no
person,
no
Community,
wants
to
be
thought
of
as
an
afterthought.
Really
it
doesn't
seem
to
me
to
have
been
adequately
thought
through.
It
won't
be
properly
managed
and
again
because
it's
Freehold,
we
do
run
the
risk
of
ending
up
in
a
situation
like
Pete
cops.
I
am
highly
heavily
supportive
of
traveler
communities
and
I
believe
they
have
the
right
to
live
the
lifestyle
that
they
choose.
N
I
also
believe
we
should
be
providing
adequately
for
them
and
not
giving
them
second
rate
after
type
projects
like
this,
we
need
to
fully
involve
them
find
out
what
they
want
before
we're
going
ahead
with
with
trying
to
do
something
like
this
I.
Don't
think
this
is,
is
right.
I've
got
no
problem
with
traveler
pitches,
they
need
to
be
where
they
are,
where
they
need
to
be
somewhere
on
this
site,
but
I
don't
think
this
is
quite
right,
not
this
scheme.
Something
needs
to
be
there,
but
not
this
scheme
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
serve.
I
Picture
lastly,
I'm
agreeing
with
councilor
Freeman
here,
Friedman
I
mean
it.
It
says
the
ppts
Do
Not
enclose
a
site
with
so
much
hard,
Landscaping
High
walls
or
fences
that
the
impression
may
be
given
that
the
site
and
its
occupants
are
deliberately
isolated
from
the
rest
of
the
community.
I
mean
this
with
looks
like
we
are
deliberately
isolating
them
deliberately
segregating
that,
and
you
know,
and
as
classic
people
said,
you
know,
nobody
wants
to
think
that
they're
not
wanted
in
such
a
way.
I,
don't
know
that
you
know
seeing
that
site.
I
If
I
was
rolling
up
there,
I
wouldn't
want
to
stay
there
thinking.
Well,
they
don't
want
me
here.
Do
they?
No,
it's
not
exactly
a
welcoming
place,
if
not
here,
where
well,
maybe
further
into
the
site,
maybe
further
into
the
development
or
at
the
very
least,
maybe
with
a
different
access
so
that
the
people
who
hopefully
will
stay
there
will
then
at
least
feel
welcomed.
Thank
you.
L
Chair,
well,
that
was
very
eloquently
put
I
have
to
say,
but
basically
yes,
we
failed.
We
failed
on
several
accounts.
If
we
passed
this
the
cm5
policy,
we
will
have
found
the
Travelers.
We
would
have
failed
the
local
community.
There
would
not
have
been
inclusion.
We're
segregating,
look
at
the
fact
that
we
can't
get
access
for
the
traveler
Community
to
attend
schools
to
without
having
to
drive
along
the
a30.
That
seems
completely
well
in
our
fashionable
sustainability
completely
thrown
out
the
window.
The
outline
master
plan
was
there.
It
was
indicated
it
was
discussed.
L
It
was
probably
partly
what
sold
the
planning
application
to
go
through
and
the
fact
that
we're
actually
now
where
we
have
not
seen
the
developer,
to
come
and
justify
it,
we've
not
we're
beholden
to
them
and
I
have
to
say.
If
we
we
have
to
take
litigation
or
whatever,
to
or
legal
steps
to
stop
them
occupying
to
to
actually
get
them
to
work
with
us.
We
will
have
failed
as
a
Borough
if
we
don't
actually
grasp
this
problem
and
deal
with
it
head
on.
Thank
you.
J
Thank
you
just
to
say
these
are
a
Freehold.
If
nobody
wants
them,
no
one
will
buy
them,
and
that
is
the
reality
of
the
world
that
we
live
in
I'm.
Just
making
that
that
point,
it
isn't
going
to
be
marketed
to
everybody,
but
it
will
be
marketed
to
the
Gypsy
into
other
community
and
they
will
have
the
option
to
take
up
residents
there
if
they
see
fit.
A
L
I
I
will
propose
a
motion
to
refuse
on
the
on
the
on
the
condition.
Sorry,
on
the
reasons
that
it
does
not
comply
with
our
policy.
Cm5
is
the
main
one,
I
think
the
and
the
the
other
things
will
come
out
in
there,
but
that's
the
main
one
I
think
that
would
be
the
defense
the
Clauses
within
that
would
be
defendable.
Thank
you.
H
Always
clarify
this
on
the
enclosure
and
isolation
point
of
cn5,
specifically,
that
is
the.
K
H
Thank
you
chair,
so
the
application
is
refused
and
members
are
made
as
normal
practice
because
it
was
a
recommendation
subject
to
106.
The
second
reason
for
refusal
would
be
the
absence
of
a
106
which
would
be
included
within
that
part.
A
Q
Thank
you
chairman.
This
is
an
application
for
direction
of
three
detached
dwellings
at
breach
Farmhouse
hegby
Road
to
maryborn.
There
is
a
brief
update
paper
that
provides
details
of
the
viewing
clarification
that
the
additional
Red
Line
area
is
biodes
biodiversity
offsetting
and
confirms
an
additional
visualizer
plan
that
will
be
shown
momentarily.
That
shows
other
approved
dwellings
in
the
vicinity.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Q
Q
Thank
you
chairman.
The
application
is
a
proposal
for
the
variation
of
conditions
for
a
previous
approved
V8
permission.
Q
The
update
paper
includes
table
that's
within
the
agenda,
but
with
an
additional
column
confirming
the
Amendments
which
I'll
quickly
run
through
and
manage
to
the
conditions.
That
is
so.
If
I
could
ask
you
to
turn
to
the
update
paper
and
the
summary,
the
recommendation
and
I'll
just
run
through
that
table
to
assist
members
with
their
assessment,
so
the
first
condition
is
a
condition
requiring
compliance
of
the
plans.
That's
duplicated
as,
as
was
the
second
condition
was
previously
and
I'll
go
by
the
original
condition
numbers
whilst
running
through
this.
Q
The
second
condition
was
a
requirement
for
the
gentleman
to
be
implemented
in
accordance
with
the
three
years,
from
the
original
permission
the
proposals
being
implemented,
so
that
condition
is
not
now
required,
but
it
therefore
impacts
the
numbering
as
I
said:
I'll
stick
with
the
original
condition
numbering.
The
third
condition
is
the
requirement
for
the
20
meter
buffer.
Q
That
proposal
is
from
officers
is
not
to
change
that
condition
to
require
it,
as
was
fourth
condition,
relates
to
the
Landscaping
of
that
buffer,
and
that
does
have
an
amendment.
It
duplicates
the
condition,
as
was
but
changes
the
timing
to
require
that
that
detail
is
provided
within
three
months
of
the
decision.
To
not
do
so
would
otherwise
be
where
we've
got
a
variation
condition.
Q
Application
that's
already
been
commenced,
to
not
add
a
requirement
for
time
providing
some
time
for
that
to
be
complied
with,
would
mean
otherwise
that
we'd
be
granting
planning
permission
with
a
condition
that
couldn't
be
complied
with,
because
it
would
already
have
been
failed.
So
that
would
be
an
unsafe
recommendation.
So
hence,
where
you've
got
the
three
months
in
a
number
of
these
conditions,
number
five,
as
was,
is
the
site
plan.
Q
That's
included
again
details
of
the
site,
layout
plan
included
again,
but
modified
to
relate
only
to
waste
management,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
the
proposal
was
originally
speculative
and
now
it
has
development
on
it,
and
the
waste
management
is
the
only
requirement
that
is
deemed
to
still
be
necessary.
Q
Q
External
lighting
condition
is
amended
and
as
there
is
no
current
external
Lighting
on
site
and
that's
changed
to
be
prior
to
the
installation
of
any
lighting
rather
than
prior
to
commencement
and
development
or
within
three
months,
the
two
contamination
conditions,
the
contamination
report
and
verification
conditions
are
both
duplicated,
but
again
that
three-month
timing
allowance
is
included.
Q
The
requirement
for
the
use
to
remain
as
B8
and
for
the
removal
of
permitted
development
was
conditions.
10
11
are
re-imposed,
as
was,
but
with
a
very
limited
change
at
the
end
to
State,
unless
otherwise
less
approved
in
writing
by
local
planning
Authority
on
an
application
made
for
such
condition.
12
the
use
of
the
car
park
is
amended
to
provide
flexibility,
so
existing
and
proposed
users
can
use
the
space
condition.
Q
13
is
amended
and
increased
so
allowed
storage
up
to
three
meters
in
height
notating
that
previously
The
Proposal
was
speculative,
and
there
is
now
a
current
use
of
Caravan
storage
and
this
deemed
to
be
acceptable
in
that
location.
