►
From YouTube: Basingstoke Gov - Development Control - 08/03/2023
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
Good
evening,
everyone
welcome
to
development
control.
There
are
no
fire
alarms
scheduled
for
this
evening.
Therefore,
it's
a
fire
alarm
sounds:
please
evacuate
the
building
immediately.
I
hope
this
meeting
is
being
webcast,
live
on
the
internet
and
could
everybody
turn
their
mobile
phones
off
or
to
site
to
the
public
watching
or
participating
in
this
meeting,
I
would
like
to
explain
who
everyone
is.
A
My
name
is
councilor
Nick,
Robinson
and
I'm.
Chairman
of
this
committee,
to
my
right,
our
councilors,
who
will
be
making
decisions,
are
adding
advice
to
the
committee.
The
development
control
committee
is
a
regulatory
committee,
not
a
political
meeting.
The
committee
will
be
considering
the
published
papers
examining
the
evidence
programs
at
the
appropriate
time.
I
would
invite
speakers
to
contribute
to
the
meeting
in
the
order
set
out
in
the
update
paper.
A
May
ask
that
all
speakers,
including
visiting
members,
speak
clearly
and
to
keep
putting
has
finished.
All
speakers
will
be
reminded
of
their
permitting
speaking
time
and
will
be
advised
when
they
have
one
minute
remaining
by
our
school
committee
members
to
avoid
repetition
and
to
keep
any
comments
on
each
planning
application
to
a
maximum
of
four
minutes.
A
A
I
understand
that
planning
can
be
emotive
and
I.
Apologies
for
absence
and
substitutions
I
have
not
been
informed
of
any,
and
we
just
appear
to
be
missing.
Councilor
McCormick
at
the
moment,
urgent
matters
I
have
none
no
minutes
of
the
meat,
oh
Declarations
of
Interest.
Are
there
any
nope
good
minutes
of
the
meeting
held
on
the
8th
of
February
2023
I,
move
that
they're
accurate
could
I
have
a
second
up.
Please
councilor.
A
C
Thank
you,
chair
height
of
mine,
is
an
outline
application
for
42
42
dwellings
at
land
off
edsonswell
road,
Bishops
green,
just
confirmed
to
members.
The
application
remains
unchanged
from
the
application
considered
on
the
7th
of
December
2022,
where
the
resolution
was
to
Grant
outline
planning
permissions
subject
to
completion
of
a
necessary
section,
106
agreement.
C
The
sole
reason
for
bringing
the
application
back
to
DC
committee
is
that,
prior
to
the
section
106
being
completed
and
therefore
prior
to
a
decision
being
issued,
the
neighborhood
plan
is
Advanced
to
the
next
stages
of
preparation,
such
that
the
weight
to
be
given
to
the
neighborhood
plan
has
changed
in
in
the
meantime.
That
is
the
reason
why
the
structure
report
is
set
out.
So
you
have
an
update
report
and
an
appendix
a
setting
out
the
original
report.
C
At
the
time
of
the
meeting
on
the
7th
of
December,
the
neighborhood
plan
was
at
consultation
stage,
which
meant
it
was
given
little
to
moderate
weight.
The
following
received
the
examiner's
report
and
now
the
decision
to
move
to
progress
to
referendum
as
reporting
the
update
that
has
changed
the
significant
weight,
the
nature
of
the
conflict
with
aspects
of
neighborhood
plan,
such
as
the
matters
of
being
outside
the
settlement
policy,
boundary
and
conflict
with
neighbor
plan
policy,
espg1
Remains,
the
Same,
but
the
weight
to
be
given
to
that
has
altered.
C
However,
whilst
the
wait
to
be
given
to
the
neighbor
plant
has
changed
since
it
requires
it
to
come
back
to
DC
committee
and
the
overall
assessment
of
the
application
is
that
the
is
for
the
application
still
to
be
recommended
for
approval
having
taken
into
account
that
change
in
in
weight
to
be
given
as
out
in
the
report.
The
reason
for
that
assessment
is
to
take
into
account
a
number
of
matters
which
include
the
examiner's
report
that
has
been
received
into
relation
to
the
neighborhood
plan,
so
that
is
the
report.
C
C
On
that
basis,
the
balance
in
terms
of
informing
the
recommendation
for
approval
remains.
Turning
to
the
update
paper,
just
to
confirmed
three
main
points
to
Members
First
is
that
the
section
106
agreement
has
now
been
signed.
Therefore,
if
planning
permission
were
to
be
granted
that
would
be
issued
with
without
further
delay.
The
second
is
as
referenced
in
the
introduction.
The
decision
has
now
been
made
to
move
the
neighbor
plan
to
referendum
stage
and
that
decision
has
been
published
on
the
council's
website
and
third
is
a
summary
of
points
raised
by
the
applicants
agent.
A
D
D
You
should
refuse
this
application
because
it
does
not
enhance
sustainability
or
demonstrate
economic,
social
and
environmental
benefits.
Residents
have
consistently
and
strongly
objected
to
this
application,
based
on
its
inappropriate
scale,
lack
of
sustainability
and
increased
safety
risks
on
our
narrow
rural
Lanes.
It
is
also
a
dense,
Suburban
form,
ill-suited
to
the
rural
location.
Bishop's
green
is
a
small
village
of
limited
sustainability
and
the
only
access
is
via
roads
with
narrow
single
track
sections.
D
Environmental
consultations
have
objected
strongly
to
the
scale
of
the
development,
as
it
will
add
stress
to
the
nearby
triple
SI
and
sinks.
This
is
inevitably
a
car
intensive
development.
There
are
limited
local
bus
services,
but
not
in
the
evenings
or
weekends
residents.
Without
access
to
a
car
are
very
isolated.
Cycling
or
walking
from
the
site
is
not
a
realistic
option
for
most
people.
D
You
should
also
refuse
the
application,
because
it
does
not
comply
with
our
neighborhood
plan,
which
should
now,
according
to
the
mppf,
be
given
significant
weight
in
decision
making
and
be
treated
as
a
current
development
plan
for
the
parish.
Our
neighborhood
plan
has
passed
examination
and
is
seen
as
a
well-founded
plan
that
meets
basic
conditions.
D
D
This
application
is
contrary
to
many
of
the
policies
in
our
plan.
The
meeting
paper
wrongly
claims
that
the
applications
meet
some
of
our
neighborhood
plan
policies,
notably
those
of
housing,
Supply
and
design.
It
does
not
following
your
December
resolution,
a
public
meeting
unanimously
agreed
that
our
unchanged
plan
should
be
rapidly
pushed
through
examination
and
referendum
as
the
only
way
to
ensure
protection
for
the
parish.
In
the
face
of
this
and
other
large-scale
development
proposals.
D
D
D
In
summary,
you
should
reject
this
application
because
it
does
not
represent
sustainable
development
and
it's
contrary
to
the
policies
laid
out
in
our
neighborhood
plan,
which
now
should
be
given
real
weight
as
the
development
plan
for
our
Parish
in
closing
I
want
to
ship
you
to
be
aware
that,
should
you
decide
to
approve
this
application,
the
parish
council
will
request
a
calling
by
the
Secretary
of
State,
based
on
the
status
of
our
neighborhood
plan
and
the
Berkeley
and
other
precedents
discussion
with
the
Department
indicates.
They
would
see
a
calling
as
Justified.
Thank
you.
A
E
Sorry,
I'm
dyslexic,
so
things
tend
to
go
wrong.
My
name
is:
is
Tony
Ford
and
a
resident
of
Bishops
green.
The
local
plan
is
out
of
date.
Hence
the
presumption
in
favor
of
sustainable
development.
Sustainability
is
a
major
issue
for
this
application,
which
highways
confirm
which
wasn't
discussed
last
time.
E
The
weight
now
attached
to
the
neighborhood
plan
is
demonstrated
by
the
application
being
heard
again,
and
the
previous
committee
report
gave
many
reasons
why
the
application
should
be
refused.
If
the
neighborhood
plan
wasn't
material
consideration.
Now
it
is
landscape
officers
wrote
adverse
impacts
on
both
landscape
character,
visual
immunity,
contrary
to
the
landscape
and
biodiversity,
and
trees,
SPD
and
harmful
to
landscape
characteristics
described
within
the
Basingstoke
and
Dean
landscape
character
assessment
recommendation
objection
update.
E
My
landscape
I've
now
had
chance
to
read
through
the
notes
submitted
by
the
applicant
and
would
advise
that
this
does
not
alter
the
landscape
view
of
the
application
on
the
expensive
setting
to
the
existing
settlement
of
Bishops
green.
It
is
considered
to
remain
more
positively
to
this
context
than
that
of
the
residential
development
adjacent,
so
the
person
proceeded,
the
proposed
development
would
result
in
an
acceptable
impact
on
the
character
ability
by
non-car
travel
modes.
There
are
very
few
facilities
within
a
realistic
on
food,
although
there
are
some
facilities
where
cycling
distance
from
this
site.
E
The
40
mile,
Gun
and
Cycle
improvements
are
not
proposed
as
part
of
the
development,
and
my
words
cannot
be
provided
highways
continues.
It's
noted
that
the
traffic
into
the
late
evening
this
is
considered
potentially
inadequate
for
promoting
sustainable
travel
options,
should
also
note
that
the
lack
of
any
safe
route
or
sustainable
travel
option
for
accessing
local
schools.
E
There
is,
they
apply
to
all
other
services,
not
locally
accessible,
so
requiring
car
Journeys.
F
E
It
is
also
contrary
to
policies
of
Beijing
Stoke
Indiana
of
many
of
the
officers
have
said:
West,
Berkshire
Council
and
the
Bishops
green
and
Essence
World,
neighborhood
Crown
so
should
be
refused,
but
I
just
urge
you
to
look
at
why
the
previous
committee
report
is
not
the
fault
of
the
officer
this
time.
The
previous
committee
report
actually
said
exactly
what
the
what
applicant
wanted
about
the
landscape,
not
what
your
own
landscape
consultant
said.
Thank
you.
A
G
Thank
you,
chair
and
good
evening.
Councilors,
the
officer's
updated
report
is,
is
clear
and
comprehensive,
and
my
client
does
not
wish
to
repeat
much
of
the
content.
We
note
and
welcome
that
officers
have
taken
legal
advice
in
retaining
the
recommendation
to
approve.
My
client
has
also
taken
legal
soundings
and
agrees
with
the
key
conclusions
covered
in
the
report.
G
Fundamentally,
the
resolution
to
Grant
permission
would
not
Prejudice
the
neighborhood
plan
since
the
previous
committee.
This
has
been
confirmed
by
policy
officers
and
Paris
documentation.
Furthermore,
in
recommending
the
plan
can
be
made
subject
to
modifications,
The
Examiner
made
several
references
to
the
resolution
to
Grant
within
her
report.
This
is
clear
evidence
that
the
resolution
to
Grant
within
her
the
resolution
to
Grant
was
taken
into
account
by
The
Examiner
in
finding
the
plan
sound.
G
It
is
worth
reiterating
that
any
subsequent
Reserve
matters
would
be
required
to
be
consistent
with
all
the
relevant
development
management
neighbor
plan
policies.
These
include
those
relating
to
design
quality,
Community
engagement,
Broadband
connectivity
and
green
corridors.
My
client
has
every
intention
of
ensuring
that
those
policies
are
that
proposals
are
consistent.
G
My
client
would
like
to
make
the
following
additional
points
relative
to
the
committee
report
and
the
update.
The
committee
report
refers
to
the
conflict
of
the
resolution
with
policy
espg1
in
that
the
site
is
outside
any
settlement
policy,
boundary
and
esbg
3,
in
that
the
site
is
not
allocated
by
this
policy
policy.
G
Espg3
is
an
allocation
of
the
plan
and
the
examiner
considered
the
resolution
would
not
Prejudice
the
delivery
of
this
policy,
as
officers
have
highlighted
in
the
committee
report,
the
main
intentions
of
the
plan
in
relation
to
the
scale
of
new
development,
the
choices
around
location
of
site
allocations,
have
remained
the
same.
Indeed,
the
examiner's
report,
with
recommended
modifications,
has
endorsed
those
elements
of
the
plan
in
the
knowledge
of
the
resolution
to
Grant
per
learning
permission
for
42
dwellings
at
the
application
site.
G
G
This
could
be
argued
to
strengthen
the
recommendation
to
approve
the
combination
of
the
neighborhood
plan,
and
this
resolution
to
Grant
will
provide
an
additional
buffer
against
the
need
to
meet
wider
housing
needs
of
the
borough
that
may
emerge
from
the
local
plan
review
within
Bishop's,
green
and
edgewell,
and
finally,
the
neighbor
plan
allocations
will
not
in
themselves
provide
for
the
extensive,
affordable
needs
of
the
parish.
You.
G
You,
as
advised
by
the
council's
Strategic
housing
manager
as
of
September
2022.
There
is
a
need
for
24,
affordable
homes
within
the
parish,
as
well
as
an
overwhelming
need
for
4
300,
affordable
houses
within
the
borough
as
a
whole.
