►
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
southern
west
plan
panels.
My
name
is
councillor
eileen,
taylor
and
I'll
be
chairing
today's
meeting.
Today's
meeting
has
been
streamed.
It's
live
stream
and
the
city
council
youtube
channel
so
that
members
of
the
public
can
observe
the
meeting
without
needing
being
present.
A
A
Before
we
start.
Could
I
ask
members
to
please
introduce
themselves.
I
know
offices
is
across
the
table
and
after
our
members
introduce
if
officers
across
could
just
come
forward
and
introduce
yourself
also
I'll
start
on
my
left.
As
it
says,
I'm
counselling,
taylor.
D
Good
afternoon,
councillor
david
jenkins,
coming
back
and
seeker.
D
A
G
I
Thank
you
chair,
I'm
actually,
a
member
of
rawdon
parish,
council
and
road
and
paris
council
have
responded
against
this
application.
I'd
just
like
to
like
to
let
councillors
know
that
I
was
not
during
that
council
meeting
rorden
parish
council
when
this
was
discussed
specifically,
so
that
I
can
give
an
unbiased
and
prejudiced
opinion
today.
Thank
you,
chair.
G
A
A
B
B
B
As
a
result
of
the
proposed
residence
parking,
there
will
be
less
space
for
visitors
to
mickelfield
park,
displacing
parking
onto
new
roadside
which
doesn't
have
restrictions.
He
suggests
an
additional
condition
for
the
applicant
to
pay
the
funds
for
a
permit
parking
scheme
for
the
affected
residents
on
new
roadside
councillor.
Nash
is
objected
again,
but
she
raises
no
issues
than
she's
already
raised
previously
and
are
included
in
her
objection
in
the
report.
B
We
have
two
further
objections
which
are
stating
there
is
not
one
supporter
of
the
scheme
and
some
60
objectives
to
it
in
terms
of
the
conservation
officers
comments.
They
are
no
way
fully
supportive
and
they
suggest
an
optimum
outcome.
Surely
this
is
recommending
refusal?
The
justification
for
the
second
story
is
commercial,
which
is
an
unacceptable
planning
reason.
B
There
are
no
architect
drawings
submitted
as
part
of
the
application,
so
panel
cannot
consider
it
properly
and
it
should
be
refused
on
this
ground
alone.
If
the
second
floor
was
removed
and
the
ground
floor
finished
in
traditional
materials,
it
would
meet
support
of
the
local
community
and
the
second
story.
Glass
extension
is
entirely
inappropriate
in
the
conservation
area
and
on
a
listed
building.
B
We've
also
had
a
submission
made
on
behalf
of
the
airport
civic
society,
who
have
commissioned
a
heritage
company
to
assess
the
application
focusing
on
the
contrasting
new
build
element
in
terms
of
the
application
they
state
that
the
victorian
conservatory
was
placed
in
the
1960s
with
a
flat
roofed
extension,
which
was
low
scale,
and
this
was
to
protect
the
landmark
appearance
of
nickel
hill
house
from
the
park.
You
have
to
acknowledge
that
this
is
their
views.
B
The
proposal
will
introduce
a
feature
that
almost
reaches
the
ease
line
of
the
existing
house
with
a
projection
in
front
of
the
original
principle
for
facade
at
first
floor
level.
It
will
be
highly
dominant
in
early
intrusion
on
our
principle
and
highly
important
facade
and
the
materials
burn,
no
contextual
relationship
to
the
building
or
the
area.
B
No
information
has
been
submitted
regarding
viability
and
whilst
there
are
public
benefits,
these
are
already
compensated
by
the
fact.
The
building
will
be
subdivided
and
the
proposed
harm
is
not
outweighed
by
modest
benefits,
except
for
the
information
submitted
by
councillor
waldsworth
on
parking
which
I'll
deal
with
later.
B
The
information
submitted
from
the
objectives
has
been
assessed
by
officers,
and
it
is
our
view
that
the
issues
within
the
heritage
report
submitted
and
the
further
objection
comments
have
not
raised
any
new
issues
or
any
more
material
considerations
that
have
already
been
covered
in
the
report
in
front
of
you
now
I'll
now
move
on
to
the
scheme.
So
if
I
can
have
slide
three,
please
or
next
slide.
B
This
is
an
aerial
photograph
showing
you
the
scheme
in
question,
which
we
saw
some
of
you
saw
today.
The
front
of
the
building
is
facing
towards
the
car
park,
which
is
at
the
lower
part
of
the
the
area.
You've
got
there
in
front
of
you,
you
can
see,
there's
a
a
park
to
the
left-hand
side
and
a
play
park
almost
to
the
to
the
right.
B
B
The
access
will
be
off
the
existing
axis,
which
is
on
new
roadside,
and
I
think,
on
this
aerial
photograph.
One
of
the
things
I
want
you
to
look
at
is
the
fact
that
there
is
a
flat
roofed
extension
which
is
close
to
the
play
area
at
the
northern
part.
Can
I
have
the
next
slide,
please
this
one's
just
showing
the
other
side.
This
is
the
rear
of
the
building.
You've
got
the
existing
tower,
the
the
rear
there
and
the
existing
flat
roof
extension
that
you
can
see
the
park
that
you
can
see.
B
There
belongs
to
the
library
and
the
park.
It
won't
form
part
of
this
scheme.
Can
I
have
the
next
slide
please.
This
is
showing
you
the
front
elevation
as
it
is
at
the
moment.
The
ramp,
that
is,
there
will
be
removed.
There
will
be
an
element
of
grass
that
will
be
removed
from
part
of
the
brilliant.
Thank
you.
B
So
yeah
there
will
be
some
grass
that
will
be
moved
from
the
front
here
to
increase
the
park
into
the
front.
This
ramp
will
be
removed.
These
windows
will
be
changed
on
the
front,
but
other
than
that,
the
vast
majority
of
that
front
elevation
will
stay
as
it
is
at
the
moment.
Can
I
have
the
next
slide
please.
B
This
is
the
side
elevation.
This
tree
will
remain
and
the
bin
store
will
go
in
this
area
here.
Can
I
have
the
the
next
one?
This
is
just
showing
you
that
area
again
where
the
bin
stores
will
go
in
this
area.
Here.
B
This
is
the
the
rear
of
the
building.
This
grass
area
here
forms
the
immunity
space
for
the
development.
The
red
edge
is
quite
tight
round
the
building.
This
will
be
the
only
immunity
space
for
the
development,
but
seeing
as
we
have
a
park
to
the
rear
and
we're
restoring
a
historic
list
of
building
offices.
Consider
that
the
the
lack
of
immunity
space
to
the
scheme
is
is
acceptable.
In
this
instance,
this
ramp
will
be
removed.
This
will
be
removed.
You
can
see
the
tower
there
which
I've
been
talking
about.
B
Can
I
have
the
next
slide
please.
This
again
is
another
one
at
the
rear
you've
got.
This
is
going
to
all
be
removed
to
be
seen.
This
here
we
saw
inside
today
is
a
very
stained
glass
window,
which
has
received
some
damage
but
will
be
restored
as
part
of
the
development
and
of
the
members
who
were
on
site
today
saw
the
inside
of
that.
Can
we
have
the
next
one
please
and
the
next
one?
Actually,
because
we've
it's
a
bit
repeating
now.
This
is
the
tower.
B
B
Can
I
have
the
next
one
please.
This
is
just
showing
you
the
tower
again
and
the
flat
roof
that
will
have
the
extension
above
it
the
next
one.
Please,
and
that's
just
showing
you
a
closer
version
of
it.
These
will
all
be
blocked
up.
This
will
all
be
clad
in
the
mirror.
Cladding
that
we're
going
to
show
you
in
a
minute
this
doesn't
form
part
of
the
application
site,
so
the
boundary
for
the
application
is
here
the
next
one.
B
Please
we
move
around
to
the
rear
of
the
building
that
well,
it's
not
the
rear
that
it's
the
side
of
the
building,
but
it
has
some
very
important
architectural
features
on
it,
except
for
this,
potentially
this
1960s
extension.
That's
there
at
the
moment.
You
can
look
on
the
tower
when
you
see
with
the
extension
that's
going
to
go
on.
It
goes
on
here,
so
it's
no
higher
than
the
heaves
and
it's
not
covering
up
any
windows
or
features
on
the
actual
tower
itself.
B
B
So
all
this
area
here
will
be
dug
out.
There
will
be.
This
will
be
the
retaining
wall
there
and
it
will
have
railings,
above
all,
that
land
beyond
is
outside
of
the
application
site
and
then
the
next
one,
please
that's
just
showing
you
that
the
other
side
of
the
area
of
what
will
be
dug
out
to
form
the
basement
flat.
This
area
here
that
will
all
be
dug
out,
will
become
the
private
immunity
space
for
that
basement
flat
only
so
they
will
have
a
courtyard
here
to
the
front.
With
this
retaining
wall
and
railings.
B
Can
I
have
the
next
one
please
and
that's
again,
just
showing
you
that
this
the
retaining
wall
will
be
here,
and
this
area
belongs
to
the
park
the
next
one
please.
This
is
the
existing
site
plan.
So,
as
I've
said
to
you
previously,
you
can
see
that
the
red
edge
is
quite
tight
on
the
site.
So
this
is
the
where
the
retaining
wall
will
go.
The
dig
out
will
be
here,
that's
the
flat
roof
extension.
B
That's
currently
exists
in
the
parking
to
the
front,
the
next
one
please-
and
this
is
showing
you
the
proposed
site
plan,
which
is
probably
what
I've
just
described
on
the
previous
one,
but
in
more
detail
the
parking
to
the
front
which
meets
the
spd
on
parking.
You've
got
the
community
space
to
the
side
here
with
the
bin
store,
the
private
garden
for
that
basement
flat.
I've
talked
about
and
then
the
flat
roof
extension
that
exists
now
the
next
time.
Please
I'll
quickly
go
through
these
elevations,
but
this
is
the
elevation.
B
That's
on
the
western
side,
which
is
showing
you
the
the
flat
roof
there
and
the
the
tower.
I
won't
linger
on
that,
because
you've
seen
the
photos
come
next
one
please
and
that's
showing
you
the
other
side
of
it
as
it
exists
at
the
moment,
with
the
tower
here
and
the
flat
roof,
but
they're
very,
very
detailed,
these
drawings.
So
I
think
we'll
the
images
show
you
a
better
idea
of.
What's
going
to
happen.
I
have
the
next
one.
B
This
is
showing
you
the
proposed
elevations.
On
the
other
side,
there's
very
little
changes
on
there.
You
can
see
that
that
horrible
porch
has
been
removed
next
one
please,
and
that
should
not
come
out
very
well,
but
that's
what
the
front
elevation
will
look
like
with
the
new
window
and
door
being
the
only
change
in
the
removal
of
the
ramp
next
one
please.
B
I
wanted
to
show
to
explain
to
you
the
floor
plans
really
to
explain
the
need
for
the
extension
on
the
the
existing
flat
roof
so
flat
one.