Subject:
conditions
the
hours
of
use
is
proposed
to
be
duplicated,
as
was
condition
15
relating
to
surface
water.
Drainage,
again
is
duplicated,
as
was,
but
it's
changed
to
include
a
three-month
timing
and
the
same
for
conditions
16
around
the
habitat
enhancement
scheme,
duplicated
by
the
timing
changed.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
R
Thank
you
chairman,
good
evening.
Councilors.
The
application
relates
to
a
September
2019
approval
in
relation
to
the
extension
of
a
long-established
business
park,
and
it's
made
because
I
consider
some
of
the
conditions
of
need.
Amendment
and
others
do
not
meet
the
statutory
tests,
primarily
with
regard
to
reasonableness,
necessity
and
enforceability.
R
So
the
application
purports
to
recommend
approval,
but
it
is
a
refusal
of
the
key
requests.
So
if
that
is
your
decision,
I'm
sure
my
client
will
ask
me
to
appeal
in
my
available
formats,
I
only
have
time
to
address
three
of
the
14
conditions.
These
being
the
most
of
most
concern
to
my
client
first
issue
is
the
need
for
the
20
meter
buffer
regarding
the
requirement
for
such
a
large
buffer.
It
should
be
noted
that
this
is
measured
not
from
the
trunk,
but
from
the
outer
canopy
of
the
overhanging
trees.
R
This
would
mean
about
30
meters
or
25
percent
of
the
site
could
not
be
used
for
the
permitted
purpose
that
is
wholly
unreasonable
and
fails
to
make
the
statute
of
tests.
The
correct
course
of
action
would
have
been
to
refuse
the
application
or
to
negotiate
a
reduction
in
the
size
of
the
application
site.
R
We
agree
that
a
buffer
should
be
provided,
but
only
with
a
depth
of
8
meters
and
not
20
plus
10.,
whereas
your
officer
simply
refer
to
non-statury
guidance
that
initially
related
primarily
to
Major
residential
developments
adjacent
to
Woodlands.
Our
case
is
based
on
a
site-specific
assessment
by
an
experienced
ecologist
who
visited
the
site
to
assess
any
proposed
any
potential
ecological
impacts,
unlike
your
planning
and
by
biodiversity
offices.
R
Furthermore,
my
class
ecologist
does
not
agree
that
Gypsy
Lane
can
contain
species
that
are
indicators
of
an
ancient
Woodland,
and
we
consider
that
the
Woodland
strip
is
simply
an
overgrown
Hedgerow
alongside
an
old
drove
route.
The
council's
requirement
for
a
buffer
zone
next
to
a
Hedgerow
is
five
meters
and
we're
proposing
eight.
R
R
One
of
the
existing
tenants
operates
double-decker
buses,
which
cannot
be
seen
from
outside
the
site,
and
there
might
be
a
neat
a
demand
to
park
such
vehicles
on
the
application
site
also
on
this
application
site.
If
the
resident,
if
there
is
a
need
to
restrict
height,
a
limit
of
4.5
meters,
is
suggested.
Such
a
limit
would
enable
the
bus
to
park
on
site,
but
would
not
enable
double
stacking
of
containers,
which
was
one
of
the
officers,
stated
concerns.
A
R
R
R
R
R
L
Sorry
Charles
going
to
propose
a
motion
to
follow
the
recommendation
for
approval
with
the
conditions
by
the
officer's
report.
A
Q
Thank
you
chairmans
to
confirm
that
application,
that
is,
the
conditions,
are
varied
in
accordance
with
the
officer
recommendation
in
the
main
agenda
paper,
making
sure.
A
Thank
you
Greg
right
item,
four
land
to
the
rear
of
80
par
down
par
down,
Oakley,
better.
Q
Hey
chairman,
this
is
an
application
outline
application
for
the
direction
of
one
dwelling
and
Associated
Works
application
was
previously
at
committee
and
deferred
for
reviewing,
and
therefore
the
update
paper
provides
details
of
the
viewing
panel,
how
it
provides
officer
clarification
in
terms
of
the
heights
of
some
of
the
surrounding
properties,
as
per
the
query
at
the
viewing
panel,
provide
some
details
of
further
representations
from
third
parties
and
also
confirms
that
amended.
Q
Indicative
plans
have
been
provided
that
are
shown
on
the
visualizer
for
members
information,
but
that,
as
this
is
an
outline
application
with
matters
reserved,
the
indicative
plans
aren't
for
consideration,
and
it
just
shows
one
way
that
a
scheme
could
come
forward.
Hence
why
they're
shared
on
the
visualizer,
not
in
the
update
and
haven't
needed
consultation
with
the
public
The
Proposal,
is
only
to
consider
the
principle
of
development
and
the
access
to
the
site.
Thank
you.
Jim.
P
I
Q
But
Jim,
if
I
could
just
add
to
that.
The
second
reason
for
approval
relates
to
the
impact
of
nutrients
flowing
into
the
solar,
so
the
likely
significant
effect
in
con
combination
with
other
developments
is
all
new
Housing
Development
that
flows
into
the
solent.
It
has
been
clarified
by
the
European
courts.
That
is
a
significant,
significant
material
consideration
and
that
comes
down
to
individual
applications
and,
in
this
instance
also
the
cumulative
impact
with
all
other
developments
that
flow
into
the
Salem.
Q
Yes,
in
this
case,
significant
is
because
of
the
level
of
nutrients
coming
out
of
any
site,
in
this
case
nitrates,
because
it's
a
flow
into
the
test
and
then
into
the
solent
and
because
the
there's,
a
nitrate
impacts
that
can
lead
to
the
eutrophication
of
the
solent,
which
is
a
designate
European
designated
site.
B
So
it's
on
pages
between
Pages,
two
three
three
to
two
three
five
explains
the
additional
load
impact
and
how
that's
it
tends
to
be
offset
through
a
package
treatment
plan
and
through
the
eastleigh
Borough
Council
mitigation
scheme
and
we've
had
that
reviewed
by
Natural
England,
and
they
have
confirmed
that
mitigation
is
suitable
and
that
there's
enough
offset
of
land
EC
have
also
confirmed
that
that's
acceptable.
So
there
is
not
going
to
be
a
harmful
impact.
Thank
you.
B
That's
the
giving
an
overview
of
how
the
issue
came
about
so
if,
at
the
start
we
set
the
scene
and
then
we
explain
the
mitigation
between
Pages
two
three,
three,
two,
two
three:
five:
it's
sort
of
telling
the
start
to
end
the
process.
A
A
There
are
other
backline
developments
literally
in
the
next
plot
and
whilst
there
is
definite
harm
to
or
disadvantage
to
the
people
who
live
in
the
two
properties
immediately
in
front
of
it,
there
is
no
major
harm
to
the
area
that
I
can
see
in
planning
terms.
I,
don't
like
it,
but
I
can't
see
a
reason
to
refuse
it.
So
on
that,
for
that
reason,
I
moved
the
officer
recommendation.
A
B
You
chairman
that
application
is
approved
as
per
the
reasons
and
conditions
listed
in
the
agenda.
Thank
you.
B
B
Lead
a
class
eu's
and
seven
one
and
two
bedroom
properties
block
a
would
be
sighted
towards
the
front
of
the
site,
similarly
positioned
to
the
existing
Bakery
and
were
comprised
of
a
2.5
story.
Building
with
a
Class
E
use
on
the
ground
floor
and
five
flats
above
Block
B
would
comprise
of
a
pair
of
semi-detached
properties
and
would
be
located
towards
the
rear
of
the
site
with
private
immunity
space.
B
Beyond
that
amenity
space
for
the
semis,
there
is
also
a
communal
Garden
for
the
flutter
development,
which
would
be
accessed
from
the
public
right-of-way
running
North
running
along
the
west
of
the
site.
Sorry,
the
development
would
also
include
the
change
of
use
of
a
small
strip
of
land
associated
with
Springfields
to
be
incorporated
in
the
development.
Other
Works
include
a
community
seating
area
to
the
front
of
the
site
to
serve
the
class
E
use
a
formal
parking
layout,
new
landscaping
and
Servicing
in
terms
of
an
update.
B
The
agent
has
clarified
that
the
section
of
the
footpath
which
is
located
within
the
site
is
owned
and
managed
by
the
applicant,
and
this
would
be
wind
and
managed
by
any
future
management
company
condition.
16
noise
has
been
amended
to
allow
for
demolition,
site
clearance
and
groundwork
to
take
place,
condition.
32
surface
water
has
also
been
amended
to
allow
for
Demolition
and
site
clearance
to
take
place.