The
application
site
will
deliver
17,
affordable
houses
of
a
suitable
tenure
to
meet
local
need.
G
Finally,
the
section
106
and
the
seal
contributions
will
deliver
significant
financial
and
infrastructure
benefits
to
the
Village
sale.
Contributions
have
been
estimated
to
be
in
excess
of
650
000
pounds.
There
are
section
106
contributions
towards
enhancing
the
existing
play
facilities
to
the
immediate
South,
the
bus
service
adjacent
to
the
site,
improving
the
wardening
of
the
greenham
and
crooked
common
sssi,
plus
securing
Highway
and
bus
stop
improvements
adjacent
to
the
site,
as
well
as
a
travel
plan.
G
I
Good
evening
councilors,
this
committee
has
been
given
the
opportunity
to
review
December's
decision
because,
because
of
as
officers,
State
a
material
change
in
circumstances
and
it's
a
big
change
in
planning
terms-
the
emerging
neighborhood
plan
has
gone
from
carrying
little
weight
in
December
to
significant
weight,
with
it
being
formally
approved
for
a
referendum
by
this
Council
officers
confirm
much.
Greater
weight
should
now
be
given
to
the
fact
that
this
site
conflicts
with
the
neighborhood
plan
in
being
outside
the
settlement
policy
boundary
and
and
that
it
is
not
allocated
they.
I
They
invite
this
committee
to
make
the
genuine
reconsideration
of
this
application.
I
think
you
should,
and
you
should
do
so
on
good
planning
grounds
officers.
Continuing
recommendation
essentially
turns
on
a
single
planning
thread.
Para
49
of
the
mppfs
outlines
two
grounds
around
prematurity
for
refusing
permission
against
the
presumption
in
favor
of
sustainable
development
officers
recognize
one
ground
has
now
been
fulfilled.
The
emerging
neighborhood
plan
is
an
at
an
advanced
stage
due
to
the
re
to
the
receipt
of
the
examiner's
positive
report.
I
Their
support
for
this
application
therefore
relates
to
the
other
remaining
ground
not
being
met.
The
development
is
so
substantial
that
to
Grant
planning
permission
would
undermand
undermine
the
plan
making
process
by
predetermining
decisions
about
scale
or
location
of
new
development.
Its
support
of
this
argument
they
in
support
of
this
argument
they
rely
on
the
on
the
nahibo
neighborhood
planned
examiners,
comment
that
the
neighborhood
plans
can
allocate
sites
for
more
housing
than
the
indicative
requirement.
As
this
wouldn't
undermine
thorough
strategic
policies.
I
I
Very
similar
issues
arose
in
another
case
in
my
ward,
Hearts
Lane
Berkeley,
where
an
appeal
on
35
homes
was
decided
in
December
2020..
The
Berkeley
neighborhood
plan
was
approved
for
referendum.
The
site
was
outside
a
settlement
policy,
boundary
and
another
site
had
been
allocated
to
meet
the
parish's
assessed
requirement
of
10
houses.
The
borough
had
no
five-year
housing
land
Supply.
Concerning
para
49.
In
dismissing
the
appeal,
the
inspector
stated
that
it
would
marketedly
conflict
with
the
emerging
neighborhood
plan
on
the
fundamental
issues
of
scale
of
growth
envisages
in
Berkeley
and
its
location.
I
J
I
A
general
disillusion
in
the
benefits,
elephants,
efforts
and
objectives
and
neighborhood
planning
within
the
community
and
the
scale
and
location
is
so
substantial
that
to
Grant
this
appeal
in
advance
of
the
referendum
would
predetermine
decisions
about
the
scale
and
location
of
new
housing
that
would
seriously
undermine
the
plan
making
process.
He
acknowledged
a
second
harmful
Consequence,
the
real
prospect
that
the
emerging
neighborhood
plan
would
not
be
endorsed
at
referendum.
If
the
appeal
was
allowed,
I
submit
that
the
due
weight
should
be
given
to
a
planning.
I
Inspector's
judgment
can
counselors,
having
agreed
to
delay
the
local
planning
update
in
order
to
reduce
the
housing
Target
in
the
borough
vote
with
a
clear
conscience
in
favor
of
planning
application
that
does
the
opposite
and
skewers.
This
parishes
emerging
neighborhood
plan.
This
council
is
rightly
proud
of
its
commitment
to
the
importance
of
neighborhood
planning
and
of
its
support
in
helping
communities
to
make
plans
of
which
there
are
13
across
I.
Hope.
Counselors
tonight
will
reflect
and
not
put
at
risk
the
14th
neighborhood
plan
for
etchen's
well
and
Bishops
green.
K
Thank
you
chair.
Legally,
what
weight
should
we
give
to
the
threat
of
a
referral
to
the
Secretary
of
State?
Should
we
have
that
in
our
mind,
can
I
ask
Anne.
C
Yes,
I'll
respond
to
that
one.
The
application,
when
it
was
reported
in
December,
had
already
been
the
secretary,
the
national
sorry.
The
national
planning
casework
unit
had
already
considered
a
request
for
calling
and
had
said
that
the
application
could
be
considered
locally
so
that
that
Loop
had
already
been
gone
through.
Whether
someone
wishes
to
pursue
that
again,
that's
entirely
up
to
them,
but
it
wouldn't
preclude
you
from
all
recruit
the
council
for
making
a
decision
on
the
application.
K
Sure,
if
I
may,
my
belief
is
that
from
the
neighborhood
plan
is
in
the
call-in
period
and
it
hasn't
yet
been
accepted
for
referendum.
Can
you
check
on
that
foreign.
C
You're
right
so
that
the
decision
to
move
to
referendum
is
in
the
calling
period,
but
on
the
basis
that
hasn't
been
changed
at
this
stage,
it's
a
valid
decision,
so
on
that
basis,
the
decision
has
effectively
remained
to
move
to
referendum,
which
is
why
the
effects
are
the
significant
weight
can
be
given
to
know
the
plan.
Hence
the
reason
we're
back
here.
L
You
chair,
I,
was
just
wondering
wondering
if
officers
could
provide
a
definition
for
what
moderate
and
what
considerable
weight
are
in
terms
of
this
local
plan.
C
And
cash
Castle,
so
there's
no
defined
position
on
what
that
is.
It
is
for
the
decision
maker
to
determine
the
weight
to
be
given.
Those
are
the
terms
that
we
have
set
out
and
are
consistent
with
national
planning.
C
Policy
guidance
is
to
effectively
reflect
the
differing
stages
of
preparation
and
enable
the
plan,
so
the
general
principle
being
that,
as
you
move
through
the
neighbor
plan
process,
right
from
the
very
early
stage
of
setting
the
plan
area
all
the
way
through
to
eventual
referendum,
and
if
you
pass
out
obviously
they're
being
made
in
becoming
partner
plan,
it's
simply
to
reflect
those
those
changing
parts.
There's
no
definition
beyond
the
wording.
I'm
afraid
that
I
can
offer
is
simply
trying
to
reflect
that.
There
is
a
changing
amount
of
weight,
as
it
goes
through
the
process.
M
Thank
you,
chair
I
note
that
West
Berkshire
Council
have
objected
to
it.
When
was
their
objection
lodged
and
what
weight
should
we
give
to
that.
C
N
You
question
about
sill
just
for
out
of
Interest
with
the
neighborhood
plan
about
to
go
to
referendum,
to
be
made
with
the
sill
contribution
being
25
to
the
parish.
Or
is
it
going
to
miss
that
because
of
the
timing.
C
Hey
cast
on
me
so
I
I,
don't
know
in
in
all
honesty
whether
it
would
be
the
15
or
25
depending
on
timing.
It
wouldn't
be
deterative
of
the
application
clearly,
but
it's
something
I
can
come
back
to
you
on
after
the
meeting.
O
Thank
you
very
much
yeah,
just
very
very
quickly.
I
would
like
some
confirmation
on
how
officers
perceive
section
49
applies
or
does
not
apply
in
this
particular
case.
C
To
Pages,
81
and
82
of
the
committee
report
that
is
effectively
the
officers
assessment
of
the
relevance
of
paragraph
49.
So
what
is
being
recorded
there
is
that
the
position
has
changed
since
the
December
meeting,
so
in,
in
fact
that
part
B,
Criterion
B
of
paragraph
49,
has
now
been
met.
C
So
that
is
that
the
emerging
Naval
plan
is
now
an
advanced
stage,
but
is
yet
to
be
formally
adopted
as
part
of
the
development
plan,
because
that
stage
can
only
be
reached
post-referendum
if
the
referendum
was
to
approve,
so
that
part
has
been
met.
The
assessment
overall,
though,
is
that
the
first
part
in
terms
of
the
Prejudice
to
the
plan
making
stage
in
terms
of
the
overall
assessment,
the
application
has
not
been
met
insofar
as
the
commentary
of
the
examiners
report
and
the
fact
that
the
enabled
plan
is
still
nevertheless
progressed
through
those
stages.
P
Harvey,
thank
you
chair
two
questions
really.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
understand
bearing
about
the
examiner's
comments
and
the
examiner
reports,
bearing
in
mind
the
context
in
which
the
original
decision
sits,
what
is
the
legal
advice
on
a
position
where
this
committee
to
reach
a
decision
of
refuse
or
what
legal
implications
flow
from
that?
And,
secondly,
bearing
in
mind
councilor
Isaac's
comments
on
an
inspector's
decision
that
referenced
the
Berkeley
neighborhood
plan
quite
distinctly
again?
C
C
I,
understand
that
relates
to
the
hearts,
Lane
planning
application,
which
was
determined
originally
in
December
2019
and
was
then
subsequently
dismissed
at
appeal
in
December
2020.,
the
intervening
period
from
recollection,
the
bird
career
examiners
report
was
received
in
March,
2020
and
effectively
the
position
that
the
inspector
took
there
was,
as
was
already
been
referenced
actually
by
cancer
Rises
comments.
C
In
that
instance,
they
did
say
there
would
be
Prejudice
Naval
plan.
The
one
I
think
very
clear
distinction
here
is
that
in
this
instance,
the
examiner's
report
does
already
acknowledge
the
42
dwellings
in
reaching
their
assessment
of
whether
the
plan
can
proceed
or
not.
So
that
is
a
key
material
difference.
So
it's
absolutely
fine
and
right
that
planning
hail
decisions
can
be
taken
into
account
in
the
in
the
round.
But
in
doing
so
it's
a
requirement
to
take
account
of
both
similarities
and
differences.
C
So,
in
effect,
there
are
similarities
in
in
fact
of
this
stage,
which
has
been
reached
in
terms
of
neighbor
planning
process.
But
there
are
also
significant
differences
in
so
far
as
the
what
has
been
set
out
in
the
examiners
report
and
the
fact
that
the
neighborhood
plan
is
nevertheless
progressed
in
in
knowledge
of
that
foreign.
Q
If
I
can
refer
the
committee
to
page
76
of
the
agenda,
paragraph
1.9,
that
sets
out
the
approach
you
should
take
to
decision
making,
so
it
is
a
genuine
reconsideration
of
the
application,
and
in
doing
so
you
you
can
make
a
decision,
that's
different
from
the
original
decision.
Q
I
think
everybody
accepts
that
test.
B
is
made,
so
it
would
be
test
a
would
be
looking
at
and
obviously
you've
got
the
officer's
assessment
as
to
why
they
think
that
the
application
should
continue
to
be
approved
in
the
sort
of
second
substantive
paragraph
on
page
82,
and
that's
something
that
you
can
disagree
with.
But
you
need
to
say
why
you
disagree
with
it.
If
you
want
to
refuse
this
application.
P
So
just
to
be
absolutely
clean
here,
so
I've
got
it
in
my
head
as
appreciating
councilor
isa's
comments.
The
difference
here
is
that
the
position
of
the
approval
last
time
round
obviously
gave
a
position
to
The
Examiner.
They
had
that
on
the
table,
whereas
in
the
Berkeley
example
they
didn't
what
they
had
was
rejection
clear.
Therefore,
there
was
no
confusion
over
the
matter
in
the
sense
of
Berkeley,
because
it
was
absolutely
clear
and
they
could
take
that
theme.
P
P
They
couldn't
take
the
view
that
we,
as
a
committee
have
rejected
it,
because
we
hadn't,
therefore
they
wouldn't
necessarily
have
come
to
the
same
view
that
the
bird
clear
examiner
came
to
is
that
fair,
oh
I
want
to
understand
that,
because
if
there
are
reasons
for
rejection,
that's
one
thing,
but
it's
got
to
hold
water
and
that
inspect
those
two
inspectors.
Those
two
examiners
took
quite
different
perspectives
on
a
similar
issue,
and
we've
just
got
to
weigh
that
up
and
be
very
clear
on
it
that
we
don't
leave
ourselves
open.
C
Thank
you
so
I
think
I.
Think
in
answering
your
question.
There
are
I
would
say
clear
differences
between
the
two
positions
insofar
as
you're
absolutely
right.
