►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
The
development
control
committee
is
a
regulatory
committee
and
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
would
invite
speakers
to
contribute
to
the
meeting
in
the
order
set
out
in
the
update
paper.
A
A
A
A
B
Yeah
item
seven
I'm
on
tabletown
council
and
the
wrecking
leisure.
So
I
won't
be
sitting
in
on
that.
One.
A
C
Thank
you
chairman.
The
first
item
before
you
this
evening
is
for
land
between
the
a339
and
faulkner
road
kings,
clear.
The
proposal
seeks
full
planning
permission
for
the
erection
of
a
50-bed
care
home,
which
is
in
use
class
c2,
along
with
associated
infrastructure,
such
as
the
parking
access
landscaping
and
other
works.
C
If
I
take
members
attention
to
the
update
paper,
this
site
was
subject
to
the
viewing
last
friday,
and
members
can
read
the
aspects
of
the
viewing
within
the
paper.
The
application
is
recommended
for
approval,
subject
to
the
completion
of
a
legal
agreement
and
conditions
are
set
out
within
the
agenda
before
you.
Thank
you.
A
D
Our
neighborhood
plan
took
five
years
to
produce,
was
passed
by
eighty
percent
of
those
voting
at
a
cost
of
about
twenty
thousand
pounds
to
a
public
purse.
The
borough
clearly
supported
this
process.
With
this
statement,
the
borough
council
strongly
supports
the
principle
of
neighborhood
planning.
Neighborhood
planning
offers
local
communities
the
opportunity
to
come
together
and
agree
on
joint
aspirations
for
their
area
and
consequently,
guide
future.
D
Kingsview
parish
council
believe
that
there
is
no
justifiable
reason
to
overturn
the
existing
approved
planning
permission
granted
by
the
local
planning
authority
for
housing
on
this
site.
It
is
a
designated
site
within
the
king's,
clear
neighborhood
plan
selected
to
house
local
people
and
meet
the
housing
target
set
by
the
borough
council.
D
D
Support
for
the
care
home
takes
the
policy
k-3
of
our
neighborhood
plan.
Out
of
context,
our
policy
expresses
a
desire
for
elderly
people
to
live
independently
in
sustainable,
suitably
designed
homes.
During
the
neighborhood
plan,
consultation
no
desire
was
ever
expressed
for
a
palliative
care
home
facility.
D
D
The
applicant
has
not
actively
engaged
with
the
community,
as
claimed
contrasting
with
a
very
wide-ranging
consultation
during
the
neighborhood
planning
process.
There's
been
no
public
meeting
or
display
of
proposals
rather
a
website,
a
leaflet
drop
selective
door,
stepping
exercise,
in
short,
a
one-way
dissemination
of
views.
D
D
If
approved.
The
message
to
all
parish
and
town
councils
is
that
the
borough
is
prepared
to
overturn
any
policy
in
a
made
neighborhood
plan
without
consultation
without
consulting
the
qualifying
bodies,
parish
and
town
councils,
expect
the
borough
to
up
uphold
this
commitment
to
neighborhood
planning
and
to
be
awaiting
the.
I
will
be
awaiting
this
decision
with
interest.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you
chair.
It's
really
just
a
a
question
of
clarification
about
the
the
car
parking
and
also
the
space.
Can
you
elucidate
how
how
small
the
car
parking
is
in
your
opinion,
thank
you.
D
D
Concern
is
that
there
will
be
over
spill
off
the
site
into
neighboring
streets,
and
I
notice
that
the
officer
in
charge
dismisses
concerns
about
parking
by
saying
other
homes
in
hampshire
have
been
granted
permission
with
this
sort
of
parking
facility.
I
think
you
need
to
take
note
of
the
context
of
where
this
care
home
is.
There
is
no
parking
nearby
except
in
a
residential
street,
and
if
you
were
to
see
that
residential
street
in
the
evenings
or
weekends,
quite
frankly,
it
is
not
doable.
B
That
you're
going
to
sorry,
I
was
going
to
ask
the
same
question
about
parking.
Yes,
what
a
different
question
in
your
neighbourhood
plan
was
the
he
said
that
there
wasn't
much
need
for
the
elderly
care
for
care
homes.
Was
there
any
need
that
come
up
as
a
more?
What
was
what
did
come
up
in
the
plan
for.
D
The
elderly,
what
did
come
up
was
a
suggestion.
There
should
be
smaller
units,
smaller
purpose-built
homes,
wide
doors.
You
know
all
of
the
facilities
that
you
would
expect
for
older
people
so
that
they
could
remain
in
their
homes.
There
was
not
a
call
for
a
care
home.
We
have
other
facilities
in
the
village
anyway,
and
I
believe
that
the
applicants
in
quoting
our
policy
on
housing
for
the
elderly
have
actually
misquoted
it.
If
you
actually
read
our
neighborhood
plan,
there
is
nothing
about
palliative
care
homes
and
it
was
never
ever
mentioned.
D
I
chaired
major
meetings
in
the
village
about
this,
and
this
never
ever
came
up.
People
said
they
wanted
to
downsize,
so
smaller
units
of
housing
were
what
they
were
looking
for,
which
is
what
we
are
looking
for
on
this
site,
we're
looking
for
smaller
types
of
houses,
you
know
with
the
usual
affordable.
F
Thank
you
chair
good
evening,
mr
sawyer,
a
couple
of
questions.
I've
got
for
you,
the
bus
service.
Could
you
explain
the
service
that
you
have
and
and
does
it
go.
D
A
service
that
goes
from
basingstoke
to
newbury
and
back
it's
called
the
link.
It
runs
once
an
hour
between
seven
in
the
morning
and
seven
at
night.
Six
days
a
week,
any
other
buses
which
are
mentioned
are
buses
that
have
been
put
on
for
school
and
college
students.
Now,
whether
members
of
the
public
can
jump
onto
those
or
not,
I
don't
know,
but
of
course
they
only
operate
twice
a
day
during
term
time.
F
Thank
you,
the
other
question
this
particular
site,
and
it
says
it's
proximity,
600
meters,
I
think
to
the
local
facilities.
Can
you
comment
on
the
quality
of
the
footways
and
the
access
from
the
site
into
town
for
potentially
elderly
residents?
Okay,.
D
The
pavement
is
the
the
applicants
have
said
that
the
pavement
will
be
extended,
the
last
50
meters
or
so
to
get
to
the
gate
of
the
home.
They
would
then
need
to
walk
on
a
street
side
pavement
into
the
middle
of
the
village.
It
is
a
considerable
walk
which
would
be
on
the
way
home
uphill.
D
G
Thank
you
chair,
mr
sorry,
would
you
agree
with
me
that
the
neighborhood
plan
is
clear
of
your
policy
and
speak
up?
Would
you
agree
with
me
that
your
neighborhood
plan
policy
is
absolutely
clear
and
the
application
that
was
permitted
for
the
outline
for
the
13
houses
was
approved,
based
upon
obviously
chiming,
with
your
condition,
your
policy?
However,
you
have
no
policy
on
elderly
care.
You
have
no
policy
at
all,
as
I
understand
it
in
your
neighborhood
plan
on
that
as
you've.
Just
admitted
yourself.
G
On
the
basis
of
that,
we
have
to
just
the
application
within
the
red
line
in
front
of
us,
so
we
don't
judge
the
13
homes.
That's
passed,
that's
done
that
outline
permission
stands.
The
application
in
front
of
us
is
just
purely
on
the
basis
of
whether
we
approve
the
principle
of
a
care
home
on
the
site
and
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
the
arguments
in
favor
of
that,
would
you
agree
with
me
in
my
statement.
You
have
an
outline
application
for
13
units.
D
D
Yes,
basically,
as
I
said
in
my
presentation,
that
policy
is
about
allowing
or
having
smaller
properties
that
are
purpose-built
for
elderly
people
having
properties
which
older
people
who
live
in
larger
houses
in
the
village
can
downsize
to.
There
are
many
villagers
and
we
came
across
them
in
our
consultation
for
the
neighborhood
plan.
D
There
are
many
villages
villagers
who
expressed
the
desire
to
remain
in
the
village
which
they'd
lived
in
for
20
30
50
60
80
years,
but
that
they
wanted
to
move
to
a
smaller
property,
and
this
was
particularly
in
the
case
when
what
was
called
the
bedroom
tax
came
in,
and
people
were
very
keen
to
move
from
their
family
homes
in
into
something
smaller.
G
And
a
second
question
sheriff,
I
can't
just
to
finish
so.
Would
you
agree,
then,
on
page
55
of
our
report,
we
are
told
that
our
evidence
at
the
council
is
that
there
is
a
clear
need
for
older
persons.
Accommodation
in
the
borough
and
you've
clearly
identified
it
in
your
policy
in
a
particular
way,
but
you
would
agree
with
that.
Wouldn't
you
that
there
is
actually
need
for
older
persons,
accommodation
in
our
borough.
E
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
my
final
question.
Council
sawyer.
I
just
want
to
talk
about
or
or
explore.
Okay,
your
understanding
of
the
local
need,
okay
around
king's
clear
for
for
this
sort
of
care
home.
E
Is
it
right
that
there
is
another
care
home
on
the
other
side
of
the
village
which
has
space?
And
how
do
you
see
the
requirement
or
or
the
need
for
elderly
accommodation
in
kings
creek?
Please.
D
A
A
H
H
H
The
care
home
operates
on
a
shift
pattern,
usually
three
eight
hour
rotations
starting
at
6
a.m,
2
p.m
and
10
p.m,
so
that,
unlike
a
traditional
residential
development,
they
do
not
conflict
with
peak
morning
and
evening
traffic
movements.
Many
of
those
employed
will
be
local
I'll
now
hand
over
to
hannah
pierce.
Sorry,
the
planning
consultant
to
detail
further.
I
I
The
care
home
would
provide
the
equivalent
of
28
new
houses,
including
by
freeing
up
family
housing
locally,
which
would
boost
the
council's
housing
supply.
This
is
more
than
double
that
provided
by
the
extant
commission
and
more
than
half
of
the
50
unit
target,
currently
for
kings,
clear
in
line
with
the
well-publicized
rise
in
the
aging
population.
Nationally,
our
assessment
has
shown
a
shortfall
of
care
provision
locally,
with
a
current
under
supply
of
115
beds
within
the
catchment
and
that
increases
to
269
by
2031..
I
There
is
no
care
home
serving
king's
king's.
Clear
excuse
me
currently,
and
there
are
none
other
than
this
one
planned.
The
proposal
offers
a
number
of
other
significant
benefits,
including
employment
opportunities,
contributing
to
the
local
economy
and
savings
for
the
taxpayer,
including
reducing
bed
blocking
and
reliance
on
hospital
services.
I
The
building
is
cited
so
that
the
three
mature
trees
at
the
front
of
the
site
are
retained
and
provisions
are
made
to
enhance
biodiversity,
including
through
a
management
plan
for
the
established
woodland
at
the
back
of
the
site.
The
trees
along
the
boundary
with
the
a339
are
retained
to
provide
screening
and
the
care
home
is
provided
with
landscaped
amenity,
gardens,
providing
mitigation
against
any
potential
impact
on
the
local
landscape.
I
I
I
She
had
registered
to
speak
this
evening,
but
was
unfortunately
unable
to
attend,
but
she
did
ask
that
I
reference
her
own
experience
where
she
has
struggled
to
find
care
suitably
her
suitable
care
locally
for
elderly
relatives
and
considers
that
this
care
home
would
be
better
than
housing
the
site
allowing
locals
to
remain
living
in
kings,
clear
close
to
support
networks
when
their
care
needs
increased.
That
view
is
shared
by
others
in
faulkner
road,
arguably
those
most
directly
effective
many
affected,
many
of
whom
have
written
to
you.
I
We
commend
this
application
to
you
for
approval,
in
line
with
officer
recommendation
where
there
are
no
outstanding
objections
from
statutory
consulties
and
all
technical
considerations
are
deemed
acceptable
and
the
care
home
meets
an
identified
local
need,
whilst
also
contributing
to
housing
numbers
locally.
There
is
significant
local
support
for
this
proposal.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
J
You
yeah
a
question
on
on
the
noise
mitigation.
I
use
this
road
every
time
I
come
to
basingstoke
and
it's
probably
one
of
the
most
busiest
junctions
in
the
borough
because
of
the
older
marston
crossroad
and
the
the
road
track.
Average
speed
is
50
miles
an
hour.
That's
a
maximum,
but
I'd
suggest
is
the
average.
So
if
you've
got
a
palliative
care
home,
you
obviously
want
some
quite
gentle
environment.
How
do
you
think
this
will
fit
in
with
that.
I
So
obviously,
the
when
the
care
home
the
cam
is
designed.
With
that
in
mind,
we
submitted
a
noise
impact
assessment
with
the
proposals
and
the
building
fabric
itself
is
the
first
step,
I
suppose,
in
any
noise
mitigation
that's
required.
There
always
is
also
a
proposed
condition
from
your
officers
in
relation
to
noise
levels,
which
clearly
would
need
to
be
complied
with
as
part
of
any
pre-commencement
conditions.
E
Thank
you.
Chad,
welcome
tonight,
okay,
it's
nice
to
just
to
see
the
applicants.
Okay,
because
having
been
around
kingsgate,
I
haven't
seen
the
applicants
before.
I
just
want
to
talk
about
the
shift
pattern
that
you
mentioned.
So
you
mentioned
that
there
are
three
shifts.
Could
you
please
explain
a
little
bit
more
about
the
shifts?
Okay,
the
timings?
E
Okay,
how
many
people
are
going
to
be
on
each
shift
and
how
the
the
18
car
parking
spaces
will
cope
at
shift
change
over
time,
because
I'm
very
very
concerned:
okay,
that
faulkner
road
and
coppice
road
opposite
are
not
impacted
by
any
okay
staff.
Changes
to
the
car
coming
into
the
car
park
and
also
for
visitors.
H
Thank
you
yeah.
So
I
guess
that's
that's
a
sort
of
general
pattern,
so
we
we
develop
for
various
operators.
So
we
are
not
the
operator
of
the
care
home,
so
we
develop
for
various
operators,
orders
and
john
k.
Uk
anchor
and
people
like
that,
so
they
will
have
their
own
bespoke
strategy,
but
I
suppose
a
rule
of
thumb.
They
tend
to
split
into
those
kind
of
three
shift
patterns
that
I
sort
of
outlined
in
terms
of
the
6
am
2
pm
and
10
p.m.
H
It
would
be
less
than
that
split
between
those
shifts,
there'll
be
less
overnight
and
more
during
the
day,
and
then
they
clearly
would
not
have
a
position
where
everybody
vacates
the
home
at
the
same
point,
because
there
needs
to
be
a
continuous
staff
presence
on
site
to
keep
the
residents
safe
and
secure.
So
I
don't
have
the
exact
numbers
because
we're
not
the
operator
being
honest,
but
that
is
generally
how
it
kind
of
works
in
terms
of
the
shift
pattern.
E
Thank
you,
chad,
I'll,
take
my
second
question.
If
I
may
again,
just
returning
to
the
subject
of
car
parking,
okay,
so
you're
saying
that
there
are
18
full
and
part-time
vacancies.
Okay,
our
job
opportunities
here,
okay,
split
across
the
three
shifts:
okay,
the
fact
that
you've
actually
developed
50,
okay
care
homes.
You
know
you
said
yourself:
okay,
you
must
have
more
idea
than
just
say
we're,
not
the
operator.
Okay.
Regarding
this,
I
want
to
know.
E
E
Okay,
there
is
a
lot
of
on-road
parking,
okay
and
it's
very
difficult
to
negotiate
and
also
you
know,
there'll
be
no
spillover
onto
coppers
hill,
which
again
is
you
know,
normally
got
on
street
parking
and
and
very
difficult
to
negotiate.
I
So
as
part
of
the
proposals,
our
transport
consultants
carried
out,
they
carry
out
capacity
figures
for
the
car
parking
and
they
are
assured,
and
the
highways
team
are
assured
that
the
level
of
parking
for
a
50
bed
care
home
is
acceptable
in
terms
of
drop
in
terms
of
kind
of
ambulances,
etc.