B
There
are
also
some
additional
objection:
letters
relating
to
highways
parking,
the
footpath
and
the
impact
on
the
Neighbors
in
Gibbs
Meadow.
These
have
been
considered
in
the
report
an
additional
justification
with
page
numbers
of
where
they
are
on
the
in
the
agenda.
Within
the
update
paper,
the
application
is
recommended
for
approval,
subject
to
conditions
listed
on
pages,
280
and
291
of
the
agenda.
Thank
you.
S
All
right,
thank
you,
chair
good
evening,
chair
and
councilors
I
can
only
reiterate
the
comments
of
Bramley
Parish
has
made
concerning
objecting
to
this
application.
These
ad
hoc
developments
are
destroying
family
as
a
village.
It
hasn't
the
infrastructure
to
support
existing
houses,
never
mind
more
already,
343
plus
146
approved
at
stocks
Farm
within
or
bordering
the
settlement
policy
boundary
plus.
How
is
it
uncovered
Lane
against
200,
at
least
in
the
local
plan?
S
The
argument
behind
the
officer
is
that
it
is
contributing
to
the
housing
stock
of
the
borough
and
to
the
need
of
Bramley
for
smaller
homes.
Have
you
counted
the
smaller
dwellings
in
the
489
bordering
the
settlement
policy?
Boundary
primary
doesn't
need
them,
but
the
borrower
does
because
I
stated
it
does
not
have
a
five-year
land
availability.
S
The
building
block
area
is
not
two
and
a
half
foot
store
is
two
not
two
and
a
half
storage.
It's
more
near
three,
and
it's
two
meters
at
least
higher
than
the
surrounding
buildings.
The
bakery
is
being
lost
in
no
guarantee
that
will
return
into
a
smaller
commercial
area.
Why
three
stories,
when
it
will
stand
out
an
impact
on
the
streets
in
not
according
to
the
officer
when
the
benefits
outweigh
this?
What
are
the
benefits
to
Brownlee
economic
Builders
are
short
time
on
site,
so
short-lived
Bakery
could
be
lost.
S
The
garage
is
going
where
infrastructure,
school
and
surgery
are
running
capacity
without
240
recently
approved
sewage
recorded
the
officer
fouled
drainage
through
the
mains
for
these
homes
is
not
considered
sufficient
to
increase
the
capacity
to
run
at
an
acceptable
level.
Tell
that
to
the
residents
in
northru
and
Centurion
Fields
who
have
sewage
over
spill,
the
PC
and
patients.
Don't
Dean
have
a
written
statement
from
terms
that
says
no
further
houses.
S
Homes
West
of
the
pumping
station
until
the
upgrade
to
the
infrastructure
is
made
to
the
Sheffield
treatment
plant
not
finalized,
yet
but
16
to
20
months
in
the
making
that
being
optimistic,
local
amenities
is
unreasonably
available
from
this
site.
There
is
one
stop
at
a
dangerous
position
on
the
street
100
meters
from
the
railway
Crossing
closed
for
at
least
40
minutes
per
hour.
The
price
football
ground
is
considered
by
the
officer.
It's
a
republican
community
space
for
flattered
accommodation.
S
This
is
private
land
access
to
the
site
is
dangerous
now
and
will
not
improve
with
with
this
development
and
could
be
worse.
There
is
a
perfect
right-of-way
across
the
side,
but
this
will
not
be
any
safer
than
at
present.
The
parking
is
considered
unacceptable.
Why
has
been
too
spacious
short
against
the
standard
requirement,
because
the
site
is
near
the
railway,
supposedly
an
alternative
transport
for
these
occupants,
while
this
site
could
do
with
improvements
to
the
building
Etc,
the
building
block
is
too
high.
S
The
number
of
homes
being
crammed
into
this
space
is
too
many,
and
Block
B
will
have
an
impact
on
the
privacy
of
residents
that
Gibbs
Meadow
being
only
13
meters
from
their
homes.
You
have
one
minute
remaining
infrastructure
infrastructure
before
housing,
as
is
said
by
the
officer,
basing
stalking
Dean
is
benefiting
from
this
development
as
it
contributes
to
the
housing
stock,
but
there's
no
benefit
to
Bramley
and
its
community.
S
T
Thank
you,
the
applicant
for
this
planning
application
has
owned
and
operated
the
garage
and
owns
the
whole
site
and
he's
been
there
operating
a
local
service
for
many
years.
Unfortunately,
he
is
finding
it
increasingly
difficult
to
operate
his
business
without
it,
causing
significant
disruption
both
to
his
operation
and
to
the
surrounding
area.
The
site
is
no
longer
safe
or
sustainable
for
that
business
to
operate
and
an
alternative
solution
for
this
site
needs
to
be
found.
T
The
Proposal
is
the
result
of
extensive
positive
discussions
with
the
council.
We
thank
the
officers
for
their
help
with
with
achieving
a
solution
which
we
think
will
be
very
beneficial.
It
follows
pre-application
advice,
public
consultation,
informal
discussions
with
the
number
of
local
stakeholders
just
responding
to
some
of
the
comments
made
by
the
parish
council.
We
understand
the
need
for
infrastructure,
but
that
falls
outside
what
we
can
contribute
towards.
What
we're
seeking
to
do
is
provide
a
replacement
commercial
facility
within
a
new
building
that
will
be
purpose
built
and
fit
for
purpose.
T
The
bakery
has
the
opportunity
to
relocate
back
onto
the
site,
but
at
some
point
something
needs
to
be
done
on
this
site.
The
buildings
are
on
the
verge
of
of
collapse.
There's
no
other
solution
other
than
to
look
to
a
complete
Redevelopment,
and
we
will
do
what
we
can
to
accommodate
the
bakery
But.
Ultimately,
that's
outside
our
control,
the
drainage
on
the
site
will
be
improved
for
the
site
itself.
T
The
bakery
is
a
tenant
on
the
site
and
provision
is
made
for
them
to
move
back
on.
As
I've
stated,
the
scheme
offers
significant
benefits
to
the
street
scene
and
traffic
movements,
pedestrian
safety
and
biodiversity
of
the
site.
So
there's
a
lot
to
to
be
said.
For
what
it
will
do
to
enhance
the
area,
the
residential
development
has
been
carefully
designed
to
ensure
that
it
respects
the
immunity
of
neighboring
residents
and
meets
all
of
the
required
standards
and
is
a
good
quality
design.
T
L
Thank
you
chair
good
evening.
Mr
up
you
mentioned
highway.
Safety
will
be
improved
as
a
result
of
this
application.
How
so.
T
There's
two
main
things
to
consider
with
this
site.
The
first
is
that
at
the
moment,
the
access
point
is
very
wide,
relatively
uncontrolled
and
the
proposal
will
be
to
narrow
it
and
have
a
much
clearer,
defined
two
way
in
and
out
which
will
mean
that
there's
less
scope
for
cars
going
in
different
directions,
an
unpredictable
movements.
T
What
we're
proposing
is,
rather
than
having
any
kind
of
solid
boundary,
it
will
be
delineated
on
the
ground
and
by
bollards
running
to
segregate
them
to
try
and
keep
it
visually
open,
but
very
clearly
defined,
so
that
there's
two
distinct
uses.
P
L
N
T
The
ground
floor
of
the
front
building
is
a
dedicated
commercial
floor
space
which
would
be
available
to
the
bakery
if
they
so
wish,
to
move
back
in.
Ultimately,
we
can't
dictate
who
will
actually
build
it
out
and
who
might
want
to
move
back
in,
but
the
opportunity
is
there
and
we've
made
every
effort.
We
can
to
facilitate
the
opportunity
and
lay
that
floor
space
out
in
a
way
that
it
would
suit
what
the
bakery
might
be.
Looking
for.
A
Are
there
any
more
questions,
go
and
cancel
it
on
them?
If
there
are.
L
No
others
I'd
like
to
thank
you,
chair
for
indulging
the
you
mentioned,
the
maintenance
of
the
footpath
it's
owned
by
the
applicant.
It
would
be
managed
by
a
management
company,
so
am
I
right.
Therefore,
the
residence
would
be
paying
for
the
maintenance
effectively
yeah.
T
Yes,
in
the
in
the
long
term,
once
the
sites
were
I
would
envisage
that
for
this
type
of
development,
there
would
be
a
joint
responsibility
between
all
of
the
owners,
commercial
and
residential,
to
contribute
towards
whatever
maintenance
is
required
of
all
the
communal
areas.
The
parking,
the
landscaping
and
the
footpath
would
be
part
of
that.
