►
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
Good
afternoon,
everyone
and
welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
South
and
West
plans
panel.
My
name
is
councilor
Hannah,
Biffle
and
I'll
be
chairing.
Today's
meeting
could
I
remind
everyone
that
today's
meeting
is
being
live
streamed
on
the
lead
city,
council,
YouTube
channel,
so
that
the
public
can
observe
the
meeting
without
needing
to
be
present.
A
South
and
West
plans
panel
deals
with
applications
from
the
south,
Northwest
and
west
of
the
city.
The
aim
of
the
panel
is
to
hear
all
the
relevant
information
from
applicants.
Members
of
the
public
and
Council
officers
to
help
members
of
the
panel
make
their
decision.
However,
today
we
are
here
to
discuss
a
position
statement
seeking
members
views
on
the
proposal
at
this
point
in
its
development
as
well.
A
A
Could
I
now
invite
members
and
officers
to
introduce
themselves
and
mute
your
microphone
once
you've
introduced
yourself?
If
we
can
start
from
my
left,
please.
M
Good
afternoon
everybody
councilor
Trish
Smith
Pudsey
Ward.
A
Just
for
YouTube
we're
just
having
a
techie
issue
on
Steve's
card.
If
you
didn't
manage
to
hear
him
introduce
themselves,
okay,
Clark
will
very
shortly
be
able
to
introduce
the
next
set
of
items.
Please.
A
Thank
you,
the
applicant
on
agenda
item.
Seven
is
known
to
be
in
a
professional
capacity
having
been
in
meetings
with
him,
but
I'll
be
sharing
with
an
open
mind
and
I'm,
just
disclosing
it
for
transparency
for
the
panel
in
public.
N
A
Thank
you,
okay.
So
we'll
move
on
to
item
number
six,
which
is
the
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting
held
on
the
3rd
of
August
2023.
Do
members
accept
these
minutes
are
a
true
and
correct
record
I'm
seeing
nods.
Thank
you.
I
will
in
fact
assume
they
are
correct
unless
otherwise
indicated.
Are
there
any
masses
arising
from
those
minutes?
A
No,
in
which
case
before
we
move
on
to
item
seven
I'm,
just
gonna
ask
Steve
to
come
in
around
current
agenda
item
nine.
Thank
you.
J
Chair,
thank
you.
My
apologize
apologies
for
intervening
at
this
particular
point,
but
last
week
we
received
towards
the
end
of
the
week
some
more
information
medical
information
relating
to
item
number
nine.
J
Therefore,
it's
a
public
document,
but
what
I
want
to
put
to
the
members,
because
it
is
of
significance
where
we
think
we
need
to
actually
reconsider
the
equality's
impact
assessment,
that's
being
carried
out
and
possibly
bring
such
a
paper
back
as
a
pink
paper
I
below
the
line,
just
for
your
eyes,
only
at
a
later
date,
I'm
requesting
that
the
application
item
9
is
actually
deferred
at
this
point
and
there's
no
further
discussion
on
it
today
and
we'll
come
back
with
the
revised
documentation
and
just
also
apologize
again
to
the
applicant,
and
anybody
else
has
an
interest
in
the
application
and
we
did
contact
them
as
soon
as
we
could
on
Monday
to
advise
them.
A
So
Council
race
proposed
proposed
Council
gavani.
Thank
you
all
those
in
favor,
and
that
is
unanimous.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
brilliant,
in
which
case
we
will
move
on
to
agenda
item
number
seven,
which
is
a
change
of
use
from
a
dwelling
C3
to
children's
care,
home
C2
and
number
eight
Chatsworth
Crescent
can
I
ask
Adam
to
present
it.
Please.
P
B
Right
this
application
was
the
subject
of
a
panel
site
visit
this
morning
that
members
observed
on
site,
where
I
could
look
around
the
property
in
terms
of
external
parents,
had
a
look
around
the
the
back
Garden
as
well.
It's
a
proposal
for
a
change
of
use
from
a
dwelling
which
is
use
class
C3
to
a
small
children's
home
which
is
class
C2,
that's
a
residential
institution.
B
So,
in
terms
of
the
background,
the
city
councils,
along
with
lots
of
other
local
authorities
throughout
the
country,
receive
a
reasonable
amount
of
these
types
of
application
each
year,
and
these
are
generally
born
out
of
the
need
to
provide
safe
accommodation
for
children.
Who've
had
a
bad
start
in
life
for
various
reasons
and
those
children
that
are
often
removed
from
birth
parents
and
taken
into
the
care
system
in
terms
of
this
specific
site.
B
As
you
can
see
from
the
plan
in
front
of
you
in
the
red
line,
that's
that's
outlined
there.
It's
one
half
of
a
semi-detached
two-story
property
that
sits
on
a
Bend
or
on
Chatsworth
crescents
within
the
area
of
Pudsey.
It's
in
an
established
residential
area,
characterized
by
other
detached
and
semi-detached
properties,
which
range
from
Bungalows
to
two-story
dwellings.
B
So
it's
clearly
in
quite
a
Suburban
location
in
terms
of
its
current
setup
and
and
use
there
are,
is
a
living
room
and
a
kitchen
and
a
dining
room
on
the
ground
floor
and
upstairs
there
are
five
bedrooms
and
a
bathroom
there's
a
driveway
down
the
side
of
the
property
that
leads
underneath
the
first
floor
element
through
an
archway
that
leads
to
a
garage
to
the
rear.
B
So
the
current
proposal
is
to
convert
this
to
a
C2,
a
residential
residential
institution,
and
that
would
be
to
accommodate
up
to
three
children
and
those
would
be
typically
aged
between
10
and
16
years
of
age.
But
the
applicant
May
on
certain
occasions
be
willing
to
take
children
ranging
from
8
up
to
17..
B
So
therefore,
there
could
be
an
up
to
a
maximum
of
up
to
three
children
there
at
any
one
time
and
a
maximum
of
up
to
three
stuff
there
at
any
one
time
and
conditions
are
set
out
at
the
front
of
the
report
to
control
that
in
terms
of
the
proposal
and
how
that's
laid
out.
B
And
we
have
the
next
slide,
please
some
stuff
and
problems.
Thank
you.
It's
no
different
than
the
current
layout,
in
fact,
so,
instead
of
five
bedrooms
being
occupied,
I
used
on
the
Upper
Floor
The
Proposal
is
to
use
three
of
the
bedrooms
for
the
children.
B
So
one
of
the
bedrooms
at
the
front
two
of
the
bedrooms
at
the
back
I
knew
the
rooms
would
be
used,
as
one
of
the
bedrooms
would
be
for
the
member
of
staff,
and
one
would
be
a
staff
office
downstairs
would
remain
unaltered,
which
would
be
a
living
room
at
the
front
together
with
a
kitchen
and
the
dining
room
to
the
rear.
B
B
Now
members
will
have
seen
the
reports
and
and
the
various
objections
that
are
raised
by
a
number
of
local
residents.
It's
pertinent
to
say
that
some
of
these
issues
which
have
been
raised
are
material
planning
considerations
where,
whereas
some
are
not
I,
think
the
main
issues
for
consideration
for
members
here
is
whether
you
feel
that
the
change
of
use
of
the
premises
to
a
children's
home
would
give
rise
to
any
increased
noise
and
disturbance.
Over
and
above
that,
which
could
be
generated
by
use
as
a
single
family
dwelling.
B
So
remember.
This
is
currently
a
five
bedroom
house
which
could
potentially
be
occupied
by
a
family
which
could
then
potentially
have
three
four
or
five
children.
Perhaps
so
what
the
level
of
activity
significantly
greater
as
to
adversely
impact
on
the
living
conditions
of
Neighbors
have
received
appeal
decisions
in
the
past
on
similar
proposals.
B
For
small
children's
homes,
but
appreciating
all
sites
are
different
and
the
inspector
has
concluded
on
some
of
these
that
the
use
of
a
dwelling
for
children's
films
would
not
have
an
unacceptable
impact
on
Neighbors
in
terms
of
anti-social,
behavior
and
excessive
noise
and
disturbance,
and
on
those
occasions
there
was
no
such
evidence
to
suggest
that,
in
order
to
assist
members
and
separate
separate
out
the
issues
which
are
material
and
the
ones
that
aren't
and
to
give
members
some
comfort
on
about
regulation
which
isn't
a
planning
matter,
but
just
to
give
you
that
Comfort
anywhere,
that
regulation
of
these
small
children's
homes
comes
under
the
jurisdiction
of
of
offset
ofsted.
B
So
it's
it
is
governed
by
other
legislation
and
other
another
guidance,
and
what
an
applicant
needs
to
submit
when
they
apply
for
a
children's
home
through
ofsted
is
details
of
the
provider,
the
safeguarding
policy,
their
missing
child's
policy,
behavior
management
policy,
the
location
assessments
and
the
qualities
policy,
insurance
certificate
business
plan
and
also
a
copy
of
any
planning
permission
or
lawful
development
certificate.
So
in
this
instance,
the
applicant
is
applying
for
that
planning
permission,
which
will
then
enable
them
to
go
forward
to
ofsted
to
register
that
children's
film.
B
So
in
summary,
officers
do
not
believe
the
skill
and
extent
of
the
use
of
this
particular
property
or
up
to
three
children
would
give
rise
to
increased
noise
and
disturbance,
to
the
extent
that
it
would
be
significantly
harmful
to
the
immunity
of
adjoining
residents.
So.
To
that
end,
officers
have
recommended
that
the
application
is
approved,
but
with
conditions
to
limit
the
number
of
children
and
limit
the
number
of
staff
I've.
Just
finally
add.
B
A
Thank
you.
We
have
a
speaker
against
the
proposal.
Councilor
Amanda
Carter
you'll
have
four
minutes
once
you're
ready
to
put
your
case
to
panel.
Thank
you.
Q
Thank
you,
chair
and
good
afternoon.
Everybody.
My
name
is
Amanda
Carter
and
I
represent
the
Carly
and
fastly
Ward
I've
also
been
chair
of
plans
panel,
the
center
of
plant
panel
and
our
sat
on
plans
West
for
a
number
of
years.
I
also
was
the
deputy
chair
of
the
police
and
crime
panel
with
responsibility
for
children's
sexual
exploitation.
Q
Unvulnerable
children
and
I
have
worked
for
Martin
house
children's
hospice
and
worked
with
children
with
emotional
difficulties,
so
I'm
here
to
speak
against
this
application,
which
is
a
timidly
touched
property,
a
residential
home
to
turn
into
a
children's
home,
which
is
a
commercial
Venture.
Unless
to
be
very
clear
about
that
members,
it
is
a
cold
and
clinical
commercial
venture.
Q
Q
This
panel
did
try
to
do
the
right
thing
recently
and
refused
children's
home
I
think
it
was
in
the
Bramley
area,
Wellington,
something
or
other.
However,
it
went
to
appeal
and
was
allowed
on
appeal.
I
do
have
to
take
up
issue
with
the
inspector
on
this,
because
there
has
been
some
evidence.
That's
come
to
light,
contrary
to
what
he
said.
What
he
said
was.
It
is
argued
that
the
potential
emotional
and
behavioral
difficulties
of
a
child
at
the
property
would
contribute
to
adverse
excessive
noise
and
disturbance
from
within
the
property
for
neighboring
occupiers.
Q
However,
I
have
seen
no
substantive
evidence
to
support
this.
Furthermore,
whilst
children
are
likely
to
reside
in
the
property
may
have
such
difficulties,
I
find
he's
unreasonable
to
assume
that
such
behavior
and
emotional
needs
would
inevitably
result
in
antisocial,
behavior
and
excessive
noise
while
I.
My
experience
of
that
is
exactly
the
opposite,
because
children
with
emotional
difficulties
find
it
very
difficult
to
articulate
themselves
and
they
articulate
themselves
by
causing
antisocial
Behavior,
because
they're
actually
crying
for
help.
They're
saying
help
me.
They
don't
know
how
to
say
that.
Q
However,
since
that
day,
there
has
been
a
plethora
of
evidence
from
the
BBC
and
the
guardian
to
State
the
contrary.
In
fact,
there
has
been
a
comment
by
Anna
Longfield,
the
former
children's
commissioner.
The
data
set
was
released
actually
after
a
parliamentary
question
shows
that
private
businesses
provided
69
of
bed
spaces
in
children's
homes
in
England,
but
accounted
for
76
of
the
series
incidents
last
year
and
78
of
the
complaints
over
the
last
three
years.
Q
Not-For-Profit
providers
such
as
Council
and
Charities
provide
31
of
bed
spaces
and
accounted
for
24
of
serious
incidents
and
22
percent
of
complaints.
So
I'll,
let
you
do
the
math
on
that
Anna
Longfield,
who
is
the
former
children's
commissioner
for
England,
said
that
profit-driven
care
system
was
failing,
vulnerable
children
and
too
many
accommodated
hundreds
of
miles
from
their
homes
and
huge
amounts
of
money
leaking
out,
Children's
Services
to
private
shareholders
and
owners,
as
I
said
these
cold
and
clinical
profit.
Q
Q
Following
that
there
are
I,
do
have
some
concerns
about
the
highway
it.
The
property
is
actually
on
a
Bend
and
we
have
a
history
of
speeding
there.
A
history
of
accidents,
two
cars
have
been
hit
very
recently
when
I
was
sitting
on
plans.
Planners
were
forever
telling
me
that
plan
is
an
art,
not
a
science.
So
it's
not
definite.
It's
not
like
a
scientific
question
or
it's
not
like
math
question.
There
is
some
leeway
in
it.
Q
A
Thank
you,
councilor
Carter.
Do
members
have
any
questions
for
Council
Carter,
yes,
Council
Cavani.
G
Hopefully,
chair
you'll,
let
me
answer,
ask
a
couple
of
questions,
or
maybe
even
more.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
case.
Le
Carter
I've
read
the
comments
that
are
in
the
panel
papers
from
yourself
and
counselor
Andrew
Carter,
and
they
are
quite
interesting.
G
Perhaps
a
bit
of
explanation
on
some
of
them.
You
said
close
proximity
to
Next,
Door
Bungalow,
which
is
a
home
of
a
disabled
elderly
lady.
G
Q
No
I'm
talking
to
you,
turned
out
to
be
quite
different.
Aren't
you
you're
talking
about
some
of
the
most
vulnerable
children
in
our
society
who
have
been
taken
away
from
their
parents?
If
it
was
a
family
home,
the
parents
would
be
there
to
support
them.
These
children
are
the
most
vulnerable
that
you
can
get.
G
You
mentioned
I
think
you
mentioned
about
the
rat
running
and
from
highways
problems
I
failed
to
understand.
Why
that's
an
issue?
Surely
it's
I'm?
We
were
there.
Today
we
saw
it's
a.
It
is
a
fairly
narrow
road,
they're
talking
about
two
adults
on
site.
If
each
of
those
had
a
car,
they
can
be
parked
off
site,
they
say
social
services
visits
will
be
carried
off
carried
out
off-site,
so
the
most
you're
talking
of
two
cars
which
we
parked
off-road.
Q
It's
a
well-known
run:
cars
have
been
known
to
speed
round
there
at
50
miles
an
hour.
It's
it
well
we're
asking
for
Speed
humps.
The
residents
are
asking
for
Speed
humps,
there's
a
school
just
down
the
road.
Q
The
you're
right
there'll
be
two
people,
two
carers
parked
on
site.
There
are
three
children
room
for
three
children,
so
that
could
be
three
children
from
three
different
authorities,
so
you
would
have
three
different
care:
social
workers
coming
to
that
site,
plus
other
visitors
as
well.
It's
not
an
easy
get
in
or
get
out,
and
it's
illegal
to
reverse
out
onto
the
highway,
so
cars
would
have
to
reverse
in.
They
would
be
packed
one
two
three
behind
each
other,
so
they
would
have
to
move
out
if
somebody
else
wanted
to
go
earlier.
G
Well,
it's
purely
hypothetical.
What
authorities
those
children
come
from.
There
could
be
three
leads
children
all
with
the
same
social
worker.
Again.
Yes,
it's
a
problem
on
the
road
round.
There
I
live
on
a
fairly
tight,
Road
myself
in
the
end
of
a
cul-de-sac.
It
is
a
problem
when
there's
a
lot
of
cars,
but
again
the
people
who
will
be
working.
There
will
be
parking
off
Street.
G
G
You
could
easily
get
two
and
if
you've,
if
you've
got
a
card,
that's
capable
of
moving
underneath
underneath
the
outbuilding
first
floor
extension,
you
could
probably
get
another
two
at
least
another
two
cars
out,
the
back.
So
again,
it's
in
inadequate
parking,
really
an
issue.
Q
K
Thanks
chair
in
terms
of
the
private
sector,
providing
care
and
support
I
share
some
of
the
concerns
based
upon
experiences
in
my
own
world.
But
could
you
develop
you're
thinking
a
little
bit
more
on
that
and
why?
In
your
view,
it's
slightly
unusual
coming
from
conservative
I
have
to
say,
but
in
your
view
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
work
with
children
in
care,
I
to
be
honest,
I,
don't
think
it
works
with
adults
being
provided
help
and
support.
Q
Clearly
they
make
a
lot
of
money
out
of
these
homes,
and
that
is
why
they're
they're
erecting
and
they're
they're
building
these
homes
for
children.
It's
frightening.
It's
absolutely
frightening
that
these
children
are
cared
for
in
this
way
and
they're
not
receiving
the
services
I'm
asking
you
to
defer
it.
So
you
can
see
the
evidence
for
yourselves.
Don't
take
my
word,
for
it
have
a
look.
A
It's
probably
worth
just
mentioning
at
this
point,
although
I'd
love
to
sit
here
and
debate
the
value
of
private
versus
public
okay
in
planning
terms,
whether
it
is
private
or
public
and
I'm
just
looking
over
to
check
it's
still,
it's
the
same
in
planning
terms.
Is
that
correct.
O
M
Chair
councilor
Carter,
given
the
very
built
up
area
that
this
could
potentially
be
placed
within
and
the
ages
of
the
children
that
could
potentially
be
placed
there.
M
Q
Well,
there
isn't
very
much
in
the
area
to
do
it
is
the
application
actually
is
in
Pudsey,
not
fastly.
As
it
said
in
the
report,
there
is
quite
a
lot
of
issues
in
Pudsey
at
the
moment,
without
social
behavior,
with
county
lines,
in
fact,
where
vulnerable
young
children
are
being
drawn
into
crime.
In
fact,
there
was
a
very
nasty
stubbing
last
year
involving
a
child,
a
very
vulnerable
child
who
had
been
coerced
into
county
lines.
So
it
is
something
that
the
police
are
working
very
hard
to
combat.
Q
A
Yeah
you're
right
it
wasn't
a
material
consideration
but,
of
course
helpful
for
context.
Do
I
have
any
other
members
who
would
like
to
ask
any
further
questions
of
the
speaker.
A
No
okay,
in
which
case
do
members
have
any
questions
for
officers.
Councilor,
Finnegan,.
K
One
of
the
issues
is:
you've
got
kids
there
they're
not
going
to
be
driving
around,
certainly
not
at
that
age.
At
this
particular
point,
they
need
a
quality
bus
service
to
be
able
to
access
whatever
services
and
other
things
that
they
actually
want
to
do.
We
need
to
know
the
regularity
and
frequency
and
possibly
reliability,
of
the
bus
services
to
serve
these
vulnerable
children.
B
With
myself,
with
my
colleague
from
highways,
I
can't
give
you
that
information
I'm
not
aware
of
the
actual
frequencies
of
every
single
bus
number
along
that
the
routes
in
the
area
so
I'm
unable
to
give
you
that
information
at
the
moment,
all
I
would
say
is
it's
it's.
It
is
in
a
sustainable
location
in
that
it's
there
are
lots
of
other
Residential
Properties
in
this
location.
So
clearly
you
know
there
are
people
that
utilize
bus
services
in
the
area
and
I
would
expect
the
potential
of
the
people
who
could
occupy.
B
K
At
the
point
where
it
says
good
plan,
public
transport
route
and
frequency,
you
can't
say
that,
because
you
have
to
say
well,
it's
good
bad
or
indifferent,
because
you
don't
know
what
those
particular
services
are,
and
that
is
clearly
a
material
planning
consideration
at
this
particular
Point
and
as
a
result
of
rates
taking
into
account
the
vulnerability
of
the
children,
the
fact
they're
not
going
to
be
driving
around
other
such
things.
K
Perhaps
we
ought
to
consider
a
deferral
for
that
information,
along
with
consideration
of
counselor
characters.
