►
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
C
B
M
A
C
A
J
Thank
you
chair.
I
understand
that
when
the
objectors
gave
representation.
J
Yes,
chair,
I
think
this
is
more
pertinent.
J
When
we
looked
at
the
application
for
mickelfield
house,
the
red
line
did
not
include
the
parking
bays
and
I
think
we
discussed
the
fact
that,
even
though
the
applicant
was
putting
those
forwarders
visited
parking
bays,
they
would
actually
still
be
fully
public
parking
bays
because
they
weren't
actually
within
his
kirklage.
So
wonder
if
we
could
have
clarification
in
the
minutes
on
those
please.
F
Can
I
just
address
that
last
sorry
chair
in
reference
to
the
point
raised
by
councillor
collins,
I'd
have
to
check
this
council
college
because
I
think
I
did
refer
to
it
in
the
plans
file.
The
two
bays
I
think
you
were
referring
to
were
already
allocated
as
visits
to
bays
outside
of
the
site,
so
they
were
already
there
as
visitor
bays
and
were
to
be
retained
as
visitor
base.
So
we'll
put
a
note
into
the
me
into
the
minutes
and
I
will
check
it
and
come
back
to
you
with
that
particular
point:
that's
okay!.
J
So
so
are
you
saying
there's?
Actually
there
were
actually
six
visits
bays
because
I
don't
recall
that
I
recall
that
the
ones
behind
the
fence
were
for
the
flats
only
and
there
were
no
visitor
parking
bays.
So
yes,
if
some
clarification
could
be
brought
forward,
please
and
put
it
in
the
minutes.
Thanks.
B
B
B
B
Members
will
also
know
that
procedural
matters
and
actually
the
speaking
times
of
each
object,
are
not
mentioned
in
the
draft
minutes
and
therefore
it's
not.
It
wouldn't
be
appropriate
to
move
any
amendments
to
the
current
draft
minutes
on
that
basis.
But
I
do
advise
as
councillor
as
councillor
collins
has
has
also
suggested
that
the
minutes
of
this
meeting
record
that
we've
recognized
that
error.
So
there
is
a
factual
record
of
that
error
on
on.
A
Any
matters
arising
that
thinking
that
was
the
only
matches
arising
from
the
minute.
So
could
I
express
to
just
approve
the
minutes.
B
Thank
you
chair.
This
item
at
belmont
house
was
subject
to
a
site
visit
this
morning
and
it
concerns
the
conversion
and
extension
to
belmont
house,
the
demolition
of
the
roundhouse
and
the
coach
house
and
its
replacement
with
24
residential
units.
Overall,
the
description
on
the
application
is
slightly
wrong.
In
the
it
should
say,
belmont
house
has
10
apartments
and
one
town
house,
not
11
apartments.
B
If
I
can
move
on
to
the
next
slide,
please
so
this
is
belmont.
This
is
belmont
house,
which
is
here
there's
a
single
story.
Extension.
Can
you
all
still
hear
me
if
I
turn
away
it's
a
single
story.
Extension
in
this
location
here,
which
will
be
demolished
and
it'll,
be
replaced
by
a
three-story
extension
and
part
of
it
is
only
covers
up
to
about
here.
But
we'll
look
at
that
in
a
bit
more
detail
in
a
minute.
This
is
the
round
house
which
will
be
demolished.
B
B
This
is
another
aerial
photograph,
but
this
one
is
a
3d
one
which
I
thought
gave
you
a
better
interpretation
of
the
area,
and
I
want
you
to
note
the
garages
that
are
in
this
location
here,
because
the
coach
house
is
the
opposite
side.
This
is
the
rear
of
belmont
house.
The
round
house
again
and
the
garden
that
you
went
into
this
morning
is
located
there.
B
Can
I
have
the
next
slide
please.
This
is
the
garden
that
you
went
into
this
morning.
You
probably
all
remember
so.
What
I
want
to
point
out
on
this
photograph
is
that
there
will
be
a
gabled
extension
to
the
rear,
which
will
be
going
in
this
location
here,
which
will
extend
out
as
far
as
this
gable
that
you
can
see
there.
The
extension
will
go
in
this
location
here
and
results
in
the
loss
of
these
two
trees
that
you
can
see
on
there
and
just
for
clarity
in
terms
of
its
height
above
this
fence.
B
It
will
go
to
about
here.
On
that
chimney.
Can
I
have
the
next
side
please?
This
is
showing
you
the
flat
roof
extension.
This
is
the
area
that
will
be
extended
out
to
come
out
as
far
as
this
for
the
gable
there,
and
then
this
will
also
have
a
small
extension
with
the
stairs
to
be
removed.
B
B
B
You
can
just
see
there
next
one
please
and
that's
just
another
shot,
so
this
is
where
the
there
will
be.
There
will
be
a
small
extension.
This
is
the
gable
I've
just
been
speaking
about,
and
this
property
gable
will
come
out
the
same
as
this
one.
What
these
slides
don't
show.
You
is
the
difference
in
levels
which
you'll
get
an
idea
of
in
later
photographs.
B
This
is
from
next
door,
the
house
that
I
showed
you
a
minute
ago.
This
is
showing
you,
the
single
story,
extension
and
the
extension
will
go
along
the
top
here
with
this
gable
coming
out
over
that
way,
the
next
one,
please
that's
just
showing
you
the
other
shot.
This
gives
you
a
good
example
of
how
far
this
gable
comes
out
at
the
moment
when
this
other
one
will
replicate
it
the
next
one
please.
B
B
This
is
the
front.
This
is
where
we
parked
this
morning.
So
this
is
belmont
house.
One
of
the
alterations
that
will
happen
is
that
this
dormer
will
become
one
dormer
at
the
front.
There
you've
got
these
trees
coming
out
here.
That's
the
single
story
that
exists
at
the
moment
with
the
extension
going
on
roughly
about
about
there,
the
next
one.
Please
that's
the
round
house
which
will
be
demolished
nice
slide
between
the
two.
You
can
see
how
much
lower
the
round
house
is
from
from
belmont
house,
which
is
there
the
next
one
please.
B
B
So
you
can
see
how
much
the
difference
of
levels
is
on
the
property
next
one
please,
I'm
just
going
to
quickly
go
around
the
belmont
house,
so
this
is
the
gable
that
will
be
extended
out
and
the
extension
will
be
going
on
here
this
it's
the
side
of
the
coach
house
which
will
be
demolished
and
replaced
the
next
one.
B
This
is
just
moving
a
bit
further
on
with
another
view
of
the
coach
house.
Again,
you
can
see
the
height
differences
to
the
properties,
to
the
to
the
rear,
the
next
one
please
and
that's
looking
back
again,
so
you
can
see
this
gable
and
single
story
which
will
be
replicated
in
this
area
here
next
one.
Please
where's
this
one,
that
this
is
the
coach
house,
and
this
is
the
garages
that
we
saw
the
front
of
before
the
triple
garages.
B
So
again,
you
can
see
the
height
difference
between
the
land,
where
the
garages
are
and
the
actual
application
site
the
next
one.
Please
that's
the
coach
house
that
you
saw
this
morning
which
will
be
demolished
the
next
one
and
that's
looking
back
from
the
coach
house.
So
it's
showing
you
that
gable!
That
will
be
repeated
in
this
area.
B
Higher
I'll
show
you
an
elevation
of
it
in
a
minute,
the
next
one,
that's
showing
your
belmont
house
from
the
from
wood
lane
and
showing
you
the
entrance
into
the
site,
and
I
think
I've
got
one
more
photograph
next,
one
which
is
just
showing
you
wood
lane
and
the
vegetation
that's
on
monday.
This
tree
is
due
to
come
out
not
for
the
development
that's
coming
out,
because
it's
in
a
dangerous
condition.
B
There
are
four
trees
in
total
that
need
to
be
removed,
three
of
all
the
development
and
this
one
because
it's
in
a
dangerous
state
and
we
will
be
replacing
them
with
a
three
to
one
on-site,
the
location
yet
to
be
decided
via
a
landscaping
condition,
and
I
have
the
next
one.
B
So
this
is
showing
you
the
site,
that's
similar
to
the
aerial
that
you've
got
at
the
moment.
The
single
story
extension
is
here
at
the
moment
where
the
two-story,
three-story
extension
will
go.
The
coach
house
is
here:
the
new
coach
house
will
go
to
about
there
and
then
the
roundhouse
will
be
demolished,
and
if
you
move
on
to
this
next,
one
which
shows
a
proposed
site
plan,
it'll
it'll
detail
that
so
there's
the
the
coach
house
in
a
bigger
position.
B
Alongside
this
building,
that's
already,
there
you've
got
the
extension
to
the
side
of
belmont
house
and
it's
it's
two-story
in
this
area
here
three-story
in
this
area
there
so
from
this
garden.
Here
it
will
be
a
story.
Less
then
you've
got
the
gable
there
with
the
single
story
gable
below
and
on
this
elevation.
B
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
all
these
windows
on
all
of
them
meet
our
neighborhoods
for
living
in
terms
of
distances
to
the
boundaries
and
distances
to
the
properties
that
are
surrounding,
and
that
is
bray
house
that,
where
the
round
house
is
where
the
new
building
is
going
to
go,
can
I
have
the
next
one
please.
B
So
this
is
the
development
at
belmont
house.
We've
got
some
images
at
the
end,
which
give
you
better
detail
of
what
this
will
look
like,
but
this
is
the
front
that
you
saw
with
that
one
dormer
now,
instead
of
the
two,
this
is
the
extension
that's
going
on,
which
will
be
built
in
a
a
light.
Brick
and
we'll
have
glass
separating
it
from
the
main
building,
it's
subservient
to
the
main
building.
It's
a
it's
a
modern
extension
replicating
materials
of.
I
think
I
said
that
already,
I'm
not
sorry
light
brick.
B
So
on
that
drawing
it
would
be
about
there
upwards
above
there
from
their
garden.
Can
I
have
the
the
next
one
please?
This
is
just
an
example
of
the
floor
layout,
I'm
not
going
to
say
a
great
deal
about
it.
It's
in
your
package,
if
you've
watched
it
just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
the
size
of
the
apartments
that
are
going
to
be
there.
B
I
think
in
the
new
extension
at
the
modern
one
at
the
size,
you
can
see
the
variation
in
windows
and
they
are
quite
small
windows
going
into
there
in
terms
of
any
overlooking
the
next
one
please.
This
is.
The
bray
house
follows
the
same
design
principles
of
the
extension
on
belmont
house.
Again,
you've
got
a
lot
of
recesses
windows,
recessed
a
modern
glass
structure
with
a
with
brick
again,
the
images
that
you
see
at
the
end
give
it
a
better
better
view
of
it.
The
next
one.
B
Please
again,
this
was
just
put
into
your
package
just
to
show
you
an
idea
of
what
the
floor
layouts
would
look
like
in
in
bray
house,
the
next
one.
This
is
the
coach
house.
As
I
said,
it's
a
story
higher
with
the
gable.
At
the
end,
this
drawing
gives
you
an
idea
of
how
it
relates
to
that
building
at
the
back.
So
you
can
see
the
difference
in
height
levels,
it'll
be
no
higher
than
that
building.
That's
there
at
the
moment.
B
The
next
one
is
just
a
floor,
a
floor
layout
again
for
you
to
look
at
if
you
want
to
in
your
own
time
the
next
one.
This
is
showing
you
the
changing
levels.
So
this
is
belmont
house,
and
this
will
be
the
new
gray
house
which
is
in
place
of
the
roundhouse.
So
you
can
see
as
you've
seen
the
photographs
it's
at
a
much
much
lower
level,
and
I
think
I'm
finishing
with
three
of
the
images
to
give
you
a
better
idea
of
the
design.
B
So
if
I
could
have
the
next
one
so
there's
belmont
house,
this
is
the
modern
building
that
we
built
it's
lower
than
it,
and
you
can
see
there's
a
lot
of
architectural
features
made
with
the
brick
you
have
these
brick
recesses.
You
have
the
windows
recessed
in
it
gives
it
quite
a
sleek
appearance,
the
next
one
and
that's
showing
you
the
extension
which
will
be.
You
know,
built
from
exactly
the
same
materials
with
exactly
the
same
design
features
and
as
you
can
see,
we've
got
we've
got
phil
here
today.
B
If
you
want
to
talk
about
the
design
more
with
him-
and
I
think
there's
one
more
image
which
is
showing
you,
the
actual
bray
house,
the
coach
house
at
the
back
will
be
built
from
brick
to
match
the
existing
belmont
house.
B
As
I've
already
said,
there's
a
dpd
approvals
exist
for
the
buildings
to
already
be
converted
to
residential,
so
the
principle
of
residential
on
the
site
has
already
been
established.
I've
already
discussed
residential
immunity,
design
and
the
impact
of
trees
with
you.
I
just
need
to
move
on
to
another
couple
of
things
in
terms
of
housing
mix.
The
proposal
falls
within
the
minimum
maxim
and
targets
for
one
and
bedroom
flats,
but
not
for
the
three
bedroom
properties.
However,
to
meet
this
target
would
require
more
parking
with
an
impact
on
more
of
the
trees
on
the
site.
B
You
know
it's
quite
a
significant
development
and
to
only
lose
four
trees
is,
is
quite
small
and
we
wouldn't
really
want
to
be
encouraging
the
more
larger
development
that
resulted
in
more
larger
flats
in
terms
of
affordable
housing.
The
site
requires
50,
affordable
housing
provision
on
the
site,
which
equates
to
four
units.
There
is
on
this
site
only
one
unit
being
provided.
B
This
is
due
to
the
applicants
requesting
vacant
building
credit
which
has
been
agreed.
The
mppf
does
state
that
to
support
the
reuse
of
brownfield
land
and
vacant
buildings,
any
affordable
housing
contribution
should
be
reduced
by
proportionate
amount
to
incentivize
brown
field
development
and
the
reuse
of
vacant
buildings,
and
this
is
a
positive
building
in
the
conservation
area
and
it's
in
very,
very
good
condition,
and
we
would
like
to
support
a
use
that
brings
it
into
a
long-term
use
as
quickly
as
possible
before
it
deteriorates
any
further
in
terms
of
ecology.
B
The
bio
diversity
net
gain
will
be
11.
Post
development,
which
is
we
consider,
is
acceptable
and
in
terms
of
parking,
it
is
considered
that
the
parking
levels
in
the
sustainable
location
with
a
contribution
to
resident
permits
is
acceptable.
A
N
O
O
O
It
will
result
in
neighboring
gardens
and
houses
being
overlooked
by
new
apartments,
with
a
complete
loss
of
privacy.
It
will
in
fact
ruin
this
part
of
the
conservation
area.
This,
I
suggest,
is
because
the
developer
failed
to
visit
the
site
to
look
at
the
development
from
the
western
and
southern
sides
of
the
boundary
before
undertaking
his
design.
O
O
I
have
copies
here
if
you
would
like
to
see
them
I'd
like
to
make
it
clear
that
we
neighbors
are
not
opposed
to
this
scheme
at
all.
We
would
like
it
to
be
a
success,
but
we
need
to
find
a
solution
which
does
not
cause
issues
for
us.
18
neighbors
we
and
councillor
walsh
have
tried
to
explain
this
to
the
developer,
but
he
rejected
our
suggestion
that
this
could
be
best
achieved
by
reducing
the
height
of
the
three-story
block
to
a
maximum
of
two
stories.
H
Thanks
chair,
this
is
council
wall
show
mainly
what's
the
view
of
ward
members
on
the
reduction
of
the
affordable
housing
units
from
four
to
one.
You
support
that,
and
the
second
is,
what's
more
members
view
on
fusing
the
modern
with
the
traditional
I'm
not
entirely
convinced
at
this
particular
point
that
it
works,
but
I'd
be
interested
in
one
member's
views.
N
Yeah
thanks
for
that
excellent
couple
of
questions,
councilman
finnegan,
I
think
going
from
in
reverse
order.
I
think
the
the
fusion
is
okay
up
to
a
point.
It's
a
site
where
we've,
if
you'll,
see
on
the
site
visit
there
is
that
circular
building.
So
there
is
a
sort
of
a
tradition
on
the
site
for
a
bit
of
a
fusion,
so
that's
acceptable.
N
It's
just
the
location
as
as
mr
falking
and
very
ill
quickly
pointed
out.
It's
the
it's
the
imposition
of
the
the
extension
on
to
the
neighbors.
That's
the
problem,
not
so
much
the
design.
N
You
know,
I
think
that's
that's
an
entirely
reasonable
position
for
us
to
take
a
you
you'll
note
panel
that
we've
come
in
an
extremely
reasonable
frame
of
mind
to
to
make
these
comments
today.
N
Turning
to
affordables
ward
members
are
entirely
unhappy
that
the
affordables
are
from
four
down
to
one.
I
think
we'd,
probably
all
agree
that
headingly
is
rather
a
property
hotspot,
and
I
have
some
concerns
about
using
the
the
vacant
building
credit
in
this
manner.
I
think
heading
as
a
community
needs
the
affordables
more
than
it
needs
a
quote-unquote
brownfield
site
being
brought
back
into
use.
There
will
be
no
shortage
of
of
takers
for
this
site.
If,
if
this
developer
didn't
want
to
happen,
there
would
be
a
cue.
I
think
we
can
all
accept
that.
N
J
Thank
you
chair.
You
mentioned
that
you
thought
if
they
reduced
the
height
of
the
extension
at
the
back,
that
they
would
be
able
to
develop
bray
house
more.
Are
you
saying
that
greyhound
should
have
a
bigger
footprint
and
therefore
I'm
just
asking
those
neighbors
closest
to
bray
house?
Would
they
be
acceptable
to
ray
house
being
bigger.
O
Sorry,
as
far
as
I
can
tell
having
lived
there
for
many
years,
the
north
and
east
sides
of
the
site
would
not
be
affected
by
any
increase
in
size
of
bray
house.
O
That
is
because
of
the
top
topography,
the
the
site
falls
away
to
the
north
side
of
woodlane,
and
you
saw
from
the
the
previous
speaker's
presentation
that,
when
viewed
from
wood
lane
belmont
house
and
any
extension
to
it,
is
as
high
above
the
level
of
that
development,
so
that
to
me
says
that
there
is
space
available
there,
and
I
feel
that
from
what
I've
said
earlier,
that
if
this
scheme
had
been
looked
at
properly
from
the
start
from
all
four
sides,
if
it
had
been,
then
then
some
a
solution
could
have
been
achieved.
