►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
And
this
is
a
good
juncture
for
me
to
just
explain
to
you
that
the
cards
are
not
working
today
and
therefore
your
name
won't
come
up
when
you're
high
vision,
close-up
appears,
your
name
will
not
appear,
so
I
think
it
might
be
an
idea
for
the
public
on
this
occasion.
Only
if
you
wouldn't
mind
just
saying
who
you
are
each
time
you
speak
just
so
the
public
can
follow
the
debate.
A
We
may
find
it's
not
extensive
this
afternoon.
So
north
and
east
plans
panel
deals
with
the
applications
from
the
north,
east
and
east
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.
B
C
E
Thank
you
chair
under
gender
item
one.
There
are
no
appeals
against
the
refusal
of
inspection
of
documents
under
agenda
item
two.
There
are
no
items
which
require
the
exclusion
of
the
press
or
the
public
agenda
item
three.
There
are
no
late
items
under
gender
item
four.
Could
I
ask
members
to
declare
any
interest
I'll
take
silence
as
there
are
none
and
agenda
item?
Five.
Apologies
for
absence
have
been
received
from
councillor
almas
and
councillor.
Burke
is
in
attendance
today
at
his
substitute.
Thank
you
chair.
A
A
Oh
minutes,
thank
you
for
reminding
me
if
we
could
turn
to
the
minutes
which
you've
all
received,
and
I
will
do
the
usual
matters
arising
and
accuracy
together
on
page
one.
First
page
of
the
minutes,
which
is
actually.
A
B
Right,
thank
you
very
much
chair.
Yes,
we
had
a
site
visit
to
this
site
this
morning.
This
is
a
proposal
for
dormers
to
the
front
and
rear
of
an
end
of
terrorist
property.
If
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
please
toby.
B
Thank
you.
It's
set
in
the
street
where
we've
got
various
photos,
aerial
shots
and
photos
of
the
front
properties
and
photos
looking
at
the
the
gable
end
of
the
property
as
well.
So
we'll
move
on
to
that
in
a
little
bit.
But
the
slide
up
in
front
of
you
and
just
shows
the
proposal.
B
B
B
Now
the
property
has
planning
permission
was
converted
into
a
education
and
prayer
center
planning
commission
dating
back
to
2002,
and
the
neighboring
property
number
69,
which
adjoins
it,
which
you
cannot
see,
has
a
sort
of
a
roof
structure.
Stroke
drop
dormer
already
on
it.
That
was
granted
planning
permission
to
be
converted
into
a
prayer
center
and
education
center
in
2018..
B
B
The
property
number
69
actually
used
to
previously
be
used
as
as
a
dwelling,
I
understand
that
was
used
in
association
with
the
prayer
center
and
we
do
actually
have
a
current
application
in
which,
in
effect,
seeks
to
renew
the
2018
permission
that
was
granted.
The
applicant
has
explained
they
didn't
because
of
covid.
They
didn't
have
the
opportunity
to
actually
implement
that
permission.
B
I
suppose
some
the
knocks
of
this
or
the
crux
to
this
particular
case
is
the
proposal
itself
in
terms
of
the
dormer
windows
and
I'll
go
through
this
in
a
little
detail
as
we
go
through.
The
presentation
is
concrete
policy
and
therefore
that's
why
it's
got
a
recommendation
for
refusal
of
planning
permission.
B
However,
normally
speaking
or
generally
speaking
as
planning
officers
and
there's
planning
policy
to
back,
this
up
would
tend
to
be
try
to
be
supportive
of
community
uses
and
works,
which
help
facilitate
that
use
and
and
allow
that
use
to
continue.
So
that's
the
nuts.
The
crux
of
this
position
that
we've
got
a
tension
between
what
planning
policy
and
guidance
says
in
respect
to
dormer
windows
that
you've
got
a
local
community
use
which
is
wishing
to
provide
a
better
level
of
accommodation
for
their
existing
users.
B
Can
we
go
to
the
next
slide?
Please
toby.
So
this
is
the
property
in
question
there
you
can
see.
Number
69
is
the
one
with
the
the
dormer
already
there,
and
it's
one
to
the
right
of
that
as
you
look
at
it,
which
is
the
application,
the
application
site
and
that's
the
front
elevation,
that's
where
they
want
to
to
put
the
dormer
in
the
roof
space
there,
and
you
can
see
the
sign
that
are
referred
to,
which
straddles
across
the
frontage
of
number
69
and
number
71..