Other
suggestions
at
this
particular
point
so
I'm
happy
to
move
that
we
do
that.
We
defer
for
additional
information.
A
Okay,
if
we've
got
a
second
for
deferral,
councilor,
Smith,
okay,.
P
E
Thank
you,
chair
Adam,
from
your
remarks
earlier.
I
understood
that
the
material
consideration
that
we
need
to
concern
ourselves
with
is
the
possibility
of
any
sort
of
increased
activity
at
the
house
and
more
more
traffic.
More
visits,
more
noise
is
that
is
that
the
soul
scope
of
it
is
that
the
only
point
that
should
we
should
be
considering
at
this
point.
In
your
view,
yeah.
B
E
Thank
you.
No,
it's
still.
It
does
stay
quite
clearly
in
the
documentation
and
I
think
we
sort
of
saw
in
our
site
visit
ourselves
this
morning
that
this
is
about
the
use
of
the
the
use
of
the
building
and
no
physical
and
changes
of
land
internally
or
externally.
E
I
was
struck
looking
over
the
site
by
the
condition
of
the
the
fence
down
one
side
and
in
particular,
sort
of
interesting
feature.
There
appeared
to
be
a
a
gate
with
the
sliding
bolt
on
it
to
the
next
property,
which
I'm
sure
is
fine
between
the
sort
of
two
houses
of
neighbors
who
get
unwell
together,
but
I
do
I.
Do
wonder
whether
this
is
appropriate
and
I.
Don't
know.
E
Obviously,
what
regulations
and
requirements
offset
might
impose
on
this
home
I'm,
just
I'm
just
a
bit
concerned
having
seen
this
that
this
isn't
what
I,
what
I
would
expect
to
see
on
the
a
facility
where
children
are
housed.
Thank
you.
B
Yeah
I
mean
I
suppose
if,
if
the
applicant
or
any
neighbors
had
any
concerns,
neighbors
could
erect
fencing
equally,
the
applicant
could
choose
to
do
that
as
well.
If
they
wanted
to,
and
if
the
cab
providers
or
offset
stipulated
that
as
a
requirement,
then
they
would
have
to
do
that
and
then
they
can
put
up
fencing
and
any
boundary
equipment
treatment
up
to
two
meters
in
height
without
planning
permission
in
any
event.
E
Okay
thanks,
but
just
just
to
be
clear,
then
that
that
that
isn't
a
decisive
in
planning's
under
that's,
not
something
that
ought
to
have
been
required
in
the
husband
being
yeah.
Thank
you.
M
Smith,
thank
you,
chair.
Just
picking
up
on
that
point
before
I
go
to
my
question,
I
was
going
to
ask,
or
my
point
I
was
going
to
make.
If
we
need
to
fence
these
vulnerable
children
in
or
out
of
other
properties,
or
whichever
way
around
you
want
to
look
at
it,
it's
clearly
not
the
right
place
for
them
now,
going
back
to
them
being
very
vulnerable
children
and
they
could
could
come
from
anywhere,
but
they're
going
to
have
to
go
to
school
fairly
locally.
M
So
if
we've
got
this
constant
flocks
of
children
changing,
how
do
these
schools
manage?
That
really,
and
you
know,
with
them
being
different
age
groups,
maybe
going
to
different
schools.
Surely
that
would
increase
traffic
for
pickup
and
drop
off,
and
things
like
that
so
has
that
been
considered.
B
Yeah,
the
local
education
Authority
would
would
have
the
legal
yeah
yeah,
the
local
educational
energy
would
have
the
legal
requirements
to
provide
their
education
and
be
looked
after
children.
Do
it
fall
within
that
category
and
they
would
have
the
choice
of
school
to
go
to
I.
Suppose
a
consideration
of
members
is,
is
the
occupation
of
this
property
by
three
children
any
different
than
it
could
be
as
a
semi-stage
property,
with
with
two
three
or
four?
B
B
In
terms
of
Transport
yeah,
it's
it's
a
similar
scenario
as
well.
You
have
to
compare
it
to
the
existing
situation
whereby
you
have
a
property
again
that
could
be
occupied
by
two
three
four
four
children.
So
in
terms
of
the
transport
links,
it's
it's
not
materially
different.
In
our
view,
if.
M
You
know
they
would,
but
they
would
then
potentially
be
going
to
one
school
and
the
older
child.
If
they
were
at
high
school,
perhaps
going
there
under
their
own
means
with
looked
after
children,
they
will
be
receiving
the
transport
to
the
school.
I
would
suggest
so
that
wouldn't
be
the
same
as
if
it
were
just
one
family
unit,
and
that
would
be
you
know
at
least
twice
a
day
five
days
a
week
during
school
time,.
J
So,
just
briefly
we're
making
a
lot
of
assumptions
here
about
the
the
children
and
the
the
operation
of
a
single
family
unit.
I
mean
there's
nothing
to
say
that.
Actually,
you
may
have
a
family,
it's
a
five-bedroomed
house,
so
you
could
potentially
have
two
parents,
which
is
two
people
and
then
four
bedrooms
occupied
by
one
or
more
more
children
that
could
all
be
going
to
different
schools
and
have
different
needs
themselves,
regardless
of
whether
they're,
actually
in
the
care
system
or
not
so
I,
think
I.
J
H
Thank
you,
chair,
just
to
reiterate
on
Consular,
run,
trees
and
the
introduction
on
paragraph
one
we
were
given
that
I
know
that
that's
for
the
rejection
of
you
know
the
plan
itself
we've
been
given
that
the
the
neighbor
it's
an
elderly
lady,
so
just
as
a
consideration
I,
would
suggest
a
consideration
for
the
fence,
but
in
case,
if,
if
that
will
make
any
difference,
and
just
just
purely
because
of
the
fact
that
there's
an
elderly
person
that
just
as
a
consideration
not
that
they
need
to
do
it
I,
don't
know
I'm.
J
Chad
my
comment
on
that
will
be
a
similar
response.
I
think
the
councilor
Smith
that
that's
an
assumption
that
the
elderly,
lady
next
door
actually
wants
a
two
meter,
high
fence
and
she
actually
may
not
for
various
reasons.
But
again,
as
adamant
said
before,
and
just
to
reiterate
that
on
the
permitted
development
rights,
either
the
person
next
door
or
the
operators
of
this
home
could
actually
erect
a
two
meter
fence.
If
at
some
point
in
the
future,
it's
felt
it
was
necessary.
A
Council
on
tree,
you
want
to
come
in
again
and
then
just
before
you
do
sorry,
if
anyone
has
any
final
comments
that
they'd
like
to
make
to
officers,
if
you
can
wave
at
this
point
and
then
we'll
move
on.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
just
wanted
to
say,
and
following
on
from
earlier
comments
and
What
councilor
Smith
said
as
well
that
I
don't
want
the
record
to
suggest
that
I
was
advocating
fencing
it
fencing
children
in
in
any
way
that
wasn't
what
I
was
thinking
at
all
I
was
simply
thinking
about
that
fence
and
there's
in
the
sense
that
well
I,
wouldn't
want
a
connecting
gate
in
my
fence,
with
my
neighbor's
property
on
my
own
house
and
just
adjusted
that
kind
of
level.
E
Just
to
make
that
clear.
Thank
you.
A
D
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
and
listening
to
the
debate
between
members
I'm
a
little
bit
perplexed.
You
know,
we've
been
quite
clearly
told
what
we're
making
a
consideration
on
which
our
material
considerations
about
the
property
going
from
one
type
of
use
to
another.
We've
had
a
strange
debate
about
how
long
is
a
piece
of
string
in
terms
of
the
number
of
children
that
can
go
into
a
property.
D
If
anything,
this
will
more
regulate
the
number
of
children
that
can
go
into
that
property
because
effectively
it
will
be
controlled
by
the
requirements
of
ofsted,
which
is
obviously
an
authority
that
is
not
here
today
and
can't
speak
for
and
there's
a
different
regulatory
regime,
I
suppose
the
material
consideration,
actually
the
only
one
actually
I
think
that's
come
out
of.
This
is
obviously
the
consideration
of
knows,
but
then
again
we
have
a
different
legal
structure
in
place
to
deal
with
any
requirements
around
noise.
D
So
I
think
the
fundamental
principle
that
you
have
a
a
five
bed
property
which
could
have
any
number
of
children
in
it.
Any
number
of
people
over
a
multi-generational
household,
with
multiple
cars
to
a
much
more
structured,
regulated
environment,
with
onsite
provision,
24
hours
a
day
for
the
children,
with
a
limited
number
of
children
with
controlled
regulated
transport
for
them
to
access
school
and
a
wraparound
care
process.
D
Those
arguments
don't
add
up
frankly
and
and
are
trying
to
find
a
problem
that
doesn't
exist.
The
fundamentals
of
this
application
is:
should
this
be
a
five
bed
residential
property
for
a
family,
to
use
a
multi-generational
family
any
family
to
use,
or
should
it
be
a
property
that
can
be
used
for
look
after
children,
bearing
in
mind
the
acute
issues
we
have
in
this
city
and
I?
Think
on
that
very
basis,
if
we're
just
looking
at
the
material
planning
consideration,
that's
before
us
there's
absolutely
no
logical
reason
to
turn
down
this
application.
A
K
And
I'll
shout
if
I
have
to
it's
a
strange
world
that'll
be
living
when
we
have
Authority
talking
about
the
private
sector
failing
and
the
labor
party,
propping
up
the
private
sector.
It's
a
strange
surreal
experience
where
we
are
at
this
particular
point
and
the
point
to
be
made
about
this.
Ultimately,
is
we
need
to
be
looking
at?
It's
not
whinging.
K
We
need
to
be
looking
at
some
additional
evidence
that
might
have
an
impact
on
a
material
planning
application,
primarily
we're
in
a
situation
where,
if
the
evidence
shows
that
the
private
sector
do
provide
a
greater
problems
and
difficulties
in
terms
of
their
care
provision
and
that
impacts
on
residential
immunity
than
the
very
least
we
should
be
doing
is
having
a
look
at
that
evidence
and
deferring
it
now.
K
Maybe
my
colleagues
over
there
will
find
that
the
evidence
is
not
relevant
and
therefore,
at
that
particular
Point
come
to
the
conclusion
that
they
seem
to
be
coming
to
at
this
particular
stage.
But
at
the
point,
where
we're
told
also
that
we've
got
good
plan,
good
public
transport
routes
without
any
evidence
to
suggest
of
the
regularity
or
where
these
public
transport
routes
go
to,
and
we're
prepared
to
just
accept
that
on
that
particular
assurances
without
the
evidence
so
tool
lots
of
evidence
here
at
this
particular
stage
that
we
ought
to
seriously
be
reflecting
on.
K
Before
we
come
to
a
conclusion.
It
would
appear
that
colleagues
don't
want
to
see
that
evidence
and,
as
such,
I
can't
really
support
this
application,
because
I
haven't
seen
the
full
story.
I
haven't
seen
all
of
the
relevant
evidence
that
might
have
an
impact
on
material
considerations
on
this
particular
application.
M
Thank
you,
chair
I.
Don't
think
this
is
the
right
location
for
this
type
of
establishment.
I
mean
the
well
the
home
isn't
suitable.
In
my
opinion,
I
know
what
you're
saying
it's
not,
but
in
my
opinion
it's
not
suitable.
The
public
transport
links
aren't
there
that
that
you
say
are
there
I,
don't
think
that
the
road
will
cope
with
the
additional
traffic
I
think
there
will
be
additional
noise
and
disturbance
to
a
very
settled
area
and
I.
M
Just
think
that
it's
it's
not
the
right
place,
I'm
concerned
that
there's
very
little
for
the
young
people
to
do
in
that
area
and
that
you
know
may
or
may
not
cause
its
own
problems
and
all
right.
You
can
say
that
how
long's
a
piece
of
string
and
I'm
worrying
about
problems
that
don't
exist,
but
we
have
a
situation
where
we
don't
have
problems
there.
We
are
potentially
creating
problems.
There
I
think
there
are
better
locations
for
this.
L
Actually
counselor
Smith
just
said
exactly
what
I
was
going
to
say,
and
you
also
talked
about
at
one
point:
the
parking
and
having
two
cars
parked
at
in
the
back
Garden.
Well
to
me.
It
strikes
me
already
that
that
area
in
the
back
is
very
restricted
and
is
a
restricted
area
for
children
to
play
in
any
way.
So
even
with
one
car,
when
you
look
at
at
the
sighting
itself,
there
isn't
a
great
lot
of
room
for
children
to
play
in
itself
and
human
nature
as
it
is.
L
L
A
G
G
G
Have
we
seen
anything
that
would
mitigate
against
this
I?
Don't
think
we
have
now?
It
would
be
great
if
the
council
could
house
in
its
own
run
homes
all
the
children
it
needs
to,
but
since
2010
we've
seen
this
become
harder
and
harder
due
to
cutscene
funding
and
councils
up
and
down
the
country
are
crying
about.
This
they've
all
got
the
same
problem
and
it's
a
problem
that
could
easily
be
solved
by
giving
the
councils
the
money
to
do
it
themselves.
G
G
A
Thank
you
councilmani,
so
I
will
now
move
to
Steve.
To
sum
up
the
debate,
please.
J
Sorry,
I
I
wouldn't
necessarily
ignore
some
of
the
debate,
but
because
you
do
have
a
substantive
Motion
in
front
of
which
is
a
recommendation
to
Grant
it,
but
before
we
get
there,
I
just
wanted
to
say
and
and
reiterate
that
actually,
the
distinction
between
a
public
or
a
private
sector
run
home
is
irrelevant
in
this
forum,
and
even
if
we
were
to
provide
the
information
that
Council
Finnegan's
asking
for
my
question
to
the
panel,
what
would
you
do
with
it?
J
Because
the
situation
could
happen
again
with
the
C3
use
and
as
councilor
is
articulated,
you
know
you
could
have
any
number
of
children
who
may
have
their
own
special
needs
and
maybe
part
of
a
single-family
unitec
Center.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
that
clear.
J
Talking
about
the
car
parking,
it's
the
same
issue
in
a
way,
really
isn't
it
that
you
know
people
have
driveways
make
it
make
a
decisions
to
whether
they
want
to
use
it
or
not.
The
worst
evidence
today
on
site
directly
opposite
where
people
were
actually
using
the
driveways,
but
there
was
evidence
where
people
were
parking
on
the
street
as
well
again.
If
it
was
a
C3
unit,
the
same
dilemma
would
be
there.
It's
like
you
know
in
a
way
it
again,
it's
a
bit
of
a
red
herring,
I.
J
Think
so
really
all
I
want
to
say.
Is
you
have
the
recommendation
in
front
of
you
to
Grant
the
Planning
Commission
we've
already
had
a
motion
which
was
to
defer
it
which
was
not
carried
so
it's
whether
somebody
wants
to
propose,
and,
secondly,
the
recommendation.
A
And
against
which
leaves
us
with
nobody
to
abstain,
meaning
the
motion
is
carried
just
before
I
move
on
to
the
next
one,
I
feel
both
as
an
adoptive
parent
and
also
as
a
counselor.
It's
really
important.
It's
really
important
for
me
to
take
a
moment
just
in
case
any
of
our
children
looked
after
or
anyone
with
care
experiences.
Reading
these
papers,
notwithstanding
all
the
stuff
in
there
that
is
legitimate.
A
There
were
some
comments
in
there
that
I
think
are
relatively
offensive
and
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
to
anyone
that
is
watching
this,
that
actually,
you
bring
a
huge
amount
of
value
to
our
community
and
to
our
city,
and
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
a
gender
item
number
eight,
which
is
a
reserved
Masters
application
for
57
dwellings,
including
provision
of
public,
open
space
and
Associated
infrastructure.
A
Just
for
anyone
watching
live
we're
just
getting
the
laptops
and
the
tech
set
up.
R
Thank
you
chair.
This
application
was
a
relates
to
a
reserve,
Master's
application
for
57
dwellings,
including
the
provision
of
open
space
and
Associated
infrastructure
relating
to
scale
layout,
appearance
and
Landscaping
in
relation
to
a
early
outline
permission
granted
in
2018
for
Land
South
to
south
of
Port
Road
in
Poole.
R
The
next
slide.
Please
stop
questions
right
so
before
I
start
I'll,
just
give
you
a
couple
of
updates.
So
since
the
publication
of
a
report,
we've
received
some
additional
representations,
and
one
of
these
has
come
from
councilors
Barry
and
Caroline
Anderson,
and
the
letter
reiterates
comments
which
have
been
made
previously
and
covered
within
the
reports
in
terms
of
building
materials,
relationship
to
the
gas
pipeline
separation
distances,
biodiversity,
boundary
treatments,
drainage
and
the
inspector's
previous
appeal
decisions.
R
The
letter
also
raises
points
in
terms
of
enforcement,
of
conditions
are
and
lack
of,
consultation
between
the
developers
and
local
residents.
R
A
few
additional
late
letters
have
also
been
received
from
neighboring
residents.
A
lot
of
these
cover
issues
which
have
already
been
covered.
One
of
the
letters
raises
a
concern
in
relation
to
some
Earth
Mounds
that
are
proposed
within
the
Landscaping
areas.
I'll
Point,
these
out
when
we
get
to
them
and
but
essentially,
we've
attached
a
planning
condition.
R
Well,
we've
suggested
applying
condition
in
relation
to
details
of
amounts
and
given
the
whiff
width
of
these
mounds
and
discussions
with
the
developers,
we're
not
expecting
these
to
be
of
any
particular
height
that
give
rise
to
any
issues
such
as
the
the
neighbors
pointed
out,
such
as
loss
of
Lights
and
impact
on
impacts
on
views,
which,
essentially,
is
not
a
material
planning
matter
anyway.
R
R
Another
letter
from
a
recent
raised
concerns
about
some
additional
plans
being
put
online
without
consultation
on
these,
and
essentially
these
were
just
small
incremental
changes
which
didn't
require
additional
consultation
and,
in
particular
the
last
ones,
were
just
a
color
version
of
the
house
types
as
well
as
a
3D
representation
of
existing
plans.
So
so
it
was
essentially
additional
information,
as
opposed
to
a
change
in
circumstances.
R
And
an
additional
note
was
also
received
from
another
neighboring
list
and
now
on
the
list
to
speak
today.
So
I'm
sure
you'll
hear
their
concerns
in
this
regard.
So
just
another
key
point
to
update
you
on.
R
Since
the
publication
of
the
officer
report,
we've
managed
to
secure
the
agreement
with
the
developers
to
increase
the
number
of
stone
properties
and
from
free
which
I'm
going
to
show
you
on
the
plans
to
seven
and
I'll,
highlight
where
these
are,
when
that,
when
I
run
through
the
designs-
and
this
will
help
to
create
a
more
meaningful
cluster
of
stone
properties
at
the
Gateway
of
the
site
and
the
developers
also
agreed
to
amend
the
boundary
details
as
as
we're
originally
shown.
R
So
these
are
going
to
Natural
Stone
Wall
into
match,
as
well
as
an
estate
railing.
R
So
in
light
of
these
changes,
officers
now
recommending
that
members
seek
to
defer
and
delegate
the
final
approval
to
the
chief
planning
officer
subject
to
the
receipt
of
these
plans,
which
show
the
changing
materials,
and
these
changes
also
be
be
run
past.
The
chair
prior
to
to
signing
those
off
so
in
terms
of
the
scheming
in
front
of
you
there's
the
red
line
boundary.
So
this
shows
the
extent
of
the
of
the
sites.
R
R
Next
slide.
Please-
and
this
is
just
an
aerial
view,
so
so
our
site
is
along
the
western
edge
there
of
pool
in
wharfdale
and,
as
you
can
see
from
that
and
from
the
site
visit
this
morning,
there's
no
natural
boundary
to
the
sites.
R
It's
it's
the
middle
of
a
field
effectively
with
with
the
church,
Lane
private
roads
running
across
the
middle,
just
to
orientate
yourself
as
well
as
the
shell
garage
is
there
to
the
North
and
then
there's
the
bridge
just
beyond
that
which
extends
up
towards
Harrogate
and
then
the
river
Wharf
also
extends
to
the
north
just
beyond
the
sights
next
slide.
R
Please-
and
this
is
just
a
wider
context-
so
it
suppose
essentially
a
small
village
which
is
surrounded
by
Greenbelt
Land,
there's
some
limited
development
and
Industrial
uses
just
to
the
west
of
the
site,
which
lie
within
the
green
belts
but
yeah,
as
our
previously
pointed
out,
it's
essentially
a
residential
extension
to
the
Northwestern
edge
of
the
settlement.
R
Next
slide,
please.