This
is
the
tower
here
that
I've
talked
about
and
flat
one
gains
entrance
through
this
tower.
They
have
two
bedrooms
in
the
basement,
but
they
have
their
main
living
area
in
that
existing
flat
roof.
That
happens
at
the
moment.
B
B
Is
that
one?
Yes,
when
I
came
to
do
the
presentation,
I
thought
it
was
important,
even
though
it
hadn't
been
included
in
your
packages
to
to
just
talk
you
through
this
as
to
to
why
the
extension
is
needed
really
on
that
flat.
One
part
of
the
scheme
which
is
in
this
area
here,
so
this
will
be
their
living
accommodation.
B
B
If
we
didn't
have
the
extension
there,
it
would
leave
one
a
small
flat
and,
secondly,
it
would
leave
the
tower
not
being
used,
and
you
know
it
would
then
become
a
maintenance
who
will
be
have
control
of
it,
who
who
would
look
after
it?
So
it's
an
important.
B
I
thought
the
floor
plans
just
gave
you
the
picture
really
as
to
to
why
the
the
extension
has
come
about.
I'm
gonna
have
the
the
next
slide.
Please.
B
B
I've
gone
through
the
floor
plans
with
you,
so
this
shows
the
extension
now.
This
is
the
existing
flat
roof
extension
that
you've
seen
before
this
is
the
proposed
extension
on
top
of
it.
It
will
be
you
there
will
be
mirrored
materials
on
there,
which
will
constantly
change
due
to
the
the
sky,
color
the
clouds,
and
it
will
show
the
vegetation
it's
hard
to
depict
exactly
what
will
be
in
those
mirrors
when
you
see
it,
but
that
just
gives
you
a
representation
of
of
where
it
goes
on
the
building.
B
You
can
also
see
here
the
railings
that
will
go
on
the
the
development
to
the
front.
Can
I
have
the
next
one
please?
These
are
just
showing
you
again,
the
actual
extension.
If
you
look
in
in
its
setting,
it
is
set
back
and
it
will
be
curved
round,
so
it
doesn't
actually
come
any
further
forward
than
this
principal
elevation
there
at
the
moment.
In
fact,
quite
a
bit
of
it
it's
set
back.
Can
I
have
the
next
one?
B
B
The
next
one,
please
that's
showing
that
you're
from
the
park
area,
so
you
can
see
again
that
it
doesn't
actually
cover
up
any
of
the
features
that
are
on
the
existing
building
the
next
one.
Please
and
that's
showing
you
it
from
the
side
path.
At
the
side,
you
can
see
again
where
it
fits
in
with
the
the
existing
building.
I've
got
a
few
more
images
that
show
you
where
this
has
been
used
in
other
places.
So
can
I
have
the
the
next?
B
Oh,
that's
just
showing
you
how
it
is
at
the
moment
and
how
it
will
be
constructed.
So
you
can
sorry.
Can
I
have
slide
thirty
one
yeah,
so
you
can
see
it
only
comes
slightly
forward
with
the
existing.
The
majority
of
it
will
curve
back
and
it
does
have
a
nice
balcony
area
for
the
occupiers
of
number
one,
and
you
can
also
see
on
this
the
steps
going
down
and
that
area
to
the
front
courtyard
for
the
basement,
the
next
one.
Please
that's
just
another.
B
If
you
offer
the
extension
in
its
setting,
this
is
just
showing
you
what
can
happen
when
you
have
a
building
with
mirrors
on
it
and
what
it
reflects
it
just
reflects.
What's
what's
around
it,
the
next
one
again
just
gives
you
an
idea
of
what
a
mirrored
building
with
a
window
in
it
would
would
look
like
the
next
one,
I
think
is
a
repeat
so
just
ignore
that
one,
and
then
this
last
slide
this
one's
in
york.
B
B
I'll,
just
briefly
go
on
to
the
main
issues,
I
mean
we
consider
that
the
principle
is
acceptable
and
it
will
address
ongoing
maintenance
issues
and
contribute
to
the
viability
and
the
viability
of
the
area
in
terms
of
the
listed
building.
There
will
be
changes
to
the
building
which
I've
already
explained.
B
There
will
be
the
evacuation
to
to
allow
the
creation
of
the
basement
flat
with
its
own
entrance
and
full
height
windows
and
a
small
cardio
garden.
These
works
will
generally
be
screened
by
the
existing
terrace
wall,
which
will
have
railings
attached.
B
B
The
pros
designs
as
officers
and
materials
do
not
harm
the
existing
building
and
the
design
provides
a
modern,
architectural
response
to
the
special
character
of
the
listed
building,
and
it
also
helps
to
preserve
the
conservation
area
in
terms
of
residential
immunity.
All
the
apartments
comply
with
policy
h9
of
the
core
strategy
in
terms
of
their
overall
size.
B
In
terms
of
parking,
there
will
be
16
car
parking
spaces
all
served
with
electrical
charging
points,
plus
a
cycle
store
for
one
cycle
per
flat
council
of
woodsworth
comments
earlier
commented
that
the
current,
in
terms
of
him
wanting
a
ttp.
B
Tro
on
new
roadside,
what
we
would
say
to
that
is
that
the
current
use
is
offices
which
generates
more
need
for
parking
than
the
proposed
residential
use
and
the
car
parking
provided
does
comply
with
the
parking
spd.
B
Further,
the
current
parking
restrictions
directly
outside
the
site,
as
we
saw
today,
are
eight
a.m,
to
six
p.m,
monday
to
saturday
and
parking
allowed
in
the
evenings
and
the
saturday
and
the
actual
restriction.
When
we
looked
at
the
signs,
there
said
that
they
could
actually
people
could
actually
park
there
for
up
to
four
hours
during
that
time
period
anyway.
B
Finally,
the
planning
balance,
whilst
we've
received
objections
from
lead,
civic
trust,
road
and
parish,
council,
urban,
civic
society,
the
victory,
victorian
society,
among
other
their
objections,
have
principally
concentrated
on
the
extension
and
the
myriad
finish
to
this
and
the
project
projection
below
heritage.
England
have
chosen
not
to
comment
on
the
scheme
and
have
referred
it
to
our
own
offices
for
comment
as
officers.
We
need
to
focus
on
the
whole
package
and
all
of
the
material
considerations.
B
B
The
extension
is
required
to
ensure
that
the
tower
has
a
viable
use
and
is
maintained
as
part
of
one
of
the
flats
and
not
left
with
any
ownership
or
maintenance
issues.
The
mirror
of
material
is
an
architectural
feature
which
contrasts
with
the
main
building
and
will
form
a
new
chapter
in
the
building's
history
offices
recommend
approval.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
carol.
We
have
richard
taylor
and
clive
wood
who
in
attendance
and
willing
to
speak
against
the
application.
Could
I
ask
you
both
to
have
a
seat.
A
A
L
Can
you
hear
me
all
right?
My
name
is
clive
woods,
chair
of
airbrush
civic
society.
There
is
no
support
and
over
65
objections
from
local
people
to
this
extension
from
the
civic
trust.
The
council's
heritage
champion
vic
sock,
the
parish
council
and
our
civic
society.
Can
they
all
be
wrong?
Has
the
applicant
read?
The
comments
is
certainly
not
acted
on
them
over
two
years
on
four
occasions.
The
new
images
keeps
two
stories.
The
solution
is
to
have
seven
flats,
not
eight.
Of
course.
The
applicant
says
that
many
historic
buildings
have
such
a
dick
additions.
L
We've
seen
an
example
just
now,
but
that
actually
was
a
new
building
which
fine
not
on
a
listed
building,
though,
in
march
the
plans
panel,
it
was
said
that
a
meeting
of
the
developer
planning
officers
parish
council
ourselves
could
resolve
this.
Our
councillor
tried
to
arrange
one,
but
it
was
refused.
L
M
My
name
is
richard
taylor
and
I
became
involved
in
this,
as
I
did
with
the
abra
neighborhood
development
forum,
preserving
the
green
belt,
because
what
was
then
being
proposed
was
wrong
for
our
community.
I'm
a
volunteer
of
the
adjacent
road
library.
I've
tried
to
put
myself
in
your
shoes.
It
must
be
nearly
impossible
to
completely
blank
out
your
desire
to
dispose
of
this
building
at
an
attractive
price
without
further
delay.
M
M
It's
claimed
the
project
is
unviable
without
the
first
floor
extension
no
evidence
is
presented
was
also
claimed
and
viable.
Last
march,
there
are
two
possibilities
for
the
headline
in
the
local
paper
and
media.
Firstly,
plans
panel
preserve
the
unique
mickelfield
house
by
supporting
the
unanimous
views
of
the
community,
an
independent
conservation
consultant.
M
The
applicant
has
been
encouraged
to
resubmit
should
he
wish
without
the
first
floor
extension.
The
community
wishes
to
thank
the
panel
or
plant's
panel
council
has
approved
the
application
to
ruin
the
listed
mickelfield
house
by
agreeing
to
the
addition
of
an
obtrusive
glass
extension
to
this
unique
building.
M
A
Thank
you
both
are
there
any.
E
Can
I
just
get
clear
in
my
mind,
are
you
saying
the
community
do
not
support
the
principle
of
conversion
to
residential
or
simply
they
don't,
particularly
like
the.
M
L
We
accept
that
is
a
good
use
of
of
the
building
is
just
the
extension
that
is
unacceptable.
That
extra
story
just
makes
it
unacceptable.
Hence
I
think
seven
flats,
rather
than
eight,
is
the
solution,
but
then
we'd
be
fully
supported.
We
obviously
it's
a
key
building
in
the
area
and
we
want
it
back
in
use
and
we
want,
I
mean
empty
buildings-
are
really
bad
news.
Aren't
we.
I
Councillor
collins,
thank
you
chair.
The
planning
office
has
been
referring
to
the
building
referencing
front
and
back,
but
where
the
white
porch
is
at
the
moment
opposite
the
library,
I
believe,
that's
been
used
as
the
front
of
the
building
for
a
long
time.
I
Do
you
know
how
long
it's
been
since
the
the
building
has
been
reversed
in
that
way,
because
I
think
it's
it's
a
little
bit
unfair
to
say
the
front
of
the
building
when
really
what
the
planning
offices
is
recalling
the
front
is
the
part
that's
away
from
the
public
that
isn't
seen
by
general
people
generally
using
the
library
and
going
to
the
park.
L
It's
a
bit
confusing,
isn't
it
I
mean
where
you,
the
car
parking
is,
is:
was
the
old
front
entrance,
presumably
carriages
pulled
in
there
in
victorian
times,
but
then
in
front
of
it?
Of
course,
the
house
is
raised
up
on
a
terrace
overlooking
what
were
their
gardens
round.
The
back
was
a
one-stop
shop
entrance,
so
I
think
the
main
entrance
was
always
at
the
front
where
the
car
parking
is,
and
then
I
don't
know
if,
15
years
ago
a
one-stop
shop
was
put
on
the
back,
but
I
assume
that
was
always
the
back.