B
Now
this
photo
particular
photo
was
just
taken
at
the
junction
of
mexico
drive
with
max
for
a
place,
and
one
of
the
things
that
it
shows
is.
As
you
look
down
next
makes
per
place,
you
can
see
that
there
are
a
series
of
gable
ends
from
terrace
properties
which
meet
with
mexico
place,
and
you
can
see
there's
a
uniformity
in
terms
of
the
roof
treatment
there.
B
Five
of
those
have
dormers
on
them,
but
those
five
dormers
haven't
been
granted
planning
permission
by
the
council
since
we've
adopted
our
household
design
guide,
which
was
back
in
which
has
the
main
guidance
in
terms
of
dormers,
which
was
back
in
adopted
back
in
2012,
and
I
suspect,
looking
at
the
age
of
them.
B
Many
of
those
were
built
without
planning
permission
from
the
council
because
they
would
have
benefited
in
the
70s
and
80s
from
planning
permission
from
the
general
community
development
order,
so
they
would
have
been
built
as
permitted
development
and
not
needing
to
come
to
the
council.
Now
and
I'll
say
it.
It
probably
doesn't
need
saying,
but
those
dormers
that
exist
wouldn't
be
granted
planning
permission
now.
They'll
be
they're
considered
to
be
contrary
to
policy.
B
So,
for
example,
when
you
see
it
on
number
69
they're
in
the
photo,
if
that
came
forward
as
an
application
now
the
recommendation
would
be
to
refuse
would
be
to
refuse
that
and
go
to
the
next
slide.
Please
tobin,
and
this
is
a
view
of
the
back
of
the
property,
so
you
can
see
number
71
there,
there's
number
69
you
can
see
that
has
been
extended
with
the
dormer
to
to
the
rear
as
you,
actually,
you
can't
see
it
from
this
photo.
B
But
when
you
look
down
mexico,
the
back
expert
drive
down
that
little
alleyway
as
it
were
down
the
back
of
the
properties.
There
are
a
few
more
dormers
along
the
back
and
what
are
what
our
policy,
what
our
policy
says?
Actually
can
we
go
to
the
next
slide?
Please
toby!
Thank
you
and
the
next
one
again
the
aerial
shot.
Thank
you
very
much
yeah.
So
you
can
see
the
application
site
outlined
in
red
and
there
are
a
few
dormers
which
are
highlighted
in
in
blue
there.
B
So
what
what
our
policy
says
and
it's
the
policy
which
is
contained
within
the
householder
design
guide
and,
strictly
speaking,
we
wouldn't
normally
apply
that
to
properties
which
aren't
in
residential
use.
However,
the
policy
and
the
guidelines
themselves
are
the
only
guidelines
we
have
in
terms
of
dormal
windows
and
the
principles
are
equally
applicable
here,
as
they
would
be
with
a
householder
application
and
what
they
say.
B
What
our
guidelines
say
is
that
to
the
front
of
properties,
dormers
on
the
front
would
rarely
be
acceptable
where
you've
got
a
position
where
you've
got
a
long
row,
terraced
properties
with
few
dormers
there.
We
look
to
try
and
retain
that
original
roof
form
and
and
rhythm,
and
because
that's
considered
to
be
an
important
part
of
the
character
of
the
area.
B
So
in
essence,
the
proposal
itself
is
contrary
to
our
design
guidelines
and
therefore,
contrary
to
our
policy.
Therefore,
it
carries
a
recommendation
for
refusal,
but
there
is
that
tension,
obviously
that
we
have
a
local
community
use,
and
we
understand
that
the
majority
of
the
users
of
this
property
around
about
70
percent
of
the
users
of
this
property
live
within
about
750
meters
or
so
of
of
the
application
site.
B
So
it
is
very
much
a
local
use.
We
would
like
to
support
it
if
we
could,
but,
unfortunately,
the
proposals
do
fulfill
of
of
our
guidelines.
Thank
you.
D
The
property
yeah
said
my
name:
the
property
next
door,
which
has
a
a
dharma
window
which
has
been
built
below
the
eaves
level.
D
B
Yes,
thank
you,
council.
I
couldn't
actually
find
a
record
of
the
planning
permission
for
it.