There's
a
separate
ambulance
bay,
so
the
18
spaces
is
for
car
parking,
and
that
includes
two
disabled
parking
spaces
again
in
accordance
with
standards
and
then
there's
a
separate
drop-off
bay
to
be
used
for
those
other
vehicles.
As
you
suggest.
I
Obviously,
some
people
will
be
walking
to
the
site
in
terms
of
those
who
are
employed
and
those
who
are
visiting
and
as
as
sam
said,
the
the
numbers
that
are
arrived
at
in
terms
of
the
parking
spaces
are
based
on
the
one
space
per
three
bed
prescribed
standards,
but
also
experienced
nationally,
where
all
50
residents
won't
have
a
visitor
at
any
one
time,
not
all.
I
At
the
same
time,
I
should
say
so
we're
happy
that,
where
we've
got
to
on
the
parking
levels-
and
that
is,
as
I
say
in
line
with
with
how
others
operate
and
as
I
say,
your
highways
team
have
confirmed
that
they
are
accepting
of
the
level
of
parking.
B
Just
a
question
on
whether
your
residents
will
be
using
the
gp
service
locally
and
also
do
you
link
in
with
the
social
care?
Will
you
be
getting?
Is
it
all
private
residents
or
will
you
take
residents
yeah.
I
So
that's
usually
specific
to
the
to
the
operator
themselves
in
terms
of
exact
levels,
but
there
would
usually
be
a
mix
of
of
both
private
and
social,
social
care
residents,
on-site
and
in
terms
of
the
use
of
the
gp
surgery.
So
where
residents
come
locally,
they
would
obviously
retain
usually
again
would
retain
their
their
current
gp,
where
they're
registered
some
sometimes
with
care
homes.
I
The
there
will
be
a
set
time
each
week
where
the
gp
will
come
on
site
to
visit
residents
at
the
home
and
see
a
number
of
of
those
at
the
same
time,
and
obviously
there
are
links
with
with
the
local
gp
practices
and
hospitals
in
terms
of
the
care
that
is
being
provided
to
residents.
Absolutely
that's
all
linked
linked
up
with
you
know
the
services
within
the
borough,
yeah.
B
And
I
know
you're,
not
the
the
end,
the
the
builders.
Do
you
have
an
idea
of
the
level
of
you
know
how
high
likes?
Generally,
you
go
to
the
cheapest
care
home.
That's
where
most
people
end
up
if
they're,
not
private,
so
do
you
know
where
this
care
home
is
going
to
stand.
H
Yeah
so
yeah
we're
not
the
operator,
but
clearly
what
we're
proposing
here
is
a
high
quality
facility
that
is
the
best
in
class.
You
know
intentionally
delivering
high
quality
accommodation
for
people
to
you
know
benefit.
It
ranges
based
on
the
operator
in
terms
of
you
know
how
they
operate.
H
As
hannah
said,
we
work
with
a
lot
of
not-for-profit
organizations
like
orders
and
john
green,
sleeves
trust
and
people
like
that
who
have
a
split
of
private
and
publicly
funded
beds,
so
the
publicly
funded
fees
will
be
set
by
the
the
locality
in
terms
of
the
other
yeah,
the
private
fees
they
will
be
dictated
by
the
the
private
pay
market.
F
Thank
you,
jim
good
evening,
going
back
a
little
bit
to
effectively
site
access
vehicle
movements.
I
wonder
whether
we
could
put
up
the
block
plan
please
so
again
on
on
this
site.
You
said:
well,
we
read,
you've
got
room
for
a
refuge
vehicle
to
maneuver,
you've
got
room
for
a
separate
ambulance
bay
and
obviously
you've
got
the
parking
to
the
front
deliveries
and
how
will
you
manage
or
how?
How
will
you
accommodate
deliveries
that
will
potentially
come
at
the
same
time?
F
You
know
they're
not
controlled,
of
your
food
and
provisions
and
care
materials
that
come
in
relatively
large
vehicles,
but
not
articulated.
I
can
understand
that
one.
So
if
you
could
just
sort
of
explain
on
your
site
how
it
would
accommodate,
if
you
like,
a
yard
or
a
service
bay
or
something
thank
you.
I
So
there
is
a
delivery
bay
to
the
south
of
the
building
as
you're.
Looking
at
the
plan
where
the
access
road
goes,
the
spur
off
into
the
up
towards
the
care
home.
So
that's
that's
the
servicing
and
delivery
bay,
and
those
would
be-
I
don't
know
if
it's
on
there.
I
Those
would
absolutely
be
controlled
at
certain
agreed
times
of
the
day
with
the
they're,
not
ad
hoc
deliveries.
They
come
at
set
times
with
the
and
that
would
obviously
be
agreed
with
the
operator
and
those
are
in
line
with
kind
of
sociable.
I
If
that's
the
right
word
hours,
they
wouldn't
be
coming
at
all
hours
of
the
night
and
day
and
those
as
I
say,
those
would
be
times
specifically
so
that
the
members
of
staff
and
the
management
of
the
the
management
team
at
the
care
home
know
when
they're
coming
and
to
to
allow
for
that.
But
there
is
a
specific
reversing
bay
and
that
would
be
for
servicing
deliveries
and
refuse
collection,
which
is
dealt
with
through
a
private
private
operator.
F
Just
building
on
that,
then,
are
you
suggesting
the
vehicles
have
to
enter
the
site
backwards,
or
I
can't
sort
of
see
if
they
could
turn
around
to
go
in
forwards
and
turn
around
service
and
then
come
out
forwards.
It
just
seems
very
tight.
K
I
So,
as
I
think,
as
we
sort
of
mentioned,
the
the
residents
coming
to
the
care
home,
a
lot
of
them
will
already
be
registered
with
gps
locally
because
they
will
be
coming
from
the
local
area.
So
there's
not
there's
not
a
vast
influx
of
new
new
requirements.
I
If
that's
the
right
word
for
registering
with
the
local
gp
practices
but,
as
I
say,
the
care
home
would
work
in
partnership
in
conjunction
with
those
local
gp
surgeries,
to
make
sure
that
the
care
afforded
to
the
residents
is
the
right
level,
but
the
idea
with
the
care
home
with
it
being
it's.
It
is
end-of-life
care
and
it's
for
when
people's
care
needs
increase
to
a
level
where
the
vast
majority
of
their
care
will
be
dealt
with
within
the
site
and
on
site
by
the
the
nurses
and
the
staff
obviously
employed.
K
That
makes
the
assumption
that
the
people
who
are
going
to
be
in
the
innovations
here
are
all
local
people.
Doesn't
it.
F
Our
baron
you've
seen
in
the
the
not
the
conditions
the
informatives,
has
a
climate
emergency,
so
you've
got
a
50
bed
house.
Are
you
going
to
be
aiming
for
carbon
neutrality
and
going
above
and
beyond.
H
Yeah,
so
we
aimed
to
hit
a
higher
level,
we
removed
all
gas
boilers
and
things
like
that
in
our
care
homes
that
we
deliver,
even
though
it's
not
quite
there
yet
for
4k
homes.
Residential
is
obviously
earmarked
for
those
changes,
we've
gone
above
and
beyond,
and
you
have
implemented
that
as
a
matter
of
course.
Obviously
the
facility,
the
facilities
and
the
specification
of
the
home
is
it's
all
brand
new,
so
it
is
certainly
you
know
at
a
high
level.
H
M
Yeah,
we're
taught
that
other
homes
in
hampshire
have
been
granted
permission
with
this
level
of
parking.
Do
we
know
if
it's
been
an
issue
in
the
neighborhoods
of
those
homes
after
they
were
built.
C
I'm
afraid
I
don't
have
any
specific
information
regarding
the
operation
of
any
other
such
homes.
That's
not
the
information
I
have
before
me.
I
mean
I
would
highlight
that
it
is
typical
to
have
a
lower
parking
provision
within
such
facilities,
whether
they
are
care
homes
or
any
form
of
that
sort
of
residential
sort
of
institution,
and
our
parking
spd
does
allow
for
parking
to
be
determined
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
J
J
They
all
consider
the
needs
of
the
elderly,
but
none
of
them
have
got
palliative
care
facilities
in
them.
So
how
do
we
as
a
borough,
normally
expect
palliative
care
facilities
to
be
built
or
come
forward,
or
is
it
just
windfall
development.
C
B
To
go
back
to
the
kings
parish,
council
speaker,
they
were
concerned
that
they
weren't
consulted
when
this
application
came
about
and
it
was
departing
from
the
neighborhood
plan.
And
can
you
explain
why
they
weren't
why
the
planning
team
didn't
contact
them.
C
So
I
mean
firstly
in
terms
of
when
the
planning
application
came
in,
we
would
have
done
our
own
statutory
consultation
in
any
event,
which
includes
consultation
to
the
parish
council
prior
to
an
application
coming
in
then,
of
course,
any
local
community
consultation
with
the
parish
or
local
residents
is
in
the
gift
of
the
applicant
or
the
their
agent.
So
it's
not
a
statutory
requirement,
but
I
understand
from
the
information
that
I
have
that
there
has
been
a
level
of
public
consultation.
C
Obviously
it
may
not
have
been
quite
to
the
detail
that
maybe
they
would
have
otherwise
wanted,
but
of
course
there
has
been
public
consultation
adapted
over
the
last
few
years
to
accommodate
the
the
kobe
pandemic.
So
there
has
been
public
consultation,
but
again
the
detail
of
that,
and
I
don't
have.
B
Just
following
up
did
seem
like
we
had
two
different
versions:
parish
council
saying
that
they
hadn't
really
been
consulted
by
the
care
home,
and
then
the
care
homes
spoke
and
said
that
they
had
consulted,
say
I
don't
know
how
we
can
clear
that
up
whether
I've
missed
something
but.
E
Thank
you
chair
question
to
officers,
as
I
can
answer
about
waiting,
please,
okay,
and
how
much
weight
should
we
put
to
the
king's
clear,
neighborhood
plan
in
the
fact
that,
while
this
site
is
up
for
development,
they
specifically
wanted
okay,
small
homes
for
elderly
care?
How
much
weight
should
we
give
to
that?
Okay
in
the
current
circumstances?
C
C
Obviously
the
type
of
housing
that's
coming
forward
is
different
to
what
has
been
envisaged
within
the
neighborhood
plan
and,
of
course,
different
to
that
which
has
already
been
granted
outline
planning
permission
and,
of
course,
that
outline
planning
permission
is
still
extant
in
terms
of
the
way
again,
it's
a
matter
for
members
on
how
we
actually
consider
this
going
forward,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
need
to
afford
weight
to
the
provision
of
housing.
We
have
that
issue.
We
have
a
requirement
to
deliver
housing.
F
Chad
just
going
back
to
parking,
I'm
afraid,
so
I'm
hearing
that
we
have
taken
the
how
the
parking
space
numbers
on
a
reasoned
argument
from
the
developer
that
that's
what
they
provided
in
the
past
at
other
sites.
F
There
are
going
to
be
probably
hairdressers
all
these
sort
of
facilities
that
come
in
and
there
are
50
people
in
there
who
no
doubt
will
have
visitors
and
those
people
will
probably
want
to
visit
their
loved
ones
as
much
as
they
can
or
well.
I
would
hope
they
would
so.
The
point
is:
how
did
we
assess
that
18
parking
spaces
is
enough,
given
we've
got
potentially
50
visitors
at
any
one
time,
we've
got
18
people
on
site,
we've
got
shift
changes
and
we've
got
visiting
professionals.
F
N
Thank
you,
council
tommy.
I
think
it's
really
in
a
sense
of
I
mean
I
think
we
could
probably
have
a
debate
all
evening
in
terms
of
what
we
anticipate
would
be
a
potential
scenario
around
who
is
likely
to
turn
up.
I
think
the
key
thing
is
bringing
it
back
to
the
planning
decision,
which
is
against
obviously
the
council's
adopted
policies
and
what
the
parking
supplementary
planning
document
requires.
N
So
that
is
our
adopted
position
on
these
types
of
care
facilities
as
to
how
that,
if
you
like
method
of
calculation
of
parking
should
go,
what
has
been
submitted
with
the
planning
application
is
a
transport
assessment
which
compares
different
sites
in
the
in
the
in
the
southeast
area.
I
understand
that
that's
gone
through
that
process.
That's
been
reviewed
by
hampshire
highways,
who
have
determined
that
there's
no
objection
to
that
level.
N
Now,
beyond
that,
we
can't
provide
any
more
detail
as
to
specifically
what
is
likely
to
happen
on
a
specific
point
in
time,
but
I
think
the
point
the
applicant
was
seeking
to
make
was
that
it
isn't
likely
that
you're
going
to
have
50
visitors
all
at
one
time
and
all
18
employees
all
at
the
site.
At
the
same
time,
there
will
be
turnover-
and
I
guess
the
key
point
is
the
reason
why
the
sbd
works
in
this
way
is
that
site
by
site
there
will
be
different
experiences
and
it's
a
better.
N
It's
a
better
knowledge
base
if
you
like
to
have
actually
compared
it
to
real
examples,
as
opposed
to
having
an
arbitrary
standard,
given
that
there
are
different
variables
compared
to
standard
residential
units
where
you've
got
a
simple
bedrooms,
number
of
bedrooms,
equal
certain
number
of
spaces.
E
Thank
you
very
much
chad.
This
is
my
final
question
on
on
this
particular
okay
application.
I
have
to
have
to
say
mike,
I
disagree
with
you
as
christmas
and
easter
and
the
bank
holidays.
I
think
there
will
be
a
lot
of
visitors.
However,
what
I'd
like
to
know?
Okay,
is
what
is
the
distance
from
the
the
339
okay
to
the
first
part
of
the
display?
E
Okay
for
the
junction
and
bearing
in
mind
the
fact
there
was
a
very
serious
accident
there
just
this
last
week,
okay
at
that
junction,
what
what
do
our
colleagues
from
hampshire
say
that
they're
gonna
do
to
actually
mitigate
it,
and
I
know
they're
not
here
yet
again
to
answer
questions
from
from
councillors.
Thank
you.
N
Council
foss
we're
not
going
to
have
the
specific
distance
if
it's
not
already
set
out
in
the
report.
I
think
the
key
thing
is
that,
when
hampshire
look
at
the
the
application
they
look
at
in
is
totality,
so
the
transport
assessment
will
consider
all
of
those
aspects.
It
will
consider
the
parking
trip,
generation,
access
visibility
and
we
would
have
an
objection
from
hampshire
if
it
was
felt
there
was
a
an
issue
there.
I
take
the
point
about
proximity
in
terms
of
it's.
The
first
turn
off
when
you
come
off.
N
The
339
absolutely
understand
that,
but
they
would
be
looking
at
that
from
a
highway
safety
perspective,
and
in
my
experience
of
hampshire
county
council,
the
objection
will
come
if
there
is
a
highway
safety
concern
that
will
be
at
the
top
of
their
list
if
you
like
in
terms
of
how
they
would
respond
to
a
planning
application.
So
if
there
was
a
concern
there,
they
would
have
certainly
raised
it
in
their
in
their
consultation.
E
Thank
you,
chad.
I
struggle
with
this
application.
Okay,
because
I'm
I'm
torn.
I
understand,
okay,
that
that
it's
it's
on
a
site
which
is
is
recommended
for
housing
in
the
the
kingston
neighborhood
plan,
and
I'm
also
you
know.
I
recognize
the
fact
that
there
are
job
opportunities,
okay,
which
are
being
generated
there,
which
is,
is
fantastic
for
for
a
small
town.
That's
that's
outlying
bain
stoke.
However,
my
concern
is
one
the
level
of
parking.
E
I
don't
think
it's
sufficient,
bearing
in
mind
the
fact
that
we
have
falconer
road
which
is
right
next
to
it.
Okay
and
often,
even
during
the
day.
Okay,
there
are
very
few
passing
places
on
what
is
effectively
due
to
car
parking,
a
single
track,
road,
okay,
going
down
there,
so
I
I'm
struggling
to
understand
where,
where
where
any
extra
parking
will
be
okay,
we
can
see
here
that
there
was
the
there's
a
very
short
distance.
E
Okay
and
there
was
a
very
severe
accident,
okay
on
the
on
the
first
part
of
crossing
the
junction
here,
so
you
know,
and
it's
it
is
the
first
turning
so
I'm
I'm
struggling.