This
is
an
extract
from
the
conservationary
appraisal,
so
the
whole
of
the
Eastern
side
of
the
site
and
Beyond
lies
within
the
con.
The
pool
Conservation
Area
so
for
sites
within
the
setting
of
this
Conservation
Area,
and
this
is
an
extract
from
the
character
area
far,
which
is
the
purple
so
and
our
site.
R
There
lies
where,
where
it
says,
Paul
on
the
left-hand
side
of
that
purple,
Edge
and
just
to
the
half
of
that
as
well-
and
some
things
to
point
out
here
are
the
the
positive
building
which
is
dark,
green
just
to
the
North
near
the
road,
and
essentially
it's
one
of
the
few
limited
positive
buildings
within
this
character
area.
But
it's
also
adjacent
to
the
historic
car
which
is
is
the
pinky
area
and
this
character
area.
R
Catcher
area
far,
which
it
lies
adjacent,
is
described
as
an
area
with
a
strong
variation
in
character
and
appearance.
The
20th
century
housing
area
share
a
distinctive
Urban
appearance
that
unites
them
next
picture,
please.
So
this
is
the
the
access
to
the
site.
So
this
access
swim
pool,
Road's
already
been
agreed
through
the
outline.
R
It's
not
a
matter
for
that
for
this
Reserve
matters
application
and
you
can
see,
on
the
left
hand,
side
there
there's
a
line
of
residential
developments,
which
lie
quite
close
to
that
that
boundary,
and
you
can
also
note
the
the
changing
topography.
R
So
you
have
a
well
quite
a
steep
change
in
topography
at
this
part
of
the
site
and,
as
we
went
in
in
towards
the
center
of
the
site,
it
was,
it
was
much
flatter
so
that
building
on
the
left-hand
side,
there
is
the
positive
building
which
was
highlighted
on
the
Conservation
Area
appraisal,
and
you
can
see
from
this
view
here
you
get
some
glimpses
of
render
to
the
side
elevations
as
well,
and
then
the
backdrop
is,
of
course
the
chevin.
R
So
this
is
towards
the
bottom
of
the
wharf
Valley
with
the
river
just
below
us,
and
there
are
some
long-range
views
which
I'll
point
out
as
we
go
further
along.
So
next
slide,
please.
R
This
is
just
adjacent
to
that
positive
building
that
at
the
site
engine,
so
this
just
shows
a
style
of
some
of
the
neighboring
properties.
Today,
you've
got
a
red,
brick,
a
red
roof,
tile
and
and
some
render
as
well
and
next
slide,
please.
This
is
within
the
site.
So
this
is
the
the
private
Highway
which
splits
the
site
essentially
and
these
on
the
right
hand,
side
here
are
the
backs
of
some
of
the
positive
buildings
which
lie
within
this
historic
car
element
of
The
Proposal.
R
But
this
access
road
at
this
point
doesn't
actually
lie
within
the
red
line
boundary
and
the
new
housing
will
be
going
to
the
the
left-hand
side
here
next
slide.
Please-
and
this
is
just
looking
back
the
other
way,
so
you
see
those
Stone
properties
on
the
left
there
and
and
longer
range
views
next
slide.
R
Please-
and
this
is
where
we
stood
today
on
site
when
we
were
trying
to
get
away
from
the
tractor
that
was
covering
Us
in
mock,
and
this
really
gives
you
an
idea
of
the
relationship
with
the
neighboring
properties
along
that
side.
That
hedge,
which
is
down
those
to
be
retained.
R
You
can
see
on
the
right
hand,
side
there,
there's
a
master,
modern,
Suburban
dwelling,
which
it
probably
dates
from
the
late
70s
yeah
and
it
you
know
it's
a
good
picture
just
to
show
that
there's
there's
nothing
to
Define
that
that
western
edge
of
the
site
at
the
moment
next
page
please-
and
this
is
the
estate
that
we
drove
into
so
it's
called
church
close,
which
church
close
goes
on
Beyond
this
estate.
R
But
we
had
a
quick
look
around
him
and
this
is
an
existing
development
which
lies
within
the
extent
of
the
conservation
area.
So
so
the
proposed
site
will
lie
directly
behind
these
dwellings
so
that
these
These
are
more
limited,
architectural
Merit
than
the
the
ones
that
we've
seen
previously
and
the
the
palette
of
materials
is
made
up
of
brick
render
and
concrete
Tower
rules
with
upvc
Windows
as
well,
and
you
can
see
some
some
fencing
and
quite
prominent
locations.
R
So
if
you
just
do
the
next
one
as
well
done
so
that
this
is
another
picture
from
the
from
the
same
estate
that
lies
adjacent
next
one
as
well.
Please-
and
this
is
just
a
finer
one
here
so
showing
some
Gable
details,
but
it
gives
you
an
idea
of
of
what
the
southern
part
of
the
site
lies
next
to
next
site.
R
Please,
and
then
these
are
further
pictures
from
that
same
character
area
far
just
showing
their
range
of
Suburban
House
types
that
are
there
there
is,
you
know,
render
is
prominent
in
some
areas,
just
concrete
tile,
roofs
in
some
places,
and
it
just
shows
where
there's
material
splits
as
well.
Next
slide.
Please-
and
these
are
some
of
the
the
long
range
views
from
the
show,
and
so
this
is
from
the
a660.
R
It's
just
you
know,
it's
quite
a
long
range
view
from
from
this
point.
There
is
views
further
away
from
higher
upon
the
sharing
and
the
summer
bit
nearer
from
otley
Old
Road,
no
sorry
old
pull
bank,
which
is
access
only
now.
So
if
we
look
at
the
next
one,
this
is
zoomed
in
a
bit.
So
essentially
from
this
from
this
view,
what
you're
seeing
is
you
know
you
see
the
basic
form
for
two-story
dwelling,
uncluttered
roof
lines
that
the
chimneys
and
you
see
the
stone
Building
Material.
R
You
see
glimpses
of
the
render
and
within
a
landscape
setting
next
slide
please.
So
this
is
the
proposed
layout.
I'll
just
cover
off
the
the
changes
to
the
proposed
material.
So
if
you
look
at
the
blue
properties,
there
they're
the
ones
that
are
going
to
be
constructed
fully
of
stone
and
then
there's
there's
two
yellow
properties
that
lie
directly
below
the
two.
On
the
on
the
right
hand,
side
and
both
those
seven
detached
pairs
are
proposed
to
be
Stone.
R
So
in
terms
of
this
layout,
you've
obviously
got
the
access
coming
in
from
the
in
the
north
Versa
from
Paul
Road.
So
that
was
agreed
outline
then
you've
got
the
main
access
road
to
the
western
edge
of
the
sides
and
that
generally
demarks
the
green
belt
boundary.
So
anything
to
the
left
of
that
road
is
within
the
green
belt.
R
The
dwellings
are
a
mix
of
detached
and
some
detached
dwellings,
ranging
between
two
and
four
beds
and
the
generally.
The
layout
generally
addresses
the
streets
and
and
green
spaces
around
there
and
then
in
terms
of
a
separation
distances.
These
are
generally
greater
than
to
the
dwellings
on
the
right.
R
These
are
generally
greater
than
what
was
previously
discussed
at
last
appeal
and
it
didn't
form
one
of
the
inspectors
reasons:
reviews
on
that
appeal,
there's
just
one
dwelling
which
is
being
brought
slightly
closer,
which
will
cover
cover
off
when
I
come
to
the
main
points.
But
it's
it's
the
second
blue
dwelling
down
there
and
that's
been
moved
about
10.1
meters
from
that
rear
boundary.
R
As
you
can
see
the
relationship
to
the
South
fair,
so
those
dwellings
have
kind
of
an
offset
relationship
with
that
estate
that
we
went
around
so
there's
no
concerns
in
that
regard,
and
then
the
central
ones
have
got
this
green
space
buffer
to
the
dwellings
that
lie
on
the
other
side
of
that
access.
Road.
R
Also,
in
terms
of
this
plan
just
point
out
that
the
line
of
a
gas
pipelines
marked
with
the
the
dash
dashed
line
to
the
western
side.
So
you
can
see
it.
It
abrupts
the
access
road.
Well,
the
easement.
It
puts
the
access
road
to
the
southern
aspect
and
it
goes
further
away
as
you.
You
travel
enough,
there's
three
main
green
spaces,
so
there's
a
green
spaces.
R
So
there's
the
area
to
the
north
by
the
entrance,
a
central
linear
area
and
a
small
area
to
the
South,
and
these
are
essentially
the
same
as
as
the
previous
scheme
that
which
went
to
appeal
and
the
inspector
found
to
be
acceptable.
Then
there's
a
fast
Green,
Space
area
to
the
north
west,
which
will
be
a
drainage
attenuation
area.
R
And
then
you
may
have
seen
the
mention
to
the
wharf
Dale
Greenway
within
the
report,
and
essentially
the
linear,
Green
Space,
which
splits
the
site
north
south
and
would
provide
a
new
point
of
access
for
the
greenway
to
the
Western
Edge
and
and
that
I'd
Link
in
with
the
existing
settlement
to
the
right,
and
that
this
is
identical
to
the
previous
appeal
and
proposals
which
were
considered
to
be
acceptable
in
that
regard.
R
Next
plan,
please
Dan,
so
this
is
essentially
about
the
Landscaping
scheme.
So
it
gives
a
bit
more
detail
in
that
regard.
R
R
So,
just
of
enough
of
another
mouse
dwell
in
this
was
two
hatched
areas
there
and
we've
agreed
with
the
developers
that
were
going
to
ask
for
the
details
of
this
planting
via
a
condition,
because
what
we
don't
want,
given
the
relationship
with
those
planting
areas
to
be
adjacent
dwellings,
is
any
species
which
you're
going
to
grow.
Too,
Tall
and,
potentially
you
know,
cause
issues
further
down
the
line
block
the
light
of
of
the
neighboring
properties
so
we'll
be
put
in
a
a
condition.
R
I'm
requesting
those
details
and
essentially
it'll,
be
a
a
low,
a
low
level
planting
area
for
the
and
then
in
terms
of
the
Mounds.
You
might
not
be
able
to
see
from
the
from
the
naked
eye
here,
but
the
linear
strip
that
goes
east
west
in
the
middle
just
either
side
of
those
roads.
There
there's
some
Mounds
to
marked,
and
essentially
we
can
ask
for
details
of
that
through
the
planning
conditions,
but
when
I've
measured
them
the
the
wide.
R
This
point
they
tend
to
be
five
meters,
which
is
like
the
length
of
a
car,
a
car
parking
space.
So,
as
you
can
imagine,
you
can't
go
too
high
across
such
a
shorter
distance,
so
we're
not
expecting
no
for
there
to
create
a
bit
of
Interest
really
in
what
is
a
linear
piece
of
Green
Space
other
than
you
know,
rather
than
creating
an
immunity
issue
for
The
Neighbors
next
page,
please
slide.
Even
this
shows
a
cross-section
of
some
of
the
levels
to
Vanadium
properties.
R
You
know
you
can
appreciate
from
going
on
out
on
site
today
and
seeing
the
pictures
of
the
land
level
differences
there
and
they've
been
taken
into
account
when
we've
considered
the
application
next
slide.
Please-
and
this
is
a
comparison
really
so-
you've
got
the
the
layout
of
the
scheme
in
front
of
you
on
the
left
hand,
side
and
the
previous
scheme
that
went
to
appeal
on
the
right,
so
the
no.
It
is
very
similar
in
that
regard,
and
essentially
the
inspector.
R
The
reasons
for
appeals
are
related
to
design
and
appearance
and
impact
on
the
conservation
area
rather
than
layout
issues.
Green
Space
Etc
Next
plan,
please.
R
So
this
is
one
of
the
previous
house
types
from
the
previous
inspector
throughout.
So
some
of
the
key
issues
with
the
the
previous
scheme
were
the
developers
were
proposing
a
material
palette
of
buff
brick
so
which
is
like
a
yellow
orange
brick.
An
art
Stone
and
the
concrete
Tower
rules
didn't
have
much
context
for
the
area
and
in
particular,
the
inspector
didn't
like
this
house
type,
which
had
a
very
tall
roof
and
a
Dharma
window
and,
as
you'll
know
before
I've
talked
about
the
inclustered
nature
of
the
nearby
roof
lines.
R
And
what
was
the
pattern
of
these
house
types?
Was
that
the
the
quality
of
a
scheme
from
front
to
back?
So
if
you
look
at
the
the
front
elevation,
there,
you've
got
dressed
windows
with
heads
and
cells
and
then,
when
you
get
to
the
rear,
it's
kind
of
being
left
with
no
detail
in
there
and
in
partner
there's
no
chimneys
either.
R
Next,
please
don't!
These
are
some
of
the
stone
render
ones
so
so
you
can
see
that
split,
so,
there's
Stone
renders
to
the
front
elevation
and
you've
got
a
coin
detail
that
that
runs
around
the
edges
and
brings
that
material
in
towards
the
sides
and
rear
and
next
slide,
please.
These
are
just
another
couple
of
versions
of
the
plans,
but,
as
you
can
see
there
in
in
terms
of
the
alignment
of
the
windows
and
the
detailers
have
come
on
a
long
way
since
since
the
previous
versions,
our
next
slide.
R
Please-
and
these
are
some
of
the
brick
render
ones.
So
these
are
going
to
go
to
the
South,
which
is
the
marsh
shielded
area
of
the
sites
adjacent
to
that
estate,
which
had
the
the
Brick
and
render
properties
and
again
they're
a
quite
simple
design.
R
Next
slide,
please
and
they're
they're
justifying
off
you
next
slide.
Please,
then
this
is
just
the
3D
representation
which
kind
of
knits
together
all
the
issues
which
we've
been
covering,
so
you
can
see
there,
the
you
know
the
two-star
scale
of
the
dwellings,
the
the
character
areas
this,
how
the
Green
Space
is
linked.
The
tree
line
streets
so
in
in
terms
of
the
main
issues
I
was
laid
out
in
the
report.
R
The
site
benefits
from
extant
outline
consent
for
residential
development,
which
includes
the
access
from
from
pool
road,
which
was
granted
that
appeal
as
such.
The
principal
of
residential
development
is
acceptable.
This
outline
consent
considered
all
matters
that
went
to
the
heart
of
the
permissions,
such
as
general
sustainability,
accessibility
and
capacity,
affordable,
housing
provision,
improvements
to
the
highway
Network,
flood
risk
and
drainage,
for
example,
and
the
inspector
also
gave
a
count
of
a
such
relationship
to
the
gas
pipeline
and
the
wharfdale
greenway.
R
Some
of
the
matters
such
as
trainees
were
mitigated
by
conditions
attached
to
the
outline,
and
these
will
need
to
be
discharged
before
development
commences
other
matters
such
as
the
landscape
buffer.
So
you
can
see
there,
a
landscape
buffers
proposed
to
the
to
the
western
side
were
covered
in
the
section
10106
agreement,
which
required
details
to
be
submitted
prior
to
developments.
R
R
R
However,
this
was
a
matter
dealt
with
outline
stage
in
the
inspector
placed
an
appropriate
planning
condition
and
requiring
a
change
in
foul
sealage
schemes
be
submitted
in
a
grade
in
writing
prior
to
the
commencement
of
development,
and
essentially
that
process
will
go
ahead
following
the
grant
of
the
reserve
matters.
R
R
You'll
note
the
site's
got
a
long
history
in
terms
of
appeals.
So
we've
tried
twice
tried
to
prevent
residential
development
on
here.
We
lost
the
outline
that
was
due
to
not
having
a
five-year
housing
land
Supply
at
the
time,
and
we
also
tried
to
refuse
the
previous
Reserve
matters,
application
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
and
we
essentially
will
not
Appeal
on
on
the
one
Mata,
which
was
the
impact
on
the
conservation
area
and
in
particular,
design
and
appearance
of
the
dwellings.
R
An
important
point
to
to
point
out
is
that
the
outline
consent
was
was
granted
prior
to
the
car
strategy
review,
which
brought
in
raft
of
new
policies
on
important
issues
such
as
climate
change,
adaption,
space
standards
and
accessible
housing,
and
whilst
these
are
very
important
matters
that
they
go
to
the
heart
of
the
permission
and
are
not
issues
that
follow
in
the
scope
of
this
Reserve
matters,
application
in
terms
of
the
gas
pipeline
I
outlined
where
that
is
in
relation
to
the
sites
and
it
essentially
Clips
a
six
meter
easement
from
the
pipeline
towards
the
south
of
the
site
and
towards
where
those
brick
houses
are
and
it
it's
the
road
that
lies
adjacent
to
it.
R
R
However,
essentially,
this
is
a
principal
matter
that
goes
to
the
heart
of
permission,
and
it
was
an
issue
dealt
with
an
outline
stage
when
the
previous
inspector
attached
the
planning
condition
requiring
the
developers
to
submit
information
in
relation
to
compliance
with
the
northern
gas
public
publication.
So
this
is
quite
a
meaty
document
that
they
need
to
to
comply
with,
and
that
includes
a
variety
of
requirements
such
as
safe
digging,
practices,
excavation
mechanical
excavation
restrictions,
requirements
for
construction
traffic
blasting
and
piling
restrictions
and
drainage.
R
R
In
importantly,
the
developers
also
require
separate
formal
content
from
northern
gas
to
do
any
work
close
to
the
pipeline
in
terms
of
the
health
risk
from
the
pipeline
we've
cons,
we've
consulted
the
health
and
safety
executive
who
are
the
statutory,
Consulting
and
comment
on
safety
grounds
and
whether
or
not
playing
permission
should
be
granted
on
safety
grounds,
given
the
increased
population
near
to
the
to
the
hazard,
which
is
the
pipeline
in
this.
R
In
this
regard,
the
HSC
haven't
raised
any
objections
to
this
application,
and
you
know,
essentially,
this
request
for
a
risk
assessment
is
a
a
new
requirement
above
and
beyond
what
was
set
out
at
outline
stage
and
there's
nothing
in
the
outline
consent
on
the
section
106
to
secure
this,
and
it
goes
beyond
the
expectations
and
fills
out
the
scope
of
a
reserve
matters
application.
R
However,
safeguards
are
still
in
place
through
this
conditional
discharge,
which
they'll
need
to
do
and
the
requirement
for
separate
Northern
gas
content
to
work
close
and
to
the
pipeline
in
terms
of
the
greenway.
As
I
pointed
out,
it's
it's
an
identical
situation
to
the
previous
appeal,
whilst
we'd
want
to
see
more
details
in
that
regard
with
we
put
forward
very
strong
arguments
which
the
inspector
didn't
agree
with.
R
There's
no
justifications
to
depart
from
the
inspector's
previous
comments
in
regarding
the
the
East
West
Lincoln
potential
link
to
to
a
wider
psychopath
in
the
future
in
terms
of
landscape,
but
for
that's
secured
by
the
section
106
agreement
and
the
developers
will
need
to
deliver
that
alongside
this
developments
and
then,
finally,
in
terms
of
the
the
previous
appeal,
decisions
were
very
you
know,
good
in
in
funnel,
in
what
other
residual
matters
on
the
scheme
and
essentially
that's
in
relation
to
the
impact
on
the
conservation
area
and
the
design
and
appearance
of
the
house
type.
R
So
you'll
have
seen
when
we've
we've
looked
at
the
the
various
house,
Types
on
site
adjacent,
as
well
as
what
was
proved
from.
What's
now
proposed,
we've
seen
a
massive
uplift
in
the
quality
of
the
materials
that
are
now
proposed.
We've
now
got
character
areas,
it's
a
it's,
a
more
logical
transition
between
the
materials
and
how
they
relate
to
the
neighboring
areas.
R
You
know
they've
got
important
detailing
such
that
the
heads
and
sales
and
the
chimneys
they've
got
that
front
to
back
quality
between
the
dwellings
and
you
know,
they're
a
simple
farm
with
uncluttered
roof.
So
we
think
now
that
what
they've
put
forward
is
acceptable
in
terms
of
the
setting
of
The,
the
conservation
area,
and
it's
overcome
that
previous
reason
for
refusal.
R
A
Thanks
very
much
we
do
have
speakers
against
the
proposal
can
I
invite
them
now
to
the
end
table.
We've
got
Robert
Cardis,
guy,
Northrup
and
Joanna
Rowling
just
for
members
benefit.
Councilor
Barry
Anderson
will
also
be
coming
to
join
the
members
of
the
public
as
support,
but
will
not
be
speaking.
You
will
be
able
to
ask
questions
and
he
will
be
able
to
assist
if
required.
Thank
you.