O
That
would
be
acceptable
to
all.
So,
as
I've
said,
I
I
think
that
the
development
could
be
expanded
in
bray
house
without
making
a
three-story
extension
in
what
is
the
tightest
corner
of
the
site.
O
There's
no
question
about
that
and
you
counselors
have
kindly
been
today
to
have
a
look
for
yourselves
and
you've
seen
how
that
existing
extension
is
very,
very
close
to
the
corner
and
very
close
to
our
boundary.
A
My
question
is
counselor
walt
shaw.
Can
you
explain
to
me
what
are
the
impact
on
the
18
surrounding
houses.
C
And
you
know
what
what's
the
impact?
What's
the
immediate
impact
on
the
surrounding
houses,
because
I
went.
N
Yeah
thanks
for
that
it
yeah
it's
it's,
so
it's
18
affected
households
in
the
there
have
objected,
it's
the
it's,
the
physical
impact,
it's
the
the
the
massive
you
know,
the
visual
impact
and
the
overlooking
of
properties
where
that's
never
existed
before
in
in
such
such
a
large
degree,
and
it's
also,
as
mr
falkinger's
point
out,
it's
a
large
site
where
there
is
an
easy
design
solution
to
be
found.
I
think
councilman.
N
If
that
answers
your
question,
so
it's
you
know
it's.
It
is
quite
a
lot
of
the
neighbors
who've
objected
to
this.
It's,
I
think
everyone
who's
impacted,
as
I
was
objected
to
this,
and
I
think
that
shows
the
strength
of
feeling
about
it,
but
I
think
some
of
that
strength
of
feeling
does
derive
from
the
fact
that
there
really
is
a
good
solution
to
be
had
on
this
site
that
doesn't
cause
these
problems
and
that's
what's
disappointing
about
the
application.
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
A
Yeah,
I
will
follow
around
from
because
that's
what
I
was
going
to
ask
you
had
it
on
you
stated
it
would
be
significant
impact
for
the
neighbor
overlooking
through
the
garden.
What
impact
will
the
neighbor
of
looking
overlook
the
garden.
N
Yeah,
so
it
is
that
visual
impact
on
a
a
whole
row
of
of
our
constituents
as
properties
and
whether
there's
never
they've
not
had
that
overlooking
before
which
yeah
and
I
think
it's
that
it's
that
impact
that
is
causing
the
the
dissatisfaction
with
the
applicant,
particularly
as
I've
said
before
there
is
there's
an
equitable
design
solution
to
be
had
on
this
site.
You
know
everyone's
come
come
to
this
application
and
be
entirely
reasonable.
I
think,
and
we
very
much
want
the
site
to
come
forward
and
it's
an
important
site
heading.
N
A
We
now
have
richard
nate,
don
james
and
stevens,
who
will
be
stephen,
will
be
speaking
in
favor
of
the
applicant.
D
All
have
worked
collaboratively
with
us
and
all
agree
that
proposals
meet
the
necessary
technical
and
policy
criteria
will
bring
forward
quality
new
homes
on
a
highly
accessible
brownfield
site.
Revisions
have
been
incorporated
into
the
design
and
reflect
not
only
officer
observations,
but
the
outputs
from
the
extensive
pre-submission
and
post-submission
consultation
process,
which
has
accompanied
the
application.
P
P
The
submitted
scheme
reflects
a
number
of
changes
following
advice
and
requests
from
consultees,
including
neighbour
concerns,
massing
and
articulation
to
all.
Elements
of
the
design
have
been
examined
and
amended
accordingly,
and
the
application
proposals
comply
with
all
technical
planning
guidance,
including
immediate
distances,
overlooking
tree
root,
protection
highways
and
the
ever
more
stringent
sustainability
requirements.
P
These
changes
have
been
well
documented
through
an
extensive
pre-application
consultation
with
the
outcomes
detailed
within
the
office's
recommendation
report.
Architecturally.
The
proposals
are
split
into
three
distinct
elements
with
belmont
house
at
the
heart.
The
coach
house
replaces
the
existing
redundant
building
with
one
of
similar
architectural
appearance
incorporating
modern
construction
standards
that
will
lead
to
a
sustainable
residential
building
that
will
surpass
the
requirements
established
within
adopted
planning
and
building
control
guidance.
P
Your
design,
landscape
and
tree
offices
have
been
instrumental
in
evolving
the
design
proposals
and
we
are
very
grateful
to
them
for
their
help.
Assistance
and
support
the
health
and
well-being
of
the
existing
trees
on
site
has
been
at
the
forefront
of
the
design
process
and
the
application
proposals
benefit
from
tree
officer
support
following
extensive
design
collaboration.
P
The
application
scheme
has
been
designed
and
adapted
in
partnership
with
the
city
council
officer
team
and
will
secure
an
inclusive
brownfield
residential
scheme
that
complies
with
all
technical
guidance
and
delivers
a
sustainable
mix
of
high
quality
residential
spaces,
including
family
homes,
that
benefit
from
excellent
immunity
provisions.
Many
thanks,
chair.
A
H
Two
questions,
one
is:
how
did
he
consult
residents
and
neighbors
and
if
he
did,
how
did
that
influence
the
ultimate
outcome?
That
brings
us
here
today
and
just
run
me
through
your
thinking
of
why
this
should
be
part
of
the
vacant
building
credit
process.
Therefore
affordable
homes
reduced
from
four
down
to
one.
D
The
vacant
vacant
building
kind
of
is
written
into
the
into
the
framework.
It's
it's
in
the
framework
there
to
encourage
them.
D
So
I'll
start
again,
so
they
can,
they
can
building
credits
written
into
the
framework.
It's
in
it's
in
there
to
incentivize
the
reuse
of
brownfield
sites
in
within
leeds
the
vacant.
Building
credits
looked
at
on
a
side-by-side
basis.
D
D
So
in
order
for
the
scheme
to
come
forward,
it's
been
applied
and
therefore
the
calculation
results
in
in
one
affordable
unit.
D
Sorry,
on
the
second
point,
in
terms
of
the
community
consultation
over
the
course
of
probably
18
months,
there's
been
two
two
leaflet
drops
to
inform
residents
of
the
proposals
and
we've
also
met
on
site
with
councillor
wall
shaw
and
mr
faulkingham,
and
we've
also
been
to
the
rear
garden
of
mr
falcon's
house
and
also
the
sort
of
shared
garden
area
of
the
the
properties
at
30.
I
think
number
31,
I
think
next
door.
D
P
Yeah,
I
think,
richard's
correct.
We
have
obviously
been
to
the
to
the
rear
of
the
property
and
we
have
obviously
produced
you
know
our
own
visuals
ourselves
to
demonstrate
the
impact
of
the
building.
I
think
it's
been
noted.
You
know
a
couple
of
times
about
the
the
level
difference
and
actually
what
we're
talking
about
in
terms
of
views
is
effectively
a
single
story
building
from
from
the
neighbors
property
which
has
been
significantly
sent
back.
So
I
think
we
we
from
from
the
original
plans
and
discussions
we've
had
with
local
authority.
P
There
has
been
significant
changes.
The
actual
massing
of
the
building
has
changed.
The
the
balcony,
which
obviously
is
a
big
concern
in
terms
of
overlooking,
has
been
omitted
completely
from
that
from
the
scheme.
That's
before
you
now
and
regarding
the
coach
house
next
door.
I
think
it's
clear
we
have
been
to
outside
of
the
site
because
there's
actually
a
submitted
3d
visual.
That
shows
an
outline
of
the
coach
house
on
the
back
of
the
properties
there.
P
So
I
think
that's
yeah,
that's
part
of
the
application
itself
so
that
you
have
for
all
to
see
and
we
produce
further
visuals
in
order
to
test
this
kind
of
development
itself,
using
what
we
call
photo,
matched
technology
where
we
we
have
the
photos
that
we've
taken
so
mr
falcon
kind
of
invited
us
into
his
rear
guard.
We've
got
a
series
of
photos.
P
We've
chosen
some
key
views
based
on
photos
that
we've
seen
previously
from
mr
falconum
and
they
demonstrate
the
impact
of
the
building
and
again,
if
they
want,
you
know
if
you
wanted
to
see
those
they're
available.
So
I
think
that
gives
you
an
idea
of
what
we've
looked
at
in
terms
of
the
real
property
and
how
it
impacts
there,
but
also
just
to
touch
on
the
the
few
comments
that
we
made
about
the
availability
of
the
rest
of
the
site
for
a
bigger
development.
P
That
is
not
actually
it's
not.
It
has
been
considered
and
it's
not
true,
and
the
main
reason
for
that
is
the
tree
protection.
The
the
buildings
themselves
have
been
designed
very
carefully
with
tree
officer,
support
and
actually
tweaked
grey
house
and
actually
made
gray
house
smaller
than
the
original
footprint
to
accommodate
the
tree
root
protection,
which
has
been
very
stringent
in
this
application
site.
There
were
areas
where
we
proposed,
you
know
remodeling
the
car
park
at
the
front,
for
example,
changes
from
the
curb
stones
for
something
that
was
slightly
nicer.
P
We've
moved
away
from
that
on
recommendation,
because
any
ground
works
within
that
area
would
be
detrimental
to
certain
trees,
so
actually
the
whole
site
has
been
explored
and
obviously
the
the
extension
of
the
back
of
belmont
house
sits
on
a
current
footprint.
The
footprint
has
not
changed
apart
from
marginal
increase
at
the
front,
which
is
already
hard
standing.
So
in
that
respect,
there's
no
impact
whatsoever
on
the
trees
on
the
site,
whereas
every
other
increase
elsewhere
would
be
impact
on
the
trees,
and
I
think
that's
been
touched
on
for
development
of
this
scale.
P
Two
of
them
have
been
removed
for
not
for
development
purposes,
because
we've
been
recommended
to
by
the
agriculturalist
who
has
given
them
a
time
frame
and
actually
in
terms
of
the
the
liability,
if
you
like,
of
the
site
and
endangerment
of
the
public,
we've
been
asked
to
remove
those
trees.
So
it's
only
a
small
number
because
of
development
itself.
I
Thank
you
chair,
so
I
know
I
was
on
the
site
visit
this
morning
and
you
were
very
kind
in
answering
a
lot
of
my
questions.
So
thank
you
for
that
reading.
Through
the
report
paragraph,
I
think
it's
31
from
memory,
no
101,
101,
sorry,
climate
emergency,
page
30.,
so
you're
saying
that
there's
photovoltaics
where
on
any
of
the
drawings
are
they
shown?
Please,
because
I
can't
see
them
anywhere.
The
other
thing
I'd
like
to
know
is
what
source
are
you
using
to
heat
the
apartments?
Please.
I
I
know
that
you've
you've
said
something
about
the
energy
efficiency
and
things
which
is
where
the
fault
overtakes
come
in,
but
you've
obviously
got
a
lot
of
scope
for
ground
source
or
air
source
heat
pumps
here,
but
they're
not
mentioned,
and
I'd
like
to
just
pull
you
a
little
bit
more
on
the
existing
proven
relationship
with
the
rear,
neighbors
property
with
the
coach
house
and
in
particular
the
extension
area.
I
I
said
on
site
that
I've
got
concerns
with
that
relationship,
and
I
understand
your
your
reasoning,
but
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we're.
You
know
we're
looking
at
that
during
this
application.
I
think
that's
very
important.
I
P
Thank
you
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
the
trees,
there's
actually
15
trees,
going
back
in
obviously
we'll
be
working
closely
with
the
landscape
officer
to
to
establish
exactly
where
and
the
that
relationship
in
terms
of
the
actual
trees
that
have
been
lost
due
to
the
actual
application
itself
actually
exceeds
three
to
one
and
because
two
of
the
trees
have
been
lost,
they
would
have
to
go.
If
we
walked
away
from
this
site
now
they
would
be
recommended
to
be
to
be
removed.
P
Regarding
the
the
coach
house,
we
touched
on
site
about
the
existing
wall
that
is
behind
there.
The
the
scale
of
the
property
in
terms
of
its
development
has
been
has
taken
that
building
into
account.
P
So
it
is
that
you
can
see
through
the
application
drawings
there's
a
number
of
documents
there
that
demonstrate
the
height
of
the
building,
and
whilst
it
is
an
extra
story,
as
in
it's
a
three-story
building,
not
two,
it's
not
a
whole
extra
story,
because
part
of
that
was
within
the
eaves
and
the
floor
to
ceiling
heights
of
the
existing
building
because
of
the
office
space
actually
higher
than
a
residential
space.
P
So
it's
probably
closer
to
you
know,
two-thirds
of
a
story
than
a
full
story
on
top,
but
it
maintains
the
ridgeline
lower
than
the
existing
building
behind
in
terms
of
its
footprint,
it's
extended
to
the
car
park
side
and
and
sits
within
the
existing,
which
is
you
know,
the
the
huge
sort
of
the
gable
end
that
you
saw
there
and
in
terms
of
the
actual
building
itself.
There
was
a
engineer:
that's
been
on
board
when
this
project's
from
a
very
early
stage
which
we've
had
to
have
because
of
the
impact
on
trees
across
the
site.
P
With
you
know
the
building
itself
treatment
protection
areas,
we've
got
a
full
management.
You
know
document
in
there
that
demonstrates
how
we
can
actually
physically
build
the
buildings,
because,
obviously,
building
up
to
a
tree
root
protection
area
is
one
thing:
protecting
the
trees,
whilst
building
the
buildings
is
another.
So
that's
all
documented.
Within
the
the
information
that's
been
uploaded
and
within
that
scope
of
works,
the
engineer
is
obviously
responsible
for
the
maintaining
the
integrity
of
the
buildings
around
the
site
and
prior
to
any
commencement.
P
The
state
of
those
buildings
will
be
recorded,
whether
it's
through
electronic
interventions,
etcetera
and
you
know
the
the
kind
of
technical
things
that
engineers
will
need
to
provide
for
the
party
wall
agreements
that
will
have
to
go
in
place
with
the
neighbours,
whether
it's
a
full
party
wall
agreement
or
a
a
legal
document
that
maintains
the
the
integrity
of
their
building
any
damages
and
the
responsibility
of
the
developer.
P
So
hopefully,
that
sort
of
gives
you
the
the
background
as
to
why
we've
justified
the
enlargement
of
that
building.
That's
there.
C
P
And
in
some
of
the
pvs
they
are
noted
as
verbal
comments
on
the
elevations
and
the
plants,
the
balant
house
itself
has
a
series
of
flat
roof
areas
which
obviously
you
can't
see
from
the
ground
because
of
the
way
the
the
building
or
the
small
roof
elevations
around
the
perimeter.
P
Obviously,
a
building
of
that
footprint
has
quite
a
lot
of
flat
roof
areas
that
are
part
of
the
building
there,
so
the
pvs
will
be
limited
to
the
flat
roof
area,
so
they're
not
going
to
be
visible
from
any
of
the
elevations,
which
is
why
they're
not
shown
on
elevations.
But
if
you
actually
look
at
the
drawings
there'll
be
a
note
in
the
top
right
corner.
P
I
think,
somewhere
from
from
memory
that
notes
the
pvs
and
likewise
with
the
with
the
bray
house,
will
be
on
the
flat
roof
area
of
bray
house
in
terms
of
ground
source
heat
pump.
Going
back
to
my
comment
about
the
increase
in
building
size,
there
is
actually
very
limited
area
to
put
anything
in
the
ground
that
isn't
already
existed
because
of
the
trees.
The
tree
root
protection,
the
site
plant,
that's
included
in
this
package.
P
Clearly
shows
that
it's
a
very
tight
site
actually
with
with
the
tree
root
protection
and
on
that
basis,
ground
source
heat
pumps
are
difficult
to
incorporate
into
the
site
as
well.
So
we've
obviously
worked
closely
with
the
environmental
guys
to
come
up
with
a
strategy
to
provide
the
heating
and
the
power
to
the
to
the
building,
and
it's
it
it's
an
ever
moving.
Feast
is
the
is
the
environmental
side
of
things,
because
technology
changes,
and
so
at
the
moment
you
know
the
pvs
combined
with
electric
heating
has
been
deemed
the
most.
P
You
know
sensitive
way
to
go.
Electric
obviously
is
the
way
forward,
but
we
can't
demonstrate
where
it
actually
comes
from
at
this
point
in
time.
So
it's
a
it's
an
ongoing
conversation
and
it
will
be.
You
know
it's
something
that
has
to
be
controlled
at
build
the
control
stage
anyway,
and
all
these
elements
are
tested
and
proved
and
and
have
to
adhere
to
the
criteria
that's
put
into
the
planning
conditions.
P
So
at
this
stage
it's
electric
heating
pvs
on
the
roof
and
they
will
all
you
know,
comply
with
all
the
regulations
they
need
to.
As
we
move
forward
with
the
construction
stage.
I
How
much
of
the
power
do
you
expect
it
to
generate
from
the
pvs,
given
the
limited
flat
roof
area
that
is
actually
available,
particularly
after
you've
brought
your
gable
end
out
and
infilled
the
middle
section?
Thank
you.
P
Okay,
just
in
terms
of
the
the
figures
itself,
then,
which
is
kind
of
provide
me
the
actual
figures,
so
it
will
meet
to
actually
ten
percent
on
the
policy
ne1
10
for
bray
house
10
for
coach
house
and
11
for
belmont
house
over
over
and
above
what
is
required.
P
So
that's
the
actual
technical,
the
other
percentages.
D
So,
in
terms
also
in
terms
of
the
carbon
reduction,
we've
got
there's
an
addendum
note
that
supported
the
energy
statement
that
consulting
did
back
in.
I
think
it
was
probably
about
may
last
year,
but
the
denver
note
identifies
that,
there's
actually
a
35
to
7
35
to
37
reduction
in
carbon,
as
well
from
from
the
from
the
site
from
the
site
through
the
the
mechanisms
that
are
in
place
and
which,
which
have
got
listed
posted
in
the
in
the
energy
statement.
J
Sorry
all
right,
thank
you.