T
It's
included
within
the
ownership
of
the
site,
and
therefore
provision
would
have
to
be
made
for
maintenance
in
the
Deeds
of
those
properties
in
the
long
run,
because
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
anybody
else
that
could
be
responsible
for
it.
The
council
aren't
going
to
adopt
that
land.
Therefore,
provision
would
have
to
be
made
as
it
is
in
in
most
new
developments.
These
days,
for
whatever
maintenance
is
required,
has
to
be
accommodated.
A
I've
got
a
question:
you
said
that
your
current
owner
of
the
garage
is
finding
it
difficult
to
operate
there.
Could
you
tell
us
in
what
way
is
finding
it
difficult
to
operate.
T
So
there's
a
car
servicing
an
mot
garage
you've
got
the
well-known
issue
about
the
closing
barriers
on
the
level
crossing
that
has
an
impact
on
customers
trying
to
get
to
the
site
when
they've
got
appointments
for
mots
Etc.
So
you
know
sometimes
they'll
find
themselves
the
wrong
side
of
the
barrier
and
they
can't
physically
get
their
car
there
in
the
time
that
they
wanted.
T
Then
also
there's
the
issue
of
conflict
with
cars
trying
to
get
in
and
out
of
the
actual
access
onto
the
site
when
you've
got
cars
parked
waiting
for
the
level
crossing.
The
other
consideration
is
that
there
are
very
strict
rules
about
how
you
actually
operate.
T
Running
mot
tests
and
part
of
the
mot
test
is
about
taking
the
car
out
on
a
test
drive,
and
you
have
to
do
it
within
a
certain
time
to
meet
the
requirements
and
they're
finding
it
very
difficult
to
actually
meet
the
very
strict
standards
that
they
have
to
to
be
able
to
do
mots
because
they
can't
get
in
and
out
quickly.
So
it's
all
things
like
that.
You've
also,
then
got
the
customers
and
deliveries
for
the
bakery
trying
to
operate.
T
Alongside
all
of
the
cars
coming
and
going
and
they're
constantly
shifting
cars
around,
and
it's
just
very
awkward
for
both
businesses
to
operate
whilst
also
having
pedestrians
coming
and
going
through
the
public
right-of-way
as
they
are
entitled
to
do
so,
it's
that
combination
of
all
those
different
things
that
is
just
making
a
a
recipe
for
disaster.
At
the
moment.
Okay,.
A
L
The
applicant
was
saying
about
the
segregation
of
the
footpath
and
the
road
with
well,
we
got
the
word
bollards
or
posts,
so
that
can
be
conditioned
made
a
condition.
I
assume.
Q
Yeah,
so
we
have
condition
26.
That
already
requires
the
details
of
the
boundary
treatments
that
are
going
to
be
proposed
as
part
of
the
development,
but
certainly,
if
that's
something
that
members
want
to
specify,
we
could
add
to
that
condition:
26
to
include
a
requirement
for
bollard's
separating
out
separating
out
the
car
park
and
the
footpath
and
then
change
your
ads
to
the
reason
for
that
condition
to
include
for
safety
reasons
for
users
of
the
car
parking
footpath
in
accordance
with
policy
cn9.
L
Just
just
on
that,
so
could
we
take
advice
from
the
officers
about
how
we
would
be
able
to
make
it
such
that
pedestrians
don't
wander
into
the
cars
as
opposed
to
Bollard
stopping
cars
wandering
into
pedestrians?
Is
there
a
you
see
what
I
mean
the
ball
outs,
but
the
pedestrians
could
avoid
and
they
could
go
into
the
car
car
path
of
a
car,
whereas
we
don't
want
chain
wire
fencing,
but
is
there
some
other
devices
that
are
common
practice
and
known
about
that?
You
could
recommend.
H
Yeah
customer
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
more
specific.
We
can
recommend
I
suppose
that
I
suppose
the
point
would
be
that
it's,
it's
already
considered,
I
suppose
an
improvement.
This
would
be
a
further
Improvement
of
the
existing
situation,
taking
into
account
the
concern
Rays
about
the
the
way
that
the
layout
would
work
going
forward.
I
think
the
fact
that
there
would
be
a
vertical
separation
of
you
know.
We
would
be
enough
to
alert
use
the
path
of
that
change,
as
opposed
to
need
to
be
a
physical
separation
and
such.
L
Sorry,
the
the
number
of
dwellings,
therefore,
the
inhabitants
doesn't
constitute
an
overload
of
the
sewage
system,
given
the
recommendations
that
we've
had
from
Thames
water
I
I.
Can
you
justify
that
that
comment
I.E
in
terms
water
have
said
nothing?
No,
no
development
until
such
time
as
they've
done
their
works
and
we've
had
that
through
the
planning
inquiry
for
stocks,
Farm.
B
G
Yeah
but
the
science
physics
I
would
like
to
actually
thank
councilor
Vatican
for
buying
the
iced
buns,
because
it
was
a
very
long
morning
that
one-
and
that
was
most
welcome.
The
thing
that
striked
me
about
that
site
was:
it
was
a
bit
like
stepping
back
into
the
1940s,
although
I
hastened
her
I
wasn't
around
in
the
1940s
well,
only
a
little
bit
and
and
I,
and
it
struck
me
that,
given
today's
health
and
safety,
Factory
offices,
premises,
act,
etc,
etc,
but
that
site
was
was
well
beyond
its
use
by
date.
G
Shall
we
say
so
I
think
this
proposal
for
redevelopment,
I
I,
think
is
most
welcome
and
therefore
I
would
would
support
it.
L
I
was
going
to
support
the
building
of
this
site,
but
with
some
conditions,
so
I'd
like
to
put
those
conditions
and
see
how
we
go,
and
that
is
that,
obviously,
we
nail
down
the
segregation,
as
we
just
discussed,
of
the
footpath,
to
make
it
safe,
I'd
like
to
see
that
we
could,
with
the
class
E
usage,
remove
this.
Is
it
sector
subsection
G,
which
is
light
industrial?
Q
Thanks
councilor
Tomlin,
just
to
confirm
that
we've
already
advised
that
we
would
be
able
to
include
the
details
of
the
treatment
to
separate
the
car
park
and
the
footpath
should
members
wish
to
add
that
in
respect
of
the
type
of
use
here,
yes,
that's
a
condition
that
could
also
be
imposed
requiring
that
the
the
facility,
the
commercial
element
remains,
a
retail
use,
I
think
that's
the
element
that
you're
suggesting
yeah,
obviously
up
to
members
in
terms
of
how
far
they
wish
to
go.
It's
just
a
light.
Q
Industrial
part
that
you
wish
to
remove,
or
whether
it's
the
retail,
a
retail
use
that
you
seek
to
secure.
Obviously,
we
need
to
understand
the
reasoning
for
that
as
a.
L
L
If
you
like
that,
Thames
water
have
suggested
because
I
think
it's
very
important
and
this
site
currently
it
may
have
mechanics
but
I,
don't
think
they
spend
much
of
their
time
in
the
toilet
or
showering
or
whatever.
But,
and
neither
does
anybody
in
the
bakery
because
I
don't
believe
they
have.
If
they
do
have
it
well,
they
must
have
a
toilet,
but
I
don't
think
it's
heavily
used.
L
So
I
think
this
will
be
an
additional
thing
and
it
is
something
we
should
consider
and
the
very
last
one
is
during
construction,
the
design
and
the
the
decide,
the
management
plan
for
the
construction.
We
need
to
see
that
all
com,
all
vehicles,
are
accommodated
within
the
site.
There
is
no
parking
in
the
immediate
area
for
Builders
vehicles
or
Vans
and
such
like.
It
would
be
a
big
problem
that
we
should
need
to
make
that
maintained
on
site.
L
Q
Which
I
think
there's
quite
a
few
things
to
come
back
on
there?
So
if
I
could
just
first
just
expand
on
the
class
C
suggestion
and
I
think
the
the
suggestion
was
that
you
would
restrict
light
industrial,
so
I'll
just
run
through
the
a
very
brief
summary
of
the
different
parts
of
Class
E,
so
part
A
of
Class
A.
It
allows
for
retail
sales
other
than
for
Hot
Food
Part
B
is
a
sale
of
food
and
drink
for
consumption.
Q
On
the
premises,
part
C
is
Financial
and
Professional
Services
D,
Indoor,
Sport,
recreational
Fitness,
e
provision
of
Medical,
Health,
Services,
F,
question
nurseries
and
then
G
is
those
in
in
industrial
Light,
industrial
uses
and
offices
Etc.
So
it's
just
trying
to
understand,
which
particular
uses
and
the
reason
for
that
I
think
from
what
you're
saying
is
it's
that
you're
seeking
to
ensure
that
it
remains
a
traditional
shop,
a
retail
sale
of
goods
and
I?