J
A
Steve
I've
also
because
there's
three
objectors
allowed
six
minutes
rather
than
four
minutes,
which
is
the
norm
so
that
it's
two
minutes
per
person
so
that
you
can
make
a
decent
a
decent
case.
A
Yeah.
Thank
you.
S
All
right
on
there
yeah
right
anyway,
I
hope
to
finish
this.
The
first
point
all
I'm
saying
about
this
development
is
it's
entirely
visible
from
Opel
bank
and
Paul
Road.
It's
totally
Visible
Changes
pull
forever.
The
last
reserved
matters.
Application
was
turned
down
by
the
planning
inspector.
It
was
not
in
keeping
with
the
conservation
area
nature
of
pulling
Wharf
tale
and
to
me,
if
you
look
at
the
old
and
new,
the
tinkering
around
the
edges
basically,
and
to
me
the
important
thing
is
because
this
is
the
whole
nub
of
this
argument.
S
The
council's
own
conservation
officers,
view
States
and
I
think
it
says,
would
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
setting
of
the
conservation
area
and
would
fail
to
preserve
or
enhance
its
character
or
appearance,
which
seems
pretty
damning
to
me.
So
the
latest
proposals
to
be
a
generic.
They
could
build
them
anywhere.
Really.
S
So
to
me
at
least,
it's
Council
have
an
opportunity
to
enhance,
pulling
Warfare
with
a
mix
of
houses
constructed
in
stone,
artificial
stone
layout
that
the
council
could
be
proud
of.
There's
plenty
of
natural,
artificial
storm
being
used
in
other
sympathetic
developments,
even
in
Bradford
keep
mode
we're
putting
up
houses
using
Stone,
and
the
other
thing
I
want
to
mention
is
the
Boston's
power
development,
which
is
a
nice
development.
It's
joined
up
blooming
thinking,
you
know
it's
decent
planning,
it
looks
nice,
it's
a
good
scheme.
Why
don't?
S
We
do
something
like
that
in
pool,
so
it's
not
a
situation
of
houses.
You
know,
except
we
need
houses,
so
this
is
a
case
of
making
a
nice
scheme
for
the
future.
All
it
means
is
that
the
developer
and
landowner
gets
a
bit
less
profit,
it's
as
easy,
as
that
and
finally,
I've
just
got
one
point:
I
cannot
understand
why
one
of
the
houses
is
moved
closer
to
my
house
when
it
was
actually
approved
in
the
original
application
has
been
further
away
so
I
respectively,
say
we
should
refuse
it
and
get
another
one
in.
T
That
one,
okay,
so
condition
10
of
the
outline
planning
approval
states
that
no
development
shall
commence
until
the
details
of
the
cycle
and
pedestrian
route
through
the
site
suitable
to
form
parts
of
the
wharf.
Dale
Greenway
proposals
have
been
approved
in
writing
by
the
local
planning.
T
Authority
I
would
argue
that
the
basic
condition
has
absolutely
not
been
fulfilled
that
the
current
proposals,
I'd
like
those
in
the
outline
planning,
approval
and
I,
was
at
the
public
inquiry
for
that
all
those
years
ago,
seek
to
take
the
greenway
westwards
across
the
housing
estate
and
abandon
it
in
no
man's
land
beyond
the
boundary
of
the
site.
This
is
absolutely
not
suitable,
because
the
point
at
which
the
root
leaves
the
site
is
on
top
of
the
high
pressure
gas
pain,
and
this
is
not
an
ordinary
gas
main.
T
This
is
a
very
serious
piece
of
Kit
and
the
suggestion
is
that
it
should
run
this
waftel
Greenway
outside
the
site
over
the
pipeline
for
300
meters
before
crossing
over
into
the
next
field
at
the
south
of
the
site.
This
will
be
completely
unacceptable,
as
the
tarmac
surface
would
interfere
with
Northern
gas
work
networks.
T
The
reality
is
that
without
the
guarantee
of
a
safe
route
within
the
site,
going
in
the
southerly
direction,
as
originally
agreed,
The
Greenway
could
actually
be
unachievable.
Now
this
is
a
Greenway
for
all
of
us.
This
has
been
absolute
tragedy
for
all
of
our
communities,
as
the
greenway
will
be
a
public
path.
U
U
Cardis
I'm,
a
local
Legacy
I'm,
a
local
resident
I,
want
to
speak
about
the
the
gas
main,
which
is
still
very
much
in
abeyance.
There's
been
objections
recently,
since
the
outline
planning
application
and
nothing
has
been
agreed
about
it.
The
latest
common
state,
it's
become
apparent.
U
The
Press
development
proposed
development
will
be
in
contravention
to
the
h-type
area
imposed
by
the
recent
regulations,
with
the
building
proximity
distance
of
less
than
three
meters,
the
population
Corridor
of
352
meters,
which
covers
most,
if
not
all,
of
the
development
we've
spoken
with
Northern
gas
networks.
Just
this
morning
and
they've
confirmed
that
nothing
has
moved
forward
or
been
addressed,
their
objection
very
much
stands.
We
were
told
that
that
neither
the
applicant
nor
lead
city
council
has
engaged
properly
with
them
to
resolve
any
issue.
They
are
adamantly
against
the
bills.
U
He
did
say
it's
a
major
concern
and
while
they
haven't
had
any
accidents
in
the
UK
with
a
pipeline
of
this
size
and
nature
in
other
countries,
they
have
had
them
explode
with
devastating
consequences.
Please
be
under
no
Illusions.
This
is
a
main
gas
line
from
the
North
Sea
that
Supply
most
of
West
Yorkshire.
It
is
not
a
small
gas
main
that
can
be
disregarded.
It's
similar
in
magnitude
to
North
stream,
one
if
this
application
is
approved,
while
ignoring
this
and
left
to
condition.
U
All
parties
involved,
including
this
panel,
will
be
culpable
if
there
is
an
accident,
while
Taylor
wimpy
and
the
designers
of
this
have
a
vested
interest
in
this
application
being
approved.
I
wonder
what
their
arguments
would
be:
an
inquest
following
a
catastrophic
incident
incident
and
loss
of
life.
A
Thanks
very
much
all
of
you
do
you,
members
have
any
questions
to
the
speakers.
M
Oh,
thank
you
chair.
How
big
is
this
pipeline
I
mean
you're,
saying
it's.
The
main
pipeline
from
the
North
Sea
you'll
have
to
forgive
my
ignorance.
Sorry
I
mean
as
as
big
as
this
room
or.
A
U
Apologies,
it's
four
foot
below
ground
and
I
believe
it
is
around
a
meter
in
diameter,
but
it's
it
is
a
major
major
gas
line
and
I
don't
think
that's
been
conveyed
properly
up
until
now.
Northern
gas
networks-
I
just
don't
want
anything
anywhere
near
this,
and
it's
not
been
addressed.
M
A
T
This
this
pipeline
was
laid
on
the
assumption
that
this
field
would
remain
as
pristine
pasture
land.
You
know
it
was
not
anticipated
when
the
pipeline
was
laid.
This
is
this.
This
is
carrying
gas
from
one
Coast
to
the
other.
You
know
this
is
going
right
across
the
country
and
it's
Supply
supplying
all
the
other
systems.
T
So
obviously,
when
it
was
laid,
there
was
no
thought
that
there
might
be
buildings
coming
over
the
top
of
it
a
Greenway
coming
over
the
top
of
it
roads
coming
over
the
top
of
it.
Goodness
knows
what
it's.
U
A
T
Let's
come
across
it,
let's
do
cross,
it.
I
mean
the
little
lane
that
those
of
you
who
did
the
site
visit
will
have
been
on
this
morning
and
and
the
road
above
and
the
main
road
all
cross
it,
but
that's
not
the
same
as
having
a
length
of
it
with
development.
In
this
case
a
road
because
a
Greenway
is
a
small
tarmac
Road.
It
has
to
take
Cycles
wheelchairs,
pedestrians
horses,
you
know
it's,
it's
a
it's!
A
small
tarmac,
Road.
T
A
Okay,
apologies
I
accidentally
turned
your
mic
off
there,
I
thought
you'd
finish
and
I
went
to
go
in
and
it
just
closes
everyone
down.
Sorry
about
that.
Okay,
I'm
gonna
come
to
councilor
gavani,
but
it's
probably
worth
for
members
us
picking
this
up
again.
Rather
than
questioning
you
guys
for
much
longer
on
technical
stuff
with
officers
later.
G
It
is
on
a
different
issue.
The
first
gentleman
that
spoke
you
seem
to
be
opposing
the
appearance
of
the
houses
and
the
materials
used
yeah
on
the
site
visit.
G
We're
told
that
adjacent
to
the
property
nearest
the
road,
that's
a
feature
property
of
the
area.
There
would
be
storm
built
and
actually
the
planning
officer
said,
there's
an
additional
two
properties
and
that's
shown
in
the
plans
that
will
be
storm
built
as
well
and
the
rest
of
the
properties
from
what
we
saw
of
the
estate
as
we
came
in
the
rest
of
the
properties
match
those
in
that
estate,
a
mixture
of
brick
and
render.
S
If
you
have
a
good
War
round
pool,
there
is
a
mix
of
stone
and
I
walk,
Round
I'm,
a
walker.
You
know,
I
walk
around
pool
and
I
took
some
photographs,
because
I
can't
remember
the
develop
the
last
development
of
dirty
pool,
but
you
know
that
was
all
I've
still
in
our
artificial
stone.
It
was
church,
something
or
other
I.
Don't
know
whether
Barry
you
that
development,
just
a
full
bull
bank,
so
I've
said
you
know
from
a
main
street
I
looked
up.
There
was
Stone.
S
You
know
this
I,
don't
know
whether
it's
trying
to
get
this
through.
You
know
to
me
this
is
trying
to
you're
getting
sick
of
this
now
and
so
to
me.
You're
trying
to
push
this
thing
through
I
think
there's
a
mix
and
all
you're
going
to
do
is
plonk
a
load
of
basically
render
in
a
massive
block.
My
argument
would
be:
why
not
have
some
design
Flair,
you
know
and
spread
the
stone
of
buildings
and
a
bit
throughout
the
site,
because
it's
gonna
be
a
feature
and
tit
of
Paul
forever.
S
This
is
what
you're
gonna
see
when
you
actually
a
approach
from
Paul
Bank,
Pool
Road.
So
I
just
don't
see
a
problem,
you
know,
but
the
tinkering
around
the
edges,
because
sadly,
it's
to
do
with
profit,
but
the
landowner
and
the
developer
could
take
a
bit
less
and
let's
make
something.
That's
bloody.
Nice
so
could
I
add
something
quickly.
A
T
T
And
if
you
look
at
the
map
the
plan,
you
will
see
that
all
of
the
existing
houses
from
the
main
road,
as
far
as
that
tell
us,
are
all
1930s
or
earlier,
and
they
are
all
Stone
built
all
houses
to
the
other
side
of
that
are
from
the
1955
development,
which
is
the
church,
close
development
which
was
built
in
Brick
and
render.
Now,
if
you
look
at
the
number
of
houses
that
are
supposed
to
be
Stone,
in
my
view,
they
must
come
as
far
as
the
existing
line
of
stone
buildings.
T
So
that
means
they
have
to
come
as
far
as
Manor
Crescent
and
the
buildings
between
there
and
the
main
road.
U
Yes,
just
a
quick
Point,
the
applicant
has
agreed
by
virtue
of
that
agreement.
I
think
accepts
that
the
best
material
to
be
used
aesthetically
is
the
Natural
Stone
they've
done
that
they've
put
three
houses
and
then
added
an
additional,
however,
for
to
try
and
appease
it,
why,
if
you
can
do
something
of
that
quality
in
a
conservation
area,
that's
in
keeping.
Would
you
not
carry
that
on
throughout,
particularly
if
you
yourself
believe
that
that
is
the
best
thing
to
do.
A
Thank
you,
I've
got
councilor,
Bromley
and
then
Council
and
then
we'll
move
to
the
next
part.
Thank
you.
P
V
Effect
of
the
stone
built
properties,
if
you
actually
look
at
it
properly
from
the
a660
down
into
the
site
where
we've
just
had
it
described
up
to
the
corner,
would
make
sense.
I
accept
that
the
properties
that
back
on
don't
need
to
have
the
stone,
but
just
have
a
look
at
what
the
visuals
would
be
going
from
up
on
the
a660
looking
down.
What
I've
asked
for
is
just
all
the
properties
from
the
pool
road
back.
So
it's
about
the
first
one
in
a
bit,
so
it's
well,
you
call
it
yellow.
V
It
looked
orange
on
the
map
that
we
were
looking
at
the
site
here,
but
if
you
just
take
it
that
far
back,
that's
all
we
need
to
do
and
in
respect
of
a
number
of
other
things,
the
conservation
officer
does
See
Clearly
to
preserve.
That
means
keep
as
is
or
enhance
and
we're
looking
to
enhance
it.
That's
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
to
enhance
the
area
because
to
be
bought
to
be
really
honest
about
it.
V
We
planning
made
mistakes
in
the
past,
and
why
compound
them?
This
is
your
chance
to
write
things
that
have
gone
wrong
in
the
past
by
allowing
those
houses
to
be
built,
that's
gone
in
the
past.
Whoever
was
responsible
that
was
is
in
the
past.
What
I'm
asking
for
is
this
is
your
chance
to
argue
for
what
I
call
a
marquee
development
I,
really
think,
because
when
you
come
in
from
otley,
you
want
it
to
strike
you
and
think
that's
great.
A
Thanks
Council
Anderson,
so
Council
Bromley,
then
councilmanac.
Please.
F
V
Hey
Graham
that
you've
got
with
the
ongi
colors
on
it.
V
Right
so,
in
other
words,
it's
everything
that
what
I
can
see
in
yellow
right.
That's
what
I'm
talking
about
so
the
pink
can
be
put
there,
but
Taylor
won't
be
wanting
I'm,
just
I'm,
suggesting
that
everything
in
yellow
there
should
be
now
they've
consented
to
another
six
or
seven
or
whatever
it
is
they've
consented
to
all
I'm
asking
you
is
to
ask
them,
go
a
little
bit
further.
You
know,
they've
they've
shown
willingness
to
concede
a
little
bit
more
as
if
by
saying,
oh
well,
I'll
give
you
a
little
bit.
V
You
know
what
I'm
saying
is:
Go
the
whole
hog
just
take
all
the
yellow
ones
and
put
those
into
stone,
and
the
rest
I
personally
would
be
happy
with
if
they
were
a
mixture.
So
that's
all
I'm
asking
because
aesthetically,
if
you
look
from
the
area,
you
will
see
that
the
you
can
visibly
see
the
yellow
ones
from
far
field
and
that's
what
I'm
talking
about
the
other
ones
should
be
hidden
from
site
in
theory
should
be
Edwards
from
saying
Theory.
A
S
All
right,
it
would
be
nice
if
the
conservation
officer
was
happy
in
a
way.
You
know
what
I
mean
for
for
them.
To
actually
say
this
is
a
nice
development.
You
know
to
me:
I
I,
don't
quite
get.
It
joined
up
thinking.
Why?
If
it's
next
to
a
Conservation
Area,
why?
You
know
why
not
get
them
involved
and
listen
so.
A
We
do
later
on
have
questions
to
officers
at
which
point
if
panel
members
are
minded,
they
can
speak
and
ask
questions
to
the
conservation
officer
last
bit.
U
So,
just
in
answer
to
that
the
extent
of
it
I
believe
it
should
all
be
Stone.
The
photo
that
I've
been
holding
up
is
looking
down
the
valley
into
pulling
wharfdale,
which
is
really
picturesque.
If
you,
where
you've
got
the
pink
houses,
have
those
in
Brick
you're
going
to
see
Pauline
wharfdale
of
mostly
in
in
stone
and
this
area,
a
patch
of
of
brick
houses
right
smack
in
the
center
of
it.
As
you
look
down
the
valley,
I
think
there
should
all
be
Stone.
H
I
think
I
wanted
to
kind
of
like
comment
on
the
the
guests,
but
then
you
know
it's
it's
already
been
touched
upon
and
as
well
in
terms
of
first
Aesthetics
I
I
thought
there
was
quite
a
mixture
of
of
houses
when
we've
been
to
the
to
the
to
the
site,
I
think
I'm
not
getting
why
we
need
to
press
on
having
just
I
do
appreciate
that
you
pattern.
No,
it's
all
right.
It's
just
comments,
it's
all
right.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
You'll
have
your
chance
for
comments
later.
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
for
coming
folks.
A
We
do
have
a
speaker
here
as
well,
in
support
of
the
application
in
the
same
way
that
those
objecting
got
six
minutes,
although
there
is
only
one
agent
coming
in
support,
they
also
for
fairness.
Get
six
minutes
hey.
Maybe
they
are
not
just
one
person.
A
Okay,
so
we've
got
am
I,
correct,
it's
Becky
is
doing
the
presentation
and
if
you
would
be
able
to
just
introduce
the
others
that
are
with
you
as
well.
Thank
you.
I
Good
afternoon,
thank
you
chair.
Thank
you,
members,
I'm
Becky,
Richmond
I'm,
the
agent
for
this
application.
I
work
at
Johnson,
Mount
planning
to
my
left.
I
have
Glenn
dunkley
and
Jenny
purple
representing
Taylor
wimpy.
The
applicants.
I
As
you'll
be
aware,
this
application
site
has
a
detailed
and
extensive
history,
as
Mr
Wilkinson
has
already
mentioned.
This
is
a
revised
proposal
following
a
previously
dismissed.
Reserve
matters
appeal.
It's
therefore
important
to
reiterate
that
not
only
has
the
principle
of
development
already
been
established
through
the
previous
Reserve
matters
through
the
established
the
outline
consent,
but
there
have
also
been
a
number
of
principles
established
through
the
previous
Reserve
matters
appeal.
The
office's
report
to
committee
sets
these
out
in
some
detail,
and
we've
already
heard
from
that
matter.
I
If
you'll
allow
me
to
take
you
back
to
2021
I'd
like
to
draw
out
some
of
the
key
matters
that
the
inspector
of
the
previous
Reserve
matters
appeal
set
out
for
the
dismissal
I
know
it's
odd
that
I'll
be
bringing
up
negative
elements,
but
bear
with
me
the
inspector
stated
that
the
resultant
development
consisted
a
significant
mix
of
house
types
and
that
the
styles
were
not
readily
found
in
the
adjacent
areas
of
the
settlement.
I
Furthermore,
he
said
that
the
proposed
materials
were
not
commonly
found
in
the
local
area.
This
has
been
the
focus
of
this
application
in
rectifying
those
issues
and
therefore
the
proposals
before
you
today
are
significantly
different
on
these
elements.
Sat
behind
what
you've
been.
What
you've
seen
and
what
has
been
presented
is
extensive,
contextual
analysis
that
looks
at
the
conservation
area,
the
character
areas,
the
appearance
that
can
already
be
found
and
how
we
can
Implement
that
into
the
scheme.
I
As
a
result,
we've
got
two
distinctive
character
areas
in
the
North
and
the
South,
and
a
transition
of
materials
that
move
through
them
to
make
cohesive
development
overall
they've
been
a
reduction
in
the
number
of
house
types
and
we've
removed
any
two
and
a
half
story
properties
and
the
Dormer
windows.
We're
therefore
consistent
with
two-story
properties.
Only
this
is
the
creation
of
a
bespoke
house
type.
They
are
unique
in
character
and
appearance
to
Paul
and
wharfdale,
and
you
won't
find
these
house
tapes
in
Taylor
Wimpy's
portfolio
anywhere
else.
I
The
detailed
analysis
of
the
sound
surrounding
area
has
also
made
sure
that
we've
Incorporated
key
architectural
features
Through
the
Windows
Doors
chimneys
Etc
through
the
course
of
the
application.
We've
also
made
significant
changes,
including
in
the
material
palettes,
which
has
evolved
significantly
as
you
approach
polymorphdel.
Now
what
you'll
see
on
the
Western
Village
Edge
is
characterized
by
Stone
render
and
brick
properties.
There
is
a
mix
and
that
is
replicated
in
The
Proposal
before
you
that
Viewpoint
as
you
come
along,
Paul
Road
will
therefore
not
significantly
change.
I
The
northern
character
area
of
The
Proposal
includes
a
number
of
holy
stone-built
properties,
as
you've
heard
today.
We're
now
committed
to
a
cluster
of
seven
and
half
Stone
and
render
properties
these
reflect.
Those
in
that
you
will
find
in
the
locality
on
Paul
Road
and
in
Manor
Gardens.