In
the
case
of
the
appeal
for
the
Berkeley
application,
it
was
a
application
that
was
refused,
so
it
was
never
before
the
examiner
is
a
resolution
or
to
to
Grant
and
effectively
the
I
think.
C
I
think
that
is
materially
different
to
the
situation
here,
where
the
examiner's
report
has
had
sight
of
the
resolution
to
Grant,
therefore
has
had
opportunity
to
comment
on
it,
or
at
least
be
informed
by
informing
the
the
examiner's
report
that
all
the
basic
conditions
Etc
has
been
met,
and
then
decisions
have
continued
to
be
made
to
progress
with
the
neighbor
plan
as
well
yeah.
So
that's
the
material
difference.
H
Thank
you,
yeah.
The
implication
of
the
report
Etc
is
that
we're
only
here
to
consider
the
the
impact
of
the
neighborhood
plan
on
the
decision,
but
I'm
aware
of
the
December
meeting
the
the
vote
was
very
narrow
and
that
we've
got
several
members
of
that
committee
are
no
longer
on
the
committee.
H
If
those
members
wanted
to
review
or
challenge
some
of
the
detail,
is
that
acceptable
or
otherwise.
Q
No,
it
wouldn't
be,
you
know,
you're
confined
to
considering
the
issue
of
the
neighborhood
plan
and
the
change
in
status.
You
know,
although
there
are
different
members
on
the
committee,
you
are
a
committee
and
you
act
as
a
body.
O
Frost,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
it's.
My
second
question
I'd.
Just
like
an
understanding
of
how
the
Oakley
principle,
okay,
will
actually
affect
this.
Okay,
just
for
for
parity,
there
was
a
a
site
called
Beech
trees
and
Oakley
that
was
put
forward
during
the
the
up
and
coming
neighborhood
plan
and
as
I
understand
it.
O
Parliament
was
to
pass
some
legislation
and
I'm
just
wondering
whether
that
principle
was
enshrined
in
law,
okay
or
a
part
of
the
mppf
or
not,
and
how
much
weight.
We
should
give
that.
C
Thank
you,
Council
Frost,
I
I,
do
recall
the
case.
I,
don't
recall
the
detail
in
all
honesty
around
the
precise
timings
I
know
it
was
related
to
the
neighborhood
plan
site
and
from
recollection
it
was
an
eventual
appeal
decision
which
allowed
a
far
greater
number
of
units
on
an
allocated
site.
I
I,
don't
believe
there
is
any
direct
relevance
to
eventual
changes
in
legislation
per
se.
I
think
the
key
thing
is
that
for
this
application
you
need
to
consider
it
against
the
the
current
mppf
policy
position.
Local
plan
neighbor
plan
position.
K
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
thank
you
for
both
you.
As
chair
Vice,
chair
and
officers,
who
confirmed
what
I
was
reading
yesterday.
K
I
have
redetermined
and
re-examined
this,
as
you
three
know
that
I
have
I,
read
everything
I
I
genuinely
as
the
Mover
of
the
application
for
recommendation
for
approval.
Last
time
know
this
area
particularly
well,
and-
and
we
have
to
admire
the
work
that
neighborhood
planning
teams
do
I
think
those
there
is
a
strengthening
case
here,
but
one
of
the
things
that
was
said
at
the
time
is
that
we
believe
that
there
should
be
an
allocation
to
affordable
homes,
and
the
neighborhood
plan
has
not
brought
that
forward.
K
I'm
still
disappointed
that
the
examiner
did
not
highlight
that
in
his
examination,
but
also
if
we
move
to
page
82
the
fact
that
he
acknowledges
the
elements
in
this
plan
and
with
the
modifications
that
he
is
making
he
he
is
aware
of
the
42
and
says
yes,
the
the
neighborhood
plan
can
be
made
no
Wing
that
the
42
is
out
there
and
therefore
I.
Although,
yes,
there
is
no
more
substantive
weight.
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
The
application
is
therefore
approved
in
accordance
with
the
sign
leave
agreement
and
the
conditions
set
out
in
appendix
B.
A
Thank
you
Mike
item
two,
the
old
house
at
home,
Station,
Road,
Overton,
Patricia,.
R
This
is
a
full
planning
application
for
the
erection
of
two
numbered
three-bedroom
dwellings,
utilizing
existing
vehicular
access,
Associated
parking
landscaping
and
pedestrian
accesses
and
creation
of
a
replacement
beer
garden
to
the
rear
of
the
Public
House.
The
update
paper
confirms
the
visit
that
you
did
last
week
and
also
that
the
prior
commencement
conditions
have
been
agreed.
A
S
Thank
you
good
evening.
My
name
is
Jane
Dooley
I'm
on
the
parish
council
of
Overton
and
I'm,
also
recently
elected
as
the
planning
chair.
This
is
a
statement
from
the
Overton
parish
council
with
reference
to
this
application.
The
OPC
objects
to
this
development
for
a
number
of
reasons
that
are
consistent
with
the
significant
number
of
objections
raised
by
residents
in
the
directly
affected
area
by
the
proposed
development
and
in
the
village.
S
S
Secondly,
where
at
certain
times
of
the
year,
specifically
late
Autumn
winter
and
early
spring
the
morning,
sun
will
be
reduced
or
lost
due
to
the
Topography
of
the
site,
the
existing
properties
due
to
their
1850
designs
of
very
small
Windows,
which
obviously
limit
the
light
entering
the
premises
and,
lastly,
sustainability.
At
a
time
when
UK
residents
are
looking
to
reduce
the
resilience,
the
Reliance
of
use
on
electricity
use
of
lights
will
be
increased
outside
the
existing
properties.
S
S
Additional
congestion,
whilst
Vehicles
access
the
allocated
parking
spaces
that
join
the
road
at
a
very
awkward
Point
opposite
to
the
traffic.
Calming
measures
put
in
place
to
protect
pedestrians
that
are
using
very
narrow
Pavements.
This
part
of
the
road
is
often
congested
for
most
of
the
day
due
to
people
accessing
their
homes.
The
train
station
and
the
doctor's
surgery,
plus
the
fire
station,
is
also
there
and
obviously
they
need
to
use
that
route
on
a
regular
basis.
S
Parking
and
design
of
the
parking
area
suggested
that
the
cartilage
and
the
grass
bank
is
a
concern
to
a
potential
resident
or
Road
user,
using
a
vehicle
exiting
from
the
drive
access.
As
the
angle
is
quite
linear
and
a
one
meter,
brick
wall
retaining.
It
is
to
stop
the
Earth
Bank
from
washing
away
we'll
hinder
a
view
for
Road
users.
S
The
Turning
space
for
residents
proposed
looks
to
be
also
very
restricted
from
the
drawing
approximately
7.5
meters
from
the
scale
provided
and
possibly
not
suitable,
whilst
the
environment
agency,
asserting
that
they
have
no
concerns
over
flooding.
On
that
section
of
the
road,
approximately
75
meters
to
the
Social
and
economic
benefits
to
this
application,
the
properties
will
be
marketed
at
the
local
prices.
S
These
will
be
out
of
range
of
the
most
local
residents,
significant
loss
of
green
space
that
has
been
there
for
over
150
years
and
the
property
of
the
old
house
at
home
that
was
never
extended
to
this
space
at
the
time
of
building
in
the
1920s
nation
of
the
existing
residence
should
be
made,
and
many
have
objected
to
this
development.
Thank
you.
A
T
T
The
pub
will
retain
an
outdoor
customer
at
the
front,
has
a
present
and
will
have
a
replacement,
Beer
Garden
on
currently
unused
land
behind
the
pub,
thereby
continuing
to
give
customers
a
choice
of
two
outdoor
areas
for
eating
and
drinking
internally.
The
pub
will
be
unaffected
and
will
still
offer
a
bar
area
and
a
Thai
restaurant.
T
T
The
applicant
has
submitted
a
detailed
flood
risk
assessment
and
drainage
strategy
to
the
council,
which
confirms
that
the
surface
water
flood
risk
identified
by
the
by
the
environment
agency
of
Station
Road
has
no
implications
at
all
for
this
development
and
the
proposed
houses
will
not
be
at
risk
of
flooding.
The
environment
agency
has
no
objections
to
the
scheme.
T
T
Lastly,
the
issue
of
access
to
the
Beer
Garden
for
disabled
people
and
Buggies
was
raised
as
both
the
existing
and
the
replacement
beer
gardens
are
on
raised
Banks.
There
is
little
difference
in
terms
of
accessibility,
but
for
customers
who
require
level
access
then,
as
mentioned,
the
outdoor
customer
service
at
the
front,
will
remain
available.
T
Lastly,
once
we
consider-
and
the
officer
report
confirms-
that
the
application
is
policy
combined
in
all
respects,
your
Council
does
have
a
housing
land,
Supply
short
for
and
while
I'm
sure
you
are
tired
of
being
reminded
of
this,
it
does
add
impetus
to
the
need
to
permit
houses
in
sustainable
Brownfield
locations
such
as
this,
and
therefore
trust
that
members
will
grant
permission
for
the
development
in
accordance
with
your
officer's
recommendation.
Thank
you.
A
T
There
is
one
step
up,
I
believe
for
the
houses
from
the
streets.
The
houses
are
as
they
set
back
from
the
streets
and
they
are,
you
know,
in
a
similar
relationship
with
the
street
as
the
existing
Pub.
So
basically,
the
pub
in
its
time
was
carved
out
to
the
same
bank
that
our
houses
would
be
carved
out
of
so
as
I
say,
I
believe
the
houses
are
one
step
up
from
the
streets.
B
A
T
T
U
Good
evening,
chair
can
I
thank
everybody
that
came
back
for
the
site.
Viewing
last
week,
members
of
war
council
I'm
fully
supportive
of
objections
made
by
neighbor
residents
and
Overton
Parish
Council.
U
If
that's
the
case,
water
plans
show
plural
steps,
not
one,
and
that
was
what
was
mentioned
at
the
site.
Viewing
last
week,
more
than
one
step
leading
up
to
the
proposed
dwellings,
the
pro
proposed
properties
are
clearly
on
an
elevated
embankment
that
will
definitely
inconvenience
the
aforementioned
opposite
dwellings.
A
O
Thank
you,
chair,
Council,
Fillmore,
I'm,
sorry,
my
calling
here
was
coughing.
When
you
said
your
last
statement.
Okay,
you
are
sentenced.
Could
you
please
just
repeat
that
so
that
I
could
I
can
listen
to
it.
U
The
proposed
like
for
like
replacement
beer
garden,
is
on
an
awkwardly
access
level
with
an
existing
LPG
tank,
which
the
applicant
informers
will
be
enclosed.
Health
and
safety
guidance
taken
from
the
landlord
of
the
Public
House
informed
me
that
that
tank
needs
three
meter
clearance
on
all
sides
which
further
minimizes
the
size
of
the
proposed
amenity,
IE
replacement,
Beer
Garden.
R
If
you
look
at
this
her
chair,
the
the
figures-
they're,
not
very
clear,
but
what
this
is
is
a
site
level
and
the
numbers
in
white
outside
the
site
are
spot
levels
on
the
highway
taking
levels
and
then
in
the
middle,
you
can
see
it
underneath
plot
four
plot,
one
a
little
bit
clear.
It
says
finish
floor
level,
plus
84.80,
and
then,
if
you
look
at
the
number
84.4
between
the
two
footpaths,
which
are
the
entrances
to
the
plots,
that's
84.4.
R
So
on
this
plan,
it's
showing
that
it's
achievable
to
have
84.4
on
the
highway,
which
is
outside
the
site
and
staying
the
same
and
a
finished
floor
level
of
84.8,
which
is
40
centimeters,
which
is
going
through.
I
mean
these.
These
aren't.
These
are
showing
it's
possible,
but
we've
also
put
a
condition
on
to
say
that
once
the
sort
of
we
need
the
engineering
drawings
to
show
a
scale
of
one
to
five,
no
less
than
a
one
to
500
that
that
the
sections
are
correct.
R
That
have
been
indicated
that
are
possible
by
the
plans
and
that's
required
by
the
conditions.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Councilor
Tomlin
I.
N
Think
Joe
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions.
First,
one
on
page
202.
The
highways
comments
suggest
that
sorry,
202
202
is
what's
basically
hsc's
comments.
They
are
requesting
a
radius
change
on
the
turning
in
and
it
says
so
that
a
vehicle
I
think
can
make
a
safe
right
turn
into
the
site.
So
that
means
they're
expecting
vehicles
to
go
nose
first
into
the
parking
and
just
could
you
clarify
I
thought
our
standards
were.
R
We
went
back
to
County
on
that
point
and
on
203,
they've
confirmed
that
second
paragraphs
Down,
based
on
the
appellant's
comments
and
the
latest
site
plan,
which
shows
the
existing
drop
Crossing
being
retained.
I
can
confirm
that
the
previously
requested
changes
to
the
radius
would
not
be
necessary.
This
should
not
alter
the
suggested
condition
as
as
this
related
to
visibility
displays
as
opposed
to
the
design
of
the
access
so
because
the
access
isn't
changing.