Q
Believe
that's
what
you're
angling
at
rather
than
removing
just
the
industrial
element
that
actually
it's
the
it's
room
to
ensure
that
there
is
a
a
retail
offering
for
the
residents
of
Bramley,
where
retail,
Goods,
whatever
they
may
be,
can
be
bought
and
sold,
and
so
there's
a
vitality
and
a
vibrancy
and
a
facility
there.
So
that
would
be
the
EA
part
in
respect
of
the
drainage
requirement.
Q
Q
The
applicant
wouldn't
need
a
wouldn't
need
any
more
planning
permission
to
connect
to
the
existing
drainage
connection
and,
in
any
event,
Thames
water
has
a
requirement
through
their
own
legislation,
outside
of
planning
to
accept
any
waste
into
their
system.
If
that
means
that
they
have
to
come
and
tanker
away
waste,
if
they,
if,
if
it
were
overloaded,
then
that
would
be
what
they
would
have
to
do.
But
here
is
an
existing
connection,
there's
not
a
requirement
for
another
connection
and
it's
in
respect
to
the
construction
management
plan.
Q
There
is
a
construction
management
plan
condition
already.
That
requires
details
of
parking
to
and
construction
vehicles
to
be
accommodated
on
site,
but
obviously
what
we
can't
do
is
if
a
tradesperson
chooses
to
park
their
vehicle,
not
on
site.
We
can't
force
against
that,
because
people
can
park
on
the
highway
with
out
without
any
planning
controls.
Q
We
can
require
them
to
provide
suitable
space
to
ensure
that
everybody
can
be
accommodated
on
site.
You
can
lead
the
horse
to
water.
You
can't
make
them
dream.
Obviously
so
yeah
we
can.
We've
got
a
construction
management
planning
condition
that
requires
suitable
provision
on
site
for
parking
of
construction
vehicles.
L
I
suppose
yes,
I
agree
with.
Apart
from
the
the
sewage
side,
it's
his
extra
housing
there
there's
there's
a
there's,
no
there's
no
private
dwellings
on
this
site
and
we're
talking
about
a
number
of
residential
dwellings.
Therefore,
we
are
putting
an
additional
load
into
the
sewer
and-
and
we
have
this
condition
with
the
stocks
farm
that
where
the
inspector
agreed
with
Thames
water
and
limited
occupation
until
such
time
or
tinkering
if
they
provided
tanks
on
site.
So
it's
a
condition
to
allow
that
to
happen.
Q
M
Them
I
was
just
going
to
comment
on
the
procedures,
so
obviously
the
officers
agree
with
the
first
two
conditions.
You
suggested
the
footpath
and
the
changes
to
so
it
becomes
retail
only
under
the
permitted
development
rights.
They've
also
clarified.
The
the
construction
management
plan
is
already
covered,
so
those
two
conditions
will
become
part
of
the
officer's
recommendation.
If
you
wish
to
persist
with
the
third
condition
that
the
officers
aren't
supporting,
then
we
need
to
have
a
boat
on
whether
or
not
that
condition
should
be
added
to
the
recommendation.
M
L
Thank
you
for
the
clarification
there
was
the
bollards
and
segregation
which
I
think
the
officers
had
agreed
yeah
all
right,
well,
I'll,
okay,
I
will
propose,
then
that
we
put
a
condition
occupants
of
occupancy
on
the
houses
until
Thames.
Water
has
at
least
has
provided
its
timing
and
plans
for
delivery
of
the
sewage
solution
for
the
West
Side
houses
of
Bramley
from
The
Pump,
Station
I
think
the
details.
H
Such
as
just
in
relation
to
that
I'm
going
to
label
the
point,
but
in
terms
of
the
reasonableness
of
that
condition
it
it
simply
wouldn't
stand
the
test
of
reasonableness
I'm,
afraid
your
decision
counts
as
delivered
to
put
it
forward
in
the
motion.
But
I
can
only
give
you
that
advice
that
it
wouldn't
it
wouldn't
meet
those
requirements
of
reasonableness.
Given
the
existing
connection
and
the
fact
that,
in
effect,
it
would
be
then
requiring
a
something
in
control
of
a
third
party.
A
I
Just
slightly
concerned
on
the
retail
bit
that
make
sure
that
we
don't
inadvertently
exclude
hot
food
and
basically
what
it
is
at
the
moment
a
cafe,
so
it
would
be
A
and
B
I
believe.
A
H
A
Councilor
Faulkner,
you
said
you
were
supportive
of
it.
Were
you
moving
the
motion.
A
A
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Everybody,
okay
item,
six
52
Reading,
Road,
chinham,
Greg,.
Q
U
Good
day,
members
of
the
development
committee,
my
name
is
Stephen
and
I
am
the
optican
for
the
plane
application
in
front
of
you,
which
proposes
the
erection
of
its
Simba
single
story.
Granny
Annex
for
my
elderly
mother,
the
structure
will
be
of
ancillary
use
to
the
main
dwelling.
The
main
dwelling
is
a
small
two-bedroom
house
where
myself,
my
wife
and
two
young
kids
reside
my
mother
lives
alone
in
London
and
has
some
physical
and
Health
Challenge
I
am
the
main
family
contact
with
others
living
for
that
field,
so
this
leaves
are
coping
without
family
support.
U
So,
as
she
gets
older,
it's
quite
a
worry
for
us
that
when
she
gets
very
unwell,
she
might
not
be
unable
to
reach.
We
might
not
be
able
to
reach
out
very
quickly
and
also
expected
that,
in
the
near
future,
she'll
become
even
more
dependent
on
myself,
my
family.
Rather
so
we
feel
that
this
Annex
will
be
the
ideal
solution.
Thus
we
have
the
space
to
accommodate
and
a
dedicated
Cara
assets
when
needed.
U
I
believe
this
proposal
will
be
valuable
addition
to
the
local
community
and
will
provide
much
needed.
Accommodation
for
elderly
relatives
will
require
additional
care
and
supports
the
granny.
Annex
will
be
built
to
a
high
standard
of
quality
and
safety
using
sustainable
materials
wherever
possible,
and
it
will
be
designed
to
be
energy
efficient
and
eco-friendly.
U
I
understand
that
some
concerns
have
been
raised
about
parking
as
an
impacts
of
this
development.
I
can
assure
you
that
this
will
not
be
the
case.
Two
applications
were
submitted
for
this
same
development.
U
I
think
it's
been
suggested
in
the
objection
comments
that
these
two
applications
pertain
to
two
different
structures,
but
it
is
very
important
to
also
clarify
that
these
two
applications
are
actually
for
the
same
building
that
we're
proposing
and
finally,
I
would
like
to
respectfully
ask
that
the
committee
agree
with
the
case
officer's
recommendation
and
approve
the
application
which
I
believe
Falls
well
with
the
international
planning
policy
framework
and
business
talk,
then
local
plan
and
guidance.
Thank
you
for
your
attention.
A
A
Any
other
questions:
okay,
I've
got
one
on
the
planning
history
application
facility
because
of
lawfulness
through
citing
of
a
mobile
home
that's
granted
last
year,
has
that
ever
been
actually
implemented.
Q
This
proposal
is
a
is
an
alternative
to
that,
so
that
proposal
for
the
certificate
of
lawful
proposed
use
was
on
the
Ben
on
the
basis
that
the
proposal
would
be
for
a
mobile
home
to
be
cited
on
the
land,
whereas
this
is
a
prefabricated
structure,
so
mobile
home
would
sit
on
the
land
and
therefore
not
be
development
on
its
own
right,
whereas
this
is
a
more
permanent
structure
to
be
constructed
online.
Just
to
pick
up
on
councilor
Hussey's
Point,
it's
one.
A
Q
Q
Thank
you
chairman.
This
is
an
application
for
the
erection
of
a
single
story.
Dwelling
at
long
Acres,
New
Road
there
is
an
update
paper,
provides
details
of
viewing
panel
held
at
the
site
confirms
the
retained
biodiversity
position
confirms
the
Tilted
balance
doesn't
apply
where
there's
a
clear
reason
for
refusal
related
to
Heritage
and
confirms
that
the
ownership
isn't
the
same
as
Berry
Court
Farmhouse.
Q
If
I
could
show
my
members
as
well
are
set
out
within
the
agenda.