I
I
would
love
to
say
yeah,
let's,
let's
get
it
on:
let's,
let's
build
these
houses,
let's
develop
this
site,
okay,
but
you
know
I'm
really
struggling,
because
I
just
can't
see
okay,
how
the
parking
can
be
sufficient.
E
Okay,
coppice
road
on
the
other
side.
Okay,
is
is
a
fairly
steep
hill.
Okay
and
again,
that's
very
residential,
and
there
are
cars
on
it.
Okay,
all
day,
every
day
people
don't
tend
to
park
on
the
on
their
drives,
because
they're
too
steep
they
tend
to
park
on
the
road
which
are
which
is
less
steep
okay,
so
you
know
that
there's
just
no
available
parking
infrastructure-
okay,
that's
in
and
around
the
site,
as
as
I
know
it.
Okay,
as
as
the
walk
counselor,
the
only
parking
infrastructure
that
is
available.
E
Okay
will
be
up
at
the
field
gate
center,
which
will
be
a
good
20
minute,
walk
away,
okay
on
the
other
side
of
town,
okay,
because
the
the
the
car
park
in
the
town
center
is
just
chock-a-block,
so
I'm
really
struggling
on
this
okay,
I
want
to
approve
it
okay,
I
really
do,
but
I
just
can't
because
of
the
of
the
parking
and
I'm
I
I
haven't
been
reassured
unfortunately
by
the
applicant.
I
appreciate
that
there
are.
E
There
are
18
job
opportunities,
but
there
seems
to
be
18
car
parking
spaces
so
that
they're
saying
that
effectively
there
is
no
room
on
site
for
visitors,
okay,
who
will
come
to
actually
spend
the
final
moments
with
their
with
their
loved
ones,
and
I
just
think
that
there's
just
not
enough
parking
on
there.
Okay,
that's
all
chair.
A
You
councillor
frost,
I've
got
speakers,
I've
got
myself
councillor,
freeman,
councillor
harvey
and
then
councillor
morrow.
A
The
situation
with
the
housing
there
there
is
the
s6
stand
planning,
but
that
operative
has
said
they're
not
going
forward
with
it.
So
we're
not
looking
at.
Do
we
want
houses
or
do
we
want
a
care
home?
The
housing
is
effectively
off
the
table.
What
we're
actually
being
asked
is
this:
this
care
home,
reasonable
in
planning
terms
and
the
biggest
issue
issues
appears
to
be
traffic
and
parking,
and
probably
like
quite
a
lot
of
us
in
here.
A
I've
had
a
relative
early
relative
in
a
care
home
and
strangely
enough
it
was
a
give
or
take
a
50
bedroom
care
home.
I
visited
that
care
home
all
times
of
day
and
evening,
and
I
don't
think
there
were
18
car
parking
spaces
there.
I
never
counted
them.
A
I
never
had
trouble
parking
there,
how
many
people
visit
their
loved
ones
roughly
if
you've
got
50
bedrooms,
you've
got
18
parking
spaces,
that's
a
one
in
three
we
you're
not
there
all
day.
People
are
there
at
different
times
of
day
different
times
of
the
evening
deliveries
come
so
I
never
had
a
problem
parking.
A
So
I
don't
really
see
a
big
issue
with
the
parking
other
than
that
the
distance
from
the
three
three
nine.
I
can't
answer
councillor
frost's
question.
I
haven't
measured
it,
but
it's
it's
enough
in
my
in
my
mind,
having
been
on
the
site,
viewing
it's
sufficient
other
than
that,
it's
directly
next
to
a
built
up
area
is
already
the
principle
of
developing.
That
area
has
already
been
decided
and
it's
quite
low
lying,
so
it
quite
fits
in
those
are
my
thoughts
we'll
see
where
it
goes.
Councillor
freeman.
O
Thank
you
just
to
add
my
personal
experience
that
I've
worked
in
a
lot
of
care
homes
and
unfortunately,
is
the
case
that
most
relatives
just
dump
their
relatives
in
there
and
leave
them
to
it.
You
will
get
your
few
there's
a
core
of
about,
say,
half
a
dozen
people
that
will
visit
every
day,
or
maybe
two
or
three
times
a
week,
but
the
vast
majority
of
those
residents
in
there.
They
don't
see
anyone
from
easter
to
christmas
and
even
on
easter
and
christmas,
some
of
them
will
be
taken
away
to
visit
with
relatives.
O
So
the
parking
won't
be
an
issue,
but
a
lot
of
these
poor
unfortunate
selves
basically
get
chucked
in
there
by
their
relatives
that
don't
want
to
bother
with
them
and
they're
there
until
they
pass
away
it's
unfortunate,
but
honestly,
the
parking
really.
I
think
you
are
vastly
overestimating
how
many
parking
spaces
you
will
need
in
there.
It's
you
know
18
would
certainly
be
I'd,
say
sufficient
for
50
beds
and
with
the
staffing
there's
only
going
to
be
a
maximum
of.
O
If
my
math
is
right,
12
staff
on
site
at
any
time-
and
that's
only
for
the
changeover,
so
you
have
six
people
on
each
shift.
If
it's
18
over
the
space
of
three
shifts,
you've
got
six
people
on
each
shift.
The
maximum
changeover
will
be
12
people,
so
you've
still
got
extra
parking
spaces
there
for
anyone
else.
I
really
don't
think
the
parking
is
going
to
be
an
issue
and
I
think
we
do
need
this
sort
of
palliative
care
home.
There
isn't
one
in
the
vicinity
where
we
need
some
in
the
borough.
G
You
chair
we've
got
to
look
at
the
application,
that's
in
front
of
us,
and
we've
got
to
look
at
it
in
the
context
of
our
actual
policies
and
the
comments
that
we
have
from
our
various
statutory
councils,
whether
we
like
them
or
not-
and
it
is
an
issue
that
hampshire
right
here
this
evening
as
they
aren't
here
every
evening,
and
I
want
to
thank
our
officers
for
doing
their
job
of
actually
trying
to
fill
in
for
hampshire.
In
that
regard,
I
just
think
we've
got
to
be
careful
here.
G
G
G
Therefore,
it
isn't
a
case
of
fulfilling
a
demand.
The
demand
itself
is
going
to
increase.
So
in
that
context
we
actually
have
need
proven
across
the
borough,
and
we
are
sat
here
as
a
borough
planning
committee,
so
we
have
to
respond
to
that
policy.
The
parking
arrangements,
I
think,
are
quite
clear.
There
is
no
policy
ground
on
which
you
could
sustain
an
objection
of
parking
on
the
basis
of
the
transport
study.
That's
been
undertaken
because
there's
no
evidence
to
counter
it.
G
You
did
a
bit,
but
you
should
have
gone
a
lot
further.
I
think
that's
fair!
So
that's
a
criticism.
That's
one!
You're
gonna
have
to
take
on
the
chin
and
if
you
were
approved
this
evening,
I
think
you've
got
a
job
of
work
to
do
with
the
local
parish
and
with
the
residents
to
make
sure
that
you
do
a
much
better
job
post
submission,
and
you
can
do
that.
That's
in
your
gift
to
do
so.
G
Please
take
that
away
as
an
informative
at
the
very
least,
but
again
it's
not
a
reason
for
rejection
and,
finally,
in
terms
of
our
own
policy,
cn4
is
applicable.
We
have
a
policy
for
specialist
housing,
that's
the
hat
on
which
I
would
hang
this,
and
I
personally
would
move
approval
as
the
basis
of
the
office's
recommendation
this
evening.
A
Thank
you
being
moved
for
approval.
Is
there
a
second
councillor,
howard
sorrell,
thank
you
councillor.
Morrow.
Do
you
wish
to
speak.
B
Wait
I've
been
through
this,
and
I've
listened
to
the
speakers
today
and
I
would
not
be.
I
would
move
to
reject.
B
The
there
is
limited
space
in
kings,
clear
they've,
gone
to
the
trouble
of
doing
a
neighborhood
plan
and
we
are
in
danger
of
setting
the
precedence
where
they've
spent
the
time
in
the
middle
would
affect
the
other
site.
There
is
a
landscape
objection
and
personally
looking
at
it,
it
is
a
very
had
housing
on
the
site
from
all
over
the
place
say
you
know
my
my
objection
is
with
is
with
landscape
and
the
balance
between.
B
If
we
go
ahead
with
the
care
home,
we
are
going
against
a
neighborhood
plan.
It
is,
I
don't
see
how
you
can't
take
into
account
the
things
we're
losing,
which
is
the
housing,
and
this
is
small
housing
for
local
people
in
the
village
and
reading
through
and
listening
to
the
comments
and
what
they've
come
to
say
today,
they
haven't
really
defended
those
points.
A
A
P
This
time
chair,
nobody
can
accuse
us
of
not
being
thorough
with
this
application.
For
sure
I
think
it's
fine,
I
think
castlemore
has
summed
up
very
well.
There
are
lots
of
small
things,
but
for
planning
you
need
one
or
two
large,
concrete
reasons
that
you
can
point
to
and
say.
This
is
the
specific
reason
you
can't
just
throw
lots
of
little
things
at
the
wall
and
hope
that
they
cobble
together
application.
F
Yeah,
I
can
understand
basingstoke's
need,
but
I
don't
see
well,
I
see
it
as
rather
large
for
its
site
and
I
agree
with
the
landscape
assessment
and
because
the
building
is
a
little
larger
at
site
now,
if
it
was
a
bit
smaller
on
its
site,
but
that's
we
can't
really
discuss
that,
but
if
it
was
there'd
be
more
parking
actually
is
bad.
Then
you've
got
to
do
something
about
it.
We
can't
do
that
a
clear-cut
decision
and
I
think
it's
the
it's
a
weighted
decision
and
I
think
I'm
on
well
anyway.
E
Thank
you,
I
think
come
councillor.
N
Okay,
just
to
clarify
that,
even
though
that
motions
lost
it,
it
was
just
clarified.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
a
motion
for
refusal.
It
could
be
a
motion
for
deferral,
for
example,
if
there's
an
outstanding
issue
in
relation
to
the
matter
around
parking,
so
I'm
just
making
that
point.
That
is
an
option
open
to
the
committee.
E
Frost,
thank
you.
Chad,
I'd
just
like
to
say
that
I
think
there's
a
motion
actually
democratically
put
to
the
committee.
Okay
and-
and
that
was
that
was
very
specific.
It
didn't
involve
delaying
the
decision.
It
was
a
very
much
to
to
refuse
the
planning
application.
B
So
it's
on
the
main
objection
is
on
landscape.
The
site
is
too
small,
but
there's
also
an
extra
to
it,
which
is,
which
is
a
little
probably
requires
a
bit
of
help,
because
it's
it's
all
to
do
with
the
you
know.
The
you've
got
the
national
policy
framework.
N
Yeah,
I
understand,
there's
one
clear
reason
for
refusal
in
the
motion
in
relation
to
impact
on
landscape
in
relation
to
impacts
on
labour
plan.
What
the
committee
would
have
to
consider
is
as
set
out
in
the
papers
the
weight
to
be
given
to
that
existing
neighbor
plan
policy,
which
is
diminished
because
of
the
five-year
housing
land
supply
position.
N
That's
very
clear
in
the
report,
so
it's
even
taking
that
into
account
and
the
fact
that
housing
policy
has
diminished
weight
that
you
are
still
nevertheless
convinced
that
that
is
a
substantial
reason
for
refusal
in
coming
forward.
So
that
would
be
two
reasons
for
refusal,
one
of
which
is
the
landscape
impact.
B
Just
add
to
that
in
the
fact
that
king's
clear
is
desperate
for
homes
and
has
a
small
amount
of
space
available
to
build
those
homes.
E
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair.
The
only
thing
I
I
would
also
potentially
add.
Okay
should
counter
romero
wish
to
add
it
is
that
I
think
it's
also
contrary
to
section
111
of
the
mppf
okay,
but
I'm
quite
happy
if
councilman
doesn't
want
to
to
go
for
that,
and
I'm
quite
happy
that
it's
em1
okay
and
the
on
the
local
plan.
Thank
you.
N
And
council
tomorrow,
the
standard
practice
in
the
in
the
fact
that
the
section
106
agreement
hasn't
been
included.
That
would
also
be
a
reason
for
refusal
in
most
cases,
so
for
you
to
consider
whether
that
should
also
be
included
so
be
three
reasons
for
refusal.
A
C
Thank
you,
chairman
I'll,
just
reiterate
that
application
has
been
refused
for
three
reasons,
so
the
first
being
the
impact
on
the
landscape,
the
second
being
the
contrary
to
the
neighborhood
plan
due
to
the
different
type
of
housing
proposed
for
the
site
and
the
third
being
the
sexual
absence
of
a
section,
106
agreement.
Thank
you.
C
C
If
I
bring
members
attention
to
the
update
paper,
members
will
note
that
there
is
an
update
to
the
planning
history
for
the
site,
details
of
the
viewing
panel
and
two
additional
informatives
which
relate
to
seal.
The
application
is
recommended
for
approval,
subject
to
conditions
and
sorry
subject
to
conditions
and
informatives.
As
listed
within
your
report.
Many
thanks.
L
L
We
object
to
the
proposed
development
for
the
following
reasons:
one:
it
is
over
development
on
a
backland
site,
which
is
completely
contrary
to
the
rural
character
of
the
common
road
community
and
continues
the
trend
towards
the
urbanization
of
a
small
group
of
wealth,
separated
and
varied
dwellings
in
a
countryside
setting
two.
It
is
contrary
to
the
local
plan
policy,
ss6,
new
housing
outside
of
settlement
policy
boundaries.
It
is
not
appropriate
to
the
site's
context,
it
does
not
meet
any
locally
agreed
need
and
it
is
unsympathetic
to
the
character
of
the
local
landscape.
L
It
is
noted
that
the
case
report
concedes
that
the
proposal
does
not
comply
with
policy
ss6
three.
It
is
contrary
to
the
parish
neighborhood
plan,
which
is
out
for
public
referendum
tomorrow.
It
does
not
preserve
the
rural
character
of
the
parish
and
it
is
not
located
on
a
brownfield
or
infill
site
and
crucially,
it
does
not
comply
with
the
plan's
housing
policy
hd
one
which
is
specifically
predicated
on
the
local
planning
authority's
meaningful
implementation
of
local
plan
policy
ss6.
L
If,
as
is
suggested
in
the
case
report,
the
subject
development
does
not
comply
with
ss6
but
is
approved
anyway.
What
will
the
local
residents
be
voting
for
tomorrow
when
the
key
link
component
of
the
neighbourhood
plans?
Housing
policy
is
not
being
supported
by
the
council
and
four.
It
will
result
in
the
significant
loss
of
privacy
and
immunity
to
the
existing
houses
of
little
hole,
drops
formerly
melvidine
and
rosedine.
L
It
is
proposed
to
construct
a
narrow
vehicle
corridor
running
down
the
full
length,
the
full
length
of
the
side
boundary
to
little
hole,
drops
separated
from
the
develop
dwellings,
front
side
and
rear
gardens
by
just
a
timber
friends.
The
access
then
turns
to
effectively
run
down
the
whole
of
the
rear
garden
boundaries
to
both
properties.
L
Notwithstanding
a
token
area
of
indicative
planting,
it
will
be
impossible
for
the
two
dwellings
to
avoid
the
inevitable
noise
disturbance
and
pollution
together.
The
two
houses
will
be
surrounded
on
all
four
sides
by
vehicle
access
areas
to
suggest
that
this
is
acceptable.
Development
in
a
rural
countryside
setting
is
frankly
baffling
mark.
Q
Q
In
addition,
I'll
refer
you
to
ken
ratakin's
concerns,
and
I
quote,
I
would
like
to
reiterate
my
concerns
about
this
application.
In
that,
should
the
application
be
approved,
it
will
result
in
a
cramped
and
over-over-developed
site,
whilst
opening
up
the
prospect
of
back
garden
development
within
the
parish.
Q
Q
Q
G
Harvey
thank
you.
Obviously,
your
neighborhood
plan
is
going
to
referendum,
but
we
can
give
it
weight
in
terms
of
the
fact
that
it's
drafted
and
we
can
consider
it
at
least
in
those
terms.
Could
you
tell
me
because
you've
referred
to
it?
What
in
your
neighborhood
plan
gives
you
the
sense
that
it's
outside
this
application
sits
outside
it?