L
It
depends
if
you
were
going
to
the
when
it
was
council
offices.
A
lot
of
the
departments
were
around
the
other
side,
so
I
mean,
I
think
the
important
thing
is
the
view
from
people.
Now
it's
a
public
park,
lots
of
people
use
it,
and
it's
that
view
from
the
playground
area,
the
tennis
courts
that
play
area.
That
is
so
important
and
I
think
that's
why
so
many
people
find
this
objectionable.
G
Thank
you
chair.
You
mentioned
in
your
presentations
both
of
you
that
you
didn't
think
this
application
met
planning
law,
I'm
just
interested
to
to
know
from
yourselves
which
laws
or
rules
you
think
it
doesn't
need.
L
Well
it
our
consultant,
because
we
felt
we
needed
an
expert
because
of
this
had
gone
on.
For
so
long
said,
it
was
indirect.
It's
harmful
to
enlisted.
Building
enlisted
buildings
should
be
protected,
of
course,
certainly
so
it
I
quote.
The
result
would
be
very
harmful
development
in
direct
conflict
with
both
the
listed
buildings
and
conservation
areas,
act,
1990,
the
nppf
and
lead
city
council's
own
planning
guidance.
So
it's
about
protecting
a
listed
building,
but
you
also
protect
buildings,
of
course,
in
a
conservation
area.
G
Thank
you.
It's
just.
I
was
looking
for
the
specific
area
of
the
law,
because
they're
really
material
facts,
and
I
just
wondered
perhaps
if.
G
Yes,
do
you
know
why
the
developers
refused
to
have
the
meeting
with
you.
L
Well,
councillor
wadsworth
tried
to
arrange
it
and
at
the
the
he
reported
back
to
me
that
had
been
refused.
I
know
no
more.
I
Thank
you
check.
Could
I
also
let
councillors
know
that
the
developers
did
not
get
in
touch
with
rorden
parish
council
either
our
clerk
would
have.
Let
me
know
if
that
was
the
case,
because
I
am
actually
chair
of
the
planning
subcommittee.
I
Excuse
me
the
planning
subcommittee,
so
I
don't
know
what
councillor
wadsworth
asked
them
to
do,
but
they
certainly
didn't
naturally
come
back
to
the
northern
parish
council
either.
A
D
H
Hey
so
just
on
that
point
with
respect
councillor,
watson
isn't
here
to
answer
him
for
himself,
one
way
or
the
other.
As
to
whether
he's
requested
a
meeting
with
the
developers,
we're
told
an
elected
member
has
made
a
request
directly
of
developers.
I
think
we're
entitled
to
trust
that
an
elected
member
has
made
such
requests
to
outbreak
live
developers.
It's
not
a
material
point
in
any
event,
but
I
think
we
ought
to
be
cautious
not
to
cast
dispersions
on
any
elected
member
of
this
council
thanks
jeff.
A
A
I
Chair
and
I
just
thought,
could
I
also
ask
the
objectives:
is
it
the
materials
you
don't
like?
I
mean
if
the
applicant
was
to
go
away
and
come
back
with
a
two-story
design
that
was
in
stone
more
in
keeping
with
the
current
buildings.
Would
that
be
acceptable?
Would
that
be
better
because
looking
at
the
the
drawings
of
the
building
as
it
exists
at
the
moment,
it
doesn't
look
to
my
untrained
eye
that
it
was
all
built
as
that
in
one
go.
I
They
do
look
to
be
other
bits
and
pieces
added
on,
but
they're
less
intrusive
to
the
eye,
because
they're
actually
in
in
natural
materials.
What
would
would
your
opinion
be
if,
if
the
applicant
changed
the
materials
rather
than
the
mirrored
glass,
if
he
had
something
else,.
A
M
M
M
So
in
fact
what
the
community
wants
is
basically
the
floor
plan
as
it
is
now
which
is
a
ground
floor
only
if
it
came
up
with
a
design
which
happened
to
be
have
some
glass
in
it.
I
can't
I
can't
speak
as
to
whether
the
community
would
like
that,
but
it's
the
extra
flaw
which
doesn't
currently
exist
and
never
has
existed,
which
is
actually
what
got
most
people
upset.
L
There's
a
particular
problem,
a
particular
problem
here
and
you
can
see
from
the
photograph
in
front
of
you
that
flat
roofed
extension
is
in
front
of
the
building
line.
Now,
if
it
was
behind
the
main
house,
then
it
would
be
much
less
obvious,
but
it's
right
in
front
and
from
the
majority
of
the
park,
then
it
really
stands
out,
which
is
why
a
second
floor
is
particularly
objectionable.
L
There
was
a
victorian
conservatory
there
in
front,
and
that
is
a
very
light.
Looking
building
and
fitted
perfectly,
and
you
may
have
seen
photographs
of
it,
but
and
well.
You
can
see
there.
The
single
story
extension
looks
actually
quite
dominating,
but
that's
1960s
and
the
1960s.
No
one
liked
victorian
buildings,
but
another
similar
size
on
top.
M
I'll
just
I'll
just
add
one
more
thing,
because
obviously
you've
got
a
limited
amount
of
time,
whilst
the
tower
which
you
can
see
on
that
picture
is
not
to
everybody's
taste.
It
is
part
of
the
building
and
that
will
be
obscured
by
another
floor
simple.
As
that.
A
I'll
take
one
more
question:
counselor
at
milton
yeah.
My
question
to
you:
I'd
like
some
clarification,
because
you're
saying
where
the
pvc
porch
is
the
front
of
the
building.
A
The
this
is
the
back
of
the
building
okay,
so
the
the
car
park
to
the
to
the
park
is
the
front
of
the
building
right.
Okay,
so
so
your
objection
then,
is
to
the
extension
to
the
first
floor.
So
you
have
no
objection,
then,
to
the
basement.
L
That
could
be
kept,
I
mean
it's,
not
brilliant,
but
it
could
be
kept
it
because
it's
lower
down
and
therefore,
though
it
is
a
bit
dominant,
it
isn't
in
the
same
way
that
adding
a
floor
would
make
it.
A
So
you're
saying
that
that
ext
of
the
extension
is
the
front
of
the
building,
but
to
us
it's
only
at
the
rear,
the
side
it's
at
the
side
as
far
as
where
cons
can
see
but
you're
saying
it's
the
front,
because
at
this
moment
in
time
when
I
went
and
visit
this
morning
it
out,
it
was
introduced
to
me
and
then,
when
I
walk
down
to
the
play
area,
it's
the
side
of
the
building,
you're
saying
it's
the
front
of
the
building.
So.
G
M
The
confusion
arises
because
of
the
change
of
the
use,
as
councillor
collins
has
actually
said,
the
change
of
the
use.
There
was
a
the
original
traditional
front
and
then
the
entrance
to
the
one-stop
shop
which
the
shot
was
up
here,
actually
became
used
by
people
as
the
front
and
and
and
you
walk
down
it
towards
the
library
library
on
one
side.
Building
on
the
left
and
it's
that
extension
there,
which
dominates,
which
is
the
one
which
people
are
objecting
to.
D
D
However,
carol
was
very
careful
in
her
presentation
to
mention
that
in
princeton,
principally,
the
objections
were
to
do
with
the
first
floor.
Extensions
actually
looking
through
the
objections
that
I've
got
in
front
of
me
here,
even
from
the
aviator
civic
society
which
they're
representing
they
have
concerns
about
the
existing
extension
to
be
removed
as
well.
D
So
we
just
have
to
be
a
little
bit
careful
with
this,
because,
regardless
of
what
might
be
said
by
the
two
gentlemen
here,
there
are
other
objections
that
relate
to
things
like
the
car
park
going
onto
the
grassed
area
as
well.
So
whatever
he
said
here,
wouldn't
necessarily
remove
all
of
the
objections
to
this.
It
reduced
removes
the
main
one,
but
not
all
of
them.
I
just
want
to
be
absolutely
clear
on
that.
A
N
Hello
hi
there,
my
name
is
nicholas
gallagher,
I'm
uniquely
the
applicant,
the
project
designer
and
the
developer,
all
in
one.
I'm
here,
I'm
here
today
to
explain
why
I
passionately
feel
the
scheme
before
you
should
be
approved
when
I
first
put
pen
to
paper
and
did
the
design,
I
did
it
to
deliver
a
high
quality
scheme
that
sets
the
bar
far
higher
than
other
developments
in
terms
of
the
retention
and
restoration
of
the
full
building,
and
not
just
bits
in
it
that
the
public
see.
N
N
This
way
of
approaching
this
project
project
generates
far
higher
levels
of
retention
and
restoration
across
the
full
building
in
the
res
in
the
in
the
focus
in
recent
months
has
been
on
the
extension
to
the
rear.
Having
read
the
objections,
these
mainly
come
down
to
personal
views
on
design
tests.
What
is
it
architecturally
exciting
to
one
person?
May
not
be
to
another
and
vice
versa,
the
principles
of
the
concept
fundamental
to
its
overall
success.
Whether
person
likes
it
or
not.
N
N
The
benefits
of
the
first
floor
extension
are
linked
to
the
original
principles
of
this
design.
To
restore
this
building
throughout
to
a
high
level,
and
not
just
the
parts
of
it
that
the
public
see.
It
would
be
incredibly
sad
to
cut
back
the
level
of
restoration,
because
potentially
a
unit
has
been
wiped
from
the
scheme.
N
Conservation
is
is
where
we
as
a
society.
Accept
changes
are
needed
unnecessary,
but
not
necessarily
our
own
personal
taste,
but
the
benefits
in
granting
permission
here
today
extend
far
beyond
the
small
extension
to
benefit
the
whole
of
the
building
being
the
developer,
and
the
designer
gave
me
a
unique
perspective.
From
the
first
day
I
sat
down
and
sketched
my
ideas.
My
combined
experience
allowed
me
to
design
a
scheme
which
works
to
deliver
the
high
quality
highly
restored,
building
that
no
other
scheme
can
deliver,
because
we
have
reached
the
edge
of
optimum
layout
versus
commercial
viability.
N
The
alternative
is
to
use
modern
materials
and
the
way
we've
put
forward
here
today,
I
personally
haven't
designed
the
extension
feel
passionate
about
the
use
of
mirror
mirror
is
a
material
that
changes
in
different
light
at
different
times
of
the
year.
It's
also
very
sculptural
and
artistic
and
an
artistic
material
people
look
at
architecturally
mirrored
objects
throughout
their
lives
and
interpret
the
visual
curiosity
differently.
It
creates
intrigue.
It
also
creates
debate
and
conversation,
and
that's
one
of
the
great
fascinating
things
that
mirrored
buildings
do.
N
I've
seen
a
facebook
campaign
in
the
wrong
group
to
drum
up
objections
to
extension.