There
has
been
a
previous
appeal
at
the
site
which
was
dismissed,
including
for
reasons
that
officers
are
now
proposing
on
Heritage
and
biodiversity
grounds
in
respects
of
Heritage,
in
terms
of
the
setting
with
reference
to
Historic
England
guidance,
as
quote
provided
page
335
of
the
historic
England
guidance
and
how
that
harm
manifests
is
set
out
a
page
336
of
the
report
and
in
respect
of
the
biodiversity
impact
that
summarized
well
in
the
second
quote,
on
page
339
from
the
planning
inspector.
V
Good
evening
objections
to
this
application
center
on
issues
of
historic
conservation
and
biodiversity,
and
it's
worth
remembering
that,
when
it
comes
to
overall
environmental,
Heritage,
History
and
natural
history
are
inextricably
linked
to
set
the
scene.
The
proposed
development
lies
in
pamba
a
rural
Parish
with
exceptional
biodiversity
in
statutory
terms.
It's
the
most
important
one
for
wildlife
in
the
borough.
Roughly
25
percent
of
Parish
land
has
site
of
special
scientific
interest
status
sssi
for
short,
and
it
accounts
for
roughly
37
of
land
with
sssi
designation,
for
which
basing
so
contains
as
a
local
planning
Authority.
V
The
case
has
already
been
made
for
a
20
meter
buffer
zone
between
the
proposed
development
and
the
river
to
the
South
here,
I'd
like
to
concentrate
on
a
tree
belt
that
lies
to
the
north.
The
footprint
of
the
proposed
development
immediately
abuts
its
boundary.
Your
supplementary
planning
document,
landscape,
biodiversity
and
trees.
States,
a
minimum
buffer
of
20
meters
should
be
provided
between
the
edge
of
the
Woodland
stroke
tree
belt,
and
the
development
ignoring
this
requirement
was
cited
as
a
reason
for
recommending
reviews
or
biodiversity
officer.
V
If
you
overlay
the
20
meter
buffer
zones
for
the
tree
belt
and
River
zone
They
overlap
and
demonstrate,
there's
no
room
for
development
on
this
land.
Returning
to
the
tree
belt,
ancestry
and
neighboring
biodiversity
records
Elevate.
The
significance
of
this
particular
example
above
and
beyond
the
ordinary
50
meters
to
the
West,
a
tree-lined
byway,
that's
Gypsy
Lane,
as
referred
to
in
a
previous
application,
is
now
proposed
for
designation
as
the
borough's
latest
site
of
importance
for
nature
conservation.
That's
by
Hampshire
biodiversity
information
center.
In
addition,
The
Garden
of.
E
V
West
wit,
Cottage,
has
also
been
proposed
for
the
same
designation.
The
primary
role
of
sync
designation
is
to
ensure
that
noteworthy
biodiversity
is
given
due
consideration
in
the
planning
process.
These
new
sync
sites
in
the
making
and
the
tree
belt
share
the
same
ancestry
and
have
biodiversity
in
common
environmental
buffer
zones
exist
for
good
reason,
not
just
to
protect
roots
and
water
uptake
by
trees,
but
also
to
safeguard
biodiversity
associated
with
beleaguered
habitat.
V
The
presence
in
the
vicinity
of
a
minimum
of
six
species
of
bats
record
reinforces
the
importance
of
buffer
zones,
especially
since
their
numbers
include
Western
Barber
store,
which
is
one
of
Britain's
rarest
mammals,
like
all
bats,
Barber
stores,
use
tree
margins,
tree
block
margins
for
feeding
the
catch
flying
insects
and
they
Roost,
and
mothers
give
birth
in
crevices
and
treeholes,
just
the
sort
of
niches
provided
by
ancient
tree
routes.
You
have
one
minute
remaining
development
right
next
to
this
tree
belt
would
harm
the
survival
chances
of
bats,
as
well
as
other
wildlife.
V
Of
course,
as
a
council,
you
rightly
acknowledge
the
importance
of
biodiversity,
the
restoration
of
damaged
habitats
and
the
concept
of
rewilding
as
a
moral
imperative
on
behalf
of
current
residents
and
to
secure
a
natural
Legacy
for
future
Generations.
These
worthy
aspirations
are
just
empty
rhetoric
if,
alongside
the
council,
permits
dewilding
habitat
degradation
and
biodiversity
loss
through
the
peaceful
development
of
environmentally
sensitive
open
Countryside.
Thank
you.
A
W
Yeah
good
evening
Jay
as
you've
just
heard.
Obviously
this
is
currently
recommended
for
refusal,
but
really
it
does
actually
boil
down
to
two
items.
W
Taking
the
first
in
the
buffers
as
you've
just
been
told
there,
the
the
northern
trade
line
isn't
an
ancient
Woodland.
It's
got
no
protection
on
it
in
any
way,
shape
or
form,
and
it's
actually
not
a
reason
that
is
cited
for
in
in
the
refusals
which
is
backed
up
by
the
inspector
and
also
by
the
officers
and
is,
is
within
the
update
paper.
W
So
really
it's
the
concern
over.
Is
there
enough
of
a
buffer
for
the
Beau
Brook
at
the
bottom?
W
Now
we've
provided
19
and
a
half
meters
which
does
reduce
to
13
and
half,
admittedly
in
in
terms
of
the
design
of
my
my
building,
I've
provided
there's
a
little
Kink,
then
that
takes
us
down
to
13
and
a
half
meters,
the
area
between
the
edge
of
the
of
the
of
the
site
boundary
and
the
stream
is
going
to
be
retained
as
the
PAD
as
it
is
right
now,
which
obviously
will
allow
the
horses
to
continue
to
graze
on
that
land.
W
The
appeal
site
that
was
being
referred
to
had
parking
and
garden
space
in
that
area.
Well,
that's
all
been
removed
from
there
and
moved
to
the
to
the
northern
side
of
the
site.
The
peas
and
the
Net
game
reports
showed
12
net
gain
and
they
all
provided
information
to
show
that
the
buffers
are
acceptable
in
terms
of
what
we've
provided
for
Beau
Brook.
W
In
terms
of
the
the
inspectors
comments
that
were
made
on
the
previous
one.
It
basically
referred
to
the
fact
that
they
wanted
a
more
appropriately
sized
buffer,
which
is
precisely
what
is
now
proposed
with
this
actual
application.
W
Now,
in
recent
comments
as
well,
that
were
provided
by
the
biodiversity
officer,
which
haven't
actually
been
included
in
the
in
the
main
Agenda
Report,
the
officer
has
stated
that
the
species
and
habitats
and
issues
and
constraints
that
were
related
within
those
pea
reports
can
be
mitigated
through
actions
that
we
have
suggested
and
the
suitable
conditions
can
put
that
be
put
in
place
to
make
sure
those
things
happen.
W
This
clearly
shows
that
the
that
that,
in
terms
of
the
biodiversity
value
on
that
side,
it
will
be
protected
and
that
these
buffers
to
me
are
now
more
than
suitable
couple.
This
with
the
additional
planting
and
the
links
for
these
for
the
Wildlife
will
be
enhanced.
W
Turning
the
to
the
concerns
with
regards
to
the
Heritage
side
of
things,
this
is
something
obviously
that
we've
discussed
many
times
here
with
various
different
outcomes.
The
officer's
report
doesn't
tell
you
that
a
rebuttal
was
submitted
to
the
HED
comments,
and
the
HTT
team
have
actually
confirmed
that
the
identified
harm
to
the
Heritage
asset
is
at
the
lower
level
of
the
sliding
scale
in
the
less
than
substantial
harm
category.
That,
for
me,
in
simple
terms,
is
one
notch
up
from
no
harm.
W
Those
of
you
that
were
on
the
viewing
panel,
the
other
week
will
have
seen
the
chimney
and
the
corner
of
the
listed
building
from
the
point
where
you
were
dropped
off,
I
saved
the
chimney
and
the
corner,
because
that
was
all
you
can
actually
see
because
of
the
large
trees.
You.
W
Design
of
the
of
the
of
the
dwelling
has
been
reduced
in
terms
of
its
overall
scale.
It's
now
a
two
bedroom
Bungalow
which
obviously,
as
you
all
know,
there
is
a
requirement
for
bungalows
talking
of
in
terms
of
the
overall
distances
in
terms
of
Separation.
With
with
regards
to
the
setting
of
this,
you
know
listed
building
we're
over
50
meters
away
from
what
is
Berry
Court
Farm,
the
listed
asset.
W
You
may
remember
one
of
my
applications
on
the
main
road,
where
we
were
seven
meters
away
and
that
Bungalow
was
approved
and
is
currently
being
built.
There
was
only
a
six
foot
fence
that
provided
separation,
so
compare
that
to
what
we
have
here
is
the
harm
sufficient
to
Warrant
a
refusal
talking
of
tilty
balance.