You
can
help
me
understand
that
I
would
appreciate
it.
L
There
is
supporting
text
which
basically
says
bdbc
have
confirmed
that
there
will,
however,
be
ongoing
opportunities
for
small
scale
development
in
suitable
locations,
largely
on
infill
plots.
This
is
a
backland
plot,
not
an
infill
plot.
Smaller,
more
affordable
homes
of
one
to
three
bedrooms
are
envisaged.
L
E
Thank
you
chat
just
very.
R
Thanks
chair
good
evening
councillors
as
your
office
was
introduced
and
had
already
been,
we
had
already
actually
been
in
receipt
of
planning
permission
on
this
site.
However,
there
was
obviously
an
error:
an
administrative
arab
account
with
respect
to
the
call-in
from
councilloratican,
and
we
all
of
you
have
had
the
opportunity
necessarily
that
this
is
a
very
sizable
plot
of
land
which
is
very
secluded
and
ideally
suited
sorry
for
two
new
houses.
R
R
Things
look
different
and
I
won't
say
any
more
than
that,
because
it's
not
my
place
to
these
houses
occupy
do
occupy
a
backland
position
but,
as
you
will
have
seen
when
you
went
to
the
site,
much
of
the
actual
older
housing
stock
in
this
locate,
locality
is
backland
and,
as
is
shown
on
that
location
plan,
you
can
see
now
a
lot
of
the
housing
along
the
road
frontage
is
newer.
R
In
this
respect,
therefore,
the
proposal
would
entirely
conform
to
the
established
character
along
this
part
of
common
road,
contrary
to
what
you've
heard
today
in
terms
of
views
from
the
highway
due
to
the
very
nature
of
the
site,
you'll
appreciate
that
these
houses
are
not
particularly
visible
at
all
within
the
street
scene.
Furthermore,
given
the
both
the
retained
boundary
planting
and
the
new
proposed
boundary
planting,
wider
views
of
the
houses
would
be
extremely
limited.
R
We
entirely
support
the
recommendation
of
your
officer
and
concur
that,
given
the
significant
separation
distances
involved,
the
houses
would
not
result
in
any
material
overlooking
nor
loss
of
privacy
for
any
existing
residents
beyond
the
level
that
would
not
normally
be
otherwise
and
typically
anticipated
in
such
a
well-established
residential
area.
As
this
to
this
end,
I
would
reiterate
that
the
presence
of
existing
houses
behind
houses
on
common
road
is
an
original
feature
of
the
character
of
this
part
of
hedley.
R
This
enables
our
houses
to
not
only
avoid
fossil
fuels,
but
also
to
deliver
sustainable
electricity
back
to
the
grid,
the
spacious
nature
of
the
site
and
the
largely
open
aspect,
particularly
to
the
south
and
the
west.
Allow
for
opportunity
conditions
for
us
to
use
pv
and
in
particular
in
particular,
sorry,
and
so,
if
councillors
would
like
to
see
precise
details
of
that,
whilst
we
do
it
as
a
as
a
developer
anyway,
we'd
be
more
than
happy
for
a
suitably
worded
condition
to
be
added.
R
Whilst
I
am
the
agent
for
this
planning
application
and
a
planner
by
profession,
I
am
also
a
local
resident
to
this
area
and
walk
in
the
area
very
very
often,
and
I
strongly
believe
that
delivering
smaller
sustainable
developments
within
existing
residential
areas
of
our
towns
and
villages
such
as
this
is
crucial
to
avoiding
otherwise
the
loss
of
open
countryside
on
large-scale
greenfield
sites,
which
would
obviously
thank
you,
which
would
obviously
drastically
alter
the
appearance
of
the
village
and
lead
to
significant
habitat
loss.
R
This
is
a
brownfield
site
as
you've
seen
from
the
photos,
and
it
is
a
very
sort
of
sensitive
secluded
site
to
deliver
two
smaller
family.
Sorry,
two
well
proportioned
family
homes.
In
in
this
respect,
I
think
the
proposal
will
help
ease
the
pressure
on
the
village
to
deliver
housing
from
countryside
sites,
and
you
will
have
seen
a
number
of
small
windfall
sites
such
as
this,
which
I
think
are
far
more
sensitive,
far
more
sustainable
that
have
appeared
in
and
around
the
village,
rather
than
large
urban
extensions,
which
I
personally
don't
like
to
see.
R
G
Thank
you
chair.
You
have
clearly
failed
policy.
Ss6E,
that's
clear
at
the
paper
it's
clear
of
the
report
and
admittedly
we
have
a
five-year
housing,
land
supply
issue,
and
you
will
argue
no
doubt
that,
of
course
that
supersedes
policy
ss6,
and
we
know
that.
However,
we
have
to
weigh
the
balance
of
all
the
policies
set
against
how
we
would
have
judged
it
in
the
context
in
the
round.
So
we're
doing
that
so
policy
ss60
has
clearly
failed.
G
Did
you
ever
take
accounts
of
the
neighborhood
plan?
You
must
know
about
it,
because
you
brought
your
application
through
what
it's
called
coming
through
for
a
referendum.
So
you
must
know
that
the
neighborhood
plan
is
coming
forward.
Why,
in
the
world,
have
you
brought
an
application
that
clearly,
according
to
the
information
we've
heard
this
evening
from
the
parish
council
sits
so
far
outside
of
their
hopefully
in
their
opinions,
soon
to
be
approved,
neighborhood
plan?
Why
do
it
in
that
regard?.
R
Yes,
as
you're
right
to
point
out,
I
will
certainly
argue
five
year
supply.
There
is
a
desperate
housing
need,
there's
a
desperate
housing
shortage,
in
my
view,
as
a
professional
planner.
That
is
an
overriding
consideration.
It
genuinely
is
there
is
a
housing
need
here,
full
stop
why
you
know
we
can
take
into
account
a
plan
that
is
being
formed,
but
it
is
not
yet
fully
adopted.
R
I
wouldn't
necessarily
say
that
we
are
in
complete
conflict
with
that
plan.
As
you
heard,
it
generally
says
that
scythe
will
be
brought
forward
as
infield,
but
it
doesn't
say
exclusively.
These
sites
should
be
avoided
or
exclusively
background.
Development
should
be
avoided.
R
In
my
view,
if
you
read
through
the
neighborhood
plan,
the
general
thrust
of
that
plan,
which
is
to
deliver
smaller
scale
development
in
the
right
location,
on
a
sensitive
basis
in
that
village,
my
personal
view
is
that
we
are
in
compliant
with
the
general
thrust
of
that
plan
and
where
it
seems
to
deliver
housing.
Fundamentally.
For
me,
it's
a
question
of
delivering
housing
in
a
sustainable
manner
for
the
village,
rather
than
looking
at
greenfield
allocation
sites
around
the
village.
C
So,
in
terms
of
our
local
plan,
members
will
be
familiar
on
how
we
consider
our
policies,
for
example,
policy
ss6,
which
forms
part
of
our
housing
strategy,
which
we
are
reform
addressing
in
less
weight
because
of
our
housing
land
supply.
So
there
we
are,
for
we
are
defaulting
back
to
the
mppf
in
terms
of
the
neighborhood
plan.
C
Of
course
we
are
affording
weight
to
that,
because
we
are
very
close
to
the
referendum
tomorrow.
The
neighborhood
plan
obviously
places
this
site
in
the
countryside
still
and
therefore,
in
the
neighborhood
plan,
we're
defaulting
back
to
policy
ss6,
which
of
course,
is
part
of
the
borough
local
plan,
which
we've
just
referred
to.
B
Tomorrow,
I
noticed
on
the
application
it's
on
the
report.
It's
got
seal
payments
attached.
This
is
greater
than
100
meters.
Squared
do
we
know
the
size
and
roughly
the
sort
of
money
that
would
be
generated.
C
I
can
confirm
that,
yes,
it
is
required
to
pay
sale
because
we're
looking
at
more
than
one
property
here.
I
don't
have
the
figures,
I'm
afraid.
F
Thank
you.
If
we
could
pop
to
the
block
plan,
please
it
says
about
waste
bins.
It's
curbside
collection,
you've
got
to
put
your
recycle
and
your
grape
in
outside.
F
Is
that
a
footpath,
a
foot
way
or
whatever,
and
will
there
be
adequate
room
for
bins
to
be
located
at
the
curbside
without
obstructing
what
would
be
a
footpath?
C
Those
members
will
be
aware
that
the
area
does
operate
the
kerpa
side
collection.
There
is
a
condition
within
your
report
that
refers
to
providing
the
provision
within
the
currently
to
the
property
for
rescues
and
recycling,
storage,
plus
provision
for
collection,
not
more
than
50
metres
carrying
distance
from
the
highway,
which
is
our
standard
approach
to
ensure
there
is
adequate
space
and
provision
for
refuge,
storage
and
collection.
C
P
C
F
Thank
you,
chad,
we
heard
the
applicant
say
he
would
be
willing
to
take
a
condition
to
ensure
the
provision
of
solar
and
heat
pumps
etc.
So
are
we
able
to
do
that,
given
that
he's
volunteered
that.
C
I'm
afraid,
as
we've,
if
we
iterated
previously,
we
don't
actually
have
a
policy
that
we
can
actually
secure
that
against
within
our
current
local
plan.
However,
if
I
refer
members,
I
think
it's
in
the
report
page
111.
There
is
reference
to
the
latest
building
regulations
which,
as
from
june
2022
new
residential
properties,
must
produce
30
less
carbon
dioxide
emissions
than
previous
standards,
so
the
standards
are
already
increasing.
So
there
is
opportunity
there
under
building
regulations,
to
ensure
energy
efficiency
within
a
new
development.
Again,
it's
not
something
we
can
condition
through
our
planning
policies.
J
Yeah
my
thoughts
following
them
following
on
from
what
councilor
harvey
said,
you
know
ss6
settlement
policy,
boundary
neighborhood
plan
and
bearing
in
mind
the
decision
we
took
earlier
and
I'd
also
add
the
size
and
width
of
these
houses
would
seem
to
be
quite
quite
large
and
take
up
the
whole
width
of
the
plot.
A
Okay,
I'm
looking
at
it
and
there
is
a
considerable
amount
of
backland
development
around
that
area
already,
so
it's
not
out
of
keeping
with
the
street
scene.
If
you
want
to
call
it
that,
so
I
will
move
the
officer's
recommendation
for
approval.
Would
anybody
like
to
second
it
councillor
court?
Thank
you
very
much
moved
and
seconded
for
approval.
Those
in
favour.
A
C
M
E
Noted
in
the
minutes
that
I
I
didn't
abstain,
I
I
didn't
vote
because
I
had
to
leave
the
room
I'm
under
treatment
for
prostate
cancer
and
and
had
to
relieve
myself.
So
I
apologize
committee,
okay
and
also
I
apologize
to
my
residents.
Thank
you.
A
S
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
this
is
an
application
at
land,
jason,
tonight's
bridge
lodge
newbie
road
in
hedley.
The
proposal
is
for
the
erection
of
eight
dwellings,
comprising
of
two
three
beds
and
six
two
bed
dwellings
to
be
arranged
in
a
linear
row
across
the
site.
The
dwellings
would
be
constructed
alongside
the
access
parking
and
turning
area
and
associated
gardens.
S
T
Good
evening,
chair
as
you've
just
heard,
this
application
has
seven
reasons
why
the
officer
wants
to
refuse
the
application,
but
most
of
them,
in
my
view,
are
subjective.
T
The
first
reason
claims
that
the
site
is
large
scale
and
we'll
introduce
domestic
paraphernalia
into
the
area
which
would
cause
landscape
harm,
yet
within
a
short
distance
of
the
site,
there
were
already
dwellings
and
large
and
the
large
four
kingdoms
theme
park
further
on
in
the
report.
It
claims
that
there
is
a
fence,
that's
going
to
go
around
the
boundary
line,
which
is
large
and
will
block
views
into
the
site.
Well,
if
this
is
the
case,
you
won't
be
seeing
the
domestic
items
that
are
down
as
the
item
number
one.
T
The
development
is
for
a
mix
of
two
and
three
bedroom
dwellings,
which
are
all
minimal
in
size.
This
is
hardly
a
large
scale.
Development
and
the
application
of
the
applicant
didn't
want
to
go
down
the
road
of
applying
for
large
units
which
we
could
have
done.
Instead,
we
looked
at
the
emerging
neighborhood
plan,
which
does
ask
for
smaller
units,
which
is
precisely
what
is
being
offered
here.
T
The
emerging
neighborhood
plan
also
talks
about
infill
sites,
as
you
were
just
talking
here
and
in
my
eyes
you
know
this
could
could
be
seen
as
an
infill
site
between
the
developments
of
the
south
and
four
kingdoms.
As
a
as
a
as
a
built
form
area.
T
The
conservation
officer
has
stated
in
the
in
the
report
that,
in
the
absence
of
evidence
to
the
contrary,
it
is
considered
that
the
proposal
would
change
the
setting
of
knightsbridge
health
in
a
detrimental
manner,
but
the
external
consultants
that
the
applicants
have
used
state
that
there
is
no
harm
to
the
listed
building
and
the
setting,
which
makes
the
question
as
to.
Why
do
we
have
these
reports
done
if
they're
not
going
to
be
taken
on
board?
T
When
you
were
on
the
those
of
you
that
were
on
the
viewing
panel
on
friday,
you
would
have
seen
that
the
listed
building
is
way
off
in
the
distance
through
some
trees,
and
I
think,
if
you
get
your
binoculars
out,
you
might
just
see
it
so
does.
Does
this
actually
cause
any
harm
to
to
the
setting
of
that
listed
building?
Again
in
my
eyes,
it's
a
subjective
thing.
You
can't
see
it
in
terms
of
you
know
on
on
the
slide
there.
T
Three
of
the
reasons
for
refusal
are
all
based
upon
the
removal
of
trees,
but
you
will
note
that
the
vast
majority
of
the
trees
are
actually
on
the
boundary
lines
to
the
to
the
site
and
they're
all
being
retained.
There
are
three
trees
that
are
going
to
be
within
the
gardens
of
the
dwellings.
The
officers
also
claim
that
there
will
be
pressure
to
trim
these
trees
and
remove
them
in
the
future
as
they
grow,
but
this
could
be
said
that
it's
the
same
for
all
trees.
T
If
they're
not
managed
correctly,
you
will
note
that,
from
the
site
plan
that
we
are
also
proposing
to
maintain
an
area
to
the
northern
end
of
the
site,
which
is
closest
to
the
to
the
watercourse
at
the
bottom,
that
area
is
going
to
be
turned
over
to
a
natural
area
for
biodiversity.
We
will
be
proposing
to
to
actually
plant
seven
new
trees
and
a
a
large
amount
of
new
hedging.
T
This
area
will
then
allow
yeah
the
the
the
wildlife
to
thrive
in
this
area
and
maintain
the
links
to
any
sinks
and
other
important
wildlife
areas
that
are
in
the
other,
surrounding
the
sites.
T
With
regards
to
the
loss
of
wet
grassland,
which
is
part
of
parcel
of
the
biodiversity
objection.
Obviously
the
land
at
the
moment
is
agricultural
land,
so
farmer
decided
they
wanted
to
take
on,
and
this
this
would
be
gone
in
any
event.
The
last
point,
I
think
that
I
want
to
just
talk
about,
is
in
terms
of
the
fencing
that
we've
talked
about
around
the
site.
T
It's
bound
as
another
reason
for
refusal
right
now
is
that
it
would
be
out
of
keeping
with
the
area
that
offensive
needs
to
be
there
from
an
acoustic
point
of
view,
which
is
put
on
board
by
the
environmental
health.
So
it's
it's
kind
of
a
bit
unreasonable
to
in
my
eyes
to
say
that
we
can't
have
the
fence
there,
but
we
need
the
fence
there
to
meet
the
the
sound
levels,
so
the
fence
itself
is
actually
inside
the
inside
the
site
with
vegetation
to
provide
screening.
T
T
Lastly,
obviously,
dare
I
say
it
is
about
the
five-year
land
supply
and
obviously
tilted
balance
in
the
offices
report.