What
I
suspect
is
that
it's
been
built
as
permitted
development
some
years
ago,
and
by
that
I
suspect,
it's
probably
back
back
to
the
1970s
and
1980s.
A
Yeah,
okay,
there
don't
seem
to
be
any
further
questions.
Are
there
any
comments?
Please?
Yes,
councillor.
F
Stevens,
it
was
a
question.
I've
just
got
in
last
minute,
just
in
terms
of
the
use.
So
in
do
you
say
2018
that
there
was
a
change
of
use
application
so
was
that
from
residential
to
a
educational
facility,
I
think,
is
all
right.
So
I'm
just
thinking
of
the
area,
obviously
terraced
housing
parking
is
going
to
be
a
huge
issue.
I
guess
from
the
highways.
B
Lisa
may
want
to
come
in
here,
but
they
they
already
make
use
of
the
the
roof
space
and
it's
denoted
to
be
an
overflow
play
prayer
area.
B
When
you
look
at
the
dormancy,
I
suppose
relative
to
the
space
itself,
it's
a
it's
a
reasonably
significant
increase
in
terms
of
the
users
that
facilitate,
but
when
you
think
about
a
dormer
and
standing
in
a
dorm
one
of
that
nature,
you'll
probably
only
get
an
extra
two
or
three
people
within
that
space
within
each
dormer
and
in
in
that
context,
I
don't
think
it's
it's
so
marginal
in
terms
of
the
the
increase
in
in
floor
space
and
usability
of
that
space
that
it
wouldn't
really
have
a
highways
implication.
B
A
Yeah
again,
we
we
did
ask
those
questions
on
the
site
visit.
My
understanding
is
that
this
is
just
about
making
the
space
more
usable
and
comfortable
for
the
people
who
already
use
it,
but
also
a
very
high
proportion
of
the
people
using
it
come
from
the
immediate
neighborhood.
Is
that
correct.
C
Yes,
when
the
change
of
use
for
number
69
came
in
in
2018,
they
provided
some
information
about
the
activities
and
the
number
of
people
visiting
and
that
information
sort
of
indicated
that
usually
over
70
percent
of
people
walked
to
to
to
use
the
facilities
and
the
remainder
that
drove.
It
was
only
about
eight
people
I
often
and
more
than
one
in
a
car.
So
we
don't
think,
there's
a
you
know,
a
significant
on-street
parking
problem
for
the
for
the
youth.
F
And
another
question
chair
in
the
dialogue
we've
had
with
the
applicant:
has
it
been
suggested
that
if
they
were
to
get
rid
of
the
dormer
on
the
front
and
reduce
the
size
on
the
rear,
that
would
fit
much
better
to
policy?
And
what
was
the
reply
and
the
follow-up
to
that,
which
is
probably
one
for
legal,
would
be.
F
If
we
followed
the
officer
recommendation
today
and
refused
this
and
the
applicant
took
up
their
appeal
right,
do
we
think
we
can
justifiably
defend
that
we've
refused
it
based
on
the
household
design
guide
and
that
this
isn't
being
used
as
a
house.
B
I
think
I'll
be
able
to
answer
both
for
both
of
those
the
discussion
that's
been
had
with
the
applicant
was.
B
I
should
explain
that,
obviously,
it
was
one
that
counts
for
a
fee
cast
to
come
to
planet's
panel
and
the
case
offers
officer
has
met
with
councillor
rafiqun's
side
to
explain
the
the
planning
position,
because
council
rafiq
is
supportive
of
the
application,
but
there
has
also
been
correspondence
with
the
applicant
where
it's
been
explained
that
we
wouldn't
support
a
dormer
on
the
front,
but
we
may
support
something
on
the
rear,
but
it
would
have
to
be
as
a
smaller,
a
smaller
dormer.
B
The
response
we've
got
is
that
the
applicant
wishes
to
pursue
the
application,
as
submitted
to
haven't
sought
to
sought
to
amend
the
application
in
terms
of
the
reason
for
refusal
we
specifically
haven't.
All
we
haven't
actually
referred
to
the
household
design
guide
in
the
reason
for
refusal,
we've
just
gone
back
to
policies
such
as
p10,
which
is
our
design
policy
gp5,
which
deals
with
things
like
impact
on
the
immunity
and
impact
on
character
and
bd6,
which
deals
with
general
alterations,
and
it's
two
to
buildings.