It's
an
existing
access
onto
the
highway
and
they're
just
reusing
the
same
access
and
Alignment.
N
So
my
point
is:
if
they
are
expecting
or
we
are
expecting
cars
to
go
and
they
will
go
in
those
first,
can
they
come
out
nose
first?
That
was
my
question.
Can
they
turn
within
that
area
that
has
been
specified.
N
R
Microphone's
not
on
plot
one
has
an
area
of
63
square
meters,
so
that
exceeds
the
area
and
it
has
a
and
plot
two
has
an
so
I've
got
my
plots
mixed
up
here.
Sorry
about
this.
R
Yeah
63
and
70
6.9,
so
plot
one
has
76.9
and
plot
2
has
63
and
the
depths
of
the
gardens
plot,
one,
which
is
the
northern
northernmost
one
on
that
site,
has
a
depth
of
6.7
meters
to
the
boundary
6.07
meters
to
the
boundary,
which
is
under
the
10
meter
guidance
and
plot
2
has
a
minimum
difference
of.
It
looks
like
that
so
put
it
on
a.
R
R
7.2
looks
like
on
its
overlaying
summer
and
paths,
but
the
that's
guidance,
but
the
the
width
of
plot
one,
which
is
the
narrow
one,
is
10
meters,
10
and
a
half
meters,
and
the
width
of
plot
2
is
so
they're
overlap.
The
numbers
like
6.7
meters
and
the
balance
has
been
made
that
the
usability
of
that
space-
it's
not
backing
on
to
overlooking
over
other
people's
Gardens,
is
that
it
meets
the
area
and
it's
a
usable
space.
H
R
So
yeah
there
is,
there
is
no
specific
guidance,
but
given
that
there's
an
existing
Beer
Garden
on
the
planning
unit,
that's
in
close
proximity
to
dwellings-
and
this
is
another
area
of
the
same
planning
unit.
That's
removing
one
part
of
the
use
to
another
part
of
the
site
on
balance
offices
would
have
considered
it
appropriate
with
the
conditions
of
new
acoustic
boundary.
Fencing
is
acceptable
as
an
alternative.
It's
not
a
light
for
light
facility.
R
It
says
it's
not
the
same
size
but
in
terms
of
its
accessed
from
the
service
area
like
the
existing
beer
garden,
the
existing
beer
garden
isn't
accessible
because
it's
just
a
grass
muddy
slope
and
this
beer
garden
isn't
accessible
because
it
steps.
So
it's
as
a
replacement.
It's
not
light
for
life,
that's
not
being
claimed,
but
it
is
a
facility
that
allows
customers
to
come
out
of
the
same
door
of
the
public
house.
They
come
out
into
the
service
yard
across
the
service
yard
and
use
the
beer
garden.
R
P
Thank
you,
Chet
could
I
just
clarify
on
the
existing
beer
garden
if
there
are
any
restrictions
on
it
at
all
at
the
moment
and
I'll
come
back
to
another
question
about
the
Asian
to
change
arguments
in
debate.
R
R
Yeah
page
196.,
so
they
have
looked
at
the
current
premises
license
which
includes
prevention
of
public
nuisance
objectives,
which
are
there
which
are
on
the
current
beer
garden.
R
We've
also
checked
with
and
with
the
license
team,
and
it
says
that
they've,
the
license
plans
associated
with
the
current
authorized
premises
license
show
the
pub
itself
and
the
Garden
area,
which
is
the
plot
subject
to
the
dwellings.
So,
although
there's
no
restrictions
under
the
planning
laws,
there
are
restrictions
under
the
Licensing
Laws.
V
Thank
you
chair.
My
question
is
concerning
that
the
LPG
gas
tank
there
do
we
have.
Is
it
a
consideration?
We
need
to
take
that
there
needs
to
be
this
three
meter
space.
Is
that
correct,
and
and
how
much
do
we
need
to
worry
about
that?
Because
it's
quite
big
and
to
be
honest
with
you,
I,
wouldn't
want
to
be
sat
drinking
next
to
it.
V
But
yeah
I
want
to
know
the
sort
of
legal
position
do
we
have
to
consider
safe
barriers
for
that,
because
if
it's
going
to
have
to
be
three
meters
but
the
the
enclosure
that
they're
proposing
isn't
that
far
away?
How
does
that
sort
of
configure
with
the
the
application.
R
I
did
do
quite
some
research
about
building
control
about
this
one
and
they
wouldn't
control
it.
I
spoke
to
licensing
I,
don't
think
they
had
a
control
over
it
and
I
emailed
Hampshire
fire
and
rescue
and-
and
they
didn't
have
a
control
over
it
either
so
I
mean
Chancellor.
Is
it
Council?
We
can't
move
to
counselor
Rays
said
the
health
and
safety
executive,
I
have
to
say:
I
haven't
checked
with
those,
so
yeah.
O
Frost,
thank
you
chair.
My
question
is
all
about
on
the
grounds
of
consistency
of
decision
making
sometime
last
year,
I'm-
probably
councilor
Harvey.
If
no
one
can
remember
we'll
we'll
be
able
to
refresh
your
memories
that
there
was
an
application
by
Vivid
for
some
blocks
of
flats
which
overlooked
a
beer
garden
and
that
piling
application
was
refused
because
under
the
mppf
as
I
understand
it,
that
there
must
not
be
a
material
damage
to
that
particular
business.
Could
officers?
O
Please
just
reassure
me,
okay,
that
even
though
the
the
applicant
is
also
the
business
owner.
Okay,
in
this
particular
case
that
there
there
isn't
going
to
be
a
you
know,
a
material
effect
on
the
business
and
that
part
of
the
mppf
doesn't
apply.
So
we
can
then
make
a
decision.
That's
consistent
with
the
decision
that
we
made
that
yeah.
Thank
you.
R
I'm
not
familiar
with
the
case,
but
from
just
to
summarize
it
so
you
had
an
existing
Pub
Garden
that
was
outside
of
the
red
line
and
was
a
separate
business
and
a
separate
entity
and
a
piece
of
land
next
to
it
or
close
to
it.
That
was
going
to
have
independent
residential
dwellings
built
on
it.
Okay,
in
this
instance,
there's
an
existing
pub
with
an
existing
beer
garden.
R
That
I
think
the
environmental
health
officer
said
that
what
I
can't
remember
she
said
there
was
no
complaints,
but
it's
an
existing
scenario
of
of
a
pub
with
a
beer
garden
with
dwellings.
Nearby,
the
the
resultant
development
will
be
a
pub
with
a
smaller
beer,
garden
and
dwellings
nearby.
R
So
the
officer
evaluation
is:
is
that
that's
consistent?
If
there
is
noise
and
disturbance
from
the
replacement
beer
garden,
then
it's
under
the
control
and
Gift
of
the
applicant
to
manage
the
space
appropriately
if
he
doesn't
want
that
to
be
removed
from
his
license,
and
we've
also
suggested
conditions
to
replace
the
existing
boundaries
with
acoustic
boundaries.
We've
put
no
Amplified
music
in
there
we've
suggested
lighting
would
have
to
be
approved.
So
we
have
more
control
over
this
under
planning.
R
A
A
A
The
flooding
issue
we're
looking
at
two
houses,
not
10
or
20..
It's
a
very
steep
site,
the
natural
runoff
rate
from
that
site,
because
the
bitstickness
is
going
to
be
quite
fast
and
I.
Don't
believe
that
two
houses
are
going
to
make
a
significant
difference
to
the
flooding
to
300
yards
down.
The
road
might
make
a
couple
of
millimeters
difference,
but
you
know
it's
going
to
be
immeasurable.
A
Then
we
come
to
the
whole
thing.
The
plot
itself
is
cramped.
It's
over
developed
it's
just
too
much
into
a
smaller
space.
The
back
Gardens
are
too
shallow.
They're
going
to
be
quite
dark.
This
quite
big
foliage
at
the
back
they're
not
going
to
be
a
nice
place
to
spend
time,
and
they
don't
meet
our
specification.
A
The
quantity
is
half
give
or
take
there's
not
split
hairs
on
it.
What
there
is
now
is
significantly
smaller
and
the
access
to
it
is
horrendous.
It
really
is.
It
was
up
a
very
narrow,
staircase
and
I
appreciate
that
can
be
improved,
but
this
gas
tank
is
right
in
the
way.
I
would
not
want
to
be
in
that
back
garden
with
young
children.
A
P
Thank
you,
chair,
looking
at
what
you've
just
left
off,
I
think.
The
argument
here
is
what
is
the
Agent
of
Change?
It
doesn't
matter
who
makes
the
application
it's.
The
actual
applications
effect
and
colleagues
have
already
referenced
a
previous
application,
where
the
provision
of
Residential
Properties
directly
impacted
upon
the
business
and
directly
impacted
upon
the
nature
of
that
pup.
I.
Think
the
building
of
these
two
dwellings
is
an
overdevelopment
of
the
site.
I
agree
with
that.
I
think
in
relation
to
cn8
is
quite
right.
P
The
facility
is
no
longer
needed
for
any
of
the
other
functions
that
it
can
perform.
Well,
no
one's
proven
the
beer
garden
is
not
needed.
In
fact,
the
beer
garden
is
needed
because
they're
re-providing
a
smaller
one,
so
they
acknowledge
the
beer
garden
is
an
important
part
of
the
pub
it's
inherent,
isn't
it.
P
Secondly,
it
can
be
demonstrated
that
it's
no
longer
practiced
for
all
those
reasons
and
I
support
you
in
terms
of
saying
en10
in
terms
of
the
over
development
of
the
site,
the
over
the
crampness
of
the
site
in
the
context
in
which
you're
set
so
yeah.
If
you're
not
going
to
do
it,
Jerry
I
will
move
refusal
on
those
two
grounds,
but
if
you
so
I'll
happily
do
that
yeah
I'll
leave
it.
R
Just
was
just
to
help
you
make
your
decision.
Cancers
are
mentioning
policy
cn8,
which
is
community
Leisure
and
cultural
facilities.
Application
has
been
evaluated
against
cn7,
which
is
essential
to
serve
facilities
and
services.
R
On
page
91
of
the
local
plan,
there
is
a
list
at
paragraph
5.66
and
in
that
list
which
is
relating
to
cn7
public
pubs,
are
listed.
It
says
the
essential
facilities
and
services
covered
by
this
policy
include
and
its
Healthcare
shops,
post
office,
pubs,
education,
places
of
worship,
Community
buildings,
community
centers,
Village
halls
and
cemeteries
under
cn8,
which
is
community,
Leisure
and
cultural.
R
It's
saying
that,
by
way
of
example,
and
for
the
purposes
of
local
plan,
Community,
Leisure
and
cultural
facilities
include
the
list
below
is
not
exhaustive,
exhaustive
and
it
doesn't
include
public
houses
in
there.
So
just
wanted
to
draw
that
to
your
attention
that
there
is
that
differentiating.
O
Thank
you
I'd
just
like
to
come
back
to
Patricia
and
said
that
in
cm,
and
it
does
actually
say
that
this
list
is
not
exhaustive.
So
if
we
feel
that
you
know
public
houses
does
fit
there,
then
maybe
it
does
I'm
happy
the
second.
O
The
motion
put
forward
by
by
councilor
Harvey
I
I
think
there
will
be
a
significant
risk
of
material
effect
on
the
business
which
it
will
be
held
by
tenants,
okay,
and
it
will
probably
be
from
from
noise
complaints
through
the
environmental,
health,
Team,
okay
and
I'm
just
very
concerned
that
that
that
we
will
be,
you
know,
potentially
giving.
If
we
approve
this
application,
we
will
be
giving
you
know
an
inconsistent
decision
as
to
what
we
were
doing
last
year.
So
I
will
happily
second
it.
A
N
You,
yes,
I,
accept
everything,
that's
been
said
so
far,
but
I.
Think
one
very
important
aspect
in
my
mind
is
the
very
fact
that
by
this
is
an
open
aspect,
as
described
currently
with
the
the
garden
putting
houses
that
close
to
the
highway.
N
Given
the
houses
opposite,
there
will
be
I,
think
overshadowing
that
goes
above
and
beyond
what
we
would
normally
accept
on
the
basis
the
statement
that
it's
east
facing
and
that
don't
worry,
it's
only
going
to
take
out
the
sunlight
for
the
morning
now
the
morning
is
pretty
much
half
the
day
and
I
think
that
is
quite
a
considerable
amount
of
time.
N
And
when
you
look
at
the
picture
we
had
earlier,
you
will
see
that
the
downstairs
will
probably
not
get
any
sunlight
in
in
you
know
in
the
morning,
which
I
think
is
a
big
impact
on
the
quality
of
the
conservation
area,
because
I
believe
that's
the
conservation
area
on
that
side
of
the
road.
So
I
would
add.
You
know
em
11
and
also
my
comment
about
car
parking.
I.
Think
that
is
reversing
out
onto
that
road
from
that
site
would
also
mean
the
quality
of
development.