It's
been
only
given
limited
waiting
for
the
development
of
eight
dwellings
which,
in
my
eyes,
should
be
much
higher
than
that
and
the
the
harms
that
have
been
identified,
as
I
said,
but
in
my
eyes
are
subjective
and
therefore
I
believe
that
the
benefits
massively
outweigh
the
harm.
K
Good
evening,
can
you
please
clarify
considerations
of
the
access
of
this
site
onto
a
very
fast
a339?
Thank
you.
T
Yeah,
thank
you.
So,
in
terms
of
the
access,
the
access
has
actually
previously
been
approved
on
a
application
back
in
2018.
T
I
think
it
wasn't
like
did
that
application,
the
the
entrance
was
actually
there
and
when
resurfacing
work
happened
for
some
reason,
hampshire
county
council
went
across
the
front
of
it
and
didn't
put
the
the
access
back
in
and
it
was
kind
of
got
rid
of,
which
is
why
a
previous
owner
asked
me
to
look
at
putting
in
the
new
entrance
and
obviously
having
that
reinstated.
T
When
now
for
this
application,
the
highways
department
obviously
asks
for
the
visibility
displays
and
also
for
slightly
bigger
radiuses,
actually
entering
into
the
site
to
demonstrate
that
the
bin
lorries
and
vehicles
can
get
in
and
out.
They
came
back
with
no
objection
to
you
know
to
the
actual
entrance
on
that
side.
So
I
believe
that
that
would
cover
that
off.
B
Morrow
in
the
report
it
says
that
some
of
the
sites
in
flood
zone
two
and
flood
zone
three
and
then
it
says
only
eighty
percent
and
looking
at
the
the
way.
It
is
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
sort
of
explain
where
that
flood
zone
is
and
it
doesn't
affect
the
development
at
all.
T
Yeah,
so
if
you
on
the
drawing
that's
there
on
the
screen,
if
you
see
where
the
visitors
parking
spaces
are
to
the
north,
there
is
a
dotted
line
that
actually
runs
through.
So
it's
everything
north
of
the
actual
access
road
that
that
that
side
is
the
well
that's
actually
the
line
where
it
splits
between
flood
zone
two
and
three,
but
it's
also
all
the
houses
in
terms
of
their
they're
on
the
south
side
of
the
site
and
it's
actually
up
the
hill.
So
the
watercourse
is
down
the
hill
at
the
bottom.
T
All
right
there
was
the
flood
risk
assessment.
I
think
the
flood
people
have
said
you
know,
environment
agency,
no
objection.
E
Thank
you,
jeff,
just
just
very
quickly.
You
went
through
very
quickly
about
the.
I
appreciate
you
had
a
lot
of
points
to
cover.
Okay,
I
want
to
talk
about
the
impact
on
the
the
knightsbridge
house
and
I'd
just
like
to
explain
again,
please
in
in
quite
deep,
quite
a
lot
of
detail
about
the
fencing,
okay
and
the
the
mitigation
that
you're
going
to
put
in
place,
okay
to
protect
that
great
great
listening
building.
Thank
you.
T
Yeah,
obviously,
four
minutes
is
quite
a
short
time.
Isn't
it
to
get
a
lot
of
points
across,
and
I
do
speak
pretty
quick,
so
I
apologize
so
so.
Basically
the
way
that
I've
seen
this
site
and
the
impact
on
the
the
listed
building
the
listed
building
has
a
two
meter
high
fence
that
is
all
around
their
boundary.
You
can't
see
the
listed
building
now
I
know.
Obviously
officers
will
say
that
that's
not
necessarily
all
part
to
do
with.
T
If
you
can
see
it,
then
there
is
an
impact
on
the
setting,
because
I
know
it's
a
the
bigger
picture,
but
the
point
that
I
wanted
to
get
across
is
that
the
the
external
consultants,
who
obviously
do
this
day
in
day
out
where
they
look
at
impacts
on
buildings
and
enlisted
buildings.
Their
assessment
is
that
this
will
not
cause
any
harm
to
that
listed
building
and
their
setting,
because
we
are
maintaining
as
many
of
the
trees
around
the
site
as
it
is
possible.
T
You
can't
see
that
when
you're
on
the
site,
you
you
you
don't
have
views
of
the
list
of
building
and
in
terms
of
the
actual
listed
building
itself.
If
you,
I
don't
know
if
you've
got
a
block
plan,
but
if
you
look
at
block
plan
and
the
way
it
actually
sits
on
the
site,
it's
not
on
that
one.
T
Is
it
because
you
can't
see
the
actual
list
of
the
the
list
of
buildings
itself,
but
there's
a
cluster
of
other
dwellings
and
things
that
are
actually
part
of
that
there's
out
buildings,
there's
a
number
of
other
houses
that
are
sat
in
and
around
that
listed
building,
so
it's
quite
contained
in
itself
and
the
the
in
the
actual
office's
report.
The
the
conservation
officer
doesn't
necessarily
say
that
they
had
an
issue
with
the
development.
T
It
was
about
the
trees
and
we're
saying
well
actually
we're
not
we're
not
removing
that
many
trees,
I'm
proposing
to
keep
some
of
those
trees
that
are
in
the
gardens,
because,
I
believe
that's
acceptable
and
I
think
that
the
the
overall
setting,
I
don't
believe,
will
change
and
nor
do
the
external
consultants.
E
Thank
you
very
much
yeah.
No,
you
answered
it.
Okay
and
you
waffled
okay,
so
well
done
okay,
but
I
I
just
want
to
pick
up
on
your
point
about
the
trees.
Okay,
how
many
trees
are
there
on
the
site?
How
many
are
you
looking
to
remove
and
do
any
of
the
trees
that
you
want
to
remove,
have
tpos
on
them.
T
Specific
numbers,
I
can't
give
you
exactly:
how
many
are
there,
because
there's
a
couple
of
groups
where
there's
some
smaller
g9?
I
think
your
group
nine
at
the
top
there
and
how
many
trees
are
actually
in
there
and
what's
actually
effectively
almost
scrub
in
terms
of
the
way
that
it
groups
it
all
gets
grouped
together.
As
you
can
see
there,
I
mean
the
site,
you
know
most
of
it
is
long
grass.
T
There
are
three
or
four
trees
that
actually
do
need
to
go
in
my,
in
my
view
that
that
will
be
gone.
T
One
of
them,
yes,
there's
a
well
two
of
them
are
category
b's,
I'm
looking
at
luke
at
this
point,
but
in
terms
of
doing
the
you
know
taking
those
trees
out,
none
of
them
have
tpos
on
and
and
obviously
doing
the
the
mitigations
in
terms
of
the
the
area
to
the
to
the
north
of
the
site,
keeping
that
for
the
biodiversity
side
of
things,
planting
new
trees
in
there,
the
new
studs
pond
that
we're
proposing
to
put
in
to
bring
the
biodiversity
and
and
the
trees
and
stuff
in
the
area
back
up
to
a
level.
T
Because,
obviously
you
know
I'm
not
going
to
sit
here
and
say
that
development
doesn't
cause
harm
to
trees
and
and
biodiversity,
because
obviously
it
does.
But
if
you
pop
a
garden
shed
it,
it
still
can
have
an
impact.
So
it's
it's
weighing
that
back
to
back
to
tilted
balance
weighing
up
the
benefits
of
eight
new
dwellings
that
are
two
beds
and
three
beds
in
an
area
where
it
is
called
for
in
the
emergent
neighborhood
plan
should
be,
in
my
view,
given
great
weight
against
minimal
harm.
A
T
A
Yeah,
don't
worry
we
have,
we
haven't
been
doing
for
a
little
while
now,
no
more
speakers,
so
questions
to
officers.
E
Thank
you
chair
again,
I'd
just
refer
to
my
my
question.
How
many
trees
are
actually
on
the
side?
Do
we
know
okay
and
how
many
are
actually
going
to
be
removed?
We've
heard
from
the
the
applicant
that
none
of
the
trees
that
he
wants
to
remove
are
actually
got
tpos,
so
I'm
just
just
concerned
for
the
numbers.
Thank
you.
S
Thank
you
for
your
question,
similar
to
mr
cochran
in
terms
of
actual
physical
numbers.
I
can't
give
you
a
specific,
but
I
in
my
report
I
refer
to
there's
at
least
there's
three
significant
trees.
S
In
my
opinion
that
will
be
removed
towards
the
center
of
the
site
and
I
feel
there'll
be
three
further
trees
that
will
be
detrimentally
impacted
by
the
construction
of
the
dwellings
and
the
use
of
the
garden
in
terms
of
future
occupants
want
to
increase
sunlight
so
of
notes,
in
my
opinion,
significant
trees,
I
believe
there'll
be
six
or
six
trees
and
six
groupings
of
trees
and
then,
in
terms
of
tpos,
you
are
correct.
S
G
Thank
you
chair.
The
applicant's
agent
is
right.
We
do
have
to
take
into
account
the
tilted
balance
and
on
that
basis
I
go
to
page
139
and
the
biodiversity
office's
comments
and
this
site,
without
any
shadow
of
a
doubt,
by
its
proximity
to
the
sink
by
its
relationship
to
the
river,
by
the
very
fact
of
the
site
itself
being
a
key
habitat
identified
in
our
own
spd's.
G
It
couldn't
be
any
clearer
to
be
perfectly
honest
and
that's
just
one
of
the
reasons
the
officers
have
given.
But
for
me
it's
the
most
important
one.
We've
declared
an
ecological
emergency.
We
are
very
clear
in
our
planning
policies
where
we
stand
on
biodiversity.
This
application
doesn't
even
come
close.
G
So
from
that
perspective,
I
strongly
oppose
it
on
the
basis
of
biodiversity
alone.
We
recognize
the
any
one
local
plan
policy
in
terms
of
the
neighborhood
plan
and
respect
the
neighborhood
plan
that
the
mppf
paragraph
175
again
couldn't
be
any
clearer
and
then
our
own
policy
em4.
So
the
policy
position
is
proven
in
that
regard.
In
my
opinion,
having
listened
to
the
arguments
and
read
the
report,
so
I
will
move
rejection,
as
the
officers
have
recommended.
A
B
I
actually
think
the
most
important
part
of
this
for
biodiversity
is
the
lower
ground
by
the
river
and
if
the
application
doesn't
do
enough
to
look
after
that
wildlife
corridor,
then
there's
an
issue.
I
can't
actually
tell
myself
if
it
does
or
not.
I
don't
think
the
trees
behind
the
site
are
anywhere
near
as
important
as
the
trees
at
the
front
and
the
wildlife
corridor.
B
It
does
say
that
they're
going
to
have
a
stud
and
they're
going
to
look
after
that
area.
So
I'm
a
little
bit
minded
of
how
you
know
in
in
that
way.
It's
it's
difficult
to
tell
and
with
that
it's
definitely
more
important.
B
The
lower
section
of
this
development
and
keeping
that
wildlife
carried
off
and
that's
what
I
wanted
to
add,
which
is.
A
A
S
C
C
U
I'm
paul
moss,
I'm
here
to
speak
to
you
in
support
of
my
application
for
a
four
bedroom
house
with
environmental
features,
the
same
house
that
I
have
lived
in
for
27
years
elsewhere.
I
have
read
the
application
report
and
it
would
appear,
there
are
two
main
areas
of
concern:
trees
and
o
r
trees.
U
The
house
is
positioned
in
accordance
with
the
tree
survey,
which
also
deals
with
two
of
the
neighbors
comments.
The
trees
already
are
protected
by
tree
preservation,
orders
and
they
are,
and
they
do
not
belong
to
me.
They
belong
to
a
neighbour,
so
there
is
no
threat
to
them
now
or
in
the
future
by
this
application.
U
U
I
understand
the
old
inner
zones
have
been
replaced,
and
it's
just
the
three
kilometer
zone
now
to
highlight
how
I
believe
the
population
in
this
area
is
dropping.
My
family
for
80
years
lived
in
the
opposite
cottage,
a
total
of
four
people
at
its
height
and
the
property
next
door,
the
same
and
now
only
four
people
live
in
total
in
both
properties
because
they
have
been
reduced
in
size.
U
E
Thank
you
very
much
chad
officers,
I'm
I'm
just
wondering!
Okay!
If
the
committee
was
minded
to
grant
the
planning
permission.
Okay
on
this,
what
would
happen
to
us
granting
the
application,
as
in
regards
to
the
onr.
C
N
And
that's
absolutely
correct.
I
think
the
the
issues
you
picked
up
from
the
report
is
that
it's,
I
suppose,
it's
the
weight
that
needs
to
be
given
to
the
onr
where
sparks
are
and
hampshire
is
the
emergency
planners
views.
So
you'd
be
aware.
N
The
way
policy
ss7
works
is
that
it's
basically
says
that
development
will
be
considered
on
a
case
for
case
basis,
depending
on
its
scale
amount
location
and
what
they
have
set
out
is
that,
because
of
this
particular
site,
events
for
a
single
dwelling
being
in
it
in
one
of
the
higher
dens
higher
population
densities
within
the
dep
zed,
that
combined
with
its
location
within
relative
proximity
to
the
site,
boundary
of
awe
means
that
if
you
like,
it
is
a
stronger
objection
than
it
would
otherwise
be.
N
I
think
the
report
sets
out
a
number
of
appeal
decisions
for
this
sort
of
scale
of
development.
So,
if
there's
a
single,
a
single
dwelling,
the
advice
is,
is
extremely
clear
and
that
has
to
be
factored
in
with
significant
weight.
Hence
the
reasons
for
refusal.
E
Yeah,
thank
you
jeff
sorry.
I
was
just
trying
to
marshal
my
thoughts.
Okay
for
a
debate.
Okay,
I
understand
shaishak
main
I've
been
up
and
down
many
times
for
when
I
I
lived
in
in
the
northern
part
of
of
tadley
for
25
26
years.
I
have
to
say
that
the
one
thing
that
tadley
suffers
from
okay
and
this
area
in
particular,
we
always
come
across
about
the
dp's,
ed.
Okay-
and
you
know
I
I
don't
in
my
mind-
I
want
to
challenge
the
the
dep
said.
E
Okay,
because
I
have
to
say
that
I
think
that
that
we
should
be
making
you
know.
Decisions
on
you
know,
planning
applications
in
our
borough.
I
understand
about
the
the
emergency
planning
that
west
box
does.
Okay
and
and
also
hampshire,
county
council
does,
but,
but
we
should
be
the
people
to
actually,
you
know,
decide
whether
you
know
planning
applications
go
forward
or
not,
as
the
case
may
be
okay,
so
I
I
do
have
a
fundamental
issue
with
the
dpz.
E
However,
having
said
that,
okay,
I
do
think.
Okay,
the
four
bedroom
house
in
this
particular
site
is,
is
potentially
too
big.
Okay,
I'm
I'm
not
convinced
that
it's
in
keeping
with
with
the
the
local
area,
okay,
schneidshack
lane,
has
a
number
of
very
small
homes
and
cottages
okay
up
through
its
length.
So
so
in
reality,
what
I
I
would
like
to
see
something
that's
more
in
keeping
with
the
the
housing,
okay
that
that
is
on
charleston
lane
in
what
is
actually
quite
a
historic
part
of
of
north.
E
Sadly,
so
I'm
really
torn
by
this
one,
because
I
want
to
support
officers.
Okay,
I,
like
officers,
advice,
okay,
but
I
also
want
to
kind
of
sock
it
to
the
dep
zed
a
little
bit.
You
know
and
and
test
that.
Okay,
so
I
don't
know
which
way
I'm
going
to
be
voting.
Okay,
I'll
I'll,
have
to
think
some
more.
Thank
you
chair.
N
Chair
fully
respected
and
debated
just
hopefully,
this
will
help
the
committee
in
terms
of
cancer
frost
point
which
I
think
is
is
a
point
raised
number
of
times
in
on
these
applications,
and
there
is
that
sort
of
sense
of
challenge.
I
think
the
way
I
would
reflect
this
back
is
that
the
challenges
has
already
happened
in
the
sense
that
when
dpz
was
first
set,
the
challenge
happened
to
try
and
get
a
policy
in
our
local
plans
under
ss7
effectively
which
allowed
for
some
development.
N
So
it
allows
it
on
that.