I
was
a
bit
slow
to
put
my
hand
up
just
following
on
from
the
ground
source
heat
extraction,
you're,
actually
demolishing
the
round
house
and
the
coach
house
and
starting
again,
why
can't
you
put
something
under
there
before
you
start
building
the
new
bits?
So
so
that
that's
one
side
question,
but
my
main
question
is:
I'm
afraid
I
don't
actually
like
the
design.
J
I
know
that's
subjective
and
it's
my
opinion,
but
when
you
do
look
at
the
image
that
you've
given
us
for
the
front
of
the
building,
it
does
look
over
dominant
to
the
front,
and
I
can
fully
understand
why
neighbours
to
the
south
west
are
extremely
concerned
about
this
big
box.
That's
going
on
the
back
of
the
house.
J
How
many
units
would
you
actually
lose
if
you
got
rid
of
the
third
floor
on
on
the
main
house
on
belmore
house
and
put
it
somewhere
else?
Well,
why
couldn't
you
put
those
extra
units
onto
bray
houses?
People
have
suggested.
P
So
in
terms
of
units,
it's
two
full
units
that
we
lose
and
from
the
second
floor
extension
and
I
think,
as
I've
covered
elsewhere,
the
the
footprint
of
the
the
the
additional
buildings
we
we've
looked
at.
You
know
increasing.
We
can't
because
of
tree
officer
support.
We've
got
to
a
point
now
where
it's
is
is
as
close
as
it
can
get
to
any
tree
root
protection
areas
and,
in
terms
of
height,
obviously,
there's
the
building
to
the
east
of
the
proposed
gray
house,
which
then
has
overlooking
issues
as
well.
P
So
the
height
and
the
relationship
between
the
house
to
the
to
the
to
the
east
and
belmont
house
itself
has
been
a
matter
of
discussion
with
the
local
authority,
and
I
think
the
the
design
and
access
statement
that's
been
provided
as
part
of
this
application
goes
into
some
length
to
describe
the
kind
of
architectural
relationship
between
all
these
elements
on
site.
P
There's
some
images
in
there
that
show
a
cross-section
across
the
whole
site
and
how
the
the
massing
of
the
building
relates
to
each
other
and
that's
where
we've
arrived
at
through
the
kind
of
collaborative
discussions
with
the
design
team
and
the
conservation
officers
as
part
of
the
local
authority
as
well.
So
it's
not
just
about
our
design.
It's
also
about
the
the
demonstrating
the
relationship
of
these
buildings
and
I
think,
in
terms
of
the
design
itself.
Obviously
it's
not
gonna,
be
everyone's
cup
of
tea
architecture
is
a
subjective.
P
You
know
subject,
but
I
think
what's
clear
in
the
design,
it's
the
the
simplicity
of
some
of
the
elements
is
what's
key
in
this
building.
I
think
I
mentioned
on
site
about
some
of
the
brick
work,
etc.
P
It's
the
the
the
way
that
the
the
the
components
will
be
detailed
and
that
real
elegant
solution
is
what's
going
to
make
this
building
key,
and
I
think
you'll
see
as
you
walk
around
these
city
centers,
some
very
elegant
buildings
that
are,
you,
know,
award-winning
buildings
that
actually,
when
you
break
them
down,
are
very
simple
buildings,
but
it's
the
detailing
that
has
made
them.
P
You
know
the
architecture
important
you'll
see
some
other
buildings
that
may
look
slightly
more
impressive
at
a
glance,
but
actually
the
detailing
is
poor
and
it
lets
them
down,
and
I
think
it's
that
simplicity.
That
then
brings
belmont
house
as
a
victorian.
You
know
and
some
of
the
the
for
once
for
better
descriptions
of
the
fancy
detailing
that's
on
belmont
house.
It
allows
that
to
kind
of
stand
by
itself
with
the
simple
detail
in
either
side
of
it
with
the
two
bookend
buildings
that
form
the
bray
house
and
the
extension.
G
Yes,
sorry,
just
just
adding
to
what
steve
said
that
and
answering
your
question
about
the
ground
source,
heat
pump
and
air
source
heat
pumps
due
to
the
constraints
of
the
site,
and
we
have
investigated
crown
source
heat
pumps.
It
was
the
conversation
that
was
had
very
early
on
in
the
development
of
the
project.
It's
not
viable
and
because
of
the
site
constraints.
It's
not
it's
not
not
practical
in
that
location.
G
Similarly,
for
a
scheme
of
that
size,
air
source,
heat
pumps
aren't
viable,
there's
a
you
need
a
lot
of
space
for
the
external
condensers
and
that
we
we've
found
having
looked
at
the
design,
it
just
wasn't
feasible
and
equally
as
there's
another
point
that
I
think
was
mentioned
earlier,
we
we
did,
we
discussed
at
length
with
the
design
and
conservation
team.
G
You
know
in
the
early
stages
about
having
a
another
height
on
the
top
great
house
and
due
to
the
impact
on
the
on
the
tree
canopy,
and
in
order
to
maintain
the
subservience
to
the
to
the
host
building
development
house,
it
was
deemed.
It
was
far
more
appropriate
to
maintain
that
at
the
two
and
a
half
story
hack
that
it
is
currently
thank
you.
P
So
I
just
just
write
one
more
point:
there,
obviously
there's
overlooking
issues
around
the
site,
but
there's
also
overlooking
issues
within
the
site
and
increasing
the
height
of
grey
house,
provides
overlooking
issues
between
belmont
house
and
bray
house
itself,
as
well
because
of
the
proximity
to
each
other.
So
it's
not
just
considering
the
the
wider
site.
You've
got
to
consider
the
site
internally
as
well.
J
P
The
footprint
is,
is,
is
set
by
the
tree
root
protection
area
and
we
were
categorically
told
we
cannot
go
any
bigger
than
the
footprint
that's
there
now
because
of
the
tree
officers,
comments
on
root
protection
and
the
agriculturalist
report.
So
it's
it's
almost
set
by
the
the
existing
footprint
of
the
roundhouse,
which
is
as
tight
as
it
can
possibly
be
to
root
protection
that
that
was
a
a
complete
no
by
the
tree
officer.
A
Thank
you.
My
question,
like
I
said,
on
site
the
roundhouse,
and
why
do
you
have
to?
Why
have
you
planning
to
knock
it
down
and
not
rebuilt
it
because
it's,
it's
quite
pleasant,
actually
to
look
up
there,
so
you
know
I
would
just
wanting
to
know
and
why
couldn't
you
rebuild
another
roundhouse?
P
No,
not
so
the
the
building's
been
designed
as
an
office
building
and
the
technology
that
goes
into
an
office
building
and
the
construction
typology
is
completely
different
to
that
of
a
residential
block.
It's
it's
over
three
stories,
but
in
terms
of
office
space,
the
requirements
for
acoustics
and
and
these
type
of
elements
are
different.
So
in
order
to
provide
flats
within
the
roundhouse
and
separate
those
flats,
there's
a
there's
a
whole
technical
aspect.
That's
almost
impossible.
The
curtain
wall
in
that
surrounds
that
building,
for
example,
would
be
completely
removed.
P
That
would
not
be
you
know,
practical
or
economical
to
be
able
to
convert
that
building
into
a
residential
property,
which
is
why
we've
explored
because
obviously
our
first
you
know
exploration
was
to
convert
that
building
and
indeed
we
have
put
a
pre-application,
let's
say,
a
permitted
development
application
in
to
convert
that
building,
but
in
terms
of
the
pragmatics
of
the
number
of
units
and
the
cost
of
actually
converting
something
it
just
becomes
unfeasible
because
of
the
the
construction
type
as
an
office
building,
not
a
residential
building
for
all
kinds
of
reasons:
fire,
acoustics
and
thermal
properties,
etc,
etc.
C
One
more
sure
I
ask
on
site
with
regards
the
yorkshire
stones:
will,
will
they
be
preserved?
Will
they
be
reused.
P
Yeah,
so
the
demolition
of
the
of
the
two
buildings
we'll
try
and
preserve
as
much
as
we
can
of
the
stone.
Obviously
there's
a
it
in
in
soviet
terms.
You
should
build
their
stone
building
with
their
line,
pointing
which
makes
it
easier
to
bring
down
that
won't,
be
the
case.
There'll
be
cement
points
in
there
and
obviously
the
demolition
of
that.
You
know
it's
not.
We
we
can't
hand
on
heart,
so
we're
going
to
be
able
to
maintain
all
the
stonework.
P
But
what
we
can
say
is
that
the
replacement
coach
house
and
the
the
gable
end
extension
to
belmont
house
will
be
done
in
stonework
to
match
the
building
and
by
match
we
say
as
close
as
we
can.
Obviously,
a
building
that's
been
there
for
hundreds
of
years
has
a
number
of
sort
build
up
and
chemicals
that
have
been
there,
for
you
know
forever
and
a
day,
so
replicating
that
is
is
is
almost
impossible
to
get
it
exact,
but
we
will
obviously
try
to
get
something
that
is
as
close
as
we
can
be.
E
P
I
think,
in
terms
of
the
the
building
itself,
we've
looked
at
all
sorts
of
options
for
for
the
site,
but
it's
constrained
within
the
existing
footprint
and
obviously
to
get
the
kind
of
the
the
numbers
and
to
generate
the
site
as
a
as
a
as
a
commercial
entity,
and
we've
had
to
look
holistically
across
the
whole
board.
And
originally
we
had.
You
know
a
bigger
footprint
at
second
floor
as
well.
P
So
we
have
conceded
the
size
there
and
I
say:
there's
documents
that
we've
produced
and
given
to
the
local
authority
a
number
of
times
on
a
number
of
occasions.
The
final
presentation
set
is
of
the
is
of
the
the
the
the
final
drawings,
if
you
like,
but
prelude
to
that,
we've
submitted
a
number
of
drawings
to
the
to
the
planners
which
describe
how
we've
changed
it.
P
So,
we've
kind
of
had
big,
big
red
notes
on
our
drawings,
showing
this
floor
reduced
by
50,
which
is
what
the
top
draw
was
reduced
by
50
from
our
initial
application,
drawing
and
the
pre-application
drawings
and
along
the
whole
site,
including
bray
house,
including
the
coach
house.
We've
documented
these
and
those
will
be
available
because
they've
been
sent
to
the
planners
as
physical
mathematical.
P
You
know
numbers
if
you
like
that,
show
how
we've
reduced
every
area
along
along
this
kind
of
path,
if
you
like
that,
we've
taken
to
get
this
final
set
of
drawings,
and
so
that's
yeah,
so
we've
conceded
a
number
of
items
and
obviously,
during
the
planning
we've
taken
off
the
the
balcony.
P
That
was
on
the
first
floor
area
accessed
from
the
second
floor
area,
and
I
think
the
key
thing
in
terms
of
richard
touched
on
it
before
is
the
immunity
distances
not
only
the
distances,
but
also
the
angle
in
terms
of
actual
the
technical
guidance
that
is
provided
for
developers
and
householders,
etc,
and
developing
whether
it's
a
housing
estate
or
something
like
this
is
very
kind
of
diagrammatic.
It
gives
you
a
set
of
numbers,
whether
it
be
21
meters,
15
meters,
12
meters,
etcetera,
and
you
will
note
that
we
far
exceed
all
those
numbers.
P
Not
only
that
if
you
take
actually
the
diagrammatic
view
of
it
and
effectively
draw
a
box
from
someone's
window
to
demonstrate
the
21
meters.
Because
of
the
angle
of
belmont
house
there
on
the
neighboring
property
here,
actually
the
the
displays
that
are
created
from
the
technical
guidance
has
been
adopted
by
the
local
authority.
It
actually
comes
nowhere
near
in
terms
of
a
pure
diagram,
and
I
appreciate
that's
not
always
the
case.
In
reality.
P
A
J
Thank
you
jeff.
Yes,
I
think
I've
already
mentioned
to
the
applicant.
I
don't
actually
like
the
fact
that
the
extension
to
belmont
house,
the
top
of
the
flat
roof
is
actually
well.
It
looks
like
it's
higher
than
the
actual
gutters
of
the
original
house.
I
think
it's
far
too
high.
Is
there
a
problem
with
increasing
the
height
of
bray
house,
because
from
from
that
drawing
it
does
look
as
if
there's
a
possibility
to
actually
put
maybe
not
a
full
floor,
but
a
half
floor
on
the
top
of
bray
house
has.
B
Well,
I
think,
like
they
said,
there's
two
things
we'd
have
to
consider.
One
would
be
the
tree
protection
zone
because
obviously,
we've
we've
worked
very
hard
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
minimum
loss
of
trees
on
this
site
because
they
are
an
important
feature
and
especially
when
you've
seen
them
in
the
in
the
summer
months
and
secondly,
we'd
also
need
to
make
an
assessment
on
on
its
impact
on
belmont
house,
because
belmont
house
at
the
moment
is
the
important
building
on
the
site,
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that
that
remains.
B
F
Sorry,
the
discussion
about
the
impact
on
the
trees
has
already
been
discussed
through
the
the
the
consideration
of
the
application,
because
that
was
referred
to
before
about
the
outboard
culturalist.
The
tree
canopy
will
be
affected
by
raising
it.
It's
always
a
balance,
isn't
it
developing
a
site
out
to
its
best
ability,
but
at
the
same
time,
taking
into
account
the
constraints
around
it
so
that
that
element
certainly
has
already
been
considered.
Chair.
J
G
The
top
floor
of
bray
house
is
already
stepped
back,
so
it's
already
around.
I
think
it's
about
50
of
the
of
the
the
first
floor
of
the
building.
So
if
you
just
step
it
back
any
further,
you
wouldn't
have
enough
space
for
it
for
a
single
unit
and
architecturally.
You
then
lose
the
the
subservience
to
the
to
the
house,
building
to
belmont
house,
which
has
always
been
something
that
the
heritage
and
conservation
officers
have
been
really
keen
to
maintain
that
belmont
house
remains
the
most
prominent
the
dominant
building
on
the
site.
G
Out
of
the
you
know,
the
scheme.
H
Thanks
chair
the
planning
officer,
there's
nothing
in
the
conditions
or
whatever
about
the
n1
and
the
n2.
I'm
not
sure
why
not?
H
The
second
question
to
the
planning
officer
is:
could
you
take
us
through
the
vacant
building
credit
process,
because,
as
I
understand
it,
this
isn't
about
a
subsidy
for
quite
a
nice
and
pleasant
residential
area
to
try
and
encourage
them
to
redevelop
brownfield
sites.
This
is
about
grotty
sites
that
we've
all
got.
That
really
do
need
a
bit
of
a
hand
up
at
this
particular
point.
So
are
any
figures
provided
financial
figures
provided
to
show
that
the
site
won't
won't
go
ahead
without
the
full,
affordable
housing
element,
so
I'm
interested
how
that
actually
works.
H
I
don't
know
I
accept
that
it
exists
for
this
particular
process,
but
how
does
it
actually
work
in
reality,
because
I
don't
think
it's
supposed
to
be
a
subsidy
in
these
circumstances
and
to
conservation
officer,
I'm
still
trying
to
get
my
head
round
how
the
modern
and
the
traditional
fuse
together
well.
Could
he
perhaps
explain
it
better
to
me
because
I'm
puzzled
how
it
does
the
new
flat
stuff
doesn't
seem
to
fit
in
at
all?
D
I
couldn't
possibly
agree
with
your
last
comment:
counselor,
but
so
yeah.
Some
some
may
see
the
the
architecture
as
challenging
question
might
be
asked
why
don't
we
just
copy?
What's
there,
which
is
sometimes
called
historicism?
D
If,
when
you
just
you
just
reproduce
the
existing
architecture,
but,
as
we
all
know,
that's
wrought
with
with
problems.
If
you
don't
get
the
detail,
absolutely
right
right,
it
looks
like
a
near
miss,
so
we
have
a
long
tradition
in
leeds
of
what
is
called
contextualism,
where
we
counterpoint
or
contrast
existing
architecture.
D
D
If
you
like
to
be
successful
with
a
contextual
approach,
I
think
the
the
new
buildings
have
got
to
be
informed
by
the
significance
of
the
the
context.
D
I
think
they've
got
to
sit
happily
in
the
pattern
of
existing
development,
respect
the
important
views
of
scale
use
materials
which
are
high
quality
and
create
new
views
and
juxt
positions,
and
my
assessment
is
that
this
that
the
the
the
extension
to
the
building
and
the
replacement
building
for
the
rotunda,
the
roundhouse
does
that
I
think
the
modern
simplicity
of
the
buildings
having
flat
roof,
helped
to
reduce
the
visual
impact
and
help
them
remain
subservient.
D
I
don't
think
the
scheme
ignores
existing
property,
but
takes
visual
clues
from
it
and
reinterprets
them
in
an
interesting
way.
I'll
say
a
bit
more
about
that
in
a
minute,
it
picks
up
the
the
ordered
facades
of
the
existing
building,
the
repetition
of
windows
and
the
proportions
and
materials
that
they've
been
very,
very
carefully
considered.
D
The
extensions
the
proportions
are
very
similar
to
the
existing
proportions
of
the
of
belmont
house,
the
modern
contemporary
modular
grid.
So
to
get
technical,
I
think
reproduces
the
domestic
scale
and
proportions
of
the
existing
building.
D
I've
just
said,
and
I
think
it
I
think,
the
deeply
recessed
windows
and
displays
provides
a
really
interesting
modulation
of
the
facade
and
it
will
be
a
constant
change
throughout
the
day,
with
shadows
and
and
shade,
and
it
and
the
the
deep
reveals,
I
think,
reproduced
the
very
deep,
the
deep
wall
of
the
existing
victorian
building.
So
I
think
in
in
very
subtle
way,
in
a
very
way
it
does.
It
does
take
up
clues
from
the
existing
building.
D
It's
been
salvaged
and
reused,
but
I
think
the
the
smaller
unit
of
the
brick,
I
think,
will
make
the
building
subservient
to
the
deep
courses
existing
stone
and
and
pick
up
the
the
the
tones
and
the
hues
and
the
textures
of
the
the
of
the
stone
as
well.
C
Thank
you,
chad.
I
thought
it
might
be
helpful
if
I
just
discussed
vacant
building
credit
and
where
it
comes
from,
we
take
decision
making
right
back
to
a
very
basic
level.