But
having
read
all
the
comments,
there
are
113
positive,
likes
and
comments
in
support
of
the
extension
against
only
29
negative
likes
and
comments
in
the
democratic
world
we
live
in.
I
feel
this
is
important
to
mention
to
the
committee
when
balancing
the
decision
here
today.
I
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
H
Thanks,
that's
just
a
really
simple
question:
what's
the
maintenance
arrangements
to
make
sure
that
this
mirror
stays
looking
good
clumsily.
N
Phrased,
sorry,
I
mean
overall
what
we
do
on
a
development
like
this.
Is
everybody
pays
a
small
amount
every
month
into
a
pot
and
and
then
what
we
do
is
we
have
a
management
team
that
that'll
look
after
the
building,
so
any
things
that
any
issues
that
come
up
with
anything
the
proportion
works
to
be
to
be
done
to
it,
to
keep
it
up
to
a
standard.
I
Thank
you
chair.
Some
people
have
shown
or
stated
that
they're
concerned
about
the
children's
playground,
so
so
how
much
of
the
mirror
is
actually
mirrored
window
and
how
much
of
it
is
just
a
cladding?
That's
my
first
question
and
I'm
just
curious:
do
you
know
what
the
tower
was
originally
used
for
then,
if
you're
saying
it's,
it's
not
needed
from
the
the
rest
of
the
building.
N
Yeah,
yes,
I
think
it's
right.
It
was
a
watchtower,
it
was
somewhere.
I
could
just
go
up
and
sit
in
a
little
area
and
and
I'll
have
a
look
across
the
rolling
hills.
I
thought
probably
a
status
of
wealth
and
grandeur
at
the
time.
Why
not
have
one
and
in
in
answer
to
your
other
question,
only
the
windows
that
are
on
there
as
you
look
at
it
now
will
be
windows,
there's
no
additional
windows.
N
So
it's
not
like
the
whole
thing
is
translucent.
It's
just
the
areas
which
are
windows
now
stay
as
windows.
N
On
the
first
floor,
there
is,
there
are
two
windows
on
the
side
on
one
of
the
drawings
but
they're
narrow,
and
they
will
be
obscured
and
on
the
front
there
is
just
a
double
door
set
again
obscured,
so
it
doesn't.
On
the
first
floor,
it
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
windows,
it's
more
snippets
of
lights,.
J
J
N
Yes,
the
mirror
is
not
the
cheap
option.
I
originally
when
I
sat
down
and
did
the
original
design
for
this
wanted
to
use,
mirror
right
from
the
beginning.
It's
my
company.
It's
me
I
passionately
pick
mirror
because
I
believe
it
works.
It's
not
the
cheap
option
and
extending
it
all
the
way
down
to
the
bottom.
It
isn't
it
would
be
much
easier
and
cheaper
to
flatten
it,
build
it
out
of
stone
and
back
up
a
fraction
of
the
cost.
N
Probably
it's
it's
either
way
it's
expensive,
but
it's
not
the
cheaper
option
and
it's
and
it
comes
with
complications
to
get
it
perfectly
right
that
you
don't
see-
and
it
mirror
is
one
of
those
things
where,
when
it's
applied
to
the
building,
you
apply
it
in
such
a
way
where
all
the
detail
that
holds
it
is
all
hidden
behind
and
that
hiding
of
it
is
the
thing
that
costs
the
money.
It's
it's
thou.
It's
thousands!
It's
it's
into
thousands
to
do
that
right,
certainly
in
excess
of
into
the
tens.
F
So,
just
to
pick
up
on
council
anderson's
question
so,
and
it
just
goes
to
we'll
call
it
to
follow
the
tower
that
sense.
You
say
no,
the
material
itself
is
probably
more
expensive.
F
Are
we
saying
that
it's
substantially
it's
cheaper
than
actually
having
to
maintain
the
tower
separately
in
all
the
complications,
because
that's
obviously
one
of
the
arguments
that's
been
put
forward
to
us
that
actually,
including
that
tower,
is
an
important
element
because
of
the
complications
around
cost
and
ownership
of
maintenance.
So
are
you
saying
to
us?
Yes,
the
material
is
what
it
is,
but
actually
it's
still
overall
cheaper
than
having
that
being
dealt
with
separately.
N
That
that's
correct,
essentially,
if
you
don't
put
something
on
the
roof
and
do
something
with
that.
Staircase
you've
got
this
humongous
staircase.
That
goes
up
and
it's
what
you
do
with
it.
How
much
you
you
put
in
you're,
going
to
think
about
putting
money
into
something
where
you're
not
going
to
get
it
back
and
and
there's
two
elements.
The
second
element
is
sustainability
is
best
achieved
through
use
and
it's
just
not
good
practice.
N
J
N
The
short
answer
is
no.
We
haven't
in
terms
of
of
obviously
using
the
mirrored
material.
The
way
it's
attached
to
the
building
brings
opportunities
to
that
existing
building
to
insulate
it
at
the
same
time.
So
there
is
a
benefit
there.
Definitely,
if
you
just
keep
that
building
as
it
is,
it's
more
problematic,
you
still
have.
You
still
inevitably
end
up
doing
something
to
the
outside,
but
in
terms
of
reducing
carbon
from
using
less
heating
to
heat
it.
N
I
The
objectives
mentioned
that
if
you
just
took
that
current
extension
off
and
reduce
the
number
of
flats,
it
might
make
it
less
viable
but
would
be
better
for
the
building.
I'm
not
commenting
on
that,
but
I'm
just
curious.
I
mean
it
does
sound
like
you
are
putting
back
some
features
that
have
been
lost.
So
I'd
just
like
you
to
take
the
opportunity
to
tell
us,
you
know
what
what
are
you
doing
to
restore
this
building?
I
I
mean
what
what
are
the
benefits
of
the
community
regarding
this
building
as
a
subsequent
as
the
consequence
of
having
this
extension,
it's
just
giving
you
the
opportunity
to
show
that
you're
you're
committed.
N
I
think
that's
a
really
important
question
actually
because
some
of
the
benefits
of
this
the
level
that
we've
gone
to
are,
for
instance,
those
two
ornate
windows
that
are
there
they're
in
bad
condition,
and
the
word
that's
been
talked
about
in
terms
of
them-
has
been
restoration
and
restore.
Now
them
windows
are
made
from
acid
edged
glass
using
specialist
pigments
that
are
made
from
stuff
like
arsenic
and
things
like
that,
which
you
can't
use
anymore.
N
There
is
only
a
handful
of
people
that
are
in
the
country
that
can
put
the
colours
back
on
glass
and
and
put
it
back
together
that
that's
extremely
expensive
into
the
tens
of
thousands
to
fix
the
windows
alone
on
just
those,
and
that
is
something
that
I've
agreed
with
planning
offices
that
we
will
be
undertaking.
N
It's
not
a
small
item
and
other
things.
In
there
I
I've
we've
gone
round
and
looked
at
every
fireplace
with
planning
officers,
all
the
fireplaces
that
are
in
there.
Just
a
little
touch
will
be
restored,
kept
that
there
is
a
mountain
of
little
bits
and
pieces
right
down
to
radiator
grills
that
were
made
to
go
around
the
pelmets.
N
All
of
those
are
to
be
retained,
taken
out,
sandblasted,
re-sprayed
and
fitted
back
in,
so
that
the
that
they're
all
in
keeping
down
to
doors
skirting
boards,
you
name
it
the
original
two
doors
which
are
not
on
the
you
can't
see
them
in
a
minute
they're
not
on
the
inside
they're,
actually
in
storage
in
the
basement,
they're
to
be
restored
and
to
go
back,
there's
a
list
of
and
including
the
windows.
N
The
windows
that
are
in
there
at
the
moment
are
windows
that
we're
probably
putting
in
in
that
the
80s
and
90s
the
single
casement
windows,
they're,
not
the
original
windows
and
the
plan
is
to
replace
them
with
the
original
small
section
windows
as
per
the
original
design.
But
there
is
about
60
or
70
windows
in
there
all
have
to
be
handmade
and
go
back.
In
again,
we
haven't
skimped
on
the
the
obligations
that
we
said
that
we'd
undertake.
If
we
did
this
project,
but
those
things
come
at
a
cost.
N
As
I
said
it's
my
passion
is
this
and
I
don't
want
to
do
something:
that's
less
less
than
the
full
thing
and
say
right.
Well,
we
can
lose
a
unit
over
there,
but
we'll
have
to
cut
back
on
our
list
because
I
think
I
think
it's
better
to
have
the
full
package
to
to
repair
and
restart
everything.
That's
possible
and,
yes,
there's
a
small
extension
on
the
back
and
it'll
always
be
interpreted.
How
people
look
at
it,
but
that's
the
great
thing
about
architecture.
N
A
E
Know
I've
got
two
points
through
your
chair
on
paragraph
20.
The
last
statement
says
the
removal
of
the
existing
ramps
into
the
building
is
not
acceptable.
E
Officer,
could
you
comment
on
that
objection?
The
second
point
is
going
back
to
the
offer
of
a
meeting.
Did
you
have
an
offer
of
a
request
for
a
meeting
and
was
there
a
reason
why
it
didn't
happen.
N
In
terms
of
the
access
ramp,
we're
limited
on
how
how
far
we
can
go
with
the
car
park,
there
is
a
red
line
that
was
defined
before
my
involvement
in
the
project
when
it
went
to
public
consultation,
I
believe
through
where
they
decide
that
the
line
was
going
to
be
on
the
the
title
once
it's
sold,
and
that
therefore
means
that
you
can
only
put
the
cars
up
to
a
point
and
work
it
backwards,
it's
fixed.
So
that
means
that
the
ramp
that
was
well
well.
N
What
is
there
is
essentially
it's
in
the
way,
because
you
would
have
to
extend
further
into
the
car
park
or
the
the
other
side
is
that
you
go
further.
That
way
or
people
put
the
cars
into
the
public
car
pack
and
that
that
has
more
side
effects
than
there
than
restoring
the
front
to
its
original
view.
When
it
didn't
have
the
ramp,
and
we
believe
actually
believe
that
the
original
steps
stone
steps
are
underneath
the
ramp
at
the
front.
It
is
probably
being
built
around
and
then
concreted
in.
N
I'm
sorry
and
on
your
second
point,
I've
never
been
contacted
by
anybody
to
have
a
meeting
ever.
A
N
A
We'll
now
move
to
questions
to
the
offices,
so
could
we
ask
the
highways
officers
and
other
officers
to
just
move
across
to
the
table.
K
I
think
earlier,
when
the
speakers
were
making
their
submissions.
There
was
a
question
by
councillor
burke
about
the
planning
laws
and
why
they
considered
it
breached.
Obviously
they
have
submitted
their
own
evidence
through
a
particular
company
in
terms
of
their
analysis
under
the
heritage
merits
for
this
application.
K
But
the
report,
that's
before
you
sets
out
the
legislative
framework
it's
set
out
in
paragraph
52
and
53.,
section
62
of
the
list
of
building
and
conservation
areas.