C
N
Sorry,
because
we're
overshadowing
conservation
buildings
is
it
double
whammy
in
the
sense
we're
affecting
Conservation
area
but
more
to
the
point
of
reflecting
a
building,
but
that
would
be
quality
of
build,
wouldn't
it
yeah,
which
would
be
M10.
So
the
M10
trumps
M11
in
this
case,
but
there's
a
consideration
of
the
impact
onto
the
I.
C
C
Impact
on
the
discussion
or
debate
is
simply
the
applicability
of
the
regret
policy
that
there's
one
paragraph
just
in
the
subtext
just
just
looking
at
it
again,
which
I
suppose
tries
to
define
the
difference
between
the
two
in
terms
of
which
one's
more
relevant,
and
it
just
says,
5.70
of
the
local
plan,
facilities
and
services,
which
are
essential
for
underpinning
community
life
and
ensuring
that
members
of
the
local
community
are
able
to
meet
their
day-to-day
needs
are
assessed
by
policy
cn7,
whereas
facilities
and
services
which
enrichment,
insured,
Vitality
communities
are
protected,
supported
and
facilitated
by
CNA.
C
Come
under
CNA
CNA
also
relates
to
facilities
which
serve
The
Wider.
The
community
which
go
beyond
just
locals
I
think
on
that
basis
it
would
be
cn7,
but
the
general
Point,
around
vitality
and
viability
of
the
of
the
unit
is
covered
in
cn7,
along
with
the
tests
that
would
indeed
to
be
made
which
effectively,
if
I've
understood
the
motion,
correctly
you're
saying,
would
be
breached
under
cn7
as.
R
Should
I
do
want
me
to
summarize
what
we've?
What
I've
picked
up
starting
on
the
principle
of
the
development
members
are
minded
that
the
replacement
facility
or
the
development
results
in
harm
to
the
Vitality
vibrancy
of
the
public
house
is
contrary
to
the
community
drivers
in
cn7
and
cn8.
R
The
spends
that's
specific
to
the
dwellings
is
that
it's
an
overdevelopment
of
the
site.
I've
got
cramped
access.
Oh
that's!
The
access
to
the
big
I
suppose
this
comes
under
over
development
access
to
the
public
house,
it's
cramped,
but
both
the
public,
the
beer
garden
and
the
dwellings
and
that's
under
em10
and
the
street
scene
impact
and
the
distance
between
the
existing
buildings,
which
are
backing
onto
the
pavement
and
the
distance
and
the
buildings
which
have
only
got
a
small
front
garden
results
into
overshadowing.
A
It's
kind
of
late
I
think
we'll
have
a
five
minute
break.
Thank
you.
W
X
X
This
approach
is
actually
consistent
with
a
previous
TDC
application
that
has
been
granted
on
this
site
and
also
a
variation
to
that
TDC.
So
so
this
is
not
the
first
time
this
has
been
approved
for
this
particular
site
and
this
development.
The
development
has
not
changed
in
any
other
way.
If
I
just
draw
members
attention
to
the
update
paper,
there's
just
a
correction
for
you
with
regards
to
condition
one
where
the
proposed
site
plan
is
actually
revision.
N
Tomlin,
a
very
brief
one,
so
this
site's
had
everything
it's
asking
for
approved
in
technical
TDC.
N
Now
it's
a
full
application
for
the
same
thing:
I
mean:
can
you
just
it's
within
the
applicant's
right
to
do
it
obviously?
But
what
is
the
difference.
A
Thank
you
any
more
questions
now,
in
that
case,
debate
I'm
happy
to
move
this
from
the
chair,
because
you've
basically
already
been
done
seconded
by
councilor
Harvey.
Anybody
wish
to
speak
now
in
that
case,
moved
and
seconded
for
approval,
those
in
favor,
and
that
is
everybody.
Thank
you.
Catherine.
X
I
can
confirm
that
application
has
been
resolved
for
permission,
subject
to
the
the
recommendation
within
the
agenda
and
then
conditions
is
listed
at
the
end
of
the
report.
Thank
you.
Thank.
X
Thank
you
chairman,
so
this
application
is
seeking
the
variation
of
a
planning
condition
that
restricted
the
opening
hours
for
one
of
the
units
on
an
original
site
out
at
quid
Hampton.
So
as
set
out
on
page
272
of
your
gender,
there
is
a
lot
slight
change
to
the
hours
being
sought,
and
this
is
for
an
extra
hour
and
15
minutes
on
a
Monday
to
Fridays
and
an
additional
four
hours
on
Saturdays.
X
If
I
bring
members
attention
to
the
update
paper,
this
contains
an
additional
two
representations
that
have
been
received
to
the
applications
since
the
agenda
was
published,
one
forms
a
technical
letter
and
a
traffic
study,
and
that
has
been
summarized
before
you
within
the
bullet
points
in
the
update
paper.
The
second
was
a
further
additional
comment
for
support
and
members
will
note
that
the
officer
has
responded
to
the
representations
received.
X
A
S
S
We
support
an
outcome
that
provides
for
both
local
business
but
takes
into
account
any
impact
from
the
operating
of
a
business
that
affects
their
neighbors.
The
business
in
question
appears
to
be
a
successfully
operating
as
a
dance
studio.
The
development
on
which
it
resides
was
originally
refused
applying
permission
by
Overton
Parish
Council
and
a
local
councilor
part
of
that
rejection
response
cited
concern
over
a
significant
increase
in
traffic
movements.
S
The
landowner
felt
that
was
addressed
by
the
construction
of
three
extra
passing
places
down,
which
downward
is
a
very
narrow
and
Rural
Lane.
Whilst
that
allows
for
some
room
for
passing
Vehicles,
it
does
not
reduce
the
amount
of
traffic
generated
by
the
business,
nor
does
it
mitigate
the
added
issue
of
a
lane
with
two
blind
bends.
S
One
of
the
neighbors
has
employed
the
services
of
a
traffic
consultant
to
provide
supporting
evidence
regarding
the
number
of
vehicles
that
pass
their
property
during
normal
operating
hours.
Obviously,
they
feel
strongly
about
traffic
movement,
extra
noise
and
pollution.
That's
likely
to
be
produced
by
Grant
an
extension
to
the
current
hours.
S
Currently,
they
experience
driver
frustration,
often
audible
as
Vehicles,
try
to
access
the
narrow
road
and
the
noise
of
an
often
understandably
animated
classes,
meeting
and
leaving
the
premises
despite
the
equipment
being
tampered
with.
There
were
over
still
over
two
and
a
half
thousand
traffic
movements
recorded
in
a
five-day
period
during
operational
hours.
This
represents
only
about
60
percent
of
the
week
because
the
equipment
was
working
fully
for
just
that
amount
of
time
which
could
reasonably
indicate
that
an
average
week
could
be
nearer
three
thousand.
S
The
original
application
was
granted
with
the
following
hours
restrictions
in
place,
so
that
would
be
no
earlier
than
a
7
30
a.m
start
and
no
later
than
8.
Pm
finish
Monday
to
Friday
on
Saturday.
That
will
be
nine
until
one
the
mitigation
within
the
application
mentions.
Loss
of
staff
is
a
possibility.
If
the
extension
is
not
granted,
we
would
be
thinking
that
staff
losses
would,
in
theory,
only
be
because
extra
costs
extra
classes
are
generating
the
need
for
more
staff.
Those
classes
will
be
operating
outside
the
currently
designated
business
hours.
You.
S
Thank
you,
The
Operators
of
the
studio
commissioned
a
survey
with
regard
to
level
and
noise
generated
by
the
studio.
This
was
focused
entirely
on
the
noise
coming
from
the
studio
rather
than
the
traffic
generated
or
the
class
changeover
noise
Grant
a
Nick,
an
extension
to
the
operating
hours
on
a
Saturday
until
5
PM
would
mean
that
the
neighbors
had
no
respite
for
six
days
out
of
seven
after
a
working
week.
It
feels
that
one
and
a
half
hours,
one
and
a
half
days
of
no
operating
business
would
not
be
an
unreasonable
allowance.
S
S
S
A
A
Good
evening
to
you,
you
have
four
minutes
between
you
how
you
divide
that
is
entirely
up
to
you.
Obviously,
we've
only
got
two
of
the
threat
out
of
the
three
listed.
So
if
you
could
introduce
yourselves
when
you
start
speaking,
I'll
warn
you
when
you
have
one
minute
remaining.
Thank
you
good.
Y
Evening,
chair
and
counselors,
my
name
is
Anna
Keeling
of
ozia
cottage
situated
immediately
adjacent
to
the
business
units.
I'm
representing
all
impacted
residents,
and
my
fellow
neighbor
here
will
speak
also
we're
also
representing
Stuart
Ambrose.
Our
objection
to
the
increase
in
ours
in
is
based
on
facts
and
data.
It's
a
fact
that
the
units
are
positioned
on
a
single
track,
Lane
on
the
edge
of
a
Conservation
Area.
The
road
is
three
meters
to
four
meters
in
width.
Two
cars
cannot
pass
each
other
safely
and
when
they
meet,
there
are
limited,
passing
places.
Y
Photographic
evidence
has
been
provided
to
you.
It
is
the
fact
that
none
of
the
supporting
comments
are
from
actual
neighbors.
50
percent
supporting
comments
come
from
people
living
5
to
175
175
miles
away,
and
we
wonder
whether
they've
even
been
to
the
units.
We
also
question
the
validity
of
supporting
comments
submitted
by
Paul
Hampton
Farm
partnership.
They
too
are
not
neighbors,
they
are
supporting
their
application
and
we
see
this
as
a
gross
conflict
of
interest.
Impacted
neighbors
object
the
increase
in
hours.
Y
It
is
the
fact
that
the
national
policy
planning
framework
States
that's
for
specific
applications
for
development.
It
should
be
ensured
that
safe
and
suitable
access
to
the
site
can
be
achieved
for
all
users.
We
have
seen
no
such
evidence
provided
with
this
application.
Paul
Hampton
Farm
partnership
recently
submitted
statements
on
the
planning
website
that
traffic
has
reduced
50
percent
as
a
result
of
the
mill
closure.
This
is
not
our
daily
experience
as
the
impacted
residents
and
so
quit.
Y
Hampton
residents
did
commission
an
independent
and
objective
traffic
survey
that
provides
this
committee
with
factual
empirical
data
to
inform
your
decision.
I'll
reiterate
some
of
that
key
data
from
the
report.
Yes,
the
equipment
was
deliberately
tampered
with
to
reduce
the
number
of
vehicle
Journeys
recorded.
Despite
the
data
loss,
there
was
a
five-day
average
of
252
vehicle
movements
along
pole,
Hampton
Farm
Road
during
the
survey
period.
Y
This
equates
for
your
benefit
to
approximately
one
vehicle,
every
two
minutes
in
the
afternoon
Peak
period,
so
over
2500
2500
two-way
vehicle
movements
were
recorded
and
yes
extrapolating
that
data
for
the
data
loss.
This
narrow,
Country
Lane
saw
over
3
000
two-way
vehicle
movements.
During
that
week,
87.6
of
vehicles
were
classed
as
light,
meaning
these
are
cars
that
are
going
up
and
down
this
road.
The
conclusion
of
the
reports
is
clear:
Leisure
or
dance
clubs
generate
significantly
more
traffic
than
the
consented
light.
Industrial
and
B8
storage
use.
A
Y
You
it's
already
generating
trips
above
the
consented
land
use
and
with
extended
hours
into
the
evening
and
on
Saturdays.
These
will
increase
further.
The
impact
of
an
increase
in
the
business
hours
of
unit
3
will
be
severe
and
contrary
to
the
requirements
of
the
national
planning
policy
framework
to
provide
safe
and
suitable
access,
and
so
yes,
we,
the
genuine
and
impacted
neighbors
object
to
the
increase
in
hours
on
the
basis
of
noise
safety
and
Immunity
to
Residents
and
ask
this
committee
makes
an
informed
decision
based
on
data
provided
Sonia.
J
Sonia
Hutton
Taylor
from
River
Cottage
I,
don't
have
a
lot
to
add
to
that
other
than
the
fact
that
the
likely
increase
of
traffic
is
going
to
impact
upon
the
residents
significantly
in
the
evenings
and
during
the
weekend,
and
also
loss
of
immunity
to
not
just
the
residents
but
to
all
the
village,
because
people
use
the
Straight
Lane
as
a
circuit
that
goes
around
the
village.
It's
a
three
kilometer
circuit
and
you
get
lots
of
Runners
and
Buggies
and
mobility
scooters
going
along
there,
particularly
in
the
evenings
in
the
summer.
A
A
Z
Evening,
chairman
and
councilors
I'm
Kay,
young
and
I'm,
the
deputy
head
teacher
of
a
local
amazing
Stoke,
Primary
School,
focusing
on
the
principle
of
development.
The
surrounding
buildings
are
business
units
and
the
dance
school
makes
a
valuable
contribution
to
the
local
economy,
with
a
focus
on
highways,
the
patrons
Drive
sensibly
and
slowly.