I
suppose
we're
told
that
we
must
determine,
or
you
must
determine
sorry
planning
applications
in
accordance
with
the
development
plan
unless
material
considerations
indicate
otherwise.
C
So
the
relevant
policy,
in
our
plan,
as
members
will
know,
is
policy
h5,
which
deals
with
the
affordable
housing
requirements
in
leeds.
However,
the
material
consideration
is
the
vacant
building
credit
which
is
found
both
in
the
nppf
and
the
nppg
as
well.
Both
the
mppf
and
the
mppg
are
material
considerations
in
your
decision.
Making
the
mppf
in
particular,
as
members
will
be
aware,
is
something
that
carries
significant
weight
as
such.
D
Yes,
thanks
j,
just
to
supplement
that
we
have
looked
at
case
law
and
previous
appeal
decisions
on
this
particular
issue
in
very
similar
circumstances
to
this
application,
and
we
have
concluded
that
vacant
building
credit
does
apply
in
this
instance,
which
is
why
we've
got
this
situation
where
we've
gone
from
one
to
four
affordable
units
down
to
one
taking
account
of
the
existing
buildings
floor
space.
D
D
We
followed
our
own
policy
h5
and
there's
a
sale,
checked
case
law
previous
appeal
decisions
and
have
concluded
that
vacant
building
credit
does
apply
so,
as
matt
says,
we
believe
it
would
be
under
a
very
difficult
circumstances
seeking
to
resist
this
application
on
the
basis
of
the
lack
of
compliance
with
affordable
housing
requirements.
Thank
you,
chair.
B
Oh,
yes,
sorry
the
question
in
relation
to
e
and
one
and
e
n2:
yes
and
the
there
isn't
any
conditions
on,
but
I'm
quite
happy
to
move
that.
We
had
a
condition
to
to
to
make
sure
that
the
measures
that
they've
said
for
e1
and
e
en1
and
en
2
are
included
as
part
of
any
approval.
I
Thank
you
chair.
My
question
is
for
the
highways
officer.
If
I
may,
he
sits
there
very
quietly.
Every
time
when
we
attended
today,
the
entry
into
the
site
was
via
a
very
narrow
lane,
wood
lane.
I
believe
it
was.
I
just
wondered
if
you
had
sort
of
saw
any
problems
there,
if
we've
got
24
dwellings
for
the
sake
of
argument
to
some
of
the
two
and
three
bedroom,
we've
got
33
spaces
on
site.
I
I
believe
what
what
what
about
on
street
parking-
and
I
know
we're
trying
to
get
away
from
the
car
and
we're
hoping
that
people
don't
don't
do
it,
but
it's
a
very,
very
narrow
lane
and
what
steps,
if
any,
have
been
taken
with
regards
that.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
33
spaces
on
on
a
site
like
this
complies
very
closely
with
with
the
the
street
design
garden
and
our
parking
spd,
which
expects
develop
housing.
Developments
like
this
to
provide
between
1.25
and
1.5
spaces
per
dwelling
to
accommodate
visitor
spacing
as
well.
Wood
lane
is
very
narrow
or
quite
narrow,
but
there
are
parking
restrictions
along
that
part
of
wood
lane
as
well,
because
there's
a
school
there
and
there's
quite
a
lot
of
quite
a
lot
of
activity.
C
So
sweat
paths
have
been
done
to
show
the
site
can
be
accessed
by
refuse
vehicles
and-
and
that's
that's-
that
all
works.
A
A
J
Thank
you
chair,
I'm
afraid
I
don't
think
I
will
be
able
to
support
this
application.
It
is
just
down
to
that
third
floor
extension
on
belmont
house.
It's
got
two
units
in
it.
I
think
the
argument
to
say
that
you
don't
want
to
increase
the
height
of
bray
house
because
of
the
effect
it
will
have
on
belmont
house.
It
is
negated
by
the
fact
that
you're
sticking
something
right
on
top
of
belmont
house
that
is
higher
than
the
eaves.
J
Well,
the
guttering,
and
it
just
it
just
over
dominates
the
original
building,
so
I'll
be
voting
against
it,
and
I
hope
that
the
applicants
don't
give
up
but
actually
work
with
our
officers
to
see
if
they
can
actually
improve
melbourne
house
and
put
those
two
units
somewhere
more
sensible.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you
chair.
My
comment
really
is
I
like
the
development
overall,
but
I
do
think
that
we're
asking
probably
too
much
of
the
belmont
house
side
of
things,
it's
a
lovely
old
building
and
it's
currently
not
flattered
by
the
extension
and
we're
replacing
that
with
a
new
building
which
I
think
is
probably
over
dominant.
In
my
opinion,
again,
it's
an
opinion
and
I
think
it's
a
shame,
because
it's
the
opposite
side
of
the
site
to
what
you
know
where.
Well,
it's
going
to
be
bray
house.
I
Isn't
it
now
and-
and
I
think
so,
you've
got
you've
got
new,
you've
got
old,
then
you've
got
new
and
then
at
the
back,
you've
got
something
different
again
and
I
just
I
just
think
we
could
do
better.
It's
a
conservation
area.
I
think
we
could
do
better.
I
think
we
can
do
better
in
in
a
couple
of
different
ways,
and
I
I
just
think
that
you
know
we
we
ought
really
to
to
be
going
for
our
best
city
ambition
and
not
just
settling.
I
think
this
site
to
me.
H
Very,
very
briefly,
despite
phil's
most
eloquent
explanation
of
it
at
this
point,
I'm
still
not
convinced
by
the
design,
and
I
think
it's
a
misuse
of
the
vacant
building
credit
process.
I
don't
think
we
should
sell
our
affordable
homes
so
cheaply.
I
will
do
any
other
comments.
F
Them
chair
what's
in
front
after
the
members
comments,
is
still
the
recommendation
to
defer
and
delegate
to
the
chief
planning
officer
subject
to
the
specified
conditions,
but
with
the
addition
of
a
condition
relating
to
securing
the
requirements
of
en1
and
en2.
So
it
is
effectively
the
substantive
motion,
that's
in
front
plus
that
additional
condition.
If
members,
if
anybody
should
wish
to
propose
it.
F
Sorry
jonathan's
just
reminding
me
that
the
options
are
he's
a
deferral.
If
members
want
us
to
discuss
further
with
the
applicant
because
that's
been
referenced
to
working
with
the
applicants
or
or
refusal,
I'm
seeing
some
nods
to
my
right
so
is
is
this:
this
is
the
question
that
this
is
deferred
for
officers
for
further
negotiations
with
the
applicant,
particularly
relative
to
the
extension.
A
F
Are
you
sorry
see
what
the
panel's
voted
on?
That
is,
that
is
that
unanimous
to
recap
yeah,
so
the
application
has
been
deferred
to
be
brought
back
to
panel,
but
for
further
discussions
with
the
applicant
related
to
the
extension
in
terms
of
its
height
further
discussion
about
the
potential
for
altering
the
third
story
on
bray
house
and
the
the
further
discussions
about
the
design
of
the
the
package.
C
F
Yeah,
that's
the
point
I
was
trying
to
make
to
counsellor.
I
think
it's
council
smith
or
calling
just
on
the
vacant
building
credit.
We
can
come
back
with
more
information,
but
because
this
is
something
obviously
led
by
government,
I'm
not
sure
exactly
much
more.
We
can
had.
I
think,
both
matt
and
jonathan
explain
the
the
situation
in
terms
of
accepting
the
reduction
to
one
dwelling.
We
can
try
to
add
to
it,
but
I'm
not
really
that
sure
what
more
we
can
add.
H
To
try
and
aid
and
assist
my
planning,
colleagues,
as
I
always
do
in
a
very
friendly
and
positive
way,
you
might
want
to
bring
back
some
of
the
legal
advice
or
appeal
decisions
that
state
that
this
is
because
this
the
whole
process
the
whole
the
whole
thrust
behind
this
particular
policy
is
to
try
and
get
grotty
sites
that
we've
all
got
back
into
some
sort
of
redevelopment
when
they're
contaminated
with
all
sorts
of
problems.
This
is
not
such
a
site.
This
site,
I
think,
would
sustain
itself
without
getting
this
subsidy
now.
F
Chair
very,
very
kind
of
councillor
finnegan
to
to
raise
that
there
is
just
one
thing:
I'd
just
like
to
raise
with
members
that
was
actually
raised
after
the
vote
on
the
deferring
delica
on
motion
that
was
put.
So
we
would
have
to
ask
the
the
panel
if
they
want
that
him
back,
in
which
case
yes,
we
can
try
and
bring
back
the
the
legal
advice
was
originally
given
to
the
officers,
but
we
do
need
to
have
panel's
agreement
to
it
because
it
was
actually
raised
after
the
vote.
A
E
F
F
The
vote
is:
do
we
support
the
addition
on
the
villain
vacant
building
credit
that
councillor
campbell
campbell
god,
I've
lost
it
now?
Councilman
can
ask
for.
O
F
Officer
promoted
it
promoted
again
it's
fantastic.
I
wish
you
just
got
the
money
to
go
with
it.
That'd
be
quite
nice.
Sorry,
chad,
just
just
for
absolute
clarity.
The
application
has
not
been
approved.
As
the
officer
recommendation,
it
has
been
deferred
further
discussions
with
the
applicant
regarding
the
extension,
the
potential
raising
of
bray
house
and
also
for
further
information
about
the
the
materials
design
and
the
vacant
building
credit
and
it's
to
come
back
to
panel.
Thank
you.
A
Q
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
This
application
was
a
subject
of
a
panel
site
visit
which
members
saw
on
site
this
morning,
and
it's
also
reported
to
plans
panel
at
the
request
of
one
of
the
ward
members.
I
will
take
it
that
the
members
have
read
the
report,
so
they
know
the
issues
at
hand.
So
I'll
just
take
you
through
the
slides
on
on
the
photos
and
try
to
summarize
the
main
issues
at
hand
for
your
decision
making.
Q
This
is
the
redline
site
plan
that
we
can
see
before
you
in
terms
of
the
the
site
itself.
It
comprises
the
linear
strip
of
land
which
forms
the
access
point
from
car
road,
which
is
on
the
edge
of
calvary
up
through
the
site,
which
is
a
former
farmstead
currently
now
two
detached
stone,
built,
listed
dwellings
and
around
the
back
of
one
of
the
properties
number
74
to
the
right-hand
side.
Q
This
is
a
an
extract
from
google
earth
which
shows
the
vegetation
on
site
in
question,
so
you
can
see
the
access
point
from
car
road
itself
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen.
I've
got
some
photos
which
will
describe
the
site
in
a
bit
more
detail,
leading
up
around
the
back
of
the
site
into
the
area
of
of
open
paddock
area
and
woodland.
Q
In
terms
of
the
proposal,
the
slide
on
the
the
picture
on
the
left
hand,
side
shows
the
proposed
site
plan.
The
description
of
the
development
is
the
change
of
use
of
the
land
to
form
a
pet
exercise
area,
but
I
think
it's
it's
safe
to
say
that
this
will
be
almost
entirely
used
for
the
exercising
of
dogs,
so
you've
got
the
access
point
from
car
roads
it's
in
the
calvary
conservation
area,
but
in
terms
of
the
physical
alterations
that
are
proposed
here,
they're
fairly
minimal.
Q
So
the
the
land
is
proposed
to
be
changed
to
be
used
for
the
dog
exercising
of
dogs
and
to
that
it
would
be
the
applicants
business
who
who
run
a
facility
which
manage
and
train
dogs
and
use
a
booking
system.
So
people
would
pre-book
slots
of
up
to
half
an
hour
or
half
an
hour
or
one
hour
with
gaps
of
15
minutes
in
between,
and
this
would
be
aimed
at
people
with
pets
and
dogs
who
might
have
behavioral
difficulties
with
their
dogs.
Q
Q
There
might
be
dogs
that
run
off,
for
example,
so
this
would
provide
a
facility
that
would
help
train
dogs,
but
also
keep
them
in
a
confined
and
secure
and
safe
environment,
and
wouldn't
be
left
off
to
roam
the
the
open
countryside
and
to
potentially
escape.
I
understand,
there's
a
need
for
these
kind
of
facilities.
We've
had
quite
a
few
of
them
over
recent
years
throughout
throat
leads-
and
this
is
one
of
a
number
that
we've
been
dealing
with
in
terms
of
the
physical
alterations
of
the
site
itself.
Q
It's
it's
not
too
much.
There's
some
minor
alterations
to
the
access
point
which
I'll
come
on
to
in
a
minute,
and
there
is
a
car
parking
area
proposed
up
to
three
vehicles
and
that's
in
that
location
there.
That
would
be
adjacent
to
the
existing
property
known
as
74
and
between
these
redundant
stables
proposals
are,
are
not
to
judge
these
at
all,
and
then
there
are
a
series
of
post
and
real
fencing
which
enclosed
the
main
paddock
area.
Q
So
those
fences
would
would
contain
the
the
dogs
and
would
be
set
in
from
the
boundaries
indeed,
having
recently
discussed
the
the
application
with
the
with
the
applicant
site
a
couple
of
days
ago,
in
order
to
avoid
interference
with
roots
of
trees
by
the
fencing
being
erected.
The
applicant
has
noted
that,
and
the
fencing
would
be
set
in
from
the
side
boundary
from
number
28
by
up
to
two
meters,
with
some
planting
in
between
and
also
offset
from,
clara
drive
instead
of
two
meters.
I
showed
on
the
plan,
but
five
meters.
Q
Instead,
that's
because
they've
identified
a
bt
cable
that
runs
in
the
woodland,
but
also
to
avoid
mature
trees
as
well
within
the
site,
which
is
quite
a
sensible
proposition.
So
there
are
no
plans
of
that.
Yet.
So
if
members
are
minded
to
support
the
proposal,
I
would
suggest
we
would
deal
with
that,
either
through
a
condition
or
defer.
Deferring
delegate.
Q
One
thing
to
note:
it
is
in
the
green
belt,
so
all
of
these
types
of
fencing
would
be
appropriated
in
a
rural
and
greenbelt
location.
So
it's
not
something
that
would
be
out
of
keeping
with
character
of
the
area.
Q
Looking
through
the
photos
of
the
site.
This
is
clara,
drive
itself.
I
would
point
out
then,
and
take
note
of
this,
that
no
access
is
proposed
for
customers
or
staff
on
clara
drive
itself.
All
customers
would
be
coming
straightly
coming
off
car
roads
itself
into
the
site.
This
is
just
provided
for
context.
This
photo,
so
the
site
in
question
would
be
on
on
the
right
hand,
side
in
that
location,
they're
just
set
in
five
meters
from
the
edge
of
the
tarmac.
Q
Q
Q
And
this
is
a
view
internally,
looking
from
the
paddock
area
towards
the
woodland,
there
would
be
a
gate
between
the
the
paddock
and
woodland
and
in
the
the
far
distance
you
can
see
the
nearest
affected
property
potentially
to
the
site,
which
is
number
28,
clara
drive.
You
can
see,
that's
a
two-story
property,
it
shares
a
boundary
with
the
site.
You
can
note,
they've
got
a
close
body
fence
there
and
there
are
a
number
of
trees
along
the
periphery
edge
of
the
site.
Q
Q
That's
a
photo
again
in
the
panic
area.
That's
looking
to
the
side,
the
paddock
area.
Sorry,
the
stables
is
over
on
this
side.
Boarded
areas
on
is
on
the
right,
so
you
would
see
remnants
of
an
old
supposed
real
fence
there
that
would
be
replaced
by
new
post
and
rail
fencing
running
along
that
boundary
and
running
along
the
side
boundary
there
again.
Another
photograph.
Q
Q
The
applicant
lives
in
this
property
here
which
is
number
74
in
her
family
and
the
access
point
and
access
runs
around
the
back
of
the
property
and
into
three
car
parking
spaces.
The
other
property
is
number
76
here.
The
applicant's
mother
lives
in
that
particular
house,
both
of
those
are
listed,
but
there's
no
proposals
to
touch
those.
Q
Q
You
need
to
get
that
down
to
to
one
meter
in
height
and
at
the
moment
the
wall
is
just
a
touch
over
one
meter,
so
approximately
you'd
need
to
leave,
remove
one
crossing
of
stonework
work
on
both
access
points,
just
to
achieve
that
visibility,
which
would
then
give
drivers
the
ability
to
see
in
both
directions.
Q
Q
That's
just
looking
on
the
opposite
side
from
the
site
onto
car
road.
There
are
a
number
of
residential
properties
that
front
onto
car
road,
each
of
which
has
their
own
access
point,
and
some
of
those
access
points
don't
have
the
the
the
visibility
that
we
talked
about
for
the
applicant
site.
Although
having
said
that
the
applicant
site
is
or
would
be,
more
intensive
than
one
residential
property
and
that's
a
view
just
looking
down
in
the
other
direction
there.
Q
I
think
the
camera
where
the
photograph
is
taken
is
probably
more
than
one
meter
in
height,
so
you
can
imagine
being
lower
down.
Visibility
would
be
stricted
by
the
wall,
albeit
that
the
coursing
would
need
to
be
reduced
by
approximately
one
course.
Q
Q
There
are
a
number
of
wooded
areas
behind
clara
drive
that
it's
prevalent
and
quite
popular
with
dog
walkers
in
the
open
area.
That's
something
that
currently
takes
place
at
the
moment,
but
that
is
on
the
opposite
side
of
clara
drive
to
the
to
the
application
site,
and
that's
just
to
view
looking
at
the
access
points
that
we
viewed
this
morning.
So
as
well
as
the
forward
visibility,
that's
necessary
in
terms
of
turking
down,
possibly
one
coursing
of
stonework
on
that
side
and
one
course
of
still
work
on
that
the
other
side.
Q
So
in
terms
of
the
main
issues
for
members
to
consider
here.
First
of
all,
it
is
in
the
green
belt,
and
greenbelt
policy
sets
out
a
number
of
circumstances
and
exceptions
which
sets
out
what
is
appropriate
in
inappropriate
development
and
for
uses
of
land
such
as
dog
exercising
areas.
Officers
are
of
the
opinion
that
this
is
a
form
of
of
outdoor
recreation
and
that's
an
appropriate
form
of
developments
in
the
greenbelt
paragraph
150..