Criteria-Based
policy
of
scale
amount,
size,
etc,
whereas
when
the
dpz
first
came
in,
it
was
effectively
a
blanket
there
should
be
no
development
at
all,
and
I
think
what
we're
saying
is
that,
within
this
report,
even
though
it's
a
single
dwelling
is
that
those
issues
that
have
raised
already
when
you
test
it
against
policy
ss7,
which
does
allow
that
limited
flexibility
on
that
criteria
basis.
N
It
fails
because
of
its
even
though
it's
a
single
dwelling,
its
proximity
is
location
in
one
of
the
high
or
between
two
hydrants
densely
populated
sectors
means
that
it
even
fails
that
ss7.
So
I
totally
recognize
the
point
council
for
us
raise,
but
I
suppose
that
challenge
has
already
taken
place
through
the
local
plan
process
and
ultimately
it
will
be
a
future
policy
decision,
as
opposed
to
an
individual
playing
application
decision.
That
would
test
that
further.
A
Thank
you
mike
with
no
other
debate.
I
am
around.
I
moved
the
officer's
recommendation.
Is
there
a
seconder
casa,
faulconer?
It's
been
moved
and
seconded
for
refusal,
those
in
favor
of
refusal.
A
C
Thank
you
chairman,
just
to
confirm
that
that
item
has
been
refused
for
two
reasons
set
out
within
the
agenda.
Thank
you.
S
Thank
you.
So
this
is
an
application,
as
described
at
four
cranes
field
in
st
john.
The
proposal
is
for
the
conversion
and
use
of
the
attached,
the
current
cat
attached
garage
for
hub
to
habitual
rooms
and
a
change
of
use
of
open
land,
which
is
to
the
east
of
the
dwelling
house
to
additional
residential
use.
The
members
were
had
the
benefit
of
site
visit
to
this
site
and
the
application
is
recommended
for
approval,
subject
to
the
conditions
listed
in
the
case
officers
report.
V
Thank
you
for
your
time,
so
my
objection
is
against
the
change
of
use
of
land
rather
than
the
conversion
of
the
internal
garage.
I
actually
aimed
to
converse
with
the
council
over
the
precedent
statement
that
I
myself
submitted,
but
there
is
actually
incorrectly
analyzed
on
page
141
of
your
document.
The
planning
officer
stated
that,
because
of
mixed
decisions,
it's
not
a
material
consideration.
However,
the
cases
they
cite
are
all
inappropriate
comparators
and
thus
there
is
no
mixed
decision
and
it
must
be
given
material
consideration,
as
this
is
the
case
with
physical
separation.
V
V
The
judge
dismissed
the
appeal
supporting
the
decision
of
the
planning
officer
that
physical
separation
meant
land
did
not
form
part
of
dwelling
residential
land
is
used
to
describe
land
immediately
surrounding
a
house
or
dwelling
and
can
include
any
closely
associated
buildings
or
structures
forming
one
enclosure
with
it
delineating
a
boundary
where
the
homeowner
has
a
reasonable
expectation
of
privacy.
The
report
states
that
prior
applications
have
been
proved,
and
thus
mixed
decisions
have
been
made.
V
It
appears
that
they
must
have
just
used
the
search
function
to
get
to
this
point,
because
when
I
actually
reviewed
applications,
I
got
the
following
quotes
by
planning
officers
for
24
cranesfield.
There
is
currently
no
boundary
treatment,
dividing
the
southern
boundary
of
land
with
the
residential
land
and
cartilage
associated
with
dwelling
house
for
numbers
14
to
18
cranesfield.
This
has
all
been
used
as
residential
land
for
the
past
10
years
and
has
been
incorporated
into
the
garden.
V
These
were
the
reasons
for
approval
for
the
land
and
were
already
within
the
delineating
boundary
and
incidental
to
the
use
of
the
property,
but
these
applications
have
no
relevance
to
this
property.
From
the
site
visit
you're
aware
this
application
has
a
lower
hedge
and
a
recent
installation
of
gates
showing
physical
separation.
V
The
installation
of
gates
shows
a
clear
intention
by
the
owners
to
keep
it
separate
as
when
the
gates
are
closed,
the
land
cannot
be
accessed
from
the
residents,
therefore
being
outside
of
the
delineating
boundary.
Approval
of
the
change
of
use
starts
a
process
of
mixed
decisions.
Being
approved
and
therefore
starts
to
mixed
decisions
argument,
the
character
of
the
area
is
very
important
and
the
open
plan
design
for
the
area
is
something
that
is
important
to
ensure
is
kept
to
be
the
continued
benefit
of
all
residents.
V
T
Yeah
good
evening
again,
so
this
application,
as
you've
just
heard,
is,
is
recommended
for
approval,
and
I
wasn't
going
to
say
too
much
on.
T
Unlike
me,
the
main
point,
obviously,
as
you
just
heard
from
the
ejector,
there
is
the
the
around
the
usage
of
this
land.
It
is
owned
by
number
four
cranesfield.
It
is
their
land.
It
is
at
the
moment
obviously
open
public
space,
open
green
space
as
it's
called,
but
the
officer
has
obviously
gone
through
all
the
you
know,
the
policy
reasons
for
for
for
keeping
that
and-
and
it's
the
officer's
recommendation
for
approval
that
that
that
this
won't
be
changed.
It
won't
cause
any
harm
in
their
view.
T
The
the
point
there
about
residential
cartilage,
if
you
call
it
that
the
red
line,
it's
all
one
planning
unit,
it's
not
individual
planning
units,
as
it
is
right
now
and
that's
where
you've
got
the
title.
Deeds
that
actually
show
show
that
it's
one
planning
unit
so
to
say
that
obviously,
there's
gates
being
put
up
and
it's
a
clear
separation
and
and
wanting
to
you
know,
keep
this
as
a
separate
part
of
the
land.
T
You
know
the
the
applicant
is
entitled
to
put
gates
up
where
he
has
them
into
his
property
and-
and
he
just
purely
simply
wants
to
include
this
into
the
the
official
title
of
residential
cartilage.
I
don't
really
know
what
else
I
can
sort
of
say
on
this
one.
To
be
honest,
all
right
now,
that
will
do
me
thanks.
A
T
It's
a
very
good
question,
obviously
I'm
not
the
actual
applicant,
and
what
in
terms
of
my
client
has
asked
me
to
look
at,
you
know
doing
the
change
of
use
his
reasoning
behind
why
he
wants
to
do
that.
Obviously
I
I
I've
not
I
I
don't
know
is
the
actual
answer
to
that.
But
in
truth,
you
know
if
he
wants
to
include
that
as
residential
rather
than
being
open,
effectively
open
public
space.
Is
that
that's
the
right
word
and
is
that
open
green
space?
I
can't
my
eyes
I
can't
see.
E
O
T
That
is
my
understanding.
Yes,
that
hedges
is
part
of
the
protection
it
was
part
of
the.
There
was
an
application
that
I
did.
That
was
before
you
all
a
few
months
back
for
the
erection
of
the
garage,
and
there
was
discussion
over
over
the
hedge
and
it's
that
we
had
to
put
protection
in
place
to
make
sure
that
we
didn't
damage
the
hedge
or
do
anything
to
it.
G
I
know
you
can't
answer
the
question,
but
I
will
ask
it
anyway:
there
was
a
previous
application.
It
did
concern
the
garage,
as
you
rightly
say
why
in
the
world,
didn't
the
applicant
then
seek
to
take
that
land
back
in.
Why
now?
I
know
you
can
answer
it,
but
I'm
going
to
put
that
on
the
record
that
there
was
another
application
it
could
have
been
done.
Then
it's
clearly
being
done
now
and
we
have
no
reason
in
front
of
us
from
the
applicant
to
judge
it
up.
T
Yeah
well
yeah,
but
maybe
I'll
try
and
answer
it
yeah
at
the
time
he
didn't
want
to
include
that
land.
It
was
just
purely
simply
for
the
erection
of
the
garage
that
you
can
see
there
now.
That
was
what
he
wanted
to
do
for
the
record
as
well,
then
that
there
is
there
were
some
objections
and
things
that
that
some
of
the
residents
put
forward
to
to
look
at
that
this
might
be
used
in
connection
with
his
business.
T
A
W
Good
evening,
mr
chairman
and
councillors,
it
feels
a
bit
weird
to
be
sat
in
this
side
of
the
chamber,
but
I
shall
begin
so.
This
application
was
brought
in
due
to
the
number
of
objections
from
residents
and
residents
have
asked
me
to
come
and
represent
them
and
present
some
of
those
objections
as
well.
W
If
you
turn
to
page
176
177
of
the
agenda,
you
will
see
objections
from
the
parish
council
and
the
the
very
detailed
objections,
not
just
some
objections
that
residents
have
put
in
four
cranesfield
has
a
history
within
the
village
and
is
known
both
to
myself
and
my
predecessor.
W
There
have
been
three
separate
applications
for
planning
consent
since
2020
gathering
over
50,
distinct
objections
from
neighbours
and
objections
from
the
parish
council
on
each
application.
Now,
from
my
understanding
of
the
situation,
these
are
not
neighborly
disputes.
These
aren't
tip
for
tats.
I
believe
residents
still
have
amicable
interactions
with
one
another
and,
I
believe,
is
simply
down
to
residents
wanting
to
keep
the
look
and
feel
of
their
perfectly
little
pleasant
corner
of
sherman
st
john.
W
I
present
no
objection
to
the
request
to
convert
the
existing
attached
double
garage
into
additional
habitable
space.
I
believe
this
is
entirely
within
keeping
of
our
planning
policies
and
respect
the
rights
of
all
residents
to
make
modifications
to
their
property
where
they
so
desire,
if
they
do
not
impact
on
neighbours
protected
rights.
W
Instead,
I
have
been
asked
to
residents
to
come
before
you
today
to
object
to
the
change
of
use
of
the
neighboring
parcel
of
land
into
additional
residential
land.
If
I
touch
on
one
of
the
previous
applications,
twenty
forward
slash
zero,
two
seven
three
one
four
slash
hse.
This
involved
this
very
parcel
of
land.
That
is
the
subject
of
today's
application.
W
W
Mr
chair,
I
repeat
your
question
because
I
am
left
with
asking
myself:
what
is
the
benefit
behind
this
application
for
change
of
use,
if
not
to
bring
forward
further
applications
for
development?
The
office's
report
laid
before
committee
claims.
This
pocket
of
land
is
regarded
as
a
surplus,
inconsequential
area.
Unfortunately,
I
must
disagree
with
that
statement.
This
pocket
of
land
is
not
inconsequential
to
neighbours,
but
it
adds
to
the
landscaping
of
their
part
of
this
estate.
W
W
This
is
my
first
time
coming
before
you
councillors,
but
to
prepare.
I
did
play
back
the
committee
hearing
on
the
10th
of
august
and
watched
with
interest
the
application
concerning
the
whit
church,
tennis
club,
where
I
observed
the
chairman
placing
himself
in
the
position
of
the
impacted
residence.
I
asked
councillors
to
do
the
same
in
this
case.
If
you
had
enjoyed
the
benefit
of
this
parcel
of
land
for
nearly
30
years,
would
you
be
in
favor
of
this
loss
of
immunity?
W
To
conclude,
if
committee
are
minded
to
grant
change
of
use,
then
I
would
respectfully
ask
that
conditions
are
imposed.
That
would
continue
to
protect
the
historic
hedgerow
that
forms
a
natural
boundary
and
to
impose
further
strong
conditions
that
prevent
any
further
development
on
this
green
space.
Thank
you
for
your
time,
councillors.
O
Thank
you
if
this
bit
of
land
actually
belongs
to
the
people
that
own
number
four
cranesfield
or
the
address
is
what
right
does
any
of
the
neighbors
have
claim
on
that
land?
It's
not
their
land.
It
clearly
belongs
to
number
four.
How
can
any
of
the
neighbors
have
any
say
on
something
that
is
essentially
not
their
land
they've
had
use
of
it
for
several
years
granted,
but
it
actually
belongs
to
number
four.
So
what
right
do
the
neighbors
think
they
have
to
object
when
that
land
doesn't
belong
to
them?
W
A
perfectly
valid
question:
councillor
freeman
as
part
of
the
planning
permission
for
the
original
layout
of
the
estate,
the
green
area
that
was
there
was
specifically
mentioned
as
being
keeping
open
green
space
for
the
benefit
of
the
the
residential
look
and
feel,
and
that
hedgerow
was
was
put
in
place
and
there
is
planning
cons,
planning
conditions
against
that.
That
is
the
boundary
that
that
hedge
cannot
be
put
down,
and
so
I
absolutely
agree
with
you.
It
is
the
residence
the
resident's
land.
A
Council,
how
your
question
been
answered?
Thank
you
any
more
questions.
J
Where
do
we
stand
that
this
application
seems
to
have
two
distinct
parts?
One
is
for
the
garage
and
the
other
is
the
cartilage.
How
do
we
stand
on
rejected
one
and
accepting
another?
That's
basically,
it.
S
And
so
I
believe
each
application
should
be
considered
as
as
a
whole
as
one
piece.
So
if
you
were
to
have
concerns
with
one
part
you
are
entitled
to,
you
would
be
a
refusal
of
the
whole
application,
but
your
refusal
obviously
would
relate
to
the
specific
area
and
the
applicant
would
then
obviously
have
the
opportunity
to
split
their
applications
up
and
come
in
for
an
application
just
for
the
garage
to
to
cover
that
off.
But
we
have
to
consider
the
application
as
one.
E
Thank
you
very
much
chair.
I
don't
have
any
issues
regarding
the
conversion
of
the
garage
okay.
No,
we
should
do
that
whatsoever,
but
regarding
the
this
parcel
of
land,
okay,
if
we
were
to
grant
change
of
of
use
okay
to
residential
okay,
how
strong
a
condition
can
we
put
on
on
this
so
that
we
can
prevent
any
permitted
development
rights
or
any
building
on
this
particular
piece
of
land.
S
Thank
you
for
your
question,
so
the
officer's
recommendation
does
include
the
withdrawal
of
committed
development
rights
for
the
site,
so
this
includes
class
e,
which
relates
to
incidental
outbuildings,
also
includes
class
f,
which
relates
to
hard
surfacing
and
we've
also
added
in
class,
a
of
part
two
of
the
schedule,
which
removes
the
right
to
install
gates,
walls
and
fences.
E
Sorry,
chad,
just
a
full
question:
okay,
so
so,
if
sorry,
you
said
that,
with
the
condition
is
out
buildings,
what
about
if
it
was
a
temporary
outbuilding
such
as
a
shed
okay?
Would
that
be
permitted
or
is
there
something
we
could
do
to
ensure?
Okay,
that
it
remained
green
land.
S
So
I
would
suggest
that
a
shed
is
a
permanent
structure
and
would
need
planning
permission
in
itself.
There
is
case
law
that
goes
back
defining
what
a
building
is
and
sheds
often
do
fall
within
that
within
that
remit,
and
if
a
template
building
was
put
up,
it
would
be
temporary,
so
it
would
be
removed.
I
would
suggest
with
time
anyway,
but
anything
permanent,
which
is
to
do
with
how
it's
connected
to
the
ground
length
of
time
has
been
on
the
site,
so
there
is
definition
of
what
temporary
and
permanent.
G
Thank
you
chair.
I
get
a
distinctive
feeling
that
someone's
trying
to
be
very
clever
here,
you're,
saying
quite
understandably
so-
that
the
removal
of
committed
development
rights
is
part
of
the
defense.
In
terms
of
that,
and
I
get
that
currently
any
application
that
came
on
that
land
would
have
to
be
considered
the
fact
that
landed
over
space.
G
However,
if
we
change
it
to
residential
use,
you
take
away
the
permitted
rights.
An
application
can
still
come
forward,
but
it
would
have
to
be
considered
against
the
fact
that
it
is
within
the
residential
property
against
residential
policies,
because
it's
now
residential
lab
am
I
right
in
that
assumption.
S
S
For
example,
the
garage
building,
obviously
in
the
previous
applications,
were
withdrawn
because
the
built
form
was
harmful
and
that
will
remain
whether
it's
residential
use
or
regarded
as
open
immunity
space
so
that
the
value
of
the
use
of
the
land
and
the
adds
to
the
character
the
land
remains.
So
yes,.
G
So,
just
coming
in
my
head
correctly,
so
I
understand
my
arguments
on
this:
the
the
fact
that
it's
immunity
now
we
can
give
weight
to
and
consider
because
it's
immunity,
that's
part
of
the
assessment
of
character
and
assessment
of
the
area
in
the
future.