Why
would
they
otherwise,
when
they
have
their
most
valuable
possessions
in
their
car,
their
children
traffic
is
not
excessive
from
the
dance
school
and
car
sharing
is
encouraged
and
takes
place.
Z
Why
would
it
not
with
the
rising
cost
of
fuel
in
terms
of
health,
there
was
a
huge
benefit
of
the
classes
to
locals.
Marina's
dance
classes
provide
physical
and
ever
more
important
psychological
and
mental
health
benefits
to
all
ages,
but
in
particular
the
younger
people
of
today,
which,
for,
unfortunately,
mental
health
issues
are
on
the
rise.
It
provides
social
interaction
and
is
a
safe
place.
Z
Z
Z
AA
Hello
councilors,
chairman
My
Name,
is
Oliver.
Dallin
I
am
I'm
the
agent
I
just
like
to
Rattle
through
a
few
things
to
be
made.
First
of
all,
there
was
an
issue
with
regards
to
use,
but
in
September
2020
the
national
government
policy
confirmed
class,
the
class
of
the
property
as
Class
E,
and
the
planning
officers
confirmed
that
the
dance
class
Falls
within
the
class
E
and
has
full
permission
to
continue
as
it
should.
AA
They
understand
that
the
council
should
show
viability
and
vitality
of
existing
Leisure
Community
facilities,
of
which
this
is
one
we
can
confirm.
There
was
an
issue
with
regards
to
the
early
morning
classes.
This
will
not
continue
and
we
don't
Envision
having
any
classes
before
the
permitted
hours.
We
are
only
asking
for
a
10
increase
in
hours
from
Monday
to
Friday
and
a
17
increase
in
hours
on
the
Saturday.
AA
With
regards
to
the
highways,
the
planning
officer
report
states
that
it
is
not
considered
that
additional
hours
would
result
in
any
significant
I
think
that's
important,
significant
impact
to
the
highway
safety.
A
traffic
report
that
was
mentioned
said
confirms,
and
is
there
for
you
to
read
that
the
average
speed
of
the
vehicle
going
past
is
22
miles
an
hour.
That
is
not
very
quick.
You
have
one
minute
remaining.
Thank
you.
AA
The
use
of
the
road
is
only
10
of
the
highway
capacity
at
any
one
time
that
is
very
low
and
the
maximum
Peak
cars
is
34
cars
per
hour.
One
every
two
minutes,
I
would
say
that
is
not
a
lot
with
regards
to
the
Walkers.
The
cars
are
driving
at
a
slow,
22
average
slow
speed
of
22
miles
per
hour,
which
gives
enough
time
and
space
for
Walkers
and
other
use
of
the
roads
to
step
onto
the
grass
Verge
as
cars
approach.
AA
With
regards
to
the
noise,
we
have
had
an
acoustic
acoustic
assessment
to
demonstrate
that
there
are
no
adverse
impacts
to
the
nearest
properties,
some
68
meters
away.
He
said
that
if
equal
a
noise
of
23
decibels,
which
is
about
the
sound
of
rustling,
leaves
I
would
hope
that
you
would
be
able
to
support
the
officer's
recommendation
to
support
to
approve
this
application.
Thank
you.
A
AB
Yeah,
as
you
see,
and
the
public
observation.
A
AB
Thank
you
Jeff.
In
the
public
observation
it
says
that
the
tenant
runs
dance
classes
for
over
400
children
and
five
employees
and
five
staff.
But
in
the
officer
comment
it
says
that
there
are
148
students
I,
just
wonder:
could
you
confirm
if
it's
148
or
if
it
is
over
400?
Thank
you.
A
U
Good
evening,
chairman
members,
again
once
again,
there's
a
war
counselor
I
am
supportive
objections
made
by
neighboring
residence
and
the
Overton
Parish
Council.
The
basis
for
the
injection
of
the
injections
are
the
increased
traffic
movements
and
the
effect
of
noise
and
amenity
to
nearby
Neighbors.
U
In
three
previous
years,
2020
2021
and
2022
officers
from
base
note
and
Dean
barricades
will
plan.
An
enforcement
team
have
brought
to
the
applicant
to
advise
them
that
they
didn't
have
relevant
planning
permission
to
operate
these
types
of
business
or
to
operate
at
times
they
were
open.
U
There
are
references
made
to
lots
of
jobs
from
the
applicant,
the
tenants
loss
of
jobs.
However,
this
is
only
negligible
on
the
impact
on
the
additional
areas
that
are
that
were
asked
for
and
in
fact,
whilst
one
of
the
speakers
referenced
that
they
didn't
want
to
operate
in
the
in
the
middle
of
a
town
or
Village,
they
still
operate
in
whitchurch.
U
So
that
is
a
bit
of
a
contradiction
to
that.
I
haven't
got
much
else
to
say
only
that
if
members
decide
to
oppose
local
and
Paris
Council
objections
and
Grant
color
and
permission
I
do
think
that
sensible
in
amicable
opening
hours
should
be
conditioned.
If
such
things
exist.
O
X
So
the
assessment
in
this
instance
has
been
undertaken
by
officers
looking
at
when
those
particular
hours
are
so.
The
hours,
for
example,
on
the
evenings
Monday
to
Fridays
are
in
that
sort
of
quieter
time
of
the
day
where
you,
generally,
you
would
get
less
vehicles
on
the
road.
It
is
only
for
a
very
small
period-
it's
not
in
that
Peak
operating
period,
for
example
with
the
rest
of
the
estate.
So
therefore
it
was
concluded
on
that
basis
and
similarly,
with
the
weekends
that
it,
we
didn't
have
the
evidence
that
there
would
be
a
severe
impact.
V
X
So
Patricia
here
is
just
indicating,
so
we
have
a
dwelling
just
there
where
the
laser
is
the
point
at
the
moment.
So
that
is
the
one
to
the
South.
Then
you
have
properties
to
the
West,
sorry
East
and
then
another
one
to
the
west
and
if
I
turn
your
attention
to
the
report,
the
distances
to
these
properties
are
actually
cited
on
page
279
at
the
bottom
of
the
page.
N
I'm
going
to
just
confirm,
after
the
comments
from
Council
Fillmore,
that
the
applicants
do
actually
have
planning
permission
to
run
a
dance
studio
under
the
conditions
of
the
industrial
use
of
these
buildings.
X
So
again
that
is,
that
is
Port
before
you,
so
the
units
when
originally
constructed
they
were
of
a
light
industrial
use
and
storage.
It
had
been
confirmed
that
this
particular
unit
had
been
in
a
light
industrial
use
since
approximately
2003
and
therefore
have
subsequently
benefited
from
permitted
development
rights
that
came
into
Force
through
a
change
to
the
use
classes,
order
and
that
enabled
this
particular
use
class
to
change.
O
You
chair,
I'm
I,
mean
I'm
really
struggling
with
it
with
this
particular
application,
because
you
know
I'm
I'm
struggling
there
aren't.
There
are
as
far
as
I'm
aware,
with
the
exception
of
the
highways
okay,
there
was
no
like
perceivable
planning
grounds
to
actually
refuse
it.
Okay
and
I've
I've
now
had
clarification
on
on
the
highways
and
I
I'm
struggling
to
understand
how
we
can
not
approve
this
particular
motion.
I
would
like
to
hear
what
other
people
have
to
say,
but
if
no
one
wishes
to
make
a
motion,
then
I
I
will
do
so.
P
Thank
you,
chair
I'm,
looking
at
page
272,
looking
at
the
various
conditions,
what
struck
me
was
the
operating
hours
of
the
old
permission
and
opposite
the
extension.
That's
askable
and
I.
Just
look
at
that
extension
and
consider
the
impact
on
the
immunity
of
the
neighbors.
P
P
The
extension
hours,
however,
further
into
the
evenings
five
days
a
week
and
also
at
the
weekend
on
The
Saturdays,
is
significant
and
I
would
see
that
as
being
significant,
where
I
a
resident
faced
with
that
extension
of
hours
to
a
unit.
Next
to
me.
So
in
that
context,
putting
yourself
in
that
you've
got
to
understand
the
impact
on
their
immunity
and
I
do
so
on
that
particular
ground
of
the
reasoning
for
rejection,
I'm
struggling
in
a
sense
because
yeah
I
think
the
immunity
is
impacted
and
I
wouldn't
support
the
extension
of
the
hours.
AC
I,
don't
wish
to
minimize
the
impacts
of
the
The
Works
being
done
by
by
residents,
but
Saturday
afternoon
is
the
only
time
where
perhaps
there
will
be
incremental
volume
of
traffic
during
an
already
a
period
which
would
have
a
considerable
volume
of
traffic.
But
I
don't
want
that
considerable
volume
is
if
it's
only
one
every
two
minutes.
AC
This
is
how
they're
going
to
add
anything
to
it
at
all.
So
I
don't
believe
that
the
traffic
impact
is
significant
and
really
just
supports
you.
What
the
the
officer
presenting
the
reporters
already
told
us
I,
don't
see
anything
in
the
report
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
about
complaints
about
noise,
so
I
see
no
grounds
for
refusing
the
supplication.
K
Thank
you,
chip
having
studied
that
and
having
a
dance
school
in
the
middle
of
Kingsley,
which
the
the
cabinet
were
kind
enough
to
try
and
help
last
night
and
looked
at
this.
The
reasons
for
approval
seem
in
line
with
what
we
would
hope
to
do
for
the
rural
economy.
I
I
think
the
distance
between
the
application
site
and
the
nearest
neighbors
is
quite
quite
substantive,
and
we
all
know
that
businesses
should
be
growing,
thriving
things
and
I.
K
Think
it's
well
laid
out
within
this
that
we
should
be
able
to
approve
it
and
I'm
happy
to
Second
councilor
Frost
decision
to
to
move
the
application
forward.
A
A
You
moved
and
seconded
for
approval
those
in
favor.
X
X
Thank
you
chairman,
so
this
is
a
site
that
has
been
before
members
previously.
We
have
had
a
couple
of
planning
applications
here
for
the
erection
of
a
single
story
or
a
single
dwelling
on
previous
occasions.
The
applications
have
been
refused,
and
this
is
a
third
proposal
before
you
this
evening
again
for
a
single
story,
dwelling
on
the
site
and
again
on
this
instance,
there
is
a
reduced
Site
Area
to
that
which
has
been
considered
previously.
X
A
F
Good
evening
chair,
firstly,
before
I
get
into
my
actual
speech
what
you've
just
heard
there
from
the
officers.
This
isn't
alongside
an
adjacent
ancient
Woodland,
it's
actually
just
called
Heathrow
cop.
So
it's
classed
as
a
woodland.
It's
not
an
ancient
Woodland,
all
right
as
you've
just
said.
Obviously,
this
application
is
up
for
refusal
at
this
moment
in
time,
which
I
think
is
the
wrong
decision.
F
This
application
is
very
small
scale,
single
story,
Bungalow
constructed
with
materials
that
are
rural
in
nature,
so
which
will
allow
this
Bungalow
to
set
within
this
rural
area.
The
first
reason
regarding
the
landscape
harm
is
obviously
something
that
I
clearly
don't
understand
when
there
are
three
dwellings
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
road
and
a
further
11
dwellings,
all
within
around
200
meters
of
the
site.
That
makes
a
total
of
14
dwellings
in
close
proximity,
add
to
the
mix
several
large
equestrian
and
agricultural
buildings.
F
I
really
can't
see
how
this
single
story
Bungalow
will
cause
such
a
harm
to
this
area.
It
would
appear
that
the
officers
have
relied
upon
the
inspector's
decision.
That
decision
was
actually
for
a
chalet
style
Bungalow,
which
had
a
ridge
height
of
over
seven
meters
and
a
footprint
of
over
200
square
meters.
Compare
that
to
this
application.
The
retry
is
now
4.8
meters
and
has
a
footprint
of
140
square
meters.
F
That's
a
massive
reduction,
therefore,
based
on
that
I
believe
that
there
is
no
harm
to
the
landscape
in
this
area,
specifically
or
sufficiently
to
Warrant
a
refusal,
especially
at
this
time,
which
I'm
sure
you'll
all
know
what
I'm
referring
to
turn
into.
The
second
reason
for
refusal,
which
is
in
regards
to
the
buffer
zones
for
biodiversity,
the
officer
and
the
biodiversity
team
have
all
stated
that
there
was
insufficient
information
submitted.
With
regards
to
buffers.
F
However,
from
the
site
plans,
you
will
see
that
buffers
have
been
provided
on
all
sides
of
the
site,
and
these
have
been
assessed
by
the
specialists
in
the
submitted
reports.
These
buffers
all
measure
between
10
and
12
meters,
which
I
believe
is
acceptable
and
I'm,
going
to
ask
you
just
to
refer
back
to
item
number
one
on
tonight's
agenda
and
specifically
page
130,
where
it
says
for
the
approved
outline
scheme
for
the
42
houses.
F
There's
a
paragraph
in
there
that
says
the
illustrative
master
plan
shows
how
the
features
of
the
site,
which
have
the
greatest
ecological
value,
would
be
retained
within
the
proposed
green
infrastructure,
together
with
appropriate
green
buffer
zones
in
compliance
with
the
standard
set
out
in
the
councils,
landscape,
biodiversity
and
trees.