Act
1990
sets
out
that
duty
and
that
duty
is
having
regard
to
the
list
of
building
and
it's
important
and
having
special
regards.
So
you
as
a
decision
maker,
must
have
special
regard
as
to
whether,
when
you,
when
you
grant
planning
permission
that
it
and
it
affects
it,
it's
building.
K
It's
it's
structural
and
it's
setting
that
you
have
special
regards
to
the
desirability
of
preserving
that
building
and
or
its
setting
and
the
features
that
it
retains
and
has
that
are
of
special
architectural
and
historic
interest.
Now
that's
set
out
for
the
list
of
building,
but
then
also
equally
to
that
is
the
g200
section
72
in
relation
to
conservation
areas
as
well,
and
that
test
is
slightly
different.
It's
about
special
attention
to
preserving
and
enhancing
the
character
and
appearance
of
that
area.
K
I
mean
it
is
a
high
bar
by
no
means
you
are
aware
that
this
is
a
high
bar
and
it's
highly
important
that
you
in
your
considerations,
consider
that
as
to
whether
this
development
meets
this
legal
test
and
you've
had
special
regard
and
special
attention
to
that,
and
in
addition
to
that,
the
national
planning
framework
chapter
16
deals
with
all
of
these
aspects
of
heritage,
and
that's
also
included
in
your
report
so
I'll
hand
over
to
my
colleague
phil.
Who
can
further
develop
that
point
from
an
expert
officer
position.
C
Yes,
thank
you.
I
think
the
only
thing
I
would
add
there
is
that
case
law
has
established
that
the
mean
of
the
word
preserve,
which
was
used
several
times,
is
equal
to
or
means
cause
no
harm.
C
So
if
the
development
is
thought
to
cause
no
harm,
it
preserves
the
special
interest
of
this
building,
the
special
interest
being
that
the
elements
of
significance
and
therefore
passes
the
test.
If
you
like,
under
the
provisions
of
the
planning,
mr
buildings
and
conservation
areas,
act.
D
Actually
what
was
suggested
that
we
had
contravened
the
law-
that's
not
the
case,
because
this
is
a
matter
of
interpretation
and
opinion
as
to
how
you
interpret
the
legislation.
That's
what
nick
is
saying
in
a
nutshell.
So
that's
in
front
of
you.
So
as
council
officers,
we
have
interpreted
it
and
that's
what's
presented
to
you
in
the
report
urban
glo,
who
of
course
were
appointed
by
arab
civic
society
of
a
different
country
view.
D
The
key
thing
I
would
make
to
you
now
is
that
actually
urban
view
in
their
own
documentation
of
concentrated
on
the
first
floor
extension
what
the
offices
are
bringing
to.
You
is
actually
all
the
material
considerations
in
terms
of
our
interpretation
and
opinion
of
what
is
the
the
law
and,
as
phil
has
just
said,
there
is
case
law
two
to
back
that.
C
May
I
just
say
one
more
thing:
yes,
national
planning
policy
framework
says
that
if
it's
considered
that
there
is
harm,
we
need
to
balance
that
against
securing
the
skewing
public
benefits,
including
the
optimum
viable
use
for
the
building.
So
if,
if
the
use
is
thoughts
of
the
optimum
viable
use,
residential
use
and
this
development
secures
that
use,
that
needs
to
be
balanced
against
any
harm
caused
to
the
rest
of
the
building.
E
Can
I
just
ask
three
questions?
I
suppose,
which
you'd
be
pleased
to
know
a
lot
about
the
extension
one
is
relates
to
security.
Now
the
drawing
shows
that
to
the
rear
of
the
building
there,
there
appears
to
be
security,
features
I.e.
Offense
negate
the
front
of
the
building.
E
E
What
normally
as
that's
effectively
contributes
contrary
to
policy.
Have
we
asked
or
are
we
asking
for
some
compensatory
immunity,
space
or
contribution
to
effectively
overcome
that
shortfall?
B
Okay
in
terms
of
security
and
fencing,
I
think
we've
got
a
condition
on
the
actual
scheme
condition
number
eight,
which
is
asking
for
details
of
boundary
treatment.
I
think
I
think
in
in
relation
to
the
scheme
we've
concentrated
on
getting
the
listed
building
right,
getting
the
works
to
the
inside
and
the
outside
of
the
listed
building
right,
including
the
extension
and
matters
such
as
the
boundary
treatments
for
security.
B
I
suppose
have
been
put
a
bit
on
the
back
burner,
so
it
would
be
something
that,
although
suzy's
putting
her
hand
up
so
she
might
be
able
to
tell
me
something
a
little
bit
more
about
that.
I
was
just
going
to
say
that.
B
There
that's
going
to
have
a
painted
metal
metal
railing
around
it.
I
think
the
the
part
of
the
reason
for
the
condition
is
is
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure,
because
some
areas
of
timber
were
proposed
at
the
rear
that
were
quite
high,
whether
that
was
the
most
appropriate
solution
for
the.
D
Sorry,
just
to
add,
there's
also
railings
above
the
retaining
wall
to
the
lower
section
and
the
flat
that
has
the
immunity
space
that
faces
and
let's
get
the
orientation
right,
which
would
be
called
the
rear.
I
think
not
right
in
the
right
direction.
You
know
what
I
mean,
don't
you
in
the
garden
I
walk
down
today.
There
are
railings
to
those
to
that
flat
where
the
bedrooms
are
that
carl's
going
to
refer
to
so
it
has
got
railings
around
it.
B
You
asked
the
question
about
the
basement
on
site
this.
This
morning
I
had
a
look
at
the
basement
floor
plans.
The
flat
number
one,
which
has
the
extension
will
have
two
bedrooms
in
the
basement,
but
its
main
living
space
is
on
the
ground
floor
and
then
the
bedroom
on
the
first.
B
There
is
one
flat
flat:
eight,
where
all
of
its
rooms
will
go
out
into
that
area
facing
the
retaining
wall,
but
it's
it's
got
its
own
private
courtyard
there,
so
the
rooms
will
look
out
onto
its
own
private
community,
courtyard
space,
giving
it
some
security
and
privacy.
B
Finally,
regarding
green
space,
because
it's
only
eight
dwellings,
there
doesn't
need
to
be
a
green
space
contribution,
so
we're
dealing
with
two
separate
policies.
Really,
the
great
you
have
the
the
the
green
space
policy
where
they
have
to
provide
green
space
depending
on
how
many
properties
it
is,
and
it's
beneath
that
threshold
immunity
space
is
in
neighborhoods
for
living
where
in
neighborhoods
for
living,
we
ask
for
25
of
the
floor
space
to
be
provided
as
immunity
space.
B
You
know:
we've
made
an
assessment
as
officers
that
it
doesn't
meet
that,
but
because
it's
so
close
to
the
park
and
because
we're
trying
to
get
a
viable
scheme
into
a
listed
building
and
bring
the
listed
building
back
into
use-
and
you
know
flat
as
eight
has
a
courtyard
flat
number
one-
has
its
little
balcony
area
on
the
on
the
bedroom
that
we
consider
it
to
be
acceptable
to
not
comply
with
neighbourhoods.
We
live
in.
A
G
Oh
I'm
the
chosen
one,
my
mic's
working
a
question
to
highways,
because
this
is
access
from
the
main
the
main
entrance
saying
and
we
visited
this
morning,
the
actual
car
parking
spaces
that
are
going
to
be
public.
The
entrance
in
there
is
absolutely
diabolical
so
there's
going
to
be
more
more
traffic
coming
into
that
is.
G
Has
there
been
any
discussions
about
developing
what
will
be
the
public
car
parking
spaces
as
opposed
to
the
the
car
parking
spaces
for
the
flats,
because
the
the
the
owners
of
the
flats
are
going
to
have
to
come
in
through
that
way?.
O
My
mic
works
too.
We've
not
looked
at
that
specifically,
but
in
terms
of
traffic
generation,
this
will
generate
less
less
traffic,
significantly
less
traffic
than
than
operating
as
an
office.
You
know
to
put
that
into
some
sort
of
context.
We've
got
16
car
parking
spaces
in
this
development.
O
D
Just
just
to
add
to
that
that,
although
this
this
obviously
is
a
reduction
in
the
numbers
that
I
like
to
be
using
it,
I
think
we
noticed
today,
because
those
numbers
are
less
there's
no
real
need
to
actually
be
widening
or
altering
the
the
access
into
the
into
the
car
park.
That.
G
D
Well,
I'm
just
going
to
say
the
way
the
car
parks
laid
out
at
the
moment
is
that
the
the
vehicles
to
the
public
car
parks
are
laid
out
on
the
periphery.
So
there
would
be
a
clear
way
through
the
middle
to
the
access
to
the
to
the
flats
car
parking
which
will
be
retained
as
it
is,
but
it's
also
outside
the
applicant's
boundary,
because
that
still
would
lie
with
the
city
council.
I
Yes,
I'm
back,
and
I
was
really
pleased
to
hear
from
the
applicant
about
the
features
he
was
actually
going
to
retain
within
the
building.
I
I
hadn't
really
considered
before
just
how
many
things
he
was
going
to
restore
and
put
back
the
listed
building
situation
at
the
moment,
usually
listed
buildings.
Give
you
a
list
of
things
that
are
key
to
to
be
retained.
I
I
just
wondered
whether
that
listed
building
list
or
or
whether
there's
going
to
be
a
review
of
that
after
the
work
has
been
done,
because
I'm
just
thinking
that
if
the
applicant
is
taking
care
to
put
a
fireplace
back
together
or
some
coving
back
in,
if
that's
not
in
the
listed
building
list,
then
it
could
be
that
future
owners
take
it
out
again.
I'm
just
wondering
whether
there
is
an
opportunity
to
to
make
sure
that
all
of
these
features
are
being
restored
are
actually
preserved
for
the
future.
C
Yes,
good
question:
I
think
the
first
thing
to
remember
is
that
this
descriptions
are
there
to
identify
buildings,
not
to
say
what's
important
about
them
yeah,
although
sometimes
they
do
so
suggest
that
these
things
are
a
significance.
They're
not
meant
to
be
an
inventory
of
all
the
features,
a
full
inventory
of
all
the
features.
C
Secondly,
I
made
the
point
that,
of
course,
we're
approving
plans
and
that
will
be
a
record
of
the
building.
So
we'll
know
what
was
there
and
what's
been
added
to
update
the
listing
would
mean
an
application
to
historic
england,
which
would
cost
us
money
unless
the
applicant
wants
to
make
that
application
to
review
the
building
afterwards.
I
Just
come
back
check,
I
did
own
a
pub
that
was
listed
and
it
did
have
a
list
of
things
that
we'd
got
to
retain.
Even
the
mdf
bar
had
to
be
retained.
So
are
you
saying
that's
unusual,
then
that.
C
It's
not
unusual,
but
in
in
law,
this
descriptions
are
there
primarily
to
identify
the
building,
so
we
know
which
which
the
list
of
building
is
and
how
extensive
the
mr
building
is.