I
The
southern
character
area
includes
half
brick
and
render
properties
not
out
of
character
of
those
on
church.
Close,
the
quality
of
the
material
palette
does
not
just
stop
at
the
dwellings,
but
it
extends
to
The
Wider
development
in
the
street
scene
through
high
quality
boundary
treatments
in
the
form
of
estate,
railings,
Natural,
Stone,
Walling
and
brick.
Walling
matching
those
of
the
facing
materials
in
each
of
the
character
areas.
I
All
roof
materials
are
proposed
as
great
tiles
and
provide
consistency
across
the
development
with
this
and
within
this
edge
of
pool
in
wharfdale,
ensuring
the
development
assimilates
with
the
existing
settlement
from
those
long-range
views.
I
This
game
before
you
today
has
significantly
evolved
from
earlier
iterations,
and
we
thank
the
council
officers,
both
the
conservation
officer
and
the
design
officer
and
planning
officers
for
their
time
in
discussing
this
with
them.
To
get
to
the
point
where
we
are
today,
essentially,
the
inspector
found
no
fundamental
concerns
with
the
previously
proposed
layout
and
therefore
the
reserve
matters
has
followed
the
same
principles.
I
I
We
also
have
carefully
considered
separation
distances
in
the
northern
part
of
the
site
on
that
eastern
boundary,
which
has
been
a
real
cause
for
concern
for
residents,
and
we
appreciate
that
their
separation
distances
before
you
today
in
the
scheme
are,
if
not
the
same
as
the
previous
Reserve
matters,
where
there
was
no
issue
or
they
are
beyond
that.
They
are
more
than
that.
I
We
have
added
additional
distances
where
you
get
property
to
property
relationships
where
there
has
been
slight
change
in
the
layout,
it's
to
make
room
for
Street
trees
so
that
we
are
making
sure
the
development
as
a
whole
provides
an
attractive
environment.
I
What
this
Reserve
matters
will
do
and
what
the
the
approval
of
this
Reserve
matters
to
do
will
do
today
is
secure
a
benefits
package
which
was
addressed
at
outline
and
therefore,
by
approving
this
today,
there
is
section
one
package
that
sits
behind
this:
that
includes
affordable
housing,
the
delivery
of
the
wharfdale
greenway,
the
delivery
of
the
road
to
a
standard
that
could
be
used
as
a
relief
road.
That
was
a
requirement
at
outline
monies
for
off-site
highways
contributions.
I
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
there
is
a
significant
benefits
package
that
sits
alongside
this.
If
I
may,
I'd
like
to
use
the
rest
of
my
time
to
address
some
of
the
matters
that
have
been
spoken
about
before
me,
the
first
one,
the
greenway.
I
We
are
aware
that
there
were
initial
proposals
and
draft
strands
documents
which
put
the
greenway
to
the
west
of
the
existing
call
boundary.
What
we
feel
is
in
the
alignment
proposed
on
the
plan,
this
mirrors
that
it
still
brings
the
greenway
to
the
west
of
the
settlement
boundary
and
we
allow
it
to
be
in
an
open,
Countryside
setting
I'm
aware
amount
of
time.
I
would
love
you
to
ask
me
questions
on
the
gas
issue.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Do
members
have
any
questions
Finnegan.
K
Can
you
talk
me
through
how
this
mixture
that
you're
suggesting
preserves
or
enhances
the
conservation
area
at
this
particular
point?
You've
heard
the
opposition
argue
it
doesn't
and
they
need
more
Stone.
Just
talk
me
through
why
you
think
it
either
preserves
or
enhances
the
conservation
area
with
the
package
you're
offering.
I
Thank
you.
What
we've
done
is
we've
looked
very
carefully
at
what
is
already
the
product,
that's
already
in
the
conservation
area,
and
it's
important
to
stress
that
this
site
is
not
in
the
conservation
area,
but
it
abuts
it
and
therefore
we're
in
the
setting
and
I
understand
that.
We
therefore
have
to
look
at
the
preservation
and
conservation
of
the
the
conservation
area
anyway,
but
we
are
not
in
the
Conservation
Area.
What
we've
done
is
we've
taken
examples
of
those
properties
that
are
adjacent
to
the
site.
I
On
the
eastern
boundary,
we've
looked
at
their
material
palettes,
their
fenestrations
their
proportions
of
Windows
and
chimneys,
and
we've
replicated
that
in
the
house,
types
that
you
before
you
today
is
this
part
of
this
application.
I
We
have
increased
the
amount
of
greenery
that
would
be
included
within
this
as
a
normal
resident
housing
residential
estate
and
that
again
provides
a
green
buffer
and
Green
Landscaping
Edge
to
what
is
the
conservation
area
setting.
D
I
Thank
you
very
much,
first
and
foremost,
I'd
like
to
make
them
set
the
record
straight
that
Taylor
Wimpy
have
engaged
with
Northern
gas.
There
has
been
email
correspondence,
there
has
been
discussions
with
engineers
and
we
are
aware
of
the
statutory
Consulting
responses
that
have
come
into
this
application.
In
response
to
that,
we
have
written
quite
a
detailed
and
lengthy
response
which
addresses
some
of
the
key
issues
that
they
set
out
in
relation
to
construction
methods,
for
example
no
blasting
and
Etc,
that
is
on
file,
and
that
has
gone
to
Northern
gas.
I
We
are
aware
of
their
latest
response,
and
steps
have
been
made.
Instructions
have
been
made
to
instigate
the
risk
assessment
that
has
recently
been
requested,
and
what
will
happen
is
we
are
aware
of
the
condition
condition
14,
which
requires
further
information,
and
the
bundle
will
be
provided
as
part
of
the
discharge
of
condition
14..
I
We
are
not
concerned
that
there
is
anything
within
this
development
proposal
that
is
contrary
to
the
guidance
documentation
that
we
have
found
and
received
from
northern
gas,
to
the
extent
that
the
Landscaping
plans,
including
the
Western
buffer
that
are
within
the
easement
of
the
gas
line,
are
in
line
with
their
own
guidelines
on
tree
planting
in
their
easements
Etc.
Again,
I'd
just
like
to
reiterate
that
the
gas
line
itself
is
not
within
the
red
line
boundary.
The
majority
of
the
easement
is
not
in
the
red
line.
Boundary.
A
Thank
you,
I
have
one
question
in
your
presentation:
I
believe
you
said
that
none
had
moved.
None
of
the
properties
had
moved
closer
and
in
the
previous
statement
from
residents
and
in
the
plans
that
we've
seen,
one
has
moved
closer.
So
I
just
wanted
clarification
on
that.
Please.
I
My
apologies,
if
that
was
an
error
in
moving,
none
of
the
separation
distances
are
compromised.
They
all
meet
the
council's
guidelines
or
the
distances
that
were
previously
discussed
as
part
of
the
appeal.
W
Yeah,
thank
you.
We
as
a
business
are
currently
dealing
with
the
same
Harrogate
as
well.
That
is
actually
the
same
Mains
gas
line.
It's
got
the
same
levels
of
restriction.
It
is
also
in
this
sense
of
unallocated
housing
site
which
we
have
got
a
reserve
matters
application
in.
For
at
the
moment,
we
haven't
had
the
same
level
of
objection
there,
as
we
have
here
from
Northern
gas
Network,
and
we
think
it's
probably
to
do
with
an
officer
change
in
Personnel.
W
There's
numerous
other
examples.
I
would
say
along
the
length
of
the
pipeline
and
there's
numerous
other
sites
allocated
both
in
this
district
and
in
neighboring
districts
for
housing
alongside
it,
and
we're
comfortable
and
confident
that
we
are
compliant
with
with
what
is
necessary
to
deliver
outside,
as
Becky
has
said,
of
the
easement
and
not
coming
into
contact
with
it.
F
W
Yes,
we
have
ex,
we
have
experience
and
we're
undertaking
a
refreshed
risk
assessment
for
this
scheme,
which
we
will
have
to
submit
both
to
Northern
gas
work
and
the
council
to
make
sure
that
we're
comfortable
before
any
development
starts.
So
it
will
be
up
to
date
on
the
refreshed
set
of
data.
J
Sorry
I
just
want
to
be
in
my
mind:
I
want
to
be
clear
that
members
understand
what
the
easement
means
and
if
Steve
could
are
Dan.
Somebody
could
just
put
the
plan
up
that
just
shows
actually
how
the
roadway
and
the
folk
path
go
towards
the
easement
just
to.
If
you
can
enlarge
it
as
best
you
can,
you
can
see
the
central
dotted
line
is
actually
the
line
of
the
pipeline.
J
Asbestos
can
be
replicated
because
I
know.
Sometimes
these
kids
can
be
slightly
misleading,
but
we
we
keep
concentrating
on
the
dramatic
consequences
or
catastrophic
consequences
of
any
breach
of
this
gas
pipeline,
which
of
course,
none
have
happened
in
the
UK
so
far.
J
But
if
you
look
there,
you
can
see
on
the
bottom
section.
I,
don't
know
whether
the
point
is
working
but
Steve
perhaps
can
you
somebody
could
use
the
mouse
to
just
show
the
the
outer
Red
Line.
So
the
the
easements
is
the
area
within
which
they
want
no
development
to
work
within,
but
it
only
just
cuts
into
it.
Having
said
that,
I'm
not
dismissing
any
of
the
issues
regarding
safety
in
terms
of
construction
workers
being
articulated
by
Becky,
they
still
have
another
regime
to
go
through
to
get
approval
anyway.
J
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
members
understood
the
concept
of
the
easement
and
how
it
actually
is
affected.
It's
not
directly
the
pipeline
so
much
as
the
area
they
want
keeping
clear
so
they
can
work
upon
it,
but
still
the
onus
is
only
applicant
to
go
through
that
approval
regime,
regardless
of
what's
done
today.
A
Thanks
Steve
I'm,
going
to
come
to
council,
Cavani
and
I've
seen
no
further
indication.
So
then,
we'll
move
on
to
questions
to
officers.
G
Thank
you,
chair
I'm,
on
a
slightly
different
point.
Could
you
cover
off
what
sort
of
renewable
or
sustainable
energies
will
be
used
in
on
site
new
properties.
I
Thank
you
given
the
time
that
the
these
properties
are
likely
to
be
built.
If
permission
is
granted
today,
they
will
be
in
line
built
in
line
with
the
existing
building
regulations
and
therefore
I
looked
my
colleagues
at
Taylor
wimpy
to
elaborate.
If
there
is
anything
further
on
that.
I
I
I
Again,
under
the
current
building
regulations,
it's
likely
that
these
properties
will
be
built
and
therefore
gas
at
the
moment.
P
P
A
I
also,
in
my
haste,
forgot
my
own
question.
I
just
wondered
where
you
were
anticipating
based
on
these
plans
that
children
would
be
playing,
and
also
just
for
anyone
watching
POS
means
public,
open
space.
I
had
to
ask
so
just
in
case.
Anyone
else
did.
I
Thank
you.
We've
had
him
extensive
discussions
both
at
outline
and
Reserve
masses
in
relation
to
the
provision
of
on-site
public
open
space
and
whether
that
equates
to
play
areas
very
close
to
this
site.
There
is
a
very
high
quality
extensive
play
area.
It
was
therefore
deemed
not
necessarily
appropriate
to
have
equipped
play
on
site.
There
are
three
areas
of
public
open
space
within
the
right-hand
side
of
the
main
spine
Road,
and
they
offer
immunity
areas
for
informal
play
sitting,
reading
picnicking
on
site
and
then
within
walking
distance.
P
A
Just
getting
over
excited
it's
for
the
officers.
Thank
you
very
much
and
we'll
now
move
to
questions
for
officers
and
councilor
Ray
enthusiastically
had
already
got
his
hand
up.
Thank.
D
You
I'm
always
excited
to
ask
questions
so
in
terms
of
the
gas
because
obvious
this
has
been
an
area
of
concern
and
I
I'm
assuming
I'm,
going
to
know
what
the
answer
to
this
sorry
about,
because
it's
nice
to
put
it
onto
record.
Obviously
the
principal
Authority
I'm,
assuming
in
terms
of
signing
that
off,
is
actually
going
to
be
Northern
gas,
well,
the
the
whoever
the
the
actual
companies
or
is
it
us
that
signs?
D
Oh
because
I'm
just
thinking,
obviously,
if
they're
having
to
try
and
understand
the
process,
they're
also
gonna
have
to
submit
the
develops
graph
to
submit
a
plan.
The
statutory
Consultants
are
going
to
have
to
have
a
view
on
said
plan.
Would
we
then
take
the
expert
opinion
of
those
statutory
consultees
as
to
then
basically
enable
the
development
to
go
forward
from
our
perspective
so
effectively?
There
are
additional
checks
before
it
actually
gets
to
the
point
of
development.
O
So
the
way
that
the
condition
is
structured
as
it
was
it
because
this
obviously
was
outline
application
that
was
granted
an
appeal.
So
the
inspector
applied
this
inspect
these
conditions
and
it's
part
of
quite
a
complex
condition.
It
prohibits
construction
taking
place
complete
and
even
demolition
works.
So
it's
quite
a
strict
condition
within
that
there's
various
steps
that
they
have
to
take
as
part
of
a
construction
method
statement
and
within
that
they
must
comply
with
the
networks
at
Northern
gas
networks.
O
So
when
that's
submitted
to
us,
we
will
consider
whether
that
can
be
appropriately
discharged.
We
will
take
on
board
Northern
gases
comments.
We
will
consult
with
the
relevant
expertise
in-house
or
revert
back
to
clarify
any
issues
of
doubt.
That's
a
matter
for
us
as
local
planning
Authority.
Essentially,
we
are
responsible
for
discharging
that
condition.
We
can
refuse
that
condition
if
we're
not
satisfied
and
they
can
go
to
appeal.
But
it's
incumbent
on
us
to
be
satisfied
that
Northern
rail
are
satisfied
with
the
member
states.
D
So
I
suppose
my
question
then
to
planning
colleagues
do
we
have
the
relent
bearing
about
the
nature
of
this
is
obviously
that
it's
a
National
Asset
effectively
because
of
its
in
part.
Do
we
have
the
relevant
expertise
within
the
council
to
make
that
consideration
or,
if
not,
would
that
be
something
that
we
would
effectively
bring
in
to
make
sure
it's
done
again?
I'm
assuming
I
know
what
the
answer
is,
but
I
think
it's
good
for
public
record
to
have
that
actually
quoted.
R
Yeah,
it's
part
of
the
condition
discharge
process
would
speak.
The
Specialists
seek
The
Specialist
comments
from
from
northern
gas,
and
essentially
it's
got
to
be
in
line
with
this
document,
which
is
their
own
document.
So
if
it
doesn't
align
with
these
policies,
we'd
be
asking
them
to
to
outline
specifically
what
needs
to
be
done.
R
You
know
where,
where
are
the
areas
are
objection
now
and
super
can
overcome
those
essentially
but
yeah
I
mean
we'll
take
their
Specialists
comments
into
consideration,
but
essentially
it's
up
to
us
to
sign
off
that
discharge
of
condition,
but,
as
I
previously
said,
this
document
also
requires
them
to
seek
Norman.
Gas
is
far
more
content
anyway
to
do
any
work
within
that
easement.
So
it's
almost
a
separate
tip
us
granting
this
Reserve
matters
today
doesn't
give
them
permission
to
go.
R
D
A
Lovely
councilor
Finnegan.
K
X
Yeah
in
my
most
recent
set
of
advice,
I
did
raise
an
issue
with
the
materials
at
that
point
and
I
was
reflecting
the
the
the
advice
that's
laid
down
in
the
in
the
adopted
Conservation,
Area
appraisal
and
management
plan,
which
indicates
using
course
sandstone
and
slate
roofs
as
a
key
way
of
preserving
and
enhancing
the
character
of
of
a
particular
character
area,
character
area
for
the
advice
I'm.
Giving
is
on
the
basis
that
this
is
in
the
setting
of.
So
it's
not
within
that
character
area.
X
It's
the
setting
of
and
the
way
of
assessed
the
importance
of
the
site
is
that
it's
on
a
prominent
Gateway
site
to
the
Western
entrance
to
the
to
call,
and
it's
also
important
in
terms
of
the
key
long
distance
views
which
are
also
identified
in
the
conservation
area,
appraisal
I'm.
X
Also,
looking
at
the
existing
lay
of
the
land,
including
the
soft
landscape,
the
the
Green
Landscape,
basically
which
effectively
screens
the
render
and
the
brick
buildings
in
the
areas
that
you
visited
today,
they're
effectively
screened
in
those
long
distance
views
by
the
Green
Boundary
and
that's
why,
in
my
advice,
I've
advocated
for
replicating
that
soft
landscape
boundary
on
the
new
development
and
I'm
assured
by
my
planning
colleague
that
that
is
controlled
through
the
106
agreement.
X
So,
since
my
last
set
of
comments
there
have
been,
there
has
been
movement
on
the
materials
being
proposed
at
the
point
that
I
gave
these
comments.
Three
houses
were
being
delivered
in
Natural,
Stone
and
I.
Didn't
consider
that
was
a
sufficient
number
to
have
an
impact
on
how
the
development
is
perceived.
X
X
Therefore,
I'm
happy
that
that
group
of
stone
buildings
is
now
going
to
have
enough
enough
group
value
to
to
enhance
the
views
to
the
new
development
and
I.
Consider
that
the
Green
Boundary
that's
being
controlled
through
the
106
agreement
will
mitigate
the
rest
of
the
materials,
just
as
it
does
at
the
moment
with
the
existing
buildings
in
the
long
distance
views.
So
I'm
happy
with
the
materials
now.
K
For
you
to
adopt
Council
Anderson's
suggestion
proposal,
wouldn't
that
enhance
the
conservation
area
more
because
you're
talking
about
mitigation,
it's
almost
like
saying
yeah!
Well,
we
can
cover
up
with
Greenery,
and
then
you
know
at
that
point.
Nobody
can
see
it
at
that
particular
Point.
Looking
at
trying
to
make
sure
that
he
attacked
and
I
think
that's
what
Barry
was
suggesting
that
that
more
Stone
the
locations
he
was
suggesting
would
enhance
it
in
a
more
positive
way,
we're
almost
enhancing
it
in
a
negative
way
by
blocking
it
with
a
loaded.
Greenery
have
I
misunderstood.
X
My
advice
has
got
to
be
proportionate,
so
at
the
moment
the
edge
of
settlement
in
that
location
is
a
mixture
of
materials,
as
has
been
discussed
and
that
the
the
Green
Boundary
provides
a
buffer
to
the
long
distance
views
which
I'm
trying
to
protect
the
development
that
we're
considering
this
afternoon
will
be
the
same.
So
it
will
be
the
status
quo.
Therefore,
it
will
Preserve.
H
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
think
I'll
go
back
to
the
page
39,
which
is
the
the
road
and
access.
When
we
were
at
the
side.
There
was
a
car
that
kind
of
like
came
up.
I
know
that
they
are
mentioning
that
they
will
do
a
construction
of
that
or
there
will
be
like
there
will
be
no
possible
access
for
the
new
builds
I.
Think
I'm
just
trying
to
to
get
some
answers
as
to
how
is
that
going
to
be?
Will
it
not,
then
stop
the
house?
H
R
Yeah,
thank
you
Dan.
Can
we
just
bring
up
the
layout
plan
again
yeah,
it's
a
good
question,
because
it's
not
showing
in
much
detail
on
the
layout
plan,
but
we
have
got
sorry
just
the
one
before
that.
Please.
We
have
got
a
bit
of
a
more
detailed
access
plan
which
has
been
submitted
from
by
the
developers,
but
essentially,
as
we
saw
that
narrow
road
today
that
that
serves
a
collection
of
of
properties.
R
Down
that
right
hand,
side
with
almost
like
a
private
drive
and
and
that
road
Falls
outside
the
red
line
at
that
point,
as
you
can
see
there
and
we're
keeping
in
a
turning
provision
etc
for
the
refuse
Vehicles.
R
Now,
as
we
extend
further
west,
where
we
sell
that
car
come
into
there's
a
collection
of
like
four
properties
in
like
a
farmer
like
like
Farm
Family
Farm,
said:
there's
a
small
cluster
there,
and
essentially,
what
will
happen
is
that
that
road
that
narrow
road
that
goes
all
the
way
along
will
be
pedestrianized
at
that
point
and
and
they
will
access
an
egress
onto
the
main
road.
So
this
new
road,
that's
that's
coming,
will
serve
them.