B
A
F
Yeah
I'm
happy
to
kick
off
chair,
I
think.
Well,
you
obviously
got
sympathy
with
what
the
user's
trying
to
do.
As
the
officer
explained,
it
seems
to
me
the
benefits
are
minimal
and
the
harm
is
significant
and
you
can
quite
see
why
the
recommendation
is
what
it
is,
and
on
that
basis
my
comments,
probably
simply
to
say
I
would
be
happy
to
move
the
recommendation.
A
Well,
thank
you,
for
that.
Are
there
any
more
comments
that
people
would
like
to
throw
into
that
mix?
At
this
point,
councillor,
nash
and
then
councillor
stevenson.
Please.
D
Well,
we
do
have
planning
rules
and
quite
a
number
of
applications
are
turned
down
because
they
are
against
the
rules
and
the
problem
is
if
we
allow
this
one,
no
matter
how
beneficial
the
use
is
to
local
people
it.
It
opens
the
door
for
other
people
to
break
rules,
and
I
just
very
recently
where
I
live
a
couple
of
miles
away.
There
there
was
an
old
lodge
which
was
not
listed,
which
should
have
been-
and
I
very
much
regret
that
that
was
the
case.
D
The
owner
demolished
it
and
built
a
new
house,
quite
contrary
to
planning
the
planning
application
and
he
had
to
pull
the
house
down
now.
If
we
allow
a
breach
of
rules,
then
he
and
other
applicants
whether
it's
a
dharma,
whether
it's
a
new
house
can
say
well.
The
council
does
allow
people
to
go
against
playing
rules
and
I
think
that
we
just
have
to
stick
to
the
planning
rules,
otherwise
we're
we're
we're
creating
a
very
bad
situation
for
everyone.
A
Yeah,
I
must
say
I
do
agree
with
what
you've
said
there,
because
I
mean
for
many
of
us.
The
the
current
policies
don't
go
far
enough
to
allow
us
to
approve
applications
of
quality
and
often
let
applications
through
that
are
policy
compliant,
but
not
in
line
with
our
expectations
so
yeah.
I
would
certainly
agree
with
all
of
the
comments
that
have
been
made
so
far.
Councillor
stevenson.
F
Thank
you,
chad.
When
I
came
in
here
this
morning,
having
read
the
papers,
I
was
a
bit.
I
was
wondering
why
we
were
we're
meeting
to
discuss
a
dorm
run
ability
it's
a
bit
simplistic.
I
thought
for
plans
panel,
but
as
ever,
there's
always
bits
that
pop
up-
and
I
think
in
my
mind
I
would
my
original
thought
was
if
we
were
to
refuse
based
on
what
we
discussed
in
the
household
design
guide.
F
Is
it
strong
enough,
but
I
think
we've
we've
had
a
policy
position
put
to
us
which
is
satisfactory
in
terms
of
other
policies
that
are
leading
to
the
refusal.
But
my
main
concern
is
that
the
suggestion
seems
so.
The
argument
seems
to
be
put
forward
from
the
applicant
and
their
supporters
that
this
should
be
allowed
because
it's
being
used
as
not
a
residential
dwelling,
but
an
educational
and
prayer
center
and
the
benefits
that
arise
from
that.
F
But
as
a
decision
maker
plans
panel,
my
concern
would
be
that
this
will
not
always
remain
an
education
facility.
They
may
well
sell
it
in
the
future
and
it
would
go
back
to
being
residential
and
then
we've
allowed
something.
That's
next
door
or
further
the
street
wouldn't
be
allowed
to
have
so.
For
those
reasons,
I
will
second
council
lands,
move
movement.
A
Thank
you
and
the
one
point
that
I
would
add
into
that
mix
of
of
views
is
that
it
would
be
quite
possible
for
the
applicant
to
put
another
application
in
for
the
dormer
at
the
back
and
with
clever
design.
They
could
still
ease
the
space
inside
to
a
degree
which
would
be
an
improved
situation
from
the
current
one.
A
So
for
all
of
those
reasons,
I'm
I'm
happy
to
take
the
move
for
the
recommendation
unless
anyone
else
wishes
to
come
in
no
okay,
so
I've
got
from
councillor
lamb
and
second
from
councillor
stevenson.