They
do
sometimes
indicate
some
faces
of
interest,
but
it's
not
exhaustive.
So
the
fact
that
something
isn't
mentioned
doesn't
doesn't
mean
that
it's
not
listed
or
considered
to
be
part
of
the
list
of
building
identifying.
What
is
significant
is
if
you
like
my
job.
It
keeps
me
in
a
job.
It's
my
discretion.
D
Oh
idea,
I
thought
I'd
been
cut
off
chair
just
just
to
make
it
clear.
I
think
what
phil
was
trying
to
say
towards
the
end
of
what
he
was
saying
that
in
essence
the
features
the
the
drawings
are
detailed
internally.
So,
ultimately,
if
anything
else
starts
to
go
missing
or
a
miss,
it
is
an
enforcement
issue
for
us
to
pursue
by
our
enforcement
team.
J
J
So
what
sort
of
capacity
would
a
park
of
that
size
need
in
terms
of
car
parking
when
you
compare
it
with
other
car
parks
throughout
the
city?
Secondly,
you've:
what
how
many
visitor
spaces
have
you
got
and
if
you've
not
got
visitor
spaces?
J
So
you
know.
Is
that
a
risk?
So
that's
on
the
v.
That's
on
the
highway
side
on
the
material
side
was
there
ever
any
discussions
with
the
developer
about
trying
to
come
up
with
a
different
type
of
material
to
be
used
other
than
the
mirrors
along
the
lines
of
the
question
I
was
asked
about,
you
know:
was
it
going
to
cost
anymore,
where
discussions
taking
place
and
then
the
final
one
is
to
mr
ward,
where
heritage
england
have
said
refer
to
you.
J
What
was
I
mean,
you're,
obviously
not
going
to
know
exactly
what
was
behind
it
from
their
point
of
view.
But
what
is
your
view
because
they've
said
refer
to
you?
Can
you
be
explicit
in
your
views
to
us
not
why
they've
referred
to
you
because
you've
got
no
way
of
knowing
why
they
made
that
comment
in
respect
of
reference
to
you?
But
what
are
your
specific
comments
about
the
heritage
impacts
of
this
development.
O
Thank
you
with
reference
to
the
park
and
the
car
parking
we've
not
done
any
specific
calculations
to
determine
what
it
would
be
for
this
cup
for
this
park
as
it
you
know,
because
it's
existing
and
then
the
the
spaces
that
will
be
allocated
to
the
residential
would
have
been
part
of
the
office
that
was
there
anyway.
O
But
lee
city
council
don't
have
a
specific
parking
standard
for
parks
park.
Car
parking
standards
are
usually
related
to
to
an
element
of
development.
D
Just
help
on
that
little
point
as
well,
because
I'm
not
sure
how
helpful
the
question
is
in
a
way
simply
because,
as
we
said
before,
the
previous
use
would
have
had
more
intensive
use
of
the
car
parks.
I
think
the
key
element
to
remember
here
is
that
the
the
the
conversion
will
reduce
the
demand
upon
the
existing
public
car
park.
D
J
J
We
are
trying
to
get
children
to
use
play
areas
more,
which
will
lead
to
more
chances
of
pedestrian
traffic
and
cars
coming
and
going,
and
also,
if
you
look
at
the
site
as
well,
there
are
already
some
car
parking
spaces
currently
residents
only
it
looks
like
there's
some
housing
at
the
side.
That's
already
there.
The
library
are
bound
to
have
some
spaces
set
specifically
aside
for
them,
so
that
they
can
get
disabled
people
etc.
J
In
and
out
so
we
need
to
have.
We
should
be
having
a
comprehensive
policy,
I'm
not
for
one
minute
saying
that
we
need
to
vast
more
species.
I'm
just
asking.
Have
the
council
carried
out
this
or
have
you
just
thought
well,
taking
the
view
that
mr
butler's
made
that
the
office
use
was
x
beforehand,
so
as
long
don't
exceed
that?
But
you
need
to
speak
to
parks.
What
are
their
ambitions
in
terms
of
that,
because
that's
one
of
the
stated
ambitions
of
this
council?
Maybe
planning,
don't
like
that.
One
counselor
anderson.
A
J
A
A
D
Yeah
just
just
to
try
and
help,
I
think
john
actually
did
answer
the
question
simply
that
I
I
understand.
No
sorry,
I
understand
why
counselor
answers
the
question,
but
john
did
answer
the
question
that
there
isn't
actually
a
car
parking
ratio
that
they
have
adopted
for
parks
right,
also
councillor
councillor
taylor.
D
The
chair
is
correct
in
that
there
are
conflicting
policies,
of
course,
because
I
understand
what
you're
saying
about
the
outer
areas
and
people
having
the
desire
to
use
the
cars
more
perhaps,
but
also
the
council
is
obviously
trying
to
get
people
out
of
the
cars
to
be
more
sustainable.
D
So
I
think
I
think
this
particular
question
is
something
to
be
dealt
outside
of
the
meeting
john
understands
the
point
about
whether
there
needs
to
be
a
ratio,
whether
that
can
be
taken
forward
by
john
to
to
the
senior
officers
or
members
or
members
do
that
separately.
I
think
it
is
a
question
outside
of
this
meeting,
because
we
can't
actually
alter
the
the
the
car
parking
requirements
within
this
meeting.
D
O
When
you
made
reference
to
visitor
spaces,
I
assume
you
mean
visitors
to
the
to
the
flats.
Yes,
yes,
the
the
parking
standards
allow
for
that.
In
this
area.
We
have
an
expected
number
of
parking
spaces,
and
this
development
is
complies
with
those
standards
which
include
four
visitor
spaces.
So
visitors
would
be
expected
to
use
the
the
car
parking
allocated
to
the
flats.
O
Refuse
vehicles
yes
I'll
just
get
here.
I
was
looking:
I've
got
blocking
off
public
spaces,
there's
no
intention.
It's
the
the
the
residential
parking
is
accessed
through
the
car
park,
but
there's
no,
I
don't
think
there's
any
intention
there
to
to
block
off
any
of
those
existing
spaces
outside
of
their
their
parking
area
and
the
refuse
vehicles
again.
They
they
will
access.
The
the
refuse
area
through
through
the
car
park
there'll
be
an
expectation
that
they'll
they'll
turn
around
driving
forward
turn
around
empty
the
bins
and
then
drive
back
out
together.
B
If
you
remember
from
the
site
plan,
the
the
actual
bin
store
will
be
on
the
side
of
the
building
adjacent
to
the
parking.
So
it's
not
hidden
away
around
the
other
side.
B
It
should
be
quite
accessible
for
the
refuge
vehicles
to
get
to
you
moved
on
to
the
different
materials
I
mean,
there's
been
lots
of
discussions
about
what
materials
to
use
on
the
extension
and
the
existing,
and
I
think
the
conclusions
that
we've
all
come
to
is
that
the
mirrored
one
is
that
we're
bringing
to
you
today
and
that's
the
one
that
we're
sort
of
wanting
a
decision
on
really
and
that's
the
material
that
you've
got
in
front
of
you
at
the
moment
to
consider.
C
This
is
what
is
my
view
I'll
address
the
general
conversion
if
you
like,
building
to
residential
use.
Earlier,
I
I
mentioned
this:
introduce
the
concept
of
optimum
viable
use,
which
is
a
public
benefit
in
the
mppf,
and
I'm
I'm
making
an
assumption,
one
that
residential
use
is
he's
in
this
area.
He's
probably
for
this
building
is
probably
the
only
viable
use
the
building
was
somewhere
else.
C
You
might
think
of
other
uses
such
as
office
use,
but
I
think
that's
unlikely
here,
and
then
there
are
two
parts:
is
the
optimum,
the
optimum
use?
And
secondly,
is
this
the?
Is
this
the
optimum
solution
for
the
building?
So
we've
established
that
this
is
the
the
only
viable
use?
Is
it
the
optimum
use
of
the
building,
and
I
can
be
be
sure
that
the
developers
tried
very
hard
to
minimize
the
impact
on
the
interior
of
the
building?
C
It's
quite
remarkable.
Actually
how
undisturbed
the
the
the
wall?
The
existing
platform
of
the
building
is.
There
are
some
new
partitions,
but
they
are
in
the
secondary
rooms
and
not
in
the
principal
rooms,
which
will
remain
very
much
as
they
are
so
just
to
underline
what
I
said
before.
I
consider
the
conversion
is
the
optimum
viable
use
which
needs
to
be
considered
as
a
public
benefit
to
weigh
against
any
harm.
One
element
harm
is
the
truncation
of
the
secondary
staircase.
C
I
don't
know
if
you
saw
this
saw
the
staircase
this
morning,
there's
a
we
might
call
a
servant
staircase,
which
will
be
sliced
off
to
introduce
more
flats.
So,
let's,
if
you
like,
let's
turn
to
the
the
main
event,
the
the
extension
I've,
I've
read
all
the
objections
actually
and
they
seem
to
come
down
to
two
things
which
we've
already
touched
on,
and
that
is
the
addition
of
a
second
story
to
the
existing
extension,
the
1960s
extension
and
the.
C
The
second
issue
is
the:
if
you
like,
the
design,
particularly
the
use
of
mirror
cladding
slide,
31.
C
C
So
I'll
comment
on
I'll
comment
on
the
extension
by
addressing
the
objections
and
the
on
the
height.
The
the
concern
is
that
the
existing
extension.
C
Right
that
one
there
that
one
there
he
seems
that
extension
is,
is
harmful
and
therefore
doubling
its
height
supposed
to
be
doubly
harmful,
and
that's
true,
if
you
were
just
simply
sort
of
stacking
that
on
top
of
that,
it
would
result
in
a
very
blocky
and
lump
and
form
which
would
be
at
odds
with
the
existing
soaring
gothic
gables.
You
can't
see
on
this
slide,
but
that,
but
that's
not
what's
proposed,
is
it
the
new
extension
is
setting,
I
suppose,
by
a
quarter
of
the
depth
of
the
existing
extension
and
it's
concave.
C
So
if
we,
if
we,
if
we
draw
a
section
that
way,
the
new
extension,
I
I
think,
sort
of
mediates
between
that
extension
and
the
the
existing
building,
I
actually
think
that's
an
improvement
on
the
existing
condition.
Because
of
that
step,
it's
stepping
back
from
the
existing
extension
like
that.
If
you,
if
you
take
a
section
that
way,
the
the
new
extension
is
actually
set
below
the
eaves
existing
building
yeah,
so
it
steps
that
way
as
well
yeah.
C
So
if
you
consider
it
consider
it
in
two
dimensions
like
that,
I
think
the
extension
is
an
improvement
on
the
existing
extension.
C
C
What
it
will
do,
it
will
de-materialize
the
planes
of
the
building
through
the
reflections
and
but
it
will
also
give
quite
a
strong
sculptural
form
if
you
can
hold
those
two
things
together,
but
what
I
think
it
will
do
is
produce
a
visually
lightweight
building
compared
with
the
existing
building,
so
it
will
be
subordinate
that
way.