R
So
I've
recommended
the
condition
in
the
report
which
shows
details
of
how
that
access
is
going
to
be
done
in
perpetuity,
because
what
we
don't
want
is:
is
this
access
to
those
properties
blocked
off
at
any
point
during
the
construction
or
anything
like
that,
because
it
is
they're
only
access
in
and
out,
but
essentially
it's
going
to
be
an
improved
access
because
they're
going
to
be
going
straight
out
onto
the
main
roads
as
opposed
to
going
down
that
narrow
road.
G
A
couple
of
questions,
first
of
all,
back
onto
the
gas
main
I'm
afraid,
if
I
heard
correctly
from
the
applicants,
they've
got
something
they've
got
works
in
the
Harrogate
area.
Close
to
the
gas
Mainland
seems
to
get
in
a
different
response
from
northern
Gaston
we
are
here.
R
I
mean
essentially
we're
assessing
the
construction
management
plan
against
this
document
here.
So
so,
they'll
have
to
highlight
the
Pacific
parts
of
this
document
that
it
doesn't
relate
to
the
problem
we've
had
with
the
northern
gas
objection
at
the
moment.
Is
it
just
says
objection
and
when
we've
tried
to
dig
a
bit
further,
but
we're
not
really
getting
to
the
bottom
of
it,
and
essentially,
once
the
developer
submits
these
detailed
information
about
how
they're
going
to
construct
it
safely
and
Etc
they'll
be
able
to
give
a
more
informed
informed
response
to
that.
R
So,
essentially,
we
do
need
to
see
the
detailed
information,
but
this
application
is
not
the
mechanism
for
that.
It'll
be
it'll,
be
dealt
with
separately,
and
you
know,
as
I
pointed
out
before
this,
this
approval
doesn't
give
them
permission
to
to
change
that
and
if
they
can't
Safeguard,
if
they
can't
get
agreement
with
Melbourne
gas,
they
might
have
to
come
back
and
and
revise
this
layer,
and
that's
that's
a
risk
that
they
take.
R
You
know
going
through
this
this
mechanism,
but
the
next
logical,
Step
following
this,
would
be
to
produce
that
technical
detail
and
suit
to
to
just
charge
that
condition.
Thank
you.
G
My
other
questions
are
around
on
page
37.
We've
got
some
of
the
conditions
that
he's
setting
out
item
six
and
seven
in
that
list.
Both
set
PD
rights.
We
moved
up
your
Zoom
PD
is
permitted
development.
R
I
should
have
put
a
bit
Fuller,
but
essentially
we're
talking
about
the
the
uncluttered
roofscapes
of
the
neighboring
properties
and
essentially
those
ones
have
been
the
conservation
area.
Don't
have
any
development
rights,
that's
why
we
don't
see
any
dharmas,
this
one's
a
setting
of
the
conservation
area,
so
there
would
benefit
from
being
able
to
put
arms
to
the
rear
without
permission,
and
essentially
when
that
Conservation
Area
boundary
was
drawn,
it
didn't
realize
that
there's
potentially
another
development.
You
know
coming
here
and
we
couldn't
restrict
it
in
that
way.
G
R
To
be
able
to
do
any
Works
which
lie
outside
of
Class
B,
which
is
roof
additions,
so
you
know
the
requirements
for
solar
panels
live
within
a
different
cluster.
We've
not
sought
to
restrict
those,
because
you've
got
you've
got
a
bit
of
a
balance
in
activity
between
the
Green
improvements
and
and
the
impact
on
the
you
know
the
design
of
it
for
dwellings.
R
A
Thank
you,
councilor
Smith
and
then
we'll
move
to
comments.
M
M
We've
got
three
small
areas
of
open,
Green,
Space
public,
open,
Green
Space
on
the
development,
and
it
is
it
a
beautiful
setting
with
Fields
all
around
it
superb
and
we
have
a
playground
fairly
close
by.
But
if
I
was
a
parent,
I
wouldn't
allow
my
child
to
go
alone
just
because
the
roads
are
so
very
busy.
M
So
I
just
wondered
if
there
was
any
scope
to
improve
any
of
those
public
open
spaces
so
that
there
was
something
for
the
children
to
actually
play
with
on
it's
just
some
sort
of
play
equipment.
Thank
you.
R
Thank
you
chair,
so
I
mean
the
issue
in
relation
to
Green
Space
and
the
fragmented
spaces
in
in
general
was
dealt
with
during
the
appeal
and
we've
not
sought
to
depart
from
the
the
inspectors.
Conclusions
on
that
in
in
terms
of
what's
actually
proposed,
I
think
it
offers
in
Far
More
play
for
General
playing
around
in
terms
of
more
far
more
play.
R
Equipment
you'd
expect
a
requirement
for
that
to
come
through
the
outline
permission,
I
threw
that
through
the
106
and
essentially,
we've
got
a
development
for
57
units
here,
which
is
towards
the
you
know
the
lower
end
of
where
you
could
be
expecting
far
more
provision,
especially
when
there
is
that
existing
play
equipment.
R
R
The
inspector
at
the
time
didn't
request
any
well
I'll
have
to
double
check
that,
but
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
the
Green
Space
Monies
and
in
Green
Space
provision
in
general,
that
was
that
was
dealt
with
it
at
that
point.
So
essentially,
it's
it's
an
identical
situation
to
what
was
previously
considered
under
the
last
Reserve
matters.
So
so
yes,
it
would
be
great,
but
we
don't
think
it's
a
reason
not
to
support
this.
J
Chair
there
is,
there
is
another
little
difficulty
that
I'd
just
like
to
highlight,
because
the
the
areas
of
Green
Space
were
determined
earlier.
J
We
normally
expect
a
standoff
distance
from
play
areas
to
Residential
Properties,
because
not
everybody
appreciates
having
a
play
area
right
next
to
your
property
to
be
fair
and
because
these
are
relatively
small
areas.
I
think
you'd
have
some
difficulty
actually
imposing
one
anyway
and
then
maintaining
those
standoff
areas.
In
addition
to
what
Steve
said.
K
Thank
you,
chair
I
mean
it's
been
an
interesting
discussion
and
it's
been
really
interesting.
Listening
to
Residents
and
the
local
Council
talk
about
this
particular
development,
now
I'm
always
concerned
at
a
point
where,
in
terms
of
preserving
or
enhancing
we're
dependent
on
a
condition
that
no
one
is
going
to
cut
back
at
the
greenery
at
this
particular
point
now,
once
it's
a
condition,
people
will
know
it
falls
to
plan
and
enforcement
to
be
able
to
enforce
that
condition,
and
should
somebody
in
the
future
come
and
cut
it
all
down?
K
Funding
enforcement,
May
well,
say
it's
not
proportionate
for
us
to
actually
do
anything
about
it.
So
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
is
undermined
by
the
fact
that
we're
masking
to
a
degree
what
we're
trying
to
do
really
I
think
that
is
suggestion
of
more
stone
stone
houses
is
a
positive
one.
K
I
think
that
is
something
that
we
ought
to
explore
if
we
are
going
to
Grant
planning
permission
on
this,
because
I
have
no
faith
at
all
that
if
we
condition
The
Greenery
to
remain
there
in
a
pleasant
and
positive
way
that
it
will
remain
there
and
that
we're
going
to
do
anything
about
it
at
that
particular
point.
But
if
we
say
additional
houses
are
in
stone,
then
we're
getting
that
preserve
and
enhancement
built
in
we're
not
able
to
rely
on
a
condition
that
may
or
may
not
be
enforced
at
some
time
in
the
future.
K
So
taking
into
account
the
fact
that
that's
been
a
constant
from
not
only
the
local
residents
but
others
I
would
be
content,
which
is
unusual
for
me
to
agree
planning
permission
at
this
particular
point,
but
with
the
Proviso
that
we
have
those
additional
Stone
houses
that
have
been
suggested
and
proposed
by
the
local
law.
Councilor.
M
Thank
you,
chair,
I'm,
very,
very
concerned
about
this
gas
pipe
I
know
some
of
it
is
outside
of
the
red
line.
Some
of
it
runs
adjacent
to
the
red
line,
but
I
have
extreme
concern
regarding
that
I
agree
with
my
colleague,
councilor
Finnegan
about
the
stone
houses
I
believe
there
should
be
more
Stone
houses.
M
The
compromise
is
to
do
them
up
to
the
area
of
the
church.
Is
it
Church
Lane
Church,
Close,
Church,
yeah
yeah
up
to
the
area
of
church
close?
M
So
so
they
you
know
to
match
in
with
the
row
of
cottages
or
that
area,
and
then
perhaps
graduate
down
and
I'm
I'm
aggrieved
about
the
play
area,
because
I
do
think
57
homes,
I
think
the
children
will
be
playing
out
well,
I
hope
children
will
be
playing
outside
and
I'd
like
to
see
them
outside.
Thank
you.
A
The
only
comment
from
me
is
a
bit
of
a
plea,
I
suppose
I
take
the
points
regarding
formalized
play,
but
if
developers
could
find
a
way
to
include
informal
play
in
terms
of
putting
logs
and
other
when
you're,
building
the
buns
and
things
to
make
them
just
that
bit
more
exciting
in
terms
of
that
informal
play,
I'd
be
grateful
to
see
it,
although
it
wouldn't
be
enough
to
sway
me
one
way
or
another.
With
the
with
the
proposal
in
front
of
us,
you
want
to
come
in
Steve.
J
This
panel
reminded
to
support
that
latter
thing.
We
could
deal
with
that
as
a
condition
to
ask
for
that
detail
to
be
submitted.
I,
don't
think
that's
a
particular
issue.
I
mean
if
everybody's
finished
on
the
comments
chair
would
normally
be
asking
me
to
do
the
summary.
What
I
would
just
say
is
that
we
have
in
front
of
us,
obviously
still
the
substantive
motion.
J
Well,
actually,
it's
change,
starting
because
Steve
Steve
obviously
amended
it
to
because
of
the
stone
issue
in
terms
of
a
deferring
delegate
to
the
chief
planning
officers
receiving
those
those
additional
plans
and
obviously
running
them
past
the
chair
to
ensure
that
she's
comfortable,
that
what
was
asked
for
I
only
raised
that,
in
the
light
of
the
the
two
issues
that
were
raised
about
the
more
Stone
and
the
the
play
areas.
Now,
that
is
not
on
this
plan,
which
is
in
front
of
you
for
determination
today.
J
So
really,
where
we
are,
is
whether
we
as
a
panel,
a
supportive
of
what
is
in
front
of
you
and
therefore
somebody's
prepared
to
move
that
motion
or
if
that's
defeated,
whether
we
can
articulate
what
the
reason
for
that
is
because
I
do
understand
what
the
comments
that
Council
of
Finnegan
was
making
in
councilor
Smith.
So
that's
where
I
would
leave
it.
O
Good
night,
sorry
Steve
I,
don't
want
to
step
on
toes,
but
there
is
a
third
option
is
that
you
combine
the
points
that
councilor
Finnegan
has
raised
and
that
be
subject
to
the
deferral
and
delegates
Chief
planning
officer
and
then,
if
agreement
can't
be
reached
on
those
points,
it'd
be
referred
back
to
plans
panel
for
final
determination.
J
Yeah
I'm,
sorry
Nikki.
It's
like
a
slight
concern
there,
because
we
have
raised
this
with
the
applicant
before
and
have
not
wished
to
do
so
and
and
obviously
a
deferable
on
that
base
is
knowing
that
information
basically
means
we're
just
coming
back
a
month
or
so
later
to
the
position
that
we
are
right
now.
M
The
point
I
was
going
to
make.
There
was
Steve
they,
they
hadn't
heard
our
views
before
that.
So
so
perhaps
you
know
now
they've
heard
our
views
they
might
be
willing
to
to
move
on
that.
A
I'm
just
going
to
bring
back
the
applicant
welcome.
I
J
Chair
so,
in
the
light
of
what's
been
said
by
Becky,
obviously
we
could
add.
We've
already
talked
about
waiting
because
of
the
the
phone
delegates
to
the
G
planning
officer
for
the
additional
four
properties,
but
if
we
can
just
quickly
flick
that
pawn
up
again
to
remind
everybody
dan
just
wake
you
up
down
there,
but
we
can.
We
can
add
that
to
defer
and
delegate
and
Becky's
confirming
the
applicant
is
prepared
to
do
that.
P
A
Well,
strictly
speaking,
it's
not
moving
in
terms
of
the
notice,
because
the
notice
in
fact
is
Grant
permission
and
we
need
to
defer
or
delegate.
So.
This
is
one
of
those
very
few
times
with
that.
So
have
we
got
somebody
who's
happy
to
propose
that
we
defer
and
Delegate
for
the
chief
officer
approval
the
scheme
with
the
amendment
that
has
just
been
offered
by
the
agent
I'm.
J
R
Yeah
so
I
think
we're
looking
to
defer
and
delegate
the
Amendments
or
additions
deemed
appropriate
to
the
conditions.
Just
for
clarity,
there
was
an
issue
regarding
the
the
Landscaping
of
the
northern
part
of
the
site
and
revised
details
for
low
planting
now
in
terms
of
residential
immunity,
and
something
that
we
should
have
touched
on
was
one
details
of
the
of
the
coins
that
are
proposed
on
on
the
plans
at
the
moment
now
that
they
might
not
be
necessary
as
such,
if
we're
going
for
full
stone
properties.
R
A
We've
got
proposed
by
councilor
Finnegan
yeah
and
seconded
by
councilor.
Ray
can
I
have
all
those
in
favor
please
and
unanimous.
Thank
you
very
much
and
you
have
earned
a
comfort
rate
guys
so
we'll
be
back
in
10
minutes.
A
Okay,
thanks
very
much
folks,
we
move
on
to
agenda
item
number
nine,
which
just
for
anyone,
that's
joining
us
later,
we
deferred
at
the
beginning
of
this
meeting,
which
means
we
very
swiftly
move
on
to
agendum
item
agenda
item
number
10,
which
is
the
application
for
the
erection
of
120
capacity,
wedding
venue,
40
holiday
lodges
and
a
cafe,
slash,
Community,
Hub
Building
in
Alton,
and
if
I
can
ask
the
officer
to
present
the
application.
Thank
you.
Y
So
this
item
is
brought
to
members
to
gain
their
views
on
the
Redevelopment
of
a
former
oil
storage
Depot
to
create
120
capacity,
wedding
venue,
40
holiday
lodges
and
a
cafe,
slash,
Community,
Hub
Building,
and
the
proposal
is
a
departure
from
the
development
plan.
So
we're
here
to
ask
them
panel
members
to
make
comments
that
will
inform
the
progression
of
the
scheme.
Y
P
Y
Could
you
just
because
the
next
slide
yeah?
Thank
you.
So
this
slide
shows
the
site
from
an
aerial
view,
along
with
a
block
plan
as
well,
so
on.
The
east
of
the
site.
Is
the
Rivera
and
to
the
West?
Is
the
canal
and
walk,
and
this
also
identifies
the
oil
storage
containers
to
the
south
of
the
site
and
a
number
of
buildings
relating
to
the
previous
oil
storage
Depot
used
to
the
north
and
east.
Y
At
present,
the
site
floor
levels
are
slightly
lower
than
the
surrounding
areas,
and
the
volume
of
the
development
is
concentrated
in
smaller
areas
of
the
site.
So
it's
important
to
highlight
here
that
the
site
is
a
protected
Wharf
and
of
which
there
are
only
three
in
Leeds
and
only
one
is
currently
in
use.
So,
in
addition
to
this,
the
site
is
located
in
the
green
belt
and
although
it
is
in
the
green
belt,
it
is
classed
as
previously
developed
land
due
to
the
oil
storage
use
here.
Y
So
the
wedding
venue
sits
towards
the
center
of
the
site
with
views
over
the
canal
and
Wharf
and
The
Lodges
are
sighted
around
this,
with
a
network
of
roads
and
Pathways,
which
will
serve
each
Lodge.
The
Lodges
would
have
parking
directly
outside
them
within
the
site,
and
another
question
asked
earlier
on
the
site
visit.
Y
So
that's
the
these
little
sections
here,
which
are
the
the
car
park,
spaces
for
each
Lodge
and
so
to
the
north
of
the
wedding
venue
is
a
community
Hub
and
cafe,
and
this
can
be
accessed
by
anyone
visiting
the
area,
but
the
rest
of
the
site
would
be
enclosed
to
customers
only
if
we
could
go
to
the
next
slide
please
so
this
slide
shows
the
Landscaping
at
the
site
and
two
water
feature
ponds.
There
will
be
increased
planted
and
biodiversity
across
the
site
and
planting
wise.
Y
Y
This
gives
you
a
CGI
impression-
and
this
is
the
precise
appearance
in
the
local
setting
and
the
general
spread
of
the
Development
Across
the
site,
and
this
would
be
looking
from
the
Riverside
and
it
helps
to
show
how
the
site
will
be
raised
above
this.
This
is
around
three
to
four
meters
above
current
ground
levels
as
a
development
platform
and
that's
varying
in
in
sections
across
the
site
we'll
go
to
the
next
slide,
please.
Y
Y
If
we
could
go
to
the
next
slide,
please
so
this
shows
the
internal
floor
plan
to
the
wedding
venue
and
there's
a
ceremony
room,
a
dining
room
and
other
Associated
spaces
which
relates
to
the
wedding
venue,
there's
also
toilets
and
an
accessible
toilet
as
well
and
on
the
roof.
It'd
be
a
Terrace
and
bar
and
that's
with
lift
access.
Y
Y
So
this
shows
the
plans
of
the
community
Hub
and
Cafe,
which
would
be
for
the
use
of
anyone
visiting
the
area,
as
mentioned
before
it
wouldn't
just
be
for
customers
to
the
wedding
venue
or
The
Lodges,
there's
a
green
roof
and
solar
panels
on
there
as
well
on
the
next
side.
Thank
you,
so
the
next
few
slides
they
run
through
the
design
of
each
of
the
lodge
types,
and
this
gives
you
like
a
CGI
image
from
an
impression
of
how
they'll
be
viewed
across
the
water
feature
in
the
center.
Y
So
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
so
this
is
a
one
bedroom,
Lodge
type
and
the
next
slide
shows
another
one
bedroom
Lodge
type,
with
a
different
roof
style.
The
next
slide
shows
a
two
bedroom
Lodge
type.
The
next
slide
shows
another
two
bedroom
Lodge
sites,
type
of
a
different
roof
style,
and
the
next
shows
a
four
bedroom
watch
type.
The
next
shows
the
largest
honeymoon
suite
Lodge
type.
Sorry,
if
I've
run
through
those
quick
quite
quickly,
we
can
go
back
to
if
anyone
wants
to
have
another.
Y
Y
So
the
next
slide-
and
this
shows
the
volume
of
the
development
of
the
existing
buildings
in
comparison
to
the
proposed
development.
So
this
shows
the
spread
of
the
Development
Across
the
site
in
comparison
to
the
existing
compact
development.
You
can
see
that
in
pink,
those
are
the
existing
buildings
and
storage
units
and
then
the
rest
of
the
site
outside
of
that
is,
it's
spread
a
lot
more
across
the
whole
site,
and
you
can
also
see
the
levels
that
are
raised
from
the
existing
ground
level
up
to
where
the
current
developed,
the
existing
development
are
proposed.
Y
So
the
next
few
slides
here
show
The
increased
site
levels
and
the
site
levels
need
to
be
increased
across
the
site
to
take
into
account
the
fact
that
it's
in
flood
zone
for
me,
so
this
is
to
prevent
flooding
on
site.
So
if
we
could
just
flick
through
those,
you
can
see
the
height
of
the
existing
ground
level,
which
is
the
dotted
line,
and
then
the
proposed
site
levels
above
that
and
then
again
above
that
would
be
where
the
developments
would
sit
or
the
buildings
would
sit.
Sorry.
Y
So
if
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
shows
from
another
angle
and
the
next
side
as
well.
That's
another
angle
there
with
the
canal
in
situ
there
as
well,
so
first
just
go
to
the
next
slide
again,
so
this
slide
is
a
CGI
photo
and
it's
from
the
canal
tow
path,
it's
a
little
further
up
from
where
we
stopped
in
our
site
visit
earlier
today.
Y
So
this
would
be
the
view
looking
towards
the
site
and
seeing
Aiden's
would
be
located
behind
this
image,
and
so
it's
a
Viewpoint
similar
to
what
was
requested
on
the
site
visit,
so
other
viewpoints
looking
towards
this
side
of
the
development
could
be
provided,
if
required.
So
the
last
three
slides
here
is
CGI
interpretations
and
they
give
an
impression
of
how
the
development
is
proposed
and
how
it
would
appear
once
constructed.