Of
course,
it
won't
be
open.
Space
would
be
to
improve
this.
It
would
be
residential
lamp.
Therefore,
we
can't
take
that
into
account
in
the
future.
S
In
terms
of
open
space,
it's
it's
an
open
space
and
that's
what
we
would
seek
to
retain
and
in
terms
of
like
say,
I
think
the
land
use
is
is
not
as
overly
relevant
to
the
consideration
of
terms
of
anything
coming
forward.
It
is,
it
is
purely
a
character
based
and
that
will
remain,
and
that
is
part
of
our
policy
m10
emil
em1,
which
requires
consideration
of
character,
so
the
land
use
isn't
relevant.
So
I
don't
think
whether
it's
residential
or
clusters,
open
immunity,
space
at
the
moment
is
a
highly
relevant
thing.
F
Thanks
for
I'll
admit,
I
am
totally
perplexed
and
confused
by
this.
So
do
we
have
indicative
proof
that
this
land
belongs
to
this
householder.
I
think
the
answer
is
yes.
F
Do
we
have
proof
that
it
is
an
open
space
for
the
use
of
the
public
and
not
him
is
one
question
if
we
don't
have
it,
why
are
we
this
debate
because
it's
his
land
and
he
can
do
what
he
likes
and
covenants,
as
we
know
mean
nothing,
so
I
just
want
clarity
that
this
is
a
piece
of
land
that
just
happens
to
not
was
he
has
a
hedge
in
the
middle
of
it
and
it's
his
land
anyway,
and
it's
not
a
green
space.
F
S
N
Traded
several
ways
to
decide,
flexing
and
using
your
words
application,
because
I
think
it
is
is
slightly
odd.
I
think
the
key
thing
is
that
it's
within
the
land
ownership
of
the
applicant,
it
was
designated
as
effectively
immunity
space.
So
as
luke's
described
it's
not
it's
not
a
public
open
space
in
the
sense
of
a
kickback
or
anything
like
that.
It's
a
it's
a
community
spaces.
I
suppose
it's
its
visual
contribution
of
not
being
built
upon
and
being
green,
that
it
was
its
effective
use
and
policy.
N
Em-1,
hasn't
it
about
private
immunity
spaces
as
well.
The
fact
that
the
change
of
use
to
a
degree
doesn't
really
have
that
much
impact
when
you,
if
you
were
to
approve
with
those
conditions
on
because
it
has
been
described,
there'd,
be
removal
of
permitted
development
rights
for
outbuildings
for
gates
and
fences
or
hard
standing.
N
Yeah,
I
think,
yeah
absolutely.
I
think
in
other
developments,
you'll
see
strips
of
landscaping,
for
example,
down
the
side
of
a
property
which
aren't
actually
within
the
what
you
would
immediately
view
as
the
garden
of
the
property.
It's
similar
to
that
it's
just.
This
is
a
very
have
to
say
quite
quite
a
unique
position.
I
think
in
terms
of
how
it's
been
located
or
designed
in
so
there's,
no
doubt
that
it
isn't
part
of
the
original
residential
land
of
the
property.
P
Thank
you
jeff
I'd
like
to
be
awkward
and
complain
about
the
conversion
of
the
garage,
but
I
won't
instead.
There's
a
public
comment
on
on
here.
That
says,
part
of
the
highlighted
area
is
part
of
a
shared
driveway.
S
To
highlight
exactly
where
the
shared
ownership
is
or
if
that
is
the
case,
but
we
certainly
is
his
the
applicant's
land
and
a
change
of
views
doesn't
necessarily
change
the
right
of
access.
Potentially,
that
is
a
civil
matter.
That's
not
a
planning
matter
anyway,
so
we
couldn't
obviously
cut
off
an
area
that
would
be
used
as
a
shared
access.
If
there's
an
agreement
in
place
already,
I
think
that
falls
outside
our
room.
P
Thank
you.
The
other
question
is
one
of
the
conditions
is
removing
the
ability
to
build
fences
or
walls.
P
There's
been
quite
a
lot
of
argument
or
debate
about
whether
the
other
residents
should
have
access
to
this
land
when
they
don't
own
it.
So
I'm
almost
uncomfortable
removing
the
owner's
permission
to
erect
a
small
fence,
for
example,
to
stop
people
using
it
as
a
parking
space
using
using
it
to
for
their
kids
to
play
on
when
it's
not
their
land.
So
I
would
almost
be
minded
to.
We
haven't
got
that
yet,
but
moving
for
approval
without
that
condition,
is
there
any
specific
reason
you
can
point
to
why?
That
condition?
P
Is
there
in
terms
of
protection
of
the
bush
or
anything,
because
that's
the
only
issue
that
I
really
care
about,
but
in
terms
of
preventing
the
other
residents
from
using
that
space
when
it's
not
their
land
and
they
seem
entitled
they
sound
like
they
feel
entitled
to
use
it.
I
I
don't
think
we
should
be
preventing
him
from
necessarily
putting
up
a
you
know.
One
metre,
high
small
picket
fence.
S
The
reason
for
the
condition
really
relates
to
the
visual
impact
the
fence
would
have
in
terms
of
the
change
from
an
open
space
to
an
enclosed
space,
and
obviously
that
would
be
a
visual
change
to
the
character
so
that
that
condition
prevents
that
and
sort
of
retains
the
status
quo.
Even
though
the
land
use
would
change
the
character
of
the
land
would
remain,
and
that's
that's
the
reason
visual
rather
than
controlling
entry.
K
Thank
you
roger
just
like
your
observations
and
it's
page
177.
It
comes
under
public
observations
and
it
talks
about
various
clauses
within
the
land
registry
map.
K
S
Thank
you
for
your
question,
say
this.
This
relates
to
the
land
registry
and
the
meaningful
way
gates
and
north
hedges
that
in
terms
of
heights
or
fences,
so
I
think
that
that
falls
very
much
into
more
of
a
civil
matter
than
a
planning
matter.
Rather
than
so
it's
not
something
we
would
consider.
That's
that's
a
more
of
a
legal
matter.
K
Addressing
the
recommend
recommendations
for
going
forward
on
this,
we
take
into
account
similar
conditions
which
encompass
that.
S
Well,
I'm
suggesting
that,
in
terms
of
commercial
use,
there's
no
requirement
for
a
condition
because
in
either
planning
applications
and
therefore
it
is
controlled.
We
have
control
over
the
use
of
the
land
from
that
perspective
anyway,
so
it'd
be
unreasonable
to
condition
or
add
a
condition
limiting
the
commercial
use.
S
B
And
changing
this
to
residential
land
does
that
allow
them
to
treat
the
land
differently?
I
mean
it
doesn't
have
to
remain
green.
S
So,
in
terms
of
remaining
green,
I
think
those
conditions
of
removal
permitted
development
right
should
limit
the
change
of
use
of
the
land.
I
mean
they
would
be
entitled,
as
they
are
now
to
plant
trees.
That's
not
development,
but
in
terms
of
actual
physical
built
form.
I
think
there
is
limited
to
nothing.
I
could
suggest
that
they
could
do
to
the
land
without
a
planning
application.
G
Chad,
this
is
a
good
one,
I'd
be
tempted
to
move
deferral,
because
what
I
want
to
know
hasn't
necessarily
been
answered
yet
because
the
arguments
are
perfectly
logical
around
the
room.
I
don't
disagree
with
any
of
you,
but
what
I
don't
know
is
why
this
is
designated
as
amenity
separate
to
the
residential
land
of
the
property,
because
clearly
it
is,
it
isn't
the
residential
immunity
of
the
property.
It
is
different
to
that
and
I
would
want
to
know
why
it
was
that
amenity
in
the
first
place
before
I
felt
comfortable
doing
away
with
it.
G
So
I
sent
a
deferral
on
that
basis
of
getting
to
the
bottom
of
that
particular
point
about
immunity
and
whose
immunity-
and
the
context
of
that,
I
think,
is
important
if
we
are
genuinely
going
to
look
at
changing
the
use
of
it.
So
that
would
be
my
reason
for
deferral
just
to
understand
that
point,
and
then
I
would
feel
more
comfortable
with
the
application
in
front
of
us.
E
P
A
Counselor,
sorry,
you
didn't
have
the
benefit
of
the
viewing
panel.
The
conversion
work
on
the
garage
has
already
been
done.
This
is
effectively
apart
retrospective
applications.
So
I
think
that's
your
concern
is.
G
Can
I
just
can
I
just
clarify,
I
have
absolutely
no
issue
with
the
garage
I
get
that
the
applicant
has
chosen
to
make
this
part
of
their
application.
Therefore,
that's
their
choice,
I'm
sorry,
but
that's.
The
reason
for
my
favorite
is
because
I've
got
a
problem
with
that
and
I
want
to
know
more
before
I
make
that
decision.
So
you
know
they've
made
that
decision.
I
have
no
issue
with
the
garage.
It's
the
other
bit.
I've
got
a
problem
with.
A
N
So
chair,
that's
just
to
clarify
for
the
record.
That's
the
phil
on
on
the
grounds
of
wanting
to
know
more
about
the
original
planning
history
of
the
site
and
why
that
land
was
designed
in
that
way
and
what
and
what
uses
were
envisaged
for
it
and
clarification
of
the
red
line
in
relation
to
the
shared
access.
C
Thank
you
chairman.
As
indicated
this
application
is
for
the
property
or
in
within
the
garden
of
heathcock
cottage
at
soulchester.
Full
planning
permission
is
requested
for
the
erection
of
an
outbuilding
and
a
store.
The
outbuilding
is
to
sit
to
the
southern
end
of
the
cartilage,
and
the
store
is
to
replace
a
smaller
building
already
within
the
garden.
C
If
I
bring
members
attention
to
the
update
paper-
and
there
is
just
a
very
slight
amendment
to
the
recommendation
with
regards
to
conditions
three
and
four
to
remove
reference
to
the
bramley
neighborhood
plan
area,
because
this
site
isn't
in
the
neighborhood
plan
area,
the
application
is
recommended
for
approval,
subject
to
the
conditions
and
informatives
listed
within
your
agenda.
Thank
you.
A
C
S
Thank
you
chairman
say
this
is
an
application
at
the
recreation
of
granite
hadley.
The
proposal
is
for
the
refurbishment
of
the
existing
skate
park,
including
the
removal
of
old
ramps
and
construction
of
a
new
concrete
skate
park
with
a
landscape
fund
around
the
perimeter.
S
X
Wrong
one
thank
you
good
evening
councillors,
and
I'm
not
here
today
as
a
borough
councillor,
I'm
here
as
the
chatty
town
councillor,
I'm
chair
of
the
record
leisure
committee,
and
it
is
the
town
council's
application.
That's
before
you
and
thank
you
for
the
officers
for
recommending
approval
and
I've
come
here
this
evening.
Just
to
perhaps
reassure
you
as
why
there
may
have
been
so
many
objections
to
it,
and
you
will
see
there
is
a
a
trend
in
those
objections.
X
X
X
It
is
a
steel
structure
and
needs
to
be
welded
and
there
was
no
longer
any
ability
to
weld
the
current
situation
and
therefore
we
were
faced
with
the
position
of
it
being
basically
banned
and
had
to
be
clothed
and
therefore
with
no
skateboard
facility
in
the
town,
and
it
is
a
much
loved
facility.
It
is
quite
a
large
one
and
it
does
actually
attract
older
and
more
experienced
riders
of
bmxes
and
escape
boards.
X
We
appreciate
that,
however,
being
the
town
council,
we
had
to
look
at
providing
something
that
was
going
to
be
paid
for
from
the
town
council
and
therefore
from
public
money
which
had
to
actually
meet
the
needs
of
all
the
population
of
our
area.
So
we
went
out
to
canvas
who
I
think,
produced
the
one
in
the
war
memorial
park
here
who
suggested
this
particular
layout,
which
would
actually
be
more
useful
and
accessible
to
more
people,
young
and
old,
and
for
different
people
using
different
types
of
rollerblades,
scooters
and
obviously
bmx
and
skateboards.
X
The
family
of
jake
and
lee
are
still
in
the
area
and
we
made
every
attempt
to
consult
with
them
and
with
residents,
and
I
have
the
town
council
newsletter
that
went
out
and
you
can
see
it's
quite
distinctive
newsletter
and
it
mentions
this
went
out
in
february.
It
mentions
the
skateboard
park.
As
for
people
to
engage
with
us.
T
X
You
we
have
very
little
engagement,
unfortunately,
so
we
actually,
as
the
council,
decided
that
we
would
go
with
the
application,
because,
obviously
it's
now
urgent,
the
skateboard
park
is
still
open,
but
at
any
time
we
could
be
told
to
close
it,
and
I
would
hope
that
the
people
in
tadly
will
benefit
from
this.
X
We've
had
other
requests
for
some
a
bigger
site
that
would
actually
look
after
more
people,
and
that
might
be
something
in
the
future,
but
this
would
provide
a
facility
which
is
much
loved
and
much
used
by
our
residents,
and
I
hope
that
you'll
be
able
to
support
that.
X
E
Thank
you
very
much
chair.
Thank
you
for
for
coming
out
swimming
it's.
It's
always
good
to
see
you
here.
Okay,
I
would
just
like
to
help
you
help.
Have
you
helped
me
understand
why
comments
like
the
proposed
park
is
not
suitable
for
the
bmx
users.
X
Yes,
I
can
help
you
cancel
first,
the
current
park
is
quite
high.
If
any
of
you
have
ever
seen
pictures
of
it.
It's
basically
got
very
tall
ends
and
a
ramp
in
the
middle,
and
it
is
quite
high.
It's
it's
higher
than
I
am,
but
also
it
has
to
have
a
fence
around
it,
because,
obviously,
we're
concerned
that
people
might
come
off
and
hit
people,
and
it
hasn't
got
anything
to
stop
people
apart
from
a
rail
at
the
top
actually
coming
off.
Y
Next
was
zip
wire,
also
a
popular
facility
and
very
close
to
another
field
that
contains
a
range
of
exercise
equipment
just
across
the
way.
There
is
a
multi-use
games
area.
All
of
these
brilliant
facilities
complementing
one
another,
tadley
town
council
have
created
a
fantastic
space
for
people
of
all
ages
and
abilities
to
utilize.
Y
The
skate
park
forms
an
important
part
of
this
space.
I
recall
when
it
was
first
built
the
excitement
amongst
local
young
people
that
they
would
have
somewhere
purpose
built
to
skate
and
ride.
At
the
time
my
brother
used
to
spend
his
days
building
ramps
in
ours
and
his
friends
gardens,
which
was
not
popular
with
the
adults.
Y
Y
I
see
the
facility
as
a
positive
edition,
which
will
open
itself
up
to
a
wider
group
of
users.
I'm
going
to
read
you
some
comments
that
have
been
shared
on
a
local
tadly
social
media
page
in
the
last
year.
With
permission,
my
eight-year-old
daughter
is
skateboarding
and
scootering
mad.
Recently,
we've
been
regulars
at
the
skate
park,
just
wanted
to
say
what
a
great
bunch
of
youngsters
go
there.
She
even
got
a
compliment
today
from
one
of
the
lads
which
which
she
loved.
If
you
have
teenagers
with
their
foreign
today,
please
thank
them.
Y
Y
I
think
that
the
updated
version
of
the
skatepark
offers
an
inclusive,
modern,
versatile
and
accessible
space
for
young
people
of
tadley
and
the
surrounding
areas
to
continue
to
enjoy
for
a
time
to
come.
I
thanked
hadley
town
council
for
all
of
their
hard
work
to
get
it
to
this
point,
and
I
very
much
hope
that
the
committee
will
offer
their
support
tonight.
Z
G
Get
the
secrets
right?
Okay,
yes,
agree
with,
what's
been
said
so
far
with
the
two
public
speakers,
our
two
counselors
and
I
would
move
the
recommendation
as
on
the
order
paper,
I
think
it's
absolutely
fine
and
good.
O
Just
quick
things
that
I
have
nothing
against
these
plans,
but
from
my
own
work
with
youth,
I
do
find
that
the
older
teens
have
a
very
distinct
lack
of
facilities
in
this
borough
and
so
for
something
that
was
actually
purposely
geared
towards
the
older
teens
is
now
being
moved
to
the
younger
ones.