I
still
haven't
answered
the
question.
C
C
Can
we
see
it
from
the
the
front
yeah
there
we
are.
This
is
what
I
called
from
by
the
way
architecturally
that's
the
front,
because
it's
addressing
the
grounds
of
the
the
house,
but
two
things
to
know.
Well,
one
thing
to
know:
actually
this
is
shown
as
a
seamless
sort
of
reflective
building
in
in
reality.
C
The
implied
openings
there'll
also
be
a
capping
which
I
think
will
tend
to
bring
the
extension
in
line
with
the
building
the
scale.
The
proportions
of
these,
these
implied
openings
will
to
you
to
use
upon
mirror
the
existing
building
so
to
wash
up.
I
I
think
that
this
this
extension
will
at
least
preserve
the
the
list
of
building.
I
think
the
the
massing
and
form
of
of
the
extension
will
help
the
this.
This
existing
builds
to
step
back
to
the
existing
building
it
won't.
C
It
won't
appear
to
be
as
aggressive
because
it's
stepping
back
because
of
this
extension,
I
think
the
use
of
reflective
materials
will
produce
a
lightweight
foil
to
the
existing
building,
and
I
think
the
implied
openings
and
the
other
trims
will
give
it
a
scale
that
is
in
harmony
with
the
existing
building,
and
I
I
think
it
will.
This
might
split
the
audience,
produce
a
visually
alluring
addition
to
listed
building.
A
Oh
thanks
chair
my
my
question
is
regarding
the
back
page
of
our
document
with
regards
to.
I
just
want
to
get
this
car
packing
clear
up
in
my
mind,
so
it's
it's
set
out
beautifully
on
here.
I
must
say
so.
I
just
want
to
ask:
is
there
going
to
be
a
demarcation
line
for
the
residents
separate
to
because
on
air
with
in
front
the
house,
we've
got
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
car
parks
there.
A
So
is
that
going
to
be
just
for
the
residents
and
then
the
rest
rest
will
be
used
for
the
public
park
and
the
library
and
what
was
it
yeah,
the
library
that
was
there
so
as
the
residents,
because
we
don't
want
to
the
residents
to
come
and
can't
park
because
they
live
there
and
then
mr
brown
want
to
go
to
to
park
to
go
into
the
park
rather
than
walk.
A
B
B
Yeah,
so
this
is
this:
is
the
site
plan
that
you've
seen
earlier
and
you've
got
in
your
packaging.
So,
yes,
there
will
be
boundary
treatment
along
here
railings,
I
think
susie
said:
didn't
you
in
a
gate
to
get
to
that
car
parking
area
will
be
deemed
marked
off
susie.
Do
you
know
what's
happening
with
those
these
spaces
with
visitors
or
are
they
for
people
in
the
park?
Can
you.
B
They
are
outside
of
the
the
red
line,
but
there
are
on
the
lighter
gray
near
the
tower
element.
There
are
two
off
street
parking
spaces
in
there
for
the
flat
one
in
the
that
utilizes
the
tower
right.
So
I
understand
it
then
so
the
these
these
spaces
and
these
spaces
are
for
the
flats
and
they
will
be
partitioned
off,
so
they
can't
be
used
gated
gated,
so
they
can't
be
used
and
then
they're
putting
some
ones
in
there
for
for
other
people
to
use.
I
D
Yes,
sorry
to
interrupt
susie
can
we
could
cause
susan's?
The
case
officer
dealt
with
the
application.
Those
three
parking
spaces
are
actually
outside
any
of
the
gated
elements
so
flat.
One
has
its
own
private
gated
parking.
The
flats
to
the
other
side
have
the
gated
access,
but
those
three
spaces
that
have
just
been
referred
to.
Can
we
just
be
clear
who
has
access
and
use
of
those
place.
D
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
the
the
panel
understood
that
that
wasn't
actually
part
of
the
application.
Thank
you.
H
Yeah
it
just
just
for
my
eyesight
is
really
shocking.
I
think
they
say
visitor
parking
on
them.
I
think
I
think
actually,
that
is
with
greatest
respect
a
little
bit
misleading.
It
might
have
been
better
to
say
public
parking,
because
it's
not
it's
not
really
visitor
parking
would
suggest
it's
something
retained
within
the
red
line.
I
just
suggest
that
for
the
future
the
park
visitors.
H
A
H
H
Quick
off
the
mark,
thank
you
chair.
It
would
seem
to
me
that
fundamentally,
the
the
the
real
issue
with
this
from
from
a
planning
perspective
is
actually
the
material
being
used
on
the
development.
I
I
appreciate
that
local
residents-
some
may
have
concern
about
the
second
story,
but
in
terms
of
viability
and
the
benefit
that
that
brings,
I
think,
that's.
H
I
think
that
would
be
hard
to
argue
against
on
planning
terms.
The
material
unquestionably
would
seem
from
a
listed
status
causes
harm
and
therefore,
what
we've
been
told
is
we
have
to
weigh
up
whether
that
harm,
which
I
would
submit
it.
It
would
almost
certainly
be
regarded
as
a
harm
from
a
listed
perspective,
whether
that
harm
outweighs
the
the
benefit
that
the
development
undoubtedly
causes
and
that's
it
would
seem
to
me
that's
fundamentally
the
only
the
major
decision
we
need
to
make
and
I'm
really
struggling.
D
Sorry,
sorry,
chen!
I
do
apologize
councillor
cohen
by
the
way.
Your
point,
I
accept
the
point
about
the
the
reference
to
visit
to
car
parking.
I
apologize
for
that
on
the
on
the
drawings
it
wasn't.
The
officers
have
suggested
this
causes
harm.
It
was
a
urban
glow
that
suggested
it
caused
caused
harm.
H
If
a
major,
the
legal
officer,
and
indeed
the
council
officer,
talked
to
us
about
the
tests,
we
look
at
we're
told
that
with
listed
buildings,
one
other
thing
was
whether
harm
was
caused
to
the
building.
That
was
one
of
the
tests,
and
it
was
one
of
our
officers
that
told
us
that,
and
he
just
nodded.
H
I
have
to
say
chair,
it's
rare
that
when
councillors
come
to
the
comments
section,
the
officers
start
to
interject
at
that
point.
This
is
our
point
to
give
our
opinions
whatever
they
may
be.
That's
the
point
of
the
comments
section.
We've
heard
what
officers
say
and
we
now
apply
that
and
that's
what
I'm
doing.
H
I'm
really
struggling
here
because
this
is
a
listed
building
which
demands
protection
equally,
to
not
bring
this
building
back
into
use
is
watering
on
criminal
because
it
needs
to
be
brought
into
use,
it's
bringing
housing
to
the
area,
but
I
very
much
sympathize
with
residents
who
say
that
this
material
makes
it
look
like
something
of
a
carbuncle
because
they
do.
I,
I
that's
my
personal
view.
I
struggle
with
that.
So
I
I'm
struggling
here
thanks
jeff.
F
Thank
you
chair
I've,
I'm
gonna
sort
of
build
on
the
point
from
council,
cohen,
but
design
is
subjective
and
buildings
aren't
frozen
in
time
and
if
they
are
frozen
in
time,
we
wouldn't
have
some
of
our
grandest
most
important
buildings
in
this
country,
because
they
would
have
never
been
amended
or
adopted.
I
think
actually,
what
the
legal
officer
and
the
heritage
officer
has
actually
said
is.
It
is
a
test,
but
our
heritage
officer
has
said
that
on
their
opinion,
they
believe
it
enhances
rather
than
actually
causes
harm.
F
Now,
of
course,
we
can
take
a
differing
opinion
and
that
opinion
is
based
on
our
own
prejudices
to
a
certain
design
as
to
what
heritage
is
and
what
design
is
so
fundamentally
by
the
sound
of
it.
Some
of
us
are
agreeing
that
there
needs
to
be
a
viable
scheme
here
that,
with
huge
respect
to
the
local
residents,
they
are
making
a
design
opinion,
rather
than
necessarily
a
planning
consideration
which
we
are
here
to
do.
F
We're
not
here
to
be
popular,
we're
here,
to
make
decisions
based
on
legislation
and
the
needs
of
the
area
we
can
design
by
committee
to
the
end
of
the
universe
and
never
actually
get
to
a
decision,
because
in
the
end
we
will
all
have
differing
opinions,
and
I
think
we
just
need
to
be
honest.
F
We
have
all
seen
historical
restorations,
where
a
developer
with
the
best
of
intentions
has
tried
to
mirror
the
existing
building
and
has
made
such
a
terrible
job
of
it,
not
out
of
the
want
to
cause
harm
because
getting
the
stones
right.
How
it's
weathered
modern
techniques
do
not
allow
for
that,
and
we
have
said
that
many
a
planning
panel
across
this
council
that
the
decision
sometimes
we
have
to
make
on
these
is
actually
do.
We
create
something
which
is
clearly
modern,
clearly
new
and
is
clearly
designed
to
be
a
statement
to
be
architectural.
F
So
for
me
you
know,
heritage
office
says
they
do
not
believe
it
causes
harm.
The
developer
says
action.
I
think
we
all
agree
the
passion
of
the
developer
about
sensors.
They
really
want
to
restore
this
building
inside
to
its
former
glory,
and
what
we
have
to
decide
on
is
not
our
personal
prejudices
on
design,
but
actually
do
we
want
to
risk
a
bodged
job
by
trying
to
make
it
match
up
an
old
building
which
we
all
know
goes
horribly
wrong
or
yeah,
or
do
we
want
to
actually
say?
F
Actually
we
want
a
high
quality,
modern
design
which
actually
makes
it
clearly
part
of
the
history
of
this
building
in
the
fabric
of
its
future
of
its
future
use,
and
of
therefore,
for
people
to
look
back
and
say
there
was
a
history
to
this
building.
It's
developed
over
time,
like
many
of
our
great
buildings
in
this
city
has
so
on
that
basis,
and
I
have
actually
sympathy
for
the
residents
to
a
certain
extent
that
they
obviously
live
in
this
area.
F
They,
like
the
area
is
that
any
perceived
amount
of
cam
and
I
personally
don't
think
from
an
architectural
point
of
view.
This
is
causing
harm,
but
any
perceived
amount
of
harm
is
far
far
outweighed
by
the
by
the
sound
of
a
very
sympathetic,
very
understanding
and,
frankly,
very
expensive
restoration
of
a
building
to
its
former
glory
internally,
and
I
think,
by
the
sound
of
our
heritage
officer,
agrees
with
that
interpretation
as
well.
So
on
that
basis,
I
will
be
supporting
this.
E
O
E
I
think
it
it's.
You
know
it's
a
valid
point
that
people
need
to
understand.