Y
So
there
have
been
a
total
of
seven
objections
if
you
just
go
back
sorry,
I'm
back
again
and
back
again,
we'll
just
leave
it
up
on
that
slide.
Thank
you.
So
we've
been
a
total
of
seven
objections
from
the
Waterway
associations
and
residents,
as
well
as
six
comments
of
support
and
local
residents.
Y
Alton
and
wolosford
neighborhood
plan
forum
and
the
lead.
Civic
trust
have
offered
comments
of
support.
So
there
are
several
important
matters
outstanding
relating
to
the
principle:
the
development,
such
as
the
loss
of
a
protective
Wharf
site,
again,
which
I'll
reiterate
there
are
only
three
protected
wharfs
across
Leeds,
the
impact
on
openness
of
the
green
belt
and
the
impacts
of
flood
risk
at
the
site
and
and
the
access
to
the
site
as
well.
Y
So,
although
the
scheme
will
prove
will
improve
the
general
appearance
of
the
site
through
the
removal
of
industrial
buildings
and
a
significant
number
of
tree
planting
across
the
site,
the
scheme
will
raise
the
ground
levels
by
around
three
to
four
meters
and
spread
the
Development
Across
the
entirety
of
the
post
site.
Y
So
this
has
impacts
on
off-site
flooding,
the
openness
of
the
green
belt
and
the
loss
of
the
wharf,
as
members
will
notice
in
the
site
visit
this
morning
as
well,
the
main
access
route
into
the
site
is
by
a
narrow
road,
ensure
the
development
come
forward.
We
would
see
a
large
number
of
traffic
from
private
cars.
Furthermore,
the
development
has
poor
public
transport
links
and
footpaths
and
officers
seek
members
view
on
the
questions
contained
within
the
report
and
also
just
to
note
missing
from
the
policy
section
is
the
Alton
and
woodlesford
neighborhood
plan.
A
Thanks
Lydia,
okay,
we
do
have
a
speaker
here
in
support
of
the
application,
councilor
Galton
if
you'd
like
to
come
and
join
us
at
the
end,
and
we
also
have
Andrew
windrus
and
Ian
Fletcher,
who
are
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Although
that's
a
goal
and
we'll
be
speaking
for
the
four
minutes,.
Z
Thank
you.
Everybody
know
good
afternoon.
The
proposal
for
a
lot
of
destination,
the
vacant
X
oil
terminal
site
and
Fleet
Lane
has
the
wholehearted
endorsement
of
the
local
elected
members
and
The
Wider
community.
The
councilors
find
the
report
offered
to
plans
panel
members
heavily
and
unfairly
weighted
towards
refusal.
Z
Z
Z
Z
This
plan
is
relevant
primarily
because
it's
the
most
current
policy
having
been
decided
in
2022
you'll,
know
that
other
policies
which
are
referred
to
in
here
some
of
them
are
pretty
ancient,
the
oldest
being
the
Leeds
unitary
development
plan
of
2006..
The
adopted
neighborhood
plan
reflects
how
this
site
fits
into
the
wider
local
geography,
environment
and
social
usage,
whereas
the
other
property
documents
are
often
narrower
in
Focus,
outdated
and
contradictory.
Z
The
development
site
sits
on
a
post-industrial
landscape
that,
after
Decades
of
restitution,
is
an
environmental
asset
and
is
the
only
vacant
site
identified
as
employment
land
outside
of
Rothwell
Town
Center.
The
local
community
would
like
to
see
employment
growth
associated
with
the
increased
Leisure
usage
of
the
area.
This
approach
was
endorsed
by
lead
city
council
itself
when
the
area
was
identified
for
enhancement
as
a
letter
destination
in
the
leveling
up
fund
bid.
Active
air
submitted
this
year
for
the
planning
policy
to
classify
such
Hospitality
employment
as
not
real
jobs,
is
appallingly
contradictory
and
outdated.
Z
The
status
and
sustainability
of
a
protected
Wharf
at
this
location
is
also
overstated.
Water
haulage
does
indeed
reduce
the
need
for
Road
Freight
in
the
abstract.
However,
its
primary
benefit
on
modal
shift
is
achieved
between
Wars,
where
Wars
are
situated.
The
goods
necessarily
are
transported
the
final
few
miles
by
Road
haulage.
An
active
Wharf,
especially
associated
with
Aggregates
distribution
in
this
location,
would
block
the
lives
of
local
residents
and
Leisure
visitors
alike,
increasing
air
pollution
and
road
safety
concerns.
Furthermore,
current
commercial
operators
prefer
to
upload
Upstream
at
industrial
sites
near
a
Leed
City
Center.
Z
There
is
also
a
proposal
for
an
inland
port
at
sterton,
which
would
more
than
accommodate
current
and
future
commercial
traffic.
The
objection
to
the
development's
effect
on
the
green
belt
is
also
overstated.
The
site
visit
should
clarify
that
the
raising
of
land
levels
associated
with
the
development
would
not
represent
a
deterioration
of
views
of
the
Greenbelt
landscape
compared
with
the
current
dereliction
or
the
alternative
of
piles
of
aggregate.
Several
meters,
high
and
haulage
depots
officers
also
object
to
parking
provision
being
proposed
in
the
green
belt.
Z
An
informal
car
park
already
exists
on
a
non-maintained
concrete
base
which
your
bus
used
earlier
left
over
from
the
oil
terminal
days,
and
the
proposal
would
merely
formalize
and
improve
what
is
already
there
to
continue
on
the
subject
of
parking.
The
current
falsity
of
visitor
facilities
is
a
significant
concern
for
local
people
accessing
this
area
for
leisure
purposes.
Z
The
canal
and
rivers
trust
provides
no
public,
visitor
parking,
toilet
facilities
or
litter
bins
at
this
location,
despite
the
location
of
Lemonwood
Marina
and
significant
rented
canalside
Moorings,
the
adjacent
Jays
sent
Aiden's
rspb
Reserve
is
a
major
visitor
attraction
and
can
be
accessed
via
a
nearby
bridge
over
the
river
air.
This
is
only
there
is
only
one
official
public
car
park
for
Saint
adens
and
is
located
2.3
miles
away.
I
look
forward
to
your
questions.
A
Thanks
Council
golden
any
questions
from
members
on
this.
That's
the
Finnegan.
Z
Z
That's
such
betterment
is
being
encouraged
to
be
ignored
in
re
in
order
to
respect
written
documents
which
are
well-intentioned,
but
in
this
circumstance,
don't
deliver
the
optimal
outcome
for
this
locality.
A
No,
in
which
case,
thank
you
very
much
for
attending
and
we
will
move
on
to
members
questions
for
officers
does
any
Council
Finnegan.
Thank
you.
K
Or
we've
been
referred
through
to
part
of
59
now,
if
this
is
an
old
all
Refinery
sites
or
whatever
it
might
actually
be,
I
have
a
similar
one
in
my
patch
and
nobody,
no
other
alternative
industrial
use
wants
to
go
anywhere
near
it
because
of
the
problems
and
challenges
that
we've
actually
faced
at
this
particular
point.
K
So
in
terms
of
what
could
go
on
that,
if
I
don't
wanted
to
start
all
refining
again
on
this
particular
site,
and
that
would
clearly
have
a
much
more
significant
impact,
a
detrimental
impact
on
the
Green
Belt
taking
it
that
that's
what's
happened
to
that
side
previously,
there's
nothing
to
stop
that
happening.
Is
there
as
far
as
I
can
see,
regardless
of
the
fact
that
it's
green
belt?
It's
not
a
particularly
attractive
piece
of
green
belt.
K
A
So
was
the
question
part
of
that?
Is
it
an
attractive
bit
of
green
belt.
K
Y
And
we
have
some
objections
from
local
Waterway
associations,
and
they
have
said
that
the
current
demand
for
Freight
use
is
being
outstripped
by
what,
by
what
the
suppliers
that
we've
got.
So
at
the
moment,
they're
saying
that
there
is
there
is
the
demand
for
items
to
be
carried
by
Freight
in
the
area.
Y
Started
as
over
capacity
I,
don't
have
those
I
drive
that
data
with
me
right
now,
but
we
can
I
can
provide
that.
Should
a
full
application
come
forward.
K
To
be
honest,
I
think
the
office
is,
there's
no
evidence
of
additional
need
at
this
location.
It's
certain
I,
accept
and
there's
some
discussion
and
debate
about
Stern
and
we'd
be
supportive
of
that.
It's
a
slightly
different
case
sticking
quite
a
distance.
Having
done
this
on
a
boat
all
the
way
up
to
this
particular
location
and
challenging.
J
This
thing
to
work,
I
know
I,
know:
Council
Finnegan
used
the
phrase
challenging,
but
could
just
remind
everybody
actually
the
way,
it's
being
done,
that
this
is
actually
a
position
statement
to
tease
out
what
members
think
about
this
proposal
if
it
should
be
taken
forward
or
it
shouldn't
be.
So
you
know
it's
not
a
question
of
putting
the
officer
on
the
spot
to
provide
that
information
instantaneously.
J
E
Thank
you
chair
two
things
I'd
like
to
ask
you
for
mate.
One
is
about
the
the
opinion
of
officers
that
that
the
issue
of
flood
risk
has
not
we've
been
adequately
addressed
up
in
Cooks,
so
we
knew
we
know
a
thing
or
two
about
flooding
and
I.
Just
I
just
like
to
hear
a
bit
more
about
that,
and
so
the
sort
of
scope
of
you
know
what
what
what
do
you
think?
E
What
do
you
think
the
risks
could
be
the
other
thing
and
I'm
sort
of
reflecting
partly
on
what
Steve
has
just
said
about
with
it
being
a
position
paper?
E
It's
our
sort
of
purpose
here
is
to
determine
if
we
take
this
further
or
not
now
the
appearance
of
the
Alton
neighborhood
development
plan
fairly
late
on
of
not
as
it
didn't
thought,
it
hasn't
sort
of
come
by
the
where
the
usual
route
of
papers
wondering
about
sort
of
exactly
why
it
was
so
late
on,
but
I
do
think
if
we
have
encouraging
neighborhoods
to
develop
neighborhood
plans
and
a
huge
amount
of
work
goes
into
them
and
they're
then
adopted
by
communities.
E
We
ought
to
take
that
very
seriously
indeed,
and
I
would
like
to
think
that,
whatever
whatever
is
there
that
and
I
say
whatever's
there,
because
the
thing
having
appears
over
a
few
minutes
before
the
before
we
started,
you
know
considering
this
item.
Obviously,
if
not
not
had
a
chance
to
look
at
any
of
it,
I'd
like
to
think
that
that's
that
should
be
brought
into
the
mix.
J
Sorry,
David
Lydia,
obviously
before
what
I
picked
up
there,
if
we
can
just
give
a
little
bit
more
information
of
the
impacts
of
potential
flood
risk,
both
on
the
site
and
off
the
site,
I
think
it's
the
issue,
but
also
the
neighborhood
plan.
You
sorry
I'm
a
bit
confused
about
where
this
is
appeared
from.
AA
I'll
I'll
just
take
her
in
the
neighborhood
plan
issue
Lydia
mentioned
in
the
presentation.
Unfortunately,
we
we
did
that's
a
an
error
on
our
part.
It
does
fall
within
the
neighborhood
plan
in
terms
of
the
actual
specifics
of
the
document,
it's
not
an
allocated
site
as
such,
but
it's
obviously
an
existing
Brownfield
site,
so
councilor
Galton
referenced
new
business
and
Employment
Development
and
there's
a
specific
policy
within
the
neighborhood
plan
B1
and
that
does
allocate
sites
this
particular
site
isn't
allocated.
AA
So
the
neighborhood
plan
has
no
allocation
for
this
particular
site
and
but
in
some
sense
it
doesn't
need
to
because
it
is
an
employment
site
already
and
so
just
coming
back
to
councilor
galton's
point
on
that
I
think
the
actual
document
may
have
been
issued
by
councilor
Galton
himself
and
I
suspect
in
the
light
of
the
omission
of
our
report.
So
again,
apologies
for
that.
AA
Y
So,
on
the
point
of
of
flood
risk
at
the
site,
the
flood
risk
sequential
test
and
exception
test
haven't
been
adequately
addressed.
Our
flooding
officer
in
in
the
policy
team-
and
it's
raised
an
objection
on
this
matter.
Also.
The
flood
risk
assessment
provided
by
the
applicant
states
that
well,
there
will
be
off-site
flooding
as
a
result
of
raising
the
the
development
site
and
the
environment
agencies
as
well
have
an
objection
in
due
to
the
issue
of
flooding
off-site,
as
well
as
a
result
of
the
development.
A
Thank
you
in
relation
to
the
neighborhood
plan.
That's
been
circulated,
I
haven't
had
one
circulated
to
me.
I
don't
think
anyone
up
here
has,
and
it
would
be
ideal
in
future.
If
you
could
just
let
me
know
that
they
will
be
being
given
out
so
that
we
can
all
access
one
or
not
access
one
depending
on
depending
on
what
it
is,
of
course,.
J
Sorry
I
hesitate
to
to
do
this,
but
under
normal
circumstances
the
submissions
of
details
actually
out
the
plan.
Spinal
itself
would
not
be
accepted
because
not
everybody's
had
the
opportunity
to
look
at
it
and
digest
the
information
which
includes
the
members,
but
anybody
else
that
might
be
interested
I'm.
Sorry
to
do
that
to
you
chair,
but
I.
Just
thought
I'd
ought
to
just
make
that
that
clear
I
mean
on
this,
because
it's
a
position,
statement
and
Davey's
clarified.
It
was
an
officer.
J
I
I
accept
completely
why
councilor
Galton
has
raised
it,
but
I
just
thought:
I'd
make
that
that
clear.
We
wouldn't
normally
take
information
and
one
of
the
earlier
applications.
If
you
recall
a
a
photoshopped
thing
across
the
valley
was
shown
for
the
pool
I
mean
we
might
normally
have
actually
asked
that
to
be
taken
down
again,
but
we
just
let
it
ride,
because
it
was
just
one
individual
piece
of
information.
M
Thank
you
chair.
So
obviously
this
is
a
position
statement
and
we're
trying
to
tease
out
a
few
different
bits
and
pieces,
hopefully
that
the
applicants
and
will
would
find
useful,
should
they
want
to
bring
an
application.
M
Points
really
I
suppose
it's
a
wedding
venue
for
122
people
and
40
lodges,
I,
don't
think
there's
adequate
parking
been
taken
into
consideration.
M
I,
don't
know
how
many
spaces
there
are,
but
there
doesn't
appear
to
be
sufficient,
particularly
given
that
most
weddings
take
place
on
a
weekend
and
hopefully
other
people
will
be
using
the
the
facilities
around
for
their
own
leisure,
and
so
that
was
that
the
flood
risk
management
and
Yorkshire
water
have
both
said
no
objections
in
the
report,
and
yet
we
know
that
you
know
there
will
be
an
implication
to
potential
flooding
in
and
around
so
I'm.
Just
a
bit
confused
about
that.
M
M
So
that
would
mean
disruption
and
loss
of
use
of
sight
during
those
works.
So
I
think
that
needs
to
be
thought
about
and
coordinated
and
I
was
concerned
about
noise
and
light
pollution.
Given
the
openness
of
the
area,
the
fact
that
we'll
be
elevating
at
the
area
and
we've
got
that
bird
Reserve
Nature
Reserve
next
to
it
and
then
I
think.
My
final
point
is:
if
we're
having
these
lodges
in
this
area,
what
are
the
green
credentials
of
them?
M
You
know
we're
going
to
have
Eco
lodges,
or
are
we
just
going
to
have
Caravans
on
you
know
on
speed,
basically,.
Y
And
so
come
back
to
coming
back
to
the
point
Sorry
on
on
cars,
so
each
Lodge
would
have
a
car
park
in
space
as
well
as
then
there's
the
car
parks
that
are
outside
the
site
and
so
I
think.
Y
The
applicant's
idea
with
the
with
the
wedding
venue
is
that
everyone
go
into
the
venue
would
also
be
staying
in
The,
Lodges,
so
I
think
that's
that
would
ensure
enough
parking
spaces
for
each
Lodge
and
person
at
the
wedding
venue,
as
well
as
the
site,
the
car
Parks
off-site
as
well
outside,
and
then
with
the
flood
risk
management
comments
and
the
is
it
the
canal
and
River
trust
that
you
said
or
Yorkshire
water,
so
they're
more
on
the
the
drainage
comments
that
they've
commented
on.
Y
So
it's
it's
a
drainage
of
the
site
in
terms
of
surface
water
and
foul
drainage,
flooding,
our
policy
team
have
a
flooding
officer
and
they
have
objected
on
the
grounds
of
flooding
and
also
the
environment.
It's
safe
have
objected
on
grounds
of
flooding
off-site
and
I.
Think
was
that
all
the
questions
that
you.
P
Y
Not
yeah,
we
have
actually
noted
that
we
were
concerned
about
noise
pollution
and
light
pollution
in
terms
of
Saint
Aidan's
and
also
just
to
the
south
of
the
site.
Is
a
marina
I
think
it's
come
the
name
of
the
marina
sorry
and
oh
Lemon,
Road,
lock,
sorry
and
there's
a
number
of
canal
boats
on
there
where
people
are
residing.
So
we
did
have
concerns
that
with
the
raised
levels
on
site
that
would
also
impact
through
noise
traveling,
especially
from
the
bar
on
the
roof
of
the
the
wedding
venue
and
the
Terrace.
AA
If,
if
you
don't
mind
chair,
it
just
might
help
the
debate
a
little
bit
and
it
was
referenced
by
councilor
Galton
about
paragraph
59,
I.
Think
the
purpose
of
this
position
statement
is
really
to
gather
some
feedback
from
Members
you'll,
see
from
the
tone
of
the
report.
There's
an
awful
lot
of
policy
challenges
with
this
application
and
the
applicant
is
a
little
hesitant
to
undertake
further
work.
AA
If,
ultimately,
you
can
see
the
the
sort
of
direction
of
travel
from
offices
currently
is
heading
towards
these
are
problems
that
we
don't
necessarily
think
can
be
fully
resolved.
AA
If
members
are
of
a
different
view,
then
maybe
the
applicant
will
put
that
time
and
investment
into
undertaken
further
surveys
assessments
and
to
overcome
some
of
the
technical
matters.
But
you
can
see
things
like
the
green
belt.
We've
got
problems
with
that.
AA
We
don't
think
additional
information
is
going
to
help
on
that
particular
matter.
But
ultimately,
if
members
are
of
a
different
view,
then
the
applicant
may
look
to
provide
some
more
information
on
the
other
matters.
AA
So
that's
sort
of
the
reason
why
this
particular
report
is
before
you
rather
than
officers
just
refusing
this,
because
we
recognize
this
as
a
difficult
site.
It's
it's
a
bit
of
a
mess.
There's
uncertainty
over
whether
it
will
come
forward
as
a
as
a
wharf
Etc.
So
that's
why
it's
here
to
help
with
the
process
really.
A
Thank
you,
councilor
Bromley,.
F
Thank
you,
Sharon.
Thank
you
sort
of
going
over
those
those
points
of
it
and
the
offices
concerns
because
I
think
like
at
the
moment
it
looks
so
visually
dead.
Almost
that
the
idea
of
an
investment
there
seems
visually
pleasing.
But
if
actual
fact
what's
going
on
in
the
background,
is
that
there's
a
lot
of
risk
factors
and
we're
not
necessarily
considering
everything,
that's
going
to
be
a
long-term
Hazard
and
then
that's
really
important
that
we
look
into
that
and
I
just
wanted
to
know
that
clarification.
F
Has
there
been
any
will
from
the
developer
to
to
really
want
to
look
into
and
offering
any
investment
into
long-term
flood
prevention
of
the
surrounding
area,
not
just
of
of
how
they
will
keep
their
own
ground
and
flood
free.
Y
And
we
have
had
a
number
of
revised
documents
and
it
is
just
a
process
at
the
minute
of
getting
further
information,
and
it's
not
that
there
hasn't
been
a
a
will
necessarily
from
the
the
applicants
to
provide
that
information.
I
think
just
at
the
moment,
we've
just
got
to
a
stop
point
where
the
principal
is
that
officers
believe
that
at
the
moment,
it's
it's
a
refusal
of
tipping
towards
tipping
towards
that.
But
what
we
need
from
the
applicant
is
to
provide
that
further
information.
Y
But
this
is
why
it's
a
panel
today
is
to
gain
from
Members
what
their
thoughts
are
on
that.