Q
So
officers
in
principle
think
that
this
is
an
appropriate
use
in
the
greenbelt
and
have
adopted
that
similar
approach
other
dock
exercising
areas
across
the
city.
The
other
main
issue
is
highway.
Safety
we've
talked
about
the
need
to
to
to
lower
the
wall
and
to
improve
the
visibility
at
that
particular
junction
and
also
widen
the
access
point
to
facilitate
to
we're
passing.
Q
It's
always
the
case
as
well
that
you
know
we
look
at
the
intensity
of
the
use
as
well,
and
we're
comfortable
that,
in
terms
of
the
number
of
people
that
would
be
using
this
facility,
that
would
be
limited.
We
have
a
proposal
of
total
number
of
three
car
parking
spaces
all
together.
Q
It
would
be
operated
via
a
booking
system
and
managed
by
the
applicants,
who
would
have
staff
on
site
and
would
ensure
that
would
be
15
minute
intervals
between
bookings,
so
you
wouldn't
get
that
crossover
of
of
customers
and
it
would
also
limit
be
limited
to
to
to
one
dog
owner
or
one
group
of
friends
or
one
family
group
exercising
their
dogs
at
any
one
time,
and
we've
suggested
a
planning
condition
of
up
to
eight
dogs
at
any
one
time,
both
in
terms
of
amenity
but
also
the
highway
safety
aspect
as
well.
Q
Another
aspect
and
consideration
is
the
impact
on
the
heritage
assets.
It's
in
the
conservation
area.
We've
got
listed
buildings
nearby,
but
given
the
limited
infrastructure
and
physical
interventions,
that's
required,
ie
only
the
post
and
rail
fencing,
then
those
proposals
have
a
very,
very
limited
impact
on
heritage
assets
wouldn't
be
harmful
at
all.
Q
I
think
one
of
the
main
issues-
I
think
members
were
appreciative
this
morning
and
given
the
number
of
objections
we've
got
from
local
residents,
is
the
impact
on
the
living
conditions
of
local
residents,
particularly
those
that
share
a
boundary
to
the
site
and
in
close
proximity
and
those
in
particular
on
clara
drive.
It's
difficult
to.
You
know
to
try
and
quantify
noise
associated
with
the
barking
of
dogs.
Q
Noise
is
a
material
planning
consideration,
of
course,
and
we
have
to
go
to
the
mppf
paragraph
185
for
advice
and
policy
on
noise,
and
it
talks
about
planning
decisions
should
ensure
that
new
development
is
appropriate
to
location,
taking
into
account
the
likely
effects
on
the
living
conditions
of
neighbours,
as
well
as
the
potential
sensitivity
of
the
site
or
the
wider
area,
and
the
impacts
could
arise
from
development.
Q
In
doing
so,
they
should
mitigate
and
reduce
to
a
minimum
potential
adverse
impacts
resulting
from
noise
from
new
development
and
avoid
noise,
giving
rise
to
significant
adverse
impacts
on
health
and
the
quality
of
life.
It
also
includes
a
footnote
and
references.
Another
document,
an
explanatory
note
on
noise
policy
statement
for
england
2010.
Q
However,
when
you
look
at
that
particular
document,
there's
no
particular
guidance
on
on
dogs
and
noise
emitted
from
dogs
from
barking.
So
it's
it's
difficult
to
quantify
the
noise
impact
from
from
dogs
associated
with
with
this
kind
of
use
I'll
come
on
to
that
in
a
second,
but
in
in
addition
to
that,
in
addition
to
the
the
report
that
members
have
got
before
him
since
it
was
published,
we
have
received
two
additional
representations
from
residents
in
clara
drive
I'll
just
quickly
run
through
those
issues
just
for
clarity
until
they
are
recorded.
Q
Some
of
them
ask
questions
given
the
publication
of
the
reports
or
who,
for
example-
and
you
might
want
to
ask
the
the
applicant
some
of
these,
these
questions
perhaps
later
on.
If
members
see
fit,
and
both
we
have
got
neighbors
objecting
and
speaking
today,
but
we've
also
got
the
applicant
in
support
of
the
the
proposal
so
neighbors
and
I've
objected.
Q
Some
of
those
comments
are
questions
of
who
will
supervise
the
facility.
What
measures
will
be
in
place?
What
training
will
staff
have?
The
thought
of
dangerous
dogs
being
trained
is
concerning
stock.
Fencing
is
not
secure
if
aggressive
dogs
do
escape
who's
responsible
for
them.
Q
There's
no
specificity
on
the
hours
of
operation
relating
to
the
seasons,
probably
noticed
from
your
report.
There's
a
suggested
planning
condition
on
hours
of
operation
there
and
we've
recommended
that
that
there's
been
limited
to
8
00
am
to
8
pm
monday
to
saturday
and
9
a.m,
till
6
pm
on
sundays
and
bank
holidays.
Q
However,
during
the
winter
months,
when
it's
dark,
it's
more
than
likely
that
those
those
hours
wouldn't
be
used
to
their
maximum
residents
have
also
talked
about
the
impact
dogs
will
have
on
access
to
clara
drive.
I've
mentioned
there's
no
access
to
customers.
Everything
is
coming
through
car
road,
it's
not
a
suitable
use
in
the
green
belt.
Q
What
the
object
has
done,
they've
commissioned
their
own
acoustic
report
from
a
consultant,
and
that
was
submitted
a
matter
of
days
ago.
So
it's
it
that
was
after
the
report
was
published.
So
members,
it's
not
in
your
panel
purpose
because
of
the
timing
of
that
submission
having
gone
through
that
report
from
from
the
neighbor
which
has
been
commissioned
and
done
by
an
acoustic
noise
consultant,
I
think,
as
as
planning
officers,
we
would
give
that
very
limited.
Q
Wait
merely
because
the
report
which
is
being
provided
highlights
the
subjective
near
nature
of
noise,
and
it's
not
a
simple
relationship
between
noise
levels
and
those
are
impact
and
those
are
effective.
It
also
notes
that
the
the
british
standard
doesn't
have
a
a
recognized
noise
impact
assessment
and
methodology
for
calculating
noise.
Nor
does
the
world
health
organization
have
any
recognized
methodology.
Q
The
report
does
pick
up
on
a,
I
think,
an
application
that
was
the
subject
of
an
appeal
in
moore
in
scotland
and
that
uses
that
as
an
example
to
use
a
methodologies
for
the
calculation
of
number
of
decibels
for
dogs.
But
officers
don't
believe.
That's
a
comparable
case.
Having
looked
at
that,
that
was
a
scheme
or
an
application
which
was
a
scheme
for
was
it
46
all
sessions.
Q
Yeah
46
alterations
were
included
within
that
that
scheme.
So
therefore
we
don't
think
that's
a
comparable
scheme
upon
which
to
lie
on
the
on
for
this
particular
proposal.
Q
The
noise
report
also
looked
at
a
number
of
noise
receptors
and
a
number
of
key
points
within
the
site
to
to
try
and
calculate
the
noise
generated
from
dogs,
but
I
think
you
know,
given
the
the
lack
of
clarity
and
and
guidance
nationally
and
internationally,
you
know,
I
don't
think,
there's
any
measures
that
can
actually
quantify
this
in
any
any
measured
way,
and
indeed
the
report
at
the
very
end
makes
a
conclusion
that
these
factors
are
largely
dependent
upon
the
age,
the
breed
the
temperament
and
the
degree
of
training
and
socialization
of
each
dog,
plus
the
nature
of
the
environmental
stimuli
present,
which
is
probably
why
we
officers
didn't
ask
for
a
noise
survey
in
the
very
first
instance.
Q
It's
something
that
was
very
difficult
to
quantify
very
difficult
to
measure,
because
you
have
got
different
sizes
of
dogs,
different
breeds
of
dogs
and,
as
the
applicant
has
put
forward.
This
is
a
facility
which
is
trying
to
minimize
conflict
between
dogs.
Dog
owners
want
to
bring
this
dogs
to
this
facility
to
avoid
conflicts
that
they
might
otherwise
have
got
in
a
public
area.
Q
Those
are
technical
issues
you
might
want
to
ask
the
applicant
when
they
have
the
opportunity
to
speak
but
unbalanced.
Taking
all
the
comments
into
consideration,
both
the
objections
that
we've
received
and
the
comments
from
the
applicant
and
having
regard
to
all
the
policies
and
having
seen
the
site
in
question,
we
have
recommend
that
the
application
is
recommended
for
approval,
subject
to
the
conditions
set
out
in
the
report
in
terms
of
limiting
the
amount
of
dogs
on
site
and
on
the
hours
of
use
and
others
relating
to
to
access
and
visibility.
A
Thank
you
and
we
have
got
ahmed
and
brian,
who
will
be
speaking
today
against
the
application
amid
and
brian,
you
have
two
minutes
each
to
speak,
so
in
total
four
minutes
and
the
application.
Thank
you.
R
Not
at
all,
okay,
my
name's
brian
dean,
I'm
going
to
speak
on
behalf
of
mr
kumar,
I'm
a
barrister,
I'll
refer
to
the
chief
planning
officer,
if
I
may,
as
the
cpo
first,
this
development
is
not
essential.
Why
does
that
matter?
The
cpo's
report
of
paragraph
41
notes
that
the
green
belt
policies
these
facilities,
that
policies
say
that
these
facilities
must
be
essential,
but
there's
nothing
essential
about
this
facility.
Where
does
it
come
from?
It
comes
from
the
leeds
unity,
development
plan,
controller
development
in
the
greenbelt
paragraph
a5.4.1.
R
I
have
copies
of
my
note
to
give
to
you
at
the
end.
If
you
need
it
and
it
states
this,
except
in
very
special
circumstances,
approval
will
only
be
given
in
the
leeds
green
belt
area
for
essential
facilities
for
outdoor
sports
and
outdoor
recreation.
R
The
dictionary
definition
of
essential
is
absolutely
necessary,
extremely
important,
there's
nothing
absolutely
necessary
about
this
facility,
and
neither
the
applicant
nor
the
cpo
has
stated
that
it
is
necessary
or
essential
or
why
it's
essential.
It
was
said
a
moment
ago
that
there
was
a
need
for
this.
That's
not
the
same.
It's
insufficient!
It
doesn't
satisfy
the
essential
test.
It's
also
said
it's
been
done
all
over
the
city.
R
If
it's
been
done
in
the
green
belt,
then
one
might
want
to
consider
the
precise
circumstances
in
which
it's
been
done
and
whether
they
satisfy
these
tests.
Next
noise,
it
was
said
it
was
difficult
to
quantify
noise.
No,
it's
not.
I
have
a
case
right
now,
where
it's
being
done,
you
can
find
them
in
the
reports
where
dogs
are
tested.
You
can
get
a
decibel
counter
on
an
app
experts
can
do
it.
Decibels
is
the
way
it's
not
vague.
It's
a
precise
science.
R
The
cpo's
report
fails
to
deal
in
any
way
with
the
issue
of
noise
as
the
nuisance.
There's
no
noise
impact
assessment,
which
most
authorities
would
carry
out
as
a
matter.
Of
course,
the
proposed
facility
is
on
a
quiet,
lightly,
traffic
residential
road
with
an
ambient
noise
level,
that's
known
to
be
low,
comprising
principally
birdsong.
R
R
It's
not
been
considered
adequately
or
at
all,
which
I
respectfully
submit
is
a
material
deficiency
in
the
report.
The
thrust
of
the
experts
report
is
that
the
noise
of
only
four
dogs
barking
never
mind.
Eight
will
be
the
significant
observed
adverse
effect
level,
which
is
the
highest
category
of
interference
set
out
in
the
national
noise
policy
statement.
I
have
a
copy
of
it
too
and
by
the
world
health
organization.
R
It's
the
level
of
noise
exposure
which
significant
adverse
effects
on
health
and
quality
of
life
occur.
The
report
must,
in
my
submission,
be
given
very
significant
weight.
The
cpo's
report
is
materially
deficient
because
he's
failed
to
consider
noise,
despite
the
fact
he
should
have
done
so,
and
I
say
that
because
the
noise
policy
statement
says
needs
to
consider.
R
The
facilities
proposed
hours
of
operations
are
very
long
12-hour
day,
starting
at
8
am
on
a
saturday,
for
example,
9
am
on
a
sunday
or
a
bank
holiday
contemplate
it
for
a
moment
with
eight
dogs.
R
If
dogs
bark
early
in
the
morning
or
late
at
night
or
eight
dogs,
bark
in
unison,
the
residents
will
suffer
an
irreversible
loss
of
immunity
and
an
irreversible
nuisance.
The
applicant
recognized
this
activity
mobile
cause
nuisance
in
her
original
application.
If
you
look
at
it
importing
that
nuisance
into
this
facility
and
concentrating
the
dogs
in
one
place,
instead
of
it
being
dispersed
across
multiple
parks,
fields
and
woods,
nearby
is
not
a
fair
thing
to
do,
and
there's
no
proposed
noise
management
plan
nuisance
will
be
compounded
by
the
lighting
issue
in
winter.
R
It
could
be
four
hours
about
an
hour
in
the
morning
about
three
hours
in
the
evening
between
four
thirty
five
and
eight
there's
no
plan
for
the
erection
of
light
direction
of
a
lighting
system,
which
means
people
will
use
torches
or
mobile
telephones
or,
worse
there'll,
be
an
application
for
lighting
in
due
course.
Next.
R
This
is
a
business.
The
application
is
to
change
the
use
of
land
to
that
of
outdoor
recreation
and
claims
that
the
proposed
use
would
fall
within
a
reasonable
translation
of
that
phrase.
The
cpo
agrees
indeed
in
his
report
on
the
first
page.
He
calls
it
pet
recreation,
that's
not
the
test,
it's
human
recreation,
not
about
recreation,
for
dogs.
Mrs
goodall
knows
the
outdoor
recreation
can
be
an
exception
to
the
rules.
If
she
cannot
get
the
facility
categorized
in
this
way,
then
it
will
be
prohibited
and
this
application
would
fail.
R
R
There
is
a
business
already
in
existence,
aptly
dogs
and
cats
that
mrs
foothall
has-
and
this
is
an
extension
of
that
business.
Outdoor
recreation,
as
a
definition,
does
not
cover
all
ways
in
which
a
person
can
enjoy
recreation
in
the
broadest
senses.
If
it
did,
and
it
was
so
broad,
it
would
create
the
possibility
of
uncontrolled
changes
of
use.
R
In
paragraph
41
of
the
cpo's
report,
he
states
offices
are
of
the
view
that
such
activity
does
represent
recreational
use,
eg,
walking,
obedience,
training
and
agility
pursuits
again,
it
seems
to
be
focusing
wrongly
on
the
recreation
of
dogs
whilst
walking
a
dog
may
constitute
recreational
activity
for
the
owner.
This
proposal
is
not
creating
a
facility
just
to
walk
dogs,
but
to
train
them
in
obedience
and
agility.
R
Next,
hardly
anything
left
the
character.
This
is
a
green
belt
area,
a
local
conservation
area,
a
quiet
residential
area
consisting
of
private
roads
lined
with
trees
and
an
area
of
historical
significance
to
the
landscape.
Steeped,
in
agricultural
history,
the
land
has
survived
virtually
unaltered
since
1755
268
years.
The
proposed
development
will
mark
the
first
ever
serious
incursion
into
this
historic
field
pattern
and
would
to
change
the
character
of
the
area
forever.
If
you
add
it
up,
the
fence
is
about
200
meters,
long
six
foot
high.
R
S
I
live
at
number
28,
the
closest
property
to
the
applicant.
I
write
crime
fiction
books
for
a
living.
My
livelihood
depends
on
being
able
to
enjoy
the
quietness
of
this
area.
I'm
at
my
desk
at
8am.
I
write
until
I
collect
my
two
boys
aged
5
and
6
from
school,
and
then
we
play
outside
in
the
garden,
which
is
where
we
like
to
have
our
dinner
outside,
surrounded
by
the
sounds
of
nature,
birds,
singing,
maybe
watch
the
squirrels
chasing
and
talk
about
our
day
at
7
p.m.
S
S
When
I
sit
down
to
write,
dogs
will
be
barking,
we
won't
be
playing
outside
anymore,
because
dogs
will
be
barking
and
my
children
are
still
at
the
age
where
they're
afraid
of
dogs
to
have
up
to
eight
of
them,
literally
a
few
meters
from
where
they
are
playing,
will
fundamentally
ruin
everything
we
hold
here
when
we
put
the
kids
to
bed,
and
those
of
you
in
the
committee
with
children
will
know
what
an
rds
task
that
can
be
dogs
will
be
barking.
Put
yourselves
in
my
shoes.
S
Imagine
this
proposal
was
to
be
situated
immediately
next
to
your
homes,
dogs,
barking
owners
shouting
seven
days
a
week
out
of
the
50
comments
of
support
for
this
application,
only
three
are
from
the
kabbalah
community,
whereas
every
52
objects
every
every
one
of
the
52
objections
are
from
the
locale
of
carvilly.
The
mental
toll
of
this
will
be
catastrophic
and
a
short
note
from
my
wife,
sam
who
could
not
be
here
because
she's
on
shift
in
a
e
I've
worked
in
a
e
as
a
nurse
for
the
past
22
years.
S
I
see
daily
cases
where
unruly
dogs
have
attacked
members
of
the
public
and
by
the
applicant's
own
words
she
will
be
attempting
to
train
aggressively
active
dogs.
The
fact
that
we
will
have
eight
dogs
12
hours
a
day
means
we
will
be
forced
to
contend
with
96
dogs
every
day,
that's
up
to
600
a
week.
The
law
of
averages
and
my
work
in
a
e
tells
me
that
at
some
point
one
of
these
dogs
will
escape
the
enclosure
into
our
garden.
It's
exactly
why
dog
training
facilities
are
not
located
in
residential
areas.
S
When
I
work
nights,
how
am
I
supposed
to
sleep
during
the
day
with
eight
dogs
barking
every
hour,
and
the
same
goes
for
my
neighbor
cully,
whose
wife
is
a
medical
doctor
at
st
james's?
If
you
clapped
by
your
nhs
heroes
during
the
pandemic,
then
please
I
ask
you
not
to
forget
now
and
reject
this
application.