Isn't
it
is
that
this
is
you
know,
plan
is
not
a
game
show
it's
not
how
many
people
vote
for
now,
how
many
members
of
the
public
vote
for
and
against
it's
about
planning
law
we
have
to.
E
We
have
to
we're
we're
tied
by
planning
law,
and
we
we
really
must
deal
with
this
in
terms
of
planning
law
and
I
think
we're
trying
to
do
that,
and
we
get
to
this
discussion
about
whether
the
extension's
harmful
to
a
listed
building
now
any
extension
by
default
is
harmful
to
a
listed
building,
and
I
was
just
actually
while
you
were
arguing
about
the
car
parking.
E
I
was
actually
reading
the
listing,
and
this
is
it's
an
unusual
building
this,
because
actually,
if
you
look
at
the
listing,
it's
got
much
more
detail
within
it
than
I've
ever
seen
on
any
listing
in
the
area,
and
I
sort
of
think
to
myself
if
I
was
sitting
on
the
plans
panel
in
1847
when
they
came
along
with
the
planning
application
to
demolish
the
no.
No
it's
the
next
one.
E
I
was
on
the
8th,
the
1662
we'd
probably
have
said
no
to
this,
because
it's
too
fancy
it's
two
and
then
we
talk
about
the
1872
extension
which
we're
desperate
to
keep
at
the
moment.
But
again
that
was
probably
unpopular
at
the
time
and
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
that
the
the
ex
the
bit
of
the
extension
that
the
city
council
put
on
it
would
never
have
got
through
paddle.
Never
ever
because
it's
just
diabolical.
Really
it's
a
it's
an
it's
an
embarrassment
to
all
of
us.
I
think.
E
Nobody's
disagreeing
about
the
principle
of
the
use
nobody's
disagreeing
about
the
view
that
the
best
way
to
keep
this
building
going
is
to
actually
use
it.
The
argument
is
in
many
ways
about
the
argument
about
the
wallpaper
colour.
Do
we
like
what
they're
doing
to
do
it?
If
I'm
honest
with
you
and
it's
a
personal
opinion,
I
do
not
like
the
mirror
glass
finish.
E
I
said
on
site:
why
didn't
you
just
knock
the
extension
down
and
come
in
with
a
new
build,
but
the
point
you
made
is
extremely
valid.
The
last
thing
we
need
there
is
a
pastiche
of
what's
there
already,
because
she
could
never
do
it
as
well
as
that.
Quite
frankly,
so
we
have
to
make
it
obvious
that
this
is
the
extension
now
I'm
in
two
minds
about
vodafone,
because
I
do
think
I
do
really
think
I
really
don't
like
the
material.
E
I
really
really
don't
like
it,
and
I
think
that
the
I
mean
I
would
be
tempted
to
say:
could
we
defer
it
and
ask
if
the
developer
could
look
at
knocking
it
down
and
building
something
that
was
obviously
modern
but
obviously
not
trying
to
cover
up
what
is
a
pretty
poor
extension
at
the
moment,
somebody's
also
touched
on
overlooking
the
playground,
I
have
to
say
we
were
on
site
today,
weren't
we
and
we
were
surprised
how
few
houses
overlook
the
play
area,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
if
you
actually
get
people
in
this
building,
they
will
overlook
that
play
area
and
that's
a
security
aspect
that
I
think
we
should
support.
E
Oh,
why
not
I'll
do
it,
I'm
tempted
to
say:
could
we
defer
this?
Can
I
propose
that
we
defer
this
for
one
cycle,
accepting
the
principle
of
the
development
for
housing,
accepting
the
principle
that
there
will
be
an
extension,
but
that
we
ask
the
developer
to
go
and
look
at
that
again
and,
in
effect
say.
Is
it
possible
for
you
to
take
down
that
current
extension,
which
is
pretty
poor
and
replace
it
with
one
that
is
more
appropriate
to
that
location,
albeit
in
a
modern
design?
A
A
E
E
We
accept
the
details
most
of
the
details
that
have
been
outlined
on
the
in
the
offices
report,
but
we
express
our
concerns
about
the
materials
in
particular
of
the
proposed
extension
and
new,
build
and
ask
if
we
defer
the
meat,
we
defer
the
decision
for
further
discussions
between
the
officers
and
the
developer,
who
I
have
to
say.
I
I'm
impressed
with
the
developer.
I
I
thought
he
was
extremely
passionate
about
that
building.
E
E
Which,
though,
in
modern
indesign,
would
perhaps
better
reflect
the
current
listed
building.
A
D
At
the
moment,
two
four
and
five
against
that's
what
I've
recorded
two
four
and
five
against
so
and
the
rest
abstentions,
so
that
motion's
not
carried
chair
can
I
can.
I
just
make
another
comment
on
this.
Actually,
that
is
precisely
where
we
were
at
the
end
of
the
last
panel
and
and
the
difficulty
at
the
end
of
the
last
panel
for
me
was
in
terms
of
getting
clarity
for
the
developer.
D
Was
it
wasn't
clear
as
to
what
has
been
referred
to
as
a
modern
design
was,
and,
of
course
there
was
an
intervention,
and
ultimately
there
wasn't
any
clarity,
so
I
just
thought
I
needed
to
mention
that.
Well,
so
quite.
E
A
D
Sorry
chair,
I
hadn't,
actually
finished
to
be
honest
with
you,
because
then
what
what
lies
in
front
of
you,
of
course,
is
what's
on
the
the
front
sheet
of
the
papers
or
page
13,
rather,
which
is
a
recommendation
to
grant
permission
subjects
to
the
following
conditions.
I
just
want
to
check
to
just
make
a
slight
amendment
to
that,
because
there
was
a
comment
made
by
yeah.
No,
I
just
I
just
want
to
make
you
clear
on
what
you're
voting
for,
because.
A
G
Well,
I
think
councillor
ray
said
most
of
what
I
was
gonna
say
it
was
just
to
build
on
really
when
I
clarified
the
law
with
our
colleague
and
it
was
about
balancing
the
harm
against
the
potential
benefits.
G
I
personally
don't
like
the
glass
the
mirror
should
I
say,
however,
walking
around
inside
that
building
brought
it
to
life
for
me
and
and
the
fantastic
features
inside.
I
actually
would
like
one
of
those
thoughts
myself
way
beyond
my
reach
yeah.
G
Well,
if
it
was
three
pounds,
fifty
then
perhaps
it'd
be
a
possibility,
but
so,
whilst
I
don't
think,
I
think
this
could
be
a
very
circular
conversation
and
you
could
come
back
with
a
different
material
that
we
didn't
like
or
another
material
that
we
didn't
like
and
and
if
I
knew
enough
about
materials,
I'd
mention
some.
However,
I
think
in
the
balance
and
measuring
for
me
the
actual
benefits
to
retaining
those
fantastic
radiators,
the
ceilings
and
actually
bringing
it
back
into
use.
G
I
don't
like
the
mirrors
personally,
but
I
think
it
outweighs
that
harm
outweighs
anything
else,
so
I'll
be
voting
for
it,
and
I
propose
we
go
to
vote.
I'm
still
coming,
oh
sorry,.
G
A
K
The
thing
is
a
as
a
matter
of
procedure:
we
are
as
planned
panel,
we
go
through
a
process
by
which
officers
provide
their
responses
to
questions,
and
then
there
is
an
opportunity
for
you
to
provide
your
comments.
There
is
a
motion
on
the
table
for
the
officer
recommendation,
but
council
hamilton
did
have
her
hand
up
so,
but
there
is
a
material
point
that
the
officer
would
require
a
clarification
for
you,
so
that,
if
he
may
be
given
that
opportunity,
please
before
the
comment
is
made.
D
A
Okay,
my
comment
is,
I'm
really
glad
I
was
able
to
attend
the
site
visit
today
because
when
it
did
come
to
us
in
ma
in
march,
we
were
all
against
it
and
that's
why
we
asked
for
it
to
be
deferred,
so
it
this
meeting
start
clashing
with
with
another
meeting
that
I
have,
but
today
we
didn't
have
one
of
those
meetings.
So
I'm
really
pleased
I
went,
and
I
was
able
to
see
for
myself.
A
However,
I'm
no
architect,
but
I
think
it's
going
to
look
really
nice
and
why
I
would
support
the
extension
above
is
due
to
the
staircase
and
that
space
will
be
used
rather
than
be
blocked
off
and
and
left
there
as
an
empty
space.
So
I
would
will,
when
it's
eventually
finished,
take
a
drive
out
and
have
a
look
and
hope.
A
I
am
not
ashamed
that
I'm
really
pleased
that
I
supported
it,
because
I
do
that
with
quite
a
few
and
building
that
we
approved
just
to
see
the
changes
so
so
yeah.
I
am
happy
to
support
this
because
I
I
would
like
that
staircase
and
space
to
be
used.
That's
what
for
me.
D
Thank
you
chair.
I
do
apologize
for
the
earlier
intervention.
I
think
I
just
got
kind
of
aware
of
myself
the
the
what
I'd
just
like
to
say
to
members.
Obviously
there
are
two
to
two
votes,
two
applications
here
in
effect,
so
we
need
to
obviously
consider
both
of
them,
but
phil
ward
earlier
from
conservation
made
a
comment
about
the
the
detailing
of
the
joining
of
the
glass
and
that
you
would
see
some
of
the
headers
and
all
the
rest
of
it.
We
we
haven't,
got
the
two-dimensional
drawings,
yet
that
actually
show
that.
D
So
we
can
be
absolutely
certain
of
the
detail
and
we've
concentrated
because
it's
been
a
difficult
scheme
on
getting
the
three-dimensional
drawing.
So
you
could
understand
it
a
little
bit
better.
So
all
I
was
going
to
suggest
is
the
recommendation,
for
both
applications
is
changed
slightly.
So
if
members
are
minded
to
approve
it,
it's
approved
in
principle,
but
defer
and
delegate
to
the
chief
planning
officers
for
the
submission
of
the
detailed
elevations
that
show
that
treatment
and
we'll
obviously
discuss
that
in
conjunction
with
with
mr
wardness
conservation
colleagues,.
A
D
Yeah,
just
just
just
for
absolute
clarity,
so
members
have
voted
and
agreed
that
the
change
might
recommendation
on
both
applications,
because
we
do
need
the
detailing,
although
principally,
I
suppose,
for
listed
building
application.
But
both
applications
are
approved
in
principle
but
deferred
and
delegated
to
the
chief
planning
officer
for
submissions
to
the
detailed
elevational
drawings,
particularly
with
regard
the
the
first
larynx
sorry,
the
first
floor
extension
and
cladding
to
the
ground
floor.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
We'll
move
to
item
eight,
which
is
dating
times
of
the
next
meeting,
the
22nd
of
january.
So
this
just
leave
me
to
say
merry
christmas
all
and
do
hope
you
have
a
lovely
time.
Please
be
careful!
Keep
your
distance
where
you
must!
Please
don't
have
unnecessary
parties
and
just
have
a
lovely
time
and
happy
new
year.
We
need
to
arrive.