W
In
my
opinion,
tilty
balance
should
have
been
applied,
but
hey
we'll
we'll
get
to
that.
Dare
I
mentioned
the
whole
five-year
land
Supply,
taking
that
out
of
the
equation
right
now
back
to
Bungalows,
there
is
a
requirement
for
two
bedroom,
Bungalows
and
I.
Think
that
should
have
been
afforded
a
much
higher
weight
when
we
talk
about
the
Tilted
balance.
W
This
application
has
been
reduced
in
scale,
with
a
much
larger
buffer
being
provided
the
harm
to
that
buffer,
in
our
opinion
is
minimal,
and
it's
at
the
lower
end
of
the
less
than
substantial
harm
and
I
would
therefore
ask
you
to
please
approve
this
application
and
allow
a
family
back
to
their
home,
Village
and
self-build.
This
dwelling,
thank
you.
X
Thank
you
chair,
good
evening
councilors.
X
You
know
very
well
that
I
come
to
speak
to
you
only
when
I
feel
that
maybe
you
ought
to
make
this
decision,
and
that
was
why
I
brought
it
in
to
committee.
Earlier
this
year.
I
was
advised
that
the
applicants
had
been
waiting
some
several
weeks
for
the
Heritage
team
to
respond
to
the
application
and
I
felt.
At
that
point
it
ought
to
be
brought
to
you
to
make
a
decision
and
the
officers
at
the
time
I
understood
had
only
that
as
an
objection.
Obviously,
subsequently
there
have
been
more
objections
raised.
X
I
also
requested
that
you
had
a
site
visit
because
considering
you've
already
considered
this
twice
before
my
time
should
I
add
nobody
as
far
as
I'm
aware
as
a
counselor,
certainly
not
from
the
committee
point
of
view.
I
visited
the
site
and
seen
for
themselves
how
it
the
setting
was
in
relationship
to
the
brook
to
the
listed
building
and
also
to
the
other
properties
in
the
area.
X
When
you
came
to
visit
the
site,
you
came
a
little
later
on
in
the
year,
but
when
I
was
there
in
January,
there
were
obviously
the
least
number
of
leaves
and
other
Greenery
available,
and
therefore
it
was
quite
obvious
that
you
could
not
see
the
listed
building.
Apart
from
the
chimney
from
where
the
site
of
the
development
is
going
to
be
I'm.
A
farmer's
daughter
and
I
know
all
about
animals,
because
I
used
to
look
after
autism,
this
field
will
remain
very
much
an
agricultural
field.
X
X
X
X
I
certainly
think
that
the
applicant
themselves
have
bent
over
backwards
to
address
all
the
issues
that
were
raised
on
the
previous
applications
that
were
refused
I
am
not
an
advocate
of
building
on
Greenfield
sites
personally
and
I.
Neither
am
I
advocate
of
allowing
biodiversity
to
be
trashed.
I
used
to
work
for
the
environment
agency
God's
sake.
However,
I
do
not
believe
that
this
is
a
significant
harm
and
I
do
believe
that
this
application,
hopefully
will
be
supported.
Thank
you.
Y
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
to
cancer,
slimming
for
it
allowing
us
to
go
on
site.
J
The
reasons
for
refusal
as
I
as
I
see
them.
We
just
deal
with
the
easy
one.
First,
if
I
may,
the
reason
for
refusal
2
is
the
impact
on
the
Berry
Court
Farm.
Frankly,
we
are
the
we
are
at
the
tiny
end
of
seeing
that
we
could
barely
see
it
and
having
or
knowing
how
many
applications
we've
approved.
Much
closer
to
that
grade.
Two
listed
building,
I,
have
to
say
a
modest
home,
in
my
view,
would
cause
even
less
damage
than
we've
already
done
to
that.
J
In
my
view,
the
the
application
in
front
of
us
to
come
board
what
had
been
refused
previously
from
from
the
site.
If
we,
if
I,
was
lucky
enough
to
look
up
the
the
building
line
in
from
the
field
and
I
could
see
another
property
on
that
building
line.
J
The
biodiversity
is
important,
but
would
it
be
impacted
that
19
meters
or
13
meters
I,
don't
believe
it
would,
and
and
I
have
to
say
that
the
the
River
Course
is
much
more
affected
further
down
where
development
is
more
substantial,
I
I
believe
that
we
have
a
need
for
for
bungalows,
and
we
have
to
be
mindful
that
when
they
come
in
front
of
us,
we
need
to
give
them
a
little
more
weight
than
we
do
within
this
officers.
Report
genuinely
I
think
the
there
is
a
there
is
a.
J
J
I
I
didn't
believe
that
Lewis
trees
were
either
ancient
or
valuable.
My
view
is
that
they
could
be
replaced
if
one
of
them
was
to
be
impacted
by
the
by
the
development
and
therefore,
frankly,
I
I,
think
I
agree
with
councilman,
not
something
I
often
do,
but
that
I
would
like
to
to
move
this
to
be
approved.
Thank.
Y
B
G
Yeah
there
was
there's
one
thing:
I'm,
perhaps
not
slightly
clear
on
much
is
made
of
the
listed
building,
but
it
seemed
to
me
to
be
right.
Next
to
it
was
the
back
of
an
industrial
estate,
a
small
industrial
estate
and
therefore
that
sort
of
seemed
to
negate
some
of
the
sort
of
arguments
on
nature,
biodiversity,
etc,
etc,
because
the
the
entrance
to
that
apparently
was
from
the
other
side.
So
we
couldn't
see
it,
but
you
could
clearly
see
it.
G
Was
there
so
I
had
some
concerns
about
its
proximity
to
the
Watercourse,
but
then
that
industrial
estate
is
already
shall
we
say,
also
an
impact
so
I
suppose
I
was
coming
down
because
of
that
more
in
in
favor
of
it
than
I,
otherwise
would
have
been.
Q
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
if
I
could
just
come
back
on
a
couple
of
points,
the
first
is
in
respect
of
the
impact
to
the
setting
of
the
listed
building.
Q
That
is
a
statutory
consideration
and
whilst
there
may
be
a
scale
of
less
and
substantial
harm
or
substantial
harm,
as
soon
as
there
is
any
harm,
such
a
impact
must
be
given
a
significant
weight
in
the
decision-making
process
and
if
it
provides
clear
reason
for
refusal,
it
takes
us
away
from
the
Tilted
balance
which
the
update
paper
does
confirm,
so
just
bringing
to
members
attention
the
statutory
control
and
the
fact
that,
as
soon
as
there
is
any
harm
which
it
is
officer's
view
that
there
is-
and
there
is
a
clear
explanation
of
why
that
is
in
in
the
report,
the
interview
into
visibility
in
itself
isn't
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
harm
is
an
experience
of
the
setting
of
the
building
itself
and
in
that
respect,
the
planning
inspector
also
found
that
there
was
harm
to
the
setting
of
the
list
of
building,
albeit
from
a
different
proposal
in
terms
of
heights.
Q
Thank
you.
Chairman.
H
And
yeah,
just
in
terms
of
Council
Faulkner's
sort
of
query
around
the
commercial
uses
behind
very
cool
farm
I,
suppose,
ultimately,
that
was
the
same
they're
still
the
same
position
as
considered
by
the
inspector,
so
nothing's
changed
in
that
sense.
That
was
already
there
in
that.
In
that
previous
appeal
decision
as
well.
A
Q
Thank
you
chairman,
just
to
confirm
that
that
is
approved
that
will
need
to
be
delegated
to
officers
to
agree.
Pre-Commencement
conditions
with
the
applicant
which
I
would
suggest
should
include
compliant
with
the
approved
plans,
development
occurring
within
three
years,
materials
being
agreed,
boundary
achievements
being
agreed
hard
and
soft
Landscaping
being
agreed.
Q
Compliance
with
the
ecology
report,
any
lighting
details
prior
to
installation,
non-migratory
surface
for
the
access
provision
of
parking
cycle,
parking
and
bin
storage,
arboricultural
fencing
being
installed
and
complying
with
the
submitted
report,
flood
risk
mitigation
measures,
Utility
Services,
details,
construction
and
delivery
hours,
the
removal
of
committed
development
and
requirement
for
water
efficiency
to
110
liters
a
day.
Thank
you,
chairman.
B
Thank
you
Chad.
This
is
an
application
for
variation
of
condition,
one
related
to
plans
and
conditions,
three
relating
to
materials,
a
pirates,
Cottage
tubs
Lane
in
highcliffe.
In
relation
to
the
extant
permission,
21
forward,
slash
zero,
three
seven,
six,
three
four
slash
Roc
to
materially
alter
the
appearance
of
the
proposed
new
dwelling
in
relation
to
materials.