M
I
I
S
My
problem,
if
you
had
eight
dogs
in
your
house,
they
wouldn't
be
outside
every
hour
every
day,
seven
days
a
week,
you
know
it
is
unreasonable
to
to
suggest
having
a
residential
of
eight
dogs
is
exactly
the
same
as
this
application,
which
will
be
eight
different
dogs
every
hour.
Those
eight
dogs
would
be,
they
would
know
their
environment,
they
would
be
calm
and
they
would
have
been
trained
for
their
environment.
This
is
eight
different
dogs.
M
What
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
the
fundamental
objection
here,
because,
if
I
think
of
any
traditional
residential
street-
and
I
know
this
is
slightly
different
setting-
I
can
only
think
of
my
street,
where
there's
probably
20
properties
on
it
in
a
roughly
similar
sized
area
to
the
area
we're
looking
at,
and
it
probably
must
be
around
20
to
30
dogs.
So
I'm
trying
to
understand
the
fundamental
objection.
M
Is
it
that
you
just
think
that
the
noise
will
be
completely
uncontrollable
and
this
will
be
a
unique
situation
compared
to
any
other
kind
of
residential
setting
where
people
can
basically
own
quite
a
large
number
of
dogs?
If
they
wish
to
do
so?
Or
is
it
because
you're
fundamentally
against?
Because
this
is
actually
a
business
rather
than
the
noise.
R
R
The
the
scenarios
that
you
have
raised,
sir,
for
example
like
on
most
of
our
roads,
lots
and
lots
of
people
having
a
dog
is
an
entirely
different
proposition
for
the
reasons
that
amit
gave
a
moment
ago
having
a
turnover
of
dogs
eight
an
hour
from
eight
in
the
morning
until
eight
pm
at
night
or
on
a
saturday
from
eight
in
the
morning
until
eight
eight
pm
at
night
is
an
entirely
different
proposition
and
if
one
looks
at
what
is,
if
one
looks
at
what
is
said
in
the
cpo's
report,
it
is
talking
about
dogs
with
the
need
to
be
trained
and
the
need
sometimes
awkward
dogs,
difficult
dogs,
loud
dogs
who
are
not
otherwise
safe
to
take
in,
for
example,
other
public
areas.
M
So
we've
had
a
lot
about
dog
noise
and
about
that,
but
actually
you're
saying
the
fundamental
principle
is
that
you
believe
that
this
doesn't
meet
the
test
to
be
built
in
the
green
belt
and
that
actually
everything
else
we've
been
told
is
additional
to
that.
And
actually
the
crux
of
your
objection
is
effectively
purely
based
on
your
interpretation
against
the
interpretation
of
the
officers
that
this
does
not
meet
the
test
to
be
built
in
the
green
belt.
R
No
sorry,
I
thought
you
were
waiting
me
to
stop
when
I
said
about
the
fundamental
objection
I
dealt
with
them,
probably
in
order
of
seriousness,
and
I
started
with
the
test
of
essential,
because
that
seems
to
me
in
in
law
to
be
the
most
significant
element.
R
M
I
I
don't
finish
on
this
point.
No,
I
appreciate
that,
but
it's
for
us
to
weigh
up
what
is
and
isn't
a
consideration.
So
this
is
why
I'm
trying
to
understand
your
perspective.
M
So
are
you
saying
that
the
main
objection-
and
I
would
like
a
yes
or
no
answer-
is
the
actual
classification
of
this
being
in
the
green
belt?
Is
that
your
main
objection,
yes
or
no,
because
we
have
to
make
a
weight
decision
when
we
make
our
opinion
right?
So
I
I'd
just
like
to
know
if
you
think
that's
the
main
objection
or
not.
S
Yes,
I
think
that
noise
is
the
primary
consideration
here,
and
I
think
that
your
point
earlier
that,
if
you're
in
a
street
with
you
know
20
houses
and
every
house,
has
a
dog-
that's
20
dogs,
it's
not
at
all
comparable
to
what
we're
talking
about
here.
That
would
be
one
dog
in
a
house
in
an
environment.
Do
you
ever
see
those
20
dogs
outside
all
together
at
the
same
time?
Excitable?
S
I
don't
think
so,
and
I
think
this
is
eight
different
dogs
every
hour,
which
is
not
at
all
comparable
to
the
example
that
you
set
it's
chalk
and
cheese.
This
is
eight
different
dogs
every
hour
who,
by
the
applicant's
own
words,
are
untrained
dogs
in
need
of
training.
That
cannot
be
the
same
as
a
residential
dog
in
a
known,
comfortable
environment
with
with
surroundings
are
unfamiliar.
I
If
I
could
add
as
well,
if
you
look
on
the
leads.gov
website
on
antisocial,
behavior
and
nuisance,
one
of
the
categories
there
is
barking
dogs,
so
how
people
could
assume
that
this
wouldn't
cause
a
nuisance
is
very
strange.
L
P
L
Say
the
environment
which
we
live
in
is
very
quiet,
and
if
you,
if
you
have
barking
dogs,
there's
no
other
competing
noise
against
that.
So
what
I
hear
in
the
morning
a
bird
singing
now,
if
I
have
continuous
dogs
making
a
noise
and
when
you
you
or
everybody,
knows
that
when
you
have
a
dog
going
past,
another
dog
they
bark
and
it
can
vary.
If
it's
a
small
dog,
it's
going
to
be
a
small
noise.
L
A
I'm
gonna
just
ask
a
simple
question:
I
have
to
be
fair,
not
neutral,
and
just
let
me
take
the
green
belt
away
for
a
second,
just
as
it
was
going
to
be
a
school
built
there
with
kids
playing
from
eight
till
whatever.
Would
that
nice?
A
S
A
R
May
I
say
mum,
I,
I
am
a
dog
lover
and
I
have
two
dogs.
I've
always
had
dogs,
but
there
are
many
different
places
to
take
them
and-
and
there
are
many
popular
places
to
take
them-
there
is
no
requirement
to
set
up
a
specific
facility
in
a
green
belt
area
for
these
dogs
to
be
concentrated
right
next
to
housing.
E
Thank
you
there's
a
huge
assumption
that
every
hour
there
will
be
eight
dogs
which
is
materially
wrong,
because
I
know
there's
a
condition
that
there's
a
15-minute
gap
between
every
appointment
anyway.
So
that
will
push
it
on
and
certainly
I
don't
know,
I'm
kind
of
confused
why
you
think
there
would
be
eight
dogs
every
hour,
because
the
actual
stipulation
is
that
they
would
only
ever
be
a
maximum
and
I'm
sure
the
applicant
will
be
delighted
if
she
could
have
that
much
revenue
every
hour.
E
E
Some
dogs
are
just
naturally
timid,
particularly
rescue
dogs,
who
can't
be
can't
be
subjected
to
normal
situations.
So
it's
that
training
environment
that
builds
their
confidence
and
lets
them.
So
it's
it's
illogical
to
assume
that
there
will
be
eight
dogs
who
will
back
constantly,
because
that's
just
not
the
case
and
the
whole
point
of
training
is,
you
would
be
doing
things
with
those
dogs
to
calm
them,
to
bring
discipline
to
make
them
do
things
and
any
dogs
that
would
display
an
aggression
to
each
other.
I
To
that
we've
already
got
in
calvary
the
dog
training
club,
which
is
two
hours
three
evenings
a
week
and
alternate
saturday
afternoons
and
all
the
dogs
love
it.
You
can
see
them
just
being
taken
through
the
village,
they
absolutely
love
going
and
it's
hugely
successful
and
it's
right
there
in
the
village
already
and
it's
limited
hours,
it's
run
very
well
and
it's
kennel
club
registered
and
you
have
one
trainer
to
about
three
or
four
dogs.
So
that's
already
there
carvely
woods
is
massive
and
it's
really
really
popular
with
dogs.
R
May
I
add
something
to
that:
what
matters
here
is
the
potential
of
course.
It
may
well
be
that
those
assumptions
those
possibilities
are
correct.
We
could
fashion
a
set
of
facts
where
none
of
this
would
be
particularly
difficult.
Only
one
dog
might
turn
up
every
half
a
day,
but
that
is
entirely
capricious.
It
is
entirely
a
matter
of
chance.
R
The
the
requirement
here
is
a
proposal
that
allows
eight
dogs
an
hour.
That
is
what
is
being
requested.
Now
I
I
see
a
counselor
shaking
her
head.
Well,
eight
dogs,
every
45
minutes,
then,
if
there's
a
gap
of
15
minutes,
but
that
is
what
is
being
requested
and
it
is
likely
on
the
weekend
that
dog
walkers
have
a
better
chance
in
the
middle
of
the
day
to
get
their
dogs
there
either
way
at
its
maximum
capacity
here.
R
E
I
completely
agree
with
you
that
it
is
tenuous
and
and
subject
to
conditions
changing,
because
there's
no
way
of
predicting
how
many
dogs
will
be
there
on
any
of
the
day,
and
there
seems
to
be-
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
I'm
viewing
this
wrongly
a
huge
objection
to
the
fact
that
eight
dogs,
that
the
number
eight
seems
to
be
a
a
bit
of
an
issue
so
I'm
not
sure
where
it
came
from,
and
perhaps
we
can
get
our
planning
offices
to
expand
on
that.
E
But
it
is
quite
misleading
to
say
the
least,
to
to
say
that
there
will
be
96
dogs
every
day,
all
barking,
because
we
have
no
way
at
all
and
perhaps
there
could
be
a
condition
applied.
That
would
make
that
not
be
the
case,
and
I
take
your
point.
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
know
your
name.
No.
I
was
talking
to
the
lady
susan
about
the
dog
training
clubs,
but
some
dog
training
clubs
won't
take
certain
dogs,
and
by
that
I
don't
mean
aggressive
dogs.
I
mean
dogs
that
are
so
timid.
E
S
Yeah,
just
you
know,
the
eight
dogs
thing
is,
you
know
I
think
is
eileen
the
chair.
I
think
you
said
you
know
if
there
was
a
school
being
built,
but
but
if
a
school
was
being
built
you
you
would
build
it
for
the
capacity
that
it
could
take.
So
you
would
have
planned
in
you
know,
for
the
maximum
capacity
toilets,
changings
whatever
it
is.
You
know
we
have
to.
S
We
have
to
think
about
the
fact
that
this
is
a
capacity
of
a
so
that's
why
we
use
the
number
eight,
because
we
are
planning
for
the
fact
that
it
will
be
at
capacity
at
some
point
and,
and
you
know,
really
type
a
five-year-old
and
a
six-year-old
in
my
garden.
You
know
and
and
I'm
sharing
a
boundary
with
a
place
where
there's
potentially
eight
dogs
barking.
S
I
just
think
that
how
is
that
reasonable
to
you
to
expect
the
children
to
play
there
and
not
be
afraid
when
and
it's
gonna
be
eight
different
dogs
every
hour
or
every
day?
It's
just
not
reasonable.
To
expect
my
young
two
children
to
be
able
to
feel
safe
and
secure
and
play
around,
as
they
have
been
doing
for
six
seven
years
when
there's
a
new
dog
facility
next
door
to
them.
I
think
it's,
it's
just
not
fair.
H
R
May
I
answer
that
because
it
does
deal
with
the
issue
of
essential.
It's
got
nothing
to
do
with
the
number
of
dogs.
The
essential
point
is
part
of
the
leeds
unity
development
plan,
which
requires
that
where
there
is
outdoor
recreation,
which
is
for
humans,
not
dogs,
it
is
essential
that
that
facility
be
developed.
R
The
the
number
of
dogs
is
a
slightly
separate
issue,
but
if
one
were
to
look
at
the
experts
report
and
a
moment
ago,
pulley
made
precisely
the
point
even
one
dog.
I
think
it
was
85
to
90
decibels
of
noise,
but
it
is
a
slightly
different
issue
in
terms
of
noise.
R
If
an
assessment
were
done
in
respect
to
the
premises
that
only
had
one
dog
and
if
such
an
assessment
were
done,
the
attitude
towards
that
aspect
of
the
argument
might
be
different,
but
the
essential
point
is
nothing
to
do
with
the
number
of
dogs.
It
is
building
a
facility
in
a
green
built
area
that
is
not
essential
in
law
or
fact.
H
I'd
like
the
residents
to
ask
the
answer
the
next
one.
Is
it
an
issue
of
no
dogs?
Never
it's
not
essential,
as
you
advance
to
suggesting,
or
is
it
we
are
really
uncomfortable
with
the
fact
that
there
might
be
a
maximum
up
to
eight
dogs,
and
my
colleagues
already
pointed
out
at
that
particular
point.
Chance
of
that
happening
are
somewhat
slim
and
I
pass
one
of
these
places
regularly.
H
There's
never
anybody
in,
but
leaving
that
aside,
is
it
about
none
and
it's
the
essential
argument
that
you
want
us
to
consider,
or
is
it
about
eight
to
many,
you
know
two
might
be
acceptable.
One
might
be
acceptable,
whatever
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
residents,
not
the
ballistic.
If
I
may
on
that,
thank
you.
S
I
think,
as
the
as
the
property
who's
going
to
share
a
boundary
with
this,
I
I
think,
like
we
said
you
know
if
it's
if
it
was
to
be
one
dog
and
the
report
that
we've
got
suggests
that
that
would
still
be
above
the
noise
decibel
level.
But
I
think
one
dog
is
a
very
different
scenario
to
what
has
been
proposed.
S
It's
completely
different,
you
know,
so
I
I
would
certainly
welcome
if
it
was
less
dogs,
but
ultimately
we
are
is
adjacent
to
my
boundary
and
it
is
a
conservation
area.
So
I
think
we
would
have
to
reconsider
that
if
it
was
to
be
reduced
to
one
dog,
that's
a
very
different
proposal
to
eight
up
to
eight.
A
L
You
excuse
me
god,
the
other
point
I
just
wanted
to
go
back
to
the
schooling
both
of
my
children
are
both
at
school
and
then
primary
school.
At
the
moment
school
they
go
monday
to
friday,
8
55,
and
they
finish
at
3
20..
The
proposals
for
this
is
from
eight
to
eight
and
they
have
holidays
so
they
have
the
summer
holidays,
they're
going
to
have
half
term
next
week,
easter
they're
going
to
have
a
couple
of
weeks
off.
L
It's
not
continuous,
and
this
is
the
issue
that
the
the
chance
of
there
being
noise
continuous.
Is
there
you
know
with
the
proposal
as
it
is.
You
know
what
amit
said
amit's
affected
by
this,
the
most
because
he's
next
door
to
it,
but
the
whole
situation,
where
it's
seven
days
where
you
are
running
a
business
where
you've
got
people
coming
over.
L
You
know
coming
over
different
people,
different
dogs
in
an
environment
which
is
uns,
which
is
strange
initially
to
them,
and
I
would
agree
that
I
can't
go
on
vouch
if
each
dog
is
going
to
make
a
noise,
but
we
can
also
say
that
we
can't
vouch
for
that.
They
won't
and
eight
dogs
according
to
the
experts.
That's
why
we
commissioned
you
know
some
some
figures,
some
an
idea.
L
L
The
report
states
that
that
will
be
breached
in
all
cases,
with
four
dogs
from
all
different
places
and
then
with
there's
scenarios
where
the
dogs
will
be
placed
in
different
places
where,
in
all
cases,
you
would
have
a
breach
that
noise.
So
I
would
be
hearing
the
dogs,
not
just
in
the
garden
where
it's
55
db,
you'd
be
hearing
it
in
the
house,
and
you
know
the
building
regs,
when
we,
when
they
were
passed
for
our
home,
was
that
the
noise
levels
inside
there
were
35
dbs.
L
Whether
it's
essential
or
whether
it's
the
nuisance
and
as
a
resident,
my
response
to
that
is,
I
would
say
it's
both
it's
it's
not
essential
and
in
relation
to
the
nuisance
we
can
only
as
residents
be
reasonably
be
expected
to
answer
that,
based
on
what
the
application
is
and
based
on
what
the
planning
officer
has
already
proposed.
So
if
he's
proposed
eight
the
restriction
of
eight
dogs,
we
can
only
answer
that
question
in
that
context.
L
So
if
it's
the
restrictions,
eight
dogs
as
residents-
I'm
saying
I
don't
agree
with
that.
I
think
it's
unfair,
based
on
what
my
colleagues
have
already
said
earlier
on,
but
if
the
proposal
was
changed,
for
example,
to
one
dog,
if
that
was
the
proposal,
then
thereafter
we
should
be
given
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
that,
but
I
don't
think
we
can
turn
this
discussion
into
a
hypothetical
discussion.
L
A
A
Okay,
we
now
have
nikki
who
is
in
attention
who
is
going
to
speak
on
the
agenda.
T
You
thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
allowing
me
this
opportunity
to
speak.
I'm
going
to
start
by
telling
you
a
little
bit
about
myself,
but
I'm
hoping
that
in
doing
so,
it
will
answer
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
have
just
been
raised.
T
I've
run
a
dog
walking
and
pet
care
business,
aptly
dogs
and
cats
for
over
eight
years
now
successful
business,
well
acclaimed
and
well
thought
of
in
the
area.
I
employ
three
staff:
all
who
uphold
the
same
high
standards
in
both
dog
management
and
in
customer
service.
T
We
pride
ourselves
on
the
level
of
care
given
to
every
individual
animal
in
our
care
and
and
also
the
skill
in
successfully
handling
dogs
of
all
types.
It
speaks
volumes
that
many
of
our
original
clients
are
still
with
us.
Eight
years
on,
and
although
many
of
local
dog
walkers
have
space
for
new
clients,
we
have
a
waiting
list.
T
We've
got
a
lot
of
experience,
obviously
about
dog
care
and
management
training
techniques,
but
I've
got
a
particular
interest
in
dog
behavior,
attended
seminars
and
courses,
but
work
very
closely
with
recognised
dog
behaviourists
in
the
area.
T
So
we've
lived
locally
for
close
on
20
years,
moving
from
apple
bridge
to
carville
a
year
ago,
we're
closely
involved
with
the
local
community
and
carverly
woods
is
our
workplace
and
we're
well
known
and
respected.
There
we've
made
a
point
of
meeting
and
often
befriending
other
users
of
the
woods
help
out
where
we
can
organizing
litter,
picks,
reuniting
lost
items
even
lost
dogs
with
their
owners.