It
can
be
in
a
good
way,
but
sometimes
we
risk
alienating
these
young
people
and
so
they're
not
going
to
use
it
at
all,
because
they
feel
like
there's
a
lot
of
babies
there.
They
don't
want
to
be
around.
O
So
I
think
we
we
do
need
to
be
careful
about
trying
to
to
make
something.
That's
a
facility
for
all
all
types
of
people.
Sometimes
you
have
to
realize
that
the
older
kids-
they
don't
want
to
be
around
kids,
smaller
children,
that
it's
too
much
like
those
pesky
brothers
and
sisters
that
they've
got.
They
want
some
time
away
where
they
can
be
teenagers
and
not
have
to
worry
about
small
children.
So
I
do
think
we
need
to
be
careful
as
a
borough.
E
Thank
you
very
much
yeah.
I
would
just
like
to
say
that
what
I
agree
with
the
council,
freeman
she's,
made
some
very
good
points
there.
I
also
think
that
just
to
support
talley
town
council,
because
it
is
the
spend
of
public
money-
okay,
they
need
to
ensure
that
access
to
the
the
skate
park
is
as
wide
as
possible.
I
understand
your
points.
E
You
know
very
well
made-
and
I
do
hope-
okay,
that
the
the
the
older
youths-
okay,
young
children,
yup,
sorry,
young
adults
as
we
we
we
call
them.
Okay,
we'll
continue
to
use
okay,
the
skatepark,
okay
and
help
the
the
youngsters
okay
with
their
tricks.
So
I'm
fully
in
support
of
this.
Thank
you.
A
S
A
S
Thank
you.
So
this
is
an
application
at
white
bungalow,
ashland
sealchester.
The
proposal
is
to
remove
the
section
106
agreement
relating
to
affordable
housing
attached
to
the
planning
permission
previously
granted
that
permission
was
for
the
redevelopment
of
the
site
for
replacement
attached
property,
in
addition
to
two
three-bedroom
dwellings
with
associated
car
parks.
Carports,
the
application
is
recommended
for
approval
and
the
removal
of
the
section
106
agreement.
AA
Thank
you,
chairman
chairman
members,
thank
you
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
this
this
evening
before
you
as
an
agreement
to
remove
a
section
106
agreement
on
the
site
in
question
at
the
white
bungalow
in
ashland
silchester,
the
applicant
in
the
course
of
the
process
of
the
of
being
granted
planning
permission,
instructed
their
own
viability
assessment
from
kempton
carl
croft,
which
found
the
proposed
development
was
unviable
to
make
affordable
housing
contributions.
AA
This
was
then
further
supported
by
the
council's
own
viability
assessment,
which
was
conducted
by
adam's
integra,
who
also
found
the
development
unviable
to
make
affordable
housing
contributions.
Therefore,
the
report
you
have
in
front
of
you
is
to
remove
the
section
106
agreement
from
the
planning
permission.
In
order
for
the
development
to
proceed,
the
development
will
contribute
three
units,
the
council's
housing
quota
and
is
supported
by
the
officers
we
hopefully
can
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
Many
thanks.
P
Could
you
just
explain
what
unviable
means
in
this
context?
Is
it
you're
not
going
to
make
enough
profit
or
is
it
you'll
actually
make
a
loss?
Because
if
it's
not
enough
profit,
I
have
very
little
sympathy.
If
it's,
you
actually
make
a
loss,
we
can
have
a
conversation.
Both
liabilities,
shoddy
studies,
show
a.
J
G
Harvey
thank
you,
chad,
just
picking
up
with
council
howard
sorrell
left
off
it's
my
understanding
from
a
conversation
I
had
with
officers,
but
I
just
want
to
put
it
on
the
record.
We
aren't
talking
about
marginal
viability.
Here
we
are
talking
about
a
significant
viability
spread
because
normally
I
go
to
the
wall,
as
others
would
do
for
affordable
housing.
But,
as
I
understand
it,
there
is
actually
a
significant
viability
issue
here.
S
Yes,
thank
you
so
from
our
we.
Obviously
there
were
two
reports
carried
out.
There
were
slightly
different
values,
but
both
of
them
were
significant
losses
at
minus
43
000.
I
think
ours
came
back
and
we
would
expect
that
any
development
coming
forward
would
seek
to
achieve
at
least
a
15
to
20
profit
on
top
of
that,
so
obviously
that's
a
minus,
43
plus
and
then
you'll
see
the
profit
on
top.
So,
yes,
there
was
significant
losses.
A
A
C
Thank
you
chairman.
As
members
will
note
from
your
agenda,
this
application
is
slightly
different.
It
is
a
request
to
consider
the
expediency
for
enforcement
action
where
development
has
occurred
in
the
form
of
a
changing
use
of
land
to
the
rear
of
the
properties
of
seven
to
nine
woberton
road,
and
that
has
occurred
without
the
benefit
of
planning
permission
and
no
planning
application
has
been
forthcoming.
C
So
essentially,
the
a
pro
proposal
is
akin
to
a
retro
retrospective
planning
application,
and
the
report
before
you
provide
an
assessment
of
the
proposal
in
planning
terms
have
in
regard
to
the
development
plan.
The
recommendation
is
that
no
enforcer
site,
it
is
not
expedient
to
take
enforcement
action.
Thank
you.
AB
And
good
evening
committee
I've
been
award
counsellor
in
chinham
for
15
years,
and
I've
been
on
the
german
parish
council
for
15
and
sat
on
the
parish
planning
committee
for
that
time,
and
I'm
the
current
chairman
of
that
committee
and
of
the
parish
council.
I
speak
this
evening
as
the
ward
councillor
by
the
way
to
have
that
on
record.
AB
The
only
point
of
the
debate
and
decision
is,
as
stated
in
the
recommendation
on
page
226
of
the
report
parrot
ii,
the
expediency
for
enforcement
action
is
laid
out
in
paris,
4.8
onwards
and
the
point
of
4.9
states
that
enforcement
action
is
discretionary.
That
again,
is
accepted.
However,
the
debate
is
about
the
validity
and
acceptance
or
not
of
the
case
put
before
you
this
evening.
Within
the
report
in
power
4.10,
the
last
sentence
appears
to
state
that
if
an
appeal
was
submitted,
it
would
be
on
the
grounds
the
planning
permission
ought
to
be
granted.
AB
It
begs
the
question:
why
was
planning
permission
not
applied
for
in
the
first
place?
Para
4.21
admits
that
some
loss
of
green
space
is
lost
with
the
fencing,
encroachment
and
also
the
fence
as
erective
is
stark.
I
quote
the
report.
There
is
no
disagreement
with
the
fencing
per
se
as
it
could
be
erected
under
permitted
development.
However,
it
is
the
encroachment
that
is
that
has
created
the
breach.
AB
AB
However,
we
disagree
the
40
year
old,
chennam
community
is
well
established
and
the
sudden
appearance
of
this
fencing
did
and
does
alter
the
character
of
the
locality
and
goes
against
policy
em10
to
a
the
conclusion
assumes
that
had
planning
permission
been
applied
for
planning
permission
would
have
been
recommended.
Having
regard
to
the
policies
in
the
development
plan,
this
may
be
true,
but
arguing
on
policy
basis
alone
without
wider
consultation.
AB
O
C
I
would
refer
you
to
the
officer
report,
so
in
paragraph
4.5
4.6
sets
out
where
all
those
measurements
have
occurred.
So
we
have
gone
from
a
rear
immunity
space
beyond
the
original
boundaries
of
sort
of
6.6
meters,
to
sort
of
three
meters
between
the
two
properties
to
approximately
1.5
to
1.3
meters.
J
It
seems
the
two
properties
have
moved
to
fencing.
Do
we
know
if
they
have
gone
beyond
services
or
underground
facilities,
where
the
utilities,
water
etc
may
need
access?
And
it's
now
blocked
off.
E
E
Sorry,
my
second
question
so
would
would
that
mean
if
we
serve
enforcement
notice,
we'd
be
requesting
or
demanding
that
they
take
the
fence
back
to
the
original
start
line
for
once
of
a
better
word,
defense
line.
N
N
In
those
terms,
the
other
aspect
of
it
is
that
the
whole
issue
around
enforcement
is-
and
this
is
why,
as
described
in
the
report,
if
an
enforcement
notice
is
served,
yes,
it
requires
that
to
happen,
so
the
steps
you'd
have
to
set
out,
which
presumably
would
be
removal
of
the
events,
and
you
know
reinstatement
of
the
land
as
it
previously
was.
That
is
subject
to
an
appeal
in
the
same
way
as
a
planning
application
so
effectively.
N
What
would
be
available
to
those
persons
which
unfortunately
served
upon
is
an
appeal
whereby
they
could
appeal
either
the
the
issues
that
have
been
raised
in
terms
of
reasons,
and
they
effectively
apply
for
planning
permission
through
that
process
through
that
appeal.
So
that's
the
grand
a
they
can
appeal
the
measures
required.
E
It
is
one
final
question
and
then
I
will
be
quiet
for
the
evening.
I
I
promise
you
okay,
so
if,
if
we
were
not
to
take
in
for
enforcement
action,
okay
due
to
expediency,
okay,
the
land
that
they
have
enclosed
okay,
will
they
be
made
to
purchase
that
land
or
would
we
give
it
them.
N
So
effectively
it'd
be
a
separate
matter,
it's
same
as
any
other
land
ownership
issue.
If
someone
does
something
that
is
on
someone
else's
land,
they
require
to
resolve
that
in
that.
In
that
scenario,
I
think
from
the
planning
process
point
of
view
what
we
would
do
in
a
in
closing
in
a
non-expediency
case,
effectively
I.e.
Some
we've
identified
a
breach
has
clearly
set
out
in
the
report.
N
K
F
I
100
agree
with
council
of
miller.
Obviously
I
have
a
history
in
china
going
back
as
council
miller
does,
and
this
is
only
too
often
happened.
Actually,
in
my
ward,
current
in
bramley,
we
have
a
similar
situation
where
we
are
taking
a
repossession
of
the
land
taken
order
which
was
done
in
a
similar
way.
F
So
in
terms
of
consistency
in
the
message
we
send,
I
think
we
should
just
refuse
this
application,
as
it's
been
expressed,
refusal
on
the
grounds
of
lack
loss
of
public
community,
the
space,
sorry
public,
green
amenity,
space
words
and
and
on
that
basis
we
move
forward.
F
Thank
you
and
I
will
propose
that
we
refuse
the
application.
N
N
I
think
it's
not
accepting
the
recommendation
and
therefore
proposing
as
a
committee,
that
an
enforcement
notice
be
be
taken
forward
and,
if
I
may
counsel
tomlin
assist
with
that,
as
I
understand
that
your
reason
is
that
it's
the
impact
on
public
community
space
through
the
loss
of
that
land,
so
it'd
be
a
policy
em-1
and
related
policy,
em-10
and
possibly
em5
in
relation
to
the
green
infrastructure.
N
F
Very
much
so
so
thank
you
for
that.
Yes,
it's
slightly
different
different
to
our
norm,
shall
we
say
so
yeah.
I
totally
accept
that.
Thank
you.
Councillor
freeman.
O
I'd
say
I'm
quite
happy
to
second
the
motion.
I
totally
agree.
I
think
we
set
a
precedent
here.
If
we
let
these
people
do
this,
what's
to
stop
them
moving
them
another
couple
of
feet
back
and
then
taking
up
the
whole
path
was
to
stop
some
other
resident
doing
exactly
the
same
thing.
We
I
think
it
sends
up
the
wrong
message.
If
we
let
them
get
away
with
this,
I
think
they
need
to
be.
O
AC
Thank
you
chairman.
Yes,
I
mean
we
all
have
sympathy
with
the
proposal
that's
being
put
forward,
but
I'm
just
slightly
concerned
to
read
in
4.28
that
if
it
was
concluded,
if,
if
a
planning
application
had
been
received
to
regularize
the
change
of
use,
planning,
permission
would
have
been
recommended.
AC
So
if
we
vote
against
taking
it
any
further,
presumably
they
will
appeal
and
that
statement
will
allow
the
inspector
to
find
in
their
favor.
A
Thank
you
yeah.
Please
come
in.
AD
It
reports
that
property
services
team
in
the
council
has
already
taken
some
legal
action
in
relation
to
this
matter
so
and
resolved
it
as
far
as
they're
concerned
with
with
the
owners
of
the
property.
So
although
planning
and
property
land
ownership
are
obviously
very
separate,
there
is
some
context
to
that.
So
I
expect
any
enforcement
action
may
be
more
complicated
than
it
seems
at
this
moment,
because
they'll
they'll
probably
argue
that
well,
you
can
probably
there
will
be
arguments
in
their
favor,
probably.
A
AD
I
my
only
understanding
is
that
they
they
agreed
where
the
fence
would
be
moved
back
to,
but
I
I
don't
know
the
full
details,
so
it
might
be.
You
want
to
bring
it
back
with
a
further.
You
know
report
on
the
whole
context,
but
there's
obviously
been
some
action
taken
by
the
property
services
team
in
relation
to
this
matter
already.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
My
concern
with
this
is
we've
been
here
before
in
bramley
on
the
smithy,
people
moved
their
fence,
we
took
enforcement
action,
they
went
to
appeal
and
we
lost-
and
I
agree
entirely
with
everything
councilor
miller
said
this
should
not
happen.
It
is
totally
wrong,
but
we
lost
that
case.
We
lost
it
because
there
was
no
planning
reason
why
that
land
shouldn't
become
garden,
cartilage
101
other
reasons,
but
we're
not
interested
in
101
other
reasons.
A
A
E
Thank
you,
chair,
I'd,
I'd
like
to
move
the
motion
that
we
actually
defer.
Okay,
this
decision,
while
we
we
actually
get
the
details
of
the
the
the
potential
action
that
the
property
team
have
done,
because
if
the
fence
has
been
agreed
in
its
current
position,
then
fine,
okay,
that
that
would
possibly
you
know,
sway
the
committee
one
way,
but
if
the
fence
line
has
been
moved
to
another
position,
okay,
it
could
then
move
us
in
another
way.
N
Thank
you,
council,
frost
again,
just
hopefully
assist
committee.
I
think
any
any
consideration
of
deferral
would
again
have
to
be
seen.
I
suppose,
echoing
what
the
chair
said
in
the
first
instance
about
what
are
the
planning
merits
and
of
this
assessment.
So
the
land
ownership
is
is
a
separate
matter
in
the
same
way
as
any
other
land
ownership.
It
just
so
happens
that
it's
our
land
ownership
that
was
involved
in
when
I
say
our
the
councils
as
opposed
to
the
lpa.
N
So
it
would,
I
think
it
would
need
the
committee
would
need
to
be
clear
in
mind
that
there
isn't
that
there
is
a
an
issue
there
in
terms
of
the
demonstrable
harm
in
terms
of
what's
happened
in
terms
of
the
development
on
the
site,
already
not
the
land
ownership
issue
in
the
first
instance,
and
if,
if
part
of
that
is
really
dependent
on
understanding
the
land
ownership,
then
that
would
be
a
reasons
for
a
deferral.
G
That's
what
it
says
there
that
is
totally
separate
to
what
we're
saying,
which
is
planning
you
can't
mix
the
two
they're
not
relevant
to
each
other.
It's
a
planning
matter!
Well,
it's
there!
But
the
point
is
it's
a
planning
matter
and
the
officers
are
right.
If
we,
as
a
committee
judge
that
we
consider
planning
terms
that
we
would
not
have
agreed
for
the
open
space
to
go,
then
that
is
a
decision
that
this
committee
can
come
to
and
hence
the
original
motion
has
moved.
G
N
And
I
think,
if
I
can
just
thank
casa,
harvey
and
again
understand
the
question
council
first,
but
I
think
the
reason
for
it
being
there
in
the
report
is
that
it
doesn't
form
part
of
the
assessment
which
is
effectively
the
expediency
from
fortune
from
4.8
onwards.
It
was
really
just
trying
to
give
the
context
as
to
how
the
enforcement
complaint
came
about
in
the
first
place,
as
opposed
to
being
material
to
the
assessment
of
expediency.
If
that,
if
that
clarifies.