So
we
can
then
either
Progressive
to
ask
for
further
information
and
for
the
environment
agency's
objection
to
be
overcome
as
well
so
and
our
our
flooding
flooding
policy
officer
as
well,
with
the
flood
risk
sequential
test
and
exception
test
that
ultimately
needs
to
be
needs
to
be
considered.
A
Thank
you,
we've
got
councilmanaka
and
then
I
think
if
officers
are
accepting
of
it.
We'll
move
on
to
going
question
by
question
at
that
point
is
that
okay.
A
Y
So
we've
got
the
the
main
building
to
the
the
120
capacity
wedding
venue
Lodge
details,
so
that
would
be
Brian
excellent,
but
we
don't
have
the
details
of
what
the
individual
lodges
would
be
and
whether
they
would
also
be
to
the
same
standard
as
that,
and
so
that
would
be
it.
That's
been
asked
for
by
our
climate
energy
officer
for
that
information.
But
that's
just
another
thing
which
we're
waiting
for
depending
on
the
outcome
of
this.
A
H
Thank
you,
chair
in
relations
to
the
storage
and
I
know
that
it
might
not
be
relevant,
but
just
as
a
comment
do
we
know
if
the
you
know
those
silos
kind
of
like
petroleum
storage,
are
they
empty
or
do
they
need
to
be
drained,
or
do
we
have
any
information
about
them?
Just
in
relation
to
you
know
the
river
and
everything?
Thank
you.
Y
I
think
we
presume
that
they're
empty
as
it's
a
non-active
site,
but
any
land
contamination
issues
would
be
dealt
with
through
site-specific
conditions,
which
we've
we've
had
those
conversations
with
our
wine
contamination
officers.
A
M
Given
the
current
state
of
the
site,
I
think
this
would
be
an
enhancement.
K
This
is
not
one
of
those
and
I
think
we
have
to
be
pragmatic
if
we
wanted
to
move
this
blighted
side
forward.
So
I
would
say
at
this
particular
point.
I
certainly
want
more
information
on
the
pros
and
cons
which
I
think
is
what
colleagues
have
tried
to
reflect
at
this
particular
point.
So
we'd
we'd,
we
don't
see
it
quite
in
the
same
Bleak
way
that
the
officers
do.
E
Yes,
thank
you,
chair,
I'm,
I
am
torn
about
this
I
think
it's
quite
clear
into
in
terms
of
the
way
that
the
so
officers
are
referenced.
Existing
policy-
that's
pretty
pretty
inaugurable
that
Greenbelt
policy
is
not
satisfied,
I'm,
just
uncomfortable
about
saying
anything
that
might
knock
the
whole
thing
on
the
head.
E
At
this
stage
and
as
I
mean
I
should
say
that
I
do
have
a
very
strong
view
on
the
on
the
next
question
about
when
we
get
there,
but
in
in
terms
of
this
I
do
I
do
wonder
if
there
is
I
wonder
if
there
is
a
scope
for
further
investigation
before
I'm
definitively
saying
you
know,
I
mean
it's
not
just
the
so
the
in
the
when
we're
taking
these
as
individual
questions,
but
I
mean
it's.
The
cumulative
weight,
I
think
of
a
number
of
sort
of
separate
issues.
E
When
they're
talking
about
Greenbelt
talking
about
flood
public
transport,
loss
of
the
wharfs
together
and
sort
of
policy,
same
policies
would
seem
to
be
taking
a
lot
of
hits.
If
we
were
to
encourage
us
to
go
forward
and
I
can
imagine
it's
also
kind
of
where
you
might
want
to
argue
against
and
what
we
where
you
might
want
to
argue
against
setting
one
aside,
but
you
start
wondering
when
you've
got
the
that
much
evidence
one.
E
So
what's
the
point
in
having
policies,
if
you
just
disregard
them
all,
and
the
danger
of
setting
up
precedence
by
saying
yeah
no
problem
setting
precedence
at
some
could
cause
trouble
for
the
future.
So
I
mean
it
is
seductive.
It's
there
are
some
nice
really
beautiful,
illustrations
and
sort
of
like
what
appears
to
me
as
well,
planned
for
doing
something
positive
with
a
really
difficult
site,
but
so
I
am
troubled
by
this.
E
At
the
weight
of
the
officer's
advice,
again
against
and
I
think
as
I
say,
I
think
in
terms
of
the
green
belt
policy.
I
think
the
case
that
they
may
their
case
is
probably
made
it.
It's
not
compliant.
J
Just
just
briefly,
I
mean
slightly
contrary
to
what
the
the
sort
of
perception
that
councilor
gold
went
out.
It's
we're
not
necessarily
completely
saying
no
to
this
in
terms
of
what's
being
brought
forward,
in
fact
to
use
your
word.
Counselor
Andre
worked
on
on
this
as
well
and
and
just
to
free
up
the
debate.
J
What
we're
really
seeking
out
of
these
questions
is
is
simply
I
think
what
you
were
saying
is
to
whether
we
proceed
in
the
applicant
puts
the
investment
into
and
try
and
answer
these
questions
and
overcome
it,
because,
ultimately,
you
can
I
mean
there's
a
lot
to
work
out.
I
have
to
say:
I
can't
deny
that,
and
you
need
to
be
appraised
as
panel
members,
that
there
are
lots
of
the
council
policies
that
actually
stand
against
this.
J
But
if
you
want
to
put
weight
on
other
issues
such
as
the
economic
benefits,
tidying
up
the
site,
etc,
etc.
You
can
do
that
and
you're
not
going
to
be
held
with
your
hand
up
your
back.
J
If
you
do
that,
but
just
to
free
up
the
debate
a
bit
because
I
think
we're
all
just
slightly
worried
that
we're
going
to
say
something
we
might
regret
later,
but
really
all
the
officers
are
trying
to
do
here
is
to
get
a
bit
of
it
and
the
applicant
is
to
get
a
feel
as
to
whether
you
think
it
is
worthwhile
pursuing
this
and
for
what
reasons
and
I
understand
what
counselor
Andre
is
saying
about
the
flood
risk
issue,
I
mean
I,
just
would
say
this
for
Council
Bromley.
J
J
A
No
worries
I
just
like
rules
to
stick
to,
while
we
are
just
still
on
number
one
though
I
think
for
me.
If
I
can
add
a
comment
as
well.
I
think
that
the
development
itself
is
absolutely
beautiful.
A
My
major
concern
is
around
the
height
and
the
impact
visually
on
the
green
belt,
from
a
perspective
of
it
being
so
much
so
much
raised
when
you're
on,
like
the
canal
Towpath.
So
if
there
was
any
mining
to
continue
with
this,
then
I
would
really
want
to
be
seeing
impact
the
CGI
image
of
it
from
where
folks
are
going
to
be
walking
and
what
it
looks
like
almost
fully
as
a
side-on
view
in
order
to
make
a
to
make
a
decision
ever
in
the
future.
A
Should
that
come
back
if
we
are
done
with
question
one
just
checking
then
question
two:
do
members
agree
that
the
issue
of
flood
risk
has
not
been
resolved?
Anyone
want
to
make
comment
on
that
councilor
Finnegan.
K
I
I'm
puzzled
with
how,
even
if
you
build
this
up,
that
creates
a
further
flood
risk.
Now,
maybe
it's
me
being
dim
and
most
of
my
colleagues
I'm
sure
would
accept
that.
That's
probably
accurate,
but
I
don't
get
where
at
this
particular
Point
unless
the
site
floods
regularly
and
there's
no
suggestion
that
it
does
not
even
building
it
up
and
I
share
your
concerns
from
the
Towpath,
and
we
want
to
see
the
CGI
and
all
the
rest
of
it.
K
How
that,
by
its
very
nature
of
being
a
built
up
and
feeding
into
a
lot
of
the
services
that
already
exist,
increases
the
flood
risk
anywhere,
perhaps
me
being
dim,
but
Either
Way
flood
management
would
pick
it
up.
Environmental
agency
would
pick
it
up
if
there
were
concerns,
and
they
would
help
me
with
my
stunted
thinking,
I'm
sure
at
the
appropriate
time,
but
I'm
not
sure
I
necessarily
understand
the
question
at
this
stage.
Y
So
the
site
has
flooded
recently
I
think
within
the
last
five
years.
I
think
it
flooded
recently
and
it
is
in
flood
zone
3A.
So
it
is
at
risk
to
flood
also
when
you
build
the
site
up,
as
as
it
is
as
it's
raised
up,
it
pushes
flood
risk
elsewhere,
so
it
is
actually
part
of
one
of
our
policies
to
to
or
the
environment
agency's
policies,
not
to
raise
land
levels
to
address
flood
risk,
because
that
can
create
issues
further
down.
The
line.
K
So
certainly
the
environment
agency's
way
of
dealing
with
things,
often
because
dredging
there's
a
debate
about
dredging,
we
could
go
on
the
rest
of
the
afternoon,
but
usually
what
they
do
is
build
up
the
sides
so
that
they
don't
actually
flood
so
I'm,
not
sure
the
necessarily
the
principle
of
building
something
up
means
that
you
invariably
get
floats
further
down
now:
I'm,
no
flooding
expert
but
land
drainage,
environment
to
agency
I'd
be
certainly
interested
in
here.
K
In
there
comments
on
that
and
it
may,
they
may
be
totally
utterly
damning
ultimately,
and
they
will
say
it
can't
be
done,
and
this
is
where
you're
going
to
get
a
problem,
but
I'm
not
sure
this
is
catastrophic
to
an
application
at
this
particular
point,
because
I
can't
say
from
my
lowly
Common
Sense
point
of
view
where
the
issues
are,
and
certainly
welcome,
additional
information
to
be
able
to
make
a
more
informed
decision
at
an
appropriate
time.
J
That's
absolutely
fine,
I
mean
I.
Think
the
flavor
is
that
the
flood
risk
issue
has
not
been
wholly
resolved,
but
I
think
we're
slightly
across
purposes
here,
because,
if
you've
been
on
the
site
this
morning,
the
river
which
lies
directly
sort
of
to
the
to
the
north
west
hasn't
got
those
buns
up
to
stop
the
river
flooding
in
this
direction.
But
what
Lydia's
talking
about
is,
if
you
build
land
up,
you
eat
land
up.
You
increase
the
runoff
rates,
which
kind
of
enhance
or
increase
the
likelihood
of
flooding
elsewhere.
J
So
it's
slightly
across
purposes
and
in
that
respect,
but
you
know
if,
if
members
ultimately
just
asking
more
questions,
that's
obviously
something
to
come
back
with
even
further
detail
for
is
fairly
straightforward.
F
Ty
from
my
neighbor
that
literally
raised
her
garden
and
landscaped
it
and
then
turfed
it,
but
it
makes
a
difference
to
the
house
next
to
it
and
in
terms
of
just
going
back,
I,
don't
I
I.
F
Don't
think
that
this
is
fully
resolved
at
all
and
I
would
really
hope
that
they
are
going
to
take
full
responsibility,
since
this
will
be
something
that's
going
to
be
like
an
income
back
for
them,
that
there's
going
to
be
a
long-term
investment
and
that
it's
not
just
necessarily
what's
first
of
all
assessed,
but
actually
what
you
can
long
term
then
look
back
on
as
well.
F
So
if
it
turns
out
in
like
a
year's
time
that
they
can
see
that
there's
been
a
huge
impact
by
the
fact
that
they
didn't
pre
like
anticipate
this,
are
they
actually
going
to
keep
analyzing
as
well
down
the
line,
because
this
could
be
something?
That's
obviously
going
to
be
a
bigger
and
bigger
thing
with
climate
change
down
the
line
as
well.
A
Any
other
comments
on
question
two
I
think
for
me.
I'd
also
want
to
be
really
clear
on
what
surface
drainage
so
that
we
didn't
have
excessive
surface
runoff,
because
there
are
ways
to.
A
Minimize
that
and
I'd
want
to
be
able
to
see
that
those,
but
that
would
I
imagine
be
taken
up
within
the
flood
risk
stuff.
Were
it
to
come
back
so
question
three:
do
members
consider
loss
of
a
protected
Wharf
site
is
Justified
cancer
gallery.
G
G
K
M
Currently,
there
is
minimal
employment
opportunities
at
that
site.
The
oil
storage
tanks
are
redundant
so
nobody's
working
on
them,
I,
don't
know
what
else
is
happening
on
the
site,
but
it
didn't
look
to
be
very
much
and
I.
Consider
these
new
jobs
and
new
income
into
the
area
to
be
a
far
greater
use
of
that
land.
M
K
H
Thank
you
too,
and
she's.
Also
in
you
know,
in
agreement
with
what
they're
saying
I
think
it
is
adding
more
employment
to
the
area
and
Services
as
we
know,
are
you
know
quite
what
is
at
the
moment.
Maybe
on
you
know,
employment,
that's
really
there
and
that's
a
lot
of
people
are
at
the
moment.
Are
you
know
in
in
need
of
and
and
possibly
that
area
will
be
really
good
for
employment?
There's
a
lot
going
on
for
it.
I
think.
A
L
In
view
of
the
I
mean
to
me,
this
looks
like
a
good
project,
but
in
view
of
the
increased
traffic
from
the
wedding
venue
plus,
you
have
all
the
walkers
for
the
nature
reserve
and
the
Cal
Canal
the
infrastructure
of
the
road
under
delivery
people
that
will
come
to
supply
the
goods
for
the
wedding
venue,
the
road
itself
leading
down
to
this
side,
the
the
infrastructure
of
it,
it
seems
quite
narrow,
with
the
amount
of
traffic
that
is
going
to
be
on
it
and
I.
L
Think
that,
though
this
project
does
look
a
good
project,
I
think
that
could
be
a
major
problem
and
I
think
quite
a
few
people.
Well,
it
might
find
it
difficult
I
mean
you
know
it
has
the
increased
parking
there
on
the
site,
but
we've
walked
around
there
before
and
you
do
find
that
it
is
the
weight
of
traffic
at
a
weekend
in
particular,
I
think
could
be
a
problem.
That's
just
my
comment.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
A
C
Hi
yeah,
we
we
in
highways
do
have
some
concerns
about
the
the
road.
It
is
very
narrow
and
we,
you
know
we
don't
object
to
the
development
per
se,
but
it
does
need
it
doesn't
need
looking
at
in
terms
of
how
particularly
pedestrians
and
cyclists
can
get
to
the
site
as
well
as
well
as
traffic
in
terms
of
traffic.
C
You
know,
you've
got
a
a
site
there,
that's
quite
an
heavy
industrial
use
with
large
Vehicles
being
swapped
for
one,
but
it's
going
to
have
smaller
vehicles
and
from
the
information
that
we've
got,
we
will
have
requested
more.
You
know
we
can't
do
a
full
assessment
on
it
yet,
but
from
the
information
that
we've
got,
it
would
seem
that
the
the
difference
between
the
two
is
Is
Not
Great.
Really
so
you
know
it's
it's.
C
We
need
more
information
to
be
able
to
come
to
it
to
a
fuller
assessment,
but
you
know
in
in
terms
of
the
highway
Authority.
We
we
don't
object
in
principle
to
it,
with
with
some
conditions
and
improvements.
You
know
that
may
be
looking
at
where
they,
where
the
highway
boundaries
are
and
and
works,
that
that
might
be
needed
to
accommodate
these.
These
traffic
flows
associated
with
the
development.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
John
Council,
Smith
I,
see
you
indicate.
M
Thank
you,
chair,
ordinarily
I
would
protect
a
green
belt
with
my
life.
I,
don't
consider
this
site
to
be
Greenbelt,
I.
Consider
it
to
be
an
industrial
site
and
I
consider
this
to
be
a
reasonable
use
if
it
can
be
made
to
work
in
a
sustainable
manner.
M
M
You
know
in
terms
of
the
use
and
in
terms
of
a
a
scope,
but
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
questions
that
need
answering
before
we
can
actually
get
to
a
point
of
whether
whether
we
can
give
any
more
of
a
steer
really
towards
it.
M
But
one
just
one
observation
with
the
the
way
the
questions
are
actually
worded,
they're,
all
worded
in
a
very
negative
way
and
and
I
think
you
know
they
were
any
anybody
sort
of
reading
around
the
edges
might
consider
them
closed
questions
negatively.
So
just
just
that
comment
as
well.
A
Thanks
counselor
Council
Bromley.
F
Thank
you,
chair
I,
just
want
to
add
as
comment
for
the
suggestion
of
a
water
taxi
to
make
the
site
accessible.
Can
we
have
that
as
something
for
serious
consideration
that
that
something
similar
like
that's
the
lead
City
Center
is
is
as
as
is
made
as
part
of
the
green
belt
idea
to
support
the
green
belt?
G
G
Lodges,
I
almost
say
Caravans,
so
could
we
look
at
increased
tree
planting
that
on
that
side
by
the
wharf
and,
if
necessary,
potentially
removing
some
of
those
lodges
to
implement
that.
A
A
Everyone's
made
their
comments,
I
guess,
for
me,
the
only
thing
is
that
I'd
like
to
bring
front
and
center
the
Light
Element
it's
been
raised
already,
but
I
would
like
to
see
that
covered
off
in
a
relatively
high
amount
of
detail.
Just
so
it
doesn't
end
up
as
sort
of
a
strange,
bright
beacon
on
a
hill
situation.
Okay,
did
you
want
to
do
any
sort
of
something
you.
J
I
mean,
from
my
perspective,
listening
to
that
I'm,
going
to
use
some
of
the
phraseology
that
councilor
Smith
used
actually
because
I
think
the
the
the
the
the
the
thrust
of
what
panels
coming
back
with.
Is
that,
broadly,
you
think
it's
a
good
use
in
that
area,
but
you've
got
and
as
long
as
it's
made
to
work
in
a
sustainable
manner,
but
there's
an
awful
lot
of
convincing
to
do
because,
as
we
have
articulated,
there
are
a
lot
of
policy
issues
against
it.
J
Because
I
forgot
me
on
the
notebook
there
were
things
about
the
car
parking
interesting
comments
about
the
water
taxi
which
obviously
the
applicant
can
take
away,
because
it
would
be
an
interesting
connectivity
with
further
the
canal,
towardsley
City
Center,
although
I
think
I
think
there's
a
way
somewhere
which
might
might
knock
that
on
the
head
but
yeah.
So
it's
mainly
about
lots
more
convincing
from
the
applicant
I.
J
Don't
know
whether
the
applicant
now
will
just
go
away
and
they'll
have
to
make
a
commercial
decision
as
to
whether
they
think
they've
got
enough
support
from
the
panel
in
general
to
actually
do
this
further
work,
because
there's
a
lot
to
do
to
sort
of
overcome
some
some
of
the
issues
I
mean
I'll
capture
it
again
for
Tash
in
the
minutes
and
for
officers
and
obviously
it'll
come
back
here.
J
So
if
I've
missed
anything
at
all,
when
I
put
it
together,
you
know
like
the
lighting
and
the
impact
upon
the
saint
Aidan's
Nature
Reserve
flood
risk
management
need
more
information
on
that
noise
pollution.
There
is
a
couple
of
houses
actually
closer
than
possibly
the
marina
is
as
well.
If
you
remember,
we
went
past
them
today,
so
there's
lots
to
do.
J
I
think
it
gives
us
a
the
applicant
a
bit
of
a
stir
and
it
gives
us
a
bit
of
a
A
Way
Forward
in
terms
of
how
we
approach
you
from
this
point,
so
it
has
been
useful.
You
might
not
think
so,
and
I
was
joking
on
site
about.
Obviously,
you're
planning
on
this
is
I
mean
absolutely
no
sense
of
humor
whatsoever
and
I
think
that's
quite
evident
in
the
six
questions.
Isn't
it
thank
you.
A
Thanks
very
much
before
I,
let
you
all
go
I
would
just
like
to
take
a
moment
to
recognize
for
those
of
you
watching
on
YouTube.
You
might
not
realize
quite
how
much
work
goes
into
behind
the
scenes,
making
sure
that
the
tech
type
stuff
and
all
of
that
element
comes
together,
and
tomorrow
is
one
of
our
team's
last
day
after
39
long
years
on
the
council
and
which
is
in
fact
he
stayed
here
two
years
before,
I
was
even
bought.
No
three
years
before
I
was
even
born.
A
I
just
wanted
to
put
on
record
that
we
are
really
grateful
for
your
service
Carl
and
wish
you
a
delightfully,
happy
retirement
and
I'm
sure
we're
all
very
jealous
of
retirement.
Thank
you.
A
Which
brings
us
to
a
gender
item
number
11,
the
date
and
time
of
next
meeting
is
proposed
as
Thursday
the
26th
of
October
2023,
and
with
that.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.