T
So
that's
me,
and
now
I'd
like
to
explain
to
you
what
a
dog's
the
secure
dog
field
is
and
what
it
isn't
secure.
T
So
it
could
be
a
dog,
that's
frightened
of
other
dogs.
It
could
be
a
dog,
that's
frightened
of
people.
It
could
be
a
dog
that
chases
traffic,
so
we're
not
talking
necessarily
about
aggressive
dogs.
Here,
we're
talking
about
dogs
that
don't
conform
to
our
social
norms
within
the
field.
We'll
have
a
parking
space
which
allows
people
to
drive
in
close
the
gate
and
then
let
their
dog
out
once
they're
already
within
the
secure
area,
so
absolutely
no
chance
of
escaping
within
the
field.
We'll
have
a
certain
amount
of
play.
T
Equipment
and
obstacles,
together
with
the
existing
undergrowth,
fallen,
trees,
leaf,
litter,
etc,
which
help
to
provide
dogs
with
extra
interest
and
interesting
things
to
sniff
interesting
fact
that
dogs
see,
through
their
noses
up
to
30
million
receptors
in
their
nose.
We
have
about
6
million
so
sniffing
out.
A
new
habitat
is
very
natural
and
important
activity
for
dogs,
and
it's
recognized
that
scent
work
like
this
is
calming
and
relaxing
for
them
and
reduces
their
stress
levels.
T
T
T
Many
of
you
locals
will
have
heard
the
story
of
an
elderly
cavalry
resident
who
was
hospitalized
just
last
summer,
following
an
incident
with
an
out
of
control
dog
in
these
woods
now
I
walk
in
carvely
woods
daily,
both
professionally
with
and
with
my
own
dog.
So
I'm
aware
of
countless
other
incidents
and
clashes
and
near
misses
involving
dogs
with
cyclists,
horse
riders,
walkers
or
children,
and
these
are
not
because
dogs
are
aggressive,
but
simply
because
they're,
poorly
trained
or
partially
trained
and
the
areas
become
so
busy.
T
But
now
to
maybe
address
the
the
particular
issues
from
our
neighbors
at
number:
28
claro
drive
and,
firstly,
I'd
like
to
talk
about
the
security
and
safety.
T
The
whole
premise
behind
a
secure
dog
field
is
that
dogs
are
able
to
be
let
off
lead
with
no
fear
of
them
escaping
the
fencing
will
be
suitable,
it
will
be
robust
and
it
will
be
trapped
continually
to
ensure
that
there
are
no
escape
routes
or
weaknesses,
and
this
is
an
absolute
essential,
basic
routine
for
any
secured
dog
field.
Dog
owners
use
the
field
on
the
understanding
that
their
dog
will
be
totally
safe
from
escape,
and
equally
the
local
community
have
a
right
to
expect
complete
safety
and
security.
T
T
Now
the
big
thing,
potential
disturbance
from
dog
numbers
and
dog
barking
and
firstly,
as
a
business
owner,
it's
my
responsibility
to
ensure
that
disturbance
is
kept
to
a
minimum.
I'd
like
to
point
out
that
we
live
on
the
site
too.
My
husband
works
from
home,
so
disturbance
from
constant
bargain
barking
would
be
equally
unacceptable
to
us.
We
control
the
bookings.
T
So
if
we
have
a
client
with
a
dog
that
barks
incessantly
we'll
simply
not
accept
them
again,
it's
as
easy
as
that,
although
all
dogs
do
bark
from
time
to
time.
There's
no
point
in
me
arguing
with
that.
It's
highly
unlikely
that
a
dog
being
walked
alone
in
a
quiet
setting
will
bark
if
there's
nothing
to
bark
at
and
from
experience
and
research.
T
We
would,
however,
invite
dog
owners
to
meet
their
personal
trainer
at
the
site
for
a
one-to-one
session
now,
perhaps
puppy
training
or
learning
a
specific
skill
with
their
older
dog.
So
once
again,
maximum
of
two
people
and
one
dog,
the
third
type
of
booking
is
dogs
with
a
professional
dog
walker,
and
I
think
this
is
the
the
group
that
perhaps
residents
are
concerned
about.
T
For
that
reason,
this
kind
of
booking
can
and
will
be
carefully
monitored
by
us
to
ensure
that
there
is
no
undue
disruption.
But
it's
time
check
eight
minutes,
isn't
it
we've
got
eight
minutes.
I
believe.
T
Yes,
of
course,
yeah.
This
kind
of
booking
will
be
carefully
monitored,
but
which
should
be
noted-
and
this
is
important-
that
professional
dog
walkers
work
between
11
and
2
monday
to
friday.
They
don't
tend
to
work
at
weekends
and
they
certainly
don't
work
in
the
evenings.
T
H
H
So
is
there
not
at
least
a
discussion
to
be
had
about
saying
it's
a
maximum
of?
I
don't
know
what
it
might
be,
two
or
four
or
some
other
number
other
than
eight.
Why
eight
is
there
any
room
to
reflect
upon
that
might
need
to
be
at
a
lower
number,
taking
into
account
leaders
overall
strategy
for
professional
dog
walkers
using
our
parks,
our
streets,
whatever.
T
Can
I
reply?
Thank
you.
Eight
was
an
arbitrary
figure
that
we
agreed
with
the
planners.
So
obviously
that
is
subject
to
discussion
as
far
as
professional
dog
walkers
are
concerned,
leeds
city
council
ruling
is
that
a
professional
dog
walker
can
walk.
Six
dogs
in
a
public's
place
on
their
own
or
two
walkers
walking
together
can
walk
eight
dogs.
T
K
The
paddock
is
there
any
reason
why
you
have
to
go
beyond
the
area
of
the
paddock.
Is
there
any
reason
why
you
couldn't
just
operate
within
the
area
of
the
paddock?
I've
got
that
for
a
number
of
reasons,
one.
It
would
be
a
tighter
controlled
area.
Two,
if
you
allow
the
dogs,
any
dogs
doesn't
matter
whether
it's
your
dogs
or
anybody
else's
dogs
anywhere
near
your
wood
at
the
top.
K
You
could
have
a
dog
that
you're
looking
after
and
is
a
responsible
dog
and
a
resident
walking
a
dog
on
clara
lane.
You
know
if
the
dog
starts
barking
at
your
dog.
You
could
have
all
sorts
of
that's,
so
you
wouldn't
be
responsible
for
that,
but
there
is
a
risk
there.
So,
in
other
words,
that's
why
I'm
saying?
Could
you
just
limit
it
to
the
paddock
and
would
you
what
would
be
the
effect
on
your
business?
K
If
it
was
limited
to
the
paddock,
would
that
mean
you
would
need?
You
would
then
be
able
to
operate
with
less
dogs
and
still
make
a
good
living
from
it,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you're
trying
to
take
a
commercial
operation?
So
you
know,
I
don't
think
you're
you
are
you're
doing
it
from
from
benevolent
point
of
view.
K
T
Thank
you
fair
point,
and,
firstly,
the
reason
for
wanting
to
use
the
woodland
is
not
only
for
more
space,
but
just
the
interesting
features
for
dogs
to
keep
them
happy
and
occupied.
The
paddock
is
quite
bland.
Now,
obviously,
we
can
introduce
play
equipment
as
we
suggested,
but
it
is
quite
a
small
area.
It
would
limit
the
number
of
dogs
that
we
would
have
at
any
one
time.
T
T
We
have
thought
about
your
comment
about
passing
dogs
and
for
this
reasons,
why
we've
actually
changed
our
plans
to
set
the
fencing
back
five
meters
from
the
road,
rather
than
the
original
two,
partly
to
be
behind
the
bt
cable,
but
also
so
that
our
fence
is
behind
the
holly
bushes
and
trees,
not
visible
in
all
places
and
further
back
from
the
road.
J
Councillor,
collins
and
mine's
a
little
bit
about
your
business
plan
as
well.
You
gave
us
some
very
useful
information
in
your
presentation,
so
I've
got
down
what
does
your
business
plan
say
about
operating
hours
and
and
I'm
wondering
whether
we
could
actually
propose
a
staggered
operating
house
so
that
early
in
the
morning
and
late
in
the
up
or
after
2
p.m?
I
think
you
said:
there's
fewer
dogs
allowed
than
in
the
middle
of
the
day
when
you're
you're,
hoping
to
to
get
the
professional
dog
walkers
on
site.
J
So
does
your
business
plan
allow
that?
Because
I
think
that's
one
of
the
key
things
really
isn't.
It
is
so
that
your
neighbors
have
a
assurance
that
they're
still
going
to
get
a
good
quality
of
life
themselves,
and
I
think
it
also
might
actually
help
you
when
it
comes
to
managing
other
people's
and
people's
expectations.
J
If
we
actually
did
a
staggered
stag
at
times
with
staggered
dogs,
I
was
going
to
ask
you
the
question
about
the
woods.
I
do
fully
understand
that
and
I
suppose
the
only
other
concern
I've
got.
Is
you
obviously
very
experienced
yourself,
and
I
would
trust
that
if
you
were
training
the
dogs,
that
you
would
have
them
under
control
fairly
quickly,
but
well?
What
is
your
experience
with
just
other
people
coming
in
know?
J
How
easily
will
you
be
able
to
restrict
what
they
do
and
if
they
do
have
a
barking
dog
genuinely?
Does
your
your
business
plan
allow
you
to
restrict
them
from
coming
again.
T
Right,
thank
you.
Try
and
remember
the
point
she
raised
opening
hours,
I
think,
is
something
that
everybody's
quite
interested
in.
Firstly,
the
8
a.m
to
8
p.m
was
an
absolute
maximum,
and
that
was
during
summer
months
during
the
winter
we
have
very
limited
hours
of
daylight,
so
I
would
propose
you
know
we
wouldn't
have
any
bookings
after
after
three
o'clock
in
in
the
winter
months.
T
Also,
now
we've
lived
there
a
year,
and
we
remember
we
put
this
application
in
in
june,
we've
lived
there
a
year
now
and
it's
quite
obvious
that
the
paddock
area
in
particular
gets
very
wet
during
the
winter.
It's
quite
soft
underfoot
at
the
moment.
So
talking
about
it
just
last
weekend,
we
said
in
reality
we
would
probably
have
to
close
for
a
couple
of
months
during
winter
months,
just
to
allow
the
ground
to
dry
out
and
make
sure
that
it
wasn't
becoming
unduly
damaged.
T
In
addition,
another
thing
we've
discussed
amongst
ourselves
since
the
application
was
made,
is
that
probably
on
a
sunday
afternoon
for
ourselves,
we
would
like
to
have
some
time
off
and
some
family
time,
so
we
would
propose,
except
in
you
know,
unusual
circumstances
that
we
would
be
closed
on
sunday
afternoon,
so
the
8
a.m,
to
8
p.m
is
the
absolute
absolute
maximum
time
we
were
talking
about.
T
In
addition,
as
I
said
earlier,
professional
dog
walkers
are
the
only
people
that
are
likely
to
want
to
walk
eight
dogs
at
once
and
they
do
work.
I
know
from
many
years
of
experience
between
10
30
11
in
the
morning
and
about
2
o'clock
in
the
afternoon.
So
outside
of
those
times
it
will
be
private
individuals
before
or
after
work
wanting
to
come
and
exercise
their
one
or
perhaps
two
dogs
in
a
quiet
area.
J
So
if
we
were
to
grant
permission,
but
with
a
condition
in
there
that
the
hours
were
restricted
so
that
your
your
window
for
eight
dogs
was
only
11
mm
to
2
p.m,
monday
to
florida,.
J
Window
there
was
only
one
or
two
dogs
would
that
be
acceptable.
We
we
need
to
do
that
as
a
condition,
not
necessarily
because
we
don't
trust
you,
but
as
a
business,
you
always
have
the
potential
in
the
future
to
to
sell
that
business,
and
we
don't
know
what
that
new
owner
would
do
if
we
didn't
restrict
those
the
number
of
dogs
in
those
hours.
T
I
Thank
you,
chair.
Just
listening
to
what
you
answered
to
my
my
colleague,
councillor
collins.
I
It
seems
that
your
thoughts
about
this
potential
business
have
changed
since
you
put
the
application
in
so
you
know,
I
wonder
whether
there's
any
scope
for
you
actually
going
away
and
reconsidering
it,
and
but
that's
obviously
your
your
point,
my
questions
to
you
really.
I
was
concerned
with
the
the
woodland
area
today.
I
Let's
just
say
there
were
even
two
or
three
dogs:
let's
not
even
go
as
high
as
eight
and
they
were
down
in
the
bottom
corner
of
the
woodland
and
they
started
burrowing,
underneath
your
stock
fence
and
they
you
know
they
were
regular
visitors
because
we
all
know
dogs
are
quite
clever
animals
and
the
next
time
they
came
to
visit,
they
borrowed
a
bit
more
and
a
bit
more
and
a
bit
more
and
then
they
were
gone.
I
Nobody
from
the
paddock
would
actually
have
sight
of
what
was
going
on
in
that
woodland
area.
So
that
is
a
concern
for
me.
I
wondered
about
the
winter
hours
which
I
know
you've
mentioned.
You've
thought
about
that
yourself
and
the
lack
of
lighting
so
I'd
like
to
if,
if
everybody
was
minded
to
to
actually
approve
the
application
today,
that
there
would
never
be
any
electrical
lighting
in
there,
for
example,
to
extend
your
winter
hours.
I
I
I
do
feel
very
sorry
for
the
residents
of
28
clara
drive,
because
having
been
there
today,
there
is.
There
is
no
doubt
that
they
will
be
very,
very
well
upset
with
what
what
is
proposed
here,
and
I
just
wondered
if
there
was
any
scope
for
moving
any
potential
boundary
and
and
putting
a
almost
like
an
acoustic
planting
arrangement
in
there,
so
that
it
you
know
it
did,
it
did
mirror
them.
You
know
or
protect
them
as
much
as
possible.
I
So
if,
for
example,
you
just
used
your
paddock
area
and
you
put
some
acoustic
planting
in
against
the
the
remainder
of
the
border
with
28,
clara
drive
and
limited
your
number
of
dogs
that
you
allowed
with
the
potential
of
limiting
the
hours,
would
you
feel
that
that
would
work
as
a
business?
For
you.
T
I'll
try
and
pick
up
on
all
your
points,
so,
firstly,
dogs
digging
under
the
fence
we
will
be.
We
will
be
checking
the
fencing
continuously
between
every
booking.
This
is
the
whole
idea
of
actually
being
on
site,
rather
than
other
similar
facilities
that
are
just
monitored
by
cctv,
we'll
be
there,
and
this
15-minute
gap
between
bookings
will
give
us
time
to
check
fencing.
T
I
have
got
a
plan
for
dig
proof,
fencing
which
I
won't
bore
you
with
now,
but
but
yes,
so
it's
our
responsibility
to
keep
checking
but
also
and
any
facility
like
this
owners
are
subject
to
terms
and
conditions
and
if
owners
are
in
the
field
with
their
dog,
although
we
say
yeah,
the
fencing
is
going
to
be
safe,
but
it's
still
their
responsibility
to
look
after
their
dog.
T
So,
like
you
would
on
any
dog
walk
you
go
with
your
dog,
you
don't
sit
in
the
paddock
and
leave
your
dog
to
play
in
the
woodlands
you
go
with
them,
and
so
you
would
see
straight
away
if
your
dog
was
trying
to
dig
out
dogs
dogs
do
dig
my
own
dog
loves
digging,
but
as
an
owner
you
keep
an
eye
on
that
and
as
a
business
owner,
we
would
be
checking
for
any
signs
of
digging.
T
When
we
check
the
fences
yeah
we
we
are
also
planning
to
put
up
cctv,
which
will
add
extra
security
both
for
clara
drive
and
for
us.
T
But
in
addition,
if
we
review
the
cctv
and
see
that
our
dog
has
been
digging,
then
we
know
we've.
We've
got
to
address
that
as
far
as
number
28
is
concerned.
They
are,
they
are
close
to
our
fence
and
I
think
I'm
right
in
saying
that
the
majority
of
their
garden,
where
the
children
play
is
actually
adjacent
to
the
paddock
rather
than
to
the
woodland
I
did
mention
earlier.
T
I
don't
know
if
you
heard
that
we
are
more
than
happy
to
put
additional
hedging
in
between
our
fence
and
theirs,
which,
yes,
it
will
take
a
little
while
to
grow,
but
it
will
serve
to
baffle
sounds
it
may
mean
that
the
children
can't
see
the
dogs.
If
you
know
the
parents
particularly
worried
about
that
and
as
it
grows.
Obviously
it's
extra
habitat
for
for
wildlife
as
well.
A
T
T
C
So,
just
looking
at
the
website
for
appley
dogs
and
cats,
would
you
are
you
intending
to
keep
that
going?
You
are
and
noticing
that
it's
location
is
where
you
live,
but
it's
licensed
by
the
city
of
bradford.
T
C
F
C
T
Mean
yeah
the
license
is
for
dog
boarding,
so
dog
walking
does
not
require
a
license
and
the
license
is
for
dog
boarding,
which
is
something
that
we
did
when
we
lived
in
bradford.
We
haven't
renewed
our
licence
for
boarding
with
leeds
city
council
and
we
don't
board
dogs
anymore.
T
A
M
I
think
it's
just
the
the
the
question
the
barrister
raised
around
the
essential,
but
I
think
obviously
we'd
like
some
clarity
over
that,
because
that
seems
to
be
the
substantive
argument
from
one
party.
So
if
we
can
have
some
clarity
on
our
opinion
compared
to
their
opinion,
please.
C
C
C
C
H
Q
Unfortunately,
despite
the
application
been
in
for
several
months,
the
report
only
received
or
sent
to
us
middle
of
this
week,
so
it
didn't
give
us
the
opportunity
to
consult
with
environmental
health
who,
in
themselves
are
stretched
as
a
resource
anywhere.
So
planning
officers
have
used
their
own
professional
judgment
to
to
come
to
the
view
on
the
material
work.
To
give
that
report.
Q
Q
And
then
it
goes
on
to
talk
about
when
located
in
the
green
belt.