Spd.
These
buffers
include
the
ancient
Woodland
of
21,
a
buffer
of
21
meters,
the
southern
hedge
buffer
of
five
meters
and
the
Eastern
young
Woodland
buffer
of
10
meters.
The
council's
biodiversity
officer
did
not
raise
an
objection
to
that
proposal.
F
F
Today,
to
that
the
submitted
reports
for
the
one
minute
remaining
for
the
biodiversity
reports
that
have
been
submitted
and
the
net
gains,
this
scheme
provides
14.79
net
gain,
plus
an
additional
0.67
Hedgerow
units
and,
in
the
opinion
of
their
professionals,
this
single
story,
Bungalow,
will
not
have
any
impact
on
the
trees
or
the
surrounding
a
biodiversity
and
I'd,
therefore,
ask
you
to
please
assess
this
application
on
its
benefits
and
please
approve
the
application
accordingly.
Thank
you.
Thank.
K
Thank
you
chair.
It's
about
the
buffers.
Obviously
ancient
Woodland
is
more
needing
off
protection
than
normal
Woodland.
Can
you
confirm,
is
this
ancient
woodland,
or
is
this
just
Woodland
and
as
the
agent
is
referred
to
the
site
at
Bishops
green,
which
was
ancient,
would
learn
from
memory?
X
X
Again,
all
Woodland
is
has
that
a
value
to
the
natural
environment
and
I
would
draw
members
attention
to
the
report
where
we're
looking
at,
for
example,
Pages
303,
which
sets
out
that
relationship
and
the
consideration
that
has
been
given
to
this
particular
Woodland,
drawing
reference
to
our
SPD
and
also
to
the
findings
of
the
inspector,
where
one
two,
three
four
five.
So
the
fifth
paragraph
down
towards
the
end
of
that
paragraph,
where
it's,
where
the
inspector
found
that
there
was
not
sufficient
evidence
to
justify
the
incursion
into
the
20
meter
buffer.
X
M
I
feel
I
have
to
ask.
This
is
a
rare
opportunity
to
ask
a
question
of
this
nature.
We've
got
the
office
of
nuclear
regulation
on
this
saying
that
it's
unacceptable,
but
it
doesn't
really
say
why
it's
unacceptable.
That
just
says
unless
agreed
by
Hampshire
and
West
Berkshire
as
well,
what
weight
should
we
are
called
that
in
our
deliberations.
X
So
this
site
would
be
in
one
of
the
wider
zones
where
we
notify
the
office
of
nuclear
medical
Nation,
because
we
are
looking
at
an
additional
dwelling.
However,
when
we
are
looking
at
that,
we
are
looking
at
the
response
in
conjunction
with
Hampshire
County
Council
emergency
planning,
where
they
look
at
that
response.
So
if
there
were
to
be
an
incidence,
what
would
happen
and
how
do
they
respond
to
it
and
what
capacity
they
have
to
respond
to
the
additional
population
within
that
area,
because
the
emergency
planners
have
accepted
that
they
have
no
objection.
A
H
Yeah
looking
at
this
earlier
this
evening,
we
approved
42
houses
of
Bishop's
green
on
a
rural
site
which
drains
into
the
site
of
special
scientific
interest,
either
River
emborn
and
it's
two
ponds
which
are
used
for
fishing.
So
when
you
consider
the
the
scale
of
that
decision,
I
I'm
struggling
to,
if
it
was
a
single
house
which
is
actually
close
to
a
few
others,.
K
Ratigan,
thank
you
and
thank
the
applicant
and
the
time
that
I've
been
out
on
the
site.
There
are
14
houses
within
much
closer
proximity
to
the
dance
school
that
we
just
had
say
that
it
would
be
a
visual
impact.
This
is
for
a
bungalow.
Let's
just
let's
just
be
honest
about
it.
We
rarely
see
bungalows
in
front
of
us,
and
this
is
an
opportunity
to
to.
K
Yes,
perhaps
move
the
boundaries
a
little
on
what
should
be
a
a
very
simple
planning
application,
I
I
in
many
ways
this
is
the
right
sort
of
thing
that
we
should
be
bringing
forward.
Yes,
of
course,
Woodland
is
important,
but
the
impact
of
a
single
house
when
there
are
14
around
it
I
do
believe,
is
not
so
impactual
that
it
would
that
it
would
harm
the
the
countryside
and
the
visual
impact.
If
you
stand
on
the
site
of
seeing
these
other
houses,
is
the
character
is
already
blighted.
K
If
you
don't
like
dwellings,
but
I
think
a
natural
home
there
would
be
a
a
a
bungalow
and,
and
the
reality
is
that
we
do
need
to
have
houses
I.
Don't
like
the
fact
that
West
Berkshire
have
a
say
in
our
planning
world
the
emergency
plans
I
think
we
need
to
change
that
and
I
make
that
point
every
time.
I
have
an
opportunity
to
do
so.
K
So,
although
there
are
the
the
reasons
for
refusal
are
set
out
here,
I
believe
they
are
subjective
and
therefore
I
would
be
happy
to
to
see
this
move
through.
I
hope
that
and
the
debate
will
will
pull
those
reasons
out
more
fully.
K
I
am
moving
acceptance
of
this
application
and
to
overturn
the
officer's
recommendation
on
the
basis
that
they
are
subjective
and
the
urbanization
has
not
happened,
because
it
is
a
site
that
already
has
dwellings
with
with
includes
close
proximity.
O
Thank
you
very
much
chair,
unlike
my
fellow
award,
counselor
councilor
ratigan
I
I'm,
in
full
agreement
with
the
the
planning
officer
here
and
I
think
this
application
should
be
refused
on
the
grounds
that
that
is
very
much
a
rural
area.
Yes,
there
are
14
14
properties,
you
know
relatively
close
by,
but
in
its
nature,
okay,
it's
very
rural
and
it's
outside
the
the
property
settlement,
boundary
and,
and
therefore
I
I'm,
just
really
struggling
okay
to
to
understand
how
we
can
possibly
allow
this
to
go
forward.
O
We
even
have
the
inspector
who's
given
us
the
exact
same
reasons
as
as
the
previous
okay
application
regarding
the
the
actual
distances
to
the
the
trees
surrounding
this.
This
particular
this
particular
piling,
complication
and
and
I
have
to
say
that
you
know
I
am
I,
am
I
will
move
okay,
the
officer
recommendation.
A
O
I'll
withdraw
the
recommendation,
but
should
Council
ratigan's
motion
be
defeated.
A
We'll
come
straight
back
to
you.
Thank
you.
It
has
been
moved
for
approval.
Oh
I
have
seen
Sands
up
councilor
Tomlin.
Are
you
going
to
second
that.
A
N
You
chair
this
I
can
understand
the
essence
of
a
buffer
zone.
We
need
to
protect
the
Woodland
around,
but
the
implementation
I
have
adjacent
to
my
property,
four
houses
being
built
and
they
have
a
buffer
to
Woodland.
Well,
it's
called
a
Wilding
area
in
their
back
Garden,
where
they're
not
allowed,
presumably
to
do
anything
other
than
just
have
a
wild
Zone,
which
is
within
six
meters
of
trees
and
also
have
adjacent
to
that
site,
another
site
for
two
houses:
they
have
no
buffer.
N
They
have
reduced
and
reduced
the
size
of
the
building
to
get
more
and
more
of
a
buffer,
and
it's
where
do
we
draw
the
line
and
use
common
sense
that
that
looking
at
this
they've
got
a
slightly
less
than
10
meter,
buffer
and
I'm
sure
that
could
be
conditioned.
So,
let's
wait
for
the
vote.
Thank
you.
M
I'm
in
two
minds
about
this
one,
to
be
honest,
I
mean
I'm
inclined
to
to
vote
with
the
motion
in
front
of
us
tonight,
but
this
20
meter
buffer
that
the
inspector
upheld
and
is
still
an
issue
that
that
kind
of
sticks
in
the
crore
a
bit.
For
me
just
thinking
about,
if
you're
living
in
a
house,
that's
that
close
to
the
trees.
What
kind
of
light
could
you
expect
to
have?
M
It's
probably
not
a
great
deal.
I
should
think,
but
yeah
I'll
I'll
have
to
reflect
on
that.
Thank
you,
chair.
AC
It
says
that
housing
schemes
closer
would
must
face
onto
the
areas
of
existing
Woodland
to
prevent
creep
towards
the
Woodland,
and
it's
not
possible
for
the
orientation
of
this
sign
and
therefore
to
protect
that
that
buffer
zone
in
the
future
I
would
support
the
the
officers
View
and
therefore
can't
support
the
the
the
emotion
that's
on
the
table.
At
present.
A
Is
lost
and
councilor
Frost
I
said
I
would
come
straight
back
to
you.
Thank.
O
You
very
much
chair
just
for
the
record
I
would
like
it
known
that
I
voted
against
the
houses.
Okay
in
in
item
one
okay,
I
fully
support
the
office
of
paper
and
I
move
that
the
application
be
refused
on
the
grounds
stated
in
November.
Thank
you.
A
X
R
Thank
you
chair.
This
is
a
technical,
detailed
consent,
application
relating
to
the
design,
access
landscape
services
and
scale
of
the
barn
in
accordance
with
mission
in
principle,
reference
20,
oblique,
zero,
zero,
zero,
nine
oblique
pip
for
the
conversion
of
agricultural
building.
To
one
number
dwelling,
there
is
an
update
on
the
papers,
biodiversity
officer
comments
have
been
received
and
there
is
no
objection
and
there
is
a
small
summary
there
from
the
officer
at
the
flood
risk
assessment
has
been
commissioned.
That's
required
as
the
for
the
recommendation.
R
R
So
that's
a
minor
amendment
to
add
that
to
the
plan
condition,
five
could
be
tightened
up
to
make
reference
to
tunworth
Lane
being
the
front
of
the
house,
because
in
the
future
it
could
be
debated,
which
is
the
front
which
is
the
rear
and
conditions
17
Again,
which
is
removing
the
ability
to
put
new,
vehicular
or
pedestrian
accesses.
R
Again,
to
make
that
clear
that
that's
on
tunworth
road
and
so
tightening
up
that
one
and
officers
would
recommend
an
additional
condition
to
control
external
lighting
and
also
an
informative
to
say
that
the
development
is
required
to
comply
with
the
control
of
asbestos
regulations
which
isn't
controlled
by
the
planning
department.
So
it
can't
be
a
condition
but
we're
just
drawing
their
attention
to
it.
As
the
environmental
health
officer
had
drawn
our
attention
to
the
existing
Reef,
that's
likely
to
have
asbestos.
A
W
You
Mr,
chair
I,
won't
be
taking
the
full
four
minutes
as
it's
getting
late.
W
This
is
the
stage
two
application
dealing
with
the
technical
detail,
consent
relating
to
design
access
and
Landscape,
as
this
Barn
is
in
the
heart
of
the
maple
durable
Conservation
Area
I'm,
very
surprised
that
the
application
has
not
been
submitted
with
a
Heritage
statement,
a
landscape
tree
report
and
a
design
and
access
statement.
W
As
if,
as
these
have
not
been
submitted
there
is,
there
has
not
been
any
feedback
or
reports
by
the
conservation
officer,
landscape
officer
or
tree
officer.
Although
it's
a
stage
two
application,
it
should
really
be
linked
to
the
initial
stage
where
the
Heritage
and
Landscape
officers
both
recommended
refusal
from
the
site
visit.
W
W
AD
Good
evening,
Mr
chairman
good
evening
members,
this
planning
application
that
pip
was
rejected
by
our
officers
as
being
harmful
to
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
Conservation
Area.
But,
as
you
know,
from
the
papers,
it
was
approved
at
appeal.
AD
The
inspector
confirmed
that
he
was
only
considering
the
scope
that
he
is
permitted
to
consider
as
a
pip,
which
is
location,
land
use
and
amount
of
development.
So
that
was
the
first
stage
which
established
that
the
site
met
those
three
criteria.
What
it
did
not
meet
or
or
he
didn't
consider-
was
the
design,
and
we
are
now
here
to
discuss
the
second
stage,
which
is
the
technical
details
content
now.
This
should
really
be
considered
in
light
of
the
other.
AD
AD
What
is
important
for
you
to
note
is
that
the
applicant
stated
in
or
repellent
in
their
full
statement
of
case
on
page
five
of
power,
three,
that,
in
light
of
the
comments
received,
it
is
worth
mentioning
that
any
glazing
required
to
fulfill
the
requirements
will
be
placed
on
the
North
and
the
West
facade,
leaving
the
East
Elevation
exactly
as
it
stands
today,
therefore,
withdrawing
any
visual
change
to
the
Mana
Farmhouse,
realistic
building
to
our
view.