B
The
materials
will
be
brick
and
slate
whereby
the
use
of
bricks
was
established
under
the
original
technical
details,
consent
approval,
which
is
reference
20
forward,
slash
zero
one,
six,
six,
four
forward,
slash
TDC,
no
external
dimensions
of
the
dwelling
or
reciting
have
altered
since
the
previous
variation
of
condition
is.
This
is
just
to
consider
really
the
change
of
materials.
B
Q
Q
There
is
no
update
on
the
application,
but
if
I
could
just
remind
members,
it
has
been
appeal
history
at
the
site
where
an
identical
scheme
was
dismissed
at
appeal,
but
it
was
only
dismissed
at
appeal
by
virtue
of
the
lack
of
completion
of
the
legal
agreement
to
complete
to
provide
Financial
contributions
for
off-site
creation
and
maintenance
of
biodiversity
habitat,
and
the
securing
of
that
is
in
front
of
you
as
part
of
the
recommendation
for
approval.
Thank
you,
chairman.
Z
Yeah
thanks
for
that
yeah
good
evening,
my
name
is
Chris,
looks
I'm
the
chair
of
Bramley
Parish
Council
planning
committee.
Firstly,
I'd
like
to
remind
you
that
this
is
an
entirely
new
application.
There
is
no
permission
in
principle
on
this
site.
As
it
stands,
the
previous
appeared
on
the
site
was
dismissed
with
the
inspector
stating
I
cannot
be
satisfied
that
appropriate
arrangements
would
be
made
to
secure
adequate
infrastructure
to
mitigate
the
biodiversity
impacts
of
The
Proposal.
Z
Now
you
regularly
find
cars
parked
on
both
sides
of
the
road
outside
the
surgery.
Even
Hampshire
highways
appear
to
have
some
misgivings
and,
as
the
boroughs
declared
a
climate
emergency
I
would
expect
more
than
lip
service
to
the
Eco
credential
of
the
debt
dwellings.
No
mention
of
solar
panels.
Heat
pumps
or
proper
rainwater
harvesting,
just
vague
mention
of
water
buds
and
now
to
our
famous
sewage
problem.
Z
Z
Z
A
Nope
I
have
one
much
regarding
the
appeal
we
as
a
council.
As
a
committee,
we
won
the
appeal,
but
on
a
technicality
rather
than
a
substantial
amount.
What
was
the
situation
on
costs?
Foreign.
Q
A
Q
L
You
chair:
well,
this
is,
as
it
says,
it's
a
new
application.
So
on
such
a
thing,
one
has
to
look
at
it,
and
I
would
argue
that
looking
at
the
provided
drawings,
we
are
missing.
Well,
certainly
in
our
package,
a
street
scene
we've
got
elevations
and
when
you
actually
look
at
the
site
plan
and
the
description,
these
are
linked
attached
houses
and
on
page
379
we
have
the
report
from
our
landscape
officer
who
says
that
these
are
the
well.
L
I'm
not
saying
we've
got
the
principle
of
development
with
a
pip.
It's
a
separate
application.
I
appreciate
that,
but
I
I
realize
where
we
are
with
development
on
this
site,
but
I
would
argue
that
this
is
too
too
dense
for
its
blending
in
with
the
the
countryside
and
so
would
be
contrary
to
well.
Basically,
they
refuse
the
reasons
for
approval
number
two.
The
would
be
the
reverse
that
it
has
significant
impacts
on
the
landscape
because
of
its
its
density.
L
So
on
that
basis,
I
would
move
refusal,
but
I
would
also
reserve
the
right
if
we
lose
that,
but
we
talk
about
the
sewage
condition
that
we
had
on
the
previous
application
of
the
bakery,
because
this
is
exactly
the
same
situation,
so
I
will
move
it
for
refusal
on
the
reversal
of
approval
number
two:
okay.
Q
Yes,
thank
you
chairman,
just
to
confirm
to
members
that
the
planning
history
of
this
site
is
a
very
significant
material
consideration.
Q
If
members
were
to
seek
to
refuse
the
application
on
the
impact
to
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
area
on
something
that
the
planning
inspector
has
previously
found
would
have
an
acceptable
impact
on
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
area
we
would
lose
and
we
would
have
costs
award
against
us.
I.
Don't
think
I
can
labor
that
point
anymore,
any
more
strongly
and
in
respect
of
the
condition
on
drainage.
Q
L
So
I
might
come
back
and
let
you
apparently
inspectors
seem
to
have
different
views
of
the
same
subject
on
many
occasions.
So
I
mean
this.
Would
it's
wise?
We
have
in
front
of
us
a
new
application
we
have
to
just
we
have
to,
and
we
are
we're
obliged
to
consider
this
as
a
new
application,
because
the
applicant
wouldn't
have
put
it
in.
L
If
you
didn't
want
a
new
application,
he
would
have
done
gone
back
in
with
the
officers
with
the
changes
that
were
necessary
on
that
biodiversity
agreement
and
and
with
the
reserved
sorry
with
the
technical
details.
So
I
don't
really
understand
why
we've
got
that.
L
So
on
that
basis,
you
have
to
view
it
as
a
separate
application
and
and
looking
at
the
everything
it
doesn't
stack
up
so
so
I,
don't
you
know,
buy
that
one
that
we'd
be
laughed
at,
of
course
by
an
inspector,
because
it's
already
it's
already
been
done,
put
to
bed,
and
this
is
now
a
new
application
and
is
still
not
satisfactory.
L
H
Thank
you
chair,
so
just
to
be
absolutely
clear
that
it's
a
full
application.
So,
yes,
it
is
a
new
application,
but
you
cannot
ignore
the
very
highly
material
consideration
of
the
appeal
for
effectively
the
same
development,
so
the
inspector
has
already
concluded
so
there's
two
different
routes
to
the
same
development
and
the
inspector
has
already
given
a
view
on
that
and
is
concluded
on
that
point.
So
it's
the
cancer
word
to
refuse
on
those
grants.
H
As
Greg
has
already
explained,
we
would
lose
that
and
we
would
have
costs
awarded
against
because
it
wouldn't
just
be
on
the
partial
point
of
specifically
the
highways.
It
would
now
be
on
the
whole
appeal.
The
fact
that
we've
brought
an
appeal
or
brought
a
situation
where
the
applicant
needs
to
need
to
dependent
applicant
needs
to
appeal
the
situation.
H
So
again,
we
we
wouldn't
often
say
it
in
those
terms,
but
this
is
as
clear-cut
as
it
could
possibly
be
in
terms
of
that
particular
part
in
terms
of
the
sewage
condition
so
condition
22
again,
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
more
robust
position
that
can
be
taken
on
the
basis
that
just
pick
up
the
relevant
condition,
air
conditioning
32,
which
is
that
it's
actually
a
no
development
shall
commence
on
site.
So
it's
not
even
a
based
on
prior
occupation,
reflecting
the
fact
that
it
is
a
Greenfield
site.
H
So
she's
saying
no
development
show
happen
until
details
of
those
works
for
disposal.
Fat
range
have
been
submitted
and
then,
following
on
from
that,
the
dwellings
can't
be
occupied
until
those
approved
drainage
details
have
been
fully
implemented,
so
I
can't
think
of
it
or
advisable
way
that
you
could
make
that
condition
more
robust.
L
We
have
yeah
sorry
thank
you
right.
I
read
the
report,
but
I
didn't
go
through
all
the
conditions
so
that
you're
right
that
the
report
said
it
was
had
an
argument
about
it
not
being
particularly
relevant,
but
this
actually
says
so.
I
will
withdraw
that.
That
comment
is
there,
but
I'll
still
leave
it.
That
I
have
to
then
say
why
on
Earth
has
this
application
come
to
DC?
Then,
if
we
can't
actually
do
anything
with
it,.
H
That's
that's
simply
reflected
the
number
of
objections
that
have
been
received
and
the
fact
that
our
delegation
is
effectively
removed
on
that
basis.
So
we
can't
approve
something
on
delegation
when
there's
been
that
many
objections,
that's
just
part
of
the
Constitutional
Arrangements.
A
K
I
think
we're
in
an
extremely
difficult
position
in
this
one
I
I
personally,
I
really
don't
see
the
point
of
granting
approval
for
something
that
can't
be
built
due
to
sewage
capacity
issues
and
dense
water.
But
the
letter
of
the
law
is
such
that
I
would
feel
obliged
to
support
the
recommendation,
even
though
it
goes
against.
A
A
That
motion
has
failed.
Is
there
a
second
potion.