So
basically
what
we,
what
we're
saying
is
it's
it's
an
appropriate
use
in
the
green
belt.
The
the
car
parking
is
ancillary
to
the
to
the
use
of
the
land,
there's
no
impact
on
the
character
and
openness
of
the
green
belt.
There's
no
physical
structures
associated
with
the
car
park.
It
doesn't
impact
on
openness.
Q
It
is
tucked
around
the
back
of
the
building,
so
in
that
sense
it
doesn't
impact
on
the
character
and
the
openness
and
it's
an
ancillary
part
of
that
appropriate
use.
So
for.
K
Clarity,
the
car
parking
will
not
be
hard
standing.
It
will
be
just
grass
that
people
will
drive
up
on
to
or
gravel
that
they'll
drive
onto
it
won't
be
hard
standing
at
all,
which
would
be,
in
my
view,
a
material
change
to
the
land
if
you're
making
it
hard
standing.
Q
T
Already
an
existing
hard
standing
car
park,
it
was
a
working
farm
until
two
years
ago,
and
so
the
the
hard
standing
car
park
was
already
there.
K
I
well
my
recollection
from
this
morning
must
have
been
wrong,
because
I
thought
when
we
were
standing
waiting
to
win.
You
mentioned
that
there
was
the
hard
standing
that
was
down
behind
you,
the
rear
of
your
house
yeah,
which
was
fine,
but
I
thought
you
had
pointed
to
a
grassed
area
at
the
top
which
was
going
to
that's.
That
was
my
understanding.
If
that's
my
understanding,
I'm
wrong,
but
that's
why
my
question
was
asked.
It
was
about
the
grassed
area.
K
T
T
F
Okay,
so
sorry,
I
think
jerry,
if
I
could
just
just
with
absolute
clarity
on
this,
because
I
think
slightly
across
purposes,
because
I
understand
completely
what
council
anders
is
saying,
because
I
had
the
same
sort
of
understanding
within
the
courtyard
area.
Within
the
farm
area,
there
are
hard
standing
spaces
sure,
but
what
you
referred
to
a
few
minutes
ago
was
that
to
make
it
secure,
so
there's
no
chance
of
dogs
escaping
through
the
gate
into
the
paddock
area.
F
I
think
the
question
simply
from
council
anderson
is:
would
that
need
some
sort
of
surfacing,
even
if
it
was
crosstalk
or
grass
creek
or
whatever
just
to
stop
the
vehicles
sinking
into
it?
What's
I
think
you're
saying
is:
actually
you
would
not
surface
it
or
would
it
need
some
surfacing?
We
just
need
to
be
certain
for
the
for
the
report.
Yeah.
T
We
haven't
tried
using
it,
yet
we've
done.
No,
you
know
construction
of
the
field.
I
don't
think
it
would
need
any
kind
of
surface.
It
seems
to
be
solid,
but
it
hasn't
been
used
as
parking
before.
So
not
absolutely.
F
So
I
think
on
that
particular
point
if
we
were
to
go
forward
with
the
application
which
we've
not
got
to
as
yet,
I
think
we'd
need
a
condition
to
cover
that
particular
point.
I
don't
think
it's
just
to
give
an
impact
on
the
green
belt,
but
because
that's
likely
to
be
a
position
later
depending
upon
the
subsurface.
I
think
we
just
would
need
to
make
members
aware
that
that's
a
potential
additional
condition.
Thank
you.
K
Q
Yes,
we
could
already
control
the
planning
conditions
and,
as
the
report
suggests,
the
listed
conditions
are
the
hours
of
use
the
number
of
dogs
at
any
one
time,
the
intervals
so
in
terms
of
any
noise
and
measures
to
control
noise
and
decibel
levels
that
would
fall
to
environmental
health
in
terms
of
dealing
with
any
statutory
nuisances.
K
So
I
personally
would
like
to
know
what
environmental
health
view
is
on
this,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
residents
are
going
to
have
to
rely
on
the
professionalism
of
environmental
health,
making
a
judgment
as
to
whether
or
not
the
noise
is
excessive
or
not,
and
the
criteria
that
they
would
be
using
to
assess
that
we've
had
environmental
health.
A
number
of
plans
panels
in
the
past,
where
they've
pointed
out
that
if
it
reached
this
level
or
that
was
to
occur,
we
would
take
action.
K
But
we
are
satisfied
that
the
measures
that
have
been
put
in
would
probably
mean
that
it
wouldn't
reach
that
level
and
that
satisfied
us.
So
I
don't
want
to
be
awkward,
but
do
we
not
need
environmental
health
view
to
at
least
reassure
the
residents
that
there
is
going
to
be
something
in
place.
F
Yeah,
it's
an
interesting
pointless!
Isn't
it
because,
at
the
end
of
the
day
it
is,
it
is
down
to
an
individual's
opinion
as
to
what
actually
constitutes
a
nuisance
to
them.
Isn't
it
in
terms
of
the
dog
barking?
I
remember
once
being
in
a
public
inquiry
and
been
asked
to
actually
somehow
technically
make
a
judgment
between
one
large
tank
of
pig,
manure
and
another
one
and
of
course,
the
best
that
you
could
come
up
with
is
I
have
a
nose,
sir,
because
it
is
very
difficult
and
in
fact
the
the
report.
F
I've
read
all
the
documents.
I've
read
the
world
health
organization,
1999
report,
that's
referred
to,
which
doesn't
its
preface
make
a
reference
to
to
dogs
barking,
but
the
majority
of
that
document
is
actually
talking
about
what
can
be
considered
a
nuisance
and
what
the
effects
of
those
nuisance
are
in
individuals.
So
it
doesn't
go
into
any
detail
specifically
how
you
actually
measure
dogs,
one
dog,
eight
dogs
or
whatever
the
other.
F
The
other
documents
are
referred
to,
such
as
the
reference
to
the
document
up
in
scotland,
which
is
the
it
was
about
an
azerbaija
being
put
on
a
gentleman
who,
for
whatever
reason,
decided
he
wanted
46
dogs
and
they
lived
with
them
and
he
was
effectively
described
as
the
pack
leader
and,
ultimately,
that
was
thrown
out.
F
An
assumed
level
has
been
taken
of
90
decibels.
What
this
report
doesn't
actually
specify,
which
is
an
interesting
comment
and
again
one
of
the
residents.
Well,
actually
the
barrister
who
left
made
a
comment
about
it
was
capricious
to
to
say
that
actually
it
would
be
less
than
eight
dogs,
I
mean
it
could
be
capricious
to
say
it's
going
to
be
up
to
80
dogs
from
what
the
applicant
said,
so
you.
So
this
is
a
problem
with
dealing
with
this.
F
It
is,
it
is
a
fine
judgment,
some
of
the
other
things
that
were
referred
to
in
the
document.
They
are
assumptions
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it
talks
about
measuring
the
dog's
bark
and
the
average
of
90
decibels
being
with
a
because
you
can
measure
a
dog's
back.
If
you
stick
it
right
under
its
nose,
it
will
meet
it
because
that's
effectively
what
this
report
says
we're
actually
we're
not
necessarily
going
to
have
dogs
at
that
distance
to
the
properties,
so
they
are
all
assumptions
and
ultimately,
even
the
acoustic
report.
F
After
saying
all
of
these
things,
a
lot
of
the
the
balance
in
this
document,
actually
a
lot
of
the
information
is
actually
a
standard,
because
I've
looked
at
other
reports
provided
by
acoustic
solutions.
Just
for
curiosity,
but
ultimately,
even
they
have
to
say
at
the
very
end,
in
paragraph
6.8,
in
terms
of
loss,
immunity,
the
more
significantly
the
likelihood
of
statutory
nuisance,
which
is
an
environmental
health
issue.
By
the
way,
not
a
condition,
it
says,
important
factors
need
to
be
considered,
and
I
think
this
is
this.
F
This
is
probably
where
you
get,
I
mean
we
could
go
back
to
environmental
health
and
we
could
defer
the
application,
but
what
you
probably
get
back
is
important.
Factors
that
need
to
be
considered
is
the
likelihood
that
one
or
more
dogs
were
back
in
unison
over
the
course
of
a
typical
nine
hour
or
six
and
three
quarter
hour
day.
Well,
that
could
happen.
It
may
not
happen
whether
such
backing
patterns
are
likely
to
repeat
it
through
the
course
of
the
day.
A
number
of
these
rep
repetitions.
Well,
nobody
can
judge.
F
Even
the
report,
that's
provided
by
acoustic
solutions,
simply
says
these
factors
are
largely
depend
upon.
The
age
breed
temperament,
degree
of
training,
socialization
of
each
dog
being
walked,
plus
the
nature
of
environmental
stimuli
present
at
the
time
of
walking
and
then,
as
such,
this
report
makes
no
prediction
in
relation
to
these
variables
because
it
can't
really-
and
that's
the
difficulty,
that's
in
front
of
yourselves
today
I
mean
it
doesn't
mention
prevailing
weather
conditions
as
well,
which
it
can
be
a
potential
factor.
F
So
if
members,
one
thing
I'm
concerned
about
is
that
the
the
applicant
has
been
put
under
some
pressure-
quite
rightly,
I
suppose
in
terms
of
the
questions
and
variations
to
this
condition
about
things
like,
would
you
reduce
the
area?
Would
you
reduce
the
number
of
dogs?
There
was
another
one:
wasn't
there
staggered
hours
or
I
think
I
think
if,
if
these
are
real
concerns,
then
this
application
needs
to
be
deferred
and
also
we
can
go
back
to
environmental
health
and
try
and
answer
some
of
these
questions.
F
If
it's
not
supported,
then
we'd
have
to
come
back
and
consider
what
we
want
to
do
with
it
or
you
what
you
want
to
do
it
and
whether
that
includes
obviously
further
discussion
on
these
variables,
because
I
say
I
think
it's
unfair
to
put
the
applicant
under
such
pressure
here
and
then.
Obviously
we
don't.
We
would
speak
to
our
environmental
health
colleagues
and
see
if
they
can
add
anything
to
the
mix.
So
I'll
put
that.
K
K
The
final
one
I've
got
is
we
had
the
ballista
talking
about
evaluating
need.
So
how
do
we?
What
factors
do
we
need
to
take
into
consideration
to
assess
whether
or
not
there
is
the
need?
That
was
one
of
the
points
that
the
barrister
made
was
that
in
his
professional
opinion,
that
argument
had
not
been
made.
How
do
we
satisfy
ourselves
that
that
has
been
made.
Q
Yeah,
the
simple
answer
is:
there's:
there's
no
requirement
to
demonstrate
need
if,
if
it
was
a
development
involving
say
retail,
for
example,
where
there's
an
impact
on
on
identified
retail
centres
and
if
it's
an
out
of
centre
location,
you
have
to
identify
need,
but
in
circumstances
like
this,
such
as
proposals
like
this,
it's
it's
not
a
planning
requirement,
and
it's
it's
just.
I
suppose
commercial
competition
between
other
operators.
J
Q
Members
can
ask
for
what
they
want
really,
and
if
that,
if
that
you
can
ask
yes
and
if
and
if
that
mitigates
the
harm
that
members
are
concerned
about,
then
we
have
to
then
balance
that
against
the
impact
on
the
character
and
openness
of
the
green
belt.
In
the
back
of
my
mind,
I'm
also
thinking
of
what
the
applicants
could
do
also
under
permitted
development.
They
could
erect
up
to
a
two
metre
high
fence
without
the
benefit
of
planning
permission,
and
that
could
be
done
tomorrow
without
any
planning
control
at
all.
Q
So
even
evening
greenbelt
the
pd
gpdo
doesn't
take
into
consideration
greenbelt
location.
So
it's
it's
a
balance
and
if
members
think
that
that
the
impact
on
of
that
acoustic
fence
is
damaging
the
green
belt,
then
you
know,
then
they
could
reject
that
proposal
and
the
harm
to
the
greenbelt
carries
significant
words.
H
Certainly,
from
my
point
of
view,
I
think
eight
it
goes
this
too
many
anyway.
I
think
we
need
to
go
back.
Have
another
reconsideration
of
that.
I'd
like
to
hear
what
environmental
health
have
to
say
about
it.
I'm
I
am
an
owner.
I
declare
an
interest.
I
have
a
small
dog
at
this
particular
point.
H
Whether
he
can
get
up
to
85
decibels
is
questionable,
but,
having
said
that,
environmental
health
ultimately
are
the
ones
who
have
to
look
at
the
environmental
protection
act
and
look
whether
it
is
a
statutory
nuisance,
so
they
they
should
be
able
to
give
us
at
least
some
insight
about
backing
dogs
over
this
regularity
or
whatever
other
colleagues
have
some
concerns
about
whether
we
need
to
restrict
it
further
and
to
be
fair
on
both
sides,
I
would
propose
that
we
do
defer.
We
get
environmental
health
views
on
this.
H
H
I
think
we
need
to
have
more
discussion
and
more
information
before
we
can
make
a
an
appropriate
judgment
on
this
particular
one.
So
I
would
formally
remove
that
we
defer,
for
those
reasons
that
have
been
raised
by
colleagues,
environmental,
health
involvement,
the
numbers,
the
size
of
the
paddock.
All
those
other
issues.
A
Let's
look
collins.
J
Right
thanks
chair
right,
so
that
we
don't
have
to
keep
going
backwards
and
forwards.
I've
written
a
list,
so
I
would
like
to
defer,
but
could
we
have
on
the
list
different
hours
so
that
potentially
this
is
just
a
suggestion:
eight
till
11
a.m.
There's
only
two
dogs,
maximum
11
a.m,
to
2
p.m.
There's
the
eight
dogs
but
2
p.m,
to
8
p.m.
There's
two
dogs
maximum!
J
Could
we
add
or
ask
the
applicant
to
consider
accepting
the
condition
that
there's
no
lighting
to
the
paddock
or
to
the
woodland
yeah,
add
in
the
applicant
to
consider
additional
hedging
or
acoustic
fencing
and
the
condition
also
them
to
consider
that
the
car
park
or
the
parking
space
is
not
hard
standing,
but
is
a
of
a
suitable
substrate
which
planning
officers
will
know
more
about
that
than
me.
So
those
are
the
ones
that
I
would
like
to
be
reconsidered.
If
we
defer
and
defer
for
a
future
discussion.
I
Sorry,
that's
right,
yeah!
Thank
you.
My
point
was
really
yes,
I
agree
with
councillor
finnegan
and
it
would
also
give
the
applicant
an
opportunity
to
to
reconsider
and
really
get
an
understanding
of
what
they
want,
so
that
councillor
collins
has
covered
a
lot
of
the
points,
but
I
do
think
that
the
applicant
could
maybe
reconsider.
I
Based
on
what
they've
said.
Thank
you.
M
As
this,
I
think,
we've
been,
I
think
we've
been
reassured
by
the
legal
officer
that
the
learning
barristers
interpretation
of
the
planning
policy
was
wrong.
In
our
opinion,
he
knows
that
politely
that
there
is
within
the
within
within
the
green
permit
development.
They
can
put
a
fence
because
they
want
it
anyway
to
a
certain
extent.
So,
actually
that's
a
mute
point.
M
We're
talking
about
specific
technicalities-
and
I
think
you
know
what
we're
really
doing
is
we're
we're
kind
of
arguing
around
the
edges
now
of
what
is
an
appropriate
level
of
animals
on
the
property
at
one
time,
we're
not
actually
arguing
over
the
actual
principle
of
it
being
used
for
that.
So
I
think
we
should
give
the
applicant
some
reassurance
that
they
have
a
principle
that
is
that
they
can
go
ahead
subject
to
conditionality
around
what
is
an
appropriate
level
of
animals
and
some
of
the
other
conditions
that
have
been
raised.
K
K
I've
just
got
one
other,
just
got
one
other
thing
that
we've
now
got
the
time.
F
Okay,
so
my
understanding
of
the
position
is
that
we
we
actually
want
to
formally
minute
the
the
principle
of
the
use
on
the
site
is
considered
to
be
acceptable.
F
F
But
then
it's
clarity,
stroke,
further
discussion,
consideration
with
the
applicants
on
that,
because
all
these
things
will
impact
upon
the
business,
won't
they.
So
I
think
it's
only
fair
that
this
is
discussed
with
them.
Potentially,
the
smaller
area
reduced
struck,
staggered
hours,
jonathan
caught
them,
because
I
couldn't
write
them
fast
enough,
so
he
has
got
those
a
reduction
in
the
dogs
to
a
maximum
potentially
of
four
consideration
of
acoustic
fencing.
Now,
I'm
assuming
because
of
what's
being
said,
that's
relative
to
number
28,
which
is
the
closest
property
and
maybe
along
the
bottom
of
clara
drive.
F
Now
there
is
an
impact
there
in
terms
of
the
visibility
from
greenbelt,
but
it
might
reduce
the
the
the
the
interaction
between
dogs
casually
walking
along
cows
casually
walking
along.
What
am
I
saying,
but
you
know
what
you
know,
what
I'm
saying
being
walked
along
there
and
and
also
the
one,
the
the
the
the
the
condition
about
the
parking
surface
for
the
one
vehicle
that
might
be
within
the
paddock
stroke
compound,
because
it
is
likely
that
the
subsurface
is
not
strong
enough
to
take
a
vehicle
in
the
winter
months.
F
J
Sorry,
sorry
chair,
but
what
we
do
always
consider
planning
applications
on
the
basis
that
it
may
one
day
be
a
different
applicant,
so
I
think
you
know
we
need
to
have
a
condition
in
there
so
that
if
this,
if
this
applicant
does
have
to
unfortunately
move
you
know,
whoever
takes
over
that
business
doesn't
then
do
something
that
I
was
only
verbally
agreed.
Thank
you.
C
F
As
was
referred
to
by
one
of
the
residents,
so
it
is
so
there
are
a
lot
of
things
to
consider
there,
but
adam
and
his
colleagues
will
talk
directly
with
the
applicant,
so
it's
deferred
for
consideration
of
all
those
items
with
the
applicant,
the
addition
of
that
condition
for
surfacing
and
the
lighting
and
then
obviously
environmental
health
to
respond
on
this,
and
we'll
do
our
best
to
do
that,
because
we
do
know,
as
we
said
earlier,
that
they
have
some
difficulties
at
the
moment.
Thank
you
chair.