AD
AD
Design
styling
was
not
indicated
at
this
stage,
but
would
seek
to
keep
the
east
and
south
walls
which
face
neighboring
properties,
the
same
as
the
current
fixation
by
not
installing
any
glaze
components
on
these
facades,
helping
to
minimize
any
visual
differences
between
the
existing
and
proposed.
AD
So
the
point
is:
is
that
the
applicant
promised
in
their
submission
to
the
appeal
inspector
that
they
would
adhere
to
the
comments
by
residents
and
they
would
not
put
any
windows
on
the
south
wall
or
the
East
wall,
because
the
South
faces
the
and
it's
very
high
up
for
those
that
didn't
visit
and
the
East
faces
the
listed
building.
So
what
I
would
ask
you?
Members
is
in
view
of
the
PIP
and
the
fact
that
it
only
con
concerns,
location
use
and
amount
of
development
is
I.
AD
Would
I
would
like
you
to
consider
the
statements
of
the
inspector
that
the
applicant
stated
in
its
full
statement
that
they
would
not
put
Windows
on
the
south
or
the
East
and
that
the
inspector
says
in
Paris
six
that
the
form
of
the
building
would
be
simple
and
elevational
treatments
could
be
designed
sympathetically
at
the
next
stage?
You.
AD
AD
So
I
would
request
our
members
for
you
to
consider
possibly
conditions
such
as
removing
the
windows
on
the
East
and
the
South,
as
was
indicated
to
the
inspector
when
he
approved
this
pip,
and
also
to
stipulating
no
external
or
security
lights
south
of
the
building
and
thus
impacting
the
houses
on
Tamworth,
Hill,
Tamworth,
Road
and
request
a
tree
survey,
because
we're
very
concerned
about
the
trees
in
between
the
east
facing
wall
of
the
barn
and
the
listed
building.
Thank
you
very
much.
L
AD
A
AE
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
I.
Just
wanted
you
to
ask
the
offices
and
view
the
fact
that
the
car
parking
and
the
front
door
and
the
two
upstairs
windows
are
on
the
South
Side
facing
straight
across
the
sunworth
road
and
are
more
or
less
level
with
the
upstairs
bedroom
windows
of
the
houses
on
the
other
side
of
the
road.
AE
AE
R
R
Or
that
the
activity
associated
with
a
single
dwelling
and
the
amount
of
traffic
that
would
be
generated
by
a
single
dwelling
in
relation
to
the
existing
use,
which
the
inspector
also
said,
is
Agricultural
and
could
cause
some
disturbance
and,
on
balance,
considering
the
plans
that
the
applicant
put
forward,
the
officers
have
considered
that
that
the
scheme
is
is
acceptable.
So.
AE
R
R
Not
not
that
I
know
of
I
wasn't
the
case
officer.
The
officer
has
considered
it
as
it's
been
submitted,
so
make
make
of
that.
What
you
would
but
I
haven't
seen
that
that
was
suggested
as
an
amendment.
No,
but
I
can't
confirm.
P
Harvey,
thank
you
chair
two
questions.
Please,
in
terms
of
the
conservation
area,
point
and
lacking
a
Heritage
on
landscape
report.
Where
do
we
stand
on
that
endpoint,
and
my
second
question
is
if
the
committee
was
minded
to
approve
the
application.
Where
do
we
stand
if
we
wanted,
for
our
given's
sake,
to
condition
East
South
Windows?
Not
being
there?
No
external
security
lights
and
a
tree
survey?
Is
that
actually
conditionable
or
would
it
require
the
committee
to
refuse
the
application
such
that
those
matters
could
be
taken
up
with
the
applicant?
P
R
And
go
backwards
on
the
easy
ones:
lights,
external
lighting,
very
easy
to
condition
tree
survey.
R
If
the
roots
of
those
trees
are
not
on
their
land,
it
would
have
to
be
sort
of
that
get
get
access,
but
not
beyond
the
Realms
of
possibility.
I
imagine
for
an
experienced
tree
tree
of
a
culturalists
to
do
it
even
if
they
couldn't
get
access.
That
would
then
indicate
how
much
would
have
to
be
removed
to
get
the
access,
so
a
condition
could
be
placed
on
there,
but
I
would
suggest
you'd
want
them
to
know
that
with
regard
to
removing
windows
from
a
development
that
wouldn't
be
conditionable,
because
you
would
end
up
with.
R
R
There
is
a
possibility
of
of
removing
a
small
high-level
Lounge
window,
but
but
not
having
any
windows
on
that
elevation
would
be
a
significant
change.
It's
not
my!
It's
not
like
saying
a
bathroom
window
would
need
to
be
obscure.
Glazed
and
obscure.
Glazing
doesn't
address
the
issue,
that's
being
discussed
about
the
light
coming
out
of
those
windows,
those
openings,
so
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
you
could
put
a
condition
on
in
relation
to
removing
windows.
It's
a
different
form
of
development
that
would
make
a
at
least
one
room
unusable,
be
a
large
cupboard.
R
The
other
aspect
that
you
asked
was
about:
oh
crikey,
remembering
that
Heritage,
the
Heritage,
the
we've
had
comments
from
they're
reported
on
page.
R
R
R
Reason
one
was:
it
would
be
harmful
to
the
character's
appearance.
This
part
of
the
maple
door,
Conservation
area
by
the
domestification
of
the
character
of
this
part
of
the
conservation
area
resulting
from
the
creation
of
a
new
dwelling
in
this
location,
together
with
the
accretion
of
domestic
paraphernalia
and
structures,
eroding
the
rural
character
of
the
maple
Delaware
Conservation
Area,
and
in
addition,
it
would
cause
harm
to
the
significance
of
the
listed
building.
R
And
then
the
second
well.
The
second
reason
for
refusal
is
that
the
proposed
development,
through
the
intrusion
of
domestic
built
form
and
residential
paraphernalia
within
the
open
Countryside,
would
be
harmful
to
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
surrounding
landscape,
giving
rise
to
a
suburbanizing
impact
so
that
suburbanizing
impact
has
been
found
to
be
acceptable
by
the
the
count
by
the
inspector
and
the
officers
in
relation
to
highways
and
Landscapes
and
environmental.
R
N
Well,
it's
very
interesting
having
seen
the
site
on
the
viewing
panel,
there
is
great
concern
that
there
is
just
enough
room
to
get
vehicles
around
the
side
of
the
building,
but
it's
right
across
the
roots
of
trees.
Now
we've
been
talking
a
little
bit
sensitive
on
trees.
Tonight,
I
I
think
I
tend
to
agree
that
this
is
the
wrong
side
to
put
the
access
and
in
terms
of
what
we've
learned
about
the
applicants.
N
Discussions
with
the
inspector
about
the
fenestration
and
and
such
I
think
that
we
have
a
a
building
that
is
not
of
the
greatest
quality
and
the
greatest
respect
to
the
Conservation
Area
on
our
hands
and
I.
Think
on
those
grounds,
I
would
be
quite
happy
to
move
for
rejection.
M
R
Can
I
just
summarize
what
I
think
the
reasons
for
refusal
will
be
or
what
not
not
in
full,
obviously,
but
just
just
for
and
talking
about
trees
and
you
and
the
lack,
narrow
and
lack
of
inflation.
So
it's
the
lack
of
information
to
say
that
the
trees
wouldn't
need
to
be
removed
or
cut
back,
which
would
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
character
in
the
conservation
area.
N
Or
damaged
it
by
the
actual
design
of
the
traffic
access
route.
R
A
R
It's
also
in
a
conservation
area,
so
em11
as
well
yeah
yeah
one
ten,
and
you
mentioned
the
building,
where
you
raising
a
reason
for
refusal
on.
N
Yes,
the
the
fact
that
it
has
windows
on
the
south
side
and
I've
got
that
right
on
the
east
side.
Here
the
South
Side.
That
is
not
respecting
the
conservation
area
by
the
ways
of
overlooking
and
the
amenity
of
those
residents
of
the
tunnelworth
road.
C
That
castle
I
think
the
issue
that
Windows
would
sort
of
fall
into
two
categories
there
from
what
you
described.
I
think
it
would
either
be
that
the
concern
is
that
the
fact
that
the
windows
are
there
and
therefore
the
light
that
will
be
created,
Etc,
would
I
suppose
make
the
building
more
domestic
in
its
appearance,
Beyond
its
kind
of
existing
rural
character,
which
would
be
a
conservation
area
of
impact.
So
that
would
be
one
issue
and
then
the
separate
issue
would
be
if
there
was
a
consideration
of
loss
of
amenity.
N
Well,
one
is
a
consequence
of
the
other.
One
affects
the
area
and
the
other
affects
the
people,
if
you
like
of
the
area,
so
both
really
yeah.
R
That's
a
result
of
that
over
and
above
the
use
of
the
plot
could
be
designed
out
is
what
you're
saying
and
then
the
third
is
again
going
back
to
the
illumination
and
the
windows
has
a
negative
impact
on
the
character
and
appearance,
doesn't
preserve
or
enhance
the
character
and
appearance
of
the
conservation
area.
Because
again
it's
increasing
the
domestification
and
the
impact
of
the
domestification
over
that
which
can
be
accommodated
to
put
a
dwelling
on
there.
That
sort
of
thing
yeah,
yeah.
A
R
This
is
a
back
paper:
it's
not
seeking
planning
permission.
It's
seeking
to
remove
a
section
52,
which
was
the
precursor
to
section
106,
says
from
a
site
that
linked
to
new
dwelling,
that
was
I,
say
new,
it's
very
old
dwelling
now,
but
linked
the
building
of
a
new
dwelling
in
the
past
to
a
commercial
activity.
If
you
look
at
the
plan
on
the
update
paper,
the
red
is,
is
the
residential
cartilage,
the
blue
is
the
activity,
the
commercial
Builders
yard
and
the
green
is
the
shared
area
between
the
two.
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
It's
just
a
as
you
know,
bringing
the
course
the
appeals
report
back
now
we
did
one
in
December.
This
is
the
latest
update
and
and
covers
appears
period
is
set
out
in
the
report.
C
Appendix
a
sorry
go
back
one
page
page,
three,
five:
three:
if
the
agenda
sets
out
the
period
that
we're
covering,
which
is
from
November
to
end
of
January
23.,
it
sets
out
that
there
was
a
single
cost
settlement
in
relation
to
the
technical
details,
consent
at
the
cliff
surgery,
and
that
was
in
relation
to
the
specific
point
around
highways
impact
so
effectively
there.
C
Although
the
decision
was
to
dismiss
the
appeal
because
of
the
outstanding
position
in
relation
to
the
legal
agreement
which
is
covered
then
later
in
the
in
the
assessment,
the
inspector
nevertheless
awarded
costs
against
the
council
for
not
being
able
to
provide
evidence
to
support
the
reason
for
refusal
on
highways,
in
particular
noting
that
Hampshire
County
Council
didn't
have
any
objection
to
the
application.
So
it's
just
I
suppose
a
reminder
that
is
the
potentially
likely
outcome
in
those
scenarios.
Should
that
be
be
relevant
in
the
future.
C
Appendix
a
then
sets
out
the
main
or
the
most
relevant
decisions
that
is
in
relation
to
the
scheme
at
Redlands
for
57
dwellings,
a
scheme
at
Knightsbridge,
Drive,
Newby
road,
which
was
a
delegated
decision
in
relation
to
Gypsy
and
traveler's
sites,
which
was
allowed
the
decision
for
Oak
down
Farm,
which,
as
members
will
be
aware,
was
dismissed
and
in
equally
the
decision
for
26
units
at
land,
west
of
Andover,
Road
and
high
clear
again
that
was
dismissed.
So
it's
setting
out
those
in
particular
detail.
C
C
Paragraph
1.6
sets
out
that
in
the
year
of
first
of
April,
through
to
31st
of
January,
today,
10
out
of
the
38
appeals
had
been
allowed.
So
that's
so
below
our
requirement
in
terms
of
internal
Council
performance
requirements,
but
just
remind
members
of
the
government
requirements
for
quality
of
decision
making.
Whereas
you
know
there's
an
issue
in
relation
to
Major
applications
from
the
previous
monitoring
period,
which
is
now
concluded,
and
when
we
bring
this
report
forward
in
future,
we
will
be
updating
it
in
terms
of
those
terms.
C
Just
so,
you've
got
absolute
clarity
as
to
where
we
are
in
terms
of
the
government
requirements
for
non
for
Quality
decisions,
so
that
is
the
number
of
appeals
allowed
against
the
total
number
of
major
applications
considered
so
we'll
change
that
so
that
you've
got
Clarity
on
that
going
forward.
Thank.
A
A
You
can
divide
them
into
planning
applications
that
will
refuse
to
buy
officers
and
90
of
those
get
refused
at
appeal
and
then
you've
got
the
ones
where
the
officers
have
recommended
refusal
and
we've
over
sorry
recommended
approval
and
we've
overturned
it
to
a
refusal
and
we
lose
90
percent
of
them
I'll.
Let
you
make
what
you've
like
what
you
wanted
that,
but
it
just
there's
a
bit
of
thinking
about.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Everybody
thank
you
to
the
officers
and
good
night.